In the Market with Janet ParshallUnder the bright hope of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s, there came an important warning about the future of the black family in America. On In The Market with Janet Parshall this week we explored the somewhat prophetic assertions of that report, what has undermined the stability of the black family and what is required to turn this decay around. We shared the story of a doctor who has faced many tragedies and struggles from a devastating fire that took the lives of some of his closest relatives and left his body severely burned. He shared how those traumatic events were used by God to lead him into a life of service as a plastic surgeon where helps other who have suffered similar tragedies find new and lasting hope. What believer hasn’t heard the question of if God is so loving why does He allow suffering in the world? Skeptical questions like these can become roadblocks to faith for believer and non-believer alike. Our guest shared his journey and how similar difficult questions became a stumbling block in his faith journey and how God met him in his doubt and moved him to a place of confident, resilient faith. We opened our phones once again so that you could get solid, bible-based answers about life with a narcissist and how to navigate the many challenges that come with it. It's time once again to grab a seat in our radio classroom as our favorite husband and wife team come together to continue teaching us how to use God’s word as a measuring stick against the often-confusing headlines of the week.
Hi friend! Thank you so much for downloading this podcast of In the Market with Janet Parshall, and I sincerely hope you hear something that will encourage you, edify you, enlighten you, equip you, and then we'll get you out the door into the marketplace of ideas. But before you go, let me tell you a little bit about this month's truth tool. It's written by a man who is a chronic doubter. Doctor Bobby Conway was a Christian, and after years he began doubting his own faith. As a result of that, he's come out now stronger, fully committed to the validity and the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but keenly aware of the kinds of questions that chronic doubters ask. So in his book, Does Christianity Still Make sense? Doctor Conway does a superb job of telling us how we can answer 20 of the most difficult questions you and I will ever be asked about Christianity. Questions like why are there so many scandals in the church? And aren't Christians just a bunch of hypocrites? And why does God allow evil in the world? Is there really reliable evidence for the existence of God? This is a must read for everyone who wants to know how to contend for the faith when they get out there in the marketplace of ideas. This is this month's truth tool, and it's my way of saying thank you. When you give a gift of any amount to in the market with Janet Parshall, just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 and ask for your copy of Does Christianity Still Make sense? And I'll gladly send it off to you as my way of saying thank you for financially supporting this program. You can also give online just go to in the market with Janet parshall.org. Scroll to the bottom of the page. There's the cover of the book. Click on Make Your Donation online. And likewise you'll also get a copy of Does Christianity Still make Sense? While you're there, consider becoming a partial partner. Those are my group of friends who give every single month at a level of their own choosing. They always get the truth tool of the month every month, as long as they're a partial partner. And they will also get a weekly newsletter from me that includes some of my writing and an audio piece just for my partial partners. So pray about it. Consider a one time gift or an ongoing contributor to the program by becoming a partial partner. 877. Janet 58. That's. 877 Janet 58 or online at In the Market with Janet parshall.org. Thanks so much. And now please enjoy the broadcast.
Here are some of the news headlines we're watching.
The conference was over. The president won a pledge.
Americans worshiping government over God.
My extremely.
Rare safety move by a major.
17 years. The Palestinians and Israelis negotiated a.
Truce. Hi, friends.
