Podcasts about Puritans

Audio Transcript How are we this morning? Excellent. All right. It's my privilege to bring the word to you this morning, so let's get into it. Recently I read a story about a young man who never wanted to be a soldier. He had no visions of fame or ambitions of glory. When his father announced that he'd secured him an appointment to West Point, the boy protested. He wanted to be a farmer or perhaps work the river trade. But his father was not a man to be argued with, and so the 17 year old boarded a coach east. Sick with dread, he got off to a rough start. Through a clerical error, his name was copied incorrectly and it would stick permanently. He hated the academy. He finished 21st of 39 cadets, distinguished only in horsemanship and mathematics. The Mexican War found him a reluctant quartermaster, competent, but unnoticed afterward posted to lonely garrisons on the Pacific coast. Far from his wife Julia and the children he barely knew, he began to drink. In 1854, facing either court martial or resignation over his drinking, he resigned his commission in disgrace and went home with empty pockets. What followed were the worst years of his life. He tried farming on land his father in law gave him outside St. Louis, and the crops failed. He hauled firewood through the city streets in a worn army overcoat, occasionally passing former West Point classmates who looked away embarrassment. He pawned his gold watch one Christmas to buy presents for his children. He tried bill collecting and was terrible at it. He tried real estate and failed at that, too. By 1860, at 38 years old, he was working at a clerk in his younger brother's leather goods store in Galena, Illinois, earning $800 a year. He was a man whose life, by every visible measure, had failed. Then Fort Sumter fell. The quiet clerk who couldn't sell harnesses turned out to understand something that most West Point polished generals did not. The war was not about elegant maneuvers or reputation, but about pressing forward relentlessly, accepting losses and refusing to stop. Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, the Wilderness, Appomattox. The failures had taught him things that successful men never learned. What it was to be underestimated, to be written off, to keep moving even when the odds looked long. The boy who didn't want to be a soldier, the the lieutenant who resigned in shame, the farmer who failed, and his brother's store. Hiram Ulysses Grant, or as the West Point Clerk mistakenly wrote, U.S. grant, ended the war as General of the armies, the man who had saved the Union and later President of the United States. It turned out that the long road had been the training. Weeks before his death, Grant wrote the preface to his personal memoirs, saying, man proposes and God disposes. There are but few important events in the affairs of men brought about by their own choice. Most of us at some point will know what it is to be in our own wilderness. We will know what it is to wait, to wait through years that seem to lead nowhere, to feel forgotten by God, to look out at a landscape that gives no sign that he is at work. And we will be tempted in those years to conclude that nothing is happening, that God has misplaced us, that our life is being spent in vain. This morning, as we come to a passage in the Book of Exodus that speaks directly into that experience. It is the story of 40 silent years in the life of Moses and 400 silent years in the life of Israel. It is the story of a God who appears to all human eyes to be doing nothing. And it is the story of how, beneath that silence, he was doing everything. So if you would with me open your Bibles, please, to the Book of Exodus. And this morning we're going to finish chapter two, verses 11 to 25. One day, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and looked on their burdens. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his people. He looked this way and that, and seeing no one, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. When he went out the next day, behold, two Hebrews were struggling together. And he said to the man in the wrong, why do you strike your companion? He answered, who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian? Then Moses was afraid and thought, surely the thing is known. When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses. But Moses fled from Pharaoh and stayed in the land of Midian. And he sat down by a well. Now, the priest of Midian had seven daughters. And they came and drew water and filled the troughs to water their father's flock. The shepherds came and drove them away. But Moses stood up and saved them and watered their flock. When he came home to their father, Reuel, he said, how is it that you have come home so soon today? They said, an Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and even drew water for us and watered the flock. He said to his daughters, then where is he? Why have you left the man? Call him that he may eat bread. And Moses was content to dwell with the man. And he gave Moses his daughter Zipporah. She gave birth to a son, and he called his name Gershom, for he Said I have been a sojourner in a foreign land. During those many days. The king of Egypt died and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God, and God heard their groaning. And God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. God saw the people of Israel and God knew. Let's pray. Father. May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts this morning be acceptable in your presence. Lord, I pray, after my words are long forgotten, that your word would be remembered. Jesus name. Amen. Exodus is an epic of God's love and redemption of his people. Every scene reads like an action novel. The baby in the basket, the burning bush, the plagues, the angel of death. The parting of the Red Sea, the thunder and lightning around Mount Sinai, the covenant with the Almighty. Before we dive into our text, we must read Exodus rightly. We have to read it Christologically, that is, in relation to Jesus Christ, who is our perfect sacrifice, who saved us out of our bondage to sin and delivered us into a right relationship with God. When Jesus appeared to his disciples on the road to emmaus in Luke 24:27 Records beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. If Jesus started with Moses when describing himself, perhaps we can also we also read it historically. Scholars debate whether the Exodus took place around 1446 BC or around 1260. Good evidence exists for both dates and ancient Israel did not work with an absolute calendar the way we do. But what matters for us this morning is not the precise year, but the fact that it is history, not myth. The renowned Old Testament scholar Nahum Sarna observed that no nation would invent for itself and then faithfully transmit for thousands of years an inglorious origin story of slavery, grumbling and and idolatry. Israel did not flatter itself into existence. This happened. Exodus 2:11 to 25 sits at 1 of the great hinge moments of redemptive history. The book opens with the sons of Jacob settling in Egypt under the protection of Joseph. But there arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph. What begins as refuge becomes bonding. Hebrews multiplied, and Pharaoh, fearing them, enslaved them and decreed that every male child be cast into the Nile. Into that decree Moses is born. Wes laid out for us last week that Moses mother hides him, his sister watches over him, and then Pharaoh's daughter draws him out of the water. He grows up in the palace, Stephen tells us in Acts 7:22 that he was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was mighty in his words and deeds. And that is where our passage begins. The structure that we will use this morning breaks down into four movements. Verses 11 to 14 Moses takes matters into his own hands. Verses 15 to 17 Moses flees and is shaped at a well. 18:22 Moses is welcomed and becomes a sojourner. 23 To 25 While Moses tends sheep, Israel groans and God acts. Start with 11 to 14. Moses has grown. Now the infant in the basket has become a man in Pharaoh's court, raised as Egyptian royalty. How much did he know about his true background growing up? Wes mentioned last week that Moses mother was allowed to nurse him. So did they still have a relationship? Certainly possible. There are so many unanswered questions. Did he live with a divided heart for years? Did he spend endless nights pleading with Pharaoh? Was he embarrassed by his background and didn't want to believe it? We have no idea. What we do know is that he was raised to be a prince of Egypt. But by the time he was 40, he knew exactly who he was and who his brothers and sisters truly were. Were. One day he goes out to his brothers, the Hebrews, and he looks on their burdens. And what he sees he cannot unsee. An Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own. He looks this way and that, and when he sees no one watching, he strikes. Strikes the Egyptian down and buries him in the sand. Now this raises a nagging question for me. If Moses was a member of Pharaoh's household in the royal family, so to speak, why would he have feared killing someone? Wouldn't a royal be able to kill a lowly Egyptian taskmaster with little to no reprisal? This goes into the historical context at the time. Exodus 1:8 says, now there arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph. Commentators note that this likely indicates a dynastic change. A new royal house with no political or familial loyalty to the previous regime. In fact, during either time period, you believe royal houses at that time were very politically unstable, with different factions having different claims to the crown. The princess who had adopted him was almost certainly aging or dead. And the reigning pharaoh would have viewed an adopted Hebrew with suspicion, not affection. And the man Moses killed was not a slave. He was an Egyptian official, a representative of Pharaoh's economic and political authority. This is crucial. In ancient Egypt, killing a Hebrew slave was something an Egyptian could do with little consequence. But a member of the royal household killing one of Pharaoh's taskmasters. This probably would not have looked so much like murder. It would have looked like the potential beginning of an insurrection. The next day, Moses goes out and this time he finds two Hebrews fighting each other. He steps in to make peace, and the man in the wrong rounds on him with words that must have cut deeply. Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill us as you killed the Egyptian? And Moses is afraid. The secret is out. Beneath these interactions is something deeper that the New Testament helps us understand. The writer of Hebrews tells us this whole episode began in faith. By faith. Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the Reward. That's Hebrews 11:24-26. When Moses walked out of the palace, he was not slumming, he was choosing. He looked at the gold of Egypt on the one hand and the suffering of God's people in the other. And he chose the suffering. That is faith. So what went wrong? Well, it can be summed up in the next phrase. He looked this way. That a long line of preachers have lingered over those words and noticed what was missing. As Chuck Swindoll says, he looked east, he looked west, he looked over his shoulder, but he didn't look up, did he? He looked in both directions horizontally, but he left the vertical completely out of it. Moses was a man with a true call, but a glance still fixed on the ground. Here is the heart of the problem. Moses tried to bring about by his own hand what God had promised to bring about by his covenant. The deliverer was right, the cause was right, the method was wrong, and the time was not yet. And the proof is what he is in what he does next. He hides the body in the sand, as if sand could keep a secret from God. Within a day, the rumor was loose. Within a week, Pharaoh wants him dead. Three things to take from these opening verses. First, a true call from God does not exempt a man from from the discipline of God's timing. Moses had the right cause and the right collar. But he ran ahead. And it will take 40 years in the desert to refine him. Second, hidden sin is a poor investment. Sand is a thin grave. What God means to expose, no man can keep buried. Third, there is mercy for those with juvenile or immature faith. John Calvin's pastoral word on this passage is really helpful. Even the obedience of the saints, stained as it is by sin, is still sometimes acceptable to God through his mercy. So Moses runs, but God was not finished with him. He was only beginning verses 15 through 17. Verse 15 begins with collapse. However noble Moses motives may have been, when he took matters into his own hands, he was outside the will of God. And yet God still had a plan for him. This is one of the great promises of Scripture. God uses sinners for his glory. It's the only kind he has to work with. When you read the heroes of the faith, they read a lot more like a Alcoholics Anonymous meeting than a catalog of superheroes. I can almost see them in a church basement, sitting in a circle on folding chairs, sipping bad coffee, introducing themselves. Hi, I'm Abraham and I'm a liar who pimped out my wife. Hi, I'm Jacob. I'm a deceiver and I'm a thief. How? Hi, I'm Samson and I'm a lust addicted vow breaker. Hi, I'm David. I'm an adulterer and a murderer. Hi, I'm Jonah and I'm a racist runaway. Hi, I'm Peter and I'm a coward who denied my Savior. Hi, I'm Moses and I'm a murderer. When Janet and I lived in Atlanta, we had a pastor who was fond of saying that God doesn't look for ability, he looks for availability. God uses broken people because it's his strength, it's his wisdom, it's his power, and it's for his glory. God would be using Moses, but he had some seasoning yet to experience. Verse 15. When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses. But Moses fled from Pharaoh and stayed in the land of Midian. There's no firm consensus on where exactly Midian was, but the traditional and most widely accepted location is in northwest Arabia, east of the Gulf of Agapa, in what is now northwestern Saudi Arabia. The Midianites appear to have been a semi nomadic people, so Midian may refer to an area where the tribe ranged rather than a specific location. Calvin, commenting here, sees in Moses flight not cowardice, but the sovereign hand of God, breaking a man down before he builds him up. Calvin's instinct is that the Lord put his servant through a long banishment precisely so that he would learn humility and dependence, because the work for which he was designed was greater than human strength could compass. 40 Years of palace training had to be matched by 40 years of desert undoing. Augustine, in a different connection, spoke of being in the region of unlikeness that far country, where the soul learns who it is by losing what it had. Moses, sitting by that well is in the region of unlikeness. Verse 15 ends noting that Moses, obviously exhausted, sat down by a well. One of the beauties of Scripture is the inclusion of what so often to us seems like pointless details. But wells, as it turns out, is an important location in the Bible, specifically, if you are looking for a wife. In Genesis 24, Abraham's servant meets Rebekah, Isaac's future wife, at a well. In Genesis 29, Jacob meets Rachel at a well. This time, who is Moses going to meet? Verses 16 and 17. Now, the priest of Midian had seven daughters, and they came and drew water and filled the troughs to water their father's flock. The shepherds came and drove them away, but Moses stood up to save them and watered their flock. Moses is once again faced with injustice. Has he learned anything? A group of young women have come to the well to draw water, and a group of shepherds is going to give them a hard time. Moses, again courageously rises to their defense. Already we see clues that he is learning from his past mistakes. The text does not record that he killed the shepherds, and not only that he served the young women by watering their flock. For the first time, he was learning what it was to be a deliverer. He stands firm for what is just and begins to practice true leadership, which is born out of service. It would have been unthinkable at the time for a man to perform a menial task for women. But Moses stooped to serve. And by learning to serve, he was learning to lead. For all God's leaders are servants. He, in time, the one who is the true and better. Moses would himself kneel and wash 12 pairs of dirty feet and tell his disciples that whoever wants to be great must be a servant of all. Service is always one of the first courses in God's leadership training. Anyone who aspires to spiritual leadership, especially in the church, should begin by finding a place of humble service. If you travel to my alma mater, Wheaton College, one of the most striking little buildings on campus is the Marion E. Wade center, which houses the largest collection of C.S. Lewis writings in the world. Its namesake, Marian Wade, was an American businessman and founder of the large company Servicemaster. Wade was a man of deep faith who established a tradition called six weeks on the front lines. Every future executive at the company would spend six weeks scrubbing floors on hands and knees, doing the work of those they would later lead. Wade believed that those who refused to serve had no business leading. One of the other blessings of servant leadership is that when kids watch authentic service from their parents, it has a tendency to be passed down through the generations. The other founder of Service Master was a gentleman by the name of Ken Hanson. Ken's son, Walter Hanson, when he grew up, would move to Cleveland. He started a little church in his living room. And it grew, and it grew to about a thousand. In 10 years, the church would grow into what is now called Parkside Church. And if that name rings a bell, it would be because it's the church that Alistair Begg just retired from. It's amazing how these things pass down. Moses is being molded. Though he must feel lost and alone, God is right there, directing the most salient detail, refining his champion. God creates this dress rehearsal. The stage is a backwater. Well, the cast is seven anonymous girls, but the script is the same script that would one day be played out at the Red Sea. This is how God so often works. CS Lewis, in his collected letters, wrote that the great thing, if one can, is to stop regarding all the unpleasant things as interruptions of one's own or real life. The truth is, of course, that what one calls the interruptions are precisely one's real life, the life God is sending one day by day, Moses thought his real life had ended at the border of Egypt. In fact, his real life was just beginning in Midian. There are seasons of our lives where it seems to have been derailed, where the calling we thought we had has collapsed and we find ourselves sitting by a well in some unfamiliar place. The temptation is to read those seasons as God's absence. But this text invites us to read them as God's curriculum. The God who is going to deliver Israel is at this very moment teaching his deliverer how to stand up for seven helpless women at a watering trough. Nothing in your wilderness is wasted. Turn to verses 18 to 22. The daughters return home and their father called Ruel here or Jethro elsewhere, most likely the same man. So don't get confused. Very common at the time for there to be multiple names for somebody. And he asked why they're early, and they say, an Egyptian delivered us. It's a quietly ironic line. Moses has gone out to deliver Hebrews and was rejected as a meddling Egyptian. He flees to Midian and is received as a generous Egyptian. The man cannot escape his identity, and yet his identity is not what God will make of it. Ruel rebukes his daughters for leaving the man unhosted. Call him that. He may eat bread and Moses is brought in. Verse 21 simply says Moses was content to dwell with the man. The Hebrew verb here ya all carries the sense of consenting, of being willing, even of resigning oneself. Moses is not striving anymore. He has come to the end of his striving. He sits down and he stays. The Book of Acts tells us that 40 years passed between Moses flight to Midian and his encounter with God at the burning bush. D.L. Moody is often quoted as saying Moses spent 40 years in Egypt learning to be something. 40 Years in the desert learning to be nothing. And 40 years in the wilderness proving God to be everything. Philip Reichen notes that whenever we are tempted to grow impatient with God's timetable for our lives, we should remember Moses, who spent two years of preparation for every year of ministry. Zipporah is given to Moses as a wife and a son is born. Moses names him Gershom new meaning I have become an alien in a foreign land. The name comes from the Hebrew verb garash, which means to drive out or expel. It may refer to Moses own experience of being driven out of Egypt. It also sounds like the Hebrew words ger and sham, which is a pun that means an alien there. Every time Moses speaks his son's name, he confesses that he does not belong. Midian is not home. Egypt is not home. He is a man between worlds. The Puritans loved this theme of sojourning. John Owen described the believer as a stranger and a pilgrim traveling through a country not his own, with his heart fixed on a city whose builder and maker is God. Jonathan Edwards preached a famous sermon called the Christian Pilgrim, in which he said that the true Christian travels on through this world as a wayfaring man and looks not upon any of the enjoyments of this world as his own. GK Chesterton, with his usual paradox, put it this way. How can we contrive to be at once astonished at the world and and yet at home in it? The answer of Scripture is that we cannot. Not fully, not yet. We are pilgrims. Gershom is the name of every saint. But notice Moses, sojourning is not a punishment, it is a preparation. RC Sproul emphasized that the entire 40 year sojourn in Midian was God's way of thinking. Moses for leadership, a man trained only in Pharaoh's court could not lead Israel through Pharaoh's wilderness. But a man who had himself become a shepherd of sheep in that very wilderness could one day shepherd God's people through it. The geography of Midian is the geography of the Exodus. Route. The skills Moses learned watering Reuel's flock are the skills he would use leading Israel's flock. God was not killing time. God was forging an instrument. And Moses doesn't know he names his son after his displacement. He doesn't name him soon to be deliverer or heir of promise. He names him Sojourner. The man cannot see what God is doing. Alistair Begg has spoken movingly of how God's people are very often in the dark about the brightness of God's plan for them. Moses is in the dark, but the brightness is gathering. If you are a Christian, you are a Gershom. You are a sojourner in a foreign land. The disquiet you feel, the restlessness, the sense that this world is not home is not a defect of your discipleship. It is a feature of it. CS Lewis spoke of this often when he talked about the pilgrim longing in Mere Christianity. He wrote, if we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world. The long ordinary years in which it seems nothing of eternal weight is happening to you are very likely the years in which God is doing his deepest work. Verses 23 and 20 through 25. And now the camera pulls back, just like in a movie. We get a break from the action in Midian and the screen flashes. Meanwhile, back in Egypt. Verse 23. During those many days, the king of Egypt died and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. 40 Years have passed. A Pharaoh has died, another has come. Nothing has changed for Israel. They are still in chains. Bricks still must be made, whips still fall. And from those brick fields raises a sound. The text uses the strongest words in Hebrew for it. A groaning, a crying, a shrieking that goes up out of the dust. Where does the cry go? To all human eyes, the cry goes nowhere. Pharaoh doesn't hear it. The Egyptians don't hear it. Moses doesn't hear it. And then come four of the most precious verbs in the Old Testament. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God, and God heard their groaning. And God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. God saw the people of Israel, and God knew. God heard. God remembered. God saw. God knew. John Piper has called these four verbs the Gospel before the Gospel, the announcement hundreds of years before Bethlehem that the God of heaven is not a deistic clock maker, but a covenant father who hears the groaning of his enslaved children. Each verb carries a war world. God heard, not merely overheard, the Hebrew implies attentive, responsive, hearing the cry that no human ear answered, the cry that seemed to die in the air over the Egyptian sky. The cry arrived at the throne of heaven. The silence of God is never the deafness of God. When his people cry, he hears with the ears of a father. God remembered. This does not mean that God had forgotten and now recalled. To remember in the covenantal sense is to act upon a prior commitment. When Scripture says God remembered Noah, the next thing is that the waters subside. When it says he remembered Hannah, the next thing is that she conceives. When it says he remembered his covenant with Abraham, the next thing is the Exodus. God's remembrance is the prelude to his deliverance, the covenant he made 400 years before. I will be a God to you and to your offspring after you has not faded. He was about to honor it. God saw. The verb is the same verb used in Genesis 1. And God saw that it was good. It is the verb of attentive, evaluating, sight. He saw the bruises, he saw the broken backs. He saw the widows, the unburied babies. There is no suffering of his people that is hidden from him. The Scottish divine Samuel Rutherford, writing from his imprisonment in Aberdeen, often returned to the image of God as the watchman over Israel, who never slumbers, whose people's tears are gathered in heaven long before they fall to the ground. God sees and God knew. Interestingly, the verb stands alone in the Hebrew. There is no object God knew. Some translations may supply one. God knew their condition, but the Hebrew leaves it bare. Why? Perhaps because what God knows here is larger than any object can contain. He knows their pain, he knows their bondage, he knows their names, and he knows what he is about to do. Jonathan Edwards taught that every act of God in history is the unfolding of a purpose conceived before time began. God knew. While Moses sits in Midian thinking he had been forgotten, and while Israel cries in Egypt, thinking that they have been forgotten, neither has been forgotten. God is doing two things at once. In Midian, he is shaping his deliverer. In Egypt, he is hearing their cries. The two threads are converging towards a burning bush in the next chapter. But neither Moses nor Israel can see it. Yet Augustine in his Confessions, wrote this sentence. Thou, O Lord, wert more inward to me than my most inward part and higher than my highest. That is the God of Exodus 2. He is closer to Israel's groaning than the chains on their wrists. He is closer to Moses weariness than the dust on his sandals. He is not far off. He is not distracted, he is at work. Four thoughts to close. First, be still and know that he is God. What we are very often is people who run ahead of God. Moses is not alone in this. Abraham had the promise of a son and and couldn't wait until he took Hagar. And the household of faith has lived with the consequences ever since. Jacob had the blessing already promised to him, but couldn't wait, and so he stole it with a goatskin and a lie. Peter had a lord he loved and couldn't bear to see him arrested. So he drew a sword in Gethsemane and cut off a man's ear. The pattern is older than Moses, and it is as new as this morning. The right cause can be pursued in the wrong way and the wrong time. Bradley Gray puts it bluntly. Nothing good happens when you get ahead of God and take matters into your own hands. Second, the silence of God is not the absence of God. 40 Years passed in Midian and 400 years in Egypt before God spoke from the bush. But not one of those years was empty. God was hearing, he was remembering. He was seeing, he was knowing. If your life feels like a wilderness right now, if you have been sitting by your own well in Midian waiting for a word from heaven that just doesn't come, take this passage and press it to your heart. The silence is not absence. The God who shaped Moses in obscurity is shaping you now. In his 1967 book Spiritual Leadership, J. Oswald Sanders quoted this anonymous poem. When God wants to drill a man and thrill a man, and skill a man. When God wants to mold a man to play the noblest part, when he yearns with all his heart to create so great and bold a man that all the world shall be amazed. Watch his methods, watch his ways, how he ruthlessly perfects whom he royally elects. How his hammer he hammers him and hurts him and with mighty blows converts him into trial shapes of clay which only God understands. While his tortured heart is crying and he lifts beseeching hands, how he bends but never breaks when his good he undertakes, how he uses whom he chooses and with every purpose him by every act induces him to try his splendor out. God knows what he's about. Third, your sojourning has a destination. Moses named his son Gershom because he felt the foreignness of his life. But the foreignness was not the end of the story. It was the prelude to a calling. The writer of Hebrews tells us that all the saints acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. They desired a better country. That is a heavenly one. Your pilgrimage is not a pointless one wandering. It is a movement towards a country God has prepared for you. Fourth, and most importantly, the God who heard Israel has heard you in a fuller way still. The end of Exodus 2 is a foreshadowing. The four verbs heard, remembered, saw new, find their final fulfillment not at Sinai, but at Calvary. There the Father heard the cries of his people. There he remembered the covenant he had made before the foundations of the world. There he saw his Son lifted up between heaven and earth, bearing the groaning of every enslaved soul in his own body. And there he knew in a way only the triune God could know the cost of redeeming a people for himself. If God heard Israel groaning under Pharaoh and he sent Moses, how much more has he heard your groaning and sent his son? The exodus from Egypt is the shadow. The exodus from sin and death is the substance. And the same four verbs hover over the cross. Today God hears your cries that come up from the dust of this fallen world. God remembers his covenant with you. God sees you right now in this room, in your struggle, in your brokenness. And God knows exactly what he's doing. Let's pray. Father, thank you for this text. Father, thank you for your covenant with us. That you know us, that you love us, that you see us, that no prayer goes unheard, no silence is a waste. And that wherever we are in our life, whatever burdens we are carrying, that you're right here. That you are molding us and you are creating us in just the way that you had planned for us before the creation of the world. Thank you for who you are. In Jesus name, amen. The post Moses Flees to Midian – Exodus 2: 11-25 appeared first on Red Village Church.

