Matthew Vines: "For the Bible Tells Me So: Hermeneutics and the Debate About LGBTQ Inclusion"

[Music] so I'm gonna go ahead and get started with the Bible tells me so hermeneutics and the debate about LGBTQ inclusion who has ever heard or seen a meme or a bumper sticker that looks something like this the Bible says it I believe it that settles it I mean there's something satisfying about that for a brief moment like yeah all right that was simple you know that required no thought and in some ways if that's how it works like wouldn't life be easy but what I want to invite us to reflect on this morning is not just that that is a little bit reductive a lot but that actually no Christians truly believe that or practice it when they approach the biblical text it may be a nice idea for people but no matter how conservative no matter the denomination there are always biblical texts that people will come to and say well like this is a little more complicated and that's okay that is the nature of interpretation but it's really important for us in talking about LGBT inclusion with people to make sure that we're able to let others start to really understand how they already have a more nuanced approach to their understanding of the Bible and then just ask them to apply that more consistently to this conversation so one of my main takeaways for you this morning is to know that even using the existing approved interpretive tools and methods in non affirming churches you can reach affirming conclusion simply by applying them consistently to this conversation because a lot of people a lot of your family members a lot of people your churches who are not affirming one of their biggest concerns one of their biggest hang-ups is the concern that you're asking me to fundamentally alter my view of everything in the Bible not just a select number of passages but I just need to essentially just stop believing in the Bible in anything like the way that I have believed in it up till now and that's why it's particularly valuable to be able to demonstrate to people that it coming to an affirming conclusion does not require radically new interpretive tools it just requires a more consistent application so I know that the word hermeneutics in the title of this talk for some of you for those of you who have gone to seminary for those of you who are in ministry you know you probably text people about hermeneutics on a weekly basis but for others of us and for most Christians that's not really a word that comes up very often in how we think and talk about our faith and so I do want to make sure that we are presenting things in a way that is accessible not just to everyone here but then you can share in an accessible way to other people not just people with advanced theological degrees but just anybody any Christian who cares about the Bible so I'm going to start by sharing some more fancy definitions of two words that are particularly relevant to understanding biblical interpretation those words are exegesis and hermeneutics again I know for half of you or you're like you know I dream about this but for the other let's let's just make sure we're going through all the steps here and this these definitions are coming from a book called how to read the Bible for all it's worth by to biblical scholars called Gordon fee and Douglas Stewart how many of you are familiar with this book okay I'm a didn't expect the majority but this is the book that when I was in inner varsity in college this was the book that they gave to student leaders to as the framework for how to interpret the Bible and so that's why and you'll see I'll do this throughout this session referring to books they're written by people who are not affirming that are used in ministries that are not affirming but helping to draw out what are those principles there and how should those really be applied to this conversation so here is what and I'll offer these their definitions and then I'll offer a more simple definition after that but according to feein stewart they say that exegesis is the careful systematic study of the scripture to discover the original intended meaning basically a historical task and that hermeneutics is the process of seeking the contemporary relevance of ancient texts so they say that biblical interpretation and this is very standard biblical interpretation requires both of these things both exegesis and hermeneutics they say you must try to understand what was said to them back then and their exegesis second you must learn to hear that same word in the here-and-now hermeneutics so I mean I think that was actually a nice explanation but I'll make it even more simple exegesis is essentially what a text says and hermeneutics is what we do with what the text says and sometimes for some people who have embraced the more bumper-sticker approach to things the whole idea of hermeneutics can sound like you're cheating like what do you mean what do we do with what the text says if it says something well then that's the end of the conversation well let's let's give some examples so we'll start with something simple Leviticus 19 as Nicole said last night good old Leviticus do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your well most people say okay well this was for the levites right and this was priestly rules and that is all accurate but then we have to realize okay the Bible says something but what we do with what that says depends on its context in the biblical canon and so actually even though it says that we do not need to do that and that does not mean we're being unfaithful to Scripture it means we're respecting the context of Scripture so this is just a really simple explanation of the difference between what the text says and what we do with what the text says another example anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death you know I I think if that were being done you know that's not gonna be seen as a sign of Christian faithfulness today that's going to be seen as crime that is sending people sending people away so but here's another some people say okay well that was the Old Testament and all the Old Testament is more contextually limited because of we're under the New Covenant in Christ so if it says something in the Old Testament okay but maybe this hermeneutics question is cheating just with a New Testament because the New Testament that should we should just have an accurate one-to-one application what it says in the New Testament what we do today as Christians well let's go to the New Testament greet one another with a holy