Real Bible Rob: Affirming Christianity Podcast Real Bible Rob - Inclusive Christianity Discussions Real Bible Rob | PCUSA Min

Rob Christ | Inclusive Christianity
  • 4.7 (13)
  • Christianity
  • Updated Weekly

Exploring Bible interpretation and modern Christian faith, I am a Presbyterian USA minister who interprets the Bible in all of its messy and varied voices. I teach and preach spiritual growth to people who want an open and affirming Christianity. My social media tagline is "People say lots of things about the Bible that aren't really there."  My full-length sermons and live stream are available on YouTube: @robchrist8999 and @edmondspresbyterian132Contact me at: epc-pcusa.org, pastorepc@frontier.com

  1. 3d ago

    Are you “Born Again?” Cult code signaling is not what John 3 is about.

    Send us Fan Mail I am very interested how evangelical Christians use language to signal conformity. A major goal of my online ministry is to point out these code words, often based on the misuse of scripture, and to debunk their common usage. "Born Again" is certainly one of the more sneaky cult code words. It is seems biblical in John 3:3 and 3:7 but when it is pulled out for cult signaling about who is saved and who is not saved, it is particularly pernicious. I have posted several times about John 3:3. I also posted about the cult-like use of Romans 12:2 to separate Christians from "the world." Both verses require considerable nuance to understand in context, which unfortunately makes them perfect candidates for appropriation and misuse. In this episode, I discuss how these verses are used for signaling evangelical separation and why most mainline Christians and Catholics don't use these phrases. I discuss how this is a used for the larger project of Christian dominance.  NRSVue John 3:3  Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above. NIV Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” Living Bible  Jesus replied, “With all the earnestness I possess I tell you this: Unless you are born again, you can never get into the Kingdom of God.” NRSVue Romans 12:2   Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect. NIV Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. ESV  Do not be conformed to this world,[a] but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. My recent social media post: "To my John 3:3 “having been born from above” often translated as “born again” video, I have often been asked “have you been saved?” or “are you born again?” Which are very weird questions to ask a mainline pastor who regularly professes my faith online. Where does this come from? It is the exclusionary tribal language that has been drilled to the heads of evangelicals, Your in or your out, that's it. John 3:3 has nothing do with heaven or being saved. Jesus told Nicodemus to be spiritually awakened. In context, Jesus never said Nicodemus or the Pharisees were not saved. He said they were spiritually blind, relying on their special status to be right with God. It's ironic when mod xians use these verses for separation & exclusion. They are constantly worried who’s saved or not. They are being as spiritually blind as Nicodemus was."

  2. Sep 11

    How Purity Policing harms the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the mission of Christianity

    Send us Fan Mail Life is complicated & faithfulness to God happens in unexpected ways. I spoke with the Redeemed Zoomer, Richard Ackerman, a few episodes ago about his General Assembly overture requiring ordained elders to affirm monogamy. Faithfulness to monogamy is not a real problem in the PCUSA, but his overture effectively institutes a morality police. The PCUSA tried this in 1998 “live in fidelity within the covenant of marriage of a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” amend. That hurt so many good & faithful ppl & set the church back decades. Both Richard and I greatly admire Karl Barth who did amazing things for the reformed church in the 20th century. But this overture would have forced Barth out of the church because he had a complicated marriage. Purity policing is like what Jesus takes about the Pharisees in Matthew 23. In verses 23 and 24, Jesus said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!" This so relevant to the distractions that the purity minded folks in the PCUSA are trying to institute. In this thoughtful episode I discuss the nuances of the faithfulness to the bible and confessions and the danger of using them for policing. Our book of order says that the we should not use the historic confessions as litmus tests and that we have freedom of conscience, but these amendments do exactly that.  On the Real Bible Rob for Teens podcast @redeemed_zoomer commented I wanna be clear that the LAST thing I wanted in writing the anti-polyamory overture was to make our church look bad. I care a TON about the image of the PCUSA as someone who regularly tries to get people to join it, and I get mocked online publicly anytime the PCUSA does anything bad. I felt genuine regret about writing the overture after seeing the bad image it gave our beloved church.  The reason I wrote the anti-polyamory overture was because I genuinely believe the radical progressive minority that is vastly over-represented in our denomination's seminaries and high courts supports polyamory (they have all but said so) and will very soon try and push for its broader acceptance and normalization in the church The GEN-09 overture created a committee that will study "diverse family structures" and behind closed doors people have admitted that it's going to be the beginning of a campaign for the church to accept polyamory. My goal was to show moderate progressives like yourself just how far the radical progressives in our denomination are willing to go. I would not be shocked at all if, in 2028, the GEN-09 committee recommends something like "deconstructing monogamy" @realbiblerob Reply Thanks so much for your comment. It helps me understand the context of the overture. Our conversation helped me a lot. I have very mixed feelings about the direction of the denomination. I share your concerns about the overly political and aggressive lurch to the left in some groups. I was not aware of GEN-09 and appreciate you highlighting it. At the same time however, we have to get progressive women on board, because many I speak with view the sexuality and monogamy discussions as a back door for returning patriarchy. That said, the young people I speak with appreciate what you are doing. From our conversation, I recognize that you are an asset and your group is potentially a point of unity in the future. I think a focus on confessions really helps especially if the next confession fulfills its  promise. Peace be with you. @realbiblerob follow up reply Dear Richard, I have thought about this so much and I am grateful for your honesty. Karl Barth, who and I both hold in such high regard, would have been excluded from the church by your overture. He had a complicated relationship with his wife and his mistress. He didn’t divorce his wife which would have been devastating to her in that era. I wouldn’t condone his arrangement, but the church and we would have been greatly impoverished by forcing him out of the church. Amendment B in 1998 did the same to many good and faithful elders, forcing them out of the church because they were not married but faithful couples. The morality police can be like the Pharisees in Matt 23, where they tithe their mint, dill and cumin while neglecting justice, mercy and faith. I hope you will see that these hard lines do more harm than good. Peace be with you and thank you for your witness.

