The Sean McDowell Show - Conservative vs. Progressive: Jesus, Culture, and the Bible (with Brandan Robertson)

Episode Date: September 15, 2024

What do conservative and progressive Christians have in common and where do they differ? Sean invites progressive Christian author Brandan Robertson on to discuss Brandan's latest book. They talk about Jesus, culture, scripture, and much more. WATCH: Progressive vs. Evangelical: A Dialogue for Clarity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXjWhEHpxP0) Make sure to subscribe and check out some of my other videos for more on Christianity, Theology and other aspects of culture! *Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf) *USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM) *See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK) FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sean_McDowell TikTok: @sean_mcdowell Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/ Website: https://seanmcdowell.org

what do progressive and evangelical Christians have in common and where do they differ our guest today Brandon Robertson is a millennial postmodern progressive Christian pastor author of a recent book we're going to discuss today called dry bones and holy wars brand a number of people reach out to me and ask me why I chose to have this conversation and i'll tell you this i didn't mention this before but what tipped me over the top was your quote of biola university president barry corey who's my president wearing my biola gear

from his latest book love kindness in which he makes a distinction between niceness and kindness there's a lot in your book that I resonate with in terms of building bridges with people rather than walls. You have concern for unity in terms of our culture politically, which I share, but I also know that you and I agree that unity cannot come at the expense of truth. In fact, I think if you and I are going to be friends, and this is the first time we've talked really in person I think we could only really be friends if there's a recognition of the areas in which we really differ rather than just paper over those so I think our conversation areas of agreement are

gonna come up but let's start with where we differ but first uh thanks for coming on the show and second maybe you define yourself by progressive and there's some people who would say i'm a progressive christian and i'm orthodox you did a video a few months ago and if i understood it correctly you're like i'm not only orthodox i don't want to be orthodox i don't care about that what do you mean by progressive yeah well thanks for having me it's so good to be here and chatting with you you know for me progressive christianity um that language might be new but it's not a new movement in fact from my perspective it's about as old as what evangelical christianity refers to i'm talking

about the lineage of liberal christianity which kind of emerged around the period of the Enlightenment and in kind of birth of the modern era, where we started having conversations about science and critical historical conversations. And Christians at that moment were faced with a choice. Some Christians decided to double down on what they called the fundamentals and reject modernity, reject science, history, reason. And then another group of Christians decided, actually, all truth is God's truth. And even if this new scientific method and these new critical historical findings contradicted our previous understandings of the Bible or faith, that we should at least be open to rethinking and reforming our beliefs. And I think in the tradition of the Protestant Reformation, which one of the battle cries was reformed and always reforming, progressive Christianity is about taking in all the knowledge that God is revealing to humanity at any point and incorporating that into our understanding of faith.

And that means sometimes our doctrines are going to change and sometimes our theology is going to need to shift and our ethics are going to need to morph. But the consistent foundation for a progressive Christian is a devotion to following Jesus. And I know we're going to get into what exactly that means when I say that. But yeah, that's what I would say a progressive Christian is. You know, it's interesting. Roger Olson has a recent book called Against Liberal Theology, in which he says, putting the brakes on progressive Christianity, and says there's not the tradition within progressive Christianity that there is within liberal Christianity. But that's a debate you could take up with Roger for now. Let's get down to some of the issues of where I think you and I are going to differ pretty significantly. And let's start with where you start in your book on page five.

So this is the second paragraph, chapter one. You have this line and I want to read it. It's about the Bible. And I want to know how you view the Bible and handle the Bible. And here's the quote. It says, about the Bible. Yet this collection of writings has endured for thousands of years because within it is a deep understanding of the human condition and the problems that we face. So right away, I don't know that that's very controversial, that it's a collection of writings, it's endured

thousands of years, tell us a lot about the human condition. Fair enough. Page 63, I'll read this, and then I want you to weigh in. You said, I believe that the Holy Spirit is within you and me. And also inspired folks to sit down and write out their own stories and experience of God long ago so we might wrestle with and learn from their perspectives. These humans like us have finite perspectives. They're doing their best to describe the world as they see it and God as they understand God. Sometimes they say crazy stuff that we should, italics, disagree with. Stuff that doesn't align with how we've come to understand God, the life, or the world, and that's okay.

Now, as I read this, it sounds like you're saying the Bible's endured, gives us a lot of spiritual insight, but it's a conversation partner that we can consider amidst other perspectives that we have, accept some, dismiss others. Is that fair? I think you articulated it pretty concisely. I agree with the language of the Bible being inspired by God. I agree with the fact that the writers of scripture were trying to communicate truth as best as they know how. But as you just quoted, I believe that the Bible is a thoroughly human document. And whenever humans attempt to speak about God, we fall short. C.S. Lewis has this poem, A Footnote to All Prayer, where he says, all of our words are but limping metaphors when we're speaking about God. And

I think that's true for the Bible. That's not just an opinion, though. I think objectively, the approach of inerrancy that a lot of evangelicals take is just patently false. And when you pull that brick out of an evangelical's theology, that's the thing that everything stands upon and the whole theology begins to collapse. I think that's just an unwise foundation to build your faith upon. I don't think Christians traditionally believed that the Bible was the sole foundation of our faith. I don't traditionally think Christians throughout the ages believed that every aspect of the Bible needed to be taken as literally, factually,

scientifically, historically true. And in my own faith, it was the assertion of evangelicals that I needed to believe everything literally, objectively about the Bible. That came up against reality when I started studying and getting a broader education. That caused me to begin going into a crisis of faith. And I know that's where so many people's deconstruction journey begins because of the belief of inerrancy. First off, good job on an evangelical apologist's youtube channel citing c.s lewis that's always a win so kudos knowing your audience but you said you agree with the language the bible's inspired but then you said it's thoroughly human so are we talking about inspired like uh some poet is inspired or Michael Jordan's basketball is inspired.

