32 - DECLOBBERING Same-Sex Passages of the Bible with Grant Hartley

Speaker 2: 0:22

Oh, that's a better idea. Do you hear that we got ourselves a live studio audience for today's recording? No, we don't. That is a button that I pressed.

Speaker 2: 0:40

It's so welcome to the Theology of Pieces podcast, where we hope to rebuild your theology that the church, the world or somebody has shattered to pieces. And I am your host, slim, and soon to be joined by my co-host, malcolm, who is in route to join us here for our wonderful, wonderful podcast that this episode I am looking forward to. But we do wanna welcome you, where we try to unravel the threads of faith and philosophy and spirituality to explore the intricate mosaic of beliefs that shape our world. And so we are excited to talk to you today, because today we are going to interview Grant Hartley and we are going to declubber some passages of scripture. But before we declubber anything, y'all, today we are gonna get into some weight, into some categories and some topics that I just am an itching for us to get into. This is something that I personally have had to wrestle with. I mentioned with some of y'all one of the reasons we started this podcast was not just to add another voice to the ether. But if you ask anybody, what's one of the biggest failures of the church in the last 50 years. It's a failure of discipleship. You know we are dreadful at discipleship, and one way it's not the only way, but one way, I think of discipleship that we could use. One way we aim to use this medium, this podcast, is to walk through difficult subjects and help disciple folks and to rebuild something I mean after so much disentangling of our faith from these systems of this world and deconstructing our faith from what we feel like there's just been so much added to scripture and so much added to what it means to be a Christian.

Speaker 2: 2:39

After so much disentangling and deconstruction, we now wanna say is like, what do we actually hold on to in the midst of this? Like, what do we actually construct? What do we actually? Can we actually believe in anything? And so that's our aim is to give us something to hold on to.

Speaker 2: 2:57

And I realize for many of us that we're still weary, that if we can trust or believe anything and that's fine, if you are here and you're still just going, I don't know about anything. I don't having so many questions like, please, I love that you are here, I love that you're listening, because what I believe is that there is, like all truth, is God's truth, and so there's no question that is too big for God, and I do believe we can bring all of our questions to him and to this God who's made stars and supernovas, as well as belly buttons and things like this. Like there's. We can bring it all, and so what I want you to hear from us today and from Grant, who we'll get to talk with later, it's not an apologetic to conform to, but we just want to give you another way of seeing things, cause we're gonna be talking about, you know, difficult, difficult topics. This is not a neutral topic, as everyone knows.

Speaker 2: 4:04

We were in this series.

Speaker 2: 4:04

Now we're trying to talk about what does the Bible say about our sexuality, and everyone has an opinion on this.

Speaker 2: 4:12

Whether you actually think you don't have an opinion or not, I think we all actually have something in us that believes one way, whether we know it or not, and I just want to remind us, like the way we began this series, and that we would encourage you to do so today, and for myself as well, is to lead with I could be wrong. I'm still saying that today, that I could be wrong, and I invite the opportunity to be wrong, and so, instead of preaching to you my belief, I want us all to come at this like scientists. You know scientists, when they come to things, they're not coming to preach. A preacher is coming to persuade you of something A scientist is going to explore. No, maybe some scientists aren't, but you know, I think generally that field is supposed to, scientists are more interested in discovering truth than being right, and that feels very foreign to, I think, the rest of our, the realms that we live in, and so let's all try to discover just. This is a Ted Lasso quote. Let's be curious not judgmental.

Speaker 2: 5:28

You know what is this going to say, and I realize that, as we look at some scripture passages, this will not probably convince anyone. One way or the other, if you are already in one camp, you probably won't be persuaded to another camp, so that's not our aim. But we are trying to just give you another view of seeing this, a way of seeing this, and so you might be able to go like I can now understand how someone came to that conclusion, and so that's what we're gonna be doing today. I'm so excited because I just for me, kind of like we talked about, like after we shifted our view of women in leadership. I mean, even to do that I had to wrestle with the scriptures and so, like I love like all of the discussions surrounding how we elevate women in leadership. But for me it was like but I don't know what to do with these couple verses, and so, similarly, on this topic, I mean I'm like how do we think about this? How do we think about this? But like, at my root, I'm like I gotta get into the word, I gotta get into the meat and to go like what does God have to say about this? Does he have anything to say about this, and so that's where I'm so excited for us to talk about.

Speaker 2: 6:40

But before we get there, some of y'all are wondering did I make it out alive from my quest to jump out of an airplane? And yes, yes, I did. I turned 40 on Tuesday. I did make it out alive. I did check this off a bucket list. I've shared this with our church as well. This was something I promised I made to my 13 year old self, and when I turn 40, I will go skydiving. Oh my goodness, I already have reasons to doubt the reliability of my 13 year old self, and now I have more reasons. My 13 year old self made a lot of bad decisions, and my parents can tell you about that, and I'm sad of all of the evidence that has stacked against me. But this is just one more in the long line of lists of bad decisions I made at 13. And, goodness gracious, it was the scariest thing in the world. Maybe we can post something on our Instagram about it.

Speaker 2: 7:46

This was jumping out of an airplane, getting into this tiny little almost like a golf cart of an airplane. That is the smallest airplane I've ever been on, and as we take off, they don't even shut the door, like we hop in and they go just like you would in a golf cart, and the door is open 100, 150 feet off the ground. And then finally they're like maybe now we'll close it. And then they pop up in the window and if you've ever been on planes, you're like, is this allowed? And so I'm just staring down at maybe like 300 feet now and going like if I fall from this height I'm dead. And so I, oh man, I had a little panic attack. Wow, it was nerve wracking. We get up to 11,000 feet and then you strap to someone and you jump out and I'm, oh, my gosh, it was.

Speaker 2: 8:40

I don't know if I enjoyed it, I think I was just, it was just sheer pain. The whole way down there was a moment where I was like, okay, this is gonna be great, this is gonna be great. But it was just fear, overwhelming fear of plummeting to the earth. And then I also I hate getting dizzy. So, like the tea cups at Disney, also get me, disney dizzy. And so that the parachute came out. Even then, when you think now I'm safe. And I had a little moment where I felt like that, but then the guide started doing tricks, with me strapped to him, and so we were. Now we're doing spins in the air and I'm like I'm gonna throw up everywhere. So it was, it was the best I was. I'm really glad I did it, glad it's off my bucket list. I'm glad I committed to it. But that was rough, that was hard, that was really hard. So all right, this next time. Next thing we get to talk about here is normally we jump into a little time for terrible tweets.

Speaker 2: 9:45

But today we are gonna combine our terrible tweets along with our thank you for writing in to hello at the lgpscom. So, thank you for writing at hello At the lgpscom. We encourage you to do so, but we also want to say we got some room to grow, we have. We had someone who wrote in and I'll read this, not in its entirety, but here we go. This is from one of you, dear listeners, so thank you, thank you, thank you for writing in. He says hey guys, I was listening to your podcast and y'all happened to bring up the sound of freedom in your discussion on horrible tweets. Slim ended the segment in saying it was based on QAnon's conspiracies. This breaks my heart, guys.

Speaker 2: 10:31

Tim Ballard's Operation Underground Railroad has been fighting to end child trafficking since 2013. Work on the movie script started in 2015. Qanon wasn't even a thing until October of 2017. Please don't dismiss something that sheds light on one of the most evil practices in our world, because the media shouting Orange man Bad wants to protect team blue from conspiracy theories by linking it to the Cheeto. Jesus saves crap. Y'all are all about justice and tell others to fight for the poor, the widow, the orphan. The makers of the sound of freedom, want to end trafficking by bringing awareness through the most powerful medium of our age. Don't dismiss their work because people you agree or disagree with try to politicize it to protect their political idols. This movie doesn't even bring up politics, and the people of God should champion a righteous cause. So one, oh my goodness, thank you, thank you, thank you for just listening to the podcast and then also, I hope we get interactions like this, like I hope we can have more back and forth through this medium, because otherwise, as I said earlier, we are just speaking into the ether and no one wants that. That stinks, that's not, that's not we want. Everyone longs for community. We want some feedback and some back and forth, because, guess what? I could be wrong, as I said earlier, and I'll admit I was wrong.

Speaker 2: 12:00

Let me begin with what I found incredibly helpful from this pushback and this critique. First, y'all, I have not seen the movie and I completely disregarded it. I wrote it off without ever having given it the time of day to investigate it and I would hate it if someone said something so negative about our church without ever having stepped foot in it. In fact, people have right and it's infuriating when you hear things like that. You're like you don't know us. How could you say something like that? And so I completely own that. I have not seen the movie and so it was wrong for me to just completely disregard it like that, and so for that I am sorry.

Speaker 2: 12:50

And also I believe this Dear Writer is correct in that I was very dismissive of the entire project. Like what if they are doing good and beautiful work? Like I didn't even give the topic of the conversation any positive argument for folks working to end sex trafficking. Like when we realized I mean just when we realized that the porn industry is almost entirely fed off of folks being groomed into this. Like it should disgust us that almost everyone we know is struggling or has struggled with this industry, and so that we also all participate in this in some way, creating demand for it. And so we should not dismiss works to dismantle injustices like this, but we should be collaborators and champions and cheerleaders of works that are bringing an end to such evils. And so, amen, man, thank you for that.

