58. Here's How Christian Nationalism Leads to Defending Slavery

Summary

The Tim & April Show (The New Evangelicals) - Episode 58 Summary Date: October 28, 2025
Title: "Here's How Christian Nationalism Leads to Defending Slavery"

---

Overview

In this thought-provoking episode, Tim Whitaker and April Ajjoy of The Tim & April Show, part of The New Evangelicals network, dissect how contemporary Christian Nationalist ideology leads to attempts at justifying slavery, using a viral video by Joshua Hames (a right-wing Christian commentator with strong ties to figures like Doug Wilson and Pete Hegseth) as their case study. Through real-time reactions, theological critique, and an exploration of how biblical literalism is selectively applied, Tim and April argue that such logic sows the seeds for dangerous political and ethical positions in America today. The episode also highlights the tactic overlap and contradictions in the arguments of Christian Nationalists when it comes to slavery, gender roles, and sexuality.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Viral Clip & Fundamentalist Claims

Timestamps: [03:38]-[05:03]

• Tim introduces a viral clip of Joshua Hames asserting:

  “The institution of slavery is not inherently evil... It is not inherently evil to own another human being... every Christian should be able to defend what I just said.” (Joshua Hames, [03:47])

• Joshua Hames’ argument hinges on two claims:

  • The Bible does not condemn slavery as inherently sinful.
  • Christians, therefore, must not call slavery inherently sinful.

• Tim and April react with genuine discomfort and concern, noting the directness of Hames' message and its alignment with Christian Nationalist logic.

---

2. Roots & Connections: Why This Isn't Fringe

Timestamps: [02:00]-[02:25]

• Joshua Hames is not a fringe actor; he is tied to mainstream conservative institutions and individuals, including Doug Wilson (prominent Christian Nationalist) and Pete Hegseth (government official).
• Tim emphasizes that the views expressed are influencing significant circles in American Christianity and policy.

---

3. Selective Literalism & The Contradiction Trap

Timestamps: [06:11]-[10:08], [13:13]-[16:10]

• Hames uses literal Bible readings on slavery, but, as Tim and April point out, he does NOT advocate for the re-institution of slavery, showing a contradiction between his professed hermeneutic and his instincts.

• April:

  “They use the Bible as a cover for their own bigotry... They say ‘I’m not saying slavery was good, but the Bible…’ It’s a weird world to live in.” ([08:49])

• Tim:

  “Even he knows that slavery shouldn't be an institutional thing intuitively. But because of his dogmatic position on the Bible, he’s forced to acknowledge what is there…”

• Notable Quote:

  “No one actually, even people who say they are biblical literalists, actually takes the whole Bible literally... It would be impossible to.” (April, [16:10])

---

4. Historical Revisionism & Whitewashed Christian History

Timestamps: [16:45]-[21:54]

• Tim and April challenge Hames' historical narrative:
  • “It wasn’t white Christians who were like ‘Hey guys, we got this wrong.’ It was Black folks. It was secular folks. It was some white Christians, but they were the minority.” (Tim, [18:41])
• April references the “Slave Bibles” and Jamar Tisby’s scholarship, noting:

  “The gospel that [white southerners] taught to enslaved people could save their souls but not break their chains.” ([21:34])

---

5. Slippery Slope: Literalism & Modern Extremes

Timestamps: [31:16]-[32:53]

• April:

  “If you're going to take the Bible literally and you want a Christian nation, ... there are certain verses you can’t argue away.”

• Tim:

  “This is what they want to do in America and make everyone submit to it based on their Christian supremacist ideals that actually fall in on themselves logically once you start examining them.”

---

6. Doug Wilson’s ‘No Problem Passages’ Argument

Timestamps: [35:47]-[54:00]

• Doug Wilson, quoted by Hames as a model, argues Christians should never have “problem passages” in the Bible.

  “Once the exegesis is done, I’m not going to back off of what it [the Bible] teaches a millimeter.” (Doug Wilson clip, [53:43])

• Tim calls out the logical endpoint:

  “Okay, then just say slavery is fine... Since it’s in the Bible, we should bring it back wholesale.”

• April:

  “He’s telling you to basically ignore your conscience... That’s the Holy Spirit guiding you and convicting you.” ([56:59])

---

7. Double Standard: Slavery vs. Homosexuality

Timestamps: [36:13]-[42:35], [67:27]-[68:08]

• Both Tim and April repeatedly note that these ultra-conservative interpreters contextualize slavery away, but refuse to do so regarding homosexuality or gender issues.

• Tim:

  “Notice the bait and switch. ...What he means is, because how they interpret the Bible prohibits it. That’s the bait and switch.” ([40:45])

• April:

  “It’s also just the audacity... of these four white men, five, if you include Josh, that are now debating the rights of other people... They just gain power. They have nothing to lose with this ideology.” ([48:42])

---

8. Political Implications: Christian Nationalism in Action

Timestamps: [50:31]-[76:59]

• Tim connects these arguments to the growing Christian Nationalist influence in American politics, noting the alarming trajectory:

  “They are seeding the foundation for bringing back forms of slavery that benefit them... That’s how this stuff works.”

• April draws parallels to contemporary reactions to social change (e.g., Colin Kaepernick’s protest):

  “When does an enslaved person... fight for their liberation? ...Doug really softwashes slavery big time.”

---

9. Final Thoughts: Cherry-Picking, Authority & Biblical Truth

Timestamps: [58:55]-[61:51]

• Both hosts stress that everyone cherry-picks the Bible, but the danger comes in pretending only YOUR view is the correct or “objective” biblical truth.
• Notable Quote:

  “There is no one biblical truth in the Bible... You could have people on both sides of the Civil War using the Bible to justify their side.” (April, [58:55])

• Tim:

  “The only reason the Bible has authority is because we as humans give it authority... It’s the same reason why many of us do not see the Quran as authoritative while others do.” ([54:49])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Christian Nationalism leads directly to Christian Supremacy, and that's how you get justifications for things like slavery.”
  (Tim, [09:01])
• Joshua Hames:

  “Every Christian should affirm what I just said [defending slavery], and not only affirm it, every Christian in today’s society should be able to defend what I just said.” ([03:47])

• Doug Wilson:

  “If you get to simply arbitrarily wave your hand and say, well, we don’t have to take those parts of the Bible seriously because slavery—right?” ([39:56])

• April:

  “These men are debating the rights of others because when they get their way, they don’t lose any rights.” ([49:00])

• Tim:

  “Owning other human beings is wrong. And while I agree with Joshua [Hames] it’s not unbiblical, all the more reason to think about how we take the Bible, what we do with it.” ([83:18])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Introduction & Viral Video Context: [00:22] – [04:13]
• Literalism & Slavery Debate: [04:13] – [16:10]
• Historical Critique & The Whitewashing of Christian Abolition: [16:45] – [21:54]
• Selective Literalism, Cherry-Picking & Double Standards: [31:16] – [54:49]
• Christian Nationalism’s Political Ramifications: [50:31] – [76:59]
• Final Reflections on Authority & Interpretation: [58:55] – [61:51]
• Concluding Thoughts: [83:16] – [84:59]

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a sobering analysis of how foundational Christian Nationalist and literalist approaches to the Bible open the doors to justifying historical injustices (like slavery) and undermining basic human rights. Tim and April skillfully highlight the internal inconsistencies and real-world dangers of such ideology, urging listeners to reject dogmatic authoritarian readings and instead embrace a faith rooted in justice, compassion, and the teachings of Jesus.

---

For Listeners:
This is an essential listen for anyone concerned about faith, politics, biblical authority, and the future of American Christianity.

Transcript

[A]

You're listening to a new evangelicals production, the Tim and April show, where we unravel faith, politics and culture.

[B]

Hello, friends. Welcome back, Tim and April show. I am Tim Whitaker.

[A]

I am April Ahjoy.

[B]

Okay, April, I've kept you in the dark for this episode a decent amount. And it's intentional because as I was prepping for it, I thought to myself, I really want April's first take on what we're gonna watch to make sure I'm not missing anything. So I'm not sure if you saw a little while ago a clip went viral of this guy talking about how essentially the Bible does in fact not condemn slavery or regulates it and Christians should be able to defend it. Have you seen that clip?

[A]

Joshua Hames?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Right?

[B]

Yes, yes, yes.

[A]

I saw, I only saw though, the clip that right wing watch put out and then I saw a bunch of people replying to that. It was a shorter clip though. It wasn't the whole thing.

[B]

Right. Well, it turns out that I found the full clip. It's actually from a YouTube video where he's watching my segment on Jubilee against Ali Sucky. He actually agrees that I won this. This part of the debate where I essentially tell Ali that the Bible condoned slavery and Ali says, no, it doesn't. And I really think this is worth watching his whole segment on. It's about 15, 18 minutes because it really is a good masterclass for how this right wing, like, reformed world thinks about slavery and how slippery they are on this idea and how, in my opinion, they are setting the foundation for a world where. Where more mainstream evangelicals find it more and more acceptable to institute forms of slavery back in America over time.

[C]

Oof.

[B]

That's my thesis. Okay. All right, now, if you're new to the show, Joshua Hames goes to a church where Pete Hegseth, our current Department of War head honcho, attended. And in fact, he's been on Joshua Hames's podcast, Pete Hegseth, the.

[A]

I remember when Pete was nominated and confirmed, Josh was like celebrating. Celebrating Twitter. Yeah.

[B]

Now the other thing people need to know is that Joshua Hayes goes to a church that is overseen by Doug Wilson. And, and he. Doug Wilson is in this video. So if you don't know who Doug Wilson is, watch some of our, of our. Of our other content on Doug Wilson or just look up the CNN interview that he did. It's a whole thing. Again, not. I don't have time to go into the deep dive here, but, but I'm just painting the picture that this is not Again, not some rando fringe dude with a podcast who's saying stuff. This guy is tied into places and institutions and people who are quite literally forming how our government thinks about national policy, national security, et cetera. So does that make sense?

[A]

It makes sense.

[B]

All right, so I just say we buckle up. Let's go through this piece by piece. April, whenever you want to pause, let me know. I have a lot to say. I'll try and keep it tempered. There's so much here. All right, friends, buckle up. Hey, if you're watching this on YouTube, please make sure to give this video a like and subscribe to the channel. We just hit 10,000 subscribers. Thank you so much. If you're listening on podcast, please make sure to give this episode a rating and a review and make sure that you're following the podcast. Okay, here we go. This is from Joshua Haim's full YouTube segment on his take, which is titled something like progressive Christian in quotes. Owns Ali Stuckey on Jubilee. Here we go.

