Theology in the Raw - 711: #711 - Tithing, Gay Christians, and Church as Brewery and Coffee Shop

Episode Date: December 3, 2018

On episode #711 of of Theology in the Raw Preston answers questions submitted by Pateron supporters. Questions covered in this podcast: [1:50] Can Christians give their tithe to needs outside their local church? [15:46] What does your book writing process look like? [30:49] Should Christians who believe in the Biblical view of marriage identify as same sex attracted, gay, lesbian or LTBQ+? [47:46] Can the We Are Church model work in smaller cities or towns? 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.

Hello, friends, and welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. Super stoked that you decided to join me in this podcast. I'm going to get to a few questions that many of you have sent in, some really good questions that are all over the map, from sexual immorality to tithing to different things related to church and other questions that have really challenged my thinking. And I'm super excited to get to those. But first, I want to let you know that this is a listener-supported podcast. If you find this podcast to be helpful and you want to support it for as little as five bucks a month, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw.

Patreon is a platform that allows you to support your favorite podcasters and artists. And it's a great avenue for supporting people who are doing work that you enjoy, that you find helpful. So if you find this work that I'm doing here on the podcast to be helpful and you enjoy it, please go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. Support the show for as little as five bucks a month and you get extra content in return it's not just sheer charity it's a bit more transactional you get stuff in return stuff that nobody else can get to unless they are supporting the show as well so that's patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw and would love your support thank you so much for those of you who

are supporting i do check the updates and see who's giving, who's contributing, who's asking questions, who's participating in our online community. And just thank you so much to my 200 plus Patreon supporters. Okay, let's jump into the first question here. It has to do with tithing. And I love this question because I have had it myself. I've wrestled with this for several years. I have had it myself. I've wrestled with this for several years. I feel like I've kind of landed on the whole question of can Christians give outside, can

they give their sort of 10% to other needs outside of their local church? So let me just read this question to you that was sent in a few weeks ago. It says, my question is about the necessity of giving a tithe to my church compared to keeping my tithe and using it all as alms for the needy. I've always tithed to my church my whole working life, but recently I've started to view a church in different light. I feel as though my church and most probably most churches, she says in a parenthesis, or no, he says in a parenthesis, or no, he says in a parenthesis

here, I feel that my church does waste a lot of money that they bring in from the few salaried employees to the large events to constant promotional gifts and materials being bought. It seems like very little of the money goes back into the community. I'm all for building up God's storehouses and I want to honor God with my money, but I'm not sure that giving to a church that uses the tithe money in unproductive ways is wise. Would it be wrong or even sinful to personally give my 10% and then some to the needy who I see are in need of it in lieu of giving to my church? My church currently has a very large mortgage, about a million dollars. And I know their mentality is that if people tithe now, they can pay off the note and then be able to be very generous. But I'm afraid that just won't happen. We see time and time again, when churches

are growth focused, like mine, that the current situation is never good enough, and it is honoring to God to build bigger and better. I'd love to know your thoughts and advice. Okay, so the short answer to your question, and my answer will be shaped and governed by the actual text of specifically the New Testament. Okay, my response is that no, there is very little to no strict New Testament mandate that all Christians must give and only give to their church. I would also throw in that the type of church, let me say this, the type of church model or the way in which tithing is typically,

not exclusively, but typically spent by the current modern 21st century American church model would in many ways, I think, be incongruent with the way that first century ways, I think, be incongruent with the way that first century ministry expenses went, if you can say it like that. So the New Testament does say very clearly and very pervasively that believers, that followers of Jesus should give generously, especially to people in need. That's the overwhelming focus is that believers who follow Jesus should be incredibly generous with their wealth, with their money, with their possessions. And that that generosity should go towards people, people, people in need. There is a priority also on giving to fellow believers.

People in need. There is a priority also on giving to fellow believers. I do think you see that in several passages in Galatians 6, 1 Timothy 4 also kind of mentions it, that we should do good to all people, especially to believers. And in the passages that do talk about the redistribution of wealth in the New Testament, Acts 2, Acts 4, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, it is focused on redistributing wealth to other believers. Most often the case, it's other believers that are not in our personal local context, actually. And I don't think that's necessarily like mandated, but for the most part, or for a dominant emphasis, especially in Paul's letters and ministry, is the so-called Jerusalem collection, where Paul went around the Greco-Roman world and Asia Minor and Greece and collected money from wealthier, mostly Gentile churches. And he was collecting that money to give to the poor believers in

Jerusalem, the poor, mostly Jewish believers in Jerusalem. So you see, part of the motivation was simply redistributing wealth to those in need within the global church, but also there was a bit of ethnic reconciliation that Paul was hoping for, as you have Gentile believers giving to Jewish believers who are in need. As you might know, there was a lot of animosity between Jews and Greeks in the first century, and that animosity spilled over into the church. And so this was a significant way to bridge the gap between Greek believers or Gentile believers and Jewish believers. Okay. So again, number one, the New Testament does give a massive focus on giving generously to those in need. And secondly, you do see the New Testament on a few

occasions mention that workers of the gospel, ministers of the gospel, elders who labor hard at teaching and preaching, it is okay. And even good for them to be released for ministry. First Corinthians nine, the first, really the first half of that chapter. And also first Timothy five, uh, verse 17 emphasizes this. There's a few other passages or even, I mean, uh, Luke eight, one to three, where Jesus is supported by primarily a bunch of women who are following him in his ministry. You see Paul, who was also supported from the Philippian church and other

churches in Asia, sorry, other churches in Greece and Macedonia. He was supported by those churches. Philippians four talks about this. So, okay. So that's number two. So number one, giving generously to people in need, that's the main focus. Secondarily, people who are devoting their lives for teaching, preaching, evangelism, church planning, apostleship, whatever, or messiahship, if you throw in Jesus there, as far as somebody who is being supported for the work of ministry, that other believers should support such workers. You do see that in the text. Beyond that, you don't see a whole lot of other focus, like giving to

