Theology in the Raw - #736 - What Does the Bible Say About Swearing? Were Adam and Eve Created with Sinful Desires?

Episode Date: April 29, 2019

On episode #736 of Theology in the Raw Preston answers questions submitted by Pateron supporters. Questions covered in this podcast: 1) What Does the Bible Say About Swearing? 2) Were Adam and Eve Created with Sinful Desires? 3) Should the foods we eat be considered part of our Spiritual formation? Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com 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.

What the bleep does the Bible say about swearing? Were Adam and Eve created with sinful desires? And should the foods we eat be considered part of our spiritual formation? I'm Preston Sprinkle, and you are episode of Theology in the Raw. I got a bunch of questions that were sent in by my Patreon supporters that I'm going to get to. borders that I'm going to get to. And then after this week, I will return to interviewing several very interesting people for the following weeks after that. Just so you know, I am trying to intertwine interviews with questions and questions with interviews. I've been doing a lot of interviews lately. Last week, I did some questions. And this week, I'm going to do some more questions.

So I am trying to balance it. But because of the heavy load of questions that do come in, I am going to largely focus on questions that come in from my Patreon supporters through my Patreon page. If you want to check that out, it's patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. And you can support the show for as little as five bucks a month, become a Patreon supporter and become part of the glamorous, fabulous Patreon theology in the raw team. Okay, let's jump in to these questions. And these questions are all over the map. And I'm just scanning them right here. What I usually do is I write down your question or copy and paste it and then just start thinking through it and jotting down some thoughts. And then if I need to do some research and look up stuff, and I'm just scanning this right now, and there's just so many different categories that we're going to dive into today. So without further ado, first question, if marriage

is to function as a metaphor for Christ in the church, why then does Jesus accommodate for divorce in cases of sexual immorality? Will Jesus divorce the church if she's unfaithful? It's as if the metaphor is accurate, except in terms of steadfastness, mercy, forgiveness, and costly love. And then the questioner goes on to say, which is more sinful and which is more metaphorically accurate, a heterosexual couple that divorces after one spouse cheats on the other, or a homosexual couple that maintains a lifelong monogamous relationship in spite of infidelity? This is part of a much larger question. I tried to just read just bits and pieces of it because it was a really long question. I didn't want to read the whole thing. Basically, the questioner is asking, if there is biblical evidence for accommodation towards marriage in

terms of sexual infidelity, then could there not also be accommodation in terms of same-sex relationships? So in other words, we can acknowledge that marriage is between a man and a woman in the Bible, and we can acknowledge that marriage is for life, and a woman in the Bible, and we can acknowledge that marriage is for life and that for lifeness is tethered to the image of Christ in the church. But since there is accommodation in one, could there not be accommodation in the other? The accommodation in one is if there is sexual immorality. We have clear evidence in scripture that divorce is not sin. It's Jesus's way of accommodating.

So could we also say the same thing for same-sex marriage? Okay. Great question. Great question. And let me just give you some thoughts. First of all, when it comes to sexual immorality and divorce, I've often wrestled with that because for the same reasons you are, uh, the questioner, um, I, you know, when you look in scripture and you see marriage mapped on God's faithfulness to his people, you would think that, and because that faithfulness is never, um, is forever is, you know, regardless of how sinful we are, God's faithful to us. Um, you would think that marriage, therefore, would be absolute, that there would be no grounds for divorce. I think it's a little more complicated than that. I mean, you do have, well, it also depends on your view of like, as we talked about last week, can you lose your salvation? You know, if we deny him, will he deny us? You know, or if we

fall away or, you know, end up rejecting Jesus, does that mean we're still in? And in one sense, no. Now, well, in one sense, no, it means, well, it means we're not in anymore. Like if we deny Jesus, then we're not following Jesus by definition. We're not a Christian. We haven't persevered. We, the seed was not sown upon good soil. And so, but then we don't want to get lost in the weeds of, oh, was that person actually saved or not? Or did they just make a confession?

