Theology in the Raw - S9 Ep977: Christian Universalism, asexuality, demisexuality, same-sex marriage and women in leadership, & the massive increase in trans teens.

Episode Date: June 2, 2022

I’ve got a fist-full of questions sent in from my Patreon supporters, some of which I answer here. Questions addressed in this public podcast: Can I make a scriptural case for Christian Universalism? What do I think about asexuality, demisexuality, graysexuality? Is the debate about same-sex marriage kind of like the debate about women in church leadership? It seems like there’s a 50/50 chance that my baby daughter will have gender dysphoria–is that true? Can I recommend any good books on sex and marriage? And will we have memories of earth in our resurrected bodies? –––––– PROMOS Save 10% on courses with Kairos Classroom using code TITR at kairosclassroom.com! –––––– Sign up with Faithful Counseling today to save 10% off of your first month at the link:  faithfulcounseling.com/titr or use code TITR at faithfulcounseling.com –––––– Save 30% at SeminaryNow.com by using code TITR –––––– 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 Dr. Sprinkle’s website prestonsprinkle.com Stay Up to Date with the Podcast Twitter | @RawTheology Instagram | @TheologyintheRaw If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review. www.theologyintheraw.com

I spent a lot of time this morning like working through these questions and I'm like, oh man, I think every single one of these is going to make somebody upset somewhere. And part of me, okay, here's my honesty. Part of me was like, do I really want to publicly talk about this stuff and say things that I know some people are going to find offensive? And I almost self-censured myself. Like, let's just keep this private. My Patreon supporters are more forgiving than the public. So if I say something that somebody doesn't like,

they're like, ah, whatever. That's why we like supporting your ministry. So whatever. Publicly, not such, I don't have the same kind of commitment, but then I was like, wait a minute. The whole nature of Theology in a Raw is giving yourself freedom to think freely, to speak, to not have

100% refined thoughts on everything coming your way before you open your mouth to even think out loud through a certain question. And so, at the risk of offending some of you or maybe raising questions in your mind, I'm just going to dive in. I'm not going to self-censure. I'm going to answer these questions as honestly, as graciously, as thoughtfully as I can, and let the chips fall where they may. Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. If you have not heard yet, Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. If you have not heard yet, the video recording of the previous Theology in the Raw Exiles in Babylon conference is available for purchase. If you go to theologyintheraw.com, you can find out all the information on how to

purchase the videos for the conference. We broke it down into four sessions. I forget the exact title. Something like Politics, Unity, and the Church, one session. Race and Racism is another session. Sexuality and Gender, another session. And then the Dialogical Debate on the Nature of Hell is another session. You can purchase all four, and I think you get a discount if you do all four, or you can purchase them individually. So if you just want to, for instance, get the videos on race and get access to what I thought was a really engaging and challenging conversation on race, then you can do that. Or you can purchase two or three or whatever bundle you want to do. So anyway,

theologyintheraw.com, check it out. And if you want to support the show, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw support Support the show for as little as five bucks a month. Today is a Q&A podcast. And as most of you know, some of you know at least, I typically have been only doing Q&A podcasts for my Patreon supporters. So yeah, they submit questions every month and I record a Patreon only podcast answering their questions. But because the questions have become so plentiful, I have taken some of the questions that they

have submitted and address those questions on a public podcast, which is what we're doing here today. Now I, yeah, I want to be honest with you guys. The questions I'm going to wrestle with here are really difficult and divisive and can create division. I don't know. I spent a lot of time this morning working through these questions and I'm like, oh man, I think every single one of these is going to make somebody upset somewhere. And part of me, okay, here's my honesty. Part of me was like, do I really want to publicly talk about this stuff and say things that I know some people are going to find offensive?

to publicly talk about this stuff and say things that I know some people are going to find offensive. And I almost self-censured myself. Like, let's just keep this private. My Patreon supporters are more forgiving than the public. So if I say something that somebody doesn't like, like, ah, whatever. That's why we like supporting your ministry. So whatever. Publicly, not such, I don't have the same kind of commitment. But then I was like, wait a minute. The whole nature of theology in a raw is giving yourself freedom to think freely, to speak, to not have 100% refined thoughts on everything coming your way before you open your mouth to even think out loud through a certain question. And so at the risk of offending some of you or maybe raising questions in your mind, I'm just going to dive in. I'm not going to self-censure. I'm

going to answer these questions as honestly, as graciously, as thoughtfully as I can, and let the chips fall where they may. So let's jump in with the first one, which is a doozy. So let's jump in with the first one, which is a doozy. Sean asked me, Preston, do you think you can make a scriptural argument for Christian universalism where everyone eventually gets saved? Can I make a scriptural argument for this view? And the answer is yes. I can make a scriptural argument for this view. I can make a scriptural argument for this view. I can make a scriptural argument for

eternal conscious torment, that view of hell. I can make a, for sure, I can make a scriptural argument for annihilation, the view that I hold to. And I could also make an argument for Christian universalism or what often goes by, the term often used is ultimate reconciliation is what most people who hold to this view. That's the term they prefer. So just to be clear up front, Christian universalism or ultimate reconciliation is not the same as like religious pluralism where every pathway to God is equally the same. You just kind of choose your own adventure and Jesus is one way and whatever. I almost said Buddha is another way, but that's not really accurate. But yeah, that's not what Christian universalism is.

