Theology in the Raw - Christian Disagreement in a Culture of Outrage: Dr. Tim Meuhlhoff

Episode Date: February 26, 2026

Join the Theology in the Raw Patreon community to get access to our "extra innings" raw conversation on the pronoun debate.Dr. Tim Muehlhoff (Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) is a Professor of Communication at Biola University and the Senior Director of Biola’s Winsome Conviction Academy that seeks to reintroduce compassion and civility into our disagreements. He’s the co-host of the Winsome Conviction Podcast where people with differing viewpoints are brought on for engaging dialogue and has written extensively in the area of cultural engagement and conflict including I Beg to Differ, Winsome Persuasion, Winsome Conviction, and his newest book (co-written with Sean McDowell) is End the Stalemate: Move Past Cancel Culture to Meaningful Conversations. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

As Christians, we need to ask a really hard question. In our communication, what separates us from everybody else on social media, podcast world, I'm thinking of what Peter says, right? When insulted, I do not want you to insult. I want you to bless. And second, be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in you with all gentleness and reverence. We can disagree and have convictions, but how we communicate is just as important to God as the content. Hey friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology in the ROM.

My guest today is Dr. Tim Mewhoff, who has a PhD from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And he is a professor of communication at Biola University in Southern California. He also serves as a director of Biola University's Winsome Conviction Project that seeks to open lines of communication, rather than close them. You got to check out the Winsome Conviction Project. head over to biola.edu forward slash winsome dash conviction or check out the link in the show notes. Tim is also the author of several awesome books, including one of my favorites, which is titled, End the Stalmate. Move past Cancel Culture to Meaningful Conversations, which he co-wrote with our mutual friend, Dr. Sean McDowell. And if you want to listen to or watch my extra innings conversation with Tim about the pronoun debate,

where Tim basically models what we talk about in this episode, how to be able to take the perspective of different viewpoints you don't agree with. Tim models how to do that with the pronoun debate. So if you want to watch or listen to that portion of this podcast, head over to patreon.com forward slash theology in Iran, become a member of the theology in the raw community. Okay, please welcome back to the show,

the one and only Dr. Tim Mulehof. Dr. Tim Mulehoff, you are one of my favorite. I can be careful for her because I've got tons of guests and I love them all. Love them all. All you guests listening, love you all. So you're a, yeah, without demeaning anybody, I'm not off to a good start. You're one of my favorite people to talk to you. You're off to a great start, my friend.

I, you, you, we, everybody talks about the polarized culture. Everything has become more, more divisive, more, more polarize. polarized, more and more siloed. It's just everybody feels it, and yet we still participate in it. We know the algorithms are wooing us in to click on more and more angry posts. And yet, what do we do? We keep clicking and clicking and clicking. It's just we're aware of what's going on. And yet we need leaders who are able to help us navigate. How do we be a Christian? How do we be the church in this hyper-polarized time. And you not only do that so well, but you have the, I guess, the academic expertise in communication to know how to do this. How would you summarize our cultural moment in terms of

its polarization? Is that, I mean, I don't think anything I said is too controversial. I mean, it's kind of like, yeah, of course we are. But how would you describe our cultural moment in terms of our polarization? So I think I get asked that question a lot. And I have to say, are we more polarized, angry than the 1960s when the wheels were falling off and Kent State students are being shot to death? I don't think we're more polarized. I think we're two things. I think tribalism is this very basic idea that all I do is hang out with like-minded people. I watch news programs that buttress my point of view. It often makes me angrier, like the more I live, listen to this particular news source, the more they demonize other people and call them idiots.

I think contempt has entered into our conversations today. We just had Arthur Brooks on our podcast, the Winston Conviction podcast. And he said this, Preston, that really stayed with me. America doesn't have an anger problem. We have a contempt problem. And I said, what's the difference? And he said, look, anger is, you and I can be mad at each other, but we're going to be. going to stay friends, right? We're Christian brothers, we're family. Contempt is, I'm mad at you and I'm going to, you need to lead the church. The church would be better off if you left. The family would be stronger if you left. We no longer can have fellowship. We no longer can be friends or family. That's contempt. And I think social media just pours gasoline on everything, depending on what we're

listening to. I think we just get angrier and angrier and we talk among ourselves and we never reach out to the other side. So stereotypes are never dispelved. You don't ever put a face on the issue. It's just the issue. I think put all that together. I think welcome to today's argument culture. Oh, gosh. Would you, social media is the gasoline on the fire. The, would you, would you, would you identify certain cultural moments in the last decade or so that are the fire that has been fueled by social media and online communities? I'm thinking, you know, everybody goes back to 2016, the rise of Trump, which created MAGA, which created also Trump derangement syndrome, you know, whatever Trump says, I'm going to believe the opposite because he said it. Then you have COVID,

the response to COVID you know, this is you know, created this division which oddly was along political lines which should tell you there's probably something else going on here, you know? Like if you see a person wearing a mask you know who they voted for, that's weird.

Well, you know, it's all... I mean, maybe not in 2020, but like in 2022. And then you have, you know, I would say you can almost write a book like, you know, American culture from Trump 1.0 to Epstein. Yeah. But let me mention two things that Brooke said that I thought were utterly fascinating. One, in 2016, based on Pew Research, 33% of respondents say, I no longer talk to a family

member based on that election. Remember, that's the contempt. I'm cutting you out. I'm cutting off communication. Second, I actually used that illustration with him about President Trump. And I said, what would you say to a person who would say legitimately, I cannot think of anything positive about the president? And he said, try harder. He said, John Gottman's five to one ratio, right, five positive interactions for every one negative.

He said, if you can't come up with five positives about the president, then you have been siloed. You are in a toxic atmosphere if you cannot step back in it. You don't have to agree with them. But to say there's nothing positive about Democrats, Republicans, you're living in a silo, and he said you're drinking the Kool-Aid. That was like a drop-the-mic moment because I have strong political views, and I can get caught in this rip tide of negativity. And I think it's great to be able to step back and say,

Look, I can be objective enough to talk about the positives. So let me, as a practice, a spiritual practice, let me first start with the positives about this person, this position, before we get to the negatives. Man, I think that it would be a great practice for us today. Is that the first step toward having better, healthier, more fruitful conversations is identifying some positives in the very viewpoint of person. that you either disagree with or maybe even really despise? Let me say yes. So we're writing a book, me, my co-director, Rick Langer, and Perry Glasner from Baylor.

We're writing a book called The Heart of Civility, taking seriously Jesus' comment from the heart you speak. So Preston, I do think heart change is the first step. Like, we'll take communication techniques and throw them out the window if our heart isn't in the right place. I'm a rhetoric professor, so let's go all the way back to Aristotle. Aristotle said the method of the dialectic, which is, give me an issue. I can argue both sides of the issue. Whatever issue you present, I can step back and say, okay, black lives matter. Here's the positives about the movement,

and here's the negatives about the movement, using preferred pronouns. Here's the danger of using preferred pronouns. Here's the value of doing it. President Trump, I can see why people voted for him and I can see why people have concerns. When I was on the debate team at Eastern Michigan University, you had to do the method of the dialectic and if the coaches could tell which one you actually believed, you flunked. You had to do the method straight, equal passion, equal argument on both sides of the issue. And Preston, I think today not only have we lost the ability to do that, it has been devalued. Like the conversation today is, yeah, but there aren't two sides to Charlie Kirk. There's not two sides to the president. Nancy Pelosi, a life of service to the country,

there's nothing positive about that woman. Right. And I'm saying, whoa, Oh, come on. We need to be able to step back and say, did I disagree with her on certain policy issues? Yeah, but come on, we can step back and recognize certain things that she did. But today, that is not valued and it's labeled woke.

To see two sides of an issue is wokeness when there's only biblically one side to the issue. The Exiles in Babylon conference is happening again, April 30th to May 2nd. in Minneapolis, and this one is going to be spicy. We're talking about mental health and the gospel. How should the church respond to immigration? We're also having a dialogical debate about Christians and war with Shane Claiborne and Paul Copan. And we're also having another dialogical debate between Peter N's and Sandy Richter over the historical reliability of the Bible. We also added a

pre-conference addressing how Christians should think about artificial intelligence. We have several experts coming to lead us in that conversation. Other speakers include Dan Alaner, Matthew Sorens, Liliana, Reza, Joshua Smith, Chinway Williams, and several others. And of course, worth the price of admission, Street Hymns is coming back as well, folks. Most of all, the in-person experience at exiles is just super unique. I mean, it's, I don't know. If you've been there, you know what I'm talking about. It's hard to describe.

You just got to go and experience it for yourself. Just head over to TheologyEnra.com to register. We also have a heavily discounted Gen Z price. Don't lie about your age. You've got to be Gen Z. and also discounts on groups of five or more. Again, that's April 30th to May 2nd in Minneapolis. Register at Theologyintherrod.com.

Can women be leaders in the church? Pastors, overseers, teachers, preachers, and elders. This is a question that I have long been interested in, but haven't studied it out for myself. And as always, the strength of our passion should match the depth of our study. So this is what I did. I spent over three years researching what the Bible says

about women in leadership. And I wrote a book about my conclusions. It's called From Genesis to Junia. And on a search for what the Bible really says about women in leadership. And in it, I thoroughly examine all the main passages and arguments on both sides of the debate and try to treat them as fairly as I know how. The book comes out in March, March 3rd, but you can pre-order it today wherever books are sold. I actually, you'll appreciate this.

I probably shouldn't say this publicly. please. I'm out of nickel for every time I started on this podcast. No, I just wrote up a rough draft. It's a lengthy post

that I'll post to my Patreon community for my Patreon community. It's called raw thoughts on Nick Fuentes. Could not get

a more divisive figure. And yeah, it's sitting in my drafts and I sent out to some people. I spent it about 10 hours. Look at long, form. I don't, I refuse to base my opinion on anybody on clips because clips are just the worst

form. Yes, that clip is something they said, but there's no context. And, and unless you're looking at an equal number of clips of good things or positive things, the person said, you're going to have an incredibly warped view. And usually clips are formed and given to you by either hyperfans or hyper haters. So you're, I mean, if somebody clipped, if somebody despises me, And they clipped certain things that I said that want to further other people's despising of me. Oh, dude, I got lots of material you can work with. Is that a good representation of who I am? I hope not.

My word. And vice versa. Somebody could be a huge fan or whatever and just clip all the positive things. And that's going to be inaccurate too. So all that to say, listening curiously in good faith to long form. content is the only way really to get an accurate view of who somebody is. And I'm more interested in not, I mean, Nick Fuentes, some 20-something internet, you know, influencer. I'm more interested in the, why is he, has he become so incredibly popular? And what about the counterreact? Are people

counter reacting to him and his popularity in a, are they identifying what they see as the problem? I actually don't think they are. Anyway, all that to say, I haven't posted it yet, even behind a paywall, because I'm like, man, am I going to say the right thing? Am I going to give the, you know, whatever? Am I going to like, you know, for people that despise them? Am I going to like make sure they know I despise them to too or people that maybe, I don't think of anybody that would actually like Nick Finches in my audience? people who might say be concerned, well, hey, are you misrepresented on me? So anyway, even me, who doesn't have much of a filter, I am like, ooh, going to make sure I word this thing perfectly so that I don't get a bunch of emails. Can I give you a personal example of this that really hits home to me?

So I was recently called out in a national publication and this was attributed to me. Here it is. Mewhoff says we should no longer use the word sin when talking about the OGBQ3. community. Full stop. I'm like, okay. Wow. So here's, I'll give you the context. I was speaking at a pastor's conference and they were saying, how can we open up lines of communication with the LGBTQ community? Here's what I said. Listen, every community has trigger words that I think we just need to be aware of. So imagine we sat down with representatives from the OGT community and they start by saying this. Look, I know you guys are kind of homophobic, but I'm asking you to put aside your homophobic, we'd be like,

that was not the way to start this conversation, right? So I said, we would, we would, that would really be hurtful to us and it would not get us off on the right foot. I go, we have words we need to be aware of. So if we lead with sin, look, we know your lifestyle of sin. It's almost like the homophobia comment. So, so I'm saying, can we, can we describe? sin, but not use the word. I think we should at least think about the words that would trigger. That is the full context of that quote. And you get none of that. And I think Preston, as Christians, we need to ask a really hard question. What separates us from other people? Like in our communication, what separates us from everybody else on social media, podcast world? I'm thinking to what Peter

says, right? When insulted, I do not want you to insult. I want you to bless. And second, be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in you with all gentleness and reverence. I think we need to take seriously Peter's charge to us that we can disagree and have convictions, but how we communicate is just as important to God as the content. How did that make you feel when you saw that? Because that's not, not only is that slander. It's just, it's just bad journalism, you know? And I, I could probably guess who you're talking about, not going to, don't need to name names or whatever. But that's, there's several people I could think of that are, have made a career off of that kind of thing. Like taking, like,

just engaging in really, really bad, just like you shouldn't have a job kind of journalism where you're not actually trying to summarize, understand, summarize and reveal. and then critically interact with a point of view, you are trying to frame this person in the worst possible light to provoke anger and fear among your tribe. That's just like you shouldn't have a journalistic job if that's your, that should just be. But it seems like it seems so common these days.

Yeah. What's what's behind that? I mean. Well, okay, so that's a spiritual practice when I read it. It's a spiritual practice. A couple of things are happening immediately. this is a this person is a christian journalist they would identify that way um so um things like hatred contempt are off the table even though spiritual battle wise that's exactly where Satan

wants my heart to go exactly where he wants it to go and i need to fight against that um to reach out to that person i think at that point is totally appropriate now unfortunately many individuals today who are like conflict entrepreneurs. I love that title. They don't want to meet. They just refuse to meet. Well, okay, this is where Paul says, so far as it depends on you,

be at peace. Because the comment was made publicly, can we respond publicly? I think the answer is yes, with gentleness and reverence, but we still need to. So, you know, the first book Rick and I wrote, my co-director,

was called Winston Persuasion, which is talking to non-Christians. Then we wrote Winsome Conviction, disagreeing without dividing the church. You've been very kind to have us on for both of those. And now we're going to write a third one called Winsome Confrontation. Like, listen, we are called to confront. And we need to confront.

Paul was not afraid to confront the Judaizers. Obviously, Jesus overturned tables in the court of the Gentiles. So there's a line that can get crossed that we are confronting. But even when we confront what's distinct. different about when Christians confront each other. And I think we need to really wrestle with that question. So did you, how did you respond, privately, publicly, publicly, or have you responded? I have, we have chosen not to respond. I'm writing a piece that indirectly will address it,

called, is it time for us to have a conversation about conversations? as a Christian communication professor, are there certain ground rules we can adopt as Christians, both publicly and privately? I mean, the problem with this is we're having this discussion publicly in front of God, country, and everybody. But this would be using Matthew 18 as a guiding guardrails for our conversations. Because you're so funny, Preston, people reverse Matthew 18.

Right? And remember, Matthew 18 is like, I go to you privately. It's you and me. If you rebuff my efforts, I take another person with me. If you rebuff my efforts again, we make it public. Today, we start with the public. I think we totally reverse Matthew 18.

And I think we just, so I'm going to write that piece and publish it maybe in a leading Christian periodical, hopefully. But that will be my indirect response. I belong to a Christian university. So I have to be very careful. If I respond, it can often be, if our podcast responds, we have to make it very clear. This is not Biola. Bless you.

This is not Biola. There is no unified voice for Viola in some ways. Everybody's got, like everybody else, we've got podcasts, we've got YouTube channels. So I think we have to be very careful how we respond publicly. And I love your idea of the silent majority. Yeah. We need to, I think because we're a Christian university, let's make this a teaching moment. And I think the teaching moment could be, let's agree from Matthew 18 on some basic principles that can guide our public interaction and private interaction with each other.

I'm curious, as you were considering reaching out privately, why did you not do that? Like what, and I'm not, this isn't an accurate. This is, right. I've wrestled the same thing. Like something publicly has said about me. I always ask, do I respond? How do I respond? Like you, it's like, well, it's a public accusation.

I think it's misrepresented. Do I respond publicly? Do I reach out privately first? Do I do public and private? Do I just, you know, how do you wrestle with those options in this situation? So I have reached out to two other people and have been rebuffed. Basically, no, I won't meet with you. What's the reasoning?

Because you're a heretic. One, okay, so the first one would be to give you the microphone is to validate your position. So I'm not going to give you the microphone. I'm like, hey, they negatively critiqued a book and the stalemate that I wrote with Sean McDowell. And they basically said I fell off my chair reading the Mewaugh-Haw sections and I couldn't disagree more. I'm like, awesome.

Have me on the podcast. And let's just have a good give and take. And their response was, no, that'd be, I'm not going to give you the microphone. The second person was, no, I've said everything I need to say publicly. And I don't think you're approaching me in good faith. And I'm like, who, that was harsh. And then honestly, the third person we're talking about now is at such a level, I don't have access to this person.

The other two people I had an intermediary going on, my behalf, and that's the response I received from both of them. And the other one, I just honestly don't have access to this person. Did you know that 30% of Americans grind their teeth at night? This is like super bad for you. It's not good for your teeth. It disrupts the quality of your sleep. Did you also know that dentists are super expensive? Of course you did. This is why you need to check out Remy. Remy's custom night guards are clinically tested and FDA cleared to prevent teeth grinding, reduce jaw tension and facial muscle strain and improve sleep quality. You'll get the same professional quality and comfort as a night guard from the dentist,

but Remy costs you 80% less and is much more convenient than having to go into the dentist's office. So here's how it works. You receive your impression kit straight to your door, then follow Remy's step-by-step instructions to get your perfect impression. Remy crafts and ships you your custom fit night guard, and then you get your night guard back. and start protecting your teeth. I've done this whole process myself. It's super easy.

And even if you mess up, Remy has outstanding customer service to help you along the way. So start the new year, write, and use code T-I-T-R to get 50% off your purchase of a new night guard. That's 50% off at ShopR-R-E-M-E-M-E-M-I. Okay, that's shop than R-E-M-I.com forward slash T-I-T-R with code T-I-T-R. Thank you, Remy for sponsoring this episode.

There's certain, I'm just speaking of my own experience. I can't, I'm just thinking back on a general level, but like certain kinds of people who made accusations or I'm like, I guess I'm just not, like, I'm not really interested in seeing their pattern and engaging this person. I don't think it'd be good for either of us. I'm typically, someone's just a time issue. Like, is it a big enough deal where I need to like carve out space in my schedule and invest energy into this kind of conversation? Others, I'm like, yeah, I would love to have a, you know, conversation, if there's evidence that it could be profitable. You know, there's, I've seen, the other person has given public evidence that they have some

semblance of good faith, a capability of having a good faith interaction. If they haven't shown that, then I'm like, what's, kind of what's the point? I don't know. And that's where I might default to a public response that isn't really directed so much at that person because I don't have evidence that they're going to like change their mind or stop doing what they're doing. It's more for the people looking on so that I can give clarity over what I actually believe, you know. Let me pick up on what you just said, Preston, because I'm actually writing a book with a lead researcher on the deconversion movement. We're using young evangelicals at a really disturbing level. Pure research says for every one

person who converts to Christianity, six, deconvert. Okay. So what you just said is so important. This public conversation that we're having, the new generation, the younger generation of evangelicals are listening. And they do not like what they hear. They do not like how we treat each other.

So I think if nothing else, I need to be aware that a younger generation is actually listening. We call that a talk stage. So a talk stage, this is such a great way to illustrate it. You and I, before we hit record, you and I were not on a talk stage. You and I were talking as friends, and we probably were saying some things. We'd really fine if it was public. But the minute you hit record, it's a talk stage because now other people are listening.

So we need to realize, hey, this public interaction is now a talk stage because the younger generation of evangelicals are listening, and they are leading in droves how we're treating each other publicly. And that's going to be on our heads at the judgment seat of Christ. We're going to have to explain that. And so I think we need to clean up our language and model to people this is what good Christian interaction looks like when you disagree on deep theological, political, or social issues. So I'm curious, you said for every one convert or six leaving, five or six leaving, six leaving? Six. what about this phenomenon that everybody's talking about that there's this massive revival happening among gen z

is that the one yeah are we not talking about the even bigger de-revival namely d conversion that's happening because that's that's only one side of the coin if we say look at all the people coming and showing up at church and the gen z that's all on fire can you help us give a round of There's a revival among the people who are staying. Like, that's really encouraging. They're getting right with Jesus. They're being attracted to more liturgical services. That's awesome.

So praise God for the ones that are staying. But that in no way negates that the floodgates that the floodgates are open and people are leaving in really, we're hemorrhaging faith. So I'm so glad that the people that are staying are getting right with the Lord and what a great model to all of us. But man, that doesn't negate the people that are walking out the door for a lot of reasons and one of them being how we communicate with each other. Okay, so that's one reason.

What are some other reasons why people are leaving? Well, not to get overly political, but we're having this uneasy relationship that evangelicalism is squarely in the camp of the Republicans and squarely in the camp of being pro-President Trump. I think we also saw a little bit of this with Charlie Kirk, which was such a tragedy, his assassination. But when you saw the memorial service, woo, it was part memorial service, part the marriage of republicanism and evangelicalism.

That makes some people uncomfortable. I think also, honestly, it's all these scandals, Preston, after a while. My students are jaded. They're like, I mean, how many of these scandals can we endure? And when Rabbi Zacharias went down, Preston, he was on my Mount Rushmore of Christian communicators, people who did it right. He had such a gracious demeanor towards people who disagreed with him. Huge Rabbi Zacharias span.

And the more you learn, the more disturbing it becomes that he was forcing. women to have sex with them for years, 10, 15 years. And I think after a while, the upcoming generation is like, I don't think we can trust any evangelical leader. And then I think last, the problem of evil, the internet now exposes us to not just what's happening in my community, but what's happening in every community in the world. And I think the question young evangelicals ask is, man, why isn't God more obviously present? like obviously present. Why isn't he stepping in more when he certainly can do it?

And I think that's a very legitimate question that even I ask. Like, I'd love to see God be more obviously proactive. I actually wrote a book called Eyes to See about God's Common Grace in the world. We tend not to give him credit for common grace. We just blame him for cancer. We don't praise him for chemotherapy. And the book is called, I see God's common grace in an unsettled world. But I think put all those things.

He's written a lot of books, man. You know what? I love to write. I really do. It's probably the most enjoyable and way I work out issues is I really love to sit. Instead of giving a talk, which tends to be there and then it's gone, I love to sit and have a long conversation with myself. and work out a problem. And the fact that somebody wants to publish that,

I'm like, come on, that's amazing that publishers are still interested in publishing it. I could not agree. That could not agree more. Well, you've written some amazing books, brother. Thank you. Your books, when it comes to the area of sexual identity, gender dysphoria,

people to be loved, man, you have led the charge on a compassionate response to one of the most controversial issues of our day, race and sexuality, 1A, 1B, and you've chosen to wade into one of the most controversial ones, and we're all better for it.

Well, it still hasn't gotten me canceled, so I'm coming out with a book on women and leadership in March, so we'll see how that one go. Brother, I don't have your courage, man. Oh, it's fun. I love it. I love it. But writing, I agree.

it's first of all, I just think there's some people that just, I think God put it on our hearts. Like there's certain forms of, I think we're all creative. Everybody creates. We're creating God's image. We are creators. Doesn't mean we're creative in the artistic sense necessarily, although that's part of it. But for me, you know, so some people just, whether it's speaking or painting or writing, there's just something in them that is just so energized by it.

And for me, it's nothing but grown. over the last 20 years. My happy place is right here in my basement for 14 hours with a clean slate on my day and just being able to write. Even spending a couple hours on a paragraph, a half hour on a sentence, just a craft of it. It's just that how can I best understand and present this idea in a compelling and clear and truthful way?

To me, writing is where I live there. speaking. I enjoy it. I enjoy speaking probably less than I used to. Now I'm I just am growing more. Not terrified. It's just it's it's I still get purpose when I step on stage. I don't study the art of speaking like I study the art of writing. And speaking, for me at least, it's less polished. You know, my books, especially this last one, it's got, It went through 10 drafts. Oh, wow. I had 12 scholars read and critique it,

a very, very involved editor who read through it several times, gave feedback, critical feedback every time. And so my books, probably like you, are the most refined thoughts that I have. Podcasts, you know, I might disagree with 20% of what I said the second I ended up. You know, like it's, I'm thinking out loud. It's a conversation.

It's natural. It's not prepared, you know. And so, yeah, my podcast are kind of, they're fun because they're just uncut and all over the map. But my, when I write, that, that's where I'm like, okay, here is the most crystallized, formed, hopefully well-formed, well-thoughtful, well-thoughtful presentation of my idea. I want to go back. Hey, can I mention two things real quick? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So my favorite Joyce Carol Oates quote of life, writing is the only thing I do that I never wonder if I should be doing something else.

Isn't that a great quote? Wow, that is so good. Love it. Second, you mentioned writing, but I was the guest editor for the Christian Scholars Review theme issue on perspective taking. Yes.

And Katie Cressor, one of my all-time favorite authors from Seattle Pacific University, wrote an essay on art facilitating perspective taking. It is stunning essay, and the images are equally stunning. So your listeners

can go to Christian Scholars Review dot com and it's online. Yeah, it's an excellent. I read your article twice and I clicked on a couple of the articles linked in there. And yeah, it's absolutely, it's excellent.

And our good friend, Ed Yuzins, Dr. Ed Yuzinski's in it. Let's go to there. Let's talk about Ed Zzynski. It's unbelievable book. Untangling Critical Race Theory. And I said this to you off camera, but honestly, it's a model for Christian academics. It's a model of the method of the dialectic. And it's one of the best handling of a topic I've read in the last 20, 25 years.

It is brilliant and got him in a lot of trouble because it's the method of the dialectic with something that we demonize critical race theory, that Christians can. can't even talk about it today because it's been so demonized. And Ed took years to think deeply about it. And he's not afraid to critique critical race theory, but he doesn't demonize it and says it actually with discernment can be useful in understanding power dynamics within the race conversation. He steel mans it.

He says here is my best understanding of what this thing is. And he literally did his PhD in, I mean, what American studies. So it was basically a PhD in critical theory. He's been thinking about this stuff for 25 years. Both on an academic level and on the ground. He's been in tons of mixed race spaces and trying to navigate that. I agree. It is an absolute model of how thoughtful, evangelical analysis of divisive topics should go.

It is absolutely a model. What do you think makes it? Like, what is it about his approach? that makes it so good that you would hail it as one of the best books in the last 25 years on on these kind of issue. I like to refer to him as a young Tim Milhoff. You guys are the same age. So here's what's so good about it. So we interviewed him for this theme issue for the Christian Scholars Review. I said, Ed, I'm going to throw concepts at you. I want you to do both sides, both sides. He goes, okay. I go, okay, systemic racism. And he says, and he says,

And he goes, okay, I would see conservative Christians having a problem with it. And I think it's legitimate. I think they have a problem with it. Boom, boom, boom. I go, okay, now give me people who would think within the Christian camp, there's legitimacy to it. And he goes, yeah, I think they're right. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I go, okay, white fragility, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

And then we actually did Max Lakato after the killing of George Floyd made a public apology as a white, evangelical and it was well received by part of the black community it was really demonized by by people who thought that was way too much yeah um and i said do both do both give me both he was okay i'm concerned and and preston it was just brilliant that he could stop and do the method dialectic almost in real time and I was just thoroughly impressed that he could step back and say, okay, let me try to channel both groups and steal man it. I love that phrase you use steel man. Yeah, I think that is just a model because today, when you talk to the average Christian and you mentioned critical race theory within the conservative camp, they are like, oh, that's Marxist.

It's, and they demonize it without really understanding the foundation of critical race theory, critical theory. And I think we just got to be better than that. Yeah. That's so good. You've known, how long have you known Ed for for decades? Oh, I've known him for probably 40 years. Oh, my word.

Where'd you meet in college or? No, we, well, with Campus Cusay for Christ. Oh, right. Oh, yeah. We met in Daytona Beach, Operation Sunshine. We'd go on the beach during spring break and share with drunk people. But that's how we met. And I really encouraged him to go do his PhD.

Like I was really like, Ed, you were, man, you were made for this. And he did. And no, so he's a lifelong friend. I so admire his willingness like you to go to the hard places. I mean, and I've experienced that a little bit with pronouns. Like, I've waded into that. Yeah. In our book, End the Stalmate that I wrote with Sean for Tindale House,

Sean's brilliant. Like, I love, Sean's another one who can do this method of dialectic at a high level. So as we're writing this book, we realize, oh, my gosh, we disagree on pronoun usage. Like, Sean is very hesitant and we'll say, I think you're violating the ninth command. by doing it. And I'm like, whoa, I don't think that's violating the Ninth Commandment. And I would tend to do it in order to have a discussion about God's view of sexuality. I'm not going to stop the conversation on a technical linguistic principle. So I said, Sean, let's do it in the book. Because if the book doesn't help us, this is a pretty crummy book.

So we did it. He had me on his YouTube channel and we actually did it. We're friends. It was very respectful. We actually laughed during parties, but oh, Preston, I got obliterated in the comments section. Like people calling for my job. I actually went on the comment section because we're going to do this book, Winsome Confrontation. I actually confronted people in the comment section saying, listen, it's okay for you to disagree with me, but I think that's out of line. Non-Christians listen to Sean Station, which is a testimony to Sean. And they popped in and said, wait a minute, let me get this straight. Two Christian brothers are trying to have a civil conversation, and this is the junk they're getting. I'm so glad I'm not a Christian.

I mean, go back to the talk stage, right? That's the talk stage, and non-Christians are listening going, that is ridiculous how Milhoff's getting critiqued from Christians? Like, that's inappropriate. Now, disagree with me, but do it in a way that's respectful. and I think that is so missing often in our online interactions. I love, I agree about Sean. Just, you know, apologetics, that's his area, apologetics. And that historically, I think it worked for a time, 80s and 90s. You know, you kind of like just destroy an argument, give them 15 reasons why their

argument's wrong, and you're kind of stacking evidence upon evidence upon evidence. But that approach just the manner in which some really good apologists have gone about it in the past and maybe it worked in the past, it just doesn't, just doesn't resonate with people. And Sean is able to maintain extremely thoughtful ideas, vast knowledge, amazing rhetorical ability, while approaching it with a very different humanizing tone and just genuine good faith listening. I had the same conversation with Sean, I think just after you did about pronouns and other things like gay identity. And it was such a

intellectually stimulating, enjoyable experience. Sean and I agree on all the majors. We're passionate about all the majors. And we have differences on some of the minors. I don't want to say disagree with almost, well, I guess it would be the right term. But it's like, I think we both are holding our views with an open hand.

Like we want to grow closer to the truth. So even in that dialogue, I remember looking at him. We're in person at, you know, at Biola's campus. And I could just tell. It was so obvious he was engaged in a good faith conversation. When I was talking, he was listening. Not listening, finding how he can repeat what I'm saying, but listening to understand, you know. And we were going around.

around on stuff. It was exhausting of three hours. It was exhausting. The Joe Rogan experience. You did I don't know how Joe does that. That's crazy. And then afterward, you know, I stayed the night at his house. I hope he's fine with me saying that. Yep. Put me up at his house. We went out to dinner that night. Had amazing Mexican food. We didn't even talk. We just talked about life and family and the world and God and you, you know, like it was, it was because I had some people say, gosh, that seemed pretty intense. How was your relationship since then? I'm like, stronger than I think, you know, like, yeah. Let me go to the spending the night at his house park because this is such a great

principle today. So we go to Capitol Hill like every summer, me and my co-director, Rick Langer, just to stay humble. Just to be humbled, we go to Capitol Hill and meet with self-identified Christian leaders. Okay. And we argue what G.K. Chesterton was able to do. Chesterton was this towering Christian intellect. He would debate all the humanists of the day,

Rudyard Kipling, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells. But afterwards, they'd go to the pub and have drinks and continue the conversation. We actually suggest that on Capitol Hill with self-identified Christian politicians, leaders. Here's what they said to us, Preston, have drinks. We don't even share the same elevators. Wow. And I'm like, that is the difference between the G.K. Chesterton approach, and maybe it was a different time.

But today, nobody's spending the night after having a debate with each other. Nobody's spending the night and having dinner with each other. So we need to model that we can disagree with each other and still collaborate. So we just had the president of BYU University,

Brigham Young University, on campus. And I interviewed him, Dr. Shane Reese and Dr. Barry Corey, on the value of collaborating with each other on protecting religious freedom, the value of religious higher education, and that Shane Reese had to drop the mic moment, Preston.

He said this. He said, listen, we have deep theological disagreements, deep between Mormons and evangelicals. Then he turns to Barry, and he goes, but that means we can't be friends. that means we can't collaborate together to help global poverty. Then he looks at the students and he says, you've been sold a lie.

And here's the lie. If we don't agree politically, we can't be friends. If we don't agree, theologically, we can't work together to eradicate poverty. That's a lie. And I was going, ooh, right? But modeling that to students, not denying our deep theological,

differences and nobody's denying it. It's actually going to be a podcast on the Winston Convention. We recorded it. We're going to air it. But our critics would lose their mind by saying, no, no, no, you just normalized Mormonism. You gave them a seat at the table. And I want to say, look, that's a valid concern-ish. But nobody's doing that. Like, we're engaging each other theologically, but we're not stopping there with our disagreements. We're doing the second grade commandment together we're doing neighbor love and I think the poor don't care if they're getting

ministered to by a Mormon activist or an evangelical activist. I love that so much and I, yeah, we need so much more of that. I am, and that's where I'm kind of wired is how can we reach across the aisle, whatever the aisle is to be clear with our differences,

articulate those with grace and honesty, debate ideas and yet still not obviously dehumanize each other, but even maintain a relationship with each other. How do you, is there a place for the book of Jude? Second Peter 2. I remember years ago, I was like, when do I get my Jude on? You know, like, if you're familiar with the book of Jude, short chapter,

you can go read it right now. He comes out pretty hard against actual heretics and people. apostasizing and it's ruthless right I mean he does not hold back like what kinds of person or viewpoints you should will necessitate more of a jude response than a how can we get a long you know response have you wrestle with that I'm sure you have oh that's going to be our book winsome confrontation but there is the prophetic voice Paul with the judicizers right yes the Judaizers they were warping the gospel. They were bringing in this works mentality.

And Paul is quite firm in saying that is within the camp. You're trying to get within the Christian camp and warp the gospel, and we're just not going to let you do that. Now, listeners might think, well, wait a minute, isn't that what Mormons are trying to do? Yes, that was giving me my next question. But I don't think so. Like, I just got back from Salt Lake City,

where the N.A.E., the National Association of Evangelicals, along with the LDS Church, sponsored these two days of deep conversations about theological differences, but also how can we collaborate? So listen, I was sitting at a table with a Mormon elder and a BYU theologian. There was obvious we're two different camps, right? You're the LDS Church and you're not going to give on the Book of Mormon. were the evangelical community, and we're not going to embrace the Book of Mormon. Let's just get that on the table right now.

And it was. So I don't think they're trying to get into evangelical leadership to change our view of the eternality of Jesus, right? With that being present, now can the two camps work together? Paul was concerned that the Judaizers were actually coming into the New Testament church as it was growing. And they were going to want to change the gospel. And Paul's like, no way am I letting you into this church to change the gospel.

The LDS are not trying to infiltrate evangelicalism to change how we view the scriptures. Right? Now, hopefully, there can be. Some might, right? Some people might try to convert evangelicals to the LDS faith. But I think the leaders. On the whole. On the whole.

On the whole, the leaders. at the top, understand, this is Republican Democrat. Like, we're not giving up our party, but can we understand each other deeper? Can we get rid of some stereotypes? Can you explain our most controversial beliefs that just don't make sense? So I got a chance to ask the theologian,

okay, am I correct in understanding that at one point, God was a man that progressed to become divine. And he said, well, okay, that needs some unpacking. But yeah. And I said, oh, great, unpack that for me. What a great moment for us to sit in a civil way for me to ask honest questions about a belief that it's hard for me to wrap my head around this belief.

And this theologian was awesome, Preston. So kind, so patient to unpack it. And then patient to hear my, hey, that's going to be really hard for. the evangelicals to embrace that one. I'm just saying that's going to be a tap one. But that kind of dialogue needs to be showcased that we can actually sit down with each other in a civil way, not give up our compromises.

Our president has this saying, Barry, that I love, firm center, soft edges. Yeah, love that. Love that phrase. Yeah. You know I spoke at BYU. What's that? I spoke at BYU.

What? the BYU Idaho campus up in Rexburg, Eastern Idaho, 10 years ago. On what topic? Well, so it was on nonviolence. And I, one of the professors,

and first of all, in my limited, very limited, but very real, experience with LDS academics, it's different than interacting with like Mormon or LDS folk belief or your Mormon neighbor or even, you know, the elder of the ward, you know, academics or academics, they're going to be, they're not afraid generally to be critical of their own system.

Yeah. And so I found out, I hope this is okay, publicly, you know, there was, apparently like militarism is very much alive and well in the LDS church, just as much as like conservative. evangelicalism. Apparently it's even bigger. Mitt Romney, right? And so there was a small group of kind of dissident faculty members there

that were into kind of more anti-nationalism, anti-militarism, nonviolence, and one of the professors who I think he even studied, he moved to like India to study like the writings of Gandhi or something. He was way to nonviolence. He came across my work on nonviolence. and says, man, the way you're addressing the your evangelical crowd of this topic is exactly what

we need for the LDS Church. So they had me come out and speak. It was a it was disorienting and the best sense of the term. I sat in a living room with like 10 of the professors. And the way they were critically interacting with their own traditions and it was like I felt Like, I was that just like a Bible study. Now, I don't want to downplay the differences. And we didn't. We didn't ignore those. Speaking to the students was, again, disorienting.

They welcomed me with open arms. They, I remember during like a Q&A session, they asked the same kind of questions that evangelicals would ask. They ask about what does the Bible say? They knew the Bible extremely well, along with the other scriptures that they read. I remember one professor who was sitting in on the lecture. She stood up there in the Q&A and says, you know what?

I love about you evangelicals is you guys are so into Jesus. You guys are so into Jesus. And sometimes we don't talk about Jesus enough. If I ever want to hear all about Jesus, I go to an evangelical church and I love it. I just love how you get like. Yeah. What is this?

So I just, I walked away from the experience saying, man, there's, there might be, I don't even know, I don't know hardly anything about the LDS faith, but there might be this core doctrine that is kind of standard for everybody we believe, but there's, there's, there is variation of opinions within the church, especially when you get to the academic level. Yeah.

Let me bring this full circle a little bit. So I was preparing for the Salt Lake City. This just happened last weekend. I mean, it just happened. So I went on the internet like any good scholar. And I'm clicking on all these websites, like, What do Mormons believe, like under five-minute videos? Okay?

And to think that you could take something as complex as Mormon theology and do it in five minutes, you are just getting bullet points and the most controversial bullet points. And by the way, flip that and do evangelicalism in five minutes. What do Christians believe? It's just crazy. So it was such a gift to go to this meeting. and sit down with really thoughtful people and get the varsity-level understanding of some beliefs

that I'm, of course, I'm skeptical of and will not embrace. But to understand the fullness of it is a gift that we need to afford to each other. Like, hey, critical race theory, that's a big topic. I don't think there's a five-minute summary of critical race theory. I'm willing to have this conversation about President Trump or Nancy Pelosi, this is not a quick conversation by any means. So let's not, let's stop these, what Nicholas Carr calls power browsing,

that we take very complex issues and we do quick Google searches and we walk away with this really distorted understanding. So what a gift to sit down with very thoughtful LDS theologians and have a really good give-and-take conversation. I really felt this needs to. be modeled this type of conversation with our students. Yeah, so good, so good. In that article you mentioned, in that what was a journal, a book review? A critical scholar, critical scholars, whoops, Christian Scholars review, a theme issue on perspective taking. It just came out.

Okay, yeah, perspective taking. Can you unpack that phrase? That's, I love that idea. Yeah. That was my master's thesis. How do you put aside temporarily your perspective, your perspective? Like, this is what I believe, right? I'm this political party. I'm this religious affiliation. And I have very strong opinions on that. But can I put it aside temporarily to step into your world?

And this is the important part, Preston. I don't want to just understand your perspective, cognitive cognitively. Like, that's really important to know what you actually believe. But just as important is I want to feel your perspective. Like, I want to feel it. For instance, let's say you have a friend who says, I won't fly because I know the plane is going to crash.

Now, I'm like, okay, that's just blatantly ridiculous. And I can show you a million statistics that it's actually the safest form. And you need to be concerned about driving your car. the freeway. That is not the way to go. So I temporarily set aside my conviction that you're wrong. But what would it, what would it feel like to think if I get on this airplane, there's a really strong chance that's going to crash? Like, would I do that to myself? Would I do it to my family? Would I allow my family to travel on an airplane? If I honestly felt there's a really good chance thing was going to crash, I would not get on that airplane.

Right? If that was my perspective, so it's called embodied perspective taking. I want to actually try to feel the emotions of what you feel. And then that better helps me be empathetic, sympathetic. I think it changes the trajectory of the conversation to say, look, I can't imagine what it's like to have my parents' divorce at a young age. I can't imagine what it was like to go through the foster care system. I can't imagine, but I want to imagine because I care about you.

So I want to step into your perspective to see it through your eyes. And I think that's really important. This is what Ed has helped me so much with the race conversation. Yeah. And not just me, but like I think this is, I think, is main shtick is white conservative evangelicals. need to not focus so much on data, statistics, blah, blah, blah, and engaging in differences of opinion on white cops killing unarmed black people or systemic racism or white, you know, white privilege or blah, blah, blah, blah.

Like, if all you do is camp out on statistics, you're just, you're not, you're just missing the emotional impact, the historical impact that, uh, For instance, white cop on black person crime, you know. And yeah, it's so important. And I've learned that intuitively with the LGBTQ conversation. In fact, I might even jack your stuff there, perspective taking because it makes so much sense. Yep. You mentioned something in one of your books, or maybe it's when we had you on our podcast,

when you said, so when you refuse to use a person's preferred pronoun, sometimes people go home and cut themselves. Yes. Right? So listen, that to me is perspective taking right there. I need to stop, regardless when I think about the wisdom of using preferred pronouns, whether I think that's a form of lying or whatever, I need to stop and think, what is it like to feel that my pronouns is so demeaning I go home and harm myself?

Yes. Like, let me just sit in that. That's actually the book of Hebrews. Preston, remember, well, not Paul, but maybe Paul. The writer of Hebrews says, I want you to pray for those in prison as if you were in prison, that the pain they felt was pain that you feel. That is the most beautiful expression of perspective taking. And I think it changes the tenor of a conversation.

So my master's thesis was bringing together three self-identified gay students at UNC Chapel Hill and three self-identified very conservative Christians to come together. And here's what I said to him. This actually became my book, I beg to differ. This actually was converted into that book. So I said to him, listen, if we start to have the conversation now out of the gates, we know what's going to happen. This is going to go poorly.

So give me six weeks to prepare you to have a conversation in week seven. there's some exercises I've created. I want us to do them. And then I promise you, week seven, we're going to talk about our differences, I promise. But if we do it now, we know how this is going to go. It's going to go really badly.

So they gave me those six weeks. And then we had week seven. And listen, were voices raised? Yes. But the tenor of it was different. Let me tell you one little insight that was just the most beautiful part of the entire.

higher master's thesis. So they gave me six weeks. They kept journals. And so here's what they did. Members of the gay community wrote a one-page narrative. This is what is like to be gay. This is the core of my sexuality. Christians wrote a one page. This is what the core of my Christianity. Then they swapped pages with each other. And now you took two weeks and you treated it like a monologue. but this is my monologue. I'm not doing this third person. I'm doing this first person. Then they got together and actually performed the narratives.

So now, as a Christian, I'm now a gay man talking about, okay? One woman who was gay said, I'm not doing this. I'm not ingesting poison into my system. I'm not doing this narrative. And she quit the thesis when you only have, six members, it's brutal, and she withheld her journal, which was brutal, right? Okay? So, uh, week six comes, remember one week later, we're having the discussion, but now they're doing the narratives. I shoot her an email saying, look, I respect that the fact that you're not

going to do this, but why don't you come? Like come and just listen, okay? She comes to her credit. the woman who did her narrative, a Christian, conservative Christian woman, starts to cry doing her narrative. I actually cry. So Preston, this was so beautiful. The woman, the gay woman, after it's over, goes, ah, crap. And she didn't, he did not say crap. She goes, crap.

Well, okay, I'll do her narrative. And she pulls out the crumper. narrative and does it. And I say to her, why did you do that? She goes, man, just watching her cry over my narrative? Wow. And then she had the quote of the thesis. Believe what you want. Thank you for feeling. That was the quote of the thesis. And I think Preston, we need to learn to do that. Now listen, not one person, this is what I wrote in the Christian Scholars. I wrote an essay called What Good Is Perspective Taking if nobody changes their perspective? Yes, I read that book.

Nobody changed their view of homosexuality. Nobody morally. But a Christian walked away saying, I understand the pain my narrative causes another person, and I think that's really beneficial. Wow. I think that changes the overall communication climate between gays and Christians, and I think that is well worth it in today's argument culture. This is all in your book, I beg to differ?

Yes, and it's in the book and The Stalmate with Sean Tyndale House. I actually talk about me performing a scene from Bent. Do you know Bent, the gay activist play of the 19th? I haven't seen that, but yeah, yeah. Yeah, amazing gay activist play. So I'm a senior at Eastern Michigan University. I am the co-director of Campus Crusade for Christ at Eastern Michigan student co-leader.

Okay. Your senior year, you perform publicly. You pick a piece and you perform it. Audience comes. Outside people come. So I make the decision as an evangelical to do the climactic narrative from Bent, where one gay man literally gives him. his life for another gay man. It gives this unbelievable monologue. Well, Preston, word got out in the

theater department at Eastern. Hey, an evangelical Milhoff is going to do a sacred text of the gay community bent. And the place was packed. Preston, it was packed. I asked campus crusade students not to come. Let's not fill it with, you know, the home crowd. But the campus director was there and my co-director was there. And I performed that thing as legitimately as I possibly could. You know what I mean? And when it was done, it was not like standing ovation. And I kind of wondered, eish, that might not have gone over.

Well, a week later, a man named Danny, one of my theater professors, who would later die of AIDS, invites me and the co-director of crew, the two students, to dinner. and we sit down at dinner and he looks at us and he says, listen, when I came out in junior high, my parents had never spoken to me after that coming out. I know what it is like to be ostracized. I think you as evangelicals know what it's like to be ostracized

within our department. And I think we could possibly even be friends. Wow. This is back in the 90s? No, yeah, yeah, this is, yeah. This was my idea to do this. this, my thesis director, when the top feminist theorists in the world loved it, said, let's do it. So let me just bring this full circle. That story is in End the Stalmate.

As an example of me trying to reach a community that we were like this, the evangelicals in the gay community, this podcaster said, I will not have him on my podcast because I fell out of my chair when I read how much Miohawk condoned the gay perspective by performing bent. That's where we're at today in the argument culture. So if you take, if you perform perspective taking many people today would interpret that as affirming and condone it, rather than trying to understand something you'd flat out disagree with the, you know, the underlying moral foundations. Wow. Goodness. Tim, I've taken you a long time.

Do you have a few more minutes to talk about, sure, thoughtfully about pronouns? Oh, sure. Yeah, sure. We're going to move this into the extra innings portion of the episode. So it's going to be for by Patreon-only community. If you want to listen to the extra innings with Tim Bielhoff articulating both sides of the pronoun debate, then head over to patreon.com forward slash theology.