Theology in the Raw - 786: #786 - Pride Parades, Vaccines, Corporal Punishment, and More

Episode Date: April 6, 2020

Preston is working through a stack of questions in this Q & A podcast. Would he ever participate in a pride parade? How should gay/SSA Christians build healthy relationships with people of the same sex? What are his thoughts on Vaccines? His thoughts on Robert Gagnon’s approach to same-sex sexuality/marriage? The value of reading books vs. blogs vs. periodicals? What’s the meaning of “the worm shall not die” (Mark 9:48)? How does the parable of the rich man and Lazarus fit in with the Annihilation view of hell? Is corporal punishment (i.e. spanking) biblical? My thoughts on attending a UMC church that’s not taking a clear stance on marriage. 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.

Would I participate in a pride parade, my thoughts on vaccines, and is spanking your kids biblical? I'm Preston Sprinkle, and you One and Only Theology in the Raw. I am going to do something that I haven't done in a while, and that is respond to a fistful of questions that have been on my desk for quite some time now. I have been getting, it seems like, a lot of emails with questions that many of you wanted me to address in the podcast, and they keep piling up and piling up and piling up. And so now I have, I think, around how many pages is this document? Maybe like 40 pages of questions that I'm going

to try to work through in this podcast and in the next podcast, or at least I'm going to record two here, working through as many questions as I can. And, you know, I just, I got behind because I had so many interviews that I had recorded earlier. And so those were kind of being rolled out and I still have a few others that need to be rolled out. And then I've got a bunch of more, a bunch of interviews that are still, well, they're scheduled over the next few weeks. So I'm going to dive into these questions. But first, if you would like to support the show, and I very much would like for you to support the show, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the

raw and get access to premium content in return for your support. You can support the show for as little as five bucks a month. There's a lot of people supporting for five bucks a month. And that actually, if it was just one of you supporting it five bucks a month, it wouldn't really mean a whole lot. But when many of you are supporting, it really does, how do I say it? It really helps me out. It helps the Theology in the Raw ministry to keep going. It helps me to keep going. And especially in these crazy, chaotic times, there's a lot of financial uncertainties. So I am just utterly thankful for those of you who are supporting the show. And if you would like to become a part of those people, those supporters, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw.

That's patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. Okay. I have a bunch of really interesting questions here. And some of them I'm like, man, do I really want to talk about this? Or what are my thoughts on this? And I'm going to respond to a lot of really interesting questions. So the first one comes from somebody who is, I believe this person is same-sex attracted. Let's see. Actually, the questioner didn't actually say that, identify as somebody who's gay or same-sex attracted, but they did ask a question that's very relevant for somebody who is same-sex attracted. And the question is this, how does one with same-sex attraction develop close friendships with other guys without stumbling? And it doesn't even have to be lusting, but just an unhealthy relationship.

And then he kind of says, I'm not exactly sure how to describe this, but I just, I'm weary of making somebody a male friendship an idol. And so how would I, or somebody who is same-sex attracted, how would they, how would I, what kind of advice would I give to somebody who is concerned about this? So first of all, I just, it's a great question. about this? So first of all, I just, it's a great question. The fact that you're asking it and are concerned about unhealthy relationships developing, that's amazing. I mean, I wish more of us who are gay, straight, bisexual, whatever, were concerned about developing unhealthy relationships. It's something that's not, it's not just something that gay people should be concerned about, but something all people should be concerned about developing healthy

relationships and identifying unhealthy relationships. Now I, um, you know, I, I, as a straight guy answering this specific question, I felt a little, um, out of place. I mean, I do have some thoughts. I was going to give some thoughts, but I ended up texting two of my gay friends and said, hey, I took a screenshot of this question, said, hey, what do you guys think about this? And I got back some really good thoughts. I want to read to you the response that was sent in from my good friend, Greg Coles. Greg is amazing. He's an amazing writer, thinker, human being, and his thoughts were so good.

