Should I Attend a Gay Wedding? with Robert Gagnon
July 6, 2023
Should a Christian attend a gay wedding? This question crystallizes an important issue for our time. Dr. Robert Gagnon is a leading scholar on the bible and homosexuality and joined me on today’s podcast. This conversation was incredibly helpful to me. We talk about Jesus’ view of sexuality, working with children, and tips for engaging in culture in these challenging times.
Youtube - https://youtu.be/i55ddNZNrnM
He wrote this article on the question.
Contender: Going Deeper in the Book of Jude - This all-inclusive small group study on the book of Jude is out now. Check it out on the course page: http://courses.andymilleriii.com
Five Steps to Deeper Teaching and Preaching - I’m excited to share some news with you. Recently, I updated this PDF document and added a 45-minute teaching video with slides, explaining this tool. It's like a mini-course. If you sign up for my list, I will send this free resource to you. Sign up here - www.AndyMillerIII.com or Five Steps to Deeper Teaching and Preaching.
Today’s episode is brought to you by these two sponsors:
Bill Roberts is a financial advisor, who has been serving the retirement planning and investment needs of individuals, families, non-profits, and churches for 25 years. He is a Certified Financial Planner and accredited investment fiduciary. Bill specializes in working with Salvation Army employees and officers by helping them realize their financial goals. You can find out more about Bill’s business at www.WilliamHRoberts.com
Wesley Biblical Seminary - Interested in going deeper in your faith? Check out our certificate programs, B.A., M.A.s, M.Div., and D.Min degrees. You will study with world-class faculty and the most racially diverse student body in the country. www.wbs.edu
Thanks too to Phil Laeger for my podcast music. You can find out about Phil's music at https://www.laeger.net
Welcome to the more to the story. Podcast I'm so glad you have come along. Look, this is an episode I have been waiting for. I'm so excited that finally, I have Robert Gagn and Dr. Robert Kagan on the podcast I'm going to introduce him in just a second. And many of you have said, I've said this, have the podcast has been going 3 or 4 years people. Oh, you really need to get Robert Gagnon, I said. I know, I know, but finally, this year I've gotten to know him a little bit.
00:00:37.090 --> 00:00:53.270
and it's made it a little easier for me to be in touch with him and and make the request. But before we get to that, I want to make sure. You know this, podcast is brought to you by Wesley Biblical Seminary, where we are developing trusted leaders for faithful churches, and we sense. There are churches all over the world who are looking
00:00:53.270 --> 00:01:18.200
for a trusted leader who's gonna come in and deliver the faith once for all delivered to the saints. And that means that we teach within the perspective of the authority of Scripture and the reality and promise of the sanctified life that we can experience sanctifying grace in this live and we're excited to at Wbs that the global Methodist Church has named us as an approved institution. But also we're the first institution
00:01:18.200 --> 00:01:43.039
Andy Miller III: approved to offer a course of study for people in the global Methodist church. And just in the last 2 months we've added more than 150 students. Can you believe that that's been a lot of work on me as a academic dean. But nevertheless, we're really thrilled to be able to serve the Church in this way. And so if you're interested in learning more about our course of study program with the global and ethnic church, you can check that firstname.lastname@example.org, or
00:01:43.040 --> 00:02:07.319
Andy Miller III: any of our programs from our allay initiatives, bachelor's masters, Master Divinity and Doctor of Ministry. A degree we'd love to talk to you more about that also. This podcast brought to you by William Roberts, who is a financial planner, who does a great job, helping people, particularly those who are ministry think through planning and for their retirement. It's not necessarily something we cover in seminary, but it is something that's important for you to think about, and he does a great job helping people with that.
00:02:07.340 --> 00:02:30.880
Finally, if you're interested in things are coming from this podcast and more to story, podcast I have an email list, and I would love for you to sign up for that. And if you do, I will send you a free gift, and that is a a tool called 5 steps to deeper teaching and preaching. It's a 45 min teaching session and an eight-page document that really helps people go deeper into Scripture using an inductive method.
00:02:30.880 --> 00:02:49.750
Andy Miller III: with the aim, too, of keeping the homosexual tasks in mind along the way. So I'd love for you to check that out. I also have a 6 week session a 6 week series for small groups on the Book of Jude which covers a lot of the the content that we're gonna talk about today. It's called contender. You can find out all about all that stuff
00:02:49.770 --> 00:03:02.650
Andy Miller III: at Andy Miller, the third.com. That's Andy Miller. I I i.com. All right. I am thrilled to welcome to podcast Dr. Robert Gagin. Robert, welcome to the podcast
00:03:03.000 --> 00:03:06.290
Robert Gagnon: thank you. So much for having me andy. It's a pleasure to be on
00:03:06.780 --> 00:03:25.180
Andy Miller III: well, and and Dr. Gagnant teaches at Houston. Christian University. Formerly Houston Baptist University, and A. Has taught has been a academic for years, and he has written the definitive volume in my view on human sexuality from a Biblical interpreter's perspective.
00:03:25.180 --> 00:03:50.149
Andy Miller III: called the Bible and homosexual practice. I have it here. Unfortunately, I don't have a good cover. You can only see the side But just to give you an idea for the the nature of the standard that Dr. Gagnon writes at, and and the way that it's respect in the field, I just want to read to you the names of the people who have endorsed his book, James Bar Brevard, child. let's see, I'll just keep going through Ce. B. Cranfield, I. Howard Marks.
00:03:50.150 --> 00:03:54.590
Douglas Moo. James, Dg. Done. C. K. Barrett.
00:03:54.690 --> 00:03:57.220
Andy Miller III: That's some high praise there, Dr. Gagnan.
00:03:58.160 --> 00:04:08.209
Robert Gagnon: Yes, I was blessed by that. I didn't know what I could expect from producing a book like that. And, in fact, especially among some persons who.
00:04:08.320 --> 00:04:12.829
Robert Gagnon: I have a different perspective on the issue. like James Bar.
00:04:12.870 --> 00:04:43.969
Robert Gagnon: like markiness, and and others. So yeah, it's amazing to me. now, the ethicist, I'm blanking on from Oxford. that they were actually able to to give me good endorsements for the book. So praise God, yeah. And and I think this is one thing. It's been interesting me if that if people are going to write in any academic way about human sexuality, and if they don't address your book, it's almost to me. I feel like they're not being a a good academic. They're not doing a thorough job because you present the case. And if they're going to have a different view.
00:04:43.970 --> 00:05:06.459
Andy Miller III: they're gonna have to refer to you. And in just the fact that those names are ones who have endorsed your book and said, This is solid scholarship. So it's really, I want to say, like at the start of this I have a very specific question I want to ask you, but thank you for this volume. I know that it's probably come at a very high personal cost to you as well to write such a strong, thorough volume. But it's really a blessing to the church.
00:05:06.660 --> 00:05:07.859
Robert Gagnon: Thank you, Andy.
00:05:08.420 --> 00:05:19.539
Andy Miller III: So why I wanted to bring you in today is you wrote a great article that uses some of your past research. And this was on the Christ overall website. And the title is this.
00:05:19.630 --> 00:05:43.420
Andy Miller III: is it loving for a faithful Christian to go to a gay wedding? I love that you wrote on this because this is a pressing question that many people have in our day. And in you start this article by thinking about. Rather not. This is what you call a Romans? 14. Question, what do you mean by that? What's a Roman 14 question
00:05:43.780 --> 00:05:55.659
Robert Gagnon: whether a lot of people in the evangelical world who now support, or at least allow for attendance at a gay wedding. Now, Timothy Dal Grimpole, CEO of Christianity today.
00:05:55.690 --> 00:06:07.850
Robert Gagnon: focus on the family. I'm stunned to see the focus in the family. Call this a Romans 14, issue and agree to disagree. Issue in terms of attending a gay wedding.
00:06:07.910 --> 00:06:30.389
Robert Gagnon: Preston Sprinkle, who's been very prominent recently on. It's a New Testament scholar dealing with issues on homosexuality and transgenderism recommends it. Actually, if your child identifies as dating gets married to a person of the same sex that you should attend that wedding. of course. Andy Stanley has already gone over been going over
00:06:30.390 --> 00:06:44.950
Robert Gagnon: to the left on this issue of sexual ethics for over a decade now, and we'll be having a conference in September, hosting it in its church, using a stealth homosexual front organization called embracing the journey
00:06:44.950 --> 00:07:02.929
Robert Gagnon: and having speakers like Justin Lee And David Gushi, who are thoroughly the supportive of homosexual unions. Justin Lee is still looking for Mr. Right, and they all they all adopt this at. If they're not actually thoroughly supporting
00:07:02.950 --> 00:07:04.400
Robert Gagnon: gay unions.
00:07:04.920 --> 00:07:22.000
Robert Gagnon: they are at least a a probing of attending a weddings, and, as I said, they all use the Romans 14, analogy. If they're evangelical, they still want to maintain a veneer for being opposed to homosexual practice. as not a flourishing event.
00:07:22.010 --> 00:07:30.629
Robert Gagnon: they nonetheless, we'll say, but attending a gate. Wedding is okay, because the room is 14. Now, Romans 14 is an issue about diet and calendar.
00:07:30.700 --> 00:07:38.169
Robert Gagnon: Right? Right? All it's dealing with in Rome. There's strong Those who have no roof over eating. They eat all foods
00:07:38.190 --> 00:07:39.890
Robert Gagnon: feed all foods alike.
00:07:40.020 --> 00:07:54.370
Robert Gagnon: And then the week, who have scruples against eating meat which is not specifically for forbidden in Judaism. But it's sort of like a hyper demonstration of fidelity to food laws and to the law in general.
00:07:54.540 --> 00:08:14.149
Robert Gagnon: And it, Paul argues that it's basically a matter of indifference. He agrees with the strong that you can need all things. But he says, Look, whether you eat me or don't eat me. This is not what the kingdom of God consists of. You know God consists of righteousness, joy, and peace in the Holy Spirit.
00:08:14.250 --> 00:08:25.520
Robert Gagnon: This is not such a matter. It is therefore a matter of indifference. It is up to each individual to decide for themselves whether they should engage in the practice of eating need or not.
00:08:25.700 --> 00:08:30.870
Robert Gagnon: And basically mind your own business to both sides, even though I basically agree with the strong.
00:08:31.500 --> 00:08:51.049
Robert Gagnon: Now. So when you're saying that attending a gay wedding is a Romans 14 issue. You're saying it's a matter of ethical indifference. It doesn't matter. You can go, not go as you see fit. There's no more question really involved in the going as long as you don't
00:08:51.240 --> 00:08:56.669
Robert Gagnon: over. At least say that you support homosexual activity.
00:08:57.190 --> 00:09:00.940
Robert Gagnon: and that's where they are completely wrong.
00:09:00.970 --> 00:09:08.660
Robert Gagnon: There is no Christian in the first century. No positive protagonist of the paid.
00:09:08.690 --> 00:09:17.280
Robert Gagnon: including our Lord and the apostolic witness to him that would possibly endorse the attendance at a gay wedding.
00:09:17.600 --> 00:09:24.530
Andy Miller III: Okay, let me stop you there. That's really good. I mean, this is very helpful. Like to make this piece. And one of the things that happens is the the nature of how we
00:09:24.530 --> 00:09:49.409
Andy Miller III: go to Scripture, or use Scripture as an analogy for other issues that are contemporary issues. But one of the things I know that you're asked a lot about. Well, did Jesus really address this? Did Jesus really address same-sex behavior or same text marriage? and I know that that's a a question you get regularly. But I mean, many people just suggest well, this can't. You know, there's just the the so-called clobber passages.
00:09:49.410 --> 00:09:57.640
these type of things. They're there. It's not that big of an issue. That's why we just need to put make it a Romans. 14 issue, I mean, did Jesus address this Dr. Gagnan?
00:09:57.800 --> 00:10:04.110
Robert Gagnon: Jesus did not address homosexual practice in the same way that he did not address incest
00:10:04.470 --> 00:10:14.330
Robert Gagnon: right. He agreed with the standard that overwhelming witness of his Scriptures what we call the Old Testament, that they would have referred to simply as the Bible
00:10:14.490 --> 00:10:30.319
Robert Gagnon: the Scriptures. it it. The witnesses actually clear. We do know that Jesus did address the question of sexual ethics with regard to divorce and remarriage, and implicitly with regard to polygamy, and there he sets up a standard
00:10:30.510 --> 00:10:34.190
Robert Gagnon: for sexual ethics, and the very foundation
00:10:34.360 --> 00:10:44.930
Robert Gagnon: for Jesus's entire position on sexual ethics. He locates in one third of Genesis, 127, male and female he made them.