Happy Friday, and welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Craig Parshall is with me as he is on Fridays. We take a look at the headlines of the day, but we take out those glasses called the Lens of Scripture, and we look at the stories in a markedly different way from the rest of the world, because, well, the people who live in darkness have seen a great light. And it's amazing when you come to faith in Christ How you view the world differently, particularly when you have this marvelous metric that allows you the ability to measure what ideas are being bought and sold in the marketplace of ideas. And that metric, the straight stick of God's truth. Thank you, D.L. Moody, for that marvelous word. Picture is a way of measuring the crooked ideas out there. And if you've been in the marketplace in the last five minutes, you understand there's a lot of crazy things happening out there. So what we do on Fridays is we take the whole truth and the whole gospel and apply it to the whole world around us and help us understand how to look at the world differently. And 50 cent theological term. It's applied Christianity. It's not a meeting on Sunday. And then on Monday we're like deer in the headlights. We don't have a clue how to take God's Word. Understanding what's going on in the world helps us understand how to apply truth, not just to ourselves, and how we can grow up in him getting off that diet of milk, moving to meat, getting some spiritual heft on our bones. But we can also understand how to take a look at the world around us and to understand what's going on, because we have that peace that passes understanding and the power of his word. Well, a group of, quote, God fearing Americans are pushing back against a plan to hold a satanic black mass. You heard me right. For abortion rights at the Kansas State Capitol later this month, TFP Student Action, which is a project of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, are organizing a protest in Topeka on March 28th against the Satanic Grotto. Didn't know there was a such a thing, did you? They plan on holding a blasphemous parody of a Catholic Mass in order to, quote, dedicate the grounds and our legislature to the glory of Satan. Don't let any of that bother you, okay? Satan is in the peewee leagues, okay? Greater is he that is in us than he that is in the world. But the fact that they would even rip off, see, they can't think for themselves. They have to rip off language from Scripture to the glory of God. No, they call it to the glory of Satan. So the an FTP petition against the event quoted the organisers as saying join us at the Topeka Capitol building in Kansas as we dedicate the grounds and our legislature to the glory of Satan, we will be performing rights to the Black Mass and indulging in sacrilegious blaspheme. God will fail and Kansas will be embraced by the black flame of Lucifer. Want to put money on that? So far, the petition has garnered over 83,000 signatures. Yeah, I'd like to see that for myself. Across four petition drives in an attempt to stop the event. The response has been overwhelming, said a spokesperson from TFP. The outpouring of support shows that Americans still recognize blasphemy when they see it, and they're willing to stand up in defense of God's honor. So the group apparently plans to deliver the petitions in Topeka days before the events, giving the governor, Laura Kelly, one last chance to cancel this abomination. Well, here's how the governors weighed in so far. Governor issued a statement acknowledging concerns about the event, saying that I share those concerns, but also that her office can't stop the event. I'm going to turn this to you in a second to see if she's right. There are more constructive ways to protest and express disagreements without insulting or denigrating sacred religious symbols. As governor, I also have a duty to protect protesters constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression, regardless of how offensive or distasteful I might find the content to be, since these rights are constitutionally protected. The governor's office has limited authority to respond to such actions. Instead, the governor announced all events scheduled at the statehouse will be moving outdoors to the grounds surrounding the Capitol building, and that no protests will be allowed inside the statehouse, the state House rather. On March 29th. And so I'm looking at a screenshot. It says The Satanic Grotto is proud to present Black Mass at the Capitol, an expression of blaspheme and dedication to Satan. Um, there's a senator there, a fellow by the name of Stephen Owens, who calls the event hideous and terrible. also acknowledged religious groups from various backgrounds come to the Capitol on a regular basis to preach, pray and display. We cannot discriminate because we disagree. He went on to say, God is my king and no satanic ritual will change that. God is far stronger. Amen. His peace and glory will shine. So an organizer of the Black Mass told the Topeka Capital-journal that the event was in response to lawmakers who, quote, pander to religious pro-life groups. In fact, he is quoted as saying, this is a specific response to our legislature's continuing to pander to groups like the Kansas Catholic Conference and to Kansans for life, where they keep trying to come back and attack abortion rights, much less other rights. So as a counter protest, TFP has secured a permit for a rosary rally at the Capitol South entrance on the same day as the planned Satanic event, where they expect several hundred people to join them from as far away as California, Texas, Pennsylvania and Florida. They say they are literally fighting for the soul of America. Now this is the sticky wicket. Okay, this this is why we always talk about having to have an all comers policy with various religious views. But what I really love about you, and there are so many things, is that in this particular case, you believe that saying that you have to give equal space to Satan worshipers doesn't really fall under protected category.
Explain why it goes back to our buddies, the Founding Fathers. If you look back at the drafting of the First Amendment and the Religion Clause, it was real clear. And James Madison was very instrumental in proposing a number of, uh, proposals for that First Amendment language and one of the original ones. And it really reflects what they were after when they said free exercise of religion is protected and forbidden. Is, um, establishment by the government of religion. What do they mean by that? Well, the predecessor language said that the government shall not create a national religion, that is to say, a coerced religion that officially is supported by, funded by, and orchestrated through the government. Um, so that was their idea about the so-called establishment of religion that then became the, quote, wall of separation between church and state, uh, which was an unfortunate term that the Supreme Court used, um, almost as well, not a century ago, but decades ago. Um, by saying that there is a wall of separation, there really isn't. Not in the language of the First Amendment, but some of the Supreme Court cases. Give us a hint on what the solution might be to these fake satanic ritual, uh, protests against Christianity. That's really what they are. They aren't statements of their religion. They're people who despise Christian values and Christian positions.
