Gay Church? HEATED Religion Debate With Michael Knowles

My understanding of gender and sexuality is a little more complex than I'm afraid you're coming from. It is complex, I'll grant you that.
Jesus already taught us how to pray. He taught us to pray our Father.
If you're going to teach people to pray a different way than Jesus taught his disciples to pray, that would be the epitome of pride. So I guess my question is, why would you not respect God's pronouns? Well, because clearly there are other places in Scripture where God uses other pronouns.
I think your view of what the Bible is is inaccurate. The Bible is not the inerrant word of God quite clearly.
The morning after President Trump's inauguration, an Episcopalian bishopress lectured him on the supposed Christian duty to embrace LGBT identity.

There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in Democratic, Republican, and independent families. Some who fear for their lives.
Our country will be woke no longer. They signed an order making it the official policy of the United

States government that there are only two genders, male and female.

So is LGBT part of Christianity? Here to discuss is Reverend Brandon Robertson of Sunnyside Reform

Church in New York City, Reverend Alexandra Da Silva Soto, who describes himself as an

Thank you for coming on the show. Thanks for having us.
Thanks for having us. Brandon, I'll start with you because you're nearest to me on the screen right now.
What's your take? I think I know the answer, but maybe you can flesh out your position of whether or not LGBT is a part of Christianity and if that identity is condemned by Christianity or if it is actually a constitutive part of it.

Totally. Yeah.
I mean, I would take the stance that the Bible does not condemn

loving, consensual, same-sex relationships in any of the passages that are traditionally used

against LGBT people. And LGBT people have always been a part of the Christian church and today are leading the

Christian church. I lead a church.
Others on this panel lead in churches, so it's quite clear that

LGBT people are a part of the Christian church. Okay, so there are plenty of verses that one

typically cites against homosexuality. Probably the most obvious one is Genesis chapter 19,

Sodom and Gomorrah. Your take that this does not, in fact, condemn any LGBT behaviors.
Yeah, I mean, Ezekiel makes it pretty clear that the sin of Sodom was that they were unhospitable to foreigners and strangers, not that it was engaging in same-sex sex. And if you actually read the story literally, what was happening is sex between men and angels, which is not exactly homosexuality.

Male angels, though.

So the argument being that when Ezekiel is describing these as abominable acts, it's really talking about inhospitality. What do you make then of the epistle of St.
Jude? You know, Jude 7 says that just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, so on and so forth. Doesn't that inclusion of unnatural lust clarify that the issue really is the fellas? No, definitely.
Another translation of that is strange flesh. And I think it's quite clear that what Jude is condemning is sex between angels, which is a surprising thing that you find in Genesis a couple of times of the sons of God, the angels, having sex with the daughters of men and creating these unholy group of people.
And I think that's exactly what Jude is condemning. I think that's what Sodom and Gomorrah is condemning as well.
Okay, Johnny, is that your take?

No, it's not my take. I think probably one thing maybe preface, Michael, would be, you know, the conversation would be framed a little bit different if I was talking with someone that was struggling with homosexual attraction than maybe debating a pastor that's coming or propagating a biblical conviction that you don't see in the scripture, in my view, very clearly.
The Bible, without hesitation, equivocation, or really any ambiguity, forbids homosexuality, but also promises forgiveness and cleansing to those who repent and turn from their sin, like any other sexual sin. And so you could use Genesis 19, you know, even he mentioned Ezekiel 16, 46 through 50, that it outlaws hospitality.

But then it also goes from there to say, and what they were doing was committing an abomination, which routinely in the scripture, when that word is yud toiba, it refers to something that is egregious to God. And it's routinely linked to sexual sin.
So Genesis 19 is one passage. There are other passages that I'm sure we'll explore.
but the Bible is very clear because the metanarrative of Scripture

begins with the marriage between a man and a woman. It ends with a marriage.
So marriage is the central metaphor of Scripture, which speaks to the unique fittedness and complementary nature of a man and a woman in the covenant of marriage. So we could be talking about any sexual activity outside of a man and a woman in marriage, and it would be sin according to the Bible.
You know, I really like this point that you're making here, which is that we should even frame it differently than the modern discussion of homosexuality. Whatever that means, you know, that could be so broad.
But that someone might be either born with a certain inclination, or if, you know, if the genetic evidence is a little scant on that, might have developed early on some kind of inclination toward acts that are traditionally considered immoral. But having an inclination doesn't necessarily constitute a sin.
It would be indulging the desire or the behavior that would be different. So just as one might be born with a predisposition toward alcoholism, you're not actually committing the sin of drunkenness until you actually do it.
So too, it's not like you're condemning a whole group of people. Reverend Alexander, I want to bring you back in.
Thank you for returning to the show. On this point here, I suspect I know which side you're going to come out on over whether or not Christianity condemns homosexual behavior.
So I'd love to hear your position, first of all. But then second of all, because people are coming from such different traditions here, I'd be curious as to on what authority you ground the legitimacy of your position.
So I'm sorry, first point, I'm not a gentleman. I'm a non-binary person.
A gentle them. Yeah, no, I'm a gentle person, not a gentleman.
gentle person not a gentle man i'm not a male um and uh in my pronouns are they they and um and theirs and i actually debated um the questions you have been posing for over a decade and wrestle with those questions for my entire childhood and adolescence into my adulthood, trying to reconcile that with precisely the second part of the question, my call into ordained ministry. And I used to believe in those handful of passages that get twisted from the Bible to convince that it is about homosexuality, which is, by the way, a terminology that did not exist until King James Bible was translated, because in the actual Greek, the terminology there is really about abuse.

It's about sexual abuse.

It's about enslavement of males for sexual pleasure.

