The Sean McDowell Show - Can You Faithfully Follow Jesus and Affirm Same-Sex Unions?

Episode Date: April 9, 2024

Is the morality of same-sex unions an issue Christians can agree to disagree over? After all, Christians differ on consequential issues like the morality of war and capital punishment. Will the church come to accept same-sex unions as it has with divorce? This is one of the most important questions Christians are wrestling with today. Please join Preston Ulmer and me as we go deep on these questions and more. READ: Deconstruct Faith, Discover Jesus (by Preston Ulmer): https://amzn.to/3wtM0aD READ: Set Adrift: Deconstructing What You Believe Without Sinking Your Faith (by Sean McDowell): https://amzn.to/3Ipe8OM VIDEO: 9 Reasons People Deconstruct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul8tjenO-xI *Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf) *USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM) *See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK) FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA: *Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf) *USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM) *See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK) OLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sean_McDowell TikTok: @sean_mcdowell Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/ Website: https://seanmcdowell.org

Should same-sex unions be an agree-to-disagree issue? Is it possible to be a faithful Christian who supports same-sex marriage? These questions are some of the most important and divisive topics being discussed within the church today. My guest and I are going to discuss them head-on. We'll create some points and we will disagree on others. If you've been following this channel for a while, you will recognize Preston Ulmer. He's the author of Deconstruct Faith, Discover Jesus. And Preston, before we jump in, you and I have a very similar evangelistic heart. We have concern for people deconstructing their faith. We frame it very similarly. We've been friends for numbers of years. I'm a huge

fan of the Doubters Club, but our relationship and conversations, we came up against this issue and realized we see things very differently. We both think something important is at stake and want to model for people what it would mean to have a thoughtful, civil conversation. That's really the goal of it. That's my hope here. I know that's your hope, but let's just jump in. Tell us as you see it, what got us into this conversation? Well, thanks for having me on again, Sean. And I remember we had jumped in a conversation about my recent book, Deconstruct Faith, Discover Jesus. And then what came up during that conversation, in fact, that episode, correct me if I'm wrong, never aired, right?

That's right. Because we went back and forth and we're actually friends. So anyone watching this, Sean and I like each other a lot. We get along. But in that conversation, you had asked me a question about why I would have David Gushy endorsed the book and even call him a faithful follower in the book. And I said, well, I don't see an issue with that just because he holds a differing perspective on this issue. And that started this whole conversation,

which has remained friendly and kind, but has been an ongoing conversation because I don't think this disagreement or this conflict, which has remained friendly and kind, but has been an ongoing conversation. Because I don't think this disagreement or this conflict, this conflict is actually not about a disagreement. It's because we share similar desires and passions about the same thing. And that's why this conflict matters to us. So it wasn't sparked by, oh, I disagree with you.

You disagree with me. It's sparked by an interest in what each other are doing and actually the lane both of us are in right now. So that's how I saw it. Tell me if you saw it differently. the issue and I'm agreeing with as far as I can remember everything in the book but then this issue came up and when we did the interview I didn't feel like I could do the interview without pressing you on that point because it's so important to me so important for our viewers but we also didn't want to make it about David Gushy this isn't about him I don't know him personally I've heard him speak I've read his stuff some ways, he's a stand-in for somebody who promotes pro-gay theology. And part of had atheists endorse my book. I've had a whole bunch of people. It was more in the book saying, okay, wait a minute. This seems to imply that pro-gay theology is not a test for faithfulness.

And that's where we started having a long conversation, felt like it sidetracked that, and that's why we didn't air it. Now we're going to revisit it and say, all right, let's air for folks what we we said now we have some questions to ask each other a lot of conversations I script out I haven't scripted this out I don't know where it's gonna go I have a couple thoughts I want to bring up I know you do so there's some danger in that but I also want to model for people let's have a good conversation now let me let me start with this here's here's part of what my concern would be. So Gushy has spoken out his book, Changing Our Mind, very firmly in terms of trying to get the church to change its position on the morality of same-sex unions.

He's been very clear about that. He's promoted that. He's advocated that. He's promoted that. He's advocated that. He says things in his book like, the church must apologize for the harm it has inflicted on the LGBTQ community and that our interpretation of scripture on same-sex relationships has been at the root of that harm. So it's not just the way we treat people. And I would certainly say there has been times within the church where we have been bigoted and unkind and hypocritical towards gay people. He takes it a step further and says it's our interpretation itself that contributes to some of this harm and so let me just point out a couple other things that he says which gave me pause and again this isn't about him it's just to highlight the differences of how of how how we see this he argues in his book he says let me read this he says there are also now I won't read that one let me skip over

that at the end he says this in the back part of his book he talks about a certain teaching of contempt for the jews that christians have had the unchrist-like teaching of contempt for lgbtq people is in my view in the process of being discredited of breaking down even as we speak so there's this comparison between anti-semitism in the church and the way we treat gay people within the church. That's the comparison that's being drawn. And I would say timeout. Of course, there has been some anti-Semitism. We need to apologize for that. That is not scriptural and own that and root that out of the church. But that's very different than holding a view of biblical marriage which he says

in his book for 2 000 years there's been unanimity within the church of what marriage is so that's where i took issue saying wait a minute in the book you're saying you can be a faithful follower of jesus and affirm same-sex sexual what I would consider immorality, I don't think those two go together. And by the way, I'm not judging anybody's heart. That's not the point. We're talking about the positions they hold. Does that make sense? Push back. Yeah. Well, I think, and I wish I had my book in front of me. You'd think as the author, you'd have your book right here, right? But I think what I actually did, I quoted Gushy and I said, I called him a faithful follower, something along those lines. And that's what brought this up. Just to be clear, I'm not saying, hey, this

is the person's position and they are a faithful follower. I wasn't trying to even bring that in. But I do think it is important when he quotes what he's quoting, when he's talking about what he's talking about, he's an ethicist. He's drawing two ethics and bringing them into the same camp. And whether we agree or disagree on that, I think that's what he's doing there. And I also see, and I think this is where the difference lies. I see it as a possibility. And this isn't even a possibility and this isn't even a state this isn't even i i would say if you and i are talking about sexuality sean we're very much in agreement um on the sexual ethics that scripture puts forward but when i um when it comes to sexuality

if it is very much a possibility in in my understanding of scripture of church history and of um where we are to go that it's a possibility that someone could hold a different interpretation on issues involving LGBTQ plus community and be faithful followers and I think that's where our difference would lie am I right in that uh I think so now I think some things follow from this of course for example you know james chapter three which is like whoa to those who teach there is a high amount of responsibility for you and for me in terms of teaching so if somebody's going to stand up and teach pro-lgbtq theology there's a gravitas and a weight that is there that's a piece of it so i i, and you and I would agree on that.

So yeah, the question is, can somebody hold that same-sex marriage is permissible and moral and be a faithful follower of Jesus? That's a part of the question. Now you hold, you don't hold a revisionist view. You've been clear on that, right? So why don't you take a minute and clarify what you personally hold about sexuality? So here, this is where I feel like, and I'm not skirting the issue. I'd be happy to answer the issue. I feel like the topic has so many layers. Agreed. Because if, if the topic and nuances, and actually i watched an interview with you recently and you you were talking about andy stanley's last conference

and you acknowledges there are so many nuances here um so when if someone has asked me and i'm a pastor and they have asked me this for what's your view on sexuality it's like i i'm not trying to skirt the issue i don't know what you're asking because we have people coming to our church that are in same-sex marriages with families that are starting to follow jesus and saying what do we do we have people who you see what i'm saying we have people who are same-sex attraction or in same-sex romance. And they're saying, so is the line sex? Is it romance? Is it partnership? So when I say it's so nuanced, I just acknowledge I actually do feel that way.

As far as what I hold, I think that the biblical ideal that God puts forward in Scripture, in the overarching narrative, is that it's between one man one woman in a covenant relationship this is the this is God's ideal and if we're talking about missing God's ideal there's a lot of other things that would come into that scope but that's that would be the view that I hold okay that that's helpful so I would draw a couple things there's yeah there's the practice that we have to talk about when the same-sex couple comes to church how we deal with if they have kids and what this means for divorce and following jesus that whole practical pastoral thing i understand that's different than theologically what we hold and whether our theological convictions derive our practice.

