Theology in the Raw - What Can the Church Learn from Early Abolitionists? Dr. Daniel Hill

Episode Date: July 7, 2025

Dr. Daniel Lee Hill (PhD, Wheaton College) is assistant professor of Christian theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, in Waco, Texas. He is the author of several books, including his most recent book, Bearing Witness: What the Church Can Learn from Early Abolitionists (Baker Academic, 2025), which forms the basis of our conversation. Join the Theology in the Raw community for as little as $5/month to get access to premium content. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology Nom. My guest today is Dr. Daniel Lee Hill, who has a PhD from Winton College and is an assistant professor of Christian theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. He's the author of several books, including his most recent book, Bearing Witness, What the Church Can Learn from Early Abolitionists, which forms the basis of our conversation. We do end up wandering into some controversial questions around voting and our current situation regarding immigration. So yeah, you'll have to see what you think about how we tackle or think out loud through some of those complex questions.

So please welcome back to the show, the one early Dr. Daniel Lee Hill. Daniel Hill, welcome back to theology. How are you doing this fine Texas morning for you at least? I'm in Idaho. Yeah, we're doing all right. You know, it's only 90 degrees. So this is like, this is like spring weather for us. Oh man. Oh man. No mountains and no, and lots of heat, but you guys got the barbecue. So that, that makes up for it. Your latest book, bearing witness, what What the Church Can Learn from Early Abolitionists,

seems really fascinating. Can you... Why don't we start by you taking us back to the early abolitionist movement? First of all, what got you interested in that? And then maybe give us just a broad overview for somebody who may only have a really vague understanding of that movement. Yeah, I think what got me interested is I was reading, Mark Knoll has a book called The Civil War, I think it's called The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, which is a series

of papers he gave or lectures he gave. And there's some folks whose names are like scattered in the footnotes that aren't engaged as much. It's a pretty short book, so it's not a knock against it. And I just started chasing them down. It's like, well, who is this person? I don't know who they are. I've never heard of them before. Well, the only person that he mentions is David Ruggles. So that's kind of what got me started looking at David Ruggles. And you start to read his works and it's very, very evangelical in its operation. But if you try and find secondary literature on

David Ruggles, William Still, Maria Stewart, the three figures of the book, none of them are treated as evangelicals, or even as honestly really as Christians, that their Christianity is pointed to as like a veneer that they might be putting on or kind of accidental. So not like animating what they do, but just like, I'm a Christian and I care about the enslaved. And if you read their writings, that's not how they seem to see things. One, there's one political theorist who goes, he writes, I think he's writing on William Still, he says, they're rarely engaged, except in English lit circles. And when they are engaged in like, political theory, they're

not engaged as Christians. They're just engaged as like, yeah. So I wanted to kind of see how they understood themselves as Christians and particularly as evangelical Christians. And that's what kind of got me started. So their passion for the abolitionist movement came from their Christian, in particular, their evangelical, the term was used back then. But I mean, it was stemming from that. Is that what you're arguing for? Yeah. So like David Ruggles at one point says, we can't defeat, we can't end slavery with rational arguments or with, I forget what the, he's like, we can't use reason, you know, but we can use evangelical weapons to combat slavery.

Yeah, and Maria Stewart has this like, large devotional literature that she wrote, that isn't really read all that much. But it's, I mean, again, it's just seen as seems to be animating what she does. So this, sometimes they are even using the explicit language of being an evangelical. Sometimes it's just kind of present in the way they're talking, the way they're operating, only would make sense within an evangelical ethos, if you will. Yeah. Tell me about the three figures that you discussed in the book. What were the means by which they pursued toward abolition, abolitionist movement. Like, were they, like, I don't even

know what that actually looks like back in the 1800s, you know? Were they writing letters to the Senator? Were they like protesting on Washington, D.C. or preaching sermons or all the above or? Yeah, there's a pretty wide spectrum of engagement. Not, they're kind of in the middle, but on one hand, you have folks who are effectively doing raids on slaves to kind of rescue slaves, trying to organize that kind of activity. On the other hand, you have folks who are solely concerned with changing laws, so raising money to get a certain number of senators to change legislature. Stuart still and Ruggles operate kind of between those extremes.

And extreme might be putting it pejoratively. I don't mean it that way. Those two ends of the spectrum. So Stuart does a lot of public speaking. She speaks in settings of, you know, predominantly Afro-American, mixed race congregations. David Ruggles does a lot of work. He writes pamphlets of protest as well, but most of his work is with the New York Society of Vigilance, which is an organization that seeks to identify slave catchers and then

protect fugitives and free blacks from being captured and taken down into slavery. So they're publishing their names, saying what they look like, letting people know this is how they're operating. And William Still, most of his work is with the Underground Railroad Society in Philadelphia. And he's helping folks, like he's providing housing for them, he's serving as a hub of communication between a runaway slave and maybe their family

back on a plantation. He does other stuff as well. But yeah, those are the kind of the three main ways that they operate. I'm curious, and I don't know if you get into this in your book, why did the powers to be in that era advocate for slavery? The ones that did, like were they compelled morally that slavery was right or was it really

just come down to power and money that the people that put them in the office and kept them in office or whatever were for slavery, and so they sort of succumbed to the powers to be? Or do we know much about the motivation? Yeah, I think there are a couple. I mean, it's pretty spread. I think one thing that kind of gets lost in history, when we look back, is we forget that everyone wanted to be a slave owner. When we look back is we forget that everyone wanted to be a slave owner So if you were there's a man, I can never remember saying he was in Louisiana and he was afro-american owned a hundred slaves

