Episode 114: Pete and Jared - How to Read the Bible in 2020

In this episode of The Bible for Normal People Podcast, Pete and Jared talk about how to read the Bible in 2020 as they explore the following questions:

• Should the Bible be brought into politics?
• How have people used biblical characters to justify immoral behavior of modern politicians?
• Should our reading of the Bible influence what we think our government should do?
• Can we have ethics outside of the Bible?
• Does the Bible answer the questions we want it to?
• What role does fear play in our understanding of the Bible?
• Are Christians actually in the minority in America?
• How does spirituality sometimes covertly influence our political beliefs?
• Why is it important to us for Christians to be in political power?
• What’s the danger in merging God’s kingdom with earthly kingdoms?
• What role does financial security play in politics?
• Why read the Bible if our ethics shouldn’t come from it?
• What can we learn from how the Bible was used in the past?

Tweetables

Pithy, shareable, less-than-280-character statements from Pete and Jared you can share. 

• “I don’t think the government should act because the Bible says something. That’s this… merging together of state and religion.” @peteenns
• “We can come to these very different conclusions with the same book.” @jbyas
• “If the Bible is…the clear standard by which we live our lives, the Bible is really diverse and messy and sometimes problematic.” @peteenns
• “It’s almost like, the Bible is set up not to be used the way…we keep seeing it being used.” @peteenns
• “Sometimes, we’re so eager to get to the content, ‘What should I do?’ that we miss the frame of the Bible resists telling us what to do, and it encourages this wisdom of how do we do it. @jbyas
• “We live in a country where our economy and our politics are inextricably tied.” @jbyas
• “Is the gospel something that supports other things that you like about American life?” @peteenns

Mentioned in This Episode

• Podcast: Episode 108 with Pete Wehner
• Patreon: The Bible for Normal People

[bg_collapse view="link-inline" expand_text="Read the transcript" collapse_text="Hide the transcript" ]

[Introduction]
Pete:00:01	You’re listening to The Bible for Normal People. The onlyGod- ordained podcast on the internet. I’m Pete Enns.
Jared:	And I’m Jared Byas.
[Jaunty Intro Music]
[Beginning of recorded material]
Pete:00:08	Hey everybody, welcome to this episode of TheBible for Normal People. This is, Jared, our first joint episode of 2020.
Jared:	Yeah, and I’m excited about all the things wecan pontificate about today here. But, our topic for tonight -
Pete:	Yeah...what is our topic for today, tonight,forever...
Jared:	This morning, wherever you are...
Pete:	The entire year...
Jared:	Yeah, that’s right, is how to read the Bible in2020. And we -
Pete:	Why, Jared? What’s so special about 2020?
Jared:	Well, it’s just ripe for a lot of vision puns.
Pete:	[Laughter]
Jared:	So, we have the insight of 2020 and who knowswhat we’re going to hear this year? But, I mean, we have the election. Andit’s also just a time to reflect on, what are we doing? What do we do withthe Bible? How does it fit into our, our lives?
Pete:	Yeah -
Jared:	And I think that’s a good conversation -
Pete:	And what does it mean to engage it responsibly,right? And, um, respecting the text.
Jared:	Yeah, respectfully and responsibly.
Pete:	And how...which is not an easy question toanswer, and it’s easier, it’s real easy to find examples that are probablynot very helpful for doing that sort of thing.
Jared:	Yeah.
Pete:	And that’s across the spectrum, people all overthe place, in our opinion, are just... you know, sometimes the Bible getsdragged into all sorts of stuff, it just, it can’t possibly be dragged into.
Jared:	Right. Well, it can, and it has been.
Pete:	It can and it has been, yeah.
Jared:	So, I mean, let’s talk, let’s spend some timetalking about the election and how, like, politics and the Bible and how weuse it. You know, we had Pete Wehner on last season -
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	And that started wheels turning about how do weutilize the Bible and maybe, what are some examples of, that you’ve seen, ofhow people are using it currently? And we can talk about whether those aregood or bad or what’s problematic or what's helpful about that. But what aresome ways, maybe right or left, conservative or liberal, for how people,you’ve seen kind of in the public space or online use the Bible?
Pete:	Yeah, I mean, we’re trying to be descriptive here,right?
Jared:	Right. Yeah, it’s just how, what we’ve seen.
Pete:	So, this is what we’re seeing, right? And Ithink hopefully, you know, objective too, but... you know, the thing, thishas been going on for a few years now where Donald Trump has been compared toCyrus, who was an ancient Persian king, and not to bore you guys with toomany details here, but I think you have to sort of know the context.
Jared:	Yeah, let’s get some context.
Pete:	Let’s get some context. Cyrus was a Persianking and it was his order to allow the captives in Babylon to return backhome - and this is in the sixth century. The Babylonians destroyed the templein Jerusalem and took the people captive and razed the city to the ground.And, these people from Jerusalem and the land of Judah, they were exiled to Babylon,but then the Persians took over the world in 539 and the Persians had a differentpolitical philosophy than the Babylonians did. They allowed the people to goback home and to rebuild things, just, you know, remember who’s the boss. Andthis is sort of compared to Donald Trump because, you know, one of theaccusations that people have made about him, which is largely true, but theaccusations, and people... strong supporters of Donald Trump will admit thistoo, is that, you know, he’s got some very documented moral failings andhe’s, you know, a kind of person that you would expect evangelicalChristians, for example, not to want to support, and people find it somewhatcurious that he has such a strong evangelical base. And one line of argumentis sort of like, bring those two ideas together, you know, I mean, the ideaof Donald Trump is doing things as President that many evangelicals like, buthe’s not the kind of person that evangelicals would normally support. How doyou bring those two things together? Well, one of the arguments that poppedup a few years ago was comparing Donald Trump to Cyrus. And Cyrus was a paganking that God used. You know, he’s this, he’s chosen by God to deliver theIsraelites from captivity. You see this in Isaiah and a few other passages inthe Bible - Jeremiah also. And, you know, he’s been jumped on as sort of like,this is, this is our model. This is what Donald Trump is. Yeah, we wouldn’twant him to be our pastor, you know, we wouldn’t expect that from him, butwe’re not electing a pastor, we’re electing, you know, someone to help us inour trouble. And so just like Cyrus was a pagan king, and then Donald Trumpis also sort of our pagan President who God will use to further God’s ownends. And, there are just a lot of, I think, very glaring problems withmaking that kind of an analogy.
