Timothy Hundley's Substack Podcast

Timothy Hundley

The Table brings Timothy Hundley’s spoken essays on faith, queer life, spiritual harm, justice, and the question beneath them all: Does this look like Jesus? It is grace for every soul still reaching for God through the rubble—and an invitation to pull out another chair. timothyhundley.substack.com

  1. Aug 20

    King and Country

    I grew up around a Christianity that knew how to fight. We had armor. We had soldiers. We had battles and enemies and firing lines. We were taught to endure hardness like good soldiers, to fight the good fight of faith, to put on the whole armor of God and stand against the wiles of the devil. There was no shortage of martial language available to us, and culturally it did not take much for that spiritual vocabulary to bleed into something else. God and country sat comfortably beside one another. The cross and the flag could share a platform without anybody asking whether one of them was beginning to interpret the other. Patriotism could acquire the language of faith, and faith could acquire the instincts of patriotism, until defending Christianity and defending America began to sound suspiciously like the same assignment. I never quite understood it. Not because I had developed some sophisticated theology of empire as a child. I hadn’t. I could not have explained Christian nationalism, Constantinianism, or the political implications of the Kingdom of God if somebody had handed me a microphone and offered me twenty dollars. I was just a young Jesus freak in a Pentecostal and Southern Gospel world, surrounded by people who believed worship mattered enough to dress for it, sing like they meant it, pray like God might actually answer, and speak the name of Jesus as though the atmosphere itself could change when they did. And I loved a different song. There’s Something About That Name. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. There was something about that Name. And tucked inside that little gospel song was a line that, looking back, may have told me more about my theology than I understood at the time: “Kings and kingdoms will all pass away, but…” But Jesus. That was the part. Kings pass away. Kingdoms pass away. Governments pass away. Empires pass away. Flags change. Borders move. Nations rise, fracture, conquer, surrender, expand, collapse, and eventually become chapters in somebody else’s history book. But Jesus remains. Once that gets into you, “king and country” can never mean quite what some people want it to mean. I can love a country without worshiping it. I can participate in its government without confusing that government with the Kingdom of God. I can care about my neighbors, vote, organize, serve, protest, advocate, build, and hope for the common good without pretending that the survival of the United States is somehow necessary for the survival of Christianity. Christianity does not need America. Jesus does not need America. The Kingdom of God was here before the Constitution was written, and it will be here when the United States is a subject for archaeologists. That should not be a controversial Christian statement. And yet here we are. There is a strain of American Christianity that seems almost incapable of imagining the faith apart from the nation. It speaks as though America occupies some privileged place in God’s redemptive history, as though protecting a particular political order is synonymous with defending the gospel, and as though losing cultural dominance would somehow constitute a defeat for Christ. But what kind of Christ needs cultural dominance to remain Lord? What kind of Kingdom is threatened by an election? What kind of gospel collapses when Christians no longer control the legislature? If our faith requires possession of the throne, I am not sure the throne we are defending belongs to Jesus. Jesus had opportunities to grasp political power. He refused them. When people wanted to make him king, he withdrew. When Satan offered him the kingdoms of the world, he declined the bargain. When his disciples reached for swords, he told them to put the weapons away. When Pilate confronted him with imperial power, Jesus did not beg Rome for legitimacy. “My kingdom is not from this world.” That does not mean his Kingdom is irrelevant to this world. Quite the opposite. It means no existing nation gets to claim ownership of it. The Kingdom of God enters this world like yeast, seed, salt, and light. It rearranges loyalties. It upends hierarchies. It calls the last first and tells the powerful that greatness looks like service. It identifies Christ with the hungry, the stranger, the sick, the prisoner, and the poor. It does not ask Caesar for permission to exist, and it certainly does not confuse Caesar with Jesus. That distinction matters because whenever Christians forget it, the gospel becomes remarkably easy to recruit. The cross becomes a campaign prop. The Bible becomes a justification for whatever hierarchy already benefits us. “Religious liberty” begins to mean our right to control other people’s lives. National power becomes evidence of divine favor. Political opponents become enemies of God. Before long, Christians who were commanded to wash feet are fighting over who gets to sit on the throne. This is where I return to that childhood song. Kings and kingdoms will pass away. Every one of them. Not merely the kingdoms we dislike. Not merely dictatorships and hostile governments and foreign empires. Ours too. The hymn does not leave an American exception hidden in the final verse. America will pass away. That sentence may sound offensive only because we have allowed patriotism to claim territory that belongs to theology. Christian hope has never been that one earthly nation will survive forever. Christian hope is resurrection. Christian hope is the reconciliation of all things in Christ. Christian hope is a city whose light is not provided by the sun because the glory of God illuminates it. Christian hope is a Kingdom in which death is defeated, tears are wiped away, and the nations themselves are healed. That is a considerably larger vision than preserving the political arrangement into which I happened to be born. And I think, somehow, I knew that before I knew how to say it. While somebody else was singing about keeping on the firing line, I kept returning to the Name. Jesus. Not America. Not empire. Not party. Not president. Jesus. Maybe that is why some forms of Christianity never fit me particularly well. I was being taught a faith of battle lines while quietly falling in love with a Christ who kept crossing them. They told me to identify the enemy; Jesus told me to love him. They told me to defend the righteous; Jesus kept sitting at tables with people the righteous had already condemned. They told me Christianity needed protecting; Jesus walked willingly toward a cross. And beneath all of it was that stubborn little theological refrain I had been singing since childhood: Kings and kingdoms will all pass away. But. That word may be the whole sermon. Empire has an expiration date. Power has an expiration date. Political parties have expiration dates. Nations have expiration dates. Every throne built by human hands eventually becomes empty. But Jesus. So when Christianity asks me to pledge myself to king and country, I have to ask which king. If you mean the temporary ones, my loyalty has limits. If you mean the kingdoms that build borders, raise armies, issue currency, win elections, and write constitutions, I can participate in them. I can even love them. But I will not confuse them with salvation. There is only one Kingdom I expect to survive history, and there is only one King whose throne does not depend upon our ability to keep him there. That would make for a comfortable ending if it were the whole story. It is not. Because there is another part of this story, and it would be dishonest to leave it out. I may have been the kid singing There’s Something About That Name while other people seemed more interested in spiritual warfare, but I also learned the warfare language. I learned it well. I knew how to stand my ground. I knew how to defend the faith. I knew how to identify error, expose compromise, recognize the enemy, and hold the line. Lord, I knew how to hold the line. And if I am going to criticize the Christianity that trained people to see the world as a battlefield, then I also have to admit that, for a while, I was a very good soldier. I was sincere. I was faithful. I wanted God. I believed I was defending truth. And sometimes I was a son of a b***h. There really is no elegant theological language required for that confession. I could explain the environment that formed me. I could talk about the churches I grew up in, the preaching I heard, the assumptions everybody around me seemed to share, the fear of deception, the obsession with doctrinal purity, and the terrifying possibility that getting something wrong about God might not merely make you mistaken but might make you damned. All of that matters. None of it turns cruelty into kindness. None of it makes the person on the receiving end hurt less. There are things I believed because they were handed to me before I was old enough to examine them. There are things I repeated because people I trusted told me they were true. There are things I defended because questioning them felt indistinguishable from questioning God. But eventually they came out of my mouth. Eventually they became my arguments. Eventually they became my certainty. And at that point, whatever their origin, they belonged to me too. That is the part of religious deconstruction I think we sometimes rush past. We become aware of the systems that formed us, and rightly so. We identify bad theology. We recognize manipulation. We trace ideas backward through churches, denominations, pastors, parents, political movements, and entire religious cultures. And sometimes, without meaning to, explanation becomes absolution. That was how I was raised. It was. That was what I was taught. It was. Everybody around me believed it. They did. But somebody else still had to live beneath the weight of what I believed. Someone else heard the judgment. Someone else watched me defend the boundary. Someone else may have wondered whether God loved them because pe

