Theology in the Raw - Bonus Q&A: Turning Point In Theological Journey?, Trump's Ban on Gender-Affirming Care For Minors, and More!

Episode Date: February 5, 2025

0:00 Introduction 0:49 What was the turning point in your theological journey that moved you away from the hyper-conservatism of John MacArthur? 23:19 John Piper recently said pronoun hospitality is a prelude to future perversions in which a person marries an animal--your reponse? 31:10 The Bible limits grounds for divorce and never allows remarriage. I wasn't a Christian then, but I'm my husband's third wife. Are we both doomed? 34:44 What are your thoughts on Trump banning gender affirming care for minors? How can church leaders help those struggling? 42:16 Is your view of being an ""exile"" challenged by Trump's Exective Orders? I feel like I want to protest...does that fit into the ""exile"" profile? 1:06:25 Do you see non-hierarchical gatherings of Christians to be as legitimate as "Church, Inc" institutions? Do you see a shift away from that corporate structure in the future? 1:11:18 Was the Passover an atoning sacrifice? If not, why did Jesus relate himself to the Passover Lamb instead of the bull or ram sacrifice? 1:15:11 Did God pour out wrath on Jesus? Can he really pour wrath on Himself? Can he turn his face away from himself? -- If you've enjoyed this content, please subscribe to my channel! Support Theology in the Raw through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theologyintheraw Or you can support me directly through Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Visit my personal website: https://www.prestonsprinkle.com For questions about faith, sexuality & gender: https://www.centerforfaith.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Logos. Logos is the premier Bible study software. I use Logos almost every single day. I have for many years. In fact, I've been a huge fan of Logos long before they started sponsoring Theology in the Raw. Logos not only gives you a massive theological library right at your fingertips,

but its search engine capabilities are just off the chart. What I typically do when I'm studying a passage is I simply type in the passage into Logos and boom, it immediately pulls up all kinds of different commentaries and books that deal with that passage. So I can see immediately what the top five or 10 or 20 scholars are saying about any given passage. And this is only scratching the surface

of what Logos is capable of doing. And rather than lugging hundreds of books with me to the coffee shop when I'm going elsewhere to study, all I need is Logos. It's a lot lighter than a hundred books. So whether you're a pastor in a church, taking a seminary class or leading a small group, there's never been a better time to join the millions

who are already using Logos. And okay, so they just released a new version and it's more affordable than ever. And here's the thing, you can try it for free for 30 days. And if you go to Logos.com forward slash theology, you can take advantage of an exclusive theology in the raw extended two month free trial. So go try it, try it out. It's risk-free. Go check it out. Logos.com forward slash theology. What was my turning point away from the hyper conservatism of John MacArthur? Is pronoun hospitality a prelude to future perversions in which a person marries an animal, as John

Piper says? My thoughts on Trump's order banning gender affirming care for minors? Is my view of being exile challenged at all of Trump's recent orders? Was the Passover an atoning sacrifice? And many, many more super easy questions here on Theology in Raw's Q&A podcast. Again, as you may know, these questions are sent in from my Theology in Raw's Patreon supporters, and they get the vote on which ones they want me to address. And the, they, you know, the ones that, that they all vote on gets pushed to the top. So I'm going to go down the list now and address as many of those here as I can. You're going to get a sneak peek into the first few. The rest will be available at patreon.com forward slash the Algenra, um, where the rest of this podcast will live. So let's jump into these really good and challenging questions.

Okay, this first question is a very personal one. What was the turning point in my theological journey that moved me away from the hyper-conservatism of John MacArthur and the Masters University. John MacArthur is the president, I don't know if he's still the president. He was the president when I was there, both Masters, it was called Masters College back then, it's now Masters University, and the Masters Seminary. And I went to both the college and the seminary. I could give like a short, quick answer to this, but I feel like that would probably not be helpful. So this is one, here's an area where I'm like, I think it would be probably more helpful and honest

to give a more thorough answer. And I do want to be very honest with my journey. I'll just be super honest with my journey. This is my journey, not your journey, not anybody else's journey. This is just my own journey. I'll just be super honest with my journey. This is my journey, not your journey, not anybody else's journey. This is just my own journey. And I do want to try to stick close to the question, specifically the turning point in my theological journey that moved me away from the hyper conservatism of John MacArthur and the Masters University. the hyper-conservatism of John MacArthur and the Master's University. I got saved at 19 years old and immediately fell passionately in love with studying the Bible, which was weird because I

