The Sean McDowell Show - Full DIALOGUE: LGBTQ Issues Dividing the Church - Preston Sprinkle

Episode Date: April 25, 2025

Preston Sprinkle has been one of the most influential voices in the churches on issues faith and sexuality for the past decade. He is also a lightning rod of controversy! What are his latest views on using preferred pronouns, whether Christians should identify as gay, and the state of the LGBTQ conversation today? He and Sean debate these issues and more. We hope this conversation brings some clarity on these important issues.*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf)*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for 25% 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: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sean_McDowell TikTok: @sean_mcdowell Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/Website: https://seanmcdowell.org

What is the state of the church and LGBTQ conversation today? What does it mean to be faithful in our cultural moment? And how has this conversation shifted in the past decade since the Bergfeld versus Hodges Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage? My guest today will be familiar to most if not all of our audience. Dr. Preston Sprinkle is an author, you're a speaker, you're the head of the Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender. And might I add a lightning rod of controversy. Is that a part of officially your bio?

Not intentionally, no, but. This is a massive amount of this generation that is now confused. People often call it grace and truth. It's not called that, it's called grace truth. I just can't imagine you would accommodate that. I do take the view that in many or most cases, I will use someone's pronouns.

Okay, tell me why. Like, clearly Jesus would like agree with me when he's not, when he did not address this specific issue. You have no right to tell me what's important to me and what's not important to me. I actually think you're being inconsistent with the main thing. This strikes me like I have my mind made up

and I'm gonna find the biblical passage that doesn't perfectly match up, but gives me enough precedent to sit comfortably where I sit. Okay, genuine question is not a gotcha. All right, we're gonna jump right in because there's so much to cover. And I'm really curious, there's probably not,

you and I have probably been two of the people writing, speaking on issues of sexuality. And so we've seen certain things that maybe other people haven't seen. I wanna know how you think the conversation has shifted. And I could say 50 years, let's just take 10 years from the SCOTUS ruling a decade ago, since it's 2025, go back to 2015.

How have you seen within the church this conversation shift? That's a really, really good question. I guess it would depend on, are we talking about shifts like within the church or the broader culture? Are we talking, do you wanna include Europe in that and stuff, because there's just so many layers. But for one, within the church, it's shifted in a positive way in that many churches,

many more churches are wanting to talk about it. For so long, churches were just like, we are not touching this issue. And even now I get a lot of churches in parts of the world where they need to have this conversation and they're just, they're not addressing it. They have too many people on both sides.

They're scared to talk about it. They don't want to be a lightning rod. And so they avoid it. But I'm seeing more and more churches saying, we need to address it. And part of that's because, I mean, statistically, 28% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ. Many grandparents in our congregations, 10 years ago,

were just living their happy life, and now they have like five trans grandkids. And so they're forced to talk about or gain an understanding about it. There's many more people in the church that are coming out. So I think that conversation is hard to avoid now. So that would be my first observation is that there are more conversations happening,

which can be a good thing depending on the nature of the conversation. Of course. By the way, before you go to the second one, you and I were talking last night how in the 80s, my dad really led the first church-wide response to the sexual revolution called Why Wait? This is before True Love Waits.

No one was talking about sexuality then. So it's remarkable how far we've come. I think as a whole, that has to be a positive thing. But keep going, your second one. Some conversation is better than no conversation. A big thing that happened in the Obergefell decision in 2015, legalization of gay marriage, a lot of, I'll say, LGB people, gay, lesbian, bisexual people, especially older ones

that had fought for gay marriage to be legalized for many years, this was kind of the end goal. Once they got that, some of the quote unquote gay rights activism, I think sort of slowed down. Didn't go away, but the sexuality part of it, like they got, they won the Super Bowl. They got the decision they were fighting for, you know? So what happened is that opened up a whole new lane for the T part of LGBT to really take center stage,

the transgender conversation. In fact, I think that was the year, I think it was 2014 or 2015 when you had the Caitlyn Jenner on the front cover. Yep, that's right, around that time. And then there's another magazine that had a transgender actor on the cover as well. And so I think since 2015 a really good gender actor on the cover as well.

And so I think since 2015, the trans conversation has really taken front and center with this sort of LGBTQ acronym. Now, that went, I think, a certain direction, getting to your question about what has changed. I think that, I almost want to say, there was almost like a climax in about like around COVID 2020 with the trans conversation where it was just full steam ahead.

If you were pro gay rights, you were pro trans rights. But I think in the last few years, there's been a lot of, if I can call it like internal conflict within the LGBTQ, if you want to call it a movement, community, whatever, yeah, where there's been actually a lot of growing animosity between some of what, especially older LGBT people would say is some overly radical viewpoints of some trans activists. And especially when it comes to the L. Here you have, you know, lesbians. Oftentimes, they're really strong feminists.

And the trans conversation is often led by what people would call trans women, biological males identifying as women. And that's created a lot of conflict between typical lesbian activists and some trans activists. In fact, there's a whole movement in the UK called Get the L Out.

We're like, we're going to go do our lesbian thing else, but this thing's gotten out of control. One of the fastest growing social media accounts is gays against groomers. These are all, I mean, they have hundreds of thousands of followers and they are, they almost sound kind of politically conservative almost. They're all gay, but they are pretty aggressive against any kind of like trans ideology,

especially the medicalization of minors, which I'm sure we'll maybe get to. But so those are some interesting movements. It's no longer a monolithic movement. It is really the differences, which ideologically are probably always there, have now become, I think, front and center. On the first one, for years when I was teaching in high school, we would take a group of high school students to Berkeley. We were being atheist skeptics, Unitarian reverends.

And for the first decade, we could easily get gay activists to come speak to our group. As the years went on, getting closer to 2015, it was actually harder to find certain activists They're like just less inclined and less I don't know activated as they were in the past because you said they won the Super Bowl so I hadn't quite Put those together. I think that's interesting in terms of the internal tension You're right the idea of a lesbian implies that there's such a thing as a woman It's a biologically defined. Someone is born this way, right?

Their body is born that way. But then when it comes to the T, there's a sense of no, it's my feelings, my attractions define who I am. So there's a tension built in. That has led to another conversation we don't necessarily need to have. But that's fair. You know, the one thing I would add as far as the church is, I think this might illustrate it well, is if you look at the book on Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas.

I'm not trying to quiz you, but do you know offhand who wrote the foreword for that? No. Tim Keller. Oh, okay. Wow. Now that's interesting. You kind of had this broader evangelicalism. We can agree on certain truths. There's maybe a Billy Graham type figure. We disagree on things, but they're secondary.

Now, I mean, Metaxas and Keller have gone such different directions in terms of cultural engagement, politically, et cetera, that I can't imagine them working right in the same ways in the past Yeah, I think the conversation on sexuality is like a subset of that Yeah When this started there was kind of a sense of like as long as you just hold the line of natural marriage We're good. I disagree that person I see things differently. We're all on the same page moving forward

Now it's like wait wait a minute, things have been fractured down and now there's more particular issues dividing us. Whether that's good or bad, we'll get to some of those issues, like preferred pronouns, gay identity, sinfulness of same-sex attraction. That wasn't on the radar ten years ago. So it's been fractured and maybe nuanced, I think, in a way. Now that leads me to ask the question,

I'm curious how you have personally changed. You've been speaking on this maybe a dozen years or so. How long have you been addressing issues of sexuality? About a dozen years. So roughly the same for us. And I don't know how, like, some people would say, you've moved to the left, you've softened. Have you shifted? Has the conversation shifted?

That's funny. How have you changed in the time you've been a part of this conversation? That's really interesting. Um, because I would say... Uh... I don't think I've shifted in any major area. If anything, I have been more outspoken and forthright and stronger, the more I study it, on my view that God has designed marriage to be between a man and a woman. Not that that strength

wasn't always there, but I would say early on in my journey, when I started writing my first book, People to Be Loved, came out in 2015. So 2013 is when I started, 2012 when I started really researching it. And I really came out that with a very, very open mind. Like I was like blank, trying to clear the mind and to say, what does the text say? Not what does everybody else say. And man, there were some counter arguments to traditional marriage. Like, oh, I didn't consider that whatever.

And I took a very diplomatic tone in the book. It was really just like almost like my investigation of the issue and I landed on traditional marriage. Since then, the more I revisit the theology, the stronger and stronger and stronger I keep getting. Like, I do not think this is a secondary issue. I do think it's outside the bounds of orthodoxy. I do think it is a significant departure from historic Christianity and God's most basic design of one of the most basic institutions for creation. And not that I wouldn't have, I don't know if I wouldn't have

said that early on, but I wouldn't have emphasized that as much. Like, maybe I was more eager to have more cross-dialogue and find some common ground. And now, while I'm always willing to dialogue and listen to people, that's always there. But now I see this theological view of same-sex marriage to be a significant departure from Orthodox Christianity.

Like, it's something I would take a bullet for. And so, if anything, and people who actually read my... Sorry. People who actually listen to what I say, read my books have all noticed that. In fact, when I came out with my book on transgender identities, the critique I got was, oh, you're getting a lot more conservative. Like, you kind of seem like you're hunkering down.

And whatever that means. But, so any shift theologically has been a more... Maybe, I'll say it I said, a stronger passion to defend and promote the creator's design for marriage. Beyond that, I don't, there's little minor things. We talked offline about, I mean, this is gonna get really technical with me to camp out here, but the phrase one flesh

in Genesis 2.24. I originally did not think that it implied that necessitated sex difference, that one flesh itself, that one phrase didn't necessitate sex difference. I now have completely switched to where I think that's a very fundamental piece of marriage being between a man and a woman.

So I have really shifted on that. In fact, there's a professor at Southern Seminary who was really excited, because he was really, he loved my book. And then he's like, but how could you say this about one flesh? And so he was excited in my more recent book where I not only changed,

but that was a main piece of my argument now. So there's might be little minor things like that, but I still am very passionate about welcoming and loving and listening to gay and lesbian and trans people. I think they have been really hurt, genuinely hurt by the church. Not just hurt by the truth, but hurt by, I think, an unhelpful posture.

And I mean, so's, you know... So all that side of the conversation is still very much there. I just don't see that as incompatible with holding to a traditional view of marriage. Yeah. So for me, here's kind of the shift in my mind of how I think I've processed this.

And then it kind of raised the question, what does it mean to be faithful in this cultural moment? I should go back 10, 15 years ago, and it's's like as long as we hold the line on natural marriage, I'm good. Let's go. Lock arms, united front. So people differ on the ex-gay issue. People differ on whether you should identify as gay. People, that wasn't the pronoun issue yet, but it was starting to merge maybe a decade ago and Since that time I I'd have to say I've gotten more and more Concerned over certain issues and some would probably say I've moved to the right on this and these

Characterizations we got to be careful with But for example, I would say things like probably 12 or I don't know 15 years ago I'd say hey black, black, white, male, female, gay or straight. Now the intention of that is to say, hey, everybody, no matter where you're from, no matter where you are, God loves you, you're made in God's image. But then increasingly over time, that language makes me uncomfortable,

and we're gonna come back to this in more detail, because that might be an area we see differently. That like, male and female built into creation, that's a part of our identity. Gay and straight, is that an objective, ontological part of our identity? So I won't use that language anymore. I think it's misguided.

I think it's mistaken. I don't think it helps people. That's an area that I've shifted on. Pronouns, I mean, you know me, I want to, like one of my life principles is I want to be as gracious as I can be without violating scripture or just violating my conscience. So I try to lean in with that. My pronoun position, we get to this one, was much more like, I try to lean in with that. My pronoun position, we get to this one, was much more like, hey, agree to disagree, not a big deal. Now I'm not quite to the position yet

where I'm willing to call it a sin of someone who uses preferred pronouns. Maybe I'll get there, but I think it's really mistaken and misguided in a way I didn't 10 years ago. Those are some examples of the shifts. In fact, I don't think I would have talked about even maybe two years ago, same sex attraction itself as something that is not only disordered, but sinful by its very nature.