  2. Aug 18

    Separation of Church and Hate: The Bible Does Not Belong to the Bullies

    There are books I enjoy, books I recommend, and then there are books that make me want to grab people by the shoulders and say, “No, seriously. Read this.” John Fugelsang’s Separation of Church and Hate is one of those books. Five stars. Six, if they would let me. Fugelsang has managed to write something I have wanted to hand people for years: a funny, furious, remarkably well-informed response to the version of American Christianity that has spent decades insisting it owns the Bible while sometimes behaving as though it barely knows the Jesus standing at its center. And that distinction matters, because this is not a book arguing that Christianity is the problem. It is a book confronting what people have done with Christianity—particularly when Scripture becomes a weapon for exclusion, political power, cruelty, and culture-war grievance. Fugelsang’s response is wonderfully simple: fine. Let’s actually read the Bible. That may be my favorite thing about the book. He does not surrender Scripture to fundamentalists. He takes their arguments seriously enough to meet them on their own ground, and then demonstrates just how selective a supposedly “biblical” worldview can become. The verses supporting the conclusion are eternal truth. The verses complicating the conclusion suddenly require context. Commands placed upon other people are immutable, while inconvenient commands placed upon us somehow belong to another time. And Jesus gets quoted plenty, even while following him can become strangely optional. Fugelsang keeps bringing the conversation back to the deeply inconvenient Christ standing in the middle of all of it. Readers of The Table already know the question that immediately came to mind for me: Does this look like Jesus? What happens when Christianity produces contempt more reliably than compassion? What happens when Christians become better at identifying whom God supposedly despises than recognizing whom Christ commanded them to love? What happens when protecting Christian political power becomes more important than following the person Christians confess as Lord? At some point, we have to look at the fruit. That is one reason this book landed so well for me. Fugelsang is doing, in his own way, something I keep trying to do in my own writing: refusing to let people end a conversation merely by declaring something “biblical.” A Bible verse is not automatically an interpretation, and an interpretation is not automatically faithful simply because somebody says “the Bible says.” And thank God the book is funny, because the subject matter could become exhausting very quickly. Fugelsang is a comedian, and he knows exactly when an argument deserves careful engagement and when theological gymnastics simply deserve to be pointed at and laughed at. I laughed out loud more than once, but the humor never makes the underlying argument feel unserious. If anything, it makes the absurdities easier to see. This is not systematic theology, and I would not recommend reading it as though it were. It is something more accessible and probably more immediately useful: part biblical rebuttal, part cultural criticism, part field guide, and part very funny reminder that fundamentalists do not own Scripture. That last point may be the most important. The Bible does not belong to them. Jesus does not belong to Christian nationalists. Christianity does not belong to politicians, televangelists, culture-war grifters, or anyone else who has discovered that invoking God is a remarkably effective way to make personal politics sound eternal. They do not get exclusive custody. And those of us who remain stubbornly attached to Jesus are under no obligation to surrender him because somebody else has turned his name into branding. If you have ever watched cruelty wrapped in a Bible verse and thought, This cannot possibly be what Jesus meant, read this book. If you have ever been told there is only one “biblical” way to think about immigration, LGBTQ people, poverty, politics, or the people pushed to society’s margins, read this book. And if you have ever wanted to watch someone respond to biblical fundamentalism by essentially saying, “Oh, we’re using the Bible? Excellent,” and then proceed to bring receipts, definitely read this book. Five stars. Six out of five if anybody ever fixes the damn rating system. Get full access to The Table with Timothy Hundley at timothyhundley.substack.com/subscribe

  3. Aug 18

    Who Do You View as Dogs?

    There is a particular kind of revelation that occurs when the cruelty you ordered arrives at your own front door. Brent Jindra voted for Donald Trump three times. He called himself a MAGA patriot and was drawn specifically to Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda. He believed the country needed stricter enforcement. He believed Trump when he spoke of criminals crossing the border, invaders pouring into the nation, and dangerous people poisoning its blood . What Jindra apparently did not believe was that any of this could happen to his wife. Galina Bobreneva came to the United States from Russia on a tourist visa in 2021. After Russia invaded Ukraine, she extended her stay and applied for asylum. She later met Jindra, married him, and began the process of applying for a marriage-based green card. Her application had been accepted for processing. She had already been fingerprinted. Her attorney maintains that she was never unlawfully present in the country. Then, on July 13, she and her husband stepped off a domestic flight in Burbank, California. A casually dressed federal agent approached her and announced that she had been selected for secondary screening. Fifteen minutes later, she was in handcuffs. Her husband stood in the airport watching federal agents take his wife to an unmarked vehicle. He did not know where she was going. She was eventually transported to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, where she remained for approximately two weeks. She described overcrowding, lights kept on around the clock, and treatment that made her feel “like a piece of meat, not like a human.” She was finally released after posting a $35,000 bond. She came home wearing an ankle monitor. Suddenly, Brent Jindra was frightened. “We are living in fear in my own country,” he said. Jindra insists this was not what he voted for. Trump’s campaign, as he understood it, was supposed to target illegal entries and dangerous criminals. His wife, he explained, “did not jump a wall” or “swim a river.” She came through what he called Trump’s “beautiful, big front door.” Apparently, she had not strapped on her water wings and bobbed across the Rio Grande. She had not dusted her hands with sidewalk chalk, scrambled over the border wall during an especially poorly supervised elementary-school field day, and arrived clutching a juice box and a participation ribbon. She had followed the rules. She had brought back her signed permission slip. She had entered through the proper door. Therefore, Jindra believed, the government should have recognized that she was not one of the dogs. And that is the problem. On the same Sunday that Jindra’s story appeared, churches following the Revised Common Lectionary heard the story of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15. She is a foreigner who comes to Jesus because her daughter is suffering. She cries out for mercy, and at first she receives silence. When the disciples want her sent away, Jesus speaks of being sent to the lost sheep of Israel. When she kneels before him and asks again for help, he tells her that it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs. It is a difficult text. We should not sand down its edges in our haste to protect Jesus from what Jesus said. The woman is placed outside the household. The children have a table. She is beneath it. The bread belongs to them, and she is asked to understand herself as something less entitled to it. But she refuses to disappear. “Yes, Lord,” she answers, “yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” She does not deny the insult. She exposes the poverty of the boundary. If there is enough mercy in the house, then mercy cannot be restricted to the children seated comfortably at the table. If he is truly Lord, even the crumbs beneath his table must contain enough liberation to heal her daughter. Writing on this same passage, theologian Brandan Robertson goes further than many interpreters are willing to go. He argues that Jesus is confronting an inherited prejudice of his own—that the Canaanite woman turns the insult against him, compels him to recognize her shared humanity, and changes not only what he thinks but what he does. Robertson calls that change repentance: the willingness to recognize the bias one has inherited and choose another course. Whether one accepts every part of that reading or not, it refuses the dishonest comfort of pretending that Jesus had already welcomed the woman before she challenged him. He had not. The movement in the text is unmistakable: she begins outside the circle of his stated mission, beneath the table and among the dogs; she persists; Jesus listens; and the boundary does not survive the encounter. “Woman, great is your faith,” Jesus tells her. “Let it be done for you as you wish.” Her daughter is healed. The sermon at Emmanuel asked the question plainly: Who do you view as dogs? That question followed me directly from the sanctuary into this story. Jindra still appears to be arguing that ICE seized the wrong immigrant. His defense of his wife depends upon separating her from the people he believes Trump was right to pursue. She did not scale the wall. She did not swim the river. She did not enter illegally. She is educated, married to an American citizen, engaged in the proper legal processes, and patiently waiting for the government to decide her future. She is not like those people. She is not one of the dogs. But the Gospel does not ask us to inspect Galina’s paperwork and determine whether she has earned a chair. It asks why we built a table that requires anyone to eat beneath it. That is the moral failure at the heart of Jindra’s astonishment. He did not object when Trump identified immigrants as invaders, criminals, animals, and contaminants. He did not recoil when human beings were reduced to a threatening mass against which the nation must defend itself. He voted for that political project three times because he believed its cruelty would remain properly classified. He trusted the government to distinguish between the immigrants whose families could be shattered and the immigrants whose families mattered. He did not believe there should be no dogs beneath the table. He believed his wife had the paperwork proving she belonged above it. That is why the easy “I told you so” is both satisfying and insufficient. Yes, we told him so. We said that the machinery would not remain neatly confined to the people he disliked. We said that mass-deportation campaigns do not become more humane merely because their supporters imagine a tidy line between good immigrants and bad ones. We said that due process would be treated as an inconvenience, that legal distinctions would be flattened into slogans, and that agents empowered to hunt human beings would not pause at every encounter to honor the private exemptions Trump’s voters had written into their heads. We said it plainly. We said it repeatedly. We were called hysterical. Now his wife has an ankle monitor. But Jindra is not the principal subject of this story. He is merely its most convenient punchline. His belated astonishment is the doorway into something much larger and much darker. The subject is the machinery itself. The machinery begins with inherited bias. Human communities have always drawn circles around themselves and named whatever stood outside those circles dangerous. We learn the categories before we understand them. We inherit the fears before we meet the people we have been taught to fear. We accept caricatures in the absence of proximity and call those caricatures common sense. Political demagogues do not need to invent that impulse. They need only identify it, flatter it, and give it official vocabulary. Trump has done precisely that. He has taught the public to see certain people not as neighbors but as infestations, not as families but as caravans, not as human beings seeking safety but as poison entering the national bloodstream. He has repeatedly created an enemy whose suffering can be interpreted as evidence that the government is finally doing its job. He did not accidentally inherit that language. He built his political identity around it. He descended the golden escalator speaking of Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists. He expanded the vocabulary over years of rallies, speeches, interviews, and social-media posts. He made contempt entertaining. He made collective suspicion sound patriotic. He taught millions of Americans that cruelty becomes public safety when directed toward the correct population. Then the machinery moves from language into policy. Agents wait at airports for people with active immigration cases. Families are separated before anyone has time to understand what is happening. A woman with no criminal history is handcuffed, driven away in an unmarked vehicle, confined for weeks, and returned to her husband only after the family produces $35,000 and accepts an electronic shackle around her ankle. Then the machinery moves into explanation. The government tells the public that a pending application does not itself confer formal immigration status. Lawyers answer that the government’s description ignores the significance of lawful presence while an application is pending. Human complexity is pressed through administrative language until detention begins to sound like a clerical inevitability. Nobody claims responsibility. The agent followed procedure. The agency enforced the law. The department issued a statement. The president kept a promise. That last part matters. Trump did not betray the promise Brent Jindra voted for. He fulfilled it without honoring the imaginary exemption Jindra had written into the margins. Authoritarian machinery does not award good-behavior stickers. It manufactures dogs—and eventually it runs out of strangers. This is why the other appointed readings matter too. Isaiah imagines God gathering th

