51����

What is an evangelical? What does that term describe? Is it a movement that is contrary to the way of Jesus presented in the Bible? Has evangelical faith become too politicized? How should we understand Jesus’ saying that His Kingdom is not of this world? Join Scott and Sean for this important conversation, discussing the book by Constantine Campbell.

Episode Transcript

Scott: What is an evangelical? What exactly does that term describe? Is it a movement that's contrary to the way of Jesus presented in the Bible? Has evangelical faith become too politicized? How should we understand Jesus saying that my kingdom is not of this world? Join Sean and I as we discuss these provocative, really pressing questions that are brought to focus for us in a new book by New Testament scholar Constantine Campbell in his book, “Jesus Versus Evangelicals.” Sean, let me give a little background on the author to this and what I think his purpose is for writing this. Constantine Campbell is a native Australian who has spent a lot of time in the US. He was a New Testament faculty member at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for many years but has recently gone back to Australia. He left his teaching position at Trinity, went back to Australia and by the tone of the book has apparently become quite disillusioned with the expression of evangelical faith that he found particularly in the United States when he was here. That I think is the primary emphasis of his book. I think his audience and his purpose is to point out areas where he thinks that the practice of American evangelical faith is contrary to how he reads the New Testament as laying out the way of Jesus.

Sean: Yeah, that's well said. When I see this I have a few thoughts. Number one, it says “Jesus versus evangelicals.” I can't help but get a little bit defensive because I'm an evangelical, these are my people and also there's been a lot of books recently kind of beating up on evangelical so to speak. Now whether we deserve it or not we will get to that but his perspective as an Australian is particularly interesting to me because he's an insider as an evangelical but an outsider and he's talking about evangelicalism broader than just in America but it kind of says this seems to be the heart of where you know evangelicals miscentered at so let's focus on that.

Scott: And I think there's a really important difference between the setting in the US and the setting in Australia. I mean evangelical faith in Australia is considered an outlier. I mean Australia is much more like you know the UK and the rest of Western Europe. It's actually probably more like Scandinavia when it comes to the way they regard religious faith than it is the United States. And so, you know, evangelical faith is a distinct, very small minority in Australia. And even though the Hillsong movement for example was born and bred in Australia it's exported now to various parts of the world but that I think that is probably not what you would call the thinking person's expression of evangelical faith. That's more of a charismatic, not to say—

Sean: No, no, I know what you mean.

Scott: Don't call me up and yell at us about Hillsong. Actually, when I was teaching in Australia for stretches I visited several Hillsong churches and loved them. They were great experiences. But I think that's the way it's perceived largely in Australia but anyway he comes from a place where evangelicals are more of an endangered species in Australia than they are in the US and have nothing like the degree of political influence that American evangelicals have had. I mean nothing even remotely close to that. So, I think he's understandably caught a little bit off guard but also very critical of the way–and we'll get to this in a second—the way that evangelical faith has been politicized in the United States.

Sean: Fair enough and even not only being outsiders but issues like gun control are not the same there issues like abortion not the same there. So, again, an outsider just brings an interesting perspective so I think Christians should evangelical should be willing to read this and ask are there areas that I need to do better and are there areas that I might disagree with. But let's start with what you think he gets right in his critique.

Scott: Well, I do think that there is a branch of evangelical faith that has become much too politicized. We'll get to that in more detail in a minute, but I think the expressions of evangelical faith that have fused with Christian nationalism—which we've talked about on this program several times before—I think I think that critique is right on target. He holds that Christian faith actually has more of a public dimension than you might think from his critique of that. I think he's also right in the fact that evangelicals can be very judgmental about particular things and I think implicit in that critique is a lack of compassion and lack of empathy for people who are really struggling and wrestling really hard with things. I think you're right. I think he's also right to distinguish between certain acceptable and unacceptable sins that certain branches of evangelical faith take some sins a lot more seriously than they take others. And I think he's right to point out that the things that we consider acceptable sins like pride, greed, you know, bullying, arrogance, are things like that are things that Jesus I think particularly came down hard upon. So, I think those are three things right off the bat that I think he's absolutely right about some of those things. There are certain sins that you dare not confess in a church setting.

Sean: Yeah, and he even says things like doubt like he went through a season of doubt and the church does not handle doubt well. And we have beaten that drum, so to speak, how much we would echo that. So,there's a lot of positive critiques.

