Theology in the Raw - S9 Ep902: The Historically Christian View of Marriage: Part 2

Episode Date: September 21, 2021

Preston continues his discussion of marriage and same-sex sexual relations. In this second part, Preston responds to several of the most popular affirming arguments (i.e. arguments in favor of same-sex marriage from a biblical and theological perspective). 

🎵 Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. This is part two of a two-part series on the historically Christian view of marriage and same-sex sexual relations. If you have not listened to the previous episode, I would highly encourage you to go back and do that. This one's only going to make sense if you listened or watched the previous episode. And speaking of watched, these podcasts are available on YouTube and most people listen to either podcast or they watch YouTube. For this two-part series, I would highly encourage you, if you're not typically a YouTube watcher, to go over and check out the YouTube version of this podcast, in addition to the audio version, because I do have a keynote presentation where you can

more easily follow along some of the finer points that we're talking about in this important conversation. To summarize the last podcast, we looked at three reasons for believing in the historically Christian view of marriage and same-sex sexual relations. The three points that I gave are, number one, when the Bible talks about marriage, it says that sex difference is part of what marriage is. I think that's by far the most important observation for understanding the historically Christian view of marriage. If we miss that point, I think everything else will just be wrongheaded, really. And it's unfortunate that in these conversations, in terms of the theological dialogues and debates that happen around this topic, people often bypass that very important question about marriage from the very beginning. They race

to the so-called clobber passages and camp out there for a while, and I think that that is a, I think that's one of the major causes of confusion in this conversation. The second reason for believing in the Christian, the historically Christian view of marriage is that whenever the Bible does directly mention same-sex sexual relationships, it always prohibits them. And we addressed to some extent some of the what about this, what about that questions in the previous podcast. We're actually going to dig much deeper into that second point at the beginning of this podcast. And then the third point that we recognize is that there has been a rather profound consensus across global, multi-ethnic, multi-denominational Christianity for 2000 years on the first two points. That historical argument shouldn't be a standalone

argument. I'm never a fan of, this is what we always believed, therefore we should always believe it. That is not at all why I bring that up. I do bring up the historical observation to address the concern that the first two points are simply my individual interpretation of Scripture or simply a white male perspective that isn't considering other perspectives. We should always interpret the Bible in community, in a global multi-ethnic community. And so I do think that third observation is important for cross-checking our first two observations. For this podcast, what I want to do is address six of the most common affirming arguments for same-sex marriage or arguments that are used against the historically Christian view of marriage.

There's other arguments I can give, and I haven't taken an extensive survey on what are the most popular ones. These are just six that I find coming up over and over again. So if I didn't address your favorite affirming argument, I apologize ahead of time. There are others we could wrestle with. And I also want to emphasize that in my own personal theological I was more than willing to go where the text leads. We all have biases. We all have pre-commitments. But my theological posture has always been go where the text leads, even if it leads you away from your previously held convictions. And there was a time when I was up in the air on what the Bible says about this question. I grew up believing like many of you,

you know, that same-sex relationships are wrong, they're sin, you know, and God condemns them. But I didn't know where or why the Bible said that. I'll never forget talking about same-sex relationships in a Bible college class. And one of my students said, well, I don't know, does the Bible actually say that same-sex relationships are wrong? And as I spewing out my ignorance, I said, well, yeah, of course it does. And then my students said, well, where does it say that? And I said, I don't know. I mean, just go read the red letters of Jesus. I'm sure he talks about it all over the place, you know, and here I am with a PhD in the New Testament. Like I have a PhD in the new, not just the Bible,

but the New Testament. And I assumed that Jesus had talked about same-sex relationships all over the place. You know, he just walked around Palestine condemning homosexuality. Like that was my assumption. And, and, uh, come to find out, you know, Jesus actually never mentioned, never directly mentions same-sex sexual relationships. As we saw in the previous podcast, he does say a few things about marriage that are very significant for this conversation, but in terms of directly mentioning and condemning same-sex sexual relationships, he doesn't do that. And there's reasons for that. and condemning same-sex sexual relationships. He doesn't do that. And there's reasons for that. But that just kind of revealed my ignorance that I had adopted a view that I had not looked at firsthand from the scripture. So at that point, I said, hey, you know what? I'm going to lay aside

my presuppositions, what I thought the Bible taught. I'm going to lay it aside. I'm going to do a bunch of research, talk to a lot of people and try to understand this important topic, both from a relational perspective and also from an academic slash theological perspective. And I want to come at the text with a clean slate, as clean of a slate as I can. And I know it's impossible to do that 100%, but before you and before God, I want you to know that I, to the best of my ability, tried as hard as I could to come at the theological question, fairly evaluating all sides of this debate. And I've sat in the offices of some of the leading Christian scholars who are affirming of same-sex marriage to understand where are they coming from? I want to understand why they hold to the views that they

do. I've read as many affirming books as I possibly can think of. There might be more out there, but I've read all the major ones. There's actually a lot of academic books that deal with the theology of the Bible and same-sex relationships. I would say a good number of them are affirming. They argue that the Bible does not condemn consensual, monogamous, same-sex relationships. So I've read the academic books, I've read the popular books and everything in between, and talked with people and dialogued with a genuine desire to want to understand that position while researching and studying what the Bible says about same-sex relationships. So I don't wrestle with these affirming arguments from the place of, I already know they're wrong. I just need to find out reasons why. I am wrestling with these arguments because throughout my theological journey, I've had to

