This is the transcript of Restitutio episode 525: Debating Speaking in Tongues with Pastor William Barlow This transcript was auto-generated and only approximates the contents of this episode. Sean Finnegan: Hey there, I'm Sean Finnegan. And you are listening to Restitutio podcast that seeks to recover authentic Christianity and live it out today. Today we're discussing a recent debate between Pastor will Barlow and Carlos Jimenez, also known as Xavier, over the question is the gift of tongues for today. So we're going to discuss the case for and against tongues, and specifically address some real problems with Mr. Jimenez's approach. To be honest, this episode. It was really hard for me. In fact, I've agonized over it, telling myself the old adage. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. In fact, in the history of this podcast, going back over 500 episodes, I've never called someone out like I do in the conversation you are about to hear, and I hope to never need to do it again. But when you've got a bully on the playground, the situation doesn't get better by ignoring him. If you've got someone going up to kids, especially the new kid, and pushing them down, throwing sand in their eyes, or tripping them while they're trying to play, you should do something right. Well, this is my attempt to stand up to a bully. He's not physically harming people, but he has caused much harm through his divisive behavior. I have raised my concerns over his behavior to him directly in the past, as well as to others and his family, and he continues judging and criticizing individuals and ministries and public via YouTube and social media. So it's only fitting that. We respond in a public way so that others can be warned. How's that for an introduction? Here? Now is Episode 525 debating speaking in tongues with Pastor Will Barlow. Welcome, pastor. Will Barlow back to restitutio. Thanks for joining me today. Will Barlow: Thanks Sean for having me. Sean Finnegan: Last Sunday you debated Carlos Jimenez of Restoration Fellowship on the question is the gift of tongues for today? Could you talk a little bit about the back story of this debate? Why did you do it? What was? What was the story leading up to it? Will Barlow: Sure. Yeah. So Carlos and I have interacted some online, mostly Facebook, have interacted with him on that specific topic, different aspects of tongues, different claims that get made on Facebook or things like that. There was a a round table discussion that happened about a year ago where. Carlos essentially moderated a roundtable with Sir Anthony Buzzard with Ken Leprosy. God and with Greg Dibol, all of whom essentially have the same position on tongues. So if people were looking for different perspectives, there wasn't there. They're all pretty much agreed on on everything. Sean Finnegan: I see. Will Barlow: And I I think it for me it reflected a problem that there are other legitimate views on tongues. I was invited to that conversation at the very last minute, but I didn't have time to prepare adequately for it, and so I declined the invitation. I also proposed alternative dates and alternative formats where it be instead of one on three more of a two on two kind of a deal. That was all shot down in the moment. And so times were passed. I was about a year ago. Times our past, we kept engaging at various times and Carlos did challenge me to a debate on Facebook in a Facebook comment. I don't know, this is probably 9 or 10 months ago, I declined. He offered it again another couple times. And finally, after the 4th or 5th time of having this conversation online, I was like fine, you know, we will. We can have a debate. I have no real desire to to debate you. One-on-one on this. I think more of a roundtable kind of discussion would totally have been adequate to meet the needs of this conversation, but he wanted A1 on one debate and so I agreed and then pushed it out beyond the UCLA conference because I was like, I am swamped until mid-october. So let's do it at the end of November. So that's why that's why we picked that date. He was accommodating on the time frame. And so then. What I basically did to prepare for the debate was I went back to that round table discussion and I watched it again and took detailed notes. I went to Greg Dibella's website and I prepared for his particular interpretation of First Corinthians 13, and because I figured that's what Carlos would would go for in the. Debate and this prepared that way and and I shot Carlos all my teachings on study driven faith which I have as I mentioned in the debate I have 7 hours of teaching on 1st Corinthians 12 through 14 that's available on study driven faith that very clearly lays out my position on 1st Corinthians 13 and why I don't think that tongues have ceased. And that is the critical text in my mind. You know, leading up to the debate, we would interact with, he'd he'd ask me questions, we would, we would discuss things. He'd ask me various questions that he wanted to bring up in the debate. It's. So so we work through all of that. All sign unusual normal debate stuff. Nothing really out of the ordinary until about the week of he sent me a. Couple of weird. Notes the right before the debate. He asked me if I'd ever been water baptized, knowing that I come from a way background and that I probably hadn't been water baptized, and I assured him that I had about three years ago and. Then he started asking me, like, who baptized me and what was the specific baptismal formula and all this stuff, and I answered him truthfully. I I don't have anything to hide, but it just really put me off. These are not questions related to the debate at all. There are questions about my background. I also felt like in the time leading up to the debate, especially like the day. Before in the morning of. He wrote reached out to me and asked if it was OK for me to share my away international affiliation. My original religious affiliation for the 1st 30 plus years of my life, and I said that I was fine with. Doing that because. I again have nothing to hide and my views have changed considerably since being in the way. And again I I say that just like I said. The night of the debate, with humility and with respect, not wanting to disrespect the people that I love and know that are still in the way and who are upstanding, wonderful Christian people. So I have. I have no reason to discount people even when I do disagree with them on certain doctrinal stances. They made sure that I said that at the beginning of the debate, Tracy opened the debate by saying, hey, can you tell us about your way background? And then I'll start your time when you start your opening statement. I thought a couple of those things were very strange. Sean Finnegan: These seem like strategies to discredit you because if you have a weak case, misdirection is going to be a key. If he could discredit you right in the beginning and say, oh this guy. It's from some weird group. Nobody should listen to him. He's obviously wrong because you know he's guilty by association or the genetic fallacy is you get this idea from an evil person or a questionable source. Therefore, the idea is wrong. But that's a fallacy. Hitler wore pants. Does that mean that pants are evil? No, I'm wearing pants right now. Come on. So you know, these are very concerning because like there doesn't seem to be a desire for truth. It's more like just a desire to. You know of. Course everyone wants to make themselves look good in a debate, but not everyone wants to make the other person look. Bad, and that seems to be. Will Barlow: That's correct. Sean Finnegan: More where he was coming from. Will Barlow: Yeah. And I think I took great pains in the course of the debate to limit my responses to either things that Carlos just said, that I hadn't had a chance to interact with, or the specific question that was at hand on multiple occasions. There were tangents and side paths that were taken out of the way to. Either like he said, discredit my background or to make fun of me or to do a number of different things that I thought were inappropriate in the context of a debate. You know, I'm, I'm here to talk about ideas. I'm here to talk about your interpretation of First Corinthians 13 if it exists or not. Sean Finnegan: Well, why do you think he? Wanted to debate you so badly. Cause you turned him down over and over. Would settle