Theology in the Raw - #732 - A Follow Up Conversation About My Dialogue with Justin Lee

Episode Date: April 1, 2019

On episode #732 of Theology in the Raw Preston has a follow up conversation with Kevin Keuner. Kevin is a Pastor at Spark Church and moderated the dialogue with Justin Lee and Preston Sprinkle from episode #731. 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.

Hey friends, welcome to another episode of Theology in the Raw. This is by far the longest Theology in the Raw episode in existence. What you're going to listen to is a podcast interview that I did with Kevin Nooner. Kevin Nooner is a pastor at Spark Church in South Bay, the South Bay area of San Francisco, kind of close to Los Altos or Stanford area. And this dialogue is a follow-up conversation from the dialogue I had with Justin Lee a few weeks ago. So as many of you know, I had a live dialogue with Justin Lee at Spark Church. And so Kevin was the moderator. So if you listen to that, he's the moderator. And if, you know, if you listen to it, you know, I was on this podcast a few weeks ago. You know, there's just so many questions left unanswered. Right. So what we want to do is follow up with a podcast where he could ask me just a ton of questions that came in through that event and his own questions. And we just kept going and going and going and going. And Kevin is just one of the most thoughtful people I've ever met. I

really mean that. This guy is just super pastoral, super relational, just a real raw, earthy Christian, you know? I said earthy, not earthly, but he's just so smart. Like he's so smart. Ask great questions. So, um, I wanted to post this on, uh, my podcast because, uh, I know I got a lot of responses, uh, from the Justin Lee dialogue, you know? Um, and I think at least, I think many of you, a lot of you might appreciate this follow-up podcast where we actually dig into a lot of the stuff that some of you were like, oh, I wish you got into this or that. So without further ado, you got a lot of listening to do here. This was a very long conversation.

So without further ado, here is the follow-up dialogue between Kevin and myself regarding the Justin Lee dialogue I had a few weeks ago. I thought I would just start off with starting where we left off with the Slido questions. Yeah. And kind of pick up where we left off from the event. And then from there, I'd really love to end on your overall general thoughts and feelings and reflections from it. I know you shared a little bit on your podcast already, which was, I've always appreciated your vulnerability and even kind of the sentiments that you said in the introduction of the releasing of that. So that was really cool.

But I think the key, one of the key questions was the soul of Christianity, which was even a phrase that we kind of went back and forth on asking, what does that phraseology actually mean and what why is that in there and i know there are a couple people or at least one person that asked you know what really is the future of the church in all of this yeah so i think i kind of like to end there but wherever you want to take it to i'm totally cool i'm yeah i appreciate I'm really easy and flexible. I appreciate that. Yeah. And yeah, you know, so just for the record, I just glanced at the Slido questions, but there was a ton, but then I stopped because I, you know, I said, I actually like the humanization of answering questions in the moment. Like when somebody asks a live question and then the person goes back and prepares for a week you know i just feel like that's a little bit inauthentic so the questions that you're going to ask from slido i i have not prepared a response i'm trying to answer as if somebody walked in my room right now and said hey

what do you think about this so um yeah that's awesome because i do have a document open here with just some thoughts that i had leading up to the event. So I do have that open. So I might say, well, you know what, let me, let me, I'd actually have some more fine-tuned thoughts about that question, but I haven't thought through the questions ahead of time, if that makes sense. Yeah, that's totally cool. Yeah. I need a little more clarity maybe on that question with the soul of Christianity, or maybe you could, because that was your title. can you maybe, would you be able to just give a 10 second, like what you were meaning by that? I mean, I think I know how I would respond to that, but I just want to make sure I'm responding

to the right question, if that makes sense. The general idea was a marketing ploy. When I'm thinking about an event of the size and scope that we were doing, I'm trying to think of something that captures a spirit and an essence using some terminology that is broad enough to garner some feelings or captivate or resonate with a group of people. But so if I'm, you know, really vulnerable and honest, you know, it's all part of that. For me, and this is not going on the podcast, so this is off record. Okay. What you and Justin talked about after the event, after dinner, is the soul of it all. Yeah. The rawness, the emotion, the soul yeah yeah the rawness the emotion the yeah and what i saw there

i totally understand why that couldn't have been public but there's a part of me that lamented that more of that couldn't have been public because what happened there is what is actually happening like when you watch the videos from the umc you know general commission this is you know we're not we're not sitting and having a nice cordial conversation you know these are right deeply impassioned critically i mean visceral feelings that are going on and so when i so when I think about the soul of Christianity, I think about this church. You know, Augustine said that the church is a whore and she's my mother, right? I feel like we're not too much different from that particular time. I have not left the church.

I'm still a pastor. I still call myself a follower of Jesus because that movement is so, like from everything that I've read and everything that I've studied, everything that, I mean, we've participated in, this is a radically revolutionary movement that not only upended Western civilization, but set the foundation

for Western civilization, right? So we have all of that. And at the same time, we are factionalized, we are split, we do not talk to one another. Yeah. And that's super helpful. Is this not being recorded then my response or just your your caveat earlier i'm recording right now so we can splice in i just didn't i just wanted to make sure that you knew that i wasn't going to put in whatever nothing will go public that you don't want okay that's all right yeah okay but we can totally put this on the podcast i think people would appreciate a very raw conversation like this actually so yeah let me just give you some running thoughts on,

I mean, really the question has to do with what is the significance of this specific dialogue, this specific, I'll call it an issue. I mean, I've already publicly fatigued calling it an issue, but this topic, these ethical questions are obviously among some of those pressing ethical questions facing the church today. Like, I don't know how anybody would disagree with that. Obviously, questions surrounding sexuality and gender cut at fundamental aspects of our humanity, especially the gender conversation. our humanity, especially the gender conversation.

And while we are much more than our sexuality and sexual ethics isn't everything, it is a very significant strand in the Bible. I mean, you can't be a Christian who believes in just some level of biblical authority, not even like a real fundamentalist view. But I mean, if you draw some authority from the Bible and you look at how frequently people are committing sexual immorality or how many times God or the prophets or apostles are calling people to sexual integrity. I don't like sexual purity brings back, you know, the whole movement in the 90s. But so these are clearly, clearly major themes. So in terms of Justin and I, no, I don't want to make it about Justin and I, the positions that Justin and I represent, they are, well, let's just say, you know, if I'm right, no, not me. If the position that I believe is correct, is the correct position,

then that means that Justin is actively advocating for sexual immorality in the church, and the New Testament does not treat that lightly. Like, that is a very significant thing that he's doing, and is like, wow, like, that's not treated lightly in the New Testament. If Justin's view is the correct view, then have the potential of teaching a perspective that is withholding marriage or whatever, certain kind of marriage from some people. And some people could argue. I would still even push back from this, even if the other view is correct. But people could say, as the argument often goes, that I'm actively harming people, that the view that I am promoting is causing gay kids to kill themselves,

which is where discussions can sometimes go. So all that to say, whichever view you're advocating for, it's hard to see this as, well, we can kind of agree to disagree, like the timing of the rapture, or even like the age of the earth. There are many things in Christianity that's like, you know what? You can hold strongly this view, but at the end of the day, it's not as fundamental to a Christian worldview or your obedience to Jesus, you know, what you believe about the timing of the rapture,

whatever you believe in rapture or millennium or, you know, a lot of things that Christians debate, even Calvinism, Arminianism, you know, I mean, this is, this discussion is very different in kind than those discussions. So I would say it is at least a significant part of the soul of Christianity. It's not everything. We don't want to reduce the heart of the gospel to sexual ethics, you know, absolutely not. There's many other fundamental themes, but it is a significant, sexual ethics is a significant strand woven throughout a biblical worldview.

So let me ask you this. What level of certainty do you have regarding your view? Well, I don't believe in absolute certainty. Which is why I asked the question of level or on the spectrum. Yes. So I don't believe in absolute certainty. I mean, I'm 99% sure that I exist, you know, but maybe I'm living in a matrix. Like, yeah, I, I don't, I don't think just philosophically you're 1% solipsist. Yeah. Yeah. You know, like I, um, so I do hold, I do all my beliefs while they, none of them would be what I would hold with 100% certainty. I don't think any mortal creature can, I don't think it's healthy for any,

or even legitimate for any mortal creature to hold to absolute certainty. But the things that I am more certain on, you know, I lay out the evidence for or against that. And here's where I become very, I guess, rationalistic. But I do say, okay, what are the evidence, what's the evidence for? And what's the evidence against this view?

And when the evidence is kind of mixed or it's 60-40, 70-30, whatever, then that would reflect the level of certainty I have towards it. With this, and it's taken me a long journey to wrestle with this, look at it from every angle I can. And if anybody knows me even a little bit, you know that I try my best to give whatever view a fair shake. Somebody could say, God's a cucumber. And I'd say, cool, awesome. What's your evidence for that? And I'm going to think through that. And I'm going to say, okay, maybe

God is a cucumber if the evidence for that position is superior. And I'm going to say, if I say God's not a cucumber, what's my evidence to say that he's not? And I try to treat literally any question in that sense. When I've done that with this topic, and again, the topic is, is sex difference part of what marriage is? When I say marriage, when we talk about the concept of marriage,

is sex difference built into that very concept or is it not? As I draw my authority from scripture through the lens of Christian history and tradition and all that, I see a lot of evidence for sex difference being part of what marriage is. I also see a lot of evidence, both in Christian, just in the Bible and also Christian ethics and how the global multi-denominational

historical Christian church all the way from Coptic Christians to Greek Orthodox to Western Christianity to whatever, how the history of the church has interpreted these passages and these themes.

When I look at all that evidence, I see, I mean, yeah, I'll just say I see overwhelming support for what I call the historically Christian view, that sex difference isn't subsidiary or irrelevant or just descriptive of what marriages were in the Bible, but actually built into the very vision for God's design for what marriage is. Yeah. And so I appreciate your logical outplay of that. And I appreciate your hedging. You didn't hedge. I appreciate your explanation on why certainty isn't a thing, because there's so much to consider. My question would be, and this actually goes to one question that was submitted. I'll ask the question, then follow up with my thinking on this.

