How Much Can Christians Compromise on Sexuality?

Is it time for the church to set aside theological differences about the morality of same sex unions and gender identity and find common ground in the Gospel? Is same sex marriage a disputable issue that should not divide us believers? According to a new book, the answer to both these questions is yes. The book is called Christlike Acceptance Across Deep Difference and is co-edited by Ron Pierce, a non-affirming scholar who worked at Biola for five decades, and Karen Keen, an affirming scholar. 

==========

Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California.

Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically.
Watch video episodes at: https://bit.ly/think-biblically-video.

To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.

Transcript

Sean

Is it time for the church to set aside theological differences about the morality of same sex unions and gender identity and find common ground in the Gospel? Is same sex marriage a disputable issue that should not divide us believers? According to a new book, the answer to both these questions is yes. The book is called Christlike Acceptance Across Deep Difference and is co-edited by Ron Pierce, a non-affirming scholar who worked at Biola for five decades, and Karen Keen, an affirming scholar. Scott, tell me why you think it's important for us to respond to this book. I've got some thoughts, but weigh in.

Scott

Well, Sean, this is still a huge cultural issue. And I agree that the tone with which we conduct this debate has often been harsh and uncivil and uncaring. And I think that's probably true on both sides of this.

Sean

Hmm.

Scott

Uh, so I think definitely the tone and the style with which we conduct these discussions, that's long overdue to change and reflect a Christlike civility that I think is characteristic of all, all of scripture and what should characterize all of our conversations about matters with which we disagree.

Sean

Hmm.

Scott

And, but, but just because we disagree doesn't mean that we abandon our convictions. It doesn't mean that we look for ath- quote, "a third way," uh, of-

Sean

Hmm.

Scott

... of common ground between the, the two opposing sides. So I think this is really important the... And we'll get to more of this in, in a bit.

Sean

We will, yeah.

Scott

But, um, I don't think that issues of sexuality are peripheral to the central issues of the Gospel. Uh, I think, I think Ephesians 5 makes it pretty clear that they are... that it's a central issue to the church's witness to the world.

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

Uh, so I think that, that's the way, that's the way I think Christ designed it. Um, and we'll, we'll come back to more of that when we get into Ephes- Ephesians 5.

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

But this, uh, this is gonna continue to be an ongoing debate. I think the, the acrimony with which it's been conducted is actually a poor witness to the world. Um, and I think there's, there, there are th- Uh, we don't, we don't need... I don't think we need to compromise clarity on our views.

Sean

Hmm.

Scott

Uh, I remember one, one very popular radio host says... is well-known to say, "I prefer clarity over agreement."

Sean

Amen to that.

Scott

And I think that's, that's the case here.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

Uh, I, I... and I, I would, I would wanna make sure that both sides are represented fairly.

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

Uh, and I think, I think it's probably a good, a good practice, which we'll try to do here, that I try... that I, I encourage my students to do in our, in our classes, is you don't critique a position until you have explained it adequately-

Sean

That's great.

Scott

... to the, th- to your opponents, uh-

Sean

That's great. I-

Scott

... satisfaction.

Sean

I agree.

Scott

So I think we're gonna try and do that.

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

We... You know, we... I think there, there are some places here where, where certain things have been misrepresented, uh, and I think we don't wanna be guilty of the same things that we are pointing out.

Sean

Well said. So you... When you said you agree, you agree with the writers of this book who are concerned about the way this conversation has often been carried out?

Scott

I'd say mo- most-

Sean

Should be carried out-

Scott

Most of the time.

Sean

Most of the time, with charity, with kindness, with accuracy, totally agree, but disagree firmly with the proposal that's being put forward about-

Scott

Yes.

Sean

... a third way, which we will get into.

Scott

Right.

Sean

That's where you and I agree when we look at this book.

Scott

That's right.

Sean

Now, for-

Scott

So, yeah, the, the general framework for the rest of the chapters... This is an edited volume with 15 or so contributors to it.

Sean

Right.

Scott

So, you know, you sort of get what you get with that. But, um, the framework is set up at the very beginning, which we'll get to in a little more detail-

Sean

We will, yeah.

Scott

... in a minute. And that's... The framework is everything in this.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

And if the framework... You... The, the whole... I think the whole thesis of the book stands or falls with the framework.

Sean

I agree with that. So here's, here's the reason why I'm responding. Number one, uh, I'm a generalist in the sense that I've spoken on a lot of issues, and I've spoken out on issues tied to sexuality, issues like pornography and issues like marriage. And so given that this is the latest book or project coming down arguing for something that I don't think lines up with the Bible, it fits in my lane, so to speak. The second reason is I have seen a larger trend in the church towards a functionally affirming position. I think we've seen this with the church where Andy Stanley's a pastor, major, massive church, uh, promoting a, quote, "third way." We've seen some seminaries move this direction that historically were Bible-believing seminaries. And now we have a book published by a, a evangelical press that's giving space, so to speak, to the idea that we should adopt a third way. Now, the other reason I'm weighing into this is because Biola is all over this. This book is presented in a way that Biola affirms this and stands by this and should support it. So I don't speak for all Biola, but I'm a professor here and someone who has signed along the doctrinal statement, not for a job but because I believe it. I feel it's somewhat my duty and responsibility to speak out and say, "No, actually, Biola doesn't agree with this."

Scott

Well, and I think... You know, and I've been, you know, advisory role to the president for university-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... mission for a long time. I'm a... I'm one of the deans at Talbot. Uh, so, you know, I think it's... I mean, it's one thing... It's one... You know, to have, to have the leadership sort of indicted with this is da- is, you know, I think a, a bit... It's a bit more of a concern and a bit more urgency, I think, that we respond to this.

Sean

I think that's right. And Bi- Look, the Bi- It, it starts off with a reference to a Theology of Gender course at Biola. This is on the introduction, the beginning. Second page, there's two more examples, kind of inferring and saying that Biola is alongside of this. So, think if I responded to other stuff related to sexuality and not this, people would say, "You go to Biola and now you're not speaking out. Why?" And I think that'd be a fair criticism. I think the o- the other point for me is partly what drives this book. In, in the introduction, I found interesting, is this, this, this claim at the very end. It says, "The quest for truth has dominated this landscape for decades. Now, as the church continues to pursue truth, we invite you to join us in embracing Christlike acceptance so that we can continue to mature in Christ, our Lord and love." Now, the title of this book is not Christlike Love. It's Christlike Acceptance. So it's arguing that the loving thing is to just say, "Hey, we agree to disagree on the morality of same-sex behavior." That's what's considered acceptance. I don't think that's biblical and I don't think that's actually loving when we follow the teachings of Jesus and Paul and the 2,000-year history of the church. But I also don't think the quest for truth has dominated the landscape. I actually go back and listen to my messages and many others for the last two decades. There's been a lot of like, "We've gotta rethink how we've treated the LGBTQ community. We gotta be kind, we gotta be gracious." Now is actually the time for truth, and of course graciousness and kindness-

Scott

Of course.

Sean

... but it's actually more truth than ever because of the kind of arguments that I think are made in this book. So, last thing I'll say before we jump into the premise of it is, the subtitle is Constructive Conversations on Sexuality and Gender. I'd like to think, in the past decade, if somebody said, "Who's led constructive conversations?" I think they'd probably say, "You know what? Go to Sean McDowell's YouTube channel." I've had conversations with progressive Christians. I've had conversations with those who would not identify as progressive Christians. Friendly debates and conversations, whether it's Brandon Robertson, whether it's Preston Sprinkle (laughs) , whether it's, uh, a whole host of people trying to model this. So, I think we need to continue to model kindness. We've also got a call-out where ideas err from what scripture teaches. That's where I say pause.

Scott

Yeah. And, and I think that's appropriate to, I mean, to say pause at that point. Um, and if, you know, if, if really all we're, all the, all we're talking about is a change of tone, uh, that's not exactly breaking news.

Sean

Exa- (laughs) exactly.

Scott

Um, and, and, and that's, that's hardly controversial.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

Um, and I think any- anybody who thinks that, you know, you can trash your opponent with whom you disagree, I think isn't, isn't reading the scripture carefully enough.

Sean

Amen.

Scott

Because, you know, we are c- we are called to exhibit grace and truth both. I mean, we have a... On the campus here, we have the Winsome Conviction project. And I don't think this is true of our folks, but I think there are oth- there are others in the culture who are trying to do the same thing, that are heavy on winsomeness and light on conviction.