And we need to mortify that flesh. I've moved more and more that direction. And so, I think there's a nuancing of the conversation today, and we just have to be clear where we stand on some of these issues. So I guess it raised a question before we jump in. What does it mean to be like faithful? Because I know you and I both care about being faithful

to Jesus, being faithful to the scriptures, being faithful to the ambassadors for Christ. What does that look like today? Now, give me your thoughts and then I'll give you mine. And maybe in some ways you already answered it, but if you're gonna say today in this cultural moment, what we need to be faithful is this, how would you answer that?

It's another big question. I mean, it's gonna sound cliche, I don't know how else to say it, but continuing to bring your viewpoints It's another big question. I mean, it's gonna sound cliche. I don't know how else to say it, but continuing to bring your viewpoints back to the text of Scripture to see either confirmation or confrontation. So, reformed and always reforming kind of thing, you know. So, having the confidence in a well-studied position, but having the, to hold to that, but having the humility to a well-studied position, but having the, to hold to that, but having the humility to continue to say,

I need to keep bringing this back to Scripture and a Christian worldview to make sure my current observations about that Christian worldview or whatever topic we're talking about is aligned, continuing to become further aligned with Scripture. So, but I don't know, I think that's a kindergarten Christian Sunday School answer, but I still believe it. I'm not pushing for any more than what you thought so I I heard Christopher you on say this and it resonated with me he said maybe I can't remember the time frame maybe 20 years ago and we started really having these kinds of

conversations we needed to lean into the grace component of truth and grace you have that on your website truth and grace I don't know anyone in the cop this conversation from the far left to the far right who's like, no, we don't need grace or we don't need truth. We just differ over how to apply that. And there was a lot of like, say, culture war, maybe some misunderstanding, some confusion, less concern that the church is going to compromise biblically. More importantly, we lean in relationally. You know, it's now in our cultural moment, we need clarity and we need biblical truth.

So we have a conference last year about Andy Stanley's conference and I think he was promoting a third way. I mean, he wrote the forward for evidence that demands a verdict in 2017. I mean, he did. And I think this shift, I did a whole deep dive onite with Alan Schliemann,

profoundly concerns me, opening up what's called a third way within the church, his influence and his name. I'm like, time out? We need biblical faithfulness and clarity. And I see certain voices that are interesting to me. I mean, this is somewhat of a different point, but I see people like Dawkins and Stephen Pinker,

two atheists, who've been, like, kicked out or had to resign from these atheist organizations because they refuse to give in to certain kinds of gender ideology. And Dawkins is like, no, actually, biological sex matters. And it's a part of who you are. Now I don't think he can ground that ontologically,

but I look at that, I'm like, wow, he's willing to pay a price for this and not go along with a cultural narrative? That's interesting. Yeah. It's common among evolutionary biologists, like a Pinker and others, that they come off very conservative in their,

and they're very not conservative holistically, but when it comes to this issue, when you're messing with basic biological foundations, they're like blowing the whistle on us, it's funny. But they get called out for it, criticize, which is interesting. So I think that clarity, I look at people like Megyn Kelly, interestingly enough, she was kind of in favor of like, pronoun hospitality.

She's like, we gotta be kind, lean in relationally. Maybe some would say she's gone too far the other direction, but I think she has leaned in really boldly and been like time out. There's a lot at stake. Shifted course with this. So I think as Christians, I mean what I guess one last thing is say I was just reading an article from Jonathan Rauch, who's a gay atheist Jew. And he literally has a book coming out. And he said, basically, for America to survive,

it's key that we maintain Christianity. Not a thin Christianity, which is like cultural. Not a... what is it? A sharp Christianity, which is like us versus them cultural confrontation, but a thick Christianity. He said, Christians are onto something with family values. Now, I don't know how he reconciles all those things. I'd love to talk to them about it.

But I think we're in a moment where we've got to be clear, lean into Scripture, and make sure we're not borrowing anything that comes from culture that's not grounded in Scripture, and identify who we are within our historic roots, I think that's kind of a call to clarity that we have. Now, I assume in general you agree with that. We might differ over the particulars.

Any thoughts on that before we jump into some of these? I mean, I would... not only agree with that, but almost push it, I guess push it farther. I would be worried to put something like grace and truth against each other. In fact, I'm often, I wrote this curriculum, people often call it grace and truth.

It's not called that, it's called grace truth. There's a line between to get rid of the and. I missed that memo. No, everybody has, but that was actually intentional. It was probably lame, I don't know. My designer didn't do a good job. But if you're not embodying this radical grace of God, you're not being truthful. And if you're not speaking truth, you're not being loving or gracious.

I just don't think scripturally these concepts should be separated. And I would say, I would not only agree with you on, but push it farther. I would say we needed clarity 10 years ago. Clarity should have always been part of the concept. these concepts should be separated. And I would say, I would, to not only agree with you on, but push it farther, I would say we needed clarity 10 years ago, clarity should have always been part of the conversation.

And I think hindsight's 20-20, sometimes you look back. And I think that's where it's like, oh, I should have been clear about that. I find that with myself all the time. I'm constantly looking back and saying, oh, this was actually unclear, but I can say, I was trying to be clear, I just didn't have that hindsight 2020 where what I was saying maybe was communicating something

I wasn't attending to, but grace, truth, clarity, all of those are very important. I think you're right with looking back on things. So I had a 2018 debate with Matthew Vines. I remember that. And I, looking back on that, I used some language like referring to kind of gay identity. Now looking back at the time, it was on the radar,

but I'm like, I think that was a mistake. I was conceding too much to him in the cultural conversation that needs to be walked back. So I can't beat myself up for not seeing what really nobody was talking about at that point, but I want to look back and go, okay, wait a minute. Was I conceding too much here, not being careful, do we need a pivot now? That's the question I ask. We'll come back to that topic, preferred pronouns.

This is perhaps one of the biggest topics. And I had an hour long plus substantive friendly debate with Tim Yulhoff, a Biola communications professor, who I think would more agree with you on this than I would. But why don't you just clarify what you think about preferred pronouns and why. Okay. And then I'll tell you why you're wrong. No, I'm kidding Just talked to Tim recently and we made a distinction between Be trying to be right and trying to be truthful. I made that statement

He's like what do you mean by that? And I said well trying to be right means I'm gonna defend at all costs the position I currently hold rather than trying to be right means I'm going to defend at all costs the position I currently hold rather than trying to be truthful is I think I'm right. I have reasons for it. Otherwise I wouldn't hold to a viewpoint. But ultimately there's a truth out there that I'm striving for. So all that said, I want to bring it on and I want to get closer to the truth. So if there's something I'm saying or believing that's off, I enjoy moving away from falsehood and closer to the truth.

So- By the way, before you keep going, I preach that about you, that you're willing to talk with people and hear them out. I think we need more of that. And I'm hoping this conversation contributes to it, but keep going. Preferred pronouns, people assume,

I'm gonna say they know what we're talking about. I do take the view that in many or most cases, I will use someone's pronouns. And we can get to the cases that maybe I wouldn't. Let me first, I guess let me back up and say, first of all, I believe that biological sex is a binary. There is male and female. Even someone with an intersex condition

is that that is a binary. There is male and female. Even someone with an intersex condition is that that's atypical features in one's male or female anatomy. Those two sex categories are not only true, but they are the most basic foundation of what it means to be human. And biblically, I might even say philosophically, but biblically, I believe that biological sex determines whether one is a man or a woman. Like, biological sex is a fundamental part of human identity. God created us, Genesis 1, 27, in His own image, and then He says in His Hebrew parallelism, male and female he created them, so that being male and female, not just being human, not just being embodied, but being

specifically sexed, bodied people, that is an essential part of how we bear God's image. Every time, the few times, cross-sex identification is addressed in Scripture. It hits some more directly, some more indirectly, but whenever it comes up, it is always confronted. It's not part of God's way. So in here, we're 100% in agreement. And this is where I very much resonate with the concerns that using someone's preferred pronouns, namely the pronoun doesn't match to biological sex, is affirming in them a viewpoint you don't even hold. So why would I use someone's preferred pronouns? For me, a lot of it comes out, there's several reasons that I

guess the biggest one would be it comes down to my view of the flexibility and complexity of language. Language is, if I can illustrate it, it's shared social space between people that might have different viewpoints. The language is that bridge that unites these two people in relationship and yet the words they're using might reflect different worldviews.

So I come up, this is me and I meet Pam and I say, hi Pam, you know, I'm Preston. I'm a Christian. Who are you? And Pam says, well, I'm Pam. I'm, I'm a trans woman and my pronouns are she, her. And I said, and I'm thinking like the Pam, you're clearly a dude. You know, like, I'm like, well, your pronouns should be he, him, because you're a biological male. And Pam says, well, yes, many people use pronouns to match their biological sex. My pronouns match my gender identity. What's that?

Well, gender identity is my internal sense of who I am. And I'm like, I don't agree with any of that. I don't like that. I don't like gender identity. Well, it's a big deal for me. And the way I use pronouns, it matches my gender identity, not my biological sex. So I have an option here. I can either, in this shared social space,

force my worldview and my language that reflects my worldview, which I think is correct. I think objectively it's correct. I could either force that person on, force that on somebody else and demand that they use language that reflects my worldview, or I can accommodate to their use of language. And this is where I'm going to say, I resonate with somebody who says, no, I'm not

going to accommodate. I'm going to use language that only reflects my worldview, because I disagree with their worldview. And I'm going to resonate with kind of maybe their concerns there. But I do, yeah, I take a position. I think there is some gray here. I think Christians, there are cases

when we do accommodate. And so, yeah, I'm the position, I think there is some gray here. I think Christians, there are cases when we do accommodate. And so yeah, I'm gonna step in and out of an accommodation to where this person is currently at in their journey, I'm gonna use the pronouns because they actually do factually match their gender identity. I can disagree whether pronouns should resonate with gender identity. I can disagree whether pronouns should resonate with gender identity. I can disagree with gender identity as a philosophical concept,

which I've got many problems with that. And I really tease it out. We've talked about that. Yeah. So it's not about agreement or disagreement. So I'm going to accommodate, given the flexibility of language, the complexity of language as shared social space, not because I agree with what they're saying. Now, if they turned around and said, if Pam, biological male says, well, do you think I'm a woman? I have to say no.

I don't wanna give the impression that I am agreeing with all of their ideology and world view. Now, in a five minute conversation at the grocery store, we might not unpack all that. But if a relationship progresses, then I wanna make sure I'm not giving the impression that my accommodation is affirmation. So that's where I would agree with you

and people who hold your position, that fear of affirming their worldview and reinforcing error, I worldview and reinforcing error. I'm sympathetic to that. So if I sense that in the relationship, I am doing that unintentionally or intentionally, then yeah, I would do what, this is where clarity comes in. I do wanna be really clear.

Yeah, I got more, but I would love to- Okay, so this is helpful. I appreciate the clarity on it. For me, if somebody goes, hey, my name is Pam and here's my gender pronouns, I say, hey, Pam, I'm Sean. Like, the most intimate part about somebody is their personal name.

Now there's debate about whether names are gendered or not, whether we should use them. I'm less concerned with names because there is a flexibility built in to make your point about linguistic flexibility. I was in high school and I was... We were talking about sports last night. You're a baseball guy, I'm a basketball guy.

