Biola University
Should Christians identify as gay? Is this a secondary issue that should not divide Christians, or is more at stake? Sean and Preston Sprinkle continue the dialogue from last week and focus on the question of whether homosexuality can be one part of Christian identity.
Preston Sprinkle is Biblical scholar, speaker, and the head of the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender. He is the best-selling author of multiple books including People to be Loved and He hosts the popular podcast Theology in the Raw.
Episode Transcript
Sean: Welcome to part two of my special conversation with Preston Sprinkle about some of the most pressing issues today tied to the LGBTQ conversation. If you missed it, last week we talked about how the conversation has shifted and the debate around preferred pronouns. This week, we go into depth talking about what's called gay identity. This is really dividing the church today. Should Christians with same-sex attraction refer to themselves as gay? Is this biblical? Is this wise? Is this permissible? Preston Sprinkle and I have a friendly debate where we dive into the weeds. And agree with me or agree with him, I think you'll find this interesting and you'll find this helpful. Enjoy the dialogue. Okay, so there's one question I want to ask you. I guess I gotta get the mic here. I've heard you explain yourself when speaking. You'll say I'm a white, male, Christian, heterosexual, cisgender or something like that. Correct me if I don't describe it—
Preston: I don't use cisgender as a term.
Sean: You don't say you're cisgender.
Preston: I don't like that term.
Sean: You don't use that language? So, tell me why not.
Preston: It assumes an ideology I don't agree with.
Sean: So, you don't describe yourself…I could have sworn I've heard you at a conference say I'm a cisgender.
Preston: If I did…I might have. I might have, but not in several years, because I don't—
Sean: Okay, I think it was at ETS a few years ago. I remember hearing you say that.
Preston: Yeah, so that would be something I'd change on
Sean: And I took issue with that, because I'm like, wait a minute, that language is implying that there's two ways—
Preston: And I wouldn't say white.
Sean: —and one is normative, and one is not.
Preston: Yeah.
Sean: So, you would not use the term cisgender, apart from explaining what it is.
Preston: Unless I…the closest I'd come is to say, “I'm a male who does not experience gender dysphoria.”
Sean: Okay, that's fine. Just for clarification.
Preston: Gender assumes an ideology about gender and an ontology about gender that I don't agree with. If somebody uses it to…I have people use it to me, I don't care, whatever. But I'm not going to self-identify.
Sean: Okay, fair enough. Issue number two.
[laughter]
Sean: Oh man, I'm like, going, it's lunchtime here. But this is important stuff. One is gay identity. And I've indicated that I've had a shift in this for me from just being willing to say, oh, you're gay, as long as you love Jesus and not involved in same-sex sexual behavior or promoting same-sex marriage, it's fine. But I do think there's ontology laden with that term that gives me serious pause in terms of referring to one as gay. I think that's, I mean, you can make the case—I know you're aware of this—that it's Freudian language, not biblical language. Tell us your position before we jump in, maybe just for clarity, on what you think about whether Christians can or should. Is it not wise? Is it just, like, morally wrong to do so? Should they do it? Is it an agree to disagree issue? Tell me what you think about it.
Preston: I would say if anybody who says they're a Christian has an identity that is not ultimately…or, let me reverse it, if their identity is not first and foremost in Christ and everything else flows from that, then I think that's a fundamental flaw, and it's going to lead to discipleship problems down the road. I think this applies to all of us. I think we all have important aspects of our life that will…they're often competing with our ultimate identity in Jesus Christ. For many people, not to get spicy, but their allegiance to a certain political party.
Sean: I was wondering when you were going to go there. [laughs]
Preston: Oh yeah, and I'll bring that up. Or even being in America, like, if I said, "Are you American, Sean?" You would have to say yes.
Sean: I’d say, "absolutely," to be honest.
Preston: Well, and that is a kind of identity.
Sean: Sure. I agree.
Preston: Now, can your American, lowercase “i” identity, hopefully, compete at times with your Christian identity? I think we all battle that. I do. Even as a—well, you're a professor. I used to be a professor. Being a pastor, I struggled with this, too. "Hi, my name is so-and-so. I'm a pastor.” I'm a husband, even. Like, we have important aspects of our life that should never take the throne of Jesus. They should all flow from that. If my American identity is at all in competition with my Christian identity, I have to choose Jesus over my American identity. So, when it comes to one's sexuality, 100%, if their sexuality, their sexual experiences, their sexual attraction, if that is in any way competing with their allegiance to Jesus, then I would say that is absolutely, fundamentally wrong. To answer what I think you're questioning, if somebody says, I am gay and I'm a Christian, I'm gonna say, if your gayness is taking precedent over your Christian-ness, then that is problematic. In a similar way, if I said I'm American…or, you might say, well, American's a neutral designation. Maybe if I said, my mom is divorced. If she says, are you married or single? What are you? Well, “I am divorced.” Well, that's an "I am" statement. There was some, maybe, sin wrapped up into that. So, that might be closer to the parallel. All the analogies are gonna break down, but yeah, if anybody says, "I am [fill in the blank]," and that is competing with your allegiance to Jesus, then that is problematic.
Sean: Okay, this is interesting and helpful, I think, for people to see. All of us agree primary identity should be in Jesus. And we have other things a part of our identity. I'm from California, like you said. I think the distinction you made is interesting about, is it a moral distinction, or not? So, I don't know if divorce is gonna get us to identify as gay.
Preston: It’s not a one-to-one parallel.
