The Sean McDowell Show - Preferred Pronouns: A Christian Debate.

Episode Date: September 10, 2024

Should Christians use preferred pronouns? Is it an act of respect and charity, or is it compromising the creation narrative? How can Christians navigate relationships when people want them to use preferred pronouns? In this engaging dialogue, Sean and Biola communications professor Dr. Tim Muehlhoff discuss these questions and more. In co-writing their book End the Stalemate, Sean and Tim realized they have much in common, but also some practical and biblical differences about how and when to use (and not use) preferred pronouns. They aim to model a healthy dialogue about a contentious issue. READ: End the Stalemate, by Sean McDowell & Tim Muehlhoff (https://amzn.to/3WjBRqw) *Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf) *USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for 25% off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM) *See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK) FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sean_McDowell TikTok: @sean_mcdowell Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/ Website: https://seanmcdowell.org

Should Christians use preferred pronouns or not? What is at stake with this issue, relationally and for the church in our cultural moment? I'm here to have a conversation with a friend of mine, a Biola colleague, communications professor, and also co-author of mine in a book called End of the Stalemate. They can sniff it out in a second that you're not being charitable. I lean towards it being an issue of wisdom. I would not use preferred pronouns in the vast majority of cases.

Okay, but go to Acts 16. Circumcising Timothy is fascinating. I think these are very, I don't think it's comparable. My highest goal isn't to keep the relationship. It is to speak God's truth. Now, this conversation came up because that book is written to talk about

how to communicate across worldview differences. In the last chapter, we found some differences we had, kind of flushed them out. And I thought, all right, we see this issue differently in some fashion. Let's model for people how to disagree well and ultimately just bring some clarity on this issue that, frankly, there's not a lot of clarity and grace often taking place in how it communicates. So before we jump in, tell us what you hope to get out of this conversation. I think, Sean, honestly, there are certain issues that are really dividing Christians. Agreed.

And I think this has become one of those. I'm the co-director of the Winsome Conviction Project here at Biola. I can honestly say race, politics, this issue is dividing churches. So what I hope to get is, I honestly respect your opinion. I read what you wrote in our book on the stalemate. I see the wisdom in what you're arguing, but I think I would treat it differently in how to have the conversation. I think you and I are going to agree on a ton. Okay. But how do you actually construct the conversations where I think you and I will disagree a little bit.

So I honestly want, what I want to hear you say is what you believe. And let's have a great conversation and ask each other questions and flesh this out. Let's do it. I think we have some direction we want to take it, but who knows where it's going to go. Maybe we could just start with areas that you and I agree on. And I'll give some that I think we agree on, and then you can add some. We obviously agree that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Both teach a Bible, no question about that. We both agree on the importance of defending the faith. You've written a book on apologetics with the great J.P. Moreland. We agree on the importance of defending the faith. You've written a book on apologetics with the great J.P. Moreland.

Yes, absolutely. We agree on the importance of conversation across worldview divides, and we both have a heart for evangelism. So you were on Camp's Crusade for Christ crew for years. My parents still are. I was raised as a crew, and I'm an evangelist and apologist now. And so we differ on this, but those are some of the areas I think we have common ground. Did I miss any? No, I think once we get into the conversation with a person from the LGBTQ community,

a person who's transitioning, a person who's going through gender dysphoria, I think honestly, what we would say to that person is going to be the exact same thing. There'll be little deviation in what we would actually say. I think what we're going to disagree a little bit is how do we set up the conversation so that we can actually get

to the things that we want to say to a person from a biblical standpoint. So here's my modest proposal. My modest proposal is I think using preferred pronouns as a person wants to be referred to, I, as a Christian communicator, should have the freedom to both use them or not use them based on that particular person, that particular circumstance. Book of Proverbs says, a word spoken in the right circumstance is compared to fine jewelry. I think you and I are going to disagree a little bit about how do you actually set up the circumstances and the conversation. Okay. So when you say you have the freedom to do so, you would see this as an agree to disagree issue, a matter of conscience. And by freedom, meaning I won't call you a heretic or say you're in sin. Or if I said, you know what, you can claim this.

I think you're dead wrong. And I think you're sinning. If I do it in a certain fashion, is that stealing your freedom? What exactly do you mean by free to do this? So in the book, we explore this really interesting rhetorical concept. It's called calling in, calling out. I call a person out of a conversation by shaming them. rhetorical concept. It's called calling in, calling out. Okay. I call a person out of a conversation by shaming them. And the way we do this in

Christian circles is like this. Listen, the Bible clearly says, right, if you get this wrong in the Bible, then you can get anything wrong. All of church history is on my side. Anybody who would fairly read the scriptures, anybody who knows the Greek is in my camp, right? That's calling out. Calling in would be, I honestly want to hear what you have to say. I trust your walk with the Lord.

I trust your study of the scriptures. It seems like you and I disagree, but I honestly want to hear what you have to say. I do think there's probably going to be theologians lining up on both sides of this, but I want to hear what has led you to your conclusion. And by the way, in the book, you model this perfectly in giving me the freedom to have my opinion. You say it's a matter of conscience. I really appreciate you affording me that, even though we both disagree. That's calling in. We've got to call people into these hard conversations about areas that I think are disputable. We're not talking historical doctrinal issues, right?

Salvation found in Christ alone in the inerrancy of scripture. Sure. We're talking about these issues that I think there's room for good people to disagree. And again, we're going to agree with what we actually say to a person. We're going to disagree on how to construct or start the conversation. Gotcha.

