Truth Unites - Defending Traditional Marriage with Preston Sprinkle

Episode Date: June 26, 2023

In this interview I talk with Dr. Preston Sprinkle about common critiques of the traditional Christian view of marriage, and how Christians can respond to them. See Preston's book: https://www.amazon.com/Does-Bible-Support-Same-Sex-Marriage/dp/0830785671/ See Preston's website: https://www.prestonsprinkle.com/ Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

Hey, everybody. Welcome or welcome back to Truth Unites. The purpose of Truth Unites is gospel assurance through theological depth. And today I'm talking to Dr. Preston Sprinkle, who's the president of the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender. He's been working in this area for about 10 years now. He's got about a dozen books, mostly in this field, but other scholarly books as well. He has a very popular podcast called Theology and the Raw. And that's up on YouTube as well, to some extent. You can find some of his work on YouTube. So we're going to have a great comfort. about a book that's coming out this summer called Does the Bible Support Same Sex Marriage? Say more about that in a second and there's a link in the video description but Preston thanks for taking the time how you doing? I'm doing well thanks for having me on Gavin this is long overdue yeah totally well you do so many you've done so much podcasting which do you enjoy more asking the questions or being asked the questions I don't know if I've ever been asked that question I love podcasting I love interviewing people but I think because I do you know that's the

majority of my online interaction is me on the you know question asking side it is kind of nice to be on the other side actually takes a little pressure off so yeah yeah yeah I'm looking forward to this conversation I think people will find this really helpful what I was just saying to you and I'll say to viewers is you know Preston has this very solid commitment to orthodoxy into a historic Christian views but also with a human touch and with a call to compassion. So I think he'll just help us think about these obviously really pressing issues that we all have to think about right now in terms of sexuality and

gender and just the way our culture is just churning through these things. So maybe you could just share with us first. How did you get into these issues and give us kind of the elevator speech for your ministry? What are you basically hoping to accomplish in the work you do in this area? Yeah, good. So I mean, yeah, about 10 years ago, I really fell into the LGBTQ conversation from the side of academia. I was teaching out of Bible College in Southern California, naturally, you know, getting more and more questions about sexuality. And I found myself given a knee-jerk response, you know.

And when students started to challenge me or push back or even ask hard questions, I realized I don't know. Like, I knew what I believed, but I didn't know why I believed it. Like, I never really looked at the issues for myself. And to be honest, I had simply absorbed a traditional view of marriage and sexuality, without arriving at that view from a steady study of scripture. So I decided to kind of launch into a big research project on what does the Bible say about at that time, homosexuality,

and really wanted to come at it from a, and any scholars out there are going to cringe at this, but I mean, I wanted to come at it from as unbiased of a perspective as I can. We all know that that's impossible. We all have baggage. We have biases. But we can be conscious of that. We can admit our bias.

and we can work hard to wrestle with things as fairly as we can. So I really wanted to do that with this question. And it began as just kind of an academic theological journey for me. But early on, I began to meet lots of LGBTQ people and just to hear their stories and just to put some flesh on this topic. And I was pretty crushed at just the scathing stories that they would tell me about their experience with Christianity with Christians with the church. And yeah, I was just really heartbroken over, you know, statements like I've never met a Christian that was kind to me or I was raised in the

church. And when I came out, I was mocked and shamed and, you know, made fun of and stuff. So really, really just horrible experiences in the church. And I realized that wherever we land theologically, there's a relational problem here that needs to be addressed. And so as I wrestled with the theology as honestly as I could. Yeah, as you said, you know, I landed firmly on a, on a traditional view of marriage meaning that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman and that all sexual relationships are intended to be expressed within that covenant bond of marriage and that therefore, you know, same-sex sexual relationships, along with many other kinds of sexual relationships are not, are deemed sin by the creator. So that, I guess that

that takes us into the formation of the ministry that I now run, the Center for Faith, sexuality, and gender. Our twin pillars are courageous love. We want to extend courageous love to people. We've been marginalized by the church, especially our focus is on LGBTQ people and also a commitment to the truth of scripture. And, you know, as you can imagine, a lot of people say, well, you need to pick one or the other.

You can't do both. And so the last 10 years of my life have been aimed at dismantling that false dichotomy, that either you're going to be truthful or loving, but you can't do both. I think Jesus did both, and I'm dedicated to doing both as well. Yeah, yeah. You know, as I'm hearing you talk about that and explain that, this truth and love combination. In my mind, I'm kind of thinking of three categories. On the one hand, you might have some Christians who take away the truth,

and they're not interested in, you know, what is the historic Christian view? They may not even be interested in that. On the other side, you mentioned these stories that should make us weep of Christians who have no love in the way they wield things. I also wonder if there's a lot of Christians, and I was thinking about this as I read your book, which I think is really helpful in this area, too, who may desire to combine those too, but maybe don't feel equipped to do so. For example, maybe they just feel like to defend the historic Christian view. They will just quote a verse or two, but not necessarily feel that they have a way to make it seem complete. compelling and to show how this is actually good for human flourishing. And so they're just seeing a need for resources. Do you see a need like that that you're trying to address as well? Absolutely. And yeah,

I, you know, there's going back to kind of the church, you know, mishandling relationships or even harming LGBT people. There's, you know, sometimes it happens explicitly and intentionally. In my experience, there's a lot of unintentional things that Christians do. Where they really do, don't mean anything, you know, hurtful. Or they're scared of sacrificing the truth. And so they might, you know, the media person, a gay couple, and they kind of freeze up, like, well, I don't want to betray my theology. So I don't want to ask any questions.

I don't know what to say. I don't know what they do. I just want to get out of, you know. But that's coming from a place of like, I think the motivation, I don't want to criticize the motivation. They're wanting to hold fast to the truth. They're also wanting to express love in a way that is, that resonates with their beliefs doesn't conflict with that.

