Theology in the Raw - 700: #700 - Inerrancy, Female Deacons, and Attending Same-Sex Weddings

Episode Date: October 15, 2018

On episode #700 of Theology in the Raw Preston answers questions submitted by Patreon supporters.

🎵 Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. I've got a bunch of questions that we're going to get to in just a second, but I want to let you know about a few upcoming speaking events that I will be a part of. October 19th, I'll be in Kent, Washington. That's just a few days away. That's Kent, Washington for a half day leaders forum from 1.30 to 5.30 PM at Trinity Community Church in Kent, Washington. We're going to be talking about faith, sexuality, gender, and that day is going to fly by and attendance is filling up. So if you want to attend that event, then go to, um, yeah, go to centerforfaith.com, go to, uh, events, leaders forums, and there should be a registration page all set up ready for you to sign up. If you want to go to the leaders forum in

Kent, Washington, Houston, Texas, November 6th, a one day leaders forum at Bridgepoint community church, November 12th in Denver, Colorado. Another one-day leaders forum on faith, sexuality, and gender at Denver United Church, November 28th in Detroit, Michigan. Detroit, I don't think I've ever, no, I've been to Detroit once. When was that? That was way back when Cecil Fielder was playing for the Tigers and he hit one I kid you not on the stinking roof like out like out of the stadium like on top of the roof it was like the farthest home run I've ever seen hit so when was that probably like 20 plus years ago anyway

going back to Detroit on November 28th for a one day leaders forum at Life Church in Canton, January 25th, 26th, I'll be at the Breakforth One conference up in Edmonton, Canada in the middle of, or in the, in late January. So I don't, I don't even want to think about what kind of clothes I got to wear for Edmonton, Canada in late January. I'm probably going to get frostbite, but hopefully the heat will be cranking on inside and it'll be a fun conference. There's going to be a lot of really great speakers there. Science Mike, Mike McCarg is going to be there. Lisa Bevere is going to be there.

Bob Goff and many, many others. I looked at the lineup. I'm like, oh, my gosh, how did I fall into this? Anyway, Breakforth One Conference in Edmonton, Canada, Portland, Oregon on February 5th for a One Day Leaders Forum, Seattle, Washington, March 12th for a One Day Leaders Forum, and many, many other events lining up. And I would love to hang out. Sometimes when I speak at places, it's, you know, it's kind of an in and out trip for me. But if I can say hi, or you can come up and say hi to me, or who knows, maybe we'll have time to grab a meal or coffee or something. I would love to see you

there. So check out either PressAndSprinkle.com speaking events or CenterForFaith.com, the event page there. And most of these events will be on both of those websites. Okay. Let's jump into some of these really good questions here. Thanks for addressing the issue of biblical inerrancy on your last Patreon podcast. So yeah, in my Patreon-only podcast for October, that is specifically answering questions from Patreon supporters and is only access if you support the show for five bucks a month. I addressed my thoughts on biblical inerrancy and well, yeah, I'll save you all the backstory on what I said there. In short, I'm fine using the term inerrancy as long as I get to define it, because sometimes the word inerrancy, the concept of inerrancy means lots of different things,

lots of different people. And I've seen people assume that if you believe in inerrancy, then you must have this theological belief. Like if you believe in inerrancy, then you must believe in a literal six day creation and a young earth, a young earth theology. If you believe in inerrancy, then you can't say that the numbers, some of the numbers in the Old Testament are hyperbole. If you believe in inerrancy and, you know, fill in the blank. And that's what I don't like. Like, I want to define what I mean by inerrancy. And as long as I get to do that, then I'm fine with the term. I don't find it a particularly helpful term. I'm not like excited about the term inerrancy. I like authority of scripture better. I like actually like an

