The Sean McDowell Show - How Much Can Christians Compromise on Sexuality?

Episode Date: September 9, 2025

A new book is just out offering a way for Christians to have "constructive conversations on sexuality and gender." While I am fully in support of constructive conversations (one of my goals is to model them here on YouTube) this book deeply concerns me. In this video, I do a deep-dive with Dr. Scott Rae, my Talbot School of Theology colleague and Think Biblically Podcast co-host. Let me know what you think. As always, I am open for opposing views, but on a topic this divisive, please keep comments constructive. WATCH: "Can You Faithfully Follow Jesus and Affirm Same-Sex Unions," a friendly debate with Preston Ulmer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUh-MwkuPF4&list=PLDP3r2FYXPWXJa3o0zlCXXRWix1kg-xIF&index=47) *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://x.com/Sean_McDowell TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@sean_mcdowell?lang=en Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/ Website: https://seanmcdowell.org Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Looking for a simple way to stay rooted in God's Word every day? The Daily Bible Devotion app by Salem Media gives you morning and evening devotionals designed to encourage, inspire, and keep you connected with scripture. Plus, you'll enjoy Daily Bible trivia and humor, a fun way to learn and share a smile while growing in your faith. Get the Daily Bible Devotion app for free on both iOS and Android. Start and end your day with God's Word. Search for the Daily Bible Devotion app in the App Store or Google Play Store,

download it today. Life Audio. Is it time for the church to set aside theological differences about the morality of same-sex unions and gender identity and find common ground in the gospel? Is same-sex marriage a disputable issue that should not divide us believers? According to a new book that releases in August, the answer to both these questions is yes. The book is called Christ-like acceptance across deep difference. and is co-edited by Ron Pierce, a non-affirming scholar who worked at Biola for five decades,

and Karen Keene, an affirming scholar. Scott, tell me why you think it's important for us to respond to this book. I've got some thoughts, but weigh in. Well, Sean, this is still a huge cultural issue. And I agree that the tone with which we conduct this debate has often been harsh and uncivil and uncaring. And I think that's probably true on both sides of it. So I think definitely the tone and the style with which we conduct these discussions, that's long overdue to change and reflect a Christ-like civility that I think is characteristic of all of Scripture and what should characterize all

of our conversations about matters with which we disagree. But just because we disagree doesn't mean that we abandon our convictions, and doesn't mean that we look for a third way of common ground between the two opposing sides. So I think this is really important, and we'll get to more of this in a bit. We will, yeah. I don't think that issues of sexuality are peripheral to the central issues of the gospel. I think Ephesians 5 makes it pretty clear that it's a central issue to the church's witness to the world. So I think that's the way, that's the way I think Christ designed it. And we'll come back to more of that when we get into Ephesians 5.

But this is going to continue to be an ongoing debate. I think the acrimony with which it's been conducted is actually a poor witness to the world. And I think there's, we don't need, I don't think we need to compromise clarity on our views. I remember one very popular radio host says, is well known to say I prefer clarity over agreement. Amen to that. And I think that's the case here. Okay.

And I would want to make sure that both sides are represented fairly. And I think it's probably a good practice, which we'll try to do here. I encourage my students to do in our classes, is you don't critique a position until you have explained it. adequately to your opponent's satisfaction. I agree. So I think we're going to try and do that. We, you know, we, I think there's some places here where certain things have been misrepresented.

And I think we don't want to be guilty of the same things that we are pointing out. Well said. So when you said you agree, you agree with the writers of this book who are concerned about the way this conversation has often been carried out. I'd say most of the time. Most of the time with charity, with kindness, with accuracy, totally agree. But disagree firmly with a proposal that's being put forward about a third way, which we will get into. That's where you and I agree when we look at this book. That's right.

Now, so, yeah, the general framework for the rest of the chapters, and this is an edited volume with 15 or so contributors to it. Right. So, you sort of get what you get with that. but the framework is set up at the very beginning, which we'll get to in a little more detail in a minute. And that's the framework is everything in this. Okay. And if the framework, the whole, I think the whole thesis of the book stands or falls with the framework.

I agree with that. So here's the reason why I'm responding. Number one, I'm a generalist in the sense that I've spoken on a lot of issues. And I've spoken out in issues tied to sexuality, issues like pornography and issues. like marriage. And so given that this is the latest book or project coming down, arguing for something that I don't think lines up with the Bible, it fits in my lane, so to speak. The second reason is I have seen a larger trend in the church towards a functionally affirming position. I think we've seen this with the church where Andy Stanley is a pastor, major, massive church.

promoting a quote third way. We've seen some seminaries move this direction that historically were Bible-believing seminaries. And now we have a book published by a evangelical press that's giving space, so to speak, to the idea that we should adopt a third way. Now, the other reason I'm waiting into this is because Biola is all over this. This book is presented in a way that Biola affirms this and stands by this and should support it. So I don't speak for all Biola, but I'm a professor here and someone who has signed along the doctrinal statement, not for a job, but because I believe it. I feel it's somewhat my duty and responsibility to speak out and say, no, actually,

Biola doesn't agree with this. Well, and I think, you know, and I've been, you know, advisory role to the president for university mission for a long time. I'm one of the deans of Talbot. So, you know, I think it's, I mean, it's one thing, that's one, you know, to have, to have the leadership or indicted with this is, you know, I think it's a bit more of a concern and a bit more urgency, I think, that we respond to this. I think that's right. And look, it starts off with a reference to a theology of gender course at Biola. This is on the introduction in the beginning.

Second page, there's two more examples kind of inferring and saying that Biola is alongside of this. So think if I responded to other stuff related to sexuality and not this, people would say, you go to Biola and now you're not speaking out why, and I think

that would be a fair criticism. The other point for me is partly what drives this book in the introduction. I found interesting is this this claim at the very end. It says, The quest for truth has dominated this landscape for decades.

Now as the church continues to pursue truth, we invite you to join us in embracing Christ-like acceptance so that we can continue to mature in Christ our Lord in love. Now, the title of this book is not Christ-like love. It's Christ-like acceptance. So it's arguing that the loving thing is to just say, hey, we agree to disagree on the morality of same-sex behavior. That's what's considered acceptance.

I don't think that's biblical, and I don't think that's actually loving when we follow the teachers of Jesus and Paul and the 2000-year history of the church. But I also don't think the quest for truth has dominated the landscape. I actually go back and listen to my messages and many others for the last two decades. There's been a lot of like, we've got to rethink how we've treated the LGBTQ community. We've got to be kind. We've got to be gracious. Now is actually the time for truth.

And of course, graciousness and kindness. But it's actually more truth than ever because of the kind of arguments that I think are made in this book. So last thing I'll say before we jump into the premise of it is the subtitle is constructive conversations on sexuality and gender. I'd like to think in the past decade if somebody said, who's led constructive conversations? I think they'd probably say, you know what? go to Sean McDowell's YouTube channel. I've had conversations with progressive Christians. I've had conversations with those who would not identify as progressive Christians,

friendly debates and conversations, whether it's Brandon Robertson, whether it's Preston Sprinkle, whether it's a whole host of people trying to model this. So I think we need to continue to model kindness. We've also got to call out where ideas err from what scripture teaches. That's where I say pause. Yeah, I think that's appropriate to, I mean, to say pause at that point. And if, you know, if really all we're talking about is a change of tone, that's not exactly breaking news. Exactly.

