Is There Only One Way to Read the Bible? | Surrounded Follow-Up w/ Allie Beth Stuckey

Summary

Surrounded Podcast Summary

Episode: Is There Only One Way to Read the Bible? | Surrounded Follow-Up w/ Allie Beth Stuckey
Host: John Regolato, Jubilee Media
Guest: Allie Beth Stuckey
Date: October 19, 2025

---

Overview of the Episode

This follow-up episode of Surrounded brings conservative Christian commentator and author Allie Beth Stuckey back to debrief her experience facing off against 20 liberal Christians on the show. Host John Regolato leads a probing conversation about polarizing Christian issues, including biblical authority, abortion, empathy, LGBTQ inclusion, and the evolving place of Christianity in American culture. The discussion dives into what it means to bring faith-based convictions into public life, the interpretive battles over scripture, and how empathy—and its potential limits—shapes contemporary debates. Allie reflects on nuanced disagreements, personal struggles with faith, and the emotional aftermath of recent public tragedies, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Expectations and Reflections on the Surrounded Debate (02:06–03:53)

• Allie Beth Stuckey shares initial nervousness entering the debate, recalling advice from the late Charlie Kirk about the intensity of Jubilee’s format.
• She’s surprised by the kindness of participants, setting a foundation for meaningful dialogue despite fundamental disagreements.
• Quote:
  "I want to be as compassionate, disarmingly compassionate as possible without compromising at all. But honestly, the participants also disarmed me with their kindness." (02:53, Allie Beth Stuckey)
• Both sides showed each other unexpected tenderness, demonstrating the potential for connection even in heated disagreement.

---

2. Abortion, Law, and the Christian Moral Framework (03:53–10:09)

• Debate with Angie centers on whether laws should reflect personal moral beliefs, especially with abortion.
  • Angie: Laws should not enforce personal religious claims.
  • Kyle: All laws inherently enforce someone's beliefs.
  • Allie asserts that both sides bring their morality into law; neutrality is a myth.
  • Quote:
    "There is no such thing as some neutral law. We are all bringing the fullness of our belief system to the table and let the best idea win." (06:25, Allie Beth Stuckey)
• Discussion of America’s founding principles and the concept of God-given rights as fundamental to the Constitution.
• Allie worries about the loss of shared moral foundation, referencing John Adams:
  "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is utterly inappropriate and just insufficient for any other kind of people." (09:00, paraphrased)
• The essence of the abortion debate shifts from "what is a human" to "what is a person" and the grave importance of being on the “right side” of that question.

---

3. Interpreting Old Testament Violence and the Nature of God (13:25–16:46)

• John asks how Christians reconcile God's Old Testament actions (e.g., the death of Egyptian firstborns) with New Testament teachings of love and mercy.
• Allie’s approach: She admits she doesn’t have all the answers. Argues that God’s actions point to his ultimate purpose—redemption through Jesus.
• Quote:
  "We are not prescribed to do everything that God does. We are not permitted to do everything that God does. We are not even given the ability to understand everything that God does." (14:23, Allie Beth Stuckey)
• She frames Old Testament brutality as foreshadowing Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice.

---

4. Toxic Empathy, Moral Boundaries, and Gender Identity (17:46–24:18)

• The concept of “toxic empathy” is explored:
  • Allie: Empathy turns toxic when used to affirm things contrary to truth or scripture, e.g., affirming a transgender identity.
  • Comparison to issues like depression: In those cases, you address the mind, not affirm the disorder. She critiques the inconsistency in approaches to empathy and mental health.
• Quote:
  "Christianity doesn't denigrate the body... Our bodies tell us a really important part of who we are." (20:16, Allie Beth Stuckey)
• Allie distinguishes between feeling with/for someone and being compelled to affirm falsehoods because of those feelings.
  • Love, she argues, is always intertwined with truth; empathy isn’t inherently virtuous.

---

5. Empathy, Polarization, and the Influence of Algorithms (27:36–33:13)

• John (audience member) argues culture needs more empathy, not less, highlighting polarization by algorithmic content.
• Allie counters that empathy, untethered from truth, justifies harmful policies and enflames out-group hostility.
• Quote:
  "The more highly someone scores on empathy, the crueler they are to the out group... That's the problem with being led by empathy—it is always competing against someone on the other side." (25:15, summarizing Paul Bloom, Allie Beth Stuckey)
• They discuss the echo chamber effect and how misperceptions escalate extremism.
  • Example: The varied online reactions to Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
  • Allie: Conservatives more often confront opposing worldviews than liberals due to media/cultural exposure.

---

6. Forgiveness at Charlie Kirk’s Memorial: Empathy vs. Love (32:24–35:19)

• John highlights public forgiveness by Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erica, as an example of radical empathy.
• Allie disagrees:
  "What she did is so much more powerful than empathy... Christ calls me to love that person, not because I feel how they feel, but because they're made in God's image and because Christ died for them." (33:25, Allie Beth Stuckey)
• She sees forgiveness driven by Christian love—not empathy—as a higher virtue.

---

7. Progressivism vs. Christianity: Can Truth Evolve? (37:05–41:55)

• Allie and Danny debate if truth and morality evolve with culture (“progressivism”) or if they are fixed (orthodox Christianity).
• Danny champions humility and contextual reading of scripture, acknowledging human fallibility and the Bible’s misuse throughout history (e.g., slavery).
• Allie stands by the possibility of one “correct interpretation” even as humans are fail-prone; God’s word itself, she insists, doesn’t change.
• Discussion Point: The tension between humility in interpretation and exercising doctrinal authority.

---

8. Wrestling With Doubt and God’s Plan Amid Suffering (41:55–45:55)

• John asks Allie about her own faith struggles.
• Allie admits grappling with suffering of children and evil in the world as the hardest issue.
• She finds hope in the promise of ultimate justice—that Christ will return, evil will be vanquished, and every wrong will be righted.
• Quote:
  "A faith without doubt is like a body without antibodies. It's really important for us to have doubts..." (45:30, quoting Tim Keller via Allie Beth Stuckey)

---

9. The Damage of Church Stance on Same-Sex Marriage (46:23–49:04)

• Gilbert claims the church’s condemnation of same-sex marriage causes damage and suffering for LGBTQ individuals, citing mental health disparities.
• Allie is compassionate but firm: sees marriage as a fixed biblical model—male and female—mirroring Christ and the church.
• Acknowledges the emotional weight of the disagreement, affirms the importance of dialogue, and wishes well for those with whom she disagrees.

---

10. Is Peaceful Coexistence Possible Amid Intractable Disagreements? (49:04–51:35)

• Allie hopes for more civil, empathetic conversations but is candid that she won’t compromise core convictions.
• Clarifies that loving someone doesn’t require affirming all their choices.
• Quote:
  "You cannot mistake my refusal to affirm your decisions and your stated identity as hate or as bigotry... Don't confuse love and affirmation." (51:39, Allie Beth Stuckey)

---

11. Sacrifice and Faith: Personal Reflections (53:08–55:57)

• John asks Allie about the biggest sacrifices she’s made for her faith.
• Allie shares anecdotes about professional limitations—refusing to preach to mixed congregations or take certain platforms because of her biblical convictions on female leadership.
• Admits the difficulty of calling others (e.g., gay Christians) to celibacy, recognizing the burden even while standing firm on doctrine.