infallibility or truthfulness of the Bible. And these are not all synonyms. Like they actually capture a different aspect of a biblical, yeah, what the Bible is. And I also don't like having a preconceived category of what the Bible is. And then we go to the Bible and make the Bible fit that category. Rather, I would love to explore as dangerous and risky as it is, explore what the Bible actually is. The tensions, the differences, the, the, you know, the different genres and the, what is, when the Bible's poetic, like what's the genre of poetry? Like what are the rules of language that go into poetry? What are the rules of language that go into apocalyptic literature? And what about history? And when

history draws on mythological themes, like what do we do with that? And so on and so forth. And I like to begin there. Let's start with the Bible, what the Bible is, and then construct our understanding of what the Bible is, rather than come to the Bible with a preconceived notion of what we want the Bible to be or what fits our tradition or our assumption or our preconceived notion of what authority looks like when it comes to a text and then make the Bible fit that. Like, I think that's just backwards. Anyway, that's a lot longer of an introduction than I was wanting to give. But so this questioner says, I did have a question on the topic and that is, in your opinion, what is the furthest we can go from a literal historical view of Genesis without abandoning Christian orthodoxy or

narrative? I'm not sure how to word what I'm thinking. This is part of the question. In other words, do we need to believe in a literal Adam to make sense of the biblical narrative? What about evolutionary origins of the earth, homo sapiens, et cetera? Can that square with a biblical view of death being the result of sin and creation being put under a curse as a result of man's sin. If we say Adam wasn't a historical figure, how do we interpret Jesus believing in, seemingly believing in, believing that Adam was an actual person? Okay. So you're asking for my opinion on all this. And this is a really messy question with no black and white clear answer. While I, let me just kind of answer some of your specific questions here. I do believe

in a historical Adam. As I've examined the evidence for that, I'm persuaded by the evidence that would support a historical Adam. However, I would say, I think you can still believe in inerrancy and not believe in a historical Adam. It all comes down to what is the author's intention. Inerrancy is taking the author's intention and interpreting the Bible according to that intention. If the author of Genesis wrote about Adam in such a way to give the impression that the author did not think he was historical, then it's very much in line with inerrancy to interpret that presentation of Adam according to the inspired author's intention. Now you say, well, no, that's not the author's intention. He intended it to be historical and maybe, and I agree that that would be where I would land. Uh, I think the author did intend Adam to be a historical figure, but if I, or you, or we revisit that question and through understanding the background, the literature, the context, the genre, uh, bounce, you know,

if we bounce Genesis two and three off of other historical accounts of creation, and if we do some, if we do some more biblical nitty gritty biblical work and come to the conclusion that the author actually didn't intend to present Adam as a literal figure, as a, sorry, as a historical figure, then it would be wrong to say Adam must be historical. That would be going against authorial intention. So we, we. So we can't assume that we know what the author's intention is until we provide an argument for what the author's intention is. Did the author intend to portray the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 as a literal six-day creation account? Literal six days? Maybe,

maybe not. But we can't just assume it just because we've read Genesis 1 and 2 once or twice and say, well, clearly it's, you know, a literal six-day creation. Well, maybe, maybe not. Like, it's actually a pretty complex question. We have to look at the genre of Genesis 1 and 2. We have to look at authorial intention. I'm sorry, we have to look at the author's use of words and concepts. And, you know, my point with this answer to the question is not even to give you the answers on all those, but just to say that understanding authorial intention, especially with complex passages like Genesis 1 and 2 and 3, and Genesis 1 to 11 as a whole, we have to do some nitty gritty exe, exegetical work and historical work and understanding what the author is intending. So all that to say, I take a very

generous view on author, on the possibilities of author, of authorial intention. For instance, I still believe, I haven't looked into this in a few years, but I still believe that Jonah is, while it has some fictive elements in it, I believe that the core of the story is historical. I actually believe Jonah got swallowed up by a big old fish. And while that defies the several kind of, you know, things of what we know about nature, I do think it's a miracle. And so God's allowed to rearrange normal things happening in nature to make a point, to bring Jonah back to the literal city of Nineveh and so on.

