John Shore is a prolific writer and a personality well known in Christendom. He is also gay affirming til it hurts. There is no middle ground with John. The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, this is what's right, shut your mouth. I love the man. Now there is Andrew Marin, also a prolific writer, a darling of the media with his "I'm Sorry" campaign (get it? It's a campaign to say to gays; "I'm sorry for how the Church has treated you?"), but you can't get out of Andrew if he's affirming or not, he'll straddle the fence all the way til his pants split and he's chaffed. Andrew once gave his reason that is neither here nor there. I give the man credit, not love.
Everyone knows Andrew won't say what side he's on because everyone knows he believes the Bible condemns homosexuality. The thing with Andrew is he stretches the love of Christ over all, like it's a big Persian rug. He thinks how he feels on this personally he can sweep under the rug even though it leaves a big, fat, lump that makes you ask; "What's that big lump under the pretty rug?" I'm convinced Andrew will never come right out and state how he really feels no matter how much you try to pry it out of him. Now there is something to be said about about the mantra; "FOCUS ON ONLY LOVE, FOCUS ON ONLY LOVE," but this doesn't answer the Bible question on homosexuality, now that too goes under the rug with Andrew's opinion and now you have two lumps under the rug.
One time John and Andrew came to blows on twitter as what was bound to happen. I understood John's frustration with Andrew because bringing a gay kid into the faith with saying; "God loves you and the Church was wrong to say bad things to you, but now look at the fine print of the Bible whenever you have the time," can be devastating to the kid with finding out God's love is conditional. I'm sure Andrew's reasoning is; "Don't let the Bible get in the way of a good witness to dem gays. They'll figure it out later." When the smoke cleared, Andrew left to fight other battles with gays who had suspicions about his motivations AND anti-gay Christians (one being Gagnon who can't keep his nose out of anything gay) who think Andrew wants to hide their hateful Gospel message on homosexuality (they're right). John said on his blog about the exchange:
"I don’t expect to hear from him (Andrew) again. But I’m confident that if I do,
he won’t say anything beyond how important it is to continue the
dialogue, to keep building bridges, to “live in the tension,” to reach
out in love, fuzzy, fuzzy, blah, blah, tastes great, less filling.
Because selling that kind of sugar-powdered waffle is how Andrew makes
Later, when John received criticism for what looked like a less than Christian response to Andrew, he went further stating:
"... folks have made the point that Andrew’s work is valuable, because he
is “building bridges”—because he is, as one reader put it, “creating
stepping stones from one end of the spectrum to the other.” They
appreciate Marin establishing a neutral, non-judgmental, values-free
middle ground where parties on either side of the gay-Christian debate
can meet to together discuss and explore the issue.
And I certainly understand how great that sounds.
it’s not great. It doesn’t even make sense. Because when it comes to
the issue of LGBT equality, there is no middle ground. There can’t be.
The Christian/LGBT issue is a moral issue. And moral issues are by definition about right and wrong.
this particular moral issue is one of no small consequence. There
couldn’t be more at stake with it. The Christians on one side of this
debate are claiming that, in the eyes of God, those on the other side
are less than human.
Whoosh. Good-bye middle ground.
matter how strenuously he or she might deny it, any Christian who fails
to forthrightly and unambiguously assert that there is nothing
whatsoever inherently immoral about same-sex relationships has
chosen a side in this conflict. They’ve chosen to perpetuate the
maligning, ostracizing, and degradation of gay people by Christians. If
you don’t stop one person from abusing another, of what good are you to
the victim? To a starving man, the person who can’t decide whether or
not they want to share their food is no better than the person who
outright refuses to."
I bring up this incident between John and Andrew because I'm seeing this being played out more and more now. Those like John and myself having to confront the Andrews of the world with hard Scripture (in our case affirming) over their over exuberance of love and acceptance that's hiding a bill of goods that says either change your orientation or get use to being alone for the rest of your life once your foot is in salvation's door.