Untangling Christianity Podcast

Today we discuss Easter. John characterizes Easter from his past as a moment of rejoicing that Jesus’ resurrection means that Christians have eternal life. He wonders what significance Easter holds for Gregg?

Gregg’s view is that Easter is about how Jesus’ life and death broke down barriers, particularly in the sense that through Jesus’ life and death all humanity was / is now able to be in right relationship with God. Gregg sees this as somewhat similar to his own experience of Good Friday in Switzerland, in 1996.

Gregg goes on to highlight the importance of understanding the continuity of the Easter story with the larger story of Israel (and how often it seems that evangelical presentations are sadly discontinuous with this story, and so seem fragmented as a result). In other words, from Gregg’s perspective the story of Jesus at Easter only actually makes sense within the context of Israel’s story, and otherwise Easter often amounts either to a “guilt trip” about either to be joyful or to be ecstatic about the idea of external life.

Gregg also expresses suspicious of some the ecstatic behaviour that often accompanies Easter, particularly because he does not believe that Christians have enough information about / people generally can sufficiently conceive of “eternal life.”

John follows on this by describing his attendance at a local episcopal church this Easter, noting that the homily was particularly impactful. While speaking the minister recounted an intimate discussion he had had with a young girl, about Easter. Upon hearing of Jesus resurrection the child remarked how wonderful that was. Then she asked, “But is it true?” The minister responded: “Sometimes I ask myself that question too.”

John noted how comfortable he felt at being in a church where doubt was acceptable, even doubt concerning the Easter events. Gregg agrees and also notes that Easter seems to be a time when so many Christians want (and need) to claim that Christianity is true: when they have proof of its truth. For Gregg, by contrast, Easter is a moment to think about belief—and why one believes—not about a “victorious” orientation that ignores doubt and claims to have knowledge (and even clear proof) that Christianit is true, based on the events of the resurrection.

So Gregg sees Easter as a call to renew and / or reconsider one’s commitment: to determine if one really believes these things. It is a time for honesty. Instead, Gregg’s view is that the overly victorious attitude of many Christians at Easter is similar to “treating oneself” (after a hard job, etc.) with junk food: ignoring the realities of belief and pretending that our beliefs amount to knowledge that we can hold with certainty.

The post 86: Easter appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg again discuss the idea that Christians need “second opinions” about their faith. John sees parallels here with Wayne Jacobson‘s notion of listening to one’s “yuck meter,” where Christians need to attend to their negative reactions / feelings of unease regarding supposedly “Christian” responses (because this may be the Holy Spirit communicating that this is in fact a questionable response).

Gregg agrees with Wayne but also thinks that this mechanism is unlikely to function in those cases where it is needed most. Specifically, Gregg argues a culture exists within evangelical Christianity such that the more a particular situation challenges or even threatens one’s Christian faith, the more one has to act forcefully and without hesitation to preserve God’s truth or Christian vales (and so the less one will likely even experience any “negative reactions” when responding to such challenges / threats).

John wonders what practical advice we can offer to listeners? Gregg notes three points:

1) recognize that it is actually very difficult to become aware of one’s own perspectives and then draw those perspectives into question. In other words, it takes time and effort to examine and “excavate” one’s perspectives, such that one can understand not only what one believes but where the belief comes from (and even what purpose it serves),

2) situate oneself in the broader conversation, both with other people (who may hold different views) and with other disciplines (other than theology, because the issue is never just about God, but about God, humanity, and the relationship between the two). Therefore any field of study that may contribute to one’s knowledge in any or all of these regards is not simply helpful but necessary (i.e., to become critically self-aware),

3) dedicate ourselves to love and truth, truth and love (and by consequence, to defining and identifying these things) above all else.  Even above God.

Gregg explains his response as actually proposing a cultural shift within evangelical Christianity, yet John see this as merely “stating the obvious:” there is a problem, here is a solution but it’s very hard to implement. Gregg counters that, in his view, we should frame the overcoming of deeply ingrained cultural orientations as overcoming an addiction.

