God Is Not A Republican (Or A Democrat)

Talking to people who disagree with me politically has gotten hard.

Like, really hard.

Sometimes I feel like the world is going crazy and I don't know how to have a normal conversation anymore.

So I brought in one of the smartest people I know, Dr. Rubel Shelly, to help me figure it out.

He has his Master's and PhD from Vanderbilt. He's been a preacher for decades. And his view on how Christians should engage with politics is refreshing, clarifying, and honestly? A little challenging.

In this episode, we get into it.

Can Christians even be civil anymore? Should Christian principles become law? What's the difference between voting your values and Christian nationalism? Why did Constantine almost ruin Christianity? And what does it actually look like to love someone who votes the opposite of you?

Rubel walks us through Tim Keller's framework, two "red" priorities, two "blue" priorities, and the fifth one we keep forgetting: blessed are the peacemakers.

We talk about the early church dying for their faith. A young woman in Jerusalem choosing baptism knowing her family would kill her. Christians in India being told the law of Christ is higher than the law of the land. And the uncomfortable question I couldn't stop thinking about:

Are we just trying to make Christianity easy?

Because Jesus never made it easy. He told people to walk away from families, homes, and comfort to follow Him. It was never both/and. It was Jesus or nothing.

My biggest takeaway from this whole conversation:

My Christian beliefs matter more than the law of any land I could ever live in. It doesn't matter who's in Congress or in the Oval Office. Jesus is on the throne.

That has to be the guiding principle.

This one's long.
This one's good.
And this one might stretch you a little.

I'm Dr. Kimberly Beam Holmes. After a decade transforming marriages at Marriage Helper, I've realized that the greatest tragedy isn't a failed relationship; it's the person who stays stuck and never experiences the fullness of all God intended.

The Way You Show Up is for the high-achiever who is tired of "fine."

We're dismantling the average life to build an exceptional one—using the science of the PIES: Physical, Intellectual, Emotional, and Spiritual health.

If you want to save your marriage, go to Marriage Helper. If you want to master yourself and lead your legacy, stay here.

New episodes every Tuesday.

Don't just exist. Show up.

🔗 Website: https://kimberlybeamholmes.com

🎥YouTube https://youtube.com/@kimberlybeamholmes

📱 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kimberlybeamholmes

👀 TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kimberlybeamholmes

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_00 (01:28):
One of the things that I am seeing becoming
increasingly and increasinglyharder for me in my life is
being able to speak with peoplewho have different political
opinions than I do.
I'm just gonna be straight upabout it.
Sometimes I feel like people aregoing crazy and I don't know how
to talk to them in a civilmanner.

(01:49):
So today's discussion is reallymore for me and you all get to
sit in on it.
But today I'm speaking with Dr.
Ruble Shelley.
He is one of the most smartest,most smartest people I know.
He is one of the smartest peopleI know, and he has his master's,
he also has his PhD fromVanderbilt University, I believe

(02:10):
it's in Divinity.
He's been a preacher for decadesupon decades of his life, and he
has an amazing view that I havefound to be refreshing and
honestly, if I'm being honest,challenging at times about how
we can be Christians and alsoengage with politics.

(02:31):
My favorite part about the wholeconversation, you'll hear at the
very end.
Let's dive in to today'sepisode.
Ruble, on topics where wedisagree with things, especially
politically fueled things.
How do you think we asChristians should respond?

(02:53):
Or should we?
Should we stay silent?

SPEAKER_01 (02:55):
Oh the old saw that you can't mix religion and
politics, that doesn't work.
Um Christian teaching says thatyour faith has to affect every
arena of your life.
Uh your family, the way you dobusiness, uh, the way you make

(03:15):
decisions and choices inpolitics.
So I don't think the answer isum stay hands off and just say
politics and religion, theydon't mix.
They have to.
Um Paul says, what, whether youeat or drink or whatever you do,
do it all to the glory of God.
1 Corinthians 10 31.

(03:36):
Um politics is one of the thingswe do.
So how do we have uh differentopinions and still behave
Christianly?
I hate to think we're elevatingthe level of discourse by
introducing this word, but wecould at least be civil.
Um not all people think alike.

(03:58):
And that's a revelation for someof us, I think, that if somebody
sees a thing differently than Ido, either they're not as smart
as I am, or number two, they'renot as honest as I am.
There are a lot of factors thatmake us think the way we think
about any subject, religion, howto do family or politics.

(04:22):
And I like the division that TimKeller um outlined, the late Tim
Keller.
He said, look, there's a widerange of things about which
scripture is very clear.
For example, uh respect for lifeand the protection of life, um,

(04:42):
moral codes, especially aroundum appropriate sexual behaviors.
Taking care of the weak.
Uh, pure religion is to takecare of the widows and the
orphans, James says.
And then forming a multi-ethniccommunity that's respectful.
Paul says in Christ, there isn'tJew or Gentile, there isn't male

(05:05):
or female, there's not slave orfree.
Well, those are four categoriesthat Keller lists appropriately
out of the New Testament.
And he said two of those soundvery red, very Republican.
Yeah, concerned about protectionlife, uh protecting life,
abortion, infanticide, concernedabout um moral issues,

(05:27):
especially around sexuality,same-sex marriage, things like
that.
But those other two sound veryblue, um, forming a multi-ethnic
community, uh, being concernedabout human rights, civil
rights, um, migrants,immigrants, uh, people who speak
other languages who are in thiscountry.

(05:49):
Um the issue here is not whetherthey're in legally or illegally.
There are a lot of people whoare in here legally, came
legally, who are now beingdeported rather abruptly and
cruelly.
And then the matter of justtaking care of the poor, the
widows and the orphans, which isa Hebraism for the people who
are most vulnerable among you.

(06:10):
Well, those two sound blue, andthose are priority issues for
blue candidates.
Keller makes the point.
There was a fifth thing, though,in the New Testament, and that
was blessed are the peacemakers.
And we need somehow to realizeChristians have to choose not

(06:32):
between two red issues and twoblue issues, and continue to
polarize themselves in ourchurches and in the culture, but
we have to integrate that fifthelement in.
The New Testament did not haveChristians going out beating up

(06:52):
on people who weren't doingenough, in their opinion, to
take care of the poor, orbeating up on people that they
believed were in violation ofcertain moral codes.
Um you don't take violence intoyour own hands.
You don't you don't go out andimpose by criminal civil law and
penalty the distinctives ofChristian morality.

(07:16):
Um you live them and you modelthem, and you hope that other
people catch on to it.
So I think Keller was ontosomething there that that we've
missed.
And and right now we're sopolarized.
Um on the red side, yeah.
We we want um conservativejudges and politicians who will

(07:37):
oppose abortion and infanticideand who will say that that
marriage should be one male, onefemale in monogamous
relationships.
I believe that.
I argue for that in books I'vewritten.
That and yet others say, butwait a minute, there are so many
people who their their childrengo to bed hungry at night, and

(07:59):
there are people who whosechildren are not uh given the
opportunity for an education,there are people who are not
making a living wage.
Uh do we not have to beconcerned about the poor and the
sick and the needy, and uh thosewho are the most vulnerable
among us?
And shouldn't we care aboutpeople who want to come into

(08:21):
this country, say, to avoidcriminal cartels or avoid
persecution for their religiousfaith out of a an extremist
Muslim country or something?
Can't we have some legitimateway rather than simply we're
gonna close the borders down?
Um those four ideas are notmutually incompatible.

(08:45):
And there are times that we havedone better trying to do all of
them simultaneously, even if oneor two of them were given
priority by an administration orour leader or by a cultural
movement.
So the idea that we are sopolarized as we are now that we
can't even talk about it withcivility.

