The Mailbag is FULL. We respond to a number of listener emails, wrestle with some toxic takes of 1 Peter 3, and explore questions surrounding reformed theology.
Terrible Tweet: https://x.com/ronfilipkowski/status/1744860622024548646?s=46&t=Krugcu1bTKRpnPSMcKlWxw
Like, subscribe, rate please!! Then share with a friend!
For more information, you can follow us at
https://www.theologyinpieces.com/
Theology in Pieces on Instagram - @theologyinpieces
Email us by emailing hello@theologyinpieces.com
Malcolm Foley - on twitter @MalcolmBFoley
Slim Thompson on twitter @wacoslim
For more information on the church,
check us out at www.mosaicwaco.org or on instagram.
The Mailbag is FULL. We respond to a number of listener emails, wrestle with some toxic takes of 1 Peter 3, and explore questions surrounding reformed theology.
Terrible Tweet: https://x.com/ronfilipkowski/status/1744860622024548646?s=46&t=Krugcu1bTKRpnPSMcKlWxw
Like, subscribe, rate please!! Then share with a friend!
For more information, you can follow us at
https://www.theologyinpieces.com/
Theology in Pieces on Instagram - @theologyinpieces
Email us by emailing hello@theologyinpieces.com
Malcolm Foley - on twitter @MalcolmBFoley
Slim Thompson on twitter @wacoslim
For more information on the church,
check us out at www.mosaicwaco.org or on instagram.
Yo, yo, yo, yo. Hey, hey, what is up? Welcome theology and pieces, hey guys. 2024.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's a new year, we're in the future, well it's a new year, it's a new me.
Speaker 1:Uh-huh, it's a new voice, is that?
Speaker 2:right. Do you like my voice? Uh yeah, it's fine. That takes the wind out of yourself Pretty much.
Speaker 1:I wasn't like genuinely asking do you like my voice, malcolm? Do you like what I wore today? Like that's not what I was going for I mean it's all right.
Speaker 3:I mean no. I'm coming off some sickness, and that's what.
Speaker 1:I'm giving an excuse for why my voice sounds, I think, a little different. Maybe it just sounds different to me, but at least to Malcolm it's all right, it's fine, gosh, that's fine. That's like my worst fear come true. What do you think?
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, yeah Cool, it'll do, I guess.
Speaker 1:Welcome to Theology of Pieces, where we hope to rebuild your theology and maybe your confidence that the church or somebody has shattered the pieces.
Speaker 2:Or your podcast co-host is, whatever, it's fine.
Speaker 1:We are your host, Slim Ed.
Speaker 2:Malcolm.
Speaker 1:And today we opened this new year with lots and lots of mail. We have so much to catch up on. So before we get there, let's catch up on one another. Tell me, Malcolm, how was your Christmas? How was your New Year?
Speaker 2:Christmas and New Year's were good Spent time with family.
Speaker 1:You were flying.
Speaker 2:Yeah, in California for Christmas and then back for New Year's. It was a good time In Cali.
Speaker 1:Was that like on the beach? Is that going to?
Speaker 2:clubs None of that. It was in an Airbnb with the family. Okay, good time. Still good, good time.
Speaker 1:And then New Year's. Do you do New Year's late night? So celebrations.
Speaker 2:Yeah and well, no, not late night, no late night celebrations. As a matter of fact, I'm getting old. I was trying to go to bed at like 10. That's the last one, because that's where old people apparently are. Our neighborhood loves fireworks. So, I wasn't home, but I heard from neighbors that people started popping off at like 10 o'clock and I'm like rough, I'm going to make sure that I am never at home. Just make sure we're up in Dallas or somewhere else.
Speaker 1:That's our neighborhood it is. It's like it sounds like you're in a war zone.
Speaker 2:Oh my gosh.
Speaker 1:Hopefully these aren't.
Speaker 3:Hopefully this is just fireworks that are going off yeah.
Speaker 1:Mateo did find a bullet in our street.
Speaker 3:Did he really?
Speaker 1:So we're like maybe someone shot off one.
Speaker 2:Oh gosh.
Speaker 1:We'll hide it under. Goodness, gracious man and not for other reasons, but yeah, so that's fun.
Speaker 1:That's fun. Our Christmas we went to Arizona where my wife's family's from. I got to see where we got married. We got married on a mountain, so it's fun to revisit that and to show kids there. But it was a week marked by pestilence. I got sick first and then Knox got sick and my sickness was more sinus stuff. And then Knox, we went to my wife's parents' church on Christmas Eve and Sunday morning Christmas Eve service and candlelight and you're going in there and you're walking in, they're trying to tell us about their church and we're like, okay, cool, I haven't been to other people's churches in a while, so it was kind of fun to experience it all of for like three minutes because we're singing the first song, and then Knox was like dad, I don't feel good, so he sits down and I'm like, okay, man, just chill out, and he just goes.
Speaker 1:He just throws up all over the floor. Oh, and I was like there was a spirit.
Speaker 2:There was a spirit in that church. You just couldn't discern it.
Speaker 1:There was because they told us that, hey, this isn't the worst thing that's happened today. And we're like what? And they're like, yeah, in the early service. And we were in like I guess they had three services. We were in the middle one. They said the early service. We had a guy have a heart attack.
Speaker 3:Oh gosh, there was a spirit.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, I guess that's good.
Speaker 2:Oh God, you just got away with some vomit. Could have been worse.
Speaker 1:To that church's credit. They were very gracious. They're like, hey, y'all just take care, we'll take care of this. It was nice to see the church rally around that, but that was not a fun. But yeah, so that was our Christmas, then New Year's, yeah we don't do much on New Year's. It's like I mean, I start cooking a lot and I start smoking some ribs and some wings.
Speaker 3:Solid.
Speaker 1:I told you this may have been the best thing I've done all year long.
Speaker 2:Solid.
Speaker 1:I had 352 days to do this and this was the best stuff, so that was good. All right, malcolm, you know what we've missed in our lives. What have we missed?
Speaker 2:Have you missed? What have I missed? Terrible treats. Have you missed them?
Speaker 1:Yeah, and missed the expectation of not knowing what's coming, who knows who knows what Slip's going to come with. Today We've got another video.
Speaker 3:Oh dear.
Speaker 1:Here we go.
Speaker 3:I'm being indicted for you. My first thought went to well, jesus Christ died from my sins. Jesus died for me, and so it connects in my brain that way, like, okay, he's doing this for us as a country to make the changes we need to make, and he's the target where we don't have to be being indicted for you.
