Theology in the Raw - 806: What Does the Term ‘Gay Christian’ Actually Mean? Dr. Greg Coles

Episode Date: July 30, 2020

GregColes is back! Actually, he never left. We just split our conversation into two parts. In our first conversation, Greg shared about his coming out story and what advice he'd give to parents with gay kids, and to gay Christians who are thinking of coming out. Speaking of "gay Christians," that phrase is super debated, misunderstood, and has become the subject of much turmoil in the evangelical community. Greg helps us understand what people mean and don't mean by the phrase. We also talk about other words and phrases like "homosexual," "the gay lifestyle," "practicing homosexual," "same-sex attraction," and "the gay agenda." And we discuss whether same-sex attraction, or "being gay," is itself a morally culpable sin from the perspective of a traditional Christian sexual ethic. Here's the blog series Greg and I referenced in the video: https://www.centerforfaith.com/blog/gay-vs-same-sex-attraction-a-dialogue Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Watch the podcast on YouTube Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

All right, I want to welcome back to the show my very good friend Greg Coles. In this episode, we are going to talk about the meaning of the phrase gay Christian. We're going to clear up some confusion. We're going to talk about why phrases like homosexual, the gay agenda, practicing homosexual are not the most helpful phrases in the conversation about Christianity and sexuality. If you haven't read his book yet, I would highly recommend Greg's book, Single Gay Christian, put out by IVP, InterVarsity Press. If you would like to support the show, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology into raw and support show for as little as five bucks a month. If you don't want to support, can't support, can't yet support, then please

consider leaving a review. And honestly, I've heard people say, go and leave a five-star review on my podcast. I don't want you to leave a five-star review unless you think it's worth five stars. You leave an honest review. If you think this podcast is full of crap, then leave a one-star review. I'd rather have honesty than a bunch of BS. So just leave a review.

And if you feel like this content is helpful, is engaging, is engaging, is challenging, you can also consider sharing it on social media. Like I was really dependent on you guys telling others about Theology in the Raw to help them to engage what I think has been engaging conversations. If you feel the same, then please consider sharing Theology on the Raw on your social media platforms. Okay, let's welcome back to the show into my basement. Sitting right next to me, we're sharing the same microphone, the one and only Dr. Greg Coles. I'm here. I'm back with my friend, Greg Poles.

Oh, I should do this. So it doesn't look like we just recorded two episodes back and forth. Oh, there you go. So this is my change about. Do I need to roll up my sleeves or something? You can show off your tat. Oh, yeah the verse again oh yeah so uh so it says uh which is uh it's it's the song of songs eight seven uh which means in english many waters cannot quench love and rivers cannot sweep it away that's such a wow okay i would love to unpack that but

we got to talk about it's true some other language related to homosexuality so um in the in the last i don't even like that term too much but anyway um if you haven't watched the previous video then i want you to go back and watch that if you listen to podcast um then go ahead and listen to the previous podcast with greg coles i'll try to put part one, part two. This is all post-production stuff that I haven't done yet, obviously. So in the last episode, we focused largely on your story, you coming out to your parents and how just people, especially parents should understand just the coming out experience.

And he also gave some thoughts on if you're a late teen, early 20-something, you're gay, you're a Christian, some advice to them on coming out. So if you missed that episode and would like to learn more about that, or if you want to get to know Greg and his awesome book here, Single Gay Christian. Is it? No, no, no. Other side. Other side. It's other side? Yeah. Oh, it's other side. There you go. Oh, hey, our faces blended together. Don't look too bad. Really? I mean, I should wear my glasses. We should do a hybrid. Yeah.

Let's talk about language. The term gay can be troubling for some people. And even in like evangelical circles in the last couple of years, three or four years, there's been a massive debate about whether somebody should ever use the term gay. debate about whether somebody should ever use the term gay, even if they hold to and are living by a traditional sexual ethic, there's something about that term gay that some people would find problematic. And I think there's some thoughtful people who have raised some good questions. And we'll get there in a second. But when you say the term gay, single gay Christian is the title of your book. Help us understand maybe the various ways in which the term gay can be used.

Maybe I definitely want to get into is being gay a sin or not? What's the relationship between gay or simply wrestling with same-sex attraction? Yeah, all that jazz. I'll just let you go for it. Beginning with what does the term gay mean? Well, so the fun thing about language, one of the reasons that I was able to get a PhD in English

and not feel like I had used up all of the field, all of the things that there were to say about rhetoric, about how language works in the world, is that language is just a wonderfully complicated thing. So when we say, what does the word gay mean? Maybe the more appropriate question is, to whom does the word gay mean? Who's listening and what do they understand the word to mean? So when I was growing up and looking for a word to describe the experience that I was having that was not the norm. And I searched online and in books for a word to describe it. Gay was the word that I found.

