Theology in the Raw - S8 Ep878: Seminary, CRT, Gender Identity Change, and the Myth(?) of Adam and Eve

Episode Date: June 24, 2021

My patreon supporters sent in a ton of questions for me to respond to, so I decided to respond to them publicly! Some really complex questions here.  If you want to join the Theology in the Raw community, head over to patreon.com/theologyintheraw Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. I have on the show today, me. I got no guest on today's show. And that's not because I couldn't find a guest. I actually have lots of guest interviews lined up, but I wanted to get old school for this show. And what I mean by that, as some of you might know, is that in the beginning, when Preston created Theology in the Raw, Theology in the Raw was formless and void of other guests. I don't know how far I'm going to take this. Okay. So in the beginning, what I used to do in Theology in the Raw is simply answer a bunch of questions that y'all sent in and you would email my wife, uh, Chris Sprinkle, who's not my brother. She's my wife. She goes by Chris. Her name's Christine, but she goes by Chris

and I would wake up, comb through your questions and respond to your questions as best I could on the podcast. That started to get a little overwhelming. My wife wake up to dozens and dozens and dozens of emails and I couldn't get to them all. So then I was kind of selective and then that continued to get more overwhelming. And so I started to limit my Q and a podcast and started to have more conversations with various people and guests and writers and thinkers and friends and enemies and all of the above. And honestly, I just started to really fall in love with having conversations with people. And it seems like the majority of you guys did too. It seems like the podcast has really grown quite a bit in terms of people listening since I've been doing kind of nonstop

interviews with other people. Anyway, I still do Q&A podcasts on my Patreon platform. If you've listened to the show for more than a week, you've probably heard me say that I have a Patreon platform where people can support the show and they get access to the Patreon community of Theology in a Raw. So patreon.com forward slash Theology in a Raw. That's where you can go. All the info is in the show notes and you can support the show for as little as five bucks a month and get access to premium content. And part of that premium content is our once a month podcasts that are Q and a podcast where my patron supporters send in their questions and I do my best to respond to them. Okay. So that's all backstory for today's

show. Today I am going to respond to a fistful of questions that I have from my Patreon supporters. They sent in a bunch of questions. I responded to a lot of them on the Patreon platform. So most of my responses are hidden behind a support wall, but I'm going to respond to some of these other questions from my Patreon supporters that I said, Hey, why don't we do one of these old school public, uh, public theology and raw Q and a podcast. So that is what we're doing today. And I have about six or seven different questions I'm going to respond to. So a massive thank you to all of my Patreon supporters and thank you for such amazing questions. I mean, a lot of times I get

questions that I'm like, I don't, I don't know. I, I, I've got nothing here. I don't know how to respond to this because this is such a difficult question or a tough question or just one that I haven't heard before. So I don't pretend like I have all of the answers to your questions, but I do my best to respond to them. So that's what we're going to do here. First question, and I'm going to leave your name anonymous just in case, you know, in a Patreon community, we use first names. It's, it's, we're, you know, there's no big deal. We can see each other publicly, but since this is, since this is outside of that kind of support wall, I'm not going to use your name. So first questioner from my Patreon community says, I feel led to study the Bible more deeply

and to minister to the sick and elderly and their families as a healthcare chaplain. It's a great calling. I'm trying to decide which seminary to attend, and I'm not sure how to evaluate my options. I currently attend a BGC church or a Converge church, which by the way, Converge churches are awesome. They're so incredible. Love you guys. But it has been suggested to me that exploring seminaries from other Christian traditions might broaden my ability to minister to a variety of different people and backgrounds.

Can you suggest any criteria I might use to select or rule out options? How did you evaluate your own educational options when you entered ministry? Thanks for your help. By the way, I live in Minneapolis. Okay. Uh, well working backwards, I didn't, I didn't evaluate my educational options. So when I became a Christian, I grabbed a shoe box full of cassette tapes that had sermons on it. And of those sermons, there was John MacArthur, Charles Stanley, Andy's dad. Um, oh, who else? Chuck Swindoll and D James Kennedy. I think those are the four, maybe some RC Sproul. That was my, that's, those were the names that I was familiar with. And of all those names, I really resonated with John MacArthur. And so, um, my church that I was going to said, oh, well, there's a school associated with John

MacArthur. I said, great. I want to go there. So I went there and after I graduated from undergrad, I said, I think I want to go to this thing called seminary. I didn't know what that meant. I just meant I get to study the Bible more. And they said, oh, well, seminary is down the street. I'm like, oh, okay. So I'll go to the seminary. I just, I literally thought seminary was like, there was one entity called seminary and it was the master seminary. I literally thought seminary was like, there was one entity called seminary and it was the master seminary. And so that's where I ended up going. So I, you know, it's like halfway through seminary, I realized that there's actually other seminaries out there. I just, I didn't. So the answer here, one of your questions, I didn't do any evaluation. I just went where I

was told. So I don't recommend that. I do recommend, you know, doing what you're doing, asking good critical questions of people who might be familiar with several seminaries and to get their advice. So how do you evaluate which seminary to go to? Recommending a seminary is kind of like recommending a church. It's hard for me to give a good recommendation until I know the person. And I'm looking at your name here and we've had interactions on the Patreon community. So I know a little bit about you just through your interactions. But I would need to really sit down and get to know you a lot more before I say, I think based on you and your journey and who you are, here are some seminaries I your journey and who you are that, you know, here's

some seminaries I could recommend. So it's kind of like churches. People say, Hey, do you recommend what church you recommend in Boise? I say, well, it depends on what you're looking for. Are you looking for a traditional church, progressive church, a big church, a small church? What kind of vibe, you know, the vibe are you looking for? Like, it's just until I know the person, it's kind of hard for me to know what church would resonate with you or which, you know, how you would resonate with the church. But here's just some basic things. I want a seminary that's going to teach me how to think, not just what to think. Okay. I want them to help me to be a critical, humble, wise thinker. I want a seminary that's going to teach me. And I'm not sure if this will

apply to you depending on what the kind of ministry you're going into. But for me, I really want to know the original languages. Like, and that's part of kind of being told or taught how to study the Bible is being taught the original languages. I know this is kind of old school now, but this is part of me that is old school. I do place a high value on, if you're a minister of God's word, you're teaching other people God's word. I do think knowing the original languages is, to me, it's very high on the priority list. I want a seminary that's going to have me engage with the best scholarship, not just scholars that the professor agrees with. Like I want them to, you know, I want to have an awareness of who are the best thinkers in Old Testament studies, New Testament studies, and in first century Judaism and ancient Near East

studies. And I want to kind of be familiar with who are the, you know, the most accomplished, the, you know, the most accomplished, wise, educated scholars in their field. And I said, this is something that I don't think I got in my experience. I remember, I mean, I didn't, I discovered who N.T. Wright was kind of just through my own reading outside of class. And I'm like, looking back, I'm like, man, you know, N.T. Wright's one of the most world-renowned New Testament scholars. And I wasn't even introduced to him in my educational experience. I had to kind of get that on my own. And it was really coming across N.T. Wright's works that wanted me to keep going on and going into, you know, further study after seminary.

