0:04

Hello friends!

0:29

Greg Coeckel here. The show is

0:31

Stand to Reason and I'm kind of pumped

0:34

right now. We just had about three hours

0:36

with some wonderful people from Norway

0:38

who we had a

0:40

team from Norway sponsored by the

0:43

same folk. They came out last

0:45

year and I don't know they're spending

0:48

a couple weeks here in the States and

0:50

they came by Christians who are committed

0:53

to making a difference in their own

0:55

country. We actually had some confusion where

0:59

I was, I don't know why this

1:01

happened many years ago when I was

1:03

working at Hope Chapel. We

1:06

were asking where did Norwegians come from and nobody

1:08

could think of the word Norway. So

1:11

somebody just said I think it's Norwegia. So

1:15

that was the, okay, Norwegia became

1:18

the joke. But we had some real Norwegians here

1:21

and had a fabulous time with them and actually

1:23

they're still hanging out, listening

1:25

to the show a little bit here. I

1:28

can't, I would be remiss without saying

1:30

something about the Super Bowl since Sunday

1:33

was Super Bowl Sunday. And

1:35

in case you're interested, which maybe you would, I

1:37

was rooting for the Kansas City Chiefs and

1:41

of course I didn't, I

1:43

didn't get my bearded

1:46

pieces, give me thumbs down. Big

1:49

San Francisco fan. I look at

1:51

it, I usually

1:53

don't have a horse in the race, okay. I

1:55

just come and pick a team. Turned

1:57

out my daughter was for San Francisco. I usually try to

1:59

side with her. But I like

2:01

Patrick My home's this is so Third,

2:03

does Superbowl Ring is or it One

2:05

twenty eight years old and he's got

2:07

a long history egg ahead of him.

2:09

And the maybe is gonna be Brady.

2:12

But the he's just kind of fun to

2:14

watch. But I will say this had been

2:17

brought pretty did a great job. I think

2:19

the only time. Maybe

2:21

I'm not. Correct. I think there

2:24

was a part of the game where

2:26

the Chiefs were ahead three points or

2:28

something I had or know but it

2:30

was tight end. The first three quarters

2:32

were boring I think cause nothing was

2:34

happening. Why? Because the defense was so

2:37

great a both sides and I think

2:39

Purdy did a great job. He stayed

2:41

the pocket because he had a fabulous

2:43

offensive line. they gave him gray protection.

2:45

He never seemed in trouble. And

2:48

my home's was scrambling all over the

2:50

place. He couldn't stay in the pocket

2:52

any wasn't find a receivers because the

2:54

secondary was doing such a great job

2:56

the defensive secondary and so and away

2:58

one the differences do in such a

3:00

great job it's leafs decline of wondering

3:02

Well once this game going to start.

3:06

Ah, the start of the fourth quarter.

3:08

And. Then it got really interesting

3:10

and then it was come from

3:13

behind in overtime to make Guy.

3:15

As it turned out, To

3:18

goes for the Chiefs to go seventy five

3:20

yards without making a big mistake. If.

3:23

They didn't make a first down

3:25

and keep moving down if they

3:28

fumbled the ball ball was intercepted

3:30

was over with because because. The.

3:33

Forty Niners, of course, me. that field

3:35

goal. Three points help. and then with

3:37

what four seconds left on the clock,

3:39

Or six seconds, or eight seconds, something

3:42

negligible like that. Patrick.

3:44

Bahamas pitched one into the. End.

3:46

zone and the game was

3:48

over nellis of financing for

3:50

me at least a real

3:52

heartbreak force sporty niners fans

3:54

anyway so there you go

3:56

that's my are maya armchair

3:58

quarterbacks stance here I

4:02

was watching, we don't have

4:04

network TV, so the only way

4:06

we can watch something is if I

4:09

purchase a subscription

4:13

to some kind of sports thing.

4:15

And the one I purchased for

4:17

football, just because my daughter likes

4:19

it and I thought we'd watch

4:21

some football together, is the, is

4:23

actually a Canadian provider. So

4:25

here I'm watching the Super Bowl, waiting

4:27

to see these great Super Bowl commercials

4:29

and characteristically it's the best commercials of

4:31

the year. And I'm watching

4:34

commercials for Tim Horton or

4:37

McDonald's in Canada or

4:40

what, CTA,

4:43

Canadian TV, whatever, boring

4:47

commercials. But

4:50

what it meant is I didn't get a

4:52

chance to see the He Gets Us commercials,

4:56

which I'm very interested in. I'm

4:59

quite concerned about that campaign

5:01

and we've talked about this before.

5:03

What is the message that's being

5:06

communicated? In my view, it's not

5:08

a good message. Do you know

5:10

those commercials cost $7 million for

5:13

60 seconds? And

5:17

when you do a very

5:19

nicely produced, cleverly done He

5:21

Gets Us commercial, it

5:25

costs you $7 million for just

5:27

that one minute, you better make

5:29

sure that your millions are being

5:31

well spent. And

5:33

not only am I convinced

5:35

they were not well spent, but

5:38

I think that they actually did damage.

5:41

Now, Natasha Crane has

5:43

written on this in the past and we had her

5:45

on board a year ago when this campaign first started.

5:48

She is not available today, so we're going to have

5:50

to talk with her next week. And

5:52

she'll give us the rundown then. So we will

5:54

revisit that issue, all right,

5:57

the issue of the He Gets

5:59

Us campaign. which I'm

6:01

actually borderline stunned

6:04

at the

6:07

particular Christians that have come out either

6:10

somewhat neutral to affirmative or

6:13

completely affirmative about this campaign.

