Theology in the Raw - S8 Ep891: Kids and COVID, Platforming Detransitioners, Women in Leadership, NT Wright vs. John Piper: Q&A

Episode Date: August 9, 2021

My Patreon supporters sent me a ton of questions to respond to, so here’s my attempt! Is it inconsistent for homeschool parents to say “kids need to go back to school” during COVID, then they are not...in school. Does Gen 2 really give us a definition for marriage? What do I think of Milo Yiannopolos? Would I have have him on the show? What do I think of NT Wright and John Piper’s recent articles? Should we read books or listen to music by Christian leaders who have fallen into sin? Why have I had on the show so many detransitioners? Doesn’t this skew the conversation? What are my thoughts on women in leadership and Beth Allison Barr’s book The Making of Biblical Womanhood? And much more! 

Should kids go back to school in spite of COVID? What are my thoughts on women in leadership? How much theological agreement do I need to have before I join a church? And what are my thoughts on Milo Yiannopoulos? You have entered Theology Narah, folks. Please proceed at your own risk. I'm very excited about today's podcast. I am addressing various questions that have come in from my Patreon supporters. So a huge shout out to those of you who are supporting this show through the Patreon platform. If you would like to become a

Patreon supporter, you can go to patreon.com forward slash The Algen Ra. All the notes are, or all the information is in the show notes. A couple of things before I get started. We have a few events coming up October 20th through the 21st here in Boise, we have our Faith, Sexuality, and Gender Conference that is both live here in Boise, or you can live stream it if you can't make it out to Boise. We'd love to see you out here, but if you can't make it, you can live stream that event. All the info is in the show notes, or you can just go to centerforfaith.com forward slash events, I believe, and that should take you to the information there.

I will also be doing a pre-conference at the Revoice Conference in the Dallas area on October 7th, and I'm going to be spending a few hours addressing the transgender conversation, and all the registration for that event is the – all the info to register for that event is the, the, all the info for, to register for that event is also on the website centerforfaith.com or on the Revoice website. Again, all the info is in the show notes. first ever Theology in the Raw conference next year, March 31st through April 2nd, 2022. Okay. So spring 2022, the first ever Theology in the Raw conference here in Boise. We're going to be talking about race. We're going to be talking about critical race theory. We're going to be talking about sex and gender and creation care and politics and hell and lots of other stuff. It's going to be a Christian conference like no other. And I really mean that. You're going to have the opportunity as an audience

to be able to ask questions about the speakers, to push back, to say, what about this? What about that? You're going to hear engaging dialogues on stage between people who might be on different sides of an issue. You're going to hear some awesome music and worship and fellowship. It's going to be a great time. So block out those dates, March 31st through April 2nd here in Boise. Or again, if you can't make the trip to Boise, we are going to live stream that event as well. We've got an amazing lineup of super thoughtful and gracious and gospel-centered speakers. It's going to be awesome. So please consider, well, at least block out those dates and we will give you more

information on how to register here in the next couple of weeks. All right, let's jump into these questions. These are all, I mean, my Patreon supporters, they never ask me a thoughtless question. They always raise some great, great, yeah, they never ask me a thoughtless question. They always toss in some great questions. Half the time I'm like, I don't know if I want to respond to that. But out of faithfulness to my Patreon supporters, I do want to respond to their questions. So here we go. I'm not sure if you've already talked about this, but I'm curious about your thoughts on Milo Yiannopoulos' somewhat recent changes regarding his views on sexuality and homosexuality.

Would you ever have him on the show? Would that be helpful? I'm almost more interested in that second question about would I have him on the show. First of all, I know very little about Milo. Early on when he was kind of stirring things up on the internet, I went in and checked out a few talks he gave at different universities. I've listened to him in a few different interviews. I mean, this is probably four or five years ago.

You know, he's a provocateur. He was entertaining on some level. I mean, just offensive on so many other levels. I'm a hard to offend person. So as I'm, yeah, I can watch stuff or listen to stuff and it's really hard for me to get offended. But oftentimes I try to listen through somebody else's perspective. I'm like, yeah, this could be really not helpful for other people to hear what he's saying. I'm sure a lot of people were really offended by him. But he can be witty and entertaining, but he's a provocateur. So I was kind of like, eh, whatever. I have heard that he had some recent changes in his views on sexuality. I just wonder if his, I don't know, from my, my, my minuscule perspective, my naive perspective is someone like him. I just, I don't know the credibility of stuff he says is

there's a huge question mark around that. So maybe he has had a major shift in his views. Maybe he hasn't, maybe it's another way to get clicks. Maybe he's going to shift back to a different perspective. I don't know. And quite frankly, I don't really care too much. Would I ever have him on the show? That's an interesting question because it does raise the question about how long of a leash do I have in terms of the kinds of people I would have on the show. I mean, on the one hand, there's loads of people I would love to have on the show all across the board on their perspectives, because I just like to engage people and hear different perspectives. And, you know, some people get upset at that, you know, you're platforming this person or platforming that person or whatever. And I just, I don't know,

I don't really have that kind of fear of platforming certain people that other people might have a fear of platforming but there is the other kind of thing of yeah if if i had on somebody that would just infuriate a good chunk of people that it would normally listen to the show and normally listen to other guests that i have on and normally really engage with the different perspectives that I have on the show? Is it worth losing a number of listeners who I'm more eager to reach simply because I had on a guy that's just a provocateur and would really turn people off from the show? That's a hard balance. And honestly, I don't know if I hit that balance correctly. I don't want to not have somebody on out of fear for what the masses might say.