00:10:45.360 --> 00:10:49.649
Robert Gagnon: How extraordinary! Why, even why, even bring up that verse!
00:10:49.760 --> 00:10:57.070
Robert Gagnon: I I you know I've never really heard a good explanation from those on the other side. I think that Jesus didn't care
00:10:57.100 --> 00:11:13.569
Robert Gagnon: about the issue of homosexual practice. It's really 2 ways of looking at homosexual practice. One is a direct way which involves a prohibition. You show a man shall not have sex with the male, as though so not live with a male is the lying with a woman that is, for sexual purposes.
00:11:14.180 --> 00:11:18.990
Robert Gagnon: That's one way. Another way is more indirect, but even more profound.
00:11:19.050 --> 00:11:32.330
Robert Gagnon: And that's simply reaffirming a male female requirement for sexual ethics. So if I say that the very foundation of sexual ethics is that God intentionally designed
00:11:32.390 --> 00:11:44.599
Robert Gagnon: 2 complimentary sexes, sexes that are counterparts to each other. male and female, that he intentionally designed that as the very foundation of all sexual ethics
00:11:44.800 --> 00:11:49.830
Robert Gagnon: as a basic requirement for everything that goes forward. Then, obviously.
00:11:50.150 --> 00:11:51.590
Robert Gagnon: by definition.
00:11:52.010 --> 00:11:58.400
Robert Gagnon: homosexual practice is precluded right? Because then the only form of homosexual practice that could be accepted
00:11:58.470 --> 00:12:10.719
Robert Gagnon: was one that would involve sexual counterparts, male and female. In other words, no former home sexual practice, because if it involves male and female by definition, it isn't homosexual.
00:12:10.830 --> 00:12:14.229
Robert Gagnon: so that for Jesus was absolutely central.
00:12:14.960 --> 00:12:24.699
Robert Gagnon: And it's the. It's God's deliberate creation of a sexual binary that Jesus used to establish a principle about number
00:12:25.120 --> 00:12:30.330
Robert Gagnon: the number of persons allowable in a sexual union, whether at any one time
00:12:31.070 --> 00:12:34.530
Robert Gagnon: no polygamy, or whether serially
00:12:34.620 --> 00:12:39.180
Robert Gagnon: revolving to divorce and remarriage for any calls. Jesus
00:12:39.390 --> 00:12:47.719
Robert Gagnon: rejected those 2 dimensions of sexual immorality on the basis of the twoness of the sexes
00:12:47.740 --> 00:13:04.939
Robert Gagnon: that are anatomically, physiologically, even psychologically, each other's sexual counterpart or complement, so that when you bring together a man and a woman, a male and a female, the only 2 sexes that got intentionally designed.
00:13:05.160 --> 00:13:08.570
Robert Gagnon: then you create a sexual whole
00:13:08.600 --> 00:13:27.499
Robert Gagnon: right. 2 halves of the sexual spectrum unite to form a single whole. A third party, then, whether concurrent or cereal, is neither necessary nor desirable, because you've already brought together a holistic sexual union. So while Jesus didn't explicitly mention homosexual practice
00:13:27.640 --> 00:13:33.550
Robert Gagnon: because it would have been absurd for him to do so. Given the fact that no Jew and
00:13:33.560 --> 00:13:45.030
Robert Gagnon: early first century Palestine, or within centuries or or after that time period in Palestine, was advocating for homosexual practice, let alone doing it.
00:13:45.320 --> 00:13:48.930
Robert Gagnon: There's simply no reason for Jesus to spend any time on that.
00:13:49.000 --> 00:13:57.239
Robert Gagnon: How many times have you heard, Andy in a sermon? Or have you ever given a certain where you
00:13:57.750 --> 00:14:21.159
Robert Gagnon: made clear that sex between a person and his or her parents is immoral? Have you ever heard of all sermon on that subject. I have not. I have not offered that sermon yet, but I'll take the challenge if you want. I'm really concerned about you, Andy, because what that tells me about you is you do not think a parent child incest is a problem
00:14:21.160 --> 00:14:36.220
Andy Miller III: because you've never really devoted to servant to it. You must, you must have. I can only conclude, some secret acceptance, for instance, is this true? And you got me? You got me.
00:14:36.220 --> 00:14:56.430
Robert Gagnon: That is not the case. I just want to be clearing. Somebody takes that. Let us establish that Andy is not, for instance, okay, good. Not even for an adult consensual union. Right? Oh, they'll be, of course. That's the interesting question, isn't it? Yeah, that's so. So obviously, we're being facetious here, listening to us. Clearly, my point here is
00:14:56.500 --> 00:15:03.449
Robert Gagnon: sometimes in frequency of mention. is an indicator of the severity
00:15:03.600 --> 00:15:09.770
Robert Gagnon: of the wow. Right? Yeah. Because you don't want to scandalize the church.
00:15:09.990 --> 00:15:12.019
Robert Gagnon: and especially young people.
00:15:12.330 --> 00:15:20.280
Robert Gagnon: Even talking about it, even in a way rejecting it to some extent contributes to normalizing it.
00:15:20.310 --> 00:15:25.939
Robert Gagnon: So you don't do it unless there's a crisis in the culture over accepting it.
00:15:26.060 --> 00:15:54.859
Robert Gagnon: So genius is not going to address homosexual practice in the context of early first century Judaism in Palestine, where nobody is questioning it. Everybody accepts it, and there's no record of anybody doing it within centuries before and after the life of Jesus. It's simply not appropriate. It's just. It's a alarming, scandalizing thing, right from the very beginning. That's why we don't talk about even in this now, because the very mention of man, mother, incest
00:15:54.860 --> 00:16:06.339
Robert Gagnon: or daughter. Father incest he is. Wow! That is shocking. You not realize he was in the congregation here? You don't realize that just even prohibiting you already putting the idea. And somebody said.
00:16:06.410 --> 00:16:21.489
Robert Gagnon: but that's why Jesus doesn't address it directly. Instead, he deals with the very foundation of sexual ethics in Genesis, one that establishes the impossibility of any homosexual unions. That means all homosexual unions for Jesus.
00:16:21.490 --> 00:16:37.850
Robert Gagnon: or an assault on the very foundation of creation that establishes the basis for sexual ethic principles which Jesus can then extrapolate secondarily from that foundation. Take incest that we just mentioned. Why is it just wrong?
00:16:38.660 --> 00:16:44.630
Robert Gagnon: Sunday? Go to a cocktail party, Andy, and just draw out that question. You know. Why not have sex with you? Care?
00:16:44.910 --> 00:17:08.130
Robert Gagnon: I do that at an event at Wesley Public seminary. I am sure I can say I have witnessed the event. I am sure that you will stop. Conversation called. We will be looking at Andy. Oh, my goodness, and and and the reason for that is well, you know, people be shocked. It'll be hard for them to initially to explain why
00:17:08.250 --> 00:17:25.639
Robert Gagnon: the initial explanation that they're going to give is because it's your parent right. It should be obvious to you if I have to explain to you why incest is wrong, an irreducible minimum and sexual ethics. Then, Houston.
00:17:25.640 --> 00:17:49.670
Robert Gagnon: they pick it out in the space program. We have a problem, right? Because everybody should be able to intuit. But that's also a reason why it's hard to give a good rational explanation, for why in this is wrong. You know that in Leviticus, 18, where it introduces the issues of incest. and then other sexual ethic concerns. Starting in Leviticus, 18 6, it actually gives us the implicit reason why
00:17:50.050 --> 00:17:53.260
Robert Gagnon: incest is wrong. You shall not have
00:17:53.300 --> 00:17:57.300
Robert Gagnon: sex with the flesh of your own flesh.
00:17:57.470 --> 00:18:02.560
Robert Gagnon: H. Somebody who is, too, in this, in terms of structural organization
00:18:02.820 --> 00:18:05.579
Robert Gagnon: of who you are
00:18:05.620 --> 00:18:08.970
Robert Gagnon: you? You are already too much that person.
00:18:09.110 --> 00:18:16.199
Robert Gagnon: We want to have sex with too much of the same. Not enough complimentary otherness, we would say scientifically today.
00:18:16.260 --> 00:18:20.149
Robert Gagnon: Not enough differentiation in the.
00:18:21.460 --> 00:18:23.939
Robert Gagnon: There's got to be a kinship otherness.
00:18:23.980 --> 00:18:28.919
Robert Gagnon: And and so if that's what's wrong with incest.
00:18:29.100 --> 00:18:41.259
Robert Gagnon: too much formal embodied identity with the individual with whom you're having sex. Not enough complimentary otherness. Why would homosexual practice be wrong?
00:18:41.490 --> 00:18:42.380
Andy Miller III: Yeah.
00:18:43.620 --> 00:18:52.349
Robert Gagnon: too much identity. The same thing. You're on a level, even more important for sex than kinship, which is, namely, sex itself.
00:18:52.770 --> 00:19:04.650
Robert Gagnon: Yeah, tender itself right? And so it it's it's clear in that basis. Why is insist wrong incest is extrapolated as wrong, based on a principle
00:19:04.760 --> 00:19:10.750
Robert Gagnon: already in Wisconsin, Genesis 1, 2. As to why homosexual practice is wrong.
00:19:11.670 --> 00:19:24.799
Robert Gagnon: Homosexual practice is wrong, because God created 2 sexual counterparts or compliments that moderate each other's each other's extremes and fill in the gaps of an individual sex.
00:19:25.970 --> 00:19:37.980
Robert Gagnon: Same sick union. You're being erotically aroused by all what you already essentially are. and atomically, physiologically and psychologically. as though you were not
00:19:38.170 --> 00:19:41.489
Robert Gagnon: so. You are only half your own 6.
00:19:41.890 --> 00:19:52.110
Robert Gagnon: So there is. Again, it establishes the principle that sexual unions involves intercourse between embody complements or counterparts.
00:19:52.870 --> 00:19:57.880
Robert Gagnon: and it's like on that basis that we can extrapolate it principle that incest is wrong
00:19:58.440 --> 00:20:16.439
Robert Gagnon: because there's too much identity here now, not on the level of sex, but on the level of kinship. So see what I'm saying here I'm trying to make here is that the prohibition of homosexual practice, or the flip side? The affirmation of a male female requirement for sexual ethics
00:20:16.720 --> 00:20:19.129
Robert Gagnon: is not, or Jesus.
00:20:19.470 --> 00:20:21.639
Robert Gagnon: or anyone else in Scripture
00:20:22.130 --> 00:20:28.739
Robert Gagnon: nearly one sexual offense, among others that are all basically equal
00:20:29.010 --> 00:20:31.340
Robert Gagnon: right. It is
00:20:31.440 --> 00:20:39.520
Robert Gagnon: the foundation for everything else that follows, and the basis upon which every other sexual ethics standard
00:20:39.590 --> 00:20:47.810
Robert Gagnon: is derived. So that when we get rid of this, it's like Andy, it's like it'd be like pulling the floor out from under where you're sitting right now.
00:20:47.890 --> 00:20:51.750
Robert Gagnon: Yeah, you got nothing left to to hold you up.
00:20:52.530 --> 00:20:59.869
Robert Gagnon: and that's why this is so. That is why the issue of homosexual practice is so central
00:21:00.380 --> 00:21:05.230
Robert Gagnon: to the Church's witness right now. because getting rent
00:21:05.340 --> 00:21:12.730
Robert Gagnon: the rejection of that, or getting rid of the affirmation of a male female foundation for sexual unions
00:21:12.750 --> 00:21:20.440
Robert Gagnon: is getting rid of. Even if people don't realize it automatically. it's getting rid of all sexual ethics, standards.
00:21:20.610 --> 00:21:34.519
Robert Gagnon: there is nothing left. If this one doesn't hold, they all fall like dominoes. We may not be logically consistent to make that connection. Eventually we will. But but we, the point is
00:21:34.640 --> 00:21:39.659
Robert Gagnon: logical consistency would lead to the elimination of all of the standards.
