Theology in the Raw - S9 Ep916: Gay Identity, Gentile Christians, and Revoice: Misty Irons

Episode Date: November 4, 2021

Is it a sin to be gay? Would you attend a church that has a gay pastor? What does it mean to be gay? There is still a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the term gay and what it means to be a gay Christian. I discuss these issues at length, which leads into Misty Irons’ incredible talk she gave at this year’s Revoice Conference.  Misty Irons is a graduate of Westminster Seminary California (M.A., Biblical Studies) and a member of the Presbyterian Church in America. She has maintained a blog on faith and sexuality since 2000. Over the years Misty has served the LGBT Christian community in various capacities, as conference speaker, seminar leader, and podcast guest, representing a straight ally perspective. Check out Revoice: revoice.us  Here’s their statement on sexual ethics: https://revoice.us/about/our-beliefs/statements-of-conviction/statement-on-sexual-ethics-and-christian-obedience/ Theology in the Raw Conference - Exiles in Babylon At the Theology in the Raw conference, we will be challenged to think like exiles about race, sexuality, gender, critical race theory, hell, transgender identities, climate change, creation care, American politics, and what it means to love your democratic or republican neighbor as yourself. Different views will be presented. No question is off limits. No political party will be praised. Everyone will be challenged to think. And Jesus will be upheld as supreme. Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out Dr. Sprinkle’s website prestonsprinkle.com Stay Up to Date with the Podcast Twitter | @RawTheology Instagram | @TheologyintheRaw If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

Hey friends, I want to invite you to consider attending the first ever Theology in the Raw Exiles in Babylon Conference, March 31st through April 2nd in Boise, Idaho. That's 2022. You can attend in person, which is going to have its advantages because we're going to have a massive after party on Friday night. You get to hang out with other people, get to know the speakers, get to ask questions live at the conference. If you can't attend in person, you can also attend

virtually. All the info is at PrestonSprinkle.com. Space is limited. So you want to sign up soon if you plan on attending in person. Loads of awesome speakers, including Jackie O'Perry, David Platt, Thabiti Anyabwale, Derwin Gray, Ellie Bonilla, Evan Wickham, John Tyson, Greg Cole, Sandy Richter, Kimika Titi, and many, many, many others. Worship is going to be multi-ethnic. Everything's going to be, we're just going to mix it up. We're going to talk about race. We're going to talk about sexuality and gender. We're going to talk about hell. We're going to talk about politics and on and on the list goes. So I will see you in Boise, either in person or online next year. Is it a sin to be gay? Or would you go to a church that had a gay pastor? Or if

you serve at a church, would you hire a gay pastor? These are questions that often come up. I'm sure we've thought about them before. And many of you probably answered either yes or no to those questions I just asked, but none of you should have said anything until you ask a question. What do you mean by gay? Oftentimes people assume that they know what a person means when they say the term gay. We all have different assumptions and images that come into our mind when we hear the word gay. And so when I asked the question, is it a sin to be gay? There's a lot of assumptions that go into whatever response you gave. But I think this is something that desperately needs to be discussed. And if you've heard me speak on this topic, as you know, I typically reserve a good deal of time in exploring the meaning of gay and how the term gay can be defined by different people.

can, or how the term gay can be defined by different people. There's several different nuances to the term gay that some people explicitly hold to or sort of implicitly hear when they hear the term gay. For instance, gay for some people can simply mean attraction or, you know, a sexual orientation that somebody is, be the gay means that somebody is attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex. It has to do with what more modern scholars call one's sexual orientation. It doesn't speak to any kind of behavior necessarily. It just means that in the grand scheme of things, you are attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex. If you're attracted on some level to both sexes, then you would be, you might be called bisexual. Some people might even use the term temptation as a word to describe these attractions, especially, you know, obviously

somebody that would hold to a historic Christian sexual ethic might even describe their same-sex sexuality, the fact that they are quote-unquote gay, even if they don't use that term, as a temptation to sin, but not a sin in and of itself. The term gay can also be an identity. Now, when I say identity, there are different shades of identities. Identity. Now, when I say identity, there are different shades of identities. Just because you say I am blank, blank, blank, whatever, not that I'm swearing here, but you know, I am blank, fill in the blank, that doesn't convey the same level of identity. For instance, I could say I am a Dodgers fan, and that is a very, well, that's still raw. Let me use a different example. I could say I am an American. I am an Idahoan. I live in Idaho. These identities, for some people, they might be a lot stronger than others. For me, it's just, you know, it's an aspect of who I am, but definitely not a central core aspect of who I am. But if I said I am a Christian, or even if I

said I am a man, I am male, these are stronger identities. And of course, you know, my Christian identity would be the ultimate identity. But even if I said, I am human, I am Christian, these are both very important identities that are sort of essential for each other. It's hard to be a Christian if you're not human. And so, yeah, determining what kind of identity is your central all-encompassing identity is actually really difficult. So even if somebody said, I am gay, that can mean many different things. Being gay could be the central core aspect of who they see themselves to be, or it could be simply a low-level identity. It's simply a description of an aspect of their experience in life, but not something that is central to their core essence of who they are. Gay can mean many different things. Several, you know, celibate gay Christian, I'm going to come back to the phrase gay Christian

in a second, but several celibate gay Christian friends of mine, you know, have experienced same sex sexual desires or same sex sexual attraction sexual attraction for as long as they could live or at least since puberty. And for many of them, it began as an attraction and experience that they didn't want. Many of them tried to pray it away, maybe even went through some kind of conversion type therapy to make their attractions go away. But for whatever reason, those attractions still existed. And for celibate gay Christians, they typically go through a pretty extensive, rigorous, sometimes lonely theological journey where they try to figure out, okay, what does this mean for my life?