(09:07):
That's a more fundamentalproblem than maybe any one of
those issues, and it it um sortof closes off the option of that
fifth item, which is blessed arethe peacemakers.
Um you can have a primaryconcern, say, for um children.
I can have a primary concern forcertain ethical issues that are

(09:30):
current.
But we should be able to talkabout that, respect each other's
points of view, learn from eachother, and again, not to elevate
from Christian morality, becivil.
Civility should be basic to ourhumanity.
Civility is nothing more norless than love your neighbors,

(09:51):
you love yourself.
Believe that person is as smartas you are, as concerned as you
are, um, as decent as you are intrying to do what's right and
treat them the way you'd like tobe treated.
In other words, they'd like tobe heard, listen to their point
of view.

SPEAKER_00 (10:11):
Do you believe it's ethical to put Christian
principles into the laws of thecountry?

SPEAKER_01 (10:19):
Yes and no.
Uh and and that's not an evasiveanswer.
It it's an answer I think I canclarify.
There are certain things thatare part of just civility,
decency, I would even call itintuitive morality.
That not only do Christiansbelieve these things, but people
of good will who are atheistsbelieve these things.

(10:41):
Such as such as murder.

SPEAKER_04 (10:43):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (10:44):
Murder is wrong.
Yeah.
One of the Ten Commandments isdon't murder.
You didn't have to buy have tohave a Bible, and you didn't
have to have the TenCommandments posted somewhere to
know murder's wrong.
Uh private property.
Uh, if you drive a nice car andI drive a clunker, well, I'm
gonna take yours because I likeyours better.
No, stealing is wrong.
You don't have to be a Christianto know that.

(11:06):
Um atheists argue that from justthe matter of mutual respect
within a compact.
We we talk about the UnitedStates being a compact
government that we we form it byprotecting each other's mutual
interests.
Private property is a mutualinterest.
You don't have to be a Christianto believe you shall not murder,

(11:29):
you shall not steal, um, youkeep your promises.
Okay, so those things are inwhat we call common law, civil
law, in countries that are notChristian countries that that
are that have atheisticgovernments.
Now, there are some elements ofmorality that are distinctly
Christian.

(11:50):
I don't think we have the rightto put those into law, um, even
if Christians are the majorityin a country, um, which probably
is no longer the case in theUnited States anyway.
Um, Paul says, look, we don'thave the right to judge
outsiders, but we do have tohold Christians accountable to

(12:14):
these distinctives of Christianmorality, case in point.
Um a 17-year-old boy and a16-year-old girl having sex in
the backseat of the car afterthe football game on Friday
night.
That's immoral.
Um as a Christian, I believeit's wrong.
I teach against that.

(12:34):
That's to use the biblical word,that's fornication.
Should they be put in prison?
Should there be should there bea civil law, um, or well, in
this case a criminal law,saying, okay, because they broke
a moral commandment of theChristian faith, uh, we need to
put him in jail for three yearsand her in jail for either two

(12:59):
or four, you know, depending onhow patriarchal the culture is.
Um married people having anaffair is wrong.
Um should every person who'sever been guilty of a marital
affair be criminalized, broughtinto a court?
Uh, of course, in the earlydays, uh, in the Puritan days of

(13:21):
the United States, they triedthat sort of thing.
And there'd be a trial, andsomebody might be put in the
stocks to be humiliated.
We we we got past that.
Christians believe that's wrong.
Christians teach against it,Christians oppose it.
And the one that's the hottestissue in our culture right now
is uh homosexuality.

(13:41):
Um I have friends who are gay.
Uh I don't endorse theirlifestyle.
I can't.
I'm a Christian.
I believe scripture.
Scripture's quite clear aboutthat.
That's not a vague issue.
But should someone who is gaybe, by definition, criminalized
for being gay, fined, punished,put in jail?

(14:06):
Um the distinctives of Christianmorality should not be written
into public law, because publiclaw is supposed to protect the
rights of everybody, even thepeople who don't believe that
they are bound by Christianmorality.

So the yes and no answer is: should Christian principles be (14:21):
undefined
written into law?
Some should, the ones that arecommon to people who are both
Christian and non-Christian, butthat we understand you can't
have a civil society withoutthis.
Murder has to be criminalized.
Stealing has to be criminalized.
Those have to do with protectinglife, property, and the common

(14:45):
good.
There are any number ofdistinctives to Christian
morality about same-sexrelationships, about using God's
name in vain.
To write those as criminaloffenses not only does not
respect the common life of thecommunity, where a significant

(15:07):
portion are not Christian, andthey do not hold those to be
morally objectionable or wrongthings.
And for me to be able to imposethat, okay, I take the next
step.
If you don't go to church,you're criminal.
If you don't give money to mychurch, you're criminal.
If you don't support amissionary, where does this stop

(15:29):
when you begin to write?
And the key term here is thedistinctives of Christian
morality.
There is a core of moralprecepts that sociologists,
historians have found to be inevery culture that we've ever
found in the world, including inthe deep dark Amazon.

(15:51):
And these core ones have to doprincipally with life and
property.
No culture has ever been foundthat said, okay, murder is a
good thing.
No culture has been found thatsaid nobody should have a right
to private property.
And anybody should be permittedto steal anything I have that

(16:12):
they want and harm me if it wasnecessary to take it.
There's nothing distinctive tobiblical morality about these
protection of common rights andgoods, the things that are
distinctive to Christianmorality, and that's Paul, 1
Corinthians 8, I think, verse 5.
I'm doing this from memory.
But uh Paul says, look, it's notthe responsibility or right of

(16:36):
the church to judge outsiders,non-church members,
non-Christians.
But he said, we do have toenforce these things, teach
these things, and hold peopleaccountable to these things
within the community of faith.
I think Paul's position wasreasonable, and I think it's the
position position we ought totake today.

SPEAKER_00 (16:57):
So how would that actually look?
Because I I do believe that manypeople think and feel that their
vote is them trying to live outtheir Christianity.
And so they try to vote for thethings that they believe they
should do or that should not bedone.
And they don't want to see theplace that they live go.

(17:19):
I think a lot of people have afear of it's gonna go the
opposite way, not that you willbe called a criminal if you
don't go to church, but you willbe seen as criminal if you do
go, or we're gonna have ourreligious freedoms taken away
from us, right?
So what about those who believeno, this is how I live out my

(17:40):
church.

SPEAKER_01 (17:40):
Okay, two things about that.
That's the way the churchstarted.
Uh you were criminalized if youwould not confess Caesar is
Lord.
And by the time the NewTestament closes and the book of
Revelation is being read, theBook of Revelation is not about
the so-called end times ofwhat's happening in the world

(18:01):
today.
The book of Revelation is aboutthe conflict between the
oppressive Roman Empire that wasbeginning to want to stamp out
Christianity and Christians whowere being urged to be faithful,
even if they had to die fortheir faith under this kind of
oppression.
In fact, that's the exactstatement from Revelation 2.7 be

(18:25):
faithful even to death if youhave to.
Well, it got even worse in thesecond and third centuries.
And in the second and thirdcenturies, Christians were
literally run through with asword, they were beheaded, they
were burned at the stake if theywould not confess Caesar is

(18:47):
Lord.
Well, Paul says, now to theworld there are God's many and
lords many, but to us there'sone God and one Lord, and his
name is Jesus Christ.
Christians died because it wascriminal not to confess Caesar
as the one person above all towhom you must give allegiance

(19:07):
and obedience.
Christians, I'm sure someChristians caved, but many
Christians died saying, I can'tconfess that.
There's the famous story of abishop, an elder of the church
in Smyrna named Polycarp, who isbeing threatened with that very
thing in the very early secondcentury, 115, 120, something

(19:31):
like that.
And um he's called into thepublic courtyard by the Roman
official, and because he hasbeen the leader of the
Christians, and they've theyhave followed him and his
declaration of loyalty not toCaesar but to Jesus.
It's not that I want to bedisloyal to Caesar, I'll pay my

(19:52):
taxes, but I will not confesshim as Lord.
Jesus is Lord.
They literally had him tied atthe stake, and they had the wood
around him, and the Romanofficial said, I'm giving you
one last chance.
You must curse this Jesus andconfess that Caesar is Lord, or
I will have a soldier torch thiswood and you will die at the

(20:14):
stake.
And the answer that he gave was,For eighty-six years I have
served the Lord Jesus, and hehas done me no harm.
How can I blaspheme his name anddeny him in this moment of
testing?
And he died.
And died horribly.
Well, Christians were literallythrown to the lions.

