← Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript67 lines
- [00:04]
A
Sam.
- [00:29]
B
Hello friends. Greg Koukl and Stand a reason and glad you joined me today. I was just thinking about the difference between the meaning of two words that sound alike but actually have very different meanings and therefore different impact in the way we read our Bibles. Those are the words descriptive and prescriptive. All right, descriptive and prescriptive. Now, descriptive is pretty easy to figure out. A descriptive statement is one that describes something. In other words, it says the way things are. And a lot of times we read texts in Scripture that are describing the way things are. Or I sometimes will use an indicative. My sheep hear my voice, Jesus says in John 10. In other words, it is the case that Jesus sheep will hear his voice in the sense that he meant it. Maybe that's not such a good opening illustration because I think it's wildly misunderstood what he's referring to. But nevertheless, there's an indicative, if you read, or a descriptive element. This is describing the way things are or describing the way they will be. We see the Beatitudes, and the Beatitudes are blessed are those who and then there are different ways that people are blessed because of the consequence that follows or will follow. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. And so. In virtue of the fact that we will be satisfied, we are happy in our hearts blessed, because that's going to happen. And blessed are the poor in spirit, for they sell what see God. I'm not sure exactly which one that is, but you get the point there. Those are descriptive statements that describe the way things actually are. Notice that descriptive statements don't tell you one way or another in the fact that they're descriptive, whether the thing is good or bad. It's just saying what is. Now, in the content of the statement, we can find out whether the description is something that entails good for the believer or not. But descriptive statements just describe. There is another kind of statement, though. It's called a prescriptive statement. Prescriptive statement. And a prescriptive statement is a statement that doesn't tell how things are, but it tells how things ought to be. It doesn't tell how things are, but how things ought to be. This is also what the word normative means. Normative doesn't mean, in a certain sense, normal, like the thing that happens all the time. You know, some people might say, well, it's normative in Southern California for people to be bad drivers, or maybe in Brooklyn or something like that. Well, that's normal. But it's not normative because normative is also a word that describes how things ought to be. Just the meaning of the word. So normative distinctions are distinctions of morality. That shouldn't be the case. It should be normative. That or whatever. Prescriptively, this is the way things ought to be. Now, this is important to keep in mind because many times fault is found with statements in the Bible that, at least to people who are criticizing, think that the Bible is approving or maybe even prescribing the behavior when it may only be describing what actually took place. So we have things in the lives of lots of people. David, for example, I mean, he committed adultery with Bathsheba. He arranged for her husband to be killed in battle. That was a de facto murder. But just because he did that. And he also collected wives to himself, like a lot of people did. But just because they did that, just because the Scripture describes what happens, it doesn't mean it's approving of it. It's not saying it's good or it should happen. Now, how do you know whether it's descriptive or prescriptive? Well, you'll read the text. It just depends. I mentioned the Beatitudes a few moments ago where Jesus is saying, blessed are these people for these reasons. But towards the. Of the list, you have a reference there to Christians, and this is descriptive, that are persecuted and insulted and all for the sake of righteousness. And he said, blessed are you when that happens, when people insult you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me, that's descriptive. And then he says, rejoice and be glad. That is prescriptive in light of this circumstance, that seems bad. You do what seems to be odd. Rejoice in that. Be glad. Why? And another descriptive statement. Your reward in heaven is great, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. So in other words, when we look carefully and we think about what's going on in a text, it is generally easy to distinguish the merely descriptive from the prescriptive commands or directives, the things that are. From the things that ought to be the case. Okay, so there's just a little, I don't know, hermeneutical insight there for you. Let's go to the calls we got. Kevin in Colorado. And Kevin, welcome to the show. Do we have Kevin? Am I doing something wrong here? I don't have sound. Oh, there we go. Ma'. Am. Was that your fault, Kev? You were my fault.
- [06:59]
A
Yeah, you didn't do anything wrong.
- [07:01]
B
Naughty, naughty, naughty. Okay, 50 lashes.
- [07:04]
A
Thanks for taking my call.
- [07:06]
B
Yeah, 50 lashes with a wet noodle for that one. So.
- [07:08]
A
That's right.
- [07:09]
B
Okay, now I'm curious, Kevin, because this is off schedule. How did you know to call in to be able to catch me broadcasting at this?
- [07:17]
A
I happen to be doing what I don't want to do, maybe like Paul going to Facebook, and I saw the post there.
- [07:24]
B
Oh, you saw that? I was going to be live today at this time.
- [07:27]
A
Yep.
- [07:27]
B
Ah, well, good for you. Well, I'm glad you called. I sure am.