It wasn't a genuine conversion. Did they really have the spirit and so on and so forth. But we do see, I mean, evidence in scripture that somebody could actually fall away from God, if you will. And again, I'm just tabling right now the question of whether that person was actually a genuine follower in the first place. Now, when it comes to sexual immorality, why is sexual immorality or porneia grounds for divorce? And by grounds for divorce, I'm not saying that it should be even encouraged. I'm just saying that Jesus does make an exception that divorce is not something he desires,

but then he does say, except in cases of porneia, sexual immorality. So why, what's unique about sexual immorality? And this is where I think 1 Corinthians 6, verses 10 to, I think it's 20. Well, no, sorry, verses 6. 1 Corinthians 6, verses 12 through the rest of the chapter. How's that? Where Paul focuses on the uniqueness of sexual sin. Every other sin's outside the body,

but sexual sin is inside the body. Who knows what he's getting at there? It's not crystal clear. You got to do some study on that passage. But what we can see on just on the face of the text is that Paul does single out sexual sin as unique. And in terms of a marriage relationship, I think one could argue that sexual immorality essentially violates and destroys the one flesh covenant union. I know that maybe sounds a little mysterious and abstract, but that's, well, that's the point Paul, sort of the point that Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 6, is that when you have sex with a prostitute, you are one flesh with her. in six is that when you have sex with a prostitute, you are one flesh with her, uses marital language for that so that you have, if you have committed sexual immorality while you're married, you have

essentially broken off that one flesh union with your wife and joined in one flesh to another person. So, um, so you could at least see some reasoning behind sexual immorality being unique grounds for, uh, or yeah, unique grounds for divorce. And again, I just, you understand when I say grounds for divorce, I'm not saying that divorce must result if there is sexual immorality, but it, um, uh, but it would, if somebody did get divorced in cases of sexual immorality, they are not in sin and they are free to remarry. Because I don't know, my view, and I mean, I come from a divorced household. My parents are divorced, so I get the horrible reality of that.

But I don't think divorce would ever, even if there was grounds for divorce, my general posture would be encourage not divorce. Explore options. Even if there were grounds for divorce doesn't mean they should divorce. I would always encourage sticking it out, staying together. should divorce. I would always encourage sticking it out, staying together. Now, how does this correlate with same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships? I do see a difference here. I don't like, I don't think it's valid to map this accommodation, namely sexual immorality as grounds for divorce. I don't think it's good to map that onto therefore accommodating to same-sex marriage in the church. For one glaring reason, I guess, is while we have biblical evidence that sexual immorality is something that Christians accommodate to, can accommodate to, we don't see the same thing with same-sex marriage. And we can think of other examples where there are grounds of accommodation and other examples in scripture where there are no grounds for accommodation. So, well, I mean here,

for in the sake of divorce, for the sake of, or in the case of divorce, there's biblical grounds for accommodation in the case of, let's just say, adultery. There's no grounds for accommodation. It's not like there's ever a case where adultery is, well, it's prohibited, prohibited, prohibited. But in this case, okay, we can accommodate. We don't see any biblical evidence for that. So we couldn't say that because we see accommodation in terms of divorce. Therefore, there's accommodation in terms of adultery. Okay, so we have to take each kind of question on its own terms and explore the biblical evidence for or against a possible accommodation.

And so when we look specifically at same-sex marriage, or not even, I don't like that wording. I like to word it as when we look at biblical evidence for the fundamental structure of marriage, including sex difference as part of what marriage is. So if I can put it like that, we don't see any sort of discontinuity or accommodation or anything that would suggest that marriage could in some cases not be between two sexually different persons according to scripture.

And this is something, if you listen to my podcast a few weeks ago, where I talked to Kevin Nooner, where we debriefed my conversation with Justin Lee, this is something that we kind of went round and around on towards the end of that long two hour conversation. But that was my precise point that when we look at that, that there's discontinuities and continuities, there's accommodations and there's no accommodations throughout scripture. And when we look at ethics as a whole, we see a whole web of complexity here. And we have to look

at each ethical question on its own terms and can't just look at a different ethical question and see evidence for accommodation and therefore say, okay, so now we can accommodate in this area of ethics. No, we have to look at each specific area on its own grounds and see the rhythms and statements in scripture regarding that specific ethical question. Next question. This one has to do with swearing. I have to admit that after listening to your podcast with the guys at the Bad Christian Podcast. I've listened to their podcast and have in the past enjoyed it. As you well know, they curse a lot. I haven't listened to their podcast so much anymore as I'm not sure it's edifying for me to do so. I don't think this is a primary issue in the church. It may not even be a secondary issue and I actually hold a lot of

