The SkyePod - Both-Sidesism

Summary

The SkyePod – Both-Sidesism

Date: September 19, 2025
Host: Skye Jethani
Guests: Caitlyn Chess, Mike Strehlo

---

Episode Overview

This episode takes a deep dive into the topic of "both-sidesism," a frequent accusation lobbed at Skye Jethani and his co-hosts, particularly in light of recent political tensions, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The team aims to clarify what both-sidesism is and isn't, address listener criticisms, and explain their approach to critiquing both left and right political actors from a Christian perspective. The conversation is candid, honest, and at times humorous, as the hosts seek to model nuance rather than knee-jerk tribalism.

---

Key Discussions and Insights

1. Defining Both-Sidesism (00:31–03:36)

• Distinction from Whataboutism: Both-sidesism is often confused with whataboutism.
  • Skye: "Both sidesism is not whataboutism... whataboutism is essentially a way of deflating or defending or minimizing whatever your side may be guilty of." [02:01]
• Distinguishing from False Equivalence:
  • Skye: "Just because you're acknowledging that an error may exist on both the Democratic left and Republican right does not mean they are in equal proportion." [02:42]

Notable Quote

"Both sidesism is not the same as equivalence."
— Skye Jethani [02:42]

2. Why Point Out Failures Across the Political Spectrum? (03:36–06:28)

• Illustrates the danger in pretending only one side is at fault.
  • Example: Both Trump and Biden have lied, but not at equal rates or magnitude.
  • Caitlyn: "If your motivation for saying, 'Well, Biden lied,' is to say all politicians lie—Trump's no different... that's unhelpful because you're minimizing that... But if you're using that to say the pressures of being in that… can lead to these kinds of temptations, that can be really useful." [04:19]
• Abuse of pardon power: Both presidents have abused this, albeit differently.

3. Listener Critiques: Why Not Just Criticize the Worse Side? (06:28–10:02)

• Some fans ask the show to "strike 'but there are problems on both sides'" from their vocabulary due to fear of false equivalency.
• Skye insists that acknowledging failings on both sides is not an attempt to equate their magnitude, but rather to resist tribalism and maintain Christian witness.
  • Skye: "I am not here to be an apologist for the left either." [09:37]

Notable Quote

"When the left deviates from the way of Jesus, I feel the need to acknowledge that and speak up to it because I don't want anyone to hear my critique of MAGA or Trump and assume, well, then the Christian answer is to be a Democrat."
— Skye Jethani [10:12]

4. The Christian Rationale for Critiquing All Sides (10:37–12:10)

• The hosts emphasize that no party has a monopoly on either good or evil—and that viewing history, politics, or faith in binary terms is unfaithful and un-Christian.
  • Caitlyn: "There's something just deeply Christian about always having this impulse to say I don't want to accidentally communicate there's an obvious good and an obvious evil..." [11:49]
• Pushback against the "binary choice" logic that one must wholly support one side if the other is worse.
  • Skye: "I refuse to buy into that argument." [13:06]

5. Do Hosts “Both Sides” to Avoid Offending Listeners? (13:15–16:06)

• Responding to suspicion that critiques of the left are to “placate” conservatives—hosts deny this intent.
  • Mike: "I don't know how you could listen to the majority of our stuff and think we care about placating conservative ears." [13:23]
• Financial model supports independent thinking, not crowd-pleasing.
• Listeners seeking only affirmation (not Christian challenge) will ultimately be disappointed.
  • Skye: "If they're looking for affirmation for… a political ideology, they're going to be constantly frustrated with us." [15:06]

6. The “Other Side Is Just So Bad!” Objection (17:20–19:35)

• Some argue that one party (Republicans) is so much more anti-Christian that time spent critiquing Democrats is wasted.
• Skye rebuts with analogy:
  • Skye: "Imagine somebody choking…you ignore the fact there’s an 80 pound wolf chewing on their leg… I agree [the left’s problems] are not the imminent threat to the republic… but that doesn’t mean I’m going to minimize them." [18:21]
• Discusses the risks of overlooking problems in one’s own camp.

