The Michael Knowles Show - Gay Church? HEATED Religion Debate With Michael Knowles

Episode Date: March 16, 2025

What does the Bible really say about gay marriage, homosexuality, and transgenderism? In this thought-provoking panel debate, Catholic host Michael Knowles is joined by Protestant pastor Jonny Ardavanis of Stonebridge Bible Church, alongside Revs. Brandon Robertson and Alexandre da Silva Souto, two LGBTQ-affirming Christian leaders, to tackle one of the most divisive theological debates of our time.    Is LGBTQ acceptance supported by Scripture? Does traditional Christian teaching conflict with modern views on identity? What is the biblical foundation for marriage?   - - -   Today's Sponsor:   Hallow - Put your relationship with God first. Head over to https://hallow.com/knowles for three months free today! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

My understanding of gender and sexuality is a little more complex that I'm afraid you're coming from. It is complex. I'll grant you that. Jesus already taught us how to pray. He taught us to pray our father. If you're going to teach people to pray a different way than Jesus taught his disciples to pray, that would be the epitome of pride. So I guess my question is, why would you not respect God's pronouns? Well, because clearly there are other places in Scripture where God uses other pronouns. I think your view of what the Bible is is inaccurate. The Bible is not. to be inerrant word of God quite clearly.

The morning after President Trump's inauguration, an Episcopalian bishopriss lectured him on the supposed Christian duty to embrace LGBT identity. There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in democratic, Republican, and independent families, some who fear for their lives. Our country will be woke, no law. They signed an order making it the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female. So, is LGBT part of Christianity? Here to discuss is Reverend Brandon Robertson of Sunnyside Reform Church in New York City, Reverend Alexander de Silva Soto, who describes himself as an undomesticated queer, reverend, writer, liturgical artist, yogi, social. social justice advocate, and Johnny Artivanas, pastor at Stonebridge Bible Church in Franklin, Tennessee.

And I suppose I will be the lone layman and the only Catholic gentleman. Thank you for coming on the show. Thanks for having us. Thanks for having us. Brandon, I'll start with you because you're nearest to me on the screen right now. What's your take? I think I know the answer, but maybe you can flesh out your position of whether or not LGBT is a part of Christianity. and if that identity is condemned by Christianity or if it is actually a constitutive part of it?

Totally, yeah. I mean, I would take the stance that the Bible does not condemn loving consensual same-sex relationships in any of the passages that are traditionally used against LGBT people. And LGBT people have always been a part of the Christian church. And today are leading the Christian church. I lead a church, others on this panel lead in churches. So it's quite clear that LGBT people are a part. the Christian church. Okay, so there are plenty of verses that one typically cites against homosexuality.

Probably the most obvious one is Genesis chapter 19, Sodom and Gomorrah. Your take, that this does not, in fact, condemn any LGBT behaviors. Yeah, I mean, Ezekiel makes it pretty clear that the sin of Sodom was that they were unhospitable to foreigners and strangers, not so that it was engaging in same-sex. And if you actually read the story literally, what was happening is sex between men and angels, which is not exactly homosexuality. Male angels, though. So, the argument being that when Ezekiel is describing these as abominable acts, it's really talking about homosexual, or in hospitality, what do you make then of the epistle of

St. Jude, 7 says that just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, so on and so forth. Doesn't that inclusion of unnatural lust clarify that the issue really is the fellas? No, definitely. Another translation of that is strange flesh. And I think it's quite clear that what Jude is condemning is sex between angels, which is a surprising thing that you find in Genesis a couple of times of the sons of God, the angels, having sex with the daughters of men and creating these unholy group of people.

And I think that's exactly what Judah is condemning. And I think that's what Sodom and Gomorra is condemning as well. Okay, Johnny, is that your take? No, it's not my take. I think probably one thing maybe preface Michael would be, you know, the conversation would be framed a little bit different if I was talking with someone that was struggling with homosexual attraction, then maybe debating a pastor that's coming or propagating a biblical conviction

that you don't see in the scripture, in my view, very clearly. The Bible without hesitation, equivocation, or really any ambiguity forbid. homosexuality, but also promises forgiveness and cleansing to those who repent and turn from their sin, like any other sexual sin. And so you could use Genesis 19, you know, even he mentioned Ezekiel 16, 46 through 50, that it outlaws hospitality, but then it also goes from there to say, and what they were doing was committing an abomination, which routinely in the scripture, when that word is you, toy bah, it refers to something that is egregious to God, and it's routinely linked to sexual sins. So Genesis 19 is one passage. There are other passages that I'm sure we'll

explore. But the Bible is very clear because the meta-narrative of Scripture begins with the marriage between a man and a woman. It ends with a marriage. So marriage is the central metaphor of scripture, which speaks to the unique fiddiness and complementary nature of a man and a woman in the covenant of marriage. So we could be talking about any sexual activity outside of a man and a woman in marriage, and it would be sin according to the Bible. I really like this point that you're making here, which is that we should even frame it differently than the modern discussion of homosexuality, whatever that means, you know, that could be so broad, but that someone might be either born with a certain inclination or if, you know, if the genetic

evidence is a little scant on that, might have developed early on some kind of inclination toward acts that are traditionally considered immoral. But having an inclination doesn't necessarily constitute a sin. It would be indulging the desire or the behavior. that would be different. So just as one might be born with a predisposition toward alcoholism, you know, you're not actually committing the sin of drunkenness until you actually do it. So, too, it's not like you're condemning a whole group of people. Reverend Alexander, I want to bring you back in. Thank you for returning to the show. On this point here, I suspect I know which side you're going to come out on over whether or not Christianity condemns homosexual behavior. So I'd love to hear your

