Deep Dive with Shawn

The Bible Belt Tightens: When Theology Becomes Policy (w/ Matthew Vines)

• Sea Tree Media

Share episode

Through his work with the Reformation Project, and his book God and the Gay Christian, Matthew Vines captures the essence of a journey shared by millions managing the complex intersection of faith and sexual identity.

In a political climate where White Christian Nationalism increasingly scapegoats LGBTQ people for societal ills, Vines offers something revolutionary: a thoughtful framework for understanding Scripture that upholds its authority while making room for affirming theology. Through meticulous examination of historical context, he demonstrates how the same-sex behaviors condemned in Scripture were fundamentally different from the loving, committed relationships we recognize today.

Drawing fascinating parallels to how Christians reinterpreted biblical teachings on slavery and charging interest, Vines shows how contextual understanding isn't compromising faith—it's deepening it. "The reason same-sex behaviors were condemned in Scripture are very different than the types of same-sex relationships we're talking about today," he explains. 

We discuss Pope Francis's legacy of inclusion and the challenges within evangelicalism, where reform seems simultaneously impossible and inevitable. Vines suggests that effective change comes not through flashy redesigns of church with pride flags everywhere, but through communities that fully include LGBTQ people while keeping "the main thing the main thing"—following Jesus.

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Bluesky
YouTube

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock



Matthew:

do I believe these things about God and Jesus, and is this, you know, important for how I see myself and my place in the world and how I want to live my life? I also, indeed, am gay, and so for me, I just am a gay Christian. And then the real question comes around whether or not it is okay to be in a same-sex relationship or not, and that is, I think, that's got to be. That's the thornier issue, because for the great majority of the Christian church's history, the answer was that same sex relationships were categorically wrong. At the same time, there was also no understanding until the middle of the 20th century that there was anybody who was exclusively attracted to the same sex. So the whole concept of sexual orientation as we understand it, the whole concept of gay people as we now understand them, was not something that was a feature of any Christian or any other dialogue about same-sex behaviors, relationships or attraction.

Shawn:

Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig. All eyes are turning toward Rome, where a new papal conclave opens on May 7th. With the death of Pope Francis, long considered one of the most LGBTQ-friendly popes of all time, the future of Catholic doctrine, particularly on LGBTQ inclusion, could hang in the balance. On LGBTQ inclusion could hang in the balance. In this episode, we're going to talk about one of the most charged intersections in contemporary American life, where queerness, christianity and politics collide. For decades, lgbtq Christians have wrestled with a faith tradition that has often rejected them, sometimes violently, but in recent years, especially in this Trump era, the debate has grown louder, more political and far more dangerous. As white Christian nationalism gains ground in the United States, lgbtq identities have become a convenient scapegoat from pews to policy platforms. Churches that once preached love are now helping write the playbook for anti-trans laws, school censorship and a vision of the nation rooted in exclusion and oppression, and they're making very real ground at a quick clip. My guest today, matthew Vines, has been at the heart of this conversation for over a decade, through his groundbreaking book God and the Gay Christian, first published in 2014 and updated this year, and his work with the Reformation Project which advocates for the creation of an affirming church. He's reshaped. How many understand the Bible and queerness? Not in opposition, but in harmony. This isn't just about theology, it's about who belongs and who gets to decide. Just a note I was traveling when we recorded this interview, so I didn't have my usual equipment, which means that the sound quality on my side of the conversation sounds a little like well, like I didn't have my usual equipment. All right, if you like this episode or any episode, please give it a like, share and follow on your favorite podcast platform and or subscribe to the podcast on YouTube. And, as always, if you have any thoughts, questions or comments, please feel free to email me at deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom. Let's do a deep dive, matthew. Thanks for being here. How are you? Very well, thank you.

Shawn:

So this might be a bit of an understatement, but we're living through some very dynamic times.

Shawn:

Our politics in the US, but even globally, are becoming very unsettled, democracies in decline worldwide and Christianity is playing a pretty big and influential role in public policy. And it's really just, to my mind, one version of Christianity, and that's white Christian nationalism, which is really not at all about mercy or tolerance. It's almost kind of single-mindedly focused on repression and dominance and, for the purposes of our conversation conversation, or a large part of our conversation very anti-LGBTQ, and I think that you occupy a space that must be very complicated, if not difficult, in that you identify as a gay Christian and this feels, I think, to some people an oxymoron these days and also, I'm sure, puts you in spaces in which you aren't really accepted by the queer community sometimes, and then also maybe not by the larger Christian community either, at the same time, probably occasionally expected to speak for and represent each of the communities as well. So there's a lot to talk about and it's difficult to imagine how we'll do this in an hour, but let's try.

Matthew:

All right, let's try.

Shawn:

Okay. So I think it'd be weird if we had this conversation. You know at the time that we are without touching on the death of Pope Francis and the upcoming conclave, so maybe that's where we should start. So the Catholic Church will be electing a new pope and fully recognizing that Catholicism doesn't represent the whole of Christianity. It does speak to billions of people, and Francis has been hailed as the most LGBTQ or queer friendly popes of all time, and I tend to think of that as being maybe relative simply to other popes, although people might disagree with me on this.