My attractions aren't going away. So, and also my love for Jesus isn't going away either. So how do I make sense of this? And typically after a lengthy theological journey, they come to the conclusion that engaging in a same sex sexual relationship, even under the, um, legal sanction of, uh, marriage is not something that God, um, endorses. Um, and so they end up saying, okay, until I, unless God changes my attractions, I'm going to commit my life to celibacy. Now think about that. In 2021, when a growing number of churches would be perfectly fine with same-sex marriage, society in many ways, and I would say in most ways, would be very accepting of a same-sex sexual relationship and might even be kind of like down

upon somebody who is gay and doesn't engage in a same-sex relationship. If you, um, social media and Hollywood and the music industry and many different, um, platforms and avenues in society would celebrate somebody's same-sex sexual relationship. And there's many books and articles that you can read that would try to argue, or not try to argue, they do argue that the Bible is perfectly fine with a monogamous, consensual, same-sex relationship. So, in spite of that kind of environment for somebody that is still in 2021, say out of allegiance to Jesus, for somebody that is still in 2021 to say out of allegiance to Jesus, in the midst of a cacophony of voices I'm hearing, I'm saying no to those voices. I'm saying yes to the voice that I'm hearing through scripture. I am not going to engage in the same sex, sexual relationship,

even though I'm gay. If they say the term gay, does that mean that their gayness is their ultimate allegiance? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Picture yourself praying the gay away, going to therapy, searching the scriptures, being, you know, wooed into, or at least being, you know, encouraged by different voices in society to pursue your attraction, to engage in a sexual relationship with somebody of the same sex and to still cling to Jesus. And for somebody to say, well, you know, Joe, I don't have a Joe in mind, just John Doe, Joe Doe. Well, you know, Joe, Joe Doe. Well, you know, Joe, your gayness isn't your ultimate identity. That at least put yourself in somebody's shoes when they hear that pushback. On what planet do you think that my gayness is my ultimate identity when I'm committed to celibacy?

identity when I'm committed to celibacy. So, I think we need to think really hard before we straight, let's just say, Christians who have a traditional sexual ethic, you know, assume that we think we know what somebody means when they use the term gay. Gay can mean attraction. It can mean an identity and even identity exists on a spectrum. And for somebody who is committed to this historic Christian sexual ethic, by definition, by definition, their gayness being gay is not their ultimate identity. Their gayness is not on the throne of their life. It doesn't make any sense really to them or to I, or to probably many of you when somebody says that simply using the term gay by definition means that that is your ultimate identity simply because it comes after the phrase

I am dot dot dot. For some people being gay, they assume that it simply means you are lusting after the same sex. Like they blur the distinction between attraction and lust. And I think that's problematic and it's easy to see how problematic it is if you just flip it around. Like for instance, I'm straight. Many of you might be straight. Congratulations. That means by definition, you are attracted to the opposite sex, not the same sex. Now, again, by definition, what that means is that you are attracted to 3. What is it? Six billion people on the planet. Like, well, no, no, no. The fact I'm straight.

Yes, I'm attracted. Like for me, for instance, I'm straight. I'm male. So it means I'm attracted to females. But it doesn't mean that I'm attracted to every single individual female. It certainly doesn't mean that I'm wanting to have sex or I'm lusting after every single female. My opposite sex attraction certainly does not mean lust. Okay, so flip it around. Just flip it around. If somebody says they're gay, that simply means they're attracted to the same sex,

not the opposite sex, but it certainly doesn't mean that they are lusting after the same sex and it certainly doesn't mean they desire to have a sexual relationship or even really sexually attracted to, in the strong sense of the term, every single individual of the same sex. So gay doesn't necessarily mean lust. Some people, when they hear the term gay, they automatically think of same-sex relationships, sexual behavior. To be gay is to be having gay sex. Again, that doesn't make any sense when you flip it around. To be straight doesn't mean you're having lots of straight sex. To be straight just means you're attracted to, not lusting after, nor

engaging in sexual relationship with the opposite sex. Wait, did I get that right? Anyway, you get the point. So for instance, I've got a friend who is a theologically traditional Christian and realized he was gay, you know, right through puberty, tried to pray it away, didn't go away, went to therapy, didn't go away, like did not want to be gay for several years and wasn't going away. Also searched the scriptures and discovered that God does not desire him to engage in a same-sex sexual relationship. And so he commits his life to celibacy, but he wants to be honest with his, you know, significant aspect of his life. The fact that he does go through life attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex. So he comes out to his

elders at the age of around 19. He was volunteering at the church and he said, hey, I just want you to know that I'm gay. I want to be honest with you, but I'm committed to celibacy. I fully agree with the church's stance on sexual ethics, but I just wanted to be open and honest with you with an aspect, a significant aspect of my life. And the response he got from one of the elders was, well, we can't have somebody at our church with your lifestyle. And there it is, the gay lifestyle, right? When they heard the term gay, they automatically thought gay lifestyle, meaning, I mean, what does that even mean, gay lifestyle? I mean, okay, it means somebody is having sex, okay, in this case with the same sex. So when they heard the term gay, they interpreted the term gay as sexual behavior, even though when this person used the term gay, they were simply referring to the fact that they are attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex, but are submitting both their temptation to lust and temptation to engage in a sexual relationship at the feet of their Lord and King Jesus Christ. So, is it a sin to be gay? Depends what you mean by gay. When people like me