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• “There is no such thing as some neutral law. We are all bringing the fullness of our belief system to the table and let the best idea win.”
  — Allie Beth Stuckey (06:25)

• “We are not permitted to do everything that God does. We are not even given the ability to understand everything that God does.”
  — Allie Beth Stuckey (14:23)

• “Love is always inextricably intertwined with the truth, that you can't love someone and lie to them.”
  — Allie Beth Stuckey (26:40)

• “The more highly someone scores on empathy, the crueler they are to the out group.”
  — Allie Beth Stuckey (25:15, referencing Paul Bloom)

• “What she did is so much more powerful than empathy... Christ calls me to something higher than just feeling how someone feels.”
  — Allie Beth Stuckey (33:13, on Erica Kirk’s forgiveness)

• “A faith without doubt is like a body without antibodies.”
  — Tim Keller, quoted by Allie Beth Stuckey (45:30)

• “You cannot mistake my refusal to affirm your decisions and your stated identity as hate or as bigotry... Don't confuse love and affirmation.”
  — Allie Beth Stuckey (51:39)

---

Useful Timestamps

• Expectations & Episode Reflections: 02:06–03:53
• Abortion & Law: 03:53–10:09
• Old Testament Violence: 13:25–16:46
• Toxic Empathy & Gender: 17:46–24:18
• Empathy, Polarization, Algorithms: 27:36–33:13
• Forgiveness & Love: 32:24–35:19
• Progressivism & Bible: 37:05–41:55
• Wrestling with Doubt: 41:55–45:55
• LGBTQ & the Church: 46:23–49:04
• Peaceful Coexistence?: 49:04–51:35
• Personal Sacrifice: 53:08–55:57

---

Closing Tone

The conversation is candid, respectful, intellectually engaged, and emotionally charged—reflecting deep convictions and a genuine effort to understand others without papering over real divisions. Allie Beth Stuckey models clarity, warmth, and unapologetic commitment to her faith, even as she acknowledges uncertainty and pain, particularly around suffering and human difference. The episode offers a window into the sincere wrestling taking place within the Christian community as it navigates centuries-old doctrines amid rapidly changing cultural and moral landscapes.

Transcript

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

That is the very difficult place that we've gotten. It's not that our disagreements have become more complicated as Americans. It's that our disagreements have become a lot more fundamental. What is truth? What is morality? Who made us? What are rights, and where did they come from? For hundreds of years, we at the very least on the left and right, agreed on that.

[John Regolato]

From Jubilee Media, this is the Surrounded Podcast. I'm John Regolato, and today we're welcoming back Ali Beth Stuckey. She's a conservative Christian, and she was at the center of last week's episode Debating 20 Liberal Christians. She's also the host of the Relatable podcast as well as an author. Her book is called Toxic Empathy. We're gonna discuss homosexuality and whether or not the Bible approves of it, as well as other issues such as abortion, polarization in our political culture, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and lots more. So without further ado, let's.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

The detective said missing kids usually come home. What happens when they don't?

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Based on a true story. Police looking for John Gacy. We discovered bodies. By the looks of it. The younger man, the things he did to those kids.

[John Regolato]

He's sick.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

The system failed.

[Kyle]

These families.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Devil in disguise. John Wayne Gacy. Streaming now only on Peacock.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Do you know how many there are?

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Up to you to find out. Every drop of Jack Daniels is mellowed through sugar maple charcoal, giving Jack its smooth taste. That's what makes Jack Jack.

[Danny]

Please drink responsibly. Jack Daniels and old number seven are registered trademarks. Tennessee whiskey, 40% alcohol by volume. Jack Daniel Distillery, Lynchburg, Tennessee.

[John Regolato]

Let's get into it. Welcome to the Surrounded follow up.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Thank you so much for having me.

[John Regolato]

I want to react to some of kind of the highlights that stood out to me in your episode. I really enjoyed your episode. It's actually probably one of my favorites.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Awesome.

[John Regolato]

I think it just was. It was a unique conversation and I felt like there was a lot of substance. First things first. I just kind of wanted to hear from you, you know, what was your expectations going into it, and then maybe what were your feelings coming out of it?

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

I was a little nervous just because this is a unique scenario and I had never been in this kind of setup. I had had discussions, disagreements, debates in the past. Maybe the most similar thing was I testified before Congress a few years ago, only pro life witness there, in front of a lot of congressional Democrats. And, you know, so maybe that was the only thing that I felt like had really prepared me for it. But I also was very good friends with Charlie Kirk. And he had done a lot more debates than I had. And that was really one of the last conversations that we had, was him giving me advice on Jubilee. And when he told me, hey, this is really intense. This is really tough. You need to make sure that you're going to take breaks, I was like, man, if Charlie Kirk, the debater of all debaters, is telling me that this is going to be really tense, then I'm nervous. But then when I walked in, one of my things was, I was like, okay, I want to be as compassionate, disarmingly compassionate as possible without compromising at all. But honestly, the participants also disarmed me with their kindness, because when I sat down and the first person said, hey, I'm really sorry for Charlie, I know the two guys were friends, that shifted the tone. I think I was already going in hoping to make a kind impression on them, but they also made a kind impression on me. And even though, as we'll get into it, did get tense at times, of course we're disagreeing on, like, really serious, big stuff. I honestly felt, like, very tender towards them, and I felt like a lot of them felt like that towards me too. And I think that set us up to having a lot of really good dialogue.

[John Regolato]

The first claim that I want to kind of dive into this was in the context of abortion is a grave moral evil. In the edit. This is your second claim. And then this is a clip from your conversation with Angie.

[Angie]

These are my personal beliefs. These are your personal beliefs. We should not be using the law to enforce our personal beliefs on people who are not.

[Kyle]

Every law enforces a personal belief on everyone. That's what a law is. But this is.

[Angie]

Yes, but this is like, these are. Those are more universal laws. They're laws.

[Kyle]

Should we have a law against murdering?

[Angie]

No, no, let me. Let me finish this point. There's a lot of. These are common sense universal laws that are actually reflected in many different religions. Not just Christianity, about murder, about stealing, about theft. These are things, I think that our.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Founders founded our laws based on the principles to humanity.

[Angie]

I'm sorry, I missed that.

[Kyle]

Our founders founded our laws and wrote our laws specifically with the principles of scripture in mind. Not created a theocracy, but on the values.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

The principles.

[Kyle]

The principles. And so they weren't saying, well, let's just pick the laws that sound good to Buddhists, too. That's not how they formed those laws.