6:16

And we'll talk about why that's the case and

6:19

I'm sure many of you who

6:21

are part of the Stand to Reason community and

6:24

have learned a few things about in a

6:26

sense reading between the lines about what is

6:28

actually going on and things like that have

6:31

seen many of the things that we

6:33

see and we'll talk about that next week

6:35

with Natasha Crane. So we're going

6:38

to be doing Amy we're doing an interview

6:40

with Natasha off schedule but it's going to

6:42

be aired next week is that right? Will

6:44

that be the Tuesday? Oh the one

6:46

that comes out Wednesday or the one that comes it'll be

6:48

Wednesday okay so that's that's when

6:50

you'll have a shot at Natasha's

6:52

comments. I've already read her piece about this

6:55

and it might be on the internet Natasha

6:58

Crane C-R-A-I-N and

7:02

just put he gets us. She's written two pieces

7:04

about it. This was a follow-up

7:06

to last year they're both excellent and

7:08

very even-handed fair-minded and she did her

7:10

research and her thinking is great and

7:13

I think she does a great job

7:15

in clarifying the

7:18

concerns that we all share here at

7:20

Stand to Reason and many other Christian

7:22

apologists see as well though not

7:24

all. So that'll come next week or you can

7:26

read the piece in the meantime all

7:28

right. So we

7:31

have been getting some questions quite

7:33

frequently apparently about

7:36

marriage licenses

7:40

or marriage certificates per se

7:43

and it's not the concern at this

7:45

point that these are licenses that are

7:47

being given out for

7:50

same-sex unions thus

7:53

verifying and justifying as

7:56

equal to heterosexual unions

7:58

these same-sex unions

8:00

that are now called marriages. They're not, but

8:03

they're called that. By the way,

8:05

they can only be called marriages if the

8:08

word marriage has no meaning. And

8:11

after Obergefell and the Supreme

8:13

Court decision, someone

8:17

made the notation, made the observation

8:19

rather, that all marriages

8:21

are names on a piece of paper.

8:23

That's it. It does not represent anything

8:26

meaningful anymore. Certainly not the culture,

8:31

because what matters to culture is

8:33

a foundational family structure that marriages

8:35

characteristically begin and

8:38

provides the basis

8:40

for every culture, not

8:43

just Christian culture. What we're

8:45

talking about here are not Christian rules about

8:47

marriage, biblical standards

8:50

about marriage, but the way

8:52

reality is structured. You

8:55

don't need to be a Christian

8:57

or a Bible reader to know

9:00

the way the world is. And

9:02

this is why forever, from

9:05

the beginning of civilization, marriage has

9:08

been a word used to describe

9:10

a particular kind of relationship.

9:12

And it wasn't that the word

9:15

or the culture who used

9:18

the word created the relationship,

9:20

the relationship already existed as

9:22

a feature of human civilization.

9:27

And because it's such an important part of

9:30

human civilization, cultures

9:33

have regulated it and protected

9:35

it and privileged it.

9:37

Okay? But the start

9:39

of a real marriage begins,

9:43

I shouldn't

9:45

say begins with, but it entails

9:47

a public, characteristically,

9:50

a public celebration and

9:53

a public affirmation of

9:55

intention. And

9:58

the question that we've been getting... quite

10:01

a bit apparently, is

10:05

what's the big deal with a

10:07

marriage license? Can't

10:10

we just be married before God

10:12

by saying private vows to each

10:14

other? And

10:17

this has come up before. In

10:20

fact, this

10:22

was very popular in the 60s to

10:25

dismiss the

10:29

marriage relationship,

10:31

the formal marital relationship

10:33

as merely a piece

10:35

of paper. We

10:38

don't need the piece of paper. We're in love with

10:41

each other. We'll stay with each other. And

10:43

given the facts of divorce

10:46

rates, if

10:49

we want to leave each other, we can leave each

10:51

other. So there is no difference in many people's minds

10:54

to just making some kind

10:56

of vow. I don't know what that vow entails,

10:59

even if it's before God privately,

11:02

as opposed

11:04

to publicly making the vow. All

11:07

right. And so I want

11:09

to offer my thoughts about this. And

11:13

in a certain sense, I guess I

11:15

could agree that the piece

11:18

of paper doesn't make a marriage. What

11:22

the piece of, just like in a certain sense,

11:24

I guess you could say a contract

11:28

is in principally words written on the

11:30

paper. What a contract

11:32

is as an agreement, a formal agreement

11:34

between two people about some usually

11:37

a business deal that

11:39

is formalized and secured by

11:43

a piece of paper, which makes

11:45

it, makes

11:47

it, I'm trying to think of

11:49

the right word, because I don't

11:51

want to suggest that it creates the

11:54

contract or the the obligation or the

11:56

agreement. But what it does is secures

11:58

it. It secures it. cures it.

12:01

And in the same way, when

12:04

a couple gets married

12:07

and does two things, one,

12:09

they formalize that with the government by

12:12

getting a marriage certificate, which

12:16

then places them in a particular

12:18

place in the cultural setting where

12:21

the government now offers

12:23

formal protections

12:27

and privileges to

12:31

that relationship. For

12:33

the purpose of securing its

12:35

stability since it

12:37

is the central relationship to

12:39

civilization. Families

12:42

are the building blocks of

12:44

civilizations and marriages create

12:46

families. That's the way they start. Now,

12:48

of course, that isn't always the way

12:50

it works. But you and I

12:52

know that when it doesn't work that way,

12:54

it's a distortion of what

12:57

is good. And I'm not even, I

13:00

don't even have to moralize in the Bible here. That

13:04

when that institution

13:07

that functions in societies, every society,

13:09

whether they have a Bible or

13:12

not, from essentially from the beginning

13:14

of time, as long as we have records

13:16

of people doing stuff, this is one

13:18

of the things they did. And it

13:20

wasn't just cohabiting. It wasn't just

13:22

like, hey, you're sexy. I like

13:24

you. And let's make a

13:27

baby or whatever. It was

13:29

more formal. And there are

13:31

all kinds of actual ornate

13:35

kind of rituals that different

13:37

cultures have regarding this. What are they

13:39

doing? They are making this a big

13:42

thing. Why? Because it is a big

13:44

thing. Again,

13:48

leaving aside the theological elements just for

13:50

a moment, the case

13:52

can be made even without those, that

13:55

a marriage relationship is

13:57

something that our culture is a big thing, because we're not going to be able to do that.

14:00

needs stable marriages for

14:04

human flourishing. Humans

14:07

have long gestation periods, nine months, that's

14:09

a long time to carry a child,

14:14

and then after the child's

14:16

born that's just the

14:19

trouble just begins, right? There

14:22

is a long period of time

14:24

following that where that offspring

14:28

is dependent upon the family

14:31

for survival, not just the

14:33

mother. She plays a very unique

14:35

and precious role in the process, but

14:38

dad's in there too doing

14:40

the things that characteristically mothers don't have

14:42

time to do because they're caring for

14:44

these children. They're out hunting, gathering, protecting

14:46

all of those kinds of things to

14:49

provide for the family. Now

14:52

I realize that's our typical kind

14:54

of classical family and we got

14:56

different variations now mom works etc.

15:00

But the point I'm making is a point

15:03

about human flourishing and human beings

15:05

being the kind of beings they

15:07

are require a certain

15:10

kind of environment in order to

15:12

grow up well and safely and

15:14

to ultimately flourish.