And I remember this six foot eight African American guy, stud basketball player, older than I was, and he told me his name was Stephanie. And I didn't think, told me his name was Stephanie. And I didn't think, oh, he's a girl. I thought, well, okay, maybe this name has more flexibility. So names do seem to have some linguistic flexibility. But he and she is built into our language,

reflecting a biological reality. That's why some languages are actually gendered by their very nature. Why? Because they reflect not just a relativism of language, but something built into the fabric of our bodies in the universe that we know comes from a creator. So that's... I agree with linguistic flexibility to a degree, but I'm concerned when it goes,

and it seems to me, if I'm willing to say, well, somebody identifies as a woman, even though they're biological and male, because we have this concept of gender, some people may use it that way. But then that seems to also buy into the idea that gender can be separated from biological sex. So if I'm able to say, like, the one concern is that

if I say, he to a she, I'm lying, one way around that is, I think if I heard you correctly, is to say gender is what is meant by she. So if I say, she, I'm not really lying, because that's how that person understands himself. So you get potentially out of the lie objection, but the now adopted with that is an acceptance of language that gender does not necessarily connected to biology,

which I think is hugely problematic from within a Christian worldview. Does that make sense? Yeah, I... There's a lot there. The gender piece, maybe we... Yeah, maybe we come back to that. I actually think you're being inconsistent with the name thing. Okay, tell me why. Because while names are socially constructed

and aren't intrinsically connected to, like they're not universally necessarily always connected to a certain sex. In this case, Pam, assuming they had a male typical name before, has chosen Pam specifically because they believe they are a woman in terms of gender. So while, and your basketball friend Stephanie is not identified are a woman in terms of gender. So while... And your basketball friend, Stephanie, is not identified as a woman, so there's no, uh, cross-sex connection to this name.

But for Pam, it's a... one of the most fundamental parts of her transitioning, is a name that is female typical. So, in that moment, by affirming that, or Caitlyn Jenner, why is... Bruce, why does Bruce call himself Caitlyn now? Because he says he's a woman now, and Caitlyn is a female typical name. Now, somebody else's name, Caitlyn, that doesn't identify as a woman, but they're male,

and they have, you know, like your friend Stephanie, I think that's a different scenario. So this is interesting, and I've thought about the point about it being inconsistent, and maybe I should go further and not use names at all to keep my point in line. Maybe if I'm inconsistent, it just means I need to be more consistent and not even use it.

It doesn't mean that my argument itself doesn't stand. Now, in the case of Pam, I don't know who this person is, I don't know the backstory. This scenario was you literally just meet somebody. That's different than somebody who I knew was Steve. And then they shift to Pam. That's a different scenario. Do I use it in that case?

I don't know. It depends on my relationship with that person. If you knew clearly this is a male... Yeah, I understand if they're like passing this female. I got a friend who's transitioned male to female, and you would never know. In fact, they hung out with us for a while, and after they left.

Then you knew. Well, I already knew, but my wife didn't. And I told her like- That's interesting. So you know so-and-so was biologically male and she flipped it like what? But anyway, we're getting a little lost in the weeds here. But I would say if you believe you should not affirm

any kind of social self-affirmation that this person identifies as a gender different than their biological sex, whether it's names or pronouns. And I would think you just would need to be consistently, consistently refuse to accommodate to those social indicators, whatever it might be. So, maybe.

I guess one difference I would say is that there is a flexibility with names that change, and we know this. Over time, I met a girl that's named Sean. I know guys who are named Stacy and Kelly. But he and she is not the kind of thing for which there is linguistic flexibility at all. I think there's a difference there. Neither you and I are experts in linguistics per se, but I would say, I mean,

if you want to think broadly, terms do change over time. Back in the Chaucers, I use this illustration, I mean, if you want to think broadly, terms do change over time. Back in Chaucer's, I use this illustration, you know, back when's Chaucer writing? 15th century, I don't know. Yes, and they're all in person. But back then, apparently, in older English,

you know, girls, little girls just meant little kids. Like it was boys and girls, and they were called girls. Even now, I mean, some really persnickety linguists would say, well, given the fact that a growing number of people use pronouns to refer to gender identity, language rules shift, they follow movements of culture. Just like the word gay used to be happy, now it means same-sex attracted,

or there's many other examples we can give. That's true. And they would say, we're in the middle right now, like it or not, that there's a growing consensus that pronouns are more flexible. And even, I think the Oxford English Dictionary adopted they, them as a valid way to define somebody who's non-binary or something.

I don't quote, there's something like that. And that, a lot of people got upset, well, the dictionary shouldn't do that. as a valid way to define somebody who's non-binary or something. I don't quote, there's something like that. And that, you know, a lot of people got upset, well, the dictionary shouldn't do that. And maybe it shouldn't, but that's just kind of like, language does morph and shift with usage. And then the dictionaries kind of follow behind and start to flex with that usage.

So, but I agree. I agree that he, she in the English language in Western countries right now predominantly refers to biological sex. And I think we're going to maybe get too down a train here, but you're right, language changes. But also as Christians, there are times where we go, I'm not going along with that. So guys being used to a group in general, like that's pretty commonly understood. That's not implying any confusion between men and women. It's just using a term for men,

like sometimes the Bible does to refer to everybody. That's a different shift than language undermining the existence of biological distinctions and differences. That's where I draw the line. So here, I'm curious how you would answer this. Would Jesus or Paul use a preferred pronoun and what's the biblical evidence they would do so?

The clear answer is near you or I don't, we don't know the answer to that question, we cannot answer it. Oh man. And we could say my viewpoint is what Jesus and Paul would do, but that would be a little presumptuous. Isn't the burden of proof upon somebody who would? I would argue, so we don't have any evidence of them doing that.

Both are very clear about the creation norm. I can't think of any instance, there's a big difference, like Tim made this argument, I become all things for all people so I can reach them. But that's different than what using a preferred pronoun would be. I don't think you get from A to B in that one. Like, I can't imagine that Jesus would look at a biological male and refer to that man as a female for the sake of reaching him, like, I'm gonna need a pretty good argument or precedent, biblically... But we're dealing with categories of the distinction between biological sex and gender identity,

which didn't exist back then. Like, these aren't categories they were working with then. So, yeah, it feels like a little, almost like a red herring trump card to say, like, clearly Jesus would, like like agree with me when he's not When he did not address this specific issue I Don't I mean if if my view conflicts with Jesus then I'm wrong or you could go to a different topic I mean, that's just not but he just didn't address it

the closest we come and I know you and Tim talked about this is in You know, I think acts 17. I know you and Tim talked about this, as in, you know, I think Acts 17, I know you guys talked about this, you've done a lot of work on Acts 17, way more than I have, but it is interesting that Paul there quotes from a pagan poet, Eratos, I think, in him, we move and live and have our being,

oh, and then he says, and we are all his offspring. That poet's talking about Zeus. Ha ha ha. Um, even, even, uh, uh, Theos in the, in the Greco-Roman world, our word for God meant Zeus. Um, so here you have, you know, he's quoting a poet where the words mean Zeus.

He quotes the same thing, and he sort of, uh, well, he says, he sort of, in their well, he says he sort of in their Zeus worldview introduces, you know, a bit of Jesus into that, you know? So totally inexact. It's not exact parallel at all. It's just, I mean, he is, I think he is here's where I think there's maybe some common ground. And I'm not going to build a big argument from this, but like he is using a term that his audience has a different definition for. Same term, two different definitions, and he's sort of negotiating that tension a bit to sort of introduce them a more biblical understanding. Again, totally an exact parallel,

but I think exploiting the flexibility of language might be the one commonality, but I'm not going to build a big case on that. It's just not... So here's how this strikes me. And you can tell if I'm totally wrong. This strikes me like I have my mind made up on what preferred pronouns are, and I'm gonna find a biblical passage that doesn't perfectly match up, but gives me enough precedent to sit comfortably where I sit, so to speak.

That's how it could sound to some looking at this. Like, for me... I think the key question is, like, biblical. Not linguistic, it's biblical. Now, of course, this is a modern debate that might not perfectly match on. I get that. But the question is, is it biblical? So if I look at Acts 17, what's Paul doing? He's reaching out to

at the Areopagus an audience that's spiritually interested to an unknown God and his whole point is that God is not unknown So he quotes their prophets to say actually built into your system is the sense that God can be known. So he's building common ground with them based on something they believe, but of course, it's not Zeus. It's Jesus who came down in the incarnation. So I don't think you can get from that and map it on to using a term for somebody. As you admit, but I just don't see biblical precedent for it. That's what I guess... And maybe we just differ on where the burden of proof is on this,

because I think if I'm gonna use a term that arguably confuses a creation account, I better have some biblical precedent forever doing so. Sounds like your assumptions are a little bit like, if it's gracious and respectful, there's flexibility in language, the Bible doesn't violate it, and there's maybe some hooks that can get me 50% of the way there, I'm good. Maybe I mischaracterized that, but... That's a little bit of a mix. Yeah. And the only reason why I brought up Paul is because you brought up Paul. Like I typically don't say like...

I think it's... Isn't it in here? Is that an example you use? Yeah. I'm not mistaken. Yeah, yeah. I bring it up. Yeah. Okay. But again, the point is not... I'm not trying to, like you said, map it on. I'm just trying to say, like, we do have at least some evidence of Paul exploiting a single term phrase in this place, a quote about God, where the audience means something different than

what Paul means. And he's exploiting that tension within this shared social space of language. So again, not at all a perfect, I'm just trying to say, because you asked me what would Paul do or Jesus, I'm like, we don't have an example of this situation. We have zero examples of Jesus meeting somebody who is a biological female, identifies as male, and he's trying to reach them, and we don't have that example. If you ask me, does Jesus affirm that God created the male and female, I'm going to say Matthew 19 for 100%. That's there's explicit, that question is explicitly raised and addressed by Jesus, where the questions we're asking are not at all raised

by scripture and not addressed by scripture or Jesus or Paul. I'm just, that's where I'm gonna hesitate saying, well, I don't wanna read into the text, a situation is just simply not there. I wanna try to extrapolate maybe principles of accommodation. We have a lot of, I mean, maybe I should have gone there. I mean, you have a lot of times when God accommodates,

meets people where they're at, to bring them where they should be. It's why we have, the whole law of Moses is one big accommodating to Israel's ethical and moral situation in the ancient Near East. That's not the perfect ethic revealed for all time. I mean, you compare the law of Moses, the Sermon on the Mount, it's like, we got a long way to go here, you know? situation in the ancient Near East. That's not the perfect ethic revealed for all time. I mean, you compare the law of Moses, the Sermon on the Mount, it's like, we got a long way to go

here, you know? So even, well, this is going to be a bad example. I'm also going to say, like, God even speaking Koine Greek or Hebrew and Aramaic. Like that's not his language. That's a good thing. That's a great step. I'm not even trying to use that as an argument. I'm just saying God meets us where we're at to bring us to where he wants us to be. Jared Sasson So I don't know any Christian who could disagree with God meeting us where we're at to bring us. But I think when that includes affirming something that's not true in the shared space of language, especially when there's so many cultural debates going on about what it means to be human, and that very idea contains within itself certain ideas in conflict with the biblical

worldview. I just can't imagine it would accommodate that. But again, I think you still see, you seem to keep assuming that when they use the pronoun, they're referring to biological sex. I don't... They're referring to gender identity. And is there...

Okay, genuine question, does not have got you. Gender identity, internal sense of self as male or female. Do they really have an internal sense that they're a male or female? Like do they have that internal sense? Or is their internal sense wrong? I would say they do have the internal sense. To me, I'm saying, if you want my view, I'm like, your internal sense says nothing about whether a man or woman, that's an object of biological state. But this'm like, your internal sense says nothing about whether a man or woman.

That's an object of biological state. But this person does have that internal sense. I can disagree with that whole worldview, but I'm not affirming by using a pronoun that they actually are the opposite biological sex. I'm not actually affirming that. I'm simply meeting them where they're at with what I would call a,

I don't know, is it a warp, is that too, I don't wanna be demeaning, but yeah, maybe a warp, and the polish, I think they have a problematic view of human nature, separating gender identity from biological sex, internal sense overrules, however they're believing, there's lots of worldview conflict here.