Sean: Because divorce is, presumably, not an ongoing sin that somebody is in, or saying, this is a good thing that I'm embracing. It's actually a broken thing that the person…nobody that I'm aware of says they're proud of that, unless they escaped some kind of terrible thing. It's usually like, I'm divorced. Yeah, that was painful. That hurt. I don't see that approach when it comes to gay identity, even if it's not claimed to be essential. There is a sense of pride, and I don't know if that's the best term for it, but there is a positive sense of, like, I own this. I'm leaning into this. And does that carry with it certain baggage that it's different to say it's competing with Christianity? I agree with you, my Americanism shouldn't compete with Christianity. But I don't think anybody has an issue with saying, this could be a subset of my Christian faith. But a gay identity competes with Christianity by its very nature. That's where I think the difference is, from the examples that you gave.
Preston: This part of the conversation is intrinsically connected to whether same-sex attraction is a sin.
Sean: That's right. Maybe we'll just cover them both.
Preston: Yeah, yeah. Maybe it'll weave in and out. There's five things I want to say at once. [laughs] Let me say, just quickly, I think people use the term gay in many different ways. I think it is a case-by-case basis. So, I don't want to make it categorical, like, everybody that describes themselves as being gay is doing it out of pride and intrinsically is opposed to a biblical worldview. I think, going back to the complexity of linguistics, I want to say, what do you mean by that term? 10 people use that term and mean eight different things, really. So, when someone says gay, I just take that, until they explain it more, as a synonym for being attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex. And that's going to open up right after.
Sean: It will, yeah.
Preston: Yeah. So, I'll try to explain this aside from that. Aside from how we understand same-sex attraction, if someone says they are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex, I don't think I can conclude right now that that is therefore their ultimate identity. Or even that they see it positively. I know some people, maybe a minority of people, but some people who might say, I'm gay. And it's kind of like, I'm not proud of that, wish I could change it. In fact, most people I know early on…Greg Coles talks about this a lot. He identifies as gay and a Christian, but he says, early on, it was horrifying. He talks about lying in his bed as a teenager, and, just, after years of realizing he's tempted more by men than women, saying out loud, I'm gay. And just horrified. He said his body just felt just terrified by that, because that was the worst thing that could be. So, even in that moment, if you want to take that as an example, there's an example where somebody said, I am gay, and it was not. It was this horrifying aspect that they were wrestling with. So, with the gay identity, I think there's so much diversity within how individuals are using it. I'm going to take an individual and sort of unpack, what do you mean by this term?
Sean: Okay. That's fair. And that's helpful, because people use it in a lot of different ways. Let me push back on this though, I think for clarity it might be helpful. You said on a case by case basis, when somebody says they're gay, you want to know what they mean, and you take it as same-sex attracted, at least initially. There is a very interesting exchange on your website between…I think it's Greg Coles and Rachel Gilson, and whether we should identify as gay. That is one of the most helpful back and forths that I've seen. And it seems like Greg takes more the position that you're taking, and Rachel's like, look, in the shared space of where I act—and she's with CRU on college campuses—gay doesn't mean same-sex attraction. This is my identity, and what comes with that is a sense that I'm open to a same-sex relationship. That's what it means. So, there might be some individuals who mean that differently, but I'd say, then don't use that term, because that's the shared space about how everybody assumes it.
Preston: I agree. 100%.
Sean: So, when a Christian says, I'm gay, that's going to lend towards…I have two problems with that. Number one is, it carries with it a certain sense of, this is a part of my identity. And should it be given what gayness may involve, and confusion with the culture over what gay is? So, I guess for me—I think Rachel pointed this out, and this is another shift in my thinking. There are individuals who'd say, I'm a gay Christian, but I don't practice it. I'm against same sex marriage. And for a while, I was like, awesome. We're redeeming the term. We have people who might open up the door for conversation. Now I'm going, no, don't define yourself that way at all, because our culture is going to go, wait a minute. You don't mean the same thing by this that I even mean by it. So, I think that's the problem. If you're assuming it means same-sex attracted, why not use same-sex attracted, especially, unless I'm mistaken about this, when the vast majority of people are not using it to refer to the same thing, at least outside of the church.
Preston: I don't know. Yeah. I think context certainly matters. I should have clarified that. I think there are certain contexts where if somebody is comfortable using the term gay, that they should not use the term gay because it could lack clarity. It could be misleading if the audience is hearing something you're not trying to communicate. Let me give two quick examples. So, I'll just use Greg as an example. Greg's a good friend of mine. I'm sure you've chatted with him before.
Sean: I've actually never met him.
Preston: You've never met him?
Sean: Nope. Seen him online, enjoyed his debate with James White. It was interesting. But anyways, keep going.
Preston: He wrote a book called Single Gay Christian. Going back to a point you made at the very beginning, Sean, it was endorsed by D.A. Carson.
Sean: [laughs]
Preston: Founder of the Gospel Coalition, back in 2018 before this was an issue.
Sean: That’s interesting.
Preston: And this is where Greg, and I would even say, I haven't shifted at all. I think people have shifted in their heightened concern for some of these things. Anyway, yeah. Celibate gay Christian. If he goes into a conservative church to preach, and he introduces himself, cold turkey, hi, my name is Greg. I'm a gay Christian. Now open up to Romans 1, and we're going to talk. That would be disastrous. You have just been very unclear, because if it's a very conservative church, all they're going to hear is, you affirm same-sex marriage, or you endorse a certain political ideology. They're going to have all the baggage that you kind of described that Rachel might encounter in her context. That term “gay” is going to miscommunicate what he's trying to say, and is going to put relational walls up and is going to be unhelpful. Now, same person, Greg. Say he's—I don't know if you've heard me use this illustration before—in Starbucks reading his Bible. He often reads his Bible in public places. He's a zealous Jesus follower. And say in walks a non-Christian gay person, and looks down and says, oh, reading the Bible, huh? You must be a Christian. And Greg says, yeah, I'm actually a pastor. And the guy says, well, must be nice. Unfortunately, I'm gay, so I can't be a Christian. And that's a very prevalent thing that if you're simply…
Sean: I've had that happen to me.
