Rob Bell on Homosexuality on the Unbelievable Broadcast

I understand it one way, I read it one way, he reads it another way, is that it then?

Do we just like part ways? Or do you take the bread and wine and just Christ hold us together?

Is there something that trumps whatever differences we have? Like that's the question. Like literally you're asking, and this is part of like sort of the bull.

It really, really, really pushes people away. Is when you have a particular conviction and all of a sudden your orthodoxy or your faithfulness to Jesus is all of a sudden called into question.

So when I get an interview like this and it inevitably comes around to whether I'm not a, and you didn't say whether I'm not a

Christian, but it's the same like, have you gone liberal? Have you given up?

You haven't said what about, like you haven't asked a series of questions of Andrew about what about this, what about this, what about this?

It comes back to me. This is why so many people don't wanna be a part of the church. Really, really?

I've been wondering for a long, long time, why is it that so many people do not wanna be a part of church? And it was all about Rob Bell.

I had missed that somehow, had missed that. That's Rob Bell on the interview on Unbelievable with Andrew Wilson, Justin Brierley's program in London.

And I was absolutely offended. I literally was, as a

Christian, offended. Not just because I had to bleep out his use of BS.

That's just being edgy. When you're emergent, just being edgy, using profanity like that. Just throw it out there for the fun of it.

Just see who you can offend. But that was not what was offensive to me. I mean, that's just childish.

That didn't even really figure into my thinking. What absolutely amazed me is when they finally, at the very end of the interview, got around to what needed to be discussed.

And Bell had obviously wasted most of the time making sure that we were talking about other things.

I didn't turn in. I mean, I'm sure Andrew Wilson's a wonderful guy, but I didn't tune in to listen to anything about Andrew Wilson's book.

But that's what Rob Bell turned it into. When they finally got around to addressing the real issue.

Here's Rob Bell, and he is all of a sudden the victim.

Oh, he's such a victim. He's been asked direct biblical questions.

And he's the victim, and that's why people don't wanna be part of the church, is because you ask me questions.

And I'm like, grow up. Grow a spine.

Oh my goodness. Are you kidding me? I was absolutely amazed at this man's behavior.

Why does anyone look at this man as a Christian leader? Why? Well, he wrote some books and they sold a lot.

Well, so is Bart Ehrman, but you're not looking to him as a Christian leader, are you? Oh my goodness.

Just amazing to me. We live in a day where we need clarity of expression and clarity of thought and clarity of proclamation.

And if you want an example of God's judgment, we've got Rob Bell. Amazing. Absolutely, positively amazing to listen to the last part of this particular program, which we're going to do today on The Dividing Line.

And hopefully we'll have enough time toward the end to also play a call from Catholic Answers Live that James Swan sent me that I found very, very interesting, though it'll be quite a shift of topic.

But as I said, the first half of the interview, okay, fine, whatever. I was thinking about switching back to listening to some

Hadith or something during that. Finally, finally, the real questions began.

It sounds, I got the sense. I have no idea. We can move on. Wait a minute, actually, I apologize. I apologize. Oh, I'm not playing that.

Yeah, no, this is a good section to start with. I got the sense that you were saying before, I thought that's what you'd, effectively what you'd written.

No, no, no, absolutely not. I mean, in the book, I was simply. Now this was, the way they got into a discussion of the homosexual issue was going back a little bit to Love Wins.

And this is just, this is the one section I'm gonna play. Everybody knows what Love Wins was about.

But one of the things that I find offensive about Rob Bell is he cannot answer a direct question. He will teach things, but then when you challenge him, well,

I don't know that I was really saying that. Remember the video I did years ago? I responded to one of his silly

NUMA videos where he collapsed on all the stuff about how

Jesus is similar to Mithra and all the rest of this stuff, which is just pure, it's silliness, it's ridiculous.

It's been refuted forever. And so you challenge him, you refute what he says, and then it's like, well, did

I really say that? Does anyone really know? You know, I mean, do you have proof?

He won't answer a question directly, and honestly, I cannot stand that in someone.

And so here's an example of that. Before, I thought that's what you'd, effectively what you'd written. No, no, no, absolutely not.

I mean, in the book, I was simply saying to people who have never heard any of this, there is a strain of Christian faith that says given enough time, well,

God will win everybody over. Given enough time, every single person will eventually say, oh, all right.

But you're not committed to that belief? I don't, does somebody know that I'm not aware of? Do we have videotape? Do we have evidence of how exactly it pans out?

My interest is in this tradition has a number of different perspectives on how that pans out.

My observation would be lots of people right now seem to say no. We've all seen that, correct?

And so I would assume that after death, you still have that freedom to say no.

At that point, Justin sort of shut it down and didn't want to continue with that.

But so what was he saying in Love Wins? If you can write an entire book and honest, intelligent, well -read people still have no earthly idea what your position actually is, then you ain't much of an author.

And this whole interview started off about, oh, you know, he does all these videos, all this stuff about, you know, creating, you know, how it's a creative process and all this stuff.