hated to study anything prior to 19, almost overnight after my conversion, addicted to studying the Bible. I was in a church where MacArthur was one of the most talked about people. He was kind of a fan favorite among the leadership. And my mom also had a shoe box filled with cassette tapes with John MacArthur, Charles Stanley, D. James Kennedy. I think there's some Chuck Missler throwing in there and some others that you might recognize, you know, the kind of the conservative all-star team of the 80s and 90s. So, when I fell in love with studying the Bible, I was just reached up into my mom's closet, grabbed a shoe box full of cassettes,

and just started blowing through all these sermons. And of all of those really good preachers, I definitely fell in love with John MacArthur's preaching. Like, I was just so addicted to studying the Bible. I wanted depth. I wanted confidence. I wanted powerful preaching. I wanted clarity. I wanted conviction. And John MacArthur gave me all that. So long story short, when it was time for me to go to a Christian college, it wasn't really an option. It was kind of like, I didn't even really know the concept of Christian colleges. I was playing baseball at a junior college at Southwestern College in San Diego and then Fresno City College in Fresno. And then I was right around the time when I got saved and I just knew college,

Christian college was the master's college. I didn't know there was others, you know? Literally, it's kind of weird. But I was also becoming a big John McArthur fan. So I was others, you know? Literally, it's kind of weird. But I was also becoming a big John MacArthur fan. So I was like, oh my gosh, I can go study the Bible at a school that is founded and led by, you know, my favorite Christian preacher at the time. I probably knew like four Christian preachers, but I mean, he was, you know, the best of the four, in my opinion. So I remember my opinion. So, I remember being so thrilled the first week of college. You know, John MacArthur preaches back there. Again, I don't know how it is now, but at Christ's Community Church, he would preach Sunday morning and then a separate sermon Sunday evening. They had two different services, which were different. And then he preached every single day in chapel that week,

well, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, the first week of college. And then I think there was maybe even a couple extra times when he was speaking. I was like, Oh my word, I am a kid in a candy shop. I get to hear John MacArthur preach whatever it was, something like, you know, eight times in seven days or something like that. And I was just absolutely thrilled. I would show up early to church, suit and tie, front row, take copious notes. And I was just so, so excited. So I was a, I mean, true,

I mean, as MacArthurite as you can be. And I want to say why, because I immediately after my conversion had a firm, firm passion and conviction for biblical authority. If the God who breathed stars into existence also breathed out His word, then I want to study every one of those words, and I want to spend my life doing that. That's what I want to do. And I saw MacArthur's preaching as embodying that same passion. So that's all background. You know, you get to college and you start reading, you start thinking, you start perhaps

even thinking on your own, you start meeting other students that might hold the different viewpoints and now you can't just, you're not just in an echo chamber, you have to kind of defend your position. Like even at Master's College, you know, it's mostly conservative students, but you had some that were like held to the sign gifts, they were more charismatic. And I'm like, you know, no, John MacArthur says that's wrong. So, it must be wrong. But then I would talk to a student who was like, well, no, here's what the Bible said, blah, blah, blah. And I was like, I don't know how to respond to that. So, I go back and listen to a MacArthur tape, like, I had to respond to that argument. You know, so I'm just,

you know, I was on some level, you know, challenged to know, well, why do I hold to everything MacArthur says, you know, even something like women in ministry, you know, like, well, why do I believe that women cannot be leaders or preachers on any level? Why do I believe in a pre-millennial, pre-tribulational view of the end times? And on and on it goes. I was really excited to examine my beliefs and to make sure that what I believe, even if what I believe is what MacArthur believes and I think he's the greatest thing ever, you know, I still, my ultimate passion beyond Merchant MacArthur is following what the Bible says. So, one of the things, and I'm going to be honest here, I don't know if I've shared this publicly, it's just, it is what happened. And I don't mind sharing it publicly because

it's what happened. So one of the first steps that kind of threw me off a bit was the first week in chapel. And it wasn't chapel. It was like maybe like a lunch talk or something in the cafeteria that John MacArthur gave. You know, he's dressed down a little bit. I think he's in jeans. He's a little more, you know, not less suit and tie, you know. And he gives like a lunch talk, encouraging students and everything. And he, and this is my first week.