position, first of all, but then second of all, because people are coming from such different traditions here. I'd be curious as to on what authority you ground the legitimacy of your position. So I'm sorry, first point, I'm not a gentle man. I'm a non-binary person. A gentle them. Yeah, no, I'm a gentle person, not a gentleman. I'm not a male. And in my pronouncer, they, they and theirs. And I actually debated the question. questions, you have been posing for over a decade and wrestle with those questions for my entire childhood and adolescence into my adulthood, trying to reconcile that with precisely the second part of the question, my call into ordained ministry. And I used to believe in those

handful of passages that get twisted from the Bible to convince that it is about homosexuality, which is, by the way, a terminology that did not exist until King James Bible was translated because in the actual Greek, the terminology there is really about abuse. It's about sexual abuse. It's about enslavement of males for sexual pleasure. So, we're not talking about the same things. And I'm actually not interested in convincing anybody because if by now, after most of the mainline denominations, Christian denominations and our Jewish siblings as well, and, you know, Buddhist communities, after all these world religions have come to their senses that queer people

are human and... Did anyone ever dispute that? And sacred. Yeah. Well, oh, absolutely. If you're criminalizing the ability of a person to love another person, if you keep telling them

that they're going to end up in hell for eternity, you're dehumanizing those individuals. You're actually terrorizing individuals because so many queer folk end up in very self-destructive lives and behaviors, not because homosexuality pushes them to being that behavior, because their loved ones and their communities of faith that's supposed to love them and care for them

keeps pointing fingers and telling them, well, based on our understanding of these six passages in the Bible that we are not properly translating, you are evil, and what you do is evil. I don't say you are evil. They say what you're doing. I'll wrap it up. There's the point because I was baptized Catholic as a child. My partner was Catholic as a well. So I'm very familiar with the idea of, you know, love the sinner, hate the sin, which is an impossibility. I'm not even going to get into it. But I'm also very familiar with the idea of, well, you can have those feelings, but you cannot practice. So let me turn the question back to you. You love your wife. You have your wife. I have learned how much you care for her.

Now, imagine somebody from a pulpit telling you, you cannot express this love you have for her. You can feel it, but you cannot really act on it. Because my interpretation is that if you consummate that love you have for her, you're going to go to hell. Imagine that. Try to conceive that. Yes.

Yes, it's certainly the case that if a preacher got up and attacked the ordinary and natural relations between a man and a woman, that would be different from a preacher condemning some other action. I suppose my question for you, Reverend Alexander, and I'm pleased to hear that both you and your partner were raised and baptized Catholic, and hopefully we can pull you across the tiber again soon enough. But when you say that to oppose LGBT identity is to criminalize certain types of love, we do criminalize certain types of love. we do criminalize certain types of love. We have ages of consent. We have laws, obviously, against rape. So there are other aspects to just, to sexual relations than just love, you know, contrary to popular slogans, love is love. But then furthermore, when you're talking about, well, okay, before I go off on a diatripe, let's bring in Johnny,

because I saw you were raising your hand before, Johnny. Well, but if I made, because this is a very important question, right? Because in your statement, you equated the love of one person for another that happened to be of the same gender, of a different gender. You equated that to rape. No, I didn't equate it to rape. I just, I didn't do that, though. Perhaps you misheard me. So you were correcting that.

I proved that your assertion was wrong that to criminalize certain types of love could never be morally acceptable. because certain people might have a love for someone who is under the age of consent. Certain people might have a love for someone who does not consent to be loved by that person. And we obviously have laws against those things. And I don't think anyone on this panel would disagree with that. So I take it that you... People have laws against same gender relations or against other forms of union outside the male and female? Do we have laws against same gender relations?

We don't presently. because of the Lawrence v. Texas decision. And that's the point, right? Are there protections being taken back after decades of trans women, of lesbians, of queer people, of all gender, shapes, and forms fought to get those rights in place so we could get married, so we could have our children, so we could have spouse those rights that you do have, because if your wife ends up... How can two men produce a child? You can go visit her. What do you mean to have our children? How can two men produce a child?

Oh, oh, there's incredible ways for that to happen. I have that they are incredible. Oh, yeah, yeah. They're, you know, artificial insemination. They're, they're, they're, there's artificial. Well, the man doesn't need the artificial ones. Oh, you're saying to, of a woman, of another woman. No, no.

Yeah. My understanding of gender and sexuality is a little, more complex that I'm afraid you're coming from. So it is complex. I grant you that. But what you're saying, when you're saying two men can produce a child, what you've said by bringing up artificial insemination is that the two men can bring a woman into the picture, either to purchase her eggs or to rent out her womb and then to create a child and deprive the child of his natural mother. But that isn't between two men. That's two men and another woman, or really a man and a woman, and then there's another guy on the side. No, no, no. There can be two men.

two male, like two people that identify as males, and one of them could have reproductive organs. They both have reproductive organs, presumably. One of them could, right? They're male. They're males. They're men. They're men out there. They have reproductive organs. We all have all men have reproductive organs. Well, and apart from that, right, two people, like, let's say, if you want to stick to that configuration, two males, two men, can adopt a child. But, you know, we can say, well, they could try to do it. But, you know, if there are no legal protections for those two men to adopt a child, which, by the way, Okay.

So they could adopt a child, but they couldn't produce a child between themselves. All right, Johnny, what's your take? You know, I think probably just going back to a couple things that he said regarding the nature of the translation. They, I'm sorry, they. Sexuality. They said, or, oh. You're not multiple people, Reverend Alexander. Just as I respect your right to self-identity, you can't force me to lie through my pronouns.

