In Studio Guest JD Hall Plus Rob Bell on Oprah

Well, good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White and we are live today. We're a little bit early so that our in-studio guest can get plenty of sleep tonight because he's going to be busy.

Busy tomorrow night, I believe. Tomorrow night. Tomorrow night, yes. I am joined in studio by the true actual head of the Calvinist cabal. J .D. Hall is... Notice, J .D. is dressed for Montana weather rather than Phoenix weather and right now in Phoenix,.

It's like your July, so... Just because your weather is wrong doesn't mean that.

My wardrobe has to change. The rest of the world is saying that our weather is oh so right. People back east were sending me all these pictures of their apps, you know, minus 17 and all the rest of this stuff and they're all just complaining that I had left the front door open all night and it had gotten all the way down to 64 degrees in the house as a result.

So, yep, yep, that's... And you can testify, we're not lying. You know, I tell you what though,.

Every time I fly somewhere, I look at how beautiful it is and everywhere and I come home to eastern Montana, I feel bad because we don't have trees. I miss trees, but I gotta tell you what, when I flew into Phoenix, I felt better about Montana because you guys don't even have.

Grass here. So, at least we have grass in eastern Montana. When I grew up out here and so the first time I flew back east, I remember we came out of the clouds and I see all this green stuff and the first thought across my mind was, man, these people's irrigation bill must be huge.

How can they afford to do this? It's incredible and yeah, that's just the way it is. But yeah, I know, come July, you're all going to be going, it's so hot down here, but the reality is, we just have to shovel sunshine and that's the way it is.

So, what, what, you want to get in this too? I'll just keep going. Okay, you're going to adjust the shot here. You don't have to be so perfect about it, you know, it's just a webcast, you know, no one really, neither JD or I are really vying for having television personas and faces anyways.

So, you're in town to do a debate. Normally, that's what I'm doing. This time, this time you're doing it and that's going to be tomorrow evening and let me read the, let's see, 6 .30 p .m. Mountain Time, at least wouldn't change your clock for you.

That's right. Your time is right. The time is right. Half the year. Well, no, actually, it's only five months because this stupid daylight savings time thing is, they extended it. Dr. Joel McDermott of American Vision will defend the resolution, quote, make sure this is correct, mosaic civil laws are obligatory for civil governments today, end quote.

Correct. Against you. So, what brought this, how did this all happen?

I went on a five-minute rant one time on the Pulp and Pin podcast. I didn't think about it, it was just off the cuff. I was talking about Christian dominionism and it was really more dominion theology I was going after and then Jeff Durbin over at Apology Radio took my five minutes and somehow turned that into an hour-long critique of my five minutes and so then I upped the ante a little bit and did a three-episode critique of theonomy and from then it was supposed to be a debate or conversation of some kind on Pirate Christian Radio, Fighting for the Faith with Roseborough and me and Joel McDermott and then it turned into this.

That didn't happen? Somehow. No, we decided to do it this way instead. Okay. In person. Well, having a Lutheran in there.

Would just completely confuse you. It would. I mean, because he'd be sitting there going, mystery! It's all mystery! Right, and then Chris would have to turn, you know, the two and a half.

Hour long debate into like an eight hour debate review complete with Monty Python sketches. And.

Various sound effects and things like that. Oh yeah, definitely. Oh yeah. We're doing it this.

Way instead. I think it'll be a netifying time. I hope so. I don't anticipate too many non-theonomists being at this conference. No, I don't think so. The debate's just a part of the overall conference and I know Sy is going to be there.

Sy Ten Brunke who spoke at Reformation Montana for me last year. Great guy and I, you know, I don't think... Talked to Sy last night. I don't think he's what you'd call a hardcore theonomist but I'll let you speak for himself.

Hopefully Sy can keep me from being pummeled on my way out with stones. I don't think you have to worry. Yeah, I think I've seen Joel be very nice and gentlemanly and expect to have a.