Preston: What would be more missiologically helpful? For Greg to say, oh, well, actually, I wrestle with the sin of same-sex attraction too? Or if he said, oh, I'm gay too? And what that person means is not necessarily...You're going to say, well, he means by gay, he means affirming same-sex. It depends. I think for a lot of people, they think simply by the fact that I'm attracted to the same sex, the Christian church and Christianity won't touch me. The Christian God wants nothing to do with me. And I am excluded simply because I'm attracted to the same sex. By Greg using the term gay, I would say that's more missiologically helpful to deconstruct that warped view that if you're same-sex attracted, you cannot be in God's favor, than if he uses a Christian term that's just not going to resonate with that. The guy's going to say, I don't know what you just said, but that's not who I am.
Sean: So, that's helpful. And I appreciate that your heart is missiological. If Greg's sitting there studying—I don't know him, it's hypothetical to me—and someone goes, I'm gay. I'd say, no, you're not. You have same-sex attraction. That's not who you are. You're a male made in God's image with dignity and value and worth, and you wrestle with sin like all of us do. Now, how I navigate that, obviously there has to be some wisdom given the context, but even that sense of like, I'm gay. I want to go, no, don't start there in terms of who you are. That's got to be clarified, in my mind. Now, missiologically speaking, I get emails on this. I got one two days ago. All the time. I know you do too. I mean, I kid you not, I think it was two days ago, somebody just said, "Read your books, follow your stuff, appreciate your tone, but I'm gay. There's no room in the church for me." I get that a lot. Now, if I'm sitting in this coffee shop and somebody says to me what you said, same-sex attraction for anybody aside, I'd say, thanks for sharing that. I'm a pastor. I'm a follower of Jesus. I would love to hear your story. What do you mean by that? How have Christians treated you? What makes you think that? Who do you think Jesus is? So, I think without giving up this game of, like, oh, I'm gay like you are, when we mean different things anyways, there's ways to missiologically lean in relationally without—I know you wouldn't use this term, so maybe it's loaded—compromising or potentially compromising. I know you wouldn't. Maybe that's not fair. But as I see it, potentially compromising clarity on what we mean by these terms and where identity roots. There's other, wiser ways to navigate that.
Preston: I think probably the main disagreement is that I don't see the term G-A-Y in the English language as necessarily in every case carrying the same ontological weight that I think you're assuming it intrinsically carries. I think...
Sean: You don't think most people view it that way? "I am how I feel.” You don't think the vast majority of shared space is, that's who I am?
Preston: But it means…even that, like, are you American? Are you a father? Are you a professor? I don't know if you've done...and this isn't...your colleague, Ryan Peterson, helped me out with this. In sociological studies, the whole concept of identity, it's so widely debated on what constitutes identity, how it's intrinsically tied to certain social contexts, the different...You know, he sent me an article as a definitive...Rogers Brubaker—he wrote a good book on trans, actually—wrote an article, a 30-page article on summarizing, just, the complexity of what we even mean by when we say the word identity. What does that mean? Is any “I am [blank]” statement an identity? Are there sub identities? Which one's primary? How do they relate? How many are socially derived? How many are ontologically immutable? To say the word G-A-Y in the English language is an identity, therefore, I'm like, oh, I just wanna pause a little bit and say, I think you might be assuming so much in that statement. This is why, rather than saying the term identity/not identity, I wanna just unpack, without even using that term, how high on the value scale is this term for your life? If my friend Greg Coles and several others are attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex, if they are going to experience a sexual temptation, it will be towards the same sex, maybe. And out of allegiance to King Jesus, they are dedicating their life to lifelong celibacy, when in a church we often kind of, like, elevate marriage and family to the place to where single people feel out of touch. When he's 75 years old and in the hospital, who's gonna visit? I mean, this is…
Sean: I get it.
Preston: So, if I say, Greg, you can't use the term G-A-Y because you're making this your identity. I think you would turn around with bewilderment and say, you think my ultimate identity is in my gayness? Why would I be living this radical life for Jesus if Jesus were not on my throne? So, for him, G-A-Y is just a synonym for the fact that he experiences same-sex attraction. If that leads to a sexual temptation, it will be towards the same sex, not opposite sex. Is that a fundamental part of who he is? It's there. Like our, you know, male, female, straight, same-sex attracted sexuality, it's not ultimate, but it's pretty important. I mean, every marketer in America knows that they can get things out of dangling sexuality in front of us. It's a powerful part of the human experience. We can't deny that. Could it get in the way of our relationship with Jesus? Absolutely, it can. Does it mean it's ontologically on par with our male and femaleness? I don't think it does. I would not put it on that same level.
Sean: Would you agree with, like, I'm an American, I could go get Mexican citizenship. Fine. I could shift my nationality, but within the narrative that's often pushed, to try to change at all is bad in itself. Because gay is understood as being fixed, and it's more central to who I am. Greg might not, but in the wider culture, that is the narrative we hear all the time. You can change your allegiance of which sports teams you support. I can change from a Californian to live in Idaho.
Preston: I don't think I could change my sports.