So, we're not talking about the same things. And I'm actually not interested in convincing anybody because if by now, after most of the mainline denominations christian denominations and our jewish siblings as well and you know buddhist communities after all these world religions have come to their senses that queer people are uh human and Did anyone ever dispute that? And sacred.
Yeah. Well, if you're criminalizing the ability of a person to love another person, if you keep telling them that they're going to end up in hell for eternity, you're dehumanizing those individuals.
You're actually terrorizing individuals because so many queer folk end up in very self-destructive lives and behaviors, not because homosexuality pushes them to be in that behavior, because their loved ones and their communities of faith that's supposed to love them and care for them keeps pointing fingers and telling them, well, based on our understanding of these six passages in the Bible that we are not properly translating, you are evil and what you do is evil. And I don't say you are evil.
They say what you're doing is evil. I'll wrap it up.
There's the point, because I was baptized Catholic as a child.

My partner was Catholic as well. So, I'm very familiar with the idea of, you know,

love the sinner, hate the sin, which is an impossibility. I'm not even going to get into it.

But I'm also very familiar with the idea of, well, you can have those feelings, but you cannot

practice. So, let me turn the question back to you.
You love your wife. I do.
You have your wife. I have, you know, learned how much you care for her.
Now, imagine somebody from a pulpit telling you, you cannot express this love you have for her. You can feel it, but you cannot really act on it.
Because my interpretation is

that if you consummate that love you have for her, you're going to go to hell. Imagine that.

Try to conceive that. Yes.
It's certainly the case that if a preacher got up and attacked the

ordinary and natural relations between a man and a woman, that would be different from a preacher condemning some other action. I suppose my question for you, Reverend Alexander, and I'm pleased to hear that both you and your partner were raised and baptized Catholic, and hopefully we can pull you across the tiber again soon enough.
But when you say that to oppose LGBT identity is to criminalize certain types of love, we do criminalize certain types of love. We have ages of consent.
We have laws, obviously, against rape. So there are other aspects to sexual relations than just love, contrary to popular slogans, love is love.
But then furthermore, when you're talking about that well okay before i before i go

off on a diatribe let's bring in johnny because i saw you were raising your hand before johnny well but if i may because this is a very important question right because in your statement you you equated the love of one person for another that happened to be of the same gender of a different gender you equated that to rape no i didn't equate it to rape i just i of the same gender, of a different gender, you equated that to rape.

No, I didn't equate it to rape.

I just...

You're putting it at the same level.

No, I didn't do that, though.

Perhaps you misheard me.

So you were distracting that.

Okay, great.

I proved that your assertion was wrong, that to criminalize certain types of love could

never be morally acceptable, because certain people might have a love for someone who is under the age of consent. Certain people might have a love for someone who does not consent to be loved by that person.
And we obviously have laws against those things, and I don't think anyone on this panel would disagree with that. So I take it that you have laws against same gender relations or against other forms of union outside the male and female?

Do we have laws against same gender relations? We don't presently because of the Lawrence v. Texas decision.
And that's the point, right? Are there protections being taken back after decades of trans women, of lesbians, of queer people, of all genders, shapes and forms fought to get those rights in place so we could get married, so we could have our children, so we could have spousal rights that you do have because if your wife ends up... How can two men produce a child? You can go visit her.
What do you mean to have our children? How can two men produce a child? can go visit her i'm sorry what do you mean to have our children how can two men produce a child oh oh there's there's incredible ways for that to happen there that they are incredible oh yeah yeah they're you know artificial insemination they're they're they're men they're there's artificial well the man doesn't need the artificial ones oh you're saying to of another woman? No, no. Yeah, my understanding of gender and sexuality is a little more complex than I'm afraid you're coming from.
It is complex, I'll grant you that. But what you're saying, when you're saying two men can produce a child, what you've said by bringing up artificial insemination is that the two men can bring a woman into the picture, either to purchase her eggs or to rent out her womb

and then to create a child and deprive the child of his natural mother. But that isn't

between two men. That's two men and another woman, or really a man and a woman, and then

there's another guy on the side. No, no, no.
There can be two men, two male,

like two people that identify as males, and one of them could have reproductive organs.

They both have reproductive organs, presumably. One of them could, right? They're male.
They're males. They're men.
They're men out there that have reproductive organs. We all have.
All men have reproductive organs. Well, and apart from that, right, two people, like, let's say, if you want to stick to that configuration two males two men can adopt a child but you know we can say well they could try to do it but you know if there are no legal protections for those two men to adopt a child which by the way okay so they could adopt a child but they couldn't produce a child between themselves.
All right, Johnny, what's your take? You know, I think probably just going back to a couple things that he said regarding the nature of the translation of the word for homosexuality. They said...
You're not multiple people, Reverend Alexander. Just as I respect your right to self-identity, you can't force me to lie through my pronouns.
Singular they. If you look into the roots of the English language, you would see that they singularly as well.
The singular they is scriptural too. Like my name is legion for we are many.
Johnny, your point? Oh, wow. Yeah.
Just from the use of the word for homosexuality that's often used in the New Testament, arsenokoitai, it doesn't refer to pederasty or gang rape. Sometimes the rebuttal would be that Paul's not referring to monogamous committed loving sexual union between a man that loves a man, but a Roman centurion that's raping a slave.
But the word just means literally men who bed men. And Paul did come up with that term through the Septuagint translation of Leviticus, which he is carrying on.
So even if you're gonna say, hey, Leviticus is expired. No, actually Jesus says that he came to fulfill the law.
And when Paul is outlying and when the scripture is outlying, and I'm using, even when we say, and when the scripture, this is an argument about what the Bible says about homosexuality. So whenever we're using the scripture, you have to make sure you're using it with a level of clarity.
When in Romans 1, probably the other popular passage that they both be familiar with about homosexuality, it doesn't outlaw pederasty, which there was a perfectly good word to use. It says men and women who burn with passion for one another.
that's not a young boy or a centurion. Furthermore, I would just say from when you have Jesus who solidifies and cements the biblical narrative, he created the male and female for this reason, a man.
So it really comes down to what did Jesus believe? If you believe in the resurrection, you believe that Jesus Christ is God. you would have to make an argument from silence to be able to say that Jesus approves