- [07:31]
A
Great.
- [07:32]
B
So what's on your mind today, Kev?
- [07:34]
A
Okay. My question in general is if science or people who have studied things, determine that a particular thing has a good outcome for society as a whole, but it's not biblically moral, how do I argue that without bringing up the Bible? Case in point is in Colorado right now, there are four legislators that are pushing through legalization of prostitution for the whole state. And some people say, well, the Netherlands has a good result from that. And overall, it reduces trafficking and all these sorts of things. So it sounds like the ends will justify the means in that sense.
- [08:17]
B
Well, you know, go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off.
- [08:21]
A
Well, I just want to say I want to argue against it because I think it's wrong, but I don't want to bring the Bible up because then it doesn't go so far sometimes in those circles.
- [08:28]
B
Well, okay, that's, I think, a good way to approach it. When you're dealing with a public policy issue, it's not going to be helpful to say the Bible says. But what's interesting about the moral statements in the Bible, in many cases, these comport with our common sense intuitions about the nature of morality for human beings. If you think of the Ten Commandments, apart from don't have any other gods before me, or don't worship idols. But you start moving down. Do not steal, do not murder, do not lie or bear false witness, do not obey your parents, don't covet somebody else's stuff, don't covet another man's wife. I mean, they seem to be prima facie moral goods or moral harms. Prima facie sound moral principles, let's put it that way. I mean, you don't need a Bible to know you shouldn't be taking innocent life without proper justification. You don't need a Bible to know that it's wrong to take what somebody else owns. And that would apply in a certain sense to a spouse, not that the spouse owns their spouse. A husband doesn't own a wife, and wife but they belong to each other. And so if you go and take them sexually, this, duh, this should not be really with the rank and file who are thinking sanely about these things. This shouldn't be controversial. Now, when somebody says we should legalize something that has been illegal for a long time and is only legal in one state of the union right now, and that is Nevada, as far as I know why, what is the good that they anticipate is going to come out of this legislation legalizing prostitution?
- [10:32]
A
They claim that if they studied the activities in other countries where this has been legal, that it actually reduced human trafficking and abuse and cruelty to women and all that sort of thing, which is hard to believe.
- [10:48]
B
So the rationale for legalizing prostitution is to limit human trafficking?
- [10:56]
A
Yeah, because they want to be able to treat it like a business and regulate it like a business and all those sorts of things, instead of being everything under the covers.
- [11:03]
B
Well, I'll just say, I can say that I haven't done a deep dive at all in this issue. I don't know what statistics they're drawing from. But prima facie on the face of it, on the surface, what seems obvious to me is that that's ludicrous. Yeah, I agree with that. People are not trafficking, doing sex trafficking because this is the only way they can do a prostitution business. These are people that are captured, that are working against their will, that don't get paid for it. And it is being done for the money and the pleasure and really the complete ownership of individuals, when you think about it. And I don't want people to think too much about it because I don't want them to be thinking, you know, really coarse things. But one of the appeals, it seems to me, to sexual, essentially de facto sexual slavery is that you have complete control and authority over that individual who you've bought for whatever price, for whatever time. And the seller does too. The woman is without rights in that circumstance. Okay. And there's something that is appealing to that. It's one thing that, okay, you can go to a prostitute and then you've got some time and do your thing, but that isn't the same. And I do not think that is the appeal. Look at. There's lots of opportunities for sex apart from sexual slavery or prostitution. Now, it might be if some people don't have those opportunities for particular reason, aesthetic reasons, they're not appealing to the opposite sex or whatever. But it isn't like this is the only way people can have sex. I guess I just don't Think that legalizing prostitution will cut down on sexual slavery because they do different things. There's an overlap, the sex part, but the control and the money making and the control not only of the person who is, you know, controlling the women, but also those who have control over the woman when they pay their money. That is. I just guarantee you that's a different dynamic. And I just don't think, okay, hey, we've been sexual trafficking for years and man, isn't it great? Now we can go to Colorado and just run our business legally. No, they don't want the government involved. That's what it's so counterintuitive to me. And so sometimes when they have these, these things up for vote is. By the way, is this a initiative? Like a. No. Is this in Congress? In the state?
- [13:54]
A
Appears to be, yeah. Just through the legislature, it looks like.
- [13:58]
B
Oh, well, I can tell you, you have. You have little hope in Colorado then.
- [14:03]
A
Yep.
