Should we be worried about DEI? Does Texas’ recent states rights argument set us up for a Civil War? And what do we think about the decline of trust in pastors? All that and we revisit the LGBTQ conversation from a listener’s questions.
Have more questions? Write in hello@theologyinpieces.com
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.
Should we be worried about DEI? Does Texas’ recent states rights argument set us up for a Civil War? And what do we think about the decline of trust in pastors? All that and we revisit the LGBTQ conversation from a listener’s questions.
Have more questions? Write in hello@theologyinpieces.com
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.
Do not turn the channel, don't worry, we have not changed, just the intro. Music has changed and I don't want y'all to think about this, but this new song is getting me hyped. I hope it is for you. Listen to this, listen to this Mouth him. You like it? I do. It's like yell over it. It's so loud yeah, I do. I should probably turn it down. We're up to work on that.
Speaker 2:But that Slim being a drummer, I was like where is this coming? I'm like all the percussive stuff is that Slim's? It was me, it would just be a bunch of guitar solos.
Speaker 1:Just guitar solos.
Speaker 2:It would be shredding guitar solos.
Speaker 1:Yes, little, oh, I think one of my favorite guitar solos. It's not super complicated, it's November, rain, guns and Roses.
Speaker 2:Oh, okay, yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, yeah. Have you seen that music video too?
Speaker 2:He's just like I haven't seen the music video.
Speaker 1:Slash is just on this mountain side and the wind had blown in his hair.
Speaker 2:Solid. Anyways, I mean one of my. For some reason, I don't know why, it's still.
Speaker 1:We're jumping into so many more things it's.
Speaker 2:It's the solo in Strikken by Disturbed.
Speaker 1:I don't know. I don't have to think about that, yeah.
Speaker 2:Just say it, I just like it, I just like it. I don't know why I like it so much, but I just like it Anyway.
Speaker 1:Well, welcome to Theology of Pieces, where we hope to rebuild your theology of the church. The world, or somebody has shattered the pieces and we are your host, Slim and.
Speaker 2:Malcolm.
Speaker 1:And today we are not just talking about drums and shredding guitar solos. We're going to talk about a lot of things. Oh boy. Hopefully we can streamline it, but we're going to talk about non-violence. We're going to revisit the LGBTQ conversation. We're going to talk about DEI, Untrustworthy Pastors and more.
Speaker 2:Goodness gracious, this is going to be a three hour episode.
Speaker 1:You know why not Part one?
Speaker 2:Part one.
Speaker 1:It just feels like we have this whole every other week slash, sometimes more.
Speaker 2:Nobody has to know that Slim.
Speaker 1:I feel like there's so much to catch up on, but, malcolm, yeah. There's something huge that has happened in this last week in your life.
Speaker 2:Can you tell?
Speaker 1:our listeners what that might be.
Speaker 2:I have turned in the first draft of my book what so it is in my editor's hands. It's in my editor's hands as well as in the hands of some select individuals who I want to get a kind of a first look at the draft. Yes, but that is. I'm going to be editing that and marketing stuff over the course of the next few months, so I'll get a book title, I'll have cover art, all that stuff. It'll be available for pre-order sometime in the next few months. It's coming y'all how you feeling.
Speaker 2:It's coming, I feel good, man. I mean, it's a combination of all the things that I've been kind of thinking about and talking about for the last few years. It'll be good to kind of get it out in the world. And then I'll think about you know, time's going to go on and I'm going to think about refining it and all that other stuff which will turn into probably more books down the line, sure. But yeah, but it feels good, man, Basically I wrote a book in a year.
Speaker 2:I'm one of the lucky ones who've got the privilege to preview a little bit of it Advance copy. So let me tell you all about it. Here's what they do. I can't tell them everything about it.
Speaker 1:But I will tell you as you read it, you will hear Malcolm coming through off the pages, as if you're listening to him right here on a podcast. It is dripping with Malcolmisms and his way and style. But also, just, I was blown away. We were, and we'll talk about nonviolence here coming up. But just in that chapter on nonviolence that you bring in so many traditions, whether it be, you know, the Westminster, or whether it be some Latin theologians, or whether it be civil rights leaders, and you know, there's so many and scripture all throughout that I'm like.
Speaker 1:This thing is airtight. Who is going to argue against this?
Speaker 2:Somebody is. I mean, I'm going to be working on my names.
Speaker 1:Oh, they will.
Speaker 2:I'm ready, let's go.
Speaker 1:Also, I just I'll be your biggest hype man on this. I appreciate that.
Speaker 2:I appreciate that and also, like I just want. I've been wanting to get to the point where I don't have to go back and forth with people, I can just say read my book. And that's what I'm going for. I'm trying to save myself a lot of time, but it's like when people ask why not this, why not this? I'm just going to read the book, yeah.
Speaker 1:I've got to figure out what book I'm going to write, so I can just say that that sounds really nice. It is I'm just going to write. I'm like I have nothing to say, I'm sure you got something. Give me 30 years in ministry before I say anything of importance.
Speaker 2:Go with the Tim Keller method.
Speaker 1:I think so. But now I'm like if I was able to just be like just read the book, that's kind of nice. I mean, that's kind of what I say now. I'm like go just read someone else's book, but now I have to fully agree with it now.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I know yeah.
Speaker 1:Anyways, well, that's wonderful.
Speaker 2:I'm so happy for you. I'm excited man.
Speaker 1:I'm excited, and in our household that's new and exciting. It's new, I wouldn't say it's exciting. Right before Christmas we're putting everything out there, we're inviting you into our home.
Speaker 2:Slim's inviting you into his home.
Speaker 1:Right before Christmas, we found out that our middle son that I've talked about on this podcast a few times he was encouraged to find schooling elsewhere, which was a hard thing and truly, truly difficult for us, and so trying to figure that out as a family, and we ended up landing with doing basically home schooling, which is, I would say, more particularly virtual schooling, and so we're doing this online classes, which many people did during COVID and things like that, but this is through the Texas Connections Academy or something like that, and it is a roller coaster.
Speaker 1:We have our good weeks and we're like, hey, this is not bad, this is going to work. Then there's the days where you're like we might need to find something else, and then that's where we were at early yesterday, and then, the end of the day, there were some positive turns for the better of like I think we can do this. So, anyway, let's just pray for us. This is not something we were looking forward to do or wanted to do, but here's where we're at, and so just trying to figure that out, that's something new, not necessarily exciting, but I want to have the vulnerability and connection with our dear listeners, and so we definitely love you.