And he's such a great writer. So I thought I'd just read what he said. So here's what he says. We absolutely need to pursue deep same-sex friendships, even if it might feel, quote, safer to avoid these friendships in order to avoid the risk of temptation. Shutting your heart away from people doesn't actually equip you to live a life of holiness,

no matter how noble your intentions. If you're looking for a safe, complication-free life, following Jesus is not recommended. This is vintage Kohl's here. Gay or same-sex attracted people didn't invent codependent friendships. Some of us just happen to be really good at them. No friendship is inevitably doomed to become codependent, not even if you're gay or same sex attracted. And simply being straight doesn't make a codependent friendship any less healthy. It's a great point. Love, love that he says this is not, while this question has to do specifically

with a same sex attracted person, a gay person, the question is not only relevant for gay people. He goes on to say, make a point of fostering multiple deep friendships, both same-sex and opposite sex. It's a lot harder to develop unhealthy, obsessive friendships when you have more than one really good friend. Again, I think that's a great, great point. He goes on, if you treat friendships as the telos, the self-contained final goal, it's almost guaranteed it'll become an idol. If you treat

friendships as a means to embody God's love to the other person and to advance God's kingdom, then it's far more difficult to idolize. If there's a kind of friendship that you only desire to have with people you're physically attracted to and not with kind of wonderful and godly and less physically attractive people, that might be a warning flag. See what he's saying? Yeah. Are you only desiring friendships with people you're attracted to? That's a cause for concern. I'm friends with plenty of guys who I don't consider incredibly good looking, but I don't think it would be wise to prioritize friendships with them over. Oh, I have friends with plenty of guys who I consider incredibly good looking,

but I don't think it would be wise to prioritize friendships with them over friendships with guys who could never have a future in modeling. If you develop a crush on a friend, don't freak out, love them enough to want their best, which means one, not turning them into an object of your lust, two, not expecting or asking them to meet all your emotional needs. Three, not freaking out and cutting them off out of your life entirely. Don't be too fatalistic about crushes. The world goes on spinning even when your stomach has a higher than average number of butterflies occupying it. That's Greg Cole's friends.

And I think if you don't know Greg, he is same-sex attracted. He's committed to celibacy, solid believer, amazing person. And I think that is super incredibly helpful. I did have another gay friend of mine also give his thoughts, but he kind of echoes a lot of the same stuff that Greg said. So I'm just, I'm kind of glancing over his text here. And I think he's, I don't know if there's much more here to add. He does say that strong relationships with straight guys is really important for him because he knows that it can't go anywhere. And obviously he could develop an unhealthy attachment, and that's always a concern.

But in terms of it, you know, falling into something super unhealthy, it's just not, that's not going to happen. He also is big on putting up guardrails, just mental guardrails in his own mind and going out of his way to guard his heart to make sure that it, you know, a friendship doesn't become an unhealthy object of lust. So those are my thoughts. Those

are my thoughts. Actually, those are thoughts that were given to me. Next question. Would you walk or participate in a pride parade? I would not, uh, for a few different reasons. Let me just give you a couple reasons. First of all, while I absolutely love and delight in and want to honor and cherish LGBT people or any person, regardless of their sexual attraction, Um, uh, you know, pride parades do represent and enshrine a whole vast array of values that I just don't agree with. Um, so I, yeah, there's, I mean, there's, they're not just celebrating the fact that, um, that gay people are human, you know, if that was it, then of course, yes, I would applaud that. And I would go out of my way to affirm that. But a pride parade does typically celebrate many values that I wouldn't sign off on. I mean, I wouldn't march in a Republican pride parade.

So, I mean, there's probably loads of different kinds of pride parades, you know, that I wouldn't participate in. I wouldn't celebrate, I don't know if you heard this, but, um, several months ago there was a straight pride parade that was sort of, I mean, it said it wasn't, you know, mocking, um, uh, gay pride parades, but it kind of was, um, uh, but I wouldn't participate in that even though I'm, you know, very excited that I'm straight, whatever. I think that comes with a lot of blessings, a lot of curses as well. Um, I wouldn't, uh, I wouldn't march into the straight pride parade. So, so there's, I just, yeah, just, uh, for, for various reasons, I wouldn't march into the pride parade, but also probably most importantly, I'm not invited. Like I, um, I had a, uh, a trans person tell me once,