And we don't we don't tend to think that we tend to think of slavery is like falling strictly on racial lines But everyone wanted it was more I would say mean, it did in a lot of ways, but it was a social status as well. Like you wanted to be someone who owned land, who didn't have to work that land and can maximize your profits. So I think that's one element is that every, not everyone obviously, but this was like a predominant view in the United States was that slave owning was a mark of status and you wanted to move up the social ladder, regardless of where the color of your skin was. I think another concern, especially after there's a slave revolt in Haiti in the late 17th century or 18th century, and there, this huge kind of reaction in the United States to that. So,

the Haitian Slave Revolt is one of the few successful slave revolts in history, where Haiti is able to become an independent nation. It's very, very violent. And there's a fear in the United States that, oh, we're going to have this kind of thing happen here. There's also a contingent, a cluster of folks who are concerned that you have this large population of uneducated or undereducated, not culturally American in the way other people are, that if you just release them, they're just going to become a burden to society. So you have three, five million slaves now that can't read, can't

write, what kind of jobs are they going to work? So you might say that's not the most effective way to adjust their problems, to keep them enslaved. And they would say, yeah, that's why we need to send them someplace else. So there's a bunch of different, different arguments. Some of it's economic, some of it's social status, some of it's political fear and some of it's like a concern of it's social status, some of it's political fear, and some of it's like a concern of how it will just warp the Republic. So I was not, and excuse my ignorance on this topic,

I've not done much study on it. I was not aware that there were some African American slave owners. Or was that, I mean, was it like one or two or a hundred? Or like, was that, how common? Yeah, it's more than one or two and probably over a hundred. Yeah. There's a, there's a interaction between Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. So Frederick Douglass is trying to get Abraham Lincoln during the civil war, leading up to the Civil War to allow all black regiments to fight for the Union and Lincoln is very resistant to this idea.

And Douglas says in the South they have all black regiments fighting for the Confederacy. And some of that might have been you know free blacks being kind of coerced into fighting some of that maybe folks that sending their slaves to fight but you can look in. into fighting, some of that may be folks sending their slaves to fight. But, I mean, you can look in records in Virginia, in Louisiana, in South Carolina, and there are blacks who own slaves. Okay. So there's some blacks that own slaves. Were there any white people that were slaves in that era? Is that... I'm not certain. I think, I mean, you have this additional category of indentured servitude. So Maria Stewart, one of the characters I cover in the book this additional category of indentured servitude. So Maria Stewart,

one of the characters I cover in the book, she's an indentured servant. So you do have white Americans who are indentured servants. And the line between indentured servitude and slavery is semi-permeable, you might say, or plastic. It's not this like clear distinction. You're doing the same work. You can be mistreated in the same ways. But I don't think they can be technically given the technical social status of slave. Yeah. You see a similar distinction in the Bible, I think, right? Well, more of an indentured servant, it seems like, where you fall upon economic hardship. And so, you basically, I mean, to say You fall upon economic hardship. And so you basically, I mean, to say you're making the choices maybe a little too strong.

But I mean, you're not being taken against your will. I mean, there might be socioeconomic oppression and stuff that led to that. But yeah, it was a little bit different. So regardless of the complexity of how race played into the system, it is an evil system obviously. So I'm curious, because your book is really focused on the church. I mean, it's using this time period and really saying, how can the church learn from this?

So what, yeah, I mean, to start big picture, how can the church learn from these early evangelical abolitionists? what, yeah, I just start big picture. How can the church learn from these early, even jellicle abolitionists? Yeah. I was talking to someone here in Waco and they were like, well, we don't have slaves today. So how can we dot, dot, dot, dot, dot? And my first response is like, well, we do have slaves in the United States working on plantations today. So, not necessarily, there's people being trafficked for as sex slaves, there's people, we can think of all the companies that we participate in that use slave labor globally, but there are also people in the

United States who have been purchased to work like in a tomato farm or an orange grove or something like that. So, I think one of the kind of challenges for the church is like, we don't see slavery in the same way, even though it's still present, and to kind of open our eyes to... And I'm not even speaking metaphorically, it's not metaphorical slavery. It's not like this thing is similar to slavery. It's like literally this person is owned. Are these like undocumented immigrant? Or when you say people are purchased

to work in tomato fields, like who are these? Are you talking about undocumented immigrants or is there bigger than that? Right, mostly undocumented immigrants. Okay. I would probably say exclusively immigrants, mostly undocumented immigrants. Okay.