It's a response to they're not compelled by their faith to worship Satan. They're trying to scuttle the plans of people who are messing with their agenda. But it is interesting. Note to file the linkage between abortion and Satan. I'll just let you think on that as we go to a break. Sometimes people question Christianity when they see leaders fall in hypocrisy, overshadowing authentic Christian living. That's why I've chosen does Christianity still make sense? As this month's truth tool explore 20 common challenges to Christianity brought by those skeptical of biblical truth. As for your copy of Does Christianity still make sense when you give a gift of any amount to in the market, call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 or go to in the market with Janet parshall.org. So we were talking about this pushback from the Satanic Grotto. Didn't know there was such a thing that's going to take place at the state Capitol in Topeka, Kansas, Kansas at the end of this month. And Craig, you strongly believe that there really is some winnable ground here. So you wanted to throw in a couple of thoughts before we move to the next topic.
Yeah, the Supreme Court has said, look, in this business between the free exercise clause meaning free exercise of religion, that's on the positive side, protected under the First Amendment. But on the negative side, oh, government may not establish a religion. So in between there, where does this, you know, satanic approach come in. Now, you know, and I have talked about the so-called Satanic Temple. The fact they don't believe in Satan, they don't even believe in in anything religious. In fact, they're most of them are atheists or agnostics. They believe in the human spirit and the human mind and so forth. Look, the Supreme Court number one used to use the phrase sincerely held beliefs. And it's still, I believe, um, it is Reliable, uh, Supreme Court jurisprudence that if you have a disingenuous proposition of religious belief as an excuse to try to win a constitutional right by saying, I believe in fill in the blanks as a form of religion. So therefore I should get, you know, the protection of the Constitution. The Supreme Court still holds to sincerely held part of this. I don't think any of this is sincerely held by these people. I think that it is a political ploy dressed up as religion. I believe in Satan. Therefore I have a religious view. Well, number one, the, uh, the founders would have been astonished and really shocked by that proposition. And there's lots of evidence to show why. Uh, but number two, even if you don't go back to the originalist idea of, you know, interpreting the Constitution by those who drafted it, which I think is a good idea, just like a contract, you go to the intent of the drafters. But even beyond that, the Supreme Court has said, however, the Establishment Clause also prohibits government hostility against religion. So if you allow the Black Mass by those who are using it to promote hostility against Christians who have a pro-life view, that's government coddling, hostility against religion that also is prohibited by the First Amendment. So I think it's a matter of of, uh, separating the chaff from the wheat. If this is a real religious, sincerely held religious belief about the existence of demons and Satan, I guess that's one thing. But I don't believe this is it's a political.
Well, they show their hand. Yes, they showed their hand when they talked about pushing back against.
So it's basically.
Abortion rights.
Political hostility dressed up as a fake religion.
Well, talking about dressed up. How's this for a segue? Let's go to Texas. A Texas lawmaker has introduced a bill to ban, quote, non-human behavior in public schools. I can't even say that with a straight face. Okay, just let those words sit there for a minute to ban non-human behavior in public schools, such as wait for it, barking, meowing, and other animal like practices commonly used by furries. Now remember the pushback pre-election. And those people brought up the fact that they are furries. People who put on animal costumes, right? And demand rights. In other words, it was running parallel to transgender guy as a cat. Exactly. Exactly, exactly. So the legislation is called the Forbidding Unlawful Representation of Role Playing in Education or Furries Act, introduced by a rep in the House in Texas last week. No distractions, no theatrics, just education, he posted on X. Texas schools are for educating kids, not indulging in radical trends. Let's keep the focus where it belongs on preparing students for success in life. So under the proposal, students would be prohibited from engaging in various animal behaviors, including using a litter box. Now let me just pause for a minute before I go on. I wish I could say I'm making this stuff up, but this underscores the fact that people who said, hey, this is weird. This is people are you can identify anything you want to, right?
Delusional.
But the reality is it is happening when a state rep is introducing a bill to stop it, it's because he's noticing a trend in the state of Texas, and he wants to put an end to it and remind teachers and students and parents what the purpose of education is. So under the proposal, you can't use a litter box. You can't. This is humans now. You can't lick yourself. You can't make animal noises like barking, meowing or hissing or otherwise pretend to be an animal. By the way, there's an Oklahoma bill that would ban furries from school. Um, and it would require parents and animal control to pick up rule breakers. You want to be free? We'll show you the pound allocations.
