The Uncensored Unprofessor

"There are different kinds of eunuchs," Jesus flashed back at them, "and some have so chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." This followed the disciples' own astonished response to Jesus' teaching on the exclusive nature of marriage. So Jesus took their emotional blurt and turned it on them. What does "eunuchs for the kingdom" mean? What's it not mean? What was the first-century cultural context for such a saying? What are some contemporary applications? I work through those kinds of contexts and questions, and still more, in this third episode on Jesus' tough sayings. In the show's beginning I discuss both the future of A.I. and an injurious piece of legislation on the electoral docket here in Spudland. Together, let's fix our minds (phronéma) for the sake of Christ.

Jesus said harsh things. Sometimes they were tough because they were riddled even for Jesus' own listeners, other times they were tough because they were just so demanding! This episode? "I came for the sick, sinners." What did that mean in its social context? What did it mean in its literary context? What does it mean over against massively-widespread teaching in the church today? And then, what does all that mean with regard to Christian mission? At the show's beginning I review the newly released, in-theater, movie, "Am I a Racist?" We also dig into whether Matt Walsh and the production company were being ethical.

The first episode in a new series, this cast o' the pod is about John 6:53, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." What did Jesus mean by that? What does the chapter's context establish for us? What does the book of John establish for us? Was Jesus promoting cannibalism? What does Jesus say a few verses later that shines important light on his scandalous remark? Is Jesus teaching on the Lord's Supper here? Also in this episode, because the Lordship of Christ is not reserved for private matters, I briefly reflect on the Trump-Harris ABC tv interview.

Twenty-first century folk define flesh as being about the body. So the human body, in popular Christian thought, gets paired against the spirit. But that's not at all what the apostle Paul meant by flesh (sarx) in the book of Romans. He was being nuanced, technical even. He wanted to establish a comparison that remains critical even for believers today. In many ways, we are what we think about. In this shotgun of a theology-and-culture episode I also explain why governmental systemic machines hate populism. What we are seeing here in the United States—with our media's tarnishing, branding, and scolding of populism—is occurring around the world. To prove the point I describe recent elections in Italy, Germany, France, and Venezuela. Earlier, at the show's beginning, I offer three long-established definitions of theology and what I like about each one. Come think and laugh with me.

Following a 16-part series it's time for a happy-break! In this Theology-and-Culture shotgun I work through the following: a famous racist's plagiarism, a quote by the Chinese ancient Laozi, why I love Spudlandia culture (and why you won't want to move here!) (and why KS is angry at the I.D.!), how an embrace of divine determinism theology makes evil less evil, CNN's Dana Bash and her lengthy-28-whole-minutes!-long-piercing interview of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, and a final reflection on St. Paul and the Old Testament law. This light hearted episode will make you think, laugh, and ponder what it means to follow Jesus Christ in the 21st Century.

Protestants focus, almost exclusively, on Salvation. (Who's against salvation? Not me! Praise God for salvation!) But that pressure-driven focus causes Protestants to look at every Bible passage or story as a matter of soteriology (salvation, pertaining to salvation). So we end up making the Bible say things it wasn't trying to say. And to that point? Election. Protestants think that election is always about salvation in eternity, or not. But that's not what election is in the Bible. I unpack the Bible logic about election, its wiring, its sweeping vision. Because the Lordship of Christ does not stop at the boundary of culture I reflect, in the show's beginning, on Church involvement in culture. Come think and laugh with me!

A classic prooftext for Divine Determinism is Romans 9. Especially verse 13, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated," is a pet verse for those who favor Divine Determinism. Across the last 500 years that verse has particularly been cited as an example of predestination: God chooses some for salvation and some for damnation. But is that what Paul was teaching in this passage? Was he saying God sent Jacob to heaven and Esau to hell? I spend the entire podcast unpacking the context, reasoning, and argument of the apostle Paul. He says several "insider baseball" remarks that make little sense to we twenty-first century westerners. Instead, Paul is going down a path that is rather foreign to us. Come join me as we plow through this significant chapter in Romans!

Significant to a notion of Divine Determinism is the Exodus. In chapters 7-12 we watch an ongoing interaction between Egypt's Pharaoh and Yahweh (via Moses and Aaron). What does that running exchange reveal to us? What does it reveal to us about freedom from slavery? About freedom of religious expression? About human agency? About how God deals with we, His creations? This is important because the pattern of Exodus is repeated elsewhere through the Bible, not least of which in the book of Romans. And then, because the Lordship of Christ does not stop at the boundary of culture, I examine and explain simulacra. We are surrounded, bombarded even, with simulacra. And that's more true in an election year than ever! Are reality tv shows real? Are piped-in video sermons authentic? Come think and laugh with me!

The Reformed's Westminster Shorter Catechism, point #1, "What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." That's a solid claim! I don't disagree, except it doesn't explain a deeper-still question, why did God create? What motivated Him? Was there a need in God to be glorified? Did God have a lack He needed to fill? Or does God express Himself through a kind of prodigal (wasteful, overspilling) love? I work through the traditional Protestant emphasis on the motivation of God and then suggest a better, more biblical, more Jesus-y answer. And then, because the majestic Lordship of Christ does not stop at the boundary of culture, I explain why I have been having numerous and regular dystopian nightmares where I awake in a fit of terror as demons lead me off into captivity. Come laugh and think with me!

God created the universe, and planet earth, with an inherent quality of free-play. Free-play is where energies, gravity, animals, weather and more all have their ability to move and be and impact reality. Given that, is life a matter of chance? Still more, is life a matter of unruly randomness? Both the Reformed and the Arminians have a high emphasis on the sovereignty of God; too often that is taken so that God is a kind of secrete puppet-master. But that doesn't jive with the existence of free-play. So how do we go about making sense of all those apparently competing elements? That's the aim of this show. I roll out a high view of God's sovereignty in light of the existence of free-play, chance, and even randomness. Let's laugh together as we think about complex matters!