[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:08] Speaker B: Welcome in to the Think Diva podcast presented by Focus Press. I am your co host Joe Wilkie, joined as always by Jack Wilke and Will Harab. And today we are discussing something that's been in the news that by the time this drops, I think will be very much in the news where we're guessing. And so we figured we're going to talk about it and that is the end of SNAP benefits with BET and with the government shutdown. Ebt, sorry, not bet, the.
Or with the government shutdown. And yeah, there are a lot of things happening. There are a lot of folks that are hurting right now. There are a lot of, you know, folks that because the government has shut down, crazy things are happening. I saw something in Orlando about the air traffic controllers and now they're majorly delayed. I think that's going to be continuing. So we're going to wait to kind of see how far and widespread this goes with the government shutdown and what all ends up happening. But for right now, we are discussing welfare. We're discussing SNAP today. And so, gentlemen, as we get started, any introductory thoughts before we get into what I consider. Jack, you put together a great outline.
[00:01:12] Speaker C: This is one that there's very much a balance to walk here of compassion and care, but also that it's kind of the weaponized empathy thing, like, well, then everything goes well. No, there's a right way and a wrong way to do some of these things. And that's going to be a big part of the discussion is, yeah, we care about people, we want people to be fed. There is a duty, you know, for Christians, but also for government. You know, Jesus said you're always going to have the poor with you, those kinds of things.
And so handling that in the right way for sure is.
But there is a right way. And so that's going to be a big part of our discussion is like not having that without compassion, just saying, ah, you know, just go take care of yourself. And if they start or let them eat cake or something like that, you know, that's not what we're going to say. But on the other hand, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some guardrails and some discussions about how this, these programs should work. So that's, that's my thoughts.
[00:02:06] Speaker A: Yeah, I would say just to, just to add to the introductory thoughts here, I think for the Christian, it's a difficult balance to strike between.
Yeah, like you're saying that compassion and I want to care for people, I want to take care of the poor. I know we've discussed on this podcast Matthew 25 before and how that sometimes can get, you know, certainly misused and misapplied. But I think a lot of Christians have that desire to help and to, you know, those who are less fortunate. I think there's a New Testament angle that I want a question I want to ask later on and get to later. And so there's that. But then also there's a lot of, you know, very logical, sensical people looking at it, going, okay, you know, how far does that need to go?
How much support needs to be provided? How is this impacting, you know, the people that aren't on those benefits? And so we, we got a lot to unpack with this. And Joe, I guess I'll hand it back to you if you want to get into kind of some of the statistics that we've seen and obviously more and more kind of coming out over the last few days is more and more people are getting up in arms about losing these benefits. So I'll hand it back to you, Joe. This first number that you're going to read as far as the number of people that at one point or another, at some point received these benefits, was astounding to me. As far as the total number. Go for it, Joe.
[00:03:24] Speaker B: Yeah, so what, what the statistics show is 42 million people in America right around 42 million people are in receiving SNAP, receiving EBT benefits. And man, you think about that, that's one in eight Americans. Basically, one in eight Americans are as of November, really in trouble right now.
And 30, I think the average, they say more than 38% are in working families. More than 62% of SNAP participants are in families with children. So a lot of families are going to be feeling it, are going to be struggling, especially throughout November. And that's kind of the crux of the show is what do we do with that as a church? Is this. We can look at the program. I think we can critique, and we want to do a little bit of that critique the SNAP benefit program itself. But we also have to realize there's 42 million people that are going to be hurting.
That's, you know, there's a lot to that that I think the church is going to have to figure out. What do we do with that? You're going to have people come into food banks and you're going to have people looking for some financial support in. How does the church step up in moments like this? What is our duty as a church to step up in moments like this. There's a lot of those that are receiving it. I don't know the full. There's statistics going around that I don't think you're accurate in terms of how many are illegals that are receiving it. We just know there's millions of illegals receiving it that aren't putting into the program, things like that.
[00:04:41] Speaker C: One of the things I'll say with that is, like, there. There are charts of how many people are on. It just spiked from 2020. And obviously a lot of people were sent to unemployment in 2020 when the world shut down and businesses were forced to close and things like that. But also in that time, we've brought in tens, at least 10 million people. I mean, like, the. The numbers in economics and demographics and all that have gone insane. And a big part of that is more food paid out to all kinds of people.
[00:05:10] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. So when you look at that, 42 million people. Yeah. You know, what do we.
I don't know if we want to just jump right into this. There's a political element to this of.
I think everything gets politicized. There's a Christian element to what do we do with our neighbors? And what. What about the people that aren't really our neighbors? You know, and we could say, well, the people that come in illegally, they're still our neighbors to some degree. Do we have a duty to them?
As you look at this program, Matt Walsh has some really good stuff on his X or Twitter page if you pop on over there. But he reposted one thing that I thought was really interesting.
Food stamp spending was just 4.5 billion in December 2019. By December 2022, thanks to a massive expansion by the Biden admin, food stamp spending was 11 billion per month.
11 billion per month. By some estimates, food prices go up by 1% for every 12% increase in food stamp spending. In this case, we're looking at a percentage increase of nearly 150%. So you could do the math on that. It's more than a 10% increase in your grocery bill every single month. Well, when you have 42 million Americans that are on this, 42 million people that are. That are on this, illegal or not legal. And as you said, Jack, you know, and what this is showing after 2020, this really spiked by December 2022. You see that? I know Covid takes place in that time, but 11 billion. A jump from 4.5 billion to 11 billion per month in this. Yeah. That's why we're getting killed at the grocery store. The Average American goes in, in.
It's just insane how much we're having to spend. This is a big part of the problem.
[00:06:34] Speaker A: Which brings us to kind of that other angle of this, and that is, Joe, you kind of asked the question, what is our duty? What is our maybe level of responsibility toward those who are going to need those benefits and are hurting without it?
What level of responsibility do we have for the other way around, for the young family who is not receiving those benefits, that has a newborn and you know, guy, an entry level job who's, you know, certainly not living very high, but is not necessarily at the poverty line and their grocery bill is, is, you know, going up 10% every month.
[00:07:06] Speaker B: Or whatever it is.
[00:07:07] Speaker A: And they've seen, you know, and they're struggling and they're in our church and.
[00:07:10] Speaker B: His taxes are insane to pay for it.
[00:07:13] Speaker A: Right, exactly. And so that's a, you know, I think that's part of the equation of this that doesn't get thought about it a lot. And you know, I think a lot of people within, you know, the Church of Christ, you know, a lot of people that I know are going to be just fine with the increase in grocery bills. Like, it's, it's inconvenient, it's annoying, but like, you know, nobody's going to starve. There are some people that again, they have young kids and, you know, maybe, you know, didn't graduate college and so has entry level job. And so they're really going to be struggling to get by. They're not receiving those benefits and their grocery bill is just sky high because so many people are receiving these benefits. And so, you know, to kind of quote the cause. I found that Matt Walsh thing too, is just fascinating. So that's the other angle of this that I think we have to at least consider is, you know, we can say like, you know, let's help all these people and you know, man, it's really important that we take care somebody's paying for it. And in many cases it's, you know, there are people paying for it by their grocery bill that can't afford to pay for it. So I'm glad you brought that up because I think that's an important angle.