Speaker 1:We love you, we invite you into that and I want to share with you. Some of y'all are doing what we've been asking and giving some ratings and reviews.
Speaker 1:This is not to build up our ego. This is if any of this stuff that you listen to you're like that, spurred on more good thought, then I feel like that's a win. And a way to help us, as a show or as a podcast, move forward is give it a rating and review. So we always ask that, and we have a new review on Apple and someone wrote it's a great mix of all the. Oh, I can't click on all the, but we'll just say all the, and then the subtitle is down to earth and scholarly. That's all you pastoral and theological, serious and hilarious the kind of help and perspective needed these days.
Speaker 1:And if I were to put that on my tombstone I would be a happy person. Love it. That was such a kind, kind review. And even if you have a kind review like that and don't give it five stars, that's okay, but we do appreciate the five stars and actually I'm joking if you disagree with us and we're gonna have someone, we're gonna read some of your mail as well. There are gonna be some people who disagree, that's okay. We actually really think this is a good thing for us to just begin some of these conversations.
Speaker 1:So thank you, thank you. Thank you for giving the rating review. If you have yet to do so, please take a second and do that. There's just so much going on in our world, malcolm. I mean, there's just beauty and ugliness all wrapped up. And I think it's just best found in our next segment of Terrible Tweets.
Speaker 2:So much terribleness on this thing called X.
Speaker 1:There's always and sometimes it's the platform, but I think some of this is really just revealing the terribleness in the world. Great, thank you, malcolm. Have you heard about this? Oh boy, this new campaign. A couple days ago, I was on X Twitter, okay, and there was something trending. Okay, it was a hashtag. Hashtag demolish DEI. Ooh, and I said what? Oh yes. So then I clicked this and here we go. Racism is always wrong. Okay, yeah.
Speaker 1:So, as someone coming from, I feel like this was just like a blind side to me of going. Why would people want to demolish DEI?
Speaker 2:Yeah, why would this be a bad? Because racism is against white people.
Speaker 1:And I think what they're telling us is people are becoming racist against white people. Did you? Know that? Yeah, I did.
Speaker 1:And I'm being facetious, but like I mean a couple years ago, it feels like the boogeyman was Black Lives Matter. And then, just a couple years later, it was CRT and we had Dr Traynon to talk about CRT. If you've yet to listen that episode, I highly recommend you go back and listen to that. And so everyone was like we've got to stomp out CRT. And it does feel like. And now people are having this paid campaign by America, first to demolish DEI, and it's trending on Twitter. What is yeah, yeah, what's going on, man?
Speaker 2:This is. It's been going on for a number of years. I think it's people could see it as a backlash against, for example, the kinds of things that happened in 2020. But it's been a longer process than that. There's a I mean, most recently at least, the demolished DEI kind of language. I think I may have mentioned this before the Manhattan Institute back about a year ago. It was January of 20. It was January 23. I think it was January 23.
Speaker 2:They put out a. They basically put out a paper that included some sample legislation for states for demolishing diversity, equity and inclusion offices in public universities. That legislation has already been passed in Texas and in Florida, and there are other states where they're doing it too. But basically, the narrative is, when people use that language of diversity, equity and inclusion, it's like a. It's a Trojan horse for kind of Marxist, anti-white practices, and so it's interesting to even hear that language because, like, yes, racism against anybody is wrong, but one of the things that people latch onto, for example, in how to Be an Anti-Racist Kennedy's book he makes the claim in the beginning that the only way to fight past discrimination is with current discrimination, and there are some people who read that and just immediately their mind goes to all discrimination is wrong.
Speaker 2:You go back to Martin Luther King said something very, very similar, where he essentially says well, if you and it's super reasonable you spend all of this time oppressing people, there's going to be a time where you're going to need to give what you stole back, which could be interpreted as a type of discrimination. It's not everybody getting the same thing, because everybody's not starting from the same place. But one of the things that undergirds, I think, a lot of the you know, a lot of the kind of anti-white racism stuff is this deep assumption that right now we're in a position where everybody is on the same playing field. And if it is true that everybody is on the same playing field, then, yes, differential kind of differential distribution would be unjust. But one of the things that lies at the root of it is a refusal to reckon with the fact that you know that people have been stolen from and exploited and the remedy of that situation. It's like everybody doesn't need medicine If I just give everybody a really strong antibiotic like it's going to mess some folks up because some folks aren't plagued by the infection that that antibiotic is meant to treat, and so there's that element of it.
Speaker 2:I think there's another element where and I think I've talked to you about this before, but you know, I think it's easy for us to see when we lose particular privileges. It's very easy for us to see that as persecution. So if we've spent years and years and years kind of securing this place of privilege for ourselves, and then that starts to fade, we get really, really sensitive. We get really really sensitive about that and don't think about the fact that wait a minute, a lot of time and energy has been spent building up this thing for me that I was maybe never able to have in the first place.
Speaker 2:And so that's where that kind of indignation comes from, where it's really at least for some white men, Because things are becoming less easy that becomes this existential threat. But like, yeah, there's a lot going on there. Those are just, I think, a few elements of it. What's going through your mind?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm like okay, so I'm trying not to straw man either.
Speaker 2:Yeah, no.
Speaker 1:But I'm like, so I'm trying to go like okay, when I think of diversity, equity includes diversity. I think is a good thing that you give multiple perspectives, multiple cultures and histories coming together and we get a better picture of reality of God. Equity is different than equality. Equity is kind of making things just right. Inclusion. I feel like these are things that I'm like. Would anyone be against any of these things?
Speaker 2:Well, this is and this is. There was a New York Times article about this. It was titled let me find it real quick. It's titled America is under attack inside the anti-DEI crusade, and part of it is a very calculated propaganda campaign. So the same. So Christopher Rufo, the guy who did a lot of the kind of anti-CRT stuff and has been very public about the fact that his goal was to essentially poison that language Right, and there's essentially there's a similar campaign specifically aimed at poisoning that DEI acronym Like I mean, you've got thousands of emails of people going back and forth on how are they going to do this and so, and they're doing what? Like this is the smart political move, which is to go after the money. It's just, most things are about political economy. So this is what this is the tactic. Yeah.
