Theology in the Raw - S2 Ep1093: Does the Bible Support Same-Sex Marriage, Part 2: Preston Sprinkle

Episode Date: July 13, 2023

Does the Bible Support Same Sex Marriage, part 2, continues our discussion from the last episode. In this episode, I address the top 5 arguements (that my Patreon suppporters voted on) agianst the traditional view of marriage, which include: 1) Is this simply a secondary "agree to disagree" issue? 2) does the ethical trajectory regarding women and slavery suggest that same-sex sexual relationships are on the same trajectory toward acceptance? 3) did consenual same sex sexual relationships even exist in biblical times? 4) Love is love; why can't gay people experience love? 5) isn't the traditional view of marriage harmful toward LGB poeple? You can preorder my book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Does-Bible-Support-Same-Sex-Marriage/dp/0830785671/ref=zg_bs_271630011_sccl_1/147-3145573-9069658?psc=1

Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. This is part two of my short two-part miniseries on Does the Bible Support Same-Sex Marriage? 21 Conversations from a Historically Christian Perspective. This is a brief overview of a book that I have coming out by the same title, Does the Bible Support Same-Sex Marriage? You can grab it on Amazon now. You can pre-order it, but it comes out on August 1st. So I encourage you to please check it out if you find this podcast episode and the previous one helpful at all. So in the previous one, I surveyed the first two chapters, or as I call them, foundations. The first foundation, I cover how we overview of what is the historically Christian view of marriage that I'm responding from. Okay, so the rest of the book, some of which we're going to dabble in here in this episode, the rest of the book covers responses to the traditional view of marriage or arguments for the Bible supporting same-sex marriage. And I take the top, what I see

is kind of the top 21 of those arguments that I've experienced over the years. And I give a somewhat brief response to each one. So in this podcast episode, I actually reached out to my Patreon supporters and gave them my table of contents and said, hey, of these 21 conversations, of these 21 arguments, which five would you like me to kind of give an overview on in the podcast? So that's what we're going to do today. We're going to cover the top five that my Patreon supporters voted on. So that's what we're going to do. Let's dive in. so the number one uh argument voted on was actually one of the only uh quote-unquote arguments it's not technically an argument for same-sex marriage um it has to do with what i well i label it conversation 20 this is towards the end of the book.

And it's titled, It's an Agree to Disagree Issue. Is the question of same-sex marriage versus traditional or historically Christian marriage between a man and a woman, is this debate kind of a secondary issue? Something that Christians can agree to disagree on? Can we even maybe have churches that hold two different views to preserve the unity of the church? Is this, again, not really a gospel issue, kind of more of a secondary or less important issue than other doctrines of the faith? So that's what I address in Conversation 20. Here's how I set it up. And again, I explained this in the previous podcast episode, but I'll repeat it here. So

in my response to all these arguments, what I do, each response comes in three parts. Number one, I try to give a summary of the argument where I do my best to represent the argument to the point to where somebody who is using this argument would very much agree with how I'm representing it. So I try my best to steel man the argument rather than try to straw man it so I can just push it over. Then the next short section is I find some points of agreement. What are some things that I find to be valid with this argument? And then the third section in this conversation and in every conversation is my response to the actual argument. So here's how I sum up this argument. Again, this isn't technically

like an argument for same-sex marriage. It just kind of comes up in the conversation, so I did want to address it. Here's what this argument says. According to this argument, the issue of same-sex marriage is not an essential doctrine in the Christian faith, but a gray area that Christians can agree to disagree on. We see similar disagreements in scripture, even over important matters, like keeping the Sabbath or observing Jewish dietary laws. Paul's pastoral advice to the strong and weak in Romans 14 and 15 serves as a relevant paradigm. Churches today should take a similar third way approach to gay marriage. And I think the phrase third way, I think it was coined originally by Pastor Ken Wilson. Last time I checked, Ken was a pastor out in Michigan. I've had some brief

interactions with Ken. They've always been very delightful and strikes me. I've never met him in person, but it strikes me as a guy who just has a really soft heart towards people. And I think I even say in a blog I wrote a while back about Ken's book that Ken seems like the type of person that I'd want at my bedside if I was dying. I would want someone like Ken Wilson at my bedside. Seems like a really very loving and thoughtful person. So Pastor Ken Wilson writes, a third way approach departs from the, quote, open and affirming and the, quote, love the sinner, hate the sinner approach by regarding the question of whether and how the biblical prohibitions apply in the case of monogamous gay relationships as a disputable matter in the Romans 14 to 15 sense. That's what Ken Wilson says. So, at the end of the day, Paul seems to prioritize unity in the Romans 14 to 15 sense. That's what Ken Wilson says. So, at the end of the day,

Paul seems to prioritize unity in the church, and so should we. So, what are some points of agreement that I find with this argument? Well, first of all, I really love the passion this argument has for the unity of the church. And I appreciate that because I was, my sort of upbringing in the Christian faith didn't really prioritize unity. It was kind of like, in fact, I remember people saying, you know, truth at all costs, unity if possible, which often meant unity was rarely pursued if there was any kind of like disagreement over kind of anything really, or, you know, not everything, anything, but many things we can find a reason to disagree and not be unified over.

So I, again, I've had to groan to appreciate the Bible's emphasis on unity from passages like John 17, Philippians 2, and many other passages, you know, seem to prioritize the unity of the church a lot higher than how I learned from some Christians going up. So over the years, over the last, especially 15, 20 years, really, I mean, I've loved hanging out with Christians with different viewpoints, Catholics, Protestants, Armenians, Calvinists, egalitarians, complementarians, Republicans, Democrats, independents, Christian anarchists, and everything in between. I really do enjoy preserving the unity of the faith across disagreement. And if you listen to this podcast for more than five seconds, you can probably gather.

