Theology in the Raw - Bonus Q&A: Corporal Punishment in Parenting, Should Christians Watch UFC/MMA, and More

Episode Date: July 31, 2024

Welcome to a sneak peek of the Bonus Q&A episode, part of the Theology in the Raw premium subscription. Support Theology in the Raw through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theologyintheraw Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey friends, welcome to a special bonus episode where I address questions sent in from my Patreon supporters. Questions such as, how would I steel man a Christian nationalist argument? And would I ever have a conservative activist on my show? Do the Old Testament passages about the rod command spanking for discipline? How do you reconcile nonviolence with the felt duty to protect the innocent? Can the Holy Spirit ever lead people to act in violence? What are my thoughts about the governor of LA? What is that Louisiana requiring 10 commandments to be posted in schools? And most importantly, what is my

favorite soup and many, many other questions we're going to get to. If you want to become a patron supporter, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology and raw and get access to ask me questions, which I'm about to address right now. Also, I'm trying out something new. I'm not very techy, okay? So I tried to figure out how to do a live stream of this Q&A. So if I did it right, right now, people on Patreon are watching me. That's kind of weird. Let me pop over and see if this is happening right now. I think it is. Anyway, hi all, if you can see me. Those of you who are accessing this in the middle of the day.

Anyway, so that's what we're doing. Lots of fun stuff happening at Theology and Ra. Let's jump into these questions. The first one is from Steven who wants to know, what is my favorite soup? This is one of the most enjoyable questions that I've gotten over the years because I actually love soup. I could eat soup every single day. I like a lot of foods. Pepperoni pizza, any kind of meat.

Love salads actually. I like kind of everything except eggplant and raw tomatoes. But my favorite soup is a Thai soup called Tom Ka Kai. Tom Ka Kai is a coconut milk based soup with like lemongrass, chili. Usually it's made with chicken. Mushrooms, I'm not a big mushroom fan and sometimes I don't like when they overdo the mushrooms, but, uh, I'm fine. If mushrooms are in a soup, uh, it has a little bit of fish sauce and lime juice. It is, I grew up on this stuff. Like from the time I was, I think four or five years old, my mom, uh, was a big, uh, Thai food fan. And we would go every now that we go to the Thai house in Fresno, California, I don't think it's there

anymore. And I would put down a whole pot of Tom Kha Kha. It is absolutely one of my favorite dishes in the entire world and by far my favorite soup. Now here's the thing with coconut milk-based soups, they are extremely heavy. Now when I'm five years old or 10 years old or 15 years old or 20 years old, I could put down a pot of a coconut milk based soup. More recently, I've learned that that is incredibly high in calories. So now like I put down a cup of topical chai and I'm full for like several hours.

So another soup that I really like is Tom Yum, another Thai soup. This one's made more with like a broth than coconut milk. Sometimes it has a little bit of coconut milk in it. But a similar flavor is just less heavy and slightly more tangy. So Tom Yum is again one of my right now is probably if I go to a Thai restaurant, I'll probably get Tom Yum, Tom Kueh Kai, mainly just because of the heaviness of Tom Kueh Kai.

One of my favorite dishes ever is Chia Pino, Italian seafood stew. So that's not a soup, it's a stew. But I just had to throw that out there because it's kind of in the genre of soupish type dishes. Honestly, anything with a rich tomato broth, rich, like very flavorful, spicy, lots of vegetables and maybe chicken, or even just like a tomato base, any kind of tomato based brothy flavorful, spicy, lots of vegetables and maybe chicken, or even just, you know, like a tomato base, any kind of tomato based brothy flavorful soup. I just absolutely, absolutely love it.

I'm getting hungry right now even talking about this. All right, next question. How, okay, this is going to take a while. There's actually two questions that are similar, so I'm going to tackle them together. How would I answer someone who says that the Old Testament passages about the rod, Proverbs 23, 13, for example, like, don't spare the rod, use the rod on your kids. If you don't use the rod, their kids are going to grow up to be disobedient. You have several passages like this in the Proverbs. How would I answer someone that says that these passages command spanking for the discipline of your children. And then another

supporter wants to know, do I believe that corporeal punishment of children is compatible with Christian nonviolence? These are two different people who asked a very similar question. So, yeah, it's interesting. I don't think I've gotten this question before. They made me a long time ago. It's interesting that two people in the same Q&A session are asking the same question. So I haven't read this book yet, but let me first of all recommend it because the author is a very, I've read his other things and I think he's a very solid exegete. I hate that I have to give the qualification. I don't agree with everything he said. You know, obviously I don't agree with anything he said, whatever, but think he's a very solid exegete. I hate that I have to give the qualification.