15:17

Okay and that happens best

15:19

when you have a stable family

15:22

environment. I mean

15:25

you guys know everybody's

15:27

aware of friends now, gals

15:30

who have live-in boyfriends

15:32

and that works great. They may

15:35

even have kids when

15:37

I say that works great. I'm being a little

15:39

facetious here. I'm not championing it. Oh

15:41

that looks great. Oh we might have a kid or

15:43

two and tell the guy leaves and

15:46

when he's tired of getting what he wanted for

15:48

very little responsibility he moves on to

15:50

someone else and mom is there having

15:52

to take care of the children's single

15:54

moms. Okay

15:57

Well moms rise to the occasion. My wife was

15:59

a single mom. Before.

16:01

We got married. And

16:03

but know who would argue that ideal.

16:06

Who. Would argue that best to would

16:08

argue that good know what's good

16:10

and best. Obviously.

16:12

Is the nuclear family. and

16:15

incidentally, that's been obvious. Four

16:17

month for millennia. It.

16:20

Doesn't matter where you live, In,

16:23

it's only been recently that common

16:25

sense on this issue is no

16:28

longer common because people have been

16:30

bullied. Into ignoring.

16:33

Common sense and ignoring what's

16:36

obvious. I. Mean this is

16:38

not a hard issue. So

16:40

what is the point? Know you're a Christian,

16:42

you want to see own to get married

16:44

before God. What does that look like? Marriage

16:46

before God is not a marriage. and listen

16:48

to marriage beat for human beings to. Know

16:51

you're going to say were in the Bible Does

16:53

a say that? It Doesn't say that? But

16:57

very early in the biblical

17:00

record, it became very clear

17:02

that these relationships were secured

17:04

not by a private. Commitment.

17:08

Before God but by a

17:10

public commitment. And

17:13

with someone in a certain sense pays the price.

17:16

They are standing before the public

17:19

and they are saying Here are

17:21

the vows I making. In.

17:23

Front of you so that you can hold

17:25

me accountable to these vows and I'm also

17:28

stand before God. No,

17:31

it's not about a piece of paper,

17:33

it's about securing. It's about of, ah,

17:35

before god. That

17:38

is made with the graph

17:41

a t that is appropriate.

17:43

To the institution. Now.

17:46

Could atheists get married? Sure they don't

17:48

follow before God. I understand that. But

17:52

that's because they don't understand. That

17:55

doesn't mean to sound of marriage courses to

17:58

marriage in that circumstance of it's a male

18:00

in a female. Go be a marriage. But.

18:03

The Man: I'm not acknowledge that

18:06

it's before God. All I'm saying

18:08

is God is the one who

18:10

made this institution who constructed reality

18:12

in this fashion. And

18:15

has been operating like that. For

18:18

millennium. Until just recently.

18:20

In fact, one of the. Quips

18:23

which was not meant to be funny was

18:25

meant to be serious. From. The

18:27

Supreme Court justices themselves from one

18:29

of the justices. Was.

18:32

That maybe we This was. During

18:34

a better Fell and Twenty fifteen. When.

18:37

That cases being argued maybe as twenty fourteen

18:40

when was argue to came on June Twenty

18:42

fifteen. What?

18:44

The judge said is, you know what? Maybe

18:46

we ought to move a little bit. Slower.

18:50

Because the concept. Of

18:52

same sex marriage is not as

18:54

old as the cell phone. Number

18:58

this like seven years ago. So

19:01

so bomb. Phones were not as old as they

19:03

are now. But they're booked

19:05

their recent in Human History. And

19:08

same sex marriage. The concept is

19:10

even more recent. It's foreign. To

19:15

civilization. Because. It's

19:17

not. A marriage. In.

19:20

The sense that people have understood to

19:22

be and protected it and privileged. hip.

19:24

And. Are regulated It

19:27

Okay Now I'm.

19:30

By the way, Jesus. Acknowledge

19:32

that there's a difference between

19:34

living together. And. Marriage

19:36

and we read about John. Chapter Four: Because.

19:39

There is talk and it's a woman at

19:42

to the woman at the well who seems

19:44

to be pretty. Obviously a woman have compromised

19:46

character. Let's just put it that way. And

19:49

when Jesus as go get your husband she

19:51

says i don't have a husband. And

19:56

she's has said that's right, you had

19:58

five. and And

20:00

the one you're living with now is

20:02

not your husband. Notice how Jesus himself

20:04

made this distinction. A

20:06

cohabiting relationship is not a marriage. Oh,

20:09

there's a common law marriage category in American

20:13

jurisprudence, but that's just for the sake

20:15

of the law to provide protection actually

20:17

to the wife especially

20:19

who might be taken advantage of

20:21

by a man who lives with her for

20:23

a long time and then leaves and

20:26

leaves maybe with children, etc. So there

20:29

are legal, even in a common law marriage,

20:31

notice that the point

20:34

of the common law marriage is to establish

20:36

a de facto marriage with its corporate

20:40

responsibilities even when there's no piece

20:42

of paper. Just

20:44

goes to show how important that

20:46

thing is from a cultural perspective.

20:50

But from a Christian perspective, it's even more because

20:52

we understand that God ordained this, a man shall

20:54

leave his father and a mother and cleave to

20:56

his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

20:59

What God has joined together, these are Jesus'

21:01

words, let no man separate, Matthew 19. So

21:04

he adds that last sentence to the

21:07

Genesis account in chapter 2 of Genesis

21:10

about when the first marriage

21:12

happened and the nature

21:14

of that thing and that it is a

21:16

God thing that's just been

21:18

ordained. And I want

21:20

to clarify something here because it's sometimes easy to

21:23

get this concept mixed up or to

21:26

misunderstand the point of making. I'm

21:28

not just saying that these are the rules

21:30

that God established and we got to play

21:32

by God's rules. That's

21:36

certainly the case in many things and

21:38

if God says it, then he's

21:40

in charge, right? But it's just

21:42

not a matter of making arbitrary rules about

21:44

something. He built the world

21:46

in a certain way. If

21:50

you have a diesel vehicle,

21:52

you can't put regular gas in it. In

21:54

fact, I think you can't even put the nozzle in

21:56

the car. It's blocked because the

21:58

nozzle for diesel is... different. People don't want

22:01

you mixing the gas and the diesel

22:03

up. Why? Because the diesel vehicle was

22:05

not made to run on gasoline. It

22:08

was made to run on diesel. Okay.

