Theology in the Raw - S2: BONUS Q & A: Pronoun Debate, Focus on the Family, Modesty Conversations, and More

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hey friends, welcome back to another bonus episode of Theology in a Raw. This is a bonus Q&A episode where some of my Patreon supporters send in a bunch of questions, then they all vote on which questions they want me to address, and then I take the top 10 or 12 questions and work through them. And this will be a sneak peek at the first part of that bonus Q&A episode. If you want access to the full Q&A episode, you can go to patreon.com forward slash TheAlginRob, become a Patreon supporter for as little as five bucks a month.

Starting point is 00:00:32 10 bucks a month gives you access to actually ask the questions that I address on these Q&A podcasts. Some of the questions I'll wrestle with are my thoughts on Rosaria Butterfield's critique of my view of using trans people's chosen pronouns. What are my thoughts on James Dobson and focus on the family's approach to LGBTQ related questions? What's my biggest takeaway from my interview with Sheila and Rebecca, Sheila Gregoire and Rebecca Lindbach? What are my thoughts on there being no male pronouns for elder qualifications in the Greek in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1?

Starting point is 00:01:01 Is church membership biblical? Should we encourage affirming kids to attend affirming churches when they leave the house? Does Paul's own singleness disqualify him from being an elder according to 1 Timothy 3, 2 and Titus 1, 6 and on and on it goes. We'll get to these and more throughout this entire episode. So let's jump in. I think this is going to occupy the entire podcast episode. What are my thoughts on Rosaria Butterfield's recent post? And it's titled, wait for it, wait for it, Why I No Longer Use Transgender Pronoun pronouns and why you shouldn't either. This is on the Reformation 21 blog. I don't know, is this Rosaria's blog post or is this a, I don't know

Starting point is 00:01:54 what this is. I don't know a lot of blogs. I don't read a lot of blogs in general. So yeah, it's on the Reformation 21 blog site. And I didn't read this article until somebody sent it to me. And so, yeah, I don't want to read the whole thing. Let me start here. First of all, I have mad respect for Rosaria Butterfield. If you're not familiar with Rosaria, I came across her work years ago when she wrote a book called Secret, I think it's called Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert. Rosaria was a professor at an elite university. She, and I would, to use her language, she was a lesbian,

Starting point is 00:02:34 very, very liberal. And she had this kind of, well, an unlikely conversion to Jesus Christ. And now she is a writer, speaker, super, super thoughtful. I mean, that book is incredible, Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, if you've not read it. She also wrote another book called The Gospel Comes with a House Key. I have not read this book, but everyone that I respect that has read it just says it's incredible. It's an amazing book. So Rosaria is a testimony to the grace of God, that the grace of God can reach anybody. Super sharp, super awesome.

Starting point is 00:03:08 I haven't followed her work over the last few years. Okay. So I, yeah. So you may say she may still be killing it. Some of you may say she's gone off the rails. I honestly don't know. You know, I hear stuff that are grapevine, but I don't trust grapevine news. If I'm not interacting with somebody who's worked directly, then I basically don't have an opinion on stuff I haven't read

Starting point is 00:03:27 firsthand. So I don't, that's where I'm coming from, a place of respect for Rosaria, even if we have some disagreements. So in this blog post, and I don't want to read the whole thing, but she, well, as the title suggests, you know, she used to use people, trans people's chosen or preferred pronouns. Now she no longer does. Not only does she not use them, I mean, she says it's categorically sinful to use what she calls transgendered pronouns. And I don't want to criticize every little thing here in this article because when it comes to questions around LGBTQ related questions, transgender questions about transgender identities and experiences. I mean, I can nitpick a lot of stuff and that can get just really exhausting. I do find the phrase