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

And I think if there's... I mean, and this may be a place where we... I just w- We wanna, we wanna be winsome, no doubt. I mean, an- and if, and if we fail to model that in this, then I think we've failed.

Sean

Mm.

Scott

But I, I don't wa- I don't want winsomeness to come at the expense of having convictions. I wanna be, I wanna be winsome in our tone and clear on our convictions.

Sean

I agree with that. So one other qualifier before we jump in. We're professors, so we're laying out our case (laughs) carefully and we're philosophers-

Scott

B- Bear with us. (laughs)

Sean

... so we'll get there. But there's a chapter from Tim Muehlhoff, who's a colleague of ours, not at Talbot, but at Biola in the Comm Department. He wrote a chapter in here on how to communicate. In many ways, that chapter is pulled from the book Tim and I wrote together called End the Stalemate. Now, he and I differ over whether or not he should have contributed to this book. We differ over that. I, I give pause to it 'cause of some of the stuff I think is in this book and it's advocating. But Tim makes it very clear that he is not affirming, he's not neutral on this, he's not contributing this to saying, "Hey, we should adopt this, you know, agree to disagree posture." He's a communications scholar and he's just simply saying, "We are human beings and there's different people identifying as Christians trying to work this out. How do we communicate civilly?" That's his goal here. So if he comes out and addresses his chapter, why, what he thinks about it, we will link to that so people can watch it.

Scott

Very good.

Sean

But I just wanna make sure we include that in here as well. All right. Let's jump into the chapter. We've qualified this.

Scott

Have we qualified it sufficiently?

Sean

I, I think we have. So what-

Scott

(laughs) I think so too.

Sean

Maybe somewhat quickly, like the premise of the book as a whole. We're gonna focus on the opening chapter, 'cause it lays the groundwork theologically for the chapter. Everything that follows for practice depends upon the theological and biblical case being made. But what's the premise of the book as a whole?

Scott

Well, the, the premise of the book as a whole is that sexuality ought to be considered one of the, quote, "disputable matters" that Paul describes in, uh, predominantly in Romans 14 and 15.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

And those... You know, there are a lot of things that, in Romans, in the, in those two chapters, Paul, Paul qualifies those as, you know, what, what constitutes disputable matters. And what, what he means by that is those are, those are morally neutral things that we can agree to disagree on without having to abandon our core convictions.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

And he uses, uh, Paul uses a term, uh, in Greek, adiaphora, that we, uh, we don't see often in other parts of the New Testament or in classical Greek. Uh, so it's a little, it's a little tricky to get our arms around that and we've got to depend on some of the, some of the context in Romans 14 and 15 to enable us to do that. But I think the, the, the central issue in the introduction... Here's the central question I think we need to answer is...... is Paul's teaching on disputable matters. And, and I would distinguish, Sean, between disputable and debatable are two different-

Sean

Hmm.

Scott

... things here. Because the, for Paul to, for Paul's reference to disputable, that's a technical term.

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

Disputable, that means something that is morally, uh, morally neutral, and therefore it's, you know, we, we can agree to disagree about lots of things that are morally neutral-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... without, without v- violating our convictions. The key question is, does sexuality, does his teaching on, in Romans fif- 14 and 15 apply to sexuality? Now, he refers to things like, things like in the, in the Old Testament, law.

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

And the point of... I'm, I'm getting past the thesis of the book, so-

Sean

Yeah. No, no, no, no, no. That's okay.

Scott

Um, but the point of Romans 14 and 15 is the inclusion of the Gentiles into the body of Christ and the reco- and w- and the requirement for them to obey the law of Moses. And in light of the cross and resurrection of Jesus, m- some of the thi- many of the things in the ceremonial law-

Sean

Got it.

Scott

... such as, uh, as, as, as the author puts this, days and diets-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... for example, circumcision, uh, the festivals, uh, I mean, things, things like the, you know, the Year of Jubilee, for example-

Sean

Yep.

Scott

... those, those would be, those would have become, in light of the cross and resurrection of Jesus, and in light of the fact that we are no longer under the law as a rule of life, those have become morally neutral matters. All right? Now-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... the author, the author of this, I think, is, is right to say that in the Old Testament, those were not just suggestions from God.

Sean

Right.

Scott

Those were ta- those were to be taken as commands. But in light of the cross, in light of Jesus s- basically fulfilling the law and setting aside the ceremonial and the civil law as, as part of his, as part of Paul's teaching in Romans 7, that we are no longer under law but under grace, that those, those things are no longer morally required of us, and thus-

Sean

Got it.

Scott

... fall into the category of being morally neutral.

Sean

Morally neutral. Okay. So l- so that's the opening chapter that lays the basis for the whole book.

Scott

Correct.

Sean

That there's been disputable things about the day we worship on, the food that we eat, moving sexuality into that-

Scott

Whe- whe- whether gentiles have to be circumcised or not.

Sean

Gentiles... Exactly, good. Moving sexuality into that is a very novel and new premise, where we'll come back to and hit pause-

Scott

That's correct. That's correct.

Sean

... on this and say, "The case has not been made." But the rest of the book we won't go into. There's five chapters making what they think is the biblical case, which is basically responding to the conservative historic position. That's the weight of it they're pushing back on. And then, how do we navigate the divide? So there's chapters on, how do you have conversations and relationships with people who are affirming and non-affirming? And there's some great principles in here. Some of the very contributors in this book who I deal deeply with are friends of mine, and I hope this review (laughs) doesn't jeopardize that. And at the end, it's like ministry with LGBTQ people. So what does this look like, uh, they say, in the Black LGBTQ community? Uh, what does this look like in the church? What about for parents with LGBTQ children? So now they apply it once they've moved sexuality into the realm of a disputable matter.

Scott

Mm-hmm.

Sean

Now, there's a ton more in this second and third chapter that I would take issue with, a lot of things like holding up, as an example, somebody who is a trans Christian as being a pastor within a church, and that's-

Scott

Fair enough.

Sean

... permissible. I'd take pause with that. There's push towards, uh, we can differ over how parenting our kids, affirming their sexual orientation and attraction and being able to live that out faithfully. Uh, they lean heavily into affirming gay identity, using preferred pronouns. We're not gonna go into that. That's some of the particular stuff they get into, but it's always in the affirming direction, or at least as a whole.

Scott

Yeah. And just, you know, full disclosure for our audience too, I have not read the rest of the book.

Sean

That's fine. Yeah.

Scott

So w- you know, w- take with a grain of salt whatever-

Sean

(laughs)

Scott

... I comment on in the rest of the book. I have-

Sean

You don't have to read the rest of the book.

Scott

I have, you know, I've, I've... Let's just say, I've been in, been involved in reading, uh, an earlier draft of chapter one and the final draft of this. So I've been-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... I've been thinking about this for some time, and so I'mma, I'mma stay in my lane on that.

Sean

That's tota- th- that's totally fine. I've read the rest of it, and I'm gonna hold off on my critique (laughs) on the rest of it just to stay focused, because this opening chapter lays the theological groundwork.

Scott

Yeah.

Sean

If it doesn't make its case, the rest doesn't follow, at least as I see it.

Scott

Fair enou- I, I s- I see it that way too.

Sean

So now, the purpose... I, I would just say a couple of things they read in the beginning, the purpose of the book, uh, this is in the introduction by the two authors, "To show unconditional love to those with whom I disagreed." So love is framed as acceptance to somebody who sees differently about sexuality being a ma- a disputable matter. So we would all say we should love those with whom we disagree, but it's framed as love must be acceptance, or you're unloving. That's one issue I would give, uh, pause to. Uh, so then in the introduction, who needs this book? Those with a family member who is LGBTQ, those in leadership, basically everybody. So this is not like we're trying to change just the public dialogue on YouTube. This is not we're trying to change a university conversation about this, 'cause by the way, we had two contributors in this. We had Wesley Hill and Jut- and, and Justin Lee come speak at Biola.... with our students, 'cause we're a university, to model a civil dialogue.

Scott

Right.

Sean

It was wonderful. I went to it. That was probably 12 or 15 years ago. That's very different than saying, "In the church itself, leadership all the way down in our practice, we should move beyond disputes about sexuality." That's what I think is so pressing here. And then I just, I want t- draw one thing out. It's interesting. It says, "The goal is to str- to demonstrate" this is the introduction, "the principle of Christlike acceptance, whether it's in the way we read the Bible and the way we talk with one another or in the way we do ministry as Christ's church." And it talks about the enemy's attempts to divide us. Now, I would agree the enemy attempts to divide us. We all agree with unity. But the question is, where do we draw that unity? I'll speak for myself, but they're saying it's the enemy's attempt to divide us. So if you and I say we should divide over issues of sexuality, then we're operating in accordance with the enemy in the way that this is framed. I, my point is not to say they're wrong. My point is to say a lot is at stake with this, and we need to be clear and make our case.

