Theology in the Raw - S2 Ep1032: Dispensationalism, LGBTQ, Priscilla and Hebrews, Revoice, Christmas Trees, Head Coverings, and More: Q & A with Preston

Episode Date: December 8, 2022

My Patreon supports send in a pile of solid questions, some of which I address on this Q & A podcast. What’s the historic Christian view of the end times? Did Priscilla write Hebrews? Can Christians get married in the church without being recognized by the State? Should we screen organizations we give money to before we give? How to talk to your elders about addressing LGBTQ related questions? Did I misrepresent Alisa Childers? What do I think about the World Mag’s critical article about Revoice? Are pastors different from elders? What do I say to people who think the annihilation view of hell is “dangerous” and less evangelistically effective as ECT? Can I recommend a good, somewhat short, commentary on the Pastoral Epistles? How do I choose which guests to invite to be on the podcast? And much more… Thanks to Doug Smith for helping sponsor today's episode. To check out Doug's newest book, [Un]Intentional: How Screens Secretly Shapes Your Desires, and How You Can Break Free: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1625861966/  If you’d like to support TITR, please visit patreon.com/theologyintheraw, where you’ll be able to participate in these Q & A episodes!

Hello, friends. Registration is now open for next year's Exiles in Babylon conference, and I cannot wait for this conference. Here's a few topics that we're going to wrestle with. The future of the church, disability in the church, multi-ethnic perspectives on American Christianity, and a conversational debate on the problem of evil and suffering. We have Eugene Cho, Elise Fitzpatrick, Matt Chandler, Michelle Sanchez, Justin Gibney, Devin Stalemar, Hardwick. The list goes on and on. Joey Dodson's going to be there. Greg Boyd and Clay Jones, they're going to be engaging in this conversational debate on the problem of evil and suffering. And of course, we have to have

Ellie Bonilla and Street Hymns back by popular demand. And Tanika Wya and Evan Wickham will be leading our multi-ethnic worship again. We're also adding a pre-conference this year. So we're going to do an in-depth scholarly conversation on the question of women in ministry featuring two scholars on each side of the issue. So Drs. Gary Brashears and Sydney Park are on the complementarian side and Drs. Cynthia Long-Westfall and Philip Payne on the egalitarian side. So March 23rd to 25th, 2023 here in Boise, Idaho. We sold out last year and we'll probably sell it this year again. So if you want to come, if you want to come live, then I would register sooner than later. And you can always attend virtually if you can't make it

out to Boise in person. So all the info is at theologyintherod.com. That's theologyintherod.com that's theology in the Raw. Today is a Q&A podcast where I address several of the questions that my Patreon supporters sent in, and they sent in a ton of questions. I think right now I have at least 60 questions that have been submitted, and that's just in the last 24 hours or so. So I'm going to address several of their 60 questions here on this public podcast, and then the rest of them I will address on the Patreon-only podcast, which I'll release probably next week. No, no, it's probably already been released by the time you listen to this podcast. Anyway, if you'd like to support the show and be part of the Patreon community, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. Support the show for as little as five bucks a month. Good access to several perks like the ability to ask questions that I address on this show and on the Patreon-only podcast. Okay, let's dive in. The first question is from Davis.

And Davis asks, when giving tithes and offerings, how much vetting is necessary on the organization I would be giving to? I definitely understand the desire to make sure your money is going to where it actually will help and make a difference, but I've also heard that tithing should be done out of faithfulness. I do lean toward, and this is going to be my response, is going to be largely my opinion. I do lean towards vetting as much as you can. I don't think that means, you know, flying out and touring the facility of, you know, the International Justice Mission or whatever organization you're thinking of, meeting all the higher ups and having sit down meetings. I mean, you know, there's only,

there's always more vetting you can do. But I do. I want to feel as confident as I can that my money is going to good use, is actually contributing to helping people. Because as most of you probably know, I mean, you can actually try to help people. You can actually give money to certain people in certain situations, certain organizations and end up, which end up actually might actually hurting people. You know, it's a, it's a fuzzy line. Does that mean you're responsible for hurting people because you gave you an organization

that is not actually doing the good that they promised to do? I mean, I, you know, that's, that's, that's tough, but I, I But I do want to feel as confident as I can that my contribution is actually meeting the needs of people. So in this day and age, a lot of organizations, they're pretty open with their finances. And so I think you can do – I don't think it would take a ton of work to vet the organization as whatever, that's largely an Old Testament concept. And even that, if you do the math on kind of a more holistic approach to giving in the Old Testament, I've heard, I haven't done all the math or done all the research, but it's a bit complicated in the Old Testament because you're dealing with a nation state that is also the people of God. So it's a nation of Israel, but it's also the people of God. So it's a nation of Israel,

but it's also the people of God who are Israel. And so there's a whole economic and political and religious network that's kind of all fused together. So I don't think we can take the specifics of the Old Testament on tithing and apply it to the New Testament believer. I do think there's principles of being generous and caring for those in need in the Old Testament on tithing and apply it to the New Testament believer, I do think there's principles of being generous and caring for those in need in the Old Testament that do carry over into the New. And once you get into the New Testament, most of the giving passages, passages that encourage believers to give, to be generous, most of them, almost all of them are about wealthier Christians redistributing their wealth to help out more poor, poorer believers in need. One of the longest, actually the longest

passages in the New Testament on giving is 2 Corinthians 8-9. And 2 Corinthians 8-9 is describing the so-called Jerusalem collection, where Paul traveled around the Mediterranean world going to wealthier Gentile churches and was collecting money to give to the poorer, largely Jewish church in Jerusalem because they had fallen upon hard financial times. This was a major aspect of Paul's second and third missionary journeys. It was a huge part of Paul's ministry as a whole. He talks about it in Romans 15, 1 Corinthians 16, 2 Corinthians 8-9, Galatians 2, the book of Acts, Acts 11 talks about it. I mean, this is a pretty widespread theme in the New Testament, this kind of redistributing of wealth from wealthier churches to poorer churches. And

there was also this kind of ethnic reconciliation component that was driving Paul as well. So, all I have to say, when I consider where am I going to give my money, I typically, as much as I want to resonate with the main thread in the New Testament, I want to say, how can I help or give to an organization that's helping poor believers in need is not my sole focus, but is a primary focus. So let's move on to the next question. We've got a lot of questions to work through here. Ryan says that he grew up dispensationalist in a kind of left behind theology church and you didn't know any better, but you say, you know, I was just waiting for the rapture to happen.

But also hoping that God would delay the rapture until I got married. So I wouldn't be a virgin when that happened. Oh my gosh. Said every single teenage boy growing up in a rapture theology church. Through a number of books and podcasts, you come to realize that the eschatology I grew up with is not the most accurate reading of scripture. So I'm left wondering what is a historic Christian view or theology of the end times? Okay. Like you, I grew up in a dispensational environment. Let me just say this. I think there are, in the church today, obviously, there are different eschatological views that are drawn from Scripture.

So, you know, various Christians who are all godly and smart are trying to work through Scripture to figure out what does the Bible say about the end times. I don't want to say, well, this one's terrible and this one's, you know, the best and this one's rubbish and whatever. Like, you know, I no longer find a dispensational interpretation of the end times to be the most exegetically compelling. And there really is no singular historic Christian view of the end times. So if I wanted to say what are the main things that all Christians should biblically believe about the future, I'm just going to say a few big picture things. The second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead. When Jesus returns, he's going to raise the dead. coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead. When Jesus returns, he's going to raise the dead.

According to John 5 and 1 Thessalonians 4 and Daniel 12, he's going to raise the believers and unbelievers. They're going to face judgment. And on the other side of judgment, believers will go into what is called the new creation. Okay. So second coming of Christ, resurrection of the dead, judgment, renewal of creation. Those are kind second coming to Christ, resurrection of the dead, judgment, renewal of creation. Those are kind of the big picture ingredients that I think are as clear as they can be in scripture. And I don't know, maybe some of you might even have quibbles about some of that, but I think those are clearly revealed in the scripture. There's a lot of other, um, sub points that are less clear, you know, the thousand year reign, the millennial reign of Christ. Um, and this goes into more of a dispensational view of the end times where you have, where you would have a, a, a, the rapture of the church and the seven year tribulation period.