And that's hardly controversial. Okay. And I think anybody who thinks that, you know, you can trash your opponent with whom you disagree, I think is it reading the scripture carefully enough? Because, you know, we are called to exhibit grace and truth both. I mean, we have a, on the campus here, we have the winsome conviction project. And I don't think this is true of our folks, but I think there are others in the culture who are trying to do the same thing that are heavy on winsomeness and light on conviction. And I think if there's, and this may be a place where we want to be winsome, no doubt. I mean, and if we fail to model that in this, then I think we failed.

but I don't want winsomeness to come at the expense of having convictions. I want to be winsome in our tone and clear on our convictions. I agree that. So one of the qualifier before we jump in. We're professors, so we're laying out our case carefully and we're philosophy. Bear with us. So we'll get there. But there's a chapter from Tim Muleoff, who's a colleague of ours, not at Talbot, but at Biola in the Com Department.

He wrote a chapter in here on how to communicate. In many ways, that chapter is pulled from the book Tim and I wrote together called End the Stailmate. Now, he and I differ over whether or not he should have contributed to this book. We differ over that. I give pause to it because some of the stuff I think is in this book and it's advocating. But Tim makes it very clear that he is not affirming. He's not neutral on this. He's not contributing this to saying, hey, we should adopt this, you know, agree to disagree,

posture. He's a communication scholar and he's just simply saying we are human beings and there's different people identifying as Christians trying to work this out. How do we communicate civilly? That's his goal here. So if he comes out and addresses his chapter, why, what he thinks about it, we will link to that so people can watch it. But I just want to make sure we include that in here as well. All right. Let's jump into the chapter. We've qualified this. Have we qualified it sufficiently? I think we have. So, So too. Maybe somewhat quickly, like the premise of the book as a whole.

We're going to focus on the opening chapter because it lays the groundwork theologically for the chapter. Everything that falls for practice depends upon the theological and biblical case being made. But what's the premise of the book as a whole? Well, the premise of the book as a whole is that sexuality ought to be considered one of the, quote, disputable matters that Paul describes in, predominantly in Romans 14, and 15. Okay. And those, you know, there are a lot of things that in Romans, in those two chapters, Paul qualifies those as, you know, what constitutes disputable matters. And what, what he means by

that is those are, those are morally neutral things that we can agree to disagree on without having to abandon our core convictions. Okay. And he uses, Paul uses a term in Greek adiophra that we don't see often in other parts of the New Testament or in classical Greek. So it's a little, it's a little tricky to get our arms around that. We've got to depend on some of the context in Romans 14 and 15 to enable us to do that. But I think the central issue in the introduction, here's the central question I think we need to answer is, is Paul's teaching on disputable matters? And I would distinguish on between disputable and debatable are two different. things here because for Paul to for Paul's reference to disputable that's a technical term

disputable that means something that is morally morally neutral and therefore it's you know we can agree to disagree about lots of things that are morally neutral okay without without violating our convictions the key question is does sexuality does his teaching on in Romans 14 and 15 apply to sexuality now he refers to things like in the Old Testament law. And the point of, I'm getting past the thesis. Yeah, no, no, no, no, no. That's okay. But the point of Romans 14 and 15 is the inclusion of the Gentiles into the body of

Christ and the requirement for them to obey the law of Moses. And in light of the cross and resurrection of Jesus, some of the, many of the things in the ceremonial law, such as the author of the author of, as the author of, you know, as the author of puts this days and diets, for example, circumcision, the festivals, I mean, things like the year of Jubilee, for example. Those would be, those would have become in light of the cross and resurrection of Jesus and in light of the fact that we are no longer under the law as a rule of life. Those have become morally neutral matters. Now, the author, the author of this, I think, is right to say that in the old

Testament, those were not just suggestions from God. Right. Those would be taken as commands. But in light of the cross, in light of Jesus, basically fulfilling the law and setting aside the ceremonial and the civil law, as part of Paul's teaching in Romans 7, that we are no longer under law but under grace, that those things are no longer morally required of us and thus fall into the category of being morally neutral. Morally neutral.

Okay. So that's the opening chapter that lays the basis for the whole book. Correct. That there's been disputable things about the day we worship on, the food that we eat. Moving sexuality into that. Whether Gentiles have to be circumcised. Gentiles, exactly. Good.

Moving sexuality into that is a very novel and new premise where we'll come back to and hit pause on this and say the case is not been made. But the rest of the book we won't go into, there's five chapters making what they think is the biblical case, which is basically responding to the conservative historic position. That's the weight of it they're pushing back on. And then how do we navigate the divide? So there's chapters on how do you have conversations and relationships of people who are affirming and non-affirming? And there's some great principles in here.

Some of the very contributors in this book who I deal deeply with are friends of mine, and I hope this review doesn't jeopardize that. And at the end, it's like ministry with LGBTQ people. So what does this look like? They say the black LGBTQ community. What does this look like in the church? What about for parents with LGBTQ children? So now they apply it once they've moved sexuality into the realm of a disputable matter. Need a daily spark of hope and direction?

Let the Daily Bible app from Salem Media Be That Spark. This free Android app delivers an uplifting verse each morning plus reading plans, devotions, and trusted podcasts from leaders like Joyce Meyer and Rick Warren. Prefer to listen instead? The Daily Bible app reads verses,

reading plans and chapters aloud, handy for the headphones moment of your day. Choose from versions like ESV, NIV, NIV, KJV, and more, and bookmark favorites to revisit later. Share inspiring messages with loved ones right from the app. Feel God's presence.

and every notification. Search for Daily Bible app on Google Play and begin your day with hope, purpose, and peace. There's a ton more in this second, third chapter that I would take issue with. A lot of things like holding up as an example, somebody who is a trans Christian as being a pastor within a church,

and that's permissible. I take pause with that. There's push towards, we can differ over how parenting our kids affirming their sexual orientation and attraction and being able to live that out faithfully. They lean heavily into affirming gay identity using preferred pronouns. We're not going to go into that. That's some of the particular stuff they get into, but it's always in the affirming direction,

or at least as a whole. Yeah, and just full disclosure for our audience, too, I have not read the rest of the book. That's fine. So, you know, take with a grain of salt, whatever I comment. in the rest of the book. You don't have to read the rest. I have, you know, I've, let's just say, I've been involved in reading an earlier draft of chapter one and the final draft of this. So I've been, I've been thinking about this for some time. And so I'm going to stay in my lane. That's totally fine. I've read the rest of it, and I'm going to hold off on my critique on the rest of it just to stay focused,

because this opening chapter lays a theological groundwork. If it doesn't, make its case, the rest doesn't follow, at least as I see it. I see it that way too. Now, the purpose, I would just say a couple things they read it again in the purpose of the book. This is in the introduction by the two authors to show unconditional love to those with whom I disagreed. So love is framed as acceptance to somebody who sees differently about sexuality being

a disputable matter. So we would all say we should love. those with whom you disagree, but it's framed as love must be acceptance or you're unloving. That's one issue I would give pause to. So then in the introduction, who needs this book, those with a family member who is LGBTQ, those in leadership, basically everybody. So this is not like we're trying to change just the public dialogue on YouTube. This is not we're trying to change a university conversation about this. Because by the way, we had two contributors in this.

