Loading summary
Transcript39 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everybody. We're thrilled to announce that Restore tickets are on sale now. And we're so excited to tell you about the new format for this year. We're calling it Restore Connect. It's designed to make your experience more interactive, more embodied, and more communal than ever before. This year it's September 24th through 26th at the Nordisk center at UVU. We'll have an opening social on Thursday evening with two days of smaller, more intimate sessions so that you can choose the topics that are most important to you and have lots of time to connect with other attendees. And the presenters space is limited, so you're going to want to get your tickets fast. You can go to faithmatters.org restore today. We can't wait to see you in September. Hey, everybody. This is Aubrey Chavez from Faith Matters. Today we're so honored to share a conversation with Pete Wer. And I want to acknowledge that this conversation explores territory that is going to feel personal, definitely political, and probably at some points will feel really challenging. But our hope is that it creates honest and faithful wrestling where we need it most. Today, we explore what it means to follow Jesus in a time when political identities increasingly compete with religious ones. Pete argues that Christians have always faced the temptation to use the Bible to back up our own opinions rather than allowing the life of Christ to reshape us. He challenges us to consider how certainty may be blinding and explains that a healthy patriotism is going to deepen our love of neighbor. He emphasizes the revolutionary nature of Jesus, love of those on the margins, and calls us to consider what all of this means for Christians today. Pete has spent decades at the intersection of faith and politics, serving in three Republican administrations, including as a speechwriter and director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives to President George W. Bush. He's now a contributing writer at the Atlantic and the New York Times. And throughout his career, he's consistently challenged himself and others to think with moral seriousness and intellectual honesty and Christian charity. This conversation invited us to think more deeply about where our deepest allegiances belong. We found it so thoughtful and grounding and so worthwhile, and we hope that you will, too. And now here's the conversation with Pete Wehner.
- [01:57]
B
Okay, well, Pete Wehner, thank you so much for joining us on the podcast. It's truly an honor to have you here.
- [02:02]
C
Oh, it's a delight to be with you. I'm looking forward to the conversation.
- [02:04]
B
Thank you. You know, I. I read an article of yours in the Atlantic a few weeks ago. I mentioned this to you or email the American Pope versus the American President. And you had sort of summed up this very interesting sort of like public spat. Well, at least a spat on one side, you know, where the. The president, President Trump was very publicly attacking, attacking Pope Leo. And I think my framing at least, is Pope Leo responding, but maybe not as directly, sort of more responding, more in, in broad, in broad terms, you know, in this really unprecedented fashion where these two very important, you know, world figures, you know, seem to be on, on different sides of something. And, and one of the lines that stuck with me from your article was that it's. I, I can't remember exactly how you put it, but you said that it seemed somewhat archetypal, these two going back and forth. Could you talk about maybe just as an opening, just an opening idea, what those two archetypes are that you saw in that back and forth?
- [03:11]
C
Yeah, sure, I'm happy to do it. I should say, just as a context, Saturn, that what made this public battle, debate between Pope Leo and Donald Trump wasn't the fact that a Pope and a president disagree, because that's happened historically any number of times. And so there's nothing particularly new about that. What was new about it was the tone and tenor of the disagreement, not from Pope Leo, but from Donald Trump. The way in which the President went after Pope Leo in personal, insulting, derogatory manner, that's just never happened before. Now, it's both a surprise and not a surprise. It's surprise in the sense that most people, at least pre Donald Trump era, would not have imagined that an American president would go after a Pope in those personal terms, both because the argument would have been it's below the dignity of the office of the presidency, and secondly, because it's politically stupid, because the Pope is the head of a 1.4 billion person church who, many live in the United States. But Donald Trump is Donald Trump. He is who he is. And so the idea that he would go after Pope Leo in that way was not a surprise, because to do anything else would be different from who he fundamentally is as a person. We've seen that throughout his life and over the last 10 years, in particular, in terms of the allusion to the archetypal battle. And what intrigued me about is partly the tradition in which Leo comes from, the Augustinian tradition, which is meditative, very concentrated on the interior life and soul, and the fact that he's obviously a man of deep faith, that tends to be the case when you become Pope. And the way it infuses, really, from what I could tell Every aspect of his life. So every part of him is imprinted by his Christian faith. And there's an aspect, certain tradition within Catholicism that he belongs to in which the imitation of Christ and aspects of Christ's character, including, I think, the sort of flinty integrity and gentleness and generosity and the real solidarity with the weakest, the people, often on the outskirts of society, social pariah, that is Leo. Donald Trump is really the antithesis of that in almost every respect. He's, he's a thoroughly secular person. He has been his entire life. And he's a person, in my estimation, that has made cruelty and crudity kind of a part of not only his public Persona, but his private part life, and that he seems to relish dehumanizing his, his opponents. So that contrast really, really struck me. And the other thing I'd say about it was that it seemed to me that Donald Trump, who can dominate so many people within the political arena, couldn't dominate Pope Leo. And I had the sense that Donald Trump was, was, was, was punching its shadows, that Pope Leo is somebody who's not intimidated by him, doesn't need anything from him, isn't vying for money or power or promotion. And Donald Trump really didn't know how to respond to a figure like Pope Pope Leo. The fact that he would say that Pope Leo was weak on crime, that's just silly. So it struck me that Popleo was a kind of a model to the rest of us of how perhaps to deal with Donald Trump, how to view him, and how in a way, to transcend him.