Scott: And I think he's also right in that the megachurch movement has largely been characterized by celebrity and consumerism. And I think a general unwillingness to tell the truth about certain sins that might be particularly offensive to seekers who are looking to the mega church to find the gospel. So, I think I think he's right about that but okay you know so and but that I think he's off to a good start it seems to me in some of the things he's gotten right and he again his perspective as an as sort of an insider-outsider, like you suggest,I think gives him sort of unique a unique set of lenses through which to view our evangelical movement.

Sean: So, he starts off pretty early and defines what's meant by evangelical and that word means so many different things and he does a good job of explaining the different ways it can be understood and then kind of says, there's enough there in common we can use it but it's also so broad that the critique only goes so far. So how does he define an evangelical?

Scott: Well he says there are three types. There are theological evangelicals, which he, I think, still would call himself one of those.

Sean: Agreed.

Scott: Which has a certain commitment to a handful of theological convictions namely the inerrancy and reliability of the scriptures, the centrality of the cross of Jesus and to go with that the resurrection of Jesus and the general reliability of the biblical accounts. And the need for what he calls activism and evangelism, the need to bear private and public witness to your faith with the goal of bringing other people to saving faith in Christ. He was saying those are theological essentials. Whether all the rest of that is up for grabs I don't think he would say that there are some things where he admits that there's room to agree to disagree where we would respectfully disagree.

Sean: But on theologically that's where you have Democrat, Republican, black, white, etc. There's a wide range of those in the theological realm that differs when you get to his other two characters.

Scott: That's right, and so the cultural evangelical is the one who adheres to what he would I think he would refer to as American cultural distinctives. That would be viewed quite differently in other parts of the world. And then the political evangelical is the one for whom the advance of kingdom priorities through political power is a really high priority. Whether they see, you know. the United States as a sort of exceptional unique theological nation they may differ. But what the political evangelical has in common with what he's thinking about is the use of political leverage and public policy in order to advance the righteousness of God.

Sean: Fair enough, so in that sense when you say politically someone has a lot of confidence and emphasis and focus on the political system that would be a kind of political evangelical. Now, he says someone can be in one of them, two of them, all three of them and in case there's one and the other two he's not sure.

Scott: Yeah, I mean, I'm very comfortable calling myself a theological evangelical.

Sean: Me too.

Scott: Maybe a little bit less so on the culture and political aspects even though the political side you have to nuance that really carefully because Christian faith is an intrinsically public faith. It has an unmistakable public dimension to it. The kingdom of God, when it comes in its fullness, will have individuals rightly related to God and a rightly ordered society. So, that's, I mean, a part of the kingdom vision all the way back to the prophets in the Old Testament and Jesus said nothing, that I can find, where the definition of the kingdom in the Gospels was anything different than the definition of the kingdom that the prophets were looking forward to.

Sean: Okay, okay. So, you've mentioned some of the positive things that his critique you agree with. What is the heart of his critique of evangelicalism?

Scott: That we've lost the pursuit of Jesus for other things that distract us from it. That our pursuit of Jesus has been diluted, not like we're crazy, but watered down diluted. Because we're pursuing other things such as cultural dominance, political power, you know materialism, you know things like that.

Sean: Okay, now that critique should sit well with evangelicals meaning we should pay attention if we've lost the way of Jesus given that we're Christ followers we better pay some attention and make sure we get it right.

Scott: Something I vaguely recall in the book of Revelation about one of the seven churches losing their first love. And he is not suggesting here that Christian faith is totally private.

Sean: Agreed.

Scott: So, when he's talking about the pursuit of Jesus he's referring to the pursuit of what he calls the way of Jesus which is a way of following Jesus that affects both one's private life and the public dimension of faith. And so, to lose either of those he would say you have lost your faithfulness to the way of Jesus. And you're absolutely right that if we've lost the pursuit of Jesus for other things that are distracting us from it we at least need to listen to that.

Sean: Yeah, agreed that's why, even reading this book, as much as I differed with the number of his takes on things I had asked myself is he right and what course correction and how much do we need to get better. That's a question we've got asked even if it's uncomfortable and difficult and he does that well. He starts the book off in the realm of politics in a pretty jarring way which tells me this isn't just a soft subtle book he's just gonna jump right out of the gates and criticize the evangelical community. Which works well on a communication level, in one sense it grabs attention. But he comes down hard on the politicization of the Christian faith, particularly in the last five to six years, so to speak, and he makes the point that the kingdom is not of this world. What is that critique and how does he see the connection between faith and politics and what do you think about it?