Speaker 2:So and this is all. This is all in the article, but yeah, I mean like it's an intentional poisoning. So it's. The goal is to get people to the point where, when they hear that language, what they hear is not what those words mean, but they hear. This is part of this agenda and they're doing this with school boards. They're doing it. It's not just higher education, but it's K through 12 too.
Speaker 1:So what would be? Can you, as one who's thought about this in your position, but as you said, like it's passed that to demolish it it's passed in Texas, yeah, and at state schools of kind of taking people out of this like what would be the best argument for this?
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Because, yes, it's. I think it's the boogeyman. I think it's absurd that we're going after this when we should be doing what King talked about of like actually addressing these wrongs. Right, it feels like we're doubling down on going the opposite direction. Yeah, but what would you say is the best argument for having some concern over this? Well, some people, I guess Kendi's, yeah.
Speaker 2:Well, part of it is just to like I in some spaces and this is this may be as a result of what happened in 20. Well, it's not even so much what happened in 2020. I think it comes back to and this is not just about race, but race is a very important example of this. I think this is, and this is also what I talk about in the book. I think one of the issues that we have is that we think about race as an ideological thing, and so people attack it as an ideological thing, and I don't think I mean I don't think it's ideological in the sense that it's just about what we think. What we're really talking about is distribution of resources and all that kind of thing, and so the way to so we can use.
Speaker 2:I mean, in fact, the matter is that we can use whatever language you need to use, but the goal is to build kind of just, inequitable institutions, and there are ones where I don't want to see adverse consequences to white or Asian or whoever I want everybody to receive so well and this is another point, it is everybody.
Speaker 2:The line is we're going for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I actually am fine with equality of outcome. I want everybody to have a home, I want everybody to have the food that they need, I want everybody to have the resources that they need to flourish as a human being, and the fact of the matter is that, as much as we may claim that everybody has equal opportunity, now it's just fundamentally not true, and so I just don't want us to live in lies, and so when there are legitimate cases of white people being discriminated against and stuff like that, that's an issue. I'm not saying that's not an issue. I also want us to see that and all these things in the context of a nation where it's been specifically built to place particular people at the top of the hierarchy, and so and that's what people can't see.
Speaker 1:They can't see the systemic issues.
Speaker 2:Or that they refuse, or that they kind of don't want to see. And my thing is like look, just look at the.
Speaker 2:I don't want any of these things to happen to you as an individual. I don't think they should happen to anybody. But I also want us to understand the context in which these things take place. I did make the statement about the way we think about meritocracy, that we think that the world is such that if we just work hard enough, we'll get, will succeed or whatever, and I want us to remember that. Look, that might be true, but it requires but it's not just this straight line from hard work to whatever you think success is, it's that you have to be doing that work in a space that actually rewards that kind of work, because if you're not in that space, you can work as hard as you can, but if it's not, but you won't quote, unquote get anywhere. And so this assumption that just if you're just scrappy, then you'll make it to the top it's fundamentally a lie that often keeps people in positions of exploitation.
Speaker 1:Yeah, what's that analogy I don't know if it was King or who I talked about in the sense of it's as if one team is up 30 to nothing in a baseball game.
Speaker 1:And in the ninth inning they go hey, just heads up, we're confessing that we've been cheating this whole time, we're sorry, let's finish the inning. And at that point you go no, that's not how it works. That's kind of how we've operated as a country. We said we're sorry and we're not doing anything about the score, and I'm doing about the ripple effects of that. And so I think some of this anti-racism diversity of inclusion work is trying to do is go like no, let's make things right, let's actually do that. And now I'm like, yeah, that seems to be obvious, that's what we have to do. And then you have people like Charlie Kirk coming out and saying like if I see a black pilot, I'm nervous. And then Candice Owens come out and say if I see a woman pilot, I'm nervous Because they're going. Oh, they got the job because of this.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and part of this is also like an assumption. Part of it is also like an assumption about the way that affirmative action works, which is oh, I see somebody black in a pool, that's extra points for them. That, oh, it's like. Oh well, they're under qualified, that's fine, they're black. Like that's the assumption in some folks' minds of the way that affirmative action works.
Speaker 2:Prejudice is just boiling out of them yeah yeah, yeah, and the fact of the matter is that I'm sure there are some circumstances in which that is a thing that people do, but that's not the. That was neither the purpose nor the intent of it. It was to recognize hey look, these are some spaces that people are being actively kept out of, regardless of their qualifications, right, whether it's black people, whether it's women or Asian folks or whoever. And so part of it is it's gonna require us to intentionally open particular spaces. So I think about the integration of Baylor back in the mid-60s. Just opening up, there had to be the recognition that just opening up an admissions process so that now black people could be admitted, okay, that doesn't create justice. That opens up the door. It opens up a door to justice, but that in itself is not the fulfillment of justice.
Speaker 2:There are other ways in which those systems need to be shaped in order to actually be equitable for all people. And so when I hear this stuff and this is the way that I've had to come to think about it too I could just kind of react in anger and say these people are crazy and racist or whatever. But at its root is, I think, a good desire. People do want people to be treated equally. I think If I wanna be charitable, that's what I'll assume, yeah, and so my response in those spaces has to be okay, we both want, if this is something that we both want, these are the ways that we're gonna get here, not that Like. Those are the kinds of conversations that I think we need to be having, but in our current political milieu there's not as much space for that kind of reasoned conversation, unfortunately.
Speaker 1:Speaking of unreasonable conversation. This next post, this next terrible tweet is from our Senator Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1:Oh dear, and he says come and take it. And he's got the picture of the come and take it flag, but instead of a cannon it is barbed wire. Ah, yes, so if you don't know the backstory here, supreme Court rules, that is, it was not okay for Texas to be putting up all this barbed wire, that cutting immigrants and children as they're coming illegally into the United States, and then. But so the Supreme Court rules this. And I feel like the group here in Texas that's like no, you just gotta listen to the Supreme Court Is now saying like no, don't listen to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1:We will start a civil war over those.
Speaker 2:It shows which commitments I mean. It just shows which moral commitments actually lie at the root.
Speaker 1:Like there's multiple states and they're going like hey, and we have states. I mean this is a Senator and we have state legislators who are saying, hey, we'll come with an armed militia to help protect, like. I feel like this is. This could be a boiling, bubbling moment in the history of the United States of like. Are we really Like? This is how I assume, how a civil war is done. I'm not trying to fear monster here.
Speaker 2:Yeah, don't fear monster here, we're fine, we're fine.
Speaker 3:You know, I just Jesus on the throne, In all these.
Speaker 2:But in all these situations, I want at least the Christian to remember that our moral commitments are always to be dictated by Christ and not the state. And so I don't. So I, my relationship I'm thinking about this especially for the book too Like my relationship with the state is such that insofar as the state tells me to do something that is not against the gospel, I'm gonna do it, yeah, but the state does not dictate to me what is right or wrong. Right, that's what the Lord, that's what the Lord does, and so, and so the fact of the matter is is that, you know, I want to continue to like the prayer for the state in oh, which, which are the letters to Timothy. It's either it's either first or it's either first or second. So the only ones we got, what I'm okay with the third, but the prayer is just like.
Speaker 2:Our prayer for our leaders is that we would be able to live a quiet and peaceful life, and so like, that's the prayer that I can, that I and we, as communities of Christ, can live lives according to the logic of the kingdom of God and not be killed for it. But like, but yeah, like when it, when it comes to the way that I think about people who are separated from us by an artificial border. They're, they're human beings. Yeah, like that's their human beings, often, often searching for, you know, often searching for, searching for a better life as a result of our foreign policy, so like. So, there's so so.
Speaker 1:So it's just like out of like, sheer compassion of like for people seeking asylum, but too like America needs immigrants, like we need more people willing to like. This is where it's like I think we should make it harder to be at America illegally, but easier to be in America illegally. Like. What is it Like? Why are we so against this? Just in general, like I don't understand that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean it's just. I mean this is also, I think, just the way that nation states like. This is just the way that nation states work also. But but there's also, I mean, the language of fear. Gets in this too, like people are bringing in whatever, whether it's drugs or crime or whatever, and that like that's, that's one of these things that kind of gets people, gets people riled up.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and in this moment this is what I've talked about like Civil War, like you got our our governor who's like citing states rights as like yeah, man. Oh, like, oh, I know where that went last time.
Speaker 2:Yeah man, yeah man.
Speaker 1:This is this is a little a little wild and the thing about think about us think about us, especially in this state is we First Timothy too.
Speaker 2:Folks got. Folks got their guns too, so people are very quick to jump. People are very quick to jump to violence.
Speaker 1:Mm-hmm, and this past week I preached on.
Speaker 2:I was a nurse's maker to help, but before go there, before go there.
Speaker 1:I wanted to bring up an article that you also sent me separately.
Speaker 1:And I was like, hey, we're actually going to hopefully talk about that today and it's our for our last terrible tweet. This is not necessarily a terrible tweet, but I think it reveals something I think rough. And this is from Samuel Perry. He's just like oof public trust and clergy falls to an all time low, a decline apparently accelerated after 2010. And he links to this Christianity Today article that pastor credibility continues to decline and it shows this graph and it is a sharp decline. It is a sharp, sharp decline that it's down. It's down from 40% to 32% over the last four years, so eight points in the last four years.
Speaker 1:And with people's trust in pastors that it's failing and falling and so like, for reference, in 1985, it was at a high of 67%. It is now down to 32% that people say they trust their pastor. And for also reference, nurses, who have the highest a kind of ethical credibility, are at 78% More than double what people trust in their pastors. So I just saw that and I was like, oh, that is rough. I mean I'm not surprised by it given what we've seen. I mean this is kind of this podcast theology of pieces. I feel like people. I feel like and we've responded to the woman in our last episode where a pastor said you need to. Are you comfortable saying calling your husband master, like there's?
Speaker 1:just things like this that are like, yeah, I'm with you. Yeah, this is a question. I do have doubts.
Speaker 2:It's interesting because this is an interesting view of the way that pastors as a quote, unquote class, like pastors as a class, how we're perceived, yeah, and it makes and it is lamentable, but it also like it also.
Speaker 2:I mean, when people are asked that question, they may not be thinking about their own pastor, they may be thinking about pastors in general, sure, which already, like that says something. That says something in itself too, cause I think it's just. I mean, I think people generally, if they're in a church, they'll often trust their pastor, but in thinking about other pastors, like you think about, where do pastors show up in the news and it's and it's and it's, and especially over the course of the last you know decade or whatever it's been, it's been in scandal, it's been in being beholden to particular political projects in ways that, in ways that compromise the gospel, all that kind of stuff. When you look at what pastors get famous for, it's their greed, it's their corruption, it's all like it's all of those kinds of things, things that don't have anything to do with the gospel, which is lamentable. That is that is. That is that is lamentable.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and it makes, it goes to me, and they cite a little bit this in an article like what is a requirement to be an elder or a pastor?
Speaker 2:To be above reproach.
Speaker 1:And one of those is to be above reproach. This is qualifications in 1st Timothy 3. It's to be above reproach, the first thing said there, and then it's reiterated later that well thought of by outsiders.
Speaker 1:Also have a good reputation with outsiders, and so right now we have a large swath of pastors that would not fit the qualifications of being a pastor and I just, yeah, I'm like this is discouraging. At the same time, I can get it, I'm like I'm with you, and so it's interesting to be a pastor in a time when this is at such a sharp, steep decline.
Speaker 2:Well and like and I like, I would. I would not be, I would not be dismayed by that data if I thought it was coming from another place. So like, so, so so. But what I mean by that is I think that people saying that they don't trust their pastors is like is actually them saying, or that they don't trust their pastors, that they don't trust pastors. I mean, I think it's. I mean basically it's them saying that they don't think pastors are trustworthy and that's because they have often revealed themselves not to be.
Speaker 1:But we can all think of the every one of us could think of a pastor, like you said, like the big scandal, but even like on the smaller scandal, sense of just like knowing you're like okay, that these pastors are trying to build their mini kingdoms.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And you're like. I've seen that so is. Do I really trust that you have our good in mind?
Speaker 2:If we had the bad reputation that we did in the first few centuries of the church, where people were just like, oh, these people are ridiculous, they like care for poor people and then like, and and and, they've got this really weird sex. Like, they've got this really weird sexual ethic where, like, they only get married to like one person and only outside they have one person. Like, all this stuff is like that's a. I asked those weird. I don't, I don't trust those people. Like, like, if that's where that was coming from, then I'd be like great, that's fine, but that's not where this is coming from.
Speaker 2:Like people have legit, like there's a lot of legitimate, terrible stuff that pastors are doing and it's getting out and it and it's and, and everybody, especially with with social media and stuff it'll get immediately posted on, posted on Twitter, and people are like these pastors, that's what these pastors do. Um, so yeah, so it's it's. Yeah, it's it's rough.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but all the well.
Speaker 2:I mean. For me it's just. That's just all the more reason that when we think about, when we think about our Christian communities, just lean into. Just lean into being who Jesus actually called you to be. And people are going to get mad at you for the right reasons. Uh, get in, it's a good trouble. This is the, this is the sermon. This, my, my, my sermon is coming Sunday is on, is on persecution and and, and there are a lot of things that people call persecution that aren't that aren't. That aren't persecution. If you're.
Speaker 2:If you're a pastor, you know does something shady and like and people come after your pastor and your church for it, like that's not persecution, that's you reaping the consequences of your actions.
Speaker 1:Um, right, yeah, and this is where I think I in that article, uh, they, they quote Glenn Pacquium um, who wrote the resilient pastor, and he says I am less interested in finding ways to regain our credibility than I am in our willingness to take responsibility for why we've lost it. And I'm just like just stop there, there it is. That's. That's what I think it has to be.
Speaker 2:There it is.
Speaker 1:That's how you go. Let's figure it out and let's read that you don't care about trying to get the credibility you care about. Let's address what is actually wrong here.
Speaker 2:Go to the root cause and people have turned the past and people have turned the pastoral calling into an image game. And it's not an image game. That's not, it's not fun. I don't care, I don't, I don't fundamentally don't care what it is that you think of, what it is that you think of me, but I don't like, I, but not in, like, not in a hostile way, just in, just, in a way that like. That's not what, that's not what shapes and dictates my, my action.
Speaker 2:Yeah, um, if it, if it did, I'd be in the situation when, when, when Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, talks about fasting and and praying, and, and, and, and, and almsgiving, or giving, or giving to the poor, he's like if you do all this stuff just so that other people can see that you're doing it, well, you've already gotten your, you've already gotten your reward, um, and he's like it's not, it's not about, not about that you should, you should, you should be perfectly willing to do this stuff in, in, in, in silence, and with and with nobody seeing it. Because I could, I see it, because your father sees it. Yeah, um, and that's the. That's the kind of mode. That's the kind of mode that we need to be in.
Speaker 1:All right, I'm going to move us out of breaking news and fine, responding to all that stuff that's going on there. Um, and I'm going to move us into time now, responding to a few emails, um and um, kind of a deeper dive on, um, the cutting room floor, uh, from this past Sunday's sermon on non-lalence.
Speaker 1:Uh, and so let's let's let's first let's go to the, to the mail bag. I think there's some, some really good stuff for us to chew on here. Um, and again, if you have yet to to email in, hello at theology, and piecescom is where you can do so um that, we love to be able to respond to your questions and that's what we'll do here. Uh, we got a rather long one um from our friend, a Neil, and uh, I don't think we're going to read all of your email Um, so we're just going to try to respond to the big points here, but I'll read it here. Here we go, um. It says uh. In earlier days I would have turned uh, so he he's responding to, um, our episode that we did with Grant Hartley on LGBTQ um episode I believe that was 32.
Speaker 2:Um, the one with the Bible the one with the Bible.
Speaker 1:Um, hopefully all of ours have the Bible present yes. Uh, episode 32, Declaboring same sex passages um of the Bible with Grant Hartley. And so he says in earlier days I would have turned this episode off after the first five minutes.
Speaker 2:We have some people, we have some people who did we're like we encourage them. Listen to the whole. Listen to the whole thing we did.
Speaker 1:We will say yeah, I could go any further and I'm like no, no, no, no, no, no, you should listen to the whole.
Speaker 2:Thing.
Speaker 1:Uh, so it's, but God has grown. It's funny how it's happened, this like the second person. But God has grown a desire and made to be less dogmatic and entertain alternative views with charity and grace. And so I did listen to the podcast in its entirety, with the intentionality of listening to Grant's points and weighing them doctrine rather than by tradition or emotion, and I was going to say, yes, I think that, right there, um, we, I think I hope I said in that episode, like we're not trying to change your opinion on this. I don't think it's really doable to just go in and be like I'm going to combat your, all of your points, because you're going to come with a hundred other counterpoints. I just love that you're willing to listen, um, and to be able to say, hmm, is that a good point or is this not? And so I think that's what we want to be able to. This podcast to be able to do is to disperse some of this thinking and for you to be able to go to the scriptures yourself. And so, um, thank you, thank you, thank you. And if you are listening, uh, and you are going, I disagree with you on this, this and this, I love it.
Speaker 1:Um, he does say that. He says, nevertheless, I have confess to the I've arrived at. I uh that I arrived at the same endpoint, meaning he probably should have come. He probably should have turned it off. Um, I don't presume where either both of you align with or depart from Grant's theology, but I'm taking this opportunity to exercise my understanding with a response. Um, so, thanks for your indulgence, but remember you asked for it. Oh, so then he has uh, nine, nine uh points, uh, that we're not going to hit all all dying Uh, but thank you, neil, uh, for the uh level of um engagement you gave here. So, uh, but overall, he says I would say Grant's approach to the topic at hand um could be a case study on the pitfalls of Isegesis. As compared with exegesis, malcolm, what is Isegesis?
Speaker 2:Isegesis is reading into the text and as opposed to exegesis, which is understood as reading out of the text. That is Isegesis is. I have all of my assumptions. I read the text.
Speaker 1:It maintains my assumptions and I bring all of my assumptions there and and the things that I glean from the text are things that also refer my own assumptions Very good, yeah, and that's something that I think we, every single one of us, has to constantly guard ourselves from, because I do believe that if you wanted to make your point or your argument on any topic whatsoever, whether it's the sex topic, whether it's the sex topic, whether it's, uh, universalism, whether it's hell, whatever it might be I can give you a hundred passages that you could argue your point, and so, yes, I would say this that's something for us to all be careful of. I would disagree, um, that we were, I, I sagittin, but I'm guessing every person who is I sagittin would disagree that they're doing it.
Speaker 2:You gotta talk about the very specific content in which you think that this is something that I'm reading into the text rather than something that I like we would. We gotta talk about. We gotta talk about it, yeah.
Speaker 1:Um. He then goes into how he he bristled at the term clobber, Um, um, cause he, he thinks. He says my conviction of scripture is that by its very nature is meant to clobber all of us, Um, and to that I would. So I think he, he, he kind of referring to you know all all scriptures God breathed in, useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training the righteousness. So it's, uh, it is meant to challenge us, it can correct, it can rebuke us, Um. So I think that's where he's he's bristling. But I would say the reason we use clobbers, because it's more for the, the history, more recently, of how the gay community has seen these passages as clobber passages that have been used, or you could say, weaponized to. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Also, I think, uh, clobber is an interesting word because it it it suggests blunt, blunt, force, trauma, which is, which is never to heal. When, when, when the scriptures describe, even, even describe, um, even describe the word as a, as a blade. Um, I think of Hebrew, is the sword to cut to the joint, even to the marrow. Um, right In thinking about and thinking about and thinking about it as a, as a, as a blade. A blade can be used both to both to heal, both to heal and to and to and to cut.
Speaker 2:Um, there is, there is not a circumstance in which smacking somebody over the head is a, is a healing and that like, and that's why that word clobber, like, like the scriptures are not beat people over the head, like, it's not a beat people over the head thing, right, it it cuts, cuts all of us, but it cuts us in ways that we need to be, cuts us in ways that we need to be, that we need to be cut. All clobbering, all, all, all clobbering, and this is just, this is just a great, just language thing about how, actually I think how good that, how good that word is, all clobbering does is it can knock, knock somebody out, but like, but that I mean See, we want to be clobber in that, in that way.
Speaker 2:Even the scriptures that make you, even the scriptures that make you want, that make you uncomfortable and and knock you on your tail, do so not to not fundamentally to harm like not fundamentally to harm you, but fundamentally to heal you. There are things that need to be cut out of you. There are things that need to be cut out of all of us. What the scriptures, what the scriptures do reveal in in so far as the spirit uses them to reveal our sin to us. But the purpose is is for the purpose of healing, not for, not for harming.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so Christ does bid us to come and die, but not to stay there but to resurrect as well, and so, yeah, so I think we're still. I'm still a fan of declobbering this Next point, the disposed distinction between being gay or as homosexual, because I'm very skeptical of there being a distinction here, and, and so I think I'm trying to understand his argument here, and I think what you're saying that you're skeptical of is that you can identify this way without acting on it, I think is what he was going for.
Speaker 1:He says call me naive, but I challenge the notion that two self-identifying gay men or women can cohabitate with their clothes on Great.
Speaker 2:Okay, that's a good point. So part of it is and this is a failure of imagination for most of us. Most of us would also not encourage a. I mean, I'm just thinking practically most of us would not, and this would be my controversial thing for the day most of us would not encourage a heterosexual man and woman to live in the same home. But like, practically, there's no, there's no scripture that bars that. If they're not, if they're, the sin is not in you living in the same space, the sin is if you're having sex with each other. Like there are, there is a, there is a, there is a. We, our imaginations, have been, have been atrophied to think that a man, that a man and a woman can't be in the same space with each other without being a quote unquote sexual risks to each other. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Like that, that's a, that's. That's also what's at the root of this. Because, because, because to think that, to think that, to think that, whether I mean two men or two women or whatever, that, the, that, the, that the, that the, that the presence that, the presence of that, the presence of temptation means, oh well, clearly, sin is going to, clearly sin is going to come out of that. I, I have a higher view of what the, of what the, of what the Holy Spirit can do.
Speaker 2:Also, like you know, in it, in any, in it, in an economy where, for example, where housing is scarce and stuff like that, like if you're a roommate, if you're a roommate, you can find yourself, so is of, is of the gender that you happen to be sexually charged, like, is that, is that barring you from housing, or things like that, like there's, there's, there's, there's just, there's a lot of this that we only think through, that we only think through to a certain, to a certain point, and so, and so I like in the realm of possibility, I don't, it's, it's not, it's not impossible, and so I mean that's an, that's an, that's an element of it, but also like if, if we're talking about Christians, it's the kind of thing that I ought to expect. I ought to expect you to operate ethically in a Christian, in a Christian way. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, I just think what you just said on, I mean like if it's the distinction between being gay and being homosexual and I'm like I just feel like just being heterosexual doesn't, it doesn't actually say anything about my actual sexual ethic.
Speaker 2:Doesn't say anything about what I do. Yeah.
Speaker 1:I mean, you know, there is a distinction. That part is big, that is that is really big. And also even within that realm, even if it is with the opposite sex, as we think we talked about on these episodes, there is so much other opportunities for for sin to creep in, whether it be with the opposite sex or the same sex. So I just think that you have to make those distinctions.
Speaker 2:It's part of this is. This is part of one of the downfalls of our current identity conversations, where identity has nothing to do with what you do, whether it's racial identity or so, like I mean, I think about this with with racial identity, my racial identity has no bearing on what I, on what I do, like it doesn't tell you the fact that I'm and this is this, is I talked about this before with with Reed and understanding these, these, these, these ideologies of a scriptive difference that is, society tells me that I'm. I mean, society sees me as a, as a, as a, as a black man, and I'm like that's, that's the way that I've been racialized. That doesn't say anything about my actual actions.
Speaker 2:For you to know that I'm black, okay, you don't know any that doesn't tell you very much else besides, besides the way that society has racialized me and and and similarly, I mean, even even when we think about sexual orientation, okay, that, okay, like that doesn't tell me anything about what you, what you do or the way that you live your life, and so, and like that's something that you can only find out through actual building, actual relationships with people, and one of the things that one of the things that particularly focused identity conversations can do is they, can they, they? They in some ways keep us at a, at a distance from one another, yeah, as opposed to really engaging with people and being like, okay, well, how does that, how does that identity shape your? How does that? How, how does that way that you perceive yourself, or way that you're perceived, how does that shape your actual life? And and and one of the things that we, we, we just have to constantly do is to dig to that, to dig to that level, as opposed to staying at the surface.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's good. All right, he's got a couple more, so I'm going to go through these fast.
Speaker 2:I'll be briefer in my in my responses.
Speaker 1:For monogamy. I don't recall hearing this topic addressed and I think that's something we would. I think we've been trying to be very clear on this. Was the conversation was more on LGBTQ? Yeah, but yeah, absolutely, I think scripture makes it very clear for this to be between one man and, you know, between a one man, one woman. In that regard, that's when there is a, a leaving Adam, you know, left and then cleaved to. Eve.
Speaker 1:There's that. That seems to be clear. Yes, there's examples of polygamy all throughout scripture, but I think that's more descriptive than prescriptive.
