Theology in the Raw - 822: Purity Culture, Sexuality, and Why Christianity Is True

Episode Date: October 5, 2020

Sean and I talk about his new book "Chasing Love" which is due to come out in Dec 2020. We focus largely on the contents of this book but we also dive deep into the so-called purity movement and clear up some misunderstands. We also weigh the pros and cons of that movement and try to construct a positive way forward.

Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. I have back on the show today, Sean McDowell, Dr. Sean McDowell. He's got a PhD in apologetics and worldview studies from Southern Seminary, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, two MAs, one in philosophy, one in theology, both from Talbot School of Theology. He is an associate professor at Biola University and Talbot School of Theology. He's a writer. He's a speaker. He's an apologist, meaning he specializes in defending the faith. Sean's been a good friend over the years.

He's just an absolute cool dude. He's super humble. Yes, he comes from the line of the McDowell's, namely Josh McDowell, who is one of the most popular Christian authors in the 20th century. So Sean and I talk about his forthcoming book, Chasing Love, Sex, Love, and Relationships in a Confused Culture. Now, some of you might remember that his dad, Josh McDowell, was a huge advocate. Oh, see, I'm going to get it wrong because he actually clarified some of this. I always assumed that Josh McDowell was a main leader in the so-called purity movement. But Sean actually added some correctives to that early on

in this podcast, you'll see, because I, that, you know, I've have spoken out somewhat critically of the purity movement, as many of you would probably also speak out critically of it. Not that there wasn't some good things in it, um, or some good goals, but there was just some themes that were unhelpful. We talked about that in this podcast, but, um, yeah, anyway, my, my big question to Sean was hey is this book um basically kind of another purity book and he well yeah you'll see how he answers that it's it's a little more complicated than i thought it was gonna be so it was really helpful hey if you'd like to support the show you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw support the show for as little as five bucks a month and get access to premium content.

Is that it? I thought I had another announcement. Maybe that's it. I don't know. I'm losing my mind here. Hey, let's dig into this. Please welcome back to the show for the second time, the one and only Dr. Sean McDowell. All right, hey, friends. I'm here with my friend, Sean McDowell.

Sean, I think this is your second time being on Theology in Raw. Is that right? Do you remember? It is. Yeah, that's right. Last year we were on chat. You're probably on a lot of podcasts, I imagine, so it's probably hard to keep up. Well, I do a decent amount. I enjoy it. It's fun, but I've been looking forward to coming back with you.

Yeah, cool. Well, hey, let's just go ahead and jump into it. I mean, I do a pre-recorded intro, which I haven't done yet, but people watching or listening have already seen it. So it's just this weird time warp thing we're in right now but um i'm sure people know who you are uh if they didn't already know who you are um because i probably in the future have introduced you already it's like back to the future no worries um so i want to talk about your book uh it's coming out in december uh chasing love is that the title yeah that's right okay now this is uh i'll just set it up this is in some way related to your dad's really well-known book um uh why true love waits is that the original title yeah so in in the 80s he launched a movement

called why wait and it was probably as far I know, the first global sexual purity campaign, abstinence campaign that was really coming out of the sexual revolution in the 60s and 70s and originally called Why Wait? Okay. And there was a book and there was a video series and he was speaking around the world doing big events. There was a book and there was a video series and he was speaking around the world doing big events. And I think what was unique about that is at the time he's launching this thing, I'm like 12, 13, 14 years old. So I am going through those changes in my life and we're having conversations around the dinner table and in the car. I mean he just brings the stuff up all the time related to sexual purity. We talk about STDs at dinner. He'd talk about some story of sexual purity and the scriptures. Like it was just,

he gets set on something and it's just, you know, kind of consumes him to be able to accomplish it. So growing up, we just had these conversations all the time. So it's interesting to look back now and just think through, hey, what might I do differently? What did I benefit from? So it's just, it's a unique perspective, I think, to have. So, I mean, just to get the elephant out of the room, I mean, a lot of people were listening, like, whoa, like, is this, like, I was totally damaged by purity culture, and I almost lost my faith, or I have all this shame, and you know, all the negative effects that some people have had as a result of purity culture, or I don't want to say, I don't want to draw a straight line that it's from purity culture necessarily but within that environment

i'll keep it more yeah without assuming uh correlation and causation but um can you maybe um i want to ultimately get to your perspective well yeah why don't we just start there what is your perspective on purity culture and and then I want to get to maybe some similarities and differences between your book and your dad's original book. So my dad started this in the 80s into early 90s. And that was before a lot of the wave of purity culture that a lot of this criticism is pushing back on. I mean, I've read every academic book. I have gotten all the articles, talked with folks, not that people might not differ with him on issues, but when you look at purity culture, it's usually nineties into the early two thousands

or so with the Joshua Harris book in the late nineties. That's typically what it's referred to. Most people either weren't there in the 80s or they just don't recall. So there are some differences that are there when you come to purity culture between why wait and between I kiss dating goodbye. There's some significant differences in the approach that often get lumped in together. And that doesn't mean there's not areas I would differ with my dad on. But I can tell you, I look back and I am grateful in the home of the person leading the 80s. And I don't think he really used the term sexual purity campaign, wouldn't even use that term at that time. I have nothing but gratitude personally for my experience growing up in the home of one of the people who really launched the movement, to be honest with you. And I tell you, I tell my dad when I differ with him

on issues. So, you know, True Love Wait started in 1993 and kind of came out of the Why Wait campaign, so to speak, and had a little bit different message, a little bit of a different approach, all that overlapped. And then you just see a launch, a number of different resources and ministries kick into the 90s and 2000s that as far as I know, are typically what characterizes purity culture. What are some of the differences then? I would love to hear the differences between the early proto purity culture. That's my, maybe that's not even a helpful term, but I see what you mean. The 80s and early 90s.