um, this was in a conference where I was answering a question about not participating in a pride parade, but maybe going as a Christian and supporting or just being there, being a loving witness at a pride parade. Christians are there holding up signs that are saying, you know, that are, you know, that's the sign is sort of screaming obscenities and dehumanizing things toward gay people. The question that came up was, should we as Christians go and give an alternative kind of voice, represent a loving posture towards LGBT people? And I, my response to that question was kind of like, yeah, I think there could be a place for that. Not participating, not necessarily celebrating everything that's being celebrated there, but simply showing up as a loving Christian. But then afterwards, a trans person came up and said, I actually don't like your advice. I said, well, why is that? And they said, we don't want you there. This is our sacred space. You do not support us, was what they said. So I don't care how loving

you are. We don't want Christians who hold to a traditional sexual ethic there. You're not invited. Let us have our space. So I was like, oh my gosh. Okay. So, um, so even if you had good intentions and good, a good motivation, uh, of going, um, that might actually be, you know, offensive for you to go. So, um, yeah. So for various reasons, I would not, uh, go and participate in a pride parade. Next question. Um, What are my thoughts about vaccines? Oh my gosh. Oh, I, you know, aware of how volatile and controversial vaccines are. And I'm kind of curious to read up on it. From what I know, from what I've read, from what I've heard, and so this is just me speaking freely about stuff I've heard, not research I've done, okay?

I have heard that the sort of anti-vaccine movement is absolutely not credible, is what I've heard. From people that I respect, from people that I listen to that I think have a good head on their shoulders, who are well-read, who have looked into it. An overwhelming majority of people that I really, really respect say that the anti-vaccine kind of conspiracy theory is almost like believing in a flat earth. And I have also heard that a lot of the anti-vaccine kind of arguments stem from one person. Is this correct? I wish those of you who are knowledgeable on this topic out there were here with me and we can kind of banter around about this. But I heard that there was kind of one main source that sort of came up with the idea that vaccines cause autism, that it's a whole, you know, hoax or whatever, doesn't work, whatever the arguments are, that it comes down to one person who has been just severely discredited, like embarrassingly so. Again, all I'm saying is this is what I've heard. Having said that, we don't vaccinate our kids. And so part of that, I think, is because

two of our, well, first of all, we're kind of very heavy on the natural side of things. We hardly ever even go to the doctor. We don't – rarely would we take like antibiotics. We're – yeah, we just – we eat incredibly healthy, very natural. Not too – not overboard or not just like some people I know where it's – overboard is kind of a negative, but some people it's like, yeah, I mean, it's, they would never put anything in their, in their stomach that isn't, you know, homegrown or whatever, but we're not that maybe that extreme, but we're, we're very much on the natural side,

especially when it comes to things like medicine or getting sick. And two of our kids were born in the UK and, and for whatever reason, I don't know if it's still like this, but they weren't huge on vaccines. I think they might've even recommended it or whatever, but it wasn't like in the States where you're looked at really funny by people, or even people have like an angry reaction if they hear that your kids aren't vaccinated. People have like an angry reaction if they hear that your kids aren't vaccinated. So, but we always thought like if there was an outbreak of something that we would go vaccinate.

Like we're not that against it. We just don't, yeah, we just haven't. Now, having said that, I don't know if I would, I'm kind of rethinking the whole thing now, partly because of COVID. And also because I'm reading this book called The Deadliest Enemy. Have you seen this book? It's a whole, it's a book written by a guy, I forget the guy's name, but he's an expert on diseases and viruses. And it's just, I'm reading this book. I did not realize how, how just widespread outbreaks have been in the last, I mean, throughout the history of humanity, but it's like, it's in the last 10, 20, 30 years, there's just been so many outbreaks of all kinds of stuff. Like he even more or less predicted COVID three uh, three years ago, he basically said,

like, there's, you know, we are now discovering various Corona viruses. Uh, SARS is one, uh, MERS is one Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome, uh, SARS. Uh, what is that? Um, uh, I forget what it stands for anyway. Uh, both of those areiruses. And he even said in the book written three years ago that at any, like, we're just, it's just a matter of time until another coronavirus breaks out. And he even said it'll probably come from China. He said this three years ago. Excuse me. So in that, he has a whole chapter on vaccines saying vaccines are our number one weapon against these outbreaks from happening. And the whole idea that it's not about just protecting you, but you being a carrier, perhaps without symptoms and affecting other people so that if you're not vaccinated, you may actually be fine, but you can pass something on to somebody else and, you know, end up killing a person or even thousands of people. Like if you're, you know, what he calls a super carrier, there's super

