From the beginning, let me acknowledge that the very thought expressed in the title may send chills of horror up and down Merritt's spine (if, indeed, he has any idea who I am). I've no doubt that we agree about many things, but when he's in USA Today, I generally disagree with Jonathan Merritt.
This has been a full week for Merritt. First, The Atlantic posted his column entitled "In Defense of Eating at Chick-fil-A." Second, gay former-evangelical blogger Azariah Southworth outed Merritt as someone with whom he had a same-sex sexual encounter in the past. Third, today in an interview with Ed Stetzer Merritt has basically acknowledged that Southworth is not making anything up.
What would I do if I were Jonathan Merritt's pastor? Tracy and I would go see him, I would give him a hug, I would pray with him and for him, and I would ask if I could do anything to make this week easier for him. That's it.
If I were Azariah Southworth's pastor, I'd ask the congregation to kick his rear end right out of the church (not that he'd still be there, since he has declared himself to be an agnostic).
Don't miss this about how Merritt has responded:
Jonathan Merritt has not rejected God's definition of marriage or God's definition of sin. Consider two people. One of them is Jonathan Merritt—a man who has fallen to homosexual temptation in the past and who, probably, will be tempted in this way at some point in the future. He is someone, however, who agrees with God's plan for human sexuality and who acknowledges homosexual activity as sinful. He's repentant and contrite now and is not continuing in or living in his sin. Now, consider another hypothetical person who is entirely straight, is married to a person of the opposite sex, and has been sexually faithful to that one person for life. This second person has lived according to God's plan for sexuality without fail for a lifetime. But, the second person denies that homosexuality is sinful.
The first person, Jonathan Merritt, is welcome as a member in good standing of our church. The second person is subject to church discipline and withdrawal of fellowship.
Perfection is not the standard of church membership. Contrition in sin, submission to Christ, and covenantal agreement with God's revealed truth are important standards of membership in a New Testament church. Jonathan Merritt has, in this case, I believe, demonstrated those qualities.
I also appreciate that Jonathan Merritt rejects the label "gay." I don't walk around and say, "Hi. I'm Bart. I'm an angry blogger." I've fallen to that temptation before. I'll struggle with that temptation in the future. But my identity is not found in my sin, but in my Savior. I'm Bart, and I'm a Christian.
I retain, I'm sure, profound disagreements with Merritt that will doubtless remain evident in the future. Nevertheless, I must say that this revelation changes things. It's easier to understand now why Merritt strays ideologically in the directions that he does. I know I'll feel more compassionate and less frustrated with his leftward-leaning pronouncements in the future, knowing what he's been through and understanding a bit better what has brought him to where he is today.
Like most pastors, I'm ministering to people like Jonathan every day. Homosexuality isn't the temptation for all of them. The guy I went to see in jail today is tempted by other temptations. The guy I shared lunch with faces yet another set of temptations. But we're all sinners. The path to freedom comes in drawing near to God, acknowledging sin as sin, taking responsibility for it, never ending the fight, seeking accountability in fellow believers, and taking up the cross daily. It looks like Jonathan Merritt has been trying to do just that. If I were his pastor, I hope I'd come alongside him and try to help.
34 comments:
"Third, today in an interview with Ed Stetzer Merritt has basically acknowledged that Southworth is not making anything up.
What would I do if I were Jonathan Merritt's pastor? Tracy and I would go see him, I would give him a hug, I would pray with him and for him, and I would ask if I could do anything to make this week easier for him. That's it.
If I were Azariah Southworth's pastor, I'd ask the congregation to kick his rear end right out of the church."
I'm not crazy about Jonathan Merritt's theological aberrations either, but I'm with you.
Bart,
I'm thankful for your thoughts on this and pray that we all extend this kind of grace to Jonathan.
