Transcript: Lesson 35 - Affirming Arguments

Friends, welcome. In this unit we're thinking about the family of God and LGBT+ people. In the last video, I mentioned a little bit about the affirming arguments and the the historic view two different views on marriage. The affirming view says marriage is between any two people,  whether it's men and woman, or two men or two women. Whereas the historical view, sees  Scripture as teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that marriage,  including sexual activity, sexual union, is reserved for this relationship between a man and a  woman. There is a ton of scholarship, there's a ton of writing on this argument, especially  over the last 30 or 40 years. And so I can't do justice to it in this short video, but I do want to  highlight just a few of the arguments, a few of the points made on either side. And part of the  reading for this unit is the pastoral paper on 15 arguments for the affirming view and 15  responses to that. And so that expands your viewpoint even more on this. But in terms of  affirming arguments, I want to just mention three of them here. One is, some people would  say that, well, if you look at the Old Testament, in Leviticus 18, and Leviticus 20, there are  these prohibitions against same sex sexual activity. But that because they're in the Old  Testament, that that Old Testament law isn't isn't relevant anymore. This comes from a certain way of looking at the Old and New Testament, that is, the Old Testament is about law and  legalism. And the New Testament actually is, is more about grace. And that there's maybe  more more freedom, freedom to explore or freedom to have a variety of relationships. And so  those old those Old Testament prohibitions aren't relevant anymore. Our justice argument in  more detail in the next slide is we look at a couple of different biblical passages. But I do want to note that this is something that you might encounter. A second affirming argument is that  same sex relationships in Bible times, were about exploitation, and or abuse. And so I want to  unpack this a little bit just to make sure you understand what's going on here. This argument  would say, you know, we recognize that yeah, the Bible does speak against same sex sexual  activity. But part of the claim here is that, well, in Bible times, this kind of same sex sexual  activity was not a consensual, mutual, caring, sexuality. It was exploitation it was, it was  maybe a master exploiting a male master exploiting a male slave, or maybe it was a man  sleeping with a male temple prostitute. Or maybe it's somebody who's taking captive as a  prisoner in war, who is, in essence, being sexually abused by another man. And so part of  this, so think about a parallel here, it's like saying, if this is just an analogy isn't true, it's this  analogy. If somebody were, say, in Bible times, all sports, were violent, and involved physical  harm or death, right, like the gladiator games, in in Rome, if that was the only kind of sports  they had, then a Bible writer might say, You should stay away from sports, don't be involved  in sports. But to really understand what they were trying to communicate, we'd have to  understand what sports were like in that world. And then we'd say, well, okay, it doesn't,  actually when you understand sports in their world, they're not trying to prohibit all sports.  Maybe even, you know, the kind of miles that trying to put in a bowling, but rather what  they're trying to do here is prohibit certain kind of sports, that was the only kind of sports they knew then. So similarly, this is this is I say, Well, yeah, the Bible does speaking of same sex  relationships, but the only kind of same sex relationships that they knew then were  exploitative ones abusive ones. I will adjust this argument here. And this claim is a historical  one. In other words, I say like this is how relationships were in that time. And while it is true,  that many same sex relationships in Bible times were exploitative or abusive, we do have  many examples of same sex relationships that that were not about exploitation or abuse, that that were two adults freely entering into a consensual same sex relationship. And so part of  the problem with with this argument is that it's it's actually not factually and historically  accurate. Now, most people again, don't know enough about ancient history to be able to  discern this and so if a scholar says to them, Well, this was the case, then then their likely to  go along with it. But it is important, the more especially a lot of the research I've done over  the last five years, has been to try to dig into the history to understand this. And it's pretty  clear when you start to look at the history, that there are examples of people entering into  these relationships freely. It's adults. And it's consensual. And so this argument is one that  was that carries some weight, until you start to really closely examine the historical material,  it's there. A third affirming argument, similarly makes a historical claim. And that is the people in Bible times didn't take an orientation into account that they didn't know that you'll gay 

people are born this way. And so, you know, in Bible times, same sex sex lab activity will be  criticized, because it was thought of as as as abnormal. But now we know that for some  people, it's just normal. It's just natural, because they're, they're born that way. There are a  couple of responses to this argument that I would highlight. The first is, again, a historical  response. And that is, when you actually look at the writing that's out there. In the Greek and  Roman sources, it's pretty clear that they did have a sense that yes, there are some people  who seem to be exclusively attracted to the same sex. Even Dr. James Brownson, who actually makes the case for an affirming view, he even acknowledges this and says, yeah, in the Greek and Roman sources, it's pretty clear that they had something that didn't use our terminology  of orientation. But they had the same concept that there are some people who are just some  men who are exclusively attracted to men, or