Theology in the Raw - What Does Faithful Political Engagement Look Like? Dr. Michael F. Bird

Episode Date: April 29, 2024

Dr. Michael F. Bird is a biblical scholar and theologian who serves as the Deputy Principle and Lecturer in Theology at Ridley College (Melbourne, Aus), and is the author of over a dozen books, including his recently released Jesus and the Powers, which he co-authored with N.T. Wright.  In this podcast conversation, we talk all about politics and the gospel, agreeing on so many things and disagreeing about a few other things. Support Theology in the Raw through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theologyintheraw

Hey friends, if theology in the raw has blessed or challenged you in any significant way, would you consider supporting the show financially? You can do so through Patreon at patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. All the information is in the show notes. You can support the show for as little as five bucks a month. And in doing so, you get access to all kinds of different premium content. And most of all, you just get access to the theology in the raw community. We have all kinds of awesome chats and messages back and forth. And it just, it means the world to us that you support the show as the show has grown. So have all the expenses and all the work that goes into pulling it off.

So again, if you would like to support the show, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology raw. And I just want to thank my, uh, the people that are already supporting the show. Thank you so much for keeping this show not only going, but also thriving. So patreon.com forward slash theology in Iraq. Hey friends, welcome back to another episode of theology in the raw. My guest today is my good friend, the one and only Dr. Michael bird. Uh, Mike bird has been on the podcast too many times to mention. He's written too many books that you have time to read, including the most recent book that he co-wrote with NT Right.

I've got a copy here in my hand called Jesus and the Powers, Christian political witness at an age of totalitarian terror and dysfunctional democracies. And this becomes the subject for our conversation. This is gonna be a very interesting conversation because I also wrote a book on politics recently called Exiles and I would say our books and our approach overlap a good deal. Mike Burton, I see a lot of things,

including kind of how we view politics, but we might overlap about 80% and there might be about 20 percent where we might come to different conclusions or have different approaches. And in this podcast conversation, we do try to tease out some of those differences. And Mike Byrd is just a super wise and winsome dude. And so it's always fun to have a good engaging dialogue with him. So please welcome back to the show for the umpteenth time, the one and only Dr. Michael

Byrd. show for the umpteenth time, the one and only Dr. Michael Bird. Welcome to the Algenra. Everybody. I'm here with my good friend, Mike bird. And we were having so much fun offline that y'all missed out on some fun back and forth that we were having. Uh, Mike, do you, do you want to lead with that statement? You just said, cause I was like, I was laughing so hard. I was like, I, I need to hit record and have you say that again. What's your perception of being my sort of a political ecclesiology? Well, having read your book, exiles and your book fights about Nonviolence and your general theological proclivities.

I've always said it's a bit like John MacArthur and Stanley Howe made a baby. A beautiful baby with great surfing technique, love for the church and people of all sexual expression and is committed to the authority of scripture and, and has a deep relationship with the church. But that's, I would say that's where your theological paternity seems to come from, given what I know about you. And I've known you for a long time, Preston. I know you've, I've known you for a long time. For those who don't know me and Mike go so far back to, it was early on in my PhD studies at Aberdeen when you were teaching at Highland Theological College up in the Highlands of Scotland,

Inverness, right? North of Inverness. Just in the little town of Dingwall, just north of Inverness. Dingwall, that's right. Yeah. I was just there a couple of years ago. What a beautiful area. And I don't remember, where do we first, was it via email or did you come out to Aberdeen or somehow? It may have been a doctoral seminar at Aberdeen or it may have been the British New Testament society. I remember going for a jog with you and Todd still, and it nearly killed me. I thought I was in pretty good shape. And then I went, then I went jogging with you two long legged gazelles. And I think it nearly killed me. I mean, I thought, I thought I was in good shape. I did a lot of jogging, but I remember

going, I'm going to go with these, these two American lads. And yeah, it was like, like trying to keep up with her. It was like a wombat trying to keep up with a gazelle. I think you said kangaroo. I, yeah. So we, I don't even remember. I think it was the British New Testament conference. I think that was, uh, I think that was the first time we connected and we kept in touch. The New Yorker family came out to Aberdeen once we had already established a relationship, hung out with us for a few days. Most people on this podcast do not know that one of the very first books that my name is on the cover of is a joint book we, you and I edited called the faith of Jesus Christ, where we collected a bunch of really world renowned scholars to discuss the debated Greek phrase, pistis Christu,

which in its most literal sense can be translated, faith of Christ or faith of Jesus Christ, depending on which verse we're talking about. And both you and I had an interest in that debated phrase. I don't even think it's in print anymore, is it? I mean, you gotta be a really scholarly nerd to buy that book. It might still be in print, but it's one of my most cited books because any time anyone

mentions the Pistis Christi debate in like a Galatians commentary or a Romans commentary, they always say, oh yeah, go see the essays in Bird and Sprinkle. So it was still considered the definitive collection of essays. The irony is, even after reading all the great essays in that book, even after reading the world-class scholars talk about, oh, is it faith in Christ or the faithfulness of Christ? I was still just as confused when I came out of it. I thought this book would settle the issue in my own mind, but no, I was still confused at the end.

It could go either way. Is that, I forget where you landed on that. Well, I mean, I tend to lean more towards the objective, Jennifer. So I think it's usually faith in Christ, but I still think there is an essential ambiguity in the Greek that, you know, because in Greek it's literally the faith, the pistis, as it pertains to the realm of Christ. That's basically what the genitive works, okay?is, as it pertains to the realm of Christ. That's basically what the genitive works, okay? The faith as it pertains to the realm of Christ, which I think in context means applying your faith in Christ or towards Christ, but it can also be a bit

more than that. And I think in Philippians 3, that's probably the one place where I would say the subjective genitive with the faithfulness of Christ might actually be a better translation based on the context and wider theological themes of the letter. Can you, for our audience that doesn't know Greek, knows nothing about what we're even talking about, can you give us a 30 to 60 second overview of this debate? Because it really is significant. It's one Greek phrase, but it occurs in some theologically rich passages. And it does make a difference. Well, let me put it that, you know, in Romans three 22, Paul talks about how the revelation of God's righteousness has been revealed, Pistis Christu, okay. Through faith as it

pertains to Christ. So is it revealed in our faith that we put in Christ? Does our faith reveal the righteousness of God? Or is the righteousness of God revealed in the faithfulness of Christ himself to his messianic vocation? I mean, you could have come up with good grammatical and theological reasons for going either way on that topic. So that's basically what it comes down to. It really is a matter of, is the emphasis on human agency, human faith in Jesus or divine agency the action and faithfulness of Christ? And there's been what, Mike? I mean, three, four dozen scholarly articles written on this, whole books have been written on it.