But I don't think you have to hold to that particular view of Jonah in order to maintain an heresy. Again, if you present a good case that the author's actual intention was to present a more mythological or fictive, like historical fiction, maybe. Maybe Jonah was a real person, but the story itself was kind of created like almost like a parable. That's possible. I mean, that's, I mean, how can you say that's not possible? How can you say that? No, the author is not allowed to tell a parable with a historical figure at the center of it. Well, didn't Jesus do that quite a bit? The Bible has parables in it. So that's just, that's the discussion we need to have. So we can't just come at the story of Jonah with the preconceived notion that you must believe Jonah is a historical story.

Otherwise you're denied inerrancy. No, no, no, no. The main question is, what is the author's intention? Did the author of Esther intend for the story of Esther to be a fictive history, historical fiction, some people call it, um, or was it just raw history? Um, doesn't seem like raw history that does seem to have some fictive elements, but kind of like Jonah, kind of like Job, I would say. Um, I think the core of the story is, is historical and, and we can kind of figure out again, uh, by looking at the author's intention, what, uh, what was intended to be historical, what was intended to not be historical or literal.

And it's, as you might gather, I mean, understanding the author's intention is not, it's not an easy task and there will always be a level of subjectivity and caution when we're, you know, concluding this was the author's intention. Like with some of these, in some cases, I think it's pretty straightforward. I would say in most cases it is. I don't think it's in most cases from Genesis to Revelation. It's just, oh, it's all up in the air what the author's intention is. But with some of these other books where the genre is just different and there seems to be good evidence on both sides of the debate. You know,

is Jonah historical? Is it not historical? Like, man, if you lay out all the arguments and look at them fairly, there's some good arguments on both sides. Same with Esther, same with Job. Yeah. Okay. So I don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole. So it's coming back to your question of what is the furthest we can go from a literal historical view of Genesis without abandoning Christian orthodoxy? Man, I do take a very generous view on that, even though I may land on some fairly relatively conservative. I don't like that term. I do land more on Genesis 1 to 11 and 1 to 3 being historical, having a good number of literal elements, I don't think that that is the only way to interpret the text. I still haven't dug into this issue very in-depthly,

but I would hold to an old earth theology, okay? Like, I think that the nature of Genesis one to three does not demand a young earth theology or even a literal six-day creation. That is one possible way to read the Bible, but it's not the only way to respect authority and interpret Genesis 1 to 3. All right, let's move on. We've lingered there for a while and it's just, I feel like every sentence just kind of opens up another can that, that, uh, is difficult to close. Okay. Next question. Uh, I have a question about Phoebe. Phoebe is the, um, the person in, uh, Romans 16. Do we need to read that? Um, let's go ahead and read the Romans 16. Uh, I commend to you, Paul says, uh, our sister Phoebe, a servant or deacon, you can translate diakonis, diakonia, I think it is. I forget the, yeah, the precise Greek word that comes from the root, diakonia,

diakonia, the church at Cancria, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron or a supporter, financial supporter of many and of myself as well. So Phoebe is called a deacon here. In the Greek, the word describing Phoebe is where we get the word deacon from. So this questioner says, I have a question about Phoebe, but first two points. One, in my understanding, the word used for Phoebe in Romans 16 can be interpreted deacon, minister, servant, the same word that is used for Paul, Jesus, and other men. It seems to make sense that she is, that she can be called, that she can live, you know, that Phoebe can be called the deacon.

Number two, second point you're making, uh, in first Timothy three in the verses about elders, what I understand is that there is no gender pronoun or the word man used to describe the qualifications. And, uh, she's right. Um, I'm not going to say her name, but you are a female asking this question. First Timothy 3 doesn't use gender pronouns, even though in their English translations, it keeps saying he, he, he, he, he. The male specific he that we have in English is not there in the Greek in First Timothy 3. But however, you point out the term one woman man is the only part in there that is used definitively, definitely to say that only men could fit those qualifications. And that is true too. Uh, in verse two, first Timothy three, two, it says a husband of one wife, or the best

translation is a one woman, man, uh, that is gender specific, uh, point three, your, your, these are your three points. Further on in 1 Timothy 3, Paul talks about the qualifications for deacons. It also said that deacons must be one woman men. So here's your question. How do we reconcile Phoebe being called a deacon if she doesn't fit the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 of being a one woman man? Great question. This is such a good question.