carriers that are responsible for thousands of deaths of people, you know, because one person kind of carried it into a region and it just kind of broke loose there. So anyway, all that to say, I, I'm, I'm not glued to, um, not vaccinating, um, uh, kids or being, uh, and I certainly, I, again, I haven't, it's not like I read all the research and therefore decided that the best research is on the side of no vaccines. It's just kind of something we, um, did because of, well, for the reasons I stated earlier. But so yeah, I don't know. I would love to hear your thoughts, actually. Here's what I would love. I would love to see, maybe not a book, but maybe an article, the best defense of giving vaccines, and then also the best defense of the anti-vaccine movement. I want to read both sides of this and really see

if, if that would persuade me one way or another, but it is, it's so, it's so volatile. It's hard to, people are so passionate about it and they get angry on both sides. And it's like, whenever people are, you know, so angry on both sides, it's for some reason, I just, I, I tend not to trust people as much. I don't know why that is. I mean, yeah, I don't know, I just, I, I tend not to trust people as much. Um, I don't know why that is. I mean, yeah, I don't know. Um, I just, I just want to see good research and be able to evaluate it. Next question. What are your thoughts about Robert Gagnon's approach to issues of the Bible and sexuality? Um, uh, I found his scholarship to be excellent. However, his rhetoric, both in public debate and on Facebook,

is often disappointing to me. He has an unswerving allegiance to the Republican Party as though they've done anything to preserve Christian values. I wonder, do you find his exegetical analysis largely sound? And if not, where do you think he's mistaken? And is there a comprehensive work comparable to his book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice that I can recommend? Your thoughts on Gagnon are exactly mine. I've gotten to know Rob over the years, mainly at conferences and stuff, where he constantly just goes after me. Um, you would think that we hold different theological positions. I mean, he's criticized my work, um, on, yeah,

on, on many levels. Um, and so not, but it, I, whatever, like, I don't, that doesn't bother me. I always like a good challenge. Um, so, but yeah, we, we've, um, interacted quite a bit. Um, uh, I don't like his tone. Um, I, um,

it, most of my friends who are gay and theologically traditional, I can't stand. Like it's just his, so, so even if they agree with his theology, they just, his rhetoric, even though they're on the same theological page, they say, you know, they just feel so disgusted and dehumanized by his rhetoric.

It's almost a universal perspective. And I know, you know, it's kind of a subjective critique, you know, what might offend, one person doesn't offend another person. And so we are dealing with subject, subjective nature of how language comes off, how people receive it. But it's almost universal in among gay people that would hold to his same theological position that they just absolutely cannot stand his rhetoric. So, yeah, I'm not a very sensitive person. So when I read him, I personally, I'm not like, oh my gosh, you know, like it doesn't hurt me personally. But as I, when I read him, I'm like, ooh, yeah, I can see where that would be unnecessarily hurtful to somebody who is gay or same-sex attracted. He seems to have a one-track focus on, you know, proving a theological point when in an argument

and does not seem, from my vantage point, to have much pastoral sensitivity to how his rhetoric comes off. That's my opinion, okay? As far as his scholarship goes and his exegesis, his interpretation of Scripture, I think it's exquisite. I really do. I think he's, you know, the way his interpretation of the text isn't so off the chart thorough. It's very, very, very logical and just well argued. And he has, I would say, nine out of 10 things he says in terms of the content of the, like his interpretation of scripture, I would probably agree with. Maybe eight out of 10. I do have quibbles throughout, you know, his book and certain things he says,

and I'm like, yeah, I don't think I would agree with that. But they're all kind of like minor points, not major kind of conclusions. A better book to recommend? His is the most thorough. There's no doubt about it. I mean, I hate to say it, but I, I would recommend my book as well. People to be loved. It's not as scholarly or as thorough. Um, but, uh, yeah, I mean, I cover a lot of the, uh, same ground as, as him. Um, another, but what else would I recommend on the, from a, like a, a traditional, a thorough defense of the traditional position. Um, I'm just looking around my, um, my bookshelf here. You know, one of the, one of the best works in this in terms of, from a, from a scholarly perspective is actually written by a guy who is affirming, and I'm just totally

blanking on his name right now. Let's see. I'm trying to find a book here. Anyway, I'll leave it alone. But he's written like seven scholarly books on sexuality in the ancient Christian and Jewish world. And it's killing me that I can't remember his name. You know what? I'm going to find it out here. Okay. It's William Loader. William Loader.