Yeah. So what are the differences between that and the full-blown kind of purity culture in the Joshua Harris days? Well, I guess I would say a couple things. Joshua Harris was clearly saying all dating is sinful by definition and that you have to follow, you know, kind of the pattern that they laid out with parents that are involved and you just don't date one bit. That was not the message that came out of Why Wait? It was, hey, date responsibly and have boundaries. That was at least the message that my dad taught and pushed that I think is a little bit more balanced. A second one is, I don't, Y. Wade had no promise that said, if you stay sexually pure, you'll get this endless sexual bliss in your marriage in the future

of what's the sexual prosperity gospel. That just wasn't a part of it. Now they elevated marriage and I would have loved looking back to see more talk about singleness. You know, we can talk about some ways that I would look back differently, but those are two huge differences between the purity culture. And I think what's in why, you know, I kiss dating goodbye and the why wait message itself amongst others. That's super helpful. that promise, that sexual purity gospel, that's kind of a big piece of the purity movement that really caused a lot of heartache, I think, in some

people that did all the right things and then either didn't get married or got married and the husband turned out to be a jerk or they realize sex is a lot more complicated and sometimes painful and not enjoyable for a lot of people. And that's a big piece, isn't it? Isn't that one of the major critiques of purity culture? It is. And I'll tell you one of the other critiques too is I've met so many people who said – I remember a girl asked me. I was speaking at a Christian college.

She said, I've been told my whole life that sex is bad. How am I supposed to get married and just flip that switch? And so many people who are like, I've been told there's fireworks on your honeymoon night, and yet my entire mindset with sex is bad. And all of a sudden I'm supposed to just think it's good? Like this doesn't even feel possible to me. opposed to just think it's good. Like this doesn't even feel possible to me. I think that, and I don't know exactly who to blame for that because there's curriculum and there's books and then there's youth pastors and parents and teachers who teach this stuff and put their own spin on it. You know, I mean, there's so many levels to this, but I could tell you, I mean, if anything, my dad

erred on the side of like, sex is beautiful. It's awesome. It's wonderful. Like not this. It's terrible. It's bad. It's horrible. And then flip the switch. So that was just that was just a difference in my experience. Now, I think purity culture erred if you took that message even further.

And I think one of the mistakes was the wider culture would say free sex is awesome. This is where life is liberating and great. And the church would say, you think you've had good sex? No, no, no. Come to the church. It's even better. We're the one who has the corner on good sex. And that became a selling point.

So I don't recall my dad pushing it that way. That wasn't part of the Why Wait campaign, at least at the beginning. But I think that's how sometimes it got twisted in purity culture too. Either it's bad, it's dirty, it's wrong, or it's so great, it's even better than the world's sex. And that balance in the middle that says, hey, God designed sex to be between a man and woman. And there's something fulfilling and flourishing and beautiful and good. I mean read the Song of Solomon about biblical sexuality. But if you're looking to this for your fulfillment, if you think this is going to bring your life meaning, you're going to be disappointed.

And that's not the motivation for being sexually pure. That's helpful. Another piece that I often hear, and I've said this before on my podcast, but for those who haven't heard me say it, even though I was very much raised and nurtured in the era of purity culture, I didn't ever heard the term.

I never read I Kissed, Dated, and Goodbye. I remember a few people at my school talking about it. It was a thing, and then we moved on. So I don't even remember learning about purity culture till like 10 years ago i was like wait that was my era how did i miss that you know um so i have a weird like i have a i'm kind of in a backwards way kind of learning about the very environment that i was nurtured in um but even then like my you know i became a christian late 90s and even then i wasn't i kind of went straight to college and buried my head in the books.

So it wasn't – I don't think I felt the impact of it. But one other thing I've heard from people is this whole idea of being damaged goods. Like if you mess up, you have premarital sex. And it's almost like all this shame and you're done. You've ruined yourself or your husband. And these aren't the exact words, but that's kind of the impression people felt. Would you, yeah. What are your thoughts on that? Did you see that in the,

either the phase one or phase two of the purity era or. Yeah, I think that's a great question. I, I agree with you. I mean, I, I grew up in a Christian home, but a lot of this purity culture hit. I mean I graduated high school in 94, graduated college in 98, and yet I never heard of it called purity culture until I think later looking back, people try to characterize it. And I think there's some value in doing that, but the problem is you get so many messages, so many books, so many campaigns lumped in together that it doesn't always make careful distinctions between the message that was taught. I mean look, even in Joshua Harris' book, there's a beautiful chapter on forgiveness. I love the chapter on forgiveness that's in there about this library, and he pulls out these different cards, and he feels guilty, and it's wiped away. Like I love that metaphor he uses of forgiveness.

and it's wiped away. Like I love that metaphor he uses of forgiveness. Now that's not to say there wasn't maybe an over-emphasis on if you're sexually pure, then you are completely pure. Like our spirituality reduces to our sexuality. And if you've had sex once, you're damaged good. I understand how that message was pushed and how it was taken in by people. I mean that's a destructive message.