Speaker 1:So not mentioned to that reverence is. This woman is being interviewed and she says when Trump says I'm being indicted for you, my first thought went to well, Jesus Christ died for my sins. Not a bad idea to think of Jesus all the time. Jesus died for me. It connects to my brain that way. Okay, he, meaning Trump, is doing this for us. We are not going to give you political advice, especially in this 2024 year, but what do you think about this? This feels like something that we should have a thought on.
Speaker 2:This is like how this is similar to how I felt when people. There was a and I mentioned this in a sermon. There was a. There was a Newsweek magazine article about referring to Barack Obama's second presidency as the as the second coming.
Speaker 3:Oh yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and it's just. But in this like it's just, I, I, I'm, I'm trying to just conceive of, like, what has to happen to your theological and political imagination such that you, you, you. There's like, that's right, this is like this is this is this is substitutionary atonement for you Like this is what? Like Trump being indicted for first place, that you, first place, that your brain goes is well, jesus did this for me to.
Speaker 1:Well, like, ladies and gentlemen, we broke about this. His brain is hurting.
Speaker 2:No, I mean, I mean this is, I mean this is, this is, this is, this is happened before this. I mean this rhetoric of um, I mean particularly with Trump, I mean linking him to like to Cyrus, uh, in the book of Isaiah, and like. I mean just all like all of this, all of this messianic, all of this like messianic language is. It's gross to me. It's gross, it's gross to be used of anybody besides Jesus and and and and it's, I mean it's made even more gross by the, by the fact that I mean, he's just this is somebody who is actively and unapologetically presenting himself as an authoritarian figure, yep, where, through his indictment, he's basically making the argument that that the president of the United States shouldn't be helped, basically shouldn't be held accountable for committee criminal acts.
Speaker 1:Like like, use the SEAL team six to take out their potas, yeah. Like, I'm just like, like this is this is not the, there's no so the reason we're talking about this is not just cause it's Trump, but it's anybody who does that.
Speaker 2:I would be this mad if anybody did this.
Speaker 1:But whoever you want to say, as Malcolm said, barack Obama on par with Jesus Christ. Like it's a I don't, I've been indicted for you, I don't want to and Christ died for you.
Speaker 2:Here's the, here's the thing. Because I, because I don't want to lay like I don't want to lay into this woman, because I know, like, I know she's not like, I know she's not alone.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And there is a like, there's a, there's a simplicity to that connection. That's something that like she, like she's heard that, she's heard that kind of connection before, like she's not. This is not something that kind of, is just kind of coming out of her imagination. This is, this is something that's been cultivated in her and in her community, that these, that this is the kind of that, this is the kind of language and the kind of connections that are just seen as reasonable yeah, and and and it's just. I like that's what makes me, that's what makes me, that's what makes me angry, because because what it? Because what it is is fundamentally this is, this is a. This is a prime example of what it means to take the name of the Lord in vain.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:So it it like you think about taking the name of the Lord in vain? It's not just saying, oh my God, it's an exclamation, it's, it's, it's, it's taking, it's taking the, it's taking the work of God and ascribing it to something else. And and to and to link. It's just I, I, I don't, I don't like things being linked with my savior that are profoundly unworthy of being linked with my savior. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:And this is very much that, yes, I mean to me. I think it being, I think it's a prime example of spiritual adultery, or idolatry, which is adultery. It's. It's, you know, cheating on your spouse and cheating on who your, your, your, your worship should go towards, and just even putting him in the conversation as even somewhat comparative to Jesus is is like that's. That's where it's, and I agree with you, it's not to pile on this woman, because the the hard thing is is what this, this reveals is, like you said, she's not alone, and so what it reveals is how much and I think this is what many or many are are lamenting since 2016 and and and so forth is how under-discipled the American church is.
Speaker 2:And, and something I mean, something equally, in some ways equally egregious, happened when, when, when, when, when Biden just recently spoke to a, to a historically black church, and the church erupted in in in shouts of four more, four more years, and then, and then you have the, and then you have there are some folks in the like in the congregation who were who then protested Biden's, his, his, his role in the in the Israel-Hamas conflict and stuff like that, like it's, like all, like all of this there is a profound, there is a. There is a profound lack of lack of discipleship for most American Christians in thinking about, in thinking about what, like what, what Christ actually desires of us, when we think about what, what political engagement is supposed to is supposed to look like. So, the, the, the, the, the kind of blasphemy and and co and and co-opting of of the scriptures, of of the church, all of that Like it's a, it's a, it's a bipartisan, it's a bipartisan effort. Um, and and and it, it, it.
Speaker 2:I. I am a hundred percent sure that over the course of the next few months, especially as we lead up to this election, we're likely going to just see more, more of this, more of this kind of more of this kind of thing, because, like, because, because religious language and religious spaces and religious communities are, are powerful, and and, and so, and, and, and, there and there's going to be, you know, there's going to kind of consistently be this desire to, to pander to these communities, to use them in order to, you know, in order to um, amass political power. So, ah gosh.
Speaker 3:Happy New Year. Happy New Year, happy New Year.
Speaker 1:Happy New Year. As you can see, we are super excited for what's to come. Oh boy, we have so much more to talk about.
Speaker 2:Oh gosh In that regard. Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 1:I have no idea what's coming, as is normally the case, and I think it's even extra the case.
Speaker 2:I've not even given him a framework.
Speaker 1:So it's great. We're all excited for this, so we're just going to read some emails and respond. So we got an email from one Blake We'll just name you by first name, blake longtime listener from In Real Life, before you guys had a church, a podcast, really one of significance before the New Year. Or at least that's what I tell people to impress them. Now that you're making a name for yourselves and wake up and beyond. I don't know about that.
Speaker 1:Blake, but he writes in, and this is why I love, because we asked people to write in what were some of your favorites things that you reviewed from 2023. And so, since we want this to be somewhat of a as much as you can in this type of format, in medium and kind of a community, he gives us some of his. So the best thing he read this year in nonfiction was how to Be an Anti-Capitalist in the 21st Century by the late Eric Olin Wright. So I guess we'll just go with that. So we're going to go with that. So we're going to go with the late Eric Olin Wright.
Speaker 2:So I guess you suggested it to me.
Speaker 1:I read it. I read it too Okay, so go check it out. James's plug for fiction, a science fiction novel, the Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin, the best thing he watched, and this is where he actually called me out and said there's a some repentance that needs to happen on our part.
Speaker 1:He said. I have to say I'm shocked that neither of you mentioned Spider-Man across the Spider-Verse as the best movie you watched. How do you feel about that, malcolm? Do you feel like this is a time for us to publicly repent of our sins? I mean, I mean it was a good.
Speaker 2:It was a good movie. It was a good movie. I know you loved it. I know you and your family loved it.
Speaker 1:Malcolm, I don't think we'll say that, but you're right, I did love that movie. I just think people are sour on that movie because of the cliffhanger and I think it's like Deathly Hollow's part one. You just wait till two comes out and put together.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's what we're doing. That's what movies are supposed to do. It's supposed to keep you locked in.
Speaker 1:I feel like it is great, but I think it might go up at the notch once we add the conclusion to that. So, yeah, I don't know if I put it in my top five. It was great. I enjoyed it though.
Speaker 2:You did. You really enjoyed it. You were talking about it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you need to stop talking about it. I didn't say that. I didn't say that. So that was that he said best thing he watched for another one was Godland, a Danish film he put in there, but another TV show was the show Barry. I've seen the thumbnail, I've not watched it, and he gives more information, though, so I'm just trying to go faster in here. Let's see, he wrote this. This year I learned to better invest my time with people and I want to explain a little bit about that, but I love that as what you are what you learned this past year to invest time with people. What surprised him this year was how underwhelming the whole AI, chat, gbt launch was, and so he goes into why he's like that was underwhelming. I thought it was still pretty wild. I still think it's wild. I still think it's kind of growing, but also I can see how I feel like is this really it?
Speaker 2:We'll see where we are a few years from now.
Speaker 1:And then he said as far as what I'm looking forward to in the future. After nearly a decade of struggling with health issues, this last year I finally turned the corner, so I'm hoping 2024 is the year where I can finally establish a new normal where physical and mental suffering are the exceptions and not the norm. Your brother in Christ, I love that.
Speaker 1:Love to hear that. So thank you for writing in, for sharing. If you have similar things to share on some of the answers on the year review or you just have other questions based off stuff we talk about later today, write in at hello at theologyandpiecescom.
Speaker 1:Hello at theologyandpiecescom and hopefully that Pavlov's dog ring as you go for it. So yeah, that was from Blake Ewing, our first email we want to talk about here. The second email let's see, let me find it we're going to go from. We'll call her Anon, we'll keep her anonymous, but she writes hello.
Speaker 1:I just finished listening to two podcasts on women and leadership, so this is early on in the podcast and it really blessed my heart. I've lived under the wrong impressions of the toxic interpretations that have ruled the way the church views women. I've had these same views myself and wrestled with the God who loves me and the God who seemingly thinks of women as less than I. Have also lived in an oppressive marriage for the past 32 years where, for a good portion of it, lived with the idea that it was disrespectful and unsubmissive to disagree with my husband's opinions. I left him about three months ago out of depression with the thought that I was going to go into the mountains and die or was going to provide, or, or God was going to provide for me somehow and miraculously keep me safe, but either way was better than staying with my husband. Today I was listening and I felt so loved by three strangers on a podcast because of the content of what they were saying.
Speaker 1:What you said was so life-giving and warmed my soul. Thank you for bringing to light what is actually being said in the scriptures about women and how God sees them. I know that any one of us at any moment can be wrong and often are but what you said lines up with the God. I know the God who sees me and loves me and calls me Dear One. Thank you, dear Brothers and Sisters, I just thank you for writing that in. We hope the podcast can be that for people, and so we hope this. There are more times in our lives not just in our podcast but in our lives that we can all make impacts like this because we, when you find yourself in what she has termed an oppressive marriage, you find yourself in these unhealthy situations. Sometimes you feel like, am I crazy? Is this the way life should be? And it almost feels like you just need to be able to step out to breathe fresh air and to go. Oh, there's others who see things very different.
Speaker 1:And so thank you so much for writing that in. She writes a PS here that I think will be good for us to discuss here, but I just want to pause there for that and just say thank you. She says PS. I do have a question, though, about the passage in Peter that talks about Sarah and how she called Abraham her master.
Speaker 1:The passage was used in my premarital counseling and I was asked if I could call my husband master. I lied and said yes because I knew that's what I was supposed to say, but in my heart I neither felt like that was true nor did I feel comfortable with the concept or with the man I was marrying. My fiance, prior to getting married, sat me down and told me I would need to obey him and explain how life was going to be. I should have ran, but I didn't have the courage back then. So my question is how do you view that section of scripture? And we got permission to read this email on air here. I just wanted to tell this anonymous Again, thank you for writing. I feel like there's courage just putting yourself out there to this what probably feels very distant podcast people from afar. I am so grateful for you to put that out there and just my heart breaks that you had a pastor or someone give you premarital counseling and tell you that this was the way your marriage should be To even pause and say if you could actually sit there and call your husband master
Speaker 1:like, ooh, if that's where you're at, that is that I mean red flags, run, run, run. But I see where. I mean I can't imagine being in that position. But then just trying to imagine it there you say I lied and I said yes, because that was what I felt like I was supposed to say. I can see how that definitely would have happened. But this is where it's so important for us to we talk about theology and pieces. I mean, imagine that's what you've been told and how much would you hate the God of the scriptures and hate the scriptures themselves if this is what you were told, that you're supposed to be in these oppressive relationships. So let's answer her question. But I just wanted to pause first and just have our hearts go out to you. And how bad and sad that that corrupt theology is.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So, malcolm, do you have first thoughts or do you want me to chime in?
Speaker 2:So the text in question is 1 Peter 3, 1, 2, 7.
Speaker 1:Yeah, why?
Speaker 2:don't you read that? Let me just read the whole text. Wives in the same way that verse there in 6, the like Sarah who obeyed Abraham and called him her Lord, some translations say instead of Lord master. Yeah, that's the word. The word is probably in the Greek.
Speaker 1:It's curious.
Speaker 2:Yeah, husbands in that it's important. I think it's always important to also read the guidance to husband. Yeah, also read the guidance to husbands in these texts too. Husbands, in the same way, be considerate as you live with your wives and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so this question is. Should wives call their husbands Lord and master?
Speaker 2:Yeah, also like also that that specific application is not. I mean, I don't think that's what Peter is even saying here. I mean, I know the argument of this person who was in this, who was doing this premarital counseling, is basically saying that what that text is saying is that you should be like Sarah in this particular action.
Speaker 1:In submit and be obedient.
Speaker 2:Which isn't exactly, I think, what Peter is saying in that context. I think so for both Paul and Peter when they make these statements about marriage and when people see that and take that as occasion for domination, because that's essentially, I'm sure, in this context of premarital counseling the husband was not told you. This is so one of the things that's fascinating to me specifically in the text.
Speaker 2:It's in Colossians, when Paul is talking to slaves and masters and he gives the guidance to slaves, and then he says to the masters treat your slaves in the same way which is to say what he's saying is this relationship, which is socially seen as one of power, is one of equality, which is the way that the way that the way that your slave is to treat you is the way that you're to treat them. So it's interesting that in the history of interpretation, these become one-sided when it seems to be the intention of the text that these are actually revolutionarily two-sided.
Speaker 1:Also in Ephesians 5.
Speaker 2:Same thing there. We're looking at mutual submission there too, and so it is. So I think what what Peter seems to be doing here is using this example of a particular action of Sarah to give an example of what he's talking about. But the example is you are her daughters. If you do what is right and do not give way, give way to fear. But I think that also the terrifying word to husbands which is which was probably not spoken in this context but needs to be is that if the husband does not love his wife and give himself up for her, his prayers will be hindered. Which is to say, when your husband treats you abusively, what the Lord is saying is that I'm not going to hear your prayers.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And so the way, the way, the way, the way, the way, the way, the way, the way, the way, what a holy Christian marriage is is a husband and wife seeking to outdo one another in Christ-likeness. So both the husband and wife are called, ultimately, to Christ-likeness, and that's what Peter all this in the same way, in the same way stuff. The pointing, what it's pointing back to, is Jesus, and so the example for all of us is supposed to be Christ, and the example of what you experienced in your marriage was not Christ-like.
Speaker 2:No, not at all In the slightest, and chances are from this, especially from this pre-medal context, the encouragement, the context of the encouragement was not living on Christ-like manner towards one another, it was. You, as wife, are in this position of subservient. Are you willing to sit in your subservient?
Speaker 1:I'm certain they also. I mean you can tell us, dear listener, but also you who wrote in. I'm sure they also used the umbrella image in their pre-medal counseling.
Speaker 1:I mean, that is the same tree that this is coming from.
Speaker 1:But I think what it's interesting looking at this first Peter passage, whenever you read someone's, if you read someone's mail or email and you don't see all the emails that came before it, you can read something very differently, and so this is why context is so important. So if you just read that passage of like Peter saying that why Sarah called Abraham Lord, and it's like, okay, so I should use this as an example of disobedience and submission. But in this case Peter is writing to newly converted Christian wives who are trying to sway their unbelieving husbands, and so from the very start, peter is trying to give them some guidance on how to effectively win their husbands over to the faith. And so this is more of the setting, the context. And so Peter rightfully says do this as an exemplary behavior and trying to win people peacefully over to these unbelieving husbands. I mean, it's just kind of basic, kind of common sense is what I think Peter is going for here. But Peter also has all of these scriptures he can pull from, but for some reason he says let's pull from Genesis 1812. And just going back to that, now this is the passage here he's pulling from Genesis 1812. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age, and Sarah was past childbearing. Sarah laughed to herself saying after I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my Lord, being old also? And so this context here is a moment of Sarah mocking and laughing. And so the only time that all the scripture that Sarah is quoted referring to Abraham as her Lord here.
Speaker 1:But Peter chose to use this reference of talking to women in regard to how they should behave, their husbands and that term, that Lord, though that's the only time she refers it to Abraham. But she also uses that term Lord when referring to one of the other servants of Abraham, and so it's not as if you wouldn't think she's now saying like well, he's also my master. I think Lord is just a generic term in this time, and so not saying that Sarah is like I'm going to live in this such a way that I am now slave to my master in this. But again, with all of that, what is Peter trying to say? I think he's trying to say this is how you win win this unbelieving husband over. Not to the extent of you now do whatever they ask of you in a domineering way.
Speaker 1:It is a way to try to win someone over, and if anyone says, no, these are my rights, you owe this to me. This is when I say this is not of Jesus, because that's not. I mean, jesus lays down his rights. Jesus lays down what is owed to him, and this is kind of the same thing Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 9, when he's like do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take all these things?
Speaker 1:He goes to the Jews I became a Jew in order to win the Jews to those under the law, became ones under the law and basically saying like, I have all these rights, but that's not what the Christian faith is. It's laying down our rights out of love for one another. And so if you were to say like, no, it's my right as your husband, you're like that's not Jesus. This is why I think that Ephesians 5 passage is so helpful. It's a mutual submission and then, yes, wives submit to your husbands, but husbands submit to your wives. It's a competition of who can out submit one another.
Speaker 2:That's where I just like so yeah, and similar to like. So, when Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 is talking about marriages between a believing spouse and an unbelieving spouse, what's in the background, I think, for both Paul and Peter, are the folks who are like, okay, if I'm a believer and my spouse is not, then I should just leave. And the response of both of them is like no, like you want your spouse to believe that. You want your spouse to believe the gospel too. You're actually now in a great position to witness to them. Now, this is not saying, if you're in an abusive relationship, stay, because you're a missionary or whatever. That's not what I'm saying here. But what Paul and Peter do seem to be pointing to is that, look, when you come to the Lord, these close relationships that you're in, don't leave those. The Lord's still in the middle of it. Don't leave those. The Lord still wants you to be a light, to be a light of his gospel in those spaces, as far as you're able.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Well, again, we thank you for writing in on that and we hope we gave some clarity to the scripture but also just grieving with those who grieve, and so we grieve along with you and happy to. We can be a voice that can say you're not crazy, that's not okay.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I just I it. We're just talking about all the things that deeply bother me, Slim, but when the scriptures are used to dominate, they are being used in a way that is contrary to the logic of the kingdom of God, in a way that is fundamentally anti-Christ and in a way that needs to be, in a way that needs to be resisted, because domination, especially in the context of, especially in the context of marriage, is a result of the curse. Yep, yep. It is not a natural. It is not a natural part of marriage, or a prescribed or a prescribed element of marriage. It is part of the curse.
Speaker 1:Yeah, all right. Well, we have only one more question, malcolm, for our middle bag, but this one's gonna take a little while. Oh gosh, oh boy, this one comes in from one, neil. He's a long time friend of mine and he writes in excited to listen to more of the podcast. He just heard about it and found out about it and started listening to it. He says I'm a huge proponent of bringing our various doctrinal differences out of the foxhole into the discussion within the context of Christian community. I also I love that. That's because I'm like let's have truth win out, let's talk about it, let's not be scared of what it is. All truth is God's truth, he says I mentioned on the phone.
Speaker 1:I've been Baptist or Nanded on most of my life, but he had a brief stint in an EPC denomination. He repeatedly heard the term reformed and scratched his head over the distinction between that and his own understanding of salvation Study Luther and the Reformation in detail and through the Westminster Confession, and go on here. He's had some long conversations with a mutual friend of ours, one of my old youth pastors, still scratching his head over exactly what it means to be reformed, and so every definition he has heard has led him to conclude that he himself is reformed, which brings him to the question is reformed just a synonym for biblical faith or is it something more? And so let's pause there and answer that question Is being reformed just a synonym for biblical faith or something more? I'm so fun looking forward to this conversation, malcolm. Since Malcolm had had zero preparation for this, I'm so curious where we're gonna go with it for you versus where I'm at.
Speaker 2:Reformed is a historical designation, so it comes out of the Reformation and is used to refer to specific communities coming out of the Reformation and it's used to distinguish reformed communities from Lutheran communities and Anabaptist communities. So it notes particular theological emphases and particularly historically conditioned, it basically particularly has historically conditioned communities. And so I mean, you know there was a, I think there was a period of my own theological development where I saw those two things as just kind of very closely linked, to the extent that I would also say, you know, yeah, just reform just means biblical.
Speaker 2:But, you know, it's.
Speaker 1:It's Because if we're saying that, if we're saying it's a synonym, then the, then what we're saying is only the reformed have biblical faith.
Speaker 2:And that's not, and that's not true.
Speaker 1:And if that's, the case, then I would say no.
Speaker 2:That's not true.
Speaker 1:Because there are many people out there who believe and are not reformed. Yeah, here's my question to you Do we keep the? Do we hang on to the word reformed?
Speaker 2:Oh, I mean, that's a, that's a personal, I think that's a personal decision. If you, if you are linked with a, if you are linked with historically and theologically reformed communities, then yes, like, call yourself, call yourself reformed, and that's not just and that's and, and so this is like you know, we could say whether, whether reformed Baptist should call themselves reformed Baptist. Because, because, because, to me at least, the term reformed is more than just a statement about soteriology or or, or what are called the tulip. Yeah, it, it's, it's, it's come to mean, it's come to mean, at least in popular parlance, that but I, but, but in but, in the category of reformed, I also include infant, infant baptism, and, and covenant and covenant theology, which, which, which serves as kind of the umbrella under which all those things, all those things fit. So, so for me it's like, if you are part of robustly, historically and theologically reformed communities, then yes, call yourself, call yourself reformed. That's what you, that's what you are. If you're part of a Lutheran community, call yourself, call yourself Lutheran.
Speaker 1:But here's the thing like I feel like the reformed is, is is similarly like the word evangelical and if? If the term takes on its own meaning.
Speaker 2:Oh, has it been? Has it?
Speaker 1:has it been poisoned to the extent that you shouldn't use it anymore, cause, like like the term evangelical, like do you go around and tell people I'm an, I'm an evangelical Cause, right now I feel like it doesn't actually mean what it means. It means more of a kind of a political grouping of people.
Speaker 2:Especially in the American context. Globally, globally, that assumption isn't isn't the same, that's right, but in the American context for sure.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I appreciate it. Scott McKnight has this, this great quote on on on that term evangelical, like behind the word gospel, is that Greek word you know, you know you on Galeon. Or or evangelical, where we get evangelicalism, which means that you know we're, we're people trying to proclaiming the gospel. But, he argues, evangelicals mistakenly equate the word gospel with the word salvation and hence we are really not evangelicals, we're salvationists, we are evangelicals. Or where they see the word gospel.
Speaker 1:Our instinct is to think personal salvation If the gospel is good and needed. Christ Jesus died for our sins, he died for me. But the, that is not talking about the same thing that we see with, you know, the kingdom. It has says nothing of the kingdom, and I think that's what Jesus and Paul are arguing, that that's kind of what we were talking about, not necessarily just this personal salvation, but the, the, the, the, the gospel of the kingdom. And that's where that term, whenever you see the gospel in the gospel of Matthew, it's the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of the kingdom. And so I think, similarly, those many who proclaim reformed, I don't think are actually reformed, as you stated here.
Speaker 1:Cause, when I think of reform, I mean, like the word there itself, it's reforming, it's reforming something, and so, like it come, it's birthed out of the, the reformation of Martin Luther Nalyn, the 95 theses in October 31st 1517, on the Wittenberg door Um, you know, his first thesis is famously that all of life is to be a life of repentance, right and and so. So, reformed means to, I mean it's to always be reforming, and I think many reformed types that I know act like they've got it all figured out and there's nothing more to reform. And so I think I'm like are you actually reformed? And second, I think when people say reformed, as you just mentioned, they usually think of the five points of Calvinism, um, which are, or tulip.
Speaker 3:And I think that's kind of a Calvinism, such a weird word.
Speaker 2:It's kind of a cuss word, but here's where I'm because it doesn't have anything to do with Calvin specifically, but anyway go ahead, let's get into it.
Speaker 1:I want to. We'll do some little history education for people. Um cause, before you get into those five points, like Calvin was responding to an argument of the day. And then there was Arminius, who studied under, uh uh, Theodore Beza, who was Calvin's successor at Geneva, and he loved.
Speaker 2:Arminius loved Calvin's, loved Calvin's writings. He said, besides the Bible, calvin's writings were his favorite, his favorite things to read.
Speaker 1:Go ahead there, you go Um, and, and so Arminius came up with these five points against the Belgic confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. And those five points, I think you can uh, are kind of um, based on two principles that divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor human responsibility inability, limits, obligation. So, um, arminius is trying to say, like there's, there's these two things that we we have to figure out and and and grapple with the sovereignty of God and and the free will of humankind. Um, how can both things be true? And he says these things are not compatible. Um, and so his five points are that that that mankind is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it's put before him. Two, nor is he ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it.
Speaker 1:Three God's election of those who shall be saved. It's prompted by his foreseeing that they will, on their accord, believe. Four Christ's death did not secure salvation. It did not secure such faith. What it did was create a possibility for salvation if they believe. And then, five, it rests with believers to keep their state of grace by keeping up their faith. Those who fail here fall away and are lost. And so, maybe a summary of these five points is that God is voting for you. The devil is voting against you. The choice you make is your election. Um, maybe a a crass way of of of summarizing five points of Arminians, um, and so then Calvin has a response to this, and this is where people go all right, the five points of Calvinism, and this is where they sum up all of what they think Calvin believes into these five points.