In other words, in Gregg’s view Christian faith has become intertwined with various ways of seeing and being that are not essential components to the Christian’s dedication to God. More problematically, identifying and itemizing these divergent themes is not the same (and not as difficult) as removing these themes from one’s way of seeing and existing in the world. Continuing the analogy, Gregg notes that not every addict seeks rehabilitation and, further, many addicts who accept rehabilitation do not succeed.

John summarizes this as Christians being “committed to the wrong things” and needing to “own” their faith. Gregg, in turn, argues that for human beings the proper commitment is first to love and truth, not to God. Yet Gregg believes / has experienced that the these two things are chiefly and best found in God. So just as he gave up his Christian faith before, he maintains a willingness to put his entire faith on the line now—to give up, potentially, his belief in God should he be presented with something that was truer. Yet because he has traveled that path already (of giving up his Christian faith and living for many year as an agnostic), Gregg is hard pressed to imagine such a case.

So it is a willingness to be open to the truth, no matter what it is or where it is found, that is essential for human beings and core to the Christian faith. For Gregg argues: if we embrace Christianity to the exclusion of everything else we will end up excluding the truth as well.

Also, Gregg argues that one’s dedication to truth is literally a lifestyle. Truth and love come first, and they need definitions, but a key part of healing from the cultural mispractices that Christians have tacitly adopted is literally to be willing to give up their faith.

John and Gregg conclude with a discussion of Gregg’s response to The Good and Beautiful God, by James Bryan Smith.

The post 85: Listening to Yourself appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss the notion of Christians getting a “second opinion” on matters concerning their faith, and even on their faith itself.

Gregg introduces the topic by explaining how his spouse was reading a book on Christianity late one evening and was troubled by its contents. However, she was unable to articulate fully what she found disturbing. Gregg likens this to John’s request some years ago for he and Gregg to read Kyle Idleman’s not a fan side-by-side in order to decipher what John found problematic with that book.

In both cases Gregg sees these as instances where people needed second opinions on the versions of Christianity with which they were being presented. So Gregg asks: What is a second opinion? What does it mean to be a Christian and get a second opinion on your faith? How does one assess the validity of such a “second opinion”?

John re-situates his need with not a fan in terms of re-ordering chaos and clarifying confusion. So John explains that what he valued most in Gregg’s approach to the book was that Gregg was able to lay out the issues in a systematic way and coherently relate them to real life (i.e., showing where they did not reconcile, how, and what might be a better option).

John then likens his joint reading of not a fan with Gregg to his financial background in auditing. In that context, he was particularly focused on finding errors that more significant than a certain, minimum threshold: so-called “material” errors. In the financial world, encountering a “material” error might make an investor think twice before investing in this company. Similarly, John notes notes that in the process of reading not a fan he encountered so many material errors that he could not accept the book’s presentation of Christianity as being legitimate!

Gregg sees the situation with both John and his spouse, Susan: they both had a sense that things were problematic without being able fully to “audit” the book (and get to the root causes / see the bigger picture). So Gregg wonders: when one has this “sense,” what makes them continue reading rather than putting the book down?

On the one hand, he speculates that any reader must have a degree of openness to (and interest in) the material, as well as an assumption that the author is sufficiently knowledgeable on the matter. But why continue reading beyond the point of becoming dissatisfied with the book? John responds that he had made a commitment to someone to read the book, and Gregg notes that Susan had similarly committed to discuss the book in an upcoming women’s group.

From this, Gregg wonders about how / when Christians have the sense of needing a second opinion. For example, both John and Susan had made a commitment to “keep reading,” and it was because their “material threshold” (i.e., a certain level of dissatisfaction) was reached but they still had to keep reading that they sought a second opinion. Yet how does this happen in other situations? Or what if the issue is not with the book, but how the book is creating discomfort because the problem is with the person’s church, beliefs, etc.

John hunches that there has to be a certain minimum level of awareness and interest in there being more than one possible way of formulating a matter (or solving a problem). And all of this requires a degree of motivation. Gregg then asks: what would the impact have been for John if there was a designated resource in his church that John could go to for a second opinion on such matters? Not the minister or pastor—this is the “first opinion.” John notes that this would likely give a sense of freedom and depth of conversation.

Further, where John retorts that the majority of Christians would not think a second opinion is necessary because the issues that Christians face are essentially obvious and straightforward (i.e., the Bible tells us what to do and either we do it or we don’t), Gregg counters that our conception of the matter is key.

