Theology in the Raw - S2 Ep1119: The (Im)morality of Birth Control and Potential Problems with Adoption: Dr. Matthew Lee Anderson

Episode Date: October 12, 2023

Matthew Lee Anderson is an Assistant Research Professor of Ethics and Theology at Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion and the Associate Director of Baylor in Washington. He is an Associate Fellow at the McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Life at Oxford University, where he completed a D.Phil. in Christian Ethics. His latest book is Called into Questions: Cultivating the Love of Learning Within the Life of Faith. In this podcast conversation, Matthew makes his case against birth control and raises some questions about certain kinds of adoption.  Learn more about Matthew from his website: https://matthewleeanderson.com If you would like to support Theology in the Raw, please visit patreon.com/theologyintheraw for more information!

Hey friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. My guest today is Dr. Matthew Lee Anderson, who is an assistant research professor of ethics and theology at Baylor University. He received his doctorate from Oxford University in Christian ethics. He's the author of a couple of books. His most recent book is Called Into Questions, Cultivating the Love of Learning Within the Life of Faith. We were going to get to that book, but we didn't because we got caught up in kind of a back and

forth conversation around the relationship between sex and procreation and well, in contraceptives and also his, um, how do I say it? His unorthodox views on adoption. So if you, um, need a need a podcast to agree with you, then this one is not for you. If you don't mind being challenged with some questions that you might find disagreeable, if not offensive, then you can go ahead and keep listening. So please welcome to the show for the first time you've been on the Elgin Raw I'm really embarrassed if it is it is it is the first time but I think I'm a rookie I think that's your doing though I'm pretty sure I've asked you before no you have never once asked me no this is not true I think I think you might have mentioned it in person when I saw you.

You might have been like, I should have you on sometime. And I said, I'm around. I'm not doing much. You can call me. But, you know, you're a hard date. You're a hard date to get. I do apologize. And I don't put myself out there.

Okay, yeah, yeah. I feel like you may check your dms or something i'm almost positive or maybe it was maybe it's what led to this conversation so either way you're here that is what matters yeah i'm right it's just bank on this i've in part because i've been harboring resentment against you for how long have you been doing this are you going on like eight years 2014 i started it was a radio show. I think it became an official podcast, I think, early 2015. Golly, that's a long time.

Yeah, I think Mere Fidelity was going before you. But we're not nearly as famous as you are because we don't do it as consistently, and we're not as organized. And you're like a real podcaster, and we're just sort of people who fake it. Wait, you guys, you've been doing it since what? 2014, 2013. Yeah, I think so. I think we're on year nine. I think it might've been, yeah, we're approaching year 10. I think you don't do it consistently. What do you do like a couple of times a month or just whatever? Yeah, we get a couple of times a month in, um, there's four of us and we're tough to, it's really tough organizing

schedules for us. It's a nightmare. So yeah, we're just not as consistent. That's my excuse for why our audience isn't as large as yours, Preston. Your podcast is awesome. I love how honest you guys are. Well, we need to have you back on. Yeah, I would love to come back on. Yeah, it's been a while. Not that I think of it.

I think we talked about nonviolence last time I was on, right? Yeah, all your very wrong opinions about that. That's right. I was so glad to have Andrew Wilson on my side on that because he was able to

point out where you're wrong. He's changed. He's, you know, like I, I think he's at this point probably fully come around to my position, recognize my rightness, not only in that respect, but in many other respects as well. He was just on the podcast. He said, well, he did references in the past tense that we were on the same page. So maybe he's, uh, I think you and I would probably be very similar if we got down to it. I think when it comes to – and we don't need to talk about this. Yeah, I didn't want to go this – I'm not prepared to talk about this. I'm always prepared to talk about your wrong opinions, Preston.

I'm always prepared to talk about your wrong opinions. I, I, we would both agree. I think that the, the general tenor of the Christian faith should be one of nonviolence. So when people think of Christianity, they should immediately think, Oh,

that's the religion that loves their enemy. That's the whatever, not, you know, but if somebody breaks into the door, the ax murder comes in as a last resort, I might use via like, you know,

but Christianity has a reputation of being profoundly militaristic. And I think that is just cuts against the grain of the gospel. Do you agree with that or no? How can you disagree with that? I agree with all that, except I'm honestly not sure about the reputation claim. I'd have to think through whether Christianity does have that sort of reputation and why it has that reputation and whether that reputation is warranted, because it seems to me entirely unwarranted. I think, I guess it depends on who we're asking about Christianity. I think if you go outside the US, because when they think of Christianity,

it's so intertwined with right-wing politics in America. Like I think a lot of people outside the US, when they think of Christianity, they think it's just so intertwined with like American politics. I mean, that's pretty, I mean, I'm going anecdotally, but I can think of like 10 different countries I've been to where that's definitely the case. You talk about Christianity,

immediately you start talking about politics, it seems like. I love anecdotal. It's my favorite form of argument. I'm sure I could find data to back up my anecdotes. I'm sure you could. I'm sure you could. Okay. I don't want to talk about me. I don't talk about my views that you don't yet agree with. okay. So I do at some point in this conversation, I want to talk about your book, uh, called into, into questions, cultivating the love of learning within the life of faith. How's that for advertisement? Just kind of, that's great. I appreciate the subtitle. Um, if we don't talk about it, then people just have to buy it and

read it, which is better. That's the point of these things, right? So I do want to get to it, but you, what I love about what I want, well, what I love about hearing you speak, Matt, is that you're incredibly honest. And sometimes I wonder, are you trying to get canceled or are you like, like you're not, I mean, I don't think you provoke simply to provoke, you know, there's some people that are just provocateurs that just, they just get off on Like, you're not, I mean, I don't think you provoke simply to provoke. You know, there's some people that are just provocateurs that just, they just get off on just saying the part out loud that is going to rile people up. I don't see that motivation in you. And yet you do end up having that effect on some people. So I'm curious.

Okay, here's my question. So we didn't plan this from our audience. We actually, offline, we're like where do what direction you want to go we're like you know i don't even know let's just start talking and see where it goes what what uh i'm curious if you don't mind what would be the top three or five we'll just start with number one things that you have said or believe that that um can or will or might get you canceled? What are some of your most unorthodox maybe or unpopular hot takes that you are really passionate about but maybe many other people are not? Yeah, that's a great question.

What I get canceled for is going to depend on who I'm talking to. Okay. So one thing that I have experienced in this world is I have opinions that are unpopular in basically whatever room I go into. And I tend to bring to the surface the unpopular opinions for that particular room. So that's kind of as a caveat. Not, I hope, as you say, to be a provocateur, but because I was convinced pretty early on by a couple of claims. One of which is that there are lots of ways in which say secular progressives are going awry in this world. Like there's lots of ways in which I think they're wrong on matters of sexuality, on abortion,

on big hot button issues. I think, you know, in general, if you're thinking about a secular progressive, there's lots of ways I think they're wrong. And that makes me unpopular in those sorts of rooms, though unpopular in ways that we'd all be familiar with. But I also became convinced that in order to speak honestly and courageously and with confidence about those issues, I needed to see the ways in which my own communities was also implicated in them and understand how my own community has contributed to the rise of certain ideologies outside of the church.