Shawn:

So I guess I'm wondering you know from where you sit what influence do you think that Francis had? How do you think his legacy is going to play out? And then I think the bigger question here is or maybe this is the question a lot of people have right now is what's the next pope going to be like? So what could we expect on the, you know, lgbtq front? And I tend to have this pardon my phrasing, but pessimistic kind of the devil, you know feeling about this. So I guess I'm a little worried about what might be coming.

Matthew:

Yeah, no, I mean, it's very hard to know with these sorts of things. On the one hand, francis appointed what roughly 80%, I believe, of the cardinals or who will be participating in the conclave. So in that sense, you would think that the odds are decent that there will be someone who is more in his mold. And yet you also never really know. And you know, anything can happen. Did you watch the conclave movie, by the way?

Shawn:

I did. Yeah, I mean how timely right.

Matthew:

I know, I thought I thought it was great. Obviously that was a little bit more of a dramatic outcome than we would typically get, but did you see that? Outcome coming. No, I did not Did you?

Shawn:

No, I didn't. I mean I think literally a second before I was like I thought it might be a queer person, but I did not.

Matthew:

No, I did not see the specifics of that. I thought it was fascinating, yeah, but, and just a really interesting insight into a process you know almost none of us actually ever would experience firsthand. So, yeah, I mean, we'll see. You know, I was doing some research on who some of the leading candidates are and some of them seem like they could be pretty good in terms of continuing some of the positive things that Francis was doing. I am certainly was a fan of Pope Francis. I'm not a Catholic. I was raised Presbyterian evangelical, so I'm still in the evangelical Protestant world and tradition. But obviously, you know, the Catholic Church is about half of Christians worldwide. So it's pretty significant and it matters who the Pope is and what the Pope thinks and says and also kind of how the Pope models whatever. You know you can have official teachings, but also then the posture that you have is significant.

Matthew:

One big challenge with the Catholic Church is that because it is so hierarchical, it is very difficult to actually change formal teachings of the Church. In fact, there are many Catholic apologists who will insist that the Church has never changed its teachings on any moral matters. This is not true, but that I mean even when it comes to sexuality, in the early centuries of the Church, the teaching was that all sexual acts must be intended for the purpose of procreation in order to be moral, even within marriage. Well, so they'll say that they haven't changed on this, but they really have, because by the time of Vatican II in the 1960s, the teaching became that all sexual acts must be open to procreation, just meaning that you can't use contraception but you don't actually have to be intentionally trying to procreate. And they said that you can actually intentionally try not to procreate through the rhythm method. So that's the sort of thing where they'll say, oh well, we didn't really change it, but I think that's a pretty significant shift actually. And so, anyway, all that to say, it is harder, it will be harder for the Catholic Church to change its teaching on same-sex relationships than for Protestant churches, because you've got the whole issue of church tradition and hierarchy. That is a much bigger factor for Catholics than it is for Protestants.

Matthew:

So really, with popes, the more significant thing is not whether they change the teaching, because, to the extent that can happen, that's not going to be something one individual pope can do, not right now, certainly, but I think what Francis did was about as much as any pope could have done in the 12 years that he had to try to advance a general posture of inclusion and openness and respect and compassion toward the LGBTQ community. And I didn't necessarily see that coming, because when he was first elected pope there were headlines about how, when he was in Argentina, you know, when he was a priest or a bishop there, you know he had had some pretty harsh words when Argentina legalized same-sex marriage and so you could have seen him going in a different direction. And yet he made it clear from the outset that he wanted to kind of ditch the more I guess, pomp and circumstance, like the Benedict who was his predecessor was much more about, I think, the A sense of luxury and elegance and like in terms of how even just the clothing that he wore was almost like this royal aesthetic. And Francis, you know, turned away from all of that, adopted a much more humble aesthetic and approach that I think is more consistent with the Jesus of Scripture and then extended that to his attitude toward the LGBT community. And it was really interesting because when it came to the issue of same-sex relationships, you know, just in the last couple years of his papacy, he did muddy the waters a little bit in terms of what the Catholic Church was actually like.

Matthew:

It had their teaching, but then they were saying they could bless same-sex couples, and then it became very confusing around what that actually meant, and so a lot of conservatives in the Catholic Church were very frustrated with Francis because they felt like he was not formally changing things, but still effectively watering things down, and obviously those who wanted to see those teachings changed were more positive toward that. So, anyway, maybe it might be getting into more detail than you want there. All that to say, we will see what happens. I hope that we don't have a pope now who is going to completely turn in a different direction and be much more harsh and condemnatory toward the LGBT community. But even if that happens, this is I still am optimistic that the long-term trajectory for the Catholic Church will be one toward greater inclusion, but it will take a lot longer for them than it will take for Protestants, unfortunately, at least officially.

Shawn:

So this is quite possibly a bit of a rabbit hole, because neither of us is Catholic and it's not really the purpose of the conversation. But as long as we're talking a little bit about it, I do think this dynamic not only between Benedict and then Francis and the swing there between the two popes, one after the other, but you know the reflection, I think, that is of a changing conclave right In such a short period of time, because in many ways Vatican II, or the undoing of Vatican II, can really be traced almost directly to Ratzinger, when he was working with John Paul and then. So then you have Benedict, who's extremely conservative, and then, just a handful of years later, ostensibly a somewhat similar conclave than elects somebody like Francis, right, and the reason I bring this up is because it really does emphasize the point that you made here, that it's really unclear as to what we might get.

