February 26, 2025 • 28 mins
Have a question or comment for Pastor Plek or one of his guests. Send it here.
343: Join Pastor Plek, Pastor Holland, and Bri Mota for a compelling discussion on the controversy surrounding JD Vance's remarks about the hierarchy of love, or "ordo amoris." What does it truly mean to prioritize love, starting from family and extending outward? Together, they scrutinize the reactions from religious and secular circles, including critiques from evangelical leaders like Thabiti Anyabwile, and assess how Vance's views align or conflict with historical Christian teachings from luminaries such as Augustine and Aquinas.
Got questions? Text us at 737-231-0605!
Like, share, and subscribe! We love seeing and responding to your reviews and comments.
Support the show: https://wbcc.churchcenter.com/giving
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
And welcome back to Pastor Plex Podcast.
I'm your host, Pastor Plex, andjoining me in studio is none
other than Holland Gregg, leadpastor from Eastside Community
Church.
So glad to have you, Holland.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Thanks, Chris.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
And also is Brianna Mota, a frequent contributor
here to Pastor Plex Podcast, andso glad you're joining us.
Welcome, hello, all right.
So the big thing that has beengoing viral on the internet is a
video that we just watched andwe will watch it again here for
us all to sort of take a look atand go ahead and play that,
(00:40):
cody, all right.
So after watching that video,uh, I'm sort of like in tune and
I would love to hear what wethink is primarily.
Here's the thing that reallystuck out uh, in jd vance gave,
like the ordo amoris.
He says listen, you love yourfamily, then you love your
(01:02):
neighbor, and then you love sayslisten, you love your family,
then you love your neighbor, andthen you love your community,
and then you love your fellowcitizens in your own country.
Then after that you can focusand prioritize the rest of the
world.
This perspective suggests thatone's immediate responsibility
to family, neighbors andcommunity should take precedence
before extending concern tobroader global matters.
(01:23):
Now, this has caused a lot ofpeople to get angry.
Give me some of the anger thatyou've seen over the internet.
Pull it.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Yep, I've seen.
I think just as important tonote too, anger is not just like
people outside of the church,but even within the church.
A lot of evangelical leadersheard that statement, made a lot
of posts on social media aboutwhy it was wrong, why it's a
total rejection of the heart ofJesus or the teachings of Jesus
(01:55):
and things like that.
And so, like Thabiti Anyabwileis one of you know someone who
was really connected with likenine marks and you know, kind of
formerly, I think, kind of hada reputation as like a
conservative pastor and preacherand theologian who's really
kind of drifted yeah, Driftedway more to the liberal side of
(02:17):
things, and I don't know thelast few years, it's what is
what.
It seems that I've noticed andhe's one of the people who made
a comment of just like man, thisJD Vance gets it totally wrong
here, and so a lot of pastors,theologians, evangelical leaders
have had a lot of issues withwhat JD Vance said.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
When you hear that Brie, just as woman off the
street, like what is yournatural reaction to what JD
Vanstead said of?
Essentially, you go, you loveyour family, then you love your
neighbor, then you love yourcommunity, then you love your
fellow citizens, your owncountry, and after that you
focus on the rest of the world.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
To me.
I thought that was common sense.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
OK, so that sounds like common sense.
Now.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
On that note.
Well, can I say something?
Yeah, so that sounds likecommon sense.
Now, sometimes On that notewell, can I say?
something.
Yeah, yeah.
So on that note, you mentionedOrdo Amoris, which is?
He doesn't say that phrase inthe clip, Right?
But he quoted it in a responseto someone, like pushing back on
the clip, and he said hisresponse to this person.
Well, I'll read what the personsaid first this is Rory Stewart,
(03:25):
UK leader, and he said this isa bizarre take on John 15, less
Christian and more pagan tribal.
We should start worrying whenpoliticians become theologians,
assume to speak for Jesus andtell us in which order to love.
And then JD Vance replied justGoogle Ordo Amoris, which is
(03:47):
pretty funny.
But you know, he says justGoogle this.
And then he said aside from that, the idea that there isn't a
hierarchy of obligationsviolates basic common sense to
your point.
And then he says does Roryreally think his moral duties to
his own children are the sameas his duties to a stranger who
lives thousands of miles away?
Does anyone?
(04:07):
So he appeals to common senseand Ordo Amoris, which is,
sounds like a Harry Potter spell, but it is a, you know, a
classic Christian teaching,Right?
That all people, I think,intuitively recognize.
That's the common sense part.
But a lot of Christiantheologians have written about
and taught on, and so, from guyslike Augustine to Thomas
(04:30):
Aquinas, CS Lewis, Herman Bovink, Calvin, there's writings about
this order of, and hierarchy of, loves and priorities and
duties.
People have written on allthroughout Christian history.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
So I feel like this it does get.
I just want to look at thescripture because sometimes,
like when you look at scripture,sometimes it goes against the
grain of culture.
And so here is a like theelected vice president got
majority of all the votes, sohere is the majority person
(05:09):
leader of the country, not aminority voice speaking.
And sometimes when the majorityspeaks, then the church needs
to speak into that to correctthat which is wrong.
And I think we have voices nowtrying to correct it.
But let's just kind of go withthat.
I think the first verse for methat sticks out.
But let's just kind of go withthat.
I think the first verse for methat sticks out.
And maybe we can kind of alljust start here 1 Timothy 5.8.
(05:35):
For me kind of, really, if hewho doesn't take care of his own
family is worse than anunbeliever, like that's sort of
wild.
If anyone does not provide forhis relatives, especially a
member of his own household, hehas denied the faith and is
worse than an unbeliever.
And so I don't know, and again,this is for Christians.
(05:59):
And so here's what Christiansshould do Take care of your own
specific family.
Should do Take care of your ownspecific family.
Now, jd Vance sort of makesthat case that Christians should
take care of their own family.
Now, jd Vance, not that heshouldn't be concerned about
families, he is obviouslyconcerned about families.
He, as a ruler, is supposed toput the people of his nation
(06:23):
first and he doesn't bear thesword for nothing.
And so I feel like that is hisbringing justice and provision.
