In this episode of Sacred Tension, I’m joined by my sister Elizabeth Schultz. Elizabeth is a classical educator, homeschooler, conservative, and homesteader. We debate the truth claims of Christianity, whether a truly pluralistic society is possible, and if Christian revelation is necessary for a functional society. We also discuss healthy ways to engage people we love across profound differences.
You can listen to this episode on Podbean, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, your favorite podcast app, or on the player below.
Become a patron of my work here.
I love hearing back from my audience. Please leave your thoughts on this episode in the comments below or share your thoughts on my Discord server here.
And don’t forget to subscribe to my newsletter here.
Please subscribe to Sacred Tension wherever you listen, share it with your friends, and leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts.
Photo by Hassan Pasha on Unsplash
Stephen Bradford Long 
I’ve got to admit I found your sister painful to listen to. I did NOT get a vibe from her that this was a good faith exchange of ideas.
I heard cruel jabs/threats masquerading as jokes (“I’ll teach your kids! When you get around to HAVING any…”)
I heard a lot of weasley suggesting of statements that she was unwilling to outright say (“America cannot survive as a pluralistic society, but of COURSE I’d never suggest coercion to fix it. This is a question I grapple with…” This gives me bad feelings related to the “I’ll teach your kids!” threat.
I heard self contradicting statements that she didn’t elaborate on and wasn’t pursued on. Her insistence that if she were put in charge she would be a strict “as written constitutionalist”, except for her complete rejection of the separation of church and state.
There was the fact that she didn’t really have an answer when Stephen asked her how her “Western chauvinism” made her any different than the Proud Boys, she mostly just laughed it off and promised to address that later on, then never did.
She has apparently done a lot of classical reading but has never heard of solipsism. This is a minor point, but combined with her constant use of the phrase”Judao-christian” makes it seem like she’s read more Jordan Peterson than anything else.
There is her classic denial of common definitions and terms for the sake of her argument – namely that it’s only “theocracy” when anyone other than christians are in charge. When christians are in charge and use the laws of the land to enforce their religious opinions on people at literal gun point, that’s not theocracy to her.
I found this episode deeply depressing. I don’t know if I’m in the minority on this.
LikeLike
Thanks so much for your honest and thoughtful comment. I agree with a number of your complaints. I, too, see some contradictions and potentially dangerous pitfalls in her thinking. As I expressed in the episode, I don’t understand how her views don’t inevitably lead to theocracy.
I believe her, though, when she tells me that she doesn’t want coercion. I think she’s honest when she says that she is still figuring out how to implement her beliefs. I haven’t probed her much on this, but I think she might feel some dissonance between what she authentically believes and the hazards of implementing those beliefs. I’m glad that she’s grappling with that, given how little many conservative Christians seem to grapple with it.
I can see how her jokes came off as veiled threats. I don’t assume to know what she meant by them, but I’m fairly immune to barbed humor at this point. I assume she doesn’t intend to come off as threatening, and she would probably be horrified to know that her jokes come off as menacing.
LikeLike