I spoke with my friend and frequent guest Sarey Martin Concepcion about the intersection of intellectual humility and our Christian faith journeys, attempting to tie this together with my recent set of “Still Christian” episodes (John Van Deusen & Tyson Motsenbocker; Brian Hall). We discussed how Sarey was raised in a fundamentalist evangelical strain of Christianity that valued certainty and correct doctrinal beliefs above all else. This made it challenging to embrace intellectual humility -- acknowledging what one can and cannot be confident about.

We both discussed how our recent collaboration on YHP episodes focusing on intellectual humility (#238 about cultural humility, #209 about healthy spiritual leaders, #195 on why we are not synonymous with our beliefs, and #184 introducing the concept of intellectual humility) impacted our faith, and a key takeaway for me was the importance of recognizing the limits of human understanding when it comes to abstract theological questions. I'm increasingly convinced that many questions about the nature of God, salvation, the mechanics of atonement, etc. are above our "intellectual pay grade" as finite beings. Humbly acknowledging the limits of theological certainty has made me more comfortable as an "outsider Christian" who doesn't fit neatly into orthodox or creedal categories.

Sarey shared how cultivating intellectual humility has opened her up to finding meaning and fulfillment from a wider range of sources beyond just Christianity. At the same time, this has created some friction and distance in her relationship to the Christian tradition. She's had to work through oppressive beliefs and patterns.

We touched on the challenge that intellectual humility poses for belief in a just afterlife, something I desperately want to be true but find little definitive evidence for. Sarey pushed back on my doubts by reframing faith as a growing relationship of trust in God rather than certainty.

Ultimately, Sarey still identifies as a Christian, but in a looser sense - treating beliefs more poetically than propositionally, finding power in Christian symbols and practices without rigid demands of orthodoxy. Her main focus is partnering with God to discern her authentic path in life. I find myself in a similar boat.​

While intellectual humility can create real tensions with Christianity, it also provides a foundation for extending grace to ourselves and others amid disagreement and uncertainty. Secure in God's love, we don't have to define ourselves by our beliefs or police the boundaries of belonging. We can chart our own imperfect spiritual paths with curiosity and openness.

Richard B. Hays (Duke Divinity School), influential New Testament scholar, and his son Christopher B. Hays (Fuller Seminary) have just announced the release of The Widening of God’s Mercy, a “fresh, deeply biblical account of God’s expanding grace and mercy, developing a theological framework for the full inclusion of LGBTQ people in Christian communities” (according to the publisher, Yale University Press). This is a big deal because Hays (the elder) has remained one of the only widely respected New Testament scholars to hold a non-queer-affirming position, outlined in his landmark influential book The Moral Vision of the New Testament, published 28 years ago. 

If you’ve listened to the all-time most popular You Have Permission episode, “To Be Gay-Affirming (#10),” then you might recall that my guest, Daniel Kirk, studied with Hays at Duke for his own PhD, and Kirk’s argument that he laid out in the episode was organized in part as a response to Hays’ central structure in Moral Vision. So, I thought it made sense to invite you all to revisit this episode through a summary of that conversation. Of course, you can always go back and listen to the full conversation to get more context, nuance, and detail. Here is that summary:

In this episode, I interviewed biblical scholar Daniel Kirk about the topic of homosexuality/queer sex and the Bible. Daniel started by laying out the main passages that mention same-sex relations in a negative light - Leviticus, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1. He pushed back against liberal attempts to re-interpret these passages as only condemning exploitative homosexual acts like pederasty or rape. Daniel argued that based on the language used, the apostle Paul likely viewed all same-sex relations as inherently problematic.

This led us to discuss the argument made by Daniel's former professor Richard B. Hays, who saw homosexuality as one tragic result of humanity's fallen state, but not as an extraordinarily depraved sin. While respectful of Hays' work, Daniel found issues with his professor's interpretation. A major part of Daniel's critique centered on the patriarchal worldview permeating the biblical writers' cultural context. He provided shocking quotes from ancient philosophers like Aristotle and Philo expressing outright sexist views - that women are intellectually and morally inferior to men. 

Daniel made the case that opposition to male-male sex in the Bible stems from this same patriarchal mindset, viewing it as degrading to the masculine role by treating a man like an inferior woman. He even suggested Paul's language in Romans 1 about receiving penalties "in themselves" refers to a man receiving a penis, which was seen as the degradation itself in an honor-shame culture.

Ultimately, Daniel argued that if modern readers reject the Bible's patriarchal assumptions about gender roles and the permissibility of slavery, then we have no grounds to affirm its sexual ethics rooted in that same flawed patriarchal system. Paul's prohibitions, though understandable in their historical context, emanated from a worldview we now rightly reject as denigrating to women and based on rigid hierarchies of power.

We then explored more rigorously how the ubiquitous patriarchal assumptions of the ancient Mediterranean world likely shaped the mindset and writings of the biblical authors on the topic of same-sex relations. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, one of the vice terms Paul employs, malakos, was a standard Greek pejorative used to impugn the masculinity of men deemed effeminate. The fact that Paul equated being womanly with moral condemnation betrays the patriarchal gender constructs he had absorbed.

Kirk's central thesis is that if modern readers reject (as most scholars now do) the Bible's assumptions about rigid gender roles and female inferiority as reflected in its acceptance of slavery and women's subordination, then there is no logically consistent basis on which to uphold its proscriptions against same-sex erotic relationships since those proscriptions are grounded in and derive from those same problematic patriarchal notions. He contends that truly embracing gender equality entails affirming same-sex couples.

We then turned to re-examine Richard Hays' tripartite interpretive paradigm of community, cross, and new creation. Kirk maintains that each of these, when applied consistently, supports the full inclusion of LGBTQ individuals in the church:

1. Community - The demonstrable presence of openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians in churches today who exhibit the gifts of the Spirit poses a new interpretive reality that Christians must grapple with, analogous to Peter's realization that God had accepted uncircumcised Gentiles in Acts 10-11.

2. Cross - Jesus' crucifixion subverts ancient social constructs of power, honor, and shame. Kirk provocatively suggests that straight Christians mandating celibacy for gay Christians echo the oppressive stance of the centurion, not the self-giving ethic of the crucified Christ.

3. New Creation - Paul declares that in Christ, the conventional binaries and hierarchies between Jew/Greek, slave/free, and male/female are abolished. This radically undermines the patriarchal rationale for condemning same-sex unions. Moreover, the New Testament contains no explicit link between sex and procreation, suggesting new eschatological possibilities.

In concluding rapid-fire questions, Kirk acknowledged that the Bible's human authors like Paul were inevitably shaped by the patriarchal assumptions of their cultural milieu. He believes a process of change on this issue is possible in the church, though it may entail significant disruption and loss. For LGBTQ individuals, he emphasized that they are fully loved and embraced by God, and recommended recent works by Matthew Vines and James Brownson as helpful resources.

If there is a unifying thread in this provocative discussion, it is the ethical imperative to approach these vexed questions with great care, humility, and empathy, recognizing the profound pastoral stakes for LGBTQ individuals and the need for the entire church to engage this conversation with patience, honesty, and mutual respect. Biblical interpretation entails not only discerning the text but embodying its call to love.

Thanks for reading and celebrating with me! This stuff takes a long time to work its way through the culture, but I am hopeful and excited.