Robert Gagnon Responds to Andy Stanley

Here is a live podcast I did with Dr. Robert Gagnon. We discuss his response to Andy Stanley's recent statement at Northpoint Church on human sexuality and the church.

YouTube - https://youtu.be/m52nA1qM4Mo

Audio - https://andymilleriii.com/media/podcast

Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/more-to-the-story-with-dr-andy-miller/id1569988895?uo=4

You can find his article here:

https://wbs.edu/news/andy-stanleys-circles-and-lines/

Also -

Check out my book released just this past summer. You can buy it HERE on Amazon.

Contender: Going Deeper in the Book of Jude is important for our time because the people Jude was writing to were dealing with many issues relevant to what we are experiencing in the church today. Jude calls us to Contend for the Faith once delivered to the saints! This book of the Bible is small but mighty and I unpack it all in this new book I've written.

Take a look at my new video course for small groups, Heaven and Other Destinations: A Biblical Journey Beyond this World. Included is five full length teaching sessions, bonus teaching videos, PDF discussion guides, and a discussion board where you can leave comments and ask me questions!

Transcript

Andy Miller III

All right. Hello, friends. Welcome to the more to the story podcast. I am so glad that you have come along. This is gonna be a great impromptu show. So as we're dealing with a very important issue and you already see on the screen, I have my guest with me, but before we do that, I want to make sure you know this podcast is brought to you by Wesley Biblical Seminary, where we are developing trusted leaders for faithful churches. And if you like the things you hear from Robert Gagnon and you like the things that we'regonna be talking about today, my guess is, is that you would be a great fit. The Wesley biblical seminar rather one of our lay initiatives or all of our programs from uh bachelorsmasters doctoral degrees. We would love to have you. Learn more about what's happening here. We just added 350 new students in the last five months who are with us because of the course of study with the Global Methodist Church so that we are the first group that was first institution that was approved by the Global Methodist Church for that program. And we're delighted to be serving those, those students all around the world in addition. Two are already the way we've been serving many denominations, independent churches. We have our highest enrollment yet at 590 students the. Moment in the history of Wesley Biblical Seminary. So check us out at wbs.edu, and I'm thankful to my my friends at WPO development who have led churches, organizations in all sorts of groups, schools, through successful capital campaigns. You can find out more about them at WIPO development. I've used them in the past, and they've helped me. Significantly. And finally, if you're interested in things coming from this podcast, you can go to andymillerthethird.com. That's Andy milleriii.com, and you can sign up for my e-mail list where I'll send a free tool for folks. It's called 5 steps. To deeper teaching and preaching and it's a guide to help people spend time in the text to go deeper into studying scripture with the aim of creatively presenting that truth to people. God's called you, Sir, so I'd love for. You to check. That out. Alright, I am glad to welcome to the podcast my friend Doctor Robert Gagnon. And Robert, I'm gonna not just call you rob a doctor or I'm not gonna just call you a professor. I'mgonna say Prophet the prophet. It I so appreciate your ministry and we've just published from WBS, an article that you have written in response to Andy Stanley. So before we get into that, thanks so much for coming back to the podcast.

Robert Gagnon

Well, thanks so much for having me, Andy. And as you know, they stoned the prophets. SoI'mnot quite sure I want that title.

Andy Miller III

Well, II will be careful then in how I apply. Alright, we'll stick to doctor. We'll stick to doctor.

Speaker

OK.

Andy Miller III

But obviously, like we're in this interesting moment and II let people know that this is gonna be happening in this live conversation. And I'mgonna do my best to see if I can look over at this screen. So if anybody has any questions that I can offer to doctor Gagnon, we'll try to do that. But I mean, part of. Why I call? You, a prophet, is you've been willing to stick your neck out and stand up for biblical truth. Based upon decades of study. And so when something comes up like this, what when? You when you. You had a little sense that this might be coming with the conference that Andy Stanley hosted. At his church north. Point what? What was your frame of mind as this was coming about?

Robert Gagnon

Well, I had already done some homework on this. I read about the people who are organizing the embrace. The unconditional conference was put on by an organization called Embrace the Journey. Greg and Lynn McDonald. So I had read their book, embraced the journey. OK. Which was painful, but I did anyway. They did.

Speaker

OK.

Robert Gagnon

And obviously, I knew who the people were for the most part, who were going to be speakers at this so-called unconditional conference. It was quite clear that the whole agenda would be oriented around towards parents, no longer calling into question a child's decision to move into the. Gay, if you will, or homosexual lifestyle, or even a transgender lifestyle, but actually even to rejoice in a child's movement in that direction rather than grieving it, and all the speakers that were put on this in this conference were persons who themselves. Did not believe that the Bible rejected homosexual practice and transgenderism per say, and in fact two of the speakers, one of plenary speaker, the other breakout speaker. Were actually gay men who were married to men and and. And then, of course, everyone else who wasn't identifying as gay or lesbian was certainly promoting it, including the person in charge of his of Stanley's care ministry at his church. That because he.

Speaker

OK.

Robert Gagnon

So it was quite clear where this was heading from the beginning and his Sunday sermon right after the conference in which he defended what he did, was what I in the end devoted this article to.

Andy Miller III

Right. Well, thanks so much for doing this and we'rereally glad at Wesley Biblical Seminary to be the ones to publish that with. Thank you for offering it to us. We, you know, and I think you know that we stand with you on this. Hence we hosted a conference this past February identifying that this, that human sexuality, A biblical view of human sexuality. Is an essential of Christian doctrine. So that's in part why we want to be identified with you is that we think you're out there standing up for these sort truths, even though in this moment there's a way that it's hard.There's a way that it's. It's hard for us to do this because. You know? Yeah. Andy Stanley is a notable, recognized the leader. He's somebody that probably 5-10 years ago I was listening to on a regular basis getting leadership advice as I was serving a church. He's successful, he'sseemingly effective. He's winsome and he has somewhat of a I I think he thought of it as a zinger sort of line. About Jesus not drawing lines, but instead drawing circles and you immediately go after that idea in your article, I mean there's some, there's some logical challenges with it too, but what's the challenge with that sort of line?