Speaker 2: 13:49

And lastly, I was fast and loose with my characterization that it's based on, you know, q and on conspiracy theories, and I should have been more careful with my wording. So again, dear dear listener and writer in, thank you, thank you, thank you. These are the types of conversations that we should all be having, because this is iron, sharpening iron. It's making us, you know, grow and be better. But I wanna also offer can I give a little pushback to you as well, cause? And so this is not a justification for what I did, and again, I just what. I admit I was wrong and I do need to be better.

Speaker 2: 14:26

But I also think, since we're talking about this, that the level at which we defend Tim Ballard in the operation underground needs to at least consider some of the recent findings and events that have happened. Like disclaimer, I don't know all that's happened, investigations are underway, but there are two very serious issues that we have to at least consider in one smaller one. The first one, tim Ballard, the leader of operation underground, has recently exited operation underground this year after investigations into claims of sexual misconduct involving him and seven at least seven women, and the accounts are actually gonna be a lot more than that and so what would happen? At least some of these claims are that because he has invited women to come with him to act as his wife on these undercover overseas missions, you know, ostensibly aimed at rescuing victims of sex trafficking. He would then allegedly coerce those women into sharing a bed or showering together and claiming that it was necessary to fool traffickers. And so you could just see the how wrong and gross it is that the person who's working towards ending some of this sex trade, the sex trafficking, is also now being accused of this. And so these methods weren't just with some of these women, they were also been named by some from former volunteers and employees of operation underground railroad. And he go okay, now maybe they're just disgruntled.

Speaker 2: 16:09

But now operation underground railroad has officially set on their statement on June 22nd, that Tim is now permanently separated from operation underground railroad and said it was ultimately revealed, through disturbingly specific and parallel accounts, that Tim has been deceitfully and extensively grooming and manipulating multiple women for the past few years and the ultimate intent of the coercing them to participate in sexual acts, undergoing the premise of what it takes, you know where it takes and doing whatever it takes to save a child. And so if this is true again disclaimer, if this is true, but there's a lot of reports here and who knows if it is, but if it is, then I would say that the same righteous anger that burns to end sex trafficking because of its abuse of women ought to be matched by a zeal for justice against this man, and so we have to at least consider this. And so that's the first one. The second thing is, days after the sound of freedom was released, there was lots of investigations into how Ballard has a history of self mythologizing and embellishing his exploits, while there, you know, spent years making big, unprovable claims about the paramilitary operations and missions of rescuing these kids, and so there's a lot of concerns over how impactful this operation actually is and some things. Things might have been embellished and made into a movie, and so these are things that I just say we have to consider, and it's not just empty claims. There's people within the organizations, volunteers, who would have said things like this, who said, and it's also possible that the operation is creating demand for trafficking victims by going to foreign countries on undercover missions and walking around bars and sex clubs asking for underage girls, and so this is all of this is to say, oh, my goodness, this is a mess. But the last thing I would say this is the smaller point this may not be a Q and on conspiracy theory, but sadly the sound of freedom cast. The sound of freedom people had cast Jim Cavizel to portray Ballard, and Jim is an openly supported Q and on conspiracy theorists who's promoted baseless conspiracy theories of shadowy international cabals, of top Democrat politicians, you know, kidnapping children and force them into sex trafficking and also eating and drinking their blood, like it's also. He's got some. They cast him, and then Ballard himself has also voiced some support for his Q and on conspiracies, and so there's it's not a completely baseless claim to say that they're rubbing shoulders with some of these folks and so we need to be careful.

Speaker 2: 19:07

So all I have to say is there's so much to wade through. I don't think we should paint it all bad, nor defend it as untouchable. There's just a lot to consider here, but I wanted to bring this forward for one. Just I want to as this as an example. Thank you for writing in Like. This is the back and forth that I think we as all should have of iron, sharpening iron, of being a community. This is the type of stuff that we all do, that my wife will call me out on stuff and I barely call her out on stuff because she's perfect and awesome, but maybe even call out my kids and so, again, just want to say thank you for writing in and give a quick response to all that. All right.

Speaker 2: 19:45

Well, wherever you're at, I want you to stop what you're doing, because if you were not ready for a podcast no, not a podcast, you're listening to one if you were not ready for a Bible study, then I suggest you pause this podcast, because the rest of this podcast is not one that you just drive in your car listening to. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's for other people. What we're going to embark upon this is one that it's gonna require you to carve out some time to grab a Bible, to grab your pen or whatever note taking device you may have, and we're gonna jump into a Bible study. And I'm so excited because we're gonna go in depth with you on this all important topic and finally study together these clobber passages with our friend Grant Hartley.

Speaker 2: 20:39

And you might ask what is a clobber passage? Why are they called clobber passage? Well, sadly, because the church loves to use the word of God. Amen, hallelujah, that's what we have to stand on. But it's also been the word of God has been known to become a sword to bludgeon instead of a scalpel to make incisions. A sword would be used to hurt or to inflict pain.

Speaker 2: 21:08

A scalpel is used primarily to heal, and so if you need to put a pacemaker in your heart, you need a scalpel to open it up, to put it in your chest, to insert the pacemaker, then stitch it shut right. The goal is healing, and that's how scripture ought to be used, and so I hate that we call these the clobber passages, because I believe that all scripture is God's word and His word does not intend to clobber. But there are those who have used it this way, and so we still call them the clobber passages, because that's what they've been used, as that's what they've been referred to, and so will you join me as we talk with Grant Hartley to declobber some passages of scripture ["The.

Speaker 2: 22:01

Finesneas" by Elias. All right, we are back now. We are at full force. We began podcast with just myself, but Malcolm is now finally here. I'm here. After having some serious car issues.

Speaker 3: 22:16

I'm here no serious car issues. I mean nothing's been diagnosed. They're checking it out. I could find out during this podcast that there's a dick, that that the car's gonna explode or whatever. But, as of now, everything's fine.

Speaker 2: 22:29

It's. And in case you're wondering, malcolm has named his car storm storm is her name from.

Speaker 3: 22:37

X men. So it's really, it's really, I think the don't pop my bubble.

Speaker 2: 22:41

I thought this was from X men.

Speaker 3: 22:42

Well, okay, now I have to remember the origin the origin story I cuz I. Pretty sure it's big, like the color, because it's a it's a blue color, but I forgot the like. The way that it was advertised had something with storm in the names I was like let me just call, just call my car storm.

Speaker 2: 22:58

Okay, well, I'm going with storm from X men great, you can do that. It's not really blue, it's kind of the purple ish. I'm also parsley color blind, as us. We are diving into most of unimportant things right now.

Speaker 2: 23:08

I'm sorry, we are joined here just wading patiently, by Grant Hartley, who is a Theology student, a speaker I've heard great you know great things about your speaking ability. Freelance writer living near st Louis. He you grew up a southern Baptist, spent several years working in the evangelical campus ministry before pursuing a theological education, eventually entering the Roman Catholic Church a few years ago. He co-hosts the the life on side B podcast, which is fantastic, highly recommend. We'll make sure we put a link there in our show notes which facilitates conversations among side B, lgbtq plus Christians, christian, sexual and gender minorities who submit to what is often called a traditional sexual ethic on the topics of faith, culture, sexuality and gender. So what, grant welcome?

Speaker 4: 24:00

Thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here. I also want to say that my car is named Hubert Nice Because my great-grandfather was a Buick man and trash talked forward and so I got a Buick, and so we've named it Hubert, nice, amazing how many of y'all listeners name your car.

Speaker 2: 24:25

That's a good question. Could you write it and tell us if that's a common thing?

Speaker 3: 24:31

If anybody's got cool car names, let us know. And Grant, so you and I were able to connect. I think this was a few years ago. You wrote a really thoughtful piece responding to the PCAs add in our own report on sexuality and I enjoyed that and have enjoyed some of the other things that you've written too. So thank you for that work and looking forward to this conversation that we'll have today about the scriptures.

Speaker 4: 25:00

Definitely, Gosh. My head is going to get so big. My hats aren't going to fit in here.

Speaker 2: 25:10

I did not give you this question. This is more just. We got to get personal before we jump in. We asked this last time of Nate what is a favorite cartoon or TV show? I guess a cartoon or video game.

Speaker 3: 25:26

It's a video game, yeah.

Speaker 2: 25:28

Growing up for you.

Speaker 4: 25:33

I was. I really liked fairly odd parents growing up, Okay.

Speaker 2: 25:39

That's classic.

Speaker 4: 25:41

Because it's like joke after joke after joke, and then there's a handful of jokes that are just for the parents, for the kids and all. So you get to appreciate it more as you get older, that's good. Yeah, that was fairly odd. Parents was when I really enjoyed.

Speaker 2: 25:59

That's great. That's great Classic. I feel like Pixar does that well. It's just like it's for kids, but we got quite a bit of stuff for parents.

Speaker 3: 26:09

I mean when I was a kid. I mean I love SpongeBob and my parents did not let me watch it for the longest time and I didn't exactly know why. And then as I watch it now, it's the same kind of dynamic where there's stuff for the kids and there's also stuff that would go way over your head when you're eight years old. So hilarious yeah.