And to be honest about that in the rooms that I have been in with my own peers, because I have wanted to not just tell the truth, but to tell in one respect, the whole truth about things. And I think if you do that, then you invariably put yourself in a situation where you're going to be unpopular with people on your own side. And some of this is like, we make decisions, you know, you do this, right? Like we make decisions about how we're going to make arguments in public and what sort of issues we're going to take up. going to make arguments in public and what sort of issues we're going to take up. And when I was just starting out, I remember thinking about my dad and being in the eighth grade and having someone tell me about my dad. So a third party in talking to me about my dad say, Oh, I re I really like

your dad. He just calls him as he sees him. Like he just, he just calls him as he sees him. And I really liked that. I really respect that about your dad. And I remember thinking that as an eighth grader and thinking, oh, I've never heard anyone say that about my dad before. I don't know what my dad is like behind closed doors where he's going into meetings with people. And the fact that my dad had that sort of reputation was to me really honorable. And the sort of thing that I thought as I started writing, like at the end of the day, like when I die,

I kind of would like to be known as someone who called him like I see him, regardless of who I think is implicated, regardless of who's offended about that, not for the sake of offending people, but because I really love the truth and I really love my friends and love my own side and want my own side to live into the fullness of the truth. And I want to live into the fullness of the truth. And so that's been my MO in terms of picking up issues and what I end up saying and what I don't end up saying, or at least that's what I've tried to do. You know, you would do that more or less

consistently. And, you know, to, to claim that that's, I've always had that sort of lofty, pure motivation would be giving myself far too much credit. Calling it like you see it. I agree that that can be noble if it's thought out. Cause I know some people that have that kind of personality, but it's like, they just have these opinions that are just not well thought out. They just like, and they have a personality type too. They just kind of like being offensive, you know? And that's, I'm not super impressed with that, but if somebody has a, a, a well thought out opinion about something, um, that, and they don't self censure censor,

you know, where they're like scared, somebody is going to get upset if they say something that's true, then I can, I think that's more respectable real quick though. You said, I mean, you've, you've, you've referred to kind of like your, your tribe, your circle, whatever. How, how would you describe that? What is your tribe, your circle that you might uh sometimes offend because you are you know critical of it and i want to get to some maybe i'm not sure i have one anymore to be i mean to be perfectly honest like i genuinely don't know that i have one anymore because i've taken stands that have alienated me from lots of rooms or communities. And I think that I now have a reputation as something of a firebrand who's unreliable. And so, for instance, communities or groups

that I am highly sympathetic with, like the Gospel Coalition or groups like that, they don't call me very much to do things. That used to be your, that used to be more or less your, your general tribe ish. Would you say a gospel? That's broad enough. It's not necessarily Baptist. It's not necessarily, it's kind of reformed ish Baptist ish, you know, but it's, it's kind of an umbrella tribe if you will. Um, so that's what you came out of or were kicked out of. I, they haven't kicked me out. It's not clear that they view me as a reliable partner in the sort of work that they're doing.

Okay. Which, you know, that's fine. That's having to do with prudential and strategic decisions that I've made. You know, like the crew of folks at Mere Orthodoxy, which I founded, continue to be a sort of traveling company who are willing to put up with my own idiosyncratic views. I'd mark it as a deep kind of frustration with conservative evangelicalism for some of the ways in which we're entangled in the ideologies of the world

that many conservative evangelicals are comfortable denouncing as long as they remain outside of evangelical circles. Can you give an example? Can you give some concrete examples or one example, like what you're talking about? Yeah. I mean, I like in my own sort of, right. Yeah. I didn't give you any of my most controversial opinions. We'll get there. So'll get there. But I mean, to give you one that makes me really popular, I really think in vitro fertilization and evangelicalism's complicity in certain forms of reproductive technologies and ways of preventing children is really problematic, right? To use a nice, safe, vague term. I think it's wrong, actually. And the reality is that- Wait, all birth control? Certain forms of birth

control? All forms of birth control? Yeah. So I think at this point, I'm opposed to contraception, but we could pick more permanent forms of birth control. Things like tubal ligations and vasectomies, the massive expansion of vasectomies within evangelical circles among men is just astonishing to me. Like I write about these things, so I'm a weird sample set, but the number of people, and here's some anecdata, right? The number of people who have come up to me, number of guys who have come up to me and volunteered that they've had a vasectomy is just really bizarre. And these are people in evangelical context, in leadership at churches, et cetera. And I think like, I look at the expansion of vasectomies entirely uncritical within evangelical circles. And I think, gosh, what are we doing here?

I think we're taking a biological system that's functioning and we're breaking it. And we're breaking it for the sake of attaining some kind of social end where a couple does not want to have another child. They could avoid a child in lots of other ways. They could be permanently abstinence from having sex, but they want that good, that very intensely pleasurable good, and they want to avoid the dangers of or costs of having a child as they see them. So they effectively mutilate their bodies. Now, if you frame it that way, it starts to sound a lot like what people are doing when it comes to gender affirming care and trans surgeries, right? But the mainstream evangelical world is full of people who are willing to denounce all of that and to write books and

give talks and make a lot of money about that. While in the meantime, the people who are paying for those talks and consuming all that content and being very excited about that particular cultural battle are engaging in a practice that is framed that way. Not so different, right? Like we're implicated in this sort of broader understanding of sex in the human body. But to say the one makes you, well, it means you don't get invited back. Okay. So what about out of, say the mother, say you've had a few kids and the pregnancies have gotten increasingly more difficult on the mother, say you've had a few kids and the pregnancies have gotten increasingly more difficult on the mother. Maybe not life-threatening, but extremely difficult. In that case, would you still see it as just as morally wrong for the guy to get a vasectomy? Or would you say

there's either, or would you say like, yeah, you should stop having sex then because sex is for procreation and a procreation, another kid is going to possibly really harm the, the, the, the wife then don't have sex or other forms of other forms of contraceptive. What would you say? Yeah. I mean, those sorts of cases are really hard and And I recognize that there's a disproportionate burden on women when it comes to procreation, right? Like we have to acknowledge the asymmetrical burden that women have vis-a-vis men. But I am fascinated by the difficulty with which evangelical couples have in imagining not having sex. Like, I don't think that sex is only for procreation.

I really don't. I think there's a unit of good. I think there's, you know, like, there's pleasure, right? Like, there are lots of reasons why it's good to have sexual activity. If God wanted sex to be only for the purpose of procreation, I don't think he would have built in a time when a male and a female could have sex without procreating, right? Like there's a time that is built into our bodies,

into the female body, when she's able to receive the man and not conceive a child. And so if you even look at it from that standpoint, you think like, well, it's very clearly the case that sex cannot be only for the sake of procreation. Um, but it's impossible for many evangelical couples to imagine not having sex again. And that inability to imagine that is to me intertwined with the deep inability to imagine what it's like to live as a single person. So I'm interested in married couples cultivating the virtue of chastity within their unions. And that means in part, a regular identification with those who are called the celibacy by abstaining from sexual activity. And sometimes that might even be a heroic calling where they're called obligated to abstain

from sexual activity for a long period of time for reasons of danger, et cetera. Like that can happen. And that can happen within a marriage. And that's okay. That's the burden that we're placing on single people. That's what we're calling single people to as a church. So why are we not also comfortable calling married people to that on a regular basis?

I think if you ask that sort of question, you start thinking, well, maybe it's because we have a culture of marriage where sexual activity is regarded as essential, as necessary, as idolatrous as the broader society around us. We just haven't owned it within our own communities. And that allows us to have these very loud, very critical stances towards what's happening in the society around us without taking seriously the realities and the dynamics within our own communities. Like I said, I'm very popular. People invite me to parties all the time. The anti-sex guy. But in your own logic, so yeah, I guess I don't think you've answered the question. Since you said sex is designed in part for procreation, we might even say ultimately for procreation, but clearly it's not just for, there's other goods in the marital sex act.

engage in that sex act while preventing procreation if procreation could end up harming the woman in particular? There might be space for engaging in that sex act while avoiding procreation, but not necessarily preventing, right? There's two different moral choices there. There's a choice to abstain and there's a choice to stop or prevent. And I think that those are very different moral choices. The choice to prevent procreation while engaging in sex splits the will in two directions. On the one hand, you say, we're open to life, right? Like just to say what standard, what evangelicals will often say, we're open to life in this broader way. We're just making a choice to prevent life if it's conceived through this act or if it might be conceived through this act. I think that that essentially creates a dichotomy within the will. It ruptures the will. It means

there's an attempt to both will X and not X at the same time. And that's a sign that you're engaged in some sort of moral rationalization, that you actually have a type of moral wrong that you're trying to excuse. And it just seems like a contradiction within our practical reasoning to affirm we're open to life and we're also just taking steps to prevent it, where we don't want life to occur is what we're open to life and we're also just taking steps to prevent it where like we don't want life to occur is what we're saying and we don't it's not only that we don't want life to occur it's that we want to engage in this sexual act without it bringing about life right versus saying we don't want life to occur which means we're not going to engage in the sexual act. So I think abstention is a, it's a different moral position than prevention. And I

think that gets lost on a lot of people. But what I, yeah, I hear that. I guess what if someone said I'm not open to, or I, yeah, I'm open to life. I have four kids, five kids, six kids. We have plenty of life. And my wife is now in her late thirties, early forties, and she can still have a kid, but it might not be, it might be really like extra hard on her body. Might, might not even be just healthy for her to have a kid. So no, I'm not, I'm, I want to continue to engage in a sex act. We both want to, um, but we are not open. We want to cut off the possibility to the best that we can of life happening while still engaging in the sex act. Would you say that that's a morally wrong decision to make?

Yeah. If one is taking, making choices to prevent conception from happening. Yeah. I think that is morally wrong. I think the, the issue with respect to you. That's an unpopular view, man. I don't agree with that, but that's fine. This isn't even my most unpopular view.

Let me make it clear. We're just getting warmed up. I actually lean, and my audience knows this. I've talked about it quite a bit. I lean a lot more over the last, I would say, three or four years, a lot more Catholic on the question. So I 100% agree that we have really just absorbed a secular perspective that has just completely separated sex from procreation. In fact, I would even say if a couple wants to get married and does not want to have kids, biological kids, and there's no like health

reasons. It's just kind of like, yeah, we just don't want kids. I would question, I would, I would, I won't be as strong as you are. I think I would say, well, the burden of the theological burden of proof rests on you to convince me that you are called to marriage and not called to have kids because I think those two go hand in hand. Marriage is designed for the procreation of children, the rearing of children. Now, through the fall, through whatever, there's all kinds of things that might complicate that. Infertility is an obvious one. Maybe there's certain health issues or whatever, but if they just willingly say, we do want to get married, we do not want to have kids. We are going to engage in sex.

I would, again, say that defend that theologically for me, you know, rather than just assume that that's obviously totally fine, you know? Um, so I'm with you on that, but I still, I don't know. I, because of procreation, not being the only, I would even say it's the primary purpose of the sex act. I mean, it's etched into the whole biological function of sex. I mean, it's like God's screaming. I just, this is a procreative act, you know? Um, but yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm kind of going to let you respond. I understand all that.

It seems to me that, and I don't actually don't, I really don't think that those who have objected to contraception have done a good job at all of making the arguments for why. I think it's mostly the arguments against contraception are very bad. It seems to me that one central issue, the arguments against contraception are very bad. It seems to me that one central issue, and do we take time seriously within our sexual lives and honor the fact that within the structure of creation, it seems like there is a time to conceive and a time to not conceive. And that one can engage in sexual acts during a time in which conception is possible and, you know, have a chance of conceiving. And one can conceive

in sexual or engage in sexual acts in a time when conception is almost certainly, but not necessarily certainly, not possible. And it seems to me that honoring the time of our bodily life is crucial to engaging in chastity as a virtue, right? So those are the ways in which I really want to think about it. Am I honoring the time that is built into our bodies? And if I don't want children conforming my sexual life to the time that God has instilled into creation, much as we would with work in the Sabbath. And to what extent within that am I being put into a situation where my own desires are having to be formed in such a way that I possess my vessel in restraint and honor, to use Paul's language? To what extent is my sexual life being conformed such that I have to identify with those who are celibate and see taste in a very limited,

partial way, the sort of self-denial that celibate or single people are called to every day for their whole lives, right? Like thinking about abstention from sex within marriage in those sorts of ways takes the anti-contraception position and turns it into a way of thinking about what marital chastity is. What are the goods that this allows for? of affectionate physical contact that are very, very important, not only as a precursor for sex, but in their own right, right? Like if it is the case that you can't hex, well, that doesn't mean you don't have to touch each other, right? It means that you can engage in forms of touch that are intimate and appropriate, but not aimed at cultivating sexual desire to lead to orgasm. And many marriages that I have seen don't have those forms of touch

within them because once those forms of touch emerge within them, the thought on both sides is, where's this heading? Now, that's a great thought, right? That's a lot of fun. But actually, it's very good to cultivate other forms of intimacy within a marriage. It makes a marriage more thicker, more robust. And so I think that we have to be able to imagine. What I really want to drive home is we have to be able to imagine we are calling single people to a robust, thick, great life without sexual activity. We have to be able to imagine that good even within our marriages because if we can't, we're putting a demand or a burden or a cross on single people that they're going to be incapable of caring because the majority of people in the church are living in such a way that they are giving into their sexual desires whenever they have them. And they're contraceptive