- [14:04]
B
Oh, these guys are really, really bad. Terrible. This is the state. John Stonestreet told me a couple of years ago that, you know, you have that morning after pillow that prevents, let's see, that morning after pill that allows you to kind of get an abortion by taking the pill, basically. Morning after. Right. And then they had a drug that counteracted the pill. So if you took the pill and changed your mind, then you could take this other drug so that it counteracted the results or the impact of the. In other words, then you don't have the abortion. And my understanding is the state of Colorado, they made the antidote to the morning after pill illegal.
- [14:49]
A
Oh, boy.
- [14:51]
B
So you couldn't change it. So much for choice, right?
- [14:54]
A
Yeah.
- [14:54]
B
Anyway, that's bad. It just tells you what this. So Colorado's a bad, ugly state. So I live in California, so, you know, I don't have much to say there. But in any event, this is not good. Okay. And the argument against it would be that. That prostitution, or I should say that sex outside of marriage is immoral.
- [15:18]
A
That's the way to go.
- [15:19]
B
Okay, well, I don't even have to quote the Bible. I can just say this is obvious. Now, there's a whole lot of people who don't agree with that. I get it. But what about adultery? This is when a man cheats on his wife. Now, this is a circumstance of what you could probably characterize it as a causal slippery slope. So a person might say. I'm not saying. A person might say, I don't believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral. And then you say, what about sex outside of marriage for a married person. Non consensual, that is, a man commits adultery against his wife. Now, would it be fair to say that this is characteristically damaging?
- [16:11]
A
Yeah, I mean, I think so, because that's a cause for divorce and nobody invokes the Bible for that.
- [16:15]
B
Yeah, right, of course. And then. So if that's the case, then when there are that kind of unfaithfulness in a marriage, that means something hurts and harms the family. And the family is not an abstract. It's made up of real human beings, mother and children, or maybe father and children. Adultery can go both ways, but adultery is destructive to families. And families are the foundation of our culture. They're the cornerstone. They're the basic building blocks of culture. And so anything that hurts families is going to hurt culture.
- [17:00]
A
I like where this is going.
- [17:01]
B
Yeah, well, it's a very utilitarian kind of argument. We're using an external argument. And so characteristically, if you're thinking about public policy, you want to talk about what is good for culture, our communities, what is good for our state, what is good for the families that make up our communities. Now, somebody might say, well, I don't buy this, you know, prudish, puritanical view that sex is reserved for marriage. And so, of course, that ended in the 60s, but very few hold that view. But the commitment to maybe faithfulness within marriage, that's much different because of the nature of the relationship. Somebody might argue that prostitution is a victimless crime, so to speak. That is, who's the victim? If a guy goes and sees a prostitute, the prostitute's willing, the guy's willing, or whatever. So what's the problem? Well, the problem would be if he's married and then there is a victim, and the victim is the broken marriage, the mother, the wife, rather, and the children, and all that follows from that act of unfaithfulness. So now you've got, maybe even if you agreed for the sake of argument that extramarital sex itself. Yeah, itself was not immoral, it leads to a version of. It causes a version of sexual immorality that is destructive and is not victimless. Now, that is called a causal slip, rescue, slope. And if the second thing is immoral, then the first thing that causes the second thing is also morally questionable too. So you don't do the first, even if you agree in some circumstances that it may be morally acceptable? I don't. You don't. But some people may say that. So you take it to the next step. If you make prostitution Illegal, I'm sorry, prostitution legal. I guarantee you there's going to be a lot of married men that are going to cheat on their wives and it's going to be a lot easier too because you know, in normal adultery you got to engineer this. You got to find person, someone, you've got to meet them somewhere. You've got to go through this machination of relationship. You're in public at a bar, maybe somebody might see you. Then you rent a hotel room, you go through all of this stuff that, that, that makes you vulnerable for to discovery, getting caught. But if they could just, you know, on the sly, under the radar, make it to a, to a cat house and have their, their evening or whatever and then slip out, who's going to know? It simplifies the whole thing. It makes it easy for people to do something that's harmful to society and therefore there's not a good justification for it. And anybody who's going to disagree that that will be a likely consequence is not being honest with reality.
- [20:18]
A
I think what they would say is that based on what I'm hearing is that they'll say that, well, there's this other good thing that happens and somehow, you know, by treating it as a business instead of a CD part of town, it'll be, you know, well lit, blah blah blah. It'll have taxes that come up with all kinds of reasons that they think it's great to make this into a business.