kiss this is said in five different letters in the New Testament Romans first Corinthians second Corinthians first Thessalonians and first Peter how many conservatives Southern Baptist churches would you walk into and you know especially the the male pastors just come up to and give you a big kiss if you're a man or woman but that's not really done now there may be you know I think this was much more common in the ancient Mediterranean world and it is more common in other cultures and other parts of the world today it's not really common in our context and in our cultures for the most part so does that mean we're being unfaithful to Scripture you could talk to almost any very conservative Christian and they'll just start explaining well there's context here this was a particular cultural practice and so already we're acknowledging there is a distinction between what the text says and what we do with what the text says and there is nothing radical about that that is something that all Christians accept in one way or another but some people will say okay well actually no here's one more example this is a particularly interesting one for our conversation to first Corinthians 11:13 2:16 judge for yourselves is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory and there actually are some conservative churches that require women to wear head coverings in church because of this passage but that's become much less common over the last 50 years and most conservative non affirming churches that you would walk into you will see women praying to God with their heads uncovered the scandal obviously I don't think that's just to be clear you don't actually think that's a scandal but just from a consistency standpoint once again this is a particularly important example because some people will say oh well you know the the holy kisses thing that's obviously cultural but if there's something in the text that actually says it's about what nature intends then that's not cultural but here it says nature itself teaches this it doesn't say this is our practice it says nature itself and what's really interesting is the two Greek work the Greek word for nature here is Fuu says and that is the same Greek word that Paul uses in Romans chapter one when he talks about unnatural relations para fussen Fuu says then he also says in Romans chapter 1 God gave them over to shameful lusts and the word he uses in Romans 1 for shameful is aa tamiya which is the same word the same author uses here for disgrace and so I mean I remember I talked to a pastor I was talking to a pastor one time who had not spent that much time thinking about this conversation and he told me he said look you know the other verses Sodom and Gomorrah those other things you know I get it but if the Bible says something goes against nature I just can't support it and I said okay like can you tell me what you think about 1st Corinthians 11 verse 14 and he said I read it to him he said I'm gonna have to think about that so I appreciate it that he was going to think about it but even you know it can sound so compelling on its face well nature itself but we have this very similar situation here and most conservative Christians once they think about it will come back and say something to the earth scholars at least I don't think most people actually ask themselves all of these questions but a pretty common assessment of this text in first Corinthians today is that the Greek word for nature had a variety of meanings including what was customary what was conventional what was the norm and that long hair in men was considered shameful given the norms in first century Mediterranean culture and we know that it actually doesn't make any sense to read this text to say that the creation itself says it's always shameful for a man to have long hair because what about Samson Samson's problem was when he let Delilah cut his hair his long hair was a sign of his devotion to God that was in fact a part of the Nazarite vow in the Old Testament not to cut your hair and in fact as we remember some people got made fun of in the Old Testament for being involved and then some children were mauled as a result but you know that's we don't hit a little gruesome but it just even within the biblical canon itself it's not the case that long hair and men is always considered shameful and so we do need to consider a more culturally specific understanding of the word nature here in this text and I do think that has to raise some real questions about how we consider the exact same words in Romans 1 but without getting too deep into Romans 1 right now this also finishes and says for long hair is given to her as a covering if anyone wants to be contentious about this we have no other practice nor do the Churches of God so I just find it interesting that a text where Paul isn't explicitly try saying don't debate this this is the way it's done everywhere fast forward to the church today and we say ah that's that's not how it's done we don't do it and you know that may be how it was done everywhere back then but even many conservative Christians are perfectly content to recognize Paul said it was done everywhere back then there was no other practice but we have a different practice today but some people will look at these sorts of things and say you know cutting the hair at the sides of your head or hair the coverings hair length these are all fairly insignificant matters okay well let's get to some more controversial matters then Colossians 3:18 wives submit to your husband's as is fitting in the Lord Ephesians 5:22 2:24 wives submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church his body of which he is the Saviour now as the church submits to Christ so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything so here among non affirming Christians you'll get two different responses among people who would call themselves egalitarians on gender they'll say okay we need to apply this same cultural context to this as we were with those other passages and recognize that patriarchy was a part of the backdrop of the Bible and of ancient societies but that we can have a hermeneutic that is pointing us toward gender equality a whole other camp of non affirming Christians will say AHA this is why women need to remain subordinate in their status in church and in society this is also why the LGBTQ conversation has spurred a number of churches to actually double down on their positions on their complementarian positions relegating women to an inferior status because they're very concerned that if