0:07

Aksis Mundi By

0:14

now a lot of you have heard me talk about

0:16

becoming a Swatch Premium member. You

0:18

are on the fence, you are not sure you should do it. You

0:21

have been meaning to do it, but you haven't done it yet.

0:24

Now is the time. On Mother's

0:26

Day, our Yulee subscription is on sale

0:28

for just $50. That's

0:31

right. $50 for the

0:33

entire year, you'll get access to our entire

0:35

archive, including every episode of It's In The

0:37

Code. You'll get our bonus episodes

0:39

every month. Dan and I sit down for

0:41

two hours to talk, answer questions, and tell

0:43

stories. All of our bonus

0:46

content on Mondays, our surprise episodes,

0:48

ad-free listening, and then you'll get

0:51

to come hang out with us in the Discord server. If

0:54

you've been waiting, if you've been on the fence, if you've

0:56

been not sure, now is the time to do it. As

1:14

always, welcome to the series, It's In The Code,

1:16

part of the podcast, Straight White American Jesus. My

1:19

name is Dan Miller, professor of religion and

1:21

social thought at Landmark College. The

1:23

world is always to be with you. Grateful

1:25

is always to have you listening and joining me here. Back

1:29

after some interviews by

1:31

Michelle Dowd and Beatrice Marovitch,

1:34

and before that, we had done

1:36

a long series on the concept

1:38

of biblical inerrancy, sort of filling out a

1:41

lot of questions, a lot of topics that

1:43

come up with the claims of being biblical.