buildings. I don't think it's wrong to give the buildings. It doesn't seem to be a really primary thrust in the New Testament. That's probably because there wasn't very many believers that were in existence. And so they were able to gather in house churches that would be consistent of, that were made up of believers ranging from 20 to 50 believers. I think the largest house church we could probably predict was about 50 people. The smallest may have been 10 to 20 people. So there was no need of a building. So the fact that the New Testament doesn't talk about giving money to a building, I think that's, it's a bit of a stretch to say, therefore it's wrong

to give to a building. I think it was just a different kind of ministry. And I don't think the New Testament is anti-building. However, I do wonder, wonder, uh, if an overwhelming percentage of tithing from believers was swallowed up by building expenses, I do wonder how Jesus, who told the rich man to give everything he had to the poor. And I do wonder how Paul, who was passionate about redistributing wealth to other believers. who was passionate about redistributing wealth to other believers. I do wonder how Jesus and Paul and other leaders in the church would have thought about budgets that were overwhelmed with building expenses. I think the redistribution of wealth should be directly related to fostering the mission and discipleship.

And again, I'm not going to say categorically buildings can't be used for that. I think oftentimes, not all the time, but oftentimes buildings can swallow up more tithe money than they should be swallowing up. Okay. Now, so, so far, so good. In terms of your question, I think that it – I think you can and should take your 10% or whatever and give to people in need. Now, just as a footnote, the New Testament never mandates 10%. The Old Testament, you can probably get a 10% giving from the Old Testament. But the Old Testament is just tricky because you're living in a theocracy where the people of God were also the state. Like there were political needs.

There were sort of taxes and welfare type systems set up. And so the tithing was sort of integrated with what we would consider taxes or giving money that would support political endeavors along like temple taxes and so on. That would support political endeavors along like temple taxes and so on that would support political endeavors along with spiritual endeavors. So it's hard to map Old Testament tithing onto the New Testament church situation. So I do think we should rely on the New Testament for our giving practices. And there is no specific 10% designated in the New Testament. And no, you don't see strict commands that believers can and should and only give to their local church and shouldn't give money outside the local church needs. the typical pattern in which New Testament or 21st century tithing usually takes place, I think doesn't really resonate a whole lot with the New Testament. Now, here's my one pushback to

everything I've said is that in the New Testament, you do see a pattern. It's not pervasive. And I wouldn't even say it's mandated, but you do see a pattern that Christian leaders are the ones collecting and redistributing the wealth, the tithing from other believers and giving that to other people in need. You see this in Acts 4, 34 and 35. It says that there was not a needy person among them, talking about the early church, for as many as were owners of land or houses, they sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and they laid it at the apostles' feet and it was distributed to each as any had need. So you get the sense that the apostles were the ones who collected the money and redistributed the money. You see something similar in 1 Corinthians 16 verses 1 to 4, where Paul says, set aside money. And when I come, it's implied that he's going to come and collect the money and redistribute it. Now, so you do see a pattern that leaders are the ones

to collect and redistribute the money. But again, I mean, it's not collecting the money and redistributing it for a new carpet in the sanctuary or a whole new set of flat screens in the youth room or a $20,000 sound system for Sunday morning. It's redistributing to people in need. That is the specific and pervasive focus in the New Testament. Again, releasing people from ministry and also giving generously to people in need, especially believers in the global church. That is the two focuses or foci in the goal of giving or the direction or telos of giving in the New Testament. of giving in the New Testament. So yeah, I think if you're in a situation where your tithe money is being collected by leaders,

but it's not being redistributed primarily to give to those in need or release people from ministry, if that's like a minor goal of the tithing, that the tithe money that's collected by the church, then personally, yeah, I would have a problem with that. And for years, I have given probably most of my tithe money directly to people in need, especially people outside of America in need. I mean, you can support or help support a pastor in a majority world country at $200 a month or something. And the cost benefit, if you will, of that support is going to go a thousand times further

than supporting a pastor in America at $100,000, whatever the average. I think the average, I don't know, income is $100,000, which is fine, whatever. I'm not necessarily against that. But can you imagine how far $100,000 goes in a majority world country with the gospel is really flourishing. And that brings in some new challenges, okay?

Like, I mean, it's not actually healthy to simply throw tons of money at majority world pastors without some sort of, well, with wisdom and control over what that possibly could do. So I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm just trying to make a 30,000 foot point. I'm not saying go now give, you know, all your tithing to the majority world pastors without even, you know, thinking through it very, you know, thoroughly. I'm just, yeah, I do want my tithe money to be used uh, my tithe money to be used in ways that are explicitly and directly fueling the mission of God and the kingdom of God. So, um, yeah, so I, I am, my advice is I think it's completely okay in terms of what the new Testament actually says, completely okay to be taking your money and giving to those in need.

All right, next question. What does the book writing process look like for you? Does it start with an idea or the need to create? Do you set up an outline and fill it in or do you just write what comes to your heart? I'm so thankful for this question. And this person has not given me permission to say his name, so I won't say it, but I had a great time hanging out with you over on the West Coast somewhere a few months ago. It was awesome. Loved hanging out with you, brother, for the first time we actually met in person. So really appreciate this question.

Okay, so here are three questions. Before I write a book, here's three questions that I typically ask myself. Number one, does this book need to be written? And if you're an aspiring author, I get emails all the time from people that want to write a book and they want some guidance, some help, you know. And these are the same three questions, these questions that I ask myself, these are the same ones I ask them. So number one, does this book need to be written? And in order to answer that, you have to do a pretty good survey of stuff that's out there. Like you have to be aware of other top other books that may have already addressed the exact same thing in the exact same way that you're wanting to address. address the exact same thing in the exact same way that you're wanting to address.