And then you have the second coming of Christ who establishes a thousand year millennial reign on earth. And then you have another, uh, another, the great, is it the great white throne judgment at the end of the thousand years. And then you have another kind of stage in the afterlife, which is the eternal state. So a dispensational reading or even a pre-millennial reading will make a distinction between, there's kind of two different end time states. There's a thousand year millennial reign and then the eternal state after that. That paradigm rests largely on a quite literal reading of Revelation 20. Revelation 20 is the only place where we see a thousand year reign mentioned.

But here's my problem. And if you believe in a millennial reign, the literal thousand year reign, that's fine. Here's the reason why I don't, is that the book of Revelation has loads of numbers in the book. I don't know of any single number. Let me just be cautious. Almost all of the numbers in Revelation are clearly symbolic. Clearly symbolic. So is it likely that when you get to Revelation 20 and all of a sudden you see another number, 1,000, which is a big round number, that that one isn't symbolic? So at the very least, I think the burden of proof would rest on somebody who interprets a thousand year reign literally in a book when almost all the numbers are not intended to be interpreted literally. And some people say, well, no, okay, it's not literal. It's still a period of time.

You still have a distinction between some kind of millennial reign and some kind of eternal state. Again, even that kind of two-stage afterlife still relies on the book of Revelation. A lot of our differences in eschatology relies on different interpretations of a highly symbolic book, the book of Revelation. You take out the book of Revelation, all of a sudden, you're kind of back to second coming of Christ, resurrection of the dead, renewal of creation. And I don't want to say that, therefore, we ditched the book of creation. And I don't want to say that therefore we ditched the book of Revelation. I just think that we need to be very cautious in how much of our specific eschatology rests on a particular reading of Revelation. The whole rapture thing, I mean, the pre-tribulational rapture largely rests, not exclusively, but largely on a particular reading of 1 Thessalonians

for 13 to 17. I moved away from this understanding of the end times when I wrote, it was actually back in seminary, I had a dispensational seminary when we were, one of our assignments in a class on the Thessalonian letters. So I think it was Greek exegesis too. Um, one of my favorite classes in seminar actually. And, and we work through the Thessalonian letters as part of our, you know,

uh, honing our Greek. Um, and, one of the assignments was to write an eschatology of first and second Thessalonians. Meaning like if you were a Thessalonian believer and in walk the letter carrier who read out loud first Thessalonians. Meaning like if you were a Thessalonian believer and in walked the letter carrier who read out loud first Thessalonians, and then also a year later or whatever, maybe a year

before, some people reverse the chronology of first and second Thessalonians. Either way, if you read these two letters and that's kind of like, what would your eschatology be based on these two letters? I don't think you can really get a pre-tribulational rapture, seven-year tribulation, and then second coming of Christ, meaning the second coming of Christ is different from what Paul is talking about in 1 Thessalonians 4. I think that's really hard to get just from the letter itself. People get that by, again, going to the book of Revelation, maybe going to Matthew 24, and trying to piece together this kind of plan of the end times. One of the problems I have just with using 1 Thessalonians 4, which is the main rapture passage, as a rapture passage is that the language of being caught up to meet the Lord

in the air, the word for meeting there is a common Greco-Roman concept of emissaries from a city going out to meet the emperor and ushering him back to the city. So it's not that people go and meet the Lord in the air and then they go up to heaven. Rather, they go out to meet the Lord in the air to accompany him as he returns to earth is the image there. And the Thessalonian letters are just saturated with a lot of kind of Greco-Roman empire imagery. So even from that text alone, I think it's tough to get a pre-tribulational rapture, let alone the rest. You wouldn't really get that from the rest of the New Testament by itself. So all that to say, and by the way, I have not really studied these kinds of questions

in a long time. So maybe there's been some definitive work in the last 10 years that shatters everything I'm talking about or whatever. I definitely encourage you to do your own research on the end times. It hasn't been really a major interest of mine for quite some time. So I'm reaching back decades of, you know, in my dark recesses of my theological memory here. So all that to say, second coming to Christ, resurrection of the dead, renewal of creation. Those are the big ones. Got to embrace that. A lot of the specifics within that, you know, I think we can have a, an internal Christian discussion about what's the best reading of scripture from there on.

Next question from Becky, newish, you're a newish Patreon supporter, and you have a huge heart for the LGBTQ community. You've spent the last several years learning as much as you can from me, thank you, and other voices on the topic currently attending. The church you grew up in and sexuality in general has never been a topic that has been discussed. And you share a bit more thoughts here. I'm going to skip ahead. You really want the church to be a safe place for LGBTQ people. You have a meeting with the elder board next month to share your heart about the need for grace and truth in addressing sexuality and gender questions.

So here's your question. Do you have any, do I have any advice on where you should start? Aside from one of our pastors and your dad, who's on the elder board, I'll be walking into a room of men who have no idea the burden that has been placed in my heart. And like I said earlier, this topic is simply not discussed at our church. At the very least, I'd like to see this meeting, open the door for a much needed conversation, and you appreciate any advice I can give. Okay. Oh, and your mom before, little ones, you're feeling nervous.

So first of all, Becky, thank you for having the courage to do this. That's super intimidating to go in to a room full of elders who have never talked about this topic and try to help them to talk about this topic. That shows a ton of courage. So thank you for modeling that. I would have a, let me just give, I've got so many thoughts here I wrote out. I mean, this is a large part of what I do day in and day out is meeting with churches and helping them do this to embody the holistic gospel toward LGBTQ people. So I got a lot of thoughts and I tried to not take an hour here, but I guess my first question, I think I know the answer to this, but just to state it, I would want to know, is your church more progressive leaning or more conservative leaning? Because churches might be silent on sexuality and gender questions

for different reasons. Maybe more progressive leaning church, they might think, well, if you start... I don't know why. I guess a more progressive leaning church might... And I don't mean they're just simply affirming of same-sex marriage, but maybe they're more... Maybe they realize that the church is pretty split on this question. Maybe the leaders might be kind of split. And if they even begin to address questions related to sexual and gender, the church will split because they just like, oh man, people are over the map on this. So I'm just going to, we're just going to be silent. Or if it's a more conservative leading church, maybe they just don't see the relevance of it. Or maybe they're like, well, no, I mean, just go read Romans one. Why do we need to have a conversation about this? I don't see the relevance of it. Or maybe they're like, well, no, I mean, just go read Romans 1.

Why do we need to have a conversation about this? I don't know. There's different reasons why more conservatively any churches might not want to address the topic. But understanding where they're coming from would kind of maybe shape my approach to having this discussion because whether they're progressive leaning or conservative leaning, they probably have some fear-driven reasons why they haven't addressed the topic. So I would want to kind of know a little bit going in, like, well, what are maybe some of the fears that they have that maybe you could help alleviate? Conservative leaning churches might be scared that if we talk about grace and love and kindness, then we're going to be drifting from the truth of God's word or whatever.

So I think there's ways to address that concern. I would encourage you to exercise much, much grace and humility toward your leaders. I mean, think about this. And you probably know this. If you're about this. And you probably know this. If you're a church leader, you definitely know this. Like, think about this gathering from the perspective of the church leaders. I mean, walking in right behind you is another person wondering why the church doesn't address end times more.

And right behind them is another person saying, why don't we, you know, why don't we move more vocal on six-day creationism or supporting Israel or promoting the latest political candidate? So church leaders, I will tell you, for the most part, they are a bit, they have this kind of ongoing exhaustion of trying to entertain and meet the needs of everybody in the congregation that thinks they should be doing something more, doing something less, doing something different. Most church leaders I talk to, they just, they get exhausted with that. You know, you have even like announcements on Sundays, you know, you have, you know, 56 different people that week who said, Hey,

can you announce this? Can you announce that? Can we promote this? Can we do that? Like leaders are bombarded with that kind of pressure from the congregations. And I'm not assuming that your church is. I'm just saying that is a very typical point of exhaustion from church leaders. So I think with that in mind, if you come in kind of guns a-blazing or this is the main issue, even if you're like, I think this is a huge issue we need to talk about, I think you do want to come in with a lot of grace, humility towards your leaders. A lot of honoring them and the work that they're doing at leading the church. They don't want to be made to feel like they're not doing anything right because they haven't addressed the LGBTQ related questions. Okay. With all of that, I think one place to begin might be alerting them to some of the urgency of these questions. I mean, you know, one phrase that

I've often used is that, you know, questions related to sexuality and gender have become some of the most pressing ethical questions facing the church today. So, a good case can be made that it would be pastorally responsible to help Christians navigate what has become some of the most pressing questions facing the church today. of our discipleship, but is significant enough to justify, hey, this is an important area that a lot of Christians are really thinking through, whether they're LGBT themselves, or they're a parent with an LGBTQ kid, or somebody who has friends who are LGBTQ, or they're just trying to navigate our cultural moment where sexuality and gender questions are kind of all over the place, all over the place. So I think there can be a pretty easy case to, and I don't know any leader who would really say, really? This doesn't seem that, I don't think a lot of people are really thinking about this.