But forgiveness was always a piece of the larger sexual purity culture, maybe just not put in balance and emphasize as much as it should have been. No, that's good. Why don't we jump to your book? So tell us the gist of Chasing Love and maybe some differences between – because I imagine people are going to see your book. So tell us the gist of Chasing Love and yeah, maybe some differences between, because I imagine people are going to see your name. They're going to think back and maybe even made the same kind of conflation that I made that like lumping your dad with all forms of purity culture. And I've even heard, I think I heard one person even say, gosh, is Sean, is he just reinventing the purity culture again?

I'm like, I don't know, Sean. Pretty sure that's not what he's doing in the sense that you think, you know, he might be doing. But yeah, tell us about the book and what maybe some differences, similarities and differences between the purity culture broadly conceived. Yeah. So I love this question. And I think a lot of people, to be honest with you, when I hear them say, oh, this or that purity culture, I'll ask a few questions. What exactly are you referring to? What have you read? And most people have read a couple articles and maybe had an experience from being in youth group.

But I went back and I've read, I mean, tons of these books that critique purity culture, some of the original books. some of the original books, and the narrative that we hear largely, especially in the secular culture when this has shown up in publications, is not always fair and accurate to periodical culture as a whole. Now, does that mean there weren't mistakes in periodical culture? No, I'm not saying that, but I've seen a lot of critiques that are exaggerated, not balanced, and kind of carry with them a certain agenda to shame the church that's just not always as balanced as it could be. And you and I have seen that happen, I think, on a lot of different levels. So one of the things that was cool for me is to go back, relook at the stuff my dad taught, relook at true love weights, look at how culture shifted,

and just say, okay, what's it going to look to teach kids about sexuality today? What are differences in how I'm going to do this? So I broke the book up into three sections. The first one is just kind of framing the issue. The middle is where I get into issues of sexuality. So marriage, singleness, the nature and purpose of sex. And then in the last section, I do the questions of like sex abuse, pornography, LGBTQ questions. So I want to talk about what our design and purpose is first, and then talk about some of the deep questions that come up. That's just how I chose to organize it. But essentially, I frame this with a couple of big questions. Number one, can really right at the beginning, I talk about how the title that Lifeway gave me was Chasing Love. And I said, you know what? What our culture says is you are

chasing this love to fill yourself up and give yourself meaning. If I just find that spouse, my life will be meaningful. And I thought, you know what? That's not the gospel. that spouse, my life will be meaningful. And I thought, you know what? That's not the gospel. The gospel is I got to seek first to love God and love other people. And then all these things shall be added unto me. So I start the book by saying, you're probably picking this up, thinking that you're going to learn some tips, how to find the right spouse, get fulfilled. That's not it. That actually is downstream. The first question is, am I going to live my life for a bigger cause? And that involves loving God and loving other people. And then guess what? Then you find you have a meaningful life, even if it doesn't turn out based on the script

of what our culture says. So I kind of start off and just reframe it for students a little bit. And then, you know, some of the big issues at the beginning is I talk about trust. I'll say – and you and I have discussed this. I'll say when it's all said and done, the question is can you trust God? Can you trust the character of the person who designed sex? Even if you don't understand it, even if it doesn't make sense, are you going to believe that God is good and has your best interest in mind? That's really the heart of the question for me, because kids are being hammered with this, with questions of, you know, they're just being hammered with a worldly view of sexuality. And

when it's all said and done, I think in the back of their minds is the Bible's old, it's antiquated. God is really stealing my fun, which in some ways is nothing new. And so I frame it right at the beginning. Can you trust the character of this God whose scripture says is good? That's something I'm thankful my parents did teach me is they would say over and over again that, you know, like in Deuteronomy chapter 10, when Moses says, you know, love Lord God with your heart, your soul, mind, and strength, here's commandments for you that I'm giving you for your good. I think it's Psalms 119 when David says, you know, he loves the law of the Lord. That's the heart of the question. Then I frame it by defining love, comparing and contrasting

the world definition of love, biblical love, compare and contrast freedom. I think young people are totally confused about the nature of freedom. Talk about forgiveness and then jump into the middle section. And one last thing I did and then I'll be quiet. I've been rambling is the middle section is that's where I talk about marriage, singleness and the purpose of sex. talk about marriage, singleness, and the purpose of sex. But in a lot of sexual purity campaigns, what's been left out is any real discussion about singleness. It's tagged on at the end. So I switched the order and I talked about the first section is on sex, God's design for sex, its purpose. Then in the middle, I did singleness. And then at the end of that section,

tagged on marriage, because scripture says, you know, marriage and singleness. And then at the end of that section tagged on marriage, because scripture says, you know, marriage is singleness are two equal honoring ways to follow the Lord. And every kid reading, right? This, whenever they read it is single anyways. So that's just a balance that I brought in just as much time talking about singleness as I do marriage, as I do the purpose of sex. Is your audience like Gen Z or younger millennials, or do you have a specific target audience of mine? Yeah, this book is for students. Students.

So I would say at the lower end, like 12, and I didn't write it for 12-year-olds, but I had my daughter read it. I was like, hey, if you read it, give me feedback. I'll buy you some shoes. And she's like, dad, there's an outlet. I can get two for the price of one. I was like, fine. Okay. You're a business person. So she actually read it and we just talked through the whole book together. So there were certain things a little bit above her head. So it's written primarily for high school students. Okay. Okay.