00:21:39.700 --> 00:21:50.250
Andy Miller III: So this is interesting. It's just on this, podcast a few weeks ago I had somebody come on and and highlighting the work in 3 denominations, the Salvation, Army, attrition, and the United Methodist church
00:21:50.250 --> 00:22:15.149
Andy Miller III: and one of the people who represented the Progressive side. I was trying to give them an opportunity to speak, and I couldn't help myself. I had to jump in a little bit, and I ended up saying one thing and and the the person on the other end. The the progressive voice accused me of making a slippery slope argument, and and I wish I would have come this earlier. But I said, No, this is that we are. We are already there there is. This isn't as we're not skiing down a slope. We're cross country scheme.
00:22:15.150 --> 00:22:16.640
We can see it around us.
00:22:16.640 --> 00:22:28.099
Andy Miller III: There is no slope like what you're saying, like the the elimination of any other type of prohibition against any other sexual action will be gone
00:22:28.360 --> 00:22:32.300
Robert Gagnon: right. You could eliminate in such. You couldn't eliminate polyamory.
00:22:32.350 --> 00:22:57.859
Robert Gagnon: because those, both of those standards, the standard of only 2 in a sexual union and the necessity of complementary otherness on the part of the participants is all derived from the male female foundation for sexual ethics which automatically eliminate some sexual practice. So you're absolutely right. People do argue as if there is a slippery slope, so that by approving homosexual unions we're going to get something worse.
00:22:57.960 --> 00:23:03.479
Robert Gagnon: Yeah, yeah, we've already done the worst in terms of it, though
00:23:03.570 --> 00:23:14.670
Robert Gagnon: consensual human relationships into human relationships. There are other forms of sexual practice that are words that say adult, child sex.
00:23:14.740 --> 00:23:23.620
Robert Gagnon: or moving outside the human species. But other than those 2, when you're dealing with adult consensual
00:23:23.750 --> 00:23:26.899
Robert Gagnon: entry, human sexual activity.
00:23:27.100 --> 00:23:30.140
Robert Gagnon: there is, in the biblical view of things.
00:23:30.150 --> 00:23:42.060
Robert Gagnon: nothing worse than homosexual practice, precisely because homosexual practice assaults the very foundation of sexual ethics, and that makes it worse
00:23:42.270 --> 00:23:48.660
Andy Miller III: because everything else to us with it that you've already leapfrogged over to get to the bottom of the hill.
00:23:48.690 --> 00:24:17.990
Andy Miller III: Yeah, you're exactly right. And one of the things we deal with in in working in seminary education. And you've been a a a theological educator for years is that sometimes people come in with what I call more of a folk theology about the nature of sin, suggesting somehow that all sins are equal. But you've kept using the same language worst and like one of the things we have to help people see is there's differences of degrees and results of sin as well and as a as like a Biblical scholar. I mean, that's that's something in this. So basically
00:24:17.990 --> 00:24:20.390
Andy Miller III: right in the text for us to be able to evaluate.
00:24:20.660 --> 00:24:46.659
Robert Gagnon: You know, there was one occasion I was debating a lawyer on this question. It's actually got to be a TV show, but it's never made. It never made it beyond the initial stage. But it was, gonna be a controversial issues and have lawyers of both sides and theologians on both sides, and it was about a pizza issue whether or not you'd have to sell pizza for a gay wedding, and So the lawyer was trying to humiliate me over my claim that all sins are equal.
00:24:46.760 --> 00:24:58.399
Robert Gagnon: because that was his claim all since recall. And of course he was thinking of license, and so if we were going to call him a sexual practices in it wouldn't be anywhere. Send them, for example, let me.
00:24:58.490 --> 00:25:06.909
Robert Gagnon: you know, or or it may be a of a leading bleeding acquies since the sexual temptation.
00:25:07.180 --> 00:25:20.249
Robert Gagnon: And so then I made the comparison with incest, and he got outraged. Oh, that is so horrible! How can you say this is like incest? And I thought you, said I. I responded and said, I thought you said all soon as equal.
00:25:20.550 --> 00:25:33.960
Robert Gagnon: It wasn't for him. He says it was really bad, and he was out, and I would compare homosexual practice to it. So that just goes to show he didn't operate under a principle that all of his equal, and, in fact, who could.
00:25:34.010 --> 00:25:39.769
Robert Gagnon: who can actually act that way. Why, when Moses is coming down the Mount Sinai, God said.
00:25:39.800 --> 00:25:54.889
Robert Gagnon: Go down because Israel is committing with the golden calf a great sin. Well, how can it be? A great set up all soon as equal? There, there, there! There's no meaning to the great sin, if all
00:25:54.920 --> 00:26:05.810
Robert Gagnon: you know, you shouldn't get any more worked up over this over an argument that took place between 2 Israelites when they left teaching over whose property this particular element, once it's all equal.
00:26:05.880 --> 00:26:13.290
Robert Gagnon: but nobody thinks that nobody believes that even in sexual ethics nobody believes that. Look at the culture we accept.
00:26:13.340 --> 00:26:19.109
Robert Gagnon: We condone remarriage after divorce, even a valid invalid divorce, right?
00:26:19.390 --> 00:26:23.990
Robert Gagnon: But we don't yet accept or approve of officially. Yeah, although we will.
00:26:24.110 --> 00:26:28.869
Robert Gagnon: Polyamorous relationship, my partner, concurrent unions. Why is that?
00:26:29.230 --> 00:26:32.170
Robert Gagnon: I would suggest, because we think that's worse.
00:26:32.290 --> 00:26:46.179
Robert Gagnon: Yeah. And accommodation in the area of remarriage after divorce serial. Polygamy is not as bad as accommodation to concurrent polygamy. And we still would be sex with your parents or adult child.
00:26:46.220 --> 00:26:47.260
Andy Miller III: Right?
00:26:47.330 --> 00:26:56.070
Robert Gagnon: So we do have a graded hierarchical scale. not only of since generally, but of sexual offenses.
00:26:56.220 --> 00:27:21.219
Andy Miller III: and everybody in the illegal sense, not just in a Biblical sense. Okay, I wanted to make sure to get I I we will get to your argument about gay weddings from first grin since 5. I want it. But I want you to tell a story that it's made it a deep impact on me, and as it relates to, as you're kind of like laying out the groundwork for a Biblical view, and why it's so important, based upon creation, you, do I? I I heard your story with Bill Loader, where you were in a debate
00:27:21.220 --> 00:27:29.390
Andy Miller III: with him, and he gave you a point, and I think you don't know what I'm talking about. can you tell us that story?
00:27:29.630 --> 00:27:55.610
Robert Gagnon: Yeah, there was a a society Biblical Literature national meeting, and in Baltimore, and One of the set sessions was on his recent book on the New Testament and Sexuality. He's got about 80 pages there, and I'm his chief dialogue partner. So I was there in the panel. This is before the gay lesbian bisexual, transgender, queer hermeneutic session.
00:27:55.610 --> 00:28:12.500
Robert Gagnon: right? Which one didn't belong in that session. That would be me everyone else on the panel identified as gay or lesbian. Just me I Bill Loader. I don't think I identifies as such, but of course he was affirming the Lgbtq
00:28:12.860 --> 00:28:24.589
Robert Gagnon: ideology. But he's a good enough New Testament scholar that he recognizes that Scripture. No great protagonist, positive protagonist and Scripture would support
00:28:24.870 --> 00:28:40.970
Robert Gagnon: homosexual unions, even entered into a committed same sex union when they were not supported, and he even acknowledged that for Jesus, because I made this point in my paper presentation to what he had written, the few areas where we still disagree.
00:28:41.230 --> 00:28:46.259
Robert Gagnon: And I think everyone in the audience, because basically, the whole Lgbtq crowd
00:28:46.420 --> 00:28:58.390
Robert Gagnon: was expecting Loader to make mincemeat of me. And instead, what they found out is basically, we agree in most instances about how to read the Biblical text
00:28:58.470 --> 00:29:05.209
Robert Gagnon: on homosexual practice. So he got up. And he, he basically acknowledged that he said, I I agree with Dr. Gagnon that
00:29:05.420 --> 00:29:07.740
Robert Gagnon: Jesus would not have accepted
00:29:07.840 --> 00:29:12.059
Robert Gagnon: any form of homosexual union committed or otherwise.
00:29:13.120 --> 00:29:24.859
Robert Gagnon: And I'm thinking to myself, if this is the hill you want to die off great, you know, because, he he he added, you know that that Jesus simply had insufficient knowledge
00:29:24.890 --> 00:29:26.770
Robert Gagnon: to make that determination.
00:29:27.100 --> 00:29:31.880
Robert Gagnon: And I'm thinking, oh, my goodness! Well, you know I save your lord. Clearly
00:29:32.340 --> 00:29:51.039
Robert Gagnon: he thinks the male female prerequisite is the foundation for all sexual ethics based in a citation on Genesis 127, followed by Genesis 2, 24. Man. It comes to a woman to become one flesh. Clearly Jesus thinks that this is of central significance, and if our Lord
00:29:51.750 --> 00:29:54.819
Robert Gagnon: can't accurately tell us
00:29:55.340 --> 00:29:59.860
Robert Gagnon: what is of central significance in sexual ethics.
00:30:00.400 --> 00:30:02.670
Robert Gagnon: and we've got a bigger problem.
00:30:02.730 --> 00:30:05.090
Andy Miller III: I use your of my sexual practice.
00:30:05.120 --> 00:30:06.569
Robert Gagnon: That is, that is.
00:30:06.620 --> 00:30:11.810
Robert Gagnon: we have the problem of how in what sense can Jesus be, Ward?
00:30:11.960 --> 00:30:22.929
Robert Gagnon: That's right. We simply shouldn't be paying attention to him at all. If he's that far wrong, that what he considers the foundation of sexual, I think, in fact, should be, should be the opposite
00:30:23.020 --> 00:30:24.270
Andy Miller III: right right
00:30:24.380 --> 00:30:53.789
Andy Miller III: then just acknowledged you. This is not, or for you anymore at that point, right? It. It's really saying that you, Jesus, what had insufficient knowledge, which is a nice way, saying, or Jesus was wrong. So like, that's the foundation for understanding the apostolic witness. This is also the understanding for thinking about the nature of like. Why, even the New other New Testament writers would deal with this. And so you make a really helpful argument, I'll say, as we as we get into rather not a faithful Christian should attend a gay wedding.
00:30:53.820 --> 00:31:21.380
Andy Miller III: I've I've made an argument for this in the past, and your article helped me and challenge me that I've not made the best argument, and I won't tell you what my argument is first, but I love how you bring in first Corinthians 5. This is a key text for using out this. And and thankfully, you've already built the case for incest. But there's the situation with the incestuous man. Tell us how that applies, and is a good analogy for rather not, we should attend a gay wedding
00:31:21.720 --> 00:31:34.079
Robert Gagnon: right? So in first Christians 5. All deals with the case of sexual immorality going on in court. And then they say, man who is having a sexual relationship with his stepmother, we don't know anything else beyond that about it.
00:31:34.140 --> 00:31:50.150
Robert Gagnon: about exactly the specifics of that relationship. Nor do we need to. Nor did even all need to, because obviously, when Paul heard about this, that they were tolerating this case of egregious sexual and morality.
00:31:50.450 --> 00:31:51.790
Robert Gagnon: He hit the roof.
00:31:52.450 --> 00:32:05.080
Robert Gagnon: He just could hardly believe it that this would be the case that anybody could approve of such a thing as this as the Church in the church, and such an irreducible minimum of sexual ethics.
00:32:05.250 --> 00:32:11.419
Robert Gagnon: And it's clear that Paul wants that relationship to have stopped yesterday.
00:32:11.580 --> 00:32:12.400
Andy Miller III: Yeah.
00:32:12.790 --> 00:32:20.630
Robert Gagnon: imagine some imagine the Corinthians arguing something similar to the issue of homosexual practice. Oh, you don't get it.
00:32:20.760 --> 00:32:24.229
Robert Gagnon: They want to make this a committed.
00:32:24.530 --> 00:32:27.400
Robert Gagnon: loving per minute.
00:32:27.500 --> 00:32:34.439
Robert Gagnon: monogamous relationship. Surely that will change your perspective right?
00:32:34.620 --> 00:32:42.390
Robert Gagnon: I mean, if they they would argue that Paul probably just draw his hands, I mean. Yet this community, as Paul said.