So yeah, there's just a lot of internal wrestling with Christians in this conversation. And so, you know, my first piece of advice is always be humble and don't be afraid to make mistakes. You know, early on when I was getting to know gay people and just wanted to hear their stories, I mean, I said so many things that were just cringe now, you know, like the stuff I would say. But, you know, if you're humble about it, you admit you. you know, ask for apologies if you've done something offensive, you know, and just, yeah,

don't be scared to make mistakes, but just truly try to get to know people. I think people respect that for the most part, you know. Obviously, some people, no matter what you do, they're going to be offended at your presence or whatever, but I think a humble, curious approach can go a long way. Yeah. I know one of the pressures we face right now is this sense of, if you hold to a traditional Christian view of marriage, that it's between one man and one woman, that part of it, specifically, there's this pressure of you are on the wrong side of history. The same prejudice that animates a sin like racism is ultimately what is animating you in that conviction. And that's, we feel that. You know, we feel that from a lot of angles against us. It seems to me like this

book is trying to help Christians know how to respond to those pressures and trying to help Christians have answers to the objections that we might face. Is that accurate in terms of some of your goals here? Yeah, absolutely. In fact, that's, let's see, that's Conversation 17. So page 199 is same-sex marriage on the right side of history. So, so yeah, so this book, the subtitle is 21 conversations from a historically Christian perspective. So I address what I have seen over the last 10 years, you know, what I would consider 21 of the top arguments in favor of same or at at the same time against the traditional view of marriage, you know, one man, one woman. And yeah, so I try to address all 21 of those.

I guess the uniqueness of my approach, though, is I have, I really think the manner in which we go about these conversations is just as important as the content of our conversations. So I think in the past, books like this where they're kind of like responding to arguments or, you know, refuting this argument or whatever, they're just, they're very combative. And they're not very humanizing. And they honestly tend to straw man the other argument. They're just trying to do whatever it takes to win the argument. I'm trying to engage in a good faith dialogue with another human being.

And I want to represent their argument as best as I can. One of the things I have earlier on the book is we need to understand before we can refute, right? Like understand the other side of their argument that you can argue that position so well that you can almost convince your of it. He knows how somebody put it to me, which it gets a little, you know, I had a friend of mine who, a former colleague who used to teach world religions, and he says, you know, you almost have to come this close to believing something before you can truly understand it. And he was talking about Islam, you know, talking about Islam to the Christian students. And it's like, you almost have to be this close to converting before you can truly understand it. And that's, that's, that's

scary. But I think that there is a lot of truth to that. Like, if the historic Christian position is true, shouldn't be afraid to best represent whatever counter argument there is against that. So all that to say, you know, the book is, it is ultimately a defense of the traditional view of marriage by responding to all the counter arguments. But I would hope that if somebody read the book and completely disagreed with every 21 of my responses to the arguments, that they would still feel honored and humanized in the process. So the tone of the book would probably feel different than what maybe some people might be expected. Right. Yeah, no, the human touch comes through. Let's make, what we'll do in this interview for people who are watching so they're aware,

well, I'll just throw some of these objections at you and just let you work through them and respond to them and we'll kind of benefit. This will help people who will surely hear these things and it will equip them to think they're, okay, how do I, what does that look like to combine truth and love on each of these particular points? So maybe starting off with you, you have a section on the definition of marriage. And then the first conversation you address is about Genesis 224 and the language of one flesh there. The two shall become one flesh. This is a huge text on this. And Jesus references this in Matthew 19.

So it's really important. So maybe talk us through. What does that language of one flesh mean? And how do you respond to the concerns of those who say that doesn't have anything to do or that doesn't imply a sex difference? Yeah. Let me give a few running start kind of points. and then I'll adjust that. So yeah, the first chapter, as you know,

I talk about how to even have a profitable conversation. And so trying to understand the other position well. And also, like, it can be helpful to even find points of agreement in parts of another argument, even if you ultimately disagree with it. So I'm going to try to do that with the questions you raise. You know, I might say, well, here's some good things with that. Here's some things I find, you know, less helpful. and, I mean, at the end of the day, incorrect.

And also, we need to understand, like, what is the traditional view of marriage that we're even representing, like they were arguing, I guess, from? And I want to make it really clear. So I think some people, I think some people get hung up on, like, the so-called prohibition passages. They just look at the, you know, Romans 1 and Leviticus 18, where the Bible says, you know, on some level, prohibits same-sex sexual relationships. And that's usually where people begin the conversation.

I think that's really unhelpful. I think the most important question in this conversation, this is something that Catholic scholars have gotten right for many years. The question is really about the essence of what marriage is. Specifically, if you want to narrow it down to the most specific fundamental question is, is sex difference, biological sex difference, part of the essence of what marriage is? Is it necessary for God's created purpose and calling of marriage? Is sex difference necessary for that or is it not? That's really the fundamental question.

Anyway, so all that leads up to the question you raised about one flesh. And this is why it's so important because that this argument that, okay, so let me, let me try to actually summarize the argument that this comes largely from a scholar named James Brownson, who's a brilliant New Testament scholar, wrote a book called Bible gender sexuality that argues that the Bible affirms ultimately a firm's same-sex marriage, or at least it doesn't prohibit it. And he has an argument in that book that focuses on that phrase, one flesh, you know, man shall leave his father, mother be joined to his wife and the two, they will become one flesh.

