Music.
I'm Pastor Luke. I am Pastor Cameron. And this is the Uncut Podcast where we have
uncut, honest conversations about faith, life, and ministry. If you're tuning in,
you're listening to this and you're a fairly faithful listener,
you know, we appreciate and love your guys' encouragement when we meet meet people who, you know, listen and stuff and you let us know what it is that you value
from these conversations and, you know, what questions resonate with you or send in your
questions to the text line.
Appreciate that.
Um, yeah, I had someone at Crown Street the other day, really tell, tell me that they,
appreciated the podcast. I didn't even know they listened.
Yeah. So, um, yeah, I know there's, I know there's a number of you. One of the...
I think that's one of the... Maybe it's a unique perspective shift for us, is we're used to some pretty immediate
feedback when we preach, because we get to see who's in the room when we're giving any
particular sermon, and generally, you get to see how a room is responding to what you're saying.
Us, we've got each other, but like, you know, we're sitting in an empty room, you know,
these. And so we don't, we have no idea if anybody thinks anything, any of the jokes we say are funny
or not. Um, at least one person this week doesn't. So I had told you guys last week that we were at
39 subscribers, not on 900. Yeah. And that's on YouTube, right? YouTube. Yeah. Not 3,900,
not 39,000, 39.
And I was like, can we just get one more subscriber on YouTube so that we can hit the illustrious 40 mark?
I checked this morning, and we have 38 now. So we are very popular.
All 38 of you, on YouTube at least, we see you. Thank you for seeing us.
Thank you. And if you're out there in podcast audio land, we appreciate you too. Very much so, yes.
So yeah, today I thought we were talking upstairs and we were like, what are we gonna talk about?
And I was reminded of a question.
That was kind of sparked in my mind a couple weeks ago. So I was, you know, trying to, you know,
if you were to look at my social media stuff, I wonder how hard it would be to peg me down
because sometimes I will follow someone on social media,
not because I particularly like what they have to say or agree, but because I think that their opinion
or the thing that they're talking about
something I want to be paying attention to. I want to hear what people in a different sphere
are talking about or saying, what they're thinking, get their perspective. And sometimes that's really
interesting. Sometimes it just makes me want to throw my phone across the room. But I follow
an account that is kind of like a Christian deconstruction account. Like, it's someone who
I think they still have an element of faith, but they've gone particularly, they've abandoned
some, I don't know.
I don't know exactly what they personally believe, but it seems like they've moved from
a conservative Christian place to a different place, and they're often encouraging people in that journey.
And they made a post, and they asked this question of, what are some of the things that
you've learned about the Bible since you started your deconstruction journey?
Answer down in the comments. And I was like, ooh, I'm interested to hear what people are saying.
Like, what are the big revelations that people are having about the Bible that's like part of.
Their deconstruction journey? And I went, I looked down at the comments, and I gotta tell you,
Cameron, I was, for the most part, pretty unimpressed. Like, I don't wanna say that in
a degrading way. But I was just like, oh, these are things I agree with.
Right. I had seen a similar post like that. It might even be the same page.
And I was like, I was reading through some of the answers and I was like...
I'm actually kind of encouraged right that's the position that you're now holding. Yeah,
That's how I would preach that text. That's how I understand that word,
And it left me with a interesting question that I kind of want to pose to you
Maybe we can go and I pulled that post up. Maybe we can look at that for some examples at some point,
But it led me to a place of thinking,
It is there has there been a shift?
Are we part of a shift? By no means am I suggesting that we are like the thought leaders in any sort of movement
or something like that, but is there a shift that's happening in preaching?
Are we part of like a different way of preaching than maybe past generations?
I was like, thinking about kind of Tim Mackey and the Bible Project. You come to Conduit,
you've probably heard Cameron and I recommend the Bible Project as a deeper resource for study.