[C]

Daily Dose, where I, Joshua Haymes, bring you Christian conservative cultural commentary. And we apply the word of God to the world around us today. Guys, I've got a spicy one. Got a spicy one for you.

[B]

Prepare.

[C]

Buckle up. Here we go. The institution of slavery is not inherently evil. I know some of you guys are upset by that. Some of you guys are saying. I've been saying that for years. Okay, I'll take it a step further. It is not inherently evil to own another human being. I know. Just wait. Some of you guys are really upset. But let's talk through this because it is very important that every Christian affirm what I just said. And not only should affirm it, every Christian in today's society should be able to defend what I just said.

[B]

Pause. That's the clip, right? That went viral on Right Wing Watch.

[A]

I've seen that. I've seen that.

[B]

Okay, he opens it up. Yeah.

[A]

Big old controversial statement, and he uses.

[B]

The phrase the institution of slavery. Just keep that in mind as we're going through this video.

[C]

Every Christian should be able to defend it. Big Eva. Big Evangelicalism has been getting this wrong for years. Basically, since the Genesis, since the advent of Big Eva, they haven't had a good answer for the slavery issue. Right? Christians in America have been led astray on this topic. They've been led to believe things that the Bible doesn't teach. And when we go beyond the Bible, there are dire consequences, right? There are dire consequences for believing that we are nicer than God, that we.

[B]

I just want to clarify what he's saying is that we can't go beyond the Bible for how we think about moral objectivity and moral truth. I think that's an important framework to establish here.

[A]

Yeah, yikes.

[B]

I know. Yikes.

[C]

Kinder than God, that we are more merciful than God, more holy than God. None of that is true. We must stick to the revealed word of God. And a quick note before we jump in. I thought Ali Beth Stuckey did a good job in this debate. Being surrounded by all these folks, that's. That's hard to do. That's hard to do. To debate 20 people, like, in one sitting. All right, so she did well. But on this issue of slavery, on the topic of slavery, I think that she set herself up for failure with her answers that we're about to see in this clip. Okay, and now before we jump into the debate, I just want to clarify, just so it's just crystal clear, I am not saying that slavery was a positive good for society. I am not saying that we should bring it back. I am very happy that white Christians abolished slavery in the west and basically across the entire world, or most of it. All right, I'm very happy about that. I wanna make my thesis very clear for this episode, and it's very simple. The Bible does not teach that the institution of slavery is inherently sinful. Therefore, Christians must not say that the institution of slavery is inherently sin. Sinful. That's it. That's my thesis for the episode. And if you're wondering why even bring this up? Why ruffle the feathers? Why talk about this hot topic? Well, if you don't already know, then the answer to that question should become abundantly clear by the end of the episode. So let's jump into.

[B]

Okay. Did you hear what I heard? April, I want to give you the floor here. Did you hear a kind of contradiction in what he said?

[A]

I mean, the whole thing is. Oh, my God. I don't even. I'm kind of left speechless here because I feel like he's digging himself into a hole right off. But the thing that stuck out to me was something. I'm sure you were taught this too, about the Civil War, that it was good white Christians that abolished slavery, completely ignoring the Underground Railroad and Harriet Tubman and, like, all these amazing black people that. That did the bulk of the fight of. Like, the fighting.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

To abolish slavery, not to mention the white Christians that fought to own people. Like, that fought on the side of the Confederates.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Just ignoring that part. But I don't know what were you trying to point out?

[B]

I just think it's fascinating that he goes on to say I'm not saying slavery was a net good or that we should have it again.

[D]

Right.

[B]

But also the Bible says it's not inherently wrong. Okay, well hold on. If the Bible is your moral foundation and it does give ways to regulate different types of slavery, whether in his case you might argue, you know, like bond, servant, or if you're in debt, then why aren't you for it then? Like I'm sorry, Joshua. So on one hand the Bible says slavery is not inherently sinful and can't be regulated, but also you think it's a net good that slavery isn't a thing anymore. So you're already, you're already telling people that you are going beyond the Bible, right? That you have a higher sense of morality than what the Bible clearly says. That's what's so interesting about this. He doesn't even see it. And they use this arbitrary term. You're going to hear the gospel, like the gospel essentially as it spreads, you know, erases the need for slavery. But the Bible doesn't inherently say that. Clearly it doesn't. So I just need to point out from the beginning how I don't think Joshua's being intentionally slippery here, but he can't see the forest from the trees, right? Hey guys, just to be clear, I don't think slavery is bad or is a net good thing for society or that we should bring it back in America. But also the Bible doesn't condemn slavery. And also the Bible is the moral foundation for which America should be built on which he'll say later on, well then why aren't you advocating for slavery, Joshua? Like I think you should, you should say we should bring bond servants back. You should say if you're in debt, you should be able to sell yourself as a. Because the Bible regulates it. But he won't do that. It's interesting to witness.

[A]

Yeah, it's, it's, yeah, it's, it's similar. It might be a little opposite, but it's similar in vein to. I mean these guys are also very anti women in leadership. Right? But they will say, oh, I'm not sexist. I'm not saying that I like think women are less than me. I'm just saying what the Bible says. Like the, because the Bible says. But I'm not saying it. It's like they use the Bible as a cover for their own bigotry. Right? Like. Well I obviously, like, I'm not saying slavery was good but the Bible and God is good and like, I don't know, it's just a weird world to live in. But also, before we keep going to. I do want to point out that he is being called out by a lot of MAGA people online for saying, like, whoa, no, no, no, don't go here. And I saw a few people that were like, you're making Pete Hegseth look bad by doing this. These are people that like Pete Hegseth and like Trump. But I just, I want to point out too, like, his position affirming slavery is the natural progression of this ideology. If you're going to take the Bible literally and you want a Christian nation, you can't. There are certain verses in there you can't argue away.

[B]

Right. 100%. That's the strange overlap that we're going to see between us and Joshua as.

[C]

He goes through debate between Ali Beth Stuckey and Tim Whitaker of the New Evangelicals, who used to be my arch nemesis on X before he blocked me, which was sad. I enjoyed interacting with him.

[B]

Okay, I'm sorry, I have to call this out briefly. He's so disingenuous here. Joshua Hames posted a video of his child teaching his child how to make out on camera. Okay. It was very gross. I called him out for being a groomer. He got all offended by the way his child, his child, one of them does have a serious kidney issue. I have donated to his campaign to help cover the medical costs. To be clear, I say that not because I'm trying to brag, but because I want Joshua to know how bad faith of an actor he is. I reached out to Joshua personally because he got into with me back and forth and I, I gave him my phone number. I said, hey, man, we'd love to talk to you. Give me a call sometime. He never responded. I called him out on Twitter over and over. Hey, Joshua, I don't wanna go back and forth on Twitter. Give me a call, we can talk about it. I'm happy to talk to you. Never did. So I blocked him because he was a man child behind a keyboard and didn't have the stones or the guts to give me a call and talk to me in his words, man to man. So I just wanna start with that. Like, he might make it seem like, oh, I was just afraid of him or I couldn't handle the heat. He wouldn't even talk to me face to face. And like I said on the comment of his, of his YouTube video, Joshua, I'm happy to talk to you anytime, give me a ring. I had to say that. I had to say it.

[A]

Yeah, no fair. I have had a few run ins with him on X as well. He's a big old actor over there.

[C]

Get into that. And then we'll pass the mic over to Pastor Douglas Wilson. Let's jump in.

[B]

So they're gonna bring Doug Wilson.

[D]

My first claim is the Bible says marriage is only between one man and one woman.

[B]

You believe that slavery is wrong. Okay, really quick. I don't know why he pulled that claim for this interaction because it's under a different claim. So if you watch the Jubilee, the claim that Ali said was that progressivism is not compatible with Christianity. And that's the context of the claim I'm arguing here. Not her first claim. I think it's just an error on Joshua's part. No big deal.

[A]

But I want to clarify that. I wonder if he used. If he used that claim, because don't you use this argument to eventually say you just made the argument for why progressive.

[B]

Yeah. Maybe that's the reason. Okay, that's fair.

[A]

Homosexuality. Yeah. Today. Yeah.

[B]

Here we go.

[A]

That's just my own.

[B]

Do you agree with John MacArthur's statements when he says that slavery can be great if you have the right master?

[C]

All right, we're off to a rough start. We're off to a rough start. You believe that slavery is wrong? Yes, of course.

[B]

Why?

[C]

Why would you say that? You believe that slavery is objectively evil. Objectively wrong. That's problematic. And then he. He's already getting. He's already closing the trap. All right, then he brings up John MacArthur. Let's see how she responds to that.

[D]

No, I don't. I don't know that statement in context.

[B]

He's talking about slavery.

[D]

John MacArthur is a great teacher, or was a great teacher, but he said that.

[C]

So is he wrong on that?

[D]

But I've never read that quote and so have to know for sure exactly what he's talking about. But of course, I condemn all dehumanization and all objectification of people who are all made in the image of God. No person should be owned. It comes from the same belief that I have about abortion that it.

[C]

So no person should be owned.

[B]

Okay.

[C]

You just aren't going to see that in Scripture. Now you can make a case that it is a good for society, it is a good for the world. It's the gospel logic working its way out through the centuries that we abolish slavery. That's fine.

[B]

That's okay. First off, he's right. Like, right, like we're saying the same thing. No, the Bible actually does teach people how to regulate the institution or establishment of slavery. But he's still forced to pivot here and then say, well, you know, the gospel logic, as it works out, you know, abolishes the practice. But why? Because again, if it's in the Bible, the Bible that he says is God's, you know, objective moral truth to us, why would it abolish? What it clearly says is, is God promoted? Like, that's, that's why I don't get April is like, it's still this. It's the same logic that we're witnessing with Ali, just in a different framework but more honest about, about, about like what the text actually says, which on that point I agree. I thank him on like, thank you for not trying to capitulate or make up imaginary claims that the Bible somehow condemns slavery when it absolutely does not. Right. We just come to very different conclusions on what we do with that statement or those texts.

[A]

I mean, to his credit, he's, he is playing the theology out all the way.

[B]

Totally.

