Theology in the Raw - 731: #731 - A Dialogue with Justin Lee about Faith, Sexuality & Gender

Episode Date: March 25, 2019

On episode #731 of Theology in the Raw Preston has a public dialogue with Justin Lee. Justin is the author of Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate. Justin has been an influential Christian voice for LBGT+ affirmation for 20 years, best known for working across areas of theological disagreement to promote grace and mutual understanding. He is the founder of the world's largest LGBT+ Christian advocacy organization, and an internationally known speaker on faith, sexuality, and dialogue. The event was hosted by Spark Church. Dialogue begins at timestamp: 10:22 Question and Response timestamp: 1:38:20 Video of the event: https://youtu.be/hRHlf4dKFz0 https://youtu.be/5-NdR2rUnzg Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

Hello, friends, and welcome to another episode of Theology in the Raw. Before we get into it, I want to let you know about a special product that we at the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender that we just released called the Digital Leaders Forum. The Digital Leaders Forum is the most comprehensive online course on faith, sexuality, and gender. 22 exclusive videos, over eight hours of content, tons of extra material and discussions about the theology of marriage and same-sex relationships and singleness and all kinds of other fun stuff. Panel discussions with LGBTQ Christians, panel discussions with pastors, lots of Q&A time, and on and on it goes. For the month of March, we are running a special on the Digital Leaders Forum. And if you want to find out more about this special and take advantage of the

20 to 25% off discount, then you can text DLFMARCH. That's DLFMARCH, DLF as in Digital Leaders Forum, DLF March. Text that to 55222. That's DLF March to 55222. And you'll get a link, a ping back link, I think. I don't know how these text things work, but they're super convenient and super awesome and cool and stuff. So text DLF March to 55222 to get a link. It'll take you to the website where you can punch in the code and you can take advantage of the discount that is running just through the end of March. OK, so if you are listening to this after the month of March, you're not going to be able to take advantage of this discount. So you have a few days left to text DLFMARCH255222 and take advantage of $15 off of the retail price for the Digital Leaders Forum.

Okay, I hesitated whether I was going to even put this dialogue on my podcast. I had made an agreement before I had this dialogue with Justin Lee, which happened a couple weeks ago. I had this dialogue with Justin Lee, which happened a couple of weeks ago. The host, Kevin of Spark Church, I asked him, hey, you know, can you send me the MP3 when this was done? I'd like to put it on my podcast. And he said, yeah, sure. No problem. So he sent me the MP3, but I hesitated putting it on the podcast because I wasn't, I had mixed feelings about it, quite honestly. Can I be raw with you? Yeah, I didn't, I didn't, I was, my mind was kind of spinning. I wasn't sure what to think about it afterwards. And the more I thought about this dialogue I had with Justin Lee, the more I wasn't too thrilled about it. I, for various reasons, I don't, I don't want to like bias your listening to this

conversation. I just, part of me just wants to shut up and let you listen to it. But I just also want to be honest with you and just say that I hesitated even putting this up because I didn't feel great about it. Why didn't I feel great about it? I guess to summarize it, I, maybe I was expecting a more thoroughly theological conversation. Like I thought we were going to more, you know, dig into the text more, um, and wrestle with certain theological, uh, questions. For instance, I mean, I, one of my big questions when I, when I'm thinking through, you know, the affirming versus the traditional view of marriage and sexuality, one of the biggest questions that I'd like to know from those I'm in dialogue

with is what's your definition of marriage? What's your definition of marriage? Like I can, you know, I have a, you know, the historically Christian view of marriage is that marriage is a one flesh union between two sexually different persons from different families. And that this relationship, which is not, well, which is sexual in nature is intended for life. That, you know, when I say marriage, I mean the coming together of between two sexually different persons, male and female, like that's what marriage is. That's the definition that I think is rooted in scripture. I don't think it's hard to get in scripture.

I think it's pretty clear in Genesis. Well, from Genesis to Revelation, really, but especially Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 and other passages. And that's been what the historic global church has believed for 2000 years. And more recently, there has been a Western, primarily secular definition of marriage that says that sex difference is not essential to the meaning of marriage, that marriage is simply the coming together of two consensual humans who fall in love and want to spend their lives together. That is a definition of marriage. It is just, I'm not, I don't want to, you know, I don't say this to, you know, belittle that definition, but it is a secular Western,

very new definition. Doesn't mean it's therefore wrong. It's just, that's where it comes from. And this is my one question that I always ask. Well, there's three questions I always ask people who affirm same-sex marriage before we can even get into Leviticus and celibacy and singleness and, you know, how the church is harming gay people. And all these are really good conversations to have. But before we get anywhere, I need to know, number one, what is your definition of marriage? Number two, where did you get that definition from? And number three, how does scripture inform your definition of marriage? And I rarely, if ever, get a satisfying response from people who affirm, from Christians who affirm same-sex marriage in the church.

And I was really eager to get into that with Justin because I read Justin's book, Torn, Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays versus Christians Debate, which is a great book. I would highly recommend it to anybody who is interested in understanding this conversation better, especially if you want to humanize this conversation, Justin Lee's book is really good. But in that book, he never tells us what his definition of marriage is. He doesn't tell us where he got that definition from, which again, he doesn't really define marriage. And then I don't know how he understands a positive vision for same-sex marriage from the scripture. So I was super eager to get into that. And we never really were able to get into that. And that was

a little bit, I think afterwards, I'm like, man, all of this, the entire discussion of traditional marriage versus same-sex marriage flows from those foundational questions. I'm not saying those are the only questions that we need to ask, but they are the primary questions we need to ask because when we're talking about same-sex marriage versus traditional marriage in the church, and does God bless same-sex marriage? All of that is just, it's really difficult to have those conversations when both of us are saying the word marriage, and we mean two different things by marriage. When I say marriage, I mean the coming together of two sexually different persons. That's what the historic global church has believed. And again,

there's scriptural reasons for that. And when he says marriage, I don't know where he gets the idea from that sex difference is irrelevant for the intrinsic nature of what marriage is. And so I was super excited to get into that conversation, which never, we never got into. So anyway, that, that was one of the disappointments that I had when I left the conversation. Also, there was just, we were kind of stating our views, as you'll see. And sometimes we were able to kind of like, maybe push back a little bit, but we never really, I don't know, there's just so much meat that we didn't get into. And I was kind of frustrated at that. That frustrated, there's always fall. It's just the nature of a, you know, a rather short dialogue, you know, hour and a half dialogue

about super important and complex ethical topics. Like for instance, you know, you'll see in the, in the, you'll hear Justin say that, you know, when he reads Genesis two, he doesn't see sex differences being really that significant. And we didn't really get into it too much. Cause when I read Genesis two, sex difference is woven into the fabric of the whole entire creation account. This is something NT Wright and I mean, many other Bible scholars have shown.

It's not hard to find. I mean, if you look at Genesis 1, you see all these differences in God's creation singing together in harmony, land and sea and day and night and heaven and earth and all these differences in God's creation are not opposing each other, but are singing God's glory together in unity. And at the climax of Genesis 1, you see the creation of humanity as two sexually different persons, male and female. And then you see those two sexually different persons coming together in a marriage union at the end of Genesis 2. I mean, to say that sex difference isn't

really that big of a deal in Genesis 2, or sure it know, sure it's there, but it's not that, it's not like the main point. I just don't, I don't, I would have loved to have lingered on that for a long time because these are fundamental, fundamental questions that I feel like we just didn't really get into and didn't have space to really explore that more. And also I, you know, Justin is a, first of all, I had a wonderful time getting to know him. He's a very kind and smart person. He's an amazing communicator, as you'll see. He's a great communicator. But I felt like, you know, I'm going to stop talking.

I'm going to stop talking. So I want you to listen to this conversation. And even though I didn't feel like I did the best and I think the conversation could have gone better, I don't want to just put stuff on my podcast when I feel like, oh, I really nailed this one. I'm going to post this one. And yeah, this one I didn't do too well at, so I'm not going to post this one. This is theology in the raw, not theology in the plastic Christianity where we always put our best foot forward. So you make the call. I hope you enjoy this conversation. And it is also on YouTube.

I don't know how to find it. I guess you just Google around or YouTube around Preston Sprinkle, Justin Lee Dialogue. Spark Church was the host church. So you can find it on YouTube if you prefer to watch this conversation. But without further ado, here is the dialogue between myself and Justin Lee. Enjoy the show. My name is Kevin. As I mentioned before, I'm one of the pastors at Spark, and I just want to welcome you and thank you. I'm a little emotional, actually, that you would come out for a conversation such as this,

in the tone and in the posture such as this, in the midst of the culture that we are in, in the midst of the church that we all inhabit and love, and to see your faces, to hear you sing together as one church, I was just being moved by that and just wanted to thank you for that. I wanna say really quickly a huge thank you to Todd who's running sound and to Sean and Christina

who's part of the Foothill staff. Would you please give them a big thank you for all of their hard work. thank you for all of their hard work. I've rented out multiple locations, I'm sure many of you have been a part of that before, and the staff here at Foothill has been phenomenally hospitable and gracious and kind and worked with us. I also want to say a tremendous thanks to all of our sponsors. The partnership in this event tonight is also another reason to celebrate,

to consider that all of you from Highway and from River and Sequoia and Spark and Bravemaker and then many other churches that I know that you're a part of who weren't official sponsors, to have us all in the room for this conversation is also very touching to me, and I just want to thank you so much for that. I want to share with you very briefly, here's generally what is going to happen tonight. We got an hour, hour and 15, where we're going to have a conversation together. We're going to take a 10-minute intermission, because your mind can only absorb what your bottom can tolerate. So we want to make sure that we give you a sense of a break, and there's actually a psychological and spiritual reason for that. We're going to have a fairly, we're going to have a conversation. And to move into Q&R, which is question and response, that's how we do it,

requires you to just settle for just a moment, to think and to process and to even converse with your friends. So our intermission isn't just a programmatic piece. It's also a moment for us to capture breaths. There will be a microphone down here. We'll also ask that you please submit questions through Slido. If it's in your handout, all that information is there. And use the code SSSOC19. And please make sure that you start doing that at any particular time and start uploading. We'll use Slido as part of the question and our

time. At the very end of the event, please make sure that you give us your feedback. I'm actually going to help us stop and do that. Your feedback is critical. Our leadership at our church thinks that events are not just important in and of themselves, but the work that you do after it is also as critical, if not more critical. And so your feedback to us is going to be really, really important for us in that work. After, as well, Preston and Justin will have their books available right outside, and I'll give you some directions for that. So I hope that you stop by the booth, greet them, say hello, get your book signed, pick up a book if you haven't read their books, yet any of that stuff, and make sure you support them and their ministries.

There's a couple things I want to say as a brief introduction, and then we're going to introduce Preston and Justin. First, if you haven't read the introduction in the One Church statement in the handout, I'm really going to ask that you kindly read it. I don't want to spend a lot of time here talking about that, but I would ask you to consider. Time is precious, as you know. So please read that and consider carefully the tone and the foundation of what it is that we're trying to do tonight. We have done everything that we can to communicate to all of us. This is not a debate. Debates are not going to be helpful.

But conversations, empathy, understanding, questions, entering into understanding one another is. And so tonight, I'm going to ask all of us to have a posture of humility where we have come to prepare to learn. For us, humility means listening to one another, desiring to understand a little bit better, and using that to ask better and deeper questions of the most important topics and issues and challenges that we all face. And so that's our posture for tonight. And I know Preston and Justin have worked really hard for that. That's one of the reasons why I asked them, because they have modeled that so much. And above all, above all, it is to honor the person with whom we may even have some serious disagreements.

