Ep. 175 - Pastor Loses Job For Biblical Position On Marriage/Gender
On the show today: A California pastor lost his job because he took a Biblical position on sex and gender. Many members of his church apparently expected their pastor to reject Scripture's authority on those subjects. Also, we need to talk about proof texting. It is possible to justify, or dispute, any theological position by cherry picking Bible quotes completely out of context. We'll talk about why that is a dangerous thing to do, and where it leads. Date: 01-14-19
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
On The Matt Walsh Show today, a pastor lost his job after taking a biblical position on sex and gender, and I've got several things, as you can imagine, to say about that.
Also, in the same sort of vein, I want to talk about proof texting, the habit some Christians have of cherry-picking certain biblical passages to support their erroneous and often heretical views.
It's a dangerous habit that we need to discuss today on The Matt Walsh Show.
All right, first of all, let me give a shout out to the Museum of the Bible in DC.
My wife and I went there on Saturday, and we thought it was wonderful.
Much bigger, more elaborate than I thought it was going to be.
I was picturing like a church basement with Maybe some Bibles and some paintings and some dioramas made by the 8th grade Sunday school or something, but it's definitely much, much more than that.
It's a massive place with a great mix of historic artifacts.
interactive kinds of presentations, including a lifelike model of Nazareth, which you can
go through and go through the different houses and visit the temple and all that kind of
— it's just very impressive.
So I definitely recommend it.
Affordable, too.
What was not impressive, however, I have to mention because we were in D.C.
when the snowstorm hit.
We stayed overnight.
My parents watched our kids so we could go to the Museum of the Bible.
We stayed overnight in D.C.
and we woke up the next morning and there was like six inches of snow on the ground.
Yet somehow half of the roads in the city hadn't been plowed yet, including 295, which is a massive highway that connects DC to Baltimore, and it had been reduced down to one unplowed lane with all of these abandoned vehicles strewn all over the place.
It looked like something out of The Walking Dead.
Um, and this is not because of the shutdown, you should know.
You cannot blame this on the shutdown.
This is just how it is in DC.
DC has never figured out how to deal with snowstorms, even though Uh, they're in the northeast and they've gotten, or at least the mid-Atlantic region, they get snowstorms every year, okay?
D.C.
has existed as a city for 230 years, and so that means it's probably gotten, what, like maybe 450 or 500 snowstorms throughout its existence?
And through those 500 snowstorms, it still has not Learned to expect snowstorms or what to do when snow lands on the ground.
And so there's just confusion and incompetence.
But what else can you expect from DC but confusion and incompetence?
All right, I wanted to mention a story related to the Bible that's going nuts on The Daily Wire right now.
It's gotten like 160,000 shares or something in a day.
Written by Frank Camp, it's about Pastor Justin Hoke of Trinity Bible Presbyterian Church in Weed, California.
And kind of an unfortunate name for a town, especially in California, named Weed.
He's now lost his position as pastor because of a message that he put on a church sign.
And the sign says, or said, Bruce Jenner is still a man, homosexuality is still a sin, the culture may change, the Bible does not.
Now, he says he was inspired to create the sign after seeing that—remember that viral video of the guy losing his mind at a store because a cashier called him sir rather than man?
So, for Pastor Hoke, he saw that video.
It's kind of like the proverbial straw breaking the camel's back, and he wrote this—he put this sign up as a form of protest against the insanity and madness in our culture.
We can have a discussion about whether or not a church sign is really the most effective forum to have these kinds of discussions, but we can't have a discussion about whether the message on the sign was doctrinally and scripturally orthodox, because of course it was, without question.
The message communicates an indisputable Christian truth.
And when I say indisputable Christian truth, I mean that it is a truth that no Christian can dispute.
If you're not a Christian, you can try to dispute it.
But if you are a Christian, you literally cannot, because in order to dispute it, you would have to toss out the Bible, and once you've done that, then you're not a Christian anymore.
So in order to dispute that homosexuality is a sin, or that God makes us male or female, in order to dispute that, you would have to take the Bible and basically toss it into that fire I have behind me.
But if you're going to do that, then, as I said, you have given up the basis for your faith, so you could not possibly retain your faith while doing that.
But still, there was a protest.
People are upset about the sign, and the pastor says that it was communicated to him that some of the church elders and many of the church members wanted him to leave and would themselves leave if he did not.
Demanded that he leave.
And so ultimately he decided that he had no choice.
Now, I personally, look, I'm not going to make judgment calls for him and his family.
He had to decide to do what was best for him and his family.
I kind of wish he would have said, okay, well, if you want to leave the church, go ahead.
And if we only have five people left in the church, then that's what it's going to be.
Because if you don't, if you're not on board with biblical truth, then it's better for you to leave.
I'm not going to leave because you don't support biblical truth.
You can leave.
I'm not going to.
I wish he had said that.
He chose not to.
And he ended up leaving.
And all of that because he put something on a sign that can be found over and over again in the Bible itself.
A couple of other points about that.
The sign was protested.
Not just by people in the church, but also by other people in the community, like community members who are not members of the church, presumably not Christian.
But this is interesting because, you know, the left has always claimed that it has no problem with our religion as long as we don't force it on them and as long as we keep it in the church.
Now, I personally have a problem with the idea that our faith is supposed to be kept in a church building and away from the public square, because that is not consistent with the protections that we are afforded in the First Amendment.
That's not what it means to be a free American.
That's also not what it means to be a Christian.
As Christians, we are not supposed to keep our truth, the truth, in a church building.
We're supposed to declare it to the world.
But in this case, okay, it was on church property, on a church sign.
So why are you protesting in that case?
If the left was really sincere about, no, no, we're not trying to stop you from worshiping your God and from following your religion, just don't throw it in our face.
Well, we see yet again that they're not serious about that.
You know, that's just something that they said so that we would accept.
With each kind of step down the slippery slope, they're always going to say, oh, no, no, no, you know, we're just gonna go here and no further.
No, no, no, you're fine.
Look, we're not trying to, no, no, we, we're just gonna, we just wanna take this one more step, and then that's it.
We promise, okay, we promise.
But it never works out that way.
Because ultimately, The left hates biblical Christianity.
It despises it.
It does not think that Christianity has any right to exist, and its ultimate goal is to see Christianity destroyed.
I mean, that's just—there's no way around it.
That's very obvious.
Second thing—so, okay, that deals with the non-Christians who are protesting, but if you are a Christian, And you don't like the sexual morality of Christianity, if you don't like the message of sexual morality that you get from Christianity, which is a morality that applies to everyone, by the way, not just homosexuals.
Okay, so this is not just a thing where if you're a homosexual you have to abide by these rules of chastity.
No, this goes for everybody.
We're all subject to it.
But if you don't like it, you have a few options, right?
You can leave.
Denounce the faith.
Renounce the faith, I should say.
And say, I'm not Christian anymore.
I'm leaving.
You could do that.
Or you could stay and you could struggle to abide by these teachings, as difficult as it is.
And you're going to probably fail and fall and stumble along the way.
And so there's going to be, you're going to be repenting and going back to God.
There's going to be a lot of prayer and all of that.
So that's another option.
Or you could stay But then basically personally ignore these teachings in your personal life, and do what you want, and then take it up with God later.
Now, I don't recommend that third path.
I don't recommend the first path, either, of leaving.
Although, if you have to choose between door one, two, or three, and you're not going to choose door two, which is staying and struggling and trying to abide by the teachings, and you're left with only one or three, I would think one is better than three.
Just leaving the church completely is better than staying and committing to this path of being a hypocrite and a fraud.
But those are, you know, three potential paths you could take.
The path that you really can't take, the path that doesn't make sense and that is impossible, is to stay and then try to insist that the morality of Christianity be changed or amended or something like that.
Because Christianity is not a democracy, it's not a political movement, it's not a governing administration where you can petition for change and you can hope that it keeps up with the times or whatever.
That's not what it is.
It is an eternal, unchanging truth.
It cannot be changed.
So that other option of staying and trying to change it and trying to get rid of that teaching and this teaching and that teaching, that just doesn't make sense.
All right.
Staying in this general realm, I wanted to follow up on a conversation from last week, last Friday.
We talked about mega-church pastor Andy Stanley, who recently made headlines yet again for
insisting that the Old Testament is...
Including the Ten Commandments, do not apply to Christians.
Actually, as I mentioned on Friday, Stanley's been on this crusade against what he calls the Jewish Scriptures for a while now, and he has, in the past, over the last year or two, he has been urging Christians to unhitch, that's his phrase, unhitch themselves from the Old Testament.