Good time. Well good, well good. It's going to be interesting. Now I'm not going to ask you too much about that but obviously to travel as far as you've traveled, it's more than just simply, well, you know, I went on a rant and so now I'm defending my rant.

This is more important than.

That. Yeah, it is. I, you know, for whatever reason God's given me a sphere of influence and it's a small sphere of influence but it's a sphere of influence over part of whatever you want to call it, a reformed resurgence or whatever.

And it really is my heartfelt contention that theonomy is a distraction from what we particularly as reformed folks ought to be doing. And I'll be bringing that up tomorrow night, how I think it is a distraction from the gospel and it's a confusion in many different ways of law and gospel and the proper use of God's law in this covenant.

How should we do that? And it's, you know, it's interesting because the resolution title is that Mosaic civil laws are obligatory for civil governments today and I'm in a unique position because I'm a reformed Baptist that holds to the 1689 as my confession, which of course is a, more or less, a spitting image with a few changes to the Westminster.

It's kind of built on that pattern. The Savoy Declaration has some influence but yeah. And I think I hold to the Westminster Confession better than my opponent does, particularly in Article 19. So we'll be pointing out some of those things because Chapter 4 of Article 19 says that the Mosaic civil laws are not obligatory.

So as a Baptist, I'm actually arguing with the Westminster Confession against my theonomic opponent who happens to be a Presbyterian. So we'll get into these things and I'm not totally sure what we'll get into because I'm the negative.

I'm going to be following him where he goes, but we'll see where he goes. Well, let's hope it really does get into.

Good stuff. Let me just read that section. This is from the modern language version, but this is in the 1689. To the people of Israel, God also gave sundry judicial laws which applied as long as they remained a nation.

The principles of equity which appear in them are still valid, not because they are found in Moses's laws, but in virtue of their unchanging character.

Right, which is quite a departure from what, I mean, it's the same, I suppose, an idea, but the word obligatory is actually used, not obliging those, it says in the Westminster, which again, I find it ironic that's how the title of the debate was framed, whether or not it's obligatory.

And that, so I believe it says to them, speaking of the nation of Israel, as a body politic, he gave them sundry judicial laws which have now expired, not obliging those any further than what the general equity of those laws may allow.

So I'm going to be arguing with the confession. Of course, there were some changes to that in regard to the government's role in enforcing, say, the first and second table of God's law. I believe that's chapter 23 of the confession.

It changed in 1788 or 89 among the Americans because of some important things you may or may have not heard about in school called the Constitutional Convention. There are some changes there, but so it's unique.

I'm coming in from a Baptist perspective, arguing from a Reform Baptist perspective, but it's the same as the historic and Orthodox Reform perspective against someone who.

Is Reformed that I think is deviated from that. So, but he's not the first one to have done this. I mean, there have been some who wanted to try to remain confessional and others who just simply.

Said, eh. Yeah, there are. Rush Dunning was the first one, and he said that the Westminster confession on this point was, quote, guilty of nonsense. James Jordan said that it was, this category scheme he called it was erroneous.

Bonson, though, tried to say, well, it does flush with the Westminster confession because he redefined general equity. Then he did something else that really concerned me when I saw what he did, and that is to use in the scriptural proofs the various references, biblical references, and to interpret those contrary to the plain reading of what was put there by the Westminster divines.

And it made me so nervous, actually. We were redoing our constitution, church constitution, a couple months ago. And one of the things, it wasn't a big revision, we were just adding an amendment, but I thought while we're in here, and we have to make this a congregational matter, I took the scriptural proofs out of our church constitution.

The reason I did that is because I don't want anyone doing to the church constitution what Bonson did to the Westminster confession and taking our scriptural proofs, going in, applying our own interpretation, and saying what they meant by their plain spoken words is different than what others have always interpreted to be because, look at the scriptural proof which they happened to use.