And again, I'm, MacArthur can do no wrong, literally do no wrong. I'm there, I'm excited. And he begins his talk by telling, well, the popular term is fat girl jokes. I mean, maybe a better term would be, you know, making fun of females who are obese. And again, I was, here I am so, so, I was at a time in my life and that typically, that kind of stuff wouldn't bother me because it came from John MacArthur and

he could do no wrong and everything. But I still remember in that time, even though I was pretty, I wouldn't say I like love people a lot, I just want to say the Bible, I wasn't sensitive to people at all, you know, just like, I just, what does the Bible say? Bible says it's true, preach it. And I remember just feeling a little bit sick, like, ah, like this doesn't feel right. I remember looking around, seeing some girls just like feeling shamed and like head down everything. I was like, this is just, I don't know. Like, obviously it's, this is good because MacArthur's doing it. It's kind of my thinking, you know, but I'm like, I don't know. Is this really the best thing to do?

And I was like, Oh, this is seems, I don't, I don't know if this is good. This is good. And that was the first time when I, that was so to your question. That was the first time when I was like, I don't know if I would do that. I don't know if that's right. I mean, everything else MacArthur't know if I would do that. I don't know if that's right. I mean, everything else MacArthur does

is what should be done, but I'm like, I don't know if that's good. I don't know if that's right. And I felt myself just like, huh. So I'm allowed to kind of question something MacArthur does or something, you know. And I don't know if he's ever apologized for that. Or I don't know.

I didn't, I don't remember any kind of apology or aftermath or nothing. I don't know. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. I just don't know if he's ever apologized for that or I don't know. I didn't, I didn't, I don't remember any kind of apology or aftermath or nothing. I don't know. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. I just don't know. I don't know if the school offered anything or what. So that was the first time when I started questioning some things. The second time was, I guess, more of a series of just conversations I would have with some really sharp, godly students, a few that were like,

yeah, charismatic. I remember having one of my baseball coaches was charismatic and he would always challenge us on MacArthur's anti-charismatic stance and stuff. And I remember kind of feeling like, I don't know how to defend this position because they're raising good biblical arguments and I'm like, yeah, yeah, but MacArthur... And I kept finding myself going back, what does MacArthur say? What does MacArthur say? But I'm like, well, I should say, what does the Bible say? And if they're raising biblical arguments that I can't respond to, then that's maybe there's something there. Maybe they sign gifts or whatever they're called are for today. My roommate at the time was Amillennial. And that was like a bad word

at that time, Am millennial, you know? But I remember him, he was super sharp and man, we'd go around and around and I found myself saying, first of all, this guy clearly is all about biblical authority. Most people throughout church history seem to not be pre-millennial or whatever, you know, John Calvin and all these others and Martin Luther. And this guy is being biblical, other people are being biblical. I remember thinking like, huh, maybe I shouldn't have a firm position on the end times because there's, you know, really seems to be really good viewpoints out there that are biblically rooted that I can't refute.

And if I can't refute it, maybe they're true. Fast forward a time, and then now I'm at the seminary. And I'm still, I would say, I went to the Master Seminary because I, again, even though I had some questions and stuff, like, I don't know if I'm fully on board with everything, but again, biblical authority, I want to know the languages, I want serious professors who are going to push me to study the Scriptures. And so, I went to Master Seminary. And I had a, I would say I had a mixed experience there. There were some amazing professors there who, yes, very conservative. We might land on different viewpoints now on certain things,

but man, they love God. They were kind. They were gracious towards me. They were good professors. They challenged us. The workload was very challenging, very heavy. So yes, it's very conservative environment, but there was some really good profs there. There was others that maybe they're good people.