I hit pause on the recording and had to go dig up a book. Yeah. Bill Loader has written a ton of stuff on this topic. He is affirming, but his exegesis is incredible. And he actually believes that the Bible does categorically prohibit and condemn same-sex sexual relationships. He doesn't deal as much like with the definition of marriage, which is really where I think the discussion needs to begin. But yeah, his, I mean, gosh, he's done so much research on this topic in terms of what the Bible says about same-sex

relationships. And he's affirming, but he just thinks that like, yeah, the Bible is wrong in this area. But he would line up with Gagnon in a sense on what the Bible actually says. Okay, next question. I was wondering your opinion on prioritizing reading. For the last five to seven years, I have tried to read as many real books as I have, you know, tried to read as many real books as I can, but I also listen to a lot of podcasts. And you list a bunch of podcasts here. But I also read blogs. So I have podcasts, I read blogs, and I read books.

Do you have any comments on the value of blogs versus the value of real books? And if you'd be willing to share, how do you balance reading articles or blogs versus books? Al Mohler was interviewing someone who said that Francis Schaeffer said they didn't have many books. They didn't read many books, but they read a lot of periodicals. Okay. So when I blog, I like to air out ideas. I like to test out arguments. My blogs are almost typically, not always, but typically, you know, when I'm like 80% sure of something, then I'm like, well, I want to publicize this research, this thought, this idea to kind of see how it's received, see how it lands with people. I would say I want to invite pushback. It's kind of like a work in progress. And I've often said, and I think I got this from Donald Miller, you know, before it's a book, it's a blog. My books are much more, or they try to be much more polished. They've been

critiqued through blogs, the ideas, and they end up being in a book. They also go through extensive revision and editorial critique. I mean, right now, the book I'm finishing up on, Transgender Identities, the title is Embodied Transgender Identities, the Church and What the Bible Has to Say is the subtitle, should be out in October. I've had over 15 people read the book, or at least portions of it, including scientists, theologians, several trans people or people with gender dysphoria, pastors. And I do this with all of my books. I have, in the earlier drafts of the book, I have a wide range of a community of readers

reading it, critiquing it. It is currently in its seventh, no, now it's in its eighth draft. seventh, no, now it's in its eighth draft. I also have an editor who's amazing, just sent like a formal editor. So I have all these kind of informal readers that I sent it out to. But then I have a formal editor. And I just got the manuscript back from him a few weeks ago, and it had over 500 critical comments on it. And so we just worked through all those. And then now we're going through another round of edits. So all that to say, no, well, let me say this. That's not typical of every book. In fact, some books I read, I'm like, did anybody proofread this? Or did you submit this manuscript to anybody who was maybe critical of your ideas that can push back? Or did

you just surround yourself with an echo chamber, you know, and just, you know, run your thoughts through the printer or printing press. But, um, I, so, so what, so I might be on the extreme end of my, my books have at least been severe gone. They've gone through the gauntlet of critique before it's published. So that the book is going to be way more, way more thought out and criticized than a blog. My blog, most of my blogs are, I don't have anybody read it. If it's a really sensitive topic, I might have a person read it, but it's a really sensitive topic, I might have a person read it. But it's just like there's been no kind of editorial filter, whatever, when I post a blog. So my thought is that's probably somewhat generally typical that a blog is not going to be as polished, is not going to have been through much critique, whereas books will have been through more, more critique. Now, in podcasts, I mean, I hate to say are probably the lowest level of

critique. It's not like I, you know, record a podcast, you know, and send it out to people to critique before I actually posted on, you know, online. So this is just me talking and most podcasts are more just kind of conversational. So those ideas are going to be even less polished, if you will. Now, the whole thing with Francis Schaeffer, you know, he said he reads a lot of periodicals. A periodical is different. These are peer-reviewed journals. So I would say the highest level of thoughtfulness would come from periodicals or peer-reviewed journals. It is – I can only speak for theological journals. It's incredibly hard to get an article published in some of these – in journals.