Wow. What? Yeah. Gosh. Um, what are you seeing? I mean, you've been dealing, teaching and speaking to younger people. And as you get older, your former younger people, millennials, are now having kids. Yeah. Some millennials are actually, I think, could be grandparents now, which is really weird to think about. I mean, if you take the statistic, I mean, an old millennial could be like 38 or something. And anyway, what are some challenges, unique challenges you're seeing as you speak to Gen Z, having done a lot of youth work over a couple decades? Some unique challenges to Gen Z that you're seeing kids wrestle with when it comes to sex and sexuality? seeing kids wrestle with when it comes to sex and sexuality? You know, one of my masters was in philosophy, and I'm always thinking of like undergirding ideas that shape the way kids think. And I'll tell you about a conversation I had recently. I was at a Christian school, and there was maybe 10 or 12 students who'd been in Christian families, Christian education. They were juniors and seniors. And the teacher said, hey, talk to him about

basically anything you want. I was like, OK. So I decided to try something. I said, tell me, how would you define freedom? Not political freedom, but what is it? Actually, the way I worded it, I said, what does it mean to be a person who is free? And they talked amongst themselves, came back and they said the free person is someone who can do anything they want to do as long as no one gets hurt i said okay that's an interesting definition and then i and then we chat about for a while i said okay would your definition of freedom change if god exists like imagine god is real does that change how we should think about freedom? So they talk amongst themselves. They come back and they said, well, now if God exists, freedom is doing whatever

you want to do as long as no one gets hurt, but now there's consequences. Now let that sink in for a minute. There's consequences. You might get judgment in the afterlife, and in this life, maybe you'll feel guilty. So Preston, in the minds of these Christian kids in a great Christian home and a great Christian church, all God adds to the matrix of freedom is consequences. That's it. Wow. So here's kids in great Christian families, great Christian home, who have completely imbibed a secular view of freedom. No wonder our message of sexual purity falls short because they're funneling through. Well, am I hurting anybody?

Am I the author of my life? If not, what's the big deal? And so, I mean this conversation went on, but I basically said to him, I said, okay, I want you to describe for me, come up with the person on earth who's most free. So they talk amongst themselves, they come back and they said, well, the metaphor we have is someone who's on an island alone who can do anything they want to do because they couldn't hurt anybody and nobody could stop them. That person is totally free. And it dawned on me. I thought, man, and I've done this a few times and you get a pretty similar response. It hit me. I thought, gosh, these kids are basically they understand freedom from right. There's a sense where you're

only free if you can make decisions and nobody's stopping you, but they don't understand what Os Guinness calls freedom for, which is like, you know, if I take my AirPods, I've got to understand what they're designed for and use them according to their design. Well, ironically, the Bible says we've been made for relationship with him and for other people. So the very person they described as most free is actually least free because they're not able to be in relationship with other people. So for me, a lot in this book, as I get into the real practical stuff for students, at the end of every chapter, I have a little section that says, you know, how do I, you know, whatever tough, I came up with a tough – the top 30 toughest questions kids are asking about sexuality. And every chapter I end with a real practical nugget. But I thought, gosh, I can't write this book and not challenge kids to think through what does it mean from a Christian standpoint to be free? by a secular view of freedom, it almost doesn't matter what else you and I say until they understand what we have been designed for in terms of relationship and that we're only

free in relationship with God and healthy relationships with other people, regardless of how we feel about it. Their definition of freedom, I feel like that would resonate with, I mean, basically almost everybody outside the church and a huge number of people in the church, not just youth. But the idea that if it's consensual, if it's not hurting anybody, then kind of what's wrong with that? I mean, you and I, we deal with same-sex sexuality conversations a lot. And that is one of the top questions I get is like, hey, this relationship isn't hurting anybody. Therefore, what's wrong with it? As if not hurting anybody kind of exhausts our ethical reasoning. It was – I don't know if you – have you read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind?

One of my – my audience is going to be sick of me hearing almost every other episode. I recommend it. Have you heard of it or – I have it on my – to listen to, but I haven't listened to it. I've heard you. I listened to your podcast. I've heard you talk about it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, what's fascinating is here he is, a secular atheist Jew.

I mean, raised very liberal. Now he'd be more just kind of moderate, left of center. But he said he was just steeped in this harm, safety kind of ethical reasoning. And it wasn't until he spent some time in India, outside of America, that he realized, oh, that's a very Western, modern way of ethical reasoning that I just thought was just ethical reasoning abstract. Like, this is just how you reason ethically. And he realized there's all kinds of other things

like respect for authority and sanctity and, you know, like all these other ethical impulses. And his whole motivation in that was it was political because he was at that time on the far left. And he was like, look, Democrats keep not getting their way because they're only appealing to one ethical impulse, safety and harm. are only appealing to one ethical impulse safety and harm whereas republicans are appealing to these other ethical impulses that are just from an evolutionary standpoint embedded in the heart of humanity respect for authority desecration like there's just something about you know mopping the floor with an american flag and then wiping your butt with it that's just like well that's not harming anybody but it's's just, there's, it tugs at your, you're like, ah, I just, I don't feel good about that.

And he's, and his whole thing was trying to challenge the left as someone on the left to say, let's tap into these other ethical impulses that are resonating with every human person. And he didn't realize that until he had he went outside of america anyway um what's fascinating with what you said though is like even from a basic neurological standpoint we now know that it's not freedom to be able to do whatever you want if you do whatever you want you start enslaving yourself to these habits that rewire your brain and are destructive for yourself, even if they bring you pleasure and loads of dopamine. So, oh man, I just, but what's disturbing for me is how many Christians just naturally

think that way. Where did that, I mean, you're a philosopher. Where did that come from? Has that always been there? Is there something recent in the cultural shift where people would think of freedom as the freedom to do whatever I want to do and not even really think through what that would look like practically for society? So that's a great question. I don't know the historical roots of where that came from. I mean in some ways you see it all the way back in the garden.