At some point we use some of their video resources and stuff, and we both enjoy their
podcast and materials, and they have a very literature way of reading the Bible. They like
to read the Bible as literature, as part of their hermeneutic, along with some other things.
You have some other key hermeneutics, including Christocentric. But do you feel like that is a
shift that we're a part of? Is that kind of a difference from maybe preaching in the past?
Or do you feel like maybe these people are just kind of reacting to just poor preaching?
Like, what's your kind of thought on the whole state of that?
Are we doing anything, are you and I different than, like, because I was like so surprised
that this was not something that, some of these conclusions, I was like, what do you
mean you didn't think that?
You had a different conclusion than that?
Like, yeah, I'm curious about your thoughts.
So I would say that we are different, and I say that with some hesitancy because, like
you mentioned, I don't consider myself to be on the cutting edge of any type of methodologies
in pastoral ministry or preaching.
But I do think that there is a difference between pastors who are willing to deal with
the context of the scripture honestly in the midst of their preaching and to let the unanswered
questions or the nuances of scripture.
Like be aired out. I think there's a difference between people who are willing to do that,
which I generally think that we are willing to do, and those who take a very literal,
face value, non-nuanced, almost surfacy approach to Scripture, and preach it as if it is the,
only and primary understanding of that Scripture or of that piece of theology throughout history, throughout time.
I think that may be even more significant is that,
although I think that there are certain aspects of theology that are pretty well, not pretty well,
fully established as this is Christian theology. This is Christian belief, Christian thought and doctrine.
But there is also a large chunk of biblical theology that is not as clear as we want to always make it.
Not to always make it, right? And I don't think that there are droves of preachers,
who are willing to say, this really isn't too clear. So let me give you the perspectives.
And through even the process of discernment, right? Right?
Because a lot of, I mean, honestly, I think just a lot of pastors,
they want to pound the pulpit and say, this is God's word. This is what it says.
And they're not willing to, and this is what it means. And this is the only way to interpret it or apply it.
Yep. and.
It's just not all that clear. Even like I'm maybe a little bit, because it's fresh in my mind,
we're just finishing up this series on eternity. Yes, yeah.
Part of the, and I mentioned this in preaching, that part of the difficulty in preaching on,
things of an eternal nature or even like the second coming of Christ and the end times and
and new heaven and new earth and all of these things is that there's a lot that we don't know.
Yeah. And there's been a lot of movies made about it, seeming like we do know.
Right, so like for instance, there's a lot of confusion about Satan,
the Antichrist, the beast, the dragon, and the woman.
And the woman. Oh yeah, the harlot.
All existing in Revelation, right? Who, what are they exactly? Who are they?
How, like what? And then if you've ever read the, if you've ever read Revelation,
you'll see that there are some,
very interestingly described creatures,
multiple heads and eyes and wings.
And were- People with swords, people eating things. With brass feet, with clay feet, you know, with-
Trumpets, seals, lamps. Monsters coming out of oceans and seas, like so.
And then you'll, for instance, and this is not a knock on the man, okay?
But you'll see that like, for instance, David Jeremiah, kind of a popular preacher and, you know.
Largely faithful.
Yep. has like a 50 sermon series on Revelation.
Where he connects the imagery of Revelation to certain very specific historical moments,
historical persons, historical nations,
so as to proclaim that this is, look, people, this is really clear what this is and.
Or if you read the left behind series when it was really popular.
Right, that the rapture was, that's the only way to understand the rapture.
The rapture is actually a pretty good example of all this.
That it's just assumed that there will be a mass disappearance of Christians.
Where if you read about the doctrine of the rapture, I don't know how familiar you are
with the historical doctrine of the rapture, just how long it's been in existence.
I mean, the modern understanding of the rapture is pretty new. Very new.
Yeah. Very, very, very new. So meaning, when we say new, we mean like,
Martin Luther, John Wesley, John Kelvin, the reformers, would have been like the what?
Yeah.