Not as though the scripture isn't the only infallible rule of faith and practice, it is. But I don't want someone to really isageethe the scripture and then apply it backwards to the confession in terms of what was plainly spoken.

And I've heard theonomists say, can you even hold to the Westminster confession without being a theonomist? And I want to, my head wants to explode a little bit. How do you hold to the Westminster confession and be a theonomist?

How do you do that? Because you really can't without, I think, redefining terms. And I think, I have no idea, the personal character of Bonson, I believe, he's a man of integrity, I want to presume that.

He was certainly a genius, Bonson, I think, was by far the most brilliant of theonomists to come down the line. But he had a job to keep at a reformed seminary. And I think those credentials were important to him.

You know, Bonson had to fight for two years for his ordination. His ordination council didn't want to give it to him because of these peculiar views. So he fought for his ordination. I think he was trying to keep it.

But you look at others in the theonomic movement, they have no problem.

Distancing themselves from their own confession. So, hopefully, there will be great clarity on what theonomy is. I hope so. And that if you actually believe that the moral principles of God's law, well, you know, I will write my law upon their hearts, etc, etc.

That you have to make the distinction. So if you believe the moral principles remain valid, you'd say you're not a theonomist. I think you said earlier, you just have a biblical worldview. Yeah, if you said,.

I believe God's law is important. I think the civil code has a place to play. I think it's useful today. We can use the civil code. It serves a function. It serves a purpose within God's word. If you say it fits within what Paul had told Timothy, that all scripture is good for approved correction, training, and godliness.

That doesn't make you a theonomist. That makes you a Christian with a biblical worldview. What kind of Christian would say, I don't think the civil code that was given to the commonwealth of Israel can teach us anything, can edify us.

I don't think it demonstrates to us anything to know about the character and nature of God. We'd say, well, you know, I think you're wrong. That's not a proper view to have of either the scripture or the world.

The question is, is it obligatory? In the Baptist catechism, which my church uses, several hundred years old, the question is, what's the point of the Ten Commandments? And the answer is to teach us our duty, make clear our condemnation, and show us our need of a savior.

Now, that's the moral law, the Decalogue Ten Commandments. We don't believe the civil code exists for precisely the same purpose as the moral law, neither the ceremonial code. And they would agree with us on the ceremonial code.

Most of them. Rush Duny wouldn't, but say Bonson and North and I think Joel. But we have the moral law. If we fail, it's showing our condemnation. The question is, if I fail to stone, or if my culture, if my government fails to stone a woman who claimed to be a virgin on her father's porch, she gets married, she's not.

Does that demonstrate our need for a savior by not following that civil code the same way as not following the moral law and lusting in our heart or committing murder in our heart or stealing, covening, taking God's name in vain?

And I'd have to say there has to be a distinction. And it's a distinction that theonomists have sometimes made. And I may have to point that out tomorrow night, but it's a distinction without difference.

Bonson said that anyone who holds to a view separating the civil code from the moral law, he says, is, quote, latent antinomianism. And I'd say, listen, the scripture itself does that. And that's part of what the debate is about.

I've been careful not to talk about this because there's a lot of, you know, there's a lot of chest thumping that can go on before a debate.

And, yeah, believe it or not. You know what? It can happen after a debate. Yeah. Yeah. And so.

I wanted to avoid that. I'm even hesitant to talk about it now because, well, I just am. And I know that those guys over there, maybe not Joel so much as some others on that side of the aisle, have taken my silence to be a sign of insecurity or being frightened.

No, you just haven't gotten your listening devices into their offices yet.

Don't talk about that. You're going to give me away here, Southern Baptist CIA. Oh, man, let me tell you. So I'm actually releasing my pre-debate thoughts at nine o 'clock Friday night. So you can see what I thought going into the debate immediately after the debate.

And then I'll give my, I'm supposed to be on some podcast, I think, Bible Thumping Wingnut.