[Angie]

I mean, I'm sure they have limited access to Buddhism. I mean, let's be real. And what their Theology or, you know, but that's. I think we need to get back to the point that with Christians really trying to force our personal beliefs on non Christians throughout the, throughout our country because we have these personal convictions, I think that is incorrect because at least because it can go to so many different ways. Especially if it was a different religion that came into power Christians would be upset about.

[Kyle]

You see that laws that allow abortions. Laws that allow abortions is enforcing your personal belief system on that child.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

We don't see it as enforcing a personal belief system.

[Angie]

Again, I'm going back to the law.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Is to go back to baby, back to Exodus 21. What I find is that Christian conservatives seem to be the only people who are told our worldview should not be brought into the public square or the public sphere or policy making conversations. But say we have a secular progressive who comes to the table and says, you know, I think that we should allow people, people who identify as transgender to go to their bathroom of choice. Well, that is their particular belief about what constitutes as a legitimate identity that affords to that individual certain rights. And that secular progressive bringing that belief to the table that then informs the law, that has an effect on me. Maybe I don't want someone who is the opposite sex of me to join me in the bathroom or in the locker room or something like that, but they have now forced their particular worldview on me. And that is what every law does. There is no such thing as some neutral law. We are all bringing the fullness of our belief system to the table and let the best idea win. That's, I think why these discussions are so important. But when you tell one person, no, no, no, you have to leave your beliefs at your house and you can't bring those to the table. But me, secular progressive over here, I'm going to bring everything I believe about the world to the table in those discussions. Well, that's just not going to work.

[John Regolato]

I think that makes total sense. When you adopt a moral framework, especially through the lens of faith, how can that not inform your beliefs to the extent of how you think laws should be enacted, what direction you want politics to move. So I think that makes total sense to me. I'm curious what you think about kind of the delicate balance of like separation of church and state in your discussion with Ang. This idea of, you know, the founding fathers principles, I think all of the founding fathers were probably would identify as Christian. I actually don't know for sure. But it was a Christian culture and a Christian context in which this country was founded. But there was also this idea of separation of church and state. And I'm curious, you know, have you seen instances where you think Christians maybe overstep?

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Well, there is certainly a prohibition against the establishment of a state religion. And despite what a lot of people on the progressive side say, I actually don't know any theocrats on the conservative side. I don't know anyone who was like, yeah, you know, we should pass laws that say, you gotta be a Presbyterian and you have to go to Presbyterian Church and you have to worship God and pray the way that I do. What I think a lot of people don't realize is that the separation of church and state, first of all, that's not in the Constitution, but you could argue in the First Amendment, the principle is, but if not a separation of God and law. And the founders were very clear about that at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. We have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So even if you could say that the founders didn't have all the same theological beliefs as evangelical Christians do today, there was still this underlying belief that there is a God whose power transcends the power of the government, who gives us rights that the government cannot arbitrary give or arbitrarily give or take away. So I think that that belief is fundamental. Now the debate comes in, what does that look like? How do we enact laws that manifest that reality? And there are always going to be debates over that. There's always going to be elections that try to determine that. And I think that that's a good thing. I think the place that we've gotten, which is a very difficult place to be, is the rejection of that idea that our rights are given to us by God. And, okay, well, if you've abandoned that foundational belief, then we're going to have a really hard time discussing and debating everything else. Which is exactly why John Adams said, look, our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is utterly inappropriate and just insufficient for any other kind of people. And that is the very difficult place that we've gotten. It's not that our disagreements have become more complicated as Americans. It's that our disagreements have become a lot more fundamental. What is truth? What is morality? Who made us? What are rights, and where did they come from? For hundreds of years, we, at the very least on the left and right, agreed on that.

[John Regolato]

I think abortion, especially as an issue which was what this claim was focused on, really does hit on that it's such a fundamental value. And, and I imagine I had a great conversation with Lila Rose. I'm not sure if you guys know each other, but she's been on the show.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Yeah, we're friends. She's great.

[John Regolato]

Yeah, we had a conversation kind of about looking ahead towards the future of procreation and the technology and what the possibilities that unlocks in the future. It is kind of hard to envision a future without some sort of shared fundamental understanding around the value of life in the womb and how we interpret that.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Well, and I think it points to a lot of the fundamental differences that we have because for so long, we, you know, for most of human history, we didn't have the science to understand what was happening in the womb. There was an idea that, okay, maybe they become a person at quickening. When a woman is able to feel the baby move inside the Womb at like 20 weeks, or maybe it's later, maybe it's earlier than that. But now we have the science to not only know, but to see that at the very beginning, at the point of conception, this is a human being. Now, whether you think that human being has rights can be debated, but it's a human with his or her own DNA, with everything already determined at that point of conception. So now we're not arguing about what is a human. We see it scientifically. We're arguing about what is a person. And I just think that when you look at every human rights atrocity throughout history, that's really been the question. And you don't want to be on the wrong side of that question. What is a person? Is a black person, A person? Is a Jewish person, A person? Is this person on this side of this tribal conflict in Africa or in the Middle East, a person? You want to be on the right side of saying yes. And I think pro abortion people are on the wrong side of that question. And that's a really big deal.

[John Regolato]

I think that's a, that's a strong argument. And I, you know, in the, in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe, I'm actually really interested in where the pro choice argument evolves because I, I do think the, the foundation of personhood, like you're saying, you know, do you really think that's not a human? To me, that argument, it does really feel like the argument, of course that's a human life is the stronger one. So I'll be curious to see if the argument on the other side evolves or changes in the coming years just given how much the political reality has changed around this issue. Something that came up in this argument around abortion was the intentional killing of a life is wrong, which I think makes total sense. And I just want to go into the Bible a little bit, since so much of this episode was about the Bible and I was curious and you just, you seem so well versed in it, so. I grew up Catholic and I watched the Moses movie with Charlton Heston. And I just remember as a kid being so afraid of the scene where the. I can't remember which plague it is. Is it the ninth? It's the last one where the firstborn child is killed.

[Kyle]

Yes.

[John Regolato]

And it's like the green smoke comes in and it goes under the doors.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Yeah.

[John Regolato]

When I was a child, that terrified me.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

It's terrifying. Yes.

[John Regolato]

Yeah. But, you know, you talk a lot about, like, the example set by God and sort of the truth he establishes. And so in the context of killing, how should we interpret or how do you interpret God's decision to take the life of the firstborn.

[Kyle]

To.

[John Regolato]

To convince the pharaoh to. To release the Israelites?

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

I think there are so many different ways we can talk about this. And I recently had a conversation with one of my children about this. We read this story in one of the Jesus storybook Bibles. And of course, naturally she's like, what in the world? Because of course, we have been taught and we read in scripture that God is merciful, that he made all of us in his image, that he sent his son to die for us. So how do we reconcile that reality? John 3:16, that God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. And some of the seeming brutality that we see in the Old Testament, to us, we might say, well, that's just like needless death of people who didn't directly do anything wrong. And I don't know that I have every single answer for every single description of that kind of thing in the Old Testament. I've asked. I've asked myself and I've asked God some of those questions, like, give me the wisdom to understand because you tell me that you're good and merciful and love us. And I know that I'm not perfect and always good. And I wouldn't condone something like that. So help me understand. And the only thing that I can say is that, number one, we are not prescribed to do everything that God does. We are not permitted to do everything that God does. We are not even given the ability to understand everything that God does. But what we can see throughout Scripture is that God will do absolutely, absolutely anything to rescue his people. God will stop at nothing to bring himself glory. He will part the Red Sea. He will stop Pharaoh's army. He will inflict the oppressive community with plagues, even death, if that means rescuing his own people. And what we see is that the Passover, So the Jewish people, you know, had to put the blood of a lamb over their doorpost so that the Spirit would not go into their homes and kill their children. Well, that is a foreshadowing of the. The blood of Jesus, our spotless lamb, that was shed for our behalf to spare us from eternal spiritual death. So while I don't fully understand it, I know that all of the sacrifices and all of the loss and all of the pain of the Old Testament was a foreshadowing of the sacrifice and ultimate redemption of Jesus Christ for me, so that I no longer have put blood on an altar or blood over my doorpost in order to be made clean, in order to be spared, because Jesus accomplished that perfectly on my behalf on the cross. And so sometimes I wonder if God allowed this kind of brutality in the Old Testament to point to the new and the better and bigger way and sacrifice of Jesus. And I don't know if that's the perfect answer, but that's kind of how I've thought through things growing up.

[John Regolato]

I have heard similar arguments and the distinction between the Old and New Testament and kind of before and after the crucifixion. So that makes a lot of sense. My Catholic education is showing, and I can hear the producer telling me to move to the next clip. So thank you for going into that. This one's actually really interesting. Your claim was empathy can be toxic and lead to sin, which is super fascinating because I have a podcast called Radical Empathy. You have a book called Toxic Empathy. I think they're both interesting takes on a similar concept. And so you and Kyle have an argument around, you know, how can being empathetic for somebody be toxic? And you bring up the example of a transgender person, and if they were assigned a certain gender at birth, but then are telling you that they feel another way.

[Kyle]

Okay, let me give you an example of what I think is toxic empathy. And this will probably unleash a can of worms, which will be fun. If I feel so deeply that someone who sits across from me says, you know what? I was assigned male at birth, but I am trapped in the wrong body. And I am. I identify as a girl, I would say that feeling so Deeply how that person feels, that you get to the point of affirming their identity and saying, yes, why can't we affirm that?

[Danny]

The Bible doesn't condemn transgenderism.

[Kyle]

Let's get there.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Hang on.

[Kyle]

That is an example of what I would say is empathy that has turned toxic because you are affirming something that is not true and is destructive for the individual.

[John Regolato]

Affirming what feels true to them could be a harm to them, and that could be a form of toxic empathy because you're affirming something that's not true. And so this was sort of the example you offered to Kyle, and I thought it was a really interesting one. But I'm curious, sort of how you grapple with. How do we identify truths in the context of kind of, like a scientific, biological reality outside of transgender? I think of things like depression or very rare physical ailments, such as, like, conjoined twins or very rare genetic diseases. I'm curious how you think about God's truth in the context of kind of those abnormalities or irregularities, or if you see them a similar way as the example of transgenderism.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

There's so many directions that I could take my answer to this.

[John Regolato]

Yeah, it's a loaded question. Whichever feels right.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

No, that's okay. It's really interesting. So there's a presupposition that I see a lot of people who either identify as transgender or just who affirm the validity of transgenderism, that it's possible that you could be assigned a gender based on your anatomy that is not in alignment with who you really are, and that is that there is some kind of, like, inner gendered identity or soul that is who you really are, that that's your genuine identity, and that the body is kind of just arbitrary. And because your inner identity is who you really are, you should change the body in order to match that inner identity. Well, that's not a Christian belief at all. Christians do not believe that the body is arbitrary. We believe Christian. Or that the creation rather. And that our bodies have something called a telos, which is a purpose, and that our bodies tell us a really important part of who we are. That's not to say that we don't have thoughts that are important or feelings that are important or personality. Of course we believe that we have an eternal soul. Soul. But Christianity doesn't denigrate the body in that way. We don't believe that the soul and the body are two separate things, that the soul is, like, who we really are. No, we believe that God purposely gave us our bodies, and that our biology tells us something about our telos and tells us about our purpose. In the same way that a bird's body and an elephant's body, they tell you about what they can do. They tell you about who they are. And no one is going to a bird and saying, well, why don't you just act like an elephant? Like, why don't you raise your trunk up and stomp around? No one's going to tell a bird that because they can see the bird's wings, and they could say, you were made for this. And no matter how that bird feels, that is what that is. That bird is going to be forever. And yet, for some reason, when it comes to human beings, we decide that our bodies tell us nothing about who we are, that our biology tells us nothing about our functions, nothing about our identity. And I just think that doesn't make any sense, both from a Christian worldview standpoint, but just from a logical standpoint, too. And, of course, we could get into all of the consequences of people being able to identify as something that they biologically are not. Consequences for their own body, and then consequences for everyone else, too. You also brought up depression, and I think it's interesting how depression and eating disorders are treated so differently than transgenderism. Like depression, of course, you try to heal the mind as much as you can, and there might be outward things that you can do, but you don't tell. Like someone with an eating disorder. Yeah, you know what? I know you're only £100, but you really should lose more weight. No, you try to heal their mind. You try to reconcile their mind with the outward reality. But we've decided with transgenderism that you have to change the body in order to reconcile to this delusion that you're the opposite gender. And it doesn't make any sense.

[John Regolato]

That is clarifying to me. I think it's interesting, this distinction between the mind and body, because I was actually interpreting in the mind more literally as an extension of the body, like. Like the brain itself. And so I was wondering if you. You were resistant to, like, I don't know, SSRIs, you know, a medication that manipulates the brain to, you know, prevent certain kind of mood disorders. So that's how I was interpreting it. But I, you know, it was helpful to hear what you were. How you described it.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

But, yeah, I have a whole other issue about SSRIs that doesn't really have to do with that argument. I just think that the things that on the market are actually can. Can be Very harmful to people's psychology. We don't treat transgenderism with that kind of idea that, hey, we can give you something to help your mind think differently. We don't say that. In fact, if someone says that, then they're considered transphobic. The only thing that we're supposed to do is affirm and say, yes, get your double mastectomy, because your mind is absolutely right about this. And that's just because it's politically dangerous to say otherwise. And I think that's very cowardly.