about. Will Barlow: It belies an overconfidence in the person who's challenging. I mean, I think he he felt like he was going to easily win this debate. And so he wanted to debate me because if he, if he can easily win a debate, then he doesn't have to have this conversation with me ever again. You know, he like we, we have this conversation once. I start talking about it online again and he can just be like, well, look, here's where I trans will on this online and totally made him get off his position. I think that's the the tactic that's being you. Reduced. I don't think it was successful, but we're still dialoguing on Facebook this week about what happened in the debate and I keep trying to educate him on debate theory and what actually happened in the debate and what and we're going to talk about that I think in this conversation a little bit more later. Sean Finnegan: Let's change gears for a moment and do me a favor and summarize for me. Your position on speaking in tongues. The debate question was, is the gift of tongues for today? Your answer is yes, but maybe you could just summarize a little bit more. Will Barlow: Yeah. So there's there's so many details about tongues that are given in first Corinthians 12 through 14. So in my opening statement, I spent a large portion of my time trying to show that my view of tongues is, in particular, a biblical view of tongues that I pull. My view directly from the scripture, specifically Scripture in First Corinthians 14, but really honestly as it pertains to the question, are tongues for today. There's only one passage that really matters, and that's the end of First Corinthians 13, where it says that tongues will cease and we have to understand what does it mean when the perfect comes like what is the perfect? When has it come? And I offered both the traditional cessationist view and the continuationist view. And I explained why view the continuation view of First Corinthians 13 to be a better take on 1st Corinthians 13 and just very briefly, what I believe there is that the perfect is Jesus and then when the perfect comes, that's talking about the return of Jesus to inaugurate the Kingdom on. And that we will no longer need any of the charismatic evidences, including speaking in tongues at that time, and that we actually we won't even need faith and hope anymore, as weird as that sounds, because that's what verse 13 says that the grace of these things is the love, the love is the greatest because it's the only thing that's eternal. It's helpful now and it's helpful in all of eternity as well. And so, after offering a systematic theology of of some sort of first Corinthians 13, what Carlos has to do in the debate is he has to offer a competing interpretation of First Corinthians 13. And he failed to do that. And so that's just a little bit about my interpretation of First Corinthians 13. Sean Finnegan: Your view is that speaking in tongues is available today. It's available to all Christians or some Christians. Will Barlow: I'm honestly agnostic on that question, he asked me, you know, a couple of times about different views on the gifts and and sort of ancillary ways, but it's unclear to me. The Bible doesn't seem to answer the question if everyone can have. Tongues, or everyone can can do tongues. Sean Finnegan: Well, the minimum is that some people can speak in tongues, perhaps. Will Barlow: Right. Some people saw, but right certainly some. Some people can. Sean Finnegan: You believe that speaking in tongues is appropriate privately. In that arena, it doesn't need to be interpreted, but if tongues are public, then they do need to be interpreted, whether by that person or. Will Barlow: That's correct. Sean Finnegan: Someone else which? Will Barlow: Is that's correct? Sean Finnegan: Just a straightforward reading of First Corinthians 14. Can you summarize for me what Carlos's case cause on the YouTube video? It says that he denied. The gift of tongues is for today, so he's denying that the gift of tongues is. For today. But he also denied being a cessationist. I think so. Maybe you could summarize his his position. Will Barlow: That's correct. Right in all of the restoration fellowship videos that I watched on the subject adjacent to that round table that happened a year ago, which was again a Carlos kind of a thing, he moderated and they put on and and produced and so forth. The understanding that I had coming into the debate what I expected. Carlos to do. As I expected him to use Greg Dibella's interpretation of First Corinthians 13, which is like a back door, tongues only cessationist kind of a view which you can read more about on Gregg's website. And I'm not, you know, I'm not here. I was prepared to to discuss this Sunday night, but we didn't get to it because Carlos actually said during the. State that he does not have an interpretation of First Corinthians 13, that he doesn't know when the gifts in general will cease. He thinks that the gifts will be necessary in the Kingdom. He explicitly said that it's possible that he's open to the gifts continuing into the Kingdom, which is of course a longer view of the gifts than even I presented in the debate. In some sense, he was presenting himself as a a hyper continuationist. I suppose you could say in. Some sense? Sean Finnegan: That's explicitly contradicted by the scripture. Will Barlow: That's which is interesting. Sean Finnegan: I mean it's it's it specifically. Says tongues will cease, and so he's he's contradicting that for the eschaton. That, and that's the position I've never heard of. Will Barlow: Right. No, totally. And what I think is happening and I again I I I hesitate to put ulterior motives on to Carlos that I can't definitively pin on him, but I I do think what's going on is he realizes that his view is very difficult biblically and that people are going to pigeonhole him as a cessationist which he says he does not hold a cessationist view first. It's 13, OK. That's fine, but to go that extra step to be like a hyper continuationist on 1st Corinthians 13 seems like an overreach and an overreaction and and actually like you said, a violation of. The text and so I think what he's trying to do is he's trying to extend an olive branch in some way to make his view look more believable or palatable. And I again, I don't think that that's successful. He can be a tongue. Isolationist in the way that Greg Dibal is a tongue cessationist Greg Dibble has a very thorough theology of First Corinthians 13. That I I happen to disagree with, but at least I appreciate the fact that Greg Devil has a theology on 1st Corinthians 13. My Carlos offered no explanation of First Corinthians 13 and and no biblical reason why tongues should cease. And at that point in my mind, the debate is over, but to understand that you have to understand a little bit more about how a debate works, which I don't know if you want to. Talk about that now. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, let me let me pause you. On that, we'll come back to that. So this Is a problem. From the debate, it seems to me that Carlos is a continuationist. Basically he he affirmed that view that, yes, Speaking of tongues, is available today. However, according to even as it presently stands and. Who knows if he'll go and change this because he does do that, he'll go and change things after the fact, but as it currently stands at the time of this recording, it says. Says that he is denying it says no the the yes position for Will Barlow and the no position for Carlos so he's inconsistent on that just as a starting point. So if he's, if he's a continuationist, he believes speaking in tongues is available today over against like the the clear frame of the debate, he's not earnestly pursuing spiritual gifts. That's what it says in first Corinthians 14-1 to be zealous for spiritual gifts. That is not a suggestion, that's a commandment. Of the apostle Paul, it's to be taken seriously. Instead, what he's doing is he's criticizing spiritual gifts. He doesn't have a position himself as to they're not available. So that means he believes that they are available, but he's not pursuing it for himself. He's not pursuing speaking in tongues or prophecy or gifts of the spirit. Instead, he's on the sideline. Criticizing others. And this is a part of a larger pattern that really concerns me about Carlos. It says in Galatians 519 to 21 it lists out