  4. Aug 16

    Unanswered Prayer, Certainty, and the Church

    The Church loves a testimony with an ending. We know what to do when someone stands before the congregation and tells us that the cancer is gone, the marriage was restored, the job came through, the debt was paid, the child came home, the addiction broke, or the prayer was finally answered. We know when to clap. We know when to shout. We know where the organ ought to come in. There is nothing wrong with any of that. The Church ought to celebrate healing. We ought to rejoice when the lost are found, when the hungry are fed, when chains fall off, when reconciliation comes, when doors open, when somebody who has spent years praying can finally stand up and say, “God did it.” But the Church has become much less practiced at knowing what to do with the person whose sentence does not yet have a period. What do we do with the person who prayed and is still praying? What do we do with the diagnosis that remains, the estrangement that has not healed, the grief that did not disappear after the funeral, the family that has not reconciled, the person who has faithfully asked God the same question for five, ten, twenty years and has received neither the answer they wanted nor an explanation for why it has not come? Those testimonies rarely make it to the microphone. We have made celebration communal and suffering private. Bring us the testimony once God has done something with it. Bring it back after the breakthrough. Tell us about the wilderness when you have reached Canaan. Tell us about the night after the sun has risen. Until then, we are often strangely unsure what to say. And perhaps that uncertainty would not be such a problem if Christians were more comfortable admitting that we are uncertain. Much of the modern Church, particularly within the evangelical world, has developed an extraordinary appetite for certainty. We want to know what God is doing. We want to know why God allowed it. We want to know what lesson is being taught, which door God closed, which window God opened, which season is beginning, which season is ending, what blessing is coming next, and exactly how the present disaster fits into a providential plot we expect to become obvious by the final chapter. Sometimes we seem almost incapable of allowing mystery to remain mystery. So when another person brings us an unresolved life, we rush to resolve it for them. God must be teaching you something. God has something better. Everything happens for a reason. This door closed because another one is going to open. You just have to trust the process. Your breakthrough is coming. Perhaps. But perhaps we should be much more careful about assigning motives to God that God has not disclosed. There is a kind of certainty-porn in modern Christianity: an almost compulsive need to make every mystery legible, every tragedy meaningful, every unanswered prayer temporary, and every winding human story fit neatly into a narrative we can explain. And this is not harmless. Certainty has victims. “God is teaching you something” sounds very different when it is spoken to the abused person. “Everything happens for a reason” lands differently beside a child’s grave. “Your breakthrough is coming” becomes cruel when someone has been promised it for years. “If you had enough faith” has wounded people far more deeply than some churches are willing to admit. When those explanations collapse, people are often left believing one of three things: God failed, they failed, or Christianity lied to them. That is not pastoral care. It is narrative control wearing religious language. And I increasingly wonder whether this obsession with certainty undermines the very faith we claim to be practicing. Faith is not the possession of an explanation. Faith is trust. If I know the entire plot, understand every motive, possess the timetable, and can see how every present sorrow produces the desired future outcome, I am not being asked to trust very much. I have a diagram. Christian faith has never promised us a diagram. What Christianity gives us instead is Christ. That distinction matters. The thing of which Christians can be most certain is not that we understand what God is doing. It is that we have seen what God is like. “For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’” Paul writes, “who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” In the face of Jesus Christ. There is our center. There is our interpretive anchor. There is the place toward which the Church is supposed to look when everything else becomes difficult to understand. Strangely enough, an entire generation of Christians once wore this theology around our wrists. WWJD? What Would Jesus Do? It became a fashion. Bracelets. Bookmarks. T-shirts. Bible covers. Keychains. Christian bookstores were full of four little letters printed onto almost anything capable of holding ink. Eventually it became so ubiquitous that it became kitsch. And perhaps because it became kitsch, we stopped noticing the truth hiding in plain sight: look toward Jesus. Not merely in the flattened moralistic sense in which the question was sometimes used—Would Jesus watch this movie? Would Jesus listen to this song? Would Jesus go to this party?—but in the far more important Christological sense: What does Jesus reveal to us about God? What does divine compassion look like? Look at Jesus. What does holiness look like? Look at Jesus. How does God respond to the rejected? Look at Jesus. How does God behave around the suffering? Look at Jesus. How does God confront religious systems that have mistaken certainty for righteousness? Look at Jesus. What does love look like when it puts on flesh? Look at Jesus. Again and again, the Gospels place Jesus among people whose lives are unresolved. He encounters the sick before they know whether healing will come. He touches people whom religious society has already categorized. He sits with outsiders. He feeds hungry people before interrogating their theology. He refuses simplistic explanations for suffering. When his disciples encounter a man blind from birth and immediately ask whose sin caused the condition—his own or his parents’—Jesus refuses the premise. They want an explanation. Jesus turns toward the man. That difference should trouble us, because the Church still has a habit of standing beside suffering people and asking questions that allow us to preserve our system. Why did this happen? What did they do? What is God trying to teach them? What spiritual principle explains this? Jesus repeatedly seems less interested in protecting the explanatory system than in attending to the human being standing in front of him. And then there is Bethany. Lazarus is dead. Mary is grieving. Martha is grieving. The house is full of mourners. And Jesus knows something they do not know. He knows resurrection is coming. If anyone in that scene has the right to say, “Do not worry; I know how this ends,” it is Jesus. And yet he weeps. That may be one of the most important pastoral lessons the Church has never quite learned. Even when Jesus knows the resolution, he does not use the resolution to invalidate the sorrow of the unresolved moment. He does not rebuke the mourners for crying because resurrection is only a few verses away. He enters their grief. He stands beside a tomb. And he weeps. What would happen if the Church learned to do the same? What if someone could stand among us and say, “I have prayed, and I do not have an answer,” without immediately being handed an explanation? What if they could say, “I still believe, but I am tired,” without being treated as spiritually deficient? What if lament were allowed to remain lament long enough for someone else to sit down beside it? What if we stopped treating unresolved testimony as incomplete Christianity? Scripture certainly does not. The Bible is full of people speaking to God before resolution. “How long, O Lord?” “I remain childless.” “Why have you forgotten me?” “Why do you hide your face?” “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” These are not lines spoken outside the life of faith. They are Scripture. The canon itself preserves questions God apparently considered holy enough not to erase. Sometimes biblical faith sounds less like confident explanation and more like stubborn address. The psalmist does not understand God and keeps talking to God anyway. Job does not understand God and keeps demanding that God answer him. The prophets do not understand what God is doing and keep crying out. Jesus himself places the language of abandonment on his lips from the cross. Faith, then, cannot simply mean knowing why. Sometimes faith means refusing to stop speaking to God when we do not know why. Sometimes testimony is not, “God answered me.” Sometimes testimony is simply this: I am still here. I am still praying. I still do not understand. And yet I am still addressing God. The word “yet” belongs in the Church, not because “yet” guarantees that tomorrow will bring the particular answer we desire. Christianity does not give us permission to promise outcomes God has not promised. “Yet” matters because the entire Church lives inside an unfinished sentence. Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again. Will come. Christianity itself lives between declaration and completion. We proclaim resurrection while still burying our dead. We proclaim the Kingdom while still praying, “Thy kingdom come.” We preach reconciliation while nations rage. We preach justice while the oppressed still cry out. We preach that Christ has defeated death while standing at gravesides and committing bodies to the earth. Paul says creation groans, and the Church groans with it. We are an already-and-not-yet people. So why are we so uncomfortable with Christians whose lives bear the same grammar? And if we are an already-and-not-yet p

