Book Review: ALTMC Part 3

Following on from my 'First Thoughts', and the conversations had around it and the book, I've decided to review Ken Wilson's new book, 'A Letter to my Congregation' in three parts. The first part of the review can be read here, and the second here. As ever, its worth reading my post about why Sex(uality) is not being enough to define human beings - I'm not wanting to have a go at anyone in this post, not least those I love, but instead engage with Ken's book. You should also read this letter to Ken from my friend Don Bromley, who used to be on staff at Ken's church, and his treatment of the biblical texts.

This final review-section comes in the context of some reasonably historical shifts in the Vineyard on this issue, as detailed in the appendixes (in order to not detract or distract from reviewing the content of the book).

This third and final part looks more broadly at the second half of the book, and specifically at Ken's claim to offer a 'third way'. In doing so, I  consider what Ken might actually be doing here, whilst continuing to critique the various sections and arguments of his book. I write this, soberingly, after having finally met Ken in person at the Society of Vineyard Scholars Conference 2014 (you need to read my review of his 'Mystically Wired' and [with Rich Nathan] his 'Empowered Evangelicals' to now how much of a celebrity moment that was for me. Ken's writing attracted me to the Vineyard and embedded me in it). All this said, on with the review.

At the outset of chapter 4 of 'A Letter to My Congregation', Ken writes the following;

"I'm now ready to sketch out the makings of a third way, a new approach to inclusion. It's a way to fully include people who are gay, lesbian and transgender in the life of the church, while recognizing that the church has not yet resolved the question of the morality of gay relationships. Instead of forcing a resolution on that question, it calls for regarding it as a "disputable matter" - something we can agree to disagree on. It doesn't require the members of the church communtiy to affirm gay relationships. It asserts the gospel truth that our common life in Jesus doesn't depend on granting each other moral approval" [ALTMC, Kindle loc. 1329]

As ever, with interjections from his own story and observations about wider narratives, Ken winsomely puts forward his position. But the thrust of this chapter is contained here. I wish it were as simple as he puts it. After all, who (who loves Jesus, and desires people to meet him) wants to exclude anyone? Who doesn't want to ground our common life in Jesus? All this said, I don't think Ken is successful in navigating a third way. Firstly, it isn't one. What Ken is proposing is simply not a third way. He's begun by saying that the question of the morality of gay relationships isn't settled - that simply isn't true, historically. The Church has traditionally been clear on this - that is why it is called the traditional position. To treat this, then, as a disputable matter, is to ignore the flow of the book of Romans (see Don Bromley [who used to be on Ken's pastoral staff] on Romans 14 here). By going ahead and blessing gender-neutral (for want of a better term) unions, and refusing to name certain things as sin, Ken is not proposing a third way between 'welcoming but not affirming' and 'welcoming and affirming', but instead imposing an affirming theology that recognises that others differ, but refuses to take those differences seriously. For all the humility and tentative-ness (not a word, but I've been using it a lot recently), this is not a third way that can be sustainable in the long term.

Part-way through chapter 4, Ken shifts gear, titling a section 'Let's Apply the Bible's Ultimate Ethic: The Rule of Love', with the implication that he and his position on this issue are in line with love, and the rest of us (bluntly) are not. I love Ken's admonition to evangelicalism to return to a love-based and love-motivated theology/praxis/ecclesiology/discourse - but I'm bemused by his application here. This is another reason why I'm excited to be heading to Belgium next week to present on 'The Guiding Trajectory of Love' at a conference titled 'Re-imagining Human'. In the previous parts of my review of ALTMC - and in reviews by my friends Luke and Don - we've seen that Ken hasn't engaged well with the biblical text, that the bible is clear on this issue. It is therefore disingenuous - not to mention pastorally suspect - to argue that we can agree to disagree on this. If we trust the Bible, and if we more importantly trust the one the Bible points to, we have to be very wary of this so-called 'Third-way', one that attempts to move beyond Scripture and Jesus and pit the Spirit against these in such a way as to cause disunity and strife.

Disunity and strife, though, are far from the readers mind as they approach chapter 5, 'The Gospel Way'. Ken is a wonderful writer - setting it up so that it is hard to disagree with him. Yet it is here that I really struggled. At the outset of this chapter - arguing that his 'Third Way' is what Jesus and the Gospel demands - Ken writes 'Applying the teaching of Romans 14-15 requires a deep understanding of the gospel'[ALTMC, Kindle loc. 1784]. I love this kind of language - but I'm wary of the implication. Is Ken saying that those who don't agree with his 'third way' have not deeply understood the Gospel? What about those who cannot understand - as I commented in my related critique of the inadequate theological anthropology of Matthew Vines, this is a case of hypercognivity, assuming that it is we and our brains that make us human and save us - do they get swept aside or does God still have plans for them? Ken writes [ALTMC, Kindle loc. 1811] "With Paul, we recognise that human beings, made in God's image, must strive toward integrity and unity", a phrase which resonate with my interest in the Imago Dei, even as it swept aside the complexities of it - sexual difference, brokenness, and the nature of Christ. The Gospel, I believe, is in part the story of Christ (who is the perfect image of the invisible God) transforming us as individuals into the parts of the body that God longs for us to be. The Gospel doesn't leave us where we are - whatever our brokenness is - but demands and empowers change. I don't think - and I've been re-reading and thinking through ALTMC for months now - that this proposed 'third way' can be called a Gospel Way.