and they're engaging in those practices in such a way to both permit and make possible their fulfillment of their sexual desires whenever and however they want within marriage. And as long as that's the case, then the sort of burdens and crosses we're going to ask single people to take up within the church are going to just seem much heavier and much less reasonable. So these are the ways in which I like set aside, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm wrong, but I want to ask this sort of question to help Christian communities think more deeply about the types of burdens we're placing on married and single people and how married people can participate in those

sorts of goods. That, so you're, I mean, you've, you've, you keep bringing it back to single people and their calling, which I think, I mean, I, there's, there's a lot of, I mean, a decent number of celibate gay people listening to this. They're probably cheering, cheering you on. Like they've never cheered on a podcast guest before to have a heterosexual married man, uh, be so concerned about the

people committed to, uh, celibacy. That's that's, um, yeah, you're, you're winning some, some fans here. What do you do with the first Corinthians seven?? You know I'm going to go there, right, obviously. I mean, Paul says, you know, for the sake of prayer, yes, abstain, but don't deprive one another. And he's not even talking about procreation there. I mean, I think whenever a first century Jewish writer is talking about sex and marriage, procreation is just, I think, it's in the air. It's assumed, right? Because I mean, so I don't think he needs to bring in procreation, but he does seem to be thinking about sex

for pleasure there, which again, you're saying is a good of marital sex. It's not a bad, it's not an arbitrary add-on. You're shaking your head. What are you disagreeing with? Yeah, I just don't think that Paul is thinking about marital pleasure there at all. I think there's lots of, yeah, the deprivation of one another is an obligation to give oneself to another as a gift. I mean, he never says that you can demand it. And in, is it 1 Corinthians 10, when he talks about money, he uses similar sort of authority language. He says like, I could, I could claim this, but I'm not going to, I want you to give, right? So the emphasis on, in 1 Corinthians 7 is on giving each other like self-giving but like better to marry than burn whatever that means it's not clear to me that that means sexual passion it's also the

case that it almost it almost certainly means sexual passion okay sure fine but the only time in that passage where the language of needs gets invoked or necessity gets invoked in first Corinthians seven, it very clearly has to do with procreation, right? The only time. So if you look at the evangelical marriage culture, sex culture, you have something like his needs, her needs, right? bestselling book, just hugely popular. And what's one of his needs? Well, sexual activity. I think that that is the most repugnant ideology. It's demonic. And the fact that I got two copies of that book as wedding gifts. I don't remember who gave me those wedding gifts, but I genuinely think that ideology is fundamentally demonic. The only time when one needs to have sex is if one is trying to conceive, in which case there is a discrete period of time in which you

have to engage in intercourse. Otherwise you are not going to conceive, right? That's the only place where genuine necessity comes to bear. The rest of it is you just like, you don't get what you want, but not getting what you want, raising that to the level of, I have a need here is itself, again, the move on which like single people are going to flounder. We're asking single people to say like, you don't get what you want and be okay with it. Right. We were asking those who are trans to say, you don't get what you want. You want to be viewed as the other sex. Sorry, you don't.

Those sorts of psychological wants, needs, I think they are important. I don't want to hear you say or hear me say that I'm minimizing them. They are important, but they are not needs in the way that I think 1 Corinthians 7 talks about needs. in the way that I think 1 Corinthians 7 talks about needs. And don't even get me started on the virgins. The ESV's translation of 1 Corinthians 7 is abominable. It's just abominable. It's just a disaster. Which verse are you talking about?

The whole chapter? Oh, the cannot control themselves. Oh, oh, oh. So, yeah, I have a chapter control themselves. Oh, Oh, Oh. So I, I, yeah, I have a chapter on this in my book that came out. Um,

which you obviously haven't read. Um, I just got owned. I haven't read your book that I'm advertising either. So, um, yeah, to,

um, to the, this is verse eight. I think this is what you're talking about to the unmarried and the widows, which if he says widows, like those are females, the unmarried are likely probably men whose wives have died as well. He's probably talking about people who were married, but there's been death to the spouse. It is good for them to stay unmarried as I do, but if they cannot control themselves, the translation should be, but if they are not controlling themselves, this is something Danny Trawak, who just wrote a great book on singleness, pointed out that most likely

what we're dealing with here are people who were once married. And I think according to Roman law, you had to get remarried within two to three years or something. Anybody who was widowed, it would be almost certain they would very quickly get remarried again. And people can fact check me on that. I remember reading on the Roman law stuff. Don't do your own work there. But there was something like what Paul's talking about is two people who are basically betrothed. They're going to get married, but they're out having sex. And Paul says, if you are not controlling themselves, you obviously are not.

You are engaging in sexual activity. Then you need to get married. Stop withholding marriage because you're going to get married anyway. That's in the cards here. He's not talking about just any single person who has a really strong sex drive or something. Well, if you have a strong, you might as well go get married. That's just not what's going on here. But it's just not obvious to me that what's at stake here is primarily a sex drive in that sense. So in 1 Timothy 5, right? In 1 Timothy 5, Paul enjoins the widows to, young widows to get remarried and have children. But what he's worried

about there is, seems to be an interest in luxury. So you can imagine young widows who were left a lot of money by their husbands and who become worldly in a proper sense where their attachments to wealth and to leisure, etc. drive them away from the faith very, very slowly. And that seems to be his concern there. It's very plausibly that something similar is going on in the background here. But I will just say, I was thinking verse 25, when Paul starts talking about in the ESV, it's now concerning the betrothed. That translation is abominable. There's just no justification anywhere. The ESV says to the, now about the betrothed in verse 25, it doesn't say virgins. It does not say virgins.

The ESV says betrothed. And what it does is it takes all of Paul's, all of Paul's exhortations about what to do with these version virgins and sexualizes them by making all of those instructions to young men who are seeking to do something with their virgins, who are burning with passion, et cetera, or with their betrothed, rather. It sexualizes them when, in fact, they're virgins who are almost certainly under parental control because that's what paternal control specifically,

because that's how things were arranged. And so even within the ESV's reading of 1 Corinthians 7, it sexualizes 1 Corinthians 7 in just a way that I have no patience for. But this is, from my standpoint, how it reads this passage is indicative of the way in which How it reads this passage is indicative of the way in which we contemporary readers of the New Testament are inclined to sexualize all sorts of things that Paul does not sexualize. Right. The first Timothy five is very similar. Right. When Paul mentions the young widows and wants them to procreate that really fascinating passage is like, get married,

have babies, and become the lords of your house, right? Or the masters of your house, which if you think about the gender dimensions of that is just fascinating because in the parables, you get the sort of masters of the house and they're all men, right? And it's a sort of like paterfamilias type position, the head of the household. And Paul directs young widows, young widows to get married and then become the heads of their house. It's just a wild line. But within that, he's got this line about their passions. And we hear that as in this sexualized way. But Paul, I think, is very clearly, like the Vulgate translates that line as luxury. And I think Paul definitely has in mind something like luxuria, this attachment to status, wealth, leisure, et cetera, which disappears from our conception of marriage and the reasoning behind it. But in fact, I will just say, if you move that sort of stuff to the

