Theology in the Raw - 688: #688 - Friendship & Theological Disagreements, Why is Gay Sex Sinful, and much more.

Episode Date: August 20, 2018

On episode #688 of Theology in the Raw Preston answers questions submitted by Pateron supporters. Questions covered on the show included: 1) Do you watch Queer Eye on NetFlix? 2) How do you maintain a friendship when there are theological disagreements? 3) Do the stories of the prodigal son, the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, and the prostitute affirm a belief in universalism? 4) What is a book that you would like to see written that you will not write yourself? 5) What are your thoughts on membership and leadership in the church? 6) Why is same-sex sexual behavior sinful? 7) After your mission trip to Nepal, what can American Christians learn from them to improve our relationship with Jesus Christ? Support Preston Support Theology in the Raw for as little as $5/month and gain access to Patreon-only podcasts at https://www.patreon.com/theologyintheraw Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

How can you maintain friendship when there's theological disagreement? What are my thoughts on membership and leadership in the church? And why is gay sex sinful? I'm Preston Sprinkle, and you're listening to Theology in the Raw. Hello, friends. Welcome back to another Theology in the Raw episode. And I have a slew of wonderful questions to get to. I'm not going to get to them all, so I'm probably going to break this up into two parts.

I'll answer a bunch of questions today, and then next week I'll answer a bunch of questions that I didn't get to today. But first, I just want to let you know about a couple of events coming up in Los Angeles and San Diego. On September 25th, I'll be in the kind of North County Los Angeles up in the valley, right between the San Fernando Valley and Simi Valley at Rocky Peak Church, doing a one-day leaders forum. That's September 25th. If you have any interest in engaging questions about faith, sexuality, and gender. This one day leaders forum focuses on the theology of marriage and same sex relationships. It focuses on just

how to relate to people that you might disagree with or how to love and reach out to your gay neighbor. It also focuses on ministry related questions about membership and what to do in this situation and what to do in that situation. And it's an engaging day. You will hear from different people, not just me. We have different people who are going to be speaking at that event. So that's September 25th in Los Angeles. And then again, it's September 27th in San Diego. If you live in the San Diego area, we have a one-day leaders forum in San Diego. I encourage you to sign up for these events sooner than later, because they're probably going to fill up. So go to centerforfaith.com, go to the events page and you can register there.

Okay. Let's jump into some of these questions. The first one comes from a good friend of mine and yeah, Ernesto Duke. What's up, man. Thanks for always sending in such great questions. And, uh, you know, your first, your first question, you just asked if I watched, or if I watch Queer Eye on Netflix to show Queer Eye. And I actually have not seen it yet. I will say that I do try to make it a point to watch, um, shows or films that have to do with, uh, the LGBTQ community or the history of LGBT people. So, you know, for instance, I mean, just orange is a new black or transparent or, um, is transparent even going anymore? I think that might've been put on hold, but, um, and there, there are several others that I do try to stay up to speed on what's going on in media. Um, you know, with regard to how, um, how the LGBTQ community is

being represented and presented. And it's just, it's good for me as a straight person to just try to get inside the shoes of somebody who, uh, grew up in the LGBT community. But thanks for that reminder. I, I, I do want to check this out. And you, you, apparently you seem to recommend it and say it's, it's been really helpful. So I appreciate that. Your next question has to do with maintaining theological diversity amongst friends. You say that you feel like every month you have some random run-in regarding some theological issue, whether it's the atonement, LGBTQ people, women, elders, inerrancy, you name it. I feel this is you talking. I feel like I have this mental list for so many friends and about what things we can and cannot talk about, but you seem pretty open about your wrestling through stuff. And I know you've lost friends. So give me some advice. How do you decide

what things you are going to talk about with your close friends or what things you're just not going to talk about with certain friends in your life? Um, you said you, you've always been a, you know, very open book towards the things you're wrestling with. Uh, so I, I very much, I resonate with this question. And so on the podcast, I, I, how do I say it? I wouldn't have done a podcast if I sort of had to not talk about certain things that I believe in. I, I, if I, if I was going to do a podcast, it would be kind of like, here's who I am podcast, take it or leave it, love it or hate it, listen or not. Like I, that's just, that would be, that was kind of the driving thing behind me even doing a podcast. Now I will say it's, I mean, I'm just sitting here in my basement speaking into a microphone. And so it's,