Starting point is 00:04:13 transgendered pronouns kind of odd, but I'll leave that aside. But Rosario says using transgendered pronouns is a sin against the ninth commandment and encourages people to sin against the 10th commandment. Using transgender pronouns is a sin against the creation ordinance. Using transgender pronouns is a sin against image bearing. It's a sin against, it discourages a believer's progressive sanctification, falsifies the gospel, cheapens redemption, tramples on the blood of Christ, fails to love my neighbors myself, fails to offer genuine Christian hospitality, and on and on she goes. I already think, even if I agreed with Rosaria that we shouldn't use someone's pronouns that don't match their biological sex is maybe a better way of framing it. Even if I agreed with that, I think her language, I personally think her language here is too strong. I wouldn't say using someone's pronouns cheapens redemption and tramples on the blood of Christ. To me, I think that's not just,

Starting point is 00:05:17 I don't want to say too strong language, like we need to use weak language. I just think it's theologically not very sophisticated on a theological level to use that kind of critique against these pronouns. That would be my opinion so far. And the reason why I got sent this article is because she names both me and Mark Yarhouse as disagreeing with her on this. She says, psychologist Mark Yarhouse and author Preston Sprinkle summarize the Christian case for transgender pronouns. They believe using transgender pronouns. They believe using transgender pronouns is respectful of someone's chosen identity. It's kind and courteous and necessary for continuing a relationship with a transgender person. And then she goes on to say, I once sinfully said all these things too,

Starting point is 00:05:55 but this position makes no Christian sense. I, unless I, I'm just kind of skimming her article here. Yeah. I, I, it seems that that's her summary of my position, which I think that that does not represent my position well at all. As if I just kind of say, hey, we should use someone's pronouns because it's kind and courteous and it's necessary for relationship. I went back and read my 12-page section on this in my book Embodied, pages 200 to 212. And if I can be as objectively as I can, okay, so obviously I'm the author, I'm being disagreed with here, criticized, I guess. So it could be easy for me to kind of be defensive or, no, you misunderstood me, whatever. I don't know. From my most objective standpoint, and you be the judge. You're not me. You're not her. You're a third party looking on. If you're familiar with my 12-page section, and then, I don't know, you make the call.

Starting point is 00:06:54 Is this a good summary of that 12-page section that I think you should use pronouns because it's respectful of someone's chosen identity, it's kind and courteous and necessary for continuing a relationship? I do agree with that, but to reduce my position to that, I think is kind of, I won't say it tramples on the blood of Christ, but I think it does misrepresent, I'm just kind of joking around here. I think it misrepresents some of the more sophisticated arguments I wrestled with both for using pronouns and not using pronouns in the 12-page section. In fact, I summarize Rosaria's position. I don't think I named her in the book, but I do name John Piper. I think I named Denny Burke, the Nashville Statement, my friend Rob Smith, who has a very good critique of my position. And I'm very happy saying, hey,

Starting point is 00:07:47 go read the critiques, read both sides. I think he's got a very thoughtful approach to not... Rob takes more of a pronoun avoidance approach, but then still would, to the best of his ability, not use someone's chosen pronouns. And I even conclude that section saying, you know, personally, I think these arguments raise good points. But let, you know, and then I go on to talk about the arguments for pronoun hospitality. So I do try to, I try to steel man both sides of this argument. And I tried to do so fairly so that the reader can make up their mind by looking at the actual arguments. And then on pages 206 to 212, I give my reasons for siding with the pronoun hospitality view, pronoun hospitality, meaning in most cases, okay, I think there's always exceptions to the rule.

Starting point is 00:08:39 In most cases, I would do my best to use someone's chosen pronouns. But it's not. I mean, I went back and read this section and I begin my defense of that view by even saying that I think we should be concerned with what I call like Orwellian attempts to use language to manipulate kind of reality. Like I'm very sympathetic to that. I even criticize legalizing using someone's pronouns. And I even cite, you know, the kind of well-known Canada's Bill C-16, which put Jordan Peterson on the map, you know, that, you know, using someone's

Starting point is 00:09:17 pronouns should be an act of personal courtesy, not legal demand, you know? So I thought that was a good point that people like Rosaria Ray. So I think, no, I'm very sensitive to that. I think language can be used to manipulate, control, to force an ideology onto people. And I think all of that's very dangerous. My approach to this is out of, well, both out of common courtesy, but my main argument, which I would love, especially as a linguist to hear Rosaria wrestle with, is it assumes that there is this profound flexibility with language, even around gendered language. Like when the King James says, he that hath ears to hear, let him hear, Matthew 11, 15. This doesn't mean Jesus was letting everyone with ovaries off the hook.

