Theology in the Raw - 741: #741 - What is the Gospel? Why is Marriage Between a Man and Woman?

Episode Date: May 27, 2019

On episode #741 of Theology in the Raw Preston answers questions submitted by Pateron supporters. Questions covered in this podcast: 1) What is the Gospel? 2) Why is Marriage Between a Man and Woman? 3) What are my thoughts on Game of Thrones? 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 is the gospel? What do I think about the Game of Thrones? And why is marriage between a man and a woman? I'm Preston Sprinkle, and you're episode of Theology in the Raw. I have a bunch of really diverse and tough questions in front of me. I am so excited to dig into these. Thank you so much to my Patreon supporters for sending me in such great questions. Because I do get a slew of questions sent in, I can't get to them all. So I've been moving towards focusing on the questions sent in by my Patreon supporters. If you want to support the show and therefore get access to throw in your question, you can go to patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw,

and you can support the show for as little as five bucks a month. Only if this show is challenging you, blessing you, is encouraging you, is confronting you, if it's helping your Christian walk in any way, or even if you're not a Christian and you still like the show and you want to support the show, that's awesome. So you can go to patreon.com forward slash Theology and Raw and support the show for as little as five bucks a month. Okay, let's jump into this first question. This question has to do with the gospel. And I'm going to try to summarize it. In fact, almost all of these questions are very lengthy, okay? Which are great. They give me some context, but I don't think I want to read the entire context. I'd rather just kind of sum up the gist of the question. This first question has to do

with Scott McKnight's book, The King Jesus Gospel, where he contends that the gospel in contemporary evangelical descriptions has been confused with the plan of salvation. And this questioner wants to know, how would I outline the New Testament presentation of the gospel in a few minutes? Okay, so Scott says, you know, that the gospel is about the coming of the messianic King in Fulfillment of the Story of Israel. And he, in that book, let me qualify everything I'm going to say. I haven't read the book, but I know enough about Scott's theology and others who are very similar to Scott. N.T. Wright would be right there with much of what Scott says and several other writers and thinkers would very much resonate

with from what I can imagine, if I could say it like that, what I can imagine Scott is saying in this book. And so basically the gospel is about the messianic King Jesus in fulfillment of the story of Israel. Whereas in modern day evangelical circles, we have mischaracterized the true gospel and made it about, you know, Jesus's death and resurrection leading to individual salvation and so on and so forth. What are my thoughts on this? Okay. I, so let me just speak generally to Scott's theology of the gospel that I am aware of without saying, you know, specific comments about the book. I imagine what, you know, what I'm going to say will rightly represent his book, but having not read the book, I don't want to specifically

speak to the book. From what I've heard about Scott McKnight, from what I heard from Scott about what he believes about the gospel, I think he's largely correct in pretty much everything he says. He would be much more Arminian in his theology. Eileen reformed on several, uh, topics. He, um, we would have finer, really finer points of disagreement in Paul's understanding of, of, of salvation of the gospel. Um, but these are really minor, minor differences. All in all, I love Scott's presentation. So I'm going to say, yeah, I think he's probably correct there.

In fact, in as much as he believes the gospel is about Jesus as the messianic king and fulfillment of the gospel is to go read early New Testament preaching of the gospel, namely from the gospels in the book of Acts. And especially in the book of Acts, you see that this is precisely what the early apostles and disciples were saying when they preached the gospel. It was all about Jesus as the messianic king whom God has raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit and who now reigns as Messiah and Lord. In fact, you have little to no attention in the book of Acts on the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Okay, let me stop there. I believe that Jesus's death is atoning. I even believe in a, I'm gonna, yeah, just say a biblical view of substitutionary atonement. I've talked about this on previous podcasts that I like to root substitutionary

atonement, not in sort of an individualistic medieval or Protestant articulation of it, but in a biblical theological covenantal framework, namely that Israel disobeyed the covenant. They disobeyed the law over a long period of time. And so they, and so God rewarded them or retributed to them the covenant curses. If you look at, I think Deuteronomy 28 is a crucial passage for understanding the shape of the biblical storyline as a whole, where we have blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. And because Israel disobeyed for decades, for decades, for centuries. Therefore, they got the curses of the covenant.