Singular day. If you look into the roots of the English language, you would be that day is usually for a different time. Well, the singular day is scriptural too. Like, my name is legion for we are many. Johnny, your point? Oh, wow. Yeah, just from the use of the word for homosexuality that's often used in the New Testament, arsenal koitai, it doesn't refer to pederastity or gangwry. rape. Sometimes the rebuttal would be that Paul's not referring to monogamous, committed, loving sexual union between a man that loves a man, but a Roman centurion that's raping a slave. But the word just means literally men who bed men. And Paul did come up with that term through

the Septuagint translation of Leviticus, which he is carrying on. So even if you're going to say, hey, Leviticus is expired. No, actually Jesus says that he came to fulfill the law. And when Paul is outlying and when the scripture is outlying, and I'm using, even when we and when the scripture. This is an argument about what the Bible says about homosexuality. So whenever we're using the scripture, you have to make sure you're using it with a level of clarity. When in Romans 1, probably the other popular passage that they both be familiar with about homosexuality, it doesn't outlaw pederasty, which there was a perfectly good word to use. It says men and women who burn with passion for one another. That's not a young boy or a centurion.

Furthermore, I would just say when you have Jesus who solidifies and cements the biblical narrative, he created the male and female for this reason a man. So it really comes down to what did Jesus believe? If you believe in the resurrection, you believe that Jesus Christ is God. You would have to make an argument from silence to be able to say that Jesus approves this homosexual behavior. Furthermore, when Paul says in 1st, Corinthians 6, the homosexual, the adulterer, the effeminate, does not inherit the kingdom of God, I always want to close here with if someone is listening, the call in the scripture for someone who is engaging in homosexual behavior is to confess, repent, and turn to Jesus Christ. Paul says, such were some of you, but you were washed. And so that's, I always want to end there because this is a sin that God forgives of.

Right, as with all the sins. And it's such an important point because it's lost both. in on the right and on the left and in tradition and modernity. And that's why I wanted to frame it by, hey, if I'm having a conversation with someone at a coffee shop regarding the subject, it would be with a level of conviction and compassion. It's a little bit different when we're lobbying one text of scripture against each other. So I want to necessarily include some compassion and go,

okay, this is a sin that needs to be repented of. But it's also not like just any other sin. Like if the common argument was, well, the Bible also outlaws gluttony, you would be able to say, well, 1 Corinthians 6 says, every other sin is committed outside the body, but the immoral man sins against himself. And this is also becoming a part of the modern identity. So this isn't just like all other sin.

All sin separates us from God, but not all sin is the same. That's why, even if you trace first century, you know, Rome, the argument, too, that what they were engaging in there is not true. Even from many gay scholars, Pim Prank, would be able to say you would never be able to arrive at this position. from the Bible. If you want to say homosexuality is not wrong, you may get there, but you can't use the scripture. And a number like Lewis Crompton would also say the same thing. You can't arrive at that position by using the scripture unless you're banking your entire life off of an argument from

silence, which is really dangerous, especially when there are so many passages in the scripture, which make this very clear. Right now go to hallow.com slash knolls. We are in Lent, the special 40-day journey leading up to Good Friday and Easter. It is when the church invites us to grow closer to our Lord through prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and sacrifice. It's not too late to join in. 40 days is plenty of time. You can jump in right now with Hallows' amazing Lent Pray 40 Challenge called The Way. This challenge focuses on how Jesus is the way to heaven, that he showed us that the

way includes sacrifice and can be difficult. And the fruits of that sacrifice are eternal life, peace, joy, healing, and love. They'll be in good company, too. Mark Wahlberg and Chris Pratt will guide you through challenges designed to help you surrender and sacrifice. Jonathan Rumi and Sister Miriam James will lead you through powerful stories and prayer. Father Mike Schmets will deliver his excellent Sunday homilies, alongside incredible true stories of faith.

It's already shaping up to be Hallow's biggest Lent ever, with thousands of people praying together all over the world. Here's the best part. Being it three months free when you sign up at hallow.com slash Knowles. That covers you throughout all of Lent and beyond once you join, you'll discover guided prayers, meditations, music, and so much more, all designed to help you grow closer to God and find peace. download the Hallow app and jump into the Lent Pray 40 challenge today.

Well, to your point on gluttony, you know, being of Italian extraction, that's a great example of a sin, an inclination that is naturally in our DNA, but we try to resist. Brandon, you've been waiting patiently, shaking your head now and again. So to bring it back to the question that I first asked Reverend Alexander, I said, you know, on what authority do you get this? And based on what Johnny said, you know, I think we've gone through most of the verses that appear to condemn homosexual behavior, though we've actually danced around the most obvious ones, which come from the book of Leviticus 18 and chapter 20, for those who are unfamiliar, you shall not lie with a man is with a woman. It is an abomination. And then in Leviticus chapter 20, verse 13, if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. So traditionally speaking, also to Reverend Alexander's point, the mainline Protestants have largely accepted LGBT. The evangelical Christians are kind of split on it. The Catholic Church has remained pretty, pretty firm in its view of sexual morality. Eastern Orthodoxy has remained pretty firm.

So, I guess, one, how do you get around Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20? And then two, maybe even more interesting to me, on what grounds do you depart in your interpretation from what has at the very least been the traditional understanding of these and other verses. Totally. I mean, I agree that Paul creates this word Arsenal Coytai and that Paul is thinking of the Levitical passages when he creates it. But the context of Leviticus 18, for instance, is quite clear. Leviticus 18 versus one through three says, do not do as they do in the land of Egypt where I am bringing you from and do not do in the land of Canaan, as they do in the land of Canaan where I'm bringing you to. So the question you have to ask is where in Egypt or Canaan was same-sex sex sex a common practice? And the answer pretty

universally is it wasn't. What was common in ancient Canaan and ancient Egypt was exploitative and abusive sexual relationships. And that is precisely- On what grounds, Brandon, on what grounds do you say that it was not a common practice? Egyptologists. Carol Graves, I believe, is her name, has a beautiful book about sexuality in ancient Egypt, for instance. And there are a few examples of like a sarcophagus that was found that appears to have two men facing each other that people have speculated, actually LGBT people have speculated, that this is a same-sex relationship. But I think- So you're saying it was commonly practiced? No, it wasn't. I think the historical evidence is pretty universally clear. But the sarcophagus you just cited would suggest