And he says that idea of one flesh is simply talking about a new kinship bond, a new family unit. It doesn't necessarily necessitate sex difference, is his argument. Okay, it's just anytime, like, you know, throughout the Hebrew scriptures, you'll hear, you know, a relative referring to another blood relative as their flesh, or sometimes, you know, flesh and blood, you know, to take a modern phrase. And so he's like, this one flesh is simply a new family, a new kinship, it doesn't necessarily mean male and female. So that's the, so I do argue against that. Now, what's interesting, and I'll try to be quick here, but in my book, my previous book that I published in 2015 called People to Be Loved, I actually agreed with Brownson there. Now, I ultimately disagreed with his position, but I agreed that one flesh didn't necessitate sex difference. I actually disagree with both myself now and James Brownson in this new book, as I've looked at it closer. So, yeah, Genesis 224 is, I mean, hands down, the most important marriage text. in monotheism. I mean, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I don't know enough about Islam to speak

there, but I mean, anybody that embraces, you know, the Old Testament on some level, you know, Genesis 224 is fundamental. Well, 224 comes after 23, right? So, and in fact, the thought between 223 and 224 are linked. Like, the meaning of 224 doesn't stand alone. Like, it's one kind of thought. And in 223, have Adam, you know, saying, you know, this is now bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman for she was taken out of man. Well, that's a beautiful statement about acknowledging both the equality of the woman, bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh, but also the difference that she brings to the table. She shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. So highlighting both equality and difference. And then it says in 24, for this reason,

man shall leave his father mother to be joined his wife and the two or they shall become one flesh so it seems that that affirming both the human equality that these two possess and the differences that they bring to the table is sort of baked into the meaning of 24 specifically the one flesh union that they are forming now some people say yeah i don't know i don't see it well if you go to the new testament jesus drives at home even further in Matthew 19 and the parallels in Mark 10 and other places, he quotes 224. Man shall leave his father-in-law to be joined to his wife and the two will become one flesh. But instead of quoting 223, I hope people can follow me here. You know, if you don't have a Bible in front, you might be getting lost. But what's interesting is Jesus ends up joining 224 to another text in Genesis 1, Genesis 1 27, which says that God created the male and female.

So Jesus quotes that passage in Matthew 19, and then he immediately quotes 224. For this reason, manchal leave his father and mother be joined to his wife. And the two, which two will just linguistically, theologically, it's the male and female embedded in the quotation in Genesis 1 27. And those two shall become one flesh. So I do think that there is really clear exegetical ground to say. yes, it's a new kinship bond, but it's also a kinship bond between two people of different sexes. And this is where I think where we disagree with Brownson and others, where they say, no, it's just a kinship bond and not, you know, sex difference. And I'm like, I just think

that's a false dichotomy. It can be both and just linguistically, especially with what Jesus does with this phrase seems to necessitate sex difference. Yeah. Really helpful. I'll try to remember to put some of these verses up on the screen so the viewers can see some of these as you're explaining this because I think they'll find that helpful. Now in this first conversation that you're addressing there with this with Genesis 224, you also talk about the reality of intersex persons. So I wanted to ask you about that because this is an area where I've not really been satisfied that I've got a great answer to myself when this topic comes up is how does a traditional view of marriage account for that reality? So maybe you could explain what that means and then comment on how

you'd respond to that as someone who holds to the traditional view. Intersex is a more popular term. It's a little bit, it could be misleading depending on how you define it. So intersex is the popular term used to describe what medical professionals will call either disorders or differences of sex development. Either way, DSD. There are about, there's some debate about this, let's just say 16 to 20 different kinds of disorders of sex development whereby an unborn child fetus will develop some kind of, let's just say, atypical features in their sexual anatomy. And they can range from very minor to where they're hardly noticeable to very severe to where they might have full male and female genitalia,

for instance. Or in the case of AIS androgen insensitivity syndrome, somebody might be genetically male have X, Y chromosomes, but develop as a embodied female. So female anatomy, you know, but genetically male. It's very, very rare, but I've actually met more than one person with this condition. One friend in particular, they didn't even realize they were genetically male until she was like in her early 20s or something. I think she never like went through a puberty. like it affected her of puberty so she went in to get tested and they said uh you're you got a white chromosome here even though she's fully female functions as a female um so here here's so people say okay well how common is this again everything's debated in this but about 1.7 percent of the population

might have would have uh one of these 16 to 20 different ds disorders of sex development but here's the part that most people don't realize is that the over well majority, one scholar says 99% of people with a DSD are unambiguously male or female, meaning whatever atypical feature they have going on, it doesn't, there's no real ambiguity on whether the male or female. And even the case when people do have a much more severe DSD, it's not like it's some kind of third or other sex. They might even have a significant blending of male and female sexual anatomy, but just from a biological perspective, the two sex categories for homo sapiens are male and female. There is no, like, third or other sex. Sex is not,

sex is a binary. Like, I know some people question that. I think the most scientifically valid position is that biological sex for humanity is, is binary. So all that to say, I don't, I don't, I think sometimes when people bring in the existence of intersex persons or people with a DSD, it can be a bit of a red, what we call, you know, a red herring, kind of a distraction to the actual argument. And it actually, if you talk to people who actual intersex people, they don't, they don't really appreciate being sort of brought in as just some argument for some other issue that isn't the issue they're wrestling with, you know. I would, and there's some intersex activists that have been very vocal about, stop bringing me into your, y'all's culture war here. You know, like, so all that to say, to say that marriage is between a male and a female, I don't, I don't think that the existence of people with DSDs really on an ethical level challenges that.

