A Letter: A Third Way Response

Last updated on: April 6, 2009 at 6:43 am by Scot McKnight

A Letter: A Third Way Response 2009-04-06T06:43:18-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Every discussion about homosexuality is fraught with a singular challenge. It is the challenge of civility. I believe civility is the Third Way in this moral debate. On this blog last week we published “A Letter” and then Andrew Marin, a Christian friend and advocate for Christian civility, posted a response (we will be posting about his new book Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation With the Gay Community

soon). Today I’d like to post my own challenge to all of us.

How can we learn to be more civil with each other in this discussion/debate? What can each ask of the other?

I want to begin with something I read in Richard Mouw’s book, Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World
: referring to something said by Martin Marty, Mouw says “one of the real problems in modern life is that the people who are good at being civil often lack strong convictions and people who have strong convictions often lack civility.”

Right here is where we need to begin: I cannot understand why strong-convicted Christians, on either side of this debate by the way, refuse to act with civility. Perhaps it is because they are so passionate about this issue, so convinced it is a matter of ultimate justice or ultimate fidelity, that they think they must become strident and fight this issue to the ground until it gives up the ghost. Perhaps it is because they think they are called to play the role of prophet, and that means for some the use of prophetic, denunciatory rhetoric. Plenty of examples are available; I see no need to point fingers. We need to move on.

Mouw is right, civil folks often lack conviction and conviction folks often lack civility. He’s right about something else:

What we are in most need of today is “convicted civility” (p. 12) or what we might call compassionate conviction or principled passion. It is the rare combination of civility and conviction, tempered as it must be by anyone who lives the Jesus Creed, by faithful compassion. This is the Third Way and we need it today. One who is fully dedicated to this today is Andrew Marin, and his new book from IVP is an exceptional attempt to foster civility with a traditionalist viewpoint on homosexuality. His book is just now available. Buy it now because we’ll be discussing it in the month of May (Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation With the Gay Community
).

Today I’d like to speak to two issues: the bottom line in civility and the intent of our convictions.

The bottom line in civility issue is this: For
pro-gay-as-Christian or pro-gay marriage/civil union folks: Christians who differ from you are entitled to take their stand on what they
think the Bible says and say they think such views are contrary to God’s order as revealed in the Bible and as taught in the history of the Church. They deserve, even must, be respected for that
view. If you label such persons as dinosaurs or bigots in order to brand them and exclude them, you fail in love and you fail our society.

For anti-gay-as-Christian or anti-gay marriage/civil union folks: Those who affirm civil unions, gay
marriage, etc, are entitled to form their own viewpoint in believing that they think these relations are justifiable for Christians and they must be respected
for their viewpoint. If you label such persons as morally bankrupt in order to brand and exclude them, you fail in love and you fail our society.

The issue here is entitlement. I contend that folks must be given the freedom to believe what they want. When we refuse to let others think what they want, we break down a civil society. This has nothing to do with whether we think the other person is right. We may well think they are not.

Until we get to positions of mutual respect, we cannot have a conversation and cannot make progress. Until we get let the other person say “I think you are wrong and I have legitimate grounds for thinking so” we cannot genuinely sit at the table. When the other person’s viewpoint is grounds for exclusion — and I see this from both sides of this debate — we haven’t even achieved a tolerant society. In fact, we strain the tethers of a tolerant society. And this doesn’t even bring up the Christian virtue of charity or love: those who love others will never exclude from the table those who differ from them simply because they have a view that they think wrong.

And, yes, this must be done while holding to what Mouw calls convicted civility or what can be called principled passion. Hold your views with clarity and with conviction, but we dare not let ourselves become so committed to our views that we cannot engage the person as a person. It is too easy to convert the Bible into a lawbook or into irrelevant antiquity. We hope for a Third Way in reading the Bible, too (see my The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible
).

This leads me to the issue of intent in conviction. What is the intent, I want to ask, of declaring — and again this is about both sides of this issue — the other person wrong? Is the decision of what is “right” vs. what is “wrong” the final goal? I sense for many it is. Once one has determined one’s views and then declared that view, some folks think the job is done. “There,” they might say as they wash their hands with the conviction of fidelity and purity, “I’ve held my own and taken my stand.”

No, I would argue: the ultimate aim is not to declare one’s view but to live a life of love of God and love of others, with convicted civility, and to live with others in the hope of bringing all to the goal God has in his redemptive designs. Love and convicted civility can co-exist for the Third Way. For one side, this will mean living with those who are gay or lesbian with a view toward transformation. My contention: those persons are entitled to believe that and to hope for that and to work for that. For the other side, this will mean living with those who think gay marriage/civil unions are “contrary to God’s order” with a view to their transformation. Those persons can believe that and hope for that and work for their view, too.

This is hardly compromise; this is convicted civility at work. May God’s grace be at work.

Public Issues

Previous Post

April 6, 2009

To whom can they go? (by PW)

Next Post

April 6, 2009 A Brother's Wisdom 29

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was king of Israel during the ministry of Elijah?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jehoram Jeroboam Joash Ahab