0:00

Hey friends, if theology and raw has

0:02

blessed or challenged you in any significant

0:04

way, would you consider supporting the show

0:06

financially? You can do so through Patreon

0:08

at patreon.com/theology in the raw. All the

0:10

information is in the show notes. You

0:12

can support the show for as little

0:14

as five bucks a month. And

0:17

in doing so, you get access to all kinds

0:19

of different premium content. And most of

0:21

all, you just get access to the theology in the

0:23

raw community. We have all kinds of awesome chats and

0:26

messages back and forth. And it just, it means the

0:28

world to us that you support the show as

0:30

the show has grown. So have all

0:32

the expenses and all the

0:34

work that goes into pulling it off.

0:37

So again, if you would like to

0:39

support the show, you can go to

0:41

patreon.com/theology and raw. And I just want

0:43

to thank my, uh, the people that

0:45

are already supporting the show. Thank you

0:47

so much for keeping this show, not

0:50

only going, but also thriving. So patreon.com/theology

0:52

in the raw. Hey friends,

0:54

welcome back to another episode of theology

0:56

in the raw. My guest today is

0:58

my good friend, the one and only

1:00

Dr. Michael bird. Uh, Mike bird has

1:02

been on the podcast too many times.

1:05

I mentioned he's written too many books

1:07

that you have time to read, including

1:09

the most recent book that he co-wrote

1:11

with NT. Right. I've got a copy

1:13

here in my hand called Jesus and

1:15

the powers Christian political witness at an

1:17

age of totalitarian terror and dysfunctional democracies.

1:20

And this becomes the subject

1:22

for our conversation. Um, this is

1:24

going to be a very interesting conversation because

1:26

I also wrote a book on, uh, politics

1:29

recently called exiles. And I would

1:32

say our, our books and our approach

1:34

overlap, um, a good deal. Um, Mike bird

1:36

and I see I don a lot of things, including

1:38

kind of how we view politics, but we, you

1:40

know, we, we might overlap about 80% and there

1:43

might be, yeah, about 20% where we're, we

1:45

might come to different conclusions or have different

1:48

approaches. And in this podcast conversation, we do

1:50

try to tease out some of those differences

1:52

and, uh, Mike bird is just a super wise and

1:55

winsome dude. And so it's always fun to have a

1:57

good engaging dialogue with him. So please welcome back

1:59

to the show. Welcome to the

2:01

Algernon everybody. I'm

2:13

here with my good friend Mike Bird and

2:15

we were having so much fun offline that

2:18

y'all missed out on some

2:20

fun back

2:23

and forths that we were having. Mike,

2:26

do you want to lead with that statement you just said?

2:28

Because I was like, I was laughing so hard. I was

2:30

like, I need to hit record and have you say that

2:32

again. What's your perception of me

2:35

and my sort of political

2:37

ecclesiology? Well, having

2:39

read your book, Exiles, and

2:42

your book, Fight About Nonviolence,

2:45

and your general theological proclivities, I've

2:47

always said it's a bit like

2:50

John MacArthur and Stanley Howas made a

2:52

baby. A beautiful

2:54

baby with great surfing technique,

2:58

love for the church, and people

3:00

of all sexual expression and is

3:02

committed to the authority of Scripture

3:05

and has a deep relationship with

3:07

the church. But that's, I would

3:09

say that's where your theological fraternity seems to

3:12

come from, given what I know about you. And I've known

3:14

you for a long time, Preston. I know you've known you

3:16

for a long time. For

3:20

those who don't know, me and Mike go so

3:22

far back to, it was early

3:25

on in my PhD studies at

3:27

Aberdeen when you were teaching at

3:29

Highland Theological College up in the

3:31

Highlands of Scotland, in Verness,

3:33

right? North of in Verness? Just north of Inverness. That's

3:38

right. Yeah, I was just there a couple of years ago.

3:40

What a beautiful area. And I

3:43

don't remember, where do we first, was it via

3:46

email or did you come out to Aberdeen? It

3:49

may have been a doctoral seminar at

3:51

Aberdeen, or it may have been

3:53

the British New Testament Society. I remember

3:56

going for a jog with you

3:58

and Todd's co-host, still and it

4:00

nearly killed me. I thought I was in pretty good shape.

4:03

And then I went jogging with

4:05

you two long legged gazelles

4:09

and I think it nearly killed

4:11

me. I thought I was in good shape. I

4:13

did a lot of jogging, but I remember going,

4:15

I'll go with these two American lads. And

4:18

yeah, it was like trying to keep up with a...

4:20

It was like a wombat trying to keep up with

4:22

a gazelle. I love

4:24

that. I thought you were

4:27

going to say kangaroo. Yeah, so

4:29

we... I don't know if you remember,

4:32

I think it was the British New

4:34

Testament conference. I think that was... I

4:36

think that was the first time we connected. We

4:38

kept in touch. The Neder family came out to Aberdeen

4:40

once we had already established a relationship, hung

4:42

out with us for a few days. Most

4:44

people on this podcast do

4:46

not know that one

4:50

of the very first books

4:52

that my name is on the cover of

4:54

is a joint book you and I edited

4:56

called The Faith of Jesus

4:58

Christ, where we collected

5:00

a bunch of really world-renowned

5:02

scholars to discuss the debated

5:05

Greek phrase, pistis Christu, which

5:07

in its most literal sense can be

5:10

translated faith of Christ

5:12

or faith in Jesus Christ, depending on which verse we're

5:14

talking about. And both you and I had an interest

5:16

in that debated phrase. I don't even

5:18

think it's in print anymore. Is it? I

5:20

mean, it's got to be a really scholarly...

5:22

It might still

5:24

be in print, but it's one of

5:27

my most cited books because anytime anyone

5:29

mentions the pistis Christu

5:31

debate in like a Galatians

5:33

commentary or a Romans commentary,

5:36

they always say, oh yeah, go

5:38

see the essays in Bird and

5:40

Sprinkle. So we're still considered the

5:42

definitive collection of essays. The irony

5:44

is, you know, even after reading

5:46

all the great essays in that

5:49

book, even after reading the world-class scholars talk

5:51

about, oh, is it faith in

5:53

Christ or the faithfulness of Christ? I

5:56

was still just as confused when I came out of

5:58

it. You know, I thought this... I thought this book

6:00

would settle the issue in my own mind, but

6:02

no, I'm still confused at the end. It could

6:04

go either way. I forget

6:06

where you landed on that. Well, I

6:08

mean, I tend to lean more towards

6:10

the objective, Genev, so I think it's usually

6:12

faith in Christ, but I still think

6:14

there is an essential ambiguity in the Greek.

6:19

In Greek, it's literally the faith,

6:21

the pistos, as it pertains

6:23

to the realm of Christ. That's basically what

6:25

the genitive works, okay? The faith as it

6:28

pertains to the realm of Christ, which

6:30

I think in context means

6:33

applying your faith in Christ or

6:35

towards Christ, but

6:37

it can also be a bit more than

6:39

that. And I think in Philippians 3, that's

6:41

probably the one place where I would say

6:43

the subjective genitive with the faithfulness of Christ

6:46

might actually be a better translation based on

6:48

the context and wider theological themes of the

6:51

letter. Can you, for our audience that doesn't

6:53

know Greek, knows nothing about what we're even

6:55

talking about, can you give us a 30

6:58

to 60 second overview of this

7:00

debate? Because it really is significant.

7:02

It's one Greek phrase, but it

7:05

occurs in some theologically rich passages

7:07

and it does make a difference. Well, let

7:09

me put it that, you know, in

7:11

Romans 3, 22, Paul talks about how

7:14

the revelation of God's righteousness has been

7:16

revealed, pistos Christo,

7:18

okay, through faith as

7:21

it pertains to Christ. So

7:24

is it revealed in our faith that we

7:26

put in Christ? Does our faith reveal the

7:28

righteousness of God or is

7:30

the righteousness of God revealed in

7:32

the faithfulness of Christ himself to

7:34

his messianic vocation? I mean, you

7:36

could have come up with good

7:38

grammatical and theological reasons for going

7:40

either way on that

7:43

topic. So that's basically what it comes

7:45

down to. It really is a matter

7:47

of is the emphasis on human agency,

7:49

human faith in Jesus or divine agency,

7:52

the action and faithfulness of Christ.

7:54

And there's been what, Mike? I

7:56

mean, three, four dozen scholarly

7:58

articles written on this? whole books have been

8:00

written on it. I'd say be up like

8:03

in a hundreds, you know, the number of articles written

8:05

on this going all the way back to what the

8:07

1960s. You

8:10

had a big famous monograph by Richard Hayes,

8:12

one in the early 80s and that kicked

8:14

off a whole bunch of discussions. Tom

8:17

Wright's very big on the subjective genitive,

8:20

so is Doug Campbell. Whereas

8:23

people like Jimmy Dunn and Francis

8:26

Watson were not terribly keen on that. They

8:28

went for the traditional objective

8:30

genitive that's faith in Christ. So

8:32

yeah, it's a

8:34

place where you really get your Greek

8:36

Bible nerd on. I mean, it is

8:39

the UFC of Greek

8:41

Bible language, exegesis, syntax,

8:44

lexicography and everything. I

8:47

spent my entire or most of my

8:50

seminary time, my independent research

8:52

on this topic. And that was my original proposal

8:54

for my PhD and they kind of said, I

8:56

think it's been exhausted so

8:58

I didn't pursue that. But

9:00

yeah, it was a few

9:02

years of my life for dedicated that question, man.