So if that's true, if it has been written and it's been done pretty well, then why do another book on the topic? Why not just promote that book? So that's the first question I ask. And again, sometimes people email me and they want to write a book on a particular topic. And I'll just do a quick Google search and I see that it seems like their idea has already been addressed. And so that just tells me that they might not have done, you know, some thorough research on, you know, what books are out there that are similar to the one that they envision. And this is one of the first things that the publisher is going to ask. vision. And this is one of the first things that the publisher is going to ask. If you actually want to seek out like a, an actual, like a real publisher, not just self publish a book. This is the first thing they ask is, okay, what's explained to me the field of books that are similar to the one you want to write and then explain why yours is different. Um, if it's already been done, then it may not necessarily need to be done again. Okay, so does this book need to be written?

Number two, then I ask myself, am I the person that should write the book? Am I the right person to write it? So for instance, if I wanted to write a book on like how to do pastoral ministry, like this is what pastoral ministry looks like, you know, I might think that that book needs to be written. Maybe there's an idea I have that has not actually been pursued. But then when I asked myself, am I the right person to write the book? Well, I'm not a, I'm not a pastor. I'm not a full-time like traditional paid pastor that's been in the trenches of ministry for 25 years, you know. So my experience or lack thereof might exclude me from being the best

person to write the book. And if you care more about the idea getting out there than you being the one to write the book, then you should be willing to allow somebody else or encourage somebody else saying, hey, I've got this great idea, but man, you're the person that I think should write this book because you have the experience, you have the knowledge, you have the, you know, a more significant contribution to make to this specific question or area. Okay. So after I ask, does this book need to be written? And am I the right person to write the book? And thirdly, I asked the question, am I passionate? And I would say knowledgeable about the topic. I guess the knowledgeable does, that kind of plays into the second question that

I ask, you know, am I the right person to write the book that, you know, that would include, do I have the sort of background, the research to be able to write the book? And so thirdly, am I passionate about it? If, even if I'm the right person, I might not be super excited about the book. I've had other people give me book ideas, you know, that they're like, oh, you should do this, you should do that. And I might know the book needs to be written and I might think, okay, I think I could be the one to write it. But if I'm not super passionate about it, then it's going to affect your writing. It's going to affect your whole writing process,

but also the way in which you write. So I'm a big fan of being passionate about the actual process of writing. And if you don't care too much about the topic, then that's going to affect how you approach the writing process. Okay. So in terms of my actual process, if I can answer these three questions in the positive, then I typically, the first thing I do is I just start reading everything I can that's related to the topic. Let me give an example. Let me go back to when I started researching for my book, People to be Loved. OK, so the book came out in December 2015, which means my manuscript, I submitted my manuscript 12 months before that.

So I finished the research and writing of my book in December 2014. my book in December 2014. It's about nine months to 12 months to, I've had as long as 18 months between when I submit the final manuscript and when the book's actually published, like put out in print. And you say, you think, well, why does it take so long? Well, the, by, you know, the editor that I'm working with might have 12 other manuscripts that they have to get to before they get to mine. So it may sit on her desk, his or her desk for three or four months before she even gets to, you know, my manuscript. Sorry, I keep saying she, my main editor over the last several books has been a female. So that's why I'm just, I'll keep saying she. So outstanding editor, by the way, I don't know if you want me to name you, but just, you know, who you are,

incredible editors. It's what keeps bringing you back to the same publisher anyway. You are incredible editors. It's what keeps bringing you back to the same publisher. Anyway, so yeah, it takes a while for the book to come out. So when I started People to be Loved, I knew – well, before I decided to even write it, I kind of read a few books on the topic. I read some traditional books that had to do with homosexuality and I didn't well first of all I was really impressed with how deep they were going and how man there's a lot of scholars I could tell right away there's a lot of scholarship out there but I didn't appreciate the tone and I thought that there should be more relationships and pastoral nuance added to the exegesis.

So I can see pretty early on, like, yeah, I think there does need to be another book on this topic. Also, most of the books that were traditional, that were written at a somewhat popular level, didn't actually deal with the Bible. I mean, that kind of blew me away that most of the books that were from a traditional perspective simply assumed that traditional perspective. I mean, even someone like Wesley Hill's fantastic book, Washed and Waiting, that's what really did it for me. I read his book, and it was so good, so good. But he had like three pages on what the Bible says. I'm like, goodness.

Like I've been doing enough research in the academic world to know that it's a lot more complicated than that. And he knows that. He's an academic. It wasn't the purpose of his book. And so there's no fault in him in any way. It wasn't the purpose of Washington Waiting. But I was like, man, that's crazy that it seems like there's actually a wide open gap to do something that is thoroughly exegetical and yet has a pastoral tone. So I knew early on that it needed to be written. So the next thing I did is I just started reading

everything on the topic. Now, as even though I write books that are more accessible to the average person, I still am an academic at heart. So even if I write something that's easy to follow, that isn't, you know, shooting over people's heads, you know, I want my footnotes to be like 50 pages of footnotes. Like I want to actually, I want to satisfy both the average reader and the scholar. Like I wanted to write a book in such a way that the scholar would look at my footnotes and see, has he actually done his research here? And I would want that scholar, whether they agree or not, to walk away saying, okay, at least he's covered the field. He's not missing some major work in the academic discussion. So I usually spend a long time in the academic literature, scholarly articles that nobody's heard of, drilling down deep into the various issues that I know are significant for the topic. And so with the topic of homosexuality for people to be loved, gosh, I mean, there's so, so much out there, so much out there.

I had to become much more acquainted with the Greco-roman background than i previously was my specialties in first century judaism it wasn't as much in greco-roman literature and so i had to kind of learn that whole world i had to become more acquainted with uh ancient neres literature as a background for genesis one and two and leviticus 18 and other passages um and then it's just covering all the secondary literature that is out there on an academic level. So it took, I mean, it took a ton of work and I had a good running start given my background in New Testament and Judaism. And the Jewish sections in the Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 were a bit easier to write because those were ones that I was much more acquainted with already.