When Wesley Hill and Justin Lee come speak at Biola with our students because we're a university to model a civil dialogue. It was wonderful. I went to it. That was probably 12 or 15 years ago. That's very different than saying in the church itself, leadership all the way down in our practice, we should move, beyond disputes about sexuality. That's what I think is so pressing here. And I just, I want to draw one thing out.

It's interesting. It says the goal is to demonstrate, this is the introduction, the principle of Christ-like acceptance, whether it's in the way we read the Bible and the way we talk with one another or in the way we do ministries Christ's church. And it talks about the enemy's attempts to divide us. Now, I would agree the enemy attempts to divide us.

We all agree with unity. but the question is where do we draw that unity? I'll speak for myself, but they're saying it's the enemy's attempt to divide us. So if you and I say we should divide over issues of sexuality, then we're operating in accordance with the enemy in the way that this is framed. My point is not to say they're wrong. My point is to say a lot is at stake with this, and we need to be clear and make our case.

And I suspect that every one of the contributors to this would be, willing to divide over some things. That's the fact. I mean, I think they would all be willing to divide over the deity of Christ, over the bodily resurrection, over the authority of Scripture. Now, hermeneutics would be a different matter. Sure. So just because we're tempted to divide, nothing necessarily follows from that.

The question is, what are you dividing over? And is that, does the scripture give us warrant the divide over that? beautifully stated because we are at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. What a concept. Some people watching this are like, hey, we don't agree with that framework. We're speaking to Christians, our community and beyond. Everyone's welcome to watch this and disagree with us. But that's the question being asked here.

That's the question that's in this book. So I think you frame that exactly right. Now, let's talk about before he gets into his case from Romans 14 and your response, because that's the key chapter of this. he talks about what's called a theology of acceptance on page four. Now, he says, for example, well, I have some thoughts about this, but in terms of this theology of acceptance, before we get into the biblical passage,

do any thoughts or concerns about that, or do you want me to jump in with some my ideas here? Well, Sean, maybe this is better say for later, but I'll throw it out there now. Okay. I think there's an equivocation throughout the chapter on what acceptance actually means. Okay. By the way, I'm getting hot, man.

Jackets coming off. I knew it's going to happen. Earlier than I thought it would. Jacket is off, man. I'm too warm. Let's keep going. All right, equivocation on acceptance. In some places, it means just having a civil discussion.

Okay. In some places, it means accepting someone like you would. a family member. And I think in some places, I don't think they say it directly, but I think it's implied, or it's inferred, that acceptance means basically acknowledging that the positions, competing positions on sexuality both are morally neutral and something we can agree to disagree on. So I think acceptance sort of baked into this, it seems to me, and I mean, I'm willing,

to be rebuked on this if I'm wrong. But it seems to me that what's baked into this is a connection between valid acceptance and agreement with this general framework about sexuality. Okay. And if you don't, if you reject that this is a disputable matter and divide over this, you have lost the Christ-like acceptance. Gotcha. So I would, I was hope, I mean, I was hoping we would,

be a little clearer about what exactly that involved. Now, maybe in the rest of the book, they do. But he does make reference here to accepting someone as you would a family member and welcoming, easy for you to say, welcoming them into your family as an equal. So that's the part that I think I would have wished for a little more clarity in that. but you carry on here so that's fair point so there's difference between relational acceptance and i have a number of friends again some who've contributed this book who are progressive christians not christians who hold a very different view than i do

relationally accept them love them i suspect you actually like all of in friendships of them i like them i think they like me that's different than theological acceptance and weaving that into the church from the pastor through the practice down and saying now not only do we relationally accept one another, but we theologically set aside what has been considered a non-disputable issue that you and I'd say the Bible is clear about, about the definition of marriage and the morality of same-sex unions. That's where the debate comes in and the key. So theological acceptance is just saying we can agree to discrean this, like we do other

issues we agree to disagree on. Now, here's why I take issue with that, because at first not, I could see a lot of people going, okay, good, this isn't the Trinity, this isn't the deity of Jesus or the authority of scripture, it's interpretation. But let me, I think here's what the opening chapter says. Naturally, a theology of acceptance will concern some traditional Christians who fear a slippery slope towards affirmation. Now, that does concern me, and I've seen that happen. many times you've opened the door theologically and relationally to that. But even if it doesn't go

towards affirmation, theological acceptance in the way it's cashed out here still deeply concerns me. I think it's functional affirmation. Why? So take the claim God's design for sex and marriage is one man,

one woman who become one flesh for one lifetime. So marriage is a sexed institution. So sexual behavior outside of that is wrong. Take that statement. You got three options. Either you agree with it, which the church has for 2,000 years. That'd be the non-affirming position. You disagree with it, right? Which would be the affirming position and say, no, marriage is not a sex institution. Same-sexual behavior is not always wrong. Or you stay neutral on it. Now, what does it mean to

stay neutral. It means that I'm rejecting the historic Christian view of marriage and I'm refusing to make a moral condemnation of a certain behavior. That functions in the church as being affirming even if an individual is not. So even if this position is held by people who don't become affirming, they've opened up the door to change the understanding of marriage, change morality, and that hugely concerns me given the testimony of Scripture and the consistency of the church for 2,000 years. So I think it's functional affirmation. You agree or disagree.

Well, we'll see this a little bit more when we get to the details of Romans 14 and 15. Okay. But, and I think to be fair, here, the author of this first chapter makes it clear that he is not affirming. And yet is arguing for what I think is a position that I think you're right, it opens the door to it. I don't think it's an automatic slippery slope. I don't think you have to get there. But it's, I think opening the door to this is something that I think we're right to be concerned about. Okay, so all I would say, maybe we differ on this.

It's not opening a door for something that might happen. If a church adopts this, what are they saying? They're saying you can be a faithful follower of Jesus in a same-sex union. You are not going to condemn that. You're going to say, you know what, I think you're wrong. You've become affirmed. I'm going to allow that behavior in the church. That's functionally affirming.

That's the reality of it. So, yeah. So then in light of that, I would say, so what then is the value of my saying that I'm still not affirming? If you adopt this third way. That's right. And my position is it has – Goes out the window.

It goes out the window. That's a good way to put it. So look, I don't think I've said this publicly, but I had a conversation seven years ago with Matthew Vines, who is cited in this book, who for a while is one of the leading gay-firming thinkers. also would consider him a friend. I haven't talked to them in some time, but loved our conversation. It was, I think, by every met,

a constructive conversation on sexuality and gender, accepted each other relationally. But I knew going into that that if Sean makes his case, and Matthew makes his case, and people walk away and go, well, there's two different ways to interpret the Bible. I actually lose.