[00:08:12] Speaker C: Well, that also gets us into the Bible. Part of this a little bit is some people are going to be hearing this and saying, well, social justice. And you read the minor proph and talking about doing justice and not taking advantage of the poor and the downtrodden and things like that, therefore we have to do this. No, it Literally goes the other direction actually, because you think about who benefits from this money being printed and handed out. Walmart and Target and Kroger and all those people and Coca Cola and Frito Lay and all these mega corporations of hey, we'll print money that deflates the dollar of hard working people.
I mean that inflates the dollar of hard working people and makes it worth less and they've got to work harder and the price of groceries goes up and all of that goes into profits for these people. And so with Walmart, they love this program and it's one of the best things that could ever happen to them. Those are the billionaires, those are the people getting rich off of this. And it's the people in the middle that get squeezed. Even some people who are on the benefits that are having a hard time getting off of them, they're working and can't afford to make ends meet with it.
And so they are on this government program. It's this vicious cycle in which people, some people can't get out of it. Some people are constantly kept at a minimum, like not living on this ridiculously high standard standard of living. And this is where you get the folks come into the conversation, well, you know what, you guys with your iPhones and your avocado toast and people driving through, if you just stop going through the drive throughs, there are a lot of people who never do any of those things, who do not eat out, who do not go to Starbucks, who do not have 10 stream platforms, you know, paying for their TV, things like that and still having a hard time making it. And so it's programs like this that are making it harder on them. So if you want to talk about social justice, I say this every time we have these empathy conversations. There's the obvious short term, oh yeah, let's just hand them this.
But if you look at the bigger picture, it's the opposite of what you think it is.
[00:10:08] Speaker B: Jack, you read, I think you were reading an interesting article, so you can probably speak more to this, but they were talking about, or I don't know where you got this, but they were talking about how Walmart works where they will hire somebody at subsistence level, basically, you know, 10, 12 bucks an hour knowing they're going to be eligible for EBT because they don't have the money, you know, for SNAP benefits. They don't make enough money. Well guess where they do the shopping for their SNAP benefits? Walmart. So Walmart underpays them, puts them on these programs, SNAP programs and then ends up getting the money back from the SNAP programs.
[00:10:37] Speaker A: So they made more money off of it.
[00:10:38] Speaker B: Correct. They're getting the government money, and they're getting the money from the consumers. And so they rake in the process.
[00:10:43] Speaker C: This is anecdotal, but somebody posted on a forum about, like, is it true that so many of Walmart employees are on.
On snap? Somebody responded, my niece got hired at Walmart a couple years ago. Her new employee training included a class on how to apply for food stamps and Medicaid.
Again, that's why they do this. Like, this is, you know, Walmart. We are helping fund the Walton family's billions, which, hey, they own the Denver Broncos. So it comes back to me just a little. I'm just kidding.
Like, that's the problem here, is that they know how to take the money from me and you and our listeners here and underpay their people. And so this is one of those that when you get into economic socialism and biblical economics and things like that, some people say, well, socialism and kind of everybody having a piece of the pie and everyone paying their fair share. That's biblical. Like, well, no, no, no. There's some bad ideas there. On the other hand, you're gonna see a meeting in the middle here in a few years where people from the right are gonna start seeing, hey, these corporations are cheating people like crazy, and this is unethical. And the talk about billionaires and all those things.
Yeah. How did they get. How does Bezos get to where he is? How did a lot of these guys get to where they are? By scamming the system. Like, you can't. Basically, you can't do it without government help. I mean, you look at Elon, how many government contracts he's got and sub, you know, the subsidies his companies get, things like that at the expense of people at the bottom. And so you say, well, man, you're sounding like a commie. Like, I say, you're gonna see a right, left meeting in the middle on economics because there is an injustice here. There are people getting rich off of funding these kinds of programs. So that's a bit of a rant and a tangent, but it very much applies to this biblical social justice thing of those at the top taking advantage of people at the bottom.
[00:12:29] Speaker A: Ask this. And this is kind of maybe branching off in a different direction, but it's something that is on my mind with this episode that I want to get Yalls thoughts on one of the things that I struggle with. And maybe this is just something that, you know, I personally need to, to improve my, you know, attitude on or whatever it is.
I have a really hard time trying having compassion for people who. I feel like the reason I need to have compassion for them is because they have self inflicted wounds, poor decisions, they're really bad with money.
Maybe they, you know, you know, unmarried people have a kid they shouldn't, you know, stuff, stuff like that I have a really hard time showing compassion for. Again, somebody who has a bunch of self inflicted wounds, makes really stupid decisions, all those things.
What level of responsibility does the Christian in your opinion have for somebody like that? For somebody who maybe, maybe truly does need these benefits, but they need these benefits because they've made a lot of really bad decisions. They need these benefits again because they, you know, just have no, no control on their spending and racked up credit card debt. Or again, they just, they, they, you know, quit a job every two months and just because they can't stick through with something, you know what I mean? Like self inflicted wounds like that.
I personally struggle having any kind of sympathy or any kind of compassion for people like that. I know that's again, just kind of a hypothetical example here.
And we've talked before and I would agree that for somebody within our congregations we need to have more compassion for than somebody who is not. Galatians 6 do good to all, but especially those who are of the household of faith. But I don't know what are yalls thoughts on that? I mean, is that something that.
[00:14:18] Speaker B: We.
[00:14:18] Speaker A: Should maybe have more levels of compassion and sympathy even despite their self inflicted wounds Or I guess my question is at what point is it like, okay, you guys, you need to do something about the situation that you're in. You can't constantly have people come in and bail you out and save the day. And maybe that's a bad attitude that I have. I don't know what, what thoughts you guys have on that. That's kind of been running through my head since we've been talking about this episode.
[00:14:39] Speaker B: Jack spoke to the cheapness earlier.
[00:14:41] Speaker C: The, the.
[00:14:43] Speaker B: The cheap way of helping somebody out is giving them the money. It's kind of give a man a fish, feed him for a day, right? That mentality. This is where I think the church can do the most good. I've seen churches that offer like financial peace, you know, from Dave Ramsey or something along those lines where they're looking for education. They're trying to help people help themselves.
That's what I try to do in my therapy is try to get them to help themselves and hopefully be able to help others and change their patterns where they're not back in therapy in two months or whatever type of thing. Like you want to teach people how to think and how to get out of these things. But yeah, there's a lot of people that are down on their luck and there's a lot of people that are.
We talk about sheep, right? Somebody's got to be a sheep. They can't all be the shepherds, they can't all be the, you know, the super savvy. Like there's going to be a lot of people that don't get it. They don't know even it's a mean thing. But you look like the bell curve with.
I know, people debunk that and they get real upset about it. But it's like there's an IQ difference from people, from person to person type of thing. Sometimes that factors in. Sometimes it's family trauma, family generational issues that pass down. Sometimes it's where you're born, sometimes it's the environment you grew up in. So there's so many factors that create. And this is why I love being a therapist is just getting to hear people's stories and help them from whatever walk of life, whether they're millionaires down to poverty line.
It's a.
