Theology in the Raw - 627: #627 - Celibate Christians - Trust the Bible - Obese Pastor

Episode Date: January 2, 2018

Happy New Year! Preston is starting off this year in Melbourne, Australia.  At the admonishment of Preston, get to know Michael F. Bird - ridley.edu.au/about-ridley/ridley-people/faculty/mike-bird Preston's Patreon-Voted questions today are:  How can the Church support celibate Christians, gay or straight?  Should women be in ministry? What does Paul say about it and is it a disputable manner?  Why should we trust the Bible as an authoritative source of truth?  Gluttony is a sin right? Why then do we submit ourselves to a pastor who clearly seems to have a problem with food? Check out Sunder by isaacxhopes - youtube.com/watch?v=ptool1gI8Tw Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Connect with Preston Follow him on Twitter @PrestonSprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

How can you support celibate gay Christians in the church? Women in ministry, what does Paul say? And is this a disputable matter? Should you submit to obese elders and pastors? I'm Preston Sprinkle and this of Theology in a Raw. This is coming to you recorded from Melbourne, Australia. I've been in Australia for a little more than two weeks. I'm going to be here for about two more weeks and decided, hey, why not do a podcast?

It's raining out. It's actually raining cats and dogs almost literally. There's like a huge downpour that just smacked the house. So it's calmed down right now. So if it picks up again, you may hear some of that in the background. I apologize for that. I'm also recording from my portable microphone, so the sound quality is going to be a little bit subpar for this episode. But I couldn't lug my entire podcast setup overseas to Australia. Instead, I went for the Snowball USB mic. I went for the Snowball USB mic. And speaking of mic, I am in the house of Mike Bird. If you don't know Dr. Michael F. Bird, you got to get to know this guy.

Michael Bird is an amazing biblical scholar. I met Mike several years ago when I was studying in Scotland at Aberdeen University, and he was a professor at Highland Theological College out in the highlands of Scotland. And Mike is originally from Australia. And so it was several years ago when he got a job here at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. And so he's back in his home country. And long story short, he's out of the country.

In fact, he's in the U.S. right now. And we were going to do like a house swap, but he wasn't actually going to be coming to Idaho. So he just said, hey, my house is going to be free for a couple months. I'm going to be in the States. Why don't you just come on over and stay in my house? It's summertime here in Australia, and you can use my car, use my food, use my house, and just have a jolly good time here in Australia. And so that's what we're doing. We're hanging out in the house of Michael Byrd.

Mike is one of the most prolific New Testament scholars I've ever met. I mean, this guy just cranks out high quality resources for the church. And when I say high quality, I mean like high academic quality. This guy is a true man of the church, but he is a capital S scholar. This guy is a legitimate, I mean, scholar in the New Testament, in all areas of the New Testament, and even like the early church. Like this guy just, I don't know, I don't know if he sleeps or what he does, but he just, I mean, this guy is just all over the map when it comes to New Testament scholarship. He's been just a good friend for several years now. Mike, if you're listening, thanks, mate, for letting me stay at your house and eating your food.

In fact, I just cooked up some of your fine Melbourne coffee that you had stashed away. I think you're trying to keep it hidden from me, but I found it and I made, uh, a really cracking espresso and it's, it was pretty amazing. Anyway, let's jump into the questions again. Uh, I've been going with my Patreon voters. Uh, my Patreon supporters are voting on the questions. And I posted a bunch of pretty juicy questions a couple weeks ago, and they've been voting on them. And so the questions that are coming to you were the ones that my Patreon supporters thought that I should address. Now, there is a couple of these that I actually addressed in the last podcast, so there might be a little bit of overlap, but I'll try to give you some fresh responses to

these questions. Number one, how can you support celibate gay Christians in the church? This questioner says, I've been listening to the podcast for a few months and recently read People to be Loved. I realized about four years ago that my sexual and romantic attractions are toward the same sex, and I publicly came out to my church earlier this year. I hold to a traditional view of marriage and have chosen to be celibate, but I often find myself frustrated by how the church is structured to support marriages and families and doesn't know what to do with single or celibate people. If the church is God's family, what, if anything, do you think churches can do structurally, organizationally to support