[A]

Like the way, like if you're actually gonna follow this fundamentalist right wing theology, a view of scripture, this is where you land. This is where you land. You know, because really, if you come, if you read the scripture objectively, right. I mean, that verse is in there. Slaves obey your masters. But there's no really way to wiggle around that. Right, right. But you can either say, okay, well that means slavery is not inherently evil. I don't necessarily need to oppose it, or you could read that and say, that was a very different time in a different context. And I know now because of things that we have learned throughout history and how slavery has been abused and that people should have their own autonomy because we are all made in the image of God. And come to the conclusion that I'm not going to listen to this verse for today because we know better.

[B]

That's right. No, you, you nailed it. And also we should just point out Joshua's never going to take like James 5 as literally as he takes these other passages about slavery.

[E]

Right.

[B]

So James 5 is a, is a critique of the rich exploiting their, their, their workers and like taking their wages. You're never going to see Joshua use those passages that talk about how injustice for the fatherless and the oppressed, you know, is an affront to God, therefore our society should be more adjust towards the marginalized. So again, to be clear, we're not saying that, that, that, that he's Being objective here in the sense of like he's reading the whole Bible and taking it all literally. He's employing what Scott Coley calls is motivated literalism, which is you only take things literal that actually benefit you and what you believe in the Bible. Right. So, so Joshua can read Jesus saying it's harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. He can explain away. That's a hard issue. Well, we shouldn't really condemn billionaires, Right? We shouldn't have a society where there are no billionaires that won't get applied. But the passages on slavery, well, hey guys, it's in the text. The Bible doesn't condemn it. Right. That's an example of the motivated literalism that I'm talking about.

[F]

Right.

[A]

Well, I mean, the truth is like no one actually, even people that would say they are biblical literalists, no one actually takes the whole Bible literally. I mean, it would be impossible to. Because there are conflicting ideas within the text.

[B]

That's right. We're all doing our best to interpret the text.

[C]

We can talk through that. We can talk about that. And there's an argument to be made there. But the idea that it is inherently wrong for one image bearer to own another is foreign to the scriptures. Ok, he's right. Foreign to the scriptures. And when we start making things up and going beyond scripture, we're just asking for the liberals to the progressives, the atheists to entrap us and use our own words against us. So let's watch.

[D]

It's wrong to kill babies inside the womb. Do you think? It's only what it is.

[B]

The problem with that, though, is that your evangelical fundamentalist tradition was on the other side of this conversation all the way. Bob Jones, the founder of Bob Jones University, use your exact same framework of how he saw the Bible to justify why the racists should say separate. And then he said all kinds of.

[D]

Frameworks to justify all kinds of bad things.

[B]

Use your framework and use my framework. He said that people, he said people who wouldn't, who would not see it.

[C]

His way, are liberals.

[B]

Are progressives trying to distort the truth of the gospel. This is the white evangelical tradition.

[D]

We should go further into Scripture. I would say that he was unbiblical. Just to think that you, Paul, says.

[B]

Slaves obey your master. Oh, it absolutely does.

[D]

It does not condone. I think it acknowledges that it is a part of society.

[B]

Not with the goalposts.

[D]

I think it acknowledges that it is a part of society.

[B]

It regulates it, but the Torah regulates slavery.

[C]

So I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Tim Whitaker of the New evangelical super progressive, quote unquote Christian. Really. It's just apostate. He's an apostate. No, I'm a Christian, as are basically anyone who takes the label progressive Christian. But he's right.

[B]

Thanks, Josh.

[C]

The Torah regulates slavery. It does not condemn it.

[B]

Right, right.

[C]

Let's keep going.

[D]

I would argue prohibits the ownership of.

[B]

You would be on the side of the progressives if you were back in the day when race based child slavery happened because, you know, the argument was against us.

[D]

The word of God has.

[B]

That's a different conversation. But the argument.

[D]

That's my argument. That's my argument.

[B]

The argument would be this if you were around during race day shadow slavery. Show me in the Bible where it condemned slavery. And they couldn't. That was the whole point.

[D]

We are made in God's image.

[B]

Paul says for slaves to obey your masters. You agree with that statement?

[C]

So they're both kind of wrong here. Tim Whitaker is saying that Christians were using the Bible to justify race based chattel slavery, which is true, but so were the abolitionist Christians. They were also using the Bible to justify abolishing abortion. That's because the society as a whole was Christian and, and the Bible was the moral foundation. They knew that if they needed to get anything done in the legal sense, in the political sense, they must appeal to the standard that we all agree is the ultimate foundation of truth, which was the word of God. So, you know, that's definitely a misnomer right there by Tim Whitaker implying that it was just the Christians who were using the Bible to justify slavery. Yeah, it was also Christians who were using the Bible to abolish slavery too.

[A]

So no crap.

[B]

He is so far off on this in the sense of for hundreds of years, Christianity, European central Christianity in particular, justified and regulated and created slavery based on their Christian convictions. And it wasn't white Christians who were like, hey guys, I think we got this wrong. It was black folks, it was secular folks. It was some white Christians, but they were in the minority. I mean, the Southern Baptist Convention split with the Baptists over the right to own other people. Like this was not he. See, this is like this is the whitewashed history Joshua is drawing from it. Again, I would ask Joshua, why is that a good thing? If the Bible gives foundational principles for regulating different forms of slavery, why do you think it's in that good that we abolished it? Right.

[A]

Again, they literally had slave Bibles that took out about liberation and equality and like Joseph being sold and like, like totally 100%.

[B]

Like, it is wild that he's like, Tim's being disingenuous. Actually. No. What we say often, April, right, is that the Bible can be used as a weapon of oppression or a tool for liberation. The same house of Christianity that gave us the segregationists and your Bob Jones and your other slave owners is the same Christian house that gave us Martin Luther King Jr. And Black Liberation Theology. Right. They're reading from the same scriptures, so to speak, the same Protestant Bible with very different interpretations. Which only goes to further prove the point that trying to claim that you were just basing your. That moral reality on the objective truth of the word of God is so fraught. It's not true. Even when Ally says the word of God is never changing, that's not true. Our Bibles came from somewhere. People had a hand in the editing process. Translations have different words for how they translate certain words depending on if you're reading the NASV or the NSB or the message. Like, this idea that it's never changing is just. It's factually not a true statement. And it is a fool's errand to claim that the English Protestant Bible is what we need to base civilization off of. How does one do that when we're all come to a very different. When we're all coming to very different conclusions on how we interpret it?

[A]

Well, yeah. And not only did they use the Bible to justify owning people, but they used the Bible to convert enslaved people. They would use the story of Joseph and how because he was so obedient, he was rewarded, and they would use that to keep people almost happy with their chains. Jamar Tisby, his book the Color of Compromise is such an amazing. It's really eye opening, especially if you're a white American Christian, just to see how embedded racism is within the evangelical church. But he had said something that, like, I'm going to butcher the quote because it's amazing, but that the gospel that they taught to enslaved people could save their souls but not break their chains.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And I. It's. It's just so sobering. Like, you're. You're absolutely right. Like the idea. There were definitely white Christians that use the Bible to help bring liberation, but you. To only hone in on that, you have to ignore hundreds of years of using the Bible for the other. For the other side.

[B]

Yes. And if Joshua was alive back then, he would not be on the side of the abolitionists. He'd Be on the side of the Bible is clear. Again, I'm just trying to point out to the audience. He's even betraying his own logic because even he knows that slavery shouldn't be an institutional thing intuitively. But because of his dogmatic position on the Bible, he's forced to acknowledge what is there. The Bible regulates it. But then he'll claim that the Bible is the foundation for civilization. But then he'll also say it's a net good that slavery was abolished. Why? The Bible does not abolish slavery. It doesn't even advocate for such a thing. It regulates it. So why not Joshua just say we should regulate it? It's wild to watch the contradictions in the gymnastics. It's just interesting. So, okay, we'll keep going.

[A]

Because he has to know deep down though, that, yeah, tell me that slavery's wrong.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

Like, otherwise he wouldn't be making these justifications. Like, I'm not saying we should bring it back.

[D]

Right.

[B]

Which betrays, by the way, his claim that, like his moral conscience comes from the reading the word of God. He ha. Even something beyond that tells him no. Like owning other people shouldn't be good for society. Even though the Bible, like he says, has no notion that it's inherently wrong to own other people who are image bearers, genuine.

[C]

And he probably knows that.

[D]

Of course I agree with the Bible.

[B]

Okay, so you agree with the statement the Bible does condone slavery.

[D]

That does not mean. That does not mean that I agree that instituting slavery.

[B]

But that's not what I said. I said the Bible condones slavery. You said, no, it doesn't. I brought the passage where Paul says, slaves obey your masters. You shall argue with the Bible.

[D]

He does not.

[B]

In the book of Philemon.

[D]

In the book of Philemon. What happens in the Book of Philemon? Do you know?

[B]

I'm asking you to. I'm. I gave you the passage. Hold on.

[C]

You keep.

[B]

You are very good at this. You should keep moving the goalposts. Okay, how.

[A]

How am I moving the goalposts?

[B]

The claim you made was that the.

[D]

Bible does not go around and around about slavery.

[B]

I'm not going to. I'm not going to let it go. Paul says slaves to obey your masters is. Do you agree with Paul on that?

[D]

Wives submit to their husbands. And this is all in the context of children submitting to their fathers. That does not mean that as an institution, that he is condoning slavery, saying, it's good. I think we can read God's heart behind that.

[B]

Well, that's a I think that's a deep interpretation. That's not in the text.

[D]

Why not in the text?

[B]

Well, like I said, I'm going to hammer it again.

[D]

Paul says he's saying that slavery is good.

[B]

Paul knew what was going on. You could have condemned it.

[D]

You think he's saying that slavery is.

[C]

Good Because Paul's a part of the.

[D]

Same talk about a different kind of slavery that existed, which was bond servant, for example. So people were in debt. And so to pay their way out of debt, sometimes they would have bond service for a certain amount of time to pay their way into freedom. It was not always the same as the chattel slavery that we see in the 19th century in America, for example. And so it was a different context and it was a different time. That does not mean that any of us should condone slavery.

[B]

All I want to say is that you perfectly gave the framework why we don't believe that homosexuality in the Bible is the same thing as it is today.

[D]

We see it over and over again. Same thing.

[B]

No, no, no.