The rapture? Right. appearing, what are you talking about? And the apostles certainly would have been like, heh.
Um, you know, so.
Anyway, it feels like I'm saying a lot without saying anything.
Well you're giving an example of a thing that is sometimes, we have many popular preachers,
many popular books and or movies that take particularly end times, revelation, prophecy,
apocalyptic literature, and then one to one parallel it to our current contextual reality
and say, see, this is it, this is so obvious, the Blackhawk helicopters or the locusts,
or whatever.
And the thing is, is, well, that is not as easy to draw those parallels as you might think.
Yeah, or a forest fire is God bringing judgment to melt the elements, like it says in 2 Peter.
So to come back to the original question is that I feel like a lot of it is a willingness,
we are different in the way that I think we hold a willingness to be honest about what
is clear and what is not, what is primary and what is secondary.
And whereas I don't think that that's the case with all pastors and they preach just
a rabid authority, not even of the word, but a rabid authority of their interpretation
an application of the word, creating in a lot of people,
a theological straw man that does not stand up,
that does not stand up under.
Really does not stand up under deconstruction at all. Yeah, so well I What you're talking about is brought like a passion little passion point up that since we're uncut
I'm gonna talk about,
When I started dating my now wife,
Right around when the Ukrainian war started happening Russia invaded and all of that
My wife is Ukrainian. And so there's some personal connection to people who are in Ukraine and all of
that. And I remember being shared a video of a well-known pastor with a pretty big platform,
and he made this very slick video. He's kind of like, someone's on a camera, kind of giving him
a handheld kind of thing. And he's talking and he starts off talking about this, the Ukrainian,
the conflict in Ukraine. And then, you know, I'm kind of like curious as to where that where is he
going to go with this? Like, is he going to talk about humanitarian efforts, like the fact that
the world's broken? Like, what is he going to offer any condolences or sympathy for people who
are experiencing suffering in the middle of all of this? And he very quickly just begins to take.
Like, I believe it was a revelations passage and say, this is this, this is this Russia's this
da da da, and he made the comparison, and then he just took what was a lot of people's very real,
current, ongoing suffering, and used it as a preaching point to prove his interpretation of
Revelation, and that you should tune in on Sunday and listen to his whole new sermon series that he
was coming up with, because he felt that it's a coming, the end's a coming, this conflict proves
it. And you talk about people using the Bible, creating these straw men, making things seem
clear when they very much aren't clear.
That can be really tone-deaf, you know Because I think you could kind of tell that,
whoever had written that script whether that was him or someone else like Wasn't writing with the idea that someone that like Ukrainians would be hearing this,
Right he was writing it for people who don't have any skin in the game Don't feel any hurt or pain or concern about people who are experiencing any suffering
It was written for people who were very detached and are kind of like,
oh, it's a thing that's happening over there.
And we get to just play with that and plug that into our end times clock that we're constantly adjusting.
And it kind of lost all pastoral relevance, at least in my hearing.
So when you talk about people kind of using, doing that, that's kind of, that's what strikes me. Yeah. Is that.
So yeah, there's definitely this temptation, like you said, to pound the pulpit with surety
over particular interpretations, understandings, when the Bible simply doesn't support that
underneath good hermeneutical study and interpretation.
At least not of everything.
No. There are things that, like I said, we are well established.
And I think we've talked about it before here. We can talk about it again,
is the creeds are a good example.
Some of the main creeds are a good example of the theology that's been kind of well established
as immovable in terms of it's,
in terms of it's like, okay, but you wanna pound the pulpit,
you can pound it about the divinity of Jesus.
You can pound it about the triune nature of God. Or the nature of the gospel.
Or the nature of the gospel, right? Or the existence of the church,
or the ministry of the Holy Spirit, or whatever.
But yeah, pounding the pulpit about.
That the current Ukrainian war, there's a direct correlation to the Book of Revelation.
Hey, there may be. Right. Right.