Really? I mean, I think it's a pretty easy case to be made that this is on a lot of people's minds for a wide range of reasons. Man, I would really love for you leaders to help disciple me and the many others who need discipleship in this area. Again, giving honor to your leaders. Another angle too, as you can point out that statistically, at least 21% of Gen Z people under 22 identify as LGBTQ. And that percentage isn't too different inside or outside the church. One-fifth, one-fifth of our next generation identifies as LGBTQ. And if they

don't, almost all of them have friends that do. So if there's a bit of urgency, relevancy in the need for leaders to disciple their people in this conversation as a whole, all the more a need for our leaders to help raise up the next generation and disciple them well through a topic that is not some fringe thing any longer. of Gen Z who identifies as LGBTQ. You have parents in your congregation who have kids who are, or kids or relatives who identify as LGBTQ. And they're asking a lot of questions about how do I maintain biblical fidelity while also loving my son, my daughter, my son, who is my daughter, my cousin, my brother, my uncle, whatever. So there's enough people who this conversation is personal. They're really wanting to be discipled well in this topic. Having said all that, as much as I think leaders should be discipling their people in this topic, leaders should be discipling their people in this topic, I would want the leaders to make sure they're going to do it well, though, too. Like if leaders do not embrace a really rich biblical view

of marriage and sexuality and also understand that the church has not gone about this conversation well, historically well at all, and that there's a lot of layers of just homophobia and bigotry toward gay people and LGBT people that still exists in the church. And if we're not willing to embody both grace and truth, well, we shouldn't really address this conversation unless we're willing to do that. And if you publicly disciple your people in a holistic gospel, Jesus-centered view of sexuality and gender questions, if you do that well, people will leave the church. That's just a fact. And also people will probably go to your church because a lot of who are longing to go to a church that is willing to address these questions with grace and truth. So, uh, yeah, so all that to say, I almost, I almost wouldn't want your meeting to be too successful. Like all of a sudden, like next week they're preaching on homosexuality or whatever,

like that. I'm like, well, well, well, like I would want the leaders to recognize that this is complex and the leader should have loads of ongoing internal discussions and internal training before they just start reaching out and addressing this important conversation publicly. So much more to say, baby steps. Sometimes leaders might move slowly in this conversation, and I don't always think that that's necessarily a bad thing. All right, next question, Anna. You haven't looked into this much, but some people say that Priscilla wrote the book of Hebrews. Do I have any thoughts on this? And how would this impact the conversation on women in church leadership? Well, certainly, if Priscilla did write the book of Hebrews, which is called, the book of Hebrews is called a letter

of exhortation. Yeah, I think that would be a significant contribution to the conversation about women in church leadership. I did look into this a little bit, the evidence for, well, let me say, I was not impressed at all with the evidence for Priscilla writing the book of Hebrews. And I'm not, please hear me. I'm not saying, well, she's a woman. She couldn't have written the book of Hebrews. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying, yeah, maybe, um, maybe, maybe not. Like we just, we don't know who wrote the book of Hebrews. I still think Apollos is probably the strongest candidate, but even that, we just don't know. I did look at an article on the cbinternational.org website.

If you just Google CBE International and then Priscilla, author of Hebrews, I think that's the first thing that will pop up. It kind of gave an overview. I forget who wrote this. The title of this article is Priscilla, author of the Epistle to Hebrews with a question mark. And then this article kind of surveys all the arguments given for Priscilla. I wasn't impressed with, I just wasn't impressed with the arguments. So maybe if you read the article, you'll be super impressed. I don't know. I just, they just, they just all seems extremely, extremely speculative. There is a book written by Ruth Hoppins called Priscilla's Letter, which I believe is a whole book arguing for Priscilla authoring the book of Hebrews.

You can check that out on Amazon, Priscilla, Priscilla's Letter. So I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on that. But yeah, I just wasn't convinced by the evidence. So there I am. Again, I'm not saying there's a bunch of evidence that shows that Priscilla didn't write the letter. I'm just saying that evidence for Priscilla writing a letter doesn't seem very convincing to me. Next question, Brandon. What is your opinion on heavy metal music? evidence for priscilla writing a letter doesn't seem very convincing to me next question brandon um what is your opinion on heavy metal music i love these kind of questions while i'd be interested in your taste in it if you do uh like it or hate it what i'm really

looking for i guess is a broader take on what some might call dark or angry art forms i find them cathartic and a welcome change of pace from what can often be inauthentic, syrupy, sweet Christian art. I love that phrase, Brandon. Syrupy, sweet Christian art. I love it. But have recently gotten pushback from some of my love of such things, even when said art is Christian. So even like Christian heavy metal music, life isn't always about a rose, as you say. Some things are worth getting angry about. And I would argue there is biblical precedent for these type of artistic expressions. You first of all want to know my taste in heavy metal, hardcore music. It's not my favorite genre.

I grew up, I think when I was younger, I liked it a bit more. So like Iron Maiden was one of my favorite bands growing up. Of course, I mean, maybe it's not a chorus, but Metallica. I still listen to Metallica when I'm working out at the gym. Not always, but sometimes. I probably like some more punk. Is it punk metal? Like what rage against the machine be like i like rage um there's some other i can't i'm blanking on some bands right now so so anyway it's my favorite genre but yeah when i'm especially when i'm working out for obvious reasons um i typically listen to heavier well not always but typically heavier music um so yeah that's just my personal taste in it. In terms of a more theological response, I think it's actually a weak argument to say that a similar pages here. I think that, I mean, just take the Bible. The Bible is written in various genres, poetry, lament, some symbolic, a lot of symbolic apocalyptic literature and revelation in parts of Daniel and history and prose and biography in the Gospels and historiography in the Book of Acts and love poetry in the Song of Songs and lament and lamentations. You have darker forms of literature in the Psalms even.

The Psalms span the whole gamut of human emotion. So I don't – and you have different musical genres throughout the Psalms. So I think the diversity of literary art forms in Scripture does give some precedent for the diversity of all kinds of different art forms. And I 100% agree that art forms that only address the kind of rosy, syrupy, sweet Christian themes are dishonest. I'll be as strong as that. Like, life is complex. It's beautifully complex. And any kind of art form that is honest will reflect that complexity or contribute to that complexity. I think it was N.D. Wilson, Nate Wilson. Is it Nate Wilson? N.D. Wilson, who's a brilliant Christian writer, son of Doug Wilson, uh, Nate Wilson. Is it Nate Wilson? Andy Wilson, who's a brilliant Christian writer, son of Doug Wilson, by the way. Um, I find them to be very different for if you, in case you're wondering, um, uh, but Andy Wilson's book, uh, notes from a tilt to whirl is a strange kind of

book, but he, so he's primarily like a fiction writer for, I think, teens and children. And I think, fact check me on this, I think he said somewhere that true, true, honest literature, even written for children, should contain evil because that's honest. Life has evil. Life has sin. Life has darkness. And it's dishonest if music doesn't convey that, if literary forms don't convey that, if art doesn't convey that, or include that at least. So, yeah, I don't think musical genres that are more dark, I think it's not enough to say that's allowed. I would say that that's a necessary contribution to our more holistic view of the world. Where is the Christian version of Raging Against the Machine? Do you guys know of one? We need some Christian songs or songwriters that sing about the gospel as political protest. I mean,

Josh Gerrills does some of that, I guess. Or who's that guy from Cademan's Call? Shoot, what's his name? Is that who I'm thinking of? I haven't listened to him in a while, but he had an, I'm blanking on his name, but there was a former Christian singer front man who went solo and had a whole album that was kind of a political protest kind of album. I didn't love the sound of it, but the lyrics were really powerful.