Is that what you mean? Yeah, I reject the, what I would say, the kind of evangelical theological reframing of some of these words. I think when the scripture talks about this Bible being God breathed, that same language is that the Spirit of God is present in and through the words of the Bible, but I also believe that the Spirit of God is present in and through you and me, and in all things, and I think there's biblical support for that, but I don't buy the theological notion of inspiration, which leads into the doctrine of, I think, inerrancy necessarily. Okay, so across just evangelical, if you take Orthodox, if you take Catholic, broadly Protestant, there's going to be differences over inerrancy, etc. But there's still a sense that this is a God-delivered document with authority

that we are to understand and submit ourselves to. That seems to be in conflict with what you said, that it's a purely human doctrine that's kind of a conversation partner with us that we can choose to accept or choose to reject. Yeah, I think I would, my understanding across Christian traditions, beyond Protestantism, beyond evangelicalism, many of my Catholic mentors resonate with this similar theology that, yes, I think there is some divine aspect of the Bible. I think there's something mysterious about the Bible for the fact, as you quoted me earlier saying, it's about 4,000 years old and it's endured for all of that time. Billions of people have looked to it for inspiration. It's shaped Western culture. So in that sense, I'm willing to concede that there is something

mysterious, even divine about the Bible. But as far as it being delivered from God or dictated by God or communicated from God, I just don't find that to be a reasonable argument just because the Bible, I believe from a most literal reading of it has plenty of contradictions it has plenty of errors when it comes to comparisons to modern science reason history and you wouldn't expect that if the most highest form of inerrancy is true verbal plenary inspiration if that was someone's theology i I just don't think that that has any viability. I'm not going to tell you the idea of contradictions and like the apologist in me is just holding back from having that conversation. Maybe we will follow up and have that conversation.

Here, I'm trying to get some clarity of where you stand, what we have in common and where we differ. So my last point in this, we'll move on. Then is there a sense that the Bible has authority within itself that we should conform our lives to that's above us in any sense? Or is it equal to us or potentially below? Because I would argue that throughout the history of the church, there's a sense the Bible is authoritative outside and beyond us differ on interpretation etc there's even some differences catholic protestant orthodox over exactly which books are a part of the canon but once it's a part of the canon

it's god-breathed and authoritative yeah would you reject that? I don't think precisely. I don't think it's quite as clear as that for me. I want to leave room for, I still preach the Bible. The Bible is my primary text. I'm getting a PhD in the Bible, for goodness sakes. I have devoted my life to the study of this book because I believe there is something unique and important and even divine about it. As far as its authority goes, though, I see it, the metaphor of the Bible of Jacob wrestling with God is one that I've often used as, I think there's something unique about it. I think the fact that for 4000 years, people put their thoughts together about what they viewed God as and how they viewed God's desires for them,

like, the fact that that has shaped human history in the way that it has gives it some sort of authority, but it's not so authoritative that whatever it says needs to be taken as the final word on the subject. It's a conversation partner, as you said, and we need to be willing to dialogue and debate with it. And sometimes, even in my current theology, the Bible wins out as some of the concepts of scripture challenge my own modern notions and I conform to scripture. So it's not, I think there's a caricature of progressives as just trying to fit modern understandings of the world and modern morality into scripture. That's not how I preach. And I know you've talked about some of my chapters later in the book where I do talk seriously about wrestling with sin, where I do take seriously some of the scripture's language

around personal morality, for instance. But that doesn't mean that the Bible just gets a black and white blank slip to dictate everything that's happening in my life and my faith and my world, because there are areas where I really do think the Bible gets it wrong. And again, that's not God getting it wrong. In my perspective, that's human beings getting it wrong. Okay. So I think, I think in some, I wrestle with the Bible just like Jacob wrestles with God. Sometimes I change my interpretation, but when it's all said and done, there's this sense inside me that I've got to be willing to follow and believe what the bible says even if i don't like it and have some other issue that's difficult scientifically historically

whatever morally sounds like you're saying yeah i bump up against that i don't have problems sometimes saying no the bible is wrong does that sum it up is that fair yeah i would say okay there are times yeah i'll yeah okay perfect i think we covered that all right let's let's shift on to uh the person of jesus uh you wrote uh again you said to be a christian is to follow jesus at that point i'll say amen, amen. You and I agree. But of course, that asks the follow-up question, who do we mean by Jesus? There's a Mormon view of Jesus. There's an Islamic view of Jesus.

There's a Buddhist view of Jesus. You said one of your videos, maybe it was a, I don't remember which video it was, maybe a TikTok video. You said even agnostics and atheists can follow the way of jesus so i'm just curious the question that jesus asked who do you say that i am how do you answer that question yeah well and i know when i get to discussing what i'm about to discuss i lose a lot of people so i just want to ask the audience to go with me here for a second. But one of my closest mentors these days is John Dominic Crossan, who is widely renowned as one of the world's leading Jesus scholars. And some of the language John

uses is about a Christ of faith and a Jesus of history. Father Richard Rohr also uses similar language. So when I think about Jesus, I first think of Jesus of history, which is, let's historically examine the evidence we have for who Jesus was. Let's examine his culture and context. Let's use the best writings we have from the New Testament. I am of the mind that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest and most reliable gospel. I think general scholarship agrees with me there. And so we're zeroing in on the best knowledge we have about the historical Jesus, and we construct an image of who that person was. The historical Jesus was a first century Jewish teacher who believed he was the Messiah and who taught a subversive message that in some senses was unique and in some senses wasn't. Jesus's message was also echoed by people that

predated him, like Rabbi Hillel in the first century. And so framing the historical Jesus is important. And then there's the Christ of faith, which for me is the Christ that emerges in the Gospel of John, for instance, which is the oldest gospel and the gospel that I believe represents not history about who Jesus actually was, but how the early church began to conceive of Jesus after his death and resurrection. And at that point, we start seeing Jesus and John become divine. I argue that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we don't really have any clear, explicit divine claims from Jesus.

I don't think that the historical jesus thought that he was god incarnate i think in john we have early christians that have finally come to understand this version of christ that is fully divine and i want to say that i have a relationship with both of those and i know at some level i hold this as attention and a mystery i acknowledge that i think the historical jesus is who existed in time and history and space. And when I was 12 years old, I went down an aisle of a Baptist church and asked Christ into my heart and was transformed by this spirit of God that I know as Jesus Christ. And I can't deny that I've had that encounter and I can't deny an ongoing relationship with that Christ. But I also want to acknowledge the historical reality that I've had that encounter and I can't deny an ongoing relationship with that Christ.