If biblical interpretation isn't obvious, is it worse to err on the side of being overly permissive of sin, or to Pharisaically add laws that burden people? So that's the question. I'm not quite sure if the question needs to be so binary, but I think the general idea is, which is somewhat melded with my question, is you have garnered a bunch of evidence, I guess, Justin, and the permissive view or the affirming view, again, with the terminology, it's complicated, but with that other view, also has other evidence. The question isn't so much evidence, it feels like to me. The question is much more about how are we interpreting what it is that we're seeing? It's much more an epistemological and hermeneutical question than it is an evidentiary question.

an epistemological and hermeneutical question than it is an evidentiary question. Well, it's both and. I mean, I would say that not every interpretation of Scripture is equally valid and has the same level of evidence to support it. I mean, when I taught New Testament at Nottingham University, my colleague was an atheist Jesus scholar. He didn't believe Jesus existed. Well, maybe he believes he's a historical figure and he's knows the Greek of the gospels better than I do. Um, I, again, coming from academia, this, this kind of question, we kind of, it kind of shrug our shoulders out a little bit. It's like, look, there's not a single, uh, ethical question, spiritual question verse in the Bible that doesn't have other interpretations being

offered on that, but that doesn't mean they're all equally valid. And let me, I guess, give an analogy. You know, I believe that there is much more evidence in the Bible that Christians should care for the poor. And somebody, and I know people that would say, no, I don't think it is. Well, just because they don't interpret the Bible that way doesn't mean that their interpretation is equally valid. I need to ask, okay, what is your evidence for the view that you don't think poverty or caring for the poor is a big deal in the Bible? I mean, you get where I'm going with this. No, I do think that we have to come back to, okay, what is the evidence presented for each interpretation? And is there you know, is

there better counter evidence to that evidence? And this is where, you know, I was really hoping we'd get into, because I must be totally honest. And let me preface this. Let me preface this by saying, there are few people I appreciate more in this conversation than Justin for many reasons. I wasn't just blowing smoke when I said I absolutely benefited so much from his book. I found him to be incredibly kind and generous. And I'm not a crier, part of being raised in a culturally masculine culture where men aren't allowed to cry. And that still is embedded into me.

And it's just a weird psychological thing to grow up with but um i almost teared up when justin jumped in and defended me um against the question that that he took and i kind of took to as a bit disingenuous you know i'm talking about um so i i have i just i i so appreciate the humanity wisdom wit humor likableness of justin uh love for people, on and on. I could keep going on and on. Here's the however. However, as I have interacted with affirming Christian thinkers and writers and scholars, I have found Justin's evidence for his view, um, subpar, uh, when I read his chapter, two chapters on what does

the Bible say about same-sex marriage in his book, Torn, I think they are extremely uninformed in just the discussion surrounding the scholarly discussion. And I wouldn't say, look, James Brownson is, is an affirming scholar. And I'd say, no, no, his is actually really informed. I very much disagree with it. And I could show you why. So I'm not saying every single affirming writer, they're just completely, no, no, I'm not saying that. I'm saying in this broad scheme of affirming writers and thinkers and scholars, the biblical, historical, scholarly evidence that Justin presents to defend his view, I think, is really misinformed. For example, I mean, he, in his book, he says that he thinks that the background of Leviticus 18 and 20, where it says, you know, man should not lie with a man as he does with a woman, and Romans 1,

the same-sex prohibitions there, he thinks that Paul and the author of Leviticus are probably, they're probably thinking about cult prostitution because we now know that cultic prostitution was kind of widespread in the ancient world. The only problem with that is that is just factually, historically, uh, untrue. Like we, there's little to no evidence that cultic prostitution even existed. Uh, every scholar says there's no evidence that it existed in Italy. We now know there's really no evidence that it existed in first century Corinth. There's minimal to no evidence that it existed in Ephesus. And if it did, it was females, not males. I mean,

maybe there was some, whatever. But from a scholarly perspective, and I don't want to get all scholarly, but we are talking about by definition i mean this the question is pushing on on these these issues so um so when i read that in the book i'm like justin ah like i can i can help you improve your affirming argument like don't use that argument he never i still don't know to this day um what his definition of marriage is which is a which is before we even talk about same-sex marriage when he says man i need to know like what's your definition of marriage is, which is, before we even talk about same-sex marriage, when he says marriage, I need to know, like, what's your definition of marriage, and where did you get that definition from, and how does scripture support that? I mean, all I know is

that he doesn't think that Genesis 2 makes sex difference a big deal. Okay, I mean, I could say 2 plus 2 equals 5, and I think that's a more compelling argument than two plus two equals four, but that doesn't make, I mean, okay, we can dig into that, but I still don't know positively how you can, when you say the word marriage, that sex difference isn't part of that meaning.

That is a view, that's a perspective, but I haven't seen you kind of like defend that, which is the fundamental thing. I mean, most societies on earth up until the last few decades in the West, um, have understood sex difference as part of what marriage is, um, even in polygamous societies, or even in societies where same sex sexual behaviors allowed, where men are allowed to have, you know, sex with their male slaves. When it came to marriage, that meant the coming together sexually different persons. That doesn't make it right. That doesn't mean it's right.

It just means that if you don't hold that view, that is a pretty radical, very new Western secular understanding of marriage. Maybe it's true, but at least show me, like, where did you get that definition from? And then defend that definition, we are Christians, with Scripture. What's the positive vision for marriage, not for sex difference being irrelevant for the concept of marriage? So this is getting way off. This is getting so far off track. Can you raise

a question again? Because I might be able to bring it back. We'll see. I like where you're going with that. I mean, this is definitely a flipped agenda from what we had planned, but that's totally fine because we're, you know, your podcast is theology in the raw. So here we are being raw about this. I actually want to push a little bit further. So you mentioned about the definition of sex, and it feels to me, I hope you're okay with me asking this question. When we drove back to the airport, I asked you, it feels to me that it fundamentally comes down to this question, is what we're talking about now what they were talking about then? And you said to me, oh, that's a slam dunk or something very confident in your reply. And even in what you just explained to me, explained right now, feels to me like, well, Preston, you're positing and asserting a position that is itself being contended.

The interpretations that you use to get to your definition of marriage is the very thing that's being argued from the other perspective. And so if you start with the definition of marriage having sex difference as being the definition or intrinsic to the definition of marriage, you've already front-loaded the conversation with a conclusion rather than going back to, but what we're talking about now isn't what they were talking about then. When marriage is mentioned back then, even throughout history, we're talking about different forms and different social structures that are imbued within that context, whether that be patriarchy or property or whether that be procreative or whatever it is. You know, there's all sorts of different ways of viewing the evolution of marriage over history. So I think that's a little bit of the question.

So Brownson, both of us are very thankful for his work because he's done a really good job pulling this up. Page 23, the more basic question is this, is anatomical and procreative complementarity really the basic form of moral logic that the biblical writers have in mind or assume when they condemn same-sex erotic relations? So again, that's a much more articulate way of saying, is what we're talking about now what they're talking about now, what they were talking about then.

Did they have the same things in mind? And the argument is from that's contrarian to your position is it's not. We, the way in which we conceive gender, the way in which we conceive relationships and marriage and the way in which we even conceive moral logic. Yeah. It's far different. And in some ways extracted from

either idolatry or patriarchy, et cetera, et cetera. So I'd like to push you on that. Yeah. How would you respond to that? Yeah. First of all, I don't like when he uses the language anatomical complementarity. That is, I think that comes from Gagnon, who he he's opposing there and i don't like to reduce womanhood or maleness to sexual anatomy i think that's actually dehumanizing and not i mean that's too strong but i mean we can't reduce male and female to anatomy per se like sex differences and maleness and femaleness includes anatomy but it's not just like our body parts fit together

as how some conservative writers put it. I don't do that. So here's how I would, I guess, frame that is, and I think we talked about this, so I don't want to be too redundant, but in Genesis, like Genesis 1 and 2 is, let me back up. The themes laid down in Genesis 1 and 2 is, let me back up. The themes laid down in Genesis 1 and 2 are fundamental to a Christian worldview. Again, it's in Genesis 1 and 2 where we get the full equality of women.

It's where we get the goodness of creation. It's from a biblical worldview. I mean, this is a pre-fall kind of order of creation, if you will. And when it comes to sex difference, like to say that sex differences, of course it's there, but it's not the main thing. I would say I would provide evidence for the interpretation that it's precisely one of the main things. Like throughout Genesis 1, we see lots of differences, land and sea, heaven and earth, evening and morning, all these kind of, some are, you know, contrasting differences throughout creation that are beautiful. And God is bringing order out of the chaos by aligning these differences in such a way that they are singing together in harmony.

At the climax of Genesis 1 is the creation of humanity as male and female. So sex differences, which are reflected, which are part of the way in which we reflect the very image of God. I mean, that's just the, I mean, if you look at the linguistic, the language of Genesis 127, it's, you know, male and female, he created them in the image of God, he created them like the male and femaleness is built into how we image God in a context where some significant themes to a Christian worldview, which we would all agree with, are there. The sovereignty of God, Genesis 1, the personalness of God in Genesis 2, these are fundamental themes that aren't just cultural expressions of the day. Like these are in many

ways, they do transcend culture. In fact, a lot of them would push back against the patriarchy. I mean, again, show me another statement in all of patriarchal ancient Near East, you know, where women image God equally as man. That just doesn't exist. Like only male kings, you know, were seen to image God. To say that all females image God, like that is more progressive than, you know, the Bob Burners of the 1960s. I mean, there's no modern day progressive person that could not have screamed more loudly than

the author of Genesis 1 with that statement. So we are dealing with themes that aren't just reflective of the culture, but they do very much feel that they transcend culture. And again, the New Testament writers and Jesus, I mean, Jesus in particular, and I keep saying this, but I mean, when he appeals to the creation account, when he talks about marriage and highlights male and female coming together, I think that shows that it's not just some relic

of a patriarchal Old Testament past, but does seem to be more germane to a holistic and overarching biblical view of what marriage is. And again, you know, we've talked about tradition, but like somebody could say, well, that's just how you read the text. That's, you know, somebody else has a different interpretation. I'm like, okay, I agree. This is my, I've just articulated, you know, how I'm understanding the text. So how do you cross-check your individual interpretation? You ask the global church, you ask different ethnicities, people of different, you know, different time periods, different denominations,

you ask a Greek Orthodox priest, you ask a Inuit pastor in northern Alaska, you ask a beach preacher in Sydney, Australia, you go pre-modern, post-modern, whatever, and for 2000 years, the global multi-denominational church has more or less understood sex difference to be part of the meaning of marriage. And that same sex relationships are considered sexually immoral. Like that has never been disputed in the broad. I mean, I don't know any other issue in Christianity that's had such widespread agreement. That doesn't mean it's right, but it does mean that it's not just my private individual interpretation. That's just, well, that's your view.

Let's, you know, that doesn't really, maybe you're reading into the text. Maybe I am, but that wide, diverse witness is at least remarkable. And I appreciated David Gushy, who's affirming. He says, man, the weight of tradition is nothing to sneeze at, I think he said in a podcast. And I respect that. Tradition doesn't make it right, but it does challenge individual interpretations. I'm being so long winded. This is going to take eight hours if we keep going at this pace. I'm really... Well, you know, people on the internet are really good with long form conversations. So that's not a problem there. Okay. So shall we get to some Slido questions?