genuinely understand and consider and wrestle with these arguments. Because if they are right, then they're right. Then we need to go with them. And I have no problems with following the truth. So if these arguments are true, then we need to go with these arguments. But as you'll see, I don't think that they carry as much weight as I originally had thought when I first encountered them, or as much weight as some people think they still carry. So let's dig into some of these arguments against the historic Christian view of marriage and sexuality. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to describe the argument, and then I'm going to try to highlight something positive about the argument, if there is something positive about the argument. And I do think that with these six arguments I'm going to wrestle with, I do think

there are some aspects of these arguments that are good and true and right that we need to consider. aspects of these arguments that are good and true and right that we need to consider. So the first argument goes something like this, that the prohibition passages only apply to non-consensual sexual relationships. Or to expand on this argument, you know, the prohibition passages like Leviticus 18.22 and Romans 1.26 and 27, these passages are prohibiting sexual exploitation like rape or pederasty, which is an ancient practice where an older man would have sexual relations with a teenage boy. Or they're prohibiting prostitution or master-slave relationships where there's kind of a person of a higher social status dominating somebody of a lower social status. This argument continues to say that consensual same-sex relationships simply didn't exist back then, let alone consensual marriages. Okay, so this is a pretty popular argument, so hopefully I don't need to keep trying to explain it. Hopefully you get the gist of it.

hopefully I don't need to keep trying to explain it. Hopefully you get the gist of it. But yeah, in short, this argument basically says that whatever the Bible biblical authors are condemning, it can't be what we're talking about today because consensual, adult, loving, mutual, monogamous, same-sex relationships didn't exist back then. So how can you condemn something that doesn't exist, that you're not aware of, okay, is how the argument goes. So let me respond to this argument. First of all, what I do love about this argument, and I was kind of blown away when I first encountered it because I hadn't thought about it before. What I love about it is that it takes time to dig into the historical background of the Bible. And I, as somebody who, that's kind of my first love when it comes to biblical study is I love, love the historical background.

A big chunk of my PhD was focused on the first century background of the New Testament. So I love reading Jewish and Greco-Roman literature to sort of give us a 3D lens of the Bible. And I do think, I do absolutely think that understanding the historical context of the Bible does help us have a better, more accurate interpretation of what the biblical text is actually saying. The biblical text is ancient writers writing from an ancient context to other readers or listeners in that same ancient context. So it makes sense that we should understand that ancient context to the best of our ability. So I do appreciate that aspect of this argument. Also, as I described the argument, that is a fairly accurate description of most male same-sex relationships. Okay. And you can probably see some hedging and qualifying

tones in my voice there. And we'll get to that in a second. But yeah, if you read Greco-Roman literature, if you read Jewish critiques of the Greeks and the Romans in terms of their same-sex sexual practices, they often described male same-sex relationships as being between people of different power differentials or different social statuses or describing a oppressor and a victim, like a master raping a male slave and so on. Okay. Some problems with this argument though. First of all, even if it was true, even if it was completely true that same-sex monogamous relationships didn't exist back then, I still have to push back on the term monogamous in that description because that assumes a certain definition of marriage.

With all of these arguments, they still have to answer the question, what is marriage? When you say the word marriage, what do you mean by that term? Remember our threefold questions that we have about marriage? Number one, what's your definition of marriage? Number two, where did you get that definition from? And number three, how does scripture inform that definition of marriage that you believe in? That's something that I spent a lot of time with in the last podcast. And with all of these arguments, we all still need to answer the question, what is marriage? But beyond the marriage question, when you look at the actual language of the prohibition passages in the Bible,

they use unqualified language, meaning they don't specify a certain kind of same-sex relationship. They simply describe males with males and females with females. In the case of Romans 1.26, that's the only passage that mentions female same-sex relationships. The other ones are just focused on male same-sex relationships. But when the Bible does describe and prohibit or speak in negative terms about same-sex sexual relationships, they don't specify masters and slaves or older men or younger boys. They don't describe a certain kind of same-sex relationship. They are simply describing same-sex relationships intrinsically.

And they also use what I call language of mutuality. Language of mutuality. In fact, let me just give an example here with Romans 1, 26 to 27, because that's one of the more significant prohibition passages. Romans 1, 26 to 27 says, for this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions for their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature and the men likewise. Okay. So I want, I'm going to come back to this, but 126 describes female same-sex relationships and then correlates that with the male same-sex relationships in the next verse.