And part of my concern with this Andy Stanley conference was there seemed to be a divorce between the two. So how I navigate that with somebody with sensitivity and with time and with care should be reflected with wisdom rooted in that theology. Now, the way you worded this, this may be intentional or not, is you said something in fact of God's design for sexuality said his ideal design for sexuality. That seems to imply when I hear that, well, this is God's ideal, but there's room for people who maybe don't match the ideal. It's still not following the ideal, but it's permissible. Whereas I would say God's design for sexuality, and again, we're not going to argue the theology

here. That's a separate issue. But I think from the beginning of Scripture until the end, God's design is one man and one woman one flesh one lifetime and any sexual activity outside of that is immoral and outside of God's design that would be my position I think theologically that's pretty simple to state sure and I think where you say design I say ideal and the reason I say ideal is in my mind there are now categories of divorce and remarriage within heterosexual relationships, right, that I would say are not ideal. But I wouldn't say that those are outside of being able to be redeemed. And so that's why I use the word ideal. And I see in the Old Testament, people outside of the will of God in the traditional sense of what you just said, when it comes to the view of sexuality, and God's still working in that. So I'm not saying, again, what I'm not saying is, hey, Sean, here's my view, and let's get our two

views. I'm saying, I think people with other views on this topic, like you said, we're not judging their heart, but people who do interpret it differently and say they are a follower of jesus i think they're allowed at the table of christianity and i would love to jump into those questions okay so that that's helpful and let me just draw one more distinction i think you're right god uses people in the old testament who fall short of god's ideal like that's obvious when you look at david you look at solomon but that's different than saying this is okay and this is good and this is god's design those are very very different things right so we can shift I think that's fine to what you want to talk about. And I think here would be my question. If we're saying this is an agree to disagree issue,

then by definition, that means I'm not willing to say that a same sex sexual union is necessarily sinful if it's an agree to disagree issue then by definition i'm leaving space for somebody to say maybe there's the same sex relationship that is honoring to god so if you hold broadly speaking a more traditional view of sexuality which which i think you hold with certain nuances when we shift this to an agree to disagree issue it functionally becomes affirming within the church so i would can i ask a question about that because i don't see yeah i don't see it as that um when you say it becomes a functionally it's affirming i don't see it as the same in the same sense that if i were to say i have some pretty deep convictions okay i live in missouri okay for anyone watching i'm looking at my neighbors out here and i'm like the likelihood

of all them having guns with scopes ready to shoot someone who steps on their lawn is high. I personally, when I read the scriptures, I would say that kind of posture towards an enemy or whatever, and I'm obviously drawing a stereotype here, but I would say that that is a very un-Christlike posture. And although I worship on Sundays with people that would kill their enemies and maybe have based on their occupation I would not say that's an agree to disagree is I would say okay we will agree to disagree on that I would not say that that affirms their position and so in the same way I'm curious why you would say okay if you're saying it's a

agree-disagree issue, you therefore in practice are affirming. I just don't see it that way. Okay, so I would draw a pretty significant distinction between, say, gun control and self-defense and questions of marriage and sexuality right so historically barring the first I don't know two three hundred years in the church there has been and continues to be significant debate about just war and pacifism these are strains have existed alongside one another throughout the history of the church for 90 of it so historically that's very different than this issue in which until five minutes ago historically speaking there is as much unanimity on this topic as almost anything derek belusic points out in his book on same-sex unions in

scripture he calls the idea that marriage is meant to be a sexed institution as Catholic of a position as it can be, meaning lowercase c. And I think historically he's right about that. I think that's one reason why it's not in the Nicene Creed. There was no debate about the nature of marriage. It wasn't necessary to include. So I think there's differences when we talk about whatever moral issue it is of the day, gun control, immigration, whatever, and talking about sexuality. So when we look at sexuality, there's a certain clarity on this issue that there's not on issues of gun control. And that's why there's unanimity within the church. From Genesis all the way to the end, there's no positive instances of same-sex unions whatsoever. Every kind of activity outside of the marriage sexual union is consistently considered immoral. So the Bible speaks to this in a trans-cultural kind of fashion, rooting it in creation, which is why it's never been not only considered moral, but even considered an agree to disagree

issue within the church. The third point that I would say, and I think this relates more closely to what you were asking, is, yeah, I might disagree firmly with somebody about capital punishment. And I'll say that's between you, you know, and that's between the Lord. I have strong convictions about this.

But what I'm saying is, as Christians, you might choose to support it. You might choose not to support it. This is an issue within the church that affects the way people live, affects the way people vote. So there's an agreement that it's not an issue that all of us have to agree and hold the same position on. But when it comes to same-sex marriage, if you say this is an agree to disagree issue, then by its very nature, what follows from that is I'm not going to condemn and say that same-sex unions are wrong because we can agree to disagree. So we have to allow some people in same-sex unions. We have to allow some people not to be in same-sex unions.

If it's an agree to disagree issue, and that's an issue we hold up here, then in practice, you've got to allow people to be in the same-sex union and not condemn them because there are some people who are faithful members of the church who hold that as a position. Therefore, it's okay. So I might say you're wrong, but I have to allow that practice within the church to have it be an agree to disagree issue. That's where I say timeout because the Bible is clear about this and it's functionally now a practice issue in which people are not condemning it so I appreciate the clarity I have a few thoughts and you know it'd be so fun is if we ever did a doubters Club together we would just have so much fun oh it'd be so fun heartbeat well so here's here's a few thoughts. When it comes to the issue of agree to disagree and having to endorse, there's a lot of different, well, let me say that and then I'll go to a different

illustration than gun control. There's a lot of different stances or a lot of different, I'm sorry, faith communities that would say, hey, this is our stance on an issue and to be part of leadership or to be part of the church, we don't allow certain practices, okay? Whether it is women in ministry, whether it is homosexuality, whether it is, I mean, you can just look at what would the issue be, and depending on that faith community,

they would get to determine what that issue is. And so I think, again, it is possible to say, if I'm at a church and to say, okay, it's an agree. And again, I don't like the term. Here's why I don't like agree to disagree. It feels flippant. Maybe I should ask AI what a better term is, but there's not, I don't have a better term. But if we're saying there is an allowance for disagreement of interpretation of valid, while practicing valid hermeneutics, if there's an allowance, I can still say as a pastor of a local church in our faith community, here's what we practice. While saying we understand other faith communities will practice other things.

And we're not saying they're out and we're in, and we're not saying we understand other faith communities will practice other things. And we're not saying they're out and we're in, and we're not saying we're better than. What we're saying is here, here's the levels of whether it's leadership or membership or whatever. In practice, here's what we practice. Here's what we teach. Now, we know other churches are teaching and practicing other things, and we don't think that issue is going to determine whether or not they can faithfully follow Jesus. So I do think it is very possible still to say I hold a traditional stance with nuances and I look at others who

don't hold that stance and are more progressive than me. And I would say, I understand where you're coming from. I would say, if you call yourself a faithful Christian by practice in certain ways, of course, there are ways to measure that. Then sure, I'm not going to say that you're not. And let me give an example, one that comes to mind that is, I would be curious on your thoughts when we look back on history. So one of the things I know when we look on history, and this has been a game changer for me, is not looking on history with moral judgment.

I'm not saying you're doing that. I'm just saying typically, I'll just put myself in that. See, I look on history and I inflate my goodness or stance on where I'm currently at. Sure. Not looking at it with moral judgment, but with moral reflection of having, making myself vulnerable as I look at history. Hey,

I'm vulnerable to repeating patterns. I'm vulnerable to doing what has been done, even if in a different way. So in that, you know, Mark Knowles, he has that book, the civil war as a theological crisis.