Christian universalism says that the blood of Jesus is so powerful that it can overcome even unbelief, even in the afterlife. So most forms of ultimate reconciliation do agree, like they believe in hell. They believe in Gehenna. They think people go there, but they say people will have endless opportunities to turn to God even if they end up going to hell and maybe even experiencing a certain degree of punishment for their sin. There is always restoration on the other side of judgment is how Christian universalism is framed. And it's because of Jesus, because Jesus' blood is so powerful. That's why God will reconcile all things to himself. So it is very, in a sense, like in the more Bardian forms of it, it is very Christocentric. And I don't say that to say, therefore, it's very, in a sense, like in the more Bardian forms of it, it is very Christocentric.

And I don't say that to say therefore it's correct, just because something might be Christocentric doesn't necessarily mean it's the right version of the story of Jesus. But we do need to distinguish Christian universalism from other less Christian forms of universalism or pluralism. So could I make a scriptural argument for this? And the answer is yes. And it was really coming across the work of Robin Perry that Robin Perry is a biblical scholar, has worked for several publishers and super, first of all, he's just a great guy, solid Christian, humble dude, super sharp biblical scholar. And he wrote a book under a pseudonym several years ago called The Evangelical Universalist, very provocative title. And he also contributed the chapter on universalism

and the four views on hell book that I edited through Zondervan. And that essay, I would highly recommend because it's going to shake up your foundations a little bit because that essay is very well written, very sensitive to the biblical story. And he makes a scriptural case for what he calls Christian universalism or ultimate reconciliation. So I'm just kind of drawing on some of his observations here. And this, I'm going to be quoting from his chapter a few times here, just because he says things just so perfectly that I can't really improve upon it. So one of the things Perry points out is that in the Old Testament, you do see a pattern of restoration following judgment.

So the Old Testament, you know, talks about judgment all over the place. We always think, you know, judgment, judgment, judgment So the Old Testament, you know, talks about judgment all over the place. We always think, you know, judgment, judgment, judgment in the Old Testament. But if you look closely at the text, you often see restoration following judgment. So for instance, in Jeremiah 30, you see in, you know, Jeremiah 30 verses 5 to 7, you know, God's people are going to face horrible judgment. But then it's followed by a wonderful salvation in verses 7 through 11. They're going to face an incurable wound that is beyond healing, Jeremiah 30 verses 12 to 15. That's followed by God's healing in 30 verses 16 to 17. A storm of divine wrath, Jeremiah 30 verses 23 to 24, followed by covenant renewal,

chapter 31 verse 1. So it's this pattern of judgment and salvation or exile and restoration or death and resurrection that characterizes God's dealing with Israel. Now, we also see a similar pattern with the nations. It's one thing to say, okay, well, that's God's covenant people, restoration involves judgment. But even in other places in Jeremiah, like the oracles against Egypt, Moab, Ammon, and Elam, they end with a promise of restoration. Here I'm drawing on Jeremiah 46, 26, 48, 27, 49, 6, 49, 39. So for instance, it says in 48, 22, that Moab will be destroyed as a nation. Then in verse 47, yet I will restore the fortunes of Moab in the days to come, or I will shatter Elam until I have made an end of them. Chapter 49, verse 37,

yet I will restore the fortunes of Elam in the days to come, verse 39. Even you think of like Elam in the days to come, verse 39. Even you think of like God's destruction of Sodom. I mean, that's like, you know, symbolic of God's judgment on wicked people is the destruction of Sodom. And yet in Ezekiel 16, 53, it says that God will restore Sodom. Isaiah's prophecies about Egypt in Isaiah 19, 22 says, the Lord will strike Egypt with a plague. He will strike them and heal them. They will turn to the Lord and he will respond to their pleas and will heal them. So the first argument for a scriptural argument for ultimate reconciliation is that you do see a pattern of restoration following judgment. So if all you do is quote judgment passages, that's not enough.

And another argument, a scriptural argument for Christian universalism is a couple different arguments in the book of Revelation. People think, yeah, but all that stuff doesn't matter because when you get through the book of Revelation, you have nothing but hell and lake of fire and all this stuff. And it's like, well, yeah, yeah, you do have, again, judgment all throughout the book of Revelation. But according to certain readings of Revelation, you also have restoration following judgment. There's an interesting argument that Robin Perry makes that it's, I mean, honestly, it's a really compelling argument. In Revelation 15 verses two to four, it says, just and true are your ways, king of the nations. Who will not fear you, Lord, and bring glory to

your name? For you alone are holy and all nations will come and worship before you for your righteous acts have been revealed. Revelation 15 verses 2 to 4. Now, what's significant about this statement that all nations will come and worship before you is that as far as I can tell, and fact check me on this, do a word study. Throughout the book of Revelation, the nations, that phrase, the nations or nations are, as Robin Perry says, the bad guys. Like that term is consistently used to refer to people who are opposing God, who are in under God's judgment. They fail to heed the call to repentance in Revelation 14, 6. They join the battle against the saints and the lamb in Revelation 20 verse 8. In Revelation

14 verse 8, 16, 19, 17, 15, 18, 3, and 18, 23, the nations are opposing God. And Perry says, fact-check him, fact-check him, check it out, see if he's right. In the book of Revelation, the saints are never identified with the nations. Rather, there are those who have been redeemed from every nation. So there can be no doubt who the nations are in 15.4. They are those who were tormented with burning sulfur. And yet after that, says Perry, the saints declare that those damned nations will come and worship God. And the word for worship is, you know, proskynousen. That's the normal word for worshiping God, not just paying homage. So that is interesting that the very term nations referring to those who are opposing God are said

to ultimately that they will fall at the feet and honor God. In fact, in Revelation 21, verse 24 to 25, it says of the new Jerusalem that the nations will walk by its light and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. And no, on no day will its gates, the new Jerusalem, ever be shut for there will be no night there. So people say that the open gate says that the nations will have opportunity forever and ever to enter into the new Jerusalem. So that's the second argument is the use of the phrase, the nations in the book of Revelation. The third argument has to do with some of these statements, like individual verses where God correlates those who are condemned with those who will end up being saved. Romans 5.18 and Romans 11.32 are two very big ones. Okay.