I mean you could write an incredibly good article and it could be critiqued and denied by somebody who just didn't think your arguments were very persuasive. So, you know, there's several kind of really high powered theological journals, like the Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, the Journal for the Study of the New Testament. What else? I'm just, oh gosh, I'm blanking on the name. I used to have all these memorized. Anyway, What else? I'm just, oh gosh, I'm blanking on the name. I used to have all these memorized. Anyway, the Bulletin of Biblical Research, is that what it's called? Anyway, yeah, so those, you know, you're going to get the most polished thoughts from reading something that's been through a peer-reviewed article.

So your question is, how do you balance this? I would say, yeah, spend more time on reading stuff that's been more thought out and polished. Periodicals would be a great one. They can be kind of boring and technical. But I would say academic books written by people who are experts in whatever it is they're talking about. That's where I typically spend most of my time. I don't typically spend a lot of time in kind of just Christian living type books that, you know, are just somebody's kind of memoir or like ideas and stuff. There's a place for that.

And some people really enjoy that and are blessed by it. I personally like to read something where I'm going to learn a lot from and where I have, where I'm reading from an expert in a particular area that I can more or less trust, not just believe everything they say, but I'm like, whatever they're saying, they're there. They have kind of credentials that are kind of backing, backing what they're saying. Next question. Oh, you were asking. Oh, yeah, the about the Annihilation podcast. You said here that the second Annihilation podcast that I recorded, it's the first podcast of 2020, it's been removed from my feed.

I checked my feed and it's still there. So I think that problem might be on your end. The second Annihilation podcast, we actually spend a lot of time going through scripture. Yeah, it's still there. And it actually addresses your question. Your question had to do with the phrase, where the worm does not die. Where in Mark 9, 48, when Jesus is talking about hell and he says, you know, in hell, talking about hell and he says, you know, in hell, it's where the worm does not die. So I do address that in the second Annihilation podcast, but just quickly, that phrase comes from, and this is not debated at all, Jesus is alluding to Isaiah 65, no, Isaiah 66, verse 24. The last verse in the book of Isaiah, 66, 24, where it says, referring to wicked people,

that they shall go out, or no, well, this is, the Israelites will go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me, God says. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh. And earlier, just a few verses earlier, it talks about God slaying all these people. And by his sword with all flesh, and those slain by the Lord shall be many. It's talking about the final judgment of God. If you look at verses 15 to 24, there is no shred of any kind of evidence that these dead bodies are living or that their soul is kind of living on somewhere. Not in this passage. The passage is talking about the future judgment of God in very this worldly terms,

but it's clearly talking about people who have been slaughtered by the Lord. I mean, it's kind of an aggressive image. I mean, it's kind of an aggressive image. So the worm that shall not die is not at all. It's just not at all talking about the ongoing worm-like torment that's happening to people who are still alive or still conscious. They are dead bodies. still conscious. They are dead bodies. Now, the worm that does not die is a reference to the severity and the irreversibility of their deadness. It's just, it's a metaphor emphasizing that they are not just dead, but they are dead dead. Like there's no coming back from this deadness. So if any, I mean, maybe I'm biased, but it seems like this, this, the fact

that Jesus uses this image, it's not even a problem for annihilation. It's like it reinforces the idea of annihilation when you go back to the original context from which Jesus draws this image. Next question. Oh, just, this is quickly, um, uh, revelation. The book of revelation talks about hell being cast in the lake of fire. And there are only three beings mentioned that are tormented in the lake of fire eternally. Um, but what about the parable of Jesus talking about the man lifting his head in hell and asking for a drop of water, uh, for his tongue because of the flames that tormented him? What are your thoughts on this parable of Jesus? So I actually do address this explicitly in episode 778. If you go back to that episode, it's a Q&A session I did on the annihilation view of hell. And I addressed this

pretty thoroughly, I think. So the parable you're thinking of is in Luke 16, the rich man and Lazarus. And it actually isn't talking about hell or Gehenna. It's actually talking about Hades, the intermediate state, not the final state of where people will live. So my short answer, which I explained much more thoroughly in that podcast, episode 778, is that there's a lot of metaphorical things going on in this parable. I don't think Jesus is trying to teach us kind of like a geography of the intermediate state. And so there's a huge question mark that lingers over all the kind of details or the literalness, the possible literalness of these details,

because there's so much in the passages, clearly not literal. Yeah. All the way from chasms to, you know, dip your finger and cool my tongue. Cause it's an agony and this fire. Oh, wait a minute.