On the other hand, there is a level of wisdom that goes into selecting certain guests and not selecting other guests. So I would lean towards probably not, largely because I'm just not that interested in having him on the show anymore. Maybe several years ago, it would have been more interesting.

Even then, I don't know. I wasn't ever that all impressed with Milo. But okay, next question. This has to do with COVID. Oh man. Okay, so this comes from, I'm not going to say your name, but a very engaged Patreon supporter who always asks really great questions.

He says, in the recent COVID podcast, there were some comments on how kids need to be in school. Anecdotally, the people I've seen make this argument are also the ones who homeschool their kids. That's a great, great observation. Merits or problems with homeschooling aside, I feel like there is a level of inconsistency here. If it is said by someone not from the homeschooling crowd, is there a level of judgment implied against the homeschooling crowd? Namely, like if people say, kids need to be in school and not let the fear of COVID prevent them from being in school, is that a kind of a backhanded jab at homeschoolers in a sense who COVID or no

COVID their kids aren't in school? Additionally, you say, isn't the way we do education a relatively modern invention, meaning it isn't exactly a necessary thing. And so you want to make a note here that you're not anti-school or pro-school reopenings. You're just looking for a commentary on the argument. I haven't noticed the same thing you have, that it's largely... I mean, you say, you admit that this is your anecdotal experience, but I haven't seen... I don't know. I haven't done a survey or

even anecdotally paid attention to who is making the argument that kids need to be in school. in school. So yeah, I don't, and look, I'm, whenever the word COVID comes out of my mouth, I feel like I get, no matter what I say, somebody doesn't like something. And so let me just qualify my response to your question with, like, I'm not a COVID expert trying to navigate this like the rest of us trying to pay attention to stuff. I'm a little disenchanted with the level of misinformation and conflicting information that is out there. And so there is a weariness over the media battles over COVID and COVID decisions. So it's just, it's probably like a lot of you, it's kind of worn out from the politics of it all. From my very, well, my largely uninformed perspective, it does, it seems, well, kids going back to school, not going back to school. There's always a risk management here, right?

Like we have to weigh the risks of them not going to school and then weigh the risks of them going to school. From my limited perspective, it does seem like kids, there has been a lot of mental health issues that have arisen, maybe exploded, some would say, in light of them not being in school. And so we have to weigh all of those mental, very real mental health risks. This is something I've talked to counselors and psychologists. So I do feel like I'm, I feel fairly confident that that has been a major problem during the last year, year and a half with kids not being in school. Now, what about homeschoolers? I mean, we homeschool, we have homeschooled and still do homeschool some of our kids right now, all of them. Well, one's leaving the house, but I don't know. So it's probably odd for me to say, like, it might be odd to hear me say, kids are being in school, but that's, I don't know, it's a little, I think it's apples

and oranges because prior to COVID, we were homeschooling our kids. And yes, that comes with the intrinsic health risks of our kids not being in socially engaged environments. But that's something intrinsic to homeschooling. That's an intrinsic challenge to homeschooling as a whole that we homeschool families need to make sure that we are not stunting the social growth of our kids. And so the rhythm of healthy homeschooling, I would say, is always looking for other opportunities for them to engage in other people socially. And so that's been part of our rhythm of homeschooling, is our kids are socially engaged. But for public schoolers, oftentimes that is the primary, sometimes the only way in which they are having social engagement. So if you take that away, right, then that's where I think the challenge comes.

So I don't think, seen from that angle, I don't think there's necessarily like a hypocrisy in that. If somebody is a homeschooler to say, I think don't have the pay grade to answer, you know, how at risk, how at risk, how much risk is there for kids say under 18? Yeah. And do I, I mean, I did check the latest stat from the CDC. It was kids under 18 who have died from COVID, or at least with COVID. All right, that's always the big debate. Is it with or from? But the number they gave the CDC was 406 deaths, kids under 18. Now, that's out of, what, 75 million kids under 18.

So, I mean, you can do the math. That is a very low percentage. So if your fear is that you're sending your kid to school and there's a risk of them dying from COVID, that is a really low percentage. Not to at all diminish those 406 deaths at all, at all. But to put it in perspective, I mean, I checked the stats on the highest deaths. Like what are kids under 18 dying from? And number one is car crashes. Over 4,000 die from car crashes every year. I think number two was firearms, firearm accidents. So you gun owners, of which I am a gun owner, you need to consider that as well. And then there's several other kind of

fatalities with kids under 18. And I don't know, COVID's fairly down on the list. So one could argue, right, that like, gosh, if you're scared of sending your kid to school because they might die of COVID, then you shouldn't be driving in a car with them either. I could see that. But then the counter argument is, well, driving a car is kind of a necessary thing, but sending them to public school isn't as necessary. But then the counter counter argument is, well, given the mental health problems that keeping them out of school when that is their natural rhythm of social engagement is another thing to consider and on and on it goes. So I don't, I don't, yeah, I don't know. You got, you got to sort that out. So, um, you, you raise a good question here too, about, um, the,

the nature of education being a relatively modern invention, be that as it may, that is the nature of education and social environment that we are used to. So I don't, yeah, that would be a whole nother discussion. You know, yes, I'm not, as an educator, as a former educator, I guess, I think there's a lot of improvements that could be made to our model of education. This is one thing, well, one of the several things I do like about homeschooling is I could take each individual kid and tailor our education to their specific gifting and needs and passions and so on and so forth. So like all my kids are, well, most of my kids lean much more artistic. Um, and so in our education, we can give space to them to exercise their creativity, their imagination, their artistic abilities as part of their educational process that they probably wouldn't have gotten if they were in a public school setting.

