May 4, 2025 • 56 mins
Through his work with the Reformation Project, and his book God and the Gay Christian, Matthew Vines captures the essence of a journey shared by millions managing the complex intersection of faith and sexual identity.
In a political climate where White Christian Nationalism increasingly scapegoats LGBTQ people for societal ills, Vines offers something revolutionary: a thoughtful framework for understanding Scripture that upholds its authority while making room for affirming theology. Through meticulous examination of historical context, he demonstrates how the same-sex behaviors condemned in Scripture were fundamentally different from the loving, committed relationships we recognize today.
Drawing fascinating parallels to how Christians reinterpreted biblical teachings on slavery and charging interest, Vines shows how contextual understanding isn't compromising faith—it's deepening it. "The reason same-sex behaviors were condemned in Scripture are very different than the types of same-sex relationships we're talking about today," he explains.
We discuss Pope Francis's legacy of inclusion and the challenges within evangelicalism, where reform seems simultaneously impossible and inevitable. Vines suggests that effective change comes not through flashy redesigns of church with pride flags everywhere, but through communities that fully include LGBTQ people while keeping "the main thing the main thing"—following Jesus.
-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Bluesky
YouTube
Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com
Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Matthew (00:00):
do I believe these things about God and Jesus, and
is this, you know, important forhow I see myself and my place
in the world and how I want tolive my life?
I also, indeed, am gay, and sofor me, I just am a gay
Christian.
And then the real questioncomes around whether or not it
is okay to be in a same-sexrelationship or not, and that is
(00:21):
, I think, that's got to be.
That's the thornier issue,because for the great majority
of the Christian church'shistory, the answer was that
same sex relationships werecategorically wrong.
At the same time, there wasalso no understanding until the
middle of the 20th century thatthere was anybody who was
exclusively attracted to thesame sex.
So the whole concept of sexualorientation as we understand it,
(00:42):
the whole concept of gay peopleas we now understand them, was
not something that was a featureof any Christian or any other
dialogue about same-sexbehaviors, relationships or
attraction.
Shawn (01:00):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
All eyes are turning towardRome, where a new papal conclave
opens on May 7th.
With the death of Pope Francis,long considered one of the most
LGBTQ-friendly popes of alltime, the future of Catholic
doctrine, particularly on LGBTQinclusion, could hang in the
(01:23):
balance.
On LGBTQ inclusion could hangin the balance.
In this episode, we're going totalk about one of the most
charged intersections incontemporary American life,
where queerness, christianityand politics collide.
For decades, lgbtq Christianshave wrestled with a faith
tradition that has oftenrejected them, sometimes
violently, but in recent years,especially in this Trump era,
(01:46):
the debate has grown louder,more political and far more
dangerous.
As white Christian nationalismgains ground in the United
States, lgbtq identities havebecome a convenient scapegoat
from pews to policy platforms.
Churches that once preachedlove are now helping write the
playbook for anti-trans laws,school censorship and a vision
(02:10):
of the nation rooted inexclusion and oppression, and
they're making very real groundat a quick clip.
My guest today, matthew Vines,has been at the heart of this
conversation for over a decade,through his groundbreaking book
God and the Gay Christian, firstpublished in 2014 and updated
this year, and his work with theReformation Project which
(02:32):
advocates for the creation of anaffirming church.
He's reshaped.
How many understand the Bibleand queerness?
Not in opposition, but inharmony.
This isn't just about theology,it's about who belongs and who
gets to decide.
Just a note I was travelingwhen we recorded this interview,
so I didn't have my usualequipment, which means that the
(02:53):
sound quality on my side of theconversation sounds a little
like well, like I didn't have myusual equipment.
All right, if you like thisepisode or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom
(03:18):
.
Let's do a deep dive, matthew.
Thanks for being here.
How are you?
Very well, thank you.
So this might be a bit of anunderstatement, but we're living
through some very dynamic times.
(03:38):
Our politics in the US, but evenglobally, are becoming very
unsettled, democracies indecline worldwide and
Christianity is playing a prettybig and influential role in
public policy.
And it's really just, to mymind, one version of
Christianity, and that's whiteChristian nationalism, which is
really not at all about mercy ortolerance.
It's almost kind ofsingle-mindedly focused on
(04:00):
repression and dominance and,for the purposes of our
conversation conversation, or alarge part of our conversation
very anti-LGBTQ, and I thinkthat you occupy a space that
must be very complicated, if notdifficult, in that you identify
as a gay Christian and thisfeels, I think, to some people
an oxymoron these days and also,I'm sure, puts you in spaces in
which you aren't reallyaccepted by the queer community
(04:22):
sometimes, and then also maybenot by the larger Christian
community either, at the sametime, probably occasionally
expected to speak for andrepresent each of the
communities as well.
So there's a lot to talk aboutand it's difficult to imagine
how we'll do this in an hour,but let's try.
Matthew (04:37):
All right, let's try.
Shawn (04:38):
Okay.
So I think it'd be weird if wehad this conversation.
You know at the time that weare without touching on the
death of Pope Francis and theupcoming conclave, so maybe
that's where we should start.
So the Catholic Church will beelecting a new pope and fully
recognizing that Catholicismdoesn't represent the whole of
Christianity.
It does speak to billions ofpeople, and Francis has been
(05:01):
hailed as the most LGBTQ orqueer friendly popes of all time
, and I tend to think of that asbeing maybe relative simply to
other popes, although peoplemight disagree with me on this.
So I guess I'm wondering youknow from where you sit what
influence do you think thatFrancis had?
How do you think his legacy isgoing to play out?
And then I think the biggerquestion here is or maybe this
is the question a lot of peoplehave right now is what's the
(05:24):
next pope going to be like?
So what could we expect on the,you know, lgbtq front?
And I tend to have this pardonmy phrasing, but pessimistic
kind of the devil, you knowfeeling about this.
So I guess I'm a little worriedabout what might be coming.
Matthew (05:38):
Yeah, no, I mean, it's very hard to know with these
sorts of things.
On the one hand, francisappointed what roughly 80%, I
believe, of the cardinals or whowill be participating in the
conclave.
So in that sense, you wouldthink that the odds are decent
that there will be someone whois more in his mold.
And yet you also never reallyknow.
(05:59):
And you know, anything canhappen.
Did you watch the conclavemovie, by the way?
Shawn (06:05):
I did.
Yeah, I mean how timely right.
Matthew (06:07):
I know, I thought I thought it was great.
Obviously that was a little bitmore of a dramatic outcome than
we would typically get, but didyou see that?
Outcome coming.
No, I did not Did you?
Shawn (06:15):
No, I didn't.
I mean I think literally asecond before I was like I
thought it might be a queerperson, but I did not.
Matthew (06:26):
No, I did not see the specifics of that.
I thought it was fascinating,yeah, but, and just a really
interesting insight into aprocess you know almost none of
us actually ever wouldexperience firsthand.
So, yeah, I mean, we'll see.
You know, I was doing someresearch on who some of the
leading candidates are and someof them seem like they could be
(06:47):
pretty good in terms ofcontinuing some of the positive
things that Francis was doing.
I am certainly was a fan ofPope Francis.
I'm not a Catholic.
I was raised Presbyterianevangelical, so I'm still in the
evangelical Protestant worldand tradition.
But obviously, you know, theCatholic Church is about half of
Christians worldwide.
So it's pretty significant andit matters who the Pope is and
(07:13):
what the Pope thinks and saysand also kind of how the Pope
models whatever.
You know you can have officialteachings, but also then the
posture that you have issignificant.
One big challenge with theCatholic Church is that because
it is so hierarchical, it isvery difficult to actually
change formal teachings of theChurch.
In fact, there are manyCatholic apologists who will
insist that the Church has neverchanged its teachings on any
(07:35):
moral matters.
This is not true, but that Imean even when it comes to
sexuality, in the earlycenturies of the Church, the
teaching was that all sexualacts must be intended for the
purpose of procreation in orderto be moral, even within
marriage.
Well, so they'll say that theyhaven't changed on this, but
they really have, because by thetime of Vatican II in the 1960s
(07:57):
, the teaching became that allsexual acts must be open to
procreation, just meaning thatyou can't use contraception but
you don't actually have to beintentionally trying to
procreate.
And they said that you canactually intentionally try not
to procreate through the rhythmmethod.
So that's the sort of thingwhere they'll say, oh well, we
didn't really change it, but Ithink that's a pretty
significant shift actually.
And so, anyway, all that to say, it is harder, it will be
(08:24):
harder for the Catholic Churchto change its teaching on
same-sex relationships than forProtestant churches, because
you've got the whole issue ofchurch tradition and hierarchy.
That is a much bigger factorfor Catholics than it is for
Protestants.
So really, with popes, the moresignificant thing is not whether
they change the teaching,because, to the extent that can
happen, that's not going to besomething one individual pope
(08:44):
can do, not right now, certainly, but I think what Francis did
was about as much as any popecould have done in the 12 years
that he had to try to advance ageneral posture of inclusion and
openness and respect andcompassion toward the LGBTQ
community.
And I didn't necessarily seethat coming, because when he was
first elected pope there wereheadlines about how, when he was
(09:07):
in Argentina, you know, when hewas a priest or a bishop there,
you know he had had some prettyharsh words when Argentina
legalized same-sex marriage andso you could have seen him going
in a different direction.
And yet he made it clear fromthe outset that he wanted to
kind of ditch the more I guess,pomp and circumstance, like the
(09:31):
Benedict who was his predecessorwas much more about, I think,
the A sense of luxury andelegance and like in terms of
how even just the clothing thathe wore was almost like this
royal aesthetic.
And Francis, you know, turnedaway from all of that, adopted a
much more humble aesthetic andapproach that I think is more
(09:53):
consistent with the Jesus ofScripture and then extended that
to his attitude toward the LGBTcommunity.
And it was really interestingbecause when it came to the
issue of same-sex relationships,you know, just in the last
couple years of his papacy, hedid muddy the waters a little
bit in terms of what theCatholic Church was actually
(10:14):
like.
It had their teaching, but thenthey were saying they could
bless same-sex couples, and thenit became very confusing around
what that actually meant, andso a lot of conservatives in the
Catholic Church were veryfrustrated with Francis because
they felt like he was notformally changing things, but
still effectively wateringthings down, and obviously those
who wanted to see thoseteachings changed were more
positive toward that.
So, anyway, maybe it might begetting into more detail than
(10:36):
you want there.
All that to say, we will seewhat happens.
I hope that we don't have apope now who is going to
completely turn in a differentdirection and be much more harsh
and condemnatory toward theLGBT community.
But even if that happens, thisis I still am optimistic that
(10:56):
the long-term trajectory for theCatholic Church will be one
toward greater inclusion, but itwill take a lot longer for them
than it will take forProtestants, unfortunately, at
least officially.
Shawn (11:06):
So this is quite possibly a bit of a rabbit hole, because
neither of us is Catholic andit's not really the purpose of
the conversation.
But as long as we're talking alittle bit about it, I do think
this dynamic not only betweenBenedict and then Francis and
the swing there between the twopopes, one after the other, but
(11:26):
you know the reflection, I think, that is of a changing conclave
right In such a short period oftime, because in many ways
Vatican II, or the undoing ofVatican II, can really be traced
almost directly to Ratzinger,when he was working with John
Paul and then.
So then you have Benedict,who's extremely conservative,
and then, just a handful ofyears later, ostensibly a
(11:47):
somewhat similar conclave thanelects somebody like Francis,
right, and the reason I bringthis up is because it really
does emphasize the point thatyou made here, that it's really
unclear as to what we might get.
Matthew (11:57):
Right.
