Answering the Reformation Project, With Alan Shlemon - The Alisa Childers Podcast #69

www.alisachild...
Recommended books based on this episode:
Christopher Yuan, Holy Sexuality: amzn.to/3bqo2Nh
Robert Gagnon, the Bible and Homosexual Practice: amzn.to/2SY7YvI
Kevin DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality? amzn.to/2SXzqdi
For all links to Alisa’s recommended reading, podcast studio gear and other items,
please visit the Alisa Childers Amazon Store at www.amazon.com/...

[@johnlewis1078]

I attended the Reformation Project conference in Chicago in 2017 and one thing I did NOT hear from anyone there was the Gospel message. I did hear speakers who discussed how they feel / believe what should be accepted and not what is biblical (which is what they claim to be the basis of their belief system). One "pastor" (woman from Houston) was vulgar, profane, and threatened conservatives ("I will come for you") if they spoke against her. Others talked about how the church was detrimental to society as a whole instead of trying to help relations. It was surreal and their was an air of hostility against anyone who did not fit in with their agenda. The conference is not at all like Matthew Vines makes it out to be in his promotional videos.

[@richardrice1032]

Greetings John. You covered many topics in your Comment. I took the liberty of researching them in "www.openbible.info/topics/". See my late January 2021 Comment. Peace be with you!

[@michaeljefferson9747]

That’s not how non-affirming scholar Sean McDowell described the conference in his debate with Matthew Vines and elsewhere. He basically said they included him. Some were surprised he attended, however.

[@DylanB89]

It seems like a common tactic for groups (often progressive ones) trying to validate unorthodox interpretations of scripture is to try and connect the passage they're disputing with some sort of cultural norm that was allegedly present somewhere in the ancient mediterranean (ex. The point brought up in this video where they say same-sex activity was merely condemned as an excess in ancient Greco-Roman culture). I agree that it's good to know what was going on in the surrounding culture at the time, and I wouldn't say that this kind of stuff isn't ever helpful for understanding things, but at the same time, why would we look at a culture with beliefs directly antithetical to the Bible to guide our understanding of what the Bible says? If Jesus and the apostles were Jews, and if everything they were saying was deeply rooted in the Jewish scriptures, then why would we skip over the consistent witness of the Old Testament and look to a pagan culture to explain what they really meant? Here's a good example to clarify this a bit. Some people who want to avoid any notions of penal substitution in the cross will try to explain the cross, not through the Jewish notions of the sacrificial system, spotless lamb, day of atonement, etc., but by appealing to an obscure Greek play that was being performed in the region sometime in either the late first century or early second century. The cross was the fulfilment of several established themes within the biblical authors' own historical and cultural context, so why on earth would we hold up a pagan work of art with some concepts similar to the cross as the authoritative key for understanding what the biblical authors believed about the cross? Yes, in confronting these cultures, the apostles would have surely spoken with them on their own terms at times (ex. Paul and the altar to an unknown god). But this doesn't give us a license to assume that this was always the case and just throw out everything else that scripture said about the matter before that point.

[@ember1471]

exactly, we do not use culture to explain the cross but we use the scriptures to examine culture through a Biblical lens giving us our path and way of life in this corrupt world. Thank you for your comment I wholeheartedly agree.

[@michaeljefferson9747]

That’s not what The Reformation Project is doing. They’re arguing that you’re misinterpreting which parts are cultural and which parts are universally normative-and they provide reasons for the decisions they make. For example, the terms “abomination,” “shameful,” and “nature” sometimes refer to culturally specific things like long hair in men (1 Corinthians 11:14) or eating shellfish (Deuteronomy 14). So at minimum you have to be open to the possibility that such words are not intended to refer to something that is universally wrong. Moreover, since in the cultural context in which Paul wrote, same-sex relationships were predominantly based on unequal power dynamics between partners, this must have shaped Paul’s views of same-sex relationships. He may not have had loving, committed ones in mind since there are no ancient examples of that kind of relationship. This becomes relevant in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Timothy 1. Even if the Greek word arsenokoitai that he coined refers to both passive and active partners, he may have been using it to encompass all the same-sex behavior he experienced at the time (a more general phrase describing a more specific phenomenon). Paul evidences no understanding of sexual orientation as an exclusive, unchosen, and unchangeable attraction. This affects how Romans 1 should be interpreted. Christians have made similar interpretive arguments about slavery and usury.

[@conceptualclarity]

Very good point by Dylan B.