I don't agree with everything he said. You know, obviously I don't agree with that. I think he says whatever, but like he's going to think through this very well. So I can't, I don't want to recommend the, I'm not saying I agree with this book or disagree with the book, but it would be worth reading. William Webb, corporeal punishment in the Bible, a redemptive movement hermeneutic for troubling texts. It's pretty small. I've seen it. I have not read it just because it hasn't been on my radar of things to read, but I would recommend that you at least check that out.

Before I answer this question, I was like, is this even, is it even legal to spank your kids now? So I checked on that. It actually, get this, it is legal in all 50 states to spank your kids. I did read somewhere that like, you're not allowed to use some sort of object to do so, but to use your head. It is still legal in all 50 states.

And in 13 states, it's not only legal for parents to spank their kids, but also public schools and private schools are allowed to do spank your kids as well. I didn't think that was a thing, but there we are. You know, I talk, they talk to my parents and they describe, you know, or parents and parents, people my parents age. And they're like, oh yeah, when I was in school,

like our teachers would slap us around all the time. It's crazy, anyway. My quick answer is I don't have a strong opinion on whether the statements and proverbs are directly applicable to the New Covenant community. I need to think through this more before I give a more firm answer. But let me at least raise a few questions or things to consider as you are considering how to, as a new covenant believer, how to interact with and apply these don't spare the rod type statements in the book of Proverbs.

First of all, Proverbs aren't commands. The book of Proverbs, it had really Hebrew wisdom literature as a whole, it's offering instruction that doesn't usually take the form of absolute moral imperatives, but rather the teaching in wisdom literature comes to us in the form of more principles that are true in and of themselves, but which may vary in their application depending on the different circumstances. Let me give you an example. This is a classic example.

And then this is not, let me, I always like to make clear if I'm kind of going out of limb and suggesting something that's kind of a fringe view among scholarship versus just basically, you know, saying something that's not that disputed among experts in whatever the issue is we're wrestling with. So, when it comes to experts on Proverbs, wisdom literature, what I'm saying here is not really disputed. This is kind of like 101 how to read Hebrew wisdom literature. These are absolute moral imperatives, but are principles that may vary in their application

depending on the situation. The classic example is Proverbs 26, four to five, which says, do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Okay. The next verse, answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. Like, well, what the heck? Am I supposed to answer a fool according to his folly or not answer a fool according to his folly? And the answer is, it depends. Depends on the situation. You can probably imagine some scenarios

where not answering a fool according to his folly is probably the wisest thing to do. Press reference, social media. Maybe there's another situation where a fool is sort of advertising his folly this and he should, he or she should be addressed. Okay. And it really kind of depends on the situation.

If these were moral absolute imperatives, then there's a blatant contradiction. Okay. But they're not moral absolute imperatives. There's other statements like, you know, what the, this is, this is kind of less illustrative, but you know, you can look at Proverbs 15, 6, where it says, the house of the righteous contains great treasure, but the income of the wicked brings ruin. Well, is that always true? If you're righteous, does that mean you're going to be rich? You have great treasure? Well, no, it's not like an absolute statement. But a few verses later in chapter 15 verse

6, it says, better a little with the fear of the Lord, that great wealth with turmoil. Okay, so wait, but if you fear the Lord, you shouldn't have a little, right? According to verse 6, but then verse 16 says it's better to have a little with fear of the Lord. So again, the Proverbs are designed to be absolutes. Cheper Longman, he writes, Proverbs states truth that is, quote, time conditioned. The proverb must be stated in the right circumstance to be true. Let me give you an example, a modern example.