So, yes, I do hope, though,that it will be somebody with a
similar overall posture, likeFrancis's, because I think you
know that's.
I think that's more consistentwith Jesus and therefore what
Christianity should berepresenting, and it's certainly
going to be much more positivefor LGBTQ people in terms of
(12:18):
just the tone that is comingfrom the church.
Shawn (12:21):
So we can swing back then to something that I highlighted
in the preamble and largelypart of the reason that you're
here, which is, you know, we areliving through a period of time
in which religion, identity andpolitics are all heavily
intertwined.
I think that it's bothgenerating and also an
expression of the polarizationand the division that we're
experiencing in our society, butall of that is kind of clashing
(12:42):
in such a way that I think it'sthreatening our democracy and
that can make everything feelsomewhat zero sum.
And, to put it in the contextof the conversation, I think
sometimes it feels like you areeither Christian or you're gay.
Right, that you can't be bothof these things, and I know this
is a conversation that goesback decades, if not centuries.
But I think that you knowthere's a harsher light kind of
(13:05):
thrown on that dynamic right now.
I guess I'm trying tounderstand how you balance these
two identities in a worldthat's really, I think,
currently and contemporarilydemanding that you be one or the
other.
Matthew (13:17):
Yeah, I think I start by separating the entire
question from the, I guess, ourcurrent context and culture,
because for me, christianity isa faith, it is a religion, it is
a set of beliefs that the coreof them go back 2000 years to
right the time of Jesus andshortly after his death and
(13:39):
resurrection.
And so for me, whether or notyou can be gay and Christian,
being gay, I believe being gayis just a thing that some people
are.
Whether they are okay with thator not, is another question.
Whether they, you know, want topursue a same-sex relationship
or not, you know, is anotherquestion.
But some people just are gay.
And if you are a Christian,then that means that you believe
(14:02):
in Jesus Christ, that youbelieve that he was both human
and divine, that he died for thesins of the world, that he rose
from the sins of the world,that he rose from the dead on
the third day.
You know some pretty radicalclaims that are, understandably,
can be eyebrow raising just intheir metaphysics to a modern
secular person, but that haveformed the heart of the
Christian faith for 2000 years.
(14:24):
And so to me it's like that'sthe basic question of if you
believe those things, then youare a Christian and about I
don't know what percent, maybe5% somewhere around there people
are attracted to the same sex,exclusively attracted to the
same sex.
They're gay.
So for me it's almostcompletely separate from the
reality that.
But it is helpful for me tothink about it in that sense
(14:44):
because it's just like no, I dobelieve in this.
I do believe in the teachingsof Jesus.
Like no, I do believe in this,I do believe in the teachings of
Jesus.
I am very inspired by, like,the life that he lived, the
ethics that he taught andpracticed.
I want to model my life afterthat.
And I also happen to be gay.
So the fact that it is a, it ischallenging because there is a
lot of conflict or controversyaround.
(15:05):
That, to me, is a secondaryquestion than the primary
question of do I believe thesethings about God and Jesus?
And is this, you know,important for how I see myself
and my place in the world andhow I went to live my life?
I also, indeed, am gay, and sofor me, I just am a gay
Christian.
(15:26):
And then the real question comesaround whether or not it is
okay to be in a same-sexrelationship or not, and that is
, I think that's got to be.
That's the thornier issue,because for the great majority
of the Christian church'shistory, the answer was that
same-sex relationships werecategorically wrong.
At the same time, there wasalso no understanding until the
middle of the 20th century thatthere was anybody who was
(15:48):
exclusively attracted to thesame sex.
So the whole concept of sexualorientation as we understand it,
the whole concept of gay peopleas we now understand them, was
not something that was a featureof any Christian or any other
dialogue about same-sexbehaviors, relationships or
attraction.
So there are these six texts inscripture that refer to various
forms of same-sex behavior.
They are all negative, they areall condemnatory.
(16:11):
My basic argument in my book Godand the Gay Christian is that
it's not that they aren't I'mnot trying to say that those
negative texts aren't there butthat the reason that same-sex
behaviors were condemned inscripture are very different
than the types of same-sexrelationships that we're talking
about today, that the primarysame-sex practices in the
ancient world were things thatChristians should not have a
(16:32):
positive view of.
Things like pederastyprostitution, sex like a
hierarchical, dominant,subordinate thing, and same-sex
marriage unions.
(16:53):
That's a completely differenttype of relationship than
anything that existed in thebiblical world, and so we don't
have to jettison the biblicaltext or say that the biblical
authors were wrong to have anegative judgment about same-sex
relations, given the same-sexbehaviors that were widely
practiced in the ancient world.
We can simply recognize thatthe same sex unions we're
(17:15):
talking about today arecategorically different from the
context of the biblical worldand they deserve to be assessed
independently on their ownmerits, and I think when we do
that, I think there are.
I think that same sex marriagestoday are consistent with what
have always been the coreChristian principles of love,
permanence, faithfulness,sacrifice and commitment in
relationships.
So that may have been a longerexplanation than you were saying
, but that's why, ultimately, Ido think you can be gay and
(17:36):
Christian in the sense of beingin a same sex relationship and
being a Christian as well,because I don't think that
scripture condemns the sort ofsame sex marriage relationships
that we're talking about today.
Shawn (17:47):
I guess I want to pull up that thread a little bit more
and I'll, you know, admit upfront that it's quite possible
that this is already asked andanswered to some degree.
But I guess I want to put afiner point on it, which is, if
we kind of accept this dominantChristian narrative that
Christianity and homosexualityare incompatible, right, and so
I guess that leaves people thatare queer Christians with
(18:10):
limited options if they want tobe practicing Christians.
One is to either accept thatdominant narrative and somehow
just live a life in which theyfeel as if, yes, you know, I am
living a sinful life.
The other is to reject thatnarrative, and then I guess
another is, as you're saying,which is to take it in context,
(18:31):
right, the context of the time.
So there's a lot of differentways to, I suppose, square that
circle.
But I guess for a lot of folks,for a lot of gay Christians, I
do believe that at certainpoints in their life they are
really struggling with how to beaccepted as a Christian, how to
accept themselves.
How do you help them to managethat tension, or what advice
would you give?
Matthew (18:51):
It's a great question and it certainly is a
challenging process ofreconciliation for a lot of
people, just given the realitythat the vast majority of LGBTQ
people who grow up in the churchare also taught in the church
that it is wrong to be eitherattracted to the same sex or in
a same sex relationship, andthat's often presented as a
(19:15):
salvation issue, that it's notjust like a minor disagreement
but it's a foundational thingthat if you disagree with that,
then you're kind of on the outsof the whole church and the
whole community.
So for the vast majority of gayChristians, bisexual Christians
, transgender Christians, thenumber one source of their
anxiety comes from theirinterpretation of scripture,
(19:39):
because it's not just that yourchurch told you that this is
wrong.
It's your church told you thatthis is wrong because the Bible
teaches it, and so it'sappealing to the higher
authority and within theProtestant church, the higher
authority and within theProtestant church, the highest
authority is scripture.
Within the Catholic churchright, the highest authority is
more tradition and scripture isimportant, but is more important
(19:59):
and it's informed by traditionin a way that for Protestants,
scripture is really the singlehighest authority.
So for most LGBT Christiansstruggling with their identity
and their faith.
The most important thing forthem is to come to a deeper
understanding of the historicaland cultural context of the main
six scripture passages thatrefer to same-sex behaviors.
(20:24):
I don't see a lot of LGBTChristians get to a point of
peace and self-acceptance wherethey are holding on to both
faith and sexuality withoutdoing that, and for a lot of
them that is, I mean, I thinkthat is the single most
important piece.
Then you also you do have therelational pieces and the
challenges in terms of, you know, responses from family and
(20:46):
community, but ultimately, eventhen, negative responses from
family and church community arealmost always rooted in people's
interpretation of scripture, soit always does keep coming back
to like the biblical text.
I think that's why I've endedup putting like a lot of work
and a lot of focus on that,because it just that's the key
thing that I think shapeswhether or not people are able
(21:07):
to be at peace with themselvesor not.
Shawn (21:09):
The key thing that I think shapes whether or not
people are able to be at peacewith themselves or not.
So there are clearly LGBTQ andqueer affirming churches and
denominations the world over,including in the United States.
They do actually follow withinsome tradition of an established
order, but I do wonder if thesetypes of churches that are more
affirming are in some way seenas less than by the more
(21:31):
traditional or dominant ordersthat they sit within, and then
if, in some way, what gayChristians that are attending
these types of churches aredoing is appeasing something
within themselves that they'regoing to continue struggling
with within the largerdenomination, which is this lack
of acceptance.
Matthew (21:51):
I mean it's certainly true that affirming churches are
seen as less than bynon-affirming churches.
Broadly speaking, I would saymost non-affirming churches
would regard an affirming churchas not even a real church.
But there are two differentreasons for that no-transcript
(22:36):
20th century about just how muchauthority the Bible should have
.
And so you kind of have theconservative wing, which tends
to be quite a bit larger andcertainly more politically
influential, that is verycommitted to a high view of the
authority of scripture and allthat that means is that if the
Bible, if there's any verse inthe Bible that, like you, can't
just dismiss a verse of theBible based on saying you don't
(22:57):
agree with it, now that does notmean that scripture is
interpreted and appliedliterally, because no one
actually does that.
People might do that in certainways, but there are always
parts of scripture you know theNew Testament talks about.
You know you'll heap burningcoals on the heads of your
enemies by, you know, prayingfor them or loving them.
That's nobody thinks.
Everybody understands that.
That's a metaphor.
Nobody actually thinks thatthat's literal.
(23:18):
So there's.
So it's not a question ofliteralism exactly and it's not
even.
And even most conservativeChristians do have some nuances
and their approach to biblicalinterpretation, at least on a
variety of topics, and so we'llrecognize that.
You know, there may be ascripture may say something in a
certain place, like it says inthe New Testament many times
(23:38):
you're supposed to greet oneanother in the church with a
holy kiss.
That was a literal practicethat they did in the first
century.
Almost no one does that,certainly not in our context
today, because people just feellike that would be off-putting
and actually make more peopleuncomfortable than comfortable.
So you could ask you know somepeople, some skeptics, might say
oh so how are you saying you'recommitted to the authority of
Scripture if then here's thisverse about a holy kiss and
(23:59):
you're not doing it?
But the vast majority ofconservative Christians do have
more nuance in their methodology, their approach to Scripture.
They would say well, what weneed to still uphold is the
principle here of a warmgreeting of other people at
church, but we can do it in ourown way.
It might not look exactly likethis.
So that's all it means.
Having a lower view of scripturewould be to say, for instance
well, paul said, you know, paulhad this.
(24:23):
Paul said that he believed that, you know, christ died for our
sins was buried and raised fromthe dead on the third day.
But I don't really agree withPaul.
I think Paul was wrong and sowe're not going to teach that at
our church.
I mean, that's a bit maybeextreme, because that's a pretty
foundational belief forChristianity.
But there could be anythingwhere, if the posture is that
you just are outright saying youdon't really care about what
(24:45):
the biblical text says becauseyou don't agree with it, that's
a lower view of the authority ofscripture that you do find more
commonly in more progressivechurches, or at least somewhere
on that spectrum.
So the fundamental divide formost conservative Christians
that has made them very wary ofthe whole conversation around
same-sex relationships is thebelief that anybody who has an
affirming view of same-sexrelationships must have a low
view of the authority ofscripture and the way that they
(25:06):
are affirming same-sexrelationships must be by saying,
sure, the apostle Paul took anegative view of same-sex
relations in Romans 1, but wedon't care, right, we'll just
say Paul was wrong or Paul wasoutdated and we know better than
Paul.