And that was the word that seemed to be prevalent in society. Of course, there's this thing that happens all across the world. It happens in the church and it happens outside the church where pretty much everyone seems to assume that if you are gay in your sexual orientation, that also means that you will be engaging in certain sexual activity that also goes by the name gay. And so all of those things can sort of get easily lumped into being gay. Or being gay means you're having gay sex. You want to get married to someone of the same sex. Like there's a whole package kind of deal. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. But the, but, but it's clear, it's clear that the word gay in society doesn't necessarily mean all of those things because otherwise it would be completely meaningless to ask a question like,

can someone be born gay? Because the idea, can someone be born having sex with someone of the same sex? No, it is a physical impossibility. The infant is incapable. So clearly, clearly the word gay in that context, simply can someone be born with the propensity to be attracted to the same sex is really all we mean. And even though I would generally say like by gay, I mean, attracted to the same sex, I would maybe even caveat that a little further and say like having the capacity or the propensity over the course of time to be attracted to the same sex when I'm attracted to anyone. Because for instance, at the moment I'm sitting in a room with one other person, he is male, um, and, and a delightful and very handsome fellow, but I am not currently

experiencing any same sex attraction. I'm sorry. You're very handsome at all. But, uh, but like, uh, I think, I think if, if we, if we imply that like to be gay is like to always be experiencing attraction that can lead to a sort of an over sexualization of gay people which i think often happens uh across the board but especially in the church actually when people begin to equate gay with sexual activity well it's like i'm straight which means i'm attracted to females that's 3.5 billion people on the planet am i just walking around slobbering after everybody? One hopes not. Although I have met some straight men who I wonder. But for some reason for straight people, when they hear gay or same-sex attraction, even

they don't give that same kind of a nuance to sometimes that term. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. So I think, uh, so I think it's, it's useful to distinguish the capacity to experience attraction to a specific experience of attraction, which could, of course, be an opportunity for temptation. And then we need to draw a line between temptation to lust, for instance, and actual lust. Um, uh, it seems to me fairly clear though. Granted, there are many, uh, many Christians in this conversation who I don't think are unintelligent. Um, but who would say like experiencing sexual temptation is itself already sinful. Um, do you want to name me? No, I will not name any names. I will simply say that I find that argument uncompelling. Good. Keep going there. Okay. Unpack. How about this? Why don't you step into the argument, unpack what it is, and then do your best to maybe dismantle, not dismantle,

respond to that argument. Sure. So the argument, as I understand it, and feel free to give more, you have more of the theological training than I. The argument goes thus, that there are temptations that come from outside of us, are there are temptations that come from outside of us and there are temptations that come from within us uh and this would this would largely the the idea of temptations coming from within being already morally culpable um is taken from uh from the book of james um which talks about like you know a a person is tempted when they are enticed by their own evil desire. I can't unfortunately quote the whole. There's like a desire giving birth to sin.

James 1, 15 and 16. Like, yeah, temptation when it is born. Wait, when it is fully grown, gives birth to. No, no, no. When does the fully grown happen? Oh, yeah. Temptation when it conceives gives birth to sin and sin when it is fully grown leads to death. There we go. Between the two of us, we can kind of the fully grown happen? Oh, yeah. Temptation, when it conceives, gives birth to sin. And sin, when it is fully grown, leads to death. There we go.

Between the two of us, we can kind of quote the epistle of James. Perfect. If I knew how to video edit, which I probably could figure out, I would have a verse. Put the text up there. There's a lower third right now. Maybe I'll do that. I don't know. And then we can check and see how correct we were in our recitation. If we're not, then we're screwed.

I'll have to do a jump cut. Yeah. Anyway, so tempt So, so, so temptations from outside and temptations from inside. And so, so, so these folks would say that, for instance, to know that Jesus is tempted, which, so that would be one of my arguments, like, like, you know, scripture says Jesus is tempted in every way, just as we are. And yet without sin, they would say like, Jesus was tempted from, from outside. He was tempted from without. And so, uh, that was a sinless form of temptation. Uh, but they would say temptation that comes from within that stems from the evil desire of the intrinsically fallen human

person that comes from our own, uh, total depravity to take the, to take the reform term here. Um, that that temptation is itself a morally culpable thing. Okay. Okay. I mean, that's like an Augustinian kind of more reformed reading, right? Sure. Not everyone reads Augustine that way.

