Theology in the Raw - 728: #728 - Is Porn Use Grounds for Divorce? What Is a Christian Response to Sexual Fetishes?

Episode Date: March 4, 2019

On episode #728 of Theology in the Raw Preston answers questions submitted by Pateron supporters. Questions covered in this podcast: 1) Is Porn Use Grounds for Divorce? 2) What is a Christian Response to Sexual Fetishes? 3) Is Andy Stanley a Heretic? 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.

is porn use grounds for divorce what is a christian response to sexual fetishes and is andy stanley a heretic i'm preston sprinkle and another episode of Theology in the Rock. Thank you for joining me on the show, sort of, as a listener, not as a speaker. I'm the only speaker on this show. We're going to address a bunch of questions, really tough questions. And I know I often say that, that all your questions are tough, but these are like really tough, like capital T tough. And it's taken me a long time to kind of work through them, think through them, figure out how best to respond to some of these questions. And some of them, I just, I don't have a real clear black and white answer, but we're going to wrestle with them.

a real clear black and white answer, but we're going to wrestle with them. If you are wanting to support the show, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. If you have benefited from the show, if it's been a blessing or if it's been a curse and you just feel like supporting something that keeps driving you crazy, then you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw support show for as little as five bucks a month and get in return free goodies. Well, not free because you're supporting them, but it is sort of transactional. You support me and I kick you down some, you know, stuff that I hide behind a paywall like monthly podcasts for my Patreon supporters or monthly blogs for other Patreon supporters

or things like free admission to some speaking events. Speaking of which, I will be in the South Bay of San Francisco at an event where I'm going to have a dialogue, an ongoing dialogue with Justin Lee about sexuality of the church, the Bible. Justin Lee is an affirming gay Christian. I am a, what am I? I'm straight. And I, I affirm, I'm, I'm actually, I affirm that sex difference is part of what marriage is. So both Justin Lee are affirming of different aspects of Christian sexual ethics. Um, so yeah, if that's framed differently than you used to, then come to the event. That's on March 10th in the South Bay. If you go to sparkchurch.com, I believe the name of the event is Scripture, Sexuality, and the Soul of Christianity, I think. So if you Google around, I'm sure you can find it. Or it's

on my webpage, pressandspringle.com. Go to the events and it's listed there. That's March 10th. And my Patreon supporters get in for free. So if you're a Patreon supporter or you want to become a Patreon supporter just to get free admission, then you didn't hear that from me. But yeah, you can do that. That's actually fair game. I can't police you doing that. You can support the show, go for free and then stop supporting the show if you want. I mean, it'd be a little underhanded, but hey, whatever. I'll be in Seattle on March 12th, Salem March 14th. I'll be at Anthem Church in Thousand Oaks March 17th. Gosh, that's a lot of stuff in one week. I think I overbooked myself. But anyway, yeah, Anthem Church, Thousand Oaks, March 17th, preaching

all three services and then doing a special kind of Q&A conversation at night on sexuality. And then I'll be in Cleveland, April 23rd, and a bunch of other stuff after that. But I mean, gosh, that's for the next couple months. That's what's going on. If you want to come hang out, you can check out my events page on PrestonSpringgold.com. Okay, let's jump into these questions. The first one has to do with that porn question. And I, you know, this is, I'm so glad this question came up. I've thought about this and I don't, I don't know if there's a clear black and white answer to this question. But let me, let me just read how the questioner raises this

really good question. He says, there seems to be a growing theological pastoral position that porn addiction and lust is grounds for divorce. So my question is, do Jesus's words of committing adultery in your heart in Matthew 5 and Jesus's words about sexual immorality in Matthew 19 make sexual immorality and more specifically the use of porn grounds for divorce? How would you answer that? Just before I even jump in, like, what would you answer that just before i even jump in like what would you say um clearly adultery is grounds for divorce matthew 19 and and other passages um and jesus seems to equate lust with adultery so his lust lust grounds for divorce? And what do you do with porn? I mean, porn is like, you know, lust on steroids. Cause it's like, you're not just lusting in your heart. You're actually watching, you know, you're, it's almost like you're, you're, yeah, I don't know,

get into all the details, but yeah, you can let your mind go there. Well, maybe mine shouldn't go there, but you get what I'm saying. I mean, so yeah, these are, these are really great questions. And I, I honestly don't think there's a crystal clear black and white answer to this, but let me just give you some thoughts. First of all, when we talk about lust, um, we need to make sure we define that correctly. I mean, lust is a desire for, and perhaps the planning of an illicit sexual liaison. That's a, that's a quote from, um, a commentary on Matthew, which commentaries is this? Is this, um, oh, R.T. Francis gospel of Matthew commentary in the new international commentary in the new

Testament page 204. So that, that's kind of a strong definition of lust. It's not just, it's certainly not noticing that somebody is attractive, even sexually attractive. It's more than that. It is a longing to have sex with that person and maybe even planning in your heart how to get there. Okay. Matthew, or sorry, R.T. France in his Matthew commentary points out that the same Greek word for lust, epithumeo in Matthew 5, 27 is used in the Greek translation of Exodus 20, 17, one of the 10 commandments that prohibits coveting your neighbor's wife, longing to have your neighbor's wife, not noticing that your neighbor's wife is simply attractive or even sexually attractive. It's more than that. Um, I mean, you can recognize longing to have your neighbor's wife, not noticing that your neighbor's wife is simply

attractive or even sexually attractive. It's more than that. I mean, you can recognize that your neighbor's wife is attractive without actually coveting or lusting after her. Okay. So, so we have to make sure that when we talk about, when we unpack what Jesus is saying there, we have to, I think it's helpful to take what I call a strong view of lust, not simply noticing that somebody is attractive. Now I think, so helpful to take what I call a strong view of lust, not simply noticing that somebody is attractive. Now, I think so. Jesus's point here, I think he's, I mean, he's confronting people who are checking off the boxes of external obedience while ignoring the heart. Like they're, hey, as long as I'm not committing actual adultery, then I can certainly lust after somebody, you know, and I'm fine.