(20:36):
They were forced to face wildbeats.
So that's the first answer Iwould give.
Do we conceive the possibilitythat even in our lifetimes, and
by the way, in some countriesit's already that way, in Saudi
Arabia it's criminal to be aChristian.
It's not in the United States.
Suppose it were to becomecriminal in the United States to

(20:58):
be a Christian.
We'd be right back where thechurch was when the church was
established.
You're a minority culture, youhave no influence at the centers
of power, you're at the marginsof power.
And if the people at the centerdecide you are a threat to them
because your loyalty is notultimately to the state or the
leader of the state, theemperor, you become subject to

(21:21):
persecution, you lose your civilrights, your property can be
confiscated eventually, youcould even be killed.
If that were to happen, that'dput us right back where the
early Christians were.
During the time, really, whenfaith was probably at its purest
and the church grew the fastestthat it ever has in history.
Because this representedsomething real and authentic and

(21:44):
principled, and it called peopleto an allegiance that mattered.
Okay, now to the second part ofyour question, which is where
you started, and a goodquestion.
What about Christian people whogo to the polls to vote for
candidates that they believewill uphold their rights to
religious faith, who willsupport positions that are more

(22:10):
aligned with their principles.
That's what they should do.
But that's very different fromthis phenomenon that has emerged
called Christian nationalism.
Christian nationalism is not,and this is what I think
Christians have always done, wedecide who to vote for based on,
oh, I think I think they woulddo what's fair.

(22:32):
I think they would do what'sright, they would be decent.
Um they used to even say theymight even model decency.
That's maybe, I'm sorry to be socynical.
That that maybe is maybe is notpart of the uh of the
expectation today.
But sure, uh I I vote when Ivote.
There have been some times of uhin recent elections, I I felt it

(22:54):
was not a matter of the betterof two, and not even which is
less bad.
It was just a matter, I don'tsee anyone here that represents
the point of view that I thinkneeds to be upheld in the public
venue.
So on the assumption that all ofus try to make our decisions

(23:17):
about the doctors we go to.
Um if if one of our childrenneeds therapy for a traumatized
somebody who whose principlesalign with ours.
We should do that with ourpoliticians too.
But the notion that the churchshould become a voting block for

(23:38):
one party or the other, or thata church should be able to
deliver its votes through thepastor's influence to choose
whom to vote for.
Or let's suppose we get asupermajority, not just in a
cabinet, but in the Congress,that could write the

(24:00):
distinctives of Christianmorality into law and could say
not only that atheism is, frommy point of view as a Christian,
intellectually not sustainableand has potential moral
consequences that are negativeas opposed to the application of

(24:22):
Christian principles that arepositive.
Would it be right then foratheism to be criminalized?
There are some people who wantMuslims to be, by virtue of the
fact of their Muslim faith,barred from entering the United
States.
I have Muslim friends, some ofwhom are far more accommodating

(24:45):
to civil conversation with meabout Jesus than some Christians
who disagree about sometechnical point in theology.
So, yes, all of us, I wouldhope, would choose a candidate,
support a candidate, vote for acandidate that we believe best
holds to principles that wevalue as Christians.

(25:11):
But there's no perfect candidatethat either party has who
represents every view that Iwould like to be represented.
So very often I do find myselfvoting for not the perfect
versus the imperfect, but the60% versus the 40% agreement
that I can find.

(25:31):
And if sometimes I can only find20%, 20% agreement between two
candidates, I abstain becausethe other 80% probably represent
things in positions that areeither totalitarian and
disrespectful toward reasonablyalternative views, or some of
them in support of views that Ibelieve are simply wrong, not

(25:55):
necessarily criminal, but notmoral with regards, say, to any
number of issues that aredistinctive to Christian faith.
So that's a yes and no answer.
Should Christians decide who tovote for based on their
principles?
Yes, in terms of the things thatpromote the common good,
realizing that people are partof the common good who are not

(26:19):
Christian.
And Christian responsibilitysays, love your neighbor.
Paul says, and this is Galatians6.10, as we have opportunity to
do good to everybody, especiallyto those of the household of
faith.
So I would want to live in acivil culture where there are
laws that, yes, respect myrights as a believer, but

(26:44):
respect the rights of the personwho's an unbeliever.
Or if I'm Protestant and he'sCatholic, respects his or her
right to be Catholic as opposedto Protestant, or even to be
Christian as opposed to Buddhistor Muslim.
We've called this classicpolitical liberalism, and by

(27:05):
liberal in that sense, we simplymean there's a wide range of
viewpoint allowed in thisculture, and we will be civil
and respectful of one another'srights to hold distinctive
views.
And we may try to persuade,should try to persuade by
intellectual argument andconversation, but we will not

(27:28):
attempt to coerce people to apoint of view that we may have.
Christian nationalism goes waydown the road of trying to be
coercive with the principles andteachings of the Christian faith
on people who are not Christian,not because they're bad people,

(27:50):
but because they have differentpoints of view, different
backgrounds, they've grown up indifferent cultures, and to try
to coerce them is the sort ofthing that, let's jump forward
now in that early Christianhistory.
Christians died in the secondand third century because they
wouldn't confess Caesar as Lord.
In 313, there was a Romanemperor named Constantine, who

(28:14):
was the first nominallyChristian emperor of the empire.
And within about a dozen years,Constantine used his position as
emperor to make Christianity notonly legal, he did that in 313.
Christianity had been illegaland you could be persecuted just

(28:36):
for holding these views.
Christianity essentially becamethe mandated faith of everyone
in the empire.
And people were baptized at thepoint of a sword, and people
attended church and paid taxesto the church under mandate from
the government.
Christian nationalism is only aslightly toned-down version of

(28:59):
this, that civil power is usedto enforce Christian principles,
Christian doctrine, andChristian engagement.
That's wrong.
It was wrong when Constantinedid it.
It produced what we call theDark Ages, where power was used
by people who had had no power.

(29:21):
Once they got it, they abusedit.
And they abused it to try toforce unbelievers to accept
faith, and the church went intotremendous decline.
Because if in the second andthird centuries to be a
Christian meant I may be puttingmy life on the line, trust me,
you became a Christian out ofconviction.
After Constantine, in the latefourth, into the fifth and sixth

(29:44):
centuries, you become aChristian because if I'm not a
Christian, I can't sell my goodsin the market.
I can't have a civil service jobwith a government.
I can't live in relationship tomy neighbors around me without
being threatened by them if Idon't endorse their faith.
I don't want to live in thatkind of a world.
And to think about how unfairthat is, think about the

(30:08):
occasional Christian, and I'vehad friends who've done this,
they work for multinationalcompanies.
And so here's a devoutChristian, and he goes to work
for six, nine, twelve months inSaudi Arabia, where it's
criminal to be a Christian.
He can't be seen carrying aBible in public.
If he has a conversation withsomeone about Jesus, an

(30:29):
evangelistic conversation, justa conversation, doesn't even
have to be evangelistic until hecan go to jail because he has
represented this false faith ina country where the Muslim faith
controls civil rights under law.
I don't want America to be thereverse of that, to where people

(30:51):
who don't believe what Ibelieve, or it's a Christian who
holds a different view on somedoctrine than I hold, that
either a Muslim or I could beput in jail because I don't hew
the line as to this person'stake on doctrine X.
So Christians should supportthings that are aligned with our

(31:15):
values that serve the commongood.
We should not attempt to becoercive with our faith and to
use the law either to write thedistinctives of Christian
morality into civil and criminallaw, or to create a culture
where people who are notChristian are neither welcomed

(31:39):
nor treated with the respect anddignity that the Bible says
every human being is to beshown.