Scott: Well, I understand why he comes down hard on it because of his background as an Australian—you know, he came to faith as a college student in Australia then moved to the US to continue his career teaching. And so, the contrast between those two had to be jarring for him. And I think what he's pointing out is something that we've talked about, you know, on a handful of occasions. I do think that some of the folks who have constituted our tribe, evangelicals in the past, have moved farther to the right politically. I don't get the sense that you and I have moved but I do think our tribe has moved in the last six, seven years in ways that I have not seen prior to that. I think that's what he's responding to when he says the Christian faith has become more politicized. That there is more dependence on the political arena and on political power than ever before to accomplish kingdom type objectives and aims. And, of course, he's right that the kingdom of God is not ultimately of this world which means it's not dependent upon any political or social structure in order to bring the kingdom to its consummation. I think that's what he means by that. Now, he's also really clear that there's a systemic dimension to sin and there's a cultural and political dimension to injustice that requires, sometimes, political means to address. And that shouldn't be a big surprise if our view of sin is what it is, we should expect that it would infect not only individuals but also institutions and social structures. The idea of systemic sin should not be, you know, something that evangelicals should shy away from. Racism, I think, is a good example of that. It’s baked into our system.N, I don't think it is as baked in as it was 50 years ago but you know we have sinful individuals who made racist laws that created racist institutions, some of which are still going today. And the holdover effect is still with us. He’s right to see all of that. So, that public dimension we can't deny. He is not suggesting that the way of Jesus is a simply privatized faith where all we care about is our own spiritual formation and the rest of the world you know is like the rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. He doesn't believe that. In his view, the problem is an over-reliance on political power to affect cultural transformation and an over identification of the gospel with any one political party or political agenda. And we said repeatedly here that anytime the gospel becomes bound up with one political agenda the gospel is eventually the loser. And we shouldn't be surprised that all political platforms are mixed bags because none of them was written with biblical faithfulness as its goal. I think we also need to remember that the early church did not engage in anything remotely resembling political activism and that's true. But the first century Roman world was not a democracy either. It was as totalitarian the government as you will find. And so, the opportunity to affect social change that was afforded to the early church only came in one way and that was by being salt and light and by infiltrating like yeast and leaven infiltrating the world at the grassroots level and affecting cultural transformation in the way that the church was so countercultural in almost everything they did.

Sean: That's helpful. So, I appreciate that he's not calling for a privatized faith and he makes that clear when he quotes people like Abraham Kuiper who says there's not a square inch of creation out of which God does not cry out its mind. So he's not calling for that, just pushing back on what, I think, is fair at times a kind of idolatry or a savior kind of mentality in politics. Now, where I might push back on this is it's not just on one side of the aisle. We see this, like you said, all over the political realm and obviously a higher percentage of self-described evangelicals vote Republican so it's fair to critique here. But I think there's a larger critique at play that needs to be brought into the realm as well.

Scott: I think that’s a fair statement. I think there is as much, if not more so, reliance on the evangelical left on political power as there is on the right. I think probably in in more recent years we've seen with the movement of the right, maybe a little bit more of a level playing field than it was before where the reliance is similar but I guess I'd want to be really careful that we recognize that they have advocates on both sides where the biblical priorities do take precedence over the political aspirations. And they are politically engaged, I think appropriately so, with some on both sides. I mean there's a way to be politically engaged without it being idolatrous.

Sean: Exactly, insofar as we ask that question across the aisle, I think that's the right way to go. And we need to, although it can manifest itself in different ways.

Scott: I mean no doubt he's beating up the right, exclusively.

Sean: Yeah, and raising some fair questions.

Scott: Yeah, but I think you're right, some of the same critique could be made of the left, he just doesn't do it.

Sean: Fair enough because that's his angle. Now one of the things he brings up a lot is that evangelicals are judgmental and he goes back to this 2007 study by David Kinnaman Barna called “unchristian,” that outsiders describe Christians amongst other things as being judgmental. Do you think he's onto something here, are we uniquely judgmental?