At the heart of Gospel is, in part, a story of marriage - which I've mentioned before in line with Tim Keller. So it is fitting that Ken starts his 6th chapter 'Yes, But Is a BIG Change', with a discussion of what marriage means. Ken raises a strong challenge, "We can't apply a strict "biblical marriage" rule to gay people and not apply it to those who are divorced and remarried" [ALTMC, Kindle loc. 2164]. This is an important question. But it is also one that diverts attention from what Ken is actually saying - divorce and remarriage is a different issue, focused on a different relationship. I'm looking forward to finally reviewing "Divorce and Remarriage in Today's Church: 3 Views" soon - because this is an important question. However, such a question does in part ignore the fundamental core of what the 'biblical' understanding of marriage is, clouding the issue rather than providing a useful conversation partner. I am personally leaning towards a harder interpretation of the divorce passages - that Jesus granting an exception serves to underline God's positive passion for marriage, rather than creating a loophole. I want to respond to Ken's challenge with a firm 'yes' of holiness, challenging divorce culture and our broken sexual institutions with the light of the Gospel, even whilst being careful in application and loving in tone. Ken's discussion of celibacy and singleness is one I have engaged with before, and also one that the guys over at 'Living Out' have a range of articles on, and my friends at 'Spiritual Friendship' are thinking about deeply.

The opening words of Ken's final chapter in ALTMC - 'I Am Willing' are powerful, and, in the light of the various critiques, sobering. He writes 'The fact that I invested a lot of prayer in this discernment process by no means guarantees the validity of its conclusions" [ALTMC, Kindle loc. 2634]. This struck me deeply - partly because I've valued Ken's writing on prayer and partly because (As you can read generally here and also specifically in previous parts of my review) I disagree firmly with his conclusions in this book. I loved his mention of Jason Clark's paper at SVS 2013 (on materialism, a bigger issue than sexuality) as being more important - and it is hard that this is the issue that is dividing us. I love Ken's humility in this final chapter. I love - and long to be like - the Ken who says he is willing to be wrong, and to be wrong again. My prayer is that we will both get this right: for the glory of God and the flourishing of his people. I honestly don't think ALTMC does this - and that it doesn't make a strong case for its argument (hidden behind this demonstrably disingenuous language of a 'third way') for a radical revision of the church's teaching on sexual practice and ethics. 

So here we are. I hope I have communicated, here and throughout, something of the weight I felt as I wrote these reviews. I've honestly never had such a radical disagreement - at so many levels - with something written by an author I've loved and learned from over several years. I've wrestled with Ken's story and practice (in terms of what he wrote about that) in ALTMC here, and I've also engaged firmly with his treatment of the biblical texts in my second review. This all flows from my first thoughts, which represented deeper general criticisms. I don't want to repeat that in my conclusion here. I want to firmly underline that I do not think Ken is providing us with a third way. I think he is, unfortunately, being disingenuous about some important stuff, and also warping the wider debate with a call for a 'third way' in this book, and his far more affirming articles and interviews (linked in previous reviews). Whilst I think ALTMC is a powerful and readable book, I do not think it is ultimately helpful or 'true', and cannot recommend it. It joins the high stack of books seeking to do the same thing that can't be done, all echoing the false idea that sexuality is fundamental to our humanity. I welcome your comments, and also encourage you to read the two appendices below. Thank you for reading- and if you've stayed the course through all of the parts, an especial thanks and congratulations.

________________________

I'd love to know what you think of this review - and, indeed, Ken's book generally - so do get a conversation going in the comments. I'm up for connecting via Facebook or Twitter - these sort of conversations and questions are not simple.

________________________

Appendix 1 - At the time of writing this review, Vineyard USA had not published their new position paper on 'Pastoring LGBT Persons'. Whilst this is just a paper, and is partly a response to Ken's book (As well as that of Peter Fitch, whose similar book I will review here too), the VUSA Position Paper (henceforth PP) is a powerful response to the affirming trajectories of Fitch and Wilson. The VUSA PP is also a firm response to Ken's various Huffington Post, Detroit Free Press [linked pieces demonstrate that Ken is pushing an 'affirming' rather than 'third way' agenda, in my mind'] and other articles/interviews. I will blog about the PP separately. 

Appendix 2 - Also at the time of writing the various events that must have driven 'ALTMC' at Vineyard Ann Arbor have come to light - and they demonstrate the sad fallacy of the 'third way'. At the most recent Ann Arbor Sunday service, the pastors shared a variety of things, revealing a church on the verge of splitting over this issue (a far cry from the unity that ALTMC suggests) and a continuation of the disingenuous position that says 'I'm not affirming' whilst being demonstrably'affirming'. You should be able to hear about that at Ann Arbor's livestream here.

Similarly, there is much revealed in Executive Pastor Donnell Wyche's 'Letter to Vineyard USA', it is notable that Wyche writes 'he does not speak for all of us', echoing the fallacy of the 'third way' and underlining the complexity and sobering sadness of this issue. 

I will update both of these 'appendices' as necessary/requested, on the assumption that information is in the public arena and in the public interest.