we let if we let our hermeneutic apply to the conversation around gender that seems dangerously close to conversations about sexual orientation and gender identity because it's all wrapped up in gender and so there are a number of I think you know particularly the Southern Baptists have wanted to really reiterate the subordinate status of women and say yes Ephesians 5 that is what we're talking about that is a one-to-one application right there you can make that argument but what I find really interesting is then when you go to Ephesians 6 next chapter slaves obey your earthly masters with respect and fear and with sincerity of heart just as you would obey Christ well the Southern Baptist Convention as of the 1990s has finally apologized for supporting slavery there are no major Christian denominations that are advocating for a one-to-one application of this text today slavery is still a real thing in the world today not in the forms that it was in in the United States 150 years ago but there are still millions of people who live in bondage and slavery around the world and I've never heard a prominent Christian leader suggest that we should just tell them obey deal with it no we have groups like the international justice mission and a number of other Christian groups that draw the sport of many conservative Christians that seek to help to liberate people from slavery so why is it that Ephesians 5 is a one-to-one application but then Ephesians 6 well we need to apply the nuance and the context there so there are those two different camps the non affirming Christians who want to hold the line on LGBTQ inclusion but include women equally and the non deferring Christians who want to continue to relegate women to a second-class status in order to more firmly hold the line on LGBTQ inclusion but to understand some of those theological debates there is a there's a book that came out in 2001 that's had a significant impact on that first group the egalitarian non affirming Christians it's a book called I don't like this title but it is the title slaves women and homosexuals very welcoming friendly title by William Webb how many of you are familiar with this book are familiar with Webb and his arguments okay maybe that was 15% so now more of you are going to become familiar because even if you don't know him you have probably experienced kind of the ripple effect of the argument that he was making in his book in 2001 so what he argues for is what he calls a redemptive movement hermeneutic this is the idea that it's not just about what scripture says on especially these three controversial topics I mean fortunately the first one's not controversial today but it controversial in the tradition and history of the church it's not just about what scripture says it's about what scripture says and the direction scripture is moving in relative to its original context so what webb argues is that yes in the Bible we see an acceptance of slavery and second-class roles for women in many respects but that there is a positive movement on both of those topics so he says he's what he argues is that the Bible was written in a deeply patriarchal slave holding context and so even though we do see those things reflected we also see signals that are pointing toward a more liberating movement for both of those groups and so that as Christians how that should shape what we do with the text our hermeneutic is to say okay the text is pointing us toward greater liberation for both of those groups and so even though the text does not take us all the way to the abolition of slavery or the complete social equality of women that's where it's pointing us toward and so that's where Christians should continue in our movement as body of Christ however he then says that the situation is exactly the opposite when it comes to same-sex relationships because he says Greek and Roman Society was actually very tolerant of same-sex relationships but the Bible prohibits them absolutely and so the Bible is actually moving in a more restrictive direction for same-sex relationships and so as our society webb says as our society becomes more affirming and inclusive of LGBTQ people the church should double down on our opposition because that's the direction that the Bible was going in so the suggestion was oh yeah you know the Greeks and Romans they were legalizing gay marriage basically and the church said oh no you know we can't do that and so now we're in a society that's legalized gay marriage well let's you know march in the opposite direction there are some serious flaws with this argument that we will get into but it's really important to understand that the simplicity of that argument has had a lot of power for a lot of Christians and making them think that they're having a consistent hermeneutic when in fact there are some serious shortcomings with it so let's just look a little bit at how Webb makes his argument on both slavery and women so just an example there are a lot of texts in the Bible that pertain to slavery but here's one Exodus 20 22 21 anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two since the slave is their property it's pretty clear especially in the Old Testament the Bible is pretty much accepting slavery and Webb argues well this is a slight improvement because at least you're not supposed to directly kill them a low bar for Shore but this is kind of you'll see a number of things like this in the Old Testament slavery is assumed and it is regulated it is not condemned and the regulations are you know a bit wanting but one of the biggest texts in the debate about slavery especially 150 200 years ago was the book of Philemon in the New Testament and it was both sides sought to claim it as support for their position so in the book of Philemon Paul is writing to a leader of the Colossians Philemon and Paul is sending back Onesimus who is a man who Philemon had enslaved and Paulus sends back onesimus and basically says okay I kind of wanted to just keep onesimus around because I regard him as a brother and I really like him but I recognize you know I should send him back but he's trying to kind of subtly say you know think about it think about maybe not doing the slavery thing which from our standpoint does not sound like the rousing condemnation that we would want but so what he says is therefore although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love it is as none other than Paul an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus that I appeal to you for my son onesimus who became my son while I was in Chains perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever no longer as a slave but better than a slave as a dear brother he is very dear to me but even dearer to you both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord so if you consider me a partner welcome him as you would welcome me if he has done you any wrong or owes you anything charge it to me confident of your obedience right to you knowing that you will do even more than I asked so again while I think this text in some ways was frustrating to abolitionists 200 years ago because it would have been more helpful in that context if Paul had just outright said this is simple and wrong and I'm going to make sure you don't have a leadership position in the collage in church if you continue this practice it is true that this is a different message than what we saw in the book of Exodus Paul is talking about Onesimus as a brother in the Lord Paul is recognizing that through his baptismal status as a Christian that he does have a dignity that was not really recognized in a lot of the text that we see in the Old Testament talking about slavery and he certainly suggests that what obedience would be would be no longer treating Onesimus as a slave so again but slaveholders under 50 years ago were just like guess what Paul didn't say no you know he said he wants you know he's confident of my obedience we didn't demand it so you know I mean yes we don't need to rehash that entire debate but we do see it and Webb makes this argument and certainly this is an argument that has been pretty widely embraced by a lot of Christians that even though the Bible did is is not an abolitionist treatise in its explicit text that there are principles that we do see reflected that are indicating that we should be rethinking the dignity and the status of people who are enslaved and probably the most frequent text that is cited when if you ask even non affirming Christians make a biblical case against slavery the most frequent text that is cited is Galatians 3:26 227 which says so in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith for all of you who are baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile neither slave nor free nor is there male and female for you are all one in Christ Jesus if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise so this is kind of a blueprint of the kingdom of God that Paul is outlining here that through our baptism we do all have a radical spiritual equality before God and Jesus did tell us in the Lord's Prayer to pray for God's kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven so if this is where we are going if this is what the kingdom of God looks like then it does make sense that Christians should be seeking to manifest that and live that out in the here-and-now by moving toward certainly abolishing the hierarchy of slave and free the one that Paul was focused on in his time was the one between Jew and Gentile but also slave and free now we'll come to the next clause there in a moment but even though there are those texts in the New Testament the New Testament is not just like again it's not just a liberation party for people who are enslaved you see verses like this pretty commonly not just in Ephesians but also 1st Peter 2 18 through 21 this is the most stark of them slaves in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters not only to those who are good and considerate but also to those who are harsh for it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God but how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it but if you suffer for doing good and you endure it this is commendable before God to this you were called because Christ suffered for you leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps and of course there are lot there's lots of discussion in the New Testament about Jesus's model of not only non-violence but also in some ways non resistance in the face of violence when Jesus is faced with persecution faced with crucifixion he simply accepts it but this text has also been used in horrifying ways and was used very frequently this was sometimes one of the only texts that white slave owners would read to the black people they had enslaved in the American South that's this is all they wanted them to know about the Bible well it says no matter how I treat you you need to submit you need to obey the fact that we have text like this in the New Testament even though there are some other texts that indicate a rethinking or an increase of status or thinking differently about the status of enslaved people do to our baptism the Equality that comes through that if everything in the New Testament is a one-to-one application then we have a problem in terms of what the church's beliefs and position today is when it comes to slavery and that's why we really do need to have a a dynamic hermeneutic that like a redemptive movement hermeneutic would qualify as a dynamic hermeneutic in that it accepts that there can be movement between what the text says and what we do with it in the New Testament but there are those who see this and have tried to make an argument this is pretty common and very conservative Christian circles because the idea of a dynamic hermeneutic is scary because it can open the door not just to change on women's roles but also to change on LGBTQ inclusion there are those who've made the argument that actually you don't need a redemptive movement hermeneutic in order to oppose slavery you can have a static hermeneutic and the argument for this generally whittles down to something like the greek word for slave do loss in the New Testament well in context that really just referred to temporary indentured servants who could gain their freedom after a few years and who were treated much better than people who were enslaved in the United States were treated and so that's why we can oppose slavery and other people say well first century Roman slavery that was not 19th century American slavery of course it wasn't by definition it also wasn't eighth century BC Greek slavery I mean like but was it that different and so the people say well it wasn't race-based no it wasn't race-based in Rome but is that was that the only problem with slavery that certainly has been a huge problem in our context in terms of the compounding legacy of the sin of slavery but I don't think anyone would want to make the case that it's okay if you enslave someone as long as they're the same race as you because the problem with slavery goes pretty deep so the art people try to come up with