- [20:37]
B
Well, what that means is there is going to be benefit from doing something illegal. I mean immoral is what I mean, immoral. I get that. But the question is whether that justifies it. To me these are shallow justifications. We can get tax money. So what that doesn't justify the behavior. I think this, what this shows, I think is how. What's the right word? Warped people have become. I do not believe. Look, it's kind of like there's a parallel, it seems to me, to abortion. We have to allow legal abortion so women don't get back out of the abortions.
- [21:19]
A
Yeah, that's the same kind of thing
- [21:20]
B
that turns out to be completely specious. And so you just wonder about these things. I think what you have in play here is a mentality that you do you kind of mentality we want to have as much pleasure as we want and we want the government not to get in the way of us doing this and to some degree maybe protect us because there are health standards for that kind of thing. By the way, it did occur that there is a sense in which Prostitution is legal in every state because I don't think there is any. I could be mistaken about this, but I don't think that there's any restraint on making pornography anywhere. But what is pornography? Professionals have sex for money. True, they get paid for having sex with each other, but they do it on film. And so then there's a market for that. But that doesn't make it good, it doesn't make it healthy, it doesn't make it helpful for anyone. So I would say the benefits are not justified. Think about this, okay? Tax money. Weigh that against a broken marriage.
- [22:41]
A
Yeah.
- [22:44]
B
It's hardly even commensurable. It's not even in the same category. Now, I know there are these claims about sexual slavery reduces it. I just don't believe that.
- [22:56]
A
I also think it's going to be hard. I'm sorry. I also think it's going to be hard to measure, make measurements of the damage it's doing on the married person's side, for example.
- [23:06]
B
Yeah, well, that's a conjecture. That is, to me, a common sense conjecture. But I do not think the conjecture about reducing sexual slavery is sound. And again, just on reflection, and I don't know, just like you said, how do you quantify this? You can't kind of take polls of families who had adulterous husbands who went to prostitution mills. But the same thing is true with sexual slavery. How do we know how many people are engaged in sexual slavery? Well, maybe we can keep track of abductions or maybe people who got caught or sexual slavery rings, but it's very hard to quantify that. And if it's hard to quantify it, it's going to be hard to quantify its reduction in light of legalizing prostitution. So I think these are, you know, fanciful speculations about the benefits that will accrue to the state that legalizes prostitution. And by the way, this has happened, there's other things that are similar, like legalizing marijuana. You know, I do not believe that this cut down on drug trafficking. You know, I mean, it did move some drug trafficking, like marijuana into a kind of a different category, but there's still all kinds of other drugs going on. And plus, this stuff is not good for people. The left is all bugged about, you know, cigarettes and cigars and pipes, and at the same time, they're all for people sucking down a very, very harmful substance. And today's pot is not your grandfather's pot from the 60s. It is so much stronger. And the evidence, the documentation is legion about how this leads to psychotic illnesses. So they didn't do a very good job on that one, in my view.
- [25:14]
A
We have that problem here, too.
- [25:15]
B
Yeah. Yeah. So you've got the same kind of thing. I think there's a parallel. We want what we want and we're going to make it look good, but it's not good. Now. How are you going to persuade other people? Well, I've just offered my best shot. This is not good for families. And no appeal to reduction of sexual slavery or any appeal to regulating it and making it safer and making tax money off of it. I don't think that's not going to outweigh the damage that's going to happen in real human lives as a result of making adultery easier for married men to commit.
- [25:56]
A
Right. Thank you, Greg, for the time. I sure do appreciate that.
- [25:59]
B
Well, you're welcome. I'm glad you called, Kevin. Good work on that one.
- [26:03]
A
Thank you, sir.
- [26:05]
B
All right, take care. Let's take a break and we'll come back with Open my calls. Unless somebody else calls in like that. That would be great.
- [26:15]
C
Have you ever wondered how Stand to Reason is able to produce fresh, accessible content each week? We rely on generous donors so that we can provide you with the tools and tactics you need to be an effective ambassador for Christ. If you've benefited from this podcast or any of our donor provided resources, including our apps, blog posts, articles and short videos, consider making a financial contribution to Stand to Reason today. Just visit str.orgdonate to show your financial support. It has been an honor providing you with a host of free resources for more than 27 years to help you give voice to the Christian worldview. Help us continue by making a financial gift today@str.org donate Would you like a
- [27:01]
B
Stand a Reason speaker at your event? Greg Allen, Tim John, Megan and I Tripp are available in person or online. Just email bookingstr.org Our team speaks on a wide range of topics from issues in bioethics, gender and science to topics in apologetics, theology and philosophy, and how to respond to other worldviews, all from a Biblical perspective. Whether it's a conference, youth event or Sunday service, we're here to give confidence for every Christian, clear thinking for every challenge, courage and grace for every encounter. All right, time to go to open mic calls. If you want to leave a question for open mic calls, easy to do, just go to our homepage@str.org and under Podcasts. Find the live podcast feature and there are details there for how you could leave your question that Amy will take and record, and then we put it in a list. And as we go through these special occasions where we have. We're off schedule a little bit, we don't characteristically get calls. So we had this fortunate call from Colorado just a few moments ago that's not characteristic, but we have this list so we can go through them and love to have your question for open mic calls. And we'll be using that quite a bit in the next few weeks because I got to catch up on shows for summertime when I'm out of town a bit. So once Again, go to str.org homepage. Then under podcast and live broadcast, you can leave your open mic calls. We have a call here from Bob and comedian Bob. I wonder if he's a professional comedian or not. Bob Farrell. Does that name sound familiar? Okay, Bob, what do you have in mind? Bob, what do you have in mind? This is Bob from Philadelphia.