Speaker 2: 26:28

Some of that, you're like okay, is this really for kids? Yeah, yeah. Well, grant, how long have you been open about talking about this topic that we are engaging on today personally, and how did that come about for you?

Speaker 4: 26:45

Yeah, I think like a lot of gay, lesbian, bi, same-sex attracted folks, this conversation sort of came to me without my seeking it out. These were the kind of verses that were most often cited in reference to LGBTQ people, and so I sort of felt it necessary to look into them myself, and then, as I became more open, I thought I needed to have a kind of rationale for how to think through some of these passages. So it's sort of been from the beginning of my journey of reconciling faith and sexuality.

Speaker 2: 27:32

Yeah, and I spoke a little bit about this before. We have everyone here join us on this, but for our listeners who may not be familiar, could you explain what clobber passages are and why we call it that, or why some people, why some people don't know that. Thank you, thank you. Yeah, some people.

Speaker 4: 27:55

I'm not sure where the phrase comes from. I think it was a book many decades ago, sort of examining a handful of passages that talk about same-sex sexual activity, or presumably talk about same-sex sexual activity. And so there's Sodom and Gomorrah, there's Visc lists and 1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy beginning a romance, some of Levitical Law Code Sometimes Jude is brought in as well, but yeah, that's why they're called that the passages that are used as often as weapons against LGBTQ people. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2: 28:38

Well, I really appreciate you coming on here. The hope for this particular conversation is to kind of walk and wade through these passages, and so, as I told some folks earlier, we're about to enter into a Bible study. Dun-dun-dun-dun, yeah, dun-dun-dun.

Speaker 2: 29:00

So I love listening to podcasts in the car, while working out or wherever. We want you to pull over, start taking notes. That's a good Bible. Start cross-referencing all of that. We really do want this to be something that's really meaty and an ability to chew on these verses, because I think, as you said, these verses are so critical and there's typically there's about six or so that people usually point to, and we're going to try to look at each of those and I want us to declubber them, to take some of the fangs out that they might have, but also to wrestle what does it actually say here? And so I would love to get more personal with you and go deeper on some of those other things, but we're like we'll get there, we'll get there. We're excited to jump into scripture with you.

Speaker 4: 29:52

It'll all come out in the conversation.

Speaker 2: 29:55

It'll all come out Wonderful, wonderful. So the six passages that we're going to look at we're going to look at Genesis 19. We're going to look at Leviticus 18, 22, and chapter 20, 13. We're going to look at Romans 1, 26 to 27. We're going to look at 1 Corinthians, 6, 9, and 1 Timothy 1, 10 are kind of the main passages that people point to, and so if you want to write those down, hit, stop, rewind, go back to those, but we're going to walk through them here, chapter or verse by verse, and kind of walk through those here. And so, grant, what would you say Genesis 19 has to say regarding the conversation on LGBTQ plus?

Speaker 4: 30:44

Yeah Well, this is going to sound really strange, but through my study and reflection on the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah which I think needs to be read in context with the previous chapter and Abraham's hospitality to our de-angelic visitors I actually really I'm kind of fond of the story. I think it has some really interesting critiques to make. But I mean, the short answer is I don't think it says much about same-sex sexual activity at all. I think the presence of same-sex sexual activity in the story is incidental. The story doesn't actually address the morality of same-sex sex. So that's the short answer, but I don't know if you have any specific questions of sort of how that plays out.

Speaker 2: 31:44

Yeah, yeah, that's good.

Speaker 3: 31:46

Which is so. That's so fascinating, Grant, especially because the history of popular interpretation of that verse seems to suggest to everybody that that's what the whole thing is about. I mean, the very language of quote, unquote sodomy comes from a particular understanding of what's going on in that text. So it seems to be what you're suggesting is that entire popular, that entire kind of popular strain of interpretation seems to be wrong. Could you give us some? And I know, and you'll say this too, it's also like the rest of the scriptures seem to tell us that that particular popular expression is wrong. But I want you to go into a little more detail on that. Why, what gives you the confidence to make that kind of clay?

Speaker 2: 32:46

Before you answer Grant Malcolm, will you give a one-minute overview of Genesis 19? Sure, If people don't know what we're talking about. Yeah, yeah, yeah, let's say they didn't pull the car over.

Speaker 3: 32:55

Yeah, yeah, yeah, let's say you didn't pull the car over. So some visitors come to Sodom, lots, lots, lots there they tell I'm pretty sure they tell a lot, hey, we'll just stay outside for the night, and a lot's like no, you really don't want to do that. Yeah, let's camp. Let's not do that. Why don't you come home? Why don't you come home with me.

Speaker 3: 33:25

And so and it's interesting, this is and and and and and and and and and and Grant, you may say something about this later but when, when, when. When the text describes kind of what offers them food-wise, it seems more, more, more meager than what Abraham offers offers them in the, in the, in the chapter prior, but offers them that and then, and then I think it's it's later in the night all like all of the men of the town come to the, come to the house and are like, hey, we saw, we saw you have these, we saw, we saw you had these visitors. Bring them out so that we may know, so that we may know them. Um and lots like, no, don't, don't, don't mess with them, but I've got, I've got daughters. You can, you, can, you can, you can have them, which is, it's a, it's a, that's that's what he says.

Speaker 3: 34:14

Um and then um, but but as but, as a result of that exchange, um, these, these, these, these angelic visitors tell a lot in his family. Look, uh, son, son of a more about to get destroyed. So y'all better, y'all, y'all better roll out Um but um, but yeah, but the but, the but, the broad conversation is is around. Well, like why? Why are Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? Um, and and the popular and and and, as I was saying before, kind of the popular understanding is um, is that it's because of it's because of same-sex sexual activity. But but, as Grant, I think, has, has, has helpfully, has helpfully, uh, begun to make the argument that that may not actually be, that's not the, that's not the primary focus of that, of that text, uh, perhaps at all. But if, if that's not it, what's what's going on, grant?

Speaker 4: 35:10

Yeah, I think, um, there's a couple flaws with the argument that the passage is about. It's primarily about same-sex sex, um, so one of them is that every single person in the city comes to to lots door. Um, every single man, young and old, is what it? Says Um, I don't think there's ever in the history of the world been an entirely gay city. Um, there's been a few contenders, I guess um, fire Island maybe, um, but it doesn't seem likely um that it's a whole bunch of gay people.

Speaker 4: 35:47

Um, so if it's not a whole bunch of gay people, why are they wanting to quote, unquote, know these angelic visitors? Um, the word no, I get pretty clearly is uh, as a euphemism for wanting to have sex with them. Um, some people have made arguments that they just wanted to know who was visiting their town. Um, but I I really don't think that's the case at all. Yeah.

Speaker 4: 36:10

Um. So it just doesn't make sense of the passage for me. But there is some interesting, interesting, um interesting back and forth, uh, with the, the mob and lot. And the mob, um, in in the heat of an argument, says, uh, you came here as an alien, um. And so you start to wonder if maybe some of the rationale, some of the reason why they're they're so threatened by a lot or so angry with law, is that he's a foreigner, uh, and then he's brought more foreigners into the city, um. And so it seems to me pretty clear that that what's in view is not I'm not wanting to have sex with the angels, but it's wanting to brutalize them, to rape them. So I, I've, I've said this. I don't know where I got this. Someone else said it before me, so citation is needed, but I forgot who said it. Um, if someone yells out to you F you, you don't think that they want to buy you dinner. You know they. They're not, they're not interested in wooing you.

Speaker 4: 37:22

They're interested in humiliating you. So that's, that's what I think is sort of going on in this passage.

Speaker 4: 37:29

And especially if you look at it in light of, um, the hospitality that Abraham shows the angelic visitors in the previous passage. Um, one of the one of the interesting um bits of interesting details is yeah, lots, feast for the for the angelic visitors is unleavened bread. Abraham, meanwhile, had all sorts of cakes and cheese and meat and, um, I think it's um, maybe I've stepped back a little bit and I don't think it's necessarily indicative that he's not trying to be a good host, um, or he's not trying hard enough. I think the angels came late at night and he was probably a quick meal.

Speaker 4: 38:08

But it is interesting that that lots, um, lots hospitality is kind of implicitly contrasted with Abraham's hospitality, um, and then, and then he sort of utterly fails as a father and offering his daughters to the mob, um, which I think that is also an act of inhospitality, um, uh, so I think inhospitality is a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a. A big theme there. Um, something else I've I reflected on. I've read several commentaries um on this passage, but some of them make make much of this idea of the door um being uh, the site of, uh the threat of violence for the mob.

Speaker 4: 38:53

So it's sort of it becomes an image that implies rape again, Like the mob is sort of banging against the door and lot has it closed. So, yeah, I don't see a consensual same sex sex there at all. I don't see any gay people there. Yeah, Um, and that's that's sort of what later scripture says, Um, I think Ezekiel 16, yeah 49 to 50,. He says this is why a side of him was destroyed. Isn't that helpful, Right?

Speaker 3: 39:25

So we got to got to love it when the scripture answers our questions for us.

Speaker 2: 39:30

And why is that? What did Ezekiel 16 say? What was the? What was it? Ezekiel 16. Um, yeah, no-transcript.