Bart,
This may be the best post you've ever written. I agree almost with every word.Young Merritt needs our unconditional love, compassion, non-critical and non-judge-mental attitude and disposition toward him. Again, I commend your post for conveying a biblical posture toward Bro. Merritt.
It was not clear from your post why you would recommend dismissing Southworth from your church. I realize being an unrepentant homosexual and an agnostic would be two biblical and right reasons to dismiss him; but your post left me with the impression that you would dismiss Southworth for "outing" Merritt. Is that your reasoning for dismissing Southworth? And if so, would that be a valid and biblical reason to dismiss him?
Dwight
Bart, You offer some sane comments and represent Baptists in a God honoring way. I wish some bloggers would have your heart and attitude for the things of God. Good post.
Jeff
Agreed, great post.
Dwight,
Good point. My original post was not clear in this regard. Why would I want to see Southworth disciplined out?
1. He's describing himself as an agnostic. Taking him at his own word, he's not a Christian and is not qualified for church membership.
2. He rebelliously disagrees with God and God's revealed truth that homosexual activity is a sin. That constitutes grounds for church discipline in our church.
3. Presuming that Southworth and Merritt were both members of our congregation, the "outing" might be grounds for church discipline as well, even if all else were going well in Southworth's life. Upon finding his brother in sin, Southworth had a responsibility to approach him privately. Presuming that he did not do so, he could be subject to discipline.
"What would I do if I were Jonathan Merritt's pastor? Tracy and I would go see him, I would give him a hug, I would pray with him and for him, and I would ask if I could do anything to make this week easier for him. That's it."
Bart, I think Our Lord would expect no less than the kindness you would offer Merritt . . .
I think it would be a very appropriate thing to do for someone who is suffering . . .
In the Kingdom of Our Lord, compassion and kindness reign in the hearts of those who belong to Him.
as for that 'other guy' . . .
well, we can all understand your very human response.
:)
Not human at all, Christiane. That's the divine response, revealed and commanded in scripture.
sorry, BART . . . I was thinking about that part 'kick rear end', but the context does make a difference.
;-)
OK, so the "rear end" part is not exactly canonical. I'm so BUSTED!
Bart,
The fibers of the Internet may unwind. I feel this post represents a pastoral perspective that is nearly, if not, unassailable. Glad you weighed in.
Wow, Todd! What will happen next? Will it be like life as I know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in my body exploding at the speed of light?
;-)
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I hope, as your age suggests might be true, you recognize the quote.
Bart,
You referencing my age is nearly like being slimed. ;)
The evangelical obsession with other peoples' sexuality rises to the level of a fetish.
If all goes according to your Imaginary Sky King's dysfunctional plan for Merritt, he will marry a woman,get his own church, pump out a bunch of babies and eventually be brought down like Ted Haggard.
It's 2012. Step out of the Stone Age, people.
Dear Sam,
Your comment is very helpful. It illustrates the true nature of the controversy. Your assertion is that, rather than rejecting homosexuality as sinful, we should abandon Christianity. To embrace contemporary American sexuality is to do just that—to abandon Christianity (or to reinvent it in ways that amount to abandonment of it).
But I need not give in to the worst version of myself. Sin can be overcome. Christ is risen. I'll be faithful to Him until I die.
Thanks for stopping by.
My assertion was that society evolves while, as Dr King often noted, the church lags far behind.
We no longer own slaves, though your bible was once used to defend it,and indeed seems sometimes to celebrate it, as in Paul's first letter to timothy. We no longer force women to remain in abusive marriages, out of a belief that what god joined together man must not separate. We no longer forbid interracial marriages simply because "god" told some preacher that the races must not be mixed.
So, unlike Azariah, i have absolutely no expecation that evangelicals will be open to discussing their backwards views about homosexuality, anymore than i expect that the Taliban will tomorrow stop oppressing women. Evangelicals will begin to slowy accept homosexuality as the prejudiced generations fade out.