But I've always found it. I mean, when I hear same sex attract, if gay means, let's just say gay is a synonym for being attracted to the same sex not the opposite sex okay that'd be a standard kind of base level um it at least means that yeah no more no less in term unless somebody fills fills in more of a definition um and yet so if gay means that then straight means being attracted to the opposite sex, not the same sex. So for me, it's just,

it's more of a categorical statement about which kind of human, whether the male kind or the female kind you're attracted. So in one sense, when I say I am straight, I do mean I'm attracted to females as a kind. When I say I'm straight, I'm like, that doesn't mean I'm only attracted to a very small subset of the female kind that I'm physically attracted to or whatever. It just means females, not males. So on a very broad categorical level, that can't be sin because I'm not attracted just

to my, I'm attracted to females, even though most of them I wouldn't even be tempted to lust after. So I don't know, just on that broad categorical level, that's how I've always understood same-sex attraction, which makes it hard to understand why that would be, again, a morally culpable sin. I have no problem saying it's a product of the fall in the same sense that, say, I don't know. I know we can get in trouble here, but maybe like a physical, even a psychological disability might be a product of a fall that isn't necessarily a morally culpable sin. I mean, resisting all of those analogies, because I mean, I'm perfectly comfortable saying it's a product of the fall in the same way that what we know as heterosexuality is a product of the fall. That seems to me a comparison that is quite apt here. But I would say I love I love how I'm winding up arguing for the inherent moral culpability of same sex orientation. Like to your to your earlier comment about like how can like how can just the general capacity to be to be attracted to guys be morally culpable in a way that the general capacity to be attracted to women isn't. Um, I think the, the argument that would be made here, um, is that in the, uh, that there's, there's no, there's no T loss for a sexual attraction to, uh, someone of

the same sex, um, that, that can be, that can be expressed in, in a biblically defined marriage between male and female. And so because there's no telos of that kind, that means that the only direction that that attraction can take you is a direction that is relevant. You're really stepping into that argument really well. I don't know if many people who even believe in that could articulate. So how would you respond to that, the last thing that sounds pretty well well so uh so so number one uh i would i uh i would challenge the question of the inherent moral culpability of being a product of the fall okay um so uh and and and this is uh so so at this point i don't i

don't think you have to agree with me on this point to potentially still agree with me that same sex orientation is morally culpable. But but this is a point where I would I would diverge with at least a good handful of my reformed brothers and sisters and siblings in that I would I would say I don't think that the fact that we are fallen is something for which we are morally culpable. So there's like a – No, please. I was going to say like in a sense there's very different theological anthropologies that maybe a reformed crowd and a more Wesleyan crowd are going to hold to. And that's going to affect how they understand this conversation. I think you or somebody made a joke earlier today like, well, if you're super i mean and i would i would lean reform so i'm not it's my camp okay um i mean it and because it's my camp i can kind of tease it a little bit you know it's like you

know for the super reformed camp it's like just breathing is simple like you're just just being human it's like your category for humanity is sure sinful which which just to tag onto that, I did. So I once had a conversation, um, with, uh, a dear, a dear sibling of mine, uh, with whom I disagree substantially. Um, this particular sibling has referred to me as a heretic before, but we have had some conversation on the subject. Yes. Um, and, uh, and in that conversation, this person, uh, read aloud to me a quote from my own book, um, where I'm wrestling with, uh with with sort of the discovery of being gay and wondering, like, does God hate me because of this? And I wrote I wrote that I hadn't I didn't remember choosing to be gay. And I wrote, is it possible to sin just by existing?

Is it possible to unwittingly defy God with every breath you breathe? And this person read aloud that quote to me and said, I'm sorry to tell you that the answer is yes. And I realized like, oh, like if you think the answer to that question is yes, like you are already in sin with every breath that you breathe. Well then, well then sure. Like tell me I'm in sin for being gay, but also tell me I'm in sin for wearing a t-shirt today. And again, again, we're not, we're not, I don't think we're going to solve the, the, the reformed Wesleyan, you know, differences in this conversation. So from my vantage point, I understand there are, I think even as you've articulated, there's some, I would say, good arguments in the sense that they have some deep theology.

They have verses there. I'm not going to like just say, oh, I can't believe anybody would ever believe. Like there's some there's some meat to it. And yet I would still. Well, I think there's other concerns, too, about the ontology. The ontological weight that is credited to somebody's humanity when you use a term, for instance, like gay Christian. It just linguistically feels like your Christian identity is placed side by side with something that should be much lower on the scale of

contributing to the ontological significance of who you are. And I know I'm getting, you can Google ontological. It's my word of the year, as you know, from editing some of my books. So let me just give my, where I was going with that. So from my vantage point, I can see the concerns with the term. I really do. And I might even fall on the side where you're at, but I can understand the concerns. I think some of them are really legitimate.