The ultimate curse was exile. And so that the ultimate future restoration that God was going to pour out on Israel unconditionally, in spite of their disobedience, in spite of their sin, in spite of the fact that they're in exile, and in spite of the fact that they are still under the covenant curses, God was going to send the Messiah to usher in a sort of return from exile. And in spite of the fact that they are still under the covenant curses, God was going to send the Messiah to usher in a sort of return from exile. This is why you see exile motifs even underlying some of the New Testament language of salvation. So yeah, when Jesus comes on the scene, he is doing just that. He is fulfilling the story of Israel. He is fulfilling the hope anticipated in the Old Testament that God would restore Israel and redeem them and bring them home from exile.

Even though they were back in the land in the first century, they were still sort of spiritually in exile. spiritually in exile. This is something you see all over the place in early Judaism, where this idea that they were spiritually still exiled from God and spiritually still under the covenant curses was very widespread. So, in soteriologically dense books like Galatians and Romans, they often draw upon kind of covenantal language or exile language or language of curses and blessings, especially in the book of Galatians. So, yeah, I think that that is absolutely true. And whenever I hear Scott talk about the gospel, I'm like, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. I'm not sure about that. I might word that differently.

Yep, yep, yep. That's kind of how I analyze Scott's thinking on this. So I do think that a lot of our, and I say our, that's a broad generalization, but our general pop level soteriology, that's the doctrine of salvation. How most Christians in the pew and even not a few pastors in the pulpits understand and articulate salvation. It is more individualistic and less biblical slash covenantal than it is in the Bible. I mean, even the very term gospel, we see, obviously the term gospel is all over the place in the Bible. I mean, even the very term gospel, we see, obviously the term gospel is all over the place in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament, we see it in Isaiah 40 to 66,

especially where we see the verb, not euangelion, euangelion is a noun, but euangelizomai, I think is a form of the Greek verb for the gospel. To preach the gospel would be the kind of literal translation of euangelizomai. And when it's first used in the latter part of Isaiah 40 to 66, we see it referring to God's coming reign, God's coming lordship, which he is going to institute through the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. There's a really complex and beautiful theology being laid out in Isaiah 40 to 66. And the whole idea and terminology of the gospel is woven into the very fabric of the theology articulated in Isaiah 40 to 66, which is why we need to study the Old Testament to understand the New.

in Isaiah 40 to 66, which is why we need to study the Old Testament to understand the new. Let's see. So, yeah, so a proper understanding of the gospel must be rooted in the covenantal theology as it even relates to and fulfills the Old Testament. I still think though that, I mean, there is an individual element to that. Jesus's death is significant. It's not, this is where I think some people do swing the pendulum too far. And I don't know if Scott does this in his book. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. I plead the fifth on that. But I, you know, there are, you know, the Philippian jailer does cry out, sirs, what must I do to be saved? And you have the rich young ruler talking about what must I do to, you know, gain eternal life. And the New Testament isn't as corporately focused as the Old Testament is. I do see some discontinuity between the sort of radical corporateness of God's people and of salvation in the Old Testament versus

the New Testament, which does have much more individual components to it. And in 1 Corinthians 15, we do have this sort of emphasis on, you know, so 1 Corinthians 15 is where Paul spells out, here is the essence of the gospel. And he really does focus on the death of Jesus for forgiveness of sins. Now, I don't want to take that as the only contribution to the gospel. I think we should look at gospel preaching, the book of Acts. We should look at what Jesus says about the gospel in the gospels. We should look at how that's all related to Isaiah 40 to 66. Okay. So I, for me, it's not necessarily an either or, but I do think that most modern preaching does overemphasize to a fault to some extent,

a hyper individualistic view of salvation. It does seem to focus on how to get to heaven when you die, which is just almost foreign to the New Testament. The New Testament looks forward to the resurrection, to the new creation, to the time when God is going to restore all things and usher in his new creation and give us new bodies where we're going to live on earth forever. And so the good news is a holistic restoration of God's whole creation. And we are swept up in that cosmic drama. I think I've sufficiently addressed this. You were asking for a short articulation of the gospel. So that was kind of a more lengthy articulation of the gospel.