Now, the question could come up. Okay, what about the one percent of people, the one percent of the one percent of the one, 1.7%, so I don't know what that makes it, who might be a really a blend of male and female anatomy. I have a friend in that position. They're full female, full male anatomy. And even my friend looked at me. And my friend is a pretty cheeky, punchy person. And they said, well, who can I marry? Preston. And I kind of pause for a second and said, flip a coin. I don't know. Like I don't this is like a it's kind of like the thief on the cross that it wasn't baptized and it's still in the kingdom of god you know like there's always going to be kind of maybe outliers to the normal situation the typical

situation but that doesn't change the typical ethical norm is lying wrong yes well what about when you're hiding jews and a you know um you know during war war war war II or whatever like there there might be exceptions to the rule. That doesn't change the rule. And what's interesting is that the one case we have in Scripture where Jesus might have acknowledged the existence of intersex persons comes in Matthew 1912 when he brings up the eunuch, a eunuch with somebody who is either castrated or Jesus talks about eunuchs who are born that way, meaning they were born with some atypical feature of their sexual anatomy. I think a eunuch is probably, in that case, would be what we now call intersex. But if you look at the argument, Jesus doesn't bring up the eunuch to challenge what he said

five verses earlier about male-female marriage. He brings up the eunuch as an example of people who are not married, like an example of singleness. All that to say, if we've actually followed the flow of Jesus' logic, it would go directly against his actual understanding of the eunuch and intersex persons. If we say the unic or intersex challenges the traditional view of marriage where Jesus says, I mean, I brought up the eunuch as an example of singleness, an example of, you know, somebody doing great things for the kingdom of God as a single person. So to use intersex persons as a challenge to traditional marriage, I think just goes directly against kind of the flow of Jesus' own thinking.

These are long answers. I'll try to be shorter, but these are very good questions. Well, that one, what you got in at the end of that answer about the fact that Jesus is teaching about the Unix is in the same chapter. I hadn't thought about that before. It's really interesting and helpful to go into all that, so I appreciate it. But yeah, so, okay, let me throw a few other topics here. This is one of the most common ones you hear is that when there are biblical prohibitions, they're not against consensual same-sex relationships.

They're against exploitative same-sex relationships. You hear this about Paul's teachings, for example, a lot. That's one of the most common objections that I do hear. How would you interact with that concern? Yeah, you know, it is common. but not so much in academic circles anymore because even affirming people who affirm same-sex marriage scholars who affirm same-sex marriage well i'm going to state my i guess conclusion ahead of time and i'll walk it back but um uh there's been enough evidence to show that that that argument isn't doesn't

actually hold as much weight anymore is popular in the 80s and 90s so i do still see people they don't have like a scholarly background, and I don't want to come off pretentious, but people that aren't maybe well read in the scholarly conversation, they still use this argument, but biblical scholars typically don't, like affirming biblical scholars don't use it as much anymore. But I guess there's two sides to this argument. Well, maybe two angles you can approach it. Number one is what does the text actually say? And number two, what is the, what does the background, the historical context,

show us. So I guess we could start. Let's start with the second one. Because this is what has really driven that argument for many years is that if you look at the first century Greco-Roman world, most, and some people would say all, but let's just, it's probably more accurate to say most. Most male same-sex sexual relationships were exploitative. We're between two unequal partners, You know, well, yeah, an active partner and a passive partner. I'll let the listener, you know, understand what that means. Or somebody of a higher social class and lower social class or an older man and a teenage boy, you know, power differentials. Or, you know, to take more extreme examples, you know, a master, you know, having sex with a male slave.

And again, this is not a mutual. This is one person, basically violating another person. So if you look at the historical context, those kinds of relationships were very, very widespread in the first century, well, in the ancient world as a whole. A couple problems to the back, well, there's several problems. Okay, so to complete the argument, so people say, look at the background material, this is Paul's world. Therefore, whatever Paul's talking about, he must be thinking about all that stuff, explorative stuff. that, you know, gay Christians today who are arguing for same-sex marriage are like, yeah, we don't agree with that stuff either. This isn't exploitative. We're talking about a mutual same, you know,

same-sex relationship, whether it's not between two power differentials or whatever. So the background material for, number one, is more mixed than people make it out to be. Yes, from what we can tell from the literature, the majority of male same-sex relationships were not what we would consider consensual. But some were. And when I point out examples in my book of instances where we do see more mutuality in male same-sex relationships. Another thing to consider that this argument oftentimes just completely ignores is that when it came to female same-sex relationships, the opposite is true. In other words, the overwhelming majority of female-same-sex relationships we see in the ancient world were between consenting adults. Some authors even describe

them as using marital languages. Now, they couldn't have been legal marriages, but marriage-like, you know, where there's a good deal of mutuality and consent. And Paul, in Romans 1 at least, he talks about both male-male and female-female relationships and even kind of compares the two. So we can't assume some kind of monolithic background and say that's what Paul must have in mind. rather we need to honor the diverse historical context. And then we say, okay, well, what does Paul have in mind? Well, then when we go to the language Paul uses, there's really little to know grounds to say that Paul's actual language,

for instance, in Romans 1, that he's referring to non-consensual relationships. He uses generic categories of male, male, female, female. In fact, most people say he's probably echoing Genesis 1, the language of Genesis 1 or 2, that this is like a departure from God's created intention. He doesn't use any kind of categories of master, slave, older man, younger boy. There's no language talking about power differentials, no language talking about age differentials. So there's really nothing in the actual text of what Paul says to show that that he's taught, he has in mind specifically this kind of non-consensual dominator-dominated kind

relationship. In fact, he even says, you know, they were inflamed with passion for one another. Well, if it was an older man, younger boy, the younger boy was not in flame with passion for the man. In fact, that was very frowned upon for him to experience any kind of or show any kind of like enjoyment of the act. There is, so the one caveat that I wanted to throw out there is in 1st Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. These are two other prohibition passages. There is some debate about the Greek words that Paul uses there, asanaquitas and Malacoy. And some people would say that those terms do imply

a level of non-consent. And I guess that's another argument we can get into if you want. But I don't think that's the best way to understand those words. But some people might look at that and argue from that perspective. So yeah. So background material is more diverse than people make it out to be. Paul's actual language doesn't give clear evidence of that these are non-consensual relationships.