9:05

And now I can't recall like how I did. I

9:07

did argue for some. My

9:09

listeners might laugh because

9:12

obviously I pursued

9:15

another option, a third way to

9:17

interpret it. The

9:19

faith that is through from from

9:21

Acts 3 18, if I remember

9:24

correctly, like, you know, from the faith

9:26

that is through him. I

9:28

remember that little. Yeah, yeah. Yeah.

9:31

I asked her. It was really in

9:33

Galatians. Gosh, again, I'm going back 15 years.

9:36

I literally haven't thought about it since. But

9:39

in Galatians, what is it? 3

9:42

23. Now that faith

9:44

has come this sort of like event,

9:47

the faith event. Yeah, like pistis is

9:49

an event, which is which is what

9:51

you find in Galatians, too, you know?

9:53

Yeah. So 322 is one

9:55

of the pistis Christi phrases and Galatians 3 23 says

9:58

now. that

10:00

faith has come, this kind of

10:02

like cosmic, eschatological event of faith,

10:05

which transcends the kind of

10:07

objective human faith

10:09

in Jesus, subjective faithfulness

10:12

of Christ, it's sort of the faith event.

10:15

I remember I would take a bullet for it,

10:17

it was more exploratory. I did hear that there

10:20

was a recent article by my friend Kevin Grasso,

10:22

which I still haven't read, I think, sort

10:25

of resurrects a kind of more third-way view.

10:28

Anyway, we didn't

10:30

plan on talking about this as Christian, my

10:32

word, I'm not prepared for this. What I

10:34

am interested in is your recent book, Jesus

10:36

and the Powers, a

10:38

Christian political witness in an age

10:41

of totalitarian terror and dysfunctional democracies

10:43

by the one and only N.T.

10:46

Wright and Michael Byrd. And

10:48

I'm not going to ask

10:50

you to comment on this, because I know

10:52

you're probably not allowed to, but in reading

10:55

lots of stuff by

10:57

Tom Wright and lots of stuff by Michael Byrd, I'm

10:59

going to say my guess, I

11:02

have nothing to verify this, and Mike's probably

11:04

going to plead the fifth, as we say

11:06

in America, but I think you contributed a

11:08

lot to this. As

11:13

one who has co-authored a book by myself,

11:15

I know how it is. Yeah, well, I

11:17

can say in all honesty, it is definitely

11:19

a joint effort. This was not me ghostwriting.

11:23

Tom did have a lot of it. He wrote the largest chapter

11:25

of the book. I reworked some of

11:28

his material and even the stuff that was

11:30

just my own effort. Tom had a big

11:32

hand in shaping that. But probably

11:34

the last three chapters, I would say,

11:37

particularly the stuff that's like the history of

11:39

political theology and the case

11:42

for liberal democracy, that is definitely very

11:44

much my own little hobby horse.

11:47

Do you know me and Tom were just on

11:49

the Unbelievable podcast talking about the book? And he

11:51

actually even said that. He said, yeah, the last

11:53

few chapters were all Mike Byrd. I mean, he

11:55

said that's so he's very forthright

11:57

about that. What led you to?

12:00

write this book. I'm

12:03

sure there's a personal story, a sort of contemporary

12:07

situation that motivated you to want to write

12:09

this. And can you give us any backstory

12:11

to how you and Tom Wright collaborated on

12:13

it? Yeah, it was a number of things.

12:16

First of all, it was the Russian

12:19

invasion of Ukraine, which

12:21

is the single biggest war that's come to Europe

12:23

since the Second World War. That made us think,

12:26

you know, what is the, what

12:28

is a Christian response to this crisis?

12:30

And if you're a Christian in either

12:32

Russia or in Ukraine,

12:36

what would your response to be to that? You know,

12:38

how would you live under

12:40

Russian occupation if you

12:42

were a Ukrainian Baptist? And there are

12:45

lots of Ukrainian Baptists. I

12:47

also think about Christians in Taiwan

12:50

who face a very real

12:52

prospect of Chinese attack and

12:54

Chinese invasion in the

12:56

coming years. I was also

12:58

thinking of Christians in Myanmar

13:01

who live under a military

13:03

dictatorship. And in Myanmar, Christian

13:05

is the majority religion amongst

13:07

the minority peoples. It

13:10

took a man with the chin, the Karen, and

13:12

others. And then you've got the

13:14

rise of Christian nationalism, which

13:16

is, you know, obviously quite a big

13:19

deal in the US in some contexts.

13:21

But it's also a global phenomena as

13:23

well. You find varieties of Christian nationalism

13:26

in South America,

13:28

even in Africa as

13:30

well. And

13:32

I'd also ask that you've got some,

13:34

you know, progressive authoritarianism in other

13:37

parts of the world. Like in Australia, you

13:39

had what's called the Australian Capital Territory

13:42

government decided to seize

13:44

control of a Catholic hospital because

13:46

they would not perform abortions. Now

13:48

they said, oh, it's all about

13:51

the rationalization of healthcare provisions. But

13:54

the reason why this government seized

13:56

control of Catholic hospital was

13:58

purely punitive. It was to punish Catholics

14:01

for their refusal to perform

14:03

abortions. That's

14:06

an affront to a liberal democracy. Liberal

14:08

democracy only works if you don't take

14:11

punitive actions against religious groups because

14:13

you don't like their religion. As

14:16

we looked around the world, Ukraine,

14:19

Taiwan, Myanmar, January 6th, various

14:22

other issues about religious freedom in all parts

14:24

of the world, I spoke to Tom and

14:26

we really realized this

14:29

is a concerning time to be living

14:31

in it. The world feels very combustible,

14:33

like we're just waiting for an Archduke Ferdinand

14:35

to be assassinated and then it's going to

14:38

be on for young and old. We

14:41

began thinking about what would be a word of

14:43

wisdom in this age? How

14:45

do Christians think about the

14:48

powers of this age? How do they think about government

14:51

and the like? What's

14:53

the spiritual dimension going on? That's

14:56

largely what we wanted to do. How

14:58

do Christians relate to the powers of

15:00

their day in a way that is

15:02

faithful and resourced in Scripture

15:04

and the Christian tradition? Do you

15:06

and Tom Wright resonate on your

15:08

political views pretty much? Did

15:10

you ever find yourself at odds with some

15:13

of the things you're wrestling with? No, I

15:15

think we're very similar. We

15:17

haven't gone through a policy sheet and said, come

15:19

on, tell me, where do you stand on immigration?

15:21

Where do you stand on monetary

15:24

policy? We haven't gone through that.

15:27

We have a basic agreement

15:30

that we are neither Christian

15:32

nationalists nor

15:34

Anabaptists. We don't think Christians

15:37

should stay out of politics, but

15:39

at the same time, we're definitely opposed to

15:41

the idea that we've got to get our

15:44

guy in charge no matter what.

15:47

We're also shaped by the Anglican tradition,

15:50

which is certainly

15:52

up for a positive

15:54

relationship with state authorities, maybe in

15:56

ways that might be a little

15:58

bit allergic or concerning

16:01

even to some of our Baptist friends. So, you

16:03

know, we think, you know, you can have a

16:05

positive relationship with the state even

16:07

as we are very aware of the

16:09

dangers of that cooperation,

16:12

collaboration, even chaplaincy can,

16:14

you know, end up

16:16

making yourself simply the religious capital

16:19

to a global empire. You know, we're

16:21

aware of the downside to close church

16:23

and state cooperations. But, yeah, I think

16:25

we're on the same ballpark for the most part. Okay,

16:29

yeah, that's good. Yeah, I really enjoyed

16:31

the book. I mean, there was, for

16:33

people that haven't read it yet, it's

16:36

not a hard read, it's not a long read,

16:38

and it does bounce back

16:40

and forth, I would say, really well between

16:42

like biblical studies going deep into the scriptures

16:45

as, you know, if anybody knows anything about

16:47

Mike Burton, Tom Wright, they're gonna expect their

16:49

biblical scholars, you're gonna expect them to go

16:51

to the text. But I was probably most

16:53

impressed with how well versed

16:57

you were. And again, I

16:59

think this is probably a bit more of, well,

17:02

not Tom's well versed in it too.

17:04

So, yeah, it was impressive

17:06

how well versed you were with the modern political

17:08

discourse, globally speaking too. You

17:11

didn't just talk about like your Australian content

17:14

context, Tom didn't just talk about his, you

17:16

know, British context, you have a

17:18

very good knowledge of just kind of global politics

17:20

as a whole. Is this something I didn't know

17:22

this about, I just knew he was a biblical

17:25

scholar. And then you got into theology, I'm like,

17:27

oh, he can do theology too. And then with

17:29

your latest book, I'm like,

17:31

oh, he does like global politics too. Is this

17:33

something that you've been interested in for your whole

17:35

life? Or is this more of a recent hobby?

17:38

Well, it is. You got to remember,

17:41

my previous career was military intelligence. So,

17:44

you know, and

17:46

I was doing military intelligence during the

17:48

early days of the global war on

17:50

terror. So, you know, particularly

17:52

in the late 90s, you know, leading up

17:54

to 9-11, you

17:57

know, that's kind of when I was, you know, doing that

17:59

sort of thing. of a thing and it

18:01

was very eye-opening and that's kind of

18:03

where I got, shall we say, very

18:05

geopolitically aware and I always try to

18:07

keep myself abreast of world news. I

18:11

don't just read stories about Florida

18:13

man killed by swan. I

18:16

try to do a bunch of

18:18

more global news

18:22

feeds into what's going on, whether

18:24

it's Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa.