Speaker 2:If we were talking about marriage. That's, that's one of the things that we would have. It's obviously an integral part of marriage Right right Paul's lack of education.
Speaker 1:This is his next one Paul's lack of education, making up words. The assertion that Paul had not reached a point in history where there was knowledge of homosexual behavior in animals takes us to a place that undermines the entire authority and air and sea of scripture. I don't recall us saying that Paul didn't have these things. I think we were asking the question because I do think some people make that assertion. I don't think Grant was making that argument, nor were we. Yeah.
Speaker 2:I think it's from probably from the discussion of Romans and the discussion of natural versus unnatural.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but I think we were asking that Is that how? Because I mean I I entered this conversation going give me the best affirming arguments and I think that's some of those are. Are some of the arguments that I'm like, if that's true, then that we need to, we need to deal with that.
Speaker 2:Right, yeah. So, like the if that, if that assertion was then mobilized to say, well, like, clearly he's wrong in this, clearly Paul's wrong in this reasoning, I mean none of us were saying, none of us were saying that, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:Number six. You have heard us say it, but I say to you, jesus is the word. He alone has the authority to reinterpret scripture. I can't find any example of another person in scripture, paul or I was doing this with any legitimacy. I'm not really sure what you're saying, true, but yeah, jesus does say that Seven we shouldn't call homosexuals bad people. This assertion misses the point.
Speaker 2:Well, also, I mean with number six, the youth, you've heard it said, but I, but I say to you this isn't, we're not.
Speaker 2:These texts that we were talking about are not, they're not reinterpreted.
Speaker 2:They're not reinterpretations in the sense that we are like going against the original intent of the text.
Speaker 2:So, for example, I think about this with, with, with Sodom and Gomorrah, when we, when we say and I'm going to keep saying this when we say that that text is not primarily about homosexual sex, we are saying something that the scripture says about itself.
Speaker 2:Right, and and if we, and if and if I and I do affirm with with Westminster, that scripture is the only infallible interpreter of of scripture, I can, I can actually make that point more powerfully than I can make most other points of scriptural interpretation, because I'm saying that what the scripture says is the primary issue with Sodom and Gomorrah is is, is what Ezekiel says, is what Ezekiel said it was, and so like. So I, I, so, I, so I would actually so, on that point, that's one point that we can actually say with, in some ways, more confidence than we can say, even some of the other things that we, that we say, even though you know I would say all of them, with some, with some confidence but, but, but, but, but, but for, but for that one, but for that one it's like it's right there and I and I, and and so yeah.
Speaker 2:So I don't, I don't want this conversation to be seen as, oh, you know, this is just, you know, slim Malcolm and Grant coming in with these newfangled interpretations or whatever it's also, it's also us being reminded of the fact that we're part of interpretive, that we're part of interpretive traditions, and being able to see those moves helps us, helps us, I think helps us, helps us, helps us, helps us discern kind of what the spirit is telling us through the, through the word.
Speaker 1:So yeah, yeah, um, oh man, there's so many things I want to talk on. I feel like this is all spurring more and more conversations.
Speaker 2:Let's do one more point, and then we'll do. Then we'll do our podcast. Yeah, yeah, we can. We can come back to it too.
Speaker 1:We can I feel like we finish his email and we might push some of the other stuff for the next one. But he says we shouldn't call homosexuals bad people. The assertion misses the point. The implication is that homosexuals are not bad people, when in fact we are all bad people, sinners. In effort to be not be judgmental, let's not remove any of us from underneath the curse of Romans 323. And so I see what you're saying here, that we are um, um, the wages of sin is death and we're like that. Yeah.
Speaker 2:All of us are yes, All of us like sheep conus stray. All of us are in need of redemption. Yes, yes, yes 100%, 100%.
Speaker 1:I just think we want to make clear there are many times that we've elevated certain um certain sins above others, this being probably the primary one. So I think there we go Um relative work, yeah, work we.
Speaker 2:And this is something I said, this is it? Oh, of course, these past few years, my, I feel like my own, my own impulses are changing as I read, as I just spent more time with Jesus, I, I, I, I think was often just leap right to just deep recognition of people's depravity, and I am learning to, first and foremost, extend to people the love that Christ extended to everyone that he met, and then it's a relationship that's built from that foundation that we can actually get into. Okay, well, we also recognize that we're all sinful. Like, how does that play out in your life? What does it mean for me to walk alongside you in that journey, as opposed to starting with yeah, y'all are all terrible people who do terrible things all the time and you need Jesus.
Speaker 2:It's true, but that's not the way that you start a relationship and Jesus is.
Speaker 1:yeah, there are times he is confrontational. It's usually with the Pharisees.
Speaker 2:Of course it's with the Pharisees Exactly.
Speaker 1:But with, like tax collectors, with Sakeas, with, you know, prostitutes, with the sinners, he's inviting them to a meal.
Speaker 2:Even with the exploiter like I think about that in terms of like, in terms of the tax collector that even with the kind of paradigmatic exploiter and oppressor, he still comes to them that way. Now, for the people who are claiming religious authority and using it to clobber people like, that's something that makes Jesus actively angry. His anger happens in the temple when the things that have been reserved for holy use are being used to harm. Those are especially the things that make Jesus most upset Now, when people are greedy and all that stuff makes him upset too. But he also reckons these are people who are enslaved to the powers and principalities, and so he treats them as people who are enslaved. He's like I want to set you free.
Speaker 2:Now to the people who are like, actively and intentionally working in the best interests of the powers and principalities, and they're like yeah, we know that we've got spiritual power behind it. That's the kind of thing that really makes the Lord angry. That's the kind of thing that he brings the hammer to. But for those who, even though they may be in positions of significant privilege in society, we have to develop the eyes to see the ways in which even that privilege can function as a kind of slavery, and we're seeking to set everybody free.
Speaker 1:So number eight, he has nine. Number eight at one point.
Speaker 1:Grant said this is true for me. He says red flag truth is absolute. It's either true for everyone or it's true for no one. The truth for me is the underlying cause of a divergent theologies, and so I just want to. I would say, on one hand, I agree with you that there is absolute truth, and so I'm like, yeah, but I feel like when you're in a conversation with someone and I feel like it was more maybe I don't remember exactly when Grant said this, but him probably saying this is something that I see is true. There's probably, I just think it's more of a epistemological humility that he's displaying. I'm not trying to make this a dogmatic. You have to believe what I believe in this moment, and so I'm okay when someone says you know, I mean this is true for me and it said to the same. This is how I see it.