the works of the flesh and at the end of that it says. I warn you, as I warn you, before this verse 21 that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. And when I look at the works of the flesh there, I see several that are very relevant to this behavior. Evidence in the debate and many other places. Online, specifically rivalries, dissensions, divisions, and possibly envy. You know, I can't see Carlos's heart, so I don't know if he is motivated by envy or jealousy. Those are both listed there, so I'll leave that to the side, but we do certainly see rivalries, dissensions and divisions. And what is the goal of this debate? You know, it's not for him to convince you to his position or convince people in the audience to his position because he doesn't have a position that I could find. His position is to say you're doing it wrong. And that's not a position that's just being a critical person causing dissension. That is very concerning to me personally. Having known Carlos for a long time and seeing this pattern steady over time is very concerning to me because look, this is not me. This is the apostle Paul. He's saying this is salvational. He's saying that these kinds of behaviors are going to keep you out of the Kingdom, and that to me is like, OK, I need to. I need to err on the side of grace. Like if I think I. Might be getting a little divisive or a little into a rivalry, or a little into a dissension, something like. Like I I'm just going to steer way. Clear of it. Which is why I haven't mentioned this about Carlos in the. Past, but I think we're at a point now where we just gotta call a spade a spade. Because it is. Something that is affecting other Christians, it is a behavior that can serve as like a cancer in the body of Christ. I don't know how else to say it, you know. And I'm very concerned after watching this debate in particular. Will Barlow: In the context of the debate, what concerned me, and this this was not a major point because I I did not keep hammering at home. But I did mention it once. Twice Carlos's use of scripture to indict tongue specifically was along the lines of testing the spirits, and and Carlos did this a couple different times where he makes these leaps between what the Bible says and what he thinks we should do to enforce what the Bible is saying and when we think about testing the spirits. Carlos's way of testing the spirits in the in the context of speaking. In tongues or glossolalia. Was to Marshall all this linguistic modern linguistic evidence that these aren't real languages, and in doing So what he's done is he's bypassed the spiritual, biblical way of actually testing the spirits, which again, I commented on this on a couple of occasions very briefly and didn't elaborate. He is anachronistically reading. A scientific proof of tongues into Deuteronomy about testing the spirits. This is incredibly, incredibly dangerous, because he's not only doing that for his own belief, he's doing this to use it as a hammer against people like me who think that tongues are. Continuing and he's doing it without offering any cogent biblical explanation for why tongues have ceased. And so to do that, he's actually elevating science above scripture. He's using scripture. He's twisting scripture to support that move. And I find that incredibly dangerous. And it's dangerous for the people who find that compelling. I think people that find that compelling should have their discernment checked. Sean Finnegan: Hey, I'm. I'm just going to be the first one to admit that I am a sucker for a scientific study, you know, and when. Will Barlow: No, Sir. Yeah. Sean Finnegan: Carlos brought that. Out I was like. Yeah. No, that's a good point, Carlos. Good. Point, but what? You're what you're saying is that, that methodologically this is really problematic because now we're elevating scientific studies, which, of course, all of us who have lived through the pandemic just 3-4 short years ago. You know like. Will Barlow: We know that science. Sean Finnegan: Changes and you know it, sometimes it seems like it changes from day-to-day, so one study can be debunked by another study they can find out that the control group was contaminated or that some sort of variable wasn't controlled. For or factored in. And and then you get these meta studies and there's just the nature of the beast. And it's not. Yeah, I don't think it's useless or anything like that, but I think we do need to be careful with it because there's a different sort of knowledge. It's it's a different sort of epistemic source than Scripture. Scripture is once for all it's delivered. To us through the ages and it's unchanging. And so there is a a sense of permanence and rootedness there. It's just in a different epistemic category than. Science, which is just variable and changing and approximating over time and and. Sometimes you know you get. A revolution where we're like. Oh, we we have all been wrong about this for forever and like it's really like that. Yeah, I think we have to be concerned about that. I hear what you're saying methodologically, but also we don't really do this with other stuff. Do we do we say? What's your evidence? That prayer works? I'm not going to ever pray. I know the Bible talks about prayer and Jesus talks to pray and so forth. But until you can give me a controlled experiment where it proves that God hears our prayers, I'm never going to pray. Who? Like that's it. Seems like that's what he's doing here. He's like, I'm not gonna consider this at all until you can show me what language it is you're speaking and have an AI analyze your speech pattern and verify that it could plausibly be a language. Will Barlow: Right. The goal posts are completely it's shifted from everything else in the faith I tried. To point out that. He believes that God created the universe even though there are pieces of evidence that suggests that God created the universe, I don't believe that because of the scientific evidence, I believe that because I have faith he believes strongly in the coming Kingdom of God. As I point out in the debate, what peer reviewed study can he present about the resurrection of Jesus? And yet he believes in the resurrection of Jesus. That doctrine is 1000 million times more important than the doctrine of tongues, and yet he holds it without having any sort of scientific confirmation. For that you're an analogy about prayer. It's poignant because they have tried to. You double-blind, peer reviewed scientific studies on prayer that were largely inconclusive, and Richard Dawkins makes fun of Christians in the God Delusion. For that very fact. And so if you want to Marshall the same kind of evidence against prayer that you can against tongues, and according to Carlos, if he's going to be consistent, we shouldn't. Believe in prayer either. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, well, I think. About knowing whether or not my wife loves me, right, I don't have access to her internal state of mind. You know, I can't say for sure. She's not just tricking me and she has other kinds of motives. Like I can point to evidence and be like, well, you know, she says she loves me and she treats me with kindness. And she makes me dinner. You know I. Can I can point to things and say, oh, well, that's evidence. Just like when you speak in tongues you. Can point to the. Actual sound of the words as evidence that you're speaking in tongues, right, but you don't know for sure. Sure. I don't know for sure that there's some sort of trickery going on with my. Wife and you know. What I don't need to I take it on faith that what she's because I trust her. What she says is what is true and she's not a deceiver, right? And so if God is going to set it up in such a way that, like, there's all these scriptures that are protons. Says don't forbid Speaking of tongues. It says don't quench the. Spirit, but there are also controls. Like test the spirits and you know, let two or three speak. Let another judge. Scripture is urging us to like, explore. This over against like John MacArthur and Carlos Jimenez and some others that are just like, say, oh, no, don't go over there, don't go over there. No, the way to Scripture is calling us to explore this, but also to do so with discernment. So I think that's probably something like the balanced view, but his methodology. Would just disprove everything. Marriage, faith in