[John Regolato]

Yeah, thank you for going deeper into that. I think it makes perfect sense, this idea that you can be too deep in empathy to the point where you almost get disoriented when you withdraw from another person's feelings, you may be are too aligned with them or your compass has sort of been offset. And so I think that makes a lot of sense. I'm curious, do you think empathy became too trendy in the last decade? It's definitely a word that sort of ebbed and flowed through culture. And I'm curious if you just feel like it's. It's a trend that went too far and maybe what the biggest factors were.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Contributing to that when we adopted empathy and moral relativism at the same time. And so if you believe that morality is relative, that you're not really tethered by any basic principles that are unmoved depending on where you live or the time that you're in, well, empathy then becomes your guide. And the problem with empathy is that it's a strong feeling. Strong feelings aren't necessarily bad, but any strong feeling can either lead you in a good direction or it can lead you in a dangerous direction. Because feelings are so powerful, they can either help us see more clearly, or they can completely blind us to reality. And my argument about toxic empathy is not that all empathy is bad. It's actually that empathy by itself is neutral. If I feel deeply for you, that doesn't make me. Or if I feel deeply how you feel, if I try to put myself in your feelings, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm a good person. If I see someone on the side of the road and I'm like, wow, I can imagine how painful that is and how awful that is. That sucks. And I keep driving, that doesn't make me a good person. But if I feel deeply for that person, how they feel, and then that compels me to stop and to lend them aid, it's not really the empathy that was the virtue. It is the sacrifice and the kindness and the sacrifice that I put into actually helping that person, which is why I think empathy could sometimes be an important vessel to morality, but it's not always. And it can also lead us to be really cruel. And an example of that, and Paul Bloom, he's a secular Yale psychologist. He wrote an entire book on Against Empathy. And what he found was that the more highly someone scores on empathy, the crueler they are to the out group. And so you've got this person, you believe that they're a victim, they're being marginalized in some way. You pour all of your empathy into that underdog, Then what happens is, naturally, you feel that the enemy or oppressor of that person is your enemy, and you hate them. Which is what I see from progressives a lot. They've got so much empathy for the illegal immigrant. They've got so much empathy for the person who says they're transgender. They've got so much empathy for whoever they feel is being marginalized that everyone they perceive as hurting that person becomes their dire enemy. And that person doesn't deserve anything. That person deserves cruelty. That person deserves to be protested, to be, you know, whatever, canceled. And then in some extreme cases, of course, they deserve pain to be inflicted upon them for what they're doing to this purported victim over there. So they have allowed their empathy for that person to blind them, I think, to reality and morality. That's the problem with being led by empathy, is that it is always competing against someone on the other side. And so it's much better to be led by virtue, to be led by truth, to be led, I think, by love, which is better and more powerful than empathy. And I argue that love is always inextricably intertwined with the truth, that you can't love someone and lie to them. You can't love someone and support something that's bad for them and bad for the people around them. So, yeah, that's my argument, that empathy really is not that helpful of a feeling and can actually be very detrimental to making good decisions on a wide scale.

[John Regolato]

That was perfect, because that cues up the next clip I wanted to bring in, which was within the same claim. John came up to you, and he's saying, look, I. I hear what you're saying. Empathy can be toxic, but I actually feel like there's not enough empathy. And he talks about how algorithms are showing the worst versions of both sides, and he talks about kind of political polarization with algorithms. And his concern was that the messaging around toxic empathy might harden people's hearts more than it's intended to.

[John]

I think it's because a lot of times on the right, it's the things you're not able to identify with that you're feeling. Why do you think homosexuality is? It's, it gives people on the right the ick in a lot of ways because they don't get it. They, they're not, they're not entering into that. And so it's easier to say, oh, that is outrageously, God is frowning on that. As opposed to, as opposed to pride, as opposed to the, well, of course, disparity between.

[Kyle]

We should look at all of those as sins. But I'm probably the only one in this room right now that would say that both of those things that you just listed are sins. And that's really kind of the disparity and the disagreement that we see is that even if I have empathy for someone, that does not mean I am going to affirm a sexual identity or a so called gender identity that does not align with the Bible. And that's what I see a lot from my progressive friends. And that's why I wrote the book. Not as a quip, not as just a hot take to put out there, but actually because I see very well intentioned, compassionate, deeply feeling people use empathy to justify things that I think are not only unbiblical but destructive for society. Whether it's immigration or gender or marriage or social justice. All of that starts with, well, I feel how this person feels. And that leads, I believe, to supporting policies that are bad for that person and bad for society.

[John]

I understand where you're coming from. It's, it's, it's the parent who's not going to let their kid do things that are going to hurt them out of love. It's right, It's, I totally get it. I don't draw the lines in the same places as you, but you get the. But I get. I know, I understand the essence of it. I think what's, what's, what's upsetting is that we need to lean further into identifying with one another and loving each other. Jesus talks about us being the vine and the branches. Your pain should be my pain. And we shouldn't just go, oh, you're on the right and you're on these, these, these labels like Jesus actually wasn't either party. That's not what he was doing. He was breaking down all these divides.

[John Regolato]

You responded to him with, I thought, a really clear retort. But I was curious just what your thoughts were about kind of algorithms from one content Creator to another. You know, do you feel a sense of conflict or concern about how algorithms maybe undermine or splice our intentions as, you know, as storytellers or as truth tellers?

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Well, certainly it can change our perception of reality. And I think this really matters, especially on the fringes, on both the. And right. And you've got the vast majority of us who are like, no political violence. Bad idea. I don't care how much I disagree with someone. But then you've got people who just. They. For whatever reason, whatever components they have going on in their mind, they really don't need that much to be moved from anger to violence. And I think that when you are in an echo chamber on whatever chat room you're in or whatever social media space you're in, and you are made to believe that everyone is as extreme as you, everyone feels the same way you do, you start building yourself up, okay, everyone thinks this way, I'm gonna be a hero. Like, everyone thinks this way.

[Kyle]

I'm gonna do this thing.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Everyone's gonna love me. And then, you know, it's not until later that you realize, oh, my gosh, 99% of people, like, were not with you on that. I saw people after Charlie Kirk was shot. People on the other side of the aisle say, wow, Like, I haven't seen anyone mourn this guy. Everyone on my timeline is celebrated. I'm like, oh, my gosh, I didn't see anyone celebrating. I had to go, like, look for that on places like TikTok. It really changes your perception of reality. And, of course, I think that liberals have a much more difficult time at seeing how conservatives think. We see how liberals think every day. All we have to do is turn on a show or watch a movie or read the New York Times.

[Kyle]

And I think.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Not that, you know, every liberal is bad at debating, but I'm surprised at how little liberals understand the conservative position. And they think they've got this, like, perfect argument that is really easily unraveled because they've never really been tested against that. So that's an issue. That's why conservatives are a lot braver when it comes to being 20 against one.

[John Regolato]

Yeah, no, that is a. We could talk about that for a long time. Something that I thought was maybe the most empathetic thing I've seen. And I'm curious if you think this is empathy, actually, but this was one of the most powerful moments that has maybe happened in culture that I can recall, and that was at Charlie Kirk's memorial just a little while ago when his Wife Erica forgave the killer in. In such a public way. I saw very progressive people kind of like gobsmacked by that and praising it. And I just thought that was one of the most powerful moments and kind of shocking moments I've witnessed recently. And I'm curious, do you see that as empathy? And do you agree?