Like taken, well, is it like against their will or is it kind of like because they have no other option, they're undocumented, they can't find work through other means? Like is there some, and I hate using this word here, but is there some consensuality with it or is it more one-sided than that if that makes um? Yeah, I don't know how to parse that out because it's like you don't there's so much Lack of like the leverage makes it kind of difficult, right? So it's like there was there's a case not that long ago in Michigan where these teachers were recognizing all the students were coming in their high school and elementary students, high school and middle school, sorry, students were coming

in like exhausted all the time. And they found out that these kids were working in I think it's a nature's valley or something like that, like the some granola companies factory. So these, these kids are working, they're working illegally because they're children, even though they may or may not have been born in the United States. And so the question of are they doing that willingly is complicated when it's like, well, if you don't do this, your family doesn't have any food or your parents might be deported or something like that. So I don't know how I would answer that question because the will can be coerced.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The whole idea of free will and consent is a little thin when you look at, yeah, again, complex socioeconomic factors and like you said, leverage. I mean, that's, yeah. So kids, kids working for you. I mean, are there, can you, are there like well-known companies that are, oh yeah. Yeah. Can you name another one that I, I don't want to miss. I don't want to get a letter. Okay. Yeah. But if you Google it, Google Michigan, what's the, I can't remember the law, but there's a law where you can't employ children. It's like underage miners working. There's a case in Alabama, not that long ago. This is like in the last five years. And there's one in

there's a case in Alabama not that long ago, this is like in the last five years. And there's one in Michigan, in the West coast of Michigan somewhere. Wow, dude, that's, wow. Okay, so times are different, but there's more similarities between today and the mid to late 1800s than some people might think. Yeah. Yeah.

Wow, that's wild. I'm curious, so as we learned from early abolitionists, um, or, or, and even just like political protest in, in general, you know, last time I had you on the show, we talked about political theology and, uh, two by great joy. I learned that, um, you have some how are Wassian, uh, Yeah. Stanley Howard was the great anti-Baptist political theologian as I do as, as well. One of the critiques that a Howard Wassian approach receives, I think wrongfully, but that it leads to isolationist that if you just sort of see the government and political powers as just

this evil thing out there, then you don't take action and the church needs to love our neighbors. We need to pursue justice. And, you know, that gets into a whole complex conversation around the relationship between church and state and all that. So, talk to me about how your political theology is integrated in seeing early abolitionists as an expression of a genuine Christian faith. Pete Yeah, I think they're more inclined to collapse the distinction between church and state so, than I would be. So, I'll pick on David Ruggles. He's very motivated by a kind of Wesleyan perfectionism, so the belief that you can become perfect in love as an individual. And he kind of takes that and expands that and

has that perspective of society, that society can attain this kind of Christian perfection. Not that it won't make errors and be wrong in different ways and the same would hold for individual sanctification, but that we can get like this holy society. And I'm a lot more skeptical of that kind of perspective, but I think what Ruggles and Stuart and still all kind of say back is like, hey, the way we conceive of agency and political agency is askew, that we have more agency than we care to think, that politics is broader than how we normally narrow it, and that the church might not be able to... The church's activity in Singapore is it might not change the political arrangement of Singapore. It might not change any laws in Singapore, but it can bear witness to what God has done

in Christ through the way it lives. And that's something that resonates pretty strongly with someone like me who does have these Haurawassian tendencies that like, yeah, I might not change the political order. I might not even be able to change local laws, but I can bear witness in a plethora of ways through how I try to cultivate a common life with my neighbors. This episode is brought to you by Mitapure by Timeline. Mitapure is the only Urolithia A supplement on the market clinically proven to target

the effects of age-related cellular decline. And now you can take this powerful supplement in gummy form. That's right, the first ever longevity gummies powered by Mitapure makes it even easier to put energy into your day. Okay, so I'm turning 50 years old next year. I can't believe it. And I'm already feeling the effects of aging. I mean, our bodies simply make less energy as we get older,

but now you can help recharge the batteries of your cells by taking Mitapure's longevity gummies, which transforms cellular damage into energy. By delivering six times more Urolithium-A than a glass of pomegranate juice, the longevity gummies will increase your sustained energy, boost muscle endurance, and support faster recovery after exercise.

If you want to stay strong and energized now as you age, then you have to try these Mitopure gummies. And my friends over at Timeline are offering my listeners a free sample of the new these might appear gummies? And my friends over at Timeline are offering my listeners a free sample of the new might appear gummies. Just head over to timeline.com forward slash theology gummies to get started. That's timeline.com forward slash theology gummies.

Your sales will thank you. Well, one thing I often struggle, just something I'm constantly wrestling with is the line between standing up for justice, pursuing a more just society, putting pressure on the government authorities to institute just laws without that becoming a sort of Christian nationalism. You know, like, you know, I believe slavery is immoral. Therefore we should protest the government powers that are trying to Institute something that is immoral. I believe, I believe abortion is immoral. But then if I start saying, putting pressure on the government to, you know, advocate against

abortion, you know, do away with, you know, the legalization of abortion and all people like, Whoa, what do you Christian nationalists or, or I think adultery is immoral. I think adultery actually is harmful to society. I think it actually wrecks havoc on society. You know, as, as the first century Roman empire realizes why they, you know, uh, Augustus instituted, you know, uh, he made a adultery illegal, um, because he saw that it was just destroying society. So, but, so where do we draw the line between, you know, our sense of justice as Christians comes from our Christian worldview. So should we per should we demand that the government abides

by justice according to our standard of justice? And when does that become just trying to make America a Christian nation? I'm constantly wrestling with where is that line? Yeah. I think my bent is to say, I'm to proclaim what is just and proclaim the Lord's judgment on injustice and to proclaim that, to say this thing that you're doing is wrong and you're held accountable for it. You've been given power, you're abusing that power. Carl Bart has this wonderful concept in some of his political writing

on power becoming demonic, where it's like, God has given the government power, he's given Pilate power, but when Pilate fails to operate in relationship with truth, that power becomes demonic. He's speaking specifically about when Pilate says to Jesus, what is truth?

And so I think like to call the government out and to account for its failure to operate with what it's been given rightly, I think that's wholly appropriate. I think where I see like a kind of logical break personally between or a line between what I'm supposed to do and what will actually kind of result from my actions.

I'm a lot less hopeful that if I do get a law changed that the powers that be will be operating in good faith or that this will have like widespread effect on society in a positive direction. But I think it's wholly right to say like, this thing is wrong, and this is the effects of this kind of wrong thing, and you need to stop doing it. I think that's wholly appropriate, even within the Haurasian frame. Again, though, like when we say this thing is wrong, we as Christians believe it's wrong

because of a Christian worldview. So are there certain things within a Christian sense of justice that we should impose on the government and certain things within a Christian worldview that is, you know, part of justice that we shouldn't impose because that would be trying to make the nation a Christian nation? Does that make sense? I just... Yeah, I think even the belief that we should show kind of hospitality to other views is indicative of certain Christian commitments. So the fact that I think we should tolerate the presence of Muslims and Hindus within the United States. I don't think you can wholly segregate that from the kind of early Christian immigrants in the United States trying to cultivate a

place that was different from where they had been, specifically England. But that is still then a kind of imposition on anyone who comes here, comes into the United States, like you might come to the United States and be perfectly fine with the state mandating a religion. And as Christians operating in the United States, we're saying that's kind of not the way that this nation is operating. But that is still an imposition. So, I think there are good conversations that have to be had on like the extent to which you can impose and whether or not imposing this or that law that kind of changes the way people operate publicly and perhaps even privately is like enabling them to flourish or bringing them closer to God and Christ, I would be reticent to say either of those things as possible.

Yeah, but that, you know, practicing hospitality in political discourse is an imposition. I'd say it's a Christian imposition. There could be a distinction, I'm just thinking out loud, between imposing an entire Christian worldview on the government authorities versus holding the government to its own standard, maybe. So if it says that all people are created equal and have inalienable rights or whatever, it's like slavery goes against the very standard that the government says is its foundation.

Versus, yeah, we live in a pluralistic society. So all religions that aren't, you know, whatever, I don't know, sacrificing children or anything, like religions that aren't bringing clear harm on other people in society should be able to practice a religion freely. So, whereas if we were to impose it holistically, a Christian world around the government, we would say all worship of other gods is now illegal, you know, or something, you know, which is not what we should do. I'm just trying to get underneath the thing. Like, okay, so what is the moral logic

of why would we advocate for this sense of justice, but not this sense of justice when, from a Christian worldview, we have lots of things that we would consider are just and unjust, you know. So I think some of it probably comes down to what you think government is supposed to do. Yeah. Like, what are the, what is the center and like what it's supposed to do? The center, what are the, what's the circumference after it kind of extends beyond this? It's losing its authority.

It doesn't have authority in these areas. So like if the government is telling me what I can eat for breakfast, that might be overstepping its authority. You can put a caveats on. I mean, we only have certain foods available for breakfast. So, yeah, obviously. So, so what, I'm curious from your perspective, what, what are some, some ways in which Christians should push for a more just society? And what are some ways that, given your political theology, would say this isn't really the best Christian manner in which we should push for a just society? For example, should Christians fight to change certain laws that they see as unjust versus maybe should Christians fight to get, you know,

Christians in places of government power so that that person can sort of like, you know, do the work behind the scenes or whatever. Yeah, so in your mind, do you have like a line between saying that this is something, a manner and means by which Christians should pursue justice. But, you know, these methods over here are probably not really helpful. Yeah, I think for the past 40, 50 years, the primary, not maybe not the primary, but a significant route has been to try and get a certain number, a controlling majority of Christians in political office that will either prevent, normally it's prevent, normally it's prevent defense instead of like an actual, uh, let's get a ball in it and zone and secure this or that. Prevent the decline, further decline, quote unquote, or get such and such a law

passed. Um, I am less interested personally in that kind of politics and speaking of politics on the level of a state kind of policing its borders, not saying that those things aren't important. Some of the compromises that have to be made in order to achieve some of those ends, specifically with getting a certain number of representatives in Congress and the Senate, or your favorite politician voted to office. I think we should participate in all those, but I don't think... I think there are just more creative ways we can engage in politics, and there's a whole host of them that I would say, both resist some of what I

would say like a triumphalistic disposition. So if your preferred method of doing politics, let's say for a second argument, is to go, I should have looked this up before I got on, go to what we used to call the old folks home and to spend time with the elderly who are dimension eight old and have Alzheimer's disease. Right. And you're like, this is their part of, I want them back in our common life. We've kind of set them aside, kind of put them in the elderly equivalent of project housing. No one really interacts with them. I want them brought back in our common life. So I'm going to organize ways to do that. I might even establish some institutions that make this kind of able to be a consistent rhythm. That is a way of doing politics. But you're not going to like change

what's going to happen to someone who has Alzheimer's. Yeah. I mean, you might extend their life a certain number of years by John Twenton has a wonderful book on dementia and how we tend to think of dementia is just neurological, but it's also social. So you might do that, but that's an effective political witness for the kingdom of God saying the kingdom of God is made up of such these. If you go to Reginald Duane Betts, has this goal to put beautiful spaces in prisons, bookcases in particular, filled with books that inmates can access outside of library hours. Most of the time, if you work in prison,

you work during the same hours that the library is open, so you get off work and the library is closed, so you just have to spend all your time there not reading or not working. Those are your options. Just like, what if we made beautiful like walnut cherry wood bookcases filled with good books in prisons? That might not change the shape of the society, you know, manifold ways. But it is, that's politics and it's bearing with, it could be bearing witness to the kingdom of God.

I love your expansive definition of politics. I mean, without giving the examples of this is under the umbrella of engaging politics. So oftentimes we just think politics is voting, or pushing for this legislation or that, which is, I guess, part of being politically engaged. But I think there is, yeah, a much more expansive way to do that.

I love those examples. Somebody could say, well, it's not an either or. Yes, go be president, a retirement center, but also push for better laws that get at the heart of, that address more systemic issues related to those issues. What would you see as a less than, I don't want to say less than Christian, maybe a kind of political engagement that you wouldn't advocate for, that you think is not the best expression of our Christian faith? Yeah, I mean, I'm not, I'm pretty averse to coercion in general. Okay. Like physical coercion or emotional coercion, trying to manipulate people in particular

positions. Yeah. So, even like saying, if we pass these laws, our lives will be better in these ways. They might not be. I don't have any insight into causal change that can show you cause and effect, and I can pull it out of the ether and present it to you, and this will happen every time. Life is complicated, and politics is complicated, but I think any kind of physical or emotional manipulation is just a non-starter.

Financial? Yeah, it's just a non-starter for me. Do you think, pop you a big question right now, do you think Christians have a moral obligation to vote out of a desire to love their neighbor? I think, I will say yes and no. I'll cheat. I think voting is like socially contingent. So it's only within a democratic republic or democracy or a parliamentary system that you have the right to vote.

I think Christians are, are they morally obligated? I mean, you get that every election season. I mean, you have, I would say the majority of Christian preachers without using that exact phrase would make it sound like that. Like, they would look at horror if a Christian said, I'm not gonna vote. Yeah, I think I would say, I don't know, I wouldn't use the word, I'd have to do some deep thinking in order to see if I think it's, you're morally obligated, especially since it's so socially contingent. I think it's one of the practices that maintains, voting is one of the practices that maintains democracy. But it's not the only practice that maintains democracy.

Sure. I would say attempts to maintain is a kind... Yeah. I do wonder how much of an actual democracy the United States of America is. But we can say that for another day. I guess when people frame voting in terms of this is, if you don't vote, you're not loving your neighbor. Like this is a way to love your neighbor. I guess my question is always, well, vote for who is it? Is it just the act of voting that is loving your neighbor? And most people say, well, no. Well, then then you're kind of stuck with, okay, well, tell me who to vote for that is loving your neighbor. Well, it's like, well, whoever you feel like

is going to best love you. And okay. So all the mega people voted for Trump, you know, they have their neighbor and I know a lot of people say, Oh no, no, don't do that. Okay. Okay. So it's not just voting. It is voting for the candidate that you think I need to vote for. And that is loving my neighbor. And if I don't vote for that person, I am not loving my neighbor. Like it gets really, it gets trickily fast when you kind of unearth kind of the, the logic.

Yeah. The number of times I've told like smart friends, this is not just like random person at McDonald's. It's like friend I've known for years and years and I'm not voting for one of the primary two candidates, like you're instantly told you're wasting your vote. Right, right, right, right. So it's like you vote to love your neighbor

and vote for one of these two candidates and vote for the candidate that I like. Exactly, yeah, yeah. But people don't wanna say that out loud. Like, I mean, most people that makes, they tell Christians, make sure you vote. They have a certain candidate they have in mind, but they can't say that, right? Because that would be being too political or whatever.

It's like, no, no, just, but make sure you vote, you know? All right, well, I'm going to vote for this person. Like, oh, well, no, don't do that, but make sure you vote. Not for that person. And you've probably heard them talk about all the people, like, whether it's all the Democrats or all the liberals or all the Trump people, all the MAGA people. Like, you've heard this person group everyone who's voted not in the way they're voting in a category, not positively.

Right, right, right, right, right. Yeah. All right. Let's go back to, okay, how can the church draw upon early abolitionists to strengthen its witness today? So what are some things Christians can do and what are some causes Christians should fight for that we can draw on early abolitionists as models for how to do that? Yeah, I think one of the first things that I say this in the book is we need to see the

world. Like the world is in the cosmos, not necessarily like world is in that system that's against God. We need to see it. Oftentimes the problems or difficulties of the world are kind of jettisoned to the sides. And I can understand that, honestly. I've got two young kids, and I'm mostly trying to figure out how I can get,

spend less than like an hour getting out of the house in the morning with like kids hanging on my legs. And it's a wonderful problem, but it means when I'm driving to work, I'm not thinking about, I don't see anybody. All I see is like, am I gonna get to my class on time? So I think part of it is like seeing the the world and seeing the world's groanings, hearing the world's groanings, seeing the world's sufferings and lamenting them.

So, there are things that we should wish were otherwise about the societies, the narrow communities we live in, but also the societies we live in on a broader scale. And we should be aware of those things, and they should be incorporated into our laments to God. That'd be the first thing I would say the church needs to do. Okay. Yeah. What else? The second thing I say in the book is we need to bear the burdens of the world as kind of a sign of the one who's borne our burdens on the cross. God in Christ has done something we cannot do. He's reconciled all things to himself.

You and I, we've been given the ministry of reconciliation, we proclaim the message of reconciliation, but we don't reconcile the world to God. God has already done that in Christ. But what we can do is we can bear some of those, I describe them as temporal burdens, and there are a whole bunch of ways we can do that. You can think about creating new institutions. You can think about extending the goods that a certain community has access to outside of that community.

You can think about ways to preserve certain goods that are at risk of loss. I think we can be engaged in all those kinds of things. That's pretty abstract. One way I would say it to get more concrete. If you're listening and you have kids, what is something everyone wants a better future for their kids? Not everyone, but everyone. What are some things that you want for your kids? You know, you want them to get into college, you want them to get a good job. You want them to be relationally supported. You want them to find a partner and have grandkids.

I mean, those are things I want for my kids. I want them to serve the world well. Okay, the people across the street from me, two houses down, they want some of those similar things for their kids. So there are kind of two options that I kind of view. I could like find exclusive routes to have those things for my kids, right?

So I could send my kids to Kaplan, or I could send them to SAT prep school from the time they're two, and get them a, hire them a grand master to teach them chess, because chess somehow improves your analytics skills, or something like that, right? Does it?

I don't know. I'm sure. Sounds good. Sounds good. I would sure. Sounds good, sounds good. I would like to think so. Or another option is to kind of be the agent who extends those things to my kids and the people down the street as well.

So instead of hiring this grandmaster to teach one kid chess, maybe I learn chess and I teach all the kids. Or I mean, I'm a college professor. Maybe I do SAT prep. I should be able to at least teach them vocab. I don't know about calculus, but together as a community, we can kind of figure some of this stuff out. Maybe we open up our church to be a food pantry and then do homework nights while folks are getting meals.

I mean, there's like so many opportunities. If you're near a college campus, a lot of the students, especially if they're on student visas, they can only work so much and it makes like, it extremely difficult for them to have meals. But you could like, I could conceive of a church

having like a once a week group study night and we just cook a bunch of like do meal prep for a week. And you know, you just come here, help us participate in this, you know, we're gonna have ground turkey tacos for a week, but you'll have food for a week. You know, it's like, there's just so many opportunities that we can, if we're aware of those needs to bear.

And it's not that I'm going to save some kids from eternal perdition because I gave them ground turkey tacos, but what I'm hoping to do is to point them towards the kingdom and give them like a facsimile of it. But that, yeah. And I mean, even helping one or two or five or 10 people in need or embodying the grace and care of Christ towards a few actual embodied people, I think does much more for the kingdom than sitting around stewing over anger on social media with all the stuff going on in the world when you just, you're just rattling off some angry tweets towards political person that you don't like. I don't know. I think a few things done on

a much more in-depth way in the actual society and embodied community that you live in, I think, I mean, if every Christian did that, that would be a massive embodiment of the kingdom of God here, where we live, rather than just being consumed with all the stuff out there that you really can't do a whole lot about. I'm curious. So, okay, so we're recording June 17th right now. This will probably come out several weeks, you know, a few weeks later. Right now, immigration is a really hot topic. Lots of, I mean, you had the LA riots, a lot of protests around the country.

