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

Send us Fan MailChapter 25 that contains the three parables, it opens with "Then the kingdom of heaven will be like this." It seems to fit the Parable of the Sheep and Goats very well. What could be better than praising the righteous one who quietly helps the hungry and thirsty, the lonely and naked? This is what we hope for the kingdom of heaven. But how does this fit a cruel master who slams doors and hoards money that he didn't earn? Who condemns the cautious resister to the outer darkness? Honestly ask yourself, where would Jesus be in this? By whose side would he be? Would he stay with the rich man and the complicit slaves? Or would he be with the one who resisted and buried the talent? It is always important to ask when anyone is excluded and thrown into outer darkness, "where would the Jesus we know so well be?" The Jesus who said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich to enter heaven, who said to give away everything, who said blessed are the poor in spirit, is not going to be on the side of the oppressor. In this episode, I explain why the Parable of the Talents should not be read through capitalist or collectivist lenses. Jesus did not live in a time of capital markets and investment. Instead, it was a message of exploitation. I explore the difference between investment and exploitation.Many theologians, especially those who are not in the west, places like Latin America and Africa, turn this parable on its head. It is about liberation. Investing talents was seen very differently in Jesus's time compared to us. It was seen as exploitation of the poor. When the lazy slave says, "'Master, I knew that you are a hard man. You harvest grain where you haven't sown. You gather crops where you haven't spread seed," it is not a compliment. The master is not an image of God. It is certainly not an image of graciousness, it is not the kingdom of heaven. The master is a villain and his two other slaves are his complicit enforcers. The lazy slave was seen as the resister to unjust system of exploitation. Jesus was preparing his disciples for judgment. Not the judgment of individual people, but flipping the tables of exploitation and cruelty. 

Send us Fan MailPeople say that God takes non-believers and throw them into hell, like dead-branches being thrown into the fire. This is such a common reading of John 15 where Jesus says "I am the true vine" that it is hard to see it any other way. John 15 is  part of Jesus's Goodbye Speech to his disciples before he was arrested and crucified. Along with John 14, it is a big block for many Christians being harsh. Sometimes Jesus is harsh, but not in the way you usually hear. Instead Jesus is about the radical love of God and how God keeps trying to bring people toward him. In this episode I talk about reading these chapters about inviting people to wholeness in Jesus instead of cutting them out. If you are discouraged about being a Christian or if you have had enough with being pushed out by being doomed to hell, it has more to do with the bad and controlling reading of scripture than the scripture itself. It is better to just to hear a new message instead of throwing it all away. John 14:5 Thomas asked, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you have really known me, you will also know the Father. From now on you know him and have seen him.”6 λέγει αὐτῷ [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι᾿ ἐμοῦ.  If not vs. exceptJohn 15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vineyard keeper. 2 He removes any of my branches that don’t produce fruit, and he trims any branch that produces fruit so that it will produce even more fruit. 3 You are already trimmed because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. A branch can’t produce fruit by itself, but must remain in the vine. Likewise, you can’t produce fruit unless you remain in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, then you will produce much fruit. Without me, you can’t do anything. 6 If you don’t remain in me, you will be like a branch that is thrown out and dries up. Those branches are gathered up, thrown into a fire, and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you.2 πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτὸ ἵνα καρπὸν πλείονα φέρῃ. αἴρω1) to raise up, elevate, lift up 1a) to raise from the ground, take up: stones 1b) to raise upwards, elevate, lift up: the hand 1c) to draw up: a fish 2) to take upon one's self and carry what has been raised up, to bear 3) to bear away what has been raised, carry off 3a) to move from its place 3b) to take off or away what is attached to anything 3c) to remove 3d) to carry off, carry away with one 3e) to appropriate what is taken 3f) to take away from another what is his or what is committed to him, to take by force 3g) to take and apply to any use 3h) to take from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence 3i) cause to cease

Send us Fan MailThe story of Jesus speaking to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28 (called the Syrophoenician Woman in Mark 7:24–30) is filled with meaning. It is vexing: Why does Jesus call her a dog? It is amazing: Why would Jesus speak to a foreign woman? It is filled with Jewish contradiction: Why does Jesus risk ritual uncleanliness by associating with her? Jesus was in a foreign land and he carried all the expectations and prejudices that a first century Jewish man would have with him. The most straight forward explanation for Jesus's initial indifference, his unkind ethnic slur, and his praise of her faith is that he overcame prejudice and opened his mind. But this is extremely offensive to many Christians. They say, "No, Jesus is perfect. He learned everything from the Father. He said this to the Canaanite woman as a test." But it is actually heretical to say that Jesus didn't learn and didn't make mistakes. It is a sneaky form of docetism (believing Jesus wasn't fully human) that is extremely common in Christianity. It negates the incarnation and the cross. It comes from a misinformed view of platonic perfection, sin and divinity. In this insightful episode, I examine what scholars think about this very informative passage in Matthew and the meaning of power.  https://juniaproject.com/power-dynamics-jesus-canaanite-woman-matthew-15/ Harriett Reed Congdon on Prof. Frances Taylor Gench's discussion of power dynamics in the story. https://theseattleschool.edu/blog/grenz-parker/ about Prof. Angela Parker's womanist interpretation of Matthew 15."Back to the Well: Women’s Encounters with Jesus in the Gospels" by Frances Taylor Gench, 2004.21 Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’[f] table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that moment.Many modern Christians are Docetist. In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Koine Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom") was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Broadly, it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.