Some of them, I think, just haven't, they're kind of tone deaf. They haven't really understood what somebody's saying when they say the term gay Christian. But my big thing is let's not divide over this. I mean, this is kind of a distant secondary point to the larger conversation about sexual ethics, Christianity, the year 2020, when it means to be even hold to this really amish looking kind of sexual ethic

that you know a traditional ethic might be perceived as so let's come to the if we both agree on a traditional sexual ethic my goodness can we just say that everything else is kind of more secondary we can we can dialogue about it we can can even debate about it. We can get into forthright exchanges and then break bread, drink wine and hug and call each other not a heretic, but a brother and sister in Christ. Is that fair? I mean, is that any thoughts on that? Yeah. I mean, so I would certainly say like broadly, again, I understand people who think differently on this question. And I do think to the degree that those folks are willing to see somebody like me and say, we can absolutely still celebrate what we share in common. I think to the degree that we can manage to get unity in

Christ with each other, it seems like kind of a big deal to Jesus. Like he seems kind of excited about the prospect of his followers being unified. So I think if we can get there, even across differences of opinion that feel incredibly important to us, incredibly personal, I won't lie, there are people for whom it is really hard for me to get excited about the prospect of sharing eternity with them. And the fact that it is hard for me to get excited about the prospect of sharing eternity with them is precisely the reason why I need to lean into unity with them. That's good. I mean, there's probably not a Christian on earth who would, who if they're honest with themselves, wouldn't that like oh my god that person you know we all

have difficulty with other people within the broad camp of christianity um okay so uh the term gay christian specifically and i did talk to wes you thought you mentioned wes hill i talked to wes about this on a podcast a while back can you unpack um what okay so, and I still get a lot of people, maybe people watching, I'm sure like, okay, I get what you're saying, but that's just that term gay Christian. I just can't get my mind. Like why would you put your struggle right next to your Christian identity? This Christian identity is primary, it's pure, it's sinless, it's everything. Um, and then you're, you're pure, it's sinless, it's everything. And then you're front-loading

this experience you have, which must be subservient to your identity in Jesus. Why would you put that right next to the term Christian? You want to respond to that? I'm trying to mediate that concern. Sure, sure, sure. Yeah. Well, first of all, if your Christian identity is sinless, like, wow, remarkable. I've never met one before who was sinless. Amazing. I would much prefer myself to take the posture of Paul and saying like, ah, Christ came to save sinners of whom I happen to be the worst. But that question aside, so I think it's important when we talk about adjectives, it's important to understand that adjectives do a couple different kinds of things. Like there is not one kind of adjective in the world. So let me give you an example. Let's talk about cheese. So we have

cheese and we could say like, oh, like, is it yellow cheese or is it white cheese? And when we add those adjectives, we're not really altering what we would have generally understood by the word cheese. We're just giving more specific information about the kind of, we're not really altering what we would have generally understood by the word cheese. We're just giving more specific information about the kind of cheese we're talking about. But let me add a different adjective. So you're not elevating the whiteness of the cheese over the cheesiness of the cheese because you said white before cheese. Well, I'm just giving you, like I've given you a broader category and I'm giving you a little more specific information, but let me give you a different kind of adjective put in front of the word cheese.

Toe cheese. Ew. Which, and suddenly, suddenly we've added an adjective and it has had the power to fundamentally change the substance of the noun. Now, this is, I'm sorry, you're trying to drink coffee. Well, because I was imagining, I love cheese. I used to love cheese until five seconds ago. And I was imagining this block of, you know, like I was even thinking like, yeah, this cheddar would be cheddar. And then he said, toad cheese.

Well, and it cannot be real with you. Honestly, I think that's how a lot of straight people react when they hear the word gay Christian. Wow. They take this thing that they love so much. And then they put something in front of it that frankly disgusts them, and all of a sudden, they can no longer conceive of,

but the important thing is that they take the adjective as fundamentally changing the nature of the noun. Okay. They thought they knew what the noun meant, and then all of a sudden, the adjective is there, and all of a sudden, the noun is twisted to mean something entirely different. Now, this is a thing. This is a thing that is very possible to do with the word

Christian. Absolutely. And sometimes it's possible for us to do it with the word Christian, even with adjectives that would otherwise be potentially neutral. Let me give us an example. Let's talk about American Christians. I would posit to you that there are two kinds of American Christians in the world. There are those who are giving us a broad category. I'm Christian. And then they're saying, ah, also let me give you some information that may be helpful with regard to my nationality. My national identity, I have an American passport or maybe I have never left the country and have no passport, but I have an American citizenship. And so that's useful information. And it's in fact, if you live in America, I think you should acknowledge the fact that you're an American Christian, because I think it's important for you to think through the question of how your national identity relates to what your obedience to Jesus is going to look like. But I have also met a different kind of

American Christian in my life. And it's the kind whose Americanness seems to so fundamentally inform what they think it means to follow Jesus, that somehow Jesus is really excited about making sure that America is the number one country in the world. And Jesus is really excited about the prospect of us going off to kill people in other nations to make sure that Americans are absolutely kept safe at all costs. And Jesus is really excited about America getting more and more prosperous at the expense of the nations around us. The idea that Jesus is in favor of those things is so antithetical to the gospel that to be that kind of American Christian is to fundamentally be a kind of Christian

that I no longer recognize as a follower of Christ. And yet the same phrase can be used by both people, American Christian, American. Are you a Korean Christian? South American? What kind of Christian? Oh, no, I'm an American Christian. That would be the more softer, like, okay, you're wondering about where I happen to live, my national identity, however that plays a role.