But yeah, I think if I started a Christian band, it would be in the genre of Rage Against the Machine. Actually, so there is a, I don't know if you've heard of the Audio Feed music festival. Audio Feed out in Champaign, Illinois every year around the 4th of July. I used to speak at the audio feed music festival every year. I did it for several years in a row. And they were all kind of these

non-mainstream, mostly non-mainstream Christian artists, like musical artists that were just different. You had Christian metal bands. You had Christian country, kind of dark country. A buddy of mine, brilliant artist, would say it was in the genre of country. But if you listen to his themes, it's almost like, yeah, it's kind of, I guess more of the Johnny Cash genre, just a little more dark, a little more thoughtful, a little more artistic. And everybody in between. I mean, it was really cool to see just so many Christians with such a diverse array of genres. So yeah, it is out there. But yeah, I don't find it compelling when people find certain genres more holy than others. I mean, some Christian hymns can be like super Gnostic in their theology. Gnosticism was like the first heresy condemned by the church. Like that,

this should be atrocious, you know, singing some of these hymns and yet we sing them in church. Or some contemporary worship music has kind of like Jesus is my boyfriend flavor to it, which I find to be incredibly offensive. Country music, you know, safe, right? Safe for the whole family, except that it can be profoundly syncretistic and it's God and country kind of theme. So yeah, I just, I'm always nervous about Christians thinking that some genres of music are like safer or closer to the gospel than others. I think the gospel transcends and includes all kinds of genres. Okay. That's my response. Fred, what are some good commentaries on the pastoral epistles?

You say you're not looking for a 900-page tome that spans 50 pages exegeting one word, but something like a 200- to 300-page commentary that is in tune with scholarly discussions, yet also practical for a peasant like you. For example, you recently read Michael Gorman's commentary on Romans. Michael Gorman's amazing. I'm going to get him on the podcast here soon. And then Lucas chimes in with a similar question here. So my quick and easy answer is Ozzy Padilla, Osvaldo Padilla's very recent commentary on the pastorals

in the Tyndale New Testament commentary series. I believe it's an update of the older Tyndale commentary on the pastorals by Guthrie, I believe, if I remember correctly. But Ozzy is a friend of mine. We studied together, Aberdeen. He's a rock solid scholar and his commentary, I think, just came out or it's about to come out. So again, Osvaldo Padilla on the pastorals New Testament commentary series. I think just came out or it's about to come out. So again, Osvaldo Padilla on the Pastoral's New Testament Commentary Series, I think it's going to be right around your range, 200 to 300 pages. And he's just a top-notch scholar. So he's going to be very aware of the scholarly discussion, even if he doesn't spend 200 pages on summing up the scholarly discussion.

Next question, Jeremy. You say that I must get so many serious questions from Patreon supporters, so I figured I would ask you something different for my first question. It's more of a logistical question about the podcast. I've enjoyed listening to the show these past two years, and I'm always impressed with your range of guests. What process do you go through to identify, schedule, and request guests for the show? I'd love to hear more about the process, especially since I'm a behind the scenes kind of guy. Okay. Good question.

Yeah. How much, I'm happy to share everything about my behind the scenes, my behind the scenes podcasting. So I'll start just with my schedule. So Tuesday I devote mostly to podcasting. I typically schedule a nine o'clock, a 1030 and a 12 o'clock podcast interview. If I don't, if I can't fit all of those windows, like today, I had one scheduled for nine o'clock and then now I'm recording after that nine o'clock podcast, I'm recording this Q&A podcast. So sometimes I have other kinds of podcasts like Q&A podcasts, or if I just want to spend a podcast talking about something like women in leadership or whatever, I'll typically do that within that timeframe. And then I usually go to a coffee shop to upload all the... Oh, then I also have to record an intro. And then I go to a coffee shop upload all all the material to to my google drive

and uh while i'm doing that i got a little word doc where i have all the information where i write everything out uh the person any kind of editorial notes from my audio engineer um the summary links and all that stuff and then and then then i'm done, and I also have a running schedule where I'm, I'm have all the guests scheduled out. Um, when the podcast is going to be released, sometimes it might be like two weeks later. Sometimes it might be a month later. Um, sometimes even longer than that. So I, I, I'm typically recording at least two at the very minimum, two weeks ahead of time. usually I'm like a month out. In terms of – oh, and then after that, I'm done. I have a whole like kind of company really that takes it from there, that turns it into a podcast. I don't even know how to – I wouldn't even know how to do it on the back end.

I don't know that whole side of things. So who do I schedule? I mean I – it can be anything from like books I'm reading. So like this morning, I just recorded a podcast episode with Patrick Schreiner. Really appreciate Patrick Schreiner's work, but I just read his or am reading his book, Political Gospel. And I was like, man, this is really interesting. I have some thoughts I'd like to bounce off of them. So I scheduled the podcast there. Sometimes people reach out to me. I do get a lot of suggestions typically from publishers who want me to promote one of their authors, which I never do unless I want to.

Just so you guys know, I know it may seem like a lot of my podcasts are me promoting a book. I only do that if I have found either the book or the author interesting or if they're just writing on something, whether I read it or not, just kind of piques my interest. So, yeah, I'll never have somebody just because some publisher wants me to have them on the show. I have to want to have the conversation. So, yeah, books I'm reading, some suggestions are thrown at me. There's other just, I mean, over the years, there's hundreds of names of scholars, thinkers, leaders that I'm aware of that I would like to have a discussion with. So for example, I'm doing a lot of reading right now on what's called anti-imperial readings of the New Testament.

And Patrick and I got into this a little bit, but there's a lot of scholars like Warren Carter, Richard Horsley, and many others who, and T. Wright to some extent, who are writing on anti-imperial readings in the New Testament. That is, you know, parts of the New Testament that are critiquing the empire or the emperor in ways that are kind of subtle. And they draw out some of these subtleties. So for instance, right now, I'm trying to schedule Warren Carter, who's done a lot of work on this topic. And I'm like, man, that's a topic that I'm really interested in. He's done some great work on it. Let's have him on the show. I typically like, how do I say it? Heterodox, not in the theological sense, heterodox, but in more of the cultural sense, like people who question their own tribe, question their own denomination, question their own echo chamber if they're in an echo chamber. I typically like people who don't live in an echo chamber. I think it was an article written a while back from David,

some political guy called From the Edge of the Inside, meaning they're in this kind of big tribe, but they're kind of on the edge of it. They're not just a blind sheep following their tribal allegiances, you know, whether that's a denomination, a religious Christian social environment or a political tribe or whatever. I like thinkers who are contrarian, who are willing to say something because it's true, not because it will get a lot of likes from people that follow them. So I don't like I, you know, there's a lot of people out there and I get some people throw me suggestions and I'll go and I'll scroll their social media or look at kind of their stuff. And I just, if they're just kind of parodying slogans that agree with their tribe or just, I don't know, there's just a lot of public thinkers out there that are just not interesting to me because they're just, if I can guess who you voted for within five seconds on your social media feed, I just, I don't find that kind of posture interesting to me. There's certain

types of voices that reflect so much of my Christian upbringing that again, no, no, no offense at all to them, but it's like, I just, I swam in that body of water for such a long time that, you know, I already kind of know what they're going to say, know how they're going to say it and everything. And I'm just like, that doesn't feel very interesting to me. I feel like I'm having a conversation with my self from 15 years ago. I'm not as interested in having a conversation with myself because that would be a weird and be, um, I want to have a conversation with people who are, you know, have a different upbringing, um, have a different way of thinking. Even if, you know, a lot of my

guests, I think we resonate with how we're thinking, but I also like guests that are bringing a different slant on certain things that I can learn from. I like to get people that are experts in areas of thought that I know nothing about. I mean, like recently I had on Alex Awad, who's a Palestinian Christian. I'm like, I know hardly anything about Palestinian Christianity. Would love to learn from him. Oh, I recently had Doug Smith on, software engineer, who wrote a book on how social media and screens have hijacked our hearts and minds.

That was super interesting to me. He's done a lot of work in that area. Lucas Pauly from the Tampa Underground doing a lot of really interesting different things on how to do church. So those kind of guests, the people that are just doing something maybe different, not just to be edgy or different, but because they typically have some kind of contrarian kind of spirit to them that I'm interested in. I really don't have – I don't believe in the kind of fear of platforming that some people have. And I get – I mean, just so you know, because I know some of you reach out to me on this. Almost everybody I have on the show, there's somebody somewhere that doesn't like it and it's always the same kind of tired slogan.