We're moving on and there areplenty of more theologically
progressive Christians who haveframed the issue that way, and
so that's a that's completenon-starter from the standpoint
(25:29):
of theologically conservativeChristians, because you're not
just asking them to change theirview on this one topic.
You're asking them to changetheir view of the Bible in its
entirety, about whether itshould carry authority over
their lives or not.
So that's part of the challenge,and part of the dichotomy that
I'm seeking to challenge is thatI actually think, if all, I
just want conservativeChristians to use the same
(25:53):
nuances in their interpretationsand their biblical and their
interpretive methodologies thatthey already have applied to so
many other topics, and I justwant them to use that same level
of nuance and consistency whenit comes to the topic of
same-sex relationships, whereyou do have an openness to
questions around historical andcultural context, understanding
the deeper principle behind whysomething was said and then
(26:13):
recognizing that it may not havea one-to-one application in our
current context if our versionof something is very different
from the version of it in thefirst century or the ancient
world.
So I think, to the extent thatconservative Christians are able
to see examples of affirmingChristians who are affirming in
a way that is still upholdingthe authority of scripture, that
(26:35):
definitely does help in then,even if they disagree, not
seeing those affirmingChristians as somehow not even
Christians at all.
So, yes, I mean, there still isa broadly negative view of
affirming churches bynon-affirming churches, but much
of that is fueled by thatbelief that they're not
committed to Scripture as aprinciple, and so that's part of
what I'm seeking to.
(26:56):
You know, that's part of whatI'm trying to get people to look
at differently.
Shawn (27:01):
Let's dig into that a little bit more.
I think you've given at leastan example here of translating a
desire or a want for somethingto happen to an action that
actually makes it happen.
And I think what typicallyhappens and I think in past
maybe I've been guilty of thismyself is that in disagreeing or
trying to identify thecontradictions in Christianity,
(27:22):
you just get into these back andforth arguments that just seem
ineffective, which is, you takethe anti-LGBT passages so
literally but you eat shellfish,et cetera by way of example,
and I've never found those to beeffective arguments.
What are some effectivearguments or what are some ways
to bridge that divide in such away that perhaps non-gay
(27:43):
Christians or Christians thatbelieve that a gay lifestyle or
the gay life or gay person isnot compatible with Christian
life, can actually walk the sameChristian path in concert with
gay Christians, without it beingexistential?
Matthew (27:58):
Yeah, I mean you're right that that argument about
shellfish is rarely effective,and the reason for that is
because, yes, even thoughLeviticus prohibits the eating
of shellfish, and Leviticus alsoprohibits male same-sex
intercourse For the moreknowledgeable or thoughtful
conservative Christians,leviticus is not their actual
main reason for opposingsame-sex relationships, because
(28:21):
the entire Old Testament lawcode no longer applies to
Christians in the way that itdid to the ancient Israelites,
and a huge part of the NewTestament is dedicated to this
exact question of whether or notGentile converts to the
Christian faith should be boundby these 613 rules, regulations
and prohibitions from the OldTestament law code.
And the answer narrated fromActs 10 to 15 at the first
(28:42):
general council of the earlychurch in AD 49 in Jerusalem is
a resounding no.
The Gentiles are not bound bythe particulars of all these
laws that Christ was the end ofthe law.
Paul refers to the law as thisyoke of slavery that Christians
should not again subjectthemselves to.
So the whole idea is that therewas the old covenant and then
it was essentially superseded bythe new covenant in Christ.
(29:04):
So that's why the shellfishargument doesn't persuade a lot
of people, because Christiansare not being hypocritical by
not eating shellfish or byeating shellfish, because the
old law has never applied tothem.
Now it can sound hypocriticalif there are some, maybe
Christians, who all they'redoing is quoting Leviticus on
same-sex relations to make thatargument, because that's not
(29:26):
actually that great of anargument, and if that were the
only text involved, I think thiscontroversy would have already
kind of probably been in therearview mirror.
It's because there's also thistext in the New Testament, in
the book of Romans 1,.
Well, in chapter 1 of the bookof Romans, in which the Apostle
Paul describes same-sexrelations negatively, and that
is much more weighty for theaverage conservative Christian
(29:47):
because it is in the NewTestament instead of the Old
Testament.
But in terms of arguments thatare effective, in my experience
I do think the most effectiveargument is essentially just the
argument saying that the typesof same-sex practices in the
ancient world are very differentfrom the types of same-sex
marriages we're talking abouttoday marriages we're talking
(30:10):
about today.
If you ask most conservativeChristians about the Bible and
slavery, they will give you avery similar sounding version of
this argument where they willsay well, you have to understand
that the type of slavery in thefirst century biblical world
was very different from 19thcentury American race-based
chattel slavery.
Now, that's true to a certaindegree.
Slavery in the Roman world wasnot race-based.
I still don't think that thatin any way makes slavery in the
Roman world acceptable or good.
(30:31):
It doesn't need to berace-based for it to be very bad
, but it's, and I actually thinkthere's a better way to make
the case about why Christiansshould be against slavery in
interpreting scripture on thattopic.
The point is that a lot ofconservative Christians are very
comfortable just easilyappealing to hey, well, if the
form of this practice in the19th century was different than
(30:53):
the form of the practice in thefirst century, well then, that's
why you know these.
That's why we need to look atthis more differently or
differently.
But it's funny because then, ifyou just turn to the issue of
same sex relationships, youcould make a very, very similar
argument, very similar argument.
Another similar example andthis is an argument that I make
in the updated edition of Godand the Gay Christian, which is
an issue that most Christiansand most people probably are not
(31:13):
even aware was ever a hugetaboo and a huge issue in the
church.
But the Bible condemns charginginterest on loans categorically
in the Old Testament, and thenJesus is widely seen as raising
the bar even higher in the NewTestament when he says that not
only should people not begetting interest on loans, they
should not even expect the moneythey lend in the first place to
(31:34):
ever be given back to them, andthey should still be lending
freely without that expectation.
But for the first 1,500 years ofthe church there was complete
unanimity among leadingtheologians, church fathers,
popes, councils of the churchthat to charge any amount of
interest on a loan at all was agrave sin that would send
someone to hell, that wouldcompletely separate you from God
(31:55):
and the kingdom of heaven.
And this was taken veryseriously.
Anybody who charged and like ifyou charged a 1% interest rate
to a rich person, like we're noteven talking about necessarily
a context of exploiting poor orvulnerable people then you would
be excommunicated from thechurch.
Even as late as the, you know,1300s, they were, you know,
(32:16):
talking about this punishment ofexcommunication.
In fact, in the 1300s they saidthat any Christian who even
thought that charging intereston a loan wasn't a grave sin
would be excommunicated from thechurch.
So it wasn't until the time ofthe Reformation, and
specifically through the work ofJohn Calvin, who was one of the
leading reformers in the 16thcentury, that this teaching
began to change.
(32:37):
And what Calvin did is?
He said okay, I recognize thatthe Bible does condemn charging
interest categorically.
This was called usury.
Today, usury has been redefinedas excessive interest on loans,
but in the Bible and theChristian tradition it just
meant charging any interest onloans at all.
So he said okay, I do recognizethat the Bible condemns charging
interest categorically.
(32:58):
However, he said the reasonthat it did so was to protect
poor people from exploitation,and in the agrarian societies
and economies of ancient Israel,that was a good rule to have in
place because of the sheerprevalence of exploiting poor
and vulnerable people, who wouldthen get into this deeper and
(33:19):
deeper, into a pit of debt thatthey couldn't get out of.
And so it was really there, forit was like a humanitarian
prohibition prohibition.
But he said, now that oureconomy is changing so much, now
that we have an increasinglycommercial society where there
could be a lot of benefits tosociety by being able to have
more capital flowing, being ableto give more people loans to
(33:39):
start businesses that canbenefit their families, their
broader communities, now he saidwe should still reject charging
interest whenever it exploitsthe poor.
In fact, calvin said weshouldn't charge interest to the
poor at all, but he said thatwe should recognize that the
moral logic behind the Bible'sprohibitions of usury does not
extend to, and should not beextended to, all forms of
(34:01):
charging interest on loans.
Now that we're in such adifferent economic environment,
and now that they can, we havemany more situations where
charging interest on loans canhelp people.
Certainly, most people todaywould not be able to ever afford
a home if they couldn'tinterest.
For sure, things like paydayloans, anything that exploits
(34:33):
the vulnerable or the poor, isclearly at odds with the
teachings of scripture.
But at this point, there isbasically no Christians who are
still against charging anyamount of interest on a loan,
much less Christians who wouldsee that as a sin that will
forever separate you from God.
And so that's another example.
It's a very similar type ofinterpretive methodology where
(34:55):
it's recognizing okay, we do seethat the biblical text is
negative on this, but we have tounderstand why it was negative.
It made sense for the Bible toreject this practice in its
original context, given whatthat practice looked like back
then.
That was true for interest onloans, and it was true for
same-sex behaviors in theancient world as well.
However, what that practice canlook like today, there are
(35:15):
forms of that practice todaythat look very, very different
from that, and that the valuesbehind them are actually much
more positive and the outcomesare much more positive, and so
we should look at thosedifferently.
I think, ultimately, it's thatissue of cultural distance,
combined with looking at themoral logic of scripture, that
is the most effective argumentfor persuading somebody who is
(35:35):
more theologically conservative,because they already have, they
already adopt that approach onmultiple other topics.
Shawn (35:42):
I want to talk about evangelicalism a little bit,
because it does take a lot ofresponsibility for the white
Christian nationalist movementin the United States, for the
lurch to the right in our publicpolicy.
It's been described as kind ofinhospitable, if not outright
hostile to not just LGBTQ peoplebut to women, to democracy
itself, to immigrants, etc.
(36:03):
As a result, we're seeing, likewhat's being called the
ex-evangelical movement, peopleleaving evangelicalism.
But that does beg the question,though, because there's a part
of me that wonders if theevangelical church, this
component of the evangelicalchurch, has been co-opted by
some outside influence and issimply now something that it has
never intended to be and neverwas prior, or if this is an
(36:26):
evolution.
And I suppose the biggerquestion is is there any room
for reconciliation here orreform within the evangelical
movement or the evangelicalinstitution itself, or is the
only way to really fix this isfrom a completely separate
movement?
Matthew (37:08):
Yeah, it's a good question.
I think there's no doubt thatco-optation, like a real
corruption of the message ofChrist in how the church gets
entangled with the powers thatbe, so as disappointing as that
is, maybe it's even moredisappointing the fact that it's
(37:28):
nothing new.
At the same time, I do takesome encouragement from the fact
that the best way to critiquewhen this happens is by an
appeal to the person andteachings of Jesus himself.
It's when this is happening,when Christianity is being
misused for this purpose.
It's generally pretty easy,even for people who aren't
(37:53):
Christians, to point to the waysin which this doesn't really
look anything like Jesus, theways in which this is at odds
with the character of Christthat we read about in scripture,
and so I think that is justbeing able to identify something
as a distortion or a corruptionof what it clearly is supposed
to be is helpful.
It doesn't make it lessfrustrating when that happens,
(38:14):
but I think it is still veryhelpful to be able to point out
those glaring inconsistenciesand incongruities in terms of
whether or not reform ispossible in the evangelical
world.
I think the evangelical worldis very big and broad and more
variegated than I think a lot ofpeople may think the
(38:38):
hyper-politicized part of theevangelical world is probably
the least receptive to reformefforts because they have more
weighing on their assessments ofthings.