But that's as far as the next stage in the writing process. It is swimming in the academic world. And then also with a topic like homosexuality, I wanted to humanize it. And so I read a ton of blogs and just kept up on the latest blogs being written. Wanted to not just read about different stories, but enter into the different stories I was reading, to learn the language, to learn the nuance, to put flesh on the topic. And so that involved a lot of phone calls and lunches and coffee engagements and again, more blogs and podcasts and paying attention to even news cycles, the news cycle that if there's a latest thing that came out, And even news cycles, the news cycle that, you know, if there's a latest thing that came out, a story or whatever, I wanted to be familiar with it.

So I wasn't sort of tone deaf to the broader cultural discussion. And then after that, then I just, you know, I start. Well, so let me back up. During that whole process, as I'm covering the literature, I also have a Word document open. I have kind of a working outline. I'm not super religious about the outline. I don't think, I mean, for me as a writer, I don't like to have a strict outline that I'm going to plug everything into.

Like the outline sort of molds and shifts and changes and grows and shrinks as I'm researching the topic. So I don't like to begin with an outline and then research. I like the outline to flow from my research. But even then, even after I've done the bulk of the research, and I'm really still, I'm researching up until the day I turn in the manuscript. I'm always keeping up on stuff.

But when the bulk of the research is done and i start actually actually writing different chapters and and sub chapters and stuff even then the outline is being reconfigured through the writing process you really don't know how the book is going to feel until you actually start writing so i do like to start writing early on even if i'm not ready because well once you start writing it's not like you're writing early on, even if I'm not ready. Because, well, once you start writing, it's not like you're writing, don't think that you're writing like a final chapter. You're writing a rough draft. And I think it's Hemingway that said, you know, every first draft is crap.

Or he didn't say crap. He said something a little bit more explicit. I think it was Hemingway. Was it Hemingway? Anyway. And that's so true. Like your first draft is you're just trying to organize your thoughts. So your first draft is going to be crap and your second draft is going to be crap and your fifth draft is going to be crap. And really it's towards the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth draft, you know, when it starts to kind of really take shape. And if that sounds overwhelming to you, then I would encourage you not to write. Writing is incredibly difficult.

It takes a ton more time than people realize. Don't think that you're just going to go and put pen on paper and it's just going to turn out great. Like it takes a ton of work. Sometimes I'm lingering on a sentence for days or even weeks to get that sentence right um and a lot of times a lot of times what i do in my third fourth fifth draft when it's starting to kind of take shape like the direction the the content the tone everything's starting to take shape i will um underline uh words phrases paragraphs that i'm not terribly excited about that I really want to revisit with a fine tooth comb. And that's, you know, in my later edits, then I'm going to go back through and

look at all the underlined words, you know, words that I'm like, this word, this verb is just flat. It doesn't have any spice to it, but I can't think of another verb right now that, that I like better. So I'm just going to underline it, sit on it until I'm kind of done with the, with the content as a whole. Um, and I'm going to revisit that word in, in the, in the more, the final drafts to pick, to handpick of the 10, 15, 20 different verbs or sentence structures that I can use here. I'm going to really marinate on it and make sure I am picking the best verb that I'm weeding out. Unnecessary adjectives and adverbs, those are crutches for writing. Don't saturate your sentences with annoying, you know, lists of adjectives and adverbs and using the same, you know, very this and extremely that.

And those are just lazy ways to sort of buff up your verb that is actually a weak verb. Use strong, picturesque, compelling, and what's the word I'm looking for? I may be picturesque, but words that just create the picture in people's mind that conveys the idea

that you're trying to get across. Okay, so I'm getting way off track here, but as you can probably tell, I guess my whole point of that whole last few minutes on writing is just the actual art of writing means a lot to me. You could say the same thing 50 different ways. And I'm passionate about trying to find the absolute best of those 50 ways. That's going to not just convey the true point that I'm trying to get across, but is going to do so in the most compelling way that I know how. So right now, yeah, I've got a few book ideas rolling around in my head, but I'm going to

save those for now. And maybe in the next few months, you'll be able to hear what those book ideas are. And I can kind of walk through my process in real time with you. All right, next question. This has to do with whether or not Christians who hold to a historically Christian view of marriage, that marriage is between a man and woman, that all sexual relationships outside that covenant bond are sin, Relationships outside that covenant bond are sin. Whether or not such a Christian who experiences attraction to the same sex should ever identify as gay, lesbian, or LGBTQ+. The questioner says, as I have read through some of your blogs, I've been trying to weed through my discomfort with your conclusions on self-identification. Whether it's a preconceived bias I'm holding on to or what, I'm not sure. self-identification, whether it's a preconceived bias I'm holding onto or what, I'm not sure.

You've seemed to conclude that Christians identify themselves as, or in LGBT plus terms, is an acceptable practice. That is to call oneself a gay Christian is biblically acceptable. I'm not sure I understand your logic. Okay. And the questioner said a lot of other things here. I'm just trying to summarize it. He also says, I would love to hear more about your understanding of Romans 1 and Matthew 5 as it pertains to this topic, as it pertains to tendency, lust, and action. And let me just say, I so appreciate, so appreciate the humility that surrounds the way you ask your question here. And especially in this specific debate, I think we could use a lot more humility in how we approach it. So thank you so much in how you approach this. I've heard some people say, you know, look, I don't call myself an idolatrous Christian. Why should somebody call themselves a gay Christian? You know, that's,