It's that kind of mindset that he's attacking. And I think he's also making the point in the whole Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5 to 7, that external obedience or disobedience springs from the heart. from the heart. So I think understanding Jesus's main point here is super important as we seek to apply not just the words he is saying in Matthew 5, but also the kind of main point that he's driving at, if that makes sense. So, and let me just, for example, there's, I mean, all throughout Matthew 5, you know, he says that like, you know, if you don't commit murder, but are angry with your brother and call him a fool, then you have, you know, it's almost like he says it's the same as murder, but it's not the same as murder, right? It's just not. I mean, and I don't think, I think his point is, isn't to put them on the exact same plane and say the exact same thing. Like if you are angry at your pastor or your spouse, okay, and then you, you know, maybe repent from that or whatever.

And then somebody else, you know, comes and kills your spouse or kills the pastor. I don't think anybody's going to say, well, yeah, they're exactly the same thing. Like, well, no, that's not, I don't think anybody's going to say, well, yeah, they're exactly the same thing. Like, well, no, that's not, I don't think that's the point. And what I don't think that's what Jesus is saying is to put them on the same moral or experiential plane. What he's doing again is to say that if you are only doing external obedience and not taking care of your heart, so you're sinning internally, You have sinful desires that are not in check. Um, then that's, that's not enough. Like that's not, that's not the way of Christ. The way of Christ is both external obedience and aligning your desires in your heart with

God's intention. Okay. So I, so yeah, going back to sexual immorality, adultery, whatever, I, you know, these are concrete acts of sexual behavior. And I don't think they're the exact same thing as, you know, lusting after somebody. And I don't think it's the exact same thing as porn use. I'm not saying porn use is fine. In fact, it's completely very destructive. And I'm not saying lust is fine. Not at all. But they are different kinds of acts. So here's, you probably know where I'm going with this. I don't think we can simply say, like quickly say, without some deep reflection, that if somebody is, you know, lusts after his neighbor's wife, and then somebody else goes and sleeps with his neighbor's wife, that because the latter would be, could be grounds for divorce, that the former is also grounds for divorce. I don't think we can make a one-to-one correlation with that.

Now, the question did say porn addiction. And here's where it gets fuzzy for me. If a spouse is not only addicted to porn, but has no desire to repent. Okay, so we're talking about like non-repentive actions here. That one, that moves into a bit of a gray area for me here now. Like that, That one, that moves into a bit of a gray area for me here now. Like that, is that, is he being faithful to his wife? Has he, is he destroying the marriage to the extent that the marriage is practically being dissolved through his actions? You know, I think I might weigh each case individually here. Again, we're talking about an addiction that's not being repented of, not somebody that simply is struggling with porn use and needs their spouse.

I almost said he. I don't want to just assume this is the guy struggling with porn and the girl's not. Now, typically, that's how it is. But let's not just – don't just think in terms of some guy addicted to porn and the girl is the victim of that. That's true in most cases, but not every case. So let's just level the playing field a bit. I, yeah, I have a hard time saying that if a person is simply struggling with porn and needs their spouse to come around them and needs the community of God to come around them to hold up their arms and bear their cross in repentance, I have a hard time saying that is automatically grounds for divorce.

It might be. I mean, there might be something there depending on the nature of each individual situation. Because again, I've said this before many times, I think porn addiction especially is incredibly destructive. And the results of that might be very similar to the results of having an actual affair. Again, I do think an actual affair is different in kind than porn use. When Paul talks about sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, you know, he specifically highlights the role of becoming one flesh with another body through the sex act. And that's something that I don't think can be said with porn use. That might be one, you know, of one mind, maybe, or I think there's something deeply, profoundly psychological going on there, psychological union, whatever, but it still is not an embodied liaison, which I do think is significant to Paul's discourse, his argument in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6. Okay, I'm

going to leave it at that. That's as far as I want to think there. Maybe I've given you some stuff to think about. Maybe you want to push back, and that's awesome. I love pushbacks. In fact, I'm going to address some pushbacks here. Oh, the next question is a pushback. So let me just jump into, uh, that one. Okay. So, um, this next question or pushback has to do with a previous podcast where I talked about, um, let's see where I talked about, um, identities influencing behavior, specifically when the debate between, you know, whether a Christian who is attracted to the same sex should identify as a gay Christian versus a same sex attracted Christian. And, uh, some people would say that the term gay is such a strong identity marker that it is unhelpful for those who are, you know, who believe in a historically Christian view of marriage and sexuality.

So this person's pushback is twofold. He says first, if, and the question is where did, I'm not 100% clear on it. I know what he's getting at here. I'm not 100% clear on it. I know what he's getting at here. So I'll just, let me just read the question. I'll maybe massage it a little bit so that everybody can understand where he's coming from. So he says his first point, if same-sex attraction would channel an outcome, wouldn't identifying as straight also drive an outcome? So perhaps I'm gay and I don't know it because I identify as straight.