Yes, Bible Thumping Wingnut. I crashed their podcast week four last. They happened to just tweet out, we're doing it right now. And so I started listening in. They had a chat room and I went in and they're like, no, that's no, that's not him.

And then when I proved I was, they're like, flop sweat. And I'm really nervous now. And they started stuttering. It was great.

I really enjoyed doing that. Not nervous, not nervous at all. You know, I had a deacon at my church, in your church.

Yeah, yeah. He said, he said hello. And I was on my way to start the service. I didn't see him after.

And he texted me. He's like, I found, I wound up here by accident because I Googled online. I tried to find the church that was most like ours. And I went and there's James White. And he was excited. And I thought, you know, perfect.

Now they're going to be comparing me to James White. And sure enough, I come out of church and constantly, it wasn't you that preached. I think it was Don, is that your pastor's name? And he, first he texted me.

He's like, did you know such and such verse wasn't in the Bible? And I guess it was something that was discussed in Sunday school.

I did a whole thing on Luke 22, 43 to 44. Okay. And the sweating as it were drops of blood in the garden.

So then after service, it was about how awesome it was. You know, when you're a pastor and that happens, it's like, all right, I got it. It was good. Okay. You're like enough. I understand. It was good.

If he had been wise, he would have texted you and said, eh, not compared to what we used to.

I texted him back. I said, it's nice for you to hear good preaching for a change. And then he texted me and said, quit being a diva. You want a Snickers.

That was his exact response. That's good. That is good. That is very good. Yes. I didn't get a chance to talk to him. Like I said, I was on my, it was after Sunday school and we've only got a certain amount of time.

I was on my way to start the service. And, and, and Don will even tell you, he really struggled on Sunday. He said he forgot his first point when he turned 60. You'll love this. When he turned 60, he decided he needed a new challenge.

So he stopped using notes. He had to memorize all of them. He's now 73. And do you use notes? Yeah. Yeah. So do I. So I said to him Sunday, I said, you know what? Most of us humans, we use notes. Uh, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, you don't have to put an extra layer of, uh, of, of stuff there, you know, even just an outline, you know, and he's like, yeah, yeah, I'll probably.

You know, I, I used to use notes and never a manuscript. And then about four or five years ago, I was preaching through Romans and I got to Romans eight, Romans nine. And, uh, the church had not heard the doctrine before.

It must've been longer than that, probably seven years ago, I'm guessing. And so I thought, you know, every word counts. And so I thought just for this particular sermon series, till I get through with this little bit of Romans, uh, I'm just going to write out every word.

So I know I don't say something wrong. And I've stuck with that ever since then. Really?

Yeah. The only time I've ever done anything like that at all was in my early debates when I needed to know exactly how much time and I, back then it was how much can you get into 20 minutes basically.

And so you really had to, had to get everything right down to the, you know, I, I'm, I guess I'm just not much of a good preacher because I can't do that.

I think the congregation likes having the manuscript to look at afterward. You know, I, I had, uh, one lady for six or seven months, uh, come up and take my notes, my manuscript off the sermon or off the pulpit.

Um, and I thought the cleaning people were getting it while she was going up and swiping my manuscript to read it afterward. Uh, and then I thought, well, maybe I'll just make it available. And so we do that now.

And it's nice. You'll notice a lot of times on my manuscripts, when you get to kind of last 10, 15 minutes of the sermon, it'll just say manuscripts ends manuscript ends, which means that's as far as I got.

And I'll keep preaching after that. Um, but it keeps me from saying things that are, um, that I regret, um, first of all, but, you know, the expression is where there's fog in the pulpit.

Missed, missed, missed the fog in the pew.

Yeah, there you go. And so I don't want fog in the pew. So lay it out there ahead of time. And everybody's different. I don't think there's a right and wrong way to do it.

Right. Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That wouldn't work for me. I'm much more of a teacher. Uh, I, I don't even have a three point outline, uh, or anything like that or a five point or a seven point or whatever else.