Sean: But I can't change my…
Preston: It’s more immutable. [laughs]
Sean: Fair enough. I could never vote—I'm so tempted to call it another private university that's our rival, but I won't. I could never vote for them. I am Biola, true and true. But we could, in principle, change those things. We're kidding. But we're told, you cannot change this, and you should not fix this. It's harmful. So, that very narrative that comes along with it implies that it might not be the ultimate, in the case of some people, but in the wider culture, this is a part of who you are. You better embrace it. If you don't embrace it, it's actually harmful to you. That's the Freudian idea, that it's actually sexual repression from conservatives or Christians who say, “That's not who you are.” You're harming me. You're causing me to commit suicide. So, it's not the same as these other examples. Whether it is for Greg, I don't know him. This is not about an individual. I know you’re just using it as an example, but we've got to look at this as a whole, and as a culture, and how it affects others. So, I don't think it's just a question of what's the central part of my identity—I think there's something different with our cultural moment as it comes to being gay. But then it also raises the question, even if somebody experiences same-sex attraction, should I claim that as a positive part of my identity, even if that's a fact that someone experiences that, or should I run from it? Now, hold that thought for a minute, because that comes back to whether or not we should embrace same-sex sexual attraction. Can I read you a quote about this, and we can just kind of unpack what it is?
Preston: Sure. I want to respond to what you said and not forget.
Sean: Do it before you forget. Go ahead.
Preston: Okay. First of all, I very much resonate with that. It's a culturally dominant perspective, especially among younger people, that our internal sense of who we are is ultimate, and our objective state is not. And I think that is really counterproductive. So, if reinforcing the use of this term is feeding into that, then I could definitely get on board with that being problematic. Kind of, like, with the pronoun thing, I think that there are cases when I think somebody saying they're gay will not be helpful, in other cases where it might be helpful or maybe it might be neutral. It is, again, more of a case by case, but I can almost see your point working the other way actually, because yes, there is this cultural concern, fear that the church is all about conversion therapy. You can't be same-sex attracted and be a Christian. The only way you can be a Christian is if you become straight. And so, they hear us avoiding the word gay at all costs and only saying same-sex attracted. The very term same-sex attracted came from the halls of conversion therapy. Like, I know several people where that term has, like, bad connotations to it. So, I think there could be linguistic confusion if we are so opposed to the term gay. I think a lot of people are going to just interpret that as, oh, see, I can't come to your church unless you convert me to being straight, which is like, well, that's not what we're saying.
Sean: So, let's come back when we talk about whether or not same-sex attraction is sinful, because it raises questions of, like, reparative therapy and how we deal with this. So, let me shelf that for a second. That's a really important piece of the conversation we need to come back to. So, this is a quote, and I mean, I somewhat hesitate to use it. I don't want to pick on individuals. Maybe you'll agree with it, but it just illustrates this point. Wesley Hill, in his book on spiritual friendship, has been clear about…and he's spoken here at Biola as part of a dialogue, which we…I think this illustrates, try to have conversations with people civilly back and forth. He said, quote—somewhat of a long quote, and then we'll unpack it. He said, "Being gay,” which, right away for me, I'm like, okay, red flag, but we can keep going, “is for me as much a sensibility as anything else, a heightened sensitivity to and passion for same-sex beauty that helps determine the kind of conversations I have, which people I'm drawn to spend time with, what novels and poems and films I enjoy, the particular visual art I appreciate. And also, I think, the kind of friendships I pursue and try to strengthen. I don't imagine I would have invested half as much effort in loving my male friends and making sacrifices of time, energy, and even money on their behalf if I weren't gay." And then he ends with this. So, if I could sum up, he describes himself as being gay, and says it's a sensibility as much as anything else that affects his conversations, the friendship he's drawn to, the kind of art, et cetera. Then, he says, "My sexuality, my basic erotic orientation to the world, is inescapably intertwined with how I go about finding and keeping friends." Now, he said—I think he said this—he was concerned with people reducing same-sex attraction just down to its sexual component, and is saying there's more to it than this. So, I guess, here's my concern. I'd say there may be—and I don't think I'm actually willing to concede this, but for the sake of point—more to it than sexual attraction, but there's no less. He says his “basic erotic orientation”…to me, if you have that erotic orientation, you don't lean into it and say, this is positive, this is helpful, and this shapes me. I say, no, we have an orientation not aligned with God's design. We turn and we run from that. So, I think the criticism of this approach is just called sublimation, but trying to baptize this part of my identity. Not saying they're making it primary. I don't know, maybe they are. Wesley, these other people saying it's primary, they're saying it shouldn't be a part of it because by its very nature, although it may be more, there's no less than this erotic orientation. Ontologically, that's unwise, but also morally, that's a sinful orientation. Go away from it, don't lean into it. Does that make sense?
Preston: Yeah, I think, yeah, this is...
Sean: What do you think?
Preston: Yeah, there's a lot here. And as you read that paragraph, I would say…Now, I want to give the very important footnote that I'm not gay, so I'm trying to interpret somebody else's experience and how they're viewing the world and I'm like...
Sean: But that's true for anybody.
Preston: I'm looking at—yeah.
Sean: Right? I'm not a Biola prof, I'm not...
Preston: Right. Yeah, like, if you said, this is my experience as a Biolan, and I said, no, it shouldn't be. I would at least concede that you have an experience that I don't and never will have. But having said all that, because you're going to like it, I didn't love the way he was framing that. And I think you're concerned about the positive reclamation of this term, that even if you hold to a traditional view of marriage, this is still, this experience, this term that is describing the experience is still, at the very least, part of the fallen nature, not part of, like, new creation. It isn't part of, like, the positive trajectory where you should be on it. Maybe a thorn in the flesh or something that...So far, would that be one of your concerns?
Sean: Yeah.
Preston: It's a kind of positive framing of it.
Sean: Well, let me ask this. Yes. Do you believe in a historical Fall? There's been public questions about this. You and I went back and forth. Do you believe in an objective, historical Fall that disordered nature?
Preston: Yes.
Sean: You include homosexuality in that, but of course, all of us are affected by it equally in different ways.
Preston: I believe the Fall has affected everyone's sexuality. One manifestation of that might be somebody who experiences unwanted same-sex attraction.
Sean: Okay. All right. Is there anything else you want to keep saying on that?