Romans 11, 32 are two very big ones. Okay. So let me read Romans 5, 18. Just as one trespass, and if you know the context of Romans 5, 18, it's the Adam-Christ correlation. Okay. Just, you know, in Adam, we all die and in Christ, all will be made alive. Well, that's kind of where I'm going with this. Revelation, or sorry, Romans 5,18, just as one trespass, Adam's sin, resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification in life for all people. So let's go through that again. One sin of Adam resulted in condemnation for who? All people. Who are the all people? Is it all people or all people or some people? Okay.

So all people, everyone in Adam. If you're in Adam, you're condemned by the sin of Adam. So also, correlation, one righteous act, Jesus' death on the cross, resulted in justification in life for all people. So if the all people in the first part of this verse are all humanity, then who are the all people in the second half of the verse, if not all humanity? So goes the argument in favor of ultimate reconciliation. Romans 11.32, for God has bound up everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. The ones who are bound up in disobedience, which ultimate reconciliationists would say is all humanity. And since that's true, all humanity, therefore mercy on them all must

also be all humanity. God will ultimately have mercy on all people. Philippians 2, 9-10 is well known. At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. So the ultimate reconciliation argument says that every tongue means every single person, every single tongue, and that the word confessed is a normal word for confession. And Romans 10, 9 and 10 says, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, then you'll be saved. So here, every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. And therefore every tongue, every person will be saved. You also have, and under several other passages like that, where it has this kind of like

all people condemned, all people saved kind of correlation. And you also have just the ultimate, just passages that talk about ultimate reconciliation, which is where we get the name from. So Colossians 1, 19 and 20, for God was pleased to have all the fullness dwell in him and Jesus and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth, things in heaven, by making peace through his blood shed on the cross. So the ultimate, my ultimate reconciliationist friends will say, you can't really have all things reconciled to yourself if some people are burning in hell. So ultimate reconciliation means at the end of the day, all things, including all humanity, will be reconciled to God. And I can go on and on and on, but I'm just going to let it sit. So just because you can make a scriptural argument or

a series of scriptural arguments doesn't necessarily mean it is a superior view until you analyze the weaknesses to a certain view and look at scriptural arguments to alternative views and see which one has more scriptural arguments and whether another view can make sense of the scriptural arguments directed, used in support of another view. So, but that's not what the question, that's not what, that's not what, is it Sean? That's not what Sean asked. He just said, can you make a scriptural argument for Christian universalism? And so, yeah, I think I can make one and there it is. So, got to do your own research, folks. Got to dig in and look at different viewpoints and

match it up with the best scriptural arguments in favor of and in favor against various viewpoints. Next question, Robin asks, do you have any books, podcasts, or other resources to recommend on asexuality, demisexuality, and gray sexuality? I think some believers, whether gay or straight, would find encouragement by understanding these realms better and or connecting with others who experience them. I do not have books or podcasts or resources that I could recommend on these. And that doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm just not aware of, I mean, I'm aware, I'm aware of books that might talk about these sexual identities. But would I recommend them? Like, these are really helpful? Nah, not really. I, you know, a lot of these sexual

identities, if you just kind of Google around and find some articles on what they mean, you can get a better understanding of what they mean. So for instance, I found some articles here that give us some definitions because I would assume that most of you listening, you probably know what asexuality is, which we'll get to in a second, but you might be unfamiliar with demisexuality or gray sexuality. So let me give you some definitions here. Demisexuality, somebody who's demisexual is a person who identifies or a person who only feels sexual attraction to someone after they formed a strong emotional bond with them. Compared to the general population, most people who are demisexual rarely feel sexual attraction. Some have little to no interest in sexual activity. But those who, when they do feel sexual attraction, it typically follows an emotional bond, which, I mean, some people could argue that demisexuality is another

term for kind of what the Bible recommends. Like the most purest form of a sexual relationship where sexual attraction is formed after a solid emotional bond. But that's the term that people will use to describe that, demisexual. Asexual are people who might use the term ace. The colloquial term is ace or aces. Asexual people typically don't experience sexual attraction or want to pursue sexual relationships with other people. It does mean different things to different people. So some people might only experience sexual attraction in a very limited circumstance, like people they are in a covenant relationship with, which again,

might be pretty awesome. For example, someone who's a demisexual. So demisexuality can fall under the asexual umbrella. There's some overlap here. They're not the exact same thing, but there is some overlap here. But gray sexuality is also similar. It's kind of in the same purview of asexuality, but it's been described as falling somewhere between asexual and sexual. So, um, they might experience some level of sexual attraction in certain circumstances, but also might on the whole not experience sexual attraction. Um, and it's, you know, people say it's intentionally kind of a vague term because there's a lot of ambiguity in the experience itself. So again, a lot of overlap between these different, uh, categories and there's a lot more again, a lot of overlap between these different categories.

