Sean McDowell & Preston Sprinkle On Homosexuality

MCDOWELL: The basis of the affirming position seems to be that biblical writers did not understand sexual orientation or have knowledge of the kinds of consensual, committed, loving same-sex relationships we see today. How do you address this claim?

That may be what a great many affirming writers believe, but that’s direct function of Ecclesiastical Tradition & Liturgical Philosophy that has ruled the hearts & minds of people for several centuries. 
What the biblical authors believed isn’t really germane to this discussion.  What made it to the page is the determinant of what the Bible teaches, not what the author may or may not have believed.

SPRINKLE: It’s a great point to raise, and evangelicals need to understand and consider the argument. My response it twofold:

First, we do see examples of adult consensual same sex relations in and around the first century. So those who say that “they didn’t exist” are simply wrong. I show why in my book.

True.

Second, the biblical prohibition of same-sex relations are so generalized (Rom 1; Lev 18, 20) that they can’t be limited to a specific form of same-sex behavior. Some people say that the Bible is only prohibiting pederasty (a man having sex with teenage boys) or master-slave same-sex sexual relations. But there’s nothing in the Bible that can be limited to a specific type of same-sex relation.

False on both counts.   The Bible’s prohibition on pederasty / master - slave relations runs through the definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13 & texts defining abuse in Psalms, Proverbs, Exodus, & elsewhere.  Leviticus 18, 20, & Romans 1 are by no means generalized prohibitions.  

Sprinkle is an advocate of the design argument against homosexuality, which teaches the exact opposite in t what Romans 1:18 - 32 teaches, & since Romans 1:18 - 32 & Leviticus 18 share the same verbal, plenary outline & cover the same verbal, plenary material content/subject matter, they necessarily mean the same thing. 

Romans 1:18 - 32 specifically states that God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness & unrighteous of men who have since almost the dawn of time itself been suppressing the truth about God’s invisible attributes & God’s authority by way substituting images drawn from the created order - for example the prelapsarian (pre-Fall) state of Adam & Eve & doing theology, philosophy, & ethics accordingly. 

Romans 1 is very clear that humanity is guilty of suppressing the truth about God’s invisible attributes (which exclude sex, gender, & sexuality) — not merely God’s authority —- then looking to the design of the created order (images drawn from people, animals, & creeping things) then reasoning accordingly.  

As a proponent of the design argument, Preston Sprinkle’s words are poisoned by his reliance on the very thought process that Romans 1:18 - 32 forbids.    He reads 1:26 - 27 in a manner that renders “natural” as “heteronormative,” & “unnatural/against nature” as “homosexual,” & then runs with this idea throughout Scripture.    There are exactly zero textual clues in the text that direct us to the visible attributes of the create order, human anatomy & physiology, & human psychology in general &/or to the prelapsarian estate of Adam & Eve in particular, but he, like other proponents of the design argument just seems to reflexively do so.

This line of argument reminds me of the way anti-Calvinists will sometimes argue against Calvinism. While James R. White or Turretinfan opens their Bible & exposits Romans 8 & 9 without missing a beat, their opponents, having heard them, proceeds to “What About?!” the text to death as they superimpose their interpretive grid over the text, as if they key to understanding Romans 8 & 9 correctly runs through any number of prooftexts that may or may not come from the same author & may or may not cover the same material & if they do, it’s just a snippet of the text.  

MCDOWELL: Current debates often focus on the creation account in Genesis. Do you believe gender difference is an inherent part of Genesis 2:18-24? Why or why not?

SPRINKLE: Yes, I do believe that gender difference is an inherent part of our creative design. We see this in various passages such as Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5, and others. But Genesis 2 is particularly clear.

This is a good example of what I was talking about above.  

Because the design argument rebels against the use of God’s INVISIBLE attributes & authority in view of the use of the VISIBLE attributes of the created order & the proponent’s own authority to use it, Matthew 19 is reflexively read as a reference to universal heteronormativity not just the covenantal nature of marriage.  

See, isn’t it obvious?! Adam & Eve were heterosexual, therefore marriage & sexuality are heteronormative institutions —- even though Yeshua is addressing a question about divorce not a question about homosexuality.  Design proponents take this up into their interpretive grid then use it to stifle what God says about that sort of reasoning & his condemnation of both it & their interpretive grid, thereby suppressing the truth about God’s invisible attributes (which exclude sex, gender, & sexuality) & God’s authority in favor of their own ideas that rely on the visible attributes of the created order, thus proving themselves guilty of engaging in the very reasoning processes that God calls foolish & futility. 

In Genesis 2:18 (and verse 20), the author uses a Hebrew word to describe Eve. It’s the word 

kenegdo, which is often translated “suitable” or “like unto him,” to describe Eve’s relationship to Adam. Basically kenegdo describes Eve’s similarity to Adam—she was a human and not an animal—and also her dissimilarity; she was a female and not a male. Eve is the perfect complement to Adam. She’s like him (human) yet not like him (female). And this blend of similarity and dissimilarity is what qualifies her to be the perfect partner for Adam.

False! What qualifies her as the perfect partner for Adam is the bare fact that God seeks after the well being of each & every member of the created order & He Himself is the One who put them together in a covenantal marriage union. 

At the end of Genesis 2, we see that God has enlisted Adam and Eve to be the blueprint for all future marriages among his people (Gen 2:24-25). This is why Jesus (Mark 10; Matt 19) and Paul (1 Cor 6; Eph 5) refer back to Genesis 2 when they discuss marriage.

In which of these passages do the authors discuss the homosexual issue? 

In Mark 10 & Matthew 19, the topic is divorce.  Sprinkle takes the statement that God made Adam male & Eve female & runs with it as if that sufficiently warrants a design argument for universal heteronormativity. 