grace when it comes to language, but I wanted to get your thoughts on using cursing. Well, this is a little typo here, cursive language in light of certain passages in the New Testament. You didn't mean cursive language, but cursing language or cursing or cussing or, you know, bad words. And then he quotes Colossians 3, 5 to 8, Ephesians 4, 29, which says, let there be no filthiness or foolish talk or crude joking, which are out of place, but instead, let there be thanksgiving. Let's see, Ephesians 5, 4, James 3, 7-12, Matthew 5, 23, and other passages. So what do I think about this? is. So what's, uh, what do I think about this? Um, I, so I wrote an article while black, a while back in relevant magazine called what the bleep does the Bible say about profanity? And it's also on my blog, on my personal website, pressandspringle.com. What the bleep does the Bible

say about profanity? So I would just, I'm going to punt and we'll sort of punt and say, go read that article. I give, I answered, it's a direct response to your question here. In general, the passages that you quoted, especially Colossians and Ephesians, these are often taken to apply to modern day cussing. And I just don't think they directly do. There may be some crossover. I think there may be some implications from what Paul's saying there

that could apply to modern day cussing. But the language in at least, let me see, two of those passages, the Colossians, no, the Ephesians 4.1. And yeah, I think the Colossians 3.8.1. I need to double check this one. But I know for a fact that the Ephesians 4.29, let no corrupting talk and obscene talk come from your mouth. The corrupting language is like rotten language. It's language that tears down instead of building somebody up.

I mean, he has what Paul even says, but such that is good for building up. So it's more talking about slander, dehumanizing language, tearing somebody down, belittling somebody. Gossip might even be included under that umbrella concept. Things that rotten speech that tears another person down. So if you're joking around with your friends and you call BS on something they said, only you actually said the word BS. And you can fill in the gaps. I'm not going to, I don't typically, or I don't think I've ever actually sworn on the podcast. Um, so I'm not going to do so here, but, uh, yeah, I don't think that those verses would directly apply to people simply joking around and using language, uh, you know, using a modern day cuss word. Um, and all the language passages, they are all

the language passages, the passages that talk about not using bad language, whatever. I think they're all, if you look at the context and look at the point that the author is getting at, they are all rooted in the heart. And so there you have to, and I know this is kind of cliched, but I think in this conversation, it's incredibly important. Like, what is your heart? What is your motivation behind using a bad word? Because what is a bad word? It's certain noises coming out of your mouth, right? And if a, let's just say somebody came over from China, They don't know a lick of English, nothing. And they, you know, sounded out the word F-U-C-K. Maybe they added like a mother on the beginning of that word and maybe a E-R at the end of that or something, you know. And what if they just sounded the noises out that that word would

be pronounced as? Did they sin? Did they cuss? Well, the noises were there, but there's no heart intention there. There's no, it's disconnected from any kind of heart intention. I'm not saying just because you have good intentions, it means it's okay. I'm just saying that we have to always ask the question, what is the motivation? What is the heart? What's going on inside of you, you know, that's underlying the language that came out of your mouth? And this also brings in some interesting cultural aspects. I mean, cuss words are culturally driven. They are confined to a specific language.

And they even change over time um yeah i mean and it's really subjective like one person's offensive word is somebody else's you know common word you know i remember growing up um uh yeah so up, fart was a bad word in my house. Couldn't say fart. It'd be like, it's like almost the F word. Right. Um, but crap was okay. Like crap just meant garbage. Like, you know, I remember going out and cleaning out the crap in my, in the back, in the backseat of our car. Cause we had, we're, you know, a bunch of kids in the back and we had a bunch of crap in the backseat and crap just meant like, you know, half-eaten Cheerios and, you know, dirt and grime and all, you know, bubblegum wrappers and stuff like that. That was crap,

you know? You know, so I, you know, I'd be, hey mom, you want me to clean the crap out of the backseat? Yeah, yeah, yeah, go do that. And then, you know, she's like, oh, sorry, I farted. Don't say fart, you know? It's like, well, you just told me to clean the crap out of the backseat, you know? So, and so there's a lot of inconsistency, not, I farted. Don't say fart. It's like, well, you just told me to clean the crap out of the back seat. And so there's a lot of inconsistencies. Let's just say subjectivity that goes into what even constitutes a cuss word. And what was a bad word 20 years ago or 40 years ago may not be a bad word today. And words change.