- [29:11]
D
My question is, how would you explain
- [29:16]
B
God being holy and good to a person who would.
- [29:20]
D
Nonbeliever.
- [29:21]
B
Who would be reading 1 Kings 22, 21, 23, where God.
- [29:27]
D
God sends a lying spirit.
- [29:31]
B
Okay, thank you, Bob. I see how, like kind of at the outset, when people see this, this looks really bad. Let me read a section of this passage just to give you. To give you a perspective here. This is a situation where a prophet is speaking to a ruler and kind of gives a prophecy that's. How could I say, complementary to the ruler, but the ruler understands. No, that's not right. I know that you're not telling the truth here. And of course, this was obvious. Then the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil? So this was a concern. Okay, I don't want to talk to Jehoshaphat. I'm sorry, I don't want to talk to Micaiah the prophet. He's telling Jehoshaphat who says, why don't we hear from the prophet of the Lord? Because there were other prophets that were doing their thing right, and they were prophesying good for the king. And Micaiah enlisted by Jehoshaphat to prophesy. And of course, the king doesn't want to hear from Micaiah because he doesn't give good prophecies and he gives the prophecy, and it didn't turn out to be good. He's mad. He's getting mad at Jehoshaphat. And then Micaiah responds. He said, therefore, hear the word of the Lord. Here you go. I saw the Lord sitting on his throne and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right and on his left. The Lord said, who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? And one said this, while another said that then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, I will entice him. The Lord said to him, how? And he said, I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. Then he said, you are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so. Now, therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all your prophets and the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you. Now, I think this is really an interesting account, especially when you read kind of above and below. Never read a Bible verse concept because the truth is laid out for the king here and no ambiguity about it. And then the question is, why is it all the rest of my prophets are prophesying good for me and you prophesy bad? That's why he didn't want to do what Jehoshaphat had said and listened to Micaiah. That guy always prophesies bad to me. Well, he's a prophet of the true God. And all of the other prophets of the king are just telling the king what he wants to hear. And so Micaiah is saying, here's what happened. God allowed, sent out, if you will, a deceiving spirit so that they would tell lies. Now, it's important here some of the language, it does not say that the spirit is forcing them to tell lies. The spirit, it says, entices them. I will entice them. Verse 21. I will entice them by being a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all the prophets. Now, I want you to see something really important here. These prophets are not good. Why are they prophesying? What they're prophesying because they want to seek the favor of the king. Now, have they been deceived in some measure by the deceiving spirit who doesn't force them, but does entice them?
- [33:27]
A
Them.