This is partly hyperbolic and tongue-in-cheek, just an effort to get to the point. Apologies for the overreach. Oh, thank you for that. I think rhetorically it's fine to overreach to make a point. I know you're overstating your case here and that's totally, I totally get it. And I think it's helpful in illustrating your point. So, your point, as I understand it, is, look, if identities, gay or same-sex attraction, or same-sex attraction influence behavior, then wouldn't saying you're straight also influence behavior? And I'm going to assume you think you're saying in a negative way. So let me just back up and repeat. I'm not saying if you say, if you identify as gay, then you will be more prone to same-sex sexual behavior simply because you use that identity. I'm not going there. I am, I do want to say that people who make that argument, people who do say that a gay identity could influence behavior and because, because language and especially identities are not neutral.

They do affect, not determine, not unilaterally produce, but they do shape and nurture self-reflection, self-perception and, and behavior. They can. They can. It's not just simply, oh, it's just a word. Oh, it's just an identity. Like identities are more, they're not just simply neutral in terms of how we view ourselves, the things we desire, and how we act and behave. Okay. So that was my only point there. I wasn't even saying I agree that identifying as gay will have certain outcomes in your life. I'm saying they could, it could, and we need to at least wrestle with that and explore that. We can't simply say, oh, it's just a word, it doesn't matter. No, no, words aren't just words. And yes, they do matter. yes, they do matter. So for instance, but also like just going into the whole gay versus SSA or same-sex attraction debate, here's where people that say that you should identify as same-sex attracted or say you struggle with same-sex attraction, you should never say I'm

a gay Christian or whatever. My pushback to that is SSA or same-sex attraction has its own possible problems I mean it the whole phrase same-sex attraction as you probably know or many of you know um was you know very popular in various ex-gay ministries and a lot of people that went through those ministries um have wrestled with piles and piles of um unbiblical shame simply for experiencing same-sex attraction. So that the phrase same-sex attraction could trigger more shame in their self-perception. And that's, and shame leads to all kinds of, just all kinds of bad behaviors and habits and self-reflection and how you interact with other people and your view of God and just so many things. I just read the book The Soul of Shame by Kurt Thompson,

and it just blew me away. I mean, the role that shame can play in somebody's posture, their obedience, their view of themselves, their view of God, their relationship with others and unhealthy habits. I mean, just so many things are rooted in a person, how it are rooted in the role of shame in somebody's heart. So say the phrase same-sex attraction could nurture and shape shame in a person's heart, which will lead them further away from God. The word gay could also nurture and influence, not determine other aspects of your heart and your identity. That's

not quite the question though. The question is, what about straight? Well, yeah, of course. Any kind of, I'm going to say strong identity could shape the way you think about life and the world and God and others. I don't, I mean, if somebody, I don't, do I identify as straight? Well, not, I mean, if somebody asked me, are you gay or straight? I'd say, well, I'm, I'm straight, but that I just, that's not like a primary identity of me. I don't run around saying, hi, my name is Preston. I'm a straight Christian. Like I, that's just not, it's not an identity marker for me. It is a description of my sexual desires according to modern 21st century categories of sexual orientation. So, I mean, of course, if you want to work within that kind of framework, sure. Yeah. I'm sexually attracted

to women and not to men right now. So, I don't, yeah, I don't run around identifying as straight, even though it would be a one modern way of describing my sexual desires. So I think that that might be the difference when we front load, uh, any kind of identity outside of our identity in Christ, um, or outside of our, um, embodied sex as a male or female bearing God's image. I do think that we're not just in Christ, we're also male and female. And that's significant for how we bear God's image. All other identities, if they become strong identities, I think have the potential of being unhelpful. If I front load my identity as an American citizen, that, I mean, when you hear that, I am an American, what comes to mind? How does that shape you? Is it make you think of somebody who's weak and frail and oppressed or somebody who is strong and dominant and even, you know,

you know, militaristic and masculine, um, and very proud of their, you know, country and how strong and wealthy it is and how it dominates other countries and how we're so blessed to be born into, uh, this nation. And, um, and the term America, I'm an American Christian, like that just conjures up all kinds of narratives, narratival strands, almost said, that's just, I don't know if that's a phrase, but so, or I, you know, I've met people that said, hi, my name's Carol. That's a fake name. I'm just making that up. Hi, my name's Carol. I'm a homeschool mom. And I, you know, I'm like, well, wait a minute. Is that really the next thing out of your mouth is that you're a homeschool mom? Like, to me, that's an unhelpful identity too. When all these other identities that might convey something neutral about your life, when they become primary identities, I think they have the potential of

nurturing wrong or unhelpful self-perceptions about yourself, life, the world, God, and so on. So, yeah, I want to say, I want to agree with this question. So, yeah, life, the world, God, and so on. So, yeah, I want to say, I want to agree with this question. So, yeah, the pushback is valid that any strong identity can be unhelpful. And so, yeah, I would tell my straight brothers and sisters, don't identify as an American Christian or as a homeschool mom or whatever. Even if these are true descriptions about aspects of your life, they are not fundamental to who you ontologically are. Okay, second, let's see. Oh, this one will be quick. This is from the same person who is responding to episode 717, my bantering around with my good friend, Ed Uzinski. We got into the conversation about Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts. And he says, while I know you were riffing with Ed on the topics of Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and that there's a fundamental biological difference between boys and girls,

you said, I think the analogy of bringing a bat to a football game is structurally different than being a girl and wanting the leadership opportunities presented in Eagle Scouts. So I don't, if I said otherwise, then I repent in dust and ashes. I, in no way was I using that analogy, uh, bringing a bat to a football game to, to, to, to, to map that on women who want leadership opportunities that are not given to them because of the biological division of boy and girl scouts. That is not at all. The wanting of leadership opportunities was not what I was trying to do with that analogy. And if I did, then I just, I apologize.