Today on AOTA Shorts: Gov. Ron Desantis is at it again, ensuring his state continues to lead the way on the most draconian and fascist education policies on the books. Florida has now unleashed its new suite of accelerated courses known as FACT - Florida Advanced Courses and Tests. The US History course aspires to challenge the College Board's AP US History course, by pushing a decidedly biased curriculum, rooted in fundamental lies and mythology about America. American exceptionalism, seeing things like slavery and indigenous genocide and displacement as “aberrations from an otherwise admirable story,” and advocating students read the bible to understand the Christian roots of the Puritans are the tip of the iceberg. We've reached this point in the descent of American public education, where they're creating their own advanced courses for white supremacist, christian nationalist, patriachal, imperialist propaganda. Yikes. Manuel and Jeff discuss!MAXIMUM WOKENESS ALERT -- get your All of the Above swag, including your own “Teach the Truth” shirt! In this moment of relentless attacks on teaching truth in the classroom, we got you covered. https://all-of-the-above-store.creator-spring.com Watch, listen and subscribe to make sure you don't miss our latest content!Listen on Apple Podcast and Spotify Website: https://AOTAshow.com

Most Americans trace "separation of church and state" to Thomas Jefferson. The real origin is 150 years earlier — a devout Puritan named Roger Williams who argued from scripture that the church needed protection from the state, not the other way around.Filmmaker Andrew Linn joins Doug Stuart to discuss his documentary Church and State: Roger Williams and the Founding of Freedom of Religion. They cover:Why the Puritans fled religious persecution and then replicated it in MassachusettsWilliams's two-table reading of the Ten Commandments and what it limits government from enforcingHis "garden and wilderness" metaphor: how state-church fusion corrupts the churchWhy religious liberty is a Christian idea — and why Christians should be its loudest defendersWhat Christian nationalism gets wrong, and what Williams already said about itAndrew Linn's documentary is free on Faith Channel, Fawesome TV, YouTube, and RedeemTV.com. churchandstatedoc.com Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com Use code LCI50 for 50% off your first order at Podsworth.com to clean up your voice recordings and also support LCI!Full Podsworth Ad Read BEFORE & AFTER processing:https://youtu.be/vbsOEODpQGs  ★ Support this podcast ★

Support the show

This is session 1 of our Spring 2026 Conference on the English Puritans. Dr. Yuille answers the question: "Who are the Puritans?"

The following session was delivered by Dr. Joel Beeke at the 2026 Covenant Conference in Louisville, KY. Consider giving to CBTS to help us train the next generation of gospel ministers. CBTSeminary.org/give Apply to CBTS today to be sharpened for a lifetime of faithful ministry. CBTSeminary.org/apply

Thomas Massie, Ken Paxton, Karoline Leavitt, Canada's euthanasia laws, and Marco Rubio headline today's A.M. Update. Trump scores another primary scalp as Ed Gallrein defeats Rep. Thomas Massie in Kentucky's 4th district — the most expensive House primary on record — while Trump simultaneously endorses Ken Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in next week's Texas Senate runoff, leaving Senate Majority Leader John Thune visibly rattled. JD Vance steps in for Karoline Leavitt at the White House briefing and defends Trump's "I don't think about Americans' finances" comment for over an hour, and the NAACP calls for a student athlete boycott of Southern state universities over redistricting. A resurfaced comment from a Quebec College of Physicians member proposing euthanasia for disabled infants up to one year old prompts Aaron's broader warning about Canada's medically assisted dying laws and the slippery slope from allowance to coercion. Aaron closes with Marco Rubio's Rededicate 250 address tracing America's Christian foundation from the Puritans to the moon landing, and a sharp response to various voices crying about an ungovernable Senate: all you had to do was pass the SAVE Act.    

Real Food talk by Dan Jenkinson. For more information, please visit: www.moorlands.org.uk.

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones continues his historical review of the relationship between church and state. Building on his previous sermon, he presses the listener to consider church history in this sermon on Romans 13:1–7 titled “Church and the State (3).” It is important, he argues, because there is no neutral ground. It is all relevant to the life of Christ's followers and how they live out those lives. Claiming disinterest and avoidance is a great sin. As Dr. Lloyd-Jones expounds on the lives of the Puritans and Separatists (both groups had deep-rooted interest in this topic), he reminds that these two were completely different in their approach towards church and state. Though the Puritans went to America to find relief from religious tyranny, they themselves became the religious and ecclesial tyrants who were intolerant. At the same time the Separatists argued for complete freedom between church and state, wanting the religious freedom to worship as they chose. As these groups are considered, Dr. Lloyd-Jones cautions refraining from severe judgment because they were outworking new ideas and beliefs in a difficult political atmosphere. Listen to his compelling review on church history and be encouraged to think anew on one's own responsibilities regarding religious freedom. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/603/29?v=20251111

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones continues his historical review of the relationship between church and state. Building on his previous sermon, he presses the listener to consider church history in this sermon on Romans 13:1–7 titled “Church and the State (3).” It is important, he argues, because there is no neutral ground. It is all relevant to the life of Christ's followers and how they live out those lives. Claiming disinterest and avoidance is a great sin. As Dr. Lloyd-Jones expounds on the lives of the Puritans and Separatists (both groups had deep-rooted interest in this topic), he reminds that these two were completely different in their approach towards church and state. Though the Puritans went to America to find relief from religious tyranny, they themselves became the religious and ecclesial tyrants who were intolerant. At the same time the Separatists argued for complete freedom between church and state, wanting the religious freedom to worship as they chose. As these groups are considered, Dr. Lloyd-Jones cautions refraining from severe judgment because they were outworking new ideas and beliefs in a difficult political atmosphere. Listen to his compelling review on church history and be encouraged to think anew on one's own responsibilities regarding religious freedom. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/603/29?v=20251111

I've tried—and failed—to teach The Christian in Complete Armour more than once. This time, instead of reading through the entire work, we begin by examining 12 popular quotes attributed to William Gurnall—testing whether they actually reflect what he said.