In other words, where Christians have misconceived that the matters are obvious and the responses are equally straightforward (i.e., that either life or the Bible is clear-cut and needs no training and skill to decipher and engage with well), then naturally we will fail to think that something like a “second opinion” is on any value.

Yet as Gregg notes, Christianity is instead something that requires our full intellectual, emotional, and imaginative engagement—something like a combination of a research project and a dramatic production. As such, just like life, while it has moments of being ‘sweet and easy’ Christianity is typically complicate and involved.  So Gregg characterizes the podcast as offering “second opinions.”

The post 84: Second Opinions appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode Gregg and John continue examining John’s mission statement. Johns clarifies his notion of owner as being someone who takes ownership for their life and situation and who is committed to “making things happen.” John explains that working with those who don’t want to / don’t seem ready to be helped is very frustrating, because this type of work is costly in terms of both time and emotional energy, and so he finds it much more satisfying to work with owners.

Gregg raises his own experience of being helped by John and highlights that, even if John may admit to being frustrated by some of these experiences, through John’s ongoing work with him over the past 3 or 4 years Gregg experiences John as being very patient.

In this regard John distinguishes between being kind to everyone and putting out the energy to help everyone / contribute to everyone’s life. As John summed it up, owners “keep on trying” whereas non-owners make excuses for why things won’t work.

Gregg asks about John’s focus on authenticity paired with the part of his mission statement about helping owners to express “their truth.” What does this notion of truth mean? John responds that this is “small t” truth, or the idea that each person has a valid and valuable perspective on the world that they could potentially benefit many people. In other words, John is focusing on helping others get their message out clearly and effectively.

Here Gregg notes that John has a strong sense of empathy when working with their podcast listeners and that even if Gregg suspects that John may disagree with the listener’s view, John always seems to focus on understanding what is important to the listener. John reflects that this parallels the notion fostered at Swiss L’Abri, where someone’s ideas are inherently important.

John also notes that in terms of his own need to be heard and to have greater understanding on the topic of Christianity. So he expresses, for example, that he particularly values Gregg’ ability to bring clarity to their discussion of not a fan . John notes that it was through the back-and-forth of this interaction that he was able to put words and bring explanation to what had been a strong but inarticulate sense of uneasiness with the book.

The final word of John’s mission statement is “thrive.” John explains that in his view the word “thrive” means being fully alive—being vibrant and successful as those who live fulfilling lives. So Gregg wonders about the necessity of overcoming confusion and chaos in order to thrive: why these two obstacles? John explains that in his experience it is these two things that are so often the sticking points that undermine those who want to be successful but can’t seem to be (owners).

John goes on to tie this orientation into his approach to the Untangling Christianity podcast. In that context, John and Gregg are trying to order the chaos concerning what Christianity is and clarify the confusion about the message of Christianity (and how to embody it) and about the Bible (what it is and how it is taught). Further, people are “owners” of their Christian faith a) when they are honest about what they believe / understand (and do not) and b) when they take action to deal with these issues of misunderstanding / doubt that arise, in order that c) they determine what is real and true for themselves / in their own view.

In this way,Christianity is no longer a collection of what others have told you it is supposed to be but really becomes one’s own: you own it in the best sense.

Gregg wonders how one’s personal truth interfaces with the Bible or with God’s truth? Here John would see that the two are necessarily related. In other words, one’s own “truth” must square with something larger and more objective, so that there can be some way of arbitrating various, individual truth claims.

John notes that this notion of truth must also reconcile with one’s own experience (as this is an important source of information), but that while the Bible is also an important informer its misuse has made him wary of placing too much stock in it / being very cautious about how it is employed.  Instead, John contrasts a narrow understanding of the Bible (that may well contribute to its misuse) with the broad, rich understanding that someone like N. T. Wright offers.

The post 83: Owning Everything appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

John and Gregg begin this episode by discussing an article from Relevant Magazine, entitled “3 Youth Group Lessons I’ve Had to Unlearn,” by Addie Zierman.