So I'm not agreeing with that worldview, I'm simply meeting them where they're at in their current worldview state in their journey. So we agree it's a confused, warped, to use that term, internal state. But where does that come from? There are a few individuals, a minority, that have gender dysphoria, didn't ask for it,

find themselves with this state. a minority that have genitisphoria, didn't ask for it, find themselves with this state. There's a whole lot in our cultural moment now that have been shaped by, hence we've seen Gen Z increase to 28%, there's no way that that's just now science is matching how we really see ourselves. This is a massive amount of this generation that is now confused because of the shared space

of language and Christians who go along with it in some sense are contributing to that by not refusing to do so. That's how I see it. I think more is at stake than just being in a conversation with somebody, whether they believe that or not, they're bringing in ideas from our culture

that actually says my feelings define who I am. You let the camel's nose underneath the tent, and now we are seeing more and more people adopting this and accepting it. And I think in the name of compassion, which is a misguided compassion, we go along with it, but we have some complicity there, is what I would argue. Now, go ahead and make a point and then I...

I guess I would make it as, I share those concerns. I guess when we're talking about using an individual pronouns, we're talking about an individual conversation with an individual pronouns, we're talking about an individual conversation with an individual on their journey or something. I guess I have the advantage of, I've written books on the theology, the ideology, I've stated very clearly what I think the Bible says about being male and female and concerns over the trends happening in our environment and extensive conversations with the pot. So I mean, I have been very public with what my worldview is, which I think is correct. I think it's a bit of a loss. So in an inner, like in, I don't know if I'm feeding this

major cultural confusion going on, if on an individual level, I meet them where they're at. And we haven't talked about this, it this it's you know with the goal that Maybe this could open up a relationship That could lead to this person actually maybe identifying them with her body So that raises a ton of questions about how effective that is, right? We're not gonna answer that but it also in this conversation do we need a nuance? Are we talking in a business? Are we talking adult and child? Are we talking Christian and non-Christian? Are we talking public versus private? We haven't gone through some of those nuances.

But you and I both have made our case publicly and encouraged people to do so, so we don't get off the hook, even though we could clarify where and when we wouldn't use it. So we can let that go. So would you agree that someone who believes, I think you said earlier, biological male believes he is a woman is mistaken in that belief? Yes. Okay. My only hesitation was because there's, I can think of several different

ideological ways in which they get there. And so there's gonna be... I agree. There's gonna be lots of differences. So I agree with that. But yeah, I define women as an adult... How do they get their side? An adult human female.

That's a woman. Okay. That's how I define woman, okay? They might define it differently, but yeah, I think you are not an adult human female. You're an adult human male Okay, so somebody believes there's something that they're not I Can't verify us to meal off this question or not, but can you think of any other instance? That's medical and or moral where someone believes there's something that they're not and

The loving thing is to affirm something that they're not. I can't think of one. And if you can, maybe I gotta rethink my question, if you can't, then why is it on this issue we do it, and not others? Again, I do wanna bring us back one more time to the distinction between their view of sex and gender. So I don't think I am...

I'm accommodating, not affirming. And again, if they ask me, do you think I'm a woman, I would have to answer truthfully, because that's a more direct, objective question that's now asking me about my worldview. And I'm going to be very honest with where I'm at. I guess I would... If you are concerned with people who are...

I think you would probably use to say, gender confused. I don't... It's not my preferred term, but they're confused over, um... their ontological state as a human being, maybe. Um... Have you seen much success in helping that person come to a more accurate view by beginning the relationship by refusing to use their pronouns?

This is a pragmatic question. It's not a... This isn't like an ethical argument, but... You were kind of raising it under the umbrella of a practical situation. So let me say this. This is totally a fair question, both ways. I don't know all the data on this. Uh... let me shift it back to this. I think of if somebody... The closest example I could think of,

when somebody's mind doesn't match up with their body, would be like anorexia or bulimia. And somebody who is struggling from this, says, I want you to call me fat or call me overweight. Well, I want to meet that person where they're at because that's what they believe about their state. And then I'm in relationship with that person. Then I can begin to change them. I think as far as I'm mistaken,

when I ask my nursing students here at Biola, like medically, you cannot affirm something that's false. You cannot do it. I wouldn't do that. Would you do it in that circumstance as well? Or if not, why is that different than gender dysphoria? No, that's a good, I think there's some overlap to that analogy for sure.

I think there's some differences. Most trans people I talk to, they know 100% what their biology is. Like their gender identity is not a claim about their biology. My friend, I just think of one good friend who's a biologically male identifies as female. They would say more often than I do, I am male. I would be delusional to look down and say,

hey, I'm obviously female. He's not. So in most, not in every case, if somebody is actually looking into the mirror and they are in their mind saying, I am the opposite biological sex, like they actually believe that, I think that, yeah, that might be a more serious, very rare, some sort of psychological condition.

I think because there's so much diversity within a trans conversation, in my anecdotal experience, they do not disagree with their biology. Now they may, through transitioning, may try to present in that way. Maybe they transition everything, they're like, see, I'm, you know. So here's the overlap. The overlap is, regardless of, or, I'm, you know. So here's the overlap. The overlap is... Regardless of... Or let's say, with the distinctions that you've made,

for this individual to flourish, gender identity, to use that term, needs to match up with biological sex. So they might be suffering in a way different than somebody with anorexia or bulimia. But it's the same disconnection. And the human flourishing is only gonna take place when those line up.

So I guess it's not clear to me, and if you're like, I just need to think about this and come back to you, it's fine, I want people to think about it. I just don't see a sufficient distinction between those two that justifies in one case, not the other, which makes me ask the question, are we tempted to do this because there's something different about the trans issue coming from the culture, what it means to respect, what it means to love that's not biblical, we apply here, not there.

That's where my radar goes off. I think there's inconsistency there. You agree or disagree? If I was affirming their worldview and then later on saying, actually I don't affirm your worldview, then that would be, I think, very misleading. All I can say, yeah, I don't have the studies

in front of me on, all I can speak is anecdotal, personal experience and many other people who have shared stories and stories. I've met countless, yeah, I can speak is anecdotal personal experience and many other people who have shared stories and stories. I've met countless, yeah, I can't, I mean, there's so many examples of people where, let me just use one example, just concrete. A friend of mine, she's very public, Kat, came to Christ like seven years ago.

And you've interviewed her, I think I've heard. Or him, I don't know who it is. Her, her. Okay, biological female, was identified as trans, dating a woman, came to church. One of those just like scared to come to church, shows up, she finds herself in tears, puddle of tears, comes to Christ, radical conversion.

A friend, a mutual friend of ours actually befriended her, I think a couple of weeks later, met her at church. My friend happens to mutual friend of ours, actually befriended her, I think, a couple weeks later, met at Saar at church. My friend happens to be same-sex attracted. She didn't know that at the time. But, you know, reached out to her and started befriending her and used her pronouns. You know, she was still using pronouns then. I mean, this person, Kat, was just fragile,

has been through so much, had this radical encounter. This is, She's the foundation of Christianity is being built. My friend Lori said, you know what, there's the pronouns, there's this, there's that. I want to focus on Jesus. I want to focus on walking with this person, loving with them, being with them, listening, show them that I am invested. Well, that took a while. them, listen and show them that I am invested. Well, that took, you know, a while. She even said, um, the cat asked Lori, like, what does God, I've heard what all these people think about my gender, what does God think? And Lori is where you and I might even be tempted to say, okay, let's go to Genesis. You know, Lori said, you know what? I'm not quite sure,

but I'm going to figure this out with you together. Which I totally like, that's awesome. Every Christian should do that. So by a couple years later, Kat now, biological female, is okay with female pronouns. And I even ask her, like, what if Lori from the beginning refused to use your pronouns and told you exactly what God thought? She said, I would have ran the other way. I would have just been like too much all at once.

Like I was just baby steps trying to figure out God and Jesus. And that's just one anecdotal story. And I don't base arguments on just anecdotal or pragmatics. Like, hey, see, this worked. Therefore, it's true. But that does, I don't know. Like, if our concern, most of our concerns,

is that people would move to a place to where maybe they don't experience gender dysphoria. Maybe they're identifying with the biological sex. I've just seen practically that sometimes that unique path of their sanctification takes some nuance and grace and takes a while. We don't need to front load everything we want them to believe or to do do right at the beginning.

I have another friend who transitioned, de-transitioned after she met Jesus, but it was a couple years after she came to Christ. And she had a pastor friend of male, female that brought her in to live with her, live with them. They just took her in and she ended up de-transitioning. But the pastors, they didn't actually say right at the beginning, like, they just took her in. And she ended up detransitioning. But the pastors, they didn't actually say, like, right at the beginning, like, you're a Christian now, you need to detransition. They just really got to know her. They talked a lot about Jesus, they worked through stuff. And she ended up on her own, I mean, her and Jesus saying, yeah,

I think I need to detransition. And she said again, like, if the pastors had really jumped in and forced that at the beginning, she's like, I probably would have been scared off and ran the other way. It was that encounter with grace and love and kindness that led to that. So, I don't know a situation where somebody says, from the beginning of the relationship, I want you to see Jesus and I'm going to refuse to use your pronouns. Let's go for it. I've never seen, and maybe had, I want you to see Jesus, and I'm gonna refuse to use your pronouns. Let's go for it. I've never seen, and maybe had, I'm sure it has happened.

I just- Well, I do. I mean, I could give you specific cases of when that happens. And I'm not, I mean, not gonna cite my sources, but somebody specifically saying there was a relationship that was there, and I identify this way, and it's like, I know you.

That's not true. I'm not going along with your fantasy. and it took that boldness to reach in to bring the person out of it Yeah, so we can tell stories. That's what anecdotal evidence is nervous Even when somebody says if you might use my pronouns I bailed I go I don't know for sure Maybe are there ways to navigate that lovingly and graciously without doing so? I think there are. But I do agree with you as a whole, the principle is that I'm not going to clean up everything overnight with somebody. I've got to let grace sink in and there has to be a season of growing. And sometimes we are just so quick to make sure somebody lines up.

There's some grace that can be a part of that. We might differ over how that's nuanced. And let me just say, really, because sometimes people describe my position as, oh, because of kindness, he does that. That is not it at all. If I'm lying to the person or if I'm affirming their worldview, then that's wrong. If that's what I'm doing, then I need to not do that.

I don't care if that is kindness. It's not about fluffy, secular kindness that I'm doing this. It is about, I think, for me, it stems from just that flexibility of language and maybe a more missiological way in which I think we should live in the world. We have been spending a lot of time on this one. I do. I have... This is one of three we're talking about?

Man, we're gonna see. Hopefully they'll give us a little bit more time to flesh this out. One, I guess there's one more point that I want to make I think it's interesting the cast report has come out Mm-hmm and said the idea of socially Transitioning even used in pronouns. There's no evidence that this leads towards greater health for kids That's an interesting piece of this now. It's for kids. It's in the UK I think we're gonna see more and more evidence come out that supports that more largely.

We should question us using it. Can I add something? This is a really important piece too. I actually don't advocate for parents using pronouns of their kids, younger kids especially. If it's an adult child or something, that might be a different story. But that's another distinction we could make between...

We agree that affirming their social transition, which is pronouns and names, often leads to puberty blockers, hormone treatment, and sometimes surgery. So if a person in authority, like a parent, affirms their social transition, that often can be nudging them out of that. You have culpability towards that. Okay, so that was kind of my question, but you made a distinction, is that this gets personal for me, because my daughter, you met last night,

we had a wonderful meal, loves volleyball, coming here next year at Biola to play. Her sophomore year in playoffs, I believe it was the semi-finals for what's called CIF, kind of the Southern section where we live championship. Game to get to the finals. The single best player I've ever seen on a volleyball court dominated us.