Matthew:

Right. So, yes, I do hope, though, that it will be somebody with a similar overall posture, like Francis's, because I think you know that's. I think that's more consistent with Jesus and therefore what Christianity should be representing, and it's certainly going to be much more positive for LGBTQ people in terms of just the tone that is coming from the church.

Shawn:

So we can swing back then to something that I highlighted in the preamble and largely part of the reason that you're here, which is, you know, we are living through a period of time in which religion, identity and politics are all heavily intertwined. I think that it's both generating and also an expression of the polarization and the division that we're experiencing in our society, but all of that is kind of clashing in such a way that I think it's threatening our democracy and that can make everything feel somewhat zero sum. And, to put it in the context of the conversation, I think sometimes it feels like you are either Christian or you're gay. Right, that you can't be both of these things, and I know this is a conversation that goes back decades, if not centuries. But I think that you know there's a harsher light kind of thrown on that dynamic right now. I guess I'm trying to understand how you balance these two identities in a world that's really, I think, currently and contemporarily demanding that you be one or the other.

Matthew:

Yeah, I think I start by separating the entire question from the, I guess, our current context and culture, because for me, christianity is a faith, it is a religion, it is a set of beliefs that the core of them go back 2000 years to right the time of Jesus and shortly after his death and resurrection. And so for me, whether or not you can be gay and Christian, being gay, I believe being gay is just a thing that some people are. Whether they are okay with that or not, is another question. Whether they, you know, want to pursue a same-sex relationship or not, you know, is another question. But some people just are gay. And if you are a Christian, then that means that you believe in Jesus Christ, that you believe that he was both human and divine, that he died for the sins of the world, that he rose from the sins of the world, that he rose from the dead on the third day. You know some pretty radical claims that are, understandably, can be eyebrow raising just in their metaphysics to a modern secular person, but that have formed the heart of the Christian faith for 2000 years. And so to me it's like that's the basic question of if you believe those things, then you are a Christian and about I don't know what percent, maybe 5% somewhere around there people are attracted to the same sex, exclusively attracted to the same sex. They're gay. So for me it's almost completely separate from the reality that.

Matthew:

But it is helpful for me to think about it in that sense because it's just like no, I do believe in this. I do believe in the teachings of Jesus. Like no, I do believe in this, I do believe in the teachings of Jesus. I am very inspired by, like, the life that he lived, the ethics that he taught and practiced. I want to model my life after that. And I also happen to be gay. So the fact that it is a, it is challenging because there is a lot of conflict or controversy around. That, to me, is a secondary question than the primary question of do I believe these things about God and Jesus? And is this, you know, important for how I see myself and my place in the world and how I went to live my life? I also, indeed, am gay, and so for me, I just am a gay Christian.

Matthew:

And then the real question comes around whether or not it is okay to be in a same-sex relationship or not, and that is, I think that's got to be. That's the thornier issue, because for the great majority of the Christian church's history, the answer was that same-sex relationships were categorically wrong. At the same time, there was also no understanding until the middle of the 20th century that there was anybody who was exclusively attracted to the same sex. So the whole concept of sexual orientation as we understand it, the whole concept of gay people as we now understand them, was not something that was a feature of any Christian or any other dialogue about same-sex behaviors, relationships or attraction. So there are these six texts in scripture that refer to various forms of same-sex behavior. They are all negative, they are all condemnatory.

Matthew:

My basic argument in my book God and the Gay Christian is that it's not that they aren't I'm not trying to say that those negative texts aren't there but that the reason that same-sex behaviors were condemned in scripture are very different than the types of same-sex relationships that we're talking about today, that the primary same-sex practices in the ancient world were things that Christians should not have a positive view of.

Matthew:

Things like pederasty prostitution, sex like a hierarchical, dominant, subordinate thing, and same-sex marriage unions.

Matthew:

That's a completely different type of relationship than anything that existed in the biblical world, and so we don't have to jettison the biblical text or say that the biblical authors were wrong to have a negative judgment about same-sex relations, given the same-sex behaviors that were widely practiced in the ancient world. We can simply recognize that the same sex unions we're talking about today are categorically different from the context of the biblical world and they deserve to be assessed independently on their own merits, and I think when we do that, I think there are. I think that same sex marriages today are consistent with what have always been the core Christian principles of love, permanence, faithfulness, sacrifice and commitment in relationships. So that may have been a longer explanation than you were saying, but that's why, ultimately, I do think you can be gay and Christian in the sense of being in a same sex relationship and being a Christian as well, because I don't think that scripture condemns the sort of same sex marriage relationships that we're talking about today.

Shawn:

I guess I want to pull up that thread a little bit more and I'll, you know, admit up front that it's quite possible that this is already asked and answered to some degree.