Starting point is 00:10:09 And you could even say, well, yeah, I don't like, we shouldn't say guys that way. We shouldn't say he who has ears. Okay, that's another discussion. I'm just saying that that is, that testifies to the natural flexibility of language that we often kind of assume in our society. And I even, you know, look at how even different cultures will use the same English terms differently. You know, football in the United States is different than football in the United Kingdom. Then I go back and look at how, you know, language has even shifted over, the English language has even shifted over time. Oh, I think I cite, I actually cite an example from Chaucer.

Starting point is 00:10:52 I was kind of impressed with that, actually. I don't know how I dug that up, but I went back to some of the old English. Oh, the old English, the word girl, G-I-R-L-E, apparently was often used to mean people of either sex in the Canterbury Tales. Anyway, so I give several examples where language is flexible. And that kind of sets up this common scenario where as Christians, we use language that reflects our worldview. And everybody else uses language to reflect their worldview. So I think pronouns should do match your biological sex. Okay?

Starting point is 00:11:30 So that's where I'm coming from. It's not, yeah. So I think he, she should reflect one's biological sex. But other people, especially today, for various reasons would say, no, my pronouns match my gender identity. Okay. I can disagree with that. I can disagree with even the concept of gender identity.

Starting point is 00:11:51 I can disagree with everything that that other person is saying or believing. But in the world we live in, language is shared social space. So if you picture, you have person A over here, person B over here, I'm holding up two fingers kind of opposite each other. Person A has a worldview that says pronouns match biological sex. And that would be me. And I think that's true and good. And the best view to have, if I could be honest, I think that's true. But person B says, no, my pronouns match my biological sex. And that reflects their worldview. Do I demand that their language,

Starting point is 00:12:23 that they use language to match my worldview? I would say, no, I don't expect that. And I would also assume they don't expect me to use language to, to, to resonate with their worldview now. So we're at a standstill, either somebody has to kind of concede, um, meet someone where they're at to, um, accommodate to somebody's worldview for the sake of entering into a relationship, having a conversation, or we can maintain, no, I will not use language that reflects your worldview because I don't agree with that. And if we go about life that way,

Starting point is 00:12:59 this isn't the only issue where we're going to have a hard time, I think, related to people. So I think I've been saying in the book, I'll say it here a hard time, I think, related to people. So I think I say in the book, I'll say it here on air, that I think there are times, there might be times, there are times when we put our stick in the ground and we don't use language that concedes to somebody else's worldview. I could give some examples here, but that's just going to open up so many cans of worms and you might not even be able to hear the rest of this podcast. So I'm going to reframe. But I'm going to say that there might be times when if someone demands that I say something or believe,

Starting point is 00:13:34 or especially believe something that I don't believe, I can't do that. This is one area where I would side with the view. And everything I'm saying here, I might be like 80% sure what I'm saying. This is something that is complex. I understand. I think there's good arguments on both sides. But I would lean toward the view that in this case, I want to accommodate to where the person is at, not because I believe their worldview, nor do I embrace the connection they're making between their language and their worldview, but I'm embrace the connection they're making between their language and their worldview, but I'm going to accommodate, meet someone where they're at so that I can enter into a relationship with that person and honor the person, even in the midst of disagreement,

Starting point is 00:14:14 is how I would frame it. Okay. That's a short version of a really long and complex issue. And some of you may say, yeah, I totally disagree with that. It's totally fun. Like I take a number. A lot of people disagree with what I said. I guess my only concern here is it feels like in this article, because the questioner was asking me what I thought about this article, it's kind of reducing what I think is a much more complex question down to simply doing all these very sinful things. I mean, she has a list of all the, I mean, I'm trampling, literally trampling on the blood of Christ for the sake of being kind and courteous