Pastor Barber: "The path to freedom comes in drawing near to God, acknowledging sin as sin, taking responsibility for it, never ending the fight, seeking accountability in fellow believers, and taking up the cross daily. It looks like Jonathan Merritt has been trying to do just that. If I were his pastor, I hope I'd come alongside him and try to help."
Suppose after looking at what God's Word says about Biblical sexuality, Jonathan Merritt agrees that celibacy is God's will for him. He asks you to hold him accountable. You agree.
Suppose then, over a period of 12 months, he confesses each month to slipping up and engaging in gay sex.
As his accountability pastor, what do you do?
Sam,
Our Bible has been USED by people a lot. It's being used by people now to justify homosexuality.
But that doesn't mean that it doesn't SAY something when read fairly and honestly.
Truth,
First, according to Jesus in Matthew 18, there is no limit to the number of times that I am to forgive. There's also no reason not to recognize a failing plan for what it is: a failing plan. We'd try to identify circumstances that lead up to failure, and then we'd try to change those circumstances.
It's a generic answer, but it was a generic question. ;-)
Pastor Barber: "There's also no reason not to recognize a failing plan for what it is: a failing plan. We'd try to identify circumstances that lead up to failure, and then we'd try to change those circumstances."
Suppose the circumstances are that he has gay friends and gay acquaintances who he likes to hang out with, guys like Azariah Southworth.
These social affirmation networks are the circumstances that both you and he identify as leading up to his failure in committing sexual sin.
As his accountability pastor, what do you do?
If the situation were as you have described it, then there's really no question: He'd need to end those relationships.
Your bible also condemns eating shellfish and wearing clothing made from mixed fibers. It also says if a man rapes a virgin he can marry her if he pays her father fifty silver pieces. It's hogwash from the stone age which you conveniently pick and choose from in order to justify your obsession with others' sexuality.
Bart Barber: "If the situation were as you have described it, then there's really no question: He'd need to end those relationships."
Yep. That about sums it up.
Suppose he didn't want to end those relationships despite you imploring him to; despite you directing him that his greatest and highest relationship is to Jesus Christ, his Lord and Savior.
Let's say that as his accountability pastor, you shed tears asking him to not look back, like Lot's wife did. And he said that he appreciated your counsel, but that he couldn't promise to end those relationships.
Would you be justified in no longer wanting to be his accountability pastor?
Thank you, Sam, for identifying the insanity of us all. All of the Christians down through the ages and living today—from Francis Collins to Elizabeth Barrett Browning to Blaise Pascal to Martin Luther King, Jr.—were all lunatics selectively dining on hogwash. But the arbiter of truth is…
…the famous, world-bettering, life-affirming, self-sacrificial, all-knowing, all-seeing Sam-Hamwich!
I'll stick with my insanity, thank you very much. I'm comfortable enough with it even to sign my own name to it.
Truth,
We're projecting pretty far into the world of hypotheticals here. I'm OK with that, because hypotheticals are an important part of thinking. My only discomfort here is that the hypotheticals in this case have a name attached to them. I don't see any reason to speculate failure upon Jonathan Merritt.
I'll go this one more step with you. I'm not refusing to answer. I just wanted to make you aware of my growing discomfort.
I'd say that in any case in which a believer says anything that amounts to, "I know and fully agree that God would have me for the sake of my relationship with Him, but I will not do so," that's the line where accountability begins to equal discipline.
Sorry Pastor Barber. Didn't mean for anyone to take the hypothetical as being the case for Jonathan Merritt per se.
I was only interested in the generalized hypothetical, not anyone specifically.
That being said, I do think that the generalized hypothetical that I described may have some folks in real life who fall into that hypothetical.
Pax.