7. Individual and Institutional Nuance (19:35–21:54)

• Avoid reducing entire parties or groups to singular traits or policies.
  • Caitlyn: "There are a lot of people that work for the Republican Party… that are not all of those awful things... it's a coalition." [20:51]

Notable Quote

"We need to be able to call out what the Republican Party leadership is doing… but I don’t want to say just everyone can be lumped into this and they're irredeemably evil."
— Caitlyn Chess [21:35]

8. Why Critique the Right More? (22:02–23:28)

• The hosts’ church backgrounds are more entangled with the right, creating greater responsibility to address excesses there.
• Skye: "There’s a lot more political idolatry within evangelicalism on the Republican right than there is on the left. That’s been the focus of a lot of our critique." [22:11]
• Skye: "Political idolatry on the left, whenever it occurs, is just as problematic as political idolatry on the right… magnitude is different, but idolatry is idolatry." [22:48]

Notable Quote

"What we're advocating for is we all need to throw our lot in with Jesus." — Skye Jethani [23:02]

9. The Danger of Uncritical Partisan Loyalty (23:28–24:40)

• Becoming overly loyal to a political party leads to escalating moral compromise over time.
  • Caitlyn: "If you're not cautious… you can end up in a similar position where you've become very loyal and those things that were not a big deal in the beginning have now become huge." [24:21]

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• On false equivalence:
  "Just because you're acknowledging that an error may exist or a violation may exist on both the Democratic left and the Republican right does not mean they are in equal proportion."
  — Skye Jethani [02:42]

• On Christian politics:
  "There is no clear divide politically between, like, the clear good and the clear evil... there's great possibilities of good and great possibilities of evil in every institution and every person."
  — Caitlyn Chess [11:49]

• On audience expectations:
  "If they're looking for affirmation for... a political ideology, they're going to be constantly frustrated with us because we are not here to affirm the MAGA right or the progressive left."
  — Skye Jethani [15:06]

• On calling out all sides:
  "When the left deviates from the way of Jesus, I feel the need to acknowledge that and speak up to it."
  — Skye Jethani [10:12]

• Wolf analogy:
  "Imagine somebody choking in a restaurant and you're like, obviously their airway is obstructed... and ignore the fact that there's... an 80 pound wolf chewing on their leg."
  — Skye Jethani [18:21]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:31 — Defining both-sidesism vs. whataboutism
• 03:36 — Example: lying and pardoning abuses (Trump/Biden)
• 06:28 — How fear of both-sidesism silences necessary critique
• 08:12 — Listener comment: "Can we drop 'both sides' from the vocabulary?"
• 10:37 — A Christian rationale for critiquing all political actors
• 13:15 — Do the hosts pull punches to avoid conservative backlash?
• 17:20 — Objection: "But one side is just so much worse!"
• 19:35 — Why nuance matters: not every member of a party is the same
• 22:02 — Why their tradition is harder on the right
• 23:28 — Dangers of building partisan loyalty over time

---

Summary

This episode of The SkyePod offers a robust defense against the accusation of both-sidesism, clarifying the hosts' motives and method for critiquing both left and right from a thoroughly Christian vantage point. The team pushes listeners to resist false binaries, idolizing any political party, and the temptation to only seek affirmation for their chosen tribe. With thoughtful listener interaction, theological humility, and honest admissions about their context, the hosts provide a model of principled and nuanced public engagement for Christians on every part of the political spectrum.

Transcript

[A]

Ignore the fact that there's, I don't know, an 80 pound wolf chewing on their leg. Hello, everyone. Welcome back to the Sky Pod. I'm Sky Jutani. Joining me for this somewhat special episode are my Holy Post colleagues, Caitlyn Chess is here. Hi, Caitlin.

[B]

Hi, Sky.

[A]

And our producer, Mike Strehlo.

[C]

Hey, Sky.

[A]

Stalo Strehlo, that's me. So we are gonna tackle something that has been on our agenda for a while and it's unfortunately only become more prevalent in recent weeks with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. But we get frequent messages from our listeners to mostly the main show, sometimes annoyed or upset with us because they accuse us. And to be, let's be honest, I get accused of it more than anybody accusing us and me of both sideism. So we thought it would be worth having a conversation addressing some of those comments that have come in talking about where we may be guilty of this, where we don't think we're guilty of this, why we approach topics the way we do and just bring some clarity to.

[C]

Now, should we define both sideism before we get started?

[A]

Probably.

[B]

I feel like that's part of the challenge is like some of the criticisms we have gotten, I think are wrongly defining sidism. But I hope that we can come to like a. There is a form of this that is worthy of being critiqued that I think we could have a good definition of.

[A]

Can we start off with just two? What? I think maybe there's more two false understandings of both sideism. Okay. Sometimes I think people conflate both sidesism. Is it sidesism or cydism sideism?

[C]

I think both sides ism.

[A]

Yeah. Okay. I think some people conflate both sides ism with what about ism? Yeah.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Okay. So sometimes an argument, we made a political group, whatever is doing X, Y or Z and people defend it by saying, well, what about. And then they talk about what the other side is doing that's either similar or worse or whatever. We are not talking about both side. I mean both sides ism is not what about ism because it's. What about ism is essentially a way of deflating or defending or minimizing whatever your side may be guilty of.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Okay. That's one, I think false definition. The other one, and this is going to come up a lot in our conversation, both sidesism is not the same as equivalence.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Just because you're acknowledging that an error may exist or a violation may exist on both the Democratic left and the Republican right does not mean they are in Equal proportion. And I think a lot of the criticism we get are people assuming we're making an equivalency argument when we are not.

[C]

I mean, that's the rub right there. I think most people who are aware of both sidesism sees it as a bad thing because it is trying to equivalent things that are not equivalent, but.

[A]

There'S a difference in quantity and kind. Let me give you one example, right? So during I looked this up during President Trump's first term in office by whoever was recording this, he apparently made 30,000, 573 lies, which averages 21 per day.

[C]

That's impressive, right?

[A]

So we could talk all day long about all the lying that President Trump does, right? If we have that conversation. And then I say Biden lied too, right? Yes, that's a fact. President Biden did lie. But that doesn't mean he lied as much. But pointing out that he lied and frankly, some of his lies and that of his administration were significant. Significant like about his health and ability to run for office. Again, all that he didn't lie nearly as much as President Trump did, it doesn't mean he didn't lie. So just acknowledging that President Biden lied is not making it equivalent, but it is saying both sides are guilty of lying, even if one did it far more than the other.

[B]

And this is where I think part of what's going on is your motivation for saying something about the other side doing this. Also, if your motivation for saying, well, Biden lied is to say all politicians lie. Trump's no different from any other politician. They all lie. They all do this. That's unhelpful because you're minimizing that. Part of what that statistic is showing is an extraordinary amount of lying and a character flaw. I think if what you're trying to do is say, while Biden also lied, it's important to remember he wasn't perfect and that that serves some goal. Or just to say one side or the other is not the only is not where all evil or all goodness lies. That's a really good reason to say, well, Biden also lied. If you're also, if you're using that to say the pressures of being in that particular kind of office can lead to these kinds of temptations. And this does often happen because you're trying to get your agenda done or you're trying to cover up something that you had to cut a corner to get accomplished, that can be really useful. But if you're doing it to say actually what Trump did isn't that bad or special or important, then I think that can qualify as both sides.

[A]

Another example of this beyond the line is the abuse of the pardon power. President Trump, I think, severely abused the pardon power when he pardoned all the January 6th rioters, both those who were guilty of trespassing and those who were guilty of assaulting police officers.

[C]

Right.

[A]

Like they were all pardoned. I think it's important in that conversation to acknowledge that President Biden, I think, severely abused the pardon power when he gave blanket pardons to his own family members. Does that. Are they equal? I don't know. We could adjudicate whose abuse is worse. But if you only talk about the way one side abuses power, the assumption can be, well, the other side must be good or the other side must be clean, or the other side must be innocent. And in a lot of these issues, it's not that, yeah, you can say one is worse. It doesn't mean the other is good. It just means it's slightly less bad. And I don't want to get into that game of constantly having to adjudicate exactly who's where on the scale when in some cases, in some conversation. I want to acknowledge that neither of these are righteous or good or ought to be celebrated.

