Theology in the Raw - S2: BONUS Q&A November 2023

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hey friends, welcome back to another Q&A bonus episode of Theology in Iran. I'm going to address several questions such as what pushback did I get on my Israel-Palestine interviews? What is the biblical basis for people saying that their first priority is one's nuclear family? Do I vote? And if so, who am I voting for in 2024? Is the doctrine of eternal subordination heresy? Was the American Revolutionary War justified? Do I believe any part of the Bible is not authoritative or God-breathed? These are just a few of many, many questions that my Patreon supporters sent in, which I'm going to address on this Q&A podcast.

Starting point is 00:00:32 You're going to get a sneak peek in the first few minutes of this episode. And then if you want the full-length Q&A episode, you have to become a Patreon supporter. You know the drill, patreon.com forward slash theology in a raw, uh, get access to not only the full length Q and a episodes, but also, um, get opportunity to actually ask questions for the next Q and a episode. Let's dive in here. What pushback did I get on my Israel-Palestine interviews? I was pleasantly surprised at how overwhelmingly positive the feedback that I've seen, how positive it's been. And I say, yeah, I have to stress the feedback that I've seen. I mean, there might've been other many more negative comments somewhere that I didn't

Starting point is 00:01:27 actually go looking for and didn't read. But I did actually look more than I usually do. Like I actually went looking to see how people were responding to these episodes. So I looked at a lot of the comments on YouTube. I read reviews of the podcast where some people were leaving some comments and then on social media, Twitter, Facebook, and so on. The overwhelming majority that I saw were very positive. I wasn't expecting that. I thought that there would be a lot more negative reviews. So yeah, I was really surprised about that. But you ask about the pushback, not about

Starting point is 00:02:02 the positive reviews. So yeah, I read through several YouTube comments that were critical, even though like, like 95% were positive, um, which is shocking for YouTube. I mean, I usually get at least 10% super negative on YouTube, no matter what I say. So, um, yeah, that was, that was shocking. I would say the, let's see, most of the pushback I got had to do with the first episode of Daniel Benora, the Palestinian Christian. And I'm recalling several people that thought his historical retelling of the last 150 years in Israel, Palestine was either inaccurate, was biased. And so how do I, let me just let you know where I'm coming from. Okay. Here's my thought process. I was raised and really bathed in a certain narrative of the last 150 years of Israel. I

Starting point is 00:03:01 was raised in an environment where, you know, Christians had a theological mandate to support the modern state of Israel. And, you know, 1948, uh, was a fulfillment of prophecy and Israel is pretty much, you know, they're the good guys and Arabs and Muslims are the bad guys. So there's this kind of war between good and evil, kind of like cowboys and Indians kind of style, you know, for, and actually there's some parallels there, but that's what I was, you know, raising, never even questioned it to last couple of years where I'm like, man, how much, I've never really looked into it, never read critical sources, never really read like scholarly sources on the history of Israel, Palestine. And I still haven't, I still haven't. Now in the wake of the massacre on October 7th and all the subsequent events, I was like, man, I would love to have some conversations with various voices just to learn, just to learn more.

Starting point is 00:03:52 I don't know enough about the history to be able to say whose retelling is more correct than others. I have done some research. I've listened to actually quite a few credible historians and journalists on various podcasts. I've listened to people who are very knowledgeable about the history. I've read a few things, but I haven't read like a full length scholarly book on the history. So that's where I'm coming from. So I'm here to listen and to learn. And, you know, I don't, when I'm listening to somebody, I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing unless I go and do my best fact checking, you know, thinking what they're saying. So that's what those interviews were. Now the theological one with Gary Burge, like that one is something I feel very confident. I feel confident in my beliefs,

Starting point is 00:04:41 which pretty much are the same as Gary's on a theology of the land. But with the other perspectives, these are perspectives from people actually living in the land. So when it comes to Daniel, here's where I'm coming from. He is literally from the land. He is a very sharp guy. He has two master's degrees and is doing a PhD at Notre Dame. He has read a lot of scholarly literature from actual historians, Israeli and Palestinian and neither. So I'm not saying his history is right. I don't know enough to say whether it's right or wrong. I'm saying he has done a lot of groundwork. And so some of the critiques I saw saying, well, he got this wrong. You got that wrong. Or half the time, they didn't even say what he got wrong. It's like, his history is wrong, you know, whatever. But I'm like, well,