But the other one is more like, clearly, their primary identity is American and Christianity is sort of, it's almost like Christianity, Christian becomes the adjective to color the noun a little bit. So that's super helpful. So when you say, so again, for somebody who holds to a traditional sexual ethic, it does bewilder me, I'll be honest, that somebody like yourself can be very counter-culturally convinced that the Bible defines marriage is between a man and a woman. And out of allegiance to that Christian teaching, say I'm committed to celibacy because of this. Clearly your gayness is not on the throne.

And yet somebody could still, I mean, do you still get that? Like Greg, your gayness is not on the throne. Jesus is on it still i mean do you still get that like greg your gayness is not on the throne jesus is on it that's got to be so disheartening to hear that like i don't know i just don't have a category quibble about the language all you want some of those quibbles are worthy to have sure but to tell somebody who is maintaining a traditional sexual ethic that their your gayness shouldn't be on your throne.

I don't call myself an adulterous Christian, is how some people, you know, the analogy they give, which is problematic for many reasons. Yeah, is that... Well, I mean, it's frustrating, you know, it's irritating. But here's actually the thing I dislike about it the most is that I think it's actually spiritually dangerous because I think the more people tell me, Greg, I've heard you use these words and here's what they are doing to you. Here's what is happening in your soul right now. Functionally, those voices become in my life,

the voices of the accuser with a capital A who is speaking words of death into me. And, and, and there, there is a time when, when my mind will hear those things over and over again and be like, you know what? Like everybody says I already lost. So like, why not just prove them right? Yeah, no, totally. And, and, and I would add in addition to that, like, so, so I think part of the reason that, that the phrase gay Christian is so, so much debated is that it is – it's ambivalent. It has multiple kinds of possibility and power in the same way that something like American Christian does. And so there is very much a way in which it is possible to take one's gayness and to make that the defining feature that so fundamentally alters the nature of what you call Christian faith, that it ceases, in, in the email, I remember writing, um, I think I didn't even

plan it this way, but I, in passing I used, I was referring to Christians who had gone through a divorce and yet linguistically, sometimes it's easier in passing to say, you know what? I know some divorce Christians that are, that know, that have a healthier view of marriage than some Christians who haven have been divorced. And I didn't plan it that way. But then I came back and said, and I don't know if you noticed, but I just used the phrase divorced Christians there. Not because I was trying to elevate their divorcedness and bake it into their identity as a primary category. It's just linguistically, rather than saying a Christian who has gone through a divorce, a Christian who has gone,

divorced Christian essentially means the same thing. It's just more linguistically expedient. Is that, I mean, when I use the term gay Christian, oftentimes I catch myself now because I know some people are like, they won't listen to anything I say if I use that phrase. But when I say it, that's all I mean. It's like, well, I could spell a Christian who wrestles with same sex, you know, but it's just is that okay linguist from a linguistic perspective is that are there other categories or analogies you can give that we do that all the time i mean uh well white cheese is a great one well you didn't like it so much when i started there um i yeah i mean uh yeah you white cheese cheese that is white um uh and and

it's and i mean that happens in so many languages, Greek, for instance, a language that Preston and I share a common love for. There, there are two, two positions that you can put an adjective in where you want to modify a noun. There's the one where you put the adjective before the noun. And there's the one where you put article noun, article adjective, the cheese, the one that is white is how you would translate it. If you wanted to keep the word order from Greek and bring it into English. But there's no sense, like when we are translating Greek into English, there's no sense in which accurate translation would be like, well,

you see here, like, clearly, like, because it was put before in this case, that means it's fundamentally altering the substance of the noun. And if it's put afterward, that means it's not. No, I mean, there may be some sense of emphasis potentially depending on the passage. I think depending on the passage, you'd really have to crawl on all fours to make it word order. But as far as Greek grammar is concerned, really, they're just grammatically equivalent structures. And the same is true in English. grammatically equivalent structures. And the same is true in English.

What about, so I've often heard that even the term same-sex attraction or SSA, the acronym, that that's not really a neutral phrase because it was kind of birthed in the cauldrons of, I'm mixing metaphors, birthed in the delivery room of, you know, ex-gay therapy for lack of better terms. It has been kind of traumatic for some people. Have you heard that? Do you have any thoughts on SSA? People say, why don't you just say you're same-sex attracted? Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's an argument that I make in my book about why I chose not to use the term. I mean, I think it's worth noting that prior to the arrival of ex-gay

ministries, it was perfectly normal to use the word homosexual, which was the prevalent term at the time in the same way that the word gay is now the more prevalent term. So C.S. Lewis, for instance, writes a letter about a pious male homosexual, by which he means a person experiencing same-sex attraction, a celibate gay Christian. But that was the language he had at the time. You know, a person experiencing same-sex attraction, a celibate gay Christian.