- [33:28]
B
And then I think the enticement fits in with what they already wanted to do. Why does God allow this? Because he's ambushing the king. I'm chasing my words carefully here because this just occurred to me recently when I was considering this question. There are times when God's people, the leadership of Israel, seek God's guidance on a particular thing and ask them, are you going to give this other army into our hands. And he said, yes, I am. He said, how are you going to do it? What should we do? What's the battle plan? And then God says, set an ambush. Now, what is an ambush? An ambush is a surprise. An ambush is a deception. You position yourself and entice someone in such a way that you can catch them off guard. So I actually don't see this as anything different than an ambush. The rahab, the harlot. Now, she made her own choices here, but she lied to protect the spies that were God's people so they didn't get killed by her own people. And then she aligned herself with God's people. In fact, she's the great grandmother, I think, of King David. So Canaanite, right? So she lied. God sets ambushes. And so what we have here is kind of a tactical deception. I'm not troubled by that at all. When you are involved in warfare, this is what you do. And warfare takes on different characteristics or happens on different levels here. And this is what we see. And what we have is a king that is bent on disobeying God. And so what Micaiah is telling him is that your prophets telling you what you want to hear are only doing that because they have been enticed to lie to you. But I am telling you the truth. So it isn't like even in this enticement to lie that there is like extensive subterfuge here. The prophet is telling the king exactly what's going on. You're being lied to. And the reason you're being lied to is the lying spirit that God ordained, allowed, in a certain sense, tactical way, has thrown him off. It's almost like saying, okay, you're going to come out and get God's army. I just want you to know before you do it, there's an ambush waiting for you. Believe me if you want. You're probably not going to believe me, but you're going to get axed. The ambush is going to take you out. So if the prophet is telling the king in this case exactly what took place, obviously deception isn't very thoroughgoing. God is willing to show him exactly what's up. And that's what we have. In this situation. Now, I'm just reading here as you continue. Then Zedekiah the son of Cheneha, came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, how did the spirit of the Lord pass from me to speak to you? So this is one of the false prophets now who's making a big display of power. And what does Micaiah do? Micaiah says, well, behold, you shall see on that day when you enter an inner room to hide yourself. Yeah. Watch what happens. And there's a fulfillment later in the text on this battle where this particular prophet goes and hides himself. Now I think as I recall, he ends up getting found and getting killed. But that of course is what Micaiah is saying. Now you'll know that I'm right and you're wrong. I speak for God, you don't. In any event, I think there are sometimes things like this that go on that do make us a little uncomfortable because of the language, lying spirit it. But when you think of it like military tactics, like an ambush, I think it takes on a little different. A different. There's another dimension to this, let's put it that way. All right, so there you go, Bob. I hope that helps. Here's a question from Luke about vows. Luke, what's on your mind?
- [38:26]
E
Hi Greg. I will try to make a long story short. When I was 19 and I'm 34 now, I felt led that God called me to be permanently single. I subsequently made a vow to do so and made it public for over 10 to 12 years. This was my testimony. However, I finally had enough gumption and humility to seriously analyze God's call to me, specifically callings in general and how God speaks to us. I came to realize that my conviction that God called me to be single was on very thin subjective feelings foundation. I don't believe God ever called me to be single. And by the way, I am familiar with your views on how God speaks and does God whisper? And I wish I had been acquainted with this many years ago and it may have saved me from this current struggle. Nevertheless, here's my question. Am I still obligated to fulfill the vow I made to God to be single when he never called me to be single to begin with.
- [39:29]
B
Thank you Luke, thanks for your question and boy, this is unfortunate situation. I think there there's good news that comes out of this. But you said I wish I knew, I wish I knew. I think a lot of people have thought that after hearing a more and I know this sounds self serving but I'll just say it a more biblical characterization of the whole concept of God speaking to us and calling us and stuff like that. If you get certain things wrong, you make wrong decisions and maybe not morally wrong necessarily, but maybe not wise unsound decisions and then what. And that's what we're facing here. And I wish too Luke, I wish that more people could avoid some of the problems they got themselves into based on what they think was hearing the voice of God, or God calling them into certain lifestyle or ministry or something like that, or even into a marriage. I mean, people get married this way.
- [40:41]
A
Way.
- [40:43]
B
And sometimes it works out. Especially when the people who get married this way have integrity. And then when it doesn't work out experientially, it's really hard. Then they keep their vows and they work at it, and they make it happen. They make it work, but it's really hard. I had one person that I talked to about this who did tell me this is how we got got married. Through him and his wife, concluding that God was instructing them to get married, leading them, however you want to characterize it. And as he's telling me a story, I asked him, I said, well, how's it going? And he said, I'm on my knees every day. That doesn't always work out that way. But this was his circumstance. And so he was probably thinking, I wish I knew. Of course, at that point I reminded him, we know what God's will is for you right now, that you are married. And that is to stay married and work through it. And God's sovereign hand is enough to cover that as you follow him and obey him in the circumstances that you find yourself. But like Luke, you just said, I wish. Yeah, me too. For a lot of others like you. Now, with regards to the vow, what appears to me is that. And you almost said it in these words. You made a promise based on a falsehood, and that is a false understanding of what you thought God was saying. I know there's information about vows in the Old Testament, in the law and the Hebrew Scriptures, and how they're binding on people. Unless you do these particular things to resolve this with the Lord. Sometimes it's, I think, paying money to the priests or something, something like that. I don't have any reason to think that that applies in this situation. I think that you made a promise to God, a vow, if you will, based on false information, that before God you're not obliged to sustain that and fulfill that. I think you're free now, given your new information, to make your own decisions about your future. So I think you're off the hook. I don't think you're still obligated to fulfill that vow. Somebody might disagree with me, but I guess they'd have to explain to me and convince me why we're obliged to keep a vow that we made based on false information. Because apart from that false information, the vow would never have been made in the first place, which is something you've already admitted. I wish I had known about this before I made that vow. All right, so that's the way I'd approach that circumstance. Luke, I appreciate your call. Let's see what else I got here. Okay, this is David. I'm jumping down one this question about wedding. I got that, Kyle. Okay, thanks, David.