We had no idea at the time that he was a biological male. Now, in the entire run to winning the CIF championship, you have to win three out of five sets to win a game in volleyball. They lost one set to us, which means, had this player not played, we would have won the championship. We would have.

Now I can hear people going, oh, it's sports, calm down. And I go, I'm sorry, you have no right to tell me what's important to me and what's not important to me. My daughter loves this, she sacrificed for it. I played college hoops here and I was up day and night. Like I just poured myself into it. To have something taken from you that's not right is totally wrong.

So that individual, I wanna show compassion, I wanna show kindness, but everybody who said she is, or he is a she in some ways contributed to all the other people that lost that championship, time on that court, et cetera. And I don't know that we can separate that from the larger cultural narrative that roots our identity in our attraction and our gender.

And so that kind of stuff to me is a part of the larger issue that gets personal as well. And that's where I think we gotta say no. Now I'm not one who says I'm gonna go out of my way and make sure if you're Pam, I'm gonna say no you're not. And here's why, and Kyle, I don't feel the duty to do that. I'm gonna do everything I can to stay in relationship with you and in fact, one of the things I do appreciate

you saying in your book is like we should listen and understand people. Like if somebody says I view myself, my gender this way, different from my biological sex as a Christian, I'm gonna say tell me about that. I'm gonna lean in, I'm trying to understand, I'm gonna listen, I'm gonna build common ground and say would you be willing to hear as a Christian

how I see the world differently? And then gives me a chance to speak to him. So any comments on that? Are you're good, ready to move on? I'm very much opposed to biological males and female sports. I got three daughters, they haven't had this situation. I mean, there's other situations where,

yeah, female only spaces, I think should be female only spaces. And so a lot of the broader societal things, I think we're gonna agree 100% on that. And my only caveat is, for every, you know, male, NNA, female-only sport, there's 99 people who are not doing that, that are often swept up in this kind of, like, anger,

conservatives, like, when you're sharing that story, I was literally getting angry, because I'm like, that is such... we talk about being feminism and women's rights and stuff. This is like reverse-patriot. This is like, you are, this is harmful towards women and not right towards women. So I think like we need to absolutely stand up.

So, but I know so like, I don't, if I could think of like 10, 12 trans people I know, I think they would all agree with us on that. Like they're, I think, like, we need to absolutely stand up. So, but I know so, like, I don't... If I could think of like 10, 12 trans people I know, I think they would all agree with us on that. Like, they're... A lot of them do, but so, my question is just, if I'm gonna say to a biological male,

oh, you are a she, then how do I say she can't play sports? She can't go in the male bathroom. She can't go on the church retreat. Yeah, like that's where things are at stake here More than just the relationship That's a good point. I mean, I don't want to kick it dead horse But I would say this person who has an internal sense of being female is still male and so no she's not gonna sleep with the the girls, you know

Anyway, yeah. So, all right, we've, yeah. We need to take deep breaths. There's a very valid, valid things you're raising. Okay, so there's one question I wanted to ask you. I guess I gotta get it to the mic here. Is I've heard you explain yourself when speaking. You'll say I'm a white, male, Christian, heterosexual, cisgender, or something like that.

Correct me if I don't describe it. I don't use cisgender as a term. You don't say you're cisgender. I don't like that term. You don't use that language? I don't like that term, no. So tell me why not. It assumes an ideology I don't agree with.

So you don't describe yourself. I could have sworn I've heard you at a conference say I'm a cisgender. If I did, I might have, I might have, but not in several years, because I don't. Okay, I think it was at ETS a few years ago. I remember hearing you say that. Yeah, so I would say,

that would be something I'd change on. And I took issue with that, because I'm like, wait a minute, that language is implying that there's two ways. And I wouldn't say white. And one is normative, and one is not. So you would not use the term cisgender, apart from explaining what it is.

Unless I, the only, the close I'd come is to say I'm a male who does not experience gender dysphoria. I mean, I don't know. Okay, that's fine. Just for clarification. If cisgender assumes an ideology about gender and an ontologically, ontological, ontology about gender that I don't agree with.

If somebody uses it to have people use it to me, I don't care, whatever. But I'm not gonna self identify. Issue number two. Oh man, I'm like going, it's lunchtime here. But this is important stuff. One is gay identity. And I've indicated that I've had a shift in this for me

from just being willing to say, oh, you're gay as long as you love Jesus, and not involved in same-sex sexual behavior, or promoting same-sex marriage, it's fine. But I do think there's ontologically laden... There's ontology laden with that term, that gives me serious pause, in terms of referring to one as gay.

I think that's, I mean you can make the case, I know you're aware of this, that it's Freudian language, not biblical language. Tell us your position before we jump in, maybe just for clarity on what you think about whether Christians can or should. Is it not wise? Is it just like morally wrong to do so? Should they do it? Is it an agree to disagree issue? Tell me what you think about it. I would say if anybody who says they're a Christian

has an identity that is not ultimately, or let me reverse it. If their identity is not first and foremost in Christ, and everything else flows from that, then I think that's a fundamental flaw, and it's going to lead to discipleship problems down the road. I think this applies to all of us. I think we all have important aspects of our life that are often they're often competing with our ultimate identity in Jesus Christ. For many people, not to get spicy,

but their allegiance to a certain political party. Ah, it was one when you're gonna go there. Oh yeah, yeah, and I'll bring that up. Or even being an American, like if I said, are you American, Sean? You would have to say yes. Say absolutely, to be honest. Well, and that is a kind of identity.

Sure, I agree. Now can your American, lowercase i identity hopefully compete at times with your Christian identity? I think we all battle that. I do. I mean, even like as a, well, you're a professor, I used to be a professor. Being a pastor struggled with this too. Hi, my name is so-and-so.

I'm a pastor. You know, I'm a husband even. Like we have important aspects of our life that should never take the throne of Jesus. They should all flow from that. If my American identity is at all in competition with my Christian identity, I have to choose Jesus over my American identity. So when it comes to one's sexuality, 100%, if they're sexual, let's just say they're sexuality, they're sexual experiences, they're sexual attraction, if that is in any way competing with their allegiance to Jesus, then I would say that is absolutely fundamentally wrong.

To answer what I think your question, if somebody says, I am gay, and I'm a Christian, if somebody says, I am gay, and I'm a Christian, I'm going to say, if your quote unquote gayness is taking precedent over your Christian-ness, then that is problematic. In a similar way that if I said I'm American, or you might say, well, American's a neutral designation. Maybe if I said, my mom is divorced, if she says, are you married or single? What are you? Well, I am divorced. Well, that's an I am statement. There was some, maybe sin wrapped up into that, you know?

So that might be a closer to the parallel. All the analogies are gonna break down. But yeah, if anybody says I am filling the blank and that is competing with your allegiance to Jesus, then that is problematic. Okay, this is interesting and helpful, I think, for people to see. All of us agree primary identity should be in Jesus. And we have other things a part of our identity. I'm from California, like you said. I think the distinction you made is interesting about, is it a moral distinction or not?

So I don't know if... divorce is gonna get us to identify as gay. Because divorce is not an ongoing, presumably, not an ongoing sin that somebody is in. Or saying, this is a good thing that I'm embracing. It's actually a broken thing that the person, nobody that I'm aware of says they're proud of that, unless they escaped some kind of terrible thing.

It's usually like, I'm divorced. Yeah, that was painful, that hurt. I don't see that approach when it comes to gay identity, even if it's not claimed to be essential. There is a sense of like, pride, and I don't know if it's not claimed to be essential, there is a sense of, like, pride, and I don't know if that's the best term for it, but there is a positive sense of, like, I own this, I'm leaning into this,

and does that carry with it certain baggage? That it's different to say it's competing with Christianity. Like, I agree with you, my Americanism shouldn't compete with Christianity. But I don't think anybody has an issue with saying, this could be a subset of my Christian faith. But a gay identity competes with Christianity by its very nature. That's where I think the difference is from the examples that you gave.

So I think this part of the conversation is intrinsically connected to whether same-sex attraction is a sin. That's right. Maybe we'll just cover them both. Yeah, yeah. But fair enough. Maybe it'll weave in and out.

So when someone... There's like five things I want to say at once. Let me say just quickly. I think it's a case by case basis. So I don't want to make a categorical, like everybody that describes themselves as being gay is doing it out of pride, and intrinsically is opposed to a biblical worldview. Like I think, I want to, going back to the complexity of the, complexity of linguistics, I want to say, what do you mean by that term?

You know, to be a person who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who biblical worldview. Like, I think, I want to, going back to the complexity of the linguistics, I want to say, what do you mean by that term? You know, 10 people use that term and mean eight different things, really.

So I, you know, when I say, when someone says gay, I just take that and tell them, explain it more, as a synonym for being attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex. And that's going to open up right after. Yeah, it the opposite sex. And that's gonna open up right after. It will, yeah. Yeah. So, I try to explain this aside from that.

Aside from how we understand same sex attraction, if someone says they are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex, I don't think I can conclude right now that that is therefore their ultimate identity. Or even that they see it positively. I know some people, maybe a minority of people, but some people who might say I'm gay

and it's kind of like, yeah, this sucks. I'm not proud of that, which I could change it. In fact, most people I know early on, Greg Coles talks about this a lot. He identifies as gay and a Christian, but he says early on, it was horrifying. He talks about lying in his bed as a teenager and just after years of, you know, realizing he's tempted more by men than women, saying out loud, I'm gay, and

just to horrify, he said his body just felt just like terrified by that because that was the worst thing that could be. So even in that moment, if you want to take that as an example, like there's an example where somebody said, if you wanna take that as an example, like there's an example where somebody said, I am gay, and it was not, it was like this horrifying kind of aspect that they were wrestling with. So this is where I... With the gay identity, it's just, I think there's so many,

so much diversity within how individuals are using it. I'm gonna take an individual and sort of unpack what do you mean by this term. Okay, that's fair. And that's helpful because people use it in a lot of different ways. Let me push back on this though, I think for clarity might be helpful. It is a... You said in a case by case basis, when somebody says they're gay, you wanna know what they mean.

And you take it as same-sex attracted, at least initially. There was a very interesting, or there is a very extreme exchange on your website between, I think it's Greg Coles and Rachel Gilson, and whether we should identify as gay. That is one of the most helpful back and forths that I've seen. And it seems like Greg takes more the position that you're taking, and Rachel's like, look, in the shared space of where I act, and she's with crew on college campuses,

gay doesn't mean same-sex attraction. Okay, sure. This is my identity, and what comes with that is a sense that I'm open to a same-sex relationship. Yeah. That's what it means. So there might be some individuals who mean that differently.

But I'd say then don't use that term, because that's the shared space about how everybody assumes it. I agree. 100%. So when a Christian says, I'm gay, that's gonna lend towards... I have two problems with that. Number one, is it carries with it a certain sense

of this is a part of my identity, and should it be, given what gayness may involve, and confusion with the culture over what gay is. So I guess for, so for me, and this is, I think Rachel pointed this out, and this is another shift in my thinking. Is there individuals who'd say, I'm a gay Christian, but I don't practice it, I'm against same-sex marriage.