Starting point is 00:05:33 have you read through all the literature and you can say that his retelling is actually wrong? Have you read? How many of the like new historians have you read? Do you even know what the new historians are? These are, you know, Israeli historians that had access to the documents that were released, what, in the late seventies, the government documents that were, they were private for so long. And then what is it after 30 years, they released them. So after, you know, was it late seventies, these documents released. And so now we have a whole, whole new set of, um, information on the actual history of Israel, Palestine. And there's been a good number of Israel, uh, Israeli historians like Benny Morris, Ilya, uh, Elon Pape, Shlomo Sand and others who, as far as I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong, you can fact check this. I, I,

Starting point is 00:06:21 you know, um, I have not read these works. I just know about kind of some of the things they say. I don't think Daniel is saying anything different than what, I mean, he even referenced Elon Pape is like, this is a great book that, that everybody should read. He's drawing on, what is it? The ethnic cleansing of, of Palestine. I think it's called Elon Pape. Again, I'll say it one more time. I don't know, I'm not going to say these guys, Pape or Morris or Sand, I don't know if their retelling is accurate. All I know is there is a complex scholarly conversation about the history that's been going on for a few decades. And so if somebody is just completely unaware of that, they have not interacted with this material, maybe they read a few pro-Israel websites on the history, or they just grew up in certain, a certain environment where there's a

Starting point is 00:07:08 certain narrative that was said to be true and all other narratives are not true. You know, I, I just, I don't, what am I going to do? I got, I I'm, I'm going to, I'm going to be more keen to listen to somebody like Daniel than somebody that has read a few blogs and websites or something and isn't even aware of the complexity of the last 150 years in Israel-Palestine. So that's where I'm coming from with the history piece. There were some, oh, there were some critiques about, a couple of people said they felt like he and me justified the evil committed by Hamas. I mean, I guess I'm trying to figure out how in the world they would get, they'd be justified it. Like he literally condemned it on several occasions. Like, I think here's my assumption. I much good, Palestinians, bad, Hamas, pure evil, period. Don't ask any other questions.

Starting point is 00:08:14 Don't ask about context. If you even ask about context, even go into the blockade that has been enforced on cause over the last 18 years. If you go back into the history, if you look at, uh, grievances, grievances against the Palestinians, if you look at massacres that have been considered committed against them, no, no, no, no, no. Don't, don't give me any of that. Just affirm Hamas, pure evil. Israel has a right to defend itself. And, um, they're for the most part good. Um, and that's it. So I just, yeah, I'm just not, that's just not, that's just, I think that's not a very wise or intelligent response. So my assumption is if, if anybody says, well, let's look at nothing happens in a vacuum, let's open up this context a little more so we can understand how and why something like this would happen. If, if somebody

Starting point is 00:09:03 is like, you're not allowed to even say that, then I just, I just disagree with that. So maybe that's why some people, and again, this is a very timely, it's like two or three comments that I saw against loads of people that were really positive on the whole thing. Um, but yeah, just a few comments that, you know, people said that we were justifying, um, the violence. Okay. Let's go to the next question here. Okay. Lee Nichols asks, C.S. Lewis commends the reading of old books. What are your favorite classics? What would you say are the ones that most Christians should read? So, Lee, I am so ashamed to say I have read hardly any old books books and that's not because I disagree with Lewis. I, I, I am, uh, sinning with a high hand really by not following, uh, Lewis's recommendation.