And that's just how language works. And so there's actually a lot of linguistic and cultural complexity when it comes to what constitutes a swear word and cussing and so on and so forth. Or even we can spill over to Christian film. And I had a great, or yeah, this is coming up on the podcast with Rex Harsin, but we talk about a Christian approach to watching film. And oftentimes we say, well, it's not a Christian film if it has cussing in it. It's like, okay, but what if, could you, maybe that's one perspective, but what if a film is trying to capture the real world and doesn't contain scenes with cussing in it when it's trying to capture the real world. Let's just say, you know, I always think of like Gran Torino, you know, Gran Torino, one of my favorite movies has several scenes where there's lots of cussing.

And it's like, you know, a scene where there's a bunch of gangsters, right? Gangsters, gang members. gang members. And, um, and it's really, it's, it's such a powerful part of the narrative of the film that this, this, the, the pressure to, uh, from the gangs, from these people that are trying to stay out of gangs, but they're, you know, they're, they're, they live in a neighborhood. There's lots of gangs and there's lots of ethnic, you know, um, complexity there in the, in the show. Anyway, and would it be accurate? Would it be Christian to make that film and not record cussing from the gangs? Would that be an accurate, a truthful way of looking at the world? I don't know if it would be. Like, I think, I don't know. Like that to me feels almost dishonest or like it feels like you're not capturing the real world and all its grit and grime. And you could argue, well, you can do that.

It doesn't need to contain swear and you can make your point and whatever. That's not, you know, I'm just saying that things are a lot more complex when you integrate this, you know, psychology and the heart and culture and linguistics and all these things when we think about cussing. So all that to say, check your heart. Why, if you do swear, you know, why are you doing it? We do have biblical evidence of biblical writers using words that were pretty offensive. Scubala that Paul uses in Philippians 2, 3, chapter 3, verse 8, according to Dan Wallace, one of the most foremost evangelical Greek scholars in the world, says scubala is somewhere between crap and S-H-I-T. Not quite as strong as S-H-I-T, but it's stronger than crap. Like Paul says, all my, you know, all the good deeds that

I did leading up to Jesus were scubula. And I think his strong language there is, especially if you look at the context of Philippians 3, 1 to 12, he's really getting passionate. He's really getting fired up about the worthlessness of all of our righteousness before Jesus. Like, we bring none of that to the table. And I think that if you used a softer word there, it wouldn't have had the same rhetorical effect. We have, and I cite a lot of passages in my relevant article, that we see evidence in the Old Testament where there's some pretty, evidence in the Old Testament where there's some pretty, goodness, I mean, yeah, there's some pretty strong language and even strong, explicit, like X-rated imagery throughout the Old Testament, especially passages like Ezekiel 16 and other passages in that book. Ezekiel, he kind of had

a potty mouth. So, okay. So, I didn't really answer your question, and I don't think there is a clear cut answer. In summary, I don't, we'd be careful just applying certain verses to something that is happening in a modern day world, you know? So, I get nervous just mapping Ephesians 4.29 onto modern day cussing. Be aware of the complexity of language and culture. Check your heart. And if you do that, I think you'd be good. Okay. Next question. Where did Abed and Eve's desire to sin come from? And this is part of a larger question, but that's basically the gist of it. And you go on to say, sure, we were created with free will, but how or why does my free will inherently come with a built-in temptation to rebel? Bottom line, I don't see how it can be logically argued that God didn't create our sin nature.

I think, so I get nervous about the kind of philosophical speculation on these kind of questions where the Bible is just not crystal clear. We know Adam and Eve were created good. Okay. We know that from Genesis 131. Everything is good. Very good. We also know that through sin, death entered the world. We know that through Adam and Eve, that's how sin was ushered into the world. Well, did it exist before that? If so, how? And there's all these like unanswered questions that the Bible just doesn't directly address. And so we're left up to kind of theological or even philosophical speculation. And that's just not really my realm. Like I don't really get excited about it. And I also don't,

