Politics in the Pews

This is everything I have come to expect from CP content—objective journalism, unique perspectives and insights all guided and bound within a Biblical worldview. I pick my podcasts and spend my listening time carefully, and this one is worth subscribing and listening!

As a Christian, I am looking for material that actually challenges me & my fellow Christians on what the Bible correctly exegeted, exposited, & understood actually teaches so that I / we can apply it correctly to every area of life. Mr. Giatti’s podcast fails to rise to that challenge. Frankly this podcast is just another exercise in liturgical philosophy. Mr. Giatti just takes Ecclesiastical Tradition for granted & runs with the narrative that American Conservatism & the Bible agree —ergo, we ought to vote for Donald Trump because a vote for Mr. Trump isn’t just the American thing to do, it’s the Christian thing to do. How about Evangelicals listen to what Christ says about the Narrow Way in Matthew 7 instead of all but droning on about God Almighty’s deliverance of Mr. Trump from certain death set the LORD’s imprimatur for such a time as this — as if he foreordained Mr. Trump’s survival as a means to instruct us that He endorses Mr. Trump &/or Mr. Giatti’s & other American Conservatives’ Liturgical Sociopolitical & Socioeconomic Philosophies. Is that too much to ask? Within Matthew’s narrative, the Sermon on the Mount was delivered as a response to the dutiful culture warriors & angry religious & quasi-religious bigots of Yeshua’s day & those who thought & behaved just like them. How so? Matthew’s central foils are the Sanhedrin, the Zealots, the Romans, & others including Herod & his sycophants, the Herodians. The judgment emanating from them was at times merciless, unjust, hypocritical, & unnecessarily harsh, often relying on Ecclesiastical Tradition to do the heavy lifting. The Narrow Way recognizes that Ecclesiastical Traditions accrete over time, & it examines & tests Ecclesiastical Tradition by way of Scripture correctly exegeted, exposited, understood, & applied (CEEUA). As such, the Narrow Way/Path is a practical outworking of Sola Scriptura. Christianity began as a reform movement within Second Temple Judaism. Moreover, Church History seems cyclical just like every covenantal cycle in the Bible. Modern Day Christianity needs another Reformation. In the Bible, a number of the Post-Lapsarian cycles followed the Covenant of Works. Humanity starts out in major need of deliverance; God Himself delivers His people & the Created Order in general, thus declaring His Law & Gospel; then He paracletes the world He has delivered & over which He rules, eventually permitting a declension radical enough to warrant major intervention. One wonders if we have reached a time in the history of this world that requires a major reformation in the 3 Spheres of moral government & the 3 Offices- a reformation requiring a transitional prophet to exercise the 3 sets of Keys (Prophet, Priest, King) in the name of God Almighty & Jesus Christ Himself. The Narrow Way also examines & tests our moral intuitions by Scripture correctly exegeted/exposited, understood, & applied. The Narrow Way understands that mind that is set on the flesh cannot please God (cf. Romans 7 & Romans 8:7). Our moral intuitions lead us to believe we can please God via our works righteousness. Situational Ethics & Work Righteousness go hand in hand. After all, if God condemns us with little or no regard for the motives which underwrite our every thought, word, & deed, then it’s possible that God commends us the same way. On that view all we need to do in order to please God & receive our reward is complete the requisite amount of spiritual rigamorole — then out pops our certificate of achievement! For example, American Conservatives argue that the Denver baker should not be compelled by law to bake the cake for a gay couple. The implication is that baking the cake represents a seemingly insoluble dilemma in which the baker must temporarily suspend his sexual ethics relative to his religious views on homosexuality or change them altogether, which would amount to the sin of collaborating with the Enemy, an endorsement of sin. On that view, a baker who bakes the cake is judged a sinner by both God & man with little or no regard for his motives. It’s sufficient that he baked the cake for a gay couple. In other words, the meaning of the cake & the identity of the couple are sufficient criteria for God to account the baker guilty of sin. That’s Situational Ethics! In SE, there’s a flow chart for every moral choice & business transaction. If it’s for a gay wedding, refuse to paraclete. If not, at least consider catering the wedding. The Bible’s answer to this is 2 fold. First, God judges us as sinners based on the quality of our love for Him & our neighbor (Matt. 22, Romans 13, I John 4) — not the identity of our clientele & the meaning of the cake. Second, Matthew 5:41 - 48 is clear that if the jackbooted Roman soldier, with or without force of secular law, requests us to carry his load & walk a mile with him, we are to do so. This applies to everyone not just certain classes of people with whom we theologically, ethically, & ideologically agree. If & when questions arise relative to what we can properly deduce about God’s Moral Will (That Which Ought To Be) from His decretal will (That Which Is), Scripture answers the Is-Ought (Naturalistic) Fallacy with Scripture CEEUA drawn not from descriptive statements about God’s decretal will alone, but rather from God’s Moral Will (which alone is both necessary & sufficient to properly warrant faith & practice). It’s also worth noting that the Naturalistic Fallacy is at the root of a great deal of prejudice & bigotry. Mr. Giatti’s podcast could be vastly improved by jettisoning the polling data from any number of authorities & focusing on what the Bible itself teaches. I came here expecting just another Christian podcast that offers pablum to its listeners, & that’s what I found. Maybe this will change later, but it’s doubtful in my mind. Christians can do better. God requires it of us (Hebrews 5).

I’ve listened to all three podcasts, and there seems to be an undue focus on Donald Trump. Where are the questions about his opponent? What are her views on Biblical values like life, marriage, justice, etc? I have to question what the political views are of the producers, and the underlying purpose of this podcast. This is a brilliant opportunity to highlight Biblical values and their importance in our choices at the polls! So far, it appears that opportunity has been wasted.

"Politics In the Pews" is a must-listen for anyone curious about the intersection of Evangelical faith and politics in the 2024 election. The podcast offers balanced and insightful discussions with a variety of Evangelical voices, making complex topics accessible and engaging. I highly recommend it for its thought-provoking content and timely relevance.