If I can summarize, the good news is that the God of all creation has sent his son to restore God's covenant that he made with Israel. And if you're not a Jew, you also are swept up into that cosmic restoration by virtue of your faith in Jesus Christ. That would be, I think, a summary of how the Bible articulates it. But here's a beautiful thing is that the New Testament especially is multiculturally sensitive, meaning there are so many different aspects and shades of the gospel that you can, depending on your cultural, socioeconomic, or historical situation, you can emphasize one aspect or two aspects of the gospel that most resonate or, you know, most make sense to somebody that you are reaching out to or preaching the gospel to. This is why in the Book of Acts, you know, largely, well, it's interesting to look at how the gospel is preached in the Book

of Acts when there's a Jewish audience versus when it's a Greco-Roman or non-Jewish audience. It's not a completely different gospel, but it certainly does, the preachers do emphasize certain things. And I think the very diversity and complexity and beauty of the gospel laid out in the entire Bible, but especially the New Testament, I think allows us to emphasize certain aspects of this beautiful, diverse gospel,

depending on the context. Okay, next question. This is another longtime supporter of mine, so thank you for this question. I recently had a conversation with a friend in which I mentioned that all children of God are ministers. She responded with the question, if that is true, then does that mean practicing gay Christians are ministers? Neither of us, she says, are affirming, but I'm used that a practicing Christian who is gay isn't much different than another Christian who is sexually immoral or committing any other sin. And if we exclude every sinner from being a minister of the gospel, then we have no ministers. We sat at an impasse, both considering the weight

of God's glory. Okay. And you say much more here, but let me, let me jump in with a couple of thoughts here. When you say all Christian, all children of God are ministers, that is true if you go with the literal sense of minister, meaning servant. Okay. But I don't want to say that because we use the term minister today in our culture, for the most part, to refer to clergy, paid pastors, teachers and preachers, bishops and apostles. So it could be confusing if you're correct in that all children of God are servants, which is the core meaning of minister. That's true. But if you just say all Christian children of God are ministers, most people today are going to think pastors, clergy, formal church leadership. In that sense, no, not all children of God are that. They have to be called to that and approved. So you are correct. I would say

you're correct. You are correct as if I'm the judge here, but I would agree with you that there's not much of a difference between a, somebody who identifies as gay, who's living in ongoing, unrepentant sexual sin, and somebody who identifies as straight, who's living in ongoing, unrepentant sexual sin. So can people living in ongoing, unrepentant sexual sin also be servants? Well, I guess, sure. Yeah. They wouldn't, I think they would be better servants if they were living a more sexually,

a life of sexual integrity and sexual holiness, not perfection, not perfection, not, not, not perfection, but to where you see the goal in mind. This is the goal I have in mind. I'm shooting for this goal of sexual integrity. I hesitate using the word sexual purity because that's going to trigger you Gen Xers out there who are raising the, you know, 90s and 2000s, you know, the so-called purity movement. You know, I don't mean that, but sexual integrity. How about that? I think we all should be striving for sexual faithfulness, sexual integrity, living out our sexuality in the way that God designed us to live it out,

regardless of how we feel, how we are oriented, what desires we have, or how difficult that might be, we should agree upon the goal of sexual integrity, sexual faithfulness, and be striving for that. And we are going to be striving for that imperfectly. If that's, you know, and we're also all ministers who are, you know, as in servants striving for sexual integrity, then that's great. That's course, that's awesome. But I, I, um, I would still agree that yes, even if you are, um, living in unrepentant sexual sin, you are all technically assuming you're still a Christian, you're technically still a servant because if you're a Christian, you are a servant, but I don't think you're being a very

good servant if you're not stewarding your God-given sexuality in the way that God intended it. So I think you could almost think yourself a bit too much into a hole here by kind of thinking almost too hard about it. Later on, you say, in other words, can we as a body of believers be systematic about the problem of all sin within our church, within leadership, so on and so forth. And I think what you're hung up on, so here's, there's a difference between calling or struggling with sin versus calling sin righteousness. So yes, we are all redeemed sinners. Yes, we will all mess up. We still struggle with sin. We will probably, most of us, go to the grave with a significant spiritual limp, but we are all striving to not

sin. There's a difference between that kind of Christian, which is the goal, versus a Christian who is not just struggling with sin, but calling sin righteousness. You know, let me use a neutral example here of porn, because whatever your sexual orientation, unless you're asexual, you probably have some struggle with porn, or at least you could be tempted by it. So there's a difference between calling, you know, struggling with porn, even struggling significantly, but not wanting to watch porn or be addicted to porn. And maybe you're taking steps to address that and to weed that out. And maybe you keep failing, but you're still striving for not porn. There's a difference between that kind of

struggler versus somebody who thinks that porn is awesome. It's God ordained. It's what God created. And it's good for my sexual health. And it's, you know, God is honored every time I watch porn. Like that's where the difference is. One person is struggling with something he sees as sin. The other person is calling sin righteousness. Okay, next question.