And for a while I was like, awesome, we're redeeming the term, we have people who might open up the door for conversation. Now I'm going, no, don't define yourself that way at all, because our culture is gonna go, wait a minute, you don't mean the same thing by this that I even mean by it. So I think that's the problem. If you're assuming it means same-sex attracted,

why not use same-sex attracted, especially, unless I'm mistaken about this, when the vast majority of people are not using it to refer to the same thing? At least outside of the church. I don't know, yeah. I think context certainly matters. I should have clarified that. I think there are certain contexts where if somebody is comfortable using the term gay, that they should not use the term gay, because it could be, it could lack clarity, it could be misleading if the audience is hearing something

you're not trying to communicate. Let me give two quick examples. So like if, I'll just use Greg as an example. Greg's a good friend of mine. I'm sure you've chatted with him before. I've actually never met him. You've never met him? Nope, seen him online, enjoyed his debate with James White,

was interesting, but anyways, keep going. He wrote a book called Single Gay Christian. Going back to a point you made at the very beginning, Sean, it was endorsed by D.A. Kersen, founder of the Gospel Coalition back in 2018. Before this was an issue, and this is where Greg and I would even say, I haven't shifted at all. I think people have shifted in their heightened concern for some of these things. Anyway, yeah, celibate gay Christian. If he goes into a conservative church to preach and he introduces himself, cold turkey,

hi, my name is Greg, I'm a gay Christian. Now open up to Romans one and we're gonna talk, that would be disastrous. You have just been very unclear because if it's a very conservative church, all they're all, all they're going to hear is you affirm same-sex marriage or you endorse a certain political ideology. They're going to have all the baggage that you kind of describe that Rachel might encounter in her context. That term gay is going to miscommunicate what he's trying to say and is going to put relational walls up and is going to be unhelpful. Now same person, Greg, say he's, I don't know if you've heard me use this illustration before,

but say he's in Starbucks reading his Bible. He often reads his Bible in public places. He's, you know, a zealous Jesus follower. And say in walks a non-Christian gay person and looks down and says, oh, reading the Bible, huh? You must be a Christian. And Greg says, yeah, I'm actually a pastor. And the guy says, well, must be nice.

Unfortunately, I'm gay, so I can't be a Christian. And that's a very prevalent thing, that if you're simply- I thought that happened to me. Yep. What would be more missiologically helpful for Greg to say, oh, well, actually, I wrestle with the sin of same-sex attraction too.

Or if he said, oh, I'm gay too. And what that person means is not necessarily, you're gonna say, well, he means, by gay he means affirming same-sex. I don't, it depends. I think for a lot of people, they think simply by the fact that I'm attracted to the same-sex,

the Christian church and Christianity won't touch me. The Christian God has once nothing to do with me. And I am excluded simply because I'm attracted to the same sex. By Greg using the term gay, I would say that's more missiologically helpful to deconstruct that warped view that if you're same-sex attracted,

you cannot be in God's favor, than if he sort of uses a Christian term that's just not gonna resonate with that, that guy's gonna say, I don't know what you just said, but that's not who I am, you know? So that's helpful. And I appreciate that your heart is missiological.

If Greg's sitting there struggling, and I don't know him, it's hypothetical to me. And someone goes, I'm gay. I'd say, no, you're not. You have same-sex attraction. That's not who you are. You're a male made in God's image with dignity and value and worth, and you wrestle with sin like all of us do.

Now, how I navigate that, you know, obviously there has to be some wisdom given the context. But even that sense of like, I'm gay, I wanna go, no, don't start there in terms of that's who you are. That's gotta be clarified in my mind. Now, mythologically speaking, I get emails on this. I got one two days ago.

All the time. I know you do too. I mean, I kid you not, I think it was two days ago. Somebody just said, read your books, follow your stuff, appreciate your tone, but I'm gay. There's no room in the church for me. I get that a lot. Now, if I'm sitting in this coffee shop and somebody says to me what you said,

I just say, you know, same sex attraction for anybody aside, I'd say, I said, thanks for sharing that. I'm a pastor, I'm a follower of Jesus. I would love to hear your story. What do you mean by that? How have Christians treated you? What makes you think that? Who do you think Jesus is? So I think without giving up this game of like,

oh I'm gay like you are, wouldn't we mean different things anyways? There's ways to mythologically lean in relationally. Without, I know you wouldn't use this term, so maybe it's loaded, without I think compromising or potentially compromising. I know you wouldn't, maybe that's not fair. But as I see it, potentially compromising clarity on what we mean by these terms and where identity roots, there's other wiser ways to navigate that. I think part of the main disagreement is I don't see the term G-A-Y in English language as necessarily in every case

carrying the same ontological weight that I think you're assuming it intrinsically carries. Like, I think... You don't think most people view it that way? I am how I feel. I mean, like, you don't think the vast majority of shared space is that's who I am? But it means even that, like, you don't think the vast majority of shared space is that's who I am? But it means even that, like, are you American?

Are you a father? Are you a professor? Like, the I am... I don't know if you've done, and this isn't your colleague Ryan Peterson helped me out with this, like, in sociological studies, the whole concept of identity, it's so widely debated on what constitutes an identity, how it's so widely debated on what constitutes identity, how it's intrinsically tied to certain social contexts, the different, you know, he sent me an article

as a definitive, Rogers Brubaker, he wrote a good book on trans actually, wrote an article, a 30 page article on summarizing just the complexity of what we even mean by when we say the word identity. What does that mean? Is any I am blank statement an identity? Are there sub identities?

Which one's primary? How do they relate? How many are socially derived? How many are ontologically immutable? So just to say the word G-A-Y in English language is an identity. Therefore, I'm like, I just want to pause a little bit and say, I think you might be assuming so much in that statement.

This is why rather than saying the term identity, not identity, I wanna kind of just unpack without even using that term. How high on the value scale is this term for your life? If my friend, Greg Coles and several others are attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex, like if they are going to experience a sexual temptation, it will be towards the same sex, maybe.

And out of allegiance to King Jesus, they are dedicating their life to lifelong celibacy. When in a church, we're often kind of like elevates marriage and family to the place to where single people feel out of touch. When he's 75 years old and in the hospital, who's going to visit? I mean, this is, this is...

I get it. So if I say, Greg, you can't use the term G-A-Y because you're making this your identity. I think you would turn around with bewilderment and say, you think my ultimate identity is in my gayness? Why would I be living this radical life for Jesus if Jesus were not on my throne? So for him, G-A-Y is just a synonym for the fact that he experienced the same-sex attraction. If that leads to a sexual temptation, it would be towards the same sex, not opposite sex. Is that a fundamental part of who he is?

It's there. It's pretty, like, you know, male, female, straight, same-sex attracted sexuality. It's not ultimate, but it's pretty important. I mean, every marketer in America knows that they can get things out of dangling sexuality in front of us. It's a powerful part of the human experience. We can't deny that. Could it get in the way of our relationship with Jesus?

Absolutely, it can. Does it mean it's our ontolo... Like, fun... Does it mean it's ontologically on par with our male and femaleness? I don't think it does. I would not put it on that same level. Um... Would you agree with, like, I'm an American, I could go get Mexican citizenship? Fine. I could shift my nationality.

But within the narrative that's often pushed to try to change at all... is bad in itself. Because gay is understood as being fixed. And it's more central to who I am. Greg might not, but in the wider culture, that is the narrative we hear all the time. You can change your allegiance of which sports teams

you support. I can change from a Californian to live in Idaho. I don't think I can change my sports. But I can't change my... Well, fair enough. I could never vote. I'm so tempted to call it another private university that's our rival, but I won't. I could never vote for them.

I am Biola, true and true. But we could, in principle, change those things. We're kidding. But we're told you cannot change this, and you should not fix this. It's harmful. So that very narrative that comes along with it We're kidding, but we're told you cannot change this and you should not fix this. It's harmful. So that very narrative that comes along with it implies that it might not be the ultimate in the case of some people.

But in the wider culture, this is a part of who you are. You better embrace it. If you don't embrace it, it's actually harmful to you. That's kind of the Freudian idea. That it's actually harmful to you. That's kind of the Freudian idea. That it's actually sexual repression from conservatives or Christians who say, that's not who you are. You're harming me. You're causing me to commit suicide. So it's not the same as these other examples. Whether it is for Greg, I don't know him.

This is not about an individual. I know you're just using him as an example. But we've got to look at this as a whole and as a culture and how it affects others. So I don't think it's just a question of what's the central part of my identity. I think there's something different with our cultural moment as it comes to being gay. But then it also raised the question, even if somebody experiences same-sex attraction, should I claim that as a positive part of my identity, even if that's a fact that someone experiences that,

or should I run from it? Now, hold that thought for a minute, because that comes back to whether or not we should embrace same-sex sexual attraction. Can I read you a quote about this, and we can just kind of unpack what it is. So... I want to respond to what you said, not forget.

Okay, do it before I forget. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. First of all, I very much resonate with that. Like the whole, like, we, in many parts of our culture, it's a culturally dominant perspective, especially among younger people, that our internal sense of who we are is ultimate, and our objective state is not.

And I think that is really counterproductive. So if reinforcing the use of this term is feeding into that, then I could definitely get on board with that being problematic. I kind of like what the pronoun thing. I think that there is cases when I think somebody saying they're gay will not be helpful, and other cases where it might be helpful or might be neutral.

So I have, it is again more of a case by case. But I can almost see your point working the other way, actually, because yes, there is this cultural concern, fear that the church is all about conversion therapy. You can't be same-sex attracted and be a Christian. The only way you can be a Christian is if you become straight. And so they hear us avoiding the word gay at all costs

and only saying same-sex attracted. The very term same-sex attracted came from the halls of conversion therapy. Like I know several people where that term is like, oh, it has like bad connotations to it. So I think there could be linguistic confusion if we are so opposed to the term gay. I think a lot of people are gonna just interpret that

of, oh, see, I can't come to your church unless you convert me to being straight, which is like, well, that's not what we're saying. So let's come back when we talk about whether or not same-sex attraction is sinful, because it raises questions of like, reparative therapy and how we deal with this. So, let me shelf that for a second.

That's a really important piece of the conversation we need to come back to. So, this is a quote, and I mean, I somewhat hesitate to use it. I don't want to pick on individuals. Maybe you'll agree with it, but it just illustrates this point. Wesley Hill and his book on spiritual friendship has been clear about, and he's spoken here at Biola, it's part of a dialogue, which we,

I think this illustrates, try to have conversations with people civilly, back and forth. He said, quote, somewhat of a long quote, and then we'll unpack it. He said, being gay, which right away for me, I'm like, okay, red flag, but we can keep going. Being gay is for me as much a sensibility as anything else. A heightened sensitivity to and passion for same-sex beauty that helps determine the kind of conversations I have, which people I'm drawn to spend time with,

what novels and poems and films I enjoy, the particular visual art I appreciate, and also, I think, the kind of friendships I pursue and try to strengthen. I don't imagine I would have invested half as much effort in loving my male friends and making sacrifices of time, energy, and even money on their behalf if I weren't gay.

And then he ends with this. So, if I could sum up, he describes himself as being gay and says it's a sensibility, as much as anything else, that affects his conversations, the friendship he's drawn to, the kind of art, et cetera. Then he says, my sexuality, my basic erotic orientation to the world is inescapably intertwined with how I go about finding

and keeping friends. Now he said, I think he said this, he was concerned with people reducing same sex, sexual track, same sex attraction, just down to its sexual component with people reducing same-sex attraction just down to its sexual component and is saying there's more to it than this. So I guess here's my concern. I'd say there may be,

and I don't think I'm actually willing to concede this, but for the sake of point, there may be more to it than sexual attraction, but there's no less. He says his basic erotic orientation. To me, if you have that erotic orientation, you don't lean into it and say, this is positive, this is helpful, and this shapes me.

I say, no, we have an orientation, not aligned with God's design. We turn and we run from that. So I think the criticism of this approach is called sublimation, but trying to baptize this part of my identity. Not saying they're making it primary. I don't know, maybe they are.