Robert Gagnon

Well, it shows a great deal of confusion about you. This is ministry on the part of Andy Stanley. And by the way, just for one moment to note, Wesley Biblical Seminary. Yes, indeed recognizes the urgency of this issue. It'sactually extraordinary that Wesley Biblical Seminary is probably not in the majority. In that view, in recognizing that and yet any Christian from the 1st century, including all the major protagonists of the faith, Jesus, Paul, the whole Apostolic Witness to Christ, let alone the entire Old Testament Canon before them. Would have recognized this as an attack on the very foundation of sexual ethics to approve homosexual unions or to approve transgender transition. So-called so kudos for Wesley Biblical Seminary to be at that point. So when I try to identify the Articles, 2 main issues. That are involved with his use about the big circles that Jesus created, rather than just drawing lines. First of all, even apart from the fact that there's some geometry confusion here, circles are still lines and they still create boundaries. But even apart from that. It'svery obvious from a series of texts that I cited that Jesus was constantly drawing lines around moral behavior and including with regard to sexual ethics. And even Stanley himself draws these lines, so to speak. There are a lot of things that he wouldn't put in his big circle. I'm quite sure about that. Everything from incest to polyamory, adultery, stealing, economic exploitation, racism. He would. He would put these things outside that, that circle. However he wants to draw the circle.

Speaker

Right.

Robert Gagnon

The only reason why he doesn't do that for the issues of homosexual practice and transgenderism is that he does not regard those as egregious sins.

Speaker

Hmm. MHM.

Robert Gagnon

By scripture, does Jesus does Paul, does the entire witness of Scripture does because it attacks the very foundation of sexual ethics? And that's the first point we could talk about texts that point that out, which Jesus draws lines. But the second point is that he shows confusion. Around this big circle that he talks about Jesus created. Jesus has a big circle, if you will, in his outreach to those who are not his disciples to those who are not inheriting the Kingdom of God that he proclaims who are known for being egregious sinners, whether it be in terms of economic exploitation with tax collectors or with such sexual.

Andy Miller III

Right.

Robert Gagnon

That is, on the other hand, so Judas is very broad in his outreach to those who need to repent and receive the Kingdom that he's proclaiming. But when it comes time to defining who disciples are. Are defining who his followers are. In fact, Jesus has a very narrow approach. I mean, it's not, and I didn't cite this, although I should have, but it's not accidental that Jesus, toward the end of the Sermon on the mount. The great programmatic statement of Jesus's teaching according to the Gospel of Matthew. What does he say? Does he talk about it being easy to get into the Kingdom of God and the the, the the way is brought into the Kingdom and many enter it? It's the exact opposite. If you enter it the way is narrow. That's why he says many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, and I'll say to you I never knew you. Right. Why? Because you didn't bear the fruit. And then he goes on to talk about those who build their house on the rock versus those who build the house on the sand. And those who build the house on sand are those who merely. Here Jesus's words, but don't do them. And that's what we're facing here with regard to this issue, people, you know, in the case of Andy Stanley, he says that, you know, he still regards homosexual practice and transgenderism as sin. He still holds to the biblical model of marriage between a male and a female. But when you read about everything.

Andy Miller III

Right.

Robert Gagnon

He's said or done. Actually watch it on video or this sermon that he gave recently. You find out that his holding to the biblical model of marriage is in fact in name only. You have to follow what he does, what he does tells you what his theology is.

Andy Miller III

Right. This is the challenge and and you highlight this like that the the work of the pastor is the work of being a pastor theologian to bring the actual work into practice it if you don't do this, it essentially is used in God's grace as it says in Jude as a a license to sin. The license for immorality. I mean, it'sjust hard to see like how you can't put these two things together. And and I think that's the conflict.

Robert Gagnon

Yeah. When the whole place. Yeah, he says he has a new approach. He wants to go, but he's talking about what, he's what he can do pastorally putting a the allergy aside for. Comma, but you can't be a good pastor if you don't implement theology. But right you move from theology to the practice of the theology. Instead, he's putting completely aside the theology itself, so he can't move in the direction of practicing that theology. Right. He really doesn't believe that there is anything at stake in an individual engaging in same sex intercourse or an individual engaging in transgenderism. For him, the sense that I get is he considers if he considers it a sin at all. And even that's questionable. As I argue in the paper. Even if he considers it a sin at all, it would be on the level of, say, that we think of gluttony as a sin. Right. You know, go go out one night, have a big meal with friends. Come back to your spouse and say, honey, I have to confess tonight. I really picked out. I think Iprobably committed the sin of gluttony. Can you forgive me? Is there any spouse that would not be readily forgiving that knowing the wrong desire to eat?

Speaker

Right.

Robert Gagnon

We would all be forgiving it and we don't recognize this as a great. Then, but if that same husband came home the following night and said thank you so much for that forgiveness you gave me the night before. Because I know I'mgonna get it tonight too. I just want to tell you I just had sex with three men. Thank you for forgiving me. Yeah, and that is not going to happen. Your spouse is not going to respond in the same way. And we all know why that is. It's not an equals. It's not equally severe as a sin. One is a relatively light sin, the other is an egregious sin. Soyou're going to have to have a different response in the church. So if Stanley considers these things to be sin at all, it'sonly of a relatively light weight matter.

Andy Miller III

And it's this. Continual challenge of friends. I'm on right now, live with Doctor Robert Gagnon, and I encourage you to get on those of you who are watching this. I encourage you to go find the article I posted it on my site, go to WBS site and you can find it there as well. It'sa it's a robust defense. Of the classical biblical position that argues line several lines from Andy Stanley sermon and really just thinks about it critically. SoI'm. And if you're watching this, I invite you to share this. Share this with other people as it's coming out and and those of you who are are getting on to it after the fact now you and I have talked about this before Robert. When we had a a past conversation where we talked about whether or not somebody should. Attend homosexual wedding, but it and people can go back and find that conversation. It came out this past summer, but the the fact and many people just resist this idea. They don't like it and maybe it's because there's, like a folk theology that has taught this, that there are levels of sin that not not all sins. Are on the same playing ground. You wanna just address that? Like maybe somebody. Like what you just said? And it's so obvious what you just said. Like you there is something about the way that this violates sexual sins, rejecting God's creation. Has been a part of the classical way that people have rejected the the dual nature kind of thethethetwo sided reality, the male female binary, like that's part of the big issue that lies at the heart of why same sex behavior is a more egregious sin. But could you? Talk just about that a little bit.