Howdy, Preston. Hope all is well with you. I love that this person is from Portland and saying howdy. Do people in Portland say howdy? He says, I absolutely loved hanging out with you a few months back. Yes, that's, I loved hanging out with you too. That was so much fun. I got to do that again. So yeah, every now and then if I'm in a city and I have time, I love to reach out to my Patreon supporters and say, hey, let's go grab coffee or a drink or a meal or something. So this particular supporter, I was passing through Portland and we were already dialoguing about something and I'm like, hey, I'd love to meet you. Let's hang out. So we did that. So his question has to do with early church fathers. I'll just speak directly to you. I won't say your

name. I don't think you gave me permission, but yeah, you don't give me permission. You are reading a lot of early church fathers, and a lot of it is littered with aesthetic, aesthetic, not aesthetic, but aesthetic concepts. I noticed very early references to topics such as praying to Mary, elevating celibacy, and traces of what you'd find in Roman Catholic traditions. I've also discovered quite a few things that I'd say I disapprove on, like, or the disapprove of papal supremacy. There's some things in the early church that are very sexist, anti-marriage attitudes, and other things that are downright disgusting to you. Their willingness to kill over heresy, their obsession with self denial, harsh judgment over others is incredibly unappealing to me. So your question has to do with reading a lot of early church stuff, and then just not agreeing with it, saying this is either taking things way too far, or just

bending scripture around what you want to see there, and all these things. And you're just misinterpreting the text or not noticing other passages that would critique your theology. So all this is very alarming to you. Do you know any good books on the topic? What's your take on it? I, this is not my primary area that the extent of my study of the early church has been largely in their view on violence pre-Constantine. Spent a while studying what the early church says about violence when I was researching for my book Fight. And also in sexuality. I have been reading some early church stuff on sexuality, which, yeah, their stuff on marriage is pretty dismal. sexuality, which yeah, their stuff on marriage is pretty dismal. Uh, well, I should, some of it's actually a healthy corrective to our view on marriage. Here's my challenge to you.

Well, first of all, let me back, let me say one thing here. You say, you know, you basically say that, you know, um, how can I be a good Protestant and still read the early church when I disagree with so many things that they're saying? In a sense, that's the definition of Protestantism. I mean, Protestantism is pretty new on the scene. I mean, it's 500 years old, right? And yeah, for the first 1500 years of the church, there was a lot of things that would resonate much more with Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. And so Protestantism will look different than a lot, not everything they say, but a lot of what the early church fathers said. And that's just the definition of Protestantism. That's, yeah, we do believe that there's been a lot of things that we've gotten wrong for the first 1500 years of the church. That's just, that's, that's, again, the definition of, not the definition, but it's a significant part of

Protestantism is a, is a reaction against a lot of beliefs and practices that have gone south. But I would also add this though, to their credit and against our credit, they had blind spots and we have blind spots. And in a sense, I know you know this because I know you, I think I know you well enough to know that you're going to say, well, of course, I agree with this. But for those who may also resonate with this concern with the early church and how many things they got wrong, take marriage, for instance. They were huge, huge into the idea that marriage was for procreation. Some, I mean, some early church writers, you almost got the impression that if you actually enjoyed sex with your wife, that was sin. Like even enjoying sex, like it's just procreation

and sexual desire itself is almost wrong. That's not everybody, but that's certainly some perspectives in the early church. And it's like, whoa, whoa, a little too far there. But what about how far we've gone in the other direction where we have just completely severed sex from procreation? I think the Catholics are onto something here. And a little shout out to probably my four or five Catholic listeners or Greek Orthodox listeners. I know at least one of you that's out there, maybe a couple of others. But yeah, when I hear Catholics talk about marriage and procreation, I'm like, I think you have more scriptural basis for your views than maybe I have when I kind of assume that sex is over there and procreation is over here. And there's really hardly any