But that was the language he had at the time. The emphasis on language as the primary thing that people needed to change in order to become acceptable really came with the ex-gay movement. And it was especially leaned in on once the ex-gay movement began to realize like, oh, crap, like we're not actually making people straight straight. But we can at least claim them as success stories if we can be able to say that they are no longer gay and define that as they no longer identify themselves as gay and so it becomes a way a shift in identity rather than a change of attraction right right and so there was a sort of a moving of the goalposts by the ex-gay ministries to say like, here's how we can produce successes, even though we're not actually producing the thing that people think we're producing, which is heterosexuals. Ah, okay. Good, good. But yeah, let's see. We're at 30 minutes.

Let's do some quick ones on language. Okay. You mentioned her homosexual. Most, especially younger people don't prefer to be called a homosexual. Do you have any thoughts on that? What's, what's, uh, how is, I don't want to put your words in your mouth, even though I know what words are going to come out of your mouth, but for somebody that might be like, whoa, I can't say homosexual. What, what advice would you give to somebody on that, on that term? Yeah, well, so homosexual was, it feels like, it feels like an old term. It tends to feel like a clinical term. And it's actually not uncommon in English that if you take an adjective and then you put an article in front of it and make it substantival. So by which I mean, like, take the adjective homosexual and make it the homosexuals or take the adjective black as a descriptor of race and make it the blacks. Or both of which are constructions that most

of us can recognize, by the way, if you're like, Oh, what's wrong with saying the blacks or the homosexuals, please don't because they're both considered really offensive, but those constructions are recognized as offensive, um, more readily. But the thing about homosexual, even, even as an adjective instead of as a noun, um, is that it tends to feel clinical. It tends to feel old and sort of distanced and removed. And in fact, because most gay people don't prefer the word homosexual, there was once like this web app that was created by a conservative Christian to substitute the word homosexual for the word gay

every time it appeared in online articles. You could get like a plugin for your web browser so that when the word gay showed up, it would just substitute it for homosexual. Why? They just didn't like the word gay? Because they were like, oh, because like gay is clearly like the ideological.

And it was almost like a stick it to the man kind of thing. Like we know you would rather we call you this. So we're going to call you that instead. So it was at least self-aware enough that they knew there was a difference. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Because you prefer this term, we're not going to use it. And I feel like, and this is, this is true for homosexual, but it's true for so many words in this conversation. It can be really easy to get sort of caught up and even terrified by the idea of like, there are so many things I could say wrong. I can't say anything at all. I probably shouldn't talk to anybody who's

gay because I might offend them. Like the more important thing is to have a posture that says like, Hey, like help me understand what words are honoring to you. If I use a word that you don't prefer, let me know. And I'll try to use different words. Um, it's more the posture than the actual word. Oh, absolutely. And, and I mean, just to give an example of this, not to take us too far afield here. Um, but, um, uh, with, with regard to the question of using the pronouns that trans people identify themselves with, which is something that I've literally written an article for Preston that probably got him in a little bit of trouble, but explaining why I think it's really, really valuable for us, regardless of what we think about gender identity ethics, I think it's really

valuable for us to use the pronouns by which people identify themselves as a way of honoring them. Um, now, so I made this argument, I believe this argument with every fiber of my being, but still when I'm talking to trans friends, especially trans friends who have just recently switched and, and begun to say like, Hey, like I'm going through this process. I would now prefer they, them pronouns for myself. I can be absolutely 100% there with my heart and say like, great, I would love to do that. And still the habit is just so much within me. I do it all the time. I screw it up all the time.

And, you know, and I can think of a time just a couple months ago, I was with a trans friend and I kept accidentally using the wrong pronouns. And, you know, I apologized the first time and they very graciously said like, no worries, you know? And they said like, I appreciate the fact that you're trying. And after that, like sometimes I got it right. Sometimes I screwed it up and was just like, she, no, I mean they, you know? And then I just, and over time I got more in the habit. But the important thing for my relationship with that person was not, they, they weren't looking at me and waiting for me to screw up. So they could be like, how dare you? But the fact that I was willing to say like, how can I use language in a way that honors you in a way that demonstrates my love for you?