Scott

Well, and I suspect that every one of the, uh, contributors to this would be willing to divide over some things.

Sean

That's a fact.

Scott

I mean, I think, I think they would all be willing to divide over the deity of Christ, over the bodily resurrection, uh, over the, over the authority of Scripture. Now, hermeneutics would be a different matter. Um...

Sean

Sure.

Scott

So, ju- just because we're tempted to divide, I'd say nothing necessarily follows from that. The question is, what are you dividing over?

Sean

Good.

Scott

And is that, is... does the Scripture give us warrant to divide over that?

Sean

Beautifully stated.

Scott

Thank you.

Sean

Because we are at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. (laughs)

Scott

What a, what a concept, huh?

Sean

So, some people watching this who are like, "Hey, we don't agree with that framework," we're speaking to Christians, our community and beyond. Everyone's welcome to watch this and disagree with us. But that's the question being asked here. That's the question that's in this book. So I think you framed that exactly right. Now, let's talk about, before he gets into his case from Romans 14 and your response, 'cause that's the key chapter of this. Uh, he, he, th- he talks about what's called a theology of acceptance on page four. Now, he says, for example... Well, I, I have some thoughts about this, but in terms of this theology of acceptance, before we get into the biblical passage, do you have any thoughts or concerns about that, or do you want me to jump in with some of my ideas here?

Scott

Well, uh, Sean, it, eh, I mean, maybe this is better saved for later, but I'll just throw it out there now. I think there, there's an equivocation throughout the chapter on what acceptance actually means. And I think in some places it means having, just having a civil discussion.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

Uh, in some places it means accepting someone like you would a family member. Okay? And I think in some places, I don't think they say it directly, but it's, I think it's implied or it's inferred that acceptance means basically acknowledging that the positions, the competing positions on sexuality both are morally neutral and something we can agree to disagree on. So, I think acceptance sort of baked into this, it seems to me... and I, I, I mean, I'm willing to be rebuked on this if I'm wrong, but-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... it seems to me that what's baked into this is a connection between m- valid acceptance and agreement with this general framework about sexuality.

Sean

Hmm. Okay.

Scott

Uh, and if, and if you don't, if you reject that this is a disputable matter and divide over this, you, you have lost the Christlike acceptance.

Sean

Gotcha. Okay.

Scott

So I think I, I j- I would wa- I, I was hope- I mean, I was hoping we w- it'd be a little clearer about what exactly that involves. Now, maybe in the rest of the book, they do. Um, but they, he does make reference here to accepting someone as you would a family member, welcoming them into your family as, you know, as an equal. Um, so that, that's the, that's the part that I think I would have wished for a little more clarity-

Sean

Hmm.

Scott

... in that. But you carry on here.

Sean

So that's, that's a fair point. So there's a difference between relational acceptance, and I have a number of friends, again, some who've contributed to this book, who are progressive Christians, not Christians, who hold a very different view than I do, relationally accept them, love them-

Scott

I sus- I suspect you actually-

Sean

... care about them.

Scott

... like all of them.

Sean

In friendships with them. I like them. I think they like me. That's different than theological acceptance and weaving that into the church from the pastor through the practice down and saying, "Now, not only do we relationally accept one another, but we theologically set aside what has been considered a non-disputable issue" that you and I'd say the Bible is clear about, about the definition of marriage-

Scott

So and so-

Sean

... and the morality of same sex unions.

Scott

... so has, so has the history of the church.

Sean

That's where the debate comes in and the key. So, theological acceptance is just saying, "We can agree to disagree on this like we do other issues we agree to disagree on." Now, here's why I take issue with that. Because at first nod, I could see a lot of people going, "Okay, good. This isn't the Trinity. This isn't the deity of Jesus or the authority of Scripture. It's interpretation." But let me... uh, I think here's what the opening chapter says. "Naturally, a theology of acceptance will concern some traditional Christians who fear a slippery slope towards affirmation." Now, that does concern me, and I've seen that happen many times. You open the door theologically and relationally to that. But even if it doesn't go towards affirmation, theological acceptance in the way it's cashed out here still deeply concerns me. I think it's functional affirmation.Why? So take the claim, God's design for sex and marriage is one man, one woman, to become one flesh for one lifetime. So marriage is a sexed institution, so sexual behavior outside of that is wrong. Take that statement. You got three options. Either you agree with it, which the church has for 2,000 years, that'd be the non-affirming position, you disagree with it, right, which would be the affirming position and say, "No, marriage is not a sexed institution, same-sex sexual behavior is not always wrong," or you stay neutral on it. Now, what does it mean to stay neutral? It means that I'm rejecting the historic Christian view of marriage and I'm refusing to make a moral condemnation of a certain behavior. That functions in the church as being affirming, even if an individual is not. So even if this position is held by people who don't become affirming, they've opened up the door to change the understanding of marriage, change morality, and that hugely concerns me given the testimony of scripture and the consistency of the church for 2,000 years. So I think it's functional affirmation. You agree or disagree?

Scott

Uh, well, we'll see this a little bit more when we get to the details of Romans 14 and 15.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

Um, but, and I, and I, and with, t- to be fair, here, th- the author of this first chapter makes it clear that he is not affirming, um, and yet is arguing for what I think is a position that I think you're right, it opens the door to it. I don't think it, I don't think it's an automatic slippery slope. I don't think you have to get there. But this is, I think opening the door to this is something that I think that we were, we're right to be concerned about.

Sean

Okay. So, uh, all I would say, and maybe we differ on this, it's not opening a door for something that might happen. If a church adopts this, what are they saying? They're saying you can be a faithful follower of Jesus in a same-sex union. You are not going to condemn that. You're gonna say, "You know what? I think you're wrong."

Scott

You've become affirming, yeah.

Sean

"I'm going to allow that behavior in the church." That's functionally affirming. That's the reality of it. So I-

Scott

It's, so, yeah, so, and then i- in light of that, I would say, so what, what then is the value of my saying that I'm, I'm, I'm still not affirming?

Sean

If you adopt this third way.

Scott

That's right.

Sean

And my, my position is it's, it has-

Scott

Goes out the window.

Sean

It goes out the window. That's a good way to put it. So look, I don't think I've said this publicly, but I had a conversation seven years ago with Matthew Vines, who is cited in this book.

Scott

Mm-hmm.

Sean

Who for a while was one of the leading gay affirming thinkers. Uh, also would consider him a friend. I haven't talked with him in some time, but loved our conversation. It was, I think by every me- a constructive conversation on sexuality and gender, accepted each other relationally. But I knew going into that, that if Sean makes his case and Matthew makes his case and people walk away and go, "Well, there's two different ways to interpret the Bible," I actually lose, because I have opened up the door for an affirming position-

Scott

Mm-hmm.

Sean

... to be an acceptable position for a Christian to hold. I wanted to be as gracious and kind as I could be, but say, "You have not made your case biblically. You have to show me why 2,000 years of the church is wrong and sexuality is a disputable matter and should not be condemned." That's why I think this is functionally affirming. And personally for me, I, I think it's dangerous for the church. I don't know any other way to say it.

Scott

Yeah. And I think, yeah, there's, there's another argument to make, I think, o- once we get into some of the details-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... of Romans 14 and 15. Not saying that we go there now.

Sean

Okay. (laughs)

Scott

But hold on, hold o- let's just, for our, for our audience-

Sean

All right.

Scott

... ho- hold that thought, that we're gonna come back to that and I think make that even more explicit.

Sean

Okay. Fair enough. So let's talk about where, (laughs) this is what happens when two philosophers get together. We nuance and define and carefully get our steps there, but it's important.

Scott

Lord help us.

Sean

So much is at stake with this, we have to be careful. So, what is at stake with this passage? And I think, I, I think this opening chapter does a nice job of laying out what is at stake with this issue before we get to the evidence of what's laid out for it being disputable and why it's not.

Scott

Right.

Sean

And there's four questions that are asked. Do you want me to... Do you wanna go kind of one by one with these?

Scott

Sure.

Sean

Would that be helpful?