Speaker 2:And, as Malcolm said, he, there's many other things. Yeah, and this is and this is not. This is not Calvin responding. This is specifically the Synod of Dork in the in the 17th, in the 17th century? Um, where you, where you get these, these, these five? What's what's summarized as as these, as these five points? Other thing to understand about this particular debate is that this is an intra. This is an intra reformed debate. This is not reformed people arguing with non-reformed people. These are just a bunch of reformed people arguing with each other.
Speaker 1:Um, which sounds like you're getting to a spot where you're like, oh gosh, I might need to step out of this.
Speaker 2:Well, yeah, well, like that, like, like that's the thing, like this, like people. If people act as though this is like this battle between like Christians and non-Christians, I'm like, no, like this is this is very much like it's, it's it's it's like they're being, it's like they're being like a fight within a megachurch, like it's it's in the it's in the church, um and so and so, yeah, that's, that's. That's. That's one point. I mean like to, even to even take it to to another. So in the um, so in into the loop, you've got your five things of, of, uh, of, total, of total depravity, um, unconditional election, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and then P, the perseverance of the saints. See, you could tell by the fact that that took longer than it normally would for me that I don't think about it that often anymore.
Speaker 1:Malcolm lives and breathes this.
Speaker 2:Look, this was my the first two years of my PhD. I was deep into the stuff. But to get to the limited atonement point, which is often the most controversial one, it suggests that the only well, through John Owen's interpretation, it suggests that the only people whom the Lord died for are the elect. That is one interpretation of that piece. And actually I did a this was one of my first published academic article was on the distinctions between the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession and stuff. So I dug deep into this stuff and, like, over the course of the discussions of the Westminster Confession, people the Westminster Confession particularly people were fighting over how to understand that, that, that question of who did Christ, of who did Christ die for, and you've got and you've got and you've got some folks who want to say that Christ only died for the elect, because those are the only ones for whom Christ's death is actually efficacious. And then you have others who are only like. Well, it seems to be from the scriptures that we're just told that Christ died for everybody, and and like and and we should be able to tell, like I should be able to tell anybody that I am talking to Christ died for you and loves you. This is how he showed that he, that he, that he loves you. That is an intro. That is an intra-reformed debate where you have, where you have some who take the interpretation of what's called, of what's called limited atonement, and then you have another position, called hypothetical universalism, which which argues that no, actually Jesus did die for everybody. But there's a way that we can work with that and still say that it's only that, it's only efficacious for the, for the elect. All this is all this is just deep in the weeds conversation, just to say that, that these, that these discussions are very, very insular and so and so to. So, to go back to our broader question, it is, I think it's, I think it's, I think it's unhelpful to just to just to just assume or even just to say well, just reformed just means biblical, no, like it's. When, when, when.
Speaker 2:When we use these names, we're referring to particular, particular historically conditioned communities and and positions, some of which are, you know, kind of, some of which are on primary issues. But also, within the reform community, there's there's agreement on a whole bunch of secondary issues too, right and that and and and they may be secondary issues that they could be wrong about. Yeah, the, the, the reform tradition is just that, a particular tradition, yeah, and there are, and there are things. I mean I I say this as somebody who now would say I am building a third like as in within myself, a thoroughgoing Mennonite political theology, even though on a number of reform points I'm still I'm still, I'm still solid.
Speaker 2:But there are things that we, we, we have, we have much to learn from, from the, from the numerous traditions of Christianity that we see around the world, because our cultural contexts, our cultural, our cultural contexts, encourage us to emphasize some things over others, which then, which then makes us blind to particular things that other Christians, in other spaces, asking other questions, are going to, are going to come to different conclusions on conclusions that may be more faithful to the text than than ours, and so, and so I think it's, I think it's always important, I think it's always important to, I think, maintain, maintain that kind of, that kind of openness.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, I mean I I don't know how much you want to get into like each of those five points, if you want to to to make your case for each of them. But I, here's where I'm like because of where we we believe, like it's as Malcolm has stated kind of framed this as being kind of an intramural debate, like I used to think this was a super important conversation.
Speaker 1:But here's where, here's where I have problems with reformed theology and so, like, if someone were to go like are, are we reformed? Like, oh gosh, I don't know if I want to be associated with you anymore. Like and and and. Here's where I do have problems with being reformed is, is there's a form of hyper Calvinists that would, that believes everything is kind of predestined, this double predestination of, like you know, some are predestined heaven, some are predestined to hell, and like you're, you're what. What they've done is they've they've boxed up religion and they're leaving no room for wonder and and mystery. Because if the question is okay, how do we deal with God's sovereignty and and and humankind's free will? What I think this hyper Calvinism double predestination group does is that all they do is lay down on God's sovereignty, that all they do is is they lean on that side of the track, and I think you have to be able to say both are true. It's two tracks of a railroad that are going parallel with one another, that are not crossing. That it's there. God is sovereign and there is human free will, because everywhere in scripture it does refer to God being in charge, him being king, and him, him being in control, and that's that's. That's beautiful and free, but there's also this call to human freedom and free will that like like believe in the Lord Jesus and be saved. Like it's, it's a call. You know we're not saying like, well, we'll see if the Lord predestined you.
Speaker 1:And yet, at the same time, the word predestination is in the scriptures. You have to deal with it. It's not as if it's like this cuss word that you're like oh, I can't believe these people believe that this is from some sect of Christianity. It's there, so we have to be able to wrestle with it. And I just think, if we are meeting that type of reform that I'm like no, no, we're not that. Because I also think that another problem that I have with that form of reformed theology is because it's it's primarily trying to focus on the soteriology, as Malcolm talked about, on salvation. It only starts out with Genesis three, that the fall, that you are a sinner, total depravity, which I think is it. I'll still affirm these, these, these, these doctrines. Ephesians two that you're dead in your sins, but it never seems to begin with Genesis one, that we are created in the Amago day, that we were created Holy, righteous, good. Yes, there's a fall from grace, but like I don't. I feel like it completely skips over that and never goes back to it.
Speaker 2:This was one of the things that frustrated me about this conversation, because people would then ascribe that position to Calvin and that's exactly what he was accused like. He was accused of that during his life, which is why he wrote the book the Bondage and Liberation of the Will. Because, because it was, because people would come at him with the accusation oh you're starting with Genesis, because because, basically, by saying how deep the corruption of sin has has crept into our, into our nature. So people accused him of saying that human beings kind of have an evil, have an evil nature, and he's like no, that's not what I'm saying at all. God created us good. That continues to be, continues to be true.