and many others say, no, it is not a morally culpable sin to be gay. What they mean is somebody can be attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex, and still be pursuing sexual holiness while being attracted to the same sex. Now we can explore whether, you know, the fact that they're even tempted toward same-sex attraction, maybe that desire, that attraction itself is part of the fall. I think there's a good case to be made for that. I tend to be really cautious with stuffing everything under the fall umbrella. I think we do that sometimes too quickly, but sure, that may, that theologically, that can make sense to me. But that doesn't mean, even if it's part of the fall, same-sex attraction, that doesn't mean it is a morally culpable sin that somebody

needs to repent from. I've got a friend, a such a good friend, I forgot his name. No, Nate Collins, who he is gay. He's attracted to the same sex, married to a woman, theologically traditional. And he, in his book, All But Invisible, talks about, he kind of reads same-sex attraction through the lens of like a disability to where somebody with a physical or mental, um, well, sometimes disability can be offensive, but I'm using his categories. Um, you know, we can say that that is a disability might be a result of the fall, but isn't like a morally culpable sin. Okay. That somebody needs to repent from. So, um, is it a sin to be gay? What do you mean by sin? What do you mean by gay? Once we get our definitions down, I think a very good case

can be made depending on what people mean by the term that no, it is not a morally culpable sin to be simply attracted to the same sex. Now, some people still get hung up on the phrase gay Christian, gay Christian. Should we even use the term gay Christian? I've heard people say, many people say, some of you maybe even say, well, I don't know. I don't call myself an adulterous Christian. I don't call myself an idolatrous Christian. I don't call myself a murdering Christian. Why would somebody say they're a gay Christian? Now, again, I don't call myself a murdering Christian. Why would somebody say they're a gay Christian?

Now, again, let's just recall my previous conversation. What all those three other labels have in common, adulterous Christian, idolatrous Christian, and murdering Christian. All of those are referring to active sinful behaviors, committing adultery, sleeping with somebody else's spouse, idolatry, committing idolatry, not being tempted toward idolatry. We're all that. Murdering Christian, not I am tempted to get angry or even murder somebody, but you are a murdering Christian. That is a sinful behavior. So hopefully you can see that these correlations are not, they're kind of sloppy if you think about it.

If gay simply means an attraction, that somebody might be submitting to the Lordship of Jesus and not acting on that attraction or not, yeah, not engaging in same-sex sexual behavior, then how is that similar to somebody who is quote unquote, calling themselves an adulterous Christian? These categories do not overlap with each other. And also somebody, other people might say, well, I don't walk into a room and introduce myself as a straight Christian. Hi, I'm a straight Christian. And my straightness is not my ultimate identity.

And again, just because somebody says gay Christian also doesn't mean they walk into a room and say, hi, I'm a gay Christian. I don't know if I've ever seen anybody walk into a room and introduce himself as a gay Christian. And again, if they're committed to the traditional sexual ethic, by definition, their gayness is not their ultimate identity. So while my straightness is not my ultimate identity, it's a significant aspect of my life. And if somebody asks me, are you a gay Christian, bisexual Christian, or a straight Christian, I would have no problem saying I am a straight Christian without my straightness being the front and center, all encompassing, you know,

aspect of my life. My straightness is not on the throne of my life. Jesus is on the throne of my life. My humanity is also a significant part of my identity, more than my straightness, but being straight is a significant aspect of my life. And so I would have no problem using the term straight Christian in certain contexts. Like, again, answering the question, if somebody asked me, are you a gay, bisexual, or straight Christian? I would say I'm a straight Christian. Somebody might, you know, so even the term gay Christian does not necessarily front load or prioritize someone's gayness over every other aspect of their life.

That's not what the phrase gay Christian must mean. In certain contexts, it just is linguistically much easier to say than to always say a Christian who is tempted by same-sex attraction or whatever alternative phrase you might want to say. Somebody could say, I'm a divorced Christian. And I've even used that phrase in emails referring to somebody else who has gone through a divorce. And for linguistic grammatical reasons, it might be just easier to use the term divorced Christian rather than always saying a Christian who has been through a divorce. Certainly doesn't mean that their divorce is necessarily their ultimate identity. It doesn't define their Christian-ness.

It's just linguistically a little easier to use that phrase. This has been a huge topic of debate within evangelicals. And I feel like it's getting more intense, which is why I'm devoting this podcast to this question. I'm devoting this podcast to this question. And in a second, I'm going to introduce my friend, Misty Irons, who gave an incredible talk at the recent Revoice conference in Dallas, Texas. Revoice is an organization that is committed to a historic traditional sexual ethic and is making space for and relational connections between Christians who are same-sex attracted and or LGBTQ and or whatever term you want to use. They are not straight.