What about this one? How do you respond when people throw out the concern, the biblical writers didn't know anything about sexual orientation? Yeah. Well, I mean, yeah. Let me go back to my original advice of saying, is there anything good agreeable in this argument? I think, yeah, there's, you know, what we now know about sexual orientation. And we still have a lot to learn, too. But I mean, we're, you know, been a lot of studies on it. Yeah, we know a lot more than people knew in the ancient world. I mean, just. advances in science and medicine and so on. And so, yeah, I don't, I don't want to say Paul, you know, Paul had the, you know, the DSM, the diagnostic and statistical manual mental disorders or the, you know, the APA, you know, like he had all, all that knowledge in his head when he's writing about these things. However, it is, it is interesting that we find lots of evidence in ancient texts and archaeological evidence. evidence that at least some people in the ancient world did talk about same-sex sexual desires

as being rooted in what they would call like nature or in some astronomical, astrological text where people kind of read the stars, you know, and that was a big deal back then. If someone was born under this constellation, there's texts that say, you know, they would be, you know, desiring of, you know, women. And if they're born with this constellation, they would be desiring of men. And that was believed to be kind of like etched in stone. Like that was set, you know.

So is that, would that make it into the American Psychological Association manuals today? Well, no. Okay. But that does at least reveal some kind of belief that some people are born with a predisposition toward unchangeable predisposition towards wanting to have sex of someone of the same sex. So

did sexual orientation, the knowledge of sexual orientation exists back then? Not but not the modern form where we can call ancient kind of versions of that that some people are predisposive. This isn't just simply a raw choice. Like everybody's straight and some

straight people just wake up one day and want to explore same sex relationships. Like that's how the argument goes sometimes. But we now know about sexual orientation. I'm like, well, that, that they had a great. version of what we now call sexual orientation that was at least present in the day that did paul understand that i don't know nobody knows um but to say since paul couldn't have even had a category for sexual orientation therefore that's why he said the things he did i think that's that um is reading too much into

the was actually represented in the historical sources what about this one i guess this this objection you also addressed this in the book and by the way people get the book read the book you'll get this helpful stuff and with footnotes and with all, you know, so if you want to do a deeper dive on this, the book will really help you. But this objection is kind of related to these last two, but you hear it a lot at the popular level, so it might be helpful. Just to canvas is Jesus never talked about homosexuality. How do you respond when you hear this? Yeah, it's true, you know, and I remember being slopping the face with that, you know, I was fresh out of my PhD, which, you know, PhD in New Testament. I remember somebody pointing this out to me,

well, Jesus never mentions same-sex relationships. And I was, I was like, really? I went and read or thumb through my red letter Bible. And I was like, oh, I didn't know that. I'm like, whoa, I've got a PhD in New Testament. I didn't even know that. And this kind of drove me to say, what else don't I know? So I, yeah, I think it's helpful to point out.

I guess, well, two things. First of all, going back to my original point early on, the main question we're wrestling with is what is marriage? is sex difference part of what marriage is? That's the fundamental theological question. And Jesus not only addresses that, but does so very clearly. Again, the Matthew 19 passage we looked at, Mark 10, you know, marriage, he says explicitly, male, female, he created them and that the male and female formed the one flesh union. So in that sense, he speaks directly to the most important part of this conversation. The fact that he doesn't mention same-sex sexual relationships

specifically, I don't think, I think it's a bit of a moot point. But if we were going to actually wrestle with that part of the argument, we have to ask a question, why? Why didn't Jesus mention same-sex sexual relationships? Well, if you look at, you know, Judaism in that time, there was no debate about whether some kinds of same-sex relationships were permissible. Like, That just was not something any Jew ever, 500 years on each side of Jesus ever permitted. And so when we look at the things Jesus, the ethical questions Jesus did mention in the Gospels, they almost always arise from some kind of conversation, dispute, debate with other Jewish leaders. The divorce question came up.

Why? because, well, you had the followers of Hillel and the followers of Shammai, you know, two Jewish rabbis, you know, they had different views on divorce. You know, there's different views on even how to think through paying taxes, different views on, you know, food laws and how to observe the Sabbath. And these are the things you see in the Gospels because these were debated within Judaism. The fact that same-sex sex-sex relationships weren't debated at all shows that Jesus didn't address it because the question, what, didn't come up. I'm not going to give the analogy, but I'm sure all of us can think of other things, ethical questions that we would say, oh, I'm sure

Jesus was against that for this or that, you know, that he never mentioned. Why? Because he doesn't just walk around preaching to the choir. He, oh, shit. You're good. I've done that so many times. Yeah. So he, the fact that, yeah, he just, he never mentioned same-sex relationships because it just wasn't a question people were asking because everybody was on the same page with that. Let me offer kind of just a personal reflection of a pastoral nature that came up for me at this point and then just see how you want to comment on this at well as well. My thought process was at this point, because you also at a certain point mentioned the creeds. And this is really helpful that, you know, because people say, oh, well, this issue isn't in the

Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed. And you were saying, well, you know, it wasn't in dispute. like none of the heretical groups being targeted by these creeds held to such views either. So it really didn't need to be addressed. And this is in the context at the end of the book when you're talking about, is this issue an agree-to-disagree issue? And you were sharing about basically that you were convinced that it's not an agree-to-disagree issue because of the seriousness of sexual sin in the scripture. And I'm going to put up on the screen, 1st Corinthians, 6, 9 through 10. I'll just read this and then I'll share how it struck me.

That says, do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who have sex with other men, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And as I was reading that, it was just kind of becoming more of a conviction in my heart, just how difficult the calling of the kingdom of God is on every single one of us. And that as we think about a topic like this, we never want it to be a matter of we're getting more ammunition so that we then feel superior to anybody else. We want it to be more tools so that we can be more effective and more persuasive in advancing God's kingdom. But all of us, all of us are sinners and all of us have the call to die, to be crucified in our inner man, the sinful part of us, to take that to the cross and let the Holy Spirit burn it away and transform us into the image of Christ.