The men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another. That's language of mutuality, for one another. You wouldn't describe a master raping his male slave as these two people were consumed with passion for one another. In fact, you definitely wouldn't describe, if you look at the ancient descriptions of pederasty, In fact, you definitely wouldn't describe, if you look at the ancient descriptions of pederasty, you would never see a description of both the older man and the younger teenage boy having passion for one another. That's language of mutuality, not language of oppression. Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves, both parties, the

due penalty for their error. If one was being oppressed here, if it was a non-consensual sexual act, the Bible, I don't think, would describe this as both people committing some kind of mistake and receiving a due penalty for their, not his, but their error. And you can look at Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20. The first Corinthians passage is a little more tricky, as we'll get to in a second. But when the Bible does describe same-sex sexual relations, it uses unqualified language that also has language of mutuality. There's no evidence in the text itself that there is somebody being oppressed by another person here. is somebody being oppressed by another person here. Also, to the historical point in this question, same-sex consensual adult relationships actually did exist throughout biblical times, especially among women. And this is something that rarely goes addressed. And it is ironic that,

if I can say this, of course, I'll say it. It's my podcast and it's Theology in a Raw. The same people that would embrace an affirming theology typically would be very much against the patriarchy and male domination and would also advocate for women's rights, right? And letting women have a voice. What's interesting is this very argument, ironically, ignores female same-sex relationships in the ancient world. Because when you look at female same-sex relationships in the ancient world, all the evidence we have is they were pretty much adult consensual.

Like what was common among male same-sex relationships was exact opposite among female same-sex relationships. You don't have evidence of like a female master raping her female slave or females visiting female prostitutes or older women having sex with teenage women. Like we just don't have that kind of historical evidence. The evidence that we do have of female same-sex relationships is evidence of consensuality. In fact, there is a funeral relief, and I'm showing a picture here in the YouTube version of this talk, of a funeral relief of two women. This dates back to just prior to the birth of Christ. I believe it was discovered in Rome. These are two women. And if you notice, the hairstyles and the dress of these two women is the same. And this shows that

they are probably of the same socioeconomic status. But what's most significant here is the hand gesture of the two women. This is called the, and sorry, my Latin is extremely terrible. The dextrarum iunxio is I think how you pronounce it. Dextrarum iunxio or whatever. The joining of the hands. And it's a common symbol in the Roman world of marriage. So archaeologists who don't have a dog in this theological battle have no problem looking at this funeral relief and saying these are two women who had some kind of marriage

like relationship because they're holding their hands in that common gesture. We also have lots of references in, I mean, lots, we have several references in ancient literature to adult consensual female same-sex relationships. And I'm pulling up, there's four different ones here. One by Clement of Alexandria, one by Ptolemy of Alexandria. No relation except they lived in the same city. Lucian and Josephus that describe adult female same-sex relationships. And they even use language like they use language

of marriage. Um, like Clement of Alexandria says, women behave like men in that women, contrary to their nature are given in marriage and many, uh, and marry other women. Um, and there's, I list the Greek terms here that are typical Greek terms for marriage. Ptolemy of Alexandria describes something very similar, and so do the other two. So when Paul speaks negatively of female same-sex relationships in Romans 1.26 and correlates it, men likewise in 1.27, with male same-sex relationships in 1.27, with male same-sex relationships in 127, it's hard to say that what Paul is describing is some kind of a certain kind of oppressive, non-consensual same-sex relationship that just doesn't square with Paul's actual language and it doesn't square with the historical background. And when it comes to men, yes, most male same-sex relationships that we see described in the ancient world,

most would be non-consensual, oppressive on some level, but not all. In fact, there's an unpublished dissertation by, I believe her name is Laura Dunn. I'm actually looking at it right now. I have a stack of books in front of me. Dunn. I'm actually looking at it right now. I have a stack of books in front of me. The dissertation is called The Evolution of Imperial Roman Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Acts. And what Laura Dunn describes here, what she argues in this dissertation, I actually did probably one of the only unpublished PhD dissertations that I've read. What she describes is that the first century, there was a lot of changes and fluctuation that was happening among Roman attitudes towards same-sex relationships.

Like the typical Roman attitude was that same-sex relationships were fine as long as the active partner in the sexual act was of a higher social status. And the one, the passive partner in the sexual act was of lower social status. Like that was the kind of culturally accepted form of same-sex, male same-sex relationship in typical Roman thinking. What Laura Dunn argues and shows quite extensively is that come the first century, those attitudes were in flux, is that come the first century, those attitudes were in flux, they were changing. And we see examples of consensual male same-sex sexual acts that some of them didn't go critiqued by other Roman writers. So it is, I think it's important to point out too that this argument that used to be popular like in the 80s and 90s, it's among affirming scholars, it's a lot less popular now because it just simply is historically inaccurate to say, well, Paul had no category of adult

consensual relationships. Therefore, whatever he's saying in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians, it can't be adult consensual relations. That line of reasoning is simply historically inaccurate. Number two, the traditional view of marriage is harmful toward LGBTQ people. This is the second argument against the historically Christian view of marriage and same-sex relations, that the traditional view is harmful toward LGBTQ people. I don't prefer using the acronym LGBT or LGBTQ when what what I really mean is same sex or gay, because as I'm sure you know, the T and even the Q are quite different from the LGB. We're really talking about same sex relationships, not necessarily gender identity and gender dysphoria and body

mind relationships. So I'm only using LGBTQ here because that's how the argument's often framed. So I'm just citing the argument itself. I personally don't think it's helpful for the people using this argument to use the LGBTQ plus, you know, IA, whatever acronym. But the argument says this, and I'm quoting here from Matthew Vines, who lists this as, at least last time I checked on his website, the kind of number one argument against the traditional view of marriage and sexuality. He says, condemning same-sex relationships is harmful to LGBT people. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that good trees bear good fruit, but the church's

rejection of same-sex relationships has caused needless, tremendous suffering, tremendous needless suffering to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. So let me, what's the positive thing about this argument is, well, yes, absolutely. Christians and churches who believe in a traditional view of marriage have done things, whether intentionally or unintentionally, explicitly or implicitly, that have caused a great deal of harm and heartache and pain and suffering in the lives of LGBTQ people. Absolutely. A big part of my day-to-day job, my daily job, is to help the church not do that anymore, to help change the church's posture and culture so that gay and lesbian people can feel accepted by the church and by God, that they don't need to change their sexual orientation to be accepted by God, that being gay is not a sin.