Um, other, I have a couple of kids that just absolutely love to read. Like they devour books. I'm like, that's awesome. That wasn't me growing up. I devoured baseball, not books, But we can, as part of like one of my kids, my third daughter, 14, she has literally read more books by the age of 14 than I've read. I probably read before the age of 25. That might be a backhanded jab at my educational journey, but she just blows through books. And I'm like, that's amazing. I mean, a kid that can

read and read well and likes to read, I want to feed that passion because they're going to be a lifelong learner. I mean, for the rest of their life, if they want to learn something, if they're a really good reader, that's a primary way in which you can gain knowledge and become educated. And hopefully that would grow into wisdom. So that homeschooling allows the flexibility to tailor her educational needs. And other kids of mine can't stand to read. So I think they still need to read and engage that, but we might not require them to read as much as maybe other kids, that that's a passion of theirs. That's something that they're excited about. Great question. And I know there's a lot more there

to unpack, and I probably said something that I probably shouldn't have, but let's move on. Okay. Next question. You say, I'm fairly new to Patreon, so I hope I'm doing this correctly by submitting a question. First of all, thank you for your ministry. And yeah, you just say a lot of really awesome, nice things here. I'm not going to give too many personal details about your life, but you have a person in your life that intends to transition. Okay. And they brought up my podcast and recognized that most of my guests, almost all of my guests are de-transitioned adults. All of my guests who would be within the transgender conversation are de-transitioners, and that that felt like I'm sort of skewing the conversation towards de-transitioning. the conversation towards detransitioning. That's a great observation. And I'm going to wear that and own it. There are, you mentioned Miranda Yardley, who was a trans

woman that I had on the show who identifies as transsexual, not transgender. But other than that, the rest of them are detransitioners. I have had on at least, well, more recently, I mean, Scott Nugent is a fully transitioned trans man who has no intention of detransitioning. I also had on my good friend, Addie, who is a Christian who transitioned male to female and is happy with her transition. So there are a few more in there that I think would maybe give a little more balance. But yeah, I'm, and this is something I had talked to my Patreon supporters about in a private podcast. But yeah, I've been reflecting a lot more, a lot more recently on the nature of guests that I have on. And I recognize, of course, that while I try to

have on a diversity of opinions and guests and different perspectives, I still have the power to choose which ones. And when you choose to represent or dialogue with a certain perspective, to represent or dialogue with a certain perspective, you form a certain underlying implication about how you are possibly thinking through any given topic. Let me try to unpack that a little bit with an example. When it comes to the Bible and science, for instance, I have had on, I think the three or four different people I've had on the last year would all be on the old earth side of the age of the earth debates. Now, so somebody could say, well, how come you haven't had on an equal number of young earthers? And my simple response to that is I personally was raised in a staunchly young earth environment.

So I personally am very interested in hearing somebody who has a high view of the Bible and is also, because of the Bible and because of science, has an old earth perspective. So I find that view interesting, partly because I didn't grow up with that. I have also had on a lot of people. I would say the majority of my guests would be on the egalitarian side of the egalitarian complementarian debates. I haven't thought through all the percentages on which guest believes what, but most of the conversations I have about that topic, the guest would be on the egalitarian side. They may not even prefer that term, but that's the general direction they're headed. And yeah, so I, in fact,

I don't even know. When's the last time I had on somebody like staunchly defending the complementarian position? I don't know if I've even had anybody on that has done that. And so that could be out of balance. Why have I done that? I honestly haven't really thought about it too much. Like I haven't planned it that way. In fact, some guests I've invited that are staunchly complimentary and haven't, they've said, no, they don't want to come on my podcast. So there's the whole other hidden issue of not just the guests that I've had on, but all the people that I've invited that said, no, they didn't want to come on. I'm not going to name any names. I would throw people under the

bus, but there's many people who either don't get back to me or say, no, I don't want to come on your podcast. Um, for whatever reason, I'm not saying they have, you know, nasty reasons for not coming on that maybe they're just busy or whatever, but, um, so, you know, the guests that come on the podcasts are not all the guests that I've invited. I've invited a lot of other people that haven't been able to come on. So why have all my guests been more egalitarian? Again, I was raised strongly complementarian. So I'm very interested in hearing stories like several guests that I've had on that were raised in a strong conservative complementarian background.

that were raised in a strong, conservative, complementarian background. And like Tish Harrison Warren, who was raised SBC girl, and now she's an Anglican priest. That's just, to me, that's just an interesting story. Doesn't mean I agree with her or other people's theological position. I'm interested in hearing that journey, that narrative. And I love asking, what about this? What about that? And tell me about how you work through 1 Timothy 2 and what was it like being raised in a certain

environment and then now changing your view on something that's very important to you and very important to the church. I just find that very interesting. So all that to say, coming to the question about the different trans people or formerly identified as trans people I've had on like that detransitioners part of it is I've got several friends who this is their story and that like it's it's a it's not just an interesting interesting story it's a very painful story it's a very eye-opening story, thinking of a couple people in particular. It's like, wow, that is a fascinating and profound journey you've been on. So there's that friendship aspect that I have friends who, several who, this is part of their journey. I also, I mean, if you pay attention to the cultural landscape, detransitioners are sidelined and ridiculed by a good chunk of our broader society.