In some way it's nothing way back in the garden. In some way, it's nothing totally new, the same appeal. But I think Haidt is absolutely right that in Western culture, it's just this individualism that has developed over time. I mean, going back to philosopher 17, 18th, 19th century, you remove God from the picture. And there's a sense where I'm ultimately the authority of my own life. I think that would be a picture of how it's been pushed onto us. But with students, I try to think through how do I get to counter some of these ideas in their minds. So one of the examples I put in the book that I talk with these students about, I said, what does it mean to be free when you play a piano?

What does it mean if you're free? Am I free to just sit down and bang keys and, you know, make random noise? And they're like, yeah, you're free. I said, but is that really free? And they started to realize that you're actually only free if you know the purpose of the piano and use it accordingly, which only happens with discipline and time and commitment to something. So I was trying to flip in their mind from saying, look, freedom is not just doing anything you feel like doing. That's actually bondage. Can you imagine if I lived my life based on every impulse that I have? I'd wreck my health. I'd wreck my family. I'd wreck my finances. I mean, part of being a mature person is resisting certain feelings and impulses.

And that's true in sports, right? The free person, you think about great players like Kobe Bryant, he's one of the freest players ever because he disciplined his mind and his body and learned the rules and could just play at a level above virtually anyone who's ever lived. So that piano metaphor, I say you want to be free to play a piano. It's not just banging the keys. It's actually time and discipline. So let's apply that to sexuality. It's the same thing.

You've actually got to learn to cultivate a certain character. You've got to develop certain habits. You have to say no to certain things, just like piano players says, I'd rather sit down and watch TV. I'm going to say no to that. And I'm going to choose to practice the piano. Well, the same applies in relationships and our character. And I'm not saying this is a salvation by works, not this lavish discipline. People hear that, but it does take discipline and habit and commitment. So I actually frame it, interestingly enough, that way in the book to students, I say, look, the call of Jesus is rewarding, but it's not easy to resist certain messages in our culture. But guess what? Tough things are valuable. Stuff we sacrifice for is stuff that ultimately matters in our life. It's worth sacrificing for to follow the biblical view that Jesus lays out on sexuality. So I'm just trying to reorient freedom in their life from the way that they've imbibed it from, I think, our secular culture.

the way that they've imbibed it from, I think, our secular culture. Does that tend to land well when you explain it like that? Because, I mean, intellectually, it sounds good. Does it do they actually like, yeah, I want to build this into my life? Or does it depend on probably depends on the kid? Well, so that's a great question. I think students, the first part, when I walk them through the nature of freedom and explain freedom for students go, oh, my iPhone is made for something. It's only when I know what it's for and use it accordingly that it's free. So I think they haven't thought through

that idea. The piano metaphor makes sense. So I've never had a resistance to go, no, I'm more free if I can just bang on a piano and ruin it. Like I've never got that nihilistic response yet. But then when a kid actually goes out and chooses to do it and put these disciplines into their life, that's where the rubber meets the road. And that's where it's tougher. So it's one thing to agree intellectually. It's another thing to put it into practice and do it. Would you say as you're talking, I was thinking, trying to formulate like a real succinct definition of freedom from a Christian perspective. Would it be something like living according to the creator's design? Or how would you frame it?

Because I hear you kind of tapping into these broader creational themes. I think that's exactly right. My dad would often define it for me. He'd say freedom is having the capacity to do what you ought to do. So it's a certain strength and capacity that we have built into our character to do the right thing. But I typically frame it more the way that you do. So it's a certain strength and capacity that we have built into our character to do the right thing. But I typically frame it more the way that you do. I say freedom is living consistently with our design. In fact, to be honest, sometimes I'll say freedom is orienting, and I intentionally choose that word. Freedom is orienting our life to line up with God's design for how we're meant to live. I like that better. I remember hearing – gosh, this comes way, way back in my – when I was deep in my MacArthur days, hearing him say something like freedom is the ability to finally do what's right in life.

And I didn't disagree with it, but it felt a little bit like heavy on the moral. Yep. Which is obviously an important part, but there's it's not just right. It's also good for you and good for others and good for creation. Like there is something a little bit more ingrained in the very order of creation that I think also needs to be brought in. And that does feel a little more, in 2020, that feels a little more compelling too because there is this concern that biblical morality is just arbitrary. Just God said it, I believe it, that settles it. And that worked for maybe our generation and certainly for boomers,

but it just feels a little bit like not very compelling if that's all it is. Just God's barked it out from heaven do it you know and you and i can say like well if he's god he has a right to do that right sure which i and that's that's kind of the way i see it but i don't know i i think it does feel more compelling when you integrate beauty in the picture like this is not just morally right it's the most beautiful it's the most it resonates with the way the creator has wired creation. It will lead to flourishing both among humanity and creation. By the way, I think that's right. And I, so I intentionally have, have adapted that definition a little bit rather than

just doing what is right, but orienting our life according to the creator's plan. Cause it raises a question, okay, who is this creator and what what is it what is his plan for how we are supposed to live it brings the question back to is there a designer in the universe or not and that's ultimately the question that i think this is going to come back to when it's all said and done with young people you know what's interesting is the the early stoics had a very similar way of thinking. Living according to nature was the way they framed it. And there's been one of my best my best friend, Joey Dodson. He's done a lot of work comparing Paul's ethics with Stoic ethics.