But I also want to acknowledge the historical reality that I think best lines up with our scholarship in history. And so somewhere in between there is where I view Jesus. Okay. All right. Brandon, you're a TikTok star. Before you told me that you give answers in 30 seconds. So I'm going to give you my 30 second take on Jesus. You give me yours. Okay. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, fully divine, who takes on human flesh, born by Mary, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins and offers us eternal life if we'll accept through faith by his grace. That's who I believe Jesus is, heart of his message. I think I made that in 30 seconds.

Go. I would say Jesus is Lord. He is the one whom I seek to conform my life to, whose vision, teachings, and message I try to proclaim to the world and encourage others to follow as well because I believe it leads to abundant life redemption and restoration of individual lives and of our world and so um as far as what Lord means um we can get into that later but that's my summary okay all right fair enough that's actually a perfect segue there's something else you wrote in your book on page 80. you cite the uh the in Philippians chapter 2, verses 6 through 10. And I'll read that in a second. But then you wrote, just to preface this, you said, quote, again, page 80,

I happen to believe we are essentially the same as Jesus. Whatever is said of Jesus in this hymn can and should be true of us as well. So let me read the hymn and then come back and maybe you can explain this for us. Referring to Christ, verse six, again, Philippians chapter two, it says, who though was in the form of God did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, being found in human form, humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God has highly exalted him and bestowed him the name

that is above every name. So at the name of jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that jesus christ is lord to the glory of god the father now again you said quote i happen to believe we are essentially the same as jesus whatever said of jesus in this hymn can and should be true of us. So Jesus had the name that every knee should bow to. Should every knee potentially bow to us? Should every tongue confess that you and I are Lord? And do we have a name above every name? So I think there's a, I would say almost essentially,

yes, I think there's a slight nuance that you're missing here. Okay. Wasn't articulated in that one sentence that you read. I think we are partakers in the divine nature. I think Christ is the firstborn among many brethren. I believe that Christ is in all things, through all things,

for all things, and in God, we live and move and have our being. These are all quotes from the New Testament. I believe that what Jesus revealed is that God is in us in the same way God is in Christ. I believe that the same words Jesus hears God speak over him at his baptism, you are my beloved child in whom I am well pleased, God speaks over humanity. And I think time and time again, the New Testament reiterates this. And so I think where we're differing and how you articulated that is,

I don't think each one of us individually are individual Christs in whom deserve worship and authority. I think we are partakers in Christ. We are united with Christ, which is language Paul uses time and time and time again. I think Paul, when he says we are the body of Christ, that's not a metaphor. I believe what St. Teresa of Avila says, Christ has no body on earth but ours. We are the incarnations of God on the world. We are the hands and feet of Christ in the world. That's not a metaphor. That's literal.

And so I'm a believer that Jesus came to reveal who God is, but also to reveal who God in us is and God's desire to redeem and restore the world through you and me. Okay, so that's helpful. Let me just press it a little bit further so so i understand uh when you say jesus is lord to me greek kurios he is god in human flesh qualitatively distinct from us so we are essentially the same as jesus in our humanity we are truly human jesus human, but he is qualitatively distinct from us and is the one true God in human flesh that through the Holy Spirit, we can partake of what Jesus did on the cross for us in terms of our righteousness. know the story you know the language you went to moody i'm trying to see do you still adopt that idea or are you saying no we're human like jesus is

we are divine partakers like jesus was but he's just a little bit more advanced that we are see i wouldn't even say it that way. I think, not to be crass, but I think that like that's your articulation and the evangelical or orthodox articulation has so many mental gymnastics and philosophical theological gymnastics to try to make all of this theology fit. I think the Bible, the New Testament is actually much clearer, much more explicit. I think when Jesus said, greater things will you do than I have done, you are partakers in divine nature, as Peter says, I think all of that language is explicitly clear. I think the whole idea of Acts chapter two, the fulfillment of Joel chapter two, that in the last days, I'll pour out my spirit on all flesh.

God now dwells in human beings, not in temples made by human hands the spirit of god is in you and me in the same way that the spirit of god was in jesus and i think jesus again is the firstborn among many so he is the i icon that we're aiming towards the idol in which we're trying to conform our lives to the person that we're trying to imitate but at some very fundamental ultimate level we are one with jesus we are equal with jesus we are united with jesus and as strange i found this so strange at moody for instance that this language wasn't talked about more in churches because as crazy as it might sound this is thoroughly biblical in new testament like these are literal quotes that I'm saying. And also many other major Christian traditions in the world have had this tradition of being united to God and becoming

partakers in the divine nature. Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance, has a very robust articulation of this, and so does the Roman Catholic Church. So I agree. And Mormons often cite Eastern Orthodox tradition, and I think take it out of context that the idea of theosis is that God's divine nature, in a sense, transforms us from the inside out, but we don't become God. still a qualitative distinction between Jesus and every other human who's ever lived. Whereas in Mormon theology, you know, famously Lorenzo Snow said, one of their prophets, I believe in the 70s, said, as man is, God once was. As God is, man can become. So in Mormonism, they do not maintain that ontological distinction between us and Jesus, between us and God. In Greek Orthodoxy, they maintain that distinction, even though we become partakers of the divine in the way Peter quotes, but not essentially the same as who Jesus is. Where do you land on? And again, I just want some clarity exactly what you think about the person of Jesus. Totally. Yeah. Well, first I will say, I mean, the way I'll answer this is I think I would align more alongside the Eastern Orthodox view. I think

my Trinitarian theology, and this is something I've been getting into, I don't believe in a classical Trinitarian view. And so the language gets a little muddled. But I would say we are always subjective to the great object of the universe. We are always the created ones standing before the creator. There's always a qualitative difference

between us and God. I believe Jesus is the incarnation of God, the vehicle through which God came to reveal how humanity is supposed to be. We are supposed to be in our pre-Edenic state, partakers in divine nature. We are supposed to be sons and daughters of god and i believe jesus came to reveal to us how we can get back towards being sons and daughters of god incarnations of the divine um and so i would say jesus is on our level but when we're talking about god um i think it's a hard nuance to speak of in the same way trinitarian language is hard to speak of but there is a difference between creator and created. And I would want to try to maintain that in my articulation. Okay. So again, Orthodox and Protestant and Catholic

