Theology in the Raw - S2: BONUS Q & A: Divorce, church security, androgynous Adam, Revoice, and more

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hello, friends. Welcome back to another bonus episode of Theology in Raw. This is a Q&A episode where I field questions sent in from my Patreon supporters. They send in the questions, they vote on which ones they want me to address, and I take the top 10 or 12 and wrestle with those questions. And what you're going to get is a sneak peek into the first few questions that I wrestle with. And these are really tough too, by the way. In fact, I just recorded a first draft of my response to these questions and then I deleted it because I was like, I didn't like how I responded. So this is kind of a round two. So anyway, if you would like to become part of the Patreon team, you can go to patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. Get access to all kinds of bonus stuff, including the full length Q&A podcast, which you're going to get a sneak peek to.

Starting point is 00:00:44 My Patreon supporters will get access to the full-length Q&A podcast, which you're going to get a sneak peek to. My Patreon supporters will get access to the full-length podcast. And you can also become part of the process where you can ask questions and vote on questions and all that fun stuff. So here are some of the ones I'm going to wrestle with in this podcast. What is my perspective on the divorce conversation with Constantine? That was a podcast episode I did a few episodes ago. With a nonviolent stance, which I share. How do you see church security? That's a really tough question. What do I think about the direction Revoice is going? What do I think about North Point Church and Saddleback Church having LGBTQ conferences where most of the speakers are affirming? I think it's primarily directed

Starting point is 00:01:18 towards North Point. Although, yeah, there's some questions we have to wrestle with with regard to Saddleback Church. Is there such a thing as an age of accountability? Is it possible that Adam was not sexed before Eve was created? How might AI impact the future of technology? I'm going to wrestle with all of these questions and many more on this podcast bonus episode. Okay, let's jump into the first one. Catherine says, thanks for the podcast. You are very welcome, Catherine.

Starting point is 00:01:55 What was your perspective on the divorce conversation with Constantine? Did anything he say push you to reevaluate your current stance? Okay, so great question. reevaluate your current stance? Okay. So, um, great question. And I, to, to be honest, I don't really have a firm current stance from which to reevaluate. I kind of, my default is just the standard dominant, I guess, evangelical view that, uh, there are two, uh, grounds for, uh, divorce. Number one, sexual immorality, according to Matthew 5. And number two, if an unbelieving spouse leaves, then you're no longer bound to that marriage. Even there, there's questions about what constitutes sexual immorality. And of course,

Starting point is 00:02:39 what about other things like abuse? I mean, you can imagine other scenarios where it's like, man, it seems like this should be grounds for divorce. So I don't have a firm stance. Those two grounds seem pretty clear to me. And I just haven't studied the issue enough to know if there are other grounds for divorce or even on top of that, remarriage. Even if there are grounds for divorce, Or even on top of that, remarriage. Even if there are grounds for divorce, does that mean that the person who has been divorced is free to remarry? That's kind of part two to this question, really. Some people just camp on the divorce question, but we also need to talk about grounds for remarriage.

Starting point is 00:03:22 So yeah, so I didn't have a firm perspective coming into it. I thought that Constantine raised some great points. You know, the fact that he's been through a divorce, on the one hand, it helped humanize the conversation. This isn't somebody just studying this from the abstract. Like, he was forced to go back to the text and really wrestle with this with a good deal of urgency given his own story. So now some people could say, well, that makes him a biased interpreter. Like he's going into the text, he kind of find what he wants to see and justify his divorce, whatever. And like, I just didn't, I don't know. I didn't catch that spirit from him, quite honestly, when I was talking with him. And it's kind of a double-sided, double-edged sword, double-sided coin. I don't know. On the one hand, I think it's helpful to talk to people who are actually experiencing the thing we're talking about. This is why it's so important for straight people to talk to gay people when they're talking about same-sex sexuality, right? When we're talking about race conversations, and I think it's good to talk to

Starting point is 00:04:19 people of different ethnicities. So on the one hand, I think it's good to get someone's personal perspective on this question. You know, somebody who has actually gone through it isn't just looking up words or whatever in the Bible. On the other hand, yeah, I guess that could raise the question of, you know, are they being fair with the text when there's a lot of stuff in their personal life kind of riding on their interpretation of it. But again, I just, I caught a very honest, humble spirit from Constantine, as I expected. I mean, the guy is, I think it's a very honest exegete. It doesn't mean I'm going to necessarily agree with everything he says. So I think the best, the most interesting thing he raised had to do with that phrase, in such cases, in 1 Corinthians 7.15. Do you guys remember that? 1 Corinthians 7.15 says, but if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so.