of homosexual behavior. Furthermore, when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6, the homosexual, the adulterer, the effeminate does not inherit the kingdom of God, I always wanna close here with if someone is listening, the call in the scripture for someone who is engaging in homosexual behavior is to confess, repent, and turn to Jesus Christ.
Paul says, such were some of you, but you were washed. And so that's, I always want to end there because this is a sin that God forgives of.
Right. As with all the sins, you know, and it's such an important point because it's lost both in, on the right and on the left and in tradition and modernity.
And that's why I wanted to frame it by, hey, if I'm having a conversation with someone at a coffee shop regarding the subject, it would be with a level of conviction and compassion. It's a little bit different when we're lobbying one text of Scripture against each other.
So I want to necessarily include some compassion and go, okay, this is a sin that needs to be repented of. But it's also not like just any other sin.
Like if the common argument was, well, the Bible also outlaws gluttony, you would be able to say, well, 1 Corinthians 6 says, every other sin is committed outside the body, but the immoral man sins against himself. And this is also becoming a part of the modern identity.
So this isn't just like all other sin. All sin separates us from God, but not all sin is the same.
That's why even if you trace first century Rome, the argument too that what they were engaging in there is not true even from many gay scholars. Pim Pronk would be able to say, you would never be able to arrive at this position from the Bible.
If you wanna say homosexuality is not wrong, you may get there, but you can't use the scripture. And a number like Lewis Crompton would also say the same thing.
You can't arrive at that position by using the scripture unless you're banking your entire life off of an argument from silence, which is really dangerous, especially when there are so many passages in the scripture which make this very clear. Right now, go to hallow.com slash Knowles.
We are in Lent, the special 40-day journey leading up to Good Friday and Easter. It is when the church invites us to grow closer to our Lord through prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and sacrifice.
It's not too late to join in. 40 days is plenty of time.
You can jump in right now with Hallow's amazing Lent Pray 40 challenge called The Way. This challenge focuses on how Jesus is the way to heaven, that he showed us that the way includes sacrifice

and can be difficult.

And the fruits of that sacrifice are eternal life,

peace, joy, healing, and love.

They'll be in good company too.

Mark Wahlberg and Chris Pratt will guide you

through challenges designed to help you surrender

and sacrifice.

Jonathan Rumi and Sister Miriam James

will lead you through powerful stories in prayer.

Father Mike Schmitz will deliver

his excellent Sunday homilies

alongside incredible true stories of faith.

It's already shaping up to be Hallow's biggest Lent

Thank you. Miriam James will lead you through powerful stories and prayer.
Father Mike Schmitz will deliver his excellent Sunday homilies alongside incredible true stories of faith. It's already shaping up to be Hallow's biggest Lent ever with thousands of people praying together all over the world.
Here's the best part. You can get three months free when you sign up at hallow.com slash Knowles.
That covers you throughout all of Lent and beyond. Once you join, you will discover guided prayers, meditations, music, and so much more, all designed to help you grow closer to God and find peace.
Download the Halo app and jump into the Lent Pray 40 Challenge today. Well, to your point on gluttony, you know, being of Italian extraction, that's a great example of a sin, an inclination that is naturally in our DNA, but we try to resist.
Brandon, you've been waiting patiently, shaking your head now and again. So to bring it back to the question that I first asked Reverend Alexander, I said, you know, on what authority do you get this? And based on what Johnny said, you know, I think we've gone through most of the verses that appear to condemn homosexual behavior, Though we've actually danced around the most obvious ones, which come from the book of Leviticus 18 and chapter 20.
For those who are unfamiliar, you shall not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abomination.
And then in Leviticus chapter 20, verse 13, if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. So traditionally speaking, also to Reverend Alexander's point, the mainline Protestants have largely accepted LGBT.
The evangelical Christians are kind of split on it. The Catholic Church has remained pretty firm in its view of sexual morality.
Eastern Orthodoxy has remained pretty firm. So I guess, one, how do you get around Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20?

And then two, maybe even more interesting to me, on what grounds do you depart in your interpretation from what has at the very least been the traditional understanding of these and other verses? Totally. I mean, I agree that Paul creates this word arsenokoitai and that Paul is thinking of the Levitical passages when he creates it.
But the context of Leviticus 18, for instance, is quite clear. Leviticus 18 verses 1 through 3 says, do not do as they do in the land of Egypt where I am bringing you from and do not do in the land of Canaan as they do in the land of Canaan where I'm bringing you to.
So the question you have to

ask is where in Egypt or Canaan was same-sex sex a common practice? And the answer pretty universally

is it wasn't. What was common in ancient Canaan and ancient Egypt was exploitative and abusive sexual relationships.
And that is precisely- On what grounds, Brandon, on what grounds do you say that it was not a common practice? Egyptologists. Carol Graves, I believe is her name, has a beautiful book about sexuality in ancient Egypt, for instance.
And there are a few examples of a sarcophagus that was found that appears to have two men facing each other that people have speculated. Actually, LGBT people have speculated that this is a same-sex relationship.
So you're saying it was commonly practiced? No, it wasn't. I think the historical evidence is pretty universally clear.
The sarcophagus you just cited would suggest a same-sex relationship, open and sanctioned. So doesn't that undercut the point you were just making? No, the point is we don't understand what exactly is happening in the sarcophagus, and some people have posited that this means it was a same- relationship but the overwhelming evidence is that egypt was not a place where gay couples were running around left and right in the ancient world what was happening in the ancient construction of sexuality in the ancient near east was that men who were citizens of a nation were permitted to have sex with anyone they wanted to have sex with which often included male slaves it often included women they wanted.
This is certainly what was happening in Rome. And this is certainly what Paul was condemning, and I condemn it too.
Excessive lust and exploitation, I think that's a sin, according to the Bible. But to make it about loving, consensual, same-sex relationships misses the point.
And there is an overwhelming body of biblical scholarship that supports this perspective. So, when you say this is certainly what St.
Paul meant, and this is certainly what Leviticus means, and this is certainly what Ezekiel means, and this is certainly what Genesis means, it's so certain that it has nothing to do with any modern notion of LGBT behavior.