[B]

Right. And the other thing that I don't think we realize can happen when you're scared of both sidesism. I've been in a conversation with someone maybe a year or two ago who was frustrated with a mutual friend of ours who does a lot of faith and politics kind of work publicly. And they were saying they were so frustrated, frustrated during the last, the Biden administration, that this person was critical of Biden because this is someone who's, you know, leans Democratic, has been really critical of Trump. And this friend of mine was just like, we can't afford for you to be critical of Biden right now when Trump is so bad.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And it's like when you're, when you're trying to avoid both sidesism, you can slide into this place of what we've talked about before on the show, like, the stakes are too high right now to acknowledge any wrongdoing on the other side. And I think this person would have said, but because it's so unequal what they've done wrong versus the other side has done wrong, I'm avoiding both sidesism by saying, like, let's just not talk about the evils on this side because the stakes are really high and these are so much greater. And that's how you end up justifying a lot of things that shouldn't be justified. That's how you end up telling the party or the politician you're supporting. You can get away with whatever you want. And I'll find a way to justify it because I think this other risk over here is so much worse.

[A]

Mike?

[C]

Yes.

[A]

You have actual comments from listeners? I do.

[C]

So. I mean, it's funny, like, you guys already kind of jumped the horse and are getting into some of this. And can I just say to our listeners, our lovely listeners, I love you all, but if I had a hill to die on, it would be you should not comment on an episode before you have finished the episode. So maybe. And it could already be too late because I think you've already said things that people are probably disagreeing with and are upset about.

[B]

Sure.

[C]

But this is a conversation that requires a lot of nuance. So maybe just wait till the end and then let us know what you think. So here's comment number one. I truly love this podcast. We're just going to stop.

[A]

Thank you so much.

[C]

I truly love this podcast. You all have been a balm to my soul for the past five years. Now that we are getting into the second go around with the far right, can we please strike quote? But there are problems on both sides. From our vocabulary, from. From our vocabulary. It is a false equivalency and needs to stop. Do Dems have issues?

[A]

Most sure.

[C]

But on their worst day, the problems on the left are nowhere near what the right is coming up with.

[A]

Yeah, in this. There it is, the equivalency. There's an assumption that by acknowledging problems on the left, we are making them equal to the problems on the right. I don't. I don't agree with that at all. I don't think acknowledging the existence of severe problems on the left means we're making them equal to whatever the moment is happening on the right. There are some cases where I think there is an equivalence right, but it depends on the issue. Depends on the problem. But many others. Yeah, I agree. Right now at this moment with Donald Trump in the White House. Goodness. Has anyone listened to the show think I'm a fan of Donald Trump or trying to be an apologist for him? I. I absolutely think he's a. He's a cancer on our government and in our society. I think he. I have not voted for him. I never would vote for him. I. We get more criticism. I mean, goodness. We're basically a reoccurring segment on woke preacher clips for not being right wing enough. Right. And criticizing Maga and things like that. So I don't think anyone thinks that. But I am not here to be an apologist for the left either.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And when the left does things that are wrong, when they are harmful, or more importantly, as a Christian and is trying to advocate for others to be faithful Christians, when the left deviates from the way of Jesus, I feel the need to acknowledge that and speak up to it because I don't want anyone to hear my critique of Maga or Trump and assume, well, then the Christian answer is to be a Democrat. In certain cases it may be, but I'm not going to universalize that endorsement. I just think that's silly. So you don't. I'm going to acknowledge where the Dems have issues because I don't want people thinking that's the only faithful way to be a believer.