SPEAKER_00 (31:46):
That friend, I don't know if this was a real example
that actually happened, oryou're just giving an example,
but let either way, someone's inSaudi Arabia, a friend, they are
a Christian.
Do you think they should tellother people about Jesus?

SPEAKER_01 (31:58):
When and where they can.
Yeah.
Um I have been in countrieswhere distributing Bibles was
illegal, and I had some Bibleswith me and I shared them.
Um I did it in very privatesettings.

SPEAKER_04 (32:12):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (32:13):
Um I I ran whatever minimal risk was involved in
doing that.
Um I I traveled some in the oldSoviet Union, uh, where atheism
was an official position of thestate, and where um, at least in
some places, Bible distributionwas not only discouraged and

(32:35):
could get you into trouble, itwas probably illegal in some
settings.
Um yeah, the the Christian whogoes to Saudi Arabia or certain
places in Egypt needs to be whohe or she is in that setting.
And if someone asks me what Ibelieve, I'm not going to lie
and say, well, you know, I'm Ibelieve in Allah.

(32:56):
I'm going to say, well, I'm aChristian.
Um I believe in the God of theBible who has become personal in
Jesus Christ and who um is thefigure of history to whom I
pledge my allegiance as Lord,Savior.
So, yeah.
Is there risk in that?

(33:17):
There's risk in it that weshould be willing to embrace.
But sure.
Yeah.
The extreme of that, I suppose,would say, well, in countries
where they do that, we should goin and and have regime change,
and because we have the power,throw them out and put a
Christian.
No, we could that's criminalunder international law, which

(33:42):
has largely been formed out of aJudeo-Christian base.
Um Judaism did not require thateveryone Jews came into contact
with when they were the covenantpeople, chosen people of God.
The demand of Judaism was not goout and coerce Gentiles to be

(34:04):
Jews.
Now they had provisions forproselyticking, even in the
Bible.
You have a woman like Rahab, oryou have a woman like Ruth.
Ruth was a Moabite.
And in the Old Testament, forseven generations, Moabites are
not to be into the assembly inthe assembly of the Lord.
But when she embraced the faithof her mother-in-law and said,

(34:25):
Where you go, I'll go, where youlodge, I'll lodge.
Your God will be my God and yourpeople my people.
That's a that's a conversionstatement.
She was welcomed into thecommunity of Israel.
Oh, and by the way, both Rahaband Ruth are in the lineage of
Jesus of Nazareth.
So it's one thing to say, yes,Judaism was a distinct Yahwistic

(34:51):
faith, but it was never giventhe mandate.
Go out and coerce others to beJews.
Um, they had provisions forembracing people into their
community if they chose to enterit.
Christians are in very much thesame role, even though
Christians are not an ethnicgroup.

(35:13):
In fact, Paul in Galatians 6calls the church the new Israel
that embraces both Jew andGentile.
The New Testament does not sayGod doesn't love the Jews
anymore, he's through with theJews.
God says no, in Christ,everything that was promised to
Abraham and his descendants iscoming to fruition in Jesus.
And Israel now is not a geneticor ethnic posture, it is a faith

(35:40):
posture.
And all those who have faithlike Abraham, whether they're
Jew or Gentile, ethnically,racially, they're part of the
new Israel of God.
So let's get clear about that atthe start.
But no more than Judaism thatwas supposed to be light to the
pagans and show them the path toGod, they were not to coerce

(36:02):
people to embrace Torah or toconfess Yahweh.
Christians are in the sameposition.
We're not an ethnic or racialgroup, we're a faith community,
and it is not our responsibilityto coerce anyone to join, become
part of, accede to our faithcommitments because we have

(36:26):
power of any sort, whether it'seconomic, military, whatever, we
are to be like Judaism was.
We are to be a community thatmodels faith and is Jesus picked
up the language of Isaiah aboutwhat the Jews were supposed to
be doing.
Be lights to the world, be saltin the earth.

(36:50):
And if others see that and theywant to know why is this
happening, there's your openingto talk about Jesus.
Oh, yes, be evangelistic, dowhat you can in print, in
preaching, in podcasts,whatever, to advocate your
faith.
But don't ever, ever try tocoerce someone to faith, because

(37:13):
if it's coerced, it's not faith.
Faith is a choice based onconviction.
And at the tip of a sword orwith a gun at my head, um things
might come off my lips that arenot convictions, uh, and that
would be the worst thing of all.
If someone, and this is whatbegan happening

(37:34):
post-Constantine, they becameChristians because it just paid
off.
And I was more social settingswere open to me if I'm
Christian.
They're closed to me if I'm not,if I'm still pagan.
So yeah, I'm I'm a Jesus person.
They didn't know who Jesus was.
Their lifestyle didn't reflectJesus, they were, but they
wanted to sign up because it hadadvantage.

(37:58):
Um, Christianity, let's go backto what I said about the
earliest Christians.
They were not at the center ofpower, they were at the margins.
That's where Christianity worksbest.
Christianity doesn't need to beat the center of power because
what do we say generally aboutpower?
It corrupts.
What does absolute power do?
Corrupts you.
Absolutely.
The more power Christians get atthe center, the more Christian

(38:21):
the more tempted Christians are.
Constantine is our first casestudy, and there are lots of
others contemporary to our owntime.
The more power Christians have,the more hateful we can be.
Because we can be heavy-handedand we can exclude people that
have a right to be included inthe conversation.

(38:42):
That doesn't mean we have to saytheir point of view is correct.
Dialogue, confrontation, debate,exchange, that's good.
But suppose they then get at thecenter of power and they coerce
me to give up my faith.
Well, the issue here shouldnever be power, it should be
conviction.

(39:02):
Christians operate best at themargins.
Christianity grew its fastest,and Christianity made its most
dramatic impact on the worldwhen faith was pure because
Christians were at the margin,and if you embrace this, it must
be because you really think itmatters.

(39:25):
I think there are a lot ofthings that pass as Christians
today, or as Christian today,with a fish symbol or a cross on
it, that don't look veryChristian in terms of the way
people are treated by the folkswith those emblems.
Um, churches, pastors,evangelists.
Think about the scandals aroundpriests and Protestant

(39:50):
televangelists who, for greed,for exploitation, for sexual
advantage hurt other people.
Is that Christian?
No.
And it should be prosecutedunder the full weight of civil
and criminal law, which is notdistinctly Christian, but which
Christians should support.
Nobody should get a pass becausethey did this in the name of

(40:11):
Jesus.
In fact, in the name of Jesus,things that sometimes get a pass
should be repudiated.
But the opposite of that doesnot say, okay, Christians need
to be in power where we candecide who should have those
positions, who can use thosepositions, who can be treated
with respect and dignity.

(40:32):
If you go back to the openingpage of the Bible, God creates
humans, male and female, in hisown image and likeness.
And the first responsibility, itseems to me, is for me to
recognize the image and likenessof God in you and to respect you
for your dignity and worthbefore God, and to have the

(40:53):
right to expect the same thingof you when you see me or when
we see a third party, even ifthat third party has a different
skin color.
They don't speak our language.
They don't embrace faith of anysort, or they embrace a faith
that's antithetical to the one Iembrace.
Still a person created in theimage and likeness of God and

(41:13):
deserves to be treated withdignity that respects the image
and likeness of God that is inthat person.

SPEAKER_00 (41:20):
How do you rectify the complete I can't think of I
can't think I'm pro I'm stillprocessing everything you're
saying.
And also the Old Testament, whenthe Israelites would go and just
annihilate groups of people.
How do you rectify that withthis?