I don't know if you've read that book it's fascinating for me to read and he just he talks about i mean the title gives it away right the the civil war is a theological crisis you have the north and the south people who are so devoted to the scriptures justifying their Scriptures. I mean, I have quotes from Moses Stewart in 1850 who said, if you're wanting to abolish slavery, you must give up the New Testament authority or abandon the fiery course with which you're pursuing. Now, Moses Stewart was not, he didn't like American slavery, but he didn't believe abolition could be accomplished because he couldn't reconcile it with scripture. So let's just look 150 years ago-ish and go, okay, there's

a situation where you have groups of people devoted to the scriptures. Now, clearly, you and I would say there was one group of people that were very wrong in that, okay? I understand that. Sure, of course. But you have people devoted to the scriptures practicing not new testament slavery however people would would navigate that practicing actually some very inhumane slave practices justifying it by titus you know honoring your masters they're justifying it that way. And would we look back on history and say, all of those people, none of them were in, none of them were in because they were wrong on how they interpreted scripture. Or would we say with the more moral reflective

stance, okay, I don't know if they're in or out. I can't judge whether they were Jesus follower or not. Clearly they were wrong on that stance, but we have a vantage point they don't have. And we would like to not think that we'd be part of that group. So when you take that into account, what I'm saying is we've done this before. We've been here before where there's groups of people with high stakes christians with there are high stakes on the line people's humanity i would say the stake online here is people they would feel the gay community would feel loneliness maybe a word that they would resonate with there's high stakes and there were disagreements back then so my question to you

is would you look back on those people and say, anyone affirming slavery through scripture, they were not Jesus followers. They were not Christians. Great question. Let me hold that and come back to it if I will and respond to it. I'm going to write it down because you're going to... No, I wrote it down. I'm not...

Okay, I know, I know. This is really important. I'm glad you brought this up. So earlier, you made two really important points. And the first one was, maybe we disagree on the role of women within the church. And I can look at someone else and say, I think they're dead wrong,

but they're broadly within the faith. So maybe you don't like, you know, agree to disagree issue. In some ways, what makes something agree to disagree is it's not a salvific issue. It's not essential to the faith. I think we can agree on that. I would agree with that if we're using that definition. So we might differ on theological views that are secondary.

Agree to disagree, not tied to the faith. We get on church practices. We can agree to disagree. I think the question of the morality of sex outside of man-woman marriage is a salvific issue I Think the practice of it is a salvific issue now We're not debating this but I think just so people can understand, I think 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, I think Paul makes it very clear those who practice same-sex sexual immorality are outside of the kingdom of God.

Now, in saying this, I'm not saying it's uniquely them and not others. I'm not saying I can judge somebody's heart. That is not my point. But I think scripture is very clear that sexual morality separates people from God, and we shouldn't call good evil and evil good. So it's not like gun control. It's not like women in the church, age of the earth, really important. A lot is at stake. This is a salvific issue. Women in the church, age of the earth, really important. A lot is at stake. This is a salvific issue.

So I actually would say I'm doing a disservice to somebody if I say, oh, we can agree to disagree on this topic when in fact salvation is tied to it. And again, this isn't the only issue that's tied to salvation. I'm not trying to pick and choose. This is just the heart of what we're focusing on. That's what separates this from the other issues that we had discussed before, is it's tied to salvation itself. I think Paul does this. I think Jesus is very clear about the nature of marriage and being tied to creation and what sins are, including porneia that he lays out. So again, we don't have to debate that, but that's why I think this is not an agree to disagree issue. So if somebody says, hey, I hold this church over here. I have this

view. You have that view. We can just agree that is giving permission by not condemning that a salvific issue is now a secondary issue that is not salvific does that at least make sense you see where i'm coming from i totally see where you're coming from and i think that's where one of our disagreements would be would be i think to hold that this is a salvific issue you you would have to hold that it is also the laundry list of other issues that are listed with sexual immorality are salvific issues. I think that what, and again, I'm not justifying a stance. I'm just trying to show, hey, there's room at the table for other stances on this issue and here and here's why that there are issues that we like war i'll take that as an issue that we the reason there's a just

war theory and there has been for so long is because people would say okay here's the context we always say i mean at our church we say if you don't have context you make a con of the text right i'm sure that's not original to us. So we just know we always use context, context, context. There are, in my opinion, a hermeneutic that I also use elsewhere in the Bible. I use this. I don't use it on those passages. I use it elsewhere. There's a hermeneutic that's used that says the context of the verses you just quoted, the context is different than a committed homosexual,

same-sex union or marriage. And so again, I'm not saying I agree with that interpretation. I'm saying I understand that they're coming at it saying there's a context to those statements in the same way at face value if I were to say hey Jesus said you love your enemies you don't stab them or shoot them right that would be a rather flat reading and doesn't give allowance for some other interpretations I would say okay yeah that's the same it's a very similar hermeneutic that's being applied to when it comes to same-sex um uh marriage so that that's what i'd say not that i am agreeing as much as i'm just saying i'm using a similar hermeneutic in my bible study and uh and so i can see how people would arrive at that conclusion

so context we're going to agree on that right Bible study hermeneutics 101 context context context like real estate location location location it's all context to argue that biblically in these passages people are not talking about committed same-sex sexual unions that we see today, that is straight-up pro-gay theology. That is the common argument that's made today. I can see how somebody gets there, and I think, and I realize we're not arguing this, that those arguments utterly fail. I've debated those. I've looked at those.

I've considered them. The unanimity within the church when you consider the context going back to creation. I think this example, and this might bring us to the next point about slavery, of people exporting a theology into the passage. So there's a reason why nobody for 2,000 years in the church looked at that and made the argument that you're making. It's only now that we've seen this movement because of the sexual revolution characterize itself as now embracing same-sex unions and we're seeing polyamory in other things that people go, oh, and then they read that back into the passage itself. Why didn't anybody see that for 2000 years? So to take the slavery issue, at least there was some debate within slavery for 2000 years. There was none when it comes to this particular issue. Can I say something on that real quick? Sure. My concern with that statement would be, to my understanding, Sean, the reason there was no debate on the issue,

and you'll have even pro-gay theologians agreeing with what we're saying there, is because sex outside of marriage was considered wrong. And the idea of a committed homosexual relationship, that's very recent. I mean, that's pretty new, especially in a discussion within the church. So then any sort of sex with the same sex, any sort of same-sex relationship would therefore be outside of marriage

and would fit into a category that was assumed. And so do you see what I'm saying? Again, just saying the reason it starts up now is probably because the nuances of it. So, yeah. So I do see what you're arguing, and I think it's false. And again, we're moving to the issues themselves. But I think Preston Sprinkle has shown pretty conclusively that there was ideas of an inborn same-sex sexual attraction, and there were some long-term monogamous-type relationships going back to the ancient Greco-Roman culture. Now, the idea that's more new is that my identity is rooted in my sexual orientation. That is more of a modern idea. But the idea that there to be committed same-sex relationships is not new, and there's ample evidence within the ancient world.

So I guess I still think that point is a concession that there was no debate about this. Nobody made this argument. It wasn't on anybody's radar. And still, what I would argue is ideas coming from the sexual revolution start permeating the culture and then people go back and import those ideas into the scripture that nobody saw for 2,000 years, minimally to me, it's not enough to say, well, here's somebody who just sees it differently. You carry a significant burden of proof to say that Calvin and Aquinas and Protestant and Orthodox and Catholic scholars go down the

line are all wrong. And now you're right. Maybe we differ over where the burden of proof is. I say I'm open to it, but you've got to make a pretty strong case to see that you see something of which there's no debate. Again, on slavery, at least there was some debate to win the day. So I'm just, I guess, in some, I'm not persuaded by the mere fact that there's some people who say, hey, I'm a Christian. I believe in the Bible. I just see it differently than you do. I think the arguments fail. And of course, that's my assessment. I think they carry a massive burden of proof to move this not only to an agree to disagree issue, but to one that's permissible and even could be held within the church. Yeah, and I would say for you, that burden of proof is a great burden of proof and a great standard.

And you and I know in apologetics, people have different burdens of proof, different standards for all kinds of beliefs and all kinds of thought. And I'm not arguing that. I'm saying someone with a differing view on that who would say, John, I don't see it as the same. Here's actually the way that when I say church history, here's where it is, blah, blah, blah, whatever. And they say, I see this as new, which means we're not going against that. I'm not willing to say that person can't be a follower of Jesus and hold that view. So that's what's so fascinating about this conversation is you and I wouldn't disagree on church history. Now, I would say when it comes to civil war and slavery, I would say, hey, there was a pattern

and there was an allowance of people at the table where the stakes were, in my opinion, much higher than having two men or two women sleep together. So I would love to hear your thoughts on the theological crisis of the Civil War. Okay, so let me answer this in a different way. And then I wrote down a couple things specifically what you said on slavery. Because I remember last time you were talking, you compared the first analogy you had with gun control.