Shawn:

But I guess I want to put a finer point on it, which is, if we kind of accept this dominant Christian narrative that Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible, right, and so I guess that leaves people that are queer Christians with limited options if they want to be practicing Christians. One is to either accept that dominant narrative and somehow just live a life in which they feel as if, yes, you know, I am living a sinful life. The other is to reject that narrative, and then I guess another is, as you're saying, which is to take it in context, right, the context of the time. So there's a lot of different ways to, I suppose, square that circle. But I guess for a lot of folks, for a lot of gay Christians, I do believe that at certain points in their life they are really struggling with how to be accepted as a Christian, how to accept themselves. How do you help them to manage that tension, or what advice would you give?

Matthew:

It's a great question and it certainly is a challenging process of reconciliation for a lot of people, just given the reality that the vast majority of LGBTQ people who grow up in the church are also taught in the church that it is wrong to be either attracted to the same sex or in a same sex relationship, and that's often presented as a salvation issue, that it's not just like a minor disagreement but it's a foundational thing that if you disagree with that, then you're kind of on the outs of the whole church and the whole community. So for the vast majority of gay Christians, bisexual Christians, transgender Christians, the number one source of their anxiety comes from their interpretation of scripture, because it's not just that your church told you that this is wrong. It's your church told you that this is wrong because the Bible teaches it, and so it's appealing to the higher authority and within the Protestant church, the higher authority and within the Protestant church, the highest authority is scripture. Within the Catholic church right, the highest authority is more tradition and scripture is important, but is more important and it's informed by tradition in a way that for Protestants, scripture is really the single highest authority. So for most LGBT Christians struggling with their identity and their faith. The most important thing for them is to come to a deeper understanding of the historical and cultural context of the main six scripture passages that refer to same-sex behaviors.

Matthew:

I don't see a lot of LGBT Christians get to a point of peace and self-acceptance where they are holding on to both faith and sexuality without doing that, and for a lot of them that is, I mean, I think that is the single most important piece. Then you also you do have the relational pieces and the challenges in terms of, you know, responses from family and community, but ultimately, even then, negative responses from family and church community are almost always rooted in people's interpretation of scripture, so it always does keep coming back to like the biblical text. I think that's why I've ended up putting like a lot of work and a lot of focus on that, because it just that's the key thing that I think shapes whether or not people are able to be at peace with themselves or not.

Shawn:

The key thing that I think shapes whether or not people are able to be at peace with themselves or not. So there are clearly LGBTQ and queer affirming churches and denominations the world over, including in the United States. They do actually follow within some tradition of an established order, but I do wonder if these types of churches that are more affirming are in some way seen as less than by the more traditional or dominant orders that they sit within, and then if, in some way, what gay Christians that are attending these types of churches are doing is appeasing something within themselves that they're going to continue struggling with within the larger denomination, which is this lack of acceptance.

Matthew:

I mean it's certainly true that affirming churches are seen as less than by non-affirming churches. Broadly speaking, I would say most non-affirming churches would regard an affirming church as not even a real church. But there are two different reasons for that no-transcript 20th century about just how much authority the Bible should have. And so you kind of have the conservative wing, which tends to be quite a bit larger and certainly more politically influential, that is very committed to a high view of the authority of scripture and all that that means is that if the Bible, if there's any verse in the Bible that, like you, can't just dismiss a verse of the Bible based on saying you don't agree with it, now that does not mean that scripture is interpreted and applied literally, because no one actually does that. People might do that in certain ways, but there are always parts of scripture you know the New Testament talks about. You know you'll heap burning coals on the heads of your enemies by, you know, praying for them or loving them. That's nobody thinks. Everybody understands that. That's a metaphor. Nobody actually thinks that that's literal. So there's. So it's not a question of literalism exactly and it's not even.

Matthew:

And even most conservative Christians do have some nuances and their approach to biblical interpretation, at least on a variety of topics, and so we'll recognize that. You know, there may be a scripture may say something in a certain place, like it says in the New Testament many times you're supposed to greet one another in the church with a holy kiss. That was a literal practice that they did in the first century. Almost no one does that, certainly not in our context today, because people just feel like that would be off-putting and actually make more people uncomfortable than comfortable. So you could ask you know some people, some skeptics, might say oh so how are you saying you're committed to the authority of Scripture if then here's this verse about a holy kiss and you're not doing it? But the vast majority of conservative Christians do have more nuance in their methodology, their approach to Scripture. They would say well, what we need to still uphold is the principle here of a warm greeting of other people at church, but we can do it in our own way. It might not look exactly like this. So that's all it means.

Matthew:

Having a lower view of scripture would be to say, for instance well, paul said, you know, paul had this. Paul said that he believed that, you know, christ died for our sins was buried and raised from the dead on the third day. But I don't really agree with Paul. I think Paul was wrong and so we're not going to teach that at our church. I mean, that's a bit maybe extreme, because that's a pretty foundational belief for Christianity.

Matthew:

But there could be anything where, if the posture is that you just are outright saying you don't really care about what the biblical text says because you don't agree with it, that's a lower view of the authority of scripture that you do find more commonly in more progressive churches, or at least somewhere on that spectrum. So the fundamental divide for most conservative Christians that has made them very wary of the whole conversation around same-sex relationships is the belief that anybody who has an affirming view of same-sex relationships must have a low view of the authority of scripture and the way that they are affirming same-sex relationships must be by saying, sure, the apostle Paul took a negative view of same-sex relations in Romans 1, but we don't care, right, we'll just say Paul was wrong or Paul was outdated and we know better than Paul. We're moving on and there are plenty of more theologically progressive Christians who have framed the issue that way, and so that's a that's complete non-starter from the standpoint of theologically conservative Christians, because you're not just asking them to change their view on this one topic. You're asking them to change their view of the Bible in its entirety, about whether it should carry authority over their lives or not.