But it has not been made clear to us in scripture that that's the case, so it's conjecture at best.
So, the end, is the end coming?
Yeah. The end has been coming and drawing closer and closer since the day that Jesus ascended back into heaven.
It's, we're closer now than we ever have been.
It's kind of on the pulpit, I guess, about the right things. And I think,
again, going back to the original question or the original conversation, I think that's,
for me, what feels like a primary issue for people in a deconstructive mode, especially around the
Bible, is that they've been taught that certain things are non-negotiable Christian theology
through and through. You can't get away from it. This is just how it is. This is what you must
believe where the... about everything, 100% comprehensive, and it's just not... I don't
believe that it's that clear. I don't believe that it's that dogmatic even, so...
Do you think that is because... do you think that we are in the space that we are because
we are currently a non-denominational church. Do you think that would be different if we were,
more associated with a more strict line of theology through a denomination?
Paul I don't think so, no, because I haven't really,
I don't, at least personally speaking, I haven't really moved too much in my perspective on that
that since coming from a denominational structure
that had a written, you know, like theology.
I haven't changed much in that position at all since coming out of denominationalism
into non-denominationalism.
There probably is things that I've changed on, but I think it's more been a change methodologically
than it has been theologically, so.
No, I don't think that we're like that because of our non-denominational,
or we would be different if we were in a denomination. I think we would be different if, if you or I were more.
Maybe, I don't know, but maybe I won't speak for you. I guess I find myself in a place where,
like, I'm not able to very easily pick up one systematic theology book and say,
oh, this is my theology. We don't, I don't have a systematic, I have systematic theology. I'm not
saying I don't have systematic theology, but I don't have a singular structure of systematic
theology that fits neatly. I can't say that... When I was looking for a job.
There was a church I was talking with, and I think they got maybe a little bit frustrated
because maybe I was being a little obtuse or obstinate, but they wanted to find out...
Dodgy. Dodgy. I think they wanted to find out if I was a Calvinist or an Arminian, and I...
Said yes. Yeah, he said, they gave me a passage and they're like, what do you think this is talking about?
And it had the word predestination in it. And I essentially, I read the context of the passage and didn't talk about predestination
because I didn't think that was what the passage was talking about.
And then they replied back and they're like, could you just tell us if you think you're
a Calvinist or not? Because they were... I was like, well, you asked me what the passage meant, I told you what the passage meant.
Right. So I might've been a little cheeky. Pulled the curtain back on that one.
Yeah, I might've been a little cheeky, but I don't fit, you know,
if you were to try and get me to commit to Calvinism or Arminianism,
I don't know anymore at this point,
because I've largely left those categories behind,
because they weren't helpful.
And- Well, even like, modern-day Calvinism is not very John Calvin-ish. No, right? Like that whole young, restless,
flannel, and reformed that, like, I was a big part of my faith journey at one point, like,
barely reformed. Like, reformed in certain ways and very much not reformed in several other ways.
Reformed, if you're listening or watching, reformed as in kind of a branch of theological
persuasion. Right. Yeah. Kind of reformed referring to like Lutheranism, John Calvinism,
Zwinglism, like the Protestant Reformation, some of the theological convictions that came out of
that. And there's, you know, parts of that I identify with and parts that I don't. And, you
know, so yeah. Do you think that's similar for yourself? I think so. Yeah. I think that it's been,
and it's just made more sense for me.
Throughout the course of my study of Scripture to pull certain aspects of systematic or biblical
theology that resonate with me or feel right for me or that I see as like, okay, I see that in
Scripture. And then there are others that I'm like, well, okay, so just you take one theologian,
for instance, and they have this to say in the area of soteriology or salvation. And I'm like,
okay, yeah, I can really vibe with that. But then you take that same author and you read their
eschatology or the theology of the end times, and I'm like, yeah, I don't see that. I'm not sure I
I can get on board with that.