And providing for his ownnation before he looks after the
justice of other nations.
Is the priority of rulers, inaccordance with like a Romans 13
(06:45):
sort of mindset.
Would you agree with that, oram I going out of bounds?
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Yeah, no, totally agree.
And you know the principle.
First, timothy five eight.
He says if anyone doesn'tprovide for his relatives,
especially members of his ownhousehold, the word especially
there means you have a specialtype of obligation or duty that
is related to and in proportionto your love.
Your love should be greatestfor your family, your household,
(07:13):
and there are obligations thatgo with that love.
And he says if you don't dothis, you're worse than an
unbeliever.
Why?
Because even unbelievers, manyof them, understand by virtue of
common sense that this is whatyou're supposed to do.
To not do that is worse than anunbeliever.
Because some of the pushbackhas been like that's not a
Christian teaching Right,everybody knows that.
(07:33):
But then he says you've alsodenied the faith.
So there's actually a way thatit is of the faith, of the
Christian faith, to do this,that it is of the faith of the
Christian faith to do this.
It's God's will, it is rightand approved of by God to have
ordered loves and special lovefor certain people.
And so we know that as a family.
(07:53):
Throughout church history,nations have been understood
essentially, as you know,similar rulers of nations have
been called like the fathers ofnations.
There's a familial aspect to it.
It's not the same.
You know, you have the threeinstitutions of the family, the
state and the church, and so anation state is not the same as
(08:15):
a family, but there's similarprinciples involved in that.
The rulers of a nation stateare responsible for the
wellbeing of the people undertheir care and they've been
given the sword.
Like you say, his job is toensure justice, promote what is
good, punish what is evil, andso to prioritize your nation and
the needs of your nation.
The good of your nation is atotally Christian thing.
(08:36):
It's something that evenunbelievers, many understand,
but is also of the Christianfaith to think in that kind of
way.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
All right, I'm going to give you another verse, and I
want you to kind of weigh inGalatians 6.10,.
So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone and
to that word you said a secondago, especially to those who are
of the household of faith.
So, in other words, putChristians above non-Christians.
Those within the household offaith, those within the
(09:04):
governing structure of thechurch, should be ministered to
in priority over those who areoutside the household of faith,
and then you would think thatthat same sort of concept would
be a natural concept within thegoverning structure of a nation,
those whom the ruler isresponsible to God for.
(09:28):
I think this is where sometimesyou just said it there's three
governing authorities the state,the church and the family.
And the state is responsiblebefore God, separate of the
church, for the way that theyconduct itself in its governance
of its people, and if itprioritizes people that it's not
responsible for over the onesit is responsible for, then that
(09:50):
becomes problematic.
Yes, exactly.
So anyway, I feel like I can't.
I don't know if there is.
I think let's just go to someBible verse that people might go
to.
I think it's like bless yourenemies, love your enemies.
Is that where we're going with?
Speaker 2 (10:02):
So there's a few, I think some of the pushback from
it is well, I think a lot of thepushback comes from people's
inability or failure to think indifferent categories.
Right, that, um, how a nationestablishes its policies is not
the exact same as how anindividual person, um, you know,
um, that nation states,families, can embody the love of
(10:33):
God in different ways.
Right, and that's going to lookdifferent depending on what the
institution, what theparticular situation is.
But so some of the pushback, Ithink, is coming from that root
of not thinking in the rightcategories, but also in, just, I
think it's mainly an appeal tocompassion and saying, okay, you
know, aren't we supposed tolove our enemy?
(10:54):
Aren't we supposed to love thestranger?
Aren't we supposed to love theforeigner?
And so, um, the answer is yes,we are supposed to do all those
things, but love, um, you canlove two people genuinely and
sincerely, and yet the way thatyou treat them does not have to
be the same thing, right, Right,um.
So this I'll quote Augustine,augustine, the, you know where
(11:16):
we get the idea of Ordo Amoris.
You know that phrase.
He says one ought to love allmen equally.
So we can say we love allpeople equally.
But then he says since, however, one cannot do good to all, we
ought to consider those chieflywho, by reason of place, time or
any other circumstance, by akind of chance, are more closely
(11:39):
united to us.
So he says, okay, we can loveall people equally, in some
sense of the word love, and yetin another sense of how we
practically love them, it's notgoing to be the same.
For instance, you can't buydinner for every hungry person
in the world tonight, but youcan for one, right?
And so does that mean that you,you know, don't love all people
equally?
Well, in a sense yes, and inanother sense no.
(12:00):
Because you love all people thesame, you will buy dinner for
that one person, but also youcan't love everyone the exact
same because you can't buydinner for everyone.
Does that make sense?
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Yeah, All right.
So recently, so on January 28of 25, the US State Department
expanded exemptions to the aidsuspension, and so they said to
cover humanitarian programs,life-saving medicine, but it
would get rid of DEI, diversity,equity, inclusion, ideology
(12:30):
programs, transgender surgeryand non-life-saving assistance.
And so I think what happened ispeople got upset that any cuts
were being made at all, and Ithink what the administration
was doing is saying we are notfor the diversity, equity,
inclusion, we are not forabortion, we are not for
transgender surgeries, and so weare going to cut those programs
(12:53):
.
Or I think there was one thatwas like $70,000 to create a
musical in Ireland, for that wasadvancing transgenderism, and
so they cut that.
And you're like why is anyone's, why are taxpayers from the
United States spending money ona $70,000 musical for
transgenderism?
(13:14):
That, to me, was wild when Iread about that, found out about
that, and so I think a lot ofthese cost-cutting measures are
actually really healthy, and I'mnot saying that you shouldn't
use USAID to create stabilitythroughout different theaters of
operation and create goodwillbetween the United States and
(13:34):
those abroad.
However, I do thinkprioritizing it's our own
country and when there are thosein North Carolina or in Los
Angeles who've gone throughnatural disasters and they're
struggling to rebuild theirhomes and rebuild their lives.
Priority should be put on yourown people as opposed to uh,
foreign aid, and I think that'swhat they were trying to get
(13:55):
around, and so I do think that'sthe right answer.
