Episode 47: Lee C. Camp – America Can Never Be a Christian Nation

Jared: You’re listening to Faith for Normal People, the only other God ordained podcast on the internet. 

Pete: I’m Pete Enns. 

Jared: And I’m Jared Byas.

Pete: Last call to pay what you can for our October class, Get a Grip on the Gospels, Reading the Gospels Well, taught by our very own nerd in residence, Dr. Jennifer Garcia Bashaw. 

Jared: This class will explore the context, there’s that word that’s so important in biblical studies, the context that not only shaped the Gospels, but the entire New Testament as well. The class is pre-recorded, which means you get instant access to watch it as soon as you buy it, and it even comes with a study guide so you can follow along. The Pay What You Can window ends October 15th, and then it’ll cost $25. There’s also a live Q&A for all three parts of the series on November 20th at 8pm Eastern Time, so Jennifer can answer all your burning questions about the New Testament. 

Pete: And of course, if you want access to this class and all of our other classes, plus ad-free podcast episodes, Bible Scholar Q&As, and more, you can become a member of our online community, The Society of Normal People, for just $12 a month. For more info and to buy our October class, head to thebiblefornormalpeople.com/fall24. 

Hey folks, today on Faith for Normal People, we’re talking about Christianity and politics and taking a new angle on all that with Lee C. Camp. 

Jared: Lee is a creator and host of No Small Endeavor, an acclaimed podcast series exploring what it means to live a good life. With a Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame, Lee is also Professor of Theology and Ethics at Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee. 

Pete: So don’t forget to stay tuned at the end of the episode for quiet time, during which we’ll reflect on the episode and our own faith experiences. Alright folks, let’s dive in.

Lee: “Especially at the level of federal elections, when we vote, we are putting a tiny bit of our endorsement towards imperialist pursuits. And we, you know, we’re the greatest imperialist power ever in the history of the world. And that ought to always trouble us. It’s highly ambiguous. It’s highly fraught. But I think that all of this invites us to come at it from a completely different kind of set of considerations, that I think can make us more committed to a Christian engagement with this kind of stuff.”

Jared: Lee, welcome to the podcast. I’m really looking forward to this conversation. I think it’s gonna be very engaging. 

Lee: Thank you, Jared. Great to see you. Pete, great to see you. Grateful to be with you guys today. 

Pete: Same here, Lee. 

Jared: Absolutely. All right. Well, let’s jump into, I mean, we’re going to wade into the waters of politics. And so I thought it might be, you know, I think we’d, we’d like to set it up to say whenever people hear that word, there’s an immediate connotation. There’s a lot of baggage. So when you’re using that word, what do you not mean first, and then what do you mean by that? 

Lee: Yeah, well, I say it somewhere in the book that I think that people who say Christianity is not political have never understood what Christianity is.

I mean, obviously, I’m trying to poke, but it’s a poking that I think is super important for us to really grapple with. I mean, typically, when we hear politics, we think of U.S. governmental machinations. We think of partisan machinations. We think of local, state, or federal policy, legislation, and the way things get run.

But the word politics, you know, comes from the Greek word polis, which was just a word for city-state. And politics, classically understood, is the way in which we arrange the affairs of a community. And so when we hear, you know, questions about what do you do with enemies, or what do you do with issues of offense and reconciliation, or what do you do with money, or what do you do with sex? You know, all of those things are political questions, and those are precisely the kind of things that Jesus is talking about all the time.

So, I’m trying to say, we have really kind of screwed up, I think, from the start in the way we arrange these things, and we’ve inherited these categories from modernity that say Christianity is not political, it’s a religious thing, whatever that means. And then we have to find some sort of way to translate so called religious ideas to the political landscape. And I just think that’s a terribly unhelpful way to start from the get go. 

Pete: It’s a little ironic too, isn’t it, that it’s not political, it’s religious, until it’s used for political ends. 

Lee: That’s right, and I think that even, since it’s been assumed that it’s religious, not political, and then it gets used for political ends, it corrupts the things that I think Christianity actually has to offer to the world because of that translation process.

Jared: Well, I mean, I don’t want to necessarily do a lot of setup, but I wondered if it might be helpful to also talk about this idea of Christianity being political in the context of hope and history. Those seem to be some of these foundational pieces that you kind of lay out at the beginning that then lead us into some specific things that we want to talk about like Christian nationalism, America as a Christian nation, all that stuff that people are talking about now online and elsewhere. So maybe hope and history, say more. 

Lee: Yeah, I tell my students sometimes I say, I think you’ll better understand what Christianity is if you think of it as an interpretation of history as opposed to thinking of it as a religion. And what I mean by that is that, you know, the biblical story is from start to finish a sort of claim about where history originates and where it’s headed. And the claim that at the center of history is the self revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth, and that God in Christ triumphs over death and all of the handmaidens of death through the way of suffering love, and that the resurrection is a vindication of this way of life, and then saying, indeed, this is where history is headed.

And so that kind of just changes everything. I think that’s kind of fundamental to what I understand the biblical story to be saying and understand it to be doing. And so this hope that we have, or are called to have, is this idea that what is revealed to us in Christ is indeed where history is headed.