Scott

Go for it.

Sean

Okay. So again, this is the Romans 14 passage that talks about disputable matters. And he writes, "First, what are the key issues in dispute? Romans 14 depicts Jesus followers in disagreement about exercising their freedom in Christ. Some eat anything, including meat and wine, while others restrict themselves to vegetables. Some treat every day alike, where others consider one more sacred than another." I think he's absolutely right. The question is, what are the key issues in dispute and would it consider, would sexuality fall under that?

Scott

Right.

Sean

Do you agree with the way he's-

Scott

Yeah.

Sean

... this first question?

Scott

And, well, and it's clear that, uh, sexuality does not directly fall into that.

Sean

In Romans 14 it's not cited.

Scott

In Romans 14. It's not cited.

Sean

Which doesn't mean it's not.

Scott

That's right.

Sean

But it's not included here.

Scott

All, what we're asking, is that a val- is s- including sexuality, is that a valid application of the principle that there are-

Sean

Yeah.

Scott

... some things that are disputed matters because they are morally neutral?

Sean

Got it. And-

Scott

Okay.

Sean

And obviously this wasn't on the table then in the same way it is now. So in fairness to that position, can we take principles of this-

Scott

Yeah.

Sean

... and apply it to this issue now? So-

Scott

Right.

Sean

Obviously the only disputable matters are not eating meat and/or wine and what they worship on. It's broader, doesn't include sexuality.

Scott

There's lo- yeah, lots of different things.

Sean

Now, before we do the second question, he says, "It's important to emphasize that diets and days are not merely trivial matters of personal opinion for Jews at this time."I would say correct, they're not trivial, but let's be careful. Just because they're not trivial doesn't me- mean that anything else that's also not trivial can therefore be included disputable. So nothing follows...

Scott

Yeah.

Sean

... for that from sexuality, but he's right. These are not disputable, or these are not, uh, how would I say, merely trivili- trivial issues. He says, for example, "Polygamy and concubinage are presented as acceptable behavior in the Old Testament." Now, I don't wanna get...

Scott

There's a lot of-

Sean

... too long on this.

Scott

... lot of discussion on that.

Sean

But I would give huge pause.

Scott

Correct.

Sean

If by permissible it means God used individuals like David and Solomon and Jacob who were polygamists, yes. Does that mean God affirms that as morally okay? I would say no. Now, I wish, i- in some ways I wish the Bible was more explicit against polygamy, but the Old Testament teaches it primarily narratively. And from Genesis 4, the first polygamist, who's a murderer and despicable character, to the life of David, the life of Jacob, the life of Solomon, we see worked out-

Scott

Right.

Sean

... rejecting God's creative norm, which is teaching-

Scott

N- no edi- no-

Sean

... that this is okay.

Scott

Yeah, no editorial comments are needed.

Sean

Yeah, so I- I-

Scott

This- yeah.

Sean

... think it's, it sufficiently does that, but we also have to keep in mind William Webb wrote a brilliant book, uh, foreword by your friend from Dallas Theological-

Scott

That's correct.

Sean

... Seminary, Darrell Bock, and this is, I think, about 20-plus years ago, maybe 2004 if I remember. It's called Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. I think he might retitle it if he did it today-

Scott

(laughs)

Sean

... but it's reflective of its time.

Scott

My wife was not happy with that-

Sean

(laughs)

Scott

... with that tr- trilogy. (laughs)

Sean

And fair enough, but his premise is on issues like slavery and on issues like, uh, women, we see God adopting a certain beliefs that are held moving towards liberation of those.

Scott

Yeah, and the, and the seeds-

Sean

Like-

Scott

... and the seeds planted-

Sean

The seed is planted.

Scott

... in, in the Scriptures for going further than what Old Testament law mandated.

Sean

Yes, e- exactly. But when it comes to issues of sexuality, we don't see the same trajectory.

Scott

Right.

Sean

If anything, when we get to the New Testament, it's more conservative than the Old Testament. Jesus said, "You even lust after a woman, you're guilty." Divorce gets even more strict. So I don't think pointing towards polygamy as an example is going to get him anywhere in this debate as far as what is included in an area of dispute.

Scott

Yeah, I mean, for one, I mean, polygamy was actually very rare in biblical times, because th- there were only a handful of people who had the financial resources to have multiple wives and families.

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

So those were the, tho- those were the financial elite. Most, mostly it was kings-

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

... who, who could do this. Concubinage I think is a- is another thing, and I think part of what... And this is, this is, this has to do with other things in Old Testament law that we might scratch our heads about, and just f- uh, for our audience, I think just a general guideline is remember that the Law of Moses was not necessarily promoting a, a moral i- once and for all time moral ideal. Th- the Law of Moses was probably more about damage control in a fallen, broken world.

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

And so, I think you can make an argument that the reason... Though the Bible never says this, this is my own speculation, the reason God allowed polygamy, even though the New Testament speaks really clearly against it, is because there, you know, men... Men were the ones who went to war. Men were the ones who engaged in risky behavior. There were always far more w- wi- widows than there were widowers in the ancient world-

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

... and this, p- polygamy was one way, and concubinage as well, of providing a safety net for women who there was no such thing as a working woman in Old Testament times-

Sean

Sure.

Scott

... unless you were a prostitute. But this was, this was the way that women, that, that the society had built in to take care of women who were, uh, who were made widows, you know, through no choice of their own, just through the, through some of the brokenness of a fallen world. So there-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... you know, I, I wouldn't go to the stake for that, but, uh, I think that's, that's one reason to think of, uh, this as, as an exception to the general rule.

Sean

Fair enough. A lot more could be said on that, but let's... So basically, the question, is the same-sex sexual behavior-

Scott

So in other words, don't say any more about it.

Sean

(laughs)

Scott

(laughs)

Sean

It's been eight years we've done this.

Scott

No, I understand.

Sean

So fa- that goes both ways. Fair enough. The question is the same-sex sexual behavior in dispute, and pointing to things like polygamy in the Old Testament when we're clearly moving away from that towards a more conservative norm in sexuality doesn't get you sexuality included in a disputable matter. Second question is-

Scott

That's not the only thing, which we'll get to.

Sean

And-

Scott

But there are-

Sean

Yeah, agree.

Scott

... other things.

Sean

But we're taking his-

Scott

I understand.

Sean

... questions one by one. So we agree with his, his framing, just disagree with the reasoning that's stated so far.

Scott

Right.

Sean

Second, who are the weak and strong in faith and how should they act? I think he's right. He says, "As a result, the weaker in conscious faith are unable to fully live in the degree of freedom in Christ that the stronger are li- legitimately enjoying." So on disputable matters, there's disagrees about the food, disagrees about the day you worship on, and oftentimes people today will say things like the music that you listen to or the kind of movies that you watch. They're stronger and there's weaker, and I have no problem with that application. But the way he frames it here is he says i- there's a question about a degree of the freedom in Christ. So can the weaker and the stronger, which includes days you worship on, which includes foods you eat... You have freedom in that regard. Do we have similar freedom when it comes to sexuality? I think he's right to frame it that way. I just don't see a (laughs) shred of evidence-

Scott

No.

Sean

... biblically that's an area of freedom-

Scott

Yeah.

Sean

... which we'll get to.

Scott

We'll, we will get to that. And I think he's right about that, identifying the, the s- the stronger brother-... is the one, I think, with, with a greater sense of the freedom that they have in Christ. The weaker brother is the one, I think, with the more sensitive conscience, uh, for whom lots of things are con- or are, would be considered violations of conscience for one person that wouldn't, wouldn't be, be considered that way for another.

Sean

I-

Scott

And so... And I think he's right about that. I think that's, that's exactly what Paul-

Sean

Yeah, I agree.

Scott

... what Paul intended in Romans 14 and 15-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... because it was i- i- in, in general, it was the Jewish brothers and sisters who were the weaker brothers here, who had the more sensitive-

Sean

Hmm.

Scott

... conscience because, uh, because of their background in the Mosaic Law. The Gentiles were considered the stronger brothers and sisters because they, I think, u- understandably appreciated the freedom in Christ that they have because they, they, I mean, they were especially well-positioned to take advantage of the notion that we are no longer under the law, but under grace.

Sean

That's, that's a helpful way to look at it. So the strong here would be those who say we have freedom to either believe in an affirming position or engage in a same-sex sexual relationship. That would be the strong. You and I would be considered the weak as applied to sexuality.