I didn't say you were "insane". I said that you pick and choose from stone age hogwash in a transparent attempt to justify your obsession with, or squeamishness over homosexuality, while completely ignoring the scores of other "sins" or "commandments" listed in your bible which are entirely laughable in the modern age. I presented examples, you apparently have no choice but to ignore them. But i'll give it one more shot -- Do you eat shrimp or lobster? Are those "sins" because Leviticus says so? Do you wear clothing made from mixed fibers? Do you believe 50 pieces of silver is an acceptable price to pay a man after you rape his daughter and wish to marry her? Should that price be adjusted for inflation?
Brother Bart,
Amen! Amen! Amen!!!!
Peace to you,
From the Middle East
Sam,
My apologies for the delay. I'm soon bound for drought-stricken Senegal in the service of Christ, and I had to go shopping for some supplies.
I also want to say that my previous post to you was inconsiderate and sarcastic. I apologize. I should be careful not to allow heated debate to energize me so. I read this this morning and was reminded how I ought to act.
As to shellfish, clothing, and rape, a few observations:
1. I eat shellfish gleefully. I am a Christian, not a Jew. Aspects of the Old Testament existed as preparatory work for the coming of Jesus. I say this, not because I have selectively made it up, but because the New Testament explicitly sets aside the Old Testament kosher requirements. Consider, as just one example, what Jesus said in Mark 7:19. This is different from homosexual sexual activity, which the New Testament as well as the Old Testament describes as sinful. Jesus Himself defined marriage by reference to a man and a woman. The mixed fiber thing falls into the same category.
2. One thing you'll notice about crime and punishment in Leviticus: Nobody ever goes to jail. There's a reason for that. There is no jail. There are no police. There are no legal professions (hey, maybe they're onto something!) and no formal court system. These are a nomadic people who have no social institutions that depend upon actual fixed building structures. Is this reaction to rape the WRONG punishment for those circumstances? The woman is no longer a virgin. Nobody will have her. Her prospects of marriage are pretty much shot. And so, her prospects of life income are now very much compromised as well.
So, the man who violated her was forced to marry her. It does not say that he "can marry her." Rather, it says that he MUST marry her and CANNOT divorce her…ever. The punishment is that he must provide for this woman and her children for life.
In a world where you cannot send him to prison and where ideas about marriage were not like ours (and considering the state of marriage in this society, I think we're in very little position to judge), I'm wondering what better option you would advocate. Kill him? Do you support the death penalty for rape? Or would you let the guy just walk away?
The root of your question is why I would (you rightly presume) favor a DIFFERENT treatment of rape today than I read in Deuteronomy 22. I favor imprisonment instead because imprisonment is an option we have now and nothing in Deuteronomy anticipates or precludes that outcome.
I agree entirely with the MORALITY of Deuteronomy 22 at this point. Rape is wrong and deserving of punishment. If a rape victim could secure a financial judgment from a rapist that would take care of her needs for life, I don't think that would be too much restitution for what she has lost.
By the way, Sam, the Deuteronomy passage obligates the man but does not obligate the woman. We don't have any narrative record of this penalty actually being enforced, so there's no hard evidence to say how this played out, but I don't see anything there that would prevent the victimized woman from DECLINING to marry the rapist. The man MUST marry her if she'll have him and cannot divorce her. The woman and her father are not, as far as I can tell, obligated to accept his compulsory offer of marriage.
Great post, Bro. I agree.
A Sinner Saved by Grace and Kept by Grace,
David
Jonathan I love you just the way you are. God will also always love you.
People are complex and loyalty to a religious faith can sometimes be extremely difficult.
For people that believe the Bible says that homosexual sex is a sin and they are attracted to the same sex the options are all difficult.
If you are brought up in a religious tradition you usually think it is true and right.
But even if the Bible is to be understood that way, most fundamentalists would not condemn homosexual orientation per-se.
All mental health groups and almost all Christian mental health therapists agree that orientation is not something you can change if you want to. Behaviors can be changed.
In America there should be room for both Evangelical fundamentalists and gays.