Matthew:

So that's part of the challenge, and part of the dichotomy that I'm seeking to challenge is that I actually think, if all, I just want conservative Christians to use the same nuances in their interpretations and their biblical and their interpretive methodologies that they already have applied to so many other topics, and I just want them to use that same level of nuance and consistency when it comes to the topic of same-sex relationships, where you do have an openness to questions around historical and cultural context, understanding the deeper principle behind why something was said and then recognizing that it may not have a one-to-one application in our current context if our version of something is very different from the version of it in the first century or the ancient world.

Matthew:

So I think, to the extent that conservative Christians are able to see examples of affirming Christians who are affirming in a way that is still upholding the authority of scripture, that definitely does help in then, even if they disagree, not seeing those affirming Christians as somehow not even Christians at all. So, yes, I mean, there still is a broadly negative view of affirming churches by non-affirming churches, but much of that is fueled by that belief that they're not committed to Scripture as a principle, and so that's part of what I'm seeking to. You know, that's part of what I'm trying to get people to look at differently.

Shawn:

Let's dig into that a little bit more. I think you've given at least an example here of translating a desire or a want for something to happen to an action that actually makes it happen. And I think what typically happens and I think in past maybe I've been guilty of this myself is that in disagreeing or trying to identify the contradictions in Christianity, you just get into these back and forth arguments that just seem ineffective, which is, you take the anti-LGBT passages so literally but you eat shellfish, et cetera by way of example, and I've never found those to be effective arguments. What are some effective arguments or what are some ways to bridge that divide in such a way that perhaps non-gay Christians or Christians that believe that a gay lifestyle or the gay life or gay person is not compatible with Christian life, can actually walk the same Christian path in concert with gay Christians, without it being existential?

Matthew:

Yeah, I mean you're right that that argument about shellfish is rarely effective, and the reason for that is because, yes, even though Leviticus prohibits the eating of shellfish, and Leviticus also prohibits male same-sex intercourse For the more knowledgeable or thoughtful conservative Christians, leviticus is not their actual main reason for opposing same-sex relationships, because the entire Old Testament law code no longer applies to Christians in the way that it did to the ancient Israelites, and a huge part of the New Testament is dedicated to this exact question of whether or not Gentile converts to the Christian faith should be bound by these 613 rules, regulations and prohibitions from the Old Testament law code. And the answer narrated from Acts 10 to 15 at the first general council of the early church in AD 49 in Jerusalem is a resounding no. The Gentiles are not bound by the particulars of all these laws that Christ was the end of the law. Paul refers to the law as this yoke of slavery that Christians should not again subject themselves to. So the whole idea is that there was the old covenant and then it was essentially superseded by the new covenant in Christ. So that's why the shellfish argument doesn't persuade a lot of people, because Christians are not being hypocritical by not eating shellfish or by eating shellfish, because the old law has never applied to them. Now it can sound hypocritical if there are some, maybe Christians, who all they're doing is quoting Leviticus on same-sex relations to make that argument, because that's not actually that great of an argument, and if that were the only text involved, I think this controversy would have already kind of probably been in the rearview mirror. It's because there's also this text in the New Testament, in the book of Romans 1,. Well, in chapter 1 of the book of Romans, in which the Apostle Paul describes same-sex relations negatively, and that is much more weighty for the average conservative Christian because it is in the New Testament instead of the Old Testament. But in terms of arguments that are effective, in my experience I do think the most effective argument is essentially just the argument saying that the types of same-sex practices in the ancient world are very different from the types of same-sex marriages we're talking about today marriages we're talking about today.

Matthew:

If you ask most conservative Christians about the Bible and slavery, they will give you a very similar sounding version of this argument where they will say well, you have to understand that the type of slavery in the first century biblical world was very different from 19th century American race-based chattel slavery. Now, that's true to a certain degree. Slavery in the Roman world was not race-based. I still don't think that that in any way makes slavery in the Roman world acceptable or good. It doesn't need to be race-based for it to be very bad, but it's, and I actually think there's a better way to make the case about why Christians should be against slavery in interpreting scripture on that topic. The point is that a lot of conservative Christians are very comfortable just easily appealing to hey, well, if the form of this practice in the 19th century was different than the form of the practice in the first century, well then, that's why you know these. That's why we need to look at this more differently or differently. But it's funny because then, if you just turn to the issue of same sex relationships, you could make a very, very similar argument, very similar argument. Another similar example and this is an argument that I make in the updated edition of God and the Gay Christian, which is an issue that most Christians and most people probably are not even aware was ever a huge taboo and a huge issue in the church. But the Bible condemns charging interest on loans categorically in the Old Testament, and then Jesus is widely seen as raising the bar even higher in the New Testament when he says that not only should people not be getting interest on loans, they should not even expect the money they lend in the first place to ever be given back to them, and they should still be lending freely without that expectation.