1:46

Here we are in the series, kind of returning

1:48

to what we do, which is responding to the

1:52

comments that you have, the questions that

1:54

you have, the topics that you come

1:56

up with, always and

1:58

forever behind on. the emails, not

2:00

as behind as I used to be, but behind

2:03

on the emails, but I do respond to them

2:05

as I'm able. I do value so much the

2:07

feedback that you give me on topics

2:10

and themes and so forth. And

2:12

so we're going to dive in, dive into

2:14

an interesting one here today. And it is

2:17

a, I guess you could

2:19

call it a slogan, maybe

2:21

a kind of theological aphorism in a

2:23

way, but this

2:25

is the Christian saying, in

2:28

essentials unity in non-essentials

2:31

charity. That's

2:33

a theme that you might've heard of. A

2:35

lot of people have emailed or commented and

2:37

said, I've heard people talk about this or

2:40

my pastor used to say this, or I was

2:42

in seminary and they would say this and sort

2:44

of wondering about the background,

2:47

things that it does. And as well, as

2:50

you know, so much of what I do is informed by

2:52

the clients that I work with at the Center of Trauma

2:54

Resolution and Recovery, the negative experiences

2:56

of this phrase, people

2:59

who report that this makes

3:01

them really uncomfortable or that they

3:03

find it disingenuous or triggering, or sometimes

3:06

they get upset and sometimes they're not

3:08

even sure why. That's what we're sort

3:10

of diving into. Maybe you've heard of

3:12

this, maybe you haven't, but again, the

3:15

slogan is in essentials unity in non-essentials

3:17

charity. There's actually a third component to

3:19

kind of round out the saying. So

3:22

the whole thing reads, in essentials unity,

3:24

in non-essentials charity, in all things Christ,

3:26

or in all things Jesus Christ. This

3:30

saying, it's not new, a little bit of background

3:32

on it. It's a theological

3:34

or kind of ecclesiastical formulation that

3:36

goes a long way back in

3:38

the Christian tradition. Some

3:40

attribute it to Augustine, as I

3:43

understand it, I think most patristic

3:45

scholars have probably not correct. It's

3:48

usually attributed to a person named John

3:50

Chrysostom. John Chrysostom

3:52

was a fourth century bishop of

3:55

Constantinople. So the Eastern

3:57

Church, or what would emerge as the Eastern

3:59

Orthodox Church. He's known as one

4:01

of what people refer to as the church

4:03

fathers and the patristic fathers in

4:06

this kind of formative period of the Christian tradition and

4:09

So that's where it probably originates,

4:11

but the saying also figures really

4:13

prominently within various Mostly

4:16

Protestant circles in the period following

4:18

the European Reformation. I think

4:20

this is probably where People

4:22

who know something of a history of it are sort

4:24

of more familiar with that But

4:27

if you google the phrase which I

4:29

did you'll also find not just references

4:31

to John Chrysostom and the church fathers

4:33

and You know

4:35

German Lutherans using the term in the

4:38

16th and 17th centuries or things like

4:40

that You'll also find

4:42

references to this phrase all over the

4:44

place It is alive and well and

4:46

very well Sort of

4:48

represented in a lot of contemporary

4:51

Christian context, right? You can

4:53

come across a lot of different kinds of ministry groups

4:55

that have this to find as sort of a key

4:57

value, right? this notion

4:59

of in essentials unity in

5:01

non essentials charity I Founded

5:04

on a bunch of church websites, right? The

5:06

church is describing themselves this way Even

5:09

some places where you run across it in like

5:11

church bylaws, right? This is actually part of like

5:13

how the church under understands itself and it's sort

5:16

of formal documents of incorporation and

5:18

so forth So it's an idea that is very

5:20

present. Obviously, it's present to those of you who

5:22

reach out and said I've heard people say this

5:24

I don't fully know what it means or I've

5:26

heard this a lot I'm really not clear on

5:29

it or that just drives me nuts when people

5:31

say that or whatever So

5:33

I want to start that's a little bit of the history

5:35

I want to start from there with just a little bit

5:37

of the sort of impulse Behind

5:40

this phrase, right? Again,

5:42

if we go back to somebody like John Chrysostom

5:44

in the you know Fifth

5:46

century fourth century, that's pretty

5:48

early in the Christian tradition, right? And

5:51

what I think it reflects are two

5:54

things that I think are true of

5:56

Christianity from its origins Okay, the

5:58

first is if you're familiar familiar with

6:00

the Christian tradition at all, this won't

6:02

come as any surprise, that

6:05

Christianity has long been focused on the

6:07

development of doctrine. A

6:09

key, what

6:11

predilection of Christians has

6:13

always been spelling out the

6:15

beliefs that define what being a Christian is,

6:17

the beliefs that one

6:19

needs to profess to be understood as a

6:22

member of the Christian community and so forth.

6:24

And just as many of you know

6:26

and some of you might not, not

6:28

all religions work that way.

6:30

The role of belief or

6:32

confession or profession of quote-unquote

6:35

orthodox beliefs, right beliefs

6:38

is not something that plays

6:40

that role in every kind of religious tradition. But

6:43

it is a very, very Christian sort of way

6:46

of thinking about religion. So

6:48

that's the first piece. Christians have

6:50

always been interested in doctrine. The

6:52

earliest texts in the Bible are

6:54

lots among other things, often articulations

6:56

of doctrine. But the

6:58

second that goes with this is that

7:00

there has never been agreement within the

7:02

Christian tradition on a

7:04

whole wide range of issues

7:07

related to doctrine. So

7:09

while doctrine is really important, there

7:11

often isn't agreement on this. And again, that's

7:13

evident in the earliest documents. If you read

7:16

the Bible, the Christian New Testament, you

7:18

have somebody for example like the Apostle Paul

7:20

writes like half of the New Testament and

7:23

one of his central preoccupations is countering

7:26

what he considers to be false teachers,

7:28

teachers who are teaching false things about

7:30

Christianity. Well, I mean what that shows

7:32

is that there were other people who

7:34

professed to be Christians who had alternative

7:36

views to what Paul had. And

7:39

I'm not interested at all in like settling

7:41

whether or not their views are correct or

7:43

whether Paul was correct or whatever. The

7:45

point is that it illustrates that

7:48

there was this focus on right

7:50

belief, but there has always been

7:52

a lot of disagreement about what

7:54

that right belief is. What

7:58

that means is... that it's

8:01

probably true that everybody who would profess

8:03

to be a Christian holds

8:05

that in some way God

8:08

is uniquely revealed and present to human

8:10

beings in the person Jesus of Nazareth.

8:12

Okay, and in some

8:15

way the death and maybe

8:17

the burial and maybe the resurrection of

8:20

this figure Jesus of Nazareth effect

8:22

the reconciliation of God with human beings.

8:24

So somehow or another this is a

8:26

quote unquote sacrifice that is

8:28

made that reconciles people with God.

8:30

Okay, so maybe

8:32

there's agreement on that but it turns out within

8:35

that kind of formulation there's

8:37

a lot of room for disagreement with

8:39

virtually every dimension of that statement. In

8:43

what way is God revealed in Jesus?

8:45

What does it mean to say that?