- [07:36]
A
I think one of the things that makes this tricky territory for Christians is that a lot of times this administration is invoking the Bible. It's almost like they're creating a different brand of Christianity that can feel Christian enough that, that someone could justify their support. And so, so I'd love for you to respond to that because I feel the, the Christianity that Pope Leo is describing and, and, and calling for. And so it's disturbing to see passages straight out of the Bible that justify something that feels completely opposite.
- [08:10]
C
Yeah, that's a great question, Aubrey. That's right. I mean, and there are particular people within the Trump administration that invoke the Bible more than others. Donald Trump tends not to, but there are figures like Pete Hagseth, Secretary of Defense, self described Secretary of War, who is part of a branch of Reformed theology, that a person named Doug Wilson is the head of that, that reforms movement. And Hegseth, as best I can tell, has drawn back to Faith or drawn himself toward faith, probably, I'm guessing, because he's lived a dissolute life. It's not a state secret exactly. It's pretty much in the open. And I have the feeling with Hagseth that he's trying to reconstruct his life, but parameters guardrails around his life. But unfortunately, in my estimation, he's found it in. In a branch of faith, a quadrant of faith that I think is in many ways antithetical to what the true gospel, the true Christian faith is. And you see it when he speaks on faith. For example, his invocation, the imprecatory psalms, the psalms that David invokes. David's in a position of some measure of powerlessness, and he's crying out to God out of frustration and anger toward his enemies, that God would bring justice to his enemies. And Hegseth was using those imprecatory psalms in the context of talking about the United States, which is the most powerful country in the world, using it potentially on Iran, Donald Trump talking about wiping out the entire civilization as a threat. And so it, you know, hearing Hegseth invoke the. The Bible to promote a kind of warrior image of God, a God of wrath, a God of judgment, a God of destruction, is. Is worrisome, I should say. It's a really fascinating theological question, which you both will be very familiar with, which is the invocation of biblical verses to validate certain things that we want to do or certain things that we believe. That's a story as old as the Bible, certainly as old as Christianity, because the first great proof texting war in Christianity was in Luke 4 between Jesus and. And. And the devil, Satan, in which Satan, in tempting Jesus, what does he do? He invokes the Bible. He invokes psalms. And how does Jesus respond to him? He invokes Deuteronomy. So you had, you know, the Bible being cited in this great, great conflict, and we know from, from Shakespeare's line in the Merchant of Venice that the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes. That's always been the case. And the reason is that the Bible says so many different things on different occasions, written by lots of different authors over a span of thousands of years. And so if you are, you know, if you've decided that you want to justify genocide, you can find verses in the Bible that seem to justify genocide, whether it's. It's in Samuel for Samuel or, or. Or Joshua or Deuteronomy or. Or other books. And, and you can. You can find verses that would justify pacifism, you can find verses that justify a lot of different things. So how do you arbitrate that? Right. When two sides are. Are invoking the Bible? I mean, I'd say context matters, the end result matters. And I would say there's a christological lens. I'd say that as a person of the Christian faith, you know, I think it was Thomas Merton that once said that any theology that ends in lovelessness cannot be Christian. And I do think that for those of us of the Christian faith, the culmination of the biblical ethic is really found in Jesus. Jesus teachings, including on the Sermon on the Mount, but also, you know, the crucifixion and obviously the Resurrection as well. But it does underscore the centrality of discernment and wisdom for people of faith. Because I think what happens, and I'm susceptible to this too, I'm guessing in various ways, you all may be, too. We all come at life with certain suppositions. We come at life with a certain angle of vision. And because we're people of faith, we want to validate, we want to baptize what we believe. And so we go in search of Scripture verses to do that. And that can lead us to all sorts of dark, dark places. That's why we need people of wisdom in our life. It's why we have to have some appreciation for theological and epistemic humility, that we may not be wrong. You may believe the Bible is inerrant, but you shouldn't believe that your interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. And I do think that we have to measure what we're doing by the human outcome. Is justice being advanced or pushed back? Is compassion being deepened, or is it being restricted? So I think those are the kind of things that. That we should think about.
- [14:01]
B
I think what can be tricky is. Well, I don't know if you know Brian McLaren. He's a. He's a friend of ours and Christian author and speaker, theologian. He refers to this as having a genocide card in your back pocket, meaning a Christian who wants to engage in war can always go. Can always go to the Bible and pull out that genocide card and say, see, God does justify these things sometimes. And I. I think what's tricky is that you could even. Even in today's world. And I think we are seeing this in, to some extent from the, from Pete Hegseth or from the current administration. We are seeing what superficially might look like a nuanced view because they are saying, yes, in these contexts, I'm living New Testament Christianity. And in these other contexts, these other contexts, I'm living ultimate Testament Christianity. And God clearly does sometimes allow for these, for these types of things. So I guess maybe I'm just not a nuanced enough thinker. But my position has been to say the way that I read 1st Samuel 15, I need to reject as a Christian, you know, the way that I read it superficially, at least on the surface. And when I'm looking through the cruciform lens, there just isn't a way for me to say God literally asked these people to kill male and, you know, man and woman, infant and suckling or whatever it says in the, in the King James translation. How so, how do you, how do you. I don't know. Am I, am I allowed to do that as a, as a Christian?