18:27

I just try to keep myself more informed

18:29

and also try to listen to and meet

18:32

Christians from different parts of the world too

18:34

and to hear from them what

18:36

they're thinking, what's the issue there that they're being

18:39

confronted by because one of the

18:41

problems I find with a lot

18:44

of American books on politics

18:47

and theology, I find

18:49

they're concerned with two things, which

18:52

is Roe v. Wade and

18:54

Trump. That's pretty much

18:56

what most American books and political theology are

18:58

about. Now I understand because that's kind of

19:00

like the dumpster fire in your front yard

19:02

and you've got to kind of deal with

19:04

that, but I would say that the whole

19:07

spate of issues you've got to deal with

19:09

around the world as a Christian are

19:12

far broader than just Roe v.

19:14

Wade and the

19:16

Orange Jesus. Did

19:19

you see us as a new study bubble out? Or

19:22

not study bubble, sorry, whatever

19:25

it was. Yes, that was

19:28

a Bible translation that was authorized by

19:30

the King of England, may I add?

19:35

Very patriotic. I

19:37

mean, I'm happy to go

19:39

any direction you want to go in this conversation, Mike, if there's

19:41

somewhere you want to go, you want to press into, I'm happy.

19:45

My quick comment on Trump

19:47

is obviously he's

19:49

a dumpster fire. I mean, it's just it's

19:53

what I don't understand is the shock. Like

19:56

when that came out, I kind of chuckled, says, well,

19:59

obviously he's going to be You know come

20:01

out with this Bible. It's it would be when people

20:03

are shocked about it I'm like what he's shocked like

20:05

you he's been around for almost a decade now Like

20:07

you know, he's gonna manipulate religion to serve his power

20:09

like what what? American

20:12

leader at least doesn't do that on some

20:14

level I guess just kind of just I

20:16

kind of yawn roll my eyes and say

20:18

this is just the way like the Empire

20:21

does politics Like it's not shocking. It's it's

20:23

horrific and it's scandalous and idolatrous and anybody

20:25

actually buys into it needs to

20:27

get their head checked But like it's not shocking and

20:29

like I didn't even tweet I was like, yeah, that's

20:31

not surprising You know and it's

20:34

not innovative. There's been similar Bibles as

20:36

well. Jerry Falwell had his own like

20:38

Patriots Bible or something Zondervan

20:41

was gonna publish one like that but

20:43

because of the outcry they decided not

20:45

to so it's it's not even an

20:47

original idea There's been a lot of you know culturally

20:51

nominal American Patriots Bible

20:53

is is not a big innovation

20:55

on the Bible market by any

20:57

stretch Here's I have a question

20:59

for you like personally as

21:01

you pay attention to global politics

21:05

How do you determine which

21:07

sources to trust? I think

21:09

this is a massive

21:13

part of the conversation

21:15

around various opinions around Politics

21:17

as a whole is which sources are

21:19

you reading and

21:21

especially in the day and age with

21:23

I mean post internet social media all

21:26

the Independent like no longer are there

21:28

like three news sources that we're all

21:30

paying attention to now Like I only

21:32

watch like independent nonpartisan sources And

21:34

when I when I peek into this, you

21:36

know, kind of right-wing sources left-wing sources I'm

21:39

like, oh are we even talking about the

21:41

same events because I'm reading people that Will

21:44

describe the same thing in a completely different

21:46

way and then times out by a thousand

21:48

It's like we're all just reading different sources

21:50

and it's like we're just living in all

21:52

these parallel universes So how do you determine

21:54

which sources to trust these days?

21:56

Yeah, I mean, I think it's good to have

21:58

a wide Diet

22:01

a very diet of media outlets if

22:04

you're only Source

22:06

for information is either Fox

22:08

or MSNBC. I Guarantee

22:11

you are getting a very

22:13

one-sided story on On

22:15

the news. Okay, so I don't think

22:17

you should I mean that there's a

22:19

lot of news outlets I don't like

22:22

But I still read a bit of

22:24

them anyway, like I I mean, you know, you know

22:27

like the the Guardian Is

22:31

a very left-wing sort of British

22:33

thing very identitarian I

22:36

don't like a lot of it But I read it

22:38

because you know I want to get another perspective on

22:40

the news or even you know I do I do

22:43

read a little bit of Fox News or you have

22:45

a bit of sky news in Australia Which is kind

22:47

of similar. I did read that too every now and

22:49

again I think they do offer a good insight or

22:51

a good critique of some particular

22:53

perspective But I think you've got to

22:55

read widely because if you just live

22:57

inside the one media bubble What

23:00

you're getting is not news you're

23:02

getting tribal Propaganda

23:05

and that can be left-wing. Alright. Yeah, so

23:07

I think the better antidote for that is

23:09

a a varied

23:12

diet of new sources But

23:14

there's also a number of other things like that.

23:16

There's a good thing I listen to you on

23:18

a lot I'm not listening to but read which

23:20

is called ground dot

23:23

news Which gives you a

23:25

lot of news and it actually shows you the

23:28

biases in the Reporting

23:31

on any given issue so it can

23:33

show you which news outlets are reporting

23:35

on something and where they sit on

23:37

a broad spectrum So ground

23:39

dot news I think is a very good

23:41

one because that kind of gives you the

23:46

It kind of tells you what the bias is of

23:49

of different media outlets on the topic

23:52

But you know for me, I'd consider myself a

23:54

more of a kind of a Wall Street Journal

23:56

type of a guy I mean that I find

23:58

that places like that I'm

24:00

more sensible now outlets to get my news you

24:02

know if you read like the New York Post

24:05

you're getting something very right-wing if you read the

24:07

New York Times you're getting something very left wing.

24:10

I can always aim for something

24:12

that seems a bit more centrist and you know a

24:14

little bit more. Impartial

24:17

because that's what you know

24:19

journalist journalism should be independent

24:21

and impartial. Facts based

24:23

differentiating the facts from the

24:25

editorial commentary but yeah it's

24:28

something that's becoming harder

24:30

in this day and age because the

24:32

more partisan and the more extreme you

24:34

are the more clicks views likes and

24:36

shares you get. So we

24:38

have a economy

24:40

of journalism that is

24:42

really much premised on the idea

24:45

of monitoring nonsense for profit

24:47

and it's hard it can make it hard to

24:49

do good journalism in that context so. Yeah

24:51

find some good journalistic a

24:54

variety of journalistic outlets and take out

24:56

a subscription. Yeah that's good

24:58

that's good yeah. I

25:02

typically try these days I try to listen to more

25:04

long form independent outlets

25:06

that aren't kind of big

25:08

corporate entities you know it kind of depends on the

25:10

issue like I've got a series of journalists that I

25:13

found to be. Responsible

25:15

and thorough when it comes like foreign

25:17

policy they're not going to parrot

25:19

the talking point to the left or right and

25:21

every now and then I'll do a deep dive

25:23

kind of my own fact checking on stuff and.

25:26

If a certain journalist you know if most of the

25:28

time when I do that it kind of checks out

25:30

like that I think they're actually being really honest here

25:32

then that I tend to trust that person there's other

25:34

outlets when I do a deep dive you know every

25:36

now and then I'll kind of okay let me let

25:38

me spend a few hours kind of looking into something.

25:41

And it's like yeah it's just it's clear just

25:43

propaganda it's one side of it you just

25:45

can't trust the headlines by

25:47

politicized media and that makes it

25:49

frustrating it's like if this is your

25:51

full time job then. What are you

25:54

going to do you know either you just have to pick a

25:56

side and just I'm all in on this side or you just

25:58

kind of that's a lot of people do said. they just

26:00

pick a side and go all in. And then

26:03

they become a distributor

26:05

of that sort of perspective. And

26:08

that's the sad thing.

26:10

And the journalists need to

26:12

be loyal to the truth and

26:14

faithful and responsible

26:18

to their readers. But

26:20

sadly, a lot of media consumers

26:22

are now loyal to

26:24

a particular outlet because

26:27

of its tribal brand.

26:29

And I think that's a

26:31

very dangerous thing in our

26:34

information age. And good grief, imagine what AI

26:37

is going to do. You can now pretty

26:39

much fabricate any event. You can

26:41

fabricate images, voices, you name it, you can

26:43

fake it now. I mean, it's just going

26:45

to get even worse. Man, we're getting off

26:47

the rails here. Let's get into your book.

26:50

I took a lot of notes in your

26:52

book. And like you, I read a

26:54

lot of books. And I'm kind of thinking like, what did

26:56

I, I remember most of the time I was amen in

26:58

it. Sometimes I was like, is this true? And other times

27:00

I was like, I'm not sure I agree with this. So

27:02

here's one statement. This comes on page 28. You

27:05

said, and I don't know if this is so crucial

27:07

to your argument that it's worth even highlighting, but it's

27:09

just kind of the first time I was like, is

27:11

this actually true? You say

27:14

most people in today's world

27:16

recognize as noble. The

27:18

idea is that we should love our enemies, that

27:21

the strong should protect a weak, that it is

27:23

better to suffer evil than to do evil. People

27:26

in the West treat such things as

27:28

self-evident moral facts. And I just

27:30

have a look, I wrote next to him like, really? Question

27:33

mark, question mark. Like, is this, do

27:36

most people in the West think it's a moral

27:38

good that we should love our enemies? Because as

27:40

I look around, I see a whole lot of

27:42

hate towards enemy, whether

27:44

it's rhetoric on social media or what's

27:48

going on in Israel, Palestine, or Russia, Ukraine,

27:50

or people that even disagree on what's going

27:52

on there. I mean, it's, I

27:54

don't know if it's self-evident that loving your enemies is

27:56

kind of a moral good. Mike, do you want to

27:59

defend that? Well,

28:01

I think if you sat down with

28:03

someone and said, you know, if you've

28:06

got a work

28:08

colleague or an uncle or an next-door

28:10

neighbour who you

28:12

disagree with vigorously on, say,

28:14

politics, would you rather convert

28:16

them or kill them? I

28:19

think most people would say they'd rather

28:21

convert them to their own political cause.