I'd say it'd be up like in a hundreds in a hundreds, the number of articles written on this going all the way back to what, the 1960s. You had a big famous monograph by Richard Hayes, one in the early 80s, and that kicked off a whole bunch of discussions. Tom Wright's very big on the subjective genitive, so is Doug Campbell. Whereas people like Jimmy Dunn and Francis Watson were not terribly keen on that. They went for the traditional objective generative that's faith in Christ. So yeah, it's a place where you really get your Greek Bible nerd on.

I mean, it is the UFC of Greek Bible language, exegesis, syntax, lexicography, and everything. I spent my entire or most of my seminary time, my independent research on this topic. And that was my original proposal for my PhD. And they kind of said, I think there's, you know, it's, it's been exhausted. So I didn't pursue that. But yeah, it was a few years of my life. We're for dedicated that question, man. Now I can't recall like how I did. I did argue for some, my, my, my listeners might laugh because, because obviously, uh, I pursued another option, a third way to interpret it.

The tertium, the, um, the fate that is through from, from acts three 18, if I remember correctly, like, you know, from the faith that is through G from, from acts three 18, if I remember correctly, like, you know, from the faith that is through him. Remember that little, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Ax 13. It was really, um, in, in Galatians, gosh, again, I'm going back 15 years. I literally haven't thought about it since. So, but in Galatians, what is it 3 23 now that faith has come this sort of like event, the faith event. Yeah. Like pistons as an event, which is, which is what you find in Galatians too, you know? Yeah. And so Glacier three 22 is one of the pistons, Christi phrases and Glacier three 23 says now that faith has come this kind of like cosmic eschatological event of faith, which transcends the kind of objective human faith in Jesus, subjective faithfulness of Christ as sort

of the faith event. I don't, I'm not going to take a bullet for it. It was more exploratory. I did hear that there was a recent article by my friend, Kevin Grasso, which I still haven't read, I think, sort of resurrects a kind of more third way view. But anyway, we didn't plan on talking about Piss This Christian, my word, I'm not prepared for this. What I am interested in is your recent book, Jesus and the Powers, Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies by the one and only NT Wright and Michael Byrd.

And I'm going to, I'm not going to ask you to comment on this because I know you're probably not allowed to, but in reading lots of stuff by Tom Wright and lots of stuff by Michael Byrd, I'm going to say my guess, I have nothing to verify this and Mike's probably going to plead the fifth as we say in America, but I think you contributed a lot to this. Yeah, but it's definitely a joint effort. As one who has co-authored a book myself, I know how it is. Yeah. Well, I can say in all honesty, it is definitely a joint effort.

This was not me ghost writing. Tom did have a lot of, he wrote the largest chapter of the book. I reworked some of his material and even the stuff that was just my own effort. Tom had a big hand in shaping that. But probably the last three chapters I would say, particularly stuff that's like the history

of political theology and the case for liberal democracy, that is definitely very much my own little hobby horse. Do you know me and me and Tom were just on the unbelievable podcast talking about the book and he actually even said that he said, yeah, the last few chapters were all Mike bird. I mean, he said that's so he he's very forthright about that. What led you to write this book? I'm sure there's a personal story, a sort of contemporary situation that motivated you to want to write this. And can you give us any backstory to how you and Tom

Wright collaborated on it? Yeah, it was a number of things. First of all, it was the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is the single biggest war that's come to Europe since the Second World War, that made us think, what is a Christian response to this crisis? If you're a Christian in either Russia or in Ukraine, what would your response to be to that? How would you live under Russian occupation if you were a Ukrainian Baptist? And there are lots of Ukrainian Baptists.

I also think about Christians in Taiwan who face a very real prospect of Chinese attack and Chinese invasion in the coming years. I was also thinking of Christians in Myanmar who live under a military dictatorship. And in Myanmar, Christian is the majority religion amongst the minority peoples, particularly among the Chin, the Karen and others. Then you've got the rise of Christian nationalism, which is obviously quite a big deal in the

US in some contexts, but it's also a global phenomenon as well. You find varieties of Christian nationalism in South America, even in Africa as well. And I'd also ask that you've got some progressive authoritarianism in other parts of the world. Like in Australia, you had what's called the Australian Capital Territory Government decided to seize control of a Catholic hospital because they would not perform abortions. Now, they said, oh, it's all about the rationalization of healthcare provisions. But the reason why this government seized control of Catholic hospital was purely punitive. It was to punish Catholics for their refusal to perform abortions.

That's an affront to a liberal democracy. Liberal democracy only works if you don't take punitive actions against religious groups because you don't like their religion. As we looked around the world, Ukraine, Taiwan, Myanmar, January 6, various other issues about religious freedom in all parts of the world. I spoke to Tom and we really realized this is a concerning time to be living in it. The world feels very combustible, like we're just waiting for an Archduke Ferdinand to be assassinated and then it's going to be on for young and old.

We began thinking about what would be a word of wisdom at this age? How do Christians think about of wisdom in this age? How do Christians think about the powers of this age? How do they think about government and the like, you know? And what's the spiritual dimension going on? And that's largely what we wanted to do, you know, how do Christians relate to the powers of their day in a way that is faithful and resourced in scripture and the Christian tradition.

Do you and Tom Wright resonate on your political views pretty much? Did you ever find yourself at odds with some of the things you're wrestling with? No, I think we're very similar. We haven't gone through a policy sheet and saying, come on, tell me, where do you stand on immigration? Where do you stand on monetary policy? We haven't gone through that. But we have a basic agreement that we are neither Christian

nationalists nor Anabaptists. So we don't think Christians should stay out of politics. But at the same time, we're definitely opposed to the idea that we've got to get our guy in charge, no matter what. And, I mean, we're also shaped by the Anglican tradition, which is certainly up for a positive relationship with state authorities, maybe in ways that might be a little bit allergic

or concerning even to some of our Baptist friends. So we think you can have a positive relationship with the state, even as we are very aware of the dangers of that cooperation, collaboration, even chaplaincy can end up making yourself simply the religious capital to a global empire. We're aware of the downside to close church and state cooperationations, but yeah, I think

we're on the same ballpark for the most part. Okay. Yeah, that's good. Yeah. I really enjoyed the book. I mean, there was, for people that haven't read it yet, it's not a hard read. It's not a long read and it does bounce back and forth, I would say really well between biblical studies going deep into the scriptures. As anybody know, anybody knows anything about Mike Byrd and Tom Wright, you're going to expect their biblical scholars, you're going to expect them to go to the text. But I was probably most impressed with how well versed you were. And again, I think this is probably a bit more of, well, not Tom not Tom's well-versed in it too. It was impressive how well-versed you were with the modern political discourse.

