Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 169 | Consent

Episode Date: October 2, 2019

When consent is not subject to absolute truth, it is used to justify anything the god of Self demands, and the god of Self always chooses convenience. 

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.

Hey, guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. I hope everyone has had a good week so far. I had a replay on Monday of one of the most listened to podcast episodes that we have had so far. Sometimes I do that if for whatever reason I am unable to record. But I hope that you guys enjoyed that. I got a lot. lot of messages from you guys saying that you did and that is great. I know that a lot of you wanted me to talk about impeachment today and I probably seem like the worst podcast host ever because I posted a poll on my Instagram stories and you guys, most of you, it was a slim margin, but most of you said that you wanted me to talk about impeachment and I'm not talking about impeachment. I really do truly care about what you guys want me to talk about pretty much. You guys totally dictate. the content of this podcast. But this particular time, I just couldn't wade into those waters. I kind of missed the first part of that news cycle. Once you've missed a big news cycle like this or at least a

section of it, it's really hard to get into it. And I feel like so many people have talked about it. And it's so convoluted at this point that I'm just not going to dedicate this episode to that. Maybe I will in the future if it gets to the point where I feel like I really have to. It's an important thing to read about, but you can go online and you can read about it. There are other podcasts that talk about it. Not that I would ever redirect to away from relatable. But today we are going to talk about an important subject that I think has more cultural and social significance and much longer lasting significance and theological significance than the political moments that we're going through right now with potential impeachment and everything that goes along with that. Today, we are

going to talk about consent. Now, in FYI, for those of you moms who are riding in the car with your little children or maybe you listen to this at night as you are getting food ready for your kids. Those are some of the scenarios that some of you guys have told me as you're listening to my podcast that you are in. This is a PG-13 episode just a little bit. There are some words, some ideas that are mentioned that you probably, I would guess, are not ready to talk about with your little kids. So I just wanted to let you know about that before we get started, but we are going to talk about consent. It seems like a random topic to discuss, but it's actually a central question in our society's conversations about morality, especially

pertaining to sex, but not exclusively pertaining to sex. A consent is used as the moral standard for many things concerning the body, from sex to hormone therapy, to abortion, to assisted suicide. So we are going to talk about if that is a good enough, an effective moral standard for us to abide by... Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort, we ask the hard questions and follow the answers

wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. So about consent, like I said, this is a central component of our conversation today about morality, particularly, particularly as it pertains to sexuality and to sex. We hear that as long as something is consensual, it is okay. We hear this a lot in these kinds of conversations.

We are going to talk about this not just from a moral and a logical perspective, but of course from a biblical perspective as well. I think it is important for Christians to be able to talk about this in a way that makes logical and moral and theological sense. So starting with the basics, what is consent. All of you, I'm sure know the definition. Consent is permission given to someone. Consent is an explicit agreement to something. We hear about consent most often when it pertains to two people in a sexual relationship. A non-consensual sex would obviously be known as rape.

From the secular point of view, or from the secular world, we hear that as long as everyone involved in any kind of sexual act or relationship consents to what is going on, then this is not only permissible, but it is considered good. That is the only qualification for morality when it comes to sex in the secular world today. You have probably heard of the idea, well, it's actually not the only qualification, but we're going to get into the stipulations in a little bit and talk about why it doesn't make sense. You have probably heard the idea of ethical non-monogamy. It was invoked, to talk about this a few years ago.

People still talk about it. This is something that people engage in that comes in many forms, according to the experts over at Huffington Post, it can range from open relationships to swinging relationships to three-person relationships, relationships that are only sexual relationships that are committed and emotional. Brides.com, of all places, actually gives us some insight into what ethical non-monogamy is. So in describing ethical non-monogamy, writer Gigi Engel says this, a question often asked is, wait. If you're already having loads of sex with other people, aren't you being unethical A.F? This is a quote from the article.

Aren't we supposed to honor marriage and keep it in our pants? Well, here is her answer to that, Ms. Gigi's answer on brides.com. There is nothing inherently wrong with being in an open, non-monogamous relationship. There's only something wrong if your partner doesn't know you're in an open relationship. You guessed it, cheating. Cheating is betrayal. It is unethical and wrong. An open relationship is not cheating. Let's say it together. An open relationship does not constitute cheating. When a relationship is open in whatever form that takes for the couple in question, everyone involved knows what is going on. Everyone is happy with the setup. The honesty is key. So that's how brides.com describes this ethical non-monogamy. It is ethical because people are being honest and open and everyone