Scott

Hold that thought. I'm gonna give the punchline on that-

Sean

Okay. All right, all right, good, good.

Scott

... here in, in a couple minutes.

Sean

Okay. So third, and I'll do this one really quickly, he says, "What is meant by quarreling, despising, and passing judgment?" Uh, so, uh, yeah, we shouldn't be unnecessarily quarrelsome, unnecessarily passing judgment, but we all have to make moral judgments on what we think is right and wrong biblically. In fact, the author of this first chapter calls my position harsh, which I'm not offended by that, but that is a judgment that he has made.

Scott

Mm-hmm.

Sean

The question is not, do we make judgments? The question is, what are those judgments on? We'll get to that. And fourth, it says, uh, "What is Christlike acceptance that glorifies God?" Now, I appreciate that framing, 'cause when it's all said and done, what is life? No God-

Scott

It's what we're about.

Sean

... no others, glorify God is number one. That raised the question, does Christ call us to... I- is it a glorifying position to either be in a same-sex union? Does that glorify God? Does it glorify God to hold a position that reserves judgment on the morality of that? Is this third way that's being proposed one that most glorifies God? That's the question. So all of us here are trying to figure that out. We're just gonna have to get to the text. All right, I think we have sufficiently laid out what's at stake with this passage. I have one quick observation that this author cites before we get to the case, and I know you have a lot of really important stuff here. It says, he cites, "Wesley Hill observes that throughout church history, throughout history, churches became accustomed to reflecting the other theological and doctrinal disagreements, but they were less certain about moral disputes." Maybe. I'll take his word for it. But in Darren Belusic's book, which I consider the most convincing or one of the most convincing critiques of same-sex marriage biblically, same-sex unions, he says, "Lowercase c catholic, the idea that marriage is a sexed institution and same-sex marriage is outside of God's design is as catholic as a doctrine in the history of the church." So he's a-

Scott

As u- as universal, uh...

Sean

As universal, good, uh, as throughout church. So he's appealing to, like, this historical notion when it completely backfires, maybe on moral issues as a whole, but not the definition of marriage. All right, w- I don't know how many... We're, like, 40 minutes into this thing. Let's finally get (laughs) to the-

Scott

(laughs)

Sean

... theology that matters. Here's the question. Are gay marriage and gender transitioning disputable matters in Romans 14?

Scott

That's the heart-

Sean

Go.

Scott

That's the heart of it.

Sean

(laughs)

Scott

John, here's the bottom line. There is no indication anywhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament that sexuality is a morally neutral matter. None. In fact, it would be odd, the way Paul described same-sex attraction and sexuality in Romans 1, to have changed his mind by Romans 14-

Sean

Hmm.

Scott

... and 15. That, that'd be highly unusual. Now-

Sean

Good point.

Scott

... he could have included sexuality among these disputed matters if he had wanted to, but I, I think-

Sean

Good point.

Scott

... that if there's a difference between an argument from silence and an omission (laughs) that is glaring-

Sean

Hmm. Mm-hmm.

Scott

... on, on its face, and I think that's, that, that's the case here. Uh, now, the, the main point, I think, of the Romans passage in 14 and 15 is the inclusion of Gentiles as equals in the body of Christ. And the point is that they, th- the Jewish believers must accept them or receive them as members of their house churches, even as God in Christ accepts them. Right? All are to be accepted into Christ, into God's new covenant people by faith alone. Now, here's... The application of this, uh, I think is aimed at, at people who disagree on sexuality and th- the, either the-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... chapter puts it like this, "Therefore, honesty and humility requires evangelicals to acknowledge that LGBTQ concerns have become disputable matters among Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians."

Sean

Hmm.

Scott

Right? Now, that, this is the equivocation between debatable and disputable. Okay? Those are two different things. Just because we debate something doesn't imply that it's dis- a, a technical disputable matter like Paul's describing, which means it's m- it's morally neutral. Right? Now, uh, as we said at the beginning, I wanna re, re, reiterate this now, that a, a lot of the things, and the chapter points out correctly, that they took those very seriously in Old Testament times. And those were not just... Those were not God's suggestions. Those were God's commands. But by, but with the cross and the law being fulfilled-I mean, everything changed with regard to the moral requirements of the Mosaic Law, right? The, the church is no longer under those things as a rule of life. They are not moral requirements- Mm-hmm. ... for the believer today. Um, now again, then this, this is really important. Mm-hmm. "Morally neutral matters are not hills to die on." Amen. Right? "Nor are they reasons not to accept someone as a full equal in the body of Christ and fully faithful to Jesus." Amen. Okay? Mm-hmm. Now, what they want, I think, here is to include sexuality in this. And I, I think the conclusion I would draw is that this is an invalid application and there's no, there is no evidence whatsoever, e- even, I mean, even in the book of Romans there's no evidence that sexuality ought to be included as one of these disputable matters. Um, now, I think what it, what it means to accept someone, the examples that he gives, uh, that the chapter gives about, uh, you know, the, the people in, in far-flung places welcoming Paul- Sure. ... as a missionary, um, or the kind of, um, you know, or, or, um, Philemon welcoming Oneismus- Mm-hmm. ... back as a full brother in Christ. Mm-hmm. Okay? I mean, those are, you know, those are, those are, those are not disputable matters themselves, right? They, they, they were perfectly, uh, obligated to accept to welcome Paul, to accept Oneismus back as a full brother in Christ. And, and there was no, there's no comment made to either one about their faithfulness to Jesus, right? Once you get into sexuality, the rest of scripture is so clear. Right. And I think one of, one of the, one of the points that, uh, was brought out is that we don't, we don't find any, um, any direct teaching from Jesus on sexuality. And the reason for that is because the Old Testament was so crystal clear about what constituted moral and immoral sexual relationships. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And it, it just wasn't an issue. The same reason, it's the same reason that there was no, Jesus made no commentary on the death penalty- Mm-hmm. ... 'cause the Old Testament was very clear. Uh, but it, Paul's teaching on sexuality was incredibly counter-cultural. That's a good point. I mean, he turned, he turned, I mean, he turned the Greco-Roman world and its sexual mores completely upside down. And liberating to women, by the way, in that time. Incredibly liberating to women. Yeah. Uh, and not, not to mention for slaves as well. There you go. (laughs) Um, so I think there, you know, I think he's, he's right about, um, you know, people with an over-sensitive conscience. I think that's right. Uh, and here's, I think, the, this is I wanna quote my colleague who commented on this, Doug Huffman. Here's this, this is the interesting point I think about taking this to its logical conclusion. Okay. Um, says, "So in categorizing LGBTQ behaviors with Paul's category of disputable matters, one would expect Paul to wish that all Christians would embrace such LGBTQ behaviors for themselves. Because Paul is clearly in agreement with believers who have strong faith, more freedom," which we, by extension we would identify as the, the affirming side on this, "more freedom, less restrictions, uh, and ideally prefers that all believers would have faith strong enough to live into their freedom in Christ. So one would expect Paul to wish that all Christians would embrace such LGBTQ behaviors for themselves. But obviously this is not at all what Paul says in his New Testament letters." Hmm. Uh, and he by, by, he says, "By passing by the opportunity to address LGBTQ types of behaviors as disputable matters, Paul lists only several non-moral examples." Exactly. I think that's right. And that, and that's the point. Um, rather, you know, in fact Paul specifically scolds the Corinthian believers for embracing aberrant sexual behavior as if it were a positive expression of Christian freedom. Hmm. "Rather he instructs the church to withhold church fellowship from people behaving in such a matter. This is difficult to square with the idea of categorizing LGBTQ behaviors with Paul's category of disputable matters." So if you take the analogy of that, the, the strong in faith being essentially the Gentile who was more, you know, more inclined to exercise their freedom in Christ, if that, if that fits the affirming person and the weaker brother actually represents the non-affirming person, then Paul's wish for the troops in Rome was that they become the strong in faith. Hmm. Okay? Now be sensitive to those who are weaker, but- Of course. ... but the emphasis is on the, the strong, the stronger person in faith is completely justified in the behavior that they engage in. Hmm. Right? So avoiding circumcision, avoiding the, the dietary restrictions, none, none of that was immoral for Gentile believers in the, in the early church. Right. Right? But to say that about sexuality, I think just there's a major disconnect with the rest of Paul's teaching in the New Testament. And I don't see how he could have said what he said in Romans 1 about sexuality and come to this conclusion- Hmm. ... that the chapter's suggesting in Romans 14 and 15. That's a major complete shift of gear. I would say that's a radical inconsistency in the way Paul outlines his arguments in the book of Romans.