And I'm sorry, I'm an author too, and it's just hard work. And, you know, so then

I go, oh, I'm in the middle of the creative process, dear. No, you just get your work done. So anyways, he was playing around with that.

Then they finally got around to the important stuff. I don't think it's, you know, a lot of people are aware that you've recently made statements on gay marriage and gay relationships.

And although that wasn't explicit in the book, it then suddenly dawned on me as I read that, with that in mind, that you've sort of affirmed, you know, monogamous lifelong partnerships and so on.

Assuming Justin's gonna listen to this, Justin, you sounded nervous, like you were afraid he was going to get up and bolt out of the studio.

Justin, isn't it nice to have people in the studio who are not going to bolt out on you if they're actually asked meaningful questions?

I think that says something. That this might be an area where you see God ahead of where a lot of the church is, as far as you're concerned, that we're being called now to move from M to N in this area, perhaps.

Is that kind of what you're hinting at? Do you believe that this is an area where actually

God's ahead of the church, that affirming same -sex partnerships is actually a

God thing and that we will eventually all get to see that in the course of time? Well, I think it will happen.

I don't know. You know what? With Rob Bell, there are way too many pauses. We are going to 1 .2

speed, okay? Sorry, I just gotta pick it up a little bit or we're never gonna get it done.

So it's gonna be a little bit faster, just so you know, I like to mention that. I try to remember to mention that every time, but anyway.

You're asking several different questions there, but yes,

I think it's time for the church to acknowledge that we have brothers and sisters who are gay and want to share their life with someone.

And this is a part of life in the modern world. And that's how it is. And the cultural consciousness has shifted.

And this is how the world is. And that what's happening for a lot of people is they want nothing to do with God and Jesus because they can't see beyond that particular issue.

By the way, theology matters. Everybody outside of grace wants nothing to do with God and Jesus.

Hello, everybody. It's called being a rebel sinner. Theology matters, you don't believe that.

Well, you see the result. You're seeing the result right now in what

Rob Bell is saying. So is God ahead? I hadn't thought about it in those terms of ahead or behind.

Okay. But I think it is time for the church to acknowledge this is how the world is.

Wow, this is how the world is, folks. That's our job in the church is to go, that's how the world is.

So we just need to change we believe all along because that's the way the world is.

That's always how Christians are, right? Just whatever. And things have changed, or at least we're more honest about them.

Now this is up to this point, there's been a lot of agreement between you guys, but I suspect you take a different view on this.

Well, can I ask some questions? Because what I don't know is the grounding for that statement that I find interesting. So would you say,

I don't think that a guy having sex with a guy is sinful? Is that a bad question?

I mean, if you're gonna call yourself a Christian leader, and if you're, I mean, he's said before this that they have these things where Christian leaders come and they study with him, and they have these weekends and they actually do wakeboarding or something, surfing or whatever.

I don't know, it was toward the beginning of the interview. But if you're pretending to be a leader amongst Christian leaders, is it really difficult to, since you've come out and made statements on something, do you think it is sinful for one man to have sex with another man?

Is that really a bad question? Is that mean? As you heard,

Rob Bell is not overly happy about it. I would begin with, I am for monogamy,

I am for fidelity, I am for commitment. Now, you know what I immediately started doing when he said that? While I was writing,

I was listening to this while writing, as normal. I was on the bed yesterday. And I'm so glad I was.

Why? Why? I started going, why? Why are you for monogamy?

Because monogamy, faithfulness, commitment, there's biblical stuff behind that.

But you're just gonna go, well, it's your interpretation. What about a person who doesn't think that monogamy is the thing?

I mean, there's lots of people, I know lots of Mormons that argue for polygamy. And what about bisexuals?

I mean, the culture's going that way, right? So the culture is saying that's okay too. And so you're wired that way.

And so you need to have a man and a woman. And so it can't be monogamy, it has to be at least bigamy, in a sense,

I guess, if you have three partners, two other partners, however you describe that. Anyway, why not?

You know, these guys seem to think that they can just get away. You know, Andrew Sullivan, I'm for monogamy.

Why? Well, because if you have polygamy, then you have one guy that has all the women. Really? No, that's not how it works.

That's the only, the only thing is so that one guy doesn't have all the women? That's the only reason that you're for monogamy?

Seriously? Amazing. And I think the world needs more of that.

And I think that promiscuity is dangerous. Why? Why? And promiscuity is destructive.

Why? And some people are gay and want to share their life with someone. Why? And they should be able to.

And that's how the world is. And we should affirm that. Why? I mean, this is just stream of consciousness.

Throw statements out. Don't substantiate them. Don't provide any biblical foundation. Just throw them out there and say, well,

I think this, I think that. And in the end, we should all just take the Lord's Supper together and just sing Kumbaya.

And don't ask me why, because that's beep. If you ask me, that's beep.

That's, that's. And we should affirm monogamy, fidelity, and commitment, both gay and straight.

Biblically, there is no such thing as gay fidelity and commitment.