And the idea being people view whether taking life pacifism versus in self-defense or in war is permissible and in war somebody can physically die like so more more is at stake well and if you if you have a view of hell right then you're like eternity is at stake like way more is at stake. Like way more is at stake. Yes, which is why I think questions of getting morality right is more important than getting questions of gun control right. Why do I say this? Because people – I mean I did my dissertation on the deaths of the apostles and studied martyrdom. And there's a massive movement from the apostles, at least some of them, down saying, we will die before we worship an idol, before we compromise our faith,

before we engage in sin. In other words, the eternal soul is more valuable, all things considered, and I'm not taking a platonic view that downplays the role of the body than the body in matthew 10 28 of course jesus like don't fear the one who can just kill the body the one who can kill the body and soul forever so because hell is at stake and the scriptures consistently tie same-sex behavior outside of marital union, man-woman relationship, as separating people from the kingdom of God. More is at stake with that, far more at stake with that.

In fact, infinitely more is at stake with that when you look at eternity than it is an issue of pacifism versus just war. Well, I would disagree because if someone kills someone who's living, in your view, if someone kills an enemy who's living immorally, they are eternally sending them to hell. So I would just disagree with that stance because if someone is going to kill an enemy that is not living correctly, for whatever reason, self-defense, in the military, whatever, by pulling that trigger, they're eternally sending them to hell because they live immor morally, in your view. Okay, so here's what I would say. I don't have the power to send anybody to hell.

People go to hell because they reject God's free offer of grace by faith. I'm not responsible for sending somebody to hell because i might be in war or self-defense and in that moment they have rejected the offer of grace that god has given to them that doesn't fall upon me where they can go i'm in hell because of you i'd say no you're in hell because you rejected the free gift of christ that was offered to you. Now, go ahead. They ended their life. They would have ended their life. I mean, I agree. It's through Christ that we're saved.

I, of course, agree with that. But I would say in that view, we couldn't kill someone and them go to hell and say we're not responsible for that. There's no way we could do that. We could say we, I mean, because we would have ended their life prematurely and so I think the stakes are so high on the disagreement when it comes to war and

killing so high because what we're talking about is the the eternal state of someone. And if we allow disagreements on that, which we have, and to most that's fine, but if we allow disagreements on that, but to not allow disagreements on this issue, it seems incredibly inconsistent. Okay, so I'm writing notes. We didn't tell us our audience. You and I lean down, write stuff so we don't forget it to make sure that we respond

to each other. So here's what I think. And this might just be an area we differ strongly on. There's primary reasons somebody goes to hell and there's secondary reasons somebody goes to hell. What's the primary reason somebody goes to hell? Because they've rebelled against their creator and rejected the free offer of grace by faith and rejected the clemency, so to speak, the payment for sin that Jesus offers. That's the root of the issue.

Now, if I take somebody's life, that solidifies that person in the spiritual state that they are in when their life is taken. But the reason they're in hell, the primary core reason, is because they've rejected God's gift of salvation. That's the core reason. Now, this might just be an area we differ on we can let leave it with our audience to just decide where they land I do want to respond to what you had said earlier about slavery but you want to say anything back to my point before we keep going yeah I mean if the primary reason

someone goes to hell is because they've rejected the free gift of grace offered through Jesus, right? Yes. Is that correct? Yes. I'm not trying to pull a bait and switch, I'm saying. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no. I would say, why can't a gay person do that, even if they disagree with your interpretation

of scripture? Okay, so this is- And so, do you see what I'm saying? But, okay, so here's what I'd say. If you have someone who out of naivety of let's say your interpretation of scripture or the historic interpretation of scripture, or they go to a faith community that taught something else,

or they have no scripture background, okay, I don't know, know but i don't know that let's say that they're they've accepted the free gift of jesus okay and they interpret those scriptures differently that's not in a primary reason they would go to hell right they have the grace of Christ. Okay. So when you say, why can't a gay person believe in Jesus experience grace? My answer is of course they can. The gospel is for everybody. We're all sinners, black, white, gay, straight, tall, short, rich, poor, male, female, you name it. Christ came for all. What does that mean? Becoming a believer is, and again, we have to define what we mean by a gay person. Okay. Are we talking about somebody with same-sex attraction? Are we talking about their identity? Or are we talking about same-sex sexual behavior? We've got to clarify this. Identity and attraction are very different questions

when the scripture talks primarily about same-sex sexual behavior. So if that behavior that I think scripture clearly lays out, and again, there's other examples of behavior we've talked about that scripture lays out as well is separating somebody from experiencing god's grace and from the kingdom of god then that is something that needs to be repented of as well as other sins so god's grace applies to everybody but it invites us to repent from our sins and come to him so I think where we differ as I think there's a difference between somebody saying you know a gay person again we didn't define this I want experience God's grace I say amen come to the kingdom awesome let's celebrate as much as any sinner who comes to the kingdom and saying to that person, hey, God has a design for sexuality.

And this is sexually immoral behavior to be in same-sex sexual behavior. Let's move you to the point of obedience and living in the way God wants you to live. This might take time. This might take some failures. But we're moving you towards the direction away from that behavior because Scripture calls it sinful versus saying,

okay, you've come to the kingdom. This is an agree to disagree issue. That means some churches think you can live in a same-sex union and be faithful to Jesus. Some churches think that you don't. Those are diametrically opposed positions that do not coexist along each other. Yeah. And I think that the different space there without taking one or the other would be to say, hey, here's what I believe would I believe is what the Bible says about sexual

immorality, sexuality. And if someone says, I've dove into the scriptures and I see it differently, here's how I see it on that issue. And then to say, okay, I am unwilling to say because of their disagreement that they are not a Jesus follower. And I think that's where you and I would differ is if I'm having that conversation with someone and they say, in humility, in the spirit of Christ, hey, I see those passages differently. I see those things differently. Here's how. And we're talking about valid hermeneutics, not something outlandish. And then me looking at them saying, okay, then you're out because you have a difference of interpretation. I just don't think historically, when we're talking about church history, I don't think we're willing to say that about other high-stake issues. And so that takes us to slavery, which I'd love to hear your thoughts on. Okay.

Civil war in particular. Can you give me any example of somebody in history, church history, just one, of somebody responding the way that you did about same-sex unions? Is there ever an example? You're saying on the affirmative on the side saying you know what you've done your due diligence in humility in the spirit of christ valid hermeneutics let's agree to disagree my point is that's never happened until today well and i would quote recent scholars but you're saying further down the line. And I would just say, that's a great question. I'll go research it. Fair enough. Tell me what you find. Tell me what you find. Now, here's what I would say. So I, just to clarify, if the person comes

to me and says that, I'm not going to say you're out. That's not that storily. And I think you know that because we've had these conversations. Yes. Yes. I know you will. I'm going to look at them. And because I love that person, I'm going to listen to them. I'm going to care about them. And I'm going to push in and try to lovingly persuade that person that the spirit of Christ is very different about marriage and sexual morality i'm not going to say well all right you've come to me in humility you've done your homework i'm not going to say a you're simply out i'm not going to say b this is fine i think what a christian does is lean in and say hey i

care about you i can't change your mind if you're not open to this conversation and you've already landed and if somebody says it the way you phrased it, they've probably already made up their mind. Right. Then we might not need to have those kind of conversations. But if they're open to it, I think the lovingly thing to do is to push back and say, I care about you. I appreciate your humility but let's look at these arguments one by one and preston i've been studying this thing for years and i have no problem saying that affirming arguments fail they do and i realize i'm pulling us off track so i just want to be sure that i communicate not just a blanket like hey you're out i think it's also a mistake to respond and somebody could say you are saying well okay you're in i think a it's also a mistake to respond. If somebody could say, you are saying, well, okay, you're in. I think a biblical response is to say these issues matter.