Right, it's not purely aquestion of what is our best
understanding of scripture, it'salso it quickly gets tangled up
(39:02):
into a lot of other worldlyconsiderations.
That said, I have seen somemeaningful positive changes in
the broader evangelical worldover the last decade, like when
the book, when the originaledition of the book, came out in
2014,.
There have been I would saythere's a like.
The moderate part of theevangelical world is not the
dominant voice within thatcommunity, but it is there and
(39:25):
it is an importantcounterbalance.
And I'm not even talking about,like, progressive
evangelicalism and I'm not eventalking about churches that are
actually affirming, but thereare moderate evangelical
churches that are not, say, onthe MAGA train right, that do a
good job of staying, of keepingpoliticization out of the pulpit
, and where I have seen asignificant cultural shift over
(39:48):
the last 10 years in terms ofgreater openness and welcome
toward same-sex couples, towardthe LGBT community more broadly.
Now, at the same time, we'vealso seen on the more, I guess,
far right end of the evangelicalworld.
You've seen, especially inrecent years, an increase in
hostility, vitriol andantagonism toward the LGBTQ
(40:11):
community.
And so what I've alwaysattempted to do for the 15 years
or so that I've been doing thiswork is I'm happy to have a
conversation with anybody,including somebody who is very
deeply committed to a very, veryconservative perspective, but
I'm going.
I end up.
I'm much more interested ininvesting most of my time and
energy into people, intoChristians who are, who are, who
(40:35):
do have an openness toconsidering another point of
view, and they kind of justnaturally find me, I think,
those who are, who are seekingthat out.
And so I still feel like inthose contexts, like there's
enough.
There are plenty.
It's not as high profile, butthere are a lot of pastors and
churches still a minority forsure within evangelicalism who
are wanting to wrestle much moresincerely and honestly with
(41:00):
this topic and the questionsthat it raises, and a lot of
them just come to me, and so Ithink that helps me feel
encouraged that, like I do thinkreform is possible Broadly
speaking.
That doesn't mean everyindividual congregation or
institution will see that thereare, there are always some
individual institutions that endup sometimes, you know so
(41:23):
committed to a view, know socommitted to a view, well after
there's much of a constituencyfor it, that that may spell, you
know, that may coincide withthe broader decline of that
institution.
So I'm not saying it's thatwe're going to see that happen
in every single institution, butI do think that evangelicalism
is dynamic enough and I mean yougot new church plants all the
time and so I do think thatthere is potential there.
(41:47):
But it's a long-term thing forsure.
Shawn (41:51):
So I'm hearing quite a bit from people that the most
effective approach to change, asmaybe a bulwark against some of
the more frighteningright-leaning policy and mega
directed policy that we'refacing, is at the local level,
is at the community level.
But I do have this fear that weare living through a period of
time in which the dominant forcehere, the force that has the
(42:13):
wind at its back, is this kindof mega force and this white
Christian nationalist force, andI don't know that we have the
time for so much localengagement, one-on-one
engagement, to make a change.
I feel like it almost requiresat this moment some type of
social or cultural shift that ismuch bigger than what's
happening and you can disabuseme of this, that's just how I
(42:35):
feel.
You know, if this trend were toplay out without some type of
significant shift at the socialor cultural level, that is
bigger than a gradual, long-termthing.
If we're in for a period of youknow our own form of, I suppose
the dark ages.
Matthew (42:51):
Oh well, I hope not, but it's hard to say.
I do think that it's.
You know, I never could havepredicted 15 years ago the
corrosive effects that I thinkeven social media has had in, I
think, empowering some of themore extreme and radical voices,
and so I don't have a lot ofhope about, you know, I feel
(43:12):
like the algorithms aren't.
The algorithms could easily helppropel us into, you know, a
very kind of regression acrossthe board in society.
I think you see some of thosethings develop, but I don't want
to be despondent or despairingabout that, and so I'm still
(43:37):
just trying to do what I can,trying to reach people with a
positive message that is focusedon shared values, focused on
shared values, shared beliefs,and I do think that Christians
have a lot of Christians whoespecially don't want to see
real regression in terms of howsociety cares for the least of
(44:00):
these.
I think we have a lot ofresources within our faith to
empower us in sometimes makingthose critiques of ways that
maybe even the majority of partsof the church or dominant wings
or strands of the church arenot being faithful to the
teachings of Jesus and ofscripture.
(44:21):
Um and so for me, I guess timewill tell, but I am cautiously
optimistic, while recognizingthat there are lots of
challenges for sure.
Shawn (44:40):
Well, okay, and so here's something hopeful generations
younger Christians do appear tobe more affirming, if not
identify at a larger rate thanprevious generations, as LGBTQ
themselves.
So they have the opportunity orthe ability to play a
significant role in the futureof the church, focusing on
(45:00):
allyship.
How important do you thinkallyship is to the future of the
church and its role in itsapproach to LGBTQ teaching?
And then I guess the biggerquestion is in building that
inclusive approach toChristianity.
What does that actually looklike?
That isn't simply justaccepting or being tolerant.
Matthew (45:24):
Yeah, I mean, I think allies certainly are essential,
especially when you have apopulation that is a relatively
small minority of society, asthe LGBT community is.
If you don't have allies, youare going to find a life much
more difficult.
Allies are important in thatit's important to always make
(45:58):
sure that we are thoughtful inframing things, I think, based
on shared values.
Sometimes there's more of atendency to become more insular,
even within minority groups orcommunities, and kind of just
focus on the things that make usdifferent or distinct, and
there can, there can be ahealthy place for that to some
degree.
But if it becomes the dominantmessage that the rest of society
seems to be hearing, that thefocus is just on here's all the
(46:18):
ways that we're different fromyou, that I think that's
generally counterproductive.
Um, in trying to uh helpunderscore the you know that
it's all that we really do havein common with most people and
with you know, with heterosexualpeople.
In terms of what affirmingchurches can look like, I think
(46:41):
that sometimes there's atendency I see this among some
churches that want to lean somuch into being affirming that
it feels like it's one of themain things that they talk about
and the church almost feelslike it's gotten a redesign,
with pride flags everywhere, andalthough there are some LGBTQ
people and Christians whoappreciate this, because you
(47:04):
know they've had such a negativeexperience in the past with
churches that that way it reallymakes it very clear to them
that the church is inclusive andsupportive, in my experience
and for me personally, I don'tactually think that is the most
effective or helpful approach,because I do think that there's
a lot of like, even just for meas a gay Christian.
(47:27):
I do think that there's a lotof like even just for me as a
gay Christian.
I do just want to be able to goto church to.
I want to be fully included andnot mistreated or discriminated
against, but in order to learnmore about Jesus and how I can
model my life after his Like.
(48:04):
I think it's actually it can bevery helpful when not making it
feel like it's an ongoing issueor topic of conversation.
It's just like the reality justis that people are being
included, but then everybody isthere for that primary purpose
of like growing in their faithand in their ability to follow
(48:26):
Jesus.
So I don't I mean that may havebeen a little bit different
than what you were, I don't knowenvisioning, but for me at
least I mean it's not.
Yeah, maybe it's not as likeflashy, but I have found that to
be particularly helpful,especially just in then making
it clear because a lot of for alot of affirming churches too,
(48:53):
whether they intend to be or not, they are the one example that
other non-affirming churches intheir community see of what it
looks like to be affirming.
And so if it looks to theaverage non-affirming church in
a town that to be affirming youhave to make it almost one of
your primary identitycharacteristics that it has to
be this huge deal that then kindof fundamentally alters how
everybody thinks and feels aboutthe church.
(49:14):
I think that's much moreintimidating than, and makes a
lot of non-affirming churchesmuch warier of engaging the
conversation than, when they dosee examples of churches that
are affirming but that are alsojust still very much keeping
their focus, kind of keeping themain thing, the main thing
within church.
So I do think that ends upultimately being more helpful
(49:37):
for LGBT people, especiallythose in churches, that
otherwise that if they don't seeexamples of that, will never
want to entertain theconversation.
Shawn (49:46):
I mean, I think there's to some degree.
The same thing happened in adifferent context when I was
younger and I was coming out.
It was really important to meto have or it was a relief to me
to have friends that would talkabout how comfortable they were
with me as a gay person andthey would.
They would seek me out as beinglike the gay person that they
could get a gay perspective from.
But I very quickly grew out ofthat and came to appreciate more
(50:09):
just it being a non-issue Rightand not that being the leading
thing.
So I think we're kind oftalking in the same space.
Matthew (50:18):
Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense and I feel
the same way.
I think, especially early on,when you first come out, you do
need to hear some specific,positive, supportive statements,
to really feel confident thatpeople you know, to know where
you stand with people and or, ifyou don't, if somebody isn't
fully supportive, it's helpfulto kind of know where you're at
(50:40):
with them.
But after a while, what is themost validating thing is then
just to be able to move on withyour life and still be seen as a
multifaceted person withdiverse interests and hobbies
and personality traits that youknow are that go well beyond
(51:02):
your sexual orientation.
Shawn (51:04):
All right, final question you ready for it?
Okay, what's somethinginteresting you've been reading,
watching, listening to or doinglately?
And it doesn't have to berelated to this topic, but
obviously it can be.
Matthew (51:14):
Oh, wow.
Well, a lot of what I read isabout this topic.
I've been reading a book calledDominion by Tom Holland.
Have you heard of it?
It's not the Spider-Man, it'snot the Spider-Man actor.
Tom Holland is a same time manyof the aspects of Western
(51:50):
culture and many of the valuesof Western culture, from
equality to minority rights, tojust the dignity and rights of
the individual.
Many of these values wereinitially kind of nurtured by
Christian principles and thought, and so that we're kind of at
an interesting fork in the roadright now where the question is
(52:15):
to what extent can those values,those kind of fundamental
liberal values that have aChristian heritage can?
What extent, to what extent canthose values be retained, even
if society were to continue kindof jettisoning the actual kind
of Christian belief structure orframework behind them?
(52:36):
And one of the tensions thatcomes up is some of what you see
on the far right today, wherecertainly there are forms of
Christian nationalism.
There are forms of Christiannationalism and there's also a
kind of growing like.
It's been interesting to see theextent to which the rise in
secularism or the decline ofChristianity does not always
(53:01):
yield like a continuation ofsome of those more liberal
values, and so it's just aninteresting.
I enjoy reading differentperspectives, and I kind of
enjoy Tom Holland's perspectivebecause he's not a Christian and
so I just and I don't have aperfectly worked out answer to
(53:21):
those questions, but they do.
They are things I think about alot, so I've been enjoying
reading that book.
Shawn (53:28):
Have you read the book or heard of the book, jesus Wept?
Matthew (53:31):
No, I haven't.
Who wrote it?
Philip Shannon, Is that it?
Okay?
I just looked it up.
Shawn (53:37):
Did I get his name right, is it?
Matthew (53:38):
Yeah, apparently it just came out.
Shawn (53:40):
It's very, very good, let me say that, but it's not.
It's not getting into liketheory or theological history as
much as it is kind ofexplaining the Catholic Church's
evolution on a lot of thesocial and identity issues that
we're talking about today overthe course of the last seven
popes.
Matthew (53:57):
It's a really fascinating read.
Well, hey, I might check it out.
Shawn (54:02):
Matthew, thanks for taking the time.
I enjoyed the conversation.
Matthew (54:04):
Thank you so much for having me.
Shawn (54:14):
In today's world, given our politics and the rise of the
right-wing evangelical movement, it might not feel this way.
But, as Matthew Vines remindsus, faith and identity don't
have to live in conflict.
They can illuminate one another.