And it's pretty remarkable the similarities there it's i mean there's almost like whole quotes not just paul but the new testament that resonate almost exactly with like seneca and others i mean um some of the early fathers apparently thought seneca might have gotten a free pass into heaven because he so resonated with the way the christian life obviously the empowerment of the holy spirit wasn't there. And there's some differences, obviously, Christological differences. But as far as ethical structures go, very similar. In fact, I mean, the Stoics are one of the few Greco-Roman philosophers that disagreed with same-sex sexual relationships and even their reasoning. And they use that whole against nature that Paul uses. I mean, I think Paul actually tapped into some of his Greco-Roman sentimentalities in Romans 1 when he said it goes against nature. Now, of course, when the Stoic says against nature, Paul would say going against the Creator's design. Yes, yes. The payoff is very similar, though.

So, yeah, that's fascinating. But that whole idea of like, why is this morally wrong? And if you say, well, it goes against nature, the way creation is wired. It just doesn't. They're like, so what? It brings me pleasure. That's kind of what I face. But I'm not as eloquent as you in these metaphors and stuff.

Well, I don't know about that, but I know people think in metaphors. And in fact, to go back to purity culture, some of the damage arguably was just unhelpful metaphors that were used in purity culture at times that we could all think of. So I try to think through what are some helpful metaphors that bring it back to, you know, a scriptural view of sexuality that'll stick in kids' minds. And the piano one, I think, you know, they remember. I like that. I like that.

Real quick, I want to go to your main area of apologetics. This is something that you have a PhD in, right? This is something that you have a PhD in, right? And then this is the main area you work in. Defending the faith, responding to specifically atheist arguments against Christianity. Can we swim in those waters for a little bit? Because this is not my area. And you come across it from time to time.

How would you say apologetics has shifted for you if it has, say, 20 years ago to now? I mean, there's been so many cultural shifts. Has that influenced the way you go about defending the faith and responding to arguments against Christianity? You know, I guess one way to compare this, since you said 20 years ago, would be to look at – I helped my father update his book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. First wrote it in 1972, update in the 80s, update early 90s. And then the last update, this big gold cover was 1999. So about 20 years ago. Then we updated it and it came out in 2017. So going back and looking at this book that was kind of definitive for apologetics in that era, and how do we change it for today, I think encapsulates a lot of the question that you're

asking. So I guess we change it on a few things. Number one was probably a little bit of the tone. You know, you look at the way apologetics was done 70s and 80s and 90s and things you state them very confidently. You state things strongly. You make your case as strong as you possibly can. And in some ways, when I think about my father being in these free speech platforms debating Marxists in front of rallies, you can't sit around and nuance and go, well, scholars say this. I mean you've got to just communicate a certain fashion to survive in that culture. Like I get that. But the culture has clearly changed.

So if you overstate stuff now, you lose credibility because somebody is sitting there Googling it going, wait a minute. Here's somebody smart who says the opposite. opposite. So we went through very, very carefully and just said, okay, is, does the conclusions we're drawing match the evidence that we give as best as we possibly could? We don't want to understate the evidence, but we don't want to overstate it. So it came to archeology at the very end, you know, in previous decades, there are statements that say like, archeology unequivocally shows the Bible is true. You know, I'm looking at the end of the section and the way we worded it was archaeology, something like this. Archaeology is one considerable factor to help us know that the Bible's trustworthy. Like, okay, we're not overstating it. We've nuanced it a little bit.

It's helpful. So one of the ways apologetics is done is just try not to overstate things, nuance things. That's an example. Other things that have shifted would just be the kinds of questions that people are asking. That wasn't a very significant issue. Hardly as many people doubted it. But this mythicism really arose and took off into the 2000s denying that Jesus existed, not in a scholarly level. That's not significant at all. You can count on two hands the number of genuine scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus who have any kind of faculty position that I'm aware of. But on the internet, it's huge. I mean a lot of people – I get comments on social media every day. Don't you know that Jesus was copied from Osiris?

I'm like, here we go again. So we added a whole chapter on like just establishing that Jesus existed and responding to this pagan mythology claim. So that was an example. There's some other issues we took out, like, for example, in the Old Testament, the JEPD theory about multiple authors, that was huge in the 80s and 90s. That's just relegated to one chapter that was at that time, the entire section almost of the Old Testament. So there's some other areas where arguments have shifted. But essentially, in the book, we updated the classic arguments like Lord Liar, Lunatic, the prophecy chapter,

took some other ones out, added some new ones in. So I had a chapter on my dissertation on the deaths of the apostles. What do we really know about them dying as martyrs and what that means for the faith? So I guess to sum up, I would say apologetics has shifted. I think the debate culture was huge in the 80s and 90s. And there's still some debates online, but personally, I've done academic debates. I think substantive conversations are much more valuable for people that rather than sitting down trying to up somebody in an academic setting with a 20, 30-minute speech, we sit down and respectfully treat each other kindly and model that and have some substance to it. The time I've had those engagements, people really tend to appreciate that in a way that I'm

not sure they did as much, you know, 80s and 90s, et cetera. So that's a few of the changes. I haven't paid attention to the movement, but just anecdotally, it seems that in the past, like having lots of data and facts on your side seem to carry weight, where now it seems like just the emotional kinds of arguments seem to carry weight. Or has it always been that way? I don't know. I just, it seems like now, like data and facts, after a while people are like, yeah, maybe. Maybe somebody else has a bunch of different data and facts that disagree with all that.