To the point to where this is a friend of a friend tried to do a dissertation on detransitioning and the university didn't allow it. They said, no, that's too publicly volatile. Like we don't want to even allow you to engage in this research project. And the guy's like, but it's necessary. Like let's just do good research and whatever. And they basically said like it's too politically incorrect to have a project talking about detransitioners. So there's that aspect that if the cultural tide is swinging so far in one direction and is not representing accurately or

evenly the voice of a, I'll say, marginalized group, then I'm interested in hearing from that marginalized group. So I am interested in minority voices, especially minorities within a minority. I'm interested in that voice. Oftentimes, a minority within a minority has a very contrarian point of view that is not publicly represented well. represented well. And if somebody is a minority within a minority, oftentimes they have a lot of just really thoughtful things to say. That takes a lot of intellectual courage and thoughtfulness to have a contrarian perspective. And so by nature, I'm naturally... Because I feel like I resonate with that. My whole life, my whole theological journey, I've always been, if I'm in a classroom in seminary or Bible college and the teacher says one thing and everybody agrees, my natural bent is like, well, what are people that disagree with this assumed consensus? What do they say?

And so I'm very interested in the other side of my majority opinions. And so if there is a kind of minority voice, which is, I mean, detransitioners would be, you know, trans people would be in the minority. Detransitioners would be a minority within the minority in terms of how they are represented in the public. So yeah, I am interested in those stories. It doesn't mean I'm not interested in other stories, but it's just I do have a particular interest in those stories because they are a contrarian voice, a minority within the minority. But I will totally admit that in all these examples I'm giving,

you know, that does – there is a certain like optics to that when you have a lot of people on one side being represented and not too many people on the other side. I mean, this, well, I was going to bring up the race conversation too and how I've approached that, but I'll save that for another day. You've got other thoughts here. This is really the same question here about transitioning and is it helpful? What are the stats on it? What are the emotional, psychological issues that come with transitioning are being dealt with through transitioning or not being dealt with? And do you have any advice for finding a therapist and what to say to that therapist so I'm not seen as trying to push her into some kind of conversion therapy? I just started a blog series. If you go to centerforfaith.com

and go to the blog, I'm starting a lengthy blog series on the relationship between sexual orientation change efforts and so-called gender identity change efforts. I think there's a big difference between the two. And so we actually, at the Center for Faith, we spent the last several months in a massive research project looking into the correlation between sexual orientation change efforts and gender identity change efforts. And we're about to produce an academic paper on that question. We whittled it down from like a 180-page paper to now it's like a, might be like an 80-page paper.

And I'm doing a blog series that's kind of unpacking the results of that research project. We do a lot of that at the center. I know on the face of it, we focus largely on pastoral training and parent-child relationships and a lot of practical stuff. But we do behind the scenes a lot of really deep academic work as well. So, yeah, I would encourage you to check out that blog series. So, um, yeah, I would encourage you to check out that blog series. Um, yeah.

Um, well, how do you help a therapist see that you're not advocating for some kind of conversion therapy? That's going to be really tough because there is, as I said in the first blog, this almost across the board assumption that, um, so-called gender identity change efforts are basically the same thing as sexual orientation change efforts, even though that is, it's just a terrible correlation. There's just, there's no evidence for that. So that's, that's tough. That's tough to, I mean, the therapist is the expert and so they're going to assume you don't know what you're talking about. So yeah, I would be very, very careful on which therapist you talk to, quite honestly. So there's a lot more here we

can get into. You know who you are who asked this question. Go ahead and reach out again, and we can talk offline more details about this. Okay. I often hear preachers and other... This is a different question. I often hear preachers and other Christians refer to idols as being things like your job, your marriage, your love of sports, television. When I think of idols, I think of actual idols, like the gold-plated kind. The broad definition seems to be used to condemn people for areas of their life that are out of balance. So my question is, do you think the term idol is often used too broadly? You know, it's a good question. And most of the time in scripture, idol means idol, as you said, the gold-plated kind. But you do have a kind of sub-theme in scripture,

and I think it's born out of Ezekiel 14 when Ezekiel talks about the idols of your heart. And there he opens up this category that idolatry is really ultimately a problem with the heart. So I think that opens up this biblical theme, which you see throughout the New Testament, on idolatry being more than just bowing down to physical statues. So for instance, Paul in Colossians 3.5 says, Put to death parts of your life that belong to the earth, such as sexual immorality, moral corruption, lust, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry. So greed is idolatry. And that might be the verse from which this more modern concern about marriage and sports and television and other things being idols in your life. Because here,

it's like greed, the category of greed can be idolatry. I'm not saying all the modern day associations of baseball with being idolatrous or whatever, that those associations are all correct, but I do think they have biblical precedence that idolatry is more than just this physical statue. It is a matter of the heart. Next question. Have you read Beth Allison Barr's book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood? If so, what are your thoughts on it? And what are your thoughts on women in leadership roles? Good, good question. The quick answer is no, I've not read the book. I really want to. not read the book, I really want to. There's been several books of that. Well, I don't want to say they're the same, not the same thing or even similar, but there's been several books that feel similar to what Barr's book is getting at. So I can't, the one I'm thinking of is Jesus and John Wayne. I read Jesus and John Wayne.