And he has declared that the first three or four dozen books of the Bible should not be a, quote, go-to source regarding any behavior.
And he's also said, inaccurately, that the early church unhitched itself from the, quote, worldview and, quote, value system of the Old Testament.
He has said that those Christians who still strive to follow the moral teachings of the Old Testament are standing on a, quote, Old Testament house of cards, which could come crashing down at any moment.
In various interviews, he has appeared to really kind of be embarrassed by the Old Testament.
And he said that the Old Testament books are disturbing and violent.
He says that it's led many people to lose their faith.
And so what he says is, we should just leave it out.
The Old Testament should be, quote, left out of the apologetic argument.
Those, again, are his words.
Left out.
Now, of course, Jesus Christ did not leave it out.
I mean, Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, or back in those days it would have just been Scripture.
Jesus quoted from Scripture all the time.
He was constantly quoting from Scripture.
That's one of the things when you actually sit down and read the books, and I'm not sure if Andy Stanley has ever done that based on what he Based on what he says, he does not appear to have any biblical knowledge at all.
But if you actually sit down and read it, you're going to find that Jesus is constantly quoting what we call the Old Testament.
Quoting it authoritatively.
As in saying, it's in scripture so you should care about this, you should be following this, okay?
And he is using it as a, he is appealing to it, citing it.
All the time.
Now, when Stanley has been Confronted with that argument, he's suggested that, well, yeah, Jesus talks about scripture, but we don't really know what that means.
It might not necessarily mean the Old Testament texts as we know them.
No, yes, that is what it means.
There aren't any other scriptures that he could be referring to, especially because a lot of times he gives you chapter and verse.
He's going to actually quote them himself.
So, like, for instance, when Jesus gives us What Stanley, apparently, and some Christians think are completely new commandments—love the Lord God, love your neighbor—when Jesus gives us those commandments, and Stanley says, well, those are the new commandments.
Love God, that's the one commandment.
All the rest are just tossed out.
Don't pay attention to them.
Well, when Jesus is doing that, he is quoting the Old Testament.
Those are commandments that are in Deuteronomy and in Leviticus.
Jesus obviously knew that.
So, this was... Now, they are new in the sense of, you might say, newly emphasized, or something like that, but they are not actually new.
He is quoting Old Testament.
So, Andy Stanley says, unhitch ourselves from the Old Testament.
Meanwhile, Jesus is saying, the greatest commandment is this one right here in the Old Testament.
So it just doesn't work.
So you've got what Andy Stanley is saying, you have what Jesus Christ is saying.
They're saying two completely different things.
And then you have to decide, are you going to listen to Andy Stanley or Jesus Christ?
Me, personally, I'm going to listen to Jesus Christ.
If you decide that Andy Stanley is your guy, then go for it.
But as I said, that's not Christianity.
That's a completely different religion.
Now, in the last week, he wrote an article criticizing Christians who erect monuments to the Ten Commandments.
He says that the Ten Commandments don't apply to us.
Again, those are his words.
They don't apply.
Don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adultery.
Andy Stanley says, doesn't apply to us.
Doesn't apply.
You know, whatever.
He says, again, his words, Christians are not required to obey any of the commandments found in the first part of their Bible.
You don't have to obey any of it.
The first commandment, the first command that God gives humankind, be fruitful and multiply.
I guess we don't have to, you know, don't listen to that one either.
I mean, the very first things that Jesus, that God is saying To mankind.
I mean, God, throughout the Old Testament, is constantly speaking to mankind, and speaking, giving these moral commands, these moral truths.
And these are not arbitrary commands.
God does not speak arbitrary.
He is talking about a moral truth that is woven into the fabric of human existence.
So it's not like when God says, don't commit adultery, don't murder, it's not like he just decided randomly that, yeah, you shouldn't do that.
But this is part of reality itself.
Now, why, according to Stanley, is it so crucial for Christians to reject, or as he says, disengage with or unhitch themselves from the Old Testament?
He says, well, because in part the Old Testament has been used throughout history to justify all kinds of atrocities, and he uses the same ones that atheists use, the Crusades, the Inquisition, He says that that came about because of an overemphasis on the Old Testament, which is just wrong on so many levels.
Now he's betraying not only a biblical illiteracy, but a general historical illiteracy.