SPEAKER_01 (41:42):
The Israelites did not go and annihilate groups of
people.
One of the most commonmisunderstandings and
misrepresentations of thepossession of Canaan by the
Israelites, used by skeptics andunbelievers, is to say God
authorized ethnic cleansing,mass killings, annihilation of

(42:04):
whole populations.
The requirement in Deuteronomyis when Moses is telling the
people you're about to go intothe land, and Moses knows he's
not going with them, he'll die,the leadership is being passed
to Joshua.
The requirement is when you goup against any group, any city,
any fortified town in Canaan,this land was not simply being

(42:29):
possessed because the Jewsneeded territory.
The Canaanites have been given300 years to repent of their
gross conduct, including,principally including, I think,
child sacrifice, very commonamong the Canaanite religions,
and what I would call the mostperverse forms of sexuality,

(42:50):
incest and rape.
Leviticus 17 and 18 talk aboutthe sins of the Canaanites, and
Moses tells them, when you gointo their land, you can't do
the kinds of things they've beendoing, or God will do to you
what he's about to do to them.
When the Israelites went in,they were going in really to be

(43:12):
the avenging arm of God againstpeople who would not repent of
those evils.
They'd been given 300 years todo so.
And when they approached any ofthese cities, Moses required,
the Lord required through Moses,before any attack is mounted,

(43:32):
you must give them the option ofpeace.
And if they sue for peace, or ifa part of their citizenry sues
for peace, you cannot wage waragainst them.
But if they are people who, indefiance, uh, not necessarily of
Yahweh, the God of Israel, butin defiance of child sacrifice,

(43:54):
um, incest, rape, the rape as aninstrument of war was very
common in defeat enemies, uh,the anal rape of a male who fell
in combat.
It was a social setting that'sobscene even by the most
liberal-minded of people today.

(44:15):
They are given the option, ifyou sue for peace and say, we
realize those things are wrong,you can't attack these people.
For those who say they willmaintain their culture's
posture, those are the ones youmake war against.
And then you have thesehyperbolic statements, and most
of them are hyperbolic inJoshua, that they slew

(44:39):
everything that had breath in itin this village or in this city
or in this ethnic group, theAmorites or the Jebusites.
Two chapters later, theJebusites are working.
Wait a minute.
If you slew all of them, how arethe Jebusites still interacting
with Israel here?
Those who sued for peace areallowed to live.

(45:01):
The ones who were slain were theones.
So, so a complex answer to astraightforward question.
Did the armies of Israel go inas the avenging wrath of God
against the Canaanites?
Yes, they did.
But not for what we think of asethnic cleansing or the

(45:23):
annihilation of an entirepopulation.
The law required, number one.
One, if they sue for peace, youcan't attack those people, set
them aside.
All of these cultures, theylive, even the people in
Jerusalem.
There were people who sued forpeace in Jerusalem when the
Israelites came up against thatand it was still a Canaanite

(45:44):
city.
Later, they live in Jerusalemalong with the Jews now who've
come in to settle it.
So the hyperbolic language aboutdestroying everything that
breathed, every human thatbreathed, yes, for the warriors,
for the ones who set themselvesin defense of the culture that

(46:07):
the Lord said, This is so eviland odious, the very culture
itself has to be dismantled.
The people who sued for peacewere given peace.
Now, interestingly, in the bookof Judges, which follows
immediately in the canon of theOld Testament, some of the
people who were spared, turnedout they probably sued for peace

(46:30):
under false pretenses.
And the judges have to deal withpockets of people who seduced
the Israelites to worship theCanaanite gods, the Baals and
the Ashiras, and who stillpractice, and especially some of
the sexual sins of theCanaanites.
Apparently the Jewish peoplewere susceptible to our

(46:54):
equivalent of pornography andbrothels.
They were susceptible to sexualtemptation too.
And so it created problems.
But I suppose there are alwaysproblems in any culture.
And if every inhabitant of theland had been Jewish, there
still would have been sins to bedealt with.
So annihilation, ethniccleansing is not what God did

(47:18):
with the Canaanites.
Those who were persistent anddefiant about their evil ways,
they fought and made war againstthem.
The Lord gave victory.
The people who sued for peace,they were spared.
Many others, you find out laterin Joshua, they simply moved to
other territories because peoplewere coming in now that they

(47:41):
could not withstand even if theywanted to.
And so some of the people whosued for peace left and lived
elsewhere.
Others stayed, some of them wereassimilated by the Jews, like
Rahab, like Ruth.
And others perhaps reverted totheir old ways and seduced some
of the Israelites into it aswell.

SPEAKER_00 (48:02):
I'm thinking about some friends I have in India
that live in a very West Bengalarea where they are slowly but
surely making it illegal to getbaptized.
And how these people, when theycome to faith, the the pastors

(48:26):
are saying, like, you have to bewilling to die to follow Jesus.
Be willing because they'resupposed to get something filled
out, submit it to thegovernment, have the government
approve it.
Well, the government's nevergoing to approve that.
Not going to approve it.
But these people are doing itbecause the law of Christianity,

(48:46):
like our our like the Bible,what we believe, is higher to
them than the law of their land.
It it seems like the more we'vebeen talking today, a lot a lot
of the issues which many of themare complex and nuanced, but

(49:07):
we're wanting it to be easy forus to be Christians.

SPEAKER_01 (49:10):
Yeah.
I can give you a specific casestudy similar to yours.
Um I preached in Jerusalem in amessianic congregation.

(49:30):
There are Christians, of course,in Israel.
There are Muslims in Israel.
But there were probably 200people in the room.
In fact, it was a Sunday.
Um a friend of mine and I werethere as guests, and we were
both asked to speak.
And at the end of the service, ayoung lady, I would say 20, 22
years old, presented herself andwanted to be baptized.

(49:53):
Now it's not illegal in Israelfor Christians to baptize
converts.
But she explained her situationto the group, including these
two Americans who were therewith them.
She had begun learning aboutJesus from some of the people in
this messianic congregation whoattended college where she was.

(50:16):
They socially got to know eachother as friends, found out
she's Muslim, they'reChristians, they have
conversations.
She begins reading the NewTestament.
Her father and brother andmother learn that she's been
having conversations withChristians when they find a

(50:37):
Bible, it may have only been aNew Testament, I'm not sure, but
at least Christian literature inher possession, in her backpack
at home.
They beat her to within an inchof her life.
She had to be hospitalized andrecovered.
And they told her, if we learnthat you have ever been in
conversation with these peopleagain, if you ever let us find

(51:05):
you with Christian literature inyour possession again, you'll
get worse than you got thistime.
And specifically, if you wereever to be baptized, which in
any culture, that's that's adividing line.
Yeah, that that's where that'san entrance right into the
Christian faith.
If you were ever to be baptized,we will kill you.

(51:26):
Honor killing, it's called inthose cultures.
Some in India and Muslimcountries, other places.
She was there that day and shetold that story and was bawling
as she told the story.
And she ended by saying, I havecome to believe in Jesus, and I

(51:49):
am here today to be baptized.
I do this knowing that I willnever again see my mother or my
father or my brother, and thatif I have any family, it will
be, and she pointed to thegroup, it will have to be you
who are my brothers and sistersin Christ.

(52:10):
Um I I don't I don't understandthat.
I I I never had to make thatkind of a choice.
I I grew up in a godly Christianhome.
I mean, my baptism wascelebrated.
I I it was I was neverthreatened.
She accepted Christ andspecifically was baptized, not
because it was criminal, butbecause in the context and

(52:33):
culture of her family, theywould be duty-bound to an honor
killing.
Um she's so far as I know, she'sstill a Christian and still
alive, but with theunderstanding from that day
forward, she had to hide fromher family and she had to be
protected from them becausetheir commitment was.