I guess I just have to ask, how are you so certain?

Because the church for, at the very least, we would all agree, many, many centuries was quite certain in the opposite direction.

And we have many, well, the writings of many popes and theologians, doctors of the church, ecumenical councils. How come your certainty is so much more correct than all of those certainties? Yeah, I believe in progressive revelation.
Jesus said before he ascended into heaven, I'm sending you the spirit who will continue to lead you into all the truth. I believe the spirit of— But the Catholic Church believes that too.
The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Ghost is with the church and expresses herself through infallible statements, through the magisterium, through the ecumenical councils. But what I'm saying is all of those statements and councils and doctors of the church contradicted your view of things.
So is it the Holy Spirit only speaks to Pastor Brandon? No, two things I'll say here. One, I don't think your understanding of the Catholic Church is actually as black and white as you're making it seem.
Here in New York City, there are a number of large Roman Catholic parishes that have vibrant LGBT ministries and outreaches and fully affirm and accept those LGBT members of their parishes. It's got to be the Jesuits, I bet.
To your point, I know there are great ministries from the Catholic Church, notably Courage, to reach out, though not to affirm LGBT identity, though some wayward priests sometimes get a little wild. But you've got to remember in the Catholic Church, we don't just kind of go individually.
We do have magisterial teachings which have remained consistent on LGBT identity, such as it was in antiquity to the present, through things even recently like Humanae Vitae, the teaching of football the sixth, the theology of the body. And really, there hasn't been a lot of ambiguity on it, at least in our… Well, the current Pope has been a bit ambiguous, or actually not ambiguous.
He has been quite Christian and faithful in his understanding of the practice of love. Well, you know, Reverend Alexander, just before you make your point, the Holy Father, Pope Francis, has said that same-sex marriage, such as it is, is no mere political movement, but a machination of the father of lies that seeks to deceive and confuse the children of God.
And asked about same-sex unions and same-sex marriage, he said that God cannot bless sin. So, I agree Pope Francis is sometimes ambiguous, but he's been pretty traditional on that point, wouldn't you say? Yeah, in terms of marriage, right? The institution of marriage, marriage as a sacrament, which is within the Catholic tradition.
Now, the point that I really want to make is because Leviticus was lift up and Sodoma was lift up and there was the point of angels being male. As far as we can tell, angels have no gender.
They, I think, may be non-binary. Who knows? Sui generis, right? Individual species.
I don't know. Anyhow, and thank you, Pastor Ben for the point about Sodom, it gets lifted up so often.
It's about rape. It's about being inhospitable, right? Now, the biggest, the most important point I would say in conversation about theology with Christian siblings is Jesus never said a word about what is being framed as homosexuality, not a single word about it.
And there are quite a few theories or interpretations about the compassion Jesus had towards those that in our lenses of today perceived as of the same gender,

the centurion, for instance, right? Brief reference there. But the most important thing is that Jesus spoke 36 times, 36 times against divorce.
And I don't understand why the boogeyman of homosexuality is taking up so much airspace and so much preoccupation of Christians, of going after, right, queer community. When Jesus said nothing about it, when two people of the same gender or different genders being together does nothing to harm anybody else or the community.
So, if there's any problem there, it's between them and God. So, let God do whatever God may do or do not, because we also being called, and Jesus specifically over and over again said do not pick up a stone unless so so much scapegoating happens can I maybe jump in there Johnny you're just kind of let me just close my point so much scapegoating about maybe six verses of the bible and an entire group of people being you know being uh you know the bible doesn't say a lot about bestiality either so you can't build your entire theology based off of maybe the rarity of the occurrences johnny you're equating yeah two people being in love with each other and caring for each other with a human.
No, he's just pointing out that scarcity or paucity versus doesn't. You're building an argument based off of not that much, according to Kevin DeYoung.
He would say if you use that not too much argument, basically you're just building, you know, and I'm even going to go back to Sodom. When you say it was gang rape or a lack of hospitality, if you just read the Bible, you know, and I'm saying this is pretty, it says, bring out those men.
They don't even know that they're angels. It says, bring out those men.
And Lot responds, please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. They don't know it's angels.
So even that argument is refuted. One other thing regarding Jesus, Jesus affirms the biblical sexual ethic very clearly in Matthew 19.
One man, one woman, in the covenant of marriage.

If you want to rewrite that, you would have to have a different creation narrative. Because the Bible starts off with the story of Adam and Eve, the Isha from the Isha, complemented, made for each other, and then the Bible concludes with the marriage supper of the Lamb.
So you have to rewrite entirety of the scripture oh no pastor johnny if anybody is rewriting it are folks who want to criminalize an entire group of people and this is scapegoating it is to target a group that is maybe 10 of the human population identifies or or understands themselves 30 of gen z though apparently something's in the water well those are two recent reports you know why you know it's not a it's not a fad it's it's not a fad it's it's because finally it's existed for a long time even according to thomas hubbard going back to your argument thomas hubbard said that every form of homosexuality hold on hold on let's let's get a little hold of the panel here I've noticed Johnny's sat very

He's sat very patiently

And he hasn't interrupted anybody

So Johnny, if you want to finish your point

And I don't like interrupting

I think the producer told me

I might have to jump in

So I feel like I'm looking at my watch going

I might have to jump in

So in that regard

And again, if this is at a coffee shop

The flavor of the conversation would look different, right?