Too many cooks spoil the broth. Have you heard that before? This is where I go. I think I probably Googled modern proverbs or something. I don't know if I've ever heard anybody say this exact thing, but I've heard some things like it, too many cooks in the kitchen, okay? Okay, so too many cooks spoil the broth,

too many cooks, there's too many cooks in the kitchen. Other circumstances might call for many hands may make like work. Like actually you want a lot of cooks in the kitchen, okay? So you can imagine this area where too many cooks boil the broth might be true. Say it's a family reunion. Let's just say I am of Armenian descent,

Armenian descent, which is similar to, it's similar to kind of like my big fat Greek wedding. Like if you've seen that movie, that would be very similar to a family reunion on my Armenian side. And let me tell you, you get a bunch of Armenian women in the same kitchen together. It's entertaining. But, but man, I wouldn't want to be in that kitchen. You're gonna have have debates about Yala Chi recipes and, um, Sarma and, uh, how to make the peel off, how much butter to put in, you know, it's, it's going to be, it's,

it's going to be a tense. So yeah, I think in that situation, in Armenian family reunion, um, that probably too many cooks are going to spoil that broth. Another scenario, it's a busy Friday night at a busy popular restaurant. Well, you're going to want several cooks in the kitchen, right? This is a time when many hands make light work. So these apparently contradictory statements about whether you should have lots of cooks in the same kitchen, well, depends on the situation. So all that to say, if people say, well, Proverbs, I've heard people say this, Proverbs commands me to spank my children. Proverbs

commands all Christian parents to spank their kids. I'm going to say, I don't think the genre, I think you're meaning here, but I don't think you're understanding how Proverbs work. You could say that this is a true principle that should be applied, could be applied, but to say Proverbs is commanding all Christian parents to spake their kids, I think that just doesn't flow from the way wisdom literature works. I wouldn't frame it that way that this is a direct command to new covenant believers. And that brings me to a second thing to consider. I think we do need to consider the redemptive movement of scripture. I'm going to guess that this is what William Webb

is going to be getting at in his book. I've read his book. He has another really good book called Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. I think it's called, a little jarring title. But what he does is he looks at the redemptive movement of how the Bible talks about women, how it talks about slaves, and how it talks about same-sex sexual relationships. And I can't commend that to you. It's a really, really interesting book. I'm rereading it right now. So I'm going to, and what he does is he traces these themes and looks at the redemptive movement going from old covenant, new covenant. He's a very, very good,

thoughtful exegete. Again, even if you end up disagreeing with him, he's got to be worth wrestling with. I'll leave it at that. Again, I hesitate recommending books I haven't read. So I recommend that you check it out. That is not that I agree with it. So yeah, I do think we need to consider the fact that the Proverbs are on the other side of the cross. It is written under an Old Covenant situation. It is written in an ancient Near Eastern context where the family household is run quite differently than it is in a modern Western context. But you know, especially when it comes to things like punishment, the paradigm of punishment is different under the Old Testament and the New Testament. You have a pre-crossed form of punishment, even if you look at like the sacrificial system,

death penalty for like picking up sticks on the Sabbath or death penalty for disobedient kids. And post-cross where Jesus says, you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, but I say to you, and he gets kind of a different paradigm of how to respond to something that might be punishable under the old covenant paradigm. Theologically, we have to ask questions

about old covenant and new covenant forms of punishment. Does, you know, Christ took our punishment once and for all. Sorry, somebody's chiming in here. It looks like my lake is working out. It looks like I got patrons coming in here. And yeah, so if you're a supporter and you're chiming in, maybe don't. Wait, okay.

Maybe if there's a chat, if you could find a chat feature where you want to raise a Question to the chat that might be better. I think it's if anybody starts pouring in you know, that might be a little distracting Oh, it looks like a guy a couple dozen people chiming in. Hey guys girls people Anyway back to my question Yeah, so so what so? I get it all we're doing is raised like these are questions