And so I really do want to read Barr's book, but I feel like I'm currently reading a lot of books on race and always reading books on sex and gender. So I need to kind of make space for books that are outside of those specific areas right now. Although, I mean, Barr's book obviously deals with gender on a different level. So I haven't read it yet. I don't on a different level. So I haven't read it yet. Don't have any opinions on books that I haven't read. What are your thoughts on women and leadership roles in general? So as I said earlier, and I've talked about this a lot on the podcast,

so please excuse the redundancy for those of you who have heard me talk about my journey, but yeah, I was raised staunchly complementarian and have been in my journey, was really intrigued by the fact that there was what seemed to be a decent number of really solid evangelical scholars that have a high view of scripture that were egalitarian, that are egalitarian. So that's always intrigued me. And I first kind of realized that maybe 15 years ago. So this was back in my maybe mid-20s, just out of seminary. I'm kind of like, wait a minute. I was told that there is zero biblical justification for an egalitarian position, none whatsoever. I'm actually quoting somebody with that phrase. But this guy is super biblical and he's egalitarian. This guy is super biblical. He's egalitarian. This female scholar is an

amazing exegete and she's egalitarian. So that's always intrigued me. And so the little I've dabbled in the conversation, I've seen that it's a lot more complex than people make it out to be. So I'm nervous, or you can read that as I am unimpressed with people who are so dogmatic in one view or the other that seem to not recognize the complexity that to me, I'm like, if you're so dogmatic and think it's so clear, then you, I don't trust that you actually know the complex, the actual conversation well. So I really like it when people say, ah, I'm kind of 80% this direction, but man, I admit that there's a few exegetical things here that are tough for my position. Um, I even asked Tom Schreiner, I hope he's okay

saying this live on the air, but Tom Schreiner, very solid, strong, humble, complementarian. I asked him, this is, gosh, 15 years ago maybe. I said, what do you think is the best argument for the egalitarian position? See, if somebody can't answer that kind of question, like what's the best argument for the other side and have them to immediately and clearly admit that there is good arguments on their side and be able to summarize accurately without strawmanning admit that there is good arguments on their side and be able to summarize accurately without strawmanning what that argument is, then I trust you more in your view. If you say there are no good arguments, then I'm like, sorry, my respect for your position just

took a hit. So Tom Schreiner, when I asked him that question, he immediately, without hesitation, said, you have female prophets in the New Testament. Hands down. He says there's no debate about that. You've got female prophets. And it's hard for my position to argue that. And here, I'm not – this is 15 years ago, so I'm recalling his – I'm summarizing what I think he said through my fallible memory. So, Tom, I apologize if I'm misrepresenting what you said or if you have changed your view since then.

But he said, I mean, that's maybe a harder hurdle to hop over that the complementarian view has to say that these female prophets, that these prophets did not have like an authoritative role in the local church. And that's, I'm not saying that's impossible to say, but it's, it's, that's challenge. That's a challenge, you know? So I appreciated that. I appreciate it when people have, when they, when they can point out areas in their view that are weaker than, than maybe other areas.

Obviously Tom hold and others, you know, hold to their view for a reason. So he believes all the arguments on the table. The complementarian view is the more superior one, and my egalitarian friends would say the same thing about their position. So I'm unimpressed with views that are overly dogmatic. I'm unimpressed with views that can't summarize and appreciate good arguments on the other side. I'm unimpressed with views that base their view on what seems like cultural values instead of biblical values. The big one for me, and this doesn't come up enough, I wish people would recognize this, I don't like it when people argue from a secular view of leadership. And that becomes a foundation for their argument.

Like the secular view of leadership is that leaders are more superior, more valuable, more prestigious than non-leaders. That's a secular view of leadership. That's not a biblical view of leadership. The view of leadership in the Bible is one of an upside down kingdom where you don't lord it over others. And the leader is no more valuable than the non-leaders. And certain gifts, they're all important. They all play a role. But people that don't have certain gifts doesn't mean that they're less valuable than others that do have those gifts. And leaders are supposed to be foot washers and servants and humble and kind.

And, you know, they shouldn't be domineering people. you know, um, it's, it's, they shouldn't be domineering people. Um, so I, I don't, if people say, if people come into this conversation with a view of leadership that has this kind of hierarchical view, that's really a secular view and then say, why can't women be up there too? It's like, well, your whole framework of leadership to me seems skewed. So I, I, I think you're starting off with the wrong value here. I'm unimpressed with people that don't take seriously 1 Timothy 2. And let me spell that out just for a second. I'm unimpressed with people that simply quote 1 Timothy 2 as if that settles it. Like, well, 1 Timothy 2 says blah, blah, blah, blah. How can an egalitarian, like, okay, you obviously haven't

done much exegetical work in recognizing the complexity of that passage. So I don't like when people simply quote 1 Timothy 2, pretending as if, or ignoring the fact that there is a massive conversation about what that text even means. I'm also unimpressed with people that just dismiss 1 Timothy 2, like, obviously this is cultural, blah,, well, hold on here. Like, there's a more complex exegetical conversation that needs to be had here. I'm also not too impressed with people that take general statements about women being workers, workers of the gospel or coworkers with Paul,, simply doing things for the kingdom. Like, look, the women are doing things with the kingdom of the new Testament. Therefore it's like, well, wait a minute that therefore, hold on. Therefore they should be elders and pastors and teachers

in the church like that. Maybe, but that you can't just say, you know, look, um, this person, you know, look, this person, you know, was a co-worker of Paul or like played a vital role in the church in the book of Acts. It's like, well, yeah, no one's saying or no one should be saying women don't play a vital role in the movement of the kingdom. It's a specific question about specific leadership type roles within the local church. So all that to say, all that to say, I really appreciate it when people seem to accurately frame the conversation and are not making just kind of hasty arguments for or against their views. So having said all of that, to answer your question, my thoughts on women and leadership, I'm on the fence. I don't know. I need another sabbatical to get away to an island and just do a ton of research on this passage and see what I think.