And so I'd want to do that with love and conviction

And And so in that regard, and again, if this is at a coffee shop, the flavor of the conversation would look different, right?

And so I'd want to do that with love and conviction.

The Bible is very clear that marriage is for a man and a woman in marriage.

You would have to rewrite the story of a real historical account, right?

So if you make it, let's just say you take the creation narrative as an allegory.

Well, then you'd have to explain why in Genesis 5, Genesis 10, Matthew 1, it uses Adam and

Eve as our earliest ancestors.

So you have to explain why in Genesis 5, Genesis 10, Matthew 1, it uses Adam and Eve as our earliest ancestors. So you have that reality.
How many of you guys have seen it? Hold on, hold on, Reverend Alexander. Let Johnny finish this point.
I'm going to go back to what you said regarding the love of Jesus, because praise the Lord, our God is a God of love. But love is never licensed for sin or to refute what the scripture teaches, Even when you're saying, you know, I looked at just the bio of your book that's coming out, I think, in May, Brandon, and it talks, I think you speak of the term radical inclusion, and I would say that Jesus did Luke 15, dying with sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors, but in the end, no one called Jesus a friend that didn't call him master.
And so when Jesus, even when confronted in John 8 with a woman caught in adultery, he says, go and sin no more. Yes, Jesus is love, but he's also holy.
You cannot separate one attribute of God from the other. He's not pieces of a pie.
We call that divine simplicity. God does not possess attributes.
He's all of his attributes all of the time in full measure. And so you can never separate the love of God from the holiness of God.
And so you would be building an argument on silence, especially when Jesus affirms what's taught in Leviticus, when he says, I've come to fulfill the law. Let's just take – and then just final thought here.
If you're going to make the argument, well, what about the feast and the festivals? Well, Colossians says those are no more. What about the holidays that they celebrated? The New Testament says those are no more.
You know, you could do different things to say, well, hey, we no longer practice this in the Old Testament. So it's homosexuality in that same camp.
But Jesus arrives and he affirms the sexual ethic of Leviticus. So does Paul.

So does Peter.

And so do many LGBTQ plus scholars about the scripture. So even I mentioned those names and I'm going to repeat those names because those are some of the most respected gay scholars that exist today who say you cannot arrive at this position from a scriptural perspective.
This is an important point too, Johnny, that sometimes people say, well, you know, if the old law still holds, why do we eat shellfish or whatever? And it's because there is a distinction, an important distinction that Brandon talked about, which is between ceremonial law and juridical law and moral law. And the ceremonial law can be fulfilled and transformed in the new covenant.
The juridical law will obviously be changed with the changing of the polity, or it will be fulfilled in the spiritual Israel. But the moral law is eternal, and it's also inscribed in every human heart.
So if an aspect of the law pertains to the moral law, then nothing about it would transform really at all. Now, I want to move even a little further than just the L and the G and the B into the T because, Brandon, I know you've posted something to social media on Trans Day of Visibility that got a lot of traction.
You said on this Trans Day of Visibility, an important reminder, God is transgender. This is not meant to be a provocative statement.
I wanted just a fact check there. It obviously was.
It's social media, and you called God transgender. I'm not buying that for a second.
And then he said, rather, it's a statement of obvious fact. Christians believe that everyone that exists bears the image and likeness of God.
That means all human diversity, including gender diversity, is a reflection of God's expansive creativity. It goes on for a while, but just one key line here.
God cannot be confined to any gender binaries. Within God, all gender identities and expressions exist, and thus God both transcends and includes all of our diverse gender identities.
Now, of course, I don't know anyone who would attempt to reduce God to some human conception of gender. However, God does reveal himself to us as the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.
God chooses, if you will, his preferred pronouns, and they are he, him, and his. So, I guess my question is, why would you not respect God's pronouns? Well, because clearly there are other places in scripture where God uses other pronouns, God uses other images to describe God's self, like a mother hen.
royal way, for instance. Sure, yes.
I think in Genesis, the royal way is quite interesting. But the point is that in scripture itself, God refers to God's self in one specific gender identity the most.
But that doesn't mean that there are not other ways that God identifies. Hold on, before you finish your point, I have to, I can't let that pass.

Do you, you refer, when you are describing how, I suppose what I would say is God refers

to himself, you don't say himself for God, you say Godself?

I use different, depending on who I'm speaking to and how to communicate this message, I

think using any pronoun is actually good for God, because that's how God describes God's self. Him, her, they, we.
Not she. Yeah, she, mother hen.
Well, one can make an analogy, but one can even speak, you know, quite bluntly about God transcending human, you know, mere human gender or something, without ignoring the fact that God presents himself to us as the father and the son, and fathers and sons are not she's and hers. But even in your own tradition, there are mystic Catholics that write about God the mother.
We have tons of mystic writings throughout the Catholic Church's history that refer to God in a multiplicity of genders. And so I think it's because it's a political firestorm around this particular topic that we are parsing this out and really insisting that God must be he, him, his.
I think we need to, to your very point, refer to God as God likes to be referred to, which is all genders, which is why I say God transcends gender and is transgender. All of that is within God.
And if one is Trinitarian, which I still am, despite the fact of being a minister in a Unitarian Ressalist congregation, we're not going to get into the weeds of that, but I'm still very much... Reverend Alexander, I'll just pause you for one second.
It is a delightful aspect of your personality, given the many complex statements that you regularly make, that you would be a Trinitarian Unitarian as well. Yes, absolutely, convictedly.
And there's the third person. Who's the third person? The Holy Spirit.
The Holy Ghost, the bond of love between the Father and the Son.