Because I have opened up the door for an affirming position to be an acceptable position for a Christian a hold. I wanted to be as gracious and kind as I could be, but say you have not made your case biblically. You have to show me why 2,000 years the church is wrong, and sexuality is a disputable matter and should not be condemned. That's why I think this is functionally affirming, and personally for me, I think it's dangerous for the church. I don't know any other way to say it.

Yeah, there's another argument to make, I think, once we get into some of details. Romans 14 and 15. Not saying that we go there now. Okay. But hold on. Let's just for our audience. All right. Hold that thought that we're going to come back to that and I think make that even more explicit. Okay, fair enough.

So let's talk about where this is what happens when two philosophers get together. We nuance and define and carefully get our steps there. But it's important. So much is at stake with this. We have to be careful. So what is at stake with this passage? And I think this opening chapter is a nice job of laying out. what is at stake with this issue before we get to the evidence of what's laid out for it being disputable and why it's not.

And there's four questions that are asked. Do you want to go kind of one by one with these? That'd be helpful? Go for it. Okay. So again, this is the Romans 14 passage that talks about disputable matters. And he writes, first, what are the key issues in dispute? Rome was 14 depicts Jesus' followers in disagreement about exercising their freedom in Christ.

Some eat anything including meat and wine while others restrict themselves to vegetables. Some treat every day alike where others consider one more sacred than another. I think he's absolutely right. The question is, what are the key issues in dispute and would it consider would sexuality fall into that? Do you agree with the way he's this first question? Well, and it's clear that sexuality is not directly far. into that. In Romans 14, it's not cited. Need a daily spark of hope and direction? Let the Daily Bible app from Salem Media be that spark. This free Android app delivers an uplifting verse each

morning, plus reading plans, devotions, and trusted podcasts from leaders like Joyce Meyer and Rick Warren. Prefer to listen instead? The Daily Bible app reads verses, reading plans and chapters allowed handy for the headphones moment of your day. Choose from versions like ESV, NIV, KJV, and more, and bookmark favorites to revisit later. Share inspiring messages with loved ones right from the app. Feel God's presence in every notification. Search for Daily Bible app on Google Play and begin your day with hope, purpose, and peace. It's not cited.

Which doesn't mean it's not, but it's not included here. What we're asking, including sexuality, is that a valid application of the principle that there are some things that are disputed matters because they are morally neutral. Got it. And obviously, this wasn't on the table then in the same way it is now. So in fairness to that position, can we take principles of this and apply to this issue now? So obviously, the only dispute of matters are not eating meat and or wine and what they worship on. It's broader.

It doesn't include sexual. Yeah, lots of different things. Now, before we do the second question, he says it's important emphasize that diets and days are not merely trivial matters of personal opinion for Jews at this time. I would say, correct, they're not trivial, but let's be careful just because they're not trivial doesn't mean that anything else that's also not trivial can therefore be included disputable. So nothing follows for that from sexuality.

But he's right. These are not disputable or these are not, how do I say, merely trivial issues. It says, for example, polygamy and concubinage are presented as acceptable. behavior in the Old Testament. Now, I don't want to give too long on this, but I would give huge pause. If by permissible, it means God used individuals like David and Solomon and Jacob, who are polygamous. Yes. Does that mean God affirms that as morally okay? I would say no. Now, I wish, in some ways, I wish the Bible was more explicit against polygamy, but the Old Testament teaches primarily narratively.

And from Genesis 4, the first polygamist, who's a murderer and a despicable character, to the life of David, the life of Jacob, the life of Solomon, we see worked out rejecting God's creative norm, which is teaching that this isn't okay. No editorial comments are needed. Yeah, so I think it sufficiently does that. But we also have to keep in mind, William Webb wrote a brilliant book forward by your friend from Dallas Theological Seminary, Darrell Bach. And this is, I think, about 20 plus years ago, maybe 2004, if I remember.

It's called Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. I think he might retitle it if he did it today, but it's reflective of its time. My wife was not happy with that trilogy. And fair enough, but his premise is on issues like slavery and on issues like women, we see God adopting a certain beliefs that are held moving towards liberal. of those. And the seeds planted. The seed is planted.

In the scriptures for going further than what Old Testament law mandate. Yes, exactly. But when it comes to issues of sexuality, we don't see the same trajectory. If anything, when we get to the New Testament, it's more conservative than the Old Testament. She said, you even lust after a woman, you're guilty. divorce gets even more strict. So I don't think pointing towards polygamy as an example is going to get him anywhere in this debate as far as what is included in an area of dispute. So we agree with his framing, just disagree with the reasoning that stated so far.

Second, who are the weak and strong in faith and how should they act? I think he's right. He says, as a result, the weaker in conscious faith are unable to fully live in the degree of freedom in Christ, that the stronger are legitimately enjoined. So on disputable matters, there's disagrees about the food, disagrees about the day you worship on. And oftentimes people today will say things like the music that you listen to or the kind of movies that you watch.

They're stronger and there's weaker. And I have no problem with that application. But the way he frames it here is he says there's a question about a degree of the freedom in Christ. So can the weaker and the stronger, which includes days you worship on, which includes foods you eat, you have freedom in that regard. Do we have similar freedom when it comes to sexuality? I think he's right to frame it that way. I just don't see a shred of evidence biblically.

That's an area of freedom, which we'll get to. We will get to that. And I think he's right about that, identifying the stronger brother is the one, I think, with a greater sense of the freedom that they have in Christ. The weaker brother is the one, I think, with the more sensitive conscience for whom lots of things would be considered violations of conscience for one person that wouldn't be considered that way for another. And I think he's right about that. I think that's exactly what Paul intended in Romans 14 and 15 because it was, in general, it was the Jewish brothers and sisters who were the weaker brothers here who had the more sensitive conscience because. because of their background in the mosaic law.

The Gentiles were considered the stronger brothers and sisters because they, I think, understandably, appreciated the freedom in Christ that they have because they were especially well positioned to take advantage of the notion that we are no longer under the law but under grace. That's a helpful way to look at it. So the strong here would be those who say

we have freedom to either believe in an affirming position or engage in a same way. sex sexual relationship, that would be the strong. You and I would be considered the weak as applied to sexuality. Hold that thought. I'm going to give the punchline on that in a couple minutes. Okay. So third, and I'll do this one really quickly. He says, what is meant by quarreling, despising, and passing judgment? So, yeah, we shouldn't be unnecessarily quarrelsome, unnecessarily passing judgment, but we all have to make moral judgments on what we think is right and wrong biblically. In fact, the author's first chapter calls my position harsh, which I'm not

offended by that, but that is a judgment that he is made. The question is not, do we make judgments? The question is, what are those judgments on? We'll get to that. And fourth, it says, what is Christ-like acceptance that glorifies God? Now, I appreciate that framing. Because when it's all said and done, what is life? No God, no others. Glorify God is number one. That raised a question. Does Christ call us to, is it a glorifying position to either be in a same-sex union?

Does that glorify God? Does it glorify God to hold a position that reserves judgment on the morality of that? Is this third way that's being proposed, one that most glorifies God? that's the question. So all of us here are trying to figure that out. We're just going to have to get to the text. All right. I think we have sufficiently laid out what's at stake with this passage.