Scott: Uniquely, no/ I think we have entered an age in the last decade where everybody with an ideology is judgmental and I no longer believe that relativism is the dominant moral philosophy of the day. We have seen a new absolutism and if anything, cancel culture is prime example number one of a new absolutism where we differ on the things that we hold to as absolutes. So, I mean I don't think that anybody is sort of uniquely judgmental, particularly evangelicals. I think in the past we have held to culturally unpopular positions on the sanctity of life and on sexuality and other things that appear to the general culture as being intolerant and judgmental when in reality what would make us less judgmental is not the tone that we would change but changing our views. And I think there's a segment of culture that won't be satisfied until our views actually change. Now, I think there are lessons to be learned about the way in which we engage some of these issues and I think in the past we've done this with a lack of charity and a lack of empathy and with an unwillingness to listen. And I think he's right to point that out—if that's what he means by judgmentalism and I think the way he defines it when Jesus said don't judge is with an air of arrogant condescension. And if that's what he means by that then I'm 100% with him because no place calls for that. But the way most people read Jesus’ admonition not to judge is not to make a moral assessment and I'd like to point out that's not hard to demonstrate. I want to point out that nobody lives in a world and nobody wants to live in a world where nobody makes moral assessments. I mean, then we're looking at, you know, “Lord of the Flies” which makes right and powers found at the end of the gun barrel. But, you know, we've tried that and nobody wants to live in that world and nobody lives consistently without making moral assessments. I mean, you have to test that, in fact, I think Constantine himself makes moral assessments throughout the book. So, the critique he's making is about being arrogant and being condescending, like evangelicals consider themselves morally superior. Are there some who do? Yes, there are. Is that the norm? I'm not so sure.

Sean: That's a fair way to put it. I think you're right that evangelicals are not uniquely judgmental, everybody is judgmental today. But we, as evangelicals, have a unique call to not judge hypocritically. Matthew chapter 7 take the plank out of your own eye before the speck in the eye of a brother. There’s a sense we're to judge false prophecy, we're to judge certain behavior as being wrong. But God is the one who judges the heart. So, yeah, everybody's doing it. I mean, yesterday on Twitter I asked a question and somebody responded and said every single day some Christian like judges me in this way and a response was well atheists do it too—this is a Christian response. And I thought, well that's true but there is a unique call for Christians not to do so and can rightly be called hypocritical when we don't follow that. So, I think he's raising some fair questions rather than pointing to others outside and saying hey but they're judgmental too not that you were doing that but some people do. We need to look inside and go, am I acting with judgment against people in a way that's not consistent with the grace and standard Jesus gave in John 7 when he says make a righteous judgment. We just gotta look inside first. And I think it really raises some fair questions about that.

Scott: I think the issue today is that culturally people are equating making a moral assessment with being judgmental. And those are two entirely different things. Now they can go together. But to say that they are necessarily the same thing or—some people will say that if you make a moral assessment about something in my life you must hate me. And I think we're in for dangerous territory when the accusation of hate is used not only to stifle discussion but also to render irrelevant a moral assessment that might actually be right on the target.

Sean: So, let me ask you something related question before, is one things I see is he kind of chides evangelicals for putting too much effort into the political process to say overturn abortion. And he says what if we put more effort into persuasion. I look at that I think you know what we've put a lot of effort politically, put a huge effort pregnancy resource centers, and a huge effort persuading people we've done all of these in a balanced fashion in a way that just chiding the political side I think misses the other balanced approach many evangelicals have taken. So, in his mind if we would push back less politically there'd be kind of less vitriol and hatred and damage from the outside culture on things like abortion and on things like same-sex marriage. And I kind of think, what you said earlier, I think you know what people would not be satisfied until we completely change our theology so where I may be different—this book as I say we still have to be politically engaged on things like marriage because that's a way of actually loving our neighbor and trying to advance the objective good for society and kids. Now, I want to do it in a certain way that's gracious and kind towards my neighbor but I don't think if we step back and spent the less time in the political realm people would just be more open in the message of Jesus until we take out the offensive things of Jesus and that's something we can't do.

Scott:e, and I think what we need to be careful about is not to underestimate the educational value of the law. Roe v. Wade was ratified by the Supreme Court that had huge cultural, educational value about the permissibility of abortion. And if nothing else happened as a result of this recent Dobbs decision to rescind Roe v. Wade, simply the educational value that that gives to the culture at large about the sacredness of life of the unborn—whether that stops another single abortion or not, that educational value is worth the political engagement. And I think we’ve had people engaged at that level for a long time. We’ve also done all these other balancing things so not much has changed in the instance of abortion over those 50 years. And I think we have to admit that on some things the power of persuasion is limited. Now what we don’t want to do is to pass laws that coerce people to do the things that we among the people of God are unwilling to do ourselves. I think that's the height of hypocrisy. But I would not say that political engagement —we probably disagree on some of the issues on which we're to be politically engaged. But he's not against being politically engaged—I suspect I could be wrong about this. But, you know, Australia, in the last few years, has had several referendums in various states for the legalization of euthanasia and I suspect that Con would be opposed to those and we would be very supportive of the efforts of various denominations to lobby politically so that the law stays like it is in those states and continues to prohibit euthanasia. Now they're losing in all those states but I don't think that political engagement has been in vain.