all embrace the Trinity. Although within Orthodoxy, there's a different understanding of the relationship and dynamic within the Trinity but it's considered an essential doctrine by all three you reject that yeah I'm not interested in I'm very skeptical in the doctrines that emerged out of the councils of early Christianity and I've been and I'm currently in the midst of doing some deep study on all of it. So I don't want to speak too out of turn. But I just think it's thoroughly ridiculous that these imperial councils called under the authority of the empire that killed Jesus, come together and debate for a few weeks and declare what is true for all of Christianity,

and then all of a sudden the rest of Christian history is supposed to bow down and fully accept the doctrines that were declared by these councils. I think you'd have to, any honest person has to admit, the Trinity is not clearly articulated in scripture. It was not present in the earliest Christian creeds, doctrines, the stuff that we have from the early church doesn't use Trinitarian formulas. It's after we see these councils come together and declare these things to be orthodoxy that it becomes universal for the church. And that's what I mean when I say I don't care about orthodoxy. I think it's highly problematic and suspicious and inauthentic for us just to blindly accept what these councils of fall fallible human beings

declared to be truth especially on matters as complex as the nature of god and where jesus and the holy spirit fit in to uh and in relation to god yeah i i honestly think it does a diss service to the folks who are at the nicene crinity uh nicene council to say that they were just coerced into giving these doctrines and everybody has blindly followed along the word trinity is not in the bible but i think it's clearly laid out that there's a one god father son holy spirit of divine and they're distinct persons the word trinity gives language to what scripture teaches now we don't we could literally come back and debate that at this point i think you stated where you stand on that which is fine

um i i understand uh let's move on to something that i think some people watching this are probably wondering if we're going to get into i didn't realize you had created quite the youtube controversy on these statements i first came across it in your book. And when I read this, I stopped. I was like, wow, I did not see that coming. And then I watched a couple of the YouTube videos to see some of the conversation. So you know where this is going, but here's what you wrote. You said, I believe it clearly evidenced in the gospels even jesus made mistakes now you reference matthew 15. i've seen a youtube video on this you've done a tick tock video i guess that went viral back up this claim and then let's talk about it yeah well first i want to start this because i

know people are shocked and were shocked when i said it, but this is not something I've made up. Again, there is quite a long tradition of liberation theologians and various theologians that have interpreted this the same way that I've interpreted it. And so I want to begin there. But there's a story in Matthew 15 and also in Mark chapter 7 that are quite similar. A woman comes to Jesus begging him, will you heal my daughter? She's ill. She's about to die. Please heal her. This woman is identified in both passages slightly differently, but as a different religion and different ethnicity than Jesus. Jesus' response to the woman, it is not good to give the children's food, meaning the children of Israel, to the dogs. Stop there. We can pause there. That, regardless of whatever theological explanation we're going to

get to afterwards does not seem to be a kind and compassionate answer to a woman whose daughter's on death's door begging jesus to heal her and he uses a word dog that again conservatives push back and say well the word in g is actually puppy. And so it's not as, uh, not as offensive as what it would be. I think the most basic reading is that Jesus operated in a system in which there were clear ethnic biases and divisions that's seen all throughout the new Testament. And Jesus here is leaning into a cultural division that says, no, I'm giving the children's food. I'm here to heal my people, my disciples, not you. And the woman says, well, even dogs deserve the crumbs from the table. And Jesus

is taken aback by this and says, woman, great is your faith. Your daughter is healed. I think those stories, like most of the gospel stories are condensed. If this is indeed a real historical event, it was probably a little bit more complex than what we just have in the Gospels. But I think the point is, this woman pushes back, challenges Jesus on this bias that he has, and Jesus turns and does the right thing. And I believe, honestly, that this image of Jesus makes Jesus more worthy of being followed, because it's a Jesus who's willing to be able to listen and learn when he is in the wrong and repent and do what is right. And I think that's a beautiful model and a needed model for so many Christians in the church today who lean into racism and ethnic bias. Okay, so let's come back to what may follow from this interpretation.

But when I read it, and we're going to come to the passage and unpack together, you said a couple things. This Christian tradition that Jesus didn't commit any sins, you said there's an older and broader tradition that teaches part of Jesus growing up into his calling and identity as the Son of God was making

mistakes. Just read one of the infancy gospels. I, to be honest, when I read that, I'm like, that's your evidence that Jesus made mistakes. This is clearly a Gnostic apocryphal writing written long after even the most liberal datings of first and second Peter and the gospels were not meant to be taken historically. So you So you could find a few fringe groups that possibly thought that was historical. Most people didn't. And when Irenaeus talks about it at the end of the second century, he calls it spurious.

So if I'm looking at this from the outside, I'm thinking, okay, here's an interpretation I don't buy. Points to the infancy gospels for greater evidence is almost making it point itself that it's so far outside of the mainstream of what people believed at that time. I don't, I disagree. I think, I don't believe the infancy gospels are historical. I'm not making that claim at all. What I am claiming is that the infancy gospels represent a strand of what Christians believed about Jesus. And they do come from a longer older tradition we know that this tradition didn't pop up just a few hundred years after christianity but there is evidence that this is these were some of the questions that some of the early christians were wrestling with which is what leads to the council

of chalcedon having to eventually make a decree about this once and for all. This was a debate all throughout the first few centuries of Christianity about how do we articulate Jesus? Who exactly was Jesus? Was Jesus fully human? Did he sin? What does that look like? It's, I think, disingenuous for anyone to suggest that those weren't conversations ongoing

throughout the earliest days of the church. But the infancy gospel proves, I love the infancy gospels because of their how funny the stories are frankly i agree with that they prove that at least some groups of christians thought of the young jesus as kind of a little devil as somebody who needed to grow into his sanctified nature and become the jesus that we see appear on the scene in his 30s that is the wise and holy and good teacher that he was. And so that's just my articulation is that we do have a hesitation. There's a note in the gospel that says Jesus grew in wisdom, knowledge, and stature. That's the most we get in the synoptics.