Robert Gagnon

Yeah, Christians all the time. Open the door for accepting homosexual unions and transgenderism because they make comparisons and analogies with things that we don't consider to be great sins likelike gluttony, for example. In fact, I had one episode. Where I was being questioned by a lawyer at an event that I went to and and he was just attacking the fact that I didn't think that all sins were equal in all respects in in terms of severity and he was making the comparison between same sex and same sex unions, ****** unions, and gluttony. So I instead made the comparison. With incest, which really is a much better analog because there are a lot more points of substantive agreement, he was out. Age that I would make the comparison with incest and I said well, wait a minute. You just argued that Olson is equal. So what difference does it make to you whether I compare it to gluttony or incest? And of course, the reality was he then he then, you know, said well, I don'twanna talk to you anymore about this. So you know, understandably because he wasn't acting.

Andy Miller III

Right.

Speaker

Right.

Robert Gagnon

Logically or reasonably, nobody. And I mean nobody, even the most vigorous proponents of the view that all sin is equal, which is not a view that can be documented anywhere in scripture, even they don't live like that. Nobody lives like that. Taking home a company pen is not the moral equivalent of Hitler's attempt to exterminate. The Jews in World War 2 these two are not moral equivalents. God doesn't consider it a moral equivalent. Neither should we, right. When Israel is engaged in the golden Cap debacle. In the wilderness sojourn, and God tells Moses to go down from Mount Sinai, what does he say? Go down because Israel is committing a great sin. You can't have great sins if all sins are equal. Well, when Jesus talks about the weightier matters of the law, clearly, if some matters are weightier than others.

Andy Miller III

Right.

Robert Gagnon

Then it's not all equal. Now all sin is equal in one respect, namely that if you think that your way into heaven is through personal. Eric, then any sin will get you excluded, however light or however heavy, because we get in by grace, not by our own doing, but by God's doing, which we then have to appropriate by faith, which is not in just merely intellectually saying yes to the truth, but as a holistic life. Reorientation to the gospel. So when we're addressing issues. How how significant is the sin of homosexual practice and many people simply want to compare it to ways in which we've accommodated for divorce or remarriage after divorce. But we have to understand as that Jesus actually arrives at his position of monogamy, A limitation of two persons.

Andy Miller III

Right.

Robert Gagnon

You are sexual union based on a male female prerequisite for that union based on Genesis 127, male and female God created them, which itself is the segue to Genesis 224. Precisely because God made us a complementary sexual care, two primary sexes designed by God in creation to be the complement or counterpart of the other. Precisely because of that, a man may become joined to a woman, and the two become one flesh. The two become one. Because each is half of a whole sexual spectrum. So what Jesus then did was derive A limitation of two persons to a sexual union, whether no polygamy or no revolving door of divorce and remarriage for any cause. And said I'm not going to allow that among my disciples precisely because of the sexual binary. The sexual binary is the predicate, the foundation for the limitation of two persons to a sexual union. Now if you asked Andy Stanley, you know, would you commit Andy Stanley somebody in your church and consider them? Old Christians and and not try to dissuade them from what they're doing. If they were actively engaged in multiple partner, concurrent sexual union. And he would probably say absolutely not, because it's a violation of monogamy.That's a big deal, right?

Speaker

Right, right.

Andy Miller III

That monogamy is the only issue somehow. Yeah, yeah.

Robert Gagnon

That's right. And, but he's not realizing that she just arrives at his position of a limitation of two persons to her sexual union based on God's creation of two complementary sexes. Homosexual practice is a direct assault on that foundation. It says that. God's creation of male and female is complementary. Sexual prayer makes no difference for mate selection and for the definition of marriage, but that is the foundation of the definition of marriage. So when you attack the very foundation of something. You're not merely attacking a side issue and ancillary matter matter. In this case you are attacking the basis for which all other standards. Are determined. So in a sense, it'sa it's absurd for him to think incest is really bad, or polyamory is very bad, but not the foundation which provides the predicate for rejecting those two other things that are so severe. So that makes homosexual practice among adult consensual sexual offenses. Between human beings, the worst.

Andy Miller III

This is so helpful, Robert. Like I've thought of this a few times since being more attuned to the work that you've done, like you challenged me one time. You kind of said I I haven't done this yet, but you said next time you're at a party, you know, bring up. Hey, why is polyamory wrong? You know any anybody or or? Or bring it up. Any anybody have problem with incest here? Yeah. So and andand that's a helpful piece. I mean I it's, it's done in humor and I appreciate it, but one of the things you can bring up is, is, is since our last convo. Station I've more readily used the idea of the incestuous man from First Corinthians 5 as an analogy to the sexual challenges of our time. So here's what I found is interesting is that people want to get out of that conversation really quickly, like when you bring that up, they might say, well, you can't do that. And here's the. The quick thing I would say. Back is well, why not? Like and and This is why can't like if we're going to allow a delusion of the norms that come to us from scripture, why can't we just get? Rid of this.

Robert Gagnon

Right. And they'rethey're more than willing to try to cite other analogies which favor their own ideology, right.They'll talk about change in divorce, change in women's roles, or they'll talk about remarriage after divorce. And they'll talk about the various accommodations that the church makes. Why can't we make that accommodation here? But instead of choosing the most proximate analogies, the closest analogies to homosexual practice, which are really incest and polyamory, instead of choosing those, they choose remote analogies, because the proximate analogies don't get them to where they want to go, which is the ideological. Inclusion of approving same-sex unions. But that is dishonest analogical reasoning. If you're going to use analogical reasoning. If you're going to appeal to analogies, you have to pick the closest analogies. Otherwise, you're not being honest, you're being insincere. And So what are the closest analogies? The closest analogies are the things that bear the most substantive. Correspondences with the thing to which they're being compared, right? I mean, I'm not saying this is not rocket science, this is this is obvious, right? The best analogy will have the most points of substantive.