I don't mind. In fact, I actually kind of thrive on interacting with people that have differing viewpoints. And I love to kind of learn on interacting with people that have differing viewpoints. And I love to kind of learn both sides. And I'm not afraid of hanging out with people that I don't see eye to eye on on every issue. So I very much appreciate the heart behind this argument that prioritizes the unity of the faith. And honestly, I feel like early on in my journey in the LGBTQ conversation as a whole, I was drawn to a third way approach because I was early on in my journey, especially I feel like my categories are just being shattered.

I was meeting people that I was told were evil people and I'd meet them and they're super kind and generous and loving. And I was told that every same sex couple is just wicked and them and they're super kind and generous and loving. And I was told that every same-sex couple is just wicked and evil and they're probably running around killing people in back alleys or whatever. And I'd meet a same sort of assumptions and categories I had going into the conversation were just constantly being destroyed after meeting real people. Imagine that. You meet real people and your assumptions are sometimes challenged. So I remember coming across some third way kind of thinkers and hanging out with them. And I was, I was like, man, I, I, I'm drawn to this, but at the end of the day, I'm always gonna ask the question, like, is this biblical?

A third way approach to, uh, the question of marriage is this, does this resonate with scripture? So that's where I'm going to go now to, so my response to this, um, to this viewpoint that again, disagreeing over the question of marriage, specifically whether sex difference is part of what marriage is, um, that this is a secondary issue. Perhaps the scriptures aren't crystal clear or they're just not as clear as they should be and can give us license to treat this as a gray area. Or some people might read scripture this way, another person might read it another way. And we can say, well, both readings are kind of valid.

another way. And we can say, well, both readings are kind of valid. I might lean one direction or another, but this is unclear enough in Scripture that we can consider it an agree to disagree or secondary matter. So, let me just state up front, let me say no longer think that this is simply an agree to disagree issue or is a secondary matter similar to how Paul treats maybe, well, for sure, the dietary laws, but also maybe matters surrounding the Sabbath. Sabbath's a little bit trickier, but yeah, I don't think that the question of sex difference in marriage should be seen along those lines, okay? Now, some of you disagree. Some of you are really upset that I would even say that. So let me explain why I hold to this view. First of all, Scripture treats marriage and sexual relations as a pretty significant part of the biblical story. So we're not just dealing with a few fringe verses here and there. That's what people say. Isn't it just a few verses in Leviticus? We don't read the

rest of Leviticus and in Romans. And then you got some disputed Greek word in 1 Corinthians and then Timothy and that's it. So it's like, why is this a big issue? There's only a handful of disputed verses that we're going on. But if you listen to my previous podcast episode, the question of marriage is so much bigger than just a handful of disputed verses surrounding same-sex sexual relations. The basic essence of marriage is woven into the fabric of the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 along with other primary themes. I mean, think about Genesis 1 and 2, which is, I mean, anyone who's an expert in the scriptures, anyone, there's always a, everything's debated. But most people who read the Bible say, whether you believe the Bible or not, the way the Bible is framed has a significant priority on Genesis 1 and 2. The creation account lays a

significant foundation for a Christian worldview. Again, whether you choose to believe that or not, I'm just, people just look at this up, even non-Christian scholars would say objectively, the way the Bible is organized puts a premium on Genesis 1 and 2. This is a significant contribution to a biblical worldview. It's in Genesis 1 and 2 where we see these seemingly contradictory characteristics of God that he is so utterly sovereign. Or in the words of Karl Barth, he is holy other, Genesis 1 has that emphasis. You have this God just speaking creation into existence. But then you turn the page in Genesis 2, and now this sovereign God is like, you know, playing in the dirt, almost quite literally, well, metaphorically. He's, you

know, forming Adam from the dust of the ground. He's breathing life into his nostrils. He's walking in the garden. Like, we see this profound intimacy to the point to where people say that the God presented in Genesis 2 is very different than the God presented in Genesis 1. And I would say a foundation to the Christian understanding of God is that he is both utterly sovereign and profoundly intimate and near to us. It's in Genesis 1 and 2. We're right out of the gate. We learn these really dual, important characteristics of God. The goodness of creation.

Why Christians should absolutely care for the environment. Why we don't see material creation as evil, but good. That comes from Genesis 1. The full equality of men and women, that in the image of God, he created the male and female, he created them. That is one of the most profound statements about human nature in all religious history, Genesis 1.27. We learn about the mandate to steward God's creation in

Genesis 1.26-28. So, and on and on it goes. I mean, but intertwined with these really fundamental themes of Christianity is this theme, as I laid out in the previous podcast episode, that sex difference among humans in general and in marriage in particular, that this is woven into the very foundational fabric of Genesis 1 and 2. So, that's one reason why I think challenging that is actually more significant than simply an agree to disagree issue. Like we wouldn't say, oh, yeah, God made creation good. And other people say, no, I think it's evil. And say, well, there's different readings on this.

I guess you read it that way. I read it this way. We can kind of agree to disagree that creation was good in God's eyes. We wouldn't do it over God's sovereignty and intimacy. We wouldn't say if somebody says, no, I believe God's sovereign, but not really near to us. Another person's like, no, I think God's near to us, but he's not really sovereign. We wouldn't see that as an insignificant issue. I mean, all the things I've talked about, the equality of men and women, we wouldn't see these as

insignificant issues or something we can kind of agree to disagree on. So I would say, I would just add to that, the fact that sex difference among humans and into marriage, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, the fact that it's woven into the fabric is one reason why I don't see this as an agree to disagree issue. Secondly, some people say, well, yeah, but all of this is debated. The five prohibition passages are debated. The Greek terms, arsenakotes and malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6, 9 are debated. The meaning of Romans 1 is debated. It's all debated. The Greek terms, arsenakotes and malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6, 9 are debated. The meaning of Romans 1 is debated. It's all debated. Leviticus 18 was debated. The fact that there's so much debate that surrounds these important passages would suggest that it's just, well, it's just not as clear as it could have been, maybe. And so, we can agree to

disagree. The problem with this though is everything is debated in the Bible. Like that's just, and I guess I was slapped in the face with this when I entered into my PhD program and people were debating, or you start reading commentaries and books and monographs, and you realize it seems like every verse of the Bible is debated by smart people. That's just true. Do you know? I mean, so first, yeah, I can give you an example. My PhD dissertation topic that I spent three and a half years researching hours a day was titled The Interpretation of Leviticus 18.5b. 18.5b, like the last half of Leviticus 18.5, The Interpretation of Leviticus 18.5b in early Judaism and in Paul. And I spent three and a half years trying to figure out the meaning of Leviticus 18.5b and how it was understood in early Judaism and understood in Paul.