On Twitter, and I asked his permission, Matt Nightingale, who's here, Preston posted this and talked a little bit about his, you know, welcome to my world about arranging Airbnb. And then I love Matt's tweet here. He says, I may disagree with you in a lot of things. And I know that there's disagreements, fierce, real, not flaky, but significant disagreements. But I see your heart to love and serve people. And I really appreciated that because it exemplifies the heart of what we're trying to do. We're not asking you to set aside your disagreements. We're asking all of us to add to the very important conversations, the humanity of the person with whom we're having a

conversation to listen carefully. Second thing that I wanted to share with you is that a common way that I think all of us approach ethical and theological issues is usually, and I'm sure many of you are very familiar with this, is usually with a very direct line of inquiry. So tell me what you believe about X. And depending upon the person that's asking, it could be a very simple, straightforward answer, or it could actually be an interrogation. And I face that throughout my life and throughout my ministry career, and depending upon what answer that I give, I'm either lauded and praised or I'm condemned. And so I have developed, as I know many of you, a desire for a different way of having that conversation. So rather than just giving

answers honestly, I want to actually sit down and have coffee. I want to have a conversation. I want to actually communicate. I want to listen carefully. And I want to be heard as well, so that the various aspects and nuances of the things that we hold dear can actually be addressed, rather than just lobbing rhetorical bombs at one another. As the axiom goes, seek first to understand. Seek first to understand. So I just wanted to set some groundwork that if you're here tonight hoping that your side is going to win, hoping that your team is going to prevail, hoping that you're going to walk out fully justified in your beliefs, I'm going to ask that we all set that aside and just think deeply and carefully.

I may have more to learn. I may have more to learn. I may have more to consider. And most of all, I will leave this place a better human being for having learned and listened and empathized and grown in my knowledge. Most importantly, and I'm sorry about this, I really hope that tonight is just the beginning. We hope that it sparks conversation. There is a reason why we call it. That tonight is really just the beginning. That what happens tonight continues on in your small groups around coffee,

at your dinner tables, in your families. And that what has happened here has really caused us all to be better and more effective, more fruitful in having Jesus-honoring conversations and transformations in our life. Okay, with that being said, I just want to say that Justin and Preston are two people that I have observed

incarnate this posture through their work. And having spent some time with them, I am even more excited for us to have this conversation for both of them, respectively, in their ministries are changing the way we're all having this conversation. And I'm tremendously grateful. Absolutely, you are going to disagree at times. Absolutely, you're going to agree at times. And absolutely, you're going to want a point to be made. So we don't ignore that. But we also want to make sure that we do everything we can to have a conversation with love, respect,

and humility and grace. And I am absolutely confident and so thankful to them for modeling that. And now I put a whole bunch of pressure on them. So friends, please, everyone, give a warm welcome to Justin Lee and Preston Sprinkle. All right, I hope I didn't, anyway, there you go. I'm nervous, I don't know about you.

Yeah, I know, I I hate introductions like that are challenging Preston is going to share a few moments and then Justin's going to share a few moments and then we're going to have some questions and have a conversation Preston, go ahead I'm so nervous this is like

whatever you're about to say I'm going to disagree with you well that'll be interesting given how I'm going to begin I guess all the cliche thank you for being here and all that thank you for hosting this but I this conversation is is dear to both of our hearts and I just it means a lot to see so many Christians show up to have a nuanced conversation with a desire that we would go about this in a humble manner. Like, that's super encouraging. I was asking Kevin, Kevin, do you think there's going to be any like

really polarizing voices here that are going to not want the humility and the nuance and the conversation? And you were like, I don't think so. I think people are hungering for a thoughtful humanizing conversation, even in the midst of disagreement. So one of the first books I read in this conversation several years ago was this book, Torn. was this book, Torn. And I, this book reshaped how I approached this topic. In fact, I was skimming it, and I want you to, at the back I said, I was taking notes like, because I was working on a book at the very beginning stages,

and I have, so my book, I say, don't read the bottom because that's where I disagree with you. But I say, the top part says the tone of my book should look like this book. just blown away at just the real life story of somebody raised in a church and going through his own wrestling of faith and sexuality. And I just was, it just, it really, it tore me up in the best way possible. And this, this, any, if there's anything about my approach to this, which is far from it, from perfect too, like I mess up every single day and how I go about this. But if there is anything in my posture that it has is trying to humanize this conversation, it's due to first reading Justin's book. In fact, I shortly after taught a class on homosexuality in the Bible and I assigned at a conservative Bible college. And this is the first book I assigned. And I got some emails from that. So thanks for that. Shortly after reading Justin's book, I came across a

quote by a guy who's now a friend of mine, Drew Harper. He's a gay man, used to be, was raised in a church, not a Christian any longer. And he said this, and I quote, to be gay in the American evangelical church is to be dead. You're an outcast, a refugee, a diseased person. And that sums up so many stories that I've heard from LGBTQ plus people raised in the church. And that, wherever you're at in this conversation, that's just, that's not Christian. I mean, we sing the platitudes like the church is a hospital for sinners, right? Not a museum for the saints. And I like, I don't like most cliches, but I like that one. It's a good one. But when did the church become a graveyard for gay people? And we sing these empty phrases like love the sinner, hate

the sin. And I used to love that phrase and now I hate that phrase. Why don't we love the sinner, hate our own sin, and invite all people to come walk with Jesus together as one broken sinner to another broken sinner, inviting another beggar in need of bread to follow this crucified Messiah together. And so I've been truly torn up at these stories I've heard. And not just heard, but now many friends of mine, and hearing their stories and how that has left a lasting, almost irreversible scar on their relationship with God. One of my really good friends and mentors in this conversation, a girl named Leslie, who has experienced intense gender dysphoria her whole life.

a girl named Leslie who has experienced intense gender dysphoria her whole life. And she says, I have the abomination gospel so branded into my soul that every single day I wake up and believe that God, the God that she is passionately serving, she just feels this sense of shame because of the abomination gospel that has been branded into her. You can't treat this topic the same when you not just encounter their stories, but when those stories become wrapped up into your own story. So that aspect of my heart in this conversation was first ignited by Justin Lee's book.

So I, you know, we both have books for sale out there, I guess, right? We're selling books. But if you can only buy one book, I want you to buy my book. I mean, come on. I would highly recommend buying one of each. Justin and I, we have a lot in common. And please correct me maybe an hour later if I say anything here that you say, no, actually we don't have that in common.

But let me just, I think it's important to establish some common beliefs. Neither of us believe that being gay is a sin that somebody needs to repent from. And I want to kind of qualify that and give nuance because some of you are like, whoa, what? But I'm just going to let it sit. Being gay is not something you need to repent from. and run organizations towards helping churches become a place of flourishing for LGBTQ people. Both of us believe that many Christian churches have a lot of repenting to do for how we have shamed and shunned and dehumanized and demeaned or simply spoken a deafening silence over the existence of LGBTQ people.

Neither of us support reparative therapy or so-called ex-gay ministries. No offense if that's something you're into. It's just not, we're not into that. Both of us believe that premarital sex and polyamory are sin, which is a radical thing to say in 2019. Both of us, I think, we've received some flack, if not a lot of flack, from both sides on the, for lack of better terms, the far right and far left. Numerically, I mean, if you were going to add up all our similarities and differences, there'd probably be a lot more similarities. But I don't want to downplay the significance of where we do disagree.

And you stated that from the stage. We talked about this before. Like, where we disagree, we are passionate about. And we don't want to downplay that. If I can sum up our difference in as simple or concise terms as I can, it would be this. I think we answer this following question differently. The question is this, as concise as I can put it, is sex difference part of what marriage is? Is sex difference part of what marriage is? There's, I guess, two general definitions of marriage. One would say

that marriage is a consensual, faithful union between two adults, two consenting adults. And another definition would be that marriage is the one flesh union between two sexually different persons. I would say our ethical or theological disagreement largely flows from that. Like that is really the foundation from which our disagreements are going to flow from. I mean, we're going to probably interpret Leviticus differently and Romans, whatever, and maybe some hermeneutical things that we can talk about. But really our overarching difference has to do with how we answer the question, is sex difference part of what marriage is? I'm going to answer yes. And if you, if anybody, if you affirm same-sex marriage as something that God blesses or endorses, then you would say no. Like maybe it's fine if people

who are sexually different get married, but that's not intrinsic to the very meaning of what marriage is. Where I would say it is intrinsic to what marriage is. When we say the word marriage, when I say that, I mean the union between two sexually different persons. And honestly, I believe it's one of the greatest blunders in the theological debates and conversations around this topic. One of the greatest blunders is a failure to identify and simply lay out each respective understanding of what marriage is. I mean, it's fascinating to me that people often just race to Leviticus or Romans and all these things and start arguing for same-sex marriage or against or for or whatever without even saying, here's what I mean when I say the word marriage. Here is what I mean by that. Here's where I get that definition from, and here is how I understand Scripture informing that definition of marriage. So to me, that is a huge, huge piece of my theological understanding of

this conversation, is that sex difference is part of what marriage is. Or maybe I just, if you want me to, a more developed statement, I believe in what I call the historically Christian view of marriage. And we're going to probably talk about terms, so maybe you might not find that term helpful, but the historically Christian view of marriage, which says that marriage is precisely the coming together of two sexually different persons in a one flesh covenant union intended for life. And that all sexual relationships outside that covenant bond are sin. How much more time? Two minutes?

One minute? Sure. Just, okay, quick. Let me just summarize in a three-hour argument into 20 seconds. Let me just give you three reasons why I believe in that. Number one, when the Bible consistently affirms that sex difference is part of what marriage is, not just as a cultural artifact, but as a creational prescription. It's not just that, oh, most marriages in the ancient

world were kind of between man and woman, and the Bible kind of adopts that cultural norm. I'm saying that it's built into the very fabric of God's design for what marriage is, is what I would believe. And I would have reasons for that from Scripture and Christian tradition. Number two, whenever Scripture mentions same-sex sexual relationships, they are always prohibited. to whenever scripture mentions same-sex sexual relationships, they are always prohibited. Justin agrees with that. Anybody that reads the Bible believes in that. The debate is not about what the Bible says. It's about what it means and how it applies for today. But I do think it is important or, yeah, significant that whenever same-sex sexual relationships are mentioned in the Bible, they are always prohibited. And I do think those prohibitions include all kinds

of same sex relationships, not just exploitative or other aberrant forms of same sex relationships. And number three, the global multi-ethnic, multi-denominational church for 2000 years, the global church has also understood the ethical questions along similar lines. Now, I don't use the tradition. I'm a Protestant, okay? I'm a Bible guy, so I don't use the tradition argument as a standalone argument, but just as a way to cross-check my interpretation. So I don't think people say, now, this is your view, Preston, and you believe, and your view is this. I was

like, well, I'm not. I affirm the historical view that's been affirmed for 2,000 years cross-denominationally. This isn't just my personal, private kind of interpretation of Scripture. So it's important to—so here—and I'll stop. It's so important to understand this is not a debate about being inclusive versus exclusive. Like Justin's the inclusive one, I'm the exclusive one. We both, any Christian believes, any Christian is by definition inclusive. The debate comes, the debate surrounds the sexual ethic

that we're including people into. You see, that's a huge difference. Everybody believes in including, or should believe if you're a Christian, including all people. But you're including people into a forgiven community seeking holiness and repentance. And part of what constitutes holiness is asexual ethic. And that's the disagreement. But we don't disagree on whether all means all, love means love, and we should include all people into that

community seeking holiness and repentance. I'm going to stop. I've got a lot more to say, but I've already taken too much time. So that's my intro. Yeah. Is that the wrong way? I don't know. Justin. So I said I was going to disagree with what you said. So we'll start with this. I don't know what kind of hack book this is. This Justin Lee character. Well, no, I disagree with you on one important thing, which is if you're going to buy one book, some things are disputable matters.