(52:55):
Our understanding of our faithmeans we have to kill you if you
accept Jesus.
So, yeah, uh, whether it's yourfriends in India or this
anecdotal case where I, I mean,it was not my sermon or Max's
that convinced her that day sheneeded to be a Christian.
She'd been reading with someyoung people uh in that church.

(53:16):
But she made a sacrifice thatday that while I respect,
admire, uh I don't understandbecause I I've never been under
that kind of coercion.
Nobody's ever had a gun at myhead and said, if you say Jesus
is Lord, I'll blow your brainsout.
Um, you know, maybe I could say,okay, it's small, take a shot,

(53:36):
maybe you'll miss.
But uh uh in in seriousness, youhave to say, I suppose nobody
knows until they're in thatsituation exactly what they
would do or how brave or howcowardly they would be.
But I know how brave she wasthat day.

SPEAKER_03 (53:51):
That's right.

SPEAKER_01 (53:52):
And she said, um, Jesus means more to me than my
life.
I think he does to me.
But I've never been put in thesituation where it was literally
a choice between accepting Jesusand having my my family
basically issue a death warrantagainst me if I do that.

(54:13):
Early Christians understoodthat.
Today, I I I think your analysisis right.
We want faith to be easy.
We do not want Christianity orwhatever we embrace.
We don't want it to hurt, and wecertainly don't want us to put
uh want it to put us out of stepwith the larger group around us.

(54:36):
I want to be accepted.
Uh I'm I'm I want to becompliant enough that I can get
along and be friendly.
Well, some things you can't becompliant and you can't be
friendly.
Uh you have to take a standbased on what is principled and
right.
And when you do that, uh youknow it's genuine if in fact

(54:56):
there is a price to be paid.
And you serve notice not onlythat you're willing to pay it,
but I told the story earlier ofuh the the bishop who was burned
at the stake rather than denyfaith.
Um it's one thing to say, Ithink I could do that.
It's another thing to say you'restepping into a situation where

(55:18):
you might have to do that.
It's another thing to actuallytake that bold step.
Early Christians did, and umPolycarp died for it.
This girl may someday die forit.
Uh do I want things to change soradically in Western culture in
France and Europe and the UnitedStates that that we would go to

(55:41):
jail for being Christian?
I don't want that.
But is it conceivable that itcould happen?
Twenty years ago I'd have said,of course not.
Um I don't know.
Um there are places in the worldthat once were Christian, where
that now is the rule.
I I can't predict the future.

(56:01):
I simply know what faith issupposed to mean.
Uh be faithful even to the pointof dying for it, Jesus tells
these people at Ephesus.
Um, and I'll give you your crownof life.

SPEAKER_00 (56:15):
So But in the pursuit of us trying to keep the
the let's just say America,America, the either keep America
the way we want it or getAmerica the way we want it, we
are killing relationships withothers.

SPEAKER_01 (56:33):
Have you noticed?
Yeah.
The the the red-blue politicaldivide is so sharp.

SPEAKER_00 (56:40):
So sharp.

SPEAKER_01 (56:41):
That Thanksgiving meals not only are unpleasant in
some families, some people don'tshow up for them.
Christmas events, birthdays,weddings.
People leave churches.
I know.
People leave churches becausethey deem this church too red or
too blue.

(57:02):
And they choose their church noton the basis of Calvinism or
Arminianism or its views on umthe Trinity, but on the basis of
perceived political bias withinthe group.
Um my argument is we should nothave red and blue churches, we

(57:24):
should have purple churches.
I guess purple is what you getif you mix red and blue.
Um I'm a classic independent interms of always have been.
I've I've voted for Republicancandidates, Democratic
candidates.
The person that I believed, I'venever voted a straight ticket
that I could recall ever in anyelection.

(57:46):
This person, this person, thisperson, I think more nearly
would do what I think needs tobe done.
But the idea that within achurch, you would not be
welcomed if you could not vote ared ticket or a blue ticket is
it makes me wonder if it's achurch.

(58:07):
Because if in a church Paul saysthat there's neither male nor
female, Jew nor Greek, slave norfree, I wonder if he would not
have added uh right or left-wingpolitics.
People come to different pointsof view, even out of their
cultures.
Females probably are moreinclined to some of these issues

(58:29):
being priorities to them,protecting children, than men
might be about taxation uh bythis party or tax breaks.
People come to their politicalviews and the candidate they
think they want to support for avariety of reasons.
And even if I think you're deadwrong to support John Doe, and

(58:50):
I'm going to support Bill Brown,that shouldn't affect the fact
of what I am obligated to see inyou.
You're created in the image andlikeness of God, and for that
reason alone, you deserve to berespected and treated with
dignity.
And you have the same obligationto me.
And if I want that of you, oh,now we're into the Second

(59:11):
Commandment stuff and goldenrule stuff.
Treat others the way you'd wantto be treated.
Do unto others as you want.
Well, if if I hold a view thatyou happen to disagree with, do
I want you to be bludgeoning mefor my lack of intelligence, my
moral compromise, and my uhworthlessness as a human being,

(59:31):
people are doing that in thename of politics these days.
Name-calling starts at the topand drifts all the way down.
That somebody's just dumb,somebody's stupid, somebody
deserves the worst of possiblefates to disagree with me on or
to hold a view that's differentfrom the view I hold.

(59:51):
Having a deep conviction is onething, being passionate about a
belief is one thing, but beingso disrespectful to another
human being that if you disagreewith me, I can berate you, I can
um denigrate you to otherpeople, I can slander you, um,

(01:00:11):
and that in the name of Christ.
No, no, no, no, no.
Churches should be the one placewhere the ultimate loyalty is
never to any nation state, it'sto the kingdom of God.
And when Jesus is before Pilate,and Pilate wants to know, but
they're reporting that you sayyou're a king.
Jesus says, Well, uh I'm notgoing to deny being a king, but

(01:00:35):
what you don't understand, I'mnot the kind of king who's a
threat to Emperor Tiberius oreven to you, Governor Pilate.
My kingdom's not from this word.
My kingdom doesn't derive fromwhat you think of as kingdom.
I don't I'm not out for land.
I don't have any armies.
Um this is a kingdom ofrighteousness and joy and peace,

(01:00:58):
to use Paul's definition of whatthe kingdom of God is about.
And um we would serve Rome well.
I've already been teaching myfollowers.
Yeah, pay your taxes.
Uh, that that's that's yourresponsibility under the law.
Treat your neighbors well.
So Pilate, he didn't get it.
Um we ought to be smarter thanPilate.

(01:01:20):
Uh, and in our churches, weought to understand America is
not the kingdom of God.
America is not a Christiannation.
It never has been, it never willbe.
America is a contract ofcitizens formed with the pledge

(01:01:40):
and our founding documents torespect people of different
religious points of view or ofno religious point of view, and
they would be welcomed in thisculture and they would be
protected within this culture,and that the country itself, the
government, would never seek toestablish religion.

(01:02:03):
And that establishment principledoesn't mean that the government
would not be welcoming toreligion.
An establishment of religionmeans the government will
endorse the Baptist religion.
Everybody has to embrace that,or the Baptist religion gets
special favors that nobody elsecan get, or the Roman Catholic

(01:02:25):
or the Church of Christ, or thePresbyterians, or no, that there
will not be any establishedchurch.
There will be no favored church,nor will there be a disfavored
church.
Everyone will have the right tobe uh to have a place in the
culture.
Your beliefs may be different.
We will protect the rights ofall of you to hold your

(01:02:48):
distinctive beliefs, but alsoimplicit in that we're not going
to allow any one of you to cometo the front of the room and
take over the government andcoerce others to your point of
view.
One of the things, and boy, Ican get in trouble with this
one.
I've I've never favored umprayer in public schools as a

(01:03:11):
mandated part of school life.
Uh, because in a culture likeours, suppose I'm a Protestant
kid and there's a Catholicteacher, and the the prayer that
we're taught to pray is a prayerto Mary.
Well, that wouldn't go over wellwith Baptist Church of Christ
and Presbyterian people.
Well, what about the child inthe room?