Everybody's unique and everybody's struggling in their own ways. So if we can help people with wherever they're at, that to me is kind of the work of the church. Yeah, we're going to be able to, we're going to need to show up for some people financially in other ways though. I think this is where an elder can come in and meet across the table, kitchen table, from a family that is perpetually asking for money from the church and go, okay, let's talk about finances, let's help you there. Because it's not me being nosy, it's me saying, we want to be able to help you. And I don't think that us giving you $1,000 more is going to help you. I think us sitting across the table and figuring these things out now that's on a very micro level. You know, that's not going to happen for most.
But I have compassion for people knowing that there is a lot of again, environmental factors that create this. On the other hand, Will, you're right. Some people do this to themselves. There are, there's a self sabotaging element to some of this. For some people, there's a. They don't know any better, they don't know how to get better.
But that's why I think we should be thinking about how to help people rather than just what to give them. But you know, how do we get them to.
[00:16:55] Speaker A: How to get them out of that.
[00:16:55] Speaker B: How to get them out of that where they don't fall back into it. Jack, what are your thoughts?
[00:16:59] Speaker C: Well, I was thinking about Leviticus 19 and that this goes all the way back into Levitical law of taking care of people. And I'll just read the passage 19, 9 and 10 says, now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest, nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord your God. So there is compassion, there is charity. There's all that.
It doesn't say glean it for them and take it to them. Like there's a dignity to that of you can. And you see that in the book of Ruth beautifully, right? That's how she meets Boaz. She's out there doing exactly that. It was left for the needy. She's working really hard, right. There's a dignity to that as two widowed women that she's supporting her mother in law. Neither of them have a supporter. She's out there doing the work. And that's a really beautiful thing that God instituted there, is that you can give somebody their dignity in earning it.
Even if there's a charity element, you know, it's yours to give.
But they, you, there's, it's not, it's not a handout.
[00:17:56] Speaker A: There's still effort being put forth. Right.
[00:17:58] Speaker C: And that's part of the problem of this, of this program, of it just shows up in the account every month and you just go and spend it and on all the kinds of things you can spend it on. And maybe we can talk a little bit about like what it has been designated for and what it used to be and maybe limitations that would help. Kind of you want this to be where if people are permanently stuck like a Ruth, like if Boaz doesn't come along, she and Naomi are probably pretty much permanently stuck. Right, right there. They don't have a windfall coming.
[00:18:29] Speaker A: They don't.
[00:18:29] Speaker C: She doesn't have upward mobility in society. It's just not gonna happen. We've got people like that.
And so it's, it's important that there be things for people like that that preserve their dignity, but get them the help they need, but also put up guardrails so somebody's not on it forever. That shouldn't be, you know, second Thessalonians 3:10. If a man doesn't work, neither shall he eat. That needs to come into this too. That the people that are capable, the people that actually could get themselves out of this and get on a better track, like you're saying, through financial education, through whatever it may be.
We had a guy, a homeless guy we helped at a congregation I was working with.
And it was one of those. After a month or two, you just realized, like, this is how he got this way. He had lived with an uncle, couldn't get along with him, got kicked out. He got a new job even though while he was still homeless. He was a mechanic. He had mechanical skills. Got a new job after two weeks. Fire like, no, he quit. Quit and a huff. Didn't like the way they did things. Got a job at another mechanic place. After two weeks, he quit. Didn't like the way they did things. Like.
[00:19:30] Speaker A: Right. That's what I'm getting at.
[00:19:32] Speaker C: That's exactly an example to kind of put a picture on what you're getting at there of at a certain point where me and the elders are looking at each other like, all right, he's had opportunities, he's not taken them. We can't just keep giving out of the church coffers for something like this. And so, yeah, those kind of considerations definitely need to be there.
Hey, folks, Jack here and I wanted to tell you about some restoration movement resources from our new sponsor. If you're interested in the history of the church, Cobb Publishing has got what you need. From general overviews like FW Maddox's Eternal the History of the Church of Christ to biographies of Restoration movement leaders like Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott Raccoon, John Smith and several others, you will be able to satisfy your church history
[email protected] shop. From classics like their bicentennial edition of Alexander Campbell's the Christian Baptist, the two volume Complete Alabama Restoration Journal Collection, or brand new books like out of the Shadows, Women of the Restoration Movement, you will find the perfect gift for the restoration movement enthusiasts on your gift list. Find reliable histories of the
[email protected] shop that's Cobb c o b b publishing.com shop.
[00:20:46] Speaker A: That's where the church angle of this is interesting to me as well. Obviously there's the government program that kind of we're talking about that we have to fund, you know, regardless of our choice, with our taxes that we pay and we can, you know, talk about whether or not that needs to be something that continues or not.
The church angle of this is interesting as well as, you know, churches are known as some. Somewhere that people can go to, kind of ask for money, kind of ask for help and handouts and things like that. And again, people will, people will quote once again, Matthew 25 and things like that as a reason to kind of just, yeah, hand out whatever's needed. And I think there is.
We talked about how Matthew 25 talks about, you know, doing things to, to one of these brothers. And so there's a very strong argument that that is more so referring to people within the church and not necessarily just any random stranger out in the world. But I do think there's a time and a place to, to give and to, you know.
You know, I think it. Sometimes that money can be better spent helping somebody out than it can taking the youth group to Six Flags or something like that. Like, I definitely think that there's an argument to be made for that.
At the same time, just to echo Jack here, I think sometimes you do from a church angle when you're looking at somebody, prospective family to help or a person to help. I've thought before about, you know, a guy gets laid off from his job. We had something like that at our congregation two or three years ago now, where guy was out of work for several months, five or six months. And you know, I think congregations should be equipped to at least help with some of that under the kind of condition of like, hey, you're, you know, you're applying for jobs, right? When's your next interview type of thing. Like, what's your, what's your next step? And that, that should, we shouldn't just dole out God's money or the church's money kind of endlessly to people who aren't looking to help themselves. So I appreciate you guys humoring me on that point. That was just something that has been on my mind because. And again, maybe that's the kind of a character thing that I need to improve on is like, I don't like helping people who I feel like are self destructing who are, who are making really bad decisions and doing things that they shouldn't.
[00:22:47] Speaker B: So well, I think that's again, where the money is not what they need. They need guidance, they need help, they need maybe therapy. They need, you know, something, they don't need money.
[00:22:55] Speaker A: Why they say don't. What if they don't give the money to the guy? That's Standing and begging because he's going to go buy alcohol with it. Like actually give him, you know, give him food. Give him food or something. Yeah.
[00:23:03] Speaker B: Gift cards or whatever to Subway or something. Yeah, I mean, that's the. We used to do that as a church back in Colorado. We lived by massive homeless population by couple seedy motels, you know, that. That they'd go stay at. Well, we would give people gift cards to place deed and then we put them up in one of the, you know, a better hotel so that they could kind of get away from some of the seedy places. And you know, we give them a couple nights to try to help people get back on their feet, even if it was just a short time. Like, no, we can't give a ton. We're a small congregation, 40, 45 members somewhere around there.
But we had ways to try to help other people just to get them on their feet and to say, man, if you're helping yourself, this might help you a little bit down the road.
And that to me is kind of the where we need to be. It's the same thing as churches that offer food banks or offer like a clothing supply or whatever it may be. I think that's great, people being able, like helping people. And we've talked about it before of the order of importance. I think we need to be able to help people in our congregation first and foremost. On the other hand, this might be a great time for evangelism where, no, I'm not a big fan of just giving people money. But hey, we might be able to help you here there type of thing if you're really down on your luck and I don't know. So that's. Yeah, that opens an interesting discussion. We've talked about this before but like how much should churches be looking to help the world in this? And Jack, I know you got some thoughts on this. Again, this is not new territory for us. But on the other hand, this is getting very real where we are going to have these discussions. People are going to be walking into church looking maybe for the handout.