00:32:42.600 --> 00:32:46.080
Robert Gagnon: was puffed up or inflated
00:32:46.220 --> 00:32:50.720
Robert Gagnon: with pride over their ability to tolerate this relationship.
00:32:52.360 --> 00:33:04.660
Robert Gagnon: and how they believe that now this relationship? Why is this a good analogy? Because we've already established the reason why insist is wrong. even between consenting adults
00:33:04.850 --> 00:33:09.119
Robert Gagnon: in a committed, loving, long-term, monogamous union
00:33:10.080 --> 00:33:14.210
Robert Gagnon: is the same reason why homosexual practice is wrong.
00:33:14.740 --> 00:33:30.419
Robert Gagnon: and it's the it's the standard set by the prohibition of homosexual practice that sets the standard for the rejection of incest, which, while regarded as extremely severe among sexual offenses, is still not as severe
00:33:30.440 --> 00:33:38.120
Robert Gagnon: as the issue of homosexual practice, because incest does not violate the foundation of sexual ethics directly
00:33:38.970 --> 00:33:49.890
Robert Gagnon: the prohibition of incess is extrapolated secondarily from the male female prerequisite or prohibition of homosexual practice. That's why
00:33:50.140 --> 00:33:58.720
Robert Gagnon: that's why, when you deal with the incest text and Leviticus, 18 and 20 have lots of commands, but lots of commands about insects don't indicate insects is worse.
00:33:58.730 --> 00:34:01.559
Robert Gagnon: but rather more difficult to prescribe.
00:34:01.760 --> 00:34:08.860
Robert Gagnon: You gotta define the boundaries and borders of what incest is what would be allowable, what wouldn't be
00:34:09.260 --> 00:34:12.280
Robert Gagnon: at, whereas with regard to homosexual practice.
00:34:12.360 --> 00:34:17.029
Robert Gagnon: all you have to do is give a signal command, because it's all wrong yeah. Period.
00:34:17.040 --> 00:34:29.820
Robert Gagnon: Now you get the patriarchs participating in some is what would later be regarded as ancestor, was at Abraham, married to his step sister half sister rather than that. That's it. Half sister
00:34:30.820 --> 00:34:34.349
Robert Gagnon: Jacob married to 2 sisters simultaneously.
00:34:34.739 --> 00:34:44.950
Robert Gagnon: There's a way to be regarded as violation of Levitical incest law, but that comes after the patriarchal period. So you have a sort of
00:34:44.960 --> 00:34:52.500
Robert Gagnon: some degree of fluidity where the loopholes are closed off at later stages, but still relatively early
00:34:52.639 --> 00:34:54.299
Robert Gagnon: in the Mosaic period.
00:34:55.150 --> 00:34:58.680
Robert Gagnon: Then I would ask people, what about homosexual practice?
00:34:58.820 --> 00:35:00.650
Robert Gagnon: When was the loophole.
00:35:01.060 --> 00:35:09.769
Robert Gagnon: hey, Andy? Yes, a trick question. Where was when was the loophole for homosexual practice closed off in Scripture
00:35:10.340 --> 00:35:14.170
Andy Miller III: there was never a loophole.
00:35:14.630 --> 00:35:31.439
Andy Miller III: It's like is this, I often use the language from our our method that we use for hermeneutics. we we encourage students to look at the canonical dialogue. You know, like how different voices speaking in progressive revelation. But I say in in this issue, it's a monologue.
00:35:32.270 --> 00:35:35.399
Robert Gagnon: Yeah, exactly and and and and
00:35:35.510 --> 00:35:39.699
Robert Gagnon: now not a trick question, but relevant to our discussion
00:35:39.800 --> 00:35:42.469
Robert Gagnon: is, when did the loophole
00:35:42.500 --> 00:35:43.540
Robert Gagnon: for?
00:35:43.750 --> 00:35:45.900
Robert Gagnon: polygon is
00:35:46.650 --> 00:35:48.889
Robert Gagnon: ie. Female polygamy
00:35:48.930 --> 00:35:55.390
Robert Gagnon: male male polygamy with multiple females. When did that loophole get closed up?
00:35:55.720 --> 00:36:10.560
Robert Gagnon: Well, for certain, Jesus closed it off. But maybe there's something earlier. That's right. Jesus is the one or Christians who close up that loophole. Actually, the essence did also close it off slightly earlier. Well, about a century century and a half earlier
00:36:10.610 --> 00:36:24.200
Robert Gagnon: for their devotees. The essence associated with Dead Sea scrolls, very rigorous observers of the Mosaic law. I thought that the Pharisees were wimps when it came to observing that law, and and they closed off the loophole or polygamy
00:36:24.290 --> 00:36:39.190
Robert Gagnon: on the basis of Genesis, 127 mail and female, they created them. Same principle. Ge. This would operate with a century century and a half later. Now, my point of all that is simply saying the later the principle. Here is the later the loophole is closed off.
00:36:41.110 --> 00:36:44.670
Robert Gagnon: the less severe the offense.
00:36:44.780 --> 00:36:46.630
Robert Gagnon: so the fact that
00:36:46.730 --> 00:37:00.850
Robert Gagnon: polyamorous relationships are not closed off to a later period the new covenant period for Christians a little bit earlier than that for just one small segment of Judaism. But for most of Judaism not closed off until much later than the time of Jesus
00:37:01.420 --> 00:37:13.419
Robert Gagnon: indicates. It's a less severe offense than incest where the loopholes are closed up relatively early in the Mosaic period, but not completely in the patriarchal period.
00:37:13.730 --> 00:37:29.619
Robert Gagnon: Right? And, as you're quite rightly noted with regard to homosexual practice, they never, never was a loophole from the Creation text and genesis 1, 2 on. That's again, another indication that homosexual practice is not just the equal
00:37:29.640 --> 00:37:40.350
Robert Gagnon: of incest in terms of severity. It's worse. So we go to the first grid in 5 and look at this. We shouldn't say, well, that might not apply, because incest is worse. No, it's the other way around.
00:37:40.390 --> 00:37:52.460
Robert Gagnon: Homosexual practice is worse than incest, and if Paul is so hot under the caller about the incest. even involving a fine relationship, that is, does not a strict blood relationship
00:37:52.490 --> 00:37:54.540
Robert Gagnon: between the man and his stepmother.
00:37:54.860 --> 00:37:58.510
Robert Gagnon: so it's not even the worst for
00:37:58.680 --> 00:38:00.609
Robert Gagnon: it's just on the outlier
00:38:00.850 --> 00:38:14.830
Robert Gagnon: I, I, you you know, I make sure you would never get close to crossing into the boundaries of actual blood. Close blood relation incest. So we're going to cover the borders even with legal incest relationships.
00:38:15.030 --> 00:38:16.820
Robert Gagnon: Okay? I mean.
00:38:16.860 --> 00:38:30.160
Robert Gagnon: only a fine relationship. You're not actually related to the person in question. But you you're in the slot or somebody that's related in a legal basis here in this case, as his mother, or specifically his stepmother.
00:38:30.170 --> 00:38:43.280
Robert Gagnon: so we don't call the he still identifies as incest, even though in it there is a technical sense that it's not
00:38:43.370 --> 00:38:51.719
Robert Gagnon: and incest itself even in its most severe forms, is not as severe as homosexual practice. Yet Paul still hits the room.
00:38:51.760 --> 00:38:59.370
Robert Gagnon: that there could be any sort of tolerance of this behavior. Right? So what is Paul recommended this chapter? He recommends that they
00:39:00.050 --> 00:39:01.290
Andy Miller III: church discipline.
00:39:01.680 --> 00:39:10.759
Robert Gagnon: church discipline, what we no longer practice. You put him out of the community. That means he cannot participate in the Eucharist
00:39:11.000 --> 00:39:21.310
Robert Gagnon: in the common meal, celebrating price redemption of you. Now, Paul's not assuming that he's not a believer. He's questioning whether this guy is a genuine believer.
00:39:21.350 --> 00:39:25.270
Robert Gagnon: He refers to him as a person who calls himself or brother.
00:39:25.370 --> 00:39:33.899
Robert Gagnon: Later he gives an analogy about a genuine believer with Christ in him, and first Grithians, 6, 12 to 20, about
00:39:34.020 --> 00:39:40.040
Robert Gagnon: seeking sex with a prostitute. There he makes clear that analogy is talking about a genuine believer
00:39:40.050 --> 00:39:43.789
Robert Gagnon: in whom Christ and dwells, making it all the worst.
00:39:43.970 --> 00:40:01.730
Robert Gagnon: not better, but worse. I mean, that's like having sex and moral sexual intercourse, not outside the temple, but on top of the arc of the Covenant and the holy of holies, which is even worse. Same thing. It's you, and dwells you as your believer. Your sexual immorality is not better. For that reason it's worse.
00:40:01.740 --> 00:40:19.270
Robert Gagnon: because in a odd, perverse sort of way, you're bringing God into it in a one flesh sexual union. So later, in the second half of first grade in 6. Paul is assuming it's making an analogy with it genuine. Believe it so effectively, saying, I don't know whether this guy who's having sector this stepmother is a genuine believer or not.
00:40:19.800 --> 00:40:23.620
Robert Gagnon: but irrespective. This guy is going to hell.
00:40:23.940 --> 00:40:32.239
Robert Gagnon: Wow! And instead of celebrating your ability to tolerate this case of egregious and morality.
00:40:32.430 --> 00:40:36.290
Robert Gagnon: you should be doing what people normally do at a funeral.
00:40:36.570 --> 00:40:52.660
Andy Miller III: Hmm, yes, yeah. Shouldn't you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship. This man who has been doing this exactly because everything is at stake with this person, not just their loss of like, not the loss of life in this world
00:40:52.840 --> 00:40:56.039
Robert Gagnon: but their eternal loss of light in the next.
00:40:56.170 --> 00:41:11.930
Robert Gagnon: So that's why Paul gives this to vice or offender list at the end of Chapter 5. You're not to associate with such a person identifies himself as a believer, not even to eat with such a one. And then he takes that same vice list.
00:41:12.310 --> 00:41:23.160
Robert Gagnon: and he gave it the end of chapter 5 and chapter 6 versus 9 to 10. He reiterates it, adding 3 sexual offenses, including men lying with a male
00:41:23.350 --> 00:41:29.580
Robert Gagnon: and soft men, men who actively feminize themselves to attract male sex partners
00:41:29.900 --> 00:41:44.309
Robert Gagnon: among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. So clearly. This is what he believes about the ancestors. Man, you're tolering a form of behavior that could lead to his permanent exclusion from the kingdom of God, irrespective
00:41:44.510 --> 00:41:52.640
Robert Gagnon: of whether he identified or whether he is a genuine believer now or not. This is his fate. You cannot
00:41:53.270 --> 00:42:08.060
Robert Gagnon: in any way endorse that kind of behavior because it leads to their eternal destruction. Now I will grant you that first Corinthians 5. Does not a directly address the question of attending an
00:42:08.180 --> 00:42:19.179
Robert Gagnon: right? Right? I can see this point. but I simply want to ask people based on Paul's remarks and for its Corinthians. 5. What is the likelihood
00:42:19.700 --> 00:42:24.800
Robert Gagnon: that Paul would accept any rationalization
00:42:24.950 --> 00:42:39.919
Robert Gagnon: on the part of the Corinthian believers that they should attend such an ancestral wedding that solemnizes before God and and sexual behavior that is abhorrent to God.
00:42:40.610 --> 00:42:45.389
Robert Gagnon: and which could lead to that person's exclusion from the kingdom of God forever.
00:42:46.090 --> 00:43:01.029
Robert Gagnon: What is the likelihood that Paul would say, you know that's a that's a Romans. 14 issue. He's all right to so great. Let's pray about it. Let's see whether you know, is it okay to attend an ins to his wedding.
00:43:01.180 --> 00:43:03.449
Andy Miller III: I I would be willing to
00:43:03.460 --> 00:43:09.210
Robert Gagnon: hazard the supposition that today even Christians
00:43:10.260 --> 00:43:17.070
Robert Gagnon: like Timothy Dalrymple or Christianity today, like Preston, sprinkle like a Andy Stanley
00:43:17.100 --> 00:43:21.160
Robert Gagnon: like focus on the family if you ask them the question.