You got a cage for you.
Allegations of litter boxes being set up in school classrooms have repeatedly been debunked by schools across the country in recent years following false claims that circulated online. Apparently, they're not false claims. Students would be barred from wearing items that were not designed for human beings, including animal ears, whiskers, tails, collars, leashes, or other accessories typically used for pets. Fur is also prohibited, but the Bill special specifies that human hair and wigs are not included in the ban on fur. The legislation would require students to present themselves as humans. They also would not be allowed to start organizations or clubs related to non-human behavior, and would be prohibited from promoting the idea that non-human behaviors are socially acceptable. There are some exceptions to the ban on animal accessories and non-human behaviors, including dressing up for Halloween and other school dress up events related to human history, although this would be limited to five days per school year, as well as theater performances and dressing up as a school mascot.
Also accepted, I assume, is the musical cats being performed at the school.
Students who. Well, you can do the Wizard of Oz. What are you going to do with the lion? Yeah. Teachers who fail to comply would be removed from the classroom. Suspended or expelled. Boy, they do it a different way in Texas. The measure also allows for students to be transferred to juvenile justice. Alternative education. You want to dress up like a cat? This is what your future looks like. Teachers.
Yeah. Go to jail.
That's right. They're going to catch up with the idea. Catch up with that idea in a minute. Teachers would be required to report violations to the attorney. AG and school districts that do not enforce the restrictions could face fines starting at $10,000 for the first offense, 25,000 for additional violations. The proposal is backed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the speaker of the House. In fact, here's a quote if you have a child in public school, you have one expectation your children are going to be learning the fundamentals of education, reading and writing and math and science. Abbott said recently. And he said that this furry issue is a motivating factor to allow private school choice vouchers. So if you're introducing legislation in Oklahoma and in Texas, it's not fantasy. It is. It is absolutely there. But it is farcical. And it underscores why this I identify as is not a metric for sanity, sound science or school discipline. We're going to take a break. I'm watching this one very closely. I want to see whether it turns out with a perfect solution in Texas or not. We'll be back. So keeping in this vein of this bizarre movement of self-identification, and it really gives rise to really knuckle headed ideas, okay. When you move away, isn't it interesting whenever you pick up the straight stick of God's truth and you move it, we're always placing it closer and closer to the gates of hell. Rather than trusting God, who loved us so much that he gave His Son to die for us, to pay the penalty for our sins. That's why, you know I obey God out of love. I don't obey him out of fear. I know exactly how much he loves me and I can't even begin to fathom it. It's completely the width, the depth, the breadth. You know how marvelous is the love of God. But when you move away from that, you move into a world of craziness. And man does what he thinks is right in his own eyes. And I'm using the word man in the Chaucer version as exclusive and inclusive at the same time of all humankind not offended by the way, there is a way that seemeth right on demand. I don't think I need to add man and woman, but I digress. But that does take me to Oxford University. Oxford University. I wonder what old C.S. Lewis would think about this. So they're going to change their language. Maybe they got a vote coming up in April. They have an 800 year old Latin ceremony when somebody gets a degree. Now to get into Oxford is prestigious. You get an advanced degree. You think you'd be above the craziness that you'd be doing, the learning of the classics. When the when the honour is conferred to you in Latin, you would think that would be sufficient enough. Nope nope nope nope. University of Oxford has conferred its degrees in Latin since the 12th century. But, you know, they thought about it, and now they decided they needed to be more inclusive. So they're going to vote on whether or not to change the Latin ceremonial text to cater to those who identify as non-binary. Good thing they didn't say furries, because that'd be a whole different set of words they'd be using, but I digress. Apparently they said that this is necessary. The changes involved stripping Latin words that are grammatically gendered, masculine, or feminine. So not only are they changing the words, you have to be smart enough to know Latin and the masculine and feminine version of the word. Let me give you a few examples. For those of you taking Latin. Uh, instead of referring to master students as magistri, which is the Craig, this will all be on the test. The masculine form of the word. The proposed text uses the term vos, which is the neutral term for you. The word doctors, which is also masculine, can be changed for undergrads. The word for who which has a masculine and feminine form will be replaced with a neutral term. So apparently the push for gender neutral language will also apply to other formal occasions at Oxford. They're going to hold this vote on the 29th of April. How bizarre. You get into one of the most expensive and prestigious universities cluster of universities actually in the world, when they give you the degree, they don't even speak in English, and they got to change the terms so that they're more inclusive. It's only work since the 12th century. But hey, you know, we're in the 21st century and we've lost our minds, so now we've got to change the language. Your thoughts?