Many people have evolved on their view of gays, not just Obama. Exodus International has repented from their anti-gay political agenda and has promised to try to protect gay people
from violence. (While Cathy is donating $1000 to those who advocate the death penalty).
Your church, the Baptist Church, has been the leading obstacle to human rights for gays.
This includes not only the issue of marriage protections for gays and their families, but job discrimination, hate crimes legislation, anti-bullying for gay children or those that are perceived to be gay, and visitation rights for a dying partner at a hospital.
You have been a voice for moderation in your church and I hope some day your church will recognize that gays need protection from all the hate this church has fomented.
I appreciate people like you that are advocating for a small change. They are not advocating for gay marriage but they are understanding that since their orientation is not changing they have a connection to gay people.
For the overwhelming majority of gay people,however, celibacy is not an option that they would consider. Those that are religious tend to believe that God gave them the gift of sexuality and that denying it is like waving a fist at God and saying I know better.
Jonathan I love you just the way you are. God will also always love you.
People are complex and loyalty to a religious faith can sometimes be extremely difficult.
For people that believe the Bible says that homosexual sex is a sin and they are attracted to the same sex the options are all difficult.
If you are brought up in a religious tradition you usually think it is true and right.
But even if the Bible is to be understood that way, most fundamentalists would not condemn homosexual orientation per-se.
All mental health groups and almost all Christian mental health therapists agree that orientation is not something you can change if you want to. Behaviors can be changed.
In America there should be room for both Evangelical fundamentalists and gays.
Many people have evolved on their view of gays, not just Obama. Exodus International has repented from their anti-gay political agenda and has promised to try to protect gay people
from violence. (While Cathy is donating $1000 to those who advocate the death penalty).
Your church, the Baptist Church, has been the leading obstacle to human rights for gays.
This includes not only the issue of marriage protections for gays and their families, but job discrimination, hate crimes legislation, anti-bullying for gay children or those that are perceived to be gay, and visitation rights for a dying partner at a hospital.
You have been a voice for moderation in your church and I hope some day your church will recognize that gays need protection from all the hate this church has fomented.
I appreciate people like you that are advocating for a small change. They are not advocating for gay marriage but they are understanding that since their orientation is not changing they have a connection to gay people.
For the overwhelming majority of gay people,however, celibacy is not an option that they would consider. Those that are religious tend to believe that God gave them the gift of sexuality and that denying it is like waving a fist at God and saying I know better.
Jonathan I love you just the way you are. God will also always love you.
People are complex and loyalty to a religious faith can sometimes be extremely difficult.
For people that believe the Bible says that homosexual sex is a sin and they are attracted to the same sex the options are all difficult.
If you are brought up in a religious tradition you usually think it is true and right.
But even if the Bible is to be understood that way, most fundamentalists would not condemn homosexual orientation per-se.
All mental health groups and almost all Christian mental health therapists agree that orientation is not something you can change if you want to. Behaviors can be changed.
In America there should be room for both Evangelical fundamentalists and gays.
Many people have evolved on their view of gays, not just Obama. Exodus International has repented from their anti-gay political agenda and has promised to try to protect gay people
from violence. (While Cathy is donating $1000 to those who advocate the death penalty).
Your church, the Baptist Church, has been the leading obstacle to human rights for gays.
This includes not only the issue of marriage protections for gays and their families, but job discrimination, hate crimes legislation, anti-bullying for gay children or those that are perceived to be gay, and visitation rights for a dying partner at a hospital.
You have been a voice for moderation in your church and I hope some day your church will recognize that gays need protection from all the hate this church has fomented.
I appreciate people like you that are advocating for a small change. They are not advocating for gay marriage but they are understanding that since their orientation is not changing they have a connection to gay people.
For the overwhelming majority of gay people,however, celibacy is not an option that they would consider. Those that are religious tend to believe that God gave them the gift of sexuality and that denying it is like waving a fist at God and saying I know better.
Post a Comment