Starting point is 00:05:13 The brother or sister is not bound in such cases or in such circumstances. God has called us to live in peace. Now, Constantine referenced a paper written by Wayne Grudem that has done a pretty extensive word search in extra biblical Greek literature where this phrase in such circumstances occurs. And Wayne Grudem argues, and this is something where he, Grudem recently changed his view based on his research on this verse. Grudem argues, and this is something where he, Grudem recently changed his view based on his research on this verse. Grudem argues recently that this phrase in such circumstances assumes there are other unstated circumstances that also qualify for the thing being stated. So in this case, an unbeliever leaves, the person is not bound to that marriage. And there's other circumstances where somebody is also not bound in marriage is what's implied

Starting point is 00:06:13 by this phrase in such circumstance. And this is based on Grudem's extensive word search he did in Greek literature outside the New Testament where this phrase occurs. And he's argued, I think in every circumstance, I glance at the paper. I didn't read, I didn't read in detail, certainly didn't look up all the references he was citing, but he argues that that's, this phrase is a common way to, you know, include other unstated circumstances that are similar to the one being stated in this verse. So that would, and I think his main argument is this would, like situations where there's spousal abuse would be one of these such similar circumstances where the person is not bound to that marriage. I have not verified

Starting point is 00:07:00 this research. Okay. I just found that very interesting. And Constantine talked about that. It's something that if, and when I do dig into this topic more thoroughly, I would really want to go and dig into that phrase, dig into this verse and see if that argument holds weight. There are other scholars like Gary Burge. I believe it was Gary Burge wrote an article a while back. He's a New Testament professor at Wheaton, or at least he was. I think he's still there. David Enstone Brewer is another New Testament scholar that, yeah. So both Gary and David say there's other grounds for divorce other than simply sexual immorality and the departure of an unbelieving spouse. Again, again and again, I have not waded through all the arguments for and against. I mean, if you listen

Starting point is 00:07:45 to this podcast for more than five seconds, you know that I want the strength of my conviction to match the depth of my study, just kind of how I'm wired. Yeah. So my view on divorce is held with a very, very open hand until I do a lot more research on it. So all that to say, I enjoyed the conversation with Constantine. Gave me a lot of things to think about. Did it change my view? I didn't really have a firm view to begin with. So I think it just helped widen my perspective on the various perspectives on this important issue. All right, next question. With a nonviolent stance, which I share, how do you see church security? To me, it seems to be suspicious of others and prioritize the lives of believers. So this is the one I really botched in my first draft for this podcast. I actually got like 20 minutes into it and I said, you know, I'm going to delete this because I don't

Starting point is 00:08:36 like what I'm saying here. So I think I was just kind of working stuff out in my own mind. It wasn't that clear. So hopefully this one will be a little clearer. I do have notes in front of me, folks. I just wasn't reading them in my first draft. So yeah, first of all, this is a super tough issue and I've had to wrestle with it more in the abstract. I'm not a pastor of a church. I'm not in any position where I have to make these kinds of decisions. I speak at a lot of churches around the country and almost, almost everywhere I go. I have the church just has a policy. They have security that kind of follows the speaker around. So like,

Starting point is 00:09:13 you know, I go to the bathroom, there's a dude standing right next to me, not right next to me, maybe, maybe at the door or something, you know, like,

Starting point is 00:09:18 and sometimes it's so low pro, I don't even notice it. Other times I got a couple of heavies, you know, following me around everywhere and it's very visible. And, but that, you know, in a, you know, in a sense that's the church's policy. And I, you know, as a guest speaker, I'm submitting to the views of the church. If I were a pastor on a leadership team and we had this question come up, I think I would probably try to make a case for unarmed church security. I know that might freak some of you guys out.

Starting point is 00:09:48 If I said armed security, that might freak another portion of you out. So there you go. We're on different pages on this. But yeah, church security isn't just to gun down the gunman that comes into your church. There's other things where you might need security that isn't going to act in a violent manner to address, you know, even like just verbal disruption or somebody, you know, um, maybe having a, um, like we've had this at our church. I wasn't there, but like a more of a psychological kind of episode, somebody who's, um, is experiencing some mental health issues and doesn't need a violent response at all,

Starting point is 00:10:27 regardless of whatever, whatever your view on violence is, what they need is, you know, to be kind of ushered into a, uh, safer space, um, where they can kind of work out the things they're going through, maybe get some counsel or whatever. Um, so I think the majority of cases are more like that, uh, or even, you know, protecting against theft or whatever, where I have had to wrestle with this, because I host a conference every year now, X-Hiles and Babylon conference, and we had to wrestle with security. Now, in a sense, well, here's the thing, like there's some complex factors that go into this question. So, you know, I have my personal view. Okay, great. Maybe a lot of