00:43:21.760 --> 00:43:26.660
Robert Gagnon: would you attend a wedding between your sibling
00:43:27.850 --> 00:43:29.580
Robert Gagnon: and your father or mother?
00:43:29.840 --> 00:43:33.500
Andy Miller III: Wow! And I'd be willing to guess
00:43:34.280 --> 00:43:36.199
Robert Gagnon: I'm going to go on a limb here.
00:43:36.290 --> 00:43:38.700
Robert Gagnon: and I'm going to say they would not
00:43:38.970 --> 00:43:39.860
Andy Miller III: right.
00:43:40.020 --> 00:43:45.509
Robert Gagnon: And why then, would they attend. Well, one thing, a gay wedding.
00:43:45.780 --> 00:43:48.689
Robert Gagnon: but not attend the other. The ancestor is running.
00:43:49.270 --> 00:44:16.950
Andy Miller III: Wow! This is such a great argument, Robert. I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention, and I think that we can point back to this regular, to, to to be able to help people see that the case of incest really is a helpful analogy for us to confront contemporary issues. Now let me tell you my argument, which isn't a bad one, and you you started to get there a little bit is that? And maybe it just becomes a I'm not a Biblical scholar, and more of a theologian or historical person, and in that
00:44:16.950 --> 00:44:24.310
Andy Miller III: I I look at it as a liturgical issue, like I've thought, Well, the no matter what happens. This is something that's done before God.
00:44:24.310 --> 00:44:39.849
Andy Miller III: and there is a liturgical element in both the ceremony and the celebration that the the body is affirming, and and rather not the liturgy says it or not generally the liturgy will. Does anybody object to the this marriage? It gives
00:44:39.850 --> 00:45:03.840
Andy Miller III: the opportunity for the congregation to ascent to it, or to ensure, or in turn show their agreement? Or if there's any celebration that happens in a party dancing, raising a drink, or rather, or not, is there? Of course, if not an alcoholic drink if I, Wesley Biblical Seminary? but if there, if you have this like, if you're in that situation, or even writing that
00:45:03.840 --> 00:45:15.119
Andy Miller III: congratulations Facebook message to somebody who's recently been married. so that's been my argument. And I I guess you wouldn't disagree with that. But I like yours better of going first.
00:45:15.120 --> 00:45:24.769
Andy Miller III: the first Corinthians? 5. What do you think? What is it that's happening in a wedding, though, like, what are we doing? I mean, people would say, Oh, Robert, these are just my friends. I want them to know I love them.
00:45:25.380 --> 00:45:46.390
Robert Gagnon: Yeah. And and the argument made it a great argument. I use that argument. Also, it's a different. It's just a different kind of argument the incest analogy. Just simply that it's analogical reasoning. Here's is an analogy. Would you do it in this case? No, you wouldn't. Why? And it's a reason why. It's because they recognize. And this is really bad, because we've been so
00:45:46.390 --> 00:46:05.750
Robert Gagnon: saturated with approving gay relationships in the culture of people who endorse attending a gay wedding, but not an in sister's writing, are doing so because they don't regard homosexual practice any longer to be even as severe as incest, when, in fact, the scriptural perspective on the issue is not only is it as bad. It's worse.
00:46:05.890 --> 00:46:12.019
Robert Gagnon: Yeah, but you're absolutely right about the nature here. This is not simply eating at somebody's home.
00:46:12.110 --> 00:46:18.889
Robert Gagnon: We're not talking here about you. You can't eat with somebody, or or even a person who
00:46:19.050 --> 00:46:35.830
Robert Gagnon: who claimed to be married in a same sex and the same sex union in in their home. You can pronounce with them in various sorts of ways. But yeah, be welcoming the all that that's right be welcoming in various sorts of ways. But a wedding is something different altogether.
00:46:36.050 --> 00:46:45.599
Robert Gagnon: A wedding is a ritual before God, in which those who are present are present as witnesses of that union.
00:46:45.660 --> 00:47:00.290
Robert Gagnon: You're essentially they are investing themselves in the retention in the long term permanence of that Union. You're there, not only witnessing to it. You're there to say I'm covenanting with you
00:47:00.650 --> 00:47:05.160
Robert Gagnon: to do what I can to make sure that this relationship lasts.
00:47:05.380 --> 00:47:16.939
Robert Gagnon: Yes, I will be a help in that, not a hindrance. But I will be a help. What is going on in a wedding? Well, 2 people are committing themselves in a sexual union
00:47:17.270 --> 00:47:21.690
Robert Gagnon: to a remain in that union for the rest of their lives
00:47:21.720 --> 00:47:30.829
Robert Gagnon: come whenever they they may. Now, when you take in a moral sexual union. and you try to convert it into a wedding ceremony.
00:47:31.130 --> 00:47:36.749
Robert Gagnon: Then the 2 partners are, or more, if it's polyamorous, are committing
00:47:37.090 --> 00:47:40.609
Robert Gagnon: to continue to engage in abhorrent
00:47:40.970 --> 00:47:53.809
Robert Gagnon: sexual activity a sexual activity. April to God for the rest of their life. I'm going to commit myself to doing this, which is also committing themselves never to repent of doing it right.
00:47:53.970 --> 00:48:06.090
Robert Gagnon: That's what makes it so severe. That's why you can't. A Christian can't possibly go there and participate. They're great presence.
00:48:06.430 --> 00:48:11.400
Robert Gagnon: Whether or not they know it. Whether or not they've said anything to the couple otherwise
00:48:11.530 --> 00:48:14.709
Robert Gagnon: is there to affirm the Union.
00:48:15.400 --> 00:48:23.769
Robert Gagnon: Otherwise don't be present. Right it. if you know, think of. Think of what you have to. You've mentioned some things you have to do at a wedding.
00:48:24.760 --> 00:48:36.890
Robert Gagnon: I have an older daughter that got married this past summer. Yeah, completely joyous occasion. I delivered the homely. It was loads of fun from the beginning, because I was so happy
00:48:37.160 --> 00:48:45.200
Robert Gagnon: that my daughter had found this great guy, both them thoroughly committed to the Lord, I mean, we were just so rejoicing throughout the whole thing.
00:48:45.940 --> 00:48:49.690
Robert Gagnon: How can you go to a wedding and not rejoice
00:48:49.840 --> 00:49:05.160
Robert Gagnon: right? It's simply not possible at any point. The whole point of the wedding is to celebrate the union of these persons, and there are various ways in which that's manifested you mentioned. It's not just that the wedding ceremony itself.
00:49:05.340 --> 00:49:24.910
Robert Gagnon: it's it's also the actor, part of the wedding, right? You're toasting to the couple, etc. you're dancing not at all weddings. I a lot of Christian writing, don't accept dancing my in-laws so future. Well, I said, there'll be no dancing at the wedding. So we didn't have any dancing at the wedding.
00:49:25.060 --> 00:49:31.199
Robert Gagnon: and but that's okay. You know, everyone has a different perspective of that. Whether there is dancing or not.
00:49:31.320 --> 00:49:49.060
Robert Gagnon: It's celebration. That's the whole light motif of the entire occasion. Right? And what are you gonna do? Everyone's applauding when the you know the bride and groom are leaving after the service, you know, when you go to the reception line, when you have to say, Oh, that was so lovely. Well, I mean.
00:49:49.170 --> 00:49:57.679
Andy Miller III: yeah, everything's an affirmation of the wedding right? Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry
00:49:58.260 --> 00:50:04.410
Robert Gagnon: if this is a blood relation. I would be crying the whole time. They don't want me to, and then be tears of joy.
00:50:04.440 --> 00:50:08.590
Robert Gagnon: I would be depressed, crying, upset for
00:50:08.770 --> 00:50:11.020
Robert Gagnon: somebody I love committing
00:50:11.190 --> 00:50:20.560
Robert Gagnon: herself to a relationship that could lead to the exclusion of the kingdom of God permanently. How can I possibly be happy in an occasion like that? Right?
00:50:21.020 --> 00:50:23.200
Robert Gagnon: So they shouldn't even want me there.
00:50:23.430 --> 00:50:36.309
Robert Gagnon: if that's gonna be my attitude towards it. The only way I could be there is by some may participating in the celebration and affirming my role as both a witness and as a guarantor of the long term survival of that relationship.
00:50:36.320 --> 00:50:43.500
Robert Gagnon: that I cannot do rituals totally different things. So what is the parallel in First Corinthians to that kind of ritual.
00:50:44.650 --> 00:50:46.180
Robert Gagnon: there actually is a parallel.
00:50:46.410 --> 00:50:48.470
Andy Miller III: We find it in first protein's 8,
00:50:48.620 --> 00:50:50.430
Robert Gagnon: and in first Corinthians 10.
00:50:50.630 --> 00:51:02.259
Robert Gagnon: It's over the question of whether or not you can eat idle me in an idols. Temple. Oh, interesting! Yes, yes, yes. Now, now, granted, this involves idolatry.
00:51:02.540 --> 00:51:03.440
Robert Gagnon: not
00:51:03.580 --> 00:51:11.589
Robert Gagnon: sexual immorality that Paul is always connecting those 2 things, one on the vertical level, the other on a horizontal level.
00:51:11.870 --> 00:51:24.649
Robert Gagnon: Romans 1, 18 and 32 is a classic example. Idolatry is a classic expression of the suppression of the truth about who God is readily accessible in the material structures of the created order
00:51:24.820 --> 00:51:26.670
Robert Gagnon: still visible in nature.
00:51:27.600 --> 00:51:36.499
Robert Gagnon: What is what is sexual and morality which she pinpoints primarily homosexual practice in Romans 124 to 127, immediately following the indictment of idolatry.
00:51:36.750 --> 00:51:43.609
Robert Gagnon: That is one thing, it's suppressing the truth about the way God made us.
00:51:44.470 --> 00:51:46.990
Robert Gagnon: a truth readily apparent
00:51:47.110 --> 00:51:51.730
Robert Gagnon: in the material structures of our human bodies, right
00:51:51.990 --> 00:52:04.760
Robert Gagnon: which I have to have to have to have to actively suppress in order to approve them. Right? So it's it's the perfect horizontal correlation to the vertical dimension of why the idolatry is wrong.
00:52:05.520 --> 00:52:08.799
Robert Gagnon: So why is going to an idols temple wrong?
00:52:09.000 --> 00:52:32.599
Robert Gagnon: You're in the ancient world. The the idols. Temples are the restaurants of antiquity. So if you're celebrating a bur of a love of a child, you're celebrating a wedding. You're celebrating a business deal, whatever it is you're celebrating. Chances are you're going to invite the people, you know, and love you to send invitations to them, and it's going to be held at an idols temple.
00:52:33.210 --> 00:52:47.589
Robert Gagnon: because the Me. First gets funneled to the idle in sacrifice, and then some portions of that are left for the celebrations. So where Paul says, you know what you can eat, idle me in other venues.
00:52:47.860 --> 00:52:55.310
Robert Gagnon: and your own home privately or in somebody else's home. If nobody raises the question about where this meet came from. Right.
00:52:55.830 --> 00:52:59.059
Robert Gagnon: But you can't go to an idols, Temple, and you, Disney.
00:53:00.060 --> 00:53:18.499
Robert Gagnon: because that's part of a larger set of virtual activities involving a pagan god. And when you do that you're even if you don't know it, you're essentially covenanting, not with pagan gods, because they don't have reality. But with the demons behind those unreal pagan gods.
00:53:19.060 --> 00:53:25.579
Robert Gagnon: Yeah. And Paul gives us great rhetorical question, you're not stronger than God, are you? Okay? So
00:53:25.590 --> 00:53:32.860
Robert Gagnon: of course not right. You don't want to pee. Tip got off, because if the big man comes down he'll wipe you out. It doesn't take an I and do that.
00:53:33.370 --> 00:53:37.819
Robert Gagnon: That's what's happening in the ritual of a same sex wedding.
00:53:38.940 --> 00:53:46.029
Robert Gagnon: You're involving yourself in a covenant activity that is absolutely abhorrent to God.
00:53:47.050 --> 00:53:54.219
Robert Gagnon: And the worst form of sexual events imaginable among consenting human adults.
00:53:54.360 --> 00:53:55.100
Andy Miller III: Hmm!