Globally speaking too, you didn't just talk about your Australian context, Tom didn't just talk about his British context. You have a very good knowledge of just kind of global politics as a whole. Is this something? I didn't know this about you. I just knew you as a biblical scholar. And then you got into theology. I'm like, oh, he can do theology too. And then with your latest book, I'm like, oh, he does like global politics too. Is this something that you've been interested in for your whole life or is this more of

a recent hobby horse? Well, it is. You got to remember my previous career was military intelligence. I was doing military intelligence during the early days of the global war on terror. Particularly in the late 90s, leading up to 9-11, that's when I was doing that sort of a thing. It was very eye-opening and that's where I got, shall we say, very geopolitically aware. And I always try to keep myself abreast of world news. I don't just read stories about Florida man killed by swan. I try to do a bunch of more global news feeds into what's going on, whether it's Central

Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa. I just try to keep myself more informed and also, you know, try to listen to and meet Christians from different parts of the world too and to, you know, hear from them what they're thinking, what's the issue there that they're being confronted by. Because one of the problems I find with a lot of American books on politics and theology, I find they're concerned with two things, which is Roe v. Wade and Trump. That's pretty much what most American books and political theology are about. Now, I understand because that's kind of like the dumpster fire in your front yard and you've got to kind of deal with that. But I would say that the whole spate of issues you've got to deal with

around the world as a Christian are far broader than just Roe v Wade and you know, the orange Jesus. The orange Jesus. Did you see as his new study Bible out or not study Bible? is, uh, whatever it was. It's a, Speaker 4. Yes. That was a, it's, it's a Bible translation that was authorized by the king of, by the king of England. May I add, Oh, very patriotic. I mean, I, I, I, I'm happy to go any direction you want to go in this conversation, Mike, if there's somewhere you want to go, you want to press into, I'm happy. I was my quick comment on Trump is obviously he's a dumpster fire. Right? I mean, it's just, it's what I don't understand is the shock. Like when that came

out, I kind of chuckled says, well, obviously he's going to, you know, come out with his Bible. It's what people, when people are shocked about it, I'm like, what are you shocked? Like you've, he's been around for almost a decade now. Like, you know, he's going to manipulate religion to serve his power. Like what, what, what American leader at least doesn't do that on some level. Like it's just kind of, just, I kind of yawn, roll my eyes and say, this is just the way like the empire does politics. Like it's not shocking. It's, it's horrific and it's scandalous and idolatrous and anybody

actually buys into it needs to get their head checked. But like, it's not shocking. And like, I didn't even tweet. I was like, oh, that's not surprising, you know. And it's not innovative. There's been similar Bibles as well. Jerry Falwell had his own like Patriots Bible or something. Zondervan was going to publish one like that, but because of the outcry, they decided not to. So it's not even an original idea. There's been a lot of culturally nominal American Patriots Bible is not a big innovation

on the Bible market by any stretch. I have a question for you personally. As you pay attention to global politics, how do you determine which sources to trust? I think this is a massive part of the conversation around various opinions around politics as a whole, is which sources are you reading? And especially in the day and age with,

I mean, post internet, social media, all the independent like no longer are there like three new sources that we're all paying attention to now. Like I only watch like independent nonpartisan sources. And when I, when I peek into this, you know, kind of right-wing sources, left-wing sources, I'm like, Oh, are we even talking about the same events? Because I'm bringing people that will describe the same thing in a completely different way.

And then you times out by 1,000. And it's like, we're all just reading different sources. And it's like, we're just living in all these parallel universes. So how do you determine which sources to trust these days? Yeah, I mean, I think it's good to have a wide diet, a varied diet of media outlets. If your only source for information is either Fox

or MSNBC, I guarantee you are getting a very one-sided story on the news. There's a lot of news outlets I don't like, but I still read a bit of them anyway. Like, I mean, you know, like The Guardian is a very left wing sort of British thing, very identitarian. I don't like a lot of it, but I read it because, you know, I want to get another perspective on the news or even, you know, I do read a little bit of Fox News or we have a bit of Sky News in Australia, which is kind of similar. I do read that too.

Every now and again, I think they do offer a good insight or a good critique of some particular perspective. But I think you've got to read widely because if you just live inside the one media bubble, what you're getting is not news, you're getting tribal propaganda. And that can be left wing or right wing. So I think the best antidote for that is a varied diet of news sources. But there's also a number of other things. There's a good thing I listen to, or sorry, not listen to, but read, which is called ground.news, which gives you a lot of news and it actually shows you the biases in the reporting on any given issue.

So it can show you which news outlets are reporting on something and where they sit on a broad spectrum. So ground.news, I think is a very good one because that kind of gives you the... It kind of tells you what the bias is of different media outlets on the topic. But for me, I'd consider myself more of a Wall Street Journal type of a guy. I find that places like that are the more sensible outlets to get my news. If you read the New York Post, you're getting something very right-wing. If you read the New York Times, you're getting something very left-wing.

You can always aim for something that seems a bit more centrist and a little bit more impartial, because that's what journalism should be, independent and impartial, facts-based, differentiating the facts from the editorial commentary. But yeah, it's something that's becoming harder in this day and age because the more partisan and the more extreme you are, the more clicks, views, likes, and shares you get. So we have an economy of journalism that is really much premised on the idea of monetary nonsense for profit.

And it can make it hard to do good journalism in that context. So yeah, find some good journalistic, a variety of journalistic outlets and take out a subscription. Yeah, that's good. That's good. Yeah. I typically try these days, I try to listen to more long form independent outlets that aren't kind of big corporate entities, you know, and it kind of depends on the issue. Like I've got a series of journalists that I found to be responsible and thorough when

it comes to like foreign policy. They're not going to parrot the talking points of the left or right. And every now and then I'll do a deep dive kind of my own fact checking on stuff. And if a certain journalists, you know, if, if most of the time when I do that, it kind of checks out, I'm like, yeah, I think they're actually being really honest here. Then, then I tend to trust that person. There's other outlets. And when I do a deep dive, you know, every now and then I'll kind of, okay, let me, let me spend a few hours kind of looking into something. And it's like, yeah, it's just, it's clear, just propaganda. It's one

side of it. You just can't trust the headlines by politicized media. And that makes it frustrating. Cause it's like, if this is your full-time job, then what are you going to do? You know, either you just have to pick a side and just say, all right, I'm all in on this side. Or you just kind of- That's what a lot of people do. Sadly, they just pick a side and go all in. And then they become, they then become a distributor of that sort of perspective. And that's the sad thing. And the journalists need to be loyal to the truth and to their... And they need to be loyal to the truth and faithful and responsible to their readers.