They're salvific issues in the scripture. Let's take these arguments one by one. Now, in the back of my mind, Preston, if this person could persuade me, a lot of people don't believe me when I say this. They're like, well, you work at Biola. You're McDowell. I'm like, if you literally could persuade me and show me that this is either something that the Bible considers permissible, agree to disagree or moral, I would put my hand

on the Bible and say, I will follow that because of what is at stake. I don't see those arguments. I think they utterly fail. And the loving thing to do is to lean in and try to persuade that person as I would other issues I mean I could think of other issues somebody could come to you whatever they be maybe and say Preston in the spirit of Christ with valid hermeneutics I conclude fill in the blank and you would respond exactly the way that I just said you should respond out of concern for that person. I'm just saying that's

what's at stake here when it comes to same-sex marriage. Does that matter? I'm not skirting slavery, but I think these things are important. Does that make sense? Yes, it makes sense. And in the same way you've studied it for years, I would say, and I know people who have studied it for years and have arrived at a different conclusion than you. And I also know there are things about my theology, I would be, neither of us would say our theology is perfect, is 100%, right? We hope to continue to, yeah, we wouldn't say that. And so when it comes to this topic, I appreciate you saying I'm open if someone can prove it's biblical or moral, but there are people just like what you just said, studied it for years, have arrived at a different conclusion, follow Jesus, practice the charity of

Jesus, continue to lead in a Christ Christlike manner. And all I'm saying is, yes, I believe that they can also be faithful followers of Jesus. So, okay. I'm saying I don't question anybody's heart. That's between them and between the Lord, but the Bible is sufficiently clear about what marriage is and what it means to deviate from that. I think we've clarified where our differences are in that. No doubt to beat that up. But I do want to highlight a lot of this discussion is going to rest upon the success of pro-gay theology. If it works, then I think your argument goes. If it doesn't work,

then I think ultimately it fails. Now you might see that differently. We're not having that argument here, but I think it really ties back to the question of the validity of the arguments themselves. Well, just real quick, the reason I disagree would be like divorce. When you get in the topic of divorce and to say, okay, are there areas in which that's permissible? Yes, we know that to be true, even by the words of Jesus. Would we say that it works, that there's a high success rate? I mean, that would be debatable. When we talk about issues of sexuality in other countries where people have multiple spouses and they come to Christ. What do we do in those situations?

And does that work? Does that not work? That's why I don't always think that that's a good litmus test of proving good theology is that it's going to work better because I think that I mean at a bare minimum I don't mean to open this can of worms I pray and my prayers rarely work but they did at the Super Bowl game so we'll leave it at that and let's we'll jump into uh I do I know we keep saying we're gonna jump in but I was just looking at at at gushy's book and he

brings up this point about divorce and i don't think the fact that the church has shifted in some ways on divorce and in some ways has become an agree to agree disagree issue depending on how you cash that out means that the church necessarily should or will on this. There's a difference between the breaking of the marital covenant and a difference between changing the nature of the marital covenant. Those are very, very different things, for one. For two, the Bible builds in some room for permissibility of divorce. We see it in Deuteronomy. We see it at least in Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians chapter 7. So we can debate over what particular cases of divorce are permissible

and are not. And of course, Wayne Grudem, a conservative, has shifted his position a little bit and become a little bit more open to that but there's a difference between saying divorce is not god's ideal and there's cases where it is permissible and same-sex marriage where there's not a shred of positive evidence scripturally speaking that marriage can be anything but a male female union so i just and the other thing you could say is, yeah, if the church has changed its mind, maybe the church has been hypocritical. It doesn't mean change its mind on something else. It might mean we need to get more consistent to what scripture says. So I just don't think, go ahead. Well, and divorce and remarriage, because then you get into

the topic of show me in scripture where you're seeing divorce and remarriage in that category. Right? Well, in that culture, Grudem points out, if you were morally permissible divorced, you could morally be permissible remarried. I'm not sure there's any debate about that that I'm aware of. But, but I, well, what I'm saying there is we don't have a biblical example, but what you just did was bring in the context. And that's the same hermeneutic that people are practicing with this, that I'd say, I may not agree, but I practice that same hermeneutic. So I'm willing to say, yes, you see what I'm saying? Got it. Okay. This finally brings us to slavery, because I don't think this is actually what's going on I don't think it's people who are making arguments for pro-gay theology from either slavery or the way the church supported anti-semitism that are bringing in

context I think they're bringing in issues from the culture and we make this case why and I just came across this article recently. This is from my buddy, Alan Schliemann. I want to give him credit for this. And he's the one we did the interview together on the Andy Stanley Conference. And he's making the case, similar to what you said before, that people will say, well, the church was wrong on slavery, and because of harm that was done to a segment of society, namely slaves, obviously, or in terms of anti-Semitism Jews, it was that harm that made us go back and re-look at those passages and thus interpret them differently and become against slavery and become against

anti-semitism what schleman argues and again this is an article i can link to it below he makes this point he says it turns out that pro-gay theology advocates are the ones making the same mistake that pro-slavery and anti-Semitic Christians made. They're caving to cultural pressure. Now, I know how that lands to you. We'll come back to that. This is his point. He says, two quick paragraphs. He says, in the U.S., anti-Semitism reached its peak in the early 20th century. Christians were surrounded by anti-Jewish attitudes in the culture, and many of them adopted the same thinking, then found ways to justify those beliefs using select biblical verses. In the case of slavery, it was a legal institution for nearly 100 years after America's founding.

During that time, Christians were influenced by the culture around them. Those who became slaveholders found a way to justify slavery using certain biblical verses. I think he's exactly right. I think it's people surrounded by the anti-Semitism of their day, surrounded by the slavery and what benefit in the day, went to the scriptures and found justification for within the scriptures ironically similarly today what pro-gay theology is doing is adopting certain ideas about sex and romance and marriage and relationships found in the culture and then finding verses to understand them it's not just going to the context it's

eisegesis importing stuff into the scriptures themselves. So I think the slavery example makes the opposite point. I could keep going, but tell me your thoughts. Sure. And I appreciate you bringing his article in. So I think that the book, the Civil War as a Theological Crisis, would just strongly disagree with that analysis of history and Christians' perspective on slaves. You would have people like Leonard Bacon in 1846, the evidence that there were both slaves and masters of slaves in the church founded and directed by the apostles is overwhelming. And so you have this not culture coming in and then us adopting slavery, which is what I heard you say was in that article, but you have this pervasive narrative that slavery, although maybe

different in New Testament than it was in Civil War era, for sure, that slavery grew on itself and it became this major theological crisis. And what I'm still holding to and curious about is, would we look back on that era and say, okay, those people who interpreted the issue differently and had slaves were not Jesus followers. They were not Christians. If we were, if we would look back, I mean, there might be a few errors we'd have to look back on to make that same statement, but at least it's consistent. So that's what I would say. I don't think that the, I haven't heard the two of them dialogue about it um and obviously you're coming from his article i'm coming from mark knoll's book but um what i would say is if we're gonna look back on history at all the question still holds what do we say okay they were doing the best with the

information they had okay so writing this down so I don't forget. So because somebody makes the argument that I'm looking at masters and slaves in the scripture, and they use the scriptural argument, doesn't mean that's their motivation and why they're making that argument. So that doesn't, to me, I don't find it super compelling. I want to know what's the root of why people were assuming that chattel slavery in the U.S. is okay. If you start with the scriptures, things like it's not okay to steal, it's not okay to kidnap, rules it out pretty clearly from the beginning. If somebody is starting with the commitment to scripture and the truth no matter what it cost them so of course many people in the south are making the arguments pro-slavery because they've adopted a certain system they've been told to it they've been justified with Scripture so they're pointing a scripture I think they're making the

other mistake now with that said how would we look back? Now, I sincerely appreciate the way you're saying, how do we have charity with people who came before us? Because I've asked myself, if I was sitting back there, I'd be like, no, slavery's wrong. I would fight against it. Of course we hold ourselves up to that moral standard. But if I'm really honest and everybody that I know and my society is saying this is okay and is using the Bible to justify it, man, it's so much easier that most people just fall into that.