8:47

What does that mean about this figure

8:49

Jesus of Nazareth? If there is some

8:52

way in which his life and death

8:54

and resurrection somehow reconcile

8:56

people with God what does all that

8:58

mean? What is resurrection? What about his

9:00

life did this? What does it mean

9:02

to how does one avail

9:04

oneself to that on and on and on and on

9:06

and on okay. What

9:09

I want to highlight here is that from its

9:11

origins Christianity has had to grapple not only

9:13

with claims to doctrinal truth but

9:17

with questions about Christian unity despite

9:19

doctrinal diversity or controversy and disagreement

9:22

right. There are Bible passages about

9:24

how we have one faith and

9:26

one baptism and everybody who's in

9:28

Christ is one family and so

9:30

forth. Christians have always

9:33

had to try to reconcile what does

9:35

that kind of unitive statement mean in

9:37

the face of really substantive disagreements about

9:40

what the hell it is that Christians are supposed to

9:42

believe. So I

9:45

think that background going to an

9:47

issue or a tension that has

9:49

existed since Christianity became a

9:51

thing is what gets

9:53

at the spirit of what

9:56

Christ system is saying. I think what he's saying

9:58

is Christians are Christians are fundamentally held

10:00

together within, so to speak, Christ,

10:02

in Christ. And that Christians need

10:04

unity in their profession of Christian

10:07

essentials, but that there should also

10:09

be charity or acceptance in

10:11

divergence of areas that are important,

10:13

but not essential. That there

10:16

needs to be room for

10:18

a range of experiences or

10:20

practices or articulations of belief

10:22

in those things that are not essential, okay?

10:27

So that's the background, that's the spirit of it. And

10:29

one of the reasons I think that this

10:31

stands out so much in the Reformation period,

10:34

and partly why it's also a very Protestant

10:36

principle, is that the Catholic tradition, of course,

10:39

always claimed to be the arbiter

10:42

of Christian truth. In

10:44

the Reformation period, you get this

10:46

fragmentation of what had been Christendom,

10:49

you get a proliferation of different

10:51

Protestant Christian groups, you

10:54

get profound theological

10:56

and social disunity. And

10:59

so what I think, or I think one of the

11:02

reasons why this phrase sort of becomes so prominent in

11:04

the Reformation period, is because it sort of heightens that

11:06

tension. What does it mean to

11:09

be, quote unquote, one

11:12

Christian community despite all of this

11:14

difference in diversity and so forth?

11:17

And so I think that the phrase, and

11:20

I'm building here to how I think the phrase is used

11:22

now, I think the phrase

11:24

can communicate a lot of different things, right?

11:26

For some, it's a plea for inclusion. It

11:30

is their way of saying, we do

11:32

agree with you in the essentials, but

11:34

we should have freedom to practice or

11:36

believe or do whatever we do over

11:39

here in these areas because they're non-essentials.