You want to say my thought is that the term one woman man needs to be taken either literally or more figuratively, literally that would demand that only married men can be elders, not single, divorced, widowed, or remarried men. And Phoebe cannot be called a deacon, which is why I believe some Bible translations in churches have created the role of deaconess. If the term can be taken more figuratively, then it could be interpreted to be, to refer to just fidelity or monogamy, not necessarily a male with one wife, but a person who is, if they're married, they need to be in a monogamous, one spouse relationship. My conclusion is that the term one woman, man does not exclude single men, Phoebe or women.

I would be interested to know your thoughts. Great, great, wonderful question. And you are thinking incredibly well here. I just, the clarity of thought and logic that just went into this whole question is just, yeah, I applaud you and would love to hang out and talk about this more. question is just, yeah, I applaud you and would love to hang out and talk about this more. Okay. First, yeah, deacon, the Greek word deacon can mean minister, servant in a generic sense, or it can refer to an official position in the church, like the office of deacon. It's very similar to apostle. I talked about this on a previous podcast that, you know, the term apostolos just means a sent one or a messenger, or it can mean an apostle like the office of apostle. So which one is used to describe Phoebe? Well, it's unclear in Romans 16, whether Phoebe is referred to as an official,

like she serves in the office of a deacon at a church, or whether she's just described as a servant or minister. A deacon, and it's just unclear. There's no way really to tell just from Romans 16, whether she is an official kind of in an official position at a church or whether he's just describing her as a servant or minister. Um, and even the official position at a church, I've never been, I mean, even if you believe that women can't serve in leadership at a church, when you look at the descriptions of what a deacon is, they are a servant. They are a minister. They are not, the qualifications and the roles, the role of a deacon is not, doesn't seem to be a leadership position.

They're not required to teach or exercise authority over the church. It's not, it's not this, it's not an authoritative position in the same way as a, an elder is from, from my understanding of, of first Timothy three and Titus one. Okay. So my first point, deacon, we just don't know what, whether Phoebe is a, is an official kind of deacon as in the office of a deacon or whether she's just described as being a servant. Okay. Second,

my second point, um, I'm kind of making three points cause you made three points. So, uh, second one woman, man, and children who are faithful. I think, I think this should be taken to mean that if you have a wife, then you need to be a one woman, man. And if you have children, then you need to manage your household. Well, I don't think it's sane or I don't think it has to be taken to mean that you must have a wife or you must have children. That would rule out Jesus and Paul and several other people in the New Testament for being elder qualified. So yeah, I don't think, I don't think the phrase one woman, man, like categorically rules out a female elder having a husband. I don't think it, now, whether you agree with that or not, that there's just other things we'd have to discuss, but I don't think that phrase demands that one must be married,

nor do I think it means that you must be a male. I think that the main point is exactly what you said. This is, this is your, um, uh, let's see your third point. I think that, you know, I think it's talking about, uh, being faithful to your spouse and perhaps it's, it's kind of addressing polygamy. I don't know. I don't think that's really the main point here that Paul's intending going back to authorial intention. Uh, polygamy wasn't too much of a thing in the Greco-Roman world. It wasn't, I don't even think it was legal, let alone accepted. Um, so it'd be, I think it'd be kind of odd for Paul to be making a statement against polygamy. Although the statement does, a one woman man does rule out polygamy, but I don't think that's his main point.