Some things are not. No, so there are obviously, as you might imagine, there are things that Preston said that I 100% agree with. There are things that he said that I significantly disagree with, some of which I think are pretty big issues, and it's important that we have this conversation. But I don't want to start by jumping right into all the ways that we disagree. We'll get there. We probably won't get into all of them, but we'll get into some of the meat of it, I'm sure. But I want to start by telling you what brought me to this point. Some of you already know my story, but for those of you who don't, I think that

stories are really critically important when we have this conversation. Very often, we begin these conversations by just trying to figure out who's on our side, who's on the other side, and we start yelling at each other about Bible passages. Now, as a Christian, I believe that interpreting the Bible correctly matters. I believe getting our doctrine right matters. I believe that's vital. It's vital for the church. It's vital for us as human beings in a relationship with God. But it is also vital that we hear each other's stories. Because yelling Bible passages at each other or yelling about, you know, which hermeneutic, you know, you have and all this stuff is not what brings people to Christ. And it's not what brings people closer to Christ. But what God has given us to bring each other closer to Christ and to live out what God's called us to do is love. And so we've got to start there. We've got to start by knowing each other

and loving each other. So I grew up in a really wonderful, loving, two-parent Christian home. Very much sort of the idealistic, evangelical upbringing. I grew up in the South, in North Carolina. Grew up Southern Baptist. I prayed to receive Christ at a very young age. I reaffirmed that commitment as a teenager because I just wanted to make it clear to myself and everybody else that this was my decision. This was not something that my parents pushed me into. My whole life, from as far back as I can remember, my faith

has been at the center of who I am, of how I understand myself, how I understand my place in the world. I believe that if you believe in God, if you believe that there is a God who created us, who cares about us, that has to impact every aspect of your life. I never understood... Like, I understood folks who didn't believe in God and lived like there was no God. But I never understood folks who did believe there was a God and lived like there was no God.

Because to me, if you believe that there's God, that changes everything. So I've always believed that the most important thing that any of us can do is to serve God. And I believe that the best way I could do that was by preaching at my friends in school. That didn't go over super well. One of my classmates nicknamed me God Boy because I was the kid who always had a Bible in his backpack and a bunch of tracts about salvation. I don't think he meant it as a compliment,

but I absolutely took it as one. I was the kid in school who was always wearing Christian t-shirts and only listened to Christian music and played Christian video games. How many of you have heard my story about Christian video games? Okay, so I have to tell the rest of you. So when I was a kid, I grew up in the era of the original Nintendo Entertainment System, the NES. One of the most popular video games at the time was a game called The Legend of Zelda. But The Legend of Zelda has some, like, magic and monsters and stuff. And so a lot of Christian parents weren't super comfortable with their kids playing this game.

And so there was a Christian video game company. I kid you not. Look it up. It's on the Internet. It was called Wisdom Tree. And Wisdom Tree, this is true, they made terrible Christian video games. One of which was a ripoff of The Legend of Zelda called Spiritual Warfare. This is real.

So in The Legend of Zelda, you are on a quest to save a princess. In Spiritual Warfare, you're on a quest against the powers of darkness. The music for this game is entirely like 8-bit versions of hymns. There are some hymns I cannot listen to to this day without hearing the 8-bit version in my head. You answer Bible trivia as you go along. along. In the Legend of Zelda, you collect weapons. In spiritual warfare, you collect the fruits of the spirit. Only they're actual fruits, apples and bananas and pomegranates. Only their actual fruits, apples and bananas and pomegranates. In the Legend of Zelda, your enemies are monsters.

In spiritual warfare, your enemies are the unsaved. Right? So when you encounter the unsaved, you throw the fruit of the Spirit at them. Well, thanks for coming, everybody. I think we're going to conclude right there. Or, and this is true, blow them up with vials of God's wrath. Oh my goodness. At which point they repent, convert, and disappear.

That is not the gospel. And I tell this story partly because it's funny and is absolutely true, but partly because I think it says something really uncomfortable if we want to examine it about the kind of church culture that some of us grew up in. I saw my role as a Christian to be going out and throwing the truth at people so that they would repent and convert, and then I could move on to the next person. And it's not that anybody said those words to me. It's not that anybody said this is what it means to be a Christian, but that was the message that I took from a lot of things that I heard growing up in church. And so that was the way I lived out my Christianity. I looked for opportunities to

debate issues with people. And one of the issues I liked to debate with people was homosexuality. Because I knew that being gay was a choice and a sin, and it wasn't God's best for people, and so it was my job to argue with them about it so that they would know that being gay was wrong, and if I ever met a gay person, I was going to tell them how wrong it was so that they would stop being gay and live into God's best for their life. That never happened. I know you're surprised. I know you're surprised. I thought at the time that being a good Christian meant being so certain of everything all the time that if anybody asked any question about any controversial issue, you could quote chapter and verse and give them the right answer.

And I now realize that some of that was pride, and God, you know, God, the God who is like, all right, you're not going to do what I say, swallowed by a whale, how about that? That God had a surprise for me. Because when I hit puberty, I didn't experience what all my guy friends experienced. That budding attraction to girls and all of that. I experienced attraction to guys.

It took me until I was 18 to realize that there was a word for that and that that word was gay. For years, I considered myself straight. I dated girls. I thought these feelings would pass. And gradually, it became more and more apparent to me that that wasn't happening. And it got to the point that I was literally crying myself to sleep night after night, begging God to make me attracted to women. And it didn't happen.

And when I finally realized that the word for someone who's attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex is gay, it wasn't like something I embraced like, oh good, I'm gay, now this is going to be the center of my identity. It was more like a diagnosis for a disease. It was like, you got the gay, you know? It was, I joke about it now, but seriously, like it was like if you've ever had weird medical symptoms and you go to the doctor and the doctor can't explain it, and you go to another doctor and the doctor can't explain it and you go to another doctor and that doctor can't explain it and finally you find a doctor who says, I know what's going on. I know what you have. I have a diagnosis for you. Even

if it's a terrible diagnosis, there is some measure of relief in going, finally, at least now I know what this is. And for me, that's what gay was. It was a diagnosis for this disease. It explained what I had been feeling all along. And I thought, now I just have to find the cure. And I went to the so-called ex-gay ministries that Preston mentioned. And long story short, they didn't work. A lot of the people whose testimonies I'd heard who said I used to be gay and now I'm not, I met those people. And in private, they told me stuff that they'd never shared publicly. And I realized it hadn't worked for them either, but they didn't feel comfortable telling the truth in the church. And more and more, I started feeling like something's really wrong. If people feel like they can't be honest in church, what's going on here? And so I started writing about my experience

online, trying to figure out what does this mean? I thought this was a choice. I didn't choose it. I thought it would change. It hasn't changed. Does this mean my church was wrong about marriage, about same-sex marriage? Or does this mean I have to live my life celibately? Or, you know, what does this mean? I had all these questions. And I started writing my story online, and I met hundreds and then thousands of other people who were going through the same stuff and were so alone and so terrified to talk about it in church. And so there's way more to my story, but that's how I got started in this conversation. And ultimately, I came to the conclusion that is not Preston's in terms of marriage. But at the end of this evening, my hope is, because it's very unlikely that the two of us talking are going to, you know, change

everybody's mind one way or the other about what the Bible says about marriage. Well, we'll talk about it. But at the end of the day, my hope is that everyone leaves here with a sense of at least how can we make the church a place where everybody knows that they can come and be honest exactly where they are with their theological questions and the mess in their life and, you know, whatever they feel and whatnot, and know that they will be loved and supported in the church, because right now that's not the reality for a lot of folks. So maybe we can start there. Preston, you mentioned inclusion versus exclusion is really not this binary that you hold. Justin just ended on a very similar theme and a similar call to all of us.

So I guess if we're going to get down into the weeds, the challenge seems to be that if you continue to hold to your, and again, we probably need to talk about terminology too, like the historic Christian view. And it is being received as non-inclusive. Like there's a part of my humanity that is actually not welcomed in your theology. I think that seems to be maybe a good place to start. Because the heart, we agree on the heart of what we want to have happen, but yet there's a theology, there's a teaching that is out there that is being received as unloving as you're rejecting part of my humanity. So maybe

we can start there and do a little back and forth and share maybe, Justin, your thoughts on how that's being received as well, and maybe a little bit of the differences of your approach on that. So I guess that would be my question. How do you manage and navigate that? Because I hear your heart, obviously. I mean, this is part of the reason why you're here, is because of this deep desire to open the doors, to make the church the place for all people. And yet the piece, that one piece, is a communication to some people. It's being received as,

but how can you say you love me and you welcome me, but you reject this part of who I am? So how would you navigate, I guess, that? Let's start with an easy one. Well, I mean, we don't have much time, so let's just get down to it. First of all, your final statement, I just want to, amen, amen. I mean, that's a joint kind of goal of tonight, that that's, I couldn't, I wouldn't disagree with the syllable of that. Yeah, to answer your question, I mean, so when I say the church, maybe I stated it too confidently, that the church is a place where all people are included.

A lot of you are calling BS on that. Like, no, I've been to lots of churches, and it certainly doesn't feel like that. And that is a massive problem. I mean, it's part of why I spend my full-time job now helping churches to truly be a place where all people feel included into a community seeking holiness and repentance. And maybe they come face to face with the marriage and sexual ethic, and they say, you know what? Ah, just not there. Can't keep going down this road. But at least they would say, but these people love me. They're walking with me. They're asking honest questions. They're letting me ask honest questions and wrestle out loud. I mean, if the church isn't a place where you can, where you can't wrestle out loud with whatever's going

on, then that's not the church that God designed the church to be. So, but to your question, like, I don't, I don't believe, and maybe this would be another point of disagreement. Um, I don't believe that marriage and sex is essential for human flourishing. And yet, I would say, I think, aside from just the LGBT conversation, I think that the American conservative, largely evangelical church, or let's just say the American church has idolized marriage and sex. Our culture has idolized, maybe not so much marriage, but sex.

And we just, because we can't sexually get married, typically, then we idolize marriage and sex. To where if you're like 38 in the church and still single and good looking, and people are like, wow, how come she's not married yet? She's so pretty. Like something's wrong with her come she's not married yet? She's so pretty. Like something's wrong with her because she's not married.

Like we have built into the fabric of evangelicalism this implicit, sometimes explicit, idolization of marriage and sex so that if you're not quite married yet until you're having lots and lots of great sex, then you haven't quite fully arrived. You're not really complete. You can't flourish as a human until you have,

you know, a great marriage and lots of great marital sex. So I just, I don't see that in the New Testament. There's no place in the New Testament where the word hope or gospel is connected with, like, you will get married and have a wonderful sex life. I mean, that was one of the problems of the whole purity era. We said if you do everything right and do your devotion six days a week and don't go past second base with your girlfriend and minimize your porn intake, then God's gonna bless you with D1 and everything's gonna be great, hunky-dory.

So I don't, just ontologically, anthropologically or theologically, I don't think a historically Christian view of marriage and sex is intrinsically dehumanizing because I believe you can be fully human without being married or being sexually active. Now, communicating, that's the million-dollar question. So, I mean, it doesn't always sound like that. So, in principle, I don't disagree with anything you just said. But, so one of the things that is frustrating to a lot of LGBTQ Christians in the church, and that's the, you know, the acronym is always changing.