Most people say the intermediate state. We're not, we don't have bodies. And all of a sudden this guy has a body. And, and is, is there really a chasm that separates heaven and Hades here? Like, is that actually like, are they next to each other? I thought that heaven is going to

be somewhere very geographically, very distant from Hades, you know? Um, so I, the whole, the whole point of the parable is to teach really about, um, how you treat the poor in this life is the main point of the passage, because the rich man did not care for, did not just kind of stepped over Lazarus, who was begging at his door every day. And yeah, so the whole point, especially in the Gospel of Luke, which is very much concerned with wealth and riches, is to teach how we use our wealth in this life and how we, or whether we honor or don't honor the poor. So yeah. Oh, but even if you take it as literal, even if it's very literal, there is literal torment happening and Jesus is trying to teach

us that, it's still talking about the intermediate state, not the final state. So you could have conscious suffering in the intermediate state that does the final state. So you could have conscious suffering in the intermediate state. That does not necessarily mean, that doesn't mean anything of whether there's going to be, it doesn't say one way or another, whether there's going to be suffering in the final state for all eternity. Next question. Let's do two more. Corporeal, corporeal, corporeal, corporeal. Spanking. How about spanking? Not in like the kinky sexual sense, but is spanking your kids biblical? If so, the question is, is there a biblical argument for spanking? And if so,

what does the Bible actually teach about that? Like no more than 39 lashes? Is it to be placed on the back? Or, you know, what are the actual biblical guidelines? And then number two, how does this square with nonviolence? Would spanking not be okay if the New Testament teaches nonviolence? Like, is spanking violence? Okay. Great question. And I've, kind of like vaccines, I have not done as much thorough thinking or research on this. I do want to recommend a book by William Webb, and I think that title is Corporal Punishment in the Bible. Why can I not, is that how I pronounce the word? You know, a word that I really have a hard time pronouncing is, I have to say it really slowly, jewelry, jewelry, like the stuff around your neck, um, jewelry. My mouth just turns to mush when I try and say jewelry, you know, so jewelry and corporal

punishment. Anyway, that's not why you're listening to the podcast to hear me fumble certain words. So in that book, he argues, and William Webb's famous for looking at kind of ethical trajectories in the Bible, looking at ethical movements and tensions in the Bible, things that are permitted in the old and prohibited in the new, or prohibited in the old and permitted in the Bible, things that are permitted in the old and prohibited in the new, or prohibited in the old and permitted in the new. We see changes in the ethical landscape between the Old and New Testaments and therefore the Old and New Covenants. That's just the fact, there are changes, there's tensions, there's differences between the Old and New Testament ethic on some things. And he, I haven't read the whole book, I've read bits of it, but he, you know, he says that

physical discipline of your kids is more, it's an Old Testament thing, and what the New Testament says about violence kind of rules out that way of raising up your kids. I'm not 100% sure I'm convinced by the argument, but I will say that, yes, the, you know, don't spare the rod passages in Proverbs doesn't necessarily mean that we are to obey that today. We have to run all Old Testament teachings through the grid of a New Testament ethic. It doesn't necessarily need to be repeated in the New for it to be mandated under the New Covenant, but we have to take what the New Testament says about just ethics as a whole and see if an old Testament ethical point resonates with the rhythm of the new Testament. And so I think a case could be made that the don't spare the rod passages in Proverbs don't resonate with a post, uh, resurrection, post crucifixion, post Jesus took our punishment.

So we don't need to punish, so we don't need to dish it out on our kids way of thinking. So again, I'm not saying I'm necessarily by that. I'm just saying a case could be made. I think a legitimate case could be made that the New Testament kind of reconfigures how we should think about physical punishment, especially when it comes to our kids. I don't think spanking necessarily has to be violence. It really, I mean, it depends on how you define violence, which is, you know, big debate, but I don't, the way I define violence in my book, Fight, and I forgot word for word what I said, but it's, you know, something like, you know, a physical harming of somebody with the

intention of trying to destroy them or trying to like, trying to like harm them as an end in and of itself, or as physical discipline or spanking, whatever. You're not trying to harm the person. You're actually trying to steer them towards obedience. So I don't, I don't, I would have a hard time. I mean, according to some definitions, spanking could be defined as violence. I don't think it necessarily needs to be. But I would probably lean – and again, I've changed my view on this. Today, I would probably lean away from physical discipline of kids. And again, regardless of whether it's even legal.