11:42

For some, I think it's a

11:44

defense against the charge of being

11:47

schismatic or divisive, right? I

11:49

think it's a way for some of these

11:51

Protestant groups to say, yes, we've separated from

11:53

other Christian groups, but that's

11:55

because we hold to essential doctrinal

11:58

commitments that they have a... If

12:01

it wasn't about central things, we wouldn't have

12:03

split off, we had no choice. On

12:07

the flip side, it can also be

12:09

used as a way to legitimate the

12:11

expulsion or exclusion of others. So,

12:14

you get Christian groups that sort of

12:16

push other groups out and they'll say,

12:18

well, of course we can exercise charity

12:21

in non-essentials, but their doctrinal views represent

12:23

an abandonment of essentials and there has

12:26

to be unity in such things. And

12:31

I think that when people hear this

12:33

phrase now, we can

12:36

hear all of those same

12:38

resonances in different contexts when

12:40

different people or groups or

12:42

congregations use this phrase. I

12:44

think that those are all meanings that sort of carry

12:46

forward. So, it has always

12:48

been a polyvalent phrase, it has always been

12:50

a phrase with multiple meanings, it has always

12:52

been a phrase that is filled in, so

12:55

to speak, in different ways by

12:57

different groups. That's why it can be difficult to

12:59

kind of understand in a specific

13:01

context exactly what somebody means when they

13:03

say that, right? And

13:05

I think that it's also immediately

13:08

clear to anybody who

13:10

bumps into this, right? You hear this, you

13:13

know, in essentials, unity and non-essential charity, like,

13:15

well, that sounds cool, but what

13:19

counts as an essential? What counts as a

13:21

non-essential, right? I

13:23

think it's clear to anybody that as much as

13:26

this phrase promises a measure of unity and acceptance,

13:29

those questions of the boundaries of

13:31

that unity, the limits of that

13:33

acceptance immediately come up in this

13:35

distinction between essentials and non-essentials. And

13:38

I think that that brings up the really

13:40

divergent effects and uses that

13:43

this slogan has when it's used

13:45

within a contemporary Christian context. And

13:47

here I really am reaching out or reaching to

13:49

the ideas and questions

13:51

and insights offered by those of you who've reached

13:53

out about this topic. So on the one hand,

13:56

when somebody says this or when we run across

13:58

this, it can be a... theological

14:00

statement of inclusivity and

14:02

there are contexts where it is clearly

14:05

that. The essentials can

14:07

be defined quite broadly or vaguely allowing for

14:09

acceptance of a significant degree of difference. In

14:11

other words, somebody can say, hey, you know

14:13

what, as long as you want to call

14:16

yourself a Christian, you are welcome. That's our

14:18

essential that we share this

14:20

common profession and all the doctrinal nuances

14:22

of that stuff, there's room for all

14:25

of that, right? So you can basically

14:27

have a very broad conception of

14:30

what that inclusivity means, right?

14:32

There can also be a strongly

14:34

practical dimension to this, right? And

14:36

here we can imagine people from

14:39

really different Christian groups or sometimes

14:41

even inter-religious groups like moving outside

14:43

the boundaries of Christianity where this

14:46

normally the inessential

14:49

unity, the real essential part for most

14:51

Christians is that we're talking about Christians,

14:53

like that's the really most fundamental part.

14:56

But there are contexts where we can even move

14:58

beyond that. So let's imagine that you have

15:00

a bunch of really divergent Christian groups or

15:03

religious groups or other groups that maybe not

15:05

even don't even identify as religious, but

15:07

their aim is alleviating

15:10

poverty. And

15:12

I can imagine and have known of

15:14

Christian groups that will say, look, for

15:16

the purposes of this project, this aim

15:19

of alleviating poverty, that is our essential.

15:22

Non-essentials here is anything other than that.

15:24

So I don't really care if

15:26

somebody else is the same kind of Christian that

15:29

I am. I don't even really care if they're

15:31

Christian. I don't even care maybe if they're religious,

15:34

if they share this social concern

15:36

of alleviating poverty for these purposes,

15:38

that is our essential around which

15:40

we are unified. Everything else

15:42

is secondary to that. And

15:44

again, if that's a more pragmatic context, that

15:46

might not solve what it means, you know,

15:48

on a Sunday morning in one of those

15:51

church congregations. But my

15:53

point is that there are contexts in which

15:55

the phrase can be as kind of inclusive

15:57

as it sounds. It's

16:00

also a phrase tied in with

16:03

this that we might commonly associate with ecumenical

16:05

efforts. That is, efforts to

16:07

bring together and find and create

16:11

common ground between different

16:13

kinds of often very

16:15

divergent Christian groups or

16:17

Christian traditions. Okay? Let's

16:20

call that the laudatory use. Let's call

16:22

that the inclusive use of this phrase.

16:24

Okay? But

16:26

the phrase can also be

16:29

used to shore up or

16:31

defend high control Christian articulations.

16:34

And I think this surprises people in

16:36

some ways. And I know it

16:38

surprises some of the people that I've heard from because

16:40

I have heard people say things like,

16:43

I knew this Christian congregation or tradition

16:45

and they seem so judgmental and so

16:48

exclusive and so narrow in their views,

16:50

but they would constantly harp away of this

16:52

idea of having charity and non-essentials. It felt

16:55

like a real disconnect for me. It felt

16:57

really contradictory. I don't understand how that worked,

16:59

right? And we can understand

17:01

the confusion there because the way I

17:03

just articulated it, that phrase could really

17:05

seem to cut against the grain of high

17:08

control articulations in Christian

17:10

practice. So

17:12

how is it used within high

17:14

control religious context? How do we make sense of

17:17

that? Here's

17:19

my take, right? My take is

17:21

that it can be used as

17:23

a means of masking the totalizing

17:26

high control dynamics of those kinds

17:29

of Christian communities. Okay?