I understand the concern, sort, um, I disagree with several premises in that concern, but I just, the tone itself, sometimes people get just, it's like their, their question is just, you know, engulfed in frustration, if not anger or condescension, you know? And so your question is not like that at all. So I so appreciate it. Okay. So should somebody who holds to a traditional view of marriage ever say that they are a gay Christian rather than just a Christian who happens to struggle with same-sex attraction? Let me begin by saying that whatever I end up saying here, I do see both sides of this debate. I see the legitimate concerns that spring from those who are nervous about Christians ever

identifying as a gay Christian or using those identity labels of gay, bisexual, transgender, identity labels of gay, bisexual, transgender, so on. I really do understand some of the concerns there. I also understand the pushbacks that my gay Christian friends have given. Friends like Wesley Hill and Nate Collins and Greg Coles and several others who say, here's what I mean when I say gay, and here's why I think that term is not only fine, but actually the preferred term. So I am not going to come down super hard that people should never say gay Christian, nor am I going to come down hard to say, can people stop pushing back against the gay Christian label, you know, you have nothing to say. Like, I'm not going to come down either hard on either one of those sides. And our

ministry, the ministry I started a couple of years ago, the Center for Face, Sexuality, and Gender, we are fine or comfortable using the terms gay or LGBT plus, but we want to be a place where both sides feel like they can learn from each other. Okay, the number one question we have to ask and answer as you're wrestling with this debate is this. Do you believe that same-sex attraction is a morally culpable sin? Do you believe that same-sex attraction is a morally culpable sin? Obviously, lust is a sin. Any kind of lust. Same sex, opposite sex.

Obviously, any kind of sexual behavior outside of marriage, a male-female marriage, is sin. I mean, I say obviously in the sense that this is what traditionalists believe, or as I call it, this is the historically Christian position. Okay, so we could say lust is a sin. Sexual behavior outside marriage is a sin. rationalists believe or as i call this is the historically christian position okay so though we can say lust is a sin uh sexual behavior outside marriage is a sin but is same-sex attraction a sin and not sin in the sense that it's simply part of the fall like all sin is ultimately or all sinful structures or sin natures, you know, can be traced back to the fall. I'm not saying just sin on a capital S general level. I'm saying on an individual level is same-sex attraction a morally culpable sin?

So I answer that question, no. I don't believe people who are same-sex attracted versus opposite-sex attracted. I don't believe the same sex attracted people are living in a state of 24-7 sin that they need to repent from. If you disagree with me, then my next question would be, okay, well, what does repentance look like? If you believe that simply experiencing same-sex attraction or being same-sex attracted is a morally culpable sin, then I don't know what repentance would look like other than becoming straight. And you could say, well, no, no, I'm just saying that they shouldn't lust or shouldn't, you know, just like have sinful desire in their heart.

I'm like, okay, well, that's another question though. I'm not saying should same-sex attracted people be able to lust or not. I've already said lust is always a sin. I'm saying does somebody who is same-sex attracted, are they living in a state of 24-7 morally culpable sin until they repent from being same-sex just, I'll just use his name because he's a friend and you probably know who he is. So when Wesley Hill, my friend who says he's a gay Christian, he's committed to celibacy out of allegiance to the gospel and the Bible and Jesus and Holy Spirit and father and so on. When he's asleep at night at three in the morning, is he still same sex attracted? Is he still gay? Or, you know, maybe when Wes falls asleep, he turns into a

straight guy and then all of a sudden he wakes up and he's like, ah, crap, you know, I'm still gay. You know, once I wake up, I turn into a gay guy. No, he's same-sex attracted even when he's asleep, even though he's not consciously thinking about it or even aware of it or certainly isn't lusting after anybody when he's asleep. When I fall asleep at three in the morning, am I still straight? Well, yeah. So here's, I think the category of same-sex attraction has been misunderstood by a lot of people in this debate. It's particularly on those who say that same-sex attraction itself is a sin. Okay. So that's, but that's, that's a long, I know it's kind of a long intro, but that you'd really need to be clear on what you even, on what you believe about same-sex attraction.

Not just lust, not just sexual behavior, but same-sex attraction. Okay, so that's the first question you have to answer. I've already answered that I then I think that's fine. experience, then I think that's fine. If somebody uses the term gay as sort of the ultimate identity, like, you know, number one, they're gay. Number two, they're a man. Number three, they're a Christian. Number four, you know, whatever, they're a food server. It's the first thing that came to mind. Then, yeah, I would probably have a problem with that. So there are certain ways in which identities can be unhelpful and certain ways in which they can simply be secondary descriptions of your experience.

But I think this is true across the board. I've met people who, you know, they say, hi, my name's Carol and I'm a homeschool mom. It's like the first next thing that came out of their mouth. I'm like, I think that's a very unhelpful way to identify yourself. Or even I don't particularly like it when people elevate their national identity or citizenship that they are Americans first, you know, and then Christians second. You say, oh, well, Christians wouldn't say it like that. Maybe not, but a lot of them actually act like that.

like that. Their identity is more shaped by their political allegiance, you know, or by certain news outlets than it is by, you know, their Christian identity. And we, I don't want to get lost in that rabbit hole, but, um, so all that to say, I look, I agree with the side that is nervous about people identifying as great gay Christians. I agree with their, one of their concerns is that identity labels aren't neutral. How you identify yourself can and does shape behavior and values and thought patterns. Identity labels are not neutral. And again, this isn't just about the gay versus SSA debate. It rings true across the board. So I understand that.

I get that. You know, I hear that critique and then I'm like, yeah, that is true. We can't just throw around identity labels and think that they don't mean anything or that they're sort of just superficial descriptions of our lives and that they don't they can't actually shape behavior and thought patterns. I also don't think it's helpful that helpful to define the essence of our existence by our sexual attractions. OK, so biblically, the fundamental categories of human identity, the fundamental categories are that we are human and therefore bear God's image, but even that is broken down into male and female. The fundamental categories of human identity are male and female. fundamental definition of our existence, even if you do simply mean it as a synonym for same-sex attraction, then I think it's okay. But I would at least raise the question, maybe even push back or challenge my gay, lesbian brothers and sisters about, I guess, those two points. So number one, identity labels aren't neutral. Number two, as long as you're not using this term to describe

the sort of fundamental essence of your existence on par with your male or female identity. Now, having said that, almost all, if not all of my friends who do use the term gay, who are committed to historical Christian sexual ethic, they don't use these terms in such fundamental ways. these terms in such fundamental ways. They simply use gay as a synonym for same-sex attraction to describe one aspect of their experience in life, not a fundamental description of who they are before God. So I think there's some misunderstanding here between the two sides of the debate. Okay. Now, on the other hand, so let me step into the shoes now of my friends, Wesley Hill, Greg Coles, Nate Collins, several others, Bridget Eileen and others who are very comfortable with you saying gay rather than same-sex attraction. Okay.