But sadly, a lot of media consumers are now loyal to a particular outlet because of its tribal brand. And I think that's a very dangerous thing in our information age. And good grief, imagine what AI is going to do. You can now pretty much fabricate any event. You can fabricate images, voices, you name it, you can fake it now. I mean, that's, it's just going to get even worse. Man, we're getting off the rails here. Let's get into your book. I took a lot of notes

in your book and like you, I read a lot of books and I'm kind of thinking like, what, what, what did I, I remember most of the time I was amen in it. Sometimes I was like, is this true? And other times I was like, I'm not sure I agree with this. So here's one statement. This comes on page 28. You said, and I don't know if this is so crucial to your argument that it's worth even highlighting, but it's just kind of the first time I was like, is this actually true? You say most people in today's world recognize as noble. The idea is that we should love our enemies, that the strong should protect a week, that it is better to suffer evil than to do

evil. People in the West treat such things as self-evident moral facts. And I, and I just have a look, I wrote next to, I'm like, really? Question mark, question mark. Like is this is do most people in the West think it's a moral good that we should love our enemies? Cause as I look around, I see a whole lot of hate towards enemy, whether it's rhetoric on social media or what's going on in Israel, Palestine or Russia, Ukraine, or people that even disagree on what's going on there. I mean, it's, it's a, I don't know if it's self-evident that loving your enemies is kind of a moral good, Mike, do you want to defend that statement? Well, I think if you sat down with someone and said, if you've got a work colleague or

an uncle or a next door neighbor who you disagree with vigorously on say politics, would you rather convert them or kill them? I think most people would say they'd rather convert them to their own political cause. You know, there's always been argy-bargy in politics, you know, even in the first parliaments in Britain, or if you look at the founding fathers, they were talking some serious smack about one another. But they were all formed by the Christian tradition that we're meant to sort our differences out politically rather than at the point of a gun or at the edge of a sword. So that's what I would take that to mean. Yeah. Politics is volatile,

dirty, bit rancorous and highly polemical. But politics is where we solve our differences, not on the dueling ground. I mean, I guess between those options, do we solve our differences or kill each other? Surely people wouldn't say necessarily kill each other, but I don't know. It doesn't seem in my anecdotal experience that people would be naturally prone to love their enemies again. Well, it is becoming more foreign. It is becoming a more foreign idea, but for, you know, but the idea of love of enemy of love of enemy was one of the things that has influenced things like the way we treat our prisoners of war. We don't when we, if it's America, Australia, or wherever, the way we treat prisoners of

war is according to the laws of armed conflict, which is Geneva Conventions, very specific guidelines what you can and can't do to prisoners of war is according to the laws of armed conflict, which is, you know, Geneva conventions, very specific guidelines, what you can and can't do to prisoners of war. Now, you know, if you go to, say, the Mongols or the Arab conquests, there are no, there is nothing. You know, once you've won, you get to do whatever the heck you want to the losers. But that's in the West, that's not been our ideology because I think we've been shaped by the Christian tradition with its focus on love of enemies. Yeah, I don't know if Guantanamo Bay...

Well, no, it is. It is because of the moral outrage about it. The moral outrage about Guantanamo Bay proves my point. We should be better than this. We should not be treating our adversaries in this way. So you have a tension between the moral outrage versus what is actually happening in practice. So you're tapping into when the authorities do something that is not loving your enemy, you know, it's torturing your enemies, the fact that there is a moral outrage kind of justifies your point. Is that what I hear you saying? Yeah, I think that's exactly it. Yeah, you will get some hotheads or some people who say, no, I do want some revenge on my enemies. I do want to be, you know, I do want to forget the, you

know, let's throw out the rules about torture and let's just get medieval on these guys. But that's where you need either in a military setting, you have a legal officer or you have a, you know, or someone who's the voice of conscience and reason who says, no, that's not how we would do it. You know, or as we would say in the Commonwealth countries, we kill the King's enemies in a legal and proper fashion. Because you can be charged in the Australian military with illegally killing the King's enemies. There are ways that we conduct warfare and ways

that we don't. Yeah. I can see that. I could see that. Maybe think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I don't want to make too much out of it. Me. So me personally, I found myself, you know, 70, 80% love in your book. And I think you would say the same thing about my book, which

for my audience, Mike Michael bird and Michael bird endorsed my book, excels, and then sent me a two page critique of it attached, attached to your endorsement, which it's typical of academics. Like we could say, this is a good book. It needs to be out there. Here's all the reasons why I think it's, where I disagree with it. Which I, you gave me a reading list and I went and read at least half of the stuff you told me to read.

I read Jamie Smith, I slugged my way through O'Donovan, which I've dabbled in before and another people who have been more critical of a more Anabaptist view. And I learned a lot from Jamie Smith. His Awaiting the King was really good, and he helped interpret Oliver Donovan to me. I guess my one... I'm going to have several things where I'm still not quite convinced of his argument for, say, more government involvement. And to be clear, I never said Christians categorically shouldn't be involved in the government. I probably left the scent of suspicion,

the scent of caution towards that, but I didn't count it. That wasn't any main argument of mine. So I'm still not sure exactly where I would land on that. My one critique of Jamie Smith and maybe some things in your book is I just, I do wonder if it's taking seriously a robust theology of empire, which I think there is, I think the Bible speaks a lot on empire. And I guess between the four or so empires that the Bible addresses fairly significantly, but even just even the empire as a concept, not a specific empire, Persia,

Babylon, Rome, but just the way the book of Revelation treats the Roman Empire as Babylon and Babylon as this sort of transcendent concept that Christians should be extremely nervous about. Whenever I hear Christian political theologians talk more positively about the government or Christian involvement, all of a sudden the quotations from the Book of Revelation seem to disappear. And I would just love to see them put their political viewpoint that has a very positive view of the government, or at least a more neutral view, in conversation with the And I would just love to see them put their political viewpoint that has a very positive view of the government, or at least a more neutral view, in conversation with the book of Revelation.

So yeah, I'm kind of, it's a long question. Do you want to? Yeah. Well, Preston, let me affirm the point. The dissonance you're feeling, I think, is completely justified. What I find when people's preferred party is in power, they love Romans 13. So when my guy's in power, I'm all about Romans 13, submit to governing authorities. But when the other guy is in power, I'm all about Revelation 13. You know, there's an evil beast burning

to the ground. So when my guy's in power, it's Romans 13. When it's the other guy's in power, it's Revelation 13. Okay. So the other guys in power, it's Revelation 13. So I think you're right. The New Testament assumes a context where there is a malicious predatory power. And I think Paul is often telling people to keep their head below the radar, just focus on your local congregation. You're not there to convert the world in one sense. Even speaking truth to power is something that only happens spasmodically.

You could say that. There is a problem which the New Testament did not envisage. What do you do when the beast gets converted and when the empire, the emperor wants to lay its kingdom at the foot of the cross, what do you do next? Can you simply dismantle the whole apparatus of Empire? Now, whether we're talking about the Roman Empire, the British Empire, American global influence today. And can I say as well that the Bible's view of empire totally is not completely negative, while the Roman Empire, I think, is treated generally negatively, and so is Assyrian Babylon. But here's the thing, Preston, in the Old Testament, the Persian Empire always seems

to be treated very positively, going back to Cyrus. Or if you look a lot of the prophetic literature written during the Persian period, like Ezra Nehemiah, it tends to have a positive view of the Persian Empire as a view of divine providence. Now, maybe Persia is the exception that proves the rule, where empire is normally bad. But even if you look at the old Israelite kingdom, where you've got this sort of nation that's been put together and largely been created out of both Exodus and conquest. You have, I think, a more morally opaque and morally complex picture of empire rather than just Jesus good and empire bad.