I think they were maybe so dogmatic in their viewpoints that, very narrow viewpoints, that even many conservatives, to the right of most very, very conservative people. I remember there was one professor there, New Testament scholar, who believed very, very, very passionately that all the gospel writers wrote independently. The common view is that Mark wrote first, Matthew had access to Mark, Luke had access to Mark, Matthew and Luke probably had access to another source material, some call it Q, that we don't have it, you know, but there's some common things that they're drawing on that where Matthew and Luke agree on something that is not in Mark. And then John's kind of doing his own

thing. But this professor said, well, that just, I don't know if he said these words, but it seemed to be his driving motive that you can't have inspiration if gospel writers are aware of each other and saying things differently. There can be no disagreement, no difference, not no disagreement, but no difference. They're just going on their own source. I was like, I don't know if we need to say that. The case for mark and priority seems to be pretty compelling. And you got like really conservative people like, I don't know, John Piper and DA Carson, and maybe even Wayne Grudem. I don't know, like really conservative people are like, no, yeah, Mark most likely wrote first. So like, it doesn't seem, maybe disagree with it,

but he was making it sound like it was like heresy and liberalism and, you know, slippery slope to full on denying God or whatever, you know. He wouldn't quite say that. Okay. But it was strong. It was like, is this that big of a deal? Plus, I think your case isn't made very well. He didn't say that out loud. You would never say that out loud at Master of Seminary. You don't question your professors, which is another thing. I just felt a lot of people just like, maybe we can't even discuss this. Can we raise an alternative viewpoint and discuss it? Or it's like, no, no, you just, you don't do that. So, I remember this particular professor, I'm going to avoid names, even if I speak positively or negatively, because I don't want to just, yeah. I guess MacArthur's the only name on my name,

because he, the question's about him. But yeah, this particular professor, in order to show us that his viewpoint about Mark, that all the gospel writers wrote independently, he assigned us like an article where he defends that position and then another article where somebody tries to prove Mark and priority. And it was kind of like, oh, just read these two and you'll, it'll be so, so self-evident that my view is correct. It was kind of the posture. It was kind of like, here, read this and then we'll all be on the same page. I remember reading this. They could do this guy like, this guy like took you to town in his arguments. Like you shouldn't have given this because I'm like more convinced of the other side.

But then I was like, why would you? How could you like, you just assumed that like we would see, like how can you not see that you lost this argument? It was kind of my feeling. So that was a little disorienting. Another thing that was disorienting was when I was told in Greek exegesis class to write, not me, but all the people, to write a paper on the eschatology of 1 Thessalonians. Long story short, 1 Thessalonians 4, 13 to 17 is where you have the famous rapture passage, where we'll all be caught up in the air and meet the Lord when He returns. And one of the big values in that class was interpret the book on its own terms. You begin with the passage, interpret it in light of its narrow context, the context of the word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, book, historical situation.

Like those are kind of the concentric circles and you give priority to that. And the assignment was, right? A view of the end times according to first Thessalonians. Maybe it was first and second. I forget, maybe it was first and second. But these two letters, like you're sitting in the Thessalonian church,

you receive a letter from Paul, the Thessalonian church, you receive a letter from Paul, the letter writer reads it aloud to you. You don't have the rest of the New Testament, you just have the Old Testament. Based on this letter, what's your reading of the end times? And I was like, and at that time I was still very, you know, pre-millennial, pre-tribulational, just because I think that's what I was told to believe. And I was like, oh, I guess that's fine. You know, MacArthur believes it, I guess that's fine.

MacArthur believes it, so it must be true. But I remember thinking, okay, I want to do this actual assignment. I want to write an eschatology based on the Thessalonian believers who are receiving this letter and reading these two letters. And I ended up arguing that based on these two letters, an eschatology of the Thessalonian correspondence does not give you, it can't give you a pre-tribulational rapture, seven years of tribulation, then the second coming of Christ, then like the whole like pre-millennial schema. Maybe it's true, but we need the rest of the Bible to do that. This letter does not teach pre-tribulational pre-millennials.

