Unbelievable: Woke Theology Debate | Pastor Reacts

And so, y 'know, when i teach my classes, i am teaching things like queer theory, and the

question of theology.

Do these even go together?

And, and, as calvin says.

Don't like labels, but then you start it off by saying you're trans, queer, latinx y 'know, if someone asked me how do i identify,

i'd probably say christian so why would you

Oh, but nate, you don't understand!

Racism still exists!

Yes, i know that!

But tell me, as a christian, what the solution is.

Because i just quoted the bible's solution to racism.

The hebrew in genesis said god created adam, which is earth creature and

that gender was created as a way to categorize people.

I'm letting that one sink in.

Adam means earth creature.

My minor in college was biblical languages, so i've had two years of hebrew, several years of greek.

Okay great, why did you study the hebrew and greek languages though?

Were you not taught that there are objective meanings to each word in those languages?

You didn't go to class and say, y 'know what.

Professor, i think logos actually means a block of wood.

This is by no stretch a spectator sport.

Y 'know, pretty soon you're gonna have to get your cleats on, and you're gonna have to get on that field and participate.

You do one brandon robertson video, and these things just keep popping up in your feed all the time.

Are you noticing that too?

Well, i figured this one is interesting.

Maybe one more time on the merry -go -round i got calvin robinson, who is actually making quite a name for

himself in the social media sphere or i should say, for the name of christ

and he is debating dr robin henderson espinoza who is a transqueer latinx

theologian who actually teaches at i think duke divinity school.

Which, isn't that like united methodist or something like that?

Anyway, so, let's get right into this discussion.

Wait, what's that?

Who am i, you ask?

My name is nate zalla, this is wise disciple, and i'm very glad that you're with me.

It'd be interesting to hear your responses to some of that robin perhaps just firstly, before we dive into the questions of whether identity

should be part of our understanding of theology and so on.

Just the term woke, which as i've said, has come to have this kind of pejorative ring to it even if it was

initially embraced perhaps by some.

Is that a word you would use, or do you find it an unhelpful one in this kind of context, robin?

Yeah, i, you know, this, i mean, let me just acknowledge that we're coming from two very different contexts.

And let me say a word at the outset of this video about why i'm doing another

video on this, right?

You're wondering, right?

Did the whole brandon robertson vs jeff durbin and james white thing a couple of weeks ago and now here we go

again.

Here's why i'm doing this for years.

I've seen my brothers and sisters up in arms over this very issue the issue of

wrestling through quote -unquote progressive christian theology.

Of course many in my circles would not say that phrase because christian theology has a very specific

definition to it that is not in line with progressivism which is very postmodern and very deconstructionist in

flavor such that once you sort of put those words all together you immediately recognize that

progressive christian theology isn't christian.

And it isn't theology either.

But what has caused quite a bit of consternation for a lot of traditional christians is

not being able to quite put a finger on progressive doctrine and progressive views on christianity.

Why?

Well, because you could meet, let's say, 10 different progressive christians

and ask what they believe.

And you'll likely get 10 different answers.

And so that makes it difficult to understand in terms of definitions and doctrines.

So i think it's helpful to do this exercise again because here we have another lgbtq

person who has been trained in seminary and teaches theology to others just like brandon robertson.

But you're going to see this person say essentially the same things that robertson did but just

in a different way putting their own spin on things coming at it from a different angle.

And so i think in that sense as we listen to this progressive christian speak we can get some more

clarity on progressive views as well as some more clarity on how to respond as traditional christians.

Y 'all with me?

There's an ocean of difference that separates us.

But i actually am grateful for the opportunity to be in dialogue with calvin because i think we

need more of these kinds of conversations if we are to live faithfully our witness of being

followers of jesus.

Um so i i actually don't find that term helpful.

I i find a lot of white liberal progressive folks

here in the states use that term to like self -identify.

If they have one black friend then they're woke and they understand racism.

And i actually think it it has troubled the waters of our

work in trying to eradicate things like racism and poverty and whatnot.

So i do find it unhelpful and i find.

So even just hearing this some questions that should immediately come to mind in the spirit of constructive discussion is.

What is this work that you're referring to?

What does it entail?

Or maybe we can ask.

How do you propose to eradicate racism and to eradicate poverty, right?

That's what we heard.

And here's the six million dollar question that everyone on unbelievable should be asking.