I think there's just far more levels of complexity going on there. But the Bible aside, what do we do with the situation today when we have our own empires, be they the post-British Empire or the Pax Americana that we seem to live under? I think Christians have historically been both the sponsors of empire, provided religious capital to it in bad ways, but Christians have also, I think, always been aware of the potential dangers of empire. And I think Christians have always been morally ambivalent about their own empires. I think you see that very particularly in the British tradition. So let me give you an example.

Let me give you an example how I think the British Empire was different to the other empires of the world. Now as you know the British invaded or should say took over India. Okay, the East India Company which is kind of like the equivalent of Google taking over New Zealand. Okay, it's something along those lines and doing all sorts of nasty things. Now the reason the English could do this is because they were given the opportunity by elites within Indian society. They were financed in their work by Indian bankers and they did it mostly using Indian

troops. Okay, but however it is, they came to power. They came to power because there was a vacuum. The Mughal dynasty had crumbled and as a result, the Persians came in and they looted, murdered, raped, pillaged, took everything out of Delhi, out of all the wealth of India, took it back to Persia. Then the Afghan warlords from the north, they came down to Delhi, they did the same thing, looted, pillaged. Marathas came down from came down to Delhi, they did the same thing, looted, pillaged.

Marathas came down from the south, they kind of did the same thing. So the Mughal Empire had crumbled and the British went in and they created something else. And what they created was also based on corruption, exploitation, they did nothing to stop a massive famine. The British did evil and terrible things in India, just like the Persians, the Afghans, the Marathas. But here's the key difference. Here's the key difference. Back in the United Kingdom, when the reports came in of what the East India Company was doing in India, the East India Company was put on trial in the House of Lords.

You had people like Edmund Burke prosecuting the case against the East India Company for the crimes against the people, the various human rights abuses, how they enriched themselves by pauperizing the population. So here's the difference. When the Persians came back from India with all the loot and slaves they took, there was no Edmund Burke there who said, oh my gosh, I can't believe what the Shah has done. This is terrible stuff. Same for the Afghan warlords.

There was no one back in Kabul saying, oh my good grief, what have you people been doing in India? You know, all of this violence and terrible thing, all the marathas. The British were the only ones who literally put themselves on trial because of the crimes of their empire. That I think is the big difference between a Christianized empire and the other empires, the one, and we could give this the technical name, Oikophobia. We're capable of critiquing the abuses of our own house because we've been shaped by the Christian tradition.

Man did. I mean, that's a lot. And I, I know almost nothing about, uh, the British empire and its takeover of India. What would be, so your main, just to understand your main point is that it was the Christian influence in the British empire that caused the, they added a sort of moral compass to the British empire and caused it to address its own abuses of its empire? Exactly. That's precisely what I'm saying. I should point out, I'm kind of riffing off a bit of Tom Holland here because that's his same point. He's always pointed out the British were always morally ambivalent about their own empire. And that ambivalence was all the way through. So you can get horrible massacres in places like Kenya as well, like in the 1950s.

Horrible massacres by British forces there. But then you get the clergy in Kenya riding back to India or missionaries, sorry, riding back to Britain or missionaries, sorry, riding back to Britain, to England, saying, do you have any idea what Her Majesty's forces are doing out here? It's terrible and that leads to investigations and things. That often takes time. But there was a sense in which the clergy in South Africa or even in Australia, in New Zealand, were often the conscience, the spies, the people who would report back to the authorities, to the media back home,

what was happening out in all these various colonies. And it did create a sense of moral outrage. Now again, that does not excuse the abuses of empire saying, oh, don't worry, we've got the morality police with us. But it goes to show even in the conduct of empire, there was a moral texture of it that you do not find in other empires of the world because they were not shaped by the Christian tradition.

So the Shah of Persia couldn't care less about what people thought of his escapades in Delhi and the like. Or, you know, all the Mongols and their conquests or the Arabs or the Aztecs or the Incas. They had no moral ambivalence about their own imperial violence. That moral ambivalence is because we've been shaped by the Christian tradition. Okay. So that's helpful, Mike. And I'm a big fan of understanding before trying to refute. So I might spend most of this podcast just trying to understand what you're saying and think through it more without trying to push back out of my ignorance. So you would say, I guess, well, my question, and this is a genuine question, not a pushback

question necessarily. Does the church, does the Christian moral compass need to be part of the empire to speak truth to power in such a way that it could pull back the tide on the evils of the empire? I'm thinking of, yeah. I mean, what, what, just an example, more in my context is, you know, Dorothy Day, Dorothy Day is a Christian anarchist who believed, didn't vote, wasn't involved in the government and did, I mean, loads of stuff toward, against injustices in, in the American culture from the perspective of this really radical separation from the state. I would say, I mean, we could talk about MLK.

Again, these are examples. I'm not an expert. I know a little bit about these kind of incidences where MLK, I feel like people would kind of like to hijack his story from different perspectives. Some say he spoke truth to power from a place of distance from the empire. Other people say, no, you know, he like even mentioned that he hung out with LBJ and he kind of got friendly. He kind of worked through the political system. I will say this though, when he started to speak out against Vietnam war, they killed

him and it's pretty sure that the CIA killed MLK. So it's like, yeah, the empire might listen when it's politically expedient, but don't push it too far, man. So it's like, yeah, the empire might listen when it's politically expedient, but don't push it too far, man. Cause we, we, you know, we're not gonna, we're not gonna pal the knee to you. So, um, I dunno, man, I, I, again, trying to understand you. So you would say it's, there's enough historical examples of the church being somewhat, let's say, involved in the empire in order to pull back the tide on evil that the empire would naturally do without the Christian witness? Would that be a good summary of- Matthew 14.15

Oh, and even to raise the question, should we even have an empire? Certainly after the second world war, that was very much, I think, the thinking in the United Kingdom, and partly because it was just too expensive to run one. Running the empire was expensive, so let's settle these colonies in Africa and Asia free. That was one part of it. But I think there was a moral revolution saying, why are we even in the business of empire in the first place? So I do think that comes up now you can certainly make those critiques

You know in a in a church in a faith community that is outside the state or not in a preferential Arrangement with the state so in the United Kingdom the Church of England is an established church I wouldn't call it a state church in the sense that it's a department of the state, but it is an established church and does have a historical and amicable relationship with the state generally. And you can offer those critiques from a whole bunch of different vantage points. But it also means Christians from different vantage points, whether you're Anglican, Methodist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, whatever, they can also participate

in political discourse. They can write an editorial in the Times or in the Guardian. They can run for public office. They can be appointed to the House of Lords. They can participate in the system, whether they're in a established church or a non-established church, that they can all influence the game and be the voice of conscience. And they largely work with their moral and spiritual authority, not based on the authority of money or power or anything like that. money or power or anything like that? Can a Christian, again, genuine question, good fifth question, can a Christian or slash the church be involved in the empire without the power of the empire co-opting the Christian witness?