Yes, let's do it. Do you want to do that? This is the number one upvoted question for you. Do you support gay Christians in church leadership? Absolutely. And there was another one who... Oh, that's a little bit of a different question so let's just stick with that question preston do you support gay christians in church leadership and there's a couple of those essentially about church leadership i support any christian in church leadership um and part of being a leader in a church is obviously you you would be following the ethical standard of that church community so for me it's not about being bi poly gay straight fluid pan whatever like all those are secondary i mean we um and this is why i always want to push

us to this the discussion to what's your definition of marriage, what's your definition of sexual ethics. And then let's equally call all people to follow that standard. So gay, absolutely. And I get a lot of pushback for that. Like I, in fact, I have probably told over 5,000 Christian leaders in the last year and a half until we start putting gay people in leadership in churches. We're going to be, we're inconsistent. You know, I say, you know, let's talk about what we mean by gay, because a lot of people are going to hear that and say,

they think gay means you're sexually active. And I'm like, that's just, again, that's kind of dehumanizing. Like, being straight doesn't mean I'm sexually active. Like, I'm having straight sex, necessarily. Being gay doesn't mean you're having gay sex, or even believe that it's okay to have. So I mean, but to be gay, to use Justin's definition,

to be attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex, take a number. We all have desires that, again, to quote Justin, we all have desires that may or may not be good to act on. The question is, is it sin or not?

That's the main ethical question. And again, that's from Torn, page 62. I quote Justin all the time. I think he's spot on there. But the question, I think, is if a... And I apologize, I can't find the exact question here. If a couple were to walk into your church who were married, it's a gay couple, would they be allowed to be in leadership? So, I mean, I can't speak for every church. Every church has different

policies. I know a church that has, you know... Well, I think these people are asking you specifically, like your view. Let me say no, and let me say I wouldn't allow anybody in leadership who isn't trying to pursue the sexual ethic that the church upholds. And I would say that every genuinely Christian church would say the exact same thing. Here's our sexual ethic. We don't allow people in leadership who don't even agree with that sexual ethic or have no desire to follow that. Some people may draw the line at, you know, marriage must be between two people. Other people may draw the line other place. Every Christian draws a line somewhere.

I mean, if it's a Christian church, it should have some sexual ethic. So let's talk about where we draw that line. Let's not talk about, oh, you're excluding that person, that person. So let's talk about where we draw that line. Let's not talk about, oh, you're excluding that person, that person. No, I think we should include all people who desire to follow God and holiness, which includes sexual ethics. So let's talk about that. Yeah, and I think some of the sentiments from some folks is that they will hear you say, of course we want people who are LGBT in leadership. But what they're really asking is, if I hold to a different view, and I'm in a different kind of relationship that is contrary

to the moral ethic that you are positing, then the answer is actually no. Right. Yeah. But I would say... In many ways, you're being consistent. Yeah, and we all are. I mean, it's the way that the question's framed. A lot of these questions can be framed kind of in a particular way. But I mean, I would say leaders of a church should believe in and be following the ethical standards of the church. I mean, that's kind of a yawner, right? I mean, I don't... So this next question might be a yawner too. How would you describe an appropriate posture for the church toward gay Christians who are now in

a legal same-sex marriage? That's kind of a general question. um it it i mean that's it's too broad for me to give kind of a single answer to a question that would could involve a myriad of different situations um i mean posture i think christians should hold to their convictions and well so i often say you know jesus had a high ethical standard and radically loved those who fell short of it. So I would say we should mimic the same thing. Now, our posture, if it's somebody outside the church that doesn't claim to be a Christian, then the posture should be very much how Jesus was. I mean, I know it's so cliched, but really, I would just read the gospel. How would Jesus have interacted with somebody who he maybe believed was not following the sexual ethic that the Judeo-Christian Jesus, you know, advocated for?

So, yeah, I don't know. Maybe something more specific. I've heard consistently is the phrase, expel the immoral believer from 1 Corinthians. That if you have somebody who is blatantly, consistently, overtly violating whatever that sexual ethic is, you are to expel them. That's the phrase that's often quoted. Yeah, yeah. So yeah, again, I would say if anybody who says they're a Christian and wants to belong to a particular family and doesn't hold to nor desires to hold to or follow the standards of that family, then that shows in their actions that they don't want to be part of the family. You know, I mean, this is. But again, I think the consistency thing is huge. So let me push back on my conservative friends. We have been terribly inconsistent,

hypocritical in how we have followed that kind of expelling this person or that person. I need to remind us that 1 Corinthians 6, 9 to 11, you know, lists 10 different sins. Only one of them are, you know, same-sex sexual relationships. It talks about immorality, adultery, slander, greed. I mean, there's all kinds of things that if anybody is living consistently in that sin in an unrepentant way, I'm not talking about struggling. Look, somebody could be in church and be struggling with whatever sexual temptation and failing. They can go to the grave with an imperfect struggle. Welcome to Christianity.

So it's not, please don't hear me. I'm not saying like, oh, there's this level of perfection, but like they have to have the goal in mind saying, this is righteousness. I'm trying to pursue that. And that's not going to get them expelled, but they say, no, you say that's righteousness. I think that's bad. In fact, I think this thing, no, you say that's righteousness. I think that's bad. In fact, I think this thing over here that you call bad is good. I'm going to be pursuing that. Then I just don't, um, I don't, uh, yeah. I mean, if, if let's just flip it around, if somebody is at an affirming church and

they're, they're an open racist, you know, and they keep making racist jokes and actually think it's good. It's funny.'s funny and you say look racism is bad you can struggle with it but you you gotta at least acknowledge this this is bad like if you want to be part of this community we don't believe racism is good and the person's like nope i want to keep being a racist and well then that of course you would expel that person right or help that person see that this isn't the family that they should belong to. They're not adhering to the values of the family and yet still want to be a family. You can't have it both ways. So I'm hearing the other side when you do that and share that particular analogy, the problem of moral equivalency. The problem of saying, well, somebody who is racist has an ideology.

Somebody who's gay has a sexual identity. Those are two very different categories of human expression. I'm comparing the logic. The analogy thing gets you in trouble, especially in this conversation. I feel like it should go without saying, but let me say, I'm not comparing racism with that. They're different in many ways. Yeah, they're different categorically. All I'm saying is if the church has a value that they're calling all people to,

and somebody wants to be part of that family yet doesn't want to be following that value, that to me seems extremely inconsistent, whatever the value is. I'm not trying to compare the values. I'm just trying to illustrate the point that to be part of the family is to follow the values of the family. Yeah. And I appreciate that. I appreciate that clarification and want to affirm your discerning of what the analogy is attempting to do and what the analogy is impossible, what the analogy just simply cannot accomplish. I just know that whenever I hear these conversations, LGBT folks are extremely frustrated at the moral equivalency of what they are having to face in the church. equivalency of what they are having to face in the church. And then they're put in the same category as child molesters and rapists and, you know, racists. And for the record for you and

somebody who's still maybe frustrated at what I just said about the racism thing, I hope my clarification was helpful. But just so you know, I frequently challenge churches not to use those typical kind of statements. So I am actively helping the church to not use those false equivalents because they have been used in such a destructive way. Right. So I appreciate that. We touched on this a little bit. An anonymous person asked, what about the issue of divorce and remarriage? We touched on this a little bit.

An anonymous person asked, what about the issue of divorce and remarriage? It seems discriminatory to gay Christians to single them out, but have no problem with divorced remarried people leading. Yep. Amen. One of the blessings of this conversation, in particular, one of the blessings of the affirming pushback to the traditional views,

it's calling out our hypocrisy. And I shut my mouth, I wear it, and I say, you're right, and we're sorry. I don't, I've tried to live, so for the person who's asking me personally, I do try to live consistently, you know, as best as I can. I can't, I'm not going to sit here and make excuses for all the churches that haven't been doing that. In fact, I frequently call them out. Divorce is a little more tricky in that you do have, throughout Scripture, much more diversity on the divorce question than you do with same-sex sexual relationships. Deuteronomy 24 allows divorce, really lenient.

Ezra 9 and 10 commands divorce. Jesus says don't get divorced, but then he says except for sexual immorality. Then Paul adds his two cents there. There's questions about the umbrella nature of porneia, you know. So there is more diversity, whereas we don't have any, like, we don't have the same diversity in the biblical presentation of the definition of marriage or whether same-sex relationships are morally right or not. But again, yeah, if somebody gets unbiblically divorced and remarried and we're lenient on that, then shame on us. Shame on us. Yeah, yeah. Anonymous asks, isn't marriage a symbolic theological expression of Christ and the church bride of Christ? In what ways does the symbol presume biological sex difference?

Yeah, so yeah, Ephesians 5 and other passages, that is one presentation of marriage, is that it reflects in the Old Testament, God in Israel, the husband and the bride in the New Testament, Christ and the church. That is one presentation of it. And I used to go to Ephesians 5, and I do think the Ephesians 5 analogy of Christ and the church is intrinsically intertwined with sex differences in marriage. There, I would say that particular passage is probably relying on just the assumed fact that marriage is between two sexually different persons. But yeah, to make the analogy work, I think sex difference in the analogy is part of what makes that analogy work. But I would say it would be a false dichotomy to say, well, isn't this a symbol between God and Jesus and the church? Therefore, sex difference might not be a significant piece.

I mean, two things could be true at the same time. It is a symbol of Christ and the church, and also sex difference is part of what marriage is, and I think both of those would be true from Scripture. from scripture. Anonymous asks, what might be the first three things churches need to do to become true family, in quotes, to those who don't have family,

gay or not? What work needs to happen now? Oh, gosh. Huge question. And this is one of my main passions right now is, I think it's, where do I start? I think the church implicitly and sometimes explicitly idolizes marriage and nuclear family

in a way that doesn't reflect best case scenario, worst case scenario, contradicts the radical statements with Jesus in particular, but also the vision for the New Testament church, that spiritual kinship is, one might say, on par with, if not takes the priority over biological kinship. So I think the first step churches can make is just simply to read Jesus. Like, I think they need to at least be aware of how we have implicitly absorbed this narrative that idolizes marriage and makes people feel incomplete if they are still single, especially if they're single of marital age. So I think just recognizing that, first of all. And then second of all, there's tons of little things like, you know, church-wide family picnics,

you know. How does that make single people feel? Like they're not part of the family. Illustrations from the simple things, like all, you know, the pastor always giving sermon illustrations of, yeah, it yeah, and you know, when you're with your kids and doing this and that and using all these family illustrations, when, you know, if we don't have a better theology of singleness, we are going to be profoundly irrelevant as a church when we now live in an age when more than half of the population of marital age isn't married and never will be. Like, how are you going to reach more than half of the population if they feel like second

class citizens in the church? So, yeah, I don't know. I would begin with a lot of education. There's lots of books out there now. Breaking the Marriage Idol by Cutter Calloway, I would highly recommend. It just destroys the whole, it exposes how the church has absorbed this idolatry of family and marriage. I think we have absorbed a secular view of sex, that you can't live without sex.