I'm just not the right person to kind of address those philosophical assumptions or philosophical speculations. Now, I would say this, here's what I would say. I think there is a difference between having a sinful desire versus having the free will to commit sin. You see that? I mean, and some people could say no, and I'm going to say yes. And you know, I just, I see a difference there that just because somebody has free will and ends up acting upon that free will and ends up sinning doesn't mean that they necessarily were acting on a sinful desire. Yes. Sometimes our, you know, uh, sometimes when we sin, it's because of a, uh, sinful, because, because it was, it was birthed by a sinful desire. James 1 talks about this. Other times we can just commit a sin and it's not necessarily the byproduct of a sinful

desire. Now we're talking about post-fall situations. I mean, even if you could say that all sin is a result of a sinful desire, then we're still dealing with the post-fall situation. But I mean, I think in Adam and Eve's case, I don't think you necessarily need them to have a sinful desire to act sinfully on, you know, by having free will. We know that Adam and Eve were created innocent, but they weren't created perfect. So they do, I wonder, because we do know from 1 John, is it 2? That they saw the fruit. Well, no, I guess this is Genesis 2, but 1 John 2 kind of draws out the language from Genesis 2, but where, you know, she looked upon the fruit and it's almost like it ignited a desire in her.

So it's almost like the temptation to sin birthed the desire in Eve and then she acted on the desire. That's at least one way to kind of understand why she went for the fruit. She was also deceived by Satan. And because they were innocent, but not perfect, they were culpable of deception, being deceived. So if you follow the biblical language, it seems that the emphasis isn't that

they had this intrinsic sinful desire that God created them to have, but that they were deceived into desiring the fruit and committing the sin. So that's kind of all he got. I don't worry. I mean, I, yeah, I don't think, I think it would be really tough to argue biblically, like from the whole Bible that God created Adam and Eve's sin nature. I don't think the fact that they did sin demands that we conclude that they must have been created with a sin nature. Next question, any chance you can do more of your books in audio format? I only see Fight and Erasing Hell on audio. I would really love to read your books on LGBT issues, but I have a difficulty getting time where I can sit down and just read. But you

have time to go through audiobooks because, you know, when you're driving or taking care of the chores. You know, that's not my call. That's really a publisher's call. They typically do an audio, you know, it costs a decent amount of money to do an audiobook. So the publisher – look, I'm not saying this negatively, but publishers are always going to ask the question, what is financially worth it? And when you're an author like me and my books don't sell very much at all, I'm not worth a lot to the publisher. So I mean to spend money, maybe it worth a lot to the, to the publisher. So, I mean, to, to spend money, maybe, maybe it's a couple of grand or something on an audio book. It's like, well, is it, are we going to sell, are we going to make that back twice? Like, are we going to actually sell

like $4,000 worth of audio books? And the answer is just flat out. No, none of my books. Now, Erasing Hell is different because Francis Chan was a co-writer. Maybe I should say I was a co-writer. And so that one, that one, you know, that was like a no brainer. Of course, we're going to do an audio book on that. And then we actually did the audio book on Fight before it was even released. And I think they were maybe expecting that to sell a lot more and it just didn't sell hardly at all. I mean, just terrible. So yeah. And I think since then, because my numbers for my book sales numbers are really low, um, any new book that I do or any, you know, since then, like the books that I published, they just, the publisher is going to take one

look at my sales record and say, yeah, this isn't justifying an audio book. You need to have, you need to be selling like in the tens of thousands or more to justify doing an audiobook. But again, that's the publisher's call. We did do an audiobook for Grace Truth 1.0. Now that's a self-published book available only through centerforfaith.com. Go to the store link and you can order or download, I think, download or order the book for Grace Truth 1.0. It's a five-week small group study. But it's like a short book. It's not just like a Q&A, you know, discussion guide. There's content there. And I did read that. Okay. And so you can hear my voice again through the audio book for Grace Truth 1.0. We didn't do one for 2.0 for the same reasons that

the publishers don't, because we only sold like 10 audiobooks or something for Grace Truth 1.0. So it's like, oh man, okay, so obviously this isn't a huge need. So why spend, I don't know, I think probably what it costs is like maybe, I don't know what it was, a thousand bucks or something to produce an audiobook. But even then it's like, well, if we only sell 10 of these or 20, even 20 or 30 or 40 of these, it still doesn't justify the cost. So sorry about that. Long answer to a short question, but it gives you a little insight into the publishing world. Next question. I hope you're doing well. I'm a huge fan of your podcast. I know you don't love politics, but with all that is going on, can you discuss a little more about the candidate Pete Buttigieg?

Is it Buttigieg? He's an openly gay progressive candidate who holds to mostly Christian values. He has a quote where he says that the scripture I hear has to do with protecting the poor and spending time with the prisoner and healing the sick and caring for the stranger. He goes on to say that Christianity belongs to the progressives just as much as it does to the right. Would love to hear your thoughts. progressives just as much as it does to the right. We'd love to hear your thoughts. I actually follow politics more than I give off.