Speaker 2:But also understand, and this is, and this is what the, what the total depravity point is, the clarification that people are going to make is that it's not saying that everybody is as bad as they could be, but just that all of our faculties are corrupted, are, are, are in some way corrupted by, corrupted by sin. That's the, that's that's also the point that he, that he makes in that, that he makes in that in that book, that we can't, that we can't look to any part of ourselves and find and find something that is pure and untainted. The Holy Spirit has to. The Holy Spirit has to sanctify all of us, has to sanctify not our, our words, the things we do, the things we, the things we say, the way that, the way that, not not just what we think, but the way that we think that all of all of these things, although that's that's, that's that's what we call the, the, the, the noetic effects, the noetic effects of sin, that sin, that's that, that, that sin, that that the, that the corruption of sin affects all of us. But that doesn't, it does not dig to the, it doesn't, it doesn't dig to the level of nature. So, one of those, one of the points that he makes in that, in that, in that book, he uses and this is, it's funny, luther hates, hates Aristotle, calvin.
Speaker 2:This is, this is like one of the few points where Calvin uses an Aristotelian distinction and so and so, so, and, and it's the distinction between between substance and accident, where substance is what something fundamentally is, an accident is something that is essentially attached, attached to it, and so and so and so and so and so and so.
Speaker 2:What he, so, what he's saying is you all are accusing me of saying that sin is, that sin is, is substantial to human nature, that is, it's part of it's part of who we are. I never said that and that, and that would be terrible for me to say, because, also, if that, if that were, if that were true, then the Son of God could not become, could not become human, and so and so so. So, however we think about, however we think about sin, it can't get to that, it can't dig to that, to that, to that level. Instead, understand sin as something that is something that is accidental to you, that is something that is attached, something that is attached to you, the and, but also something that, by the Holy Spirit, you can toss off. That, that kind of that, that's something that like it's, it's all all these. This is the way that I felt when I actually read Calvin. I was like all of these things that you people are accusing him of are things that he addressed in his actual life.
Speaker 1:If people just read this dude, he's got some slander lawsuits.
Speaker 2:Great stuff, it's really right and I mean even even in looking at his work and and you can have, you can have the critiques of him in his role in the, in the execution of Surveys, all that, all that stuff. But when you look at his, I mean his care for the poor in Geneva, his his his, his and and immigrants.
Speaker 2:The establishment of the, of the diaconate, specifically to care, to care for the poor, the needy, like all these things that are fundamental to what Christ says a Christian is supposed to do.
Speaker 2:It's, it's a lot of, it is a lot of. It is there, but all that's to say, all that's to say the when we're, when, when we use the word reformed, what we're referring to is a tradition, and if you want to, and if you want to place yourself within that tradition, cool. Also, also understand, though, that it's a, that it's a tradition where there are, where there are certain things that are agreed on within the tradition. That's what makes it, that's what makes it coherent. So we're talking about views of the Lord's supper, you know, views of views, of views of baptism, these, these, these things that really did separate communities, especially in the 16th century. Those are things that bind reformed communities together, but also, but like, understand that it's like it's a particular Christian community, similar to the way that Eastern Orthodox communities are particular communities, roman Catholic communities, so on and so on and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I wanted to. I wanted to get there because I feel like we've been addressing the like what people usually think of when they think of reformed theology. They think of the five points of Calvinism or whatnot, and so we've kind of addressed that. But I think what we're talking about here is that reformed is much bigger than that, and so it included Luther, included Zwingli, included Calvin and other reformers who were trying to reform the Roman Catholic Church at the time. And I would say here's how I would answer the question of, like what is reformed? And so I concur with what you said. But if I were to like answer that on my own here, I might say, like here's the five bumper stickers of reformed theology and it's the five, five solos. And so this is something that I think is but the issue with, that is, that Lutherans would affirm those two.
Speaker 1:And I would say Luther, he's kicking off the reformation, so I would say he's still in that reform.
Speaker 2:Well, but the thing about that terminology, though, is that it was particularly formed to distinguish them.
Speaker 1:Ladies and gentlemen, we're fighting.
Speaker 2:It's just the thing about that language of, at least especially the way that we understand it post 16th century, is that that language specifically entered into the conversation as a way to distinguish them from Lutheran communities, so that and and and, as a way to kind of move away from the fact that, like that, that term, calvinist particularly was a was an epithet from Lutherans to these, to these reform, to these reform communities. I believe was in the in, like the 1550s and and and so and. So when we think about the primary branches of the reformation, we think about reformed communities, lutheran communities and Baptist communities Like that's, that's where that language, that's where that language comes from. It's fundamentally meant, I think, as language of distinction from Lutherans and from Anabaptists.
Speaker 1:And the five solos. All three would all three would affirm those Well let me just throw those out there, since we're talking about it.
Speaker 2:But that's helpful, that's helpful to distinguish it, and so y'all are taking me back to my, to my first academic specialty.
Speaker 1:Church history. I hate to let anything fly or get passed on here. So the five solos, Sola Scriptura.
Speaker 1:And so the word Sola, I mean, is Latin for only, and so all these are kind of being Latin, and so it's Sola Scriptura, sola Christus, christ alone. Sola Fidei, faith alone, sola Gracia, grace alone. Sola Deo Gloria, god's glory alone, and so what, what these are saying is kind of again in in response to the Catholic Church. Here it's like that scripture alone is the end that all authority like, it's the end and beginning of all of our authority, that the Christian life is underneath the scripture. The scripture alone rules over all of our authorities, not any one particular person. Now you could say what about some of the affirmations of faith we affirm like and so it's not as? It's not as, if it's like in contrast to that, but it's so. It's saying scripture is our ultimate guide and we affirm that. All of these, I would say we affirm Christ alone. You know, we are saved by, by Jesus Christ alone.
Speaker 1:You know, because Romans 3 tells us no one is righteous, no, not one, it's. Only God alone can save us. You sing the song Jesus paid it all, and so it's, and we believe all of scripture is pointing to Christ's work there Sola Fidei and Faith alone. I mean, I think the reformers were famously talked about the great exchange that would happen, that, like by putting our faith in Christ alone, then we are now declared righteous only on the righteousness of of him, on this alien form of righteousness, and because of that, it's by grace alone. God shows us in Christ before the foundation of the world. It's not because of anything in us, otherwise we would have the credit, and if we had the credit then we wouldn't be able to do the last one. It's a glory of God alone, and so only if our salvation is by grace alone can we receive all, can God receive all the glory. But if we claim on to anything, then we have something to boast about, which we know we don't. And so if you put these together, I think this these are the top of the five bumper stickers here of the Reformation maybe not the reformed, but of the Reformation that I do think. If again, if you were going to say like is that what we're talking about? And I'm like, yes, I'm much more in favor of that.