Biblically, because the Bible defines what the word marriage means and what its direct object is.

It is a covenant with specific roles for husband and wife, not husband and husband, and wife and wife.

You are changing the meaning of the word. You're changing the covenant. If you changed the covenant that describes the work of the triune

God at the cross that brings about redemption and stuck Michael the archangel in and Bob the plumber, you would change the nature of the covenant.

So you can't, he's just like everybody else. It's just words are things you can plug into different places and as long as it sounds good, that's okay.

Whether that changes the meaning doesn't matter. Is that a yes or a no?

As in, do you believe it? So what I'm trying to get my head around is, do you think - Andrew Wilson goes, was that a yes or a no? It's, you know, look,

Rob Bell doesn't answer questions. And he seems to have fun with it.

He seems to think this is a big game. Let's see how I can not answer this question.

Let's see how I can bend categories. Let's see how I can just annoy people who actually want to know what the truth is of what

I'm saying. Let's try that. Do you think it's sinful, but we need to lump it because the world's changed or do you think it's not sinful?

And if so, do you think the Bible doesn't think it's sinful and that Jesus didn't think it was sinful? That's straightforward. I mean, there you go.

Now let's watch as he pulls out all the standard leftist, liberal excuses on this subject.

I'm not aware that Jesus mentions it. I think you have about five verses that can be read a number of different ways.

How many times have we heard that? Thousands by now. I mean, okay, maybe not thousands, but hundreds by now we've all heard it.

Oh, it might be five verses. I don't think Jesus mentioned it. And how many times have I said, if you hear anyone who says

Jesus did not address the subject of homosexuality, you're listening to a person who is biblically illiterate or deceptive, one of the two, biblically illiterate.

And there is a large Christian tradition that sees this as there are scriptures that speak to this, but I don't think you can make an overwhelming case against it.

So, but it's your position, which I know is, you know. Yeah. So your position would be, no, it's not sinful, right?

It's not sinful for a guy to have sex with a guy. That's not a problem for God. It never has been. It's just at times he had to move people towards forward in history, but that's not a problem.

If you understand Paul properly, you understand Jesus properly, they genuinely didn't have a problem with guys having sex with guys. I'm just trying to, is that what you believe? Because I don't want to critique or engage in a position you don't have.

I think Paul had his answer to that question tied up in worship of all sorts of other deities.

I think it was all one giant hairball in Paul's day. Ah, yeah, yeah. So Paul's answer is because, again, this is the, well,

Romans 1 is actually about worship of pagan deities. I mean, this is all the leftist stuff, which we have shredded so many times before.

Impossible to defend biblically. He knows it. He's still throwing it out there because he knows he can deflect anything by just wandering off and saying things that don't really make any sense anyways.

But one giant hairball? That this is the best we have to say to our culture today is one giant hairball in Paul's thinking?

Really? Utterly amazing. And that for him, there was the temple and there was a temple of other gods who were opposed to the

God of Israel and that went on in there. So I think when Paul was talking about this issue, for him, it's tied up in all sorts of idolatry.

It's all sorts of rejection of God. So I would want to pull the various issues apart. I don't think they had a cultural conception.

Then you got, so if Paul is looking at, there's two gay men in the church in Corinth. They're having sex together. They're not worshiping idols.

Paul's gonna say, that's great, guys, go for it. We need more of that, not less. Is that what you believe is true of Paul? I think Paul didn't have that cultural framework or conception operating around him.

I think he had men and boys. I think he had temples. I did not think he was talking about what we're talking about in 2013, which was two committed people of a same -sex relationship.

Baloney. Absolute baloney. This has been taken apart over and over.

This is standard, surface -level, ahistorical rhetoric.

Nothing more. It's empty. It has been taken apart over and over again.

There's nothing new under the sun. There were all sorts of, quote -unquote, committed relationships, not committed in the sense of a biblical marriage, which is a husband and a wife together for life, but long -term relationships between men, rarely, rarely, in the sense of what we would envision as actual marriage, where you save yourself for someone and then you're married and they're the only person you're with.

No, not like that. But there were men who lived with other men and stayed in that relationship for many years.

This was well -known. Paul was not an idiot. This is not something that developed over the past 10 years.

This is just empty rhetoric from someone who's not done his homework or he has and is a false teacher in the church, and that's what

I think. I think Rod Bell is a false teacher in the church. He is a pseudodelphoi and needs, pseudodelphos, he needs to be identified for what he is.

This has been known for a long time. No, no, no surprise here. But there are a lot of people who still refer to him otherwise.

Okay, so you don't think there's any, you don't, so your position would be this is not sinful. This is righteous. This is a good thing.

God says, way to go. From my throne in heaven, I'm blessing that. I'm saying that's wonderful. It's not, it's a beautiful thing.

It's interesting, the theologian Cornelius Plantinga defines sin as culpable disturbance of shalom. So any way in which

I'm guilty of destroying the shalom that God intends for all things. I don't think a healthy monogamous same -sex relationship destroys or is destructive to the shalom

God intends for all things. There, there you go. There's Rod Bell. A healthy same -sex relationship.