Um, so I, yeah, I want, I want, I want, um, uh, yeah, I want to be, I want to get my head around who the main kind of, uh, theologians are so I can engage what, you know, is kind of a consensus on here's some thoughtful people that you should be engaging in. If you're going to be doing, you know, old Testament studies, new Testament studies, whatever. I want professors who will push back on my thinking. I want the classroom to be doing, you know, old Testament studies, new Testament studies, whatever. I want professors who will push back on my thinking. I want the classroom to be somewhat uncomfortable. Like, cause I, cause that when, yeah, I want it to be, I'm an uncomfortable in the sense of, I need to have my, if I'm going to open my mouth and say, well, I think this, or what about this? Or I want to be forced to have some, some, I'm going to be forced to be thoughtful, to have a reasoned response to, you know, if I'm hearing something from the teacher,

I'm like, well, I'm not sure I quite agree. Here's why I would want him to be able to receive my question, but also push back on my thinking. And I want to have the humility to be okay with that. Like I want, I want other students to challenge my thinking. And if, if the school is kind of a, just a large echo chamber, you're not gonna, you're not gonna get a whole lot of that. Like I would never want to be in a school where if I voiced, uh, an opinion that disagreed with another student or possibly even the teacher that that just wouldn't be allowed. Like that's not, what am I going to do? I still have a disagreement. I just keep it to myself. You know, that's not good. Like education is supposed, you're supposed to kind of be mixing it up with

other people and, and pushing back and having people push back on your thinking. I personally like schools that have healthy theological diversity on what I would consider non-essential matters, you know, well, and some of these, you might think all of these, I'm about to mention some of you might say, no, that's essential, but things like women in, in ministry or however you want to frame that views on creation views on the end times views on sign gifts. Like I want some charismatic professors. I want some non-charismatic professors, different denominational affiliations. Like, I think it's healthy to have, you know, not just every professor that goes to like a Baptist church or something. Like I, I think different denominational affiliation brings a lot of healthy diversity. So

having said all that off the top of my head, here are a few seminaries that come to mind that I, I, from what I know, I, I, I like these seminaries. Uh, first of all, you have one in your backyard, Bethel seminary, Bethel seminary. Um, I know three or four maybe of their professors and they're all fantastic. Uh, Paul Eddie, Dr. Paul Eddie is a good friend of mine. He teaches at Bethel and, oh, is he at the undergrad? Shoot, Paul, are you at the undergrad or the seminary? I forget. Bethel and, oh, is he at the undergrad? Shoot, Paul, are you at the undergrad or the seminary? I forget. Paul's amazing. I think Paul's at the undergrad. Paul's absolutely incredible. There's other professors there. I'm blanking on their names right now, but I think, you know,

especially since it's local, I think that would be a good place. It's going to have theological diversity. And some people are like, no, Bethel's too liberal. Or some people might even say, no, they're too conservative. And it's like, well, I think they have a range of professors there. And I think that can be healthy. Northern seminary is not too far away. Northern is becoming one of the premier seminaries in the country, I think. It seems like every time turn around there, they're hiring somebody that is really top notch. So they have Scott McKnight, Lynn Kohik, I think Nije Gupta and others that are just really fantastic. And they have a great hybrid kind of distance program. Like they do distance education really well. Denver Seminary, of course, I got to give a shout out to Denver. My best friend, Joey Dodson teaches there. You got Craig Blomberg and other awesome professors. They they've got healthy diversity. Like, and Joey tells me this, like,

yeah, we have different healthy, you know, we've got an array of different views and backgrounds and stuff on our seminary. And we get along really well. Like we respect each other, um, in their theological views, even if there's disagreement. Beeson Divinity School is known for having to represent many different denominations, um, which I think is super intriguing to me. Um, and so that's down in Birmingham, Alabama. I got a couple of friends there, Osvaldo Padilla and Sidney Park who are amazing. Um, and there's lots of other of friends there. Osvaldo Padilla and Sydney Park, who are amazing. And there's lots of other great professors there. Regent College in Vancouver. I've never been there. I just look at the faculty webpage and it's like, man, these are great guys. And I know

people that have gone there and they said they had a great experience. It combines the best of scholarship with spirituality, which I think is important. And I guess I should say that, you know, I want the school to not just be academically sound, but, or in challenging, but also to be weaving spiritual formation into everything that they do. Right. Talbot down in LA area, La Mirada. Talbot's great. It would be on, on, well, I almost, is it more, it would be more conservative than probably all the ones I mentioned. I think I know loads of professors at Talbot and they're all, I think are amazing, honestly. So conservative or whatever, they're awesome. They're humble. They're, I think they are very ministry oriented. So anyway, there's others I can mention. Sorry,

if you're a seminary prof or a president and I didn't mention your seminary, it wasn't for a reason. I could probably list 15 here that, you know, um, I would all really, you know, get excited about Gordon Conwell, Trinity in Deerfield. There's others. Okay. Um, okay. Next question. Um, uh, new Patreon, patron here. Excited to finally join and support you in this way. I've been listening every week ever since COVID hit. And I can honestly say this year has been a huge blessing with you and your guests in my back pocket. I wanted to ask a bit more about CRT. Here we go, folks. Forgive me if you've already covered this in other Patreon only podcasts, I will be going back and listening.

So if there is an episode that this comes up, please point me in that direction. My question is this, how do you balance the conversation between demonizing CRT or critical race theory as crazy left and dismissing it altogether like the far right? I've gone back and we listened to some of your episodes on this, but you were always still wrestling through it. So I'm wondering where have you landed now in April, 2021? You say you're working on a secular MA that will use critical feminism as a framework. So I know a lot about critical theory and I live in a right-wing town. So lots of my church friends are quote critical. I am too, but I'm finding it hard to find a firm landing ground as I learn about it at the university. I love what John Tyson said to you about it being a good diagnostic tool, but not a good solution. That was probably the most recent podcast where we talked about critical race theory, the John Tyson episode.

Also, Thabiti Anyubwale, probably two months ago, we talked about critical race theory on the podcast last fall, uh, Ed Uzinski and I talked about critical race theory and Ed is, um, he did his PhD in American studies, which is almost like a PhD in critical race theory. It just was kind of the, the, the air he breathed for five years or so. So that episode, Ed Uzinski, don't ask me to spell it. Sorry, Ed, he's got so many consonants slammed up against each other in the last night. Ed Uzinski is a good, good friend of mine and just has amazing thoughts on critical race theory. We have another episode coming out, me and Ed. is, has amazing thoughts on critical race theory. We have another episode coming out, me and Ed, it's already recorded. It should be out in, it might've already been kind of came out maybe next week or so, unless, unless it's already been released upon hearing me mention it. Um,

and we do dive into it there as well. So what do I think about critical race theory? Well, I, I, um, I never want to get over my skis on a topic. I'm not an expert on. Okay. Um, and the strength of my convictions and opinions on any topic, uh, should match the level of genuine study I've done on the topic. And by genuine study, I mean, genuine study is done by somebody who's seeking to truly understand something before they try to refute it. It prioritizes the actual proponents of the view. It doesn't just rely on its critics and supporters. Okay. So I, so all that to say, I haven't done this. I haven't read Derek Bailey or Kimberly Crenshaw or others who are kind of primary formative voices of CRT. I've had lots of conversations with people who

are familiar with CRT, people like Ezzy Zinsky, Thabiti, and others. I've listened to, I would say most, I've listened to voices outside of evangelicalism, some who are sympathetic with CRT, some who are very critical of it. On the critical side, you know, people like James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, I've, and so it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. I've not dug into these critics to get an understanding of CRT. I just happen to listen to a wide array of voices. And sometimes these voices touch on CRT or, you know, we'll like, I'll listen to James Lindsay's podcast and he'll, you know, oftentimes, you know, critique CRT. But so I'm kind of taking that with a bit of a grain of salt.

Like, I'm kind of like, oh, okay, well, if you're representing them correctly, then yeah, that that's a good critique, you know, but I don't, I don't know if you're representing them correctly. I haven't read it. I don't, I don't know. I don't know the other side. So I'm just kind of, I'm just kind of listening and, you know, and that's about it. I'm not like signing off on what these critics are saying. I'm, I'm, I have become fascinated probably with voices that, like certain black voices, that aren't necessarily religious, aren't necessarily conservative, who are very critical of CRT. So I'm a big Glenn Lowry fan. I don't know if you know the Glenn Show at the Blogging Heads

TV, Blogging Heads. I don't know what that is. It's, it's, he's got a popular podcast. He's one of the most brilliant thinkers I've ever heard. He's a professor of economics at Brown university, PhD from MIT. I'm the guy's just off the chart. Brilliant. And he's like passionately as a black man, passionately critical of CRT or John McWhorter is another brilliant black voice. Coleman Hughes, young rising star. Shelby Steele is conservative, but again, brilliant. He's over at Stanford. These are, again, black intellectuals who aren't coming at it from a religious perspective.

So like John McWhorter and Coleman Hughes, I think are atheists. Shelby, I don't know. I don't know. Shelby's religious affiliation, if he has one. Glenn Lowry, I think is a Christian, but it's not like a, like it's not, yeah, he doesn't work within like evangelical spaces. It wouldn't be his kind of like primary area. So again, and I'm not even saying I agree with them. I'm just saying it's, it's really fascinating to hear that side of how they would see, they would say collectively, like CRT actually strips black people, um, of

agency and dignity as kind of, if I can put the most broad brush summary on what they're saying, are they right? I don't, I don't know. It's an interesting point to consider. So, um, yeah. So again, I, I, if I listened to somebody, so I have not done the original work. I have not read the main proponents of CRT. I have not had the space really or time. I've got enough difficult topics on my desk right now to work through. So I don't feel the need to become an expert in every topic, even if a topic is a super important one. I'm going to let others kind of address it. And, um, yeah, so I, I, um, I, I, I, I take these kind of, you know, uh, critics with the grain of salt until I take

the time to truly look at it for myself. So, uh, so I don't know, I'll come full circle. You say, where have you landed? Well, I haven't landed because I haven't done the study yet. I will say this. Let me just say a few things. I am nervous, perhaps slightly annoyed. No, let's stick with nervous. At white Christians who haven't at all had any kind of like race conversation, they've been silent on race. They haven't discipled their people in the beautiful multi-ethnic vision of the gospel. And then all of a sudden CRT becomes a big thing. They come out of their white woodwork, critique CRT, and then go back into the woodwork and keep going about their evangelical business. Like, I think that that, that just, that just not only looks bad. I think that that

is a bit tone deaf. You know what I mean? Like, like, like to just kind of just like you, the extent of your contribution to the race conversation is critiquing CRT. And that that's, that's kind of it. And I don't even have one church in mind or any, I don't have any particular church in mind. I just, it's kind of just in the air of some of these critiques. I'm like, well, unless you have been engaging the race conversation, well, um, I don't know if you have too much credibility to just come out and say CRT is wrong. And this is where I think John Tyson is super helpful. You know, John Tyson says, you know, rather than looking just at the content of CRT, whether it's good, bad, or a blend of both, like I'm more interested in what his,

the social situation that has given the rise for some, for the, for something like CRT, like what's the thing beneath the thing that's going on here? And I think that's an interesting question to have. What is the prevalence of CRT say about our social situation as it pertains to the church's position in our social situation? So just asking deeper, broader questions and rather, rather than just is CRT good or bad or something now. Um, yeah, so I, you know, I've, I've heard some of the critics I've listened to, you know, say that CRT divides the world in terms of the oppressed and the oppressor and all of those who are lower on the social rung are the oppressed. Or if you're

a ethnic minority, um, then you are part of the oppressed. And if you're a white majority, you're part of the oppressor. And yeah, I don't know if that's true or not. Is that true? I don't know. Maybe, you know, um, I would say that kind of way of framing the world can be problematic. Um, uh, or even like dividing the world in terms of power and privilege, you know, people with power, you know, are bad and people, and they have the, they have privilege and they're underprivileged and those without power are kind of almost intrinsically morally good by virtue of not having power or privilege. Again, I'm not saying CRT saying this, I'm saying, um, I've heard some critics kind of frame it that way. And I'm not saying CRT is saying this. I'm saying I've heard some critics kind of frame it that way.

And I'm like, well, if that's true, yeah, I think that that can be problematic. I mean, if you just take these things back to like a biblical context, you know, a biblical worldview would say that every individual has moral agency. Even if you are part of the oppressed, you still have moral agency and you might be a victim of social injustices. And that is an evil, structural injustice is evil. But if you respond in a sinful manner to that, then that too is like, you are still an individual moral agent. We see this with Israel. Sometimes Israel was profoundly oppressed and when they responded in sinful ways, God rebuked them, right? Obviously, it should be obvious that people with power and privilege

and wealth and so on, you know, they're going to have more temptations to abuse that power or to idolize that power. We see examples of this in scripture all over the place. Loads of Israelite kings were considered to be evil, not simply because they had power, but because they abused that power. They turned to idols. They didn't help the poor and so on, but you have some kings that were good, right? They still had the same power. In fact, 12 of the 20 Judean kings were considered to be good and godly and God praised them and said, they walked in my ways and they helped the poor and they tore down idolatry in the land. They had power and they were good and godly. So having power is not intrinsically evil, even though it could bring loads of temptation to abuse that power. Having wealth is not intrinsically evil, even though it does bring lots of temptations, as Jesus said over and over and over. So yeah, so I don't know, all that to say, as you wrestle

with CRT, listen to the people who are actually promoting it. Try to first understand what they're saying before you refute it. Don't just rely on critiques of CRT, um, learn from the critics, but, um, also learn from those who are promoting it. And always, always, always, um, look at things like CRT through the lens of a biblical world, being not just your own personal political bent or my tribe disagrees with it. Therefore I must also as well. No, that's, that's not the way us, we Christians should interact with anything. Next question. Uh. Does our ontological understanding of gender, which is rooted in Adam and Eve change if in fact, as some evolutionary creation is proposed to humans named Adam and Eve never existed? Great, great, great question. It's a little difficult to give a clear answer to this or response to it because

ontological understanding, your phrase ontological understanding of gender could be interpreted various ways. I'm going to assume that when you use the term gender here, you mean biological sex. Because, and I'm just, yeah, based on the rest of your question here, because, you know, most people use gender to mean your internal sense of who you are, or the gender role that you fulfill in society, whether you're acting in more masculine or more feminine ways. That's how gender is often used today in distinction from biological sex, but gender sometimes is used also to refer to biological sex, which makes the word gender one of the most confusing terms in the English language today, honestly. So whenever anybody uses the

term gender, I just have to stop mid sentence and say, please define what you mean by gender so that I understand what you're saying. So I'm based on your question. I'm going to assume that you're using gender as a synonym for biological sex. Does our ontological understanding, our ontological, the nature of just being. What does it mean to be human as a sexed embodied human, as male and female? Well, Genesis 1 and 2 tells us a bit about that, that male and female are created in God's image. In Genesis 1.27, then in Genesis 2, we see this worked out specifically in Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are both like each other in that they're human and yet they are different from each other in that they are two different biological sexes. If you say, well, what is their gender identity? We don't know whether what their internal sense

of who they were was. We don't know really. Maybe they struggled with body image issues. Maybe they had body dysmorphia. Maybe Eve thought her hips were too wide or maybe Adam was uncomfortable with his penis. Like we do. So we don't like their internal sense, like our modern understanding or definitions of gender, your internal sense of who you are, which is really broad, right. And subjective. It can be kind of filled in with all kinds of different things. You know,

your internal sense of who you are is a really broad, flexible category. So we don't know if they had any kind of tensions with their biological sex. So, but to your point, no, I don't think our understanding of human nature as it pertains to Genesis one and two depends, depends on Adam and Eve being two individual historical humans. So even if Genesis one and two or Genesis one to 11 is, is drawing on myth. It's still teaching truth. It could, because the Bible draws on myths. Um, I mean, depending on your view, you know, sometimes a lot of times, you know, depending on what story has mythical, you know, aspects to its teaching. Um, yeah, I mean, people are going to have different views on that, but, but for example, let me give you,

so some of you are freaking out saying, how are you even considering the Bible having some mythical elements? Well, um, Leviathan, Leviathan, you have passages like in Isaiah and the Psalms and Job that draw upon the myth of Leviathan, which is an ancient Near East myth about, you know, an ancient like dragon figure that kind of represented evil. And the Bible taps into that. It just kind of taps into this myth. It doesn't say it's true or untrue. It just says, you guys have a category of Leviathan, meaning evil. And guess what? God destroyed Leviathan, meaning God destroyed evil. And I forget that reference. You can just Google Leviathan Bible and you'll probably get the five or six passages I mentioned. I think Isaiah 27, one might be one of them. And then in the Psalm,

somewhere in the middle of the Psalm, Psalm 80, something maybe talks about God destroying Leviathan. Or let me give you another, maybe better example, the parable of the good Samaritan. It's not historical. There is nobody like the parable of the good Samaritan is a figment of Jesus's imagination. You're not going to meet the good Samaritan in heaven because he does not exist. It's a parable, right? So does that mean it's not true? Well, what do you mean by true? Like we can't use the term truth as a synonym for historical, like it actually happened. I would say the parable of the good Samaritan is not historical, but it is very much true. It's true in that it teaches how to love our neighbors as ourself, how to care for those who are in need. Like it is morally true in that sense, even though it's not a historical event. So similarly, you know,

however you read Adam and Eve, if you do take a less than historical view of Adam and Eve, it is still designed to teach us something that God wants to reveal to us about human nature. And it would be a false dichotomy to say, you know, since it's not historical, therefore it can't teach us anything true about humanity. That's just, that's not how the Bible works. The Bible, like the Good Samaritan and other things can, can use things that may not be in a historical event and still teach us something true about humanity. So Adam and Eve, there's a various views on Adam and Eve, right? I mean, they could,

they could be literal figures, like the traditional understanding. There was the first person, like the traditional understanding out of there was the first person human was named Adam. The second human was named Eve. Um, and all of humanity came from Adam's loins, if you will, that's sorry, images. Um, and I, and let me just say up front, I, I, I, I'm kind of unsettled on my exact view of Adam and Eve. I'm going to, my default is that they're two literal humans, just because that's the view I grew up with. It seems to be the most

straightforward reading of scripture, but I've done enough study of other views to say, ah, that's, it's not there. There are other views that are, I think are possible, um, within the realm of biblical authority. Okay. Uh, some say that, you know, Adam and Eve are described as representative of humanity or other people say that these are two homo sapiens that God called out to bear God's image. Um, uh, maybe there are two of many other humans, you know, um, maybe, maybe they're completely literal or maybe they're, it's a complete myth told to make a theological point. Either way, there is a clear theological point being made. I mean, Jesus taps into this, right? In Matthew 19 and Mark 10 and Paul does in Ephesians 5, like people, later biblical writers or including Jesus, they go

back to Adam and Eve and the creation story to make a theological point. So the theological point being made in Genesis 1 and 2, as it pertains to something like biological sex, that we bear God's image, that our biological sex is intertwined with how you bear God's image in Genesis 1.27. The theological point being made about marriage and a lot of part of Genesis 2. seven, um, the theological point we made about marriage and the latter part of Genesis two, um, all, I think all of these theological points are valid, no matter your view of the literalness or historicalness of Adam and Eve, you know, for example, like, um, that phrase that Eve was taken from Adam's side, it's been mistranslated Adam's rib, but the word for rib there doesn't refer to an actual rib. It refers to the side of Adam. Does that literally, like, did that

actually, even if you believe in Adam and Eve being literal figures, does that have to be literal? What does that even mean? He took her from the side? I mean, I tend to think that that might be more of a picturesque way of describing the creation of Eve, that she wasn't taken from his head or his feet, but the side. She is equal with Adam. She's also a sacred being. The word translated side there is often used of the side of a sacred piece of architecture, like the temple or tabernacle. And so there's a sacredness to Eve, sacredness to her body. And she comes from Adam's side. So there's, there's a sacredness to his body and yet it's the side it's it, there's an equality going on there, but there's also a difference going on there because she is female and not male. So, and all of that, nothing I said, there is all that disputed.

But all of that is true regardless of whether God literally perform physical surgery on Adam. All right, next question. Would you teach somewhere that didn't want you to talk about annihilation or conditional immortality? That's the view of hell that I hold. Let's say it probably won't come up in what they've asked you to cover, but they know you lean that way and ask you to keep your pet heresy caged. Oh man. I love the way you word that. That's so funny. Um, would you be comfortable teaching, speaking in that environment with that caveat? Uh, for me, and this is the question or asking more specifically, uh, kind of his personal state here. Um, for me, um, an articulation of the final state of unbelievers is secondary. It's a secondary issue, but what if it was not for them?

This happened to me in a strong E ECT, eternal conscious torment context. I've been pretty open about my conditional immortality stance for a while now. I can share privately what I choose to do. Uh, Oh, this is you talking to me now. Uh, I can tell you privately what I choose to do. Oh, this is you talking to me now. I can tell you privately what I chose to do, but I would love to know what you would do. Primary issues are an easy, no, sorry, I cannot teach or speak here because you won't let me declare that Jesus is Lord. But what about these super important, but seemingly less important topics? Oh man. So I, this is a good question. And I, um, honestly, like I, I, it kind of depends on the manner in which they go about it. Um, I would probably, I would definitely lean towards,

yeah, I'll, I'll go speak somewhere if they're like, yeah, we really don't believe in annihilation. In fact, we would not want you to open your mouth about that. We want you to speak on gender identity or sexuality or, or the book of judges or something. Um, I think I, I think I'd be fine with that. It just depends on the manner in which they do it. Because if... I would want to know, like, is there something else that I'm going to say that's going to be some pet heresy or whatever that's going to come off as a pet heresy? You know, like, I just... I would probably ask several other questions.

Like, okay, you're, you're inviting me in. You don't want me to mention this aspect of my view. It's also a little, I mean, it's, there's this thing called the internet. And if you type into Google, if you type my name into the Google, which if I'm going to speak, going to speak somewhere, oftentimes people Google the name of the speaker. They're like, it's, they're going to find out like out. In the age of the internet, it's not what we think and believe are that secret anymore. So I would want to make sure they're okay with

that. I won't teach on it because that's not what you're asking me to teach on, but I just want you to know. What are you going to do if people find out you brought in this heretical annihilationist to speak on, you know, the book of judges or something. Um, so in a sense, I would want to almost help the church to be, to, to just maybe think through the various things that could happen aside from me accidentally slipping, dropping an annihilation teaching. Ah, shoot. I couldn't resist. I just had to go there. Um, so yeah, I, I, I understand, I totally understand where people are coming from and I understand how the, the teaching of annihilation for people that haven't really dug into, haven't really wrestled with it. It can sound like such a heretical thing. Um, I, I understand why people think like open theism or something, they hear these, you know, boogeyman words and, and, or even the creation myth or, you know,

like there's just some of these like slogans and boogeyman words that if you, if you haven't actually wrestled with the issue, it can be, it can be really kind of a turnoff or freak people out, you know? Um, and, and so no, I'm more than willing to meet people where they're at, um, to, um, I understand that we're all on a journey and some people are not on the exact same journey I am. And I'm totally, totally okay with that. Um, so I, if it's kind of presented in a humble manner where people are like, Hey, like we, we understand where you're coming from. We're not, we're not there, but you know but for our context, it wouldn't be helpful for you to teach on this. So just want to make sure that you won't address it. We want you to talk about this other issue. Like, yeah, that's just pastoral

wisdom and sensitivity. But if it's something where it just feels like a very controlling environment where they really do think that I have a pet heresy, as you said, well, that's, I'm not sure I'd want to be in an environment where somebody, the leadership thinks I'm a heretic, but they want me to talk on this other issue that's not heresy. You know, I don't know. I was asked once to give a talk on a Christian understanding of hell where the person did not want me to land on annihilation, but simply to give the various viewpoints and show the strengths and weaknesses of each one. And I was okay with that. I didn't actually, for various reasons, didn't go, but I was like, no, I can do that. I can do that. Yeah.

In fact, I would almost want people to figure it out for themselves, not just to believe it because I said it like, um, so yeah, I, it's a great question, man. And I'm, I'm, especially as I get older, I feel like I am becoming more, more maybe pastorally sensitive to some, just, just kind of respecting that God has different people on, on, on a different journey. Okay. My question is how in the, this is the next question. How in the world, how in a world of ambiguity and hundreds of denominations is one supposed to find a church in which truth is taught and the true gospel is proclaimed? I hear Christians all the time disagreeing with each other on doctrine or scripture, but at the end of the day, what is fundamental and how does one go about deciding what church to belong to without being led astray?

I've come from a super fundamentalist background where my family attempted to follow every command from Genesis to revelation. And it was very cult-like and has brought a lot of brokenness and hurt. Now that I am out of it, I see how damaging that view is. Yet they believe strongly that they're living out the truth. Is truth relevant and everyone, then does everyone have their truth? How does God judge us?

If we all come down to our, come to our different conclusions and interpretations, even what if the Bible is full of contradictions and it seems like all people can see what they want to see. I don't trust myself to come to my own opinion or conclusion because of for every belief, there's an opposite belief. And that is heavy for me to carry. Okay. This is, um, it's a great man. It's such a good question. And, and thanks for sharing your background. Cause that does help

frame kind of your question. Um, so I, here, yeah, I do believe the Bible is absolute truth. The Bible is true in what it contains. However, our access to absolute truth involves a very imperfect mode of interpretation. So while the Bible is and contains absolute truth, my access to that absolute truth is hindered or cluttered by my fallible interpretation. Okay. And that's, um, N.T. Wright, uh, talks about, um, not in all N.T. Wright endorses it, but it's, it's a deeper philosophical school of, of critical realism is, is the general category that I'm working within. So there's two other extremes outside of that, that say, you know, no, the Bible is absolute truth. And if you just enter it in, if you interpret it correct, or if, if, you know, and, and, and therefore just read and interpret the

Bible and you get absolute truth. And it kind of, that kind of really overly confident approach, I think doesn't consider the real sometimes difficulty of human interpretation. Then the far other extreme is kind of like, no, like because interpretation is filled with subjectivity, like there's no hope of even accessing that, but there's no such thing as absolute truth. The truth resides in the interpreter. I think that's too far on the other side as well. So I'm somewhere in the middle. I want to honor and respect the true difficulty of human interpretation. And yet I do believe that there is a thing called absolute truth. I do think two plus two does actually equal four. I don't think two plus two equaling four is dependent upon my

interpretation of that truth claim. At the same time, interpreting the Bible is much more difficult and involved than simply recognizing that two plus two equals four. Anyway, all that to say, it's almost expected that Christians, good Christians reading the same Bible would not always come up with the same interpretation. Now I, I, I do think that not every interpretation is equally valid. Um, wow. I got so many examples going through my head right now. Yeah, not, um, I don't know which one you want. Okay. So, so there's a view that, um, when the Bible was complete, when the new Testament canon was closed, that there are no longer, there's no longer a need for sign gifts. The miraculous gifts stopped once the Bible was closed. This is kind of the more non or someone might even say anti-charismatic view.