Sean: You know there's an interesting tension that what you said earlier is that evangelicals are viewed here as being very individualistic when it comes to sin but then he turns around and criticizes evangelicals for using the political process to fight the systems of abortion. Some ways it felt like I wanted to have my cake and eat it too; that if somebody doesn't take the issue that I agree with politically on then they're just individualistic. If they take a different one then you know the other side of the knife, so to speak, so, it's fair for us to step back and say, okay are we being consistent if we think there's systemic injustice on things like abortion. Are people open to seeing systemic injustice in other areas as well. I see inconsistency on both sides of that.

Scott: Totally fair, and I think there are certain social justice issues that are cool causes and others that are not. The unborn happen to not be one of the cool causes. I mean, even among Christian groups that are committed to all the right things theologically, in some of their justice efforts they leave out the unborn because they want to have common ground with secularists and other traditions to be able to pursue the causes that concern them the most. That, I think, is a tragic oversight because, you know, if we neglect the unborn and we're not committed to protecting the sanctity of life as a colossal injustice then I'm not sure we have a lot of credibility for other issues of injustice as well.

Sean: I think that's fair. Now, he had a statement here that jumped out at me. He said, “Evangelicals have a disdain for social action.” Now, when I saw that I paused. I thought, wait a minute, I think of evangelicals, in every church I've ever been to has some ministry reaching out to the poor, pregnancy resource center, encouraging adoption and foster care—almost every evangelical church I've been to for a long time really does care about social action. Now, he is right that we pick some issues and not others. Maybe there's not enough attention paid to race? Fair question. maybe not enough attention paid to immigration? Fair question. Maybe they're not paying enough attention to the environment? That’s where the critique that comes in we have to say is that we are being consistent but because certain people don't focus on certain social actions doesn't mean they don't care about social action, they just focus on different issues. But that call for consistency is fair.

Scott: I agree, and I think he's right to point out that what may be underlying this is an unhealthy divide between the sacred and the secular. We’ve talked about this before and how we view the workplace, for example. But I think that the central critique of this may have been right 30 years ago, 40 years ago when evangelical political acts were just getting started. I mean, in the 60s Jerry Falwell very clearly said ministers and marchers shouldn't mix in the civil rights legislation. And our tradition was not great in the support of civil rights in the 60s. I think we've gotten a lot better as it comes to addressing issues of race today but that was a long time coming. I don't think that's fair to say today that there's a disdain for social action because—maybe 30, 40 years ago that pietism that promoted a very privatized faith; it was me and Jesus and my faith gets me my fire insurance, the world's going to hell in a handbasket, and I'm just rescue as many people off the Titanic as I can. That was sort of how I grew up spiritually and I think that the ministries that we were both influenced by in Campus Crusade, now Crew, was very strongly that way. Now, their mission was strictly stated as evangelism. The culture wasn’ts what they were about. But I do think his point about the sacred-secular divide is a good one and I think we still see a lot of that distinction that the sacred is the things that God really cares about in the secular is not so much. Yeah, but I don't see it in places like the way we consider the environment or the poor or things like that. There I think evangelicalism, for the most part, has a public relations problem, not an action problem. I think with some other issues, maybe that sacred-secular dichotomy plays in a little bit more.

Sean: I got a few more for you. I want to ask about provocative issues that he raised. He makes his distinction between acceptable and unacceptable sins. What is this difference and what do you conclude by it?

Scott: This part was a little too convicting and I wanted to move through quickly. But I think he's right about that. I think there are some sins that you can't confess in most evangelical churches today without the risk of being either thrown out or disowned or written off as permanently broken. The unacceptable sins have to do with sexuality, with abortion. The acceptable sins have to do with things that I think Jesus came down pretty hard on pride, arrogance, greed, materialism, bullying, condescension, things like that that I think we tend not to take as seriously. And I think sometimes we view people who have some of those traits—we actually call them leaders until they go up in smoke. We look at the people like that in business, too. Sometimes I think there's actually a gender thing involved in that, too. Because if women have those traits we look at them differently than if men have them. We have terms for women who have a lot of pride-arrogance traits that are different from how we view men. I think he is right that there are certain sins that we gloss over in many of our evangelical churches and certain sins that we would view the people who commit them as somewhat beyond redemption. And both of those extremes I think are very problematic.