- [15:32]
C
I think you are. I think you are. I actually think, honestly, Tim, that you're, that you're, you're reading the Bible the way it was meant to be read. In other words, I don't think you're, you're in a sense veering away from the Bible in order to preserve a biblical ethic, I guess. Right. You read these tales, you read these stories, and on some level most people are going to read them and be horrified by them. It's like, what are you talking about? You're saying that God went out of his way to make sure you kill the infants and the children, in fact, upbraided certain figures in the Hebrew scripture for not doing that. How does that square with God as we understand him, the attributes that, that are constantly given to God? And for those of us of Christian faith, how does it square with, with Jesus, the teachings of Jesus, the life of Jesus, and, and, and, and all, and all the rest. And, and I think the tension that a lot of people in the evangelical world, which is the world that I know best, there is an internal tension. And the way I would describe it is people's moral intuitions are saying one thing, screaming at them one thing, and they think the Bible is telling them something else. And those things are colliding and that makes them very uncomfortable. For understandable reasons. There's a kind of cognitive dissonance that's going on. So how do you process that? And the way that I think a lot of people process it on this particular question is, as they say, well, you know, the Bible is a fortative. It's inerrant that these particular verses are written in a genre where we have to take them literally. And so God really did command those Things. And this is primus inter Paris. The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it. And if my moral intuitions are screaming at me, well, your moral intuitions are shot through with sin. And you should let Bible shape your attitudes, your views, your moral intuitions and God's ways.
- [17:38]
B
And God's ways are not our ways.
- [17:40]
C
Exactly. And God's ways are not our ways. It's a mystery. I can't really explain it, but I have to accept it. So that is very common within at least some traditions within Christianity. I mean, I would say that there's just a hermeneutical mistake of the people who, who view it. I don't think that they're viewing the, the Scripture is multivocal. I would say that there are contradictions within the Scripture. I, I know some people that's controversial for people will. I guess their starting point is there can't be contradictions in the Bible. So I'm going to give you my best argument as to why they don't. But you see it within Scripture. I, I'd say that they're so, you know, there's so many obvious examples that it was almost as if God was putting on a, you know, a neon light saying, this is a different way to view it and to read it. And this is coming from different. It's, it's, it's the authoritative word of God, but with a human imprint and with human beings, you know, having, having conveyed it. And so we're left for whatever reason to try and sort through that and to try and figure it out within the context and arc of the Scripture, within the context of who Jesus is, what his life, you know, what his life was. God could have given us a very different Bible. He could have given a series of formulations, mathematical propositions. He didn't. It's primarily a story. And Christians don't view the Bible the same way that Muslims view the Quran. Right? Which is basically dictation to one person in a compressed period of time. That's not the Bible that we follow. That Bible is written through the voice of a lot of people. Over a lot of years. We were talking about earlier and different context, social contexts, you know, play, play, play a role. And there is something within theology called progressive revelation. And the progressive revelation, it's not progressive in the sense of liberal. And a lot of conservatives kind of get up tight and they think, oh, they're progressive theologians. No, it's progressive revelation in the sense that it's arguing. A lot of conservatives believe this, which is the Bible. Unfolds progressively and ultimately culminates in the person of Jesus. But I remember Mike Gerson, who's a very dear friend of mine and colleague of mine for a number of years we worked together in the White House, telling me in a conversation, and I like, yeah, I have it in my notes saying, you know, Pete, you can't read Joshua and Isaiah and not say that. They're talking about some different, deeply different conception of God. Isaiah is just a different universalistic view. The later prophets have a view of God that's different than the very early books of the Hebrew scripture. I just think that's undeniable. That's the story that God has decided to tell through the Scripture. And so it's a complicated debate, but as one immerses themselves in hermeneutics, I do think I'm persuaded. And Brian Claren is somebody that I think has some insights to offer into this. There is a way to read the Bible that says, no, I'm actually reading it the way that God had designed it, rather than feeling like, oh, gosh, in order to get out of the genocide trap, I have to read the Bible in ways that are not faithful to what the Bible is saying.
- [21:26]
A
Yeah, this is maybe more pastoral than I imagine this conversation going, but I think my real question for you then is whether that epistemic humility, does that make your faith have less of a capacity to nourish your life? Does it make it less alive for you than, like, a real, real certainty would?