[B]

And I think that's important to what we are trying to do. When we say something like, there are problems on both sides, because even the way this comment phrases it, there's sort of like a tone of like, oh, but there are problems on both sides is something we do either just because we feel like we have to say that, which isn't true. There are times when it's like, well, no, this is a problem just on one side or the other. And we've even talked before about even if it can exist on both sides, are there certain tendencies on the right and on the left that look different? And we can say that. Or sometimes I think people think we're saying, but there are problems on both sides because we don't want to offend anyone. Like, if we say something bad about the right, then we have to say something bad about the left just so that the right doesn't get upset with us. And I think it's important to say most of the time that we have done something like, there are problems on both sides. It's been along the lines of what you're saying, sky, of like, don't just jump over to the other side because you've done that. Or sometimes I think it's like, this is a deeply Christian belief to say that there is no clear divide politically between, like, the clear good and the clear evil, that history is ambiguous, that there's great possibilities of good and great possibilities of evil in every institution and every person. Like, we simultaneously believe in the fallenness of all humans and the effects of the corruption of the fall on all institutions and communities and on the possibility that the Holy Spirit will work in surprising ways in all institutions and communities and individuals. So there's something just deeply Christian about always having this, this impulse to say, I don't want to accidentally communicate there's an obvious good and an obvious evil, and let's just all pat ourselves in the back that we're part of the obvious good.

[A]

Right. It's that. I mean, back in. Was it 16 or maybe 20? One of the people that was in our feeds a lot was Eric Metaxas, who is obviously very maga, very Trumpy. And one of the arguments he gave all the time for why he supported Donald Trump was, well, it's, it's a binary choice. It's just Trump or Hillary Clinton.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I don't like Trump for X, Y and Z reasons, but I have to vote for him because the only other option is Hillary Clinton. And I think there's some people who hold that, that dichotomy in a lot of things. And they go, look, it's either MAGA or it's the Democrats, so stop criticizing the Democrats because MAGA is so terrible. And you just have to, you have to go in with the Democrats because MAGA is so bad. And I just, I refuse to buy into that argument. Whether it's voting for a particular candidate or endorsing a right left. I just, I hate that way of thinking. I find it to be unfaithful for a Christian to argue that way.

[C]

Can we address. I think, Caitlin, you said it, and I think it's an easy one for us to address. One of the comments was someone critiquing us for doing this. And then they wondered if we both sides. Things to placate sensitive conservative ears. And part of me wants to be like, I don't know how you could listen to the majority of our stuff and think we care about placating conservative ears. Like, we're pretty strong in our critique of that. And so I kind of. I see that one come up just enough that I kind of want to put it to bed that obviously we are. John talks about this kind of why we have set up just even our funding model. The way we have set it up is so that we can speak what we believe to be true and not worry about losing donors or stepping on toes. Sky, could you speak more about that?

[A]

Yeah. I mean, not to go off on a tangent here, but if our primary goal was to make as much revenue as possible, to build as large an audience as possible, to get as much advertising revenue as possible, then we wouldn't just be worried about offending MAGA people, we would be wholeheartedly Going after them and trying to bring them. Bring them into the fold. There's far more Christian audience on the far right than there is in the middle or on the left. So, no, we are not worried about offending people on the right. What I find more interesting, and you guys can tell me if you think I'm right or wrong on this. I think over the past five. Well, going back even further, prior to 2020, some people found the Holy Post because they were looking for a Christian voice, a Christian outlet that hadn't drunk the MAGA Kool Aid. And they found me and Phil back then. And then later you came along, Caitlin. They found us. And like, oh, thank goodness. There's some people who are willing to acknowledge what's really bonkers about Christians going after Trump and MAGA and all that. But then they listen long enough and they were a little weirded out by the fact that we weren't as progressive as they thought we were and that we weren't throwing our lot in completely with the Democratic Party. And then those people got angry at us for not. And this. President Obama said something about this years ago, I think, while he was still in office. He talks about how people go to news networks now not looking for information, but looking for affirmation. And to be fair, I think there's a segment of our audience that comes to us looking for affirmation, and I hope they find that in the things that are consistent with the way of Jesus. But if they're looking for affirmation for. With a political ideology, they're going to be constantly frustrated with us because we are not here to affirm the MAGA right or the progressive left, because there are elements of both that we think are really off track. And when we say that because our audience isn't MAGA primarily and does skew more centrist or progressive, those are more often the angry voices we hear from these days.