But I think packed into that is the idea that Jesusesus is growing into okay so what does luke what does luke 2 52 say jesus grew in wisdom intellectually in stature physically favor with god spiritually favor with men relationally no hint that he grew morally and made any kind of moral mistakes. So we can't just say we're reading this into it. That's an issue I would take. There's no scriptural precedent for the idea that Jesus sinned. And a ton after it. So I think, look, the fact that we have the infancy gospels, a lot of people would argue, like the apocryphal gospels,

that they're not even evidence of a genuine debate. These are entertainment. People are guessing and just hypothesizing about certain phenomena, not even trying to say that this stuff really happened or there is a live debate. But whether or not that's true, the biblical account is all before that. So I guess, and I don't want to just nitpick we're gonna go to the passage but it says you wrote in here you said an older tradition uh let me see i want to say exactly i want to make sure you get it right older and broader tradition it's not i mean you read first peter 119 and jesus the lamb without blemish or spot so that's first peter paul second, second Corinthians five 21, who knew no sin Hebrews four 15 says yet without sin first John, uh, three, five, there is no sin in him. And Jesus himself said in him, there is no falsehood. So the unanimous, earliest, consistent voice we have is that there is no sin.

Minimally, middle to the end of the second century, these debates start to arise. Fine, there's all sorts of debates that come up after that. It's just not the oldest, and there's no other early precedent for this interpretation that you're positing. I disagree with that i do think there's uh there is a good body of first century literature that emerges within the christian movement that doesn't make it into the biblical canon the biblical canon of course is going to contain the literature of the view that wins out that's how the biblical canon ended up being compiled literally books are rejected because they don't align with what has become known as the common orthodoxy of the day. I think it's just disingenuous to say that it wasn't until two

centuries later that the idea of perhaps Jesus was sinful emerged. Clearly, these were debates that were ongoing. And I think in individual Christian communities, just from a natural level, of course, when people are being introduced to this figure named Jesus, would you not expect them to ask these questions? Would these not be the debates that they were having? I think there's evidence that exists that they did have these debates. And I think the fact that these are questions that we're even asking in the modern day about who Jesus is,

these are questions when you're doing evangelism, you have to address. These are natural questions to ask. And from my theological paradigm of who I think Jesus is, questions when you're doing evangelism you have to address these are natural questions to ask and from my theological paradigm of who i think jesus is this is completely consistent with uh jesus being like us the firstborn among many brothers or sisters okay let's go to the passage i'll give you the last word on that one fair enough people can at least see where where we differ uh this so this is matthew 15 verse 21 okay so i'm reading from the esv and i also have your

translation that you put in the book and verse 21 it says and jesus went away from there galilee withdrew to the district of tyre and sidon this is now on the eastern coast of the mediterranean gentile area and behold a canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying. Have mercy on me, O Lord, son of David. So it's interesting. She calls him O Lord, which doesn't necessarily mean he was divine, but recognizes his authority. Son of David, recognizes at least some kind of messianic claims from the Jewish heritage, arguably. My daughter is severely oppressed by a demon jesus doesn't say a word he

says nothing the disciples came out and begged him now if you stop right there you think it would say the disciples begged him to heal the poor woman's daughter but instead the disciples don't get it this really is condemning the disciples at this stage. In fact, ironically, a Syrophoenician woman who's not a Jew understands the identity and power of Jesus and has faith before the disciples do. But we'll keep going. Sounds like you agree with me on that. Send her away for she's crying out after us. Verse 24, he answered, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

But she came and knelt before him. All right. So they want for clarity. She asks, he ignores. Now the disciples come and plead because she's obviously bothering them. He says, I'm sent to the lost sheep of Israel. She doesn't take two no's for an answer. It says she came and knelt before him.

And some would say worship, but it's kind of a worshipful kind of posture, minimally. Saying, Lord, help me. And he answered, it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs. Now, it does mean a house pet, but clearly this isn't a compliment. Most scholars would say there is either just Gentile dog or even stronger than that. She said, yes, Lord. Now, when I read your interpretation of the book, you wrote, it's not right for the children's bread and tossed to dogs. Yes, it is, Lord. Your interpretation is to say, no, you are wrong, Jesus. It is right. But notice what it says closely. It says again, it's not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs. She said, yes, Lord.

She agrees with him that it's not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs. She goes, yes, you, Jesus, are right. But that's why there's the term yet. Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table. So she's not saying, take this bread and give it to the dogs. She's saying, I recognize that your first calling is to Israel as a parent has a first calling to their kids. When you feed your kids and it falls on the floor and there's crumbs, even the dogs pick it up. Can I have some of these crumbs? And then at the end, he says, then Jesus answered her, oh woman, great is your faith.

It climaxes with her faith. I don't see Jesus repenting. I don't see any mistake or sin here unless you read into it in a way that text itself does not say. I think you're being far too charitable and not contextual enough in your reading of that. I think, and naturally so, you're coming with a theological bias that Jesus is sinless and that this has to be, the only interpretation from your perspective of this passage has to be. That's not true. That is not true that I'm saying it's the only one. That's not true. I would be willing to follow the evidence if it said Jesus repents and was wrong. Fine. Believe it or not, Brandon, I would be willing to do that.

So I don't think it's fair to put me in a box and say I have to interpret it this way. No, I'm saying, but in particular, your view of how the woman is responding to Jesus. She has no hope at this point. She's coming to Jesus because her daughter is a prophet. Agreed. She's worried for her daughter's life from all accounts of reading this. She has no other option, which is why she's falling at the feet of arguably from a historical perspective, again, a step out of the theological paradigm. She's heard of this healer who's coming around and has been casting out demons. She runs to him, even though he's of a different ethnicity, and she can preempt what the response is likely going to be.

And yet as the last resort, she goes to Jesus and says, please heal my daughter. The entire case in my interpretation here, and again, the way I interpret the Bible is that these are stories that I wouldn't say this is a historical account. I'm not sure that this is a historical account. I'm not sure that this is a historical account. I think it's a metaphor that we can use.