I don't even have an outline like that. Uh, cause I'm,.

I'm very textually driven. You don't do alliteration in every sermon.

No, no, uh, not unless it's in the text. Uh, I won't be doing that. So anyway, you know, uh, by the way, you know, who, you know, who is definitely watching right now. You know, the Twitter verse exploded as soon as you came on live and somebody in South Georgia, uh, named Peter Lumpkins is, uh, is probably pulled over by the side of the road with his phone, just watching, taking screenshots.

See, we told you, we told you that's so far back in the woods in Georgia. I don't know if they have phones actually back there. Um, no, I kid. Huh? What? I said that,.

That hurt clear over here. I kid. Uh, he's such a, you know, if I ever see him,.

I'm just going to hug him. Just a big, he's a little bit bigger than I am. So I'm not really sure that that's a, that would be, that would be, no, I'm don't know that I'm, I'm, I'm Scottish. And, uh, at that moment, I think Pete would become Scottish too.

And, uh, Scotts, we do not hug.

No, we're not. We do not hug. Um, we have a unique relationship.

And, uh, just slightly. There's a lot of folks. There's a lot of folks who are actually thinking that what's on the screen right now is, uh, is fake, uh, because, uh, we're both in the same room at the same time and, uh, they, they were far enough away.

Well, the screen right here, but you don't have your arm anywhere near that. Maybe, maybe how they explain it. But, uh, so when I, what was the guy's name? So you are so good with names and I eventually forget them.

What was the guy's name? Who was, um, was, uh, Tim, Tim, was it Rogers? Rogers with a D. Okay. Okay. Um, who was saying that, that, uh, I was hacking his computer and deleting his files and, and I had, you know, I was in control of you and everybody.

I mean, I could never have slept. I must, you know, just be a brain in a bottle type thing because I was in charge of all this stuff.

Well, they actually believe it was last summer at the, uh, at the Southern Baptist convention. Um, he was, he was on the ballot to be made a trustee at the, uh, international mission board. I think it was.

And, um, there might have been some Twitter activism in regard to that from people that may or may not be related to the pulpit. And the next morning he said something about, I'm taking out the trash, uh, at the, uh, at the convention hall, I guess he was helping out and he said he was taking out some trash.

I hope the guys at pulpit and pin will let me do that. That was the last tweet that he ever sent. And after that they went private and I haven't seen hide, you know, you know, I haven't, I haven't seen any actually, actually what happened.

To that. I, I, I noticed that mine, my follow on his just went completely blank. Yeah. No,.

We did. We actually did that. We, we hacked his computer and change the settings and he hasn't been able to figure out how to get it public. It's a joke people. We don't do things like that. Good grief.

Anyway. Uh, so anyhow, so you're just here for the debate and then you go back to the cold, right? I go back. What's what's, what's, what's the temperature when you left?

I don't, probably eight degrees or 12. I'm not sure. You know, in Montana, I don't even look at the weather. It's going to be cold. So dress warm. Why, why even, why even bother? Yeah. What's the point?

I'd say, well, this has been the warmest weather I've ever experienced in Montana. It, I, I felt it rain three times in January. I have never felt rain in January, let alone three times, but it was warm enough terrain.

So this has been, it was supposed to be like winter apocalypse this year, but it's been, it's been really nice. Anything above zero is good. Um, so I remember, you know, I was gutting out a deer one time and it was 37 below.

Oh my goodness. And, uh, I just, well, I had to go through three pocket knives because, you know, it freezes on the blade. And I felt like Luke Skywalker, Luke Skywalker, get inside the deer and stay warm.

That was the last time I don't do it anymore. And like, if it's not, if it's not more than 10 below, I'm just staying home. The deer will have to kill themselves.

Well, I did see, I saw a great tweet yesterday. It showed this little deer out in the snow and it said, uh, if you're cold, they're cold too. And then the next picture was a venison steak on a plate. It says, bring them inside and warm them up.