How theologically aligned do you like to be when attending a church? I find the deeper and deeper I go into formal theological training, the harder and harder it is to get my mind out of a theologically critical position. Trust me, I try very hard to align my mind humbly in worship, but I will hear theologically iffy things in worship or in a teaching and I lose focus. So what are my thoughts on theological differences and how to curb a critical mind to a soft and humble mind? I mean, that last part's really hard, how to curb your critical mind. That's really hard because it's not a bad thing to want theological precision from a church. It's not a bad thing to want medical precision from a brain surgeon. It's not a bad thing to want psychological precision from

a counselor. It's not a bad thing to want architectural precision from your home builder. So it's not a bad thing to expect that your leaders are spending loads of time making sure that they are representing scripture correctly and on their knees praying for the people they are leading and being accurately handling the word of truth. So that's, yeah, I think on the one hand, we should hold leaders to a high standard because God holds leaders to a high standard and they should be very theological precise. Again, in as much as you want your brain surgeon to be precise, you should also want your heart surgeon, your pastor and leaders to be precise as well. So I applaud your concern here. I think this sounds contradictory. I've become much more gracious, I guess, in my old age, or at least I tend to broaden my values. So you're talking about

orthodoxy. You want precision and orthodoxy, the right belief, theological precision. But what about orthopraxy? How are people living and behaving? What about orthopathy? What's the manner in which they're holding their views? Because somebody could hold to what you would consider very precise theological views. But man, if they're unable to relate to somebody who disagrees with them, if they are just slamming on other people and slandering other people, that's a matter of orthopraxy and orthopathy. Or if they just have a very arrogant, condescending tone. These are things that's hard to...

I don't know. You're not going to see that in a doctrinal statement, like a statement typically on orthopathy and how the manner in which we are holding our views. So I feel like my, I've become much more gracious and lenient on orthodox, not orthodoxy in the sense, like the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. Obviously, I would go to a church that has, holds to the Nicene Creed, should be obvious. But beyond that, a lot of these secondary issues, is it Calvinistic, Arminian? Is it old earth, young earth? Is it amillennial, premillennial? These kind of classic secondary issues to me are like, I don't really care. Not that I don't have an opinion about those things, but to me, those aren't really that significant for me anymore.

Even if I have an opinion about what I believe, I'm more interested in how they're living. Are they living upright lives? Are they pursuing personal morality and also social morality, what some might call social justice, but apparently that word's got problems now. But yeah, are they pursuing, are they, is it a multi-ethnic church and why or why not? You know, is it, are they reaching the poor and marginalized? Are they taking care of orphans and widows as much as they can? taking care of orphans and widows as much as they can. These are things that oftentimes go far beyond just their adherence to a certain set of doctrines.

Orthopathy, what's the tone of the church? Like, do the leaders come off as overly dogmatic and condescending? And, you know, I just can't stand that, you know? So, and also in our current day and age, I'm really sensitive to how they handle political polarization. Do they have political allegiance to one side or the other? To me, that's profoundly problematic. I get really nervous.

Well, I don't know if it'll offend any of you guys listening, but I get really nervous when I see an American flag on the stage, next to the stage, anywhere near the stage. That really makes me nervous. So they might have all the right doctrine. I'm using quotation marks here, you know, but to me, that's doctrinally problematic for various reasons, you know? So yeah, there's just, I think there's layers and layers and layers of different kind of values that I see in a church. And I'm not as concerned with the people of the church. Look, if the congregation is way more, I don't know, Democrat or way more Republican,

to me that wouldn't matter as much as long as they're able to get along with people on the other side. If they make that a point of division, I can never sit next to somebody who voted for Trump. I can never sit next to somebody who voted for Biden. To me, it's that posture that's problematic. But I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm more concerned about how the leadership, because sometimes the leadership could be pursuing things well, and the congregation isn't quite there. And so I don't expect the leadership and influencers in the church to be modeling a good posture when it comes to

orthodoxy, orthopraxy, orthopathy, and how they handle the polarization in our culture today. Man, got a lot more questions here. I got to summarize this next one. It's pretty long, and I'm going to actually pick one piece of the question. The questioner says that he's got a friend that says he's not convinced Genesis 2 is where marriage is being defined in the Bible and claims there's a number of other passages that talk about marriage and claim that this one should be, and this one should not be the one that defines marriage. You have Song of Songs, you got passages in the New Testament, so on and so forth.

Well, Genesis 1 and 2, to me, does serve a more significant purpose in shaping Christian ethics than other passages in scripture, largely because it gives us the kind of pre-fall blueprint for big picture themes in scripture. You know, Genesis 1 talks about the transcendence of God, the goodness of creation, the equality of men and women, the fact that we bear the image of God. Genesis 2 talks about the creation mandate. It talks about male-female relations. It talks about how we need community. It's not good for men to be alone. And it talks about the intimacy of God. Like these are all big, huge, huge, all controlling themes in scripture. And so when Genesis 2 does talk about marriage as a one flesh union between two sexually different persons, that's significant. That's really significant. Even other passages you reference here, like

Song of Songs. Song of Songs famously has loads of allusions back to Genesis 1 and 2. And this is something a lot of people point out. You could look at Tremper Longman's commentary on Song of Songs or David's, the book, The Flame of Yahweh, Sexuality in the Old Testament has a whole chapter on Song of Songs and why or how Song of Songs is basically just drawing on these Genesis 1 and 2 themes. So, I mean, it's a fairly, well, fairly, most Christian ethicists that I read would say that Genesis 1 and 2 does play a significant ethical place, a significant place in biblical, specifically New Testament ethics. Like a New Testament ethical system kind of looks back to Genesis 1 and 2 and looks forward to the new creation.