But in this moment, with therise of Christian nationalism,
global uncertainty in the churchand a wave of anti-LGBTQ
(54:36):
policies sweeping throughlegislatures, the stakes are
high.
What happens in our churchesreverberates into our laws, our
classrooms and our communities,and we're all feeling it.
The work of inclusion isongoing and it demands courage,
clarity and compassion.
Whether you're a person offaith like Matthew, a skeptic or
(54:58):
agnostic like me, or somewherein between.
The question remains what kindof world and what kind of church
are we willing to build andwhat can we do to live in peace
and harmony, even when wedisagree?
All right, check back next weekfor another episode of Deep
Dive Chat.
Soon, folks.
Thank you, thank you.
do I believe these things about God and Jesus, and
is this, you know, important forhow I see myself and my place
in the world and how I want tolive my life?
I also, indeed, am gay, and sofor me, I just am a gay
Christian.
And then the real questioncomes around whether or not it
is okay to be in a same-sexrelationship or not, and that is
(00:21):
, I think, that's got to be.
That's the thornier issue,because for the great majority
of the Christian church'shistory, the answer was that
same sex relationships werecategorically wrong.
At the same time, there wasalso no understanding until the
middle of the 20th century thatthere was anybody who was
exclusively attracted to thesame sex.
So the whole concept of sexualorientation as we understand it,
(00:42):
the whole concept of gay peopleas we now understand them, was
not something that was a featureof any Christian or any other
dialogue about same-sexbehaviors, relationships or
attraction.
Shawn (01:00):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
All eyes are turning towardRome, where a new papal conclave
opens on May 7th.
With the death of Pope Francis,long considered one of the most
LGBTQ-friendly popes of alltime, the future of Catholic
doctrine, particularly on LGBTQinclusion, could hang in the
(01:23):
balance.
On LGBTQ inclusion could hangin the balance.
In this episode, we're going totalk about one of the most
charged intersections incontemporary American life,
where queerness, christianityand politics collide.
For decades, lgbtq Christianshave wrestled with a faith
tradition that has oftenrejected them, sometimes
violently, but in recent years,especially in this Trump era,
(01:46):
the debate has grown louder,more political and far more
dangerous.
As white Christian nationalismgains ground in the United
States, lgbtq identities havebecome a convenient scapegoat
from pews to policy platforms.
Churches that once preachedlove are now helping write the
playbook for anti-trans laws,school censorship and a vision
(02:10):
of the nation rooted inexclusion and oppression, and
they're making very real groundat a quick clip.
My guest today, matthew Vines,has been at the heart of this
conversation for over a decade,through his groundbreaking book
God and the Gay Christian, firstpublished in 2014 and updated
this year, and his work with theReformation Project which
(02:32):
advocates for the creation of anaffirming church.
He's reshaped.
How many understand the Bibleand queerness?
Not in opposition, but inharmony.
This isn't just about theology,it's about who belongs and who
gets to decide.
Just a note I was travelingwhen we recorded this interview,
so I didn't have my usualequipment, which means that the
(02:53):
sound quality on my side of theconversation sounds a little
like well, like I didn't have myusual equipment.
All right, if you like thisepisode or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom
(03:18):
.
Let's do a deep dive, matthew.
Thanks for being here.
How are you?
Very well, thank you.
So this might be a bit of anunderstatement, but we're living
through some very dynamic times.
(03:38):
Our politics in the US, but evenglobally, are becoming very
unsettled, democracies indecline worldwide and
Christianity is playing a prettybig and influential role in
public policy.
And it's really just, to mymind, one version of
Christianity, and that's whiteChristian nationalism, which is
really not at all about mercy ortolerance.
It's almost kind ofsingle-mindedly focused on
(04:00):
repression and dominance and,for the purposes of our
conversation conversation, or alarge part of our conversation
very anti-LGBTQ, and I thinkthat you occupy a space that
must be very complicated, if notdifficult, in that you identify
as a gay Christian and thisfeels, I think, to some people
an oxymoron these days and also,I'm sure, puts you in spaces in
which you aren't reallyaccepted by the queer community
(04:22):
sometimes, and then also maybenot by the larger Christian
community either, at the sametime, probably occasionally
expected to speak for andrepresent each of the
communities as well.
So there's a lot to talk aboutand it's difficult to imagine
how we'll do this in an hour,but let's try.
Matthew (04:37):
All right, let's try.
Shawn (04:38):
Okay.
So I think it'd be weird if wehad this conversation.
You know at the time that weare without touching on the
death of Pope Francis and theupcoming conclave, so maybe
that's where we should start.
So the Catholic Church will beelecting a new pope and fully
recognizing that Catholicismdoesn't represent the whole of
Christianity.
It does speak to billions ofpeople, and Francis has been
(05:01):
hailed as the most LGBTQ orqueer friendly popes of all time
, and I tend to think of that asbeing maybe relative simply to
other popes, although peoplemight disagree with me on this.
So I guess I'm wondering youknow from where you sit what
influence do you think thatFrancis had?
How do you think his legacy isgoing to play out?
And then I think the biggerquestion here is or maybe this
is the question a lot of peoplehave right now is what's the
(05:24):
next pope going to be like?
So what could we expect on the,you know, lgbtq front?
And I tend to have this pardonmy phrasing, but pessimistic
kind of the devil, you knowfeeling about this.
So I guess I'm a little worriedabout what might be coming.
Matthew (05:38):
Yeah, no, I mean, it's very hard to know with these
sorts of things.
On the one hand, francisappointed what roughly 80%, I
believe, of the cardinals or whowill be participating in the
conclave.
So in that sense, you wouldthink that the odds are decent
that there will be someone whois more in his mold.
And yet you also never reallyknow.
(05:59):
And you know, anything canhappen.
Did you watch the conclavemovie, by the way?
Shawn (06:05):
I did.
Yeah, I mean how timely right.
Matthew (06:07):
I know, I thought I thought it was great.
Obviously that was a little bitmore of a dramatic outcome than
we would typically get, but didyou see that?
Outcome coming.
No, I did not Did you?
Shawn (06:15):
No, I didn't.
I mean I think literally asecond before I was like I
thought it might be a queerperson, but I did not.
Matthew (06:26):
No, I did not see the specifics of that.
I thought it was fascinating,yeah, but, and just a really
interesting insight into aprocess you know almost none of
us actually ever wouldexperience firsthand.
So, yeah, I mean, we'll see.
You know, I was doing someresearch on who some of the
leading candidates are and someof them seem like they could be
(06:47):
pretty good in terms ofcontinuing some of the positive
things that Francis was doing.
I am certainly was a fan ofPope Francis.
I'm not a Catholic.
I was raised Presbyterianevangelical, so I'm still in the
evangelical Protestant worldand tradition.
But obviously, you know, theCatholic Church is about half of
Christians worldwide.
So it's pretty significant andit matters who the Pope is and
(07:13):
what the Pope thinks and saysand also kind of how the Pope
models whatever.
You know you can have officialteachings, but also then the
posture that you have issignificant.
One big challenge with theCatholic Church is that because
it is so hierarchical, it isvery difficult to actually
change formal teachings of theChurch.
In fact, there are manyCatholic apologists who will
insist that the Church has neverchanged its teachings on any
(07:35):
moral matters.
This is not true, but that Imean even when it comes to
sexuality, in the earlycenturies of the Church, the
teaching was that all sexualacts must be intended for the
purpose of procreation in orderto be moral, even within
marriage.
Well, so they'll say that theyhaven't changed on this, but
they really have, because by thetime of Vatican II in the 1960s
(07:57):
, the teaching became that allsexual acts must be open to
procreation, just meaning thatyou can't use contraception but
you don't actually have to beintentionally trying to
procreate.
And they said that you canactually intentionally try not
to procreate through the rhythmmethod.
So that's the sort of thingwhere they'll say, oh well, we
didn't really change it, but Ithink that's a pretty
significant shift actually.
And so, anyway, all that to say, it is harder, it will be
(08:24):
harder for the Catholic Churchto change its teaching on
same-sex relationships than forProtestant churches, because
you've got the whole issue ofchurch tradition and hierarchy.
That is a much bigger factorfor Catholics than it is for
Protestants.
So really, with popes, the moresignificant thing is not whether
they change the teaching,because, to the extent that can
happen, that's not going to besomething one individual pope
(08:44):
can do, not right now, certainly, but I think what Francis did
was about as much as any popecould have done in the 12 years
that he had to try to advance ageneral posture of inclusion and
openness and respect andcompassion toward the LGBTQ
community.
And I didn't necessarily seethat coming, because when he was
first elected pope there wereheadlines about how, when he was
(09:07):
in Argentina, you know, when hewas a priest or a bishop there,
you know he had had some prettyharsh words when Argentina
legalized same-sex marriage andso you could have seen him going
in a different direction.
And yet he made it clear fromthe outset that he wanted to
kind of ditch the more I guess,pomp and circumstance, like the
(09:31):
Benedict who was his predecessorwas much more about, I think,
the A sense of luxury andelegance and like in terms of
how even just the clothing thathe wore was almost like this
royal aesthetic.
And Francis, you know, turnedaway from all of that, adopted a
much more humble aesthetic andapproach that I think is more
(09:53):
consistent with the Jesus ofScripture and then extended that
to his attitude toward the LGBTcommunity.
And it was really interestingbecause when it came to the
issue of same-sex relationships,you know, just in the last
couple years of his papacy, hedid muddy the waters a little
bit in terms of what theCatholic Church was actually
(10:14):
like.
It had their teaching, but thenthey were saying they could
bless same-sex couples, and thenit became very confusing around
what that actually meant, andso a lot of conservatives in the
Catholic Church were veryfrustrated with Francis because
they felt like he was notformally changing things, but
still effectively wateringthings down, and obviously those
who wanted to see thoseteachings changed were more
positive toward that.
So, anyway, maybe it might begetting into more detail than
(10:36):
you want there.
All that to say, we will seewhat happens.
I hope that we don't have apope now who is going to
completely turn in a differentdirection and be much more harsh
and condemnatory toward theLGBT community.
But even if that happens, thisis I still am optimistic that
(10:56):
the long-term trajectory for theCatholic Church will be one
toward greater inclusion, but itwill take a lot longer for them
than it will take forProtestants, unfortunately, at
least officially.
Shawn (11:06):
So this is quite possibly a bit of a rabbit hole, because
neither of us is Catholic andit's not really the purpose of
the conversation.
But as long as we're talking alittle bit about it, I do think
this dynamic not only betweenBenedict and then Francis and
the swing there between the twopopes, one after the other, but
(11:26):
you know the reflection, I think, that is of a changing conclave
right In such a short period oftime, because in many ways
Vatican II, or the undoing ofVatican II, can really be traced
almost directly to Ratzinger,when he was working with John
Paul and then.
So then you have Benedict,who's extremely conservative,
and then, just a handful ofyears later, ostensibly a
(11:47):
somewhat similar conclave thanelects somebody like Francis,
right, and the reason I bringthis up is because it really
does emphasize the point thatyou made here, that it's really
unclear as to what we might get.
Matthew (11:57):
Right.
So, yes, I do hope, though,that it will be somebody with a
similar overall posture, likeFrancis's, because I think you
know that's.
I think that's more consistentwith Jesus and therefore what
Christianity should berepresenting, and it's certainly
going to be much more positivefor LGBTQ people in terms of
(12:18):
just the tone that is comingfrom the church.
Shawn (12:21):
So we can swing back then to something that I highlighted
in the preamble and largelypart of the reason that you're
here, which is, you know, we areliving through a period of time
in which religion, identity andpolitics are all heavily
intertwined.