She comes to Jesus. And I think the proper response for Jesus would have been, yes, let me heal your daughter. You are somebody who's not one of us. My disciples don't want me talking to you, presumably because you are of a different ethnicity than I am, but because I'm the son of God who's come to save all of the world, let me heal your daughter and show you in this moment that. That's not what happens. The text has this woman begging Jesus, falling at his feet, needing to agree with this ethnic, racist was the wrong word to use, I will concede that, because race as a concept didn't exist in the ancient world. It's certainly an ethically biased response to say, no, what is of the children's food,

what is of my people's food does not belong to you. And she has to say, just give me a scrap. Please just heal my daughter. When I say the word repent, you're right. The text doesn't use the word repent. Literally, though, turning from doing what is wrong to what is right i see jesus turning from not healing this woman on the basis of an ethnic barrier to healing this woman's daughter out of compassion for her i think it's a beautiful in my interpretation in this particular interpretation of it i think it's a beautiful moment of jesus

confronting something of his cultural conditioning and having the opportunity to extend God's grace and healing to a group of people that not even his disciples wanted to see healed. Okay, so here's a phrase that you said. I wrote it down so I didn't miss it. When you were referring to Jesus' response to the woman when she comes to him. I agree from a human standpoint, it's a little bit jarring that this woman who's, I mean, I'm a parent and I have three kids and I'll tell you, Brandon, I've hurt in my life, but when my kids hurt, it is on steroids. So I get this mom saying, you have the power. Why don't you just heal my daughter? And Jesus ignores her. This compassionate Jesus, that's jarring. I agree with that. But then you said, I think the proper response would be, that's where we differ. Instead of me saying, I think

Jesus should have done that. I'm going to pause and go, okay, wait a minute. I wonder if Jesus has reasons for what he did that maybe I don't understand. That's not blind. That's based upon the rest of how the scriptures portray who Jesus is, the power of his moral teachings, sinless life, which, of course course is what's at stake here. So what's interesting is if you go to Matthew chapter eight, seven chapters before this, you have another case where he was in Capernaum now, not in Tyre and Sidon and a centurion comes saying, Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly. And what does Jesus say? I'll come and heal him. It's like, wait a minute. He says yes to a servant, but not to the mom. Jarring. But then as you read it through, Jesus is like, I will go with him.

And the Syrian centurion, of course, says, you know what? I have authority. I tell people go and go. I realize you can heal from here. And Jesus responds with marvel and heals them instantly. The end, it says, let it be done for you as you have believed. So with the centurion, the whole point is he's drawing out belief and he's drawing out faith. Fast forward to Matthew 15.

What's he doing? The same thing. He's drawing out faith, but in a different fashion. He did heal her just on her terms, not on ours. And by the way, I think this story is not advancing that Jesus is a racist or ethnocentrist. I don't want to put that word in your mouth. I think it's doing the opposite. I think the Bible's preparing us for Matthew 28 when it says make disciples of all nations. So you go back to the genealogy in Matthew 1. What happens in Matthew 1? You have Tamar and Rahab, Canaanites in the lineage of Jesus. Matthew 3. then we saw matthew 8 this healing of a roman centurion the point is the story is saying this is first for the jews but it's always meant to be universal

to me it's so obvious this is what's going on here. I'm not twisting it or adding some controversial interpretation of it. This is what the text says. Yeah, no, and again, when I'm speaking of this passage, first of all, I didn't intend when I made that video for this to be the viral passage or the viral video that everybody wants to talk about.

I understood it would be controversial. Fair enough. But again, this has been said by many other contemporary preachers and people before me. And I agree with you would be fair enough but again this has been uh said by many other contemporary preachers and people before me um and i agree with you that um the ultimate point of the story is to point to the expansiveness of god's work in the world beyond any ethnicity or any cultural boundary i just think that what i really wanted to use this passage for as a teachable moment to primarily

my tick tock audience is that we can engage critically and ask hard questions. And if you set aside theological presuppositions, there can be some very interesting interpretive possibilities that come out of the text. If you don't have the theological assumptions that you need to uphold, like Jesus must be the sinless sacrifice for the sins of the world. I reject penal substitutionary atonement. That's not a model I'm invested in. So this isn't in my progressive circles, in my progressive seminary that I attend. These conversations happen every day. These are not incendiary. These are just asking questions of, as you admit it, it does seem Jesus initially responds rather uncompassionately. To me, it seems like a very inopportune time to test someone's faith when their daughter is perhaps very ill or possessed or about to die

or however you want to interpret that. And so there are at least critical questions we can ask of the character of Jesus in this particular story and why it appears this way. Why did the gospel writers in this particular instance want to portray Jesus in this way why did the Gospel writers in this particular instance want to portray Jesus in this way and allow us to see this part of his humanity from my reading I think those are at least interesting questions that I would want to invite people to consider if we engage so so here's the

deal yes I hold certain Orthodox views but I'm not afraid of questions hence I invite you on my channel to have a substantive exchange like I'm not afraid of questions. Hence, I invite you on my channel to have a substantive exchange. I'm not afraid of this. I don't think being Orthodox means somebody's afraid of asking questions. When I first read your book, again, I didn't see a TikTok video. I was like, wow, Jesus messed up. My next thought was, is there something in this passage I'm missing? Wow. Now, my instinct is not, I got to shut this down so i can stay orthodox no i'm telling you brandon if you made the case here i would believe it but you have to admit sean that you are unique all she needs to do is go on to the tick tock comments on a majority of

my videos and see that that is not the response of most evangelicals most evangelicals come from a place of radical commitment to a set of beliefs that have not the response of most evangelicals. Most evangelicals come from a place of radical commitment to a set of beliefs that have not been critically examined. And I say that not as a broad critique. I think that happens in most religious systems. But it's part of the reason I became a progressive Christian was because the response of fear and the reaction and the immediate heresy, false teacher,

you're evil, satanic, because you're asking these questions, which is literally what is said to me. That is what the broader response is. And I'm grateful for people like you who can teach folks to not respond in such a way and to not be afraid of critical questions. Well, that's kind of you to say so. And I feel like saying amen to what you just said, because I agree with the critique that many evangelicals, and I'm often to critique with within, often act defensively, are not willing to follow the text where it leads, and we don't invite questions. So to hear you say partly you're a progressive Christian because you didn't feel the freedom to ask these questions, like I gotta be honest with you that that pains me because my dad is an

apologist and he would always be like what do you think ask questions now he'd say go back to the text he'd say go back and he challenged me in that way but i've been raised to ask questions always go back to the text so i feel like you and i could have a whole separate conversation your critique of evangelicalism and what and i say that because one reason i read your book is i'm always looking for what blind spots do i have where do i fall short and get better at it and as evangelicals we are often motivated by fear so i i agree with you on that now we're running a little short on time uh so let me shift to a question on the mission of Jesus. You wrote this.