foreground, what you get is a more practical, more applicable doctrine of marriage for young people today for whom status considerations in marriage are often very close to the forefront, right? Like it's not just what guy you find or what girl you find who you are attracted to. It's how much money is in their paycheck or, you know, like bank account. And so like status considerations, they're everywhere today. We haven't escaped it, but we don't think about it when reading some of these passages. This episode is sponsored by Athletic Greens, now called AG1. Okay, so I try to eat as healthy as I can, except on pizza night and Taco Tuesday, but it's almost impossible to get all the nutrients that your body actually needs

without taking some kind of nutritional supplement. And I've tried many supplements over the years from like traditional vitamins to green powders. And I found AG1 to be the best nutritional supplement. It's packed with 75 high quality vitamins, minerals, and whole food sourced ingredients, which just saturates you with the whole body nutrition that it needs. It supports your overall gut health, which is very important for your overall

body health. It aids in digestion. It improves your immune system, your mood, energy, mental clarity, and it actually tastes good. Like it's not too sweet, but it has just enough flavor to make it go down, you know, easy. Like I actually look forward to drinking it. I've been taking AG1 now for over a year and I could truly notice the difference. I have more sustained energy throughout the day. Like I don't need that third cup of coffee at two in the afternoon. I don't need a nap anymore.

I experienced more mental clarity. I can live with the peace of mind that my body is getting all the nutrition that it needs and I can truly notice the difference. So what I do is I typically take a serving first thing in the morning, right before my coffee. And if I'm feeling particularly run down or stressed out, or if I didn't sleep well, or if I'm traveling a lot and needing tons of junk that I shouldn't be eating, I'll sometimes take another serving in the afternoon and I can honestly notice the difference in my health. So if you want to take

ownership of your health, try AG1 and get a free one-year supply of vitamin D and five free AG1 travel packs with your first purchase. Go to drinkag1.com forward slash T-I-T-R. That's drinkag1.com forward slash T-I-T-R. Check it out. Hey friends, it's Chris Sprinkle here. Preston and I are always looking for ways to come alongside and help empower vulnerable people. And that's why I'm so excited to tell you about Noonday Collection. I learned about Noonday Collection several months ago and have been so impressed by its heart and mission behind it. It partners with artisans in 15 different countries by creating dignified jobs and employment opportunities for people in

vulnerable communities. And because of their fair wages and their dignified work, women are leaving prostitution and children are receiving an education and families are even staying together. Our friend Jessica Honiger, she started Noonday Collection over 13 years ago because she wanted to help empower women around the globe to find a way for sustainable living and freedom. She's gone around the world looking for unrecognized talented artisans and created a business partnership with them. So if you're looking for high-quality jewelry, clothing, and accessories,

and you care about empowering vulnerable women, come shop with Noonday Collection. All the products are high quality, handcrafted, and honestly, they are incredibly beautiful. If you're needing an accessory for yourself or you need a gift for a friend, consider purchasing it at Noonday. By doing so, you are making a difference in the world's most vulnerable communities. Go to chrissprinkle.noondaycollection.com. That is chrissprinkle.noondaycollection.com. Lots to chew on here.

So going in 1 Timothy 5.14, so the NIV says, you know, the, these young widows should marry, have children. And then it says to manage their homes. But the Greek word there is Oikodespoten. Um, yeah. Despot. Like the, that's what you're hinting at, right? It's not just managing your household. It's ruling over you, right? That word oikodespoten is master of the house, right? It's master of the house. It's a discrete, it's a technical term. And it shows up in a, so it's the verb form there,

but in the gospels, it shows up in a noun form. When it talks about like in the gospels, it shows up in a noun form. When it talks about like in the parables, the master of the house getting ready for the return of the slave, right? And the master of the house goes running. There's all sorts of parables in Luke, I think it is Matthew, where that term shows up in a noun form.

And like first Timothy is often criticizes a book of the Bible that's really bad for women. And I understand those types of anxieties that I don't agree with them, but here's, here's a moment in first Timothy where I think Paul is like very fascinatingly subverting certain norms and certain expectations around what women what women's roles should be first Timothy five is fascinating there's a lot going on there it's wild are you egalitarian I don't know no no no I mean in the sense in the sense... I'm not looking for a confession. It kind of feels like it. I was just curious. Like, yeah, what angle?

Well, I mean, like, so no, I'm not. I don't think that women should be pastors, priests. I think I'm good with women in the diaconate, but I don't think the diaconate should be like necessarily a pipeline to priesthood or the pastor. I think it should be an independent vocation. I think women are called to it

and should be supported in that sort of ministry. But I think there are limits there. Okay. I didn't bring you on to that. I was just curious because... All those people who liked me before, all those people who liked me before, all those people who liked me before that you are mentioning have Dave just jumped off.

Oh, there's a lot of farewell. I think my audience is going to have a lot of whiplash whether they like you or not. Now, honestly, most people that listen to this podcast consistently, they like a good, honest, thought-provoking conversation. They're not trying to, what's that? And I get, you know, I feel like if you look at my reviews,

they're all either five stars or one star. And the one star is always like, you didn't fit my tribe, you know? Like, you, you. I mean, they're the most entertaining. I love, love reading the one-star reviews. They're so, so entertaining. They're hilarious. But it does come down to either me or my

guests didn't agree with them on something, you know, like, uh, but most people, most people just want to engage a good, thoughtful conversation, which is what we're doing. So, but real quick, becoming again, I'm going to keep tabs here. I don't think you answered my question about when I, when I referenced first Corinthians seven, I meant the early part where it's like, do not deprive one another of sexual activity, except for prayer, you know, which I don't know if anybody ever does that, you know,

honey, we're not gonna have sex for weeks. We're going to pray a lot together. Anyway, that seems to be what Paul's talking about. But then he says, but don't, don't like come back together.

Like what was the whole point of this? Wait, I brought up first Corinthians seven out of, in response to something you said earlier. And I forgot what it was now that having sex. Oh, I think you were going to say that I was right about everything and that we were going to move on. Never. Um, uh, that, that sex within marriage isn't just for procreation is I think what I was responding to. It seems that Paul here says you should do not deprive one another of sex. And he doesn't say so that you can make sure you keep procreating. Like it seems to be sexual urges that he's talking about because he does talk about like temptation, right? Like,

you know, sexual immorality is out there, but each one has, you know, their own wife and husband and everything, and therefore don't deprive one another seems to be talking about satisfying sexual urges within marriage. At least that's how the passage is traditionally read. Do you disagree with that reading? Not, not traditionally. I think that's a pretty contemporary reading of it. My, sorry, I'm, I'm looking up things that I've said on this. I was not, I did not come prepared to class. I'm looking up things that I've said on this. I did not come prepared to class.