So here's a few pushbacks from their side. Same-sex attraction is in itself a neutral identity marker. And this was first pointed out to me by Justin Lee. Had a long conversation with Justin about this very question. And he said, look, Preston, same-sex attraction isn't some neutral phrase. It has been forged in the cauldrons of reparative therapy or ex-gay ministries. And many gay people have had a very bad experience. One might say traumatic experience having gone through ex-gay sort of ministries or whatever.

And I'm not knocking all ex-gay ministries. I'm just saying that has been the experience of an overwhelming majority of people that I have personally talked to. So same-sex attraction was sort of, according to these testimonies from my friends, that phrase was sort of crammed down our throats that we must use and hammered into us. That phrase is sort of crammed down our throats that we must use and hammered into us. And saying same-sex attraction brings back itself some very bad memories. Also, identity markers are varied and flexible. Gay Christian doesn't have to mean that gay is the primary lens through which you see yourself. I would point you to a recent blog by Wesley Hill on the

Spiritual Friendship blog site. This is spiritualfriendship.org. Wesley Hill, the title is Weariness. This is posted on November 16th, just a couple weeks, a few weeks ago. And it's in response to some of the critiques that David Bennett, my friend David Bennett, who also identifies as a gay Christian, has received from his book. And Wesley Hill's blog is super helpful. And he's got links to other blogs where he explains what he and others mean by the phrase gay Christian. Okay. One of my probably one of the most powerful reasons that I think using the term gay Christian or identifying as gay might be particularly helpful has to do with its missional strength. What I mean by that is this. The church is built, whether you think so or not, whether you contributed to it or not,

the church has built a reputation that you can't be gay and a Christian, meaning you can't be same-sex attracted and be a Christian. The church has built a reputation for itself that the church is for straight people and not for gay people. That if you're gay, then Christianity simply isn't an option until you stop being gay and become straight. Now, hopefully most of you don't believe that and sort of cringe when you hear that and maybe weep when you hear that. But that is true for a lot of people that gay means non-Christian. Again, when I say gay, I'm simply saying that you experience same-sex attraction, not opposite-sex attraction. Don't read, every time I say gay, don't read into it like sexual

behavior, sexual promiscuity, or even having an affirming gay theology, whatever. I simply mean that there is this reputation that the church has built that if you are simply attracted to the same sex, then you have no place in the church. Christianity, throwing yourself upon the mercies of Jesus is simply categorically impossible because Jesus doesn't love gay people. That's the reputation. So when our brothers and sisters like Bridget and David and Wes and Nate and Greg and many, many others are able to go out into the world and love Jesus publicly and get to know other nonbelievers, get get to know other LGBT people and say, oh, yeah, I'm gay too.

Oh, you're gay too. Oh, okay. But wait a minute, you're a Christian. And to hear, you know, Greg Coles with his priceless smile and abounding joy that just flows through his veins to hear him say with a big confident smile saying yes i'm very gay and i am so madly in love with jesus the missional byproduct of that kind of posture at the very least at the very least challenges the assumption that you cannot be attracted to the same sex, i.e. gay, and also follow Jesus. So when the world hears somebody identify as or say, oh, I struggle with same-sex attraction,

that doesn't have the same missional power that saying you're a gay Christian does. Okay, so Romans 1 and Matthew 5, I, again, Romans one is talking about lust. Matthew five, I believe is also talking about lust. Lust is always a sin, but same-sex attraction isn't the same as lust. You can't map our modern category of same-sex attraction onto the ancient biblical category of lust, or I would even say sexual desire. Oftentimes, you know, because desire can be a sinful category as well. Oftentimes when desire and sex are in the same sort of ideological, no, when desire and sex are in the same sentence in the Bible, it's usually a very negative thing, but we can't map same-sex attraction as a modern category perfectly onto the ancient category of

desire and sex. So I hope that's helpful. Give you something to think about. I'm still on a journey with this, trying to weigh both sides. I want to get this right. I want to honor Jesus in how I'm promoting, you know, how I understand this conversation. So I don't, you know, I'm trying to think really carefully through both sides of this debate. So I hope this is helpful for you. Okay, this next question has to do with the house church model and particularly, in particular, in particular, in particular, the We Are Church model that Francis Chan and his team introduced in the San Francisco area several years ago.

The questioner says, I am just curious if the We Are Church model would work in smaller cities or towns, or is it something that needs a bigger population to really work well? I have recently left the church where I pastored for the past decade in search for something different, and God has been providing me with the opportunity to make a paycheck from a different job and not need to take a church salary. But many of my peers don't think this can work, and they think I need to pour into bigger ministry of the local church in my city rather than focusing on small groups

that I believe could multiply to several houses around our small city, around 20,000 people where I live. I've also been in touch with the We Are Church movement and have read Francis Chan's new book, Letters to the Church, and I am currently reading your book, Go. Well, thank you for reading my book

and for asking this question. I think my book, Go, is probably the least known book that I've written. I think it's only sold like, I don't know. Yeah, a couple dollars worth of sales. It's sold hardly anything, which is fine. I, you know, go, it really does capture all this talk that I've given to church and church ministry and models of church and discipleship and all this stuff is captured in that book. It's kind of, in many ways,

my manifesto on church up until the point where I was at two years ago when I finished the book. Um, so I'm glad you're reading it. Would love to hear your thoughts on whether it's been helpful on church up until the point where I was at two years ago when I finished the book. So I'm glad you're reading it. I would love to hear your thoughts on whether it's been helpful or not. So I have had a complicated journey when it comes to church, church models, the way we do church. And I've been a Christian for over 23 years, 23 years. And for the first, I would say maybe 10, maybe, no, maybe six years. I didn't really question anything, church or church. And then after that, I started to just ask some hard questions. And it really began with, the first thing for me was the money question. You know, just why do we spend so much money on stuff

that doesn't seem to be directly related to the radical call of picking up your cross and dying with Jesus and denying your life and all these things and giving away everything to the poor. Like how much of our church model in terms of its finances resonates with the rhythm of the, of the new Testament. And that, that happened. Gosh, when was that? At the very least, there's probably,

that was probably 12 years ago is when I came back from Scotland. I came back from Scotland in 2004 or sorry, 2007, finished my PhD and was visiting churches. And I had space during my PhD for three years to kind of really just kind of think about church and what church can and should be. And I was going to some, you know, pretty simple churches in Scotland. A lot of the churches there are much simpler than the ones here. You don't have a lot of the kind of like consumerism that just drives so many churches in America. And so I think I really fell in love with the simplicity of church there.