[@allanvanderley193]

Hi ALISA; Again, brilliant argumentation. Thank you for following up with ALAN-SHLEMON. Keywords noted;’wolf’;’sheep’;’Reformation-project’;’heterosexual-functionality’. Until next time, love in His Name. ... 1.] Assume no malice, 2.] Ask questions, 3.] Stay calm, 4.] Make your case.

[@briancasey4917]

From what I am hearing the reformation project posits that homosexuality today is different than in ancient times, as today it is based on loving consensual basis. In a word that is supreme arrogance. So somehow people today are any better than our ancestors were. Wow, in recent history we have killed more people aborted more babies than all the wars of ancient history. Just because there are no writings of romantic homosexuality doesn't mean it didn't exist. One can be clever and wiggle around sin all they want, get the world to accept the wiggle, but in the end they will face God and if they have no fear of that?

[@thegodwhospeaks8307]

“Only in a world in which selves are typically recognized or validated by their sexuality and their sexual fulfillment-in which these things define who people are at a deep level-can celibacy really be considered costly. Further, only in a world in which sexual identities-and specifically nonheterosexual sexual identities-enjoy particular cultural cachet will the celibacy of one particular group be designated as somehow especially hard or sacrificial. Traditional Christian sexual morality calls for celibacy for all who are not married and chastity for those who are. It is, strictly speaking, no more costly or sacrificial for a single person not to have sex with someone than it is for a married person to be faithful or not visit strip clubs and prostitutes." *Trueman, Carl R. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), p. 391.*

[@CyborgNinja7]

I usually agree with Trueman, but I really do not here. Celibacy is costly not only in the sense of foregoing sex, but foregoing companionship, romantic love, a family, and a partner in old age. It is a very lonely existence. I'd like to see you try it. To compare a man who skips out on a strip club to a gay person who stays celibate for the rest of their life is honestly offensive.

[@jameskrych7767]

@@CyborgNinja7 "Celibacy is costly not only in the sense of foregoing sex, but foregoing companionship, romantic love, a family, and a partner in old age." You are trying to claim that your body is your own. As a Believer, it doesn't belong to you. You, and I and the rest, can have Agape and Philio relationships. Between a husband and a wife, there is also eros. Sorry, Scripture is quite clear. Of course, celibacy is costly. Our Lord paid for our sins with His Life.

[@gachapotatocookie2309]

Hi Alisa this is a little off topic but I’m so inspired by you! Could you consider doing a deep dive into the Alpha course and Nicky Gumble? It’s so subtle but worth investigating and exposing I think? Thank you for all you do.

[@BeetleOtaku]

What's wrong with Alpha?

[@fredphilippi8388]

Programs like yours, which only talk ABOUT gay people, but do not ask them what they experience or to be part of the conversation, are destined to ignorance. Life will go forward with relationships and civil marriage, gay and straight. People have always dated and married, with or without church involvement, and always will. It is up to the church to try to integrate this world into the kingdom of God, but you could if you wished to.

[@dinsmorellc7559]

I was wondering if y’all can address how some say the original words of Leviticus and of romans one was man shouldn’t like with boy/ or adolescent boy. They say it means pedophila - esp when talking about shrine prostitution. And that the original word for homosexual was shrine prostitute. They also say the original commentaries on Leviticus was addressing shrine prostitution.

[@sarw9294]

Because they’re describing what people do in bed with the same sex, and not “simply” pedos. For a much more in-depth explanation, go to dr James white’s podcast and KZbin (AO Min). Someone else goes into this too, I think it might be Mike Winger. See his videos/podcasts too.

[@michaeljefferson9747]

Since in the cultural context in which Paul wrote, same-sex relationships were predominantly based on unequal power dynamics between partners, this must have shaped Paul’s views of same-sex relationships. He may not have had loving, committed ones in mind since there are no ancient examples of that kind of relationship. This becomes relevant in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Timothy 1. Even if the Greek word arsenokoitai that he coined refers to both passive and active partners, he may have been using it to encompass all the same-sex behavior he experienced at the time (a more general phrase describing a more specific phenomenon). Paul evidences no understanding of sexual orientation as an exclusive, unchosen, and unchangeable attraction. This affects how Romans 1 should be interpreted. Leviticus may condemn all male same-sex anal intercourse, but this is rooted in patriarchal gender norms in which men are supposed to dominate women. For a man to take the passive role would degrade his status. It is part of the Old Testament law code, which doesn’t apply to Christians. The New Testament points Christians away from this patriarchal logic and toward gender equality.