And, you know, I'll handpick which set of data and facts I'm going to choose. You know, it just becomes almost very arbitrary. You know, I think there's some truth to that. In writing this book with my dad, I asked him a ton of questions about like how this has changed in half a century. Yeah. And he spoke on 1,200 university campuses. And he said 70s, 80s, 90s when you would say the resurrection is true.

The challenge was give me some facts. Prove it. Give me evidence. And then into the 90s and 2000s, you start to see the shift of like, you're intolerant. You're bigoted. Yeah. Guy, that's hateful. What right do you have to say that? Not everybody says that. I mean, if you frame an issue a certain way, often people will follow your leading. Yeah. But those voices have changed significantly. Well, you're a white male, so we expect you to say that anyways. This is a power play by you. Like those kinds of conversations have shifted more recently that did not exist, at least on his experience when you go back a few decades ago. So it does shape the way

we have to do apologetics and make a case differently than we did in the past. That's, yeah, no, I get that a lot. I mean, in spaces I run, you know, you're a white straight male. How dare you talk about this issue or that issue? I'm like, first of all, I don't know how the whiteness, I mean, the overwhelming majority of non-white people around the globe agree with me here. So in a sense, my whiteness is a minority global perspective. But I mean, just because I'm, you know, I mean, for instance, and I think some of it's a reaction because of so much abuse and bullying and damage that has been done with people that have this kind of higher status um perceived privilege or privilege um so i so i understand it's coming out of a place of pain but it's just it doesn't after a while it just kind of felt like well that that's that's a i mean that that's an accusation it's not like an argument like do you have like is there something

in the content of what i'm saying that you can find substantively wrong and do you have superior evidence for an alternative view that out that overrules the evidence i've given you know but i've even when i talk like that it's just kind of like well you're a bigot i'm like why okay maybe i mean but i mean that doesn't that doesn't help us in the actual content of the conversation. But I think I think we still need to make an apologetic. But the way I think about it like this is I think there's timeless issues and there's timely issues. So timely issues right now are clearly race and justice issues. They're timeless in one sense, but they're very pressing in our culture

right now. LGBTQ issues, at least in the past decade plus, very timely, so to speak. But there's timeless issues like reliability of scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the resurrection. So a lot of, say, that book Evidence Demands Verdict is laying out the timeless issues. But as I present those timeless issues, like I talked to students on the resurrection, the kinds of objections that I know they have in the audience now are different than the kind of objections they might have had 10, 20, 30 years ago. So I try to subtly work them into my presentations to remove that in a way I didn't have to, say, a couple of decades ago. So one way, like on the resurrection, it shifted is you go back a few decades and there were common objections people had, like, well, they went to the wrong

tomb or Jesus didn't die on the cross or the apostle stole the body. These these kind of alternative hypotheses were very common for people to bring up, even going back really to the 1800s. But today what happens, the biggest objection in people's minds, I would argue, is this sense of naturalism, like just miracles don't really happen. Science has solved everything. And so it's this presupposition rather than I know God could do a miracle, but in this case, he just didn't. So the way I approach and do a presentation on the resurrection would differ than if I did it two or three decades ago, even though probably 90 percent of the evidence, so to speak, might be the same. What do you think? What would you say is the strongest argument in your mind for

the existence of God? That's such a big question. And then I'm going to ask after that, what's the strongest counter arguments against Christianity that you find most difficult maybe to wrestle with and respond to? So I will answer your question, but I do think the way I approach apologetics is it's a cumulative case. So when I lay out for people, I don't go, this one argument is going to fix it for you. Rather, I say there's a range of evidences that all point towards this truth. But with that said, if I had to pick, I would pick one or two. Scientifically, I think the cosmological argument is really strong. I mean whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe had a cause. It's simple. It's direct. The premises are almost undoubtedly more likely true than not, and I think it's appealing. We know something doesn't come from nothing. So I think the cosmological argument – if I just had one scientific argument, I'd probably point towards that. But with that said, probably because it's intellectual and existential is the moral argument. I think the moral argument is powerful. I mean, we don't live in a relativistic society.

People are not relativistic. I mean, they are quick to shame you and attack you, shame me, attack me. Everybody has some moral standard by which they're looking at the world. It's inescapable. But and this is Romans, too. You know, people know because it's written on their hearts. So I think there's something just powerful and intuitive and experiential about the moral argument that the cosmological might appeal to more philosophical or scientific minded, but the moral argument appeals to everybody of every background who's human. So if I just had one for the existence of God, I probably would use the moral argument. Okay. And what, okay. And then counter arguments against Christianity. Yeah. I think clearly the problem of evil and or the hiddenness of God is the toughest.

That's exactly it. Yeah. And you know what? That's because it's not only there's a logical challenge, but I think it's experiential as well. I mean, we look at the world and we think, gosh, if I were God, I would stop all this injustice going on in America, which is just the beginning. I'd stop. Look at what happened in Beirut with this explosion. Look what's happening in other parts of the Middle East.

Look at Latin America. Like look at all these people suffering. If I was God, I would stop this. He doesn't. Maybe God's not there or God's not good is the inference. And we feel it because we've seen evil. We've experienced evil. I think that's hands down.