So, no, look, I don't think that, well, for one, the agreement for a limited time, if you want to avoid children, guess what you have every month, right? You have an opportunity every month to deprive yourself for a limited time in which you would turn your hearts and minds together as a couple directly towards God. My point is that there are ways of avoiding children and giving to each other that are built in to our bodies that we can honor without engaging in the preventative techniques of contraception. And once you take the step of, so you can abide by all of this commandment, you can, and avoid children and giving, like give to each other the full due, right? Paul doesn't say when we have a right to claim that due. In fact, we don't have a right to claim that do. We have authority over each other's bodies, but that authority is not one that, again, grounds a claim on the other that you can make that obligates them to give, right? make that obligates them to give, right? The authority is only an authority to ask and receive and that's it. And again, I'd point to, I think it's 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul uses the same

language with respect to money. So I guess from my standpoint, a lot hangs on the fact that you can abide by this commandment in its fullness, by this form in its fullness, by honoring your flesh as God has created it without contraception. And contraception comes with a lowered, like it diminishes the formation of chastity for the couple and it creates a contradiction in the will. And it creates a contradiction in the will in this way in which you're saying, I want sexual activity that is ordered towards children and would put us at risk of children while saying no to children, saying no to the very biological realities that are built into this process. And that contradiction in the will, I think, is a deep moral problem. I don't, how's a contradiction in the will if there are multiple goods within sex? I mean, and not every sex act needs to be aimed at accomplishing all three goods of sex. So we already said, you know, pleasure, unitive, and procreation. So it doesn't need to be aimed at all three,

but it can't block one of the three, right? It can't say no to one of the three while simultaneously saying yes to the other two. I mean, that's an assertion. The three are integrated and they're integrated for a reason, right? Like they come together for some type of reason. And the contradiction comes when we say, I want these two goods, but I'm saying no in this act to this other good. I don't know. Yeah. What about, I mean, like you said, built in, well, okay. That's going to, that's going to agree with your argument. I was going to say built into the very... I was going to say it.

I was going to say built into the very... Go on. Biology is times when you engage in sex, but procreation is... Absolutely. Is very, very, very unlikely. Like that is built... Sex during pregnancy, sex in old age, sex, you know... Yep.

At most times of the month when, when the woman is not ovulating. Um, so honoring time, honoring time is what we are called to do as creatures. God created us as in, you know, beings who are in time and he created time with a particular type of structure and form. It's not just an abstract, empty sort of void, right? If you look at the time of creation, there's seven days, right? Like Ecclesiastes, the union in male and female, there's a question about whether we are going to honor time and the times when we could conceive or not conceive, or whether we are going to, through technology, rest that time into our own hands to control and possess the time and to claim goods for ourselves in seasons when God did not necessarily want us to have them, because that's not the seasons that God made us to live in at that time. So you're saying-

No, sorry. I'm just soapboxing over here. I'm soapboxing. So it's the deliberate block. So if somebody says, you know what, we are going to avoid all sexual activity when my wife is ovulating because we don't want to have kids. You would, you would say that's actually okay. That's, that's, that would be okay because you're not deliberately preventing, but you, you are, but you are, you're, well, are you, I mean, you're, you're, you're, you're deliberately to abstain. You're choosing to, but you are on the positives.

You are choosing to have sexual activity without wanting it to result in procreation. You're saying that would be within the bounds because you're absolutely, you're honoring the biological rhythms that God is whatever wired into us, but it's a deliberate, it's contraceptive. I mean, it's a big,

this is the standard Catholic position, right? Why the official position, nobody abides by it. I think it's said better than the Catholics. How could it be better? I mean, is that, is what you're articulating the basic Catholic position? Actually, I mean, my frustration is that, and I, and for what I swear that I've run this past a couple of Catholic bioethics, bioethicists, and they've told me that they've not heard it put quite this way before. Okay. Right. But I think like it's,

it's superior in the sense that honoring time is constitutive of our creatureliness. And if you do a theological anthropology and you think about what it means to be human and what it means to be human in time and what it means to honor, not only biology in some abstract sense, where if I engage in this act, then there's a probability that the sperm will unite with the egg and we'll have an embryo, et cetera, et cetera. But if you think about sex as a participation in God's rhythm of creation and honor that,

and you mediate your sex life through thinking about the disclosure of God's creation through time, then all of a sudden you start to think like, oh, why is it the case that there is a time when we could engage in sex, but not conceive of children? Well, the answer to that question is because God loves the unitive dimension of sex and wants us to enjoy that in the time when it's appropriate for us to enjoy that. You think like, well, why is there a time when if we engage in unitive sex, we might have children? Well, because God loves children and loves the procreative end of sex and wants us to honor that. And if I have sex in the time when I cannot conceive of child, I'm still honoring the procreative end precisely by recognizing it as so valuable and so good that I'm not going to try to

have the unitive end without it. I'm just going to honor God's decision to order my sexual life by saying, here's the time in which I'm going to engage in the unitive dimension. Now, you have to have this sort of stance because there are certain people, while fertility-based awareness methods have become much more accurate, right? The old jokes about natural family planning, meaning you're going to get another kid, they just don't apply anymore. Fertility-based awareness methods are much more successful at helping couples avoid conception, if that's the vocation that God has put on them at that point. Is that true? That was my one push, not pushback, but just maybe note is,

kind of the joke, what do you call two people who engage in family planning, you know, parents of 12 kids, you know, like you're saying that that's not actually, is there data? It's not, it's not the case anymore, right? Like the Pope Pius or Pope Paul VI Institute, uh, in Omaha, I think it is like the Creighton model, it's like 99% successful at helping a couple avoid conception. Now that 1% matters a lot, right? Like I don't want to diminish that. And I've had friends who have engaged in this who have had children out of that 1%, and it's been extremely difficult. So I don't want to minimize that in the slightest. But the idea that it's going to be like 70% successful or 80% successful,

that's just not the case anymore. Right? So here's the other thing about- Contraceptive isn't 100% either. Yeah, that's right. So one last point on this, right? Like these sorts of methods, what they require is mutual responsibility, right? So if you think about many methods of avoiding or preventing conception, like the pill, whose responsibility is it? Well, the burden almost invariably falls disproportionately on the woman. Now, people are trying to change that. They're trying to develop contraceptives for males.

And you have condoms, of course. But rarely is there sort of mutual responsibility and knowledge of the rhythms of a female's body, right? be aware of what time it is and what's possible within the marital union given what time it is and what they should be directing their attention and their energies towards. And so I think the whole framework is meant to order a marriage towards not satisfying their own desires whenever they want, but ordering a marriage towards God in the first instance and towards a life of fruitfulness and the fruitfulness of chastity in a really robust way. And I think actually, like, you know, contraception, it just, it undermines all of that. Takes it all away. This is not my most unpopular opinion. I just want to say.