these distinctions to say oh what slavery was then and what slavery was in 19th century you know the United States different enough that we don't actually have to have any movement in a hermeneutic we just say well this wasn't the same thing apart from some of the problems I just named with that there has been pretty extensive scholarly dismantling of all of these arguments there's a book that's called slavery abolitionism and the ethics of biblical scholarship by a biblical scholar named Hector Avalos at Iowa State University in which he goes through verse by verse every verse in the Bible essentially that talks about slavery and just takes apart every argument that is trying to minimize the horrors of first century Roman slavery because it was horrifying it was not a volunteer gig where people had benefits and so there really is no way I I am I met with a Southern Baptist leader a few years ago and he was just telling me how what a mistake he thought that advocates of women's ordination had made decades ago because they were the ones who had gotten everybody into this situation where we were even talking about same-sex relationships because that was when the slippery slope began and I tried to respectfully counter and say well I actually think the slippery slope as you see it began when the church changed its position on slavery because that alone there is no way you can have an opposition to slavery based in the Bible without a dynamic hermeneutic it is not possible so there are some Christians who just don't want to acknowledge that they do it but everyone does do it and so I think it's better to acknowledge that be open about it and then see where these principles should be taking us on topics that are debated today so this is when it comes to women's roles as well because it's very difficult to make an argument for abolitionism of slavery in the Bible if you want to go to Galatians 3:28 and not have that extend in any way to gender because they're put together in this triad here neither Jew nor Gentile neither slave nor free nor is there male and female so if these are the hierarchies that are being overcome in Christ it's very tricky to try to say we'll take numbers one and two but not number three so the the egalitarian argument that Webb makes is also something that Rachel held Evans wrote a lot about in her book a year of biblical womanhood you can see there's a picture of her on the top of her house with her head covered that's 1st Corinthians 11 at work you can see there that's her holding up a sign saying Dan is awesome her husband is Dan and because proverbs 31 talks about a woman who would honor her husband at the city gates and so she actually went out to the the city welcome to the city sign and date in Tennessee and held up this sign I think for like a whole day just saying Dan is awesome and he you know he didn't want people to draw too many assumptions from this so he also held up a sign saying dot dot dot and a Jesus feminist so the egalitarian argument focuses on how yes there are absolutely significant patriarchal themes and texts that we find throughout Scripture in both the old and the new testament but we also do see things that are breaking out of that pattern even in the old testament women leaders like Esther like Deborah who was a judge like Miriam and Holda who were prophetess is women leaders in the New Testament like Lydia Phoebe Euodia Cintiq II now I know Cintiq II and you oh do don't get as much screen time as some of the others so some people like where is sin tickity you can look it up romans 16 but Phoebe in Romans 16:1 is named by Paul as a deacon of the church and so even though there are actually there are some other texts in the New Testament that have prohibited language around women in leadership of significant tension in figuring out how to faithfully apply those today is recognizing that Paul himself talked about some women who were in leadership positions and commended them so that does indicate that we'd have to approach the restrictive text in the New Testament trying to hold these things in some tension some other texts that we see that also indicate some movement again not to say that there are not patriarchal elements within the New Testament there are but there are also surprising texts given the that context 1st Corinthians 7 for the first half of this is not surprising the wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband but the second half is where it gets kind of surprising in a 1st century context in the same way the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife that is an unusual kind of mutuality that is being described and Ephesians 5 even in that text where it talks about wives submitting to their husbands and then talks about husbands loving their wives which is different language you know indicating more on the submission side for women and just love for men but it is true that one of the main arguments that egalitarian advocates make in the church is that that whole passage in Ephesians 5 is it starts out with the sentence submit to one another out of reverence for Christ and then it talks about relationships between husbands and wives so there are these signals these signposts toward a movement this is also the argument that Webb makes for a liberating movement for women and that's why the Christians should embrace those signposts and keep moving in that direction even as conservative a figure as John Piper acknowledges the need for some dynamism in our hermeneutics because Jesus doesn't give us any room not to in when in mark 10 verse 5 Jesus is asked about divorce he's asked about a law from the Old Testament and says well that law was given to you Moses gave that law to you because your hearts were hard and so then Jesus gives a new teaching so what John Piper said who is not supportive of women in leadership said there are laws in the Old Testament that are not expressions of God's will for all time but expressions of how best to manage sin at a particular people at a particular time and so what I do find interesting about this is that even the most conservative Christians acknowledge that there these gaps do exist so Piper acknowledges when it comes to divorce certainly conservative Christians acknowledge it when it comes to polygamy in the Old Testament but I think that there's a very strong case for acknowledging it when it comes to patriarchy as well for all the reasons that we've just described and if we do that that's when then these conversations about hermeneutics come back to the conversation around