Speaker 1:So I do think it's that humility that he was displaying, not necessarily saying like, yeah, it's true for me. I hope you know, maybe it's not true for you.
Speaker 2:Yeah, or even in a moral context, that there are spaces that my conscience can't, that my conscience won't allow me to be and like, and that's just, that's just a fact for me. It may not be true for you. There may be other spaces where you can be and be and not be tempted or whatever, but that's, but that's not a statement about whether or not a particular thing is wrong. Yeah, or I mean, you know, but then there are also things where, like you know, there are specific situations. You know, there are also specific situations that the scriptures don't don't speak to. So there are things that we can't like for me.
Speaker 2:I am, I'm also becoming dogmatic about fewer, about fewer things. So there are. So there, like, there are things that the Lord has revealed clearly and like, kind of clearly and totally to us, to the, to the, to the extent that we, you know, we put our stake in the ground was like this is absolute, all that kind of stuff. The Lord has done those things and revealed those things to us. There are other things that we just can't speak to with that kind of clarity, as much as we might want to, as much as it might be more comfortable for us to be able to do that, and so part of I think part of at least for me, part of one of the ways that I've, that I've grown I love thinking. I prefer to think about things in terms of black and white.
Speaker 1:But it's just it's easier.
Speaker 2:But unfortunately, most of our lives is are spent navigating, navigating the gray, and so and this and this even extends to some, to some, to some theological points a lot, of, a lot of the ways in which theology is developed is in ways that that apply the scriptures but but move into speculation. And when you move into speculation you're moving into what is not, you know what, things that you can never actually really confidently say are absolute, and so part of it is that is that discerning of where, where you start moving from interpretation into into speculation. So that's something just to be personally exposed to.
Speaker 1:His last point is he titles it Romans one and he said he saved this point for the last because it will sound mean spirited, but I don't intend it to be. And then goes on and says it seems like Grant's conclusions are a picture of Romans one where, professing be wise, they became fools and, despite Grant's contention to the contrary, paul leaves no room for gay, for gray, in such behavior. But I, I, I struggled.
Speaker 2:I don't think that's what Grant was. I don't think that was saying that.
Speaker 1:Grant's not arguing, I feel like. I mean, he came on and we, we, we met the clobbering passages and we called it de-clobbering in the sense, because we don't want it to, to knock people out, but we, I think we came to similar conclusions.
Speaker 2:I don't, I don't, no, no, we fundamentally agree on is the sinfulness of same sexual behavior. Like that. We said that at the very beginning and we said it through. Like that's, there's no gray, there's no gray there. But the fact of the matter is, is that when we were, when we're having this discussion, we're not just, we're not just talking about same sex sexual behavior when when we, when we have this broader, we have this broader conversation.
Speaker 2:So that's one point on which we're all on the exact same page about. But when we think about all the things that fit into the category of sexuality, it includes more than just same sexual behavior, and so what we were also trying to and this is ways I think that me and Slim are also trying to think more broadly too is, like this is something that we actually have to devote theological and ethical attention and imagination to, rather than just, well, don't do this and then we won't think about it anymore as long as you're not doing that. We can move on. It's all about other stuff.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but but especially in thinking about the ways in which, because of the legal and social atmosphere there is a, there are cultures and subcultures that have been, that have been created as a result of this and things like that, we then apply our we have to apply a kingdom oriented imagination and I to all of those things, as we would to any element of human culture, and that requires thought and attention. It's not the kind of thing that we can just kind of hold right off wholesale and it's not the kind of thing that we invite wholesale. It's the kind of thing that we discern, and one of our hopes, I think, over the course of that series, was to start doing that kind of work and to do it in a sense in community with our guests, to do it together with them.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and he ends his email just with this line. So I applaud your podcast for going where most evangelicals fear to tread, and so I just I wanted to read this email on air one, because we do want this podcast to be a way for us to engage with you, and so we're glad you're writing in, I think so you thank you for leading out that way.
Speaker 2:Thank you very much, Neil.
Speaker 1:And as well as I think we hope that we have people listening in that don't agree with us on everything.
Speaker 1:And so we want pushback and I think, as we kind of engage back and forth with pushback, I hope we get a clear understanding of the truth and of what God has for us. Even if I'm wrong in that I think maybe you're hearing how I'm wrong on it You're able to have a clear understanding on yourself, and so I think this is what I hope we can do as we enter 2024. And we have more emails and I lament that we we're already out of time, because there was a second email here that I wanted to touch on, kind of revisiting atonement theories.
Speaker 1:And then I wanted to get into our discussion on nonviolence because we just breached sermon. I'll put in the notes. This past Sunday on blessed are the peacemakers. We'll have plenty of time and so I'm going to push that to next week. But we had some great, great conversations with some folks after service and people asking yeah, but what about? What about when? Someone comes into your home. Can you, can you legitimately be a nonviolent, have a nonviolent ethic, and we're not going to save for next week. Oh, ok, you have another.
Speaker 2:I was saying I was just another, another. What about, like? What about if you're in a nation that has compulsory military service?
Speaker 1:Yes, yeah, so like the thing is you know we're not going to be able to do anything, that these are great, great questions, and so if you're asking this question, you know think about it next week. But also, if you have specific questions, because we're now pushing this to next week, if you can email them in fast enough before we record the next one, maybe we'll be able to answer that on air in that way. So thank you so much again, neil, for writing in hello at theologyandpiecescom. Oh, all right, I got new music background. That was just it starts up higher than I thought. Ok, we've got a couple new music things, but thank you for writing in hello at theologypiecescom and if you do have those questions, write those in. And again, for the reviews, that means a lot to us. You can go and do that right now, as this music jams us out of here, and go and give us a review, not just a rating but that, and a review. That does do a lot for us.
Speaker 1:And we hope some of this was helpful as we're thinking through all of the things, whether it's immigration and border control, or it's the trustworthiness of pastors, or all the things that we talk about here today, the continued LGBTQ conversation. We hope to have more of those in upcoming episodes. And so, as we look out at twenty four, what is it that you also want to discuss? I gave you a primer last week of some of the things. We will try to do them all in every other week at you know rhythms. That's the plan, malcolm. Love, love, love doing this with you Always.
Speaker 2:Yeah, always, we'll see you all next time. Are you all back?