"A Letter to My Congregation"Okay folksโ€ฆ this is part three of the long overdue review of Ken Wilsonโ€™s A Letter to My Congregation (ALTMC). Please stop emailing me, sending me messages on Facebook, or sending me text messages asking me when itโ€™s going to get published! Listen, I had a baby! Okay, fineโ€ฆ I didnโ€™t have a baby, my wife did. But having a new baby (#5) takes quite a bit of work. Wait. My wifeโ€™s parents have been here doing everythingโ€ฆ so I basically have no excuses. Iโ€™m sorry.

Anyway, as I’ve already written an introduction and review of the first chapter of Kenโ€™s latest book, ALTMC, I wanted to start my review of the second chapter simply by making note of two things: First, I am only going to provide a couple observations of this chapter because, quite frankly, itโ€™s broken into ten separate parts and I neither have the time nor the energy to interact with every detail that I disagree with. Second, in the next part of my review (part 4), the meat and potatoes will begin. Iโ€™ll begin to engage Kenโ€™s โ€œcloser look at the prohibitive textsโ€ and explain why his exegesis/hermeneutics are, in my opinion, flawed. And just by way of a reminder, when someone publishes a book in the public square, they are opening the door for critical evaluation. We can and should constructively evaluate what is placed before us. So please stop abusing Matt. 18:15-17 if you think that these reviews should be conducted in the โ€œprivate sectorโ€ behind closed doors. The book is on amazon, folks!

The positives of chapter 2

Again it must be noted that Ken writes so well! ALTMC is so easy to read and engages the heart and mind in a way that I can only hope that Iโ€™ll someday be able to do.

I also appreciate that Ken spends time in the first section, โ€œDissatisfied with the Available Options,โ€ talking about his frustration with the way that some of the views are expressed. I am also frustrated with how some who hold to the โ€œtraditionalโ€ approach express their views. More than anything, I think the Vineyard movement, along with evangelicalism, needs to desperately develop a robustly gospel-saturated and transformative understanding of an inaugurated eschatological anthropology with a deeper awareness to the complexities of sexualityโ€ฆ but thatโ€™s for a future post by someone way more intelligent than I.

Furthermore, Kenโ€™s honesty in how heโ€™s struggled as a pastor living in what heโ€™d likely call a very โ€œliberalโ€ or โ€œprogressiveโ€ environment must be taken into consideration. As one who is pastoring in a community that is likely a bit more โ€œconservative,โ€ I can appreciate the tension. After all, both the โ€œconservativeโ€ and โ€œliberalโ€ perspectives must be challenged by the implications of the Kingdom of God! And it can be very difficult when the people you pastor (and love) hold to positions and beliefs that you believe are out of step with what Jesus and the kingdom require. ALTMC expresses this challenge well. After all, Ken writes that people in his community โ€œview any exclusionary policies toward gay people as unjust, a moral wrong. They want nothing to do with organizations that do such things.โ€ This clearly presents a challenge for an evangelical, though Iโ€™d also want to suggest that this would have been the same challenge that the apostle Paul faced in many of the contexts he ministered in (e.g., Rome and Corinth!).

Lastly, I think Kenโ€™s honesty is quite helpful for us in our attempt to evaluate his views. In fact, if you want to understand how someone goes from reading, understanding, and applying Scripture in the traditional way to reading it, understanding it, and applying it in as โ€œopen and affirming,โ€ ALTMCโ€˜s second chapter is extremely helpful. Kenโ€™s explanation of his discernment process and the way that heโ€™s decided to โ€œwork this outโ€ are explained in detail. Readers should be grateful for his transparency!

The problems with chapter 2

As Iโ€™ve previously noted, my intention with a review of ALTMC is decidedly more focused on the numerous biblical, theological, and practical problems I find. And since Ken notes that he could be wrong, we should really work hard to determine whether the way that Christians have understood the Bible, the gospel, marriage, sexuality, and the transformative work of the Spirit need to be somewhat rejected.