You know, straight people are more than welcome to come to the conference. I've been to it and I've spoken at it. But it's primarily geared towards fostering this conversation between among people who are attracted to the same sex or wrestling with their gender identity or experience an alternative gender identity and are still committed to Jesus and a traditional sexual ethic. Now, man, I really think anybody listening,

we all need to really figure out this conversation, the so-called role of having a gay identity or whether it's okay to use the term gay to describe somebody's experience. Again, I'm thinking of people who are committed to a traditional sexual ethic, who are Christians committed to the biblical traditional sexual ethic. Now, I will say, I think that some of my gay and lesbian Christian friends, there we go, are a little weary of continually defending what they mean by the term gay and why, um, why it can be a little stifling, if not frustrating to have their language constantly policed by straight people who assume that they know what they mean by the term gay. Um, that can be really tiring, especially when you're explaining and have explained over and

over. Here's what I, when I say gay or even the gay Christian, here is what I mean. And have other people basically say, no, that's not what the term means. Here's what it means. Here's what it implies. Here's what it conveys. Here's why it's not healthy for you to use this term. Here's let, you know, well, no, I'm the person using the term. Let me tell you what I mean by it. No, that's not what it means. It means that this is why it's not good for you to use it. That can get really exhausting. I also would propose that I think in some context, the term gay can have a really strong missional component to it because for a lot of people outside the church, well, even inside the church,

unfortunately, but let's stick to outside the church. For a lot of people outside the church, they had this idea that it's impossible to be gay and a Christian. To be a Christian is to be straight. And you would have to not be attracted to the same sex in order to actually follow Jesus. But for a lot of people, most people, they are gay. They don't experience any, um, any opposite sex attractions. And so they are gay. And so for somebody who's outside the church, not a Christian, they have, a lot of them have an assumption that as long as they are still gay, which looks, seems like it's going to last for life, then Christianity is off the table for them to meet somebody who is a Christian, who does embrace a traditional sexual ethic, who is also not only gay, but uses that term. Hey, what you reading there? I'm reading

the Bible. Oh, you're a Christian. Oh yeah. Well, that wouldn't work for me. I'm gay. Oh, well, I'm actually a pastor and nice to meet you. And oh, and by the way, I'm actually gay too. Oh, I'm actually a pastor and nice to meet you. And oh, and by the way, I'm actually gay too. What? Wait, you're reading the Bible and you're gay and you're a pastor? Can you talk to me about that? Like, I didn't think that was possible.

Now, if that person reading the Bible, the gay pastor there, I could say a pastor who wrestles with same-sex attraction or just say gay pastor can mean the same thing. Um, for him, if he says, oh yeah, I'm a pastor and oh yeah, you know, I, I also experienced an attraction to the same sex. That's not going to be as powerful than him saying, oh yeah, I'm gay too. He's using the language that most connects with the person and their really faulty view of Christianity and Christianity's teaching on, you know, same-sex attraction. So, there are contexts when it's not only, I think, okay to use the term gay, but it can be even missiologically even more powerful, even more powerful. Now, going back to the revoice conference, this is something that I, to be totally honest with you guys, I am a little bewildered at. I have been, and not that this is just an example,

not that it's a huge deal in my life, but I get asked to speak on this topic quite frequently. And I have been disinvited several times, which happens, it's no big deal. But I think in every single case where somebody said, we did invite you, but we're going to disinvite, we did invite you, but we're going to take away that invitation. It's almost always in my anecdotal experience, because, you know, I was asking why, oh, why, you know, what happened? You know, are you affirming now? Oh no, we're not affirming. Or we, we heard that you spoke at revoice. I'm like, okay.

That, that is, it's just kind of confusing to me. Honestly, I want to read to you because this, I really need to air this out a bit. I'm going to read to you Revoice's statement on sexual ethics and Christian obedience. This is at, on the website, revoiceus.com. I know all the leaders are revoiced. They're amazing Christians. And they have, well, let me just read, let me read it to you. Here is what Revoice believes about sexual ethics and Christian obedience. They say this, we believe that God created humankind male and female in his own likeness and image. And that scripture beginning with Genesis one to two reveals God's glorious design for

marriage and human sexuality. Marriage is ordained by God to be an exclusive lifelong and covenantal union of one man and one woman, which signifies the relationship between Christ and the church and involves two parties who are both similar, in other words, are human and different. In other words, they are the opposite sex. Joining together for the sake of mutual support and ordinarily for the generation of humanity. We believe that God extends sexual intimacy to be enjoyed exclusively within this marriage covenant and that any inward cultivation or outward expression of sexual desire apart from the one flesh bond between husband and wife is out of accord, out of accord with God's creational intent and therefore against his will and gracious, his good and gracious will. Malachi 2.14, Matthew 19, 4-6, Genesis 2.24,

