Okay folksโฆ this is part three of the long overdue review of Ken Wilsonโs A Letter to My Congregation (ALTMC). Please stop emailing me, sending me messages on Facebook, or sending me text messages asking me when itโs going to get published! Listen, I had a baby! Okay, fineโฆ I didnโt have a baby, my wife did. But having a new baby (#5) takes quite a bit of work. Wait. My wifeโs parents have been here doing everythingโฆ so I basically have no excuses. Iโm sorry.
Anyway, as I’ve already written an introduction and review of the first chapter of Kenโs 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, itโs 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. Iโll begin to engage Kenโs โcloser 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 โprivate 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 Iโll someday be able to do.
I also appreciate that Ken spends time in the first section, โDissatisfied 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 โtraditionalโ 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 sexualityโฆ but thatโs for a future post by someone way more intelligent than I.
Furthermore, Kenโs honesty in how heโs struggled as a pastor living in what heโd likely call a very โliberalโ or โprogressiveโ environment must be taken into consideration. As one who is pastoring in a community that is likely a bit more โconservative,โ I can appreciate the tension. After all, both the โconservativeโ and โliberalโ 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 โview 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 Iโd 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 Kenโs 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 โopen and affirming,โ ALTMCโs second chapter is extremely helpful. Kenโs explanation of his discernment process and the way that heโs decided to โwork this outโ are explained in detail. Readers should be grateful for his transparency!
The problems with chapter 2
As Iโve 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 Iโve already noted, ALTMC is frustrating for me because the logic isnโt consistent and the arguments feel dishonest, though maybe thatโs just Kenโs rhetorical methodology kicking in. I think Iโve already shown how Kenโs definitions of โopen and affirmingโ and โlove 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 โexcludedโ people (and Don Bromleyโs letter to Ken is devastating to Kenโs arguments on this issue). Unfortunately, chapter two includes more of these types of arguments and misrepresentations.
For instance, commenting on the โopen and affirmingโ position, Ken writes:
โMy discomfort with the โopen 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 thatโs a side issueโ boiled down to a couple of things. Close to home, I didnโt 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 โopen and affirmingโ churches would dismiss their experience.โ
While Iโm inclined to spend a great deal of time pointing out that Ken himself ironically acknowledges that the โopen and affirmingโ position is outside the evangelical tradition, Iโd rather just note that I donโt think most โopen and affirmingโ churches would dismiss the experience of someone who believed their sexual orientation was โchangeableโ or โfluid.โ This certainly wouldnโt 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 โopen and affirmingโ is far more nuanced than Ken is suggesting. In fact, in their document โA Social Statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,โ the following is stated:
โThis statement responds to this churchโs call for a foundational framework that will help it discern what it means to follow faithfully Godโs law of love in the increasingly complex sphere of human sexuality.โ (p.36)
โOpen 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 โopen and affirmingโ position, I think itโs silly to suggest that such a view isnโt far more complex than his simplistic misrepresentations.
At any rate, my major concern with this chapter is actually related somewhat to how heโs moved forward with his views. He states,
โIโve chosen not to call for a โtown hall meetingโ of the congregation to thrash this out because โthe 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, โDealing with you is something weโre 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 โdoing theology in community.โ Apparently the community, both in the local church and in the wider Vineyard movement, didnโt have much to offer? Or couldnโt 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 gatheringsโฆ 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 doesnโt offer a whole lot to substantially evaluate because itโs primarily Ken just sharing whatโs been going through his head as a pastor.
In the next review, weโll actually begin to evaluate Kenโs 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.

Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks