Theology in the Raw - S2 Ep1035: The Gospel is Political: Dr. Patrick Schreiner

Episode Date: December 19, 2022

The gospel is political, but not partisan. The church is a profoundly political community. When we claim Jesus as Lord, we are also quite dangerously claiming that Caesar is not. These are the kinds of things Patrick and I discuss in this somewhat provocative episode. Dr. Patrick Schreiner is the Director of the Residency PhD program and Associate Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He previously taught at Western Seminary in Portland Oregon (2014–20) and received his Ph.D. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (2014). Patrick is the author of several books including his recently released Political Gospel: Public Witness in a Politically Crazy World, which is the topic of our conversation. To learn more about Patrick: https://www.mbts.edu/about/faculty/patrick-schreiner/ Thanks to Doug Smith for helping sponsor today's episode. To check out Doug's newest book, [Un]Intentional: How Screens Secretly Shapes Your Desires, and How You Can Break Free: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1625861966/ If you would like to support Theology in the Raw, please visit patreon.com/theologyintheraw for more information! 

Hey friends, I just want to invite you to consider joining the Theology in the Raw Patreon community. This is a group of followers who believe in the ministry and work of Theology in the Raw and want to support it financially. And honestly, I've been so impacted by the people who have chosen to support this podcast. Every month they send in a bunch of questions. A lot of them are really personal and I get to spend time responding to them in a private podcast. And we, you know, we'll message each other throughout the month and post responses to each other's questions. I'm actually going to start something new this fall, a monthly live Zoom chat with some of the members. And I'm super looking forward to actually seeing more of their faces every month. And there's other perks to come up, like a free virtual pass

to the Theology and Exiles in Babylon conference every year. But honestly, I don't want to make it sound transactional. Every single Patreon member that I've talked to says the same thing. We like all the perks. We're thankful for them. But we're just more thankful to support the ministry of theology in Iran. We're glad to do so. So if this is you, if you've been impacted by Theology in Iran,

you can join the Theology in Iran community for a minimum of five bucks a month by going to patreon.com forward slash Theology in Iran. That's patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw community for a minimum of five bucks a month by going to patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. That's patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. The link is in the show notes. Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. My guest today is Dr. Patrick Schreiner, who's the director of the residency PhD program and associate professor of New Testament and biblical theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He previously taught at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon, and he received his PhD from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He's the author of several books. The latest one that he wrote

is the one that we talk about on this podcast. It's called Political Gospel, Public Witness in a Politically Crazy World. It just came out in October of 2022. It's a fantastic book laying the groundwork for how Christians should think about not necessarily secular politics and all of the specificity of what that even means, but how we should even arrange our thinking theologically as a political entity, as a church that is a polis, worshiping a savior who is king and believing in a gospel, which is a very, very political message as we talk about in this podcast. So please welcome back to the show, the one and only Dr. Patrick Schreiner.

I think it was just over a year ago, Patrick, when I had you on. I forgot what we talked about in the last episode. Did you have a book out before that? I think we talked about the Ascension. Oh, that's right. And many other things, which is what we usually do when we start talking. That's right. Yeah, the Ascension.

Yeah, that was super helpful because that's something that doesn't get addressed very often you you just came out with this book uh i think october is when it came out a political gospel public witness in a politically crazy world i'm not i read about maybe two-thirds and i just started your section of revelation yeah dude this i know we're talking offline because i'm working on a book, a very similar book. And I'm like, dang, you're unearthing some of these New Testament themes that sometimes on a popular level don't get addressed very often. And especially these themes in how the gospel in the first century had this political scent to it. Maybe, I mean, more than just a scent, like it, like it was a political message, not partisan. And you make that really clear, but a very political message. The gospel is, is, is very political. And you, you brought that out really well.

Um, and that's something that I really want to hit onto my forthcoming book. So hopefully I will give you credit where credit is due, uh, as I draw on your work, but I'm learning from others too. So, you know, like I'm drawing on other scholars and I've learned from so many people. So I'm, I'm taking what I've learned from others and just trying to help other people see it too. Yeah. Yeah.

I'm curious how the book has been received so far. Has it been, I mean, it hasn't been that long since it's been out. Yeah, it hasn't been that long. It's been received well. I mean, I think when I get to the more specific application to our political lives in modern day America, I can see some reviews coming in where they don't agree with everything I say. But I knew this was going to be a pretty heated topic. And I knew not everyone would agree with everything I said because it is on politics. And so actually one of my early reviewers said, you're going to get crucified for this book. And I said, I don't think so.

I think it's going to be OK. But his point was, yeah, it's just a contested topic. But his point was, yeah, it's just a contested topic. And so I think those who have read it have appreciated it. Yet at the same time, I can see some readers when I talk about COVID or I talk about riots and I talk about race relations or whatever it is. I mean, there's just strong opinions about all these things. And I recognize when I wrote this book, I'm stepping into conversations that people disagree about. But I really hope, even though in some sense this book will be dated by the examples that I give, I spend most of my time on the biblical text. Because, you know, when you come to political theology or political conversation, so much has to do with kind of political theory,

political philosophy. And honestly, those are not my expertise. But I, you know, I study the New Testament and the Bible. And I also think that's not only for me, but I think the best way to get into these conversations for people in the church is to show them in the scriptures that the scriptures have a lot more to say about how we interact with politics than we might imagine. So most political theory books or theology books from Christians deal with Genesis 9, Mark 12, paying taxes to Caesar, and Romans 13. And that's it. And I wanted to show people, hey, you know, politics is kind of all over the place here. And so it's not just those three texts. It's actually

the very fact that Jesus announced the gospel of the kingdom and that we have a new city that we are aiming towards and that our faith and our allegiance is in him. So I wanted people to see, man, politics is really the purpose of Jesus' coming. And that's a weird way to put it. But when he announces a kingdom, I don't know how else to understand that language. And you know, yeah, we can get into it, but it's just, I grew up in evangelicalism and it's so much about your personal relationship

with the Lord. And I don't want to deny any of that. I think that's really good. But what we tend to forget is that our faith is a public reality. It's not just a personal reality. And so for evangelicals, maybe who have grown up in the church, maybe who are frustrated with how we've engaged with politics, I'm hoping this might open their eyes to say, wow, Christianity is a lot more public than we think. And it has a lot more to say about how

we interact with politics than we think. And you make it really clear that when you say the word politics, you're not, you distinguish that from American partisan, partisanship. And I think that's when people say, don't, let's not make church a political place. Let's not make church a political place. Don't do politics in the pulpit. What they mean is partisan. Well, what they should mean is don't elevate kind of partisanship or divide the church along partisan lines. But the gospel is intrinsically political. And that's what a big part of your book is all about. It stands on that foundation. Can you tease that out a little bit for somebody who's like, whoa, whoa, wait, wait a minute. The gospel is political. Can you

give us maybe some biblical examples of what you mean by that and how biblically the gospel, the euangelion, is a political message? Yeah, as you just mentioned, when we say politics or political, we, I think in the American mindset, assume partisanship. So when I say the gospel is political, the first thing I had to say was, I'm not saying we have to be partisan. Politics, if you go back to the word, is actually about the organization and governance of a people. It's a public reality. So when I'm saying the gospel is political, I'm saying it's a public reality. And not only that, but politics has to do with who

has the right to rule our lives. And as Christians, our main confession is Jesus is Lord, Jesus is King. So our confession is very political. I think one of the lines I use in the book is, Jesus is not just the King of your life, but the King of kings, right? That's what Revelation says. He's the King of kings. That means He's saying, every other sovereign on the earth who has been, who will be, who is now, I am the King of that sovereign. And so when we come together as a church, we are confessing Jesus is Lord, Jesus is King, and that's above all earthly citizenship. That's above all earthly kingdoms. Now, I do want to pause and say, I don't think those two necessarily have to be in opposition,

but we can talk about that more. But when you go to the scriptures, many of the words that we think of as religious words are actually political terms. So gospel, euangelion, basar in Hebrew. If you go through even just a word study, and word studies don't do everything for us here, but if you just go through a word study and how that word is used, it's used for the victory of a king and a kingdom. So when Jesus announces the gospel of his kingdom, he's saying the victory of my kingdom has come. And so when we hear gospel, we hear Jesus has forgiven us of our sins. And there's much truth to that. But gospel in the Greco-Roman time and in the Old Testament, it meant that a

king or a kingdom had victory. And so you tie the term gospel to kingdom, and kingdom is this new city, this new realm that we're going to live in where Jesus is king, and we are going to live in a new flourishing society. And so when Jesus announces the gospel of the kingdom, I think the Jews are all like, yep, this is what we've been waiting for. We are waiting for that new city to come. We are waiting for you to restore our temple. We are waiting for you to actually kick Rome out of our land so that we don't have to be under their thumb. And what's so, at least what I feel like has happened is it's so easy to say, well, Jesus came as not that type of king. You know, he came and he died on the cross.

And so we then just erase all politics from his message. But I think that's a half truth. He did come and he was, Peter was confused about what type of Messiah he was going to be, right? He was like, no, you can't go to the cross and die. But in the midst of doing that, Jesus is not denying his own political life or his own political claims. He's just redefining what politics is for Peter. And so, so often, we just go, oh, Jesus, you know, Jews thought he was coming for with a spiritual or political message. But where he really came with was the Sermon on the Mount, and it's all about your heart. And I just want to say, no, that's a

half-truth. That's not completely true, because when Jesus was crucified, he was crucified as a political rebel. Even though Pilate did think he was innocent, they put up above the sign on his head, this is Jesus, the King of the Jews, right? And so what Pilate was so scared about was rebellion, rebellion in Jerusalem at that time. And so we can just begin with Jesus and talk about the language of gospel, of kingdom. Matt Bates and other people have done good work on faith, pistis, can sometimes mean allegiance, sometimes mean loyalty. So just think about Jesus's announcement in Mark. He says, the time is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel of the kingdom.

And I just want to say, all of those terms are really political. And we know this is true, because King Herod, when Jesus is born, he's like, I got to kill this new king. It's not like some spiritual guru is born, and Herod's like, that's going to be fine. He's just going to talk about people's hearts. No, Herod's nervous. He's like, I don't like the sound of a new king being born. So one of my big projects is just to open people's eyes to the political reality of the message of Christianity and the gospel itself. And I haven't even gotten to Paul, but it's all over Paul as well. So we can go there if you want to. Just, you know, sometimes people think that the Roman Empire, the first century, there was like loads of religious persecution, that Rome didn't tolerate other religions or whatever. And that's just historically exactly untrue.

Like, Rome was incredibly inclusive of other religions. They were very tolerant of other religions. What they didn't tolerate was any kind of gathering group assembly or religion that was a threat to the fabric of the Roman empire. So when Christians were persecuted, it wasn't that it wasn't like how Christians are persecuted today in parts of maybe India or maybe some certain Muslim countries or whatever, where it's like, you know, no, we don't tolerate this religion because we don't agree with this religion. That's not Rome at all. They only persecuted people or especially crucified people when it was seen, perceived as a threat to the political fabric of the day. I mean, is that?

Yeah, certainly. I mean, it was a polytheistic culture. There were many gods. And what Rome did was they were like, you kind of practice your own thing. We can put up with your God, just don't mess with our society too much. And if you go to Acts 17, when Paul preaches just Jesus the Messiah, notice the accusation against him. And I detail this in the book. But the accusation against him is you are defying the decrees of Caesar. And then riots break out. And so there was something

about his message. Like, you think the message is just about your personal salvation. Well, in Thessalonica, man, they viewed it as defying the decrees of Caesar. So they viewed it, Jesus is king, as going against the kingship of Caesar. Now, I think Paul and Jesus actually reframe that they kind of misunderstood Jesus's own claims. But I think the fact of the matter is, it was a political claim that challenged the Roman Empire. And I, you know, I don't remember my history. Is it Trajan who says, hey, watch out for their political assemblies? One Roman writer, whoever it is, I think it's Trajan, but he literally calls the ecclesia,

and you know this, the church, is a political body. It's people being called out of the city to vote on things in terms of political assembly. And so, you know, I talked about gospel and kingdom and faith, but the other part of my book is to point out the church is itself a political assembly. is itself a political assembly. And so I think a line I use is like, Paul didn't go around and get persecuted and go through shipwrecks and storms and go to prison and end up dying so that we could have really nice relationships with one another. No, he was forming a new body politic. He was forming churches. So when we hear church, this is what's so hard, because to move from the political situation of the first century to the modern era, when we hear church, when we hear religion, we think private sphere. And in the first century, politics and religion were just not two separate things. They were the same thing.

And you know that from the Old Testament, because when one nation won, their God won. the same thing. And you know that from the Old Testament, because when one nation won, their God won. And so that was just part, and I would actually argue right now, you know, I believe in separation of church and state. But the idea that we can cordon off our beliefs from how we vote or how we think is just ridiculous. You have to bring religion to the public square. You can't not bring religion into the public square. The question is, how do we do that when we disagree? And so I would encourage Christians, you don't separate your faith from your politics. You actually let them inform your politics. And, you know, either people are doing that probably to an extent where you become so partisan, or you're not doing it at all. You're so separating your faith from how you think through politics. And I think Paul was just, and Jesus in the first century for that matter,

were like, these are just not two separate realms for us. So how would you, so you made a distinction between the separatists who try to keep their faith and their political involvement just completely, well, yeah, the separatists, you know, my politics is completely different than my faith or... Yeah, maybe define itist, the, you know, my politics completely different than my faith or... Yeah, maybe define it as like a privatistic more, right? Because separatist has a different, that's like separating from society. Right. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, totally. Yeah, yeah. Or on the other extreme is, are people who say, because I'm a Christian,

therefore I'm going to be very partisan or be involved in secular politics in a way. And so you make this distinction, what would be the middle or what would be the Christian posture with regard to secular politics in a way that would reflect the kind of biblical paradigm that you painted in the book? Yeah. So the paradigm I give, and you know, you can challenge this all you want to, or people can, I recognize it's just a paradigm that I hope people will find useful. But that we either make our faith partisan or we make it private, kind of the two options you gave, and that Christianity is truly a politic. It doesn't mean that it only has political implications, but it is itself a politic. In other words, what is our ultimate politic?

It is the gospel message. It is Jesus's life, death, resurrection, ascension. It is how we are to interact in the church. How can we be the most political beings during our time here on the earth? I would argue, as Christians, the most political thing you can do is go to church and probably take the Lord's Supper, right? Like, that's the most political act you can make. So when I say Christians, at one point in the book, I say Christians are not nearly political enough. And people are like, wait, hold on. I thought the whole point was for us to get people to stop talking about politics. No, I'm saying redefine what politics is in your own mind and recognize Jesus as kingship is your main politic. Now, what that means is not that you cordon off, as I said, your faith from how you interact in secular

politics, that you make it a private thing, nor does it mean that one political party, because it's a political party of the earth, is going to represent everything of the kingdom of heaven. And so we are going to interact with our political parties and try to say which party or which governor or which local representative is most reflecting what we think will bring the most flourishing to all of humanity. And usually that will align with the Christian ethic. You know, we could go through different situations, but you do have to make decisions when you come to the voting booth, when you think about who is going to reign over us. And we want to think, as Christians, you know,

I'm still thinking through this myself, but as Christians, we want to think what would be best for all of humanity, not just us, right, as Christians. So in other words, what will bring the most flourishing peace and happiness, I would argue, to all groups within our nation and within the world. And that should direct our voting. So those are kind of the two paradigms. Christians either make their faith private or partisan. And I say, make it political. Make it truly political and understand what that means. I like, yeah. And you even paint a picture that when we talk about political, we're talking about a polis, which is a Greek word for like a city, a community, and that the church should embody what a heavenly polis should look like. So, you know So the Bible has a lot to say about economics,

which is typically a political category, but it is a political category. It's also a very biblical category. It talks about race relations. It talks about caring for the poor and the sick and the needy and the elderly. So healthcare, I mean, there's everything that secular politics is trying to accomplish in the world, the church also has a guidebook on how we, the church, can embody that. So I think you even have a phrase in the book, which I found helpful. And in fact, I would almost want to, almost a stronger phrase. I don't know what the alternative would be, but you talked about the best way that the Christians can subvert the empire is to simply exist as the kingdom of as the kingdom of God, like embody the very thing

that we are wanting this politician to do and this decision and this party and that party and whatever, like, like let, let's first embody the very, uh, politic polis, uh, way of living that, that we're kind of hoping would come about through secular politics, if that makes sense. So that's right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think the way to think of the church is it's an embassy of the kingdom. And what an embassy does is it represents another nation's desires, values in a foreign land. And this, we were talking earlier about kind of your exile theme. That's exactly what the church is. It's an embassy of another kingdom.

So it's an embassy of the kingdom of heaven on the kingdom of earth. And what we are supposed to be as a community, now we're going to do this imperfectly, is we are supposed to embody those values of the kingdom of heaven. And so we should be a community that looks fully political in that sense, in terms of, as you said, how we share our resources. I mean, for goodness sakes, read Acts again. That's exactly what they did. And then, as you said, even with race relations, it's a very multi-ethnic community with different cultures. Hellenistic and Hebraic Jews even are coming together, and they're saying,braic Jews even are coming together.

And they're saying, hey, some people are being left out, Act 6 of the daily distribution, so we need to provide for them. And so in one sense, the church was supposed to be the first social safety net that we had. And so we're to provide for one another in these ways. Now, I guess the only nuance I would add to this is that at the end of the book, I don't think you've gotten here yet, but at the end of the book, I say, why is political theology, why is political discipleship so hard? It's because we live between the times. In other words, the city of man still exists, but the city of God has broken in to this realm. But there's overlap between the two. But at some point, the city of man will no longer exist, and only the city of God will exist. So as the church, we're not trying to cancel the city of

man yet. We're not trying to get rid of them, because I think in the meantime, as we live between the times, and this is very Baptist of me, I guess, but God has given an authority to the state that he has not given to the church, and he has given an authority to the state that he has not given to the church, and he's given an authority to the church that he's not given to the state. And so in the Old Testament, there's a little bit more overlap on those. In the New Testament, I do think there is some separation that Romans 13 said he's given the state the authority of the sword of punishment, and he's given in Matthew 16 the church the authority of the authority of the sword of punishment. And he's given in Matthew 16, the church, the authority of the keys of the kingdom. And so the state, if I can just zero

in on that, the state shouldn't be telling us who should be members of our church. And we should not be telling the state how they're to run secular policies or who they should be, maybe even, I don't know, like incarcerating and so forth. That goes beyond our authority as the church. They are to carry those out. We can say this is what we believe, but we need to recognize there are two distinct authorities. So while I fully affirm the church is an embassy of the kingdom, they're not trying to—I mean, this is a Christian nationalism conversation, right? We are not trying to create a new realm in one sense where the government is no longer necessary. That will be the case, as Revelation says, but I think Christ will do that. And we are supposed to exist now in the meantime, living kind of between those times as exiles.

Okay. So that's a lot there. Yeah. Feel free to push back on that. No, and I did. I jumped ahead and read the conclusion just to kind of see where you would end up going. And I'll go back and read the inter-meeting chapters. Yeah.

So you invite me to push back. Because I'm in... Whenever I find myself in such agreement with a project, I really turn on my devil's advocate just because I'm testing my own thoughts. I'm like, okay, I agree with this. But what is the pushback? Because if I end up saying this, I'm going to get critiqued. What would that critique look like?

So one question... I don't know what call it pushbacks. I'm still working through this. Is this tension between, well, and you even talk about in the book, I haven't finished your Revelation chapter yet, but the tension between Romans 13 and Revelation 13. And you know exactly what I'm talking about. submit to the state. It's under the authority of God. God established a state to punish evil and reward good. And it's just kind of seemingly glowing or at least positive sounding portrait of the government. And then you get to recognize- And it is Rome, for goodness sakes. It's Rome. It's Nero. Literally, Nero's on the throne at this time. And I say in the book, I don't want to interrupt you too much but like literally paul is killed by these dudes so so is peter and so is their messiah and they're like hey go ahead submit to them so um yeah but but even that i could see i could see someone say well yeah you

know the state's not perfect and they kind of dropped the ball on this and they persecuted you know christ Christians or whatever. But Revelation 13 says that the government or Rome is demonically empowered. Like it's not just, and this is where I'd want maybe some clarity because on some portions of your book, and again, I'll say it one more time. I've read the whole thing, so maybe you worked this out. But some parts, it almost seems like you're saying, you know, the secular government is a shadow of the real thing. It falls short. But then Revelation 13, and there are a couple of other places where you actually do kind of reflect more of Revelation 13 perspective, that it's not just a shadow.

It's actually in opposition to. It is empowered by Satan. It is under God's judgment because it is working against God bringing a new creation. It's not just bringing a new creation imperfectly and will ultimately fizzle out. It's actually the enemy of the kingdom of God, so to speak. And yeah, I do love the paradigm of subvert and submit. We subvert the empire by living out, embodying the gospel truth. That is a very subversive message, which you brought out great in Acts 17. Turning the world upside down by preaching Jesus.

And then, yeah, we're also called to submit. And I think Kevin Rose is the one who said, you know, you have all this subversive stuff going on throughout Acts. And yet there's not a single point when the Christians actually did anything illegal. Like there's no revolt. There's no riot. Every time they try to lock them up, they have to release them. Because we've got nothing on these people, even though they're disrupting the fabric of society, if I'm representing Roe correctly. So that's, I don't know.

Is there a place to say that the government is not just imperfect or inadequate or falling short, but is actually demonically empowered in opposition to the kingdom of God? Is this just a tension we have? Or how do you work that out? Yeah, that's a great question. And you know, the word I used in the book is that it's a paradox. And I kept coming back to that word, because I felt that tension. As I wrote the book, I'm like, well, which of these do I emphasize? And, you know, I was even having a conversation with someone the other night, and they're like, you know, we really struggle with two things that seem to be in opposition being true at once. And I was like, yeah, I think that's really true, that it's okay to say two things can be true at once. So I use that line because I do think Romans 13 and Revelation 13 both exist in our Bible, and that somehow the state can both be a servant of God and empowered by Satan himself to cause chaos. So God will use it to provide order, and Satan will corrupt them to provide chaos.

And I think both of those things—I mean, maybe Job is a good example here, right? Where both of those things can, I mean, I know they're not talking about the state there, but there is like, God is sovereignly working in the midst of this, but Satan is also just wreaking havoc in Job's life. And so maybe we can use that paradigm And recognize that God is providing good things for us through the government, but we can never ultimately hope in them. And this is where, this is the paradox that's so hard, because at least when I talk to Christians, either they're a submission person, you need to remember the subversion. If you're a subversion person, you need to remember the submission. And not only that, I could say so much about this, but on the cross, Jesus brings submission and subversion together, submits to Rome, and thereby conquers them. Because what he did, I think at least the way the Gospels present the cross, is he became the king of the whole world through his cross, resurrection, and ascension by submitting

to Rome. And so suddenly the cross does become our marching orders as Christians. How do we live? And I think Peter follows this up very well. If you want to talk about exile identity, how do we live in a way that is both subversive and submissive? Well, I think our first action is submit to them, but in so doing, it actually subverts them. Because we're recognizing we're submitting to you not because of you, but because of God, which is really the line from Romans 13. I think Paul

is reflecting on, I mean, Romans 13 is really about do we pay taxes? And I think he's going back to Jesus's words in Mark 12. So I really believe that we have to be able to say both of those are true at the same time. God is working through them. Now, maybe I'll just say something else about the good that the government provides. I think it's very easy for me to take our governing system for granted because I've always lived under a non-totalitarian regime. And so I'm just trying to recognize where I sit historically, that my tendency is just to assume this is the way it always goes. But the fact of the matter is we can discuss the government without them knocking on our door and saying you're arrested. We can drive down the street and not get robbed typically.

Not everyone, but typically you're not robbed every time you drive down the street or traffic lights work or our Internet system is up and running. You can buy clothes. Amazon still works. Roads are paved. All these things we take, I think we take so much for granted. But the fact of the matter, the reason we're having this discussion is because people have sacrificed themselves to serve society. And this is not like a kingdom goal. I don't think, I think it's, they're just serving humanity. And so we, God is providing order. God is providing peace, at least in our land. And I think around the world through governing systems, unless they're totalitarian regimes that are just causing chaos. And we do see that all over the world, but that does happen. But that we can be very thankful. And I think Paul, I mean,

this is a very common way of saying it, but Paul recognized, I'm able to spread the gospel because of Rome in one sense. And they also kind of stopped the spread of the gospel, right? So how can like the Roman roads, and then the fact that we all basically speak one language, and the fact that there's water systems, and so forth and so on. He recognizes Rome is actually, can I say it this way? I know this is controversial. Rome is actually advancing the spread of the gospel, not intentionally, but unintentionally. At the very same time, they are opposed to what we are doing because they recognize we are a grassroots movement that are saying, one day you are no longer going to be

necessary. And so I don't know, I guess I just come back to, can we live in that tension? Maybe I don't have a great answer, but can we live in the tension of recognizing governing systems are both, they're both corrupt, and we are to advocate for the kingdom of God, and they are for our good. And we are to support them in that. No, that's good. It is a tough tension. Even, you know, you mentioned Romans 13, calling Rome the servant of God. Well, that phrase, as you know, I mean, goes back to the Old Testament when God called the Assyrians, you know, my servant and Cyrus, my Messiah and Persia,

my servant of Babylon, my servant doesn't mean, you know, the Assyrian practice of skinning civilians alive was like applauded by God, but God is so sovereign that he can even use these wicked twisted nations to carry out his covenant purposes, namely fulfilling his promise that if you keep disobeying me, I'm going to exile you to a foreign land. And that's, you know, well, God had to sovereignly use another country politically to do a ton of evil towards Israel. And yet that is an extension of God's good covenant plan, purpose, judgment. And then he used another one.

He worked through these governing systems. Right. And then he oversaw the takeover of Babylon from Persia and allowed them to let the Jews return home and even fund the building of the temple, rebuilding the temple and so on and so forth. So, yeah, it is a tough tension because none of that means that there is intrinsic goodness. Well, see, I like what you're saying, though, about like the government entity can be empowered by so we could even go revelation 13 it's empowered by satan doesn't mean every single thing they do is satanic and of the devil like they can be doing things sometimes unintentionally that do reflect the image of god in them too right yeah and i think governing systems as they follow an ethic a metaphysic a natural law, and I'm using big terms here,

that are based in reality, that does promote goodness. You know what I mean? Because God's goodness is represented in creation just generally. And so even if they're not Christian governors or Christian presidents or Christian servants, they can recognize this is how human beings are created. And this would be good for them, and this would be bad for them. Another text, maybe you want to go on to another topic, but another text that I always like to go to on this topic is 1 Peter 2, 13 through 17, where he says the same thing as Paul, be subject, be submissive for the Lord's sake to every human institution. And if you know what Roman rulers were claiming about themselves, they were claiming like my grandfather, my father was a god. Julius Caesar

was a god. He's a son of God. And Peter says, submit to them, but remember, they're creatures. and Peter says, submit to them, but remember, they're creatures. Don't think of them as gods, and I think that's just a great application point for us as Americans. We submit to them, but don't worship them, because they're human beings. And then he goes on in verse 17 to say, honor everyone, love the brotherhood, fear God, and honor the emperor. And I think all of our political theology basically can be wrapped up in that one verse. Because what he does is he tells them, honor everyone. And I think it was Joel Green who says, honor everyone means honor the slave who walks out of the house in the same way that you would honor the emperor. Honor everyone and honor the emperor. In other words, you're to honor everyone. That's a really subversive claim in that. That's a very subversive claim in the midst of saying, honor him, right? Like,

honor the emperor. And the emperor would be like, yeah, sure. And then he hears honor everyone. He's like, wait a second. Well, you're supposed to treat me like everyone else. And basically, Peter's like, yes, honor everyone. But in the middle, it's love the brotherhood and fear God. You reserve a special place in your heart for the church and for God himself. So it's love the brotherhood and fear God, but honor everyone else. So I think in the midst, there's the submission and subversion. The emperor would have read that. They didn't read these letters.

But if they would have read that, they would have been like, I'm not sure whether I like these guys or not. Which is exactly what all of the Roman rulers do when both Jesus and Paul come before them. They're like, I'm a little concerned about you guys, but I don't have anything against you because you seem to be like the best citizens that we have. You're arguing about the resurrection of the dead. I don't know what to do with you, but maybe we should get rid of you because you might cause some riots or something like that. But they're all declared innocent. They have nothing. And I think that's really huge for us. If you're a subversive person, just in your nature politically, remember that every time Jesus and Paul come before the Roman Empire, they're declared innocent.

Now, man, this gets really hard, though. What if our culture starts saying things that we believe are part of the foundation of our beliefs are unlawful? We might have to go before governors and rulers and be declared unlawful. But that's the situation where we must obey God above man, Acts 5, right? But I still think it's helpful just to remember Paul and Jesus and Peter and all of them did everything they could to stay innocent before the Roman governors. Because why? I think it was because it was part of their witness. They don't want anything to get in the way of the gospel message. sent before the Roman governors because why? I think it was because it was part of their witness. They don't want anything to get in the way of the gospel message. They don't want to stand before these governors and them to say, you know what? You're awful people. I can't believe you.

They look at them and they're like, I got nothing against you. And this is exactly what Paul says to King Agrippa. He's like, man, I wish you were like me in every way except for these chains. I want you to believe the gospel right now. Yeah. No, that's like, man, I wish you were like me in every way except for these chains. I want you to believe the gospel right now. Yeah. Yeah. So. No, that's good, man. I got several questions come up in my mind here. I guess, well, there's two different, two different questions. Let me see which one I want to chase down here. Okay. Let me, let me go with this one. Here's my one fear with your book that is not at all reflective of the quality of the book itself. It's more the reader of the book. You lay a really thick, I would say, provocative biblical foundation.

I'm not sure Christians reading it will connect the practical dots the way they should. And maybe, and I'm wondering, this is, I guess, here's another part of the question. I'm wondering if you really did stay out of connecting those dots for one. I mean, you're in a certain socio-religious denominational environment that I'm surprised B&H published even this. And you even kind of hint, you even hint that like some people challenge, you know, is the word subvert the best word? I can almost imagine that discussion that may or may not have happened behind the scenes.

But I was like, no, subvert is exact. And I love that you stood by it, even defended it from the Greek text of Acts 17. So this is kind of precisely what Luke says in Acts 17. I think subvert is a beautiful, perfect word that captures exactly what's going on. So I'm glad you stuck with that. But so I think Christian, modern day American Christians, evangelical Christians are so steeped in the separation between the religious faith and their political partisan allegiances that I just, I worry that they're going to read your book, say, oh yeah, I agree with this. And then

not really implement some of the fairly radical implications that you're giving off. Let me give you an example, I guess. That first, I just, this came to mind when you're reading first Peter two, you know, love the brotherhood, fear God. What that means is love the global brotherhood and fear this global God so that if any scent of your allegiance to your political state is harming the brotherhood, globally speaking, then you need to give your allegiance to the brotherhood. So if there are certain American economic policies, you're like, this is great. Look at this. We're thriving in America. But if that is actually hurting other people around the globe, then we need to protest that and say, no, this economic policy, this way we're all the way down to like the way we treat cattle. And I don't know, I'm not going to get into all the ethics of meat or whatever, which I know hardly anything about.

But it's just, I mean, there's so many subtleties in how this flourishing country is flourishing that is really hurting a lot of people around the globe. Or let me just say it as a question. If it's hurting people around the globe, then we need to give our allegiance to the well-being of other people outside of Americaica not give our allegiance to the well-being of america when it's at the expense of other people or even even i'm not going to get into the military stuff but

i mean you know policing the world and removing dictators creating vacuums where more dictators come in and millions of civilians are harmed by that like there's there's the appearance of some good things that america does that are actually if you travel outside of america and talk to people you're like oh we're it's good for us yeah the most part but yeah man there's some unintentional maybe intention i don't know harm being done on the globe and that should be our allegiances to the global community not to the particular state we're born anyway i yeah no i just every time you said something biblical i'm like oh man the implication of this is x y z and that's going to be really offensive to people that

are maybe more patriotic than i feel like or i think people could read this and say and still maintain just their same kind of i would say unhealthy forms of patriotism because the dots haven't been connected anyway i this is yeah me just talking out loud i'd love to i mean respond to that i i i think that's probably a weakness of my book honestly um walk away no i i'm happy to just say like you could walk away and maybe just feel like you were confirmed in what you already believed and that's i think that's what you're saying, right? Um, like I think the reader could, could not be able to connect those dots because they're so steeped in this. Yes. Yep. And so I do think that's a weakness. I, I, but a few reasons why I did it this way. Um, I just,

a few things came to my mind. Number one, um um i do want people to just to return to the scriptures and be formed by the scriptures and let the implications play themselves out i believe the scriptures are powerful and that they will form people and so i somewhat wanted to leave like the implications i do touch on some things you know in my third sixth and ninth chapter or something like that i really talk about mask mandates. That was bold. And race relations, which I thought was great. Yeah.

So I touched on some things, but I do want to leave some of those implications to the spirit of God working in each person's heart. And maybe that's a cop out. I recognize that. The other thing I would say, though, is that many of these things are really complicated in terms of policy decisions or economics or how America is to act as a nation in the world. And to be perfectly honest, I don't feel equipped to address those situations. And I would argue that most Christians are not equipped. Yeah. No, no, it's fair. In such situations. I don't know enough about how we make food. I don't know enough about how we interact in other nations.

I don't know enough about how economics works. If we do this thing, will it hurt the poor? Will it help the poor? Man, I feel like we, like one of the things I keep telling pastors is they ask me, like, what do I do with politics? And I say, be really clear where the Bible is clear and don't speak with such boldness on where the Bible is not clear. And I just keep giving them that line. And that's kind of what I tried to follow in this book of like, I just want to be really clear where the Bible is clear and make sure I don't overstep where the implications start to get a little fuzzy in my mind. You know what

I mean? No, that's right. Yeah, that's good. And so I recognize like that might not be as helpful to people, but I do think as I watch social media or as I watch even people within our own churches, they're very quick to just assume this is all wrong because I know. And I'm like, but do you know? I don't know. I'm an expert on so few things. I'm an expert supposedly on one thing. You know what I mean? I got a PhD on one thing. You know what I mean? Like I got a

PhD in one thing. And so maybe part of this project is just to step back and say, here's a paradigm. Now you kind of have to go and work it out. And I admit it's really, really tricky to work it out. And maybe that's not very satisfying because you just walk in, you're like, well, that didn't change anything. But I don't know. I just want to say like the Bible has more to say about our politics. And maybe here's some things that we need to run all of our decisions through. And we probably need to be more careful about how we speak about things. So those are a few just kind of responses, but yeah. Hello, friends. Today, I want to tell you about our recent guest, Doug Smith, and his newest book, Unintentional,

How Screens Secretly Shape Your Desires and How You Can Break Free. Look, I'm all about thinking deeply and loving widely, but many of us can't actually think deeply because we're addicted to screens. And that's why Doug Smith wrote Unintentional. It's the tech-focused discipleship book I've been looking for. With biblical wisdom from Greg Boyd, Oz Guinness, and others, Doug helps you and your family overcome screen obsession. So check out the notes where you can find a link to purchase Doug's book, Unintentional. Link to purchase Doug's book, Unintentional.

The complexity of economics and politics and the efficacy of masks and vaccines and all this stuff that everybody has a strong opinion about. I'm like, I feel like I've come to the point now when people, if they ask my opinion, what do you think about wearing a mask or what do you think about vaccines? Like, I'm not an epidemiologist. I don't know.

Go ask an epidemiologist what he thinks about the theology of the book of romans and hopefully he's not going to say wow you know paul what he's like i don't know i'm not a theologian i'm not a biblical scholar go ask preston you know so um what do you think about like even even some of the broader race conversations race relations and in the broader society like these these involve, you know, super complex issues, the intersection of economics and race and history and all this stuff. I'm not a political scientist. I'm not a historian. And, you know, I can tell you what I think the Bible says about ethnic reconciliation that I can give a really clear answer. But in

terms of like the history of this one country and how race relations have gone down and how to solve some of the economic disparities and so on. I'm like, who am I to say I know anything about this? So I totally, yeah. And that's where I like when I applied it even to like a mask, the mask mandate. And I said, when we say we're subversive, does that mean like we shouldn't wear masks? And I just, I thought that was a pretty clear lineup. I don't think that's advocating for the kingdom of God personally. I think I can make a pretty strong argument.

You can disagree with the policies. You can think they were stupid. You can think they're unscientific. But I'm not sure people are like, wow, that person is really into the kingdom of God because they refuse to do that. And so those were the type of things where I was like, no, to be subversive is to advocate for Christ's kingdom. And I think Christians, American Christians get really confused with our Christian freedom and our American freedom. And we combine those things. And so, and the same

thing with, you know, some of the race riots. I lived in Portland during some of those things. And so, and the same thing with, you know, some of the race riots. I lived in Portland during some of those things. And yeah, downtown was literally destroyed in some sense. And I would say Christians who are involved with it, that was wrong of you to do. You can protest in a peaceful way, but you should not be robbing businesses and breaking windows. I just, I think that's a really clear, direct line from the scriptures, the way that Jesus and Paul subverted was not through violence. That was, or pillaging or whatever you want to call it. And so I also know in Portland, there were a lot of peaceful race riots or race protests, not riots is probably the best

way to say it. So when I applied it, I just tried to say like, hey, I think these, you know, this example has been used a lot, and I think I even modified the example, but the difference, and it's Hendrix, I think, who does this, the difference between jagged and straight lines. I don't know if you read about this, but there's some things in scriptures where murder is wrong. Like, okay, that's like clear. Okay. I think that applies to abortion, right? But then the jagged line is how do you address that? And I love that paradigm because I think as churches, we say, as Christians, we are against murder. And I think all the science shows abortion is murder. Now, if a church then therefore says, you need to stand outside of, this is like, you know, before Roe v. Wade was overturned, but you need to stand outside of pregnancy resource centers

and protest and talk to women. I would say that's a jagged line. That's one way to address it. That's not the only way to address it. You need to, you know, we are for ethnic and racial harmony. Okay, good. Straight line in the scriptures. You need to go downtown and march. Okay, that's a jagged line. You might not agree that that's the best way to deal with this. Does that make sense? That makes 100% sense. And I love that. Yeah. I think churches and pastors need to be careful with saying, here's what we have in the scriptures.

Now, I think as the kingdom of heaven here representing the earth, we need to think of how do we advocate for those things. But I'm not going to tell you exactly how to do that. I think that some of that is up to your conscience. I at least have found that paradigm helpful for myself. I think that some of that is up to your conscience. I at least have found that paradigm helpful for myself. I think that's, that's, yeah, I saw you quoted, I haven't read Hendrix's work. So that's, that's, he talks about that, huh? Because I need to. He talks about that, but I feel like I'm using the jagged and straight lines a little differently

than he is. And so I'd have to go back and remember what he, but he, he uses that kind of metaphor. Well, I felt that, especially with the race conversation, when again, yeah, I just repeat what you already said. I mean, a really clear, straight, thick line in scripture of ethnic reconciliation, the racism is an affront on the image of God in humans, and so on and so forth. And you have a lot of attention given to this in the New Testament and Old Testament. attention given to this in the New Testament and Old Testament. But then how do you address some of the fracturing of racial race relations in America? I mean, I can give you 10 different perspectives from 10 different leading intellectuals from Thomas Sowell to Glenn Lowry to Ibram Kendi and everybody in between. And how to address it is going to look diverse. Just because you oppose racism doesn't mean that this one kind of secular paradigm of addressing it is the only way to address it. And I'm going to apply that to economics and health care and environmental questions and so on. And my fear there, let me just say one more thing.

My fear there, though, is that with what I said, is that I recognize that can be paralyzing for me, that I don't do anything then. And so I recognize there's weaknesses to saying, hey, there's a jagged line here. Maybe we don't need to all address it in the same way. For me, that can produce, I use the word of a quietism, that can produce a sort of checking out. And I'm trying to push myself against that. I don't want to be quietistic. I want to be a Christian who is fully for the flourishing of humanity. I think my natural reaction is to plug into the church and to say human politics don't really matter.

And some of this book was written to myself to say, no, they do matter. I think we can have, you know, I use the language of dual citizenship. Paul was very comfortable with saying, writing to those who are in Christ Jesus and also in Rome, to those who are in God the Father and in Philippi or Colossae. And he, you know, in Acts itself, I love this, he's not afraid to say, I'm a Roman citizen. Now, why he does that, we could get into that. His ultimate allegiance is to Jesus Christ, but he can, I mean, he believes he can be a dual citizen, that his citizenship in the kingdom of heaven does not cancel out his Roman citizenship, but it orders it. It orders it. It orders it.

It doesn't cancel it. It doesn't. It demotes it. But he's OK with still being a Roman citizen, and he uses that to his advantage. And I think that's a good word for us. Like, it's not it. You know, it's not. You talked about patriotism. There's a deformation

of patriotism that goes too far. But there's something good and true about loving your home and your homeland. There's like, I, my parents are from Oregon. I talked about this. I lived in Oregon for a while. I love Oregon. Is that wrong? No, I think that's good. I hope you love like Boise, right? Like there's a sense in which you love. And then there's a sense in which you hopefully love this nation. Now you just have to be careful. Like what, where does that love rank for you? Right. And so there's a healthy patriotism and there's an unhealthy patriotism. I had a great conversation with Justin Giboney. Do you know Justin? I know of him.

We did a podcast for the 4th of July talking about this, this tension about, yeah, there's, there's cultural things or geographical things. There's historical things about America that we can absolutely celebrate. Again, theologically celebrate because it's the image of God coming out in us. It's God's beautiful creation. It's God bringing different ethnic groups together and producing amazing food and language and culture and relationships. That's right.

You know, and so, yeah. Going back to your point though, the paralyzing, because I can suffer from that too. I wonder, like paralyzing in the sense of separating yourself from secular politics so much that you feel like now you don't do anything good in society or you're not concerned about producing good in society.

I wonder if, what if we, again, going back to your own point of focusing a large chunk of our energy on creating the type of polis in the church that we long to see in society. Because if we don't, if we jump the gun and are overly concerned with society, when our churches are not the kind of, again, using the term correctly, political gathering, it should be, then I think that's wrong-headed. And I see this, and I could pick on the right or the left. I can go either direction here. But in particular, from the right, when you have Christians that were all up in arms over the CRT being taught in schools, and it's like, well, wait a minute, but your own church communities aren't embodying the ethnic reconciliation and diversity of the kingdom that it should like the you you are now opening your mouth about what you see as an aberration of how to address race when you or your church has not

been even concerned about this conversation within the walls of the church forever you know and that's an overstatement okay but but i i let's first embody a kingdom economic in our churches our global churches let's first embody ethnic reconciliation in the church. And once we have that together, then maybe it'll spill over. And as maybe as Tatius or whoever said, these Christians are not only caring for their own poor, but now they're caring for our poor. And I don't, can you help me tease this out? Because it sounds almost too mechanical. Like there's a, I don't want to make it too chronological. Like, okay, let's forget about society.

Let's only focus on the church. And after 30 years, when we figure that out, then we can say, like, I don't want to make it too like step one, step two. But I think, would you agree at least with the theological focus there? Yeah. The maybe ordering. Yeah. And what does that look like?

Have you thought through this? I mean, yeah, I mean a little bit, I would say it seems like the scriptures do give us, um, is it Galatians where he says, uh, care for all people, but first, uh, the household of Christ or something like that. Is it Galatians six? Is that right? And so I think there's an order in there that like your first moral proximity community is those that you've come at entered with in the local body. And I would say even maybe before that, there is some indications that even your own local family, you're actually nuclear family. You know, yeah. Difference between how we view nuclear family now and then is complicated.

But, you know, it talks about in 1 Timothy, you need to provide for your own household. If you're not, you're worse than an unbeliever. So at least in class, I've drawn up, hey, what is your first responsibility? It's your family. Why? Because God created us as nearest to these people. If you're not providing for them, then you're not doing what God has called you to. Then you provide for your next nearest community, which I would say is your church. And then you go out from that to society, which is probably first locally, right? In terms of your own... Right, right. Not your Twitter community. We usually think like nation, like, how do I provide for the nation now? And I'm like, no,

think about your neighborhood maybe next, right? What can you do? Start helping your neighborhood with different things and beautifying your community in different ways or starting programs in your community. So I do think there is, I use the term moral proximity, that we are called first to care for those that we're nearest to. I actually think Kevin DeYoung wrote an article about this a long time ago, and he was just saying, like, man, we see those commercials about orphans overseas, and we want to help them so much. And he goes, I really want people to help them or the starving overseas. And he just pointed out, though, like the first thing you need to do is help those who are near to you, not at the neglect of others, but that there is a sense in which God has specifically called you to a certain place, a certain time, a certain neighborhood, a certain church. And so I do like to use those categories. And I totally agree with you, the first place we need to start, I even said it earlier, the first place we need to start is in the church. But I think I'm speaking to myself here, my tendency, I don't think Christians have always thought this way. I guess we could go through the history.

But my tendency is then to just completely neglect the wider society. And I think if we lived in a time where there was civil war, mass famine, or suffering, we would start to recognize, wow, like as Christians, we really need to step in here. And I think historically Christians have, I mean, from what I know of history, it was Christians who first started hospitals. It was Christians who first started schools. It was Christians who first started orphan care systems and foster home systems. Now the larger secular kind of body has taken that over. But I think Christians historically seem to have had a vision for, you know, there's orphans

all over here, and we just need to start something to help them out, like to house them. And so Christians would just start organizations. And maybe because, you know, the secular government does so much for us now, we don't have that vision anymore. And I don't know what to do about that. I'm just recognizing, like, the situation that we're in. And maybe we've lost a little bit of a vision for helping those things. And I don't think everybody has lost a vision. I mean, there's people who are helping in these different realms.

people who are helping in these different realms. But I'm even trying to get our church more plugged in to like orphan care, because there's a Christian organization that's saying, let's help keep kids out of the foster program. Why don't we start at the beginning and provide things for families who need help? And I'm like, I love that idea. So you could help on the back end and actually foster kids, or you can help on the front end and keep kids out of the foster system. And I was like, hey, let's partner with them as a church. Let's see how we can do that. So that's a way the community can gather around and say, and what I love about this program is it's all geographically based. We would actually literally deliver things to people in a 20 to 50 mile radius of our church.

And I'm like, well, that's perfect. We just need to know the needs. So yeah, I'm kind of going off on different things. I do think there's an ordering, but I don't. I want to make sure that we're not neglecting the wider world and their needs if we say we just want to do the church thing. Because I think that's the main temptation for me. Yeah. Well, I wonder though if there could be a little bit of a, just truly a little bit of a false dichotomy there, because if the church is truly doing its discipleship well and holistic,

it will, like that will be good for society. So it's not like, like okay we have all these flourishing churches that are embodying this kingdom ethic but the the surrounding culture is going to hell in a handbasket it's like well no if the church is doing that i think that will have a radiating effect on on the broader society yeah i think you're right it has if it's done well a leavening effect on our communities. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You brought up, because I do, here's where I struggle, and it's kind of on the same topic, is what does, and I don't want to say political, because we've already kind of redefined what that even means, like secular political engagement for the Christian look like. And this is where I think there's just a really strong rubber band effect among Christians. And I see this, I'll see even at my own church, like it's very,

pretty partisan church, but not for the pulpit. You'll hear sermons all the time that would say things that very much reflect like in your book. And then you turn around and you talk to somebody five seconds later and you know, they're just very steeped in partisan politics. And it's like – it's so hard for the – I just feel like I don't – it's so hard for it to seep in. But let me go back to the – you brought up the example of like MLK, civil rights movement. And here you had Christians that stepped up and engaged in this very important conversation as they very well should have. A couple of things. I mean, as far as I know, it seems like the civil rights movement to like kind of really

intentionally try to embody Christian principles to bring about a Christian goal of desegregation, ethnic reconciliation. And so that's always kind of the classic example of see Christians should be involved in secular or non-church attempts to embody justice in society. I agree with all that. I think that what is a justice issue today and how to address it has become so muddled through propaganda-oriented media outlets and social media and hyper-partisanship. Like, what is it? Because right now, even people listening are like, depending on what side of the aisle they are drinking from, they're going to define all kinds of different justice issues. We need to get rid of these, you know, groomers, these drag cream groomers out of our schools and CRT from our schools and the other side.

We need to make sure that no Republican will get elected to office again, because then we're going to have January 6 all over again. And all these white Christian nationalists are going to overrun democracy. And you can, I mean, you listen to, if you just pick up any mainstream news outlet and you'll have all kinds of justice issues that need to be addressed. And my question is, ooh, really? That really worries me for several reasons. One, I think our very knowledge of what is an actual justice issue, unlike the civil rights movement, is so fogged up through the very biased medium through which we're even getting our knowledge. And we see this all the time with, um, you know, um, stuff that flares up on social media. And then if, once you wait 10 seconds, you realize, oh, there's more to this, you know, news, this little clip or whatever that I thought. Um, or, you know, if you listen to one side of the political aisle telling us what's the justice

issue and you listen to the other side and it's like, oh, there's a whole nother side of this thing. And it just gets really complicated. So I, I just, I feel like there's less, well, two things. Number one, I think there's less clarity on identifying what is a justice issue today. And number two, I'm concerned about putting faith in partisan politics as a means of addressing justice issue. And this is why I go back to the civil rights movement and other issues that didn't seem to be from my vantage point as partisanly driven, if you will. Does that make sense? Again, I'm kind of thinking about it. I don't have the answer to that. I mean, you're just naming things that I feel every day. I mean, I don't know if I have like, there's no silver bullet to this, but a few things to say, just as you were talking. Number one, we need to stop, Christians need to stop being discipled by cable news network. And so I think some pastors need to be like, you guys need to stop watching this stuff. Like, just stop. Because honestly, it's confusing, partially because people have made it confusing, because they want to win election and they have a job and their

goal is to out to elicit rage from you. And so like, literally, we, we are I think the church, the American church is being discipled more by cable news than by the scriptures. So maybe the unclarity is coming from the fact that we have not been formed by the worldview and the scriptures themselves, the story of God. And so I think there needs to be some strong words that need to be said sometimes. That we need to unplug from this and start doing more Bible studies. I don't know, you know what I mean? Like, honestly, like examining the scriptures and seeing how did Daniel act in the midst of exile? Like, do a whole study on that. Read 1 Peter 20 times. You can get a pretty good political theology from

1 Peter and Daniel themselves. And so that's the first thing I'd say. The second thing is, you know, with all the information out there, it is complicated, but it is maybe, maybe it's less complicated than we think. Maybe we're confused because we read all these diverging opinions, but again, We're confused because we read all these diverging opinions. But again, we're being swayed to and fro by these people who are just trying to get us to believe what they want us to believe. And so I hope that the church – I gain a lot of wisdom from – the Southern Baptist Convention has the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission. And you might be like, why do you need that? Because I don't know what's going on. And I have some people that I trust theologically who actually know policy. They're experts on it. And they provide Southern Baptist churches with, hey, here's this new thing that's coming down,

and here's what we think, here's what's coming down, and here's what we think, here's what's going on, and here's how we think you should think about it. Now, you might disagree in some of the different things of it, but here's the basics of this issue. We probably need more organizations like that. So I'm really thankful, honestly, that Southern Baptists have that organization because they send pastors, hey, you know, when different things happen, even with race relations, they're like, here's some things to think about, like what you should maybe say to your congregation. And you know, what was great about it was it was so like balanced and like helpful, like lament, and we need to get to work. And we trust that God is

sovereign and his kingdom will win, you know, like basic just Christian theology. But it was like they sent us talking points. I get talking points like and you don't have to do the talking points. But it's like, hey, if you need some help in thinking about if you are going to address this political issue. After Roe v. Wade was overturned, they had a long thing that they sent to us to say, how should you talk about this? And one of the things that they said, which I thought was so helpful was remember, there are people in your congregation who have likely had an abortion. And so be really careful with how you speak about this.

And I was like, thank you for saying that. Because I think a lot of pastors might forget that, you know, this is, this is heartbreaking for many people in our congregation. Maybe they wanted to have an abortion. Maybe they didn't. Maybe they felt like they had to, you know? And how are you going to speak about that? Are you going to have like a celebration service and they're going to be sitting in the corner crying, feeling totally condemned? So what does that look like for your church? I don't know if I'm getting to your question. I'm getting to your question.

No, no. But I do think we need to come back to that straight and jagged line. Like pastors, leaders in the church, yourself, who are leading organizations, speak clearly where the scriptures speak clearly. And maybe that'll help us because it looked like we look back on the civil rights movement and we were like, man, it was so clear. But you know, during that time, everyone tried to complicate it. Oh, totally. Yeah. Well, you had a lot.

I mean, even in the letter from the Birmingham jail, you know, a big part of that king was kind of bemoaning the fact that these white pastors and Christian leaders weren't against what was going on. But it was just, oh, you're moving a little too fast, you know. And he's, I mean, one of those powerful... Not now, don't go this fast. Right. Yeah. When do we ever move on this? Yeah. So it wasn't just racist versus non-racist. It was different people, different approaches on how to go about achieving something that has a good goal in mind. So I guess my, I just see partisan allegiances that are trickling down, not just trickling, but like celebrated by the church. And I just, I don't know how to wake people up to the theological danger of what's going on and how it's just absolute when the church and families are absolutely divided over secular partisan politics partisan allegiances satan is just sitting back and

laughing he's just like oh my word this is so easy just turn on this channel turn on that channel look at this social whatever and like and it's like Christian, a lot of Christians are just blindly like sheep, just blindly following something that is just stealing their affections away from the gospel of Christ. I just, I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. Is it just some really, really bold, but I don't know, even just kind of bold preaching, then they'll, people will leave the church and go somewhere to another party, partisan church that, you know, agrees with what they believe about secular politics. Um, I just, I don't know. This whole book was a book on political discipleship and it is trying to wake people up to say, like I said, at the beginning of this

conversation, if you're kind of a only Romans 13 political theology and I've got my party that I submit to, I guess what I'd say is submit and subvert applies to your maybe partisan loyalties as well. So I think your fear in this is that somebody is going to read this and say, hey, I'm Democrat, I'm Republican, so I'm going to submit to the Democrats and subvert the Republicans or the opposite. My whole paradigm is, no, Christianity transcends all of that, and you submit and subvert both. Yeah. I think you said it. I just think that people, a lot of American Christians, again, I'll say it again, are so steeped in partisan allegiances or allegiances to one side of the aisle or the other, same thing, that it might take a stronger hit in the head for them to realize that they're kind of not living out the very thing you're talking about. So again, I think what you accomplished in the book is spot on. Tim Keller talked about it on one maybe podcast or something, like what were early Christians for? And he gave five things that I can always only remember four of them. But he was like, they were for caring for the poor. Sounds like kind of a leftist thing, right?

They were for also racial ethnic harmony. Again, sounds like a leftist thing right um they were for also uh racial ethnic harmony again sounds like a left thing they were also for a strong and strict sexual ethic yeah oh sounds like a right thing and then uh man i can't remember the other ones but probably uh exposing a fetus is so like oh yeah abortion that was it yeah yeah thank you, uh, we do not expose our children to die. Uh, and so you do have two right things and two left things. And he was just like, that's the kingdom of God. Like, um, you can disagree. Maybe you think Republicans are better at caring for the poor. What? Right. So that's where the debate comes in. Um, but at least their platforms and how they speak of these things, I think Christians can say, we're for that and we're for that. And so we're homeless. We're exiles. We don't fit in

either party very well. At the same time, when you go to the booth, you do sometimes have to make a decision. And so I tell people, which party, when it comes to this, if you have to the booth, you do sometimes have to make a decision. And so I tell people, which party, when it comes to this, if you have to decide, because sometimes you have to decide, which party most represents your Christian values. And if neither of them do, I think it was David French who recently said this, to cast your vote for the party or the person who is immoral is not what you should do, because if you're choosing the least evil choice, you're choosing evil. In other words, he's trying to break that division of like, well, what if I don't have any other choice? And what if it's the least worst option of all options? Well, you're continuing the status quo then.

You are putting your vote behind something that you disagree with. Yeah. And there's no way that reform is ever going to happen if you do that. Yeah. Yeah. So that means sometimes you got to kind of say, I'm not going to vote for either of these people. Well, and going back to like, how do we even know who's more evil than the other or less evil? Going back to like, how do we even know who's more evil than the other or less evil?

How do we even know who's going to actually care for racial reconciliation more than the other candidate? Who's actually going to care for the, you know, all these things. I'm like, it's, and I don't want to get, I don't want to get too cynical, but I kind of do. Like I didn't, part of me is like the Neil Postman, you know, it's it's all kind of a power it's all a power grab and and i've said this before people can i don't know well do what you want but like i would say though if we don't have any trust we don't have a society we have to have some trust and i understand the cynicism yeah but like society will not function if you don't have trust. So we have to, in some sense, believe if people say, if a presidential candidate or governor

says, this is what I'm going to do. I mean, our initial reaction should be to trust them, that that's really what they will do. I know you can poke holes in that, but I just want to, there has to be some trust in society for it to run. Because if we run on all cynicism, everything falls apart, right? We don't believe anything anyone says, then there's nothing to do. I hear that. I don't know if the language of trust, of pistis, to get back to the New Testament would be...

I mean, trust in terms of, like, social relationships, not in terms of like social relationships not in terms of faith like um you believe that i was going to come on here and tell you what i really think and if not you wouldn't have had me on here right yeah um and i believe like you're going to ask genuine questions we can have a social relationship because there's a level of trust between us. You see what I'm getting at? Like, I'm not saying you have to believe in them in terms of like, have your faith in them, but I'm saying like, you, you won't have conversations with people who you don't trust. Yeah. I guess I'm not talking about like average everyday citizen, but more like Babylonian leaders who are doing whatever it takes to get

into power or maintain power. Like, dude, do Democrats really at the top of these elite white people really care for the lives of minority people? Or are they using that as a means of getting more votes? You know, um, is Trump, is Trump really anti-abortion? I mean, it wasn't five seconds before he started running for president or is he like well if i'm a republican i have to say this you know like does he really deep down is he up late at night and saying how can i really reduce the number of abortions or is he up late at night thinking how can i get power more votes and maintain power and is biden i mean i can keep you know it's equal sides and then that's where i don't when

people even when politicians let's let's just say maybe on the on the that's where i don't when people even when politicians let's let's just say maybe on the on the big stage and i don't want to lump them all together i'm sure there's variation but like am i are they really deeply concerned about these values that may resonate with the christian worldview or are they simply using are they playing the game to get power and maintain power um and that's where you have to look at the character of a person, right? If the character of a person screams, this dude, this woman's just in it for power. Yeah. Well then, yeah, you don't trust them as much,

but if the character of a person and the kind of, you know, span of their life is that they're a person of their word and that they do what they say they're going to do. Well, then you do have to just kind of, you know, span of their life is that they're a person of their word and that they do what they say they're going to do. Well, then you do have to just kind of, I think you have to lay it down and hopefully believe them. Now, when you were speaking, I just thought of Richard Mao when he said the line of Babylon or Jerusalem or something that runs in each of our hearts. And so we like to talk about like, you know, we are people of Jerusalem. We're not Babylonians. We're not of the city of Babylon. I thought Richard Mao was really helpful just to remind us like that line of good and evil also runs through your own heart. So some days I act more like the city of Babylon. And some days I act more like the city of Jerusalem.

And that's a good just kind of dose of humility while I'm trying to advocate for the kingdom of God. Maybe the first question, you brought this up earlier, the first question I need to ask is, am I being a citizen of Jerusalem today? And I'm not talking about the land of Jerusalem, I'm talking about the heavenly city. starts with us. It starts with individuals. And it starts with small actions of faithfulness and small actions of virtue and care and love for others. You want to change the political system, begin by being kind to your wife and loving her and being a good friend and caring for your kids. So we talk about corruption in society, but what about abuse in the home? You know, like, are we the type of people? Or we talk about society's going to hell.

Well, what about pornography in the own home, our own homes? We complain about sexuality in the world, but are we being pure? And so I think it comes back to, you know, at the beginning, I said, evangelicals are all about personal relationship. And now I'm coming back to it and I'm saying, look, that is important, right? Yeah. Yeah. So yeah. That's good, man. I think the Stoics talked about that. Although that always just sounds sexy and like, yeah, the Stoics used to, I, I think that that, yeah, beginning with your beginning with yourself or even, you know, the, the, as you said, the, the, the, the family or your friendship group, the church and the greater society around you, you have these kinds

of, you know, severe concentric spheres that, that move out. And the very first sphere is, is your own personal holiness, which again, isn't at odds with public holiness, but is the beginning step toward ordering, you know, your life rightly. And Patrick, always wonderful to talk to you. So the book again is Political Gospel, Public Witness in a Politically Crazy World. And I just want to say just what I love most about this book and why people should read it. Obviously, if you're interested in kind of how a Christian should think through politics, I would say this book is good for that. It's even better for just like the way you situate people in the first century New Testament gospel is so, so good.

So even if you can care less about politics, or even the word politics makes you mad, if you're interested in first century Christianity, this book is so, so good. So even if you can care less about politics, or even the word politics makes you mad, if you're interested in first century Christianity, this book is so, so good. So thank you for this book. I hope it finds its way in the laps of many people. So thanks so much, Patrick, for writing it. Thanks for being on Theology in a Rock. Thanks, Preston. It's been fun talking to you. You ask great questions. So it's been great. this show is part of the converge podcast network