In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse dive deep into Matthew 21:33-46, examining Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants. The hosts unpack how Christ masterfully draws the Pharisees into pronouncing their own condemnation, revealing not merely theological error but intentional usurpation of God's authority. Through careful exegesis, they explore the shocking setup of the parable—where the landowner does all the work while the tenants contribute nothing—and how this mirrors God's sovereign initiative in salvation. The discussion touches on confession, the value of full-time ministry, and the scandal of rejecting the Messiah despite recognizing His authority. This episode challenges listeners to examine whether they, like the Pharisees, attempt to claim God's work as their own. Key Takeaways God Does All the Verbs: The parable emphasizes that the landowner planted, built, protected, and prepared everything—the tenants contributed nothing yet claimed ownership of the fruit. Self-Pronounced Condemnation: Jesus draws the Pharisees into declaring their own judgment, demonstrating that even the unregenerate conscience bears witness to divine justice (Romans 2). Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error: The Pharisees weren't well-intentioned but misguided; they recognized Christ's authority as the heir and deliberately murdered Him to seize His inheritance. The Scandal of Grace: The parable's shocking element is that the landowner prepared everything before leasing the land—far exceeding normal agricultural arrangements and illustrating God's unmerited favor. Ecclesial Support for Ministry: The OPC presbytery's decision to fund a full-time call demonstrates how church structure can honor the ministry of Word and sacrament by freeing ministers from worldly distractions. Particular Repentance Matters: Westminster Confession 15.5 teaches that believers should not content themselves with general repentance but "endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly." The Stone Rejected Becomes Chief: Christ's citation of Psalm 118 reveals that the very rejection by the builders (religious leaders) was God's plan to establish the cornerstone of salvation. Key Concepts God Does All the Verbs The concentration of action verbs attributed solely to the landowner in Matthew 21:33 is theologically significant. The landowner plants, builds, digs, and rents—creating a fully functional, productive vineyard before the tenants ever arrive. This arrangement differs radically from typical first-century agricultural practices, where tenants would lease raw land and develop it themselves, sharing profits with the landowner. Jesus deliberately presents an extraordinary scenario where the tenants receive everything prepared and ready, requiring only stewardship of what already exists. This parallels God's sovereign initiative in election and salvation: believers contribute nothing to their standing before God, receiving instead a fully accomplished redemption. The Pharisees' rebellion wasn't against burdensome requirements but against simply acknowledging God's rightful ownership of what He alone created. Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error The hosts challenge the common sympathetic reading of the Pharisees as well-intentioned legalists who simply got sidetracked. Instead, verse 38 reveals the tenants explicitly recognize the son as heir and plot to murder him to "seize his inheritance." This isn't accidental rejection but calculated rebellion. The Pharisees weren't confused about Jesus's identity or authority—they understood precisely who He claimed to be and deliberately chose to destroy Him rather than submit. This interpretation carries significant weight for understanding the nature of unbelief: it's not primarily intellectual confusion but volitional rebellion. The religious leaders didn't need more evidence or clearer teaching; they needed transformed hearts. This same dynamic appears whenever humans recognize divine truth yet choose self-sovereignty over submission to God's rightful claim on their lives. The Scandal of Grace The parable begins with a scandalous premise that would have startled Jesus's original audience. Unlike normal tenant farming arrangements where landowners simply provided land in exchange for a share of whatever the tenants produced through their own labor, this landowner invests everything. He doesn't just own the property—he plants the vineyard, constructs the protective wall, digs the wine press for production, and builds the watchtower for defense. The tenants receive a turnkey operation requiring minimal effort. This extravagant preparation mirrors God's unmerited favor toward Israel and, by extension, the church. God didn't merely create humanity and wait to see what we would produce; He established covenants, sent prophets, preserved His Word, and ultimately sent His Son—all before requiring any response. The only "payment" demanded is acknowledging His ownership of what He created. The parable thus exposes the absurdity and ingratitude of claiming God's work as our own achievement. Memorable Quotes God does all the verbs. All of the verbs are done by the landowner. There is nothing expected of these tenants—they really add nothing to the landowner's land. Christ is not painting the Pharisees as well-intentioned but ultimately wrong. He's painting them as usurpers who recognize the proper authority and rather than submitting to it, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly. (Westminster Confession 15.5) Transcript Welcome to episode 491 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:12] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.  [00:01:17] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother.  [00:01:18] Parable of Tenants [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: So picture this, Tony, your landlord. You've built the perfect vineyard. We're talking wall watchtower, wine, press, the works like what everybody says. Everybody knows you need all those things. You've got it all set up, and then you hand the keys to some tenants. You take a long trip, you go enjoy yourself. And when the harvest rolls around, you send your servants to collect the rent. And shockingly, your tenants, they beat. Stone. Another, the kill a third. So naturally you think, you know what? I'll fix this. Lemme just send more people. That's obviously the problem. There's some kind of just profound misunderstanding about what's going on here and about our relationship in this business. And then when that doesn't work, you send your son now loved ones. If this were a business strategy, we would already be calling hr. But of course it's not a business strategy, it's a parable. And Jesus is telling it to the very people about to prove the parable true. So welcome back to the Reformed Brotherhood because we're in Matthew Chapter 21 and we're gonna be actually getting all the way into the parable of the Vine growers where the patience of God looks, I would say, to almost anybody else, to humanize at least almost reckless until you realize that's exactly the point. So yeah, grab your beverage of choice, grab your Bible, pull the car over, will you? Because this is gonna get real and we're going to reason together. But before we do all of that, let's do a little affirming with or denying against, what do you got?  [00:02:41] Inside Baseball Affirmation [00:02:41] Tony Arsenal: So this is a sort of inside baseball, uh, affirmation. Um, I'm not sharing anything, although it may feel like I'm sharing something that is private and like, uh, like confidential. It's not No, this is good. Um, so I had the opportunity to visit. Um, my presbytery, um, for those who are listeners of the show or people who like, have been with us a long time, um, I was part of a Baptist church. Uh, I've always kind of been a Presbyterian at heart, but, um, our church closed, uh, a little over a year and a half ago now. And, um, uh, I've joined an OPC congregation in membership now. We've been members there for about a year. And, um, so I've been visiting Presbytery, which is the, the meeting of all of the leadership of all of the churches. So we won't do a polity breakdown here, but basically like, it's, it's the regional meeting. It's the regional business meeting or church meeting for a group of churches in the OPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And so a lot of the meetings, you know, have the normal kind of business type stuff. You have reports from different committee committees and stuff. Um.  [00:03:48] Presbytery Call Debate [00:03:48] Tony Arsenal: Where this is affirmation is coming in here is at this most recent presbytery meeting, um, was pretty heavy on, um, licensing or, or, uh, not licensing on approving men who had received a call to formal ministry within the presbytery. And so in the OPC, and I would imagine that other Presbyterian bodies are not like super different, although I'm sure there's some variation in the OPC. Um, when a church intends to extend a call to a pastor, to a teaching elder, um, to a minister, they must have the call, which is. Is both theological but is also eminently practical. Like the call is a physical piece of paper that details, you know, what the pay is, how much vacation time. So it's kind of a combination between like a theological call and also a contract. Um, the presbytery has to approve that call. And so at this most recent one, there was a couple calls that were more or less uncontroversial. There was no question about them, and they were approved pretty quickly. But there was one call, um, one call to ministry that took, I, I, I didn't time it, but it was probably like four or five hours of debate and discussion in various fashion in order to get to a point where the presbytery could approve the call. So this was a call to a minister who is being called part-time, which is unusual in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, the OPC uh, acknowledges the fact that bivocational tent making ministry is sometimes a necessity, but really views the ministry of the word in sacrament as something that should not have. Distractions. And actually our book of church order talks about, doesn't use the word distraction, I think, but it talks about a, a properly ordered call to a full-time minister includes phrasing that the congregation promises to compensate them in a way that allows them to be free of worldly burdens and cares. And I might have not, not have gotten that wording exactly right. But that's the idea. And so this call was. Explicitly, um, not a full-time call it, they actually took the language out of promising to pay him in a way that he's able to ignore or to not be distracted by worldly care. And that was intentional, but there was a lot of question in discussion at presbytery level about the fact that the call did not include the phrase or the wording of part-time or bivocational. So the conversation started out of like, can this call be modified to include that? So it's explicitly known in this man's call that his calling is part-time, which is both theological, to make sure that the call is properly formatted, but also like very practical that the congregation should acknowledge explicitly that they recognize that this person is not, not going to be putting, you know, 40 hours a week or 50 hours a week towards this position. [00:06:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:06:34] Tony Arsenal: Um. What I'm affirming is where it got to, right? So there was lots of discussion about that. There was some finagling about the retirement package. The OPC recommends that a, a minister be given a retirement contribution of no less than 5% a year of his salaried package. Um, which there's a couple line items that go into that, but 5%, and this was a little bit less than that. And this is what I'm affirming and this, I, I don't know that this is a super widespread thing that would happen all across the, um, the OPC, but it happened in the presbytery of New York and New England this past week, and it's just amazing. And I just, I just want to lay it out there and then I want to hear your reaction. [00:07:13] Funding Full Time Ministry [00:07:13] Tony Arsenal: And I, I wanna hear your reaction as the son of a minister who labored his entire adult, more or less, his entire adult career in ministry, working two or three additional jobs on top of his ministry, the presbytery decided. That because it did not like the idea of a part-time minister. They didn't think that was appropriate. They didn't think that that was good or that that was really the right goal. The presbytery allocated, I'm not gonna say the figures 'cause they're not super germane, but allocated a significant amount of money to be dis to be dispersed to the church for the next three years in order to take what was a part-time call and enable it to become a full-time call. [00:07:54] Jesse Schwamb: Wow.  [00:07:54] Tony Arsenal: And so there are a lot of, there are a lot of church bodies that would say, yeah, we don't love the idea of bi-vocational ministry. You know, we really think it's ideal that a minister could be full-time. Um, they may even put some, some theological freight behind that. Um, I have never encountered a body, um. That was willing to put a sizable amount of money towards essentially supplementing a part-time call to make it full-time. Um, this was just amazing to me, and the candidate was there. I didn't get a chance to talk to him, but I would love to talk to him about what he felt. I, I can just imagine the phone call to his wife who was not, not at presbytery, but to his wife, following the outcome of this to be like, you are never gonna believe what just happened. Right? This is a family who was intending to move across country. Right. He's currently a student at Westminster, California in seminary, uh, California, Westminster Seminary in California, finishing his M Div. They're planning a cross country move into a part-time position where she's probably gonna have to find a job, and then also he's gonna have to find a part-time job. He had the ability to call her on the break and be like, you're never gonna guess what just happened? You're never gonna,  [00:09:09] Jesse Schwamb: it's wild.  [00:09:09] Tony Arsenal: Uh, sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. You're never going to. Believe how faithful God is in this. Right. So I'm interested to hear your reaction to that as the son of a, of a try and quad at times Quad vocational. Yeah,  [00:09:23] Jesse Schwamb: for sure.  [00:09:23] Tony Arsenal: Minister who labored his entire, more or less, his entire adult career, um, working full-time in a call as a part-time, part-time minister. You know, like that's a, that's a crazy situation. So I'm just affirming that again, I don't know how common that kind of thing is in the OPC. I don't wanna make it seem like that's the norm. Um, I actually get the sense that this is probably not the norm, but it was amazing to see and it made me in intensely like. Proud in the right way of being a part of this broader body that would, would so emphasize and so value the ministry of the word and the sacrament, and the importance of a man being able to dedicate himself to that without distraction. That they would put forward this amount of money and this kind of money. They had no reason to do so. And there's no real direct benefit to the presbytery for doing this. I mean, there's an indirect benefit of like not having a church with a part-time minister, but like there's no direct benefit to this. There's no direct return on investments that's gonna come out of this. Um, it was pretty amazing to see. It was, it was, it was super encouraging.  [00:10:28] Jesse Schwamb: That is really encouraging. I, I think it's, there's no doubt that for the called pastor, their heart is in the ministry of the word. That's what they want to be doing. They wanna be doing it all the time and as much time as they possibly can, and they wanna be able to have all of their intentional focus on it. So I. I'm excited for that guy. I mean, that's just an incredible blessing to go in hoping for funding, essentially for a part-time role and to basically be told, no, no, no, no, that's, that's not enough. We want you to be committed to this fully as we know your heart is committed. As we validated that call.  [00:11:00] Why Structure Matters [00:11:00] Jesse Schwamb: I do love being a part of churches, well, lemme say it this way. There is, I think, a benefit of being part of congregations that have like a wide resource network that has like appropriate hierarchy and structure and that can be one of them. I've seen something similar in the Christian Missionary Alliance, which is the church that I'm in, not exactly the same, but I've seen some surprising allocations of resources where they basically said, you know, this is important. Like, it even trumps we're, we're gonna. Allocate or resource something so that this can move forward because it is important in a way that was like better than the person who was bringing it before them could have hoped for. Yeah. And uh, suddenly it's as if everything aligned. And it was really in part because there was this structure to come alongside, to validate as you're saying, and then to authenticate and then again to resource assets that could be used. There's, there's something to be said for that interdependency where there is kind of this hierarchical structure in which all that's happening at a level where things are codified. And again, like there's a structure and a way in which we move through those decisions to make sure that they suit the objective of the entire movement. So I guess there's nothing I'll say, but that's a beautiful thing, isn't it?  [00:12:14] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:12:15] Generosity in Action [00:12:15] Tony Arsenal: It was, it was, it was cool because it was like this, it was like this real. Actualization of the principle of outdoing one another and showing honor. Yeah, sure. Because you know, like the initial debate was like, Hey, you know, I'm not sure we can approve this call because the, the OPCs guidelines tell us not to approve a call that has less than 5% of the retirement benefit. And there was a lot of discussion of like, well, the presbytery can't modify the call, but we don't wanna delay this guy coming in and like, we don't wanna delay his ordination, his installation. And so the initial proposal was a, a. What feels like a large amount of money to me. But after I understood more about the, the budget of what's going on in, in the presbytery was actually a very small amount of money. Started with a very tiny, very modest proposal of basically like supplementing the retirement fund to make sure that like we could, they, I say we, like, I was part of this, I was just observing, but to supplement the retirement fund in a way that allowed the church to still proceed with the call as written, but still also make sure that this person had the appropriate retirement fund. And then that just basically was like, there would be some instruction given to the church that like, you've gotta bump this up in the next budget cycle. Like you've gotta get to the 5%. That's, that's the expectation. It went from that. And like I said, I won't give you the specific numbers, but one of the presbyters and I, I'm, I, um, I, I've known this presbyter from a distance for quite a long time and, and I have an immense amount of respect for him. He stood up and he's like, well, if we're gonna give X, why don't we just give 10 times X instead? And then actually, like the discussion was like, well, is, are we sure that 10 times X is even the right amount? Why don't we have this particular group meet over the lunch break and figure out whether that's the right number and then come back after lunch and we'll vote on it. And then they came back after lunch and it was actually a number that was even greater than 10 times X. So it was like this exercise in like. This very small proposal that was still imminently generous, right? The presbytery has no obligation to do this. There's no obligation from any of the presbyters to stand up and say like, we should. We should supplement this fund. They would've been well within their right, and no one would've looked, I think. I think some people would've been frustrated by it, but I don't think anyone would've looked sideways at it or thought it was sinful. If the presbytery just said like, we can't approve this call. You guys are gonna have to come back with it and we'll vote on it at the next presbytery. Like that would've been problematic. This, this kind of poor guy who's coming outta seminary, his call and his beginning of employment would've been delayed, but like. That would've been good and orderly, but instead they were like, one, we don't want this pulpit to stay empty longer. We don't wanna disadvantage this guy who's just getting done with seminary. We want him to get started. We don't wanna discourage him. So here's a small proposal, a very modest amount of money that we can put forward for this purpose. And then it was like, let's just keep seeing how much closer to a real full-time call we can get. And they finally came back and said like, we're gonna do this. We're gonna do this in a wise fashion. They structured it. So like the first year he gets more, the second year he gets a little bit less. The third year the church gets a little bit less with the idea that like each year the church should be adjusting their budget to compensate and get this guy to that with the, the hope that like with a full-time minister, they're able to grow their congregation to the point where they can support a full-time minister. So it was just this really cool, super encouraging exercise. And what I loved about it is the only real debate that was going on was about do we need to do more? There was no one being like, wait a second, why are we, why are we putting more money to this? The whole thing was like, is this actually enough to accomplish what we think God wants to do with this person's call? Because if, if God is truly calling this man to this, this particular church, and we believe that he is. Then what do we as a, as a people of God need to do to enable that call to look like what we actually believe calls to ministry are supposed to look like, which is a full-time call to ministry that is undistracted by the cares of the world. What do we need to do? The answer in this case was like, I think we need to put a sizable amount of money to it. Um, it's a, I mean, and again. I'm not gonna say it on the air. It was not a small chunk of change. Um, it was, it was a, it was a large amount of money that was devoted to this cause and that just goes to show how much this body values the importance of a full-time minister of the word, so. [00:16:50] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:16:51] OPC Love and Recommendation [00:16:51] Tony Arsenal: That's enough about that. I, I could gush about how proud I am to be a part of this body and how encouraged I am and how amazing it was and how awesome this, this guy, how, how much this guy must be thanking God for the providence and like, this is the last thing. I'll say this, this young man younger than me, I think he's graduating seminary. I saw him across the room. He looks like he's probably in his mid twenties, right? Young guy. He's got a wife doesn't have kids yet coming into this ministry, not only is he coming into this ministry, but as a Presbyterian minister, when he's installed as the minister of this church. He will be joining this body of presbyters as the, as his brothers like. He is not a member of the local church. He's a member of the presbytery, which is the regional church. So now he's coming into this fully supported by his brothers in the presbytery that he saw go to the mat to make sure he was properly taken care of, that the congregation was not unintentionally taking advantage of his labor, but also that he knows that all of these men are willing to do what they need to do to make sure that his ministry is successful and edifies the church like that is. Uh, I don't want to gush on Presbyterianism too much, but like that is Presbyterianism at peak form, right? This is the body of elders making sure that every church in the region, even the ones they're not directly ministering in, has what it needs to succeed and to honor God and to do what needs to happen. So I'm affirming the presbytery of New York and New England and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, I have been so blessed by knowing many of these presbyters. I've been so blessed by being a part of the congregation that I am. There are lots of really great churches and really great denominations out there. If you are looking for a church and there is an OPC congregation in your area, absolutely go check it out. I know it feels stuffy sometimes, and I will admit, like sometimes it feels a little bit overly traditional in terms of like just the vibe of the congregation,  [00:18:52] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:18:52] Tony Arsenal: But press past that because I don't think, I don't think you will find, um. You may find lots of congregations that are as faithful. I don't think you're gonna find many that are more faithful than your average OPC congregation. So I could be wrong. I just, I just love the OPC. I just really, really love it. So that's my affirmation. What do you got for us, Jesse?  [00:19:18] Denial Catholic Confession Math [00:19:18] Jesse Schwamb: I think I got denial, which is maybe a little bit unusual for me. [00:19:21] Tony Arsenal: As long as you're not denying the OPCI think we're fine.  [00:19:23] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's, it's not, it is church related and I, I'll try to keep it short 'cause I think I can make this way longer than it, it probably should be, but lemme think how to phrase this. So, I don't know with a devil negative, I guess when I'm a denying against is maybe not enough confession by your own standard. So the, I'm gonna try to make this so brief. I, I just happened to be out with my wife this afternoon and we had to run errands. We got stuck in traffic and this gave me longer than usual to sit in front of our. Very local and very large Catholic church. So I happen to be looking at their sign. It's a very large congregation. I've been actually been in this one on a couple of occasions for funerals. So not only do I know its size and scope, but again, if you get, if you get on this road at the wrong time on the Lord's day, you're gonna be stuck for a long time because there are so many people that attend. I say that because I noticed on the sign that there were three times for mass on the Lord's Day. So that also says something about the number of people coming through. And then on the sign though, underneath it said for confessions, go to our website. Mm-hmm. So I was like, man, I gotta lick this up because I can't tell if they're telling me I can confess on the website or if it's go to the website for the times. And I said to my wife, only half jokingly, if I can confess online, I'm gonna confess something. So I went to, I went to the website and, and sure enough it was almost disappointingly. It was just the times.  [00:20:45] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:46] Jesse Schwamb: Here's what I've found interesting, which just launched me into this like deep rabbit hole. There were three times for confession. Two of those times were just a half an hour, and the third time was an hour. So, uh, what I did was I went through, actually, I think what they had on there was, was three full hours a week. It was a little bit confusing, but I think it was three full hours. Now I think about it. So I went back, I just couldn't help myself, Tony. So I started to think, alright, let's say. I think it's fair to assume  [00:21:15] Tony Arsenal: math, Jesse is kicking in right now. Yes. You're gonna calculate how many minutes per, per person is what you're doing. I'm thinking, ah,  [00:21:22] Jesse Schwamb: yeah, it's something like that. So what I thought was, I don't think it's, uh, I was gonna be conservative. I wanna be fair. I wanna be fair. So, and now we should say like, I think most people realize that the Catholic understanding of confession and the Protestant one is, is very different. The Catholic sacrament of confession is the right through which Catholics are gonna confess their sins to a priest receive absolution, and it's gonna restore the relationship with God in the church. And, and they're gonna believe that the priest acts as a person of Christ and is bound by the seal of confession and an absolute kind of obligation. Uh, of course never to reveal what was disclosed during that process. So, by the way, the website that I went to, lovely instructions. I mean, I was like, wow. I was reading it to my wife who was, uh, not familiar with this at all, and she was like, they can make you do stuff. And I was like, well, yeah. I mean, obviously like there's, there's a portion of this where there's contrition or penant penance. It could be a prayer, it could be act of charity, like all kinds of stuff. So I went back and I thought. I don't think it's unreasonable that there's 350 persons that would say, let's say an average, uh, that would wanna take part of confession. Now, let's say that they did that at, at least monthly, just once a month. And, and I don't know how people's conviction is on that, but I'm gonna say conservatively once a month. Let's say that, and I don't think this is unreasonable, Tony, but you tell me. Let's say you're, you're trucking, you're moving through confession. Let's say it's five minutes a piece. So we're up to 1,750 minutes, uh, per month. That's the demand on the priest because I was, I was looking at this time and I was thinking something is strange here to me, so. That was the demand then, and I'll spare you the other math, which could be very long and un uninteresting. I'm coming up with, you'd need 2.24, two and a quarter priests, which of course you can't have a quarter priests or a quarter person for any reason. So you'd hire, you'd hire three priests, which satisfy the demand if, and the major assumptions here, that is like everybody can't show up at the same time. Obviously, I'm assuming that like everybody has their own time, they're spreading it out. So everybody gets the confession, but it's just five minutes. And I, I have no idea. I mean, if you're a Luther, that's certainly not sufficient time.  [00:23:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:23:20] Jesse Schwamb: And you would need three priests. Now here's the thing that I just kind of backed into that, besides like three being like, okay, that, that's, you would need three priests just to satisfy this congregation. If they're confessing for five minutes, once per month. Uh, by the way, if you said, well, half the congregation is going to go weekly, uh, then you, you would double the number of priests you need to 5.98 or six. But here's, here's the bottom line for me. This is why the denial comes in about maybe not enough, is. If you were just to distill that down to like, if you could have one priest cover that time, that there's a demand for like 779.4 hours, or excuse me, minutes of confession, that priest would only be allocating approximately like seven and a half percent of their working hours, their work toward handling confession. This seems like not enough confession given the standards of confession in the Catholic church. And again, I know that I'm, I'm now allocating that to one priest and I just told everybody you need three. That's true. So if you had these three now, if you hired three just to meet the demand, that would only be about like three and a half or a little under three and a half percent of their combined time. So the denial is Catholics, I think, unless I'm way off in some of my assumptions here, you might not be confessing enough by your own standards because  [00:24:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:24:34] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, that seems like not enough time.  [00:24:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:24:39] Ritual Faithfulness Explained [00:24:39] Tony Arsenal: I mean, I think, um. I don't want to be too bombastic here, but I think,  [00:24:46] Jesse Schwamb: I think I already started this on this  [00:24:48] Tony Arsenal: path. Maybe this, maybe this isn't all that bombastic. Um, because this is so much about ritual and actually I say this is gonna sound really, we, we go, but trying to think from the Roman Catholic perspective, it's actually not, and I'll I'll tell you a brief story, uh, to explain it. Um, a lot of Roman Catholics are just going through the motions. [00:25:13] Jesse Schwamb: That's true.  [00:25:14] Tony Arsenal: But the point, the, the, the point of contention actually is that going through the motions is valuable for the Roman Catholic, right? So I, I knew this, uh, this young woman when I was in college who was a Roman Catholic, and we had many discussions about, about the differences between Protestantism and and Roman Catholicism. And what I came to understand is that going to mass for her. Itself was an act of faith. And so for the Roman Catholic, the concept of, of faith is different than the concept that Protestants operate under. So for the Roman Catholic who, um, goes to mass, even when they feel like they're, like, when they think they're just going through the motions, going through the motions is itself the act of faith. And that's because for most of Roman Catholics, most of Roman Catholicism, faith really equals faithfulness, right? So, so doing the act is the act of faithfulness. Doing the act is faith. Where for the Protestant, like faith is about belief and trust and knowledge. Like it's, it's an. Not entirely intellectual, but it's, it's an inward thing for the Roman Catholic faith is an out is primarily an outward thing. It's what you do, it's how you act. It's faith formed in love. It's faith formed in charity.  [00:26:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:26:37] Tony Arsenal: So I think most Roman Catholics going to obligatory confession first. I think once a month is probably like, probably more frequent than most Roman Catholics go to mass or go to confession. Um, I thought I read a stat that it was like every six months is, is pretty average and I think that's what's required by the church maybe even once a year is, is required by the church. Um, I think like most Roman Catholics go into the, the confessional booth and like father forgive me for I've sinned. It's been such and such a number of days since my last confession. Right. And they may bring up a couple particular things that they've done and, and then I think the priest commonly absolves them of all of their sins. Like, almost like in an omnibus fashion and then prescribes their acts of penance, which is it, it like, honestly, it's probably things they should already be doing as a faithful Catholic saying Hail Marys and doing our fathers and acts of charity and things like that. So I think your math is probably right. [00:27:39] Protestant Repentance Particular [00:27:39] Tony Arsenal: I think your, your theory that more confession is probably like, I'm gonna read this from, uh, the Westminster confession, just to, just to say it here, is, this is chapter 15, which is titled of Repentance Under Life. And this is, uh, this is section five or paragraph five. It says, men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but is every man's duty to endeavor, to repent of his particular sins, particularly. And I think that's just such a beautifully phrased sentence like. Not only is it like potent theologically, but like, it just, it just feels good, like in terms of like the English language to repent of your particular sins, particularly. And like the idea is yes, Protestant reform, Christians affirm a general repentance from sin, right? We repent of our sin before the father, uh, as a result of our, of our coming to faith in Christ. And as part of our sanctification, we mortify our sin and we, Viv we are vivified by the spirit and repentance falls in that ongoing sanctification process. And there is this general repentance of like, I repent of the fact that I'm a sinner and that I commit sins, but there is this element in the reformed faith of like, I should be confessing to God. And I think by extension, like we should be confessing to our fellow Christians, our particular sins, our individual sins, and we should be doing that on particular occasion. And I think like. The Luther style confession of like going into the confessor and confessing like every particular sin. Particularly I think most Roman Catholic priests would, priests. Priests would probably have the same reaction Tobits did where he was like, get outta here. Like, come on dude. Like just go live your life and like deal with it. I think that's probably the reaction most Catholic priests would have. But yeah, I think you're right. Like if we're really talking about like. Five, five minutes of confession once a month and that somehow having some sort of spiritual efficacy. I'm not sure I buy that math. Like I think you're, you're probably spot on.  [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:29:47] Confession Hours Oddities [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: I just was curious about how many priests would be required and then the allocation of the duties. By the way, you are right. So I, because I had to check on this, the, the fourth letter in council of 1215 does say that the church requires confession of any grave or mortal sins at least once a year. But the church, yeah, strongly encourages more frequent confession as a spiritual practice, even for, of course, like the venial or the less serious sins in their eyes. So yeah, my thought here was just that. I think it's actually undervalued by way of the math. Like the, as the kids say, the math just isn't math thing for me on this one. But I was more curious about, since this is one of the seven sacraments, even if you just said like, well, it should have at least one seven of the allocation. That's like, what? Like something like 14%. And so this is, um, almost half of that. I just found it a little bit, a little bit odd and yeah, I think you'd have to be, uh, so in other words, when I looked at the, basically, here's the bottom line. When I looked at the hours for confession one, there were weird times and uh, two, I was like, that doesn't seem like enough hours. Like, it was just more like that. Like how that's like saying like, Hey, the post office is open three hours a week, and by the way, one of those hours is from seven to eight o'clock on Friday. Like they had some hours. One hour just on Friday was like, I guess that's the way you wanna start your weekend is like, let's get all of this off my chest. Yeah. And, and do it. Right. And the last thing I'll say by the way, is you're correct. When you look at the instruction they give you, and this is common of course, toward the end, when they say like, here's how you like wrap up your part. Actually everybody should go read, go to the local, local Catholic church website and read the instructions. 'cause in some ways they're just interesting and kind of, um, I don't wanna say funny 'cause I'm not making fun. I'm just saying like, they have to give you instruction if you've never done it before. And so most of us are not really probably familiar with the process and they give you explicit instruction and toward the end it's like, here's how you kinda like hang up the call with the priest. And it's like you said, you know, these are my sins and all others, would you be willing to forgive? So you're right. Right. They just kinda wrap them all up because it's sins of omission, sense of commission, it's all to be together. But I, I wonder, you gotta think there's people in there that are like. The priests are like, okay, man, just yeah. Wrap, come on, wrap, wrap it up.  [00:31:55] Confession Timing Talk [00:31:55] Jesse Schwamb: And other people that come in are just like, you know, forgive me father. And uh, lastly to your point, when they give you instruction about how you should start, of course you're always to signify how long it's been since your last confession. Right. Confession. And they say parenthetically, like, reference the days, weeks, months, or years. So you're right. There are gonna be people that probably do it very frequently and probably people who do it infrequently still, I would say I just couldn't believe for a church this large, that there was just three hours a week.  [00:32:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:21] Jesse Schwamb: For everybody else.  [00:32:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:23] Vance and Papal Authority [00:32:23] Tony Arsenal: This leads me to two very brief sub, uh, denials slash affirmations. Uh, I don't know if you saw this, um, this is not a political statement, right? I, I have lots of feelings and thoughts about the current administration and I think most of my feelings and thoughts would surprise. Everybody. But I thought it was hilarious because JD Vance, who is a Roman Catholic, uh, confessed Roman Catholic part of the Roman Catholic Church, uh, he ha I, I'm not sure if I'm affirming or denying this, there was this funny, uh, funny exchange. I think he was at doing like a, doing like a TPU, I don't know, speech. He was doing a speech at some conservative event and he said something like, I think that the Pope should be more careful when he makes theological statements. I'm wanna be like, do you understand what the pope is in your religion? That was one of my sub denials. Uh, I don't remember what the other one is, so it must not have been that important. It'll come back to me at the worst possible moment and I will try very hard not to interrupt our show for it, but I probably will fail.  [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:33:25] Reading Matthew 21 [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, we, we gotta get to some scripture because. We're, we're doing this old school style where we take like half the time and just talk about affirmations. It's true in house. It's true. Which is great fun. But let's, let's get back to Matthew 21. And I, I know we did this last time, but I am gonna rock through the passage 'cause of course, that's the best part of any of our discussion, is actually hearing from, from the Holy Spirit through the scripture, uh, which he's given to us. So this is, uh, Matthew 21, starting in verse 33. And you're gonna hear the, the whole thing right here. Uh, this is Jesus speaking. Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it and built a tower and rented it out to vine growers and went on a journey. Now, when the high risk time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit, and the vine growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Again, he sent another group of slaves larger than the first, and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them saying they will respect my son. But when the vine growers saw the sun, they said among themselves, this is the heir. Come let us kill him and seize his inheritance, and they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine growers? They said to him, he will bring those wretches to a wretched end and will rent out the vineyard to other vine growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons. Jesus said to them, did you ever read in the scriptures the stone, which the builders rejected? This has become the chief cornerstone. This came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls in the stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they understood that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds because they're regarding him to be a prophet. [00:35:28] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:35:30] Pharisees Condemn Themselves [00:35:30] Tony Arsenal: This is like a super heavy parable. Right. And we talked a lot last week about how like the point of this parable is not necessarily to try to instruct the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Like it's not to instruct the people who were going to reject Christ, uh, the, the builders who would reject the cornerstone. It's really a parable to teach those. Who are observing this process happening. But I think it's, I, I think it's really interesting just listening to you read this and reading through it, and I guess this is a question I haven't asked and I, I need to study a little bit more. It's crazy to me in verse 41, um, Christ seems the, the, the, um, Matthew seems to say here, and maybe I need to do a little bit more Greek study, so bear with me and, and have grace if I'm wrong here. Matthew seems to say that like Christ asks the people he's speaking to, the Pharisees he's speaking to, what is he gonna do to these people? And the Pharisees answer, he's gonna put those wretches to a miserable death.  [00:36:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right?  [00:36:37] Tony Arsenal: Like the people listening to this parable understand the outcome, like they understand the. The consequence that the, the, the vineyard owner or the vineyard tenant tenants are facing based on their lack of faithfulness to the covenant. To me, that is like a really striking part of this parable. And, and it's not even like the parable proper, but like the striking element of the context of this is that nobody listening to this parable, including the Pharisees that this parable has basically spoken against, nobody fails to see the gravity of the consequence of rejecting God's emissary, like rejecting the Messiah. That to me is like a really, I dunno, paradigmatic. Portion of this that I think we need to grapple with. This is not an unclear, an unclear outcome. This is not, this is not masked or vague or OPA opaque. Like everybody understands, the people who reject the Messiah are going to face dire and eternal consequences for that act. [00:37:48] Jesse Schwamb: That does make this really interesting, doesn't it? Because it's not just entirely like Romans one adventures or even Romans two. It's that this is what Jesus does and he does it in a profound way that's not trickery like I think kinda like you're saying like the lead up to this isn't as if he's even leading the witness. He's making it very clear, all like the parameters of the story and the characters involved and what should be the proper judgment. And it's not as if like they start saying, they're like, oh, we shouldn't say anything more like we, we plead the fifth because it's gonna condemn ourselves. He draws his audience in to producing and pronouncing like their own sentence. It's very much like, I think I mentioned this last time, the prophet Nathan and David, isn't it? It's the exact same. Yeah. And the verdict is unanswerable, like even in its own terms. These other, like these other vine growers, prefigures of course like the inclusion of the Gentiles and the apostolic office. But I like that what Jesus does here, even before he gets to that point, is he extorts from them an acknowledgement of the punishment which awaited them. And so in this way there's like, I think the Puritans use this passage a lot actually to demonstrate that the natural conscience even of like the unregenerate, still bears witness to divine justice. That's Romans two. Like they, they can't get out from underneath it and Jesus isn't using any trickery on them to get them to say this thing. They are compelled in their own way, even being unregenerate to, like you said, even as they're rejecting the Messiah to recognize that punishment is due these characters in the story, even as they perceive at the end that they are those characters. [00:39:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:22] Jesse Schwamb: Saying we'll receive the judgment.  [00:39:24] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:25] Usurpers Not Misguided [00:39:25] Tony Arsenal: And I think too, like, um, this is kind of one of those chicken or the egg scenarios, right? Like Christ is both recognizing the intention of their heart as well as prophesying. And, and not just prophesying, but like inception level prophesying the, the outcome of the intention of their heart. And so like, again, like we've, we spent a whole week kind of like leading into the parable and now we spent a whole week, we're gonna spend a whole week again kind of leading into the parable. This is such a deep parable, and that like Christ is not just laying bare. The fact that the, the people who were going to reject him were doing so out of this sort of like attempt and intention of usurping the kingdom of God for their own purposes. I think that brings a layer to this that we don't often appreciate in. Christ's interaction with the Pharisees. I think sometimes, and maybe this is because I just listened to an episode of where Matt Whitman on the 10 minute Bible hour talked about this. I think sometimes we actually have a tendency to sort of be sympathetic to the Pharisees where we think, you know, they were, they were just trying to obey God's law and they got a little sideways on it and you know, they were putting these boundaries in place, but they were doing it in this sort of like misguided attempt to protect the people. Christ actually here seems to contradict that in that the comparison he's making is not to a, a well-intentioned group of people who just get it wrong, but he's painting the Pharisees, the, the religious leaders, the Sadducees, the chief priests. He's painting them as these usurpers who recognize the proper authority of right. The master and his emissaries and ultimately of his son, they recognize this proper authority and rather than submitting to it and submitting to the covenant obligations that they, they already actually agreed to, instead of doing that, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own right. It's not just that they do the wrong thing, it's that they recognize the heir, which is Christ. They recognize this heir and they kill him to try to take his place. That is a really heavy element of this parable. Christ is not painting. Um, the, the, the Pharisees here, the, the religious leaders. He's not painting them as um, well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong, which is I think a lot of times, and I think there's reason to do this right. I'm not being overly critical and I've done this, I've actually done this myself, and I think there's some. Space for it. Like the Pharisees were wrong, but they were wrong, kind of in the right direction sometimes. Um, Christ is not really on board with that, at least in this parable. Right. This isn't about them thinking that the heir was a threat, and so killing the threat in, you know, inadvertently this is them absolutely seeing who the hair, who the heir is, and intentionally deciding to reject that heir and to murder him and to try to take his inheritance. Mm-hmm. That's an affront to not only the heir who they murder, but an affront to the owner of the vineyard himself, which of course in this parable is figured to be God the father primarily. But God in sort of general terms, like the whole Godhead, um, with Christ as the second Adam has, as his representative, as his heir. This is a really heavy parable and I think where this comes into play for us in our own Christian life is. Are there times where we. Sort of do the same thing in refusing to, maybe it's tie into your denial a little bit. Like refusing to acknowledge our own sinfulness, refusing to acknowledge the ways that God has provided for us. Um, do we at times look at what we have and lay claim to it as though it is our own inheritance that we've taken? Um, right. Do we kind of crucify the son of God anew in, in refusing to repent of our sins particularly? I dunno. I think those are some open questions for us to kind of explore as we dig into this a bit more. [00:43:54] Jesse Schwamb: And that may relate as well to, well eventually at some point, I dunno, like 2040, get to like the parable of the talents. There's some similarity there with a little bit, right? You're saying? I think you're right.  [00:44:06] God Does All the Verbs [00:44:06] Jesse Schwamb: And where I think we can anchor some of that is in those first couple of verses. I'm really always impressed by really the number of action verbs that are packed within, like that just initial statement of Jesus explaining the situation. [00:44:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:44:19] Jesse Schwamb: So he sets it all up and he's saying there's a planting that goes on, this landowner puts up a wall, digs a wine press. Builds a tower and then RINs it. So there's all these like amazing things being done, all this action verb. And I, I think in part why he comes against the Pharisees so hard in the same way that we're looking at like the parable that, uh, the, uh, talents for instance of saying like, what did you do with that was entrusted to you was like this great treasure which Christ has entrusted or God has entrusted to his people, which is, is the gospel essentially is, is all a prophetic witness, is like the truth of who God is and his revelation of himself. And so I think. The first thing we gotta see in those verbs is that there's this emphasis that the vineyard was God's sovereign creation. You know, he plants it, he chose it, he established it. Israel didn't plant herself. She was planted. And that sovereign initiative is foundational, I think in, like you're saying, the parables indictment, because these vine growers, they don't possess anything that they did not receive. Right. You know, they did not find a vineyard already planted, but God himself made it from the wilderness that all his glory, all the glory might be his. So. I think it's helpful for us to observe that the church is always the planting of the Lord and that no congregation flourishes that is not first planted by God. And so there is a major offense here when those who are to care for it, who know, like you're saying, that they ought to care for it, who understand something about the hierarchy and the way it has been entrusted to them. Not to only break that covenant, but then seek to try to usurp the power in the roles of those whom they should be, quite frankly, in our own language, like under shepherds too. And so it starts with all, all those verbs. Like I think we could probably spend a. A lot of times just speaking about what does it mean? Why? Why is there all this explicit in particular language about the fact that there's a hedge and there's a press besides just these are part in piece mail or part and parcel of what it means to have a vineyard, apparently, but that they're all part of this narrative of God talking about how he protects and cares for his people and sets them in a place and chooses them and is particular about the construction and does so with great volition and authority and care and concern and creative ability. And then again, you have those who are meant there to do the very job that he's entrusted them with. And not only are they not doing that, and of course you're right. Jesus elsewhere, comes in, comes in hot, right, with a Pharisees saying like, listen, you set burdens on people's backs that you yourselves cannot lift. You're twice as in the hell as anybody else, and that's who you are. Yeah. It's not just hypocrisy, but you're literally setting people up to fail in this. So you can see how you're right. It's not just like, guys, I appreciate that. Like you wanted to set up some additional boundaries and maybe you took it a little bit too far. This parable is just scorched earth. It's, it's nuclear. Yeah.  [00:47:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:47:11] Scandalous Vineyard Setup [00:47:11] Tony Arsenal: And you know, I think, um, we are obviously gonna spend another week on this 'cause we still have not really addressed a single verse in this parable. I, I think like a lot of ink has been spilled on explaining sort of like the feal agricultural arrangements of this passage. What it represents. M my understanding is. A typical arrangement would be that a, a landowner would basically just lease out land and the tenants would be responsible for the planting, for the development. Right. And the, the, the landowner would essentially just collect a portion of whatever they produce. Right. This parable is actually taking this a step further. Exactly. That it's not as though the landowner just says like, all right, you can use this land. Right. And I own the land, so I get a portion of the pro, the profit. He's actually done all the work. Yes. And all that. The, all that the, the tenants need to do essentially is reap the harvest and then provide the portion of the harvest that belongs to the landowner, and so there is a greater investment. Of the landowner into this land than would be expected. We've commented in the past about how a lot of times the, the parables start on sort of a premise of shock. Like there's a, there's an element of the setup of the, of the parable where the audience would kind of like sit back and gasp or kind of be like, wait a second. Like that's not normal. Right. In the parable of the, the, um, lost son, it was the idea that like the son demanded his inheritance. And that wasn't the shocking part. The shocking part was that the father just granted it. Right. Or, um, the lost sheep, like the, there's actually a sort of a shocking element to the fact that like the, the land, the like sheep owner would just go get this other sheep. So we've, we've commented on there's kind of like. There's sort of like a scandalous setup. The scandalous setup in this is not that the land has been leased to tenants, right? It's that the land has been prepared for the tenants before it was leased out in the first place. And I think that's something we might miss if we read over this too quickly, is. The landowner has prepared everything for these, these tenants.  [00:49:30] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:49:31] Tony Arsenal: So the, the, at the, the punchline of the parable where they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of, um, sovereignty and maybe a lowercase s in the, in the context of the parable, they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty and the rightful claim of the tenant or of the landowner on the, the profit of the land. And sort of like highlighter emphasized by the fact that they actually didn't do any of the work. There's a certain kind of like Amer, like American rugged individualism where we're kind of like, yeah, like if I planted all the crops, then it's kind of lame that this guy's coming in expecting to take a portion of it, right? Like, yeah, I guess he owns the land, so maybe he gets a little piece of it, but like, who does he think he is? All of that already is already short circuited. Like I. The, these tenants are not actually, um, portrayed as doing anything in this parable. That's right. Like they just lease the land. They, they, um, and leased is not really like the right. The right word, the, the Greek word is omi, which is like he gave over the land to them. Um, when we say leased, we have this idea that like the tenants pay to use the land and then like part of their contract is that whatever profits they reap, uh, off the land goes back to the, to the landowner. This is really more like the landowner graciously allowed them to live on this land, and the only payment he required was that they would eventually provide him part of the profit back. Like he's planted the land, he's put up the fence around it. He dug the wine press so that they could make a product out of it. He built the tower so it would be defended. Yes. And he gave it over to them essentially just to like live on until it was time for the harvest. And all he is asking for is basically like, alright, so this is my land. I've planted the vineyards, the profit is mine to have. And so when the time came for him to come claim that that's where they have now rejected him. Yes. That's where they've now said like, I know you did all the work and really graciously allowed us to live in this land, but we're gonna keep all of it for ourselves. That's the scandal of this. That's what I think like the original audience would've set up and like, wait a second here. Like, hold on. They didn't even plant the vineyards themselves. They didn't even build the tower themselves. That's really the force of this that I think we miss when we, when we overemphasize, trying to think through like what the original agricultural arrangements were. 'cause this is painted. Very different than what the original arrangements would've been typical for. Like this is a different scenario and I think intentionally so,  [00:52:09] Jesse Schwamb: and we need those words like rented, at least in English, to help us understand that it didn't belong to them. It wasn't a gift, right? It wasn't as if like it was just turned over in the sense that it belongs to you now do with it what you will. And it's very clear in the passage one, like you said, that the landowner does all those things. So it was a, you know, he completely set it up. I mean, this is just such a beautiful, I think, depiction of the hold of prophetic, you know, understanding of God's word here, but it's very clear that says the, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit. So you're right. The scandal is that they're like, well, obviously. They need to give him his fruits, like  [00:52:48] Tony Arsenal: right.  [00:52:48] Jesse Schwamb: It was all set up before he left on this long journey. He then turned it over to them to care for, and that was really all that they were supposed to do. They had no role in this. And so it does like lead us in into this weird space where it's like, well, well what, what did the Pharisees think they were trying to do themselves? What does actually Jesus commenting on, on their own, like licit on their own initiative here, is he basically saying that not only are they not respecting his sovereignty, but they were trying to claim for themselves what only rightly belongs to God that even their position right. Society in culture as their representatives, God himself, they wanted to take that over for themselves, which he does bring that condemnation upon them in other parts of the scripture. So again, this is really hot. I think it's a, it's both heat and light, but there's no doubt that there's fire to this, right? Because it's a direct indictment that God the father set all of this up. You yourselves are on rented property, but guess what? Even the property that you've rented, I'm not exacting a tax from you as if like you have put forward and grown or supplied or created some kind of profitable outcome here. And I just want a piece of that. He's not even talking about tithing in that sense. What he's basically saying is, none of this belongs to you. Like how? Right? How dare you? None of this is yours. I set all of this up and in fact, because you've done so poor poorly at this, I'm gonna take it away from you and give it to those who actually produce fruit and guess what's gonna be the Gentiles? So it's, there's a wild. Amounts of condemnation packed into a very small story.  [00:54:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. It really is.  [00:54:22] Tenants Add Nothing [00:54:22] Tony Arsenal: Um, there is nothing expected of these tenants. Right. There's no contract, like there's no terms, they, they really add nothing to the, the landowner's land, except I guess maybe they're the ones harvesting these, this fruit. Right. But even that's not explicit in the parable.  [00:54:43] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly.  [00:54:43] Tony Arsenal: Right. Right. He, he does all just to steal your thunder, like he does all the verbs. Yes. All of the ves are done by the landowner.  [00:54:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yes. Right  [00:54:51] Tony Arsenal: on. There is an implication that the, the tenants are somehow like the ones harvesting this, or they're the ones producing the wine, I guess, in the wine vat or the wine press. But at the end of the day. A normal tenant landowner agreement would be, I'm, you're, first of all, you're probably gonna pay me to use this land, right? You're paying me to use this land, and the way you pay me is you're gonna plant the, the gr the crop. You're gonna harvest it. You're gonna make the produce, and all I'm gonna do is let you live on this land. I'm gonna take the pro, like the profit, you're gonna pay me outta that profit. There is nothing asked or expected of these, th