You know, our one little footnote is, in most churches at least, you know, wait until you're married. But we have no sort of positive vision for what is sex for, what is marriage for, how is it related to our flourishing as image of God bearers and so on, and what's the relevance of Jesus for that. And I think we need to not just say, don't have sex until you're married, don't have gay sex, good luck with that. But I think we need to set forth a positive vision for what is marriage, what is sex. And if you feel called to that, to marriage and a sexual relationship, then do you understand what that calling is for and should look like? So those are a couple of things that the church needs to stop doing or adjust or augment.

And I think part of the question, along with this next one, is what are some things that the churches could implement, do? What are some positive direction things? Elevating single people in the church, having leadership with single people, having gay pastors and elders. I mean, there's a lot of churches that wouldn't even hire a single pastor. It's like Jesus couldn't get a job at a lot of our churches. He certainly couldn't do our marriage counseling, you know, because he's single. It's like, well, but he's God, you know. That's hilarious. So this next question is, is it really possible to be a gay-friendly church that is non-affirming and it's tagged with data indicates gay youth at non-affirming churches commit suicide more frequently? So there's a mental health component

to this question. Yeah, yeah. The answer to this kind of two-part question, I would say absolutely yes. And I know a growing number of examples. I think it is, I mean, it's why I do what I do. I'm trying to fight to create those kind of environments in the church. And I think it is, they are happening. not you, but my listeners maybe, or people that were there that night could see some of the just beautiful conversations that I've had with some pretty top leaders and denominations. And to hear their repentance for how they've mistreated LGBT people or ignored their desire to reach out to people. I've seen just parents in tears saying, I have screwed up my relationship with my gay son, parents in tears saying, I have screwed up my relationship with my gay son, but now it's been reunited because I learned how to listen. And I was at a, I do forums on this conversation with churches and I was in Arizona a year ago and I saw, and I always have a panel of LGBT Christians

that share their story. I saw an 80 year old, and I'm just going to say it. I mean, just super conservative, homophobic, like, you know, you choose to be gay and God's judging you. I mean, really conservative, homophobic couple. They were dragged kicking and screaming to this event. And at the end of the event, they were in tears, repenting to the, to the trans Christian on stage, hugging her saying, we would love to adopt you. And now the trans person is crying. I mean, I'm looking at this, and all of this is within a traditional theology. So yeah, I think it is simply incorrect. You don't like my strong statements. I would say to say that you need the only way to create a so-called gay friendly, let's just say in a church environment where same-sex attracted,

let's just use that phrase, people can genuinely flourish, that the only way to create that environment is to change your theology, I would say that that is just sociologically, statistically, largely just untrue. Let me ask you, I mean, this is all, and I've asked my non-Christian gay friends this, and they all get the same answer. It's fascinating. But like, there's a lot of affirming churches out there now. Why are so many non-affirming churches coming to me saying, now we have all these gay couples showing up? Like there's, there's a lot, many other options.

Like, it's not like, oh, there's one affirming church down in, you know, uh, you know, Washington, DC. No, like I, in Boise, Idaho, I, I've got a, there's a map you can find. I think there's like at least, at least a dozen different churches you can go to that are, you know, why are gay couples or gay people, whatever, showing up at traditional churches? I have an answer, you know. I mean, to quote several of my gay friends, this is their words. They say, look, if we're going to wake up on a Sunday morning, we want to hear the Bible.

We want to hear the gospel. We don't want to be told that everything's right. I know everything's not right. Like, I don't want to just go to a church that's just going to like, just affirm, affirm, affirm. Everything's fine. You don't need to change anything. You're great. You're perfect. You know, it's like, I know, I know other stuff I need to stop doing or repent from. I want to hear what does God have to say about this. So yeah, some people will come face to face with the traditional sexual ethic and say, I just cannot, sorry, this is,

you're calling me to something that I just don't have the desire to do. Can't do it, whatever. That's going to happen, of course. That's going to happen with straight people who don't want to not have sex outside of marriage. There's lots of things in the Christian ethic that is going to be too challenging for people that they're just saying, I can't follow this. But to say that categorically, LGBTQ people categorically just cannot flourish in that they're just saying, I can't follow this. But to say that categorically, LGBTQ people categorically just cannot flourish in that environment, it's just simply untrue.

It's just untrue. Yeah. That's the consistent number one thing that I hear on my end is, if I go to a gay affirming church, I don't hear the Bible. But if I go to a Bible-believing church, I'm not affirmed. Totally. Right? And my passion in life is to create a third option. And I am seeing more and more fruit, and it's absolutely beautiful. Yeah, I'm really fascinated with this and with your response in thinking about the other voices that have risen up that are still so frustrated at the theological posture, the theological position, the theological view, that... I mean, you mentioned this sense of why are so many affirming churches popping up, but yet it doesn't seem necessarily that

LGBT folks, specifically those who are of the evangelical brand and who really that we all find ourselves in, that there does seem to be a real divide in the theological position, the theological teaching, and our ecclesiological lives and how we construct our churches. lives and how we construct our churches. And I'm really intrigued by your response, because this is something that those on the affirming side or the more progressive side are maybe don't want to hear, is that you are experiencing a welcome for LGBT folks in churches that hold to a traditional, historically Christian, traditional view, historically Christian view, right? Is that the terminology? Sure. Yeah. Yeah. So that is true. That is existing. That is happening. While at the same time,

there are still LGBT folks who are deeply dissatisfied. And so we're living in this paradoxical kind of double ring moment where two opposite things are happening at the same time. And that's really interesting, I guess. Yeah. And I'll say, again, as you know, I get just as much flack from the right as the left, because it's not just enough to be welcoming that that's you can't just say it ends up becoming just a love the center hate the sin but we we actually don't care if you exist or not kind of message and oh no if you we will welcome you we're not going to throw you out

but like until you start putting right gay people in leadership until you start using them relying on them having you know or delighting in them, learning from them, not just seeing them as needy, oh, we'll help your needy, but need ed, you know, like some of the, even like when we have LGBT people in our home, like it's with our kids, I mean, most of the people they know are, they know more gay people than straight people, you know, and like, that's not just, oh, we're reaching out to this poor needy person. It's we are blessed by their presence. We, we learn from my trans and now gender queer, she's wrestling with all that, friend who's just amazing and spiritual. And I just, yeah, I was on the phone with her just,

I mean, almost every day I'm talking to somebody who's gay or lesbian. And my kids are like, oh, is that so-and-so? Oh, you miss them so much. Like my, it's not just we are reaching out to that poor. It's like we are blessed when we have people in our lives. But that's not, even churches that are welcoming, but not affirming, you know, that's still a stretch to them. And that's why I want to keep pushing it, pushing it, pushing it until there is genuine equality with all people struggling to follow Jesus well. Yeah, yeah.

Are you up for a couple more? Absolutely. I can keep going. Okay. I just want to make sure I respect your time. Yeah. How do you, excuse me, Genesis is often cited to define marriage, i.e. one man and one woman. How can we be sure these verses are exclusionary and prescriptive rather than descriptive? Yeah, that's a good question. I would say that is one of the main questions and arguments against my view from really

thoughtful, I would say, affirming people. In fact, Karen Keene, if I can recommend an affirming book, can I recommend an affirming book that people should read? Yeah, Karen Keene's very recent book, Sexuality, Scripture, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, really thoughtful. She wrestles with this. James Brownson obviously wrestles with this well. I think other people don't wrestle with it too well.

Mark Ochtenmeier, the Bible's yes to same-sex marriage. You don't see my shelf here, but I've got like 60 books on here that are all on sexuality behind the screen. So if I look up, I'm looking to like pull it off. Anyway, I thought his argument was really bad. He basically says that, you know, Genesis 2 is talking about equality, not difference. Or because it's talking about equality, it's therefore not talking about difference. And I'm like, that is just a blatant false dichotomy. Like, you can't just show that it's talking about equality and say, therefore, it's not talking about sex difference. You have to show that it's talking about equality and not sex difference. So setting forth a positive

reading in Genesis 2 of equality doesn't therefore in and of itself mean that sex difference isn't also at play. Why do I say it's prescriptive and not descriptive? So here again, I'm going to get super analytical and say, I'm going to give you the evidence for this. Number one, Genesis 1 and 2 from a biblical theological perspective is But Genesis 1 and 2, from a biblical theological perspective, is designed to be prescriptive. And again, we can cite, as I have done earlier, a whole host of other things laid down in this passage that simply are fundamental to a Christian worldview. both implicitly in Genesis 1 and explicitly in Genesis 2, is woven into that fabric of God ordering differences in creation and bringing them into unity with each other. And marriage is one picture of that.

So that would have a broad reading and just understanding the place of Genesis 1 and 2 within a biblical theology. And I went back a while ago and read a bunch of different scholars from conservative, moderate moderate to very liberal. They were looking at Genesis 1 and 2, and they all basically said the same thing. Some of them didn't even believe Genesis 1 and 2, but they said Genesis 1 and 2 is foundational for a biblical worldview. Whether you believe it or not, it's a different story, but it's just designed for that.

So it's not really a debated statement. The language of Genesis 2.24, okay? So in 2.18 to 2.23, you have Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve, very situational. But then in 2.24, it makes a generalized statement. Therefore, man generically will leave father and mother, be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. So it's just a very language. And again, this isn't a radical statement. You can look at any commentary. I haven't checked them all, but look at a commentary in 224, and they draw attention to the shift in perspective. This isn't just Adam and Eve describing what happened, whether it's literal or not. It is making a prescriptive statement. And then we still need to cross-check that.

So my third piece of evidence, so one is just the nature of Genesis 1 and 2, two is a specific language of Genesis 2.24. Then we say, okay, does the New Testament draw upon this and make it normative? And I think we see that explicitly in how Genesis 2.24 is cited in the New Testament, And I think we see that explicitly in how Genesis 2.24 is cited in the New Testament, both by Jesus and Matthew 19, Paul and Ephesians 5 and others. And the historical church has understood that also. So it's not just me reading into the Bible what I want to see. How do you reconcile the idea of a loving God with one who commanded for those practicing homosexuality in Leviticus to die?