I think he was talking about monogamy and faithfulness. So, yeah, so I don't think it has to be a male necessarily. I don't think the phrase demands that, nor do I think it demands that all elders must have women or wives, a wife and children. My third point is that 1 Timothy 3.11 uses, well, it mentions women. It says in the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers, but temperate and trustworthy in everything. And there is a debate over whether this is referring, whether 1 Timothy 11 is talking about the wives of deacons or just female deacons. I think it's talking about female deacons here. I think 1 Timothy 3.11 answers your question, can women

be deacons? Again, I don't think, even if you were complementarian and didn't believe in women in local church leadership or women elders or whatever, again, a deacon is not a leader authoritative position in the same way that an elder is. So I think, and I know churches that would say, no, we have male only elders, but we have female deacons because these are two different offices and it doesn't violate our understanding of 1 Timothy 2. So yeah, so I think the best way to understand 1 Timothy 11, it's not crystal clear. I wouldn't take a bullet for this, but I think it is, evidence seems to lean in favor of 1 Timothy 3.11 talking about female deacons, not the wives of male deacons. Because why, you know, one of the arguments is why would he give qualifications for the wives of deacons and not the wives of elders if he's talking about the wives of deacons? Like, this doesn't really make sense why he would say, yeah, give a qualification for deacons wives and not elders wives. It seems that he is talking about female deacons here. So all that to say, I think wherever you're at on women in leadership, women, elders, whatever,

I think that the Bible does seem to talk about female deacons. Like, I think that it's, it's very much okay with that. Not okay, but just like, I think it actually teaches it. All right. Uh, this is a kind of a long question has to do with, uh, a daughter in a same sex relationship who is going to get married. I'm going to try to hide some of the details here to protect confidentiality. Um, yeah, this person, uh, was at the Revoice conference, uh, has read my book, People to be Loved and offered some really encouraging words about the book. Uh, his daughter, um, had dated boys in their teenage years, in her teenage years, and, uh, had some kind of abusive relationships. Um, and now she is getting ready to get married, uh, to another woman. And you want to know, it is a classic question, right? Should, should I attend the wedding ceremony?

They're actually, yeah. Yeah. I'll just leave it at that just to not give too many details. But, um, so, um, first of all, I do have a paper online on this very question of can a Christian attend a gay wedding or same-sex wedding? Uh, by the way, same-sex wedding is the proper phrase, not gay wedding. I, I sometimes use gay wedding. It's kind of like more colloquial. It's easier, but it doesn't, I mean, gay speaks to like an orientation, whereas it's not like the wedding itself is gay. Um, and you can have somebody who's bisexual, somebody who identifies as queer getting married, and then it's not technically a gay wedding. It's a what? Well, it's still, it could still be a same sex wedding. So I, yeah, I like the phrase same-sex wedding ceremony. Um, so I have a long paper online at centerforfaith.com

under resources. It's, it's one of the first pastoral papers, I believe. And it kind of navigates this whole conversation and the, yeah. So I think my first point that I make in that paper is I, this is not a black and white issue. This is a gray area. This is something where you're free to go free, not to go. And you're not in sin either way. I don't, I don't believe I don't have a verse that I can slap on this situation and say, thou shalt go to this wedding or thou shalt not go. We are left to biblical wisdom based on other principles of whether we should or shouldn't attend this wedding. Long story short, I would ask the question, and you even say here, you know, are you consistent in the weddings that you attend or don't attend? So if you end up saying, I'm not going to attend this one because it's not a biblical wedding, then don't attend other

weddings that you would consider not biblical. A believer marrying an unbeliever or somebody who's been unbiblically divorced and is getting remarried or whatever. Like let's not single out same sex weddings and say, we're not going to attend those, but then be totally lenient on other weddings that don't match the biblical criteria of, of a sound wedding. of a sound wedding. I would ask another question, you know, does your daughter or her partner, do they confess Jesus? In your question, it sounds like, I'm reading it again here. I don't, I know she grew up Christian, but it sounds like she's not confessing Jesus anymore. Maybe she is, but not really living it. Or I don't know. I mean, that that's, that would be a big question for me because we do hold believers to Christian

standards. And very explicitly, Paul says in first Corinthians five, that we don't hold the world to Christian standards. Who am I to judge the world? Paul says. So I think whether they are confessing Christians or not would, should factor in as you're trying to make this decision.