In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse dive deep into Matthew 21:33-46, examining Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants. The hosts unpack how Christ masterfully draws the Pharisees into pronouncing their own condemnation, revealing not merely theological error but intentional usurpation of God's authority. Through careful exegesis, they explore the shocking setup of the parable—where the landowner does all the work while the tenants contribute nothing—and how this mirrors God's sovereign initiative in salvation. The discussion touches on confession, the value of full-time ministry, and the scandal of rejecting the Messiah despite recognizing His authority. This episode challenges listeners to examine whether they, like the Pharisees, attempt to claim God's work as their own. Key Takeaways God Does All the Verbs: The parable emphasizes that the landowner planted, built, protected, and prepared everything—the tenants contributed nothing yet claimed ownership of the fruit. Self-Pronounced Condemnation: Jesus draws the Pharisees into declaring their own judgment, demonstrating that even the unregenerate conscience bears witness to divine justice (Romans 2). Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error: The Pharisees weren't well-intentioned but misguided; they recognized Christ's authority as the heir and deliberately murdered Him to seize His inheritance. The Scandal of Grace: The parable's shocking element is that the landowner prepared everything before leasing the land—far exceeding normal agricultural arrangements and illustrating God's unmerited favor. Ecclesial Support for Ministry: The OPC presbytery's decision to fund a full-time call demonstrates how church structure can honor the ministry of Word and sacrament by freeing ministers from worldly distractions. Particular Repentance Matters: Westminster Confession 15.5 teaches that believers should not content themselves with general repentance but "endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly." The Stone Rejected Becomes Chief: Christ's citation of Psalm 118 reveals that the very rejection by the builders (religious leaders) was God's plan to establish the cornerstone of salvation. Key Concepts God Does All the Verbs The concentration of action verbs attributed solely to the landowner in Matthew 21:33 is theologically significant. The landowner plants, builds, digs, and rents—creating a fully functional, productive vineyard before the tenants ever arrive. This arrangement differs radically from typical first-century agricultural practices, where tenants would lease raw land and develop it themselves, sharing profits with the landowner. Jesus deliberately presents an extraordinary scenario where the tenants receive everything prepared and ready, requiring only stewardship of what already exists. This parallels God's sovereign initiative in election and salvation: believers contribute nothing to their standing before God, receiving instead a fully accomplished redemption. The Pharisees' rebellion wasn't against burdensome requirements but against simply acknowledging God's rightful ownership of what He alone created. Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error The hosts challenge the common sympathetic reading of the Pharisees as well-intentioned legalists who simply got sidetracked. Instead, verse 38 reveals the tenants explicitly recognize the son as heir and plot to murder him to "seize his inheritance." This isn't accidental rejection but calculated rebellion. The Pharisees weren't confused about Jesus's identity or authority—they understood precisely who He claimed to be and deliberately chose to destroy Him rather than submit. This interpretation carries significant weight for understanding the nature of unbelief: it's not primarily intellectual confusion but volitional rebellion. The religious leaders didn't need more evidence or clearer teaching; they needed transformed hearts. This same dynamic appears whenever humans recognize divine truth yet choose self-sovereignty over submission to God's rightful claim on their lives. The Scandal of Grace The parable begins with a scandalous premise that would have startled Jesus's original audience. Unlike normal tenant farming arrangements where landowners simply provided land in exchange for a share of whatever the tenants produced through their own labor, this landowner invests everything. He doesn't just own the property—he plants the vineyard, constructs the protective wall, digs the wine press for production, and builds the watchtower for defense. The tenants receive a turnkey operation requiring minimal effort. This extravagant preparation mirrors God's unmerited favor toward Israel and, by extension, the church. God didn't merely create humanity and wait to see what we would produce; He established covenants, sent prophets, preserved His Word, and ultimately sent His Son—all before requiring any response. The only "payment" demanded is acknowledging His ownership of what He created. The parable thus exposes the absurdity and ingratitude of claiming God's work as our own achievement. Memorable Quotes God does all the verbs. All of the verbs are done by the landowner. There is nothing expected of these tenants—they really add nothing to the landowner's land. Christ is not painting the Pharisees as well-intentioned but ultimately wrong. He's painting them as usurpers who recognize the proper authority and rather than submitting to it, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly. (Westminster Confession 15.5) Transcript Welcome to episode 491 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:12] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.  [00:01:17] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother.  [00:01:18] Parable of Tenants [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: So picture this, Tony, your landlord. You've built the perfect vineyard. We're talking wall watchtower, wine, press, the works like what everybody says. Everybody knows you need all those things. You've got it all set up, and then you hand the keys to some tenants. You take a long trip, you go enjoy yourself. And when the harvest rolls around, you send your servants to collect the rent. And shockingly, your tenants, they beat. Stone. Another, the kill a third. So naturally you think, you know what? I'll fix this. Lemme just send more people. That's obviously the problem. There's some kind of just profound misunderstanding about what's going on here and about our relationship in this business. And then when that doesn't work, you send your son now loved ones. If this were a business strategy, we would already be calling hr. But of course it's not a business strategy, it's a parable. And Jesus is telling it to the very people about to prove the parable true. So welcome back to the Reformed Brotherhood because we're in Matthew Chapter 21 and we're gonna be actually getting all the way into the parable of the Vine growers where the patience of God looks, I would say, to almost anybody else, to humanize at least almost reckless until you realize that's exactly the point. So yeah, grab your beverage of choice, grab your Bible, pull the car over, will you? Because this is gonna get real and we're going to reason together. But before we do all of that, let's do a little affirming with or denying against, what do you got?  [00:02:41] Inside Baseball Affirmation [00:02:41] Tony Arsenal: So this is a sort of inside baseball, uh, affirmation. Um, I'm not sharing anything, although it may feel like I'm sharing something that is private and like, uh, like confidential. It's not No, this is good. Um, so I had the opportunity to visit. Um, my presbytery, um, for those who are listeners of the show or people who like, have been with us a long time, um, I was part of a Baptist church. Uh, I've always kind of been a Presbyterian at heart, but, um, our church closed, uh, a little over a year and a half ago now. And, um, uh, I've joined an OPC congregation in membership now. We've been members there for about a year. And, um, so I've been visiting Presbytery, which is the, the meeting of all of the leadership of all of the churches. So we won't do a polity breakdown here, but basically like, it's, it's the regional meeting. It's the regional business meeting or church meeting for a group of churches in the OPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And so a lot of the meetings, you know, have the normal kind of business type stuff. You have reports from different committee committees and stuff. Um.  [00:03:48] Presbytery Call Debate [00:03:48] Tony Arsenal: Where this is affirmation is coming in here is at this most recent presbytery meeting, um, was pretty heavy on, um, licensing or, or, uh, not licensing on approving men who had received a call to formal ministry within the presbytery. And so in the OPC, and I would imagine that other Presbyterian bodies are not like super different, although I'm sure there's some variation in the OPC. Um, when a church intends to extend a call to a pastor, to a teaching elder, um, to a minister, they must have the call, which is. Is both theological but is also eminently practical. Like the call is a physical piece of paper that details, you know, what the pay is, how much vacation time. So it's kind of a combination between like a theological call and also a contract. Um, the presbytery has to approve that call. And so at this most recent one, there was a couple calls that were more or less uncontroversial. There was no question about them, and they were approved pretty quickly. But there was one call, um, one call to ministry that took, I, I, I didn't time it, but it was probably like four or five hours of debate and discussion in various fashion in order to get to a point where the presbytery could approve the call. So this was a call to a minister who is being called part-time, which is unusual in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, the OPC uh, acknowledges the fact that bivocational tent making ministry is sometimes a necessity, but really views the ministry of the word in sacrament as something that should not have. Distractions. And actually our book of church order talks about, doesn't use the word distraction, I think, but it talks about a, a properly ordered call to a full-time minister includes phrasing that the congregation promises to compensate them in a way that allows them to be free of worldly burdens and cares. And I might have not, not have gotten that wording exactly right. But that's the idea. And so this call was. Explicitly, um, not a full-time call it, they actually took the language out of promising to pay him in a way that he's able to ignore or to not be distracted by worldly care. And that was intentional, but there was a lot of question in discussion at presbytery level about the fact that the call did not include the phrase or the wording of part-time or bivocational. So the conversation started out of like, can this call be modified to include that? So it's explicitly known in this man's call that his calling is part-time, which is both theological, to make sure that the call is properly formatted, but also like very practical that the congregation should acknowledge explicitly that they recognize that this person is not, not going to be putting, you know, 40 hours a week or 50 hours a week towards this position. [00:06:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:06:34] Tony Arsenal: Um. What I'm affirming is where it got to, right? So there was lots of discussion about that. There was some finagling about the retirement package. The OPC recommends that a, a minister be given a retirement contribution of no less than 5% a year of his salaried package. Um, which there's a couple line items that go into that, but 5%, and this was a little bit less than that. And this is what I'm affirming and this, I, I don't know that this is a super widespread thing that would happen all across the, um, the OPC, but it happened in the presbytery of New York and New England this past week, and it's just amazing. And I just, I just want to lay it out there and then I want to hear your reaction. [00:07:13] Funding Full Time Ministry [00:07:13] Tony Arsenal: And I, I wanna hear your reaction as the son of a minister who labored his entire adult, more or less, his entire adult career in ministry, working two or three additional jobs on top of his ministry, the presbytery decided. That because it did not like the idea of a part-time minister. They didn't think that was appropriate. They didn't think that that was good or that that was really the right goal. The presbytery allocated, I'm not gonna say the figures 'cause they're not super germane, but allocated a significant amount of money to be dis to be dispersed to the church for the next three years in order to take what was a part-time call and enable it to become a full-time call. [00:07:54] Jesse Schwamb: Wow.  [00:07:54] Tony Arsenal: And so there are a lot of, there are a lot of church bodies that would say, yeah, we don't love the idea of bi-vocational ministry. You know, we really think it's ideal that a minister could be full-time. Um, they may even put some, some theological freight behind that. Um, I have never encountered a body, um. That was willing to put a sizable amount of money towards essentially supplementing a part-time call to make it full-time. Um, this was just amazing to me, and the candidate was there. I didn't get a chance to talk to him, but I would love to talk to him about what he felt. I, I can just imagine the phone call to his wife who was not, not at presbytery, but to his wife, following the outcome of this to be like, you are never gonna believe what just happened. Right? This is a family who was intending to move across country. Right. He's currently a student at Westminster, California in seminary, uh, California, Westminster Seminary in California, finishing his M Div. They're planning a cross country move into a part-time position where she's probably gonna have to find a job, and then also he's gonna have to find a part-time job. He had the ability to call her on the break and be like, you're never gonna guess what just happened? You're never gonna,  [00:09:09] Jesse Schwamb: it's wild.  [00:09:09] Tony Arsenal: Uh, sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. You're never going to. Believe how faithful God is in this. Right. So I'm interested to hear your reaction to that as the son of a, of a try and quad at times Quad vocational. Yeah,  [00:09:23] Jesse Schwamb: for sure.  [00:09:23] Tony Arsenal: Minister who labored his entire, more or less, his entire adult career, um, working full-time in a call as a part-time, part-time minister. You know, like that's a, that's a crazy situation. So I'm just affirming that again, I don't know how common that kind of thing is in the OPC. I don't wanna make it seem like that's the norm. Um, I actually get the sense that this is probably not the norm, but it was amazing to see and it made me in intensely like. Proud in the right way of being a part of this broader body that would, would so emphasize and so value the ministry of the word and the sacrament, and the importance of a man being able to dedicate himself to that without distraction. That they would put forward this amount of money and this kind of money. They had no reason to do so. And there's no real direct benefit to the presbytery for doing this. I mean, there's an indirect benefit of like not having a church with a part-time minister, but like there's no direct benefit to this. There's no direct return on investments that's gonna come out of this. Um, it was pretty amazing to see. It was, it was, it was super encouraging.  [00:10:28] Jesse Schwamb: That is really encouraging. I, I think it's, there's no doubt that for the called pastor, their heart is in the ministry of the word. That's what they want to be doing. They wanna be doing it all the time and as much time as they possibly can, and they wanna be able to have all of their intentional focus on it. So I. I'm excited for that guy. I mean, that's just an incredible blessing to go in hoping for funding, essentially for a part-time role and to basically be told, no, no, no, no, that's, that's not enough. We want you to be committed to this fully as we know your heart is committed. As we validated that call.  [00:11:00] Why Structure Matters [00:11:00] Jesse Schwamb: I do love being a part of churches, well, lemme say it this way. There is, I think, a benefit of being part of congregations that have like a wide resource network that has like appropriate hierarchy and structure and that can be one of them. I've seen something similar in the Christian Missionary Alliance, which is the church that I'm in, not exactly the same, but I've seen some surprising allocations of resources where they basically said, you know, this is important. Like, it even trumps we're, we're gonna. Allocate or resource something so that this can move forward because it is important in a way that was like better than the person who was bringing it before them could have hoped for. Yeah. And uh, suddenly it's as if everything aligned. And it was really in part because there was this structure to come alongside, to validate as you're saying, and then to authenticate and then again to resource assets that could be used. There's, there's something to be said for that interdependency where there is kind of this hierarchical structure in which all that's happening at a level where things are codified. And again, like there's a structure and a way in which we move through those decisions to make sure that they suit the objective of the entire movement. So I guess there's nothing I'll say, but that's a beautiful thing, isn't it?  [00:12:14] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:12:15] Generosity in Action [00:12:15] Tony Arsenal: It was, it was, it was cool because it was like this, it was like this real. Actualization of the principle of outdoing one another and showing honor. Yeah, sure. Because you know, like the initial debate was like, Hey, you know, I'm not sure we can approve this call because the, the OPCs guidelines tell us not to approve a call that has less than 5% of the retirement benefit. And there was a lot of discussion of like, well, the presbytery can't modify the call, but we don't wanna delay this guy coming in and like, we don't wanna delay his ordination, his installation. And so the initial proposal was a, a. What feels like a large amount of money to me. But after I understood more about the, the budget of what's going on in, in the presbytery was actually a very small amount of money. Started with a very tiny, very modest proposal of basically like supplementing the retirement fund to make sure that like we could, they, I say we, like, I was part of this, I was just observing, but to supplement the retirement fund in a way that allowed the church to still proceed with the call as written, but still also make sure that this person had the appropriate retirement fund. And then that just basically was like, there would be some instruction given to the church that like, you've gotta bump this up in the next budget cycle. Like you've gotta get to the 5%. That's, that's the expectation. It went from that. And like I said, I won't give you the specific numbers, but one of the presbyters and I, I'm, I, um, I, I've known this presbyter from a distance for quite a long time and, and I have an immense amount of respect for him. He stood up and he's like, well, if we're gonna give X, why don't we just give 10 times X instead? And then actually, like the discussion was like, well, is, are we sure that 10 times X is even the right amount? Why don't we have this particular group meet over the lunch break and figure out whether that's the right number and then come back after lunch and we'll vote on it. And then they came back after lunch and it was actually a number that was even greater than 10 times X. So it was like this exercise in like. This very small proposal that was still imminently generous, right? The presbytery has no obligation to do this. There's no obligation from any of the presbyters to stand up and say like, we should. We should supplement this fund. They would've been well within their right, and no one would've looked, I think. I think some people would've been frustrated by it, but I don't think anyone would've looked sideways at it or thought it was sinful. If the presbytery just said like, we can't approve this call. You guys are gonna have to come back with it and we'll vote on it at the next presbytery. Like that would've been problematic. This, this kind of poor guy who's coming outta seminary, his call and his beginning of employment would've been delayed, but like. That would've been good and orderly, but instead they were like, one, we don't want this pulpit to stay empty longer. We don't wanna disadvantage this guy who's just getting done with seminary. We want him to get started. We don't wanna discourage him. So here's a small proposal, a very modest amount of money that we can put forward for this purpose. And then it was like, let's just keep seeing how much closer to a real full-time call we can get. And they finally came back and said like, we're gonna do this. We're gonna do this in a wise fashion. They structured it. So like the first year he gets more, the second year he gets a little bit less. The third year the church gets a little bit less with the idea that like each year the church should be adjusting their budget to compensate and get this guy to that with the, the hope that like with a full-time minister, they're able to grow their congregation to the point where they can support a full-time minister. So it was just this really cool, super encouraging exercise. And what I loved about it is the only real debate that was going on was about do we need to do more? There was no one being like, wait a second, why are we, why are we putting more money to this? The whole thing was like, is this actually enough to accomplish what we think God wants to do with this person's call? Because if, if God is truly calling this man to this, this particular church, and we believe that he is. Then what do we as a, as a people of God need to do to enable that call to look like what we actually believe calls to ministry are supposed to look like, which is a full-time call to ministry that is undistracted by the cares of the world. What do we need to do? The answer in this case was like, I think we need to put a sizable amount of money to it. Um, it's a, I mean, and again. I'm not gonna say it on the air. It was not a small chunk of change. Um, it was, it was a, it was a large amount of money that was devoted to this cause and that just goes to show how much this body values the importance of a full-time minister of the word, so. [00:16:50] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:16:51] OPC Love and Recommendation [00:16:51] Tony Arsenal: That's enough about that. I, I could gush about how proud I am to be a part of this body and how encouraged I am and how amazing it was and how awesome this, this guy, how, how much this guy must be thanking God for the providence and like, this is the last thing. I'll say this, this young man younger than me, I think he's graduating seminary. I saw him across the room. He looks like he's probably in his mid twenties, right? Young guy. He's got a wife doesn't have kids yet coming into this ministry, not only is he coming into this ministry, but as a Presbyterian minister, when he's installed as the minister of this church. He will be joining this body of presbyters as the, as his brothers like. He is not a member of the local church. He's a member of the presbytery, which is the regional church. So now he's coming into this fully supported by his brothers in the presbytery that he saw go to the mat to make sure he was properly taken care of, that the congregation was not unintentionally taking advantage of his labor, but also that he knows that all of these men are willing to do what they need to do to make sure that his ministry is successful and edifies the church like that is. Uh, I don't want to gush on Presbyterianism too much, but like that is Presbyterianism at peak form, right? This is the body of elders making sure that every church in the region, even the ones they're not directly ministering in, has what it needs to succeed and to honor God and to do what needs to happen. So I'm affirming the presbytery of New York and New England and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, I have been so blessed by knowing many of these presbyters. I've been so blessed by being a part of the congregation that I am. There are lots of really great churches and really great denominations out there. If you are looking for a church and there is an OPC congregation in your area, absolutely go check it out. I know it feels stuffy sometimes, and I will admit, like sometimes it feels a little bit overly traditional in terms of like just the vibe of the congregation,  [00:18:52] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:18:52] Tony Arsenal: But press past that because I don't think, I don't think you will find, um. You may find lots of congregations that are as faithful. I don't think you're gonna find many that are more faithful than your average OPC congregation. So I could be wrong. I just, I just love the OPC. I just really, really love it. So that's my affirmation. What do you got for us, Jesse?  [00:19:18] Denial Catholic Confession Math [00:19:18] Jesse Schwamb: I think I got denial, which is maybe a little bit unusual for me. [00:19:21] Tony Arsenal: As long as you're not denying the OPCI think we're fine.  [00:19:23] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's, it's not, it is church related and I, I'll try to keep it short 'cause I think I can make this way longer than it, it probably should be, but lemme think how to phrase this. So, I don't know with a devil negative, I guess when I'm a denying against is maybe not enough confession by your own standard. So the, I'm gonna try to make this so brief. I, I just happened to be out with my wife this afternoon and we had to run errands. We got stuck in traffic and this gave me longer than usual to sit in front of our. Very local and very large Catholic church. So I happen to be looking at their sign. It's a very large congregation. I've been actually been in this one on a couple of occasions for funerals. So not only do I know its size and scope, but again, if you get, if you get on this road at the wrong time on the Lord's day, you're gonna be stuck for a long time because there are so many people that attend. I say that because I noticed on the sign that there were three times for mass on the Lord's Day. So that also says something about the number of people coming through. And then on the sign though, underneath it said for confessions, go to our website. Mm-hmm. So I was like, man, I gotta lick this up because I can't tell if they're telling me I can confess on the website or if it's go to the website for the times. And I said to my wife, only half jokingly, if I can confess online, I'm gonna confess something. So I went to, I went to the website and, and sure enough it was almost disappointingly. It was just the times.  [00:20:45] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:46] Jesse Schwamb: Here's what I've found interesting, which just launched me into this like deep rabbit hole. There were three times for confession. Two of those times were just a half an hour, and the third time was an hour. So, uh, what I did was I went through, actually, I think what they had on there was, was three full hours a week. It was a little bit confusing, but I think it was three full hours. Now I think about it. So I went back, I just couldn't help myself, Tony. So I started to think, alright, let's say. I think it's fair to assume  [00:21:15] Tony Arsenal: math, Jesse is kicking in right now. Yes. You're gonna calculate how many minutes per, per person is what you're doing. I'm thinking, ah,  [00:21:22] Jesse Schwamb: yeah, it's something like that. So what I thought was, I don't think it's, uh, I was gonna be conservative. I wanna be fair. I wanna be fair. So, and now we should say like, I think most people realize that the Catholic understanding of confession and the Protestant one is, is very different. The Catholic sacrament of confession is the right through which Catholics are gonna confess their sins to a priest receive absolution, and it's gonna restore the relationship with God in the church. And, and they're gonna believe that the priest acts as a person of Christ and is bound by the seal of confession and an absolute kind of obligation. Uh, of course never to reveal what was disclosed during that process. So, by the way, the website that I went to, lovely instructions. I mean, I was like, wow. I was reading it to my wife who was, uh, not familiar with this at all, and she was like, they can make you do stuff. And I was like, well, yeah. I mean, obviously like there's, there's a portion of this where there's contrition or penant penance. It could be a prayer, it could be act of charity, like all kinds of stuff. So I went back and I thought. I don't think it's unreasonable that there's 350 persons that would say, let's say an average, uh, that would wanna take part of confession. Now, let's say that they did that at, at least monthly, just once a month. And, and I don't know how people's conviction is on that, but I'm gonna say conservatively once a month. Let's say that, and I don't think this is unreasonable, Tony, but you tell me. Let's say you're, you're trucking, you're moving through confession. Let's say it's five minutes a piece. So we're up to 1,750 minutes, uh, per month. That's the demand on the priest because I was, I was looking at this time and I was thinking something is strange here to me, so. That was the demand then, and I'll spare you the other math, which could be very long and un uninteresting. I'm coming up with, you'd need 2.24, two and a quarter priests, which of course you can't have a quarter priests or a quarter person for any reason. So you'd hire, you'd hire three priests, which satisfy the demand if, and the major assumptions here, that is like everybody can't show up at the same time. Obviously, I'm assuming that like everybody has their own time, they're spreading it out. So everybody gets the confession, but it's just five minutes. And I, I have no idea. I mean, if you're a Luther, that's certainly not sufficient time.  [00:23:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:23:20] Jesse Schwamb: And you would need three priests. Now here's the thing that I just kind of backed into that, besides like three being like, okay, that, that's, you would need three priests just to satisfy this congregation. If they're confessing for five minutes, once per month. Uh, by the way, if you said, well, half the congregation is going to go weekly, uh, then you, you would double the number of priests you need to 5.98 or six. But here's, here's the bottom line for me. This is why the denial comes in about maybe not enough, is. If you were just to distill that down to like, if you could have one priest cover that time, that there's a demand for like 779.4 hours, or excuse me, minutes of confession, that priest would only be allocating approximately like seven and a half percent of their working hours, their work toward handling confession. This seems like not enough confession given the standards of confession in the Catholic church. And again, I know that I'm, I'm now allocating that to one priest and I just told everybody you need three. That's true. So if you had these three now, if you hired three just to meet the demand, that would only be about like three and a half or a little under three and a half percent of their combined time. So the denial is Catholics, I think, unless I'm way off in some of my assumptions here, you might not be confessing enough by your own standards because  [00:24:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:24:34] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, that seems like not enough time.  [00:24:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:24:39] Ritual Faithfulness Explained [00:24:39] Tony Arsenal: I mean, I think, um. I don't want to be too bombastic here, but I think,  [00:24:46] Jesse Schwamb: I think I already started this on this  [00:24:48] Tony Arsenal: path. Maybe this, maybe this isn't all that bombastic. Um, because this is so much about ritual and actually I say this is gonna sound really, we, we go, but trying to think from the Roman Catholic perspective, it's actually not, and I'll I'll tell you a brief story, uh, to explain it. Um, a lot of Roman Catholics are just going through the motions. [00:25:13] Jesse Schwamb: That's true.  [00:25:14] Tony Arsenal: But the point, the, the, the point of contention actually is that going through the motions is valuable for the Roman Catholic, right? So I, I knew this, uh, this young woman when I was in college who was a Roman Catholic, and we had many discussions about, about the differences between Protestantism and and Roman Catholicism. And what I came to understand is that going to mass for her. Itself was an act of faith. And so for the Roman Catholic, the concept of, of faith is different than the concept that Protestants operate under. So for the Roman Catholic who, um, goes to mass, even when they feel like they're, like, when they think they're just going through the motions, going through the motions is itself the act of faith. And that's because for most of Roman Catholics, most of Roman Catholicism, faith really equals faithfulness, right? So, so doing the act is the act of faithfulness. Doing the act is faith. Where for the Protestant, like faith is about belief and trust and knowledge. Like it's, it's an. Not entirely intellectual, but it's, it's an inward thing for the Roman Catholic faith is an out is primarily an outward thing. It's what you do, it's how you act. It's faith formed in love. It's faith formed in charity.  [00:26:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:26:37] Tony Arsenal: So I think most Roman Catholics going to obligatory confession first. I think once a month is probably like, probably more frequent than most Roman Catholics go to mass or go to confession. Um, I thought I read a stat that it was like every six months is, is pretty average and I think that's what's required by the church maybe even once a year is, is required by the church. Um, I think like most Roman Catholics go into the, the confessional booth and like father forgive me for I've sinned. It's been such and such a number of days since my last confession. Right. And they may bring up a couple particular things that they've done and, and then I think the priest commonly absolves them of all of their sins. Like, almost like in an omnibus fashion and then prescribes their acts of penance, which is it, it like, honestly, it's probably things they should already be doing as a faithful Catholic saying Hail Marys and doing our fathers and acts of charity and things like that. So I think your math is probably right. [00:27:39] Protestant Repentance Particular [00:27:39] Tony Arsenal: I think your, your theory that more confession is probably like, I'm gonna read this from, uh, the Westminster confession, just to, just to say it here, is, this is chapter 15, which is titled of Repentance Under Life. And this is, uh, this is section five or paragraph five. It says, men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but is every man's duty to endeavor, to repent of his particular sins, particularly. And I think that's just such a beautifully phrased sentence like. Not only is it like potent theologically, but like, it just, it just feels good, like in terms of like the English language to repent of your particular sins, particularly. And like the idea is yes, Protestant reform, Christians affirm a general repentance from sin, right? We repent of our sin before the father, uh, as a result of our, of our coming to faith in Christ. And as part of our sanctification, we mortify our sin and we, Viv we are vivified by the spirit and repentance falls in that ongoing sanctification process. And there is this general repentance of like, I repent of the fact that I'm a sinner and that I commit sins, but there is this element in the reformed faith of like, I should be confessing to God. And I think by extension, like we should be confessing to our fellow Christians, our particular sins, our individual sins, and we should be doing that on particular occasion. And I think like. The Luther style confession of like going into the confessor and confessing like every particular sin. Particularly I think most Roman Catholic priests would, priests. Priests would probably have the same reaction Tobits did where he was like, get outta here. Like, come on dude. Like just go live your life and like deal with it. I think that's probably the reaction most Catholic priests would have. But yeah, I think you're right. Like if we're really talking about like. Five, five minutes of confession once a month and that somehow having some sort of spiritual efficacy. I'm not sure I buy that math. Like I think you're, you're probably spot on.  [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:29:47] Confession Hours Oddities [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: I just was curious about how many priests would be required and then the allocation of the duties. By the way, you are right. So I, because I had to check on this, the, the fourth letter in council of 1215 does say that the church requires confession of any grave or mortal sins at least once a year. But the church, yeah, strongly encourages more frequent confession as a spiritual practice, even for, of course, like the venial or the less serious sins in their eyes. So yeah, my thought here was just that. I think it's actually undervalued by way of the math. Like the, as the kids say, the math just isn't math thing for me on this one. But I was more curious about, since this is one of the seven sacraments, even if you just said like, well, it should have at least one seven of the allocation. That's like, what? Like something like 14%. And so this is, um, almost half of that. I just found it a little bit, a little bit odd and yeah, I think you'd have to be, uh, so in other words, when I looked at the, basically, here's the bottom line. When I looked at the hours for confession one, there were weird times and uh, two, I was like, that doesn't seem like enough hours. Like, it was just more like that. Like how that's like saying like, Hey, the post office is open three hours a week, and by the way, one of those hours is from seven to eight o'clock on Friday. Like they had some hours. One hour just on Friday was like, I guess that's the way you wanna start your weekend is like, let's get all of this off my chest. Yeah. And, and do it. Right. And the last thing I'll say by the way, is you're correct. When you look at the instruction they give you, and this is common of course, toward the end, when they say like, here's how you like wrap up your part. Actually everybody should go read, go to the local, local Catholic church website and read the instructions. 'cause in some ways they're just interesting and kind of, um, I don't wanna say funny 'cause I'm not making fun. I'm just saying like, they have to give you instruction if you've never done it before. And so most of us are not really probably familiar with the process and they give you explicit instruction and toward the end it's like, here's how you kinda like hang up the call with the priest. And it's like you said, you know, these are my sins and all others, would you be willing to forgive? So you're right. Right. They just kinda wrap them all up because it's sins of omission, sense of commission, it's all to be together. But I, I wonder, you gotta think there's people in there that are like. The priests are like, okay, man, just yeah. Wrap, come on, wrap, wrap it up.  [00:31:55] Confession Timing Talk [00:31:55] Jesse Schwamb: And other people that come in are just like, you know, forgive me father. And uh, lastly to your point, when they give you instruction about how you should start, of course you're always to signify how long it's been since your last confession. Right. Confession. And they say parenthetically, like, reference the days, weeks, months, or years. So you're right. There are gonna be people that probably do it very frequently and probably people who do it infrequently still, I would say I just couldn't believe for a church this large, that there was just three hours a week.  [00:32:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:21] Jesse Schwamb: For everybody else.  [00:32:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:23] Vance and Papal Authority [00:32:23] Tony Arsenal: This leads me to two very brief sub, uh, denials slash affirmations. Uh, I don't know if you saw this, um, this is not a political statement, right? I, I have lots of feelings and thoughts about the current administration and I think most of my feelings and thoughts would surprise. Everybody. But I thought it was hilarious because JD Vance, who is a Roman Catholic, uh, confessed Roman Catholic part of the Roman Catholic Church, uh, he ha I, I'm not sure if I'm affirming or denying this, there was this funny, uh, funny exchange. I think he was at doing like a, doing like a TPU, I don't know, speech. He was doing a speech at some conservative event and he said something like, I think that the Pope should be more careful when he makes theological statements. I'm wanna be like, do you understand what the pope is in your religion? That was one of my sub denials. Uh, I don't remember what the other one is, so it must not have been that important. It'll come back to me at the worst possible moment and I will try very hard not to interrupt our show for it, but I probably will fail.  [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:33:25] Reading Matthew 21 [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, we, we gotta get to some scripture because. We're, we're doing this old school style where we take like half the time and just talk about affirmations. It's true in house. It's true. Which is great fun. But let's, let's get back to Matthew 21. And I, I know we did this last time, but I am gonna rock through the passage 'cause of course, that's the best part of any of our discussion, is actually hearing from, from the Holy Spirit through the scripture, uh, which he's given to us. So this is, uh, Matthew 21, starting in verse 33. And you're gonna hear the, the whole thing right here. Uh, this is Jesus speaking. Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it and built a tower and rented it out to vine growers and went on a journey. Now, when the high risk time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit, and the vine growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Again, he sent another group of slaves larger than the first, and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them saying they will respect my son. But when the vine growers saw the sun, they said among themselves, this is the heir. Come let us kill him and seize his inheritance, and they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine growers? They said to him, he will bring those wretches to a wretched end and will rent out the vineyard to other vine growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons. Jesus said to them, did you ever read in the scriptures the stone, which the builders rejected? This has become the chief cornerstone. This came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls in the stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they understood that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds because they're regarding him to be a prophet. [00:35:28] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:35:30] Pharisees Condemn Themselves [00:35:30] Tony Arsenal: This is like a super heavy parable. Right. And we talked a lot last week about how like the point of this parable is not necessarily to try to instruct the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Like it's not to instruct the people who were going to reject Christ, uh, the, the builders who would reject the cornerstone. It's really a parable to teach those. Who are observing this process happening. But I think it's, I, I think it's really interesting just listening to you read this and reading through it, and I guess this is a question I haven't asked and I, I need to study a little bit more. It's crazy to me in verse 41, um, Christ seems the, the, the, um, Matthew seems to say here, and maybe I need to do a little bit more Greek study, so bear with me and, and have grace if I'm wrong here. Matthew seems to say that like Christ asks the people he's speaking to, the Pharisees he's speaking to, what is he gonna do to these people? And the Pharisees answer, he's gonna put those wretches to a miserable death.  [00:36:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right?  [00:36:37] Tony Arsenal: Like the people listening to this parable understand the outcome, like they understand the. The consequence that the, the, the vineyard owner or the vineyard tenant tenants are facing based on their lack of faithfulness to the covenant. To me, that is like a really striking part of this parable. And, and it's not even like the parable proper, but like the striking element of the context of this is that nobody listening to this parable, including the Pharisees that this parable has basically spoken against, nobody fails to see the gravity of the consequence of rejecting God's emissary, like rejecting the Messiah. That to me is like a really, I dunno, paradigmatic. Portion of this that I think we need to grapple with. This is not an unclear, an unclear outcome. This is not, this is not masked or vague or OPA opaque. Like everybody understands, the people who reject the Messiah are going to face dire and eternal consequences for that act. [00:37:48] Jesse Schwamb: That does make this really interesting, doesn't it? Because it's not just entirely like Romans one adventures or even Romans two. It's that this is what Jesus does and he does it in a profound way that's not trickery like I think kinda like you're saying like the lead up to this isn't as if he's even leading the witness. He's making it very clear, all like the parameters of the story and the characters involved and what should be the proper judgment. And it's not as if like they start saying, they're like, oh, we shouldn't say anything more like we, we plead the fifth because it's gonna condemn ourselves. He draws his audience in to producing and pronouncing like their own sentence. It's very much like, I think I mentioned this last time, the prophet Nathan and David, isn't it? It's the exact same. Yeah. And the verdict is unanswerable, like even in its own terms. These other, like these other vine growers, prefigures of course like the inclusion of the Gentiles and the apostolic office. But I like that what Jesus does here, even before he gets to that point, is he extorts from them an acknowledgement of the punishment which awaited them. And so in this way there's like, I think the Puritans use this passage a lot actually to demonstrate that the natural conscience even of like the unregenerate, still bears witness to divine justice. That's Romans two. Like they, they can't get out from underneath it and Jesus isn't using any trickery on them to get them to say this thing. They are compelled in their own way, even being unregenerate to, like you said, even as they're rejecting the Messiah to recognize that punishment is due these characters in the story, even as they perceive at the end that they are those characters. [00:39:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:22] Jesse Schwamb: Saying we'll receive the judgment.  [00:39:24] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:25] Usurpers Not Misguided [00:39:25] Tony Arsenal: And I think too, like, um, this is kind of one of those chicken or the egg scenarios, right? Like Christ is both recognizing the intention of their heart as well as prophesying. And, and not just prophesying, but like inception level prophesying the, the outcome of the intention of their heart. And so like, again, like we've, we spent a whole week kind of like leading into the parable and now we spent a whole week, we're gonna spend a whole week again kind of leading into the parable. This is such a deep parable, and that like Christ is not just laying bare. The fact that the, the people who were going to reject him were doing so out of this sort of like attempt and intention of usurping the kingdom of God for their own purposes. I think that brings a layer to this that we don't often appreciate in. Christ's interaction with the Pharisees. I think sometimes, and maybe this is because I just listened to an episode of where Matt Whitman on the 10 minute Bible hour talked about this. I think sometimes we actually have a tendency to sort of be sympathetic to the Pharisees where we think, you know, they were, they were just trying to obey God's law and they got a little sideways on it and you know, they were putting these boundaries in place, but they were doing it in this sort of like misguided attempt to protect the people. Christ actually here seems to contradict that in that the comparison he's making is not to a, a well-intentioned group of people who just get it wrong, but he's painting the Pharisees, the, the religious leaders, the Sadducees, the chief priests. He's painting them as these usurpers who recognize the proper authority of right. The master and his emissaries and ultimately of his son, they recognize this proper authority and rather than submitting to it and submitting to the covenant obligations that they, they already actually agreed to, instead of doing that, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own right. It's not just that they do the wrong thing, it's that they recognize the heir, which is Christ. They recognize this heir and they kill him to try to take his place. That is a really heavy element of this parable. Christ is not painting. Um, the, the, the Pharisees here, the, the religious leaders. He's not painting them as um, well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong, which is I think a lot of times, and I think there's reason to do this right. I'm not being overly critical and I've done this, I've actually done this myself, and I think there's some. Space for it. Like the Pharisees were wrong, but they were wrong, kind of in the right direction sometimes. Um, Christ is not really on board with that, at least in this parable. Right. This isn't about them thinking that the heir was a threat, and so killing the threat in, you know, inadvertently this is them absolutely seeing who the hair, who the heir is, and intentionally deciding to reject that heir and to murder him and to try to take his inheritance. Mm-hmm. That's an affront to not only the heir who they murder, but an affront to the owner of the vineyard himself, which of course in this parable is figured to be God the father primarily. But God in sort of general terms, like the whole Godhead, um, with Christ as the second Adam has, as his representative, as his heir. This is a really heavy parable and I think where this comes into play for us in our own Christian life is. Are there times where we. Sort of do the same thing in refusing to, maybe it's tie into your denial a little bit. Like refusing to acknowledge our own sinfulness, refusing to acknowledge the ways that God has provided for us. Um, do we at times look at what we have and lay claim to it as though it is our own inheritance that we've taken? Um, right. Do we kind of crucify the son of God anew in, in refusing to repent of our sins particularly? I dunno. I think those are some open questions for us to kind of explore as we dig into this a bit more. [00:43:54] Jesse Schwamb: And that may relate as well to, well eventually at some point, I dunno, like 2040, get to like the parable of the talents. There's some similarity there with a little bit, right? You're saying? I think you're right.  [00:44:06] God Does All the Verbs [00:44:06] Jesse Schwamb: And where I think we can anchor some of that is in those first couple of verses. I'm really always impressed by really the number of action verbs that are packed within, like that just initial statement of Jesus explaining the situation. [00:44:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:44:19] Jesse Schwamb: So he sets it all up and he's saying there's a planting that goes on, this landowner puts up a wall, digs a wine press. Builds a tower and then RINs it. So there's all these like amazing things being done, all this action verb. And I, I think in part why he comes against the Pharisees so hard in the same way that we're looking at like the parable that, uh, the, uh, talents for instance of saying like, what did you do with that was entrusted to you was like this great treasure which Christ has entrusted or God has entrusted to his people, which is, is the gospel essentially is, is all a prophetic witness, is like the truth of who God is and his revelation of himself. And so I think. The first thing we gotta see in those verbs is that there's this emphasis that the vineyard was God's sovereign creation. You know, he plants it, he chose it, he established it. Israel didn't plant herself. She was planted. And that sovereign initiative is foundational, I think in, like you're saying, the parables indictment, because these vine growers, they don't possess anything that they did not receive. Right. You know, they did not find a vineyard already planted, but God himself made it from the wilderness that all his glory, all the glory might be his. So. I think it's helpful for us to observe that the church is always the planting of the Lord and that no congregation flourishes that is not first planted by God. And so there is a major offense here when those who are to care for it, who know, like you're saying, that they ought to care for it, who understand something about the hierarchy and the way it has been entrusted to them. Not to only break that covenant, but then seek to try to usurp the power in the roles of those whom they should be, quite frankly, in our own language, like under shepherds too. And so it starts with all, all those verbs. Like I think we could probably spend a. A lot of times just speaking about what does it mean? Why? Why is there all this explicit in particular language about the fact that there's a hedge and there's a press besides just these are part in piece mail or part and parcel of what it means to have a vineyard, apparently, but that they're all part of this narrative of God talking about how he protects and cares for his people and sets them in a place and chooses them and is particular about the construction and does so with great volition and authority and care and concern and creative ability. And then again, you have those who are meant there to do the very job that he's entrusted them with. And not only are they not doing that, and of course you're right. Jesus elsewhere, comes in, comes in hot, right, with a Pharisees saying like, listen, you set burdens on people's backs that you yourselves cannot lift. You're twice as in the hell as anybody else, and that's who you are. Yeah. It's not just hypocrisy, but you're literally setting people up to fail in this. So you can see how you're right. It's not just like, guys, I appreciate that. Like you wanted to set up some additional boundaries and maybe you took it a little bit too far. This parable is just scorched earth. It's, it's nuclear. Yeah.  [00:47:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:47:11] Scandalous Vineyard Setup [00:47:11] Tony Arsenal: And you know, I think, um, we are obviously gonna spend another week on this 'cause we still have not really addressed a single verse in this parable. I, I think like a lot of ink has been spilled on explaining sort of like the feal agricultural arrangements of this passage. What it represents. M my understanding is. A typical arrangement would be that a, a landowner would basically just lease out land and the tenants would be responsible for the planting, for the development. Right. And the, the, the landowner would essentially just collect a portion of whatever they produce. Right. This parable is actually taking this a step further. Exactly. That it's not as though the landowner just says like, all right, you can use this land. Right. And I own the land, so I get a portion of the pro, the profit. He's actually done all the work. Yes. And all that. The, all that the, the tenants need to do essentially is reap the harvest and then provide the portion of the harvest that belongs to the landowner, and so there is a greater investment. Of the landowner into this land than would be expected. We've commented in the past about how a lot of times the, the parables start on sort of a premise of shock. Like there's a, there's an element of the setup of the, of the parable where the audience would kind of like sit back and gasp or kind of be like, wait a second. Like that's not normal. Right. In the parable of the, the, um, lost son, it was the idea that like the son demanded his inheritance. And that wasn't the shocking part. The shocking part was that the father just granted it. Right. Or, um, the lost sheep, like the, there's actually a sort of a shocking element to the fact that like the, the land, the like sheep owner would just go get this other sheep. So we've, we've commented on there's kind of like. There's sort of like a scandalous setup. The scandalous setup in this is not that the land has been leased to tenants, right? It's that the land has been prepared for the tenants before it was leased out in the first place. And I think that's something we might miss if we read over this too quickly, is. The landowner has prepared everything for these, these tenants.  [00:49:30] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:49:31] Tony Arsenal: So the, the, at the, the punchline of the parable where they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of, um, sovereignty and maybe a lowercase s in the, in the context of the parable, they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty and the rightful claim of the tenant or of the landowner on the, the profit of the land. And sort of like highlighter emphasized by the fact that they actually didn't do any of the work. There's a certain kind of like Amer, like American rugged individualism where we're kind of like, yeah, like if I planted all the crops, then it's kind of lame that this guy's coming in expecting to take a portion of it, right? Like, yeah, I guess he owns the land, so maybe he gets a little piece of it, but like, who does he think he is? All of that already is already short circuited. Like I. The, these tenants are not actually, um, portrayed as doing anything in this parable. That's right. Like they just lease the land. They, they, um, and leased is not really like the right. The right word, the, the Greek word is omi, which is like he gave over the land to them. Um, when we say leased, we have this idea that like the tenants pay to use the land and then like part of their contract is that whatever profits they reap, uh, off the land goes back to the, to the landowner. This is really more like the landowner graciously allowed them to live on this land, and the only payment he required was that they would eventually provide him part of the profit back. Like he's planted the land, he's put up the fence around it. He dug the wine press so that they could make a product out of it. He built the tower so it would be defended. Yes. And he gave it over to them essentially just to like live on until it was time for the harvest. And all he is asking for is basically like, alright, so this is my land. I've planted the vineyards, the profit is mine to have. And so when the time came for him to come claim that that's where they have now rejected him. Yes. That's where they've now said like, I know you did all the work and really graciously allowed us to live in this land, but we're gonna keep all of it for ourselves. That's the scandal of this. That's what I think like the original audience would've set up and like, wait a second here. Like, hold on. They didn't even plant the vineyards themselves. They didn't even build the tower themselves. That's really the force of this that I think we miss when we, when we overemphasize, trying to think through like what the original agricultural arrangements were. 'cause this is painted. Very different than what the original arrangements would've been typical for. Like this is a different scenario and I think intentionally so,  [00:52:09] Jesse Schwamb: and we need those words like rented, at least in English, to help us understand that it didn't belong to them. It wasn't a gift, right? It wasn't as if like it was just turned over in the sense that it belongs to you now do with it what you will. And it's very clear in the passage one, like you said, that the landowner does all those things. So it was a, you know, he completely set it up. I mean, this is just such a beautiful, I think, depiction of the hold of prophetic, you know, understanding of God's word here, but it's very clear that says the, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit. So you're right. The scandal is that they're like, well, obviously. They need to give him his fruits, like  [00:52:48] Tony Arsenal: right.  [00:52:48] Jesse Schwamb: It was all set up before he left on this long journey. He then turned it over to them to care for, and that was really all that they were supposed to do. They had no role in this. And so it does like lead us in into this weird space where it's like, well, well what, what did the Pharisees think they were trying to do themselves? What does actually Jesus commenting on, on their own, like licit on their own initiative here, is he basically saying that not only are they not respecting his sovereignty, but they were trying to claim for themselves what only rightly belongs to God that even their position right. Society in culture as their representatives, God himself, they wanted to take that over for themselves, which he does bring that condemnation upon them in other parts of the scripture. So again, this is really hot. I think it's a, it's both heat and light, but there's no doubt that there's fire to this, right? Because it's a direct indictment that God the father set all of this up. You yourselves are on rented property, but guess what? Even the property that you've rented, I'm not exacting a tax from you as if like you have put forward and grown or supplied or created some kind of profitable outcome here. And I just want a piece of that. He's not even talking about tithing in that sense. What he's basically saying is, none of this belongs to you. Like how? Right? How dare you? None of this is yours. I set all of this up and in fact, because you've done so poor poorly at this, I'm gonna take it away from you and give it to those who actually produce fruit and guess what's gonna be the Gentiles? So it's, there's a wild. Amounts of condemnation packed into a very small story.  [00:54:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. It really is.  [00:54:22] Tenants Add Nothing [00:54:22] Tony Arsenal: Um, there is nothing expected of these tenants. Right. There's no contract, like there's no terms, they, they really add nothing to the, the landowner's land, except I guess maybe they're the ones harvesting these, this fruit. Right. But even that's not explicit in the parable.  [00:54:43] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly.  [00:54:43] Tony Arsenal: Right. Right. He, he does all just to steal your thunder, like he does all the verbs. Yes. All of the ves are done by the landowner.  [00:54:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yes. Right  [00:54:51] Tony Arsenal: on. There is an implication that the, the tenants are somehow like the ones harvesting this, or they're the ones producing the wine, I guess, in the wine vat or the wine press. But at the end of the day. A normal tenant landowner agreement would be, I'm, you're, first of all, you're probably gonna pay me to use this land, right? You're paying me to use this land, and the way you pay me is you're gonna plant the, the gr the crop. You're gonna harvest it. You're gonna make the produce, and all I'm gonna do is let you live on this land. I'm gonna take the pro, like the profit, you're gonna pay me outta that profit. There is nothing asked or expected of these, th