Okay, so of course, this is where some of the debate is going to come in is you said this is a disputable issue. That's an assumption that it's a disputable issue and we might dispute that. But with that said, things like if I said, hey, same sex marriage is fine. Is that one that's more black and white for you that you wouldn't say? I just have the freedom to hold this within the church. That's when you say scripture has spoken to made clear. Now, if somebody, you would still, because I know you, you'd still lean in and say, I want to understand your position. Let's go to scripture. Like you would engage that person well, but that's a very different issue than preferred pronouns as you see it. Is that fair?

So let's say a brother or sister in the faith who believes we're just totally misreading Paul. Paul would not condemn same-sex marriage. He wouldn't even think in those categories. He's most likely talking about pederasty. That is not my position. That's not your position. That's not Biola's position. I still would call them into the conversation. I would say, okay, that's an interesting reading of Paul. Tell me more about that. And could you provide a couple of theologians, Christian writers, Christian thinkers that have led you to that? Supported that. Yeah. And maybe even people from church history that you think, right, I'm calling them in, we're calling out would be, look, brother, you can't find one ancient theologian who's going

to go with anything you're about to say. I think if we misread Paul on this issue, then come on, we can misread him on, that's calling out. Okay. But there does come a point since you framed it with a brother where you call somebody out, right? If I'm individually having a conversation with somebody, I'm going to approach it the way you did about same-sex marriage have many times. On a public platform or in a church, there's a different kind of rhetoric you might use. Now, we're getting somewhat aside, but just want to make sure we're on the same page. But this is a great point. Calling in, calling out. Yeah.

So, and my colleague, Rick Langer, who we both really respect. We wrote a book called Winsome Persuasion, where we identified three voices. The pastoral voice, the prophetic voice, and the persuasive voice. We see all three in scripture. When I'm sitting now with a brother who is really wrestling with same-sex marriage, right? And he's wrestling with it biblically for whatever reasons, I may stick into the pastoral voice to find out what's happening. Like your life is turned upside down. You're wrestling with issues you once never questioned. Now you're really questioning them. I think I start with the

pastoral voice to say, as a brother in Christ, I want to hear what's going on. As he begins to present his argument, I'm going to shift to the persuasive voice to say, but is that a fair way to read Paul? Like, I understand pederasty is part of it, but I can't believe the way he phrases it. It's all of it. But the pastoral, and again, we cover this and end this down with the ritual view of communication.

First, I want to establish that bond. Then I want to get to transmission where I present my biblical arguments for why I think he's misreading Paul. Okay, fair enough. The only point I would say is there's a time to call in individually, and there's a time to call out corporately when someone denies the Trinity, denies salvation by faith. And I would say it has an unbiblical view of the nature of marriage. And so you are putting, you don't have to defend this right now, but you're putting the area of using preferred pronouns in a disputable area amongst Christians. We'll get to

that, but that's where some of the debate is. Maybe it'd be helpful if we lay out our, just kind of the positions that are out there so people understand. And so I think there's a few positions. There's pronoun hospitality that says it's wise to use a preferred pronoun to keep the conversation going. It's a sign of – Could that be like Preston, Preston Sprinkle? Yeah, so Preston Sprinkle wouldn't – he wouldn't tell me necessarily as far as I understand that I am wrong to not do that. In his book, he lays out, which I appreciate, he steelmans arguments for and against and says, this is what I favor and here's why. So that's his approach to it. There might be some people that say you're sinning if you don't use a preferred pronoun, but I haven't heard him going that far. And then there's some on the other side that would more say it's wrong to do. Actually, they would look

at the arguments and say, okay, I see for and against, but I prefer not using it. That's my personal conviction before the Lord. So kind of the opposite point that Preston takes. And then there's some that would say, it's not just an issue of wisdom. It's an issue of morality. Right. So if you use preferred pronouns, you are sinning in doing so and, in fact, should repent. And you're sinning by how? What's the sin of using preferred pronouns? Oh, you're affirming something that's false to this person.

And you are, yeah, that would be the quick response. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that would be the quick response. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yep. And you're also, the argument would be, there's a certain ideology and worldview behind using a preferred pronoun that cannot be separated from it. Christians should not affirm that. And there's other arguments for it, but those are basically the positions. I lean towards it being an issue of wisdom.

I would not use preferred pronouns in the vast majority of cases, and we could flesh out what some of those are, but I'm increasingly concerned in most cases with Christians doing so and have a lot of sympathy for people saying we should not give ground on this issue. That's kind of where I lean,

but I would say, I don't think you're a hair ticker. We wouldn't be having this book together. But you would crack the door open that there might be some scenarios where you just said that you would use preferred pronouns. Yes. So let me come to that. That'd be interesting. And we can. So I think I've laid out kind of how I see this. Tell me just kind of where you stand so we understand, then we'll probe out the details. Yeah, I'm in the middle category. I believe good Christians can disagree on this issue.