We should wrestle with as we wrestle with this question about how to apply Don't Spare the Rod. Jesus paid for the punishment of sin once and for all, and I think that might have practical ramifications for how we even view crime, punishment, discipline, and so on. Because the argument could be made that if your kid sins against you, they do something bad, that under the old covenant, some sort of punishment might sit. But in the new covenant, when Christ has taken punishment once and for all, any human punishment of something, another wrong doing is kind of not taking seriously the full power, finality of the cross. Again, I'm not saying that that's necessarily true. You can say,

well, that's not how it works. You're, you're applying the cross in ways that don't shouldn't be applied. And all I'm saying is that this is at least worth wrestling with. What does the finality of Christ's punishment for sin, if you believe in a penal substitution, how does that relate to this question about punishing kids that are doing bad things? Is it violence to spank your kids? I don't think it is. As I argue, and I argue as I point out in my book, Nonviolence, there are many different definitions of violence. And I don't think any physical force is necessarily violence. I do think it depends on the situation. It depends on the motive. For instance, one

person could take a very sharp object and slash your skin to where it bleeds. And one might be a criminal act and one might be a virtuous act. If the person holding the sharp object is a thief, then it's a criminal act. It's a violation. It's violence. If the person holding the sharp object is a surgeon and is trying to operate on you because you have some thing that needs to be operated on, then that's a virtuous act.

Same, I mean, he could even take the same kind of sharp object, same person maybe. Like that scenario can be very similar, but because of the motivation, because of the situation, it's two very different things. One would be violence, one would not be violence. I don't think open-art surgery is violence, even though it is causing somebody to bleed with a sharp object. So yeah, I don't think spanking your kid necessarily has to be

violence. Like I think it could be compatible with a Christian view of non-violence, depending on how you define violence. So I'm going to leave it at that because there's a, I again, don't want to get beyond my skis with how much I've actually thought through this. So hopefully I've just maybe made it more complicated than the question was meant to be, but that's kind of what I do. All right. Let's move on to the next question here from Paul.

Paul, you say, I resound with an ethic of nonviolence, but how do you reconcile it with the felt duty to protect the innocent in that classic hypothetical scenario? This is the toughest one for me. And let me, if somebody's new to my view of nonviolence, I do hold to what's called an ethic of absolute nonviolence. I don't, I think the best way to understand scripture when it talks

about the possibility of using violence by a new covenant believer toward evil, addressing evil, protecting the evil, addressing evil, protecting me, whatever the scenario is, violence is never the Christian way. Now, I would say that the absolute nonviolent position, that's, I hold that, but I realized that there's some complexity there that I want to acknowledge. I think some people would say, I take a general nonviolent approach, but I leave room for exceptions, lesser of two evil situations, unique circumstances, and I can respect that

position, I would, truly. For me, the overwhelming tether of Christianity at the very least should be one of nonviolence. Things like praise for war and conquering people and militarism and militaristic might. I think these are just fundamentally at odds with the Christian worldview. Yeah, when Christianity in the West is known for being anything but nonviolent, I think that's the fundamental problem. If we want to leave room for, you know, unique circumstances, we're on an individual level, violence might be the lesser two evils. Again, I don't agree with that, but I can respect that position. I think there's some less clarity on some of those

situations than there is on the overwhelming rhythm of Christianity is what of non-violence. I think to me that's the, I think there's just lots of clarity on that in scripture. If you're like, how in the world, what and how? So I've written on this, if you're not familiar and go check out the books where I address the Old Testament address, all the stuff, all the questions that might be coming to your head. So yeah, that's where I'm coming from.

So having said that, the one scenario that gives me, that keeps me up at night with my view is the situation. It's not even so much self-defense, but it is defending the innocent. If I saw some innocent person suffering and I felt like using violence to stop that suffering was the only way to respond, then I would be very sympathetic with the position

that says you should respond, even if it includes violence to protect the innocent. So now here's, having said that, I do want to question leading with hypotheticals to formulate our ethical viewpoint on these questions. And this is something that over the years, it happens so much.

If I mentioned on it even right now, maybe as you're thinking, as you're responding in your mind and heart to what I'm saying, I imagine any pushback you might have probably went to a hypothetical scenario and not to the Bible. That's going to be my guess. At least in my anecdotal experience, I'm going to itch you nose, I'm not picking it up. In my anecdotal experience, it's almost always

the case when I get any kind of pushback to advocating for Christian nonviolence, it usually begins with a hypothetical scenario. Wait, so you're gonna say if a guy's breaking in, dead set on raping your wife and children, and you're just gonna let him do it? That's usually almost always the response I get. I'm like, that's a really heart wrenching and serious scenario, but let's, since we're not in the middle of that actual scenario,

we have the opportunity to actually reflect on what does the Bible want us to do? Like what is the Christian, how do we develop a biblical perspective on that kind of scenario by actually using scripture to build an ethic of violence and nonviolence. It can be, I think, discouraging or at least telling that that is rarely where Christians begin their questioning. Like they, when you ask, should Christians use violence to address evil or to defend the innocent, almost always we go to a modern scenario, hypothetical scenario. Rarely do you say, well, what does the Bible say? Like, what does Matthew through Revelation say?