a same-sex relationship open and sanctioned. So doesn't that undercut the point you were just making? No, the point is we don't understand what exactly is happening in the sarcophagus. And some people have posit it that this means it was the same-sex relationship. But the overwhelming evidence is that Egypt was not a place where gay couples were running around left and right in the ancient world. What was happening in the ancient construction of sexuality in the ancient Near East was that men who were citizens of a nation were permitted to have sex with anyone they wanted to have sex with, which often included male slaves. It also included any women they wanted. This is certainly what was happening in Rome. And this is certainly what Paul was condemning. And I condemn it,

too. Excessive lust and exploitation, I think that's a sin according to the Bible. But to make it about loving consensual same-sex relationships misses the point. And there is an overwhelming body of biblical scholarship that supports this perspective. So when you say this is certainly what St. Paul meant, and this is certainly what Leviticus means, and this is certainly what Ezekiel means, and it's certainly what Genesis means. It's so certain that it has nothing to do with any modern notion of LGBT behavior. I guess I just have to ask, how are you so certain? because the church, at the very least, we would all agree, many, many centuries was quite certain in the opposite direction. And we have many, well, the writings of many popes and theologians, doctors of the church, ecumenical councils.

How come your certainty is so much more correct than all of those certainties? Yeah, I believe in progressive revelation. Jesus said before he ascended into heaven, I'm sending you the spirit who will continue to lead you into all the truth. But the Catholic Church believes that too. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Ghost is with the church and expresses herself through infallible statements, through the magistrate, through the agenical councils. But what I'm saying is all of those statements and councils and doctors of the church contradicted your view of things. So is it the Holy Spirit only speaks to Pastor Brandon? No, two things I'll say here.

One, I don't think your understanding of the Catholic Church is actually as black and white as you're making it seem. here in New York City, there are a number of large Roman Catholic parishes that have vibrant LGBT ministries and outreaches and fully affirm and accept those LGBT members of their parishes. It's got to be the Jesuits, I bet. To your point, I know there are great ministries from the Catholic Church, notably courage, to reach out, though not to affirm LGBT identity, though some wayward priests sometimes get a little wild. But you got to remember in the Catholic Church, we don't just kind of go individually. We do have magisterial teachings which have remained consistent on LGBT identity, such as it was in antiquity to the present, through things even recently like

Humane Vite, the teaching of football the sixth, the theology of the body. And really, there hasn't, there hasn't been a lot of ambiguity on it, at least in our... Well, the current Pope has been a bit ambiguous, or actually not ambiguous. He has been quite Christian and faithful in his understanding of the practice of love. Well, you know, Reverend Alexander, just before you make your point,

the Holy Father, Pope Francis, has said that same-sex marriage, such as it is, is no mere political movement, but a machination of the father of lies that seeks to deceive and confuse the children of God. And asked about same-sex unions and same-sex marriage,

he said that God cannot bless sin. So I agree, Pope Francis is sometimes ambiguous, but he's been pretty traditional on that point, wouldn't you say? Yeah, in terms of marriage, right? The institution on marriage, marriage as a sacrament, which is within the Catholic tradition. Now, the point that I really want to make is because Leviticus was left up and Sodoma was left up, and there was the point of angels being male, as far as we can tell, angels have no gender. They, I think, may be non-binary. Who knows?

Surinaries, right? Individual species. I don't know. Anyhow. And thank you, Pastor Brenner, for the point about Sodomah. It's lifted up so often. It's about rape. It's about being inhospitable, right?

Now, the biggest, the most important point I would say in conversation about theology with Christian siblings is Jesus never said a word about what is being framed as homosexuality, not a single word about it. And there are quite a few theories or interpretations about the compassion Jesus had towards those that in our lenses of today perceived as of the same gender, the Centurium, for instance, right? brief reference there. But the most, you know, the most important things like, Jesus spoke 36 times, 36 times against divorce. And I don't understand why the boogeyman of homosexuality is taking up so much airspace and so much preoccupation of Christians, of going after queer community.

when Jesus said nothing about it, when two people of the same gender or different genders being together, there's nothing to harm anybody else or the community. So if there's any problem there, it's between them and God. So let God do whatever God may do or do not. Because we also being called in Jesus, specifically over and over again, said, do not pick up a stone unless, So so much scapegoating happens.

Can I maybe jump in there, Reverend Oz? Let me just close my point. So much scapegoating about maybe six verses of the Bible and an entire group of people being, you know, being. You know, the Bible doesn't say a lot about beastiality either. So you can't build your entire theology based off of maybe the rarity of the occurrences. Johnny, you're equating. you are two people being in love with each other and caring for each other with a human No, he's just pointing out that scarcity or paucity of versus.

You're building an argument based off of not that much according to Kevin DeYoung. He would say if you use that not too much argument, basically you're just building, you know, and I'm even going to go back to Sodom, when you say it was gang rape or a lack of hospitality, if you just read the Bible, you know, and I'm saying this is pretty, it says bring out those men, they don't even know that they're angels. It says, bring out those men. And Lot responds, please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. They don't know it's angels.