relationship between the two. I'm like, I don't know if that's even like valid from a natural law perspective, nor even from a scriptural perspective to just sever procreation from sex as if there's like, you can choose to have sex with your married spouse. And yet also say, I have no desire to have kids and that you stand on solid moral ground. I'm going to say maybe, but a burden of proof rests on you to say, I am going to engage in this God created activity that is clearly procreative in nature. Not that it always leads to procreation, not that it only needs to be procreative, but it is procreative in nature. Not that it only needs to be procreative, but it is procreative in nature. It is a procreative act all the way down to the design of our bodies and functions and stuff that goes on during a sex act.

God designed it to, God designed sex to be some way related to procreation. So if you say, I want to have sex, but not procreation, I would say the burden of proof rests on you to at least argue for that perspective. Whereas that's where I'm at now, at least. Again, I'm not saying there can't be an argument for that, but I've just simply assumed that sex is only for pleasure. And then, yeah, procreation is almost like somehow unrelated to that. And you can choose to have that. But if you choose to have sex and not try to procreate, then that's a completely valid moral option. How could you dare question otherwise? And we, you know, that used to be my perspective. That's very Protestant. And I'm like, I don't know. I think we might've missed that. So all that to say, when I read some early church people, sometimes I think they are just not interpreting scripture correctly. But other times I'm like, man, is it scripture that they are

not interpreting correctly? Or is it simply my modern Western 21st century biases that are being offended by what they're saying? And maybe they, on some points, are more biblical than I have been. Let me throw out one more on a related topic. I mean, celibacy, singleness. Yes, the early church more on a related topic. I mean, celibacy, singleness. Yes, the early church valued and elevated celibacy and singleness. But I don't know, when I read the New Testament, I'm like, are they? And the early church person who elevates singleness and celibacy, and then, you know, versus the modern day American evangelical who idolizes marriage, like which one is closer to the New Testament? You might be able to argue and argue on good grounds that their elevation of celibacy is closer to the biblical, the rhythm of the New Testament than this modern Western obsession with marriage. So that would be another one. Maybe again,

maybe they went too far to almost say that marriage is, you know, a bad thing or whatever, which the New Testament also doesn't say. But yeah, so I would say each Christian interpreter has to battle with his cultural, socioeconomic, and even geographical and ethnic biases that will cloud his interpretation of scripture. They had theirs and we have ours, which is why it's always good to read different thinkers and scholars and writers from various time periods throughout the church. Next question. I understand the biblical argument against same-sex sexual relationships or marriages, I think, but I guess I just don't understand why. In other words, why is same-sex marriage not God's design? It's easy to understand why things like adultery and murder are forbidden,

they're harm to others, but this sin seems harmless. As a Christian who is gay, I need the answer to be more robust than because God said so. And please don't use my name in this question. Get it. Okay. So several things here. First of all, this is a very good question. And I would really encourage my conservative evangelical, you know, non-affirming Christian leaders and thinkers to wrestle with this.

I do think it's fairly easy to point out that marriage is between a man and woman, and that same-sex relationships are not God's intention. But what do you do with the why question? Why does God say same-sex sexual relationships are wrong? I think we need to be able to give a response to that. Now, let me say a few things to kind of get a running start here. I'm not as allergic to the, to the, because God said so kind of answer. Because I, there are times in scripture when, like in Job or Romans 9 or other passages, when that's kind of what God says. Like, I am God and I can choose to reveal to you the inner workings of my, the way I organize and operate in creation, but I can choose not to reveal this to you.