1 Corinthians 6, 12-7, 1 Corinthians chapter 6, verses 12 through chapter 7, verse 5, Genesis 1.28, Malachi 2.15, Genesis 2, 18, Ephesians 5. I think there's a bunch of more verses here. Do I need to keep going? Ephesians 5, 22 to 33, 1 Peter 3, 6, Colossians 3, 18 to 19, Genesis 2, 25, Matthew 5, 28, Matthew 19, 9, Galatians 5, 19 to 20. They go on. We believe that God instituted the nuclear family at creation as the most basic unit of physical kinship, that marriage and family are therefore good, and that stewarding these bonds and obedience to Christ is one of the primary means by which the kingdom of God expands. We also believe that every Christian has been adopted into the family

of God and that the bonds of spiritual kinship between brothers and sisters of faith are in fact deeper and more fundamental to Christian self-understanding than natural family relationships. We believe that the local church should be a place in which all Christians experience true belonging and genuine intimacy and that God gives each member of its household, married and unmarried alike, unique opportunities to extend welcome and hospitality so that all might partake in the joys, benefits, and responsibilities of kinship. And they list, I don't know, close to a dozen references here. We believe that sin entered the world as a result of the rebellion of Adam and Eve and now permeates every aspect of creation, including human sexuality, along with every, every form of sexual desire, apart from the one flesh bond

between husband and wife, we believe that same-sex sexual desire experienced by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex attracted people is a product of the fall. That same-sex sexual desire was not a pre-fall reality. And that same-sex sexual desire will not exist in a new creation after the return of Christ. And they cite another seven or eight verses there. They go on, they keep going on, on Christian obedience, the relationship in Christian community. I will save the rest of this. But what, so here's where I'm confused. I speak out, I'm confused. I speak out.

I'm not even on leadership there. I'm on like, what's it called? I'm like an outside consultant for Revoice. I'm not on any kind of payroll. I'm not on any kind of formal leadership direction, nothing. Usually once a year we have a Zoom chat and kind of the leaders there have a group of others that they like to bounce ideas off of and I give some input. My input doesn't need, I'm not a board member, nothing. I speak at it. I have spoken at it in

2018 and then this last year, 2021. So I don't, I'm confused over why theologically conservative places that invite me to come speak on this topic. And again, I'm only using this as an illustration of why I think there needs to be more discussion and just quite frankly, thoughtfulness among Christians in this conversation. Why? What is it in that statement that a theologically, biblically oriented church or organization would have a problem with? I think it comes down to this line, this line that I read, it's towards the end of the first statement that I read that says, we believe that same-sex sexual desire experienced by gay,

read that says, we believe that same-sex sexual desire experienced by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex attractive people, the product of the fall. I think they like the product of the fall part. I think just simply because they use the term gay, lesbian, bisexual. It's those terms, even though they are a synonym for simply being same-sex attracted, there are some people that get so hung up on the very terms gay, lesbian, bisexual because they either think it's an ultimate identity. They think you're elevating your gayness over your Christianness. They think that it's a slippery slope to being affirming. They think that whatever. They think that it's a slippery slope to being affirming. They think that whatever.

I mean, there's all kinds of other reasons why people might get hung up on this, which can be clarified if we simply ask some questions and listen to what people mean by these terms. Even if, even if you're still like, I'm still not that comfortable with the term. All right. When I hear somebody say the term gay or gay Christian, I still, I don't know. I don't think that's the most helpful. Okay, fine. But would you separate from somebody who speaks at a conference? Okay. I don't know how many degrees of separation we're going to go here. Who speaks at a conference doesn't even necessarily agree with everything that, you know, is being said at the conference, whatever, but speaks at a conference, doesn't even necessarily agree with everything that, you know, is being said at the conference, whatever, but speaks at a conference with a leadership holds to a really rigorous traditional sexual ethic, but might be okay with using the term gay or lesbian.

And I'm not saying the leadership does. I know several leaders at revoice that actually don't prefer the term gay to describe their own experience, but they're not going to condemn other people who do. I just wonder if we need to have, churches need to really have a thoughtful, humble conversation or series of conversations around this term gay. What does the Bible say about the term gay or identity markers? And that's where my friend Misty Irons comes in. So I spoke at Revoice Conference. And after I spoke at the conference, I see Misty. I've known Misty from a distance. And first time we met in person, Misty is straight. She's Christian, believes in a traditional sexual ethic. And she was going up to give the next talk.

Now she, I saw, we're sitting next to each other because she was the next speaker. I sat down and then they introduced Misty and she walks up with like several pages of her manuscript. And I'm like, wow, she's going to read a manuscript. I'm like, well that, you know, um, you know, people who typically read manuscripts, it can be kind of maybe dry or boring and monotonous. I'm like, oh, I hope the, I'm like, Misty, if you're listening, you're going to crack up. I saw you walk it up with your manuscript. I was like, oh, I hope this goes well. I mean, I, you know, um, you know, typically when people just

read a manuscript, it's not, you know, super, it's kind of hard to follow sometimes. It's like within seconds, my fears were dismantled because this was one of the best talks I've heard in a long time. Misty, you're brilliant and your talk. Um, I mean, I didn't need to be more convinced of everything I kind of said early on this podcast. I've worked through these questions and I feel good about where I'm at with the term gay, what it means, what it doesn't mean or what it can mean, what it can't mean and so on. But your talk gave a biblical basis for the term gay than I think maybe I've ever heard. It was a brilliant piece. So I reached out to Nate, the head of Revoice, and said,

dude, I need to put Misty's talk on the podcast. So without further ado, I want you to think through and consider this really brilliant talk by the one and only Misty Irons. In 1988, I was a college student in Los Angeles when I heard my pastor preach against homosexuality from Romans 1 at the height of the AIDS crisis. In that sermon, he barraged us with one statistic after another on the rampant promiscuity in the gay community, drawing a direct line from their sexual excesses to the consequences of death for so many by AIDS. Then he closed our time with a prayer for the salvation of these sinners, though I didn't believe God would answer it. Didn't he just say that God had given them over to their unbridled immorality? There wasn't much hope for these homosexuals, but I bowed my head in prayer, along with everyone else, going through the motions of asking for a miracle, when all I

really expected was judgment. Now let's pretend that college student me back in 1988 got into a time machine, Marty McFly style, and I travel 30 years into the future and I'm in St. Louis in 2018, where a certain conference called Revoice was being held. This conference was being organized by self-professing gay Christians. Wait, I thought God abandoned these homosexuals to their lifestyle so they had no interest in spiritual things. And then I find out revoices about gay Christians encouraging one another to follow in the traditional historical Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality, committing to celibacy or mixed orientation marriage.