That's sort of the, where we are right now. That's what's considered the most accepted acronym now is LGBTQ. I'm also going to speak, though, as a gay guy, so you'll hear me talk about gay Christians as well. One of the frustrations that I know that a lot of my fellow LGBTQ Christians have in the church is a lack of empathy. The sense that we have this conversation and it's a very heady theological conversation, but it's not a real lived experience conversation. So let me just, to illustrate this, if you'll let me try something a little unorthodox here not theologically unorthodox. Well, maybe you'll disagree

If you will if you feel comfortable just close your eyes for a second if you don't feel comfortable, it's okay I'm not gonna call you out and Just and just put yourself in this position. Imagine imagine the situation right now for yourself Imagine if as we're sitting here, we're having this conversation, we're suddenly interrupted by a booming voice from the sky. And God says through this booming voice, I have an announcement. I have decided to end marriage for Christians.

Those of you in this room who are single right now, you can never be married. If you have plans in the future that involve marriage, those plans have changed. Those of you in this room who are married already, in this room who are married already. At the moment you leave this room tonight, your marriage is dissolved. You must separate from your spouse. You cannot see them again. And you may never be married again in the future.

If you have children, those also will be taken away from you. And you will never see them again either after tonight. I just want you to sit for a moment and imagine what your emotional reaction would be. What questions you might have. what questions you might have. When you get home and you have a conversation with your family about what you heard, what would that conversation be like?

What would you say to them? And with your eyes still closed, think about how the days and the weeks and the months and the years ahead of you might be different. What would change? What would be difficult for you? Who would you spend time with? And imagine if you got sick

and you needed round-the-clock care. Who in your life, with your family gone, who would care for you and make sure you got the treatment that you needed round-the-clock care, who in your life, with your family gone, who would care for you and make sure you got the treatment that you needed? Now, as you feel comfortable, you can open your eyes. And I just want you to reflect for a moment on the emotion of that. reflect for a moment on the emotion of that. And imagine how that might change the church,

how that might change what the gospel sounds like to people outside of the church. If you say, hey, when you become a Christian, you must leave your family. How many people in this room do you imagine would stay Christians? If God said, this is only for Christians? So if you're not a Christian, you can have your family. How many people would stay?

How many people would maintain their private family and just not tell anybody at church? Now, when you imagined yourself in that scenario, how many of you was your primary concern about sex? Yeah, nobody. This is what's so frustrating to a lot of gay Christians in particular when we have this conversation. What many of our churches have said to us is, you can't be married. You can't have kids. If you are married, you have to leave your spouse. Because this is not what God wants for you.

And we say, gosh, I have a lot of questions. Like, if this happened for real, people would be like, how do I know that was God? And somebody wasn't hacking the PA system, you know? We might have questions like, well, wait, what if God didn't say you can never see your spouse again, but God just said you can't live together as husband and wife anymore? Well, could we still live together and not be husband and wife or live next door to each other? Can we still spend time together? Can we still cuddle on the couch and watch Netflix together if we don't have sex? Like, there would be a lot of those questions, right? And yet I find

that when gay Christians ask those questions in our churches or just want someone to hold hands with in church or whatever, people automatically assume that's bad, that's sinful. We say, well, can we have romance? Can we have intimate companionship? And people are like, it seems like you're just splitting hairs. And over and over again, the conversation ends up being about sexual morality and what God wants for us sexually. Now, sex is a part of marriage, but the big question that we're asking is not about sex. It's about companionship and

love and who cares for us when we get sick and the deep grief that comes with somebody saying, you have to be alone. Now, let me ask you one more thing, and then I'll shut up. saying, you have to be alone. Now, let me ask you one more thing, and then I'll shut up. How many of you, when I asked who might take care of you, or who would you spend time with, how many of you thought of the church in that role? Oh, not very many people. That's kind of terrible. I think the church has the ability to be that for people and the church right now is the place that most LGBTQ people feel the least safe in the world

so I tell you I put you through that and I ask you to imagine that not because I think that answers the theological question just because it's hard doesn't mean God didn't say it but I want you to think about, when we have this conversation, how much deeper this is for folks than just a question about sex. So that's where I think the dehumanization comes in. This sense that we get reduced to a debate about sex.

Preston, do you have a... I mean, the modern day conversation, debate, dialogue about sexual ethics, marriage ethics is so intertwined with what should be a conversation about ecclesiology, about church, because the church that Jesus envisioned and fought so hard to build

in terms of being, like when you said, would the church be the church that Jesus envisioned and fought so hard to build in terms of being, like when you said, like, would the church be the one caring for you? And I'm thinking, like, first century church? Oh, absolutely. 21st century American church? Few and far between. And that's why I think it is, we can't, this is that stupid cliched phrase. Like I said to you earlier, they're just so goofy, but it makes sense. Like as, as if you're a true, if you believe in a traditional view of marriage and stuff in this room, like you can't just try to call people out of sin without calling them into kin. Um, or a friend of ours, Eve Tishnett talks about the vocation of no, don't have gay sex.

Good luck with that. See you on the other side. I'm out of here. I got a family to go attend to. Like, if we're not willing to do what Jesus commanded us to do in Mark 10, 29 to 30, of like becoming the family and brothers and sisters and brothers and fathers and fields and homes for all of God's people, opening up our homes and our dinner tables and minivans and family lives and doing that, then I just, I get nervous about people just saying, don't have gay sex.

Good luck with that. I'm going to go home to my family and, you know, hope that works out for you. Yeah. So, I mean, I think, I think this is a lot of common ground actually within the difference that, that man, we need to wake up to the up to becoming the reward that Jesus built into the gospel. You leave behind everything in Mark 10. What do you get? We get eternal life in the afterlife. That's great. If that's all there was, then that's, hey, it's worth it. But also in this life, you get the reward of mothers and families and fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers, you know, the spiritual kinship. But when you look around at the way our modern day church is mostly, not all of them, but a lot of times, it's not that kind of like powerfully attractive, authentic community

that I think Jesus envisioned. So yeah, I love what you said, Justin. I think it's convicting, challenging, and correct. Yeah, so it feels like there's a couple things that are going on that need a little bit more fleshing out. Thank you so much for sharing that. That was really, I think, a perspective that I'm so glad that you voice and you model it so well for us. I'm hearing the voice on the other side, though, Justin, that would say,

I have sympathy, I have empathy, but I can't let that personal experience change the way that I read the text. And so I didn't hear you, Preston, mention anything about responding specifically to how Justin's exercise in that imaginative exercise leads to an interpretation of how we actually practice this. So I guess the question for you then, Justin, would be,

the text is the text, and it says what it says. And as much empathy as I can have for you, I can't dishonor God by dishonoring what the scriptures are teaching. So how, I think, again, to honor the exercise, it's really wonderful, and I really appreciate you doing that. So how would you respond to that? What's the navigation through that? So, well, yeah, I mean, first of all, I think that's right. I think that at the end of the day, if God says sacrifice Isaac, you sacrifice Isaac, right?

Like, that's... But for me, the starting point for the conversation has to be for those who are not directly affected, and this specifically affects those of us who are gay,

some of the questions are a little more complicated for other folks on the LGBTQ plus spectrum. But if we're going to say to gay Christians, you know, this is what God's demanding, at the very least, there needs, that needs to come with a tremendous amount of, like, grief and walking that, you know, walking through that with people and not just dismissing it as, well, you know, we put too much emphasis on family in the culture, which I know is not at all how you meant what you said, but it's definitely how it feels at times when folks in the church say that. It's sort of like, gosh,

well, we spent too much time talking about family, you know? Family is not the end-all be-all. Marriage isn't the end-all be-all. Anyway, hey, I'm late to have dinner with my wife, so, you know. have dinner with my wife, so, you know. But as I said, that does not by itself determine the theology. What I would hope that it does do is encourage us to go back to the scriptures and make sure that they do say what we think that they said. In the same way that if we did literally hear a voice from the sky that sounded like God was saying that, that we would do some analysis and say, okay, wait, this is a really big deal. Let's make sure that was actually God. And let's make sure we parse very carefully what was just said. I disagree with Preston in his describing of his view as the historical Christian view. It is certainly true that the church

historically has not allowed for same-sex sex. The church historically has said that same-sex sex is sinful. That's not really been debated in the church until fairly recently. What the church has not historically said is we recognize that there are gay people who are also Christians for whom a same-sex relationship is the only real opportunity that they have for a romantic relationship, and those people must be celibate. And that may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but it's a really significant distinction. Because through the vast majority of the church's 2000 year history, there wasn't really a whole lot of debate about this, partly because there wasn't any cultural conversation about the existence of gay people.

The assumption was everybody had the opportunity for heterosexual attraction. And so to say, don't have same-sex sex, was essentially equivalent to saying don't have sex outside of marriage. What's the problem? So I think that it's important that we go back and reexamine what the scriptures say. And I would argue, and gosh, this would take a lot longer than we have, but I mean, I would argue that there are a lot of things in scripture that would lead us to a different reading. But that's for me really the point of the exercise. Yeah, yeah.

Do you want to respond? I mean, so I'll follow up with a question to you, Preston. You mentioned a little bit to what Justin was saying, that the response of, well, we give too much emphasis to family and marriage and things like that, and that's not the end-all be-all. But yet the argument that I've heard you make, as well as other people on a very similar position, would make the argument from creation. We're going back to Genesis 1, and we're using Genesis 1 as the preeminent example of God's good design. So I'm kind of curious, that sounds dissonant to me, to say that

God's good design, and we are very strong in the emphasis of male and female, created in God's image, man's going to leave, you know, his mother and father be united to his wife, right? All of that teaching. And yet at the same time, you're saying, but, you know, marriage and sex is not really all that big of a deal. So help me navigate those two pieces of the puzzle. And somewhat in response to Justin's comment that brushing that aside still feels like a dismissiveness. Beginning with what you just said, the brushing aside.wait, say that part again just to make sure. Well, I don't know if you want to respond or reply or restate what you mentioned. Or I could just address your first part of the question if that works.

Well, I think Justin was mentioning that part of the frustration is, you know, to bring this up is when we're being told, well, marriage is not that important. Essentially what you just mentioned, right? It's not that important. It's not the ultimate element or essence of what it means to be a human flourishing. So here, yeah, I would say marriage is very important as an institution, as for those who are called to marriage. I would say I don't think, to put it, I guess, biblically, I don't think the New Testament teaches that marriage is essential for human flourishing. Old Testament, if all we had is the Hebrew Bible, it may be different. I think there it seems to be a much bigger part of the fabric of human existence,

whereas in the New Testament, there seems to be this profound elevation of singleness, you know, on par, depending on how you read Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, maybe even beyond, you know, marriage. But marriage itself, the definition of marriage doesn't change, but it's how it's framed in terms of its relation to human flourishing for all people, I think, is diminished. So yes, absolutely a sacred institution. I don't think the definition changes throughout scripture, but I think it is downplayed, not redefined, but downplayed as a means for human flourishing in the New Testament. I think there's theological significance in the fact that we serve a savior of marital age who was single, who exemplified human flourishing and what it means to bear

God's image more than anybody. With Genesis 1 and 2, I do think, I mean, Genesis 1 and 2 is not just the first two chapters of the Bible. It is pretty fundamental to a Christian worldview. I mean, it's where we get the goodness of creation. Like, if you believe that we're to care for creation, like, that's a profound statement that the Bible declares that creation is good. It's where we get the full equality of man and woman. Like, one of the most radical, profound, beautiful statements in all of ancient Near Eastern literature is that male and female are created in God's image equally.

