Rob Bell on Homosexuality on the Unbelievable Broadcast

Rob Bell’s Evasive Interview Style and the Problem of Direct Questions

Stand 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 bullsh** 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.

So when I get an interview 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 the, you haven't like 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 want to 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 want to be a part of church? And it was all about Rob Bell. I had missed that somehow. I had missed that.

That's Rob Bell on the interview on Unbelievable with Andrew Wilson, Justin Briley'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, you know, 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. I'm not, that's, I 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 want to be part of the church, 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.

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 I've, 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 will be quite a shift of topic.

But as I said, the first half 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.

Rob Bell’s View of Universalism in Love Wins

It.

Sounds, I got the sense, we can move on. Wait a minute, actually, I apologize, I.

Apologize. Oh, I'm not playing that. Yeah, no, this is, this is, this is a good.

Section to start. I got the sense that you were saying before, I thought. That's.

What you, effectively what you'd written. No, no, no, absolutely not. I mean, in the book, I was simply... Now, this was, this was, the, the, 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 going to 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? Well, I responded to one of his, his silly NUMA videos where he collapsed on, on all the stuff about how Jesus is similar to Mithra and all the rest of 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,.

Here's an example of that. Before, I thought that's what you, 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, give it 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. Let's, my observation would be, lots of people right now seem to say no. We've all seen that, correct? But you, and so I would assume that after death, you think some of 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 don't sit around and go, I'm in the middle of the creative process, dear.

No, you just get your work done. So anyways, he was playing around. 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.

Going to 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 it says something.

But 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?

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 got to pick it up a little bit, or we're never getting 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.

Whether Homosexual Practice Is Sinful

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. Yeah. 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, yeah, I mean, he 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, you know, 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, is that mean? As you heard, Rod 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 bent 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, 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 is 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, 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? That's not how it works. That, that's the only, the only thing is, is, is so that one guy doesn't have all the women? That's the only reason that you're for monogamy? Seriously? It, it, amazing.

And I think the world needs more of that, and I am, 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, 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, it'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, 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? He'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, let's, let's try that. I 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. 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, 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, 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.

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 like pull the various issues apart. I don't think they had a cultural conception.

Then you got that if Paul is looking at, there's two gay men in the church in Corinth, they're having sex together, they're not worshipping idols. Paul's going to 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 the same sex relationship.

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, 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. 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. Yeah. 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.

I'm 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 and sufficiency of scripture thing, we really 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, when Jesus talks about sexual morality from within the heart and refers back to Leviticus 18 with all of its prohibitions, you would say, that's a time-specific thing. Was Jesus wrong on that?

Did he misunderstand what God had meant? Was Jesus just a step forward? Because, obviously, 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, as you read a lot about it, is understood very much in Leviticus 18. 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 question. 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 left speechless.

I'm going to have to think that one through.

Jesus, Leviticus, and Sexual Morality

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

I... 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, it's quite... In that sense, I'm just saying, you know, Jesus is, I understand, he's 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, etc.

Paul understands him. Obviously, I disagree with the way you're understanding Paul's use of the words as well, and 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, you know, that boat has sailed, kind of thing. We live in a culture, and we've got to affirm what is good, you know, 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 baptised 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 baptised, 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 a new life. And I do that as per Jesus' comments about sexual morality, Revelation's comments about sexual morality, Paul's comments about arsenic, koitai and malachoi, 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 arsenic, koitai and malachoi in 1 Corinthians 6, and that's in reference to both partners in male homosexual sex, etc., etc.

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 so we look and say, well, 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 want to have sex with lots of people, some people might want to 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, 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.

New Creation, Baptism, and the Cost of Discipleship

Of what? I mean... 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, he's 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, and 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 Bell. 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 know, 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 Bell going liberal. This is actually Rob Bell 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 Bell does it. Very pragmatic. Very pragmatic. It's not destructive. 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. Ah! Someone in Twitter was pointing out that 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... Wilson... I know why I didn't get the call for this one. Justin is a wise man. 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? Not to speak about the individual's concern, but God gets to provide that definition rather than my observation.