celibate people, gay or straight? This is not only a wonderful question, but it's a super important question and one that has been on my heart for several years now. And I will say that I think the response I can, well, I think the question is touching on a much larger ecclesiological problem in the church. And I will call it a problem. One of the most profound threads in New Testament ecclesiology, New Testament teaching on the church. One of the most profound and pervasive and provocative and beautiful threads in New Testament theology of the church is that the church is a family. That it is not like a family. The family isn't just an interesting metaphor for what the church is. The church is a spiritual family. We are all brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles and mothers and fathers,

sons and daughters of each other in the church. Loneliness should be abolished for those who are part of a church. abolished for those who are part of a church. Relationships should be thick and rich and authentic and honest. And I mean, the church should be the introvert's nightmare. And as a partial introvert, I say that out of my own sort of Enneagram rating or whatever. Now, having said that, I can hear you laughing on the other end or maybe crying on the other end because for most church contexts, it certainly doesn't feel like that. It's very easy to get lost. It's very easy to be an introvert, to show up, to give your superficial smile, have a superficial conversation. You can even be kind of involved and yet not be truly known by people at the church.

So for most Christians, I talk to the church certainly doesn't feel like an actual robust, rich, messy, authentic family. messy, authentic family. So, I think that is a greater problem that is the sort of umbrella problem that any response I give must first acknowledge that I think we, for the most part, are kind of missing that vision of the church being a spiritual family that is thicker than blood relationships. Let me say this too, for all of you who are not celibate gay Christians out there, I want you to really listen to this question, the question that I read, because this is something that I would say nine, at least nine out of 10, single people, especially single gay people who hold to a traditional theology of marriage in the church, and there's a lot of you out there, this is a constant

cry from these brothers and sisters of ours. And I just, it's getting really, it's just, it's weighing on me so heavily right now that there's people crying out from the pews saying, we are committed to a very difficult journey, but we can't do it alone. What can you do, church, to, what can you do on your end to support me in this very difficult journey that I'm trying to pursue? And a lot of times that cry, that plea is being met with crickets or shoulder shrugs or, you know, people just not knowing what to do with people who are gay and celibate in the church.

And this is a, this is a, this should be a massive concern of ours. So I want you to hear this question again. I find myself frustrated by how the church is structured to support marriages and families, but doesn't know what to do with single celibate people. Now here's the thing, and I've said this before, so I'll keep it short. The New Testament elevates singleness. The New Testament values singleness. The New Testament sets forth a single Savior. The Apostle Paul was single and he elevated singleness and preferred the single life over the married life in 1 Corinthians 7. The New Testament is profoundly oriented towards singleness. And I do think there was a massive distance between the New Testament

vision for singleness and how the contemporary 21st century American church, and maybe even the global church, I don't know, is, I would say, overly focused, perhaps even idolatrous toward a vision of marriage. And we give people the impression that they are second-class citizens until or unless they are married. We do that implicitly. Sometimes we do it explicitly. And there's much more I could say about that, but let me just get to this question. What can the church do about this? Let me just give you three thoughts that I've been thinking about and that I think directly addresses your question. Number one, I think churches need to establish a culture that promotes praises and elevates singleness.

I think we need to have singles in leadership. I think we need to talk about it from the pulpit frequently. I think we need to constantly address and confront really the idolatry of marriage. If you think marriage is going to solve all your loneliness, then you're wrong. If you think loneliness is going to solve all your sexual frustration, you are terribly wrong. The people that are most addicted to pornography are married men. And sexual satisfaction, you know, yes, there are some married people that are just totally sexually fulfilled, are not tempted as much as they were when they were single. But for the most part, sex involves pain and involves frustration. There's problems that happen in sexual relationships within marriage when it's all legal from a biblical

standpoint, I guess. But if you think that marriage and the ability to have ongoing sex that's right in the eyes of God, if you think that that is going to solve all your problems as a single person, then I would recommend that you don't get married until you realize that it is not going to solve all your problems of loneliness and sexual frustration and urges and so on and so forth. I think the leadership, I think we need to talk about, we need to have singles as leaders. We need to talk about this from the pulpit frequently. I think we need to establish through various avenues, a culture that promotes praises and elevates singleness. We need to