How does the bible propose that we deal with racism and poverty?

So for any serious christian this should be the primary question to ask in a conversation like this.

What does the bible have to say, right?

Why?

Because we should never lean too far over the skis of scripture.

As a matter of fact you'll very often find that when people get themselves into trouble it's because they did that

very thing they leaned too far over the skis of scripture and did not let the bible lead in that

area.

When people use that sort of lens or frame of wokeness to then sort of understand

everything it doesn't show me that they have an analysis about

the issue.

Nor does it confirm that they have like an embodied awareness around things like blackness and

the war against black and brown people that is happening globally.

So yeah, it troubles me and i don't find it helpful.

Yeah, so again, questions abound, right?

What is blackness?

What is the war on black and brown people that is happening globally?

As a brown person myself, i'd love to know what that is if it's simply racism that we're talking about.

Well again, what does the bible say about racism?

What solution does the bible propose in the face of racism?

Those are the kinds of questions that two christians in a conversation need to be answering if they're

going to have a productive conversation as christians.

That's how this conversation should be framed.

But my prediction is, watch for the dialogue to veer away from the bible in order to

answer these questions because those will be the moments when you are having these kinds of conversations where

you need to redirect the conversation back to scripture.

Do you share in any way any of the perspective there of robin calvin that there is a war against black and

brown people globally?

Of course not, no, i don't even recognize the term blackness.

I find that, so a lot of this conversation is going to be breaking down language.

I think because i don't know what blackness means to me the term black is a reference to a skin tone

it's not a personality trait so i wouldn't know what blackness meant but a war against black and brown people, by whom?

And where are we seeing this?

Right, great response and great question.

Okay, here's another question.

Why doesn't the bible, when it talks about human beings and their deficiencies human beings and their predilection

towards sins as well as ways to right the wrongs of sin and live righteously why

doesn't it talk about race?

Why isn't a correct view of blackness listed as a way to overcome sin in the bible?

Because it certainly sounds like a correct view of blackness is a way to overcome racism

according to dr espinoza.

According to progressive christians it's a perfect example of this, look at ephesians chapter 2.

Paul points out that in christ there is no exclusion anymore between god's people, the

israelites and those who are ethnically different from them.

As a matter of fact, what was pointed to as a clear dividing line between the israelites and the gentiles

was their ethnic difference.

The gentiles were not circumcised, in other words and this caused them to be alienated from

israel.

Well, according to the apostle paul, this exclusion no longer exists.

Why?

Because gentiles were educated on the jewishness of the jews or jews were educated on the

gentileness of the gentiles.

No, because of the blood of jesus.

Remember that you were at that time without christ alienated from the citizenship of israel and strangers to

the covenants of promise having no hope and without god in the world.

But now in christ jesus you who were formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of christ

for he himself is our peace who made both groups one and broke down the dividing wall of the

partition by abolishing in his flesh the enmity the law of commandments contained in ordinances so that in

himself he might create the two into one new man making peace and might reconcile them both

in one body to god through the cross having in himself put to death the enmity.

How do we make peace?

How do we bring about reconciliation between ethnic peoples?

Jesus christ and his finished work on the cross as a matter of fact in christ there are no different ethnicities that

are recognized.

Everyone is considered to be one now that doesn't follow a more progressive narrative but nevertheless that is the

biblical teaching.

Robin do you want to respond to that?

Yeah i mean i think at least here in the united states there are systemic practices

of things like racial profiling that i think ends up harming vulnerable communities many

of whom are black and brown and so we see some of these practices show up within our institutions.

But at the same time i don't think things like diversity equity and inclusion or those

types of dei trainings actually do anything.

I actually think transformation and being together is found in relationship

and in learning to have conversations around difference.

Relative to you know calvin's sort of disposition of he doesn't know what blackness is i would agree like how

do we understand blackness.

And i think that blackness is not a monolith.

And i think we could have three different people here talking about the term blackness and have 14

different opinions about what blackness is.

I think it is more than just a skin tone.

I think there are a lot of people who think about blackness from an ontological perspective

as many as people think about whiteness as an ontological perspective.

Yeah so first of all i'm not going to pretend that i understand everything to do with

what's being said here.

I don't have a phd in any of these studies.

I saw this a little bit in my graduate studies.

But ontological blackness refers to this idea of blackness as being way more than mere skin tone.