So we do have to have – look back on things. I think try to have some charity. I think that's fair at least recognize the own sinfulness and our own hearts and proclivity to say and do things that are wrong rather than be quick to judge but with that said was the church disastrously wrong absolutely 100 no question about that and that derives from ultimately people say no you are misinterpreting scripture what it means to be made in the image of god it was in part seeing the harm that was done to slaves but it's also people pushing back like wilberforce going no you don't understand

what scripture teaches slavery here is different than slavery there. So they won the argument biblically. That's not even close to being done when it comes to same-sex relationships. The argument has not been won whatsoever and has not been advanced in the same way. And one point that I think is really interesting that's worth bringing in here is william webb argues in his book and again i forget the exact title he probably titled it something different today he wrote early 2000s i think it's like slaves women and homosexuals with ivp daryl bach wrote the forward and he makes a point that from the old testament when it comes to women and it comes to slavery you see this redemptive positive movement going forward where you take a broken

institution god takes people who are in slavery a universal institution and slowly adds human rights and reforms things so we could get to the point where Paul's letter of Philemon is a very, you know, you could argue an anti-slavery, pro-freedom kind of letter embedded within it. There's this trajectory. But when it comes to sexuality, it's the opposite. If anything, as we move towards Jesus, it becomes more strict and less permissive. Jesus says things like, you even look at a woman, you're guilty of adultery. The divorce is made less permissive and more strict. So I don't think those are parallels,

but if we try to take them up as parallels and look at the flow of scripture, it works against becoming more libertine on same-sex unions and if anything, go in the opposite direction. I'm not even saying there are parallels. What I'm saying is the charity side. So you don't have to convince me your stance, because what I'm saying is the idea of would we look back and say they were so bad at that interpretation so bad for all the reasons you just said and more okay they misunderstood all

stuff they were so bad at the interpretation culture greatly influenced them but so they adopted slavery so even with your point with Alan right with Alan's article so let's just say that all of that's true well then would we look back and say yeah they weren't christians they were not part of the kingdom of god and if we wouldn't i don't think we can make that same statement now okay so let me let me frame it a little bit differently. If I could go back time and be there, what should I say to them? Should I say, slavery, an agree to disagree issue. Our church is in favor, your church is against.

Which I'm not a fan of. I'm not a fan of the phrase, but yeah, just to be clear. Fair enough. Yeah. I lost my chain of thought should okay if we were going back there or should we unilaterally condemn that behavior unequivocally because of what scripture actually says i think the answer is very clear and you would agree with me if we could go back in a time machine We should sacrifice ourselves sacrifice our time and speak up unequivocally against that evil

Specifically because we know what Scripture says now. I can't judge somebody's heart Whether they're saved or not if I'm not mistaken. I think Jonathan Edwards owned slaves if I'm not mistaken I mean that raises all sorts of like Theological questions. How can you be considered one of the great theologians write brilliant stuff and own slaves and i apologize if i got that wrong but those kinds of questions i've heard the same thing so yes i've heard it i just can't confirm it i look at that stuff and i go i don't know if you're in or out that is between you and God man looks at the appearance right godless at the heart for Samuel chapter 16 and I think we also can know somebody by their fruit Matthew chapter 7 and so God is the one who's gonna

judge their hearts but if we were there I would say to every slaveholder you are not living Jesus the way Jesus wants you to. This is a grievous, evil, immoral thing. Repent, and there is no room for you as a slaveholder and supporter in the church, period. That's what I would argue if I could go back. Whether I not had that clarity then is a fair question. The difference now is we know exactly what scripture says right we know exactly what scripture says about sexuality it's super clear and has been

for 2 000 years until the past few decades we've seen this push from culture, not from scripture. That's why people are looking for justification within the scripture for an understanding of love that's already been embraced. That's what I think the huge difference is. And I think one more point I would throw out there, I would say, okay, let's imagine the church got slave. We don't have to imagine many in the church got slavery completely wrong. That's issue a what follows from that. If issue B is sexuality, nothing falls that we got one issue wrong versus another issue. to sexuality than it does from slavery to the trinity or slavery to the deity of jesus or slavery to any other theological issue i think all that should give us like you've said and i appreciate like some humility some self-awareness and that's a massive difference so the church gets slavery wrong it follows nothing speaking, for this topic whatsoever. So if arguing for the other side, that would be, I could see what you're saying.

I'm not arguing for the other side. What I'm saying is in the same way that we wouldn't, if we went back in time or even look back, we wouldn't say, yes, they're not a Jesus follower. They're not. And I hear you say, you can't judge their heart, which I know we can't. But at the same time, I'm like, well, then let's take the same stance with people who interpret scriptures differently. So if in your mind you're like this is a moral issue slavery was a moral issue as well right i mean i would assume same category of course so if it's a moral issue if the slavery issue the the allowances of differing interpretation although wrong my question is okay why not That's why I don't

like the term agree to disagree. It just feels flippant because wrestling through and talking and even taking a bold stance, fine. I mean, totally. I mean, I have a pretty bold stance when it comes to a lot of things, but what I'm just not willing to do is to say that person interprets the scriptures differently, resulting in a different practice, granted, resulting in different practice, meaning they're not in. I just, because we haven't done that historically, and I wouldn't be willing to do that. And I think the grace of looking back on history and like I said, with this moral reflective posture of being like, and I'm not, so I'm not saying sexuality and slavery, same thing.

I'm saying, what I'm saying is allowances for immoral behavior and differences of interpretation, as drastic as that sounds that was then this in so many people's mind would be now and what's the difference and why would we say you're out you're in now so does that make sense yeah i think so should the church during the time of slavery have allowed for differing interpretations on slavery should it have that is a great question. I would say no, but I'm looking at it from this perspective. Does that make sense? So from this perspective, I would answer as like, absolutely not. The practice is so inhumane. And how can follow jesus and represent a gospel of freedom when you're doing x y and z so i agree with that now but looking back would we say so john edwards wasn't a true christ follower because he owned slaves

so here's here's what i would say you You asked the question, if I understood you correctly, correct me if I missed this. When I approached slavery and people who held it like Jonathan Edwards, wicked, wrong, out of line, his salvation or not, that's between him and the Lord. I don't know his heart. I don't know a ton about the way he lived his life. I'm not saying for or against. God is the one who judges that. But that issue was wicked and should never have been considered, for lack of a better term, agree to disagree issue. His salvation between the Lord, but I would unequivocally condemn that. I would say the same thing about somebody today who says, hey, I'm a Christian, I follow Jesus, and I have pro-gay theology. I would say,

I can't judge your heart and make that determination. That is not my call. I don't know where you're at in your journey, but I know that that teaching directly and firmly goes against what Scripture says and places somebody, at least those who practice it, in the category of somebody who's not in the kingdom of God. So I do a disservice to this person if I don't state unequivocally, as we should have with slavery in the past, that this is egregious and immoral and as wicked of a thing as somebody can do. So I think I have a consistent posture while I'm talking this out loud. Maybe I'll rethink it later, is that I'm not interested in judging somebody's heart.

God is the one who's going to do that. But we have to call a spade a spade. We can't call good evil and we can't call evil good, like Isaiah 5 says. And so, yeah, we're wrong about slavery what they might not have had is this historical awareness looking back at other issues hopefully with the willingness and humility that i do and i'm limited in this but those pro-slavery people that i've read are not like let's look at this really carefully let's admit we're wrong let's read for let's read against they might say this but i don't buy that there's this kind of reflective awareness that we have now after that at the point then at least as a whole so i think that's a significant difference between them and between us um i do have one more question for you, but your thoughts on that.

Sure. Well, I would, that's where one of our differences would probably pop up. I would say that where you're, I would not equate the immorality of slavery to homosexuality or homosexual practice. I would not put those two in the same category at all. And so when I would say, I would go, I would look back if I lived back then, would I condemn it? Would I? For sure. Because we're talking about the treatment of people made in the image of God.