What do we do in those situations? Do we wait? You know, if you're a church, if you're an eldership, do you wait for your members who may be struggling just as much? Maybe you have some members that are on SNAP benefits and they're really going to need it and you hold that money. Or do you look at maybe starting a food bank or something along those lines to help those that are really struggling and we don't know how long this is going to go on again. This is very preliminary. Maybe they stopped the government shutdown within two weeks, things are back to normal.
[00:24:56] Speaker C: It might be over by the time this hits on.
[00:24:58] Speaker B: That's true. I mean it might be. So you just don't know. But let's say this is going on for a month or whatever. How would you as an elder, and this is all hypothetical. I'm curious to get your guys thoughts as an eldership. Are you looking at a potential evangelism opportunity here or do you save that money to potentially help members that might need it?
[00:25:18] Speaker C: I know this can be a little bit idealistic, but I kind of feel like if we were doing things right that churches, if they're financially capable, some of them aren't, but should be to the like, nobody in your church is on SNAP EBT because they're getting taken care of by the church. And that's really one of the things that complicates this whole thing is that the government has swallowed up charity so much that the church is supposed to do that it's supposed to be helpful for that. And churches still do these things. Food banks and nonprofit organizations have kind of come in and helped fill in the gaps where the government has fallen short or people need other things or whatever the case may be, or people who don't qualify but still need it. I mean there's a lot of weird ways that some people get left out in the cold and I'm glad those organizations are there to do those kinds of things. But within our own, I fully believe we should start with our own do good to all, but especially those of the household of faith as we said. And so one other point I'll make on that is in First Timothy 5 where it talks about the widows and it seems very much to be talking about financially supporting the widows.
Paul gives qualifications for like it's not just oh, you know, you're widowed, here's, here's your money. It's. He talks about putting them on the list which seems to be for the, the church to support and take care of them. And there's certain qualifications they have to meet, there's certain things they have to do. And really more than do is, is to be.
He says in first Timothy 5, 9 to be put on the list if she is not less than 60 years old, having been the wife of one man, having a reputation for good works, if she's brought up children, shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work. And then he says refuse to put younger widows on the list like that. There's things you have to do and you really need to be a very devout woman. There's some ways in which that overlaps with the elder qualifications that hey, if the church is going to carry this older lady, absolutely. But it should be a lady who has served the church and kind of earned the care of the church as kind of a mother to that church.
And so we're just kind of this indiscriminate just give to everybody thing. Like well, let's start with the widows in our church. Are they cool? Are their houses going to be warm enough this winter? Are they standing in food lines, things like that? I mean, like start there and with people who really qualify and if after that you still have an abundance, okay, then I think you can start looking out and starting programs and helping people. But I know my take on that's a little bit unorthodox, but I don't know, that's kind of, I think it's.
[00:27:46] Speaker A: I think it's a very good take. I think that first Timothy passage is fascinating when it's referring to kind of the, like you said, the qualifications of who should be eligible. My translation in verse 10 has this one. This widow needs to be well reported for good works. They need to be some fruit in her life. And I think it's so interesting that specifically if she has brought up children, you know, if she's, if she's been a faithful mother, if she's lodged strangers, if she's, if she's been hospitable, she's washed the saints feet, if she's served the church and some way, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work, that doesn't, that doesn't characterize every single woman in the church. That is a very specific, you know, kind of an elevated once again qualification for people or for somebody to receive assistance. And so to me what this does is this does add credence to Joe, to answer your question, to the idea of you get to run your chair, your prospective church giving or church charity through a bit of a filter, who's earned it kind of thing. And I know a lot of people think that that might be unfair or harsh of like man, we should just help whoever needs it. I am a firm believer in running that through a filter and that you can be choosy with. I mean we do that with our own money, right? For the most part. If they're, you know, if we have a charity we want to give to, we're not just giving, oh, I got a letter in the mail. Sure, I'll give charity. I guess maybe some people do that, but I certainly don't like, Sure, I guess I'll send money that way. No, we give money to the works that we know, right? To the works that we believe in, to the works that we really feel like are making a difference from a, again, a personal giving perspective. We run those things through a filter.
I think this first Timothy passage, I'm really glad Jack put that on the list, is pretty good evidence to the fact that the church also needs to have somewhat of a filter. Be a little bit choosy with who are we just kind of, again, doling money out to. Well reported for good works. They've borne some fruit. I think that's. To go back to your original question, Joe. I think that's probably the lens the oldest should be looking.
[00:29:38] Speaker B: I also wonder if there's a level where we could look at Jesus and who he decides to heal, who he decides to give to.
On the one hand, we see him feeding the 5,000. We see him giving people the bread, knowing that most of those people aren't going to stick around to know Him. But on the other hand, we see him deny. Like, I'm not just looking to heal, to heal. Like, there's got to be a faith element to this where they're coming to him and understanding who he is. And I'm not saying we're Jesus and I'm not saying there's a perfect parallel, but I am curious if that comes into this discussion of like, those that were just looking for a free handout. Yeah, thanks, but no thanks, you know, type of thing. Yeah, I'll take your healing, but I don't really want you.
There seems to be a bit of a distance with Jesus, like he's expecting the faith to follow that. And I wonder if there's a level of that, like just a lesson in there for us from a.
They're looking for the free handout from the church. Couldn't care less about Christ. They couldn't care less about anything other than the free handout from the church, you know, from the money.
[00:30:29] Speaker C: There was also the calling the Gentile woman a dog because it was like, hey, I'm here to take care of these people first. And not that he had no interest in Gentiles. Obviously the gospel went to Gentiles eventually, but it was because she showed faith that he was like, okay, you know, fair enough. And helped her out. But he very much had a prioritization there, like we're talking.
[00:30:49] Speaker B: Exactly. So to that degree, I think we can also bring that in as a. Once again, just a lesson that we can learn from this. I think faith has to be a certain part of it. There's a.
I think it's North MacArthur. Many, many of our listeners may be familiar with it. In Oklahoma City, great church, they have a program where they let, you know, guys, come play basketball, but they also have, you have to show up to class in order to play basketball on Wednesday night. And they get guys from the community galore. They baptize several guys from this, where it's like, you know, you don't just get to come in and play basketball. You got to show something. You got to. You got to be in class. You got to be able to participate and things like that, knowing that you are showing up. And sure enough, they have something to offer. They don't just give it away for free. Like, no, we expect you to come to this. And they've started tons of Bible studies and baptized people through that. And I think that's a great way of doing it, is we do have something to offer, and we'd be happy to give it to you, but we also want to know that you're not just taking advantage of our resources. And that's great that you have this, but who cares about the rest of it? Like, no, you need to be a part of something in order to glean the benefits from this.
And so I don't know the other thing that's interesting in this. And again, this is just a side discussion as we're talking about churches and charity and things like that. On the one hand, you have the.