interview singles from the stage. What if a few times a year, maybe a couple of times a year, you had single people come up and talk about how they are flourishing or not flourishing and talk about that from the pulpit, from the stage. Let people know like, yeah, this is tough. This is tough. This subtle marriage idolatry is really hard and we need to make people aware of that. I think it's pretty easy to make people aware of that. I think for the most part, most married people, they're just not really aware of how they can make singles implicitly feel like second-class citizens. Most people don't want to do that. They're just unaware, really, of how we have, I think, very blindly established a thick culture that idolizes marriage. So I think we just

need to talk about it and address it from the stage. Number two, we need to establish a culture of spiritual kinship. And this basically is what I just said at the beginning of this question, that the New Testament is very clear that our spiritual bond as a family, a family of believers, should run thicker than blood. And we need to establish that. blood and we need to establish that. This is honestly, if I could say, probably one of the main driving forces behind the church that I've been involved in planting. We want to elevate spiritual kinship as an utmost value and priority. If people don't feel like they have rich, authentic, messy, and difficult, and challenging relationships, deep, honest, authentic relationships at church, then they're not doing church. Like if we're not doing that right, then everything else is kind of secondary. We can have good teaching, good worship,

good, you know, missional ventures. But if we're not a tightly bound family, then we're not doing church right, in my opinion. So, you know, other churches that maybe don't follow the same model that we're pursuing, I think that they need to still work hard at ensuring, doing whatever they can to ensure that people are connected with other believers, that they are not just isolated in the pews listening to good teaching and singing powerful songs of worship and having a good emotional experience. All of that is good. It plays a role, but it cannot fulfill the New Testament vision of what church is. Church is a deep, authentic family of believers coming together once a week or more to celebrate the

profound gift of salvation that they have been given freely in Christ. If you have family retreats, for instance, you should include singles in those retreats. I've had, you know, for many years, I, you know, thought family retreats at church are the greatest thing ever. This is so awesome. You know, they're encouraging families to get together and get to know other families, and that's wonderful. But what are singles doing on the weekend that the church is up in the mountains on a family retreat? Make that super clear that singles, because this is a family retreat, not a secular family retreat, which only views family as blood relationships. This is a biblical Christian spiritual family

retreat, meaning the entire family of God's people should be invited. Include singles in the family retreats at your church. Encourage families during, especially during holidays to invite singles over for Christmas dinner, New Year's Eve celebrate. Well, I guess that's, yeah, the singles kind of own that one, but Thanksgiving meals and 4th of July barbecues and so on and so forth, we need to just be ongoingly inclusive of singles into our families at church. Now, some of this is out of your control. You're not on church leadership. You're not a pastor, elder. It's like, yeah, this would be great. My leadership doesn't really get this. Well, my third point, number three, is that families or people in general should take the initiative. So even if your church isn't doing number one and two, if they're not

really promoting a culture of singleness and establishing a culture of spiritual kinship, then you as an individual, as a family, as a husband, wife, with two kids or whatever, you can reach out and get to know the singles that are at your church and include them into your house. Sometimes, you know, I know several families and they have invited singles to come live with them. If you have the space and the sort of bandwidth, if you will, and you know, that might be an option or just be, just being aware, just being extra aware that there are people who go home at night to nobody else. And that can be very difficult at times. And then on the flip side, there are times when people are going home to a family and they wish they were by themselves. Again, getting married and having

kids is not going to solve your longing for relationships. Second question, women in ministry, what does Paul say? And is this a disputable matter? So this question came in after, or no, before I actually addressed a very similar question on the previous podcast. And so I want to be kind of quick here because I did spend quite a bit of time giving my thoughts on this. Your two questions here, you boil it down to two main questions. How do you make sense of Paul's teaching on women in ministry? And is this something that the church can agree to disagree? Like, is this a disputable matter? And if it is, how do we move forward in harmony? So number one, how do you

make sense of Paul's teaching on women in ministry? First of all, I actually don't like the phrase women in ministry because ministry is a very broad term and includes all kinds of things that women should be, absolutely should be doing. The question is women in leadership or in teaching roles, or some people would say women's ordination, if your denomination has something like an ordination process. So, the phrase ministry, if you say, no, women shouldn't be in ministry, that just, I mean, it's biblically inaccurate, really. So, let's make sure we're wording it as precisely as we can. Women in local church positions of leadership, I would say. How do I make sense of Paul's teaching?