Matthew:

But for the first 1,500 years of the church there was complete unanimity among leading theologians, church fathers, popes, councils of the church that to charge any amount of interest on a loan at all was a grave sin that would send someone to hell, that would completely separate you from God and the kingdom of heaven. And this was taken very seriously. Anybody who charged and like if you charged a 1% interest rate to a rich person, like we're not even talking about necessarily a context of exploiting poor or vulnerable people then you would be excommunicated from the church. Even as late as the, you know, 1300s, they were, you know, talking about this punishment of excommunication. In fact, in the 1300s they said that any Christian who even thought that charging interest on a loan wasn't a grave sin would be excommunicated from the church.

Matthew:

So it wasn't until the time of the Reformation, and specifically through the work of John Calvin, who was one of the leading reformers in the 16th century, that this teaching began to change. And what Calvin did is? He said okay, I recognize that the Bible does condemn charging interest categorically. This was called usury. Today, usury has been redefined as excessive interest on loans, but in the Bible and the Christian tradition it just meant charging any interest on loans at all.

Matthew:

So he said okay, I do recognize that the Bible condemns charging interest categorically. However, he said the reason that it did so was to protect poor people from exploitation, and in the agrarian societies and economies of ancient Israel, that was a good rule to have in place because of the sheer prevalence of exploiting poor and vulnerable people, who would then get into this deeper and deeper, into a pit of debt that they couldn't get out of. And so it was really there, for it was like a humanitarian prohibition prohibition. But he said, now that our economy is changing so much, now that we have an increasingly commercial society where there could be a lot of benefits to society by being able to have more capital flowing, being able to give more people loans to start businesses that can benefit their families, their broader communities, now he said we should still reject charging interest whenever it exploits the poor. In fact, calvin said we shouldn't charge interest to the poor at all, but he said that we should recognize that the moral logic behind the Bible's prohibitions of usury does not extend to, and should not be extended to, all forms of charging interest on loans.

Matthew:

Now that we're in such a different economic environment, and now that they can, we have many more situations where charging interest on loans can help people. Certainly, most people today would not be able to ever afford a home if they couldn't interest. For sure, things like payday loans, anything that exploits the vulnerable or the poor, is clearly at odds with the teachings of scripture. But at this point, there is basically no Christians who are still against charging any amount of interest on a loan, much less Christians who would see that as a sin that will forever separate you from God. And so that's another example.

Matthew:

It's a very similar type of interpretive methodology where it's recognizing okay, we do see that the biblical text is negative on this, but we have to understand why it was negative. It made sense for the Bible to reject this practice in its original context, given what that practice looked like back then. That was true for interest on loans, and it was true for same-sex behaviors in the ancient world as well. However, what that practice can look like today, there are forms of that practice today that look very, very different from that, and that the values behind them are actually much more positive and the outcomes are much more positive, and so we should look at those differently. I think, ultimately, it's that issue of cultural distance, combined with looking at the moral logic of scripture, that is the most effective argument for persuading somebody who is more theologically conservative, because they already have, they already adopt that approach on multiple other topics.

Shawn:

I want to talk about evangelicalism a little bit, because it does take a lot of responsibility for the white Christian nationalist movement in the United States, for the lurch to the right in our public policy. It's been described as kind of inhospitable, if not outright hostile to not just LGBTQ people but to women, to democracy itself, to immigrants, etc. As a result, we're seeing, like what's being called the ex-evangelical movement, people leaving evangelicalism. But that does beg the question, though, because there's a part of me that wonders if the evangelical church, this component of the evangelical church, has been co-opted by some outside influence and is simply now something that it has never intended to be and never was prior, or if this is an evolution. And I suppose the bigger question is is there any room for reconciliation here or reform within the evangelical movement or the evangelical institution itself, or is the only way to really fix this is from a completely separate movement?

Matthew:

Yeah, it's a good question. I think there's no doubt that co-optation, like a real corruption of the message of Christ in how the church gets entangled with the powers that be, so as disappointing as that is, maybe it's even more disappointing the fact that it's nothing new. At the same time, I do take some encouragement from the fact that the best way to critique when this happens is by an appeal to the person and teachings of Jesus himself. It's when this is happening, when Christianity is being misused for this purpose. It's generally pretty easy, even for people who aren't Christians, to point to the ways in which this doesn't really look anything like Jesus, the ways in which this is at odds with the character of Christ that we read about in scripture, and so I think that is just being able to identify something as a distortion or a corruption of what it clearly is supposed to be is helpful. It doesn't make it less frustrating when that happens, but I think it is still very helpful to be able to point out those glaring inconsistencies and incongruities in terms of whether or not reform is possible in the evangelical world. I think the evangelical world is very big and broad and more variegated than I think a lot of people may think the hyper-politicized part of the evangelical world is probably the least receptive to reform efforts because they have more weighing on their assessments of things. Right, it's not purely a question of what is our best understanding of scripture, it's also it quickly gets tangled up into a lot of other worldly considerations. That said, I have seen some meaningful positive changes in the broader evangelical world over the last decade, like when the book, when the original edition of the book, came out in 2014,. There have been I would say there's a like. The moderate part of the evangelical world is not the dominant voice within that community, but it is there and it is an important counterbalance. And I'm not even talking about, like, progressive evangelicalism and I'm not even talking about churches that are actually affirming, but there are moderate evangelical churches that are not, say, on the MAGA train right, that do a good job of staying, of keeping politicization out of the pulpit, and where I have seen a significant cultural shift over the last 10 years in terms of greater openness and welcome toward same-sex couples, toward the LGBT community more broadly. Now, at the same time, we've also seen on the more, I guess, far right end of the evangelical world. You've seen, especially in recent years, an increase in hostility, vitriol and antagonism toward the LGBTQ community.

