I hate to sound like a stereotypical hipster snob, but I only like the “outlaw” country singers:  Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, and Waylon Jennings.  When Merle sings about being in prison, he’s not trying to be rough and tough–he’s actually been there!

But anyway, Mohler would probably say something like, “Well, Jesus only associated with the prostitutes and tax collectors to get them to repent.”  That’s sorta true, but not entirely true.  I like to think that Jesus really did care for the drunks, hookers, swindlers, deadbeats, cheaters, and all-around vagabonds.

The problem lies in the world view engendered by Calvinism. If you believe that some are NOT chosen from before the foundation of the world you can write off any hope of trying to influence them in any positive way.

the original outlaws are awesome… i’ve seen willie in concert a number of times.

and i think you’re right, travis – certainly jesus was concerned with helping people find their way back to God…but i’m equally convinced that he loved them without agenda in the midst of their mess… just like he loves us in the midst of ours.

It got me thinking: I wonder what Mohler thinks of the fact that Jesus frequented house parties thrown by prostitutes?

I agree with your overall point that Mohler is wrong to criticize Osteen for his answer. However, this analogy doesn’t do your point any service. If Osteen was asked if he would attend a dinner with a gay couple or dine at their house, answered yes, and then was criticized by Mohler; your analogy would be apt. Mohler’s point centers more around the symbol of marriage, the minister’s unique role in the marriage ceremony, and the minister’s unique role in a church. Mohler’s point, despite my disagreement with it, is not as simple as “Homsexuals engage in sinful activity, Osteen should not associate with them.”

That would only be true if Calvinists claimed that they could know who had been chosen and who had not. Calvinists do not claim to be in on this secret, and so a rational Calvinist worldview would encourage evangelism and influence because God works through us to accomplish the purposes he ordained before the foundation of the world.

Christians seem to enjoy keeping “homosexuality” at a distance, disassociating it from any real life relationships. This is highlighted by Mohler’s attack on Osteen’s statement about friends in a same-sex marriage ceremony. 

This is not isolated either. On the whole, it seems that traditional evangelical theology–especially that of the Calvinist bent–and social justice are so far removed from each other that there is no dialogue. The particulars of experience seen and felt through real relationships are not allowed to speak to theology. 

“It got me thinking: I wonder what Mohler thinks of the fact that Jesus frequented house parties thrown by prostitutes?” Jesus talked with prostitutes and they attended Jesus’ speaking and teaching moments but is there any credible evidence that Jesus frequented house parties thrown by prostitutes ? Parties ? Sounds to me like creative literary licence here. However educate me to the contrary if there is evidence.Again ….any evidence ?

great question, holldoug.  it’s certainly open for discussion, and this is only my opinion.  but a few passages to back up that line of thinking  : • matthew 9:10,11 • mark 2 :13-16 • luke 15:1,2 • some would also reference matthew 26 and john 12. 

• luke 7:34 reads: ‘The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’

it’s easy to claim that jesus spoke on a hill somewhere and some sinners came within earshot — and much more palatable for our 21st century american evangelical lives to cope with.  far less messy than befriending the unclean.

yet the fact that jesus was called a glutton and a drunkard – and indeed had a reputation as such – would suggest that he more frequently spent time in the homes of the very ‘sinners’ that he was friends with…that he had intentional relationships with the very people that were despised by the religious.

intentional relationships are missional and have purpose – but they are not designed or manufactured to manipulate individuals into a certain mindset, behavior or system of beliefs.  to be intentional means that we are willing to enter into the messiness of authentic relationships with those who are like-minded as well as those who think differently.  it means that we are not only willing but are committed to doing so, and that we’re determined to stick it out with them as their friend even if their mindset doesn’t ever change.  jesus was accused not of simply being friendly TO sinners and tax collectors from a distance, but of being a friend OF them.  we should be accused of the same…and it should be true.

but that’s just my opinion.  i could be wrong.

Hear what you say Michael, and thanks for your considered reply. You bring out some fair points. I suppose sitting dining with them, befriending them etc , not from a distance but close up is one thing but attending ‘parties’ as stated by the original thread creator is well another. I don’t believe Jesus would attend ‘parties’ in the sense of ‘party’. A dinner party ? Well it seems to get down to our definition of ‘party’.
Constructive reply Michael. God bless , Doug

It’s a big jump to equate having dinner with someone (Jesus and tax collectors/prostitutes) to celebrating a gay marriage.