That is a huge part of why I wake up in the morning. And because I've seen so much damage that Christians who hold to a traditional view of marriage have caused in the lives of LGBT people. Sometimes it's explicitly, I mean, I've got loads of stories where there's just head spinning stories of harm that's been done to LGBTQ people. It also happens unintentionally, unconsciously. People just saying things and doing things that they don't realize is igniting shame in the lives of LGBT people. So I, in a sense, the heart behind this argument, I am 100% on board with. My biggest question though is, is it the traditional view of

marriage itself that is the cause of the harm? You see, it's one thing to make a correlation that Christians who hold to a traditional view are harming gay people. That's a correlation, but it's another thing to argue for causation. Correlation is not causation. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that when I look at Genesis 2 and I see that marriage, this one flesh union is, you know, that sex difference is part of what that union is. You know, I look at Genesis 127 and 224, I look at what Jesus does with those two passages in Matthew 19. And then, you know, at the end of my study here, I go out and say mean things to gay people. To draw that kind of likely reaction from a genuine study of God's word on what it says about marriage and same-sex relationships, I just think that that's a hard case to make. Even though some Christians who hold to that view do do that,

I think it's a hard case to make that it's the actual, that interpretation of Genesis 2 that is causing them to do that. I mean, what do you do with the many people like, I mean, if I can cite him by name, Bill Henson, my good friend Bill Henson, who has literally helped save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of gay and lesbian and trans people, has mended family relationships between parents and gay kids and just, I mean, hundreds, if not thousands. In fact, he said, I asked him, how many people do you think were going to commit suicide who now no longer are going to commit suicide because that you had some kind of encounter with them. And Bill's one of the most humble

guys in the face of the planet, kind of like Moses, right? So I didn't really squeeze it out of him, but he said something like maybe five, 600, 700 that he has heard from saying, I used to want to kill myself, but after having talked with you and met with my parents and mended relationships, I no longer want to do that. And Bill holds to a conservative, a traditional view of marriage and sexuality. So it's certainly not the case that, you know, this view is intrinsically causing Christians to harm gay and lesbian people. A few more things with this argument.

We need to ask the question, is it true? Before, is it harmful? Like that's just an ethical observation. With any kind of ethical question, we don't look at perceived harm from some ethical doctrine and then evaluate whether that ethical doctrine is true or not. I think that's just backwards thinking. I don't know any ethicist worth his or her salt that would do that. That's just not how ethics works. We ask the question first,

is it true? And then we can kind of wrestle with some possible harmful implications that we see people having with this ethical teaching. In other words, you know, I mean, like we don't, you know, one could look at, you know, love your enemy as yourself and you could reason your way out of that command because that could be harmful. I mean, who are my enemies? Well, certainly a thief breaking into my home is an enemy. Well, gosh, how do I love a thief breaking into my home? What if he's going to harm me or my family? That can be really harmful. I mean, it could cost me my life. You're talking about harm. this command is true. Like that's just backwards ethical reasoning. We need to ask the question, is it true before? Is it harmful? Because even harmful is a very subjective category. You know, something that could cause suffering or something that could cause you to have unmet desires that could not be fun in the moment. Like, is that harmful or is it

that just part of what it means to follow Jesus? Picking up your cross and following Jesus could be described as harmful by somebody who doesn't like whatever it is that they're picking up to follow Jesus with. So yeah, we need to ask, is it true before? Is it harmful? We need to understand that the category of harm is, I think, is quite subjective. And when I see people use this argument, they typically describe abuses, not the traditional view. out of the house. It's going to cause parents to force their kids in barbaric forms of reparative therapy. It's going to cause people to have all kinds of shame about who they are as a person. And while this has happened extensively in the church, and again, I'm very much against all that, none of that flows directly from the traditional view of marriage and same-sex sexuality. These are abuses of the traditional view, not the traditional view itself. Now, some people will say, well, no, it's not that the traditional view will cause Christians

to do bad things to gay people. It's that the view itself is intrinsically harmful. It's that the view itself is intrinsically harmful. I mean, and I've heard people say, you know, if you tell gay people that they might not be able to marry the person that they desire to marry and have a sexual and romantic relationship with the person they desire, then they're not going to be able to function in life. It's going to lead to suicidal thoughts. They're not going to flourish as a human being. I'm nervous about that line of reasoning because it sounds a lot like the idolatry of marriage that is so rampant in the conservative evangelical church. And y'all know what I'm talking about, right? I mean, in the conservative evangelical church, we see marriage being baked into the upright journey of a Christian. Like, you know, singleness is kind of this stage to get through, not a vocation to embrace. And gosh, you know, hopefully by the age of 23, 24, 25, surely by 30, you'll be married and then