Is this how God feels about me? Oh, gosh. If I hope that questioner is listening and I... That's a really... I can only imagine how, if I can just speak directly, how you can read that passage and just be, have questions about the very nature of God there. So I've got a pastor friend of mine. He's a closeted gay pastor. He's in his 50s. And he said, and he's theologically conservative. He's a closeted gay pastor. He's in his 50s. And he said, and he's theologically

conservative. He's politically conservative, actually. And he says that, I know that text. Well, he, the abomination language, it's more, it's kind of different, but he's like, I know it doesn't mean I'm an abomination, but I wake up every day feeling like I'm an abomination before God, even though he knows that's not true. And it's just, oh, sitting with him, hearing him describe these texts that he actually believes in and how they still cut deep. I just, it's taken me a while to try to resonate with that feeling. And I feel like I'm getting there.

And it's, I hope that any straight person who's conservative listening can really just before responding to that, logically to linger there for a little bit, put yourself in somebody else's shoes. The death penalty is an incredibly tough one. I guess I would say that there's like 15 different sins given a death penalty in the Old Testament. This isn't just a death for gay people problem. It's, you know, Numbers 15, if you collect sticks on the Sabbath, you're given a death penalty. So for you Sabbath breakers, you know, you're in a sense, you have the same dilemma here too. So this is not, I don't think the Old Testament singles out just same-sex sexual sin here. It's a greater problem. What do we do with these, like, death penalty for disobedient kids? I mean,

so I do have a response to that larger issue of kind of these really tough statements in the Old Testament and death penalty. If I can recommend a book, Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Deals extensively with this in a very thorough, very, very good way. I'm a pacifist. I don't believe in the death penalty, period. So yeah, when I read the death penalty statements in the Old Testament, it causes me to say, God, I don't know what you were thinking here. I read the death penalty statements in the Old Testament, it causes me to say, God, I don't know what you were thinking here. Like this is, so I, you know, I can give you an answer. I'm not completely satisfied with it, but like, you know, sure these, you know, there's death penalty that was prescribed or whatever, but we don't see any examples of, of them actually implementing that.

That doesn't really satisfy me. I would also say from a Christian perspective, there's, you know, Jesus, I would say, did away with the death penalty and the trajectory that you see through the Sermon on the Mount, the eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, he goes beyond that. So whatever we do with the Old Testament, the many different moral problems in the Old Testament, much of that is rectified in the New Testament, where that would be absolutely wrong. At the same time, I mean, yeah, living in sexual sin as a believer is not, I don't want to say like, oh, it's no big deal, whatever. Like, no, I do want to take that very seriously. But, and just to be clear, we're talking about somebody committing a sexual act deemed to be sexual immorality, not just simply existing as a gay person.

Huge, huge distinction. Could Justin and Preston express what's the worst that could happen to the church if it took the other's point of view as right and good? So I'm going to answer this literally. They asked for the worst, not like what are some possible bad things, but the worst thing is that the church would be advocating for sexual immorality against God's design and might not inherit the kingdom of God and receive a massive rebuke from Jesus

as he gave to the churches in Revelation 2 who were advocating for sexual immorality. Eternal damnation. I mean, that's the worst thing. I mean, advocating for something god does not advocate for now that you know i know i know you're cringing and everybody's probably throwing stuff against i'm not cringing i'm i want i want clarification when you say eternal damnation specifically given some of the work that you've done on hell i mean can you clarify

what that means for you irreversible uhible punishment in hell. Irreversible punishment. I believe punishment is death, not ongoing torment. So yeah. And that's not all I'm saying is like the Bible in several places does say that those who are living in ongoing unrepentant sin might not inherit the kingdom of God. I mean, it actually says it's stronger than that. So I'm just reflecting Ephesians 5, 5, 1 Corinthians 6, you know. So that would be the worst. Maybe not so bad. I don't know. I don't know how to answer that.

Yeah. I mean, you're taking a very literalist view of the question, which is what's the worst that could happen? And it's a much more rhetorical question. Like, come on, Preston. I mean, if we allow gay folks to marry and they are part of the church and they're following the gospel, you know, it's a rhetorical question in that particular sense, right?

Yeah. Okay. Okay, so after you address that, there is the question, though, very specifically, if I'm gay in a committed sexual relationship, have accepted Christ as my Savior, read my Bible, worship, pray, etc., am I going to spend eternity with Christ? I don't. I can't answer that. I'm not God. I mean, I don't. I can say that the Bible doesn't give salvific confidence to anybody living in ongoing unrepentant sin, whether it's a lifetime of greed, a lifetime of heterosexual sexual immorality,

a lifetime, whatever. Like, I don't have a verse to, if we're going to get all biblical, I don't have a verse to say, oh, don't worry about that. Not a big deal. You're fine. I could give you several passages that threaten, sound strong, that, well, let me say what I said before, that don't, that doesn't give salvific confidence for somebody in that. And I'm, again, I'm saying that to all my straight friends out there who are completely, you know, uh, cheating on their wives, who are, have little to no desire to follow a Christian sexual ethic in their lives, you know? So this is a categorical thing, not just, you know, picking on one person. So, but at the end of the day,

I'm not, I stopped trying to judge everybody's salvation a long time ago when I left fundamentalism. So I don't, I don't, I could tell you, here's what I think, I can point you to the biblical passages that you might want to consider, but God knows, I don't, you know. How does the Hebrew language referring to Adam as generic human versus man, Ish, only after the creation of Eve guide your interpretation? Oh man, I want to hang out with that person. Who is that? Is her name anonymous? It's anonymous. I mean, this was one of my comments when I read your book is that you mentioned Eve in Genesis 1 and Eve isn't mentioned in Genesis 1. It's Ish and Isha, right? It's man and woman.

Yeah. So I think that's one of the questions. It's very similar, you know. And what does the original Hebrew language, how does it inform your interpretation, I suppose? So Adam is used, I think, is it four different ways in Genesis 1 to 5? In chapters 1-5? Yeah.

Yeah. That's pretty... I mean, I don't know about the exact number of ways, but... Give me one second, actually. Have you had John Walton out? John Walton's been out to Highway, which was one of the sponsoring churches, and he's come out almost every year for the last five years. Okay. In one of his The Lost World of Genesis books, he shows really

clearly that Adam is used in, I think it's four different ways in that passage. One, generic humanity. Two, males. Three, the person of Adam. I think there's a fourth one um what would be this what's the question again i'm not sure i really understood i mean the question is how does the hebrew language referring to adam as generic human versus ish and isha or sorry versus ish yeah only after the creation of, and this person said Eve, guide your interpretation. Yeah, there's some assumptions there. There's a lot of complex. It's hard to even give a, it doesn't just mean generic humanity. I do think that Ish and Ishan in Genesis 2.23 is calling attention to this specific sex.

I rarely use the word gender because it's so debated, but let's just say that's the specific gender of Adam and Eve there, the maleness and femaleness, the Eshanesha in Genesis 2.23, and that is very much baked into the definition of marriage in 2.24. But yeah, we would have to kind of wrestle with. What is your viewpoint on gay Christians adopting? In the church or outside the church? I, one of the few things that virtually all sociologists agree on,

which is incredibly rare is that generally speaking, kids fare better when raised by their biological mother and father. There's 98% of sociologists all across the board would agree. It's not really disputable. Now we live in a broken world where that doesn't always happen. So adoption is always a concession to the ideal given the brokenness of the world that we live in. So I would say it's not...

Oh, let me give you another fact. Oh, let me give you another fact. Kids fare better in a family, generally speaking, than aging out of the adoption here. All adoption is by definition a departure from the ideal or a concession to the brokenness in our world. We also know that any family is better categorically. I'm not saying every individual family, but being somewhere in a family is better than aging out of the system in foster care or an orphanage or whatever. Um, so yeah, I've actually, I don't know, I don't know where I would actually land on that, honestly. Um, so I would say that statistically kids would fare better with mental health, with grade point average, with lower suicide ideation, if they are in a family, especially obviously if it's a loving family, um, than aging out of the

system. So pragmatically, I want to say, um, if there's no male, female couple that wants to adopt this kid, then pragmatically, uh, you can say that it's better for a gay couple to adopt them. Um, I don't, um, I do think that sex difference is, I want to excuse my words really carefully here. I do think that sex differences between parents as part of God's design is good for a child to be raised under. Like, I don't think it's insignificant that a child might not have a mother and a father, a male and a female in the house.

And I do think there is a good deal of sociological evidence to support that, although that would be a little more disputed. I think there'd be disputes on that. And then we can question whether the disputes are ideologically driven or not. But I think there is good evidence to say that kids would fare better, even in an adoptive home, that they would have a male and a female raising them. So, yeah. So I know it's not – I'm still wrestling with that question because I've walked with adoption agencies through this very question and it took me deep in this rabbit hole.

And I'm like, man, I don't think there's a clear, even if, again, assuming that we hold to a historical Christian view, from our vantage point, I think it's super complex, super complex. Yeah. I want to ask you a question of my own. It's been widely said that Jesus didn't ever mention homosexuality and I would like your take on the Genesis 19 passage

very specifically and for those who are you talking about Matthew 19 or Genesis 19 yeah Matthew 19 the marriage immediately after the marriage passage where he references you know the creation and Adam and therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate, you know, this beautiful image of the joining of two people. Verse 10 starts, his disciples said to him, if such is the case of a man with his wife,

it is better not to marry. Yeah. But he said to them, and here's supposedly Jesus quoting, not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. Yeah. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others. And then there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can. And I would love to hear your take on this,

because a eunuch is somebody who has been effeminized for particular roles or particular religious or cultic reasons, which would seem to be an indication of a different sex or gender role or identity within the community. And you might disagree with some of my presuppositions here. But the references that some have been born this way, I would really love your response. Dr. Creston Sprinkle. Yeah, I've done a bit of thinking about that. And just for, I guess, your sake and my audience, I've got a free online paper on my website called A Biblical Conversation

About Transgender Identities. And I have a page and a half kind of interaction with this very question, what's the significance with the eunuch in Matthew 1912 with regard to modern day questions about transgender or non-binary identities? So eunuch, eunuch is a very broad umbrella term that can refer to a whole number of different types of people, experiences, and situations. The one common denominator among all eunuchs is, number one, that they are biologically male, and number two, that they are infertile, most likely through castration or some sort of abnormality in their birth. You know, the eunuch from birth probably has some sort of abnormality

in his, usually his testicles or whatever that would affect his fertility, which is why Jesus holds out the eunuch as a symbol of singleness. Like in the context, when they said not everybody can accept this statement, he's talking about divorce and marriage and all this stuff. And then he moves to go to the eunuch as an example of singleness and celibacy, that not everybody will get married. Let's look at the eunuchs. So eunuchs were not, I don't know if there's any examples of eunuchs being married. They were typically not married because they were infertile in a culture where fertility was kind of a big deal. Were they, you talk about gender abnormality, yet in a highly misogynistic, phallocentric, patriarchal Roman culture, if you had crushed testicles or you couldn't produce children or you simply had a small penis, you would be seen through the lens of this profoundly phallocentric culture that the eunuch would be less manly.

phallocentric culture that the eunuch would be less manly. I'm going to assume that Jesus is not embracing that phallocentric, patriarchal, misogynist, we can say toxic masculinity type culture when he's evaluating the eunuch. He wouldn't say the eunuch is less manly. He would say, you don't need testicles or a huge schlong or to produce tons of children or a hairy chest. If you didn't have hair on your chest, you were seen as less manly. And yeah, the Roman culture was just incredibly oppressive to anybody.