Like it, it was that that was significant to our relationship. How about the term gay, the gay lifestyle thoughts on that? relationship. How about the term gay, the gay lifestyle thoughts on that? Uh, I mean, there's, uh, what, what, what even is a gay lifestyle? You know, like Neil Patrick Harris and I are both gay. We both have lifestyles, but they're like different sorts of lifestyles. Uh, you know, Preston has a straight lifestyle, but it's a little different than Madonna's straight lifestyle. You know, what do we mean by lifestyle? Uh, what we seem to functionally mean is like engaging in same sex sexual behavior. But the unwillingness to name that, the pattern of trying to talk circuitously around something instead of simply naming the thing, it tends to create some stigma around the thing itself. It's actually a bit of a shaming move to say, this is something so heinous that I can't even name it. And so I'm going to come up with euphemisms. I'm going to euphemize it out of

existence. That's how it feels. I don't know if anybody intentionally does that, but that's, it comes off like- I think that's part of the, well, I mean, part of the reason is just like, what is a gay lifestyle? Like there are so many of us we live very very very stereotyping, right? It's very like right as if there were exactly one way to be gay So so that's like it's conceptual problem But even beyond that I think there's there's a there's a problem with euphemism Written broadly that anytime we euphemize the thing that it indicates is I can, I can't speak the name of this thing to you.

Interestingly, getting back to the word gay just briefly, this is, I think, part of the power that I've found in naming my orientation as gay. And part of the reason that some other people are like, no, no, no, don't say it, is because they have an expectation that like, oh no, like if we give the thing the name, then that's going to be terrible. Like we must euphemize it. But the reality with language is that if you're never willing to speak the name of something, then it becomes sort of the eternal antecedent that you can never speak, but it's always understood. Kind of like if you remember, yeah, it's the he who must not be named. We can't talk about it and because

we can't name it it has that much more power over us and so for me my sexuality had so much more power over me when it was the thing that i could not speak aloud and as soon as as soon as i developed the capacity to just say like i'm gay i'm yeah it didn't become all this overpowering kind of i I mean, yeah, we all have struggles and I'm sure it doesn't make you straight. I have by no means arrived. No,

I tell you it makes sense. It's with anything, right? I mean, if you have an addiction, maybe you've had, you're a victim of abuse of past. I mean, naming that thing can be a step towards,

um, uh, almost like healing because in certain contexts it might be healed, but a step towards uh healthy living in light of your experience and certainly and certainly there's healing to be had like like when i say like i'm suspicious of people who are like you're gay you need healing you know i'm suspicious of the idea that like becoming straight is healing but like certainly i need healing in my life on such a variety of realms you know um i i just don't think that like

the healing i need is becoming straight i think the healing i need is like jesus to move more deeply in my heart to strip away the layers of sin and to make me more like him okay practicing homosexual are you practicing homosexual i love that you just crack up though there's certain people that i think there's people not like what's he laughing at like i mean yeah practicing hey well i think this construction is funny about a number like obviously we say other things like practicing law and i think that's funny like i i mean yeah practicing hey well i think this construction is funny about a number like obviously we say other things like practicing law and i think that's funny like i chuckle at all of them but practicing homosexual in particular uh it makes it sound like i need practice i always

feel like no like i didn't need to practice like this at all it's just kind of happened um uh you're quite good at being gay just A natural gift. What can I say? No, but again, I think beyond that, I think the problem with that phrase, in addition to – it's sort of like gay lifestyle. I mean it has a different set of issues. Yeah, very similar. It's the problem that euphemizing the thing means that you can't just have a conversation about what we're trying to say. We can't just have a conversation about what we're trying to say. And again, if you're saying practicing homosexual, well, again, we don't love the word homosexual, but are you saying that to be homosexual or gay in orientation, to live out that thing in any way at all is inherently to have sex?

Because if so, what you're doing is, again, looking at someone like me and saying, well, obviously the only thing you should do with your orientation is go have sex. In which case, again, your voice becomes the voice of the accuser being like, well, here's what you might as well do because you're already there. Whereas I would say, au contraire, like I absolutely think that it is possible to have a same-sex orientation and yet live in a way that is honoring to God. And the way that is honoring to God, as I understand it, does not involve sex with, uh, sex outside the covenant of marriage at all. Um, and so, so, so to, to, to use a phrase that implies that the auto, that the, that the only, the only possible end for my sexual orientation is in sexual physical behavior. Um, it has an unintentional, it's sort of like an automatic condemnation in the same way that the

gay lifestyle is like, well, Greg's gay. Like there's only one lifestyle he can live. Like, no, the whole point is to discover, like, how do I within the unique experience of the world that I have, how do I get to follow Jesus? How do I get to reflect the glory of God in my life? Let's do one more. The gay agenda. All of these have overlapping by now. I mean, yeah.