Yeah. God is big on language number one. He used language to inspire those 66 books that make up Genesis all the way to the book of Revelation in the New Testament. Uh, got as big in language because through his son, Christ on earth, he communicated in language. In fact, more than one language. Um, And uh, number three, uh, language was confused in Genesis. Um, because had it not been confused into a variety of languages, uh, mankind in its sinful state would have sought to globalize power, centralize power, and disaster would have been the result. So, uh, disaster in terms of governance and sin and so forth. Um, so God is big on language. Uh, but also I believe that there is a innate link between the language we use and the, the, the ideas and the beliefs that we form. And one way to change the way you think and the opinions that you hold is to force you into a new regime of language, or George Orwell pointed that out in his novels brilliantly, that language can be a political weapon to force the masses to rethink things in ways they wouldn't ordinarily think, and create new values or devalue things. Uh, that language is used to achieve. So I think this is insidious because it's really, uh, training a whole new generation of students at Oxford to say, oh, yes, I acquiesce with the use of language, which is implicitly going to force me to rethink my idea about gender as if you're a Christian. You say, well, wait a minute, uh, raise your hand and you say, uh, dear Oxford University, you used to have Christian origins in your founding. Apparently you've departed them. But I want to remind you that Oxford was built on a Christian orthodoxy that comes from the Bible, and both Old and New Testament say man and woman he created in the Old Testament. It's real clear in Genesis and in the New Testament. Jesus himself reaffirms that. So if you're a red letter, one of those red letter people who say, I only believe what Jesus said in the Bible and the rest of it by Paul and Peter, I'm not quite so sure. Well, in the red letter, uh, Jesus makes it real clear. Uh, have you not read? He says that God created the man and woman. That's binary. One or the other. No in-between, no extraneous. Simply two genders, two sexes. That closes the issue for me, for you, and for people who take the word of God seriously, apparently. Oxford University doesn't.
No kidding. Wow. Again, to be more inclusive for people who are non-binary. Again, this idea of self-identification, I'll say it again. This is at its core, it's a spiritual issue. It is a form of rebellion. God, you made a mistake. I am in the wrong body. I'm going to tell you how I was fearfully and wonderfully made. Acknowledging him as the creator. Far from it. We become a de facto kind of creator. We create our own personal identity when in fact he knew us before time began. We're going to take a break and come right back. Lots of God's called us for such a time as this, by the way. Again, let me go back to what I said before of the protection of God's perfect word. Hang on to that, because the rest of this stuff, you get lost in a fog of confusion back after this. Our team of partial partners is growing, and I love communicating behind the scenes with this special group of friends who are devoted to giving a monthly gift to in the market. Our partial partners receive private emails direct from me on issues we don't address on radio, and I even send a weekly audio message straight from my heart to yours, ready to become a partial partner? Call 877 Janet 58 877 Janet 58 or go to. In the market with Janet parshall.org. This is in the market with Janet Parshall. Craig partial is with me. And one of the things we love to do on Friday is to discover together how we can be good Bereans in the book of acts. These were a group of people who decided that they would test all things. So in other words, they didn't swallow hook, line and sinker what was coming from those who were speaking in the marketplace of ideas in particular Paul, by the way, they were testing things that were happening around them to see whether or not they came into alignment with the Word of God as they did, so should we all. And so listening to what we call wolf audio, that's exactly right. So you'll have to recognize that sound. You become a better Berean. Why do we call it wolf audio? Because the Bible calls it Wolf audio. Impliedly Matthew 715. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. Now that's the translation, by the way, from the Berean Study Bible. I happen to like that. Watch. Ravenous wolves. So this is what we do. We play. We let you hear and discern and decide whether or not what you're hearing from this person who purports to be, in this case, a pastor and a professor is true, or whether or not what the Word of God says is true, but you won't know. You know, it's the old adage, you've heard this used by pastors and Sunday school teachers for decades. How do they know how to recognize counterfeit money? Because they know the real stuff. They handle it all the time, and they can detect when it's false. When you're immersed in the Word of God, you have a quickening in your heart and in your mind to recognize, uh, that's far afield. You've added two you've taken away from. It's what we call eisegesis putting something there that's not there, rather than exegesis, where you let the Scripture speak for itself. So again, this is a man who and I'm not going to name denominations. I'm not going to give you names. Immaterial. I want to go to the transcendence of this, which is you using the ears on your heart, as well as the ears on your head. And the mind that God has given you to question is what this person is saying. Again, he calls himself a pastor, and a professor is what he is saying true? Have a listen.