You said, this is what Jesus' mission and ministry was all about. So when I see a phrase that says, was all about, I stop and I go, okay, here's the TikTok version summary. Not preaching about heaven and hell, but about being unified in our common humanity. Jesus literally gave up his own life to show us just how futile and dangerous humans can become when we act out of fear. So I want you to sum up as best you can in the depth you need, but just as clear as you can, what you think the mission of Jesus is, why he came and what he wants from us. And then I just want to compare and contrast that with how I see the scripture so people can see where we differ on this one. Yeah. For me, it's so simple. Jesus clearly articulates his mission. When he walks into the synagogue, unrolls the scroll of Isaiah

and says, the spirit of the sovereign Lord is upon upon me that he's anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor liberty to the captive recovery of sight to the blind and proclaim the year of god's jubilee for all my understanding is jesus primarily came to bring redemption and renewal in this literal world and that was what jesus consistently did throughout the gospelsels. He primarily overturned the injustices of this world, meaning sickness, disease, death, but also all of the social injustices that were around in his society. Back to the story we were just talking about, I do think that's a moment of Jesus manifesting the kingdom of God, overturning this ethnic bias. I think that's a profound interpretation of that.

And so Jesus came to demonstrate how to do that and then commission his disciples, all who follow him, to continue to do that. And that's the one last point I'll zero in on, is that the Great Commission doesn't say, go into the world and create Christians. It does say, go into the world and make disciples, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. The vast majority of Jesus's commands are not theological

commands. They're not belief commands even. They are physical commands of how we can live in this world and how we can interact with one another. And so my Christianity today, and I would say progressive Christianity broadly, centers on following Jesus as he did, following and literally conforming our lives to the words and the witness of Jesus, and not so much focused on believing certain things about Jesus, which I think is more of a Pauline innovation. Okay, that was really helpful. Thank you. So you cited Luke chapter 4, 18 and 19, where Jesus says at the beginning of his ministry, the spirit of the Lord is upon me because he is anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He sent me to proclaim, release the captives, recovery, side to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, proclaim the favorable year of the lord so a couple things jump out to this passage i've looked at number one he says to preach the gospel to the poor so it addresses the poor but to preach to the poor now it says free those who are oppressed of course the question is what

does it mean to free people who are oppressed now you didn't use this language, but obviously, from my take, Jesus is not speaking in kind of a neo-Marxist oppressor versus oppressed kind of paradigm. In Acts chapter 10, I think Peter makes it really clear what Jesus is talking about. Verse 38, he says, you know of Jesus of Nazareth, how god anointed him with the holy spirit with power how he went about doing good as you indicate and healing all who are oppressed by the devil for god was with him he's talking about spiritual oppression not economic oppression not cultural oppression not racial racial. He's talking about spiritual oppression by the devil. And then Peter goes on and said, verse 43, right after this, as of him,

all the prophets bear witness that through his name, everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins. So I think the heart of the gospel and why jesus came is to free all of us rich or poor black or white from the bonds of sin now this is no surprise to you because you went to moody i understand you get this trying to clarify for our audience but i just after i was reading your book i went back through i'm like if i just look at what scripture says about why jesus came to me it's super clear so for example in luke chapter 1 verses 76 and 77 zachariah says of john the baptist he says for you will go before the lord to prepare his ways to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins that's luke 1 matthew 1 the angel says to joseph she will bear

his son you shall call his name jesus for he will save his people from their sins yeah uh move to john chapter one when jesus shows up what is john the baptist call him that is the lamb the sacrificial lamb who will take away the sins of the world jesus said he came to call sinners in repentance and i guess the last thing i'll say is in luke 24 the last says these he says uh verse 24 44 through 47 says these are my words that i spoke to you while i was still with you that everything written about me in the law of moses and the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures and he said to them thus it is written that the Christ should suffer and die on the third day rise from the dead. And that repentance for forgiveness of sins

should be proclaimed in his name to all nations. Then he says, the apostles apostles you are witnesses of these things i think from the start to the middle to the end it's clear jesus came to be the sacrificial lamb of god to pay for sins so we have freedom from oppression spiritual oppression now what follows from that this is where paul says i don't think paul made it to creedal i think in ephesians 2 8 9 he says by grace through faith uh you are saved it's not from yourself it is a gift from god not by works and no one can boast and then verse 10 says therefore do good works i hear you say you're comfortable with the language social gospel and there's an area where you and I would agree firmly that we have to do good to our neighbors. And in the name of Christ, like it says in Luke, he went around doing good. We need to love people. Now, you and I might differ over what that looks like. That's a

separate conversation we could have, but we agree that at the heart of the gospel is doing good, but we can't skip over what John the Baptist, what the angel, what the scripture, what Jesus himself said is why he came, which is to forgive sins. Once we're forgiven, then do good. That's how I see it. What do you think? So much there to unpack, but I'll say just two things. One, my gospel is not one devoid of forgiveness.

So just we'll set that there for a second. I think forgiveness is part of what Christ comes to teach. I think your view, remember in the beginning, I talked about there's a Jesus of history and a Christ of faith. Your view is coming strictly from the Christ of faith side. I don't think that there's any evidence. And I think the best Jesus scholarship points to, that the historical Jesus believed that he was a spiritual savior. I don't think that's the best Jesus seminar knowledge that has come out, analyzing the Gospels and what is most historic, most likely claims of Jesus. That's not the language that Jesus used. Jesus believed he was primarily a socio-political savior.

He believed he was the Messiah for his people. And so the oppression he was talking about there is not a spiritual oppression. It's literal oppression from the Roman Empire. And I think we see that most clearly, again, articulated in the Gospel of Mark. And I think what we see later on in the New Testament is his disciples grappling with the fact that the Messiah, the one they thought was going to redeem the Jewish people from the oppression of the Roman Empire, is killed by Rome. Now what do we do? Immediately, we see the invention of a spiritualized version of Jesus's life, which I think Paul was one of the originators of, but I think we see used in other New Testament texts, obviously, as well. They had to make sense of Jesus not being the Jewish Messiah.

The Messianic expectation wasn't that the Messiah was going to be a spiritual savior, but primarily a socio-political one. And Jesus didn't do that. And so we see the emergence of a theology that has to spiritualize what Jesus said. But I do think, and Jesus scholarship states that Jesus walking into a synagogue, unfurling the scroll of Isaiah and reading that, I think that's a historical event.