Paul quotes it in Romans 10, Galatians 3. It's used throughout Judaism. Anyway, doesn't matter. But the point is, is like all my colleagues, all my fellow PhD students were doing something similar.

They were taking like words and phrases and verses and half of verses and a quarter of verses and writing whole dissertations on them. Why? Because they had to argue for a certain interpretation

because everything is debated in scripture. That's just, I mean, maybe some of you that maybe you just lost your faith after hearing that or maybe you didn't, I don't know. But it's just the facts, like smart people debate kind of everything. So to just kind of point out that, well, these verses are debated is, it's kind of a yawner. It's kind of like the existence of Jesus is debated by people with PhDs. Like that's, you know,

whether there was a historic person named Jesus, you know, everything's debated. So just to point that out is kind of a moot point. Okay, thirdly, some people say, well, you know, same sex or the question of marriage, the definition of marriage wasn't mentioned in the early church creeds, the Nicene Creed, Apostles' Creed.

You could even maybe bring in Chalcedonian Creed. You know, these creeds are what determines what is most important for Orthodox historic Christianity. And I used to, for a while, I was like, man, yeah, that's a good point. This, maybe, you know, the question of marriage should be treated secondarily. And until I really thought about the creeds, I was like, well, why are certain things talked about and not talked about in the creeds? Well, the creeds were formed in response to various debates of that day. The fact that the creeds focused heavily on the deity and humanity of Jesus, some statements around the Trinity was because those were the deity and humanity of Jesus, some statements around

the Trinity, was because those were the things that were in dispute. So yeah, the fact is, in the day and age when these creeds were being formed, virtually, as far as we can tell, every Christian believed that marriage is between a man and a woman. They had different views on marriage, whether it was essential for flourishing, whether it was, or sorry, not essential for flourishing, but whether it was like a higher calling or lesser calling than singleness. Some people debated whether marriage would exist in the new creation or not exist. Some people even had kind of a negative view on marriage, but they still defined it as sex difference was still an essential ingredient into what marriage is. So, it just wasn't in dispute. So, part of the argument can kind of

go both ways. We can either say, well, it's not in the creeds, therefore, it's not that important. Or we can say, the fact that it's not in the creeds means that even the heretics of the first few centuries, the people deemed heretics, didn't question the definition of marriage. So, it was so far from even being disputed that they didn't even feel the need to address it. So that would almost speak, again, well, if you look at it that way, it would speak against the seeing this as a secondary issue. Fourthly, speaking of creeds, we actually do have an early church creed that is relevant for this conversation, namely the Jerusalem creed in Acts 15. relevant for this conversation, namely the Jerusalem Creed in Acts 15. This is actually the first kind of council, the early church in the first century where Jewish Christians got together, the early apostles to decide what are the primary issues and what are the secondary

issues? In other words, we have all these Gentiles coming into the faith. What are the things that, you know what, they don't need to do or not do? And what are the things they do need to observe? And one of the four things they decided that they do need to observe is they should abstain from porneia. And as I point out in another part of the book, the Greek word porneia referred to all of the sexual sins in Leviticus 18, which included same-sex sexual relationships. So, yeah, according to a first century Jewish understanding of Acts 15, abstaining from porneia was or included abstaining from same-sex sexual relationships. So, the very first creed, if you go pre-Nicene Creed, pre-Apostles Creed, even go to the Jerusalem Creed, we actually do have a relevant statement.

Okay. Fifth reason why I don't see this as a simple agree to disagree issue or a gray area is that, and this kind of goes on with the word porneia. Whenever the Bible does address questions around porneia, they are never treated as agree to disagree issue. Paul says, and let me just quote a few verses here. Paul says in Ephesians five, among you, there must not even be a hint of porneia, sexual immorality, or any kind of impurity or of greed. For of this, you can be sure no immoral person, no pornos, no porneia kind of impurity or of greed. For of this, you can be sure no immoral person, no pornos, no pornea kind of person, impure or greedy person, such a person is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of God, kingdom of Christ and of God. And some people say, well, yeah, but see,

it says greed there. So, ha, I'm like, yeah, let's take all these seriously. I don't want to just pick on just sexual immorality. I want to say if scripture consistently treats any kind of sin with like the utmost severity, then let's do that consistently. Okay. And if we're not doing that consistently, then shame on us. 1 Corinthians 6, 9, you probably know this, you know, verse, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who have sex with other males, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanders, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Revelation 2, Jesus comes out really strong against two different churches, the churches, is it Thyatira and Pergamum?

I think. Revelation 2.14 and Revelation 2.20-23 comes down extremely hard, not just on so-called Christians that are engaging in ongoing unrepentant porneia, but are teaching others to do the same. And on and on it goes. Again, we can go back to Acts 15 that the early apostles saw abstaining from porneia, which again would include all kinds of all sexual relationships outside of a male-female marriage to be something that was a non-negotiable, something Gentiles should observe. So some people do bring up Romans 14. I do deal with Romans 14 in about a page and a half, a couple of pages. I'm going to skip that though. You can check it out if and when you get the book.