(01:03:32):
And let's say there's only one.
How many need there be?
And out of 24, there's one orthree or five, and their parents
are atheists.
Do I feel sorry for thosechildren?
Do I hope those children willrun into Christians?
Yes.
But those one, three, or fiveparents should their child be

(01:03:55):
subjected to or coerced toprayer?
Well, suppose the teacher isMuslim and I'm Christian?
Should should I be so what'sfair for the goose is fair for
the gander, right?
If if we are going to haveanything resembling mandated
prayer in public schools, umthen who decides what kind of

(01:04:19):
prayer?
And um can we accommodate in amulti-ethnic culture the people
who are not not just Protestantand Catholic, but Muslim and
Christian or Jewish andBuddhist, whatever.
Well, the answer to that's no.

(01:04:39):
So what is the answer?
The answer is it was never theresponsibility of public schools
to inculcate faith anyway.
That's my job as a parent to ourthree children.
Uh that's my that's my wife'sjob.
That's our family's task.
That's why we support a church,that's why we are part of a
church, that's why we're activein that church's life.

(01:05:00):
That's why we take our kids tothat Sunday school.
This is education in the commonpublic arena.
This is the inculcation of faithgiven our commitments and what
we understand the Bible to beteaching us to do.
So we have so failed in maybebasic civics.

(01:05:25):
In the seventh grade, I wastaught this distinction between
church and state, uh, whichagain is in the founding
documents.
There will not be an establishedchurch in the United States as
there had been in Europe.
That had created all kinds ofproblems, nor, on the other
hand, will there be thedisallowing of a person to have
no faith at all.
We we will be the governmentwill have to be neutral on those

(01:05:48):
things.
Should be.
And Christians should not elbowthemselves into positions of
power to where once there theysay because we know this is
right, this is what we willrequire that everyone do.
From the standpoint of Christianfaith, one does not do right

(01:06:09):
because he or she has beencoerced.
One does right because I believethis, and based on my commitment
to following Christ, I will dothis.
Done as coercion, it's it's nota virtuous thing at all.
It's a concessive thing topower.

SPEAKER_00 (01:06:27):
So how would you recommend talking to when you
feel deeply convicted aboutsomething, about an issue, and
someone you love disagrees withyou?
How would you recommend handlingthat conversation with truth and
grace?

SPEAKER_01 (01:06:42):
Aaron Ross Powell The way you and I have had this
conversation, uh, with moderatedtones, with um both speaking and
listening, with saying, hmm, Iget that, or hmm, I'd never
thought about that.
Um let me have some time tothink about that uh and let's

(01:07:04):
pursue it.
So in other words, talk about itthe way you'd talk about buying
a new car.
And suppose you champion Ford'sand I champion Chevrolets.
Um how should we talk aboutthat?
Well, you're stupid if you don'tdrive the kind of car I drive.
You just don't understand abouthorsepower, do you?
You don't understand abouteconomy.

(01:07:25):
You don't understand abouthorse.

SPEAKER_00 (01:07:26):
I I don't.

SPEAKER_01 (01:07:26):
Yeah.
Okay.
Well Probably neither of usdoes.
And we go and buy the car that,you know, it's the best price on
the on the given day.
So uh uh is buying a car asimportant as a faith commitment?
Of course not.
But the the issue is in in theJesus says he that's faithful in

(01:07:47):
little is faithful in much, andvice versa.
Okay.
That's true with regard to thebasic issue we've been
discussing in this podcast,which is civility.
Um there is no requirement in myunderstanding of Christian
faith, or I think in anyreasonable reading of biblical

(01:08:10):
literature, for if I disagreewith you about Trinity, or I
disagree with you about baptism,or I disagree with you about
worship, for me to berate you,for me to insult you, for me to
malign you and strip you of yourdignity as a human being, or for

(01:08:33):
me to tell other people she'signorant and stupid and and
mean, stay away from her.
That doesn't address the issue.
That's what we call poisoningthe well in logic class.
I haven't responded to anyreasonable point you've made.

(01:08:54):
I've simply maligned you as aperson to say, I don't believe
anything you say because I don'tlike you.
And I won't, I won't, I won'thear you.
Um That is the beginning of war.
That's why we have warshistorically.
That's why we're having a warwhile we're talking.

(01:09:18):
Um we used to use a couple ofwords that are hardly in the
public vocabulary anymore.
Statesman or statesperson,perhaps.
The word ends politician.
Statesmen were people who,whether Republican or Democrat,
could say, for the good of thecountry, we need to come up with
a way to resolve this problem.
Today, red and blue, Republicansand Democrats, friends of yours

(01:09:42):
and friends of mine, are sopolarized, they're not they're
not willing to talk about acommon ground principle.
I'm not compromising anything, Ibelieve.
You don't have to compromise abasic principle to say, here's
common ground that we could livetogether in.
You have to do that ingovernment.
Otherwise, you have to coercepeople.

(01:10:05):
And I don't want to coerce, andI don't want to be coerced to a
point of view.
I want a fair playing field.
Uh I want the right to argue thecase that I believe is true
about religion, about politics,about Fords and Chevrolets.
I don't want the right to forceyou to vote the way I'm going to

(01:10:29):
vote, go to the church I'm goingto go to, or buy the kind of car
that I'm going to buy.
That's just not right.
It is me taking away yourfreedom.
And I resent it even more ifyou're the one who has the power
and you're telling me I have tovote the way you're going to
vote, I have to go to the churchyou choose, and I have to drive
the kind of car you've pickedout.

(01:10:51):
You don't have that right.
You shouldn't have that kind ofpower in my life.
I shouldn't, and you and Ishouldn't have that right in a
third party's life.
So what do we do?
We revert to what I thought mostof us understood this this
country was about.
We're a free society, and in afree society, a lot of people

(01:11:11):
are going to make choices Idon't agree with.
We're just that stinking freethat somebody can be wrong.
Duh.
I might be the one who's wrong.
But I want the right to be wrongif that's the best conclusion I
can reach, and that's theconviction I have today.
Now, I I think you'd be doing mea favor to engage me in

(01:11:33):
respectful dialogue.
But if I'm dead wrong about Xand you simply write me off and
insult me and call me threenames as you leave the room, you
not only haven't helped me,you've probably embittered me to
where I would never be willingto listen to your point of view.
And even if I realized mine waswrong, I'm not going to give it

(01:11:54):
up because you've insulted meand you have stripped me of my
dignity as a human being andinsulted my intellect.
That's what we're doing in theculture.
We are so polarized.
We don't talk, we scream.
We don't have respectfuldialogue.
We dig in our heels and fight.

(01:12:16):
We do not debate principle.
We insult the opposing person.
There's nothing Christian aboutthat.
Um there's there's nothing civileven or decent about that.
I hope we're going to outgrowit, but we're so deeply steeped
in it right now, it's going totake a while.

SPEAKER_00 (01:12:39):
How would we outgrow it?

SPEAKER_01 (01:12:41):
Well, maybe some conversations like this help a
little bit.
Maybe somebody listens in whorealizes, yeah, I probably was a
little bit too strong yesterdaywhen I told my neighbor, I don't
see how anybody with two eyesand half cents could hold your
point of view.
Maybe I need to go back andapologize.
Please do.

(01:13:02):
Yeah, I mean, fourth gradersused to talk that way.
Uh in fourth grade, I'm sure Idid.
Tommy Sasser and I woulddisagree about something and
we'd wind up insulting eachother before we'd go play
baseball after school.
But we'd go play baseball afterschool.
Fourth graders can do that.
Adults ought to be better thanthat.