I think the way you phrase it, which I appreciate, it's a matter of conscience before the Lord. So if your conscience, your study of Scripture, the leading of the Holy Spirit, dictates that you would not use preferred pronouns. I would not denigrate you for doing that. I would enter into a conversation like we're about to have of saying, unpack that for me, because I actually think there's biblical precedent, which we're going to get to. I think how Paul addresses Jews in Acts 16 and men of Athens in Acts 17, but then he goes a different direction in Galatians, I think sets the principle for what I would call language hospitality, but I'd rather say language flexibility. Okay. language hospitality, but I'd rather say language flexibility. That I can be flexible and look at the big picture,

not just isolate the conversation into segments. And that's a mistake, I think, people make with, if I use your preferred pronoun, that is not the entire conversation. It's one little segment of the conversation, and I have the chance to present God's view of biblical sexuality, so I don't think I'm in danger of feeding into a false narrative. Now, if all I did was use the pronoun, but we never had a conversation, then I think there could be some danger of me feeding in. But can I mention, so my proposition is a matter of conscience.

As a Christian communicator, there are clearly times I would use preferred pronouns, probably the majority of the time. But I can think of scenarios where I wouldn't use them. For instance, we both have done debates. You have done many more than me. But if somebody was really pushing me in a corner, in a debate, saying you must use preferred pronouns, I'm pushing back. I'm saying, oh, let me give you some reasons why I wouldn't use preferred pronouns. Don't push me in that corner, but that's a debate. If I'm having more of a sensitive conversation with a person, by the way, providentially, just a week ago, I had a conversation with a set of parents who are raising a child in gender dysphoria, who does not believe this child identifies as a boy or a girl. So the persuasive voice, but I've not gone to the pastoral voice yet. ritual view of communication and seek to have bonds. So I would, with that person,

I would use whatever pronoun they want me to use, I would use in deference so that I can have a conversation about God's view of sexuality. Now, in this particular case, that conversation would have stopped on a dime. If I would have said, yeah, okay, can conversation would have stopped on a dime. Okay. If I would have said, yeah, okay, can we just have a quick talk about the pronoun quickly?

I just in good conscience can't do that, but I really do want to talk about your child. I really do want to talk about you, but just know that I can't do that. He literally said to me, then this conversation would end. Now, I have a choice to make at that moment. Do I end it because I put preconditions on the conversation or do I continue it and give deference to him where I can unpack? So can I make one quick point? You just made about seven points that I need to respond to. Seven. I know, this is my favorite strategy. So I let you loose and you're just. I'm going to run out the clock.

No, go. Go. You were talking about, if I understood you correctly, that the time you wouldn't use it is like in a debate, which almost never happens. That's one example. Or, in the conversation, I pick up that a

person is really reading into that. Like, because I'm using your preferred pronoun, you think I'm supporting. I agree with A, B, or C. I would step in right then and say, hey, in fairness to me, I think you're reading a lot into my pronoun usage. And let me just say, I don't read, we're having this conversation right now. I would correct that if I perceived it was happening. Got it. So the vast majority of times you would use it.

I probably would. As a whole. Okay. So for me, I come across it differently. The vast majority of times I wouldn't use it. There are only certain exceptions I could possibly think through in which I might. I can tell you I certainly wouldn't with kids. I would not use it with kids, especially with a minor, probably ever.

I can't think of a scenario in which I would. Possibly in certain business, professional settings for people, we'd have to flesh out what that looks like and what it costs them. I do think with that said, we as Christians need to develop what John Stone Street has said, a theology of getting fired. In other words, there are certain things that are going to cost us, and we have to be prepared for that. I could anticipate possibly if I'm in a relationship with somebody and I've been able to hear out their worldview, where they're coming from, sympathetic awareness as best as I can. And then they're willing to hear out where I'm coming from and really understand what it costs me to use a preferred pronoun. Then in relationship with that person, I might consider doing so. Oh, I might.

Yeah. I'm just giving you ways that I'm open to being persuaded to. But as a whole, those are very few and very far in between. So to give you an example, the parents with a child, I've had these kind of conversations, and I don't think it's either just, hey, here's where I stand, sorry, conversation is done. My principle is to be as charitable as I can be and lean in as much as I can without violating my conscience.

So I would try to lean into that person. I would say something effective. And I don't know exactly how the scenario played out for you. I'd say, do you mind telling me about that? How you're parenting your kid? Why you're parenting this way? Why this is so important to you in terms of being in a relationship with me?

I would love to hear you out. And then I can tell you where I'm coming from. You've requested me something. But I just have to understand where you're coming from. Now, if that person goes, sorry, you're out. Tell me. To me, I'm being as charitable as I can be without contributing to something this couple is doing to their child that I think is profoundly harmful. So this is what the parents said to me. They can sniff it out in a second that you're not

being charitable in two ways. One, you never mention my child's name, which is clearly a name that goes counter. Second, you never use a pronoun. You never use a pronoun. And they would see that as being uncharitable. So if in this scenario, the parents make it clear out of respect to us, if we're going to talk about my child, would you refer to my child as they, them? You would not bite and draw an end to the conversation? So we're talking about being charitable and you can talk about respect and talk about showing dignity.

And there's a clash of worldviews that might be taken here in terms of how people interpret charity, how they interpret respect, how they interpret dignity. I am going to be charitable according to a Christian worldview, right? If somebody doesn't receive that and grasp that, I can't force them to do so. So the way you frame that was this is not being charitable. I'm going, I'm being as charitable as I possibly can within my own worldview. No, this is good. This is good.