Gregg explains that the article expresses a similar perspective to the one that he has adopted in his discussion with Tommi, on the matter of theory versus practice. Specifically, Tommi has charged that Gregg seems to be focused more on theory than on practice, yet Gregg disagrees. Instead he believes that we need to approach practice through theory due to certain orientations within evangelical Christianity.

Gregg highlights how the article suggests that evangelical Christians have actually siloed themselves from others because they have been persuaded to adopt an overly defensive pose, much a Gregg has been highlighting in his series of blog posts about churches that adopt “boundary-focused” approaches to outsiders. Gregg’s point is that the author’s view (that Christians are overly defensive) and that of her church / youth pastor (that Christians will be persecuted and must be ready to give reasons for their beliefs) represent two practical orientations that are not only opposed to each other but stalemated, and that this stalemate can only be overcome by appealing to theory.

Gregg begins this theoretical examination by arguing that real issue for Christians in the Western world today is not to defend God’s truth / Christian ideals and values, but is to show a population that largely disregards and dismisses Christianity that Christianity is in fact relevant! So Christians need to understand that by being primed to be defensive they simply are not recognizing that many non-Christian don’t have a beef with Christianity, they simply view it as “stupid and useless.”

As John notes, this defensive assumption can become a “blind spot” that will make it all the more difficult to perceive matters correctly. Gregg agrees and believes that, as Christians continue to view non-Christians according to Christian categories, so these same Christians will continue to misfire in their conversations with non-Christians, trying to draw out “hidden” agendas, fears, or desires that simply are not there.

John thinks that by making assumptions about who non-Christians are, what they value, and where they are coming from that may well be off base, this will likely result in making them feel like objects (and so alienating them). Gregg agrees: this is a “no win” situation and speculates that any movement that a non-Christian may make toward Christianity on the basis of such a presentation may actually indicate dysfunction on the part of that person!

Gregg summarizes his position by presenting a mock discussion between the author, Addie Zierman, and her former youth pastor.

Addie may tell the youth pastor (for the reasons she notes in her article) that the defensive posture that she was trained to adopt is problematic and needs to be changed. However, the youth pastor may point to Bible verses that support this practice and, while being glad that Addie did not experience overt persecution, estimate that Addie’s experience was an exception. What to do? Which approach is best?

Gregg argues that one can only adjudicate between such perspectives by closely examining the theories that under-gird both of them. This is also Gregg’s overall approach in relating Christianity and real life: this integration and interrelation of theory and practice is essential both to a) explaining the validity of Christianity and b) demonstrating how / why it “has traction” in the real world.

Further, Gregg finds that he must start with theory rather than practice because many Christian churches have embraced misunderstandings and misformulations on the level of theory, as have thus taught Christians to adopt flawed practices as a result. So these practices are most easily highlighted and corrected through an examination and reformulation of their underlying theories.

The post 82: Unlearning Youth Group appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode Gregg and John discuss John’s mission statement and how it relates to the podcast. Gregg begins by reading John’s mission statement: “John brings order to chaos and clarity to a confusion so that owners can effectively communicate their truth and thrive.”

John explains that “owners” are people who not only take charge of but take responsibility for their own lives. John contrasts his focuses on owners with having worked in past with people whom he describes as “victims” of their lives. These people seem to focus on all the reason why something would fail or why attempting to fix a broken / non-functional situation just wouldn’t work. Trying to encourage or help these people takes a tremendous amount of energy and typically shows very minimal results.

John’s focus on dealing with chaos and confusion is because these are the typical obstacles that owners face, and he finds that bringing order and clarification in such situations is extremely gratifying. John also links this to the genesis of our podcast, where his confusion while reading of Not a Fan prompted him to seek Gregg’s help to clarify matters.

Gregg wonders about John’s success criteria in the podcast, to which John answers that good back-and-forth conversation and even disagreement between he and Gregg is important, but the key elements are offering clarity and encouragement to others. John also notes that by consciously removing himself from a church environment he also has much less personal angst about “figuring it all out” according to a certain time line.

John also explains that his overall expectations for how the podcast will impact listeners are very low and that his own goal is to oppose bogus ideas (and so focus on finding and promoting authentic ideas and understandings concerning Christianity). John is particularly encouraged by finding that there is more than one perspective, more than one way of approaching or thinking about a certain situation, and that matters often turn out to be more complicated than his upbringing had led him to believe.