Starting point is 00:14:51 is what my view is reduced to. And I think that that doesn't represent some of the more deeper complexity of an already complex conversation. So if you want more on that, again, I have that 12-page section in my book. Or if you want a free summary of the pronoun hospitality view, you can go to centerforfaith.com. Under resources, we have a pastoral paper titled A Case for Pronoun Hospitality, written

Starting point is 00:15:17 by Dr. Greg Cole, who's a friend of mine who kind of articulated and coined the term pronoun hospitality. Okay, next question. Okay, this one's going to be quick. My thoughts on Dr. James Dobson and focus on the family, specifically around LGBTQ issues in general. Again, going back to something I said in passing earlier, I don't like to give an opinion on something I haven't dug into firsthand. And I haven't dug into folks on the family's treatment of LGBTQ stuff very thoroughly firsthand. Um, that's just not been on my desk of things to do. Um, and I'm very well aware of the reputation

Starting point is 00:15:52 that folks in the family has Dr. James Dobson, who hasn't been there in years. I don't think here's the extent of my interaction with folks in the family is, is before, uh, my team and I started the center for face sexuality Sexuality, and Gender, I think this might have been in fall. I want to say fall 2016 or spring 2017. We actually flew out to Denver to meet with, I think we were meeting with some various people. And we also wanted to meet with folks in the family, hear their approach, talk to the people on the inside, get to know them, have them get to know us. Not for any partnership or anything, but we just, hey, we're starting this organization and we want to kind of get to know other people, influential people in the field. We sat down with, I don't actually remember their names and I wouldn't probably say them on the air anyway, but some of the in-house people that at that time were experts in this area.

Starting point is 00:16:43 And we had a wonderful conversation. I thought that they were thoughtful, kind, gracious. I would say that two or three individuals we talked to, in my opinion, were more gracious than the reputation of Focus on the Family as a whole sometimes comes off as. I hope that's, I'm just speaking of the reputation. Like when I hear people talk about focusing on the family and the circles I run, it's typically kind of like not always the best perspective. I was very impressed with their grace and kindness when I talked to them. I can see that there were going to be some differences, you know.

Starting point is 00:17:20 I think they would probably line up with everything or most of what Rosario says, at least on the pronoun thing. I think even they would come down harder against Christians using the term gay as a word to describe their experience or part of their identity using LGBTQ language. I think they would probably be nervous about that. So there's going to be difference. You know, we line up on the big picture stuff the big picture stuff, on Christian historic view of marriage. And so I think that the main things I think were aligned on, but I could see some maybe differences in pastoral approach. Yeah, I think I just want to leave it at that because I haven't really scoured through their documents or read stuff

Starting point is 00:17:59 they've done. And so I want to reserve, again, opinion for stuff that I have actually interacted with. Okay, next question. What was your biggest takeaway from your interview with Sheila and Rebecca? I forgot when this episode dropped. It was maybe a couple weeks ago from the time this episode is released. You can go back. It's on modesty and purity culture with Sheila Gregoire and Rebecca Lindenbach. They have become two favorites, fan favorites among the Theology

Starting point is 00:18:26 and Rock community. They were on last year and we had a hoot and holler of a time. And then they came back on this time to talk about their new book. She Deserves Better, Raising Girls to Resist Toxic Teachings on Sex, Self, and Speaking Up. And I had a wonderful time dialoguing with Sheila and Rebecca on some really important things. Part of my motivation for this is, as many of you know, I have three teenage daughters. Two are still in the house. One's engaged to be married. And we have these conversations all the time about modesty and messages left over from purity culture and stuff. Let me, I guess, back up and say,

Starting point is 00:19:10 I have never read a book that would be classified as a purity culture book. Which is weird. Like I was raised, I became a Christian. I mean, in 97, went to a conservative Christian college from 97 and 99 or 2000, went to a conservative Christian seminary, 2000 and 2003. So, I mean, this is like, I now know, I didn't know then, was like at the heart of the purity culture movement. But only, as I remember, the only thing I can remember that was my only exposure was hearing about Josh Harris's book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye. A lot of people at Masters College, now University, read the book. I never read it.