it is easier for me just to kind of talk about the things that I do on the podcast without names and faces and, and face wrinkles in front of me and, you know, friends that might be upset at what I'm saying or whatever, like it is just psychologically easier to do this on the air. So I don't want all that to say. I don't want to make it sound like because I'm able to do this more freely on a podcast that it's therefore easy to do with certain relationships in person. I am not a total open book theologically with everybody in my life. And I'll throw in, you know, family into that mix as well. And I don't always know where to draw the line. I mean, for me, it's my general principle is I would, I want to talk about certain theological

things with other people if I feel like the conversation will be in some way helpful. But if I know, if I know that the other person, if they, you know, just aggressively disagree with, you know, my position on this or that, and there's no space for dialogue. I maybe, maybe I already know where they're at and I don't buy it. I don't think they have good arguments for it. And I already know that I know in the matter of what I say, they're not going to be convinced. In fact, it's probably, they're probably going to be angry and just like, whatever, then, then I don't, I just don't bring it up. I don't, if I, if I can foresee it to the best of my ability, that's not going to be a profitable conversation,

then I'm not just going to bring it up just to kind of, you know, get it out there or challenge people. And I think this is a personality thing. I'm not a huge peacemaker, but I do have peacemaking kind of tendencies. I don't love to interrupt peace or cause division or disunity. Not that you do or other people do, but some people would say, well, no, we need to speak the truth, you know, at all times. And I am who I am and I can care less kind of like where the chips, what the chips fall, who they may. And I don't really care what the, you know, the backlash is. And, and I actually, despite what

some people think, like, I don't, I have more like, um, peacemaking tendencies in that. I don't want to just, you know, uh, blow up a conversation, you know, just because I want to speak my mind. So, so I don't know, I, I, I'm kind of talking around or maybe in and under and through your question, but, uh, I resonate with it. Um, it does happen. And, uh, yes, I've lost friends and, and, or maybe respect from certain people, or there's been sort of a little wedge between, you know, us because people hear about the things that I, you know, believe in, but I guess I don't, a friend that would be very troubled by certain beliefs that I have isn't really much of a, of a friend.

I don't think, I mean, if he's a Christian or he or she's a Christian friend, uh, then I, I'm going to assume if they're a Christian, they love the Bible. And if they know anything about me,

they know I do too. And I'm going with a text leads. And so I'm not asking for agreement, but I'm asking for at least some respect and appreciation. And if that person, no matter, you know, can, can, can hear my absolutely biblical argument or whatever, and still be like, Oh no, you're still making me nervous. And that's just not really a friend I keep around. So yeah. Anyway, I hope that helps. Uh, I know that doesn't really give there, well,

there really is no magic answer to this. I mean, I think you just have to balance, you know, really give their, well, there really is no magic answer to this. I mean, I think you just have to balance, you know, number one, knowing when it's wise to talk about certain things with certain people. And number two, surround yourselves with friends that would be very okay with you thinking out loud with a biblically centered approach to these questions. And, and the other friends that might be troubled by that, and they probably aren't good people to keep in your life anyway. Next question. I'm reading your book, People You Loved, which you say has been really helpful. So thank you for that.

I'm glad it's been helpful. On page 79, you mentioned the prodigal son, the woman caught in adultery and the prostitute. And in each of these situations, we see the father's embrace of grace prior to their coming to repentance. Do these situations affirm a belief in universalism? No, I don't think they do. You know, these passages focus on Jesus's gracious posture toward especially marginalized sinners, how he reached out with love to all people as we should. we should. It's not really, these passages aren't really talking about the mechanics of, for instance, salvific grace or, you know, the final state of all humanity. I guess that's just not the focus of these passages. Whereas when we talk about universals and that, that is precisely what