And there's a lot more other categories that we could talk about. So what do I think about all these? Here's what I think about it. Sexuality is incredibly complex. It interacts with our social and relational environment. It also has biological inborn components to it. The more we understand and study sexuality, the more we realize we don't understand about sexuality. In the last 15 years or so, there's been a lot of work done on sexual fluidity. on sexual fluidity. A lot of scholars in sexual orientation research have done a lot of work on the surprising nature of especially female sexuality,

which historically has been characterized as extremely fluid, fluctuates, changes over time, different relationships, social environments. Like one of the most popular researchers in this area is someone who I've had the privilege of having on my podcast. Dr. Lisa Diamond has done a lot of work on this. Her book, Sexual or Understanding, is it, I'm trying to look at my bookcase here. Understanding a Woman's Love and Desire, I think it's called. Sexual Fluidity Among Women, I think it's the subtitle. Anyway, she did a 10-year longitudinal study of 100 non-straight

females. So followed them for 10 years, checked in, did a thorough interview process the first year, I think in every two years for the 10-year span. So at the beginning, 43 identified as lesbian, 30 bisexual, 27 said they didn't fit any category, but were definitely non-heterosexual. And then she added 11 heterosexual women to the list just to kind of compare and contrast. At the end of her 10-year study, Diamond found that more than two-thirds of the women she interviewed had changed their sexual identity at least once over those 10 years. And the changes went in every direction. Some lesbians ended up identified as bisexual or unlabeled.

Some who are bisexual ended up identified as heterosexual. Some that were unlabeled experienced different sexual experiences throughout those 10 years and even though 43 percent of the women identified as lesbian at the beginning of her study only three percent said they expressed 100 attractions to women in every of the interview during the 10 year study so lots and lots and lots of fluidity. What makes the study even more fascinating is that Lisa Diamond is a female. She's a lesbian married to a woman. And she says she doesn't experience fluidity in her sexuality. So it's not like she was trying to find people to justify her own experience.

She's like, no, I'm actually the anomaly. I've only been attracted to women. That's it. That's all they've ever experienced. So the study almost took her by surprise because it didn't match her own experience. And yet the data just, you know, was really clear to her. So, yeah, there was another study I came across recently, a Boise State study actually here in my hometown of 484 straight women were questioned. 484 straight women were questioned. 484 straight women were questioned and 60% said they were sexually attracted to other women. And no, you didn't hear

that wrong. They identified as straight. They had only like, or typically, I guess, I don't know, like heterosexual relationships, but 60% said they find women sexually attractive. Over half had been attracted to a female at some point in their lives. 45% of heterosexual straight women said they had kissed a woman at least once, like in an erotic way. And 50% of straight women confessed to enjoying fantasies, sexual fantasies about other women. Another study showed that 30% of straight women had made out with another girl in college, which lesbians have a name for that. They call them lugs, you know, lesbians until graduation. And there's so many other things we can talk about here that shows that sexuality is complex.

It's fluid. It's unpredictable. It's influenced by various environmental, social, and relational factors that are unpredictable. Also, I mean, this is kind of a side point, but there's another study from the Public Health of England that surveyed millennial women, 25 to 34, and half of these women said that they do not have – what was the phrase? An enjoyable sex life, like sex is not enjoyable for them when they have it. they have it. Another study said that 75% of women will experience pain during sex at some point, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sexual abuse might play a strong role here when 20 to 25% of women have experienced sexual abuse on some level that plays into your sexual desires and attraction and how you view sexual partners.

And so, I mean, I've been focusing on women here, but even Lisa Diamond, who wrote one of the main books on sexual fluidity among women, several years later published, or actually she didn't publish it. She gave a talk at a conference, a big conference, titled, I Was Wrong. Men Are Pretty Darn Sexually Fluid As well. So she says this is not just a female phenomenon, but is something that many men experience as well. And let me be crystal clear. Neither Diamond nor others who talk about sexual fluidity, nor do I, am I suggesting that this proves some kind of like reparative therapy that you can kind of like change sexual orientations? Like Diamond has said very clearly, even though people take our context very clearly, that fluidity typically operates within a general orientation. People don't swing from like a Kinsey 1 to a Kinsey 6.

people don't swing from like a Kinsey one to a Kinsey six. But they might go from a five to a six or a three to a five or a two to a four or a five. And sexuality is complex. Sexuality is incredibly complex and is affected by various relationships, environmental factors, age. And so all that to say, here's my one, I probably have more than one, but when the more recent phenomenon of creating an identity term to capture a current sexual experience or current sexual desire or current lack of sexual desire, I'm not sure that is always helpful. Because an identity term oftentimes assumes or at least gives the impression that this is kind of a category of humanity, a subcategory of humanity that is innate and unchangeable. Like if you say, I am gray sexual, or I am asexual, that tends to give the message. I'm

not saying in every case, I'm not saying everybody uses it this way, would use it the same way. But in general, identity terms often try to, well, they give the impression that this is how somebody is, was, and always will be. But something like even like asexuality, I mean, there's, it's not uncommon for humans to go through periods of time through various, for various reasons where they do not feel sexually attracted to, um, anyone or many people. Um, it's, I mean, yeah, I guess I just got to say it like, like typically also in, in women, Like typically also in women, as they get older, they lose sexual desire. I mean there's a whole thing about – have you heard about the lesbian deathbed syndrome? Like there's this massive problem of like older lesbian couples like stop having sex after a while.