  5. Aug 12

    Pay Attention. They’re Talking About Us Again.

    I got up. Made coffee. Cooked eggs. Got on the treadmill. Showered, got dressed, started work, checked email. Nothing cinematic happened. It was the kind of morning most of us live thousands of times without remembering any particular one of them. Somewhere in the middle of that ordinary machinery, I found myself scrolling through things I absolutely did not need and discovered three spectacularly unnecessary rhinestone brooches for fifteen dollars. Naturally, I wanted them. Then I saw a set of children’s lunchboxes, and my first thought came before I had time to examine it: I should get these for the kids. For half a second, the thought felt completely normal. Then I remembered that the children I already imagine packing lunches for are still part of the life I am waiting and praying for. They are not here yet. And then I went back to Tuesday. A little later, another email arrived. “GOP reps lob outing threats, MI ends conversion therapy ban & Dem apologizes for anti-trans stance.” And there it was. That familiar internal alarm: Pay attention. They’re talking about us again. Put down whatever you were doing. Look up. Someone with power is discussing queer people again. Again, being gay is apparently shameful enough that the possibility of exposing someone can still be wielded as political ammunition. Again, conversion therapy—a practice built on the premise that there is something defective about queer people that should be corrected—is back in the news because protections against it are being stripped away or rendered unenforceable. Again, transgender people are being discussed as a political liability, a campaign calculation, a position to apologize for, revise, defend, abandon, or rediscover depending on which electorate someone hopes to persuade this week. Again. That word may be the most exhausting part of all. Because none of this happens in some separate political universe where queer people exist only as constitutional questions, campaign talking points, and cable-news segments. We are at work. We are grocery shopping. We are deciding what to make for dinner. We are taking children to school, or dreaming about the family we hope will someday fill the house. We are going to church. We are getting married and getting divorced. We are caring for aging parents. We are trying to build lives, save money, make plans, keep appointments, fall in love, heal from heartbreak, and occasionally decide whether three rhinestone brooches for fifteen dollars constitutes a sound financial decision. We are trying to live. And then the notification arrives. Pay attention. They’re talking about us again. Our marriages again. Our children again. Our bodies again. Our healthcare again. Our books again. Our privacy again. Whether children should be permitted to know that people like us exist again. Whether someone should be allowed to convince a frightened queer teenager that God would love them better if they could become somebody else again. Whether being suspected of homosexuality remains sufficiently humiliating to function as a threat against another grown adult again. And somewhere in all of this, we are expected to formulate another argument. Another defense. Another theological response. Another explanation of why queer people are human beings worthy of the same dignity, privacy, safety, family, faith, and ordinary existence everyone else assumes belongs to them without debate. I am tired of answering that question. There is something uniquely exhausting about carrying all the ordinary burdens of human existence while periodically being required to defend your eligibility for ordinary human existence. I already have enough to do. I have work. I have disappointments. I have grief. I have unanswered prayers. I have people I love and people I miss. I have a future I am trying to build, a body that gets tired, and apparently a ridiculous jeweled peacock I have decided would improve my quality of life. That is plenty. So, with all the Christian charity I can presently muster, I have one small request for the people who remain fascinated by governing queer lives: F**k off, kindly. Mind your own business. Let people marry. Let people raise their families. Let people receive healthcare with their doctors. Let children grow up without adults teaching them to hate themselves. Let people read books. Let people worship. Let people decide what names belong to them, what clothes belong on their bodies, whom they love, whom they come home to, and what kind of life they want to build. You do not have to understand every life in order to leave it alone. You do not have to approve of everybody in order to protect their dignity. And Christianity certainly does not require you to make somebody else’s existence your personal legislative project. If your politics, your theology, or your moral vision requires another human being to live perpetually beneath your inspection, perhaps the problem is not that they have failed your standard. Perhaps you have forgotten Jesus. So please. For once, let us get on with the ordinary business of being alive. Let us pay the bills and make dinner. Let us buy the lunchboxes when the children finally come. Let us occasionally waste fifteen dollars on something gloriously unnecessary. Let us love our husbands and wives. Let us raise our families. Let us pray. Let us grow old. Let us have entire stretches of our lives in which nobody requires us to look up from a perfectly ordinary Tuesday because someone powerful has decided our humanity requires another public discussion. I do not want to spend the rest of my life proving that I am human. I would very much like to get on with being one. Get full access to The Table with Timothy Hundley at timothyhundley.substack.com/subscribe