So even that argument is refuted. One other thing regarding Jesus, Jesus affirms the biblical sexual ethic very clearly in Matthew 19. One man, one woman in the covenant of marriage. If you want to rewrite that, you would have to have a different creation narrative. Because the Bible starts off with the story of Adam and Eve, the ish, the eish out from the ish. complimented, made for each other, and then the Bible concludes with the marriage supper of the Lamb. So you have to rewrite the entirety of the scripture. Oh, no. Pastor Johnny, if anybody is rewriting it are folks who want to criminalize an entire

group of people. And this is scapegoating. It is to target a group that is maybe 10% of the human population identifies or understands themselves. 30% of Gen Z though. Apparently something's in the water. Those are too recent to report. You know why? You know why? You know, it's It's not a fad. It's not a fad. It's because finally, it's existed for a long time. Even according to Thomas Hubbard, going back to your argument, Thomas Hubbard said that every form of homosexuality. Hold on, hold on. Let's get a little hold of the panel here. I've noticed Johnny's sat very, he's said very patiently, and he hasn't interrupted anybody. So Johnny, if you want to finish your point. And I don't like interrupting. I think, you know, the producer told me I might have to jump in. So I feel like I'm looking at my watch going. I might have to jump in.

So in that regard, and again, if this is at a copy shop, the flavor of the conversation would look different, right? And so I'd want to do that with love and conviction. The Bible is very clear that marriage is for a man and a woman in marriage. You would have to rewrite the story of a real historical account, right? So if you make it, let's just say you take the creation narrative as an allegory. Well, then you'd have to explain why in Genesis 5, Genesis 10, Matthew 1, it uses Adam and Eve as our earliest ancestors.

So you have that reality. How many? Let's just even go back to what, Hold on, let Johnny finish this point. I'm going to go back to what you said regarding the love of Jesus because, praise the Lord, our God is a God of love. But love is never licensed for sin or to refute what the scripture teaches.

Even when you're saying, you know, I looked at just the bio of your book that's coming out, I think, in May, Brandon. And it talks, I think you speak of the term radical inclusion. And I would say that Jesus did Luke 15 dine with sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors. But in the end, no one called Jesus a friend that didn't call him master. And so when Jesus, even when confronted in John 8 with the woman caught in adultery, he says, go and sit no more. Yes, Jesus is love, but he's also holy. You cannot separate one attribute of God from the other.

He's not pieces of a pie. We call that divine simplicity. God does not possess attributes. He's all of his attributes all of the time in full measure. And so you can never separate the love of God from the holiness of God. And so you would be building an argument on silence, especially when Jesus affirms what's taught in Leviticus, when he says, I've come to fulfill the law. Let's just take – and then just final thought here. If you're going to make the argument, well, what about the feast and the festivals?

Well, Colossian says those are no more. What about the holidays that they celebrated? The New Testament says those are no more. You know, you could do different things to say, well, hey, we no longer practice this in the Old Testament. So it's homosexuality in that same camp. But Jesus arrives and he affirms the sexual ethic of Leviticus. So does Paul. So does Peter.

And so do many LGBTQ plus scholars about the scripture. So even I mentioned those names and I'm going to repeat those names because those are some of the most respected gay scholars that exist today who say you cannot arrive at this position from a scripture. scriptural perspective. This is an important point too, Johnny, that sometimes people say, well, you know, if the old law still holds, why do we eat shellfish or whatever? And it's because there is a distinction, an important distinction that Brandon talked about, which is between ceremonial law and juridical law and moral law. And the ceremonial law can be fulfilled and transformed in the new covenant. The juridical law will obviously be changed with the changing of the polity, or it will be, you know, fulfilled in the spiritual Israel.

but the moral law is eternal, and it's also inscribed in every human heart. So if an aspect of the law pertains to the moral law, then nothing about it would transform really at all. Now, I want to move even a little further than just the L and the G and the B into the T because, Brandon, I know you've posted something to social media on Trans Day of Visibility. They've got a lot of traction. You said on this Trans Day of Visibility, an important reminder, God is trying to. transgender. This is not meant to be a provocative statement. I wanted just a fact check there. It obviously was. It's social media. And you called God transgender. I'm not buying that for a second. And then you said, rather it's a statement of obvious fact. Christians believe that everyone that exists bears the image and

likeness of God. That means all human diversity, including gender diversity, is a reflection of God's expansive creativity. It goes on for a while, but just one key line here. God cannot be confined to any gender binaries within God all gender identities and expressions exist, and thus God both transcends and includes all of our diverse gender identities. Now, of course, I don't know anyone who would attempt to reduce God to some human conception of gender. However, God does reveal himself to us as the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. God chooses, if you will, his preferred pronouns, and they are he, him, and his. So I guess my question, is why would you not respect God's pronouns?

Well, because clearly there are other places in Scripture where God uses other pronouns. God uses other images to describe God's self like a mother-in. Sure, yes. I think in Genesis, the Royal Way is quite interesting. But the point is that in scripture itself, God refers to God's self in one specific gender identity the most. But that doesn't mean that there are not other ways that God identifies. Hold on. Before you finish your point, I have to, I can't let that.

that pass. Do you, you refer, when you are describing how, I suppose, what I would say is God refers to himself. You don't say himself for God. You say God's self? I use different, depending on who I'm speaking to and how to communicate this message. I think using any pronoun is actually good for God, because that's how God describes God's self. Him, her, they, we. Not she. Yeah, she, mother hen. Well, one can make an analogy, but one can even speak, you know, quite bluntly about God transcending human, you know, mere human gender or something, without ignoring the fact that God presents himself to us as the father and the son. And fathers and sons are not she's and hers. But even in your own tradition, there are mystic Catholics that write about God the mother.