I don't find, I don't, I mean, honestly, I don't yet totally agree, but that's a scholar supposed to say that, right? I don't, I don't, I'm not quite, um, but no, you, you've given us a lot, I mean, a lot to think about and your, I think it's a, it's a theologically coherent argument for sure. Biologically coherent as well. I don't know why it would be unpopped. Like why, why would people be upset? Cause they can just disagree. So you know what, Matt? Yeah. I don't know. But why would, why would people be like upset at it? Like, I, I don't know. It's because it's like, I know it's because they would feel like, what?

So you think I'm insane or what you think or whatever, but I don't. Yeah. There, there might be some of that. I mean, I do recognize the asymmetrical burdens here and the real dangers and hazards of pregnancy for women. And it sounds like what I'm saying is don't take that seriously. Have babies whenever you want. And that's not what I'm saying. And if I came across that way, I really don't intend to.

So that's one of it. I mean, within theological circles, it's astonishing to me that contraception, I mean, you keep calling it the Catholic view, the no contraception standpoint, as though- It was a Christian view before 1960, right? Yeah, that's right. It's astonishing to me that the pro-contraception position has been elevated to a mark of Protestant identity, as though to be a Protestant is somehow to have an affirming stance towards contraception. And I think people start worrying like, oh, is that guy going to become Catholic? What's he think about? But I say, this is why I say it's not my most unpopular view. Okay. Well, all right. Since you threw me the carrot. I'm just beating you. No, we shouldn't do this. Oh, no, no. You got time? I got a few more minutes. What's your

most unpopular view? Well, again, it's, it's, it's context specific. I mean, the in vitro stuff is really unpopular, like objecting to in vitro. That makes me. So you, you believe in vitro is no good. Yeah. I don't do it.

And I've written on that. So you can go see that stuff. Okay. At first things in the gospel coalition. And then, okay. Um, is it a form of abortion?

Is that your argument or what's the, no, no, it's not. In fact, my, yeah, my worry is that...

Oh, no. Sorry, sorry. I was confusing it with something else. People are like, abortion? What in the world? Oh, right. Well, that is mostly if evangelicals are opposed to in vitro fertilization, the death of embryos is about the beginning and end of the reasons to oppose it.

And I think that doesn't go nearly far enough. I think there's, if contraception is going to allow sex without babies, in vitro fertilization creates a world where we can have babies without sex. And I think that in the positive realm, making human life without sex is really wrong. Um, and that brings with it a host of issues, um, and, and their own questions, but I'm pretty in print on that. No, I actually, I actually have really like cranky thoughts about adoption. Okay. Oh, this is when I've, when I've said them in public rooms have generated a fair amount of ire. Are you not pro-adoption? Do I dare put you on the spot?

Do you dare? I don't know. Do you? Are you sure? Yeah, go for it. I'm curious now. What's your views on that? I mean, I think that in many cases, I think adoption is much more morally complicated than evangelicals have presented it. I think this is starting to change, but changing too slowly.

I think there's lots of contexts where the first and primary priority of the church's witness on these things should be the establishment or the restoration and primary priority of the church's witness on these things should be the establishment or the restoration and the support of the child's relationship with most likely his mother. And if that's not the case, then his father. And if that's also not the case, then with some biological parent or biological relative. And that adoption as a practice of the church needs to be ironically or paradoxically ordered towards supporting, maintaining, and helping those bonds, those biological bonds thrive.

Here's a question that I will leave for people who are thinking about adoption. Here's a question that I will leave for people who are thinking about adoption. What does the couple who's seeking to adopt a child owe to the birth mother? What do they owe to the birth mother? And if it's the case that a birth mother is placing her child for adoption because, say, she doesn't have the financial resources to raise the child. Why is it the case that it's right and appropriate to spend, I don't know, $40,000, which is what an adoption can cost in this country? Why is it right and appropriate to spend $40,000 to adopt a child rather than using that $40,000 to pay rent for that mother and child for, I don't know, it's a lot of years, right? $40,000

goes a long ways towards paying rent. Why is it not the case that a couple who's seeking to adopt is imagining adopting the mother and the child together as a part of their household. Why do we think about the family so much rather than the restoration or the expansion of the Christian household, which has marriage at the center of it, right? Some gay Christians are going to be mad at me for saying that, but I think unequivocally Christian household has to have marriage at the center. I don't think the fictive family, I understand why people have gone in for that, but I think a Christian household needs to honor marriage. But within that, I think there's all sorts of ways in which other types of bonds can be folded into that sort of household.

And the imagination within evangelical context around adoption is not very broad, right? There's actually a weird asymmetry between the pro-life movement and the adoption movement, and that the pro-life movement has invested a lot in trying to foreground the life of the mother, right? This is one of the things that's really shifted over the last decade is we've talked about sort of two people who matter in adoption, or excuse me, in abortion, right? The embryo matters, but the mother matters. We've got to support the mother. When it comes to adoption, to adoption, we have almost exclusively focused on what we owe the child and have not thought seriously or substantively about what we owe the birth moms in these cases. And I think if we did

that, then there are lots of cases. We might have to reconceive our adoption practices domestically from the ground up. Would you not? I mean, there's exceptions to that, right? I mean, what if it's like a very unsafe environment, household filled with drugs or whatever? And like, it's just, it would be extremely unhealthy, if not unsafe for the child to be raised there and say the mother. And I think you would say, well, let's try to fix that.

But let's just say you can't, like you, there's not much to be done in that case. Would you're saying? Yeah, this is where I think you would say, well, let's try to fix that. But let's just say you can't. There's not much to be done. In that case, you're saying – Yeah, this is where I think – I hear you saying that maybe there's several other steps that should be addressed before we just adopt. That's what I'm hearing you say, but not that there couldn't be like a last or later resort where, okay, this is – in a broken world, this is the best of the options is to adopt the child and not. Yeah. I think, I think, I think there are, there are cases where adoption is right and appropriate. Um, my impression is that those are actually much fewer than people

would recognize and that the adoption institutions are not ordered towards helping people escape their difficult situations or circumstances, but are ordered towards rescuing the children from those difficult circumstances and are not ordered towards helping, you know, let's just name it, mostly white, middle, upper middle class families get involved in those mostly working-class families' lives in such a way that the middle-class families would be agents of helping the working-class families improve their circumstances, right? Now, there's all sorts of degrees of difficulty of that. I'm well aware of the types of hazards and I don't think that you could they could conceive of doing so because they feel so trapped by their unsafe living circumstances, by their desperate want of money, et cetera, right?

Like, you know, if those are the trying to rescue the children from those circumstances. I was, you'll, you'll appreciate this. I was in, um, uh, Zambia. Gosh, when was this? Almost 10 years ago, maybe even longer. Yeah. About 10, maybe 10, 10, 11 years ago. I remember sitting down with a bunch of African pastors and I, and I asked the question, I go, how do you, it's that question I don't hear a lot of people ask. I said, how do you guys feel about American families adopting African kids and bringing them, you know, over to America and raising them? And they said, oh, you know, no, no problem. Like, yeah, that's, we, we, we love, you know, that they're helping out and, you know, we have a lot of needs and everything. And I said, well, what if that same family, instead of adopting a child, basically funded some biological family member to care for the child? Like if they would actually get – if they just gave the $40,000 or whatever to help – because typically it's for financial reasons, right? That the kid – in most cases, um, and they kind of looked at me like, am I allowed to answer?