Sean: That’s fair, and I think he draws out at least fair questions of do we have certain sins that are unforgivable compared to others and what did Jesus really condemn? That’s a great question everyone should be convicted by. Now, you talk about this megachurch model and he goes in some depth on this kind of focus on celebrity size, consumerism, materialism and entertainment. In fact, he says a lot of celebrities have minimal theology, kind of a rock star pastor, and minimal relationships. That’s his critique. Now, he does say there's kind of, Willow Creek, and there's a few famous well-known that have had some issues from the top down but probably a lot of mega churches are trying to live out faithfully. They don't all fall under these scandals and abuse. But he does ask if it is fair to ask if this model in itself is healthy and wise. He at least asked that question.

Scott: Here’s how I view this. I love to criticize churches who have been so successful at winning people to Christ. And I think the genius of the megachurch movement is that they have the secret sauce for how to win people who are on the fringes, who really have no interest in Christian faith. HJow to turn them from seekers into followers of Jesus. Now, whether they have the right kind of environment to fully disciple people into a mature Christian faith, that's a fair question to raise. I was involved in a mega church here in the Los Angeles area for a long time, on the staff of one before it became a mega church, and they're doing so many things right. They teach the scriptures faithfully, the senior pastor is well educated, they attract people who are coming from a wide variety of really hurting, broken situations, and they are providing the environment where the Spirit of God is producing genuine life change in people. Now, the depth at which they go, I think, that's a fair question. But, I think that's a fair question for most of our churches today. Whether they are engaged in the kind of discipling that we would see in a movement on a college campus, for example, where you've got a much smaller group of people that you can focus your attention on and you can mentor. Most churches are too big to have any kind of meaningful mentoring. But, celebrity, yeah, probably too much. And some five miles wide and two inches deep, that's probably true of some. That’s not been my mega church experience though, full disclosure I no longer attend. I attend a much smaller place today and have found it very appropriate for where we are in our spiritual lives. But, focus on entertainment, yes, I think that is a fair critique. But remember, what they are competing with for time and attention with people in the general culture. I mea, the talking head for 45 minutes preceded by two old hymns is not not gonna get the job done and using all the media things at their disposal, we've talked about this before, I'm persuaded that Jesus probably would have done that, too.

Now, would he have been focused strictly on entertaining people? Obviously not. But I think they are very creative in the way they use most media and you have to do that. So, I think that is an unfair critique. Now, I'd want to be sure that the people in my pews are not feeling like that they're just spectators. I'd want them to be meaningfully involved in the worship but for the most part the consumerism, materialism I don't think is anything unique to mega churches. I think that's a cultural thing, that’s a human vice, not a church one or an economic that's not unique to an economic system. That’s just a human vice that is gonna play out regardless of the setting that we're in. So, what I thought was so interesting, and I want to ask you about this, is he particularly pointed out the preachers-and-sneakers phenomena among mega church pastors as an example of materialism sort of gone run run-amok. What I know, for our listeners, you have a lot of sneakers.

Sean: I do.

Scott: You’ve got some great ones and your son is actually involved refurbishing and reselling them. He's got a business. What do you make, is that a fair critique of materialism there?

Sean: I think it's fair to ask the question: pastors who are getting a salary from people in the church who are sacrificing—should they be wearing $900 sneakers and $5,000 suits? These are very fair questions that should be asked. I think his critique of mega churches many ways is just asking questions are we judging numbers over quality? Is discipleship taking place? To me he's just asking a lot of questions we need to take seriously and I think that's a fair question. Now, I'm not a pastor, I don't get a salary from a congregation but I've had my son give me a pair of shoes that would get me on preachers with sneakers. I don't wear them on stage when I'm preaching but if some took a picture and threw me up there they might offer a kind of critique not knowing the background that an 18 year old sacrificed to give that to his dad. So, I think it's a fair question to ask but I also always wonder what's the background, is there more to this, was it a gift, etc. Trying to have charity because I've been in the spotlight and a lot of people are trying to knock me down. Bottom line with this book, I think we should read it with an open heart with an open mind and be willing to make course corrections if we need to. But I think he's gonna have a lot more success critiquing—he's gonna get a lot more readership from those who are already upset with the evangelical world then changing those within that actually need to change the way it's postured, unfortunately.

Scott: And his hope ultimately is in the kingdom of God, to which we say, amen. Hey, thanks for joining us. I hope you've enjoyed this conversation.