Again, I addressed this a lot in the last podcast, but there are some statements that I think could be taken in both ways. On the one side, 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, verses 34-35, I believe, Paul says women shouldn't speak in church, they shouldn't teach or exercise authority over men. So those are two big passages that, you know, seem to suggest by themselves that women should not be occupying positions of teaching and leadership in a church. Now, of course, there's many different interpretations of those passages that people who are for women's ordination or women in leadership have offered to as a better interpretation of those passages. So, it's not just, we need to wrestle not just

with what the Bible says, but with what it means in its social and historical context. But those are two verses that, you know, again, by themselves would seem to suggest women can't be teaching. But 1 Corinthians 11, Paul says, you know, he tells women to make sure you wear a head covering or perhaps a veil when they're prophesying in church. And so, he doesn't seem to have a problem with them prophesying in church, although, you know, a few verses later, he says women should be silent. You have female co-workers of Paul that are praised throughout his letters. You have, you know, this is in the book of Acts, but female prophets mentioned in Acts, toward the end of Acts, in Acts 20 and 21. So, you do have verses on both sides. Now, I do, you know, lean complementarian.

I've said that before many times. And part of that is just I haven't dug deep into this specific issue, but that's where I currently lean, although the more I wrestle with this, I do see a lot of legitimacy to the so-called egalitarian or, as one of my friends says, the non-hierarchical complementarian position. I actually like that phrase better, non-hierarchical complementarian, meaning women and men are designed to complement each other. They are different. We need to celebrate the differences, not erase the differences, but there shouldn't be any hierarchies in the church. Women are free to serve in any position that they are gifted in. So I still do lean complementarian. That's where I'm at, and I might change my view upon further study. Now, your second question, is this like a disputable matter? You can agree to disagree. Yes, absolutely. I do think it is. I used to not think it is. I used to question people's belief in the authority of the Bible if they were

not complementarian, and I absolutely don't do that anymore, at least not from this issue alone. I think there are strong biblical arguments for women in leadership. So I do think that it's something that people can agree to disagree on. I've served on elder teams where elders disagree over this matter, and yet the church might have a particular view. I mean, either the church is going to be okay with women in leadership or not. I mean, it's kind of tough on a policy level to have kind of a both-and position. But I've served alongside people who hold different views, and I've seen it work out in very beautiful ways. I absolutely don't think it has to be a divisive issue. Next question, and this one is very much related. Okay, so let's just kind of keep going here.

This one is, can aspects of theology be contextually driven? Meaning, if I know there are great biblical arguments on both sides of an issue, say women in leadership, issues, say women in leadership, can I in some circles or seasons sit under female elders and in other circles or seasons sit under a more male headship model? Here's where it gets messy. Can I say to the faces of both parties I fully support and agree with, your view or your view, knowing full well that in other circles I'd answer the exact opposite more or less. Can many, not all, but many of my theological convictions be contextually driven towards what seems to be the best reflection of the good news in a given culture or context? Meaning, can he, you know, this person, actually, I don't know if it's a he or she, can this person, you know, serve under this leadership that's,

you know, believes in women in leadership, and then a few years later serve in another church that doesn't believe that and basically give their assent to both views. Here's my response to this. For the most part, I would say, well, not for the most part, I think absolutely you should be honest with where you're at.