It's way bigger than that.

It touches on your very being, right?

That's ontology, the study of being.

So then blackness is the very essence of who you are and it represents how you find meaning

and how you find purpose.

Blackness represents freedom from oppression.

And all of these things belong in the category of ontological blackness which to me

is what identity politics is all about.

I mean this is the basis for black liberation theology, right here.

But that brings us back to the guiding question for the christian what is our identity as christians?

Where, or more biblically, in whom do we discover our identity as christians?

And the answer is in nothing other than jesus christ which is the antithesis of, again,

progressive post -modern narratives of identity.

I'd like to move beyond ontological blackness and ontological whiteness.

How do we think through bodies that are marked differently?

That that would be my question.

What about your question is answered though, right?

Your question is answered in the bible, okay?

So again, watch the moments where the conversation veers away from the bible because

that's when you will need to redirect it back to scripture or else we're not having a christian conversation

anymore.

The question of, you know, calvin essentially says he's concerned at the way people are importing

identity issues into theology he says.

At the end of the day theology is about understanding god.

What's your view on that?

Does it matter what identity you have, subscribe to, where you're coming from in terms of the kind

of theology that you then, as it were, embody or look into?

Well, i mean, i would actually agree that i am troubled by

identity -based theologies which is not the same as me saying our lived experience

matters to god.

I think those are different.

So, you know, i'm on faculty at duke divinity school and there is a

large concern there around the point of departure of theology being identity -based.

And so, you know, when i teach my classes i am teaching things like queer theory and the

question of theology.

Do these even go together?

And as calvin says, there is no queer theology.

And i'm like, that's true.

Now, we are on different sides of that issue.

But i think that even just being able to have that conversation in divinity schools

and being able to talk about the trouble of starting theology from identity

is a conversation the church and divinity school should be having.

Now yeah, but to what end?

To what end should christians have this conversation?

If the point of the conversation is to discover what the bible has to say about it and so, therefore, the

end of the conversation rests in letting the bible frame our understanding of these cultural

issues then amen.

But when you do that, you go to the bible you will discover quickly that the bible does not allow you to

root your identity in anything other than the person and work of jesus christ.

Progressive people love to have conversations.

Let's have a conversation.

I'm so happy to be having this conversation.

And conversations are great, by the way.

But to what end are we having this conversation?

Because if we enter into a dialogue, we need to know what that dialogue is for or else

we're going to come out the other end of it with no clear theological answers which i think is the

point for a progressive person.

I do think our lived experience matters, however.

And so, my question always is how do we honour our lived experience and follow

jesus faithfully?

And i don't know if any one of us has the perfect answer to that question.

What do you make of that phrase, lived experience, calvin?

And how it impacts the way that you express your theology?

Yeah, sure.

So i think lived experience is just another way of saying anecdote, isn't it?

It's something that you've experienced personally.

Of course it matters.

Of course everyone's lives matter and their anecdotal experiences matter.

What i would suggest is that lived experiences don't trump evidence and what we see quite often is that people put

their lived experiences over the facts and i think we need to return to first principles if we want to

solve problems.

In regards to the labels i think all of the labels are unhelpful but i'd like

to push robin a little bit on this just because you said.

I would say that the phrase our lived experience matters is an incomplete

sentence.

We need more information.

I need more information before i can say yes, that makes sense.

Okay, why does it matter?

And to what end does it matter?

The immediate passage that comes to mind is jesus.

In mark chapter 8 jesus says if anyone wishes to come after me he must deny himself and take up his

cross and follow me.

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospels will

save it.

A fundamental component of the christian life is denying yourself in order to let jesus live through

you.

If you took mark chapter 8 and you also look at galatians 2 20 that is the fundamental point.

It's no longer i who live but christ who lives in me.

Now how does the bible make sense of this phrase our lived experience matters?

Maybe it matters to us because god is living through us as we deny ourselves and obey jesus.

Okay, if that's what the phrase means, i can agree with that.

But i doubt that that is what dr espinoza means here.

You know, you don't like labels but then you started off by saying you're trans, queer, latinx.

Two or three words there.

I'm not sure how many that i don't even understand but you know, if someone asks me how do i identify i'd probably say christian

and i think you would understand that off the get -go.

What do those terms mean to you and why are they more important to you than your faith?