But I think this fifth point to me was really, as I was kind of like exploring more of a third way approach, it was really this fifth point about how the New Testament itself treats porneia, never, never treats porneia as a matter of some secondary issue that Christians can agree to disagree on. Now, this raises questions. Do I think that if somebody is affirming, then they're therefore not a Christian? I don't think that. Or even if somebody's in a same-sex relationship, does this mean I have the divine right to say, thou are not a believer. I address that question in the book. So I'll, yeah, again, point to you. These are complex questions, complex relational questions that don't have an easy answer. And so I, yeah, give kind of an extended response to those questions. But let me move on to

the next conversation that my supporters wanted me to address. I don't like the fact that I just said supporters as if I'm trying to bait you to support my ministry. I'm not doing that. So I'm just going to say top five arguments that I'm going to address. Okay, the next one comes from conversation 14, and it talks about the trajectory of women and slavery. This justifies same-sex prohibitions. Maybe a better way to phrase it is it explains the same-sex prohibitions. Maybe a better way to phrase it is it explains the same-sex prohibitions. Okay, so this argument says, look, when we look at the way the Bible treats women, treats women a bit pretty harsh in the Old Testament, but there's a lot more, there's a lot more liberation towards women in the New Testament. We see a trajectory moving kind of away from a misogynistic reading of scripture.

And slavery, same thing. Like slavery, we have laws that regulate slavery in the Old Testament. And while the New Testament doesn't come right out and it's not full-on abolitionists trying to tear down the structures of slavery in the Greco-Roman Empire, or the Roman Empire, you do see challenges to slavery, especially in the book of Philemon. And even in some of the household codes, you see slavery treated in a way that's like, oh, this is at least a step toward, you know, a step away from slavery that we see in the Old Testament. So, we see ethical trajectories in the Old Testament, women, slavery. And so, this should apply to how we understand the same-sex sexual prohibitions. That yes, this is something that,

you know, in the Old Testament was forbidden and there's reasons for that. But given Jesus' emphasis on liberation, given Jesus' emphasis on inclusion, given Jesus' emphasis on humanizing all people, this is kind of like what we see with the trajectory of women, trajectory of slavery, that this is moving toward accepting same-sex couples as valid marriages in the eyes of God. So, points of agreement. It's true. The Bible's filled with trajectories, ethical trajectories. In fact, I have a whole chapter on this in my book on nonviolence where I had to address kind of a similar issue with all the violence in the Old Testament that isn't just there. It's actually commanded in several passages. And yet in that book, I argue for Christian nonviolence, that Christians should never use violence. Sorry, that's news to you, but I am a advocate of

Christian nonviolence. And one of my main reasons for that biblically is that I think violence in the Bible is on one of these trajectories. Okay. So this is a very valid hermeneutical exploration to make towards really any command. Now, to be clear, and I guess this will kind of transition into more of a critique of this argument. Obviously, and this should be obvious, like not every single ethical law is on this kind of trajectory. Okay. We see adultery has no trajectory. Okay. It's just kind of wrong all the time. Yeah. There's other sexual sins I'm not going to mention, but there's other things that are just, there's no kind of evidence that these prohibitions are loosening when we get to the new covenant. Or we might even see trajectories moving in the

other direction, not from prohibition to permission, but from permission to prohibition. Or we might see laws being kind of tightened in a little bit. I mean, we see this on the Sermon on the Mount. You have heard it said, you should not commit adultery. I say to you, whoever looks on a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart. So Jesus tightens in the adultery commandment, the adultery prohibition. He seems to do this. Well, he does do the same with divorce. In fact, this is an important passage. With divorce in that Matthew 19 passage, cross-reference Mark 10, we see people asking Jesus about what Moses said about divorce in Deuteronomy 24, that Moses permitted divorce. And Jesus says, yeah, but that was kind of God

accommodating to the hardness of your heart. But from the beginning, it was not this way. And that's super important that here we have a window into the logic, the sort of moral logic behind some of these trajectories, that a trajectory in the Old Testament, moving into the New Testament, if we see kind of movement somewhere, It's toward God's creational design, not away from it. So, divorce, yes, it was more lenient in the Old Testament law, much more strict in the New Testament, but that's because in the New Testament, Jesus was taking us back to the creational ideal. Slavery was allowed, and again, slavery I'm not going to get into the whole slavery debate, but Old Testament slavery was

yeah, let's just not get into it because that's going to throw us off track. Slavery was a departure from the creation ideal of Genesis 1 and 2, and any kind of critique of slavery, or at least kind of, you know, Philemon sort starting to kind of gut

slavery from the inside out. Like, let's start with master-slave relations under the larger paradigm before we kind of, you know, try to take down the whole thing through some kind of abolitionist movement, which didn't come until many, many years later. It's moving toward the creational ideal. So, I think we have to understand kind of, again, the moral logic driving these ethical trajectories that is moving toward a Genesis 1 and. So I think we have to understand kind of, again, the moral logic driving these ethical trajectories. It is moving toward a Genesis 1 and 2 ideal, which is what Jesus even does with marriage in the same context as divorce.

He takes us back to male and female. He created him and these two will become one flesh, Matthew 19, 3 to 5. Yeah. So I think we, well, in summary, it's not enough to identify some ethical trajectories in scripture and say that a similar ethical trajectory exists for revamping or redefining marriage. We would need to find evidence in scripture for marriage itself moving beyond sex difference being part of what marriage is. And we simply don't have any evidence that marriage itself, specifically sex difference in marriage, is on that kind of trajectory. Okay, the third argument I want to address comes from conversation number four. And it says that Paul was not talking about consensual same-sex sexual relationships. And I say Paul because he's often the one that, well, he's responsible for the three prohibitions in the

New Testament, Romans 1, 26 to 27, 1 Corinthians 6, 9, and 1 Timothy 1, 9 through 10. So this argument says that whatever, I mean, I'll just paraphrase my own summary here. Since same-sex relationships were between unequals, whether they were socially unequal or there was inequality in age or power. These were non-consensual, mostly abusive relationships between an older man and a younger teenage boy or a master and his male slave or even somebody of high social status playing the active role in a sexual relationship toward a passive partner is how they were often framed. And the passive partner would be a non-citizen or somebody of a lower social status. So what we are talking about today in the Western world about consensual, loving relationships between two people of the same sex who are social equals.