In 1 Corinthians 6, the topic is temple prostitution, & the two words for homosexuality in 6:9 - 11 are derived from Leviticus, which is about homosexual thoughts, words, & deeds done in worship of any number of pagan pseudodeities.  Romans 1:18 - 32 interprets that for us by way of a high order doctrine touching on Epistemology & how we are supposed to sufficiently warrant our theology, philosophy, & ethics.  

Ephesians 5 does actually refer directly to the Garden.  Sprinkle seems to be tacitly reading Ephesians 5 in tandem with 1 Timothy 2 which refers to the Garden. 

We should thank him for succinctly demonstrating how interpretive grids operate. 

The gender difference between Adam and Eve were not just between Adam and Eve. They were the prototype for all future marriages sanctioned by God.

The text, as we have seen says no such thing.   At this point he’s just running with his design argument while running away from Romans 1:18 - 32.    If he was a witch, he’d be running out of copier toner for his certificates. 

MCDOWELL: Jesus certainly didn't address homosexuality explicitly. But did he say anything that has importance for current discussions about same-sex marriage and homosexuality?

SPRINKLE: It’s true. Jesus never explicitly mentioned homosexuality. He also never mentioned rape, incest, or cheating on your tax return. Jesus only talked about issues that were contested within Judaism, so it’s no surprise that he never mentioned homosexuality. After all, there’s not a single Jew in or around the time of Jesus that endorse homosexuality. It was unanimously condemned by ancient Jews.

I wonder what Joseph of Arimathea & others would say about that?  The Apostles weren’t nearly as uneducated as Ecclesiastical Tradition & Liturgical Philosophy have portrayed them to be.   James, Barnabas, & Joseph of Arimathea are just as likely to have read Roman’s’ introduction & called Paul’s attention to it.   

James: “Are you sure you want to retain this?” 

Paul: “Yes.”

James: “You know this refutes your design argument, right?”

Paul: “I have written what I have written.” 

James: “Do you two agree with this?”

Barnabas & Joseph: “You heard the man.”

James: “Does anyone else here want to add to this conversation?”

The Apostles: “No, we do not.”

James: “Are we sure about this?” 

The Apostles & Witnesses: “Yes, we are.”

James: “The matter is decided.  It is written.” 
Meeting adjourned. 

Even though Jesus doesn’t explicitly mention homosexuality, he does condemn “sexual immorality” with the Greek word porneia (e.g. Matt 5). For a first-century Jew, the word porneia would include all the sexual sins listed in Leviticus 18, and yes, this would include same-sex sexual behavior (Lev 18:22; cf. 20:13).

Also, Jesus makes it clear that marriage is to be between a man and a woman in Matthew 19:3-6, and he even cites Genesis 1-2 to make his point.

So I don’t think that Jesus’s silence on the issue means that he was indifferent to the question of homosexuality.

None of this is true.   In relation to the word “porneia,” it suffers from a large dose of Overspecification.   What people may or may not have believed 2000 years ago is read back into the text along with a healthy dose of Aquinas or others’ Natural Theology thus over-freighting the word. 
This argument is frequently used by those who think that sexual activity puts the bonds of holy matrimony is illicit regardless of motive.  It’s just another attempt at prooftexting Situational Ethics. 

Matthew 15:19–20 (ESV): For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

That’s not what Matt. 5:19 actually states. If Matt. 5:19 means what Preston Sprinkle says, then what defines adultery & sexual immorality is a matter of having a legal marriage certificate & the sex/gender of the 2 partners. 

If true, sin isn’t defined by the degree of love for God & neighbor a moral agent exercises relative to their motives. Sin is defined by visible , concrete particulars like a marriage certificate, sex, gender, & sexuality (none of which are part of God’s invisible attributes). 

Matthew 5:27–28 (ESV): You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

As you can see, in the Sermon on the Mount, adultery is not defined merely by the fact that he or she is not your spouse. Adultery is defined by lustful intent.

What is lust? Lust is, at its root, the failure to love God over & above everything & everyone else & your neighbor before yourself.  Loving yourself more than God & others is definitional to lust, & lust is what underwrites sexual sin - not the mere sex/gender of your target &/or the lack of marriage certificate.   

Using Matt. 5:19 - or any text - to move the moral grounds of moral guilt or innocence away from the motives of a moral agent represents a poor understanding of the Bible relative to how God condemns & commends.  It’s also an exercise in poor hermeneutics relative to how we use Scripture to underwrite Systematic Theology & Christian Ethics. 

We are to harmonize these texts, not take them in isolation then overspecify the words & concepts in the them.   The word “porneia” here is way overspecified by Mr. Sprinkle.  

Given the rest of what Matthew says — namely Matt. 5:27 - 28 —the use of porneia to encompass all that he says overfreights it meaning, and thus the meaning of the Matthew 5:19, resulting in a theology that veers into Situational Ethics.   If the couple is heterosexual then they may marry.  If not, they may not.  Likewise, if heterosexual, bake the cake.  If not, refuse them service in direct contravention of Matthew 5:41 - 48.  Give them serpents & stones in rebellion against Matthew 7. 

The Bible does not teach that sexual immorality in general & adultery in particular are defined by external factors in a manner that results in guilt regardless of motive.   Neither does the Bible rely on design arguments to justify its theology, philosophy, & ethics concerning human sexuality.   It labels the reliance on the real or alleged state of the created order as a sufficient epistemic warrant for theology, philosophy, & ethics as a species of foolishness & futility.   We are instructed to ground our theology, philosophy, & ethics, including our sexual ethics in both the invisible attributes of God (which exclude sex, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, ability/disability, age, &tc) & God’s authority —- not the authority of God & the attributes of the created order (Romans 1:18 - 32).

O LORD, Hear our prayers!