28:24

You know, there's always been aji-baji in

28:26

politics. Even

28:28

in the first parliaments in Britain, or

28:30

if you look at the founding fathers,

28:32

they were talking some serious smack

28:35

about one another. But they

28:37

were all formed by the Christian tradition

28:39

that were meant to sort our differences

28:41

out politically rather than at the point

28:43

of a gun or at the

28:45

edge of a sword. So that's what

28:47

I would take that to mean.

28:50

Yeah, politics is volatile, dirty, a

28:52

bit rancorous, and highly

28:54

polemical. Politics

28:57

is where we solve our differences, not

28:59

on the juling ground. I mean, I guess between

29:01

those options, do we solve our differences or kill

29:04

each other? Surely people wouldn't say

29:06

necessarily kill each other, but I don't

29:08

know. It doesn't seem in my anecdotal experience that

29:11

people would be naturally

29:13

prone to love their

29:15

enemies again. Well,

29:18

it is becoming more foreign. It is becoming a

29:20

more foreign idea, but the idea of love of

29:22

enemy was one of the things that

29:29

has influenced things like the way we treat our

29:31

prisoners of war. It's

29:36

America, Australia, or wherever. The

29:39

way we treat prisoners of war is

29:41

according to the laws of armed conflict,

29:43

which is Geneva relations,

29:45

very specific guidelines what you can and

29:47

can't do to prisoners of war. Now,

29:50

if you go to, say, the Mongols

29:53

or the Arab conquests, there

29:55

is nothing. Once

29:57

you've won, you get to do whatever the heck you

29:59

want. to the losers. But

30:02

in the West, that's not been

30:04

our ideology because I think we've

30:06

been shaped by the Christian tradition with its

30:09

focus on love of enemies. Yeah, I don't

30:11

know if Guantanamo Bay... Well,

30:16

no, it is. It is. It's

30:18

a person because of the moral

30:20

outrage about it. The moral outrage

30:23

about Guantanamo Bay proves

30:25

my point. We should

30:27

be better than this. We should not be

30:30

treated as treating our adversaries in this way.

30:32

So you have a tension between kind of

30:34

the moral outrage versus kind of what

30:37

is actually happening in practice. So you're

30:39

kind of tapping into when

30:42

the authorities do something

30:44

that is not loving

30:46

your enemy, you know, torturing

30:48

your enemies. The fact that

30:50

there is a moral outrage kind of justifies your point.

30:52

Is that what I hear you saying? Yeah, I think

30:55

that's exactly it. Yeah, you will get some hotheads or

30:57

some people who say, no, I do want some revenge

30:59

on my enemies. I do want to

31:01

be... I do want to forget the, let's

31:03

throw out the rules about torture and let's

31:06

just get medieval on these guys. But

31:08

that's where you need either you're in a

31:10

military setting, you have a legal officer or

31:12

you have a... Or

31:14

someone who's the voice of conscience and reason

31:17

who says, no, that's not

31:19

how we would do it. Or

31:21

as we would say in the Commonwealth countries, you

31:23

know, we kill

31:26

the King's enemies in a legal

31:29

and proper fashion, you know, because

31:31

you can be charged with in

31:34

the Australian military with illegally killing

31:36

the King's enemies. You know,

31:38

there are ways that we conduct warfare

31:41

and ways that we don't. Yeah, I

31:43

can see that. I can see that.

31:46

Maybe I would put a little more emphasis on the

31:48

actual practice of what's going on, not the moral

31:51

outrage. But yeah, that's a... I guess

31:53

it's an interesting tension. All right,

31:56

well, we'll set that one aside because again, it wasn't like a

31:58

main point you're making. So I... I don't want to make

32:00

too much out of it. So me

32:02

personally, I found myself 70, 80% love in

32:04

your book. And

32:07

I think you would say the same thing about my book, which

32:10

for my audience, Michael Bird, Michael

32:12

Bird endorsed my book, Exiles, and then sent

32:14

me a two page critique of it attached

32:18

to your endorsement, which it's

32:21

typical of academics. Like we could say, this

32:23

is a good book, it needs to be out there. Here's all the reasons

32:25

why I think it's brutal, or I disagree with

32:27

it. You gave

32:29

me a reading list and I went and read at least

32:31

half of the stuff you told me

32:33

to read. I read Jamie Smith, I'm slugging my way

32:36

through O'Donovan, which I've dabbled

32:38

in before and another. People

32:41

who have been more critical of

32:43

a more Anabaptist view. And

32:46

I learned a lot from Jamie

32:48

Smith. His awaiting the king was

32:50

really good and he helped interpret

32:52

all of O'Donovan to me. I

32:55

guess my one, I'm at several

32:57

things where I'm still not quite convinced of

33:00

his argument for say more

33:02

government involvement. And to be

33:04

clear, I never said Christians

33:06

categorically shouldn't be involved in

33:08

the government. I probably

33:11

left the scent of suspicion, the

33:14

scent of caution towards that, but I

33:16

didn't count it, that wasn't any main

33:18

argument of mine. So I'm still not

33:20

sure exactly where I would land

33:22

on that. My one

33:24

critique of Jamie Smith and

33:26

maybe some things in your book is I

33:29

just, I do wonder

33:31

if it's taking seriously a

33:33

robust theology of empire, which

33:36

I think there is, I

33:39

think the Bible speaks a lot on

33:41

empire. And I guess between

33:43

the four or so

33:45

empires that the Bible addresses

33:48

fairly significantly, but even just

33:51

the empire as a concept, not a

33:53

specific empire, Persia, Babylon, Rome, but just

33:55

the way the book of Revelation treats

33:58

the Roman empire as. Babylon and

34:00

Babylon as this sort of transcendent

34:02

concept that Christians should be extremely

34:05

nervous about. Whenever I hear

34:08

Christian political theologians talk more

34:10

positively about the government or

34:13

Christian involvement, all of

34:15

a sudden the quotations from the book

34:17

of Revelation seem to disappear. And

34:20

I would just love to see them put

34:22

their political viewpoint that has a very positive

34:25

view of the government or at least a

34:27

more neutral view in conversation with the

34:29

book of Revelation. So yeah, I'm kind of, it's

34:32

a long question. Do you want

34:34

to, yeah. Well Preston, let me

34:36

affirm the point, the dissonance you're

34:38

feeling I think is completely justified.

34:41

What I find when people's preferred

34:43

party is in power, they love

34:45

Romans 13. So when my guy's

34:47

in power, I'm all about Romans

34:49

13, submit to governing authorities. But

34:52

when the other guy is in power, I'm

34:55

all about Revelation 13. You know, that's an

34:57

evil beast, burn it to the ground. So

34:59

when my guy's in power, it's Romans 13.

35:01

When it's the other guy's in power, it's

35:03

Revelation 13. Okay. So

35:06

I think you're right. The New

35:08

Testament assumes a context where there

35:10

is a malicious predatory power and

35:13

I think Paul is often telling people to

35:15

keep their head below the radar. You

35:17

know, just focus on your

35:19

local congregation. You know,

35:21

you're not there to convert the world

35:24

in one sense or even

35:26

speaking truth to power is something that

35:29

only happens spasmodically. You could

35:31

say that. But there

35:33

is a problem which the New Testament

35:35

did not envisage. What

35:37

do you do when the beast

35:39

gets converted and when

35:41

the empire, the empire, the emperor wants

35:44

to lay its kingdom at the foot

35:46

of the cross. What

35:48

do you do next? You

35:51

know, can you simply dismantle

35:54

the whole apparatus of empire?

35:56

Now, whether we're talking about the Roman

35:59

Empire, the British, British Empire, American

36:01

global influence today.

36:06

And can I say as well that

36:09

the Bible's view of

36:11

empire totally is not

36:13

completely negative, while

36:15

the Roman Empire I think is treated generally

36:17

negatively and so is Assyrian Babylon, but here's

36:20

the thing, Preston, in the

36:22

Old Testament the Persian Empire always

36:25

seems to be treated very positively. Going

36:28

back to Cyrus, or if

36:30

you look a lot of the prophetic

36:33

literature written during the

36:35

Persian period like Ezra, Nehemiah, it tends

36:37

to have a positive view of

36:39

the Persian Empire as a view of

36:42

divine providence. Now maybe Persia's the

36:45

exception that proves the

36:47

rule where empire is normally bad,

36:49

but even if you

36:51

look at the old Israelite kingdom where

36:53

you've got this sort of nation

36:56

that's been put together and

36:59

largely being created out of

37:01

both Exodus and conquest, you

37:05

have I think a more morally

37:07

opaque and morally complex picture of

37:10

empire rather than just Jesus

37:12

good and empire bad. I think there's

37:14

just far more levels of complexity going

37:17

on there. But the Bible aside,

37:20

what do we do with the situation

37:23

today when we have

37:25

our own empires, be they the

37:27

post-British empire or the Pax Americana

37:29

that we seem to live under?