And actually, the Crusades, for one thing, happened as a result of 400 years of Muslim aggression, and the Inquisitions were an attempt by the Church to put a legal process in place for those accused of heresy.
As opposed to the summary executions carried out by angry villagers, which had been the policy before the church intervened.
But putting all that aside, here's my point.
I already issued my rebuttal to this heresy, which, as I said, is really just a reheated version of Marcionism, which is a heresy from like 1900 years ago.
Marcion was a guy who said basically the same thing.
Old Testament doesn't apply to us.
That's for Jews.
It's not for us.
We don't have to listen to it.
Same basic thing.
But as we were talking about this, this discussion prompted a lot of interesting feedback.
And I would say, as an unscientific estimate, probably 75% to 80% of the feedback that I received was extremely critical of Stanley's position, basically in agreement with me.
A lot of people made additional points that I hadn't thought of or brought up, so that was interesting.
But there was also a solid probably 20 or 25% of the people that I've heard from over the weekend who passionately agree with Stanley and also insist that the Old Testament is effectively useless, and all of the commandments given in those books are now irrelevant.
We don't have to listen to them.
We don't have to follow them.
God apparently was not speaking eternally when he spoke these moral truths.
These moral truths had an expiration date, and these Christians have just decided—now, God never said they had an expiration date.
But these Christians have decided that they did.
The one thing that these people do when arguing that the first two-thirds of the Bible are now basically pointless, and that God's commands are actually just like symbolic suggestions, the one thing they do is, you know, they'll find a verse, they'll find one verse in Scripture, Usually in the epistles.
And then they'll hinge their whole argument on this one line.
Completely removed from context.
Completely isolated.
And they use this one line to basically render almost every other line in the scripture in scripture moot.
So they grab on, they search desperately for one sentence that seems to kind of support their position.
They grab on to this one sentence and they say, you see?
All we need is this one sentence.
We don't even need the rest of the Bible.
We have this one sentence right here.
That's all.
It's all right there.
We don't need anything else.
Now, this isn't something that people just do with this argument.
This is something that Christians often do in general in any theological argument.
And it's one of the worst things.
It's one of the most insidious things in the church today.
And that's really what I want to talk about.
It's called proof texting.
Which is another phrase, term for that is cherry-picking.
But I think proof-texting is a better, more specific term.
Proof-texting is when you want to prove a certain theological position that you've taken Usually, it's going to be a position that you've already taken.
Okay?
Importantly here.
You already have the position, and now you're going to go in the Bible and find a justification for it.
So that's what you do.
You have your position in mind.
In this case, let's say, for instance, your position is the Old Testament doesn't matter.
We don't have to follow anything that it says.
You've got that in your mind, and then you flip open the Bible, and you're just looking.
You're like, give me one sentence.
All I need is one sentence that seems to sort of support that.
And you go searching desperately for it.
Although, usually, you're not going to have a physical Bible.
You're going to be doing it with Google, looking for that one sentence that seems to fit in.
And once you find that sentence, context be damned, you're going to hang your whole theology on it.
This is a very common thing, especially these days because of the Internet.
The Internet makes it so easy to do.
You know, you could even plug into Google.
Once you have your position in mind, you could even just Google, biblical support for X position.
And then you're going to find someone somewhere has made a list, and you find the verse, and boom, there it is.
That's all of your biblical research.
That's all you need to do.
And so, for this argument, a lot of people cited Hebrews 8.13, which says, Now, okay, sure.
Yeah, you take that verse, take it in isolation, you know, all by itself, and you seem to have found yourself pretty good proof, right?
And that's what proof texting is.
It's easy to do when you're proof texting.
You could find proof for pretty much any position whatsoever when you're proof texting.
And in this case, so you find it in Hebrews.
You find one line, you find one sentence, by the way, written by an anonymous author.
We don't even know who wrote it.
We have no idea who wrote Hebrews.
Now, that doesn't mean that it's not legitimate.
I'm not calling into question whether Hebrews should have been included in the canon, even though some church fathers did call that into question, but I'm not.
I'm just highlighting the absurdity here, okay?
The absurdity of using one sentence, one line, from an anonymous author all the way in the back of your Bible to basically nullify everything that came before it.
It is an absurd, ridiculous thing to do.
And the thing is, if this is just a general, a good general rule for reading your Bible, if you come across a sentence which would seem to nullify almost everything else you've read in the book, then it's likely that your interpretation is wrong.