I have one quick observation that this author cites before we get to the case. And I know you have a lot of really important stuff here. It says he cites, Wesley Hill observes that throughout church history, throughout history, churches became accustomed to reflecting together theological and doctrinal disagreements. But they were less certain about moral dispute. it maybe I'll take his word for it but in Darren Belusick's book which I consider the most convincing or one of the most convincing critiques of same-sex marriage biblically same-sex unions he says lower case C Catholic the idea that marriage is a sexed institution and same-sex marriage is outside

of God's design is as Catholic as a doctrine in the history of the church so he said as universal as universal, good, is throughout church. So he's appealing to like this historical notion when it completely backfires. Maybe on moral issues as a whole, but not the definition of marriage. All right. I don't know how many, we're like 40 minutes into this thing. Let's finally get to the theology that matters. Here's the question. Are gay marriage and gender transitioning disputable matters in Romans 14? That's the heart of it. John, here's the bottom line. There is no. indication anywhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament that sexuality is a morally neutral matter. None. In fact, it would be odd the way Paul described same-sex attraction and sexuality in

Romans 1 to have changed his mind by Romans 14 and 15. That would be highly unusual. Now, he could have included sexuality. among these disputed matters if he had wanted to. But I think there's a difference between an argument from silence and an omission that is glaring on its face. And I think that's the case here. Now, the main point, I think, of the Romans passage in 14 and 15

is the inclusion of Gentiles as equals in the body of Christ. And the point is that the Jewish believers, must accept them or receive them as members of their house churches, even as God and Christ accepts them, right? All are to be accepted into Christ, into God's new covenant people by faith alone. Now here's the application of this, I think, is aimed at people who disagree on sexuality. The chapter puts it like this. Therefore, honesty and humility requires evangelicals to acknowledge that LGBTQ concerns have become disputable matters among Bible-believing spirit-filled Christians. Now, this is the equivocation between debatable and disputable.

Those are two different things. Just because we debate something doesn't imply that it's just a technical disputable matter like Paul's describing, which means it's morally neutral. Now, as we said at the beginning, I want to reiterate this now, that a lot of the things in the chapter points out correctly that they took those very seriously in Old Testament times and those were not just those were not God's suggestions, those were God's commands.

But with the cross and the law being fulfilled, everything changed with regard to the moral requirements of the Mosaic law. The church is no longer under those things as a rule of life. if they are not moral requirements for the believer today. Now, again, this is really important. Morally neutral matters are not hills to die on.

Amen. Right? Nor are they reasons not to accept someone as a full equal in the body of Christ and fully faithful to Jesus. Amen. Okay? Now, what they want, I think, here, is to include sexuality in this.

And I think the conclusion I would draw is that this is an invalid application, and there is no evidence whatsoever. Even in the book of Romans, there's no evidence that sexuality ought to be included as one of these disputable matters. Now, I think what it means to accept someone, the examples that he gives, that the chapter gives about, the people in far-flowing places welcoming Paul as a missionary or the kind of, you know, or Philemon welcoming Onesimus back as a full brother in Christ. I mean, those are not disputable matters themselves, right? they were perfectly obligated to accept, to welcome Paul, to accept them to Islamist back as a full brother in Christ.

And there was no comment on either one about their faithfulness to Jesus. Once you get into sexuality, the rest of Scripture is so clear. And I think one of the points that was brought out is that we don't find any direct teaching. from Jesus on sexuality. And the reason for that is because the Old Testament was so crystal clear about what constituted moral and immoral sexual relationship. And it just wasn't an issue. It's the same reason that there was no, Jesus made no commentary on the death penalty.

The Old Testament was very clear. But Paul's teaching on sexuality was incredibly countercultural. I mean, he turned, he turned, I mean, he turned. I mean, he turned the Greco-Roman world in its sexual mores completely upside down. And liberating to women, by the way. Incredibly liberating to women. And not to mention for slaves as well. So I think there, you know, I think he's right about, you know, people with an oversensitive conscience.

I think that's right. And here's, I think, this is I want to quote my colleague who commented on this. Doug Huffman. Here's this, this is the interesting point, I think, about taking this to its logical conclusion. Okay. So in categorizing LGBTQ behaviors with Paul's category of disputable matters, one would expect Paul to wish that all Christians would embrace such LGBTQ behaviors for themselves. Because Paul is clearly in agreement with believers who have strong faith, more freedom, which by extension we would identify as the affirming side on this, more freedom, less restrictions,

and ideally prefers that all believers would have faith strong enough to live into their freedom in Christ. So one would expect Paul to wish that all Christians would embrace such LGBTQ behaviors for themselves. But obviously this is not at all what Paul says in his New Testament letters. And he said, by passing by the opportunity to address LGBT-Q types of behaviors as disputable matters, Paul lists only several non-moral example. Exactly. And that's the point. Rather, you know, in fact, Paul specifically scolds the Corinthian believers for embracing aberrant sexual behavior as if it were a positive expression of Christian freedom.

Rather, he instructs the church to withhold church fellowships. from people behaving in such a matter. This is difficult to square with the idea of categorizing LGBTQ behaviors with Paul's category of disputable matters. So if you take the analogy of that, the strong in faith, being essentially the Gentile who was more inclined to exercise their freedom in Christ, if that fits the affirming person and the weaker brother represents the non-affirming person,

And Paul's wish for the troops in Rome was that they become the strong in faith. Okay, now be sensitive for those who are weaker. Of course. But the emphasis is on the stronger person in faith is completely justified in the behavior that they engage in. Right. So avoiding circumcision, avoiding the dietary restrictions. None of that was immoral for Gentile believers in the early church. Right.

But to say that about sexuality, there's a major disconnect with the rest of Paul's teaching in the New Testament. And I don't see how he could have said what he said in Romans 1 about sexuality and come to this conclusion that the chapter is suggesting in Romans 14 and 15. That's a major complete shift of gear. I would say that's a radical inconsistency in the way Paul outlines. his argument in the book of Romans. That's really helpful. And I would say it's more than just an inconsistency because it's not just 1st Corinthians 6 where Paul lists a number of different sins and refers to same-sex sexual behavior

and says these kinds of activities will keep you outside of the kingdom of God. Need a daily spark of hope and direction? Let the Daily Bible app from Salem Media be that spark. This free Android app delivers an uplifting verse. each morning, plus reading plans, devotions and trusted podcasts from leaders like Joyce Meyer and Rick Warren. Prefer to listen instead? The Daily Bible app reads verses, reading plans and chapters allowed, handy for the headphones

moment of your day. Choose from versions like ESV, NIV, NIV, KJV, and more, and bookmark favorites to revisit later. Share inspiring messages with loved ones right from the app. Feel God's presence in every notification. Search for Daily Bible app on Google Play and begin your day with hope, purpose, and peace. Well, he also says that in Galatians 5 and in Ephesians 5. Now, he refers to sexual immorality, doesn't distinctly say same-sex sexual behavior, but in Greek it's pornaya.