Like those rebuilding theirhomes in california, north
carolina, need the help over,and or maybe say first, before
you give help to um, those inforeign countries yeah, exactly
because jd, you know J D, youknow the way JD Vance said it.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
He said you know it's .
He said it doesn't mean we hateanyone, right, um?
And he said he didn't say younever help anyone outside of
your own country, Um, but hesaid there's an order, you know,
of priorities and so what youjust described, yeah, like you,
you've got to take care and thethe.
The reality is, if you do areally good job taking care of
(14:36):
your own country, you're goingto be poised to be of help to
others, whereas if you don'tprioritize the health, safety,
security, prosperity of your owncountry, you will eventually
collapse from the inside, youknow, and you won't be able to
be of any good to anyone.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
I think this is funny because I think every person
that's criticizing this hasheard the saying on an airplane
put your mask on first.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
I was just going to say that Exactly.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
There's one person that's going like nah, that's
dumb, you better put your maskon your kid first.
Well, while you're putting themask on the kid, you pass out.
Well, that's not going to helpthat kid out at all, because
that kid can't function.
That kid can't help you, hecan't do anything.
And so you've got to prioritizeyour own health before you then
prioritize the health of evenyour own child, and that is the
(15:25):
best thing for that child.
Likewise, it is the best thingfor the free world when the
strongest nation takes care ofits strength and mobilizes.
It helps those in need withinits own borders and then can go
forth.
And again, I like that.
It's not that we don't helpthose outside the United States.
In fact, I think we do.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Exactly, yeah, you want to be a nation that is
prosperous and that is ablessing to other people, but
you can't get there bycontinually debilitating
yourself, by prioritizing thoseoutside, you know, while you're
suffering on the inside.
So, while we're in trillions ofdollars of debt, while we have,
like you know, some of thesituations you just explained,
(16:05):
to take care of yourself firstallows you to be able to be in a
position to take care of andhelp others.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Yeah, what other thought, what other pushback do
you think people would give tothat Cause I'm trying to make
like the legitimate.
I want to hear the other sideof the argument.
I just have a hard time gettingthere on and I guess I would go
with, maybe.
Love your enemies, do good andland, expect nothing in return,
and your world will be great andyou'll be called sons of the
most high, for he is kind to theungrateful and the evil, or if
(16:35):
your enemy is hungry feed him.
If he is thirsty, give himsomething to drink, for.
By doing so, you keep burningcoals on his head, or how about?
But I say to you, this is Luke6, 27.
I say to you who hear, loveyour enemies, do good to those
who hate you, and we have beendoing good to those who hate us.
We've been giving aid to thosewho are actively trying to kill
us for years, and I thinksometimes that might be what's
(16:57):
been sustaining the evil that'sbeen going on is our own aid,
and I don't think it's helpingus.
I don't think it's, you know,pushing back darkness.
In fact, I think it's, uh,helping to perpetuate something
that needs to be ultimatelystopped.
What are you thinking there, br.
Brie?
Speaker 3 (17:14):
I mean to me through all of this.
My one question I would asksomeone who disagrees is if you
are struggling to pay your lightbill and your husband is giving
all your money to a marriedwoman down the street, how would
you feel, Right, I'm sure you'dbe jealous.
I'm sure you'd be ticked off.
I'm sure your marriage wouldnot be Strong.
Strong, Right, I'm sure you'dbe jealous.
I'm sure you'd be ticked off.
I'm sure your marriage wouldnot be Strong, strong.
(17:35):
So why is it any different withour country, right?
Or if your pastor is handingout all this money and your
church is falling apart, or ourbenevolence like, yes, we are
helping the community, but if amember applies?
And we're like oh sorry, thismoney needs, yeah, Like there is
priority and, yes, with theoverflow, we bless those around
(17:55):
us, again those around us.
You're not going over right toanother church our benevolence.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Priority is members first yes members first, then
regular attenders, then, uh,people who live in the
neighborhood, and then extendedbeyond because we want to be, um
, a light in the dark for them.
That's a great point, and andso I think that's where the
people we should be supportingfirst, probably Mexico and
Canada, since there are twoneighbors which, ironically, I
(18:22):
think, is just who Trump made abusiness deal with and we're not
going to tariff them.
I think both of them said, hey,no tariffs and we'll stop the
flow.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
I think it's a 30-day pause to assess how things go,
or something like that, rightright.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
So I think that's sort of wild that you're having
to negotiate with neighbors butyou have to do this with your
own neighbors, like I've had tohave you know arguments or you
know moments with my ownneighbors to kind of like, hey,
keep the volume down when youhave your Bible studies late at
night, because you know we.
(19:01):
To kind of like, hey, keep thevolume down when you have your
Bible studies late at nightbecause we go wild at my house
and we had to have someconcessions and I sent gifts to
create a bond of peace betweenmy neighbor because I think
that's super important, becauseI value my neighbor and I think
we need to be doing that.
But when it comes down tovaluing across several
neighborhoods over to an uh, youknow a street there, it's good,
I don't think it's bad, but Ishould first take care of those
closest to me because that seemslike the most that makes common
(19:23):
sense, yeah, and people have.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
You know some of the pushback people have cited, like
the good samaritan story, aslike oh, this is someone who was
.
It was a Samaritan helping youknow someone and we we're
assuming the guy beaten up onthe side of the road was an
Israelite.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
You don't really it never says right, it says um.
I think it does say.
It does say yeah, so, yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
So the idea there is that like, okay, they're
different, you know they'redifferent, uh, ethnicities,
nationalities, they're not, youknow, kinsmen in a sense.
And yet he takes care of thatguy.
So, like, doesn't that disproveit?
He's taking care a Samaritan,taking care of an Israelite, and
so people have brought that upto say like, oh, that's not like
(20:08):
my country first, or whatever.
But I think it just reallyproves the whole point of like
this was someone who was, whowas his neighbor in the sense of
he's right here, someone thathe could help with his own money
, right, um, that, like you know, and if you were to see the man
beat up, left for dead on theside of the road and say I can't
(20:32):
help you because I'm sending mymoney across, you know, the
other side of the world orwhatever, to people that I don't
see, that I don't haveproximity with, that, I'm not
whatever, and so I can't helpyou.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Who's right here and in that story, jesus is shaming
the religious leaders who didnot prioritize their own.