There are some people that really, I said on Facebook, I was thinking this in the plane, on the way here, every time I look out a plane window, it's been for years. Every time I have the same thought, which is, I bet there's a bunch of deer down there.

And then I was flying into Phoenix and I thought, it doesn't look like there's a lot of, no, no, no, no. They'd have.

Cactuses and rattlesnakes or something. There are desert deer. Do we have deer?

Are they scrawny? Are they small deer? They'd have to be, right?

They're not, they're not huge, but I mean, obviously if you go north from here, you have Flagstaff and you've got, you know, what used to be the largest, uh, Ponderosa pine forest in the world. Until which fire was that?

Well, that'd probably be Rodeo Chetisky.

Yeah, probably Rodeo Chetisky. 470 ,000 acres burned or some ridiculous thing like that. But, uh, no, it's, it's, it's not all the desert, but this is the desert. And, uh, uh, there are warm. If you think this is bad, don't go to Yuma.

Uh, Yuma.

Well, it is, it's like a garden. It's stunningly beautiful here. Oh,.

It is. It really is. The mountains are gorgeous. I love it here. I love it. We have coyotes.

You do. And you have a Chick-fil-A in the, uh, kind of the parking lot of my hotel,.

Which is nice. So I was given Squirrel Heart. Oh man. Oh, I have, I have one 1 .3 miles from.

My house now. They've just built it. I've got one like 900 miles from my house.

What do you think about that? Yeah, I know. I know. I, I do recall I was there and that picture that of me holding your AR -15 sort of went viral on the internet, which, uh, uh, yeah, I really appreciate that.

But now I have my own, so I should get you to hold mine.

I still get emails on a regular basis. Some kook website, uh, posted a picture. I think it was me and Voti with the gun this year. Right. And, uh, you know, how can you as a Christian own a firearm? So then I usually, if I have time to respond, cause I want to respond to people, you know, it's the nice thing to do.

I usually send them, I usually send them a different picture of an animal that I've killed, something like that, you know, to let them know. I am reading and getting.

Their emails. Well, speaking of firearms, um, anyways, um, one of the things I wanted to do today, and I thought I would, uh, impugn your character by, by having you in here while I do it. I, I promised everybody, uh, and we've already gone through, uh, what, uh, half the program.

Um, I, uh, I promised everybody that I would play and sort of feel like doing this, you know, uh, so I can see the, uh, the camera over there, but, uh, I don't know when this was, I guess it was over the weekend.

Thank you. Yeah. There. Hey. Oh, uh, well anyway. And, um, Rob Bell and his wife were on with Oprah. Now what could go wrong there?

If there is anybody operating someone with controls, it's Oprah and Rob Bell. I think.

They've merged into the same person. I think that's, that's a possibility. Remember, uh, it was John Piper, uh, back when Love Wins first came out. Farewell, Rob Bell. Farewell, Rob Bell is what he said.

And, oh, he, he took some serious heat for that. How dare you say something like that? You're nasty. You're you're well, uh, if you want vindication, uh, uh, what Rob Bell has become, you know, and I said yesterday, I said, look, folks, they want, they go out from us because they were not truly of us.

And I preached a sermon. We need to, we probably need to, uh, repost it or something. But I preached a sermon about four years ago called the blessing of apostasy. And basically it was saying, you know, you don't want the false teachers staying in the church.

You don't want them being comfortable and ruining our testimony. And it was one of the greatest apologetic problems that I face is how easy it is for my opponents to quote somebody who is in a position of leadership in the professing church that disbelieves a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.

And anybody can find anybody these days that, you know, will deny anything. And, uh, so you don't want people staying. Um, and so it's actually a good thing when apostates go out and make their apostasy known.

The standard American feeling is, well, no, no, we just all need to stay together. And we just, just need to love one another. Well, those words are all kind words. If they're all based upon sanctify them, I truth, thy word is truth and so on and so forth.