[D]

We see it throughout Scripture.

[B]

You can't say slavery in the Bible back then was contextual and different than.

[C]

What race based childhood slavery is and.

[B]

Then not do the same thing for homosexuality.

[D]

The Bible says pre scripted.

[C]

He this, he legitimately won that debate. In my view, they were both wrong on a lot of stuff. But that is the trap that is set by modern liberals, progressives, atheists or Christians.

[B]

Right?

[A]

Is it a trap?

[C]

You want to say that slavery is evil, which.

[B]

Right. I want to be clear. The framework I'm drawing from is like quite historical. Like, by the way, a lot of Christian traditions do, are not solo scriptura. A lot of them believe that the church interprets Scripture because they realize how complicated of a, of a collection of texts that is the Bible. Right. Like they realize that this is not an individualistic, you know, pet project where you just read it and you just start saying that's what the Bible says. It's complicated. Right? So what I'm drawing from is not like it wasn't made in like, you know, 2002. And I'm like, hey, what if we interpret it differently? I'm simply realizing that throughout Christian history, Christians have realized that the Bible cannot be the only source for objective moral truth. Because like you said, April, it contradicts itself. It comes from a specific context in place, in time. Right. It's not monolithic. People have had their hands in the editing process. We don't have any of the original manuscripts. Right. I'm not saying that the Bible doesn't have wisdom to offer or in its own way isn't even inspired. I think there's an argument to make. But to say that we're just going off of the Bible plainly and that if we do that for society, everything will be great is ridiculous. It's foolish.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course, we all know, we look around and we've all agreed that slavery is evil. Why, except for the fact that you liberal or atheist or agnostic, you don't have a moral foundation. By what standard can you even condemn slavery as being evil?

[B]

But, but what, what can, what standard can Josh do it? If Josh's standard is the Bible and the Bible regulates slavery, what, what foundation does Joshua have to condemn it? Like, do you see this? I would love the audience to chime in here in the comments. I would love to know if it's just me who's seeing this. I'm like, am I missing something? His whole argument is you atheists have no, have no foundation to condemn slavery. But Joshua is also saying, though the Bible regulates slavery, the Bible has no notion of condemning slavery. And the Bible is the moral truth of all, of all moral objectivity. Okay, but you just said that you think it should be gone. It doesn't make, it's wild.

[A]

This is one thing that is so dangerous about this ideology because they, and I believe this too when I was in it, but they genuinely believe that you can only be good and moral if you follow their God. Like who they believe God, the God of the Bible, which I follow the God of the Bible too, but it is not the God that they talk about. And when you, when you believe that, then you can look at scriptures that talk about owning people. Right? And since you believe, well, only good comes from this God. And if you believe that the Bible is the literal word of that same God, then suddenly, even if, even if, like your own instincts are saying, you know what, I think it's wrong to own people, you're going to default and, and, and just go with the what God says, who you believe God says, and someone who doesn't follow your God. If they say, you know, I'm not going to own people because I believe it's wrong, then you just dismiss them being like, well, you don't know what wrong is.

[B]

Right? You're modern. It's a liberal agenda. It's relativism, stupid. Yes, yes, doesn't matter.

[C]

Okay? They decide that we all agree that slavery was evil. And you, Christian, you've got to deal with what the Bible says. The Bible clearly condones slavery. What we must not do is say, no, it doesn't.

[B]

No, it doesn't.

[C]

It doesn't. It doesn't condone slavery. No, it actually secretly condemns slavery. No, it doesn't condemn it. It doesn't condemn it. We can make the argument that the gospel logic played out through history does end up abolishing it, you know, over time. That's a good argument.

[B]

I'll never make that argument. By the way, this entire video, that argument's never made. I would love to know what it is and how it somehow doesn't contradict the Bible, where all, again, moral foundation comes from. But he never makes it.

[C]

I subscribe to that. But it does not condemn it. And if we lie about what the Scripture actually teaches, even if it's on accident, they will trap us with this. Why are you able to contextualize the slavery issue, but we can't contextualize the homosexuality issue?

[B]

Right.

[C]

And obviously that one is much more clearly condemned in Scripture. But they're using our own logic.

[B]

Again, I. Anyway, if we go against what the.

[C]

Scriptures or add to what the Scriptures clearly do not teach. So let's keep going here.

[D]

And descriptive, I agree, allegory and poem 100 and literalism. And so we have to read everything in context. And when we see homosexuality not only explicitly condemned, but we also see, again, from creation all the way to Revelation 20, that it's an earthly reflection of an eternal reality, the marriage between Christ and the church, which is gendered, by the way, as we see in Ephesians 5. We see that reiterated over and over again. So it's not only that the Bible condemns it again, it is the only relationship that God calls good.

[C]

Yeah, that was a tough one, guys. That was a tough one. And you know, here's the thing. If you are in that evangelical crowd that has adopted those talking points, you might have been cheering her on in that. But really, she did get trapped. She did get trapped on this one. And I think that is because of the failure of evangelicalism for the last many decades to address this issue. We have gone squishy on something that the Bible teaches or does not teach. And so the liberals, the leftists, the atheists, they've used that against us. So now let's jump over really quick.

[B]

I want to, just for the audience to understand. When he says evangelicalism, you know, April, you and I also critique evangelicalism, but we're doing it from two different sides, right? Joshua Hames and Doug Wilson, they're essentially saying that what they're called, what they call is Big Eva has gotten essentially woke in their minds. It's kind of liberal. Okay. Never mind that 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. But hey, it's gone woke and liberal and soft. We are saying that white evangelicalism is based on white supremacy and nationalism and fundamentalism and is a major problem in that sense. So if you hear similar language that Joshua is using, that we use, that's because there is like a, there is a Venn diagram overlap. Right. Where we agree that the Bible doesn't condone slavery. Joshua and I agree we have radically different prescriptions for what we do with those passages. Right. Same thing when it comes to what they call big evangelicalism. So I just thought it was really just for the audience to have that awareness. So.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Well.

[A]

And these, these, I would say these are true Christian nationalists.

[B]

Oh for sure.

[A]

Like probably openly. So, like they, yes, they are. They believe that America should be a Christian nation and that Christian nationalism is good because again, if God is good and only good can come from your God, then of course you would want a country that follows the laws of that good God.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

But, but he will look at, at a church that maybe has some women teachers and say they're too woke because they allow women to have, you know, equal rights in the church. And you know, someone that can't condemn slavery or say that the Bible condemns slavery is a little too woke. Like it's, it's, it's. But this is, this is the end goal. Like this is where this leads to if you're going to follow it and, and on this path like that, that's where it leads to. It is Gilead. It's, it's the handmade. Like the handmaid still obviously is fiction. We are not to that extreme. But if you follow this logic that is not far off from reality.

[B]

He's about to pull up Doug Wilson who's like, they're like, you know, messiah, pretty much all of their influence. His influence is so, is taken so seriously. Doug Wilson is very clear on CNN that he wants women's suffrage overruled. You know, he believes in, in the family vote where one, it's one vote per family. So this is, this is not fringe stuff. And again, Pete Hegseth, our defense secretary, whatever they call him now says that he loves Doug Wilson. He re posted Doug Wilson's interview from cnn. So this is not like, you know, out there ideas. This is exactly right. April, what we're giving people is, is it really a look into the future. This is what they want to do in America and make everyone submit to it based on their Christian supremacist ideals that actually fall in on themselves logically once you start examining them.

[F]

Hey everyone, Melinda Hale here, Executive Director of the New Evangelicals. Thanks for listening to our podcast. I just wanted to take a minute to personally invite you to be a part of our community. At TNE we, we're creating space for people of faith who care about justice, compassion and living out the teachings of Jesus in real, tangible ways. As a nonprofit organization, not only do we offer thought provoking podcasts, but on our new app and online platform TNE Connect, we offer free educational resources, additional content and a space to connect with like minded people for meaningful conversations and encouragement. So if what we're doing has been helpful to you, if you've learned something, felt seen or or been challenged to grow, head over to theneweevangelicals.com to join TNE Connect or make a donation. Your support means the world to us. Thanks for being a part of the movement.

[G]

This episode is brought to you by Rakuten. If you're shopping while working, eating or even listening to this podcast, then you know and love the thrill of a deal. But are you getting the deal and cash back? Rakuten shoppers? Do they get the brands they love, savings and cash back, and you can get it too. Stack sales on top of cash back and feel what it's like to know you're maximizing savings. It's easy to use and you get cash back sent to you through PayPal or check. The idea is simple. The brands you love pay Rakuten for sending them shoppers and Rakuten shares the money with you as cash back. Download the free Rakuten app or go to rakuten.com to start saving today.

[A]

It's the most rewarding way to shop.

[G]

That's R A K U t e n rakuten.com this is a real good.

[A]

Story about Bronx and his dad, Ryan, real United Airlines customers.

[B]

We were returning home and one of the flight attendants asked Bronx if he wanted to see the flight deck and meet Captain Andrew.

[A]

I got to sit in the driver's seat.

[E]

I grew up in an aviation family.

[B]

And seeing Bronx kind of reminded me.

[C]

Of myself when I was that age.

[A]

That's Andrew, a real United pilot.

[C]

These small interactions can shape a kid's future.

[A]

It felt like I was the captain.

[B]

Allowing my son to see the flight deck will stick with us forever.

[C]

That's how good leads the way.

[B]

We all love A legendary comeback. And Degree Original Cool Rush is back and better than ever. Cool Rush isn't just a scent. It's a movement, a fan favorite that delivers bold, fresh vibes and all day sweat protection. Whether you have a man that spends hours in the gym, heads into the office early, or is just trying to stay fresh on a long day, Cool Rush has their back. Head to your local Walmart or Target and grab Degree Cool Rush, the fan favorite scent from the world's number one antiperspirant brand. Now this part gets really interesting. This is when he brings up Doug Wilson and he's going to respond to a clip of Doug explaining how to avoid this trap. And I again, April, this is what I really want you to be listening to. So I want your thoughts. I just want to see if you think it makes sense or if it's a compelling argument or if it sounds kind of familiar.

[C]

Pastor Wilson. And we can see how we should address the slavery issue.

[B]

Here we go.