When we're talking about homosexuality, I'm not putting that in the same category. So where maybe for you, the category of morality, immoral behavior is the one category so where maybe for you the category of morality immoral behavior is that the one category i'm like this is where nuance is super important and i just wouldn't classify those as the same at all okay so that that's fair that's helpful yeah i think one distinction that i would make is when we say we put them in the same category in the same category in what sense do we put them obviously there's differences slavery abominable same-sex sexual practice referred to as abominable so what I mean by the same category is those that are there outside of God's design told that separate us from the kingdom of God.

It's interesting, 1 Corinthians 6, the list here is like, do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, porneia, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice same-sex sexual behavior

is what a proper translation should say nor thieves interestingly enough chattel slavery in america was rooted in stealing people kidnapping them and stealing the rights of their fruits of their labor so i do see these broadly speaking put in the same category i think first timothy chapter one verse nine does as well specifically kidnappers so i agree there's some differences that are there but on i also and again maybe it's just where we differ i think there's significant overlap between the two. Maybe we just agreed to disagree on that one. Let me ask you one more question.

And maybe this is pushing beyond what we agreed to discuss. But earlier when we were talking about the permissibility of understanding a passage differently, and there's context that is brought in. We interpret it differently. I don't think you hold this theology. I want to be careful. But you consider this a position somebody can hold and be faithful to the scriptures. You made the point, again, correct me if I miss it, that some people hold that the scriptures were not talking about faithful, committed, loving relationships of today. As far as it goes, is that fair?

Did I represent fairly that some people hold that? That some people hold that, yes. Okay. And that your take is you're not going to condemn that as being outside the broader fold because they've done their due diligence to look at the scripture and come to a different conclusion. Right. Okay. So now everybody's talking about polyamory. So somebody goes, Preston, in the humility and spirit of Christ with valid hermeneutics. No one comes to me that way by the way they don't ever say okay it it doesn't matter i just did a show on this and we are seeing theological and

biblical arguments emerge for christian polyamory it's about where the issue of l and g were you know 20 years ago so to speak so logically's valid. If they made that kind of argument, it seems like you would have to say, well, I'm not going to condemn that. That's a permissible position somebody can hold and potentially be a faithful follower of Jesus. So in part, I'm wondering how far would you take these and would you allow the permissibility, for lack of a better term, for agree to disagree issues? So it's a great question. And what I was saying, no one's coming to me with that.

I'm saying no one comes to me and says, President, in the spirit of Christ and with proper hermeneutics, that's never the preface. Oh, fair enough. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So what we're talking about is, now this would be a conversation on what is valid hermeneutics, right? What would we consider to be a valid way of interpreting Scripture and drawing context and not eisegesis? All of those things. I wouldn't see a case for that, nor have I heard a case for that, of saying that was valid.

Now, I don't want to say, in one sense, we're talking about, okay, what's a valid way of practicing hermeneutics? And what I said back then, I'll say again, is I see them using a similar hermeneutic that I use with things like women in ministry, primarily teaching from the stage, teaching from the pulpit, those sort of things. I see a similar bringing in the context where at face value, it says one thing, Paul says one thing, and they bring in the context.

And I would argue that's not what's being said prescriptively for the rest of Christianity. And so I see a similar hermeneutics. If someone comes to me and to arrive at a conclusion that you just said, they'd have to come to me with a pretty radically different hermeneutic. And then I would go, that seems like justifying desires above all else. And it doesn't seem like what we're doing

is trying to get a valid interpretation. And so the hermeneutic that I've experienced with people that would have a more affirming theology is a close hermeneutic to what I practice in other passages of the Bible. Although I don't arrive at the same conclusion as them, that's why I say I totally understand and I would call that valid because I try to practice a valid hermeneutic myself. Okay, you're right. This is totally a practice a valid hermeneutic myself. Okay, you're right. This is totally a conversation of bigger hermeneutics.

We're not going into that. I guess I would just push back on a couple things, and then we probably need to wrap this conversation up. I'm pushing time limits for you and for me. You said if somebody came to you and said, I've studied the scriptures, have this hermeneutic, and I'm Christian polyamory is okay with me. You would say, I think you're justifying desires. Your desires. 20 years ago, Preston, everybody would have responded that way about same-sex unions.

That would have been the unilateral response. So what's shifted is the culture and i think affirming christians are shifting with the culture not with the scriptures that's the first point that i would make you can tell me if you think i'm wrong about that but second i don't see how if somebody's going to allow certain pro-gay theology arguments how you don't, by the same hermeneutic, allow polyamory, ancestral relationships. And let me be very clear. I'm not saying everybody who pushes this necessarily promotes those ideas. had another progressive Christian on Colby Martin I asked him this and he's like yeah by my hermeneutic which is pro-gay theology you got to be consistent you have to allow polyamory and he didn't say he was against

incestual relationships he was just kind of like I don't think that would really happen but there's a logical connection that's there so i think my two concerns are is is it feels to me like this position is just shifting and tracking with culture and if so then we have to go where culture goes and allow polyamory allow other kinds of relationships and i think the problem is with the hermeneutic before we even open the door to this. So I don't have the problem of getting to things like polyamory, incest, etc. Yeah, I do think there's a difference. I know you're not saying this, but of talking about what's a valid use and interpretation of scripture.

And then what's like a slippery slope into carnal behavior. Okay. I think there's a radical difference there. We can put on the calendar 20 years from now, let's have the conversation about polyamory and I'll still hold the same stance. And, and Hey, listen, culture has always brought up topics, hasn't it? Culture has always initiated up topics hasn't it culture has always initiated these interesting dialogues not to say we should follow it follow culture and open the door to

things I'm just saying culture has done that and 20 years before 20 years ago so 40 years ago you talk about divorce and remarriage is super hot issue right right? So just because culture has initiated the conversation doesn't mean that we shouldn't be open to the conversation. I mean, Daughters Club, we'd be open to all these conversations. It also doesn't follow, like what you said before, that because we change our mind on one thing, be it slavery, that we change our mind on the other. So I would say that in this issue. It does not follow that if someone's open and affirming on this issue that it means they're going to be open to polyamory and all sort of carnal behaviors it doesn't follow necessarily um but i do have a question before we go ahead okay so let me let me wrap up on this then we'll come back make sure you

get the last word yeah i agree in practice it doesn't follow i think logically we we cannot separate those and again we're getting into the theological argument itself that we would come back to and maybe you and i will have that conversation at some point but i think logically they follow necessarily practice aside so if they follow and we take issue with polyamory whether somebody practices or not maybe we should question the hermeneutic that got us there. That would just be the argument that I would make. Now, you're totally right that culture sometimes can make us go back and relook at scripture. Culture can bring up issues and go, oh, maybe we missed something totally.

But what culture are we talking about here? We're talking about the fruit of the sexual revolution. We are. As I see it, and I haven't made that case, on every single level, as we've moved away from God's design, there's been disaster for kids. There's been disaster economically. There's been disaster relationally, psychologically. It causes damage. And spiritually.

And so it's been the church who stood against this tide and said, we got to go back to what Jesus taught, whether we like it, whether it makes us unpopular, whether it comes at a cost or not. That's how I see the church in this moment. So I can tell you from my heart i've been open to this conversation i mean and again i don't know what to do to persuade anybody who's not convinced but if i'm willing to talk with almost anybody which i've i think demonstrated on my channel i've had a lot of people on who see the world differently that's a tenth of the conversations i have off of youtube i'm open to that but I want to see the biblical evidence of

it and I don't and I think in this case we're taking cues from a damaging culture that's grounded in the sexual Revolution and very different ideas of what it means to be human what the good life is etc we don't have to have that debate um I had one more question for you so feel free to comment on that and then tell me the question you wanted to explore. Yeah. Do you want, is that the question? You just want me to comment on that? No, I can't remember what it was, but I like it. Okay. Well, 20 years from now, we're on the books. Okay. You got it. Game on. So here's what I say to the comment on that is, again, you're not convincing me of anything.

Like when it comes to you and I, if we're going to sit down, what are we teaching our kids? What types of churches do we go to? Those sort of thing. We're very much in line. Very much. What I just want to reemphasize for everyone watching is the difference is, can people who have different interpretations be faithful Jesus followers? So even in going, well, let's talk through the hermeneutic. I'm like, Sean,

yeah, you're not going to convince me of a different, because I'm right there with you. I practice a very similar hermeneutic. What's interesting is I forget who does the daily wire. I cannot remember the person's name. Like Shapiro or Walsh, don't they do the Daily Wire? I'm forgetting. Oh, not the Daily Wire. I'm sorry. The briefing.