I would need to go back and listen to it to see if I was actually doing that. What I would, the bat to a football game was simply, if I remember correctly, acknowledging the, just the biological fundamental differences between men and women, males and females, not females wanting leadership positions. Okay. So I think that's all I need to say with that one. Um, I, people that deny, you know, differences between male and female, I think are just, well, they're just being unscientific. I mean, really. So, um, okay. Next question. Um, oh yeah. Sexual fetishes. Okay. So here we go. So this one's going to be a little R rated. Um, and so if you are, have kids listening, or if you're just not ready to talk about

sexual fetishes and the, you know, maybe some things that might sound offensive. So some things I'm going to read here might really offend some of you. So, but this is theology in the raw. So I don't, I think if people have a question, an honest question, then I want to have an honest response and I'm not going to police the nature of the question. Okay. So if you need to fast forward, you can stop, maybe fast forward over the next 10 minutes or so and pick it up after that. If, if, if, you know, you might be offended at some things discussed here in this conversation about sexual fetishes. And of course, having said all that, probably all of you are much more interested now in this conversation about sexual fetishes. And of course, having said

all that, probably all of you are much more interested now in this question than you were before. So let's see. I think your podcast is awesome. And I really have been, and has been really great at tackling hard and often taboo issues in the church. That being said, I wanted to ask if any of your study you've ever thought through or come across, uh, in, in all your study and stuff has, if you've come across research on the theological, on theological insight into sexual fetishes, uh, this topic is almost never broached. And even the boldest Christian conversations about sex and any Googling or research I have done on the subject has not been productive, uh, with some people saying anything goes as long as you're

married to a person of the opposite sex, while other people say there's only one way to have truly righteous and sinless sex, which is to keep it fairly vanilla, so to speak. This topic has personal relevance to my own journey with sexuality as I've struggled with the sexual fetish of seeing women tied up. Even something as simple as seeing a damsel in distress in a movie could turn me on. Also, a friend of a friend had a terrible accident due to erotic asphyxiation that cost him his life. That's where erotic asphyxiation, you can Google it. And I did this just to make sure nothing crazy would pop up. The first link is the Wikipedia article that describes what erotic asphyxiation is, where people are erotically turned on by the, how do I say it? Erotically turned on by attempted strangling or lack of oxygen. Now, some people go too far and they end up killing

themselves, which is incredibly sad. But it's usually an attempt of, you know, satisfying a sexual urge, which comes with, for certain people, that they're turned on by, you know, kind of near strangling, if you will. And there's a whole list of people that have died from erotic asphyxiation. How do Christians think through normal things that for us have somehow become sexually pleasurable? How do we handle the shame and hiddenness that comes from wrestling with these things? Particularly since most Christians truly never talk about these things. Any advice or insight you would have would be appreciated. Thanks, man. So some of you were horrified when he said he gets, it is, he gets turned on by seeing women tied up. Okay. Let me

just clarify on behalf of this questioner, this is not something he has chosen for himself. This is a sexual desire that is unchosen that has come upon him that probably has biological roots. Most unwanted, not all, well, most unwanted sexual desires have biological roots, influences. They don't just, they're not just, you don't just wake up one day and say, hey, I'm going to be turned on by seeing women tied up. I don't see in his question an intrinsic desire to harm women. Again, he is very much horrified by this desire that is seemingly outside of his control. Okay. So certainly if he acts on this, that would be horrible and sinful on so many levels.

If this turned into something that, you know, would harm somebody else, obviously. Obviously. Okay. If you've been listening to the show for more than five minutes, hopefully this, I don't even need to explain or even defend that, you know, harming somebody in a sexual act is, I don't think we need to even discuss whether that's okay or not. It's not okay. And this person doesn't believe it's okay, okay? This is an unwanted sexual desire that he needs Christian help with. So you, dear Christian listening, if you're a Christian, how would you help this person deal with an unwanted sexual desire? The psychological term for this is paraphilia. And there's various definitions of it. You can Google paraphilia,

and there's a good overview on the website, Psychology Today. It's a decent overview of it. And to just answer your question, there's been a good deal of work done on paraphilias from a psychological perspective. I think there's probably next to no work done on paraphilias from a Christian perspective. Now, if you're a Christian psychologist, maybe you have something to say, but there is, I think you can draw on the wisdom of how psychologists have helped people deal with various paraphilias. There's all kinds of paraphilias. A popular one these days is foot fetishes. I mean, these days, maybe it's always been there, but I get a lot of emails from people who have this unwanted, they would see it as kind of a strange, I don't

know where it came from, but I'm incredibly sexually turned on by feet. That's pretty common. So if you're out there and you have a foot fetish, you're not alone. And there's just myriads of different sexual desires, things that turn you on that don't feel normal, that don't feel healthy, and are again, unwanted. And you, if you're out there, and there's probably a lot of you out there who are like, yeah, that's me. I just don't have anybody to talk to. And that's sad if the Christian church can't help people talk openly about various unwanted desires that they need help with. So, you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to put in the show notes. So I need to dig in and get some specific names here. Because I just yesterday was looking at an article on some recent psychological treatments of various paraphilias. I didn't write it down. The name is escaping me right now. But there's a few, well, there's a bunch, but there's a few psychologists and psychiatrists that deal specifically in this area that I've found very, very helpful guides in helping people work through this. So let me put those in the show notes and I will move on.