37:33

And I think Christians

37:35

have historically been

37:38

both the sponsors of empire

37:40

provided religious capital to it

37:42

in bad ways, but

37:45

Christians have also I think always

37:47

been aware of the potential

37:50

dangers of empire. And I think

37:52

Christians have always been

37:54

morally ambivalent about their own empire. So

37:56

I think you see that very

37:59

particularly. in the British tradition. So

38:02

let me give you an example. Let me give you

38:04

an example how I think the British empire was different

38:06

to the other empires of the world. Now, as you

38:09

know, the British invaded or

38:11

should say took over India, the

38:14

East India Company, which is kind of

38:16

like the equivalent of Google taking over

38:18

New Zealand. Okay. It's

38:20

something along those lines and

38:23

doing all sorts of nasty things. Now,

38:26

the reason the English could

38:28

do this is because they were

38:30

given the opportunity by elites within

38:32

Indian society. They were financed in

38:35

their work by Indian bankers and

38:38

they did it mostly using Indian

38:40

troops. Okay. But however it

38:42

is, they came to power. They came to

38:44

power because there was a vacuum. The Mughal

38:47

dynasty had crumbled and

38:49

as a result, the Persians came in and

38:52

they looted, murdered, raped, pillaged, took everything out

38:54

of Delhi, out of all the wealth of

38:57

India, took it back to Persia. Then

38:59

the Afghan warlords from the North, they

39:01

counted down to Delhi. They did the

39:04

same thing, looted, pillaged. Marathas came down

39:06

from the South. They kind of did

39:08

the same thing. So the

39:11

Mughal empire had crumbled and the

39:13

British went in and they created

39:17

something else. And what they created was also

39:20

based on corruption, exploitation.

39:24

They did nothing to stop a massive

39:26

famine. The British did evil and terrible

39:28

things in India,

39:30

just like the Persians, the Afghan, the

39:32

Marathas. But here's the key difference. Here's

39:35

the key difference. Back

39:37

in the United Kingdom, when

39:39

the reports came in of what the

39:41

East India Company was doing in India,

39:45

the East India Company was put on

39:47

trial in the House of Lords. And

39:49

you had people like Edmund Burke prosecuting

39:52

the case against the East

39:54

India Company for the crimes

39:58

against the people, the very... serious

40:00

human rights abuses, how

40:02

they enrich themselves by

40:04

pauperizing the population. So

40:07

here's the difference. When

40:09

the Persians came back from

40:11

India with all the loot and slaves

40:14

they took, there was no Edmund

40:16

Burke there who said, oh my gosh, I

40:18

can't believe what the Shah has done. This

40:20

is terrible stuff. Same for the Afghan

40:22

warlords. There was no one back in Kabul saying,

40:24

oh my good grief, what have you people been doing

40:26

in India? All of

40:28

this violence and terrible thing, all the

40:31

marathas, the British were the only ones

40:33

who literally put themselves on trial because

40:35

of the crimes of their empire. That

40:39

I think is the big difference between

40:42

a Christianized

40:44

empire and the other empires of

40:46

the world. We could give

40:48

this the technical name, oikophobia. We're

40:50

capable of critiquing the abuses of

40:53

our own house because

40:55

we've been shaped by the Christian tradition.

40:57

Man, dude, I mean, that's a lot.

40:59

And I know almost nothing about the

41:04

British empire and its takeover of India.

41:06

What would be your main, just to

41:09

understand your main point, is that it

41:13

was the Christian influence in the

41:15

British empire that caused the

41:18

added a sort of moral compass

41:21

to the British empire and caused

41:23

it to address its own

41:26

abuses of its empire?

41:29

Exactly. That's precisely what I'm saying. And

41:31

I should point out, I'm

41:34

kind of riffing off a bit of Tom Holland

41:36

here because that's his same point. He's

41:38

always pointed out the British

41:41

were always morally ambivalent about

41:43

their own empire. And

41:45

that ambivalence was all the way through. So

41:47

you can get horrible massacres in places like

41:50

Kenya as well, like in the 1950s. Horrible

41:53

massacres by British forces

41:56

there. But then you get the clergy

41:59

in India. Kenya, writing back to

42:01

India, or missionaries, sorry, writing back

42:03

to Britain, to England, saying, do

42:06

you have any idea what Her

42:08

Majesty's forces are doing out here?

42:11

It's terrible, and that leads to, you know, investigations

42:15

and things. That often takes time.

42:18

But there was a sense in which the clergy

42:21

in South Africa or even, you

42:23

know, in Australia and New Zealand

42:25

were often the conscience,

42:30

the spies, the people

42:32

who would report back to the

42:34

authorities, to the media back home,

42:36

what was happening out in all

42:38

these various colonies. And

42:40

it did create a sense of moral outrage.

42:42

Now, again, that does not excuse the abuses

42:45

of empire, saying, oh, don't worry, we've got

42:47

the morality police with us. But

42:49

it goes to show, even in the

42:51

conduct of empire, there

42:53

was a moral texture of it that

42:55

you do not find in other empires

42:58

of the world because they were not

43:00

shaped by the Christian tradition. So

43:02

the Shah of Persia couldn't care less

43:04

about what people thought of his escapades

43:06

in Delhi and the like. Or

43:09

you know, all the Mongols and their

43:11

conquests, or the Arabs, or the Aztecs,

43:14

or the Incas, they

43:17

had no moral ambivalence about their own

43:20

imperial violence. That moral ambivalence

43:22

is because we've been shaped by the

43:24

Christian tradition. Okay, so that's helpful, Mike.

43:26

And I'm a big fan of understanding

43:28

before trying to refuse. So I might

43:31

spend most of this podcast just trying to understand

43:34

what you're saying and think through

43:36

it more without trying to like push back out of

43:38

my ignorance. So you would

43:40

say, I guess my, well, my question, and

43:43

this is a genuine question, not a pushback

43:45

question necessarily. Does

43:48

the church, does the Christian moral compass

43:50

need to be part of the empire

43:53

to speak truth to

43:55

power in such a way that

43:57

it could pull back the tide on the evils

43:59

of the empire? I'm thinking

44:01

of, yeah, I

44:04

mean, one, just an example, more in my

44:06

context is, you know, Dorothy Day, Dorothy

44:08

Day is a Christian anarchist who

44:11

believed, didn't vote, wasn't involved

44:13

in the government, did, I mean, loads

44:16

of stuff against

44:20

injustices in the American

44:22

culture from the perspective of this

44:25

really radical separation from the state. I

44:28

would say, I mean, we could talk about MLK. I,

44:30

you know, again, these are, these are examples that I'm

44:33

just, I'm not an expert. I know a little bit

44:35

about these kinds of incidences where, you know, MLK,

44:38

I feel like people would kind of like to hijack

44:40

his story from different perspectives. Some

44:43

say he spoke truth to power from a place

44:45

of distance from the empire. Other people say no,

44:47

you know, he, like you even mentioned, he hung

44:49

out with LBJ and he

44:52

kind of got friendly. He kind of worked through the

44:54

political system. I will say this though, when he started

44:56

to speak out against Vietnam war, they killed him and

44:58

it's pretty sure that the

45:01

CIA killed MLK. So it's like, yeah, the

45:03

empire might listen when it's politically expedient, but

45:05

don't push it too far, man, because we,

45:07

you know, we're not gonna, we're not gonna

45:09

bow the knee to you. So I

45:12

don't know, man, I, again, trying to

45:15

understand you. So you would say

45:17

it's, there's enough

45:19

historical examples of the church

45:22

being somewhat, let's say, involved

45:24

in the empire in order

45:26

to pull back the tide

45:28

on evil that the empire would naturally do without

45:30

the Christian witness. Would that be a good summary

45:33

of? And even to raise the

45:35

question, should we even have an empire? Certainly

45:38

after the second world war that

45:40

that was very much, I

45:43

think, the thinking in the United Kingdom and

45:45

partly because it was just too expensive to

45:47

run one, you know, running

45:49

the empire was expensive. So that's that's

45:51

settled these colonies in Africa and Asia

45:53

free. That was one

45:56

part of it. But I think there was a

45:58

moral revolution saying, you know, Why

46:00

are we even in the business of Empire in the first

46:02

place? So

46:04

I do think that comes up there. You can certainly make

46:06

those critiques you know

46:09

in a in a church in

46:11

a faith community that is outside

46:13

the state or not in a preferential

46:17

Arrangement with the state so in the

46:19

United Kingdom the Church of England is

46:21

an established church I wouldn't call that

46:23

a state church in the sense

46:26

that it's a department of the state But

46:28

it is an established church and does

46:31

have a historical and amicable relationship with

46:33

the state generally And

46:36

you can offer those critiques from

46:39

a whole bunch of different vantage

46:41

points But but it also means

46:43

Christians from different vantage points whether

46:46

you're Anglican Methodist Pentecostal Presbyterian Whatever

46:48

they can also participate in political discourse

46:50

They can you know write a write

46:53

a an editorial in the times or

46:55

in the Guardian They can you know

46:58

run for public office. They

47:00

can be appointed to the House of Lords

47:02

they can participate in the system whether they're

47:04

in a established church or

47:06

a non-established church that they can all influence

47:08

the game and be the voice of conscience

47:11

and they largely work with

47:13

their moral and spiritual authority

47:15

not based on the authority

47:17

of money

47:20

or power or anything

47:22

like that I Can

47:26

a Christian Again, genuine

47:28

question good fifth question Can

47:30

a Christian or slash the

47:32

church be involved in the

47:34

Empire without the power

47:37

of the Empire? Co-opting

47:40

the Christian witness. I'm

47:43

trying to think of the best most concise way

47:45

to say it But I think does that does that make

47:47

sense like I and this might be more my cynicism I

47:49

don't know if I could give loads

47:51

of evidence to justify this it's more my

47:53

sort of anecdotal strong hunch That

47:56

the Empire will listen to the Christian

47:58

voice in as much as it's

48:00

as it's expedient for

48:03

the empire to maintain power.