Starting point is 00:09:53 Part of it is I, I, I don't read nearly enough fiction. I read hardly any fiction. And I think that's actually, I think reading fiction is actually very healthy, extremely healthy. And I just, I can't get around to it. Um, I think it's good to read old books. I just, I, here's the thing. Um, I have a massive reading, reading list, like, like a stack of books that I'm trying to get through. And that the list grows faster than my ability to get through them all. I also have, apart from just reading a book, I also spend a good chunk of my time doing research on an issue, which might involve reading, you know, several peer-reviewed journal articles, reading, you know, maybe a chapter of a certain scholarly book, but reading that chapter, like combing through it, you know, like not where I'm just sitting back by the fire, you know, sitting next to my dog,

Starting point is 00:10:49 reading a book, although I do do that. Um, you know, a lot of my reading is really more researching a specific question or issue rather than reading kind of a book cover to cover. So all that to say, I am constantly stressed out and overwhelmed by not being able to get to all the books I want to get to. So I guess that's my quasi excuse. But again, to my shame, I have not read hardly any old books. The few that I would recommend that I really loved is The Brothers Karamazov. It's fiction, but it's goodness. It's so awesome, like theologically and philosophically and morally. It's a really powerful book. It's so long and dense. So it's a slug to get through, but I read it a couple of years ago and just was really

Starting point is 00:11:32 impacted by it. Years ago, I read Augustine's Confessions. And I do read some of the early fathers, but again, usually it's with kind of theological questions in mind, not just sitting back and, you know, cranking out Clement of Alexandria or something. Uh, I've, there, there was a season when I read some chunks of, uh, Karl Barth's dogmatics, which was really fascinating. I, I really like, uh, Karl Barth and I, I just think he's, he's a, a, a powerful theologian and exegete. So yeah, other than that, I honestly can't think of any others that like predate 1900 that I've read recently. All right, next question. What is the biblical basis for people stating that their first priority is in one's nuclear family? What is a good theology of family? This is a great question. And I don't, this is one of those things that I think has just simply

Starting point is 00:12:26 been assumed. I think it's in the air of our culture, certainly in the air of the church. And I don't, I think most people haven't, it's not like they did a deep dive study of scripture and came up with the idea that our first priority is with the nuclear family. It just seems intuitive, right? And again, I'm not saying it's either right or wrong. I'm just saying, I don't think it stems from a well thought out theology of family. Now, having said that, I did kind of reflect and said, is there a biblical basis for this? A couple passages that come to mind, well, one passage and one kind of broader theme. 1 Timothy 5 says, 5a says, if anyone does not provide for their, my translation says relatives, I think the word there is household, and especially for, oh, I don't know

Starting point is 00:13:19 what the Greek word is there. I don't have my Greek in front of me. It's okay. So, this translation says, if anyone does not provide for their relatives and especially for their own household, they have denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever. The context, I think it's a little bit, that sounds very general, but it is, if I remember correctly, let's see, verse six, it's talking specifically about widows or caring specifically for widows. And I know verse eight seems really broad, but I would want to make sure we're interpreting it in context. But this would be a verse that does specifically emphasize providing for your own household. Now in the first century, household could include lots of different people who are,

Starting point is 00:14:06 you're, you're, you're not even related to including unfortunately slaves and other, even, even like if you had any patrons, if you were a client that had patrons, then that was part of your household. I'm some households could have been like low, like dozens of people that were not related to you in, uh, like your blood relatives. So we do need to understand what household means in the first century, but still this verse would still emphasize kind of like a priority given to those that you are, that are kind of under your roof, so to speak. I do think, I think in the first century, you know, the whole view of the household, I think was much, how do I want to word it? Much of what was believed about the household was, I would say, assumed by the New Testament. Let me say it like this. Etched into the culture was a view that the household was like the foundation for society. Like households were

Starting point is 00:15:14 like a microcosm of the greater polis, the city. This is Aristotle, right? I mean, Aristotle lays this out and you see this kind of assumed throughout culture that, you know, that the household is the basic building block of society. You want a well-oiled society, then you make sure the households are well-oiled. That's a dumb metaphor. But if the household breaks down, the society will break down. Like that whole thing, like we hear that today, you know, family, you know, the breakdown of the family will affect all society. Well, that goes all the way back. As far as I understand, I mean, that goes all the way back to like Greco-Roman thinking, um, Aristotle

Starting point is 00:15:47 and, or even August, not Augustine, um, Caesar Augustus. Um, he established these like marriage laws in the first century, first century, because he realized that if people aren't, you know, getting married and settling down and, and not sleeping around with whoever they want to sleep around with, like that's actually disruptive for society. And so we need to tighten in the reins a little bit and have, you know, and he gave like tax breaks, I believe for people that were married with like two or more kids. So now, okay, so that's the broader culture. The New Testament does just simply seem to reflect this. It even has several household codes in Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, 1 Peter 3, that reflects kind of household codes in Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, 1 Peter 3, that reflects kind of the household codes in the first century. The New Testament does challenge the hierarchy and power dynamics