[E]

This is very simple. If you find yourself in a discussion with any non believer today about homosexual issues and they say, do you mean to say that homosexual marriage should not be allowed by the law? Same sex mirage should not be allowed by the law because God said to Moses on Mount Sinai, you shall not. Yeah, and I would say, yeah, that's right. Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[B]

Okay, so I, I want to be so clear. What he just said for the audience, in short, is that, is that he believes that because Moses on Mount Sinai apparently has a law that condemns what we think of today as homosexuality, which I would greatly debate, therefore the law of the land in America, a secular republic with that's ruled by a constitution, homosexual marriage should be banned. Okay, that's the argument he's using. It's law of Moses. It says it, therefore it should be banned. Keep that in mind.

[E]

And they will say, but God said other things to Moses. Okay, so within 10 minutes, whether you want to or not, you're going to be talking about slavery, right? Within 10 minutes they're going to say, but the Old Testament allowed for slavery. The Old Testament prohibited clam chowder. The Old Testament prohibited bacon. Which is a, that's a compelling argument. So you have this. They'll say, Moses said other stuff. The Bible says other stuff. Okay? And this is like I said, three chest moves ahead. If you're talking to someone about the sinfulness of the homosexual lifestyle, they will say the Bible is not to be trusted as a guide for morality. Because Moses said that slaves could be owned under these conditions. And it doesn't matter how humane it is.

[B]

Right.

[E]

And the apostle Paul returned Onesimus to. To Philemon. And he tells. In Ephesians, he tells the slaves to work hard for their masters. It doesn't matter that he tells the masters to be humane to the slaves. But they're right in the Bible. Now, as soon as they make that move, then conservative evangelical Christians start playing the that was then, this is now game. And as soon as you start playing that was then, this is now, they've got you.

[C]

Yep.

[E]

Because two can play that.

[C]

And that is exactly what we just saw with Ali Bestucky and Tim Whitaker. That was then, this is now. And then he says, well, we can both play that game, can't we? Exactly like that. That's why this. Why this issue is so important.

[B]

Do you want to add to that? I saw you raise your hand.

[A]

Oh, no, no. I mean, I just talk about being so close to getting the point and still just completely missing it.

[B]

Yep. Again, Doug, I ask you if you're. If you're saying that because the Mosaic law condemns homosexuality and you also agree with me that the Mosaic law regulates forms of slavery, including, I mean, Exodus 21:21 is clear that. That, that. That. That the slave is the property of the slave master, why aren't you more outspoken about why slavery should be brought back now? I think he is ultimately. I think that. I think if he was in charge, he would allow for that. But he's still kind of playing the game, but just from a different angle, because he's not. He's not explaining how he would say, well, we wouldn't really want to institute that form of slavery in America because, you know, that was. And this is now. Does that make sense? Am I making sense here, April? Like, do you. Are you tracking or am I making no sense?

[A]

No, you are making sense. It's just really interesting to me why they focus on homosexuality so much as, like, this big bad. Because they use scriptures that are there greatly out of context, but they use them. But then they can argue away the other. Like, they know the slavery stuff's there also.

[B]

It's more there than the quote, unquote, homosexuality stuff. You know, like, it's more prevalent, by the way. So are the passages about liberating the oppressed and, like, taking care of the poor and the orphan. Like, that's greatly more present all throughout the Hebrew and New Testament. Right.

[A]

The teachings of Jesus, the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, about what you do, to the least of These you do to me. Love thy neighbor, love thy enemy, lay down your weapons like that. That's the stuff. Oh, we don't take that literally. When Jesus said love your neighbor, he meant your legal neighbor.

[B]

What? Yeah, exactly, exactly.

[E]

That's right. If you get to simply arbitrarily wave your hand and say, well, we don't have to take those parts of the Bible seriously because slavery, right, Everybody knows slavery is wrong and therefore Moses and Jesus and Paul are all wrong because of modern enlightened thought. As soon as you do that, they're going to start saying, well, why can't I reason in exactly the same way with regard to my same sex spouse? Right? And you have nothing to withstand them because you've abandoned the scriptures and you are now opposing them with your bigotries. You find homosexual practice distasteful, Personally distasteful. And that means that when they accuse you of that they actually have a point.

[B]

Right?

[C]

That's right.

[E]

So sexual sin is not immoral because it's distasteful. Right. It's immoral because God prohibits it.

[B]

Notice the bait and switch. It's not immoral, it's distasteful. Which I would argue a lot of this motivation is actually animated by disgust. They find it disgusting. But he says it's because God prohibits it. What he means is because how they interpret the Bible prohibits it. That's the bait and switch. God. This might be a shocker to Doug Wilson and to Joshua Hames. God did not write the Bible. I know men wrote the Bible and then other men edited the Bible and other men put manuscripts together and then other men translated those words into, into German, into Latin and then those men took upon their that to put it into English and then they fought over how to translate certain words because guess what? Culture and context and language is not a one to one. Like most people don't even know that there is no Hebrew or Greek word for husband or wife. The word is always man or woman. But we as English speaking people who have a term called husband and wife have to make decisions when to employ or when to interpret man or woman based on the context that we think is happening as husband or wife. That's just one small example, you know, so that, that is the bait and switch right there. Because God said so. No, no, no. God didn't say anything. Your interpretation of the Bible that you're subscribing God to is what's doing all the heavy lifting here. And even then we could argue that the way you ignore context and Culture and even the words in the, in the languages that we have that are not in English, you ignore that context for homosexuality. But then you greatly, you know, claim to embrace the Bible doesn't condone slavery, but then apply a new interpretation of. Well, but when you work out the gospel logic, slavery goes away. But your brain should be spinning like a top at this point. It's wild.

[A]

I remember I took a few Bible classes in college because I went to a Christian college and what part of our curriculum was teaching us how the Bible was formed, who wrote what books, who decided what books got into the Bible to become the canon? And I remember just being so shocked at how long men debated which books to include and which include, like, which books to not include. Like, there were a lot of books that almost made it into the Bible.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

To be canon that weren't. And then there were books that made it in that almost didn't.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

And it's, it was like, because when you're, when you grow up in an evangelical space, you are taught that the, that the Bible is God's literal word, that it was basically written by God. Like you say, of course it was inspired, but they tell it as if, like God audibly told who wrote it word for word, what to say.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

And it's just. That is not what happened at all. And not even like, even if you believe that. And I do believe that a lot of the Bible is inspired. Like, I believe you can get a lot of wisdom from the Bible. And the difference between, like, us and a conservative Christian is that we are honest about the fact that it takes interpretation and it takes understanding the times and contextualizing what is happening to get meaning out of the text for us today. It doesn't mean like, I mean, Paul in one of his letters was like, oh, by the way, I left my jacket. Can you bring it with me? Like, what do you mean? God wrote that? What does that, what does that have to do.

[B]

Right.

[A]

For today.

[B]

Right, Right. No, you're. I, we. We have to hammer that home. There was. There's no magical hand in the sky that came down that wrote these words in English.

[A]

Floated down, by the way. I've even heard to the extreme. Sorry. That.

[B]

Fine.

[A]

I've, like, you know, obviously people believe in the Trinity. It's three different, you know, the Godhead, three in one. So Jesus and God are different, but they're the same. Right. I have had theobros like this guy argue with me that Jesus wrote the whole Bible.

[B]

Oh, yes. Oh, yes, for sure. That's right. Like. Like they. They'll say that. That. That it's not just the red letters, that when. When Paul's speaking, it's Jesus. When the Torah is speaking, it's Jesus. No, by the way, that's not taking the Bible seriously. That is not taking the Bible in context. It's not taking the Bible on its own terms. It's not respecting it from. For. For what it is or. Or from the complicated ancient world that comes from over hundreds, if not over a thousand years. Right. Again, like, people are taught that, like, one day someone wrote the whole thing top to bottom. And like, no, Genesis was assembled way, in a way different time period than when Romans was assembled. And that was a different time period than when Ezekiel was assembled. Right. Like these things are. Are. It's as different, April, as if, you know, you and I are talking now and someone 100 years ago wrote a letter and we're putting it in the same collection of books. I have a whole different framework for how I see the world compared to how someone even 30 years ago saw the world. Right. But that's all ignored. That's all flattened out. Right. It's all. Instead of assimilation into how we understand the Bible. Not to mention. Last point, then we'll move on. The Catholic Bible, it doesn't have the same books as the Protestant Bible, the Eastern Orthodox Bible. That changes all the time depending on what schism of the Eastern Orthodox Church you're in. So this, we have to call it the language that they use. God said the Bible's clear. It's the objective moral foundation for objective truth. That's not. These are not true statements. They are dogmatic statements. Nothing wrong with that. You can believe whatever you want. If Joshua Hayes wants to have these beliefs, that's great. I respect it. The problem is that people like Joshua believe that they have a divine mandate to take their ideology and enforce it and interject it into American civil law, where we all now must submit to a world where Joshua thinks women can't vote, gay people can't marry. Right. I would even argue he probably goes so far as to be thrilled about potentially bringing forms of segregation back in America. He obviously is pretty light on slavery. That's the world that he insists we all have to submit to. That's the problem.

[A]

Right, Exactly.

[E]

All right, so.

[C]

And that's what we must get back to. As Christians, as Christians in America, as Christians in the west, as Christians who want to save America, we must be willing to say that this or that is Evil, it's sinful, it's wrong. Because God says so. Because God says so. Yes, we can make our apologetic cases to people, but we must do so standing with two feet firmly planted on the word of God and not be embarrassed about that. That's. We've got to make our appeals. We've got to make our case with a Bible in our hand and a thus saith the Lord on our lips. And we got to stop apologizing for Scripture. Stop apologizing for scripture.

[B]

It's embarrassing.

[E]

There are many faithful Christians who walk away from various sexual temptations. And the reason they have to resist sexual temptations is precisely because they're not distasteful, they're attractive. Right? That's right. And so we have to have a ground of resistance that is grounded in something other than our personal feelings. And so what this has done is knocked all your props out and you. And there you are opposing same sex mirage. Because you don't.

[B]

It's.

[E]

It because of the ick factor, because it's icky. And that's. That that's going to last months.

[B]

Not.

[E]

It's not going to last very long at all. The other thing, and this goes.

[B]

Notice how he said too, like, essentially something to the effect of like, we can't go like based on our feelings, as if Doug Wilson has no feelings, as if he's not shaped by the world around him. Right again, that's another bait and switch. Doug, you're a human being too. You have feelings too. Those feelings do have an effect on how you interpret what you call is the word of God. But they can't see it. They just can't see it. They think somehow they are like a fish who's in water but is not wet. That's how they see themselves.