  3. Sep 5

    The Dispensations are not biblical and has its roots in antisemitic racism.

    Send us Fan Mail Dispensationalism is the 19th century theology that says you can neatly divide all of history in to 7 or 8 periods. It is the rationale for the Rapture. Even though it is widely believed and preached especially in America, it is not biblical and it is very harmful. I have spoken in detail about the Rapture and why it is not in scripture, in Season 1, Episode 66, "Rapture Abuse, 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Acts 8:39" It is a creation of John Nelson Darby in 1833 and heavily promoted in the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. It is still the standard Christianity of many Baptists and most Charismatic Christians, but it has a deep history in antisemitism. It is inherently Replacement Theology as I described in my last episode with Gabe Gordon, Season 2, Episode 33 "Replacement Theology. Why Supersessionism is so wrong." I describe how it is usually taught and then how it contrasts with Covenant Theology, which can also be supersessionist in a different way.

  4. Aug 29

    Redeemed Zoomer on the Future of Mainline Churches

    Send us Fan Mail I'm pleased to welcome Richard Ackerman, also known as the Redeemed Zoomer on YouTube, to the podcast. Richard is currently a seminary student at Dubuque Theological Seminary. But he is mostly known for his big presence on social media, especially YouTube, and his Operation Reconquista, now labeled Operation Reformation movement while he was a student at SMU. He then co-founded Presbyterians for the Kingdom. He seeks to support theologically conservative churches in the mainline denominations. As a PCUSA minister who is very active on social media, I come across his content and his supporters frequently. I wanted to speak with Richard to find to understand his point of view.  Welcome Richard! Teaser Questions: Please give a brief bio. What has led you to do the work you are doing? Are you surprised by the huge response you've received. You have a big public presence. How does this reflect on you personally? You show a strong sense of theological history. But it appears that you don’t have a formal theological education yet. Where does your knowledge come from? Define what you mean by Theologically Conservative and Liberal. In what ways has the PCUSA remained faithful and in what ways has it strayed in your opinion?  You are highly critical of the non-denominational mega church movements. Why do you think they grew so much in the last 50 years and what do you think they get wrong? Why are the mainline churches a better choice? Your focus on LGBTQ inclusion in the church seems to match some of the people that I have worked with for nearly 40 years in the church. Why is this so central to your messages about theological liberalism? Correlation without causation. Not a decline but awareness. The responses I get and see to your content comes exclusively from mostly young, white men. Do you have any statistics on the demographic engagement with your organizations?  Where do women pastors fit into your version of orthodoxy?  As you might be experiencing in your seminary experience, young women are rejecting the organized church in record numbers. Some have found a home in progressive churches, but most seem to turn away completely? What should we do to make the church more welcoming to them?  It seems like people have used you as an avatar or even an enforcer? What is your goal for the church? What polity do you want changed? Do you affirm Belhar? You are very confident of your views and clearly on an anti-woke, anti LGBTQ campaign. What motivates you? When you mention DEI, this sounds more like a political movement? Why isn't it?  Beverly Gaventa quoted Karl Barth to me. In her Romans 14, she said "The danger in being right. Right in the worst possible way." You seem to be missing a main part of Barth's theology, the heartlessness and lack of grace.  It’s irresponsible to equate affirming Christians with 19th century liberal theology, because you are implying that they are non creedal and dishonoring scripture. That reformed theology and affirming lgbtq people is inherently incompatible.  I agree with the Confessional and Creedal, but why does that make LGBTQ, Women in Leadership, or even Biblical Inerrancy the top litmus tests in the PCUSA? How does this clash with Neo Orthodoxy?  Did you participate in GA this year? What are your impressions of it? Should we have thought police in the PCUSA? Do advocate for that? I have been a PCUSA elder since 1990 and I have watched the church its many forms. It appears to me that young conservatives have an idealized view of the what the church was and want to return to that image. What do you have to say about that?  What are your plans? Are you seeking ordination in the PCUSA? What do you intend to do with this? By the way, I am part of CPM and I have graded many ordination exams. I really enjoy speaking to people in preparation for the ministry.

