Why do many Christians find historic sexual ethics unconvincing?

I recently went on the Canadian Church Leaders Podcast to talk with Chris Price about how churches can better offer Christ's love and wisdom to LGBT+ people.

At one point, we explored why historic sexual ethics don't seem to be convincing for many modern Christians.

I've said before that I'm confident that historic sexual ethics stand up to intellectual probing and questioning. By my assessment, the evidence for revisionist sexual ethics pales in comparison.

But arguments about sexual ethics are often unconvincing and unhelpful. Why?

At times, the arguments for historic sexual ethics feel irrelevant when faced by affirming arguments that historic sexual ethics bear bad and ugly fruit.

People have an (accurate) sense that if something is true, it should also be good and beautiful. There may be better intellectual arguments for historic sexual ethics, but if the fruit isn't good or beautiful, then isn't something off?

They're right.

Something is off.

But I don't think it's because historic sexual ethics are false. Instead, I think it's because the Church has failed to embody God's wisdom in the way Jesus would.

So instead of stumbling into emotionally-loaded arguments about sexual ethics, what if proponents of historic sexual ethics admitted that something is off?

What if instead of arguing, we got busy transforming our churches into places that actually embody historic sexual ethics in ways that lead to belonging and thriving for LGBT+ Christians?

What if we spent our energies preventing the wounds of the closet, raising the bar for everyone's sexual stewardship, and offering lifelong lived-in family to singles regardless of sexual orientation?

And in the meantime, what if we were quick to admit what's "off" and confessed the sins of the Church against LGBT+ people over the past century?

Listen to the full episode at https://www.ccln.ca/podcast/2023/pietervalk