- [21:49]
C
Yeah, no, it's a great question. It's a great question. I don't know. I. I would say that the epistemic humility is probably, in my particular case, been helpful. And the reason I say that is because I've been a person that throughout my Christian life and I didn't grow up in a Christian home. And I came to faith sort of end of high school, early college years, and it's really been a journey since then. And I remember telling my sister, who was instrumental early on in my faith walk, saying, patty, faith isn't easy for me. It's sort of like sand in the gears. And I've always had a kind of probing mind and a curious mind. And I just couldn't pretend that I didn't have questions or doubts on some of the accounts that I read in the scripture. Some people, it's just easier. They either don't feel it or they're able to segregate it and say, well, you know, it's a mystery of God. I don't worry about it. That's not how I'm wired. And so for me a lot of these questions, you raised them about genocide, but other ones too, deeply theological questions. Is Hell really eternal conscious torment? Is the 16 year old Jewish girl who dies in the ashes of Auschwitz, are we supposed to believe that she separated from God and in an eternal torture chamber because she didn't know Jesus as Lord and Savior and, or the 28 year old Japanese man who dies in a tsunami? Predestination or you know, within evangelical circles, Calvinist reform circles, the belief that God from the beginning of time preordained some people as vessels of wrath and some as vessels of mercy and they had no say in it and that they were just predestined. Those questions were live ones for me. And, and so the epistemic humility I think probably helps me and the fact that I'm able to find interpretive models of the Bible that can answer some of those questions has, has been, has been helpful to me. But you know, in terms of the certitude of faith, the deep certainty of faith there, I probably would disaggregate a little their epistemic humility in the sense of how fully we can know and understand faith. And I think that that's in some sense pretty obvious because if any of the three of us say, had the maximum capacity that human beings could apprehend God, it would be just a sliver of what we could know about God just by the very nature of who we are and who God is. So I just think we would all approach it if we, if we really reflect on it for any length of time with any measure of seriousness, of saying there's so many aspects of God that we simply cannot know. So many aspects of who Jesus is that we can't know. But we can know a lot more than we would if we didn't know Christ. So the aperture widens, but it's not, you know, it's not fully open. Then there's the confidence that God exists or that I'm loved by God, that, that this is a human drama with an author and a beginning, a middle and an end. And I think you can have some measure of confidence in that. It may be intellectual, maybe theological, maybe intuitive. It just may be a sense. You know, C.S. lewis wrote powerfully about, and Tolkien about the imagination and the fact that we have a longing. And this is Lewis's definition of joy. It's a sense of a longing that can't be fulfilled in this world, which is to him an Indication wasn't for him an indication that we belong to another world. So I do think you can have a greater degree of calmness, peace, confidence of God's presence and that all things are made new again, that justice ultimately prevails. And you can have at the same time some measure of hermeneutical, theological, epistemological modesty where you say, you know, my capacity to understand and apprehend these things, to read the Bible the way it was meant to, the full awareness that I'm shaped by my sex, the era that I lived in, the country that I live in, the family of origin that I come from, the teachers that I've had, the friends that I have, all of those things go in my personality, my dispositions, my temperament, and all of those things shape how each of us comes to these matters.
- [26:38]
A
Yeah.
- [26:38]
B
Let me ask you about another, I would say somewhat, I mean, very interesting and somewhat nuanced theological point that was brought up by another member of the administration. I'm sure you saw this a few months ago, JD Vance was being interviewed, and he said there's a, there's a Christian concept, I'm going to quote him, that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world. And actually, Ezra Klein asked James Talarico about this on, on his podcast, and James Talarico said, well, that's not the gospel, and made the, the point that the gospel is sort of all about prioritizing those who are on the outside of your circles. That's what's so revolutionary about it. And he said, what J.D. vance is describing, that's just the society we already, we already live in. That's, that's the world. Where do you fall on this? Like what, what does Christian love actually look like? And is there an, is there an order to it in the way that J.D. vance lays it out?
- [27:39]
C
Yeah. I mean, between Vance and Talarika, I, I would find myself leaning in the Talarico, you know, direction. I think about that question in two. Two different ways. I suppose the theologian and philosopher David Dentling Hart, who's Eastern Orthodox and any number of, has written about 30 books, and I interviewed him recently for a series that I do in the New York Times. And David is maybe the most formidable intellect I've met in any capacity. So to spend time in his world is a fascinating and challenging and enlightening thing. But one of the things that David has written about and Talked about in I think pretty powerful terms is what a moral revolution, Jesus, the coming of Jesus was to the world and what made it so revolutionary, although different things. I mean, obviously the whole idea of the incarnation was itself revelatory, was a revelation of a kind. But he had in mind something else. And that was the notion of what I think Talarico was getting at, which is the notion that God had a special care and love for the lowest, the people that were viewed in terms of class, status, power, and the way the pagan world. It wasn't simply that what Jesus was saying was different than what they understood. They thought it was wrong. They thought it was an upending of the natural order of things. So there was a phrase from Nietzsche, the transvaluation of values, the flipping of the complete inversion of what we know. And Jesus's teachings and life as it related to the outcast, the poor, the dispossessed, the people, the lowest rung on the ladder of society was staggering in ways that we can't understand, in part because we have, thankfully, in many respects, imperfectly, but to some measure, imbibed it and been shaped by it. But the whole idea of human rights and caring for the weakest and the lowest was something. I mean, there were Stoics, Judaism, obviously, through the creation story, you know, made in the image of God, imago dei, that existed. But Jesus took it to another. Another level. So I think that that is just absolutely central to the teaching of Jesus. And I do think it's. Well, it's part of the reason why the Christian church in the first couple of centuries caught on like wildfire, right? It wasn't because they had political power. They had none, not even really, because they had so cultural power, at least in many respects. It was this powerful, unbelievable witness of community and caring for the wounded and the broken and the abused. That was such a powerful moral example that it drew people in. So in that respect, I'm very much toward Talarico and not with dance. I would just say on a practical, human level. I mean, of course we prioritize things. If you were to ask me to love someone I've never met in Cincinnati as much as I love my daughter and sons and wife, I'm just not capable of that. I'm not even sure I should be capable of that. So we, of course, have a hierarchy of loves based on human relationships and the people we've known and loved and shared our life and journey with. But that's not what Vance is talking about. I think what Vance is doing is he's using Christianity to promote a certain form of Christian nationalism. And I don't know that you could find a figure in history who's more anti nationalistic than Jesus. So the way that Vance is using the scripture is very much, I would say along the lines of how exeth is and I think both is a distortion of what the, what authentic Christianity is.