Corporate prayer and national repentance have shaped history, and Scripture like Jonah 3:10 reveals how God responds when people turn to Him together. Praying as a nation isn’t symbolic—it’s a powerful, biblical practice that invites God’s mercy, guidance, and restoration. This devotional highlights how God has consistently responded to unified, humble prayer—from the city of Nineveh to moments in American history. When people come together, set aside differences, and seek God collectively, it reflects dependence on Him rather than self-sufficiency. National prayer isn’t about politics or performance—it’s about hearts aligning with God, turning from sin, and trusting Him to lead, heal, and sustain a nation. Just as individuals are called to pray, communities and countries are invited to do the same. Highlights God responds to corporate prayer and genuine repentance Biblical examples show entire cities and nations turning to God together Unity in prayer reflects humility and dependence on God National prayer invites God’s mercy, healing, and direction Spiritual battles require spiritual responses—not just physical solutions Setting aside differences for prayer strengthens collective faith Do you want to listen ad-free? When you join Crosswalk Plus, you gain access to exclusive, in-depth Bible study guides, devotionals, sound biblical advice, and daily encouragement from trusted pastors and authors—resources designed to strengthen your faith and equip you to live it out boldly. PLUS ad free podcasts! Sign Up Today! Full Transcript Below: Why Praying As a Nation Matters to God By Lynette Kittle Bible Reading: “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, He relented and did not bring on them the destruction He had threatened.” - Jonah 3:10 As America celebrates 250 years as a nation, some ask, does it matter if our nation prays together on the National Day of Prayer? Does God even pay attention to or hear us when we pray corporately as a nation? The answer is “yes”: it matters to God, and we can be assured of this because the Bible provides plenty of evidence that He often calls us to corporate prayer for a city or a nation. Most of us are familiar with the well-known biblical passage 2 Chronicles 7:14, which says, “If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” As in the story of Jonah and the wicked city of Nineveh, God called for the entire city to pray and repent, and even the animals were included in the city’s prayer, fasting, and repentance. As Jonah 3:4-8 describes, God led an entire city to repentance through corporate prayer: “Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, ‘Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.’ The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh: ‘By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from His fierce anger so that we will not perish.” In Jonah 3:10, we read of God’s gracious response to their corporate prayer: He relented rather than sending destruction. Likewise, looking back at America’s Founders, we see that they recognized the importance of corporate prayer and that establishing a nation’s future doesn’t just involve fighting a physical battle for victory, but also a spiritual one. They demonstrated this when they officially met and came together for the first time on September 7, 1774, as the Continental Congress of the United States, opening with prayer and the reading of Psalm 35 by Rev. Jacob Duché, which begins with, “Contend, Lord, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me.” This was no easy feat, either, as the outspoken members had to set aside their denominational differences to pray together, uniting members who were Congregationalists, Anglicans, Quakers, Dutch Reformed, Baptists, Lutherans, Puritans, and Presbyterians, coming together to overlook their differences, joining in one accord, praying for a common goal. American Conservative radio talk-show host and writer, Dennis Prager, explains, “Ultimately, they wanted people to be free to practice their religion and relate to God in their own way. They all knew God is the source of liberty.” Providence Forum Executive Director Dr. Jerry Newcombe points out how historians find in George Washington’s writings and actions during the Revolutionary War that he relied heavily on prayer, believing that with the tremendous odds set against them, victory could only come with God’s help. As well, “The Great Awakening absolutely helped the cause of independence,” writes Newcombe. “Even before the Great Awakening, the ministers, especially the ones from New England, helped shape the thinking of the Colonists as to their God-given rights.” Christian historians believe the spread of “The Great Awakening” across the colonies greatly influenced and strengthened Patriot leaders leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, during which prayer and fasting played a critical role in helping America establish its freedom. In Miracles in American History, author, historian, and speaker William J. Federer writes about the many national calls to prayer leading up to and throughout the formation of the United States of America. Intersecting Faith & Life:Are you planning to join our nation in praying for God’s divine guidance and protection over our country? If not, consider praying with millions of believers across our land who will be praying together during this year’s 250th Anniversary, National Day of Prayer. Further Reading:A Prayer to Take Part in Our Nation’s National Day of Prayer Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