It's not like a dominator and a dominated kind of relationship. This is just categorically different than what Paul was thinking of when he made negative statements about same-sex sexual relationships. So points of agreement. I remember, well, first of all, just coming across this argument early on in my journey and being kind of like, well, this can't be right. But during my PhD, I spent a lot of time in background literature. I love, love reading. In fact, I probably read more background literature than the actual Bible during my PhD. Don't tell people that. That can sound bad. But yeah, I soaked myself in background literature, mostly Jewish, but some Greco-Roman. And over the last

several years, I've really been drawn to a lot of Greco-Roman background literature. So I was immediately like, wait, wait, is this true? And I, because I, you know, while I read a lot of background literature, it wasn't on same-sex sexuality. So I, you know, hadn't paid attention to those passages. So I went and scoured the background material and I was like, oh my gosh, I'm seeing a lot of non-consensual, abusive relationships between, especially between like older men and younger teenage boys. It's called pederasty. That's very widespread. And for the most part accepted.

There were some people that were critical of it in the ancient world. Largely accepted in the broader culture. Masters having their way with male slaves, a person dominating, a dominated person, you know, higher social status, lower. All the stuff this argument says, I saw a lot of that. Among male same-sex sexual relationships. Yeah, I guess that will lead to some of my critique.

My critique or response comes in three parts. Number one, the language of the prohibition passages themselves. Number two, the background material. What does the background material reveal? And then number three, the nature of ancient literature to form its argument. And I think, and maybe I might not have time for the third part here, but I think it's important. I think it, well, I think it kind of misunderstands how much, or then, yeah, just misunderstands the nature of ancient literature and how much we can actually draw from actual history based on somewhat biased literature written by elite men who didn't have maybe a broader perspective on all the things that were going on in the ancient world. So that's all I'm going to say about that third part. I explain it a lot more in the book. Does the Bible support same-sex marriage? That's a question that many people are wrestling with today.

And there's, you know, people who hold passionately to different answers to this question. Now, most dialogues about same-sex marriage, they end with divisiveness and confusion instead of clarity and a better understanding of the other person's position and even a better understanding of your own position. This is why I wrote a book titled, Does the Bible Support Same-Sex Marriage? 21 Conversations from a Historically Christian Perspective, which comes out in August this summer. So what I do in this book is I first talk about how Christians should even go about having a profitable conversation about contentious issues. I really want us to cultivate a better posture in how we even go about defending our points

of view or trying to refute others. I then lay out a biblical theological case for the historically Christian view of marriage. And then for the rest of the book, I take what I see as the top 21 arguments for same-sex marriage. And I respond to each one in a way that's both thoughtful and thorough. Some of these arguments are, you know, since some people are born gay, then God must allow for same-sex marriage. Or, you know, the word homosexual was only recently added to the Bible. Or the traditional view of marriage is harmful to gay and lesbian people. And many

other arguments that I wrestle with in this book, does the Bible support same-sex marriage? So if you're looking for a theologically precise and nuanced approach to these arguments, one that doesn't straw man the other view to make it look bad, then I would encourage you to please check out my book, Does the Bible Support Same-Sex Marriage? You can order it now on Amazon or wherever books are sold. So first of all, the language of the prohibition passages. First of all, if you look at Paul's actual wording, there is, I always want to be fair. So let me just say little to no evidence. I almost said no evidence, but let me just leave some room here. Little to no evidence that Paul himself in his words, in his wording is thinking of non-consensual relationships. For instance,

there's lots of Greek words he could have used to refer to pederasty. He never uses those words. Those words don't even occur in the New Testament. Pediophthora and other ones similar to that. So if he had a problem with the simple age difference, he didn't specify that. If he had a problem with someone of a higher social status taking advantage of someone with a lower social status. He never uses language that portrays power differentials, social power, monetary power, age power, whatever. All the things that this argument kind of relies on, we just don't see evidence of that in the actual language of Paul's prohibitions. In fact, you know, he uses language of mutuality. You know, men committed shameful acts with other men, not toward or against, but with, and received in themselves a due penalty for their error. He seems to put equal blame on both partners.

And this is something that classicist Kyle Harper has pointed out. He's done a lot of research on sexuality in the ancient world and in the New Testament. And in his book, oh, what's his book? Oh, From Shame to Sin. It's a fantastic book. Not an easy book. It's an academic book. But he compares kind of Paul's language with what we see in the Greco-Roman world. And he's kind of stunned at how different Paul's critiques are. Like he says, yeah, in Greco-Roman critiques of same-sex sexual relationships, it's all about power dynamics and all these things. And Paul just doesn't go there. In fact, he just goes back to, this is language of creation, which is really, as Kyle Harper says, very unique in ancient critiques of same-sex sexual relationships.

in ancient critiques of same-sex sexual relationships. Okay. So Paul's language itself doesn't lend itself to this, doesn't really support this argument. And not everybody who uses this argument would disagree with that. They would just say, you know, well, yeah, but you look at the background material and this is the only kind of relationship that was available to Paul. So whatever he was saying, these are the only categories he had available to him. I'll get to that in a second, but that doesn't actually, I think that does break down when you take a holistic look at the background material. But it's also important to point out that in Romans 1.26, Paul references female same-sex sexual relationships and even correlates those with male same-sex sexual relationships in 1.27. Now, what we know about female same-sex relationships in the ancient world is that from what we can tell, they were almost all consensual between people of the same social status. Like we don't have older women taking advantage of young teenage girls.