Why are you platforming that person? The whole mindset behind that critique, I just don't even believe, I don't have that mindset. So that critique doesn't even believe i don't have that mindset so that doesn't that doesn't that critique just doesn't even resonate with me um just the whole idea of you're platforming this voice that i disagree with or or even like you know well their ideas are harmful even that mindset i just don't agree with like i think well let me say can i certain ideas like Nazism, whatever, lead to harm? Sure, yeah. Behind every harmful act is a really grotesque idea that formed, way too broadly. And it comes from a very slanted, biased, I would say naive

perspective in most cases that I see it applied. Honestly, and usually it's kind of a cop-out. It's when, and this is my, I guess maybe my perception, when people don't really have a good counter argument or they don't want to do the hard work of understanding, trying to understand this other idea, living in that idea, then coming up with evidence that refutes that idea. When people aren't willing to do that hard work, they just kind of say, ah, that's harmful. Is my perception, at least. Like, it's just, I rarely see people that do the hard work of engaging in a book. They thoroughly read it. They digest it.

They highlight some of the good things and they point out areas where they think it's wrong. Usually people that do all that don't say, and it's harmful. Usually it's just kind of somebody who says, well, I'm not going to read this book because it's harmful. I get that a lot. I've had people that are about my books. I'm not going to read your book because it's harmful. I get that a lot. I've had people that are about my books. I'm not going to read your book because it's harmful. Like, I don't know if it's harmful. What do you mean by that?

So some of you that might not like that I quote unquote platform this person or platform that person because their ideas are harmful or whatever. I just – that reflects a certain mindset that I just – I don't even agree with. I don't – I have a very different kind of mindset. Um, if someone's ideas are so bad that you shouldn't platform them, isn't that a good argument that you should platform them? Like if they're so obviously bad, then expose them. It would be one approach, right? And I'm not saying I did that. That's not the purpose of this podcast is to take the worst thinker, put them on the platform so everybody can see how stupid they are. Like that's not. But if an idea is so bad that it doesn't even deserve interaction, then give it airtime, shine a light on it, expose how stupid it is. But if it's not

so obviously wrong, then maybe we should at least consider it so that we can think through it and then refute it if there's better evidence to the contrary. So as I've often, often, often said, this podcast is more like a conversation with a neighbor with a record button on rather than a message from a church stage or whatever. Okay. So if I was talking to my neighbor and somebody came along and says, hey, why are you platforming your neighbor? Why are you giving them honor by talking to them?

It's like, well, I just, I think you misunderstand what we're doing here. This episode is sponsored by Biola University's Talbot School of Theology. Okay, so I get asked a lot about which seminaries do I recommend, and my response is always the same. It's, well, it kind of depends on what you're looking for. But no matter what, Talbot is always one of my top recommended schools, partly because I feel like I know like half the professors there, so I can vouch for who who they are and I know their character. I know what you're going to get into. But I've also spoken on campus, which had amazing time on the campus there. I've had several of the profs on the podcast.

Here's what I love most about Talbot. They do a fantastic job combining rigorous scholarship that's saturated with a deep love for the church. And it's all integrated with a pervasive emphasis on spiritual formation in the lives and hearts of the students. And it's all integrated with a pervasive emphasis on spiritual formation in the lives and hearts of the students. The professors are super down to earth. They're involved in their churches. Many of them are pastors at their church, and they also write high powered academic books. So if you're looking to deepen your understanding of scripture, or just be more equipped to serve your family, your church, the world around you, Talbot offers many different courses and degree programs.

And they also have done a really fantastic job with their online program where you can attend live online or watch prerecorded courses by some amazing professors. So if you've been thinking about going to seminary, check out biola.edu forward slash Talbot. That's T-A-L-B-O-T. Biola.edu forward slash childbit to get more information.

Patrice, maybe just answer the question I sent you recently regarding Revoice and World Magazine. And then Brandon says we'll post it here. Maybe he will. Yeah. So I've gotten several questions about this. If you're not familiar with it, just Google. Let's see if I can pull up the article. The article is called Identity Crisis, Ascendant Gender Ideology Undermines Group Trying to Balance Homosexuality and Biblical Orthodoxy

from World Magazine. I'm not familiar with World Magazine. Somebody sent me this, and I don't know. Maybe it's kind of popular because I had several people kind of ask me about this because basically this article is critical of the Revoice conference that I have and will continue to promote. And people say, you're on leadership of Revoice, right? Well, I'm not even sure what I do. I'm like part of a – I'm not on formal leadership with Revoice. I'm part of a – I forget the name of it. It's like a sounding board for when Revoice has certain ideas or maybe a statement they're releasing that we can give feedback on, which I don't think we've had even a meeting in two years, I don't think.

So minimal, minimal. I wouldn't even say I'm not on leadership at Revoice at all. There's other leaders leading Revoice. I'm friends with and have deep respect for the leaders at Revoice. Nate Collins is a good friend of mine. Becca Mason and others there that I have deep, deep respect for. So I am a huge fan of Revoice and would encourage people to go to Revoice. I think they're doing great, great work.

Now, there's some things. So the article, what do I want to say about this article? First of all, and I don't know the author. I'm not going to name, I don't even know who it is. I'm not going to name the author because I could, well, oh, here's the author. I'm not going to name the author because I really don't know this person at all. But they just, the article itself, it kind of showed that they're not, they don't seem to be very up to speed on the LGBTQ conversation, just in the language they're using and how they frame things. And like, you can tell when you're in this conversation, like I've been for many years, you just kind of can tell really quickly where people are coming from, kind of maybe what people they're, who they're listening to, who they trust in this conversation. be what people they're, who they're listening to, who they trust in this conversation.

So I can tell when I started reading this really quickly that, oh yeah, okay, this person's coming from probably this way of thinking. And I'm just, I'm probably going to not resonate with where they're coming from in this conversation. So already I can tell we're kind of coming at this from different angles. One thing that I, I mean, just from a journalistic perspective, this, the author cites more authoritatively some Christian leaders who, to the best of my knowledge, have not been to Revoice to get their thoughts on Revoice. Now, that just doesn't, just journalistically, like if I was going to, was going to be critical of the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting, and I cited people maybe from non-Southern Baptist churches who didn't go to the meeting, who was critical of the meeting, I'm like, wait a minute, but I'm drawing on a source that wasn't even there. source that wasn't even there. I think this leader, let's see, I think the author was there because the author is quoting from several things that were said at Revoice. From my vantage point,

it does seem like the writer went in already jaded with how they thought about Revoice and then highlighted further things that they disagreed with that were that was said from the stage like it seems to be spun in a certain direction that rather than actually representing holistically the conference as a whole now okay so let me say this i was not at the most recent conference okay i've been to most revoice gatherings. I wasn't at the last one. So here's the deal. Revoice, it is committed to a historic Christian view of marriage and sexual relationships. That's the view of the leadership. It's the view of revoice as a whole.

And I believe all of the speakers have to abide by that general belief. Speakers have to abide by that general belief, but revoice is going to allow a different range of kinds of speakers who might use language differently, who might use the term same-sex attracted, others who might use the term gay Christian, some who might use the phrase, I think they even say in the article, like sex assigned at birth. Others who won't use that phrase, different people who have different views on LGBTQ identities. So they will have various speakers on stage that might disagree on some of the more secondary, what they would consider, what I would consider more secondary issues within the broader sexuality and gender conversation. So just to be completely honest, I mean, I've spoken to Revoice at least twice, I think. And anytime I can go speak and if I'm invited back, then I'll go speak.

Some people in Revoice like it when I speak. Other people don't like it when I speak. There's people in that community, I'm sure, they're like, ah, what's this straight dude doing on stage? Yeah, there's diversity in the revoice gatherings. And there's stuff when I'm at revoice and I hear certain speakers, sometimes I'm like, oh man, I think that was spot on. I agree with most of what that person said. Other times I'm like, ah, yeah, I totally don't agree with how that was said or wouldn't say it like that. The phrase like sex assigned at birth,

I think that's a ridiculous statement. It's just scientifically bankrupt, really. I mean, so I don't use that. I don't use that phrase. And when people use it, I kind of like, it's kind of an eye roll. Like, oh, come on. Like, what do you mean by that? There's other phrases here. Even some things that were stated in this article. I'm like, yeah, I don't like that phrase. But I'm not going to say that this phrase or that phrase or this word or that identity marker or this or that means the whole gathering of revoice is even reflective of that or that the whole gathering is not doing a lot of good. Here's the deal, folks. Revoice exists because the church is not doing its job. There wouldn't be a need for

same-sex attracted, gender dysphoric, whatever phrase you want to use, peep Christians who are adhering to a traditional sexual ethic. In 2022, that's a radical thing to do. To say, because of my allegiance to Jesus, I'm going to commit my life to celibacy, or I'm going to maintain this marriage. I'm not going to leave this marriage. I'm going to strive to glorify Jesus, even though I'm attracted to the same sex and married to somebody of the opposite sex. It is sad that somebody with that level of commitment to the Lordship of Christ comes to Revoice and says, finally, I can feel like I have community. They should feel like that in our churches. They wouldn't need to fly across the country to attend Revoice if they had a flourishing environment in their churches. And the fact is, and it is a fact, it's what keeps me in business.