You know, Wesley, these other people saying it's primary. They're saying it shouldn't be a part of it because by its very nature, although it may be more, there's no less than this erotic orientation. Ontologically, that's unwise, but also morally, that's a sinful orientation. Go away from it, don't lean into it. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I think, yeah, this is... Well... Yeah, there's a lot here. I'm not gay, so I'm trying to interpret somebody else's experience and how they're viewing the world. And I'm like, I, I, but that's true for anybody. I'm looking at, yeah, like, but I, right. I'm not a biologist. I'm not right. Yeah. Like you said, this is my experience as biologist. I said, I'm not gay. I'm not gay. I'm not gay. I'm not gay. I'm not gay. I'm not gay. I'm not gay. I'm not gay. I'm not gay. I'm not gay. I'm not gay. I'm not a biolo prof, I'm not... Right. Yeah, like if you said, this is my experience as biolo, and I said, no, it shouldn't be. Like I would at least concede that like, you have an experience that I don't and never will have. But having said all that,

let me, because you're gonna like it. I didn't love the way he was framing that. And there's, I think you're concerned about the positive side was framing that. And there's, I think you're concerned about the positive reclamation of this term, that even if you hold to a traditional view of marriage, this is still, this experience, this term that is describing the experience is still,

at the very least, part of the fallen nature, not part of like new creation, isn't part of like the positive trajectory we should be on. It may be a thorn in the flesh or something that... I mean, so far, is that like, would that be one of your concerns? The kind of positive framing of it? Well, let me ask this, do you, yes.

Do you believe in a historical fall? There's been public questions about this. You and I went back and forth. Do you believe in an objective? historical fall That disordered nature. Yes, you include homosexuality in that but of course all of us are affected by it equally in different ways I believe the fall has affected Everyone's sexuality one manifestation of that might be somebody who experiences unwanted same-sex retarget. Okay. All right. Is there anything else you want to keep saying on that?

Um... I've heard Wes and others say things similar, and I will say, um, I haven't been... I don't want to say uncomfortable, but I hear that, I'm like, I'm not sure I agree with all of that. Like, I need to dig into this a little more and understand what he's saying. I do know that in, you know, Wes is primarily an academic.

Um, and I do know, like, in theological lingo, even a term erotic doesn't mean what it does in popular language. Like, David Bennett and others talk about this being, like, they talk about it. I remember the first time I came across this. I think it was in... Bennett, like, you're using this term differently than I talk about it. I remember the first time I came across this, I think it was in Bennett Mike.

You're using this term differently than I'm used to. Help me understand this. And it was some theological thing that I didn't really understand. So I want to give a little bit of like, I would want, let's say unpack what you mean there. You'd want some context to that. But the one is,

when I say it, is same sex attraction. Can same sex attraction be a positive good? I'm wrestling to say it. Is same-sex attraction, can same-sex attraction be a positive good? I'm wrestling with that. The one area where I would say I have seen it, if we compare it to the thorn in the flesh, can thorns in our flesh drive us closer to God than if we didn't have that thorn in the flesh? That's what I would say. I think there's a good biblical case there.

For instance, I'll bring up Greg one more time. He's single, he's celibate. He says, or actually, Greg Johnson has said this too, I wake up every day and I immediately pursue Jesus. I have to find my joy, fulfillment, and satisfaction in Jesus. It's not an option. Like Greg, his recent thing is he goes on like two hour walks

every Sunday, he just walks with Jesus. He just walks five, eight miles, he just talks with Jesus the whole time, prays for people. And me, I'm like waking up my family and the kids and everything, like sometimes I don't even read the Bible, rushing off to church. You're disheveled this morning, man.

I saw you early. I'm not a good morning person. But so like there, I'm like, oh, could that not be a very positive thing? The fact that Greg will never have a married partner, he has to pursue and foster community and relationships and hospitality in ways. Like he is driven towards that.

He has to exercise his friendship muscles because his fulfillment in community is in friendships. He can't fall back on a married partner. Where me, sometimes I get lazy with friendships because I'm married, I have kids. I'm like, my dad will, my kids will sometimes joke like, dad, do you have any friends? You know, I'm like, I do have friends, you know, stop it.

But that's not good. Like, it's good to have extramarital friendships, right? So, all that to say, if we see it as part of the fall, a thorn in the flesh, could that not be woven into the fabric of one's journey to push them closer to God? I'm gonna say yes, and I've seen that. Should it be celebrated as kind of an intrinsic beauty that extends beyond...

sexuality or something. I don't know. I'm trying to... Okay, you can keep working on that. So, if we take the thorn in the flesh, Paul doesn't say, yeah, I'm an individual and a thorn in the flesh is part of who I am. Like, he's like, take this away from me. So, that's something that we don't know if it was medical or a sin he struggled with. I don't know.

One of my colleagues here, Ken Burney, did a whole book on this, really interesting. If someone's fascinated by it, check it out. You should have them on your podcast. Come talk about it, come and think about it. But that's something he doesn't want. That's something he's resisting. That's very different than saying, being gay gives me this positive thing.

So of course our struggles and our and our sins and our failures can draw us to Jesus. That's what I think God allows these things to do in our life. It shows our insufficiency and our brokenness. So I think that's a positive thing. I don't know you can get from there to the identity piece. That's fair. I don't want to again, I don't know you can get from there to the identity piece. That's fair. And I don't want to, again, I don't want to map the Thorn of the Flesh perfectly on what we're talking about here. So it is more, let's say, it's part of how same-sector attracted people experience the fallenness in the world.

Like, you and I would experience it in other ways. But that experience, can those experience be redeemed to push us closer to God? And that's where I'm gonna say, well, yes, of course. I guess that's the only point I was making. Another like- Every experience can, in principle, that I can think of. Or even something unique.

Like I've had other friends who have said, you know, being gay or same-sex attracted in a world where it is predominantly straight, you know, most love scenes are straight people. Most commercials, it's changing a little bit attracted in a world where it is predominantly straight. Most love scenes are straight people. Most commercials, it's changing a little bit more recently. But I mean, they live in a world where they are reminded that they have a very different experience in the world.

That has, I've heard several friends tell us, they have such an alertness to the person in the room who's sitting by themself, the maybe an ethnic minority who's the only one in this meeting or something, or the single mom who sometimes gets left out or whatever, the widow, that their minority experience has helped almost like just brighten that light of awareness of other people

who might have other kinds of experience. So that would be another example I would say, okay, I can acknowledge this as part of the fall, but it's been redeemed to produce good in the world. I don't know if that's what Wes is getting at there, but that's where I've, as I've tried to say, can we talk about being gay? Is there some positive, from a Christian standpoint,

aspects of this? Those are some... Okay, so a minute ago when you pref-stip by saying, I'm not gay, so I don't know this. And you referred to sexual minorities. Did I say that? I think you did. I think I said a minority experience. Being a minority experience.

Which in this case is a sexual minority. So, red flags, for lack of a better term, are going off for folks, and I would raise the question, okay, wait a minute. Is there some unique perspective and status and authority somebody has, which is a subset of critical theory, standpoint, epistemology, right?

I think these are fair questions to raise that says because of my race, I have a unique authority and insight somebody else can't have. Because I'm a male, not a female. Because I'm gay, not straight. And there's a big difference to me. I made this point, and someone called me woke. And I ran by Neil Shanby, he goes,

no, you're not woke because of this. So I ran by the guy, where I said, doing my dissertation, it took a woman to ask me this question. She said, did the mother of Jesus have to watch both of her boys get martyred? James and Jesus. And I sat there, I literally got goosebumps right now, it was like, I've studied this for 15 years.

And it took a mother who carried someone inside of her to notice that. So, all that saying is certain experiences we have might tailor us to see things that other people don't. But when we go, oh, that person can only see things, that person has an authority, now we're shifting into like standpoint epistemology. So this here, like my question was, is in this West, and again, maybe it's not him, maybe he'll clarify and come back, but it reads like,

my sexuality, it's because of this, that I can see these certain things I wouldn't otherwise. And I wanna say, okay, wait a minute. Not everybody who experiences same-sex attraction sees those things things and there's other people who are maybe wired that way without same-sex attraction So why is the same-sex attraction relevant to seeing those things? We're still back to it being about a disordered sexual desire And before you answer when I call it disordered sexual desire, I'm well aware that I have disorders in my life.

I'm not... It's just the issue that we're talking about, and that's the cultural debate. I'm so well aware of that. But that's where I think... That's my problem with this. Your thoughts. I think I... Yeah, I think I resonate with what you're saying there. I mean, just hearing you talk about like,

critical theory and kind of the greater worldviews that often underlie these kind of statements, where people invest, if anybody has any kind of minority identity or experience, all of a sudden they are now invested with more moral authority, or even just experiential authority or whatever. Yeah, I get very nervous about those generalities. I think somebody's individual experience means they can

speak to that individual experience more than somebody else can, who hasn't experienced that. Does that give them a more moral credibility to speak into the topic as a whole? I get this critique a lot. I know you do too. Preston, you are, and this is where they will say a white, straight, heterosexual, cisgender, brother, all the different terms of stuff. What gives you the right to, I got this question in this talk, you know, what gives you the right to speak in it?

I'm like, okay, let me clarify. I am not giving a memoir of what it's like to be gay. I am not speaking to the experience from a standpoint to say, here's what it's like to be. I cannot do that. Other people can. I am very narrowly a biblical scholar, so I have a level of expertise on an ancient text that talks a lot about sexuality. All I can do is best help people understand how I'm understanding the text and try to let people know, here's what I think the

Bible says, here's why. And that's really all I can do and offer pastoral, whatever around that. But, but, um, so I do, I, I mean, I, I do have a level of authority based on those things to speak into this aspect of the conversation. Flip it around, just because somebody is gay, that does not mean that they therefore have more moral authority in saying what the Bible says about this. That doesn't do anything to that. It does give them more credibility to help me understand what it's like for this one individual to experience this, and I could learn a ton from that. But that doesn't like ascribe, I'm not ascribing sort of moral or theological authority in their perspective, simply based on their experience.

So for me, we started framing this by a decade ago, the Obergefell decision, a part of the Supreme Court ruling, favoring same-sex marriage, that built sexual orientation as a protected class into the law as a part of what it means to be human. So male, female, our religious identity, that's at core of who we are, but also male and female. And so we're seeing debates about Title IX

in which I go, okay, wait a minute. When we define ourselves as being gay, even if we mean it in some nuanced sense, we're given a hook or again, I guess is my metaphor again, camel's nose under the tent giving precedent to that legally, you know, sanctioned cultural understanding of what it means to be human. And that's why I go, no, it's not only unbiblical. It has cultural ramifications that are far more harmful

than just saying, I'm gay because I want to missionally reach out to somebody, when I think there's other ways to do that wisely. In fact, think of the example of Becca Cook, and the person was like, I'm just gonna lay out exactly what scripture teaches. Didn't have to say that somebody was gay. I'm gonna speak the truth to you. So, with that said, any thoughts on that point,

on gay identity before we move on? God, I don't know, maybe we've exhausted. I would say, I guess, me, I'm always going to think much more missiologically than as a cultural critic. I don't see those as opposed to each other, but I'm constantly asking what is the best use of language that's going to communicate gospel realities in a way that's both truthful and effective. And what is going to be most same thing, both truthful and effective for my discipleship conversations with people. So again, I'll come full circle and say if somebody is using a term gay and it is introducing

more clarity into their beliefs, into their walk, into the conversation, if it's interrupting their discipleship rather than helping it, then that term and any other term that's due not with anybody should be reexamined for sure. So I guess maybe the only disagreement, I think the only disagreement is I just see a lot more diversity within different social situations to how different individuals use the term that aren't invested with all of this sort of cultural

confusion and ontological weight. That it may be, in some cases it is. And again, that's where I say don't use the term. I think maybe that's where we differ a little bit. I think after another hour, we've at least clarified whether it contains that baggage or not, whether it's ever wise to do so, whether we should lean into that

or run the opposite direction. I think we can move on. Two out of three done. Are you okay? You got energy, man? You get to go. I might need some more water. Eat some more water?