LGBTQ inclusion and this is where I really want to take a closer look at how Webb William Webb was applying his hermeneutic to the LGBTQ conversation and where that comes up short so sometimes when it comes to LGBTQ people in the church people want to just say okay because it's easier to try to have a one-to-one application people go on a hunt for the LGBTQ people in the Bible you know we're gonna find them and we're gonna find the same-sex couples who were seek really really happy and had great well-adjusted kids you know like they're like senti key and Euodia somewhere you know like they weren't mentioned too much we're gonna find out right that you audience entity we're really a lesbian couple I think that this is not the best approach to take to the biblical text because the main examples that people will give there just are no examples of really what we are talking about I'll get into a little bit more why that is the case the three main examples people try to invoke David and Jonathan Ruth and Naomi and the Roman centurion and a man he had enslaved in Matthew 8 David and Jonathan it there definitely is a deep love relationship there and that is a powerful story in understanding that same-sex love just I don't necessarily mean sexuality but that love between people of the same sex especially two men does not have to be stigmatized does not have to be seen as unmasked Yulin and if there is a beauty in that and so that is valuable at that level but there is no textual clear textual basis for saying that David and Jonathan had a sexual relationship I'm not saying it's impossible what I'm saying that would be a very thin thing to be hanging your hat on because it's certainly not demonstrable and even if that were the case that doesn't necessarily mean that that would have been accepted or approved now certainly as a gay person reading that text I'm like okay well Jonathan was definitely in love with David like I don't think David felt quite the same way but like Jonathan like okay there were feelings there revealing that but so you know we can appreciate like a little bit of representation at that level but I still I would not want us to be trying to ground our argument in that that that's that's not our strongest case to make with Ruth and Naomi also it gets a little funny because that's in a lot of countries would be considered incest because we've got a mother-in-law daughter-in-law situation no it's not a blood relation but that's still a little odd when she was married to your son your son dies and then you're like hey you know this could be something like you know I think a lot of us would just be like I know I'm not I do not feel great about this if that happened today in our family okay it's not about the same-sex thing it's just there are a lot of other fish in the sea I don't feel like this was necessary up but and again I mean I think Ruth and Naomi like there are beautiful texts in the Book of Ruth about truly about deep love and care and concern and companionship and we can affirm all of those things but it's it's sketchy to try to say that Ruth and Naomi that's that's our lesbian couple of the year you know but the most the most concerning one in my opinion is Matthew 8 so this is where it Jesus Roman centurion comes to Jesus and says this this man I've enslaved is gravely ill and Jesus then cures the man who he's enslaved and the Roman centurion it is clear has real affection for this man and the Greek word here some it could also refer to a sexual relationship maybe but we don't know that it doesn't necessarily and even if it did sexual relationships between people and people who they own are not models that we want to be embracing and again but doesn't mean that they're like couldn't have in genuine affection and care there but like the power dynamics are problematic enough that I really would not encourage people to point to this text as say like okay you know Jesus blessed a gay couple I mean so again it's not that there's nothing to mine in those texts but that is not where I think we have our strongest case to make by any means but that's not to say that there isn't a real message and a relevant message for LGBTQ people in the Bible we just have to be willing to have a gap between how we understand sexual and gender minorities today and the way is that sexual and gender minorities were understood and discussed in biblical times but in the Old Testament there were two main categories of people who were sexually different and who were excluded and marginalized on that basis one was eunuchs and the other was barren women that's the language that the Bible uses probably not the language we would use today but that's the language that we that the Bible uses and they were barred from entering the Assembly of the Lord in Deuteronomy 23 verse 1 and that had a lot to do with just how central procreation was to the Old Testament and how God was building Israel and his kingdom people in the Old Testament through biological procreation primarily and that's why not just infertility was stigmatized but also celibacy was stigmatized you know Jesus was celibate Paul was celibate and so celibacy has been an honored vocation in the Church but you don't find examples of sella the people who were looked to as role models there are not monasteries there are not Abbey's in the Old Testament there was a celibate prophet well who was celibate just to demonstrate to the to the Israelites what was going to happen to them if they kept disobeying God they were going to be barren they were not going to have the blessings and the signs of those blessings that would come through the land through their cattle and through their children and through passing on their name through their direct biological lineage procreation was really important in the Old Testament but that changed in the New Testament Christ's life death and resurrection up ended the status quo around the centrality of procreation because no longer was biological procreation the primary way of building God's people but anyone now can become part of God's family simply through professions of personal faith in Christ so this is an this is a drawing of Jesus talking to Nicodemus and that's when Jesus talks about the need to become born again it's not just about being born we hear about the phrase born again all the time but we don't often think about it in this context it's not just about being born biologically into the people of God it is about being born again by faith into the people of God and that has a particular power when you understand the