Speaker

Right.

Robert Gagnon

Person and in this case it's incest and polyamory. And here's why. Why is? Why is incest wrong? You know, yes, you. You brought up my my example story. Go to a cocktail party and say want to have sex with your mother. Talk among yourselves. Yes. You will stop conversation. Cold people will be falling all over themselves. To try to explain why that is wrong, the initial explanation will be because she's your mother, right? If I have to explain it any further, there's a problem. But Scripture actually does give us an indication about what's problematic with incest. Already in Leviticus 18.

Speaker

OK.

Robert Gagnon

Introducing the series of prohibitions of incest in that sex chapter, it explains you shall not have sex with the flesh of your own flesh. That is somebody who's too much already you in your embodied humanity as a close king and not enough of a kinship other. So too much sameness, structurally speaking, not enough complementary otherness, we would say scientifically, now, not enough differentiation in the gene pool, right? It's too much same as structural sameness. Well. What's the problem with same? You know, same sex unions. Let's think about that. What's the problem? The primary problem with a same-sex union, too much sameness. Right. Not enough complementary otherness in the sexual differentiation, the way in which God created woman.

Andy Miller III

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Robert Gagnon

Now it'sit's emphasized repeatedly four times in Genesis 221 to 24, and the story about the creation of the woman, that something is extracted from the original human and out of that woman is formed. That's a missing element out of the original human. So. So that. When it talks about the definition of marriage, it's not just the Union of male and female, it's the reunion. It's a way of a way of saying you see how man and woman are each half of a whole sexual spectrum, that when they unite, they create an integrated sexual hole because they fill in the gaps. Lacking in one sex and moderate the extremes of each sex. So when you're saying what one is talking about, you know, well, I'm really against incest. But same-sex unions, I'm OK with that. A person is completely misunderstanding the logic because the degree of Uber safeness in sexual activity is much greater in as regards same sex unions. Than it is as regards incestuous unions. And we've already got.

Andy Miller III

Yes, some people might. Ohh sorry to interrupt you, I'll let you finish your thought there.

Robert Gagnon

Where is and then the other principle with polyamory. Gee, this has already made clear in his discussion in in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, which is that the tune is. The limitation of two persons to a sexual union is based on the toughness of the sexes, the sexual binary. If God had created 3 sexes that could integrate towards sexual union and procreation and so forth, then it would be possible to have three persons in a sexual union. If there were three sexes. The creation of two sexes, Jesus says, is our indication that there's a limit to two. So if you want to do more, you'rebasically implying that. There is no significance to God's creation of two complementary set. One thing is the foundation for principles extrapolated. On as we proceed further ahead, that foundation is the male female union. You got a problem with incest? You have a problem with polyamory. You should have a greater problem with the foundation that enables us to prohibit these other two things.

Andy Miller III

That is so helpful and I think encourage people just to go back and listen to that explanation again and also look at Robert's article where he talks about the way Jesus closes up loopholes that come to us in the old from the Old Testament. Rather it has to do. With polygamy and those type of pieces that come together and then analyze the fact that there is no loophole regarding same sex behavior. But one thing I I've heard people kind of push back a little bit towards you on is the even the description of sexual whole between the the two opposite. Texas. What does that say? Does that is that a critique on those who remain single at this point and like if they're not able to be all that God's made them to be, if they're, unless they're with a a, a complementary sexual partner?

Robert Gagnon

I know because obviously she's some software single poll with single et cetera. A person can abstain from engaging in sexual intercourse, but even if they're abstaining from engaging in sexual intercourse in order to do 2 things #1 not be as concerned about the risk involved in proclaiming the Christian faith. And how it may put your family, certainly in the 1st century, this sort of been the case in jeopardy, in danger. And secondly, it maximizes your time availability that you have because you're, you know, obviously you're. Not engaged in a family union. We have to be committed to others and. And you're responsible for their care and so forth. So for those two things, Jesus said, some Christians may choose to be, as he put it, units for the Kingdom of heaven and not get married, but even Jesus.

Andy Miller III

Or available.

Robert Gagnon

Not even even especially Jesus and Paul and all others still present themselves as men. They don't present themselves as females or likewise female disciples. We had this problem at Corinth where women are trying to eviscerate the signs of their distinctions between with the other sex they're trying to, in effect, eviscerate male female differentiation, which Paul is upset about. But you can't do that in this life. We will have resurrection bodies later. We will be neither married nor given in marriage, but in this life we present ourselves as male and female. And if you engage in sexual activity, it has to be with the sexual counterpart or complement to your. So, so. So that's clear in the biblical witness, Jesus isn't dressing up like a woman to make a statement that his maleness is irrelevant. If he did, he would be violating he. He knows very well God's creation of male and female, which preserves those distinctives to override those distinctives that are given in creation. Is in effect to make a complaint against the way God made.

Andy Miller III

Yeah, that's so helpful to be able to look at the nature of like what we're created to be like, what is the essence of who we are. I think that that's one of the challenges with this modern moment as it relates even to broad critical theories. These like, as some say, cynical theories, but nevertheless like these critical theories that see are. Essence and like it seems like Andy, I wonder if you think this is true. It seems like he's willing to see homosexuality as an identity or an ontological essence like this is who somebody is. So and and then, you know, he goes on to say this is, like almost like, too much of A burden to put on people. Like, it's unsustainable. As he says. I mean, is this the problem is that people find their essence in the, like, kind of a Freudian category.