we're talking about. If we're going to discuss universals and then we should go to passages in scripture that do discuss final judgment, is final judgment irreversible? Are all people that don't believe in Jesus, whatever, going to receive an irreversible final verdict? And I would argue scripture would say, yes, that is what the Bible teaches. So yeah, I don't think these passages are really directly related to universalism. I mean, if you think about it, we can reach out and love and grace toward all people. This doesn't mean that we are, you know, bestowing salvific grace toward the person, or even when Jesus, you know, loved his enemies, that doesn't necessarily mean that all of his enemies that he's trying to love will be saved in the end. I would say that theologically, when we are talking about salvific grace or the salvific status of somebody,

yeah, I would say that grace and love, divine grace and divine love does precede and even initiate one's repentance. We don't repent under our own raw willpower, but because we are responding to a prior grace that has invaded our lives, whether, you know, through just divine, a divine act, a unilateral act in our life or through somebody else mediating the grace of Christ or whatever. So, yeah. So that means for those of you who are aware of that, I mean, that, that would put me in more of the reform camp in terms of how we understand the mechanics of salvation.

But again, I don't, I don't think these passages are really speaking directly to, uh, universalism, the passages that talk about Jesus reaching out to marginalized people. Next question. Um, what is the next book you want to see written that you will not write yourself? Like a book that I'm like, okay, I'm not going to write it, but I think it needs to be written. This is such a good question. And I sat here for a while. I'm like, how do I answer? I don't know how to answer this. I was thinking through it. And most of the books that came to mind are books that I'm like, well, I kind of want to write that book. So, so I don't know. I mean, so, so the one that really came to mind first is, I mean, obviously there's a lot of stuff in sexuality and gender ethics that I think needs to be written, but still readable, like biblical theology of sexual ethics that it's paying attention to the questions of today. I mean, I don't, there's, there's pretty

much nothing on like a biblical theology of male and female sexed identities with an eye toward transgender and non-binary related questions. I mean, there's a few short ones that are kind of okay, but they're still not like, like really a firmly rooted biblical theology that it kind of addresses some of the pushbacks. I just actually wrote a paper that's available at Center for Faith called A Biblical Conversation About Transgender Identities. It's a fairly long paper. It's free online. You can go read it. But I mean, that's kind of like in a paper form, that's the only thing that I've really seen out there. And I think that paper form could be

expanded into a much larger book. So yeah, a large, thorough, somewhat academic book on a sort of biblical theology of sexuality and gender. I think a short, punchy, yet thoughtful book on what the Bible or on polyamory and sex with robots. I tweeted this a while back because it's, again, this is a book that I'm not sure I won't write, if that makes sense. I think Christians absolutely need to start thinking about polyamory, plural love, or loving more than one person at the same time sexually in a mutual relationship. Not necessarily polygamy, but polyamory has to do with marriage. Typically, it's one man and several women. But polyamory is just plural love. Why can't three people engage in a mutual, consensual, sexual, say committed marital

relationship with each other? And I honestly don't think the standard evangelical sexual ethic has much to say about that. We just, our sexual ethic is so thin and typically not very thoughtful that there's going to be new challenges to the church. And I don't think we're prepared with a robust, thoughtful, compelling, biblical sexual ethic that can address some of these questions. Why is it wrong to have sex with a robot? I don't know if you, I mean, I don't, well, please don't Google. Well, you should Google it, but just don't look at too many websites that are talking about sex with robots. But this is a real thing that's actually becoming something that's going to be significant for the

church in the next few years. Scholars predict by the year 2050, what is that? 30 years that more people will be having sex with robots than with other human beings. Like this is going to be a growing phenomenon. Um, and so we need to start thinking about this now, but again, these are books that I'm like, I don't know. I kind of want to write that book. Um, okay. Here's one that I don't think I'm going to write, or I don't think I'm qualified to write, but I would love to see a book that's kind of like Jonathan Heights, the righteous mind. I've talked about this book that's kind of like Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind. I've talked about this book before.

