Am I Wrong About Matt Walsh? | Pastor Reacts Pt. 2

Clarifying the Purpose of the Response

And I should have said this in the previous video, but you have to understand, I'm riffing here. You know, when I make these kinds of videos, especially when I'm reacting to something, you're getting what's coming to mind, and so I think what I should have done is I should have included these comments in the first video so that there's not two videos here, okay?

I think I just assumed that a lot of you, you understand where I'm coming from. I mean, that's okay too, because now this is an opportunity to talk about this. So, let me do a couple of things here. I'm going to talk about the goal of communicating for the Christian just a little bit more.

Then I'm going to talk about why I said what I said about Matt Walsh's approach with Rogan, the issues that I had with it. And then, I'm going to talk about what I would have said had I been sitting across from Rogan, okay?

Communicating the Christian Worldview to Nonbelievers

What's up, everybody? By now, as of this recording, y 'all should be getting your second plate of turkey and stuffing and mashed potatoes and pie. Apple pie. I wanted to take a few minutes with you in this video and talk about something I noticed in the responses to my last video on Joe Rogan vs. Matt Walsh on gay marriage.

By the way, if you haven't seen that video, you should probably take a look at that one first, since I'm going to speak as if you have. And also, if you're brand new to the channel, hello! My name is Nate.

Thanks so much for watching. Check out some of the other videos here on this channel. I hope it blesses you. And thank you so much to all of you who come back and continue to watch what I'm doing here.

At Wise Disciple, I truly am so grateful that you're watching and also engaging with what I'm saying in the comments, not just with me, but also with each other. It has been a pleasure to watch you take your own stance on the things that I'm talking about.

And don't get me wrong, I don't even assume that you always agree with the things that I say. Which brings me to the video for today. I was keeping track of the comments and noticed that a number of you said that Matt Walsh was doing something right.

In his response to Joe Rogan. Specifically, he was not appealing to the scripture because Joe Rogan likely does not see the Bible as a source of authority. So, Walsh was simply arguing from a position that Rogan could find points of affirmation with.

Kind of like equal footing sort of thing. A couple of comments along these lines. Let me go ahead and find... So, Love Couch said, Walsh mentioned on his podcast that he was trying not to bring up God in the conversation.

Joseph Ashley says, as others have stated, Walsh and Shapiro both have stated numerous times that many of our fundamental principles are biblical in nature and have their foundation in God's truth. However, in an argument with a secularist, we have to be able to win the argument without quoting scripture.

Let's do one more. Billy Ray says, you can tell that Matt was trying so hard not to bring Christianity into the conversation. I totally understand this as in my experience, the moment you mention God, Bible, Christ into this kind of conversation, the other side completely rejects and or doesn't even listen to you.

So, I understand Matt's motivation to attempt to not incorporate Christian beliefs into his argument. Right. So, first of all, thank you for all the comments. I think those of you who are responding along these lines bring up a great point and really an opportunity to allow me to say a few things.

Okay, so let me give you a couple of my thoughts on this. First, I completely agree with the notion that Christians should understand who they're talking to and they should recognize that nonbelievers will not accept the Bible as a source of authority.

So, when a Christian appeals to the Bible, it's likely not going to do very much for the conversation because the nonbeliever is just kind of shrug their shoulders and dismiss it, right? Some of you have been in this situation, so have I.

I even advocate for a method of communicating the Christian worldview in a manner that does not lead off with quoting the Bible or making a lot of arguments from the Christian side. Instead, we should put the focus on the person that we're talking to and ask them leading questions.

Another way of saying this is ask them questions in a form of gentle cross-examination in order to control the discussion and challenge false beliefs when we hear it. But in a loving way, right? 1 Corinthians 13 kind of way.

This method is called First State Evangelism and you should check out the series on this channel. So, I say all of this to say I'm not in disagreement with what Matt Walsh said. His appeals to procreation as an act of marriage, which produces the next generation and also trades along the complementary nature of human biology, that's all good.

It's good that he said those things. My issue was that he should have said more, in my opinion. And that's where I was coming from in the previous video. Not that he said what he said, but that he did not say enough.