And that didn't really go well. I kind of heard some murmurings that there was some talk. And again, I don't really know. It didn't seem to land very well. I can't even remember the grade I got on it. But I remember hearing a chapel message a couple of weeks later, I believe it was a couple of weeks later, one of the admin gave a message and it was all about pre-millennial eschatology. I'm like, that's interesting. My friend's kind of poking me like, look what you did, dude. And again, I don't know. Maybe it just happened to be what he's going to preach on. Maybe it was in response to students getting out of line or whatever. I don't know. But I specifically

remember 25 years ago, him looking out and saying, those of you who are questioning pre-tribulational eschatology, don't you be a fool. I remember the word fool very passionately coming out. Don't you be a fool. Think you know more than your professors. And I was like, I think that's directed at me. But even if it's not, it kind of is, even if it's not intentionally, because I wrote that paper and was questioning that this letter is not talking about that and am I being foolish? I'm just following the exegetical standards you taught me, like verse, context, paragraph, put yourself in the shoes of the audience. And I was like, oh, I don't, that just seems, and that was probably one of the bigger cracks

that happened for me. I was like, wait, wait, wait… that just seems… and that was probably one of the bigger cracks that happened for me. I was like, wait, wait, wait, wait. I've never not been passionate about following what the Bible actually says. But now this feels a little more like indoctrination. Feels like, are we really about biblical authority, about reinforcing views we think come from the Bible based on our own study, and we're going to project those on others and make sure they follow those viewpoints. I heard, I cannot verify this, but some other students said the next semester the assignment

was not write an eschatology of 1 Thessalonians, it was write a pre-tribulation or pre-millennial eschatology of 1 Thessalonians. Maybe that's hearsay, maybe that's not true. I remember them telling me that. And that's, I kind of rolled my eyes and said, oh, that's not really exegesis then. That's not what we were learning how to do. So around the same time, I remember reading a book by N.T. Wright. Never even heard of the guy, N.T. Wright. This was in the year 2002, and I read his short book, What St. Paul Really Said, and it blew my mind. It blew my mind because this was a book so, so based on biblical authority, clearly, but

it just talked about Scripture and the gospel and the lordship of Christ and the political implications and the Greco-Roman background of Ewan Gellion and the faithfulness of God to his covenant. Like it was just approaching these questions, not through the sort of traditional grid of pre-male, post-male, those are liberals, we're conservatives, you know. It just like, it just wasn't working with all those kind of traditional categories. And it was just lively and exciting. And I was like, first of all, I want to do that. How come we're not reading this? And second of all, it's kind of like, how have I not heard of this guy NT Wright?

And then I talked to some friends that were at different schools like, wait, you haven't heard of NT Wright? What are you talking about? Yeah, no one's ever mentioned him at Masters Seminary, but by then, it wasn't even an issue, you know, like no one, you know, I'm like, wait, wait, there's, wait. And it was almost like if you've seen the movie, The Village, and then when he peeks over the fence, it was almost like I started peeking on the fence, like, wait, there's a, you know, like the movie, I can't explain the whole thing, but it's worth watching. It's a good commentary on everything

I'm talking about, like a lot of fear to keep people trapped in this village and there's all this bad stuff out there and you stay in here and if you go out there, you're going to go liberal and all this stuff and like, you're just kind of kept by like this fear of like being, you know, in the village. And then you pop a peek over the fence and you say, wait, the world doesn't seem as hostile as I thought it was out there.

And so yeah, I, through those series of events, I was like, okay, look, I am ever more passionate about understanding what the Bible says. But I feel like there's just a little more indoctrination than exegesis actually happening here. And I was like, I'm sure it happens at every school, you know. But as at that time I said, okay, I need to, I know I want to do a PhD, I need to be in an environment where I can just be challenged to study the Bible and not be told where I must land on my conclusions. And that's why I chose Aberdeen University. It's a secular school, but there's a religion department that has several evangelical Christian scholars, but doing just like really, really good scholarship. But it's not a confessional school. You don't need to land on a certain view. You just need to do good acts of Jesus. And so that's what led me to that. So long story short, that's

a really long story. Not very short at all, long story long, the heart behind that movement, John MacArthur, Master's College, Master's Seminary, of centering your life around what the Bible says, that has not only never changed my life, in fact, it's been my, that passion has only been inflamed. I didn't feel like looking back that they were always following through on that commitment. It seemed like the conclusions were, in some cases, maybe many cases, driving their exegesis and not vice versa. So yeah, again, good things. I learned a lot in my experience there. I'm not the person, I'm not just going to, I forgot friends that had a bad, they had kind of similar journey,

but they're so jaded that 25 years later they hear John MacArthur and it's just so triggering. They're just like, oh my gosh, everything's, that place is horrible, horrible. That's not me at all. I take the good and bad. There was good things I learned there, made some good friends, some amazing professors there. Other ones that I didn't feel were as good, maybe as what a seminary level professor should be, but you're going to get that from any seminary too. So, okay, I'm going to move on. I already spent enough time on that. Next question. John Piper recently said, pronoun hospitality is a prelude to future perversions in which a person marries an animal. What's my response to this objection? Let me first of all say, I don't know where he said this and I don't know the original context.