Preston: I've heard Wes and others say things similar, and I will say…I haven't been, I don't want to say uncomfortable, but I hear them, like, I'm not sure I agree with all of that. I need to dig into this a little more and understand what he's saying. I do know that Wes is primarily an academic. And I do know in theological lingo, even the term erotic doesn't mean what it does in popular language. David Bennett and others talk about this being, they talk about it…I remember the first time I came across this, I think it was in Bennett. You're using this term differently than I'm used to…
Sean: Yeah, I don’t know the answer to that.
Preston: …Help me understand this. And it was some theological thing that I didn't really understand. So, I want to give a little bit of, like…I would want to say, unpack what you mean there.
Sean: You'd want some context to that.
Preston: Yeah, yeah. But the one is, can same-sex attraction be a positive good? I'm wrestling with that. The one area where I would say I have seen it…if we compare it to the thorn in the flesh, can thorns in our flesh drive us closer to God than if we didn't have that thorn in the flesh? That's what I would say. I think there's a good biblical case there. For instance, I'll bring up Greg one more time. He's single, he's celibate. He says—or, actually, Greg Johnson has said this too—I wake up every day and I immediately pursue Jesus. I have to find my joy, fulfillment, and satisfaction in Jesus. It's not an option. Like, Greg, his recent thing is, he goes on, like, two hour walks every Sunday. He just walks with Jesus. He just walks five, eight miles. He just talks with Jesus the whole time, prays for people. And me, I'm like, waking up my family and the kids and everything. Like, sometimes I don't even read the Bible, rushing off to church. [laughs]
Sean: You're disheveled this morning, man. I saw you early.
[laughter]
Preston: I'm not a good morning person. But so, like there, I'm like, oh, could that not be a very positive thing? The fact that Greg will never have a married partner? He has to pursue and foster community and relationships and hospitality in ways, like, he is driven towards that. He has to exercise his friendship muscles, because his fulfillment in community is in friendships. He can't fall back on a married partner. Whereas me, sometimes I get lazy with friendships, because I'm married, I have kids.
Sean: Sure.
Preston: My kids will sometimes joke like, dad, do you have any friends? [laughs] I’m like, I do have friends, stop it. But that's not good. It's good to have extramarital friendships. So, all that to say, if we see it as part of the Fall, a thorn in the flesh, could that not be woven into the fabric of one's journey to push them closer to God? I'm going to say yes. And I've seen that. Should it be celebrated as kind of an intrinsic beauty that extends beyond sexuality or something? I don't know. I'm trying to...
Sean: Okay, you can keep working on that. So, if we take the thorn in the flesh, Paul doesn't say, yeah, I'm an individual and a thorn in the flesh, and it’s a part of who I am. He's like, take this away from me. So, that's something that we don't know if it was medical, or a sin he struggled with, I don't know. One of my colleagues here, Ken Berding, did a whole book on this. Really interesting. If someone is fascinated by it, check it out. You should have him on your podcast. Come talk about it, come and think about it. But that's something he doesn't want. That's something he's resisting. That's very different than saying, being gay gives me this positive thing. So, of course, our struggles and our sins and our failures can draw us to Jesus. That's what I think God allows these things to do in our life. It shows our insufficiency and our brokenness. So, I think that's a positive thing. I don't know that you can get from there to the identity piece.
Preston: That's fair. Again, I don't want to map the thorn in the flesh perfectly onto what we're talking about here. So, it is more…let's say it's part of how same-sex attracted people experience the fallenness in the world. You and I would experience it in other ways, but that experience…Can those experiences be redeemed to push us closer to God? And that's where I'm going to say, well, yes, of course. I guess that's the only point I was making.
Sean: Every experience can, in principle, that I can think of.
Preston: Or even something unique, like, I've had other friends who have said, being gay or same-sex attracted in a world where it is predominantly straight, most love scenes are straight people, most commercials. It's changing a little bit more recently, but they live in a world where they are reminded that they have a very different experience in the world. I've heard several friends tell us that they have such an alertness to the person in the room who's sitting by themselves, maybe an ethnic minority who's the only one in this meeting or something, or the single mom who sometimes gets left out or whatever, the widow—that their minority experience has helped, almost, just, brighten that light of awareness of other people who might have other kinds of experiences. So, that would be another example. I would say, okay, I can acknowledge this as part of the Fall, but it's been redeemed to produce good in the world. I don't know if that's what Wes is getting at there, but that's where I've, as I've tried to say…Can we talk about being gay? Is there some positive, from a Christian standpoint, aspects of this? Those are some…
Sean: Okay, so a minute ago when you prefaced it by saying, "I'm not gay, so I don't know this," and you referred to sexual minorities…
Preston: Did I say that?
Sean: Right? I think you did.
Preston: I think I said a minority experience.
Sean: Being a minority experience, which in this case is a sexual minority. So, red flags, for lack of a better term, are going off for folks. And I would raise the question, okay, wait a minute, is there some unique perspective and status and authority somebody has, which is a subset of critical theory standpoint epistemology, right? I think these are fair questions to raise. [Critical theory] says, because of my race, I have a unique authority and insight somebody else can't have because I'm a male, not a female, because I'm gay, not straight. And there's a big difference to me…I made this point, then someone called me woke, and I ran it by Neil Shenvi. He goes, “No, you're not woke because of this.” So, I ran it by the guy where I said, during my dissertation…it took a woman to ask me this question. She said, “Did the mother of Jesus have to watch both of her boys get martyred?" James and Jesus. And I sat there. I’ve literally got goosebumps right now. I was like, "I've studied this for 15 years, and it took a mother who carried someone inside of her to notice that." So, all that’s saying is, certain experiences we have might tailor us to see things that other people don't. But when we go, oh, that person only can see things, that person has an authority, now we're shifting into standpoint epistemology. So, this here…like, my question was, is in this Wes—and, again, maybe it's not him, maybe he'll clarify and come back—it reads like, my sexuality, it's because of this that I can see these certain things I wouldn't otherwise. And I want to say, okay, wait a minute. Not everybody who experiences same-sex attraction sees those things, and there's other people who are maybe wired that way without same-sex attraction. So, why is the same-sex attraction relevant to seeing those things? We're still back to it being about a disordered sexual desire. And before you answer, when I call it disordered sexual desire, I'm well aware that I have disorders in my life. It's just the issue that we're talking about, and that's the cultural debate. I'm so well aware of that. But that's where I think that's my problem with this. Your thoughts?