You have these kind of twin pillars that hold up the Christian ethic. And in between those pillars, the kind of new creation vision and the Genesis 1 and 2 blueprint, like you've got, you know, in between those two pillars, you've got this kind of fallen world that we're trying to navigate. And oftentimes in Scripture, God accommodates to an incomplete ethic in the middle of the Bible and starts moving his people toward that blueprint of creation or the new creation that's not unrelated to the blueprint of creation, Genesis 1 and 2. And this is exactly what Jesus does, right, in Matthew 19, when he says, I know Moses said this, okay, it's an incomplete ethic, but from the creation, it was not so. And so he takes us all the way back to Genesis 1 and 2 to give us the more fundamental aspect of what marriage is there in Genesis 19 and Mark 10.

I would even say Ephesians 5, I think, does some of the same stuff. And nothing I'm saying is really that. It's not like that's a unique position. So, yeah, Genesis 2.24, Man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. And that idea of two people, two sexually different people, male and female, becoming one flesh, and that one flesh union is what we now call marriage. Like everything I've said there has just been widely accepted throughout Jewish and Christian tradition.

We see it in intertestinal Jewish literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls goes back to Genesis 2 to talk about marriage. You see the New Testament doing that all throughout church history. I mean, to talk about marriage. You see the New Testament doing that all throughout church history. I mean, that's, again, that's, so if somebody says, I don't see, I'm not convinced that Genesis 2 is where marriage is being defined in the Bible. I would just, I would ask that person with grace and humility, I would ask them, well, summarize what you think the arguments are that you're disagreeing with. Just so I know that you know what it is you're disagreeing with. Like, why do people say that Genesis 2 is where marriage is being defined? And I want to make sure they understand the argument.

And then I would want to know, like, well, so how do you counter that? Like, where is that argument wrong? And can you supply a better way of ethically treating this question? And so that, I guess just on an intellectual level, that's where I would want to go. Cause I've heard people say that. I've been in dialogue with people that say, yeah, I'm just, I just don't see that sex difference is part of what marriage is in Genesis 2. I'm like, well, I can't force you to see it, but like, why not? Like, to me, it just seems there. So, like, offer a counter argument. Don't just say, I don't see it, because that's not an argument.

I mean, I need a counter argument. Do you think one flesh doesn't mean marriage? Do you think one flesh doesn't demand sex difference? That's James Brownson's position, right? That one flesh is a new kinship bond and doesn't demand sex difference. Okay, well, here's an argument we can work with. I think it's wrong, even though I actually endorse that argument in my book, People to Be Loved. I don't hold to that.

I do think that when it says one flesh, there it is. It is talking about sex difference. So, yeah, so I don't know. I would want to know a better counter argument to the one that I just gave. Um, another question has to do with the recent NT Wright article, um, that came out that you sent to your friends. And then there was a bunch of rebuttals by Ron, Ronald Rothenberg, Andy Davis,

and John Piper. All three responses were in depth, insightful and in passion, but who says that all these people are right. And NT right is wrong. I don't know. I don't know. Are you article you're referring to?

Um, he, he wrote a short one on race. Um, not too long ago. that was really good, I thought. Might be that one that you're referring to. But yeah, so I can't speak directly to this. The one place where I did do extensive interaction with N.T. Wright and John Piper is when they were debating over the nature of justification.

Do you guys remember that? It was probably like 10 years ago when Piper wrote a whole book-length response to N.T. Wright. I think N.T. Wright might have written another book-length response to John Piper. I don't remember. It was kind of a pretty big back and forth. In that exchange, and speaking as one who has been deeply impacted by both, Exchange. And speaking as one who has been deeply impacted by both, a few people have made a more significant impact on my Christian journey as John Piper. Several things I think we would not line up on anymore, obviously. That doesn't mean somebody can't play a significant role in your journey.

I mean, he gave me a passion for Jesus like no other back in my early 20s. Had the chance of meeting him and had dinner with him many years ago. And yeah, he's played a huge role. N.T. Wright, same thing. I would say in my scholarly journey especially, but also my personal journey, N.T. Wright's played a huge role. I really admire them both. I would probably line up more often with NT Wright now than I would with John Piper on a number of things. But yeah, I've actually tried to get both of them on my podcast. Not together, but separately. I haven't heard anything back from John Piper and NT Wright keeps telling me, I'm too busy this year. Hit me up next year. I'm like, all right, I'll hit you up next year. That's like three years ago. And I hit him up every year and he still is, is, is, uh, too busy. Um, so yeah, I, yeah, that goes into

my list of people that I've invited that, uh, could not, or don't want to come on or just haven't responded with that exchange on justification. Again, having an admiration for both Piper and N.T. Wright, I would say that I was much more sympathetic to what N.T. Wright was saying there than John Piper. I don't think John Piper was representing N.T. Wright correctly there. I think he did not read N.T. Wright charitably or sympathetically, and I think N.T. Wright had a much better representation of what the Bible's actually saying in that particular issue. Even though I would have minor adjustments to N.T. Wright's view, I thought that of the two, N.T. Wright was way more solid than John Piper. Again, I'm talking about the specific interchange they had around the doctrine of justification. So that's all I can say about this. I don't know

the specific issue you're dealing with. I've not read any of these articles, but just giving you a little bit of history there and my interaction with the two. Last question. What do we do with the massive fallout among church leaders going all the way back to Jim and Tammy Baker, but more recently the Hillsong Pastor Troubles of Carl Lentz,

the singer Marty Sampson, I don't even know who that is or what happened there, all the way to the disclosures after the death of Ravi Zacharias. The sermons, the music, the books may be incredible and inspiring, but should we still listen to them, read them? Are these things that need to be excised entirely? Do we trust that the Spirit will still be moving through all these things despite the stained human hands that created them? How should we approach the discussion in terms of when very public Christians fall out?