How's the Holy Ghost being understood traditionally in many schools of thought, in many traditions? As the bond of love between the Father and the Son. Sophia, Lady Wisdom, right? So, there's an element of femininity, of femaleness, of queerness that is there that that is, you know, it's not he.
Because the understanding of God as this guy up in the sky has been what it has been because gender had been understood as unilateral. There was just male.
Let's be frank. There was not even female.

I think there was female. Before our Lord tells us to pray our father, he is born of a woman named Mary, his holy mother.
So I think people knew what women were. Okay, if you open a new revised standard version bible, the largest print there is Dean Altridge

and was he was my professor in my Bible studies, right? So, it's not my point. I'm just advancing it.
And you don't have to buy it, right? You don't have to buy it. But the point being, in antiquity, there was mail, and there was failed males because those were the individuals with extra parts or places for penetration.
And children weren't even male or female. So our understanding of gender is still so rudimentary that it's becoming more rudimentary i think no no no we're finally understanding that there there's more than one gender male that there's female because women are finally getting a little bit of space in this world, right? And we're understanding that even between male and female, there are other expressions.
Biologically, science is helping us understand that. And, you know, academicians, professors, scholars, religious leaders, and the community is helping us understand.
It was mentioned earlier about Gen Zs, the number of non-binary and queer Gen Zs and trans Gen Zs. It's not because it's a fashionable thing, because these children are still being terrorized.
It's because they're seeing elders. They're finally having the language.
It took me 47 years to understand that I was not that which i was terrorized for not being so when they see teachers and people in their community older people who are expressing lgbt identities that persuades them to be more likely to identify that way you sound like a right-wing conservative reverend alexander that exactly what we've been saying. That's the twist of the argument.

It doesn't persuade them.

It helps them to see what they are because there's language for it and there's representation for it.

It's like seeing a woman in a place of power helps young girls think, oh, I could be a president.

I could be a CEO.

I could be a teacher because we have teachers that are women like me so it's not because they you know they're following a trend or they're being groomed which is a terrible argument because if we're really concerned your word not mine if we're really concerned about grooming we would address the you know in 2006 there was a study that 450 000 children would be molested before they're graduated and this is not by trans people or queer people it's because you know it's staff within those schools. But we're not paying attention.
Public schools, so disproportionately liberal. I want to bring in Johnny here on this because, Johnny, I'll let you weigh in on Reverend Alexander's claim that the Holy Spirit is queer.
And that, you know, children are now identifying 30% as LGBT because of who they really are. And even, I'd like you to get to what the bishopress from the National Cathedral mentioned about trans kids and how to love trans kids.
The one correction I want to make, because I'm the only Catholic on the panel, Reverend, is you said, you know, women now finally have a place and they're being recognized and kind of honored. But as a Catholic, you know, we really like the Holy Mother a lot and we recognize her as the Queen of Heaven.
You know, we say, hail, full of grace, Lord is with thee. So listen, I would not, I don't know how the Trinitarian Unitarians deal with women, but we Catholics are, we're very pro women and one woman in particular.
Johnny, your take. Yeah, I think probably just to wed together what's been said so far regarding the nature and identity of God, it really just has to be answered very simply.
When God chose to reveal himself, he did so in the person and work of Jesus Christ, a man, and the word became flesh, John 1 14, and dwelt amongst us multiple times throughout the gospel. Then Jesus is going to say, I and the father are one.
If you've seen me, you've seen the father. Thomas, have I been with you so long? Don't you understand this? John 17, Jesus, high priestly prayer.
He says, father, return to me the glory that I had when I was with you before the foundation of the world. And when Jesus comes back, he's coming back as Jesus, as a real man with King of Kings and Lord of Lords tattooed on his thigh.
And so I think in regards to the gender, you have to understand that right now in glory, Jesus is a man. We're going to worship Jesus Christ.
Christians are for all of eternity as the crucified King of the universe. So I think just in that regard, Jesus already taught us how to pray.
He taught us to pray our father. If you're going to teach people to pray a different way than Jesus taught his disciples to pray, that would be the epitome of pride.
Regarding the transgender, maybe the students that are struggling with their identity, and you can look at the American Psychiatric Association's stats on that. But 90% or 98% of people that identify as another gender before I think it's age 12, you'd have to check me on this.
Nancy Piercy writes about it at great length and with great clarity in her book, Love Thy Body. But they go back to their biological gender if left untreated.
And so first of all, they should be talked to from a biblical perspective. They should be loved.
As a pastor, as a Christian, I want to love people. And again, when I say I want to love people, the most loving thing that I could do as a pastor is teach them the truth that's so clear within God's word.
It doesn't mean hammer smash. That's why even on my tone, as I communicate the truth, I'm wanting to do that in a way that represents my love.
I don't want to be argumentative. I do want to love people enough to tell them the truth.
And even if I could go back to one thing Brandon said as a progressive revelationist, that is, you're basically making the assumption that however God is guiding you today, so-called, it's doing it in a contradictory way to thousands of years of revelation and thousands of years of church history. And if God says, I'm the same yesterday, today, and forever, one of the assumptions that you're making is that now what he's revealing is contradicting what he's already revealed.
And he says in revelation, whoever adds to these words, let him be accursed. And so when God does reveal himself through the person and work of the Holy Spirit, it never, ever contradicts his signature as he has written in his word once and for all time.
Brandon? That's just simply not true. I think your view of what the Bible is is inaccurate.
The Bible is not the inerrant word of God quite clearly. And the way Jesus interprets the Bible is by revising commandments from the Hebrew Bible and offering new, more ethical commandments.
Hold on, Brandon, just before you move on with your point, it should be clear to viewers, that's a rather radical departure from the traditional understanding of the church, that scripture is inerrant, and the words of our Lord, who says, not a jot or tittle will pass from the law until all is completed. Is it not? The modern evangelical understanding of what inerrancy is, meaning that every single word is directly from God and true in every way for all time, is just not how the church throughout history has engaged.
What about the old Catholic view of inerrancy? I think, I mean, honestly, the Catholic view on most things is more nuanced and I'm more conversant with that view, but I come from the evangelical. I'm getting you and Alexander to come over.
This is going to be good. I don't know, Johnny, maybe we'll bring you over across the time or two.
Sorry to interrupt. Keep going.
Yeah, but the point is Jesus often would go to the Hebrew Bible. He would take a command from the Hebrew Bible.
You have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, turn the other cheek, love your neighbor, bless those who persecute you.
That's not a reinterpretation of a commandment. Jesus is giving a new, significantly better commandment.
Jesus did not view the Bible as this inerrant static book that all of it is binding for all time. Then what about when St.
Paul in the letter to the Romans says the civil authority does not carry the sword in vain? Is it the case, as you seem to be suggesting, that our Lord, rather than fulfilling scripture, is contradicting the Old Testament, and then St. Paul is contradicting our Lord when he said that the civil authority can execute judgments according to justice? Or no, is something else going on? Well, when Jesus says, I've not come to abolish the law but fulfill it, another way to translate the Greek word that's translated fulfillment is complete.
So, I would say some of the revelation throughout Scripture is incomplete, and Jesus, in many instances, completed the revelation. But I don't think that God stopped speaking when the canon was closed.
And I think the church has evolved on many different perspectives. You can read evangelical William Webb's books, Slaves, Women, and Homosexual, where he charts a redemptive trajectory in the Scripture, beyond the Scripture, that caused the church to change its perspective after thousands of years of teaching to adopt a more Christ-like ethic.
So no, ethics don't rise and fall on the words of the Bible. The Bible points us in the direction, tunes us to the spirit, and then we follow the spirit of God, where God leads.
And thankfully, God is leading the church to welcome and include LGBT people in this day. Okay.
Well, I'm glad you brought up ethics in this regard, because before I let you all go, there is one point that we haven't touched on that I think is important and kind of the background of what we're discussing here, which is the natural law. It was brought up earlier that today, the reason that LGBT identifying people, and especially the T identifying people, have higher rates of anxiety, depression, suicide, all sorts of social problems, is not because of anything in the behavior or in the identity, but rather because of social stigmas.
I'm a little skeptical of that because we're as pro-LGBT now as any society has ever been, and we've redefined marriage and even redefined gender in the civil rights law in the Bostock decision. It was a conservative judge who did it, Judge Neil Gorsuch.
So it would seem to me that as LGBT has made such advancements in recent decades, that the rates of anxiety and depression and suicidality for the whole spectrum of the alphabet, but certainly for the T, which has a lot of focus on it now, would decrease. And yet what we've found repeatedly and consistently is that those rates of anxiety, depression, suicidality don't.
Even for guys who identify as gay, women who identify as lesbians, they have significantly increased rates of depression and anxiety. And the suicide rate for trans-identifying people has been widely reported.
There are two major studies that came out recently, one from the American Journal of Psychiatry, a largest data set ever on trans procedures. And then just within a week or two out of Oxford University showing that the suicide rates remain very, very high.
And in fact, rates of anxiety and even suicide can increase after affirming the transgender identity. So the pro-LGBT argument seems to be that this is all because of social stigma and ostracism.
My argument would be that maybe people who are engaging in these behaviors have high rates of anxiety and depression and all the rest because they understand that it is contrary to nature, and it's not conducive