Yeah, they overlooked.
They did the exact thing theywere talking about.
They said no to helping the onethat was their own kinsman or
their own nation, because it wasinconvenient.
(21:05):
Whatever the reason was, wedon't know, but it was something
that everyone assumed a priestor a levi would take care of his
own countrymen.
That was sort of their literaljob.
And then when a samaritan hasto do it, it is shameful to them
.
And I think that's the wholepoint of that story is what
god's saying is because you'remissing the whole point of the
(21:28):
gospel, I am.
I first come to the jews andthen I'm going to go beyond.
There's an order I said reject.
There was an order even ingod's expression of his love of
christ, of salvation.
It first came to the jews and Idon't.
I'm not upset by that.
I'm not sitting there goinglike how come I got?
Second, I was had to standbehind the jew, jews in line to
(21:50):
receive my salvation.
Well, clearly it was orderedthat way because salvation is
from the Jews.
Jesus said that to the Samaritanwoman who's confused about her
own religion.
It's like listen, salvation isfrom the Jews.
It is priority first, and Paulwent first to the Jews, then to
the Gentiles, and so I think allthroughout the scripture you
(22:10):
have a hierarchy of relationship, a hierarchy of priority, and
because if you don't have ahierarchy of priority, then you
have chaos, you have completeanarchy.
You have kind of like, dowhatever you want to do with
whomever you want to do it,because we would say our
intimacy, our love, our financeshas a hierarchy of priority and
(22:32):
it should go to our family.
If you're like a person thatyou know in your will, you give
it all to a foreign country andyou leave your family.
That's out of it, family out ofit that's in desperate need.
You would say you are messed up.
You would say you did not takecare of your family.
You're worse than an unbeliever.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
You're worse than an unbeliever and you've denied the
faith.
That's what 1 Timothy, 5.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
And Jesus criticized Jews.
For this, remember Corbin.
Yeah, corbin, corbin said, likeyou say, I'm giving all this to
God and so I can't help my momand my dad, my mom and my dad,
(23:16):
whereas Jesus, look, you areobliterating the fifth
commandment just so that you cansay I'm honoring God.
And, by the way, the way youhonor God is by honoring those
who loved you first.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Yeah, the fifth commandment is an example too.
It doesn't say honor everyone.
It says honor your mother andfather.
Yes, we do honor everyone, butthere is a great degree, a
greater degree of honor.
Um, herman Boving says this wayum, the command to show love
toward everyone does notpreclude different degrees of
that love.
Some people are much closer tous than others.
(23:43):
Some are bound to us by aphysical relationship, social,
political relations, spiritualunity or by friendship and the
like.
Aquinas says this Wherefore, inmatters pertaining to nature, we
should love our kindred most,in matters concerning relations
between citizens, we shouldprefer our fellow citizens and,
on the battlefield, our fellowsoldiers.
(24:03):
So like, should you love yourenemy?
Yes, you should, but that looksdifferent for someone who is,
uh, a soldier in a war.
Uh, that, what does it looklike to love your enemy and you
know to be a soldier who'sfaithful to your mission and
stuff like that, and you're got,you got to prefer, prefer, uh
prioritize and prefer yourfellow soldiers in a way, um,
(24:26):
and so, understanding there'sdifferent categories to apply,
what love looks like and there'sdifferent degrees of love.
I think really helps youactually think through this
thing.
It's not saying you need tohate everyone, you know, reject
people, don't ever help someone.
No, as Christians, we shouldlove our enemies, we should love
the foreigner, the poor.
Um, but what that looks like,and you know how we practically
(24:51):
do that there's.
There is an actual, rationaland biblical order and approach
to it.
Yeah, does that make sense?
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Like um.
So yeah, I feel like uh, yeah,to me this is, this is such a I
don't know.
I think it's common sense andin a world that's lost common
(25:20):
sense, I feel like it's wild tolook at how we've lost reality
and we need to kind of get backinto Ordo Amoris.
Now we'll say, when it comes toum combatants like you, when
enemy and friendly, you treatthe most wounded first.
Uh, which is so.
It doesn't matter if it's like,if you've got a friendly that
has a broken arm and an enemywith a suck, a chest sucking,
(25:43):
wound or, yeah, chest, likethey're dying out, bleeding out,
you treat that guy first andthen you handle the broken arm
guy.
It doesn't matter whose sidethey're on, but ultimately, if
they're equal, if everything'sequal, you choose your own
country first, because that'sjust what you do.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
So yeah, there you go .
Uh, so yeah, order, logic,reason, and that's that's not a
way to escape love or duty, it'sa way to best love.
Yeah, right, that's the wholepoint of that.
Is not like I think that's whatsome of the pushback is
assuming Is it like oh, thisordo amoris is a way to kind of
neglect obligations to certainpeople, Right, but rather it's,
(26:22):
it's how to best love otherswith the limited resources that
you have.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
And if, if people would say, hey, the rest of the
world has a sucking chest woundand the United States only has a
broken arm, then I could say,okay, that's where you're
getting your argument from, butI don't think they're saying
that they're saying what theyare saying is you need to
prioritize the other peoplefirst, and I think that's what
(26:47):
this administration is doing.
Differently, they're securingborders first to take care of,
uh, our own, its own peoplefirst, which I think is the
government's firstresponsibility at responsible to
god for that in the, yeah, thethree different, uh, leadership
structures of the world.
Yeah, man I.
Man, I think we probably solvedit.
(27:09):
Any other thoughts on that,Miss Mota?
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Nope.
Yeah, I just think taking it toyour own house is a good.
It's not a perfect analogy, butyou just go.
Do I want my household to helppeople outside of my household?
Yes, but not to the point whereit hurts the people in my
household and keeps them fromhaving what they need.
And so can I open my home up tosome people for a place to stay
(27:38):
or to have a meal to eat?
Yes, but if I just say, youknow, okay, anyone can come in
and do whatever they wantwhenever they want, like that's,
that's going to lead to thecollapse of my household, to
where I can't help anyoneanymore.