[A]

It's also just the audacity or the caucasity.

[B]

Nice.

[A]

Of these four white men, five, if you include Josh, that are now debating the rights of other people, of marginalized people, they can have these conversations because when they get their way, they don't lose any rights.

[B]

Right.

[A]

They just gain power. They have nothing to lose with this ideology. They're talking about women, they're talking about slavery, they're talking about homosexuality, they're talking about people and issues that would never affect them.

[B]

Exactly. Do you see a world where Doug Wilson enters into slavery and goes, well, it's just God's will. Hey, it's biblical. I was in debt, so I was sold into slavery. Well, guess we can't do anything. No, of course not. Joshua Hayes is never going to be a slave to anyone. If he was, he would fight it. And the way you know this, by the way, is because remember Covid, when Covid came around, all these men who were like, Romans 13, Romans 13. So clear we have to obey the governing authorities, which is why we have to worship Pete Hegseth and, you know, support Donald Trump well, during COVID Hey, that's tyranny. We can't obey tyranny on biblical ground. Suddenly. Right. Suddenly, Romans 13 was at the fricking window. And what was that? What was the language? It's. We're. It's not, you know, we're. We're implying correct interpretation. When you inter. When you understand Romans 13, quote, unquote, rightly, you understand why we're allowed to ignore it here. This is all code for whiteness. And I don't mean white in the sense of someone's skin color. I mean it in the logic and the ideology of whiteness. It's assimilation. It's flattening out. It always. It always protects itself at the expense of the other. It will always create inner logics that give a justification to maintain power and control at the expense of the other. Right. That's exactly what this is.

[A]

It's also so white. And even how he was arguing, like, Christians in the West.

[B]

Right.

[A]

This is this obsession with, like, the west.

[B]

The West.

[A]

It completely ignores global Christianity that. That a lot of the times interprets scripture completely different. Like, there are. There are over 45,000 current Christian denominations worldwide. And these guys are like, whoa, we got it right, Right?

[B]

Yeah, exactly. We're the ones that got Joshua's like, oh, ignore that. I got this right. Okay. Like, don't worry. We just happened to hit the. The cosmic jackpot over here.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, we were born the right time, the right place, in the right cultural context to rightly interpret the word of God. And anyone, especially Tim Whitaker, that apostate, anyone who sees it differently, just a freaking apostate. They're just a heretic.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

Hopefully people out there realize, like, why you and I laugh at this, because first off, we were this way in a lot, in our own way. We were. I wouldn't say I was this extreme, but, like, I. I understand how Joshua thinks because I was in it for so long, and I. Now that I'm on the outside, I'm like, wow, it is delusion. Like, it's delulu. You are just delusional and also arrogant. You think the God of the universe, the God who spoke all into existence, The God who created humanity in their image, which means all different races and ethnicities and the way that we understand culture and context. Right, all of that. Right. You think that you have the corporate corner on that deity somehow this deity reflects everything that you hold valuable and you hold dear. Really? Wow. I mean, my apologies, Mr. Josh. Like, after you, good sir. It's crazy.

[A]

You know, it's interesting because they actually, they're using slavery now. But I've heard the same argument because I always believed inherently that I was equal to men and that if I wanted to go out and be a pastor, I could be a pastor. Because, like, I just knew there was nothing that made me less than a man just because I was born with a vagina. Right? So. But I remember getting in debates with dudes like this that would say, yeah, but if you say that, you have to use, you know, women should remain silent and cannot be in leadership over men. Like, if you've put cultural context to that, then that's the slippery slope. And next thing you know, you're going to be applying cultural context to homosexuality. And I see them, they still make this argument today as a reason to oppose women in leadership in churches because it's the slippery slope. Next thing you know, you're going to allow the gays.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

It is a slippery slope because once you. And like, yes, we should be using cultural context because it was 2,000 years ago, they didn't have cars, they didn't have, like, vaccines. You know, like, people died all the time of diseases that today we don't even blink at. You know, like, it. Well, except for RFK Jr trying to bring them back.

[B]

Except for the measles.

[A]

Oh, I don't mean to laugh. It's terrible.

[B]

You're right. You're right. I was thinking the same thing. I was like, I should laugh at that, at that scene.

[A]

I know, it really, it's tragic. Okay, anyway.

[E]

Okay, I'll keep going to something that I think I, I learned from my father, at least in spirit, if not overtly. And that is to have no problem passages a priori going in.

[B]

All right?

[E]

So once the exegesis is done, once I know what the passage actually says.

[B]

Exegesis is just term for interpretation, okay? Interpreting it rightly. So there's a whole framework. Different people have different frameworks. But that's the word exegesis for my non evangelical listeners out there.

[E]

I'm not going to back off of what it teaches a millimeter.

[F]

Right?

[E]

So no problem passages. I'm not going to Say, I'm not going to make excuses for Moses. I'm not going to explain Jesus thought processes.

[C]

Why, yes.

[B]

Okay, well, then great. Don't back off at a millimeter when Exodus 21:21 says that the slave is the owner's property. Josh, just stand, man. Full chest, bro. Just say it. Just say that slavery is fine. In fact, maybe we can even go so far as to say, since it's in the Bible, we should bring it back wholesale. It's clear, the Bible, it doesn't just describe it, it prescribes it, especially in the Hebrew Bible.

[A]

So close to getting the point, like, if you have that, like, they know it's wrong. They know it's wrong.

[B]

Exactly. And that's the grand point I'm trying to make as well as you are. They're still drawing from some other source or some other intuition that says, well, there's something inherently wrong about owning other people made in the image of God. Right. But they're stuck in this dogma of, well, the Bible is the source. That will liberate me into that perspective. But when it doesn't. And they are also dogmatic in that it's the word of God and they can't compromise that, they have to create these, like, crazy systems to justify why it's both. And when in reality it's just a logical and dumb. Yeah, and last point that will really upset some people out there. The only reason the Bible has authority is because we as humans give it authority. That's the only reason. Yeah, I'm sorry, That's the only reason. It's the same reason why many of us do not see the Quran as authoritative while others do. Why? Because we don't. We. We ascribe no such authority to it personally. Right. It's the same reason why I laugh when Joshua Haynes is like, tim's an apostate. Like, dude, you have no authority. Say what you want, bro. It has no authority on my life. It has no effect on my. On my salvation or on my. What I claim to be. So let's just be honest. We give the Bible authority. I'm not saying we shouldn't, by the way, but we do that because there's a long tradition of men and Christians who believe that this collection of books in a certain format is inspired by God. Just that simple.

[A]

Right?

[B]

We gotta be true tellers here. All right, I'll keep going.

[C]

If you have one takeaway from this video, I hope it is that I want you to walk away with the conviction that you ought to have no problem passages. Once the passage is rightly executed, rightly understood, you should have no problem passages.

[B]

That's the key.

[C]

And anytime that you get this kind of gut reaction to a, a particular passage in Scripture, a particular topic that the Scripture addresses, and it kind of, it makes you upset, it, you know, brings up something in your heart, you should probably spend some time there asking the Lord to soften your heart because you have hardened your heart against God and His word on that particular topic, that particular scripture. So it's really important.

[B]

I'm pausing. Go ahead.

[A]

He's telling you to basically ignore your conscience. Of course, if you're, if you read something about owning people and you are feeling a gut check, that's saying, like, this is wrong. I would say that's the Holy Spirit guiding you and convicting you and saying it's wrong to own another person. And he's telling you you've hardened your heart.

[B]

What? And again, it's all about authority. Right? Again, think about it. Who shapes how you see the Bible? These men want to shape it. Joshua Haynes wants to shape it. Doug Wilson wants to shape it. There is, I don't know how people don't see this. And by the way, even when I was still an evangelical, I had this question, okay? So this is not like some new idea in my own head. I've wondered, like, well, everyone's learning from other people. I, I, the Bible was written by people. I learned about the Bible from other people. I was taught how to interpret the Bible, quote, unquote, correctly by other people. There. It's, it's, it's not in a vacuum. I'm not sitting alone and looking at the Bible, and it's, like, coming to life in front of me. And the voice of God's like, and here's how you interpret this passage. This is definitely prescriptive. That's not what's happening here. Right. Other people's commentary, other people's studies, other. By the way, we still do this with other theologians and scholars, right? April? We have people that we see as authoritative in whose opinion we trust on the Bible that shapes how we understand the Bible. My point with this whole slavery piece, a lot of it was taken from Dan McClellan, right? He made that point. I thought, oh, that's really provocative and really, actually, really makes a lot of sense. I'm going to adopt that now. It wasn't because I one day woke up and had this supernatural epiphany. That's not what's happening. So this is all about authority. It's who are you listening to? Who's in power over you? Who is shaping your mind? And Joshua and Doug and this crew want to be the ones doing that, full stop.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah. Because I think, too, everybody cherry picks. Everybody cherry picks because it is impossible to actually take the Bible as one worldview because there are different worldviews within it. So it's disingenuous when people like Josh or evangelical pastors get up and say, we don't tell you to vote for it. We just tell you to vote for biblical truth. There is no one biblical truth in the Bible because. And it's exactly why you could have people on both sides of the Civil War using the Bible to justify their side.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

You and I are honest in the fact that there are some verses in the Bible that are. That are controversial and are. That are. That I disagree with that. I would disagree that. That this is true for today.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

You know, and we, but we can be honest about that. The. These people also will read scripture and disagree that things are true for today, like welcoming the immigrant. They'll find a way to. To do their little mental gymnastics, say how that doesn't apply to the situation that we are currently in today.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

But they are not honest. They won't admit that they're cherry picking. They'll say, oh, well, no, because it's descriptive or prescriptive or was it different? Like, they can use all the justifications. Like, you and I, there's just a difference. Like, we, we kind of agree on some things, but we just are like, okay, but we also know that we don't believe in. And these others, like, I don't go out to a tent every week during my period.

[B]

You know, like, there's, hey, it's the Mosaic Law. Why aren't you obeying it? April, Doug Wilson's clear on this. You know, like, don't move an inch.

[A]

You know, and shelving it. I'm wearing mixed fabrics at the moment. You know, like, there are just things that we, we know. Like, okay, well, that was obviously a different time.

[B]

Right. And by the way, written to different people.