And it sounds a little bit slippery. I almost said slimy. That might be a little bit slippery. I almost said slimy. That might be a little too harsh. It sounds a little bit disingenuous to tell one group of people that you support their view and another group you support their view when those views are incompatible with each other or are very different. I would say be honest with where you're at. So let me give you, I guess, my own personal example. I mean, although I lean complementarian, I'm at a point now, I don't think I've ever said this on theology in the raw. So this is going to be a virgin statement here. I hope it goes well. I'm at a point now, and I might change my mind tomorrow. So I'm at a point now where I think I can sit under leadership that has female elders. I mean, for the right reasons. Just because they have female elders, I'm always going to ask, are the elders male or female or intersex?

I mean, are they qualified leaders? Are they theologically astute, hopefully theologically trained, but if for whatever reason they are not formally theologically trained, do they know Greek and Hebrew or do they, are they, you know, theologically well-versed? Are they qualified to be pastors and leaders? Um, I mean, I've got a very high view of leadership in general. So, um, again, yeah, just because they're because they're female doesn't mean, oh, absolutely, I'd sit under them. But if they are qualified leaders, I think because I see it as a disputable matter, I can still currently lean complementarian and yet say, you know what, this might be an agree to disagree thing, but I'm not going to make it a sort of dividing line in the sand, if you will.

And I could absolutely minister alongside female pastors and elders in many different ministry ventures. In fact, I mean, the board, yeah, get this, the board of my organization, the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, I would say most, I think the majority of the board are not complementarian. In fact, maybe only two of us would lean that direction. And two board members are females. And so in some ways, I mean, I'm submitting to their leadership, their voice. And so, and here's the funny thing, at least I think it's funny. Um, I, most, most churches that I minister in, that I serve in, that I speak at are egalitarian.

I oftentimes forget that I lean complementarian because I'm around so many female ministers and leaders and elders and in, in various ministry, you know, various ministry ventures or speaking engagements that I have or events or whatever. And I just – I don't have – I'm very okay having some level of maybe disagreement or questions or I'm not quite there, however you want to word it. And yet because I do see this as a disputable matter, I'm fine with the differences of opinion. And yeah, so I'm very okay. I mean, going back to your question, I'm very okay with you, you know, wrestling with this and being able to maybe, let's just say, if you're not quite egalitarian, that you can serve at an egalitarian church. I'm very okay with that. But I would still be honest with where you're at. It doesn't mean you need to broadcast it or

whatever, but I mean, if the question comes up, I don't think you need to be dishonest with where you're at just to make sure you don't ruffle some feathers. So next question, why should we trust the Bible as our ultimate authority? I mean, and you give some background here. And so let me just skip down here. You say, let me state this in one question to make it easier to know how to respond. And here's your question. How would you defend the Bible as our ultimate authority for truth in five minutes or less? I would say, I mean, I understand what you're saying there with the five minutes or less, or, you know, give me the elevator pitch. And just if you were in kind of a quick conversation with somebody or kind of an informal conversation, what's the kind of just five minute response you would give to the question, you know, why do you think the Bible's

authoritative? I would, you know, this is such a massive question that if somebody sort of was demanding that I respond in five minutes, I would push back against that. I mean, we live in such a, I mean, low attention span Twitter world where everybody wants, you know, quick soundbite kind of responses. And I'm trying to, I'm on a mission to kind of push back against that and, you know, push people to think more deeply and thoroughly through tough questions. So, so I understand what you mean by the five minutes. You just want kind of like, like simplified or, you know, the, the, the crust, if you will, or the cream of my answer here. So I understand that. But I, if you actually did have somebody saying, give it to me in five minutes or less, I would push back against that. So here's some bullet point thoughts. First of all, I would recommend not arguing for inerrancy. I would argue for authority and reliability. And there's a massive difference here.