Let me say this while I would say apart from parents attending weddings of their gay or bisexual or lesbian kids, let's just say your, your friend is getting married, your, your, your neighbor, your coworker, whatever. I think it's much easier to make the case that going, well, no, sorry. I think I can see both sides of the debate. And I've had people that have said, you know what, based on my convictions and my conscience, and for various other reasons, I think it's not, it wouldn't be consistent for me to attend a wedding. I said, hey, I'm not here to violate your conscience. There will probably be some ramifications of that, of not going to the wedding. But a lot of it depends on the nature of the relationship you have with the person anyway. Like if it's a really grounded, solid relationship, then it might, might be able to weather the sort of

relational, possible relational storm that not going to the wedding could stir up. If the relationship isn't that solid or is already a little fragile, then that might be taken as a kick in the face by not going to the wedding. And those are just tough questions that you have to kind of work through. But how, you know, when it comes to parents with their kids, I do lean heavily in favor of parents attending the wedding. I know that would be hard for a lot of parents. I know it'd be hard not to go for a lot of parents. I mean, lot of parents. I mean, this is not, there's nothing easy in this situation. Um, but I have seen in a, a, a good deal of anecdotal evidence. Okay. So I'm drawing on a good friend of mine, uh, Bill Henson, who's worked with over 4,000 LGBT people or their families. And this question

comes up quite often. And he says, look, Preston, I mean, I can't give a percentage, but an overwhelming percentage of situations where the parent does not go to the wedding of their gay kid, it doesn't bode well for the ongoing relationship. It typically, maybe not sever, but significantly fractures that relationship, or sometimes it does sever. And he's worked, my friend Bill has worked with several parents who, you know, were told by the church, you can't go to this wedding. So they didn't go. And afterwards they deal with major regret, major regret. You know, for instance, there's one person that they didn't go to the wedding. This is like years ago. And now their daughter or son, I forget what it was, what they were, but they now have adopted a couple of kids.

And now the relationship, because the parent didn't go, has been completely severed. And now the parent, now the grandparent has no presence in the lives of their grandkids. So they're like, I'm desperately wanting to embody the love of Jesus toward my grandkids. And now I'm cut off from that. And she's like, I didn't even consider that when I didn't go to the wedding of my, um, of my daughter or son, whichever it was. Um, however, so that's where I would heavily lean, heavily encourage. I would say, just really consider this. And unless you, I mean, your conscience is just not, just not going to go there and you just would violate everything about your Christian walk by attending. Then again,

I'm not, I mean, this is, you got to make your own decision and, and, and follow your conscience, but I would heavily, heavily encourage parents to attend. I have met parents who didn't attend a same-sex wedding with, yeah wedding with their child and they don't regret it. They said it was hard, difficult. The relationship is now even more difficult, but we feel very good about following the hard road of faithful discipleship. And you know, I would still maybe push back on that a little bit, but who am I to say that, no, that wasn't the right decision and you should have gone. I just don't think that's my place. So I heavily encourage you to attend.

But read that paper I wrote because there's still other questions that I think you need to ask yourself and answer and think through before you either attend or don't attend. Next question, James 1, 13 to 15 seems to say that it's our flawed desires that lead to sin, but is the flawed desire itself sinful? And then you go into what about Jesus? I mean, he had desires and we see this, especially in Matthew 4, the temptation narrative where he would desire, you know, he was resisting the temptation of power and bread and worshiping and having, or bowing down to the devil and so on. So does Jesus, if desire is intrinsically flawed, desire that could lead to sin, if that desire is intrinsically flawed, then did Jesus even have those kinds of desires? And this gets into other conversations about,