As Iโ€™ve already noted, ALTMC is frustrating for me because the logic isnโ€™t consistent and the arguments feel dishonest, though maybe thatโ€™s just Kenโ€™s rhetorical methodology kicking in. I think Iโ€™ve already shown how Kenโ€™s definitions of โ€œopen and affirmingโ€ and โ€œlove the sinner, hate the sinโ€ are a bit skewed and that he is clearly muddying the water in how he explains how his church has allegedly โ€œexcludedโ€ people (and Don Bromleyโ€™s letter to Ken is devastating to Kenโ€™s arguments on this issue). Unfortunately, chapter two includes more of these types of arguments and misrepresentations.

For instance, commenting on the โ€œopen and affirmingโ€ position, Ken writes:

โ€œMy discomfort with the โ€œopen and affirmingโ€ positionโ€” other than the fact that adopting it would brand me as a heretic for life among my evangelical colleagues, whose opinion of me means a great deal to me, but thatโ€™s a side issueโ€” boiled down to a couple of things. Close to home, I didnโ€™t think it honored choices that dear friends had made to live celibate or to marry despite same-sex attraction . I know people who have experienced strong same -sex attraction but who view sexual orientation as changeable, fluid, open to further influence that changes their experience. From what I know, most โ€œopen and affirmingโ€ churches would dismiss their experience.โ€

While Iโ€™m inclined to spend a great deal of time pointing out that Ken himself ironically acknowledges that the โ€œopen and affirmingโ€ position is outside the evangelical tradition, Iโ€™d rather just note that I donโ€™t think most โ€œopen and affirmingโ€ churches would dismiss the experience of someone who believed their sexual orientation was โ€œchangeableโ€ or โ€œfluid.โ€ This certainly wouldnโ€™t represent what I have found in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Several conversations with different ELCA pastors has led me to understand that their โ€œopen and affirmingโ€ is far more nuanced than Ken is suggesting. In fact, in their document โ€œA Social Statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,โ€ the following is stated:

โ€œThis statement responds to this churchโ€™s call for a foundational framework that will help it discern what it means to follow faithfully Godโ€™s law of love in the increasingly complex sphere of human sexuality.โ€ (p.36)

โ€œOpen and affirmingโ€ churches/denominations recognize the complexity of this issue. And based on what Ken has written and the various interviews he has provided as one who clearly articulates an โ€œopen and affirmingโ€ position, I think itโ€™s silly to suggest that such a view isnโ€™t far more complex than his simplistic misrepresentations.

At any rate, my major concern with this chapter is actually related somewhat to how heโ€™s moved forward with his views. He states,

โ€œIโ€™ve chosen not to call for a โ€œtown hall meetingโ€ of the congregation to thrash this out because โ€œthe gay controversy โ€ is now at the epicenter of a great political and cultural divide that has been growing for the past thirty years . This fact stigmatizes people. It says to them, โ€œDealing with you is something weโ€™re at war over. When we talk about you, we get very upset. Some of us may get up and leave .โ€ Imagine walking into a meeting knowing that people were discussing the most tender, most vulnerable aspect of your being. You would feel singled out, stigmatized.โ€

One has to question this approach to โ€œdoing theology in community.โ€ Apparently the community, both in the local church and in the wider Vineyard movement, didnโ€™t have much to offer? Or couldnโ€™t have a serious discussion in love? Questions abound in regards to such a decision, especially in light of how this process took place. We talk about a lot of other sins (murder, lying, stealing, overlooking the poor, etc.) in our gatheringsโ€ฆ why not talk about sexual brokenness? The only reasonable answer is that the author no longer views homosexuality within the framework of sexual brokenness.

But the fact that I find this decision problematic and quite unhelpful is simply my opinion. This chapter doesnโ€™t offer a whole lot to substantially evaluate because itโ€™s primarily Ken just sharing whatโ€™s been going through his head as a pastor.

In the next review, weโ€™ll actually begin to evaluate Kenโ€™s handling of Scripture, which, quite frankly, is not very convincing. For those of you following these reviews, I think this will likely be the most important aspects of these reviews.

Facebook Comments Box
Join My Mailing List

Join My Mailing List

Stay up to date on my latest biblical, theological, and pastoral resources, as well as what I'm currently reading or have found helpful for the week!ย 

You have successfully subscribed! Stay tuned for some sweet resources coming your way once a week!

Share This