Will you trust me in that? And I know that sounds fundy and Calvinistic, whatever, but I can choose not to reveal this to you. Will you trust me in that? So I, and I know that sounds fundy and Calvinistic, whatever, but so be it. I think it's just biblical in a sense. Like I don't, uh, and, and not there's, there's other, there's other, this isn't the only ethical question where, um, God might not reveal to us to our satisfaction, the moral logic lying behind the revealed intention. I don't know. I think it's a better, a healthier place to be as a Christian, to be, come to a place to where we are okay with, because God says so. Like, can we, would we still, because God says so. Like, can we, would we still, if we're clear that he says X, Y, and Z, are we, are we okay obeying X, Y, and Z, even if he hasn't as clearly revealed why he gave us X,

Y, and Z? X, Y, and Z is the command to do this or do that, whatever. I mean, I'm not even using that illustration to say, don't have gay sex. I'm just using that categorically for any ethical question. I mean, here's another example. You can say that like, what about a married couple, a man and woman gets married after a couple of years, they fall out of love. In fact, they just kind of can't stand each other. There's no kids involved. But they're like, you know what? It would be, we're like worse people when around each other. Let's just get divorced because this is harming each other. Do you have biblical grounds to divorce? Again, let's just say you're, there's no sexual infidelity. No, it's just, you're incompatible. Is that, is there biblical evidence that a marriage that is incompatible can be, end in divorce because you might be harming each other psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, whatever? Well, I,

each other psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, whatever. Well, I don't think I can. I don't have, again, I don't have any scriptural evidence that that kind of marriage, two people fell out of love or whatever, and might be better off getting divorced. I don't have any scriptural grounds to say that you should get divorced. Even though they're not harming anybody else. In fact, they might be harming each other by staying in the marriage. And I'm not talking physical harm, but just like two incompatible people living together could drive each other crazy. And that could cause psychological harm. about taking morality into our own hands if we don't understand the moral logic lying behind the revealed intention. Now, with your question here, let me say one more thing about kind of ethical categories. I don't, it is very modern, very Western to reduce ethics to what does or doesn't harm other people. You kind of alluded to this in a parenthetical statement, like adultery is wrong, murder is wrong because it harms other people.

That is a very, very common way to engage in ethical thinking in the Western world. That as long as it doesn't harm other people, as long as it's consensual, therefore it's okay. But again, that is a very Western, very secular ethical framework. Most other cultures around the world today, or especially in the past, have used several other moral criteria for determining what is right and wrong. moral criteria for determining what is right and wrong. And again, I know I've said his name many times in this podcast, but Jonathan Haidt, H-A-I-D-T in The Righteous Mind, the book The Righteous Mind, talks about this. And one of the reasons why he, as a liberal, was very frustrated at liberals constantly losing in elections is because liberals in the West typically appeal simply to the harm

impulse of people. Don't harm anybody. Don't harm other people. As long as you're not harming anybody, you can do what you want. Whereas from an evolutionary perspective or evolutionary psychology, from a social psychological perspective, there are at least five or six or maybe even seven other moral impulses, just from an evolutionary perspective that humans have inside of them. So when liberals are simply appealing to one or maybe two of those impulses, whereas conservatives typically appeal to four or five, that's, to the frustration of many liberals and especially progressives, why, um, conservatives just don't seem to go away because they are appealing to the moral fabric of how humans are just simply wired. It doesn't, it can't reduce everything to harm.

So yeah, I would challenge that. Like even that kind of grid, I'm not challenging you. Like, I know, I'm not saying you're just, you're thinking out loud here, but just the idea here that, that, um, as long as it doesn't harm somebody, then it, then it should be deemed. Okay. Um, so what, so is there a moral, um, logic to marriage being between a man and woman? Let me give a few that I think you could identify from scripture. Number one, sex difference in marriage, which is there in Genesis 1, and especially in Genesis 2, to 23 to 24, and then affirmed in Matthew 19, verses 4 to 6. Sex difference in marriage is woven into the fabric of the creation account, where we see differences singing together in harmony. It is as I, who was

it that, uh, oh, that philosopher, the guy that swears a lot from Duke university, shoot, forgot his name. Anyway, he has a book titled with the grain of the universe. Like there is something intrinsically virtuous with living in, with the grain of the universe, living in line with God's created order and God's created order. And God's created order is filled with differences, singing together, coming together in harmony, in unity without erasing those differences. And the very institution of marriage is designed to reflect that creational good. So it is intrinsically a creational good when, when sex difference in marriage is celebrated and performed.