We don't have females raping their female slave. Like we don't – I mean, again, I can't, none of us should say that never happened. I'm just saying that in the literature we do have, in the archaeological evidence we do have, what we see in male same-sex relationships, which is largely non-consensual, it's the opposite.

The opposite is true with female same-sex relationships. So the fact that Paul leads with female same-sex relationships and then says, likewise, men did, you know, doesn't seem to see a huge difference in kind between male and female same-sex relationships in Romans 1, that would suggest that it would at least put the burden on the proof that, well, wait a minute, if female same-sex relationships in the ancient world were largely consensual from what we can tell, then on what basis do we say that he's critiquing only non-consensual relationships among men? And even here, so I do list a lot of examples

and I've written on this in various other places too. You can, I guess, maybe Google my name, Google around, you can find other places where I've addressed this argument. I do address it in People To Be Loved. This is one that I draw on what I said in my previous book, but also add other nuance and stuff. And Matthew Vines in particular has been a great dialogue partner and pushing back on my argument here. So I think that my argument in here has been refined and clarified thanks to some pushbacks, pushback I received from Matthew Vines, some of which I thought was valid, some that I don't think was as valid. So when it comes to male same-sex relationships in the background material,

yeah, for the most part, what we see is non-consensual relationships. But first of all, the evidence is more diverse than this argument makes it out to be. We do see a diversity of same-sex relationships among men, even some that seem relatively consensual. And especially from some of the archaeological evidence, too, I think also suggests that. Also, in the first century in particular, and this is something that there's an unpublished PhD dissertation by Laura Dunn, who I believe she wrote this dissertation under the renowned Egyptologist, is he an Egyptologist? Edwin Yamouchi, who's an evangelical scholar, who's like an expert in, I think it's Egyptology. That is a discipline, by the way. You can be a scholar in ancient Egypt. Her dissertation argues, and it's done quite well. I wish this book was

available to people that don't have a library subscription. But yeah, she shows that in the first century in particular, these kind of traditional forms of dominator dominated and older man, younger boy, like these kind of more accepted forms of same-sex relationships in the Roman world. All of these are starting to break down in the first century. And you even see some of the satirists like Juvenal and Marshall later on kind of bemoaning the fact that these rigid structures of if you're a citizen, you play the active role and you take advantage of the person of a lower social status, they kind of accepted same-sex, male same-sex relationship that did have these kind of social protocols of higher class, lower class, that those were breaking down and people were starting to kind of bemoan that. And that's just kind of part of the whole first century Rome was going through all kinds of social upheaval, if you will. We have, you know, Bruce Winter has written a killer book on the new Roman women, where he had kind of this almost like mini liberation movement among wealthy women in Rome, seemed to spill over into other parts of the empire. And so you had these kind of social norms that were just breaking down.

And Laura Dunn points out that same-sex sexual relationships also were kind of breaking down. So all that to say, we just cannot say, assume some kind of monolithic understanding of same-sex relationships and then say, well, these are the only kinds of relationships Paul could have had in mind. I think that just historically doesn't hold weight. And for what it's worth, I didn't want to say this at the beginning, but most scholars don't use this argument anymore. I still see it more in popular level writing, but most scholars, yeah, they've looked at the material and done it fairly are like, yeah, this argument doesn't, it just doesn't hold the weight we thought it did. Like back in the 80s and 90s, a lot of scholars were using this, but maybe it's largely through the work of Bill Loder because Bill Loder is affirming, is a Christian scholar who's affirming, is pretty much the undisputed expert in sexuality and ancient Judaism and Christianity. He's written five or six massive academic books

over a period of about 12 years on the topic. He's affirming, he's a Christian who affirmed same-sex marriage, but he disagrees with this argument and has shown lots of evidence that he's like, no, we can't assume that Paul was simply thinking about non-consensual relationships. So anyway, but yeah, because this argument does come up often,

I think in more common conversations, I think it needs to be addressed. Okay, let's move on to our next one. Okay, this comes from Conversation 19 and it is titled Love is Love. Okay, so most of you are like, ah, finally, you got to the one that I keep wrestling with. This is something that we see. It's on banners and flags and people say it all the time. Love is love. Why are you bigoted Christians preventing people from loving whom they love? Love is love. Love is the most basic characteristic of God. God is love, John says in 1 John 4.16. Christianity is built on love. So actually, let me just read what I say here, how I summarize it. For centuries, this argument says, only some people were allowed to love. People of different races were barred from loving each other, as were people of the same sex. But Christianity is built on an ethic of equality and love. And there is no difference between two people of the opposite sex

who love each other and two people of the same sex who also love each other. Both kinds of love can be characterized by faithfulness, commitment, and sacrifice. Love is love, and elevating one kind of love above another is discriminatory and oppressive. Okay, so I spend a lot of time, well, not a ton of time, I would say half of this short chapter is on my points of agreement. That might shock you, because I think, well, we'll get to my critiques in a second. But I think sometimes Christians love to destroy this argument. More traditional Christians, they love to jump in and destroy their argument. And I'm going to encourage you to climb inside the heart, climb inside the chest of somebody who is using this argument and feel their heartbeat.