God. If you want to be a genuine skeptic, you can question anything you can question that you even exist just as state card, right? It's it's just not livable, so let's get to some specific points in the debate. You guys talked a lot about self translation. That was kind Of like his term for it, where he said Oh well, will Barlow and those people at Compass and he also mentioned my church at one point saying that we all believe as a policy. Only the same person who speaks in tongues should also interpret that one person can't speak in tongues and then another person interpret. Would you like to respond to that and just set the record straight? What is your position on? Will Barlow: That, yeah. So my position is that both are permissible. That all says very clearly in first contains 1413 that if you do speak in a tongue that you should pray to interpret. The way I read that is that if you've been given the legitimate gift of languages that you should pray for the legitimate gift of interpreting or translating that language in a public meeting. Verses 26 to 28 in First Corinthians 14 leave it open for someone to interpret and I think that someone could be the same person or that someone could be another person. At one point. It seems to give someone the title of interpreter in a meeting, which means that perhaps there are people that are specially gifted in interpretation. You could even probably read that as especially gifted, even more than interpreting their own tongue like there might people that be people that just are gifted interpreting their own tongue. And there might be people that are gifted interpretation to interpret other. People's tongues. Or modern Western scientific minded people. And this was not a modern western scientific culture. It's an ancient eastern and they were comfortable with more grey spaces, I think than we are, there's a lot of ambiguity here. We've got a we've got to reconcile and got to deal with. But regardless, you know, he was trying to make. A rhetorical point about. How, if we always do self interpretation, then it makes Paul's encouragement to stay quiet a moot point. And I think that's wrong headed, because my point was even if you know, you can interpret your own tongue, which I believe I can speak in tongues, I believe I can interpret that tongue. Then when you walk into a meeting, as long as the interpretation happens, that's what matters. That's what. That's what Paul is getting at. That's what matters. In a meeting, Paul's not super concerned about who's doing the interpretation. If we could wake Paul up from the dead. And say, hey Paul, encompass Christian Church, when they do speak in tongues, which is honestly fairly rare these days, when they do speak in tongues, they generally self interpret. I think Paul would shrug and say, well, is it is the interpretation happening? Yes. OK. OK, great. I I think it'd be a nothing burger for. The apostle Paul. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, you stated in your series on the Holy Spirit, which, if people are interested in, in wills perspective on this, I would encourage you to listen to that. I'll put a a link to it that just in general for practice at the church, you're expecting people to interpret their own tongues. I I have done something similar with this. I certainly wouldn't forbid. It to be the other way. I think that honest to be completely honest, I think it would. Be awesome I. Think it would be really cool to see it, I just don't know how practically to do that in an open meeting where you know somebody gets up and they start speaking in a tongue and then, you know, do we just, like, interrupt the person and be like, alright can? Anybody interpret this? You know, this just makes for a zoo, you know, and that's what Paul's trying to avoid here. So I think if you had somebody that said, hey, Pastor, I have the gift of interpretation. And, you know, if you have anybody that's that has a tongue and they, you know, they're not able to interpret for some reason, there could be really interesting scenarios where we set something up like that. Will Barlow: Right. Sean Finnegan: Generally, just for the sake of the spirit of First Corinthians 14 of like avoiding chaos and disruption, it does make it easier from a practical point of view to have the. Same person do it. And the scripture says it both ways. So it's like to me it's not an issue. Like it's not saying you can't do it this way. It's just saying you could do. It this way or you could do it that way. Will Barlow: Correct. Yeah. Sean Finnegan: And I I wouldn't condemn. Another church that did it a different way. So long as. They're not all talking over each other, and so long as there's some sort of interpretation. Will Barlow: Right, yeah. Sean Finnegan: What about the actual interpretation being a message from God to the people? Because that's something he brought up as well. Could you get into? That a little bit. Will Barlow: There's, you know, different views on this. I know that the way taught and I think the main line Assemblies of God Church has taught that when someone speaks in tongues and they interpret tongues generally, it sounds like many people have experienced prophecy in a charismatic meeting like you'd find in the way or in my church, or in what I've heard in your church too, Sean. Is it when you speak in tongues and interpret it? I've often heard a message from God to the. People and what I suggest in the Corinthians seminar. And what? What? Gordon Fee, despite his Assemblies of God affiliation, contends in his commentary on Corinthians, is that that's really not what's in view in First Corinthians 14 that Paul uses prayer language to describe tongues or praise language. Basically, every time he mentions tongues now that agrees with what the book of Acts says about. It too, you know, it says, you know they. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, that's very consistent with acts, yeah. Will Barlow: Right. Yeah, so. You I think I counted it up. That of the 20 or so odd versus, it even talk about tongues in the in the New Testament, 8 of them, I believe, specifically reference tongues as prayer or praise, and it's always in those terms prayer or praise. Generally speaking, what I would expect is if someone were to speak in a tongue. And then interpret they it should sound like a prayer, an inspired prayer, or praise to God. It should be directed towards God. Now, are there people at my church right now who have heard my teaching on this and through their consciences still disagree with me on this? Yes, there are people that still disagree with me. And my view of pastoral ministry is that it's not my responsibility to tell people what to believe. I I can only teach what I believe. Personally, because that's my conscience that I'm dealing with at that point, but that if people disagree with me because of their. Conscience, then we can agree to disagree on whatever that topic is, and there are several people in our church who speaking tongues and interpret, and it still sounds like a message from God. And in this I agree with what John Shane Hyde has said about this. Is this, strictly speaking wrong? Is it sin to do it this way? No, I don't think it's wrong. I don't think it's sin. Is it the most biblical way of doing it? I think the answer is no. There are non biblical things that are still nonetheless right to do, or still acceptable to do, and so that's why I try to use words like generally, generally speaking, in tongues with interpretation should be an interpreted prayer or praise. Am I saying that it's never God's will that it could be a message to the people? No, I mean, God is bigger than the boxes I can make of God. And so I can never defensively say, but what I can definitively say I believe is that the Bible doesn't present that that's what tongues with interpretation should be. I believe that tongues with interpretation should be interpreted prayer. Praise. That's how the Bible describes tongues. Sean Finnegan: Would you say that when somebody speaks in a tongue and then brings forth a message that what they're doing is speaking in tongues and then prophecy? Will Barlow: That's possibly one explanation I I'd say biblically speaking, that's probably the most accurate thing we could say about it. But I I would still, I think leave the door open for God to do God things beyond, you know, beyond the Bible. It