[A]

Yes, yes.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And to be clear, that doesn't mean we can't learn. Like, to me, I think there's a Pastor, Greg Boyd, he has a book called Inspired Imperfection that is just about how the Bible is inspired, but it's not inerrant. And he says that he looks at the Bible as more the story of God as opposed to the word of God, because it's really a story of historic and ancient people learning their understanding of who God is to them. And I think you can gain a lot of truth and wisdom from that. But it gets very dangerous when you start trying to figure, like, read it literally as what we're supposed to do today. Because you're talking about archaic times like the wars and battles, like David cutting off men's foreskins. Like, there's some messed up stuff in the Bible.

[B]

100%. 100. But no, no, April, you're just not properly executing scripture. That's your problem. You don't understand how to. How to interpret it properly like Joshua does. That's. That's your fatal flaw. So.

[A]

Well, fun, fun, fun.

[F]

Hey, everyone, this is Melinda Hale, the executive director of the New Evangelicals. Listen. Every day we hear from people who feel isolated, disillusioned, and hurt by a version of Christianity that has been hijacked by politics and nationalism. And yet they still long for a faith that is rooted in love, justice, and compassion. And that's why the New Evangelicals exist, because we believe there is a better path forward. We're creating resources, hosting conversations, and we're building communities for people who want to reclaim Christianity and stay rooted in the teachings of Jesus. But building a movement like this takes time. It takes energy, and it takes financial support. So if this podcast or our YouTube, our educational offerings or community space or anything that we've created has impacted you, would you consider becoming a donor? Even a gift of $5 makes a huge difference for small organizations like this. Your support helps us to continue empowering people to put their faith into action by rejecting Christian nationalism and to live in a way that shows people how to truly love our neighbors. Together, I know that we could build something beautiful. So visit thenuevangelicals.com support to give today. You can find the link right in our show notes. Thank you for standing with us.

[E]

It's okay not to be perfect with finances. Experian is your big financial friend and here to help. Did you know you can get matched with credit cards on the app? Some cards are labeled no Ding decline, which means if you're not approved, they won't hurt your credit scores. Download the Experian app for free today. Applying for no Ding Decline cards won't hurt your credit scores if you aren't initially approved. Initial approval will result in a hard inquiry which may impact your credit scores.

[C]

Experian this episode is brought to you by Lifelock. It's cybersecurity awareness month, and Lifelock has tips to protect your identity, use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication, report phishing, and update the software on your devices. And for comprehensive identity protection, let LifeLock alert you to suspicious uses of your personal information. Lifelock also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, safe and protected with a 30 day free [e-mail] podcast terms apply.

[H]

Hi, my name is Yasmin. I'm from Brazil. I started donating to new evangelicals because I really believe what you all do is very important. I grew up Presbyterian in a progressive family, but a conservative town. And because of that, I always struggled a lot because I grew up and I am a queer woman. And so my relationship with the church was very complicated because a lot of people really don't believe that queer people should be part of their community, that we should be accepted. And I grew up with that guilt, with that pain. And so that really pulled me away from the church for a long while. And now I'm kind of like slowly stepping back towards my fate. And it really makes me happy to see there are people like you guys, there are groups like you guys that take on a more accepting and loving and kind approach to religion and that you're trying to get that to become more of a mainstream thing. And I think that is incredibly valuable to all of us who felt excluded from our own faith.

[C]

That we don't have any problem passages. Right. This is the word of God. It is the authority. Right. It is the ultimate authority for all of faith in life. All right, so let's, let's see what else Pastor Wilson has to say here.

[E]

Are you justifying vile, abusive slaves? Yeah, I say absolutely not. That was a sin. God hates it. Yeah, he's going to judge it at the last day.

[B]

The Bible absolutely has passages that have no problem with beating slaves or again, being their property. So there's the example I'm talking about. Why is it wrong? Well, the Bible. Well, wait, but you just said that the Bible actually is fine with slavery or at least types of slavery at a minimum.

[E]

It's so frustrating to watch race based chattel slavery. No, absolutely not. That's not a biblical pattern. And so one of the things I would do is I would distinguish the kind of slavery you have in the Old Testament where it's all under the law of God, where I would say it amounted to glorified, indentured servanthood. Right?

[C]

Yes.

[E]

So that's what you have in the Mosaic Law. In the New Testament, you're getting into the different situation where the slavery, the Laws governing slavery were pagan and Roman law. And there the apostle Paul is giving Christians instructions on how to deal with it. And I would say that his instructions amount to, here is a peaceful and godly way to subvert the pagan system.

[B]

I just want to say something very quickly. Do you not see how this is just a different way of what Ali tried to do with me? Do you understand that? Well, okay, so the, the Hebrew Bible had a different form of slavery that was just a dentured servitude. That's. That was her argument earlier. Okay. And now he's appealing to the New Testament and explaining how like, it's not as bad as you think and it still kind of points to the undoing of slavery. So it is the same. It's. It's just a different way of doing what Ali did while claiming to acknowledge that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery. Flat out.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

That logic, this framework will never be applied to homosexuality. Why? Because they don't. They want, they want the justification to be bigots. You're never going to hear Doug go, well, okay, in the Mosaic or Hebrew Bible, right? Homosexuality, that word actually means something different. Isn't really. It's not referring to monogamous, same sex loving relationships. That's not what's going on there. It's a different form of. What he might say is like, you know, same sex sex. He would never say that. He just, he just. It's a one to one homosexuality then, homosexuality now. But with slavery, well, that was just indentured servitude. We're not talking about race based shadow slavery. That is Ali's exact argument that she made with me, Doug. That's the exact point that she tried.

[A]

To make with me.

[B]

Oh, God. It's like, it's just so. It's insufferable. Watching this and watching them like with their full chest out, thinking that they're saying something smart. Do you see that or is it just me? Like, be honest. You're. You're my friend. Like, am I making. Am I reading too much into this or is it just like. No, I think you're right.

[A]

For Doug. Doug, it's not responding to your debate with Ally. I don't know how old this clip is, but it is a little contradictory, contradictory to be. Contradicty. That's a funny word. Sorry. Got me.

[B]

I'm going to clip that for audio later on. Contradicty.

[A]

Dick. D, not dicky.

[B]

Oh, sorry.

[A]

Anyway, it doesn't matter anyway. But he, he was like, yeah, you can't condemn it outright. But also, it was different. It's not like he's also just kind of moving the goalposts like you're saying. So I'm curious how Josh is going to respond to this, because he basically just said what Ali Beth Stuckey said.

[E]

Okay, so we want to. We want to subvert the system without a war. We're not going to organize a riot. We're not going to have a Spartacus kind of slave revolt that would be crushed. What we're going to do is we're going to lead slaves and their masters to Christ. We're going to teach them how to live in their station. In Corinthians, Paul says, if you have an opportunity for freedom, take it.

[B]

Right.

[E]

So it's for freedom of Christ to set us free.

[B]

Really quick, what Doug, this is really. This is important to highlight. Doug is saying that, look, ultimately the Bible teaches people how to subvert slavery. He would also say that's why he disagrees with the methods of the abolitionists today. Like, he's. He's written on this. He, like, like the whole Civil War, he thought was unbiblical. The idea of, you know, of any kind of violence, of slaves trying to break from their server, from their slavery was. Was unbiblical. If we just waited long enough and got enough people saved into his theology and his worldview where women can't even vote, slavery would eventually have been undone. That's essentially his point. And I want people to know this is a white man, American supremacist view that wants to constantly move it out there. Well, one day we'll get there. One day you won't be a slave anymore. One day you'll be liberated. But we just can't do it that way. Well, no, that's too extreme. We were doing it too quickly. I mean, this is a real argument that if you look throughout American history, white, white moderates, white conservatives, this was. This was. This was. I think it was. I could be wrong here. I'm pretty sure this is like a Franklin Graham idea of like, hey, I agree with the idea that the racist should be integrated, but how MLK is doing it, how the Civil Rights act is doing, or civil rights movement is doing it, it's too fast. Culture has to catch up.

[A]

You mean Billy Graham.

[B]

Sorry, who did I say Franklin? Thank you for the correction. Yeah, Billy Graham. Like, there is a very moderate evangelical approach that's like, well, I disagree with segregation or slavery, but how they did it, it's too radical, it's too quick, and it's Just another way of maintaining the status quo.

[A]

Is that the same thing about Colin Kaepernick? When he took a knee, they're like, well, that's just disrespectful. You know, stand up, but not. Do not disrespect the flag. Like, what do you mean?

[B]

That's a great example, April. Here's a peaceful protester, Colin Kaepernick, kneeling for the national anthem. Constitutionally allowed to do that. No violence. And they still lambasted him. Disrespectful to our country. Okay, so you give me the standard. When does an enslaved person who's being sexually assaulted. I'm not saying the R word because of YouTube. Who's being sexually assaulted? Who's being beaten every day? Who was kidnapped from their country? When is that person allowed? And how should they fight for their liberation? Like, I really want Doug to answer that question, because, by the way, Doug really softwashes slavery big time. I recommend he read some actual history. Slavery was horrific. The legacies. We could spend a whole hour on that. I won't do that here, but I would love to know, for Joshua Haynes and Doug Wilson, how long should the enslaved black person have to wait while they're being beaten and whipped and giving birth to white men's children after being assaulted and being forced to give up their own kids? When. When and how Doug and Josh, do they fight for their liberation?

[A]

It is such a joke that these men think that. That the men in power back then would have just one day woke up and, like, you know, I think this is wrong.

[B]

Right. They had every economic incentive to maintain it.

[A]

Free labor. They were like, the.

[D]

The.

[A]

It was like, money talks. Money was like they were getting money. They were. With the slave trade.

[B]

Like, it's preposterous. It's like, sorry, I'm sorry.

[A]

John Piper, when he was like, well, I think a wife, if she's being abused right. By her husband, should just endure the abuse for a season. Because a good wife, you know, if you love. You can love the abuse out of him. Like, what?

[B]

These are the same men who stormed the Capitol on January 6th, by the way. Jeff Durbin, the guy in the shot now with the beard, like, with his hand kind of folded. That's. He was at January 6th. Like, he was there. These men, the one in the middle. Yeah. These men project. They are so fragile and weak. They have no problem resorting to violence when they think it's. When they think it's acceptable. They had no problem completely complaining out loud just at. I mean, Doug Wilson has made a name for himself because he thinks that gay people having the right to get married is an infringement on his theology. How frail do you have to be? Because no one's turning Doug gay. No one's trying to say you have to get divorced and marry another man like Doug. Just do your thing, man. Leave them alone. Nope. Too far. Can't. I can't stomach it. But Colin Kaepernick kneeling, you know, for. For the national anthem.