Speaker 4: 39:40

Ezekiel 1640-1950,. She and her daughters had pride, excessive food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it, wow, yeah. So I think that fits with a mob coming to threaten to rape guests, honored guests. So that's sort of my take.

Speaker 4: 40:06

I also think that if you look at the passage now, people are probably wondering why I like this passage so much. So I think the angels which is sort of how God is acting in the story these angelic visitors when the mob comes, the angels drag Lot out of the city. He seems maddeningly ambivalent about leaving. And there's actually another interesting parallel. You know, abraham bargains, bargains with the angels to try and spare Sodom and Gomorrah, like would you destroy the city if there were 40 righteous? Okay, what about 30? Yeah, what about 20? It just like keeps going down. And Lot makes a similar bargain with the angels, but the bargain is after the angels have dragged him out and said okay, flee for the hills. He says, okay, can I go to this small city that's nearby instead? And they're like fine, fine, go ahead.

Speaker 4: 41:15

So it's another parallel between Lot and Abraham. Yes, see, I think I think in hospitality and refusing to care for the poor and the needy. It's not just an imposition on the text. I think that's that's the feeling that some more conservative thinkers come away with. When they hear more progressive thinkers talk about how this passage isn't about same sex, they think, oh, they're letting these, these cultural values, these social justice values, override the real meaning of the text. But I think if you look at the text really closely, you'll see it all there, right.

Speaker 4: 42:00

So it's really unfortunate that Sodom has been linked with a certain kind of sex act. Yeah, yeah. Because it's just and then and it's extra. It's extra frustrating when people make an argument about what Sodom and Gabor means based on the word Sodomy, which is getting everything backwards Right. Yeah, later connection yes.

Speaker 2: 42:29

Yeah, and I almost hesitated to put this passage in our discussion because it's so clearly not a part of this discussion, but because people have included it so often, it feels like we need to at least discuss it, to debunk it, to declubber it, because the emphasis is so clearly on violent humiliation, not sexual intimacy or pleasure. The men of Sodom wish to brutalize the angels, not seduce them, and, as we said, lot not only struggles to be a hospital for his guests, he fails to make his own house safe for his own children, and so it's a passage clearly about rape and hospitality, and Ezekiel, as you mentioned, makes that abundantly clear. And so if we are wondering if we're, as you said, going along with the culture, we're going along with Ezekiel.

Speaker 3: 43:22

And briefly, if you want, comment on why people like to try to bring Jude into this passage too. So go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

Speaker 4: 43:33

Yeah, I've heard so. I had written an article about Sodom and Gomorrah and sort of shared a lot of what I shared with you now and when. That was when I tweeted that. I tweeted it several times, I don't know why this is the one that ended up blowing up, but it was wild for days, waves of replies.

Speaker 4: 43:59

But several people quoted Jude where it says let me find it, sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, served as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire, and so they zero in on this unnatural lust. The problem is unnatural lust is a translation of a phrase that isn't. It doesn't doesn't seem as connected to same sex sex as unnatural lust, unnatural lust does. It's Sarcos heteros going after strange flesh, other flesh Heteros is where we get the word heterosexuality actually. So I think Jude is really interested in the unnatural sexual relationship between human beings and angels. The whole beginning of the letter of Jude is about angels who do really awful things, who deserve to be punished, and so that's sort of his and that's a whole other Bible study.

Speaker 4: 45:17

How about?

Speaker 3: 45:17

the. Nephilim. How is that possible? That's something we could talk about. Anyway, that's the only one To the next step, but that's, that is helpful. That is helpful, grant. And I think. Good context for us to think through particularly these texts.

Speaker 4: 45:35

Yeah. Yeah, I mean to be clear. There is another word I think it's porneia in Jude, and that is a really broad term. So I suppose the author of Jude could have could have had same sex sex in mind when he said porneia. But something else he could have had in mind is rape, and that seems to be the main, the main focus of the passage. I find the citation of Jude pretty unconvincing as well.

Speaker 2: 46:06

Yeah, that's good, that's good, good deal. All right, dear Bible study listener, turn in your Bibles to Leviticus, everyone's favorite book of the Bible, don't? The one you meditate on late at night and quote to your children all the time Leviticus 1822. I'll read to you all and get Grant's response reaction to it. The Leviticus 1822 says do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman. That is detestable. Other translations use the word abomination. What, how do you? How do you respond to this verse? Does this one? Is it like the Genesis 19 one, or would you see it differently?

Speaker 4: 46:59

Yeah, I think this, this passage and the one later in Leviticus 20 seem a lot more unqualified and they're in their prohibition of same sex sex and they seem to be a lot more directly, directly involved with the question of same sex than than Genesis 19. So I think it's it's a very different kind of conversation. I think one of the things that often comes up in this conversation is the word abomination. Yeah.

Speaker 4: 47:33

Yeah, and some people think that the word abomination is used to to to say that same sex sex is somehow uniquely abhorrent, uniquely detestable. But that word isn't used just about super, super detestable things, it's actually it's got a wide semantic range, I think. I think shellfish are detestable, if I'm not mistaken.

Speaker 3: 48:01

So a few other things, but shellfish. Shellfish is one of them. Yeah, yeah, that's right.

Speaker 4: 48:04

Yeah, plenty of things are abomination, so I don't think.

Speaker 2: 48:08

Yeah, the Hebrew word there is tova, especially unique, and so that and it refers to any of these cultural taboos, you know so to not follow these, these practices like the other nations. And so Leviticus is all about what makes you clean before the Lord. And so if I were coming at this from a more affirming side, my, my objection to this might be how is this different than some of the other things, like you just said, like shellfish, and it's only something that's specifically applied to Israel To make Israel unique? It's, it's a way to set them apart. Or, you know, like mixing types of seeds when planting in the ground was one of one of the laws to to, to, not to even eat with outsiders, you know things like this.

Speaker 2: 49:02

Or mixing your clothing, tova has is very far reaching. So to to your, your point, it is not a word that's meant to evoke subhuman or vile or anything like that, and I think it's a shame that we go there. We need to make sure we affirm the Imago Dei and Dignity in this regard. But then what does that mean for us?

Speaker 4: 49:25

Yeah, I think, looking at the immediate context of the verses, it sexual sins seem to be like what the author is sort of, grouping all these things together With the unifying name of sexual sins. So adultery is is inverse One of the verses previously. Child sacrifice is one of them. So I'm sure there might be a connection to sort of sexual sin there that I'm just not aware of, but it's bad. Fisciality is also a part of this and later in in chapter 20, there's all sorts of sexual sins there. So I think this is it isn't as easy to say like oh well, this is just a cultural taboo. It's just like the shellfish thing, because they're grouped together for a specific reason and I think the reason is the author sees them as as related in some way. But I do think this was pointed out to me by a friend and by by a friend.

Speaker 4: 50:29

This was pointed out to me by a friend and by by some of the readings I've done. But in the background of this passage, throughout the ancient world is a cultural assumption that to be penetrated sexually is to be socially demoted and one should only penetrate one's inferior. So this says a lot about how the ancient world viewed women. I'm not endorsing this logical sale, but if that's the idea of this behind this passage, you can sort of see why this prohibition on same sex. Sex is not just a matter of sexual sin proper, but also, in the mind of the author, a matter of justice, Because a man having sex with another man one of them would be penetrated and therefore socially demoted.

Speaker 4: 51:29

This would be an injustice against one's neighbor. So that's I think, some of the rationale behind behind these statements. I also think this is not an interpretation, so much as registering my own, my own emotional response. Leviticus 2013 really troubles me Because there are, there are laws on the books in the modern world where people who have same, have same sex sex like they, they are killed or they are jailed for the rest of their life.

Speaker 2: 52:13

And so we read that to us.

Speaker 4: 52:16

Yeah, Leviticus 2013,. If a man lies man lies with the males, with the woman both of them have committed an abomination, they shall be put to death and their blood guilt is upon them. I think of some. I forgot which nation. I think it's Uganda. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 4: 52:36

Where there are. There are laws like this on the books and in some ways, it's actually supported by the Christian presence in Uganda, which I think is especially, especially frightening. But yeah, whatever we do with those passages, I think we have to to wrestle with that. I don't think I don't think we should put people who have same sex sex to death, right, actually.

Speaker 3: 53:01

Yeah, and paired and. Paired with that, I mean paired with that grant in the, in the verses immediately, immediately prior if there are, in cases of adultery, both, both, both parties are to be put to death.

Speaker 3: 53:17

in cases of you cursing your father or mother or to be, you're to be put to death, there's a there is a, even even in thinking of these things and the ways that people look to instantiate them in state, in state context, there is this. There is this very selective vision of, well, like, which of these things are we going to really advocate for? And then say, well, look, they're in the Bible too, so let's do them. But but the, but the but this, but this goes back to it.