And one of the arguments used to justify that view comes from 1 Corinthians 13 that says, when the perfect comes, there will be no need for prophecy in tongues. I'm paraphrasing. And so some people say, well, that perfect, when the perfect, the perfect comes, that's referring to the closing of the canon. That is a view. I grew up with that view. That is a view. I grew up with that view. But if you do a pretty simple word study on the word perfect there, is it tellion or something? It's a really difficult case to make that somehow here in first Corinthians 13, the perfect, that Paul's writing this letter to the house church at Corinth 2000 years ago. And when he wrote down the perfect, he's anticipating the closure of this thing called a new Testament canon, which I just

don't think Paul was even, I don't think he was even aware of that, you know, like, um, and there's just, there's, there's little or no evidence that the word perfect there refers to the closure of the new Testament canon. And I would say even people who don't believe that the sign gifts are for today or the miraculous gifts are for today, even people who believe those ended in the first century, a lot of people that even hold to that view would say, yeah, but we can't squeeze that view into this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13. It's just, it's not, it's not a good reading of the text. This isn't what Paul's talking about. And It's just, it's not, it's not a good reading of the text. This isn't what Paul's talking about. And there's just no evidence that he is talking about the

closure of the new Testament canon. So that would be an example, I think of what I would consider, um, uh, just a, not a very credible interpretation of the text. Now there are other, um, you know, issues in scripture where, um, you know, you can have a very credible interpretation, um, of, of the text. And how do you know what's a credible interpretation? What's not here? I think it's helpful to cross check your interpretation with global voices, historical voices, a broad range of other Christians who are skilled at interpreting the Bible. They still might not agree, but it helps you to get an understanding of how different people got different interpretations. If you actually consult a broad range of different interpreters.

So there's still a lot of clutter here, a lot of muddiness, a lot of ambiguity. But I do think that some of the main points of orthodoxy, the major doctrines of Christianity, that God is Trinity, three in one. And that doesn't mean there's three gods. It means there's three persons within the essence of God, that salvation is by grace through faith, that the Bible is authoritative, that creation is good. And on, you know, some of the main core cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith that people in Coptic Christian churches and American evangelical churches and Russian Orthodox churches, like these vast expressions of the Christian faith would all kind of agree on, expressions of the Christian faith would all kind of agree on, and they would maybe disagree on some of the finer points of maybe those doctrines and other doctrines, but the main kind of things that

constitute the Christian faith, you know, a broad range of Christians would agree on. Those are the things that I want to major on, major on the majors, those that have been embraced as historical, Those that have been embraced as historical, global, largely agreed upon doctrines. As we look for churches, I'm also not just interested in orthodoxy, right belief, but orthopraxy, right behavior. So this is, so I work with a broad range of churches. I'm probably spoken at churches, maybe 20 different denominations at least. And man, I see a lot of similarities, a lot of overlap. Their doctrinal statements might look different, but the way they are seeking to live looks very similar. They're trying to be holy.

They're trying to live with sexual integrity. They're trying to not lie, cheat, and steal. They're trying to be humble. They are telling others about Jesus. They are helping the poor. They are doing what God said Christians should do. doing what God said Christians should do. They're pursuing right living without being too judgy or projecting non-biblical rules onto people. They are promoting both individual holiness and social holiness. And a lot of the ones that I work with and have a fairly strong multi-ethnic

vision. They truly care about the mission of God and so on and so forth. So you have orthodoxy, right? Belief. I'm going to say there's a small number of major doctrines that I think we should believe that I think are necessary to believe. But orthopraxy to me is almost a more important indicator of a healthy church. Not more important. I don't want to put these up against each other, orthodoxy, orthopraxy, but you can have orthodoxy without orthopraxy. And I think that's profoundly problematic. Even the demons believe and they shudder, but they have faith, but they have not worked. So however, the King James says it in James 2. I'm also concerned about orthopathy. So you have orthodoxy, right belief, orthopraxy, right living and orthopathy, right affections or passions and attitudes.

I want to have a, I want a church that has, have leaders that are humble, that are authentic, that are honest, that are servants, that are, that are passionate about the kingdom of God. So, um, I did so, man, this, um, I would love to sit down with you for an hour and just kind of really work through a lot of this. And I know I haven't given you like maybe the most straightforward answer. Cause I don't know if there is one to your, to your question, but I think at the end of the day, I would not, um, freak out, uh, you know, as you look around and see that there's all these different expressions of church and different doctrinal statements and good Christians that disagree on all kinds of things. I think there's a lot more unity than it seems on the surface. All these different denominations, there's a tremendous amount of overlap in how they embrace and live out the gospel.

All right, last question. the gospel. All right. Last question. I've heard you say in some interviews that you see conversion therapy for same-sex attraction as being unhelpful, but not necessarily so with people who experience incongruence between gender identity and their biological sex. I'm sorry if I'm paraphrasing poorly. Feel free to correct. Can you explain why you see these two as being different gender identity and same-sex attraction? Also, I seem to have missed the public podcast where you addressed last month's question that didn't get addressed. Oh, that was something totally unrelated. All right. Yeah. So I'm looking at your question here and I did write a Patreon-only blog on this. This was back in February, 2021, but it was, it's only limited to certain

levels of support. So I'm not sure if you were able to access that. The title of the blog is, is sexual orientation change the same as gender identity change? I wrote that back. Yeah. February, 2021 for my patron, for some of my patron supporters. Oh man. Okay. So, um, this is a huge issue. I can't even overestimate how important this question is because there are many policies and statements that are, that talk about sexual orientation change and gender identity change as if they are two sides of the same coin. I think that this conflation of the two is, I mean, it's intellectually not credible. I think it's the collapse in these two together is often ideologically driven. It's not very scientifically informed,

nor is it theologically helpful. Have I made my case yet? And actually we, at the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, we've been working on for months, a very lengthy kind of academic white paper addressing this question. Is sexual orientation change the same as gender identity change? Um, and what we're kind of looking at the similarities and differences from a, an academic point of view. And we're kind of looking at the similarities and differences from an academic point of view. And we will release that document probably pretty soon, maybe in the next few weeks. And then I plan on doing a series of public blogs on this question because I do believe it is so, so important. Okay, so let me help you think through this.

So let me just say, first of all, I'm going to assume that when I say sexual orientation, change efforts, everybody knows what I'm talking about. Um, and most of you who followed me know, I'm not a fan of sexual orientation, change efforts. Um, I, especially when something like sexual orientation change is something that's forced upon somebody else. I am kind of a more libertarian at heart. I'm like, Hey, if you want to go and try to change orientation, then go for it. You know? Um, I I'm skeptical whether it actually happens and I think it can produce a lot of damage and destruction, but it's free country. I mean, um, I would recommend somebody be very informed on all the ins and outs of sexual orientation change, but, but so where, where I'm very, like very much against sexual orientation change is

when it's kind of forced upon somebody else, a parent dragging their kid to some repair therapy office or, um, or even like a social pressure from your community to go get your orientation change. Like, I think that's very, really problematic. orientation change. Like, I think that's very, really problematic. Um, and theologically, I think it, it sexual orientation change efforts rely upon, I think of, of, of, well, I would just disagree with the theological foundation of that. The theological foundation is that you cannot really truly be faithful to Christ until you change your sexual orientation. I think that that that's problematic theologically. Okay.