And it's – that problem doesn't really exist in older gay men nearly as much. It's typical of lesbians like, and people kind of like say, well, yeah, because a female sex drive does diminish over time a lot quicker than, than men. Um, so you get two women together with the same kind of diminishing sex drive and you might just kind of lose sexual interest and still have an emotional bond

and commitment and all that stuff. But, um, it's not uncommon for sex drive, sexual desires to come and go. Very not very common for younger girls who aren't gay or even bisexual. They are straight, but they also might be kind of creeped out at the thought of sexual activity with another guy. And maybe when they get older, it, um, it kicks in, you know, whatever, they find the right they get older it um it kicks in you know whatever

they find the right guy whatever and it's in a covenanted relationship and then sexual desires might follow you know a strong emotional bond you know call it gray sexuality or call it just human nature i mean so i i don't um i don't i i do i i don't make a huge turn a huge deal out of identity markers. Some people get hung up on them. While I don't always find them always super helpful, it's not my place to say, no, don't use that term or whatever. But identity markers are simply terms people use

to describe a thing they're experiencing at this time. It's just it's when identity markers, certain identity markers can give the impression that this is an innate sub characteristic of human nature. And this is who you are, were, always will be. I think that's when it's like, well, that's just not how sexuality works. So I don't always find them terribly helpful. That was a lot more than you asked for, Robin. So I hope that's helpful. Ryan asks, should we treat unity between Bible-loving complementarians and egalitarians differently than unity between Bible-loving affirming individuals and non-affirming individuals? And Ryan, you go on to give some

context here. So basically, is the debate about marriage, namely same-sex marriage versus opposite-sex marriage and same-sex sexual relationships, is that debate similar to women serving in leadership in the church? And I'm going to say no, I do not think that these are similar in nature. I mean, obviously they're different questions, but I think the Bible has a lot more clarity on the definition of marriage and whether God allows for same-sex sexual relationships under any context. I think there's a lot more clarity there than there is on women in the church. So let's, I don't know, we can focus on same-sex marriage. So yeah, according to Genesis 2, I hesitate even saying this because I feel like I've said this so many times that for some of you may have heard me say it like a gazillion times or whatever.

But for some of you, maybe you never even heard me say this. So I'll just kind of go back to the beginning and just say that kind of lay a foundation. So as far as my reading or whatever of Genesis 1 and 2, God creates this one flesh union that necessitates sex difference, like to form a one flesh union that means two people of different biological sexes coming together. So people in a same sex relationship cannot form what the Bible calls a one flesh union. Now, James Brownson disagrees with me, obviously. I mean, he's maybe not obvious to a lot of you, but he makes an argument that that's not what one flesh means. I disagree with him. So if you want a different view, read James Brownson, Bible, gender, sexuality. So in terms of how I read Genesis 1 and 2, sex difference is an intrinsic part of

what it means to form a one flesh union. In Matthew 19, Jesus quotes Genesis 127, God created the male and female, and then goes on to quote Genesis 224, for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So as far as I can see, grammatically, linguistically, theologically, the two that form one flesh are the male and female of the quote that Jesus went out of his way to cite in Genesis 1.27. And nothing, I mean, Ephesians 5 seems to assume that in his quotation of Genesis 2.24. Historic Judaism and Christianity for 2,000 years globally, nothing I said was even debated. So marriage is defined as a union between two sexually different persons. And when the Bible does address same-sex sexual relationships, which isn't a lot,

five, maybe six times, it always prohibits them. There's no verse and number somewhere that's like, oh, there's that positive statement about same-sex sexual relationships. Or there's that one same-sex couple that the Bible says, the Bible says it's totally fine, but then you have all these negative passages, and then there's this tension in Scripture. Like, there's no tension in Scripture when it defines marriage, when it addresses same-sex sexual relationships. And the Greek word porneia, which is often translated fornication or sexual immorality in the New Testament, translated fornication or sexual immorality in the New Testament. Porneia in first century Judaism and in Christianity, porneia referred to all sexual relationships outside of a male-female marriage. Kyle Harper has done a lot of work on this, and I haven't seen anybody that has refuted

his argument. Because porneia in the wider Greco-Roman world typically referred to like prostitution, but he shows extensively through several publications that the way it was used by Judaism and Christianity, porneia referred to all sexual relationships outside of a male-female, one-flesh marriage union. So since that's true, and again, I take that to be pretty established, the meaning of porneia. Since that's true, the question is, in the New Testament, is porneia ever treated lightly or as an agree to disagree issue or like, yeah, it's just, it's not. I mean, in fact, whenever porneia is mentioned in the New Testament, it's really, it's addressed really seriously.