I mean, you even point out, you know, same-sex attraction. Is it a flawed desire or is it a neutral desire? Is it only bad if you act on it and so on and so forth? These are really tough questions. And I just, we would have to look at, I think, each individual case separately. So if we're going to look at Jesus's temptation, let's look at Jesus's temptation. If we're going to look at same-sex attraction, let's look at same-sex attraction and not, I think we're dealing with a kind of a real murky, messy, flexible area of when desire turns from temptation to sin. So to answer your question about James, yeah, I think James in this passage is not saying that desire, the desire that could lead to sin, I don't believe that desire is intrinsically sinful,

because that just doesn't, he's, you know, desire, what do you say? Desire gives birth to sin. So he's using an image of a mother giving birth to a child. Well, by definition, the mother isn't the child. And so in this, in this, in James one, the child, okay, in the metaphor, the, that, which is being birth is sin. And that which is giving the birth is desire. So you have kind of mother, child, which is giving the birth is desire. So you have kind of mother, child, desire, sin categories here. Well, by definition, the mother isn't the child. And so by definition, the desire isn't the sin yet. So I think James 1, the desire spoken of there is more like a temptation,

the potential for sin. And that's the category I would put same-sex attraction in that it is, uh, it is a type of temptation that could lead to sin, but isn't itself intrinsically sinful as in like a morally culpable sin that we need to repent from. And if you say, no, same-sex attraction is a morally culpable sin, then what does repentance look like other than becoming straight and not having same-sex attraction anymore? I'm not talking about same-sex lust. I'm not talking about same-sex behavior. There's a big difference between same-sex attraction and same-sex lust and same-sex behavior. Just like there's a big difference

between opposite-sex attraction, opposite-sex lust, and opposite-sex sexual behavior. I am opposite-sex attracted always when I'm asleep, I'm still opposite sex attracted, whether that's even a conscious thing I'm aware of at that moment or not. It's another question, whether I'm acting on that or whether I'm sinning in that is a different question. Opposite sex attraction can lead to opposite sex, or sin, but it isn't itself opposite sex, lust, or sin. So yeah, that's where I would go with that. The whole language surrounding desire, when it comes to the biblical language of desire, epithumia is one of the main Greek words, and there's a few others. It's really tough. There's been many scholarly essays written on

the meaning of epithumia and whether Paul in particular thought all epithymia was sinful or only misdirected epithymia. I mean, and it's, if you do a word study, you'll realize that it's actually kind of a complex conversation. I would avoid simplistic answers to your question because the biblical, the biblical language itself surrounding desire is, is, is, um, is very flexible. Okay. Uh, last question. Um, a youth pastor in Washington state, my colleague and I recently debated over terminology terminology use with our students over conversations about sexuality. Do we use the word sex or sexuality? Um,

do we say gay or same or same sex? Uh, okay. So yeah, uh, sex, uh, typically refers to one's sexual anatomy, whether they're male or female, whereas sexuality has to do with who you're sexually attracted to. So for instance, if you want to refer to our male or femaleness, we would say our sex or sexed identity. Whereas if you want to refer to sexual attraction, you would refer to our sexuality or our nature as sexual beings. That's typically how these words are used. So sex, sexed, sexual anatomy, and sexuality or sexual refers to sexual attractions. So, and I think it is important to keep those terms consistent in how you use them. Should we say gay or same-sex attracted? Yeah. You say you lean towards same-sex attraction. He leans towards the term gay. I don't disagree with the overall usage of the term gay. I just find same-sex attraction to be more, a more useful term,

less loaded with alternative meaning or open to misinterpretation, I guess. So I, yeah, this is a, oh man, this is a huge ongoing discussion and debate. And my number one thing is I think evangelicals should have this conversation, not draw lines in the sand. Like you must say same-sex attraction, not gay. Otherwise, you're not in our camp or, you know, you're going down the path towards liberalism or whatever. I think we need to avoid all of that. I think we need to come to the table over bread and wine and have a conversation and push back and show honor to each other and try to understand where each other's coming from and avoid snarky,

overly aggressive language in our, in our discussions. And I just haven't seen that done very well, especially in the last year or so surrounding same-sex attraction versus gay. A bunch of stuff here though. First of all, neither term is neutral.