And so you can have a kind of secularized hope, which we see all the time in Western civilization, where there’s, we will talk about hope, we’ll talk about progress, and oftentimes notions of progress don’t have a lot of content. It’s just kind of this kind of empty container of, you know, we, we think we know what it is, but we don’t talk about really what that progress is other than more, more, more, more money, more experience, more indulgence, whatever. 

But in the Christian story, the hope is that the final consummation of the defeat of death and the triumph of life and all that that means, that is kind of described in all sorts of beautiful poetic imagery, and, you know, I remain pretty agnostic about really what it means, but we know we’re getting a picture of what it means, right? And so central to Christian faith, I think, is pointing towards that hope.

And then orienting ourselves in our daily lives and our communities to try to bear witness to that hope, even now, that we have a claim, we have a faith about where the world is headed, where history is headed, and our calling is to be kind of forerunners of that. And to try our best as broken and messed up and screwed up as we are to try to embody that and bear witness to that in our common life together.

Pete: Yeah, I love that vision and like you, I’m, you know, I do hear politicians talking about hope and it’s usually in terms of like, we’ll have better jobs and, and, and we’re going to keep this wretched system going more smoothly and it sort of takes the punch away from when Christians use the word hope, which has a very different kind of content.

But, you know, that, that involves re-educating the masses to think differently. And once, you know, this gospel becomes, forgive the trite phrase, a political football, it’s hard to grab it out of their hands and say, no, no, no, you’re doing it wrong, but I think we need to. 

Jared: And this will be a theme, I think, in this conversation, because one of the things that I appreciated, and maybe you can speak to it more fully so that if I’m maybe mischaracterizing what you’re saying, but there’s also a it’s not a, uh, we’re going to align ourselves. When you, when you talk about the politics of Christianity, it’s not aligning yourself in any partisan way, but it’s also not just being centrist. It’s sort of saying, well, we can learn things from both sides. 

It’s, it’s a different kind of a critique, if you will, of how the left and the right are navigating this in their own ways or co-opting these things for their own purposes.

And so, can you say more about that? And in particular, within this hope idea, because I think the left and the right have different visions of hope, and that, in some ways, I think of it as, when you talk about hope, it almost feels like a presupposition out of which other views and policies and other things grow. It’s sort of like, well, what are we hoping for?

And that depending on what we hope for is how we go back then and energize our base or put out certain legislation or policies or processes to, you know, motivate or catalyze a group of people toward that same hope. And so can you tie those together in some way? 

Lee: Yeah, I kind of say all along in the book that the calling is to see if we can recover some sort of witness to Christian faith or Christian politics that’s neither right nor left nor religious. And it’s fairly clear what I mean by left or right, but what I mean by religious is this sort of over-spiritualization of faith that says we don’t care about what happens in the world, you know. So you’ll hear—I hear, at least in the Bible belt, sometimes people who are kind of disgusted with partisan politics and they’ll say kind of pious things like it doesn’t really matter. Jesus has got this. You know, and it’s going to be fine. 

And you know, we need to realize a lot of times, well, it’s not in the short term. It really may not be fine. And that there really are issues and policies and practices of people with power that have a profound impact upon our neighbors. And so the Hebrew slaves in the Exodus story, they knew that Pharaoh’s policies mattered, right?

And on through, on through human history, you know, in the, in the 1960s, they knew that the policies and practices of especially state politicians mattered because it was a mechanism of immense oppression of Blacks in American culture. We can multiply the examples, but these things matter. And so when I say neither right nor left nor religious, it’s not to say neither right nor left, so we don’t care about that stuff.

But instead, it’s that, of course we care about it, but then the question is how can we try to bear witness to that and bear witness to an alternative in a way that doesn’t, first of all doesn’t fall prey to partisanship, but second, somehow is really grounded in our sort of Christian faith or commitment to our hope.

And so it’s not always obvious how you necessarily make that next step, right, between trying to find a way to bear witness to something in a way that points towards that hope. But what I do at the end of the book is I talk about Christian social engagement must always be ad hoc. What I mean there, is that what it seems to me makes sense is that we take whatever issue is in front of us and seems most, most pressing, and we try to bring the witness of Scripture to that and speak to that in a way that’s true to the overarching story of Scripture. It may vary given upon the different context. So rather than just this kind of bald notion of, some sort of ideological commitment to some partisan commitment. It may vary depending upon the context.

Now I use this example, Pete, with the Old Testament scholarship. I’m pretty sure it’s really bad exegesis, but it preaches really well. 

Pete: You know, that’s all that matters, man. Go ahead. 

Lee: Yeah. Yeah. I’ll, I’ll test this on you. You know, so I, you know, I, I’ll sometimes say, look, if you think about the book of Genesis, you hear that, that Joseph story, and you’re this kind of committed, ideological, small government person. And then you read the Joseph story, and it’s like, “Dude, he’s like, this is big tax, and this is big government,” and it’s seen as the workings of God in this story to save the people of God. And so if you’re kind of ideologically committed to small government, it’s like, well, that story kind of creates a problem for you.

On the other hand, as you go on into the Book of Exodus, you see this sort of machinations of power that kind of grows out of that. And here you see the way in which the machinations of power are overweening and oppressive. And then you have this kind of pushback against so called big government. And so it’s a stretch to kind of apply this, but you know, the point there is that it just depends upon the context, right?

And it depends upon how you’re trying to bear witness to the fundamentals of the story that are going to vary from context to context. 

Pete: Yeah, well, I’ll allow that. That’s a good, that’s a good way of looking at it. Um, and see, what strikes me there, Lee, is the use of the Bible, which of course is a big part of this, is how the Bible is used.

And it seems to be, you know, this wax nose, pick your passage and things like that. But the point is that it’s, it’s on, it’s on the passage level. And you’re arguing something much bigger than that. You’re not talking about, like, you know, here are the verses that support particular points of view. It’s, I think you’re blowing the whole thing up and I, I mean that as a compliment, right?

So the Bible becomes a war, you know, here’s, here’s this passage says this and we’ve heard it. I mean, if you know, I’ve, I’ve heard politicians talk about the eradication of public education by a couple of Bible verses, you know, things like that.

Jared: I think I want to ask a prior question that it’s never really occurred to me to ask, but I think with this idea of ad hoc, that’s an interesting thing that I think, just because we’re using Latin, maybe it’s going over people’s heads, but I think that’s an important thing that you just said. My question is, why is partisanship wrong?

Because I think we, we kind of take for granted. I just hear it a lot of like, well, of course we don’t, you know, we want to get beyond partisan politics. But there are a lot of people who seem to be very persuaded by partisan politics. And there is this, this sense of belonging that’s so powerful. But I also think if right is right and wrong is wrong, and it’s always right in every context and wrong, like, then it seems like we could be partisan in the sense of, well, maybe the Republican Party in general does get it right, and so they are more aligned with Christianity than not, or you could say that on the left, right?

And in which case, it’s like, well, then partisan politics is fine because they’re right, and right is right. And that ties in the sense that what I hear you saying is, yeah, but if bearing witness it is ad hoc, it’s contextual, it takes wisdom and discernment, it is, it’s not going to be aligned in, in political parties.

It’s just to. Uh, nuanced. It’s too contextual. It takes gathering and community and discerning together what these things are in the ways that not just the issues change, but that way that culture evolves and changes around issues. Is that making sense in terms of answering that question of why is partisanship wrong, if we could just say, well, it’s just that my party’s right and yours is wrong. I mean, I don’t think that’s wrong because I think that’s a lot of people’s logic. 

Pete: Sure. It is. 

Lee: Yeah. So I think it would be worth saying that in that process of wisdom and discernment that you’re pointing to, that I very much think is right, it could be that there are certain moments in our American context, we might say, “Okay, it might be worth voting on a single issue basis.” Right. I mean, so it, you know, it might be worth voting on the basis of who you think is gonna take down American democracy and whether or not you wanna see American democracy come down or not.

Right? That might be a single issue that might be worth voting on. It might be that at certain times in our history, we, we see some given party and we say, well, that seems to be the one we’re gonna support. I mean, you know, there have been times I’ve gone to the voting booth and I’ve voted down a straight—I’m, I, I’m not a member of a party.

And I’ll bounce all over and there are times where I’ve gone down the thing and I have voted for every person in that party because I was so pissed off by some major thing that people in Washington had done of the other party that I thought was so gross and grotesque and oppressive. And then within a year, I’m thinking, I can’t believe I voted for all those people, right?

Because look at this over here, right? Right. And I tend to think that if we don’t see voting as a highly ambiguous endeavor, then we really haven’t thought about it very carefully. I think it’s always ambiguous, and this brings me to the last kind of thing I’ll say on that. And that is that, especially at the level of federal elections, when we vote, we are putting a tiny bit of our endorsement towards imperialist pursuits.

And, you know, we’re the greatest imperialist power ever in the history of the world. And so when you’re voting, you’re putting some sort of endorsement upon imperialist pursuits and that ought to always trouble us. And so I think it’s, it’s highly ambiguous. It’s highly fraught, but I think that it all of this invites us to a more like Pete said a minute ago, you know, kind of blowing up the way we’ve assumed we have to think about this stuff and come at it from a completely different kind of set of considerations that I think can make us more committed to a Christian engagement with this kind of stuff.

Jared: So, let’s talk about Christian nationalism. I know you’re chomping at that.

Pete: No, I want to ask, just ad hoc, right, because you mentioned ad hoc, just plainly, are you saying that bearing witness in an ad hoc manner, specific issues, it comes up, it goes away, you walk away. Do you think that, does that mean for you, Christians not going through, let’s say, normal political channels for change, like running for office. We need to get good people in office so they can enact change or they just become part of the same corrupt system. And we have to do this from the outside, so to speak. 

Lee: Um, I’m pretty ambivalent about that question. You know, in, in, in the world that I come from and my denomination background and the namesake of the school I teach at, he was very much a, Christians don’t do that stuff.

And not because he was trying to separate from the world, but because he thought if you start down that road, you might be able to run for postmaster because you’re serving the community. But if you do much more than that, you’re getting into the uses of violence and imposition of your will, which he saw standing in tension with Christian faith.

And so I, I would agree that the further we go down that road, the further, uh, difficulties it raises, but I don’t have any kind of committed sort of notion that one ought not run for office if they feel, have some sort of sense of calling to that. I will say that it, it does seem very difficult for me to imagine how, from what I remember in reading the oaths of office that you have to take as a Senator or as the President of the United States, that’s a pretty hard, that’d be a pretty hard oath, I think, that I, you know, you’d almost kind of have to, I think, cross your fingers to say those oaths, because it’s calling to a sort of allegiance to a given authority that I think would stand in tension with what we’re claiming as Christians.

But nonetheless, I think, you know, trying to figure out what it looks like to do public service in that way. I don’t want to kind of rule that out across the board, and I think surely there’s some sort of way that in a lot of those cases we can do good work in the world that way. 

Pete: And those tensions, they, they go back to Biblical times in both Testaments. So that’s, that’s still before us, that tightrope to walk, right? 

Jared: Can we talk about, and I want to try to talk about it in a way that’s clear, but I don’t want to just call out things like Christian nationalism. What you just said makes me want to ask the question in a different way. Which is this idea that America is a Christian nation and at the very least, if we go underneath that, because I grew up in this tradition. So I’m trying to channel best of intentions or kind of best ways of thinking for how this comes about. And that is, the logic seems to be okay, not necessarily we’re a Christian nation, but if I am a Christian, I have a certain way I think the world should operate and why wouldn’t I try to get into positions using the tools at hand in the American democratic process to enact those ways of being in the world from a place of power?

So, I think for some people it’s not necessarily this nefarious, I think for the average everyday person, maybe for the politicians themselves it’s more nefarious and I want power and that, it seems to come from a place of, okay, I don’t know how we get away from thinking, I certainly have a way of thinking the world should operate, in my communities, at the local level, at the federal level, and those are motivated by my Christian values, and I don’t know any other way but to enact out of my Christian values.

And if I think that is the best way for the world to operate, I’m going to try to enact policy that does that. And that happens to be Christian. So is that any different than Christian nationalism or America as a Christian nation? Like, how do we make that distinction for people? 

Lee: I’m so glad you asked the question this way.

I think that you’ve put your finger on something that troubles me a lot about the conversations about Christian nationalism. For me, nationalism, Christian nationalism is not what you just described, right? You know, so there’s this notion that we care about our nation, we care about our community, so I’m bringing my full self and my commitments and my convictions to try to think how, what do we think it looks best like to have a community together?

That’s what everybody does, right? It doesn’t matter if you’re a secularist, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Christian, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Muslim, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Buddhist, you know, you’re, you’re trying to bring your full self to the community and say, I think this is good. So let’s, let’s try to do that.

For me, I think this is really important. You know, nationalism, as I see it, is a move to attach a sort of messianic role to a nation state. And it leads to a sort of exceptionalism for that nation, that it thereby isn’t subject to The normal rules we expect everybody else to be subject to because it has a sort of presumed messianic role in saving the world. And when you think about nationalism in those terms, then we quickly see that this is not, the evangelicals did not invent this.

This goes all the way back to when some of the first folks come from Europe to these shores and they start using this kind of language and these sorts of presuppositions. Or you can go back and look at, you know, Woodrow Wilson in World War I, it is amazing at the sort of nationalistic language that he uses.

He’s a good liberal Protestant, right? And, you know, he will say things like, um, there’s this outlandish speech that he went around apparently and did a speaking tour after he was president and after the end of World War I, where he has this line where he says, you know, he’s recounting all of the glories of all that America has done in the world through the war.

And then he says, And I’ve come to see the day where all people at last see America as the savior of the world. And it’s just like, good Lord, what? What? Right? And of course, he got America into that war through explicitly kind of prophetic memes, right, but by calling it the war to end all wars, which we know, you know, this is a prophetic vision.

Beat our swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks. And he’s saying, well, that’s what we’re going to do. And we’re going to do it through America getting into this war. And he does it by war rather than the ways that his Christian faith seems to point to. And so we can see this in all sorts of places.

You know, Abraham Lincoln, America’s the last great hope of the earth. Thomas Jefferson said similar sorts of things. There’s this passage in the book from Madeleine Albright, and um, I can’t remember the exact quote, but she says at some point something like, If we ask why America has to use force, she was talking about some given moment at which they were considering using military force.

If we ask why America should use force, she said, it’s because America stands tall and America sees farther into the future than every other country sees. And it’s this sort of, you know, idolatrous conceit that we are special and we have been called to make things turn out right. And in my mind, that’s what nationalism is.

And so when you have this sort of Christian movement where they’re like, we have to save America. And if we have to set aside democratic process because we have to uphold these sets of values, I mean, that’s a kind of classic example of a kind of frightening kind of nationalism, cuz it’s like our nation state and our people have to win and we’re going to do whatever we have to do to win. And we’re going to make sure that that happens. 

Jared: I appreciate that. I think that’s a really good distinction for people. And it’s so slippery that it’s almost hard to catch that nuance. 

Lee: Yes, it is. 

Jared: Because the language, you know, the language I grew up, really it is interchangeable of these biblical metaphors and analogies slipping in between America and God and Christian faith, they’re pretty interchangeable.

Pete: Yeah, and as you said, Lee, this, this cuts across normal political ideologies. If you quote Woodrow Wilson, for example, you know, so it’s not just Donald Trump. No. It’s a resurgence, perhaps, but it’s not just…

Jared: I would actually argue in some ways, the more, defined this way, I almost wonder if more liberal or left leaning presidents, especially in recent years, would have used this rhetoric more to try to prove their Christian-ness. That’s kind of my first thought. We’ll never know. I would see that in terms of the left leaning presidents being more apt to try to say, you know, they would all be explicitly Christian. And so it’s almost like utilizing that language would help them bolster that some of that base of, see, I’m like you too. I also think that America is special and blessed by God, right? I could just see the rhetoric of left leaning presidents are often like, well, God bless the USA. I want to make sure, you know, I’m tracking with you. 

Pete: God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. Who hasn’t said that, right? 

Lee: Yeah. I don’t know that it happens in the last 40 years more on the left, but it certainly happens a great deal on the left as it happens on the right. And I think, that’s one of the things I hope that people see coming reading this book is going to start having lenses to see the rhetoric and see the way it has certain presuppositions about the nation state, which relates to your question about, you know, this Christian America idea, the one of the things I’m trying to argue is that that whole construct is nonsensical, that the notion of there being a Christian nation is nonsensical and that America never was, is not, and never can be a Christian nation because that’s an impossible thing. I don’t mean by that that the Christian tradition has not influenced American culture or Western culture. You know, the, the historian Tom Holland has got this book Dominion, you know, that’s gotten a lot of conversation and he’s, he’s a atheist as far as I know, but he’s got, he’s kind of making the argument.

If you look at the Christian vision, it’s brought both goods and bads and a lot of goods to Western civilization. Uh, like the equality of all human beings. And so I, you know, I, I find that a compelling kind of argument. I think that kind of stuff is true. But the notion of a nation being Christian seems highly problematic to me.

It seems problematic from a historical perspective. I’m not an American historian, but from the little bit I’ve dipped my toe in that, it seems very problematic from a historical perspective. And I think it’s problematic from a theological perspective in the sense that if what we are called to be as Christians are a people that are called, say, you know, to get most pointedly at it, to love our enemies and to seek the good of our enemies. Well, that’s not what nations do. And we don’t expect nations to do that. That’s not what nations do. But if at the center of the story is seeking the good of the enemy and even dying for the good of the enemy, which, you know, I’m saying that glibly, but I understand that’s not a glib statement. But if that’s what the calling is, that’s not what nations do. Nations don’t, you know, forgive the way the story calls us to forgive. And so from a theological perspective, it’s highly problematic to talk about a Christian nation.

And then last, I think, It’s just a really bad move strategically, right? When you, when you try to do that kind of Christian nation stuff, you’re just alienating people across the board, except your little group. And, you know, if the call is a call to be kind of a minister of reconciliation, it’s a terrible way to try to be a minister of reconciliation, to go about things in this way. So for all sorts of reasons, I think it’s a really bad idea to stake anything on that kind of notion of a Christian nation.

Jared: Yeah, it makes me think of the concept of the last handful of years of America First, just thinking of the words of Jesus. And it’s trying to think of the nation as a, if you kind of give it some personhood and sort of run it through that filter of Jesus and Jesus’s words. And there’s definitely some things that become problematic.

Pete: I think Lee, people would say, I mean, I agree with you, but we can sort of see how others might respond to that because yeah, it’s forgiveness, for example, but it’s also says, don’t be gay in the Bible, right? I mean, that’s, that’s how people read it. Or all sorts of other things that people pick on to say well, these are the values we want to live by. They’re in the Bible. They’re explicit. Most of them are in the Old Testament, right? And it’s that, that adds a layer of complexity because that’s a theocracy. And it’s hard to know how that even translates into a democratic system. But the point is that there’s still verses there.

There are stories there that will animate people, supposedly abortion’s in there too. It’s not, but that’s that people look to verses. So why not uphold those values? And I’m asking that question to someone who doesn’t want to uphold those values, not in the sense that people mean, but why not uphold those rather than the ones that you’re talking about?

Lee: Yeah, I have a chapter, I forget what the chapter is entitled, but I’m basically arguing that the whole language of biblical values is highly problematic and very unhelpful. Because I use the example of the slave Bible. I’m sure you’re all familiar with this Bible, right? But it goes back to the 19th century missionary society that wanted to get the Bible in the hands of slaves in the American context. And the slave owners basically said, no, you can’t, because it’s got stuff in there that we don’t want slaves reading. And so they basically offered a redacted Bible to give to the slaves. So when you go and you look at the slave Bible, and you can see it in a museum in Washington, and they’ve got, they’ve got an example of it here at Fisk University in Nashville.

When you go and look at it, it’s just remarkable when you read it through that lens of the power play that’s going on. You don’t have the story of the deliverance from slavery in Egypt. It’s not in the Slave Bible. Anything that gives personhood or agency to anybody on the bottom or the slaves is just not in there, right?

But it has various values in there, and I think that’s, that’s a way to think about what biblical values language does, is it redacts the story, and it pulls out one or two little things, then goes forward and says, Well, this is a, this is a biblical value that then we want to try to impose upon everybody else. And what I’m trying to argue is that it’s the overarching story that we first have to deal with, you know, we still have all sorts of ethical questions that we’re going to have to deal with, but that’s not the place to start.

The place to start is the overarching question of what’s the whole story about? Where do we think the whole story is headed? And then how do we try to bear witness to that? And that’s going to quickly minimize or at least lower the prioritization of the way in which partisan politics has pushed us to prioritize certain so-called biblical values.

Pete: And to be a little cynical here, I agree with you. I think this is fantastic. But people get too much mileage, certain, certain powerful people can get too much mileage out of picking at things in the Bible that they know will resonate with a base that has basically been taught to read the Bible that way for hundreds of years in our country for, for, since the circuit riders went out West, here’s your, we don’t have a Pope. Here’s your Bible. Just do what it says. That’s the mentality. And I think, I love what you’re saying, the way forward is maybe hope. It’s maybe, it is to show, look, look at this big story of what all this is about.

It’s not about Bible verses, but we’re really in the world of theology. That’s really what we are. I mean, we wouldn’t use the term necessarily, but it’s, it’s a bigger thing than just verses or hermeneutics or exegesis. It’s take a step back. What’s this whole story about? And to try to, um, well, look, you’re saying bear witness to that, right?

Lee: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that’s, I think that’s very well said. That’s quite right. And certainly you started that by saying you’re showing a little bit of cynicism, but actually I would say that it might actually help some Christians to have a little more cynicism. In the sense that it might lead them to ask why is this politician using that language and let all people beware the way in which people of power want to make a sucker out of you. And if they can do that by quoting the Bible, then a lot of them do that, right? And so I think, I think another dose of cynicism in that regard might go a long way. 

Jared: Well, as we kind of take everything we’ve talked about so far, and I want to try to funnel into some just practical things as people are headed to the polls or entering into a pretty intense time of the political process.

What do we do with this? So how do we navigate this world in a way that doesn’t just, is religious, where we just throw up our hands and say, ah, okay, this is too complicated. I don’t, I kind of understand what you say, but I don’t know enough. And so I’m just going to kind of drop out. How do we avoid that?

And so what are ways that people can engage in a way that you feel is more faithful to that trajectory and tradition? 

Lee: I, I think the first place I would say is take seriously the calling that we have to attend to theology. That sounds highly impractical at one level, but I actually think it’s profoundly practical to try to find ways with people that we can have open, honest conversations with about, about the big narrative and how, how we figure out how we bear witness to that.

You know, and you know, a second way might be to be mindful of people who challenge our presuppositions. In ways that seem to be pointing towards an alternative, right? So, you know, just yesterday when we’re recording this, James Lawson died. And he was one of the great architects of nonviolence in the civil rights movement, Methodist minister.

I got to do a, spend an afternoon with him two years ago. He was 93 at the time and, you know, and he, he really was one of the greats. You know, he trained the students in Nashville for the sit in movement. He was there strategizing in Memphis when Dr. King was assassinated. He was sent to Alabama. He was just kind of the lieutenant for trying to think through nonviolence.

And even before we got on tape when I was doing an interview with him, he said, I want to make something clear here. He said, I am a Christian pastor. I am not a civil rights leader. But he’s one of the greatest civil rights leaders of history, right? But what he wanted on the record was that he was a pastor.

And he came back to that point at the end of our time together and he said, Again, I want to make this clear. Martin King and I did what we did because we were Christian pastors. And we did what any pastor ought to do for their people when they are being oppressed the way our people were being oppressed.

And so you can kind of look at this kind of profound creative engagement with the given context, explicitly being committed to what this big story is about and trying to find ways to bear witness to that. So, you know, I think reading and learning more stories about some people like James Lawson or Clarence Jordan, you know, just all sorts of examples of people we could find.

Dorothy Day, Peter Morin, people who had this sort of alternative way of thinking about how they bring their faith to bear on the community. And two other things I’ll quickly say. One was that we might just simply ask ourselves the question, what might it look like to try to be a more winsome person of faith in the public square than what we’re seeing all around us?

A couple years ago, I interviewed former governor of the state of Tennessee, Bill Haslam, and he’s a devoted Christian, and he was kind of a middle of the road Republican. And when I asked him how he thought about his faith informing his public service, The first thing he said was that his mentor, Howard Baker, who was a senator from the state of Tennessee, that Baker used to say to him, Always remember the other fellow might be right.

And then Bill Haslam said, As a Christian, this ought to be fundamental to me. Because I know that I’m a sinner and I can get all sorts of things wrong. And so the way I want my faith to be brought to bear in the public square, Is this posture that I may be wrong and I need to listen to everybody and I need to try to engage people knowing I may be wrong, which I think is a beautiful sort of alternative way, right?

Because you’re asking, what’s it look like for me to be a winsome participant in seeking the good? And the last thing I’ll say is that I was having a conversation with David French last week. I asked him this kind of practical question that you just asked me and one that David said that I thought.

It was really helpful, was he said, take some ownership for the institutions, the local institutions of which you are a part, and when you see stuff going on, speak up about it, and say something about it, and be engaged with it, and don’t let our institutions just fall apart at the hands of people that are corrupting them or undercutting them, you know, speak up, own them and be a participant and care about what’s going on in those institutions, which I find that keeps resonating with me and it’s making me think, how do I need to speak up in ways that I have not been speaking up yet in the local settings I’m a part of. 

Pete: That’s great. Well Lee, listen, thank you so much for spending some time with us. This was very enjoyable and very, very insightful. 

Lee: Well, thank you. I really appreciate y’all having me on and the great conversation. I appreciate it.

Jared: And now for quiet time…

Pete: with Pete and Jared. 

Jared: Okay. Lee says, especially at the level of federal elections, when we vote, we’re putting a tiny bit of our endorsement toward imperialist pursuits, and that ought to always trouble us. That that I think that stuck with both of us. So how do you grapple personally with your political engagement knowing that you’re forced to use a voice within Maybe a whole system that you don’t particularly love?

Pete: Yeah, I mean I to me It’s like this is the mark of the beast, you know Like you’re in a system and you can’t get out of it and I and I agree with this insight that Lee had. And I do struggle with it because, you know, I have my own very clearly worked out opinions about, you know, the upcoming election and who I think we should vote for and who we think we definitely should not vote for.

So it’s sort of like within the system, I think maybe this is the best we can do, but we’re still supporting, you know, a country that’s had as expansionistic kinds of ideas in its history. Right. And it does not have a great record in race relations in our country and still doesn’t, in my opinion. So. And many other things. So I, to me, it is a struggle and I don’t think of, I’m sure you agree with this Jared, I don’t think of America as that shining light on a hill to save the whole world. I think we have our own problems and I, I try to look at my voting within that larger context. It’s, it’s the lesser of two evils in a sense.

Jared: I think of that as well. It’s a little bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Where you, well you are a citizen and you do have the opportunity to vote. So if you don’t take that opportunity, that is a choice. So you, you, there isn’t really a place to opt out. We do with it what we can.

Pete: The system continues.

Jared: The system. Yeah. System do with the system continues. What are you gonna do with, you’re in the system. We don’t, we don’t have a choice to opt out of the system. Right? Unless we take extreme measures to not live in America. And so what are we gonna do with that? And, and so I do think there is a sense of over the last eight years, I’ve been listening to various podcasts and sources, um, and scholars talk about the loss of, of this ability to, to compromise.

And I do think there’s something to that where we, we’ve gotten such, uh, to a point of, of ideological purity where we can’t even be seen having nuanced conversations about things because it seems like a tacit approval of the quote, other side. And that polarization, I think, isn’t actually that helpful. I do believe in some level of, you got to get your hands dirty sometimes to make the big difference of the long term gain.

So that’s kind of my thought of it is, yeah, I’m willing to engage in a system that I don’t particularly agree with, I’m not the kind of person who’s just going to opt out. I’d rather get my hands dirty and maybe I have to compromise some, but I’m always going to keep the larger goal in mind. 

Pete: Right. And compromise is something that used to be a big part of it.

Jared: Used to be, it used to not be a bad word. I feel like it is a bad word now. 

Pete: You know what? One other thing, last thing too, about. You know, Lee used the term, the imperial system that is being supported here. Very relevant to me, a thought just came to mind, uh, that I either read or heard from Tom Wright. N. T. Wright said this, he said, Every system of government actually thinks that, well, this is the thing to strive for. We’ve arrived there, you know, there’s nothing else to be done. People just need to be more like us, whether it’s communism or capitalism or whatever. And, uh, he refers to those as false eschatologies.

And I think to me that, that, that syncs very nicely with this idea that we are dealing with an imperial system. And we, to get caught up, this is where the polarization starts to get caught up in thinking that, well this is it, we just have to align the system properly and have the right person in office and then we’re off and running, we’ll be the savior of the world.

And I think that’s historically naive. Alright, well this, you know, a related question, I think, concerns the use of the Bible, and simply put Jared, When is it okay to use the Bible politically and when not? You know, is it, does it belong to one side or the other, or are they both wrong, or how does this work?

Jared: Yeah, and we’re in the midst of this right now, so it’s, it’s very loud, I think, in our ears of Every political stance is trying to use the Bible to justify their political stances. And so I think it’s a really good question that we all need to reflect on. And I think it comes down to one of the things we talk about in our podcast all the time, which is what, what is the Bible and what do we do with it?

Right. Because I think there’s an assumption that I would be I would be an equal opportunity offender on the left and the right when it comes to trying to say the Bible is addressing these current issues, and it is the authoritative source of these current issues we’re facing. That feels very anachronistic.

Whether we are talking about policies on the left or policies on the right. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not, I’m not a both both sides here in terms of the, what I think are the right and wrong policies. I’m saying I’m a both sides when it comes to the faulty assumption that the Bible speaks directly to these contemporary issues in an authoritative way.

And that’s what I would question. I don’t think that’s the case. I think we need to be more creative to utilizing the Bible and our faith, and it comes to the political space. I don’t think the way to do that is to Point to a particular verse and say Paul’s clearly talking about and then insert a contemporary issue that clearly Could not have been in the context and mind of Paul at the time.

Pete: right.

Jared: What do you think about that? 

Pete: Well, I mean, I think a lot of things and I think there’s so much nuance in a question like this personally. You know, you can, let me put it this way, the Bible has been used since it was written by people for situations that the Bible doesn’t speak about. And I don’t think the Bible supports Christian nationalism. I also don’t think it supports recycling, you know, and no verses like, you know, tending the fields or, you know, letting the fields lie fallow, all that kind of stuff has nothing to do with that. It’s the need to, need or the strategy to appeal to the sacred text, which is in the consciousness, is baked into the DNA of America.