And so having order andstructure and things is not to
be hateful to others.
It's to preserve, uh um, theability to love and bless others
(28:03):
.
Well, so that I think that'swhat, like in my heart, I want
people to understand is like thepurpose of it is to be able to
bless other people even more.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Hey, thanks so much for watching From our house to
yours.
Have an awesome week of worship.
And welcome back to Pastor Plex Podcast.
I'm your host, Pastor Plex, andjoining me in studio is none
other than Holland Gregg, leadpastor from Eastside Community
Church.
So glad to have you, Holland.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Thanks, Chris.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
And also is Brianna Mota, a frequent contributor
here to Pastor Plex Podcast, andso glad you're joining us.
Welcome, hello, all right.
So the big thing that has beengoing viral on the internet is a
video that we just watched andwe will watch it again here for
us all to sort of take a look atand go ahead and play that,
(00:40):
cody, all right.
So after watching that video,uh, I'm sort of like in tune and
I would love to hear what wethink is primarily.
Here's the thing that reallystuck out uh, in jd vance gave,
like the ordo amoris.
He says listen, you love yourfamily, then you love your
(01:02):
neighbor, and then you love sayslisten, you love your family,
then you love your neighbor, andthen you love your community,
and then you love your fellowcitizens in your own country.
Then after that you can focusand prioritize the rest of the
world.
This perspective suggests thatone's immediate responsibility
to family, neighbors andcommunity should take precedence
before extending concern tobroader global matters.
(01:23):
Now, this has caused a lot ofpeople to get angry.
Give me some of the anger thatyou've seen over the internet.
Pull it.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Yep, I've seen.
I think just as important tonote too, anger is not just like
people outside of the church,but even within the church.
A lot of evangelical leadersheard that statement, made a lot
of posts on social media aboutwhy it was wrong, why it's a
total rejection of the heart ofJesus or the teachings of Jesus
(01:55):
and things like that.
And so, like Thabiti Anyabwileis one of you know someone who
was really connected with likenine marks and you know, kind of
formerly, I think, kind of hada reputation as like a
conservative pastor and preacherand theologian who's really
kind of drifted yeah, Driftedway more to the liberal side of
(02:17):
things, and I don't know thelast few years, it's what is
what.
It seems that I've noticed andhe's one of the people who made
a comment of just like man, thisJD Vance gets it totally wrong
here, and so a lot of pastors,theologians, evangelical leaders
have had a lot of issues withwhat JD Vance said.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
When you hear that Brie, just as woman off the
street, like what is yournatural reaction to what JD
Vanstead said of?
Essentially, you go, you loveyour family, then you love your
neighbor, then you love yourcommunity, then you love your
fellow citizens, your owncountry, and after that you
focus on the rest of the world.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
To me.
I thought that was common sense.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
OK, so that sounds like common sense.
Now.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
On that note.
Well, can I say something?
Yeah, so that sounds likecommon sense.
Now, sometimes On that notewell, can I say?
something.
Yeah, yeah.
So on that note, you mentionedOrdo Amoris, which is?
He doesn't say that phrase inthe clip, Right?
But he quoted it in a responseto someone, like pushing back on
the clip, and he said hisresponse to this person.
Well, I'll read what the personsaid first this is Rory Stewart,
(03:25):
UK leader, and he said this isa bizarre take on John 15, less
Christian and more pagan tribal.
We should start worrying whenpoliticians become theologians,
assume to speak for Jesus andtell us in which order to love.
And then JD Vance replied justGoogle Ordo Amoris, which is
(03:47):
pretty funny.
But you know, he says justGoogle this.
And then he said aside from that, the idea that there isn't a
hierarchy of obligationsviolates basic common sense to
your point.
And then he says does Roryreally think his moral duties to
his own children are the sameas his duties to a stranger who
lives thousands of miles away?
Does anyone?
(04:07):
So he appeals to common senseand Ordo Amoris, which is,
sounds like a Harry Potter spell, but it is a, you know, a
classic Christian teaching,Right?
That all people, I think,intuitively recognize.
That's the common sense part.
But a lot of Christiantheologians have written about
and taught on, and so, from guyslike Augustine to Thomas
(04:30):
Aquinas, CS Lewis, Herman Bovink, Calvin, there's writings about
this order of, and hierarchy of, loves and priorities and
duties.
People have written on allthroughout Christian history.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
So I feel like this it does get.
I just want to look at thescripture because sometimes,
like when you look at scripture,sometimes it goes against the
grain of culture.
And so here is a like theelected vice president got
majority of all the votes, sohere is the majority person
(05:09):
leader of the country, not aminority voice speaking.
And sometimes when the majorityspeaks, then the church needs
to speak into that to correctthat which is wrong.
And I think we have voices nowtrying to correct it.
But let's just kind of go withthat.
I think the first verse for methat sticks out.
But let's just kind of go withthat.
I think the first verse for methat sticks out.
And maybe we can kind of alljust start here 1 Timothy 5.8.
(05:35):
For me kind of, really, if hewho doesn't take care of his own
family is worse than anunbeliever, like that's sort of
wild.
If anyone does not provide forhis relatives, especially a
member of his own household, hehas denied the faith and is
worse than an unbeliever.
And so I don't know, and again,this is for Christians.
(05:59):
And so here's what Christiansshould do Take care of your own
specific family.
Should do Take care of your ownspecific family.
Now, jd Vance sort of makesthat case that Christians should
take care of their own family.
Now, jd Vance, not that heshouldn't be concerned about
families, he is obviouslyconcerned about families.
He, as a ruler, is supposed toput the people of his nation
(06:23):
first and he doesn't bear thesword for nothing.
And so I feel like that is hisbringing justice and provision.
And providing for his ownnation before he looks after the
justice of other nations.
Is the priority of rulers, inaccordance with like a Romans 13
(06:45):
sort of mindset.
Would you agree with that, oram I going out of bounds?
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Yeah, no, totally agree.
And you know the principle.
First, timothy five eight.
He says if anyone doesn'tprovide for his relatives,
especially members of his ownhousehold, the word especially
there means you have a specialtype of obligation or duty that
is related to and in proportionto your love.