women who are attracted to women. And so  historically, this argument actually doesn't doesn't work that well. Even theologically and  morally, Justin Lee, another author, who is affirming of same sex marriage, even he says, Just  because somebody is born that way, born this way, that doesn't tell you about whether  something is is morally right or wrong to say this, this seems to be a natural, inborn  inclination. And I think Christians of all people should recognize this, because part of what  Scripture teaches about sin is that, that all of us are born with a sin nature that we have this  inclination and disposition to, to rebel against God. And so even there, and that's a great  example of how I have this inclination towards selfishness. And at the same time, I recognize  it, that doesn't mean it's good. That doesn't mean I should act on that selfishness, but rather  means I need to understand what's going on inside of me so that I can, as I submit to God's  grace in Christ, live differently. And so the Born This Way argument actually doesn't, doesn't  really work to carry the weight that some might like it, too. And you can even think about this  with respect to other examples. For example, most straight people probably all I think, would  say that in their lifetime they've been romantically or sexually attracted to more than one  person. Well, that doesn't mean that you should act on that attraction. That you know, that  part of even what scripture teachs about monogamy is is recognizing that maybe for many  people, they are inclined to be attracted to numerous people, but that Scripture is teaching is  not just that you're supposed to be attracted to people of the opposite sex. But that actually  you're called to, if you engage in sexual activity at all to engage in that was one person to  whom you're married. And so even that teaching of Scripture seems to in some ways, go  against the way that we're, we're wired, oftentimes to be attracted to multiple people. So  those are three of the affirming arguments. I would say probably the main argument that that  leads to the historic view, is a focus on the totality of Scripture is looking at what the scripture as a whole teach about marriage about who we are as male and female, and the very nature  and definition of marriage. We've gone through Genesis 1 and 2 in detail, so I won't rehash  much of that there. Other than to emphasize that again, we see male and female created in  God's image. And we see God defining marriage as this one flesh union between a man and a  woman, in part because it is only as a man and a woman are joined in sexual union, that  leaves this possibility of new life, be fruitful and multiply that this is part of children and the  possibility of children are part of the inherent meaning of marriage. And so when you think  about two men or two women, there just isn't the same possibility there. And so when we  think about the meaning of marriage as male and female, but also the reality of children,  those things all go together We find this repeated again in Leviticus 18, which is in the Torah,  the baseline for sexual ethics, not just for the Torah, but for the rest of Scripture. That part of  what's prohibited again Leviticus 18 does not single out same sex sexual activity is, you know, here's here's the worst kind of sexual activity, it's actually listed with numerous examples of  sexual immorality. And so it again, it's not we're not singling out. Same sex sexual activity  here. We're just saying, if you look at Leviticus 18, this is the baseline for all these different  things, including adultery, including incest, that the scripture says, are wrong. Jesus when He  speaks about marriage, specifically reiterates Genesis 1 and 2 and says, This is God's  intention for marriage. It's between a man and a woman, Jesus elsewhere when he speaks  against sexual immorality. I think it's important to recognize that the term that Jesus uses that the New Testament uses that often gets translated sexual immorality. That term is porneia.  The Greek word porneia you can see the connection there between our English word 

pornography. But porneia sexual immorality is just a broad term. If we ask, well, what is  sexually immoral? Right, because different people might have different definitions of what is  sexually immoral. Sexual immorality, if we think about what that includes, it actually takes us  back to Leviticus 18. That's how Jesus as a good Jewish rabbi, would have thought about what  is sexually immoral or what isn't. So when Jesus defines marriage, he again reiterate to this  this one flesh union between a man and a woman between a husband and wife. In Acts 15,  the Jerusalem Council is is wrestling with a key question in the early church. The question that they're wrestling with is do Gentile followers of Jesus have to keep the whole Old Testament  law? Again, you get when you go back to the previous slide. This is the argument that some  folks on the affirming side make, which is that the Old Testament prohibitions aren't relevant  anymore. Those are part of the Old Testament law. And the law has been done away with.  Well, part of what the Jerusalem Council emphasizes is that Gentile followers of Jesus do not  have to follow the whole law, they especially things like the dietary laws, some of the different regulations around food, some of the other regulations around you think about things like how people cut their hair, and some other things like that. They said, those things don't need to be followed. But they do emphasize in Acts 15 that what you see is that Gentiles are called to  abstain from idolatry and from sexual immorality, that what Acts 15 does actually is that it  goes back to Leviticus 17 and 18. And says, you look at Leviticus 17, and 18. These are things that talk about practices of idolatry and sexual immorality. And even in the Old Testament, the instruction here is that Jews and Gentiles alike are not to participate in these things. And so  Acts 15, as the church comes together and church leaders come together, part of what they  reiterate is that God's call for human sexuality is to stay the