change that is at work in how procreation is being deprioritized in a sense in the New Testament based on the life and actions of Jesus so but we even see this prophesied in the Old Testament this change Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 40 54 1 sing barren woman you who never bore a child burst into song shout for joy you who were never in labor because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband says the Lord and then in Isaiah 56 to the eunuchs who keep my Sabbath's who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant I will give them in my house and within my walls a memorial and a name better than that of sons and daughters and we see this start to come to fruition in the book of Acts and here you have Philip meeting Ethiopian eunuch who is reading the book of Isaiah and Philip helps him to understand it one of the first Gentile converts to Christianity was someone who would not have been allowed to enter the Assembly of the Lord under the Old Covenant was someone who was sexually different and who had been stigmatized on that basis and was now what is to prevent me from being baptized there was a lot that used to be preventing someone like that from full participation in the family of God and now there is nothing that has a message for all gender and sexual others and minorities today in that already the New Testament we do see an inclusive Ark not saying you have to fit into this exact box where you can procreate in this exact way and so no to be clear though some people say okay so you're saying eunuchs forget well maybe some of them were but or oh okay so eunuchs were trans look no like that's it's anachronistic the way that we think and talk about sexual orientation and gender identity does not have any direct reference point in ancient societies or ancient literature there might be some areas of overlap in some areas of difference so it's not a complete one-to-one connection but it is a trajectory of greater inclusion for those who had been excluded based on their differences related their gender and sexual characteristics and it's important to remember and then this kind of gets us back to full circle to why webs application of his redemptive movement hermeneutic falls short when it comes to same-sex relationships what he does is he says okay what does the Bible say about slavery what does the Bible say about women what does the Bible say in his words about quote homosexuals the problem too many of us should be evident already in the title of his book those first two categories are actually categories of people that are identified and exist in the Bible the third category of people I'll just say gay people that's not a category in the Bible so what does the Bible say about quote-unquote homosexuals literally nothing because there is no understanding of the concept of same-sex orientation in ancient times so what web does is he just takes any reference and this is what most non affirming Christians do takes any reference to same-sex behavior of any kind in the Bible and then uses that to say okay that's the Bible's message about all types of same-sex relationships today but in the ancient world and I've talked about you been at Prior conferences you will have heard this before if you've been studying the biblical case on our website you might have heard this before we have our how to talk about the Bible and LGBTQ inclusion is our most popular resource a seventy page booklet which you can purchase out in the lobby and now as of last week we've got all this content online for free as well so I'm excited about that so this will not be news to many of you but it's important just to reiterate in the ancient world same-sex attraction and behavior were widely considered to be vices of excess that might tempt anyone vices like gluttony or drunkenness same-sex attraction was not understood as the sexual orientation of a small minority of people and that makes sense when you consider what the prominent forms of same-sex behavior that were being practiced and discussed were because they were not committed mutual relationships between social equals there was always a hierarchy involved whether it was a class hierarchy an age hierarchy there had to be a hierarchy involved the dominant forms of same-sex behavior in the ancient world fit a pattern of lustful self-indulgence sex between masters and men who were enslaved prostitution and petter asti this was most common in ancient Greece we're talking about sexual relationships between adult men and adolescent boys but it was also practiced in ancient Rome Albia and a somewhat different form and didn't have quite the same social significance but I mean that's pretty horrifying if you read a book like Roman homosexuality by Craig Williams which is the best book about same-sex relations in ancient Rome I know a lot of people are thinking oh I don't know if that could compete with the six others I have on my bookshelf although in this room some of you may be thinking that but when you go through a lot of the literature and you realize just how many of the references to same-sex behavior referring to these types of things it helps to make sense of statements like this this was a first century Roman philosopher named moose oh nice Rufus this was how he understood same-sex behavior not the least significant part of the life of luxury and self-indulgence lies also in sexual excess for example those who lead such a life crave a variety of loves not only lawful but unlawful ones as well not women alone but also men sometimes they pursue one love and sometimes another and not being satisfied with those which are available pursue those which are rare and inaccessible like they just really want to spend on the fanciest wine at the restaurant so just know if you get the booklet or other slides there are other quotes that specifically connect same-sex behavior to people getting really drunk at parties like you know Katy Perry out you know 2009 uh-huh people getting really drunk at parties and just not being content were always wanting more and more people who their their food was no longer doing it so they just tried to add salt to everything that was no longer doing it I mean these like verbatim examples that are connected in ancient writings to same-sex relations and so it's people who could be content with heterosexual sex but no they just want more and so they're just going off and trying to find more excessive self-seeking lustful pleasures and same-sex relations we're very frequently categorized as that given that well the