22:10

It's the structure of that machine

22:12

and in a very real

22:14

sense God's structured reality in a very particular

22:17

way that it worked in a certain way

22:19

and when it worked the way he intended

22:21

he called that good. In

22:24

fact when it comes to marriage he called that very good. And

22:29

so when we violate the order that

22:31

God has established

22:36

we're not just breaking the rules as

22:39

if they were arbitrary. We are putting

22:42

gas in a diesel engine. That's

22:45

what we're doing. We're working

22:47

cross purposes to reality. And

22:51

so especially Christians who understand that

22:53

ought to follow

22:56

the pattern

22:59

that not

23:01

just Christian or

23:03

Jewish believer people

23:05

did under their

23:08

period of time before God but

23:10

all people did regardless of which

23:12

God they happen to worship. They

23:14

recognize the way reality was structured,

23:16

the importance of a particular kind

23:18

of union, long-term

23:21

monogamous heterosexual union. Now sometimes

23:23

they weren't monogamous. There was

23:26

poly polygamy. That

23:31

caused all kinds of problems though. It still does. But

23:34

in general a long-term

23:36

monogamous heterosexual

23:38

union as

23:41

a rule, as a

23:46

produce the next generation by nature,

23:53

characteristically. And

23:56

since it produced the next generation and there's

23:59

a long gestation. Mom's pregnant for nine

24:01

months, and then kids are around for about 20

24:03

years. It used to be only about 15, 14, 13. Now

24:07

it's twice that or three times that, depending on

24:09

the household. You can't get rid of them. That's

24:13

another issue. Not

24:15

that we want to get rid of kids in that sense, but

24:17

we want them to grow up to be adults. Oh,

24:20

people grow up so fast these days. Kids

24:22

grow up so fast. No, they don't. They don't

24:24

grow up at all. What

24:27

they get is adult privileges without

24:29

having to take on adult responsibilities,

24:31

and this corrupts them. So

24:37

there's a reason for marriage the way it is. It's

24:40

the way the reality is structured, the way God

24:42

made things, and human beings are such that these

24:44

kind of stable relationships promote

24:47

human flourishing. And so

24:50

also then, therefore, we

24:53

celebrate and protect and regulate

24:55

as a community, and as

24:59

Christians, we have a deeper

25:02

understanding about why the world's that way,

25:04

and we bring honor to God when

25:07

we stand before people, and

25:09

indeed before the state, and

25:11

before God's minister,

25:14

and we make a pledge before

25:16

God to others to be married,

25:19

to have and to hold, to

25:21

love and to cherish in sickness and

25:23

in health for better or for worse,

25:26

until death do us

25:28

part. That's

25:30

the pledge. I mean, it's not taken seriously by a

25:32

lot of people nowadays, but it ought to be. And

25:35

incidentally, when people are having a struggle

25:37

in marriage and

25:40

they're looking at what to

25:42

do, of course, they're going to be

25:44

told, keep your vows. And

25:47

what they think that only means is,

25:49

got to stay married, because we've

25:51

vowed until death do us part.

25:54

Well, you certainly did vow that, and you should

25:56

keep that vow, but that wasn't the only thing

25:59

in the vow. to have

26:03

and to hold, to love

26:05

and to cherish, in sickness

26:08

and in health, for richer

26:10

or poorer. Those

26:12

are all part of it. It

26:15

helps us to reflect on

26:17

how we are to comport

26:19

ourselves when things

26:21

get difficult. C.S.

26:24

Lewis made the point. Marriage

26:26

vows are not

26:28

required when everything is going

26:30

great. And as one

26:32

marriage vow put it in the 60s,

26:34

as long as you both shall

26:37

dig it, it's when

26:39

you don't dig it that you need

26:41

the security of a vow. And

26:44

it's only going to be secure, maybe

26:48

that's too strong a language, it's most

26:50

likely to be secure

26:53

because the vow that you made is

26:56

in public before God and man.

26:59

And one

27:01

of those human witnesses is

27:03

going to be the state that issues a

27:05

piece of paper. It's not just

27:08

a piece of paper. It's

27:11

a formal vow, a

27:15

serious vow, a weighty vow that

27:18

is made, a promise. And

27:20

I've said before, how do you secure the

27:22

future? You secure the future through

27:24

a promise. You

27:27

secure the past through forgiveness. You secure

27:29

the future through a promise. And that's

27:31

the purpose here. You want the

27:33

promise to stick? You

27:35

want to have the best chances for it to stick? You

27:37

make it before people, before

27:39

God and before others. Okay,

27:46

let's take a break. Greg

27:48

Coakle here at Stand to Reason. More in a moment. The

28:00

person and online. Just. Email

28:02

booking at Str. Dot Org

28:04

to schedule us today. We.

28:07

Can address a wide array, Of topics

28:09

from bioethics, gender issues and science

28:11

to Theology, philosophy and how to

28:14

respond to other worlds use all

28:16

from a biblical perspective. Whether.

28:19

It's a Sunday Sermon Zoom Conference. Are

28:21

you Tube? Live. Event are skilled

28:23

and engaging. Speakers can be there

28:25

either physically or virtually. With

28:27

the goal of equipping christians to

28:29

effectively influence the culture for Christ.

28:32

To. Read our biles and learn more

28:34

about the topics we cover. Visit

28:36

str.org. Then email book

28:38

team at str.org to

28:41

schedule Greg Allen, Tim,

28:43

John, or me Robbie

28:45

Today. If.

28:47

Someone were to go back in time

28:49

to Nineteen Forty Six and stop. The

28:51

are is the bible translation team from

28:54

using the word homosexuals in the bible

28:56

for the first time. How

28:58

would that change the future? Where

29:00

would the Bible's teaching on marriage,

29:02

homosexuality, and sexual ethics looks like

29:04

today. We'll find out

29:06

my answer in the most recent episode

29:08

of my podcast thinking out Loud without

29:11

Sleeman. Look for it on I Tunes

29:13

Spot of Fi, your favorite podcast app

29:15

or at the top of the home

29:17

page at a cr.org. A

29:19

friends. Would you like to be encouraged throughout

29:22

your week with timely, relevant content meant to

29:24

bolster your knowledge, wisdom and character? Or maybe

29:26

you have a desire to be connected with

29:28

other like minded Christians from around the world?

29:31

is? So then you need to follow stand

29:33

to reason on social media. you can find

29:35

us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and you Tube.

29:38

Not only we the able to interact with

29:40

other stand to reason followers but you also

29:42

stick up to date and form on our

29:44

latest resources and events in our current culture.

29:47

It's important to have something of value to.