When Gregg questions this John notes that authenticity and freedom—freedom to see matters differently and act according to one’s own perspective and understandings—are key values for him. So John notes that he values both the process of coming to authentic, better positions and the conclusions themselves. So his aim is to find solutions and understanding about Christianity that work.

Gregg asks how authenticity and freedom integrate—when you are authentic in your actions and allowing yourself sufficient freedom, what happens? John sees these two combining to allow for integrity. Gregg then queries the relationship between authenticity, freedom, and integrity when it comes to John’s overall hopes for the podcast?

John explains that he hopes that listeners will perceive us as having integrity (by facing issues directly), and that listeners themselves will be able to be honest with themselves and that our conversations will help listeners think and believe more soundly. Gregg sees this as immensely important: how John’s story and trajectory has led him to try to be honest with himself and have integrity in order to be someone who is making better choices and understanding himself and his beliefs (or the beliefs that he is considering) more truly.

So Gregg sees this as a way of legitimately pushing people without being “pushy,” without looking down on them or presenting simplistic formulas, and doing this as one who is “in the thick of it:” being both a participant and an observer.  So Gregg sees John as someone who deeply values people, to which John agrees.

The post 81: Pushing Without Being Pushy appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss how one can or should disagree, in situations where others raise viewpoints that one thinks are questionable or does not believe.   John gives the example of being at a party and someone making an offhand comment about the human soul after death. Several people added supporting comments and John observed a number of “courtesy nods.”

John thought something seemed amiss in the comment but didn’t think that he could unpack all his thoughts (or perhaps even be as clear about them as he wanted to be) and so chose to remain silent. Yet he raises the idea that having integrity can also mean being honest about the fact that one doesn’t agree with something. So John wonders: How can we be constructive while disagreeing?

Gregg replies that it is rare to find himself expressing his disagreement with a particular perspective or person and, out of that, for a real conversation to develop. Instead, the assumption seems to be that deep subjects are “dropped into” casual conversation, much like we would discuss sports or the weather.

Gregg explains that he seeks both to assess the context he is in (is a party or a discussion group; does he know most people well or nearly no one) and whether, given both the context and his how state of mind, fatigue, etc., this is an engagement that he wants to pursue. When Gregg does decide to engage on the subject his main approach is to understand the other party’s viewpoint and then to raise only a few points, and he is prepared for his points not to be understood well.

In his experience Gregg notes that if the conversation continues long enough then there is typically some discomfort, because Gregg may be expressing views that are new to the other party. So Gregg is all the more excited by his interaction with productive Tommi and Anna because, most often, the other party becomes fearful when faced with different ways of understanding God or themselves, which can make them shy away or even become reactionary.

John wonders again: is there a place for the courtesy nod?

Gregg maintains that his first approach is to determine what type of engagement the other person is looking for, coupled with just how new or unfamiliar Gregg’s views of Christianity, the Christian life, etc. will likely appear to that person. Gregg often proceeds by offering a little of his thought on a subject and, if the other party seems interested or curious, offer more. When it comes to close friends, Gregg gauges his response based on the situation. So the more difficult the situation his friend is in, the more that Gregg will seek to understand the details of that situation and the person’s life before ever engaging about what s/he thinks about certain topic.

Gregg goes on to note that the mode of interaction most typical of Christians faced with non-Christian viewpoints that question or challenge their beliefs is not dialogue but dispute. Not only does Gregg greatly disagrees with this inclination but also thinks that it is likely the reason why Christians may seem to be looking more for courtesy nods than deeper engagement on such topics, because where we find the views of another to be unbiblical we have been trained not to discuss but to debate!

So rather than a heated dialogue (which seeks to advance the matter to its best conclusion) a dispute already knows what is right and what is wrong and is only focused proving this, or having one’s opponent back down. And this, to Gregg’s mind, is not Christian. Further, Gregg notes that “critical listening” is not waiting patiently or politely before firing back. In fact, when it comes to Christians employing this in discussions, there is often far too much “critical” and far too little “listening.” Rather, listening means attempting to bring out the best and fullest within the other person’s perspective and attempting to strengthen them and doing so because I hope and believe that, through our discussion, we are on a joint venture for truth.