types of same-sex behavior though a lot of people were engaging in kind of were that you'd have men who were married to women who then also on the side are hiring prostitutes or having sex with men and women who were enslaved that's not really a model that aligns with Christian values and even so even greco-roman societies when they did accept forms of same-sex behavior as I said that was always premise on the existence of hierarchy mostly related to the patriarchal order of society so it was just not possible to have two men of equal social standing or two women enter into a lifelong committed relationship as the basis of forming a family and a home where they were seen as equals it wasn't possible because that even in the quote/unquote most progressive parts of ancient Greece and Rome that would have been very offensive because that would suggest that one partner doesn't need to be dominated by the other and in a deeply patriarchal society that undermines the domination of men over women if it's clear that you can have relationships that don't rely on a status hierarchy so this is where webs application really goes wrong because it's very misleading to say oh the Greeks and Romans they accepted homosexuality they accepted same-sex relationships no they accepted very specific forms of same-sex relationships that have significant problems from a Christian standpoint and that even most non-christians would not be okay with today and so instead of so what webb was suggesting was essentially oh well you know they considered same-sex marriage back then but they went a different direction and so we should do the same thing no really what they considered was promiscuity lustful self-indulgence using sex to assert status and power and they said no to those things in favour of covenant fidelity monogamy and uplifting sex as a sign and seal of a lifelong covenant of self giving love there really was a conservative term in the first century in thinking's about sexual ethics based on Christian teachings and a rejection of extramarital sex a rejection of all sorts of things and yes same-sex relationships if you go back and read early Christian writings we're kind of thrown into the mix of the things that were being rejected but we have to understand the reasons why we're not talking about same-sex relationships that fit the qualities that Christians were uplifting in marriage around covenant faithfulness commitment self giving mutual love same-sex relationships were rejected for the same reasons that other forms of why don't anyone say other because in argument they were rejected for the same reason that promiscuity was rejected because they were just seen as that but we know that we're talking about same-sex relationships that don't fit those negative characteristics the Christians were turning away from in the first century and in fact many of the counter cultural principles that early Christians embraced regarding sexuality the more conservative sexual ethic of the early Christian church was highly counter cultural and so that's why people like web and some non different Christians will say you know what they were countercultural then and we're just gonna be countercultural today but what was the way they were being countercultural it was in support of mutuality fidelity and covenant to love that is something that same-sex relationships can and so often are consistent with and so it's not just Oh will be countercultural you have to be really specific about what you're being countercultural about and so even though same-sex marriage is not mentioned in any part of the Bible because same-sex relationships between social equals were not even on the radar screen in ancient times and understanding as a sexual orientation have really only come around in the last 75 years in our society we do see some basic principles taught in the Bible about marriage the ground marriage in what Ephesians talks about about a kind of self giving covenant for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh here we see Genesis 2:24 quoted but then Ephesians continues and says this is a profound mystery but I am talking about Christ and the church so here we see marriage connected to the union between Christ and the church and that's the model that we should be aspiring to in our relationships a model that is focused on self giving covenant yes same-sex relationships we didn't they were not on the radar screen in a way that would have fit that framework in ancient societies or really until pretty recently because of how repressive our society has been and how not understanding and how intolerant our society has been to people who are different but we know better today and we know we can affirm and uphold these core principles in the Bible about marriage while also including those who are sexual and gender minorities in that it's not about burning it down it's about being consistent in offering that opportunity not just for because it's not just an opportunity for satisfaction although hopefully it is it's also an opportunity for sanctification and growth and that is not something that we need to deny to LGBTQ people because at its core the principles that are at the heart of this can be fulfilled in same-sex relationships so I found this online they if this is not as easy to read but I feel like this was a bit more helpful of a bumper sticker type approach God said it I interpreted it as best I could in light of all the filters imposed by my upbringing and culture which I try to control for but you can never do in a perfect you can never do a perfect job that doesn't exactly settle it but it does give me enough of a platform to base my values and decisions on that is not quite as catchy and it's in some ways it's not as intrinsically satisfying and just hearing it for a moment but what I hope I've been able to help illuminate for you all today is recognizing that really all Christians affirming or not at the end of the day have an approach that looks much more like this than like the first meme we want to gently help people to recognize that and then encourage them to be consistent in their application of their hermeneutic and their basic principles for interpreting Scripture - the conversation around LGBTQ inclusion so with that that was the Bible tells me so hermeneutics and the debate about LGBTQ inclusion [Applause] [Music] you

Channel: The Reformation Project

Views: 26,839

Rating: 4.4218135 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: Jz8c0b8L-lY

Length: 64min 21sec (3861 seconds)

Published: Fri Mar 06 2020