Preston: Yeah, I think I resonate with what you're saying there. Just hearing you talk about critical theory and the greater worldviews that often underlie these kind of statements, where people invest…if anybody has any kind of minority identity or experience, all of a sudden they are now invested with more moral authority, or even just experiential authority, whatever. Yeah, I get very nervous about those kind of generalities. I think somebody's individual experience means they can speak to that individual experience more than somebody else can who hasn't experienced that. Does that give them a more moral credibility to speak into the topic as a whole? I get this critique a lot. I know you do, too. Preston, you are—and this is where they will say it—a white, straight, heterosexual, cisgender, blah blah, with all the different terms and stuff. What gives you the right to...I got this question in this talk. What gives you the right to speak into that? I'm like, okay, let me clarify. I am not giving a memoir of what it's like to be gay. I am not speaking to the experience from a standpoint to say, here's what it's like to be gay. I cannot do that. Other people can. I am, very narrowly, a biblical scholar, so I have a level of expertise on an ancient text that talks a lot about sexuality. All I can do is best help people understand how I'm understanding the text and try to let people know, here's what I think the Bible says, here's why. And that's really all I can do, and offer pastoral…whatever around that. So, I do have a level of authority, based on those things, to speak into this aspect of the conversation. Flip it around, just because somebody is gay, that does not mean that they therefore have more moral authority in saying what the Bible says about this. That doesn't do anything to that. It does give them more credibility to help me understand what it's like for this one individual to experience this. And I could learn a ton from that, but that doesn't ascribe…I'm not ascribing moral or theological authority in their perspective simply based on their experience.
Sean: So, for me, we started framing this by a decade ago. The Obergefell decision, a part of the Supreme Court ruling favoring same-sex marriage—that built sexual orientation as a protected class into the law as a part of what it means to be human. So, male, female…our religious identity, that's at core of who we are, but also male and female. And so, we're seeing debates about Title IX in which I go, okay, wait a minute. When we define ourselves as being gay, even if we mean it in some nuanced sense, we're giving a hook, or—again, I guess, is my metaphor again—camel's nose under the tent, giving precedent to that legally sanctioned, cultural understanding of what it means to be human. And that's where I go, no, it's not only unbiblical, it has cultural ramifications that are far more harmful than just saying I'm gay because I want to missionally reach out to somebody, when I think there's other ways to do that wisely. In fact, think of the example of Becca Cook. And the person was like, I'm just going to lay out exactly what Scripture teaches. Didn't have to say that somebody was gay, I'm going to speak the truth to you. So, with that said, any thoughts on that point, on gay identity, before we move on?
Preston: I don't know, maybe we've exhausted…I would say, I guess, me personally, I'm always going to think much more missiologically than as a cultural critic. I don't see those as opposed to each other, but I'm constantly asking, what is the best use of language that's going to communicate gospel realities in a way that's both truthful and effective? And what is going to be the most, same thing, truthful and effective for my discipleship conversations with people? So, again, I'll come full circle and say, if somebody is using the term gay, and it is introducing more clarity into their beliefs, into their walk, into the conversation…if it's interrupting their discipleship rather than helping it, then that term and any other term that's doing that with anybody should be re-examined for sure. So, I guess maybe the only disagreement is, I just see a lot more diversity within different social situations to how different individuals use the term that aren't invested with all of this sort of cultural confusion and ontological weight. In some cases, it is. And again, that's where I’d say, don't use that term.
Sean: I think maybe that's where we differ a little bit. I think after another hour, we've at least clarified whether it contains that baggage or not, whether it's ever wise to do so, whether we should lean into that or run the opposite direction. I think we can move on. Two out of three done. Are you okay? You got energy, man? You good to go?
Preston: I might need some more water, I don’t know if anybody’s [unintelligible].
Sean: Might need some more water? Joe Rogan does this sometimes. Like, he just stops in the middle.
Preston: Gets up and goes. [laughs]
Sean: I'm going to grab us some water, let's keep recording. Part of the fun. There we go. Why not? I had a conversation with Scott recently in the middle…I was like, oh, we'll edit this out. And I forgot. And people are like, oh, that's awesome. You left it in. It's authentic. And I was like, I actually just didn't even think about it.
Preston: I'm just so nervous you poured that over your laptop. You have confidence in your pour.
Sean: I think it was on the side. I'm a basketball guy, not a baseball guy. Can we keep rolling? This is really important.
Preston: [laughs]
Sean: All right, let's keep going. Exiles in Babylon Conference.
Preston: [laughs] Forgot about that.