John asks a practical question: What are three ways that we can become better listeners in the coming week?

Gregg answers that the first step must be to consider our theories on the mater, because until there is an understanding of the differences in theoretical approach between Gregg and those he may be addressing, his practical advice is much more likely to be misunderstood (and so misapplied). So Gregg’s three ways amount to asking ourselves three questions that will put us in the right position to listen best to others:

1) How well are you able to consider that the other person’s perspective may have merit (and so draw out the strengths in their perspective)?

So Gregg notes that his goal is to bring understanding but that he will not engage in conversation where it is clear from the setting or the person’s demeanour that s/he is not disposed toward understanding.

The post 80: How to Listen and Disagree appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John wonders why Gregg was so pleased when, during the last episode, Tommi disagreed with Gregg’s perspective.

Gregg explains that he is excited and positive about several things. First, that listeners such as Tommi are listening attentively to our episodes, grasping what is being said, formulating their own views on the subject, and being willing to engage with us about the differences. Further, Gregg is becoming further aware of his own perspective on Christianity, even that much of what he and John are doing through this podcast (and in particular, challenging what “counts” as information sources about God, about humanity, and about the relationship between the two) Gregg would now consider to be his vocation.

Gregg summarizes how his spiritual journey (of being a Christian for 7 or 8 years, then as an agnostic for 7 years, and finally as a Christian again for the past 15+ years) was very painful yet also very beneficial. John guesses that this a rare trajectory. Gregg explains that even as his current views about Christianity have been formed by this difficult process, so too Gregg believes that the integration of Christian beliefs and human existence that he is presenting will be mostly unfamiliar (and so challenging) to others. And so perhaps the best sign that listeners are really engaging with this material is that they are having some of the same reactions that Gregg had himself, when he was first grappling with these ideas!

Gregg further specifies that when he was faced with the numerous experiences of evil in his life that, even if Christianity was a lie, he determined to be a truth-seeker. So when he realized the full picture of this familial abuse Gregg made the decision that he would resist the legacy that abuse can imply—to be an abuser oneself—and that in important regards he would be a better man that his father.

Gregg underscores, however, that a crucial element in his return to Christianity was realizing that he was actually best able to follow through on his commitments to be a better man than his father was by embracing the new experiences and understandings that he had had about God and himself. So by seeing the truth in Christianity Gregg was forced either to maintain his agnosticism (and deny truth, as his father had done at crucial moments) or become a Christian himself.

John enquires: what were these truths in Christianity? Gregg listed a variety on topics (such as who God is, what hell is [and is not], what goodness is and how it can be measured). John also wonders: how do the disagreements of our listeners impact Gregg?  Gregg notes that he is a gut-level thinker and so he often has a sense of something being important, or perhaps skewed, before he is able fully to articulate why and how.  Gregg expresses his gladness that the disagreements that Tommi and Anna have shared demonstrate that these listeners are thoughtful, engaged, and committed to the topics, and notes that listener disagreement is above all challenging him to bring out more of his thinking / the application of his experience.

John raises the notion of confirmation bias and wonders how much this plays into Gregg’s approach. Gregg counters that when listeners “push back” against his perspectives he actually experiences some of the same tension that existed when he transitioned from agnosticism back into Christianity, and that he has learned to use this tension as the fuel for highly productive writing—“bringing out” more of his views that have remained as unspoken assumptions or unformulated, gut-level notions.

The post 79: Beneficial Disagreement appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg welcome Tommi Poelstra, John’s wife, to the show. Tommi joins John and Gregg to offer feedback on Episode #68.

In Tommi’s view episode #68 was more focused on God’s kingdom than on God “meeting our needs,” which is what John and Gregg set out to discuss at the beginning of that episode. Further, Tommi understood Gregg to be arguing that people should think more about God’s kingdom than about their needs, and that everyone should thus be “kingdom focused” rather than “need focused.”

Gregg responds that God’s kingdom has no real meaning to non-Christians, and that what stage a given Christian / person investigating Christianity may “be at” in terms of Christianity will determine to what extent God’s kingdom is a priority to that person at that moment.