One of my top five favorite books of all time, Jonathan Haidt, H-A-I-D-T. If you haven't read this book, you got to just stop the podcast, order it on Amazon, and then listen to the rest of the podcast. The Righteous Mind, Why Good People Disagree on Politics and Religion. Now, this is not a Christian book. It just talks about why people have the certain moral views they do and why a big part of the book is why. Why is it so impossible for people to change their minds even when they are presented with superior evidence? superior evidence. What is it psychologically going on that causes people to hold to certain views of the white knuckle grip, even though they know they don't have good reasons for holding onto it. And there's all kinds of things going on. What I would love to see is almost like a Christian, not a Christian version of that, but take Jonathan Haidt's thesis, which I think it's pretty

which I think it's pretty indisputable and apply it to specifically to tribalism within American evangelicalism. I would love to see that book. There's several times in this podcast where I've kind of made a statement, like it's, it's, you know, I've said things like it's psychologically fascinating for me, why certain people have these views. And no matter what I say, they just, just nothing kind of breaks in. And I would love to see a book that, that is psychologically informed. That's very much on par with Height's book, but maybe even explicitly, like, like the first chapter can be summarized in Height and say, okay, now let's, let's look at specific tribalistic debates and postures and things going on in American evangelicalism and let, you know, and truly help us understand

how can we speak to each other in a way that we can receive a critique and, and, and, and extend a gracious posture in how we're presenting our views and how we can truly be open to change my mind. If we are faced with another position or view that's more true than ours and has superior evidence. I would love to see a book like that. Okay. I'm going to keep thinking about that question too. I just, I really threw me a curveball and I, yeah, I'm sure there's other books out there that need to be written. Next question. Our small church, seven years old, is in the process rolling out membership. We're talking through gender, faith, and sexuality. And you say you'd

like to have a low buffer type of church membership, but you've been convinced by me, well, there we go. So he's read Jonathan Knight, that gender sexuality is not a secondary issue. And I think it needs to be part, I think it does need to be part of our membership process, but there's also some disagreement on this within our informal leadership. So yeah, this is, so you have several questions here. Number one, would you write your position into what membership members need to adhere to? Number two, should someone be allowed to say they understand the church's position on this subject, but still disagree and become a member or serve in leadership? And number three, do you believe theological diversity is possible within leadership in this subject?

These are not only are these good questions, but these are questions that are almost word for word questions that we wrestle with at the Leaders Forum. So this church is in LA. Oh, he said I could use the name of the church, Antioch City Church in Northeast LA. So I, yeah, let me, let me, this is such a lame advertisement, I guess, but let me give another shout out to the LA forum. I would honestly recommend bringing you and your leadership to the LA forum on September 25th. It's actually not, if you're in Northeast LA, it's probably, I don't know, maybe half hour, hour from where you're going to be at with this. The conference is in Northwest LA, but yeah, we, we actually talk about these specific questions, like almost word for word. So let me give you the short answer and then maybe chum the waters a bit so that you can actually come to the forum.

We can discuss these live in person. Would love to wrestle with this with your church leadership. So first of all, would you write your position into what members need to adhere to? I would say yes. If you have a policy or expectations for membership. And again, I don't take a one size fits all. When people ask me about membership questions, my next question is, well, tell me about your membership policy. How do you view membership? Is it a rigid policy or is it more loose? Can anybody become a member? Do you have

to be a believer, unbeliever? Do you have to be living faithfully? What does that look like? What, you know, so it really depends on, um, the church's view on membership, but whatever your view, yes, I would say you should put it in writing. And I would say send that written document or documents through a rigorous editorial process, like really get it right. I don't want to rely just on sort of conversations or unstated expectations. I do think it needs to be very clear and written out. What exactly are your expectations for membership, whatever your membership policy is. Now, here's another thing, I would not post it publicly. I think this is an internal document, internal to anybody who is a member or is aspiring to be a member or wants to know what would it look like to be a member. I guess the last two are the same thing, but, um, so yeah, wouldn't post it publicly. I think these kinds of documents, especially when you're dealing with gender and

sexuality, I don't think they belong just on a random website. Now my organization does have stuff on the website, but we're, we're not a church. I think, I think my situation is a little different. So we are much more public with our views on certain things, but that's kind of comes with being a nonprofit that, you know, is focused on helping pastors understand these questions. So, um, yeah, so that'd be my first point. Yes. Write it out, make it available to aspiring members. Number two, should someone be allowed to say they understand the church's position on the subject, but disagree and still become a member and servant leadership? Well, first of all,