29:49

Break up your social media seat so

29:51

just as it str.org and find the

29:53

links to all of our social media

29:56

platforms at the bottom of the homepage.

30:11

You know, I just had a

30:14

another couple of quick the last

30:16

year about this piece of paper

30:18

issue on notice that Jacob. Had.

30:22

To wait seven years for

30:24

Rachel. I.

30:26

Another word, this was his ah,

30:29

I'm Marie were you call it

30:31

a dowry but it's it's it's

30:33

it's what he had to sacrifice.

30:36

It's A that is for how

30:38

so to speak. His public displays

30:40

of of faithfulness and fortitude regarding

30:42

this woman are would give Lay

30:45

a tremendous. Ah, com confidence

30:47

that his daughter was going to hidden

30:49

in good hands. On the other one

30:52

was it's just curious isn't it? That

30:55

when heterosexual couples. Were.

30:58

Dismissing formal marriage as a

31:00

mere piece of paper, that

31:02

that gays. Were. Clamoring.

31:05

For. That piece of paper. They.

31:08

Were the ones. Ironically.

31:11

Who understood this significance of

31:13

the piece of paper as

31:16

it were? It's in culture,

31:18

it's a t of oh,

31:20

legitimization. It's a verification. it's

31:22

a Subway In their case

31:24

of. Publicly. Declaring

31:27

that that heterosexual union,

31:29

the same sex unions

31:31

are are no different.

31:34

But. They were willing to get that.

31:36

They were desperately wanted that by piece

31:38

of paper. where many heterosexual couples who

31:40

are suing it so just a thought

31:43

there are endless go to the phones

31:45

and first number one up is Andy

31:47

and Hawthorne. As that Hawthorne, Calif, California

31:49

anti. Geoff that make

31:51

hey. i i'm

31:54

so i have you been talking

31:56

a lot about marriage lately especially

31:58

after year irresponsible his

32:03

advice about attending a transgender wedding. And

32:05

so you last week had posted a, or

32:10

issued a response to some

32:12

follow-up questions. And

32:15

I had a follow-up question about some

32:17

of your, one of your

32:19

responses to the follow-up question. If

32:22

I remember correctly, please

32:24

forgive me if I'm misquoting you. I'm sure

32:27

you'll let me know. You had said that

32:29

a wedding between a transgender individual or

32:33

two men, for example, is not a wedding, at

32:37

least not by the Christian definition, and is

32:39

therefore not a union that a Christian should

32:41

celebrate by attending the

32:43

ceremony of it. Now, during

32:45

your follow-up last week, if

32:50

I caught it correctly, you were saying,

32:52

though, that while a Christian was a Christian,

32:57

a Christian who are seeking to get married

33:02

have the scriptural command to not

33:04

be unequally yoked, but nonbelievers or

33:06

members of another faith, for instance,

33:08

a Hindu and a Muslim, do

33:11

not have that same scriptural command

33:14

to avoid being unequally yoked. Correct. So

33:16

for that reason, a Christian would not

33:18

have reason to object to a wedding,

33:21

for example, between a Hindu and a

33:23

Muslim. Not on moral grounds, correct. On

33:25

moral grounds, sure. But

33:27

okay, so here's my question. Unions

33:32

between two nonbelievers also

33:34

would not qualify as

33:36

a marriage by the Christian definition, correct? Because

33:39

Christianity has – let's say now we're not talking about

33:41

a Hindu and a Muslim. Let's say we're talking about

33:43

atheists. Christianity has

33:46

always recognized a marriage as being, at

33:48

least in part, a divine union. During

33:51

your monologue, you mentioned that. Correct. That

33:54

Jesus made the comment. But what you

33:56

just offered, the Christian view, even though

33:58

you're not a Christian, I mentioned that,

34:00

that doesn't mean that's the Christian view. And this

34:02

is the second time you use that by a

34:05

Christian definition. I define my

34:08

understanding of marriage comes from

34:10

the created

34:13

order that Jesus referred to

34:16

from the beginning. In Matthew 19,

34:18

he's talking about marriage and,

34:20

I should say, divorce and

34:22

remarriage. And he refers back to the

34:25

created order, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

34:27

So when a man leaves his mother and

34:30

father and cleaves to his wife, the two

34:32

become one flesh. That is a

34:34

marriage. Okay? It is also

34:36

the case that that institution

34:39

is one that God himself

34:41

has ordained. So we

34:43

could say that given that ordination

34:45

by God, this is something that

34:47

God has joined together. And

34:50

so therefore, God does not intend

34:52

people to get divorced because there's

34:55

a destructive element to divorce given

34:57

the structure of reality. It's

34:59

the language I've been using. All right? So

35:02

though we have, Christians have an understanding

35:05

of the divine element in there,

35:07

and that divine

35:10

element is an element of marriage per se, which Jesus

35:12

describes as

35:18

the man and wife leaving and joining

35:20

and becoming one flesh. And

35:22

he just adds, this

35:25

is something God has joined together. So therefore,

35:27

it's meant to be permanent. Let

35:30

no man separate, meant to be

35:32

permanent. That is a further theological

35:34

understanding that Christians have. But it

35:37

is also, since

35:39

this is the understanding of

35:41

what marriage is, even

35:44

when atheists do it, the same thing is going

35:46

on, even if they don't acknowledge it. It's

35:49

still a man leaving and

35:51

cleaving and becoming one flesh with

35:53

his wife. So it still is,

35:55

even so, even they don't

35:57

believe in God, it still is a bona fide marriage. marriage.

36:02

So it's not a Christian definition.

36:04

It's a definition, it's Jesus' definition,

36:07

which Christians use because he's describing

36:09

the way God made the world,

36:11

even for non-believers. Yeah, okay.

36:15

So I guess that makes sense.

36:17

So what I was looking for

36:19

was a specific distinction in

36:21

your mind between these two classes

36:24

of non-Christian wedding ceremonies. One,

36:27

for example, being a gay or transgender

36:29

wedding, and the other being between just

36:31

two heterosexual non-believers. And your answer, it

36:33

sounds like, would be that one,

36:37

while not recognizing the

36:39

divine source or the divine

36:41

provenance of this wedding ceremony,

36:44

is still following the general model

36:46

as laid out or as intended

36:48

by God. That's right. And that's

36:50

why people like in cavemen

36:53

or whatever, you can go back as far as

36:55

you want. They still did this kind of thing.