See, underneath our methods of communication as Christians, we all need to bear something in mind. We need to have a goal that we are going to speak clearly and, when we differ, we're going to draw out true clash in a winsome fashion.

So that, when we engage others for Christ, the boundaries that separate God's people from the rest of the world is very clear. In other words, it will not benefit us to utilize a methodology of communication that avoids the clear boundaries that exist between a believer and a non-believer.

Okay? I don't find anyone in the biblical record who spoke in a manner that is unclear when it comes to, for example, God and the gospel. When it comes to, for example, repenting of sin. Instead, I find folks like the Apostle Paul to be speaking very clearly.

Natural Revelation and Special Revelation

Unmistakably, even. And I should have said this in the previous video, but you have to understand, I'm riffing here, you know? When I make these kinds of videos, especially when I'm reacting to something, you're getting what's coming to mind.

And so, I think what I should have done is, I should have included these comments in the first video so that there's not two videos here, okay? I think I just assumed that a lot of you, you understand where I'm coming from.

I mean, that's okay too, because now this is an opportunity to talk about this. So, let me do a couple of things here. I'm going to talk about the goal of communicating for the Christian just a little bit more.

Then I'm going to talk about why I said what I said about Matt Walsh's approach with Rogan, the issues that I had with it. And then, I'm going to talk about what I would have said had I been sitting across from Rogan, okay?

So, here's the goal. Your goal as a Christian communicator is to have the most effective conversation you can have with a nonbeliever. It's not to say any old thing that comes to mind, it's to say the most effective thing.

Being wise as serpents and innocent as doves means sprinkling your words with salt so that you will know how you should answer each person. It means walking with wisdom towards outsiders, making the best use of your time because the days are evil.

So, what that means is, when we communicate our worldview, we should find points of affirmation with nonbelievers. The way that the Apostle Paul did, for example, when he stood in front of the Athenians at the Areopagus and he acknowledged their devotion to religion, right?

Paul said, men of Athens, I see that you are very religious because I noticed all your objects of worship. That's finding and acknowledging points of affirmation so that we can speak effectively to our nonbelieving audience.

Paul even went so far as to quote the Athenians' own poets back to them in order to present his gospel message. But, at some point, we also need to, as Christians, recognize that part of speaking as ambassadors for Christ means showing nonbelievers where we disagree with them.

And I don't think that there's anything wrong with that. We need to show nonbelievers where the lines are drawn very clearly between us and them. Why? Why should we do that? Because it's not the similarities that matter, it's the differences that matter.

And as we identify those differences, as they understand what we're saying so that our communication is more effective, then our conversations will actually be more productive, right? We're not selling self-help guru Jesus nonsense as Christians.

We're sharing the Christian worldview to sinners in need of a Savior. The worst thing that a Christian could do is simply go around agreeing with everyone and never truly speaking clearly about our convictions as Jesus followers.

So, how does this connect with Matt Walsh and Joe Rogan? Well, it connects because what I was saying in the video is the conversation that they were having is not as productive as it could be. The areas of differences are not being clearly elucidated precisely because of the way that Walsh is speaking about marriage.

And I totally understand what he's doing! And I totally understand that a lot of Christians speak in this way as well. Again, my issue is the clearest definitional statement that Walsh made about marriage was really only that the defining features of marriage was creating children.

And then Rogan said, well, what about couples who can't have children? And then Walsh said, well, you know, there's options they can adopt. And my response was, so can same-sex couples! So where do we go from here now?

So, again, I'm not saying that Walsh said something wrong. I'm saying I don't think that's the only thing that should be said in this kind of discussion. And I think we all saw why, right? See, our goal as Christian communicators is to speak effectively.

And that entails walking this balance between finding ways to communicate so that the people listening can understand us, which means finding points of affirmation. Maybe trying to find some common ground that we can all figuratively stand on when we talk to each other, believers and non-believers.

But at the same time, also being very clear about how we differ from the folks that we're talking to so that our speech is understood. And I get it. In issues of natural revelation, many Christians will want to discuss various arguments for the beginning of the universe that's in line with what the Bible teaches without mentioning the Bible.

Or at least, like, not leading off with the Bible. And so they'll talk about things like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or the Teleological Argument, or the Moral Argument, you know? And they'll track along the Transcendental Argument.