Also, because throwing a few verses at a question of sexual ethics does not answer the question. That's usually the response that I get right. Here's a verse that answers the question. That's it. I like not really. That didn't answer the question. It's usually life is a little more complicated than any one verse you can give me. Oh well, I have two verses. Well, I think life's a little more complicated than two verses, right? And I think it disrespects the individual too. I think it overlooks the complexity of humanity, that we're a lot more complex and that God can handle our complexity, and that taking a simplistic approach of just throwing a couple of verses at it is not the approach we should be taking. All right. There have been various poly relationships for all of recorded history. Again, polygamy was practiced. It's still practiced in some places. Polyandry again in matriarchal societies. There's been lots of different poly relationships that have gone on all throughout history. It's part of who we are as human beings. Should it be part of who we are? That's a whole different question. That's a sexual ethics question, right? The Bible is actually full of polygamy. I can I can point to all these various right patriarchs throughout the Bible. And you will see they were mostly married and had various different relationships. Okay. There have been various Christian communities that have practiced different poly relationships. This is what kind of shocked me at first was that when I started doing the research, I started looking up, you know, Christians and polygamy and polyamory and stuff like that. Was there are actual Christian communities who practice complex Sex, marriage and things like that, and that there were a lot of pastors who were beginning to ask this question. They're like, because it was, well, I have, uh, these people who are coming to church now and they're in this polyamorous relationship, and they identify as Christian, and I'm not sure how to respond to them in the most loving way, you know. Can you tell me how I should? And this is becoming an issue that's showing up in the church more and more. And of course, I was totally oblivious to it. I'm like, I don't know, just right. But anyway, it's becoming an issue and we need to kind of talk about it. There have been various Christian communities that have practiced different poly relationships. Here's one of them, the Oneida Christian Community, which kind of existed between about 1848 to 1879. Anybody know about the Oneida Christian community? Here's a picture of their compound. That's their common manor where they would all live. They practiced what was known as complex marriage. that everybody in the community was married to everybody else. So the major issue that they had to face, since everybody was married to everybody else, was preventing unwanted pregnancies, because at this time birth control was, you know, not very good. So how do you prevent unwanted pregnancies? This this might shock you a little bit, but this is how they did it. They took women who were older, usually past the age of 50, right. Because they had already gone through menopause and were no longer able to bear children, and they would pair them up with teenage boys. I just got to watch from the back. I'm just telling you, this is what happens in certain Christian communities when you take a certain verse out of context.
Well, I think it's repulsive to call it a Christian community. It's a cult, is what it was. And the I'm not going to even respond to what he talked about, how that cult manifests itself, but he goes to a cult that was there from 1848 to 1879. And he says, see, it's there. We've got to deal with it. But forget the cult, because that was bizarre in and of itself. Let's go back to the often used argument about the patriarchs. And it's not real hard to unpack. Every time you talk to a patriarch or you read about a patriarch in scripture who had multiple wives or concubines. Craig, how did that work out for him?
Uh, not real good. As a matter of fact, if you go back to the Old Testament, uh, let's start with Genesis. Did God have two wives for Adam? No, he had one. As a matter of fact, he made the relationship between man and woman one man, one woman, so intimate that part of the man was used to create the woman. That's how intimate the man. One man, one woman union, blessed by God before sin came into the garden is when Jesus talked about both marriage and adultery and divorce. It was real clear that he said, God created man and woman and they were to be in a union, man and woman. Now there are there are some accounts of polygamy in the Old Testament. So the question is, was the reference in the Bible about polygamy, uh, multiple wives, as an example. Was it descriptive of a fact or was it prescriptive? Meaning enjoy it, celebrate it. And yes, you can do it. It wasn't prescriptive. It was descriptive. In fact, there's lots of sin that was described and not specifically condemned in the Old Testament. But the context was real clear. God wasn't pleased with it, but he didn't say, thou shalt not in every sentence when it came to conduct that he allowed to be described, but not prescribed, as if to say, it's okay, enjoy it and I bless it.