Your love should be greatestfor your family, your household,
(07:13):
and there are obligations thatgo with that love.
And he says if you don't dothis, you're worse than an
unbeliever.
Why?
Because even unbelievers, manyof them, understand by virtue of
common sense that this is whatyou're supposed to do.
To not do that is worse than anunbeliever.
Because some of the pushbackhas been like that's not a
Christian teaching Right,everybody knows that.
(07:33):
But then he says you've alsodenied the faith.
So there's actually a way thatit is of the faith, of the
Christian faith, to do this,that it is of the faith of the
Christian faith to do this.
It's God's will, it is rightand approved of by God to have
ordered loves and special lovefor certain people.
And so we know that as a family.
(07:53):
Throughout church history,nations have been understood
essentially, as you know,similar rulers of nations have
been called like the fathers ofnations.
There's a familial aspect to it.
It's not the same.
You know, you have the threeinstitutions of the family, the
state and the church, and so anation state is not the same as
(08:15):
a family, but there's similarprinciples involved in that.
The rulers of a nation stateare responsible for the
wellbeing of the people undertheir care and they've been
given the sword.
Like you say, his job is toensure justice, promote what is
good, punish what is evil, andso to prioritize your nation and
the needs of your nation.
The good of your nation is atotally Christian thing.
(08:36):
It's something that evenunbelievers, many understand,
but is also of the Christianfaith to think in that kind of
way.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
All right, I'm going to give you another verse, and I
want you to kind of weigh inGalatians 6.10,.
So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone and
to that word you said a secondago, especially to those who are
of the household of faith.
So, in other words, putChristians above non-Christians.
Those within the household offaith, those within the
(09:04):
governing structure of thechurch, should be ministered to
in priority over those who areoutside the household of faith,
and then you would think thatthat same sort of concept would
be a natural concept within thegoverning structure of a nation,
those whom the ruler isresponsible to God for.
(09:28):
I think this is where sometimesyou just said it there's three
governing authorities the state,the church and the family.
And the state is responsiblebefore God, separate of the
church, for the way that theyconduct itself in its governance
of its people, and if itprioritizes people that it's not
responsible for over the onesit is responsible for, then that
(09:50):
becomes problematic.
Yes, exactly.
So anyway, I feel like I can't.
I don't know if there is.
I think let's just go to someBible verse that people might go
to.
I think it's like bless yourenemies, love your enemies.
Is that where we're going with?
Speaker 2 (10:02):
So there's a few, I think some of the pushback from
it is well, I think a lot of thepushback comes from people's
inability or failure to think indifferent categories.
Right, that, um, how a nationestablishes its policies is not
the exact same as how anindividual person, um, you know,
um, that nation states,families, can embody the love of
(10:33):
God in different ways.
Right, and that's going to lookdifferent depending on what the
institution, what theparticular situation is.
But so some of the pushback, Ithink, is coming from that root
of not thinking in the rightcategories, but also in, just, I
think it's mainly an appeal tocompassion and saying, okay, you
know, aren't we supposed tolove our enemy?
(10:54):
Aren't we supposed to love thestranger?
Aren't we supposed to love theforeigner?
And so, um, the answer is yes,we are supposed to do all those
things, but love, um, you canlove two people genuinely and
sincerely, and yet the way thatyou treat them does not have to
be the same thing, right, Right,um.
So this I'll quote Augustine,augustine, the, you know where
(11:16):
we get the idea of Ordo Amoris.
You know that phrase.
He says one ought to love allmen equally.
So we can say we love allpeople equally.
But then he says since, however, one cannot do good to all, we
ought to consider those chieflywho, by reason of place, time or
any other circumstance, by akind of chance, are more closely
(11:39):
united to us.
So he says, okay, we can loveall people equally, in some
sense of the word love, and yetin another sense of how we
practically love them, it's notgoing to be the same.
For instance, you can't buydinner for every hungry person
in the world tonight, but youcan for one, right?
And so does that mean that you,you know, don't love all people
equally?
Well, in a sense yes, and inanother sense no.
(12:00):
Because you love all people thesame, you will buy dinner for
that one person, but also youcan't love everyone the exact
same because you can't buydinner for everyone.
Does that make sense?
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Yeah, All right.
So recently, so on January 28of 25, the US State Department
expanded exemptions to the aidsuspension, and so they said to
cover humanitarian programs,life-saving medicine, but it
would get rid of DEI, diversity,equity, inclusion, ideology
(12:30):
programs, transgender surgeryand non-life-saving assistance.
And so I think what happened ispeople got upset that any cuts
were being made at all, and Ithink what the administration
was doing is saying we are notfor the diversity, equity,
inclusion, we are not forabortion, we are not for
transgender surgeries, and so weare going to cut those programs
(12:53):
.
Or I think there was one thatwas like $70,000 to create a
musical in Ireland, for that wasadvancing transgenderism, and
so they cut that.
And you're like why is anyone's, why are taxpayers from the
United States spending money ona $70,000 musical for
transgenderism?
(13:14):
That, to me, was wild when Iread about that, found out about
that, and so I think a lot ofthese cost-cutting measures are
actually really healthy, and I'mnot saying that you shouldn't
use USAID to create stabilitythroughout different theaters of
operation and create goodwillbetween the United States and
(13:34):
those abroad.
However, I do thinkprioritizing it's our own
country and when there are thosein North Carolina or in Los
Angeles who've gone throughnatural disasters and they're
struggling to rebuild theirhomes and rebuild their lives.
Priority should be put on yourown people as opposed to uh,
foreign aid, and I think that'swhat they were trying to get
(13:55):
around, and so I do think that'sthe right answer.
Like those rebuilding theirhomes in california, north
carolina, need the help over,and or maybe say first, before
you give help to um, those inforeign countries yeah, exactly
because jd, you know J D, youknow the way JD Vance said it.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
He said you know it's .
He said it doesn't mean we hateanyone, right, um?
And he said he didn't say younever help anyone outside of
your own country, Um, but hesaid there's an order, you know,
of priorities and so what youjust described, yeah, like you,
you've got to take care and thethe.