And that's the umbrella term. Well, you go a few chapters later in the book, on page 41, an author David Bennett mentions pornea and distinctly says it's an umbrella term for sexual behavior outside. of natural marriage. He doesn't use that term, but he would include same-sex sexual behavior in that. So it's not just 1st Corinthians chapter 6. Paul does to the Ephesians, he makes it clear,

to the Galatians he makes it clear, to the Romans he makes it clear. So every single, this is something Kevin DeYoung points out in his book. He says every single vice list includes sexual immorality on that list. There's no exceptions. of it being considered something that is not considered a vice.

And what is Paul saying, 1st Thessalonians 4.3? It says, this is the will of God for you that you avoid sexual immorality. And in that passage is that pornao, I would assume so. I'm sure it is. Which I think Paul is, again, so add the Thessalonian Church to that. We can add revelation to that. Mark 7, Jesus teaches that. It's unanimous and it's consistent that that behavior would be out of balance.

You look like you want to say something. Let me make one other comment just from the admonition from Romans 14 and 15, not to pass judgment on people for these morally neutral matters. Okay. And, you know, the chapter describes it basically as spirit of debate is okay, but not to pass judgment. And I want to make sure that maybe using the term judgment might not be the wrong. right term. I would say a moral assessment might be a more accurate term for what we're doing. Judgment that has sort of that judgmental baggage attached to it. That's to do with attitude rather than content.

Right. But I think, and I think, you know, the chapter admits that spirited debate about affirming, non-affirming positions is okay. I would suggest it's also okay to try and persuade someone to adopt a different position. It's also okay to conclude that they are wrong in their view. Now, I'm not making an assessment of the validity of their faith. That's up to God. Sure. But I can, I think, I can make an assessment of their faithfulness

to Scripture. And I would expect them to do the same thing for me. If I've got areas of my life that are out of bounds. And so I think the judgment goes, someone goes both ways on that. And so it's not, it's not just

the traditional folks who hold to, you know, and non-affirming position that are the ones who are being judgmental. Because I don't know how many times you and I have both been called bigots. Yeah, sure. For our view on same-sex marriage and other matters of sexuality. I didn't call it to my face and homophobic, which is fine.

But in Matthew chapter 7 in the sermon on the Mount, you know, do not judge lest you be judged, right? Well, then Jesus goes on in that passage to make judgments about false prophets. And they will know you by your fruit. And you look at the gospel, Matthew, that is not the fruit of the spirit, which is in Galatians. That is the fruit of repentance tied to your moral behavior. So we are called to make judgments. Of course, judge ourselves first. That's the point.

I mean, Jesus is really clear that you, you know, look in the mirror first. I agree 100%. Take the log out of your own eye first. Okay, so here's – that was such a helpful – analysis of Romans 14, but here's some of things in this opening chapter. And again, it lays the groundwork for the entire project and the entire book. As far as I can tell, there's three reasons here, and then you are quoted. I want you to assess if you were quoted fairly or not. But there's three arguments that are given to defend this, that

sexuality. And we're speaking to sexuality broadly, really it's same-sex sexual behaviors, is really what's at stake here and changing the definition of marriage, whether that belongs in a disputable category. The first one says the church has also long-supported slavery and firmly prohibited divorce and usury. These are other so-called universal beliefs to the church regarding moral absolutes admittedly have changed.

I would just say, let's take slavery. There has been a debate about slavery in the history of the church. Yes, some Bible-believing Christians, sadly, have supported slavery. That is a stain on the church, no doubt about it. But there's been many people using the scriptures to fight against it. In fact, two nights ago, I watched the movie Amazing Grace with my wife and son to make the point that slavery is overturned by appealing to scriptures. So that example, there's not that debate in the history of the church in the way there is for slavery. And there's a different redemptive movement against slavery in the scriptures that we see going the opposite. direction in sexuality. The other thing is, I would happily say the church has been wrong on some issues.

Yeah, there's many in the church wrong in slavery. If you're wrong on A, it doesn't follow your wrong on B. Nothing follows for sexuality the fact that we've been wrong on this. And a third thing is I said, these are the affirming arguments that have been made for a long time. So in the name of this third way, the arguments put forth are the affirming

arguments, which makes my point that this is functionally affirming. Now, the second one that's argued here for it, it says this is especially true regarding those who show evidence of being indwelt by God's spirit and who desire to lead lives of obedience to the Lord as they best understand the scripture's teaching on sexuality and gender. Scott, I've heard this argument a lot that just says, look at the lives of individuals and people are kind and they're full of the spirit. Clearly they have the fruit of the spirit. They're studying the scriptures. They love Jesus. And I have no desire to judge anybody's heart. I am not God. I will not do that. But I'm preaching this weekend on John 14, 15 through 17. And Jesus said, if you love me,

you'll obey my commands. So somebody says, the scripture is moving me into direction, different than what scripture teaches, then clearly that's out of bounds and against what Jesus taught who was clear about the nature of marriage. So that kind of subjective test is problematic to me. And I'm going to go to the third, but is there anything on that second one

you want to A in that way in there? Okay. All right. And by the way, so here's what he says in the second one. Honestine humility requires evangelicals to acknowledge that LGBTQ concerns have become disputable matters among Bible-believing spirit-filled Christians. Now, you made this point earlier.

There's a difference between the observation that some people who identify as Christians disagree with this and that it now doesn't matter as an issue we should or should not disagree about. If you said Christians disagree on any particular issue, therefore it becomes disputable, Well, Christians disagree on polyamory. Christians might disagree on ancestral relationships. And if you say, that's out of bounds. How can you compare these?

I go, give it 50 years, it might. It doesn't have to happen. It's a logical experiment that said if some Christians did. So as I'm reading this book, as they move certain things into disputable matters, like I see spirit-filled Christians who say they love Jesus, in some of my debates with progressive Christians, they've said the same thing about polyamorous relationships. You said, I see love in those relationships.

How about adults and children? I'm just telling you the arguments that logically follow from this. That's why I think it's problematic. It's appealing to the same base. It's the same logical reasoning. All right, I think we've covered that. Here's how you're quoted. I am curious if this reflects your view.

It says, again, this is the opening, chapter, Scott Ray has rightly observed that contemporary arguments over the plausibility of affirming Christian monogamous, covenanted same-sex marriages today continue to remain inferential. John, for one, I've never used that term in any of my writings. But I looked up the reference because I thought I couldn't have said something that might give Aden comfort to this view. and it turns out I didn't.

So I have two responses to this. The only time I, on the page, on the reference that he cite is from the fourth edition of my book, Moral Choice. Okay. In the chapter on sexual ethic. The only time I use that term, and I use the term inferred, actually, is on the page you refers to it was in regard to this teaching of Jesus on sexuality. And here's what I say. nowhere does Jesus directly address same-sex relationships. Thus, any views he had on the subject must be inferred from other evidence.

Now, then I spend the rest of the page outlining the reasons why he most likely would have adopted Old Testament views on sexuality. He didn't, and throughout the gospel, Jesus never corrected the mosaic law. This is a really important distinction. He corrected rabbinic misapplications of the law because he said, he said, I came to fulfill the law not to destroy it. And so what he's correcting are where the Jewish tradition had gone off the rails. Now, the only other place that maybe the author could have had in mind was on the following page. and I'm willing to admit that he may just have gotten the page wrong. But where I describe various interpretations of Romans 1 on sexuality.

