Searching for a Wider Theological Middle Ground



Comments (5)

Comment Feed

I am befuddled.

I don't understand someone who is theologically trained and simply views marriage as defined as being faithful to another person. What happened to the teaching about marriage being a union between man and woman and being something that unites that man and woman into one?

td more than 2 years ago

I don't understand how the article related to the title.

There isn't a discussion of a wider middle ground, just that he doesn't like the middle ground that conservatives may be willing to accept. Fair enough, I guess.

Anonymous more than 2 years ago


The widest possible is in the local independent church

Attention dinosaurs your time is done

Thank you

Richard F Hicks more than 2 years ago

Old Country Song

Remember the old country song “What Part about No Don't You Understand?” If you can't accept “No,” don't be silly and call yourself orthodox.

Explore where this idea came from that “it's not about who you marry, but your faithfulness to that person.” The idea didn't come from God did it? Who does that leave as the author?

Skipper more than 2 years ago

A fair question that needs to be answered

Recently Tom Lambrecht of Good News wrote an article that contains why I am not ready to embrace the new and improved sexuality ethic. The article is his response to the letter circulated by Asbury Seminary Alumni. who disagree with those of Asbury's administration and faculty who support the traditionalist plan. (Just for the record, I have never been 100% on board with Good News as a whole but I have always appreciated Tom Lambrecht's perspective which I find insightful, fair and respectful.) Here is his understanding of what divides us. Can you answer the question at the end of this excerpt?

"Here we reach the nub of the disagreement. Genesis reminds us that God created us male and female for each other (the opening words of the Service of Christian Marriage). That original creative intent has been spoiled by the sin and brokenness that affect all humanity and all of creation (Romans 8:18-25).

"The answer to sin is not to accept the behavior and redefine it as acceptable to God (Isaiah 5:20). Rather, the answer to sin is repentance, redemption through the blood of Jesus Christ, and transformation of heart and life by the power of the Holy Spirit.

"It is this deep theological disagreement over whether God created people to be LGBTQ+ and whether such sexual behavior is sin, that causes the divide among us. The two views are incompatible with each other.

"The dissent concludes, "It is indeed far past time for members of the Body of Christ to rid ourselves of theologies and missional practices that deny the Missio Dei and which cause harm to others." It takes quite a lot of nerve to call all the church fathers and mothers, teachers and theologians for the past 3,000 years sinful and causing harm because they adhered to the scriptural teaching that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is contrary to God's will. On what basis would the authors have us adopt their understanding of the Missio Dei (mission of God in the world), as opposed to the one put forward by countless generations of Christian teachers and leaders?"

And my question in response to this article is do you believe in the Wesleyan doctrine of Original Sin which states that although we were initially created in the image of God that image has been compromised/blemished/tarnished and therefore we only possess a remnant of the image God instilled in us at the time He created the world and everything in it and called it good?

betsy more than 2 years ago