We had a massive protest in Boise. I mean, 4,000 people downtown Boise. And Boise, I mean, Idaho is like 93% white, you know, you know, a decent percentage of those are like white nationalists living in the Hills with a pile of guns, you know, like, you know, but so to see 4,000 people, mostly people of color, not exclusively in downtown Boise. That's a big deal. I think it was pretty, almost every single non-white person in Boise. So yeah,

lots of stuff going on in the country right now. And the way our political season moves, I mean, it might be old news by the time this, this releases. What are your thoughts on how Christians should think through immigration laws, you know, ice, undocumented immigrants, the government crackdown on undocumented immigrants. Have you thought through, I mean, if this is an area you haven't thought too much about, I don't want to put you on the spot because I know it's a really hot topic, but how should Christians think through the current situation involving immigration? Yeah, this is, that's a little bit out of my depth, to be honest.

I think just kind of like rules of political engagement, I think, for Christians involve compassion, a good deal of extending the benefit of the doubt to your interlocutor. Like, it makes... It's not just the United States that's having this reaction to immigration. It's so much of the West. That doesn't make it right or wrong. That's just something worth pointing out. Right.

I also would be a little critical, and this might just be your, you know, cynic guest speaking, of all the like larger scale actors that are advocating for a position. Like I will be very charitable to the person larger scale actors that are advocating for a position. I will be very charitable to the person who is afraid for what might happen to their neighbor

or is afraid of too many undocumented immigrants. Talking with them with empathy and charity, 100%. But large scale companies wanna take advantage of immigrants and not have to pay them the wages that are due to them. So I think for the Christian, there is like a smorgasbord of things that need to be tackled when it comes to immigration that you should be concerned with. You should be concerned with immigrants being taken advantage of by these large-scale companies for more profit.

You should be concerned about the government coming into churches and deporting people. That doesn't look good and it shouldn't look good, and we should be concerned about that. And we should be charitable with those we interact with. This is where my separation between church and state informs how I approach it. Now with you, this is theology in a row. This is not theology in the polished and ironed out. So I just, I don't know, I sit back and kind of look at what's going on, how Christians are responding.

And first of all, almost all of our knowledge of what's going on has been filtered through highly politicized media outlets. Right? So the videos we've come across on social media have been, you know, even of the LA riots, you know, there are certain, depending on your, depending on how you came across the video, it video, one video might show peaceful protests. It might show cops abusing, you know, shooting people with rubber bullets. And then another video might show, you know, rioters, you know, burning cop cars and throwing rocks off of overpasses on the innocent passerby. So I'm constantly emphasizing, like like just be at least conscious.

You'll be aware of the means by which we are even getting our information in our highly politicized climate, you know, and just, just step back a little bit and do some thorough research. But I, you know, as I strap on my Babylon hat, I'm like, well, it's, it's reasonable that a country has certain laws surrounding what it takes to come into the country. And I think every, I think every country has that. Like if I, I can't just go wander into France or Kenya or, you know, without like, you can't just, no, no, I want to come in. You know, it's like, they know you would get like arrested and you know, or if it were for, I was in a country even past my visa, like, you know, without like, you can't just, no, no, I want to come in. You know, it's like, they know you would get like arrested and, you know, or if it were for, I was in a country even past my visa, like, you know, and I was found out, like they would, I would probably

get deported, you know, and maybe penalize, you know, I think I would kind of like that. That's a reason that's, that's reasonable. I think where it becomes moral is the means by which a country violates the humanity of somebody as they impose or enforce its own laws on people. And I think that's where some of the issues going on in America are touched down. So if I think through it from a national standpoint, there's a lot of reasonableness. If you have certain laws that people must abide by to get into the country, and if they break those laws, then I think it's reasonable for the government to enforce those laws. Not just like, well, it's like the parent said, don't eat all the cookies from the cookie

jar. The kid eats all the cookies from the cookie jar. No, don't do that. If there's no sort of's no, if there's no sort of like repercussions for your actions or the people are going to keep doing it. So all that's reasonable. That's all, you know, whatever the state as a Christian though, I don't know. I just kind of separate, separate my morality from that a little bit. I can acknowledge a reasonableness of it. At the same time, if there's an undocumented immigrant at my doorstep in need, I'm going to operate out of my Christian faith. I could say Babylon has a legal right to arrest this person

or whatever. Like, okay, I have a moral obligation to care for somebody in need, regardless of, you know, like that, that takes a higher priority over me, you know, being Babylon's agent to enforce Babylon's laws. I'm not even, I don't even know, I'm not landing the plane here, but I just kind of think about these two lenses. And I think sometimes, I don't know, I think sometimes Christians on both sides of this debate, they just kind of collapse it all together. And I think that could be unhelpful.

Do you have any thoughts on that? Am I missing something in the way I'm kind of thinking through it? I think I'm with you on like, it's not my job to enforce, to participate in statecraft. So much of it is a state trying to respond to its own, almost at an aptitude. I can't think of another word. So it's like you're trying to, I think, and that's part of the response to some of the emotional responses, like you have this law, you haven't enforced this law. Now you're trying to mass enforce this law.