So I think I'm going to lean in and go, okay. So, and again, this is all hypothetical because I don't know these people and we're kind of inventing this, but I'm going to do everything I possibly can. But we're not inventing it for me. No, for me. This is all secondhand. I get it. But I'm going to do everything I can to just lean in and try to stay in relationship with that person. But when it's all said and done, that ongoing relationship is not the highest good within itself. I mean, at some point, at some point,

if these people are enabling this transition of their kid, which starts with a name and what we're told from the organizations that lead this and the medical professionals so many times is then it's hormone treatment and it's puberty blockers and it's transition. If I'm using the pronoun to stay in that relationship, I would feel a sense of culpability

for what they're doing to their kids. Because you perceive, what's the fear? You perceive that by using the pronoun, finish that sentence, I feel like they may what? Misinterpret me? No, I feel like they may what? Misinterpret me? No, I feel like I'm communicating something that's clearly not true to them and enabling a certain faulty, harmful worldview that they are telling their kids and buying into. And I think a lot of

the scientific data shows that affirming kids' gender dysphoria at an early age where this goes is harmful. And so – And I would – so I'm very sympathetic to all of that. Again, we're back to having a disagreement of the – and again, I totally appreciate what you said. My highest goal isn't to keep the relationship. Okay. That's not my highest goal. It is to speak God's truth.

If I, because that's what's gonna holistically minister to both the parents and the child is God's truth about sexuality. We agree on that. So I can't, if I'm always just keeping my mouth quiet and we never get to where I get to voice my opinion and what God's word says, then I think I'm making some bad decisions.

But Sean, what's interesting is, I think we assume that they're going to interpret it a certain kind of way, our use of pronouns. So I came across a study that I thought was absolutely fascinating. And the study was from Gregory Coles from the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, where he actually interviews trans people asking them this question. How do you interpret when a person doesn't use preferred pronouns, and what do you interpret it if they do?

And again, it's a qualitative study. But some of these quotes are fascinating. A female transitioning to a male. When people aggressively use female pronouns for me, I feel shamed, invisible, and sidelined. Exactly what I don't want to communicate. Mark Yarhouse, who- Yeah, we've had him on the podcast. We appreciate. He said this, I thought fascinating. He said, using preferred pronouns, it is an act of respect. Even if we disagree to let the person determine what they will want to be called, if we can't

grant them that, it's going to be next to impossible to establish any sort of relationship with them, long-term relationship where I get to speak God's truth. So I don't think I'm feeding into a false narrative with that person. I'm giving him dignity. Now, interesting he asked the second question. Okay, a Christian uses preferred pronouns. How do you read into that? Here's how one person said, using my pronouns didn't mean people agreed with me or my decision to transition.

It just meant that they viewed me as equally human and deserving of respect. Exactly what I want to communicate. And again, we don't want to take this conversation and just break it into my using pronouns. Of course. Without the rest of the conversation where I get to present God's view, thus moving away from, if you're misreading my use of pronouns. So respond to that. Then I want to actually, because I teach rhetoric classes, I want to go to the Apostle Paul.

We can do that. And I think he sets a principle that I think it'd be good for us at least to wrestle with and acknowledge what he tried to do. So respond to these. So I guess in general, you know, dignity and respect. I want to show people dignity. i want to show people dignity i want to show people respect obviously you don't want to dehumanize somebody the question is is not using a preferred pronoun that somebody sets up a barrier and a use of language that i would take issue with and in

terms of my faith and what it means to be human, what it means to show dignity, what actually means to love somebody as a barrier to being in relationship with you. It's somewhat of a power play, so to speak. It is in terms of intent. I will only be in relationship with you if you adopt a certain kind of language that is embedded within a certain worldview, I would take issue with that and be concerned with how much me leaning into this, even though you say, well, I understand what this person means by it. I still think in ways you are adopting a certain worldview that's not helpful. As a whole, that would be my concern. So I have other questions I would follow up on that one with. Okay, if I thought it was a power play,

if I thought it was that, that would move me in a different direction. So I want to concede that. If I thought this is just a power play that they're trying to bully me rhetorically, that's going to evoke a different kind of response. I do not get that from the trans people I talk to. I don't get that this is a power play.

The parent that I talk to literally said this. Not using a preferred pronoun is hitting me down when I'm at the lowest I've ever been as a parent. And I think when Paul says, to the weak I become the weak, some theologians have said. Yeah. Okay, some theologians have said.

But all right, so I get from your nonverbals. Having a PhD in communication, I suddenly... That's what it took to communicate that. Okay, but let me... So going to Paul to talk about that foreign communication, I know. I suddenly. That's what it took to communicate that. Okay. So going to Paul to talk about that foreign communication, I think is hugely different than the entire idea of what. I don't think so at all. Transgender ideology means today. These are very, very different things.

And maybe we'll get to this in Acts chapter 16. Okay. Now saying I'm trying to control you is not the kind of power play that I'm talking about. I'm talking about it's a barrier to communication that has been set up by one side. Right. That entails a certain view of what it means to be human. And I'm going to have to buy into a certain view of what it means to be human. And I'm going to have to buy into a certain view of what it means to be human. So it doesn't move you that that trans person just said in that study. I'm not reading into that. I'm not reading into you're using a preferred pronoun. I'm not suddenly thinking you're buying

my worldview. You're showing me dignity and respect. That's coming from... Okay. So let me take a step back. There's a big difference. If I'm sitting down with somebody one-on-one and I am flushing out all of these together in relationship and they understand it, that's a different thing than the larger communication climate

that's taking place in our culture. Oh, I agree. It's not just individuals. There is a narrative. There is an ideology. There is a worldview behind this that cannot be separated from it. That's where it changed the conversation. So of course it moves me on a human level, not agreeing to do so.

