odd man out.

At the risk of this blog turning into nothing more than a mirror for Dr. Richard Beck’s Experimental Theology (which, in my opinion, would still be a good use of the space), I think his recent post on ecclesiology is particularly compelling.  Beck asks the question, “Why is Killing Okay But Not Sexuality?“  Referencing the wide variety of views that exist among Christians regarding killing (which range from total pacifism to, as was the practice in a few churches I’ve attended, applauding war veterans on the major patriotic holidays), Beck asks:

“If we are okay with diversity on the issue of killing—overriding an explicit command at the heart of Jesus’s Kingdom vision on a topic of enormous moral consequence—why won’t we allow for a diversity of views within the Christian communion in regard to Paul’s vice lists?”

Many times, people wonder, “Yes, I am willing to befriend someone in a same-sex relationship in spite of my beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality.  But at what point do I confront (what I perceive as) that person’s sin?”  In this post, Beck seems to be offering a counter question: At what point does the pacifist tell his/her soldier friend that his/her career is sinful?  To that question I would add many other questions: When do I point my rich friend to Matthew 19:24, or when do I alert my lustful friend to Matthew 5:27-30, or when do I confront my inauthentic friend with Matthew 5:37?

Notice that the question here is not whether same-sex relationships are right or wrong, and Beck is certainly not suggesting people should believe one way over the other.  Neither is he suggesting that choosing a side is wrong or that holding people accountable is wrong.  Rather, the issue is handling sin consistently—why are we so much more concerned about sexuality than anything else we might perceive as sinful, and is it the right thing for us to be so concerned about?

If nothing else, the article is worth a read to catch Beck’s phrase “hermeneutical chutzpah.”