Tommi continues by noting her sense that episode # 68 needed to address human needs directly. So even as she identifies Gregg as someone who values his family and is clearly concerned for their needs, she still perceived a hierarchy in Gregg’s perspective in that episode, where human needs were important but not “as important” as, say, God’s kingdom. Instead, for Tommi the topic of God’s kingdom should not come into—let alone become alone become the primary focus—in discussion on the topic of human needs. They should have been treated in separate podcasts.

Further, her view is that word searches in the Bible are of questionable value. So where Gregg brought out sections of the biblical text that address God meeting our needs, yet found that these sections where less frequent than he had thought and that a number of these in the New Testament were sandwiched between texts related to the importance of God’s kingdom, Tommi finds this uncompelling (and even, perhaps, irrelevant).

Gregg replies that discussing human needs in general could certainly be done without reference to God’s kingdom, but that any discussion of human needs in the context of relationship with the Christian God must, necessarily, include the fullest scope of who both parties are and the basis for relationship between them. Further, Gregg believes that “meeting human needs,” when taken to its extreme, means God rescuing or intervening those who are threatened by evil. In such a context God ‘responds’ to human need with God’s self, through relationship. And within the context of human relationship with the Christian God, the pursuit and furtherance of God’s kingdom is the space wherein God and humans meet.

Tommi wonders what Gregg means by “God’s kingdom?” Gregg responds that he sees God’s kingdom as the promotion and realization of the fact that God is king, the fact that God is truly sovereign (as lord over all things) and truly parent and creator (as the source of all things). So God has acted, most notably through the life and death of Jesus, to inaugurate God’s claim to ownership and governance of all that is. Further, through Jesus’ fulfilling the covenant and bearing the covenant curses, on Israel’s behalf, the way was opened for gentiles (such as Gregg) to have the possibility to enter into right relationship with this God in close, involved relationship (and thereby, with himself, his fellows, and the physical world).

Tommi appreciates Gregg’s careful word choice and the construction of his views, yet notes that that this appears overly intellectual: how does God’s kingdom and God meeting our needs apply to Tommi as she awaits her son returning from school (and spending the afternoon with him)?

John affirms Tommi’s desire for a more practical response to the idea of God “meeting our needs” and notes that this desire may begin to be met in several of our more recent podcasts concerning “the eagle.” In turn, Gregg likens the efforts that he and John have been making throughout the podcast as coming to a table that is filled with the ideas, theologies, and understandings of what Christianity is and trying to clear some space on that table in order to say something that is somewhat different. And this is primarily an intellectual (or at least, not a mainly practical) task.

Further, Gregg indicates that any discussion of the practicalities of God meeting human needs must be able effectively to address not simply the day-to-day but the extreme situations in our lives. In this regard, Gregg’s summarizes his own experience of Go as: there is a significance to his own needs while having the sense and understanding that there is something bigger going on. Tommi finds this clear and helpful.

Further, where Tommi wonders if Gregg’s skills are more focused on the theoretical than the practical Gregg demurs: in his view the theoretical work regarding what counts in terms of understanding God, understanding human being, and understanding the relationship between the two (including a robust understanding of the role of experience in Christian faith) has not been. As such, Gregg indicates that his motivation in these podcast discussion and indeed in his Christian faith is extremely practical, yet to Gregg’s mind it impossible to gain or maintain credibility with those at the margins / outside of Christianity by simply approaching these matters practically or offering practical responses. As such, Gregg has held back on investigating the practical topics (and divulging his own, practical experiences) in order to solidify the theoretical.

Yet Tommi resists the idea that theory needs to precede practice. Gregg responds that he sees a two-way interplay, from the practical to the theoretical and vice versa, but he also sees his own vocation as being oriented toward redressing this lack of theoretical work regarding what counts in terms of understanding God, understanding human being, and understanding the relationship between the two. Yet Gregg sees Tommi’s practical focus as a valid challenge, much like Henri Nouwen leaving Harvard to work with developmentally handicapped adults.

Gregg also notes his fear that by disconnecting Christian practice from the story upon which it is based (or truncating that story to one that is about personal salvation rather than the covenant and Israel), Christians risk orienting their practice in ways that do not make sense, which has resulted in churches becoming anaemic, losing credibility, etc.