First things first – I believe that Al Mohler truly loves Jesus and teaches the Bible. More relevant to this point, he teaches consistently that believers are to contextualize their message and to reach out to people outside of the church (invite them into your home, go into their homes, etc.) without watering down the truth of the gospel.

To think of it another way: did the apostle Paul associate with people that worshiped idols and practiced sexual immorality? Yes, he certainly did. But there isn’t one instance where he even hints that a believer should attend to their pagan ritual in celebration of their sin. The only times you see him going into these places are to preach the Word to bring people to repentance. He went into temples and Gentile communities with the intention of planting churches and teaching the good news of Jesus.

This article and many of the comments bring up all kinds of feelings and thoughts for me… One feeling is a sickness, a sadness at the way Christians allow sin to characterize people, viewing them as “gay” as though the sin defines the person. This, I think, is the first misstep that ‘allows’ Christians to then treat these ‘sinners’ in whatever way they would treat sin itself. And how we reserve this sin characterization for the ‘big ones’ like homosexuality and not for things like lying or stealing or idolatry. If I were to allow the sin of lying to characterize people, I’m sure I could call nearly everyone the ‘liar’ and reserve the right to view and treat only the sin in the person and not the person themselves. Maybe this is only the symptom, but the subtleties of our actions matter and give evidence of our true heart. True grace is that God doesn’t characterize us by our sin and views us as the His pure creation. I think it is not only our duty to try and view others in the same way, but it is our right, our privilege to experience outwardly the love that God has for us.

What if it is supposed to be a Christian ceremony?

Didn’t Paul warn us to avoid other Christians who are sexually immoral?

I don’t think he wanted us to avoid sexually immoral Christians completely, but I think he saw it as a big issue, and different from non-believers who were sexually immoral.

Would Jesus have attended a same sex marriage ceremony, even if not a religious one ? But the ‘liberals’ say ‘oh they didnt have any in his time’ – mmm – maybe thats the answer. Jewish society didnt permit what God dissaproved of.

I dont know where the intersect is with Psalm 1 ‘not sitting in the seat of mockers’ with Jesus sitting talking with ‘outcasts’ but I tend to think that the ‘outcasts’ in Jesus day knew they were sinning but couldnt overcome it whereas the Gay Marriage lobby dont even acknowledge or even mock their creators institution of marriage.

Sadly here we have Al Mohler taking a stand for biblical values and he’s been attacked for it.

Yes Im sure I’ll be howled down for not ‘loving the sinner’ but then again should we love the Satanist, Wiccan, paedophile etc enough to attend their ‘marriage ceremonies’ too ? Or do we take a stand?
 

PS Im a huge sinner myself.

First, whether or not we have scriptural evidence (which I don’t know of any)–or more likely historical evidence (perhaps)–of same-sex marriages existing in the same context then as we have now, I’ve never heard “oh, they didn’t have any in His time” as an argument from a “liberals” perspective (probably on account of it being lame and irrelevant) in regard to what we do about it in the context of today.
Second, I will say this: the “Jewish society [which] didn’t permit what God disapproved of” would have included in the “disapproved of” category the disabled, the ill and infirm, the Gentiles, esp. Samaritans, most women, and pagans (so basically anyone who wasn’t a legalistic Jew). There are many included in the “outcast” category, both in His day and now, homosexuals only one group among many. But again, when Jesus ministered to and showed love and grace to the
“outcast” I don’t recall Him making any distinctions between them.
Contrast that now with what Paul later says about the legality of these distinctions having been done away with in the body of Christ, by the grace of God and the work of the Cross. Granted, homosexuality is not specifically mentioned in this liberating statement, so it could be debated to a point. But the overall messages of that epistle was now “who to include/exclude,” but rather how to regard one another in a time where a variety of people across race, ethnicity, religious history, gender, socioeconomic standing, wealth and power were all coming together in a new society called “the body of Christ.”
So the question really is, what are you going to use as your platform for which “society” we should model after. The Roman Empire? The Pharisees? or that of the body of Christ? Paul and Peter were fairly clear that Jesus undid much of the legalism of what Jewish law and society had become…I don’t think we should be so eager to resume such a legalistic mindset that Jesus went out of His way to deconstruct.

[...] on Mohler’s response, Michael, whose post made Red Letter Christians syndication, posits the following question: “i wonder what mohler thinks of the fact that jesus [...]