Well i think that, you know, i don't know if there is anything that comes

first other than me just trying to be faithful in the small things and trying to be intelligible in a

world full of hypocrisy and contradictions.

This is the best language i've come up with to try to make myself

intelligible but again, it comes from a deep place of apathetic

theology and the negative theology aspects.

And i also know that it's contextual, right?

Like we're in two very different contexts.

I grew up baptist and you know, you're in the church of england and so even our ecclesiology is quite

different.

And again, i'm willing to sit in

the vast differences that we have as we try to cast a vision for another possible world which i

understand as the reign of god and bringing heaven to earth which is what i think jesus was about.

What i find interesting here is the search for the right way to dialogue between these two

christians it seems dr espinoza is concerned with drawing from lots of different buckets,

so to speak in order to have a proper dialogue.

The problem is, calvin is right for two christians to have a conversation it should stand on

top of the work and person of jesus christ.

Our chief cornerstone is our common ground.

It is the basis for how we relate to each other.

It's the basis of relationship and working together to establish the kingdom of god on earth.

This actually is not at all complicated.

Why?

Because we have everything we need to relate to each other in the word of god.

What complicates matters is when we try to add to the word of god and we try to add to the work

and person of jesus christ in order to say, well, this is how we can relate to each other.

And this is how we can establish the kingdom of god.

It's jesus.

Plus these other things over here.

That is not at all what the bible teaches.

As a matter of fact, the bible warns us should we ever try to add to the work of jesus in this way the

apostle paul said to the galatians in galatians chapter 3.

Oh foolish galatians, who has bewitched you?

Are you so foolish?

Having begun by the spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

In other words, you cannot add anything to the work of christ and think that that somehow

is what is going to make you righteous or make other people righteous.

It won't in christ, we have everything we need as a matter of fact, in verse 26 of the same chapter.

That's why paul can later say this.

For you are all sons of god through faith in christ jesus.

Guess what that means?

There is no better race in christ jesus.

There is no inferior race in christ jesus.

When all in christ are sons of god and daughters you have equality.

That's why he says, verse 28.

There is neither jew nor greek.

There is neither slave nor free man.

There is no male and female.

For you are all one in christ jesus.

Oh, but nate, you don't understand.

Racism still exists.

Yes, i know that.

But tell me, as a christian, what the solution is.

Because i just quoted the bible's solution to racism.

It's jesus christ.

Why is he not sufficient?

What do you make of that, calvin?

And i suppose, what are your concerns about the kind of direction that you're seeing the

forms of theology that are being currently taught in the church of england and indeed in many churches.

What's your worry here?

Because obviously for robin it's just, you know, well it's people, you know, coming to sort of bring

their own experience to the part of theology that they inhabit and so on.

Sounds fine in principle.

What's, where do you see it kind of becoming troublesome?

Yeah i think when robin articulates that.

It sounds quite reasonable and of course we all want to be involved in bringing in the kingdom.

However, i think the problem with these different so -called theologies is the

same as the problem in society.

It's dividing people, inherently dividing people based on their immutable characteristics.

Because you can't suggest that you identify first and foremost as a skin color or a sexuality or whatever

without breaking down society into those individual boxes.

And because they're immutable we cannot unify based on them.

So we can have conversations with people in different boxes but it's not a unifying factor.

Whereas our faith is.

If we say look i identify as a christian every single other christian.

Whether they are baptist or church of england doesn't matter.

We know that we believe in the resurrection of our lord and savior jesus christ.

We know that we died on the cross for our sins and all of these things bring us together.

The moment we say actually i identify first and foremost as a mixed race person or a black person or a straight person.

I'm separating myself from you and i don't think that's helpful.

Well it's worse than that actually because the question that i have for progressivists like this is how are you meaningfully

obeying jesus command to deny yourself when you are elevating that self to become a defining aspect of

your identity.

You are clearly told as a christian two things along these lines.

Number one deny yourself another place in the bible says to die to yourself okay.

And then number two make christ your identity.

The progressive person will not do that.

Instead they will embrace their self and make their self a fundamental aspect of their identity.

So how are they meaningfully obeying jesus command and the teaching of scripture.

It's a problem then if we i mean and do you i suppose put those particular descriptions

latinx trans queer ahead of your label as a christian as it were.

Robin.

I mean i first identify as a theologian from a vocational place and you know those

terms are on the front page of my website.