Speaker 1:And so this is where I think, mike, if you were asking this question yourself of, like you know, do I hold on to this term or not Well, if you are reading or if you're in a church setting, that that does claim that they are reformed, and it pushes you to love God more. It gives you an assurance of faith, which is where I think a lot of this is supposed to be able to do is to give you this assurance of faith, and it actually pushes you towards humility, to always reform and always ask the question is there something that that's in my theology that needs to be tweaking? Then, if it produces that, then I love it, lean into it, but if it produces pride and kind of a smug Christianity, then run from it. I want to have nothing to do with that. And so Neil ends this question this way in his email, and I want to say this till the end. So he says or another way of asking this question is what would a non reformed but Biblically saved Christian look like After all of that?
Speaker 2:You want to go? No go ahead.
Speaker 1:Here's my answer, because I know many non reformed, biblically saved Christians. I would say my parents would not claim to be reformed and I think they're Biblically saved Christians. And so I think here's the generic answer when sometimes I kind of boil down reform theology because I know it'll apply to both reformed and non reformed people is basically God saves sinners and if it is 100 percent God doing it kind of the sovereignty of God saving sinners, I think non reformed and reformed people affirm that God saves sinners. And so you have people who've not worked out all the theological steps in between there of how, like, how sovereign is God in these things? But they still affirm the main tenets of the faith.
Speaker 1:And I think that makes you Biblically saved right that these people who are not reformed, who are not going to say that God is in and acting in that way, are still going to hold on to Jesus for their salvation and they're going to say I'm saved only because of the blood of Christ. I'm like, yep, that's, that's what it means and so, yes, then I would say that's what it looks like. I just think not everyone, as Malcolm said, has to have this intramural debate within themselves of what that actually looks like. I think it's helpful to dive into these scriptures and ask these questions of what does this look like?
Speaker 1:But, I don't think you have to.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's also and this is a and this is also a Calvin point. Whenever he talked about predestination, he's like look, it's actually not any of your business whether or not somebody else is saved or not.
Speaker 3:None of your business, none of your business and straight from.
Speaker 2:Calvin, it's also something like it and it's also something that you can't know, and it's why he, he, he refers to digging, digging deep into this, as you getting into a labrith like you, it, it, it only ends in in darkness for you. The purpose of the, the purpose of the doctrine, is not for you to. I mean, the purpose of the doctrine is for your, is for your comfort. When he talks about, when he talks about divine providence, one of the one of the ways in which he talks about it is that like, yes, god made us, but after he made us, he didn't just like leave us alone. Like he actively, he actively cares for us.
Speaker 2:If, if we, if we didn't believe that, if we didn't believe that God was actually in control of all things, then he's. One of my favorite portions of the institutes is when he goes through. Like he's like OK, you know, if you're riding on a horse, a tree limb could fall and kill you. When, when you go to sleep at night, you're constantly at risk of things catching fire or your house falling on you or things like that and he just goes through, like all these random ways.
Speaker 2:Like you, you go outside, a snake could bite you, like, at any point, to any point in your life, something could kill you. Now you could go through your entire life in terror and it wouldn't be unreasonable, or it's great, it's wonderful, because he's like, or you could believe that the God who made you also cares for you and that's actually your only comfort, Like that's the only comfort that you can actually. You can actually have that. The only reason that I'm not dying in these ways is because the Lord is sustaining me like that. That that is. That's something that was at the, that was at the core of particularly Calvin's spirituality, which, which, which is one of the things, that it's why he emphasized the Lord's kind of power and control so much, because he's like, especially in a world of precarity, as the 16th century was, like you can either walk around just in constant terror, or you can, or you can think well, look there, there's a way in which the Lord has called me to live and he's a God who actually cares for his people. So I'm going to, so I'm going to live, I'm going to live in this way, without, without fear, and so and so like, so, so, so. So, in thinking about kind of what it means to be, to be saved, you just go to go to go to Romans 10. If you can, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and, and, and believe your heart that that, that, that God, that God raised him from the dead. That's the, that's the definition, and and there are, and there are a number of other kind of elements along the way that Christians have been fighting about for centuries and will continue and will continue to fight about, but the but, the, but, the but.
Speaker 2:The fundamental marker I'm keep saying this the fundamental marker of what a follower of Christ looks like is a follower of Christ looks like Jesus and wants to and wants to look like Jesus and hungers after looking like Jesus.
Speaker 2:And the fact of the matter is that you're going to have folks of of every different Christian tradition who look like that, and you're going to have members of those traditions who don't. And but what's most important for you, as you hear these words, is do I want to look like, do I want to look like Jesus? And? And there are going to be, and if you're, if you're looking for a church or whatever. The most important thing for you to look for in that church is is this a place where I am encouraged to look like Jesus, where I have people that I can look to who are hungering and thirsting after that, where we're going to walk alongside me as I can? Is I also continue to hunger and thirst for that? That's the most important thing for you to look for. That that's the most important thing for you to look for, and and and find.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, yeah, there was a. There was a time in my life when I needed to see on the website. I needed to see if there were a reform.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, man Gotta make sure now it's more of a.
Speaker 1:That's what you're leading with.
Speaker 2:There are great reform, there are great reformed communities out there, I'm sure, but that's what you want.
Speaker 1:That's what you want.
Speaker 2:That's where you want to end it.
Speaker 1:You're hilarious man, you're hilarious. Hey y'all, we are excited for this new year. We got lots of stuff to talk about. We're going to be talking about can Christians you know, sue, can we have a Christian lawsuit? Oh man, oh gosh. Christian nationalism, ecology, theology. We want to talk about Christian athletes. We're going to try to get that conversation on transgenderism. There's some politics to talk about this this year. I feel like we'll probably have to talk about it. There's so much to talk about. We can't wait. I hope you guys are excited for this this new year. Please, please.
Speaker 1:As you heard today, we have we also like to respond to listener questions. So if you have some things talked about right in at hello, at theology and pieces dot com, we love to answer those and interact with you. We love this not just be a one time thing so you can interact with us on Twitter, but, as we say every single week, the best way to support this work is to give it a rating and a review. If you've only done one, would you do the other, and so if you found any of this helpful, would you be willing to leave five stars? It really does, truly does, help others find it, and so if you found any of it helpful, that that is one way to pay it forward. So please take us. I can do that while you enjoy this beautiful outro music, malcolm. Any last words?
Speaker 2:No, we're good. And if you want to call yourself reformed, it's OK. Sure, sure, I still do in some context.
Speaker 1:Love y'all.