Starting point is 00:16:32 of these household codes. I mean, and that's what's stunning. When you read Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3, in light of the broader context and how people talked about the household, of the broader context and how people talked about the household, the power dynamics are almost flipped on its head. I mean, quite literally in Ephesians 5, where you have the head of the house, you know, giving up of his life in service to somebody who is of lower social status, namely his wife. So, can you hear the tension? So the new Testament doesn't diminish the importance of the household. Um, it does sort of gut the power dynamics and hierarchy from the inside out. So I, I have not, I'm going to leave it at that because I have not reflected on this too deeply in light of your question. Cause it's a really, really good question, but I just wonder if there is sort of this assumption that, or an assumption built into

Starting point is 00:17:31 the New Testament regarding the significance and priority of the household, not at the expense of being obviously inhospitable, not at the expense of loving your neighbor or enemy, but one of priority, um, that if going outside of your household and serving others and caring for others at the expense of not caring for your household, if some, if that is happening, I think, I think, um, the new Testament would have a problem with that. However, you do have these radical statements like in Mark three, when, you know, people confront Jesus and said, Hey, your, your, your mother and brothers are here. And he's like, who are my mother and brothers? And he looks around and points at the, his, his disciples

Starting point is 00:18:13 and says, here are my mother and brothers. Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother. In Luke 14, Jesus even says, if anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother and wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, even their own life, such a person cannot be my disciple. Obviously that's hyperbole. The one who said, love your neighbor and enemy and honor your father and mother is not literally saying you must hate your wife and children and brothers. It's like, that's just, you know, but he is saying some people just leave it at that. Like, ah, it's just hyperbole. He doesn't really mean this.

Starting point is 00:18:45 I'm like, I agree. But like, well, what does he mean? Like, he's got to be saying, okay, what's he getting at here? And I think he is, you know, not diminishing your biological family, but I think he's elevating your spiritual family. So I don't know. I don't know exactly how I would land the plane on this question. I do think there are these maybe tensions in scripture, and I would want to do more thinking and research before I say anything more confident than that. I do.

Starting point is 00:19:17 I'd love the challenge of this question, though, that it just seems so obvious, such a given that our first priority is our nuclear family. Everything else is secondary. And I do at least want to submit that to scripture and say, is this scripturally correct? All right, next question. All right, this is from Selton, wants to know my thoughts on church discipline from 1 Corinthians 5. What about when someone believes they aren't living in sin, but I think they are, you say? To them, it wouldn't be unrepentant because they're living in a way that they don't think is sin. So, this is a great question. I think my answer is a bit simple. I guess here's what I would say. In an ideal situation, the church... First of all, church discipline, it is a church decision. It's not an individual. It's not like somebody, some random person in the church goes and says, you're living in sin, we need to kick you out.

Starting point is 00:20:20 I wouldn't even say it's a single leader that should do this. This is maybe the leaders of the church, but I think, I mean, if you have to go back and read 1 Corinthians 5, you get the sense that this is kind of a church-wide conversation. It's not just a one-on-one conversation. So in an ideal world, a local church, they will be clear on what are the behavioral expectations and orthodoxy, orthopraxy. Here are the things that members of the church or people who belong to the church, people who call this church family, people who are, whether you like this phrase or not, you know, submitting to the leadership of the church, that there is clarity on the things you must believe in to be part of that church and the

Starting point is 00:21:09 way in which you must live. So there's certain behavioral standards that should be clear up front. So when you say, okay, I want to join this church, I want to be part of this family, that the family, the expectations of what it means to be part of this family are clear. So that if somebody ends up living against those expectations, decides they don't want to live according to the standards that are agreed upon by the church, in my opinion, it is quite irrelevant whether they think those things are not sin or sin or whatever, you know, like, because they've already like that. Because yeah, you can fall into a rabbit hole of just subjectivity saying, well, I think this is

Starting point is 00:21:50 sin. And you're like, I don't think this is sin. But again, if the church up front says, okay, we think these things are sin. So we're going to be committed to striving to not live according to this sin. And if we, if somebody does fall into sin, we're going to help that person out. And if they keep living in unrepentant sin, then they are by their actions showing that they no longer agree with the standards of the family. So that's how I'd go about it. I think where people get really hung up is if there are things that are considered or things that aren't stated up front. So that if somebody joins a church, becomes a, again, I'm just using generic language here, you know, becomes a member, joins a church, whatever.