They didn't match the stereotypical views of manliness. but they didn't match the stereotypical views of manliness. So some eunuchs were more effeminate. Some eunuchs were known for being incredibly sexual. And sometimes people would hire eunuchs, women, rich women would sometimes hire eunuchs to service them because they were infertile. But they can still have sex. they weren't impotent. You know, if you, my audience knows, knows the difference.

They can get an erection and satisfy a woman without the risk of getting pregnant or her husband finding out. Some women, some eunuchs were, you know, would have been engaged in same sex activity. Some would be engaged in opposite sex activity. Some eunuchs were asexual, you know? So there's just, we, we don't know. opposite sex activity. Some eunuchs were asexual, you know. So there's just, we don't know. We can't take all these different possible categories of what the eunuch is and say, this is what Jesus is talking about. All we know is that most likely because of his infertility, which is probably due to some genital, you know, whether born with a defect or a crush test or castration, that they would be single.

I don't think he's, you know, somebody could take the eunuch and say, see, Jesus is totally supportive of, you know, sexually charged men servicing, you know, women sexually. It's like, well, that is one category. There's no evidence that that's what he's singling out there. So I would say in terms of our conversation, the eunuch would more represent somebody with an intersex condition than somebody with a non-intersex person who is transgender in their identity, that has no intersex kind of condition. So the turn phrase is not everyone can accept this teaching, but only to those to whom it is given. So the one way of interpreting that verse that some do is that all of this construct, let's say that the view that you hold is absolutely, we're on the high level of certainty, even though we're not at 100% certainty. What is the turn phrase? Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only to those.

So that's, yeah. If you look at the commentaries, that's a really tough phrase. People don't know if it's referring to what he previously said, like, you know, don't get divorced. And everybody's like, how do we live without the possibility of divorce? And he's like, yeah, not everybody can accept this. So think carefully before you get married, you might not be able to accept the high calling that marriage is. It could be pointing backwards or it could be pointing forward saying not everybody can accept, you know, a life of singleness, you know, and that might be really hard for some of you. It's really, I haven't looked to, I know that the ambiguity exists in whether it's going backwards or forwards there. I haven't looked closely enough to make a decision on my part. I think it's probably looking back.

It serves as a nice bridge between the hard marriage statement and singleness. Yeah. But he's not saying like if the Christian sexual ethic is too hard, then you don't need to live by it, which is how some people will think. No, I think the general affirming view would see that there is a recognition that there are some people that do not fit into the the social structures or the stereotypical gender yes roles or positions that are foundational for this particular teaching right yes i think that would be the i would say absolutely uh the new testament endorsement of the eunuch would be a protest against the very

phallocentric they do i don't need to define phallocentric i'll let people will people google that uh just don't click don't click on images and it'll be fine no no but the roman culture i mean i'll just be frank this is theology in the can I be raw? The Greek culture valued small penises. Like that was seen, if you look at the Greek statutes and everything, like a small penis was like a big deal. The Romans did the exact opposite. Huge penises means you're more manly. So if anything was kind of going on down there that wasn't, you know,

meeting the Roman ideal, you were seen as less manly. So, yeah, in a profoundly misogynistic and phallocentric, phallus means penis um culture somebody that had crushed you know was castrated or whatever um would be looked down upon and i think i think the new testament would protest that kind of stereotype which okay so let me push back on my conservative crowd here we well actually no just the church in general, we often absorb and reinforce these cultural stereotypes in today's world. You know, we have these assumptions of what femininity and masculinity should look like. And I think the Bible just constantly protests

those, especially in the New Testament, protests those stereotypes. And I think the church doesn't always do a good job at protesting cultural stereotypes, gender stereotypes. Preston, I think we've run the gamut of most of the subjects and topics that were brought up. I am so, so grateful to you for agreeing to do the event, for agreeing to do this follow-up podcast, for your graciousness and your vulnerability and your transparency, your articulation, your willingness to be real and raw with your posture and your position and your view, and yet be so critically engaging with contrarian perspectives. It's really, really wonderful.

You're a great conversationalist in that. I look forward to having more potentially in the future. First of all, I'll say thank you. And secondly, because you're not the spotlight here, but I have been with you in particular, even though, how would you describe yourself? Sometimes you say you're affirming or lean affirming or whatever. Yeah, I don't tell people what my views are. Oh, sorry. Okay. You can edit. I'm sorry. You can edit that out if you want or whatever. No, no, no. This is totally fine. People have pressed me very, very hard.

Yeah. There are some people in our community that were very upset that I invited Justin, and there are some people in my community that were very upset that I invited you. set that I invited Justin, and there are some people in my community that were very upset that I invited you. And I don't relish that, obviously, but I don't give my view or my opinion very quickly or readily because of all, well, part of the Jonathan Haidt stuff that you mentioned, part of the social psychology, part of the recognition of ambiguity within the text and within, especially within moral philosophy. As soon as I give my view, I begin to buttress particular cognitive biases in myself and in my listener. And so at the event, I said, seek first to understand. And it's almost seek first to understand, period, for me. I know that's very disappointing for some people because it's

like, well, don't you have to land somewhere? Don't you have to have some sort of practical theology? Don't you have to have some sort of moral philosophy by which you live? And I say, of course I do. I don't always know exactly what they are all the time. And Spark, at least our church, has very specific values that we've outlined with the biblical passages to support them and the reason, the rationale behind them. But on issues like this, I'm usually very, very careful not to give people my opinion. Yeah, that's good. So what I was going to say is, thank you for telling me what you told me. I would throw it back on you too and say, I have had few more robust, humble, genuinely listening and understanding conversations with somebody who might be on their side. Who might be. Like you just seem, I mean, it is very rare on both sides of this debate to get somebody who is a genuine pursuer of the truth. And I've seen that in you and it's been incredibly refreshing, makes me hopeful and something I want to model in my own life.

So I just, I've so enjoyed it. Well, that's very kind and very generous of you. For all of our listeners, look, if you're going to read Robert Gagnon, you have to read James Brownson. And if you're going to read Preston Sprinkle, you have to read Justin Lee, right? You just can't engage thoughtfully and critically in this world on the most critical issues if you're only going to substantiate and reaffirm the things that you already believe. That is not going to be the way forward for us. And so that's, you know, some people were very disappointed that we really didn't get into the weeds of these, like, let's get down to the word

Adam and Ish and Isha and let's really flesh out all these things. And I appreciate their criticism and their disappointment in that. But we worked hard, you and myself and Justin, we worked hard to really try to platform a posture of conversation first and foremost. It is only upon that posture of conversation that we can then have productive conversations. Yeah. Because otherwise we're just yelling and um yeah i mean it's it's it's an impossible thing to exhaust this conversation in an hour and a half like it would have to be either we drill down into one thing like okay we're going to dialogue about genesis 2 um or we do what we did i think i think it would have been hard to really drill down because the Isha and Isha

and Adam, that's one of, you know, a myriad of different, you know, building blocks to this discussion biblically. And you just can't do that in an hour and a half, two hour conversation. Yeah. Unless we just did that, you know, spend an hour on it. I also think for me, the reason why it's important to have that posture is because there's also no productive conversations unless we can actually agree on some starting facts and reality. We have to have some sort of what's the commonality? What do we agree on?

Where do we actually see eye to eye? Do we have some sort of common foundation upon which we can have a conversation? have a conversation. And sometimes in this conversation, specifically around sexual morality, the premises are just so vastly different. The hermeneutics are just so vastly different that you're actually speaking past one another too. So part of the hope for me in the conversation is, okay, we, you know, and we didn't get to it a lot, which could have been my bad in the facilitation of the conversation, but we agree on the inspiration or importance of the scriptures to inform our faith. We agree that Genesis 1 was written in Hebrew. We agree that Adam is there.

We agree about the storyline. And then once we find out what we agree upon, we can then more clearly discern what are the things that truly cause the divergence. And I actually think that part of what we did in the event helped to elucidate that a little bit, because it really, if I can say this, there is a hermeneutical posture that seems to be the big dividing line. And disagree with me if you think I'm wrong on here. The affirming view reads all these passages, Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians, Romans 1, etc.,

with a very specific eye to the context, to all of the pieces of the puzzle that are also listed there. Things like idolatry, things like cult prostitution. And again, there's, as you mentioned before, that some of that may be historically inaccurate. But the attention to the particulars, which greatly informs the hermeneutic, when Romans 1 is talking about same-sex relationships, you cannot separate that from the fact that it's also talking about idolatry. So that's one way of doing the hermeneutic. And I see the other side, which may describe your view, as seeing a consistent pattern and theme that is played out in various specific situations, such as Romans 1. So there's a general theme, the definition of marriage.

That is the definition. And the deviation of that then is laid out in a variety of passages that we see. I hear you saying that like the traditional view looks at the surface of the text, whereas the affirming view looks more behind the text, the historical background. Maybe if I could put it in these terms. I'm trying to be non-academic. There is an archetypal metaphysical framework, male, female, sex difference, marriage, and that archetypal metaphysical framework is what we see from the text and therefore becomes the hermeneutical lens by which we view the rest of the teachings. into the specifics of the historical, cultural, and linguistic context to attribute whatever that metaphysical archetypal framework with additional elements.

That's how I see most of this argument. That's what I see from Brownson. That's what I see from Gagnon. That's what I see a little bit from you and Justin. Help me manage through that. Yeah, I have to push back. I mean, I see Justin and I in particular, and all the, maybe say, the more informed writers in this conversation on both sides, using very similar hermeneutic. Of course. I mean, it's first year in Bible college, you learn that, you know, historical, grammatical,

literary, you know, reading of grammatical, literary, you know, reading of Scripture, that the historical background is absolutely essential to understand the meaning of the text written by a person living in a very different era and time and so on. I just think that the historical evidence that is often brought to validate the affirming reading is, that is often brought to validate the affirming reading is at best insufficient, at worst just wrong, like unhistorical. Okay, so can we unpack some of that? Yeah, I would love to, yeah.