Speaker 3: 53:43

I mean, I think, one of the one of the really lamentable things about the way that, whether it's the language of abomination or whatever, or there's been, there's just particularly historically. There's just, apparently, this desire to just single out this, just just to single out these, these particular passages as well. These are people that we need to. Basically, these are people that we need to go after and build structures, and build and build structures to in some, in some cases, as you just named, like to actually kill, like to actually kill people, like that's that is, that's a. I mean, I mean that that's, that's, that's one of, I think, some of the some of the most disturbing elements of the ways in which people have have attempted to use some of these, to use some of these texts, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 4: 54:29

Yeah, I think a few years ago one of my friends posted an open letter about LGBTQ issues in the ACNA Anglican Church in North America, and it was he was he's a theological conservative, he happens to be gay. He was basically talking about including gay people in the life of the church, not not sacrificing a sort of a traditional perspective on on sexuality, but some of the response from certain bishops I don't want to name the country because I've forgotten which one and I don't want to pin this on any country that I'm not absolutely sure but one of the one of the lines from from a response from one of these bishops compared gay people no homosexuality and maybe gay people, I don't know to a yeast that needs to be excised from the body of Christ and like drawing on this, like drawing on this New Testament language of yeast, which is. It's an image that's used a lot of different ways and some of them are positive actually, but yeah, I think that's the kind of way that that rhetoric goes. It just ends up. It ends up killing people.

Speaker 4: 55:50

Yeah, one of the one of the insights that I learned from AJ Levine. She's a Jewish New Testament scholar and I was on a panel with her this past summer at Outreach LGBTQ Catholic Conference and she said and this is maybe an insight that I could not have come to because I'm not Jewish but she said there's, there's a lot of this might be a hyperbole, like the idea of, like you should, you should be put to death is just a way of saying you really shouldn't do this thing, just don't do it. And I think I think there's merit to that, because I I can't see, I can't see the justice in having a child who talks back to their parents killed. But yeah, so I think that's the way I sort of currently rationalize it is. I think this is just a way of saying really don't do those things. And we don't know how how much this sort of death penalty was actually done. So that's that's sort of where I come to with that.

Speaker 2: 57:11

Yeah, yeah, that's good. I mean, I think both these Leviticus passages bring up the question that I kind of hinted at earlier of, especially when we talk about, like, the repercussions if you do transgress these things. So it's very clear that the Lord says to not do these things, but what happens if you do that? You know there is a, you know it's a we put to death if you talk incurs your mom and dad, and so things like this do not persist today. We don't support that, nor do we do it with LGBTQ plus issues as well. So then the question then begs is you know? So then what is? Which laws do we continue to uphold and which are more just for Israel? Because it seems like now we're just picking and choosing which ones we want to continue to keep and which ones we don't. And that's where I think that that that is a. I think it's a fair, like I understand the argument. I'm like that. That, yeah, that seems compelling.

Speaker 2: 58:15

But one thing that someone reached, you know, had said to me about this when I was kind of asking these questions is I mean, if you do look at the Leviticus passages, yes, they are trying to distinguish Israel from other nations, but in you know, like Leviticus 18 when it says, like you know, speak to the Israelites and say to them I'm the Lord, your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt. And so God is actually beginning to say, like I'm not just saying you should be separate and different, but he's like, don't do as the rest of the world is doing. So he's actually putting out kind of a command for the rest of the world as well, for the Gentiles, which we would all, most of us, find ourselves in that camp now, and so it's more of a universal command, and I thought that was a really helpful way of going.

Speaker 2: 59:01

Okay, so then, which ones do continue and which ones don't? But also to your point about this chapter 18 is dealing with a lot of sexual issues and things that we would still say today still continue of not, you know, having sex with a sister or a brother or, you know, your father, mother's husband or wife. You know all these things that we're going, all things to avoid, and it's included in that. So, yeah, I think, I think it's just a good, yeah, I think there's a there's a long.

Speaker 4: 59:42

This isn't necessarily this is kind of foreign to the Jewish understanding of Old Testament or Hebrew scriptures, but there's a long Christian tradition of understanding Old Testament law as some of it being civil, some of it being ceremonial, some of it being moral law, and I think there's some merit to that. I also think the Old Testament law there is usually a root issue that even these seemingly obscure commandments are actually getting at, and so Christian reflection on this has sort of offered that some of these specific cultural expressions of moral law can be done away with while the moral law remains, and so I think that strikes me as true. So the 10 commandments I don't think there's any of those that I'm like we should just sort of get rid of that. I think those are all pretty good. But there's some kosher law.

Speaker 4: 1:00:59

I'm not a Jewish person who is intent on keeping that. I'm a Gentile. I don't think I'm bound to that sort of that kosher law. But the kosher law is an expression of something more fundamental, deeper, about choosing chosen people. That I think is still true. But even as the superficial things sort of fade away. But I don't think that made any sense I just kind of ramble.

Speaker 3: 1:01:35

And you're in good company, particularly in thinking about the food laws, because that's also an explicit biblical allowance that we're given by Christ too, when he reveals to Peter don't call unclean what I've made clean. Not only talking about the grafting in of the Gentiles into this story, but also included in that the image that he uses is food.

Speaker 3: 1:02:03

There's this tablecloth of food. So I think that I've come to believe that bacon cheeseburgers are actually a glorious gift of the gospel, explicitly. So it's just for me, it's just good for me to know it's important.

Speaker 2: 1:02:26

It's important for us to consider that, but that came about to be true because Jesus made that very explicitly clear in Acts to Peter. But then they had the big debate on what are these things that do continue, which don't continue, in Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, and I think that's actually a really important passage we're not going to jump into today.

Speaker 3: 1:02:46

It's fascinating that sexual immorality is in there as one of these things, and that's one that still continues.

Speaker 2: 1:02:51

And so I think that's important for us to say like we're not just saying okay, we're picking and choosing like which ones. I think we're going what is scripture affirmed continues and what is it, what is it not. And so I think you have to be you almost have to be persuaded when it says it's not continuing, and one explicitly clear places around food. So yeah, let's jump into the New Testament.

Speaker 4: 1:03:17

You have something, I have something real quick, but I've been reading the history, the, the, the interesting history of the Gentiles as it's been used in the past several decades, notably in like Episcopal church documents. But one of the difficulties with that Gentile analogy which is basically that like God did a new thing to bring the Gentiles into the church, or God can do a new thing in bringing gay people who have like sexual relationships into the church One of the problems with that is the what you do with kosher law in that analogy. So kosher law like there's no category in this debate about same sex, sex for a kind of law that is important for some people to follow and not other people to follow. But that is precisely what's happening with kosher law, yeah, in the New Testament. And so that's one of the difficulties with that Gentile analogy.

Speaker 4: 1:04:22

I listen, I love, I love the Gentile analogy used in some ways. I know that there's been some speakers, at Reeve ways, for instance, who've drawn on this analogy of Jewish Gentile relations and gay and straight relations and I think that can be proved pretty illuminating. But you know, with every analogy the analogy breaks down eventually you just got to find out where it breaks down.

Speaker 3: 1:04:44

So yeah, that's one of the ways it breaks down. It's absolutely right. That's good.

Speaker 2: 1:04:50

All right. Well, if you're a, if you're counting, we've just gone through three passages the Genesis 19, which we won't consider part of the canon. Of these, there's really five verses that we will cover, and we're two of the five through now. And so now we're jumping in the New Testament. And if you are someone who says these the New Testament, old Testament, are so separate, I don't care what the Old Testament says. One, I would say you're wrong and there is one story being written together. But two, let's say that's where you find yourself and that's for a different podcast. Let's now look at the New Testament's arguments around this and those those. The first one I want to look at is the Romans passage that, if you've even begun this discussion on some level, you've heard it quoted before. So let me, let me read it to us and then hear what you have to say there, grant. So this is from Romans one, verse 26 to 27. Because of this, should I go in context and read the whole thing?

Speaker 3: 1:05:57

That's fine, we'll refer to it in the conversation, likely, so Okay.

Speaker 2: 1:06:02

Because of this, god gave them over to shameful us. Even their women exchange natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. So is this another one that we can, we can ignore?

Speaker 3: 1:06:29

You're framing of these questions so interesting, I'm looking for ways around it. They're not ignoring any of these texts.

Speaker 2: 1:06:39

Grant, give me the license Go. How do you understand?

Speaker 4: 1:06:45

that. Interesting.

Speaker 4: 1:06:47

Yeah, interestingly, this is the only reference in scripture to female homosexuality, so all the rest are about, or primarily about, male homosexuality. It's in the context of this long sort of diatribe by Paul, sort of he's doing some heavy moralizing, saying like don't you look around, don't you see all this sin that's happening? And he's listing a bunch of sin and he's tracing it all back to idolatry and he uses the word, he refers to this concept of nature, to talk about why same sex, sex, is wrong. I think there's a couple. Paul uses the word nature in an interesting way yeah, he's not above using nature, the word nature, to make really cultural arguments about the length of hair, for instance.

Speaker 4: 1:07:59

Now we can say now that we think that that clearly has to be a cultural argument. I'm not sure what Paul sort of thought of that. I think he's making a case on how life should be and so maybe for him they were all sort of a part of the same cloth, like not having same sex sex and men having short hair. But for us we can sort of see a difference there. He also uses the word nature in a positive way to talk about the gentiles being crafted into Israel. So the word nature is kind of I tend to. I mean, I'm reading this as a Catholic, so I'm thinking of the category of natural law, which isn't necessarily what Paul exactly was thinking of. This is later Christian reflection, but I think something kind of analogous is happening here.