Sean: The whole point of this was, come down…this is our first conversation in person. We're trying to see if we can do more. By the way, if you watch this and comment, if you stayed with us for two and a half hours, whatever this is, and you like these in-person conversations, let us know. There's more expense time. Appreciate you coming down a couple of days and doing this. Let us know if that's helpful. The idea was to talk about the conference. Now, I got called out by somebody for being woke for speaking at your conference. So, here's where I'm coming from, and I just want you to give us some context of what it is. I said, it's interesting that I'm being called woke for speaking at this conference when one of the other speakers is a colleague of mine, Thaddeus Williams, who, along with Neil Shenvi, has written, in my view, one of the best two books on critical race theory that's biblical and it's solid. So, that strikes me as a little bit silly. Now, with that said, people could say, is it wise or not wise? For me, probably a lot of the audience there, I suspect, are not the typical people that I speak to. Maybe politically, maybe their background theology, their experience, I don't know. So, if I'm going to share the stage with an atheist buddy of mine, Adam Davidson, for a couple hours, and talk about evangelicals and culture and the world today and dialogue with him, I'll have that conversation with him almost anywhere if people are willing to listen. So, for me to go to a conference like this, I'm not endorsing anybody else necessarily who's on the stage. I'm an outsider coming in. There's a lot of events I speak at that I don't endorse. Now, you're putting this on, and a lot of people have said you've platformed some people that shouldn't be there. You're inviting some students that shouldn't be there without discernment. We could spend hours on this, but tell us who it's for, what it is, and maybe clear up, as best you can, what you think some of those charges are.
Preston: So, it would be good to clarify that I do not resonate with, identify with, or swim in the kinds of circles where people are scared to talk to somebody over here, talk to somebody over there. I just don't...The whole, even, phrase, “platforming,” when people raise that, I just say, I'm doing something different than what you are scared of me doing. I'm having curious conversations with people, trying to understand where people are coming from, putting different perspectives in dialogue with each other. Or, some of the sessions are straightforward. This is more of a, here's what I think you should believe, and maybe there's different perspectives on the same viewpoint. So, people have to come, they have to come ready to think, evaluate, and even ask questions. We give the audience space to ask questions. It's one of the only conferences I know that does that. A lot of space. Most of the stage time is actually conversations among the speakers. People would give, usually, like a 15, 20 minute talk, and then we all sit on a couch and dialogue about it, and try to do this, like, good faith dialogue. So, you know what's funny, Sean, is I get…There's speakers that get almost equally critiqued from their tribe on the left and the right. If I have a speaker who's maybe left of center, the people left of them say, “You're sharing the stage with…?” A couple of years ago, it was like, I had a couple of people drop out because Matt Chandler was speaking, and they thought he was, like, a toxic conservative or something.
Sean: Oh, I thought you were saying people thought he was going woke from the right.
Preston: No, no, no. This is from the left. And I didn't want to say they were left, but they just had problems with him being there so they...I've had people on the right drop out because they were sharing the stage with a same-sex attracted, celibate gay Christian. So, every year it happens, actually.
Sean: So, who's dropped out for me coming? I'm actually curious now. [laughs]
Preston: For you?
Sean: Don't name names. Have you had people drop out?
Preston: Yeah, no, no. I haven't gotten...I've been very, very clear up front with the speakers more and more saying, this is the nature of the conference. If you have problems with this, please let me know. But we have some names that some people are going to...If you think all these names are on the same team, or we're all going to tell you what to believe, that's impossible, because there's just different viewpoints on there. I want to be clear. I try to make a distinction between viewpoints within Orthodox Christianity that I think should be dialogued and debated versus viewpoints that I think are just unorthodox versus orthodox, and giving a perception that these are equally valid positions that, take or leave it, flip a coin, choose which view. I try hard to make that distinction. Or, somebody else that's speaking might have a viewpoint on this issue that they're not speaking about. And yet people think, well, they hold to that position. They shouldn't share the stage with anybody. And I'm like, well, he's not talking about that. For instance, last year we did a session on deconstruction. And the way our MO is, I want to hear from people who have deconstructed. I know it's shocking to people, like, why are people deconstructing? I’m like, let's ask some deconstructioners why they left. So we did that. People deconstruct on various trajectories. And one guy is now affirming of same-sex marriage. We did a whole other session on sexuality. Nobody was affirming.
Sean: He was affirming before he came to the conference, and outspoken on it?
Preston: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. And he was speaking alongside me, Abigail Favale—he's written a book on this stuff—Evan Wickham. I even told him ahead of time, I'm like, hey, look, you're here to share your story. I want people to know why you get deconstructed. I just want you to know, if you fall into, like, advocating for a position, it's not going to go…like, there's other people on the stage that are going to address that. So, I would recommend not…And he didn't. He just told a story. Here's why I deconstructed. And people can hear, whether they agree or disagree with his viewpoints, at least understand some of the things, why he deconstructed. So, people saw his name. Well, he's affirming over here. He shouldn't be on the platform. Like, okay, if he was...Anyway.
Sean: Yeah. So, the criticism of that would be, but you're inviting people to follow his stuff, and he's outspoken on that. And so, you can't really just separate issue A from issue B by platforming him, oh, as long as he doesn't talk about this issue. And he holds something clearly opposed to it. That would be the pushback on this.
Preston: My audience is so different than that though. I would say, yeah, go read his stuff. They're all going to probably read it and say, like, this is not a good argument. It's a lot more thoughtful. Like, they want to engage, but they want to hear from the horse's mouth. They want to engage it from viewpoints. They want to...
Sean: Then why not just get someone who deconstructed who doesn't promote that affirming stuff that you have become more firm against in your writings? That's one of the things you said early on. Why not just get somebody else instead of risking that?
Preston: Because that's a very, very common path of deconstruction, going from fundamentalist evangelical to progressive evangelical.
Sean: I agree. So, there's plenty of people to find instead of somebody who's affirming. [laughs]
Preston: But they're all going to be affirming. I mean, they're all...