is consenting. So as long as everyone is in agreement, it is all okay no matter what and we should accept it and celebrate it. It is also used, consent is also used to defend the right of people and even young minors to engage in things like hormonal therapy to alter their hormones to begin to physically change their bodies or physically favor, not turn into, but physically favor the opposite sex. This is the child's choice and the parents should have no say, our secular world says. This will become a. law by the way if Congress ever is able to pass the Equality Act. But consent isn't just the moral standard used to judge the rightness of people's

sexual behavior or their gender identity, as people call it. It is also used to justify things like assisted suicide, what its advocates call dying with dignity. It is also used to justify in every situation no matter what, for whatever reason, abortion. As long as a woman wants to get an abortion, her 12. is not just okay, but it is good, it is honorable, it is celebrated, it is glorified. In these situations, instead of consent, sometimes you will hear the word autonomy or bodily autonomy. So why is consent or autonomy the standard of the morality of the body? And is it

a trustworthy standard? Consent is an important moral standard. And we will talk about why in just a but consent becomes the only sexual, bodily, moral standard possible in a culture that rejects the God of Scripture and a culture that exchanges the God of Scripture for the God of self. When you do not worship the God of Scripture, you will worship something and the default idol that all of us will worship when we don't worship the Creator, the God of the universe, the only supreme moral lawgiver is the God of self. We will worship ourselves. we will do what we want to do. We will follow what feels good to us. We set our own standards for what is right

and what is wrong based exclusively on what is most advantageous to us. That is why the only barrier that matters to the God of self is autonomy or consent or control that she is approving of and in control of what happens to her. And as the God of Scripture is concerned with his own glory and the things that please him. So the God of self is concerned with her own glory in the things that please her. Just as the God of Scripture is self-referencing for all things truth and all things wisdom and all things righteousness, so the God of self is also self-referencing in all things truth and wisdom and righteousness. But the God of self is very different than the God of Scripture. The God of self is finite. She cannot see the future. She doesn't really understand the past.

She is constantly making mistakes. She is misjudging things. She has very little control over anything. The God of Scripture, however, is infinite. He is not limited by time. He preexisted time as we know it. He knows the future. He sees the past.

He has ever suspended in the eternal now. He is all powerful. He is never surprised. He has never caught off guard. He has never made a mistake. And is himself the source of all knowledge, all wisdom, and all truth. Without him, no absolute truth and no morality exists. at all, which is precisely where we get the moral standard of consent.

Without belief in God, without the belief in a transcendent supreme moral lawgiver, the only reference that we have for what is right and what is wrong is ourselves. And as we are naturally self-seeking, as we are naturally self-protecting creatures, the thing that we determine to make sure of is that everything that happens to us is what we want to happen to us. And furthermore, if we want something to happen to us or we want to do something, then because the self is our God and because gods must be obeyed, we should do it. And no one has any right to judge us for it because who are you to say how I worship my own God?

But like all matters of so-called truth determined by the self, the standard of consent is subjective. It is arbitrary. It is slippery when it is by itself. At first, it is important to note, like we said earlier and said we would explain, that consent is an important standard. The Bible, from a Christian perspective, it is clear about the dignity of human beings and the worth of the human body. Sex is to be between one man and one woman within the covenant of marriage where the husband is instructed to love his wife as he loves himself, to love his wife as Christ loves the church. So self-sacrificially, and the wife is to respect and submit to our loving. husband. In the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 22 also speaks to the evil of sexual assault. But it cannot, consent cannot be the only standard because as we've noticed, it is self-referential

in nature and anything that is self-referential that doesn't reference some higher power or some higher authority is subject to change, to preference changes, to cultural changes, to social and moral changes in a society. That is because autonomy and consent, when not subject, like I said, to a transcendent standard beyond the self, it is used, they are used to justify anything. They can be used to justify anything. So, for example, let us take the case of consent as it pertains to sex. Right now, non-consensual sex between two adults, of course, is considered rape as is a sex between an adult and a minor because of the power differential, the minor is not viewed as having the ability to be able to consent to sex,

so it is still considered rape. But the question is, from the secular point of view, is why? Why is it considered rape? In the state of California, a minor as young as 12 has a legal right to obtain gender affirming therapy without parental consent. So that would include puberty blockers and hormone treatment, very possibly rendering them sterile for the rest of their lives. It hasn't even been fully studied the other kinds of permanent physical harm that this will cause children who go through this type of therapy. But we know that even post-surgery, transgender transgender people are more likely to commit suicide than the rest of the population. This is actually not. There is no statistics whatsoever that prove that this is due to stigma.