So it has been a little bit of like a a la carte theology. Informed by many perspectives, but not adopting any one theological perspective as 100% my
own all the time, even if it was like all John Wesley or, you know, there's certain
like, systematics that I like more than others, right? Like, I think kind of the, probably the
systematic theology that every pastor has on their shelf is, you know which one I'm gonna say,
right? Is Wayne Grudem's systematic theology. Like, if you want a big, thick book to get some.
Fairly quick theological referencing done in, I don't know that you could do better than that.
Right. Yeah, I don't know that because it's it does broadly cover and it is broadly evangelical,
right but if I were to say like a a systematic theology that I'm going to be,
probably agree with more of it, I would probably pick Stanley Grenz's,
G-R-E-N-Z, Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, as a systematic that I felt
or think was a little bit more, felt more right to me.
Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Sits more in line with your, not just intellectual, but you told me about that.
That feels like a pretty applied systematic. Yes. Yes.
Right. Which is like the danger of systematic theology is...
Because in case you're curious when what we're saying, when we say systematic theology instead
of just theology, systematic theology as a study in itself is typically a...
It's usually a combination of Bible, history, and philosophy, right?
Those seem to be at least the three of the main primary sources.
And so when you're putting together a conclusion of something in...
Like you're trying to say, what's our theology around baptism?
Well, you're going to look at what the Bible says, look at what churches said historically,
you know, and all of that. And so it's kind of...
But sometimes that can kind of lead into kind of a complex way where you start...
You can get a little heady. You can get a little theoretical inside of systematic theology, because you're talking
about like philosophy and you're maybe making some leaps to answer questions that maybe,
the Bible wasn't trying to answer.
Yeah.
Yeah. I think that the benefit of systematics is that it creates good referencing, you know?
So if I were to tell you to, okay, just open your Bible and go to the section that talks all about salvation.
There's not a section that talks about salvation, because the Bible isn't written in order to be a reference book.
It's narrative in form, it has, or there are parts of it that are narrative in form, or
there are letters, or long excurses that are not, they were never meant to be, it was never
meant to be an instruction booklet or a reference booklet for Christian things.
So what systematics does is it works really hard to...
Compile all the information that the Bible has, biblical theology, all of the Bible has
on a particular theological topic and put it in one chapter so you can read it, right?
And I think it's really strong in its ability to help us weed through and use as reference, so.
I wanted to pull up a couple of the comments from that post that kind of like people's,
you know, thing about the Bible that they're kind of learning and they're deconstructing
and just kind of like, talk maybe offhand about a couple of these.
This one was an interesting one, let's see.
That the word for man in Genesis was actually more like human creature, not a word ever
used for man in Scripture, and when God took the rib to make the man a companion, it was
actually the word for side, like the whole side.
Man and woman were the Hebrew ish and isha, and two sides of one thing, not man first
and woman second as a diminutive.
Yep. Yeah.
I don't know anything about the Hebrew, but yeah, if you understand the passage correctly,
they're co-heirs of creation and image of God.
Co-image bearers, right. Co-image bearers.
So what would you think would be the thing that she's deconstructing?
Probably some pretty hardcore complementarianism.
Or authoritarianism. Or authoritarianism, complementarianism, masquerade...
Or authoritarianism masquerading as complementarianism.
Like this idea of like, oh, well, the woman...
She came second and she came out of man, so she's obviously not as good as man.
Well, she ate the apple first, so that makes her worse.
And so like, yeah, not diminutive. No, not at all. It's never...
Anyone who's been, who can do or is willing to do the – that's not even really hard work to do. That's pretty basic in Hebrew language and in the,
type of poetry that the creation account is, that it wasn't necessarily a diminutive.
Creation of a lesser being than the man who was meant to serve the man, right? But someone
to be alongside, a co-image bearer. So… So, well there was an interesting….
I actually do remember hearing this at some point in my Bible education—not my adult
Bible education, but as a kid, either in a sermon or Sunday school class or something.