And so I guess maybe we can just sort of hit the pause button in terms of our giving defenses and maybe help pastor somebody who's watching this video who feels that they are a failure in this area of their life because of an addiction, because of a struggle. They're seeing how high the call of God is upon them and they're realizing, I don't think I can never do it. What do you say to give people hope when they feel broken and guilty and shameful in this area of life? Golly, yeah. So I... Not to throw too hard of a question at you. Yeah, no, this is, this is, the pastoral questions are really, I think, probably the most important ones, or at least the most often ask. So I wrote a book on homosexuality in 2015.

The year before that, I wrote a book on grace called Scandalous Grace. And I just, it was kind of a lay-level biblical theology of just, like undiluted grace, you know, some might even argue that I pushed it too far. I don't think I did, but I think the Bible pushes grace pretty, pretty far. So what's interesting is looking back, I really feel like soaking myself in this scandalous, radical grace of God for, you know, a year when I was writing that book really prepared me, I think, for this conversation. And, man, I've, Gavin, I've met so many people who are gay or, you know, they might, whether they call themselves gay or same sex attracted or whatever, you know, they grew up in the church and they're just so filled a shame.

Even if they believe in a traditional sexual ethic, maybe they're committed to a life of singleness and celibacy, or maybe they are married to the opposite sex. And if they weren't a Christian, they would probably get out of that marriage. but because of Christ, they're staying faithful to their spouse. And, man, my hat just goes off to, against all odds, you know, these friends of mine who are just absolutely committed to Christ, even though they still have these attractions or temptations, however you want to describe it. And yet you ask them about their view of God, and they say,

I have this, as one friend said, the abomination gospel is so pounded into my bones, that no matter how much I try to obey God, no matter how much I am obeying God, I just am filled with the idea that God thinks I'm utterly disgusting because of just messages I grew up hearing from the church. And this friend of mine, they even said, like, I think it's almost impossible to undo that shame that's just embedded in the DNA of any LGBT person

who was raised in the church, you know? And that's just, oh, man, this is where I think, the number one argument that we need to make is that you are loved by God, that you are created in God's image. You are God's masterpiece. I've met gay people who have never heard a Christian say, God loves you. If you're human, you're created in his image and God values you. When you wake up and your eyes open up every morning, God gets excited to see breath in your lungs. You know, the just basic Christian anthropology 101, you know, that we are valued by God, even though he might not like the things we do, you know, and calls us to repentance and all

that side of the thing. I obviously affirm all of that. So yeah, I think if all we do, we as in Christians who hold to a traditional view of marriage, if all we do is defend that, view, and I say it as one who wrote a book defending that view, okay? But that's all we do. And we don't also positively affirm that God loves you. Yeah, but I'm gay. God loves you. Yeah, but I best, I had sex last night with another dude. God loves you. And it's the kindness of God that's going to lead to repentance. And therefore, I'm going to embody the kindness of God. Doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to sin. Absolutely not. Doesn't mean we don't confront people beginning with ourselves who sin. Absolutely. that is part of the rhythm of Christianity

is confession, repentance, that's an essential part of the Christian walk. But that's built on the foundation that we serve a creator who delights in us and doesn't just love us. He actually likes us. And he forgives us when we sin and forgives us again when we sin.

And I think that's a huge need in this conversation. And specifically how the church goes about the LGBTQ conversation. Yeah. You know, one thing I'd like to say as a pastor who tries to help, especially younger men, counseling and discipling younger men, is one of the things we really want to avoid and call out is when there's superiority in any Christian toward other people. And yet at the same time, they have like an addiction to pornography or something like this. And you're saying, I think what this can be an incredible disgrace to the cause of the gospel where there's just rank hypocrisy, you know, and someone is like condemning. there and they're not taking up their cross and following Christ. And as you say, there's grace for us when we sin. But if they're not even fighting that sin and then they're hurling and vectives over to this

other category of sin, I think, you know, this is just what hit me as I was just finishing off your book and thinking about that first Corinthians passage is God calls every single one of us to die to ourselves and to take up our cross. That's not unique to one class of people. Every single human being to follow Jesus has to, it's the battle of the lifetime. to surrender all of your desires to God and follow in his paths and trust that that's the path of flourishing. So anyway, I guess I'm just sharing at a personal level just how that landed upon me of let's first get our own house in order. And while we do that, hold fast to the truth. There's no compromise in that. It's just a matter of my sanctification is going to be more distressing to me than

that's in over there or over there. That's how it should be. I guess I'm just kind of sharing any other thoughts you have on that we've yeah i grew up here in the phrase you know love the sinner hate the sin and that's usually applied to gay people like christians often use that yeah you know that's our approach to gay people and i'm like well that that that's on paper that looks good but it can't come off a bit condescending and it kind of you're the sinner and i'm i'm gonna love you and you know rather than let's love the center hate our own sin and invite a fellow sinner to fathered the only one who is without sin, you know. And that's where I do think, I love that you just mentioned the hypocrisy piece.