What is that? What is that? Can you show that to me in the Bible? Of course you can't.

Well, it's the Bible's fault. It didn't know enough about, oh, well, wait a minute. Sorry. You can't show me this healthy.

If it's healthy, then God intended it that way, right? Is that why he made men as men and women as women?

If this was healthy, then it would be proper and appropriate for men to have sex with men.

And it would be physically possible to do so without causing damage to both of them.

And that's not possible. And you know it. You know it. Healthy same -sex relationship.

Show that to me in the Bible. I want to see it. Show me where the Bible defines this.

I've got all sorts of stuff. I know what a husband and wife relationship is supposed to be about because we have

Paul talking in Ephesians about Christ and the church, and we have Matthew chapter 19, and we've got all sorts of stuff like that.

And we've also got all sorts of stuff in the Bible about bad male and female relationships and how evil men can be.

Got all that stuff. All of it. Show me the healthy, same -sex, committed, monogamous relationships.

Or admit, well, you know, this perspicuity, insufficiency of scripture thing, we really need to,

I think we need to get rid of that. Come on, let's just be honest. That's what really bugged me about Rob Bell.

He's not honest. If you're going to be a false teacher, be an honest out front false teacher. Go all the way.

Come out and say, you know what? We've been all wrong about this Bible thing. It isn't sufficient.

We need to allow culture to define things. I want to keep a shell of religiosity.

I'm going to talk about Jesus. I'm going to talk about stuff like that. But, you know, let's not worry about this Bible stuff, okay?

Don't do this. Well, you've got your reading. I've got my reading. No, you don't. If you cannot read it consistently, if you cannot answer questions about it consistently, then don't say you've got a reading of it.

You don't think it's sinful. Although some things are really destructive. Yeah, sure. So for you, gay sex isn't sinful at all.

And if we understood the Bible properly, we'd all get that. So actually we are, when Jesus talks about sexual morality flowing from within the heart and refers back to Leviticus 18 with all of its prohibitions, you would say that's a time -specific thing.

That's just, was Jesus wrong on that? Did he misunderstand what God had meant? Was Jesus just a step forward?

What's the, because obviously he's just, he's talking in the same passages. He says, all foods are clean, but from the heart come sexual morality, among other things.

And sexual morality in the Jewish world, you read a lot about it, as I have, is understood very much in terms of Leviticus 18. So the, so for, again,

I'm trying to get, would you say Paul didn't have a problem with it? So you don't think Paul or Jesus were referring to any of those prohibitions from the

Old Testament? And they weren't really talking about anything like what we're seeing today. Or would you say, no, Jesus did say that, but he was a child of his time as Paul was, and therefore we can move beyond it now because the world's changed.

It's just which of those two positions you're in. That's a great, deep, thick, complicated question.

I have to think about more. Excuse me? You've already blessed, quote -unquote, same -sex unions.

You've already blasphemed the Christian ordinance of marriage.

And someone finally asks you a direct question about it, and you go, huh, oh, you have to think that one through.

I don't know. Really? I'm left speechless by this kind of stuff.

I shouldn't be, but I'm less speechless. I'm gonna have to think that one through.

Is it a question of hermeneutics, or is it a question of exegesis? So is it that you and I would disagree about? It's obviously about Paul or about Jesus, or is it that you disagree about how that fits into God's story, and you'd say we'd go beyond that now?

Well, when Jesus is referring to Leviticus, tied up in Leviticus is two different kinds of fabric being woven together. So you have lots of questions about Jesus' understanding of Leviticus based on, because, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Is he calling people to two different kinds of fabric, and can we do that now? And I think - It's the West Wing again.

It's the West Wing again. Two kinds of fabric. Rod Bell can't tell the difference between prohibitions against bestiality, incest, and homosexuality, and wearing two kinds of fabric.

There you go again. So I guess we really don't know what all those commands in there about honoring the father and mother and the elderly, taking care of the poor and the -

Was he really calling us to all that? I mean, come on. You might have to touch a pigskin.

Really, again? Again? I expect this from pro -homosexual activists who are trying to overthrow the authority of God's word and change the moral teaching of the church.

But this guy, well, I guess I should expect it. I guess

I should expect it. I mean, that's just where he's gone. When Jesus quotes Leviticus, that opens up a whole series of questions about exactly where in Leviticus we say, that's timeless, that's not timeless, that's cultural, that's not culturally bound.

That's a whole longer discussion. Well, yeah, but when he talks about sexual immorality, he's quite, in that sense,

I'm just saying, Jesus's understanding as a Jewish, first century Jew, his understanding of sexual morality is Torah -shaped, right? So he has a view of what is and isn't acceptable.

So when he says, that's one of the evils that comes from the heart, he's not whistling in the dark.