It is due to gender dysphoria that is classified as a mental disorder that is not healed by sex reassignment surgery since such surgery does not make a man, a woman, or a woman a man. And this is from the Heritage Foundation. A study in Sweden on adults who underwent sex reassignment surgeries showed that they were 19 times more likely than the general population to commit suicide after undergoing operations. This is particularly noteworthy because in Sweden, cultural support for those who identify as transgender is very strong. So social stigma is less likely to account for the suicides. So all of this to say if a child as young as 12 is able to make decisions for their lives with serious, lifelong, and even fatal consequences simply in the name of

consent and in the name of autonomy, why shouldn't they, by the same logic according to the same people, be able to consent to sex with an adult? What makes consenting sex according to this standard by these people any more serious or any different than choosing to alter your body's chemistry in a futile effort to change your gender. The logic is inconsistent. It just doesn't add up, which is why we will, without a doubt, increasingly see something like the normalization of pedophilia. This is why the language around it is already being sanitized. It is no longer pedophile. The politically a correct term is minor attracted person. This is what happens. when consent and autonomy are our standards of right and wrong. Everything is relative, everything is

subjective. Whatever someone chooses to do must be acknowledged as the right thing to do. The same goes for abortion, where autonomy reigns so supreme that it disregards altogether the well-being and the life of the distinct human being inside of her and sacrifices it a defenseless child on the altar of self in the name of choice by justification of consent. The same child that would have been mourned had she been miscarried by a mother who wanted her. When consent is not subject to absolute truth and an objective standard of morality, it is used to justify anything and everything that the God of self demands. And the God of self always demands that which is most convenient.

The same goes for assisted suicide because euthanasia is how people choose to die. Some people choose to die. it is honored as, quote, dying with dignity. But here again, we see the slippery nature of the standard of consent. Right now, people regard euthanasia as an acceptable choice only when someone has a terminal illness, only when their quality of life is taking a nosedive because of chronic pain or chronic sickness. But again, the question is, why?

Who says it can only be then? If it's about the person's choice, why is suicide ever regarded? with any sort of stigma. Just as someone should be able to get an abortion on demand, no questions asked in the name of choice. Why, by that same standard, should people not be praised for taking their own life in the name of choice? What we see in all of these things is a society that is still wrestling between the values given to us by the God of the universe and the values of the God of self. That is why we see so much cognitive dissonance. The only reason why there are limits, for now to the permissiveness of consent is because, A, we were made in the image of God and something

in us knows right and wrong, and also because the West and particularly America are still conditioned by a Christian biblical ethic, whether we admit it or not. It is the biblical worldview that is solely responsible for any societal limitations that we now see for the standard of consent. In the struggle between a biblical worldview and a secular materialist worldview accounts for this cognitive dissonance that we see. So let me explain that. Here is what that means. The reason why child sex abuse is seen as wrong, but children transitioning without parental

consent is not, is because some people still cling to the Christian ethic of protecting and honoring children. After the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, there was an interesting article for the Theopolis. Institute online titled Jeffrey Epstein was right by Ralph Smith. It is a response to the claim that Epstein made as was reported by the New York Times that Epstein said that criminalizing sex with teenage girls was a cultural aberration and that at times in history it was perfectly acceptable. So that was Epstein's justification for his horrific crimes. As this article on the Theopolis Institute goes on to say, that is absolutely true. Epstein was absolutely right that

not just throughout history, but even today, in ancient Eastern cultures, both children and slaves were seen as sexual objects. There was nothing wrong with using them for sexual satisfaction. This wasn't a crime. It wasn't weird. This wasn't perverted. There was no stigma around this. This was simply what most men did. I mean, that is still the case in most Muslim countries today. Children are still seen in many cases as sexual objects and little girls are even married to adult men. Of course, we know that Muhammad himself married a six-stretched. year old consummated the marriage, had sex with her when she was nine years old. It was not until the spread of Christianity. And then even later, the reformation and the translation of the Bible that changed

how human beings see sex, especially in the West. It was Christianity that emphasized what was already true in Judaism that sex is sacred. Something shared between a man and a woman in the context of marriage and that marriage should be monogamous. All else, the Bible makes clear, is called sexual immorality. The Bible, of course, doesn't give a specific age for what is appropriate for marriage. And we know that cultural standards have changed over time. It wasn't too long ago in the span of old history that men and women were getting married when they were 14 or 15 years old.

That's not the case anymore. There used to not be a gap between a childhood and adulthood. There wasn't this kind of cushion of adolescence where you weren't yet already grown, but you weren't a child that is a relatively new phenomenon, the idea of a teenager is a relatively new phenomenon. As soon as you were able to bear children, you got married and you worked. That was your entire purpose.