same as it's always been, as you  see in Genesis 1 and 2, as you see Leviticus 18, as Jesus reiterates in Matthew 19. And so  there's, there's consistency here. Finally, we also see Paul and other New Testament authors  emphasize this as well. When we talked about marriage, we spent some time in Ephesians 5,  and there as well, Paul emphasizes that marriage is between a husband and wife, and that it's as husband and wife, that they are the sign and pointer to Christ and the church. And so in  other words, there seems to be something significant about the diversity there that male and  female image God, and that male and female actually symbolizes Christ in the church that I  think is is actually important that those symbols matter. When we talked about marriage as a  sign and pointer that way I referenced things like baptism and how baptism the waters of  baptism symbolizes the washing away of our sin. Well, it's actually significant, that it's water  that people are baptized with water, rather than, you know, some other liquid. That water  does have this symbol of cleansing of washing away that's what water is used for. So the  actual physical symbol is important. The same thing with the Lord's Supper when we think  about how bread and the wine or juice symbolizes the Body and Blood of Jesus, those material symbols are important, in actually symbolizing this that you know when we think of on how  this works, we would say that pizza and Mountain Dew don't symbolize don't symbolize the  Lord's Supper in the way that bread and the wine or juice does. And similarly, when we think  about our bodies, there's something here about male and female as who we are physically,  biologically, who we are as persons, and the way that we symbolize Christ in the church that  that matter matters, in these signs and symbols. And so all throughout the New Testament,  we see that over and over scripture defines marriage as between a man and a woman. And  then actually, in a lot of ways. This is a countercultural witness, that there were people out  there in the Greek and Roman Times who said, you know, live out your sexuality in a variety  of ways. You don't have to stay faithful in marriage. You know, sex is just a physical urge. And  so, you know, if you are a male slave owner, you can have sex with your slaves, male or  female, that's not wrong, that that's your prerogative. There are people who said you can  sleep with prostitutes that that's fine. That's a normal part of sexuality. And so over and over  in Scripture, what you see is this countercultural witness where this idea that that really, there are two ways that we can embody God's story in our sexuality, either in marriage of a  husband wife, or in celibacy, and that those are really the only two ways that we are called by God to embody who he is and make his story visible for those around us. So that was  countercultural in their day. And it's countercultural in our day. A couple of points, then, as far  as the theological rationale for marriage between a man and a woman, a husband and wife, I 

have, in some ways, I've already reiterated several of these points. So I'll just cover them  briefly again here. The first is that male and female together image God, that there is  diversity in unity and who we are as humanity, and that diversity is important. What you see  in Genesis 1 and 2 is that God loves diversity. Part of the reason that Romans 1 speaks  against same sex relationships, is because it goes against this, this diversity that God intends  for His creation. So it's male and female together who image God. There's also a sense in  which the husband wife relationship is a symbol of Christ in the church. And that, as we just  talked about, with baptism, and the Lord's Supper, the symbol is important that the material  matter that elements use there are important. And so the physicality, the biology, of who we  are as male and female, different, but yet together in our life, giving love producing new life,  that's important for how marriage symbolizes Christ in the church. And then finally, the one  flesh union of husband and wife brings forth new life, that, as we saw in a previous unit,  procreation and children are really an important part of how we think about marriage, how we think about sexuality. And so a sexual activity that, that by nature is focused on my pleasure  that doesn't have this possibility of bringing forth new life doesn't fit with God's intentions for  marriage for sexuality, where part of what's happening is we are drawn into the self giving  love, that ends up being life giving love, that has this possibility. And so because of these,  because of these reasons, when we look at Scripture, you know, I have to conclude that  Scripture teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, a husband and wife. So I  would encourage you if this is something that you're wrestling with, that you're thinking  about, the point of all of this is not to say that if you are single, you're less spiritual, or if  you're gay, you're less spiritual than if you're straight. The point of this is to recognize that in  marriage, and in celibacy, God has given us two different paths that we're called to, to make  him visible to make his love present to the world around us. And that we want to walk in line  with that, so that we can actually do that. And so I would encourage you, if this is something  you've thought about to you that you're wrestling with, to keep working through this, to keep  seeking scripture out. We continually come back to Scripture because it's, it's scripture, that's  our authority, not not just my own experience, or not my own desires or what I want to be  true, but But what Scripture teaches. And so I would encourage you to keep studying  scripture, keep investigating, keep digging into this. And as we do this, remember, keep in  front of us are called to be the family of God, gay and straight together to walk to follow Jesus  empowered by His Spirit. Next time, we're going to think a little bit more about pastoral care,  conclude with a few final observations, and go from there. So until next time, blessings