[A]

Too much.

[B]

Oh, I. Too much. Too much.

[A]

How dare he disrespect my flag.

[B]

It's preferred. It's preposterous.

[A]

Also, did you notice, I don't know if you noticed from the no Kings rally. This is a little off topic, but, like, leading up, they were like, these people are violent. Yeah, they are antifa. And then I saw people like that went to some, like, expecting to get in a fight, and they were like, it's so boring. Just a bunch of old people, like, geriatric, like, being, like, insulted. Like, which way are we boring and old?

[B]

Right?

[A]

Or are we violent?

[B]

Is it sleepy Joe Biden, or is it the most radical president America's ever seen? Like, which one is it, you know? All right, we got, like, we got three minutes. Let's finish this thing up.

[A]

Okay? Okay. Okay.

[E]

We want to do it peacefully, and that's important.

[C]

We see in First Corinthians that Paul himself says that freedom is preferable to slavery. So even there, we see that Paul isn't glorifying or saying that the pagan Roman slave system is good or right or preferable. He says it's preferable to be free. If you have an opportunity for freedom, take it. And so, again, what we're seeing here is the kind of slavery that God laid out in the Old Testament was not sinful, but. And what Pastor Wilson is getting at here is that the kind of slavery that is practiced in oftentimes in pagan empires is rooted in sin, which is the sin of man stealing, kidnapping. And that was actually a capital offense.

[B]

Okay, just want to point out that this is such bullshit. I mean, we can have Jamar Tisby here for the next hour unpacking this, but notice how he said the word pagan. Pagan cultures. In a Christian culture, slavery is fine for them because they would do it the right way. Again, they wouldn't be the ones enslaved. They wouldn't be the one under the boot of empire. They want to be the empire. And as long as. As long as it's a Christian empire, rightly interpreting the word of God, slavery is fine. I just want people to realize this is what's coming. This is why April and I do this show. Friends, like, I, I need to say this. April and I have been seeing this for years. We've been following people like Joshua Hayes for years. We knew Joel Webbin before he got all popular. We, I had Doug Wilson on the New Evangelicals podcast 3 1/2 years ago to have him say this shit. And we tried to tell people, I'm telling you, a Trump administration is bringing this nonsense. And here we are where more and more, you know, first it was, well, they're never going to talk about women's suffrage. Well, now, now, now. It's a conversation we're having as Americans. They were never going to overturn a burger fell. Now that's on the table. They're never going to talk about slavery though. Here we are. Here we freaking are. They are seeding. This is a long term play. People don't realize this. People don't realize that these people are thinking 5, 10, 15, 20, 100 years out. They are ceding the foundation for bringing back forms of slavery that benefit them. They're not going to say it now because they want you just to be, they want the seed to be planted. They want their audience to go, okay, I get it. Yeah, maybe it's a little bit different. I mean, I disagree with it, but maybe it wasn't as bad as I was taught. That's one step, right? And then you just keep moving the Overton window and before you know it, hey, maybe. Should women have the right to vote? Actually, I don't think that they should. That's how this stuff works. I'm feeling a little feisty on this one, but I just feel the, I feel the passion, man. Like, I'm just so worried about the future of our country.

[A]

It's just. Yeah, it's just, it's infuriating.

[B]

Okay. Thank you for holding space for my, my infuriation. That's even.

[A]

Yeah, well, I feel like slavery should infuriate you.

[B]

Thank you. Yes. That's why I'm bad. Like, what, what? Like, Joshua, just talk about the passages about liberation and like, let's, let's, let's, let's talk about that. No bondage and slavery.

[C]

Okay, so our system of slavery in the United States was rooted in a sinful practice, the sinful practice of man stealing. So it was tainted in that way. I'm not at all advocating that we should bring back race based chattel slavery, the kind that was practiced in the early Americas. I'm not saying that. But you must also acknowledge that men like our founders, men like Jonathan Edwards, who owned slaves, could in fact treat their slaves the way the Bible tells them to treat their slaves and that they weren't living in grave sin.

[B]

What? You did this? Okay, Joshua, 30 seconds ago, the reason why race based chattel slavery was bad was because it was based on man stealing. Joshua 30 seconds later, our founders own slaves, and they could do it Biblically. It was based on the same main. Stealing you just said was wrong a second ago, Joshua. Like, they stole those people, they kidnapped them and their children. Many of them died on the way to the Americas and they were enslaved against their will. They were stolen from their land. And he's like, you know, I think our founding fathers, they. They could do it in a way that wasn't a grave sin. Jonathan Edwards. Are you kidding me? Joshua, like, for real, you need to hear that F word. You need to hear it. Are you kidding me right now? You foolish, foolish, whitewashed tomb that you are. Oh, my God. Like, get the hell out of here with this bullshit. Do you not hear it?

[A]

I don't think these are white men. Right. You are also a white man.

[B]

I am.

[A]

And I just. I just know the times that I have had run ins with men like these and online and in real life, right? And who literally view me as less than because I am a woman who will usually. Who will, like, use scripture to try to shut me up. Like, I cannot have an opinion because I am a woman like you. You can feel. You can feel the power dynamic, right, of how they look at you.

[D]

It is.

[A]

It is so dehumanizing to be on the receiving end on that. And like, times that by a million. If you're actually owned by one of these men, it doesn't even matter if they're. Like, some of these men can be nice to me, right? While they say, well, you need to be quiet because you're a woman. And God says, da, da, da, da, da. Like it does not even matter. Like, that is. That is such a oppressive way to live. Even if you are a quote unquote nice master, like, whatever that is, you are still owning another human being that is dehumanizing by default. By default. And these men who would never be in that position, who have never had someone look at them and say, you need to shut up because God says so.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

Just so infuriating. Like, they get to talk from their comfy little couches, soaking their pipes. The humanity.

[B]

I'm so enlightened smoking my pipe. Oh, yeah. Slavery good or bad? Oh, who knows? It's like, are you. Dude, like, just get off the Internet. Okay, look, we're running out of time. Should we just stop here and then. And then just talk about this response and how it got into some right wing people's heads and like the input to Dinesh? Just use this Twitter. I just think this is really worth pointing quickly. And friends, there was only about 2 minutes left. You probably get the point by now. I don't want to belabor it. So right wing media, some people were really frustrated by Joshua Hames's claim that, you know, Christians should defend that slavery isn't inherently sinful and that owning another human being isn't inherently wrong. And one of them was Dinesh d'. Souza. Now, Dinesh is such a bad faith actor, I think that this really hones. This really just is a nail in the coffin of how disingenuous these people can be. So. Oh, that's the wrong video. That's the wrong clip. There we go. So Dinesh d' Souza tweets in response to that Joshua Haynes clip that went viral. Not sure who this guy is, but he seems to be a wannabe Tucker or if he goes trans someday, a wannabe Candace. Now, that's a whole different statement in itself to unpack. But, okay, what I do know is he's trying to poison our Christianity and our politics in the name of a demented version of Christian nationalism. Do you agree? Now you might think, okay, wow, Dinesh, like calling out someone who is, you know, promoting the idea of slavery. Well, readers added context. Dinesh D' Souza was on the Reformation Red Pills YouTube channel. That's Joshua's YouTube channel. On September 30th, 18 days before this post. To say he doesn't know him is a lie. And then they pulled the clips. They pulled the clips. Here is Dineshti Souza talking to Joshua Hames on his own podcast three weeks ago. 8,000 views. Episode is, should Christians support Israel?

[A]

Scroll back up. You can see he find someone says you were on his channel a few weeks ago. And Danesh replied, oops. He must have a very forgettable face.

[B]

Caught. Caught. You liar. You liar. We just. I had to end on that.

[A]

Now, I. I just want to point out to you, Dinesh D' Souza made the. That, that movie, Obama 2016, that released in, I guess it would have been 2011 for the 2012 election, right? It was Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama. I went and watched that film and it was like such straight Right wing Christian nationalist propaganda. But at the time, I fully believed it. Like, that film radicalized me. I went campaigned for Mitt Romney after it because was like, Obama's a socialist, he hates God. Like all this stuff. Dinesh d' Souza is a Christian nationalist. And for him to be like, oh, he's bringing his demented form of Christian nationalism. Like, no, you're both Christian nationalists. One of you just admits it.

[B]

Yeah. Friends, I don't know. I feel like we've said what needs to be said. Do you feel that way?

[A]

Yeah. Slavery is wrong.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. News flash. Owning other human beings is wrong. And while I agree with Joshua, it's not unbiblical. All the more reason to think about how we take the Bible, what we do with it. But I will say, as a Christian, I think it's pretty clear, especially in the words of Jesus, that all people are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect and that owning other people under any circumstance is an affront to God. That's my response to that. Okay.

[A]

I always find, I always think it's a red flag if people will quote Paul or the Old Testament more than they quote the red letters 100%.

[B]

And if you ever watch Christian nationalists speak, they always do that. It's so rare they quote Jesus. You're never going to hear this. Joshua Haynes, be like, you know, the Bible is so clear on affordable health care. Jesus says to heal the sick, we need affordable healthcare in this country. Or we're going to be Sodom and Gomorrah and we're going to be judged for the sins of. No, that's never the application, is it? It's always gay people, trans people, the immigrant. It's always a minority, always. Okay, enough ranting. Friends, I really appreciate you listening to my rant and April's commentary. I say that because April's I think better well spoken on moments like this because I'm just so ranty about it. But I really appreciate you being here. We would love your thoughts. We do read all the comments on YouTube. Please make sure to leave a comment on this take. Let me know if you think I missed something. If you think Joshua missed something, what you think about April's words here, make sure to like this video and share it with a friend. It really helps to get out to more people. And if you're listening on podcast, thank you so, so much. It is really amazing to have an audience on two different platforms. And please make sure to follow the show, give the show a rating and review. That would be so helpful. On that note, I'm Tim Whitaker.

[A]

I'm Aprilajoy.

[B]

Goodbye.

[A]

Cheerio. Cheerio, Sam.