I'm such a big fan, even though this quote stands alone. So this is a quote, quote, prelude to future perversions in which a person marries an animal, unquote. Assuming that that quote's accurate, I'm assuming it is. There's a meaning there that kind of stands on its own, but I still, I just, I've seen this happen so many times, especially in politics or politicized stuff, where when I go back and I listen to the whole context, I'm like, oh, okay, well, he was kind of meaning this, and maybe I still disagree, but it's just, it always helps to put it in the broader context. I have not done that. So I don't want to give a strong response to like John Piper's view. What I can do is just analyze this statement in and of

itself. I guess I'm not impressed by the intrinsic logic of this statement. I mean, it's kind of a non-falsifiable statement. It's like, how would you disagree with this? A prelude to future perversions, I guess, haven't happened yet. It was a person marries an animal. Like, no, it's not. Yes, it is. How would you, the court of law, approve that? Until people are standing up, marrying their dog and saying, you know, I am here today because I first learned that you can use, you know, someone's preferred pronouns and that opened my eyes to this world of being able to marry animals. Like until we have that kind of scenario, we can't really have evidence for or against this.

So we just have to kind of analyze maybe the internal logic. I don't see the logical connection here. Now, John Piper is a brilliant, brilliant guy, earned PhD from Germany, which is Germany has the most rigorous religious PhDs on the planet, truly. Like it's their crazy heart. That's what some people don't understand. John Piper was groomed to be a top tier world scholar, like going to Germany, fluent in German, goes to one of the rigorous programs, wrote a book on the love command in Second Temple Judaism, spent five years in academia before becoming a pastor, I believe. So, he's not just like

a really smart pastor. I mean, he was groomed to be a top-tier scholar, not just like, I got a PhD at, you know, I'm not going to name any names, but yeah, he went to like one of the most rigorous PhD programs. He's a scholar at heart, or at least he was. I think he still kind of is. I'm not impressed with the logic here. I would need to see concrete evidence that causation and not just correlation is intrinsic to the connection. There seems to be some possible correlation here. Using someone's preferred pronouns, I think you would say, well, you are affirming something incorrect about somebody's basic human constitution. That a man, and you're affirming that this man is actually a woman, which isn't pronoun hospitality, but I think that's probably what he would

say. And that is akin to marrying an animal. I can still see that. I hardly see the correlation there, but I would need to see not just some correlation. People who end up marrying animals also use preferred pronouns. I'm good. I can tell you right now, if there is ever the case that people end up marrying animal, they probably are okay using someone's preferred pronouns. There's probably a lot of other things going on there. Yeah. So I mean, you could also say, well, they also, and they're also, they also vote Democrat. Like, well, okay. So does that mean voting? That that would be a correlation, not a causation. Is there anything intrinsic to voting Democrat that leads to like married animals or something?

So I just, even if there is some semblance of maybe a correlation here, again, I'm trying to be as generous as I can. I just don't see any causation. And I think there is a misunderstanding here of what, again, because I don't have the original context, I don't know his understanding of pronoun hospitality. Pronoun hospitality is not agreement, it is not affirming, it is accommodation. Meaning somebody who is, say, biologically male,

believes that their gender identity, not their biological sex, their gender identity is female, and for this person, pronouns match not their biological sex, pronouns match their gender identity. Now, you can disagree with all of that. I've got lots of questions, problems with that. Elevating gender identity ontologically on par with biological sex. I've talked about this many times elsewhere. So there's lots of stuff there. Somebody says, my pronouns are he, him, even though I'm biologically female and my pronouns match my gender identity, not my biological, you know, he, him, even though I'm biologically female,

and my pronouns match my gender identity, not my biological sex. I would say, okay, there's probably a lot going on there I probably don't resonate with, but can I accommodate to this person's use of language that reflects their worldview rather than demanding that they use language that reflects my worldview? My worldview is pronouns should match biological sex. That's what I believe. I do. They don't believe that.