But again, the church, we need to wake up to some of these things that are off limits. I mean, it's taken us so many years to actually talk about things like same-sex sexual relations or transgender-related questions. And now we can kind of talk in some churches, at least openly, about how do we wrestle with this. But there are still lots of conversations that are off limits. And I think this is one of them, sexual fetishes that are much more common than people realize. this is one of them, sexual fetishes that are much more common than people realize. And if Christians don't have a good, healthy, gracious, truthful response to various aspects that people are wrestling, aspects of life that people are wrestling with, then we're falling short of embodying the truth and grace of Jesus to all people, regardless of the struggle that they have.

All right, next question has to do with Calvinistic pacifism. First of all, I want to thank you for all the various areas of your work that have been an encouragement to me. My brother is gay and recently announced that he'll be marrying his boyfriend, and your book, People to Be Loved, has been medicine to my soul when it comes to loving him better and guiding the rest of my family. But my first introduction to you was your book, Fight. I was strongly opposed to But my first introduction to you was your book, Fight. I was strongly opposed to pacifism, but after reading your book, you demolished all of my arguments and misconceptions against biblical nonviolence. So thank you. After reading your book, I spent six months reading other works on pacifism and just war. And I'm thoroughly convinced that

Christians are to follow Christ non-violently. This is just music to my ears when I read stuff like this. Like, it's just, you know, you put something out there like a book on non-violence from an evangelical reform perspective, and you just wonder, is anybody going to read this, let alone buy it? Like, as a buy-in to the arguments. And so, your story, your response to this, that, to this that you were fiercely opposed to Christian nonviolence but then after reading it were, in your case, totally convinced and other cases fairly convinced. I've gotten that probably from the book Fight more than any other book I've written. I've written a ton. I mean maybe eight or ten books.

But yeah, that – I'm so excited to hear that. And it hasn't been widely read, my book, Fight. Maybe a few, I don't know, three or four thousand copies have been sold, which is really terrible. because I would rather have few copies sold and the people that actually read it really enjoy it and are impacted by it than to sell tens of thousands of copies and have people just kind of shrug their shoulders and move on. So huge, huge compliment. Thank you for sharing that with us. You go on to say, like yourself, from what I can gather, I am a Calvinist, so to your logically, but what I was wondering is, are there other Calvinist writers who are pacifists? And if so, have they written anything? So the quick answer is, for the most part, no. Almost every Christian writer who advocates for pacifism, or as I, the term I prefer is Christian nonviolence or Christ, Christocentric nonviolence.

I like to use terms sometimes to describe my views that are a little bit abnormal because it invites query and conversation. If you just say pacifism, it's too familiar of a term and people assume they know what you're saying and oftentimes don't. They have all these assumptions about what pacifism is. So I typically avoid the term pacifist. So yeah, Christocentric nonviolence is what I say. And then people are like, what the heck is that? You know, what'd you say? And then we can get into a conversation rather than just swapping labels back and forth. So for the most part, man, all the people writing on

and advocating for Christian nonviolence would not not, would not be reformed. Um, there's one guy, good friend of mine who is also reformed and believes in, uh, Christian nonviolence. And his name is Branson Parler. Branson Parler is, uh, on the, um, uh, what's it called? The, uh, the collaboration team, uh, collaboration, one of the collaborative leaders for the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender. He's done a lot of work in the area of sexuality, but his primary work, his PhD work at Calvin Seminary was on the work of John Howard Yoder. You even list Yoder as one of the guys you've been reading. But Branson is part of the RCA, the Reformed Church of America. And yet he is, I'm not, we haven't talked about nonviolence too much, but yeah, he's totally on board. He's advocates for Christian nonviolence. Excuse me.

I don't, I don't, I gotta ask him if his book has been, if his dissertation has been published. I don't know if it has, but you can look up his work. He might have some work online or articles, online or articles, Branson Parler, P-A-R-L-E-R. And he's a professor at Kuyper College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. There's other people, I do find people online that kind of say what you say, like, hey, look, I heard that you're Reformed and also, you know, advocate for Christian nonviolence. And gosh, I thought I was the only one. So I do get that more and more from people on social media, other people who are, maybe they're theology students or not students at all. They're just like, yeah, I see it. I see both.

I see the reformed soteriology in Scripture. I also see Christal-centric nonviolence in Scripture. And I believe in both, even though this isn't typical of the tradition. But it's still very rare, super rare for somebody to be both Reformed and believe in Christian nonviolence. For me, it's my Reformed, and that's such a broad, slippery term, Reformed. What does that mean? But it would be my kind of Reformed tradition for me that led to, in many ways, Christian nonviolence. So what do I mean by reformed tradition? I mean, high view of scripture, like scripture over tradition. And as I dug into Christian nonviolence, I was like, man, most people think, seem to be

drawing on cultural assumptions and values rather than just a raw reading of the New Testament in my experience. So a high view of scripture, high view of the cross, like the cross changes everything. It reconfigures our worldview. It is the center of our worldview. It informs our ethics. And so when you raise a question, what is the ethical significance of Jesus conquering enemies, conquering evil by submitting to violence, not executing violence, by being killed, not by killing? What is the ethical significance of that? What does that mean for ethical living? Well, I mean, it's profoundly nonviolent in the sense that Jesus was a victim of violence, not a committer of it. He didn't destroy his enemies by killing them or acting in violent ways. Rather, he submitted to the violence of his enemies and therefore ended up conquering

them. So that suffering actually contains more power in destroying your enemies than using violence. I mean, theologically speaking. But you get all that from elevating the cross over, you know, human logic or tradition or case scenarios. Or, well, if a guy breaks into my house, I'm going to kill him. I don't care what Jesus says. Yeah. you know, Jesus says, um, yeah, it, it, and, and so for me, my, my very much reformed high view of the cross, um, and high view of scripture, uh, has from, for me, it shaped my view of Christian