It doesn't mean it doesn't move me and I don't have sympathy for it. That's not my reason for refusing to do so. Sure, I hear sympathy behind it. I think, yes. I think many of us will say, I'm sitting down at Starbucks with a heartbroken parent trying to raise a child who has gender dysphoria, right? And to feel the heartbreakness of it, where a child, when you leave, says, mommy, I think the doctor made a mistake. I'm not a boy. I mean, I would hope the listeners would say, I need to sit in that pain for a while. I need to sit and feel that pain, right? Absolutely. Okay. Of course. But don't be so, like, I know you, I know you would do that in a heartbeat. Being with the Winsome Conviction

Project, I got to tell you, there's a lot of people who wouldn't even do that, who wouldn't even afford that kind of empathy. We very much determine who deserves empathy or not within our political social disagreements. Because we're afraid empathy implies agreement all the time. Okay, so let me, before I forget, let me take a step back. That study is interesting. Here's a question that I would have. If the root of that study is,

these people say, oh, you're not agreeing with me and you can disagree. My follow-up question for all of them would be, do you understand what my position really is and why I disagree? I almost guarantee you people interviewed would not be able to articulate well what that reservation is. So they think they do, think we're not agreeing. So it's really not the parity that's being implied with, oh, they get where I'm coming from. Let's enter into communication on this.

So that would be a certain pause I would have with taking that study too far within itself to use preferred pronouns. I'd want that follow-up study to see. Okay, this may be controversial. I was at a pastor's conference. I said, hypothetical, you're having lunch with Caitlyn Jenner.

You're having lunch with Caitlyn, Bruce Jenner, one of the top Olympians we've ever had, right? On the cover of weedy boxes everywhere. But you're having lunch with Caitlyn. Okay. Do you refer to Bruce as Caitlyn? I took a survey, a quick survey. I mean, this is unscientific, but raise your hand if you would say I would not use Caitlin. Take a guess percentage-wise. Oh, gosh. I have no idea. How many people say I would not use the name?

I literally have no idea. Probably half. 80%. Oh, it was overwhelming. Okay. I said, even if... I said, let me re-ask the question. Okay.

Even if it would end the conversation on the spot, would you still not use it? Same numbers. I would end the conversation with a chance to share God's view of sexuality because I will not use the preferred name of a person. I think we're putting the barriers. They're not putting the barriers. I think we're saying there are certain preconditions to this conversation. And I think we want to be careful. And I want to go back, Sean, to- Hang on. Let me comment on Bruce Jenner, Caitlyn Jenner. We're going to be here. Let's do a sleepover.

Let's do a 10-part series where we'll have no listeners at the end. But no, this is such a great topic. This is a great example. I'm so glad you brought this in. Here's what I would say. I would make a distinction between a name that somebody has and between pronouns themselves. That's fascinating. So I think names are arbitrary.

They are. So Caitlin is an invented cultural name and we associate it typically with women. I've never met a man named Caitlin, but I'll tell you when started changing my idea on this is i met a six foot eight african-american basketball player who crossed all the t's and dot all the i's of like masculinity and his name was stephanie this was like 30 years ago i was like okay i'll call you stephanie i guess step or maybe went by stephan at the time right fine that stretched my categories i just said oh that's a name I met a girl by the name of Sean and spelled it the same way that I did

and it's like oh I met a girl named Sean I guess it can go that way so names are really subjective in their cultural bound pronouns are built into he and she mean something I mean we have languages

like Spanish that the world is gendered up. So they are carving up the world in a way that names aren't. So my only point would be. Oh, and I appreciate that. Let me draw this out if I can. My only point would be, I think sometimes we end the conversation too soon. I think 80% of the people there could have said, how can I be more charitable? How can I lean in? But I also think sometimes we go too far on the other side.

Does that make sense? Those 80% of pastors, I'd have no problem standing up saying, why not just use the term Caitlin? That's not a big deal. It doesn't mean what you think it means. People change their name all the time. And by the way, when you're in conversation with somebody, you're not using second, you know, person like he, she, you're saying Caitlin and you. So I think that's a mistake on this side. I think the mistake goes too far this side as well. Go. The only thing I'd push back on, and I really appreciate that. I think the names are different. Okay.

But, but you know Caitlyn looks like now. I mean, so if you're sitting there at lunch and Bruce is dressed like a woman and she wants you to call Caitlyn, we've gotten rid of the nuance of the name. You know what you're doing. You're saying, I'm going to say Caitlyn, you're dressed as a woman,

you're obviously not a woman, but I want to have this conversation. Like if I sat down with the Dalai Lama and he said, please refer to me as your holiness, I'd call him his holiness as we have a conversation about biblical truth. Let me give you another illustration. My wife and I worked with the Maasai village where women are just routinely beaten. They're married off when they're nine, eight, ten. It's just tragic beyond words, Sean. It was one of the most disturbing experiences

Noreen and I have ever had. But we got a chance to go to Maasai Village, where the average husband has six to seven wives. None of the men came to the event. I didn't know Maasai event anyways, but keep going. Okay, so the women were there. First time ever, by the way, I was triple translated. Try to do humor.