Now, no longer is it just sexual orient. Well, let me say that, you know, almost everybody in the country inside and outside the church is against sexual orientation change efforts. So I think they're banned. I don't know if it's banned on a federal level, at least on many state levels, sexual orientation change efforts are illegal. But now, in the last couple of years, a lot of these policies are written to include gender identity change efforts. So you have no longer is it like we prohibit sexual orientation change efforts. Now it's we prohibit sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, even though sexual orientation is almost nothing like gender identity. I think this will have tragic effects on gender non-conforming kids. Gender non-conforming just means that kids behave and act in a way that doesn't conform to the

majority experience of the biological sex that they are. So women who aren't particularly feminine, men who aren't particularly masculine, those are gender non-conforming people. I think that smuggling in gender identity change efforts into the back door of sexual orientation change efforts will be profoundly problematic. Okay. So let's, let's, uh, we have to, first of all, get our minds around what we're even talking about. So gender identity is defined as a person's internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither. That's the standard definition of gender identity, a person's internal sense of self as in response to their biological sex. And so, so for most people, their internal sense of who they are is aligned with their biological sex. If they're male or female, they don't even question

this. Um, and, and that's just, you know, that's, that's, it's, there's no, there's no incongruence there, but for some people with a psychological condition called gender dysphoria, their internal sense of self, of who they are, might not line up with their biological sex. Now, just to be clear, 99.99% of them are actually male or female as part of their human identity. They might not resonate with that, but I would say, and this is where I'm going to get just theological, um, biological sex is a significant part of the identity that God has

created you to be. Theologically, that's not a, that's not a radical statement at all. Shouldn't be that disputed even theologically, just based on Genesis 1 and 2 and Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians and other passages that talk about the body and biological sex. But, okay, so for some people though, some males and females experience distress over their biological sex. So those who oppose what they call gender identity change efforts, and I actually don't even like that phrase. I'll explain why in a second. Those who oppose gender identity change efforts assume, and it's a really profound scientific and philosophical assumption that is rarely teased out or explained. They would assume that one's internal sense of who they are is who they are, even if this internal sense disagrees with the material reality of their biology. So if a male child has an internal sense that they are not male, the philosophical

and scientific assumption with some people is that they are therefore not male. Or they say, well, yes, sure, your biology is male, but that's an insignificant part of human identity. The most significant part of human identity is your internal sense of who you are. That is a profound philosophical, scientific, and theological assumption. But that is the assumption that is rarely put on the table and debated and interacted with. Like that is an assumption that is going largely unchecked when people assume that gender identity change is sort of like sexual orientation change. So any, so people who oppose gender identity change efforts would oppose, let's just reword it, helping a child to accept their body, to identify with their body, to have their dysphoria alleviated through psychological means instead of physical, like physical surgery or

hormones, um, alleviate, trying to alleviate, take away someone's dysphoria and helping them live in their body that is considered immoral and illegal by some people. So you can, as you can probably, so that, that just that alone. Okay. Just if you're probably, so that, just that alone. Okay. Just if you're with me so far, like that should be, that should raise some questions in your mind about some of the philosophical and theological assumptions going into it. As you can probably see, I mean, there's so, so much of this discussion has to do with the ontological assumptions underlying certain words. For instance,

given someone's ideological assumptions, they might say something like this. Changing someone's gender identity is trying to change who they really are. Gender identity is innate and unchangeable, and they are trans. And forcing them to become cisgender is the same as forcing gay people to become straight. That's how some people will frame it. And if you don't really pay close attention to the meaning of the words, you might say, yeah, that seems like wrong and problematic. And haven't we shown that this is not the way to treat people? But this way of framing it assumes many things about human nature, assumptions that could, that come, I think with little scientific, philosophical, or even theological evidence.

We could say the exact same thing with different words that carry different assumptions about human nature. So, so let me say that same phrase in a different way, using different words. Okay, here we go. Changing someone's sex is changing who they really are. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition and we should therefore help alleviate this condition through psychological means. Unless someone has a severe intersex condition, they really are male and female or female, and we should help them accept this reality. That's saying, that's treating the same person, but with some very different ideological assumptions about human nature, about God, about the body, about sex, about, um, about human nature. And what's, what's more is even in the secular world, some of the leading experts in gender dysphoria and children in particular, so Susan Bradley, Ken Zucker, and others, James Cantor, they would be very much against, like, very much against sexual orientation change efforts. But they take an approach to treating kids with gender dysphoria

through what's called a biopsychosocial approach to gender dysphoria saying, let's explore all possible psychological reasons why they have this dysphoria. Let's not rush them to transition. And oftentimes there are other things that are wrapped up in the dysphoria that if we address that issue, the dysphoria might be lessened or go away or manageable. And then this person can live in and with their bodies in a way that's healthy without medical intervention. That approach, does that seem reasonable? Seems reasonable to me. And these are, these are, these are professionals. Again, they're not religious. They're not conservative. They would even, they're not even against transitioning. They're just like, let's,

let's not rush younger people, especially to transition. If you're an adult, you want to transition, go for it, you know? But especially kids who is, especially today, oftentimes are wrestling with many mental health issues. Let's, let's address that first. Well, Ken Zucker, that's the, he kind of, uh, coined the biopsychosocial approach. Um, there's a free online article. I think, I think it's free. You can read it's really thorough. It's pretty technical, but it's, it's where he lays out the biopsychosocial approach to gender dysphoria. Um, and Ken Zucker got fired from his job on the accusation that he was performing reparative therapy because he didn't, because he chose to explore psychological issues among children and teens, um, before recommending transitioning. Um, so anyway, so gender identity is not like sexual orientation.

I mean, one of the, the clearest, I guess, pieces like, like examples of how they're different is if somebody is same sex attracted, they actually same-sex attracted. There's no ontological ambiguity over that. There shouldn't be. I guess there's always exceptions. People are like, no, I don't think you're really gay or whatever. But that is ontologically, that's who they are. I'm not saying, you could even say, well, it should change or it's not good or it's part of the fall. I'm not saying you can even say, well, um, it should change or it's not good or it's part of the fall. I'm not even considering those different questions. I'm just saying if somebody is same attracted, they are same sex attracted. Um, but if a male has an internal sense of self as female, at the very least that raises some ontological questions that are different from somebody who's

same sex attracted. Like, are they female? Does your internal sense overrule your biology? If there's no biological ambiguity, like that, that's the conversation that needs to be had. That's an ontological question that needs to be explored to assume that their internal sense of who they are is a more, is more indicative of who they actually are and that everything else should, should kind of, um, change to, to align with their internal sense of who they are. That, that, that is a profound philosophical assumption about human nature. Gender identity is not like sexual orientation. So for, let me give you another example. Sexual orientation does seem to be for the most part, example. Sexual orientation does seem to be for the most part, very stable and unchangeable. I do think that there's a lot of sexual fluidity fluctuation within a general orientation.