Speaker 4: 1:08:59

Paul is talking about how life should be, the proper order for life, and same sex sex for him falls short of that. Just as exchanging the proper order of animals and created things and God and our worship is wrong, exchanging the proper ordering of sexual relations is wrong for Paul. So that's what I see happening there. I also think Paul definitely didn't know that homosexuality is present in the animal world. He probably didn't know that. He probably assumed that there wasn't any same sex sex in the animal world he might have, but that's my general take because he probably didn't recognize that he might have had something to say about that if we brought that up for him. But, importantly, the concept of natural law is not about what happens in nature. It's about how life should be, which is accessible to the idea, which is accessible to human beings through natural reason, without divine revelation. So that's what natural law means. It's not like the law of nature. Yeah, yeah, we should really come up with a better phrase for natural law.

Speaker 4: 1:10:28

It's very confusing, but the law of nature is different than natural law, so that's sort of what I think Paul's getting at here.

Speaker 2: 1:10:38

But I think what you touched on there with the long hair reference I mean to me this is where I think some of the affirming scholars arguments. I'm like I can see how you got there. Because, as you said, that 1 Corinthians 11, 14 says does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair it's a disgrace to him? And that word there is. There's the nature again, but also the word disgrace, I think is also the same word that Paul uses here about it being dishonorable or shameful.

Speaker 2: 1:11:15

And that's the Greek word atumia, and so you could say, okay, so is it just a cultural thing? And this is where I'm like I can see how, if you're coming from one position, why you go okay, this is all just cultural, but Paul does root some of this. I mean, when we talk about the kind of roots, love, this in creation as well, and that's where you're like, okay, maybe it's not cultural. I just I, then someone that's just something that I can see the argument. One person put out the argument that said this is a prefabricated argument that Paul has given kind of like when Jesus says you've heard it said, but I tell you, and that's their argument to why they kind of say this isn't applicable. This is you've heard it said, but I tell you, to which I don't hear Paul debunking Like he doesn't say it. That's a specific formula, right. And he doesn't really debunk that.

Speaker 4: 1:12:24

It does form a part of his sort of larger argument. He's setting his audience up because he's saying like look at all this, these things that Gentiles do, and the audience is supposed to go yeah that's gross. Then he turns it on them, which I think is, I think is good, I think that's true where it can be true, but I don't see that as sort of getting rid of the force of his moralizing there.

Speaker 3: 1:13:00

Yeah, yeah, because he's like you're right in that all that stuff that they're doing is wrong. But that then also compounds your own guilt because like look at yourself, oh those same things are present here. So in both of those sorry I was moving away from the mic, but in both of those I mean what binds also, what binds them together, though that moralizing kind of still continues in both it's look at all that sin around you and you're like hey also though, like look at you, though, that same sin is right there.

Speaker 3: 1:13:39

Everybody, we all stand in opposite, naturally. I say naturally, but I mean that post-fall and all that stuff in opposition. Careful, I know right we're going to do. I know this is what.

Speaker 4: 1:14:00

Everyone's going to be rethinking every time they say nah, I know right, exactly what does that mean?

Speaker 3: 1:14:04

No, I know, and this is oh gosh. Calvin does this in the bondage and liberation of the will, because one of the things that he constantly gets accused of is saying that human beings are, by their very substance, evil, and it's in that text that he uses the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accident and does that to say that sin is accidentally attached to us. But all that is the same that opposition to the Lord is something that all of us find ourselves in that position and thus in need of Christ.

Speaker 4: 1:14:51

But yeah, yeah, I also think this is something that underscores maybe everything I'm saying or frames everything I'm saying. But what specifically in view in this passage is same-sex sex, not being gay. So being gay is such a broader category than having same-sex sex. Being gay is a sort of stable thing. That's always true about me. Same-sex sex is something that can be true of me in certain moments but is most of the time not true of me. And there's also sort of cultural dimensions of what being gay means. We'll probably get into this more when we talk about Malachoy. But those cultural dimensions of being gay are not what the Bible is talking about at all, because those cultural assumptions didn't actually exist, because the word gay wasn't used until almost 2000 years later. So, yeah, I don't know. Just a side note there.

Speaker 2: 1:16:01

Yeah it's good, and to go back to kind of maybe put a bow on this, the end of Romans 1 goes on and so like if the saying that this is what the wrath of God is, that he gave them over to these things, if we're saying these things are cultural, well then Paul is going to debunk them later, right? But then the end of Romans 1, I mean it goes into they become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, depravity. This is verse 29. You're following at home. They're full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice. Their gossips, slanders, God haters, insolent, arrogant, boastful. These are things that Paul is not going to say right away, of saying like no, no, no, but now you're good, Go ahead and be envious and murderous and greedy. No, like these are. It's all in the same context here, and so I think we have to deal with that context when we talk about this.

Speaker 4: 1:17:05

Yeah, I think some of the most, some of the arguments affirming arguments that make the most sense to me. I don't agree with them, but I think I feel they're full of worse and I think I respect them the most, Are along the lines of Paul believes this clearly, but we don't have to agree with him, Like that strikes me as a different an argument I might be willing to entertain if I didn't believe that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit and wrote in the Spirit Scripture.

Speaker 4: 1:17:42

So yeah, if Paul, for instance, didn't know that same sex sex is present in the natural world like, should we trust him when it comes to what is natural? If later thinking about natural law isn't what Paul is thinking about, should we read that into what Paul? Those sorts of questions are, I think very fair.

Speaker 2: 1:18:04

So good. It shows you how complex this whole thing is, because it's not just hermeneutics that we have to think through of how we read Scripture, but it's also just our understanding of the inspiration of the Bible and our trust of its authority. And so it's like man. All of this has to be held together as we discuss it all, which I think should humble us to give us grace for as people are wrestling through this, because you're like, yeah, that's a lot to wade through.

Speaker 3: 1:18:36

And it is also interesting what you just said, grant, and I think this is something that I have. I'm encouraged when I read affirming scholars who say this, where they say, well, yeah, I mean, all of these Scriptures do seem to kind of unequivocally say that same sex sexual activity is outside of the will of God, but like are but so then. So then, disagreement with that really is not saying the Bible doesn't say this, it's just saying that the Bible is wrong in saying this, which is a different.

Speaker 3: 1:19:16

it's a different, it's a different kind of, it's a different kind of claim. But I think that, but I value that, especially that honesty, because, because, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

Speaker 4: 1:19:33

Well, to a certain extent we all do it. Oh yeah, like I mean, I'm not going to read that passage where Paul says it's shameful for a man to have long hair and think you know that. That stands firm in my mind as as an eternal kind of unchanging law.

Speaker 2: 1:19:52

I mean as three bald men working with that.

Speaker 3: 1:19:56

Three bald men on this, on this podcast.

Speaker 4: 1:20:00

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I wish I had long hair. Yeah, yeah, I think you can say there's even room in my mind to say that, like Paul was clearly mistaken on something, without saying that he's, like, totally not inspired. I think there's so many shades and different ways of approaching that question. Yeah, I don't sort of want to throw people who disagree with Paul here under the bus, but yeah, I don't know, it is really complicated and I don't know if I would get along with Paul, but yeah, I'm wrestling with what he says here.

Speaker 2: 1:20:40

I'm trying to try to I better not see him in heaven, oh man.

Speaker 3: 1:20:44

By that time. But see when we see him in heaven though he'll be perfectly. He'll be perfectly sanctified as well. As we'll wait. So we'll wait. He'll be chilled out, He'll be yeah. He'll be chilled out a little bit right, I'll probably be chilled out a little bit too. Oh my gosh Maybe.

Speaker 2: 1:21:00

We'll see, we'll find out.

Speaker 3: 1:21:02

We'll ask him when we meet him.

Speaker 2: 1:21:03

Speaking of Paul, let's go to the next two. Let's do them together, the next two passages, because these two have gotten a lot of mileage and disagreement from folks in the affirming camp. So 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 1 Timothy 1, 10 are the two that we're looking at. So 1 Corinthians 6, 9 says or do you not know that the wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, nor adulters, nor men who have sex with men. And then, in verse 10 of 1 Timothy 1 says for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. And so these are the two passages that people have lots of ink spilt on, important for us to talk about, because there's only a few passages that actually do talk about these things. And so what's your take here? Let's look at the 1 Corinthians 6 passage first.

Speaker 4: 1:22:15

Yeah, so the phrase what you say, was it men who have sex with men? Was how it was translated in the version you read. It translates to words Arsenaqoi Tai and Malakoi, and then later on, the first Timothy passage also uses Arsenaqoi Tai. Arsenaqoi Tai is an interesting word because it really seems likely that Paul made it up the first time we have that word ever. So it seems to be made up of two other words the Greek word for man and the Greek word for bed. So man-bed, yeah, man-bedders.

Speaker 3: 1:23:08

Man-bedders.

Speaker 4: 1:23:11

So, yeah, I think more traditional or conservative commentators have suggested that Paul is referencing the set two-edged version of Leviticus, which seems really likely to me. I think we do have to be really careful, because compound words don't always mean what each of their parts mean. Think of the word butterfly, it doesn't mean flying butter.

Speaker 2: 1:23:42

You heard it here first, everybody.