He's not saying that in a vacuum. People, his hearers understand him, Matthew, Mark, John, et cetera. Paul understands him. Obviously, I disagree with the way you're understanding

Paul's use of the words as well, but we probably won't get time to get to that. We are running out of time just in this section, folk. And so one of the concerns you voiced is, well -

Okay, there was a break there and now they're coming back. I like a lot of what you're saying here, Rob, but what does it look like practically?

And what are some of the maybe, the differences we might have about how that works out? And we've obviously identified one pretty clearly here, that you take a very different view on,

Rob, to the legitimacy of Christians engaging in homosexual activity. Rob says, that boat has sailed kind of thing.

We live in a culture and we've got to affirm what is good. People staying together, people being with one person and so on.

For you though, the Bible presumably is clear on this, Andrew, that that is not part of what it means to live a

Christian life. And so for you, do you feel in some way that Rob is selling people short if that's not kind of the answer that he comes to, if that issue is raised at some point in what it means to be a

Jesus follower? Yeah, I do, because I think it's a misunderstanding. To me, it represents a misunderstanding of new creation.

I think it is to go back to the garden and see one man, one woman, permanent, faithful, same -sex relations. Not about gay people, love gay people, lots and lots of gay people.

Just we've baptized a number of gay men in our church recently, it's just wonderful. But each one of them is saying, but now when I get baptized, I die to the old me and I rise again to a new me that's

Christ -shaped, that's eschatologically informed and transformed. They might not use that language. A resurrection life, which is actually a completely different type of creature, which means that a lot of the desires that I have had, a lot of the things which

I've wanted to do, I, like Paul did, certainly in the season he wrote 1 Corinthians and like Jesus did, I put on hold sexual desires.

I say actually, I die to a lot of the things I want in order to follow Christ. That's what it means for me to rise again to new life. And I do that as per Jesus' comments about sexual morality,

Revelations' comments about sexual morality, Paul's comments about arsenikoitai and malakoi, which are these two words for the active and passive partners in homosexual sex.

This is going by rather quickly. Again, good stuff here from Andrew Wilson. He was just talking about arsenikoitai and malakoi and 1

Corinthians 6, and that's in reference to both partners in male homosexual sex, et cetera, et cetera.

Good stuff going on here. Notice what he's saying is, look, there are people who experience same -sex attraction when they are committed to Christ.

They are willing to die to the old self. That doesn't mean that the attractions go away, but the attractions are given over to God, recognized for what they are, just like a person who experiences love for alcohol to excess and drunkenness, love for drugs, love for power, money, adultery, you name it.

A person gives all of that up in the act of surrendering to Christ.

And here he's saying, look, we've had people who have come to Christ in our fellowship, and what they're saying is, even if I continue to experience these things,

I have died to my old self and I will live to Christ. And that's what he's saying.

And that we need to recognize the existence of those in the church who experience these things, but the only ones of those people that Christians can honor are those who do not try to change

Christianity to fit their predilections, but are willing to be changed by the faith rather than trying to change the faith.

And very in Romans one and elsewhere. And so we look and say, what does Christ -shaped new creation look like?

And we've got, as I say, gay guys in our church and women as well, who've said, for me, I know dying to my old life and being risen again to new life in Christ means dying to all the acts of the flesh, including some of the sexual things that, yes,

I wanted to do them, just like lots of people wanna have sex with lots of people. Some people might wanna have sex with three or four people simultaneously, but that doesn't mean

I'm okay to do that. It means that I just, like anybody else, greed or desires to slander or to swindle or any number of other sins, that we just say those things die with me.

I repent and I get baptized. And I suppose that for me, to not put that in front of somebody is at risk of saying you can have the kingdom, you can inherit the kingdom, but if it costs too much, we'll just lower the asking price until we get people to buy it.

Okay, so are you lowering the bar, as it were? I mean, I know I've heard you talk about the cost of discipleship,

Rob, but for you, this particular issue isn't one that's kind of an issue in discipleship as far as you're concerned.

This isn't the big issue for you. Correct. I mean - Now notice, now notice,

Bell is now getting mad. He's now getting angry. You can tell. His answer has become brief.

He doesn't want to engage. Wilson has done a very good job in laying out a biblical perspective on this, and Wilson cannot engage,

Bell cannot engage him on that. It's very obvious. How do you address Andrew's concerns then that this is the, you know, part of what it means to be a follower of Christ is denying certain aspects of your life, including if you experience same -sex attraction, that acting on that has to go.

You just don't see that. I've met lots of people who are gay. Now notice,

Wilson presents biblically -based thought, biblically -based ethics and morality.

Listen to Bell's response. Classic example of the collapse of a former evangelical into Rob Beldum.

And had the exact experience he's talking about, who said,

I choose to be celibate, I choose to not engage, and they do it out of a deep sense of conviction.

That can be a beautiful thing. I also have friends who have had long -term partners, and they have had somebody to share their life with, and they're serious followers of Jesus, and they're serious members of their community, and they give and serve together, and they don't want to live alone.

They want somebody to share their life with. They feel like wired to share their life with somebody, and I don't see any reason to say to them, you can't do that, or you then can't be a part of the church, or you can't be a contributing member.