But because within the Judeo-Christian ethic and the Judeo-Christian tradition, procreation being fruitful and multiplying, because it is a key purpose of marriage, what is implied is that those who are married are of child-bearing age, that the implication there from the biblical tax, is that people who get married should at least be of childbearing age.

This was a mental shift as Christianity spread throughout the world and later throughout Europe. It is a mentality that has characterized how we have long viewed sex in the United States, even despite efforts to trying to change our mind to move away from this mentality. The author of this article that I've been citing also notes something else that is true. The dignity afforded to women in the Bible and the worth ascribe to children in the Bible is unique among all other religions. Two groups of people typically viewed as objects among many cultures were given legal protection in Mosaic law and were specifically attended to and paid attention to by Jesus Christ.

Jesus locked eyes with the woman caught in adultery. He healed the unclean woman. He spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well. He was seen first after his resurrection by women. Jesus told the little children to come to him after his disciples tried to shoe them away and warned that if anyone causes one of these little children, children to sin, one of these little ones to sin, it would be better that a millstone be hung around his neck and tossed into the depths of the sea. That is what the creator of the universe thinks about

children. The Bible is unique among other religious texts in its instruction to husbands on how to their wives and fathers on how to treat their children. Galasians 318 through 21 says this. Wives submit to your husbands as is fitting to the Lord. Husbands love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents and everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children lest they become discouraged. Of course, this is repeated also in Ephesians 5 and 6. A Christianity is particularly concerned with those on the weak end of the power differential, and the rest of the world simply is not.

They're just not. Christianity is unique in this. There is no logical reason. Outside of the dignity and worth afforded to human beings, as image bears of the God of the Holy Bible to view women and children as anything other than objects for those in power to use and abuse. They will always be physically lesser than men and could very well be taken advantage of, but the Christian ethic protects them and sustains their inherent value.

The innate worth of a human being, more than that of plants or animals, is dictated by God, rooted in creation, is reflected in his plan of redemption for the human soul, through Christ. And it also speaks to why murder and inflicting harm is abhorrent. And even harassment and unkindness is wrong. It speaks to why abortion is evil. A child knitted together in his or her mother's womb. This is why assisted suicide is wrong. These are all an assault on the image of God, the Amago Day. And without this standard of innate human value set by the God of Scripture, consent as a moral rule just doesn't hold up for very long. It is subject to change, based on what the God of self wants.

The materialist worldview does not have an answer as to why something like rape or sexual assault or child abuse is wrong. They can say it's common sense. It's not common sense. There are millions of people in countries around the world who have never and will never consider consent or the age of their sexual partner to be a variable

to be considered and they will not be considered criminals or perverts. Darwinism does not account for morality. If we are just stardust, if we are just matter, if we are just clumps of cells with no significance beyond ourselves, and if the things that we view as right or wrong are strictly determined by what allows humanity to advance, if survival of the fittest is the only qualification for what should or shouldn't be done,

then you have no basis to say that rape is wrong. You've got no basis to say that pedophilia is wrong. You've got no basis to say that any form. form of abortion or infanticide is wrong or that murder or assault is wrong as long as people are reproducing enough for humanity to keep going. You don't have a reason for your morality. You've got no basis to say that anything is wrong outside of what helps you. Why is it wrong to hurt someone else? Why is it wrong to abuse? Why is consent a standard to abide by at all? There is no answer to these things outside of the rules given to us by the transcendent moral

lawgiver, the only true God, the alpha, the omega, the beginning, the end, the source of all wisdom and power and knowledge. That is why consent by itself without this is not a good enough standard. Consent alone without submitting to objective truth and morality leads to the justification of decisions that hurt you and other people. Sexual immorality, harming your body with sex change surgery or hormone blockers, abortion, euthanasia. This is where consent alone, autonomy alone, gets us. It's not a good enough standard. This is also why, by the way, the founders knew that if Americans did not submit themselves to God, the nation wouldn't be free for long. When we are our own gods with our own subjective truths, anarchy ensues, and a centralized power has to step in and

to do something about it. Consent alone is not good enough. The next time you hear someone say as long as two adults or consenting and whatever they do, that's the only moral standard. You as a Christian have something to say to that. That's not biblically true. That's not historically true. It's not logically true. It doesn't make any sense to the moral mind. Because we are all made in the image of God, it bothers us.