Like Joe Rogan does this sometimes. Like he just stops in the middle. Just gets up and. I'm gonna grab some water. We'll just keep recording. Part of the fun. I don't know how much water this is. Like he just stops up and I'm gonna grab some water. What's Right, why not? I you know, I had a conversation with Scott recently in the middle I was like, oh, we'll edit this out and I forgot and People are like, oh, that's awesome. You left it in it's authentic and I was like I actually just didn't even think about it So nervous you poured that over your laptop.

You have confidence in your pours. I think it was on the side. I'm a basketball guy not a baseball guy. Can we keep rolling? This is really important. Alright let's keep going. Exiles in Babylon Conference. The whole point of this is come down, this is our first conversation

in person. We're trying to see if we do more. By the way if you watch this and comment, if you stayed with us two and a half hours, whatever this is, and you like these in-person conversations, let us know. There's more expense time. Appreciate you coming down a couple of days and doing this. Let us know if that's helpful.

The idea was to talk about the conference. Now I got called out by somebody for being woke for speaking at your conference. Okay. So here's where I'm coming from, and I just want you to give us some context of what it is. I said it's interesting that I'm being called woke for speaking at this conference,

when one of the other speakers is a colleague of mine, Thaddeus Williams, who along with Neil Shenvy, has written, in my view, one of the best two books on critical theory, critical race theory, that's biblical and it's solid. So that strikes me as a little bit silly. Now, with that said, people could say, is it wise or not wise?

For me, probably a lot of the audience there, I suspect, are not the typical people that I speak to. Maybe politically, maybe their background, theology, they experience, I don't know. So if I'm gonna share the stage with an atheist buddy of mine, Adam Davidson, for a couple hours, and talk about evangelicals and culture and the world today and dialogue with him,

I'll have that conversation with him almost anywhere if people are willing to listen. So for me to go to a conference like this, I'm not endorsing anybody else necessarily who's on the stage. I'm an outsider coming in. There's a lot of events I speak at that I don't endorse.

Now, you're putting this on, and a lot of people have said you've platformed some people that shouldn't be there. You're inviting some students that shouldn't be there without discernment. We could spend hours on this, but tell us who it's for, what it is, and maybe clear up as best you can what you think some of those charges are. So, it would be good to clarify that I just,

I do not resonate with, identify with, or swim in the kinds of circles where people are kind of scared to talk to somebody over here, talk to somebody over there. I just don't. The whole even phrase platforming, when people raise that, I just say, I'm doing something different than what you are scared of me doing.

I'm having curious conversations with people, trying to understand where people are coming from, putting different perspectives in dialogue with each other. Or some of the sessions are straightforward. This is more of a, here's what I think you should believe, and maybe there's different perspectives on the same viewpoint. So people have to come.

They have to come ready to think, evaluate, and even ask questions. We give the audience space to ask questions. It's one of the only conferences I know that does that. A lot of space. We do most of our, most of the stage time is actually conversations among the speakers. People will give usually like a 15, 20 minute talk,

and then we all sit on a couch and dialogue about it and try to do this, like good faith dialogue. So, you know what's funny, Sean, is I get, there's speakers that get almost equally critiqued from their tribe on the left and the right. If I have a speaker who's maybe left of center, the people left of them say you're sharing the stage. A couple of years ago was like, I had a couple of people dropped out because Matt Chandler was speaking and it thought he was like a toxic conservative or something, you know, Oh, I think you you say people thought he was going woke from the right. No, no, no.

This is from the left. I don't want to say they were left, but they just, they had problems with him being so they okay. I've had people on the right drop out because they were sharing the stage with a same sex attracted celibate gay Christian. So every year it happens actually. So who's dropped out for me? Come on. I'm actually it happens, actually. So who's dropped out for me, Kelvin? I'm actually curious now.

For you? Don't name names. Have you had people drop out? I haven't gotten it. I've been very, very clear up front, the speakers, more and more, saying this is the nature of the conference. If you have problems with this, please let me know. But we have some names that some people are going to.

If you think all these names are on the same team, or we're all gonna tell you what to believe, that's impossible because there's just different viewpoints on there. I wanna be clear. I try to make a distinction between... viewpoints within Orthodox Christianity that I think should be dialogued and debated, versus viewpoints that I think should be dialogued and debated versus viewpoints

that I think are just unorthodox versus orthodox and giving a perception that these are equally valid positions that take or leave it, flip a coin, choose which view. I tried hard to make that distinction. Or somebody else that's speaking might have a viewpoint on this issue that they're not speaking about. And yet people think, well, they hold it that position. They shouldn't share the stage with anybody. And I'm like, well, he's not talking about that. For instance, last year,

we did a session on deconstruction and the way our MO is, I want to hear from people who have deconstructed. I know it's shocking to people, like, why are people deconstructed? I'm like, let's ask some deconstructioners why they left. So we do that. People deconstruct and there's trajectories. And one guy is now affirming of same-sex marriage.

We did a whole other session on sexuality. He was affirming before he came to the conference. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. And outspoken on it. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. And he was speaking alongside me, Abigail Favoli, he's written a book on this stuff, Evan Wickham, like I even told him ahead of time, I'm like,

hey, look, you're here to share your story. I want people to know why you deconstructed. I just want you to know, like, if you fall into like, advocating for a position, it's not gonna go, like there's other people on the stage that are gonna address that, so don't, you're, it's not gonna go, like there's other people on the stage that are gonna address that. So don't, you know, I would recommend not. And he didn't, he just, he told a story,

here's why deconstructed. And people can hear whether they agree or disagree with his viewpoints, at least understand some of the things, you know, why he deconstructed. So people saw his name, well, he's affirming over here. He shouldn't be on the platform. Like, okay, if he was, yeah. Anyway.

So the criticism of that would be, but you're inviting people to follow with stuff and he's outspoken on that. And so you can't really just separate issue a from issue B by platforming him. Oh, as long as it doesn't talk about this issue and he holds something Clearly yeah opposed to it. That would be the pushback on this My audience is so different than that though. Like I would say yeah go go read his stuff They're all gonna probably read and say like this is not a good argument Like it's a lot more thoughtful Like they want to engage but they want to hear from the horse's mouth. They want to engage it from viewpoints

They want to and why don't you get someone who deconstructed who doesn't? Promote that affirming stuff that you have become more firm against in your writings That's one of the things that early on why not just get somebody else instead of risk that because that's a very very common path of deconstruction, going from fundamentalist evangelical to progressive evangelical. I agree. So there's plenty of people to find instead of... But they're all going to be affirming.

I mean, they're all... I don't know if they're all affirming. I guess it depends how far they go. Okay. So, would you give a... I still want to understand that perspective. And I've written extensively on this, other people have. So they know, like, people, most people coming are familiar with me.

So they're not... I'm not too concerned about them all of a sudden. So you have a certain segment of people you're bringing on, like podcast followers in which you model this. So if somebody from the outside is like, hey, I'm a high school student, I want to come. Would you be like, well... Because like, for me, I might bring my son, he's 12.

And I'd be like, hey, let's go. But we're gonna talk about a lot. He doesn't have any maturity. He'd be like, oh, here's just two different options and these are fine. I don't even know who all the speakers are. But especially if he was there, I would have a, the affirming one you're talking about,

I would have a serious conversation with my son going, hey, you need to be alert about this stuff. And here's what's going on. 12, 17, 18 year olds don't have that discernment. So do you like give a qualifier to that? Or how do you, I mean, can you, there's like 20 speakers. If they have said something elsewhere that I disagree with, and I fear that somebody's going to hear the name, go on the website, read some stuff on something else that I, I just, I wouldn't be able to do what. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that.

I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that.

I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that.

I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to that, you know, we'll see how that one goes. So I just, I can't. Coming up this year? Yeah, yeah. I'll tell you, I'll tell you offline a little bit more. Oh, I'm actually interested. Yeah, yeah.

I was interested before, but that one sounds particularly interesting. We don't police people's political viewpoints. We don't police, I mean. So then tell me what exactly is the goal of it then? What's the point of the conference? What do you want people to take home, given the range of different views that are presented here? And to be clear, one...

This one does have more diversity and viewpoints within the sessions than other. In the past, three sessions were on three different topics, and most of those were promoting, generally speaking, an orthodox position or whatever. And I shouldn't say orthodox, they're all orthodox, but they weren't debates. And then I'd always have kind of more of a debate on Saturday.

This one does have, we have more like you and Adam, and then we have Thaddeus and Malcolm are more of a... That's gonna be great. Yeah. We have the transgender one is going to be like me and Mark Yarhouse are gonna give what I think is a much more clear theological psychological perspective that I think here is what we think you should believe.

Then we're gonna hear from three different testimonies and all three of those are gonna be different so that they're gonna hear stories, not because they need to agree with one or the other, but that they can see some diverse ways in which trans or formerly trans identified people are thinking. So the goal there is not that they would,

that people would kind of agree with everything, because they can't, they're gonna be different perspectives. But we hope that their thinking through that will be built upon the foundation of what me and Mark are laying down. So you have testimonies of different experiences of people who are transgender. The point is not that any of these are different options that necessarily Bible-believing Christian can have. It's just say, let's listen, let's understand.

And then you and Mark are gonna lay out what you see as a biblical view on this issue. Is that how you approach it? The fact is every single one of these people might and probably will show up at your church. Again, missiologically, I wanna understand how are people thinking? Like how are, you know, like I wanna ask

that there's one of the people there is a fully transition trans woman who has spiritual think like she raised in a church, left the church, but has this like, kind of like a desire. She's like, I kind of want to go back to church when I'm scared, you know? And like, now I'm often on the other side talking to pastors saying, Hey, we have this trans person that showed up and what should we, how should we be? And what should we do and not do? And how, you know, and I'm like,

how beneficial would it be for you to hear from that person how they feel on the other side, walking through the doors? Like that doesn't validate, mean everything they're saying is correct. It's just like, that's helpful miss theologically, pastorally to know, here's what's going on in this person's heart. So I can't wait for my friend to share from the stage, like,

I want to ask them, like, would you ever go to church? They're gonna say, maybe, like, well... Why? Like, why would you? Why not? Yeah, yeah. Um... Anyway, so that's not a validation of their viewpoint, it's me trying to understand where they're coming from. Okay, I imagine people are... That's fair. I had a few questions about that.

I know you've dealt with some of that stuff online, but... I don't even know how long we've gone. I'm feeling like Joe Rogan here, just rocking these long conferences. Or conversations. He just like regularly does this. Anything I missed, I can think of some points in the back of my mind I wanted to make, but I'm not gonna draw them out now. I feel like we literally have covered a lot.

I guess I would say this at the end. We didn't... We certainly, I don't know that we solved anything. My goal in this was to talk about where's the conversation at? Uh, what are the differing perspectives people are bringing? What does the Bible say? Let's straw man both sides, and then hopefully people can watch this, make sense of it, and decide

what they think is most scriptural. Steel man both sides. That's my hope. Steel man both sides. That's the goal. All right, why don't we wrap this thing up? This has been fun. Really appreciate it. Thanks for coming down, man. Looking forward to the next conversation. Looking forward to being at the conference with Adam. We had a few people who would not actually platform, the two of us, interestingly enough, that people should know.

So I was like, all right, we've got one on the books. We're hoping to write a book together, point, counterpoint. And so this is kind of a first tryout, which I think one on the books. We're hoping to write a book together, point, counterpoint. And so this is kind of a first try out, which I think will be cool. So looking forward to it. If you're with us, make sure you hit subscribe to the Think Biblically podcast and to the YouTube channel

and let us know what you think. We'll see you next time.