I mean i think all the time that when i identify when you know like when i'm around town in nashville and someone says what do you

do i'm like i'm a theologian and and that just sort of causes lots of

questions because people don't understand that.

But i i would first identify from a vocational place like i am called to be a

theologian.

Um and i don't know if that is helpful or hurtful but i do know that

it makes people very uncomfortable here when especially in vulnerable communities when

i say my primary commitment is to follow the ways of jesus.

That makes people very uncomfortable especially uncomfortable that they need to experience.

That's a good uncomfortable.

Absolutely absolutely.

And you know there is this sort of annihilation of faith and

religion and and i think religion now now i'm i may be a

little bit different than calvin on this but i think actually celebrating

the abrahamic religions can really bring us together.

I mean i think we can solve a lot of the world's problems if we were to be faithful in our

religious practices.

The abrahamic religions being judaism christianity and islam.

But people you know have there's all different here at least in the united states.

The republicans and the democrats they think they can solve problems just through policy making.

And i actually think if we if we were to follow some of the ancient practices

like coming together and sharing meals with one another and being in relationship with

difference we can solve a lot of our problems.

And and it worries me that that the church says that they're invested in

that but they actually go about it sideways.

Again what i find interesting about progressives like dr espinoza is the

characteristic way that they speak using incomplete sentences and

partially constructed ideas.

And i can't help but think that that's on purpose.

That's not by accident.

It is not due to the fact that you know dr espinoza's beliefs are partially complete themselves.

Like dr espinoza and progressives like her are speaking specifically in this way

for a reason when dr espinoza says you know i think sharing meals and having

relationship with difference will solve our problems.

I mean the questions are what does sharing meals mean what does having relationships with

difference mean.

Because if you just let those statements stand on their own that's not really going to solve anything.

I mean if you think about that right like forcing racists to sit down and eat together doesn't end racism.

And identifying differences even within the structure of relationship doesn't end racism either.

You have to you have to think to yourself what is the cause of racism right.

This is the concern it seems from dr espinoza's side that black and brown you know there's a war

against them.

But what causes that racism.

Is it a lack of education that leads to the oppression of others.

Or is it something else have you ever thought about that.

By the way racism is a sin.

So what causes the sin of racism and the conflict that follows from that.

Isn't it pride the sin of racism the sin of favoritism the conflict that ensues from

racist ideologies.

Doesn't that come from pride the idea that you are better than other people.

So okay then well what does the bible have to say about that.

Does it say that the solution is to share meals and have relationships with differences.

Or does it say that the only solution to bring peace to mankind is the finished work of christ.

That makes us all children of god.

It all sounds very well meaning and it almost sounds very christian.

You have to be very careful because when you say that we should celebrate all the abrahamic religions and we say that these

things will bring us together we have to remember the first commandment and we have to remember there is only one god.

And we have to be careful not to fall into idolatry or heresy.

And we have to tell people about jesus christ and not just accept

that people have similar ideas because similar isn't

good enough.

There is only one god and we should love that one god.

You know when we hear about things like transcending gender and robin mentioned earlier non

-binary these are words that are again counter -scriptural and therefore i would say are actually counter -christian.

So we need to bring the debate back to the back to the faith.

How do we support people that are going through this crisis.

How do we help them unite themselves with the body that they are they are in because that is their body and they were and remind

them that they were created in the image of god and that god loves them for who they are.

Now you've written a book on this robin body becoming about your own journey of acceptance with your body and the way

that you feel that you've had to sort of as it were grow and kind of almost go on a journey with with your

body.

You might want to talk about that at a personal level and and indeed respond to what calvin has to say about his his view that that

ultimately you can't sort of divorce the person's sort of gender from their body and

and the the as it were doing things to the body to try and bring it into line with a uh you

know the gender that someone feels they are is is not ultimately either wise medically or indeed a christian

response to to this particular issue.

So i i think i agree with calvin on on the terms of we should be compassionate we

should support people with prayer with therapy and maybe drugs like yes and

i.

I'm not a biological essentialist when it comes to gender and we have to understand that the hebrew in

genesis said god created adam which is earth creature and and that gender

was created as a way to categorize people so you know i would fall into the category

of social.

I'm letting that one sink in.

Adam means earth creature.

So we always end up here in some form or fashion in a conversation like

this with a person like this very friendly to brandon robertson's way of understanding the bible.

Very progressive very post -modern approach.