Sean

That's really helpful. And I would say it's more than just an inconsistency, because it's not just First Corinthians 6, where Paul lists a number of different sins and refers to same-sex sexual behavior and says, "These, these kinds of activities will keep you outside of the Kingdom of God." Well, he also says that in Galatians 5 and in Ephesians 5. Now, he refers to sexual immorality, doesn't distinctly say same-sex sexual behavior, but in Greek it's porneia. And you go-

Scott

And that is the umbrella term.

Sean

Well, you go a few chapters later, i- in the book, on page 41, and author, David Bennett, mentions porneia and distinctly says it's an umbrella term-

Scott

Exactly right.

Sean

... for sexual behavior outside of natural marriage. He doesn't use that term, but he would include same-sex sexual behavior in that. So it's not just First Corinthians chapter 6. Paul does, to the Ephesians, he makes it clear. To the Galatians, he makes it clear. To the Romans, he makes it clear. So every single ... This is something Kevin DeYoung points out in his book. He says every single vice list includes sexual immorality on that list. There's no exceptions of it being considered something that is not considered a vice.

Scott

No, and what does, what does Paul say in fir- First Thessalonians 4:3? He says, "This is the will of God for you-"

Sean

Mm.

Scott

"... that you avoid sexual immorality."

Sean

And in that passage, is that porneia, off the ... I would assume so.

Scott

I'm, uh, I'm sure it is.

Sean

Which I, I think Paul is ... Again, so add the Thessalonian church to that. We can add Revelation to that. Mark 7, Jesus teaches that. It's unanimous and it's consistent that that consider, that behavior would be out of bounds.

Scott

L- Let me-

Sean

You look like you wanna say something. Go ahead. (laughs)

Scott

Let me, let me make one other comment just from-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... from the, the admonition from Romans 14 and 15, not to pass judgment on people for these morally neutral matters.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

And then, you know, the, the chapter descri- describes it basically as spirited debate is okay, uh, but not to pass judgment. And I wanna make, I wanna make sure that may- maybe the, using the term judgment might not be the right term. I would say a, a moral assessment might, might be a more accurate term for what we're doing. 'Cause judge- judgment has sort of that judgemental baggage attached to it.

Sean

Has to do with attitude rather than content.

Scott

Right. But I think, and I think, you know, the chapter admits that spirited debate about affirming, non-affirming positions is okay. I would suggest it's also okay to try and persuade someone to adopt a different position. It's also okay to conclude that they are wrong in their view. Now, I'm not making an assessment of the validity of their faith. That's up to God.

Sean

Sure.

Scott

Um, but I can, I think I can make an assessment of their faithfulness to scripture. And I would expect them to do the same thing for me, uh, if I've got areas of my life that are out of bounds. And so th- I think the judgment goes somewhat, somewhat goes both ways on that. And so it's, I think it's not, it's not just the sort of traditional folks who hold to, you know, a, a non-affirming position that are the ones who are being judgemental. 'Cause I don't know how many times you and I have both be- been called bigots-

Sean

Yeah, sure.

Scott

... you know, for our, for our view on same-sex marriage-

Sean

I-

Scott

... and, and other matters of sexuality.

Sean

Been called it to my face.

Scott

(laughs)

Sean

And, and homophobic, which is fine. But in, in Matthew chapter seven, in the Sermon on the Mount, you know, "Do not judge, lest you be judged." Right? Well, then Jesus goes on in that passage to make-

Scott

Please read the rest of the text there.

Sean

... judgments about false prophets. "And they will know you by your fruit." When you look at the Gospel of Matthew, that is not the fruit of the spirit which is in Galatians.

Scott

That's correct.

Sean

That is the fruit of repentance tied to your moral behavior.

Scott

Right.

Sean

So we are called to make judgments. Of course, judge ourselves first.

Scott

Right. That's the point.

Sean

But-

Scott

I mean, Jesus is really clear that you, you know, look in the mirror first.

Sean

Ah, I agree 100%.

Scott

And, you know, take, take the spe- take the log out of your own eye first.

Sean

Okay, so here, here's-

Scott

All right.

Sean

Th- that was such a helpful analysis of Romans 14, but here's some of the things in this opening chapter. And again, it lays the groundwork for the entire project and the entire book. As far as I can tell, there's three reasons here, and then you are quoted. I want you to, uh, assess if you are quoted fairly or not. But there's three arguments that are given to defend this, that sexuality ... And we're speaking sexuality broadly. Really, it's same-sex sexual-

Scott

Right.

Sean

... behavior is really what's at stake here in changing the definition of marriage, whether that belongs in a disputable category. The first one says, "The Church has also long supported slavery and firmly prohibited divorce and usury. These and other so-called universal beliefs of the Church regarding moral absolutes admittedly have changed." I would just say, let's take slavery. There has been a debate about slavery in the history of the church. Yes, some Bible-believing Christians sadly have supported slavery. That is a stain on the church, no doubt about it. But there's been many people using e- the scriptures to fight against it. In fact, two nights ago, I watched the movie Amazing Grace with my wife and son-

Scott

Yeah.

Sean

... to make the point that-

Scott

Right.

Sean

... slavery was overturned by appealing to scripture. So that example, there's not that debate in the history of the church in the way there is for slavery. And there's a dif- different redemptive movement against slavery in the scriptures that we see go in the opposite direction in sexuality. The other thing is, I would happily say the Church has been wrong on some issues. Yeah, there's many in the Church wrong on slavery. If you're wrong on A, it doesn't follow you're wrong on B.

Scott

Correct.

Sean

Nothing follows for sexuality the fact that we've been wrong on this. And the third thing is, as I said, point out these are the affirming arguments that have been made for a long time. So in the name of this third way-The arguments put forth are the affirming arguments, which makes my point that this is functionally affirming. Now, the second one that's argued here for it, it says, "This is especially true regarding those who show evidence of being indwelt by God's Spirit and who desire to lead lives of obedience to the Lord as they best understand the Scripture's teaching on sexuality and gender." Scott, I've heard this argument a lot that just says-

Scott

Mm-hmm.

Sean

... look at the lives of individuals and people are kind and they're full of the Spirit. Clearly, they have the fruit of the Spirit. They're studying the Scriptures. They love Jesus. And I, I have no desire to judge anybody's heart. I am not God. I will not do that. But I'm preaching this weekend on John 14:15-17. And Jesus said, "If you love me, you'll obey my commands." So if somebody says, "The Scripture is moving me in a direction different than what Scripture teaches," then clearly that's out of bounds and against what Jesus taught, who was clear about the nature of marriage. So that kind of subjective test is problematic to me. And I'm gonna go to the third, but is there anything on that second one you-

Scott

No. Car-

Sean

... wanna add in that way in there?

Scott

Car- carry on.

Sean

Okay. All right. Uh, and by the way, so here's what he says in the second one. "Honesty and humility requires Evangelicals to acknowledge that LGBTQ concerns have become disputable matters among Bible-believing, spirit-filled Christians." Now, you made this point earlier. There's a difference between the observation that some people who identify as Christians disagree with this and that it now doesn't matter as an issue we should or should not disagree about. If you said Christians disagree on any particular issue, therefore it becomes disputable, well, Christians disagree on polyamory. Christians might disagree on ancestral relationships. And if you say, "That's out of bounds, how can you compare these?" I go, give it 50 years, it might. It's a lo- it's, it doesn't have to happen, it's a logical experiment that said if some Christians did... So as I'm, uh, as I'm reading this book, as they move certain things into disputable matters, like I see spirit-filled Christians who say they love Jesus, in some of my debates with progressive Christians, they've said the same thing about polyamorous relationships.

Scott

Yeah.

Sean

They said, "I see love in those relationships." How about adults and children? I'm just telling you the arguments that logically-

Scott

Right.

Sean

... follow from this. That's why I think it's problematic.

Scott

Well, it's appealing, it's appealing to the same base.

Sean

It's the same logical reasoning. Uh, all right, I think we've covered that. Here's how you're quoted. I, I am curious if this reflects your view. It says, uh, again, this is the opening chapter. "Scott Rae has rightly observed that contemporary arguments over the plausibility of affirming Christian monogamous, covenanted same sex marriages today continue to remain inferential."

Scott

Sean, I, for one, I've never used that term in any of-

Sean

Okay.