There's not a single history book that's ever been written that is inerrant, and yet there are many history books that are reliable. If you're talking to a skeptic, why try to argue for something as debatable and I would say difficult as inerrancy when all you are really trying to show is that the Bible is authoritative and reliable. Most attacks on the reliability of the Bible focus on a few passages like the sun standing still in Joshua or statements about the earth being flat or, you know, even the Bible having like an ancient cosmology with the pillars

of the earth and, you know, the sort of expanse in the heaven that's holding back the waters. I mean, the Bible does seem to assume an ancient cosmology that we now know is scientifically incorrect. So if you argue for a very narrow view of full-on inerrancy, I think you're making it more difficult than you need it to be. Also, make sure when you talk about biblical authority, you're not talking about biblical literalism. There's many evangelical pastors and scholars and leaders who, for instance, don't believe

that Adam and Eve are historical figures. And I know that's appalling to some of you, and you think, how can they be Christians? How can they believe the Bible? But they do. I mean, they look at the genre of the early chapters of Genesis and say, you know, I think this is actually not intended to be taken literally. So they're not saying they don't believe the Bible. They're not saying they don't believe the Bible is authoritative.

They're not saying they don't follow the commands of the Bible. They're just saying we should consider the certain modes, the certain genres in which the biblical text is presented to us and take that seriously. You know, reading the Bible is fairly easy. Interpreting the Bible can be very difficult, especially when it comes to understanding various genres or understanding continuities and discontinuities between the Old Testament and the New. This is another thing that critics like to do. They point out, you know, verses in Leviticus that we don't obey and say, see, you don't obey that. You don't really believe the Bible's authoritative. That's absurd. I mean, even some of those fundamentalist

Bible colleges teach a thing called hermeneutics that says there are continuities and discontinuities and progressive revelation. And, you know, we don't just pick every single verse out from the Bible and say that should be understood in the same literal sense that every other verse should be understood. I mean, that is a very far right extreme fundamentalist perspective that I think few Christians hold anymore. And yet, it's that perspective that critics like to attack. Well, you eat shellfish, and so you don't really believe the Bible's authoritative. And I just want to punch myself in the face whenever I hear that, because it's like, come on, dude. Do you talk to any real Christians who have some just basic sense of hermeneutics and

interpreting the Bible, obviously there's a thing called progressive revelation that says that some things were authoritative under certain covenants and for certain people, certain testaments, if you will. And yet the Bible has diverse expressions of what is authoritative and when is authoritative and how it is authoritative. And if it's authoritative, speech act is authoritative in the same way for every place, for every person at every place and every time. I mean, that's what hermeneutics is. That's what her interpreting of the Bible is, which is why if you go to, again, even, I mean, every Bible college is going to begin usually with interpretationpretation 101 or Hermeneutics 101 or How to Read the Bible or whatever.

So all that to say, don't try to – don't set out to defend like inerrancy or a literal – a hyper-literal interpretation of the Bible. If they go to Genesis 1 and 2, say, yeah, the Bible can be authoritative and that can be mythical. The Bible can be authoritative and that can be mythical. I mean, a myth is not in and of itself contrary to authority. Myths can be authoritative. I mean, that's what many other religions rely on, myths as authoritative portraits of the divine. And that's very well accepted. So if the Bible, I'm not saying it is, I don't believe it is a myth, just for the record. I mean,

if you've been listening to this podcast for any number of weeks, you know that I actually do think Adam and Eve are literal figures. I do think that the creation account is a blend of narrative and poetry. I don't think it's all just raw historical literalness. I don't think it's all raw poetic myth. I do think it's probably somewhere in between. There are, you know, maybe myth is a bad term because it can be understood in different ways, but there's a lot of metaphors and images being used, especially in Genesis 1 through 11. So I think here's where i'm coming down to i mean the the bible does have a remarkable historical track record you can go the the bible was daring enough if i could say it like that the bible was daring enough to talk about it's God entering human history, and it gives place names.

It talks about roads. It talks about foreign rulers. It talks about events outside the Bible. It was very risky in how much history it wove into its narrative of the divine entering human history. And you can go. You can buy a plane ticket and go walk around Israel and look at these cities. Now, there are some people that just want to, at every turn, trash any historical reference

in the Bible. And most of them had some Christian girlfriend that broke up with them in junior high, and they're really upset, even though they're 65 years old, and they're still, you know, their fundamentalist Christian sister, you know, is obnoxious on Facebook, and they're really upset about that. I mean, typically, there's a lot of personal stuff going on when people just go out of their way to try to attack any sort of historical mention in the Bible. I think most honest historians would say there's a lot of good historical stuff in the Bible.