  6. Aug 4

    The Contradiction of Covenant

    There are passages of Scripture we encounter slowly. We read them, return to them, hear them preached, and allow their meaning to accumulate over years. Then there are passages that do not wait for our permission. They leap from the page, seize us by the collar, and demand that we account for the distance between what we say we believe and the life we are actually living. Genesis 15 came for me that way. The Table with Timothy Hundley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. I was not hunting for a sermon. I was simply reading when two verses stopped me. The first was magnificent. God came to Abram in a vision and said, “Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.” It is the kind of declaration preachers love. God identifies Himself as protection and provision, presence and reward. Before Abram names his fear, God speaks to it. Before Abram asks for anything, God offers Himself. Then Abram answers, “Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless?” My first reaction was almost comical. I wanted to drag Abraham out of the text. God has just said, “I am your great reward,” and Abram’s response appears to be, “That is wonderful, Lord, but what are You going to give me?” It sounds like the answer of a man who has missed the entire point. God gives Himself, and Abram asks for something more tangible. But Scripture has a way of turning the accusation back upon the reader. The longer I looked at Abram, the less he resembled an ungrateful patriarch and the more he began to resemble me. I realized that I did not want to drag him nearly as much as I wanted to sit beside him, because his question was not the demand of a greedy man. It was the cry of a tired one. Abram was not asking for another camel, a larger tent, or a more impressive portion of land. He was asking about the future God had already placed inside him. He was asking about the promise around which he had reorganized his life. He had left what was familiar because God told him to go. He had followed a voice toward a country he could not yet name. He had carried the promise of descendants into years of childlessness, and the calendar had continued moving while the promise appeared to stand still. So when God said, “I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward,” Abram did not deny the goodness of God. He placed the goodness of God beside the unresolved reality of his life and asked how the two belonged together. “Lord, I know what You have said about Yourself. I know what You have said about my future. I am looking at the life in front of me, and I cannot make these things agree.” That is not an easy prayer to pray, particularly for those of us who have spent years teaching others how to trust God. We know the vocabulary. We know how to soften the reality of death without denying the grief. We know how to wrap a spiritual wound in prayerful lament. We know how to raise a praise that makes the room feel as though rain must surely fall from the clouds. We know how to proclaim that God is faithful, that the wilderness is not the end, that weeping may endure for a night, and that morning remains under divine command. But there are seasons when the person preaching those truths cannot reconcile them with his own life. There are moments when we can tell everyone else that God will make a way while privately transferring money from one overdue obligation to another, not because a way has appeared, but because one penalty is larger than the other. There are moments when we prevent a fee today by borrowing from the rent that will become late two days from now. There are moments when a ten-dollar payment comes through in the wrong order and creates a thirty-dollar penalty, and we realize that our lives have become so precarious that the sequence of two ordinary transactions can determine whether we eat, pay, borrow, or fall further behind. That is not an abstract crisis of faith. It is faith being asked to breathe in a room where the air has become thin. It would be one thing if this were a difficult week. Prolonged survival does something different to the soul. It does not merely exhaust the body. It begins to reshape the imagination. It trains us to anticipate the next emergency before the present one has finished introducing itself. It teaches us to distrust quiet because quiet usually means we have forgotten something. It bends the back so gradually that we no longer remember what it felt like to stand upright. Eventually, survival begins to preach. It tells us, “Maybe this is all your life will ever be. Maybe this job is the end of the story. Maybe you missed your chance. Maybe that calling belonged to another version of you—the younger version, the less wounded version, the version who did not lose those years or spend so long trying to remain alive that he had little strength left to become.” The sermon of scarcity is persuasive because it does not begin with obvious lies. It begins with evidence. It points to the years. It points to the bills. It points to the empty side of the bed, the unfinished work, the ministry that never became what we imagined, the house and car we possess while constantly wondering why we must continue living with things we never chose. Scarcity gathers the visible facts and arranges them into a prophecy. “This is not merely your present,” it says. “This is your portion.” Once that prophecy settles deeply enough, we begin bargaining with our own desires. We do not call it surrender because surrender would sound too painful. We call it contentment. We begin telling ourselves that perhaps we do not need the things for which we have prayed. Maybe companionship is unnecessary. Maybe rest is indulgent. Maybe a modest home that feels safe and chosen is asking too much. Maybe wanting financial margin is greed. Maybe the holiest thing we can do is want less. This bargaining sounds spiritual because it borrows religious language. “You have the Lord,” we tell ourselves. “Why are you complaining? You have food. You have shelter. You have survived. Stop whining. Be grateful.” Gratitude matters. Contentment is a Christian virtue. Our lives do not consist in the abundance of things we own. But truth can be used against the wounded when it is removed from tenderness. Contentment can become a holy-sounding word for emotional surrender. Gratitude can be weaponized against grief. “Want less” can become the command we give ourselves when we have become afraid to hope. That is where Genesis 15 confronts us. Abram could have bargained with himself. He could have said, “I have the Lord. Why should I want a son?” He could have told himself that Eliezer was close enough to the promise, that an heir from within the household should satisfy him, that perhaps he had misunderstood God all along. He could have rearranged his theology around the apparent limits of his life. He had already begun arranging his estate around those limits. “The steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus,” he tells God. In other words, “I have looked at the evidence. I have made the responsible plan. I know what happens to my possessions when I die. I have learned to organize my life around the absence of what You promised.” Prolonged disappointment persuades us to construct a future around the presumed failure of the promise. Abram does not deny his circumstances. He is childless. The household has an heir who is not his son. Sarah has not conceived. The years are not imaginary. Faith does not require him to call emptiness fullness. It does not demand that he look into an empty tent and pretend he hears the laughter of Isaac. Instead, Abram brings the contradiction back to the One who spoke the promise. That is the movement at the heart of Genesis 15. God declares His character. Abram names his experience. The two appear not to agree, and Abram refuses to resolve that tension by lying about either one. He does not say God is unfaithful. He does not say childlessness is fulfillment. He places the contradiction inside the covenant conversation. “Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I go childless?” It is a brave question because it risks sounding ungrateful. It is a faithful question because it is addressed to God. There are questions we ask as a way of leaving the relationship, and there are questions we ask because we refuse to leave. There is doubt that turns its back upon God, and there is doubt that grabs His garment. There is unbelief that closes the conversation, and there is unbelief that cries, “Help Thou mine unbelief,” precisely because some portion of the heart still believes that help can come from no other place. Abram’s question is not apostasy. It is attachment under strain. Many of us have mistaken that strain for proof that our faith is counterfeit. We hear ourselves asking questions we once answered for others and conclude that we have become imposters in our own religion. We stand beneath sermons we preached with confidence and wonder whether our lives have disqualified us from the truths our mouths still proclaim. We know God as Provider, yet we are trying to prevent another late fee. We know God as Shepherd, yet we feel directionless. We know God as Father, yet we are tired of carrying life alone. We call Him Deliverer while the same burden has followed us through year after year, and eventually the adjectives of God begin to feel light-years away from the world as we experience it. Provider, but I am borrowing from rent. Shield, but I feel exposed. Father, but I am alone. Deliverer, but I remain bound to the same cycles. Beloved, but my life often feels like prolonged neglect. The easy response is to rush to God’s defense. We remind the sufferer that God is still good. We insist that His timing is perfect. We explain the brokenness of creation, human freedom, spiritu