- [32:09]
A
I heard you recently mention the speech that President Bush gave right after September 11th and so I went to look it up and it is just the most, it was at the National Cathedral, I believe, and it's such a beautiful, very short speech. But he, he quotes Franklin Roosevelt and he, he says something about the warm courage of national unity. And I, I love that phrase and I remember the way that felt like that. It was just such a beautiful description of the, of the feeling that I think we really did experience together as a country. And so I'm, I am curious, like what is the place for love of country in, in Christianity? Because that felt godly to me. You know, it felt like I did, I genuinely loved my neighbor, my stranger neighbors more. And it was something about holding like carrying this burden together. But it feels like there's a, there's a corruption of that, of that thing that makes me hate my enemy and, and it's a nationalism that feels more ego driven and self protective in a way that could be destructive. But I, I'm having a hard time pinning down the difference.
- [33:19]
C
Yeah, I, I do think that love of country, when it expresses itself in love of others, that is, if it, if it deepens the love and affection and compassion that you feel toward others, I think if it takes, let's call it the baseline of love that we ought to have and deepens it, I think that's entirely fine and fair and normal. Because of these affections I was referring to earlier that you would have with your family. I think if the idea of love of country leads to an increase in hatred of others or the targeting of others or the dehumanization of others, then you're on the wrong, then you're on the wrong track. Certainly on the wrong track as it relates to Christianity. And you know, it's a complicated story. I would say again, after what we were talking about earlier, which is the sweep of the Bible there, there was much more of a nationalistic identity to the Bible, I would say in the early parts of the, of the Hebrew scriptures. But I think by the time you get more toward, toward the prophets and, and by the time you get to Jesus, I think those notions are pretty much exploded. And, And. And I think love of country needs to be understood as. As is a very different thing than carte blanche loyalty to country. I think love of country means wanting the best for your country through the prism of justice and through the.
- [35:10]
B
Through the.
- [35:10]
C
Through the prism of the common. Of a common good, the moral. Moral good. And you love your country because you want it to be its best self. And if the country is doing things that are undermining that, Undermining justice, undermining compassion, promoting dehumanization, then I think love of country requires people to speak out against one's country or at least against the leadership of one's country. And I think too often that phrasal of country patriotism has been used as a kind of reflexive defense of things that are often not, you know, not defensible at all.
- [35:51]
B
Along those lines, do you. Do you feel, as I do, that there is maybe a growing movement that puts this sort of like love of country bordering and sometimes well into the realm of nationalism and faith? You know, the Venn diagram of those things become sort of a circle. I'm thinking of a particular conservative artist named John McNaughton who. Who paints these images like one of them, for example, is Jesus, you know, surrounded by American presidents and he's holding up the Constitution. At the same time, I feel like Aubrey's kind of said too, that there is this, like, I do love my country and I love my faith. Is there a healthy version of that? Are you seeing. And are you seeing a movement that maybe has. I think John Inazu recently called this a misplaced allegiance, you know, of some Christians in the American political. Political project as Christianity. What are you. What are you seeing there? And what might. And to the extent there is something wrong, you know, what might an antidote be?