1 Corinthians 6, 9 to 10, the sexually immoral, those who commit porneia will not inherit the kingdom of God. Ephesians 5, 3 to 5, there should not be any who commit porneia will not inherit the kingdom of God. Ephesians 5, 3-5, there should not be any hint of porneia or any kind of impurity among you. No immoral, impure, greedy person has an inheritance in the kingdom of God in Christ. So he does list other sins there. I'm not saying porneia is the only thing. I'm saying whatever porneia is mentioned, porneia is the only thing I'm saying. Whatever porneia is mentioned, it's addressed really severely. In Jesus' speeches to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3, at the end of Revelation 2, he goes after the church at Pergamum and Thyatira for committing porneia and teaching

others to do the same. He condemns this woman Jezebel. We're not sure if that's a symbolic term or a real person, but by her teaching, she misleads my servants into porneia. And Jesus says, I mean, he says, I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches the hearts and the mind. I will repay each of you according to your deeds. I'm like, oh my gosh, is this the lamb holding meek and mild Jesus of the gospels? It sounds like a different kind of person, but he comes down super hard on people tolerating porneia. Acts 15. So just one more section. Acts 15, the apostles got together to decide like, what are the things that the Gentiles need to

observe? Like remember there's Gentiles coming to church and there's questions about, do they need to observe the dietary laws and all this stuff? And, and they said, here's four things that are non-negotiables, things the Gentiles need to not do. And one of them was commit sexual immorality, parnea. So, and that's in the very council where they were deciding on what was a primary, what was a secondary issue. So I don't see any tensions in Scripture surrounding the question of marriage or specifically to your question, same-sex sexual relationships. But do we see tensions when it comes to women in leadership, women preaching, women occupying leadership kind of roles in the church? Yeah, we see lots of tensions here. Let me just give several observations. I mean, the New Testament is extremely countercultural in how it elevates women. Like, especially when you read the New Testament, it gets the backdrop of its Jewish and Greco-Roman environment. High, high, high view of women. Okay. That's not enough

to say that women can teach or preach. I don't think. But you also have several women benefactors like funding other believers, including Jesus. Luke 8, 1 to 3, you have wealthy women funding Jesus's ministry. You have Lydia in Acts 16, probably a wealthy convert that was a benefactor. Phoebe in Romans 16, even the term for benefactor, I forget what it is, protestus or something. She's known as being like funding various Christians. And in the ancient world, as far as I'm currently learning a lot about benefaction in the ancient, in the Greco-Roman world. And, you know, as far as some scholars at least say, like being a benefactor carried intrinsic leadership roles. You have women prophets in Acts 15 or Acts 21. You have women prophets in Acts 21. You have women prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11.5

in a local church context. Even Tom Schreiner, a commentarian, says the burden of proof rests on me to say that's not an authoritative kind of teaching position. And he tries to make that argument. I'm not totally convinced by it yet. You have women who might have. So I'm trying to be really cautious here. Women who might have served as leaders. The classic example is Junia, who's called an apostle in Romans 16.7. Phoebe called a deacon and a benefactor in Romans 16.1 and 2. You have people who owned houses, Lydia, Mary of Acts 12. And some people say that owning the house where the church meets gives you leadership responsibility. You have radical statements about mutual authority in the New Testament, like 1 Corinthians 7, 3, where a husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but yields it to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but yields it to her husband in the same way. The husband does not have authority over

his own body, but yields it to his wife. That is the most radical statement I've ever read. Well, is that too extreme? That's an extremely radical statement in a first century context to say the husband does not have authority over his own body. So you have at least several pieces of biblical evidence that the typical patriarchal culture of the Greco-Roman and Jewish environment was being overturned by the New Testament. And yet, yet, okay, so you have the complementarian passages, 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14. You have 12 male apostles, no female apostles, at least, I mean, unless we count Junia. You have all male priests in the Old Testament. Some people say the priests were kind of the pastors of the Old Testament. And while you have female prophets, there was an all male priesthood, and there's the debate about why that is. And on and on and on it goes, right? Where do I stand on and on it goes, right?

Where do I stand on all this? Well, I'm trying to figure that out, as you guys know. But all that, my whole point is just to say, like, the same tensions you see with women in leadership, women preaching, women prophesying in the New Testament, you simply do not have those same tensions, like verses on both sides, you know, when it comes to the definition of marriage and same-sex, how the Bible treats same-sex sexual relationships. So yeah, I don't think we can simply say, well, here's my view. You can disagree. I think that women in leadership, women teaching, women preaching is at the very least a secondary issue. I'm not saying it's not important. And when women hear me say that, please, I'm not saying, oh, it's not important

because I'm a guy and it doesn't really affect me. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying just exegetically, there's enough ambiguity, enough tensions, enough apparent contradictions, apparent contradictions in the New Testament to show that this shouldn't be treated as a first-tier, like, clear issue. That good, probably even Christians can disagree on these things. comes to marriage and what constitutes sexual immorality, there's a lot more clarity and a lot less tensions in scripture on those questions. So I wouldn't put those in the category of a secondary agree to disagree issue. Next question. My husband keeps asking me, this is from Whitney. My husband keeps asking me if we'll have earthly memories in our resurrected bodies. And I told him I'd ask Preston. Oh, I don't. So we know a lot less about our resurrected state than we do know about it. Like there's just, I mean, the Bible, there's several passages that

mention it, but they don't give a lot of like the kinds of details you're looking for. First Corinthians 15 kind of talks about the nature of the body. It doesn't really address directly memories, you know. Probably the most, the best we have to go on is the example of Jesus. I mean, he's the only person that has made it through to the other side and he has a resurrected body. And the Bible says in several passages that we will be like him in his resurrected state. Philippians 3.20, that by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, Jesus will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body. Now that's really focusing on his body, not so much everything about Jesus in his resurrected state, but we will be like him. That's what 1 John 3 says, right?