I mean, it's another reason why I think multicultural churches are more in line with the grain of the universe than monolithic, ethnic, monolithic, than ethnocentric. Now that's too demeaning. With, you know, churches that are filled with one, one dominant ethnicity. Now sometimes geography or whatever might limit the possibility of multi-ethnic churches. I get it. I'm just saying, generally speaking, there is something beautiful, something good, something very creational,

something very Genesis, Genesis one and two ish in multi-ethnic churches. They resonate with and radiate the order of creation and marriage specifically is very much woven into the very fabric of that created order. Number two, I do think procreation does play a role. I do think marriage is a procreative relationship. Sometimes it can't result in that through infertility or other issues, maybe old age, whatever. But it is still at its structural level, the coming together of two people who are male and female, whose male or female sex identity is based on their respective structures of reproduction. That's just the categories of male and female. That's what they mean.

They refer to the sexually dimorphic categories of two mammals who are structured toward reproduction. And so I do think procreation is that marriage is a procreative institute relationship. And obviously same-sex relationships can't engage in that. Another one would be simply that same-sex relationships, because they cannot be defined as marriages, I mean, yeah, I mean, some people are going to disagree with that, and I've defended my view too many times to even re-articulate here, but assuming the historic Christian view that marriage is by definition the coming together of two sexually different persons, therefore two people of the same sex can't engage in a relationship that God would consider a marriage. And because God also has designed sexual expression to happen within marriage because sexual expression is in part procreative. Therefore, same-sex sex relationships are by

definition having sex outside of marriage. Now, people who engage in sex outside of marriage may be wonderful people. They might be virtuous. The relationship might be filled with love and care and serving the poor and all these things. So I don't want to just have this binary category of either you engage in a Christian marriage and you're filled with righteousness. And if you don't, you're just nothing but a walking pile of evil. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that ontologically, same-sex marriage is not a thing from a Christian perspective. It can be a legal thing.

And people of the same sex who engaged in a sexual relationship could be more loving and virtuous on so many levels than a straight couple. Okay. and virtuous on so many levels than a straight couple. Okay. Um, but it would be, assuming what I'm saying, you agree with what I'm saying about what the Bible says about marriage and same-sex relationships, therefore same-sex relationships can't be considered marriages and are therefore engaging in sex outside of marriage. Okay. Last question. Game of Thrones. Oh my gosh. Do I go here? Do I dare go here? I might lose some followers. I might gain some followers. So let me make this quick. I have not seen the Game of Thrones. I know very little about the Game of Thrones. From what my friends tell me that do watch it, who are very honest with

the show, do say, yes, it is soft porn. Yeah, there are some not just nudie scenes, okay, but really explicit sexual scenes. And so, therefore, on a general level, I would say, yeah, I just don't think it's, let me just use the category of wise to watch soft porn. Yeah, I'm still old school, I guess. I don't know. And there's so many good artistic, powerful narratives and movies out there that I don't need to watch ones that will probably not be wise for me to watch, will not be spiritually healthy for me to watch. to watch will not be spiritually healthy for me to watch. And so I would question the wisdom of Christians who are watching Game of Thrones. I would probably not go any farther than that. I'm not a fan of policing everybody's what they're viewing. I would just say the burden of proof,

I think, would rest on a Christian who would have to build a good ethical case based on the New Testament, that it would be wise, or maybe even neutral to watch the Game of Thrones. Now, some people say, well, we fast forward to sex scenes. Really? Well, more power to you. That's all. Then you're really disciplined, I guess. And if that's, if you fast forward to this, not just sex, but like the real porno kind of scenes, then, okay, sure, great, awesome. And I'm not going to judge you beyond saying, at least raise the question, is this a wise thing to do? But I guess where I would come down a little stronger is Christians that don't even, would almost get annoyed at even asking the question, is this wise for Christians to watch? That's just, I think that that's not really a good response. If you're just so annoyed that even I, you know, said,

at least question the wisdom of that, then I would question that response. We can go around and around and question each other and then we can go maybe have a beer and talk about it more later. I don't know. So yeah, not, not a huge fan of it. I haven't seen it. Okay. So I'm not a, if it's true that it is soft porn, I'm not a fan of Christians watching soft porn. There's many other shows out there, things you could watch. So those are my two cents. Thanks for listening to Theology in the Raw. Again, if you want to support the show, you can go to patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw and support the show for as little as five bucks a month. Until then, we will see you next to support the show, you can go to patreon.com forward slash TheAlgendaRaw and support the show for as little as five bucks a month. Until then, we will see you next time on the show. Thank you.