48:05

Right now, you know, in America,

48:07

this is gonna make some people mad that the cielgen raw

48:09

so I can't go through an episode without making some people

48:11

mad. Like there is,

48:14

well, the international courts have determined

48:16

in a 15 to two vote,

48:19

that what's going on in Gaza is

48:21

a plausible genocide. That's just the legal

48:24

language that's being used. I read through

48:26

the entire 84 page report by

48:28

South Africa. And I would

48:30

agree based on my very limited

48:32

knowledge, that it is plausible. I'm not

48:35

saying definitive, but plausible. Like there's, I

48:37

mean, 15 pages of genocidal rhetoric from all

48:39

the top leaders of Israel and the evidence

48:42

the aftermath all the, and Biden

48:44

keeps sending billions of dollars, just sent

48:46

over 1800 2000 pound bombs, which is

48:48

designed not

48:52

to target individuals, you know, or just

48:54

getting her moss, you know, sometimes, you

48:56

know, it's designed to level whole buildings

48:58

and neighborhoods. And you know, so the

49:00

United States government is one

49:02

of the main funders of this, again,

49:05

the legal terminology, legal,

49:08

plausible genocide, my,

49:10

and there's a whole Israel lobby, there's loads

49:13

of money and power. There's so much at

49:15

the top wrapped up into why this is

49:17

happening. My hunch is the only reason that

49:21

the Biden administration will reverse

49:24

its funding of a plausible

49:26

genocide is if it will keep him in

49:28

power. Right now, there is

49:30

more than the tides of turn, so more than 50%

49:33

of the population. And I think I want to say,

49:35

I want to say, don't quote me on this, but

49:37

maybe 75% of Democrats are

49:39

against Israel's response.

49:41

It could cost him the

49:43

election. I think when he

49:45

and his administration realizes like,

49:48

this is going to cost us election, we need to pull back on

49:50

this whole plausible genocide thing.

49:53

I think then they might. But I'm like,

49:55

but yeah, yeah, you're, you're sort of

49:58

mortal compass is really when it's politically

50:00

expedient for you. I

50:02

don't even, I mean, we can get into Russia Ukraine. That's

50:04

a whole, that's a whole different situation. I, maybe we shouldn't

50:06

even get into that. But, um, so

50:08

in as much as the church can

50:10

have an influence in

50:12

the moral direction of the empire, I

50:15

am suspicious about the lasting

50:18

effects of that. And

50:22

I'm nervous about

50:24

how the church can be

50:26

kind of caught up in the

50:29

power mongering power pursuit of the empire itself.

50:31

Is that making sense, Mike? And again, I,

50:33

I, I'm trying to, it

50:35

is okay. Well, let me, let me

50:37

give you two examples. Imagine you have

50:39

been pressed and you have been appointed,

50:41

uh, as

50:43

the Israeli ambassador to Israel.

50:48

Okay. And you know,

50:50

secretary of state, Anthony Blinken says, okay, Preston, here's,

50:52

I want you to do, I want you to

50:54

go on to a press conference and

50:57

I want you to tell people that there's

50:59

no gentler side going on. The

51:01

Israeli is just a little bit, you know, missing a few

51:03

targets, but I want you to go on. So there's nothing

51:06

because, you know, uh, if they find

51:08

out about it back home, it's going to be bad for the, it's

51:10

going to be bad for us. Now,

51:12

if you're, if you're a good, you know, being the good

51:14

Christian man, you are, uh, you can

51:16

say, look, I'm normally, you know, I want good

51:18

positive relationships with Israel and all that sort of

51:20

thing. But you may say you, this is crossing

51:23

a moral line and you would

51:25

be within your right to resign and

51:28

then to write an op-ed in the

51:30

New York times saying why you resigned

51:32

as the American ambassador to Israel, because

51:34

we are sanctioning. So I think

51:37

you can, you can serve faithfully in

51:40

the government. You can even wrestle with,

51:42

shall we say levels of moral ambiguity,

51:44

because sometimes it's not always crystal clear,

51:47

but you could come to a point of

51:49

clarity and say, I review, I refuse to

51:51

be part of this machine. You know, I'm

51:54

all for good relations between, you know, America

51:56

and, and, and Israel, but

51:58

I think we're now on the team. And

52:00

another. A number of diplomats have actually done

52:02

that. A number of people in the State

52:04

Department, I believe, have resigned, whether they're Christian

52:06

or not, but on principles. Even

52:09

if you work in government,

52:12

whether it's a diplomat, a military

52:14

chaplain, or in any role, there

52:16

can come a point where you

52:18

say, no, on this

52:20

issue, I will not. Here's

52:22

my phone number. Give me a

52:24

call when we're no longer supporting genocide in

52:26

Gaza, or we're no longer

52:28

selling arms in

52:30

Nicaragua, or whatever the cause

52:34

du jour happens to be. It's

52:37

not like once in, all in

52:39

forever. You are capable of making

52:41

protests within. Precisely because

52:43

you are in, and because you have

52:45

a history of working hard to do

52:48

good what is right, working for good

52:50

government, when you do leave,

52:52

and when you do leave on the basis

52:54

of conscience, it becomes all the more powerful.

52:57

Because you're showing that you're not a

53:00

political tribal shill, you are

53:02

generally one who can sit

53:04

above the table of political

53:06

partisan activities. That's helpful. Yeah,

53:08

that's good. Well, actually, can I ask you a question?

53:11

Can I ask you a question? Sure. I

53:14

want to ask you a question. We can make a bit on

53:17

your Exiles book. Maybe this question

53:19

will help you understand where I'm coming

53:21

from. Now, I understand you want to

53:23

be the prophet speaking truth to power,

53:25

but here's my two questions for you.

53:28

What do you do if the power

53:30

does not listen? And even

53:32

worse, what do you do

53:35

when the power does listen to the

53:37

prophet? What do you do then?

53:39

So if you want to speak truth to power, if

53:41

the power doesn't listen, what do you do next? Do

53:43

you engage in civil disobedience, uncivil disobedience?

53:45

And if the power then listens and

53:47

says, you know what, Preston, you are

53:50

absolutely right. You know, what's

53:52

going on is Gaza is terrible. We

53:54

want you to head a delegation to

53:56

talk to various agencies. agencies

54:00

and organa find out what's really happening and

54:02

make a recommendation about what we should do

54:05

So what what do you do if the power doesn't listen and

54:08

what do you do when they do listen? And

54:10

this is this I think is the weakness

54:12

of the Anabaptist view. So you

54:15

tell me at Preston How would you respond to that? I

54:18

would be profoundly cynical whether

54:20

that second option Would

54:23

ever be a reality. I Think

54:26

I'd be shot Or

54:28

thrown in prison with Julian Assange When

54:31

when he starts exposing the war

54:33

crimes that the military industrial complex

54:35

is has done Or

54:39

maybe I'd be thrown in prison with you know,

54:41

Bill Clinton's good friend Jeffrey Epstein and

54:43

so many other elites at the top Yeah,

54:46

I if if I say hey, I think

54:48

we should love our enemies Forgive

54:51

those who have wronged us. I think

54:53

we should Care for the

54:56

poor and I think we should use I think

54:59

we should give the middle finger to anybody

55:01

with power and money that wants to influence

55:03

political decisions that like if I actually embodied

55:05

a Christian

55:09

Value system in my speech and

55:11

my being I don't

55:13

think the Empire I don't think Babylon's Actually

55:16

gonna listen to me. You're gonna say okay.

55:18

Yeah. Yeah, but what if they do? Okay,

55:20

I think great Yeah, I I again I

55:23

I'm not I think one of the

55:25

mist and I don't claim to be Anabaptist

55:27

I've made a lot of anabaptist friends. I've never been

55:29

to an Anabaptist church I'm not wasn't raised in about

55:32

like I don't have it's really my ex a Jesus

55:34

that has Got me to a place

55:36

that seems to make a lot of

55:38

an about this happy So I don't have like a

55:40

ecclesiological kind of commitment that position. I guess

55:42

I I Think the

55:45

church if the church embodies the

55:47

political ethic in Economics

55:49

in health in immigration

55:51

in enemy love in Nonviolence

55:54

and all these things that it could it

55:58

has the ability and power

56:00

to influence society

56:02

without necessarily getting

56:05

involved in sort of the political system.

56:11

Again, I've never said I'm

56:13

100% against all Christians always

56:15

never being involved. I

56:18

think that we

56:21

can accomplish good in society

56:23

by being the church if

56:25

we actually are being the

56:27

church. So

56:31

what happens if Babylon

56:33

says, okay, we're actually going to listen to you? Sure,

56:36

yeah, then stop sending money

56:38

to Israel. Let's

56:42

take our, what is it, trillion dollar military

56:44

budget and you'll like this,

56:47

Mike, and let's throw that into

56:49

healthcare. I don't know. A

56:53

bunch of people are hopping the

56:56

border and coming

56:58

into America, I'm like, okay,

57:00

great. So we can save money on mission trips

57:02

and instead of going and spending money on airfare

57:04

to go witness to people overseas, they're coming over

57:07

here. So let's, the body of the kingdom, we

57:09

got to them. Like I

57:11

just, I think my, if

57:13

I take a robust kingdom ethic on

57:16

all these political issues, I'm

57:19

suspicious about whether the powers to be

57:21

will genuinely listen to me. What

57:24

was the first part of your question though? It's when

57:26

you speak truth to power and they- The first part

57:28

is what do you do if the powers don't listen?

57:30

Would you be prepared to run over

57:32

office? Okay, would you want to be like the William

57:34

Wilberforce and say, you know, I'm going to get elected

57:36

to parliament and I'm going

57:39

to bring universal healthcare to America or

57:41

something like that. Or I'm going

57:43

to stop us in doing these silly wars

57:46

in all these different parts of the world

57:48

that have nothing more than a mass

57:50

expenditure and loss of steel and loss

57:53

of blood and everything. So I mean, would

57:55

you, do you get the point? Like they won't listen.