you'll be, you won't be lonely anymore and you'll have a fulfilling life and you'll be complete as a person. And if you're 35 or 40 and still single, people look at you weird, like, gosh, she's so pretty. How come she's not married yet? Or we make people feel like they're secondary citizens of the kingdom if they're not married. Well, all of that, that's a huge problem in the evangelical church that feels, it almost feels like this argument is adopting that same way of thinking when they say that if somebody can't marry the person they desire and have sexual relations with the person that meets their desires, then they won't be able to flourish as a human. Like that sounds an awful lot like what I would consider a very dangerous idolatry of marriage and sex that exists in the conservative evangelical church. So I think there's several problems with this argument that the traditional view of marriage is harmful toward LGBT people. I will say though that I think we who are

straight or at least not same-sex attracted, we need to take seriously the high cost that many gay and lesbian people and bisexual people have when it comes to following the traditional Christian sexual ethic, especially in our very sexualized society, especially in churches that do idolize marriage. We need to go out of our way to surround in love and care and community and listening and valuing gay and lesbian people who are saying, no, I do believe in the traditional view of marriage and I do want to live by it, but I can't do this alone. So we cannot simply call gay and lesbian people to follow the historically Christian view of sexuality and marriage and then say, good luck with that. See you on the other Like, no, we have to. Part of this sexual ethic

is also embodying the very community that Jesus envisions in Mark 10 when he said, nobody has left brother, sister, mother, father field who will not receive back in this life, brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers, meaning they will, people who give up a lot for the kingdom of God will receive, should receive the reward of this deep, rich, spiritual family that comes alongside all of us and helps us in our journey. All right, we spent a lot of time on that one. So let's maybe move a little bit quicker here to look at the third argument. This is what I call the argument from orientation. This argument says that some people are born with a fixed same-sex orientation, and it's who they are.

It's who God created them to be. And so it's therefore unloving and even ungodly to say that they must live against who God created them to be. What do I like about this argument? Well, first of all, I think it rightly acknowledges that gay people don't choose their attractions. In fact, bisexual people don't choose their attractions. In fact, even straight people don't choose their attractions. I never woke up one day at the age of 13 on the brink of puberty and said, you know what? Who am I going to be attracted to, boys or girls? I'm going to go with girls. And then my gay friend next to me says, no, you know what? I'm going to go with boys. I'm going to, yeah, I'm going to make myself be

attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex. Like that's not how sexual attraction works. And so this argument from orientation, I think it rightly identifies the experience of gay and lesbian people that they did not choose these attractions. And for most of them, these attractions, at least when they first started experiencing them, are unwanted. It certainly feels like experientially that God made them this way. And so experientially, this argument, I think, has a lot of weight. And I think we need to resonate with that relational weight that this argument has. Gay people don't choose their attractions. In response to the argument itself, I will say that, I mean, theologically, inborn desires don't justify behavior. And I'm just stating this as a broad ethical principle. Like we don't argue for a certain

ethic as well. If there's a desire that can be shown to be biologically based that is unchosen, that therefore it's okay to act on that desire. That's not a theologically valid principle. I don't know a single person who would embrace that ethic consistently, that as long as a desire is unchosen, then therefore it's okay to act on. That's not sound theological or ethical reasoning. I love what Justin Lee says about this. Justin Lee is an affirming gay Christian. And in his book, he says, his book Torn, he says, just because an attraction or drive is biological doesn't mean it's okay to act on. We all have inborn tendencies to sin in any number of ways. And so is it a sin and does it have biological roots? These are two completely separate questions.

I 100% agree with his line of reasoning here. Even if same-sex attraction was 100% biological, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it's therefore okay to act on this desire. Now, scientifically, this is kind of my third response to this argument of orientation. First response is yes, gay people don't choose their attractions. Number two is inborn desires don't justify behavior. And number three, the scientific evidence just simply doesn't say that people are born gay, as in like 100% nature, 0% nurture. Virtually every expert in the field of sexual orientation says that whatever's causing someone, some people to be attracted to the same sex, it's a complex blend of nature and nurture.

For instance, the American Psychological Association, they say this, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. There was a massive study done fairly recently on the genetics of same-sex sexuality. I think they even framed it as same-sex sexual behavior. But in that study, they say, in the end, the scientists could not find any genetic patterns that could be used in any way to identify a person's sexual orientation. Instead, the predisposition to same-sex sexual behavior appeared influenced by a complex mix of genetic and environmental influences. So, I mean, honestly, I'm not particularly interested in the kind of

causation question of same-sex desires. I mean, at the end of the day, it doesn't, what does that accomplish? Even if you could identify a particular cause. What people realize, what scientists realize as they keep studying sexual orientation is that it's super complex. We are complex beings. Sexuality is incredibly complex. And so we cannot say it's 100% biological and 0% environmental, nor can we say it's 100% environmental and 0% biological. Typically, there's some kind of biological predisposition toward being attracted to the same sex. And sometimes there's environmental influences that nurture and shape and prod along those desires. So I guess my main point is that, you know, our understanding of sexual orientation