nonviolence, also a high view of God's sovereignty. At the end of the day, like if, uh, if believing in and living my Christian nonviolence gets me killed or even gets my family members killed, it's my high view of God's sovereignty that says, well, sometimes, you know, um, living in the way of Christ can harm you and God's sovereign and he will redeem that. And he will, um, he will, uh, reward those who are obedient to him and so on and so forth. So yeah, it was really God's sovereignty, high view of the cross, high view of scripture that were the shaping ingredients that ultimately nurtured my belief in Christian nonviolence. So great question. Um, next question has to do with, um, oh yeah. So this person just long story short met me at the Breakforth One conference in Canada

in Edmonton, Alberta last month in January. And, um, he was curious what my response would be to somebody who is affirming, but not a Christian, somebody that doesn't hold to biblical authority, at least. So this questioner says, apart from drawing from sections of the Bible that discuss sexual issues, particularly same-sex sexual relations, if you were having a conversation with someone who's affirming of that type of sexual expression, what would you say? Again, keeping in mind that this person does not see the Bible as authoritative. Are there non-biblical arguments for a so-called historically Christian or traditional view of sexual ethics?

There are arguments, non-biblical arguments or arguments from natural law that have been made to defend the Christian position of marriage and sexual ethics. The best presentation I've read on this is the book called What is Marriage by Robert George Ryan Anderson. And I think he pronounced his name Sharif Gurgis or Gurgis, Gurgis, Gurgis. Yeah, what is marriage? And it's an argument based on natural law that marriage is between a man and a woman. And it's argued very well. It's a super good book. And they deliberately say, I think they're all Catholic.

At least I know Robert George and Ryan Anderson are. But they say, we're not going to quote some high, like we're not going to quote scripture. We're not going to appeal to some higher moral authority. We're simply going to argue, um, from natural law that, uh, that marriage is between a man and a woman. And they do the best job I've seen. Um, for me personally, I'm just not interested in these kinds of discussions.

Like if somebody doesn't hold to the lordship of Jesus or biblical authority, then I'm not even really interested in trying to convince them of the sexual ethic that I hold to because my sexual ethic only makes sense if you first understand and submit to the lordship of Jesus. I'm not saying it only makes sense. I do, again, I do think there are good arguments from natural law, but if somebody wants to kind of go head to head and wants me to prove on natural grounds,

my view of marriage, I just, I'm not interested in that. I think that can get you, first of all, I mean, I think that can really backfire because the second a sociological study that comes out showing that, you know, lesbian relationships are more healthy and flourishing than heterosexual relationships or opposite sex relationships, then what do you do? You know, these natural law arguments can be subjective. They do rely on like scientific studies that, you know, are all over the map. You can kind of prove anything by citing one or two scientific studies without citing the

10 others that maybe, you know, conflicted that study. So it's, it's hard to kind of prove your view based on natural arguments alone. And this is, this is my, would be my one beef with this book, What is Marriage? Is, man, I feel like I can kind of push back to, push back against all their arguments. And even though I find them somewhat, you know, even though I find the arguments in the book relatively compelling, and I would agree with them, I think, oh, these are good arguments. I agree with them. I agree with the evidence and the conclusion. If I was going to play devil's advocate, I could find some exception to the rule and find some evidence to kind of build a case against what they're saying.

So in a relational context, somebody who's not a Christian or doesn't hold a biblical authority, to me, it's like, why even, even if I could convince somebody that the Christian ethic of marriage and sexuality was true, what have I accomplished? Like, that just puts the cart before the horse.

Like, I would be much more, because if they don't believe in biblical authority, then even if they sign off on a Christian sexual ethic, then they're not going to sign off on something else because they don't ultimately don't have the foundation of biblical authority that I think't want to be too negative on that book. It's just, I don't think it would be, I would definitely want to engage in other conversations, other books and conversations that do wrestle within, wrestle with this question from within the belief that the Bible is authoritative and God has revealed his will through the scripture. Next question, in your opinion, how does the Bible define heresy? The conventional view is that heresy is beliefs and teachings whose beliefs are opposed to the primary doctrines of the church. What does robust theological or doctrinal debate that is good look like to you if you believe in that at all? So what is healthy dialogue? Where

does free speech come in? Where should we honor the view of others, even if we disagree with it? Where does dialogue within a local church or even a denomination, when is cross dialogue across with different theological views, when is that healthy? And when should you even platform views different from your own? And when should you shut down the preaching of heresy? Because we do have in scripture, and you cite several passages here, Titus 3, you know, where Paul addresses the person stirring up division and warning him not to stir up division, meaning stop saying things that are dividing people. people. 1 Corinthians 11, 19, you quote, you know, that mentions factions and 2 Peter 2, 1, you know, pretty much really slams on false teachers preaching, as you say, damnable heresies in the church. This is a great question. And I think there needs to be a lot more work done on not what is primary, what is secondary, what is a gospel issue, what isn't a gospel issue,

but how do we even determine what is heretical and what is just a valid difference within the Christian faith? And I don't think there's an easy answer to that. So some people say, well, if it's a gospel issue, then it's primary. I'm like, okay, great. What does that mean? What does gospel issue mean? And let me, I mean, and not even what does that mean, but how do you determine what's a gospel issue or not? Do you do, here's a few options. Do you do a word study on the Greek word euangelion and the Greek verb euangelizo, euangelizomai, which do you do a word study on the term gospel and see from the Bible what that word means? In other words, do you, you know, uh, do you, yeah. Do you see what is surrounding that word?