And one of the alternative views is that the text in Romans 1, what it condemns is sexual excess, not monogamous same-sex relationships. That's sort of the point that I think the author's making about my work is that that that's just that that has to be inferred the bible doesn't directly address that so however i go on to conclude that romans one if you if you read the rest of the chapter was intended to put all same-sex sexual relationships under the same umbrella outside of what the bible allows so i guess sean let me be really clear about this so super clear so there's no misunderstanding i do not consider matters of sexuality to be among the disputed matters that Paul describes in Romans 14 and 15.

In light of Ephesians 5, 22 to 31, heterosexual marriage is what illustrates the relationship between Christ and the church. It ain't peripheral. It's a central issue to the church's witness and mission. It's really important. And I found just at the end of the chapter, You know, a very interesting statement where the author says, although I have arrived at my own exegetical conclusions, evidence from both Catholic and Protestant circles suggest that the proverbial jury is still out on who is right. In the progressive or traditional debate, the libertarians, which are the wrong brothers or the legalists, which would refer to you and me.

So I thought maybe I'd like to be on that jury. Let's help and make that decision. So anyway, that's my response to that. And I just want to be really clear for people who might read this and think, what on earth is Ray thinking about on this? Well, hopefully I've just made it clear enough what I am thinking. That's really helpful. And by the way, in Ephesians 5, when he talks about marriage being a signpost to heaven, what does you refer back to?

The creation account. In Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2, God made them male and female, the root of marriage. The claim Jesus didn't address sexual morality. Well, in Mark 7, he condemns Pornaya, which undoubtedly would have included same-sex sexual behavior. And in Matthew 19, he positively affirms that marriage is a sex. institution like Paul in Ephesians 5 and Paul and Romans 1 referring back to creation as being normative for the nature of marriage. So Jesus, your point is Jesus didn't directly address same-sex marriage, but he sufficiently

addressed it to know what marriage is. He didn't directly address them because he didn't have to. Fair enough. Okay. So there's a little bit more that I think we need to spend some time on. one more point I want to make too, but go ahead. We'll get them up. Okay, so this section says, can queer and affirming people really be Christians?

Now, this is a personal question, right? This is kind of where the rubber meets the road. And it says the text, Need a daily spark of hope and direction? Let the Daily Bible app from Salem Media be that spark. This free Android app delivers an uplifting verse each morning, plus reading plans, devotions, and trusted podcasts from leaders like Joyce Meyer and Rick Warren.

Prefer to listen instead? The Daily Bible app reads verses, reading plans and chapters allowed, handy for the headphones moment of your day. Choose from versions like ESV, NIV, NIV, KJV, and more, and bookmark favorites to revisit later. Share inspiring messages with loved ones right from the app. Feel God's presence in every notification. Search for Daily Bible app on Google Play and begin your day with hope, purpose, and peace.

This is referenced by a Christian apologist Sean McDowell, who states unequivocally that a person who affirms monogamous same-sex marriage cannot be a faithful follower Jesus. To defend this harsh judgment, he cites Paul and references the condemnation of same-sex sexual behavior in 1st, Corinthians 6, Chapter 9. Now, I want to say a few things. First off, if he's actually right that same-sex sexual behavior is a disputable matter, then my judgment is harsh. if he's right about that. I am the one who's refusing to give people the freedom that they have

within Christ. So if he makes case, then he's right. I'm harsh. Now, if 2,000-year history of the church is correct and our critique is correct, then actually his critique of me is profoundly misguided and is giving space to people engaged in immoral behavior. that separates them from the kingdom of God, and he's failing to call it out. That is equally minimally as harsh and consequential. Now, I'm not offended by this. This is not personal,

but I'm trying to help people see what's at stake with this and why it's not just an agree-to-disagree issue. Now, his evidence for this, number one, he says, the translation of these terms is a self-a-disputable matter. Now, I have to say, look, this might feel like nitpicking, But if the point is people dispute over this, so I can't come to a confident conclusion, well, people dispute his assessment. So therefore, he can't come to a confident conclusion. Like, that's nonsense.

Just because we differ over something doesn't mean one position is not right and better supported by the evidence. So nothing follows from that. Second, he says there's an honest debate among evangelicals about what Paul condemns his sexual immorality. gives a few things. Is Paul even aware of loving same-sex relationships between people of equal class and or status? Now, this is the same affirming argument that has been made for 15 to 20 years. So to answer your question, I actually, what you said earlier, I think the affirming position has run out of steam. They've run out of arguments. So Richard Hayes' recent book, preeminent New Testament scholar, there is nothing new in that. I did an in-depth analysis that with Rebecca McLaughlin

and others have as well. I debated Brandon Robertson, his recent book. No new arguments. There's no new arguments here. And I actually want to cite. I think there's an interesting book by Zonervin on two views of homosexuality, the Bible, and the church. And these are like two of you, four views of baptism, four views of predestination, whatever. And William Loderan here, who's an affirming scholar, one of the leading New Testament scholars who analyzes these passages. He says this. He says, where biblical writers address the issue of same-sex relations, the message is relatively

clear. Leviticus prohibits the acts, which Jews read is equally applicable to female homosexual acts. Paul sees both the action and the attitude. homosexual passion as sin. It is not the case that he sees on the act of sin, nor that he sees it as sin only when accompanied by excessive passion, as though moderate passion and its expression would be tolerable. Nor is it the case that he concludes that being gay

and being sexually attracted to people of the same gender as itself ethically neutral. Rather, Paul appears to assume, like other Jews whose discussion have survived, that all people are heterosexual, a homosexual orientation is contrary to nature, as God's created people. Wait, so how does he get to an affirming position? Well, if you read a little later, what he says is people follow the option there agree

that gay people should be treating the same way as heterosexual people and not be discriminated against. This is occlusion based on the biblical principle of informed love. So an understanding of love, not from the scriptures, imported onto the scriptures. He says, he can only do so by acknowledging that the assumptions about human sexuality, which underlie the approach of Paul and his fellow Jews need supplementing with the insights and observation of humus sexuality we have gained sense. It's not disrespectful of writers of scripture and a particular Paul to suggest that their understanding of human reality needs to be supplemented. Let me put this very forthrightly.

What Loder believes is that what Paul taught is exactly what you and I hold as the non-affirming position. That's correct. He said, and so I appreciate his clarity on that, but he also says, 100%, he also says Paul was wrong. Exactly.

And then we go from there. That's why the reason he's supplementing is because his view of human, according to the law, his view of human psychology is wrong. That's right. And so, you know, I don't know,

I don't know what to do with that, you know, in our conversation about, you know, about matters where everybody's trying to take scripture seriously. You know, it seems to, If you're trying to take scripture seriously, Loder's view is not an option.

It's out of balance. And this is not a critique of Loder. We can have the question. Is Paul authoritative? Is the Bible true? That's a separate question. This is framed as being an in-house matter of dispute. Loader's assessment is right.

If you want to get to affirming position, stop using scripture to get there. Those arguments unilaterally fail. So this opening chapter, to get us to, all the practices that follow has not made his case. Now, I would say one thing I would throw out there is he raised a question which I think is fair. Finally, so he's given three reasons why, you know, can queer and affirming people really be Christians? And actually, before I come to the third, here's an important distinction, Scott. The title is, can queer and affirming people really be Christians?