committing to celibacy or mixed orientation marriage. From promiscuity to celibacy and abstinence, well, this is a miracle. God answered our prayers. Hey, is my old pastor at Revoice? Was he invited as a keynote speaker? He'd be thrilled to see so many people we thought were lost falling on this costly path of Christian obedience.

I turned to Christian media to hear what people are saying about this amazing turn of events, and I am stunned to discover everyone is outraged by Revoice. The church is exploding with indignation. The president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary even accuses Revoice of being responsible for, quote,

the chaos and confusion, which are the inevitable products of the sexual revolution. I didn't know that following in the traditional Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality was now considered by Southern Baptists to be a product of the sexual revolution. of the sexual revolution. Well, 2018 sure is a strange year. There are times when God answers our prayers,

but we fail to recognize it. Why is that? Why does that happen? Quite often it's because the answer we got didn't fit in with what we expected. Our wrong expectations blinded us to what God was doing. Do you remember Naaman the Syrian, the captain of the Aramean army, who was also a leper? He heard there's a prophet in Israel who could heal him. So he arrived at the doorstep of Elisha with his entourage of servants and horsemen and chariots because he envisioned Elisha would come out and wave his hands over him and call upon the name of the Lord in a dramatic fashion.

Instead, Elisha didn't even come out of the house. He sent a messenger to go out and tell him to wash seven times in the Jordan River. Well, Naaman was offended. This was not what he signed up for, and he was not going to wash in that mud puddle of a river, and he was about to turn around and leave when his servant stopped him. Please, sir, just do what the prophet says. It's not asking much. So Naaman listened, and he did go wash in the Jordan, and he was completely healed. But the way it came to him was by design. He could not receive the answer to his request until he first humbled himself

and let go of his own expectations. Somehow we straight Christians missed out on the work God has been doing among gay Christians these past 30 plus years. We've missed out on understanding what this gathering of gay Christians is all about. It's not a positive response to the moral stand the conservative church has been taking all these years on sexual purity, on God's design for marriage, on sexual responsibility and self control. This gathering is a way of saying to the conservative church, you know what? We agree with you.

You're right. Did you hear that? It's a way of saying, we agree with you. You're right. That's nice to hear, isn't it? And it seems like it should be obvious. But maybe the reason straight Christians have been blind to what God is doing among sexual minority Christians is because, like Naaman, we've had the wrong expectations. And setting those aside means humbling ourselves.

In other words, to enjoy the satisfaction of being right, we first need to admit we've also been wrong. The ex-gay movement held out the promise that gay people could become straight. Yet this past 40 plus years of ex-gay ministry has been the story of one failure after another to achieve genuine sexual orientation change, crescendoing in 2013 with the collapse of Exodus International. According to the former president of Exodus, gay people did not become straight 99.9% of the time. They could not pray the gay away, nor could many of the straight family members and friends who prayed along with them. The God who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist apparently did not exercise his power to affect orientation change,

gay people are still gay. Now normally when you pray for something for a few decades and get this kind of non-result, we call it a closed door. The burden of proof would lie with anyone who thinks it's still worthwhile to keep on trying, right? So it's interesting that instead of letting go and adjusting our expectations, we straight Christians have immediately turned from the disappointment of ex-gay ministry to perfecting arguments for why a Christian can't identify as gay. We say it contradicts your identity in Christ. It's like calling yourself a murdering Christian or an adulterous Christian, or a lustful Christian. Now these arguments only work if we redefine the word gay to mean someone who

is either actively having gay sex, or is in a continual state of lust or sinful desire. And when gay Christians tell us that's not what they mean by gay, we rather perversely insist that we know better than they do what they mean. Now, some try to explain that while their sexual orientation is fallen, the human experience of being gay is actually not too different from the experience of being straight, but our response is to be offended that they would compare themselves to us and accuse them of buying into secularism. So it seems to me that we aren't interested in improving our arguments beyond the straw man and the ad hominem variety, but we are very interested in the goal of getting these Christians not to identify as gay. Just don't say the word gay. But our self-imposed

confusion over the term gay has blinded us from making one very important observation. Since God has providentially refrained from changing people's sexual orientations, then he is the one who has chosen not to change their identity. That's why gay Christians, properly understood, still call themselves gay. So why are we taking issue with them when all they've done is read the hand of providence and bend the knee, sometimes bitterly, sometimes tearfully, to God's sovereign will over their lives? We are the ones who have remained unbending.