Sean: Oh, I don't know if they're all affirming. I guess it depends how far they go. Okay. So, would you give…
Preston: I still want to understand that perspective. And I've written extensively on this. Other people have, so they know...Most people coming are familiar with me. So, they're not...I'm not too concerned about them all of a sudden…
Sean: So, you have a certain segment of people you're bringing on, podcast followers in which you model this. So, if somebody from the outside is like, hey, I'm a high school student. I want to come. Would you be like, well...because for me, I might bring my son, he's 12. And I'd be like, hey, let's go. But we're going to talk about it a lot. He doesn't have any maturity. He'd be like, oh, here's, just, two different options, and these are fine. I don't even know who all the speakers are. But, especially if he was there, the affirming one you're talking about, I would have a serious conversation with my son going, hey, you need to be alert about this stuff. And here's what's going on. 12, 17, 18 year olds don't have that discernment. So, do you, like, give a qualifier to that, or how do you...
Preston: There's like 20 speakers. If they have said something elsewhere that I disagree with, and I fear that somebody is going to hear the name, go on the website, read some stuff on something else that I just...I wouldn't be able to do what I do if I had that kind of fear. I wouldn't have anybody on the stage. Like, in one session, I have a very MAGA, kind of super conservative person. And on the same session, somebody's very anti that. We'll see how that one goes. So, I just, I can’t…
Sean: Coming up this year?
Preston: Yeah, yeah. I'll tell you offline a little bit more.
Sean: Oh, I'm actually interested. I was interested before, but that one sounds particularly interesting.
Preston: We don't police people's political viewpoints. We don't police...I mean...
Sean: So, then, tell me, what exactly is the goal of it then? What's the point of the conference? What do you want people to take home, given the range of different views that are presented here?
Preston: And, to be clear, one...This one does have more diversity and viewpoints within the sessions than other...In the past, three sessions were on three different topics, and most of those were promoting, generally speaking, an orthodox position or whatever. I shouldn't say orthodox. They're all orthodox, but they weren't debates. And then I'd always have kind of more of a debate on Saturday. This one does have...We have more, like, you and Adam, and then we have Thaddeus and Malcolm…
Sean: That's gonna be great.
Preston: Yeah. We have...the transgender one is going to be, like, me and Mark Yarhouse are gonna give what I think is a much more clear theological, psychological perspective that I think, here is what we think you should believe. Then, we're gonna hear from three different testimonies, and all three of those are gonna be different so that they're gonna hear stories, not because they need to agree with one or the other, but that they can see some diverse ways in which trans or formerly trans identified people are thinking. So, the goal there is not that people would kind of agree with everything, because they can't. There are gonna be different perspectives. But we hope that their thinking through that will be built upon the foundation of what me and Mark are laying down.
Sean: So, you have testimonies of different experiences of people who are transgender. The point is not that any of these are different options that necessarily a Bible believing Christian can have, it's just saying, let's listen, let's understand. And then you and Mark are gonna lay out what you see as a biblical view on this issue. Is that how you approach it?
Preston: Yes. The fact is, every single one of these people might and probably will show up here at church. Again, missiologically, I want to understand, how are people thinking? I want to ask…one of the people there is a fully transitioned trans woman who has spiritual thinking. Raised in a church, left the church, but has this, like, a desire. She's like, I kind of want to go back to church, but I'm scared. Now, I'm often on the other side talking to pastors, saying, hey, we have this trans person that showed up, and how should we be, and what should we do and not do? And I'm like, how beneficial would it be for you to hear from that person how they feel on the other side walking through the doors? That doesn't validate, meaning everything they're saying is correct. It's just like, that's helpful missiologically and pastorally, to know, here's what's going on in this person's heart. So, I can't wait for my friend to share from the stage. I want to ask them, would you ever go to church? And they're going to say, maybe. I'm like, well, why? Why would you?
Sean: Why not?
Preston: Yeah, yeah. Anyway, that's not a validation of their viewpoint. It is me trying to understand where they're coming from.
Sean: Okay. I imagine people are—
Preston: We took a long time. [laughs]
Sean: That's fair. I had a few questions about that. I know you've dealt with some of that stuff online, but I don't even know how long we've gone. I'm feeling like Joe Rogan here, just rocking these long conferences or conversations.
Preston: I mean, it had to go three to four hours.
Sean: He, like, regularly does this. Anything I missed? I can think of some points in the back of my mind I wanted to make, but I'm not going to draw them out now. I feel like we literally have covered a lot. I guess I would say this at the end. We didn't, we certainly…I don't know that we solved anything. My goal in this was to talk about, where's the conversation at? What are the differing perspectives people are bringing? What does the Bible say? Let's straw man both sides, and then hopefully people can watch this, make sense of it, and decide what they think is most scriptural.
Preston: Steel man both sides.
Sean: That's my hope. Steel man both sides. That's the goal. All right. Why don't we wrap this thing up? This has been fun. Really appreciate it. Thanks for coming down, man. Looking forward to the next conversation. Looking forward to being at the conference with Adam. We had a few people who would not actually platform the two of us, interestingly enough, that people should know. So, I was like, all right, we've got one on the books. We're hoping to write a book together, point, counterpoint. And so, this is kind of a first tryout, which I think will be cool. So, looking forward to it. If you're with us, make sure you hit subscribe to the Think Biblically podcast and to the YouTube channel, and let us know what you think. We'll see you next time. Thanks for joining us for this special conversation with Preston Sprinkle on the question, really, of gay identity. This was part two. If you missed the first part, make sure you go back to last week, where we talk about preferred pronouns. Thank you for listening and for bearing with us for a longer than usual episode. This episode has been a part of the Think Biblically podcast, which is Conversations on Faith and Culture. We have programs on philosophy and theology and apologetics and Old Testament and marriage and family, online and by distance, in which we wrestle with the very issues Preston and I wrestled with today. To submit comments, ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. If you enjoyed today's conversation, we hope you consider giving us a rating on your podcast app. Each rating helps, and we hope you consider sharing this with a friend. We appreciate you listening, and we will see you Friday with our weekly Cultural Update. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.