This is what's fascinating about it. You have the David Platts who are taking away, you know, graham crackers from the kids so they can give more to the missionaries or goldfish, I think was what came out. They're taking away goldfish from the kids because, well, you know, missionary could use that, which is ridiculous. On the other hand, you have things like the Catholic Church building entire hospitals, building huge cathedrals that cost modern money, like millions of dollars to build these things maybe back then, and not modern money, millions, who knows? You know, just ridiculous amounts of money. And so you have kind of two ends of the spectrum. And I think it's easy for us to come in and then parse out, like, what we think is right or appropriate to give, to, not give to. To the point that we can be shorting our little 5 year olds goldfish because, well that's not for the Lord, the point of, you know, opulence and things like that. And I think there's, I think it's important to support missionaries. I also think it's important for beauty. I think it's important for the church to be able to, you know, to provide like buildings and things like that. And so that's what makes this discussion so difficult. And I know in the, in the context of SNAP benefits we're talking specifically money for people, but like churches are going to have to answer to God and that's why this is an interesting discussion. Elders are going to have to answer to God as to what did you do with the money that came in? I think it should be more of a deacon thing than an elder thing personally as we see the deacons taking care of the widows in Act 6 and such.
But it's the money is such a fascinating discussion because there's so much that we can support and I find that so many churches, especially Church Christ, seem to just funnel right to the missionaries. They lean more to the David Platt side of things. Not that we're that bad taking away goldfish. On the other hand, it's like missionary, missionary, missionary when we do have community stuff. Exactly.
[00:33:31] Speaker C: Well, so to take back to Jesus and the woman where he said it's not right to give the children's bread to the dogs, that establishes a principle that there are children like. And so that's kind of the question I guess you're getting at is for the churches to say who are the children, who are the dogs? And we'll feed the dog like they get the leftovers and things like that. So I kind of want to swing around to a different discussion. Will do you had anything to add on this?
[00:33:54] Speaker A: No, go for it.
[00:33:55] Speaker C: Alright, so bringing it back to something we got into a little bit a few minutes ago, but maybe we'll kind of finish the conversation here before we get to our think fast the dignity angle of it. We talked about incentivizing people to work and all that. One of the discussions that has floated around the SNAP EBT issue is what should we should be given to people. Of course there was the Oliver Anthony Richmond north of Richmond that hit song a couple summers ago where he talked about people with their, our tax dollars paying for their fudge rounds and they're, you know, for obese people, whatever. And on the one hand that was very controversial and that was people saying that was not very loving of him to say that and others, it kind of resonated to say, yeah, if you need government help, it shouldn't be for 12 packs of Coke. It shouldn't be for Little Debbie cakes. It should be for, from what I understand, what it used to be, cheese, eggs, bread, staples, things like that. Because it. I mean, SNAP Nutrition assistance is the N A in snap. Fudge rounds aren't nutritional assistance. And so that's been a discussion on this. But on the other hand, you get back to the dignity thing. It's like, it's okay to charitably give people something that maybe is a little above the bare minimum. But on the other hand, you're also incentivizing people to stay there if they can just keep loading up the grocery cart with whatever they want. So, I don't know, it's hard to balance. So I'll throw that to you guys to kind of help parse that out.
[00:35:16] Speaker A: A. I wanted to bring up the incentive thing a while ago, and I forgot, so I'm glad you brought that up. Like there needs to be. If you. If somebody is incentivized by receiving benefits like these, where they can just kind of, again, they receive a card that it's, you know, money gets loaded onto it and they can just go to the grocery store and kind of buy whatever they want that's not. With not their money.
What level of incentive does that give somebody to kind of graduate out of that, right, to go find a better job or to really work hard to earn their, you know, to work through work and go to school at the same time so that they can, again, get a better job or whatever it is, there's not a lot of incentive there. And so, you know, speaking as somebody who has no ability whatsoever to change the way the SNAP program works, I think the incentive point specifically, again, I guess, as we can apply it to our individual giving and church giving, I think needs to be brought up there. But, Jack, your point about what specific food is being bought with the food stamps or bought with the program?
To me, this is the most common sense element of this whole thing, and that is, yes, this money or the food stamps or whatever you call it should not be used for junk food. Call it junk food. You say, oh, well, what's junk food? We all know what junk food is. It's the bag of Doritos. It's the little Debbie cakes, as you spoke to. It's the soda, it's the ice cream, whatever it is.
I'm unfamiliar with the way that it used to work if it was up to me. This needs to be something where that money can only be spent on certain items. The necessities again, the bread, the eggs, the cheese, whatever it is. And Joe, you had a statistic pulled up. I'm not sure if you still have it pulled up about what percentage of. Yeah, go ahead and read that because that was mind blowing to me as well.
[00:37:04] Speaker B: This is nuts. So I'll read a quick. This is from the foundation for economic education. So fee.org government researchers determine that average SNAP recipients increase their food expenditure by only 30% of the value of their benefits.
In other words, a person previously spending 300 on food a month who qualifies for 100% of food stamps benefits will start spending 330 on food and shift the 70 from his existing budget to other purposes. This surprisingly low percentage suggests that food is not recipient's top priority. So there's that problem. Skipping down.
According to a study of a major retailer, recipients spend about 20% of their total grocery budget on junk food with soft drinks as a top purchase, enough to supply a family of four with 22 liters of soda per month. Given the marginal amount of SNAP spent on food and the typical benefits for a family, SNAP literally expands the grocery budget by the exact amount needed to cover the junk food.
SNAP recipients also spend about 27% less on fruits and vegetables than non SNAP households. This difference cannot be attributed to a lack of Access because around 85% of SNAP purchases are made at large grocery chain stores with vast produce selections. So this is once again a government, this is fee.org foundation for Economic Freedom. So this is not trying to be, you know, take one side or the other, just straight statistics of, yeah, we have a massive problem. And here's the struggle with me, and not to take your point, Will, but here's the struggle with me.
[00:38:20] Speaker A: Now go for it.
[00:38:21] Speaker B: Okay, so 22 liters a month, all of the junk food, all the things, the fudge rounds, you know, as Oliver Anthony said, which is just a reality, they're, they are eating. I mean, what was the statistic there? 27.
Let's see, 27% less on fruits and vegetables than non snap households.
[00:38:37] Speaker A: On 22 liters a month, that's, you know, 2/3 of a 2 liter every single day.
[00:38:41] Speaker B: I mean, that's a lot. That's a lot. And so you think about that. Okay, well that then creates a lot more health issues. Well, these people, if they're on snap, then they're probably on, you know, Obamacare or something along Those lines, they're getting government assistance on that. Well, who pays for that? Also the taxpayer. Also the, you know, the average guy. And then they get supplemental Social Security, so they're still pulling in Social Security, which they. A lot of them are not working.
And so they are now pulling in Social Security, which we also put into and they haven't put into. And so throughout the line, it's like, you're giving, you're giving, you're giving, you're giving. You're putting yourself in a worse hole. Your health is going, you know, going way down because of everything that you're eating and consuming. You're not working, you're not. Which is a dignity thing. It's also mental health thing. It's really good for us to work as human beings. And so their mental health is really bad. And then we're paying for mental health services. And I used to work in that, where it's just a disaster when it comes to insurance. And, you know, they're. They're getting all the free therapy and things like that. And so it's.
[00:39:32] Speaker A: It's all a cycle. That compounds itself. Correct?