Doesn't make any sense to me. Doesn't make any sense to me. There is the ultimate authority for Rob Beld.

It doesn't make any sense to me. I refuse to allow my ethics and morals to be formed by supernatural revelation.

I insist that supernatural revelation bow to my feelings and my cultural norms.

There you go. I mean, obviously, a lot of people who disagree simply with your view on what scripture has to say in that regard, how we exegete it, the hermeneutic perhaps that you're bringing to it, will say, well, it's like you did with Love Wins, Rob.

You've gone liberal, basically, they'll say. Yes, Justin, he's gone liberal.

I'd just be interested to know what it is about that makes you feel confident that this isn't just Rob Beld going liberal.

This is actually Rob Beld being true to Christ, being true to the scriptures. Well, I think the better question is, what does it look like when it's lived out?

And I've been in lots and lots and lots of settings with lots of friends and lots of people who have same -sex relationships, and it's not destructive, and it's not evil, and it's not...

It's not destructive, and it's not evil. How do you define what is destructive and evil anyway?

For a Christian, you do so based upon what God has revealed concerning his will. That's not how

Rob Beld does it. Very pragmatic. Very pragmatic.

It's not destructive, hmm. So these are individuals who, you would say, have healthy relationships.

Can't produce life. They're in love with a mirror image. But that's healthy.

That's good, that's not evil. Theology matters.

It's a part of how churches are. It's a part of how life is, and... Ah, someone in Twitter was pointing out he seems to function on the is -ought fallacy.

Since that's the way things is, that's the way things ought to be. No, that's not the case.

It's fine. That's surely to beg the question, though, isn't it? To say... I love it, Wilson. I know why

I didn't get the call for this one. Justin is a wise man.

And he knew that it would be really, really ugly. But I thought

Wilson did a great job here. As is begging the question. I've been in lots of friends, relationships with people who are doing this, and it's not destructive or it's not evil.

Surely God gets to define that, doesn't he? Over and above. Not to speak about the individual's concern, but God gets to provide that definition rather than my observation.

It's like, you can imagine people in the period of one or two kings, which I'm going through in my quiet times at the moment, going, well, actually, I know lots of people who worship at the high places, and they still follow

Yahweh that's great. And the scriptures don't seem to have that attitude. They seem to be saying, no, no, no. There are moments, a lot of them, where Jesus said, if anybody wants to follow me, he needs to hate in the sense of lesser love.

These, all of these things that you might otherwise have to lose if you follow me. And of course, Paul was like that. It cost him his life. And it cost Jesus his life, obviously.

It cost him sexual relationships. Neither of them had those things. So it sort of, doesn't God get to draw that line rather than,

I shouldn't say you, I know there's others who are doing it too, but why isn't that, why isn't the fact that scripture speaks that way and the fact that Paul, Moses, Jesus speak that way, why isn't that the end of the conversation in terms of defining what something might be, to be evil and destructive, what something looks like?

Bada bing, there you go. When, what kind of response do you get from that kind of logical, biblical, rational response?

Your interpretation of verses? My interpretation? No, not my interpretation. Well, of course it is. We're all doing our own interpretation of verses, but it's not only an interpretation of verses.

It's an understanding of the sweep of scripture starting from the very beginning, where you have one man, one woman in permanent relationship.

It's an understanding of the sweep. You hear what he's doing? Oh, well, that's just your interpretation of verses.

But okay, now it's just your interpretation of the sweep of scripture. This man is, I mean, yea, hath

God said. I mean, this is straight back to the garden. This man, to defend the indefensible, is willing to basically say, we don't know what, we can't know what the

Bible actually says. Who are you to think you can actually know what the

Bible says? That's inappropriate. That's wrong. Classic.

Just absolutely classic. Your understanding of the sweep of scriptures. Well, understanding of Genesis 1, understanding of Genesis 2, understanding of the

Torah, understanding of the prophets, understanding of Jesus, understanding of Paul's revelation. Of course, that's always what we're talking about. But I think to say, oh, but that's your understanding.

Of course, it is my understanding, just like yours is yours. But yours, unlike mine, is obviously in the face of apparent meanings of lots and lots of texts supported by almost every scholar.

And it's also in the face of 2 ,000 years of Christian tradition, in which that hasn't been the way people have read any of those texts. So with Justin, I'm sort of saying, if you move the goalposts, isn't that,

I was gonna say, maybe the humility of orthodoxy is to say, I'll stay where the church is, unless I'm sure that the church has always been wrong about this.

And in that sense, I want to understand what arguments you are bringing to the table to suggest that the church had always been wrong about it. Well, as much as I agree with the desire to win, and I want to see people liberated and free and everything as well.

But I think unless the definition of what freedom looks like is clearly established, we're both gonna be on very different pages about how to go about it.

Indeed. Well said. And when you talk to a liberal, when you talk to a postmodernist, when you talk to somebody who just really doesn't have a biblical basis for what they're doing, what kind of replies can you get to that kind of challenge?