I'm not a Marcion, okay? I'm not saying the Old Testament's not important, okay, at all. I mean, it's all scripture. It's all God breathed. I do think that... See, I'm like lost in the weeds here. I do think that the relationship between the New and Old Testament on this question is complicated and we do need to take the New Testament. There's a redemptive movement throughout Scripture on the use of violence. In the Old Testament, it was allowed.

In certain circumstances, sometimes even commanded. But as the Old Testament unfolds, we see that ethic becoming less and less true to the point where we get to the New Testament climaxing in the Sermon on the Mount, and we see a different approach to using violence to address evil. Okay, so that's why I like to say a New Testament perspective on this. So, if you asked a question, what does the entire New Testament say to the question, should followers of Jesus use violets to address evil, either in the form of self-defense or in the form of protecting the innocent? I have yet to see a really compelling argument from the New Testament that Christians should use violence in certain circumstances to address evil.

And maybe your mind went to John 2 and the cleansing of the temple, maybe it went to Luke 22 where Jesus says, you know, go buy a sword. And maybe your mind even went to the Book of Revelation where it's assumed, although it's not true, that followers of the Lamb are allowed to use violence throughout the Book of Revelation. The exact opposite is actually true in the Book of Revelation. Maybe your mind, I don't know where else your mind would go. Maybe Romans 13, which talks about a pagan, violent government being used by God, the Banish evil. But Romans 13 says nothing

about how a Christian should respond to evil. That's Romans 12. And if you take Romans 12, seriously, which is directed at Christians, you get a much more nonviolent perspective. So I do address all those, you know, the Luke 22 and the cleansing of the temple and the Jesus and the whip and John chapter 2 addresses in my book. I will say for me that the overwhelming case, like the most compelling case from the New Testament is that followers of Jesus should not use violence to address evil. And we see lots of violence in the first century. It wasn't like the New Testament was written in a context where there were no bad people trying to harm innocent people. Like That was happening all over the place.

And yet never do we see Jesus use violence to address that situation, nor do we see him ever giving any kind of hint in his teaching that his followers should use violence to defend innocent people, even though bad people were harming innocent people all over the place. So that's a short version of my argument. The hypotheticals I do, I do push back on how some of these hypotheticals are constructed. Like we often get, you know, the hypothetical of the person, what would you do? A guy's breaking into your home and he's got a gun and he's got to kill your family.

You're telling me you wouldn't shoot him first? And I'm gonna say, well, I don't, I'm gonna keep a loaded gun in the house. And the person's like, well, though, okay, so in this case you do, you've got a loaded gun. I'm like, well, I wouldn't do that. Have you seen the stats on hard done to children if you keep a loaded gun in the house? that's way more of a threat than the likelihood of

somebody just busted into my house, unprovoked, you know, with a gun waving around, you're just dead set on killing my family. So like the scenario from the beginning doesn't even work. And then the person's like, okay, okay, well just, just for this scenario, okay, whatever, forget, forget real life stuff. Let's just do this. You have a load of gun. Would you shoot the guy? Like, well, it loaded, loaded gun. It's nearby when the guy comes in, you know, like, so I, well, am I a good shot? Yeah, you're, you're a good shot. Okay. Great. Okay. I said I'd shoot the gun out of his hand. Well, okay. You're not, you're not that good of a shot. You couldn't shoot the gun out of his hand, but, okay. You're not, you're not that good of a shot.