I would want to know, you seem to equate membership with leadership. And I know some churches that do, they say, we don't really have a membership policy. The only division between people at the church is between leaders and non-leaders. So if you're a leader, you're kind of a member. If you're not a leader, you're not a member. Other churches have, you know, you can become a member, but you're not quite a leader yet. And then you can move from membership to leadership. And so again, I would need to know what's your relationship between membership and leadership. If you have a more general, broad membership policy for people in the church, and then from that, you have a more general, broad membership policy for people in the church, and then from that, you have a more specific small group, you know, the sort of inner 12 or

whatever that can become members. In other words, all, every leader is a member, but not every member is a leader. If that's kind of more your policy, then I would, with regard to membership, I would lean towards, yes, I think there can be an agree to disagree policy on the beliefs, on what people believe about marriage and sexuality. And I say that, again, I say we'd lean that way. I don't necessarily champion that view or celebrate or think this is the best way to do membership. I guess I'm kind of, it's kind of a, it comes out of a posture of realism that odds are many, if not most of your people are, have all kinds of views on sexuality and gender that go against the church's position.

I mean, that's just the facts of life. That's, that's part of just living in the 20, you know, 21st century in 2018. In fact, quick, quick, quick story. I've got a friend who does a lot of leadership training on these questions in churches. And one of the things he sometimes does is he'll come into a church and ask the senior pastor, how many people in your congregation do you think, you know, affirm same-sex marriage? And the pastor might be, you know, it's a conservative church and the pastor might say, oh, I don't know, maybe, maybe 5%, maybe 10%. And then this guy will do like an

anonymous survey among people. And it's like 50%, 60%. And most people in the church are going to have what I call, oh, they're going to have a very thin sexual ethic or marriage ethic. They, they, they probably haven't like studied both sides and really weighed the evidence. They just, you know, after, um, after the court ruling in 2015 and growing up in the culture that we are, especially in LA, I think a lot of people just kind of absorbed a view of like, yeah, I'm not a bigot. I'm not a racist. And I think, I guess gay people can get married. That's fine. And I guess that's fine for the church too. It's fine for society. And I think a lot of people just, they've just kind of slowly absorbed a cultural narrative. And that cultural narrative hasn't typically been deconstructed by church leaders very often or very well.

So, yeah, I don't think even if like 50% of the church is affirming, I think, I don't think that's necessarily representing a very well thought out kind of position. So all that to say, I would probably lean towards yes, yes, to be a member. You cannot be fully on board yet with the church's position on marriage and sexuality. In terms of a theological view, now, if they're living against that, you might have a membership policy saying, look, we believe marriage is between a man and a woman and all sexual relationships outside that covenant bond are sin. And we're going to hold you accountable to that, whether you're gay, straight or whatever. Um, so if there, if there, there's a difference between believing against the church's position and living against the church's position, I think you need to make that distinction too. And again,

some people are going to say, no, you can believe and live against it and still be a member. And I know people that have membership policies like that. Other people are going to make a distinction. You can believe against, but not live against it. Other people may even say you can, you can kind of secretly hold your position, but, but you can't like teach it or publicize it. And if you do that, you're stirring up, you know, dissent, uh, dissension among the body. So, um, yeah, all that to say, I think you have to really drill down and ask a lot of, uh, several questions about what it means to become a member. The biggest thing is consistency. Whatever your policy is, you've got to hold all people to the same standard. Don't have, you know, biases towards some certain people based on their

sexual orientation. Leadership. I would definitely lean towards no. I think leaders should be on the same general page on this topic. I don't think leaders need to be fully as committed to certain views of sexuality and gender as the rest of leaders. In other words, I think there can be degrees of how knowledgeable they are on the topic and maybe how passionate they are about certain things. I think leaders could be still like, you know, I'm trying to figure this out. I think I'm traditional in terms of my view of marriage, but I'm not sure. I'm reading this book. I'm really challenged by it. Now I need to reading this book. I'm really challenged by it.