36:57

As cultures developed,

36:59

this became a pattern because

37:02

of the importance of that, this

37:05

formalizing of this relationship. But it

37:07

was always male-female. It's always

37:09

male-female because that's the nature of

37:12

the thing, the way God made

37:14

it. The theological

37:16

element may not be consciously in people's

37:18

mind or might even be rejected, but

37:20

it doesn't make it not a

37:23

marriage. The marriage is between the man and

37:25

the woman, and therefore when it's

37:27

between a man and a man or a woman

37:29

and a woman, it's not a marriage at all.

37:31

It's something else. And

37:33

when it's posturing as a marriage, it's

37:35

a corruption of what God purposed. And

37:38

that's why celebrating the corruption is

37:40

not appropriate for a Christian.

37:44

Okay. And I totally understand

37:46

that. While you were saying that, I

37:49

had a follow-up question. It

37:51

just popped into my mind. Hopefully you'll allow

37:53

me. So we're assuming then that attending

37:59

A wedding ceremony... Is a

38:01

celebration of that marriage and

38:03

that bad is a perfectly

38:05

reasonable assumption. I'm just curious.

38:07

how would you respond to

38:09

somebody seem you know it's

38:11

no more a celebration of

38:13

the marriage then say shopping

38:15

that Target or some other

38:17

stores that. Supports

38:20

a. You. Know and

38:22

agenda that you as a believer denies

38:24

I I I don't even know. I

38:27

would look at the person quizzically and

38:29

I'd be thinking in my mind. Here.

38:32

In his head. But.

38:35

I would say that because that

38:37

would be unkind. What's possible parallel?

38:40

Could. There be between these two. Except for

38:42

that Both cases you're walking through a

38:44

door. Into another place. A

38:48

marriage. A wedding is a place. Where

38:51

two people are being join

38:53

together and you are there

38:55

to rejoice with them. Because.

38:58

Of the event. And. You

39:01

give gifts. You. Applaud.

39:04

You. Sometimes. Shed.

39:06

A tear or to because you're

39:09

deeply moved at the significance. Of

39:11

the event, this is the beginning of

39:13

a new family and pretty soon they'll

39:15

be little munchkins running around didn't with

39:18

steadily cookie crunchers and know won't it

39:20

be wonderful? It's are all part of

39:22

the package. Nobody thinks anything like that

39:24

when they walk in. the Target. They're

39:26

buying a product. Is doesn't

39:29

matter what the people pushing the

39:31

buttons on the machine or calvin

39:33

the money upstairs or running the

39:35

show believe about it He saying

39:38

you're not participating in their beliefs

39:40

when you buy their oh commodities

39:42

their over Target. Now if you

39:45

wanted to say oh like what

39:47

Target is doing and I'm going

39:49

to tell you I don't like

39:51

it. Might not

39:54

spending money here. fine. That's

39:56

your vote for dragon shows, but I

39:58

don't think a person. Does spend

40:01

money there is participating in

40:03

their in their corrupted ah

40:05

you know understanding about sexuality.

40:08

Which. It it is. That's exactly what

40:10

that is. This of it's like apples

40:12

and oranges. It's I can't even. apples

40:14

and oranges are both fruits. Stats.

40:17

He did too close of a deal or

40:19

comparison. These are bird these a universe apart.

40:22

Syrian. I and sand that. The

40:25

parallel that within my mind as I was

40:27

posting this was. That.

40:31

You know the I'm sure somebody

40:33

has and will argue is that

40:35

by attending a ceremony you are

40:37

supporting you are showing your love

40:39

for that person in your life

40:42

because you know we are called

40:44

to to love on and minister

40:46

to unbelievers. Ah no matter their

40:48

their variety of sin as it

40:50

were so we should be so

40:52

this is going to be you

40:54

know simply a another way to

40:57

to show our love for that

40:59

person with out of his. Necessarily

41:01

feel celebrate. He has no

41:04

I I think that's that's

41:06

specious and this is the

41:09

thing is you You you

41:11

cannot. I'm. Trying to think

41:13

about illustration that's now gross. but

41:15

it did. This is used. There

41:17

are some things you can participate

41:19

in and it is a mere.

41:23

Shit. That expression of love. There

41:25

are other things that you still

41:27

love by participating in Something Day

41:29

is that itself is a celebration

41:31

of that senior participating in. His

41:35

in the thing you're participating is is

41:37

in the same sick you're celebrating as

41:39

a same sex wedding. Allen Sleeman on

41:41

our team in a we talk about

41:43

this lotta try to worth of the

41:45

finer points and we recently gone over

41:47

some of these issues is he tells

41:49

he's actually gone to to same sex

41:51

weddings for the reasons that people. Have.

41:54

given is justifiable first said both times

41:56

he regretted it now he won't do

41:58

it at all And it

42:02

did not seem to have the slightest

42:07

impact on improving the

42:09

relationship, right? I

42:12

mean, a lot of times you don't even

42:14

remember who went to your wedding. You

42:16

know, I mean, you know who's standing there with you,

42:18

but there are lots of people in and out, whatever.

42:20

That's a blur. But

42:22

not only that, he said, and there we were

42:24

sitting and people are in a gay

42:27

wedding, a homosexual wedding, two guys. And people

42:29

are ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding,

42:31

ding, ding, ding, ding, right? They're classes. What's

42:33

that for? That's everybody cheering on the

42:35

bride and the, I should say in this case,

42:37

the groom and the groom to kiss. And

42:42

then they kiss. And

42:45

he's got to sit through. And this is,

42:47

this is what this event involves.

42:51

It's all a celebration, all

42:53

the dances and all the

42:55

receiving line, congratulations, everything. How

42:57

could you attend this thing

42:59

and say you're not participating

43:01

in the celebration? You're just

43:04

showing love. I,

43:06

that's why I say it's specious. Person

43:09

who says that is fooling themselves. I think that

43:11

they are showing love, but

43:13

they are not, but it's, in

43:16

other words, their gesture is motivated by showing

43:18

love, by a desire to show love. But

43:20

one could even question whether it is in

43:23

fact a demonstration of

43:25

genuine love at all, because Paul

43:27

says love does not,

43:30

what's the word? Rejoice

43:33

in unrighteousness.

43:35

So is a same-sex wedding reflect

43:38

unrighteousness? Yes.

43:40

When you go to a

43:42

same-sex wedding, what's going on

43:44

there? People are rejoicing. Well, if

43:46

people are rejoicing, and that's

43:49

the nature of the thing that you're going

43:52

to, then you are not actually loving

43:54

the person there. Or

43:58

persons. So There you have it. Fair

44:01

enough. Yeah, thank you for a steak for

44:03

that. I'm the sort of fluoride know of

44:05

like making out my own consistent ethic in

44:07

this regard. Yes, okay, and I'm glad to

44:09

be part of the thanks for you call

44:11

Andy. A replica of people by now.