Starting point is 00:22:34 And all of a sudden, you know, starts living a certain way. Maybe they're sleeping with their girlfriend and the church is like, hey, you can't do that. That's sin. You need to, we're going to kick you out. Um, and the guy's like, well, where are you? No one ever told me that this is wrong. And like, well, yeah, but it, it just is, you know, it's like, well, that that's, that's a little unfair if the expectations of what holy living looks like are not clearly

Starting point is 00:23:02 stated up front. Then yeah, then yeah, I could see some frustration among people that said, well, I didn't sign up for this. I didn't know this ahead of time. But again, if there's clarity up front and somebody goes against that, then I think, yeah, church discipline is something that should happen. Now that language, like, okay, so even that, like, I feel like my language is being a little too abrupt and maybe harsh. Just pastorally, I think churches have really mishandled this kind of conversation. So I've been part of churches where there's been church discipline. I've seen it done well, and I've seen it done not well.

Starting point is 00:23:39 When it's done well, people in the church have been pleading with the person. They have extended. It's not like they just wake up one day and you're living in sin. You're out of here. You know, like there's a grief that surrounds the whole thing. Literally, like I remember one situation where the pastor was in tears because he was so pain, agonizing over a member that was living in sin. And it was actually causing, it wasn't just living in sin. And it was actually cause it wasn't just living in, I was living in sin, but it's actually harming other people in the church.

Starting point is 00:24:09 And I won't go to details, but I mean, it was like, it was like by not disciplining, by not exercising quote unquote church discipline, innocent people were being hurt. Um, and see, he was grieved at that. He was grieved that this person that was once a really solid believer was no longer living that way, you know? So, uh, I think that's all I have to say on that. Let's go to the next question from Patrice. Oh gosh. Okay. Um, this is going to be quick. Um, your question is what is Jesus's lesson in Luke 16,8? I can't imagine he's actually condoning the behavior of the dishonest manager. I'm stumped. Well, Patrice, welcome to the club. I am too.

Starting point is 00:24:53 This is that famous parable of the dishonest manager. And it's, to my mind, one of the oddest, certainly the oddest, most troubling parable. Also, one of the weird weird kind of strangest passages. And honestly, Patrice, I, I, I would need to do some heavy research, read, read some commentaries, um, and see if somebody has better insight here. Cause I'm stumped too. So, um, I will in the future, if you don't figure this out in the future, near future, I will try to gather some thoughts. But at the moment, I just, I don't know. I read some stuff on it. I did hear a talk on this years ago at a theology conference. And I remember thinking, gosh, if she's right, it was a scholar. I'm like,

Starting point is 00:25:42 if she's right, then that kind of that, that, that alleviates the tension in this passage, but I can't, but she's, I can't for the life of me remember what she said. I just remember feeling in the moment like, oh, this is really interesting. So, um, I'm sure there is a, a response out there and I will, uh, try to do some research, um, to, to figure this out. But at the moment I do not have a good answer. I too am stumped. All right. Was the Revolutionary War justified in my eyes? My quick answer is I don't know nearly enough about the Revolutionary War. Yeah. So a part of me doesn't want to pretend like I do, but I would say quickly,

Starting point is 00:26:26 just from a Christian, well, I, yeah, I would, I would want to know, are you talking like biblically or politically? Cause I think those are two different questions. Like biblically from, from my Christian nonviolent perspective, any violent revolution is not justified. So, and it was clearly a violent revolution. So no, I'm going to say, no, I don't think that's justified. In fact, I would go so far as to say, I think Jeremiah 29, Romans 13 and other passages. Hey friends, I hope you enjoyed this portion

Starting point is 00:26:55 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 theology in the raw to join Theology in the Raw's Patreon community. 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 November 2023

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