Robert Gagnon

Look, the Christian life looks unsustainable, right? When Jesus says if if you want to be my disciple, you have to deny yourself, take up your cross and lose your life. That sounds unsustainable, and perhaps it is. Apart from the spirit of Jesus Christ, which is made available to those who believe. But then that transformation consequently is required of us. So there are always great demands that are being made in the Christian life. And I'm not. I'm not saying that same sex attractions don't create a great demand or an experience of gender dysphoria. It doesn't create problems for the individual life. But I'm also, I'd also say they're not. Those are the greatest challenges. That Christians have ever faced, they are a great challenge. They are not the greatest. Some people go through much greater challenges in life economically. Loss of loved ones and so on and so forth. And so it look at Paul's life on a daily basis, right? The greatest demonstration of the power of Jesus was simply Paul getting up in the morning. And doing the same thing he did the day before, which is going out and preaching an undiluted gospel that's going to get him persecuted, meaning beaten by rods, by secular authorities. Whip 40 lashes -1 in the synagogues, which he had multiple. Patients, poorly clad, poorly sheltered, poorly bad, and constant anxiety for his churches, beaten up by Robert Stone. We're not talking about drugs. This is his daily existence. And yet did it cause him to dilute the gospel in any way? It did not. And a powerful testimony of his life when I'm weak, then I'm strong. So there there's an important dynamic to lift up here. Having same sex attractions or gender dysphoria is not the greatest tragedy in the world. In fact, it creates opportunities for God to show his power in the midst of our weakness, like the kind of thing that Paul says in second Corinthians. War, right? The dying of Christ is working itself out in our bodies, and as it does so, the life of Christ is being manifested. There's an inverse. We live. Christ doesn't live in us. Only when we die in relation to ourselves do we actually live. For God. Does Christ in the controlling influence of his spirit, live in us, and people like Andy Stanley are actually short circuiting the process of discipleship for persons with same-sex attractions. And with a transgender impulse because they are not learning that, as Paul learned with his thorn in the flesh.

Andy Miller III

Right.

Robert Gagnon

That God's grace is enough for us. That simply knowing God is enough for us and, you know, sometimes God manifests his power in these dramatic ways, like the parting of the Red Sea or healing us of our illnesses, or expelling demons and so forth. All dramatic occurrences. But. We've learned in the gospel where front and center the most dramatic demonstration of power turns out to be the crucified Christ on the cross. Can we now say to that God, I can see how you could use Jesus in an excruciating, ignominious death on the cross? I can see how you could turn that event around into the greatest. Meant in cosmic history, but my same sex attractions are gender disorders.

Speaker

Right.

Robert Gagnon

No way, ifthat's possible. Well, I can't do that. You'reyou're. You're not great enough. You're not loving enough. You're not gracious enough to make that happen. That is a failure of faith. And that's essentially what Andy Stanley is communicating over this. Nobody gets a pass, no matter how great we think. The deprivation is that we're experiencing.

Andy Miller III

Can't touch Jack. Yeah.

Robert Gagnon

Or the difficulty we're being put in in our life, whether through external pressures or internal desires. Either way, the demand is the same. Jesus said for discipleship, if you want to follow. For me, you have to take up your cross, deny yourself, and lose your life. This is a total home makeover and Andy Stanley is doing an injustice to persons who experienced these difficulties and desires. Not only are these desires according to the apostle Paul. Self dishonoring desires. Erasing or threatening to her face the image bearing that every one of us has which Genesis 1 closely correlates with being made male and female, right being made in God's image and likeness, isn't with surrounding this notion of being made male and female. It's a way of saying what we do sexually affects that image bearing. And when you allow people to engage in same sex attractions or gender dysphoria, essentiallyyou're allowing them to. Rather than enhance their face, the image of God stamped on their being, and that is a dishonoring. Because it's trading there, the wholeness that they have as a male or as a female has only half intact in relation to their own sex or of transgender, not intact at all. A complete denial and a complete rejection that's self disowning, but not only is it self dishonoring, but as we just noted, it's a denial of the grace. And power of God to work in the midst of our weakness rather than apart from it.

Andy Miller III

This is such a beautiful picture is so similar to what we emphasized here at Wesley Biblical Seminary. Again, this is Andy Miller. And the more the story podcast coming to you from Wesley Biblical Seminary in Ridgeland, Ms. where we're interviewing Doctor Robert Gagnon. Thanks for coming in live. We'd love it if you'd share a link to this. But what one thing I love about the tradition that this seminary sits in, even though we're not connected to any particular denomination like we're not in denominational. Tool is the reality of this. A sanctifying grace to bring a person to a place where they do not have to sin where they. Can move beyond. And these the ******* that we have in our internal nature, like original sin, that we have the opportunity to not to, to not sin. John Wesley said this in his sermon. The scripture way of salvation, that what he called perfect love or perfection or holiness, sanctification is. He gave 3 words is love excluding. Sin that love is so powerful that it can do it now. Again, love is a thing that's often thrown up as a reason to let people do what they want to exist in the way they identify their essence. Connected to their sexual sin. And sowe're trying to move away from that. And one thing I think it'sreally helpful. I've enjoyed from you and if you read Doctor Gagnon's book that was published several over 20 years ago Now, I think or around 20 years ago, the Bible, homosexual practice is I'll say, Robert, you'rereally good at. Giving your the people you're critiquing credit like you, I think you honor their arguments well, and I like you present their side. And I think they would say that too. And I think you've professionally, how that happened is that the top scholars engage will often engage you and think of your view as strong and. I I'm curious as you do that as you're good at doing that, what do you think is behind like, what's the good intention that Andy Stanley's trying to achieve is that I mean some people say he's a a wolf in sheep clothing, clothing, but let's just let let's try magic. What's he trying to do? What's the good? That he's trying to do.

Robert Gagnon

Well, I think Andy Stanley sympathizes with persons who experience same-sex attractions or generators for you. This is putting the best possible base on it. I can't get into his heart and know what all his motives are, but I can look at what his actions are, and I can deduce from that what his real theology is. And I can assess those arguments. I think he's concerned about that. He I think he feels probably some frustration as any pastor would that he can't simply wave a magic wand and eliminate same sex attractions or gender dysphoria. I do think that that God in some cases actually reduces the thethe strength of impulses. That are involved there, but not always. Sometimes that God wants us to show his power in the midst of those contrary desires and not following them right. I still feel an array of desires to do things that God doesn't want me to do, and I have to daily mortify those. Players so Stanley shouldn't give up. He shouldn't give up just because it looks difficult that God can actually use lives. That experience ongoing. Difficult impulses and use it to maximize his glory. I mean, the angels were Joyce, right? Do I get any credit for the fact that I don't engage in same sex? And of course that God give me any credit for that. No, I don't have those desires.

Andy Miller III

Right.