00:53:55.230 --> 00:54:00.709
Robert Gagnon: There is no way that you can do that, and God is going to step aside, and that's not going to be a problem for God.
00:54:01.240 --> 00:54:11.809
Robert Gagnon: Paul would have issued the same remark if they had been an ancestor's wedding with the ancestors manic, or that his stepmother, he would have issued the same remark, you're not stronger than God, are you
00:54:11.900 --> 00:54:22.909
Robert Gagnon: right? So you can't do that. So even if you could some people on argue? Well, first of all. the the ancestors man claims that he's a believer. What if it's with the unbelievers?
00:54:23.100 --> 00:54:28.159
Robert Gagnon: It's the same thing you're going to an idols Temple, celebrating with an unbeliever
00:54:28.210 --> 00:54:35.859
Robert Gagnon: who is invited you to the Temple. The fact that he is an unbeliever doesn't make it acceptable for you to go to that ritual occurrence.
00:54:36.080 --> 00:54:38.360
Robert Gagnon: that solemnizing and event
00:54:39.460 --> 00:54:50.279
Robert Gagnon: that is abhorrent to God, offensive to God and connecting yourself with I develop his forces. That's what's happening also in an a moral sexual union of this order. Wow!
00:54:50.510 --> 00:55:08.340
Andy Miller III: This is so helpful. And you think about the argument as a whole, just as you're saying, all this moving through from first screens in 5, through 6, then 8 and 10. But I I'm also looking even in, I think, in a first Corinthians. 5. The giving over to the accuser, giving over to Satan the destruction of the body then leading to the the
00:55:08.340 --> 00:55:24.929
Andy Miller III: climax of first grin, the first Corinthians, 15, the nature of the resurrection of the body. And and then that's based upon Jesus's resurrection, just shows the importance of our bodies. And Christopher West, who, you know, we are really thankful to have you at our conference this past February
00:55:24.930 --> 00:55:32.020
Andy Miller III: on rather not. This represents a human sexuality as a matter of an essential or dogma, and Christ for West. He has a great book in the title of his book.
00:55:32.020 --> 00:55:47.880
Andy Miller III: describes as well. I think you might have been a part of that. So at least quoted in there our bodies tell God's story. Our bodies are describing this reality. Oh, this is so interesting a narrative exactly of God's story of God's redemptive
00:55:48.010 --> 00:56:06.360
Robert Gagnon: created and God's creation and reductive work in our lives. And what we do with our bodies. Absolutely. Man is. Paul makes his point at the end of first grade and 6 right when he rejects any possibility of a Christian man having sex with a prostate where it might be. Well, that's really bad. I can understand why it rejects that.
00:56:06.380 --> 00:56:14.250
Robert Gagnon: But Paul regards that is creating a one flesh union, even though it's it, it has the least personal investment involved in it.
00:56:14.610 --> 00:56:17.180
Andy Miller III: right? Because it's a material transaction
00:56:17.200 --> 00:56:43.730
Robert Gagnon: to something that you're paying in a person for that it's not an actual relationship. But even that relationship, Paul says, involves the body holistically in an act of sexual immorality where you're becoming one flesh with another person in a moral sexual union, while your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit that is in you, and that you don't belong to yourself. So you're already one spirit with Jesus.
00:56:44.010 --> 00:56:50.999
Robert Gagnon: And now you're taking that one spirit union, and you're uniting it in a one flesh and moral sexual union.
00:56:51.730 --> 00:57:00.090
Robert Gagnon: Outrageous. Yes, absolutely, that's right. It is right. Every other bit, every other sin, by comparison.
00:57:00.500 --> 00:57:04.570
Robert Gagnon: could be called as soon outside the body a little bit of hyperbole, but more or less.
00:57:05.060 --> 00:57:13.299
Robert Gagnon: But this is a said holistic sin against the body, which is the temple of the spirit that is in dwelling you. You are bought with a price
00:57:13.450 --> 00:57:27.839
Robert Gagnon: by Christ atoning debt. You don't belong to yourself. You don't own your body, you can't do whatever you want with your body, because your body belongs to the Lord. And, by the way, you quite rightly noted, you move. In chapter 5.
00:57:28.680 --> 00:57:30.520
Robert Gagnon: The chap is 8 to 10
00:57:31.110 --> 00:57:37.559
Robert Gagnon: to Chapter 15. They're involving a doctrinal issue. And let's add to this chapter 13.
00:57:37.740 --> 00:57:43.500
Robert Gagnon: Oh, yeah, sure, the hem of love. They love that that that Paul gives right?
00:57:43.610 --> 00:57:52.799
Robert Gagnon: So we can't say that Paul, in writing this letter to the Corinthians, really doesn't know about log adequately right.
00:57:52.920 --> 00:57:56.500
Robert Gagnon: If he did, he would support attending a gay wedding
00:57:56.700 --> 00:58:05.199
Robert Gagnon: support, attending an ancestors. Wedding support, intending going to an idols Temple. So long as you don't acknowledge that the idols are real.
00:58:06.870 --> 00:58:08.090
Robert Gagnon: all doesn't do that.
00:58:08.530 --> 00:58:10.110
Robert Gagnon: He knows a lot
00:58:10.450 --> 00:58:16.570
Robert Gagnon: better than anybody else today. and the Evangelical communion are outside of it in the Church
00:58:16.610 --> 00:58:20.339
Robert Gagnon: who claims that the loving thing is to go to such a wedding.
00:58:20.810 --> 00:58:24.049
Andy Miller III: Paul knows what love is.
00:58:24.910 --> 00:58:32.819
Robert Gagnon: Love does not love rejoices in the true yes. Love has no participation in wrongdoing
00:58:33.120 --> 00:58:40.989
Robert Gagnon: right. So I can also talk in Second Corinthian 6 about not becoming partners, Poinonoi with unbelievers.
00:58:41.390 --> 00:58:53.490
Robert Gagnon: Yeah, right? You granted. Paul says right. You can't. You can't disassociate from all unbelievers who are more because all unbelievers are more by definition, and you'd have to be beamed up out of the world.
00:58:54.210 --> 00:58:57.580
Robert Gagnon: But that's not the same thing as becoming partners.
00:58:59.010 --> 00:59:06.249
Robert Gagnon: Poinonoi, with unbelievers in their activities, and that includes these ritual celebrations.
00:59:06.380 --> 00:59:10.920
Robert Gagnon: whether they be a false god, or whether they be a remote sexual unions.
00:59:11.160 --> 00:59:20.390
Robert Gagnon: You cannot become a partner with that kind of episode. Paul knows what love is, and he knows that his recommendation of church discipline
00:59:20.730 --> 00:59:35.429
Robert Gagnon: now clearly. By the way, let's recognize that if Paul is saying you're not even to associate with such a one, you can't be attending his wedding right by definition. Yeah, right? Because that's that's not only an association.
00:59:35.600 --> 00:59:44.380
Robert Gagnon: but it's a high caliber association with that individual in a ritual celebrating the very activity which is supposed to preclude your association with them
00:59:44.610 --> 00:59:55.680
Robert Gagnon: so clearly. Paul does not think there's no way. That's that's why I say, I mean, there's no way you can argue that Paul could have, even though he doesn't address the question of an ancestor is ready
00:59:55.770 --> 01:00:03.169
Robert Gagnon: given the fact that he says you can't associate with such a one. It's obvious what his answer would be to the question of whether you could attend an inches to his wedding.
01:00:03.410 --> 01:00:05.240
Robert Gagnon: Yeah, you clearly can't.
01:00:05.350 --> 01:00:10.339
Robert Gagnon: because you're not to associate with such a one. Right? So that that should be straightforward, right from the get-go.
01:00:10.540 --> 01:00:14.500
Robert Gagnon: Paul, is this still the same person in
01:00:15.550 --> 01:00:18.879
Robert Gagnon: who knows what love is. Yeah.
01:00:18.910 --> 01:00:25.450
Robert Gagnon: So never I. You talking to our audience here today never fall for the line
01:00:25.740 --> 01:00:28.159
Robert Gagnon: that if you're going to be loving.
01:00:28.460 --> 01:00:35.109
Robert Gagnon: and if you're going to have an opportunity for further missionary work with this person. You have to attend this wedding.
01:00:35.420 --> 01:00:37.600
Andy Miller III: Yeah, that is a lie.
01:00:37.810 --> 01:00:50.410
Robert Gagnon: Now, there are lots of other ways that we've noted, you can continue to associate with such a person if the person is an unbeliever. but attending a wedding, a ritual ceremony, celebrate the act that you absolutely
01:00:50.430 --> 01:00:58.850
Robert Gagnon: cannot do. Paul says there are plenty of other ways in which you can be loving. Remember what's happening if you give up at this point.
01:00:59.420 --> 01:01:01.009
Robert Gagnon: Let's say you have a child
01:01:01.170 --> 01:01:14.829
Robert Gagnon: identifies as Gay or Lesbian is getting married to a person like Crescent Sprinkle says you go to your kids wedding. That's right, right? Because he says if you don't, you might never see them again, and that will close up any further mission opportunities with them.
01:01:15.100 --> 01:01:16.730
Robert Gagnon: That is a bad argument.
01:01:17.100 --> 01:01:24.930
Robert Gagnon: because there are other ways in which you can show your love which don't involve you, and being complicit in the immoral sexual union.
01:01:25.210 --> 01:01:38.429
Robert Gagnon: which would be what was half would be, what would be happening if you attended that service. There are other ways in which you can show that if you were lent on this. you've established a principle to your child
01:01:39.090 --> 01:01:46.130
Robert Gagnon: that you are susceptible to manipulation and exportion. Wow! Because
01:01:46.470 --> 01:01:51.259
Robert Gagnon: if you don't come to my wedding. I will have nothing to do with you in the future.
01:01:51.610 --> 01:01:55.059
Robert Gagnon: Yes. Well, that argument, if you can see to that.
01:01:55.300 --> 01:02:05.299
Robert Gagnon: you've essentially said. You know what our relationship is not equal here, right? Because you can make these kinds of extortions and manipulative employees on me.
01:02:05.370 --> 01:02:11.799
Robert Gagnon: Okay. And I always have to bend to you that my own values mean nothing to you.
01:02:12.700 --> 01:02:23.940
Robert Gagnon: Right? Right? We're not going to establish a relationship. I don't care how much I love you. We cannot establish a relationship of that order where my values, which are set by God
01:02:23.990 --> 01:02:29.960
Robert Gagnon: and by my Lord Jesus Christ, are entirely negotiable. If they offend you.
01:02:30.430 --> 01:02:41.829
Robert Gagnon: You are not in more important than my lord. I love you, I give up my life to you. but I am not going to violate the will of my God and Savior. Wow!
01:02:41.920 --> 01:02:50.069
Robert Gagnon: You are not that important, and I'm not dissing you by saying that I'm just saying you're not my Creator.
01:02:50.150 --> 01:02:56.669
Robert Gagnon: Why not my Redeemer, and I cannot apostasize for your sake.
01:02:56.700 --> 01:03:05.610
Robert Gagnon: Wow! But if you can see on the wedding, you've established the point that your values before the Lord, come second
01:03:05.620 --> 01:03:07.900
Robert Gagnon: to your child.
01:03:08.520 --> 01:03:18.510
Robert Gagnon: and that automatically sets the stage for the future, that they can continue to manipulate. You continue to extort you until you finally
01:03:19.080 --> 01:03:22.250
Robert Gagnon: reneg on the whole principle
01:03:22.440 --> 01:03:24.040
Robert Gagnon: of sexual, I think
01:03:24.930 --> 01:03:28.860
Robert Gagnon: intentionally design. This is male and female.
01:03:29.520 --> 01:03:33.390
Robert Gagnon: Can you do that? You can't do that as a believer right
01:03:33.980 --> 01:03:39.259
Robert Gagnon: when we think of it in these terms, Andy, isn't it amazing
01:03:39.740 --> 01:03:50.389
Robert Gagnon: that any Evangelicals would say, This is a Romans? 14 agree to disagree matter of indifference, ethical issue, and you can do what you want.
01:03:51.030 --> 01:03:51.870
Andy Miller III: Yeah.
01:03:52.140 --> 01:03:57.219
Andy Miller III: I I if you leave an open Scripture.