Honestly, it's kind of the look on their face. And they said, well, yeah, of course that'd be better, but who would ever do that? You know, I didn't know. I just kind of saw it. I just, I, and I, even now I don't know, you know, I mean, well, here, here's where my thinking has really shifted is I, I, and this is not even disputed among sociologists that orphanages are not good. Like, um, that, that, that, yeah. And I've had a couple of guests on that, that were in orphanage ministry for 10 years. And then they kind of, the light came on. They're like, what are we doing? Like 90 plus percent of orphans have at least one living parent. Um, and the ones that don't have other family members, it's almost always because of financial hardship that they're not caring for the child and, and orphanages, there's just all

layers and layers and layers and layers of, uh, well-documented problems when a kid is raised in an orphanage, when there are other better solutions. There's a great organization called One Million Home that is aimed at basically taking kids out of orphanages and putting them in the families that they do have, that do exist. And I know a couple of friends that were heavily involved in the orphanage ministries that tell me story after story of some of the, I mean, the abuse, the commercial, the fact that you can raise a lot of money for an orphanage, but it's hard to raise money for the families that care for their kids.

And it becomes this industry almost, you know? And anyway, so that's my, well, I would say unpopular position, but it's only unpopular among american christians haven't thought about it i mean you talk to any missionary on the field and they're like well yeah this is just this has been well known among all the studies that have been done on this for decades i mean it's not but that's why i guess my question is that it's not totally unrelated to because if it is adoption keeping from orphanages keeping orphanages going?

Is it part of... And I've had that question. I don't know the answer to that, honestly. But I think it's a question that we should wrestle with at least. It absolutely is. I mean, international adoption has so many difficulties, such that my line has more or less become the forms of adoption that I'm most comfortable with internationally are special needs children.

Like in many countries, if a child has special needs, then they are just thrown to the curb. But the degree of difficulty of adopting a special needs child domestically or internationally, much less internationally internationally is just enormously high. And mostly people, I don't want to be too cynical, but in a lot of cases, you know, people are seeking to adopt a child because they have an interest in, well, if you listen to adoption ministries who are trying to get people to adopt, they're looking for people who want to complete their family, so-called. And I think that that sort of rationale is not a very good one when it comes to adoption. And the ways in which adoption ministries have targeted couples is, you know, I get beat up a lot because I'm

willing to say that there is still something like an idolatry of the family within context. And I get beat up because Gen Z, you know, young millennial evangelicals aren't getting married at all. And I understand why it looks like we don't have an idolatry of the family. But I think we had an idolatry of the family and it let a generation down. They became very disappointed. And are we surprised that people are turning against the idols, that the next generation down would reject the idols of their parents? It doesn't surprise me. And I think that some of the ways in which our adoption institutions or culture has gone on are intertwined with all of this.

Adoption out of foster care is its own set of questions, and I'm much more favorable towards it. I think it's a much more... I was going to bring that up. If you feel somebody's already in the foster care system, 100% it's better for them to be in a family. We can talk about systemic issues all day long. It's like, well, we need to address the systemic issues that got the kid there in the first place. Amen. And amen. Meanwhile, this kid is in the foster care system. And yeah, that's right. So, but if you look at, you know, the percentages of people who adopt out

of the foster care system, it's pretty low, right? Like adopt the numbers of children in the foster care system haven't meaningfully gone down in the last 15 years since the evangelical adoption movement has exploded. Um, at least that's my understanding. Um, so, you know, which, which is, which is a problem. Um, but this is where I, like, I, you know, I is a problem. But this is where, like, you know, I'm not trying to make myself unpopular. I'm really not. And I'm really open to being wrong on this. These are the sorts of questions

that I really want people to ask so that we can see the extent to which we as a community are implicated in the kinds of ideologies, in the kinds of deeply morally problematic frameworks that we are denouncing on a regular basis when they appear in non-evangelical contexts, right? Like it's very easy to scapegoat the other side. And I understand, I have no, like, I think progressive, seculars, et cetera, are doing lots of things that are really bad. It's very easy to do that and very tempting to do that without having internal integrity and discipline and maintaining norms within our own communities that are extremely painful to us to maintain because we haven't maintained them for 20, 30 years.

for 20, 30 years. And I think until we recognize the full scope of our own complicity in some of this stuff, we just won't be able to talk to a culture in such a way that it sounds like what we have to say to them is good news, right? Because we've acknowledged our own complicity in this. And so we can say, we too are culpable. Here's some mercy, right? But the line that has shaped my thinking more than any other line, I think, over the last decade is from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, right? We do pray for mercy. And those same prayers teach us all to render the deeds of mercy. same prayers teach us all to render the deeds of mercy. Like it's, it's, if you start there by examining your own community, our own complicity as individuals and people, what you realize is we pray for mercy and that teaches us to render deeds of mercy to those who are outside of our

communities who might be carrying disproportionate burdens or might be engaging in grave moral wrongs because they have a bad story about who we are as a community. And that's not a recipe for a tribe. Dude, that's a good place to end. And thank you for being honest. I mean, it just doesn't... I'm just not wired. I don't get it. But it's one thing to have a viewpoint that people disagree with. Maybe they even find it offensive, but to be like upset because you have asked hard questions, that just shouldn't be. So hopefully not too many people are upset, even if they don't agree with the word that you said in the last hour and 15 minutes. Yeah. But again, we should all agree at the very least you've given us a lot of really, you've raised some really, really hard questions that have a lot of thought behind it. So yeah,

that's what I'm trying to do. The burden is on us to wrestle with it. And if we disagree, you have good reasons to disagree. So Matthew, I got to run, but a great talking to you. I got to have you back on.

Maybe, maybe hopefully it won't be another eight years before I have you. I got to have you back on. Maybe, hopefully it won't be another eight years before I have you on again. That's right. Do you know, like every four years or something? We didn't get your book, but the book is again, called Into Questions, Cultivating the Love of Learning Within the Life of Faith. I mean, I'm going to assume that the nature of this book is similar to the nature of how you've even gone about this whole conversation, asking hard questions, being okay with that. Is that right or no? Yeah, that's right. It's a theological ethics of questioning. I want people not just to ask questions, but to really question well and to question in conformity with the gospel and

understand that certain questions are dangerous to ask and difficult to ask and maybe certain questions we shouldn't ask. Um, and to wrestle with that in terms of questions. So that's, that's the sales pitch, um, available everywhere.

October 3rd. Awesome. Thanks, Matt. Appreciate you, man. Yeah. Thank you. this show is part of the converge podcast network