Matthew:

And so what I've always attempted to do for the 15 years or so that I've been doing this work is I'm happy to have a conversation with anybody, including somebody who is very deeply committed to a very, very conservative perspective, but I'm going. I end up. I'm much more interested in investing most of my time and energy into people, into Christians who are, who are, who do have an openness to considering another point of view, and they kind of just naturally find me, I think, those who are, who are seeking that out. And so I still feel like in those contexts, like there's enough. There are plenty. It's not as high profile, but there are a lot of pastors and churches still a minority for sure within evangelicalism who are wanting to wrestle much more sincerely and honestly with this topic and the questions that it raises, and a lot of them just come to me, and so I think that helps me feel encouraged that, like I do think reform is possible Broadly speaking.

Matthew:

That doesn't mean every individual congregation or institution will see that there are, there are always some individual institutions that end up sometimes, you know so committed to a view, know so committed to a view, well after there's much of a constituency for it, that that may spell, you know, that may coincide with the broader decline of that institution. So I'm not saying it's that we're going to see that happen in every single institution, but I do think that evangelicalism is dynamic enough and I mean you got new church plants all the time and so I do think that there is potential there. But it's a long-term thing for sure.

Shawn:

So I'm hearing quite a bit from people that the most effective approach to change, as maybe a bulwark against some of the more frightening right-leaning policy and mega directed policy that we're facing, is at the local level, is at the community level. But I do have this fear that we are living through a period of time in which the dominant force here, the force that has the wind at its back, is this kind of mega force and this white Christian nationalist force, and I don't know that we have the time for so much local engagement, one-on-one engagement, to make a change. I feel like it almost requires at this moment some type of social or cultural shift that is much bigger than what's happening and you can disabuse me of this, that's just how I feel. You know, if this trend were to play out without some type of significant shift at the social or cultural level, that is bigger than a gradual, long-term thing. If we're in for a period of you know our own form of, I suppose the dark ages.

Matthew:

Oh well, I hope not, but it's hard to say.

Matthew:

I do think that it's.

Matthew:

You know, I never could have predicted 15 years ago the corrosive effects that I think even social media has had in, I think, empowering some of the more extreme and radical voices, and so I don't have a lot of hope about, you know, I feel like the algorithms aren't.

Matthew:

The algorithms could easily help propel us into, you know, a very kind of regression across the board in society. I think you see some of those things develop, but I don't want to be despondent or despairing about that, and so I'm still just trying to do what I can, trying to reach people with a positive message that is focused on shared values, focused on shared values, shared beliefs, and I do think that Christians have a lot of Christians who especially don't want to see real regression in terms of how society cares for the least of these. I think we have a lot of resources within our faith to empower us in sometimes making those critiques of ways that maybe even the majority of parts of the church or dominant wings or strands of the church are not being faithful to the teachings of Jesus and of scripture. Um and so for me, I guess time will tell, but I am cautiously optimistic, while recognizing that there are lots of challenges for sure.

Shawn:

Well, okay, and so here's something hopeful generations younger Christians do appear to be more affirming, if not identify at a larger rate than previous generations, as LGBTQ themselves. So they have the opportunity or the ability to play a significant role in the future of the church, focusing on allyship. How important do you think allyship is to the future of the church and its role in its approach to LGBTQ teaching? And then I guess the bigger question is in building that inclusive approach to Christianity. What does that actually look like? That isn't simply just accepting or being tolerant.

Matthew:

Yeah, I mean, I think allies certainly are essential, especially when you have a population that is a relatively small minority of society, as the LGBT community is. If you don't have allies, you are going to find a life much more difficult. Allies are important in that it's important to always make sure that we are thoughtful in framing things, I think, based on shared values. Sometimes there's more of a tendency to become more insular, even within minority groups or communities, and kind of just focus on the things that make us different or distinct, and there can, there can be a healthy place for that to some degree. But if it becomes the dominant message that the rest of society seems to be hearing, that the focus is just on here's all the ways that we're different from you, that I think that's generally counterproductive. Um, in trying to uh help underscore the you know that it's all that we really do have in common with most people and with you know, with heterosexual people. In terms of what affirming churches can look like, I think that sometimes there's a tendency I see this among some churches that want to lean so much into being affirming that it feels like it's one of the main things that they talk about and the church almost feels like it's gotten a redesign, with pride flags everywhere, and although there are some LGBTQ people and Christians who appreciate this, because you know they've had such a negative experience in the past with churches that that way it really makes it very clear to them that the church is inclusive and supportive, in my experience and for me personally, I don't actually think that is the most effective or helpful approach, because I do think that there's a lot of like, even just for me as a gay Christian. I do think that there's a lot of like even just for me as a gay Christian. I do just want to be able to go to church to. I want to be fully included and not mistreated or discriminated against, but in order to learn more about Jesus and how I can model my life after his Like. I think it's actually it can be very helpful when not making it feel like it's an ongoing issue or topic of conversation. It's just like the reality just is that people are being included, but then everybody is there for that primary purpose of like growing in their faith and in their ability to follow Jesus. So I don't I mean that may have been a little bit different than what you were, I don't know envisioning, but for me at least I mean it's not.