I'm trying to think of the best, most concise way to say it. But I think, does that, does that make sense? Like I, I, and this might be more my cynicism. I don't know if I could give loads of evidence to justify this. It's, it's more of my sort of anecdotal strong hunch that the empire will listen to the Christian voice in as much as it's, it's, as it's expedient for the empire to maintain power right now. You know, in America, this is going to make some people mad that it's theient for the empire to maintain power. Right now, in America, this is going to make some people mad that it's the Algenra, so I can't go through an episode without making some people mad. Well, the international courts have determined in a 15 to 2 vote that what's going on in

Gaza is a plausible genocide. That's just the legal language that's being used. I've read through the entire 84 page report by South Africa and I would agree based on my very limited knowledge that it is plausible. I'm not saying definitive but plausible. Like there's, I mean, 15 pages of genocidal rhetoric from all the top leaders of Israel and the evidence, the aftermath. And Biden keeps sending billions of dollars, just sent over 1800, 2000 pound bombs, which is designed not to target individuals, you know, or just getting her moss, you know, sometimes, you know, it's designed to level whole buildings and neighborhoods and you know, so the United States government is one of the main funders of this, again, the legal

terminology, legal, plausible genocide. My, and there's a whole Israel lobby, there's loads of money and power. And there's so much at the top wrapped up into why this is happening. My hunch is the only reason that the Biden administration will reverse its funding of a plausible genocide, is if it will keep him in power. Right now, there is more, the tides have turned, so more than 50% of the population, and I think, I wanna say, don't quote me on this, but it's maybe 75% of Democrats

are against Israel's response. It could cost him the election. I think when he and his administration realizes like this is going to cost this election, we need to pull back on this whole plausible genocide thing. I think then they might, but I'm like, but yeah, yeah, you're, you're sort of mortal compass is really when it's politically expedient for you. I don't even, I mean, we can get into Russia, Ukraine. That's a whole, that's a whole different situation. Maybe we shouldn't even get into that. But, so in as much as the church can have an influence in the moral direction of the empire, I am

suspicious about the lasting effects of that. And I'm nervous about how the church can be kind of caught up in the power mongering power pursuit of the empire itself. Is that making sense, Mike? And again, I, I I'm trying to get is, okay. Well, let me, let me give you two examples. Imagine you have been pressed and you have been appointed as the Israeli ambassador to Israel. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken says, okay, Preston, here's what I want you to do. I want you to go on, do a press conference, and I want you to tell people that there's no genocide going on. The Israelis just a little bit missing a few targets, but I want you to go on so

there's nothing because if they find out about it back home, it's going to be bad for us. Now if you're a good being the good Christian man you are, you can say, look, I'm normally I want good positive relationships with Israel and all that sort of thing, but you may say this is crossing a moral line and you would be within your right to resign, and then to write an op-ed in the New York Times saying why you resigned as the American ambassador to Israel because we are sanctioning. So I think you can serve faithfully in the government,

you can even wrestle with, shall we say, levels of moral ambiguity. Because sometimes it's not always crystal clear. But you could come to a point of clarity and say, I refuse to be part of this machine. I'm all for good relations between America and Israel. But I think we're now on the team. And a number of diplomats have actually done that.

A number of people in the State Department, I believe, have resigned. I don't know whether they in the State Department, I believe, have resigned, whether they're Christian or not, but on principles. Even if you work in government, whether it's as a diplomat, a military chaplain, or in any role, there can come a point where you say, no, on this issue, I will not. Here's my phone number. Give me a call when we're no longer supporting genocide in Gaza, or we're no longer selling arms in Nicaragua, or whatever the cause du

jour happens to be. It's not like once in, all in forever. You are capable of making protests within, and precisely because you are in, and because you have a history of working hard to do good what is right, working for good government. When you do leave and when you do leave on the basis of conscience, it becomes all the more powerful because you're showing that you're not a political tribal shill, you are generally one who can sit above the table of political partisan activities.

Wow, that's helpful. Yeah, that's good. Well, actually, Christy, can I ask you a question? Can I ask you a question? Sure. I want to ask you a question. This is where you made a bit on your exile's book. And maybe this question will help you understand where I'm coming from.

Now, I understand you want to be the prophet speaking truth to power, but here's my two questions for you. What do you do if the power does not listen? And even worse, what do you do when the power does listen to the prophet? What do you do then? So if you want to speak truth to power, if the power doesn't listen, what do you do next? Do you engage in civil disobedience, uncivil disobedience? And if the power doesn't listen, what do you do next? Do you engage in civil disobedience, uncivil disobedience? And if the power then listens and says, you know what, Preston, you are absolutely right. You know, what's going on is Gaza is terrible. We want you to head a delegation to, you know, invest, talk to, you know, various agencies and organize, find out what's

really happening and make a recommendation about what we should do. So what, what do you do if the power doesn't listen and what do you do when they do listen? And this, this is, this I think is the weakness of the anabaptist view. So you tell me at Preston, how would you respond to that? I would be profoundly cynical whether that second option would ever be a reality. Um, I think I'd be shot or thrown in prison with Julian Assange when, when he starts exposing the, the war crimes that the military industrial complex has, has done. Um, uh, or maybe I'd be thrown in prison with, you know, bill Clinton's good friend, Jeffrey Epstein and so many other elites at the top.

Yeah. If I say, Hey, I think we should love our enemies, forgive those who have wronged us. I think we should care for the poor. And I think we should use, I think we should give the middle finger to anybody with power and money that wants to influence political decisions. Like if I actually embodied a Christian value system in my speech and my being, I don't think the empire, I don't think Babylon's actually going to listen to me. You're going to say, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But what if they do? Okay. I think great. Yeah. I, I, I, again, I, I'm not, I think one of the mistakes and I don't claim to be an abaptist. I, I, I, again, I, I'm not, I think one of the mistakes, and I don't claim to be an Anabaptist. I've made a lot of Anabaptist friends. I've never even been to an Anabaptist church. I'm not, wasn't raised in an Anabaptist. Like, I don't have, it's really my ex Jesus that has got me to a place that seems to make a lot of Anabaptists happy. So, I don't have like a

ecclesiological kind of commitment to that position. I think if the church embodies the political ethic in economics, in health, in immigration, in enemy love, in nonviolence, and all these things, that it has the ability and power to influence society without necessarily, power to influence society without necessarily, I'm going to leave that door open, not necessarily getting involved in sort of the political system. Again, I've never said I'm 100% against all Christians always, you know, never being involved. I'm just, I think that we can accomplish good in society by being the church if we actually are being the church. So so you're so, so what happens if the, if, if Babylon says, okay, we're actually going to listen to you. Sure. Yeah. Then stop sending money to Israel. I it's, you know, stop. Let's take our, what is it? Trillion dollar military budget and let's you'll, you'll like this.