And I think what Isaiah meant and what Jesus meant was all of that was literal to be fulfilled in his lifetime by him as the Messiah, redeeming his people from the oppression of the world or of the Roman empire, I should say. And I think as a follower of Jesus, I want to take that same message

and look at my own world and ask where is there literal oppression and spiritual oppression? Where is there literal poverty and spiritual poverty? And how can I, in the way of Jesus, help eliminate that, which is what I think Jesus ultimately was doing? Brandon, like you said in my last mini speech, there's so many things I'd like to respond to, but you're my guest. We're running out of time. There are so many follow-up

conversations we could have, even about the historical Jesus, how he understood himself. For the sake of time, I'm going gonna have to let it go oh the apologist in me is just chomping at the bits uh do you have time i know you have a meeting do you have time for one last question that we can each address are you okay with that or do you have to run let's do it we've made good time so okay so and i preface with this you ahead of time so you can think about it but i'd be curious i'll make sure I frame it the way I did to you. What is your message for me? And for evangelicals, don't hold back. Where do you think you went to Moody? Where do you think we fall short? And then I'm going to give my two cents. Well, again, and I'm not just saying this because I'm on your show,

but I think you are very different. There are some evangelicals who might have been able to have great relationships with that are very thoughtful and not fear-based. I think what I experienced in my time at Moody, not to throw them under the bus, I think that was representative of evangelicalism as a whole movement.

And what I experience continually is a theology of both arrogance and a theology of fear. Evangelical theology tends to lead people to believe that once you've understood a certain set of doctrines, once you've believed that you've been a recipient of God's salvation, that you are right, and that there's salvation that you are right and that there's no more work to be done um from a theological or intellectual standpoint that these are unchanging truths that we just need to accept at moody when i entered into moody i had to sign a doctrinal statement when i left moody in order to graduate as a precondition you needed to sign that same doctrinal statement that tells me that over

four years i'm not intended to learn i'm intended to go deeper into the doctrine that i already came in with that is one critique um it's the david bevington kind of anti-mark noel anti-intellectualism the scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no evangelical mind be more open to engage intellectually Be more open to engage intellectually. Be more open to engage and rethink your beliefs around certain topics. The second one is fear. I guide it by 1 John saying that God is love and love casts out fear because fear has to do with judgment. If your theology is motivated by a fear of the judgment of God and you're communicating that to the world that if they aren't right they need to fear the judgment of God because they haven't

believed the right things that not only isolates most other people who are hearing you speak about your faith but I think it shows that your faith is not rooted in the God revealed in Jesus who is fundamentally a God of love that expels fear and fear of judgment in particular. When I was freed to look at my theology from a lens of love, believing that God's grace would guide me even if I do veer off and say the wrong thing or believe the wrong thing, believing that my salvation is not based on my rightness, but on God's grace alone, that liberated me to be curious. It liberated me to be free from some of, I would say, some of the more harmful theology that I once was a part of. But more than

that, just helped me to be more of a Christ-like person, I would say, because I'm not afraid of Satan lurking in every person that holds a different perspective than me. Instead, I see God can be speaking through many diverse people that might not look the same or speak the same or have the same exact paradigm as I do. Awesome. Let me give you my two cents and I'll give you the last word. So when you said arrogance and fear, I think there is a lot of that within evangelical theology.

One of the things I consistently push back on is that we have a fear-based approach to fill in the blank with whatever label. And of course, the Bible says perfect love casts out fear. Arrogance. There can be a lot of arrogance within evangelical theology. So in your book and in this conversation, I think you point out certain things that those of us, not just evangelicals, but would say adopt the historic Christian faith, including evangelicals, need to do better at things like handling questions and doubts well, ignoring the humanity of Jesus. I think that was one of the points we didn't get into when he talked about Jesus sinning. You felt like it made him more human and relatable. Maybe sometimes you talk about divinity and not humanity enough in evangelicals,

how we can treat outsiders better. So I learned a lot by this conversation. One of my big takeaways though, is when you made a statement, and I hope I got it right, that one of the reasons you're a progressive Christian is the treatment at the hands of evangelicals. I tell you, that grieves me. So I think, and I know you would take issue with this, but I think your heart's desire for things like unity to love people to be able to ask questions are not inherent in the evangelical position they're failures of us to practice it so i think all the virtues that you more deeply care about, even though you and I might express them differently and live them out differently,

evangelicalism doesn't require by its very nature the abandonment of those. So I would say, Brandon, don't give up on the Trinity. Don't give up on Jesus being the sinless Savior and the Bible being uniquely inspired, I think, and authoritative. I think there's a way to hold that, love our neighbor, ask good questions, and follow Jesus as I think is revealed in Scripture. Let me give you the last word and we'll wrap it up. Now, I appreciate that. And I think similarly to your exhortation to me, I think continue to have these kinds of conversations. I know I witnessed the amount of flack just on the few comments on Twitter of why would you talk

to people like him who are false teachers who disagree, whatever. Even if that is deep down theologically, I presume that your theology might lead you to conclude that me as a teacher is a false teacher, but still doesn't, there is utility in this moment of our most pluralized and globalistic world to having conversations like this. And I would say that there are very few people on either side, but certainly very few people in your camp that are having these kind of conversations and it is so important not only for the good of our faith but i think for the good of our collective world right now that is so polarized and demonizing so thank you for doing that i think it is a witness to christ in you and christ's call to tear down the

walls that divide us and i'm grateful for the opportunity. Well, I appreciate you coming on. I'd remind people, some people are like, how can you have this conversation? This is not a church. This is YouTube. This is a public forum. That's very different than a church, whether it's your church or mine. And this is something we try to do at Biola Well, Brandon. And you cited my president, Barry Corey, in his book, Love Kindness, said, be firm at the center, soft on the edges. And I think there's a way to do this today. You and I differ significantly. That came out today, but I think there's a common desire to have civil dialogue conversation. So maybe down the road, we will do it again. Appreciate you coming. I know you're late for your meeting, but for the rest of you still watching,

please make sure you hit subscribe. We've got some other conversations like this coming up. You're not going to want to miss. And also, if you've thought about studying apologetics, what we try to do at Biola is equip people to defend the faith, but engage people well. We have a fully distanced, top-rated program. There's information below.

We'd be honored if you'd come and study with us at Biola. Brandon, I hope I didn't get you fired. You're late, my friend. So get out of here. Thanks for hanging out. Awesome. Thanks so much. Have a good day.

See you, buddy.