17:32

Here's why. Within a

17:34

high control religious context, everything

17:37

is an essential. This

17:40

is how and why they

17:42

justify regulating virtually every aspect

17:44

of somebody's life. This

17:47

is how they go about justifying

17:50

having normative views on say

17:53

our social and political views. This

17:55

is how they justify being

17:57

involved in questions about sexuality

18:00

and behavior and quote unquote private

18:02

lives and so forth is precisely

18:04

because everything is essential.

18:08

Whole domains, totalizing holistic conception

18:10

of the human life is

18:12

part of an essential of

18:14

being a Christian, therefore this

18:17

Christian community has a role

18:19

in sort of every aspect

18:21

of our lives, okay? But

18:27

the totalizing nature of that control is

18:30

at the same time masked

18:32

behind the affirmation that they do in

18:35

fact exercise charity in the face of

18:37

non-essentials. And

18:39

if you say, well, how does that work?

18:41

Here are a couple examples, right? I think

18:44

it's like the illustration we

18:46

can think of if we know that person in

18:48

our life who's always unreasonable, always

18:50

hard to reason with, hard

18:53

to agree with, they're just kind of

18:55

contrarian all the time, and it's

18:57

that person who's like that but they'll always say, hey,

18:59

you know what? I'm a reasonable person, but, and then

19:01

they go on to say something really unreasonable, right?

19:04

Or the racist who preface as things

19:07

they say, well, I'm no racist, but,

19:09

and then they say racist things. Or

19:11

I don't wanna sound like I'm being

19:13

sexist, but, and then they say something

19:15

sexist. I think it's

19:17

very much the kind of institutional form

19:19

of that. Hey, you

19:21

know what? We're a charitable group

19:23

and we welcome, welcome people who

19:26

don't agree with us, but

19:29

hey, on the essentials, we gotta agree, but

19:31

it turns out that if you were to

19:33

start cataloging it, there's almost nothing that falls

19:35

into the non-essential category, which

19:37

means that functionally, it operates as a

19:40

form of gaslighting. And this is

19:42

what I think I encounter

19:44

sometimes when I'm talking with

19:46

people who really struggle with this

19:48

phrase. They'll talk about how it rubs them the wrong

19:50

way, right? And

19:53

the way that it operates is this,

19:55

because if you feel as if your

19:57

religious context is problematically high control, you

19:59

f- feel like there's

20:02

nothing but judgment and control and sort

20:04

of virtually every aspect of who you

20:06

are, well, hey, that just

20:08

shows there's something wrong with you because of course

20:11

we're an inclusive community. Of

20:14

course we're a community marked by charity and

20:16

acceptance and non-essentials. So hey, you know, if

20:19

you're having a problem with that, maybe you

20:21

just need to check yourself because

20:23

we're really inviting an inclusive community. We

20:26

make a lot of allowances for different

20:28

views. So if you feel

20:30

judged, maybe you need to really ask yourself how

20:32

far out of line you are with

20:34

where God wants you to be because

20:37

we're really inclusive, right? Again

20:39

it's the person who can say, you know, I don't

20:41

know why you take so much offense at things I say,

20:44

you know, I'm not a racist. So

20:46

I mean, maybe you're the one who's making everything about

20:48

race because God, every time I say something, you seem

20:50

to think it's racist even though you know, I'm not

20:53

a racist or, you know, you

20:55

get so offended about everything, you know, making

20:57

everything about, you know, sexism, no, I'm not

20:59

a sexist. I'm married to somebody

21:01

the opposite sex. How could I be sexist? You know,

21:03

that kind of thing. It's

21:05

the same kind of gaslighting and

21:07

I think it operates to keep people

21:10

in line. It turns the focus back

21:12

on you. If you feel uncomfortable with

21:15

how we as a community or an institution

21:17

are involved in your

21:19

life, well, the problem is with you,

21:21

not us. And the

21:23

more you feel that there

21:26

are issues with that high control, the

21:29

more it shows that the problem is with

21:31

you and not us. And that regard, it

21:33

becomes a highly effective kind of ideological

21:36

mechanism to mask the high

21:40

control nature of a religious community behind

21:42

the claim and the affirmation that in

21:44

fact we're not high control. And

21:47

I think this is why we talked about

21:49

it being polyvalent, having lots of meanings.

21:51

This is why the same expression can have

21:53

such different effects because it can be

21:55

articulated in radically different ways in different contexts.