Send us Fan MailI am delighted to welcome Dr. Ekaputra Tupamahu to the podcast. Dr. Tupamahu is an Associate Professor of New Testament and Chair of the Bible, History, and Theology program at Portland Seminary. He received his PhD from Vanderbilt University. And he was my professor of New Testament when I was in seminary. He is an awesome teacher. He exposed me to variety of biblical interpretation approaches and to great scholars like postcolonial scholar Fernando Segovia and womanist scholar Mitzi Smith. As a person who had studied traditional American and European biblical scholarship, it was refreshing and eye-opening to hear them. Today, we will discuss his great book "Contesting Languages: Heteroglossia and the Politics of Language in the Early Church." Coming from a charismatic Christian background, it is fascinating to hear his perspective on speaking in tongues, ecstatic expression, and language translation and interpretation in the New Testament.  Welcome Dr. Tupamahu! Reference: "Contesting Languages: Heteroglossia and the Politics of Language in the Early Church" by Ekaputra Tupamahu, 2023Teaser Questions:Please tell us a bit about yourself. What brought you to biblical studies and Vanderbilt. Your Indonesian heritage plans a big role in your faith and approach to biblical studies. Tell us about this.When your book "Contesting Languages" came out in 2023, it offered a unique perspective on glossia: the language of immigrants in an English dominated society and what speaking in various tongues really means. What is the main premise for your research and book? You mentioned your charismatic background several times. Ecstatic speech is fascinating. It has different meanings for different people. What are the various modes and uses of ecstatic speech? When is it worship? When is it an expression of the Holy Spirit? What are the theories about the speaking of tongues in Acts 2? What is difference between translation and speaking in other languages and ecstatic speech? Is there overlap? I remember asking you questions about the use of Greek and Latin in Corinth. Speaking in Greek as the lingua franca was a given, but you mentioned that Latin was the language of government and the courts. Was it likely, for example, that Phoebe as the carrier Paul's letter to the Romans spoke Latin? Heteroglossia was a major challenge in the spread of Christianity. You speak about 1 Corinthians 14 in an very interesting way, about Paul's use of language to exert control. It seems that the speaking of tongues that "no one understands" to "build up themselves" is different than the mutual intelligibility of Acts 2. How are they different? Mitzi Smith said, "Paul's efforts in First Corinthians 14 don't get a pass." What does this mean to you? As Reformed Christian, Presbyterian, my world is filled with people who crave biblical certainty, which leads to theological certainty. The more I study scripture in context, the more I realize this has more to do with the desires and the psychology of the readers than the text itself. What are your views on the drive to biblical inerrancy and historical criticism? What do you say to young seminarians who are so certain about their views when they start and how they change during their seminary experience? I have been sparring with a young seminarian who is a very popular YouTube influencer named The Redeemed Zoomer. Do you have suggestions for me to connect with them? 

Send us Fan MailI am delighted to welcome Stephanie Warren to the podcast. Stephanie has a major presence on social media for years as the Exvangelicalxennial and now as The Strong Willed Child, sharing personal stories exposing the hypocrisy and harm of purity culture, James Dobson and the abuse in evangelical churches. Sometimes funny, sometimes angry, sometimes hopeful, always heartbreaking, she has done great work to help Christian millennials women and men what happened to them in last few decade. Stephanie also very generously couched me four years ago when I started to post online. She has such an important voice for many. In this episode, Stephanie gives a hopeful vision for deconstruction and a gentler society. Welcome Stephanie! Thank you so much for speaking with us. Teasers:Of course, I'd like to hear about Dobson and purity culture and whether people are waking up to the harm of these. I also have a lot of new data and insights about how bro culture is affecting mainline churches and exvangelical pipeline to highly liturgical churches, especially among men. I'd like to hear you thoughts about whether this is a real spiritual movement or just reclaiming trad culture. How do you see the rise of bro cultureI really like those topics. I don't think this is a spiritual movement; I think it is a reformation. Historically speaking, those happen every five hundred years. Christianity: canonizing the Bible, the Crusades, Lutheranism, the split of mainline Protestantism, and the evangelical movement. Reformations take 150-200 years before historians call it a reformation. I am not sure where we will end up, but I do think it is a reformation.How did people talk about Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan when you were growing up? How do you see these figures today? What is the parallels to what we are seeing now. 