We have tons of mystic writings throughout the Catholic Church's history that refer to God in a multiplicity of genders. And so I think it's because it's a political firestorm around this particular topic that we are parsing this out and really insisting that God must be he, him, his. I think we need to, to your very point, refer to God as God likes to be referred to, which is all genders, which is why I say God transcends gender and is transgender. All of that is within God. And if one is Trinitarian, which I still am, despite the fact of being a minister in a unitarian, universalist congregation, we're not going to get into the weeds of that, but I'm still very much Trinidad. I'll just pause you one second. It is a delightful aspect of your personality, given the many complex statements that you regularly make, that you would be a Trinitarian,

Unitarian as well. Yes, absolutely, convictedly. And there's the, you know, the third person. Who's the third person? The Holy Spirit. The Holy Ghost, the bond of love between the Father and the Son. How's the Holy Ghost being understood traditionally in many schools of thought and many traditions? As the bond of love between the father and son. Sophia, Lady Wisdom, right? So there's an element of femininity, of femaleness, of queerness that is there. That is, you know, it's not he. Because the understanding of God as this guy up in the sky has been what it has been, because gender had been understood as unilateral. There was just male. Let's be frank. There was not even

female. I think there was female. Like before our Lord, before our Lord tells us to pray our father, he is born of a woman named Mary, his holy mother. So I think people knew what women Okay, if you open a new revised standard version Bible, the largest print there is Dean Altridge and was, he was my professor in, you know, in my Bible studies, right? So it's not my point. I'm just advancing it. And you don't have to buy it, right? You don't have to buy it. But the point being, in antiquity, there was male. And there was things. mailed males because those were the individuals with extra parts or, you know, or places for penetration. And children wasn't even, you know, children weren't even male or female. So our understanding of gender is still so rudimentary that it's becoming more rudimentary, I think. No, no, no. We're finally understanding that there, there's, more than one gender male, that there's female because women are finally getting a little bit of

space in this world, right? And we're understanding that even between male and female, there are other expressions. Biologically, science is helping us understand that. And, you know, academicians, professors, scholars, religious leaders, and the community is helping us understand. It was mentioned earlier about Gen Zs, the number of the number of. of non-binary and queer gen Zs and transgen Zs, it's not because it's a fashionable thing, because these children are still being terrorized. It's because they're seeing elders. They're finally having the language. It took me 47 years to understand that I was not that, which I was terrorized for not being. So when they see teachers and people in their community, older people who

are expressing LGBT identities, that, that, persuades them to be more likely to identify that way. You sound like a right-wing conservative, Reverend Alexander. That's exactly what we've been saying. That's the twist of the argument. It doesn't persuade them. It helps them to see what they are because there's language for it and there's representation for it.

It's like seeing a woman in a place of power helps young girls think, oh, I could be a president, I could be a CEO. I could be a teacher because we have teachers that are women like me. So it's not because they're following a trend or they're being groomed, which is a terrible argument because if we're really concerned about grooming, if we're really concerned about grooming, we would address the, you know, in 2006, there was a study that 450. thousand children would be molested before they were graduated. And this is not by trans people or queer

people. It's because, you know, it's staff within those schools. But we're not paying attention. Public schools, so they're disproportionately liberal. I want to bring in Johnny here on this, because Johnny, I'll let you weigh in on Reverend Alexander's claim that the Holy Spirit is queer and that, you know, children are now identifying 30% as LGBT because of who they really are. And even, even I'd like you to get to what the bishopriss from the National Cathedral mentioned about trans kids and how to love trans kids. The one correction I want to make, because I'm the only Catholic on the panel, Reverend, is you said, you know, women now finally have a place and they're being recognized and kind of honored. But as a Catholic, you know, we really like the Holy Mother a lot and we recognize her. as the queen of heaven.

You know, we say hail full of grace, Lord is with thee. So listen, I would not, I don't know how the Trinitarian Unitarians deal with women, but we Catholics are, we're very pro women, and one woman in particular. Johnny, your take.

Yeah, I think probably just to wed together what's been said so far regarding the nature and identity of God, it really just has to be answered very simply. When God chose to reveal himself, he did so in the person and work of Jesus Christ, a man.

and the word became flesh, John 114, and dwelt amongst us. Multiple times throughout the gospel, then Jesus is going to say, I and the Father are one. If you've seen me, you've seen the Father. Thomas, have I been with you so long? Don't you understand this. John 17, Jesus, high priestly prayer. He says, Father, return to me the glory that I had when I was with you before the foundation of the world. And when Jesus comes back, he's coming back as Jesus, as a real man with King of Kings and

Lord of Lord's tattooed on his thigh. And so I think in regards to the gender, you have to understand that right now in glory, Jesus is a man. We're going to worship Jesus Christ. Christians are, for all of eternity, as the crucified king of the universe. So I think just in that regard, Jesus already taught us how to pray. He taught us to pray our father. If you're going to teach people to pray a different way than Jesus taught his disciples to pray, that would be the epitome of pride. regarding the transgender, maybe, you know, the students that are struggling with their identity, and you can look at the American Psychiatric Association's stats on that, but 98% of people that identify as another gender before I think it's age 12. You'd have to check me on this.

Nancy Piercy writes about it at great length and with great clarity in her book, Love Thy Body, but they go back to their biological gender if left untreated. And so, first of all, they should be talked to from a biblical perspective. They should be loved. As a pastor, as a Christian, I want to love people. And again, when I say I want to love people, the most loving thing that I could do as a pastor is teach them the truth. That's so clear within God's word.

It doesn't mean hammer smash. That's why even on my tone, as I communicate the truth, I'm wanting to do that in a way that represents my love. I don't want to be argumentative. I do want to love people enough to tell them the truth. And even if I could go back to one thing Brandon said as a progressive revelationist, that is you're basically making the assumption that however God is guiding you today, so-called, it's doing it in a contradictory way to thousands of years of Revelation and thousands of years of church history.

And if God says I'm the same yesterday, today, and forever, one of the assumptions that you're making is that now what he's revealing is contradicting what he's already revealed and he says in Revelation, whoever adds to these words, let him be accursed. And so when God does reveal himself through the person and work of the Holy Spirit, it never, ever contradicts his signature as he has written in his word once and for all time. Brandon? That's just simply not true. I think your view of what the Bible is is inaccurate.