That's one of the number one reasons why LGBT people leave the church. It's not, the number one reason is not because of they hold to traditional marriage. There's been studies done on this, actually. One of the main things they said is, you know, I'm looking around. I'm in the church. I'm looking around and, you know, half the elders are on porn and this person had an affair. this person's been remarried and divorced three times and, you know, half the youth groups having sex outside of marriage on a good day, you know, I mean, on a good day, like more than half on a bed, you know. So, okay, it's fine. We're a, we're a hospital for sinners. We're broken. We're messed up. But they just don't, they felt like everybody kind of hid their junk or pretended like their stuff wasn't as bad or just, you know, kept their own stuff in the closet. But then the second somebody says, hey, I'm attracted to the same sex. People look at it. Like they grew a second head, you know. And it's just, you know, and it's just. You know, just being in that kind of environment just became so stifling that they ended up you know leaving um

so yeah yeah the hip one of the one of the hidden blessings of this sexuality and gender conversation that's really become front and center than their church is that it's forced us hopefully it's forced us to look at look at our own junk and say yeah we have been relaxed on you know divorce we've been leaning on this or you know we downplay this or hide this and are too ashamed to admit this you know And yeah, we need to, as you said, get our own house in order while we're calling other people to be holy as well. Okay, a couple final ones that we can't, even though we've been going for a while here, we've got to get to these because these are important. So one of the ones that comes up here is this trajectory hermeneutic, right? And this is one I really wrestled with.

So people, just to laid out, you know, people are saying, well, look at polygamy in the Bible, look at slavery in the Bible, look at slavery in the Bible. you can't just go by this prohibition here or there. You have to look at the overarching trajectory, and it's in the direction of a more affirming direction. And, yeah, I could say more about this, because I've wrestled with this on the issue of slavery a lot, and how do you give a compelling defense of Christianity on that issue, I might do a video on that at some point soon

because it's a really important one. But how would you interact with this? How would you give some – I thought you had a good chapter. Yeah, it is – And it's becoming a more popular argument. And sometimes it even brings in, you know, the acceptance of the Gentiles or even the Unic. You know, Unix were excluded from, you know, temple spaces in the Old Testament and included in the New Testament.

And, you know, Gentiles obviously are, you know, have a much greater level of acceptance than the new. So you do have these kind of shifts and changes and, you know, what scholars have called ethical trajectories throughout the Bible. Things were prohibited in the Old Testament and permitted in the new. or sometimes vice versa. I guess, so yeah, my first response is I want to acknowledge that, yeah, this is a, it's a good, it's a good pushback and it's something that we should wrestle with. I would say that we do need to consider each ethical question kind of separately. Like we can't say, well, because slavery was kind of normalized and tolerated in the Old Testament,

but then we start to see, you know, Philemon and even some of the household codes in Peter and Ephesians. Paul seems to be taking that trajectory towards, yeah, I don't think slavery is, you know, part of God's original intent. Certainly the treatment of women is another trajectory. But just because we have some trajectories in the Bible doesn't mean we map that on all the ethical questions. For instance, is there a trajectory on adultery? No, like there's no acceptance here and, you know, you know, It's from beginning in, it's a departure from God's standard.

So Sabbath, there might be a trajectory on Sabbath, but what about something like Lest? If anything, there's a trajectory towards more strictness on Lest. You know, the New Testament really, you know, comes down harder on that. So we have to consider each ethical question on its own, not map one on the other. And we also have to understand all these trajectories are moving, moving us back toward God's original Genesis 1 and 2 design. Jesus does this with the divorce, right?

When the divorce question came up and that's a trajectory too, is permitted in the old and Jesus really tightens that in in the New Testament. But what does he do? He says, from the beginning, it wasn't this way. The rabbi, you know, the Jews said, well, look, Moses permitted. I'm like, well, yeah, we're trying to get back to Genesis 1 and 2, not get further away from it. So if we're going to ask a question about marriage, again,

let's go back to the main question we're actually asking, there is no trajectory away from Genesis 1 and 2 male and female, if anything. I mean, not if anything. Jesus explicitly takes us back to the created norm, male and female, when questions around marriage even came up. And also with regard to the prohibitions of same-sex sexual relationships, we see both of those equal in Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, but then Paul reaffirms that in Romans 1.

And even what's interesting, going back to those two Greek words we didn't get to, the harder to translate Greek word arsenaquatest translated men. You read it, men who have sex with other men in First Corinthians, 6-9. Most scholars agree that Paul's even creating that word, it didn't exist before Paul, from two words in the prohibition in Leviticus 20, 2013, where a man should not lie with a man as he does with a woman. So Paul even takes two Greek words in the, that original Old Testament command informs a Greek word to reaffirm that same ethical norm.

So there's just really no evidence that, well, yes, we do have some trajectories on other questions, but with regard to is sex difference part of what marriage is and does God ever allow for the same-sex sexual relationships, there's no change from old to New Testament on those questions. Yeah, yeah. What about this one? And I'll share how I initially think about it and then kind of like, lay it out and see how you can help me and others think about it too but the the objection to biblical

writers were products of their homophobic and patriarchal culture now i want to say two things about that first and then see what you have to say one is i have a concern about this in terms of our doctrine of scripture um yeah i'm not a bible thumping fundamentalist type person but i really do think it's okay to just say that the scripture needs to have authority over how we think about these things Now, that means we have to interpret the scripture in its context and so forth. But there are lots of Christians who I see who are going in a direction where there really is no functional biblical authority. Yeah. It really, and, you know, I believe the scripture is God's words to us.