  5. Aug 22

    Replacement theology. Why Supersession is so wrong with author Gabe Gordon

    Send us Fan Mail I'm so happy to welcome my Jewish Christian friend Gabe Gordon back to the podcast. Last year he spoke to my congregation about his book The Fundamentals of a Recovering Fundamentalist and we did a podcast episode. Supersessionism and the misuse of the Hebrew Bible by Christians was a major theme which Gabe has explored in greater detail. I have also spoken about Replacement Theology and Supersessionism in previous episodes, most notably "The Harm of Replacement Theology, Hebrews 8:6-13" in Season 1, Episode 56, from August 2, 2025. Since then, I dove into Romans 9-11 and discovered how much supersessionism has affected our interpretations of Paul. In this episode, I speak with Gabe about the role of supersessionism in supporting colonialism and the concept of Post-Colonial Traditionalism. We explore Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council and how Galatians was affected by it. Then we dive into Gabe's ideas about how we can mend the Nicene Creed to remove its supersessionism. Then we touch on the Gospel of John and its antisemitic misuse.  Walter Brueggemann, the great Old Testament scholar I have been reading so much for sermons on Jeremiah, writes, "Thus we arrive at a profound tension between the OT text and the NT quotation, a tension reflective of a long history of Jewish-Christian competitive acrimony. The matter is not easily adjudicated, because the supersessionist (remember that word)case is given scriptural warrant in the Book of Hebrews. At best, Christians come derivatively and belatedly to share the promised newness [of the covenant]." Goldingay says that the new covenant is established by God's action of forgiveness and renewal as we see in Jeremiah. And the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament, including the new covenant, are not nullified or replaced by the New Testament but are fulfilled in a way that includes both Jews and Gentiles. Rather that replacement, it is progress that he is talking about. Goldingay sees Jeremiah 31:33 as a promise of a new covenant that deepens and expands the relationship between God and his people, without negating the covenant God made with Israel. Here is a theological traditionalist and conservative who recognizes the long sweep of God's purpose in progress. It is very refreshing to see.  Why dispensationalism is highly supersessionist.  Getting to Romans 11 is a time for reflection, because it is a capstone of a section of the book that is largely ignored. She said that we ignore chapters 9-11 at our peril. She warns in her commentary that "Skipping over chapters 9-11 could well undermine the letter as a whole." I asked her why she said that and her answer was very interesting. Whenever talking to a scholar who has spent a lifetime in a book of the Bible, it took a while for her comments to unfold and then it took a while for me to understand the impact of what she said.

  6. Aug 15

    Fundamentalist Off Ramps. Absolute certainty until it doesn't work.

    Send us Fan Mail Correction: Recent studies show that 38% of Americans believe in some form of Young Earth Creationism. A core tenet of Fundamentalism is biblical inerrancy. This is also its Achilles heel, because there is always a departure point for every reasonable person. A decision that must always be made whether to believe evidence and science or not. A follower ask me if all fundamentalists believe in the flat earth and young earth creationism because these are both in the Bible. I said while there is overlap between fundamentalism and these beliefs, it doesn't fit most people. For most, flat earthers go too far. In this insightful episode, I describe how there are many highly intelligent fundamentalists who believe in science to a degree. There are also subtle differences between biblical literalism, inerrancy, and infallibility. So there is a lot of room for equivocating. Most fundamentalists are creationists but many have backed up to intelligent design, for example. I also speak about what role apologetics plays in this and how their arguments are based on the same fallacies.  The Five Fundamentals from 1910  • Inerrancy of Scripture: The belief that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and free from error. • Virgin Birth of Christ: The doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin without a human father. • Substitutionary Atonement: The belief that Jesus died on the cross as a substitute sacrifice to pay for human sins. • Bodily Resurrection: The physical rising of Jesus from the dead on the third day. Historical Reality of Miracles / Second Coming: Originally defined in 1910 as the historical reality of Christ's miracles, often interchanged in later summaries with his physical return