So I would make a distinction between when is it okay to use the Bible and not okay to use the Bible. I think, again, this is a little simplistic, but if you’re attempting to use the Bible to manipulate people, for personal power. That’s where I sort of pull back. But if you’re trying to use the Bible for something that is good, which could include recycling, you know, I, I have, I don’t like, come on guys, you really have to baptize it that way.

Just, just don’t throw plastic into the ocean. This is not hard, you know? But the thing is if, if, because people are still attracted to the sacred text and to tie our contemporary concern somehow to the text, that is essentially the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation. We do that, the question a lot is motivation and goal as far as I’m concerned.

So I’m not so much concerned, but you’re taking that text out of context. I’m actually more the ethic of the interpretation. What are you doing and why are you doing it? 

Jared: I think that’s really good. And I would just add and say, I think for me, it’s a both and, and it probably for you too. I think it’s a both and that maybe the biblical scholarship side of me winces at the taking things out of context.

And the reason for that is I don’t think those are unrelated. I do think sometimes it’s a misuse of authority. Right. For people to say, this is what Paul actually meant. I, I feel like that’s a little bit manipulative because it’s, it’s just not true. So yeah, I can wince at it a little bit, but I think it also invites some hypocrisy where I’m going to come down way harder on the right or people I don’t agree with, meaning theologically right people I don’t agree with.

I’m just going to come down harder when they use the Bible that way than I would on the left. But my point is, I think that’s a misuse. Whenever we don’t, what you’re saying I hear is. Let’s be thoughtful about how we make the Bible contemporary. And I agree with that. And we have to, we have to sift through how we use the Bible.

We have to bring an ethical framework to the Bible to filter how we use it. 

Pete: Right. Yeah. It comes from the outside. 

Jared: It doesn’t come from the Bible itself. Right. It comes from outside the Bible. And that’s what I hear you saying. 

Pete: You hear that folks? It comes from outside of the Bible.

Jared: The difference between weaponizing the Bible or using it for good is this external, uh, Moral motivation that we bring to it.

Yeah, so I think it’s both and you’re a little softer on it than me I think you’re like, I’ll let it slide. I’m like, I’m a nice guy. I don’t want to let it slide because 

Pete: I just want Jared I just want peace. I want love. 

Jared: That’s exactly what 

Pete: you want to cross fights 

Jared: that anybody who that’s And he runs across you.

That’s what they always say about Pete. He just wants peace. He’s a man of peace. 

Pete: I just don’t want to be an ass. That’s what it comes down to. I’m trying. How am I doing there? 

Jared: Yeah. Yeah. No, you’re doing pretty well. Better. I’m working on it. At least you’re not doing it on purpose. Yeah.  No. So, I just want to back up because I do think we’re making two good points here around when can we, when is it appropriate to use the Bible?

And I hear us both saying it’s okay to make it contemporary. And if you’re going to do that, 

Pete: it’s inevitable that you’ll make it contemporary. It will happen. 

Jared: Yeah. We, we will, we will make it contemporary. The two questions, I’m trying to get at the root of this. The two questions maybe to ask in that pursuit is.

Are we self aware of what we’re doing to the text that it’s not coming from the text? I think that’s a big part of it so that we don’t manipulate other people or misuse authority to say, this don’t, this is not me making this interpretation. It’s the Bible. 

Bob was telling us this. Right. 

So I feel like without that first point, that’s why I’m not so quick to rush over it is because I think in that first point, that’s how people in authority misuse and abuse that authority is they will make a proclamation about what the Bible says and then they will say you can’t argue with me I’m just saying what God said in the Bible. Mm hmm. So I think that’s why that’s important. 

Pete: They would just beat them up for saying that. 

Jared: Yes, exactly. And then you use physical violence It’s, we were just saying Pete’s a  man, a piece, but then the second question becomes, what’s the motivation?

What do I hope to get from this? And you’re saying if it is personal gain, protection of self over service to others, protection of authority or power or money, then whatever you’re going to say next is a misuse of the Bible. Yeah. Is that fair? Yeah. 

Pete: And they both work together. You have to have both things in mind. Right. Got it. 

Jared: All right. We solved that problem. Thanks guys. 

Jared: Well, thanks to everyone who supports the show. If you want to support what we do, there are three ways you can do it. One, if you just want to give a little money, go to thebiblefornormalpeople.com/give. 

Pete: And if you want to support us and want a community, classes, and other great resources, go to thebiblefornormalpeople.com/join. 

Jared: And lastly, it always goes a long way if you just wanted to rate the podcast, leave a review, and tell others about our show. In addition, you can let us know what you thought about the episode by emailing us at info@thebiblefornormalpeople.com. 

Outro: You’ve just made it through another episode of Faith for Normal People! Don’t forget you can catch our other show, The Bible for Normal People, in the same feed wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was brought to you by the Bible for Normal People team: Brittany Hodge, Stephen Henning, Wesley Duckworth, Savannah Locke, Tessa Stultz, Danny Wong, Natalie Weyand, Lauren O’Connell, Jessica Shao, and Naiomi Gonzalez.