Starting point is 00:19:55 I just remember like, oh, a baby's kind of talking about that book. And that was it. I'm sure I must have heard messages, I guess, that were purity culture-esque. But people recall these like, oh, the things that purity culture taught and this, and they told us this, they told us that, they used this illustration. I dodged it. I don't know. Maybe I was way too into systematic theology and Pauline theology at that time to kind of care about that stuff. But all that to say, I kind of like whistled through the belly of the purity culture beast without even really absorbing at least any of the cultural messages. So I feel like I learned more about purity culture in the last

Starting point is 00:20:35 five to seven years, talking to people who were inundated with the message messages from purity culture and hearing things i'm like oh my gosh that's horrible did they really say that really you're a damaged goods and you're like a a flower that's been delete deflowered or whatever deflowered flowered because you went too far with your boyfriend or something and then the mess the subtle messages are not so subtle that put blame on women for things they experience from abuse to rape. And I'm like, oh my God, I'm like, that can't be true. Did you, did they really say like, so I'm, I'm more coming at it, looking back on the purity cultures, kind of shocked at some of the messages

Starting point is 00:21:16 that were sent is, is how I come into these conversations today. So it's a little bit of a selfish reason for how reason for me wanting Sheila and Rebecca on the show, but it was really because me and my daughters keep having ongoing conversations about this stuff. Great conversation, so good. I'm learning a ton from my daughters. And I'm like, hey, I know these two authors who came out with a book that is addressing this very thing. So I'm like, I want to have them on the show so they can, they can help me basically be a better dad to my daughters in a way that's healthy and doesn't, I would say unintentionally imitate some of the stuff that, um, has come out of purity culture. So, um, yeah, I love the interview. I thought I learned a ton. My biggest takeaway, I mean,

Starting point is 00:21:59 there's too many to mention. I would say two that come to mind are, number one, the unintended shame we create and how we, meaning, let's just say Christian leaders, parents, talk about modesty. The way we go about modesty conversations, modesty talks, I think I've seen, and this comes from talking to my daughters and hearing from people like Sheila and Rebecca and many other people in my life who kind of told me about some of the messaging that has come from purity culture. I've had several people in the podcast that have gone into this, but so that would be probably my number one takeaway is, and again, I'm going to say unintended shame. Obviously there's very explicit intended ways in which Christians can shame girls. I'm, I'm, those to me are blatantly obvious and wrong and terrible and evil and wicked and need to be

Starting point is 00:22:56 buried. But there's some, I think that are well-intended that are, are, yeah, that, that send unintended messages that absolutely produce shame, especially in teen girls in particular. And I am so utterly thankful for Sheila and Rebecca for driving that home and showing examples of how that can happen. And also, I guess this is related, but another takeaway is how we can unintentionally make girls and women feel at fault or even partially at fault for any hint of abuse they experience. And I'm using abuse very generally here. There's been, obviously, a ton of just unchecked misogyny, all the way from like, you know, the SBC stuff going on, the Catholic church stuff going on, kind of the real blatant, explicit

Starting point is 00:23:52 sexual assault and rape that hasn't been dealt with and has been covered up and mishandled. And I mean, obviously that's a huge, huge issue. Also, I would say some of the, again, the unintended or more subtle messaging that dehumanizes women. And this is, again, something that both my wife, my daughters, and their friends, we have teenage girls in our house all the time, right? My daughters are bringing friends over. So we're having these ongoing conversations. And so I'm constantly learning about how the church, again, I'll say,

Starting point is 00:24:29 obviously needs to deal with all the explicit stuff and that could take a lifetime to unravel, but also a lot of the unexplicit, unintentional, subtle messaging that happens. It's just simply in the air of the church that needs to be addressed. So all that to say, I love my dialogue with Sheila and Rebecca. So let me just give a little addendum to that. So as some of you know, if you're on social media, I think pretty much every single episode on Theology on Raw, it gets, I would say, overwhelming positive response from what I could tell and always some negative response. The negative responses can range from, I didn't like the guest, I didn't like you, I didn't like anything. Or they'll say, you said this and that's terrible. I'm like,