with happiness, which Aristotle defines as a rational activity done with excellence in accord

with virtue, and that maybe, as St. Paul tells us, the natural law is inscribed on every human heart.
Isn't that the traditional Christian view, Reverend Alexander? Trans people, non-binary people queer people are still experiencing the community still plagued with suicidal ideation with depression right with self you know destructive behaviors because even though there's some laws that were passed and some protections that were promised they have not been fulfilled trans people are you talking about men playing women's sports they use women's bathrooms civil rights law was changed employment law was changed that is not true there's 10 athletes in the whole country competing in sports. 10 in the whole country.
There was one trans athlete out of, was it 540 something, 592 athletes who took to the Olympics. Well, according to the United Nations, 890 medals and trophies have been taken away from girls and women because of trans athletes.
One was trans. That's not true.
It's 0.00414% of the press. The UN says it was some 29 different sports, some 600 athletes across 400 competitions.
I don't know. It's either Reverend Alexander or the UN report, but I digress.
Keep going. No, I love the UN.
Actually, we need to protect the UN and shore it up, not to dismantle it. My point being, trans people are a minority of a minority of a minority.
And the focus that has been... Sure, I understand your point.
We're talking about the LGBT too much. We shouldn't talk about them.
But what do you make of the point that I just raised? That maybe there's something intrinsic to this identity, which is contrary to nature. And that's what's making them sad.
Not just mean old guys like Johnny and Michael Knowles. My point is that trans people are still unable to find jobs.
It's to find housing, still unable to be fully welcomed, let alone celebrated in society. But as they're being more clearly embraced by our law and our culture, wouldn't you expect the rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide to go down, not to remain the same or even increase? But that's not true.
Because for trans people in particular, some laws have been passed, but immediately after, they have been targeted. We have been, because I'm within the trans community as a non-binary person.
We have been systematically targeted. It's kind of like cheating a little bit.
Well, you know, I know myself and I try to know myself, know thyself, and I won't make any judgment about your gender or your life. You can.
Please judge my gender. I'm a big, strong, tough guy.
I'm a he-man. If I start referring to you as she and call to Michaela, you won't enjoy that.
That won't be comfortable for you. That wouldn't be true.
That won't be signifying and respectful, right? But that's what is done to trans people, right? They, we, we have our identities. We have our self-understanding.
But people that are not us keep pointing their finger at us and saying, no, you're not who you are. Johnny, are you pointing your finger? I know we've got to let you go very shortly.
I have to let all of you gentlemen go. So maybe just a little rapid fire here before the end.
We began with revelation and dictates from the pulpit from the Episcopalian bishop lady. We can end on natural law.
What's your take as you wag your finger? Oh, no, yeah, I was just scratching my head. I think maybe just a couple things to respond to.
The first from Brandon saying that Jesus said, you've heard it said, but I tell you, you've heard not to commit adultery, but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully in her heart has committed adultery. What Jesus is getting at is that the Old Testament system pointed to the insufficiency of ever trying to earn your way to God, which makes us dependent upon grace.
So the whole point of the law in Galatians 3 is to be our tutor to point us to Jesus Christ because we're saved by faith through grace in Jesus Christ. So I think just to respond to that regarding the trans conversation, you can't get much clearer than Jesus affirming the gender binary.
There may be a shaking of the head here, but again, if you're going to build your livelihood off of something, it should probably be the words of the resurrected Jesus Christ who says in Matthew 19, 4, from the beginning, he made them male and female. Why is there a greater degree of depression? Well, I think it in many cases is because of a departure from what's natural.
I think on many cases, it's being pushed upon them. You can read Nancy Piercy's studies, which are very insightful and love thy body in total truth.
But as far as is this in the scripture, you would be reading a different Bible to come up with any other conclusion that Jesus affirms a gender binary. That's the creation