- [36:54]
C
Yeah, I really respect John and. And know him, you know, I guess I've always had a. Had an inclination to be wary about any country being kind of viewed as God's country. It's just something that's been with me. It's interesting. It may be autobiographical here. The first piece I ever had published was, gosh, I must have been 20 at the time. And I was home from college Christmas break. I went to University of Washington. And so this is 1980, I guess, 81, something right around there. And must have been 1980. And Ronald Reagan had just won the election and first time. And it was somebody in the newspaper. His last name was Mays, and he had written in the Tri City Herald, which is my hometown, Newspaper, an article or at least a letter saying that, you know, Ronald Reagan was basically God's chosen person and his agenda was the Christian agenda. As it happens, I voted for Reagan. I worked in the Reagan administration later. And so there was a lot of aspects of the Reagan agenda that I agreed with. What I didn't agree with was that he was just connecting these dots and saying, well, it's clear that Reagan's views on the Equal Rights Amendment or military buildup or second Amendment, you know, you just went through the kind of litany of things was the godly agenda. And I thought, that's just absurd. I mean, how, how would you, how would you know? That's a prudential question, right? You take an issue of justice, we'll care for the poor, and then it becomes a real debate about, well, what are the policies that do the most good for the people that you're trying to, trying to help. And good, smart, honorable people disagree, they'll interpret the data differently and all sorts of things. And so at the end of that letter, I said, you know, this may surprise Mr. Mays, but Jesus Christ lived, died, and was raised for all people, conservatives, independents, and maybe even a few Democrats, because there was just this notion that he was doing, of fusing them and sort of saying, this is, you know, this is, this is it. I think that if a country or the people in a country genuinely are striving to have the country represent a biblical ethic, a Christian ethic, a Jesus ethic, I mean, I think that that's, that's all to the good. But again, you get into the, into, into the, into the issue of how are you interpreting. Back to Pete Hagseth and JD Vance, but that's not a bad place for people to be if they're searching honestly. And I don't think it's a bad place to be, to feel like God's role in human history. But that's the incarnational story, right? If it was just a theory, if the idea here was just eternal salvation for people, if Jesus could have, from, from a Christian evangelical perspective, you know, Jesus could have come down on the earth 33 years old, gone to the cross, crucified, raised, and that would have taken care of it, in a sense, theological perspective. But that's not what happened. He was on this Earth for 33 years, most of vast majority of which we don't know anything about. But what's the story of the incarnation? It's the idea that God would enter into history, be active in history, care about it. Be a protagonist within it, within that drama. So he's not only the author of the story, but he's also participating within it. And so that's part of the reason why politics matters. That's a place where justice and human consequences are played out. It's not the only way place that that happens, but it's an important part. But I think that's why Christians need on some level to care about politics, because to be indifferent to that means you can be indifferent to, to injustice. Which Christians should, you know, should, should, should never, never be. But to say, you know, that. That democracy is, is God's, you know, chosen political system or pluralism. I believe in those things, and I suspect that it's the case because I would make the argument that pluralism and democracy through the sweep of human history is the one that advances the human good the most. It respects the dignity of human beings. It allows for human flourishing in a way that other systems doesn't. That, I think, is an entirely reasonable argument to make. I think it's entirely reasonable to say, as best I can tell, as I'm sorting through this, I would say that probably a biblical ethic would, would move you in that direction as opposed to any other number of other directions. That's different, though, than saying, well, America's God's country. I also think theologically that what a lot of Christians today do is, is take the Israel of the Old Testament, God's relationship with Israel, and superimpose it on the United States today. And I just think that that's a category error.
- [42:29]
B
Yeah.
- [42:30]
A
It makes sense to me that if you really believe that your preferred leader is God's chosen, that when you disagree with someone, it can de. Escalate quickly into serious suspicion and contempt because you're not just talking about ideas anymore. And so I, I understand an argument for prophetic voices. Like, we need people who love their country who can critique this thing they love. And I also could understand an argument that's just like, we just need to set this down and love each other, you know, and that we need less arguing at a temperature that is, Is undignifying. Like you, the person you're arguing with has no morality to stand on in your mind. And that just feels so common. So what, what is needed? What do you think we. We need most right now?
- [43:16]
C
Yeah, I think we probably need to de. Escalate.
- [43:21]
A
Okay.
- [43:21]
C
Our, our view of politics, and I think that there's been a kind of fusion, but the politics is almost quasi religious today.
- [43:29]
A
Yeah.
- [43:30]
C
And. And I think that's such an indictment on faith, because I think not faith qua faith, but I mean, the way that many of us have practiced faith. And your own tradition, I think, probably deals with this better than. Than many others. But I do think that that faith has not fulfilled the need that a lot of people have in terms of community and meaning and purpose. And so it isn't as if politics is displaced faith, maybe so much as there's been a void where people thought faith was, but it wasn't really there. As the politics comes in and it gives people a sense of meaning, you're part of a drama, you're part of a team, part of a community. So there's a lot on the psychic and emotional side that politics is giving to people. The problem, I'd say, is that in the current context, that people's emotions are inflamed and the dark emotions, the dark of passions are being stirred up. And the other thing that I'm conscious of when faith and politics fuse is exactly what I think, Aubrey, you were getting at, which is it's not just a prudential difference, matters of policy, it's an existential struggle. Children of light, children of darkness, God, the side of God versus the side of evil, the side of Satan. And that's just loaded. If you feel like you're in a clash, a political clash, in which on the outcome is God's way or Satan's way, you're just going to bring a lot of energy to that and you're going to begin to dehumanize, disrespect, get angry toward, you know, the people that you disagree with because you adopt a view which is, they want to destroy everything that I care for and love. They want to destroy my country, they want to destroy my family, they want to destroy my faith, they want to destroy the values that I have. These people need to be defeated and they need to be destroyed. And though I'm not going to say this out loud, they need to be hurt. And that's when you get certain figures in politics who embody a kind of cruelty and a dehumanization. And that's not any longer for a lot of Christians, a bug, it's a feature. But they don't want to say that, right? Because they know on some level that's not the script that we're supposed to have. But what they're feeling internally is those guys over there, they dishonored me, they disrespected me, they promoted policies which are immoral. And if we can find a Warrior. Who's. Who's our warrior? A bully. But he's our bully, and he can make those people pay, you know, God bless him. And that's really, really tricky territory. And I think it's. It's where we are. And so it takes really intentional efforts, in some cases heroic efforts by people to get out of that mindset, to sort of get off, you know, get off the ride and to think through again, you know, who are we as people of Christian faith, as followers of Jesus, what's required of us? And beyond that, it's just in a very practical and concrete way. And I know this from my own experiences, which is to genuinely listen well to the people you disagree with, to enter into their life, to enter into their story, to learn why they believe what they believe. It's just harder to hate people if you're making eye contact with them and you're. And it's not across a television screen, but you're really trying to know them better. It just creates complexities in the best way about now, you still may believe they're wrong, but you'll understand them. And you'll understand, too, that they can't be reduced simply to political beings. So you're going to find out, as I found out, that people that I think are dreadfully wrong on politics and advancing agendas and individuals that I think are doing great, great harm, not just to the country, but to the faith that I love and cherish. And yet these people are really good neighbors and loving parents and interesting in a lot of ways and will perform, you know, churches, musicians, and other things. So it's a complicated story, but I think politics in its current manifestation is stirring up just a lot of really destructive stuff, and we got to be conscious of it and resist it as best we can.