Yeah, exactly. And then you've got Jesus in Matthew 19 for this cause. Shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? Right. So that they are no more two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. We hear this at weddings all the time. So the bottom line is, again, you have to start. And I loved where you started in Genesis. So God creates marriage not in a fallen place, but in a place of perfection. I love that that's a big fat hint how important this institution, this paradigm of one man and one woman is to the heart of God. He doesn't establish it after the fall. It's pre-fall, and it's there not only for companionship and procreation. It's there to represent the unbridled love that Christ the bridegroom, has for his bride, the church. And that is echoed again and again throughout the scriptures. So that's the ideal. It's a way of transmitting God's unconditional love for us through His Son, Jesus Christ.
And if and if the picture of God, Christ being the, the, the half of the equation of Christ and His church and the church universal meaning all true believers and followers of Jesus Christ, and who believed in him and accepted the redemption of what he did on the cross in their life. If we define that as the bride and the bridegroom, right then the polyamorous would have to say, okay, well, somewhere in the Bible then we need to see Jesus saying they're going to be churches, plural. There will be the Christian church and maybe the Buddhist church, or maybe the Satanic church, and we'll have a multiple wives.
And when he went to the cult that he talked about 1848 to 1879. Right. Um, it wasn't about marriage. It was about sex. And that's why they had this disparaging difference between older women and teenage boys. That has nothing to do with marriage. That was satisfying sexual lust, period. And he tried to say that it was a way of circumnavigating unwanted pregnancies. Now, what bothers me is I never thought I'm going to go to the pragmatics here. Oh, did you ever think in a million years, Craig, that as a follower of Christ, that there would be a person who calls himself a pastor and a professor that is intimating that within the Christian community, and I want us to be aware of slippery eels here. One of the slippery eels is using the word Christian. And then what happens is in our mental lexicon, we immediately go, oh, if we confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Christian must mean that, right? No, it means as opposed to Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim. So you have to be. Watch the tricky words. Cults often use tricky words. You have to be very careful contextually of what you mean. So this man goes. It's been around forever. So he does the old hat trick about what happens. He uses.
Anthropology rather than bibliology.
And 1 or 2 verses, 1 or 2 verses. So we're just using those 1 or 2 verses.
He even implied no matter how many verses you provide to me, I'm not going to.
Have to deal with it.
It's here. It's come. It's just too complex for a couple or a lot of verses. Which means beware of him who says, now let's walk away from the Word of God here, and let's figure this out on our own.
Because we have the anthropological problem we have to deal.
Then immediately. You have a problem, Minister.
Well, and red flags have got to go up when a ravenous wolf talks like that. Now I've got some more. Again, this is the day and age in which we live. I love it because the clarity between right and wrong, truth and falsehood has never been more distinct. Choose you this day whom you will serve. But as for me and my house, you know the rest of that verse. We're going to come back more of this quote pastor, professor and his promotion of polyamory back after this. So this more so let's go back to this pastor professor promoting polyamory. That's a lot of popping peas, by the way. He wants these people to understand what he calls a loved base ethic when it comes to human sexuality. Not a Bible based ethic, but a quote, loved based ethic. And it's got seven points. Do no unjust harm. Free consent of partners. Mutuality. Equality. Commitment. Fruitfulness, social justice. A lot of that is so far afield from Scripture. It's unbelievable. Free consent of partners. Hey, if it feels good, do it. Two consenting adults. So again, you see right away his plumb line is skewed. He's not talking about a biblically based ethic for human sexuality. He's come up with a markedly humanistic metric for your sexual ethic. He has more to say. Have a listen.
Can we agree that God is love? Can we agree that God is just? So how do we ground this discussion in both love and justice? And she suggests these seven principles that in any relationship do no unjust harm do no unjust harm, free consent of partners, mutuality, equality, commitment, fruitfulness and social justice. That when we look at all the various human relationships, all the various ways that human beings get together, they need to fit into and not violate these seven principles. When we move into a relationship, we are at our most vulnerable. And so we must be committed. We must be committed that we will cause no unjust harm to the other person. And so whether it's whether it's one man, one woman, two women, two men, polyamorous group, is there harm being done? If there is, then it should not happen. That makes sense. That's why I have a hard time with a lot of the patriarchal teachings that go out there.