Starting point is 00:11:05 people showing up to the conference don't hold to my view. So I'm, it's one thing for me to say, you know, I don't want security for myself, but what about other people to say, well, I don't hold that view and I want security for me and my life's, you know, the one that's at stake here. So there's that factor. There's also the factor of like the place where we hold the conference. They have a policy. They don't have big events without having security. And I remember asking, I think at first I did. When we do first plan or first XOs conference,

Starting point is 00:11:37 they're like, so what kind of security team do you want? I'm like, I don't want security. And they kind of said, looked at me funny, like I was from a different planet. Like, well, no, we're not going to have a thousand people in this building without security. We have to want security. And they kind of said, looked at me funny. Like I was from a different planet. Like, well, no, like you, we don't, we're not going to have a thousand people in this building without security. We have to have security. So, so we've worked through that.

Starting point is 00:11:51 And again, I'm, I'm, I'm working, you know, I'm living in this complex space of being, you know, having certain views on the use of violence and, um, also, you know, working with other people who don't hold that view and using space that has certain policies that they have to abide by. So it was, it was, you know, it was complex. And so where I felt comfortable was, okay, the church has, you know, they, they have a policy, they have to have security. And, you know, I can see the logic of that. I just kind of wanted to make sure that the security, the people who were with the security people didn't have like a militaristic spirit about them, you know? And when I talked to them, they were very eager to say they would only use, you know,

Starting point is 00:12:33 force as a last resort. They, they, they don't walk around flashing their guns. Cause in Idaho, dude, people literally ride bikes cause there's an open carry. Like you can, anybody can kind of open and carry. It's like the easiest thing to do here. You'll see people riding bicycles, packing two revolvers and holsters on each side of their hips. Like it's that, it's a very, it's a very militaristic spirit in the culture here. And unfortunately, it's pretty much the same in the church. Like, it's not uncommon to see people, I don't think the church I go to now has this as much, but I mean, you know, I've been at churches here where, you know, people pack, they're packing at church, like open, like on their hips, got the Bible in one hand, the revolver and your six shooter in the other.

Starting point is 00:13:13 And yeah, so I just didn't want that kind of spirit among the security that that's kind of where I drew the line. If you have to have church security, okay. But I just want to make sure these people aren't, you know, just eager to cowboy up on anybody that stands up and raises their hand. So yeah, that was the middle ground that I pursued with security at the Exiles Conference. Is that the right... I mean, I would love to be convinced. I would love to keep having this conversation. I'm still kind of working out my thoughts and how to navigate my personal views on certain things. kind of working out my thoughts and how to navigate my personal views on certain things. And then also, as I'm interacting with and sharing leadership with other people who might not hold those views, you know, where is the give and take here? So tough, tough question.

Starting point is 00:13:56 Let's move on. Okay, Amira asks a really good question here. Is it possible that Adam was not sexed before Eve was created? Thinking through how Adam renamed himself and wasn't, quote, man until woman was created. I believe you're referring to Genesis 2.23 here. This is now bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken from or out of man. So this is not an unheard of view. There is a view, even in the ancient world, that the first human was sort of androgynous. And when this androgynous person was split in two, that that's when they were sexed. I don't know. I don't see that clearly in the text. For one, if you go back to Genesis 127, well, the problem here is,

Starting point is 00:14:48 part of the problem is the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. So in Genesis 127, you have God creating humanity in his image, male and female, he created them. So this seems to say, I mean, I think this is probably the strongest reason why I would say Adam was sexed in his original creation is that when God created humanity, it says explicitly at the very beginning, male and female, he created them. And then he says, be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. And then, so there, clearly the man and women are sexed. And those are sexed categories, male and female. And being fruitful and multiply, I mean, the whole point of our sexual dimorphism is this is how we are structured to perform the respective roles in procreation.

Starting point is 00:15:31 That's what it means to be a sexually dimorphic species. So Genesis 2 kind of takes a closer, more intimate, somewhat different look at the creation of humanity. So, I guess the best, I mean, could it be that Adam, you know, God created Adam as an androgynous figure, and then when he took Eve from his side, then that's when they both appeared? I don't, is you don't have as sexed language because, you know, the Hebrew word Adam doesn't necessarily mean male. It can mean generic humanity. Sometimes it means Adam. Sometimes it does mean a man as opposed to a woman. Sometimes it just means corporate humanity. Sometimes an individual human without referencing their sexed state. So Adam is a kind of a generous word. I don't know. Yeah. I just think the most natural reading in this passage is that Adam was sexed when he was