You couldn't shoot the gun out of his hand, but you could put a bullet in his head. Well, if I'm that good of a shot, then I'd probably just shoot, shoot the gun out of his hand. But I'm not, I'm not that good of a shot. Then what if I like miss and, and hit one of my kids and kill one of my kids? And maybe the kids just after my TV isn't dead set on my, my, I killed my family. And I could have just, you know, give it in my TV and, and let them go. And now I wouldn't have a kid that's dead that I shot because I, okay, no, no, no, no. It's okay. So, so, so you're, you're, you're, you're a good shot, but not that great of a shot. You can't shoot the gun out of his hand, but you could kill him. And if you shoot, you're not going to hit one of your kids. It's already we're entering

into this. So with this real life scenario, none of this is real life. Okay. Okay. But I'll keep playing. Does God exist in your scenario? The questioner is probably going to know where I'm going with this. Well, yeah, of course God exists. Okay. That's the God that exists in this hypothetical scenario. Does this God answer prayer? Well, yeah, but he's not going to answer your prayer. So stop the killer. Okay. Real life scenario. Yeah. Real life scenario. Okay. So God exists. The folds off the hook in heaven. He just doesn't answer prayer. I'm a good shot. Not that greater shot I can kill it shoot his head, but I can't shoot his hand

Well hit one of my kids load a gun to the house, but that's not a problem in this scenario What if I instead of shooting him? offer to give him my two cars And Whatever is in my savings account Let's just say I have ten thousand dollars000 in my savings account and I say, I will give you $10,000 and my two cars if you just leave right now.

Well, no, no, he won't take it. He just, he just wants to kill you and your family. Well, is that real? Is that, is that how humans operate? Like, is this some pre-programmed robotic human that would rather just kill me rather than take $10,000 and two cars for free and go. I kind of like what?

Anyway, I keep going. You can see where I just these hypotheticals end up being. Yeah, just these kind of like airtight scenarios created by person to created by a person that's not a real life scenario and is just simply used to try to build a case for an ethic without even referring to the New Testament. So anyway, I don't, and I'm not saying this to you who raised the question. This isn't what you were trying to do. Paul, who raised this question.

But that's typically how these hypothetical scenarios work. And I just find them just unhelpful and uninteresting for trying to cultivate a Christian ethic of violence and nonviolence. But I get it. I practically, pragmatically, when I use violence, I mean, probably. Like my two favorite movies are Gladiator and Braveheart. My ethic of nonviolence is really derived from what does the New Testament say to these kinds of scenarios

and what should I do in this situation? Not what would I do? I have violent impulses. I have emotions that would probably get the best of me in that scenario. I very, very, very much resonate with the knee-jerk response of I'm going to do anything to stop somebody from harming an innocent person, especially if it was one of my kids and family. So if you ask me what would I do in that scenario,

I don't know. I think I know myself well enough to know I probably would not act in a very godly manner. But If you're asking me what does the New Testament say about how followers of Jesus should act in situations where evil is in front of us and we should confront evil, I'm going to say I don't see a good argument that Christians should use violence to confront equal in any form. Alright, next question. That was a long one. So let me pop over here to Patreon and see if anybody's chiming in here. Let's see. Yeah, so let me just speak to my patrons here. If you guys want to chime in a real live question here. I wonder if in the studio is there a way to chat? Let's see. Okay, I'm going to leave it alone just because I don't want to take other people's time here. We're just trying this out now. Maybe next time we'll make it to where you guys can even raise some questions. So let's go back to the Q&A here. Next question. Can the Holy Spirit ever lead people to act in violence, for instance, Samson, when one of the fruits of the Spirit is gentleness. So, it's a complicated question.

I mean, the quick answer is yes. I mean, you started an example, the Holy Spirit comes upon Samson and he used violence. You have several places in the Old Testament where the Holy Spirit and the Old Testament where the Holy Spirit comes upon people and that person uses violence. But here, I do want to make the distinction again between the Old Covenant and New Covenant with both. I want to make a distinction between both the way each covenant treats violence. Hey friends, I hope you enjoyed this portion of the Patreon Only Q&A podcast. If you'd like to listen to the full-length episode and receive other bonus content like monthly podcasts, opportunities to ask questions, access to first drafts of my research and monthly Zoom chats and more, then please head over to patreon.com forward slash

theology in the raw to join theology in the raw's Patreon community. That's patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. The Audion Rock.