It's why I'm hopping on a plane tomorrow yet again to talk to another organization and why I go to churches all the time to help them to create environments where gay and lesbian and same-sex attracted Christians who are following Jesus faithfully can find community and love and purpose in their church communities. community and love and purpose in their church communities. It's a huge need. And that's something like, I would love this article to spend half the time talking about that. Rather than critiquing revoice, let's talk about why all these people are flooding to revoice. Well, they're just people on a slippery slope to liberalism. Come on. I'm not saying the article said those exact words, but that's kind of the fear. Um, that this is kind of just orthodoxy light. And again, I'm saying that there's certain things that said from stage or revoice. I'm like, ah, yeah, that feels like orthodoxy light. So I'm, but that's not, I'm not. So I want to make a distinction between

all the various speakers on stage that, you know paths, different journeys, who are all embracing a traditional sexual ethic. But some might be stronger on that than others. Some might use language differently than others. people's surprise from my vantage point are theologically really conservative or not. I hate the term conservative, um, are feel theologically unambiguous in their commitment to the traditional sexual ethic. I do think so. Revoice is, I think still in a process of trying to figure it, figure out where they're at on some of the complicated gender questions regarding transgender identities. And even this article has, you know, or even in the subtitle, Ascendant Gender Ideology. There is no ascendant gender ideologies.

There are gender ideologies. So even that, just in the subtitle, whenever I see the singular gender ideology, I'm like, ah, I probably can guess where this is going to go. There are gender ideologies. The phrase gender ideology is like saying the phrase like Baptist ideology. It's like, well, what do you, American or conservative or reformed or Southern? There's just a lot of diversity in ideologies about gender, a lot of diversity there. And I think, yeah, Revoice, admittedly, very publicly, is really saying, hey, we're really clear on this same-sex marriage question. We're clear on same-sex sexuality.

We're committed to Christian orthodoxy when it comes to marriage and same-sex sexual relationships. When it comes to some of the nitty-gritty gender questions, there's some complications there that we don't have completely ironed out. All the more reason to have a conversation. Have a conversation. And that's what Revoice is. It's kind of like this podcast.

So yeah, I'll continue to support Revoice, not because everything said from the stage, a hundred percent agree with, but precisely because I don't. I think it's healthy for people to be in environments where there is a commitment to Christian orthodoxy, but diversity on some of the lesser significant questions about identity, terminology, and so on and so forth okay next question wayne uh thanks for conducting these q a opportunities uh oh yeah yeah okay recently a patreon supporter asked you about elissa childers and some of her work you said you were not too familiar with her except that you knew she was not a phd scholar i deeply appreciate the caliber of people you bring on your podcast and the deep scholarly work they represent. Concerning Ms. Childers, my thoughts turn to Brian Zahn.

He's not an academic scholar, but I deeply appreciate his work, as do many others, including you. I listen to her podcast, Alyssa's podcast, almost as regularly as yours, and she seems solid, though with some different emphases from you. To my perception, you seemed a bit dismissive of her work. Would you ever consider having her or someone like John Stonestreet on your podcast? Wayne, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this up. I want to respond to this with some clarifying thoughts. First of all, I did not mean to dismiss her work. Alyssa, Alyssa, if you're listening, I apologize to you. If I, some of these like apologies, sometimes apologies aren't real apologies. So I want to be, I don't want to be fake here.

I apologize if I dismissed your work. I did not mean to dismiss your work. I don't know your work, so I can't dismiss it. And so I'm sorry if I came off that way. Here's where I did, if I remember correctly, the question had to do with Alyssa saying that a departure from believing in eternal conscious torment, or I think, was it a younger theology or something with creation? Oh no, maybe it's a literal Adam and Eve. It's a departure from like the authority of scripture. And that's where I would disagree. I disagreed specifically with those two claims. If Alyssa made those two claims, then I'm an annihilationist. I don't, If Alyssa made those two claims, then I'm an annihilationist. I don't, and accusing me of departing from the authority of God's word, because I believe in what I take to be the most biblical view of hell.

I, yeah, I don't agree with that. So if she said that, I disagree with that. So I, but I should not have, I don't think I did, but if I did, then I should not have made broader critiques of Alyssa's work. Again, when I admittedly don't know her work, really. So I was just going on how the questioner summarized some of her conclusions. I'm like, yeah, if that's true pretty sure I didn't say people need to be a PhD scholar for me to view them as credible or to have them on the podcast. Let me just look at several of my last guests. Doug Smith, no PhD. Alex Awad, no PhD. Josh Porter, no PhD. John Tyson, no PhD. Mike Erie, no PhD. Lucas Pauly, no PhD. I mean, so these are all, I'm just going down the line here.

Josie Sprinkle, no PhD. Lou Phillips, no PhD. My wife, no PhD. So the last time I had a PhD on was October 20th. As of November 28th, it's been over a month since I had a PhD. That was Dr. Lynn Kohik. Tony Scarcella, no PhD. Then I did have a couple of PhDs on October 13th. Patrick Miller, Keith Simon, no PhD. Dr. Dan Wallace, PhD. So anyway, all that to say, yeah, I demonstrably,

I do not require a PhD scholar to be a guest on the show at all. Absolutely. I don't think somebody needs to have like a PhD to be a respectable thinker in my eyes. If I remember correctly, what I think I said was, I think I used a broader phrase like in my quick Googling, it didn't seem like Alyssa had like theological credentials might be the phrase I use. That should have been the phrase I use, maybe like a master's level in theology or at least something like that. And even if I made that critique, I hope I would have said, or I'll say it now, even that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not a good theological thinker. So I'm going to, if I did assume or say that somebody needs even a master's in theology to be a good theological thinker, that isn't necessarily true. Again, several people that I listed on just who have been on my podcast, I think are great thinkers.

And some of them don't even have a master's degree in theology. Would I consider having her on? I would consider having her on. Like I would need to be more familiar with her work and be interested in having her on. I would consider having her on. I would need to be more familiar with her work and be interested in having her on. I would need to find her thought interesting to have her on, but I have no theoretical reasons why I wouldn't have her on.

John Stonestreet's a friend. I love John. He's a super brilliant thinker, and he's got a good taste in cigars too, by the way. We've been hunting and fishing together, so yeah, I would have John stone street on a heartbeat. And I've had, I mean, it sounds like, so you're, if I'm reading between the lines here,

it sounds like Alyssa and John maybe are more on the conservative side of things. Would I have more conservative side people on? I feel like I do, but, but yeah, I try, I try to have people,

a range of theological perspectives on within historic orthodoxy, I guess. So yeah. So let's see. Yeah. So again, sorry if I said something that was maybe condescending or dismissive of somebody's work. Next question, Whitney Jean. You say, we just decorated our church for Christmas, which is medium great. I never know how I want to feel about it.

What do you think about Christmas trees in the church sanctuary? It's nice and sparkly and festive, but the closeted hyper-traditionalist in me gets bent when I see secular decorations in sacred space. Or are Christmas trees sacred? I have no idea. It seems like there are articles allying them with paganism and other articles praising their Christian origins. Varying input is welcome from the Patreon community. Yeah, I would love for my other patrons to chime in on this question. I don't know the origins of the Christmas tree. I'm almost positive. It doesn't have Christian origins, but I,

um, I remember Googling this a while back and I forgot what I found, but, um, I'm, so I'm not an expert. I would say I'm not a huge fan nor a huge critic. In other words,

like if a church had Christmas trees in the sanctuary, I'm not going to raise a big stink about it. Um, if they had like American flag in the sanctuary, that's where I'd be maybe more critical. Maybe I should be more critical of the Christmas tree. But I'm also, if they chose not to have a Christmas tree, I'm not going to say, where's the doggone Christmas tree?