Most of the podcasts I listen to are somewhat political. I do try to, you know, I check my Twitter feed a couple times a day at least, looking for news happenings and stuff going on in politics around the world. So I do try to stay up to speed. Most of it is incredibly annoying. But yeah, so I've been following some of the Democratic candidates with, you know, Beto and Elizabeth Warren. And is Cory Booker still running and Joe Biden? And who's the socialist guy? The shoot. Forgot his name. Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders.

So yeah, I've been following this and all this stuff with, oh gosh, with Trump and AOC and who's the, I'm blanking on all these names now. The Congresswoman who's created a stir recently with her, you know, somebody did something to some people. Some people did something to her reference to 9-11 that was interesting. And so I do follow all this and it's just, but I feel like I'm in exile living in Babylon and I'm kind of like eating popcorn like that Michael Jackson gif and, you know, watching a movie. It's like, you know, seeing like a tennis match go back and forth. And it's like, man, these Babylonians are just really sometimes out to lunch and crazy and hypocritical and morally bankrupt and all these things. So yeah, I do find it entertaining on one level following all these political debates and everything.

But I always look at politics through the lens of I'm an exile living in Babylon. So I'm following Babylonian politics. And I just, I use that just analogy because I think the Bible does, but also because it helps distance me from the national powers to be. Because Christianity is an upside down kingdom living in exile. And we are not, we are, we exist in contrast to the powers to be, if you will. So I like to always maintain, remind myself, because sometimes I'll get sucked into it. I'll get sucked into the political debates and I'll start siding with this person or that movement or this or that, or, you know, and it's like, I just, I want to, I can have opinion and there's certain voices that I resonate with more than others and some that I find more helpful than others.

But I always want to keep that distance between the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God. Okay, so Pete Buttigieg. I actually haven't followed him at all. I know the name and I know he just recently started running, but I know nothing about him. In fact, you know more about them in this question than I do. So I don't, I, I'm, yeah, just looking at your quote. I'm just very unimpressed when people try to take things from Scripture that they like and approve of those things from scripture. But then if there's other things in scripture, like statements about sexual immorality and repentance and sin and picking up your cross and dying with Jesus, then people just kind of ignore those statements.

So I know when people want to kind of pick in a thread here and a thread there from scripture like this one, you know, I heard scripture talks about protecting the poor, spending time with the prisoner, healing the sick and caring for the stranger. Yes, of course. Matthew 25 talks about that. And that is a significant thread throughout scripture. That's awesome. That's great. But that's – so you picked out one thread of Christianity and said you like that thread.

I don't – so what? Like anybody – I mean Hitler can find something in scripture that he would resonate with and probably the genocide in Joshua. You know, any human on earth could find something in scripture, some theme that they were like, oh, yeah, I like that. To me, it's just not, I just, it's just kind of a yawner to me. It's just very, very uninteresting. And then to say that Christianity belongs to the progressives as much as it belongs to the right. Well, Christianity belongs to Jesus, doesn't belong to anybody anybody. So yeah, I think, yeah. So there's just so many problems with the statement. There's just, I just kind of like, yeah, Babylon, Babylonian

politics at its best. Um, so I don't, um, yeah, just not really impressed. I'm not really impressed with politicians speaking about religion, you know, like I would rather politicians just stay out of religion. You know, I mean, you know, I hear people say, oh, Donald Trump's a Christian and everything. And it's like, oh, my gosh, like, OK, well, whether he's a Christian or not, I guess I just wish he wouldn't tell anybody that, you know, like, because I mean, I don't think politicians are in the best spot to best represent the crucified Savior. So I just, just look, if you're a Christian, just kind of keep it to yourself. That's great. But I don't, I just don't get excited when politicians try to show themselves to be, you know, a, you know, a Christian or sympathetic with Christians. At the end of the day, sorry to be cynical, but I think they're just always trying to get votes on some level. Like it's almost everything that comes out of their mouth is some way to rise

in power and gain status and position. So they might appeal to this crowd or say this to satisfy this crowd or don't say this. Cause that'll turn off the, you know, like, Oh, whatever, dude. Like that's just politics. And so I'm just not really impressed by that at all. Let's see. Yeah, I would. He's a progressive candidate who holds to mostly Christian values. I'm still in all my political and theological diversity.