This is a tough one to end on because it's a tough question. And I don't know if there's a super right response to this. Uh, first of all, I want to acknowledge just how devastating it is. Um, when there seems to be just such a large number of these Christian leaders who have shaped so many people, um, shape, shape me, shape to you, I'm sure. And, and, uh, yeah, I feel like every time I turn around, another one's falling and, and, you know, my first response is Lord protect me from falling. If it can happen to them, it can happen to anybody. So I just, I definitely don't want to have a, an arrogant, like how could they ever, or what? And you know, like I, I mourn, uh, mourn the fact when people

fall and I immediately want to look to my own heart and say, gosh, it could happen to anybody. So what am I doing to help ensure by the power of the Holy Spirit that this doesn't happen to me? You know? So it's tough. It's tough. And when these people have played such a significant role in people's lives and some of the names, and this is, let's just say that, you know, there's lots of names out there and some of them have been maybe more shocking than others, in my personal opinion. I'm like, really? That guy? I mean, Ravi was, that was, gosh, that one blew my mind.

I don't really know these others, really, too. I mean, personally, but I don't know Ravi personally. Didn't know Ravi at all. But, yeah, these are tough. I lean towards the view that says we can separate the person from the content of what they say. The message from the messenger. I wouldn't, if somebody is living in sin and that's known, then yeah, I would say they should not be writing and speaking and preaching and doing all these things, obviously. But if it's something like they were writing true things about God and

helpful things, and it comes out later that they were also living in unrepentant sin, I don't think that that in of itself invalidates the content of what they said. Like I just think like, again, I never really followed Ravi. Listened to a few things, watched a few things, and sharp guys. Good, good, seems like a pretty good debater, you know. I think there's some intellectual precision I would have liked from him. Oftentimes kind of public intellectuals, sometimes I wonder if they would be as persuasive in a true academic setting

rather than like a stage in front of 10,000 people. But yeah, some things he would say, I'm like, it's a little more complicated than that. But anyway, he's a smart dude. And I'm sure there's a lot of stuff he said that's still true. The content of what he said is still true. I faced this a while back with John Howard Yoder, who's, you know, one of the, I mean, he shaped my thinking in many ways on politics and the Bible and nonviolence. And there's some stuff surrounding him that seems pretty sketchy. I think it was sexual allegations. Karl Barth, you know, with sexual allegations. Karl Barth, you know, I think pretty much had an affair.

Again, fact-check me on that. The last time I checked, it seemed pretty like there's good evidence for that. But that doesn't nullify the content of what Karl Barth wrote about or John Howard Yoder. I think I could still believe the same stuff he said in his books in as much as they are true and not throw the book away.

Some people disagree. I understand the other position, but how many books would we have if we only kept the ones written by people who didn't have sin in their life or, you know, how many Psalms would we have to throw out because David wrote them? Okay, he repented and that might be different, but yeah, I don't know. You know, I, as you know, I'm a huge MLK fan. Love his, especially his sermons, listening to his sermons and some of his books. But there's a lot of stuff in his life. He had loads of affairs and was pretty misogynistic, it seems.

And that doesn't nullify the great work that he did, I don't think. Again, some people would say it does. His character would nullify all the other good things. But I just, I don't know. I don't think. Again, some people would say it does. His character would nullify all the other good things, but I just, I don't know. I don't see it that way. So I don't think, the Christian music one, that's a little hard. When I know something and I've been around long enough and know people in certain places and know probably more than I wish I knew about certain musical artists and stuff and the whole Christian music scene. And some of it can be certain musical artists and stuff and the whole Christian music scene. And some of it can be

disenchanting. Disenchantment, is that the right word? Disturbing, maybe is a better word. And so I would say with music, when I'm hearing somebody sing certain songs, I'm like, I don't know if you actually believe that. That's a little harder for me for some reason than a book written 20 years ago by somebody who comes out later, you know, was not living the way they should. Um, I don't know if I should make a distinction there. Maybe, maybe, maybe that's hypocritical, but, um, yeah, I don't know. I, I think, uh, I'm going to, I'm going to still lean towards that. Would still, would love to hear your thoughts, uh, especially by, um, the person who asked this question, you can drop a comment and Patreon.

I'll check it out. Would love to hear your thoughts on this after you listen to my spiel. All right, that's it, folks. Thanks for listening. Again, check out the links about the conferences coming up. And also, if you want to support the show,

become part of the Patreon community, you can go to patreon.com forward slash TheAlgerDenRaw. Join the Patreon community for as little as five bucks a month and get access to not only premium content, but the possibility of asking a question that I will do my best to respond to either through Patreon or on this public podcast. So thanks for listening to Theology in the Raw. Thank you.