I think that it's bothgenerating and also an
expression of the polarizationand the division that we're
experiencing in our society, butall of that is kind of clashing
(12:42):
in such a way that I think it'sthreatening our democracy and
that can make everything feelsomewhat zero sum.
And, to put it in the contextof the conversation, I think
sometimes it feels like you areeither Christian or you're gay.
Right, that you can't be bothof these things, and I know this
is a conversation that goesback decades, if not centuries.
But I think that you knowthere's a harsher light kind of
(13:05):
thrown on that dynamic right now.
I guess I'm trying tounderstand how you balance these
two identities in a worldthat's really, I think,
currently and contemporarilydemanding that you be one or the
other.
Matthew (13:17):
Yeah, I think I start by separating the entire
question from the, I guess, ourcurrent context and culture,
because for me, christianity isa faith, it is a religion, it is
a set of beliefs that the coreof them go back 2000 years to
right the time of Jesus andshortly after his death and
(13:39):
resurrection.
And so for me, whether or notyou can be gay and Christian,
being gay, I believe being gayis just a thing that some people
are.
Whether they are okay with thator not, is another question.
Whether they, you know, want topursue a same-sex relationship
or not, you know, is anotherquestion.
But some people just are gay.
And if you are a Christian,then that means that you believe
(14:02):
in Jesus Christ, that youbelieve that he was both human
and divine, that he died for thesins of the world, that he rose
from the sins of the world,that he rose from the dead on
the third day.
You know some pretty radicalclaims that are, understandably,
can be eyebrow raising just intheir metaphysics to a modern
secular person, but that haveformed the heart of the
Christian faith for 2000 years.
(14:24):
And so to me it's like that'sthe basic question of if you
believe those things, then youare a Christian and about I
don't know what percent, maybe5% somewhere around there people
are attracted to the same sex,exclusively attracted to the
same sex.
They're gay.
So for me it's almostcompletely separate from the
reality that.
But it is helpful for me tothink about it in that sense
(14:44):
because it's just like no, I dobelieve in this.
I do believe in the teachingsof Jesus.
Like no, I do believe in this,I do believe in the teachings of
Jesus.
I am very inspired by, like,the life that he lived, the
ethics that he taught andpracticed.
I want to model my life afterthat.
And I also happen to be gay.
So the fact that it is a, it ischallenging because there is a
lot of conflict or controversyaround.
(15:05):
That, to me, is a secondaryquestion than the primary
question of do I believe thesethings about God and Jesus?
And is this, you know,important for how I see myself
and my place in the world andhow I went to live my life?
I also, indeed, am gay, and sofor me, I just am a gay
Christian.
(15:26):
And then the real question comesaround whether or not it is
okay to be in a same-sexrelationship or not, and that is
, I think that's got to be.
That's the thornier issue,because for the great majority
of the Christian church'shistory, the answer was that
same-sex relationships werecategorically wrong.
At the same time, there wasalso no understanding until the
middle of the 20th century thatthere was anybody who was
(15:48):
exclusively attracted to thesame sex.
So the whole concept of sexualorientation as we understand it,
the whole concept of gay peopleas we now understand them, was
not something that was a featureof any Christian or any other
dialogue about same-sexbehaviors, relationships or
attraction.
So there are these six texts inscripture that refer to various
forms of same-sex behavior.
They are all negative, they areall condemnatory.
(16:11):
My basic argument in my book Godand the Gay Christian is that
it's not that they aren't I'mnot trying to say that those
negative texts aren't there butthat the reason that same-sex
behaviors were condemned inscripture are very different
than the types of same-sexrelationships that we're talking
about today, that the primarysame-sex practices in the
ancient world were things thatChristians should not have a
(16:32):
positive view of.
Things like pederastyprostitution, sex like a
hierarchical, dominant,subordinate thing, and same-sex
marriage unions.
(16:53):
That's a completely differenttype of relationship than
anything that existed in thebiblical world, and so we don't
have to jettison the biblicaltext or say that the biblical
authors were wrong to have anegative judgment about same-sex
relations, given the same-sexbehaviors that were widely
practiced in the ancient world.
We can simply recognize thatthe same sex unions we're
(17:15):
talking about today arecategorically different from the
context of the biblical worldand they deserve to be assessed
independently on their ownmerits, and I think when we do
that, I think there are.
I think that same sex marriagestoday are consistent with what
have always been the coreChristian principles of love,
permanence, faithfulness,sacrifice and commitment in
relationships.
So that may have been a longerexplanation than you were saying
, but that's why, ultimately, Ido think you can be gay and
(17:36):
Christian in the sense of beingin a same sex relationship and
being a Christian as well,because I don't think that
scripture condemns the sort ofsame sex marriage relationships
that we're talking about today.
Shawn (17:47):
I guess I want to pull up that thread a little bit more
and I'll, you know, admit upfront that it's quite possible
that this is already asked andanswered to some degree.
But I guess I want to put afiner point on it, which is, if
we kind of accept this dominantChristian narrative that
Christianity and homosexualityare incompatible, right, and so
I guess that leaves people thatare queer Christians with
(18:10):
limited options if they want tobe practicing Christians.
One is to either accept thatdominant narrative and somehow
just live a life in which theyfeel as if, yes, you know, I am
living a sinful life.
The other is to reject thatnarrative, and then I guess
another is, as you're saying,which is to take it in context,
(18:31):
right, the context of the time.
So there's a lot of differentways to, I suppose, square that
circle.
But I guess for a lot of folks,for a lot of gay Christians, I
do believe that at certainpoints in their life they are
really struggling with how to beaccepted as a Christian, how to
accept themselves.
How do you help them to managethat tension, or what advice
would you give?
Matthew (18:51):
It's a great question and it certainly is a
challenging process ofreconciliation for a lot of
people, just given the realitythat the vast majority of LGBTQ
people who grow up in the churchare also taught in the church
that it is wrong to be eitherattracted to the same sex or in
a same sex relationship, andthat's often presented as a
(19:15):
salvation issue, that it's notjust like a minor disagreement
but it's a foundational thingthat if you disagree with that,
then you're kind of on the outsof the whole church and the
whole community.
So for the vast majority of gayChristians, bisexual Christians
, transgender Christians, thenumber one source of their
anxiety comes from theirinterpretation of scripture,
(19:39):
because it's not just that yourchurch told you that this is
wrong.
It's your church told you thatthis is wrong because the Bible
teaches it, and so it'sappealing to the higher
authority and within theProtestant church, the higher
authority and within theProtestant church, the highest
authority is scripture.
Within the Catholic churchright, the highest authority is
more tradition and scripture isimportant, but is more important
(19:59):
and it's informed by traditionin a way that for Protestants,
scripture is really the singlehighest authority.
So for most LGBT Christiansstruggling with their identity
and their faith.
The most important thing forthem is to come to a deeper
understanding of the historicaland cultural context of the main
six scripture passages thatrefer to same-sex behaviors.
(20:24):
I don't see a lot of LGBTChristians get to a point of
peace and self-acceptance wherethey are holding on to both
faith and sexuality withoutdoing that, and for a lot of
them that is, I mean, I thinkthat is the single most
important piece.
Then you also you do have therelational pieces and the
challenges in terms of, you know, responses from family and
(20:46):
community, but ultimately, eventhen, negative responses from
family and church community arealmost always rooted in people's
interpretation of scripture, soit always does keep coming back
to like the biblical text.
I think that's why I've endedup putting like a lot of work
and a lot of focus on that,because it just that's the key
thing that I think shapeswhether or not people are able
(21:07):
to be at peace with themselvesor not.
Shawn (21:09):
The key thing that I think shapes whether or not
people are able to be at peacewith themselves or not.
So there are clearly LGBTQ andqueer affirming churches and
denominations the world over,including in the United States.
They do actually follow withinsome tradition of an established
order, but I do wonder if thesetypes of churches that are more
affirming are in some way seenas less than by the more
(21:31):
traditional or dominant ordersthat they sit within, and then
if, in some way, what gayChristians that are attending
these types of churches aredoing is appeasing something
within themselves that they'regoing to continue struggling
with within the largerdenomination, which is this lack
of acceptance.
Matthew (21:51):
I mean it's certainly true that affirming churches are
seen as less than bynon-affirming churches.
Broadly speaking, I would saymost non-affirming churches
would regard an affirming churchas not even a real church.
But there are two differentreasons for that no-transcript
(22:36):
20th century about just how muchauthority the Bible should have
.
And so you kind of have theconservative wing, which tends
to be quite a bit larger andcertainly more politically
influential, that is verycommitted to a high view of the
authority of scripture and allthat that means is that if the
Bible, if there's any verse inthe Bible that, like you, can't
just dismiss a verse of theBible based on saying you don't
(22:57):
agree with it, now that does notmean that scripture is
interpreted and appliedliterally, because no one
actually does that.
People might do that in certainways, but there are always
parts of scripture you know theNew Testament talks about.
You know you'll heap burningcoals on the heads of your
enemies by, you know, prayingfor them or loving them.
That's nobody thinks.
Everybody understands that.
That's a metaphor.
Nobody actually thinks thatthat's literal.
(23:18):
So there's.
So it's not a question ofliteralism exactly and it's not
even.
And even most conservativeChristians do have some nuances
and their approach to biblicalinterpretation, at least on a
variety of topics, and so we'llrecognize that.
You know, there may be ascripture may say something in a
certain place, like it says inthe New Testament many times
(23:38):
you're supposed to greet oneanother in the church with a
holy kiss.
That was a literal practicethat they did in the first
century.
Almost no one does that,certainly not in our context
today, because people just feellike that would be off-putting
and actually make more peopleuncomfortable than comfortable.
So you could ask you know somepeople, some skeptics, might say
oh so how are you saying you'recommitted to the authority of
Scripture if then here's thisverse about a holy kiss and
(23:59):
you're not doing it?
But the vast majority ofconservative Christians do have
more nuance in their methodology, their approach to Scripture.
They would say well, what weneed to still uphold is the
principle here of a warmgreeting of other people at
church, but we can do it in ourown way.
It might not look exactly likethis.
So that's all it means.
Having a lower view of scripturewould be to say, for instance
well, paul said, you know, paulhad this.
(24:23):
Paul said that he believed that, you know, christ died for our
sins was buried and raised fromthe dead on the third day.
But I don't really agree withPaul.
I think Paul was wrong and sowe're not going to teach that at
our church.
I mean, that's a bit maybeextreme, because that's a pretty
foundational belief forChristianity.
But there could be anythingwhere, if the posture is that
you just are outright saying youdon't really care about what
(24:45):
the biblical text says becauseyou don't agree with it, that's
a lower view of the authority ofscripture that you do find more
commonly in more progressivechurches, or at least somewhere
on that spectrum.
So the fundamental divide formost conservative Christians
that has made them very wary ofthe whole conversation around
same-sex relationships is thebelief that anybody who has an
affirming view of same-sexrelationships must have a low
view of the authority ofscripture and the way that they
(25:06):
are affirming same-sexrelationships must be by saying,
sure, the apostle Paul took anegative view of same-sex
relations in Romans 1, but wedon't care, right, we'll just
say Paul was wrong or Paul wasoutdated and we know better than
Paul.
We're moving on and there areplenty of more theologically
progressive Christians who haveframed the issue that way, and
so that's a that's completenon-starter from the standpoint
(25:29):
of theologically conservativeChristians, because you're not
just asking them to change theirview on this one topic.
You're asking them to changetheir view of the Bible in its
entirety, about whether itshould carry authority over
their lives or not.