It's remarkably historically accurate, even from a neutral perspective that doesn't have any religious commitments. You can compare, for instance, Luke and Acts with Josephus. just commitments. You can compare, for instance, Luke and Acts with Josephus. You can compare various portions of the Old Testament with other historical texts that correlate with it. And it's remarkably historically accurate. So that's where I would, to answer your question, I would focus on that. Don't stretch it so far. Don't shoot for the moon and try to prove like inerrancy or that every little jot and tittle is perfectly historically accurate. Just show that there is a remarkable historical reliability of the Bible. And for me, the biggest thing is, well, it's that, that the Bible is historically reliable,

generally speaking. But also the biblical worldview makes sense of human history. It makes sense. But in particular, the Bible, unlike most religious texts, has a very negative view of human nature. Not humanity. I mean, it has a very high view of humanity. We're creating God's image, but it has a very negative view of the evil that resides in the hearts of humans. When I look around the world, I see that in every human heart, a mixture of good and evil. And the Bible is very clear about that. And so the Bible also, I mean, the story of redemption is so oriented

towards grace that we cannot save ourselves, that we need a Savior to save us, that we are not justified based on our own performance, but on faith in a superior being, if I can word it as neutrally as I can. All of that, I think, makes sense of the world that I live in, the world that I see, the world that I pay attention to, the world that I try to interpret. And it provides the most compelling narrative of redemption of the other options. Let's move on to the final question. And this one, oh, man. This one's tough. Oh, man. This one's tough. And I've been thinking about this one a lot today when I've been reading through these questions. I actually read through these quickly when I posted them on my Patreon account two weeks ago. And I remember seeing this question and saying, oh, man, I'm wondering if my Patreon supporters are going to vote on this one. Part of me is like, I hope they don't, but they voted on it. And your vote is authoritative. And so I have to deal with this one. This one's tough. Well, it's tough, but it's not. It's potentially offensive depending on where

you land or depending on what you say. Or it's not depending on how you answer this. Okay, so here's a question. Should we listen to or employ obese elders or pastors? The questioner says, I understand that sometimes obesity is a result of a medical condition. And sometimes obesity is a lingering effect of past sin. But let's lay those aside. If we wouldn't be comfortable with an elder leader with a sexual issue or a greed issue, why do we treat gluttony and an addiction to food or appetite as okay? How would you respond to this? Oh my goodness, it's a great question. And I think people are scared to ask it,

which is probably why they ask it on Theology in the Raw, because there's no filter for the questions that come in. And I've only seen people ask this question in really private settings. It can be very offensive, I think, in public settings. So let me give you my raw answer. I don't think the issue is primarily about obesity. It's about self-discipline. It's about respecting your body. It's about health and it's about addictions. I know skinny people, like really skinny people who have amazing genes and yet they can be very undisciplined when it comes to food. Like they know they have this off the chart metabolism, so they don't exercise because they don't really like to. I've seen people pound, I mean, piles and piles and

piles of bacon. And it just goes right through them. They just have amazing genes. I would say my wife's family is like that. I mean, for the most part, they eat pretty healthy. My wife is a very healthy eater, but she has amazing genes. Um, I mean, she, you know, she hasn't been to the gym in like 20 years and yet she's super thin and she, she does eat very healthy. So that would be one thing for her. I mean, she, um, but part of it too, is she doesn't have any, she, uh, she's like turned off by fried foods and she she craves like salad um is that a byproduct of her self-discipline or is there something in her just genetics that that is wired that way like she literally she hates fried food oh she just

oh like fish and chips no way like fried chicken oh like it just creeps her out she just, oh, like fish and chips. No way. Like fried chicken. Oh, like it just creeps her out. She just does not desire it at all. I'm the opposite. I could eat a bucket of fried chicken and wash it down with pizza and beer. I could do that every meal except maybe breakfast where, you know, maybe a light beer or something. Um, she, I mean, and she's, she just, she's never, actually she didn't, she, she tells me she had a weight problem in, in, in, in mean, she's never, actually she didn't, she tells me she had a weight problem in college where she was, you know, I don't know if I should be saying this on the air, so let me just stop. But, you know, she, her whole family has, her younger brother is, think 6'5 and like 180 or something. I mean, the guy is like so thin. And again, he eats well. But if somebody, there's other people that I know who if they ate