Right. And let's throw that into healthcare. I don't know. Like a bunch of people were hopping the border, you know, and coming into America, I'm like, okay, great. So we can save money on mission trips. And instead of going and spending money on airfare to go witness to people overseas, they're coming over here. So let's the body of the kingdom be gone to them. Like I, I just, I think my, if I take a robust kingdom ethic on all these political issues, I just, I I'm suspicious about whether the powers to be will genuinely listen to me. What was the first out of your question though? It's when you speak truth to power and they... The first part is what do you do if the powers don't listen? Would you be prepared to run for office? Okay, would you want to be like the William Wilberforce and say, you know,

I'm going to get elected to parliament and I'm going to bring universal health care to America or, you know, something like that. Or I'm going to stop us in doing these silly wars in all these different parts of the world that have nothing more than a mass expenditure and loss of steel and loss of blood and everything. So I mean, would you get the point like they won't listen, so I'm going to run for Congress, for the Senate, for president, for governor, or something like that, or for your local council. That's one thing. Do you get the point where I need, someone needs to run to be an alternative to these, to these, to the bi-party, to the two party system. How is that different than Christian nationalism? Cause that's exactly what all our Christian

nationalist friends would say, right? We need to get good Christian people into, I mean, that's their whole project. Isn't that their whole project? If We need to get good Christian people into, I mean, that's their whole project. Isn't that their whole project? If they want to get Christians in positions of political power so that we can make this place more Christian like, well, at what, at one level it is, they want to get Christians elected to power, but they then want to do two things. They want to impose a particular version of Christianity, not, not, I'm not talking CS Lewis, mere Christianity, but they want to impose a particular version of Christianity, not talking CS Lewis mere Christianity, but they want to impose a particular version and vision of Christianity, one that is often

welded to militarism, empire, and there's also American centric as well. So it's also combined not just with a sort of, you know, a Christian aspect, but it's also very much America first. America is the chosen nation. So there's a kind of American mythology that's in there as well. And I would also add the other big differences. They also want to make sure that no one else can get into government ever again besides them.

So, you know, let's get into power and let's be Christian, but our type of Christian, let's make it American centric because America is the new Israel and let's make sure we never ever lose another election. Okay. So I can say, okay, so there's some differences there. I, yeah, cause you have a quote here to actually, you might've answered my question on page 77, where my comment is, how is this not Christian nationalism? Where you say, the redeeming of human institutions such as government, the curation of creation, making them good, making them fit for their divinely called purposes, this prepares for the kingdom ahead of the ultimate unveiling of God the Father's

rule in Jesus with His church. when everything is put under Jesus, and we, the church, shall reign with Him over the healed and holy world." To me, yeah, in passing, when I read that, I was like, that sounds similar to what I hear Christian nationalists say, but I think your distinction of, and I get it, Christian nationalism can be defined very differently. I listened to your debate with Stephen Wolf, by the way, it was really interesting. Has this sort of mythology of America as a Christian nation, the New Israel, has a deeper, deeper, a deeper rooted mythology that's kind of driving the whole project? Is that what you would say is the biggest difference between that and what you're suggesting that it is, it can be a

good for Christians to be in places of political power to reform Babylon. Yeah, I mean, if a Christian just wants to make government to operate good the way it was intended, I believe that is a redemptive thing. So, you know, government that operates in a good way, I think, is doing a Christian vocation in the political realm. So I would say that's fine. That doesn't have to be part of a nationalistic project or a certain mythology. Christians are called to see government operating the way God intended for a common good, and even, I would say, including with the consensus of the people. I think a fundamental underlying theological commitment on your part is that government

is a sort of post-lapsarian, post-fall creation by God that's designed for good that because of the fall can fall into evil. But as an institution, it is a good of creation. Whereas, I'm not honestly, I'm still thinking through that, Mike. I'm not quite convinced of that position, but I think that that, would that be an accurate description of your assumption about government? I think you said that in the book. Yeah. I think you could say government is part of the fall or it's either both an expression of the fall, the way it's sometimes run run but also it's there to stop human wickedness

Corruption and injustice. I mean, that's one of the read Romans 13. That's one of the primary functions of government is to administer justice and that should be Modeled on based on God's concern for justice across the whole earth. So I Think government is fundamentally necessary to restrain human evil. If you don't believe me, just look at Haiti right now, where there is no functioning government in Haiti. It's really just being ruled by gangs.

So as bad as bureaucracy is, the anarchy of lawlessness and gangland violence. I think DMV starts to look pretty darn good after a while. I guess I would say, I think our White House has enough gangsters in it that it doesn't look like Haiti. It's a different form of gangsterism, but yeah. Now I see that, man. And I guess I don't have enough. Yeah, it's something I need to

keep thinking through. Yeah. And again, I don't have a firm position on is there, I mean, Wilbur first is a classic example. I know you keep bringing him up. And there's other examples of, of, of where we can look back and say, because a Christian was involved in the government, there was good that was accomplished that might not have otherwise been accomplished had this Christian not been in that position of political power. That'd be a good summary of what you're saying. Yeah. I think that's a good summary.

There are lots of examples of Christians being a positive influence on government for the better. And you can find that in all different parts of the world. Do you think the church could have, in Britain, I don't, again, I know nothing about British history. Do you think the Christian church could have accomplished what Wilberforce accomplished without, say Wilberforce never existed, there was no Christians in political power. If the church was actually being the church, could it have accomplished what Wilberforce helped accomplish, do you think? It's kind of a theoretical question. I think there would have been another Wilberforce.

I think there would have been another, someone else I think would have stood up because in British society, there was a very big abolitionist movement. So I think if it was not going to be Wilberforce, someone else would have stepped up. Remember, Wilberforce did have parliamentary supporters. He had a support base inside politics and outside of politics. So I think it was going to happen. But again, you've got to appreciate how radical this really was. Because when the British said to the Kingdom of Morocco,

guess what guys, you people are going to stop doing slavery now, or we're going to blockade your ports in North Africa. The King of Morocco thought they were insane. But everyone has slavery like the Arabs, the Ottomans, the Byzantines, the Romans, the Greeks, the whole Mediterranean world had had slavery. The Brits come along with their imperial power and say, we're shutting that down, boys.