I mean, I think each state has different laws on that. But yeah, I'd probably lean away from it, quite honestly. But yeah, I don't know. I'm like 80% there. I need to think through it a bit more and kind of, you know, weigh all the pros and cons and all the kind of pushbacks to that kind of argument. So yeah, but I would highly recommend that book by William Webb. Last question. This comes from somebody who's in the United Methodist Church and is having a hard time with how the UMC is handling the same-sex relationship question, homosexuality, whatever word you want to use. So, you know, most of you probably know, but the United Methodist Church is probably going to split over this if it hasn't

already. I haven't kept up on UMC news recently, but, you know, the UMC is a global church. It's one of the largest, if not the largest, global denominations. Um, and most, um, American bishops and leaders would be affirming of same-sex relationships, whereas most global, uh, um, non-Western, um, leaders in the UMC would affirm a traditional or historically Christian view of marriage and same-sex relationships, which is interesting for so many reasons. But this, so this questioner said, you know, who's part of the UMC holds to a traditional view of marriage. And he says, I guess I would like some advice on how I can live out my faith in a church where I feel like I'm surrounded by people who believe differently than I do. And I would really appreciate any words of wisdom you're willing to share. I mean, this is tough. I don't know if I

can't give you specific guidance on this. I can't say you should leave, you should stay, whatever. I don't know your church. I don't know the people, you know, that you're hanging out with. You know, I don't know you, unfortunately. But so I, you know, I, and you describe your church, your local church as having leaders that it seems to be either they're kind of split on what they think about same sex marriage. But it seems like your church, well, but you said they're just trying to like, um, make everybody happy. Um, they, oh, you say they're, uh, they're very much trying to straddle the fence and keep as many people happy as they can. So to me that I personally, I would have a hard time with leaders who had that kind of posture towards important ethical questions. And again, they could pick anything.

If they were split on divorce or they're split on violence or split on whatever, adultery, does anybody say adultery is good? I, you know, I just, I, for leaders to do, to kind of waver on something that's ethically very pressing and crucial and volatile that the Bible has much to say about. And if they had the approach of, we want to, we're not really, we're kind of going to straddle the fence in order to keep people happy. That just, that posture would be hard for me to submit to personally. Also, when it comes to this question of same-sex relationships and the definition of marriage, I don't see this as just simply a secondary issue that we can kind of agree to disagree. I don't think it's healthy for church leadership to be divided on this. And so for me, personally, it would be hard to stay at a church that was either where the leadership was affirming.

Actually, I wouldn't stay at a church if the leadership was affirming, but even if it was kind of like on the fence or trying to navigate a third way, I think it's an important enough question that I personally couldn't be at a church that didn't have a very clear position on traditional marriage. Now, I also couldn't be at a church that was even slightly homophobic or was not a safe place for LGBT people to come to that didn't embody both the truth and the radical scandalous grace of Christ toward LGBT people. So for me, it's a both and, like the truth and grace tension, if you will, in this conversation, I kind of need a church to embody both. So again, I'm not saying do this, do this, don't do that or whatever,

but like, yeah, I think it would be, the way you describe your situation, that would be hard for me to be committed to a church that had that kind of posture. I would highly recommend if you do stay, or if you're trying to navigate these relationships, I would highly recommend, as I do on almost every podcast, that you read the book by Jonathan Haidt, H-A-I-D-T, Haidt, The Righteous Mind, Why Good People Disagree on Politics and Religion. It is absolutely revolutionary for helping us to understand how to navigate relationships with people when there's such severe disagreements on a number of different questions. So The Righteous Mind by Jonathan. I think he needs to send me some kind of like royalty cut because I recommend his book so

often, but it's just such an incredibly good book. So, all right, we'll close it out there. Again, if you want to support the work of Theology in the Raw, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. That's patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. And we'll see you next time on the show. Thank you.