One of our most basic desires as humans is to love and be loved, to know and be known. And this argument, in a sense, reminds us of what it is to be human. It also can be at least point out that love is a central Christian virtue? 1 John 4.16, I've already read it. Paul says love is a fulfillment of the law. Love God, love neighbor. Jesus says first and second greatest commandment. If I don't have love, Paul says I'm a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

So before we just say, no, this argument is not right, let's at least linger on appreciating the fact that love is a central Christian virtue. In a time when Christians are dividing over the style of music in the church, which Christian authors you can read, issues around race and immigration and politics who we voted for, whether we wear a mask or don't wear a mask or protest wearing a mask. I mean, we are so quick to divide, so quick to yell, scream, shun, block, mute. I think we should linger on being reminded how important love is and how far we have to go. And also people that make this argument, again, I think it comes from a good place of wanting to love and be loved, to know and be known. So I want to not just, again, as per the first chapter in this book, what I talked about in the last episode,

don't just race to try to dismantle the intellectual problems you see in the argument. Look through the argument to the person making the argument and see if there is a more holistic response you can make to this argument. Okay. So once we've done all that, here's some things or some reasons why I don't think this argument works as an intellectual argument for same-sex marriage. And I'm sure probably most of you don't need your hand held through this critique. You probably already can do it yourself. But the main problem with this argument, I think, is that, yes, the Bible talks extensively about love. It also talks extensively about sexual ethics. And it doesn't pit love against sexual ethics. Christians are

commanded to love. They're also commanded to follow the creator's design for sexual expression. And I think it would be a false dichotomy to say you can only do one or the other. The two are not at odds. At least the Bible doesn't think so. And the Bible doesn't reduce love to sex or love to a sexual or romantic relationship. And I think I actually use the word reduce because I think that's important here. As well intended as this argument is, I think it does both cheapen sex and love. Sex is good and holy and God created sex and sexual relationships for a purpose. We talked about that in Foundation 2.

But love is so much greater than sex. To say that love is love to defend a particular sexual relationship is reducing the meaning of love and limiting it to a certain kind of relationship that not everyone experiences. Love is love and love means finding happiness in a romantic and sexual partner that you desire. Then Jesus missed out on love. romantic, and sexual partner that you desire, then Jesus missed out on love. Or we can even say, I'm not even, am I even loved by Jesus? Because yeah, I won't finish that sentence because it could border on sacrilege religion. We are called to love our neighbors, love our enemies, but that doesn't mean we should run around having sex with all our neighbors and enemies. So yeah, love is way bigger than a sexual romantic relationship that resonates with your sexual orientation.

So we can both say, God is love. We should love our neighbor as ourself. We should love our enemies and everybody should love and be loved, know and be known. We can say that and we can say the creator has designed us as sexual beings and has determined certain boundaries for what valid expression looks like. And we can both love and be loved and abide by the creator's boundaries for sexual expression. So, and again, I honestly don't think people who use the love is love argument think they're dazzling the world with a theologically sophisticated argument for same-sex marriage. Okay. I really don't think that's what's going on. It's more of a cry from the human heart, from a person who truly does want to love and be loved, to know

and be known, to spend her life with somebody they desire and not live alone, which again, I think you can do apart from marrying the person that resonates with your sexual desires. So if all we do is point out that agape love isn't sex, like I did, I think that's part of what we need to do. I think we should point that out. But if that's all we do, this won't satisfy the craving of the human heart. It won't help the person find true love, intimacy, and community. Okay. So last argument, and then we will be done. Conversation 15, the traditional view of marriage is harmful toward gay and lesbian people. I think this is the longest of all of the 21 arguments I wrestle with in the book because it is, I would say, arguably the most popular.

At least in my experience, it always comes up, even if it exists alongside other arguments. It's not like this is the only argument people use, but I rarely, if ever, encounter an affirming position that doesn't at least use the so-called harm argument. And I spent a lot of time on this one because I have many points of agreement with it. I 100% agree that Christians and churches and just broadly speaking, Christian culture that embraces a traditional view of marriage has done things, have done things, individuals, churches, culture, have done things that have been harmful toward LGB people. harmful toward LGB people. Again, in this book, I'm just talking about LGB. I'm not talking about T, but I could easily say LGBTQ plus QIA, whatever. Yes, the church has done things that have been sometimes

unintentional. I've met a lot of people, well-intentioned Christians that really do have good hearts, but they're just saying things or doing things or not saying things or not doing things that have really shamed LGBTQ people unintentionally. And then there's other times when it's just flat out intentional. I mean, if, yeah, just turn on your social media account and start looking around.

You will see lots of intentional mean things said towards LGBTQ people that is simply unchristian. In fact, I've tried to dedicate a huge chunk of the last 10 years of my life at reducing the harm done towards LGBTQ people in the more conservative evangelical, actually, I don't like that term. Well, it'll actually fit in this case, more conservative or churches that hold to a traditional theology of marriage. I mean, a huge part of what I wake up existing for in the last 10 years is trying to address what this argument is pointing out. Now, my affirming friends maybe disagree with that or they would say, well, yeah, we know you're trying, but until you change your theology, you're just replicating the harm or some people will go so far to say your approach is the

most harmful because it lures gay people into thinking they need to believe in a traditional theology of marriage or whatever i've heard those critiques i wrestled with them but from from my heart my intention i guess this is i yeah my original point is i I resonate with this argument because I'm passionate about the same thing. So where our disagreement comes, well, there's several things that I do to respond to this argument. And again, I'm only really concerned as this as an argument, an ethical argument for same-sex marriage. Being concerned about harm done towards LGBTQ people in the church, 100% there. But more narrowly, does this harm argument mean that Christians should change their view from traditional marriage to affirming same-sex marriage? And that's where I have logical, intellectual, ethical problems with that as

an argument. So first of all, I do think this argument confuses correlation and causation. It says that if people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, then that will lead them to do harmful things to gay people. Like, it will lead parents to kick their LGBT kid out of the home. It will lead parents to force their kids into conversion therapy. It will lead just Christians in general to be homophobic, to exclude gay people from the church, to keep them at an arm's distance, or even say mean and nasty things. So I agree that these two things can be correlated, that people who do all these things, parents who kick their gay kids out of the house,