So is our quarrel really with gay Christians or is it with God himself? The identity of a Christian cannot be with any culture defined in its essence by the rejection of God's design and command. So wrote one prominent critic of the 2018 Revoice Conference. Because secular gay culture celebrates what is contrary to God's design and command, no Christian should ever identify as gay, even if they themselves don't celebrate or practice gay sex. This critic's description reminded me of another group of people. According to the Bible, the culture of this people was

lawlessness. Their history was hostility to God and his people, and they are described characteristically as lustful, sexually immoral, hard-hearted, idolatrous, hedonistic, greedy, ignorant, and estranged from God. Who are they? They are the Gentiles. And today we often use the phrase Gentile Christians to refer to these non-Jewish converts to the faith. We're apparently comfortable with the term, but is it an oxymoron? Gentile was used interchangeably with the term sinners by both Jesus and the apostles. For instance, Matthew 18, Jesus says, if your brother sins, confront him in private. If he doesn't listen to you, bring two or three witnesses. Doesn't listen to them, have the church confront him. And if the church can't get him to listen,

Jesus concludes, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax gatherer. A Gentile, a person who is unrepentant, someone who is hardened in sin. Jesus was simply following Jewish cultural norms when he used the term Gentile in this derogatory way. Galatians 2.15, Paul says, we are Jews by nature, not sinners from among the Gentiles. Gentiles equals sinners in the Jewish mind of that day. Why? Well, it's because their culture was permeated with idolatrous practices, unclean foods, and every

kind of sexual immorality, not to mention Gentile history. 17 centuries of hostility toward the Jews, including their enslavement under Pharaoh and the Egyptians, Sihon king of the Amorites and Og king of Bashan, the Moabites who tried to curse them, Goliath of Gath, the Philistine army, Nebuchadnezzar who carried them into exile, Haman the Agagite who ordered the extermination of the Jewish race, and Pontius Pilate who delivered up their Christ to execution. Kind of makes the Stonewall riots act up and a bunch of gay pride parades seem like nothing by comparison. Imagine being a first century Jewish believer and

hearing us use the term Gentile Christian with that scandalous adjective tainting the noun Christian. Actually, the term Gentile Christian doesn't appear in the New Testament because the Apostle Paul was even more scandalous. He just called Gentile Christians Gentiles. The noun, not even the adjective. And he allows the context to show whether he's speaking of Christians or non-Christians. For instance, the Gentiles who have believed as opposed to the Gentiles who do not know God. Today, this would be the equivalent of saying, let's encourage the gays who have believed to attend Revoice so they can be equipped to reach out to the gays who do not know God. Assuming we understand the term gay correctly, that would be proper language to use according to New Testament standards.

Now, Paul knows he's swimming upstream in this language. There were a lot of Jews who didn't want Gentile believers to be received into the church as Gentiles. They wanted them to change their identity. They wanted to send them to ex-Gentile camp. And there was such thing back then. It was called circumcision. They wanted to Judaize them, which is why we refer to this faction today as the Judaizers. To see the parallels to our controversy today, let's explore some first century context a little bit more. See, sometimes we think the divide between Jew and Gentile was about race or culture or ethnicity. But to the Jews of that time, it was really about one thing, their identity, specifically the relationship to

the law of God. The Jews were people under the law. The Gentiles were people without the law. The law was written in their hearts, but they were people outside the law covenant given to Israel. The law was written in their hearts, but they were people outside the law covenant given to Israel. Getting circumcised was how you put yourself under the law. For Gentiles, circumcision was the rite of passage into a Jewish identity. The Apostle Paul refused to send Gentile Christians to ex-Gentile camp. Yes, he had Timothy circumcised because Timothy was Jewish through his mother's line, but he refused to have Titus circumcised because Titus was fully Greek.

Circumcision isn't inherently bad. It's all about the motive. To circumcise Titus would have been saying he needed to take on a Jewish identity to be saved, that faith in Christ wasn't enough. He needed to put himself under the law and identify with all the practices, standards, and attitudes of Judaism. Keeping his Gentile identity didn't mean Titus was free from moral standards. Remember the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15? They laid out plenty of moral standards for the Gentile Christians. Abstain from sexual immorality, from food sacrifice to idols, from blood, from things strangled.

But circumcision was not on the list. And the Gentile Christians who received the letter from that council rejoiced because they were already eager to live holy lives. But now they wouldn't have to be treated as second-class citizens in the church. Were there advantages to being a Jew? Yes, great in every respect.

Paul concedes this in Romans 3, verses 1 through 2. One advantage is the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Now, the Judaizers weren't demanding circumcision because they expected people to keep the law perfectly. It's more like being Jewish was simply better than being Gentile. The Gentiles didn't have the law, and their entire culture reflected it. At least the Jews had the oracles of God. Sure, we don't keep the law perfectly, but at least we're in the ballpark. The Gentiles aren't even in the ballpark. But Paul knew that while being in the ballpark was good, it was not good enough and it might even

become a stumbling block that blinds you from what really matters because when it comes to the gospel what matters is not the privilege you start out in but where you ultimately end up and for the Jews that was at the exact same place as the Gentiles at the foot of the cross as lawbreakers. In fact, Paul said that his identity as a Jew ended up in a rubbish heap in view of the surpassing glory of Christ. Philippians 3 verses 5 through 8 circumcised the eighth day of the nation Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as to the law of Pharisee. But whatever things were gained to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but rubbish in order that I might gain Christ.

And if that weren't enough, Paul goes further than that. In Galatians 2, 15 through 16, he starts out by saying, we are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles. See, this is our nature, that's their nature. Nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus. Verse 17, but if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin?