Try to do humor. Triple translated. English to Swahili to Masai. Masai, Swahili, English. Wow. But these dear women, we got a chance to speak God's truth. Okay. No man would meet with us except one man happened to be one of the leaders of this village. We meet with him. He introduces me to his six wives. Okay? Now I

have a decision to make right away. Dude, I don't think those are your wives. I wouldn't hold to that. But I will refer to them as your wives because I want to have a conversation about you abusing these women. And if I have to give that deference, to use Paul's language, I will do that in order to have a conversation. Now, again, if all I did was refer to him as the wives and not have the conversation, I think I'm in danger of feeding into his narrative. But we're about to have a conversation about God's view of marriage and all that kind of stuff. Okay, so this is a really interesting example. I don't know that I see him as being parallel

because the Bible affirms that Solomon had many wives, that David had many wives. It's immoral they're not supposed to, but I have no problem. I don't know any Christian would say legally you have many wives. Fine. Wife number one, wife number two. You're not conceding any ground by something that scripture concedes in that way. Now, let me take a step back. When we were talking about Caitlyn Jenner, you referred to Caitlyn Jenner, Bruce Jenner, as a she, right? This is a public forum. And I would say, obviously, I would give pause

and I would say, okay, wait a minute. Where does this idea of referring to a biological male come from. Why should Christians adopt that language when embedded within it is a whole different understanding of what it means to be human, where our dignity comes from, creation itself through that language. So my point is not to pile on you. And my co-host at times, Scott Ray, has been in different fashion. I probably should have dragged him into this. But my point is you're not alone on this.

There's a lot of Christians who will do this. Is Scott more on my side of things? Let's leave Scott out of this. Let's say he is. No, let's. For the sake of this. No, I'm kidding. We love Scott. We love Scott. Let's say he is. No, let's. For the sake of this. No, I'm kidding. Scott, edit this out.

We love Scott. We love Scott. Yes. So the point being, I think it's important to have this conversation in the way that we are with the respects and I think all the dynamic taking place because Christians are on both sides of this. Yeah. It does concern me more and more as I study and I look at this, that idea has brought a lot of pain and hurt objectively to society and especially trickle down to kids. And so even certain voices like Megan Kelly, who's Catholic, has shifted from using pronouns. And she's been incredibly bold and spoken out and saying, wait a minute, there is ideology and practice and a narrative being pushed behind this.

I love people. I want to be as charitable as I can towards people. But because I care for people, I am not going to use that kind of language. That's where I increasingly lean towards. So, you know, in my estimation, as a comm professor professor we just put the transmission above the ritual we just put the transmission saying listen i'm i'm going to give my argument i'm not going to do certain things that would help me establish that bond i'm coming in with my argument i Now, I know that's not you.

And by the way, let me just comment real quick. If using preferred pronouns as a Christian communicator starts to influence my worldview, how I see things, and I'm starting to become fuzzy on the Christian perspective, I need a brother or sister come along and say, I think your attempt to be hospitable is starting to have negative effect on you. I think it's really wise to be in community as we're trying to do this. But similarly, if your use is affecting others, even if it's not affecting you, a Christian brother should say time out, pause. Yes. Right? So, Acts 16. Okay. You get Paul going on his second missionary journey.

He's going into synagogues. He's taking Timothy, who is not circumcised. He has a Greek father. He's not circumcised. Paul is going into synagogues. He's going to want to address a bunch of different issues. One being, what does it mean to be a Jew? Well, you got to follow food laws.

You have to be circumcised and fidelity to the Torah. Paul is going to say to these Jews, listen, there's now going to be a different circumcision, right? This is him going to Colossians. There's now a circumcision of the heart, not done by human hands. It's done by God, okay? I want to address many things in these synagogues. One, the Messiah has come. Two, the circumcision thing, I'm going to be challenging these entry points to God, Yahweh, right? But I'm going to, in deference to you, Acts 16.3, I'm going to circumcise Timothy. I will do that. Now, you can imagine the objection right away to when Paul is talking about this spiritual

circumcision, the Jews are going to say, well, wait, you don't believe that because you had him physically circumcised. If your argument was the spiritual circumcision is what the most important thing is, why would you circumcise Timothy? You're actually going against your argument. Paul's answer, I didn't circumcise him to bring him to God. I circumcised him so that I could speak to you. In deference to you is why I circumcised him. So, go to the Judaizers, right? Now we're in Galatians, and the Judaizers are

Jews who have converted, but they're saying, we're keeping the same entry points. We're keeping circumcision and food laws. Paul says, yeah, Timothy's not getting circumcised. Titus. Titus is not getting circumcised. Can't happen twice, meal off. Yeah, yeah. Woo, heavy bag. Titus, you're not getting circumcised.

Why? Because these are people claiming to be Christians, and I'm really disagreeing with their... So only thing I want to say principle-wise, he had the flexibility to do both. Circumcising Timothy is fascinating. That is interesting. It's interesting. Why? Because he wanted to be in the synagogue, and he wanted to have these robust conversations. Could that circumcision be misunderstood? I think in a heartbeat. By the way, jump to Acts 17.

We know what he thinks about idols. They literally turn his stomach. We know that. Then he gets up and says, I'm a rhetoric professor, so we study Acts 17, Mars Hill. Brilliant. He gets up and he says, men of Athens, your idols are abhorring to God in a front.