So is patriarchy... I was just saying my whole background is in, like my PhD is in Judaism. It's not even really in, I mean, it is a New Testament, but it's like my main world is the background material. And the thing is there's not even really in, I mean, it is a New Testament, but it's like, my main world is the background material. And there's, the thing is, there's several affirming writers, like, I mean, Bill Loader is hands down the world expert on ancient sexual practices in Judaism and Christianity. He's written eight or seven scholarly books on it. He is the world renowned expert, hands down.

He's affirming. And he agrees with me on all the background material, saying you just can't say that there's no evidence of adult consensual relationship. You can't say historically that what Paul had in mind couldn't have been what we have in mind now. So, I mean, he's an affirming writer who's the expert who says... So how does he get to affirming? He just says that I don't think we should follow what the Bible says in this area. No, I mean... Which isn't gonna fly, right. I mean, no, I mean, he says... Oh, he would say we now know that there's... He would base it on modern-day understanding

of sexual orientation. We now know about sexual orientation, and so Paul didn't have those categories. But he would say that Paul is ruling out categorically same-sex relationships, whether it's exploitative or not, consensual or not. That's not—there's no evidence that Paul was limiting his critique to non-consensual. Okay, so the way he gets to affirming is by basically disregarding that the biblical teaching has authority in this area? Is that kind of how he says it? I don't want to put words in his mouth. That's how it feels to me, yes, that there are certain things that

the ancient writers didn't have access to, and that's why they said the things they did. But he wouldn't say Paul is only talking about a narrow type of same-sex relationship. So would you agree that even that is a hermeneutical jump?

His view? Well, to say that, like you even mentioned there, that Paul in the first century wouldn't have had the same categories that we have had, that we have regarding sexual identity or sexual categories, right? Did I hear you correctly in that? That's his argument, that we now know about this thing called sexual orientation that he didn't know about. I find that to be a little untrue. You find a pretty widespread. Yeah, the Greeks had seven different orientations depending upon how the stars were aligned. So I think there's an argument to be made that orientation or at least some sort of birthed into a particular sexual identity.

That was a widespread view in first, second century Rome. Yeah. So I guess, but the question is, is it a hermeneutical jump to say he didn't have those categories, but he's still categorically prohibiting any potential future categories. I'm not saying that very well, but it's a hermeneutical jump to say that Paul was ignorant of the categories that we use today,

but he is laying out a universal claim over sexual identity categories that would play out into the future. I'm not a hundred percent sure i'm following you but um i would say it's an extrapolation in other words um so he's he's he's saying that same-sex relationships or same-sex behavior is he wouldn't have thought about it in the same ways that we have with the American Psychological Association and the DSM and the ways in which we understand gender and the genetics. He doesn't have that, right? But what he does have and how he does teach rules out any information or any additional categories that we would now attribute, such as intersex, such as anything that we would identify as a sexual identity? Okay, let me try to answer what you're asking. First of all, I don't think Paul would necessarily invest our modern day sexual identity categories with as much ethical power or significance as some modern day people do.

So according to the APA, American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is by definition an enduring pattern of romantic, emotional and or sexual attractions to somebody of the same sex. I don't think if we went to Paul, and this is my pushback to Bill Loder, and I, you know, I edited the Four Views book that he wrote in, and I, we went back and forth on this. I said, I just don't see the sort of ethical movement in scripture or the ethical kind of like underlying, just the underlying way that the New Testament does ethics. That if we went to Paul and said, okay, I know that you say same-sex sexual relationships are ruled out. I know that you have all kinds of categories in front of you. It's not just, you know, slavery or rape or pederasty,

like you're ruling out categorically. But what if somebody has an enduring pattern of desire to want to commit the act. What do you think now, Paul? I think Paul would yawn and shrug his shoulders as a first century Jew and say, okay, so somebody has an innate biological desire to do something that's deemed sexually immoral. I don't think a first century Jew would say, oh yeah, in that case then... So that's what I'm saying is the hermeneutical jump. I'm just asking, is that a jump? I think it's a hermeneutical jump based on an inaccurate view of modern day understandings of sexual orientation. So that's the reason why I'm pushing and trying to really get down into this, because if we concede it's a hermeneutical jump, then what confidence can we really have that what we're talking about now is what they were talking about then, given, and this goes back to the kind of the original thought process that led us down this path, given that the culture and the context, you mentioned phallocentric Roman ideas and ideals. There's Greek astrology that's mixed into all of that,

that people like Bernadette Bruton have written about. So you have these contexts back then that do not exist in the same way today. And if we can see that we're making hermeneutical jumps, what level of confidence can we have that what they were talking about then is what we're talking about now, and what we're talking about then is what they were talking about now? I mean, that feels to me like one of the most foundational questions, because what they were talking about then was absolutely same-sex behavior but clouded with or informed or set within the context of idolatry phallocentric romanism greek astrology um you know judaic cultic practices yeah we have to like you know every one of those got the to piece apart. I mean,

where do I start? Yeah, no, I get it. Yeah, when you say it's a hermeneutical jump, I keep, when you say that, I'm like, yes, the affirming argument is making a hermeneutical leap, but I think you're saying it

toward the traditional view. So I'm trying to... I'm... No, no, okay. So let me clarify. I'm saying everybody's having to do that. Because I would say this is, I mean, you're kind of touching on a much more germane or foundational question about can the Bible have any moral authority to today? Like the whole is what they're talking about then, what we're talking about now.

The answer is kind of yes and no categorically across the board. I mean, we know more about alcoholism today than they did. Does that mean don't get drunk with wine is invalid? We know more about the complexity of poverty now. Does that mean that we don't help the poor? We know, I mean, there's all kinds of stuff, but that, if you just believe in biblical authority on some level, that comes with the assumption that there is some inspiration here that yes,

God is working through ancient writers and their context of their time, but that also has ongoing relevance for the future church. So if you pull the rug out from under that, you have a kind of a different brand of Christianity, which I appreciate or not appreciate. That would be, I think maybe loader. And I don't want,

I don't want to, Bill, if you're listening maybe loder and i don't i don't want to uh bill if you're listening yeah i'm sure you don't have i don't uh it does feel to me like his problem with the biblical authority on this question is just well then how what of course i mean it's an ancient book it's there's but i think that there so here's i would say there are a significant number of historical parallels to what they were talking about today to what we're talking about now to say that the biblical commands for the basic definition of marriage and what is sexual immorality do apply like they're not that different yes our understanding of sexual orientation is much more different our understanding of the neurobiology of sin and habits and addiction and how, you know, don't get drunk with wine.

Did they understand the neurobiology of how, you know, habitual drinking will rewire your brain and how you are just as much a victim of, you know, your enslavement? You know, no, it didn't have those categories, but they had sufficient categories to be able to speak relevantly to what we're doing today. It's never going to be exactly the same, but it's not so completely different that the Bible doesn't have authority in that. Okay. So there's a lot of places. Yeah. I appreciate that. A couple of things. I take issue, not strong issue, I'm not offended. I don't think asking these questions is pulling the rug out from under the entire moral framework project. The question of, is what we're talking about then what they were talking about? I'm starting to get tongue tied with all this. The question of cultural relevancy and the question of moral equivalency is not trying to

pull the rug out from under a view of biblical authority. It's really asking the question, what is the authority that it has? And it's asking the question, it is asking the question, I admit, does it still have the same authority in the same ways that we have viewed it? And are there different ways in which we can approach the text that allow for flexibility? I know many, this is definitely not an original argument for me, but I know many that have made the argument that within the text itself, you see the moral progression, specifically with circumcision

and, of course, the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem, right? You see texts that are not really ambiguous, but they see a shift, they see a change in the context and the culture, and they make moral and ethical and religious theological shifts and changes as a result of recognizing that. Can I speak to that, or do you want to finish with that? Of course. So, yes, the circumcision.

We're having a conversation, Preston. The circumcision, the dietary laws in Acts 10 to 15, culminating in Acts 15, we see shift away from a trajectory moving away from certain things. We have biblical evidence from the New Testament that on those particular issues, there is trajectories, there is a shift, there's movement away from that. We have no biblical evidence that there's a shift away from sex difference in marriage, whenever it's stated, and in whether same-sex sex relationships can be considered moral or not. And even in Acts 15, when the apostles came together, they said, here's the things that Gentiles need to abide by. One of those things is sexual immorality in Acts 15, 20 and 29

and later on. And if you look at, I don't know if you read Richard Bauckham on this, but he shows that all four of those things that they affirmed are rooted in Leviticus 17 and 18. So that when they say sexual immorality, it is actually alluding to

the end of Leviticus 18, which describes all these things as sexual. So they are, it would very much work against the affirming argument to appeal to that if they pay attention to Acts 15. I mean, it works completely against them in their favor. Yes, there's ethical movements all over Scripture with same-sex sexual relationships. There's no movement. In fact, there's rather clear reaffirmation in the New Testament. So the flip side of that is it's actually not working against the affirming argument. It's actually working for, and the reason is that you recognize that the text is giving you a variety of moral commands, dictates, structures, you know, teachings, whatever.

And given your context and culture, you're having to make very significant, thoughtful decisions as to which of those you prioritize, which of those you make the most important, and which of those in their cultural expression are actually fulfilling the whole of the Torah. Right. So wouldn't that be the other side of the argument? So I agree. I agree that the chosen, the chosen ethical teachings stem right from a little bit Leviticus and 18 and

19, which are the, the, I mean, yeah, there's some pretty significant things there, including the death penalty for anybody who, you know, commits a same-sex act, specifically for males, right? But the other side of the, again, and I'm not, I want to be clear, I'm not making an argument that this is the correct view. I'm trying to navigate my way through the hermeneutical morass that we all find ourselves in. If they are choosing Leviticus as the grounding moral guidance for the decisions that they have to make for the Gentiles that are coming in over the covenant of Abraham in Genesis 17, what they are doing is the hermeneutical exercise that we are all doing. That's essentially with regard to dietary laws and circumcision, or as I say, circumcision in particular. We have

biblical evidence that there's a trajectory moving away from circumcision as a mandate for all believers in Yahweh slash Jesus. We don't have the same biblical evidence for whether or not believers should care for the poor. We don't have the same biblical evidence for whether or not believers should care for the poor. We don't have biblical evidence for whether there's movement with adultery. In fact, there's little to no evidence in the movement in sexual ethics. And categorically, if anything, it moves towards a more strict view, not a loosening, but a stricter reinforcement with regard to sexual ethics. And this is when Justin and I had a private conversation on the street corner. This is what I, I, and I don't, um, this could occupy the whole two hours, but like to just point out that, Hey, look, we have Sabbath movement within the Sabbath

command in scripture. We have movement within, you know, um, um, yeah, dietary laws and circumcision. Of course we do. Um, there's other ethical things that we don't have movement. There's other ones that we do have movement towards more strictness, you know? And so there's ethical trajectories moving all over scripture. We have to take the questions that we're actually asking in this conversation, the definition of marriage and whether or not sex difference is part of what marriage is and whether same-sex sexual relationships are ever intended by God. If we just look at the ethical trajectory throughout scripture, there's no, there's no, is part of what marriage is, and whether same-sex sexual relationships are ever intended by God. If we just look at the ethical trajectory throughout Scripture, there's no evidence that the New Testament is moving away or toward or against that specific ethical thing. So just to say it is with some ethical movements, therefore with this, it's like, therefore is just an absolute leap. You have to provide evidence for this specific ethical question.