  7. Aug 2

    The God Who Keeps Coming

    The Gospel Is God’s Relentless Desire for Communion “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” — Romans chapter one verse sixteen There may not be a more familiar verse in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Most Christians can quote at least part of it from memory: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel.” Yet I wonder how often we stop long enough to ask the question Paul assumes we understand. What is the Gospel? For many Christians, the answer begins with heaven. For others, it begins with forgiveness. For still others, it begins with the cross. None of those answers is wrong, but none of them, by itself, is complete. The Gospel is the good news that the God who spoke humanity into existence has never abandoned his desire to dwell with his creation. The Gospel is God’s relentless desire for communion with humanity. That story did not begin in Bethlehem. It began in a garden. Genesis does not begin with humanity searching for God. It begins with God walking among his creation. The Garden of Eden is a place of beauty, abundance, nourishment, and peace, but the garden is not paradise merely because of its rivers, its trees, or the absence of death. The treasure of Eden is that God is there. Humanity lives in uninterrupted communion with its Creator. Then comes rebellion, and the first consequence of sin is not merely guilt. It is separation. Adam and Eve hide, and God comes looking. “Where are you?” That question echoes through the rest of Scripture. Humanity hides, and God comes. Cain murders, and God comes. Abraham wanders, and God comes. Moses flees, and God comes. Israel rebels, and God comes through the prophets. Humanity crucifies Christ, and God comes out of the grave. The disciples hide behind locked doors, and God comes. The Spirit descends, and God comes. The Bible ends where it began: with God dwelling among humanity. Not merely with golden streets, walls of jasper, and gates of pearl, but with the great proclamation that “the dwelling of God is with humanity.” The story of Scripture is not primarily about humanity finding its way to heaven. It is about God refusing to stop making his way toward humanity. That is why Romans matters. Paul is not inventing the Gospel. He is explaining why restored communion with God required nothing less than the self-giving love of Christ. Before Paul announces what grace accomplishes, he dismantles every illusion that humanity can restore communion on its own. That dismantling does not stop at the end of Romans 1. It continues through Romans 2 and into Romans 3. In fact, Romans chapter one verse eighteen throughRomans chapter three verse twenty is one sustained argument. It is the diagnosis before the cure, the courtroom before the declaration of grace, the universal need before the universal invitation. Our chapter and verse divisions often hide this from us. We read a verse as though it contains a complete thought. We read a chapter as though it contains a complete story. Paul wrote neither. He wrote a letter, and he did not stop writing where we so often stop reading. Romans 2 begins with a single word. Therefore. That word changes everything because Paul has not changed subjects. He is continuing his argument. After describing humanity’s rebellion, idolatry, corruption, and disorder, Paul turns toward the person who has been listening and agreeing. “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge another.” Imagine hearing Romans read aloud for the first time. As chapter 1 unfolds, heads begin to nod. Yes, Paul. That is exactly what is wrong with the world. Those people have abandoned God. Then Paul says, “Therefore.” The room becomes quiet. The spotlight turns. The listeners discover that they have not merely been watching someone else’s trial. They have been sitting in the defendant’s chair all along. Romans 1 is the indictment. Romans 2 is the mirror. Romans 3 is the verdict: “There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Only then does grace become good news. This also reveals the difference between judgment and discernment. Judgment assumes a seat that belongs to Christ. Judgment says, “I have decided that you are not worthy.” Discernment asks a different question: Does this look like Jesus? That has become the foundational question of The Table. Not, “Does this person deserve Jesus?” but, “Does this teaching resemble Jesus? Does this movement resemble Jesus? Does this policy resemble Jesus? Does this fruit resemble Jesus?” Jesus taught that we would know people by their fruit. Fruit can be examined. Actions can be named. Teachings can be tested. Movements can be discerned. But another person’s final standing before God belongs to Christ. Discernment evaluates fruit. Judgment declares worth. The Church is called to the first. The second belongs to God. That is why Acts 10 remains one of the most revolutionary passages in the New Testament. Peter is not rebelling against God. He believes he is defending holiness. He believes he understands what is clean and what is unclean. He believes he knows where the boundaries have been drawn. Then God interrupts his certainty. “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” Peter enters the home of Cornelius. The Spirit falls upon the Gentiles. Peter then asks one of the most beautiful questions in Scripture: “Who was I to hinder God?” Peter did not become less faithful. He became less certain that his understanding of God’s boundaries was complete. That is repentance. Sometimes the hardest thing we surrender is not our appetite, our ambition, or even our fear. Sometimes the hardest thing to surrender is our certainty: the certainty that we know exactly where God is allowed to move, whom God may receive, and where grace must stop. The Church’s greatest moments have rarely come when it led God somewhere new. They came when it finally realized that God was already there. When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he said, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” What does that Kingdom look like? We could begin with Revelation. We could speak of gates of pearl, streets of gold, walls of jasper, and the throne of God. But perhaps we should begin where Scripture begins. In the garden. The garden is beauty. The garden is abundance. The garden is sustenance. The garden is creation at peace. Most of all, the garden is communion. It is humanity walking with God. Then we move to Matthew 25. The hungry are fed. The thirsty receive something to drink. The stranger is welcomed. The naked are clothed. The sick are cared for. The prisoner is visited. This is not merely charity. It is the character of the Kingdom becoming visible on earth. Then we arrive at Revelation, and once again the greatest promise is not wealth. It is presence. “The dwelling of God is with humanity.” The Kingdom is not first defined by geography. It is defined by communion. The streets of gold are not the treasure. God is. Perhaps gold covers the streets because, in the Kingdom, the thing humanity has killed for, hoarded, worshiped, and gone to war over has finally been reduced to pavement. The treasure is not what lies beneath our feet. The treasure is the God who walks among us. So what is the Gospel? The Gospel is not simply that sinners may escape judgment. It is not merely that heaven awaits us after death. It is not merely a prescription for becoming morally respectable. The Gospel is the good news that the God who created us has never surrendered his desire for communion with us. Humanity chose separation. God chose incarnation. Humanity chose violence. God chose self-giving love. Humanity raised a cross. God turned it into a doorway. Through Jesus Christ, God entered our suffering, bore the weight of sin and death, and made restored communion possible. Romans 1 through 3 does not exist so that we may identify which sinners deserve condemnation. It exists to dismantle every illusion that any of us stand outside the universal need for grace, or above another person in determining who may receive it. The tragedy of modern Christianity is not that we read too much Paul. It is that we so often refuse to let Paul finish. We stop at the indictment. Paul keeps writing. There is a therefore. There is a but now. There is a Gospel far greater than our favorite proof texts and far more beautiful than our systems of exclusion. There is a God who has never stopped coming. From Eden to Abraham, from Moses to the prophets, from Bethlehem to Calvary, from the empty tomb to Pentecost, and from Pentecost to the New Creation, the story remains the same. God keeps coming. Because the Gospel is God’s relentless desire for communion with humanity. And everything else flows downstream from that. Get full access to The Table with Timothy Hundley at timothyhundley.substack.com/subscribe