Now, why are you smiling? Why are you smiling? I preach on that passage, exactly. He said, men of Athens, I observe that you're religious in every way. Stop right there. Now, if that's all he said, when the shortest speeches of Paul,

he's feeding into probably a false narrative. He never explained it. He just said, men of Athens, I observe you into probably a false narrative. He never explained it. He just said, men of Athens, I observe you're religious in many ways. He goes on to give a brilliant defense against idol worship and the true God. But what was his entry point was, men of Athens, I observe that you're religious. Jews, Timothy is circumcised in deference to you. Now let's have a conversation about spiritual circumcision. Okay, so first off, this is one of the best arguments I think I've heard for this. Can we stop right now?

Are we out of time? You can take that clip and we can go. If I started with Acts 17, I actually give a talk on Acts 17. I bet you kill it. But it's based upon the four things that I learned from you about starting with understanding a position. So Paul is in the city, gets clarity on what they believe, and he quotes their prophets. So we understand it's

second common ground. So he starts by saying men of Athens, I see are very religious. That's just an observation that we are both religious and he's building common ground within his audience. He's not saying anything false or conceding any particular worldview by doing so. He's just building common ground and recognizing where they're coming from. That would be my take on Acts 17, right? Am I wrong with that before we move on? He is, man, he is, as one Acts scholar said. An unnamed Acts scholar. Best way to do it.

I can give it to you. No. I can give it to you. Keep going for a second time. Keep going. This is Craig Blomberg. Right? Who we both respect.

For sure. He said, this is Paul expressing cultural sensitivity. Oh, I agree with sensitivity. He is really going. Okay, but go to Acts 16. Okay, but you just made the point from Bob. But there's a chance that he would be greatly misunderstood. Oh, okay.

I observe that you're religious. Anybody can be misunderstood. I just don't think you could. I agree with you. Common ground, sensitivity, that's just wise, great communication. That's very different than the issue we're discussing here. Would Paul stand up? So I have a hard time believing Paul would stand up and affirm pronouns to have the conversation with people today. Do you really believe Paul or Jesus would? We know that he's not. That's the beauty of this position. We know what Paul, we already got the

cliff notes. We already got the, right? We know what he thinks about these idols. We absolutely know what he thinks. We know what he thinks about gender, right? Calling into question God's view of gender going all the way back to the garden. We know, but we still give an interesting way to frame the conversation that I start with this point of contact that, yes, you are being religious. Without a doubt. Okay. But we're about to unpack that. So no debate about that. We're going to get to Act 16.

Fair enough. But he unpacks it. So if I use a gender pronoun and all I do is use the gender pronoun and there's no conversation, I would say be very careful with how much you're buying into this, how much you're feeding into it. But I'm using it as my entry point to have a robust conversation that the person can receive on God's sexuality. Paul is absolutely setting the stage to be able to talk about idol worship by being sensitive, linguistically hospitable.

He doesn't come out swinging. He comes out with a compliment and even quoting one of their poets. So we have so much in common in terms of like, try to be winsome, try to find common ground, be sensitive, have minimal barriers to conversation that we can. I think we agree with that. We're just differing over how far would Paul accommodate this. So before we go to Acts 16, do you think Paul or Jesus would use preferred pronouns? And by the way, since you brought it up, do you think they would?

You brought up Paul on Acts 17 as an example. Do you think they would use preferred pronouns? If it was a condition, if it was a prior set condition to have a conversation, I think based on Acts 16, in deference, he would use a preferred pronoun in order to have the conversation, right? Because do I get in the synagogue or not? If you're not going to allow me in the synagogue because Timothy is not circumcised, which surely is the case, I'm circumcising Timothy. Let's go in.

I'll have the conversation. I think in principle, that's the preferred pronoun argument, in principle. Okay, so we'll get there. I'll let that settle. We can come back to Jesus or Paul, but I do not think either of them would in any circumstance.

Period. I can't think of hardly any chance where I think Jesus or Paul, especially in a public setting like that, would use a preferred pronoun. Okay, so unpack table fellowship. Unpack table fellowship. Okay, so let's go to Acts 16. This is when he wants to. Okay. So

this is where Paul is bringing Timothy with him to meet with the Jews. They know Timothy has a Greek background and it's not Jewish. Paul doesn't affirm that you need circumcision to be saved or part of the covenant community. Right. They do. So he has Timothy circumcised to be in conversation with them. Is that fair? I don't have the text in front of me. Did I capture that? For the most part. Yeah, let's go with that.

I like how you set that up. You brought it up. I'm trying to make sure I get it right. I guess I would say, do we today still have the freedom to be circumcised or not? Is circumcision in itself a sin? The answer, of course, is you can or you can't. This is an area the scripture says and talks about.

That is not a requirement. It's not the sign of being a part of the covenant community, but we would have the liberty to do so for health reasons or for religious reasons, maybe tying to the Old Testament. I would argue that there's some liberty there that we have with that. That's different than the issue that Paul is doing here, where he just recognizes a barrier to a community that was doing something commanded by God distinctly for that season. I think these are very, I don't think it's comparable between the two. I agree that, remember, I said we're not comparing circumcision to use of pronouns. We're comparing the principle, the communication principle, that in deference, he had him circumcised. Let's not argue circumcision versus using preferred pronouns.

I'm talking about his linguistic fluidity that he had the freedom on one situation to do it. And with Titus, he said, no way am I doing it. It's the principle that I find fascinating that he did this in deference. Okay. I love the term linguistic fluidity, by the way. By the way, we get this from Proverbs, right? You're going to have to. I agree. You're going to have to make sense.