If the line, made the first one obsolete, really means what Andy Stanley thinks, that Christians, as he says, are not required to obey anything at all that was written in the first two-thirds of their Bible, then why did the people who compiled the Bible even include the first two-thirds of it?
Why did they just give us the Gospels and some of the Epistles and then leave the Old Testament to the Jews?
Andy Stanley says, well, it's the Jewish scripture.
It's not for us.
Okay, but why is it put in the same book for us?
The people who compiled the Bible, they put it all together.
Why'd they do that?
Why didn't they just leave it for the Old Testament for the Jews and say, don't worry about that part of it, that's not for you.
I mean, you could go read it if you want to, but, you know, don't worry.
That's what Andy Stanley is saying.
But that's not the position that the writers and compilers of Scripture took.
So you have to look at everything in context, is what I'm saying.
You have to justify your theological positions with the entirety of Scripture, not just one sentence.
Because if we're doing the one-sentence game, if we're doing the proof-texting game, then, as I said, I can find proof.
I can find biblical support for any position.
And I really mean any position.
Starting with the position that the earth is flat.
We've talked about that in the past.
If you're doing proof texting, I could easily find you a couple of verses that would really seem to indicate that the earth is flat.
Or, I think more troublingly, in a more relevant way, if I'm isolating sentences, removing them from context, I could certainly justify any heresy That has ever been dreamt up.
So, Andy Stanley justifies Marcionism.
But you could do it with any heresy.
Arianism?
The heresy that Christ is a created being, not eternal, not equal with the Father, not divine in the same sense as God the Father?
Well, I could isolate many sentences in Scripture that would seem to fit that bill.
How about this one?
Why do you call me good?
No one is good but God alone.
If you're looking at that sentence by itself, completely isolated from everything around it, well, then that would seem to be—you'd say, wow, was Jesus saying he's not God here?
What about adoptionism?
Okay?
The belief that Jesus Christ was adopted as the Son of God at some certain point in his life, but was not the Son of God eternally.
So you could, I mean, Adoptionists, Adoptionism, that was a thing in the early days of the church.
And the Adoptionists, they had their verses that they could point to.
One of the verses, one of the stories that they used is the stories of Jesus' baptism.
When God announces, this is my beloved Son.
And so many Adoptionists took that passage and they argued that Jesus became the Son of God in that moment.
And they say, well, God didn't announce this, you know, at Jesus's birth.
This wasn't announced at any other point.
This was announced at the baptism.
Okay, so He was adopted in that moment.
There you go.
There's all the proof I need.
If I'm just looking at that story by itself, as if it existed on its own without anything else around it, How about docetism?
The belief that Jesus was not really flesh and blood and was actually a kind of like a phantasm or a hallucination, a hologram, basically, projected from heaven.
Well, Colossians does say, after all, that Jesus was the image of the invisible God.
Now, you wouldn't—I mean, it seems odd to say of a physical flesh-and-blood human that they are an image of something else, right?
So, who knows?
And I could go on, but you get the idea.
Now, the fake scriptural support for Docetism that I just mentioned is kind of weak, admittedly.
I'm actually not sure what scriptures the Docetists used to support their position.
I'm thinking they probably used some of the Gnostic Gospels that weren't included in the canon, like the Gospel of Thomas, or Gospel of Judas, or Mary, or whatever else.
But Arianism?
Now, you can find some very compelling passages, like the one that I cited, No One Is Good But God, Why Do You Call Me Good?
And you can find others that, on their own, seem like interesting pieces of evidence in favor of Arianism.
In fact, the Gospels don't make Christ's divinity completely explicit until you get to John's Gospel, which was the last one written.
You know, like, John's Gospel wasn't written until probably the year 90 or so.
So, a knowledgeable proponent of Arianism All they need to do is toss out that one book, the last gospel written, all they got to do is just toss that one out, or just make the whole thing symbolic.
Symbolicize, which isn't a word, all of John's gospel, and say, yeah, well, you know, that's just theological, symbolic, you know, you don't have to take that literally.
And then maybe toss out a few of the epistles, and once you've done that, everything else kind of falls into place, and boom, you've got Arianism.
You know, you've proved it.
That's what happens when you don't look at the totality of Scripture, when you don't look at the overall point being made, when you don't look at the overall story being told.
And that's also what happens, by the way, when you just go into the Bible yourself and interpret it completely on your own.