The reality is, if you do areally good job taking care of
(14:36):
your own country, you're goingto be poised to be of help to
others, whereas if you don'tprioritize the health, safety,
security, prosperity of your owncountry, you will eventually
collapse from the inside, youknow, and you won't be able to
be of any good to anyone.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
I think this is funny because I think every person
that's criticizing this hasheard the saying on an airplane
put your mask on first.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
I was just going to say that Exactly.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
There's one person that's going like nah, that's
dumb, you better put your maskon your kid first.
Well, while you're putting themask on the kid, you pass out.
Well, that's not going to helpthat kid out at all, because
that kid can't function.
That kid can't help you, hecan't do anything.
And so you've got to prioritizeyour own health before you then
prioritize the health of evenyour own child, and that is the
(15:25):
best thing for that child.
Likewise, it is the best thingfor the free world when the
strongest nation takes care ofits strength and mobilizes.
It helps those in need withinits own borders and then can go
forth.
And again, I like that.
It's not that we don't helpthose outside the United States.
In fact, I think we do.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Exactly, yeah, you want to be a nation that is
prosperous and that is ablessing to other people, but
you can't get there bycontinually debilitating
yourself, by prioritizing thoseoutside, you know, while you're
suffering on the inside.
So, while we're in trillions ofdollars of debt, while we have,
like you know, some of thesituations you just explained,
(16:05):
to take care of yourself firstallows you to be able to be in a
position to take care of andhelp others.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Yeah, what other thought, what other pushback do
you think people would give tothat Cause I'm trying to make
like the legitimate.
I want to hear the other sideof the argument.
I just have a hard time gettingthere on and I guess I would go
with, maybe.
Love your enemies, do good andland, expect nothing in return,
and your world will be great andyou'll be called sons of the
most high, for he is kind to theungrateful and the evil, or if
(16:35):
your enemy is hungry feed him.
If he is thirsty, give himsomething to drink, for.
By doing so, you keep burningcoals on his head, or how about?
But I say to you, this is Luke6, 27.
I say to you who hear, loveyour enemies, do good to those
who hate you, and we have beendoing good to those who hate us.
We've been giving aid to thosewho are actively trying to kill
us for years, and I thinksometimes that might be what's
(16:57):
been sustaining the evil that'sbeen going on is our own aid,
and I don't think it's helpingus.
I don't think it's, you know,pushing back darkness.
In fact, I think it's, uh,helping to perpetuate something
that needs to be ultimatelystopped.
What are you thinking there, br.
Brie?
Speaker 3 (17:14):
I mean to me through all of this.
My one question I would asksomeone who disagrees is if you
are struggling to pay your lightbill and your husband is giving
all your money to a marriedwoman down the street, how would
you feel, Right, I'm sure you'dbe jealous.
I'm sure you'd be ticked off.
I'm sure your marriage wouldnot be Strong.
Strong, Right, I'm sure you'dbe jealous.
I'm sure you'd be ticked off.
I'm sure your marriage wouldnot be Strong, strong.
(17:35):
So why is it any different withour country, right?
Or if your pastor is handingout all this money and your
church is falling apart, or ourbenevolence like, yes, we are
helping the community, but if amember applies?
And we're like oh sorry, thismoney needs, yeah, Like there is
priority and, yes, with theoverflow, we bless those around
(17:55):
us, again those around us.
You're not going over right toanother church our benevolence.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Priority is members first yes members first, then
regular attenders, then, uh,people who live in the
neighborhood, and then extendedbeyond because we want to be, um
, a light in the dark for them.
That's a great point, and andso I think that's where the
people we should be supportingfirst, probably Mexico and
Canada, since there are twoneighbors which, ironically, I
(18:22):
think, is just who Trump made abusiness deal with and we're not
going to tariff them.
I think both of them said, hey,no tariffs and we'll stop the
flow.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
I think it's a 30-day pause to assess how things go,
or something like that, rightright.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
So I think that's sort of wild that you're having
to negotiate with neighbors butyou have to do this with your
own neighbors, like I've had tohave you know arguments or you
know moments with my ownneighbors to kind of like, hey,
keep the volume down when youhave your Bible studies late at
night, because you know we.
(19:01):
To kind of like, hey, keep thevolume down when you have your
Bible studies late at nightbecause we go wild at my house
and we had to have someconcessions and I sent gifts to
create a bond of peace betweenmy neighbor because I think
that's super important, becauseI value my neighbor and I think
we need to be doing that.
But when it comes down tovaluing across several
neighborhoods over to an uh, youknow a street there, it's good,
I don't think it's bad, but Ishould first take care of those
closest to me because that seemslike the most that makes common
(19:23):
sense, yeah, and people have.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
You know some of the pushback people have cited, like
the good samaritan story, aslike oh, this is someone who was
.
It was a Samaritan helping youknow someone and we we're
assuming the guy beaten up onthe side of the road was an
Israelite.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
You don't really it never says right, it says um.
I think it does say.
It does say yeah, so, yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
So the idea there is that like, okay, they're
different, you know they'redifferent, uh, ethnicities,
nationalities, they're not, youknow, kinsmen in a sense.
And yet he takes care of thatguy.
So, like, doesn't that disproveit?
He's taking care a Samaritan,taking care of an Israelite, and
so people have brought that upto say like, oh, that's not like
(20:08):
my country first, or whatever.
But I think it just reallyproves the whole point of like
this was someone who was, whowas his neighbor in the sense of
he's right here, someone thathe could help with his own money
, right, um, that, like you know, and if you were to see the man
beat up, left for dead on theside of the road and say I can't
(20:32):
help you because I'm sending mymoney across, you know, the
other side of the world orwhatever, to people that I don't
see, that I don't haveproximity with, that, I'm not
whatever, and so I can't helpyou.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Who's right here and in that story, jesus is shaming
the religious leaders who didnot prioritize their own.
Yeah, they overlooked.
They did the exact thing theywere talking about.
They said no to helping the onethat was their own kinsman or
their own nation, because it wasinconvenient.
(21:05):
Whatever the reason was, wedon't know, but it was something
that everyone assumed a priestor a levi would take care of his
own countrymen.