Now I need to read this book. I'm kind of sorting through it. I don't think if you're in that stage, you're therefore should be, you know, thrown off the leadership team or something. But this is where I just, I think that leaders need to spend a lot of time as a leadership team in a safe place,

in a room where people can be totally honest with where they're at. And I think they need to study this topic very thoroughly. Yeah. So, and I think as you do that, I think you need to give space for people to kind of grow and learn and be able to disagree on some of the finer points of this discussion. But at the end of the day, if somebody has studied it and has landed on, say, an affirming view of same-sex marriage and they're passionate about that, I think that would be really, I think that'd be hard for that person to stay in a church that's traditional, you know, and vice versa. I think it'd be hard for somebody who has a traditional view of marriage to stay in

a church where the leadership is affirming. I do know some churches that do have that kind of diversity. And it's pretty rare, I think, that it works out well and doesn't end up producing some damage down the road among the body, let alone among the leadership team. So yeah, leadership, I would lean towards, I think they should all be on the same page. Your kind of third question here, do you believe theological diversity is possible within leadership on this topic? And if so, at what level of leadership? Small group leaders, teachers, children's teachers, elders, and so on. I guess it's kind of the same question.

Is it possible? Well, sure, it's possible. Is it healthy and helpful? Well, sure, it's possible. Is it healthy and helpful? I think this is a... I mean, sexuality and gender applies to pretty much every human being, okay? I mean, there may be some people who say, well, I'm asexual, so I can really care less about this. Or I'm non-binary, asexual, male, female, sex.

None of this even interests me or whatever. Okay, that's a very small percentage of people. For most people, this is something they think about every day. We reflect on our gender identity and our sexuality consciously, unconsciously through our behaviors, our actions, our thoughts. I mean, our speech, I mean, it affects so much about how we live. So, um, I, therefore I think that yes, leaders of all sorts,

really leaders kind of a broad term. I like the term influencer people that carry some level, a good level of influence in the church. I think they should be on very similar pages on this question. Now, what if your church is now just starting to talk about sexuality and gender, and you're, you're coming into this conversation with leaders that are not on the same page. So it's not like you're building a church from the ground up and trying to, okay, we are leaders. We need to be on the same page. Let's select

leaders who are on the same page. What if your church is already on different pages? That's a really, that's a tough one. And I, I, yeah, come to the forum and we actually do dive into that question. It's just, it's really hard to answer apart from knowing that the people, the posture, the attitudes, the humility or lack thereof, but the people that are holding their views on both sides of the debate. And so, yeah, that's a big one for me too, is not just whether there's disagreement, but how you are modeling disagreement. Because if you don't model disagreement well, then you're probably going to create lots

of factions and disunity and tribalism within the church. And that's going to be very unhealthy. But I think you could model disagreement in a way that is healthy. disagreement in a way that is healthy. Now, I'm not, I'm just, I am skeptical about even modeling disagreement well on this topic and having that go well, because views on sexuality and gender are so incredibly volatile and are often tied to much larger kind of ways of thinking and how you think through the biblical authority and other questions. So hope that helps. Just kind of, yeah, I didn't really give a black and white answer, but there are a series of questions that I think you guys need to be working through. Next question, why? I'm going to shorten this. It's kind of a longer question here. It has to do with somebody who

read my book, People Will Be Loved, really enjoyed it, but still had a question that wasn't really addressed directly in the book. And that is why is same-sex sexual behavior sinful? This is a great question. And you even say like, is it just like, because the Bible says so, or it can't, it's not procreative or why is it unnatural and so on and so forth? Why is it wrong for somebody to engage in sexual behavior with a person of the same sex if the two are in a loving monogamous marriage? Okay, great question. And I think we need to back up quite a bit and ask the most foundational question, as I said before on podcasts and blogs. Well, let me jump in and give you my actual answer and then I'll back up. My answer, my main overarching answer is why is same-sex sexual behavior sinful?