If I could put it like that, I'm still just appalled at abortion, absolutely appalled. And so I would want to say, does he believe in killing innocent children who happen to be on the other side of the vaginal walls? I mean, I just, to me, it blows my mind that somebody can claim to be, you know, for the poor and marginalized or for the innocent and still be pro-abortion when even, I mean, when it's pretty well accepted that life begins either at conception or shortly after, even from people that are pro-abortion or pro, you know, pro-choice or whatever wording you want to use. You know, the debate isn't about whether that's a life, that's life in the womb. The debate is about whether that life can be considered a person. And then it gets so subjective and arbitrary.

Anyway, I've read a lot of ethicists on both sides of this, and they all pretty much agree. Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, that, no, that's life in the womb. Like, you know, if we discover that kind of life on another planet, we would say that we found life on another planet, you know? Like, it's a living organism there. Whether it's a person or not is that that's where people debate. And the arguments to say, this is a life, it's a human life, but it's not a person. It's just insane. I think they're just ridiculous.

So anyway, and I haven't even hardly, I don't think I've ever even talked about my view of the abortion debate on the air. But so I just, I don't know, like I, when people, when it's said that they hold to Christian values, I would just want to say, okay, let's just lay all that out. Where are they at on the radicality of Christian sexual ethics? Where are they at on the radicality of protecting the poor and spending time with the prisoner and healing the sick and caring for the stranger? Where are they at on the radicality of caring for all human life, both inside the womb and on death row and so on and so forth. So I don't, this is where I don't think they're, this is why I'm not part of, I'm nonpartisan. I'm a centrist. I'm, you know, can see good and bad and most political candidates and most Babylonian authorities are going to resonate,

you know, some reflection of the divine image that they bear. And then they also are in rebellion against God. And so they're going to have other non-Christian values. So anyway, all that to say, I just, I don't know, I'll have to check out Pete and see what I think about him. Last question. How should Christians feel about the fact that our diets enhance our risk of cancer, heart disease, and obesity? Is this even important? Me rambling as I wrestle with my diet and what I'm putting into my body. I do this because I value my health and want to live for a while. Rarely though, do I view this from a Christian perspective. I am never convicted or feel less faithful as a Christ follower after scarfing down a Big Mac or swallowing a Chick-fil-A

milkshake. How should we as Christians feel about the fact that our diets enhance our risk of cancer, heart disease, and obesity? Is this even important? I don't ever remember hearing a Christian speaker or pastor give any valuable time to the subject. Really would love to hear your thoughts. Fantastic question. Let me look at this through two different lenses, two different lenses to respond to your question. First lens is this, we are embodied creatures. We are embodied creatures. There is no spiritual you or invisible you that is completely disconnected from the embodied you. So I'm going to say spiritual formation includes how you treat your body spiritual formation and sanctification includes how we eat what we eat what we put into our bodies how we care don't

care for our bodies and there's been just on a science level a lot of um well in the last 15, 20 years, a lot of scientific evidence that our bodies and our minds are so interconnected. The body keeps the score, right? That's the famous book by Bessel van der Kolk. And it's an absolutely brilliant, brilliant, brilliant book. And I think my good brother out there who recommended that to me a couple of years ago, changed my life. The body keeps the score. Our mental health and our physical health are intertwined. You can't have mental health without physical health. And if you don't have physical health, you're probably not going to have mental health. And, you know, he even talks about things like, if I remember correctly, you know, treating PTSD through yoga and stuff, you know, like even things like, you know, stretching and

making sure you're hydrated actually affects your spiritual acumen. Spirituality is physical. Things like diet and exercise and sleep are directly related to things like willpower, directly related to things like willpower, the ability to do good and resist evil that is connected to what you put in your mouth and how much you sleep or don't sleep, your mood, your temperament, your overall health, your energy, all of which play into your spirituality are affected by your diet and exercise and sleep pattern. So the first lens, again, is we are embodied creatures. So yes, we have made a mistake for many years, millennia really, in talking about our spiritual lives as if they are somehow disconnected from our physical lives. The second lens I want to look at, or consider your question, is through the ethics of not just food consumption, but food

production. So ethics goes beyond just what you put into your body, but where that food came from. And here, I am not good at this. I've gone through seasons. And my good friend, Luke Thompson, I've gone through seasons and my good friend, Luke Thompson, we've been talking about this a lot because he is way into this. Talks about just the complex web of how our food is produced. The ethics of how it's produced. but was the chicken raised in such a way that resonates with how the creator wanted chickens to be chickens? As we honor creation, as we live with the grain of creation, the way creation is supposed to go. How is the production of our food and therefore the purchasing of our food? Is it resonating with the grain, the rhythm of creation, or is it going against it? Cows were meant to eat grass.