So I think that's exactly correct. Would you agree then that with that explanation and with this last however many minutes of the conversation, we're all having to make those hermeneutical and ethical leaps. Because, so even if you say, okay, no, I heard you. I think I heard you clearly. Let me do good active listening and repeat to you what I think that I heard. The redemptive movement hermeneutic from William Webb,

if we want to use that framework, we see in very specific ethical teachings throughout the Bible with very clear biblical teachings of progress or movement away from or etc. And you can see that dietary Sabbath, circumcision, etc. Because we do not see that regarding same-sex behavior, therefore we cannot apply the same hermeneutical framework upon that moral issue or that ethical issue. Yeah.

Okay. So the converse argument would be, why? Why don't we? Why? Because just because you don't see, there could be hundreds of other moral or ethical things that we have to discuss that are advancing or changing or shifting or, and progressing. canon, right? And time and culture progress on. Why then does the progress and the contextualization of moral and ethical philosophy or moral and ethical theology only stop on the things that we see only in the Bible? Because the other side of the argument would be that limits then any moral or theological imagination for myriads of other possibilities to emerge into future contexts

and future cultures. And specifically with the sexual identity ethic or sexual behavior, with the sexual identity, ethic, or sexual behavior, the progress or the movement or the evolution of the culture may not necessarily match within the context of the canon of Scripture closing in the fourth century. I mean, consider that 400 years after Jesus, right? So you had 400 years of even that time of development. So the other side of the argument is watching developments play out and what makes the fourth centurymeneutics with these examples? And why can't that be applied to other moral and ethical issues? And I'm asking very sincerely, right? I'm not making an argument for. That would be the question. Why does it stop there? I mean, he went all into the canon formation. Sorry.

I mean, it's all part of the history, which is why this is an eight-hour conversation. And what I'm trying to get to, and I, oh man, I just need to stop and say thank you so much. I know this is far more time than we agreed to. So thank you so much. What I'm trying to get to is what are those grounding fundamental divergent principles? What are the things that keep us, what are the things that are truly separating us? And I see, at least from my understanding of your argument, is that there is a view of moral authority that the Bible has, and that view of moral authority needs to be paramount in our hermeneutic. And then I see on the other side of you that says the moral authority that we see in the Bible gives us the pathway for how we even create moral hermeneutics in the first place,

which then has a flexibility and a malleability, because we see that in the text, to then advance even into the future so that the church in the 21st century has a framework in, you know, Acts chapter 15 and others, where we recognize that there's higher priorities of commands. Jesus even says that there are greater and lesser commands. And in each particular time and context and place, we have to make these moral and theological choices. So I'm trying to figure out what's the divergence. And I see that at least as my understanding as the divergence of why these views will never meet because of that. That's what I want to understand.

I want to understand why is it that we can't come together? And does my explanation of why we can't come together, does that seem to make sense? We should have this conversation first because there's so many. Honestly, I might give some thoughts. I'm happy to... I kind of gave... Let me summarize my view

just so the audience can kind of maybe wrestle with it without us kind of tying the bow on it. I think that's a good idea. Okay. You already kind of summarized my view and I think that's a good idea. Okay, so you already kind of summarized my view, and I think that's correct, that we have various ethical trajectories moving throughout Scripture. Some move from prohibition to permission, some from permission to prohibition, some from, or some, there is no trajectory.

I don't see any ethical trajectory in terms of whether God's people should care for the poor. I don't see any ethical trajectory in terms of whether God's people should care for the poor. I don't see any ethical trajectory personally. This might upset my Republican friends, but whether God's people should care for the immigrant or the refugee. You know, I see that consistent. We see obvious trajectories in terms of dietary laws and other things. When it comes to sexual ethics, there is little to no trajectory that we can kind of follow as a pattern that launches us into doing ethics in the modern day, in our world today. If anything, there's a trajectory moving from more looseness, like with divorce being looser in the Old Testament, maybe even sex outside of marriage might be a little looser. And I see the movement moving back toward the Genesis 1 and 2 ideal, that God's vision for

marriage being one man and one woman that the New Testament is striving toward, not away from. So I don't see any, when we look at the different trajectories, sure, they're all over the place. It's called discontinuity and continuity. It's an age old, it's why we have dispensationalists and, you know, that's, this isn't a, this, this is a, again, a Bible college one-on-one kind of thing. But when we look at the specific trajectory of sexual ethics as a whole, specifically the definition of marriage, same-sex relationships, we don't see any internal biblical evidence for saying that God is changing his mind on that. So that would be, maybe just let the audience kind of like, okay, we've heard kind of both sides and sort out. I would say, I think you might be right that at least with some affirming and some traditional

writers that this hermeneutical question might be the crux. This is where I would say with a position like Bill Loader, who we agree across the board on what the Bible says about marriage and same-sex relationships, he just has a different approach to the role that the Bible plays in modern- moral authority. So I, this is why I so respect Bill. I'm like, you know what? I can, I can totally live with that. That's, I get it. And that's just a different approach to the Bible. And I think that's very consistent. I would kind of, I would have several other questions, you know, but what I don't maybe appreciate or what i'm very unimpressed with is when people try to make the bible through historical background or whatever give inaccurate evidence um within the bible that the bible itself

doesn't actually support traditional marriage or condemn same-sex sexual relationships like if you're going to be affirming i would say say do the Bill Loder thing. He's being super intellectually honest with the evidence. Don't try to spin the passages in a way that just isn't historically valid to say, oh, it's talking about cult prostitution when there's no evidence that it existed in first century Italy, let alone Rome or even Mediterranean world. So let me say that I completely affirm what you just mentioned. And this is actually part of Spark's ethic. Part of our ethic is that you cannot have these conversations if we're not going to be scholastically, intellectually, academically honest. And that's absolutely correct. So I completely agree with you. I've put, I don't know how many books in the wishlist as a result of this conversation that we've had over the last couple of weeks. And I've got some, I got some work to do,

but I do appreciate, I appreciate that greatly. And it is irresponsible. And this is one of the reasons why I appreciate you. It is irresponsible for people to have this conversation and just make stuff up to support their view. And can I just say that that happens on both sides? Yeah, absolutely. So I cringe at some of the traditional arguments sometimes. I'm like, that is just uninformed. If I don't mean to beat a dead horse, I heard you, I think even in your explanation with Bill

Loader, it does feel like, and again, I'm trying to get my brain wrapped around this, the divergence is what is ultimately that view of the moral authority of the Bible? Yeah. And the divergence is a non-affirming view sees the moral authority of the Bible in its specifics, in the specific moral and ethical teachings that it gives. An affirming view or a progressive view is going to see the moral authority of the Bible giving them a framework by which we make moral interpretations in the first place. I think that's right. I think that's right. Right.

That's the divergence. And this is super helpful, actually, to pinpoint where, because otherwise you're just going to keep speaking past each other. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I would say that. Yeah. I would say the Bill Loader's approach is you more. Well, I think people are. I think I've seen more and more affirming Christians go that route, I think, because they've seen that some of these historical arguments are just invalid. So for instance, I had a conversation, I had a terrible conversation on my part, not his, he did great, but with Brandon Robertson several years ago on a podcast. And I was, for whatever it's worth, I flew into London the day before, I was super jet lagged late to the interview, my head was just mush. And I just, I listened to that interview and it just, it was terrible. Anyway, but in the disagreement between Brandon and I,

Brandon's an affirming gay Christian, you know, it came down to like Jesus and everything. And he said, and I think I quote, if I misquote, then I'll, you know, correct it. But he said, it's pretty much irrelevant what Jesus believed about this. He would say like, yeah, of course, Jesus thought all same-sex relationships were wrong. But that's, to me, that's largely irrelevant. Even Jesus is in his own historical context, whatever, and he's blinded to know about orientation.

I think that was his point. And I'm like, hey, I so appreciate that. But I think that is our view of kind of the authority of the Bible or even Jesus. I think maybe that needs to be talked about. But what am I trying to say? That hasn't been traditionally how the affirming argument has been made, at least from the 80s into the early 2000s.

More and more, I'm moving to that more, the nature of authority. And I think that would be, I respect that view. I think it is more consistent and intellectually honest, even though I would disagree with, or at least want to dialogue about several assumptions. Well, Preston, we should probably bring it to a close. And I need to, again, you spent far more time with me

than we agreed to. I so appreciate it. I want to give you the last word. And if you have any summative thoughts or conclusions, I want to let you have last word. And if you have any summative thoughts or conclusions, I want to let you have the floor. Oh, man. I don't know. I just. This is really great, though. I mean, it took us a while to get there. But towards the end, we really got it was really, really good because, you know, for me, I just want to understand where where is this divergence from? What is really the thing that's causing this?

And so that last portion of the conversation was really, I think, really wonderful and hopefully illuminating for how we can have better conversations rather than, as I mentioned on stage, throwing rhetorical bombs at one another. I would just, that'd be my last word, is whatever side you're on, just try to genuinely listen to, in the most charitable way possible, where the other side is coming from and don't assume

motivations or this or that, you know, about how they're arguing their position on both sides. And I think Justin said it well, you know, not every traditional Christian is a homophobe that doesn't want gay people around. Like it's just simply not true. And not every affirming Christian is just not reading the Bible, you know, doesn't care about biblical authority. And let's have the discussion about, you know, maybe the reasons why we believe what we do

and try to learn from the other person too. I've learned so much from, I've been challenged. I mean, the reason why I've reflected so hard on the traditional views is because I've had so many pushbacks, but I've actually listened to them and read stuff and try to dialogue with people.

And it has, in my journey, reinforced my theological view more and more. But it came about through having, I think, genuine conversation. Awesome. Preston, thanks. You're amazing. I appreciate it. I really do. Thanks so much, Kevin, for having me on.

This is still just the beginning of a long conversation.