57:57

So I'm going to run for Congress. for

58:00

the Senate, for the President, for the Governor, or

58:02

something like that, or for your local council. That's

58:04

one thing. Do you get the point where someone

58:07

needs to run to be an alternative to the

58:09

bi-party, to

58:12

the two-party system? How is

58:15

that different than Christian nationalism? That's

58:17

exactly what all our Christian nationalist

58:19

friends would say, right? We need

58:21

to get good Christian people into...

58:24

I mean, that's their whole project. Isn't

58:26

that their whole project? Do they want to get

58:28

Christians in positions of political power so that we

58:30

can make this place more Christian-like? At

58:34

one level, it is. They want

58:36

to get Christians elected to power,

58:38

but they then want to do

58:40

two things. They want to impose

58:42

a particular version of Christianity. I'm

58:44

not talking C.S. Lewis, me, Christianity, but

58:47

they want to impose a particular version

58:49

and vision of Christianity, one

58:52

that is often welded to

58:54

militarism, empire,

58:56

expansion. There's also American-centric as

58:58

well. It's also combined not

59:01

just with a Christian aspect,

59:03

but it's also very much

59:05

America first. America

59:07

is the chosen nation, so there's a kind of American

59:10

mythology that's in there as well.

59:14

I would also add the other big

59:16

differences. They also want to make sure

59:18

that no one else can get into

59:20

government ever again besides them. So,

59:23

let's get into power and let's be

59:25

Christian, but our type of Christian, let's

59:28

make it American-centric because America is the

59:30

new Israel, and let's make sure we

59:32

never, ever lose another election. Okay.

59:35

So, there's some differences there. You

59:39

have a quote here. It actually... You

59:41

might have answered my question on page

59:43

77 where my comment is,

59:46

how is this not Christian nationalism where

59:48

you say, the redeeming of human institutions

59:50

such as government, the

59:52

curation of creation, making them good, making

59:54

them fit for their divinely called purposes,

59:56

this prepares for the kingdom ahead of

59:59

the ultimate... of God the

1:00:01

Father's rule in Jesus with his

1:00:03

church, when everything is put under

1:00:05

Jesus, and we the

1:00:07

church shall reign with him over the

1:00:10

healed and holy world. To

1:00:12

me, yeah, in passing, when I read that, I

1:00:14

was like, that sounds similar to what

1:00:16

I hear Christian nationalists say, but I think your

1:00:20

distinction of, and I

1:00:22

get Christian nationalism can be defined very differently. I

1:00:24

listened to your debate with Stephen Wolf, by the

1:00:26

way, that was really interesting, has this sort of

1:00:29

mythology of America as a Christian nation, the new

1:00:31

Israel, has a deeper rooted mythology that's

1:00:34

kind of driving the whole project.

1:00:36

Is that what you would say is the

1:00:38

biggest difference between that and what you're suggesting, that

1:00:41

it can be a good for Christians to

1:00:44

be in places of political power to

1:00:46

reform Babylon? Yeah, I mean, if a

1:00:48

Christian just wants to make government to

1:00:50

operate good the way it was intended,

1:00:53

I believe that is a redemptive thing. So, government

1:00:57

that operates in a good way,

1:01:00

I think is doing a Christian

1:01:02

vocation in the political realm. So

1:01:05

I would say that's fine. That doesn't have

1:01:07

to be part of a nationalistic project or

1:01:09

a certain mythology. Christians are called

1:01:11

to see government operating the

1:01:14

way God intended for

1:01:16

a common good. And even I would

1:01:18

say, including with the consensus

1:01:20

of the people. I think

1:01:22

a fundamental underlying theological commitment on

1:01:25

your part is that government is

1:01:27

a sort of post-lapsary and post-fall

1:01:29

creation by God that's designed for

1:01:31

good that because of the fall

1:01:34

can fall into evil. But as

1:01:36

an institution, it is a good

1:01:38

of creation. Whereas,

1:01:41

honestly, I'm still thinking

1:01:43

through that, Mike. I'm not quite convinced

1:01:45

of that position. But I think

1:01:47

that that, would that be an accurate description

1:01:50

of your assumption about government? I think you said that in the

1:01:52

book. Yeah, I think you could

1:01:54

say government is part of the fall or

1:01:57

it's, you know, both an

1:02:00

example. Expression of the fall the way

1:02:02

it sometimes run but also it's there

1:02:05

To stop human wickedness corruption and injustice.

1:02:07

I mean, that's one of the read

1:02:09

Romans 30. That's one of the primary

1:02:11

functions of Government is

1:02:13

to administer justice and

1:02:16

that should be modeled

1:02:18

on based on God's concern for

1:02:20

justice across the whole earth, so

1:02:23

I Think that

1:02:25

government is fundamentally necessary to restrain human

1:02:27

evil I could if you don't believe

1:02:29

me just look at Haiti right now

1:02:31

where there is no functioning government in Haiti

1:02:34

It's really just being ruled by gangs so,

1:02:37

you know as bad as bureaucracy

1:02:39

is the anarchy of You

1:02:42

know of lawlessness and ganglang violence.

1:02:44

I think yeah DMV

1:02:47

starts look pretty darn good after a while.

1:02:49

I guess I would say I think our White House has

1:02:51

enough gangsters in it that it

1:02:55

Doesn't look like Haiti. It's a different

1:02:57

form of gangsterism. But

1:03:02

Yeah Now I see

1:03:04

that man and I guess I don't have enough

1:03:07

Yeah, it's something I need to keep thinking through.

1:03:10

Yeah, and again, I don't have a firm position

1:03:12

on is there I mean, we'll

1:03:14

go first as a classic example I know you

1:03:16

keep bringing him up and there's other examples of

1:03:19

of where we can look back and

1:03:21

say because a Christian was

1:03:24

Involved in the government. There

1:03:26

was good that was accomplished It might

1:03:28

not have otherwise been accomplished had this

1:03:30

Christian not been in that position of

1:03:32

political power Is that be a good

1:03:34

summary of what you're saying? Yeah.

1:03:37

Yeah, I think that's that's that's a good summary

1:03:39

And there are lots of examples of Christians Being

1:03:42

a positive influence on government from for the better

1:03:44

and you can find that in all different parts

1:03:46

of the world Do you think

1:03:48

the church could have in Britain? I don't again.

1:03:50

I know nothing about British history Do

1:03:54

you think the Christian church could

1:03:56

have accomplished what will before us

1:03:58

accomplish without say? Will

1:04:00

before us never existed. There was no Christians

1:04:02

in political power. If the church was actually

1:04:04

being the church, could

1:04:06

it have accomplished what

1:04:09

Will before us help accomplish, do you think? It's

1:04:11

kind of a theoretical question. I

1:04:14

think there would have been another Will before

1:04:16

us. I think there would have been another,

1:04:19

someone else I think would have stood up

1:04:21

because in British society, there was a very

1:04:23

big abolitionist movement. So I think if

1:04:25

it was not going to be Will before someone else would have stepped

1:04:27

up. Will

1:04:30

before us did have parliamentary supporters.

1:04:33

He had a support base inside

1:04:35

politics and outside of politics. So

1:04:37

I think it was going to happen. But

1:04:40

again, you've got to appreciate how

1:04:43

radical this really was because

1:04:46

when the British said to the Kingdom of

1:04:48

Morocco, I guess

1:04:50

what guys? You

1:04:53

people are going to stop doing slavery now or

1:04:55

we're going to blockade your ports in North Africa.

1:04:58

The King of Morocco thought they were insane. But

1:05:01

everyone has slavery like the Arabs, the

1:05:04

Ottomans, the Byzantines,

1:05:06

the Romans, the Greeks, the whole

1:05:09

Mediterranean world had had slavery and

1:05:11

the Brits come along with their imperial power

1:05:14

and say, we're shutting that down,

1:05:16

boys. And they thought it

1:05:18

was insane. But once their ports got blockaded, then

1:05:21

the King of Morocco said, you know what? I

1:05:25

guess we're quitting slavery. And

1:05:27

then they begin to reinterpret

1:05:30

Islamic tradition to justify the

1:05:32

end of slavery. And

1:05:34

the Brits acted. You have to. You have to.

1:05:37

And this is what historians know. They acted

1:05:39

fairly unilaterally on this

1:05:42

crazy idea of shutting down the

1:05:44

transatlantic slave trade. I mean,

1:05:46

it wasn't a fan of the Portuguese, the Dutch, the

1:05:50

Spanish. They

1:05:52

were not on board with the British initially. The

1:05:54

British really did go this alone in the

1:05:57

18th century when they shut down the transatlantic

1:06:00

the blending slate, right? That's interesting. Your

1:06:02

knowledge of all these different issues, man.