  7. Aug 8

    What Ezra & Nehemiah tell us about Inclusion. Hebrew Bible scholar Dr. Roger Nam

    Send us Fan Mail I am delighted to welcome Dr. Roger Nam to the podcast! Dr. Nam is a Professor of Hebrew Bible at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta. He was the Dean of Portland Seminary while I was getting my MDiv there. While Dean there, Roger reached out to his fellow Presbyterian students. I felt an immediate connection with Roger because we both worked in the technology industries, coming to ministry and biblical students after a career on the outside. Roger is an expert on Ezra and Nehemiah, books that Presbyterians largely ignore. His interest in the restoration period under Persian rule intrigues me. His fascinating and highly relevant 2024 book The Theology of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah shows why we should pay more attention to this period.  Welcome Roger! Thank you for coming on the podcast! Potential Questions: 1. Can you tell us a bit about your history and what brought you into biblical studies? 2. The preface to your book touches on the "in-betweenness" of being a Korean American and the challenges your return to Korean presented for you and your kids. Can you describe how this enriched your study of Ezra-Nehemiah? 3. Ezra and Nehemiah are often used by evangelicals for an idealized triumphalist narrative, which is why I suppose Presbyterians have avoided this period. Your work shows a much more complicated narrative. Was this your main purpose for you focus on these books?  4. I appreciated the understanding and sensitivity in your book about the resistance of the left behind Judahites response to the returning exiles portrayed in Ezra. How should we view the harshness of the exiles response? In what ways can we draw comparisons to modern Israel-Palestine? What should we avoid in drawing these comparisons? 5. I loved the deep dive into complications of funding and taxation stalling the reconstruction of the temple. To what extent was this about the politics of Cyrus vs. Artaxerxes vs. Darius? What role did opposition of the surrounding communities play? 6. It seems that building of the wall in Nehemiah was perceived as a threat to the Persians. What role did propaganda in preventing reconstruction?  7. How do these complications help us resist idealization of the narrative? I try hard to make the Bible real for people. Was this one of your purposes in writing the book?  8. Tensions between diaspora and homeland residents. Describe how the Jewish diaspora formed. What roles did the diaspora affect the narrative in later generations. Do we get any clues from DSS or differences between the Septuagint and masoretic texts? 9.  When did the focus on Jerusalem come? Did the second temple period heighten the cultic centrality of Jerusalem? I’m always puzzled how Bethel, Shechem and the holy mountain fell out of favor.  10. Language and code switching in Nehemiah  11. Social changes from the patriarchal and tribal families to the Persians. Extended to nuclear. Polygamy? Interest in Persians to control their vassals. Similar to the Romans? Colonialism 12. Changed definition of god’s presence. Torah becomes presence. Beginning of Jewish eschatology? 13. Mixed marriage crisis and repentance of ancestral sins.  14. The character of God in Ezra–Nehemiah does not fit well with the largely abandoned presentations of Old Testament theology from the twentieth century. Quote All three of these landmark Old Testament theologies paid scant attention to Ezra–Nehemiah since divine absence did not fit well within such grand organizing schemes. These theologies also neglected much of the wisdom literature and the Bible’s liturgical texts.  15. God seems more modern in Ezra Nehemiah. Distant and people have more agency.  Cyrus as agent of Gods will vs Nebuchadnezzar. EzraNehemiah vs 2nd and 3rd Isaiah

  8. Aug 1

    Murder in the Church. Ananias and Sapphira and Communism. Acts 5:1-11

    Send us Fan Mail Christians idealize many passages in the Bible. For good and for bad. The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 is a classic example. It is so out of character for Peter and the principles of grace. It doesn't fit unless you also look at the communal living and transparency implied in Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32-47. These portray a version of communism in the early church. Given the communal goodwill and apocalyptic immediacy of the early church, it is easy to see why they believed that they could sustain a culture without private property. In a previous episode "Was Jesus a Communist or Capitalist? Season 1, Episode 41, I show that the Bible contains conflicting information about shared resources. There is the practicality of Leviticus and the idealism of the early church in Acts. There are several strange clues in Acts 5 that the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira were likely about enforcing the rules, certainly by punishment or even murder. The early church was struggling with who they were. I this intriguing episode, I describe my discovery process and why I think this looks like a coverup rather than God's judgment.

See All (116)

Ratings & Reviews

4.7
out of 5
13 Ratings

About

Exploring Bible interpretation and modern Christian faith, I am a Presbyterian USA minister who interprets the Bible in all of its messy and varied voices. I teach and preach spiritual growth to people who want an open and affirming Christianity. My social media tagline is "People say lots of things about the Bible that aren't really there."  My full-length sermons and live stream are available on YouTube: @robchrist8999 and @edmondspresbyterian132Contact me at: epc-pcusa.org, pastorepc@frontier.com

Information

You Might Also Like