And when I came back, it was kind of, you know, it was when I started asking some harder questions. And so, and look, even on the podcast, I've said things about different models and different types of ministries. And I've even had, you know, I did a whole series on what is church. And, you know, I'm constantly thinking and rethinking stuff I used to believe. So let me just give you some thought. Let me answer your question really quickly. Yes, the We Are Church model can work at a smaller city. I do think for various reasons, it is a little more conducive for life in the city. Um,

for people that live in the city, it's a little easier to have kind of a parish model church. Maybe it's not easier. It just seems that that's more the case, that people in the city typically gravitate to churches that are closer to them, that are more tailored to either the single life or life without kids is another thing. But when you do church in the suburbs or church in more rural areas or less populated cities, people, I don't know, it seems to foster more of a commuter mentality and does

seem to cater to the middle class suburb kind of life where you have, you know, three to five kids and then, you know, more of a need for maybe youth groups and other things. So I do think there are maybe some challenges to doing a We Are Church or house church movement or model in a less populated area, but certainly it can work. So that's my answer to your question. So let me give some more general thoughts that may give some shape to my answer. So let me give some more general thoughts that may give some shape to my answer. First of all, I have grown more – well, over the years, I'm holding less and less tightly to a particular church model.

Even all the way up to like a couple years ago, I was probably more zealous for the house church model. And that started to loosen up. Even when I started that house church last year, we could maybe talk more about that on a later podcast. It's not going anymore. Just for the record. Um, maybe a lot of you have questions about that. You can send them in Chris at Preston sprinkle.com.

Ask me your questions about my current or what happened to the house church. Anyway, so even when I started the house church, even then I really want to emphasize, look, this is a model that we're pursuing. It's not the model that needs to be done. So I do think that church models should flow from and be shaped by the gifts that God has brought to that particular church. I do. I would say over the last year, I've grown more empathetic to church models that are a little more service or preaching or teaching centric if you have a teacher or preacher who is really gifted at that kind of prophetic or teaching gift, if you will. And here's, I guess, what would be my pushback to the typical church model is it just seems to be assumed that if you're a pastor and you preach a monologue every Sunday, that every Sunday, for 30 minutes to 60 minutes, you need to, the majority of Sundays, preach a monologue

that's been kind of scripted out. For me, I'm like, well, that might be the most helpful way that some teachers and preachers are wired, but I don't think that that should be the case for every single teacher and preacher. I think especially if it's a smaller church, it just makes more sense. And by smaller, let's just say under 100, it makes more sense to have something that is a bit more dialogical that isn't, you know, somebody up front speaking to a bunch of people sitting in almost like a, like a movie state, you know, movie theater type, type, you know, setting. if you have a smaller church which is a amazing thing i prefer smaller churches under 100 personally um then it just makes more sense to have something a bit more of a family conversation

or something there's something that's more dialogical doesn't need to be just open air free for all could have teaching for sure but um it just seems kind of weird when what works from a stage with a guy or girl who has an amazing preaching gift that can bring a monologue and just penetrate the hearts of the people sitting there. Like it doesn't make sense to do that. It makes sense to do that on a stage where there's a thousand people looking on and the monologue is the most effective means in that context given the certain gifts that are on the stage it doesn't make sense to take that and map it onto another context where there's 45 people sitting in a room and the preacher is not gifted at you know monological preaching i was at a church just recently last last week. It was so cool.

They had one of those stages that, it was actually a big church. It was like 2,000 people, I think. So each service had about 1,000 people. And yeah, the room fit 1,200 people. But the stage was in the middle. It had a round, and the preacher, the music was in the middle. So it wasn't, so the worship leaders weren't kind of fronted, like they were kind of like –

like you didn't feel like you're at a concert. They were in the middle. So the focus wasn't so much on them. Sorry, in the middle. They were like down in the stage. So they weren't the focal point. And then the preacher was able to walk around the entire circular stage. It was kind of circular.

And the cool thing about that is even though you's, you know, you can fit a thousand people in the room, nobody was more than, you know, 40 feet away from the preacher. There was no like back row kind of feeling where you're like, oh, I'm just gonna sit in the back and hear some monologue. No, he would, and the preacher, I talked to the guy who's the pastor, and he says, well, I like this setup because I'm just, I am more of a relational kind of communicator. Like I don't have a, I don't have, you know, I do write out my sermon, but I pretty much just kind of embody it. Just go through it several times. I don't have any notes on stage. So I walk around and I can, I'm the type of preacher that likes to look at people's eyes and, and know their names. And I want to talk to them,

not at them. And so, because he's, here's my whole point. Even though it was a huge, a big church, given he was very self-aware of his preaching style, and it was much more relational. It wasn't this kind of John Piper, you know, like, boom, like blow it out of the park, you know, this monologue that's just going to penetrate your soul. It was more of a, he's going to penetrate your soul by communicating, by embodying, by looking you in the eye and talking to you. your soul by communicating, by embodying, by looking you in the eye and talking to you. And so the very means by which he delivered a sermon was tailored to his specific kind of gifting. So all that to say, I truly do think that a more traditional, polished kind of church could be the right kind of church, given the types of gifts that God has brought to that church. Again, so going back to that church that I just talked about, it had a great facility, a wonderful facility. It was a former Kmart.