There's the story of Deborah, the judge in the Old Testament.
And one of the things that is—I think somebody probably came up with this explanation, said
it in a sermon, and it has just been so repeated.
But I've heard the explanation that, like, well, Deborah, this woman, became a judge
of Israel because there were no godly men around to be a judge, and so God had to use a woman.
And I've heard that, I know I've heard that in a sermon or something, it was something
that was taught to me as a kid.
And you go back and you look at the passage, there is absolutely nothing there that says
anything close to that.
Right. say anything about like Deborah being the last string person that God chose or something
like that, or that there had to be some sort of special circumstances for God to use a
woman as a judge, like it's not there, that's not in the passage.
No, not at all.
That's someone reading a conflict into the passage that's simply not there.
That's simply not there, yep.
This one's an interesting one, that Proverbs never describes our Western cultural practices
of spanking children.
There's no biblical spanking because it is never mentioned or described.
I'd agree with that.
So, what's the, what is someone deconstructing there? deconstructing probably spare the rod and spoil the child. You must spank your kids in order to.
Teach them a lesson because if you don't, they're not gonna fully understand the gravity of what
they've done. And so a scripture is used to justify the act of spanking. And this is not,
This is not a personal interpretation on spanking or not spanking.
It's just the, okay, is it in the Bible?
Um, well, no, not really, you know, um, I've heard the same thing said about, um, Proverbs
31 and, uh, and to, to what, to what level is it describing the, um, the contemporary
context or the goal for...
For women? For who a woman should be.
Well, in the proverb, like, spare the rod, spoil the child, is also poetic language.
Like, it's meant to convey, like, there is absolutely room to hold that verse and say,
oh, spare the rod is a metaphor for sparing all discipline.
All discipline.
Yep. It does not necessitate a corporeal physical punishment.
An actual, using an actual rod.
Right. Mm-hmm. You see, like we started out by saying, these things seem so simple and basic.
To you and I, they do.
To you and I. But I just don't think they are across the board, I think.
Yeah. Pastors want to pound the pulpit with authority. See what they want to do is that they want to preach with authority.
Rather than, rather than preaching the authority of the word.
They want to be the source of authority that's bringing the word, rather than allowing the
word to speak for itself.
Or they have a particular conviction that they want to make, not secondary primary,
they want to make it primary.
Or they don't believe that there are primary and secondary convictions, which I think is
really is pretty prevalent. That all the things that they believe is the only way to believe it,
and there's no secondary opinion on how to believe a particular thing.
Yeah. Well, I find it so sad because I don't, like, I find it sad that people are,
Or what seems to be just like good reading of scripture is like a, like that shouldn't
be a reason, hopefully, to like abandon your faith altogether, right?
Just because someone misused scripture when they were teaching it to you at some point
and they, you know, potentially caused harm because of how they were teaching scripture
to other people or to you and what they were trying to get you to believe about yourself or your situation.
Like, you know, that's really sad. But it's even more sad that like in discovering good biblical interpretation, you might be
tempted to also just leave the Bible behind because you found that, oh, these things that
were being taught to me as absolute are not absolute.
Well, I think what it does is it just calls into question whether or not you can trust
to what the person in front of you is saying.
So we are guilty by association of title.
Even though we may believe that we are taking, take a very honest approach towards scripture,
because we are pastor and that person was pastor, we are guilty of the same things,
you know, and they may find out somewhere down the line that we were just trying to push our
own particular agenda as well. So.
Yeah, yeah, and that's a, I feel like that's a really uphill battle that all faithful pastors
have to fight in this current time.
Well quite honestly, I don't feel particularly convicted to fight the battle head on.
I feel like if I just need to continue to preach the word as faithfully and as honestly
as I receive it from the Lord, and that the Holy Spirit will do the work of sowing it
into the hearts of those whom it needs to be sown into, and like those it doesn't get
its own into, it doesn't, it's not really.