force them into reparative therapy. I agree that, yes, it's probably almost always true that those parents hold to a traditional view of marriage. That's correlated. But can we say that it's always true that those parents hold to a traditional view of marriage. That's correlated. But can we say that it's because they believe that sex difference is part of what marriage is, that that belief, you can draw a straight line from that belief to their harmful behavior. And that's where I'm like, again, just if I was a judge in a court of law, that logic would need to be filled in. I think that's a bit of a leap to jump from correlation to causation. between a biological male and a biological female, and I'm reading Genesis 1 and 2, does that cause me to go and if I have a kid that comes out as gay, I kick them out of the house? That, no, wouldn't cause me. In fact, I hang out with a lot of traditional people who would never do that. In fact, they're incredibly loving and caring for LGBT people. In fact,

a friend of mine, I use this illustration in the book and I won't name his name because he probably would be embarrassed if I did, but I've got a friend, some of you know who I'm talking about, who has spent the last almost two decades working with families that have LGBTQ kids. He works with churches, families, leaders, or works with a lot of people, but a lot of families. In fact, he's probably worked with over, I want to say it's up close to, see, here's why I'm glad I'm not mentioning his name because he might correct my numbers, but I think it's around like 10,000 families he's worked with. That includes people who are gay or parents who have gay kids or trans kids or whatever. He's worked with loads of people.

He believes passionately in a traditional view of marriage. I asked him once, because he just does such amazing, amazing work of reconciliation, especially between parents, Christian parents with gay kids. And as you know, you know the statistics. Oftentimes, gay kids raised in a church can be experiencing mental health challenges. They can be suicidal. They can be having challenges with their faith, especially if they're in the kind of a more hostile Christian environment. I asked him once, I said, how many kids do you think were going to commit suicide, but didn't based on your work with their parents? And I had to drag it out of him because he doesn't want any kind of praise, especially with something like this. Like I want zero like credibility for this.

he kind of prays, especially with something like this, like I want zero credibility for this. But he ended up saying, it's probably been over 500, over 500 that probably would have at least attempted suicide. He believes in a traditional view of marriage. The parents he's working with believe in a traditional view of marriage. He didn't change that theology. It wasn't him saying, you know what? The Bible actually affirms same-sex marriage. It wasn't that theological transition in the kid's mind that saved them from suicide. Some people might say, I can hear some people saying, well, yeah, you just kind of acknowledge that this hostile Christian environment is what maybe led to their suicidality. I'm like, yeah, I agree. Again, hostile Christian environment, bigoted, dehumanizing people who confess Jesus and are actually saying

mean and harmful things towards LGBT people. Or just, again, doing things constantly that are unintentional and exacerbating the shame. Yeah, I do, again, all for addressing that. Where the difference is, is I don't think that requires believing that sex difference is not an essential part of what marriage is. Okay. So, the correlation causation thing is really important. I do talk about some other things that I'll let you read about. Well, one, so I guess an analogy, all analogies are imperfect. They overlap and they don't overlap, don't overlap to some extent. But you can almost apply this, and people have applied this to straight people having sex outside of marriage. This is becoming more of an argument that straight people are now saying that the Christian teaching that sex belongs within marriage is harming us because we can't go without sex, but we're not ready to get married yet. And your pressure for us to either get married or to stop having sex is harming us. That's another thing too, the harm argument, it does have a bit of a subjective element to it

that I think has potentially, I don't want to say dangerous, but I mean, potentially just wrongheaded. You can think of a lot of things that might just be good to do, but you can interpret it as harmful. I mean, going overseas, dragging your family overseas to a hard to reach people group could harm your family. In fact, I know loads of missionary kids who would say they've been harmed because they grew up overseas and they were shipped off to boarding school and they're, you know, they, whatever, they had a really hard life growing up. Does that mean taking their family overseas to do, to, to hard to reach people groups that that is causing the harm? I mean, I don't, I don't, yeah, again, I don't, I don't want to say intrinsically overseas missions and hard to reach places is harmful.

Therefore we shouldn't do it. Loving your enemies can cause lots of harm. Being extremely generous can harm your bank account. And again, these are not all exact parallels. I'm just saying, if we lead with the logic, I think this is harmful, therefore I don't think it's correct. I think that that is not a good pattern of ethical reasoning. I don't think that resonates with how Christians should reason. Okay, so there's another angle to this argument that says, no, okay, it's not that this traditional belief is leading Christians to do harmful things. It's that the belief itself is intrinsically harmful. If a gay person comes to Christ and then realizes, wait, I can't get married to the person I sexually desire,

that that belief will cause suicidal thoughts, depression. And if you ask the question, why? Well, the assumption is people can't really be happy or live a flourishing life without marrying the person they sexually desire. And this is something that I address in several places in the book. I do feel like that is resurrecting and dusting off the old purity culture assumptions that a more progressive approach to Christianity says it's trying to shed, but I think it is doing the same thing under a different name. It is assuming that sex and marriage to the person you sexually desire, to the person that matches your sexual orientation, that if somebody is told that Jesus is not going to give them that, that is going to produce suicidal thoughts and depression in that person. But I don't see any way around it. That does

elevate marriage, same-sex marriage in this case, and sex, same-sex sexual relations in this case. So yeah, I do think that saying that the traditional view of marriage is intrinsically harmful, it's, yeah, I think that that, for the same reasons that I have problems, many problems with purity culture and some of the narratives embedded in that movement, I also have the same problems with how sometimes the harm argument is used in this case. I do survey several sociological studies done on the harm argument. One, two, three, four, five, six, I think. There's many out there. I survey six and I do respond to each one and point out several things that we know and don't know from these sociological

studies. But I'll let you work through those. We're already going over an hour here. So again, the book is Does the Bible Support Same-Sex Marriage? You can pre-order it right now, or you can wait until August 1st to buy it, or you can not buy it at all, or you can buy it and throw it across the room and trash it and burn it. Whatever the case, free country, there it is, it exists. So thanks for listening. I hope this gives you at least a sample of what the book is, what it's about, what it's not about, the kind of tone. And yeah, we'll see you next time on The Algenor. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.