We need to put these in the sanctuary. I wouldn't do that either. I guess maybe I'm just so used to churches drinking too deeply from secular culture when it comes to these holidays that I'm just kind of used to it, that it doesn't really bother me anymore too much. But yeah, I wish there was more. I mean, sure, I would want more biblical memorabilia, maybe a dragon. Give me some Revelation 12 and 13 Christmas themes. Dragons and serpents and women giving birth and escaping to the desert. kids in Bethlehem or, you know, like I, yeah, I, I personally, I'm always a fan of let's, let's, let's use symbols and art to wrench American Christians from our complacency, from our nice

and easy Christianity. So yeah, sure. I would, um, be a huge fan of using Christmas trees for firewood and getting a couple of dragons up there and, you know, um, Michael, the archangel, you know, wrestling the dragon behind the state or something like that, you know, Michael the archangel, you know, wrestling the dragon behind the state or something like that, you know? Yeah. Next question, Luke. 2 Timothy 2.8-15, does the historical context of this letter being written specifically to Timothy as opposed to an entire church change how we interpret Paul's message?

Okay. So yeah, 1 Timothy written to an individual, Titus written to an individual, Philemon written to an individual. The fact that these aren't written to churches, well, specifically, I guess, 1 Timothy 2, 18, 8 to 15. I don't think so. It is written to Timothy, but it's how Timothy is to establish leaders and how those leaders should lead the church in Ephesus. So the fact that it's addressed to a leader of a church, not the church as a whole, I think at the end of the day, I don't think it's, I don't think that means that because it's addressed to an individual, it's, it's less applicable to the whole church. Now you do kind of hint at, and I think I'm going to address this. Maybe I'll address it in the Patreon podcast, but

all letters, all New Testament letters do run the tension of being situational. Like there's a specific historical situational context that's being addressed. And yet that situational letter has been included in the canon of scripture because it is applicable to the church as a whole. And so all New Testament letters at least have this tension. The one that has the least amount of tension in this area is the book of Ephesians, the letter to the Ephesian church, because it is a circular letter. Ephesians doesn't seem to be focused on one kind of specific church situation.

It is kind of the kind of universal vision for God's plan for the church as a whole. Sometimes Romans is viewed as a less situational letter, but Romans, once you get towards the end of the letter, Romans 9 to 11 or 14 to 15, you begin to see, oh, there's definitely some stuff going on in Rome that Paul's seeking to address. So yeah, I mean, all letters are situational and And yet, they're also canonical. They're in the Canada scripture. So when James 1.27 says, you know, true and undefiled religion is caring for the orphans and widows in their distress and keeping oneself unstained by the world or however it goes, that's also in a situational letter. And yet, we would all

agree that that has universal kind of application. Now, there are some things in these situational letters that might be limited to the specific situation that's being addressed. And this is where I think what you're ultimately getting at is 1 Timothy 2.8 until verse 15. You know, this women shall not teach or exercise authority over man. Is that something that is Paul's saying only to the local Ephesian context in the first century, or is that meant to be a sort of global statement for all churches of all time? That's a complex question that I'm not going to address here because I don't have it all worked out in my head, but I don't think we can say since it's addressed to an individual, namely Timothy, therefore this passage itself is only for that individual in that individual situation. Maybe, but the fact that it's addressed to an individual, I don't think proves that necessarily. Next question, Amy. I was telling some friends about your view of hell and how deeply you researched it. And

one said that view sounds dangerous. I think the fear of a lifetime of torment makes many people become believers in Jesus Christ. What would you say to that? I've got a lot of sense. First of all, I think all Christianian doctrine is dangerous it's not dangerous if it's safe then it's probably not sound um so i don't that critique doesn't really uh stick i you know and i've heard this before you know well you know eternal conscious torment is a more compelling gospel you know turn to j, otherwise he's going to torment you forever and ever. Sounds pretty severe versus if you don't turn to Jesus, then he's just going to kill you. In some people's minds, that sounds less severe. To me, that sounds pretty eerie as

well. But for me, I don't determine the veracity of a doctrinal claim based on whether I think it's dangerous or not dangerous or more compelling or less compelling. I base it on whether or not it has the more compelling biblical evidence in favor of it. So that's what I'm always going to come back to. We should first ask, is it biblical? always going to come back to. We should first ask, is it biblical? Does the text of scripture in all its diverse expressions, in all the different places that it talks about the afterlife for non-believers and all the places it talks about hell or some kind of punishment for unbelievers, what is the best exegetical reading of those texts. That's the primary ultimate thing we need to ask. Not, well, this, if it's, if it's, if this doctrine is true,

then, and then you start kind of speculating on the utility of that theological conclusion. Yeah. So, so, so to me, the utility of the theological conclusion, whether ECT would be a more effective evangelistic tool is almost an irrelevant question to me. I would also, but since we're on it, I would wonder whether that, just even the way it's worded here, if you're summarizing your friend accurately, the fear of lifetime of torment makes many people believers in Jesus.

What kind of belief is that going to cultivate? First of all. And second of all, in the Bible, the threat of hell is almost always spoken to religious people who thought they were in. I think in every case, let me just be safe. In almost every case, at the very least, when Jesus talked about hell, it was to Jewish people who thought they were in. In the book of Acts, you don't see a lot of apostles running around the Greco-Roman world threatening eternal conscious torment or just hell to pagans to get them to believe in Jesus. That doesn't seem to be... The New Testament itself

doesn't use the doctrine of hell in that manner as some sort of like evangelistic tool. It's more of a warning to those who think that they're in, at least in how the doctrine is used. So yeah, just the idea of threatening people know, um, threatening people with lifetime of torment, making people believe in Jesus. I just, even that whole idea I've got biblical problems with. Next question, Charlene, um, pushing back on my answer to the question about an question that came up last month is, uh, you know, from, I forgot, was it from you, Charlene or somebody else?

Anyway, the question was, you know, I learned about an elderly couple that I thought was married, but in fact was not married, and they're both living together. Is this okay? And I answered pretty strongly that no, I don't think this is okay. So you say, Charlene, yes, you do think that they need to be married in order to have a sexual relationship together. So you're agreeing with what I said. However, do you think it's ethical to get, quote, Christian married without being, quote, married in Babylon? For example, what if this couple wanted to devote their lives to each other, each other in a covenantal Christian marriage, but still needed the pension payments and other benefits in order to survive? Since let's assume neither one can

physically work. What are your thoughts on this? Yeah, I think I'm all for that. I would love to hear the counter argument, but if somebody is, quote, getting Christian married, like they are publicly committing to each other in a way that the church is going to hold them accountable, then yeah, I think that that's fine. I don't think they need the state. I don't think they need Babylon to recognize that necessarily. Marriage is a Christian institution. It's a theological thing that's happening that the state happens to recognize, but the main thing is the Christian thing going on. So yeah, and yeah. And I'm, I'm all for almost said sticking it to Babylon, but I, I, that's not a good phrase. Um, I would, I would

think that's fine personally, but they have to, but again, they have to be married in, in, in the Christian sense. And I don't even like that. The idea of like, I do think there is a public communal aspect of marriage. So I don't think just a private commitment, like late at night, one night, they're like, hey, I'm going to be committed to you. Okay, I'm going to be committed to you. I do think that there needs to be some kind of public communal act demonstrating this commitment to each other in the community. So I'm going to, and then you have, there's some other patrons here who commented on this

question. A lot of people kind of were agreeing with the pushback here. But again, I don't hear a lot of pushback, Charlene, because you said you agree with how I responded to the actual question before, which was about an old couple that weren't – they weren't married is how the question was framed. That's what I was responding to. But could they just engage – oh, Ryan also chimes in here. Yeah, with kind of the same thought that, you know, could they not engage in a Christian marriage without being recognized by the state? Yeah. Barring some unforeseen evidence to the contrary, I think that would be perfectly fine. Next question, Kanan.