[@debbievernon6901]

lord help us with all the ways changes people trying to make.

[@andrewbranson4874]

Alan's assumption that love-based same-sex sexual relationships existed during the time the authors were alive is profoundly, boundlessly, and mind-bogglingly ignorant. The authors CAN NOT and DO NOT condemn things that DID NOT EXIST until 1,500 YEARS LATER. Lord, I pray that my brother in Christ Alan learns to read the Bible with the appropriate biblical, historical, translative, literary, societal, and economic contexts. Amen.

[@PsychoBible]

Regarding the part about celibacy, here are a couple other points. The historic understanding of God's commands sure seem unfair if we start with the unstated assumption that Matthew Vines has: that people with same-sex attraction are biologically hardwired (by genetics, brain anatomy, or hormones) and thus cannot change. The premise is false, and once you recognize the starting point, the rest of the argument falls. Alan has attended our conferences at the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice. He knows that there are sound counseling approaches decreasingly available for people who want to explore attraction change by addressing the underlying emotional, mental, and social causes. Of course, the opposition has been running a very effective propaganda campaign to paint all therapeutic approaches as harmful so now even churches are intimidated into disassociating from our work.

[@jamersbazuka8055]

Even if the faulty assumption is given, those who are in Christ are born again. Why does Jesus talk about birth in talking about conversion? Because throughout the whole of human history (including today), where you are born, when you are born, and to whom you're born are all foundational to your identity. The identity Christ offers is above all that, and Christ enables us to follow Him.

[@CyborgNinja7]

As someone who has gone through reparative therapy, it is most certainly harmful. I believe you are seeing the small pool of those who claim change rather than seeing the ocean of those who haven't. And many claim change only to later say they can't deny their same-sex attraction.

[@PsychoBible]

@@CyborgNinja7 care to elaborate on your experience? What type of therapist you saw, the approach used, the type of harm you say it caused?

[@CyborgNinja7]

@@PsychoBible I saw two counselors, one from a megachurch and another from a smaller, but rapidly growing church. Not sure what you expect from my answers. I was counseled one-on-one by straight women and ex-lesbians. Was recommended Jeanette Howard's book. Spoke about my sexual interest in women, things I did to "act out" and heard a lot of pseudo-psychology on the causes of homosexuality and what could be mine. Netflix has a great new documentary released today that I recommend viewing.

[@PsychoBible]

@@CyborgNinja7 so it sounds like you saw pastoral counselors who worked more in helping you with accountability, but it sounds like they were lacking in training of therapeutic interventions. As someone who works with son of Joe Nicolosi, the founder of authentic Reparative Therapy, this does not sound like you saw a Reparative therapist. You also did not specify how you were harmed. Being dissatisfied with the outcome of counseling for not reaching all your goals does not constitute harm. I'm open to the possibility of it. Unprofessional or reckless therapists need to be held accountable. All of my colleagues in this field agree on that. But the solution is to train counselors in best practices, not ban all therapy options for people with unwanted same-sex attractions or gender incongruity.

[@user-yy8zb2xh3t]

Coming from Asia where arranged marriages were the norm until very recently, I would argue that it is entirely possible for Christ following men and women who experience same-sex attractions to be married to someone of the opposite sex, to love that person deeply, to enjoy a meaningful marriage and family life, and to glorify God by doing so. In other words, people do not need to love persons of the opposite sex in order to experience a biblical marriage. They just need to love and be committed to one person of the opposite sex. For sure all the glamour of romance and chemistry and Limerence at the outset may be missing, but millions of Asians whose marriages were arranged with testify that love can just as easily grow after marriage, as before.

[@MusicalRaichu]

Everyone's different. Some have made mixed orientation marriage work, but many have not, and in the process have harmed the straight partner. Marrying against one's orientation is risky and therefore should be discouraged. Your argument is moot anyway since we know that gay marriages work, are beneficial, and harm no one. There's no logical reason other than stubbornness to fight against people loving one another. Gen 2 gives the reason people marry: one recognizes the other as "flesh of my flesh". If a gay man is incapable of so recognizing a woman, he fails the very reason given in scripture for marrying her. If he is capable of so recognizing a man, the same scripture applies. He should marry a man.