Scott

... my writings. Uh, but I looked up the, I looked up the reference 'cause I, I thought I, uh, I, I couldn't have said something that might give aid and comfort to this view. And it turns out I didn't. Uh, so I have two responses to this.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

The only time I, uh, on the, on the page, on the, the reference that he cited is from the fourth edition of my book, Moral Choices.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

In the chapter on sexual ethics. Uh, the only time I use that term, and, and it's in, I use the term inferred actually, is on the page he refers to, is in regards to this teaching of Jesus on sexuality. And here's what, and here's what I say. "Nowhere does Jesus directly address same sex relationships."

Sean

Okay.

Scott

"Thus, any views he had on the subject must be inferred from other evidence."

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

Okay? Now, then I, uh, then I spend the rest of the page outlining the reasons why he most likely would have adopted Old Testament views on sexuality. He didn't... And in, throughout, throughout the Gospels, Jesus never corrected the Mosaic Law. This is a really important distinction. He corrected rabbinic misapplications of the law.

Sean

Hm.

Scott

Because he's say, he said, "I came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it." And so, what he's, what he's correcting are where the, where the Jewish tradition had, had gone off the rails.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

Now, the only other place that maybe the author could have had in mind was on the following page. And I'm willing to, I'm willing to admit that he may just have gotten the page wrong. But where I d- where I describe, uh, various interpretations of Romans 1 on sexuality. And one of the, one of the alternative views is that the text in Romans 1, what it condemns is sexual excess, not monogamous same sex relationships. That's sort of the point that I think the author's making about my work.

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

Is that, that, that's just a, that has to be inferred. The Bible doesn't, uh, directly address that.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

So however, I go on to conclude that Romans 1, if you, if you read the rest of the chapter, was intended to put all same sex sexual relationships under, under the same umbrella, uh, outside of what the Bible allows. So I guess, Sean, let me be really clear about this.

Sean

(laughs) Do it. Be super clear.

Scott

So there's no misunderstanding.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

I do not consider matters of sexuality to be among the disputed matters that Paul describes in Romans 14 and 15.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

In light of Ephesians 5-

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

... 22 to 31-

Sean

Yep.

Scott

... heterosexual marriage is what illustrates the relationship between Christ and the Church. It ain't peripheral.

Sean

Mm.

Scott

It's a central issue to the church's witness and mission.

Sean

Amen.

Scott

It's really important. And then I, I found just at the end of the chapter, um, you know, a very interesting statement, eh, where the author says, "Although I have arrived at my own exegetical conclusions, evidence from both Catholic and Protestant circles suggest that the proverbial jury is still out on who is right in the progressive versus traditional debate, the libertarians," which are the strong brothers, "or the legalists," which would refer to you and me.

Sean

Mm.

Scott

Um, so I- I thought maybe, maybe I'd like, I'd like to be on that jury-

Sean

(laughs)

Scott

... that's, that's helping make that decision. Um, and so anyway, that's, that's my response to that.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

And I just wanna, I wanna be really clear for people who might read this and think, "What did, what did, what on earth is Ray thinking about on this?" Well, hopefully I've just made it clear enough what I am thinking about.

Sean

That's really helpful. And by the way, in Ephesians 5, when he talks about marriage being a signpost to heaven, what does he refer back to? The creation account in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2, God made them male and female, the root of marriage.

Scott

Mm.

Sean

They claim Jesus didn't address sexual morality. Well, in Mark 7, he condemns porneia, which undoubtedly would have included same sex sexual behavior. And in Matthew 19, he positively affirms that marriage is a sex institution like Paul in Ephesians 5 and Paul in Romans 1, referring back to creation as being normative for the nature of marriage. So Jesus, your point is Jesus didn't directly address same sex marriage.

Scott

He didn't.

Sean

But he sufficiently addressed it-

Scott

Right.

Sean

... to know what marriage is, right?

Scott

He didn't directly address, he didn't directly address it because he didn't have to.

Sean

Fair enough. (laughs) Okay. This section says, "Can queer and affirming people really be Christians?" Now this is, this is a personal question, right? This is kinda where the rubber meets the road.

Scott

Yeah, no, that's a big deal.

Sean

And it says, "The text is referenced by a Christian apologist, John McDowell, who states unequivocally that a person who affirms monogamous same sex marriage cannot be a faithful follower of Jesus. To defend this harsh judgment, he cites Paul and references that condemnation of same sex, sexual behavior in First Corinthians 6:9." Now, I wanna say a few things. First off, if he's actually right that same sex, sexual behavior is a disputable matter, then my judgment is harsh if he's right about that. I am the one who's refusing to give people the freedom that they have within Christ. So if he makes his case, then he's right. I'm harsh. Now, if 2,000 year history of the church is correct and our critique is correct, then actually his critique of me is profoundly misguided and is giving space to people engaged in immoral behavior that separates them from the Kingdom of God, and he's failing to call it out. That is equally minimally as harsh and consequential. Now, I'm not offended by this. This is not personal, but I'm trying to help people see what's at stake with this and why it's not just an agree to disagree issue. Now, his evidence for this, number one, he says, "The translation of these terms is itself a disputable matter." Now, I have to say, look, this might feel like nitpicking, but if the point is people dispute over this, so I can't come to a confident conclusion, well, people dispute his assessment, so therefore he can't come to a confident conclusion. Like, that's nonsense.

Scott

A non sequitur.

Sean

Just because we differ over something-

Scott

Right.

Sean

... doesn't mean one position is not right and better supported by the evidence. So nothing follows from that. Uh, second, he says, "There's an honest debate among evangelicals about what Paul condemns as sexual immorality." Gives a few things. "Is Paul even aware of loving same sex relationships between people of equal class and/or status?" Now, this is the same affirming argument that has been made for 15 to 20 years. So to answer your question, I actually, what you said earlier, I think the affirming position has run out of steam. They've run out of arguments. So Richard Hays' recent book-

Scott

Mm-hmm.

Sean

... preeminent New Testament scholar, there is nothing new in that. Uh, I did an in-depth analysis of that with Rebecca McLaughlin, and others have as well. I debated Brandon Robertson and his recent book. No new arguments. There's no new arguments here. And I actually wanna cite, I, I think there's an interesting book by Zondervan on two views of homosexuality, the Bible and the Church. And, uh, these are, like, two view, four views of baptism, four views of predestination, whatever.

Scott

Right.

Sean

And William Loader in here, who's an affirming scholar, one of the leading New Testament scholars who analyzes these passages, he says this. He says, "Where Biblical writers address the issue of same sex relations, the message is relatively clear. Leviticus prohibits the acts which Jews read as equally applicable to female homosexual acts. Paul sees both the action and the attitude, homosexual passion as sin. It is not the case that he sees only the act as sin, nor that he sees it as sin only when accompanied by excessive passion, as though moderate passion and its expression would be tolerable."

Scott

(laughs)

Sean

"Nor is it the case that he concludes that being gay and being sexually attracted to people of the same gender as itself ethically neutral.""Rather, Paul appears to assume, like other Jews whose discussion have survived, that all people are heterosexual. A homosexual orientation is contrary to nature as God's created people." Wait, so how does he get to an affirming position? Well, if you read a little later-

Scott

Yes.

Sean

... what he says is, "People following the, the option there agree that gay people should be treated the same way as heterosexual people and not be discriminated against. This is a conclusion based on the Biblical principle of informed love." So an understanding of love, not from the scriptures, imported onto the scriptures.

Scott

Correct. That's-

Sean

He says-

Scott

And that's the important point.

Sean

"He can only do so by acknowledging that the assumptions about human sexuality, which underlie the approach of Paul and his fellow Jews, need supplementing with the insights and observation of human sexuality we have gained since. It's not disrespectful of writers of Scripture," and in particular Paul, "to suggest that understanding of human, their understanding of human reality needs to be supplemented." Now-

Scott

Let me, let me, let me put this, uh, very forthrightly.

Sean

Do it.

Scott

What, what Loader believes is that what Paul taught is exactly what you and I hold as the non-affirming position.

Sean

That's correct.

Scott

He said then, and so I appreciate his clarity on that. But he also says-

Sean

100%.

Scott

But he also says Paul was wrong.

Sean

Exactly. (laughs)

Scott

And, and then we go from there. That's why the reason he's supplementing is because his view of hu- and according to Loader, his view of human psychology is wrong.

Sean

That's right.

Scott

And so, you know, I, I don't, I don't know what to do with that, f- you know, in our, in our conversation about, you know, about matters where, where everybody's trying to take scripture seriously. You know, it seems to me if you're trying to take scripture seriously, Loader's, Loader's view is not an option.