01:03:57.920 --> 01:04:04.380
Andy Miller III: I I I just appreciate your willingness to say this clearly, and that's what I've appreciated about your scholarship
01:04:04.380 --> 01:04:27.940
Andy Miller III: in in general. It's like we have to have have the willingness to say something that is hard. I I want your your colleague at Houston. Christian University, a. My old professor at Jerry Walls, who I really admire and appreciate. You know he also has a way of speaking clearly on a number of issues. but he, he! He! Together in Friday night with our other friend David Barackett.
01:04:27.960 --> 01:04:38.439
Robert Gagnon: movie nights fellowship with each other, Craig. Oh, it's just great! He should put a video camera on of those of you guys together. That'd be fun.
01:04:38.450 --> 01:04:41.290
Andy Miller III: I can't. I can't even like 3.
01:04:41.440 --> 01:04:53.519
Andy Miller III: I love it. And boy, moral philosophy! There you go. But let me, you know he, Jerry Wall, says the interesting thing. He wondered if the reason Christians aren't willing to speak out on this issue
01:04:53.900 --> 01:04:57.090
Andy Miller III: is because of the sin of fornication
01:04:57.130 --> 01:05:14.259
Andy Miller III: like. And and I think there's something to that? Because and that is, you know, any any sex sexual activity outside of marriage, so pre marital sex in that in that case, and that that's one example. So I think there's something to that that that weakens us, but that we you've said it a few times.
01:05:14.390 --> 01:05:28.790
Andy Miller III: and in thinking of Jerry Walls as the doctor of health as well like that this could lead. This obstinates, this willful choosing. To reject God is the type of character. Tra, that if it's not handled, could lead to somebody.
01:05:29.110 --> 01:05:42.779
Andy Miller III: moving to a place of eternally rejecting God like it. Eternal damnation is so so, in a sense, as Cs. Lewis, as God would say to you to the individual, that I will be done eternally.
01:05:42.900 --> 01:05:55.189
Robert Gagnon: That's right. And if that gets at an important reason why Christians so frequently twice the white flag on this issue. And it's because we all have our own sexual sins.
01:05:55.230 --> 01:06:04.969
Robert Gagnon: if only in our thought life right so much harder to manage one's thought life than it is one's actual physical, outward, concrete behavior.
01:06:05.210 --> 01:06:09.080
Robert Gagnon: And so we all have a certain amount of guilt, especially men
01:06:09.100 --> 01:06:13.389
Robert Gagnon: with regard to sexual ethics, because it's a struggle.
01:06:13.520 --> 01:06:22.050
Robert Gagnon: It's a constant struggle with our dark life. And we look at the adultery of a heart statement that Jesus makes and about, we say, Oh, you know.
01:06:22.070 --> 01:06:24.820
Robert Gagnon: And then we feel like we can have a voice
01:06:25.080 --> 01:06:41.730
Robert Gagnon: on sexual ethics. And and, in fact, then we try to give ourselves an exemption, because if we give an exemption to the issue of homosexual unions, or at least to accommodating at another level to the extent of attending a gay wedding. Then we get a pass
01:06:41.840 --> 01:06:49.859
Robert Gagnon: for what we do which exonerates us in our. The only problem is, it's sort of like a mutual human agreement
01:06:50.210 --> 01:06:54.790
Robert Gagnon: to exonerate each other. But we're overlooking the judge
01:06:54.840 --> 01:07:00.230
Robert Gagnon: overall, create a greater Redeemer of the universe who isn't participating
01:07:00.640 --> 01:07:07.730
Robert Gagnon: in this exoneration. That's taking place. I mean, it's a wonderful iteration party, but God, who gets the invitation doesn't attend.
01:07:09.370 --> 01:07:14.789
Robert Gagnon: He sets the standard, and it doesn't matter whether we give each other a pass.
01:07:15.830 --> 01:07:19.670
Robert Gagnon: There is no moral goodness
01:07:20.740 --> 01:07:23.760
Robert Gagnon: to to be more consistently
01:07:23.800 --> 01:07:32.859
Robert Gagnon: disobedient to the will of God. Has the Church made some accommodations on sexual activity that it should not have made. Yes.
01:07:33.430 --> 01:07:45.730
Robert Gagnon: Does that mean that we should extend the people extending those accommodations to even more severe offenses, so as to be more consistent in our disobedience of the will of God. There's no value to that.
01:07:46.050 --> 01:07:50.539
Robert Gagnon: Yeah. God doesn't want us to be more consistently disobedient to Him.
01:07:50.940 --> 01:08:12.950
Robert Gagnon: He wants us to move more, recognizing our inconsistencies because we are still in dwell by sin. God wants us to continue to hold the line in places that we're holding the line and then move more consistently to extend that line in other areas where we have been compromising and should not have been
01:08:13.120 --> 01:08:18.950
Robert Gagnon: so. Never person should never pull for the line. Well, we've already accommodated to divorce
01:08:19.040 --> 01:08:34.539
Robert Gagnon: a and remarriage. therefore we should continue to accommodate. Well, that overlooks several things that's not a virtue, they more consistently disobedient, and number 2. It overlooks the fact that some sins are more severe than others
01:08:34.640 --> 01:08:43.840
Robert Gagnon: right, and however bad remarriage after invalid divorce is, and it is wrong, and I've written about it. It is wrong.
01:08:44.250 --> 01:08:50.799
Robert Gagnon: It's still not as severe as Polyamory. It's still not as severe as incest.
01:08:51.090 --> 01:08:54.569
Robert Gagnon: and it's certainly not as severe as homosexual practice.
01:08:54.740 --> 01:09:06.089
Robert Gagnon: so compromising at one level. There's no logical correlation with that to compromising at an even greater level right? And that's what we would have to do here.
01:09:06.510 --> 01:09:31.749
Andy Miller III: And I appreciate you, brand and people can just Google you and find where you have spoken about divorce. And you. You said every time an invalid divorce I just want to highlight that some people might want to bring that up. I want to ask you one more question on this. I have 2 more questions altogether, but one more question. In this I think this will be a softball your way. But it is the argument that a lot of people have in our post modern times that that they face is, they'll say.
01:09:31.800 --> 01:09:35.630
Andy Miller III: Well, this is just your interpretation.
01:09:35.649 --> 01:09:46.640
Andy Miller III: Right? This is this is just, you know, the yeah. Yeah, you study for a long time. But but I, in all of my wisdom have a different interpretation.
01:09:46.850 --> 01:09:48.379
what's the problem with that?
01:09:49.060 --> 01:09:54.539
Robert Gagnon: Well, I do get that a lot. And let me tell you, as a professor
01:09:54.650 --> 01:09:59.509
Robert Gagnon: of New Testament. When people turn in exegesis papers.
01:09:59.890 --> 01:10:03.740
Robert Gagnon: I don't hold the view that everybody's interpretation is equal
01:10:03.880 --> 01:10:10.540
Robert Gagnon: right. If I did, I couldn't grade any ex Jesus paper right? Some people
01:10:11.410 --> 01:10:16.070
Robert Gagnon: just don't make a good argument for a position that they have. Now. By the way.
01:10:16.340 --> 01:10:26.229
Robert Gagnon: I once, when I was at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I was able to get away with this once. We're teaching course and Bible and homosexuality. I gave the top grade and a plus
01:10:26.290 --> 01:10:35.909
Robert Gagnon: to a Unitarian Universalist student who had an entirely different perspective on the issue. So I don't. I don't. Great people down for disagreeing with me.
01:10:36.840 --> 01:10:41.090
Andy Miller III: I great people down for not having good arguments. Okay.
01:10:41.210 --> 01:10:46.860
Robert Gagnon: either whether or not they agree with them. Right? I want to know. Did the person study the issue
01:10:47.200 --> 01:10:51.800
Robert Gagnon: and come up with good arguments, pros, and cons to address the matter.
01:10:52.070 --> 01:10:52.960
Robert Gagnon: and
01:10:53.450 --> 01:10:59.730
Robert Gagnon: not all arguments are equal. So if somebody comes up to me and says, Well, I have a different opinion.
01:11:00.060 --> 01:11:09.030
Robert Gagnon: All interpretations are equal, I say, well, even you don't believe that, and give you lots of interpretations about Biblical tags that you would say, well, that's ridiculous. Yes.
01:11:09.270 --> 01:11:24.619
Robert Gagnon: there is some things about the Bible that are difficult to understand, and the arguments are close growing, con. But there are a lot of other things that are pretty obvious, right? If you write to me and say that Paul is trying to persuade the Galatian converts to get circumcised
01:11:25.530 --> 01:11:38.470
Robert Gagnon: when, in fact, the whole, the letter is doing the exact opposite right right, and you claim that that first interpretation is the same as interpreting it e. It Galatians is meeting. Paul is trying to get them to reject circumcision.
01:11:38.520 --> 01:11:47.719
Robert Gagnon: Then I'm saying you you haven't read the tags. Study a little more carefully, so I would say to somebody is, if you think your interpretation.
01:11:48.690 --> 01:11:54.410
Robert Gagnon: for example, on the question of attending a gate, wedding is equal to the one that I just presented.
01:11:54.580 --> 01:11:59.199
Robert Gagnon: and then make the arguments and show me how the arguments are wrong.
01:11:59.530 --> 01:12:17.610
Robert Gagnon: Okay, up to this state I have not seen that right? You'd have to show how the analogy between in and homosexual practice is a bad analogy, when, in fact, I would argue, it's the best analogy, because it has the most points of substantive correspondence with the thing to which it is being compared.
01:12:17.800 --> 01:12:20.899
Robert Gagnon: In this case I'm a sexual practice with incest.
01:12:21.490 --> 01:12:23.839
Robert Gagnon: That's the definition of a good analogy.
01:12:24.020 --> 01:12:29.089
Robert Gagnon: Yeah, you bad analogical reasoning is when you prefer an analogy
01:12:29.630 --> 01:12:34.690
Robert Gagnon: that has fewer points of correspondence. So if you make the argument as some have, may I?
01:12:34.990 --> 01:12:43.580
Robert Gagnon: Your some of you are willing to attend a remarriage after a divorce, therefore you should be willing to attend a gay wedding.
01:12:43.650 --> 01:12:53.790
Robert Gagnon: Okay? Well, first of all. If the remarriage after the divorce was by a man who could, who divorced his wife because he was sleeping with another woman.
01:12:53.970 --> 01:13:01.720
Robert Gagnon: then wants to marry that woman after divorcing his wife, I would not be attending that ceremony first of all.
01:13:01.730 --> 01:13:04.300
Robert Gagnon: but even if somebody did a 10
01:13:04.360 --> 01:13:18.659
Robert Gagnon: such a ceremony, you would still be making the assumption that homosexual practice is no worse than remarried after tomorrow, and assuming that we, marriage after divorce is no worse than incest, and it's with marriage already, and no worse than a polyamorous wedding.
01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:25.419
Robert Gagnon: and nobody would argue that they recognize differences in degree of severity
01:13:25.450 --> 01:13:36.399
Robert Gagnon: and attending one less severe, though still wrong. Ritual event doesn't get you to attending a more severe wrong ritual event.
01:13:36.550 --> 01:13:46.260
Robert Gagnon: right? So that'd be an example where, if somebody brought that up as an analogy, I'd say, here's why your analogy doesn't work. And after I pointed that out, what are they going to come back with?
01:13:46.340 --> 01:13:47.790
Robert Gagnon: They got nothing. Yeah.
01:13:47.900 --> 01:14:02.419
Robert Gagnon: right. If if they wanted to argue to me that Paul would have approved such an attendance of a ritual ceremony of that egregious sort. Historically, it's a no brainer you would not have, and the same applies to Jesus.
01:14:02.590 --> 01:14:04.170
Robert Gagnon: since Jesus
01:14:04.680 --> 01:14:13.720
Robert Gagnon: regarded the male female requirement as the foundation of everything else, so you would have to argue, not only that Jesus would attend to gay wedding
01:14:14.120 --> 01:14:23.120
Robert Gagnon: that you this would have intended, and then sister, is ready, right? And he would have intended a polyamorous wedding, and we all know that he wouldn't have done those
01:14:23.720 --> 01:14:29.859
Robert Gagnon: so clearly. You would have no argument. So all interpretations equal not been my experience at life.
01:14:29.870 --> 01:14:55.970
Andy Miller III: Give me your best argument.
01:14:56.130 --> 01:15:00.650
Robert Gagnon: if you're if a person is attending a gate wedding, that person is telling me.