You remember my podcast with Dr. Lisa Diamond has done a lot of work on that. It's especially true in females, less true in males. Although Lisa would even say, I think males have more fluidity fluctuation in their sexual attractions. And then I had previously thought, but, but we do know with females, a lot more fluctuation, but all of that fluctuation is still within a general category of orientation. If somebody, um, is actually same sex attracted, um, that is probably most likely going to be something they're going to experience on some level for their life. But what about gender dysphoria? Because really, I mean, if somebody has a gender identity that's incongruent with their biological sex, I mean, nine times out

of 10, that is another way of saying they have gender dysphoria. Well, in, according to the 15th studies, I think 15 or 13 studies that have been done on gender dysphoria in children, a 61 to 88% of them desist. In other words, the dysphoria goes away after puberty with no kind of intervention. This is why some people take what's called a watchful waiting approach. Like if a kid is giving is, has evidence of gender dysphoria, let's just watch and wait. Like let's not intervene with anything. Let's not socially transition them. Let's not give them blockers. Let's not try to make them act a certain way. Like just wait, wait it out. Oftentimes, often meaning 61 to 88% according to all the available studies, going through puberty with

the surge of hormones, the natural process of development that God has created us to go through. Oftentimes, just statistically, oftentimes that process will alleviate the dysphoria. We don't have a parallel, something like that with sexual orientation because they're different. orientation because they're different. Also, especially with the last 10 years with the rise of what scholars call rapid onset gender dysphoria, we've seen now that there's a, well, a lot of younger people, especially females that are identifying as trans or experiencing some kind of incongruence in their gender identity. Um, that, sorry, I'm looking at some notes here that are oftentimes in the population of people who would fit the broader kind of ROGD or rapid onset gender dysphoria category, meaning that they didn't have prior, they didn't have any evidence of gender

dysphoria as a children that it sort of came out of nowhere as a teenager. According to one major study by Lisa Littman, 63% of kids that sought help with their gender incongruence had some kind of psychiatric disorder or neurodevelopmental disability preceding, preceding, preceding the onset of gender dysphoria. For instance, 48% had a traumatic or stressful event prior to the onset of gender dysphoria. 45% were engaging in self-harm prior to the onset of their dysphoria. 45% were engaging in self-harm prior to the onset of their dysphoria. 15% were diagnosed with ADHD. 12% had OCD. 12% were on the autism spectrum compared to 2% of the general population. 7% were bipolar. And yet, according to the study,

only 28% of clinicians who saw them for their gender incongruence chose to explore issues of mental health, previous trauma, or any alternative causes of gender dysphoria, even after their parents informed the clinicians of previously diagnosed mental health issues. You might have to go back and listen to that again. I know I threw a bunch of stats out there for you, but long story short, you met one trans person, you've met one trans person. There's a wide diversity of trans experiences. And especially among the younger, the growing number of trans identified teens, especially females, many of them, more than 50% have other co-occurring mental health issues that might be

related to wrapped up in their gender dysphoria. Or sometimes gender dysphoria is misinterpreted, oftentimes, sometimes, sometimes, body dysmorphia, or just simply being uncomfortable with your body is being over-interpreted, over-diagnosed as gender dysphoria. So a 14 year old girl who's uncomfortable with her period and her developing body might have some level of body dysmorphia, some kind of uncomfortableness with her body. And if there's any females out there, of uncomfortableness with her body. And if there's any females out there, I mean, back me up here. I mean, it seems like that's a fairly common experience with females. I'm raising three of them. You know, going through puberty, especially in this day and age, this Instagram age where

body comparison and body image issues are just all over the place. Where's the line between body dysmorphia, body image issues, uncomfortableness with your body and gender dysphoria? I mean, there's a lot of overlap there. I'm not saying they're all the same. I'm not saying there isn't something separate called gender dysphoria. I'm saying in some cases, people can be sort of misdiagnosed, especially when they're doing their own kind of self-diagnosis, which is not uncommon among teenagers. All that to say,

if a kid who is going through a lot of maybe psychological issues, should not we at least explore addressing those issues first? Well, that's considered reparative therapy in some people's minds. If you say you're trans, you're trans. And if you don't, and if you're trans, then the only way to, to, to really live, um, is to go on blockers, cross-sex hormones, possibly get top surgery or whatever. Um, that, that is a perspective that is more common than you would think. Um, and, and it's all, it is based on mapping sexual orientation, change efforts on gender, quote unquote, gender identity, change efforts. They are not, they are not the same.

Um, a decent number, according to several studies, a good number of females, biological females with gender dysphoria, would later say that their gender dysphoria was wrapped up in some kind of internalized misogyny or sometimes homophobia. Like they have a very negative view of womanhood. They have a very negative view of womanhood. Maybe they were raised in a house with a father, a brother, or maybe even a mother that had, that just pounded a very negative view of male or of femaleness into them. And that just became internalized. And that can lead to gender dysphoria. Again, I'm not saying any of these are like a hundred percent of the time. dysphoria. Again, I'm not saying any of these are like a hundred percent of the time. I'm just saying that these are cases that are somewhat prevalent that, that raise questions about,

you know, is it, is it really conversion therapy to address some level of internalized misogyny that might be connected to their gender dysphoria? Like, is that, are we, I don no, if they're trans, they're trans. Well, I mean, what does that mean? Like, I think we have to respect and honor the wide, sometimes complicated diversity of trans experiences and the complexity of gender dysphoria and how gender dysphoria can be wrapped up into, with other, many other life experiences. And our ultimate goal, wouldn't the ultimate goal, shouldn't we all agree that if, if their distress could be alleviated through psychological means, what if it's connected to their dysphoria is connected to

internalized misogyny? What if it's connected to some previous traumatic event? Like shouldn't we all agree that addressing that first and helping someone live in their body without going on lifelong hormones and possibly surgery that raises all kinds of other possible complications? Shouldn't we all agree that that would be the best case scenario? Well, we don't. We don't all agree because everything I said there is being labeled as an attempt to convert their gender identity. Whereas I'm going to say, I'm trying to help somebody live without distress in their bodies, the bodies that God has identified them as. We don't just live inside of a body. We are a body. We're not souls with bodies. We're embodied souls.

And our biological sex, theologically, and I would even say scientifically, is a significant aspect of human identity. Long answer. I did not want to go that long, but you raised a really, really important question. And, um, I, I am going to do an extensive blog series, kind of teasing out everything that I said, um, because I think this is a super, super important issue. Thank you so much. My Patreon supporters for asking such wonderful, hard questions. Um, I'm going to address the, there's a lot more questions here. I'm going to address the rest of these on the Patreon platform. If you would like to join the Theology

in Raw community, once again, it's patreon.com forward slash Theology in Raw. And, uh, it's a, it's a place where you can have some of your questions responded to. Um, and it's a place where, uh, you can support the show if the show if the show has helped you in your faith journey. Until next time, we will see you on Theology in Iran. you