I mean, this kind of strikes me as kind of a fundamental thing that's kind of been symptomatic of what you've been doing lately,

Rob. There's a lot of people saying, are you giving up a kind of unorthodox position? What sort of, on what basis can you claim to be speaking now the truth about God?

You know, you've titled your book What We Talk About When We Talk About God. And while there's a lot that you and Andrew have been happy to agree on on that front, obviously, when you get to these particular issues, and this is a particular issue, and I don't want to frame this as the only issue out there by any stretch of the imagination, but, you know, how do you kind of say, no,

I'm really firm that this is, is it, because what you've talked about is essentially experience, I think, that you've seen that there are people who are gay, who are in relationships, and they're living out a true life of Christian discipleship.

Is that the kind of the defining thing that if you see that happening, then that, for you, is enough to say, we did get it wrong for a long time on this issue?

You have the witness of the community, you have your own experience, you have lots of scholarship, you have lots of things that inform why you think the way you do.

You draw on lots of sources. That's how we all do it, yeah. And people will disagree with you, obviously.

I mean, what, I saw you - That was, that's not even a response. I mean, well, you know, you've got the witness of the community and your personal experience and scholarship.

Really? That's all you've got. You've just been challenged. The person who has challenged you has given a rational, clear, biblical argument, and that's what you've got is the witness of the community.

What community? Formed by what? Fidelity to Scripture? No. You don't have the witness of that community.

So, what do you mean, witness of the community? And scholarship? Name them? What? Who are you gonna go to?

What are you gonna present? Well, we don't really know what arsonokoyetes means. Yes, we do. I mean, if you'll allow

Paul to have some knowledge of the Greek Septuagint, we know what that means. We know what's going on here.

Romans 1 wasn't just about men and boys. It was about two men burning with lust toward one another. That's mutuality.

It's right there. Same thing with lesbians in Romans 1. It's right there. There's no question about any of this stuff.

So, you just throw out these vague, well, you know, that's how we all do it. What do you do with that disagreement?

Do you just say, it's just a kind of an impasse we're at? Are you kind of confident that people will come around to, in this issue, your way of looking at things?

Well, Andrew's my brother. Like, if we got out the bread and wine, we'd both take it. I think that's perfect.

Yeah. That's right. So, I don't. So, we got out the bread and wine. We don't really have to worry about this stuff.

We just got out the bread and wine. We had the Lord's Supper. What's the Lord's Supper?

The Lord's Supper was never designed to be an emotional experience that overthrows the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In fact, what makes the Lord's Supper so special is that it is an anamnesis, a remembrance of the sin bearer.

And the only thing that makes that so special is to recognize there is such a thing as sin that needs to be born.

And how do we know what sin needs to be born? God's law tells us. But in Rob Bell's world, we wouldn't know.

We wouldn't have any way of knowing. We get out the bread and wine.

Really? And that's how you... And that's what led, and you've already heard this next section.

And yes, I had to insert a beep into it because as we can tell, he may be talking about getting out the bread and wine, but he isn't happy.

I understand it one way. I read it one way. He reads it another way. Is that it then?

Did we just like part ways? Or do you take the bread and wine and does Christ hold us together? Is there something that trumps whatever differences we have?

Like, that's the question. So where do you draw the line, Rob? Where do you draw the line?

Do you have the Lord's Supper with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses? Where do you draw the line? Or do you draw a line at all?

As long as someone's willing to have the bread and wine, Buddhist, Hindu, let's just all get together. We're all gonna get saved eventually someday, right?

Right? Well, that's what one tradition says, right? Like literally you're asking, and this is part of like sort of the bullshit that really, really, really pushes people away is when you have a particular conviction and all of a sudden your orthodoxy or your faithfulness to Jesus is all of a sudden called into question.

Oh, so let's say you have a particular conviction that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. We shouldn't question your orthodoxy.

No, no, no, that would be unloving. People will be driven away from the church if you question that. I've debated people who think the resurrection of Jesus Christ was purely spiritual.

How about that, Rob? Some of them might be really nice guys. Just salt of the earth.

Just break out the bread and wine, let's not worry about it, right? So when I get an interview like this.

Like this. And it inevitably comes around to whether I'm not, and you didn't say whether I'm not a Christian, but it's the same, like, have you gone liberal?

Have you given up? You haven't said what about, like, you haven't asked a series of questions of Andrew about what about this, what about this, what about this.

It comes back to me. This is why so many people don't wanna be a part of the church. Ha, you didn't ask him all those questions.

Maybe because he's an orthodox Christian. Maybe because he doesn't have to.

Maybe because he's been very clear. Maybe because he's actually answered the questions that were put to him and nobody has any questions about where he stands.

Maybe he hasn't been playing language games. Maybe that's why he hasn't been asked those questions.

But if he had been asked those questions, guess what? I think he would have answered them without playing the victim card.

Oh, you know, picking on me, and that's why nobody likes the church anymore because you're so mean. I stopped using this kind of behavior and argumentation in the third grade.