Sean

It's out of bounds. And this is not a critique of Loader.

Scott

No.

Sean

We could have the question, is Paul authoritative? Is the Bible true?

Scott

Give-

Sean

That's a separate question.

Scott

Right.

Sean

This is framed as being an in-house matter-

Scott

That's correct.

Sean

... of dispute. Loader's assessment is right. If you want to get to affirming position, stop using scripture to get there.

Scott

Correct.

Sean

Those arguments unilaterally fail. So this opening chapter, to get us to all the practices that follow, has not made his case. Now, I would say one thing I would throw out there is he raised a question which I think is fair. Finally, so he's giving three reasons why, you know, can queer and affirming people really be Christians? And actually, before I come to the third, here's an important distinction, Scott. The title is Can Queer and Affirming People Really Be Christians? And then he cites me as the one who's out of bounds and harsh-

Scott

Yes. Who basically says no.

Sean

... by saying, "Well, a person who affirms-"

Scott

Yeah.

Sean

"... monogamous same-sex marriage cannot be a faithful follower of Jesus." Those are not the same things.

Scott

That's correct.

Sean

I can't judge whether somebody's saved or not. I don't know the human heart. I don't know where somebody is at in their journey. God is the one who judges that. But can somebody say, "Oh, I'm in a same-sex relationship, or I am fine with that and won't condemn it and be a faithful follower of Jesus," when Jesus and Paul and the history of the church for 2000 years have been very clear? That's where I say no. So I think he's asking a question that I'm not responding to in that claim, and I think also kind of misrepresenting my view.

Scott

Yeah. I think it would be the same thing if we, if we tried to say someone who's in a, who's in an adulterous relationship-

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

... can, you know, uh, nevertheless exhibits the love of Christ and the fruit of the Spirit and is being a faithful Christian. We'd say no. You, yeah, that, that's, you know, yeah. And, and, uh, to be fair, you know, I mean, all of us have areas where we're not being faithful.

Sean

Agreed.

Scott

But it's different, I think there's a little bit of a difference, because I think for most people who are, who are trying to be faithful, their, their unfaithfulness is often inadvertent, often not high-handed or in-

Sean

Mm-hmm.

Scott

... or intentional. Um, and it's, and it's certainly not designed with any kind of Biblical justification in mi- in mind.

Sean

Agreed. Now, on the next page, he actually asks the question, "Is it not possible that an affirming queer Christian who loves Jesus and respects the authority of scripture yet interpret key passages differently than traditions, traditionalists may be guilty of sinning unintentionally rather than willfully disobeying God's will?" And e- let me, he asked that question earlier, said, "Could the references to, you know, the condemnation of sexual immorality be exploitive or excessively lustful?" Those are key words to me, could and possible. I go, "Sure, anything's possible."

Scott

Of course.

Sean

"That could be true." That's not interesting. I think of my friend Jay Warren Wall- Walls who says, "In a court of law, it's not could and possible. It's what is the most probable."

Scott

That's right.

Sean

So part of this reasoning is to just say the affirming position and the neutral position as well, it could be this. We dispute, therefore you can't be confident. And I say there's nothing interesting about could or probability whatsoever. And so, you know, oh God, there's so much more that could be said here. I know we're going on, but he raises the question of consistency, the third argument for can, you know, queer and affirming people really be Christians? And he says, "Finally, the question of consistency needs to be addressed. The list in First Corinthians 6 includes adulterers and Jesus said that anyone who divorces his wife to marry another commits adultery. Are all divorced and remarried Christians living in adultery?" You know what I would say? I'd say, "That's a really good question. That's fair. Maybe those who are non-affirming are being inconsistent." Maybe. What follows from that? Not that we both become inconsistent. (laughs)

Scott

Correct.

Sean

But that we both become consistent. So if anything, it's a claim to take divorce more seriously and to take same-sex sexual behavior more seriously. And by the way, I've been saying this for years.

Scott

Right.

Sean

When I point out First Corinthians 6-

Scott

Oh, I, yeah.

Sean

... I'm like, if you just point towards LGBTQ community and don't look at greed, don't look in your heart, you have missed the boat about this passage-

Scott

Yeah. I, I wi-

Sean

... massively.

Scott

I wish, I wish our churches got as exercised about adultery as we do about same-sex sexuality.I don't think it's-

Sean

Yeah, me too.

Scott

... because adultery is...

Sean

And cohabitation, by the way.

Scott

Yeah, among other things.

Sean

And-

Scott

Among other things.

Sean

So I- I agree with that, that's fair, but nothing follows for his argument-

Scott

That's right.

Sean

... from that. Now, there's... Look, there's some other things here that we could talk about. One illustration he brings to twice, and we'll (laughs) land this plane. What is true of biological family can also be true of spiritual family when it comes to LGBTQ disagreement. So he uses this twice. And I wanna say, what ties a biological family together? And it's biology. Look, my wife, her dad is one of 12. We have family reunions and there's like 75, 100 people.

Scott

(laughs)

Sean

People disagree politically and morally and religiously, and our biology ties us together. We're in relationship, we love each other. Part of the point of the New Testament is it's no longer biology that ties us together. Jesus said, "A- our- our family ties are not horizontal, they're spiritual." You know, in Matthew 12:50-

Scott

Mm-hmm.

Sean

... "Who is my mother and brother and sister? Those who obey the will-"

Scott

Right.

Sean

"... of my Father." It's a creed that ties us together, and following and committing to that creed. So the biological family just breaks down again, which I think tells me-

Scott

Right.

Sean

... in the chapter, there's a reach here that's just not convincing.

Scott

Well, I wanna go back. Maybe th- maybe this is gonna be- this will be my last word on the subject.

Sean

All right, you promised.

Scott

I did.

Sean

(laughs)

Scott

Um, and this is back to your point about how adopting the perspective, the framework here basically puts you in the affirming camp.

Sean

Okay.

Scott

And this is regardless of what you say about yourself. And this is- and I'm not- I'm not- I'm not doubting the face value of what the author says here about his own views. But here's- this is, again, comes from my colleague, Doug Huffman, uh... And he- he puts it like this. "As soon as... It seems to me as soon as one considers same-sex marriage or other LGBTQ behaviors to fit in Paul's list of disputable matters, then you are affirming. I think," quote, "disputable matters is the only place all of the affirming people I know would put same-sex marriage and, uh, and other such behaviors in any other category. That is, they would say something like, 'This sexual behavior may be bad for you and your relationship for God- with God, but it's good for me and my relationship to God.' Such a comment expresses the essence of- of Paul's disputable matters category. Thus, to categorize LGBTQ behavior in this way is to be affirming of that behavior for some people, even if not for yourself. You cannot call LGBTQ behavior a disputable matter and be non-affirming." And I think he's right about that.

Sean

Boom. I agree. That is a mic drop moment. And I think if I understood correctly, that is my point about functionally affirming. There's not three positions, there's two, when it comes to the practice and life of the church. I think that's right. I- I don't know if you have any last thoughts on this, but this book-

Scott

No, I told you that would be-

Sean

I mean, I'll-

Scott

... my last word.

Sean

You did. I'll say this. Honestly, Scott, I don't enjoy... I didn't look forward to this conversation.

Scott

Me either.

Sean

I don't enjoy some of the people who are in this book. I've interacted with, I've had coffee, they've been friends. I- I don't enjoy offering a critique, but I think the heart of this book, as far as constructive conversations on sexuality and gender, amen. I love that. There's a ton of advice in here about listening and finding common ground. And, uh, kind of a- a drumbeat through this book are mistakes less affirming, but non-affirming churches have made in how they've treated-

Scott

Mm-hmm.

Sean

... LGBTQ community. And I read that stuff, every time it's like a dagger. I'm like, "Why do we say that? Why do we do this? We've gotta do better." So in some ways, the heart of this book, you and I can resonate with. But the solution veers away from biblical fidelity, and it gives a solution as well-meaning as it is that is actually not biblically loving. Even if it's what they call Christ-like acceptance, it's not Christ-like love, because the Bible has described love in terms of, uh, you know, God's design for our bodies, in terms of what we do and what we don't do, and is clear about sexuality. So I felt the need to speak out on this, uh, and I hope- I hope others will as well.

Scott

Hear, hear.

Sean

All right.

Scott

Good- good stuff.

Sean

Thanks, Scott. This was fun.