Jared:	Right, well I just wanted to give just a littlecurrent context for that. So, you know, Mike Evans, who’s an evangelical leader,really kind of started this trend because he was on CBN, which is theChristian Broadcasting Network -
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:05:02	In 2017 and used this idea that Cyrus was aninstrument of God for deliverance, and so we hope that this, the language ofimperfect vessel.
Pete:	Right, yeah.
Jared:	So, this, just distancing, of, yeah, he was apagan, Cyrus was a pagan, but God used him to bring about God’s purposes andwill. And so, there was this, once, not to, I think, for me, again, like yousaid, it’s not really a left or right for me, but once it became clear thatDonald Trump’s not that moral of a person, there became this idea, well, butGod can still use him.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	And so, at first, I felt like the argument wasmore like, “let’s try to make Donald Trump to be an evangelical leader andsomeone who has come to faith in Christ and let's give him a chance”, and thenas things kind of progressed it was like, “well, that argument’s not gonnahold water, so how then do we think about him in relation to the Bible?” Andso, the Cyrus thing was really helpful and allowed for that kind of rhetoric.
Pete:	Yeah, and it, you know, got some steam too, so-
Jared:	Right.
Pete:	And, I mean, it is an example, and I want to becareful here because on one level, a lot of people do this, and it’s sort ofhard to avoid, but it’s like, you’ve got an idea that you’re wedded to, andthen you drag the Bible into it to justify it, and at some point there has tobe some introspection because it’s not, you know, this isn’t generated fromreading Isaiah chapter 45, this is generated form a particular politicalideology that’s married to a religious faith where we just know God is infavor of this person, and by golly, if you give us a minute, we’ll find atext to do that with. And, but, to do that, I mean, you have to really, youhave to do something very unevangelical with the Bible, which is rip itcompletely out of its original context. Cyrus was a foreign king. He wasn’t,for the analogy to fit, Cyrus would’ve had to have been an Israelite.
Jared:	Yup.
Pete:	But, here’s the thing, the Israelite kings areroutinely condemned in the Bible for their moral failings. From David ondown, right, they are condemned for their moral failings. And something badusually happens to them.
Jared:	Because of those moral failings.
Pete:	Because of those moral failings. Now, David didstay king, but his life was a mess.
Jared:	Mmm hmm.
Pete:	He was running, you know, and he wasn’t, hewasn’t the great leader, he died somewhat impotent in his own bed and Solomontook over and he was a disaster too eventually.
Jared:	Mmm hmm.
Pete:	But, all of, you know, the kings of the northand the south, the monarchy split around 927 BC, but, those kings, you know, oneafter another, with a couple of exceptions, roughly forty kings. A couple ofthem had their acts together pretty well, but the rest of them, they’re,they’re judged harshly. I mean, that’s, if you wanted an analogy, this is someonewho’s within our country, and to use a foreign pagan king as an analogy tothis, it just doesn’t make any sense.
Jared:	It breaks down.
Pete:	It breaks down pretty quickly and it’s rightthere staring you in the face, I think.
Jared:	Well, one of the things we want to make sure,like, bring some comments to, is this isn’t a, this isn’t an, it really is aproblem when we bring our own ideology to the Bible regardless of thepolitical stance we’re taking.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	This is not an anti-right or anti-Trump, Imean, it is in one sense, but it’s gonna, we want to be equal opportunityoffenders here.
Pete:	Well, we’re talking about the Bible.
Jared:	Right.
Pete:	That’s really our focus here. What we’re seeing,the rhetoric -
Jared:	And how it’s coopted by ideologies from everyside, and every angle.
Pete:	Right, right.
Jared:	And so, is there an example you might have ofwhere that might be coopted by the left too, where we bring an agenda, wefind it in the text, and then let's talk about is that ok, but let's talkabout the mechanics of what's happening when we do that.
Pete:	Right, right. Well, I think an example, let'ssay, on the left, is demanding that America take in refugees because theBible says so or because Jesus was a refugee, which he wasn’t. But, you know,it’s using the Bible in that way for particular political ideology. Now, Ihappen to agree that it’s a good, moral, and right, and just thing to helppeople who are in desperate need of help and are fleeing totalitarian regimesand are looking for help. And America has sort of been known for that sort ofthing. I think it’s a good, wise, and compassionate thing to do.
Jared:	But you wouldn’t anchor that conviction in thisis what the Bible commands or tells us to do.
Pete:09:30	Well, and by the “us” meaning, an Americanpolitical system? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think the government shouldact because the Bible says something. That’s, you know, that’s this mergingtogether of state and religion. Which is, you know, just, it’s not just theseparation of church and state, you know, which by the way is not happeningnow because there’s, you know, this strong influence of evangelicalism. But,it’s a good idea because when political power and religious faith, when theymerge, the end result typically is not very good. And, that’s a story as oldas the Old Testament itself when the monarchy was essentially a hot messdisaster. And, you know, the Israelites came back from the exile wanting torebuild things, and they got back in the land, they built the walls aroundJerusalem, they rebuilt the temple. They didn’t have a king on the throne forhundreds of years, and when they did, this is in the second century beforeChrist. For about a hundred years, is a very uneasy political mess of theseJewish rulers and then the Romans came and took care of business. You know,that monarchy has never been revisited. It’s, and it doesn’t work, you know?Because it’s too easy to corrupt politics with a particular religiousideology, and the Bible just has a whole, you know, it’s just not in favor.Stuff in the New Testament, right? Paul, you know, and Jesus as Lord andCeasar is not.
Jared:	Right, and even, favor or not in favor, I thinkit also, we take our eyes off the ball on what, what is the Bible, what’s ittrying to do?
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	And, when we make it, just like we say theBible is not a science textbook and it’s not a history textbook, it’s not apolitical manifesto.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	It touches on politics, it’s definitely integrated,we can’t say there’s nothing it has to do with politics, because it is tiedto a monarchy and these other stories that happened. But, to say that that iswhere we derive our political framework from, or our ethical framework, it’strying again to make the Bible something that it just isn’t up to the task ofdoing.
Pete:	It’s not designed, so to speak, to be apolitical handbook or - and again, this is left, center, right, it doesn’tmatter. And, you know, I, believe me, I cringe as much when I read Twitterand other places where I see Jesus being coopted to support political agendasthat I happen to agree with. I just don’t think that’s, that may motivate myactions and why I do what I do, but to bring the Bible into that is, reallyin essence what we’re doing, it’s not just bringing the Bible into it, you’rebringing God into it. And you're saying, “God is on our side.” And, I thinkall sorts of political ideologies have a habit of doing that, and, you know,I’d like to see the rhetoric just leave that kind of stuff to the side, butit’s powerful and it’s worked for a very, very, it’s the recorded history ofhumanity on some level, the wars and the problems are a mixture of faith orreligious practice and political ambitions. And, I think the Bible, themessage of the Bible as a whole, yeah, you can find verses if you want to,but it’s not verses. The Bible as a whole has some very strong things to sayabout, you should never ever do that. You should never confuse these twokingdoms and say they can sort of work together toward a common politicalgoal, because that’s actually bringing God down into our agendas.
Jared:	And it makes it really challenging, eventhinking of the prophetic texts of …whenever we don’t have an outside source thatcan critique the dominant system, that’s always a challenge. So, when youmarry religion and politics, in a way, you’re denying that release valve.You’re denying that prophetic or critiquing mechanism that needs to be atplay regardless of the system that we’re in.
Pete:13:42	And you have, you know, like you mentionedJared, the prophets of the Old Testament. Some of them are sort of insidersto the court. Like Isaiah is an example, Jeremiah is an example. Some areoutliers, like Amos for example. But, insiders or outsiders, their job was tohold the monarchy accountable to something higher than themselves, which inthe case of the Old Testament was really the law of Moses, and specificallythe worship of God. That’s really, you know, is God first or not? Is God partof your agenda, or are you driven by being faithful to God and that sort ofthing. And, you lose that, like you said, you lose that prophetic voice whichI think is, you know, we’re speaking as Christians here, is the Christian call.Our job is to call into account corruption when we see it, even if we likethe politics of it. And, to me, that’s maybe the most disconcerting thing.Especially on the right, because that’s getting the most press, but also onthe left.
Jared:	Mmm hmm. So, let’s, I mean, I wanna, I want tocome back out, maybe, and ask - so what does this mean? Because I, for me, Ikeep coming back to, maybe it’s my background, what does this have to do withethics and how we determine right from wrong because I think a lot of peoplethat still becomes, like, the standard or the source -
Pete:	The Bible?
Jared:	The Bible becomes the standard or source bywhich we go, you know, is this right or wrong? Well, what does the Bible haveto say about it? And I think, you know, I have a lot of friends who would bequite progressive, and that they would find their ethic, their progressiveethic, through the Bible. They would say, well, the reason I am a progressiveis because I see in the Bible this kind of ethical stance. And I have myfriends and family on the right who would say, well, the reason I have thisethical stance is because that’s what the Bible says. And so, I stand, being somewhatconfused about, ok, well wait, well which one is it?
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	Because you guys are like, clearly opposed toone another, and yet you’re saying you’re deriving your ethic from the samebook. So, is it, is it wise to even get our ethic from the Bible? Is theBible a place for that, and if not, what does our faith have to do with ourethic?
Pete:	Right. I mean, I think that’s a great questionand something that I think all Christians have to think about. I know I do. Ireally don’t have, like, the final answer to that by any stretch of theimagination, but I do think it’s difficult to say that we’re getting ourethic from the Bible. And I had this discussion with a friend of mine not toolong ago, and he said, “well, what about, you know, do not murder?” I said,yeah, I don’t think we should murder. I’m pretty sure I would think that evenif it weren’t in the Bible. And it’s also in other ancient texts. I mean,everyone sort of, you’re not supposed to kill people. And why do people thinkthat? Well, all sorts of reasons why human beings would have come to thepoint where, you know, for the social good, for example, or for fear ofretribution, you just don’t kill each other. You need each other to surviveagainst the bad guys over there.
Jared:	We’re built to be social, and so -
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	And it’s sort of this biological, maybe,component to that too.
Pete:	Yeah, exactly. Yeah, and it’s probably morecomplicated than God said this. Oh! The ten commandments, you know, youshould not kill. Really? I had no idea!!! I thought -
Jared:	[Laughter] Yeah, the idea that everyone was killing eachother before Moses came down from the mountain -
Pete:	Right!
Jared:	And they just like, stopped, spears in hand,like, oh!!! They dropped their spears and knives.
Pete:	Or adultery was okay.
Jared:	Yeah, right.
Pete:	Or, in other words, these laws aren’t like,revealed for the first time and no one’s ever heard of them. That’s not evenin like the Biblical ideology is that true. It says these laws summarizesomething of the importance of the social dynamic if you’re going to be apeople of God who are in Canaan and then trying to build the monarchy. But,it’s not like we get our ethics from that. We might support an ethical standfrom that, and sometimes it’s more legitimate than other times, right? So,you know, honor your mother and father. I mean, I want to be able to say,well listen, this is a biblical ideal that we should aspire to. The problemis, it doesn’t tell you how do to that, right?
Jared:	Mmm hmm.
Pete:	So, you still have to think in your context andit’s much more profound than simply citing a passage. But, when you do thingslike, you know, be careful to support the alien in your midst for example,you know. Which is a very Old Testament-y sort of in the land Israelite kindof thing, and just to sort of bring that into the world of immigration orrefugees today. We’re living in such a completely different politicalclimate, right? Again, I support helping refugees. I think we should do everythingwe can to help people and be kind to them.
Jared:18:45	We’re not talking about the conclusions andwhat we feel like we should do, it’s more of –
Pete:	How we get there.
Jared:	How we’re dragging the Bible into that and isthat legitimate, how does that work?
Pete:	Right, right. And people might say, I feel thatthe ethical, let’s say, overarching ethical thing in the Bible that issupposed to produce something in me will lead me to have compassion towardspeople. That’s a different kind of argument for me than saying, look at thisstory. They’re for government. How dare you!
Jared:	Mmm hmm.
Pete:	You know, not do this, because, you know, that’sactually buying into the same kind of idea of a Christian America, only, sortof, on the left. Again, folks, forgive me for talking left and right, butit’s just easy. You know what I mean. I think life is much more complicatedthan left and right, but we live in a polarized context. So, you know, theleft and the right, they sort of are giving into the same idea that somehow aversion of Christianity should determine what we as a country do. It mightdetermine what your church does or what you do, and then you be the ethicalinfluence in the world around you. That’s fine. We’re not saying there’s nomorality in the Bible. There is morality. There’s some immorality. There’ssome things the Bible says to do that we’re not gonna do.
Jared:	Well, and I think, that’s for me, thechallenge.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	Is... if it was all, if we did have an ethicalhandbook in the Bible, that would be one thing.
Pete:	Yeah.
Jared:	If it said, in the preamble, this is all thethings you should do, and here’s a list of all the rules -
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	And this is how we do it. Here’s some casestudies, we know we can’t capture everything, but here’s... but the Bibleisn’t that way. You have some pretty negative examples too.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	And some the Bible doesn’t even declare asnegative examples that you have to kind of figure out on your own, like oh!
Pete:	Yeah.
Jared:	I don’t think that we should do that. And that’swhere the rub gets in because once you have that non-unified sense thateverything in the Bible is something to imitate and emulate, now we have tobring some other standard by which we’re judging what to apply to our livesand what not.
Pete:	Right, right.
Jared:	And at that point, the source of our ethicalframework isn't the Bible -
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	It’s whatever standard we’re using toadjudicate between, yeah, I do want to apply that verse; no, I don’t want toapply that verse.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	That wisdom standard of whatever it is we’regetting from outside the Bible, that’s really our standard.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	And that’s why I think we can come to thesevery different conclusions with the same book.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	Is because we’re bringing an ethical frameworkto the Bible, and lo and behold, we find whatever we need to find there toapply it.
Pete:	The Bible, I mean, this is the hard thing thatmight be a hard thing for some of our listeners to hear, and I totallyrespect this. But, we have to discern the ethical content of the Bible morethan we might be willing to admit sometimes.
Jared:	Which is a scary thing.
Pete:	It is a scary thing and, you know, I mean, ifyou’re the kind of Christian who believe in the Holy Spirit and, you know,the continued presence of God in our lives, it’s not as scary perhaps, but ifthe Bible -
Jared:	But it does require trust.
Pete:	It requires a trust, and if the Bible is the,however, the clear standard by which we live our lives, the Bible is reallydiverse and messy and sometimes problematic, you know.
Jared:	We’re screwed if that’s the standard.
Pete:	Yeah, I’m not going to my rebellious son infront of the elders and if he doesn’t repent because he’s a drunkard, juststone him to death. Now, that’s in Deuteronomy, so some people say, well, theIsraelites didn’t even think that. That was just part of the rhetoric of thatlaw. And that’s fine, that’s a really interesting discussion, but it is inthe Bible. And you know, Jared, you said something before about, you know,the Bible is not sort of an ethical manual, which is, I mean, I completelyagree, the Bible as a whole. What makes it so tempting to use it though as anethical manual is that there is that element in there.
Jared:	Yeah, there are parts that read that way.
Pete:	Like the book of Deuteronomy is a good example.And, you know, laws, you get towards the end of the book like chapter 28-29.There are a list of curses and blessings for obedience to God, and, you know,read it sometime. You know, but it’s there, and that’s the kind of, that’s arhetorical thing that we find in the Bible that can support its use like thattoday. And I understand that, but you have to also then grapple with thediversity of the Bible for not giving those ethical standards, but lovetoward the other is absolutely foundational and God loves everyone and Godwants no one to perish and God’s not vindictive and God is not aboutretribution. Plenty of places in the Bible to go for that too. So, it’salmost like, the Bible is set up not to be used the way -
Jared:	We keep wanting to use it.
Pete:23:35	Yeah, we keep seeing it being used. And, Ijust, I don’t think this does anything helpful for how people perceive God inour culture, how people perceive the Christian faith, which in its bestexpressions is an amazing thing to behold, and we just see the real dirtysides, the polarized sides. And, you know, maybe this faith is not meant tobe polarized in that way, which is what happens when you sort of bring it intothis political discussion. And it’s sad to see, I think, it’s a little frustratingsometimes and trying to find ways to speak well into that, you know, and so,like, how do you engage the Bible then? If it’s not a rulebook, what good isit? If it’s not telling us what to do, what possible good is there in a booklike this? And my answer is, well, read it, and you’ll find that it’s gotdifferent points of view and different opinions and it’s even resistant. Itdoesn’t recognize the premise of that question, which is if it’s from God it'sgot to be telling us what to do pretty clearly.
Jared:	Right, just challenging that assumption fromthe beginning.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	Yeah. Yeah, I always think when you say that,it reminds me of, in Philippians 2, Paul talks about working out yoursalvation with fear and trembling. And I think, sometimes, we’re so eager toget to the content, what should I do, that we miss the frame of the Bibleresists telling us what to do, and it encourages this wisdom of how do we doit. Like, whatever your ethical framework, you need to approach it with fearand trembling. Meaning, with a certain amount of humility and unknowing -
Pete:	Mmm hmm, yeah.
Jared:	And that posture is just as important aswhatever you put in the container. Whatever you’re - do not kill, do not these,it’s - how do we interact with other human beings with humility, with grace.That’s just as important. And I think the Bible itself, I’m grateful in someways that it doesn’t. It’s asking us to grow up and to realize the world doesn’twork that way.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	The world, when we, I just think of the historyof our world. When we get so locked into a cause that we believe so strongly,and there’s no, and I tie my identity to that, and there’s no humility there– that is like how tyrants come about.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	And so, there’s something to the humility, Ithink, within the frame of how the Bible itself is built.
[Music begins]
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	That, that diversity for me, is a gift.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	Yeah.
[Producers group endorsement] [Music ends]
Pete:27:16	And you mentioned fear and trembling, and thatmade me think of our episode with Pete Wehner, right?  And he had a couple things to say aboutthat. And, I think it’s true that fear, actually, in the negative sense playsa big role in this because it’s worth asking - what animates thepolarization, left and right. What animates it? What are people afraid oflosing or not having? That’s where the discussion has to be, not parrotingsort of back and forth with Bible verses, assuming that it’s a book of ethicsthat tells us what to do in this situation and that it’s necessarily relevantfor making political decisions in this time and place. Those are two bigassumptions that we make, and I think the Bible sort of doesn’t support thoseassumptions, but getting to the emotional component of it, I think, iscentral. You know what? I react against things. I’ve learned in my life toask myself, you’re afraid of something right now. You’re, something is makingyou very uneasy. You’re not mad because you disagree with somebody. You’remad because -
Jared:	It’s poking at some insecurity or fear.
Pete:	Something. Insecurity or fear, maybe even, like- if you’re right, and your side wins, then my whole vision for what life isabout starts falling apart little by little, right?
Jared:	Mmm hmm.
Pete:	And, my personal safety, my economic safety -
Jared:	Yeah, finance. I think of money. I think that’sa little bit the elephant in the room, because I think a lot of what we wantour government to do is help us secure financial security.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	And I think we should just talk about that.Because the Bible does talk about money, and those are like, those domotivate in some ways, our decisions about politicians and we even live in acountry where our economy and our politics are inextricably tied.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	So, I think that’s important too.
Pete:	Yeah, and, I don’t mean to sound hinderinghere, but another issue is, you know, with refugees for example, they tend tohave skin that’s darker than a lot of Americans, right? Myself and youincluded, so -
Jared:	That fear of the other.
Pete:	That fear of the other that looks differentthan you do, and, you know, if people in Mexico were white Anglo-Saxan Protestants,would we be wanting to build a wall there? You know, we’re not building onefor Canada. Maybe we should though. I’m a little -
Jared:	Yeah, the Canadians are a little suspicious.
Pete:	They’re a problem. All this hockey, hockey,hockey.
Jared:	It’s true, I really don’t like hockey, so.
Pete:	And it’s cold, and it’s just, and they havebeavers. It’s just, ya know, you know what I mean -
Jared:	Beavers. That’s a random reference. [Laughter] Why do you gotta pick on the beavers, geez!
Pete:	[Laughter] There are a lot of beavers up in Canada, so Ihear. Dave Barry says that anyway. But, you know, its, again, white supremacyis something that is very quickly knocked down by people, like, sort of as apandering comment. You know, it is true. It took me a while to figure it out,but it’s true. And, I realize how, you know, I benefit from some of the politicalideologies that I’m sort of against viscerally, but I know I benefit fromthat. And I’m not, I’ve never been in a sort of beleaguered minority. Neitherhave evangelicals, by the way, but I’ve never been in that beleagueredminority. So I don’t feel what these people feel who are trying to findsafety, and it’s easy to ignore them when they look different and you haveformed an opinion on them already by how they dress and what they look like,and I think that’s important. If there were a lot of white people on some ofthese boats coming over, I mean northern European white people, I wonder ifthe same reactions would be there. I genuinely, I could be completely offbase on this folks, but I genuinely wonder what the reaction would be, and itmight not be the same.
Jared:	Well, and I think that draws us to another, youknow, we asked the question at the beginning. This episode is about how toread the Bible in 2020, and we talked about politics, but I think one thingthat you said is worth talking about, and that’s this idea, there’s thisreality where the Bible is presented, or Christianity is presented as thoughwe’re the minority in our country.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	That the Bible has been marginalized,Christianity is marginalized, that the political elites, that there’s thisforce, I guess. There’s a force in America, the dominant force is to eradicateChristianity from our culture. And yet, you talked about, like, we’re not theminority. Both being the color of skin, but also as Christians. I mean, itwas at 84% of Americans would identify as believing in God. We still have amajority of people who would self-identify as Christians.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:32:17	So I’m curious where that comes from and doesthat impact how we read the Bible in 2020 if we see ourselves not as the minority,the persecuted minority, but what if we see ourselves as, what if when weread the Bible we don’t think of ourselves as the persecuted minority in thestory -
Pete:	The persecuted ones, yeah.
Jared:	But as the majority persecutors, the religiousones in the stories.
Pete:	That actually has a responsibility to not to dothat.
Jared:	Right.
Pete:	I mean, the thing is that the whole narrative isthough shaped around being a marginalized persecuted minority, and that’s,yeah, that’s a hard pill to swallow there too. See, here’s the thing too, youknow, we gotta fight for this because our faith is at stake and this is Americaand you know, our freedoms and the church, and they’re destroying the gospel.And I'm like, ok, well, let them destroy it. Is that going to affect you andhow you believe, or is the gospel something that supports other things that youlike about American life and that’s the dangerous thing about this verysubtle mixture combining of a political ideology, which is also an economicideology, a racial ideology, a gendered ideology, all these things andmarrying that with the infinite creator of the infinite cosmos. This, I justhave a real problem with that, and I’ve, and I didn’t have a problem withthis thirty years ago, I wasn’t thinking about it. But I’ve been thinking aboutit the past few years, and that’s wrong. So, okay, what’s the worst that canhappen if you have a liberal in the White House or something like that, or a,the other side, a real right-wing sort of fascist Christian in the WhiteHouse and they give Christianity a bad name. That’s a shame. Does that affectme and how I choose to live, right? Well, that might pass laws that some ofus don’t like or are very much against, but is our ultimate trust in apolitical structure or is it in God? And I know that sounds really Sundayschool-y, but I think it’s a really important thing to be asking ourselves.And the fear of what will happen if the wrong person is in the White House,left or right, is exactly the problem. It's the deep theological andspiritual problem that isn’t really talked about nearly enough when thesesorts of things come up.
Jared:	Hmm. So, you’re thinking, the way you just wenton about the practical nature of that, I’m still stuck on some of the logicalinconsistences, so excuse me for being in my head for a minute.
Pete:	Mmm hmm, Mr. Philosopher over here, yeah.
Jared:	The narrative here too of, we have an all-powerfulGod but we’re deeply afraid of what happens if we don’t x, y, and z.
Pete:	Mmm, yeah.
Jared:	It doesn’t make any sense to me. Like, okay,well if God is all-powerful, what, why do I have to fight?
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	What’s, why do I need to go like, as a kid, mytradition, I knocked on doors and like, I knocked on doors for the moralmajority, and talking about how important that it was that we voted for theright, and it was like, it was this sense of urgency, and it was so importantbecause what happens if -
Pete:	Yeah.
Jared:	And it was, at the same time, I was being,saying like, well, God’s in control, and whatever God wants, it’s gonnahappen. God’s all-powerful. I still have no idea of how those are supposed towork together, I don’t understand.
Pete:	Right, right.
Jared:	So, when we’re winning, God’s will is alwaysdone, but when we’re losing, it’s really, really important and urgent that wedo something.
Pete:	Right, exactly. Yeah.
Jared:	I don’t understand how that’s supposed to work.
Pete:	Right. Yeah, that is very, it’s acceptingrather unconsciously the notion that politics and the American system is thearena within which God works. So, okay, what would happen if the wrong peopletake over and Christians are part of a persecuted minority? Welcome toChristian history.
Jared:	For the most part, yeah.
Pete:36:28	Welcome to, believe me, I don’t, I want to livein my house, okay/ I mean, I want to drive my truck, old as it is, and I wantto go grocery shopping and I want to go to the doctor when I need to. I don’twant to be run over by ISIS or something, don’t misunderstand me here, but,you know, what’s the worst that can happen is that we are suffering becauseof what we believe and the people in power don’t believe that. That’s theworst that can happen. Jesus says something about that, promising, right?That it won’t go well, in fact, if it goes too well, maybe there’s somethingwrong here, right? And the history of Christianity, I mean, people will tellyou this who know a lot about it. It’s never gotten along well with politicalpower; it just never works because the gospel is too easily corruptible andmanipulated for the wrong ends. So, okay, so, okay, so, the wrong people takeover and you’re persecuted, or you suffer or you’re not comfortable anymore,or you have to live with people who disagree strongly with you about certainkinds of things. That can happen in reality, but that doesn’t change whetherGod is real and whether your faith is real.
Jared:	But I think that’s independent from what wemight say apart from our, the Bible and how we read it. Like, I would say, wewould be all in favor of, like you said earlier, in support of policies thatwould be more open to refugees and making sure that we’re supporting that.More open to women’s rights and a lot of other things, that’s a politicalstance that I would have -
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	And it’s so important, because I think it’shard for people to separate those things.
Pete:	It is, yeah.
Jared:	I could imagine someone listening to you andsaying, “oh, Pete’s against us voting from our faith-based values” out ofthat sense of a faith-based value. It’s like, well, if that’s what motivatesyou that’s good, but let’s not, there’s something different about, like, myethic is formed certainly by my faith, because that’s a context in which Iwas raised. Like, that is the language I will use for how my values areshaped. But I think that’s different than saying, and if you believe inJesus, we should all be – ugh – I don’t know, I’m getting stuck in my wordshere, because I think. There’s just something about what you said that Ithought, aw, man. People may take that the wrong way, and I want to justreemphasize our personal political stances are one thing, and I think it’simportant -
Pete:	Yeah, and people can think what they want tothink about what should happen.
Jared:	Right.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	But I think that’s different than, this, wherewe’re coopting the Bible for these political purposes and merging God and theBible with particular ideologies.
Pete:	And even to go further, not just particularideologies, but with power, with political power, so you bring God andpolitical power together. I mean, this has been a problem, again, throughoutmost of history. You know, Benedict Spinoza, the what, seventeenthcenturyphilosopher.
Jared:	Seventeenth century, yeah, a French guy.
Pete:39:40	He really was interested in sort of separating churchand state even then because the people are sort of just enslaved by the statebecause it has the power of the church. So, what he did was he undermined theBible and the power of the church to sort of loosen people from that grip,from that unholy alliance. And, yeah, I’m not recommending we go out and dothat necessarily, he was a smart guy, but still, it shows that that’s theproblem – the power over people and people are usually oppressed. You know,Walter Brueggemann, right? I mean, he writes about this and how theIsraelites and the book of 1 Samuel, they want a king like other nations haveand they approach Samuel, who is like, the last prophet. And, no, sorry, he’sthe last judge, not the last prophet. And they approach him and he’s unhappyabout this because, you know, he doesn’t like the implications of having aking, and so he complains to God and God says, don’t worry, they’re not rebellingagainst you, they’re rebelling against me. Tell them what’s going to happenwhen they have a king. And basically, the next whole chapter is about the kingsare going to enslave your people. That’s the bottom line. They’ll force themto do things like serve in the army, be bakers, you know, be perfumers, allsorts of things because that’s actually what you have to do to have anadministration. You have to have people who will feed the army, for example.And people might not want to do that, it doesn’t matter. So with that kind ofmonarchic authority, comes a natural oppression of people and so in essence,the Israelites become the Egyptians that held them enslaved and the end of 1Samuel 8 is a beautiful little echo of the book of Exodus. It says, “and whenyour people cry out to me, I will not hear them.” Well Exodus 2 ends with,“and I’ve heard the cry of my people. I will go. I will deliver them fromEgypt.” It’s like, it’s a reversal of that. If you want a text to go to talkabout American political life, there it is, right? The implications of havingthis unholy alliance between God and kingdom, and that’s different. See,that’s different than, I want to vote against this person because this personis in favor of abortion. My convictions say abortion is wrong, I’m going tovote against them. You want to do that, that’s fine. That’s a differentlevel, like, you’re saying, “dear God, if this person doesn’t get into the WhiteHouse, everything is lost. We’re all ruined. Let’s make sure this person getselected, let’s go to the Bible and ignore everything about what this persondoes or doesn’t do, and let’s find these verses that justify this holy war,almost, that we’re engaging in.”
Jared:	And that’s a different posture, that’s adifferent register.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	Again, it’s not necessarily even the content.Like, what you said of, you may vote the same way, but that latterdemonstration that you just gave is a very different sense because it’s outof fear -
Pete:	Its fear based.
Jared:	It’s out of fear. Yeah.
Pete:	You shouldn’t fear.
Jared:	Good. Well -
Pete:	Easier said than done, but still...
Jared:	Yeah, well I’m sitting over here. I wasn’tpaying attention to you for the most part -
Pete:	[Laughter]
Jared:	Because I was just thinking that should be ournickname, is the unholy alliance.
Pete:	Yeah. [Laughter]
Jared:	I just think, if we’re ever in the WWE orsomething -
Pete:	[Laughter] Yes.
Jared:	We would be the unholy alliance, I like that.But let’s, you know, I want to turn to some positive things, right? So, wetalked a lot about, this is about how to read the Bible in 2020. So, how toread the Bible in 2020, what’s a positive, how do we do it then? It’s not,we’ve talked a lot about what it’s not and how not to read our politicalideologies into it, but what are some things that we can move forward with tosay, if you want to read your Bible, don’t feel paralyzed.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	Here are some things that you can do, and onething for me, because a lot of people might be tracking and just say, wellwhy read the Bible at all? Like, if our ethics don’t come from the Bible, whyread it at all? And I would just say for me, is, I can’t avoid using thisphrase, which is “language game” and that is meaningful to me.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	Like, it is my tradition, and it is thelanguage I use, and we know that language is important.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	It’s the language that shapes how I see theworld.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	And so, I want to continue using that language,and I want to be in a community of faith that is shaped by that language.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	And that is valuable for me. And so, but I’mjust always critiquing and recognizing that this is the language of mycommunity of faith, of which I am both a member and accountable to, whilealso being an individual and hold it accountable.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	And that’s that tension that for me, the Biblecontinues to play a big part of.
Pete:44:33	Yeah, and I think that’s great, and maybeanother point that I would make is that, you know, how do you read the Bibleresponsibly? I think it’s necessary to actually admit that you do pick andchoose.
Jared:	Yeah.
Pete:	You should never pick and choose. Are youkidding me?
Jared:	You have no choice.
Pete:	We do pick and choose, and you know, to leantowards -
Jared:	It’s to pick responsibly and respectfully.
Pete:	That’s right. And something that’s driven by asense of peace and wanting to create harmony which means sometimes you haveto be strongly against things. There’s no question about that. It’s not just,you know, group hugs for the next few thousand years.
Jared:	It’s not about being nice.
Pete:	It’s not about being nice. But I think, see,this is, I mean, I think of, if I can channel Richard Rohr here a little bit,I hope I get him right. But, he, I heard him say once that the religion,using it in the negative sense, it always looks outward and says what’s wrongwith them, I’m glad we’re not like that. A spiritual development, a spiritualjourney is always turning the question back on yourself saying, I’m feeling acertain way. What am I learning about myself and my own inner state by this experience?And I think a way of engaging the Bible responsibly is to read it with thatin mind, that this is not about, okay, here’s how you take over the world. Hereare the passages, here’s the ethic that you are now to impose on otherpeople. It’s more, it’s always bringing it back on yourself. That’s not self-centeredin a psychologically dysfunctional sense, it’s examining yourself, which is avery, very healthy thing to do. It’s not beating yourself up, it is examiningand being honest with yourself and saying, how can I change? So, when we’rein heated political debates, to take that step back and ask yourself, what’shappening inside of me here? What is driving this, you know, staying up forfour hours and answering people on the internet or something like that. Youknow, that, to me, engaging the Bible with our own inner transformation, orcontinued conversion, or continued salvation in mind is a really good placeto start.
Jared:	Yeah, the only thing I would add to that is,you know, I think growing up it was an all or nothing. So, either the Bibleis the sole and only source for spiritual formation and all of these things,or it’s nothing.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	And I think in 2020, just an encouragement ofengaging the Bible as one of many important voices.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	Because there’s a lot, like you just said, likegetting into psychology and reading about psychology and sociology andlearning about yourself and how the world works and ethics and you know, readsome ethicists and read some political writers and some activists and peoplewho write from a perspective that’s not like you.
Pete:	Yeah.
Jared:	And read that in concert with the Bible, and thenthat becomes this mutually edifying exercise where they’re all critiquing,these voices are all critiquing each other, they’re informing each other andit’s in that messy middle that we find that growth and so, you know, ifyou’re feeling the urge to say it’s either/or, I think for me it’s been ajourney of saying, no, it’s both/and.
Pete:	Mmm hmm.
Jared:	It’s okay that my Bible is sitting next to thisbook and that book and that book and that book and I go to the Biblesometimes and I go to these books, and they inform each other.
Pete:	Right. Just maybe one last thing. I think we’recoming to the end of our time here, aren’t we?
Jared:	We are, yeah.
Pete:	I needed to say that because you always saythat. I wanted to say it, so. But, one thing that sort of wraps it up for mea little bit, is very briefly, you know, a story that I’ve heard from manydifferent places, but it has to do with the experience of slavery in the nineteenthcentury and you had Christians arguing very differently. And you had, let’ssay, the rulebook Christians who looked for verses to support what theywanted, basically, the south, the slaveholders. And they, they could citeverses that clearly imply - I shouldn’t say clearly, but - they, it’s easy tomake the argument that God doesn’t really have a major problem with slavery.
Jared:	Mmm hmm.
Pete:48:45	Either testament, right? But, the, you know,pro-abolitionists in the north, I mean, they were, they were saying, yeah,you’ve got these verses, but we think the Bible is on a trajectory and wethink there’s, in other words, there are trajectory readings and rulebookreadings, and again that’s something that might be a really new idea forpeople, and I totally, you know, do what you want with it. But, how is theBible showing us that maybe God is out ahead of us and the Bible is pointingus somewhere instead of just drawing attention to verses that we lift up offthe pages to justify the view that we have. Maybe what God has in store islike what nothing any of us really can even understand or fathom, and theBible is impelling and is part of, it’s not the Bible, it’s God doing this. Butit’s, the Bible is that aid in bringing us outside of our own ways of lookingat the world and saying, what’s the next thing that’s happening. That’s,that’s not a Bible verse proof text way of reading the Bible.  And that’s what people said over a hundredyears ago. They were right.
Jared:	Mmm hmm.
Pete:	Right? The others were wrong. Proof texting forslavery, that’s wrong. And to us, I think in the American experience, thatcan be a real object lesson for, what does it mean to engage the Bible well?And, maybe even especially in 2020.
Jared:	Yeah, good. Well, I think that’s a great wrapfor our first joint episode, so we are looking forward to lots more here inseason 4.
Pete:	Yeah, absolutely, thanks for listening folks!
Jared:	You know, we’re just going to keep asking thisquestion, what is the Bible and what do we do with it? We haven’t answered ityet four seasons in.
Pete:	I know.
Jared:	We haven’t answered it yet. So, if you have ananswer, it would be funny if the next episode we just say, hey, Jake calledin from Iowa City and he answered it.
Pete:	And he got it!
Jared:	And we’re done!
Pete:	Yeah.
Jared:	That’s the end of the episode. That’s the endof the podcast.
Pete:	At least we should aim to have this done by summertime,I think we should know the answer.
Jared:	[Laughter] That’s right, yeah, we’ll set a deadline. It’s,we haven’t had a goal.
Pete:	Right.
Jared:	Once we set a goal, we can maybe reach it.
Pete:	[Laughter]
Jared:	Alright, we’ll see ya next time.
Pete:	See ya.
[Music begins]
[End of recorded material]
Pete:	Hey folks, thanks again for listening toanother episode of the podcast, we want to thank the people who makeeverything we do possible, such as Megan Cammack, our podcast producer.
Jared:	Yup, and Shay Bocks who is our creativedirector.
Pete:	And Dave Gerhart, our audio engineer.
Jared:	And Reed Lively, our community champion. Thankyou so much, we couldn’t do this podcast without them, so we always want togive them a shout out.
Pete:	What else is going on Jared?
Jared:	February 27th at 8:30PM for those ofyou who support us on Patreon, we’re having an “ask me anything”, an AMA, andaround this idea of the Bible, what do we do with it, Bible engagement. Andany questions you have about the Bible, we just get on there, we’d love tochat with you, so put that in your calendar. If you’re aren’t already aPatreon supporter, go ahead and sign up. Hope to see you there!
[Music ends]

[/bg_collapse]