And they gutted it out and they just built one of the incredible internal kind of like they they just the way they restructured the inside the church was so like just off the chart cool and amazing um so you could say oh this is just a traditional mega church whatever but guess what they give 25 percent of their money to missions so to me that that's the main thing like look i don't care you want to like make your church look super polished and nice nice building whatever like to me what's what's the internal health of that giving away 25 percent of your tithing to missions is amazing that's amazing every church should be doing that um so as less yeah look at i'm less concerned about i mean i didn't care to me i almost didn't

even care about how much time and energy and money went into that. Cause I can see the by-product was they're giving tons of stuff away and sending people to the mission field. Okay. So, um, I, so here's where I've shifted a little bit, maybe away from, not away from just, I would, that I was, I was, okay. So I was going to say away from the, the, the, we We Are Church is adamant that nobody is released financially for ministry. So 100% of the giving that goes into the church goes out from the church. Like nothing. The church has no expenses. Not even the staff.

There's no staff. There's no paid anybody. Nobody gets paid. While it has definitely worked for them. I mean, they've done amazing things there. I do think, well, I do know that there's biblical allowances and even some mandates for releasing people financially for ministry in particular, first Corinthians nine that we talked about earlier and first Timothy five 17, um, that it's, it's, it's good. It's good to release people from ministry. Now, Paul, for various reasons said, I'm not going to

take that release money and I'm just going to work a job. And so it can also be good for a preacher to say, look, I know I can take money, but for the sake of my specific context, I'm not going to take a paycheck. Um, however, having said all that, I do think that it is usually healthier for the church to release some people for the work of ministry. Even if you have a full-time job, you're taking a paycheck, so you don't need to get paid. My other question is, if you are married and do have kids, are you able to give to your family and also give to the ministry and also work your job and not kill yourself? This is what I found myself doing when I was engaging in the sort of we are church model. I also had a more than a full-time job on my plate, which was also a ministry. And I was trying to, you know, devote myself to

some bite off some chunk of pastoral ministry on top of that. It almost killed me. I just didn't have the emotional or spiritual bandwidth to do anymore. And I felt myself, I felt myself in almost performance mode. Like I'm just doing, doing, doing, and, and nothing is being poured into me and I'm having little rest time and it just wasn't healthy for the things that I was already doing. So, and also how do you devote time to raising up new leaders, to training people? What about people that go to seminary, which I totally believe in, getting formal education, and then they come back from three, four years of education. And then what do they do with an MDiv, a Master of Divinity? Well, I think it can be good for them to take a paycheck if that's something that is healthy for them and the church. I'm not saying they have to. I'm just saying that if a church model doesn't

even allow for somebody who went and got educated for three or four years or five years or six years to take a paycheck that flows from the degree that they pursued, then yeah, I think that that could be bad. Not necessarily, but it could be an unhelpful thing. So at the end of the day, I think the church, generally speaking, this is a 30,000 foot general statement. I think the church, churches in America can by and large be a lot more simple than they typically are. I think we should always ask the question, does the way we're using people's tithe money, kind of going back to a previous question, the way we're using people's tithe money, kind of going back to a previous question,

when we redistribute other people's wealth, are we doing so in a way that reflects the rhythm of the New Testament and how it redistributes wealth? And I know we live in a different time, different culture, and buildings aren't intrinsically bad, but are there some creative ways in which we can overly simplify church? I got a dream. I have a dream. That one day I would buy a warehouse, small warehouse, smallish warehouse,

gut it out, and I would host a – I would sublease part of it out to a coffee shop, like a really good coffee shop, a craft coffee shop that needs space to roast their own beans. Okay, so craft coffee shop by day. And then at night, I would lease it out. I would make it somehow to where it kind of turns into a brew pub. Not brew pub, just a brewery at night, like a tasting room or a new brewer. And I would prefer that both the owner of the coffee shop and the owner of brewery would be non-Christians. I would love to lease it out to them by day, by night, and then Sunday, whatever, we would have our church service. And maybe there's some pockets throughout the week where, you know, part of the lease agreement would be that, hey, we need space on, you know, Wednesday night and Tuesday morning.

And, you know, Saturday morning we have, you know, an outreach to the homeless people in the town or whatever. I don't know. I'm just kind of thinking out loud. But the building basically almost 24-7 would be used. And imagine, I mean, you could probably, you can charge like the brewery and the coffee shop owner, the coffee roaster, you can charge them basically like 20% less

than maybe the going rate. Like you want to bless them, especially if it's a startup and they can get maybe some cool space with a lot cheaper than they can typically afford. So you're blessing them. They're still a business. So I think it's fine to charge them.

I think that's just part of running a good business, a sustainable business. And then Saturday night, you got a bunch of people that are at the brew pub Friday night. And then maybe some people at church are hanging out with them. And then people catch wind that, oh, this brew pub coffee shop is actually a church on Sunday morning. Well, I've never heard of something like that. You know, gosh, I'm going to try that out. And so you have, you're sort of integrated with a really strong witness in the community

through the coffee shop and through the brewery. And hopefully you can have a bunch of people showing up on Sunday that normally wouldn't show up at church. You cut the cost way down. Maybe you don't even have, maybe the two subleases cover your costs. And so you actually have a church building that is missionally explicit in the sense that it's, you know, you're in relationship with people in the community by virtue of sharing this building. And your costs are cut so far down on your building that you now have a bunch of money to give the way to missions, to send people to majority world countries, to be a city set on a hill, salt and light to people that need to hear about Jesus, but that we oftentimes can't afford to send people to because

we are so wrapped up into making our mortgage payment. Just a dream. Just a dream. Maybe there's tons of problems with it. I'll let you chew on that. Thanks for listening to Theology in the Raw. Please visit patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. If you care and dare to support the show, that's patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw.

We will see you next time.