- [43:58]
D
Hey, Greg, thank you for the podcast. It's been a great help to my faith. Recently, my wife and I were talking about attending same sex weddings and we both are of the stance that by attending a wedding we're voicing support for what's taking place between the two people. So we would never attend the wedding of a same sex couple, just as we wouldn't attend the wedding of a polygamist and a second wife if that was legal. When it comes to those and other extreme examples, we are united that we would not attend even if it was one of our siblings or one of our future children's weddings. But recently I've become more convicted about being consistent when it comes to attending other weddings. So my question is, in light of the biblically based conviction on same sex weddings, would it be inconsistent and or wrong of me to attend the wedding of a sibling or future child who professes to be a Christian, yet is marrying a non believer? Would it be a greater good to attend the wedding and preserve the familial relationships, or to skip it and to risk burning a bridge? And then lastly, if it was not my siblings, but her siblings, my wife's siblings, and if she was convinced that she should go and wanted me to go, would it be appropriate for me to attend with her in order to honor her and her family? Or would it be better for me to skip it or to lead in making the decision that we are both not going? Thank you for your time and your help. God bless.
- [45:35]
B
David, thank you for this question. It's a tough one in some ways and in some ways it's not so tough. You have applied what I think is a sound biblical way of thinking regarding marriage ceremonies in a number of different ways, like same sex weddings, for example, or a polygamous marriage, and have concluded that since essentially you don't use the language, but it amounts to this. Since weddings are celebrations and those who go to weddings are celebrating. The question is, can we as Christians celebrate a wedding that God can't celebrate because of the immoral element that's involved there, can we celebrate a Same sex marriage. I think the answer is no. Polygamous marriage? No. I don't think the answer is no. I'm convinced it's no. And that's why we have consistently counseled people in this circumstance not to go to the same sex wedding. Now there are alternatives for relationship apart from that. And that is, and this is what Alan Schliemann recommends, who by the way actually attended two same sex weddings of people in his own family. I think one was his brother in law and for the reasons that many people give for the witness, for the relationship, etc. And now he regrets both times he wouldn't do it again because it didn't seem to accrue benefit the way he thought it might and it put him in a position of celebrating something that he doesn't really celebrate. So you have a moral principle here regarding this, David, and you're asking, well, shouldn't I be consistent with regards to other types of marriages that I can't celebrate as a Christian? Like a marriage between a Christian or a non Christian? We'll leave out the family element for the moment. But just in principle, if a Christian, and we're going to stipulate that this person genuinely is a Christian, I mean some people who have a Christian testimony aren't really believers. And so that's another issue. But let's stipulate who is genuinely a Christian and is marrying someone who's genuinely not a Christian, also stated by stipulation, then in that circumstance can you celebrate that? And I think the answer is obviously no, because that also is an unholy union. God says in 2 Corinthians 4 or 5 right in there somewhere, maybe 5, do not be bound together with unbelievers. And goes on then to actually put it in, I'll look up the passage and fairly drastic kind of terminology, Second Corinthians chapter five, I believe somewhere it says, Yeah, it's chapter 6:14 do not be bound or literally unequally yoked, like two animals that are not equal in strength or direction, that are yoked together and have to pull the same load, don't be bound together with unbelievers. And then he says this, for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial? That's like the devil, Beelzebub, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God? And he goes on that's 2 Corinthians, chapter 6. Now, I read the longer passage because sometimes people will just say, well, we're not supposed to be unequally yoked and we miss the force of the statement and Paul's exhortation. When you read the whole thing, you kind of get the full force of it, right? That's not looking good. So if there is a Christian who is willing to do this, what God tells him not to do, can we celebrate that relationship? And the answer is, I don't see how we can. So by the same rationale, by the same moral principle, to be consistent with that, it would be wrong, all things being equal, to go to a wedding where you have a genuine believer marrying a genuine nonbeliever. Can't celebrate that. I'd say no. Now, I mentioned all things being equal. Well, maybe there's some exceptions to that. So let me go there. And then you gave some qualifications. Or what if it's a member of my own family? Wouldn't I be burning a bridge if it was my child? Child? What if it's my wife's brother or sister and she wants to go, but I don't want to go? And how do you manage all of that? If it were my child, who was genuinely a Christian, who wanted to marry a non Christian, I would tell my daughter, since I have two daughters, I'll say, honey, you can't do that. I would be