That when Christ appears, we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. So Jesus' resurrected body gives us a prototype, a model of our resurrected body. And it seems that Jesus did have earthly memories. When he was resurrected, he knew his friends were. He showed up and hung out with them. He knew how to cook fish, right? On the Sea of Galilee. So I would say, here's my cautious opinion on this question. Since Jesus seemed to have earthly memories, like memories of his earthly life, and since our resurrected state seems to be like Jesus' resurrected state, therefore, I do think we will have memories of our time on earth. So there we are. we will have memories of our time on earth. So there we are. Mick, as a new father and avid listener to your podcasts, I've come to the conclusion that it's going to be like a 50-50 chance that my baby girl will experience gender dysphoria. I know this is a huge exaggeration,

but it can feel like that sometimes. Do you think that people experiencing some form of trans is more common than ever? Or is it just that we talk about it more than ever, making it seem that way? If the former, what do you think are some factors that play into it? That was the first question from one of my supporters. And then two other supporters chimed in on this question. Another supporter said, hate to break it to you, Mick, but in my family, all relatively conservative Christians being raised in a church for generations and passing these values to our kids, I actually think 50-50 is not an exaggeration at all. And he goes on to cite several family members, younger family members,

all female, I believe. Oh, no. No, mostly females. Some male family members who actually exceed the 50%, more than 50% would identify under the trans umbrella on some level. And then another Patreon supporter chimes in too and says, hey, related to Mick's question above, what role do you think social media plays in the increasing number of trans-identifying kids? And then he says he talked to Kyla, one of my former trans-identifying friends at the conference. And yeah, he goes on to say, you know, what do you recommend for discipleship if there is kind of social media influence here? So yeah, let me just begin by saying

this is a super sensitive question. Whenever you wander into the trans conversation, everything is debated and somebody finds a fence at something somewhere. So our job is not to ignore the conversation, to not ask hard questions, but to do so as graciously, thoughtfully, compassionately as we can. So let me give you a few, let's try to get our arms around this. Is it a 50-50 chance that your baby girl will experience gender dysphoria? According to the DSM, the latest edition in 2013, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, disorders, up to about 0.014% of people were diagnosed with gender dysphoria. I don't know what that is. Can you translate that percentage? 0.014%. So that's light years away from a 50-50 chance that your girl will experience gender dysphoria.

Will your girl identify as transgender, queer, non-binary, gender fluid? Well, that's a different question because gender dysphoria is a medically diagnosed condition, whereas trans, non-binary, these are identities that are used to name an experience. We shouldn't equate trans identities with gender dysphoria. Do some trans people experience gender dysphoria? Yes. Do some trans-identified people not experience gender dysphoria? Yes. In fact, there's a big debate within the trans community about whether you need gender dysphoria diagnosis to truly be trans.

This is something, I'm not sure if you're familiar with Blair White, she's a popular trans YouTuber, male to female. And she's a big proponent of the medical diagnosis. In fact, she would see, say, like most people, younger people who are identified as trans are not, she would say, not really trans because they don't have a medical diagnosis. Like she's trans, she transitioned. And because she was diagnosed with crippling, debilitating gender dysphoria, had it her whole life. And that's why she transitioned. Like she would say, I actually have gender dysphoria. Whereas, and this is a term used by older trans people within the trans community. I don't, I don't, And this is a term used by older trans people within the trans community. I don't like to use the term myself because I don't feel like I have as much of a right to use it, but I don't mind quoting other people in using it if that makes sense.

So here's what I mean. Here's what I mean. Older trans people who are on the side of Blair White, they would say that if you don't have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, then you're a trans trender. Like you're – it's a trend. It's trendy to say you're trans. But you're not really trans is what they would say. On the flip side, people say I don't need a white male gatekeeper with a medical degree telling me I'm trans. If I say I'm trans, I'm trans. It's the so-called self-ID perspective, that trans is an identity that somebody chooses for themselves and they don't need somebody else saying you shouldn't

be using that term or whatever. So big debate within the trans community. Most older trans people are more on the Blair White side. Not everyone, but most people, most of the ones I talked to especially would be more like, no, like if you're not, if you don't have like gender dysphoria is an extremely rare condition. But if you have it, it's debilitating, it's terrible, it's crippling. And that's, those are, that's what it means to be trans. it's terrible, it's crippling, and that's what it means to be trans. Whereas older trans people typically would look at the skyrocketing numbers of younger people identified as trans and say, no, sorry, you're not really trans. Again, I'm representing their perspective within the trans community. Has there been an increase? Absolutely, there's been an increase. You probably have read some of the statistics. In the United Kingdom, there's been a 2,000 to 5,000% increase among teens going to gender clinics questioning their gender or wrestling with their biological sex might be another way to put it. And there's been a massive increase,

especially among females identifying as trans. It's primarily younger females that identify as trans, which is odd because gender dysphoria historically has affected males like two to one, three to one, males to females. Like it's primarily a male experience. And so now that it's primarily a female experience, that has raised lots of questions among very liberal researchers saying, well, that just doesn't make a lot of scientific sense. Why the complete flip in the sex ratio? And so this has raised a lot of, well, it's kicked up a lot of dust in the conversation, which led to a study by Lisa Littman from Brown University several years ago, surveyed a bunch of parents with

kids who came out as trans seemingly out of nowhere with no prior history of gender dysphoria. And she released a study where she coined the term rapid onset gender dysphoria. The study got blasted. It got retracted. She submitted it to another review, republished it with virtually no substantial changes because the study was fine. It's just that people were kind of really offended at it. But that kind of remained in the halls of academia for a while. But then Abigail Schreier published her book, Irreversible Damage, and she was on Joe Rogan, which made it really popular. And that book kind of blew up. And Irreversible Damage kind of surveys this phenomenon of the explosion in numbers among young teenage girls, especially identifying as trans.