That was the most radical statement in the ancient world. The sovereignty of God in Genesis 1, the intimacy of God in Genesis 2. I mean, these are profound themes for a Christian worldview. I wouldn't say any of these are just kind of insignificant. Wrapped up into that is the beauty and equality of sex difference. And then at the end of Genesis, when two sexually different persons come together in a one flesh union, that's wrapped up

in the whole package in Genesis 1 and 2. I do think that is rather significant. So when I, it's interesting, like when I read, when I read this, the same passage that you're talking about, I don't see in that passage a big deal being made about sexual difference. That's, I, I, I, it's certainly there. It's certainly, you know, I would argue it's that part, the fact that you have male and female is descriptive but not prescriptive. What I see as really standing out in that passage is God saying of Adam, it is not good that the man should be alone.

Paul, yeah, Paul upholds singleness. But then Paul also says, you know, it's better to marry than burn with passion. Over and over, I see scripture reaffirming that marriage is valuable and is important and is something that many of us would feel a tremendous loss without. You know, I have a friend who says, he says, like, all I, like, I want to get married. But he says, like, if the church says I can't get married, at the very least, I just, even if I can never have sex, I want somebody to watch Netflix with under a blanket. And the church thinks I want Netflix and chill. But all I really want is I want someone to like, like sit next to under a

blanket and watch Netflix, you know? Like there is this longing that I think we were created for to be connected to another, another person. And not every person, you know, there are people in this room for whom that exercise earlier was probably not a big deal because they're either like in a bad marriage, would be happy to be out of it, or I don't know your life, or single and never felt a particular call to singleness. But the Bible never suggests that that is for everyone or for a large group of people and that or it should be enforced on people. Now, is it essential for human flourishing? No, I don't think it's essential for human flourishing necessarily as such. But I'm reminded of the story where Jesus heals on the Sabbath. And the guy that Jesus heals, you know, has a withered hand.

Is it essential for human flourishing to have a non-withered hand? No, I don't think so. But Jesus chooses to heal on the Sabbath, even though you're not supposed to work on the Sabbath. And the Pharisees and teachers of the law get upset about it and give him a hard time about it. And Jesus says, and there's several occasions where he has these kinds of conversations about work on the Sabbath. You know, but he says, you know, which is better on the Sabbath, to do good or to do evil, to save

life or to kill? Which is a weird, like, it's not like his only option was either, you know, heal this guy or kill him. I mean, he could have left the guy. He could have come back and healed him another day. Jesus makes a conscious choice. And Jesus, on one of these occasions, says, if your child or your ox fell into a well on the Sabbath, wouldn't you pull them out? And for me, what Jesus is saying is, okay, yeah, there's a rule about work on the Sabbath, and that rule is valuable, and it's rule about work on the Sabbath, and that rule is valuable, and it's important. It was a very, very important rule. But he's saying, look, it matters the impact of your theology. It matters not just that you're following the rule, but what

is the impact of that on human beings who are hurting? And I feel like what the church is saying to folks is, or what the church is saying to a lot of Christian parents is, leave your children in the well overnight, because the passages clearly say that, and then when we look at the passages, none of those passages are about same-sex marriage or gay people being celibate. You have passages about stuff like gang rape in Sodom or idol worship in Romans, you know, passages in 1 Corinthians in the context of a culture where men are having sex with boys on the side outside of their marriage. And I don't think any of that applies to two people who want to commit their lives to each other in the sight of Christ. And so that's my concern, is that we've gotten so

concerned with applying these verses legalistically, the way the Pharisees were trying to do the to each other in the sight of Christ. And so that's my concern, is that we've gotten so concerned with applying these verses legalistically, the way the Pharisees were, trying to do the right thing, that we've missed the forest for the trees. This feels like a commonality, actually, between both of you in your stories. And I want to reemphasize a point that you made, Justin,

that I think is, that we don't want to gloss over, that you're not saying that your experience or that empathy replaces or usurps or is higher than the text, but it causes you to go back and reread and to rethink and to recognize that maybe the 1984 NIV English version may not be the most, you know, accurate way in which God has dictated his will,

right? So your experience leads you to revisit that. Is that a fair? Yeah, I think the conscience, well, so first of all, I actually, one of the things I like about the 1984 NIV version, thanks for bringing that up, is 1 Corinthians 6,9 in that passage says, homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God, which led a friend of mine to say, and it always makes me laugh, the Bible condemns homosexual offenders, so stop offending the homosexuals.

That's bad theology. That's bad theology. Interestingly, that passage in the NIV today has been sort of quietly retranslated, and it now says men who... It used to say homosexual offenders and male prostitutes, and now it says men who have sex with men, which is kind of different.

So, but, yeah, no, that's... What I'm saying is I'm not... Yeah, I'm not saying that the fact that this is hard, that it's hard teaching means automatically, you know, we should never ask people to sacrifice, that God's commands are always easy or anything like that. God asks us to give up a lot. And if God asks us to do something really horrible, you know, not really horrible, something really difficult, then we have to do something really difficult. But I do think that our empathy and our conscience ought to move us to re-examine these texts and be really careful. And I think one of the places where we know we failed to do that historically is slavery. The church, The church, for like 1,800 years, did not, on any significant scale, condemn slavery. In fact, the more you study history, the more disturbing stuff you find about how many ways the church across denominations, across cultures, allowed and participated in and supported slavery.

And, you know, occasionally you would have like a person who would pop up here or there and go, something feels really wrong about this. But the teachers, the powers that be would go back and say, well, look, here's this passage that says slavery is okay, and here's this passage, and this passage, and this passage. And it even got to the point, there's a great book about this by an evangelical Christian historian named Mark Knoll, and it's called The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. And he argues that in the American Civil War, as the cultural attitudes towards slavery in the U.S. were changing, and more and more Christians were becoming abolitionists, that there was a real theological crisis, because for so many Christians, including those who didn't like slavery, there was a sense that scripture was clear in allowing slavery, and yet their consciences were leading them in another direction,

and they didn't know what to do about it. And it's, I mean, some of the quotes from that era are just like, I mean, you can, I'll give you one real quick. Just because I think this is, like this is just incredible. I'll give you a couple. So Leonard Bacon, 1846. The evidence that there were both slaves

and masters of slaves in the churches founded and directed by the apostles cannot be got rid of without resorting to methods of interpretation, which will get rid of everything. Moses Stewart, 1850, who Knoll says was widely recognized as the nation's most learned biblical scholar at the time, wrote that abolitionists, quote, must give up the New Testament authority or abandon the fiery course which they are pursuing. In other words, you can't be an abolitionist and believe that the New Testament is the word of God because the New Testament so clearly allows slavery. We look back at that now and we go, that was really wrong. And we see evidence in scripture of a movement that we go, oh, here's

the evidence that we would now point to to say the Bible doesn't allow for slavery. But it was not obvious to the church for almost 2,000 years. And that was a conversation the church was having for 2,000 years. This is a conversation the church hasn't been having until recently. And so I think we need to be open to, if our consciences are saying something feels wrong here, we need to listen to that, because that could be the Holy Spirit. Yeah, and I think that's a perfect lead-in for you. All right, tell me why I'm wrong. Well, in addition to that, you have other issues, such as divorce, self-mutilation, in addition to slavery. So, yeah. Yeah, so let me try to go back and

let me begin with the slavery one. I mean, I, I don't, I would say there is more diversity in church history, especially in the anti-Nicene period. I mean, several early church fathers were not as into slavery as you think. Even Aquinas had different views than others. I think there was more diversity there, but yeah, of course there's 19th century Christian American interpreters who I think just totally botched interpreting how the Bible framed slavery. I mean, kind of part of me is like, yeah, I mean, there's several times throughout church history when interpreters botched interpreting the Bible. I mean, think about for how long we would, they were so misogynistic and demeaning towards women, even though Genesis 1 seems pretty clear that women are fully equal with men. So, I mean, if this is a dialogue about slavery, scripture,

and our soul of Christianity, I would love to just, you know, dig deeper into that and talk about, you know, the trajectory of slavery in the Bible and how Paul gets slavery from the inside out and how slavery is a departure from Genesis 1 and 2, where I think sex difference in marriage is going back to the Genesis 1 and 2 ideal. And both of us are going to agree that the Bible doesn't endorse slavery. But we would have biblical reasons for that. So that's where I want to say, I think it's just, I mean, just from my vantage point, it feels like a bit of a red herring to say, well, we kind of screwed up this area here. And so, therefore, it's like I'm going to hang out on that therefore a little bit and say, wait a minute.

Just because we got slavery wrong, just because a lot of Christians misinterpreted the Bible to get slavery wrong for all these years doesn't mean, therefore, you can just kind of map that on another ethical question. you can just kind of map that on another ethical question. We have to actually take the biblical clarity and evidence for or against this ethical question with same-sex marriage and same-sex sexual relations and look at that. So, yeah, I mean, when I look at Genesis, I just, I'm trying so hard not to just, trying hard not to read into the text what I want to see there. We both are, and I think that we have to be honest that we do read the text with lenses on and baggage, and we have to work hard not to bring that to our interpretive method.

But when I look at Genesis, I mean, you know, you have in Genesis 2.23 where Adam's all excited, he's all stoked that God created Eve, and he's like, bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh, you know, a statement of equality. And then he says, you know, she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man, a statement of difference. Woman, man, if it's not sex difference that is being celebrated there, I don't think I'm reading into the text by saying, I think

woman taken out of man, that sex difference being highlighted. And then it says, therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh. The they who become one flesh are precisely two sexually different persons. Then in Matthew 19, Jesus emphasizes it even more. He says, God created them from the beginning, male and female, therefore, and I know you're a context guy, so what's that therefore, therefore? It's connecting male, female, therefore, the two, or man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh. And I don't, I mean, I'm fine letting the audience decide. I mean, I don't think I'm

reading into the text when the two become one flesh that logically, syntactically, exegetically, the two are the male and female, which, I mean, if there's any first century Jew in the room right now, they would be yawning. It's like, well, yeah, this is not radical stuff. I mean, this is what Judaism on 500 years, either side of Jesus believed. It wasn't like some radical thing they're pushing for. And with the, I don't know if we want to get into the prohibition passages. Can I add something to that? Sure, yeah.

To be fair, I don't know if Justin is saying, please correct me if I'm wrong, that because we got slavery wrong, therefore we've got this wrong. It's not like a one-to-one correspondence, at least from what I understand from Justin's writings as well as some other arguments. It's to recognize that the way in which we read the text itself has to be revisited. And so when you say things like, I don't think I'm reading into it, that I think can be perceived as doing, well, it's kind of the same thing. Well, some of those quotes about slavery, it's like, well, this clearly says this, and this clearly says this. To revisit the issue of slavery is not just to revisit the text and see what it says. It's to

revisit ourselves and how we've drawn from what the text actually says to what it actually means. And so I don't think I would argue with you, at least textually, that there's male and female and taken out of the side. None of that is an argument. That's in the text. I think what I'm understanding to be the crux of it is to draw from that, and I think, Justin, you alluded to this, To draw from that, and I think, Justin, you alluded to this, that difference is the point. That's the jump. That's the leap, right? It's not to say that the difference isn't there.