That was sort of their literaljob.
And then when a samaritan hasto do it, it is shameful to them
.
And I think that's the wholepoint of that story is what
god's saying is because you'remissing the whole point of the
(21:28):
gospel, I am.
I first come to the jews andthen I'm going to go beyond.
There's an order I said reject.
There was an order even ingod's expression of his love of
christ, of salvation.
It first came to the jews and Idon't.
I'm not upset by that.
I'm not sitting there goinglike how come I got?
Second, I was had to standbehind the jew, jews in line to
(21:50):
receive my salvation.
Well, clearly it was orderedthat way because salvation is
from the Jews.
Jesus said that to the Samaritanwoman who's confused about her
own religion.
It's like listen, salvation isfrom the Jews.
It is priority first, and Paulwent first to the Jews, then to
the Gentiles, and so I think allthroughout the scripture you
(22:10):
have a hierarchy of relationship, a hierarchy of priority, and
because if you don't have ahierarchy of priority, then you
have chaos, you have completeanarchy.
You have kind of like, dowhatever you want to do with
whomever you want to do it,because we would say our
intimacy, our love, our financeshas a hierarchy of priority and
(22:32):
it should go to our family.
If you're like a person thatyou know in your will, you give
it all to a foreign country andyou leave your family.
That's out of it, family out ofit that's in desperate need.
You would say you are messed up.
You would say you did not takecare of your family.
You're worse than an unbeliever.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
You're worse than an unbeliever and you've denied the
faith.
That's what 1 Timothy, 5.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
And Jesus criticized Jews.
For this, remember Corbin.
Yeah, corbin, corbin said, likeyou say, I'm giving all this to
God and so I can't help my momand my dad, my mom and my dad,
(23:16):
whereas Jesus, look, you areobliterating the fifth
commandment just so that you cansay I'm honoring God.
And, by the way, the way youhonor God is by honoring those
who loved you first.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Yeah, the fifth commandment is an example too.
It doesn't say honor everyone.
It says honor your mother andfather.
Yes, we do honor everyone, butthere is a great degree, a
greater degree of honor.
Um, herman Boving says this wayum, the command to show love
toward everyone does notpreclude different degrees of
that love.
Some people are much closer tous than others.
(23:43):
Some are bound to us by aphysical relationship, social,
political relations, spiritualunity or by friendship and the
like.
Aquinas says this Wherefore, inmatters pertaining to nature, we
should love our kindred most,in matters concerning relations
between citizens, we shouldprefer our fellow citizens and,
on the battlefield, our fellowsoldiers.
(24:03):
So like, should you love yourenemy?
Yes, you should, but that looksdifferent for someone who is,
uh, a soldier in a war.
Uh, that, what does it looklike to love your enemy and you
know to be a soldier who'sfaithful to your mission and
stuff like that, and you're got,you got to prefer, prefer, uh
prioritize and prefer yourfellow soldiers in a way, um,
(24:26):
and so, understanding there'sdifferent categories to apply,
what love looks like and there'sdifferent degrees of love.
I think really helps youactually think through this
thing.
It's not saying you need tohate everyone, you know, reject
people, don't ever help someone.
No, as Christians, we shouldlove our enemies, we should love
the foreigner, the poor.
Um, but what that looks like,and you know how we practically
(24:51):
do that there's.
There is an actual, rationaland biblical order and approach
to it.
Yeah, does that make sense?
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Like um.
So yeah, I feel like uh, yeah,to me this is, this is such a I
don't know.
I think it's common sense andin a world that's lost common
(25:20):
sense, I feel like it's wild tolook at how we've lost reality
and we need to kind of get backinto Ordo Amoris.
Now we'll say, when it comes toum combatants like you, when
enemy and friendly, you treatthe most wounded first.
Uh, which is so.
It doesn't matter if it's like,if you've got a friendly that
has a broken arm and an enemywith a suck, a chest sucking,
(25:43):
wound or, yeah, chest, likethey're dying out, bleeding out,
you treat that guy first andthen you handle the broken arm
guy.
It doesn't matter whose sidethey're on, but ultimately, if
they're equal, if everything'sequal, you choose your own
country first, because that'sjust what you do.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
So yeah, there you go .
Uh, so yeah, order, logic,reason, and that's that's not a
way to escape love or duty, it'sa way to best love.
Yeah, right, that's the wholepoint of that.
Is not like I think that's whatsome of the pushback is
assuming Is it like oh, thisordo amoris is a way to kind of
neglect obligations to certainpeople, Right, but rather it's,
(26:22):
it's how to best love otherswith the limited resources that
you have.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
And if, if people would say, hey, the rest of the
world has a sucking chest woundand the United States only has a
broken arm, then I could say,okay, that's where you're
getting your argument from, butI don't think they're saying
that they're saying what theyare saying is you need to
prioritize the other peoplefirst, and I think that's what
(26:47):
this administration is doing.
Differently, they're securingborders first to take care of,
uh, our own, its own peoplefirst, which I think is the
government's firstresponsibility at responsible to
god for that in the, yeah, thethree different, uh, leadership
structures of the world.
Yeah, man I.
Man, I think we probably solvedit.
(27:09):
Any other thoughts on that,Miss Mota?
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Nope.
Yeah, I just think taking it toyour own house is a good.
It's not a perfect analogy, butyou just go.
Do I want my household to helppeople outside of my household?
Yes, but not to the point whereit hurts the people in my
household and keeps them fromhaving what they need.
And so can I open my home up tosome people for a place to stay
(27:38):
or to have a meal to eat?
Yes, but if I just say, youknow, okay, anyone can come in
and do whatever they wantwhenever they want, like that's,
that's going to lead to thecollapse of my household, to
where I can't help anyoneanymore.
And so having order andstructure and things is not to
be hateful to others.
It's to preserve, uh um, theability to love and bless others
(28:03):
.
Well, so that I think that'swhat, like in my heart, I want
people to understand is like thepurpose of it is to be able to
bless other people even more.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Hey, thanks so much for watching From our house to
yours.
Have an awesome week of worship.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.