Send us Fan MailI am so happy to speak with Charmella Williams again! She is a big thinker and a clear speaker about history and about what it means to be a successful black woman in our confusing time. Last time she spoke about the racial reckoning in America and how this has given her a sense of hope and pessimism as the same time. Now that the mask has been ripped the mask off of the church's racism and power grabbing with the rise of Christian nationalism, we are a knife edge. Will independent thinking women find faith again, or will they abandon it further? This crisis of faith has exposed the divide between men and women. While young white men are trending more conservative and traditionalists, taking the church with them in frightening directs, where is everyone else going? I really wanted to hear Charmellla's unfiltered opinion. Is there any hope for coming together? Does faith and church play any role? Welcome Charmella! I can't wait to hear your thoughts a year after we spoke last time. Teaser questions:Please give a quick intro of yourself. Our last conversation posted on Nov. 8, 2025. You were deep into Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States". You continue to post about your insights on it. What some new insights since last year? You did a video recently about Abrahamic religions and patriarchy. I think it was in honor of Gloria Steinem. You started by describing misogyny, mostly in Islam, but then made the parallel to closed minded Southern Baptist Christians. You were quite angry. What spurred that? You mentioned Male Gods. James Talarico famously said that God is non-binary, which is objectively true from the Bible, but it caused huge backlash, saying he is woke, he is weak, he is a feminist, etc. Why are they so angry? Is this a symptom of what you are talking about? What is third wave feminism and what is the fourth wave? How does this relate to faith and spirituality? Is this why young women have abandoned the church?One of my motivations to invite you on the podcast is that I spend a lot of time with religious people and traditionalists. Some of them are white young man in the theobro world. More often it is perplexed Gen X and Boomers who are confused why our mainline churches are shrinking and why the highly patriarchal churches have attracted both men and women. Is this just church swapping or real growth? I'd like to have an honest discussion about liberal white women vs. black women. When are they allies? And when is the liberal just performance?Religious conservatives often point to black Christian men, some who are very patriarchal, as a sign that we need to be more conservative to heal the church. This is especially true about recent African immigrants and the growth of Christianity in Africa. Is this just a racist trope or is there truth in this? I will tell you about a movement of conservative men, who try to portray themselves as the future of the church. But it seems to have little traction with women and with people of color. What are the getting wrong?When did the church do right? And when did it do wrong? The Presbyterian Church embraced Civil Rights and started being called woke and has lost 40% of its membership. How do you think people who have rejected the mainline churches will worship in the future? Nazis weren't real Christians. Well then, were slaveholders real Christians? What about MAGA people today?This is what I wrote you in my invitation email. Crisis of faith is what I want to talk about. So many people talk about going back to orthodoxy and "tradition." It seems that this is the last thing that people who are reckoning with spirituality want or need now. Spiritual practice can be good, but using it as a shield against truth is foolish. While the discussion could be informed by your personal journey, I think I am more interested in talking about what you are observing in the culture. Is gen Z retrenching or finding something new? As a successful and independent woman in a capitalist society, what do you think is the zeitgeist around progressivism and what role faith plays in that?

Send us Fan MailI'm delighted to welcome The Rev. Ryan Wiksell today. Ryan is an Episcopal Priest in Kansas City, Missouri. He is also my friend and I am his Anamchara, or Celtic soul friend. We both belong to the Community of Aidan and Hilda, a dispersed Celtic Christian community in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia. Ryan has a fascinating journey in charismatic and liturgical Christianity and Ryan is an co-author of a new book, The Last Seder of James: A Journey Through Passover. He has so much to share about his ministry, his appreciation for contemplative practices, and a deep understanding of the meaning of Passover and the other Jewish holy days. Welcome Ryan, it is so nice to see you again. And to share our friendship with the audience. Teaser Questions:Give us a brief background about you. What brought you to the ministry and to serve your congregation? You've seen some new life in the congregation. Tell us how you are connecting with them. You've told me about how your charismatic background informs your ministry today in a different way. What is it like to serve a liturgical church now. It seems that many younger people have been on a similar path. Are you seeing that too?Your book is fascinating because it helps understanding what it must have been like for James, Jesus's brother in Jerusalem and John his beloved disciple in the decades after Jesus's resurrection. While it is a fictional account, it realistically some of inevitable personal tensions between the characters and the common devotion they had to Jesus and his ministry. It is also deeply Jewish in its language and perspective. I think this accurately portrays the closeness between Christian and Jewish communities in the first century before they were ripped apart by strife and imperialism in later centuries. I am reading Paula Fredriksen's Ancient Christianities which describes the diversity of the Christianity before the imperial Constantinian takeover of the Roman. What are your views about the wide variety of Christian expressions? What is your contemplative practice? What does Celtic Christianity and being a soul friend mean to you? 

Send us Fan MailI 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.NIVJesus 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.NIVDo 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."

Send us Fan MailLife 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 commentedI 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 churchThe 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 ReplyThanks 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 replyDear 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.

Send us Fan MailDispensationalism 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.