is not like our understanding that the earth is round and not flat. It's not like, oh, we used to think that people just chose to be attracted to the same sex, but now we know that people are simply born this way. Like that's just a very simplistic understanding of the deep complexity of same-sex sexual orientation. So all that to say, I think it's ethically invalid for several reasons to say, since people are born gay, therefore God created them that way. Even that assumes that that, um, that people that, however, people, the desires that people are born with, if that's even true, um, the desires that people are born with are sort of untouched by any kind of like fallen nature or the fallen world or whatever. And it's simply a direct, um, result of God causing them to be this way. Like, I think that doesn't really represent a Christian understanding

of human nature. So yeah, I don't think it's ethically valid to say that since people are born gay, God made them that way, and therefore it doesn't make sense for God to say same-sex relationships are not his design. Okay, next argument. This argument, number four, says that the term homosexual isn't in the original text of the Bible. The term homosexual was added in 1946 to English translations, in particular, the Revised Standard Version of 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.9-10, but it's an inaccurate translation. There is no Greek or Hebrew term that means homosexual. What's my response to this argument? Well, I'm in 100% agreement with it.

No, that's not enough. I am 120% in agreement with this argument because I am extremely passionate about not translating 1 Corinthians 6, 9 with the term homosexual. Okay. I think it's a bad translation of the Greek text. It's inaccurate and it's incredibly misleading. So 1 Corinthians 6, 9 says, or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, okay, that's people who are committing acts of sexual immorality, nor idolaters, those who are committing acts of idolatry, nor adulterers, those who are committing acts of adultery, nor, this translation says, homosexuals will

inherit the kingdom of God. Well, what does it mean to be homosexual? And I don't love that term, but that's since we're talking about the word, we have to use it here. To be homosexual means to be attracted to the same sex. It doesn't say anything about acting on that attraction. I mean, there are some of the most sexually pure people I know are quote unquote homosexual. There's, there's one guy. I mean, he'd be embarrassed if I, um, describe them this way. So I won't name his name, but he was on the podcast recently. He's a pastor. He's in his late

forties. Um, he is literally one of the most holy human beings I've ever met. He's never held hands with somebody romantically. He has all kinds of guards on his computer screen. He does not watch porn, and he is honest about that. He has accountability partners. This guy is the most vigilant person at keeping himself sexually pure. He is, again, I don't love this term, but just because this is the term we're talking about, he is homosexual. If he doesn't make it into the kingdom of God, you and me are absolutely screwed. Who's going to be there? It's going to be Jesus and the Holy Spirit hanging out with the Father. If my buddy does not make it into the kingdom of God because he is a homosexual, he is attracted to men and not women. Homosexual, being a homosexual, being gay, being attracted to the same sex is not a morally culpable sin.

Lust is a sin. And having sex with somebody who is not your spouse is a sin. And what I mean by that is, you know, according to the definition of marriage we gave in the last podcast. So yeah, this is a terrible translation. It's misleading. The Greek words lying behind the term homosexual here are two Greek words, malakoi and arsenakotes, specifically arsenakotes. And there are debates about the meaning of arsenakwites because it only occurs, this is the first time it occurs in all of Greek literature, okay? The New Testament was written

in Greek, but tons of other Greek texts existed back then, right? Homer wrote in Greek and tons of Greek literature, and the first century is filled with Greek literature. So the New Testament is one of many, many, many, many, many different pieces of ancient Greek literature. And this is the first time, 1 Corinthians 6, 9, first time in all of Greek literature that the Greek word arsenakwites occurs. So people are like, what does it mean? If we don't even have other parallel passages to look at, how do we even know what this term means? parallel passages look at, how do we even know what this term means? Well, if we break down the meaning of arsenakotes, we get kind of a general sense of what it possibly could mean. Arsenakotes is a compound, even though it's the first time the word occurs in all of Greek literature, it's a compound word. And the two words that make up this compound word are very common. Arson, which means male,

and coite, which means bed. Male bed. And as a classicist scholar, I think he's a historical scholar, David Wright has shown in several articles, the best meaning of this term, if you just look at the parts, is one who beds males. A male bedder, meaning one who sleeps with other males. Okay. Now, some people say, yes, okay, that's probably what the term means. But in this context, it's talking about somebody who beds other males unjustly, somebody who violates other males. It's like, okay, that's a possible meaning of the term. And certainly the term would include that. The only problem with that is the only other time in the Greek Old Testament, or sorry, we actually see these two terms

side by side in the Greek Old Testament, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, or sorry, we actually see these two terms side by side in the Greek Old Testament, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Where do we see arson and coite side by side? Leviticus 20, 13. One of the two passages that prohibit men from having sex with other men. And if you look at the context of that passage, it is not an oppressive act. It includes consensual same-sex male sexual relationships. So what seems fairly well-established, and again, if you read the articles by David Wright, by Richard Hayes, and many others, and I summarize this in my book, People to be Loved, and many others, and I summarize this in my book, People to be Loved, it is very likely, given what I just described, that Paul is reaching back to Leviticus 20.13, a passage that prohibits consensual male same-sex relationships, takes two terms occurring side by side, and he smashes them