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

No, I don't think that's empathy at all. In fact, I think she probably feels no empathy for the man who slaughtered her husband. To be empathetic means to be in someone's feelings. And I highly doubt that she could put herself in her shoes and be like, yeah, I could see that. I could see why he did that. What she did is so much more powerful than empathy. She said, just like the Good Samaritan and Jesus's parable, I don't know that person. I don't like that person. That person is so diametrically opposed. Not only. And I'm. I don't know what her actual thoughts are. I'm just saying what I see from a biblical perspective. But I don't, like, have anything. I can't relate to that person at all. But Christ calls me to something higher than just feeling how someone feels. Christ calls me to something that to most people looks impossible. Christ calls me to love that person, not because I feel how they feel, but because they're made in God's image and because Christ died for them and because Jesus calls me to forgive because he forgave me, I'm going to forgive this person that most people think is completely unforgivable. So that's actually a perfect example of what I think is so much more powerful than empathy. I saw so many people after Charlie died, share a quote where he says, you know, I don't really like the word empathy. I like the word sympathy. And so a lot of people said, well, he didn't. He didn't care about empathy. Why should I give him any empathy? Why should I feel for him? Yeah, that's the problem with empathy. It is so feelings driven. It is so agreement driven in many cases, not all. But it's so arbitrary because of that that if you are driven by empathy, you're not going to forgive someone just because it's the right thing to do. You're going to try to decide how you feel about them and if you can relate to their feelings first. But what if we just took our feelings out of it and asked what is right and what is true and what is good? Then I think that we make much better choices. To me, knowing that she's a Christian like I am. That is more of the mentality than she had. That she had rather than oh yeah, I can understand where he was coming from.

[John Regolato]

Yeah. No, I appreciate hearing your take on that. And yeah, I mean, obviously my thoughts go out to her. And it was just, it felt like a really important thing to say and to hear.

[Advertiser]

Imagine fast hydration combined with balanced energy. Perfectly flavored with zero artificial sweeteners. Introducing Liquid Ivy's new energy multiplier.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Sugar free.

[Advertiser]

Unlike other energy drinks, you know the ones that make you feel like you're glitching, it's made with natural caffeine and electrolytes so you get the boost without the burnout. Liquid IV's new energy multiplier. Sugar free hydrating energy. Tap the banner to learn more.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Hello, Finney. Did you think our story was over?

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Mr. Grammar?

[Narrator/Advertiser]

This Friday you're dead. Dead is just a word. Critics are saying Ethan Hawke is pure nightmare fuel. Discover the secret behind the mask. What do you think happens when you die? It's time to find out. Black film 2 only in theaters Friday. Rated R under 17. Not admit without parent.

[Advertiser]

This episode is brought to you by Greenlight. Get this. Adults with financial literacy skills have 82% more wealth than those who don't. From swimming lessons to piano classes. Us parents invest in so many things to enrich our kids lives. But are we investing in their future financial success? With Greenlight you can teach your kids financial literacy skills like earning, saving and investing. And this investment costs less than that. After school treat start prioritizing their financial education and future today with a risk free [e-mail] Spotify greenlight.com Spotify the next.

[John Regolato]

Clip I want to talk about is a conversation you had with Danny. And I think this was in the context of your final claim. Oh yeah, this is your. You guys were talking about your claim Progressivism and Christianity are at odds.

[Kyle]

Should we define progressivism? Yeah.

[Danny]

Thank you so much. I would love to hear kind of where you're going on kind of an ideological case.

[Kyle]

Okay, so I was thinking about this and it's so broad, I don't know if we're going to be able to agree on an answer and a clear definition. So I'm happy to workshop it with you. But I kind of defined progressivism as the belief that morality and truth evolve with culture and the human experience and that that would kind of encompass a lot of the what I would call progressive views on sexuality and gender, even economics and justice. What do you think about that definition.

[Danny]

I think it's fabulous definition.

[Kyle]

I think it's fine.

[Danny]

I think God is pulling us into greater levels of understanding of God's grace and justice and story and all of that. So I would agree with that.

[Kyle]

So what do you think our authority.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Is when we're trying to figure out.

[Kyle]

What'S moral and what's not?

[Danny]

Well, I think. So we're gonna use the word authority maybe differently. I look at scripture, but I think you and I look at scripture certainly differently.

[Kyle]

Yeah. How do you, how when you're looking at scripture, how do you decide? O yes, this is right. I need to listen to what Jesus says about praying for my enemies. But when he talks about the definition of marriage, I don't think that's literal.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

How do you work with that?

[Danny]

Yes, I imagine we're both Talking about the 66 book Protestant Bible as well. It's a lot of different compositions of scripture and all that. But I mean, I would look at it in terms of context. I try really hard not to prove text in anything. I try really hard not to pull something out and say, you know, the Bible says it, that settles it. I think if any Christian, progressive or conservative tells you that they're a liar, agree. The Bible is not a parlor trick and it's not something that ought to be proof texted. So I think in the whole totality of scripture, the story that God is weaving and the story that God is writing, which is the story of God in us, like both of us. And that's not because we agree, that's because God loves us, both of us. God is telling a story of greater levels of justice and redemption. We look at this through. You talked about America being founded on Christian biblical principles, right?

[Kyle]

Yes.

[Danny]

There were a lot of my friends of color that were up here that the Bible would have condemned their personhood.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

The Bible would have condemned how people interpreted the Bible may have condemned their.

[Kyle]

Personhood, but the Bible didn't change and God didn't change.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

So who gets to either?

[Kyle]

Hebrews 13:8 says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, so he and his Word don't change.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

But I agree, I think we both.

[Kyle]

Agree that human beings are fallible, that we're finite and that we don't always get it right. I would say there's one correct interpretation of Scripture and that we do our very best to do exactly what you said, to read everything in context, to try to understand what that correct interpretation is.

[Danny]

I don't have a lot of time. Can I ask you a question?

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Sure.

[Danny]

Where do you think maybe you are getting it wrong?

[Kyle]

Where do you think when.

[Danny]

When you're interpreting scripture? Because who gets to be the arbiter of what's right and wrong? Like the people that thought slavery was just. They felt certainly right. The people that oppressed women have felt certainly right. I feel certainly right that the Bible doesn't condemn queer people. And I would affirm that there are things I probably get wrong. Would you say that there's anything you think you have missed the mark on or that you're open to?

[Kyle]

Oh, I'm sure, because I'm a fallible person. And so I could never say that I am the infallible interpreter, but of. I want to take the word of God as seriously in context as possible. And, you know, there were Christians who tried to justify all kinds of things using scripture, as you, I'm sure, would agree with. But also, the abolitionist movement was motivated and led by Christians who were inspired by that very same Bible. In it is the Gospel, of course, which says, all people are made in God's image and equally dead and sin apart from Christ. By grace, through faith, you have been saved. And so, yeah, yes, human beings get it wrong, God does not get it wrong, and God does not change.