Albert Muller. Muller. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I wasn't going to bring Shapiro in this. But Muller, I was listening years ago to, he was talking about how a denomination started credentialing women to be able to preach from the pulpit. And he said, this is how denominations end up at being open and affirming.

So when you hear something like that from a Moeller, you go, wait a second, it's the same logic you just told me. At what point do you stop? And to Moeller, he just draws the line back here more. And I just want to be clear. I don't think it's a fair point to say, because of this, it's a slippery slope into that, because you can find a Moeller who's very well-educated that's going to say, because of this, it's a slippery slope into this. And I'm like, that's not fair. I don't think that's fair to say the issue we're dealing with is an isolated issue. If we're dealing with polyamory, let's deal with that issue. If we're dealing with incest, let's deal with that issue.

But it's just not fair to the people involved to say, well, because of this, it's a slippery slope into that. And I don't think that we would do that to others or want that be done. So anyway, I bring that up to say, I just don't think it's the same thing. Fair enough. And I think that's where we differ. And Moeller's friend, I went to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I'm going to set aside there are arguments a lot of people make that once you shift towards egalitarianism, does that open up the door by the same hermeneutic to adopting same-sex marriage?

We could have that discussion. We could follow that reasoning. Obviously, we don't have time for that right now. Again, by making this point, it's a logical point that can be kind and gracious to somebody, not in a way like A equals B. It's just simply saying, okay, let's look at this her at the sermon of dick does it naturally lead to this truth matters it's a way of loving somebody by pushing back on their ideas respectfully and kindly which you and i have done off camera i think this conversation demonstrates that so i don't think it has to be an act of uncharity or unkindness to say if you believe a it leads to b i think it's an act

of kindness if logically it does and we point it out but that's probably just an issue we differ on let me draw maybe maybe we'll end on oh go ahead go ahead yeah go ahead so the context in which you're having a lot of these conversations is what you call the doubters club so this is driven for skeptics who are not even believers to me right so you set up we've talked about this separately I'll try to remember to link this below unbelievers and Christians come together and dialogue in different issues commit to listening to each other not necessarily to persuade somebody of another opinion but

many of these people want fellowship with people who see the world differently and many are seeking are actually spiritually seeking so to me this kind of conversation is very different within a doubters club that is not in a church versus a church saying, hey, we can agree to disagree. And this is a theological issue when a pastor has a different responsibility than say somebody who's leading a conversation with outsiders. A lot of people miss that about my channel. Although I'm ordainedained i'm a professor and like this conversation i like to dialogue and discuss different issues sometimes people want me to land the plane i don't always do that because i'm trying to create thought if this channel

worked distinctly for church i would be having different kind of more protective conversations although i would certainly be challenging people to think, and I wouldn't strawman other positions. Do you agree with me that there's a difference there? Would you like to see this within the church where pastors just go, hey, let's talk about this, agree to disagree, again, not a perfect statement, or that's better outside the church? That's a great question. I haven't thought the question through, so I'm going to go off the cuff here. Okay. So my initial response is this, the doubters club, we have a lot of people that when you ask them, what's keeping you from in whatever way, shape or form, what's keeping you from following Jesus or or or however we worked at right starting a journey

with jesus all those things it's not everyone at all but there are people who would say hey the um christians are very condemning to lgbtq community how they treat the community and you and i would both agree condemnation to the community how you treat the community we should never be told we shouldn't be jerks like we you would we'd agree on that like how we treat the community we should never be told we shouldn't be jerks like we you would we'd agree on that like how we treat people regardless of what they think um matters so i've often responded with okay why start there why start with that topic and be like now i can't follow jesus what about starting with like the resurrection what about starting with something that is foundation let's start on a foundation

this is why i wrote the book deconstruct faith discover jesus let's start with the foundation so in settings like that i like to remove the topic because it's not foundational to them starting their journey with Jesus is that so that's a very different environment so that that that's helpful and I guess I would say strategically it makes sense let's start with a person of Jesus let's start with the resurrection because if Jesus got and he conquered sin and he's the authority in our lives, then downstream that has implications for our time and our bodies and sexuality and all sorts of other ethical issues. So we agree strategically on that. somebody if they asked me is well when it comes to sexuality you can continue to live in same-sex unions and be a faithful follower of jesus i think that that's where we're gonna differ profoundly i'm not gonna hammer that home i'm not gonna lead in i'm gonna go to the person of jesus first

but i think of people like beck Cook, when somebody just gave him a frank, straightforward answer, here is what the scriptures teach. That was very liberating rather than either making it a agree to disagree issue or just background. And I think somebody is going to feel like, wait, this is a bait and switch. I think we owe people the truth. But let's go down. Let's start with the main thing and keep

the main thing the main thing does that make sense i'll give you the last word we got to wrap this thing and land this plane well here's all i said i have this written down so i'll just go back to this you had read a passage and it's always good to end with the bible okay so um you had read a passage where you said hey there's sexual morality adul adulterers, idolaters, and this list. And it groups together thieves. And I heard idolaters. And, you know, you and I both know it's not talking about statues. We're talking about anything we put our hope in that isn't God and that competes with our hope in Jesus. And so I just think that the stance for me, if I have to

make a stance of you can't be faithful and interpret differently, that stance would also apply to idolaters, people who are putting Christians who are putting their hope in money. It would also apply to, it would just apply to every single person and i just don't see that as the narrative of grace throughout scripture which we didn't even get into but i this just means less than 20 years sean we're doing this again 20 years is great you know it's interesting you're right that the root i heard billy graham i think it was a quote from 1997 he's like homosexuality is not the core sin idolatry heard billy graham i think it was a quote from 1997 he's like homosexuality is not the course in idolatry is billy graham if i'm not mistaken said that and i could track down the quote

in the 90s but it's interesting roman romans one places same-sex sexual behavior in the category of idolatry so i don't think we can separate those but I also think we can only get to God's grace like we see in Romans 1 when we've rooted out and clearly called out the sin that all of us have in depth hence Romans 3 no one does good so I don't think we do anybody a favor by not calling something sin scriptures call sin no I said last time I was gonna hear last word I promise I'm gonna shut up last word go okay last word here it is I sometimes with Brendan Manning was one of the reasons I came back into the faith and I know highly controversial in

a lot of ways but the image of someone who put their hope in something other than God crossing the finish line, embracing God. I mean, this is a picture he paints and they were ragamuffin, right? This is ragamuffin gospel. Yeah. They didn't have it in themselves, but they kept coming back. And I just think such is true for all of us, but by the grace of God, go I. So it doesn't mean we go do whatever we want. What it does mean is just like anyone who's trying to faithfully follow Jesus, there are areas where I am an idolater and I still believe I'll be embraced in the end. So that's my last word. Fair enough. We will leave it at that. I

would love to know from people, this is a little bit of a different conversation. It's longer. It's on a different topic than I typically do. What do you think if you've stayed with us this long or left and come back? Do you want more conversations like this? Rather than emotive, angry thoughts at me or Preston, leave a comment that's helpful, where you agree with us, where you differ with us. Leave a comment of points maybe that we missed. I'm going to go back through and read a ton of these comments and just see if I missed this

because I'm thinking this through a lot in my mind. And I think this is where the church is headed. This issue is going to only become bigger and bigger and bigger. And so send this to somebody and say, hey, let's talk about this. Dialogue it with that person and give us your feedback. And while you're at it, make sure you hit subscribe. We've got some other shows coming up you will not want to miss. And if you thought about studying apologetics, I teach classes at Biola on biblical sexuality.

Top rated distance program. Information is below. And we also have a certificate program. We're totally revamping. If you're like, I'm not ready for master's, but I want to do some formal apologetics training. Huge discount below. Preston, I was going to go get my Apple computer updated

and we went way too long because I loved this. Really appreciate you, the spirit that you brought. This is a great conversation. Let's do it again. Thanks, Sean. Appreciate you.