1:06:06

I don't know when you sleep, but you don't

1:06:08

really sleep, do you? You sleep about four hours a

1:06:10

day and spend the rest of your time reading

1:06:12

books on every single topic that's out there, which

1:06:15

is why I appreciate everything you write, man. It's

1:06:17

always so thoroughly researched and thought provoking. Yeah,

1:06:19

you raise good points. And again, I don't have

1:06:22

a strong

1:06:24

pushback necessarily. I

1:06:27

guess I just

1:06:29

do wanna raise the question, can

1:06:31

the church accomplish good

1:06:34

in society without being

1:06:36

entangled with the governing

1:06:38

authorities? And I think

1:06:40

you would say it's probably a both, like, yeah, do all

1:06:42

that, be the church. And

1:06:44

also, it wouldn't

1:06:46

hurt to have people involved in

1:06:48

the governing authorities. How do you,

1:06:51

do you think the author of the book of Revelation would have

1:06:53

been on board with your view

1:06:55

or how do you square it with? And

1:06:57

I don't know if I agree with you on the

1:06:59

whole Persian Empire thing. I mean, Daniel and Revelation both

1:07:01

call it a beast and the

1:07:04

kingdom of God and Daniel two will come in and

1:07:06

crush these empire. Like, it was a

1:07:08

benevolent dictator and it funded the temple and stuff, but

1:07:11

it was still a beast, I think at the end

1:07:13

of the day. Like, I don't know

1:07:15

if I would say the Bible speaks positively about the Persian

1:07:18

Empire, less negatively, maybe about

1:07:20

than Babylon and Assyria in Rome, yeah,

1:07:23

I don't know. Like, does the

1:07:26

author of the Revelation, is it simply because

1:07:28

the church didn't have the ability to kind

1:07:30

of be involved in the empire? Like, there

1:07:32

was such a minority persecuted group or

1:07:36

yeah, how do you square your view with Revelation?

1:07:38

Well, I would say Revelation,

1:07:41

you've got an intense period

1:07:43

of persecution, very much

1:07:45

at the epicenter of the church's

1:07:47

value to participate in the imperial

1:07:49

cults of Asia Minor. So

1:07:51

you're going to get a very obvious pessimistic

1:07:55

view of idolatry

1:07:57

when it's forged together with impurities.

1:07:59

imperial power and violence and

1:08:02

they're opposed to the people

1:08:04

of the Messiah. But

1:08:06

again, in our biblical theology, that's not

1:08:08

the only picture we get. Okay?

1:08:11

So, you know, when Paul

1:08:13

and Barnabas are on Cyprus

1:08:16

and the proconsul, Sergius Paulus seems to

1:08:18

come to faith, what

1:08:21

do you do then? Does he

1:08:23

resign from his post and

1:08:25

join the believers in Cyprus or does he

1:08:27

go back to Rome and join the church

1:08:29

there? You know, what

1:08:31

do you do with the Sergius Paulus when he comes to

1:08:34

faith? Or do you remember when Paul

1:08:36

is on trial before a gripper the second and

1:08:38

a gripper says, look, dude, you are out of

1:08:40

your mind. Are you trying to make me a

1:08:42

Christian? And what

1:08:45

if Paul succeeded? What if a gripper

1:08:47

the second did become a Christian? You

1:08:50

know, what would that mean for his, you

1:08:53

know, for his kingdom? What would

1:08:55

that mean for the subjects? These

1:08:58

are the questions. Now, those are

1:09:00

not on the lips or on the mind or

1:09:03

the text of the book of Revelation because

1:09:05

it's dealing with the monster that's chasing the

1:09:07

people. Okay? But there

1:09:09

are a wider way of issues in

1:09:12

the New Testament that I think we've

1:09:14

got to look at not as a

1:09:16

correction to what's in Revelation, but another

1:09:18

part of the story of the complexity

1:09:20

of church-state relationships. Yeah, that's good. Do

1:09:22

you think, I

1:09:24

mean, I'm going to let you go

1:09:26

in a second, man, I promise. Yeah, we

1:09:29

really don't hear about the

1:09:31

post-conversion life of the centurion

1:09:34

and Matthew. Hey, Sergius

1:09:36

Paulus and what is it? Acts

1:09:39

13 or 16? Actually

1:09:42

Acts 14. And other people who are part of

1:09:44

the empire who get saved, we just don't hear about the

1:09:46

post. What we know about what it

1:09:49

entailed to be part of the political

1:09:52

entity of the Roman Empire, I just

1:09:55

don't think I could have maintained there. I

1:09:57

want to start giving their allegiance to Jesus and renouncing

1:09:59

their allegiance to of Caesar and stop participating in pagan

1:10:01

practice, I just don't think they would be able to

1:10:04

be a legitimate Christian and maintain

1:10:07

their political position in the first century. Granted

1:10:11

though, even if you agree

1:10:13

with that on a historical level, we

1:10:16

can't map that on every modern day situation.

1:10:18

So I don't even know if that's... It

1:10:20

doesn't support either point, I

1:10:23

think. The Saturion was saved. So

1:10:25

being a Saturion is fine. He couldn't... Being

1:10:28

a Saturion, you're basically a pagan priest, like

1:10:30

in all the pagan rituals you'd

1:10:32

be involved in. There's no way he could

1:10:35

have been a genuine Jesus follower, maintained that

1:10:37

kind of discipleship and kept his Saturion position,

1:10:39

renouncing his allegiance to Caesar. That's... Well,

1:10:42

I would say this. Jilled

1:10:45

in the apostate. After you get

1:10:47

Constantine and you get

1:10:49

Jilled in the apostate who tried to change

1:10:52

the Roman Empire from Christian back to

1:10:54

pagan, he

1:10:57

had a lot of Christian officers and

1:10:59

soldiers in his army who, for reasons

1:11:01

I don't understand, went along with

1:11:03

it. So even Jillian in

1:11:05

the apostate who's trying to de-Christianize

1:11:07

the Empire still had a

1:11:10

lot of Christians involved

1:11:13

at all levels because by then the Christianization

1:11:15

of the Empire was in full swing. And

1:11:17

so much so, I think Jillian

1:11:19

in the apostate would have been

1:11:22

unable, I think, to reverse

1:11:24

it. So it's kind of like the

1:11:26

tsunami has come over

1:11:29

the bank and shooting

1:11:31

arrows at it is not going to stop it. But he

1:11:33

had a good crack and maybe if he lived longer

1:11:35

than he did, then he ruled for four years. Maybe he

1:11:37

would have done more. But yeah, I

1:11:40

mean, Christians under Jillian in the apostate, I

1:11:42

think, did live in an ambiguous space where

1:11:44

they had an anti-Christian Empire, an anti-Christian

1:11:47

Emperor. But they were themselves Christian. They

1:11:49

were working in the administration. And

1:11:51

I think it would have been similar in

1:11:53

other periods. There was always going to be

1:11:55

something you had to negotiate in the Roman

1:11:58

Empire. Let me give you one example. In

1:12:01

Rome in the second century, there was a

1:12:03

particular Pope, I can't remember his name, who

1:12:05

had a problem. The problem is he

1:12:07

had a large number of

1:12:10

Christian women from

1:12:12

the senatorial class. Now

1:12:15

they couldn't marry, there weren't enough

1:12:18

men at Christian men elite levels,

1:12:20

and if they kind of married down,

1:12:23

they lose their elite status. So

1:12:25

you had these Christian women who are

1:12:27

from the senatorial class who

1:12:29

can't marry other pagan men because they're pagans,

1:12:31

but if they marry down, they lose their

1:12:33

status. So how can they get married and

1:12:36

keep the status? The

1:12:38

Pope at the time in Rome gave

1:12:40

them the option of marrying a Christian

1:12:42

slave in a relationship

1:12:45

that was recognized by

1:12:48

the church, but not

1:12:50

recognized by the state. That

1:12:53

was one of the ways they negotiated.

1:12:55

How do you find husbands for these

1:12:57

uptown elite Christian women? So

1:12:59

there was always this strategy

1:13:01

or this struggle

1:13:04

of negotiating life

1:13:06

in the Roman Empire if you belong to

1:13:09

the upper echelons of society. That's

1:13:11

good stuff. I'm going to let you go, man.

1:13:14

Thank you so much for this book, first

1:13:16

of all, Jesus and the Powers by Michael

1:13:18

Bird and N.T. Wright. I

1:13:20

highly, highly, highly recommend reading

1:13:22

this book. Again, it's, I

1:13:25

mean, the scholarship and research is exquisite, but

1:13:27

it's also extremely readable. I mean, you could

1:13:29

read it in a few hours. And

1:13:32

yeah, thank you so much for your contribution to

1:13:34

this. Michael, I love you, man. I

1:13:36

love it. And I love

1:13:38

you more when we see

1:13:41

different sides of various issues, and that should be set

1:13:43

in the context of the fact that I think we

1:13:45

see eye to eye on so many things. Yeah,

1:13:48

indeed. Well, it's always, it's always, it's

1:13:51

always good to be with your press.

1:13:53

My question is Preston, have I now

1:13:55

eclipsed Joey Dawson as the most number

1:13:57

of time guest? So I think. Me

1:14:00

and Joey are in an epic battle

1:14:02

to see who's been the guest on

1:14:05

your show the most So

1:14:07

is it me or is it Joey? He

1:14:10

might have a couple episodes

1:14:12

up on you Yeah,

1:14:15

but you're definitely in the top

1:14:17

tier I don't know how many

1:14:19

times you've been on like four or five times Just let me

1:14:21

know. Joey might be in a six or seven times something like

1:14:23

that something like that. Yeah I Also

1:14:28

want to shout out to my friend Jay Newman

1:14:31

who's gonna be listening to this episode and he's gonna be

1:14:33

ripping out his hair because he Yeah,

1:14:36

he's gonna disagree with probably a lot of stuff

1:14:38

you say and in Is

1:14:41

gonna scream at me for not pushing back

1:14:43

harder Mike

1:14:47

thanks so much for coming up the all-gen around man

1:14:49

really appreciate it We'll have to have you back on

1:14:51

next month or sometime soon Preston The soy is a

1:14:54

pleasure to be with you and thanks to all your

1:14:56

listeners for joining us You

1:15:20

This show is part of the converge podcast

1:15:22

network