[Danny]

I agree with that. So I would say, I would love my friends across the aisle to have more humility. I don't think there's toxic humility. I think that when I look at scripture, I try really hard to come at it with humility. I take the Bible really seriously enough to dive into it and deconstruct it and find places that are not congruent with the story that God is writing, places that don't make sense, that are out of context, places that affirm the stories that are being said. I am certainly not right 100% of the way. And when I get up and preach in front of my congregation, I say that to them. I let them know, like I am a person diving into God's word with you.

[Kyle]

See, I would argue that you're making yourself the authority because you could read clearly, for example, that Romans 1 condemns homosexuality. But you're saying, I find that congruent with the rest of Scripture. And you are deciding that that's not true. Whereas I might read something that, hey, is a little jarring for me. Wives submit to their husbands. That's important. That's Ephesians 5. Women should not be pastors. That's also in Scripture. And those things, you know, as a woman, as a strong woman, I still have to submit to myself. To God's law and to God's word, even when it might feel difficult because I'm a sinful person in my flesh.

[John Regolato]

He asks this pretty provocative question. He's like, what do you think you might be getting wrong? Which I thought was a pretty bold thing to ask. And I was just curious, you know, maybe, like, a different version of that question might be. What's something that maybe provoked the most doubt in you or was just one of the biggest struggles of your faith? I just. I would like to hear from you.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Yeah, I'm happy to share that. You know, we've already touched on it a little bit, but I just, like anyone else, I don't like the thought of children being harmed. Like, I don't like the thought of children being the victims of war, the victims of conquest, or the victims of any kind of violence. And it's really hard for me. Like, I can kind of understand things like a car wreck or cancer or things like that. Okay, yes, we live in this fallen world and bad things happen. But when you think about whether it's, you know, in Bible times or today, the horrific things that happen to children, I'm like, okay, how is that part of God's greater plan?

[Kyle]

Like.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Like, I know that God is in charge, you know, in the greater sovereign sense. And I know that he's good and I'm not in charge and I'm not always good. But if I could stop something like that, I would. So that has, you know, that's hard for me to grapple with. And what I come back to is in the Christian faith, we believe that one day Jesus is coming back and that he's not going to come back as a baby. He's not going to come back just as a rabbi, but that he actually comes back. Book of Revelation is kind of trippy, but comes back on a white horse with a sword coming out of his mouth and a tattoo on his thigh, and he comes back to avenge his people, and he comes back to shed the blood of the evildoer and do away with Satan forever and ever, and all of his minions and all of evil will be no more. And I actually think I could even get a secular progressive to agree that we are hoping for a better future in which there is no, not injustice and oppression. And Christianity actually promises that. That Jesus is going to be the one that comes back and does away with all of that in a very warrior sense, forever and ever. And so what I have to trust. I read a Psalm, like Psalm 37, that says basically, paraphrasing all the evil that evildoers do will come back on them. And all of the people that are, you know, wreaking this terrible oppression and violence, they will get their due. And so I have to trust that God is not doing nothing, that he also looks to that pain and he hates it and that one day he's going to do something about it, that his wrath is kindling against evil. And I think all of us who like superhero movies and all of that, we all feel that we want the bad guy to get God. Like we want his reign to be over and we want the good guy to win. And Christianity promises that in a really big eternal sense. So I have to put. I just have to trust that one day every injustice is going to be made right, that every wrong is going to be made right, that one day there's not going to be any evil or violence anymore and God is not sitting idly by, that he's going to do something about it. So again, I don't have any perfect answer for anything because I'm not a perfect person. But that's something to wrestle with. And Tim Keller said that a faith without doubt is like a body without antibodies. It's really important for us to have doubts, but not to say, well, I just am going to forget that or I'm going to push it down, or I'm going to go to my feelings, but I'm going to try to more deeply understand the word of God and the character of God and hope that I can land at some kind of peace on those questions.

[John Regolato]

It's a great quote. Can you say it again? It's like a body without.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Yes, yeah. And I encourage people to get this book. I didn't agree with Tim Keller and everything, but Reason for God. I first read it my senior year of high school. Reason for God. It's basically a skeptic's guide to understanding faith and Christianity. A faith without doubt is like a body without antibodies. And it's been comforting to me.

[John Regolato]

I think that's, that is a great idea and a really well said one. The first person who came and sat down was Gilbert. And Gilbert offered his condolences. And then at the end you had an opportunity to debate somebody again and you chose Gilbert. And Gilbert's claim was the church's condemnation of same sex marriages causes profound damage and unnecessary suffering to gay people.

[Kyle]

Can you please define damage and suffering for me in this context?

[Gilbert]

So gay kids are 8 to 12 times more likely to commit suicide, especially if they come from religious homes. And it's because they have no way to express. And I know we keep talking about sex, Right. But the conversation piece that I think is always missing is that it's more than just sex. It's about love. It's who you love with. It's the way that you're wired. And I know we'll disagree with this, but I really feel that in my mother's womb, God designed me this way. I'm not just born in the sin principle this way. It's the way that I'm designed. It's the way that I kind of see the world. And I don't wanna affirm a lot of stereotypes, but there's markers. You can tell when someone's gay. You don't have to watch them having sex.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Right.

[Gilbert]

So there's different ways that you can spot a gay person. And I think there's a reason for that. And I've noticed so many pastors, kids come out as gay, and I really feel like there's this movement.

[John Regolato]

What were your takeaways from your interactions with Gilbert and.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Yeah, yeah, sweet Gilbert. Yes. That was the reason I had him back to talk, because he's so sweet.

[Kyle]

His disposition is so sweet.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

And I thought he had great, you know, great and interesting things to say, and I can understand why he believes the things he does. We've actually talked a little bit since the debate, too. Just gone back and forth on female. Yeah. And, like, I really, you know, want the best for him. But we're not going to agree on this because of not just the, you know, physical reality of marriage, which is, in principle, although not always in practice for, like, the procreation of children, but also that we see that it's supposed to be an earthly reflection of an eternal reality, which is the marriage between Christ and his church. Christ is described as the groom, church is described as the bride. And that is supposed to be, as we read in Ephesians 5, like, that's the model. And if that's what marriage is supposed to be, and those gender specifications are so fixed, not just here, but in heaven, in eternity, then I just don't see any wiggle room on that. All of time, according to the Bible, starts with the marriage and ends with the marriage, starts with the marriage between Adam and Eve, ends with a marriage between Christ, the groom, and the church, his bride. And it seems like it's. It's a lot of audacity to say, yeah, that thing that is such a fixture in Christian theology, I'm just going to set it to the side, because this is how I feel. There are a lot of things that I feel that we all feel that are contrary to our calling as Christians, that we are called to deny. And I do understand why that is a hard message.