Starting point is 00:25:21 did I say that? Where did I say that? I'll go back and listen. I'm like, I didn't say that. I don't know how you got that. So I would say that the negative critique happens after every single episode. And I talk about this at the beginning of every year when I kind of set the kind of vision for what Theology in Raw is. The nature of the kinds of conversations we have in the show, the way in which I like to go about raw, honest conversations, the way I like to – sometimes I like to test an idea by pushing back or trying to see things from different angles. And I tried to do that with my conversation with Sheila and Rebecca. And I thought that was good. And they seemed – right when we ended, they were so thankful, like, thank you so much for pushing back. I'm like, it wasn't, I'm not pushing back. So I disagree with probably much of anything

Starting point is 00:26:12 you're saying, but just, I just like to test an idea. I'm like, what about this? What about that? What if somebody says this and all that scenario, what about, you know? Um, and I think, okay. So yeah, after that episode, I got a really good range of positive responses. I got my typical kind of negative stuff. There was people that said, I couldn't finish the episode. I couldn't stand listening to Sheila and Rebecca. There are other people that said, I couldn't finish the episodes. I couldn't stand listening to you. I got all the normal stuff, critique of the guests, critique of me, critique of the topic, whatever. And some of it was like,

Starting point is 00:26:43 this is what you said and I disagree. And I'm like, yeah, that's what I said. I'm sorry you disagree. Other things were like, this is what you said and i disagree and i'm like yeah that's what i said i'm sorry you disagree other things are like this is what you said i disagree i'm like i didn't say that i don't even believe that never even thought that idea that you said i have so in the wake of this one um i got the typical you know friends shooting me stuff hey did you see this did you see that you see that? You know? Um, and I typically, I don't, I don't, I don't, um, I guess I'm just call me a curmudgeon, but I'm just not really impressed with how like social media goes about critiquing stuff. So I typically just don't pay attention to it. Um, and when I do, I look at stuff and I'm like, yeah, that's why I don't look at stuff on social media. You know, like I have enough, uh, I live, I don't look at stuff on social media. I have enough. I live outside of my echo chamber enough that I'm constantly engaging in good faith, honest, curious, steel man critiquing where people are saying, here's my best reading of what you said and here's why I disagree. I'm like, dude, that's awesome. Let's, I want to grow and, and, and, and do better next time. So, um, I have enough of that in my life that I don't need to like, um, scour social media or Google my name to see all this stuff that people are saying about me. Then for some

Starting point is 00:27:54 reason, this one, I had enough people send me stuff that I'm like, all right, I'm going to go check out and see what's, I'm going to peek behind the curtain of social media, see what's going on. And I'm like, Oh yeah, it's kind of, I don't know, seem kind of like the typical stuff. And the reason why I don't spend more than, you know, 10 minutes on social media a week, but yeah. Yeah. So I do, but I wonder, I, I, I want, I think there might've been a, I don't know. I don't know if this was like the normal range of critiques that I get, or if it was more than normal or less than normal, it's hard to judge these things, but there did seem to be a, an unusually high number of people that in my opinion, you make your own decision. We're not representing the podcast well, or what I was saying, um, really at all. In fact, I had one, I had one friend

Starting point is 00:28:46 locally here, a woman who deals a lot with like, I mean, I only get into the details, but like, is really very steeped in like situations where women are abused and threatened. And, you know, she's, she's very up to speed on this kind of stuff. And, um, she sent, I think my wife, an article written about me and says, Hey, I really want to talk to you guys. I'm like, Oh no, here we go. You know, like, and my wife says, well, okay, did you actually listen to the podcast? Hey friends, I hope you enjoyed this portion of the Patreon only Q and 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.

Starting point is 00:29:37 That's patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. this show is part of the converge podcast network

Theology in the Raw - S2: BONUS Q & A: Pronoun Debate, Focus on the Family, Modesty Conversations, and More

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