And so I want to want the scripture to be authoritative over how we think about these things. The other piece, though, is I have this concern about in the modern West we can be naive about how we're influenced by our cultural norms so much. and there's too little humility to consider how the pre-modern world universally in some cases thought about things different from how the modern West thinks about things. And I just think we need to have more humility to consider that it seems to me to be universal in the Christian history, in the Christian church, that sex difference is definitional to marriage. I'm not aware of any diversity from that. And I think a posture of humility toward the Christian tradition means I value the perspectives

of my pre-modern and my non-Western brothers and sisters, and that's going to influence and constrain me in, you know, trusting my instincts so much, you know. So those are some thoughts and concerns I have, but what would you like to say about this? No, not much more than what you just said. Those are great thoughts. I do think there's a, is it C.S. Lewis,

who talked about chronological snobbery. Is he the one that coined that phrase? We think we have anything figured out, and everybody that was born, you know, five seconds ago earlier, there's, you know, outdated or whatever. So, yeah, I think we do need to have, I just, yeah, I affirm that we should have a lot more humility as we look at these things. With regard to the biblical authors being nothing more than, you know, products of their

misogyny and patriarchal culture, I mean, that's a very broad brush kind of statement. And what people are referring to is, you know, and Paul saying women submit to your husbands and, you know, slavery seemed to be tolerated in the Old Testament. and women seem to be mistreated or treated like property in some context. I would at least challenge people to look a little more closely at some of those passages. Like some of them just been, number one, just been misinterpreted or misinterpreted. Or, you know, were weaponized. Like there's one passage in Deuteronomy, is it 22, where people have said,

this is telling women to marry their rapist. it's actually not saying that. Like if you go back and look at the actual Hebrew terms and do some exegesis, and Sandy Richter, a female Old Testament scholars, done great work on this saying this is not, this is just not what the text says,

or are there women being taken captive in war? And if you look closely at that passage, sometimes it's over interpreted. But we also need to look at, we need to interpret the Bible in its own historical context. And what you find is, even passages that may,

seem more misogynistic, more patriarchal from our modern Western perspective, if you go back in time and read those passages in light of other ancient Near East thought, the Bible would be seen as pretty progressive, pretty, you know, a lot more humanizing than other cultures. Okay, here's one final one that I don't want to leave off because I, this is that the traditional view of marriage is harmful to people. It hurts people. And I wanted to give you a chance to speak to this, because I've had conversations with friends on the other side of this where for affirming a traditional view, they say, I'm harming people, and they'll throw statistics at me about how those who may

identify as gay or lesbian are at a higher risk of suicide because of pressures put upon them and that kind of thing. That's a heavy conversation. Maybe you can help someone who's facing that kind of objection. Well, I think that might be my longest chapter is addressing. this because it is a very important argument. It's a very complex argument. And it's one that's dear to my heart because I, in the first one to say, I think Christians in the church have done things that have been very harmful toward LGBTQ people. I mean, a big part of the last 10 years of my life has been devoted at helping the church not do that. So the more specific question is, is to read the reduce the harm, does that necessitate us saying that sex difference is not God's created

part of what marriage is? That's really the ultimate fundamental question we're asking. And that's when, you know, in my response to this argument, yeah, I don't think that believing that sex difference is part of what marriage is is intrinsically harmful, even though Christians who hold that view have done harm. We need to separate. correlation from causation just because just because Hitler was a vegan so I'm told you know it doesn't mean eating only vegetables causes you to you know hate Jewish people and many other people so um I think we need to first ask the question is the historic Christian position true not kind of look at broadly speaking Christians who hold of that view doing harmful things the church doing

harmful things and then assuming that it's because they believe in this that sex difference is part of what marriage is. I also do look at several those studies. Now, the problem is, man, and this is kind of more of a general statement, but when it comes to scientific studies on anything related to sex, sex, sexuality, gender, it's so highly politicized. This is something any secular scientist in the field recognizes. This is the most politicized field. So you cannot just say the whole phrase studies show and then make some conclusion. That's just shows that you haven't understood the highly politicized nature of some of these studies. So I've combed through many, many, many, many studies along these longest question.

And they go in all different directions. In fact, there was one study that said that gay people who have a religious affiliation are happier on average than once you don't. And there was no difference between conservative or more progressive forms of religion. That was one study. Another study might say the exact opposite. So there's, I combed through a lot of those studies in the chapter and kind of said, what can we gather from these studies? And yeah, I think, you know, toxic, like truly toxic home environments where kids are verbally,

mentally, spiritually, even physically harmed by their parents for being gay or yelled at or mocked or made fun of. Yeah, that increases depression, anxiety, suicidality. It has been shown, and I think this is probably true, that forced conversion therapy, forcing a gay kid to go into conversion therapy has elevated high levels of shame and suicidality in that person. Beyond that, it's to say, no, if a gay person's in a church or in a home environment where their parents believe in a traditional view of marriage and they're loving towards their kid. They don't kick him out of the house when he comes out as gay at 15. They walk with him. They, they, they walk with him. They, they say, I'll love you no matter why, even if we disagree. You know, that that kind of loving

environment, even if there's theological disagreement, there's, to my mind, from everything I've read, there's just no evidence that that that specific belief among those parents, you know, is going to cause that kid harm. Again, as long as they are living out a holistic, loving approach to their, to their kids. So I do think what's sad is, I just don't like it when really serious concerns, like the harm done towards LGBT people in the churches can be weaponized as kind of like a theological argument. I think that that doesn't, that helps nobody. That doesn't help reduce the actual harm done towards LGBT people. So let's address the harm where there's harm for sure, 100%. But to try to manipulate people and to not believe in the traditional view of marriage,

I don't think that's helpful. Yeah. Well, Preston, thanks for the great conversation. Appreciate you and your work and happy to get to know you a little bit. Where can, last thing is just where would you like people to check out the book? Should they get from Amazon? And when is the release date? It releases August 1st, but you can pre-order it now from Amazon.

Yeah, it's available. And yeah, it's always, you usually get a better price, I think, if you pre-order. I'm not totally sure on that. But if you're going to get it, I would definitely try to order. sooner than later. But yeah, you know, I hope it's, I hope it's a, if people are looking for a resource to help navigate some of these theological questions, relational questions, I wrote it to serve people, serve the church. So I hope it does just that. Awesome. Well, thanks for chatting and everybody, make sure you check out the video description. You can find a link to the book. And also I'll put a

link to Preston's website. You can check out more about his other work as well. So thanks for watching, everybody. We'll see you next time.