It's to ask the question, why is difference the point, or at least a theological grounding anchor in what this creation story is saying? It would be the same thing with slavery. grounding anchor in what this creation story is saying. It would be the same thing like with slavery. Slavery is not the, we are rethinking it because it's not the point. There's something much bigger that's going on to read into, especially when with, you know, Paul's letter to Philemon and Onesimus, right? You have, we're now revisiting how we read. Does that make sense? And is that a fair... Well, I mean, let me first say, I want to completely agree with Preston that having a position on slavery does not mean that you have a certain position on this question.

They are not identical situations. I think one of the things, one of the places that we often get caught up is this kind of slippery slope idea that, you know, if you have this position on this issue, then what's going to happen, you know, then you'll have a position on that. And it goes both ways. I think every issue we have to take on its own merits, textually and so forth. So I want to completely give you that. Aquinas I'm not going to give you because Aquinas allowed for people to beat their slaves. He had, yeah.

But it is a complicated question. Yeah. And I think it's vital. And, you know, like, we're going to disagree on this. We're going to disagree on slavery. We're going to disagree on Genesis. We could go probably an hour talking about that, you know, what is that, therefore, therefore. Yeah.

Because of many thoughts about why Jesus uses that phrase at the time that he does. And, you know, they're different from yours. But I do think it's important for the sake of having a gracious conversation in the church, that we'd be able to look at these passages, that we'd be able to recognize that it is, as much as we want to read these texts and just hear what God is saying in these texts, it is impossible for us to read these texts without reading them to some extent through our own lenses. Tony Campolo once said, you may have inerrant scriptures, but none of us are inerrant interpreters.

And I like that. And it means that I can't read these texts without bringing to it the fact that I'm gay and would like to get married someday. By the way, having pro-gay marriage theology has not helped me out at all. I'm still single, so I don't know what that means. Anyway, none of the three of us on this stage can read these texts without bringing to the texts what we heard in church about these texts growing up, what we believe the right answers are, the people we know who are affected by the texts, our own experiences, like all of these things influence how we read them. And so I do think,

you know, ultimately, you and I could spend hours up here debating some of these texts, but I think ultimately one of the things we have to be willing to do is to have some grace for each other and to say, I, you know, I fully believe, I think Preston's wrong on this. And I think that if the church gets it wrong in either direction, it is a serious error. Because either we're encouraging people to do something that is sinful, or we're telling people something is sinful that's not sinful and putting an extra burden on them that's causing people to leave the church and walk away from Christ. And either way, I think the church will be held to account. And the problem is there's no safe answer because we have to do, we have to have an answer one way or the other. And either way, we could get it wrong. One of us

is wrong. But we still have to have grace for each other, I think, and be able to say, I believe that even though I think Preston's wrong, I think that he is trying very hard to read the text correctly and to listen to the Spirit. I just think he's wrong. So I'm having excruciating feelings because of time. And one of the most important things that we had agreed needed to be discussed is where does the church go from here? And I think your comment is a good one to transition to that.

And then we'll take our intermission and field some questions. But the question is essentially, so where do we go from here? Given that the stakes are very high, and given that grace is needed for each other, and given that we are a room full of people that I know, because I've had conversations with some of my friends out here, that have had really difficult, challenging conversations, where this is a very real-life issue for some, it's a justice

issue for some, it's a Bible issue for some, right? It's all intermixed in that. Maybe both of you can give us a quick five minute summary on what do you think actually is the way forward for this? I mean, we just had the United Methodist Church news hit and virtually every major denomination in our country is now splitting and dividing over this. major denomination in our country is now splitting and dividing over this. So just this happening, I think, is beautiful and miraculous. And I'd love to hear your take, your thoughts on where do we go from here? I don't know if either of you can go forward on that.

Go first. I've got so many thoughts about that. I think in terms of tone, posture for those who are on the so-called traditional side of this, you believe in traditional marriage, you're on my side, if we're doing science. If we don't,

if we don't create a much better culture where LGBT people can, and I truly mean this, flourish, or at the very least be able to wrestle out loud, be listened to. I can't tell you how many stories I hear from people. I was raised in a church, found out I was gay, had puberty, and all I wanted was for somebody to listen to my story. You don't need to agree with me, whatever. Just can you give me time to listen to me? Hear me out.

Why do I have to wrestle alone? Why do I have to leave the church to find love and community? Why do I have to leave the Christian community of Jesus followers? I have to leave that to find love and community and care. And just listening. You can be the most fundamentalist person in here. If you actually believe the Bible, we need to become a community where people can wrestle out loud and listen. 83% of LGBT people were raised in the church.

Christian church. Millions and millions and millions and millions of people raised in our pews. 51% have left by the time they turn or after they turn 18. That's not a real shocker. Only 3% said the number one reason why they left is because of the theological teaching of marriage and sexuality. Meaning 97% of LGBT people who were raised in the church, which is millions and millions and millions of people, are leaving because 18% said they didn't raised in the church. This is millions and millions and millions of people are leaving because

18%, I didn't feel safe at church. I think 14% said nobody ever listened to me. Relational disconnect with leaders. Incongruence between teaching and practice. In other words, hypocrisy. Like here I am sitting in a church and you know, that guy's

been divorced and remarried five times and that guy's having an affair and that elder's addicted to porn and that guy's addicted to porn and that guy's addicted to porn and that guy's been divorced and remarried five times, and that guy's having an affair, and that elder's addicted to porn, and that guy's addicted to porn, and that guy's addicted to porn, and that guy's addicted to porn, and which is fine. We're all broken. We're, you know, whatever, but, like, how come I can't say, oh, I'm wrestling with an attraction to the same sex, or I, even though I'm a biological man, I feel like a woman, and why can't we all wrestle out loud in that context? We're going to agree to disagree on sexual ethics in marriage, man, I feel like a woman. Why can't we all wrestle out loud in that context? We're going to agree to disagree on sexual ethics in marriage. And again, I think there are significant disagreements.

Yeah, we should have more time to go through it all. But if you are on the traditional side, I do believe it's not, this is why I don't like the phrase traditional marriage. Because it's like, oh, we believe it just because of tradition. Like, I just, if you Google Preston Sprinkle and tradition, you're not going to get a lot of hits. Like, I'm not, I don't, just, oh, this is what we've always believed. You know, like, I'm just not into that at all. We don't, I think there is ethical, theological, logical, historical, biblical credibility to the so-called traditional

view in marriage. I don't think it means you're a homophobe. I don't think it means you are blindly just following this. At the same time, if we don't become, if we don't embody the kindness of God that leads to repentance, then we're failing to be the church that Jesus has called us to be. Ask your LGBT friend, or if you're LGBT here, like, when you think of the church, what comes to mind? Christian church. Oh, kindness. If I want to experience kindness, oh, I find the nearest church. If I just want to be wrapped in kindness, I go to the nearest church, and the more Bible-believing it is, that's where I'm going to go.

Church kindness. But until that is the response, we are failing to embody the grace of Christ as we ought. We are the embodiment of Christ's presence on earth. The kindness of God leads to repentance. I mean, this is 101 stuff, right? But that has not been our reputation. What's that statistic that gave Lyons and Kinnaman 14 years ago that they surveyed non-believers? What do you think of when you think of the church? The number one response, not Jesus, grace, not even like truth or Bible. It was 91% anti-homosexual. I mean, we are failing to embody the kindness of God as we ought. And so we

absolutely need to do that. Our truth will not be heard until our grace is felt. If you're passionate about the truth, maybe you're like, truth, truth. You struggle with grace. That's fine. Nobody will care about your truth until they feel your love. First of all, Preston, how do the people in this church know that everybody is struggling with porn? What is going on in this church? I always assume when I see people with their cell phones in church that they're taking notes like I am. It's the back row Baptist. You got to keep an eye on those guys. It's the back row Baptists. You've got to keep an eye on those guys.

So, yeah, look, we can't gloss over this disagreement. And I think it's important that you hear it from my side that we can't gloss over the disagreement because I think there are a lot of people on my side who think that the, well, I think there are a lot of people on both sides who think that the answer is either to not talk about it or let's just agree to disagree and, you know, not have any church, you know, policies one way or the other. And I don't think that's helpful because I think we need to get it right. We just don't agree on's helpful, because I think we need to get it right. We just don't agree on what getting it right means. That said, as long as there is a disagreement in the church about what getting it right looks like, I think there are ways that even within these two

separate theological positions on marriage, we can still get it right in a lot of other ways as we still work through the marriage disagreement. And one of those is I absolutely think that it is important, if you agree with me, it is important not to assume that folks on Preston's side of this are, as he said, are homophobes. Preston's side of this are, as he said, are homophobes. I don't think Preston is a homophobe. Preston has been nothing but kind and gracious to me, and he's traveling around and speaking to folks who are on his side of this, encouraging them to be more kind and gracious

and to listen to people and to use the right terminology and everything. There are things he says that I don't agree with. There are times that, you know, if I were sitting in the audience of one of his things, there are times that I would want to jump up and be like, no, I say no to that. But there is absolutely no question

that this is a guy who loves and wants to see the church be more loving and be a place where everybody truly feels welcome, not just in a sort of all-are-welcome, you know, statement on the bulletin, but really in a felt-lived way. And that's important. And I think it's important that we get to know each other and care about each other as human beings. One of the things that Preston and I got to do before we came out on the stage was actually sit down and talk about our lives. Actually, he did ask a lot of questions

and I talked more, which I know is a surprise to everybody who knows me. But that was really helpful because if we know each other, then we can work through this as brothers and sisters in Christ. There is, one of my favorite quotes is by Tim Keller, who says this. He says,

to be loved but not known is comforting but superficial. To be loved but not known is comforting but superficial. To be known and not loved is our greatest fear. But to be fully known and truly loved is, well, a lot like being loved by God. It is what we need more than anything. And that is what our churches need to be. Places where somebody, whatever they look like, whoever they're in a relationship with, however they're dressed, whatever pronouns they use can walk in the door and know that they will be known and loved. And that's, I think, where we start. And we can do that on both sides of this divide. That's awesome. Thank you guys so much. The number one question that was upvoted that was submitted is,

what are Preston and Justin's thoughts on individuals born with ambiguous genitals or abnormal chromosomal makeup? Not X, Y, or XX. Don't go first? Sure. Sure. So, right. so right, so intersex is the term that's used for folks who

are normally we think about males have XY chromosomes and have certain genitalia and certain hormones and females have XX and different genitalia and certain hormones, and females have XX and different genitalia and different hormones. And there are lots of different conditions in which those don't all line up the way that they normally do. And so somebody may have chromosomes that we normally associate with one sex, but external genitalia that we would normally associate with the other sex or whatnot. And there are a whole bunch of different conditions,

and they're collectively grouped together under the term intersex. There are a lot of things that could be said about it. I would argue, I know you're going to disagree with me. You don't know that. I would be surprised. Surprise me, Preston. Go ahead. I would argue that the fact that intersex conditions exist

is evidence that gender is not such a clear-cut, super-important thing to God that everything else needs to hang on that. So for me, if you say that when a couple gets married, that either that marriage is a beautiful, holy thing that we should celebrate that's blessed by God, or it's something disgusting and immoral and sinful, and maybe puts them in danger of hell as a result of living in unrepentant sin. And the only difference between those two is the gender of the partners. If you're going to say that, that says that gender is like super, super,

super important to God. And if that's the case, then the fact that intersex folks exist, some of whom are good friends of mine, it really makes me question all that. There's a lot that could be said there, but that would be my short answer. You're right. I do disagree with some stuff. So, yeah, I think the intersex question is often thrown out very broadly without getting really specific. So when people ask, what about intersex? I always say, well, which of the 16 to 20 conditions are you talking about? So like late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which affects quite a number, one in a hundred-ish people. You know, some of the symptoms are 10% of women have a larger than average clitoris,

room stopper, and 50% of men have a kind of receding scalp. Oftentimes there's infertility. There's no ambiguity in whether this is male or female. There's another condition called micropenis, and I'll let you fill in the blanks of the symptoms of that condition. Kleinfelter's is another popular one, which is the presence of an extra X chromosome, so XXY. The conditions there are full male anatomy. Sometimes the testicles are slightly smaller

and oftentimes, maybe above 50%, there's infertility. Oftentimes, people with Klinefelter's go to the grave never even knowing they have an intersex condition. So it's important that we don't use intersex as a broad brush for, whoa, we have no clue whether this is male, female, chromosomes are one, genitalia are another. That is a small subset within the larger intersex umbrella.