A man is the head of the household.
And yet. So I see these as a place to start. You're probably looking at me going, well, you didn't answer the question about polyamorous relationships. Is that okay? Can we do them? Is that all right? No, I didn't answer the question. Right. The best that I can do right now, because I just got this. This is the first time I've ever thought about this. The first time I ever researched it. The best that I can do right now is point you to some guidelines for discussion in a reasonable and loving manner of sexual ethics. Church, it's time for us to start talking about these. Not just throwing Bible verses at them, but sit down and talk about it. What would Jesus do? How would how would he respond to these individuals? What would God do? What does not violate God's character? How can we have a loving, reasonable response to all the varieties of human relationships out there? How do we do this? So that's the best I can do, is I can point you to some guidelines and encourage you to be Christ like. All right. So I've said all this stuff now. I told you, I really don't have an answer. Okay. But I think as Christians, we need to create a loving, just and reasonable response to the question of polyamory. I think we need to sit down as Christians, as a community of Christ, and discuss this and see where it falls in to those seven different ethics that we need to look at. I think we really need to discuss this because it's becoming more and more prevalent. I do have an opinion. Let me give you this opinion. What I'm willing to say at this time, because like I said, this is the first time I've gone through it. What I'm willing to say at this time is polyamory isn't right for me. It's definitely not right for me. I'm too jealous. I'd probably freak out. Hey, let's get another person in our relationship. No. Absolutely not. I'd totally freak out. I think, personally, this is just my opinion. I think that polyamory would only work for a very small percentage of people.
Well, okay. I love the throw it in. What would Jesus do? Well, we already told you what Jesus would do, but you don't want to hear the Bible verses that tell you what Jesus would do. So it's a circular argument. And again, he's tepid about full bore endorsing because for him it wouldn't work because he's jealous. But I think as Christians we need to sit down and talk about this. And in so doing, you're giving allowance to the acceptance of a model other than one man and one woman, of an institution designed by God and defined by God, and therefore is not really up for discussion. And that paradigm is repeated throughout all of Scripture. So I have to tell you, Craig, I came to faith earlier than you did, and if you had asked me 20 years ago, would we ever be having a conversation that a pastor and a professor in a church in a position of authority, would be having this kind of a conversation that we need to be talking about it because it has to fit into our seven points of our loved based ethic, including, but not limited to free consent of partners. That kind of opens the doors for absolutely everything under the sun. Your thoughts?
Um, you can either answer these questions. Is polyamory okay for a Christian? And we're assuming that you know what a Christian is and what it means. Um, there are two answers to that. Either you resort to human speculation, which is exactly what this gentleman did, or you go to revelation, which is what God says about it. And how you approach Scripture will determine the journey. A journey begins with the first step in the first direction. If you start your journey, answer. Supposedly answering that question is polyamory okay with God? And you start by saying, but we're not going to go to a bunch of verses. Although he's self-contradictory because he says, you know, what would Jesus do? Well, the only guideline, reliable guideline to what Jesus both did and said and who he was, is found in the covers of your scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. So if you start with anything but the Bible, you will get everything except the Bible and in this case, Janet. Deuteronomy four. This is an old, old problem, and let's call it sin and heresy. Deuteronomy four God said as early as that in the Old Testament, do not take away from the word I give you, and don't add to the word I give you. Then you go to the last book in the Bible, and that's revelation and the last chapter of the last book, and then the almost the last verse in the last chapter of the last book of revelation. God warns us about taking away from or adding to His Word. So Treat the Bible, Scripture, God's Word as the Word of God. It is. Begin and end with it and do it logically, reasonably, consistently. And the Bible. By the way, as you and I have noticed, is the best commentary on what the Bible means and what it says start and end there. But when you depart from it, you will end up with heresy, blasphemy and blindness.
And ravenous wolves. And so the takeaway out of all of this is stay very close to the Word of God. It does give you that internal spiritual Geiger counter. So when you hear this kind of heresy, I'll use Craig's word being espoused by a ravenous wolf. Everything goes off inside. And that discernment o meter, that alarm goes off that says, no, no, no, no, this does not come into alliance with what the Word of God says. Here is the way. Walk ye in it. Have a fabulous weekend. Thanks for joining us. We'll see you next time on In the Market with Janet Parshall.