never says tongues with interpretation is never going to be a message from God. Now, if we have that scripture, then we could definitively say. Sean Finnegan: Yeah. Yeah, no, I I hear you. I hear you and I appreciated your response to like the all nine all the time approach. Sean Finnegan: Oh no, I. I believe there's actually 47 gifts of the spirit or no, not that you gave a number, but like, you know, who's to say how many gifts of the spirit there are. And you know whether or not they would change over time, given the need of the moment and walking with God stepping out in faith, having the courage to say, you know what, here I am. Send me, you know God, if you want me to speak a foreign language I never studied, I'll do it. If you want me to speak. A word if you. Want me to discern spirits? Whatever. I think it's part of the legacy of early Christianity, too, not just in the in the New Testament, but also within early church history. That there was more courage and there was more faith to step out and walk by the spirit. And I think that's exciting. That's a big part of Christianity. It's not just like, oh, I happen to also believe that God is alive today and doing stuff. No, that's like a that's a big deal. So there was. This issue of that he brought up of saying you believe that tongues are the sign that somebody saved, he said. Something along those lines didn't. Will Barlow: Or someone did someone asked the? Question I think about it, yeah. Sean Finnegan: Well, maybe he didn't say that about you, but he said that that's that's a view. And yeah, I think I think the Universal Pentecostal Church might hold to that position. They call it the doctrine of initial evidence, and they actually separate what happens at conversion from the gift of tongues. Will Barlow: Some people. View it that way. Sean Finnegan: That some people have and some people don't have or something like that. So like everybody speaks in tongues when they first believe or when they're first baptized or something like that. And then you get a a second blessing maybe if you're called to to be a tongue speaker. But that's not your view. What's your view? Will Barlow: No, my view is that tongues is a is a supernatural gift of God, and again, I'm agnostic on whether 1st Corinthians 12 at the end of the chapter, he says, you know, are all apostles, are all prophets, and the answer is implied. No, not all are apostles. Not all our prophets. And he doesn't say, can all speak with tongues. He says do all speak with tongues. And I think that leaves the door open for tongues. To be something like a. I think Steve, Greg has called it a universal gift, but this is where the Bible doesn't really answer the questions that we would like them, you know. We we come to a text with our questions that we want answered in the Bible just isn't interested in answering that question. I tend to take the rhetoric of like, I think my God, I speak in tongues more than you all. Paul wouldn't be dunking on people who couldn't do something like like, imagine, imagine you're at an NBA basketball game and there's an NBA player there who's 610. And he looks at the crowd of all people. You know you're in my height and age and and. This position, you know, I could never dunk a basketball. I'm 59. I could touch the rim in college, but those days are long gone, I assure you. But imagine Giannis, or any one of these other big NBA guys comes into a room full of people like us and says, you know, I thank God I can. Duncan, you can't. You know, it's like, well, OK, you can imagine someone like that doing it, I suppose. Because you could think maybe they're that arrogant, or maybe they're that brash or whatever. But I think we assume a level of arrogance and brashness on Paul. If we don't leave the door open, that maybe everyone could do it. But I also think that the Bible doesn't answer that question that, you know, that's the scripture that Steve Greg will point to. That's the scripture. I'll point to that. Maybe everyone gets tongues, but maybe everyone doesn't. I certainly know. Not everyone experiences it, and that's certainly what Paul says. That first contains 12. Sean Finnegan: Can you? What was that verse again? That you would disagree with. Will Barlow: 1st contains 1418. I think my God I speak in tongues. More than. You all. It's an odd thing. Sean Finnegan: Oh, OK, OK. Will Barlow: To say to a church if they couldn't do it. Sean Finnegan: That, to me could be taken a. Couple different ways you know. Will Barlow: It certainly could. It certainly could. Sean Finnegan: He could be speaking more communally than just like. Yeah, there's something rhetorically going on there. He's not just dunking it. He's not just dunking on that. Yeah, you're right about that. But do you believe that those who speak in tongues are superior to those who don't? That there's a A2 class system. Will Barlow: No. And we we went back and forth. Sean Finnegan: Have you ever taught that? Will Barlow: On this, no, no, we. We went back and forth on this in the debate and it's like he's he's prodding me for scientific evidence. I gave him scientific evidence of the benefits of tongues. He turns my benefits of tongues into ah. See you do believe in a two class Christian system of those who get these benefits from speaking in tongues and those who don't get these benefits from speaking in tongues. And I responded by saying, I believe that every gift of God has benefit. Yeah, I mean, people that can prophecy can do amazing things for the church. People that receive messages of wisdom and messages of knowledge, they provide benefit to the church in unique ways. People who are gifted pastors. Or gifted teachers, they provide benefits to the body of Christ that other people don't do. There's beauty in the fact that we're not all the same. That's the whole point of First Corinthians 12 for Carlos to say that I'm going way beyond what Paul says in first Corinthians 12, which Paul's point is that there are differences and there's still unity. And there's beauty in our differences. That's all that I meant. So yes, I I do believe that some people do actively speak in tongues, and some people obviously don't actively speak in tongues. I think there's benefits to the people that do actively speak in tongues, and I'm unapologetic for that. Just like Paul's unapologetic about all the other benefits of all the other gifts in First Corinthians 12. Sean Finnegan: Let's talk about that verse. Maybe you can remind me where it is. Where? You were talking about private tongues. What was that? Verse it was. Will Barlow: It's 18 and 19. It's actually the the same verse and nevertheless in the assembly I'd rather speak 5 words with my understanding than 10,000 words in the. Tongue that's that's fine. Sean Finnegan: OK, so you and he really had a? Disagreement over this verse. What you were saying is that because he says. In the church. Well, in verse 18 he says I speak in tongues more than all you knuckleheads. Just kidding. He doesn't say knuckleheads, but I speak in tongues more than all of you, Corinthians. And then he says nevertheless, in church, I would. Rather, speak five. Words with my mind than 10,000 words. So your question to Carlos was OK. Well, if he speaks in tongues more than all of them, you know, regardless of how much of A rhetorical hyperbole might be going on here. OK, but, like, let's just take it at face value. He speaks in tongues more than. They do. Where is he doing that if he's only? If he's not doing it in church. And Carlos's response was ohh he must be doing it in the synagogue. Right. Do you remember? Will Barlow: That I do remember that, yeah. Sean Finnegan: Wait a second. They have speaking dogs in the. Synagogue like what are? You talking about? No. Like if you're not doing it in church, you're obviously doing it in private. Maybe you're in the synagogue, but you're doing it privately in your mind as opposed to. Will Barlow: To yourself. Sean Finnegan: To out loud, let me just get your comments on that because like that was something that was like pretty clear and it didn't it. I don't think he really got it even though you repeated it a few times. Will Barlow: And he got asked in the audience Q&A at the end of the debate as well, someone posed it to him in a slightly different way, and he still stumbled it, I think. The bottom line? Is and I I pointed this out in. The debate but the