together to form one compound word here in 1 Corinthians 6.9 to refer to, and here's, I'm going to give a translation of arsenakotes, a man who has sex is having sex with other males. Maybe it's an oppressive act. Maybe it's a consensual act. You can't limit this term to a non-consensual same-sex act. So while homosexual is a terrible misleading translation of arsenakotes, it is still referring to and prohibiting male same-sex consensual sexual activity. So this argument is true in and of itself, but the implications that are drawn from this are absolutely wrong. This argument really is one of the best and one of the worst arguments. The best part about it is it's 100% spot on. Homosexual is a terrible translation of Ars Inacuitas. Where it gets

off the rails is when it says, therefore, the Bible does not prohibit same-sex sexual relationships. Therefore, the church's homophobia was created by a bunch of homophobic translators who introduced this word homosexual into this text, and that's where we get this anti-gay theology. That line of reasoning, that therefore, it's a massive logical leap that just doesn't square with the text of scripture. We don't need the term homosexual to occur in the Bible for the Bible to define marriage as male and female, a male and female relationship, or to prohibit same-sex sexual behavior. All right. Next argument. Oh, I got to skip ahead here. Uh, okay. Uh, number five, God's acceptance of the

Gentiles mirrors God's acceptance of gay people, uh, in the same way that God went against his own law to accept Gentiles without being circumcised or taken on dietary laws. So God now accepts gay people, even if it goes against older laws. This line of reasoning, what I like about it is it does tap into a really powerful biblical theme where certain people that were marginalized and excluded from God's covenant, God's people in the Old Testament are now included in God's covenant. For instance, eunuchs, somebody who had, you know, some kind of abnormality or atypical feature in their sexual anatomy, probably similar to like a, what we would call intersex today, a eunuch. They are, you know, excluded from God's kingdom in the Old Testament, but now included in the New Testament. So I like that. And Gentiles would be the same way. They weren't excluded in

the Old Testament, but they were required to take on certain aspects of the Jewish law to be included into the covenant. But in the New Testament, you know, you read about this from Acts 10 to 15, they are included as Gentiles into the covenant. So I do, I think there's aspects of this parallel that are good and true. One thing to point out though, where in the Old Testament does it say that gay people are excluded from the covenant? That's never stated. You say, no, wait a minute. Leviticus 18. That prohibits same-sex sexual behavior, which in the ancient world was common among straight people as a way of kind of dominating another, you know, an oppressed, you know, like on the battlefield.

If you won the battle, it wasn't uncommon for male soldiers to rape other male soldiers. It doesn't mean they have a same-sex orientation. And in that case, it would just be a power move. And again, I'm not saying that that's the only thing that Leviticus is referring to, but that would certainly be included in the prohibition. excluded in, in the prohibition. Um, so I, nowhere does it say that like my friend who is, um, in his late forties and sexually pure that he would be excluded from the old covenant, uh, simply because of his sexual orientation. Like the old Testament isn't even talking about that. Nor is the new Testament really. Um, so yeah, I don't think gay people have ever been, um, excluded from God's, uh, people as gay people. Um, yes, there is a sexual ethic that people are being included into and to

follow. And that's really kind of the sticking point with this argument, um, is yes, Gentiles are included, um, in God's covenant and they don't have to take on the dietary laws. They don't have to become circumcised to be part of the covenant. Whereas in the Old Testament, they did have to take on these dietary laws and be circumcised. But in the New Testament, when it talks about the acceptance of God's acceptance of the Gentiles, they still are required to follow the same marriage and sex laws that are constant between the old and the new covenants. And that's something that it's a little bewildering, if I can say it like that, that this argument doesn't, oftentimes when I see people make it, they don't recognize that. That seems like a really clear point that the sexual laws that

are laid down in the law of Moses are also repeated in the New Testament. And the Gentiles, while they don't need to be circumcised, are called to follow the same sexual ethic that all of God's people are called to follow. In fact, in Acts 15, where we see the Jerusalem council, where they got together and discussed this very issue, and they decided that Gentiles don't need to be circumcised, that they don't need to take on the dietary laws. They explicitly said that they do need to abide by the same laws of sexual immorality that were given in the old covenant and in the new. In Acts 20, verse 20 and 28, I think it's James talking here. He

says, it is in my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God. Like, in other words, don't burden them with taking on all these dietary laws, but that we do write to them that they do four things, abstain from things contaminated by idols, from acts of sexual immorality, from what has been strangled and from blood. Those last two are a little, there's some debate about what that means, the things strangled and from blood. But he explicitly says that they are to abstain from acts of sexual immorality. That's pornea. And as many scholars have pointed out, the word pornea is a reference to all of the sexual laws in Leviticus 18, including the prohibitions of

same-sex sexual relationships. So in the very context that is used to argue, to make this argument in the very text, the base text for this argument. It explicitly says that Gentiles are to not engage in pornea, which would include same-sex sexual relationships. All right. So yeah, I don't think that argument holds a lot of weight. The last argument, this is more of a recent argument that I'm seeing. And it goes something like this, that it has to do with Jesus's treatment of the Sabbath command. The argument goes like this, that Jesus goes against the Old Testament Sabbath command when human life is at stake. We see this in Matthew 12, Mark, I want to say Mark 3, I just read it the other day. We should do the same with the same-sex prohibitions since human life is at stake. What I like about this argument is that it digs, it appreciates and considers some of the hermeneutical complexity of Jesus and the Old Testament law. And that's something that I think with any issue we should wrestle with.