My main answer is because it's because sex outside of marriage is sinful. You say, well, wait a minute, what if they're married? Then I want to back up and say, well, what is marriage? I'm going to define marriage as a union between two sexually different people. Not, not, I mean, there's other components to marriage, but that is part of the fundamental essence of what marriage is. Marriage is not, biblically speaking, and just throughout Christian global history, marriage is not simply the coming together of a lifelong union between two humans that fall in love. Sex difference is an essential ingredient of what marriage is. So by definition, same-sex

sexual behavior is non-marital from a Christian standpoint. Okay. From a historically Christian standpoint. And I can, well, I've already shown this in blogs and books and so on. I wrote a fairly recent blog called What Is Marriage on the blog, on the centerforfaith.com website, the blog there. So you can read that and I, where I give scriptural proof for what is really not, not, I mean, it's kind of a yawner to say that the Bible says sex difference is necessary for marriage. Like that's just not been something that has ever been questioned until just very recently by people primarily in the West. I mean, globally, Christians still would very much believe and assume that. So, uh, in a sense, that kind of answers the question, uh, all sex outside of marriage is sin and marriage is by definition, a union between sexually different persons.

But beyond that, I mean, I would say that sex is a, I would say I refer to it as a procreative act. procreative act. Procreation is an aspect of sexual expression, which is intended to happen within a marriage. Now, prior to the invention of the pill in the mid 20th century, I mean, this was again, a no brainer. This would be like, why are you even saying something so obvious? Obviously sex is a procreative act, but we, most people listening, have lived in a world that knew nothing other than the pill. And the pill radically reshaped how people think about sex. Once you sever sex from the procreative potential, now procreation becomes kind of an optional add-on. And I think just ethically, it's much, much more than that. add on. And I think just ethically, it's much, much more than that. And when I say sex is a procreative act, that doesn't mean that every sex act leads to procreation. Even very fertile people

will only, well, even very fertile people having lots of sex, those sex acts will only procreate a few times. Maybe, yeah. I mean, sex during pregnancy or sex in old age or, or whatever. Um, and then obviously there's people who are, are infertile, um, where sex does not lead to procreation, but categorically, categorically. Okay. So don't think existentially, don't think just individually, but think categorically sex categorically is a procreative act. That doesn't necessarily mean it will always lead to, uh, procreation. Now, uh, as a procreative act. That doesn't necessarily mean it will always lead to procreation. Now, as a procreative act, it is designed by God to take place within the covenant bond of marriage, which again is by definition, the coming together of two sexually different persons and marriage exists

in part, not in whole, but in part to create a family, which is why sex belongs within the context of marriage. And then, so we can keep going on and on, but you know, you can see where I'm going here. So, um, as for same sex, sexual relationships in particular, aside from the fact that they're just, they're, they can't be marital based on the definition I gave, which again comes from scripture and loads of Christian tradition. I would say that in the actual prohibition passages like Leviticus 18, 22 and Romans 1, 26 and 27, you do see an emphasis on same-sex sexual behavior, confusing God's intention for how sexed humans are to relate to one another. So you see an emphasis on male, female, or gender confusion.

We see this also in passages like 1 Corinthians 11 with the order of church worship and why women are to dress like women and men like men. And we see this in cross-dressing prohibitions in Deuteronomy and other passages that maintain distinction between males and females. And so when it comes to same sex, sexual relationships, this is one of yet another example when scripture says that confuses God's intentions for how set differently sexed humans are to relate to one another. They are not designed to have sex with one another. They are designed to have sex within marriage with people of the opposite or different sex. Uh, I don't know if you're going to buy all that. And some people

were, I was like, Oh my gosh, nope, not on board with any of that. But, um, anyway, I mean, you asked me what I thought about that and nothing I said again is really radical. It may sound radical to some people or maybe like, Oh, I've never heard that or whatever, but this, this was just kind of standard Christian thinking on sexual ethic and marriage prior to, you know, the 20th century. And it's, I think it's very easy to justify biblically from Genesis to Matthew 19, other passages. Last questions, last question, last question. After your most recent mission trip to Nepal, what could us as American Christians learn from them to improve our relationship with Jesus Christ?