Tommi summarizes her position as valuing definitions and theory (She wants to define needs or need) while having a need to respond in the best way to practical situations in her life. So instead of being so finely focused she would hope for a broader and more general focus, and Tommi also expresses that identifying one, single reason that the Christian church may be waning seems arrogant.

Gregg estimates that it will take some time before he and John can get to the “conversational space” that Tommi is most interested in, and that “jumping there” will do a disservice to the needs in the Christian community, that Gregg itemized above. This would limit their ability to assess books like Not a Fan in a critical way and, here again, some of the discussions cannot be taken to a practical level before the theoretical basis for Gregg’s position has been spelled out.

The post 78: Be More Practical and Less Theoretical | Listener Feedback appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

John begins by presenting the new, “Untangling Christianity” private Facebook group. John explains that the goal of this group is to be a place for deeper conversation about subjects raised on or related to the podcasts, and that the group can be accessed by sending us an email request.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss a comment made on the Untangling Christianity Facebook group by listener Anna, referring to Episode #71: Does God Act Individually or Personally?.

Anna disagrees with Gregg’s skepticism about certain claims to experience God, such as when seeing an eagle on a hike one might believe: “God put that eagle in the sky for me.” Anna agrees that we can’t be certain if God put the eagle there ‘for’ the hiker, but if the hiker interprets the eagle as “a demonstration of [God’s] love and attention” then, in her view, we should not question the hiker’s belief about this. To do so would essentially be claiming that “there is no way that God would go out of his way to do that for you: you really aren’t that important.”

Gregg appreciates Anna’s response and notes that we need to be careful in several regards. First, not every action or expression that God may make toward an individual should be seen as aimed at expressing love and attention. In other words, communication can be oriented toward informing, assuaging, correcting, promising, guiding, etc. This is clear in human interaction, and so too with God: we see numerous examples in the Bible of God interacting with human beings according to these various orientations.

So on the one hand, relative to a given experience Gregg recommends that Christians maintain less confidence either that a) the event is somehow from or related to God, or b) one’s initial sense of its meaning or significance is correct.

On the other hand, Gregg emphasizes that God’s actions for / toward human beings is always contextualized by the larger story of Israel, the covenant, and Jesus as the one who has fulfilled that covenant and opened its ultimate promise—the promise that all beings may be in right relationship with God and therefore with all things—to all people. This story, which is ultimately the story of the God’s claim to kingship and the coming about of God’s kingdom, is the context within which all claims to God loving us, attending to us, and “going out of God’s way for us” must be situated (and so understood).

So in Gregg’s view, given the type of world that we live in (where phenomenon such as eagles can suddenly appear as we hike a mountain ridge) and given the type of beings that we are (we are finite beings with whom God seeks to engage), we should instead see God as raising possibilities for us to enter, invigorate, and renew relationship with God.

With the example of the eagle, one person may perceive it as indication that God is helping them through a difficult time. Another may see it and feel envious and anxious that they are weighed down by a particular problem. Yet another person may be overwhelmed with the beauty of the scene, while the last person does not notice it at all. And in Gregg’s view, none of these would be more right (or wrong) than the others.

In other words, Gregg notes that discerning divine purpose within events is difficult, and the more subjective the experience and general the event, the harder it seems to make specific (and especially grand) claims about it. Similarly, the more legitimate it appears for a listener to be sceptical of such claims.

Instead Gregg argues, as in other areas of life, that such events should serve as prompters and reminders that can point us toward better ways of understanding ourselves, relating to others, and being in the world. So Gregg prefers to see such events as opportunities to stimulate our thought, employ our memory, and engage our imagination towards truth, towards diversification, and towards enjoyment.

From a specifically Christian perspective such opportunities are both innately part of the world that God has created and, possibly, represent more direct action on God’s part (while recognizing that typically we can’t be very sure about this). Again in a Christian vein the truth, diversification and enjoyment that result from applying our thought, memory, and imagination are ultimately oriented toward / contribute to the fulfillment of the kingdom of God.

The post 77: Was That Experience Really God? appeared first on Untangling Christianity.