[B]

Yeah, and you're obviously right, sky, that demographically, if we wanted to just go all in on the MAGA Christian world, there's a bigger audience there. But there's also, in my experience, like, a bigger audience. If you're just gonna go on the full. Like, we are anti the kind of conservative Christianity that all three of us have lived in for most of our lives. Like, if we were gonna be fully the, like, progressive deconstructionist show, there's like, an easy market for that. And it's not just about size. It's about avoiding negative comments. Like, if we really were in the business of just, like, Trying to not offend our audience. We would pick a firmer lane to be in and just live there. And it is actually much harder. Part of the reason we get both sides comments is because we are recognizing that there are failures across the political spectrum. There are theological failures in all sorts of areas of the church. And it's not that we are this like, unbiased observer of all of it that can pass perfect judgment. I think sometimes that's what the both sideism criticism is, is like you think you're above all of this. And I think we're trying to be honest about where we come from and the biases we have. But it would be a lot easier if we just decided to throw our lot in with one side or the other and just say, whether it's political leaders or the biggest kind of theological hotshots in that part of the church, we're with them 100%. That would be the path to avoiding offending anyone in our audience.

[C]

See, everyone, we're just right. I think that's what you should take away from this. No, we talk a lot internally about trying to be humble and holding opinions loosely. And I just think. And we talk a lot about how we don't want to be bundled into oneself side or the other. But all right, this one comes up all the time and we've talked about it. Let's address it some more. But the other side is just so bad. So this one, we have one party that is wildly unchristian, anti immigrant, anti refugee, anti poor people, anti empathy, anti education, and one party that isn't pro life enough for Christians when it comes to abortion.

[B]

Okay. Wow.

[C]

So I think there's just this idea like, yes, both sides get it wrong. Sure. And I'm not all in on the Democrats, but the Republicans are just so bad right now in so many ways that are the way of Christ. There's just not the time to talk about how bad the Democrats are. We need to have a united front here.

[A]

Yeah. This is like imagine somebody choking in a restaurant and you're like, obviously their airway is obstructed. This is a. They need immediate help. Heimlich, whatever. We got to clear their airway and ignore the fact that there's, I don't know, an 80 pound wolf chewing on their leg. Like the immediate thing is clearing their airway, but you got to deal with the dog chewing on their leg too. Like this is a problem. And I feel like what they're saying is, well, someone's choking and you're upset about a gerbil gnawing on their toe. It's like, no, there, there are real, yes, insidious problems on the left as well. I agree they are not the imminent threat to the Republic that we're seeing on the maga. Right. But that doesn't mean I'm going to minimize them. And I'm sorry, it's not simply that the left is not as nuanced on abortion as I would like them to be. They're not. That is an issue. But that is by far not the only issue I have with the left. So even the question itself is an. Is a wonderful example of somebody who, I think, even if you agree with their assessment of the problems on the right, their minimization of the problems on the left is indicative of somebody who is not viewing the left in even attempting to be objective.

[B]

I also think it's important the end of this comment that you didn't read, Mike says, but we should at least be able to differentiate between parties. And that is true. Like, this is what we've already said is like, we don't want to be accused of the kind of both sideism that acts as if because there are faults on both sides, it's all equal. Like, that's a very good point. But the other problem here, besides what you said, sky, is we have this tendency and it harms our relationships. It makes it harder for us to do politics well, to just sort of group everyone together. Like even this description. It's not just that one party is, in this person's estimation, wholeheartedly evil and the other is like, sort of bad. Which I would disagree with that assessment as well. But also when we say things like there are problems on both sides, we don't mean we're not always thinking just of the Democratic Party leadership or the Republican Party leadership. And this comment makes it sound like, well, because I can find unchristian, anti immigrant, anti refugee, anti poor people, anti empathy, anti education things in the Republican Party, the lot as a whole is just irredeemably all of those things. And I think part of what we are trying to do when we try to nuance some of those statements is not just to say there's failures on this other side too, but to say there are failures in different people in different institutions. And you can't just kind of lump that all into the Republican Party. One of the things that I find a lot of concern of in our, in our episodes is saying we need to be able to call out what the Republican Party leadership is doing. That is all of these awful things. We need to be able to say that policy is egregious, that comment was cruel. The way you're treating people is wrong. And also say there are a lot of people that work for the Republican Party, that vote for the Republican Party, that post things on Facebook about the Republican Party that are not all of those awful things, and they either like other things that I don't think are as valuable, or they're listening to different news than I'm listening to. They're not seeing some of the problems I'm seeing. And part of my reticence to kind of go along with this commenter and saying, well, there's this evil party and there's this, like, kind of imperfect party is just to say that those are both parties and ideologies made up of lots of different people who have different ideas and different character traits and different ways that they would vote. And it's a coalition. And as a whole, I want to say, in general, you talk about immigrants in ways that are horrible, and we need to address that. But I don't want to say just everyone can be lumped into this and they're irredeemably evil.