    The God Who Keeps Coming

  8. Aug 1

    Empty Shelves, Full Convictions

    Every now and then a story appears that is so drenched in irony it almost reads like one of Jesus’ parables. This week brought one of those stories. According to the reporting, a Christian food pantry found itself with empty shelves after its pastor rejected supplies connected to organizations that affirm LGBTQ people. Whether one agrees with every detail of that decision is almost beside the point. The image itself should stop Christians in their tracks: hungry people waiting for food while the Church debates whether the hands offering the bread are sufficiently righteous. If there is a passage of Scripture that deserves to interrupt this conversation, it is Matthew 25. Jesus’ vision of the final judgment is astonishing in its simplicity. The King does not divide humanity according to denominations, political parties, theological camps, or cultural identities. He gathers the nations before Him and asks questions so ordinary that they almost seem beneath the grandeur of the moment. I was hungry. I was thirsty. I was a stranger. I was naked. I was sick. I was in prison. Then comes the line that has echoed through two thousand years of Christian history: I was hungry, and you gave me food. Notice what Jesus never says. He never says, “I was hungry, and you first investigated the theology of the people who donated the bread.” He never says, “I was hungry, and you verified the ideological purity of the supply chain.” He never says, “I was hungry, and you made certain no sinner had been involved in feeding me.” He simply says, “You gave me food.” The Church, however, has become remarkably gifted at asking questions Jesus never asked while quietly neglecting the ones He never stopped asking. Who is hungry? Who needs a meal? Who needs mercy? Somehow, we have convinced ourselves that preserving distance from the wrong people is a greater act of faithfulness than feeding the right ones. How did we get here? When did suspicion become holier than compassion? When did refusing bread become a testimony of conviction? Scripture certainly does not prepare us for such a conclusion. The God of Israel has always displayed a frustrating habit of working through people the religious establishment would rather avoid. Cyrus, a pagan emperor, is called God’s anointed. A Samaritan becomes the hero of Jesus’ most famous parable. Peter is forced to abandon categories he once believed were divinely established, only to discover that God had already gone ahead of him. Again and again, the Bible tells the story of a God who refuses to limit His grace to the boundaries His people so carefully construct. Perhaps that is because grace has never been primarily concerned with protecting our sense of purity. It has always been concerned with restoring human beings. That is what makes Matthew 25 so unsettling. Jesus does not merely tell us to care for the hungry. He identifies Himself with them. The hungry are not a ministry opportunity. They are Christ. The thirsty are Christ. The stranger is Christ. The prisoner is Christ. The lonely widow standing in line at the food pantry is Christ. The exhausted single father wondering how he will feed his children is Christ. The child whose stomach hurts because dinner never came is Christ. That changes everything. It means our theological debates are no longer abstract. Every decision we make eventually arrives at the feet of a real human being bearing the image of God. We are free to wrestle with conscience, conviction, and doctrine—as Christians always have—but we should tremble whenever those debates leave the vulnerable carrying the consequences. The tragedy of our age is not simply that we disagree. Christians have always disagreed. The tragedy is that we have become so consumed with determining whom we cannot stand beside that we sometimes forget to kneel beside those who are suffering. Jesus never seemed particularly anxious about guilt by association. His critics certainly were. They complained constantly about the company He kept, the tables He attended, and the sinners He welcomed. Yet Christ never apologized for proximity to broken people. He seemed far more concerned that mercy reached them than that His reputation remained intact. Perhaps that is the question the Church should recover. Not, “Who donated the bread?” But, “Was the hungry person fed?” Because if Matthew 25 is to be believed—and Christians confess that it is—the One receiving that loaf is not merely our neighbor. It is Christ Himself. And if we can watch His shelves stand empty while congratulating ourselves on the purity of our convictions, then perhaps the question before us is not whether we have defended the faith. Perhaps the question is whether we have recognized the King. Get full access to The Table with Timothy Hundley at timothyhundley.substack.com/subscribe

See All (30)

About

The Table brings Timothy Hundley’s spoken essays on faith, queer life, spiritual harm, justice, and the question beneath them all: Does this look like Jesus? It is grace for every soul still reaching for God through the rubble—and an invitation to pull out another chair. timothyhundley.substack.com

Information