So that's part of the challenge,and part of the dichotomy that
I'm seeking to challenge is thatI actually think, if all, I
just want conservativeChristians to use the same
(25:53):
nuances in their interpretationsand their biblical and their
interpretive methodologies thatthey already have applied to so
many other topics, and I justwant them to use that same level
of nuance and consistency whenit comes to the topic of
same-sex relationships, whereyou do have an openness to
questions around historical andcultural context, understanding
the deeper principle behind whysomething was said and then
(26:13):
recognizing that it may not havea one-to-one application in our
current context if our versionof something is very different
from the version of it in thefirst century or the ancient
world.
So I think, to the extent thatconservative Christians are able
to see examples of affirmingChristians who are affirming in
a way that is still upholdingthe authority of scripture, that
(26:35):
definitely does help in then,even if they disagree, not
seeing those affirmingChristians as somehow not even
Christians at all.
So, yes, I mean, there still isa broadly negative view of
affirming churches bynon-affirming churches, but much
of that is fueled by thatbelief that they're not
committed to Scripture as aprinciple, and so that's part of
what I'm seeking to.
(26:56):
You know, that's part of whatI'm trying to get people to look
at differently.
Shawn (27:01):
Let's dig into that a little bit more.
I think you've given at leastan example here of translating a
desire or a want for somethingto happen to an action that
actually makes it happen.
And I think what typicallyhappens and I think in past
maybe I've been guilty of thismyself is that in disagreeing or
trying to identify thecontradictions in Christianity,
(27:22):
you just get into these back andforth arguments that just seem
ineffective, which is, you takethe anti-LGBT passages so
literally but you eat shellfish,et cetera by way of example,
and I've never found those to beeffective arguments.
What are some effectivearguments or what are some ways
to bridge that divide in such away that perhaps non-gay
(27:43):
Christians or Christians thatbelieve that a gay lifestyle or
the gay life or gay person isnot compatible with Christian
life, can actually walk the sameChristian path in concert with
gay Christians, without it beingexistential?
Matthew (27:58):
Yeah, I mean you're right that that argument about
shellfish is rarely effective,and the reason for that is
because, yes, even thoughLeviticus prohibits the eating
of shellfish, and Leviticus alsoprohibits male same-sex
intercourse For the moreknowledgeable or thoughtful
conservative Christians,leviticus is not their actual
main reason for opposingsame-sex relationships, because
(28:21):
the entire Old Testament lawcode no longer applies to
Christians in the way that itdid to the ancient Israelites,
and a huge part of the NewTestament is dedicated to this
exact question of whether or notGentile converts to the
Christian faith should be boundby these 613 rules, regulations
and prohibitions from the OldTestament law code.
And the answer narrated fromActs 10 to 15 at the first
(28:42):
general council of the earlychurch in AD 49 in Jerusalem is
a resounding no.
The Gentiles are not bound bythe particulars of all these
laws that Christ was the end ofthe law.
Paul refers to the law as thisyoke of slavery that Christians
should not again subjectthemselves to.
So the whole idea is that therewas the old covenant and then
it was essentially superseded bythe new covenant in Christ.
(29:04):
So that's why the shellfishargument doesn't persuade a lot
of people, because Christiansare not being hypocritical by
not eating shellfish or byeating shellfish, because the
old law has never applied tothem.
Now it can sound hypocriticalif there are some, maybe
Christians, who all they'redoing is quoting Leviticus on
same-sex relations to make thatargument, because that's not
(29:26):
actually that great of anargument, and if that were the
only text involved, I think thiscontroversy would have already
kind of probably been in therearview mirror.
It's because there's also thistext in the New Testament, in
the book of Romans 1,.
Well, in chapter 1 of the bookof Romans, in which the Apostle
Paul describes same-sexrelations negatively, and that
is much more weighty for theaverage conservative Christian
(29:47):
because it is in the NewTestament instead of the Old
Testament.
But in terms of arguments thatare effective, in my experience
I do think the most effectiveargument is essentially just the
argument saying that the typesof same-sex practices in the
ancient world are very differentfrom the types of same-sex
marriages we're talking abouttoday marriages we're talking
(30:10):
about today.
If you ask most conservativeChristians about the Bible and
slavery, they will give you avery similar sounding version of
this argument where they willsay well, you have to understand
that the type of slavery in thefirst century biblical world
was very different from 19thcentury American race-based
chattel slavery.
Now, that's true to a certaindegree.
Slavery in the Roman world wasnot race-based.
I still don't think that thatin any way makes slavery in the
Roman world acceptable or good.
(30:31):
It doesn't need to berace-based for it to be very bad
, but it's, and I actually thinkthere's a better way to make
the case about why Christiansshould be against slavery in
interpreting scripture on thattopic.
The point is that a lot ofconservative Christians are very
comfortable just easilyappealing to hey, well, if the
form of this practice in the19th century was different than
(30:53):
the form of the practice in thefirst century, well then, that's
why you know these.
That's why we need to look atthis more differently or
differently.
But it's funny because then, ifyou just turn to the issue of
same sex relationships, youcould make a very, very similar
argument, very similar argument.
Another similar example andthis is an argument that I make
in the updated edition of Godand the Gay Christian, which is
an issue that most Christiansand most people probably are not
(31:13):
even aware was ever a hugetaboo and a huge issue in the
church.
But the Bible condemns charginginterest on loans categorically
in the Old Testament, and thenJesus is widely seen as raising
the bar even higher in the NewTestament when he says that not
only should people not begetting interest on loans, they
should not even expect the moneythey lend in the first place to
(31:34):
ever be given back to them, andthey should still be lending
freely without that expectation.
But for the first 1,500 years ofthe church there was complete
unanimity among leadingtheologians, church fathers,
popes, councils of the churchthat to charge any amount of
interest on a loan at all was agrave sin that would send
someone to hell, that wouldcompletely separate you from God
(31:55):
and the kingdom of heaven.
And this was taken veryseriously.
Anybody who charged and like ifyou charged a 1% interest rate
to a rich person, like we're noteven talking about necessarily
a context of exploiting poor orvulnerable people then you would
be excommunicated from thechurch.
Even as late as the, you know,1300s, they were, you know,
(32:16):
talking about this punishment ofexcommunication.
In fact, in the 1300s they saidthat any Christian who even
thought that charging intereston a loan wasn't a grave sin
would be excommunicated from thechurch.
So it wasn't until the time ofthe Reformation, and
specifically through the work ofJohn Calvin, who was one of the
leading reformers in the 16thcentury, that this teaching
began to change.
(32:37):
And what Calvin did is?
He said okay, I recognize thatthe Bible does condemn charging
interest categorically.
This was called usury.
Today, usury has been redefinedas excessive interest on loans,
but in the Bible and theChristian tradition it just
meant charging any interest onloans at all.
So he said okay, I do recognizethat the Bible condemns charging
interest categorically.
(32:58):
However, he said the reasonthat it did so was to protect
poor people from exploitation,and in the agrarian societies
and economies of ancient Israel,that was a good rule to have in
place because of the sheerprevalence of exploiting poor
and vulnerable people, who wouldthen get into this deeper and
(33:19):
deeper, into a pit of debt thatthey couldn't get out of.
And so it was really there, forit was like a humanitarian
prohibition prohibition.
But he said, now that oureconomy is changing so much, now
that we have an increasinglycommercial society where there
could be a lot of benefits tosociety by being able to have
more capital flowing, being ableto give more people loans to
(33:39):
start businesses that canbenefit their families, their
broader communities, now he saidwe should still reject charging
interest whenever it exploitsthe poor.
In fact, calvin said weshouldn't charge interest to the
poor at all, but he said thatwe should recognize that the
moral logic behind the Bible'sprohibitions of usury does not
extend to, and should not beextended to, all forms of
(34:01):
charging interest on loans.
Now that we're in such adifferent economic environment,
and now that they can, we havemany more situations where
charging interest on loans canhelp people.
Certainly, most people todaywould not be able to ever afford
a home if they couldn'tinterest.
For sure, things like paydayloans, anything that exploits
(34:33):
the vulnerable or the poor, isclearly at odds with the
teachings of scripture.
But at this point, there isbasically no Christians who are
still against charging anyamount of interest on a loan,
much less Christians who wouldsee that as a sin that will
forever separate you from God.
And so that's another example.
It's a very similar type ofinterpretive methodology where
(34:55):
it's recognizing okay, we do seethat the biblical text is
negative on this, but we have tounderstand why it was negative.
It made sense for the Bible toreject this practice in its
original context, given whatthat practice looked like back
then.
That was true for interest onloans, and it was true for
same-sex behaviors in theancient world as well.
However, what that practice canlook like today, there are
(35:15):
forms of that practice todaythat look very, very different
from that, and that the valuesbehind them are actually much
more positive and the outcomesare much more positive, and so
we should look at thosedifferently.
I think, ultimately, it's thatissue of cultural distance,
combined with looking at themoral logic of scripture, that
is the most effective argumentfor persuading somebody who is
(35:35):
more theologically conservative,because they already have, they
already adopt that approach onmultiple other topics.
Shawn (35:42):
I want to talk about evangelicalism a little bit,
because it does take a lot ofresponsibility for the white
Christian nationalist movementin the United States, for the
lurch to the right in our publicpolicy.
It's been described as kind ofinhospitable, if not outright
hostile to not just LGBTQ peoplebut to women, to democracy
itself, to immigrants, etc.
(36:03):
As a result, we're seeing, likewhat's being called the
ex-evangelical movement, peopleleaving evangelicalism.
But that does beg the question,though, because there's a part
of me that wonders if theevangelical church, this
component of the evangelicalchurch, has been co-opted by
some outside influence and issimply now something that it has
never intended to be and neverwas prior, or if this is an
(36:26):
evolution.
And I suppose the biggerquestion is is there any room
for reconciliation here orreform within the evangelical
movement or the evangelicalinstitution itself, or is the
only way to really fix this isfrom a completely separate
movement?
Matthew (37:08):
Yeah, it's a good question.
I think there's no doubt thatco-optation, like a real
corruption of the message ofChrist in how the church gets
entangled with the powers thatbe, so as disappointing as that
is, maybe it's even moredisappointing the fact that it's
(37:28):
nothing new.
At the same time, I do takesome encouragement from the fact
that the best way to critiquewhen this happens is by an
appeal to the person andteachings of Jesus himself.
It's when this is happening,when Christianity is being
misused for this purpose.
It's generally pretty easy,even for people who aren't
(37:53):
Christians, to point to the waysin which this doesn't really
look anything like Jesus, theways in which this is at odds
with the character of Christthat we read about in scripture,
and so I think that is justbeing able to identify something
as a distortion or a corruptionof what it clearly is supposed
to be is helpful.
It doesn't make it lessfrustrating when that happens,
(38:14):
but I think it is still veryhelpful to be able to point out
those glaring inconsistenciesand incongruities in terms of
whether or not reform ispossible in the evangelical
world.
I think the evangelical worldis very big and broad and more
variegated than I think a lot ofpeople may think the
(38:38):
hyper-politicized part of theevangelical world is probably
the least receptive to reformefforts because they have more
weighing on their assessments ofthings.
Right, it's not purely aquestion of what is our best
understanding of scripture, it'salso it quickly gets tangled up
(39:02):
into a lot of other worldlyconsiderations.
That said, I have seen somemeaningful positive changes in
the broader evangelical worldover the last decade, like when
the book, when the originaledition of the book, came out in
2014,.
There have been I would saythere's a like.
The moderate part of theevangelical world is not the
dominant voice within thatcommunity, but it is there and
(39:25):
it is an importantcounterbalance.