Because he had linguistic community in example A, doesn't mean he had linguistic community in any circumstance whatsoever. I agree. Yeah. Okay. We're on the same page with that. So you're going to have to map it on to the current debate and what's at stake to do so. And so I would totally concede that Paul maybe was risking being misunderstood.

On circumcision, which was a huge deal. I agree with that. I still don't know that it's going to map on to Christians saying, because of this with the Jewish community, the authority that Paul has as an apostle, the nature of how the church is changing, there's so many differences there. I don't see that linguistic fluidity and chance of being misunderstood mapping on to the transgender discussion and debate today culturally. I think you're going to have to, and maybe you do that elsewhere. You're going to have to make some more connections. You get Paul's roadmap, right? You get first Corinthians nine. You say, I become all things to all men that I may win a few

to the weak I become weak. Oh, Sean, that's his playbook. If you ask him, what's your communication philosophy, right? If you say to him, Paul, give it to us. He's going to say, listen, I become all things to all people that I may win them. So absolutely, I become a Jew to a Jew, a Gentile to a Gentile. I think he just gave you his playbook. And that playbook, by the way, I interpret it as being transferable. I mean, he's not speaking to the church at Corinth at that time. He's saying, by the way, future church, I just gave you my rhetorical philosophy, right? Would you not say that's fair to say whatever he's saying in 1 Corinthians 9 is just as relevant to the modern church as it was to the church at Corinth? You would say it's just as relevant? Okay, so I love this principle about Paul becoming all things to all people to reach them.

You and I work hard at that and totally agree on that. And Paul was brilliant at that on Mars Hill. I mean, he just knew his audience and became what they needed. Would Paul say to the point of the two concerns would be as there is an ideology behind this and misrepresenting that the body is a part of the identity. Would Paul do those two things to reach all men? At some point, there's a limit on our communication that Paul would bring in. We might draw that line differently. I think that's really where you and I are different on this.

Hey, can we close this way? Sure. So this was an, actually a risky thing to do in many ways, what we just did. I mean, you and I are,

we're going to, we're literally going to go have lunch. We are literally going to go have lunch. But why do you think this worked? I can think of a lot of my Christian friends, this would not work. Why do you think you and I could be honest with each other, push back, be a little vulnerable,

maybe bring up issues we weren't totally ready to go into? Why do you think this works between us, that we could have this kind of conversation in front of all your followers? That's a great question. I'll give you my thoughts, and then I want to know what you think. I think there's a deep trust between us i trust you i know that you trust me i don't i don't think either one of us are trying to win an argument

where somebody says tim owned sean sean owned tim i'm not interested in that there's too much at stake i've thought about this a lot and gone back and forth and maybe I'll shift my point at some time. And I think you would too, if persuaded. So I don't think we have a mindset that I've just got to win and get views by owning somebody. I think there's a genuine sense of, we also, I think you and I enjoy the kind of conversation. Like there's fun.

I could see you smile. And I'm like, you're like, one time you even gave me the hand. You're like, slow down. I'm like, you're right. I'm going a little too aggressive here just because I want to jump in and I love it. I think there's that sense we've learned to enjoy. There's a joy of communication and asking questions that are at stake. And I, I hope that we both listen to each other. You do probably better than I do conceding. Like, that's a really good point. And I appreciate that. And I understand like you do that better than I do. I think that

helped it work. What else do you see? Well, I would say ditto to all of that. I would add that we're colleagues. We both believe in the mission. I've watched you your entire life do this. Yeah. And it's been good. I think we're fans of each other I don't think we would ever use an opportunity like this to try to get one up on each other I think that's the trust part of our communication climate

so there'd be few people I'd come on with a pronoun disagreement I'd think long and hard because it's become a very toxic issue within the church. But I trust the fact that we're not gonna try to zing each other or win the debate, like you said. So I really felt like, I'm gonna do this. I'm gonna do this with Sean.

And I felt like it was good. There's probably things I'm gonna go do this. I'm going to do this with Sean. And I felt like it was good. There's probably things I'm going to go back and watch this and go, oh, I probably shouldn't have said it that way. But I trust the fact that you and I were calling us into the conversation, not calling us out and trying to shame or one up each other. I'm glad. I'm glad to feel that way. And by the way, this morning we were talking about where this conversation was going to go. I did not have time to prep and I don't like doing that, but hopefully we've thought about this.

There's mutual respect, right time and right place. You can have these kinds of conversations. So thanks for doing this. You made a lot of good points. I want to go back and study that Acts 16 passage in some more depth and really unpack that, see if there's something to it. And above all else, I appreciate your desire to be in conversation with people.

Even if some people watching this differ and go, ah, Tim has given too much. Fine. We can have that conversation. But I know your heart is the gospel. It's scripture. It's life transformation. I know that's where you're coming from. And so I think that's why we can have this

even if we differ. So love you, my friend. This is fun. We'll do it again. Thanks for watching this conversation between two Biola colleagues on such a sensitive topic as pronoun usage. This is a part of the Think Biblically podcast

brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola Universities. I'm not even gonna say if you have questions. I'm going to assume that you do. Send them to thinkbiblicallyatbiola.edu, thinkbiblicallyatbiola.edu. And make sure you hit subscribe. And above all else, remember, think biblically about everything.