- [48:36]
A
I love that word, de escalation, and I can. And I like this vision of listening. But I feel like when it's you and you're in this situation, it feels like moral compromise. Like, I have new. I have other language that I think I could call de escalation. De escalation. But I think probably an image that is coming to mind for people is Jesus flipping tables. And you, you can rile yourself in this sort of like, righteous indignation. Like, this is what my faith requires of me in these moments. And so I'd love for you to like, what is the. What is your Christianity like? Where in. In our Christianity are you finding this invitation to de escalate when, especially for someone who's like that, feels like A compromise of my integrity.
- [49:20]
C
Now, I mean, that, that's, That's a really deep issue that you're, that you're touching on. And I, I don't think that there's an obvious answer to it for the reasons that you cited. I mean, Jesus did throw over the tables of the money changers. You know, you brood of vipers is not de escalation. Jesus used it. Right? So we're, in a sense back to what we were talking about earlier, which is what is called of me as a follower of Jesus in this particular moment. Is it righteous anger? Is it a prophetic voice? Is it tenderness? Is it a time to be quiet and to listen? Is it a time to challenge? If I'm going to challenge somebody, how do I do it? Do I do it directly? Do I do it in the words of Emily Dickinson, sort of the truth come at slant rather than, you know, direct. I mean, those are all really hard questions. They're really hard particularly to answer in real time, to know, you know, if you're in a conversation, what's, what's required of me? And then there are the emotions that we feel, right? Some of it is righteous anger. Some of it's just anger. Some of it is frustration, you know, a sense of, like, wanting to shake somebody. Like, don't you see what you're doing? Don't you see the game that you're playing? The. The. The rationalizations that you're, that you're invoking? And you get frust. You know, you get frustrated with, with, with that. So, you know, the best that I've been able to do with it is, you know, just surround yourself with people whom you trust. You know, in my case, that includes, you know, my wife Cindy and friends. Some of it is, who are the people that I respect from afar? How would they deal with this situation? I find myself, you know, ever since I've been a kid, I've had role models and heroes throughout my life. And I, and I do to this day. And I sometimes find myself asking a very simple question, which is, I'm thinking about somebody like, for example, Steve Hayner was a person early on in my life when, when I was at University of Washington, he was at University Presbyterian Church. Later became president of the University in Columbia Theological, Semin. Really shaping influence in my life. He died in 2015. But I found myself, you know, what would Steve do? Or what would Steve. And I think about this about other people too. What would he think about what I said or what I wrote? Would he or others think yeah, that's sort of what I would hope Pete would do. That would be the best of him. Or would it be, yeah, he probably didn't do what he needed to. And what didn't do what he needed to could mean two things. It could mean I went over the line, I was too aggressive, not compassionate enough, I didn't listen well enough. Or it could be, oh, maybe he. Maybe he. He pulled back. Maybe he didn't show the courage. And, you know, in a group of people when he should have spoken up and really spoken hard truths, but maybe they wouldn't have been received by a group very well. And so I decided, well, maybe I'll just take an off ramp and avoid saying that. So there's no way to know for sure. I do think that part of the answer to that is in your quiet moments, your most reflective moments, when you ask yourself, how did that go and was my register the right one? You know, you kind of have a sense like, boy, I've. Maybe I'm going to have to circle back to repair that relationship, or maybe I'm going to have to circle back and be a little more direct than. Than I was. And then the outcome, too, which is. Is. Is the purposes that at your best, that you wanted to achieve. Did it feel like the needle was moved somewhat in the direction based on. On how you approach that. That particular moment, but it's not easy.
- [53:21]
A
Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for that.
- [53:23]
B
Yeah. We've taken so much of your time, Pete. Thank you for. For being here. And let me. Maybe we. As a closing. As a closing question, I want to ask you, and I think we can do this in a truly, like, nonpartisan way over the last 10 years. I think a lot of people, albeit for very different reasons across the political spectrum, have felt a lot of fear, a lot of anxiety, a lot of despair, even. And I think. I think it's fair to say, although I don't want to put words in your mouth, that in certain times over the last 10 years, you've looked on, at least in sorrow at what's. At what's happening? So I want to ask you, what gives you. What gives you hope today? And maybe what are spiritual practices that you're leaning on or anything in that. In that direction?
- [54:04]
C
Yeah, yeah, it's really. It's a really good question, and it's one that I think about, and I think a lot of people think about. I mean, yeah, I'd say one thing that I've done intentionally, and Cindy, my wife, has been helpful in this and so have other people. So I've somewhat disengaged from politics. Not in all ways, by any means, because I'm a writer for the Atlantic and the New York Times, and I write about politics and I care about politics for the reasons we talked about. So I'm not fully disengaged by any means, but I've pulled back some from following what's going on. I've actually watched the news more through the. Through the prism of comedians, late talk show hosts and others, because it shows you what's going on, but I laugh at it. So rather than blood pressure going up, I've been intentional about writing essays on topics like integrity, awe, Shalom, Hebrew word, shalom, peace. I'm doing one right now, an essay for the Atlantic exploring the concept of Christian humanism. What is it? What might it contribute to our times? I do a theology series for the New York Times, where I've now interviewed seven different people. Richard Hayes, Marilynne Robinson, Ron Williams, N.T. wright, David Bentley Hart. I just interviewed Chris Wyman, the poet, the philosopher, Nick Walderstorp. And I love those. I kind of live in their world for some period of time. And the conversations I find really rich and encouraging. So some of it is that just finding the people in your life that can encourage you in those sorts of ways. And so that's one way I find music to be a portal in a way that nothing else is. Just a lot of things kind of when I'm at that threshold, when music brings me to places that other things don't, a lot of that other stuff is kind of left behind. So that's important. Cindy does this better than I do. But being out in nature, going on, you know, we have the capacity through some of the places close to where we live to go on hikes in beautiful areas, going to the National Gallery of Art and learning things, going to classes, looking at great works of art. I think all of that kind of stuff, you know, just widens the apertures. I was referring to in a different context. So I think that, you know, that that helps as well. I'd say, you know, in terms of, you know, how hopeful or not hopeful I am, I don't know. In terms of the United States, I'm not interested in the false hope, you know, I find the recurrent moment pretty. Pretty depressing, quite honestly. But I know it's going to come to an end. I don't know what's going to follow from it. Try not to worry about that too much, I guess maybe this is a disciplined way of looking at it. But I came to the realization that the way to think about things and myself, my own moment in this time is not to think about success so much as to be faithful. Because success I don't have a lot of control over, and I certainly haven't been successful in what I've been arguing for in the political arena for the last 10 years. But you do have some measures of control over how faithful you are. Are you acting ways with integrity in ways that even very imperfectly try and reflect some aspects of who Jesus is, what his life was, what his teachings are, what it means to follow him as Lord and to enter into the lives of people and to try and make their lives better than they otherwise would be in whatever ways that we, that we can. And then beyond that, it's, it's a sense. And I, I think I had this relatively intuitive sense pretty early on in my Christian journey, which is, as I was alluding to earlier, that I feel like we're, we're part of a story, of a great drama. And I think I, I, I just get some, some hope, some sense of peace in the knowledge that there is an author of that story and that there's a beginning and a middle and an end, and ultimately the story ends well, that it's a happy ending and that all things are made new again. And so I think that probably gives me some measure of equanimity going through things. And I think, I hope it also keeps me from holding too tightly to politics. I've just noticed a lot of Christians, there's just so much anxiety and it is almost as if they feel like, you know, if I don't succeed, if my political party doesn't succeed, if my political movement doesn't succeed, God won't succeed. And I just don't believe that. That's not how I view and understand faith. And so, you know, again, some of it, I, I don't credit myself with being particularly spiritual in that way. I just think it's a temperament, a way that I'm, I'm kind of hard, hardwired. But I do think it has certain advantages at certain moments. And yeah, and the last thing I'd say, just as it relates to America, is the nation. Its history is a country with an amazing capacity for self renewal. There have been darker and worse moments by far in American history. We've survived it. Empires end, countries end, system won't go on forever. But the American capacity for self renewal is pretty impressive. And sometimes viruses create their own antibodies and I Do think what we're seeing now, particularly, I would say in this year, you do see these antibodies kicking in. You know, it's a view that sometimes the things that make life beautiful and good and lovely, we take for granted. And it's only when they're removed from. From your life that you really appreciate them. And you think, you know, those are things I want to reclaim. And I think that the ugliness of modern life and life in America, in a lot of ways, maybe reminding people that some of the virtues and qualities, honor and integrity and love and devotion and compassion, those things really do matter. They matter for the country, they matter for us, and they're worth standing for and fighting for and trying to live out in our own lives.
- [61:26]
B
Yeah. Well, Pete, thank you so much. This has been a really special conversation for me. It's one of those moments where it's like, wow, I can't believe we get to be in a place where we talk to you. And I just really appreciate you sharing your faith and wisdom with us.
- [61:42]
C
Well, you're really kind. I really enjoy the conversation. They're great questions, and you're obviously a couple with a real love and hunger for the things that matter. And just being with you in the last hour or so has made that pretty clear. So thanks for sharing. Thank you sharing your. Your podcast with me, and we can do this again maybe at some point.
- [62:02]
A
Yeah. Thank you.
- [62:03]
C
Thanks. Take care.
- [62:06]
A
All right. Thanks so much for listening. We really hope that you enjoyed this conversation with Pete Wehner. If you get a chance, we would love for you to rate and review the podcast wherever you listen or share this episode with somebody else you think might like it. We appreciate all the support, and it really helps us to get the word out about Faith Matters. Remember, you can check out more @faith matters dot or.