When you just pick up a Bible haphazardly and just flip through it, And just come up with your own interpretations for everything that you read.
Paying no mind at all to the theological tradition of Christianity, or to what the great teachers and apologists have said, or to what the Church Fathers said.
I mean, the thing is, the guys who actually helped to compile and translate the Bible, guys like St.
Jerome, for instance, You know, they'll tell you what they thought about some of these issues.
All you have to go... These guys, they wrote about these issues.
And you can go and you can read what they had to say.
They'll give you their own theological interpretations of these things.
And I would think that their opinion probably should carry some weight, right?
Considering they're the ones who gave us the Bible.
We wouldn't have a Bible if it wasn't for them.
They are the instruments that God chose to use to compile and translate these documents.
Now, that doesn't make their personal theological opinions infallible.
It doesn't mean that we have to agree with everything that they said.
Saint Augustine, one of the most brilliant Christians to ever live.
I think that if you really want to know the Bible and understand your own religion, you got to read some of Augustine.
But he had opinions that I think were not only wrong, but repulsively wrong.
Like he thought that all babies who aren't baptized go to hell, okay?
I absolutely reject that opinion.
I don't accept that from him.
But that doesn't mean that I'm just going to toss Augustine out completely and say, ah, his opinion doesn't matter.
But there's this kind of aggressive ignorance that's very common among some Christians today, where that's what they do.
They say, you know, it doesn't matter what any of those guys had to say.
It doesn't matter.
I don't care what anyone says.
I'm just going to pick up the Bible myself, and I'm going to come up with my own interpretation for all these things, because I'm smart enough to figure all this out on my own.
But you know, the problem is, the people who say that, they say, you know what, I'm just doing the song, yeah, I don't need any of those guys.
Saint Jerome, Augustine, who needs Aquinas?
I don't need them.
The Church Fathers?
Who cares?
The people who say that, and who act like, you know what, I'm not going to appeal to anyone else's opinion, it's all about my own opinion.
What inevitably ends up happening is that they do end up trusting someone else's opinion.
Because they're too lazy to do the work on their own, they aren't actually going to sit there and read the whole Bible and come up with their own interpretations for everything.
I mean, I don't recommend doing that, but at least if you actually did that, it means you're reading the whole Bible and you're putting some work and effort and thought into it.
So, you know, there is some positive maybe that could come out of it.
But the people who have that, as I said, aggressively ignorant, self-centered sort of mentality, arrogant mentality too, where they think that they're smart and wise enough to figure all this out on their own.
And so that 2,000 years of theological teaching and interpretation is irrelevant as far as they're concerned.
What ends up happening is that they don't want to do the work, so they're going to latch on to some person who comes along and offers a very simplistic, very easy-to-understand, very self-serving interpretation, and they're going to latch on to that guy and say, you know, yeah, I'll go with him.
So you have some Christians who, you know, are gonna latch on to Andy Stanley, and they're gonna say, you know what, well, yeah, I'm gonna go with Andy Stanley.
All the rest of those guys over there, the entire history, I mean, all the most brilliant minds that have ever existed in the history of Christianity, I'm gonna ignore all of them, and I'm gonna go with Andy Stanley.
If I have to, if I, you know, I've got Andy Stanley on one hand, and then I've got, like, Saint Jerome and Augustine over here, I'm gonna go with Stanley.
Yeah, he's my guy.
That's what ends up happening is these people are just kind of vulnerable.
They leave themselves very spiritually and sort of theologically vulnerable and then they get plucked up by heretics who are maybe gifted speakers and can offer them a dumbed down, boiled down, As I said, self-centered, self-serving interpretation, and that's what they're gonna go with.
So, as much as they say, you know, it's all about me and Jesus, personal relationship, it's not about listening to what anyone else says, yeah, but it ends up not really being me and Jesus, it ends up being you, Jesus, and Andy Stanley, or you, Jesus, and Joel Osteen, or something like that, that's what it ends up, you, Jesus, and Joyce Meyer, you know, that's what it ends up being.
You end up with this personal sort of trinity, Except there's only one person in that trinity that belongs in a trinity, and that's Jesus.
And the other two, no.
All right.
I guess we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
On today's Ben Shapiro Show, the FBI opens an investigation into Trump as a Russian agent, the government shutdown continues, and Democrats move even further to the left.