Robert Gagnon

Although many have claimed I must have those desires to write on this subject like I do, which is like ohhyeah, well, by the way I'm also against incest and polygamy and I'm also against pedophilia, but it's not because I hold some secret desires for all those things, right? Because I think rather this is the biblical witness. Let's go with that.

Andy Miller III

Right.

Robert Gagnon

So, Stanley, for whatever reason, I'm sure there are other factors too that are involved simply because, you know, it's less pressure on the church. She's a seeker friendly kind of church. This reaches out to more people. Probably gives a pass to heterosexuals in in their sexual sin or abortion or other issues. It just makes them a a nicer looking church, a nicer looking pastor which could also play into the reasons for it. Again, I don't know how much weight to give any given element.

Andy Miller III

Interesting, yeah.

Robert Gagnon

But if you're feeling sorry for somebody who has same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria, the worst thing you could do is give them a pass with regard to what Jesus regards as the foundation of sexual ethics and to go ahead and fulfill desires that, in the end, dishonor themselves. Not a good thing. Let them experience the power of God in the midst of weakness, which is what should be true for all believers, not just persons who have same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria.

Andy Miller III

Yes, that's helpful. This is like I had some friends who are at that church and like and defensive of him and they suggest well, this is just a pastor leading his church to love people well. And I can't help but think. That if if we really affirm that this is a sinful behavior that could lead to somebody's eternal damnation, please. And I know I could have your colleague Jerry Walls on to talk about the damnation side like I have. Like the the reality. Or you can get my course on heaven, where I talk a whole session on hell, like we but. Like, let's just say that intentional, willful, continual contention, intentional sin is a part of what leads somebody to reject Christ, and maybe to reject him for eternity. If that's the case. Is it loving somebody? Well to not tell them they're living in sin, that they're that they're having a simple action? I Idon't know. Is that. Too simplistic for me, Robert.

Robert Gagnon

No, absolutely not. I mean I and and as I've said. I mean if if. If Stan, if Andy Stanley operated with a biblical notion here, with Jesus's understanding of the issue, which is that engaging in such behavior could get you excluded from the Kingdom of God and sent into hell, engaging it in a serial, unrepentant way. If he really believed that, and that's certainly what Jesus and the whole Apostolic witness to Christ believed. Then he would be taking an entirely different approach. I mean, he actually talks about literally saving lives, he says. You know what? Think back to the woman caught in adultery. Why is it that Jesus holds in abeyance the capital sentencing for the adultery that she commit? It's because not because he doesn't think adultery is a serious offense that could get you excluded from the Kingdom of heaven. On the contrary, it's precisely he thinks that so he tells her from now on, go and no longer be sinning. Now people just stop there, but there'salmost an identical phrase in John 514. This text and the woman caught in adultery is in Chapter 8 in 5/14. She either says now on go would no longer be sending and adds less. Something worse happened to you? Well, what would be worse than being stoned?

Andy Miller III

Eternal again.

Robert Gagnon

According to the context in John Five, it's not inheriting eternal life. So that's what Jesus has in mind. Look again at Paul, with the ancestors, man. Andy Stanley is actually modeling his ministry. To persons with same-sex attractions and gender dysphoria, he is modeling his ministry after the Corinthian pneumatics, the spiritual ones. Who are tolerating this case of incest in their myth, in their myths, and in fact, Paul is saying you become puffed up with your tolerance over this. You become inflated with pride over your ability to tolerate this act, when in fact you should have been doing what you should have been mourning. Where do you mourn? You mourn at a funeral. That's the venue for mourning. Paul is saying to them. Look, this guy is headed for destruction. And that's why the vice list that he gives in Chapter 5 verses 9 to 10 of First Corinthians alright, same vice list as the one who gives in first Corinthians 69 to 10, the one in five, nine to 10 says you're not to even associate with such a person. Because you'reyou're communicating to this person. What whatthey're doing is OK. Same vice says in first Corinthians 69 to 10 only adds other sexual offenses to fill out what the sexually immoral is, including men who lie with a male. He now says this group is excluded from the Kingdom of God. So that'swhy he'she's connecting these two elements. The reason whyhe'she's saying no. You should put in the name of the Lord Jesus. You should put the incestuous man on church discipline, not as a punitive measure, but as a remedial act, not as a permanent act, hopefully, but a temporary act in the hopes that his spirit. Might be saved on the day of the Lord, the day of judgment. Right, So what is Paul most concerned about with the incestuous man? He's not tolerating it like the Corinthian believers are doing because he knows that toleration will lead to this person being excluded from the Kingdom of God eternally. That's what Paul cares about. Yes, that's the model that we should be following. And by the way, I seem to recall, but correct me if I'm wrong about this Andy, but isn't it the case? Also in Chapter 13, Paul gives us this hymn of love, that Love Is All.

Andy Miller III

Right.

Robert Gagnon

Do do we really. Think that Paul did not understand the meaning of love?

Andy Miller III

Right.

Robert Gagnon

When he took the actions that he took with the incestuous man, and by the way too, the 1st 4 chapters of that letter immediately preceding Chapter 5 on the incestuous man, they're all about unity. The importance of the unity of the church, but at this point, Paul says. We cannot have unity over what this guy is doing because number one, he'she's going to hell not to heaven if this persists. And #2A little, 11 Levens the whole lump. It will affect not only this incestuous man, but the whole community. Andy Stanley's not thinking about this. He's not only not thinking about the offenders engaged in these behaviors and what it will mean for them eternally, and it's not going to be saving their lives. That's not what Andy's family is doing. The exact opposite, but he's also not worrying about its impact on the whole community now. I'm sure then, Andy, Andy Stanley would say, oh, well, what do you what do you think they're all going to become homosexual or they're all going to become transgender? That's not going to happen. A ridiculous claim. I would say the same thing about the incestuous man. Yeah. When Paul says a little, 11. There's the whole lung. And he's talking about a case of incest. He doesn't think that if you approve this case of incest, that suddenly everyone is going to have sex with their parents or with their siblings, he's been thinking that.

Andy Miller III

Right.

