Follow up to Church Politics

A colleague of mine at CSRS, Stephen Snobelen, who teaches the history of science at Kings College in Halifax and directs the Newton Project Canada sent a response to the first of my sermons on Christians and political engagement.  It is an incredibly insightful response, full of great questions.  A few of his points have led me to begin writing a paper on a "middle way" posture for evangelicals to adopt on the homosexuality question.

I've excerpted portions of his response below that I think are very helpful to reflect upon:

I guess the only question I would have is, where you would place the moral message? Just as it is clear to me that the Mennonite tradition going back to the days of the Radical Reformation has correctly emphasised the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and has rightly echoed the voice of the Hebrew Prophets on such issues as social justice, it is also clear to me that the Hebrew Prophets and the Gospel teachings emphasise a moral message as well.

The challenge, it seems to me, is presenting the moral message as well in a way that is unnecessarily abrasive and, if possible, even constructive.

Now, I imagine there are Mennonites, including evangelical Mennonites, who believe that homosexual practice is outside the scope of biblically-prescribed sexual morality. Recognising the distinction between constitution homosexuality (which doesn’t appear to be addressed in the Bible and thus not specifically condemned) and homosexual practice (which many exegetes do believe is censured), how might an evangelical who wants to affirm what he or she believes to be biblical morality develop a via media between the confrontational folk you refer to and the abdication of the need to affirm the prophetic voice of the Bible? (Three texts from the prophet Jeremiah that condemn the sin of adultery among the Judahites can be found in Jeremiah 7:9, 23:14, 29:23, for instance).

And how does a Christian successfully distinguish between matters of biblical exegesis relating to morality that is applied within the community and the obligations of a Christian to be loving in secular society?

Furthermore, what does a Christian in academia do when he or she regularly hears his or her beliefs mocked and condemned? Speak up or keep quiet so as to avoid rocking the boat, as it were?

Another thought: it is true that some more conservative and reactionary Christians make statements and claims that appear intolerant; but what of the increasingly hostile and nasty claims made by secular opponents of Christianity? Should we not challenge these as well?

Yet another: should a more tolerant or liberal Christian uphold the right of his or her more conservative Christian counterparts to adhere to forms of morality that are increasingly out of step with secular society?

One more: if Christians follow the lead of secular society on moral and other issues rather than letter our lights shine in a positive way or being “salty”
as you put it, have we not abdicated our responsibilities to the Gospel and become “the world”? What then is the point of being a Christian?

Although I certainly am quite sympathetic to the message of your talk, I do believe that the concerns raised by the evangelical you critique have some validity, as does the concern over the right of a person from a faith community to hold a particular view of morality (other than nasty views that lead to, say, child abuse and such). Are you saying these aren’t major concerns or merely that they are not the *central* concerns?