The common belief that most Acts 29 churches hold is that elder and pastor are the same office position. Is that elder and pastor are the same officer position. And therefore, the title pastor is reserved for qualified men. Other churches, some Acts 29 others not, hold to a more nuanced view. For example, Bridgetown in Oklahoma City, which is Act 29, and Bridgetown, or sorry, no, Bridgeway in Oklahoma City with Sam Storms,

which is Act 29, and Bridgetown in Portland, not Act 29, that's the one John Mark Comer founded, have 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, qualified men as elders, but believe that qualified men or women can hold the title of pastor. And they are not elders, overseers, but more like leading deacons. What are my thoughts on this? I do think there is good evidence that the biblical term pastor is synonymous with elder. And let me footnote this for a second. There's

only one passage that I'm aware of where the noun pastor is applied to a Christian leader. Ephesians 4.11, Paul says Christ himself gave the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and the pastors and teachers to do the work of the ministry, to equip the body for ministry and so on and so forth. This is the only place the noun pastor, poiema, I think it is, that's applied as a title or title slash office to a leader in the Christian church. So we don't have a lot to go on. And this verse, Ephesians 4.11, doesn't say these pastors, teachers, and there's something with the grammar here where pastor, teacher could be correlated. So it's kind of one office, not two different ones, pastors and also teachers, but pastor, teachers. I think the grammar is a little complicated, but could be referring to pastor slash teachers here.

They're not explicit. So the only passage where we have the noun pastor used to apply to a Christian leader doesn't explicitly say that these are also the same thing as elders or overseers. However, two other passages are relevant. In Acts 20, verse 17, it says that Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. And then a few verses later in verse 28, he tells the elders that he's talking to, to keep watch over yourselves and all the flock, which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. And then he commands them to shepherd the church of God. That's a verb, okay?

I think it is. The NIV makes it sound like a noun, like be shepherds of the church of God. That's a verb, okay? I think it is. The NIV makes it sound like a noun, like be shepherds of the church of God. Pretty sure that's not. Yeah. So here, the elders are also called overseers and they're described as shepherding, pastoring, the same word, the flock of God. So here, pastor is not a title or an office or a noun. It's an activity, a description of the activity of the elders. The same thing in 1 Peter 5, where Peter says, you know, to the elders among you, shepherd, again, verb, God's flock that is under your care. So again, and again, so shepherd is the word pastor here. So, the verbal form of pastoring is applied to elders. So, that's kind of, oh, and 1 Peter 5 does also use the term pastor in the noun, but it's applying to Jesus.

Verse 4, when the chief shepherd or chief pastor appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. So, these are really the three main, most relevant passages to your question about whether an elder is also a pastor. In as much as the verb pastoring is applied to elders, seems to be a correlation there. But honestly, I mean, a lot of modern day churches use titles like director or youth leader or whatever. Like we kind of use our own titles today that aren't necessarily drawn straight from the New Testament. And so I don't know if a church,

I'm a fan of staying as close to the biblical text as possible. So I would probably lean more, let's see, toward most Acts 29 churches saying that elders and pastors are one in the same. Bridgeway and Bridgetown where you have male only elders, but women pastors. To me, it's kind of just a terminological thing. I would probably prefer calling, if they believe that only men can be elders, but women can be preachers and teachers, then I would probably use the language of maybe preacher and teacher or use the language of prophet if you want to do that. I lean towards elders and pastors being more or less synonymous in the New Testament, so that pastors are elders, elders are pastors. Elders are clearly in the New Testament the ones pastoring the church. Next question. How many more do we got here? Oh, last one. Okay, last question.

Jonathan wanted to get my take on some Anabaptist and Mennonite groups that literally believe women need to cover their head, their hair with a piece of cloth or lace per 1 Corinthians 11. Was that Paul's intent that women cover their hair or was that just directed to the Corinthian church? Great question. One of the toughest passages in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 11 is riddled with exegetical hurdles. That's not actually the best metaphor. Like we're supposed to leap over these hurdles. Exegetical difficulties, problems, questions, tensions throughout 1 Corinthians 11. And I have just so you know, I have not studied thoroughly 1 Corinthians 11 yet. So my answer here is going to be hold it with a grain of salt. I will say, actually,

I need to bring this up. I need to bring this up. Mike Winger, who is a popular YouTuber, podcaster, I mentioned Mike and his work on the women in leadership question. And he's been doing a lot of work on this in his podcast slash YouTube channel. And I was somewhat critical of some things he said. So this goes back a month ago when I addressed this on the last Q&A podcast, where I was critical of, I think, the one hour I had listened to Mike up to that point, where I thought he was somewhat sloppy in how he addressed the question of Phoebe being a letter carrier and I think some other things that I felt like he wasn't very thorough or well-versed in. Since then, I've actually listened to a few more hours of his podcast. I found it really interesting and informative.

I found it really interesting and informative. And in fact, Mike has a, he released a, okay, you ready for this? A six hour long episode on 1 Corinthians 11. Six, a six hour podcast. Some of you are thinking my podcast is getting a little long here. I'm up to about an hour and a half. He did six and a half hours, over six hours on 1 Corinthians 11. It is incredibly thorough, you guys. So hats off to Mike for being incredibly thorough with the scholarly questions that arise from 1 Corinthians 11. So I repent and dust and ashes if my previous comment about Mike made

it sound like he's simply doing sloppy, shoddy scholarly work. Um, I still, I mean, I, I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion on first Corinthians 11. I don't know because I don't know what my conclusion is. And I will say some of the stuff on gender stereotypes at the end of the podcast were a little cringy in my opinion. And I would want him to revisit some of that. But in terms of like getting his arms around a whole host of scholarly questions that arise from the text in 1 Corinthians 11, from the little I know, I'm like, man, he really seemed to exhaust a lot of, if not all of the issues that come from this passage. So all that to say, toward the end of that six hour long podcast, Mike, he wrestled with

this question of head coverings for today. And I thought he did a good job on that. And I liked that he didn't just immediately just dismiss head coverings like, ah, it's cultural. People shouldn't be doing that. He's like, wait, let's just let's think through this. Like, ah, it's cultural. People shouldn't be doing that. Like, he's like, wait, let's just, let's think through this. Why do we say it's cultural? It's rooted in creation.

Like, I love, I really appreciate the fact that he kind of really wrestled with the question rather than just dismissing it. There is a question in 1 Corinthians 11, whether Paul's even talking about head coverings, veils, or just women having long hair in that passage. So there's a question about whether head coverings is even a thing in that passage. I do think from the little I know already that he is talking about head coverings or veils. I don't think that distinction matters a whole lot. The head coverings does seem to be tied up with certain cultural practices of that day. So as I understand it, now, again, fact check me on this. I'm going off of books I've read that

I don't have in front of me. But as far as I know, in the Greco-Roman world, married women, especially higher status married women, would wear a veil, would cover their head as a symbol that they're married. While women who were single or even just sexually available, including prostitutes, slave women, I think, I think would be included in this. Again, in fact, check me on that. They wouldn't veil. So the veil or head covering said a lot about your sexual availability and or your status. And to throw a wrench into that whole thing, you had in that era, and this is drawn on the work of Bruce Winter, whose chapter on 1 Corinthians 11 is really provocative. Really provocative. really provocative, really provocative. Bruce Winters, Roman wives, Roman widows,

the appearance of the new women in the Pauline communities. His chapter on 1 Corinthians 11, I thought was excellent, really good. So you have in that era, the so-called new Roman women who are married wealthy women who didn't veil, who are bucking up against this kind of patriarchal system. And some of them were even engaging in adultery and were kind of being sexually promiscuous and so on and so forth. And so he had a lot of cultural symbolism invested in veils slash head coverings. And so Paul, rather than playing that game, who's married, who's sexually available, who's being promiscuous, who's poor, who's rich, just said, look, everyone veil. All the women in the communities to wear a head covering so we don't have this kind of class slash sexual available distinction in the churches. Again, that's at least Bruce Winter's reading of the passage and other people.

I think that so far, that's the most compelling to me. But all that to say, it does seem that Paul is saying what he's saying because this is a first century cult, that veils slash head coverings have a meaning, a cultural meaning in the first century that they don't have in every culture today. So in summary, if Christians are in a culture that have similar meanings of head coverings and veils and so on and so forth, then yeah, I think that there could be some rich applicability of this passage to Christians living in that kind of culture. But if a culture doesn't, like the Western American culture, North American culture, doesn't view head coverings and veils the same way, then I don't think Paul's words would carry

the same applicability for today. That's my running thoughts on that. I could shift on that. And again, there's a lot more reading I need to do on this passage. Thank y'all for your amazing questions. And again, if you want to join the Patreon community, patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. And I look forward to addressing your questions on next month's Patreon-only podcast. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.