Robert Gagnon

For what he is thinking is. If you can let go God's standards on an irreducible minimum of sexual ethics. Incest. I mean post thinking like even Gentiles know this is wrong, right? I gotta explain to you why incest is wrong. We're at a real we're at a real crossroads here because the message is now being sent. If this guy you'regonna tolerate and even brag about your ability to tolerate.

Andy Miller III

Yes, yes, yes.

Robert Gagnon

His case of insect and by. The way Andy Stanley is doing some. Of that right. He's bragging he's comparing about his gracious, loving outreach to the.

Andy Miller III

Right. No, it certainly is that. Or even the kids, the youth guy know. I heard him say how the youth group is. It's so wonderful that people are coming out in the youth group and that kind of thing.

Robert Gagnon

He's comparing himself. How much better they do it at his church. He's puffed up about it. He's inflated with pride about it, right? It's the same thing with the Corinthians, but.

Andy Miller III

No, that's that.

Robert Gagnon

While Paul knows everyone at Corinth is not going to go out and commit incest, he knows that by tolerating this behavior, he has sent the message the Corinthians have sent the message not. Ohh, that sexual sin doesn't really matter. Because if you can get, you can let go. You can violate. You can transgress an irreducible minimum of sexual ethics. What isn't open season on? And if you can say that it's, you know, we're not gonna really make any big deal about people committing same sex intercourse or transitioning to transgender. Listen, which are two elements. As we've said that affect the very foundation of sexual ethics, male and female. God created them. Then we have sent a clear message that sexual purity doesn't matter, that sexual immorality will have no bearing on your inheritance of the Kingdom of God. And that is the 11 of iniquity that leavens the whole batch of dough. The whole church completely. He's not thinking, and so many other Christians are not thinking like chess players. They're not thinking several moves. Then allowing this will lead to all these other things, but that is in fact what Paul was doing at Corinth.

Andy Miller III

This is so helpful and then like I think going back to First Corinthians and using this analogous example is so helpful in in your own argumentation friends as you're doing this, just follow the doctor Gagnon's lead here. You'll be surprised. Just found out we have a 4500 people watching live with us here. So isn't what a blessing that they're able to hear this. Hopefully it stays on, you know. Could we are saying something that often the culture doesn't accept, but I think it's and. And friends I I might be able to figure out a way out. Somebody ready text me. If there's a question we might go through, one question we we only have a little bit longer here, but you have this interesting line in this article. I want to point people back to it. They can go to our website wbs.edu and find your article. This response, this longer response. It's not just a quick little shot in the dark like I disagree. It's not a tweet. This is a substantive response and. If you want more than that, you can find that with Doctor Gagnon's ministry. But you had this line in that article said. And I love this and it'sit'sit's not what we would commonly hear. It's certainly it's not an easy thing for a Mega church pastor or any pastor to say but it is the Christian message. Exclusion youyou say exclusion has at its aim the recovery of the lost headed for destruction. It is remedial and hopefully temporary. The exclusion is like A is like a bad word or we don't want to exclude anybody. But the idea of exclusion and really so many of the New Testament. Lettersartare putting up these challenges so that people can come back. There's a promise in the fact that exclusion is in this sense, almost a.

Robert Gagnon

That's right. I mean think of think of the story of the prodigal son. Here's somebody who goes out, spends half his father's inheritance, including the Texas on prostitutes. If he had come back and asked his father for the other half of the inheritance. The problem wouldn't be the father's experience of personal loss of wealth. Because his entire concern was for his son. His younger son, his younger son, had he come back with that approach would have still been lost. And would have still been for all intents and purposes, dead. He would not have been recovered. He would not have been found and he would not now be alive. The reason why the father says let's slay the fatted calf. Is because this person comes back penitent. The return is itself Shug and Hebrew metaphor for repentance. He comes back saying I'm not even worthy. Now to be called a son. He understands something now about God's grace and the whole matter. If he just treats me as hired help, I'll be happy. But no God takes him back as a son, right? The importance of the return. Think about how generous Jesus is with grace. Luke 17, three to four. If your brother and sister sins, rebuke them. And if they repent. Forgive them. Even if they sin seven times a day. Now just think about that. Let's say your spouse goes and commits adultery. Not once, not twice, not three times, but seven times that day. And then says come back, it says honey, I repent. It's going to be pretty hard to accept as genuine that confess the sincerity of that confession of repentance. Given the multiple violations right, and especially if you continue doing it. But Jesus said, you know what? That's how Grace is extraordinarily gracious in accepting this sincerity of a confession of repentance after some ridiculously high number of violations of the commands of God. But what cannot be allowed to happen is no repentance. Because no repentance means that the offender is not recovered for. The Kingdom of God. And that's what matters. That's what is so pivotal here. And that's what Andy Stanley is not ultimately concerning himself with. And when Jesus is talking about the importance of reproof there in that line, what is he thinking of? It's an intertextual echo to the second greatest commandment according to Jesus. Leviticus 1918. Love your neighbor as yourself. What is the context for that? Second grade is commandment. You shall not hate your neighbor. You shall not take revenge against your neighbor. You shall not hold a grudge against your neighbor. And if your neighbor does wrong, you shall reprove your neighbor. Lest you incur guilt for failing to warn them. Because if you don't warn them and they stay on the path that leads to death, God will hold you personally culpable for that. You see how we're proof is an essential element in the dynamic of loving your neighbor as yourself. But if you look at these, embrace the journey people, the McDonald's have put on this conference or you look at what Andy Stanley is doing following in their in their wake in their train. They're not concerned. In fact, they saydon't reprove. And they referred disrespectfully to the text that speak about these issues as the clobber text. When are you ever going to hear Andy Stanley referred to texts against racism as clobber texts or texts against incest or economic exploitation as clobber texts? They're not going to do that because it's disrespectful of the biblical witness about what God gives priority to. Right. But they do that here because they do convey disrespect for the biblical witness. And end up wind up promoting functionally behavior that God finds abhorrent. That language is used in scripture for the behavior, something that God detests. It's abhorrent behavior and it leads the offenders into being excluded from God's Kingdom and sends a clear message to everybody else in the church that God is not serious about sexual purity. There are so many ramifications flowing out of this that Stanley either is not realizing or doesn't want to acknowledge because he has other considerations that are more important to him. If you look, for example, again at the McDonald's book, Embrace the journey again, they put on this conference. Stanley spent about 15 minutes. Of his sermon the following following the conference extolling how wonderful the McDonald's are. They tell a story about a couple that had a very hard time with the fact that their daughter identified as lesbian. Then they had. An even harder time when that daughter went on to identify as a transgender male. And then they present as a success story that the parents were able to learn to be happy about this transition. And are now happy with their son. This is the language used by the McDonald's. They now refer to our biological female as the son, and this is now a win. Win story. The power of Jesus is being manifested in their lives as never before. By approving A transgender transition of their daughter, allegedly to a male, that's what the McDonald's give as an example of a success. Sorry and all I can say to that is 2 words regarding Jesus. Jesus weeps. Because that person, rather than being lost rather than being found, is still lost. Rather than living is dead. In their spiritual walk in relation to God, we cannot allow that to happen in. The church.