So all the things we've already said, et cetera, and so forth. I mean, number one, gay agenda makes it sound like we have these meetings and get together like all of us somewhere. And I've never been invited to one. But another problem that I have with that phrase is that it seems to assume that if there are things that gay people all share as wanting in common to see happen in the world, that those are inherently bad things that Christians need to oppose. If there is such a thing as a gay agenda that every gay person I know wants to see happen in the world, that gay agenda includes things like decreasing anti-LGBTQ bullying in schools. It includes things like getting homeless LGBTQ kids off the streets.

Which if you're human, let alone Christian, you should be like, okay, that's probably good. Yeah, I hope that you want to get the LGBTQ homeless kids off the streets. I hope that you want to see suicidality among LGBT kids fall. Those are the things that are on the gay agenda

if such a thing could exist. Even if you disagree with the means by which some people are trying to accomplish that, you can be the most conservative Christian, whatever, and still say

there are some end goals here that are also resonating with Christianity, even if it's just fundamental disagreements with some various pathways on how to get there. Absolutely. And in that case, by euphemizing it and making it something that we don't talk about, we miss the opportunity to find common ground, even with people who think really differently than us on a lot of questions, on

faith broadly, on sexual ethics. There are still ways in which we can partner with those people and say like, hey, I see that this is a real matter of concern for you, that you have a heart for the marginalized, homeless LGBTQ kids that you are seeing on the streets. Hey, guess what? I know a Jesus who also has a heart for the marginalized. Let's work together to see how we can help that group of people. And I've seen people partner in that way. And it's a beautiful thing. I have a little video clip of Jim Dim daly president of focus on the family you know not your bastion for liberal ideals right

um and he he got together and befriended uh ted trimpa who is uh i know he's a gay activist i don't know if he had a political position whatever in colorado to i think it was to fight against a growing concern about sex trafficking going on in colorado to i think it was to fight against a growing concern about sex trafficking going on in colorado wow and they shared together at the q conference i have a little clip it's like a two-minute clip and it's it's just beautiful because you hear um not only did they come together and fight a common thing but presuppositions were deconstructed here's ted trippa like and his friends are like you're going to meet with focus on the wet like you you know and and then they became friends.

And I think he might have even lost friends over. I can't verify that. But then he started tearing up almost talking about how when he was having open heart surgery and they flew him to like New York, the one person that flew out there and stood by his side was Jim Daly. really wow and he said yeah i he and he even said ted who's not a believer says like you know jim i felt the presence of god in you because you i your friendship i knew was 100 genuine and i it was it was a beautiful like i don't know how you can be a christian and not say like that is a beautiful thing and they and they even said in that clinic they they fun like we fundamentally disagree on something okay and it has an important aspect of my life you know ted but like we can't have a friendship across that because we have found some kind of common human

ground here. It doesn't mean we absolutely doesn't mean we, we, we lose our convictions or lighten up on our beliefs, you know, but we can still have, be passionate about certain areas of common ground while holding onto our differences. How much do we need that in 2020? I'm not kidding. I almost went political, but we're out of time, folks. Any last words on language? Somebody listening that wants to understand the language.

Do you know any blog exchanges that unpack the term gay and same-sex attraction? You know, it's funny that you should mention that. I do know a blog exchange that happened on the Center for Faith website between myself and Rachel Gilson, who is a singularly delightful human being. She works for Crew. And so she does not prefer the term gay.

She would describe herself as same-sex attracted to the degree that she describes herself as anything other than happening to be married to a man. And so she and I had a good back and forth and we ended that back and forth. We wrote, you know, three posts back and forth, but then we ended by co-writing a post about sort of our hopes for the future, kind of landing on that note of the value of unity. I'll put it in the show notes. If you don't see in the show notes right now, it's because I just flat out forgot.

So drop a comment in the YouTube thing and I'll post it there. So for those listening on podcast, I think I'm supposed to say, it's so hard to do both for me. I got to get in the rhythm of doing both. So you've been listening to Theology in the Raw. Join us next time. If you want to support this show on Patreon, you can go to patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. And I guess if you're listening or watching on YouTube, you can do the same thing. You can go to patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw, support the work that we're doing here. Greg, thanks for hanging out in my basement.

Oh yeah, thanks for having me in your basement. Let's do it again sometime. Absolutely. Next time you're in Bo Absolutely. All right. Peace out. I hope you enjoyed this conversation with Greg Coles. If you would like to watch it, you can go to my YouTube channel, Press the Sprinkle, subscribe to my YouTube channel. And a lot of these podcasts that you're listening to were previously released as YouTube Conversations. I'm trying to tackle both platforms because I know some people love one much more than the other. And so if you would like to go and see me and Greg banter around in my book-filled basement,

my book-filled basement, you can go to my YouTube channel, PrestonSpindle.com. Again, please consider supporting the show through Patreon, patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. Support the show for as little as five bucks a month. Get access to premium content once a month, blogs, podcasts, and access to the theology in the raw community. All right. We will see you next time on the show.