The faithful proclamation of the word is my responsibility and that's where kind of it starts and it ends.
Yeah, yep, kind of the trusting the fruit to God, doing the work, being assured that the faithfulness
of showing up and doing all of that is, you know,
is what God's calling us to.
Someone here, one of their comments was just that the Bible isn't fully literal.
True. True. It's like people, like sometimes people come and they'll ask the question of, well,
do you preach or do you understand the Bible literally? And I like to be snarky and say,
I preach it literarily.
Yeah. Um, you know, like, cause the, what's like, there's a, there's a psalm that everybody
always likes to talk about.
It's the, I think there's a psalm in the Bible that says the sun rises or something like that.
And we know that scientifically the sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates. Right.
Well, it's a psalm. So it's a poem. Do we need to then, like, if we believe the Bible literally, do we need to say, well,
science is wrong and the sun does rise, and it's a geocentric world or universe, and disregard
science because we're gonna take the Bible literally, and not say that there's room for
Bible to be a literary piece that it's speaking in poetic language with the knowledge of the time
and like all of that. Yeah. Or something like Luke, when you get to heaven, are you gonna,
are you gonna enjoy having a conversation with the prodigal son?
No. No. Why not? Because he didn't exist. Because he didn't exist, right?
Jesus taught in parables, made up stories to display or to communicate a spiritual reality.
The Good Samaritan, a parable, right?
The Prodigal Son, a parable.
Was the lesson real? Absolutely.
Was there an actual son that left? I'm sure somebody did, but Jesus wasn't referencing
a specific person that he knows. So is the Bible literal? Well, if that's a literal question,
then it's literally not literal. If you want to ask the question, do you take the Bible seriously?
Yeah, yeah, right within its literal context right when the Bible decides to be literal,
I take it literally exactly when it's that's a good way to put it when it's meant to be
metaphorical or symbolic symbolic right looking back about dragons and harlots and beasts
and exactly yes yeah I don't know that I don't think we should expect a physical beast to
to come out of the ocean.
I mean, maybe. Maybe we will.
Maybe. But that's part of the point, is that when we don't know,
we don't pretend like we do. Yeah.
Right, because I can't pretend to know that nuclear subs are the beast
that was coming out of the water in Revelation. Like.
Right, and we allow, we allow our theology to be in...
To be held by faithful mystery in the areas that we don't know.
Like I don't know about the end times.
I know what I know because of what Jesus said in the rest of the scripture was clear on.
But I don't know what I don't know, and so what I don't know, I just been like,
well, I'm pretty sure God's gotta figure it out.
I trust that when Jesus returns, I'm gonna be caught up in the air with him
after the dead in Christ rise first.
Second Thessalonians, right? And pretty sure that when I'm with Jesus in the air.
I'm gonna be just fine. Yeah. That's all I gotta know. Yep. Not gonna miss it.
Not gonna miss it, nope.
Well, yeah, I think that was an interesting discussion.
Mm-hmm. Yeah. I think if you're listening and you, I don't know, if you've got, you can always send us
Bible questions. Yeah, that'd be great.
That's honestly, actually, probably our area of expertise. So we'd love to talk about stuff like that.
Yeah. So if you've got like passages or maybe there's passages that maybe you thought meant one
thing and as time's gone on, you've kind of like, oh, maybe that doesn't mean what I thought,
it meant, you know, send us those questions. Let us know what you thought about some of
the stuff we were saying today, or if there's anything that you'd be interested in hearing
more about. Yeah. Like and subscribe. Send us messages, send us messages 716-201-0507.
That's our text line. Yep. And we'll answer any questions that you have. Yeah. As much as we're able to.
Yes, as much as we're able to, that's for sure. Thanks for listening and watching. Yep.
Let's get to 40 subscribers, people. Come on, if I come back next week and there's 37,
I might quit. All right, we'll see you all next time.