And people are like, wait a minute, this person's lived here for 15 years or 20 years or their whole life. And it's like, yeah, that's because 20 years ago, whatever the state of the government was, had laws that they weren't enforcing and rightly or wrongly, I'm not making a judgment on that. I agree with that you have to, there is a runaway slave at your doorstep.

There is an immigrant at your doorstep. And that is not the, you have an do, there is a runaway slave at your doorstep. There is an immigrant at your doorstep and That is not the you have an obligation to them To serve them to love them to welcome them as Christ welcomed you I sometimes hear in these conversations like the weaponization for lack of a better term Particularly of Christians of a certain political leaning and you can parse it out listener with love of neighbor or particularly of Christians of a certain political leaning, and you can parse that out, listener, with love of neighbor, and I think we need to be kind of careful

with how we appropriate that command, because the love, what does love entail require some unpacking and some thinking deeply about, and what are our obligations to one another? That's not to say that you don't care about immigration or that you shouldn't be participating through democratic processes. Just have a little bit of critical lens of the information you're receiving like you were saying,

and also take a step back to be like, man, historically, what has been going on? Like, why are people's opinions on this, why are entire parties opinions on this flipping? And what's motivating that change? Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's good. Yeah. I'm also, I do have questions about like, when Christians I do have questions about like, when Christians are quoting from Old Testament laws, let me think out loud here. Yeah, there's certain, I mean, Old Testament laws about caring for the immigrant, you know, who is living in the land of Israel, you know, and there's, I mean, the Bible says a lot about immigration. I guess I get a little nervous when people will cite those passages and give the impression that America should embrace this. Like the government is wrong in how it's approaching immigration because of Leviticus 22 or whatever. They may not say those exact words, but they kind of give that impression.

And part of me kind of goes back to our earlier conversation. It's like, well, I think that all of the, what the Bible says about immigration should absolutely shape and inform and determine how Christians living in exile, if I can say that, should think through the immigrant. But if we say, like, the government is sort of violating these covenantal laws that God gave to Israel and should shape the witness of the church, I don't know. How is that different than a Christian nationalist citing the Bible for another, you know, cause that they think the government should, you know, be concerned about?

Yeah, I think if I were to be charitable to, this is not a position I hope, I think you could say that the laws like in Numbers or Leviticus. Somewhere. Yeah, somewhere. In those books that nobody reads. laws like in Numbers or Leviticus. Somewhere. Yeah, somewhere. In those books that nobody reads. Where maybe, where many, a Bible reading plan has died. And this is what folks would say in the Reformation era.

They would say there is kind of a witness to the moral law of God. The moral law of God informs natural law. And so the government should promote and informs natural law. And so, the government should promote and enforce natural law because natural law shows us kind of what secular, secular in terms of not supernatural, like time between Christ's return, flourishing looks like. So, I know that like teeth were made for, not made for, but that I chew food with my teeth and not with my ears. So it's better for me as a person to chew food with my teeth.

That's kind of like a natural. And there are laws that kind of do, can do the same kind of thing. That was a terrible example. And so you might say that Leviticus attests to natural law. Like the moral rationale is not tailored to the Old Testament covenant. It is more rooted in principles of creation.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that the Old Testament covenant attest to that in some way. Right. I think where things get a little sticky is you do live in a Democratic Republic.

Even if it's a crumbling one or if those like we're saying the question about how democratic is the United States is a viable one. Again, I would go back to what are the responsibilities and limits of governmental authority? Where do you think, what is the center and what's the circumference? When is it overstepping and operating demonically? We need to have some kind of account of that, of what is its task and what happens when it oversteps that task? What do we do?

How do we respond? Yeah, yeah, that's good. Yeah, yeah, but I resonate with, you know, like I resonate with the concern, when people will look at how the government's approaching immigration and pointing out that this does not capture the heart of God. But part of me is like, of course, I don't expect secular nation to be concerned about

the immigrant. I just don't, I don't. And I don't think, I'm skeptical about most politicians really caring about that, were it not for a means of political power and gain. I don't know. I don't, I don't, I don't know. I, at the same time, like, but, but if this is, yeah, like you said, a violation of basic natural law principles, then yeah, I think Chris should, should be bare witness against that. I mean, I think Christian should bear witness against the state when it's violating that.

And maybe that's where the line is crossed. I don't know. Yeah. I need to think through this a bit more. But yeah, it's just stuff that goes on in my mind when I'm watching kind of the back and forth on it all, you know? But yeah. Well, Daniel, we're, we're coming up on an hour here. Time has flown by. Thank you so much for being a guest again on the all general. Again, your book, give us an elevator pitch for your book for our audience.

So my book bearing witness with the church What the Church Can Learn From Early Abolitionists, is an attempt to retrieve, to use some technical language, some of the insights from the 19th century abolitionary movement to show how the church can participate in public life by bearing the burdens of our neighbors. Well done. And I hope it's helpful. Awesome, man. Hey, thanks for being on the show. I really appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for having me back. It's good to see you. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.