The Bible is not the inerrant word of God quite clearly. And the way Jesus interprets the Bible is by revising commandments from the Hebrew Bible and offering new more ethical commandments. Hold on, Brinandah, just before you move on with your point, should be clear to viewers, that's a rather radical departure from the traditional understanding of the church, that scripture is inerrant, and the words of our Lord, who says not a jot or tittle,

will pass from the law until all is completed. Is it not? The modern evangelical understanding of what inerrancy is, meaning that every single word is directly from God and true in every way for all time is just not how the church throughout history is a nature. What about the old Catholic view of inerrancy? I think, I mean, honestly, the Catholic view on most things is more nuanced and I'm more conversant with that view.

But I come from the event. I'm getting you and Alexander to come over. This is going to be going. Johnny, maybe we'll bring you over across the tiber too. Sorry to interrupt. Keep going. Yeah, but the point is Jesus often would go to the Hebrew Bible. He would take a command from the Hebrew Bible.

You have heard it said, an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, turn the other cheek, love your neighbor, bless those who persecute you. That's not a reinterpretation of a commandment. Jesus is giving a new significantly better commandment. Jesus did not view the Bible as this inerrant static book that all of it is binding. Then what about when St. Paul in the letter to the Roman says the civil authority does not carry the sword in vain? Is it the case, as you seem to be suggesting, that our Lord, rather than fulfilling scripture, is contradicting the Old Testament. And then St. Paul is contradicting our Lord when he said that the civil authority can execute judgments according to justice?

Or no, it's something else going on? Well, when Jesus says, I've not come to abolish law but fulfill it, the other way, another way to translate the Greek word that's translated fulfillment is complete. So I would say some of the revelation throughout scripture is incomplete, and Jesus, in many instances, completed the revelation. But I don't think that God stopped speaking when the canon was closed. And I think the church has evolved on many different perspectives. You can read evangelical William Webb's books, slaves, women, and homosexual,

where he charts a redemptive trajectory in the scripture, beyond the scripture, that caused the church to change its perspective after thousands of years of teaching to adopt a more Christ-like ethic. So, no, ethics don't rise and fall on the words of the Bible. The Bible points us in the direction, tunes us to the spirit, and then we follow the spirit of God where God leads. And thankfully, God is leading the church to welcome and include LGBT people in this day. Okay, well, I'm glad you brought up ethics in this regard, because before I let you all go, there is one point that we haven't touched on that I think is important and kind of the background of what we're discussing here, which is the natural law. It was brought up earlier that today, the reason that

LGBT-identifying people, and especially the T-identifying people, have higher rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal, sorts of social problems, is not because of anything in the behavior or in the identity, but rather because of social stigmas. I'm a little skeptical of that because we're as pro-LGB now as any society has ever been, and we've redefined marriage, and even redefined gender in the civil rights law and the Bostock decision, it was a conservative judge who did it, Judge Neil Gorsuch. So it would seem to me that as LGBT has made such advancements in recent decades that the rates of anxiety and depression and suicidality for the whole spectrum of the alphabet, but certainly for the T, which has a lot of focus on it now, would decrease. And yet

what we've found repeatedly and consistently is that those rates of anxiety, depression, suicidality don't. Even for guys who identify as gay, women who identify as lesbians, they have significantly increased rates of depression and anxiety. And the suicide rate for trans-identifying people has been widely reported. There are two major studies that came out recently, one from the American Journal of Psychiatry, the largest data set ever on trans procedures. And then just within a week or two, out of Oxford University, showing that the suicide rates remain very, very high, and in fact, rates of anxiety and even suicide can increase after affirming the transgender identity. So the pro-LGBT argument seems to be that this is all because of social

stigma and ostracism. My argument would be that maybe people who are engaging in these behaviors have high rates of anxiety and depression and all the rest because they understand that it is contrary to nature, and it's not conducive with happiness, which Aristotle defines as rational activity done with excellence and accord with virtue, and that maybe as St. Paul tells us, the natural law is inscribed on every human heart. Isn't that the traditional Christian view, Reverend Alexander? Trans people, non-binary people, queer people, are still experiencing the community, still plagued with suicidal ideation, with depression, with self, you know, destructive behaviors because even though there's some laws that were passed and some protections that were

promised, they have not been fulfilled. Are you talking about men playing women's sports? They use women's bathrooms, civil rights law was changed. Employment law was changed. That is not true. There's 10 athletes in the whole country competing in sports, 10 in the whole country. There was one trans athlete out of, was it? 540-something, 592 athletes,

the West took to the Olympics. Well, according to the United Nations, 890 medals and trophies have been taken away from girls and women because of trains athletes. That's not true. It's 0.00414% of the U.N. says it was some 29 different sports, some 600 athletes across 400 competitions. I don't know. It's either Reverend Alexander or the UN report, but I digress. Keep going. No, I love the UN. Actually, we need to protect the UN and shore it up, not to dismantle it.

My point being, trans people are a minority of a minority of a minority. And the focus that has been, there has been... Sure, I understand your point. We're talking about the LGBT too much. We shouldn't talk about them. But what do you make of the point that I just raised? That maybe there's something intrinsic to this identity, which is contrary to nature. And that's what's making them sad, not just mean old guys like Johnny and Michael Knowles. My point is that trans people are still unable to find jobs, is still unable to find housing, is still unable to be fully welcomed, let alone celebrated in society. But as they're being more clearly embraced by our law and our culture,

wouldn't you expect the rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide to go down, not to remain the same or even increase. But that's not true, because for trans people in particular, some laws have been passed, but immediately after, they have been targeted. We have been, because I'm within the trans community as a non-binary person. We have been systematically targeted. It's kind of like cheating a little. Well, you know, I know myself and I try to know myself, know thyself.

And I won't make any judgment about your gender or your life. You can. Please judge my gender. I'm a big, strong, tough guy. I'm a he man. But if I start referring to you as she, don't do that. You won't enjoy that. That won't be comfortable for you.