And I think those are great ways to communicate. I'm not—I do these things too, by the way. But here's where my issue starts to come in. You can only do that when it comes to issues that fall under the broader category of what's called natural revelation.

In other words, Romans 1 says God's invisible attributes have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. Right? So that's what natural revelation is, this category of natural revelation.

And I think within it, there's nothing wrong with speaking along these lines. And like I said, I do the same thing with folks when it's appropriate. But here's the question. Does marriage fall under the broader category of natural revelation?

Let me know in the comments below. I'd love to get your thoughts. Because here's my answer. Yes and no. Yes, we can see that biology, the complementarity of man and woman to come together and have children, is seen by all in what is created.

It's unmistakable. Right? But marriage cannot be reduced down to only that thing. That's what I said in the previous video. Marriage speaks theology, friends. By the way, the word theology simply means the study of God and his relation to the world.

So when God set up the dynamic of man and woman, male and female, he created them. Right? And then Genesis 2 says, A man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

And even when Jesus said in Matthew 19, That what therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. By the way, we used to say this at weddings. Right? As part of the common ritual, we used to say these things.

Now, not so much. But you have to think, like, what was the point there? Like, what was God doing? Why does God join together men and women in marriage? What's he accomplishing with this arrangement? It's because marriage is supposed to reflect God and his relationship with his people.

Think about that. Men and women enter into a covenant relationship with each other. But they're not the only ones who enter into covenant relationship in the Bible, are they? No, God also enters into covenant relationship with his people as well.

It's not just the New Testament where this happens, by the way. I mean, I read from Ephesians 5 in the last video, but it's not just there that we see this. We can go to Exodus, at the inauguration of God's covenant with the Israelites.

We can take a look at chapters 19 of Exodus. We can take a look at chapters 24 of Exodus, about how he talks about the covenant. How the Israelites respond. Right? We can go to Jeremiah. We can look at what God says to the Israelites.

Look, actually, let's do it. In Jeremiah 3, verse 14. In the Hebrew, God says,. In Exodus 19 and 24, God said,. Exodus 19, verse 8 says,. All the people answered together and said,. The fact is, the language and the terminology of the relationship that God has with his people is marital in nature.

Why? Because the same kind of faithful relationship that is required between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, is the same kind of faithful relationship that is required between God's people and God himself.

Such that when we get married, we are reflecting that salvific relationship in our own marital relationship. We Christians are supposed to be representatives of God and speak the theology of God in our daily lives as married spouses.

People are supposed to look at marriage and say, Wow, the way that that husband loves his wife and vice versa is the way that God loves his people and his people love him back. Now, it certainly culminates with Jesus and his marital relationship with the church.

And again, that's why I read from Ephesians chapter 5 at the end of the last video. Because it's clear as day to me. Let me read it again, just in the last couple of verses here. This is the way that it was written in the Garden of Eden.

Describing the sort of expectation all the way back to the beginning when Adam and Eve were created. And then it says this, verse 32, that it refers to Christ and the church. Why does marriage exist? What is marriage?

It is a covenant relationship that is a theological echo of God and his relationship with his people. The product of marriage is children, yes. But a married couple can fail to produce children and still fulfill the role of marriage and speak this kind of theology into the world who desperately needs to know God.

And the only way that we would know that is through God's special revelation. Not natural revelation. Natural revelation can tell you about some of the characteristics of our Creator, but not everything.

That's where God's special revelation is given in his word and provides us way more insight into who he is and his relation to the world. So, let's bring this all the way back to Walsh and Rogan, right?

This is why I said we need to start a couple of steps backward. I'm not saying that Walsh should not have said what he said about children. I'm just saying that we should say more than that. As Christians, we need to go back to the beginning.

Now, why? Because a non-believer is not going to understand what marriage is because marriage is only fully explained through God's special revelation in his holy word. Non-believers will certainly understand making children, but they won't understand the theology of marriage.

But wait a sec, the theology of marriage plays a vital role in why Christians disagree with same-sex marriages. It's because the Bible shows us that marriage is defined in a very specific theological way and for a very specific theological purpose.