How do you move from simply reading the Bible to truly understanding its depths?In Session 2 of the Rooted Conference, Pastor Daniel Batarseh shares the "Tool Belt" of hermeneutics he uses for deeper Bible study. This session moves beyond basic reading, equipping you with practical tools to uncover the richness of God's Word—focusing on finding Christ throughout the entire Bible and effectively using outside resources.In this session, you will learn:Types and Shadows: Discover how Old Testament people, events, and symbols prophetically point to the person and work of Jesus Christ.Biblical Allusions: Learn to recognize the thousands of subtle echoes and indirect references the New Testament makes to the Hebrew Scriptures.Essential Study Tools: A guide to using commentaries (Matthew Henry, David Guzik), concordances (Strong's, Blue Letter Bible), and quality historical books (The Puritans).The Power of Community: Why sitting under faithful teaching and discussing the Word with others is essential for spiritual growth.The Emergency Tool: A powerful strategy for when you lack the motivation to read your Bible.Whether you are a new believer or a seasoned student of the Word, these insights will help you rediscover a sense of wonder in the Scriptures and fuel a personal revival of the Bible in your daily life.

What if we told you that puritans were actually sex-crazed? Well maybe not crazed but definitely not opposed to it.What if we told you that, actually, the entire mainstream belief of puritans being bound to strict moral and religious codes isn't totally true?In this episode of American History Hit, Don is joined by Lori Rogers-Stokes to answer some of the big questions. Did the Puritans really wear all black? What's the difference between a Puritan and a Pilgrim? And was anyone ever marked with a scarlet letter?Lori is an independent scholar, public historian, and contributing editor for New England's Hidden Histories. She is the author of two books on the Puritans: 'Records of Trial from Thomas Shepard's Church in Cambridge, 1638–49: Heroic Souls', and 'Gathered into a Church: Indigenous-English Congregationalism in Woodland New England'.Edited by Tim Arstall. Produced by Sophie Gee. Senior Producer was Freddy Chick.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  All music from Epidemic Sounds.American History Hit is a History Hit podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Preaching and Preachers, Dr. J. Stephen Yuille joins me to discuss “The Puritans and Pastoral Ministry.” Dr. Yuille serves as Professor of Church History in the School The post The Puritans and Pastoral Ministry appeared first on Preaching and Preachers Institute.

Episode 2.101Postmillennialism: Hope for Gospel VictoryIn this episode of End Times 101, Michael and Zach explore postmillennialism—a view that sees the kingdom of God expanding throughout history as the gospel transforms individuals, cultures, and nations prior to Christ's return.The discussion walks through key passages such as the Great Commission, Psalm 110, and Habakkuk 2, highlighting the expectation that Christ is already reigning and that His kingdom will grow progressively through the work of the Church. Rather than anticipating decline, this view emphasizes long-term gospel influence shaping society, leading to a period of widespread righteousness often described as a “golden age.”Listeners are guided through the basic timeline of postmillennialism, its historical development from the Puritans to modern advocates, and the practical implications of a theology that prioritizes engagement, discipleship, and cultural impact. The episode also addresses common challenges, including how this view accounts for suffering, setbacks, and uneven historical progress.The takeaway is clear: postmillennialism calls believers to active participation in God's mission, grounded in the confidence that Christ's kingdom is advancing—and that history ultimately bends toward His victory.Find our videocast here: https://youtu.be/FwDmqrXyTDkMerch here: https://take-2-podcast.printify.me/Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):⁠https://uppbeat.io/t/reakt-music/deep-stone⁠License code: 2QZOZ2YHZ5UTE7C8Find more Take 2 Theology content at http://www.take2theology.com

A storm-tossed servant nearly vanishes into the Atlantic but ends up shaping the future of the United States.  This is the dramatic saga of the Mayflower — the persecution that drove the Pilgrims from England, their nightmare crossing of the Atlantic, and the fragile pact that held their fractured community together.  You'll meet Squanto, whose astonishing journey across continents becomes the colony's lifeline, and follow the rise of the Puritans, the clash of empires, and the eruption of King Philip's War, one of the bloodiest conflicts in American history.  This unlikely story of faith and resilience traces how one tiny ship's journey forever alters a continent. GLENN'S SPONSORS: Relief Factor: If you're living with aches and pains, see how Relief Factor, a daily drug-free supplement, could help you feel better and live better. Try the three-week QuickStart for just $19.95 by visiting ⁠⁠https://ReliefFactor.com⁠⁠. American Financing: American Financing can show you how to put your hard-earned equity to work and get you out of debt. Dial 800-906-2440, or visit https://www.americanfinancing.net. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why does religion still dominate American politics when so many other wealthy democracies secularized long ago? In this episode, Michael Shermer talks with historian Matthew Avery Sutton about the long relationship between Christianity and American power. From the Puritans to Lincoln, from the Scopes trial to the Religious Right, from slavery to same-sex marriage, this conversation tracks how religious belief has shaped the country, and how politics keeps reshaping religion in return. Matthew Avery Sutton is the Claudius O. and Mary Johnson Distinguished Professor and chair of the Department of History at Washington State University. His new book is Chosen Land: How Christianity Made America and Americans Remade Christianity.

1. The Gunpowder Plot and the Rise of the Middling Sort Guest Author: Jonathan Healey Jonathan Healey introduces James I, who inherited a kingdom deeply divided by religion between Catholics, Puritans, and the mainstream. The 1605 Gunpowder Plot, a radical Catholic attempt to blow up Parliament, instilled a lasting "popish plot" paranoia that influenced English politics for decades. Healey emphasizes the era's social shift with the emergence of the "middling sort"—wealthy, literate peasant farmers and lawyers who began dominating Parliament. This group's sophisticated political thinking and legal training became a cornerstone of the century's revolutionary friction, as James struggled to fund the state without Parliamentary consent amid rising inflation. (1)1650 PIETER DE HOOCH

One cannot underestimate the spiritual, cultural, political, and literary importance and influence of the Authorized Version's pre-eminence in the English-speaking world, including vast parts of North America. In 1604, King James convened the Hampton Court Conference, where a new English version of the Bible was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans, an orthodox faction of the Church of England. E171. Check out the YouTube version of this episode at https://youtu.be/0HfAikVyOJM which has accompanying visuals including maps, charts, timelines, photos, illustrations, and diagrams. King James Version (KJV) Bibles available at https://amzn.to/3jOQna7 ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's HISTORICAL JESUS podcast at https://parthenonpodcast.com/historical-jesus Mark's TIMELINE video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 Twitter: https://twitter.com/MarkVinet_HNA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio credits: The Story of the King James Bible with James Naughtie (BBC Radio 4). Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this week's episode, Kayla and Taylor discuss Nathaniel Hawthorne's 1850 novel The Scarlet Letter. Topics include delicious recipes, listening to the “modern reader” edition, was Nathaniel Hawthorne a woman in disguise?, Hawthorne's hilarious disdain for Puritans, Arthur Dimmesdale (owner of the Dimmsdale Dimmadome) and his struggles, Pearl and her uncanny understanding of the world, and the only way this story could end. Plus, we talk Oscars.This week's drink: The Scarlet Letter via Charbay DistilleryINGREDIENTS 1 ½ oz Charbay Pomegranate Vodka (or any pomegranate vodka) ½ oz Cointreau ¾ oz Red Wine Gastrique ½ oz Lemon Juice 3 dashes Scrappy's Cardamon Bitters Long Meadow Ranch Merlot Sea Salt (for rim) 1 Sprig ThymeINSTRUCTIONS:Add all ingredients into a shaker and add ice.Shake well and double strain into a cocktail glass, rimmed with the Merlot sea salt.Garnish with the sprig of thyme.To make the Red Wine Gastrique: Reduce by 1/3 a medium to heavy-bodied red wine. While still hot, stir in equal amounts of fine white sugar until dissolved. Add same amount of sherry wine vinegar so that the solution is 1:1:1 and mix. Let cool and keep in fridge.Current/recommended reads, links, etc.:The Saffron Tales: Recipes from the Persian Kitchen by Yasmin KhanFollow us on Instagram @literatureandlibationspod.You can email us at literatureandlibationspod@gmail.com.Please leave us a review and/or rating! It really helps others find our podcast…and it makes us happy!Purchase books via bookshop.org or check them out from your local public library. Join us next time as we read The White Octopus Hotel by Alexandra Bell

In this episode Jon Harris tackles the growing wave of distorted teachings online about the Bible, the church, and the nation of Israel. Amid rising errors like dishonest portrayals of Jewish people, rejection of Gods promises to ethnic Israel, and even questions about Jesus Jewish identity, Harris offers clear biblical and historical guidance.Drawing from the unconditional Abrahamic covenant in Genesis and echoed in Romans 9 through 11, he shows that God still has a sovereign plan for ethnic Israel including a coming ingathering and salvation. This hope held by church fathers, Reformers, Puritans and theologians like Edwards Spurgeon and Lloyd Jones strengthens Gentile believers confidence in Gods faithfulness.Harris warns against letting politics shape theology or sliding into unjustified anti Jewish rhetoric emphasizing instead the call to bless Israel through prayer and evangelism while upholding Christ as the Jewish Messiah and the unity of Scripture. A timely defense of Gods irrevocable promises.PowerPoint Download: https://www.patreon.com/posts/153863146Essay Format: https://jonharris.substack.com/post/192036690Our Sponsors:* Check out Mars Men: https://mengotomars.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/conversations-that-matter8971/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

The Power of Positive Thinking promised liberation from feelings of inferiority and self-doubt. But did it simply deliver us a new set of demands and anxieties to adhere to? We often consider positive thinking as a beneficial mindset that enhances performance in sports and other activities. However, it is more than just a description of a possible behaviour. It is also the title of a 1952 book by Norman Vincent Peale. The Power of Positive Thinking builds on the New Thought movement that emerged in the 1800s. It had been a response to the effects of Calvinistic Christianity on the health and well-being of Puritanical America. Donald Trump attended Peale’s Marble Collegiate Church as a child. He admired Peale’s robust, businesslike approach to Christianity. The engaging sermons lent a sense of cosmic legitimacy to his family’s brand of hyper-individualistic capitalism. https://youtu.be/hpqbMQj7bEQ The Next Stop on the Magical Thinking Tour This episode of The Gentle Rebel Podcast is part of my meandering journey exploring the history of self-help. The Power of Positive Thinking is a valuable piece of the larger puzzle. It provides a clear context for the foundational role of American Christianity in a multi-billion-dollar industry. The book faced criticism when it was published. Leaders in the Methodist church described Peale’s followers as a cult that had ceased worshipping Christ and started worshipping success. Reinhold Niebuhr, author of the Serenity Prayer, said Peale’s teachings “corrupted” the Christian gospel. He argued Peale’s message was harmful to people. On the one hand, making them feel good, while on the other hand, stopping them from seeing and confronting the real issues at the heart of their struggles. In this episode, I refer to Barbara Ehrenreich’s 2009 book, Brightsided. Ehrenreich did an excellent job contextualising the book and outlining the history of Positive Thinking and its foundations in New Thought. The Calvinist Inheritance Positive thinking emerged from New Thought. This movement was in part a reaction to the dominance of Puritanical Calvinism in the formation of the United States. Predestination meant followers were subjected to a socially enforced depression. This centred on the limited number of seats in Heaven, which have already been allocated to those God has elected. This mindset could be said to have helped the Puritans survive the harsh conditions of the New World. At the same time, they struggled to endure the psychological demands of their own religious beliefs. The doctrine’s focus on sin, election, and damnation fostered chronic anxiety about one’s salvation, often involving severe inner terror and accompanying physical ailments. The Arrival of New Thought New Thought emerged as a response to religious melancholy, physical symptoms of despair, and the fear of eternal damnation. It proposed a new perspective on illness, viewing it as a disruption in the otherwise perfect and benevolent Mind that links all things in the universe. Although New Thought approaches to healing were ineffective against the infectious diseases devastating America at the time, they appeared to have a positive effect on those suffering from neurosthenia caused by religious depression. Mary Baker Eddy was one of Phineas Quimby’s patients. After Quimby’s death, Eddy founded Christian Science, transforming New Thought into an established religion. She taught that there is no material world, only Thought, Mind, Spirit, Goodness, Love, or, “Supply.” Illness and struggle are, therefore, temporary delusions of the mind rather than real material conditions. New Thought had cured the ailment of Calvinism and the “morbidness” linked to “the old hell-fire theology.” A new era was born, in which people were encouraged to utilise the universe as an answer to prayer and a grantor of wishes. What Remained But the transition from Calvinism to New Thought wasn’t clean. Ehrenreich suggests that Positive Thinking has retained some of Calvinism’s more harmful traits. Or perhaps we have reverted to it. There is a harsh, judgmental attitude that echoes the old religion’s condemnation of sin. Our preoccupation with productivity, hustle, self-optimisation, and personal performance carries more than a hint of the Calvinistic framework that historically tormented its adherents. This shift involves transforming a judgmental God from an external entity into an internal one, residing within us as part of ourselves. It fosters a constant sense of needing to do more to be worthy or valued. It is always striving to find an indefinable sense of well-being by improving, optimising, and controlling, as it micromanages increasingly smaller details of life, in the hope of achieving freedom, happiness, and salvation or healing. Splitting Ourselves in Two Positive Thinking splits us into two; a self to work on, and a self to do the work. We’ve all seen the ‘rules,’ worksheets, self-evaluation forms, and exercises offered in the positive-thinking literature. And our language reflects the internal division between the one who wants to change and the one who refuses to obey the rules. Peale identified the greatest illness of the twentieth century as the “inferiority complex.” With this, the enemy is within. It is us. Or at least, our thoughts. We modify ourselves through monitoring and correction until we reach conditioned automation. Unfortunately for Peale, he observed that reprogramming needs to be repeated frequently because humans tend to revert to negative thinking rather than maintain a positive mindset. This, however, works in favour of the self-help industry, which has endured for so long with many nearly identical books and programmes that repackage the same ideas with new metaphors and promises. When we believe an unsolvable problem can be solved, those promising to solve it have themselves a magic money tree. The Proliferation of The Self-Help Industry Norman Vincent Peale recognised the potential of Positive Thinking in corporate America. With an ever-expanding white-collar workforce, he observed that the most crucial aspect was the work done on oneself to be more acceptable and likeable to employers, clients, coworkers, and potential customers. Positive thinking was not merely a comfort for the anxious or a remedy for psychosomatic distress. It became a societal obligation, managed and mediated with great control. And, as we will see in the next part, this began to influence the psychological well-being of those in societies where the self-help and personal development industry was booming. We will also examine how Peale instrumentalised Christianity as a tool for personal ambition and material success. If you find these self-help explorations interesting and would like to chat about them with me and others, join us in The Haven. Meet other people working through their relationship with this stuff and to chat about ways we might move beyond some of the hooks and habits that trap us.