narrative. It's affirmed by Jesus.
It's the only complementary in Isha, anatomically, physiologically, physically, and biologically. Male and female are counterparts to each other.
And so that's not just a biblical reality. That's a scientific reality.
And so I would just argue from both the scientific perspective there and a biblical one. A good point, too, that faith and reason are not opposed but actually go together and that grace does not contradict nature but actually perfects nature.
So, Brandon, before I let all of you go in our remaining 15 seconds, any thoughts on just the natural aspect of it?

I mean, it's like we all kind of know what a fella and a lady is, and we all kind of can deduce the telos and natural desires. And maybe that's why so many people who are living in perhaps aberrant ways are kind of upset and sad.
No, I think as a pastor of LGBT people who sits with LGBT people all the time, most of

the trauma, most of the trauma responses that I see in LGBT people is because they come from families or churches that have rejected them and called them the black sheep of the family that is no longer welcome because of how they identify. That is going to affect people's mental health.
And now we live in this Trump era where from the highest bully pulpit in the world we have people spouting off things that are objectively false like there are two genders there are two sexes not two genders and you would think somebody would have told trump that but unfortunately he doesn't have the smartest people in his ears quite clearly he probably thinks that gender and sex are uh related and actually uh identifiable precisely one with the other as i would say there were thought throughout history, like everyone. No, I mean, not in the Mishnah, where there are 12 different genders understood from the Bible itself.
But gender is obviously a very complex category, and I don't understand why the right wants to collapse sex and gender so much, other than the fact that they despise the trans community. No, it might be because we have an incarnational theology in our religion, and we recognize that there is a material aspect of the human person, but there's also an immaterial aspect of the human person.
That the soul, to use classical language, would be the substantial form of the body. And so the soul would not be contrary to the physical form, but would go together with it and would actually give it its form.
And so I think I see in the trans identity a kind of Gnosticism that says that one's true self is actually contrary to the material of one's body, which is contrary to not only the Christian tradition, but also contrary to a lot of philosophy. And so I think that's where Trump gets it from.
To defend Trump on the point of being unsophisticated or something like that, I think he's being downright Aristotelian. The last question I want to ask you, though, on your point is, you say, look, LGBT people still get a lot of hate from their families and communities.
And sure, there's some of that. I'm not denying that at all.
But I guess Will and Grace comes out in 1998. Barack Obama lights the White House up in a rainbow flag.
Joe Biden hangs a big rainbow flag on the portico of the White House. You've got the conservative on the Supreme Court who's coming out and, you know, redefining Title VII to include transgenderism.
This is definitely a lot more pro-LGBT today than we were 30 years ago. So I guess even if you couldn't eradicate unhappiness among LGBT-identifying people, just wouldn't you expect the rates to have declined precipitously or even to have declined at all? And isn't the fact that they haven't declined and in some cases have gone up, doesn't that suggest that maybe there is something about the identity itself and not just the mean old people like Johnny here? No, what I would say here is this.
I definitely think the cultural changes have been good, and I would love to see more. But I do think this is probably one of the areas the left has gotten this wrong, that we think that just by having culture change for LGBT inclusion, that that is going to all of a sudden make society more inclusive.
Yes, the White House's rainbow flag lit up. And still in a majority of conservative states across this country, you're going to be severely bullied, if not hurt for being an LGBT person.
I've seen that when I've traveled in the South. And the levels of homophobia and transphobia are still remarkably high.
So you can't just change culture by lighting up the White House in a rainbow flag. It takes a lot more than that.
Yeah, but what about the ones in the North, I guess? I don't mean to belabor the point. I'm not saying that the depression would be obliterated.
I'm just saying, shouldn't they be happier? You know, if it was all social, shouldn't they're not happier so but they're not happy queer people yeah i see a lot listen i'm a new yorker brandon and i've seen i i you know they're not the happiest people up there i don't know i guess uh we have to let all of you go i very much want to have you all back to debate this some more uh johnny brandon and reverend, I want to say thank you, gentlemen, but I'm also going to include thank you, gentle they them, for Alexander.

I really appreciate your coming on for this conversation.

Look forward to seeing you all for the next one.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.