In fact, Leonard Sacks has done research on this. He's a MIT graduate professor or something, super smart guy. He says like 99% of people with an intersex condition present pretty much no ambiguity in whether they are biologically male or female. So we don't want to say intersex means neither male nor female. So with other conditions like congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which affects about one in every 12,000 people, you do have like XX chromosomes of male genitalia. I've got a friend who is XXXY, female genitalia, male genitalia, complete blend of male and female. And I guess that's how I'd word it. I don't see

intersex as a third sex. In fact, maybe most intersex people, according to the ISNA, the Intersex Society of North America, they don't even argue that intersex means like a third sex, other sex. I would see it as a blend of male and female characteristics within the 1% of people who have one of the 16 to 20 intersex conditions. So, and I know, look, I come from a Reformed tradition that can be, I got so many things to fill in the blank here. I don't like just punting the theological systems or whatever, but if there was a thing called the fall, whether you call it that or not, if you just think that things aren't the way they're supposed to be, and sometimes people are born with, let's say, abnormalities.

I don't even like birth defects, can sound very negative. What would it look like? And we do know that exists, right? I mean, that's, anybody would acknowledge that some people are born with things that would not reflect maybe God's original design in creation or whatever. What would that look like

if there was a thing called the fall, if that touches every aspect of our human nature, sometimes psychology, sometimes part of our body, sometimes whatever, sometimes our desires, what would it look like if this thing called the fall had an effect on our sexual anatomy? To me it doesn't sound outrageous to say

it might look like something like the intersex conditions. Justin, where can I download Spiritual Warfare? Don't answer that. We don't have enough time. For those of you who are asking, I just kindly ask that you ask

in accordance with the tone and the courtesy to others. So, please. I just want to say thank you for both of you being here. I've read a lot of your work, and I appreciate both of you and the tone that you set. And I try to do that in my own life as well. One of the questions that I have, I am gay and Christian and side A completely.

And it took me a long time to get there. So it's pretty important to me, I guess. You may want to define side A because I don't think I've used that term. God's cool with the gays. That's a side A. Side A would be my position in this conversation. My question, I think, I've never heard a great response to this. I think it all comes down to what is sin, right?

What is sin? And for those who, who maybe take the Bible more, I mean, it really does have a lot to do with how you view the Bible also. So sin, well, the Bible says this is wrong. It's a sin. But for me anyway, like 98% of, of the sins listed in the Bible, I, as well as people of many other faiths, as well as my atheist friends would go, yeah, stealing hurts somebody. Stealing, lust, envy, gluttony, murder. These are sins that the Bible lists as sins,

but they have a very clear and obvious detrimental impact on either me or the people to whom I do them. I've never had a great response from anybody or a compelling response that says, what is sinful about me loving and committing my life to another man? What is sinful about that beyond the Bible says it is? How does that hurt me? How does it hurt anybody?

Thank you. You want this one? I think it was directed at me. Thank you. It's Matt, right? Thank you for being here, too. First of all, this is a fantastic question. I hope if you're here and you believe in a traditional view, you wrestle with this question. And I would say, I don't think we can reduce sin to whatever

does or doesn't harm another individual. I do think that that is one way of ethical reasoning, that if it's consensual and it doesn't harm another person then it must be okay i i don't think that reflects new testament ethics i think there are various moral impulses for for determining what is sin what is not certainly harming another person might be one aspect of it holiness is a major theme in the bible be holy for i'm holy and some things just are good in and of themselves because they constitute the holiness, the otherness that reflects God in some way. Another moral impulse is something the Stoics used to actually talk about, and I think Judeo-Christian ethics reflects it, is simply living according to creation is the way Stoics used to put it, or a Judeo-Christian way of putting it would be living according to God's

creational design. Like, that is a moral good in and of itself. Whether it harms, doesn't harm. Well, it doesn't harm, but I mean, even if something might not harm another person, it still might be not according to God's order of creation. So I think there's, I would say, a Judeo-Christian way of ethical reasoning. There's usually multiple moral impulses lying behind that, not just, if it doesn't harm anybody, then therefore it must be okay. And even like, I mean, secular moral philosophers or ethicists like Jonathan Haidt, my favorite writers,

you know, he talks about six different, from an evolutionary perspective, he's a secular ethicist, six different moral impulses that humans have from an evolutionary perspective. You know, secular ethicist, six different moral impulses that humans have from an evolutionary perspective. You know, care and harm is one of them, but there's like five others, like submission, authority, and loyalty, and betrayal, and others that reflect kind of the moral impulse. So I would say, I always begin with

what is marriage what is God's design for marriage and I believe sexual expression belongs within marriage and so we look at what is the purpose of marriage what is the purpose of sex and I would say we go from there I think marriage does reflect a unity

I'm going too long it reflects the coming together of unity within diversity that we see in creation, which is why marriage is woven into the fabric of Genesis 1 and 2 and really the entire scripture storyline. I do think there is a procreation, not mandate, that must flow from marriage, but I do believe that this relationship called marriage is ordered toward procreation, even if it doesn't always result in procreation. I hope that helps a little bit.

Justin, did you have a reply to that as well? Well, you know, I think I actually agree with you that harm to another person is not the only factor. Some of the later stuff, I'm a little, but you know. Yeah, I mean, I'll go with you that far.

Yeah. I won't say any more about that just to give more time for questions. But yeah, please. Justin, I'm a huge fan of yours. And Preston, I'm hoping to be a fan of yours when i read your book um but uh i just um so i i lead a bible study for the lgbtq community which is exciting for me and the community that's involved um but uh one of the questions that i was wrestling with my pastor with was that and you alluded to it justin when you guys were talking about scriptural evidence on movement and you were talking about slavery. And I think you

also brought in like women in leadership or women in equality at the same time. Um, but one of the things that my pastor brought up to me, which kind of has brought me into a deeper study is that we don't see, or he doesn't see, um, a movement of the homosexuality concept. You know, we started out with, so I'm just going to start there. Like, what are your guys' thoughts or do you have any thoughts about that? Yeah. William Webb is the guy who looked at those three categories in a book in 2001, where he looked at the scriptural trajectory on women and slavery and same-sex relationships. He called it homosexuals. And yeah, I would agree with that, that we see sort of more of an oppressive view of women in the Old Testament moving towards liberation.

Like you see an ethic, they call it an ethical trajectory moving throughout scripture from more of a, you know, man, it's a misogynistic culture, and God's moving them away to more liberation and equality, moving them back to Genesis 1 and 2. Slavery, same thing. I think some of the statements in the New Testament, you see Paul kind of gutting slavery from the inside out. It doesn't quite abolish it, but it's moving that direction. Whereas with the basic definition of marriage and whether same-sex relationships are ever allowed, we don't see any movement in allowed, we don't see any movement in Scripture. We don't see any movement in Scripture on whether God's people should care for the poor, despite how some people are. But yeah, so there are some ethical trajectories

in Scripture with same-sex relationships and marriage. William Webb, nor do I, do we see that movement. Now Justin's going to disagree. Yeah, so, well, so here's the thing. So Webb's redemptive movement heuristic is, just like you were saying a minute ago, that the question of whether something does harm to another person is not the only question we have to take into account when we look at whether something is sinful or not. I think this very specific method of interpretation that looks at this very specific thing,

whether the Bible takes a position that is substantially different from what the culture was taking and whether we see movement in scripture. I think it's actually a very helpful thing to look at, but I don't think it's the only thing. I don't think you can build your whole theology on only looking at that in isolation. And what I appreciate about Webb in his book, which is Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals is the name of the book, what I appreciate about him is that he does wrestle honestly with this question of how can we, when we look at passages about women's role in church

or about slavery, say, well, that's influenced by the culture and so we don't apply those directly today. But then we look at a passage, you know, about, that condemns same-sex sexual behavior, even in the context where it very clearly tells us the context is idolatry or gang rape or something and say, yeah, but that applies to all same-sex sexual behavior, including in marriage today. That feels inconsistent. I think it is inconsistent, but I applaud him for wrestling with what is a standard, uniform way of approaching these that would give us these different answers. I think the mistake he makes is that he's trying after the fact to come up with a method of interpretation that will give him the answer he's already decided he wants. And when you have only three things you're looking at, and you're trying to come up with a method of interpretation that will give you an answer on

this, this, and this, and you already know what the answers are supposed to be, it's not that hard to come up with a rule. I mean, if we're, I'm a math geek, if I give you a rule that's like, you know, the numbers five, yes, six, no, seven, yes, you know, what's the rule? Well, you know, you could say, well, you know, maybe it's the rule is odd numbers, or maybe the rule is prime numbers, or maybe the rule is every number except six. Like, it's easy to do that after the fact when you know what the answer is supposed to be. And I think that his method is also much more helpful when you're looking at an issue like slavery or women's role, where the Bible mentions it a lot of times and you have a lot of evidence, versus something like same-sex marriage, which is never mentioned in the scriptures, or same-sex sexual behavior, which is only mentioned a few

times and in very specific circumstances. I think in that case, the noise outweighs the signal, and it makes it really hard to tell anything from that. The only other thing I'll say about that is if you took this approach to folks, you know, several hundred years ago in the church and said, let's apply this to slavery, I think they would say that you were a heretic. It was clearly not obvious to them that the Bible was leading in this direction. It's only obvious to us now looking back. Okay, please. And we are short on time. I'm so sorry. Do your best to keep the questions quick and concise so we can get to as many as possible. I will try.

Thank you both so much for the tone that you are setting and bringing this conversation forward. My question is about marriage because traditionally and historically, marriage was more of a contract that generally put women in the role of property and as bearers of children, and that was kind of their obligation. And these concepts around equality in marriage are very new and very modern. And we have, as Christians, allowed ourselves to be open to the movement of God to look back at scripture and re-understand what those things mean, and allow that to shift our understanding of marriage, that it is no longer considered to be a contract, and it is considered to be something that two people enter into by choice and through equality and mutuality. and through equality and mutuality.

And I am curious why we can allow that shift but not extend that to the LGBTQ community and not see that that same partnership and choosing is an extension of what we now understand marriage to be. Thank you. I'm starting to feel bad because you're getting all the hard questions. I think that's directed at me. Yeah. Great. Fantastic question. Um, I would, um, marriage as a, as a, but a con when you say contract, you mean like, um, like arranged marriages or something like that, right. Or, or more than that, or, okay. So, well, um, well, let me just say that. So like there were, there wasn't really one cultural

view of marriage or there were several different things going on in the ancient world. Stephanie Kuntz wrote a great book called Marriage, a History and looks at all these different kind of cultural forms in which marriage, marriage took. A lot of them were very misogynistic and demeaning. Not all of them, though. But these are all like, and you see some of this in the Old Testament. This is where I think within the Old Testament law, when God comes down, meets Israel, he reveals to them an imperfect law to meet them where they're at. He improves upon kind of their surrounding culture. That's why we see some, from our lens, we look at some of the stuff in the Torah, and we're like, come on, like, really? Like,

if a man has two wives, make sure you, you know, treat the son of the unloved wife better, you know. He's like, whoa, what? Just nip it in the bud. Tell him not to have two wives, right? Well, he meets them where they're at to move them along to where he wants them to be. Now, sex difference as a fundamental part of what marriage is, is built into Genesis 1 and 2. And again, that's always going to be really significant for me. I do believe that whatever ethical movement we see in scripture is moving toward a Genesis 1 and 2 ideal. Again, Genesis 1 and 2, equality of women, goodness of creation, sovereignty of God, intimacy of God, the grace and personalness of God.