So that's a short version of a really long, complex, complicated phenomenon within the trans conversation. So yes, there's been an explosion, a skyrocketing number, especially of teens identified as trans. Are they experiencing gender dysphoria? Does it come and go? Are these identities solid or are they shifting? Are they malleable? I mean, these are all – and your answer to all these questions is significantly debated. What accounts for the massive increase? Is it socially contagious? Is this recent phenomenon of younger teenage girls identify as trans? Is that, why is that? And one argument is, well, they've always been there. It's just now society is more accepting. So they're free to come out. And certainly that accounts for some of the increased numbers that people don't have to hide in a closet as much anymore. I would also say, according to the research I've done, yes,

social influence certainly plays an influential role as well. Um, but I don't want to, I don't want to say it's all socially influenced or it's all, you know, society being more accepting or whatever. I think it's a blend of both. Um, but yeah, I, I've talked to several people who, um, as a teenager identified as trans and then they've since not identified as trans they don't have any more gender dysphoria and they look back and say yeah i was a teenager going through teenage stuff i was heavily influenced by social media especially tumblr youtube um yeah so i think society is actually playing a huge role um not an exclusive role but i think social influence

is playing a large role i mean it did i mean when i go speak at places like like i was just up at seattle um and it's you know so i live in boise and boise is more conservative you know um but even here the edu you know it's you'd be shocked at the percentage of kids who identify as LGBTQ is a lot higher than you expect from Idaho. But when I go to Seattle, it's more shocking when kids don't identify as LGBTQ. The percentages are just off the chart. And I don't know. If people say, yeah, society has no influence there, that's just – I just think – I don't know.

I think that's a hard sell. I don't know if you're familiar with Bill Maher's recent take on this. Um, I think he's, I, as a Christian, I want to be much more pastorally sensitive to how we even address things like the sudden rise in teens identifying. So I don't take the same approach that Bill Maher would as a comedian, but the content of what Bill Maher said I think is, is largely correct. You know? Yeah. So you can check it out. Bill Maher, it's like a 10 minute or eight minute clip where he talks about the, the rapid rise in teens identifying as LGBTQ+.

So let me go back to your question, make sure I answered these questions. Do you think that people are – yes, people are absolutely experiencing some form of trans. Even in your question, though, this goes back to Mick. So again, I don't want to use trans as a synonym for gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition that some people are diagnosed with. It's very extremely rare, extremely severe. It can be debilitating. For 80% of children that experience gender dysphoria, it goes away through puberty.

We don't know exactly why. It goes away for some people and not others. We don't know exactly why it goes away for some people and not others. So, yeah. No, it's not just that we talk about being trans more than ever. I think that might be some of that because it's such a conversation today. It seems like so many people are trans. But no, the data in every Western, wealthy, affluent country, which that's another conversation in every Western affluent wealthy,

actually affluent means wealthy, right? And every Western affluent country, the skyrocketing rise in people identify as trans is almost the same. Around 2012, 13, 14, you see the hockey sticks start to spike up and it keeps going up and there's no signs of it slowing down. So last question, this comes from Katrina. Any book recommendations or resources on a biblical vision of sex and marriage? Yes, I have several. The one that I found most helpful is not the easiest read, but it's by Christopher Ash called Marriage. Subtitle is Sex in the Service of God. But if you want a pretty thorough 300 plus page book, it's quite academic. It's not unclear. He's clear, but it's thorough. That's probably, I think, the best book out there. A close second is Jonathan Grant's book, Divine Sex. In fact, I don't know. Maybe that one's even...

Yeah, I don't want to compare these. First, second, best, not so best. Both of these are excellent. Divine Sex is easier to read, very culturally in tune. And just, I love the way this book is just fantastic. Divine Sex by Jonathan Grant. I also like Christopher West's recent book, Our Bodies Tell God's Story. There's things I don't like about it. I don't agree with everything, but I think it does a pretty good job talking about, I guess not so much marriage per se, although it's kind of woven throughout the book, but it's very easy to read, very engaging. I haven't read Tim Keller's book on marriage, but I assume being Tim Keller, it's probably really good. I also have my friend Branson Parler, who is coming out with a book called Everybody's Story, which again, it's kind of like Christopher

West's book, but it deals a lot more with marriage and sex. Like what is marriage for? What is sex for? Talks about procreation, talks about infertility, talks about and weaves it into the biblical story. It's a fantastic book. I think it comes out maybe in the fall, Everybody's Story. I wrote the forward to it recently. So it's, I just spent the last couple of weeks coming through it. So yeah, those are the books I'd recommend. There's a lot more books out there I'm sure I could recommend, but that's what I got for now. So thanks so much to my Patreon supporters for raising such scintillating and challenging questions. And I hope you enjoyed this episode. If you want to support the show, get access to the Patreon community.

You can go to patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. Until then, we will see you next time on Theology in the Raw.