I wrote a review of Wendy Vanderwall-Gritter’s Generous Spaciousness for the CTS Journal (not yet published). In many ways Gritter really tries to lay out a “third way” even though Al Mohler and others on both sides say it can’t be done. The best I can tell the practical sugggestions for creating Generous Spaciousness will not satisfy most non-affirming churches. I say more in my CTS piece obviously.
I thought of this tonight because I looked over a piece I wrote last year on Redeemer Pres and Women in Church Office. I listened to a bunch of the Keller’s material on the subject and ended up writing 4 blog posts about them.
In many ways the Women in Office conflict is a lot like the Same Sex Marriage conflict in that it tends to be reduced into a binary choice. In both cases too accommodating in practical terms tends to implicitly mean affirming or at least tolerating. That was the approach the CRC took on Women in Office.
Many on the conservative side note that the path of the slippery slope is predictable. First you allow disagreement on it, you call it something indifferent, you affirm two readings of scripture, you allow space for the Spirit to speak, you allow a local option, then a regional option and before you know it you remove the “conscience clause” and that was optional soon becomes mandatory. Many will see Generous Spaciousness as following this script while others will see it as not embracing the obvious “justice issue”.
As I noted in part 4 what Redeemer really tries to do on Women in Office is look for a third way while still staying on the conservative side of the line and in the PCA. I know some who worked that way for a while only to give up and join the RCA. I know many more who don’t buy that it’s a third way at all but simply blocks women.
Although the Kellers and Redeemer haven’t written as extensively on the question of same sex marriage (there have made statements, done teaching, etc. on it) and obviously stay on the conservative side of the lines it will be interesting to see how they put into practice their conservative brand of “Generous Spaciousness” on this matter too.
Will it satisfy many on the other side? Probably not, just like they don’t really satisfy many on the Women in Office conflict, but it will be interesting to see what they do. Is there a third way to be found from the conservative side on same sex marriage? My guess is that Redeemer will take a quiet shot at it.
Leadingchurch.com 
I suspect the third way on gay marriage will be that proposed by Radner and Seitz over at First Things: a separation of religious and civil marriage. This permits different theological articulations on marriage while avoiding the jurisdictional mandate. This would permit traditional congregations and communions to maintain a kind of internal integrity without giving up a measure of social engagement. It is obviously the path of neo-Anabaptism, but it is also something of a truce in the culture war as it allows both sides to in effect, “gather their dead.”
Theologically, such a move becomes a shift of marriage into a practice rather than a defining element, more akin to liturgy; some are high some are low. It becomes a social practice not a theological one (though of course social issues are always grounded in the theological).
You’re right Paul on this mostly likely becoming a binary, yes/no issue. Affirming churches don’t want a middle way; when marriage is in play, gay people want real weddings, just like conservative churches do. The want liturgies, promises, big parties, dresses and bridesmaids and all that, whether or not it is a gay or straight wedding. The biggest problem with separating religious and civil marriage is that (for churches at least) is that this approach short-circuits people’s desire for weddings. It also sweeps the issue of gay relationships under the carpet–the churches are still against gay sex, after all, so you can’t talk about what those two guys or gals are doing at home together (or preach about it). Another angle on this that has me thinking is cohabitation. In mainline churches like mine all sorts of people come who are living together but not married. I’ve preached sermons for them (and for others to overhear) that were not “please get married,” sermons. Now, that was an interesting exercise (not sure I pulled it off!).
Paul, have you read Ken Wilson’s A Letter to My Congregation?
No I haven’t Chuck. I’ll check it out. Thanks. pvk
A 216 page letter huh? Usually I ask that people try to keep it to one side of a sheet of paper, but I’ll read it anyway. Thanks. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IA9TMFW?btkr=1