the bottom line is. Is that, generally speaking, we are taught to pray two ways we're taught to pray privately. That's what the our Lord Jesus explicitly says in Matthew that we're to pray at home in our closets where only our father sees us, sees us. We're not to pray out loud on the street corner like the. Pharisees and hypocrites. Do OK, that's explicitly what Jesus taught. Whatever Carlos has to do to get out of the obvious implication of private tongues, he has to provide a reasonable other public context that would require interpretation. For his theory that it since all tongues are public, all tongues must be interpreted, and I just don't think that he can do that. You know, the the bottom line is and I push him on this repeatedly is that. There's only two places we're taught to pray. We're taught to pray at home or like you said, in our minds, when we're in public or in a public place to ourselves, as it says later in the chapter. Or we're taught to pray in a church meeting in an assembly of believers. Those are the places we're taught to pray. Now, obviously, there are times when we could pray for someone in a public place like you. You see someone on a park bench and they're distressed and they want to pray with you. Go for it, pray with them. I'm not saying that like, that's against what Jesus says or against what the Bible says about prayer. That's not what I'm suggesting. But it would also, I think Carlos would have to demonstrate that that's sufficiently public to meet the requirements for all tongues being public and therefore all tongues being interpreted. If he can't do that, if he can't prove that there's another greater context that Paul means there, I think our default assumption has to be that Paul's talking about his private parallel life, and to that point I pointed out again there's like six times in First Corinthians 14 where Paul uses prayer language or praise language to describe tongues. Where do we do that? We do that in our private prayer. Lives if we're. Not doing it in the church, by and large. Sean Finnegan: And had he mentioned private prayer in First Corinthians 14? Will Barlow: And certainly in verse 2829, which Jerry were well pointed to in the in the chat, you know at the end of the debate he asked the question about that. That's certainly speaking to yourself in the middle of the assembly. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, let. Yeah, let me let me read that out. First Corinthians 1428. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. So that's a that's a clear. Use case of speaking in tongues privately rather than publicly and speaking in tongues without interpretation, because it's not public, so you don't need to interpret it. Yeah, that's that's really good. And I I do like verse 29 as well about, you know, let two or three prophets speak. Let the others weigh what is said. That's probably something that's good because you're not advocating the view that all tongues are legitimate. Will Barlow: That's correct. Sean Finnegan: You said very clearly taking. A pretty strong break from. Your past on this, I think that even demons could inspire false tongues or, you know, simulate foreign language. Or, you know, maybe you wouldn't say it's actual tongues. But yeah, I mean, that's that's really something. Will Barlow: Simulate times, yeah. The other thing I pointed out which is important is in verse 13 that Paul says let the one who speaks in tongues pray that he may interpret and I I know that there's multiple ways of interpreting that verse, so I think it's hard to lean too heavily into that verse. But I think that verse is indicating that there were people in the Corinthian church who had the legitimate gift of tongues but had not evidence legitimate gift of interpretation. Of course, in that context, we could assume that they would have known in that kind of a church who could interpret tongue so they could bring forth tongues in a meeting, knowing that someone could theoretically interpret it. But, you know, someone did ask the hypothetical. Like, can someone just have the gift of tongues? Yes, I think first, you know, first thing 1413 makes that clear. Sean Finnegan: One of the other things that came up. Was this concern over? Non Unitarian Christians who manifest the gifts of the spirit your opponent was talking about charismatic Catholics or Pentecostals and people from other denomination. He actually mentioned Mormons as well. I never heard of Mormons speaking in tongues. Maybe they do. Who knows basically what you said was well. If somebody follows Jesus and God wants to bless them with the gift of the spirit, then why? Why wouldn't I believe that that's genuine? He did not accept that. He's just like, no, these people don't hold to this doctrinal package that I define as salvational, and therefore God cannot possibly work with them in any way whatsoever. Uh, maybe I'm overstating that a little bit there, but I'm curious about your comments on that as far as like. You know, if you have people with different beliefs, even on big subjects that do still experience and it's not just tongues, they'll experience experience healings or predictive prophecies in some cases. And I'm not prepared to say that's all. Will Barlow: Right, sure. Sean Finnegan: I I don't know. Will Barlow: What you think? Yeah. I mean, look, I I worded my answer very carefully. I I did not use any denominational names specifically, I just said anyone who's filled with the spirit of God who actually follows Jesus. God wants to work with him through the spirit, you know? And I said it very clearly. And I think the first comment I have is that my answer was completely twisted by Carlos. He did not take the time or the patience to understand, and I think I think it's a theme with this debate. I think I counted something like 13 times or it's certainly upwards of 10 times where he either deliberately or possibly not deliberately in some of these cases misrepresented what I said in a way that completely twisted what I was saying. We've talked about a couple of those already that's concerning. Ironically, what was going on in the chat, which I looked at later when I rewatched the debate, a friend of mine who lives here locally, I just had coffee with him yesterday. He is a Trinitarian. He currently attends a Methodist Church, although he's attended different churches in the past, he says he once went on a miss. The trip and supernaturally spoke Spanish to share the gospel with the group of people in the country that he was on the mission trip floor and has never since me able to replicate the experience. Do I think that that's a legitimate tongue? Yes, yes I do. And I know this guy. He's not a crazy guy. He's a math nerd like me. He's. An actuary and or former actuary. Now, he works in the finance side. Now he's not a dummy, he's not a dullard, and he cares deeply about the truth. He cares deeply about the Bible and he does not come from a charismatic background. He was not expecting this to happen. It just happened. And he shared his testimony in the chat live during the debate, which I thought. Very bold of him to do so with all that was going on in that chat at that time. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, because that was something that Carlos asked you. It's like, show me the evidence. Where's the evidence? You have to show me that this has happened and it's been validated. And you know, there it is. You know, I I know. I know of other stories of individuals that have had similar kinds of things. Greg Dibol himself. Will Barlow: Right. Sean Finnegan: Who I think is mostly against the practice of tongues or or the availability of the gift of tongues. Would still make room because he's heard stories and on his side of the world, Australia or up in the Papua and New Guinea or whatever where they're yeah, there was this same kind of phenomenon that occurred and look, if God created the universe for him to give someone the ability to speak a foreign language. Over there. Will Barlow: Happened again, yeah. Sean Finnegan: Without learning it, it's just not that hard. Will Barlow: No, no. Yeah, that's the literal thought that I had. And of course, I could not respond to Carlos because that was the last question I got the first crack at it. Not the last crack at it. So Carlos got to give the. Password, but I what I really wanted to say if I if I could have piped up for just five. Seconds. But I would have said is Carlos, it sounds like my God is bigger than. Your God. That's really to me. That sums up the whole debate. Is my God's bigger cause? He can work within people who have things wrong. Your God can only work with people who have all these doctrinal things, right? And he would probably honestly leave me off that list, and he might leave you off that list too. I think that's unfortunate. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, and this is a, this is a major concern with Mr. Jimenez, is that he is always looking to find an area of disagreement. The classic church history definition of this kind of individual as a heresy hunter. Let's just find one thing we disagree on and then let's focus on that. And then let's let's expose you. Let's expose you as as having this this flaw. And this is that work of the flesh of rivalries and divisiveness and dissensions, and it has got to go, and I hope to God that he repents of this because. It's it is not a small deal. You know, we look at idolatry, prostitution, somebody watches ****, somebody that cheats on their spouse, right. And we say, oh, my goodness, these are really big things. And you know, they're going to keep you out of the Kingdom. But this other stuff isn't right in that same list. It's in the same list as ****** in idolatry. You know, like you can't say it doesn't matter. Well, do you have? Any concluding thoughts on just your debate in general or the future as far as this subject or anything else? Will Barlow: Yeah. I mean, I think there's this like a general comment I have about debate. I was a debater in high school, a debate over 100 times. I understand debate theory very well, and I understand that many of the people that watch debates don't have that kind of a background in debate when it comes to classical debate theory. What happened when I debated Carlos and I don't say this. Because I think I'm right. I say this because of the debate theory. It was a clear victory on my part and it was because the way that Carlos formulated his argument, he didn't really answer no to the question. He answered like a, maybe with a question mark, but I don't believe it. Kind of a thing. And we have to be careful in the Unitarian community at large with who we're allowing to represent us in these types of debates because these kinds of flaws. One of the reasons why I was reticent to debate Carlos on this is because I don't think really, honestly, and I don't, I don't want this to sound mean or judgmental, but I don't think that. As a debate coach, I don't think that Carla should be debating people. Because he doesn't have some of the characteristics that you need to have in someone who. Debates and I've watched several of his debates with Trinitarians. For example, I agree with Carlos that the Trinity is wrong and I would say that he handily lost those debates on a on a tactical level as well. When you think about that as the minority view facing a larger world. That already disagrees with us already wants to shut us down. Already wants to label us as heretics to have someone representing our community who doesn't understand basic debate theory and who can't handle them. They're in a debate they can't actually deal with the person's arguments and said they keep going back to their one or two three points. They think they're winning instead of engaging with their opponent. They can't hear what their opponent is saying, but misrepresenting them. I mean, he misrepresenting me over 10 times in. Our debate. Wow. He's done that with other people countless times. I've watched in other debates with Trinitarians, my simple call beyond your general call for Carlos. Repent. My specific call would be that we encourage Carlos to take a break from debating and possibly a permanent one that he should allow other people to put forward our view publicly, like Dale Tuggy like Doctor Dustin Smith like or you. Sean Finnegan: Dustin Smith did a great job in that last debate. Will Barlow: He did phenomenal, phenomenal job. And so anyway, that's the take away point. I did. I I'm happy to engage with him this one time. I'm happy to walk anyone through the finer points of what we just discussed about debate theory in a longer form. You know, kind of a way if people reach out to me, that's great about that. I'm. I'm happy to have those conversations. But but classically speaking, Carlos is not a good debater. It's a bad witness for our. Community. Yeah, well, let let. Sean Finnegan: Me. Just redirect us for a moment, back to tongues and just ask you the question. What would you say just because we're about out of time here, winding things down? What would you say to somebody who says to you? I hear what you're saying. Pastor will about tongues. You have a biblical case, but I'm just uncomfortable with it. It's weird. It just doesn't seem right to me or whatever. Like. Well, how would you work with somebody like that? Will Barlow: Yeah. God has done all sorts of things that make me uncomfortable in the Bible. I mean, they're passing out handkerchiefs, healing people. At one point, Peter Shadow is healing people at 1:00. Saul the King and the Old Testament, apparently goes into a trance and prophesied with prophets all day long. David dances almost pretty naked. Yeah, he was naked, and David was almost naked when he's dancing the Ark back into town, I mean. Sean Finnegan: And I think he was naked. Was it so naked? Will Barlow: Look, God does all this. At least we're not naked. Well, yeah, maybe. I even worse, I mean, look, I guess the point that I'm trying to make here is, is that I'm uncomfortable with some of these things. I can understand that you're uncomfortable about. Tongues. I grew up around tongues, and so that's probably why I don't think it's quite as weird as many people think that you know that it is, but what it takes in those kinds of situations is for someone to take a a genuine pure hearted truth seeking approach to it. And I would say look, give it time, come watch what we do at Compass go, watch what they do at living hope or. Go to a spirit and truth conference or whatever the case might be where you might come across these types of things. Give yourself some time to work through it on an emotional, practical level for Sam storms, for example, he grew up in a cessationist church and he decided to start praying for the gift of tongues and it took him a long time. And eventually God gave it to him supernaturally. One night. Then he didn't do it for 20 years because of the repercussions of that socially and so then. But then God gave it to him again. And so, you know, I think there are people that have struggled with it and have had to work through their objections, either social objections or psychological objections or whatever the case might be. And I would just say, look. God will work these things through in your heart when the time is right and when it's peaceable for you. And so if you're not ready, you're not. And I'm not even saying that for someone who wants to to to do it. I'm saying that for someone who would even want. To come into a community. Like mine that practices. It on some level, yeah. Sean Finnegan: And what would you say? To somebody who says. Ohh, I've pursued this. I've prayed for it like John Piper for example, has talked about this, that he's prayed for the gift of tongues and he's totally open. He's non. He's not only non resistant, he's he's open arms like I want this. I'm happy to have it and it's just not happening. What would you? What would you say to somebody? Will Barlow: Like that, there's nothing wrong with you. There's nothing wrong with your experience with God that perhaps, like I said, I hold the idea that tongues as a universal gift very openly as an academic possibility. Practically, I know it's not true, and so not everyone's going to do it. And so for the people like John Piper. That have never experienced it, but are open to it, I say. Well, keep praying and maybe something else will happen, or maybe God will show you another way to serve. Maybe your way to serve is not by speaking in tongues. Or maybe it's another gift, another calling, that God's put in your life. Sean Finnegan: Very good. All right. Well, thanks so much for talking with me today. And people can follow up with you at your website. Studydrivenfaith.org. Did I get that right? Will Barlow: That's