[00:39:33] Speaker B: It compounds on itself. And who's paying for it?
Us. You know, the average listener to this podcast, the average person, like. And you go, well, you know, it's just money type of thing. We want to be able to help those. And that's kind of the point of this podcast is I want to help those who help themselves. And this is just compounding the problem. The junk food's compounding the problem. So when you say what should be given. Yes, I realize this is idealistic. And we're not the president and we're not Congress, and we're not making all these decisions. On the other hand, yeah, I mean, health food. This is why we get into health on this podcast and why it's important for us to really consider our health and think about that is we are a detriment to society when we're not taking care of our health, and especially for those that are not taking care of their health and doing it on somebody else's dime. And then they're getting all the free health care on somebody else's dime. And I mean, I paid through the nose for operations and things like that. My insurance is insane, as is your guys's. And then we know people that are on government assistance. They walk in and they'll get a surgery and pay zero. They will have nothing. They'll get.
[00:40:29] Speaker C: Well, it's not only that. It's the. I've got the sniffles, I'm going to the emergency room because it doesn't cost them anything, right? So again, the system ends up just totally imbalanced. But on the health food thing, like somebody might hear that and be like, oh, you're saying they can't have nice things like everybody else? Like, well, there is a lower standard.
[00:40:49] Speaker A: That's kinda what I'm saying, number one.
[00:40:51] Speaker C: Number two, you're not helping people by giving them garbage. Especially one of the big focuses of this has been how many kids are fed by this program. Right now we've got a child obesity problem in this country. Like, that's not good. And as much as people want to make fun of RFK Jr and Quibble, you know, get into, well, I don't agree with this. I agree with that.
He is like one of the only people saying, hey, we have sick obese kids in this country and that's not okay. Like, that's a really good point whether you agree with anything else. And so I know Michelle Obama had her meals program, which was a disaster.
Again, give kids, like if every family. We eat eggs, we've got a nice hook up here locally to get them at a reasonable price and they're fresh eggs. We eat eggs every day because it's fairly inexpensive at this point and incredibly nutritious. Just do that kind of stuff. And, and so again, if you're going to help people, especially kids, let's actually help them. You are literally not helping them by giving them corn syrup filled all kinds of stuff. And so you just bring this back around to this.
Compassion without direction, compassion without questioning. What actually is compassionate to people actually hurts people.
[00:42:01] Speaker A: Hey guys, Will Hareb here. Just wanted to take a minute and let you know that if you enjoy listening to the Think Deeper podcast, we wanted to make you aware of another podcast we have on the Focus Press podcast platform. It's called the Godly Young Men podcast, where myself and Joe, we tackle a lot of cultural issues that are facing young men. The target age range is around 15 to 25 years old, but we have young men of all ages listen to it. Our goal is just to restore them to godly masculinity and talk about the challenges and things that are facing young men in today's time. So if you're interested, check that out on YouTube or on any of your favorite podcast platforms.
Well, and Jack, you said a second ago, like, are you saying that they shouldn't, you know, be given certain things?
There is a decent argument to be made that every human should be entitled to the necessities of life. Right. Again, the food and stuff like that. I don't think there's any argument to be made that every human is entitled to the luxuries of life, to the, the extra things of life. Again, I know we're applying it to, again, the Doritos and the soda and all those things which, you know, know are not really luxuries. But my point is like, again, somebody could make an argument, hey, we should really do everything we can to make sure every human being has eggs, food, bread, or bread, meat, whatever.
We should not make that same argument to say every human being should. I mean, I don't have the entitlement that I get to go on whatever luxury vacation I want. That's not something I'm entitled, something I.
[00:43:28] Speaker C: Got to work for.
[00:43:29] Speaker A: If I want to do that, I got to go work hard and earn the money to go on a vacation.
Similarly, again, luxury spending on things that once again, are kind of frivolous, things that aren't necessary for existence. Again, Oreos are not necessary for existence. I don't think people are entitled to that. And so if somebody is on one of these programs, if somebody is barely scraping by and we are going to be putting money towards that, it's a common sense thing to say let's focus on the essentials and not focus on the things that once again, are extra. The things that are frivolous, the things that are for pure enjoyment.
You don't really get to kind of.
That's the phrase. Beggars can't be choosers. Right. Like, if you're going to, you know, be depending on somebody else to subsidize you, you don't get to say, well, make sure you include that box of fudge rounds to further the analogy. Or make sure you include the. The 12 pack of Cokes. Shouldn't work that way. So again, if somebody says, oh, so you're saying they shouldn't be able to have that.
That's kind of what I'm saying. Yes. Like focus on the necessities. And then if they want to work harder to earn more money to go get, make. To go buy the other stuff, more power to them. So that's even aside from the health side of things, that really nobody should be buying that stuff. But yeah, that's just my thoughts.
[00:44:39] Speaker C: We got to get to our think fast. In a minute. But final thoughts?
[00:44:42] Speaker B: Well, yeah, just the second. Thessalonians 3, 10. If man doesn't work, nor shall he eat. And then you get. We were referencing First Timothy 5 with the widows, verse 8. But if anyone does not provide for his own, especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. It's really important that we get this right. It's really important that we push people to work. And look, I realize America is difficult, unemployment, things like that. It's a really difficult job environment. And are they pushing? And I look at the same thing in Christianity of like, okay, maybe you're struggling with a sin, maybe you're down and out, whatever it is, are you pushing? Are you trying to grow closer to God? And I'd say it's the same concept. Are you working hard? And the church is going to see that. And hopefully the church is taking care of its own and taking care of its own household. Right.
And so if you're somebody that is on SNAP benefits, this is not intended to be a, you know, smack upside of the head or any of those things. It's just, yeah, if you are pushing and working and really trying to provide for your own household, as Paul's talking about in Second Thessalonians and First Timothy, man, that's, that's great. And if the church needs help, don't be afraid to ask the church and say, man, I'm doing everything I can, but I need help.
And churches, if you're listening to this and you're a leader in the church, step up, look, to help those that are in your household, those that are, you know, under your roof as a congregation, and see how you might be able to help them in whatever ways they need. And sometimes that's going to be more than just financial. It's going to be sitting across the table saying, let's talk about budget, let's figure out how we can help you there. We got to be able to kind of broaden our perspective on how to help people. But those would be my closing thoughts, is there's going to be an opportunity to step up, especially for those in the church coming up soon. And I think it's really important for us to get that right, to get compassion right, to not just give out money hand over fist to people that, you know, are not going to earn it and are just going to sit on it and not care.
[00:46:27] Speaker A: Yeah, I don't have anything else to wrap with. Good thoughts.
[00:46:30] Speaker C: All right. Yeah, I was just going to give a quick shout out. My dad grew up in a single parent household. His mom, they didn't have much, you know, they lived in the poor part of town, in an apartment all that. And that was one of her principles was, I'm going to earn what I get, you know, could have easily been signed up for all kinds of benefits, things like that. So she was going to work and instilled that work ethic. And yeah, they didn't have much, they didn't live real high on the hog. But that ended up being a great incentive for my dad to say, yeah, I don't, you know, nothing against the life that his mom gave him, but like, I want to do better than this, you know. And so getting the work that he put in, he's the hardest working person I've ever met. Built himself a really nice life, built a business, things like that, that, that was the incentive for him.