Speaker 4: 1:23:48

But yeah, so it's not for certain. I remember seeing this somewhere, but citation needed. Another similar word that was used at the same time that definitely did refer to same-sex ex was androquoitai, which is basically the same thing. A case could be made I'm just saying A case could be made that it's the same. Arsenaqoi Tai probably has something to do with same-sex ex and it's almost definitely shaped by the kind of same-sex ex that Paul was most familiar with, which is prostitution and pederasty. But interestingly, paul doesn't use the specific Greek words that would be used to describe passive and active partners in a pederastic relationship. There are words for that and Paul chooses not to use those. Paul chooses to use this word, which he makes up. I find the argument that he's referring to the set two-edged to be pretty persuasive, but I can understand why someone would not buy that so easily.

Speaker 2: 1:25:05

Yeah, I think that the common objection that I've heard, and we've even heard when people we've talked to about this, whenever we refer to the 1 Corinthians 6 or 1 Timothy 1 passage, anytime we're referring to Paul's understanding of people who same-sex attraction or gay lesbian, is that he doesn't have a framework for a healthy homosexual relationship in his mind. He is referring to, as you said, something more abusive, because it was common in the day for there to be abusive relationships where men would take on a boy and have a what was the word there?

Speaker 3: 1:25:52

Do I mean pederasty, pederasty.

Speaker 2: 1:25:54

Yeah we talk about pedophilia and things like this. There are relationships like that that are common in that day and describing that erotic love of children. Why is that not convincing? That that's Paul's view of what's happening here. That's what he's condemning, not what we might see today, that someone you might know who has more of a mutual relationship with one another.

Speaker 4: 1:26:26

Yeah, I mean the main argument or the main reason that doesn't make sense to me as a completely A complete answer is that there are words that Paul would have known that could have referred to pederasty. He chose not to use them. But also I think pederasty and prostitution were the most well-known forms of same-sex sex, but same-sex sexual relationships that were between rough equals weren't unheard of. There were some of those. Greek culture had a high esteem for male same-sex love. I don't think that Paul is completely in the dark, but I do think there are some cultural factors that he's probably focusing on and, importantly, his audience. This is something Elsa Friend pointed out to me. But much of his audience would be people who could not refuse sex women, slaves, children and so Paul's speaking here would seem kind of liberatory for them. If sex is presented to you, you don't have any choice in the matter. I think Paul sort of raging against that seems really just.

Speaker 2: 1:28:05

But, yeah, I mean I think early on when I was kind of going all right, let's rethink these things. Is this legit? Because if that's true, that's a pretty compelling argument. But I do think the history has shown, as you said, there were words he could have used, but two the history has shown that there are examples in art and literature, painted on vases, of mutual same-sex relationships that were happening there, to where it seems like now we are reading back into the Bible what we kind of want it to say. Before I was like it seems like an argument from silence. But it's almost not even an argument from silence anymore if we look at what's actually happening going on in history there.

Speaker 3: 1:29:05

As a side note, this is something that ends up in my reflection whenever some of these arguments pop up, specifically the argument that Paul was unaware of the possibility of same-sex sex between equals. I think it's also like we don't Human beings are very creative about their sexual lives, so they're very few basically to say that he was unaware of this possibility. We didn't make it up. This is something that people have been doing for a while, not just in policy but in human society. This goes back to some of the other texts that we've talked about to understand that as a more general statement about sexual activity rather than one that's just reduced to these particular contexts. It seems to me it seems to make more sense in that context and it's interesting, as we just talked about Romans, that that's the only instance where female same-sex sexual activity is referred to. But I think there's a way to understand even the text that we've been talking about as more general and perhaps speaking to something deeper, but we may get to that later.

Speaker 2: 1:31:05

That's good. Well, those are the main five that people refer to, plus one, but I want to ask you is there other places? Granted, Go ahead. Oh, you're freezing.

Speaker 4: 1:31:25

There's one more word there in the text six, nine, malachoy.

Speaker 3: 1:31:32

Yeah, oh can you hear me now? Yeah, there you go, you're here, let's talk about Malachoy.

Speaker 4: 1:31:39

Perfect, yeah, yeah, malachoy just means soft, so it often gets translated as effeminate. I think that what Paul has in mind here, based on how that word is used elsewhere I mean it's used of fabric it's basically like a really similar word to our English soft. But I think the idea is moral softness, moral velocity, and so men who would have a lot of sex with women could be cold. So it's this idea that you're too drawn to the essential, so extreme sex on the brain is sort of what that word means. So I don't think that has anything specifically to do with same sex sex, but it could. There could be some of that in mind. But yeah, it's not a slam dunk for me.

Speaker 2: 1:32:53

Yeah, that's good, that's good, and this is where I just think it's so helpful for people to know the Greek, to know translations, to know all translations are an interpretation and so trying to make sure we understand these things, to get a better picture, a fuller picture, and I think most translations are doing their best to understand this. But we also know that some of them are coming with preconceived ideas themselves. So well, where else, where else would you look, grant, if you maybe you have been here like where else would you know, would I go to, to help me understand this whole discussion a little bit better that are outside of these kind of typical verses? Is there one or two other places that you would look that aren't necessarily explicitly talking about same sex attraction, homosexuality?

Speaker 4: 1:33:51

Yeah, I think the general narrative arc of scripture Genesis to Revelation where the theme of opposite sex love as being symbolic has always been really weighty for me. So that plays out in Genesis one and two, the creation accounts. So in one of the, in one of the creation accounts, god creates men and women at the same time and he says be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth. And so that sort of for me connects to the idea of sort of a biological complementarity, the high value for procreation. And then in Genesis two, god says it's not good for man to be alone. I'm going to make a helper. Helper is not a subservient thing. Helper, the Holy Spirit is a helper.

Speaker 4: 1:34:51

So this isn't a, I think what I really church father said. You know, eve is taken from Adam's rib, not as head or as feet, so like they're equals, but that idea that the human being is split into male and female, and so the logic is that those pieces come back together. You can hear a story in the symposium which I'm not sure that we can take seriously. It might be sort of a tongue-in-cheek kind of funny story, but one of the speakers tells a story about how human beings used to have eight legs and two heads, one on the front, one on the back and the gods were like whoa, they're too powerful. So we've got a split of an half, and so everyone always is looking for the other half.

Speaker 4: 1:35:44

You know, but in that story we had in that story in the symposium, there were male male pairs that were split. There were female female pairs that were split and there was male female pairs that were split.

Speaker 4: 1:35:59

But in this passage we just have male and female. So the logic there it strikes me as persuasive that male and female in marriage are a kind of ideal in marriage. Yeah, and then another passage I think of I think you mentioned it when we were talking about this, emailing back and forth about this but Matthew 2230, jesus, basically, is confronted with marriage. A group of religious leaders say, like there's this woman who's been married seven different times, whose husband is going to be in the resurrection, and their point is to say, like isn't the resurrection ridiculous? But Jesus says that in the resurrection you will neither marry nor be given marriage. You'll be like the angels in heaven.

Speaker 4: 1:36:59

So for me this does a few things. It connects. It says that marriage is temporary, so marriage is eventually done away with in the resurrection. It says that celibacy is important and good, which was kind of a radical thing to say at the time. The root for celibacy comes from the same root as celestial, so celibacy is the heavenly life, it's the angelic life. Also, it connects marriage to death. So in the resurrection there's no more death, so there's no more marriage, which means that marriage is connected to procreation. So there's no need for procreation when there's no more death.

Speaker 4: 1:37:45

So that sort of interconnect, all those meanings really for me stress the connection between opposite sex, marriage, procreation and sort of sexual sin. They sort of make all that kind of clear for me. But those are the other passages that come to mind. But also I got to say a lot of my sexual ethics come from Catholic natural law arguments, arguments about the fittingness of biological sex and a lot of centuries of Catholic reflection on these topics. Even if those call of passage were totally removed from the Bible I'm not sure that my position or the Catholic Church's position would change. I don't think my sexual ethics really rests there. Who?

Speaker 3: 1:38:45

thinks that that's good and that's helpful, I mean, when we think about, I mean for a lot of the things that we think through, at least and I say this as somebody who is, yes, Protestant but also deeply sympathetic, especially to some, to many of my Eastern brothers and sisters I mean, I still think the most compelling account of salvation is the account of deification and theosas, but it's right, it's great man, but it's so good. But the interaction of particularly scripture and tradition on some of these points is it can be, you know, I mean there are some conversations that we can have with elements of our tradition, but there are some profoundly helpful things that we can get when we investigate the 2,000 years of folks who have thought deeply about these things and also kind of worked them out within the community of faith. So, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:40:07

I mean one of the things that I think kind of as we kind of look at, kind of take a step back and go okay. So, considering all of these passages, now what do we think? And I think what's clear for me is, without a doubt, all five are condemning it in some way, and then someone might Condemning it as in what son. Condemning that's important.

Speaker 3: 1:40:34

That's important. What is the? What is the Thank you? What is the? What is the Thank you? It's almost like a homosexual acts, a sex outside of a marriage, same sexual activity.