So either they're gonna, no, I think I'm right. I know I'm right. You know I'm right. Most of you know I'm right. So, and they think they're right and they know they're right. And they're confident in their worldview. I'm confident in my worldview. But yeah, but I really am right.

Like two plus three equals four, you know. Yeah, but here's why I'm, you know. So we just, we're not a loggerheads with these different worldviews and language as saying these same terms are reflecting different worldviews. So one of us has to accommodate to the other. Either we can demand that this person accommodates

to my worldview or I can accommodate to their worldview. I take the view and this isn't a hill I'm gonna die on. That's a sit and that's not how I'm gonna die on. But I can accommodate to the worldview without necessarily agreeing with it. Now, if I use this person's pronouns and they say, oh, thank you so much. So do you believe I am, and they say, you know, a sex that they are not? I would have to say, no, I don't. That would be lying to the person. If a biological male said, my pronouns are she, her, and if they said, that's because I am biologically female, and do you believe, you must believe that I'm biological

female, I'm like, no, I don't, and I can't. So if that's a requirement, if me using pronouns is affirming a wrong belief in your biological sex, then we might have a problem here. I don't want to affirm a lie. I don't believe pronoun hospitality is in every case, I would say even in most cases, affirming a lie, it is simply accommodating to the use of language as it reflects a different worldview. So does that lead to marrying cats? I just, I don't think so. But again, it's kind of such a non-falsifiable statement that it's like, I don't see the logic here. I could see some distant correlation on some aspects, you know? But again, if you truly understand it, what pronoun hospitality is, I don't think it's at all the same thing. So I'm just going to say, yeah, I would just disagree with that logic.

Alaina wants to know, the Bible limits grounds for divorce and you recently said it never allows remarrying. I wasn't a Christian then, but I'm my husband's third wife. Are we both doomed? Alaina, I'm so sorry about giving the wrong impression. I do remember talking about this in the last, I believe it was last Q&A podcast. Let me, okay, so let me say a few things really clear up front. First of all, I have not studied the issue of divorce and remarriage much at all. Read maybe a few articles. I don't think I've read a whole book on it. There's several books on this. I don't think I've read any actually. Looked at the passages.

I kind of know the basic issues, but I know there's good scholars on different sides. Some allow for several things, you know, several allowances for divorce. Others are no divorce at all. Some are like divorce, yes, no remarriage. What I said in that previous Q and A, let me be super clear, is that according to...

Hey friends, I hope you enjoyed this portion of the Patreon Only Q&A podcast. If you'd like to listen to the full-length episode and receive other bonus content like monthly podcasts, opportunities to ask questions, access to first drafts of my research and monthly Zoom chats and more, then please head over to patreon.com forward slash theologyinthera to join theology in ra's Patreon community. That's patreon.com forward slash theologyinthera. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network. Hey, so I'm launching a new season on the podcast, The Doctor and the Nurse. World renowned brain coach, Dr. Daniel Amon, joins me as a co-host as we dive deep into

the mind and the brain of everything high performance. I've been fascinated for years as I've worked with top athletes, high powered CEOs, Hollywood actors and all high performers in all types of different fields of how they break through pressure, ignite drive, how they overcome distractions, how they put fear on the bench, how they tap into flow state and just dominate all these different areas of high performance. So on this season, my good friend, Dr. Daniel Layman, will break down what is actually going on in the brain in these different areas, and I will give actionable tools

to be able to use and apply in your life. So buckle up, the doctor and the nurse on the David Nurse Show coming at you. Hi, I'm Haven, and as long as I can remember, I have had different curiosities and thoughts and ideas that I like to explore, usually with a girlfriend over a matcha latte. But then when I had kids,

I just didn't have the same time that I did before for the one-on-ones that I crave. So I started Haven the Podcast. It's a safe space for curiosity and conversation and we talk about everything from relationships to parenting to friendships to even your view of yourself and we don't have answers or solutions but I think the power is actually in the questions. So I love for you to join me, Haven the Podcast.