There's these fundamental themes there in this sex difference. The coming together of two sexually different persons in a one-flesh union is woven into the fabric of that. So that when I talk about marriage being between a man and a woman, I'm not talking about just some cultural artifact that was, you know, in the day of Israelites culture. It is built into the very fabric of creation. So I do think it's different. And even today, even when we consider marriage in terms of, you know, romance and falling in love, like that is our cultural moment now. Maybe it's good, maybe it's not.

But it's not like we have finally discovered like what marriage is all about is two humans falling in love and there's lots of romance involved and everything like that's, that's our last 150 year cultural moment of, of marriage. Um, everything that I feel like, I feel like you're getting the hard questions. So I'm used to going to spaces where like, I'm getting all the hard questions. So I'm kind of just sitting back being like, okay, you can deal with that. I won't say anything else. I feel, I feel bad. Oh no. Here we go. I'll just, I'm just going to break the train. You stay here. I'm just going to, um, this is weird by the way. You have these, it's a stressful, it's a stressful, we have stress balls. It's a stress ball. We have stress balls because this is a stressful conversation. And they have smiley faces on them.

So you should give these out to everybody at your church. And be like, now we're going to talk about sexuality. And then... You're always taking it there, dude. And then next week, we're going to talk about gender identity, so you need two stress balls to just... I'm sorry. Yeah, follow that up. Good luck.

Well, I mean, it's more evidence of the civility of this conversation that we can all laugh together even after using our stress balls. I may be able to at least refocus our conversation. I'm really interested in this diagnosis of the American church. I grew up in an extremely conservative church community, so I have a real insider's knowledge of sort of a conservative view on this whole conversation. And I want to use an analogy that's very different than the ones we've been using. We've sort of been talking about slavery as an analogy. I'm so sorry, can we get to a question quickly? I'm just so sorry.

No, no, I understand. My analogy is I grew up as a fan of a band I hope somebody's heard of here called Petra. And they were a part of a 20-year controversy where the evangelical church in America condemned them for playing rock music. And this is important because it took them that long of receiving condemnation from the pulpit to change people's minds and say, actually,

the Holy Spirit is working through this. Now, I look at Justin and I see Petra because whatever else you think about the things he said today, I see the Holy Spirit working in his ministry and his life the same way a lot of people in the 70s and 80s saw the Holy Spirit working in his ministry and his life the same way a lot of people in the 70s and 80s saw the Holy Spirit working in Petra. And I wonder, in 20 years, are we going to look at this as the same thing and say, did the evangelical Christians again, and this following the same pattern, miss the opportunity for the self-correction and reformation of the church. When you start to see a pattern, and this is not the only example, it makes you start to doubt the epistemic judgment of the community as a whole. Does that make sense as a question? And

I want to know what you think about that and how you see yourself as not being a part of that history. You know, I want to say, I don't think that's, I appreciate what you're asking. I want to kind of jump to Preston's defense here for a second. I just want to say, like, I see the Holy Spirit at work in Preston's life, and in the work that he's doing, and in churches that are on Preston's life and in the work that he's doing and in churches that are on Preston's side of this. And I want to be... I mean, I've asked similar questions myself, so I really

appreciate what you're saying. You're very kind to me. Thank you. But I do want to jump in because I don't... Since we've had several tough questions for Preston here, I don't want Preston to get beat up on. I want to say, I think that it's important that we recognize the spirit working, even in spaces where we don't have everything right all the time, because we don't have everything right. None of us have everything right. And if we have to get everything right in order for us to be the church, then we'll never be the church. So yeah, I just want to say that. I appreciate that. Yeah. Thank you. I mean, I don't know. It's hard. I don't know how to respond to that.

Maybe in 20 years, we'll see that I'm Petra. Maybe in 20 years, we'll see that Justin's Petra, and I'll let you know in 20 years. I don't know. I mean, there's no... Please. Thank you both for being here. Questions for Justin? So Preston said that you two agree on polyamory. Is this correct?

Yeah, do you... I spoke for you, so I don't know. So, yeah, so I don't know. So, yeah, so I, yeah, my view is, so this is the thing. I don't, living in the LGBTQ world with a lot of LGBTQ friends, as I do, I have friends in a lot of different situations. I have friends who are in polyamorous relationships. I know that they have been, in many cases, beaten down in some of the same ways that I have. And so I do not go around talking about polyamory. It's not an issue that I've made my issue. It's, yeah, you know, that said, yeah, my position has been consistently one of advocating for monogamous marriage.

Could you work through that scripturally for me so I can better understand how consistently one of advocating for monogamous marriage. Could you work through that scripturally for me so I can better understand how you process scripture? In terms of why I... You're non-affirming of polyamory. So, well, now I get to be pressed up. Um... So, I... This, well, let me start by saying this is not an issue that I am, it's not,

because it's not an issue I normally talk about, it's not something that I have a quick answer ready for you. As you might have imagined, Preston and I both speak on the rest of this stuff so much that there are certain questions that we get asked a lot and we've got quick answers to. My short answer is I do see some of the same redemptive movement stuff that Preston has, you know, talked about and we talked about earlier in a move away from the Old Testament support the issues that were going on there. And I don't think, I don't see, I don't know how to say this in a way that's going to be helpful. And this is part of why,

like, I would rather that churches, when they're talking about some of these issues, take time to get to know people and have these conversations before things become a big thing. So you're, and I don't know if this is your intent or not, but you've quite cleverly put me in the position that Preston is in, which is a position where my theological view is a view that I know some of the people in this room might be hurt by. And I recognize that, and that's actually precisely why

if I were going to publicly talk about it and get into it, I would probably want to sit down with some of the folks who are affected first and talk about how to talk about this uh before I would feel comfortable like having a conversation it's not because I don't know what I think but because I want to be that Christian who I spoke of earlier who um knows well enough to know what I don't know and to have enough humility to admit that there are things that I can learn, and there are things that I could put better.

And I wish I... There are Bible passages and arguments that come to mind right now, and I'm just not sure that they would be super helpful right now. So that's not a great answer for you. But that said, if it's an issue of interest to you, and you want to talk about it at some point, let me know, and I'd be happy to have the conversation because it's not a conversation I've had

much of. I have a real quick quandary about that not like a definitive whatever but like I don't if marriage if sex difference is irrelevant for the meaning of what marriage is then if marriage is simply based on

consensual love between two humans, I think the two in that equation is somewhat arbitrary if sex difference is also arbitrary. So to me, I don't, and this is not, please, I've been accused of the slippery slope every single day, so this is not a slippery slope argument. I think the sexual ethic that affirms same-sex marriage, I think very logically should affirm polyamory as well, personally. And you have more scriptural evidence for polyamory. Polygamy is very different than polyamory, but it's, I mean, maybe a step in that direction. So I think you do have more, I would say you have more biblical evidence for polyamory than

same-sex marriage. There, is that it? Thank you both so much. I'm so sorry. I'm against polyamory, by the way. I think polyamory is rooted in male and female coming together, so the two becoming one flesh that are two sexually different persons, I think, are both equally

similar. So because I affirm sex difference in marriage, I also affirm that the number should be two. You can absolutely argue, though, that the two becoming one flesh is the two becoming one flesh and is not dependent on gender. I mean, I think that's a separate issue. I think that is a slippery slope argument. Okay, I'm so sorry. It's got to be the last question. I apologize. We're just short on time, so please. Thank you for the rest of you. I apologize. I want to thank you both for the courage to come up here and just to share with the church. Cause I think one of the brokenness in the church is that we forget that we all fall short of the glory of God and only God is holy. And, um, but I do have a question for Justin and

you had mentioned before that the Adam and Eve thing. And so I'm just referring to Genesis where after God had made the animals and he said, um, he blessed them and said, be fruitful and multiply. After he made Adam and Eve, he blessed them and said, uh, be fruitful, multiply. And even on Noah's Ark with the animals, God bring one male and one female. And so it seems like part of God's blessing is for multiplication and reproduction. And I don't see the same thing with same-sex marriage, same-sex relationship. Unfortunately, it breaks my heart because then it leads to there's no reproduction. There's no, it pretty much leads to extinction, which is not what seems to be in God's design for us.

So how would you, I mean. Yeah, yeah. Thanks for that question. So that one I'm more used to talking about. So yeah, so I, the, a couple things about that. I said before, and I'll say again, I think what we get in that passage is descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, it's telling us what happened, but it's not saying every marriage must be like this one. Now, when you've got Adam and Eve, you're trying to populate a whole planet. Obviously, it's important that they have a reproductive union. That's no longer the case.

have a reproductive union. That's no longer the case. You know, we have an earth now that deals with questions of overpopulation and all this kind of stuff. There are plenty of children in need of adoption. We're not facing a shortage of, you know, that humanity is going to go extinct if some people don't have kids. Jesus, when Jesus talks about marriage in a different context, talking about divorce, he says, you know, not everyone can accept this teaching, but, you know, those who can accept it should accept it. In other words, this allusion to the idea that there can be a teaching that is for a lot of people

or even the majority of people, but everybody's situation is different. We've all got our own raw materials. Some couples choose not to have kids. Some couples are not able to have kids. My parents tried for 10 years to have kids before I was born and had been told by all the doctors that they weren't going to have kids. As it happens, the doctors were wrong.

But sometimes there are situations where people, even if they very much want kids, can't. Or people get married at a point in life, late in life, where reproduction is just not going to happen. But the church does not say to those couples, you can't get married because you can't reproduce. So I think that while reproduction is a wonderful outcome of marriage for many couples, I don't think that reproduction is required for marriage to be a marriage. That would be my answer. Preston, 60 seconds. I don't think it's descriptive, but I do think it's prescriptive. I mean, the language in 224 in Genesis, a man shall leave his father and mother. He doesn't say, like, Adam and Eve shall.

He's not even talking about Adam and Eve anymore, per se. He's making a very generic statement in Genesis 224, and Jesus picks up on that. Like, it's not just a Genesis thing. It's not just an Old Testament thing. Like, Jesus reaffirms that. When he says not everybody can accept a statement, he's not talking about not everybody can accept male-female marriage. He's talking about, you know, later than that, remember, Jesus is talking about staying married. He's confronting divorce, and Peter says, well, gosh, if we can't divorce our wives, then who can, you know, who can do this, you know? And Jesus says not everybody is going to be able to stay married and stick it out when it gets tough. So, yeah, I just, I don't think there's strong evidence in favor of sex difference in marriage just being descriptive and not prescriptive. I would say my five-second summary,

yeah, I don't think marriage has to result in procreation for it to be a valid marriage, but it, because I believe primarily sex difference is part of what marriage is, it is structured toward procreation. I think that makes a difference, but that raises probably more questions. Well, we'll take all the questions that were submitted and we'll do this again, shall we?

Yeah. All right. Everybody, please thank Preston and Justin. Thank you.