[John Regolato]

Yeah. And you could feel it, you know, and I'm sure you. You feel it even in your follow up conversations. This begging is too strong of a word. But there was, there was like a deep pleading to try and find some alignment, and it came from other cast members as well. That was actually probably the most prevalent issue from the episode was disagreement around LGBTQ issues and sexuality. And I'm curious, you know, just looking forward, because people are moving back towards religion. I think this is something that's being observed in a few different places. Do you think there's a peaceful and productive path forward, you know, as both gay and straight and whoever maybe finds their way back towards the faith? Do you think there can be some sort of, like, peaceful coexistence, even if there is significant disagreement between these kind of two camps of Christianity? Because, yeah, there was like this tension. It was like, can we reconcile this difference or how do we move forward?

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Yeah, I mean, I think if there were more conversations like the one that we had and if everyone were like, Gilbert, and I'm not saying that everyone on my side of things is like, oh, so nice and peaceful, and I'm not trying to say that, but I, I do think those conversations help, but we have to be able to, like, like, I'm not, I'm not going to change on that. And I don't think God's word is going to change on that. And so do I think that we would be going to the same church? No. But of course, do I want peace for him? Do I want joy for him? Do I want, like, closeness by God to him? Of course I want those things. And so I think that we can go from that perspective. I mean, obviously Jesus calls to. Calls us to love our neighbor and love our enemies. Not to say that Gilbert or anyone is my enemy, but I'm just saying that's how radical the love that Jesus.

[Kyle]

Calls us to is.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

We might not always have empathy for our enemies, but Jesus said, you know, it's not determined by how you feel about them. It's not determined by whether you can relate for them. I'm calling you to love them because I can give you the power to do that. And I think that's really, really important. And we can speak the truth in love. But what I think the other side has to be okay.

[Kyle]

With is that.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

You cannot mistake my refusal to affirm your decisions and your stated identity as hate or as bigotry. Because that, I mean, that just leaves.

[Kyle]

Us in a lurch.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

I mean, because I'm not going to compromise. And if you say that you're not going to change. But I still want to be your friend. I still want to love you, but I can't celebrate all of your choices. Don't confuse love and affirmation. I think that is a form of toxic empathy. But if you confuse love and total affirmation of your decisions, that is going to create a really big divide.

[John Regolato]

I think it's really well put and it's a difficult task, but I really like it.

[Kyle]

It is.

[John Regolato]

I really like the way you articulated it because that task exists on multiple fronts culturally, right now. Totally something that came up in the episode. And you know, there were some stalemates. You know, like Gilbert was. Was frustrated because he's like, if somebody experiences same sex attraction or they, they believe that they were made gay and they, they want to love somebody but they can't act on that, that we're asking them to be celibate. And what a massive sacrifice that is. And there was lots of interesting debate around that. I'm curious what the biggest sacrifice or one of the biggest sacrifices you've made for your faith is. I just wanted to kind of know more on your side.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Yeah, well, gosh.

[Kyle]

Well, first of all, I think I.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Did acknowledge in the conversation that it is. I'm not putting all sacrifices on the exact same level. We are all called to sacrifice. But I also see just as a mom, like my kids, and this is a smaller scale not saying this is the same thing what you're talking about. It's more of an analogy of like, my kids have different proclivities and different personalities.

[Kyle]

And one of my children is just a lot more.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

She's just a lot quicker to listen and to do exactly like what she needs to do. And she's just very naturally generous and naturally compassionate. Like she would give the shirt off her back. And of course we're trying to foster compassion in our kids, but that is natural for her. Whereas as you know, maybe one of my other kids, that's not her first instinct. Okay, she might be. She might do that eventually because it's the right thing to do. But her first instinct is like, hang.

[Kyle]

On, are you gonna. Are you gonna take my magnet tiles?

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Cause if you're gonna take em, then I'm not gonna play with you. So I'm already Seeing that there are different things that all of us struggle with and different things that we are called to sacrifice and deny ourselves on. But what I acknowledge to Gilbert, and I think it's important for Christians to acknowledge that asking someone or saying that God is calling you to total celibacy is not the same. I mean, it is the same, but it's much more difficult than someone saying, hey, like, don't steal, don't murder. Like, that's pretty easy for most people. But asking someone to not be in a committed relationship with someone that they feel they are in love with, that is a big sacrifice to ask someone to make, a difficult sacrifice to ask someone to make. And so I think we. I acknowledge that while at the same.

[Kyle]

Time not being able to move an.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Inch from where God is in His Word. Because as soon as I start saying, well, yeah, that's a really difficult burden to bear. So maybe God's Word just doesn't say that, well, then of course, that opens the door to justifying all kinds of sin. So I'm not saying that I have the same exact sacrifices as Gilbert or someone else else, you know, I believe is called to make according to God's Word. But there are a lot of things, my beliefs about what the Bible says about, like, women, like, preaching in church or like, being a pastor. I believe that God forbids that in His Word, and I don't really want to do that, but I could. Like, I am. I'm a communicator, and I love the Bible, and I could probably get up there and do a good sermon. And there's turned down.

[John Regolato]

I suspect you'd be really.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

There's opportunities that I have turned down, money that I have turned down, platforms that I've turned down because, you know, I won't preach to a mixed crowd.

[Kyle]

At a church on Sunday morning.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

And again, I'm not saying that's the same, but all of us are called to say no to certain things that God's Word says no to.

[John Regolato]

Ally, thank you so much. I want to be respectful of your time. Just on behalf of Jubilee, thank you for stepping into the arena. And again, I. I really enjoyed the episode. I think people will get a lot from it, and I look forward to hopefully speaking again sometime. There's a lot more I would love to ask.

[Kyle]

Yeah, it was.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

It was really, really fun, and I just, like, I loved the opportunity. I had a blast. So thank you to you and to everyone who was a part of it. It was really fun.

[John Regolato]

Great. All right, well, take care. And, yeah, have a great rest of your day day. Bye Ally.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

You too.

[John Regolato]

For more follow up episodes of Surrounded, be sure to like subscribe. Leave us a positive review. If you want to see video versions of these discussions, they are on Jubilee's second YouTube channel called Tubely. If you want to hear more from me you can find me on YouTube or on X. Johnregalado thanks so much for listening. Remember, you could be wrong, so could I. Keep your mind open. Until next time.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Limu Emu and Doug Here we have the Limu Emu in its natural habitat, helping people customize their car insurance and save hundreds with Liberty Mutual. Fascinating. It's accompanied by his natural ally, Doug. Uh, Limu is that guy with the binoculars watching us? Cut the camera. They see us.

[John Regolato]

Only pay for what you [e-mail] Liberty.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Liberty Liberty Savings Ferry unwritten by Liberty.

[John Regolato]

Mutual Insurance Company and affiliates excludes Massachusetts.

[Advertiser]

Start the season with Etsy and make your holiday traditions extra special. On Etsy, you'll discover original pieces from.

[Ali Beth Stuckey]

Small shops that will help you celebrate your way. Shop Etsy for holiday decor that makes you feel seen. Special starts on Etsy.

[Advertiser]

Tap the banner to shop now.