That would be significant, being respectful, right? But that's what is done to trans people, right? They, they, they, we have, we have our identities. We have our self-understanding. But people there are not us, keep pointing their finger at us and saying, no, you're not who are you pointing your finger. I know we've got to let you go very shortly. I have to let all of you gentlemen go.

So maybe just a little rapid fire here before the end. We began with revelation and dictates from the pulpit from the Episcopalian Bishop Lady. We can end on natural law. What's your take as you wag your finger? Oh, no, yeah, I was just scratching my head. I think maybe just a couple things to respond to the first from Brandon saying that Jesus said, You've heard it said, but I tell you, you know, you've heard not to commit adultery, but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully in her heart is committed adultery.

What Jesus is getting at is that the Old Testament system pointed to the insufficiency of ever trying to earn your way to God, which makes us dependent upon grace. So the whole point of the law in Galatians 3 is to be our tutor to point us to Jesus Christ because we're saved by faith through grace in Jesus Christ. So I think just to respond to that. Regarding the trans conversation, you can't get. it much clearer than Jesus affirming the gender binary. There may be a shaking of the head here, but again, if you're going to build your livelihood off of something, it should probably be the

words of the resurrected Jesus Christ who says in Matthew 194, from the beginning he made the male and female. Why is there a greater degree of depression? Well, I think it, in many cases, is because of a departure from what's natural. I think on many cases it's being pushed upon them. You can read Nancy Piercy studies, which are very insightful and love thy body and total truth. But as far as is this in the scripture, you would be reading a different Bible to come up with any other conclusion that Jesus affirms a gender binary. That's the creation narrative. It's affirmed by Jesus. It's the only complementary in Isha anatomically, physiologically, physically, and biologically.

Male and female are counterparts. to each other. And so that's not just a biblical reality. That's a scientific reality. And so I would just argue from both the scientific perspective there and a biblical one. A good point, too, that faith and reason are not opposed, but actually go together. And that grace does not contradict nature, but actually perfects nature. So, Brandon, before I let all of you go in our remaining 15 seconds, any thoughts on just the natural aspect of it? You know, I mean, it's like we all kind of know what a fella and a lady is, and we all kind of can deduce the telos and natural desires. And maybe that's why so many people who are living in perhaps aberrant ways are kind of upset and sad.

No, I think as a pastor of LGBT people who sits with LGBT people all the time, most of the trauma, most of the trauma responses that I see in LGBT people is because they come from families or churches that have rejected them and called them the black sheep of the family that is no longer welcome because of how they identify. That is going to affect people's mental health. And now we live in this Trump era where from the highest bully pulpit in the world, we have people spouting off things that are objectively false, like there are two genders. There are two sexes, not two genders. And you'd think somebody would have told Trump that. But unfortunately, he doesn't have the smartest people in his ears quite clearly. He probably thinks that gender and sex are related and actually

identifiable precisely one with the other. As many people are thought throughout history, like everyone. I mean, not in the Mishina, where there are 12 different genders understood from the Bible itself. But gender is obviously a very complex category. And I don't understand why the right wants to collapse sex and gender so much other than the fact that they despise the trans community. No, it might be because we have an incarnational theology in our religion. And we recognize that there is a material aspect of the human person, but there's also an immaterial aspect of the human person. person, that the soul, to use classical language, would be the substantial form of the body. And so the soul would not be contrary to the physical form, but would be, would go together with it and would

actually give it its form. And so I think I see in the trans identity a kind of Gnosticism that says that one's true self is actually contrary to the material of one's body, which is contrary to not only the Christian tradition, but also contrary to a lot of philosophy. And so I think, That's where Trump gets it from. To defend Trump on the point of being unsophisticated or something like that, I think he's being downright Aristotelian. The last question I want to ask you, though, on your point is you say, look, LGBT people still get a lot of hate from their families and communities. And sure, there's some of that. I'm not denying that at all. But I guess Will & Grace comes out in 1998. Barack Obama lights the White House up in a rainbow flag.

Joe Biden hangs a big rainbow flag on the portico of the White House. You got the conservative on the Supreme Court who's coming out and, you know, redefining Title VII to include transgenderism. This is definitely a lot more pro-LGBT today than we were 30 years ago. So I guess even if you couldn't eradicate unhappiness among LGBT identifying people, wouldn't you expect the rates to have declined precipitously or even to have declined at all? And isn't the fact that they haven't declined, and in some cases have gone up, doesn't that suggest that maybe there is something about the identity itself and not just the mean old people like Johnny here?

No, what I would say here is this. Definitely think the cultural changes have been good and I would love to see more. But I do think this is probably one of the areas the left has gotten this wrong, that we think that just by having culture change for LGBT inclusion, that that is going to all of a sudden make society more inclusive. Yes, the White House's rainbow flag lit up and still in a majority of conservative states across this country, you're going to be severely bullied, if not hurt for being an LGBT person. I've seen that when I've traveled in the South, and the levels of homophobia and transphobia are still

remarkably high. So you can't just change culture by lighting up the White House in a rainbow flag. It takes a lot more than that. Yeah, but what about the ones in the North, I guess? I don't mean to belabor the point. I'm not saying that depression would be obliterated. I'm just saying, shouldn't they be happier? If it was all social, shouldn't they be? But they're not happier. So New York City. Happy queer people, yeah.

I see a lot. Listen, I'm a New Yorker, Brandon, and I've seen, you know, they're not the happiest people up there. I don't know. I guess De Gusti Bustis nonest despotanum, we have to let all of you go. I very much want to have you all back to debate this some more. Johnny, Brandon, and Reverend Alexander, I want to say thank you, gentlemen, but I'm also going to include, thank you, gentle they, them for, for Alexander. I really appreciate your coming on for this conversation.

Look forward to seeing you all for the next one. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you.