What is going into that word? And that is that lexical study determines what's a gospel issue. That's one method. Another method would be to go to gospel summaries in the Bible, which really is 1 Corinthians 15, maybe Galatians 1. Did we go to gospel summaries where Paul and other authors maybe would kind of unpack what they mean when they say the term gospel? Do you go to gospel preaching? Do you go through the book of Acts and see the content of what the early church proclaimed when they preached the gospel, the euangelion? That would get us into some hot water, I think, there, because in the early, in the gospel preaching in the book of Acts, they hardly even mentioned the atoning work of Jesus. correction. When they talk about the death of Christ, it's almost like, you know, you killed Jesus, but God raised him from the dead. And throughout the book of Acts, the early Christians hardly ever even mentioned the theological significance of the death of Christ. So is that,

I mean, so you can see where it can get really tricky. We don't even have a good methodology of determining was it gospel issue or not. Some people say, well, we need to rely on the early church creeds, the Nicene Creed, the Apostles' Creed, and so on. I think that can be helpful, except there's stuff in the creeds that I think most of us would say, I don't know if that's an essential doctrine. Like the Apostles' Creed talks about Christ descending into Hades between his death and resurrection. Like is that, do we want to say that that's a core doctrine?

You know, 1 Peter 3 mentions it. Ephesians 4 might allude to it. That's about it. And what does that even mean? There's some ambiguity there. Like, are we going to put that on par with like the Trinity? I don't, I mean, who then is saved? Like, how many Christians do you know have that built into their, you know,

basic foundational kind of, you know, part of the Christian worldview that we got to make sure, like we kick people out of the church that they don't believe that, you know, Christ descended into hell between his death and resurrection, or sorry, descended into Hades. That makes a difference. And there's also stuff in the creeds that was contextually important for their day and age, but might not be as contextually significant for our day and age. They were, the early creeds weren't hammered out in a vacuum. They were hammered out in the context of particular aberrations to the Christian faith that they were addressing, like Gnosticism or Manichaeism or other early church heresies. And the early church creeds were formed in opposition to certain early

church heresies. So for instance, some people say that, you know, same-sex marriage is not a primary doctrine because it's not in the early church creeds. Well, maybe, but we have to ask the question, why was it in the creeds? It wasn't in the creeds because it was so taken for granted, even the heretics didn't believe in same-sex relations, that they didn't need to put it into a creed. There was no opposition to that teaching. It was widely accepted and assumed by all branches of the Christian faith. So there's a reason why certain things go into the creeds and not. I don't think that they're just simply abstract articulations of those that are considered,

should be considered primary while everything else is secondary. In the New Testament, typically those things that are considered heresy or, you know, were preached by false teachers and false teachers were critiqued not only for what they were teaching, but also for how they were living. It's hard to unravel the bad doctrine from the bad behavior. So that how do you, you know, how do you know false teacher? Not only is that person teaching false doctrine, but they are also greedy and usually sexually immoral and deceitful and lying. And like there's patterns in the person's life that are radically incongruent with the way of Jesus. And so I do think that that's helpful for today as we talk about heresy. It's not just intellectual misstep or believing in wrong doctrines or

promoting wrong doctrines. It is, I think it is also wedded with, it is intrinsically wedded with non-righteous living and deception and greed and so on. Now, having said all that, I don't, it's super tough to nail down what exactly, what exactly heresy is and what is not heresy. And I don't know, from my vantage point, people throw this term around way too haphazardly. People just use it as kind of a trump card to, I mean, in some cases, so that they don't even have to deal with the arguments of another view that they just, for whatever reason, don't like or don't want to deal with. Oh, that's heresy. And so then once you say it's heresy, it's like, you don't have to, you don't have to interact with,

you know, the actual view. So I personally, man, I, I hardly ever, man, I heard because of, because the word is so widely used and used in a very uncareful way, I hardly ever use the term heresy. Um, yeah. Unless again, it is a radical departure from foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. And already there, hopefully you're asking, well, how do you determine what's foundational? That would be a great pushback. And I don't know if I have a clear cut answer. But I would think it would have to be a radical departure in promotion of some doctrine that is a radical departure from fundamental pieces of the architecture of the Christian faith, while wedded to bad living, greed, immorality, and so on.

So if somebody is simply, you know, wrestling out loud with the Trinity, and they're not quite on board yet, I wouldn't say, you're a heretic until you get on board. No, I'm going to let them wrestle with that. Now, if they are actively teaching against the Trinity, I would come close to saying that that's heresy. Okay, come close. I would say that's heresy. That's a fundamental piece of the Christian faith. I wouldn't call Christian universalism or Christ-centered universalism or kind of a Bardian version of Christian universalism heresy. Why? Because that was an accepted option within the early church. Like Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist and he was one of the main architects of the Nicene Creed. Now, certain forms of universalism, pluralistic universalism, where

Christ is one of many ways, or the toning work of Jesus is largely irrelevant for redemption, or, you know, other religions are just as valid as Christianity. Like I would say those, yeah, other religions are just as valid as Christianity. I would say those would be pushing on heresy for me. But a Bardian version or Christocentric universalism, while I disagree with it and think it's not the best way to think about the future life of the saved and the damned from scripture, I think there's better arguments against it than there are in favor of it. I would say it's not heresy. I would think that there could be a healthy dialogue around Christ-centered universalism

versus say annihilation or ECT, eternal conscious torment. So at the end of the day, man, that's all I got. I think the term heresy is often misunderstood and thrown around way too haphazardly. And so I'm nervous using it. If I do, it would typically be used as somebody who is violating and teaching against some clear fundamental pieces of a Christian worldview wedded with immoral living. And that's the best way I think I could reflect the New Testament's concern for false prophets and heresies. Okay, last question, and related, is Andy Stanley a heretic?