Matthew:

Yeah, maybe it's not as like flashy, but I have found that to be particularly helpful, especially just in then making it clear because a lot of for a lot of affirming churches too, whether they intend to be or not, they are the one example that other non-affirming churches in their community see of what it looks like to be affirming.

Matthew:

And so if it looks to the average non-affirming church in a town that to be affirming you have to make it almost one of your primary identity characteristics that it has to be this huge deal that then kind of fundamentally alters how everybody thinks and feels about the church. I think that's much more intimidating than, and makes a lot of non-affirming churches much warier of engaging the conversation than, when they do see examples of churches that are affirming but that are also just still very much keeping their focus, kind of keeping the main thing, the main thing within church. So I do think that ends up ultimately being more helpful for LGBT people, especially those in churches, that otherwise that if they don't see examples of that, will never want to entertain the conversation.

Shawn:

I mean, I think there's to some degree. The same thing happened in a different context when I was younger and I was coming out. It was really important to me to have or it was a relief to me to have friends that would talk about how comfortable they were with me as a gay person and they would. They would seek me out as being like the gay person that they could get a gay perspective from. But I very quickly grew out of that and came to appreciate more just it being a non-issue Right and not that being the leading thing. So I think we're kind of talking in the same space.

Matthew:

Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense and I feel the same way. I think, especially early on, when you first come out, you do need to hear some specific, positive, supportive statements, to really feel confident that people you know, to know where you stand with people and or, if you don't, if somebody isn't fully supportive, it's helpful to kind of know where you're at with them. But after a while, what is the most validating thing is then just to be able to move on with your life and still be seen as a multifaceted person with diverse interests and hobbies and personality traits that you know are that go well beyond your sexual orientation.

Shawn:

All right, final question you ready for it? Okay, what's something interesting you've been reading, watching, listening to or doing lately? And it doesn't have to be related to this topic, but obviously it can be.

Matthew:

Oh, wow. Well, a lot of what I read is about this topic. I've been reading a book called Dominion by Tom Holland. Have you heard of it? It's not the Spider-Man, it's not the Spider-Man actor.

Matthew:

Tom Holland is a same time many of the aspects of Western culture and many of the values of Western culture, from equality to minority rights, to just the dignity and rights of the individual. Many of these values were initially kind of nurtured by Christian principles and thought, and so that we're kind of at an interesting fork in the road right now where the question is to what extent can those values, those kind of fundamental liberal values that have a Christian heritage can? What extent, to what extent can those values be retained, even if society were to continue kind of jettisoning the actual kind of Christian belief structure or framework behind them? And one of the tensions that comes up is some of what you see on the far right today, where certainly there are forms of Christian nationalism. There are forms of Christian nationalism and there's also a kind of growing like.

Matthew:

It's been interesting to see the extent to which the rise in secularism or the decline of Christianity does not always yield like a continuation of some of those more liberal values, and so it's just an interesting. I enjoy reading different perspectives, and I kind of enjoy Tom Holland's perspective because he's not a Christian and so I just and I don't have a perfectly worked out answer to those questions, but they do. They are things I think about a lot, so I've been enjoying reading that book.

Shawn:

Have you read the book or heard of the book, jesus Wept?

Matthew:

No, I haven't. Who wrote it? Philip Shannon, Is that it? Okay? I just looked it up.

Shawn:

Did I get his name right, is it?

Matthew:

Yeah, apparently it just came out.

Shawn:

It's very, very good, let me say that, but it's not. It's not getting into like theory or theological history as much as it is kind of explaining the Catholic Church's evolution on a lot of the social and identity issues that we're talking about today over the course of the last seven popes.

Matthew:

It's a really fascinating read. Well, hey, I might check it out.

Shawn:

Matthew, thanks for taking the time. I enjoyed the conversation.

Matthew:

Thank you so much for having me.

Shawn:

In today's world, given our politics and the rise of the right-wing evangelical movement, it might not feel this way. But, as Matthew Vines reminds us, faith and identity don't have to live in conflict. They can illuminate one another. But in this moment, with the rise of Christian nationalism, global uncertainty in the church and a wave of anti-LGBTQ policies sweeping through legislatures, the stakes are high. What happens in our churches reverberates into our laws, our classrooms and our communities, and we're all feeling it. The work of inclusion is ongoing and it demands courage, clarity and compassion. Whether you're a person of faith like Matthew, a skeptic or agnostic like me, or somewhere in between. The question remains what kind of world and what kind of church are we willing to build and what can we do to live in peace and harmony, even when we disagree? All right, check back next week for another episode of Deep Dive Chat. Soon, folks. Thank you, thank you.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Shawn C. Fettig

Host