right, yeah. Sean Finnegan: And if they want to know more about Compass Christian Church in Louisville, KY, they can go to compasslou.org. That's Lou for. Louisville, I have to learn how to say that. As a Yankee, you know, it's taken a. Lot of practice. But thanks so much for joining me today. Will Barlow: Thanks Sean for having me. It's always a pleasure. Sean Finnegan: Well, that brings this interview to a close. What did you think? Come over to restitutio.org and find Episode 525 debating speaking in tongues with Will Barlow and leave your feedback there. Now I would like to take a moment and address another issue related to Carlos Jimenez and his discernment ministry that criticizes and tears down the work of others. But before I do, I want to make clear I'm not criticizing restoration fellowship in general, and certainly not Sir Anthony Buzzard, who has done so much incredible work over the years. And to who? I at least owe a great debt of gratitude for how he has taught and mentored me in my early years when I attended the Bible College where he used to teach, and I have expressed my concerns to him directly and years gone by when Carlos evidenced similar behavior, this recent issue of Carlos. Is particularly concerning to me. Because he was criticized in the Unitarian Christian Alliance, also called the UCLA. And that's an organization that I'm a co-founder in and I'm currently serving on the volunteer board of. So I wanted to address this. And he essentially made two main points of criticism against the UCLA. And again, I would not even respond to this if people weren't taking it seriously. And if people weren't on the basis of Carlos's criticisms expressing serious concerns about the UCC. So the first point that he makes is that he accuses the UCA of elevating Unitarianism to the level of the gospel and that the organization the UCLA organization is wrong to focus on a single issue. And I just want to respond to both of these. Carlos, of course, has brought these up numerous times with some of others. And I think some people are genuine. I think some people are just criticizing because of other reasons. I can't see people's hearts. But I just want to respond to these. So I'm the first point and and for the record, I'm not responding in any kind of official capacity on behalf of the CIA. This is just my own opinion. On on my podcast. So take it or leave it for what that means. So anyhow, on his first point that the UCA elevates the oneness of God to the level of the gospel, this is false. This is a false accusation. It is simply not true. The UCA does not take a position. On whether or not believing in Unitarianism is so. Relational. That's what the gospel is. The gospel is the information you have to believe to be saved, right? So some who are part of the organization, some UCLA members, believe that one must understand that God is 1 to be saved and that the belief in the Trinity is a heresy so bad that it excludes you. From eternal life. Really have no idea what percentage of the UCA holds to that more hard line view, but I know there are plenty of them, many others in the UCA, including Dale Tuggy, the chairman of the board, are convinced that Trinitarians are legitimately saved. And and in fact, he presented on that this year at the UCI, though that presentation is not yet available on the UCI YouTube channel. So anyhow, it's an open question in the UCI whether or not you believe that Unitarianism is required for salvation, some believe it, some don't. And the UCA officially does not take a position on that. Now, ironically, so far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, Carlos does believe that holding to Unitarianism is necessary for salvation, or to flip it the other way around, that Trinitarians are not going to be saved. In other words, he's accusing the UCA of the very belief he has. This kind of gaslighting is deeply troubling and. Maybe I'm wrong? I will be the first to admit that maybe Carlos has changed his mind on this issue or that issue. All I can say is based on his track record that it sure seems like he's the one that's elevating this to the level of gospel. All right. Now on the second issue, he says that the UCA is wrong for not promoting other important beliefs like the Kingdom of God coming on Earth, and for that reason no one should join the UCLA or no one should become a member. Now the UCA is not a church or a denomination. It's a parachurch organization. It's a single issue advocacy group. Maybe a good comparison would be like a pro-life advocacy group or a Christian health insurance program that allows people to join. Why should the UCA need to promote other doctrines beyond its single issue? Focus. That's my question. When I joined a gym. I didn't check to see if everyone there agreed with my religious convictions. In fact I. Assume that most people, if not all there do not agree with me and you know what? I'm fine with that. The gem. I have a membership in is there for me to work out. That's it. I'm there for a single reason. When I became a prime member of Amazon. I knew that I disagreed greatly with the CEO's beliefs on most things. Why did I still join Amazon's membership? Because I wanted to buy stuff from them, and they had good prices and fast shipping. I'm also a member of multiple biblical language groups. These groups do not talk about theology. They simply encourage and enable me to work on my languages. Does that mean that individuals in these language groups don't value theology? Of course not. This is just not the function of that organization or the purpose of the these organizations. So the Unitarian Christian. Science does not have a burden to advocate any beliefs beyond Unitarianism. Carlos doesn't like that. OK, fine. Maybe he wants to only have memberships of organizations that share all of his beliefs. That's his prerogative. But what breaks my heart, and this is what's gotten me so riled up, is that his divisiveness and criticisms are turning others away from getting the help and support they need. You see, if you join the UCA, assuming you are a Unitarian, if you're not a Unitarian, then then don't worry about it. But if assuming you are Unitarian, if you join the UC, yeah, you put yourself on the map and then others can find you in your area who are also Unitarian. Additionally, members enjoy online encouragement and support through the UC's social media accounts and YouTube, and so forth. So even if you don't find somebody in your local area through the UCA directory, you can at least come to the conference once a year. You can at least make friends with people online who can encourage you and. Answer questions that you have. Making people who are already and excluded and sometimes persecuted religious minority to feel more isolated is obviously wrong. Carlos, please stop exacerbating peoples isolation. If you don't want to join the UCA, fine. Don't you join the UCA but criticizing the organization because it elevates the oneness of God to the level of gospel, which it doesn't. And because the organization should teach the whole Council of God. As if it's. A church? These are. Invalid criticisms. So I just wanted to say. My piece on that. Enough said, and I would absolutely love to, quite frankly, just delete this episode entirely because Carlos got in touch with me and he said, you know what? I have been divisive and I really need to stop. I think that's pretty unlikely. But I I would love to. I would love to find out that he he said, you know what? Enough is enough. This is not Christian. Behavior and I really need to stop and I would love to delete this episode. I would. I would just love to to to make it go. Way and never think about it again, but until that day comes, somebody's got to say something. Somebody's got to stand up and you know, I know there will be consequences for this. I know people will be upset at me for doing this sort of a thing, and I hope to never do it again. But I did it. It's done. And so am I with this episode. Thanks everybody for listening. If you'd like to learn more about us. Check out our website at restitutio org. I expect there will be lots of lively conversation there and hey, also one last thing about me, I'm correctable. I know I've been wrong in the past and if I'm proven to be wrong on this, I will absolutely own it. That's that's not an issue. Because I believe the truth has nothing to fear.