I fail to see what country music has to do with the issues explored here. There are many beautiful songs that are included in the country music genre – beautiful for both their performance and for their lyrical content – Carrie Underwood/Temporary Home; Toby Keith/My List; Tim McGraw/Live Like You Were Dying; George Strait/I Saw God Today, and many others. Country music addresses many powerful issues like what it means to be a friend – Tracy Lawrence/Find Out Who Your Friends Are; being grateful to parents – Sugarland/Baby Girl; being a positive role model to your kids – Rodney Atkins/Watching You and countless others.

Exactly correct, Isaac.

Respectfully Nicole I think you’re missing the point here. It has nothing to do with returning to legalistic mindset at all rather than witness to the world on God’s word. Yes Jesus did minister and show both love and grace to the marginalised eg prostitutes and tax collectors but it is a far stretch to say he approved of their ‘lifestyle’ rather offered them something better. Again yes, Peter and Paul challenged legalism but the point is they did not, implicitly or explicitly say that the underlying sinfulness is okay with God. Al Mohler is being attacked for taking a stand against gay marriage. I find it somewhat curious that Christians are so willing to not show love and grace to a christian brother , Al Mohler, who is simply decrying homosexuals making a travesty and mockery of God’s institution of marriage. Shouldn’t the Christian community support him ? Mohler is taking a stand that there is something better.

I don’t see how i’m off point in response to your statement at all. The legalistic mindset to which I was referring was the one you referenced in saying that “Jewish society didnt permit what God dissaproved of.” I was (perhaps too adamantly) trying to point out that such a claim is simply not true; there was much in Jewish society that God did not approve of, which Jesus deliberately spoke and acted against.
I would also agree that Christ did not condone all “lifestyles” simply by ministering to the people who lived them. However, I feel there is often a confusion of terms in understanding the what “lifestyle”  and “sinful” are. Now, where we will probably
disagree is in what we deem “sinful.” I personally don’t believe a
person’s sexual orientation is a sin. As for “lifestyle,” sexual orientation by
definition is NOT a lifestyle. Therefore, any lifestyle, be it heterosexual or homosexual,
involves so much more than how one identifies oneself (eg., the tax
collector’s sinful lifestyle is in his pattern of theft and greed, not that he is
by vocation a tax collector).
I said nothing of sinfulness before when discussing the passage by Paul. I was speaking to the matter of doing away with the legalism which has previously barred the “outcast” from the inclusiveness that is to be the body of Christ. This passage is not about “sinfulness,” it is about inclusion. But to be clear, I do not think sinfulness is “okay” with God. I’d say the very lengths to which He went to redeem humankind from sin is evidence of that. I hope on that we can agree.
Back to the article then. I think it is unfortunate that there can not be disagreement without the seeming need for hurtful words. Other than offending the support Osteen has for his homosexual friends, I don’t see any real offense with what Mohler said, even though I would disagree that showing love and support for a homosexual couple is equal to undermining ones theology or ministerial duties. To be honest, far worse things have been said by Christians, things as a Christian I could neither support nor respect.
With that, personally, I find your last statement about his remark more offensive then what Mohler himself said. How we say things is often so much more than what we say, and there I
think is where many Christians take issue with one another. For you to say “…homosexuals making a travesty and mockery of God’s institution of marriage,” is to a) devalue what marriage means to homosexuals, b) project malcontent upon their intentions, and c) claim you know God’s exclusive intent for marriage. Talk about a harsh statement. Ultimately, I respect that you hold marriage to be sacred between a man and a woman…but I cannot respect the malicious words you use to make that positional statement. That’s were I take issue.

Sorry l.Nicole.g but you are nitpicking my ‘Jewish society didn’t
permit what God disapproved of’. You cannot create a default inductive position
whereby because God disapproved of aspects of Jewish legalism therefore all
legalism is wrong and thus gay marriage cant be condemned. If that’s  what you’re doing it’s an inductive leap too
far.

You say a person’s sexual orientation is not a sin. Perhaps not
but the practice of it could be. In every reference in the Bible the practice
of homosexual sex is cast as a sin. Perhaps we are in agreement re orientation
and we misunderstand one another’s position.

