Friday is for Friends: Matt Edwards

Good word. I feel there is pressure to be sycrotistic on this issue to be honest. I think you are right though. I am not throwing a stone at Rob. But I think he overstates his point. Yes, I can and will condemn human sex trafficing without knowing anyone involved.

How does Rob Bell know that his assertion is true? Given the ease with which counter examples can be produced if the assertion is generalized, it seems like an attempt to shape the conversation.

How many of us know polygamists? Polygamy is not specifically condemned in the Bible. It's not sex trafficking. If it's not your family, it doesn't affect your family. I guess we have nothing to say on the issue.

Actually, now that I think about it, I don't really know any people who are smoking, gambling, self-abusing, or peddling porno either. (You would have to understand where I currently reside. Hint: lots of polygamy here though!)

Maybe the right approach is to not say you UNDERSTAND the people who do these things. That would be true though even if we think we know those who engage in these behaviors. But to be agnostic on every moral issue is not an option. I think Rob Bell often tries to be provocative; but now when I hear him I always wonder if he really believes what he's saying himself. Oh the hazards of rhetorical habits!

It is bad form to be overly critical of statements made off the cuff to a questioner. Bell is not working through a whole systematized ethical theory. He is putting forth an invitation to humility in the face of a complex moral problem.
And does anyone really think this is bad advice? Go meet and befriend some gay folks so you can understand and speak to a topic which is apparently explosive in our culture.
True, counter examples may follow if we seek to talk about ethical theory, but in regard to this issue at this time--the advice is sound.

Jeff Cook said:
True, counter examples may follow if we seek to talk about ethical theory, but in regard to this issue at this time--the advice is sound.

But aren't some claiming that you can't talk about ethical theory unless you know the individuals involved. In other words, don't talk about ethical theory.

I would agree with Bell's sentiment and advice, but not the statement.

Here's a comparison from my world. I live here surrounded by people of a different religion. In the US there are many books written on this religion, many commentators and experts give their view. (It's a religion of peace! It's a religion of terror!) Fine, both may be true. But an understanding the people can't be gained from books or theories. You need to know them as real people. However, I would never say that those of you who don't know the people can't say anything about the religion because it's too complex.

The comment from Bell is one of those wonderful things that sound really profound until you think about them for 4 seconds and realize it's actually stupid.

Do we want to be sensitive to other people? Yes. Do we want to avoid offending unnecessarily? Yes.

Is morality determined by whether or not I know someone involved in a particular sin? No.

I know quite a few homosexuals. How do I know when I "understand their struggle?" Will a bell ding in my head? Perhaps my friends will write me a note?

Face it: Bell's bought into the postmodern version of morality where you can never tell anyone they're doing anything wrong. There is a saying, "As long as it harms no one, do as you will." It sounds great. But it's not Christian. It's Wiccan.

I think Bell is pretty far off track here. The point isn't that we shouldn't engage in thinking about ethics, but that we should not let our ethics become a reason or excuse for not loving someone. We can and should still hold to ethical bearings without turning our backs on people who run afoul of them. As ChrisB rightly points out, the "do no harm" mantra is Wiccan, not Christian. "Do no harm" is shallow, thin ethics while Christian ethics are based on understanding who we are, what our relationship with God and others ought to be and how we ought to arrange our lives as a reflection of those realities.

One of the things which gives Christian ethics its depth is Christianity's view of suffering. In a view such as the "do no harm" ethic, suffering has no place in this world and its avoidance it a primary objective of life. This is a utopian view that cannot answer or redeem the suffering which will always be a part of human experience. Christianity certainly ought to work to reduce suffering, but it also offers redemption and comfort for the inevitable suffering we all experience. IMO, one of the things which Jesus did on the cross was normalize and even ennoble suffering as part of human existence. Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't worry about suffering. Nor does it mean that we should be callous about causing suffering in another's life. Our primary objective should always and everywhere be to love, to bind up the brokenhearted, to comfort the sorrowful, to befriend the lonely and provide for the needy. Yet we also understand suffering with far more depth than our current culture which sees it only as something to be avoided. It is true that Christian ethics will pretty well inevitably challenge people even to the point of suffering. However, if a Christian ethical teaching does cause suffering, it should never be because we Christians have been using it or wielding it as a tool to condemn, exclude or persecute others. Any suffering which Christian ethics causes should be caused by a person feeling the need to examine the gap between where they are and where God would have them be and what God would have them do about it.