this, if they were on the same regimen, you know, I think they would be much heavier than he is. There is a, I think genes play a large role, not an exclusive role, but they do play a large role when it comes to somebody's weight. So I think skinny people could be very undisciplined when it comes to food and people who would be considered overweight could eat fairly healthy and exercise regularly and still be overweight. You also have, I mean, issues related to your, oh, I forgot the name of it. What's the thing that controls all your hormones? Your thyroid. I know people that have had thyroid problems or like Hashimoto's disease where their immune system causes the hormones not to work right. can exercise all you want, eat as healthy as you want, and you're still not going to be as trim as another person whose thyroid is working well would be. There's also the issue of eating disorders. I mean, someone could be thin and yet whenever they eat a large meal, they could throw up or have very unhealthy exercise addictions and yet very unhealthy

food addictions and maybe even body image problems. And I can keep going on and on and on. You mentioned the medical condition or lingering effects of past sin. So I just, yeah. Are there some people who are obese who are undisciplined? Well, sure. Are there some people who are thin who are undisciplined? Yes, I think so. Can you commit the sin of gluttony and be thin? Yes. Can you commit the sin of gluttony and be overweight? Yes. So I don't want to make the primary issue about one's body size, their weight or their fat content or whatever. I want to primarily make it about the person's heart. I come from a family who's on one side of my family, the entire family has struggled

with obesity. And my other side of the family, my dad's side is super, super thin. And again, there may be diet differences, you know, how much butter you put in the pan when you're cooking your pasta or whatever. But I, you know, I've seen it with my own eyes that the, you know, I think I do think that genes play a role. And I do think I have seen, I have several friends, man, they, they work so hard, I have several friends, man, they work so hard, so hard to keep the weight off. And they're disciplined with their eating habits and not perfectly. Maybe they fall off the wagon for a little bit and then they get back into it.

And it's kind of a constant battle, but they're trying hard. And somebody could look at that person and say, man, they're really overweight. They must be undisciplined. I'm like, you have no idea how hard they're trying. And so again, yes, somebody could be obese and be undisciplined. Yes, somebody can be thin and be disciplined or undisciplined. But I want to take the focus off the body size primarily and put it on the heart. The Bible is clear in 1 Timothy 3.2 that a qualified leader should be self-controlled. And I do think that applies to food. And I want to make that the primary issue. That would be, I think, an issue of concern if an elder has no self-control when it comes to food. I wouldn't want to judge that based only on their body size.

But as I get to know that elder, so let me just speak to you with the question. I mean, if you know your elders or you know they have an issue of being self-controlled and they're not just struggling with it because everybody's struggling with something, but they're just totally given into it and have almost no self-awareness that they have no self-control, and maybe those two go hand in hand, then yeah, I think that would be an issue of concern. So again, make it about the heart, not just about the body image. My name is Preston Sprinkle. You've been listening to Theology in a Raw. Thanks so much to my Patreon supporters, both for your ongoing support and also for voting on what has been

some very difficult and juicy questions we'll see you next time when there was a war in the heavens angels were falling from grace God made the earth for the man Look how he turned from his face What he chased with his grace Now there is a war in the heavens Demons they tell them they're so from the darkness I know God's calling you to dwell with him And they try to make sure you don't Let them know, choose your own

I see we can spare us in heavenly places I see we can spare us in heavenly places I see we can spare us in heavenly places I see we can spare spirits in heavenly places I see wicked spirits in heavenly places. I see wicked spirits in heavenly places. I see wicked spirits in heavenly places. I see wicked spirits in heavenly places. I see wicked spirits in heavenly places. I see wicked spirits in heavenly places. I see wicked spirits in heavenly places. I see wicked spirits in heavenly places. Thank you. I see.

I see. I see wicked spirits in heavenly places I see wicked spirits in heavenly places