If it was just kind of, you grow up and we're gonna give you TV and cable and, you know, all the junk food and all that stuff, that kind of thing probably doesn't happen. And you think about how many people like that will miss out on that kind of thing, that this is a system that is, that should be trying to get people back on their feet and it does the opposite. And so again, you talk about social justice helping people like that, that needs to be the end goal, is what helps people get to their best, what helps people get to where they need to be, both as the government and as the church. And so that is the reason behind these criticisms of the program is not, you know, just stay down there. No, no, no, it's let's, let's what's best for you. And so that's kind of what I want folks to keep in mind with this. This is out of compassion. This is out of trying to help people. And our prayers go out to anybody who's going to suffer over this next month. But hopefully this offers from a top down perspective the opportunity to rethink this program and get it to be maybe what it really needs to be for the country, for the people's best interest.
All right, we'll wrap there and get right into our. Think fast this time. I want to talk about something that was very controversial, especially in the political right.
This is the idea of platforming. Platforming is giving somebody a microphone and letting them talk and the idea of platforming people who are objectionable. This really has been a debate over the last few years, but it sparked especially a few days ago with Tucker Carlson, one of the biggest media voices in the world, interviewing a young guy named Nick Fuentes. Nick Fuentes is, I don't know how you even describe him.
He'd say white nationalist, but his name's Fuentes. So I don't know if it's that. I mean, like, there's the racial element, there's, you know, strong right wing politics sometimes, but he's all over the mat. He's very hard to nail down, but very offensive.
[00:49:05] Speaker A: I says very inflammatory things.
[00:49:08] Speaker C: Inflammatory kind of guy. Yeah. And so it was Tucker Carlson, why are you talking this guy? Few big podcasts have had him on recently. Like why let him have a microphone? And that question of platforming. Well, that question of platforming also comes into the churches of Christ too, and in Christian circles.
Why are you talking to so and so? Why do you have so and so on your podcast? So I wanted to get you guys thoughts on that of talking to publicly, giving a voice to or a microphone, an amplification system to people that might be objectionable like that, whether politically, religiously, whatever the case may be.
[00:49:44] Speaker A: I'm very curious to hear Yalls. Yalls thoughts on this.
Obviously, Andrew Tate is another one that comes to mind of somebody who, I don't think, I don't know if Tucker had him on or not, but he, he was making the podcast rounds six, eight months ago or so, kind of on everybody's podcast. But yeah, I think your application to the church is interesting here. So two things come to mind for me. The first is generally I am a marketplace of ideas, you know, kind of free marketplace of ideas. Like let. If people want to share things, even if they're stupid, like they need to, you know, sure. Like free speech and everything. Right. But the question obviously of like, should that person be, like you said, given a mic and have their. Have their voice amplified.
I think of Rogan and how Rogan kind of just will have anybody on his podcast, but he will kind of dissect them, you know, kind of dissect what they have to say. And he won't just base. It's not for them. It's not like a free here talk about what, you know, your book or talk about your thing for the next three hours. No, Rogan's like kind of asking them questions and kind of pushing back a little bit on things here and there. And like, you know, let me go deeper on that or kind of cross examine to me, if you're, you know, as far as platforming somebody who is, quote unquote, objection or somebody who you might disagree with. I think overall, I am a fan of, again, kind of the free marketplace of ideas of letting you know of letting somebody come on your podcast who you know you're going to disagree with. Because I think another problem you can run into is an echo chamber. You only have people you talk to who you fully agree with. Any pushback is going to be very, very minor. And so no new ideas circulate. And there's the argument of like, well, this person's ideas are terrible, so should they be circulating? I get that. But at the same time, again, I think the horrible ideas should speak for themselves. Like, I think those horrible ideas should be able to get out and for people to hear, like, oh, terrible idea, let's not go with that, you know what I mean? Versus suppressing the, you know, the bad ideas or whatever it is. So, you know, you apply it to the church.
I don't think we should shut down questioning. I don't think we should shut down, you know, and this is, to the, I guess, the point I'm getting out of, like the podcast example. If you have somebody you know on your podcast who you think says something that's false and incorrect, that's where you should really push back on that and cross examine and say, well, I don't think you're correct and here's why. Go to the Bible. And again, like, I would think, imagine, like if we had a Calvinist on our podcast, something as a guest, and we were talking about Calvinism, I think I'm in favor of the discussion. I'm in favor of us talking to that individual about Calvinism.
What I wouldn't be okay with is if we just all kind of shook hands afterwards and said, well, we're basically all on the same team. And you know, like, you kind of have to make it clear that's not the case. But again, Rogan style, you push back, you say, well, I don't think you're correct and here's why. But the discussion was out there, right? The ideas were out there. And you can let the public decide which one. Because obviously we would believe that the Bible more firmly supports our position. Again, just to use the example of Calvinism, we believe that the Bible would, you know, speak against Calvinism. Man, let. Let the Bible speak for itself. So I'm kind of saying a lot here, but I guess my point is, like, I think if the, if it comes down to just completely suppress all the bad ideas so that no bad ideas get out there, I would rather let the bad ideas get out there and let the public decide or, you know, understand, oh, wow, that's really bad idea. You know, whether it's Fuentes or whether it's somebody in the Church of Christ who, you know, has a really bad take on something like, I think that needs to speak for itself.
[00:53:05] Speaker B: That's a struggle is what is our duty as the platformers to our listeners?
You look at somebody like Andrew Tate, there's a lot of young guys that listen to him that don't have the internal mechanism to go, man, that's garbage.
Like, that's really stupid. They take a lot of this and go, well, that seems like. Seems legit to me because they have no foundation upon which to build.
That's the scary thing is, I'm with you, Will. I mean, I don't have a problem with it, by and large, but I think that's the question you have to answer is how much do we owe our listeners to kind of protect them from some of these things versus, I mean, if somebody wanted to come on this podcast and start spewing Nazi stuff or spewing, you know, to the exact opposite, which actually is kind of the horseshoe thing as you get closer on the extreme liberal end of things and, you know, you get into all sorts of craziness.
Okay, if somebody came on like that, I like to think, I'm with you. I'd like to think that our listeners would be able to be like, that's garbage. And for sure we would push back. And I think that can be very, very helpful. On the other hand, you know, what if. Do we have to protect those who listen to it and go, wow, what a great idea.
The way I look at it is, if they're going to do that based off of just hearing somebody talk about it without doing any research, we probably didn't have them in the first place. On the other hand, you could also get out some fairly inflammatory things, especially from Nick Fuentes, guys like that, some fairly inflammatory things to people that may not have the internal mechanism to know right from wrong or to know the difference. And so they take and run with it. Is that my duty? Am I. Am I wrong for having somebody listen and then get swayed by somebody head on? I don't know. I don't, I don't know if I'd be implicated as the platformer. So it's a. I know I'm not adding much to it, but I think that's kind of the rub there. That's the point of the.
[00:54:44] Speaker A: Well, to me, though, that, that there's several examples that I could use for this about certain episode topics that we've had before that basically people have told us like, you know, you're probably right, but man, that's really gonna, you know, harm the listeners. Like, okay, well, are we right or not? But the other example, Joe, we've been corrected before, you know, preaching. You know, hey, maybe, you know, if you're gonna use a Francis chan quote or C.S. lewis quote, hey, those. Those guys aren't. Aren't New Testament Christians, so don't use their name. Somebody might go look up their stuff.