I think there are some hermeneutical interpretive complexities when it comes to biblical ethics. So I like that this argument has forced us to not just quote the Bible, but actually wrestle with what the Bible means, not just what it says. I mean, my quick response to this, though, is that we can't map what Jesus does with the Sabbath onto his sexual ethic. Like, if you want to know what Jesus thinks about sexual ethics or his definition of marriage, then let's look at what Jesus says about marriage and what he says about sexual ethics. does this with the Sabbath, that doesn't mean we take that hermeneutical move and map it on to every other ethical question. That's kind of a leap. When people say, well, look what he does with the Sabbath, I think we should do this with sexual ethics. It's like, well, maybe, but you can't just assume that just because he does this with the Sabbath, that that's what he's going to do with sexual ethics. And this also ties in with some of my problems with the harm argument.

It assumes that human life is at stake, that gay and lesbian people, I mean, in some of the extreme forms of this argument, that they will end up committing suicide or attempting suicide or be much higher on the suicide, on suicidality, attempted suicide, if they encounter the traditional sexual ethic. And I just think that that's a wrong view of marriage and sex as a whole. Again, we've already talked extensively about that. I'm going to repeat what I said earlier. But yeah, yes, Jesus does some interesting things with the Sabbath. But when it comes to marriage, Matthew 19, he says male and female are part of this one flesh marriage bond. And he holds to a standard Jewish sexual ethic that is not at all adjusted. In fact, you can go 500 years on either side of Jesus,

500 years before, 500 years after, and within Judaism, of which Christianity was born out of, the sexual ethic was never really that debated. The only aspect of the sexual ethic that is debated within Judaism is divorce. There's different views on divorce, but when it comes to marriage being between a man and woman and whether God blesses same-sex sexual relationships, there was no debate within Judaism on that. And there was debate even on the Sabbath command. So Jesus here,

by treating the Sabbath differently, he's kind of entering into an inner Jewish dialogue about the meaning of the Sabbath command. But again, there was no diversity on the Judeo-Christian view of marriage and same-sex sexual relationships. So that completes our overview of some of these affirming arguments. I want to bring us back, though, to a point that I've made in the previous podcast and in this podcast, that if all we do, if all you do is take the previous podcast and this podcast and use it as some piece of theological ammunition to win an argument, ammunition to win an argument. I'm just going to say you've missed it. Embracing and if need be defending the traditional historically Christian view of marriage and sexuality, that is like one wing of the airplane.

But loving, listening to, caring for, inviting into your homes, LGBT people, opening up spaces in the church where they don't feel dehumanized and shamed and shunned, creating a church culture where people can wrestle with their sexuality without being shamed and shunned and dehumanized. If we're not also doing that, that is the other side of the, that is the other wing of the airplane. Without both wings, we crash and burn. We absolutely need to always humanize this, the theological conversation. If all we do is debate theology, we are absolutely missing it. I've talked to lots of friends who are attracted to the same sex and trying to follow the traditional sexual ethic. They believe that it's true.

They believe it's biblical. And they're trying to live by it, whether through a commitment to celibacy or several friends of mine are in opposite sex marriages, even though they're attracted to the same sex and they're trying to figure out how to make that work. And there's always challenges there, but I mean, there are some of the people that I know have some of those beautiful marriages I've ever seen, quite honestly. And that's not, I'm not being prescriptive there, but simply descriptive of some friends of mine. But, you know, so these friends of mine that are gay and are trying to follow the historically Christian view of marriage and sexuality, I often ask them, I said, what would it take for you to embrace the affirming view?

you to embrace the affirming view. The unanimous response I get goes something like this. Preston, I do not find the affirming view theologically credible. I've looked into it, tried to embrace it. I just don't see it. What would drive me to the affirming view is the oppressive, shame-inducing, conservative Christian culture that loves to proclaim a traditional theology but fails to recognize, embrace, and celebrate my humanity. I'm just tired of having my language constantly policed by straight people saying, don't use the word gay. If you say you're a gay Christian, and that's the same as saying you're an adulterous Christian. Oh, don't do that. No, you're committed to celibacy and you've never touched another person romantically. Well, I don't know if you're fit for ministry. You can't have a leadership position here because you're attracted to the same sex, even though half of our pastors are struggling with porn, a couple have been divorced and remarried and so on and so forth.

Living in that kind of inconsistent, uncaring, hypocritical environment, it's that that is driving gay and lesbian people who are trying to follow Jesus, trying to follow a traditional sexual ethic. It's that posture and church culture that's driving people to lay aside the theology and just say, I just can't, I can't do this anymore. I believe in the theology, it matches what the Bible says, but I can't live in this kind of church culture anymore. So I hope you enjoyed this two-part theological journey, but please, please, please do not take these two podcasts or YouTube talks as the kind of A to Z training on how to engage in and address the LGBTQ conversation. We must embody the truth of what God says about marriage and sexuality in our own

lives first and promote that in the lives of other aspiring Christians. We also need to embody the radical, scandalous, undiluted grace of Jesus toward those who have been marginalized by the church. We'll see you next time on Theology in the Rock. Thank you.