44:14

Hey let's go to a quick break here and

44:16

there. Will come back again with more You calls

44:18

on stand or isn't. Have

44:21

you seen our brand new website? Stop.

44:23

By his to your.org into do a fresh

44:25

clean lay out with all the same great

44:27

content. The. Newsstand reason website was

44:29

assigned with you in mind. It

44:31

is an easier than ever navigation and

44:34

a crisp, simple layout so you can

44:36

find all the sound analysis and careful

44:38

commentary that you've come to expect from

44:40

us. Browse new features that makes finding

44:42

your favorite resources easier than ever. As.

44:44

Always it's or goal to equip you

44:47

are fellow Christians with a confidence, clear

44:49

thinking encourage you need for every encounter

44:51

you have as a Christian ambassador. Aren't

44:54

you? website is just one way we're

44:56

fulfilling their goal. Allow you to access

44:58

the resources you deed in a new

45:01

and improved way. So visit str.org and

45:03

keep coming back to discover new podcasts,

45:05

articles and videos each and every day.

45:09

As a high school teacher, I always

45:11

had a red pen close at hand

45:13

when I wasn't in front of my

45:15

students teaching a lesson. You could find

45:17

the assessing assignments, grading essays, and evaluate

45:20

exams. The red pen played a crucial

45:22

role in the educational development of my

45:24

students. With it, I question their assumptions,

45:26

expose their heirs, and challenge them to

45:28

think critically. Is it's a good teacher

45:31

doesn't merely tell his students that the

45:33

wrong A good teacher shows his students

45:35

why they're wrong so they don't make

45:37

the same mistake twice. Correct. because he

45:39

tears last year i was scrolling through

45:42

social media and frankly i was discouraged

45:44

all the bad thinking that under good

45:46

at much of what i was reading

45:48

than a hit me once someone applied

45:50

the red pen to this flawed thinking

45:53

and red pen logic with mr be

45:55

was born in the last few months

45:57

red pen logic has grown in popularity

46:00

Through our engaging and shareable educational

46:02

graphics and videos, we are helping

46:04

people, especially young people, assess bad

46:06

thinking by using good thinking. And

46:08

we have a lot of fun

46:10

in the process. So here's

46:12

your homework assignment. Like the

46:14

Red Pen Logic Facebook page so you

46:17

don't miss our next graphic. And subscribe

46:19

at the Red Pen Logic YouTube channel

46:21

so you don't miss a single video.

46:24

Class dismissed. Alrighty.

46:39

And let's see, who do we go

46:41

to this time? We've got Coconut Creek,

46:43

Florida and Louis. Coconut

46:46

Creek, Florida. That sounds exotic,

46:48

Louis. Yeah. How's

46:50

it going, Greg? It's going okay. Where is

46:52

Coconut Creek? Coconut Creek

46:54

is more south Florida area. I guess

46:56

another city that's more common would be

46:59

Fort Lauderdale. Oh,

47:01

okay. Southeast. Gotcha. Alright. Yeah. Sounds

47:03

great. Okay, Louis, what's on your

47:06

mind? Yeah. So

47:08

thanks for taking my call. So

47:11

I have two questions. Hopefully you could take

47:13

the second one. But

47:15

the first question, I'm

47:18

recently doing a

47:20

study with reasonable faith. I'm reading the book with

47:23

Willy and Lane Craig. And

47:25

I have a study guide that I'm

47:27

running through and possibly opening up a

47:29

reasonable faith chapter. So

47:31

one of the questions came across, I just

47:33

wondered how I can answer this in a

47:36

one-to-one, you know, person.

47:39

And it says, how would you respond to someone who

47:41

says, I don't believe

47:43

in God, but my life

47:45

is meaningful. And of course, you know, I

47:47

can answer that with book-style

47:51

answer, but I wanted to see

47:53

what's a good approach. Well, okay.

47:55

So I would ask questions here.

47:57

Alright. I don't think any thought

48:00

Christian apologist who

48:02

understands the problem here would

48:05

ever say that a non-christian

48:07

cannot lead a meaningful life.

48:10

Okay, but

48:12

the problem is in the word meaningful. So

48:14

I'd want to ask them a question. What

48:17

do you mean it's meaningful? Well,

48:20

I do things that I like to do. The things

48:23

that I do bring me satisfaction. They give

48:25

me fulfillment. I think I'm doing good in

48:28

the world. Okay, and

48:32

I would say I could say, all right,

48:34

I understand you, but that's the same thing

48:36

an SS officer would say. An

48:39

SS being basically a

48:41

stormtrooper of the Nazis who

48:43

were especially brutal in advancing

48:46

the Aryan race and

48:48

in executing

48:51

Jews. Their

48:54

lives were meaningful to

48:56

them. They were doing something that was

48:58

good. In fact,

49:01

even after the war was over, quite

49:03

a number of these people that were

49:05

on trial at the Nuremberg trials would

49:08

not even acknowledge that what they did

49:10

was wrong. They

49:12

thought it was noble. They still, you

49:14

know, stuck to their guns, as it

49:17

were, even though they lost the war. They

49:19

were convinced that what they were doing was noble.

49:21

Okay, now the question that I'm going to ask is

49:24

to the person who says, well, when

49:27

he says my life is meaningful, I

49:29

ask what? And they're going to give

49:31

their characterization. Chances

49:33

are pretty good that that same characterization is

49:35

going to fit a whole bunch of other

49:37

people that it seems

49:39

to moral common sense led

49:42

morally grotesque lives. Now

49:46

the question is going to be what's the difference? And

49:49

the correct answer for the atheist is there

49:51

is no difference. It's

49:54

just they like something that I didn't

49:56

like, but we

49:58

both did what was meaningful. to us and that's

50:01

all you can say. And

50:03

in fact, that's all they can say if they

50:05

are being consistent with their view. So

50:07

I'm going to first ask a question about

50:09

their definition of meaningful and

50:12

then I'm going to ask a question, then I'm going to think,

50:15

given how they characterize it, I'm going to

50:17

think of severe counter

50:19

examples where their same definition

50:23

would apply to people who lived morally

50:25

grotesque lives and then I'm going to

50:27

ask them about that. So

50:30

on your view then, this would be

50:32

justifiable what they did because

50:35

they were living meaningful lives too. Different meaning

50:37

than you had. I get that.