Speaker 2: 1:40:45

Thank you, and, without qualifier, it is condemning of this, and I think to me I think that's where I, when we switched our view on women in leadership, that was something that One thing that was really helpful for me was, yeah, I had to wrestle with First Timothy, too, and some of these passages, but all throughout there were these passages acts, too where sons and daughters were prophesying, and you had Deborah and you had Phoebe and you had all these women leading, and this is what Scott McKnight calls these blue parakeet passages, that these blue parakeets that just stand out and you're like what are they doing there? I don't know what to do with them. They don't fit into my framework. And so, even if you explained all of these passages away, as I'm trying to do my best to articulate the affirming arguments, negation is still not an endorsement, and I think there are zero passages here in the scriptures that would endorse a same sexual ethic. And it's clear God cares about our sexual ethic. He cares enough about it that he's willing to show us what he wants best for us to flourish.

Speaker 2: 1:42:04

But I think that that's something that was always important for my understanding when we talk about women and leadership. But now, as we talk about this conversation of like, but I'm not seeing that same argument there. And if there was there, then those would be blue parakeets. They'd be bright and shiny, we'd go. Okay. What do we do with that?

Speaker 3: 1:42:26

I think, one of the and Grant.

Speaker 3: 1:42:29

If we had more time, I'd love to dig into this a little more too, but I wanted to be very clear about the?

Speaker 3: 1:42:39

It, because when people think about, when people hear the made up term homosexuality particularly, what people will do sloppily is they will say that this is a, that the scriptures that we read are blanket condemnations of people who have a particular sexual orientation, and that's not what any of these texts are about.

Speaker 3: 1:43:13

These texts are about same-sex sexual activity, but that also opens up a conversation that and I think this is something that Grant has also spent some time talking about People actually have particular things to actually add to the church. You are valuable. The Lord has actually placed you in the church for a particular reason to serve it in a particular way, to bear witness to the rest of your brothers and sisters particular things. And if these texts were about, if we constructed the it differently, then I wouldn't be able to make that claim, but I can, because what that it is is same-sex sexual activity, and another time we can have a conversation about hey, what might those particulars look like? But I at least want to be clear, at least in this context, that that's one of the things that I think we ought to affirm loudly and wholeheartedly, yeah.

Speaker 4: 1:44:26

Yeah, I also think this might get me into hot water.

Speaker 3: 1:44:30

That's all right, let's do it man.

Speaker 4: 1:44:35

Let's do it Among certain folks, but I think that we have to construct the? It carefully, and the it that we've been discussing is same-sex sex. The? It is not gay people. The it is also not same-sex relationships, because there are. It is by no means common, but I know people who are in committed, covenantal relationships with the person of the same sex that are not sexual and that are important in their lives and that are sanctifying, and I'm blessed by their ministry. But that also allows us to say that same-sex couples, whether they are are affirm a traditional sexual ethic or they have a more progressive sexual ethic. They like their relationship can be good.

Speaker 4: 1:45:29

But, they can have a good relationship and we might still say that one like same-sex sex is sin. I think we have to have, we have to be alive to distinctions and we have to be able to make those distinctions well, because we live in a very complicated world and I'm not comfortable with saying that, like a bunch of people who have partners are just constantly living in sin Because they're not, and you might benefit from their witness and you might benefit from their hospitality and their love for each other and all those things are good. So, yeah, talking about this is not talking about how gay people who have sex are all bad. That's just not what we're doing. But just to be clear.

Speaker 4: 1:46:21

I love all gay people. I'm on all gay people's side. That's what I'm trying to be, but yeah, yeah, amen.

Speaker 2: 1:46:27

I mean I think yes, I affirm all of that that there should be no debate about whether gay, same-sex attract people should be accepted into the church as full citizens of the kingdom, and so we want to wholesale endorse that. We are trying to read and understand these scriptures about this specific sexual ethic and ask what is the Lord asking of us about you know, what is it to flourish in these ways? And so what is he calling people to? Not just who, but what's he calling us to, what's he calling us to pursue, and things like that. So good stuff, good stuff. I feel like there's still like a hundred more things I want to ask, but we've been going for a long time. Let's see though. Yeah, let's just kind of pause for now. I have a feeling we might have to.

Speaker 3: 1:47:28

We can do a part two in like a month or so.

Speaker 2: 1:47:29

Yeah do a part two and bring you back. But just for someone who's maybe new to this conversation, is there a book, an article or a resource that you would encourage someone to reach out for to delve deeper into this topic?

Speaker 4: 1:47:47

Yeah, I mean I would encourage anyone to crack open a few old-fashioned commentaries. This scholarly works on the passages in question, but I wrote my article on Sodom and Gomorrah as a part of a collection of articles on the outreach website I think it's outreachfaith. Now there's a bunch of the articles that the authors have very different perspectives than I do. Sure that's where you're going to have some really robust, firming arguments that you can engage with, sweet, and several of the things that they say I also would agree with. It's just we sort of come to different conclusions. Sure.

Speaker 4: 1:48:40

I think one of the articles I remember that was important to me is that I got that point about there being words for pedorasty that Paul doesn't use. Ron Belgau wrote an article for spiritual friendship. It's a blog that's no longer active, but there's an archive there and there's plenty of articles that are written and they're quite academic, so that would be a good place to look. Cool yeah, those are some of the places.

Speaker 2: 1:49:09

That's great, that's great. And if some of our people are like, no, but I want to hear more from you, grant, what do you have going? On oh gosh Ryan. Where can people hear American people here or see you?

Speaker 4: 1:49:24

Yeah, I write sporadically for various outlets, but I write regularly for my sub-stack. The Grant Hartley is my sub-stack. Yeah, like I think you mentioned earlier, there's an article I wrote for the outreach conference on the clobber postages that you can look up. I stand by most of what I said. That's great, for better or worse. I'm still on Twitter. I refuse to call it X. No, why would you? I'm calling it Twitter.

Speaker 2: 1:49:56

It's Twitter, the Grant Hartley.

Speaker 4: 1:50:00

This is the rebellion. I wrote an article on my conversion for America magazine several years ago, I think it's called how one gay Southern Baptist found himself drawn into the Catholic Church, and that sets up the context for a lot of my work. Any of those places you can follow me.

Speaker 2: 1:50:24

Okay, that's awesome, that's great. We deeply, deeply, are thankful for your time, for your wisdom and expertise and just to explore this with us. Thanks, man.

Speaker 4: 1:50:40

Yeah, thanks so much for having me. This was fun.

Speaker 3: 1:50:43

Well, and we look forward to especially and it came up at the very end of this conversation- but, one of the things that I think this draws us into, the conversation that this draws us into as we talk about sexuality and then later, gender identity and things like that.

Speaker 3: 1:51:02

It reminds particularly the church that we are to bear witness to the world.

Speaker 3: 1:51:09

A I mean, in some ways, a different understanding of human intimacy, While there is a particular sexual ethic that we I mean, I think the persons have always been seen as weird because of our sexual ethic.

Speaker 3: 1:51:30

But one of the things that that points to is God is calling us into different kinds of relationships with one another and a different relationship with him, and those things are actually greater than what we can imagine. And so if we can get to the point where our communities are bearing witness to an understanding of friendship that is deeper and more profound than can be offered elsewhere, and also a deeper relationship with God, once again goes back to the theosis and deification thing that is much more profound than your wildest imaginations. That's the kind of thing that if we can show the world that, and then they see it and they're like, oh, how can we get in on that? To which our responses repent and believe, and I think this can be a tremendous opportunity for us. But that also only comes if we walk that path with both repentance and humility, understanding that there have been a number of ways in which we failed to do that. So we look to do it better on a daily basis. Yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:52:46

Well, I've learned a lot from you already in this short amount of time. I know our people will and will continue to learn if they go check you out on some of those avenues. But thank you, thank you, thank you. I really do appreciate it and, yes, I think we will probably have to reach out to you again if you have the time.

Speaker 4: 1:53:07

I love it.

Speaker 2: 1:53:08

Wonderful Thanks, grant. All right, grant, we'll talk to you later yeah. All right, we're going to continue and finish this up, Malcolm Ah yep, this is so good.

Speaker 3: 1:53:23

I'm so glad we're doing this. It's a good time.

Speaker 2: 1:53:26

I just feel like there's so much to unpack and unwind, but we are almost at two hours on this podcast, I mean.

Speaker 3: 1:53:33

so it's like it was like it Well, oh yeah, I don't know how much intro material you had for like 45 minutes, I don't know. See, you get slim alone with the mic and he'll just I'm just like talking to myself. Talks to himself what? Do? I want to talk about hours and five hours, oh gosh.

Speaker 2: 1:53:48

Okay, that's good man.

Speaker 2: 1:53:49

Good quality stuff. Yeah Well, how about this? Let's just play this movie, a movie Music. Thanks so much for joining in with us on Theology and Pieces podcast. If you do want to interact and ask questions, give helpful feedback. Pushback, like we read earlier right in at hello at theologypiecescom, we would love to interact with you. If there's some big, big questions, we're going to have a Q&A episode at the end of all of this series and so we are going to try to keep all those together. Our next guest is going to be Eve Tushnit and we're going to look and talk with her about what Malcolm a little bit more in there about what does it look like to actually partner and be friends with one another and to grow deeper? So y'all love it, love it, love it, love it. If you have yet to write a review, come on, people, give us a review.

Speaker 3: 1:54:43

Bring it on. Bring it on.

Speaker 2: 1:54:45

We see those numbers. Come on, we see those numbers. We love it. Thanks y'all for coming See y'all. Bye.