They thought it was insane. Once their ports got blockaded, then the King of Morocco said, you know what, I guess we're quitting slavery. Then they begin to reinterpret Islamic tradition to justify the end of slavery. The Brits acted, you have to admit, and this is what historians know, they acted fairly unilaterally on this crazy idea of shutting down the transatlantic slave trade. I mean, it wasn't a fan of the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Spanish. They were not on board with the British initially. The British really did go this alone in the 18th century when they

shut down the transatlantic slave trade. That's interesting. Your knowledge of all these different issues, man. I don't know when you sleep, but you don't really sleep. You sleep about four hours a day and spend the rest of your time reading books on every single topic that's out there, which is why I appreciate everything you write, man. It's always so thoroughly researched and thought provoking. Yeah. You raise good points. And again, I don't have a strong pushback necessarily. I guess I just, I just do want to raise the question. Can the church accomplish good in society without being entangled with the governing authorities? And I think you would say it's probably a both. Like

yeah, do all that, be the church. And also it wouldn't hurt to have people involved in the government authorities. How do you, do you think the author of the book of revelation would have been on board with your view or how do you square it with? And I, I would, I don't know if I agree with you on the whole Persian empire thing. I mean, Daniel and revelation both call it a beast and the kingdom of God and Daniel two will come in and crush these empire. Like it was a benevolent dictator and it funded the temple and stuff, but it was, it was still the beast. I think at the end of the day, like, I don't, I don't know if I would say the Bible speaks positively about the Persian empire less negatively, maybe about, but then Babylon, Assyrian in Rome. But yeah, I don't

know. Like the, the,'t know. Like does the author, the revelation, is it simply because the church didn't have the ability to kind of be involved in the empire? Like there was such a minority persecuted group or yeah. How do you square your view with revelation? Well, I would say revelation, you've got an intense period of persecution, very much at the epicenter of the church's failure to participate in the imperial cults of Asia Minor. So, you're going to get a very obvious pessimistic view of idolatry when it's forged together with imperial power and violence and they're opposed to the people of the Messiah. But again, in

our biblical theology, that's not the only picture we get, okay? So, you know, when Paul and Barnabas are on Cyprus and the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, seems to come to faith, what do you do then? Does he resign from his post and join the believers in Cyprus or does he go back to Rome and join the church there? What do you do with the Sergius Paulus when he comes to faith? Or do you remember when Paul is on trial before Agrippa II and Agrippa says, look, dude, you are out of your mind. Are you trying to make me a Christian? And what if Paul succeeded? What if Agrippa II did become a Christian? What would that mean for his kingdom? What would that mean for the subjects? Those are not on the lips or on the mind or the text of the book of Revelation because

it's dealing with the monster that's chasing the people. Okay. But there are a wider way of issues in the New Testament that we've, I think we've got to look at, not as a correction to what's in Revelation, but another part of the story of the complexity of church-state relationships. Yeah, that's good. I do think, I mean, I'm going to let you go in a second, man. I promise. We really don't hear about the post-conversion life of the centurion and Matthew, hey, Sergius Paulus and what is it, Acts 13 or 16, 15, 14, actually Acts 14, and other people who are part of the empire who get saved. We just don't hear about the post. What we know about what it entailed to be part of the political

entity of the Roman Empire, I just don't think they could have maintained their... Once they start giving their allegiance to Jesus and renouncing their allegiance to Caesar and stop participating in pagan practice, I just don't think they would be able to be a legitimate Christian and maintain their political position in the first century. Now, granted though, even if you agree with that on a historical level, we can't map that on every modern day situation. So, I don't even know if that's... It doesn't support either point, I think. The centurion was saved. So being a centurion is fine. Being a centurion, you're basically a pagan priest. In all the pagan rituals you'd be involved in, there's no way he could have been a genuine Gelous follower, maintain that kind

of discipleship and kept his centurion position, renouncing his allegiance to Caesar. That's... Well, I would say this. Jill Dingly you know, Jillian the Apostate, you know, after you get Constantine and you get Jillian the Apostate, who tried to change the Roman Empire from Christian back to pagan, he had a lot of Christian officers and soldiers in his army who for reasons I don't understand, went along with it. So even Julian the Apostate, who's trying to de-Christianize the Empire, still had a lot of Christians involved at all levels because by then the Christianization of the Empire was in full swing. And so much so, I think, Julian the Apostate would have been unable, I think, to reverse it.

It's kind of like the tsunami has come over the bank and shooting arrows at it is not going to stop it. But he had a good crack. Maybe if he lived longer than he did, he only ruled for four years. Maybe he would have done more. But yeah, Christians under Julian the Apostate, I think, did live in an ambiguous space where they had an anti-Christian empire, an anti-Christian emperor, but they were themselves Christian. They were working in the administration.

I think it would have been similar in other periods. There was always going to be something you had to negotiate in the Roman Empire. Let me give you one example. In Rome in the second century, there was a particular pope, I can't remember his name, who had a problem. The problem is he had a large number of Christian women from the senatorial class. Now, they couldn't marry, there weren't enough men at Christian men elite levels, and if they kind of marry down, they lose their elite status.

So you had these Christian women who are from the senatorial class who can't marry other pagan men because they're pagans, but if they marry down, they lose their status. So how can they get married and keep the status? The Pope at the time in Rome gave them the option of marrying a Christian slave in a relationship that was recognized by the church but not recognized by the state. That was one of the ways they negotiated, how do you find husbands for these, you know, uptown elite Christian women? So there was always this strategy or this struggle of negotiating life in the Roman empire if you belong to the upper echelons of society.

Man, that's good stuff. I'm going to let you go, man. Thank you so much for this book. First of all, Jesus and the Powers by Michael Byrd and then T. Wright. Highly, highly, highly recommend reading this book. Again, it's,. Again, the scholarship and research is exquisite, but it's also extremely readable. I mean, you could read it in a few hours. Yeah. Thank you so much for your contribution to this. Michael, I love you, man. I love it. I love you more when we see different sides of various issues.

That should be set in the context of the fact that I think we see eye to eye on so many things. So, yeah, man. Well, it's always good to be with your press. My question is, Preston, have I now eclipsed Joey Dodson as the most number of time guest? So I think me and Joey are in an epic battle to see who's been the guest on your show the most. So is it me or is it Joe? He might have a couple episodes up on you. Yeah. But you're,

you're definitely in the, in the, in the top tier. I don't know how many times you've been all like four or five times or something. Joey might be in a six or seven times. Something like that. Something like that. That's close. Yeah. Shout out to Joey Dotson. I also want to shout out to my, my friend, Jay Newman, who's going to be listening to this episode and he's going to be ripping out his hair because he, he, yeah, he's going to disagree with probably a lot of stuff you say and, and, and, uh, is going to scream at me for not, not pushing back harder and not scream at me. Yeah.

Mike, thanks so much for coming on Theology in a Realm. I really appreciate it. We'll have to have you back on next month or sometime soon. Preston, it's always a pleasure to be with you and thanks to all your listeners for joining us. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.