You realize, Christians, marriage communicates the gospel, right? You realize that, don't you? See, I just don't think a lot of us appreciate what has happened to us as a church where in a lot of ways, it's almost like we've taken the grapes of theology and shrunken them down to a prune-sized understanding such that we think that communication of God is only what comes out of our mouth.

And even then, you know, what comes out of our mouth in the 21st century is very plain and oftentimes it's inelegant, you know? There is no room or space for our actions to also speak theology. I mean, think about Jesus turning water into wine.

You realize that Jesus was communicating in the act of performing that miracle, theology. He was communicating theology in the simple fact that he used stone jars filled with water that was used for Jewish purification rituals in order to create new wine.

That wasn't an accident, friends. Jesus was saying something in the act of it. All of our actions are meant to speak theology. The symbolism and the imagery of marriage is like an arrow that points right back to God and it speaks about him and his relationship with his people.

That's why I say that Walsh, his communication fell short because marriage is not simply like the Kalam cosmological argument. I mean, at least with the Kalam argument, you know, the argument is focused on a more narrow subject, you know, the beginning of the universe, and it is beautifully argued with that goal in mind.

I appeal to the Kalam quite a bit in my conversations. With marriage, though, the theological depth, the theological reasoning behind it, the purpose behind it is largely wrapped in mystery. I didn't say that.

The Apostle Paul said that in Ephesians chapter 5. And the only way that we can explain this mystery is through God's special revelation in his word. Now, let me stop right here, okay? Hopefully, you might not agree with me, but hopefully you understand why I said what I said about Walsh.

You can't, in my opinion, just appeal to children and have a productive conversation because, number one, the theology of marriage is completely lost on the non-believer, and number two, the non-believer might run circles around you as did Rogan in that last video.

No, we have to say a lot more things in order to identify the clear boundaries that exist between us and non-believers on the issue of marriage. And much of these boundaries track along the notions of God and what his special revelation says about marriage.

What I Would Say to Joe Rogan

Now, where does that leave us in terms of communication? What should a Christian say sitting across from someone like Joe Rogan in this kind of circumstance? And so, this is what I would say. Look, you and I are having this conversation coming from two different starting points altogether.

So, it totally makes sense to me why we're having this disagreement. But there's something missing that I think needs to be identified. For a Christian like me, marriage speaks theology. Marriage is created by God and defined by God in order to reflect him and his relationship with his people.

So, our goal in this world as Christians is to live by our religious convictions, and marriage is meant to give us a platform to do that very thing in our very actions. I mean, marriage is like a ballet in that sense.

In a husband and wife's very movements on a regular basis, the choreography of daily marriage is meant to tell the story of God and his relationship to his people. That's theology. And so, that's why we Christians take a principled stand against same-sex marriage.

It's because in order to affirm same-sex marriage, you're asking me, the Christian, to change my theology. And I can't do that. This is an issue of religious freedom for Christians. And up until very recently, our country used to be concerned with allowing freedom of religious expression.

Okay? Now, what I just said is not novel, and it's not new by any stretch. And, I mean, we certainly see, after Obergefell versus Hodges, that religious liberty is exactly where all the fallout occurred.

It's still happening, actually, right? That's why it's important to communicate this. Marriage is a theological issue that trades along religious freedom. And to change marriage to include same-sex couples is to infringe our freedom of religious expression, to speak theology in our marriage.

Nobody is suggesting that same-sex couples should be banned from being together. We're asking same-sex couples to love each other in a manner that doesn't infringe our religious freedom. That's it. Now, is that a knockout punch?

No, probably not. But what is persuasive enough is not really the issue. What is at issue right now is whether our non-believing friends and family really understand where we're coming from. And I think saying more words, right?

Taking what I said, and what Walsh said, and sort of putting it all together is the best way to communicate about this issue. Even if we still disagree with each other, at least we understand each other better than what I suspect we all saw in that previous video with Walsh and Rogan.

Alright, those are my thoughts. As usual, I'm sure you'll give me yours. Let me know what you all think. And more importantly, even if we do disagree on how to communicate as Christians, I hope you have a great weekend.

And for all of us Christians out there, let's praise God for marriage. Amen? I'm going to take a break and return soon with more videos, but in the meantime, I'll say, bye for now.