were meant to eat grass. And there's a, do you know Joel Salatin? Salatin? S-A-L-A-T-I-N. Look up this dude. Amazing. Some of his talks. I heard him give a talk on this a few years ago, and he is just incredible. He's a Christian. I think he's a Christian. Yeah. And he has kind of revamped the whole, you know, farming practices by just saying, let's just do stuff that resonates with the way it was supposed to be done. Like it's very natural. And he even says, oh, I'm going to butcher this. But even the ways cows migrate and, you know, I'm going to stop because I'm not going to butcher it. you know, I'm going to stop because I'm not going to, I'm not going to, I'm going to butcher it. There's just something cool he talked about with just the very life, the natural life of a cow and how that resonates with the very created order and how we should not interrupt that. When we

interrupt that, that's when we get, you know, diseases and illnesses and, you know, mental health issues and all kinds of stuff. Another good book. Well, yeah, Joe, I don't know if he's written a book. Maybe he has, but I think he has actually, but he's got a lot of YouTube videos and stuff. He's fascinating. Uh, everyday justice is another good book. When I read that book, I got all convicted and I cleaned up my sort of practices of buying and consuming food. And then I just kind of faded out. So I I'm getting convicted myself here. So if you're, if you're convicted, good, I am too, because Walmart is right down the street and everything's way cheaper at Walmart. We buy these massive chickens, like chickens the size of small dogs, right? Because they're pumped full of a bunch of crap

and they're super cheap because they're pumped full of a bunch of crap. And they are farmed with questionable, if not unethical practices. And they're not allowed to live as chickens were designed to live. And then we wonder why we have health issues and not just obesity, but all kinds of other stuff going on. So yeah, so going back to your Big Mac, I would want to know not just the ingredients in the Big Mac. Really don't want to know that. But I also want to know behind the scenes, like what's, how did you produce this Big Mac and sell it for a dollar or two dollars? What, that's just not

humanly possible if things are the way they should be behind the scenes. Um, what, you know, where did this meat come from? What's the ethics behind how they can slam the prices down on this food and sell it and still make a profit? Um, so I don't know. I, I, um, What I like about the book Everyday Justice is that it says, look, it is almost impossible to live completely free from the web of injustice surrounding both the production of food, consumption of food, and so on and so forth. But just being aware and doing what you can is if everybody did that, then that's awesome. Okay. So, so they didn't lay this thick guilt trip. Like if you ever go into Walmart again, you're just like, you know, the worst person on earth. Like it didn't, it didn't, the book doesn't do that, but it does give you just kind of a real balanced, healthy, um, uh, yeah, accessible look at these things. So to answer your question, I think, I think it makes a big difference. Now I, I, I, I am one to, um, I don't, I don't want to go to the extreme of saying if anybody ever eats a Big Mac or downs a milkshake,

then they're insane. Okay. I would not, I're insane. I would never say that. But I would say that it's not just neutral. I think just the very fact that you're asking these questions is awesome. I wish everybody asked these questions. What are the ethics of food consumption and production? And at least asking that question and digging in a little bit and trying to align your life with the grain, with the order of creation, I think is something Christians should do. And shame on us for not preaching on this. I mean, how often do you eat? How often do you think about eating? For me, it's probably a large part of the day. I wake up thinking about what I'm going to have for lunch and dinner and ask my wife, well, you know, what are we having for dinner? And, and, you know, I'll think about,

oh, am I going to the lunch with somebody today? Cause I really want to go get some wings or, you know, get a good craft beer or something. Like I just, I'm constantly thinking about food and most people are too. And maybe that's part of the problem. But because food is such a huge part of our lives, I think we need, but by not asking ethical questions about food consumption, I think that that's just a huge blind spot in Christianity. Okay. Thanks friends for listening to this show. Hope it was helpful. Again, if you want to join the Patreon Theology in the Raw community, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. Until then, we'll see you next time on the show. you