And i know a lot of you are wondering you know how do i approach conversations like these.

Right.

This is why i'm doing this video.

Because my belief and hopefully i've said a few things to help you think through this as a

christian.

Right.

But i believe god is going to now bring you around someone who believes like brandon robertson who believes like

dr espinoza.

So this is by no stretch a spectator sport.

You know pretty soon you're gonna have to get your cleats on and you're gonna have to get on that field and participate.

And when you do in conversations like this remember you cannot stray or veer too

far away from the scripture.

And you are going to have to test the authority of the person making odd claims to you about your christian convictions.

And the way to test that authority is how they handle the scripture.

Adam means earth creature.

Okay adamah means earth or the ground.

But adam i've i've not heard that definition characterized in that way before.

And so i mean you have to think to yourself.

Okay.

Is that how the bible uses that word.

Adam doesn't mean man or mankind as everyone has understood that term for thousands of years.

No it means earth creature.

Okay let's grant that for a moment.

Does this somehow suggest that there is no gender binary in the bible.

I don't think.

So what do we do with genesis 2 23 verse 23.

Then the man said then adam said this one is finally bone of my bones and flesh of

my flesh.

This one shall be called isha woman because this one was taken out of ish

which is man.

Is that not a binary.

Does that not mean that there are two sexes two genders to go along with.

Those sexes like i mean however you want to define the word adam.

Aren't we still left with a binary.

That is part.

Of the design of god in the bible constructivism when it comes to gender and that gender is experienced

in a in a broad spectrum.

And there it is again did you hear it you remember this.

Brandon robertson right.

Progressivists do not discover truth because there is no way that you can know absolute truth.

Instead progressivists construct truth.

Truth is a social construct.

That's probably why you keep hearing a lot of progressive folks say well let's have a conversation.

Let's have this conversation.

I love having this conversation.

Why.

Because in the act of having these conversations they are constructing their own truth.

That's how their truth gets out to the rest of the world is through having these conversations.

Conversations which by the way do not lead to clarity at all.

That's why i kept asking the question earlier to what end would we have these conversations.

Because if it's not to discover objective truth what is objectively true about reality.

Discover that and conform to that.

Which by the way that's what the bible wants you to do as a christian.

Well then maybe what's going on is progressive folks want to have conversations in order to deconstruct what

people think is true and leave them to wrestle with the aftermath the confusion.

Uh because that's where there is space to reconstruct it according to their own narrative.

I'm just spitballing here.

But that's probably what's going on even in this conversation.

On unbelievable right now i'm just not a biological essentialist when it when it comes to that and i think that you can be

christian and be a social constructivist and be a christian and be a biological sigillist as calvin is

and that the two of us can be in fellowship amid our differences.

What do you make of that first chapter of genesis that calvin quoted there.

God created them male and female he created them.

What do you think that has anything to say to issues around gender and gender.

Dysphoria and so on.

Well i mean like i said the the the hebrew there is adam.

It's it's not a personal pronoun it's not a name it is earth creature.

And that gender is read into that scripture.

And you know i think we have to think about what are our interpretive practices.

What are our hermeneutics.

Do we have a hermeneutics of suspicion and retrieval or just a hermeneutics of suspicion.

Do we just accept it read it literally.

I mean i think we can get into a lot of trouble reading scripture literally.

Scripture condones slavery and lots of other things.

And should we be reading scripture as it as it is or should.

Or what are our interpretive practices.

My interpretive.

Practice is to.

And oh whoops here's the question what did the author intend when he chose those

words.

By the way it's always been understood that adam means son of the ground or son of the earth.

Right.

But even when we probe deeper and start thinking about how the hebrew letters come together to form the word adam we

see there's a deeper meaning that tracks along the notion of overcoming and controlling the

desires of the blood.

So to speak there's a lot to say about that but it explains what it means to be made in the image of god.

Okay we are not beasts like the snake who slithers into the garden and whispers to us that we should succumb to

our desires.

Which by the way explains the sin in the garden of eden.

No adam should be able to control desires even having said all of those things.

You know what.

None of the deeper meaning to adam entails that gender is a social construct.

So notice once again let's evaluate our interpretive practices.

Right.

That's what.

That's what dr espinoza just said.

And then immediately jumps to.

Well my interpretation of this passage is no.

No no no.

Hold on a second.

Hold on a second.