21:59

Okay? So how do we know? I want

22:01

to kind of close with this. I need to wind it down.

22:03

How do you know if this slogan is being advanced in good

22:05

faith, so to speak? When

22:08

somebody says we exercise charity

22:10

in non-essentials, how do you know

22:14

if that's true? How do you

22:16

know if they mean that or better? Yeah, how do you know that's true? Even

22:19

if they think that that's what they do, but

22:21

it isn't actually what they do. What are

22:24

some signs? The first one is just this. If

22:26

it doesn't smell right, it probably, it stinks. If

22:29

you think it stinks, that means it stinks. If

22:31

it doesn't pass the smell test, it's probably gone bad.

22:34

What I mean by that is if you're part of a

22:36

community or you engage people who are part of a community,

22:39

and it simply doesn't feel like charity

22:41

is something that they value, if it

22:44

doesn't feel like charity is something that's

22:46

actually exercised around non-essentials, if

22:48

it feels like in principle we have charity

22:51

around non-essentials, but I couldn't tell you what

22:53

a non-essential is because everything seems to matter

22:55

a lot, listen

22:57

to that intuition. That intuition is telling

22:59

you something. Another

23:02

one I think is, and this is not

23:04

universally true, as I say, Google the phrase,

23:06

you will find it in all kinds of

23:09

Christian organizations that cover the

23:11

theological spectrum, the political spectrum, the social

23:13

spectrum, right? So I don't want to

23:15

overstate this, but I

23:17

think as a general rule, the more a

23:19

group has to insist that it

23:21

isn't judgmental or exclusionary, the

23:25

more likely that it probably is. Again,

23:27

it's the same way that, you know, if somebody really

23:29

isn't a racist, you've

23:32

probably never heard them start a phrase

23:34

or a sentence or a statement with,

23:37

I'm not a racist, but, and

23:39

then whatever comes after. If

23:42

a community really is

23:44

accepting an inclusive of those with

23:46

different views, they

23:49

probably don't have to spend all of

23:51

their time trying to convince you that

23:54

they are inclusive of those with different

23:56

views. They will simply

23:58

make you feel better. you'll welcome

24:00

and include you. So

24:02

the more they talk about it, the

24:05

more that maybe it's something that doesn't apply,

24:07

the more it highlights that ideological usage. Got

24:11

to run, but again, I want to thank everybody for

24:13

listening. All of you who support us in so many

24:16

ways, we say it all the time and we mean

24:18

it. We cannot do this without you. If

24:20

you have not subscribed to support us

24:23

and that's something you would consider doing, I would ask

24:25

you to do so. If you're not

24:27

in a position to do that, thank you for listening.

24:29

Thank you for supporting us in all the ways and

24:31

not just financially folks. Reach

24:33

out, Daniel Miller Swadge, [email protected]

24:35

and keep the ideas coming.

24:37

This is a series that

24:39

builds from you. I

24:42

have a kind of a

24:44

backlog of topics. I do read the emails.

24:46

I respond to as many as I'm able.

24:49

My semester is almost done, which means I will

24:51

once again get caught up on the emails, but

24:53

I value those and that's what keeps

24:55

us going. So please keep them coming,

24:57

follow up questions, additional comments, the

25:00

ideas that keep you up at night, the things that

25:02

rub you the wrong way, the things that you don't

25:04

understand. Keep those coming, stay

25:07

engaged and thank you so much for

25:09

listening until we have a

25:11

chance to talk again. Thank you. By

25:14

now, a lot of you have heard me talk about

25:16

becoming a Swadge premium member. You're

25:18

on the fence. You're not sure you should do

25:21

it. You've been meaning to do it, but you haven't done it yet.

25:24

Now's the time. Until Mother's

25:26

Day, our yearly subscription is on

25:28

sale for just 50 bucks. That's

25:30

right. 50 bucks for the

25:32

entire year. You'll get access to our entire

25:35

archive, including every episode of It's in the

25:37

Code. You'll get our bonus

25:39

episodes every month. Dan and I sit down

25:41

for two hours to talk, answer questions and

25:43

tell stories. All of our

25:45

bonus content on Mondays, our surprise

25:47

episodes, ad-free listening, and

25:50

then you'll get to come hang out with us in the

25:52

Discord server. If you've been waiting, if

25:54

you've been on the fence, if you've been not sure, now

25:56

is the time to do it. www.mooji.org