discouraging her very early on in this relationship, as it began to develop. I'm saying, where are you going with this? This can't go down the marriage aisle. I can see it in your eyes. You're all twinkly and all oozy goosey about this, but this cannot go anywhere productive. And as time goes on, I would also communicate to her, if this is something you pursue and you want to do, you are going to be in disobedience to God. Do you want that? And if you are in disobedience to God in this thing and you go through it, mom and I can't come to this, that we're not going to attend. We are not going to aid in the bed and celebrate something that God says is wrong. So there's a sense in which, even with your own children, you could build up to that. And that's what I would do. Hopefully your wife will be on the same page with you morally, even though I think it's going to be harder for a wife than a husband, partly because different natures, women are much more, generally speaking, much more nurturing and the temptation will be to want to be the nurturer there instead of dad who is trying to hold the line sometimes. And so there's that give and take there in parenting that is important. We need both. So it may be harder for mom, but it doesn't change the moral nature of that decision. So hopefully you'll be on the same page there. Now there was one other element that you mentioned and that was, well, what about if it's the wife's, what, sister, brother, whatever. Well, this was the case of Alan in same sex marriage, whereas his wife's brother who was getting married, who was gay in a same sex union, he did go, but now he regrets it it. And so I, I think the same rule ought to apply there too. Now explanations will have to be made and maybe you talk to the, the in law or the brother, you know, they closer f family member and say, what are you doing? This, this person? Or maybe it's, you know, I don't know who the unbeliever would be, the husband, the bride or the groom, but you know, whoever the believer, you want to say to him. The same thing I would say to my daughter. I said, what are you doing? This is not good. Here's what one person told me. I heard them say this. How can you be a light to the world when you're putting a lampshade on your head? I mean it's kind of a crazy metaphor, but it works. You think you're going to win this person to Christ? What you're communicating to that person is you don't care enough about your own relationship with God to obedient to them. Tim, why are you, why do you think that's going to be a witness to the unbelieving person? Sometimes that works out. People marry a non Christian and they become Christians by the grace of God. And I mean not by the grace of God. They get saved because they do. I mean by the grace of God that God took a bad situation, made something good out of it. But it doesn't always work that way. And I have friends who married non Christians and labored with that decision all of their lives. Yeah. And it's just like, yeah, nothing changed. And so the most important thing about your life as a human being, that is your relationship with God through Christ cannot be shared with the most important human being and the most important human relationship in your life, your spouse. Is this what you want? So I would have that conversation and then part of that conversation would say if you make this choice and you have to make Your choice before God. I can't tell you what you have to do. I'll tell you what you should do based on what God says. But if you make this choice, we can't celebrate with you. We're not cutting ourselves off from you. Rather, and Alan makes a recommendation about when you say no in the same sex marriage, you still can arrange to after the marriage and things settle down to have dinner with the couple and pursue a relationship with them, but you're not participating in the event. That's a celebration of their own relationship. So in the same way you could say, we just can't go now, when you get back from your honeymoon, we'd love to have you over, we'll have you over for dinner and we want to maintain our relationship with you. In other words, you will not be burning a bridge unless they burn it. Now that happens, you don't have to burn the bridge. You're just offering another way to pursue the relationship without celebrating the marriage. But they may burn the bridge. And this of course happens lots. Now, the toughest circumstance is if your wife wants to go in spite of your moral concerns and you think they shouldn't. The question is whether your wife will be respectful of your authority and do what you think is best or not. And I think if she decides not to go along with your decision in this, but to actually go to the wedding, I'm sympathetic. Why? Emotionally she'd be driven to that. But in my view, that would still be a mistake. That would still be wrong. According to Ephesians 5 and the relationship husbands are to have with their wives. You have worked on trying to come up with a proper moral biblical response. And you should be instructing your wife should be responding to that and respecting that and making the hard choice to follow her husband rather than follow her own heart in the circumstance. And hopefully it doesn't come to that. But I think I covered all the options. Some of these decisions are in a certain sense morally clear. This one is in my view. But they're not easy to apply. So the best to you, David. All right, friends, that's the end of our show today. Greg Koukl here for stand a reason. Give him heaven.
- [57:22]
A
All right, Sa. Sam.