[@user-yy8zb2xh3t]

@@MusicalRaichu quite apart from the fact that the very Bible that you “also clearly prohibits, same-sex unions, over a decade of research, regarding the same-sex marriages indicate they do not “work”. One survey found that on average same-sex couples have committed “adultery“ with 8 different partners. Domestic violence levels are higher than heterosexual couples. And the damage done too their offspring is in calculable. Furthermore, even Frontline LGBT ideologues have discarded the notion that LGBT people are “born that way”. They now assert that gender is fluid, and that people have the right to self-determination“. Orientation is not set in concrete as you seem to imply.

[@LeeGrace56]

Matthew 19 Jesus makes clear that marriage is between a man and woman when teaching about the sin of divorce

[@marcusanthony488]

Of course . He was a Jew.

[@LeeGrace56]

@@marcusanthony488 God the Father made it clear also. Morality has no ethnicity and neither does God. Marriage comes from the loving hand of God, who fashioned both male and female in the divine image (see Gn 1:27). A man "leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body" (Gn 2:24). The man recognizes the woman as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Gn 2:23). God blesses the man and woman and commands them to "be fertile and multiply" (Gn 1:28) Jesus was referring back to what God commanded. Jesus was a Jew. Many other than Jewish folks believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Matthew 19 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[Jesus refers back to the Old Testament]5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”-Jesus

[@jamersbazuka8055]

@@LeeGrace56 Also in any NT passage instructing wives and husbands, it's always "wives ____ husbands, husbands _____ wives," not spouse/spouse, or any other variant.

[@LeeGrace56]

@@jamersbazuka8055 Yes very true ❤

[@michaeljefferson9747]

Jesus’s response to the Pharisees in Matthew 19 is in the context of a discussion about divorce. Jesus goes back to Genesis to respond to the Pharisees because this thwarts their citation of a weaker divorce precedent from Deuteronomy 24 (he says “at the beginning”). Jesus quotes directly from the passage as a rhetorical device effective against the passage-citing Pharisees. He then goes out of his way to change the original Hebrew Bible from “they shall become one flesh” to “the two shall become one flesh.” He did this to deemphasize the necessity of gender difference in marriage and imply that he was focusing solely on the fact that the man and woman are two people. He is also matching the gendered language of the questioner in answering a question about divorce. He is not addressing the existence of a universally normative and exclusive gender complementarity. “One flesh” refers to a new primary kinship bond, not the “anatomical fittedness” of male and female bodies. Nowhere does the Bible describe “penis fitting” in its discussion of marriage. The passage in Genesis he cites (Genesis 2:24) also does not address divinely ordained gender complementarity. Genesis 2:24 serves as an intervention on the part of the narrator to comment on the preceding description of Adam and Eve’s union and applying the principles of that marriage to every marriage in his cultural context (which would have been necessarily opposite-sex-only for cultural reasons). The narrator speaks of the man “leav[ing] his father and mother” because he appears to be addressing the wrongness of intermarriage. This places the focus on the kind of mutual primary kinship bond the two share, and not on their gender difference.

[@BreadofLifeChannel]

Dear Alisa, I fully admit that there is nothing in the Bible that supports gay marriage. But do you think it is possible that God may be permitting something now that he did not originally intend? It is hard for me to understand how God would condemn a gay couple who remain faithful to each other for life, and not condemn David who had more women than Hugh Hefner at the playboy mansion. We consider David a hero of the faith, and we read his words as Holy Scripture. Yet clearly, David was not living according to God's original intention for marriage. Why is it okay to embrace David and reject a gay couple? Thanks!

[@michaeljefferson9747]

Smart question. It’s sometimes argued that because same-sex relationships and sexual and gender minorities were not a part of the original creation as described in Genesis 1 and 2, they must be regarded as a tragic consequence of the fall. But that sort of framing is too narrow, and it misses the expansive reality of the new creation, which transforms and fulfills the original creation in ways that we cannot even fully grasp. Even many things that were not present in Genesis 1 and 2 are still capable of being drawn into the vision of redeemed humanity that’s revealed in Christ. Eunuchs, of course, were not a part of the opening chapters of Genesis, but through the conversion and inclusion of the Ethiopian eunuch into the people of God in Acts 8, we see a different and much more expansive vision of the new creation beginning to be revealed. The Bible teaches that we are moving forward into the new creation, which has room for things that were not a part of the original creation as described in Genesis 1 and 2.