In fact, one philosopher said to me recently, he said, basically, it's all the evidence in favor of God against the problem of evil. For me. I thought, well. The way. Well, let me say this just so you don't think I'm repeating what you're about to say. Cause I want to ask you, how do you respond to that?

How do you work through the problem of you? Cause that, that's exactly my, and more and more as I'm more honest with my own self and the faith, I am more readily, uh, willing to admit that, not just admit,

but say, yeah, I have a problem with that. Um, and, and I know all the textbook answers to it and all of them, you know, some are better than others, but say, yeah, I have a problem with that. And I know all the textbook answers to it and all of them, you know, some are better than others, but at the end of the day, it's still just doesn't sit well with me. And the hiddenness of God. Yeah. If I was God, I would stand up on a cloud, shout down and say, I am real.

I'm like, well, God's doing that through creation. Well, no, I mean like an audible. I mean like not a tree. The tree testifies to God's goodness, whatever. Like say even that, like I don't like those kind of like Christian-y responses because while they may be true in and of themselves, it still doesn't sound convincing, you know. So, yeah, I get that. I typically when I go through periods of doubt, questioning, whatever, I always look at Christianity, not in isolation, but among all the various options. So you place religion against non-religion, God from no God. And when I look at no God, I'm like, that's so unconvincing to me on so many levels.

And I'm sorry to my atheist friends who are like, how could you not be convinced? Look around. Obviously there's no God. I'm like, look around. I just see God everywhere. Um,

so then it's, then it's like, okay, which religion is the most compelling? Um, and as you go through that, I'm like, yeah, of the options,

I think the Christian reflection on who this divine being is makes the most sense on so many different levels. Is that – I don't know. Is that okay that I reason that way? Well, I hope so because I reason the same way. Okay. I think of the story where Jesus says something seemingly offensive to people. They walk away, and he says to Peter, are you going to leave too? And he's like, where would I go?

I actually think about that a lot. I'm like, God, hell, that's tough. That's difficult. Genocide in the Old Testament, I'm not going to lie. That's a difficult one to work through. I mean there's tough issues, and there's responses we could talk about, et cetera. But at the end of the day, I think, you know what, where am I going to go? What worldview makes more sense of more things in reality as a whole than the Christian worldview? And when I frame it that way,

I don't think any other worldview is close to Christianity, but that certainly doesn't mean there's not emotional struggles and intellectual questions and things I don't know within the worldview. So I just give myself, I have to give myself permission to frame it that way. And the older I get, the more messy things get. I honestly find myself resonating more and more with Joe. When I was younger, I was like, come on, God, like just tell them. Just give them an answer. The older I get, I'm like, gosh, there's a lot of wisdom here in this book about trusting the difference between the creature and the creator.

And then ultimately back to Genesis chapter 1. Why does God give the commandment, don't eat the fruit? Like my goodness, it looked tasty. Fruit is made to be eaten. You know, as our friend Rachel Gilson says, why didn't he just say, don't murder Eve? It doesn't perfectly make sense, but there's a trust that's built into that command. Can I trust who God is or Jesus is in particular, especially looking back at the Old Testament? That's how I frame it and look at it.

Yeah, that's good. I guess the only other so like if I can create some sort of hybrid between deism and Zoroastrianism, you know, deism solves the hiddenness of God. It's like, yeah, he's not doesn't claim to be near. And then Zoroastrianism has this, you know, good and evil are on equal par. So all the bad stuff in the world is because evil is winning. Sure. I'm not trying to start a movement or cult here, Sean.

I'm just thinking. No, go for it. But even that leads to just dark, weird. Yeah. I mean, yeah, that creates it. That's the thing. Whenever we think we can create a better alternative, it leads to its own internal problems and inconsistencies. And the fact is we're better at being created than thinking we're the creator.

That's right. And that's back to what C.S. Lewis said. He's like, who's in the dock here? Is it humans who are in the dock? Or is it God who's in the dock? humans who are in the dock or is it god who's in the dock you know and if i if if god really exists wouldn't i expect there to be things about him i don't understand and maybe don't like i think i would expect that yeah so i actually ask myself that all the time i go okay you know calvinism arminianism debate am i believing what I want to be here because it seems to match up?

Or am I actually believing what scripture says and willing to change my mind? That's a question I ask on a lot of different issues. But so like even like Zoroastrian and deism, like obviously you go, okay, deism gets rid of the hiddenness of God. But you also lose Jesus stepping into nature and all the things he did. Like, okay, not quite comfortable doing that. You know, that's where I keep coming back to this Christian worldview when in my mind, I do the same exercise you did, you know, like, what about this? What about that? I just keep coming back to the Christian faith. Yeah. Yeah. Deism would lead to theistic nihilism,

I think. I mean, at the end of the day, well, if God's that distant, then I don't care what he told me to do. You know, like kind of like the absent father. It's like, well, why am I going to obey my father's morality when he doesn't even live here anymore? You know, so, yeah. Yeah. That's not a good option. Don't start a cold. Hey, Sean, thanks so much for being on the show. Appreciate you. Talk to you for hours about we didn't cover it. I mean, there's a zillion other topics that we have common interest in, but thanks for your work. Appreciate your humility, honesty, wisdom, and just glad, glad you're, you're glad we're on the same team, man. I listen to it pretty regularly to most episodes as I can. Appreciate your voice and just love hanging out.

Cool. Thanks a lot, man. Go buy his book, Chasing Love. Chasing Love will come out whenever this releases. It'll be out in December. Thank you.