And then he cites me as the one who's out of bounds and harsh. He basically says no. by saying, well, a person who affirms monogamous same-sex marriage cannot be a faithful follower of Jesus. Those are not the same things. That's correct. I can't judge whether somebody's saved or not. I don't know the human heart. I don't know where somebody is at in their journey.

God is the one who judges that. But can somebody say, oh, I'm in a same-sex relationship? Or I am fine with that and won't condemn it and be a faithful follower of Jesus. when Jesus and Paul and the history of the church for 2,000 years have been very clear, that's where I say no. So I think he's asking a question that I'm not responding to in that claim, and I think also kind of misrepresenting my view. Yeah, I think it would be the same thing if we try to say as someone who's an adulterous relationship

can, you know, nevertheless exhibits the love of Christ and the fruit of the spirit and as being a faithful Christian. would say no. That's, you know, yeah. And to be fair, you know, I mean, all of us have areas where we're not being faithful. But it's different. I think there's a little bit of a difference because I think for most people who are trying to be faithful, their unfaithfulness is often inadvertent, often not high-handed or intentional. And it's certainly not designed with any kind of biblical justification in mind.

Agreed. Now, on the next page, you actually asked the question, is it not possible than affirming queer Christian loves Jesus, respected authority of scripture yet in Turbic Key Passes differently than tradition? Tritialists may be guilty of sinning unintentionally rather than willfully disobeying God's will. And he asked that question earlier, said, could the references to, you know, the condemnation of sexual immorality, be exploitive or excessively lustful?

Those are key words to me. Could and possible? I go, sure. Anything's possible. that could be true that's not interesting i think of my friend jay warn wall who says in a court of law it's not could impossible it's what is the most probable so part of this reasoning is to just say the affirming position and the neutral position as well it could be this we dispute therefore you can't be confident and i said there's nothing interesting about could or probability whatsoever and so

you know there's so much more that could be said here i know we're going on but he raises the question of consistency. The third argument for can, you know, queer and affirming people to really be Christians? And he says, finally, the question of consistency needs to be addressed. The list in 1st Corinthians 6 includes adulterers and Jesus said that an animal divorce his wife to marry another commits adultery. Are all divorced and remarried Christians living in adultery? You know what I would say? I'd say, that's a really good question. That's fair. Maybe those who are non-affirming

are being inconsistent. Maybe. What follows from that? Not that we both become inconsistent, but that we both become consistent. So if anything, it's a claim to take divorce more seriously and to tape same-sex sexual behavior more seriously.

And by the way, I've been saying this for years. When I point out First Corinthians 6, I'm like, if you just point towards LGBTQ community and don't look at greed, don't look into your heart, You have missed the boat about this passage massively. I wish our church has got as exercised about adultery as we do about same-sex sexuality. Yeah, me too. Because adultery is...

And cohabitation, by the way. So I agree that. That's fair, but nothing follows for his argument from that. Now, there's, look, there's some other things here that we could talk about. One illustration brings to twice, and we'll land this plane. I got one more thing. Oh, you have one more thing. Okay.

Go ahead. We're getting close to land and plane. What is true of biological family can also be true of spiritual family when it comes to LGBTQ disagreement. So he uses this twice. And I want to say, what ties a biological family together and it's biology? Look, my wife, her dad is one of 12. We have family reunions and there's like 75, 100 people. people disagree politically and morally and religiously

and our biology ties us together we're in relationship we love each other part of the point of the New Testament is it's no longer biology that ties together Jesus said our family ties are not horizontal they're spiritual you know in Matthew 1250 who is my mother and brother and sister those who obey the will of my father

it's a creed that ties us together and following and committing to that creed. So the biological family just breaks down again, which I think tells me in the chapter there's a reach here that's just not convincing. I want to go back. Maybe this is going to be, this will be my last word on the subject.

All right. You promised. I did. And this is back to your point about how adopting the perspective, the framework here basically puts you in the affirming camp. And this is, regardless of what you say about yourself. And this is, and I'm not, I'm not doubting the face value of what the author says here about his own views. But here's, this is, again, comes from my colleague, Doug Huffman.

He puts it like this. As soon as, it seems to me, as soon as one considers same-sex marriage or other LGBTQ behaviors to fit in Paul's list of disputable matters, then you are affirming. I think, quote, disputable matters is the only place all of the affirming people I know would put same-sex marriage and other such behaviors in any other category. That is, they would say something like, this sexual behavior may be bad for you and your relationship for God with God, but it's good for me and my relationship to God. Such a comment expresses the essence of Paul's disputable matters category. thus to categorize LGBTQ behavior in this way is to be affirming of that behavior for some people, even if not for yourself. You cannot call LGBTQ behavior a disputable matter and be non-affirming. And I think he's right about that.

I agree. That is a mic drop moment. And I think if I understood correctly, that is my point about functionally affirming. there's not three positions, there's two when it comes to the practice and life of the church. I think that's right. I don't know if you have any last thoughts on this, but this book – I told you that would be my last word. You did.

I'll say this. Honestly, Scott, I don't enjoy – I didn't look forward to this conversation. I don't enjoy some of the people who are in this book I've interacted with. I've had coffee. They've been friends. I don't enjoy offering a critique. but I think the heart of this book, as far as constructive conversations on sexuality and gender, amen.

I love that. There's a ton of advice in here about listening and finding common ground. And kind of a drumbeat through this book are mistakes, less affirming but non-affirming churches have made in how they've treated LGBTQ community. And I read that stuff every time it's like a dagger. I'm like, why do we say that? Why do we do this? We've got to do better. So in some ways, the heart of this book, you and I can resonate with. But the solution veers away from biblical fidelity, and it gives a solution as well-meaning as it is that is actually not biblically loving, even if it's what they call Christ-like acceptance. It's not Christ-like love, because the Bible has described, love in terms of, you know, God's design for our bodies, in terms of what we do and what we

don't do, and is clear about sexuality. So I felt the need to speak out on this. And I hope, I hope others will as well. You're here. All right. Good stuff. Thanks, Scott. This is fun. Hey, friends. If you enjoyed this show, please hit that follow button on your podcast app. Most of you tuning in haven't done this yet, and it makes a huge difference in helping us reach and equip more people and build community. And please consider leaving a podcast review. Every review helps. Thanks for listening to the Sean McDowell Show, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, where we have on-campus and online programs in apologetic, spiritual information, marriage and family, Bible, and so much more. We would love to train you to more effectively live, teach, and defend the Christian faith today.

And we will see you when the next episode drops. Hi, I'm Beckett Cook, host of The Beckett Cook Show. I lived as a gay man in Hollywood for many, many years until I had a radical encounter with Jesus 13 years ago. Since then, I've gotten my master's degree in seminary and published a book called A Change of Affection. On my podcast, The Beckett Cook Show, I sit down with fascinating Christian scholars and thinkers to address the lies of the culture and bring the biblical truth to bear on those lies. To start listening now, go to life audio.com or search for the Becca Cook Show on your favorite podcasting platform.