Starting point is 00:16:40 created. But I don't know if it would matter a ton because they're let's just say let's just say he was like the male and female distinction was born out of eve taking being taken from adam's side and by the way the word often translated rib should be translated side uh say law in the hebrews is not only ever refers to a human rib rib, it usually refers to the side of a sacred piece of architecture, like the side of the temple or tabernacle, which kind of speaks to the sacredness of our human bodies. And so when Eve was, okay, what if the male and female, he created them in Genesis 1.27 is sort of looking forward to the specific time when Eve was taken from the side of Adam. I don't know. I don't know how much it would matter,

Starting point is 00:17:31 like when Adam and Eve are... Well, no, because Adam is kind of in existence and breathing and talking and stuff before Eve is taken from his side. Yeah. I just don't think it's the most natural reading of the text. But again, I mean, is it a possible way to understand it? It's certainly possible. And it is how some interpreters have taken it and even some ancient interpreters. So, yeah, that's where I'm at. We also have to deal with, I mean, how much of this stuff is more metaphorical than literal, too. And I'm not, you know, obviously, there's the big question about the historicity of an individual Adam and individual Eve, were they the first human pair?

Starting point is 00:18:09 You know, so there's all kinds of kind of historic questions we're wrestling with here, but even like Adam taken from the dust of the ground, God breathing life into his nostrils, Eve being taken from the side, like how much of this is metaphor speaking, speaking more theologically to our understanding of human nature rather than strictly historically. And again, you know, I'm, I haven't sorted all that out myself. So, um, yeah, I'm not, at the end of the day, I don't know how I would be nervous if somebody kind of drew some kind of implications, like theological implications, if they believe Adam was not sexed originally.

Starting point is 00:18:51 And I could see people kind of saying, therefore, being sexed isn't that big of a deal. Our original humanity is unsexed. And in the resurrection, we'll all go back to an unsexed state. I think some of these, and I've seen people make some of these arguments, and I just don't, yeah, I think they create more problems than they solve. All right. Next question. All right. How involved are supernatural forces in our daily lives? The ancient world recognize much more than we do. Is it important for believers today? So I think they're involved way more than most Westerners would realize for sure. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:19:30 And how involved, what specifically, you know, I think when you start trying to pin down, okay, this is a result of a spiritual force and not just a natural material creation. I just think biblically and how most cultures think, you know, rather than outside of the West, I just think that line is so blurry. It's not really even helpful to say, okay, this is a, this is supernatural here and this is not supernatural. I think it's just so blurry that it's hard to kind of untether the supernatural from the natural or, you know, spiritual forces from the material realm. I mean, this is where I think Stranger Things does a great job of unpacking, you know, how blurry that line is. I think it's one of those brilliant explorations of the very blurry line of the, you know, the spiritual realm from the material realm.

Starting point is 00:20:31 For me, the problem is I was born and raised in the West and I was also raised mostly in a non-charismatic background where you're just not... I don't know, you're just not... I have very weak spiritual muscles that haven't been trained to kind of have my eyes open to the supernatural or spiritual realm more than somebody who maybe was nurtured in some of those contexts. And I understand that the pushback is, well, yeah, some of these charismatic circles might see a lot more than is actually there. And then that's, you know, that's probably

Starting point is 00:21:03 true too in some cases. But yeah, I think for, honestly, for me, I think, I think my natural default is very material. That's just the rubber band effect I have when I go about my, my life. So I'm having, I have to kind of force myself to pay much more attention to the supernatural forces than, than, than I naturally am kind of wired to do. Scripturally, yeah. I mean, it's kind of not really disputed that the scripture is going to see spiritual forces way more active in just the rhythm of life. One of the more interesting phrases to me is the phrase Paul uses throughout Ephesians and Colossians. It's also used in first Peter, the principalities

Starting point is 00:21:50 and powers and authorities in the spiritual realm. I mean, it's used throughout Ephesians and Colossians. Our battle is not with flesh and blood. Let's just go there for a second. Ephesians 6.12, where is it? For our struggle is not against flesh and blood. Let's just go there for a second. Ephesians 6, 12, where is it? For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, it's kind of material realm, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil and the heavenly realms. I mean, I don't know how much clearer you can get than that. Like he makes a contrast here between the material realm and the spiritual realm. And what's interesting too, might I add, is that the phrase principalities, powers, rulers, and authorities can sometimes refer to like political entities, empires, governmental systems. You see this.

Starting point is 00:22:41 Hey friends, I hope you enjoyed this portion of the Patreon-only Q&A podcast. If you would 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 theology in the raw to join Theology in the Raw's Patreon community. That's patreon.com forward slash Theology in a Raw's Patreon community. That's patreon.com forward slash Theology in a Raw. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.

Theology in the Raw - S2: BONUS Q & A: Divorce, church security, androgynous Adam, Revoice, and more

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.