01:15:01.170 --> 01:15:18.889
Robert Gagnon: Certainly this person does not regard homosexual practice as a particularly severe sexual offense, not in the order, at least of in system polyamory, which they would not attend, a wedding ceremony for that they definitely telling me, and that they're already wrong
01:15:19.400 --> 01:15:27.130
Robert Gagnon: from a scriptural perspective, because they have failed to discern what you. This is defined as the foundation of sexual ethics.
01:15:27.630 --> 01:15:30.530
Robert Gagnon: Now, they're also probably telling me
01:15:30.840 --> 01:15:37.390
Robert Gagnon: something else that either they've already changed their mind about homosexual marriage.
01:15:37.930 --> 01:15:43.869
Robert Gagnon: or they headed very rapidly to doing so, and they just don't know it yet.
01:15:43.890 --> 01:15:58.040
Andy Miller III: which has been so obvious in with Andy Stanley. I mean I I I'm sorry to say, somebody I've looked up to, and I appreciate. It is, you know, particularly advice on leadership and church, you know, like the way that you think about the church reach out to community and people who aren't Christians.
01:15:58.040 --> 01:16:22.949
Andy Miller III: But now, unfortunately, there are definite reports where he said he would. He would marry his granddaughter if if if issues in a same sexual relationship, and the Andy Stanley would not Andy Miller just want to make that clear? And then the same thing is true, like where in another gathering, people have verified that he said that he would. that he's encouraged people who are in a homosexual relationship to get married.
01:16:22.950 --> 01:16:33.210
Andy Miller III: These these things are there. And sadly, this is something that we just have to work through on a regular basis. It you you mentioned the idea of like in the and and
01:16:33.210 --> 01:16:58.610
Andy Miller III: analogy, and making analogical arguments, and corresponding to something. I think this comes back to again like the epistemological concern of rather not truth corresponds with reality like, can we say that things indeed are true? And that's that. That's the conflict right? No, a. Every interpretation. I mean saying that every interpretation is the same is an interpretation. It's like the law of non contradiction.
01:16:58.820 --> 01:17:05.929
Robert Gagnon: That's right, exactly. I mean, it's an interpretation that when I put one foot after the other and walk.
01:17:06.070 --> 01:17:15.699
Robert Gagnon: I think gravity is going to keep me down. That's my interpretation right? I'm not going to fly up into the air or the the the ground, and then immediately swallow me up.
01:17:15.730 --> 01:17:38.800
Robert Gagnon: This is my interpretation of things, but it's an interpretation that's based deeply in reality right. And so some interpretations are based very strongly in the reality of the Biblical text of the Scriptural witness other interpretations not so much or not at all. So that's the issue that we have to pay. It's not all ambiguous, and if
01:17:39.070 --> 01:17:41.320
Robert Gagnon: we cannot recognize that
01:17:41.380 --> 01:17:58.379
Robert Gagnon: a male female requirement is the foundation for sexual ethics and Scripture, then I fear that such individuals have no understanding of Scripture across the board, because this is a pretty obvious one, and the only reason why we're changing up on that view is because of the forceful change
01:17:58.650 --> 01:17:59.919
Robert Gagnon: of the culture
01:18:00.540 --> 01:18:13.720
Robert Gagnon: which makes us feel bad makes us feel ostracized. They want to make us feel like bigots closes up opportunities for us in the world. People hate us. As a result of that we don't want any of that. I don't want any of that. I'm not a massacre.
01:18:14.290 --> 01:18:28.190
Robert Gagnon: but you can't rewrite Scripture. You can't change the words of our Lord. You can't make it be something other than what it is. And when you, when a person attempts to cover
01:18:28.420 --> 01:18:31.659
Robert Gagnon: in a stealth like passion, or to the Biblical text
01:18:32.150 --> 01:18:34.710
Robert Gagnon: and make what is
01:18:34.930 --> 01:18:36.880
Robert Gagnon: obviously it's all get out.
01:18:37.190 --> 01:18:44.730
Robert Gagnon: be an agree to disagree matter. We got a serious problem. These are people that are. Now, that is a slip result
01:18:44.820 --> 01:18:50.530
Robert Gagnon: that is, a sliding on the slope. In rejecting the lordship of Jesus Christ.
01:18:50.720 --> 01:18:53.949
Robert Gagnon: Any church. any denomination
01:18:53.970 --> 01:19:01.140
Robert Gagnon: that embraces homosexual unions. It's a denomination or church that has ceased to be
01:19:01.690 --> 01:19:04.180
Robert Gagnon: in any meaningful way
01:19:04.630 --> 01:19:09.000
Robert Gagnon: a valid representation of Christ to the world.
01:19:09.230 --> 01:19:14.020
Robert Gagnon: Wow! That's how basic it is. You cease to be a church in Jesus Christ.
01:19:14.960 --> 01:19:42.619
Andy Miller III: This is why Ponenberg and Thomas Odin, for instance, would say that this rises to level of dogma in Ponenberg. was quick to say that the United Church of Canada was no longer part of the Universal, the one wholy apostolic, Universal Church. And this is this, is that okay. I've I've taken more time than I asked from you. But I've certainly appreciate every second. I'm going to ask my question is this, I close with everybody. My podcast is called more to the story. So I'd like to know if there's more to the story, to Robert Gab than this normally told.
01:19:42.620 --> 01:20:11.960
Andy Miller III: And while I give you a chance to think about that, I just am so thankful that I had a chance. Some some of my audience, maybe, had never heard of you. Now I think that's a shame, but I am so glad that if this is the first time you've heard from Dr. Robert Gagnan that you heard about him. On my, podcast I'm honored by that because this is a voice, and this is that is needed in the life of the church needed in the scholi community, but also communicates with clarity and focus and prophetic intention and prophetic courage
01:20:11.990 --> 01:20:19.500
Andy Miller III: to our society. So I'm really glad that I've been able to introduce you to a few people today. So is there more to the story of Robert Gagnan?
01:20:19.680 --> 01:20:20.750
Andy Miller III: Something
01:20:20.860 --> 01:20:43.970
Robert Gagnon: I would hope so. yes. Well, I if I might also cut enough about me. Let's talk about my books, but you know I did want to put it a little bit of a please do, please do. If it's okay, because I'm I'm working on a I've done a 500 page book on on the Bible and homosexual practice. I've done a shorter 2 views book with a 50 page article, but as somebody on the other side
01:20:44.050 --> 01:20:50.810
Robert Gagnon: called homosexuality in the Bible to views I'm working on now this summer, but we get it done by early fall
01:20:50.860 --> 01:20:59.469
Robert Gagnon: a shorter 100 5,200 pages for me that short and for an updated treatment
01:20:59.540 --> 01:21:06.190
Robert Gagnon: on a Biblical and compassionate view on homosexuality and transgenderism.
01:21:06.210 --> 01:21:33.119
Robert Gagnon: And I intend this to be something you could give anybody into the pew in the pews to read, to look at what is the Bible I have to say about it. We'll also look a little bit about social scientific evidence, philosophical argumentation, and basically give a sort of small handbook to to give to people and say, this is the book you need to read in order to find out what Scripture has to say. There's some other books out there on the subject, and, my objective is to try to write a better one.
01:21:33.200 --> 01:21:52.419
Robert Gagnon: and they sort of arguments that I've given in other places, but in a more bite-sized kind of fashion, the kind of thing that I would give. If I gave, say, for example, a a weekend presentation on the Bible and homosexuality, this would be it. And I could just give that book so to people be looking for that to come out
01:21:52.420 --> 01:22:10.690
Robert Gagnon: sometime around 2024. Right now, I'm looking at perspective publishers, and it's gonna be a hard book to publish, because it's a very unpopular kind of book, and it's subject matter. So if you want to, if you think you would buy such a book from me after hearing this podcast here today, then
01:22:11.220 --> 01:22:14.429
Robert Gagnon: contact me you contact me on Facebook.
01:22:14.590 --> 01:22:34.499
Robert Gagnon: you could email me or contact me on Facebook, I have a I have a pinned post right at the beginning, not this book project, and simply like it, or hard it, or give a comment to it. I will put you on a I would just simply record. Here's another person to prospective publisher who'd be willing to buy such a book
01:22:34.520 --> 01:22:41.179
Robert Gagnon: on $25 or less for those who are worried about costs. That' be relatively short. So there's that
01:22:41.330 --> 01:22:48.409
Robert Gagnon: as far as me. what can I say? I'm just a guy. We started off as a pay again.
01:22:48.500 --> 01:23:03.129
Robert Gagnon: Actually, I started off as Roman Catholic, not as a started off as Roman Catholic I couldn't see the forest for the trees. I tried to date a young woman at the end of High school who happened to be a Christian.
01:23:03.280 --> 01:23:09.050
Robert Gagnon: She happened to be Baptist, by the way could have been a number of other denomination on. She's just a believer.
01:23:09.220 --> 01:23:24.770
Robert Gagnon: and long and short of it was, I began dating with her again, reading the Bible to impress her and her parents that I was a Christian, and in the course of reading the Gospels about Jesus I turned my life over to Christ, and I went to these schools like Dartmouth.
01:23:24.800 --> 01:23:32.570
Robert Gagnon: Harvard Divinity School, Princeton Seminary. and despite the fact that they tried to toward me, they didn't turn me?
01:23:32.670 --> 01:23:40.119
Robert Gagnon: Did I learn things? Yes, I learned things, but part of what I learned, and part of what I think. God, you to prepare me for this, for
01:23:40.300 --> 01:23:51.380
Robert Gagnon: in sexual ethics is, give me your best arguments. Give me your best shot about Scripture, but anything about Scripture, about God, about Christ. Right?
01:23:51.590 --> 01:23:53.499
Robert Gagnon: And I listen to them.
01:23:53.760 --> 01:24:00.329
Robert Gagnon: I developed my own understanding. I was critical. They taught me to be critical. I was also critical about them.
01:24:00.480 --> 01:24:01.709
Robert Gagnon: and at the end
01:24:01.810 --> 01:24:18.580
Robert Gagnon: they produced a product that hopefully God can use. I'm not intimidated by persons who aren't believers and not intimidated by people who teach at elite institutions. I would be happy to debate a whole host of issues, not just in sexual ethics.
01:24:18.580 --> 01:24:32.949
Robert Gagnon: but other issues with unbelievers. I don't care who you are. I don't care what place you teach at doesn't make any difference to me. If I'm adopting a position that I can't defend, then why am I retaining the position? So
01:24:33.070 --> 01:24:49.309
Robert Gagnon: I believe the positions that I hold. I hold them because they are the correct positions. I can be wrong on some things, but make your best argument. I look back at my past life and see how God has preferred me along the way to not just simply bend the knees to ball.
01:24:49.310 --> 01:25:04.099
Robert Gagnon: simply because the society has done it. Generally they be like Chadwick Michele. I bet you go be like Daniel when the idol comes, or whatever thread is being made. Don't bend the knee.
01:25:04.150 --> 01:25:11.929
Robert Gagnon: Trust God. give the Word of God in its undiluted form, which is what the whole apostolic witness is.
01:25:13.020 --> 01:25:17.779
Robert Gagnon: Love people. by sharing with them the
01:25:17.830 --> 01:25:23.959
Robert Gagnon: in a loving way. So that's who I am. Plus married. This woman that I started dating back in high school
01:25:24.120 --> 01:25:31.650
Robert Gagnon: all right. Have been married since 1,984. 2 lovely daughters love the Lord which I give God. Great bank!
01:25:31.820 --> 01:25:36.539
Robert Gagnon: Thanks! Am I perfect? As you well know, I am far from perfect.
01:25:36.590 --> 01:25:42.060
Robert Gagnon: but God is not through with me yet, and I still love to serve the Lord.
01:25:42.080 --> 01:25:51.750
Andy Miller III: I hope to do so to my dying last. Des. That's me in a nutshell. Oh, that is great. Well, thanks so much for sharing that and thanks for coming on the podcast it means a lot to me.
01:25:51.960 --> 01:25:54.360
Robert Gagnon: I'm so happy to be in this Podcast
01:25:54.770 --> 01:25:59.259
Robert Gagnon: love the people at Wesley Biblical Seminary. It's great institution.
01:25:59.940 --> 01:26:01.269
Robert Gagnon: that's all I have to say.