Could you weigh in on the recent controversy surrounding Andy Stanley's comments about the Sermon on the Mount replacing Old Testament laws, including the Ten Commandments? At first listen, I thought he nailed it. But so many Christians have engaged in this conversation with a totally different view. I've even heard him call the heretic. What are your thoughts? Did Andy go too far? How do you interpret the Christian's relationship with the Big Ten in light of the New Covenant and Christ's all-encompassing command to love God and love one another? I am so tired of hearing people label Andy Stanley as a heretic. I've never met Andy. I have probably read maybe a chapter two of all of Andy's books in total. I maybe listened to about 30 minutes of Andy Stanley's, you know, pieces of Andy

Stanley's sermons. So I am not at all an Andy Stanley connoisseur. And I don't say that like negatively. Like when I do hear him, I'm like, he's an amazing communicator. Seems like an amazing man of God. I was always impressed that he said, I'm going to plant a church and not work more than 40 hours a week. And people said, well,

you're not going to plant a very successful church. And he's like, I want to build into the DNA. And again, I'm just a hearsay. You can verify if it's true or not. He goes, I want to build into the DNA of what ministry looks like where we don't destroy our families

by running the rat race of growing a church. Man, I've got huge respect for that. I just, tremendously. He's obviously incredibly wise in so many ways. From what I hear, he walks the walk. He doesn't just talk to talk. He walks the walk. And he is an incredible communicator. When I do get people, you know, in stanley's a heretic kind of things have happened before and whenever it does flare up and i do look into it i'm like come on like people are being way too nitpicky they're taking himself out of context they're not trying to generously listen to what he's actually trying to say it's like they're trying to find something to pin him on and then they'll take something and not you you know, take it either out of context or maybe he messed up. Maybe he stated

something. He was like, yeah, I could probably word that better. But they're like, no, he's a heretic. Like we got him. Ah, got him. We found the statement. Boom. Done. I'm like, just the whole posture is like, who would stand? Would you stand? Like if somebody had that posture of you kind of, you know, folding their arms, you know, looking at you with their head cocked sideways with one eye kind of glaring at you and their fingers kind of, you know, on their lips, like they're just waiting. I'm waiting. I'm going to find it. I'm going to find it. I'm going to find the heresy. And no one would stand. We all make mistakes and say things, you know, in a way that's not the best way to say them. And we all have beliefs that are inaccurate and some beliefs that would be quite heretical.

I mean, most of our hymns are kind of Gnostic in how they view the human body and how we're going to, you know, flee from our body, this prison, you know, and fly up to heaven and spend forever with God in the eternal bliss of disembodiment. It's like that was a heresy in the early church. and the eternal bliss of a disembodiment. It's like that was a heresy in the early church. And yet so many of our, you know, older generations of Christians nurtured on these kind of Gnostic hymns

from the, you know, 17 and 1800s, you know, would be like, yeah, that's really poor, but I'm not going to like nitpick every little thing. And so all I have to say, I haven't looked into, I have heard from a distance kind of that he had people said like kind of Marcionite beliefs about the Old Testament, that the Old Testament

is not as good as the New, or is almost irrelevant. Or if you're going to preach from one Testament, if you have to preach from one Testament, just do it from the New Testament, which I don't know if I disagree with that. If you had one to choose from, which one would you choose? Again, I'm an Old Testament guy. I love the Old Testament. I taught the Old Testament for many years. But if I had one to choose, it'd probably be the New Testament. That's where Jesus is, right? So I would need to really look closely with a really generous look at exactly what Andy Sandley said and what he's trying to get at. Don't just look at the words of what he said. Look at the underlying motivation. What's the point he's trying to make?

Don't just get hung up on the black and white that is written on the page. Try to look behind that too. Maybe he overstated something to make a point. Maybe you could have said it a little better. It doesn't mean he's a heretic. So I'm going to say innocent until proven guilty. I mean, again, I haven't looked into it, so I can't say for sure. Like I can't quote you the part of this book or the sermon and say, because of this, no, he's not a heretic. But I'm going to just, come on. Andy Stanley, heretic? No, I'm going to say no, unless I see something that clearly shows otherwise. To the extent to where if I were to sit down with Andy and said, here is what you said on paper. Here's how I understand what you said. Do you agree with my

understanding what you said? And for him, if he sat there and said, yes, that's exactly what I meant. And if that was quote unquote heresy, assuming everything I just said in the previous question, um, then okay, maybe he's a heretic, But until that happens, in no way would I even assume that. And I'm going to be 99.99% assuming that whatever it is that he said, maybe I don't even agree with it, but heretic, I'm going to say no. So thanks for listening to Theology in the Raw. And if you want to support the show, again, patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. And if you want to support the show, again, patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. We have over 200 Patreon supporters and the number is growing.

And that is my primary avenue of communication. I hardly interact on Facebook. I do tweet stuff, but I don't interact too much on Twitter. And plus it's so short. I try to focus my quote unquote social media or online presence to my Patreon page. Sometimes it takes me a while to respond to some stuff there because I am traveling quite a bit, and I'll go a couple weeks sometimes without even checking my email or my Patreon page. But that is the primary avenue that I do communicate with people.

So I'm trying to build a little Theology in the Raw community on Patreon. So patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw if you want to support the show. If not, that's cool too. This show is free, will always be free. But I do give a tremendous thank you shout out to my Patreon supporters. Thank you so much for keeping this show going. We'll see you next time on Theology in the Rock.