But once you've got folks very plainly don't believe what defines a Christian, they need to go their Oprah way. And, uh, that's basically what he's done. And so he's come up with this, he and his wife put out a book.

When I first saw, uh, when I first saw the cover, um, the Zimzum of love or something like that, I was like, this is an onion article, right? This is, this is, this is, it's a joke, right? The Zimzum really honestly, but no, it's, it's, it's the actually, actually the title of the book.

And, uh, so I'm gonna play a section here. We have the, uh, the video ready to go there. All right. Let's, um, let's take a look at, uh, at this section and, uh, we'll, we'll listen to the whole section and then go back through it.

That's normally how we handle these things. And, uh, I will, I will try to control brother hall. Um, uh, smashing this monitor will do no good whatsoever in regards to Rob Bell. So, uh, you got that. Okay, here,.

Here we go. Marriage gay and straight is a gift to the world because the world needs more, not less love, fidelity, commitment, devotion, and sacrifice. I think it's great that you all.

Made a conscious choice to include gay marriage in here. Absolutely. Yeah. Why? Because one of the oldest aches in the bones of humanity is loneliness. I mean, it's one of the things that goes way, way back.

Loneliness is not good for the world. And so whoever you are, gay or straight, it is totally normal, natural, and healthy to want somebody to go through life with. It's, it's central to our humanity. Yeah.

We want someone to go on the journey with when is the church going to get that? We're close. I think it's evolving. Well, uh, continue on please. I think it's lots of people already there. We think it's inevitable and it's, we're moments.

A moment away from the church accepting it. Absolutely. Yeah. Because as soon as you meet someone, and most of the time when people have resistance to this, and I say, you think we're moments away. I think culture is already there.

Okay. And the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2000 years ago as their best defense. When you have in front of you flesh and blood people who are your brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles and coworkers and neighbors, and they love each other and they just want to go through life with someone.

Well, you sound really progressive to me because I've talked to pastors who are still.

Saying that. Oh, I think there are a lot of people who, as they see culture moving, their response is to dig in deeper. Yeah. It's to like hold their ground, fight against it. Um, so I think that there are both things happening.

There are churches that are moving forward or into that area. And there are churches who are just almost regressing and making it more of a battle. Yeah.

This is something we haven't talked about. Okay. Um, there we go. Uh, I've been saying on this program for years, and I certainly have been saying of late that the tsunami of apostasy on this subject, on this subject is upon us.

And we are certainly seeing this. We reviewed, uh, grace point church in Tennessee, I believe. Um, I'm sorry, Memphis. Okay. Thanks. Uh, just a couple of weeks ago. And the, uh, the divine wind, which blew them into this conversation.

I love those, those words. Someone, someone pointed out to me that I completely missed a great opportunity. Divine wind in Japanese was the kamikazes. They drove their, they drove their planes into boom.

And that was, that was it. So that would have been a good comment about the divine wind. But anyway, uh, it probably would be possible if I put out just a little bit of effort to every week, um, have this week's, uh, apostasy segment on this subject, I would imagine.

Um, and, uh, I don't think that even though confessionally, as far as like the Baptist faith and message goes, that's not supposed to be something that can happen within Southern Baptist circles. Uh, Danny Cortez, uh, demonstrated that, uh, you know, it can.

Um, and I just, I, I just wonder, uh, when the, the knocks on the doors are going to start and the movement to, um, we don't want, we don't want to be irrelevant.

Yeah. I don't even know if you can call it apostasy at this point with Rob Bell. Oh yeah. You know, because he's, he's long apostate now, but you know, I look at it, I almost don't even want to critique it as though it's, um, to give the implication that he's some form of, you know, if you're referring to the, the word of God as a 2000 year old letter dismissively, um, not only do you have extreme hubris and arrogance on your own part that you're smarter somehow than a 2000 year old letter written by God, but that you refer to it, uh, in that way.