(01:13:23):
Uh whether we play baseball ormaybe as adults, a round of
golf.
We should not at any point inthe day, because we disagree, do
what Tommy and I did in fourthgrade, a string of insults.
Uh, or in the fourth grade,until Ms.
Whaley caught me, it wasn't justinsults sometimes.
Uh I use language that today Iwouldn't use.

(01:13:45):
In fact, I hope I don't evenremember the words now.
But Ms.
Whaley heard me and she said,Young man, if I hear you use
that word one more time, I'mgoing to tell your mother, help
me clean up my mouth prettyquickly.
I don't know who's gonna, Idon't know who's gonna tell us
in this culture.
Who's gonna tell our leaders?
Who's going to tell our opinionleaders?

(01:14:05):
I'm gonna tell your mother ifyou don't stop talking that way,
if you don't quit leading withinsults, if you don't quit
leading with swear words.
And the coarseness of publicdialogue in this country.
Um in formal speeches bypolitical leaders, language that

(01:14:28):
Ms.
Whaley on the playground wouldhave reported me to my mother
for using.
It's used now on the eveningnews because they're simply
playing back the speech that wasmade earlier today by our
leaders at some state,community, or national level,
and they're using language thatI don't want my children and

(01:14:49):
grandchildren to use, and yetit's the language our leaders
have chosen.
They've coarsened the publicculture by that, and that gives
further justification to takethe next step.
If I can insult you, I can alsomistreat you.
And if I can mistreat you, uh, Ican take the next step.

(01:15:12):
Um I can I can somehow ban yourvoice from being heard because
you're saying things that thatthat disagree with either my
mandate or the majority point ofview.
Christianity is not the majoritypoint of view in the world
today.
Never has been.
It may or may not be themajority point of view even in

(01:15:34):
American culture now.
Um if if I value my right aspart of a minority culture, I've
got to value the other person'sright who's Latino or or African
American or or whatever.
Let it be by skin culture, bygeographic background.

(01:16:00):
Our culture has said we're amelting pot, we we welcome
people from all backgrounds, andwe've stopped doing that.
We want to be monolithic.
Um cultures have tried that uhin the ancient world um and in
the modern world.
It's never worked.
Um and it's not gonna worktoday.

(01:16:23):
It we've already been set back ahundred years.
Uh it may take longer than thatto correct it.

SPEAKER_00 (01:16:31):
What I hear you saying is we have to live, as
Christians at least,differently.
Set apart, treat each other'streat each other differently,
consider ourselves as part of aI mean this world is not our
home.
We are not citizens of we arecitizens of heaven before we are

(01:16:52):
citizens of America.

SPEAKER_01 (01:16:55):
And Lordship is not confessed to any human
leadership.
Jesus is Lord.
Yeah, um, I mean Jesussimplified it for us.
You know, I I would I would loveit if I had taken college
classes where undergraduate orgraduate level, the first day of
class, the teacher said, okay,your final exam is going to have

(01:17:17):
two questions.
And by the way, I'm going togive you the answers today, make
a note.
Sort of what Jesus did.
Well, what are the greatcommandments?
What is the greatest one?
He said, really, it all boilsdown to two.
And the first one is love Godwith all you are with all that
you are, heart, soul, mind, andstrength.
And the second commandment,really, that's just the flip
side of the first.
If you love God, treat theperson in whom God has placed

(01:17:41):
his image as your neighbor.
Love them.
Hmm.
That's the final exam, and we'vealready been given the answers.
Uh I think we should practicebetween the start of the course,
the day we're born, and the daythe final exam is given, um,
judgment day.

(01:18:03):
Um, and uh if if we love God, wecan't we can't keep mistreating
his children.
Um and we can't um not careabout the folks who are hurting,
um, the people are fleeingpersecution from the drug
cartels in South South America,um, or the people in the inner

(01:18:25):
city of some of our own countrythat are being vilified, uh,
written off, not given a chance.
But at the same time, we cannotcompromise um not just the
distinctives of of Christianfaith, but we can't compromise

(01:18:46):
basic moral principles.
So it's not a choice betweentwo, which is the way, well,
this is red and this is blue.
No, let's be purple.
Let's say uh we are we're goingto respect and uphold the law.
We will insist that people enterthe country legally, we will
insist that people who arecitizens of a country obey its

(01:19:06):
laws with regard to greed, withregard to paying taxes, with
regard to the way they treattheir neighbor, criminal
behaviors.
But but we're also going to takecare of the wid and the orphan.
And and we are going to be peaceseekers and peacemakers rather
than power brokers.
I want enough power to coerceyou, you took collectively, we

(01:19:31):
want enough power to excludethem.
No, no, no.
That's what we're doing rightnow.
That's become the vogue of thelast decade or so.
Um we have to we have to getback to something that, yeah,
it's Christian, loving yourneighbor as you love yourself,
but every major philosophicaland religious system in the

(01:19:53):
world has some version of thesecond commandment or what we
call the golden rule.
Um Jewish rabbis used to say,don't ever do anything to
anybody else you wouldn't wantdone to you.
It's called the reverse goldenrule sometimes when we talk
about it.
Confucius talked about it.
Communism even had versions ofthis.

(01:20:15):
The golden rule is the is thebasic standard of how a
civilization can endure.
And if we can't reestablish thenotion that the person across
the table, across the room,across the divide politically,
is as valuable as I am, has asmany rights as I have, uh, has

(01:20:41):
the same privilege of place tospeak to the issue as I have.
Even if we never come toagreement, just the fact that we
can treat each other with thatmuch civility allows us to
continue to function.
If it is the continuedaccumulation of power until we
can shut the other side down,we're going to self-destruct.

(01:21:04):
And it's not going to take longfor it to happen.

SPEAKER_00 (01:21:08):
Dr.
Rubel, thank you.

SPEAKER_01 (01:21:10):
Thank you for having me.
I appreciate it, Kimberly.
Thanks for the conversation.

SPEAKER_00 (01:21:14):
Great conversation.
I could keep going, but at somepoint we have to end.
I appreciate it.
Maybe we'll do it againsometime.
100% When it all boils down toit, my key takeaway from this
entire conversation is that myChristian beliefs matter more
than the law of any land that Icould ever live in.

(01:21:36):
It doesn't matter who is inCongress or who is in the Oval
Office because Jesus is on thethrone.
And that for me has to be myguiding principle.
How can I live as a Christianfirst, no matter what country I
may live in?
That can be hard because here'sthe other thing.

(01:21:58):
The most challenging part for meof this whole conversation was
thinking about if I knew that Icould face nearly certain death
by being a Christian, would Istill have faith like I do now?
And I hope my answer to thatwould be yes.

(01:22:18):
But there are people in othercountries that their choice for
baptism and to follow Jesus ishonestly inspiring, isn't even a
strong enough word.
I admire those people and theirconviction and their faith
because that's what it's allabout: conviction, personal
conviction, sharing that storywith others about how Jesus has

(01:22:41):
changed my life, how Jesus haschanged your life, and for that
to lead other people torepentance and to conviction of
their own, not coercion.
But that comes from not wantingto stay safe and not wanting to
just live in a world or countryor society where Christianity is
easy.
Are we just trying to makeChristianity easy so it's easier

(01:23:04):
to follow Jesus?
Because when we look at thescripture and look at the
gospels, Jesus told many peopleto do very hard things in order
to follow him, to walk away frompeople they loved, from things
they loved, from places theyloved in order to follow him,
knowing it was going to dividefamilies and divide countries

(01:23:25):
and divide loyalties.
That's never been the option.
It's never been the option ofboth and it's Jesus or nothing.
And for me, I want it to beJesus above all.
Jesus or nothing else.
I hope you loved this episode.
Leave comments, share it withsomeone.

(01:23:47):
It was a long one, but it was agood one.
Until next week, stay strong.