50:41

But just as meaningful to them in the ways

50:43

that your life is meaningful to you. How do

50:45

you think about that? That's what I would ask.

50:50

Right and like

50:52

you mentioned, that's something you can

50:54

actually bring up to them. Well, if you

50:56

hold your view consistent as

50:58

an atheist, then

51:00

your meaning

51:03

would still be I guess valid

51:05

to you even though Adolf Hitler

51:09

killed all these people. Yes, it would be

51:12

valid to them, no question. But the point

51:14

of making it's no different. You just happen

51:17

to choose what appear to

51:19

be noble sounding goals for your

51:21

meaningful life. But

51:23

on your view, there's no difference

51:25

between Hitler and Mother Teresa. If

51:29

they were both making

51:31

the best of their own lives according to their

51:33

own views. You can't say Mother Teresa's views

51:36

were better, Hitler's

51:39

were worse. All you could say is they're

51:41

different because there's no standard by which you

51:43

can measure them that doesn't

51:45

entail a moral judgment that an atheist

51:47

has no appropriate

51:51

right to. He can't

51:53

just smuggle this, he can't just borrow

51:55

this morality from a Christian worldview when

51:58

it's not part of his worldview. His

52:00

worldview is do your own thing and

52:02

that's not morality, that's just a

52:05

rational outworking of

52:07

a view that holds there is no ultimate

52:09

meaning in the world, no ultimate meaning. There

52:12

is only meaning that you can give it. But

52:15

if you give it your meaning, then the

52:17

next guy is just as free to give

52:19

it his meaning whatever that happens to be.

52:22

And that could be the SS stormtrooper compared

52:24

to Mother Teresa and the nuns, the

52:28

Mothers of Mercy or whatever the group was that she

52:30

was a part of. And

52:32

this is the stickler, your view, I'm

52:34

speaking now to the atheist, your view

52:37

atheist allows for

52:39

all of this stuff, all of this,

52:41

there is no distinction. Your

52:44

meaningfulness is simply

52:46

tied to yourself,

52:49

your self-interest and your

52:51

self-desires. For Christians

52:55

or noble theists, their

52:57

interests are tied to

52:59

another, one greater than

53:02

them. And so

53:04

they seek to do the greatest good which

53:06

means not to do what they want, selfishly,

53:10

but rather to do

53:12

the good, the objective

53:15

good, the truly

53:17

noble thing and not just pursue whatever. So

53:19

I want to lay that out for them.

53:23

Okay, so they can see the difference

53:25

and just, you know, this is gardening.

53:27

You may not convince them. I

53:30

know Francis Schaeffer had a discussion

53:32

like this with someone once, it's in one

53:34

of his books. And he

53:37

was having a discussion and the person was making

53:39

a claim along this line. And

53:41

Schaeffer took a pot of boiling water and he

53:43

held it above the guy's head. And

53:47

the guy said, what are you doing? And he said, well, on

53:50

your view, there's no difference, moral

53:52

difference for me, pouring it on your head or not

53:54

pouring it on your head, something to that effect. And

53:58

he was trying to, this is called. taking the roof off,

54:01

and he was trying to let the

54:03

person see the true consequences of

54:05

the view that he had if

54:08

he followed it out to its natural conclusion.

54:12

And it was a good move, you know, but daring.

54:15

Yeah, and that's... No, I

54:17

love that. And I think

54:19

that's like the point I guess that would

54:21

have been the next step. How do I show that

54:24

in a way, like, say if it

54:26

was going to pour the boiling water over

54:28

him, and he realized, well, that seems more

54:31

irrational, you know, selfish

54:33

reasons, and not doing unto

54:35

others how he should do something. Well,

54:38

if it's meaningful to

54:41

Francis Schaeffer to do it, then why shouldn't he? That's

54:44

how he's getting his meaning from

54:46

hurting other people. That's meaningful to

54:49

him. And that's... You're playing their rules

54:51

against them, and hopefully it's going to show them

54:53

how ridiculous their view is. Okay. But you had

54:55

another question. We just got about two and a

54:57

half minutes, so I wanted to get to that

54:59

quickly. Okay, yeah.

55:01

So, well, real quick, I came

55:04

to Saving Faith through, you know, apologetics a few

55:06

years ago, and

55:08

watching, you know, you, Sean McDowell,

55:10

Willy Lane Craig. And

55:13

recently at our church, we

55:15

just started a satellite church about a

55:17

year ago. I worked there as an

55:20

admin and director. I

55:22

approached one of our pastors about getting

55:24

involved with apologetics, but

55:26

he mentioned most don't come through

55:29

apologetics. So I

55:31

know that really can't be true only because I

55:33

know I was one who came through it

55:36

by apologetics. So how

55:39

would I be able to humbly approach

55:41

my pastor into being able to

55:43

maybe get engaged with the church through

55:47

apologetics? Okay, a couple of

55:49

things here. Most don't come

55:51

through apologetics. That's probably true.

55:53

But if people don't use apologetics, then

55:56

most aren't going to come through apologetics, you

55:58

know. It's like a guy

56:00

who fishes with one lure all the time. And

56:03

then he says, if he's a fisherman, right? And

56:05

he's fishing. He said, man, every bass that I've

56:07

caught in the last 10 years has been on

56:10

this lure. Well, that's because

56:12

it's the only lure you ever use, you know? And

56:14

if he says most people don't come through

56:17

apologetics, but people aren't exposed to apologetics, then

56:19

that's going to be true by default. It

56:22

may be that if more people used apologetics,

56:25

then more people would come to

56:27

Christ through apologetics. Because Jesus and

56:29

the apostles used them frequently. And

56:32

I can give you lots of examples of that. I'm just short on

56:34

time. I got half a minute to go.

56:37

Okay, here's the other thing. Maybe a

56:39

lot of people don't get one through

56:41

apologetics, but a whole lot of Christians

56:45

get lost because

56:47

of a lack of apologetics. They

56:49

get torn out of the body of Christ because

56:52

they face challenges that they don't know how to

56:54

deal with. And they have

56:56

questions that people post. If they don't

56:58

know how to answer, then these become

57:00

their own questions. They deconstruct, and then

57:02

they deconvert. All

57:05

for the lack of apologetics. Okay,

57:08

Lewis, thank you for the chat. Coconut

57:10

Creek, Florida. It's hot down there. Probably

57:13

not so much right now. But

57:16

nice chatting with you. Thank you for the call. And

57:19

that's it for this show,

57:21

friends. Greg Cokle here for Stand to Reason. Dip

57:23

in Heaven, all right?