[A]

Well said. I don't want to get into a list of problems on the left for the same reason.

[B]

We can talk about it.

[A]

We can talk about it. But one of my concerns. I don't know if I already said this or not, but one of the reasons we tend to critique the right more, especially the MAGA right and Trump, is because that's where the tradition of the church that we all hail from has been more captured by right. There's a lot more political idolatry within evangelicalism on the Republican right than there is on the left. So that's been the focus of a lot of our critique. The problem with that is some people who listen to us do that, if we don't say anything else, may draw the conclusion that, okay, well, then to be a faithful Christian, I need to throw my lot in with the left. And that's not what we're advocating. What we're advocating for is we all need to throw our lot in with Jesus. And political idolatry on the left, whenever it occurs, is just as problematic as political idolatry on the right now. There's a much greater magnitude of it on the right right now. But if you, the individual listener, decide, well, I'm going to be politically idolatrous on the left, it's just as terrible for you to do that as it would be for you to do it on the right. So I don't want anyone to hear me say all these critical things about MAGA and, and not hear me say, but hold on, be careful on the left too, because you can make an idol out of that political ideology which is also not in full conformity with the way of Jesus.

[B]

And it's instructive to look at the history of the Republican Party and Christians relationship to it. Like we talked a lot closer to 2020 and 2024 about how some of this story is a story in which this idolatry is built over time. The level of loyalty that is demanded of Christians increases over time. And then you get in a position where maybe when you first sort of like tentatively threw your lot in, there were some bad things, there were some good things, but there was a lot of good and you agreed with a lot. And then by the time your loyalty is at this really high level and you're being asked to sacrifice things that shouldn't be sacrificed, the things that you knew were sort of bad at the beginning but were not a huge deal have now become huge deals. And I can't know what will happen politically in the next 25, 50 years, but part of my concern that people not think, oh, I'll just replicate my relationship with the Republican Party on the left is because right now it might be there's some things I don't love, but it really is not politically expedient for me to comment on them. And also I'm holding it all loosely and it's a coalition and I agree with them, but I'm not. But over time, if you're not cautious, if you're not like really thinking critically, you can end up in a similar position where you've become very loyal and those things that were not a big deal in the beginning have now become huge. Great.

[A]

Can I give you an example of that in. In operation?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

I'm sure you remember it wasn't that long ago that one of the huge issues on the right was how the left shut down free speech. Right? The cancel culture on the left. And you can't go on college campuses and say, don't worry, this is not the end of the episode. There's actually plenty more. But to listen to the rest, you need to be a Holy Post plus subscriber. So head over to HolyPost.com SkyPod and sign up for just $5 a month. Not only will you get uninterrupted episodes of the Sky Pod, which means you'll never have to hear this dumb announcement again, but you'll also get access to everything else at Holypost + including episodes of Getting Schooled by Caitlin Chess, bonus interviews, live streams, the Holy Post Book Club, exclusive merchandise, and a whole bunch more. And you'll get the warm, fuzzy feeling of knowing that you're supporting our work of creating smart, pro neighbor Christian content. So head over to holypost.com skypod and subscribe today.