I kind of roll my eyes at that because it's like, you. You know, it's not my responsibility to make sure that you can decipher. You know what. You know what I mean? Like, I'm using a quote or I'm using an illustration. So that's kind of where my mind went with that. And I know you're not necessarily.
[00:55:28] Speaker B: Well, I think it's various degrees, but like, various levels of that.
[00:55:31] Speaker C: Right?
[00:55:31] Speaker B: Like, there's the. I. I quoted Francis Chan versus We had Francis Chan come speak at the church. Like, whoa, you know, two different things type of thing. One is I absolutely platformed him, and if he says something. But the, you know, who knows? I don't know where I fall on that. I think I'm more on, like, as crazy as it sounds, as I'm kind of stealing the other side, I'm more on your side of it, which is, by and large, I'm perfectly fine with that. If we had a Baptist guy on our podcast or whatever, I wouldn't have as much of a problem because, you know, we'd push back on certain things. But he also may have some really good ideas in areas that have nothing to do with salvation, areas that have nothing to do with instruments and worship or something. If we got into those, yeah, we'd stand up for what we believe.
I don't have a problem platforming that guy. Okay. If we platform a Nazi, you know, a literal Nazi or platform somebody who is a critical race or critical theory proponent, you know, I don't know. Do I really want that person to get out there versus somebody who's a lot closer aligned to us, who just happens to believe a little bit differently on certain things?
I don't know. I think I'd still do it and still push back. That is the key that Rogan gets so right is he's willing to push back and say, absolutely not. You have to have that if you're going to platform certain people. But Jack, I don't know, me and Will are going back and forth. I'm really curious your thoughts on this.
[00:56:45] Speaker C: The overarching thing in all of this is, like, who it's okay to talk to. And even, like, there are people that you think it's okay to talk to, even though you disagree with them, but there are people that I would just would not talk to. We're not going to have an LGBT advocate on this podcast, drag or something, right? Yeah. And so, well, people would say, well, then Fuentes should fit into something like that with, with his abhorrent things that he said and things like that. Well, principle number one, the left, the, the, you know, godless people, people with no morals, whatever, they don't get to set the discourse for anything of who's allowed. I mean, the kind of people they allow a microphone are insane. So I don't care about their judgments. That doesn't mean there's no judgment at all. Like, there's, there's internal judgments you have to exercise and there's certain people you just shouldn't talk to.
And there's this whole concept of no enemies on the right and not, you know, like, if they're a teammate against the progressive left, then it's okay to talk to them in the political sense. And some people have that sense in Christianity of like, man, if they're on this, if they're generally on the same side as me, I'll talk to them. And I don't know, I think of like, Caleb Robertson has those long form conversations and he's talked to some real, at least one really progressive guy. And so I asked him about that. I was like, not that I have a problem with you doing it, but what's kind of your view on that? He's like, look, everybody knows I disagree with the guy. I don't have a problem telling him to his face I disagree with him and the reasons why I disagree with him. And now that that's out there, I can ask him about his views on things, ask him about other things talking in different directions. I'm not going to let him get on and explain to people why you should have a woman preacher or whatever. That's not the point. Point of that conversation. And I think that makes sense. And so, you know, within the bounds there, there should be people to your right and to your left in both senses that you can talk to, but there should be a boundary on both of those where you're like, all right, that's enough.
[00:58:43] Speaker A: And so that's the difficulty is where is the boundary? Right.
[00:58:47] Speaker B: Right.
[00:58:47] Speaker C: And does Nick Fuentes fit in that? Because the other side of this conversation we haven't really touched is one of the worst things you can do is make somebody untouchable, because that makes people curious about them, especially young men or whatever. Like, oh, well, why don't you.
[00:59:00] Speaker A: Why is he blacklisted?
[00:59:01] Speaker C: Yeah. And they'll go. And as with Andrew Tate and with Nick Fuentes, they say some things that other people are too scared to say that are right.
And as I told you guys before we got on, like, it's a spit out the bone situation where there's this much meat and most of it is you got to spit out. But if a young person hears that meat and they go, I can't get that meat anywhere else, I'm going to him, they're going to swallow some bones. And so, like, talking to them so that you can expose them and say, look, I agree with them on the things they get right, but also I'm going to push back on the big red flags there. I think that's a healthy thing to do. As long as, as you say, kind of the Rogan style, not just bringing them on, like, all right, everything you say, I'm good with that. That. That's, that's kind of the problem. And so, I don't know. Public disagreement is a very good thing.
[00:59:44] Speaker A: Right.
[00:59:44] Speaker C: And, you know, there's a place for public condemnation of, as I said, some people you just don't need to talk to, but those are the people that don't say anything. Right. You know, and somebody who says a little bit. Right. Okay. That's where you can have those disagreeable conversations kind of thing. So it's a really challenging thing of who you should and shouldn't talk to. Nick Fuente is obviously not going to be a guest on Think Deeper podcast anytime soon. So you don't, you don't have to worry about that.
But I don't know, it's. It's a very interesting thing and within Christianity to bring it back to that, to finish more conversation is very good. We talked to Marco Arroyo about that, you know, of, like, getting each other talking, not canceling people over one disagreement. That's a very healthy thing. And I, I think that's something for us to pursue within reason. So that's, that's kind of my thoughts. You guys got anything else before we wrap?
[01:00:34] Speaker B: If everybody's cancelable, if everybody's canceled, then.
[01:00:37] Speaker C: Well, no, he's gonna do the line.
[01:00:39] Speaker B: Nobody's canceled. No, that's, that's where we, you know, we got to consider that is if you won't talk to anybody across the aisle, you know, or, or in. In that circle outside of your small little circle.
That's where we have the echo chamber. It's the echo chamber and you are. I think that's why the, the church is in dire straits in some ways, is we won't talk to anybody else. It's kind of the echo chamber and we got to be thinking about that. So. Sorry. You wrapped it really well. I shouldn't have said anything, but no way to go.
[01:01:09] Speaker C: No, you're good. All right, that's going to wrap us for this week. As always, this is the Think Fast. If you're catching this, tune in for the episode on Monday, which is about the SNAP EBT defunding and where that's going and charity and the church's duty. If you've got the whole episode, thanks for listening. Join us on the deep
[email protected] plus where you can get your comments in and talk to us and share your thoughts and we'll respond on the Friday deep end or Thursday, whenever we put those up. These days, we are rapidly approaching episode 200, so keep an eye out for that. It is going to be right.
I need to look at the calendar, one side of Thanksgiving or the other. So very, very big episode approaching for us. We want to thank everybody who's been along for the ride, especially those who tell us, yeah, I got on, you know, and I've gone back and listened to all of them. That's a lot of hours worth of talking, so that's always really neat to hear. So keep an eye out for that. We'll be back with the next one and we'll talk to you then.
[01:01:59] Speaker B: Foreign.
[01:02:15] Speaker C: Hey guys, Jack Wilke here. If you enjoy our work with podcasts like Think Deeper and Godly Young Men and our books, articles, seminars and want to support the work that we do, the best way to do so is to go to focuspress.org donate that's focuspress. Org donate. Thanks again for listening.