This episode is part of Podcasthon, a global podcasting event spotlighting meaningful causes and stories that matter. What happens when fear becomes belief—and belief becomes certainty? In this episode, I speak with Kathryn Rutkowski, president of the Rebecca Nurse Homestead, about one of the most devastating stories from the Salem witch trials. Rebecca Nurse was a 71-year-old woman, deeply respected in her community, who was accused, tried, and executed for a crime she did not commit. But this conversation doesn't stay in 1692. As we explore Rebecca's story—her arrest, her quiet certainty in her innocence, and the people who risked everything to stand by her—we begin to uncover something deeper: how ordinary people become capable of extraordinary harm. We talk about fear, belief, moral panic, forgiveness, and what it means to remember history as something real—not distant, not abstract, but human. Because the question isn't just what happened in Salem. It's whether we are any different. In this episode, we explore: Who Rebecca Nurse was—and why her story stands out The role of fear, belief, and community in the Salem witch trials Why people truly believed what was happening What it meant to stand up for the accused—and the risks involved The power of remembering one person, not just an event How history becomes distorted—and how to reclaim its truth Ann Putnam Jr.'s apology and the complexity of forgiveness Why "we're no better than the Puritans" might be true About Kathryn Rutkowski Kathryn Rutkowski is the president of the Rebecca Nurse Homestead in Danvers, Massachusetts. She began working there at 14 years old and has spent decades preserving and sharing the story of Rebecca Nurse with care, depth, and reverence. Final Thought "The further away history gets, the less connected people feel to the tragedy of it."

Historian Molly Worthen discusses her new book Spellbound: How Charisma Shaped American History from the Puritans to Donald Trump — arguing that charisma isn't charm but a polarizing story that tells followers who the heroes are, who the villains are, and where they fit in. Also: Israel killed Ali Larijani, one of Iran's most powerful figures, and Western outlets responded by mourning a lost future negotiator. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist

How the Puritans converted the Indians, the origins of Harvard University Press, and the first bible in an American language. Join the ⁠⁠⁠⁠Mailing List⁠⁠⁠⁠! Join the ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon ⁠⁠⁠⁠House of Lords for ad-free episodes! Go to AirwaveMedia.com to find other great history shows. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Part 7 of our study on church historyUsing the Core Seminar from Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington DCMarch 15, 2026Pastor Aaron Frasier

In this episode, we talk about why prayer is the ignition point of spiritual life, revival, and transformation—starting not just in the church, but in the home. Drawing from a powerful 24-hour prayer experience, biblical theology, and the wisdom of the Puritans, we explore how God works when His people move forward on their knees. Prayer March: https://www.missionbible.org/prayerChat with Bre on Instagram @datenightwiththewoods Follow Pastor Tony Wood on Instagram @drtonygwood For videos, old episodes, blog posts, events, and more www.datenightfam.org

In this episode, we're reconsidering the Puritans with historian Lori Rogers-Stokes, author of Gathered Into a Church: Indigenous-English Congregationalism in Woodland New England. So much to learn! And so much to unlearn! This devout group of colonists had a tremendous influence on the culture and governance of New England, and the stereotypes don't do them justice. This one is a banger! Self-unite in Pennsylvania! Thanks, Quakers. The Simpsons go to Philadelphia.   The Gold Medal-winning U.S. women's hockey team has a Boston flavor. Go to Comfort Kitchen! Have feedback on this episode or ideas for upcoming topics? DM me on Instagram, email me, or send a voice memo. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

With the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America fast approaching, a small flood of novels set in the early days of colonization and statehood seems likely. Anneke Jans in the New World (She Writes Press, 2026) stands out because, rather than focus on the Puritans or the revolution and the founding of the nation, it explores the life of the author's ancestor, who joined the fledgling Dutch colony known as Fort Amsterdam between 1630 and 1663. This is New York City as you can't imagine it, an outpost on the mighty Hudson, surrounded by forest and mountains, with not a skyscraper or even a paved street to be seen. Anneke crosses the ocean with her husband, Roelof Jans, under the auspices of the Dutch West India Company, which in the seventeenth century was expanding across the globe. Roelof, a former sailor, sees the opportunity to settle down as a landowner in the New World, and Anneke joins him at the urging of her mother—who both wants to see her daughter settled and establish a beachhead for herself as a future midwife to the new colony. Eventually, the whole family emigrates, and the novel follows Anneke through numerous personal upheavals and joys amid the gradual disintegration of Fort Amsterdam's relationship with the Native American nations surrounding the fort. This is classic historical fiction in its focus on one central character and the many evolving relationships that define her life. It works because Anneke herself is such a well-thought-out and appealing person, and that—as well as the richly portrayed and, to me, relatively unfamiliar world that surrounds her—kept me turning pages as fast as I could. After a long career in academe, an interest in genealogy led Sandra Freels, a specialist in Russian language and literature, to the Council Records of New Netherland and the delicious stories of the people who once lived there. She claims descent from Anneke Jans and sixteen other major and minor characters in her debut novel, Anneke Jans in the New World.  C. P. Lesley is the author of two historical fiction series set during the childhood of Ivan the Terrible and four other novels. Her latest book, Song of the Steadfast, appeared in 2025. Sandra's website here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

With the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America fast approaching, a small flood of novels set in the early days of colonization and statehood seems likely. Anneke Jans in the New World (She Writes Press, 2026) stands out because, rather than focus on the Puritans or the revolution and the founding of the nation, it explores the life of the author's ancestor, who joined the fledgling Dutch colony known as Fort Amsterdam between 1630 and 1663. This is New York City as you can't imagine it, an outpost on the mighty Hudson, surrounded by forest and mountains, with not a skyscraper or even a paved street to be seen. Anneke crosses the ocean with her husband, Roelof Jans, under the auspices of the Dutch West India Company, which in the seventeenth century was expanding across the globe. Roelof, a former sailor, sees the opportunity to settle down as a landowner in the New World, and Anneke joins him at the urging of her mother—who both wants to see her daughter settled and establish a beachhead for herself as a future midwife to the new colony. Eventually, the whole family emigrates, and the novel follows Anneke through numerous personal upheavals and joys amid the gradual disintegration of Fort Amsterdam's relationship with the Native American nations surrounding the fort. This is classic historical fiction in its focus on one central character and the many evolving relationships that define her life. It works because Anneke herself is such a well-thought-out and appealing person, and that—as well as the richly portrayed and, to me, relatively unfamiliar world that surrounds her—kept me turning pages as fast as I could. After a long career in academe, an interest in genealogy led Sandra Freels, a specialist in Russian language and literature, to the Council Records of New Netherland and the delicious stories of the people who once lived there. She claims descent from Anneke Jans and sixteen other major and minor characters in her debut novel, Anneke Jans in the New World.  C. P. Lesley is the author of two historical fiction series set during the childhood of Ivan the Terrible and four other novels. Her latest book, Song of the Steadfast, appeared in 2025. Sandra's website here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

Puritans and Covenanters alike have garnered a reputation for being austere and glum. Sometimes that reputation is deserved, but often it is a most unjust caricature.  In this week's bonus episode we meet a jovial Covenanter - a man who, although serious and earnest in ministry, was approachable and joyful. He was also not averse to casting a fly.  William Guthrie of Fenwick was cousin to James Guthrie, who is the subject of the first episode in our four-part series, The Covenanter Story, which is now available to watch.    Featured resource:  Blaikie, William G., The Preachers of Scotland: From the Sixth to the Nineteenth Century (1888, repr. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001), pages 122–129.    Explore the work of the Banner of Truth: www.banneroftruth.org Subscribe to the Magazine (print/digital/both): www.banneroftruth.org/magazine Leave us your feedback or a testimony: www.speakpipe.com/magazinepodcast

Special Edition: Last Friday, I said I thought the use by evangelicals of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Clause emphasis on “religious acts” to mean protection for certain for civil conduct “diminishes the glory of Christ respecting what Christ accomplished on the Cross.” The following quotations from one of the leading Puritans on the dominion of sin and Christian liberty will be helpful preparation for this Friday's explanation of what I previously said.

Special Edition: Last Friday, I said I thought the use by evangelicals of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Clause emphasis on “religious acts” to mean protection for certain for civil conduct “diminishes the glory of Christ respecting what Christ accomplished on the Cross.” The following quotations from one of the leading Puritans on the dominion of sin and Christian liberty will be helpful preparation for this Friday's explanation of what I previously said.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Segment 1 • Pope Leo's use of Matthew 25 misapplies God's Word by turning an individual mandate into a government policy. • Learn from Speaker Mike Johnson's calm, biblical approach to hostile media questions—and why his tone matters for every Christian. • Get a crash course on what the Bible actually says about borders, nations, assimilation, and the role of civil authority. Segment 2 • Watch progressives contradict their past positions on immigration through a shocking AI-generated political montage. • Laugh (and cringe) at a satirical skit where a liberal time-travels to kill Hitler—only to discover eerie ideological overlaps. • Understand how worldview—not just politics—drives modern shifts in culture and moral reasoning. Segment 3 • John Macarthur's heartfelt worship should be a lesson for us all. • Reconsider everything you assumed about the Puritans—especially their deep focus on the love of God. • Hear how a forgotten Puritan voice might be the encouragement you need today if your faith feels more fearful than joyful. Segment 4 • Explore why love, not just justice or wrath, is the central attribute behind God's redemption plan. • Let Octavius Winslow's rich theology flood your soul with hope, assurance, and a fresh view of God's heart. • Fear of God and love from God must coexist—together, they fuel worship, holiness, and evangelism. ___ Thanks for listening! Wretched Radio would not be possible without the financial support of our Gospel Partners. If you would like to support Wretched Radio we would be extremely grateful. VISIT https://fortisinstitute.org/donate/ If you are already a Gospel Partner we couldn't be more thankful for you if we tried!

You may have heard about the significant ice storm that has swept through northeast Mississippi. Like many in our area, the Media Gratiae team has been affected, and the disruption has made it difficult for us to release a new episode this week. Still, we didn't want to leave you without encouragement. So this week we're returning to one of our most well-received series, originally published on October 13, 2022, featuring a conversation between Dr. John Snyder and Jeremy Walker on John Owen's Mortification of Sin. Our prayer is that the Lord would use these conversations to strengthen your faith and stir your hearts toward holiness, even in a week marked by disruption. We at The Whole Counsel love Puritans. We have benefited so much from their sermons, prayers, and books, it is our delight to discuss them and hopefully whet your appetite to read their words. In this new series of podcasts, Dr. John Snyder is going to walk through two books from the Puritan, John Owen, with our longtime friend Jeremy Walker. In this first episode, Jeremy and John are discussing Owen's, “On Temptation” and they discuss how to define, identify, and deal with temptation and testing. What are the differences and how should we approach them differently? Check out Jeremy's podcasts From the Heart of Spurgeon and A Word in Season here: https://www.mediagratiae.org/podcasts Temptation Resisted and repulsed by John Owen: https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/christian-living/temptation/ The Mortification of Sin by John Owen: https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/christian-living/the-mortification-of-sin/ Volume 6 of the Works of John Owen: https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/collected-workssets/the-works-of-john-owen-6/ Want to listen to The Whole Counsel on the go? Subscribe to the podcast on your favorite podcast app: https://www.mediagratiae.org/podcasts You can get The Whole Counsel a day early on the Media Gratiae App: https://subsplash.com/mediagratiae/app Show Notes Want to listen to The Whole Counsel on the go? Subscribe to the podcast on your favorite podcast app: https://www.mediagratiae.org/podcasts You can get The Whole Counsel a day early on the Media Gratiae App: https://subsplash.com/mediagratiae/app

What can the Puritans teach us about missions? This week, Alex is joined by Stephen Yuille, director of Puritan Publishing at Reformation Heritage Books, to explore who the Puritans really were and why they still matter for missions today. Yuille challenges common cultural caricatures of Puritanism, explaining that the Puritans were not merely dour moralists but a vibrant movement of pastors and theologians marked by a deep, heartfelt devotion to Christ that went beyond intellectual assent. The conversation traces how this Christ-centered theology fueled a genuine evangelistic and missionary impulse. Although the Puritans lived before what we now call “modern missions,” they were deeply concerned with the spread of the gospel, both within nominally Christian societies and among unreached peoples as the world began to open through exploration. Key Topics Covered Who the Puritans were—and why modern stereotypes about them are misleading The relationship between Reformation theology and evangelistic zeal How Puritan theology influenced William Carey and later global missions The centrality of Christ's glory as the motivation for missions Want more content from The Missions Show? Become a premium subscriber and get access to the Overtime segment where Alex and Stephen Yuille discuss what the Puritans can teach us about how to deal with weariness and fear in ministry. Sign up at missionsshow.com/premium. Do you love The Missions Show? Have you been blessed by the show? Then become a Premium Subscriber! Premium Subscribers get access to: Exclusive bonus content A community Signal thread with other listeners and the hosts Invite-only webinars A free gift! Support The Missions Show and sign up to be a Premium Subscriber at missionsshow.com/premium The Missions Show is powered by ABWE. Learn more and take your next step in the Great Commission at abwe.org. Want to ask a question or suggest a topic? Email alex@missionsshow.com.

Author Jay Rogers unpacks the impact the Puritans had on the cultural and spiritual formation of America, and their importance in retrieving their influence. https://www.forerunner.com/store/puri...

Segment 1 • Can false teachers be forgiven, or are they too far gone? - Eric • My wife and I disagree about our church. While I love it, she says she's unable to learn under our pastor. What should we do? - Anonymous Segment 2 • Todd continues his comments on the last question about difficulties learning under a pastor, and what the right next steps are. Segment 3 • Is “Todd” your real name? - Anonymous • What happened to the “Too Wretched For Radio” segment with Phil Johnson? - David • Do you have suggestions for books written by, or written about, the Puritans? - Marion • There are so many promises from God in scripture. How can I know which ones apply to me as a believer today, and which ones are for different peoples or nations depending on the context? - Merry Segment 4 • Todd continues his discussion of the Puritans, especially a book by Jeremiah Burroughs, “The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment”. • How can I help someone who is in the midst of active psychosis? - Anonymous ___ Thanks for listening! Wretched Radio would not be possible without the financial support of our Gospel Partners. If you would like to support Wretched Radio we would be extremely grateful. VISIT https://fortisinstitute.org/donate/ If you are already a Gospel Partner we couldn't be more thankful for you if we tried!

This Episode is dedicated to the People (those living and fighting another day from Venezuela to Iran to Minneapolis to N.E.W. Oakland to Chicago to Brooklyn to Harlem to Queens, the Bronx, Jackson, Mississippi, Memphis, Alannuh, to Gaza to Cuba to LA, the martyrs, the humans, the siblings, the children, mothers, fathers, lovers, artists, creatives, fisherman, etc. amerikkkan media rather call casualties); the lives of Keith Porter, Jean Wilson Brutus and Renee Nicole Goode alt episode titles: -The Genius of Marlon Riggs -The Genius of Dee Rees -The Genius of Patrik Ian-Polk -Heated Rivalry: Crude Oil, Crude White Gays and Cis Puritanical Imperialisms in a world of "boy love" and racial hatred -The Geopolitical Consequences of "boy love" and Not Reading or just reading fanfic -Those pesky Blacks fucking up my colonized fantasies of world domination -Heated Descendants of Puritans and Black Sexuality as a Threat to the State -What would Meg Ryan do? -Bolivarian Process and African Diasporic Connection -"Men are so Back"

JAMES I, THE GUNPOWDER PLOT, AND THE RISE OF THE MIDDLING SORT Colleague Jonathan Healey. King James I faces a divided England upon his accession, navigating religious tensions between Catholics, Puritans, and the mainstream. The 1605 Gunpowder Plot, a radical Catholic attempt to blow up Parliament, fuels lasting anti-Catholic paranoia and associates Catholicism with tyranny. Healey explains the rise of the "middling sort," a wealthy, literate class of farmers and lawyers who increasingly comprise the voting body in Parliament. Meanwhile, Jamesstruggles with structural inflation and attempts to avoid the fractious Parliament by keeping England out of expensive foreign wars. NUMBER 11670 CHARLES II

The Puritans and the early colonists found more monsters in America than just witches. The Devil had birthed a variety of what were often called “monstrous births” and they became signs and omens for the believers in an angry god. Spectral, shape-shifting dogs, along with demonic, giant black bears, haunted the woods around the settlements. They believed they were surrounded by evil spirits in the sea, the rivers, lakes, forests, and swamps around them. But the Puritans were not the only ones finding monsters on the American frontier. Sea serpents swam in our waters and strange beasts populated the wilderness that loomed over most new American settlements. But the response to the beasts the settlers met were not always the same and didn't always share the Puritan desire to destroy all monsters or cleanse the American landscape – no matter how devilish the monsters might be. Instead, they turned them into legends.Our Sponsors:* Check out Shopify: https://shopify.com/hauntings* Check out TruDiagnostic and use my code HAUNTINGS for a great deal: https://www.trudiagnostic.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/american-hauntings-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In 1647 Christmas vanished by the decree of the Puritans who ruled Britain. But not everyone complied. Families lit candles behind closed doors, whispered carols, and held secret services. And protestors in Canterbury launched the infamous "plum pudding riots". This was more than a fight over festivities; it was a struggle over power and belief.Prof. Suzannah Lipscomb is joined by Prof. Mark Stoyle to explore how the war on Christmas revealed a deeper contest between authority and resistance, godliness and joy, and how echoes of it can even be found in the works of C.S. Lewis and Charles Dickens.MORE:Tudor Christmas CarolsListen on AppleListen on SpotifyTudor Ghosts and Angels: Spirits of Christmas PastListen on AppleListen on SpotifyPresented by Professor Suzannah Lipscomb. The researcher is Max Wintle, audio editor is Max Carrie and the producer is Rob Weinberg. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Not Just the Tudors is a History Hit podcastSign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Remnant coup d'état continues as Kevin Williamson sits down with journalist Colin Woodard to talk about our country's most deeply seated cultural divisions. Woodard and Williamson cover Texas, the Puritans, Appalachia, Donald Trump's ethnonationalism, regional Covid-19 trends, and shifting party geography. Shownotes:—Nations Apart: How Clashing Regional Cultures Shattered America—American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America—Old Deluder Satan Act of 1647—J.D. Vance's Claremont speech—Homeland Security “a heritage to be proud of” tweet—Kevin on John Brown for The Dispatch—The Pell Center Nationhood Lab—“Nationhood Lab: The Story of America” report The Remnant is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of Jonah's G-File newsletters—⁠click here⁠. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠by clicking here⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"In the fall of 1620, the Mayflower embarked on a 3,000-mile journey across the Atlantic Ocean. Over the next nine weeks, its passengers and crew battled fierce storms and rampant illness. They had left England dangerously late in the season, and provisions ran low. In the ship's cramped cabins, the Puritan Separatists shared close quarters with a group known as “Strangers” who did not share their tight bonds or religious beliefs. When strong gales blew the ship off course, tensions between the Puritans and the Strangers exploded, threatening to tear the colony apart before they even set foot in the New World.Be the first to know about Wondery's newest podcasts, curated recommendations, and more! Sign up now at https://wondery.fm/wonderynewsletterListen to American History Tellers on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Experience all episodes ad-free and be the first to binge the newest season. Unlock exclusive early access by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Start your free trial today by visiting wondery.com/links/american-history-tellers/ now."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.