[@lindsaychilders6927]

I JUST ORDERED YOUR BOOK!! BLESSINGS

[@yorkshire59]

Excellent apologetics on this issue very helpful thanks

[@jessicahanson7516]

I would like more clarification on the argument that humans are the only species that are required to mate with the opposite gender for the sexual organs/functions to be fully utilized....not ALL animals can reproduce asexually? Is it along the lines that wild animals don't have menstrual cycles like humans do, causing that reproductive feature to go to waste? Can someone shed any light on this part of the argument?

[@Airvian]

I think you misunderstood the point. It’s not about humans vs other animals, it’s the sexual reproduction system vs other body systems. Each system functions and does what it’s supposed to do by itself without ever needing another person, except the reproductive system. Without another person this system doesn’t achieve its intended end. Each gender only has half of the full system.

[@Jules4Hymn]

Soooooo helpful!

[@lucylu9530]

Isaiah 56:1-5

[@kevinwells7080]

Following the reformation project logic that the New Testament is more morally inclusive re. sexual identity and desires than the old testament would mean that incest and bestiality would also be included in that greater liberality. Because, that is the context of the most restrictive and condemning Old Testament passage regarding homosexual acts.

[@MomLAU]

Please-- the word is pronounced "ABNORMALITY". Sorry to nitpick, but I found myself screaming after the guy mispronounced it about 3 times. Great discussion, though!

[@JacobStein1960]

I am going to try to use a code. Gays are X. Transgender are Y.

[@iamaio]

Do you believe that God Loves Everybody and if you do, please explain when did He STOP loving those in Hell?

[@iamaio]

@Chantelle No...He never did love them.. they are His enemies.

[@MusicalRaichu]

I only watched the first 20 mins. This Alan guy has no idea what he's talking about. The Bible makes no reference to "homoxesuality" whatsoever. Neither the psychology of secs orientation was known, nor did the category exist. You can talk about males having secs with males, sure, but you must not make any reference to the category or concept of homoxesuality. The church has no long-standing tradition on homoxesuality. Its tradition is hostile to all forms of non-reproductive secs including between husband and wife. Its tradition says nothing about how men who have capacity for intimacy with men instead of women should live their lives. The church's teaching on homoxesuality dates from the late 1970s. The Bible's references to males having secs with males are unclear and ambiguous. The New Testament references don't even describe homoxesuality. There is no excuse for anyone attempting to argue that the Bible categorically condemns all homoxesual acts. If Alan were right, we'd expect Leviticus to say "men don't lie with men" and "women don't lie with women". It says neither. It says that lying with a male a womanly/wife's bed was against Israelite religion. A quick search of scholarly literature reveals considerable disagreement on what was specifically banned, but it was only a subset of what we would classify as same-secs acts today, possibly only ainal penetration. Rom 1.27 fails to describe homoxesuality and all it says is that male idolaters did unseemly things with one another. It described socially unacceptable behaviour only. 1 Cor 6.9/1 Tim 1.10 are, as is now well known, the source of the problem with "male-bedder", a word of unknown meaning, being mistranslated as "homxoesual" in many modern translations. Homoxesuality fits none of the limitations context places on the meaning of male-bedder. But typical behaviour in Graeco-Roman culture involving deliberate denigration by penetrating a male prostitoot or enslaved boy fits all the limitations, which is why that is considered the likely meaning. The entire premise of looking for rules and precedents in the Bible to justify condemnation or approval of specific behaviours is unbiblical and misguided. We have freedom in Christ, we serve in the new way of the Spirit not the written code, and love fulfils ALL God's commands. Two men/women in a relationship characterized by love, according to scripture, obeys ALL God's commands.

[@ddrse]

You can be LGBT and Christian

[@LindeeLove]

Why do you want to be a Christian? You have probably been raised in a culture that makes the bible an authority. But the bible is not an authority. It is a man made book.

[@ddrse]

@@LindeeLove it's a matter of principle

[@ddrse]

@Root 66 Yes as long as it's God's will

[@fraserdaniel3999]

@Root 66, is committing adultery & being gay the same thing? But to answer your absurd equivocation, irrespective of whether you take a utilitarian view or a virtue view of ethics, cheating on your spouse is not good for either people involved & hence a moral failure. On the other hand, our sexual orientation is tied to our being and not a moral failure by itself. Hence, you can be gay & be faithfully committed to your spouse & it would not be a moral failure but cheating on them would be. Reading your comment, I can't help but think that how people who were against interracial marriage made similar comparisons..

[@ddrse]

@Root 66 have you ever told a lie? What does that make you?