Some people think that gay is the dangerous term while same-sex attraction is the neutral term. No, no, no, no, no, no. Ask any of your gay friends who have been through reparative therapy or an ex-gay ministry, many of whom will probably say it wasn't a good experience. And they will say, oh, same-sex attraction is a trigger for me because that was the thing that was pounded into me to make people, um, or, or, you know, apparently I haven't been to ex-gay therapies, but apparently like it was, uh, the whole idea of saying you're same-sex attracted was wrapped up in that whole ministry. And so it conjures up kind of bad experiences of going through ex-gay therapies and so on. So I don't think same-sex attraction is simply the neutral safe term. Both terms, gay and same-sex attraction, have their own pros and cons.

I think there are pros and cons to each term. Sometimes the term gay can be taken to mean an ontological reality like male or female. And I don't think that that's good or healthy. The biblical categories that divide human nature are male and female. And I think the whole idea of gay would fall in the realm of sexual desire. And sexual desire does exist on a spectrum. So I don't think that there are categories of people like gay, straight, bisexual, in the same way that there's categories of people like male or female. But sometimes the term gay does kind of pick up that kind of ontological assumption, which I think is a bit misguided. However, gay is the popular term used today to describe just simply the fact that you're attracted to the same sex

and not the opposite sex. And also, I think from a missiological perspective, gay can be actually very beneficial because the church has built up this reputation that we do not allow gay people in church, that the church is sort of anti-gay and that, you know, church is for straight people and outside the church is for gay people. And so when we have Christians who believe in a Christian, historically Christian sexual ethics saying, I am gay and I follow Jesus and I love Jesus, missiologically, that can be very effective. It can break down this assumption that church isn't for gay people. It's only for straight people. So, and if you say, if you, if you are adamant that you should only say same-sex attraction, that could further that, I think, uh, very unhelpful assumption that church is not for gay people. It's only for straight or same

sex attracted people. So yeah, some of my younger gay friends especially say, you know, if I say same sex attraction and not gay, it's actually as counterproductive in terms of my gospel witness. I know other Christians who are the opposite, who say, when I say gay and not, when I say I'm gay, it sends me into places that are unhealthy for me. And I say, great, don't say gay. Other people say, no, it's actually captures my experience better than same-sex attraction and it's missiologically effective. I say, great, then say, then say gay, not same-sex attraction. So, um, let's have the conversation. Let's not say, uh, only one or the other is the right term for everybody to use. I think different contexts demand a different set of language. If you go overseas, it would probably be helpful not to use the term gay. So when I go to

Nepal, for instance, when I say gay, it just means non-Christian person having lots of promiscuous sex. It's just so hard to divorce the word from that highly negative kind of perception of what gay means. Now, if I say I'm a Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction, then it's like, oh, okay, let's help you on that struggle. So in certain contexts, especially other cultural contexts, I think we need to be very sensitive, not just to what we mean by the word, but how the word is heard and understood on the other end. I tell my, not me, but I think it's just kind of common knowledge that if you are, for instance, a celibate gay Christian, and you're giving a talk at a very conservative church, probably would be unhealthy and not very effective

to introduce yourself. Hi, my name is Frank and I'm a gay Christian. And I want to talk to you about like, you've just lost 80% of your audience. Like they're just going to get so hung up on that word that you've missed a missional opportunity to reach conservatives. So let's use language in such a way that is going to not just communicate what we are trying to say, but also use language in a way that is sensitive to what just communicate what we are trying to say, but also use language in a way that is sensitive to what or to how that term or terms are going to be understood on the other end. That's

just a good understanding of how language works. All right, folks, thanks for listening to Theology in the Raw. Hope to see you in Kent, Washington this Friday or at a future speaking event. Again, you can go to centerforfaith.com or pressandsprinkle.com and check out my speaking schedule. And also, if you find this podcast to be very helpful or even somewhat helpful, please consider supporting it through patreon.com forward slash The All-General. That's patreon.com forward slash The All-General. You can support the podcast for as little as five bucks a month and get access to premium content in return. Thanks for listening. We'll see you next time on the show. you