It's amazing that in our culture today, as soon as you pull out the victim card, all rational argument and thoughts has to come to a complete end for fear of offending somebody.

Well, I'm offended by Rob Bell. I'm offended by his teaching. I'm offended by his abuse of the faith.

But does that mean I'm just gonna, so he should just be quiet. I leave that to God.

This is why so many people is literally, if you are on a particular issue, because you have just defined this as a particular issue, if you see it this way and not this way, then your whole thing is called into question.

Rob, are you even, this is just why so many people just give up. I mean, I can tell that you're fed up with that.

Well, it's just part of, I think it just speaks to the stuff that so many people are so tired of.

And this isn't an issue of taking God seriously. This isn't an issue of God's holiness, or worship, it's an issue of discipleship.

It's an issue of the tent might be. It is an issue of all of those things, Mr. Bell. It's an issue of all of them.

Don't you get that? Did you catch what he said? I kept saying it isn't, but listen, this is, whether scripture is clear enough to define

God's intentions, and what is marriage, and what is sexuality, and what is gender, is not a part of any of that.

I think it just speaks to the stuff that so many people are so tired of. And this isn't an issue of taking God seriously. This isn't an issue of God's holiness, or worship, it's an issue of discipleship.

It's an issue of the tent might be a little bigger. And when it becomes, you're not even in the tent. You just sort of go.

I understand that, but it might be an issue of God's holiness. Can you see that if you saw the text the way I do, it would be an issue of God's holiness.

Sure, but even then, the whole framework for him was on this particular issue. So we have a wide ranging discussion about resurrection all the way across.

We come down to one issue, and it's not nuclear weapons. It's not immigration. It's not the...

Excuse me? Immigration or nuclear weapons?

You have specific direct didactic teaching in Romans one and first Corinthians six on this topic.

And you parallel that to immigration and nuclear weapons. Wow. Addiction to technology and email and all the ways in which people are overwhelmed with stress and worry.

Where Jesus did say, don't worry. You know what I mean? Like you have a wide range of issues. Somebody comes along and this issue, apparently there's an issue with them on this particular issue.

And instantly it becomes a whole thing. Wait a minute. You're talking about redefining the most fundamental elements of God's revelation of man's actual being, male and female, family, father, mother, the first institution of God amongst men.

And you're going to parallel it to a Facebook addiction. All right. There you go.

That is so absurd. It is difficult to even know how to begin to respond to. I think the reason...

So that's why I think for me... We're gonna have to just wind things up guys. So that's why for me, it's part of like... The question is why is the issue there?

Isn't it? So I think it's not just a randomly chosen issue. What are your views on this issue?

That's the buzzword for the day. So we'll catch you out on that. It's how you got to that position. And I think in some ways what

I'm trying to establish is if you got to the position of saying, I affirm this because I genuinely don't believe that anything in the

Bible indicates that it's sinful. And therefore I think we should celebrate it because God does, because Jesus does, because the apostles did, because the prophets did.

This is just a great thing. And 2 ,000 years of church history have been wrong. They've been reading it wrong. And here's a whole bunch of scholarship to support that position.

If that's how you got there, then I'd say, well, I disagree, but I'd love to see the evidence. I'd love to work through it. If you're saying the world's moved on,

God's gonna get left behind if we don't change it. Even though, to be honest, I've got a sneaking feeling that there might be a lot in scripture that speaks against us, but I just don't think we can afford to keep sticking with that because it looks boring and retrograde and backward and intolerant.

And so we will drop what I think Jesus or Paul or the apostles or anybody else was saying in order to make ourselves more adaptable to modern age.

That doesn't mean you're not a Christian. Of course it doesn't. It doesn't mean you've even gone, in my understanding, liberal is resurrection denying and you're not doing close to doing that.

But it does mean that there's something quite fundamental that might be switching, which is saying, I don't think that I can hold this text as being a high standard for behavior and morality anymore.

And that's a big enough deal to people like me that we would want to say, do you see what I mean? And I think if you shared my view on those texts, you'd probably feel similar.

So it's really, which way have you got to that conclusion? I guess is the question I'm wanting to ask. Well, we are going to have to draw a thing.

Oh yeah, yeah, sure, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, sure. Wait, you didn't think of that stuff before?

I'm not talking to Wilson, I'm talking to Bella. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, I suppose, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, if I viewed those texts that way,

I guess it would have something to do with the holiness. Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I am absolutely offended.

By Rob Bell's behavior there. And not so much the profanity. I mean, that just speaks to what fills the heart, but just the cavalier handling of the scriptures and vitally important truths and just the muddling.

Because look, people look at that and go, see, you Christians can't figure things out. There it is, there it is.

I find it absolutely offensive. And I will say this without the slightest hesitation.

If Rob Bell is a part of evangelicalism, I am not. I am not.

Amazing, absolutely amazing. Well, there you go, folks. I knew

I'd have to listen to it. I didn't actually think I was gonna respond to it. But when you have that kind of cavalier response to such important stuff at this vital time in the history of the church and in the ministry of the church today,