I think that one of the problems we Christians have today is we have such a shallow understanding of our own ethics. I know many Christians who believe that they should instruct their children to follow Christian ethics with no more explanation than "because God said so" and are then surprised when their children reject those ethics. Yes, God said so, but what God said usually points pretty clearly to a particular way of understanding ourselves and how we relate to God and others. But most of us are ignorant of the depth of those ethics and therefor have no good response for shallow "do no harm" sort of ethical thinking.

Some context...

I had a dear friend who struggled with homosexuality and eventually died of AIDS. I was one of a few Christians who he felt comfortable confiding in. That said, Rob Bell's logic pulls the heart strings, but strikes me as problematic. Would Bell want us to say nothing against those who traffic in sex slavery unless we personally know them? I doubt it.

John #14

I sympathize with what you're and others are saying. The general sentiment is that we need to empathize with each other. But let's not replace the fallacy of not empathizing with the fallacy that no one can speak to an issue that they don't have close personal experience with.

While I understand Bell's frustration, Bell's declaration is frequently used in the circles I move in to shut down ethical discernment, not further it. Not that the two can be completely severed, but I think ethical discernment and pastoral care for those in ethical quandaries are different matters.

I don't feel the trafficking issue successfully maps on to the issue of sexuality, so I'll just speak to the sexuality issue...

Rob Bellspeak tends to be edgy and some would have him fine tune it.

I think the issue here is that we shouldn't be making moral judgments in a vacuum, or with total detachment from the fact it's real people we're talking about.

In a way Rob is right. I once thought I had personal convictions on this subject that were written in stone, but as you get to know people and hear their stories, you find the need to write convictions in pencil.

That's not to imply moral relativity, or that God has changed his mind on some things. I'm just thinking that instead of dealing in what's right and wrong, we should consider what's good, what's better, and what's best.

God's Word clearly indicates a best case scenario for mankind. But once you get to know real people dealing with real issues, it tends to slow the rush to judgment.

The idea that Jesus violated purity laws and ethical norms is misleading at best and blasphemous at worst.

Jesus was involved in some intra-Jewish disputes about secondary purity issues. These were comparable to denominational squabbles about extra-biblical rules.

In many cases, Jewish tradition went on to affirm an approach like the one Jesus took to these matters.

I have no dog in this fight, but I did not want to sit back and allow the idea to go unchallenged that ethics are somehow relative since Jesus allegedly viewed them that way.

Derek Leman

Michael (#17 and #18),
Once again I thank you for your thoughtful push-back. You urge me to think and write better.
If Rob's statement is used to shut down dissenters in this highly charged conversation regarding
homosexuals and Christianity and/or the church, then I believe his statement is being misused.

"Two persons who commit themselves to a homosexual relationship have made a personal decision. Nobody in their right mind willig commits themselves to sexual enslavement."

You say that as though all any homosexual man or woman wanted to do was "settle down" with "Mr./Ms. Right." But that is not the case in our cultural context. Heterosexual or homosexual, the reality is that this is a culture that celebrates the "hook up" and the "friends with benefits." Perhaps many or most, whether hetero- or homosexual, still are ACTIVELY pursuing "settling down," but there is a sizable group who are willing to settle for meaningless sex until they find "the love of a lifetime." And that doesn't sound as much like "decision" as "addiction" to me.

I believe that we should always be ready to speak truth into lives and situations as is proper, even when we have not walked in the shoes so to speak. However, we should always speak that truth with humility.