Andy Miller III

This is essentially like what you say toward the end of your article, and we'llfinish up here. Have one more question, but it that this is a functional support for homosexual practice and transgenderism. And you say it's not just anti scriptural, but like you said there Jesus weeps, it's anti Jesus. So so often the case that's brought up is we're going to be like Jesus and we've already talked through the circles. Lines and that sort of. Please. And somebody told me we do have a lot of people who've been watching about. I'mnot quite sureit's 4500 anymore, so I'm checking. I don't know. I looked down at my phone and it said maybe 4500 people are on Facebook. We have a good people. I'm sure a lot of people see this. So just in case I was wrong, I want to make sure that I didn't give a false impression there, but I want to finish up with this, this idea like if it's anti. This idea of functional support being anti Jesus. And and I wonder how much of this is connected to accepting the Bible as the authority for our lives. Is it? Is it just? Is it really just a rejection of scripture? I mean, it seems like he's trying to fit it in, but I don't really think that's the case.

Robert Gagnon

Well, you know, it certainly is a rejection of scriptures, no question about that, because this is the core value of biblical sexual ethics. But. Precisely because it is a rejection of the very foundation. Of sexual ethics, according to Jesus, I don't want people to get the impression this is merely rejecting a view of inspiration like inerrancy. This is not just doing that. This is rejecting Jesus's own lordship over your life. If Jesus considers as the foundation of sexual ethics and one of the two main groups that he. Reached out to were sexual sinners. One of the two two of the six antitheses where he says in the beginning of the some of the month he used to be able to get away with the following. Now I tell you no longer where he closes those loopholes. I have to do it 6. And Jesus is the foundation of sex is God's intentional creation of male and female to complementary sexual counterparts. Then you are ending up rejecting Judas as Lordship and something else that I wanna make sure I get out before we close, if I can. Which is that people always say, yeah, but Jesus reached out to sexual sinners. You see how much she loved him? That's all that Andy Stanley is doing. No, that is not what Andy Stanley is doing. Yes, Andy Stanley is reaching out to sexual sinners, but he's not coupling it with what Jesus did, which is the intensified demand of God on their lives, calling them to repentance. Calling them to a transformed transformed life without which they couldn't inherit the Kingdom, he proclaimed. It does absolutely not.Thing to reach out to people, to show that you you're happy for them. You you want to praise what they're doing. You want to welcome them into your midst. Meet with you. That does absolutely nothing if it doesn't lead to repentance and transformation. And Jesus always did both, for example. She this is out, which he did. He reach out to mostly sexual sinners and tax collectors. Why tax collectors? Because tax collectors were known to be economic exploiters. In 1st century Palestine they collected. Many times over what they were supposed to collect, pocketing the excess for themselves they were defrauding other people living on the economic margins near starvation. When Jesus reached out. Every bit as much to the tax collectors as he did to sexual sinners that that indicate that Jesus was soft on economic exploitation, there's nobody who argues that not even liberals argue that even liberals admit no Jesus was well within the prophetic trajectory of critiquing misuse and abuse of money.

Andy Miller III

Yeah, sure.

Robert Gagnon

Mammon. Right, major? Yet when we see him reaching out to sexual sinners, we conclude he must be soft on sexual sin. He didn'tbring up the need for repentance.

Andy Miller III

Sorry to laugh, but it's just like seeing the analogy is so helpful to me to be able put.

Robert Gagnon

Right, right. See the.

Andy Miller III

These two things together, yeah.

Robert Gagnon

Analogy. Sowe're OK with him? Yes. Moving from reaching out to calling on repentance of the tax collectors. But we're not OK with the same sort of process with regard to sexual sinners. Absolutely extraordinary. So in the end, Andy Stanley presenting this as a loving outreach, is giving you only half the gospel and a half gospel is a truncated gospel and a truncated gospel as Paul saying Galatians 1. Is no gospel.

Speaker

No God.

Andy Miller III

Yeahohh This is why I'm not just calling you Doctor Robert Gagnon. I'm calling you prophet Robert Gagnon. That's, I mean, yeah, I know you don'twanna be stoned in case, but I understand. I'm just so thankful for your voice and the way that guy's using you and I again refer people to the article published at wesleybiblicalseminary.edu that you gave to us to submit. And the the work that you've done with us and I think institutions need to be cautious like honestly check in with your institute, the institutions that you're serving that you're part of, are they speaking out on this and and where do they stand? And sometimes you have to follow the bread crumbs like we've done in this situation that eventually became explicit. We kind of saw this coming, and it's sad and we I think people like Michael Brown, you'rewe're both friends with Michael Brown have a personal relationship with Andy Stanley have publicly called for his repentance. And you know, since he's in that relation, this is something that we hope happens like we hope. That the the words that we're saying here would not just lead him back, but others too, who might have been swayed by these arguments. So thank you, Robert, for coming on. It means a lot to me. Thanks for your publishing this article with us at WBS.

Robert Gagnon

No, my complete commendation of WBS, there are few institutions that I would do that, but WBS is very solid for the Lord and I'm happy to be associated.

Andy Miller III

Thanks so much. All right friends, thanks for checking this out then if you get a chance, if you could share this, it'll be on Facebook. But then of course, we'll have it up here probably pretty soon on the audio podcast. And then on YouTube as well. God bless you all.