There is something about assault that bothers each of us. We should listen to that and then ask ourselves why that is. Okay, so that's all I have to say about that. I did want to, I did want to answer a question that I got on Instagram. So I made a comment about this, a kid's creation book that I was reading that said that Adam and Eve are, or were the son and daughter of God. And the only reason why I'm not completely comfortable with that is the implication that it has.

The implication is that all of God's creatures or all humans on earth are God's children. That's something that we hear a lot. We're all God's children. Well, no, that's not true. we are all made in the image of God and therefore we have inherent value and that is important. That's why you respect the dignity of individuals is because we were all made by God and we are equal and worth and in value in that sense because we are image bears. However, we are not all children of God.

Children of God, son or daughter of God is a name that is reserved for those who have been adopted into God's family by way of Jesus Christ. This is what Romans 8 14 through 17 says, for all who are led by the spirit, of God or sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons by whom we cry, Abba Father. The spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. And if children, then heirs.

Heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified in Him. So there is a stipulation to be called a child of God. all who are led by the Spirit, our Spirit of God are sons of God. That is the qualification. We read in Ephesians that the Spirit is the down payment of our inheritance. It is what is given to us when we become one with Christ. It is being raised from death to life in Christ by way of the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

When we are reconciled to God by Jesus, that is when we are children of God. that is a special name for those who are Christians, who are followers of Christ. It's not true that we are all children of God. Like I said, you can recognize someone's worth, recognize someone's dignity, and recognize if they are an image bearer of God without qualifying them as a child of God. That's just not theologically accurate. And I think it's important to make that distinction when we look at the reflection of adoption and when we look at the metaphor, I guess it's not really a metaphor, but it can be a metaphor of adoption as it pertains to God taking us in as members of his family. He didn't have to do that, but he chose to do that by grace.

And that is why we are not all children of God, but some of us are. That's all I have to say today. I think I was thinking about answering another question, but now I can't think of what it was. So I'll have to save it. If you guys have any recommendations for future episodes, any recommendations for future guests, please let me know. you can message me on Instagram, and I really do. I really am sensitive to what you guys want to hear.

I know we didn't talk about impeachment today, and that's something that you wanted to discuss. I'm sorry for ignoring my poll results. Maybe if you guys really pressure me, I'll talk about it next week. But I'm going to have to take some time to really think about it. Another thing I wanted to talk about and dedicated an entire episode to is climate change. So I'm thinking about doing that next Wednesday. If that's something that you're interested in. Also, I just actually thought about one thing I wanted to address that I know we talked on social media. First of all, thank you so much to those of you who have reached out to me after the vaccine episodes. I know those were controversial. I knew I was going to get pushed back, and that's okay. I totally did not go into that conversation, either of those conversations

thinking that, oh, everyone's going to be totally happy with me. I guess I did naively think that talking to both sides or talking to at least two sides. I know I didn't talk to someone who is like adamantly anti-vaccine. I talked to someone who advocates for people who are anti-vaccine or who are vaccine hesitant or vaccine concern, vaccine questioning, vaccine curious, whatever you want to call it. I didn't talk to someone who is totally on the other end of the spectrum. I talked to people who represented two sides of it, though, and I guess I thought that that would appease people, but it did not appease some people. And that's okay. You can't make everyone happy, but I've gotten so many messages and emails from you guys saying how thankful you were for kind

of non-emotional conversations about vaccines, and I'm very glad to have facilitated that. I might talk about it again in the future. I think it's an important topic. I really do. I don't want to be someone who ignores it just because I'm going to get pushed back every time I talk about it or just because it's going to be controversial. They're going to be people who unfollow me, send me mean crazy messages, leave me one-star reviews, whatever. It's, I mean, yes, it's annoying, but I guess if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And I have decided to be in the kitchen on this issue just a little bit. I mean, I haven't given my opinions because I actually think because this This is such a multifaceted topic.

It's really important for you to hear from experts and to make this decision on your own. It's also a very personal decision. Where I can stand very clearly is on the side, though, of personal liberty. I do get very worried and very wary of bureaucrats forcing you, basically, basically in one way or another, forcing you to vaccinate if that's not something you choose to do. Do I think education is key? Do I think conversations are key? Yes, I do get worried about big government stepping in and saying this is what you have to do with your children. That really concerns me. And again, I think that there's

even more to be said about all of that and more to be explained there. But I just wanted to give that short little announcement. Thank you to you guys. If you were very upset by those conversations, but you're still here, thank you for still being here. I'm glad that we have the opportunity to learn together. That's all I want to do is learn with you guys. So thank you for listening. and I will see you guys back here on Friday. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country

aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives

and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you

about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.