May it never be. Wait, Paul's calling himself a sinner? I thought the Gentiles were the sinners. It's one thing for Paul to toss his Jewish identity in a trash heap. It's another to identify himself with a label he reserved for the Gentiles. Why?

Because the gospel is not, you Gentiles, come up to our level of righteousness and get circumcised. Give up your identity and take on ours. Rather, the gospel says, in view of the surpassing glory of Christ, we Jews find ourselves identifying with you Gentiles, because you tell us something about who we are, fellow sinners, fellow lawbreakers, who are in need of the exact

same grace. Are there advantages to being heterosexual? Why, yes, great in every respect. For one thing, the institution of marriage, as God originally designed it, is something we find suitable to our needs and satisfying to our natural desires. It demands faithfulness to one another and thought, word, and deed. Where a husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church and lays down his life for her. Where the wife submits herself to her husband as to the Lord. Where single men and single women treat each other with all purity, knowing how to possess their bodies in sanctification and honor. Do we straights keep these things perfectly?

No, of course not. But at least we're making the attempt to do them while being attracted to the right gender. We're not like the gays, right? I mean, they can't even get out of the starting blocks without being headed in the wrong gender direction. At least we're in the ballpark. They're not even in the ballpark.

But when it comes to the gospel, what matters is not the sexual identity privilege you start out in, but where you ultimately end up, which is in the exact same place as everyone who is not straight, at the foot of the cross, as sexually broken human beings.

Because you aren't faithful in your marriage, in thought, word, and deed, and you don't lay down your life for your wife as Christ did for the church, and you don't perfectly submit to your husband as to the Lord. And perhaps you even have moments where you wonder, what happened to the love that we once had for one another? When will I stop being so angry at him?

When will I stop being so angry at him? When will I stop being so resentful of her? I've been married 10 years. Why isn't my porn problem going away? Or if you're single, will I always be attracted to the wrong man? Will I ever be good enough to attract the right woman? How come every relationship I'm in follows the same dysfunctional pattern as my parents' marriage? The gospel does not say, you gays, come up to our level of righteousness with the help of ex-gay ministry. Give up your gay identity and become straight like us. Rather, the gospel says, in view of the surpassing glory of Christ, we straights actually find ourselves identifying with you gays. Because you tell us something about

who we are, that we can't change our sexual orientation toward brokenness any more than you can. And we need you to encourage us that the grace you have found to be sufficient for your lives can be sufficient for our lives too. The circumcision controversy in the New Testament still speaks to us today, doesn't it? Our modern issue of sexual orientation change and arguing about identity language turns out to be an echo from the past.

Both are about demanding identity change for the sake of a human righteousness that you can boast in. Both are about Christ plus something else. And the ones who have the more privileged identity, the identity that seems more righteous from a human perspective, often fail to understand that not only does it need to be tossed in a rubbish heap in view of the glory of Christ, that not only does it need to be tossed in a rubbish heap in view of the glory of Christ, but can even become a stumbling block, a point of boasting that distracts you

from putting your trust in Christ alone. For Christians today, it's not the gay identity that's the issue of concern, but the straight identity. So what are you saying, Misty? If we straights are supposed to identify with gays, are you saying gay sin is okay? Well, when Paul identified himself with Gentile sinners, he was also accused of what? Of making Christ a minister of sin. So the fact that the accusation comes up shows we're at least starting to think like the apostle.

But of course, Paul's response was, may it never be. like the apostle. But of course, Paul's response was, may it never be. If Christ uses the law to reveal your sin, that doesn't make Christ an advocate of sin. And if Christ uses your marriage or failed relationships to reveal your sexual brokenness, that simply enables you to look at your gay brother or sister next to you at the feet of Jesus and say, you know what? If we both need the same remedy, it's because we both have the same ailment. So are you saying marriage is bad? It's only good for showing us our sexual brokenness? Well, Paul wasn't saying the law was bad, right? The law is holy and righteous and good, and so is Christian marriage. But we are of the flesh, sold into bondage of sin. We want to obey, but we lack the power to do it. And that's

our fault. It's not the fault of God's good gift. So you're saying sexual orientation change is wrong. Is that it? Of course not. But just like with circumcision, it's all about the motive, isn't it? If you're gay and you desire change and God grants you that miracle, that's wonderful. If you're gay and you desire change and God grants you that miracle, that's wonderful. But let's say you're straight and you push someone out of the church or dismiss them from serving as a Sunday school teacher or worship leader or even as a pastor, not because of a scandalous lifestyle, but simply because they have not experienced sexual orientation change. How is that not the heresy of the Judaizers?

How is that not a Christ plus something else formula? Having begun by the Spirit, are we now being perfected by reparative therapy? Perhaps there is a reason why God has not answered so many of our prayers, of their prayers for sexual orientation change. Maybe it's because he didn't think it was necessary. Jesus is not ashamed to identify with gay Christians. We are. And if we are ashamed of them, we are ashamed of the Christ who accepts them and of the gospel that calls them.

My straight brothers and sisters in Christ, let's follow in the example of Paul, the ex-Pharisee, who understood this temptation to be ashamed. But after he encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, he was able to proclaim victory when he said, I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Gent notes. You can support the show for as little as $5 a month and get access to Q&A podcasts, monthly Patreon-only blogs, and basically just get access to the community and help support this ministry that we're doing at Theology in the Raw. Again, check out the show notes and consider supporting this show.