Re agreement on sinfulness not being okay with God, yeah  with you totally. As far as your point about
inclusion well the problem is in the detail. Jesus called people to repent and
change direction. He did not call on ‘inclusiveness’ as a supreme virtue.
‘Inclusiveness’ has become a decadent mantra to the extent it is driving the
church to error. As one commentator has stated he never once heard anyone talk
about inclusiveness and being welcoming to the racist. Have you ? He’s got a
point as likewise I’ve never heard of any liberal Christians saying ‘we must be
inclusive lets make Church more welcoming to the pedophile, adulterer, drug
dealer, NeoNazi, homophobe, racist, fraudster etc. Have you ? I haven’t. Interesting
point for the ‘liberal minded’ why not ? Some churches try to be ‘gay friendly’
, why don’t they try to be ‘racist friendly’ as a policy ? Yet to hear of it.
Hell is very inclusive and truly non-judgmental, it’ll take anyone regardless
of orientation, color, race, creed, etc

As for the ‘malicious words’, frankly I find such an approach to
be capricious.

Jesus would then  be accused
of using ‘malicious words’ against the Pharisees, Elijah could be accused of the
same thing towards the prophet of Baal. We are not called to be popular with
the world rather to witness. Is the Bible using ‘malicious words’ against us
when it says we are sinners and need to repent ? Of course a Christian
homosexual marriage is a travesty of God’s intention for marriage. Show me
where in the scriptures marriage is ever endorsed for same sex ? Can you find
any occurrences ? God has told us about his plans for marriage or are we saying
after thousands of years of God’s plan we haven’t a clue about his views on
marriage!!!! ???

I’m hoping l.Nicole.g we just misunderstand one anothers position
and that we probably agree more than disagree. It would be good if we could
have coffee together and clarify things. However I don’t buy into the
‘malicious words’ viewpoint. I’d say the blank condemnation of every Christian
who objects to homosexuality as a ‘bigot’ 
and ‘narrow minded’ as ‘malicious words’ yet I’ve yet to hear a ‘liberal
Christian’ condemn that.  

Anyway we’ve been honest with one another about our respective
positions and I hope despite of our differences we ‘are on the same side’. God
bless. Doug.

You are right, I was “nitpicking”–such specificity is the prerogative of opinion, however, I don’t wish to reach beyond productive discussion, so, acknowledging your remarks… moving on.

I wish to expand on this point Re ‘inclusion’ and repentance, because it is paramount, so i hope not to disagree with you here, so much as to clarify my position. First, I also agree “inclusiveness is not a supreme virtue,” and I do not wish for “inclusion” to be mistaken as synonymous for “condoning” (or sufficient for redemption). I believe in the need for repentance, I believe that “come as you are” is not the same as an excuse for “stay as you are.” I believe the welcoming posture is more an invitation to let transformation begin. You ask if i have heard “liberal Christians saying ‘we must be inclusive’ lets make Church more welcoming to the pedophile, adulterer, drug dealer, NeoNazi, homophobe, racist, fraudster etc. Have you ?” To a limited degree, I have, and to be accurate, I should say I have heard conservatives and liberals engaged in equal discussion regarding these challenges. I don’t know when, if or how a solution to this very real challenge will ever come about, but the conversation is happening, and THAT I think, is important.

As to marriage, I prefer to agree to disagree. I greatly respect the values of so many who uphold marriage for all the virtues it holds…well aware that my belief, that two men or two women can share in an equally right union, immediately offends many. But I would never say that their views of marriage in invalid, inadequate, or improper…only that I do not agree with the exclusion on the basis of sexual orientation, and the limitation to a man and a woman (singularly). Ultimately, I believe marriage to be an invaluable sacrament, one I think more
deserving than our argument over a limited chat space. I already know that
we disagree upon the matter of to whom the act and context of marriage
can and should apply. I can neither prove to dissuade you, nor can you prove to dissuade me. I choose to disagree…but with respect.

And I agree, coffee is a wonderful moderator of discussion. =) Finally, Re ‘malicious words,’ I don’t know who you’ve been talking to have such
an opinion of ‘liberal Christians’. I regret that there are so many
hurt-filled words from both sides, and admittedly, I am too often more
defensive than I am kind. But I hope to never call anyone a bigot unless
they are being so, and disagreement is not proof of narrow-mindedness, but here are ways to say things even in disagreement without disrespecting a person or group of people. I believe in discussion that removes stigmatization and grace, I often fail at this but I strive for it. With that, thank you for disagreement and agreement alike.
Grace and peace be with you.