And I'm not even talking about,like, progressive
evangelicalism and I'm not eventalking about churches that are
actually affirming, but thereare moderate evangelical
churches that are not, say, onthe MAGA train right, that do a
good job of staying, of keepingpoliticization out of the pulpit
, and where I have seen asignificant cultural shift over
(39:48):
the last 10 years in terms ofgreater openness and welcome
toward same-sex couples, towardthe LGBT community more broadly.
Now, at the same time, we'vealso seen on the more, I guess,
far right end of the evangelicalworld.
You've seen, especially inrecent years, an increase in
hostility, vitriol andantagonism toward the LGBTQ
(40:11):
community.
And so what I've alwaysattempted to do for the 15 years
or so that I've been doing thiswork is I'm happy to have a
conversation with anybody,including somebody who is very
deeply committed to a very, veryconservative perspective, but
I'm going.
I end up.
I'm much more interested ininvesting most of my time and
energy into people, intoChristians who are, who are, who
(40:35):
do have an openness toconsidering another point of
view, and they kind of justnaturally find me, I think,
those who are, who are seekingthat out.
And so I still feel like inthose contexts, like there's
enough.
There are plenty.
It's not as high profile, butthere are a lot of pastors and
churches still a minority forsure within evangelicalism who
are wanting to wrestle much moresincerely and honestly with
(41:00):
this topic and the questionsthat it raises, and a lot of
them just come to me, and so Ithink that helps me feel
encouraged that, like I do thinkreform is possible Broadly
speaking.
That doesn't mean everyindividual congregation or
institution will see that thereare, there are always some
individual institutions that endup sometimes, you know so
(41:23):
committed to a view, know socommitted to a view, well after
there's much of a constituencyfor it, that that may spell, you
know, that may coincide withthe broader decline of that
institution.
So I'm not saying it's thatwe're going to see that happen
in every single institution, butI do think that evangelicalism
is dynamic enough and I mean yougot new church plants all the
time and so I do think thatthere is potential there.
(41:47):
But it's a long-term thing forsure.
Shawn (41:51):
So I'm hearing quite a bit from people that the most
effective approach to change, asmaybe a bulwark against some of
the more frighteningright-leaning policy and mega
directed policy that we'refacing, is at the local level,
is at the community level.
But I do have this fear that weare living through a period of
time in which the dominant forcehere, the force that has the
(42:13):
wind at its back, is this kindof mega force and this white
Christian nationalist force, andI don't know that we have the
time for so much localengagement, one-on-one
engagement, to make a change.
I feel like it almost requiresat this moment some type of
social or cultural shift that ismuch bigger than what's
happening and you can disabuseme of this, that's just how I
(42:35):
feel.
You know, if this trend were toplay out without some type of
significant shift at the socialor cultural level, that is
bigger than a gradual, long-termthing.
If we're in for a period of youknow our own form of, I suppose
the dark ages.
Matthew (42:51):
Oh well, I hope not, but it's hard to say.
I do think that it's.
You know, I never could havepredicted 15 years ago the
corrosive effects that I thinkeven social media has had in, I
think, empowering some of themore extreme and radical voices,
and so I don't have a lot ofhope about, you know, I feel
(43:12):
like the algorithms aren't.
The algorithms could easily helppropel us into, you know, a
very kind of regression acrossthe board in society.
I think you see some of thosethings develop, but I don't want
to be despondent or despairingabout that, and so I'm still
(43:37):
just trying to do what I can,trying to reach people with a
positive message that is focusedon shared values, focused on
shared values, shared beliefs,and I do think that Christians
have a lot of Christians whoespecially don't want to see
real regression in terms of howsociety cares for the least of
(44:00):
these.
I think we have a lot ofresources within our faith to
empower us in sometimes makingthose critiques of ways that
maybe even the majority of partsof the church or dominant wings
or strands of the church arenot being faithful to the
teachings of Jesus and ofscripture.
(44:21):
Um and so for me, I guess timewill tell, but I am cautiously
optimistic, while recognizingthat there are lots of
challenges for sure.
Shawn (44:40):
Well, okay, and so here's something hopeful generations
younger Christians do appear tobe more affirming, if not
identify at a larger rate thanprevious generations, as LGBTQ
themselves.
So they have the opportunity orthe ability to play a
significant role in the futureof the church, focusing on
(45:00):
allyship.
How important do you thinkallyship is to the future of the
church and its role in itsapproach to LGBTQ teaching?
And then I guess the biggerquestion is in building that
inclusive approach toChristianity.
What does that actually looklike?
That isn't simply justaccepting or being tolerant.
Matthew (45:24):
Yeah, I mean, I think allies certainly are essential,
especially when you have apopulation that is a relatively
small minority of society, asthe LGBT community is.
If you don't have allies, youare going to find a life much
more difficult.
Allies are important in thatit's important to always make
(45:58):
sure that we are thoughtful inframing things, I think, based
on shared values.
Sometimes there's more of atendency to become more insular,
even within minority groups orcommunities, and kind of just
focus on the things that make usdifferent or distinct, and
there can, there can be ahealthy place for that to some
degree.
But if it becomes the dominantmessage that the rest of society
seems to be hearing, that thefocus is just on here's all the
(46:18):
ways that we're different fromyou, that I think that's
generally counterproductive.
Um, in trying to uh helpunderscore the you know that
it's all that we really do havein common with most people and
with you know, with heterosexualpeople.
In terms of what affirmingchurches can look like, I think
(46:41):
that sometimes there's atendency I see this among some
churches that want to lean somuch into being affirming that
it feels like it's one of themain things that they talk about
and the church almost feelslike it's gotten a redesign,
with pride flags everywhere, andalthough there are some LGBTQ
people and Christians whoappreciate this, because you
(47:04):
know they've had such a negativeexperience in the past with
churches that that way it reallymakes it very clear to them
that the church is inclusive andsupportive, in my experience
and for me personally, I don'tactually think that is the most
effective or helpful approach,because I do think that there's
a lot of like, even just for meas a gay Christian.
(47:27):
I do think that there's a lotof like even just for me as a
gay Christian.
I do just want to be able to goto church to.
I want to be fully included andnot mistreated or discriminated
against, but in order to learnmore about Jesus and how I can
model my life after his Like.
(48:04):
I think it's actually it can bevery helpful when not making it
feel like it's an ongoing issueor topic of conversation.
It's just like the reality justis that people are being
included, but then everybody isthere for that primary purpose
of like growing in their faithand in their ability to follow
(48:26):
Jesus.
So I don't I mean that may havebeen a little bit different
than what you were, I don't knowenvisioning, but for me at
least I mean it's not.
Yeah, maybe it's not as likeflashy, but I have found that to
be particularly helpful,especially just in then making
it clear because a lot of for alot of affirming churches too,
(48:53):
whether they intend to be or not, they are the one example that
other non-affirming churches intheir community see of what it
looks like to be affirming.
And so if it looks to theaverage non-affirming church in
a town that to be affirming youhave to make it almost one of
your primary identitycharacteristics that it has to
be this huge deal that then kindof fundamentally alters how
everybody thinks and feels aboutthe church.
(49:14):
I think that's much moreintimidating than, and makes a
lot of non-affirming churchesmuch warier of engaging the
conversation than, when they dosee examples of churches that
are affirming but that are alsojust still very much keeping
their focus, kind of keeping themain thing, the main thing
within church.
So I do think that ends upultimately being more helpful
(49:37):
for LGBT people, especiallythose in churches, that
otherwise that if they don't seeexamples of that, will never
want to entertain theconversation.
Shawn (49:46):
I mean, I think there's to some degree.
The same thing happened in adifferent context when I was
younger and I was coming out.
It was really important to meto have or it was a relief to me
to have friends that would talkabout how comfortable they were
with me as a gay person andthey would.
They would seek me out as beinglike the gay person that they
could get a gay perspective from.
But I very quickly grew out ofthat and came to appreciate more
(50:09):
just it being a non-issue Rightand not that being the leading
thing.
So I think we're kind oftalking in the same space.
Matthew (50:18):
Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense and I feel
the same way.
I think, especially early on,when you first come out, you do
need to hear some specific,positive, supportive statements,
to really feel confident thatpeople you know, to know where
you stand with people and or, ifyou don't, if somebody isn't
fully supportive, it's helpfulto kind of know where you're at
(50:40):
with them.
But after a while, what is themost validating thing is then
just to be able to move on withyour life and still be seen as a
multifaceted person withdiverse interests and hobbies
and personality traits that youknow are that go well beyond
(51:02):
your sexual orientation.
Shawn (51:04):
All right, final question you ready for it?
Okay, what's somethinginteresting you've been reading,
watching, listening to or doinglately?
And it doesn't have to berelated to this topic, but
obviously it can be.
Matthew (51:14):
Oh, wow.
Well, a lot of what I read isabout this topic.
I've been reading a book calledDominion by Tom Holland.
Have you heard of it?
It's not the Spider-Man, it'snot the Spider-Man actor.
Tom Holland is a same time manyof the aspects of Western
(51:50):
culture and many of the valuesof Western culture, from
equality to minority rights, tojust the dignity and rights of
the individual.
Many of these values wereinitially kind of nurtured by
Christian principles and thought, and so that we're kind of at
an interesting fork in the roadright now where the question is
(52:15):
to what extent can those values,those kind of fundamental
liberal values that have aChristian heritage can?
What extent, to what extent canthose values be retained, even
if society were to continue kindof jettisoning the actual kind
of Christian belief structure orframework behind them?
(52:36):
And one of the tensions thatcomes up is some of what you see
on the far right today, wherecertainly there are forms of
Christian nationalism.
There are forms of Christiannationalism and there's also a
kind of growing like.
It's been interesting to see theextent to which the rise in
secularism or the decline ofChristianity does not always
(53:01):
yield like a continuation ofsome of those more liberal
values, and so it's just aninteresting.
I enjoy reading differentperspectives, and I kind of
enjoy Tom Holland's perspectivebecause he's not a Christian and
so I just and I don't have aperfectly worked out answer to
(53:21):
those questions, but they do.
They are things I think about alot, so I've been enjoying
reading that book.
Shawn (53:28):
Have you read the book or heard of the book, jesus Wept?
Matthew (53:31):
No, I haven't.
Who wrote it?
Philip Shannon, Is that it?
Okay?
I just looked it up.
Shawn (53:37):
Did I get his name right, is it?
Matthew (53:38):
Yeah, apparently it just came out.
Shawn (53:40):
It's very, very good, let me say that, but it's not.
It's not getting into liketheory or theological history as
much as it is kind ofexplaining the Catholic Church's
evolution on a lot of thesocial and identity issues that
we're talking about today overthe course of the last seven
popes.
Matthew (53:57):
It's a really fascinating read.
Well, hey, I might check it out.
Shawn (54:02):
Matthew, thanks for taking the time.
I enjoyed the conversation.
Matthew (54:04):
Thank you so much for having me.
Shawn (54:14):
In today's world, given our politics and the rise of the
right-wing evangelical movement, it might not feel this way.
But, as Matthew Vines remindsus, faith and identity don't
have to live in conflict.
They can illuminate one another.
But in this moment, with therise of Christian nationalism,
global uncertainty in the churchand a wave of anti-LGBTQ
(54:36):
policies sweeping throughlegislatures, the stakes are
high.
What happens in our churchesreverberates into our laws, our
classrooms and our communities,and we're all feeling it.
The work of inclusion isongoing and it demands courage,
clarity and compassion.
Whether you're a person offaith like Matthew, a skeptic or
(54:58):
agnostic like me, or somewherein between.
The question remains what kindof world and what kind of church
are we willing to build andwhat can we do to live in peace
and harmony, even when wedisagree?
All right, check back next weekfor another episode of Deep
Dive Chat.
Soon, folks.
Thank you, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.