If we're evaluating our interpretive practices to what end so that we can discover what the author

originally intended to mean when he chose those words.

Because if that's not what we're doing then we're going.

To redefine the bible to mean all kinds of weird stuff my minor in college was biblical languages so

i've had two years of hebrew several years of greek.

I'm a one trick pony.

My undergrad is in theology.

I have a graduate degree in theological ethics and a phd in theology and philosophy and.

So like it's all i okay great.

Why did you study the hebrew and greek languages though.

Were you not taught that there are objective meanings to each word in those languages.

You didn't go to class and say you know what professor i think logos actually means a block of wood.

No you probably didn't do that.

And yet here we are pretending that there is ambiguity in the text that doesn't exist so that we can

redefine words in ways that fit into our lived experience.

Because that's where we started right dr espinoza said.

Well i believe lived experience.

Matters even more than what the bible says.

No um and and i don't come down on the side of biological

essentialism.

I think that gender as it is constructed um in society

is largely around power relations and so i just fall on that social constructivism side.

How did you come to that.

Definition of gender from reading the bible.

Where in the scripture does it teach that gender number one is a social construct and number two

that it is constructed around power relations.

Which book of the bible teaches that is there a passage of scripture we can go to where you can show me.

Or is it possible that you define gender in that way by starting with your lived experience

socially constructing that definition with other folks who are uh like -minded and then bringing that

definition and dropping it onto the text of scripture in order to see your definition everywhere in the bible.

Is that what happened.

Because one of the one of the things that i.

Just mentioned is proper and good and the other one is called isogesis and yeah

hence my theology.

Flows.

What do you make of this sort of socially constructed view of of gender and that it's ultimately

formed by power dynamics is is what's at play foremost.

I mean i don't know how to break.

Any of that down because i don't it's all very foreign to me.

I don't even agree that uh the hebrew word adam means what was it earth creature or something i believe it to mean.

Man.

Um it's we're coming from uh we're speaking two different languages at the moment.

It's it's we need to find some common ground in this.

It's very difficult to uh to translate.

Well this is often the issue.

Obviously when you're coming from two very different places how do you.

How do you kind of find the common ground to kind of as it were even have the discussion on uh

the bible.

The bible.

If you are a christian and you are having okay bring it down.

Bring it down.

If you if you are a christian and you are having a conversation with another christian particularly a

conversation where you differ on certain views which by the way happens all the time in the church.

Okay the bible is your authority and also the history of church tradition of how the

bible has been understood and taught that crystallizes our doctrine and theology for thousands of years.

Those are your guides.

That's the common ground guys.

Funny how we haven't heard a single thing about any of that in the whole episode.

And i don't mean funny.

Haha.

All right all right all right.

Okay i'm gonna i'm gonna go have a heart attack and uh and i'm gonna be okay.

I'm gonna be just fine.

Here's what i wanted to do with you in this video.

Okay i'm not showing you the whole video.

Why i want you to go see this whole video.

I'm going to provide the link for it in the notes below.

I recognize that this particular issue is in a lot of our circles right now.

Okay this is for a lot of us the issue du jour.

We either know people who are taken with this kind of ideology we see this ideology playing out in our neighborhoods um within

our own churches wherever we are.

This for a lot of us is the issue of the day.

I wanted you to see the same kind of conversation that brandon robertson had with durbin and white play out in a different context.

Why.

So you can be ready to engage those conversations when they take place in your circles.

We need to be ready ladies and gentlemen it is possible to watch folks who are taken

with these set of post -modern progressive beliefs and see them changed and transformed right in front of

our very eyes because the holy spirit has used you to engage them in effective ways.

I've personally seen it in my life.

And you can too.

And so that's my prayer that you are ready because i do believe god is going to put you

into a situation where you need to give a solid biblical response.

By the way what did you think about this conversation.

How did calvin robinson do in this exchange.

Let me know in the comments below.

Also is there any way that i can help you with an issue that you're dealing with right now.

Theological if it tracks along these lines or whatever.

If so reach out to me at hello at wise disciple .org and i will respond if

you haven't seen my reaction to brandon robertson versus jeff durbin and james white.

I've got a link to that as well below.

Also make sure to subscribe and share this video to other christians so we can all be wise disciples in today's culture.

I'm going to take a break and return soon with more videos.

In the meantime i'll say bye for now.