Great, great question to end on. I have so much to say about this. Um, what can we learn from the Christians in Nepal? I mean, there are some standard kind of cliched, predictable answers I can give. Like, man, the Christians in Nepal. I mean, there are some standard kind of cliched, predictable answers I can give like, man, the Christians in Nepal, they're just excited to be Christians. I mean,

you pile into these small churches, stuff full of tons of people, it's so hot and humid, and they're just praising Jesus for several hours, you know, and just that the priority of their faith is incredibly evident. And I think it's when you live in a culture where there's no like, I mean, lukewarm Christians are few and far between in places like Nepal, where there is some level of persecution on Christians. It's not illegal to be a Christian. It is legal to convert somebody from a religion. It's not illegal to be a Christian, but there is still informal hostility. It is a radical thing to stand up in Nepal as somebody who's from Nepal and say, I am going to follow this person called Jesus Christ.

That's a radical claim. So you don't have a lot of lukewarm Christianity, either you're, you know, Hindu, maybe you're Buddhist, or maybe a blend of both, or you're, you know, something else, or you're a Christian, like there's no like, you know, cultural Christianity there. And that, I would say that was probably my number one takeaway. I mean, this is my fourth trip to Nepal. So it's always kind of my takeaway saying, man, I just love the, I just love the distinction. Like either you're in or you're out. And if you're in, you're all in, you're all in. That, and one thing my family walked away with was just simplicity.

We came home, we already live pretty simple lives. We drive junker cars. We don't have hardly any, like, we don't have a lot of stuff in our house. We don't, our closets. I swear my teenage daughter, I mean, her closet is like, her closet is like probably a foot wide and she has like three things hanging, which is pretty unique for a teenage daughter. I mean, she's just, she's not, we're not like Amish or anything, but I mean, we just, we don't put a lot of stock in just stuff. Like we, we like to live simply, but even then we came back from Nepal and I swear we threw out two full, full size truckloads of stuff. I remember coming home

and my wife just loves, loves throwing out stuff. Just, it's like, it's like a drug for her. She'll go through the house and just start throwing out stuff. In fact, she texted me that she took a picture of my, some of my books and says, do you need these books? I'm, I think I'm going to get rid of them. And it looked, it was like, it was actually Calvin's commentaries. And I'm like, I haven't looked at Calvin's commentary in probably 20 years. I'm like, yeah, you can throw away Calvin's commentaries. I could probably get it online for free anyway. So, so yeah, we came home and just said, all right, we need, we need to simplify our life. And I was like, our lives are still pretty simple, but, but we end up throwing out tons of stuff just because it's just, it just, I mean, a cluttered life can just

get in a way of living a joyful life. And it's just, ah, it does feel good when you get rid of stuff and it's hard at first and you just realize, I don't need that. I don't need that. In fact, it kind of complicates my life. When I look at my closet and I have, you know, 50 pairs of shoes and 75 shirts, it's just like that, that adds actually more complication to your life. And when you have five or six different shirts and maybe a couple of pairs of pants and pair

of shoes, uh, you don't have to spend time making a decision. Um, you don't, you know, you're not like frantically worried about what P what you're going to look like. You're like, I don't know, here's a few options and that's what I have to go on. And I, I don't really care what people think about, you know, how I'm dressing or so on. So, um, yeah, that was a big takeaway just coming back and, and being around believers that are super happy to live incredibly, incredibly, incredibly simple lives. Um, and just saying, man, we, we want to, we still live in America. Okay. We don't live in a majority world country. Um, we still live in America. So yeah, well, we're not, we don't need to live exactly like them, but we can learn from people living in

a much more simplistic way and try to draw from that. So those are two big takeaways sold out passion for Jesus and, uh, living a simple life. Folks, you've been listening to theology in a raw. If you desire to support this show for as little as five bucks a month, five bucks a month gives you access to a premium content like once a month podcast that I shoot. I'm already thinking about what I'm going to shoot for my September edition of the, um, Patreon only podcast, 10 bucks a month podcast that I shoot. I'm already thinking about what I'm going to shoot for my September edition of the Patreon-only podcast. $10 a month gives you a podcast and a blog, and $25 a month gives you two Patreon-only podcasts and a blog. Go to patreon.com forward slash Theology in the

Raw. That's patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. If this show has benefited you in any way you'd like to give back for as little as $5 a month, slash theology in a raw. If this show has benefited you in any way, you'd like to give back for as little as five bucks a month, please consider donating a gift. Thanks for listening to theology in a raw. We will see you next time. Thank you.