Untangling Christianity Podcast

In this episode John and Gregg discuss listener feedback from Eric in the comments for Episode #41.  Eric believes John and Gregg have been overly critical of The Misunderstood God by Darin Hufford in a way that is unnecessary and misses the value others have found in Hufford’s message.

John and Gregg reflect on this feedback and consider why they are being critical and detail oriented. Gregg comments on this in the context of his current experiences at Swiss L’Abri where new arrivals often complain that discussions about God are overly complex or major on minor ideas. If people stay for a while this perspective often changes.

Gregg notes that putting valid or questionable details into an orientation that doesn’t work may take you to the wrong destination. This has been Gregg’s concern with The Misunderstood God.

The conversation turns to credentials and credibility and how much those things should factor into the validity of another person’s ideas or challenges to existing ideas.

Gregg explains what he sees as the differences between humility, arrogance and confidence as John raises the question of how to draw the line between trying to evaluate and understand something and being unnecessarily critical. Could it be that one person’s nit-picking is another person’s thoroughness?

John encourages listeners to share a different perspective, even if it’s at odds with his or Gregg’s. It’s especially helpful when sharing your point of view to give some details about how you arrive at your conclusions or experiences you’ve had. This helps us and others learn from you, invites conversation, and aides in refining different viewpoints.

The post 56: Confidence or Arrogance | Listener Feedback appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss the fact that they, and particularly Gregg, are viewing and responding to the material that they are working with in a very different way from many other reviewers (such as their responses to Kyle Idleman’s Not a Fan and Darin Hufford’s Misunderstood God).

John reflects on how his discomfort level with these “differences” is much lower than when he first began discussing these topics.  John also notes that a listener sent him a book (Surrender to Love, by David Benner) that reinforces some of Gregg’s perspectives and the things he and John and have been discussing.  John also notes the rigor of the presentation of Benner’s book offers a degree of credibility that far outweighs what they’ve seen in the other books they’ve discussed so far.

Gregg and John are answering these question differently than the some of authors they’re are reading. For example, Kyle Idleman.  Gregg expresses his discomfort about being more overt about his different answers that and hesitates in responding.

Gregg reflects on his own trajectory from a sovereignty-focused Christianity, through agnosticism, to a Christianity focused on God as both sovereign AND parent (father).  Gregg believes that arriving at this new position of seeing God as sovereign and parents yields a far richer and more satisfying life, a greater sense of self, and a picture of God that coheres far better with the biblical text.

Yet John persists: What is Gregg so hesitant to say?  Gregg admits the “elephant” in the room is two particular perspectives.  The first is his contention that how to view God, how to view human beings, and how to understand the relationship between the two are really choices, even if we make them in an uninformed manner. The second is Gregg’s assertion of a very different way of understanding how we view God, self, and the relationship between the two that puts him in a minority number of people based on the conclusions he comes to.

Thus for Gregg we are responsible to be making the best such choices that we can, based on the best (that is, truest) information that we can gather on these matters.  Further, Gregg wagers that while these choices are crucial, our churches do not present them as being choices, and so do not prepare Christians to become wise choice-makers in these crucial areas.

Gregg concludes that the duty of a Christian is more to seeking (and embracing) truth than it is to their tradition or understanding of Christianity.  Why?  Because false religion–which the prophets against–is still a reality now.  Only by being truth-seekers can Christians hope to overcome the false religion.

So John summarizes: in the podcast he and Gregg are taking a minority position (and not following the mainstream), and notes that people must be aware that they are making choices (whether they think they are, or not) and that as such they really have choices (again, whether or not they perceive them as such).

The post 55: Elephant or Not appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss an article from the Biola University alumni magazine purporting to identify a “crisis of biblical illiteracy” within evangelical churches.  The author, Kenneth Bearding, holds a Ph. D. in hermeneutics and biblical interpretation, and targets biblical illiteracy.

John sees the article as “click bait”: dramatizing an issue in order to curry readership.  Gregg found one of the comment to the article very helpful, which stated that in the author’s examples the people seemed not so much biblically illiterate as historically and culturally under-informed.

Similarly, John wonders if this article is not proposing a “cure” without having accurately diagnosed the problem!  In other words, by presenting a loaded topic that has only one ‘acceptable’ answer (e.g., no good Christian would approve of biblical illiteracy).

John sees this approach—mistaking symptoms for problems—a common response when Christians “under-achieve” or seem lack lustre is their faith.  Particularly, the author presents the issue in personalized terms that seem, according to the author, to be about a) not managing your time well, b) not trying hard enough, or c) not having the right priorities.

So where Bearding rebukes his readers as “sinful” for playing more video games and watching TV than reading their Bibles, rather than simply rebuking them and telling them to “get back on track” John wants to know what might be prompting people to act this way?  Further, John wonders why Christians who really want to be in relationship with God and with whom the Bible really resonates need, seemingly, to be coerced to read their Bibles—won’t they naturally want to do this?  In other words, John argues that we set our priorities based on reasons and driven by certain motivations.

Gregg echoes John’s concerns, and believes that much of what the author touches on is more complex that Bearding admits.  Further, while he believes that Bible reading is important, in contrast to Bearding Gregg views memorizing Bible verses to be less important than biblical research and exegesis.

Gregg further speculates that the real problem here, where biblical illiteracy is but a symptom, concerns the basis for (and reality of) one’s relationship with God.  Good questions to probe this might be: What is your relationship with God based on?  What role does love play, what role does truth play?

John closes by discussing his impressions of N. T. Wright’s Simply Jesus.  John explains how he found Wright’s presentation refreshingly different.  Wright both provides a great deal of back-up for his views and depth to his argument, yet his writing is very approachable to the layman, such that instead of coercing us Wright provides readers with the tools to make an informed decision.

The post 54: Is Biblical Illiteracy the Real Problem? appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John begins by considering which is more important: “seeking” God’s kingdom or loving God?  In doing so John considers how Gregg speaks of loving God as a very intense involvement with God that seems to be oriented around feelings and emotion.  Yet what about the command to love?  Is God really “commanding” us to love God?

Gregg responds by noting that many Christians seem to need to emphasize that love is (or starts with) something one does rather than something that one experiences or feels.  Instead, Gregg pushes back against this by indicating the importance of both one’s feelings about / toward God and one’s actions for / in light of God.  In other words, love always begins as an emotional response that is awakened (and can be dimmed).

Gregg argues that, both textually and experientially, the notion of commanding love’s inception makes no sense.  So in terms of the biblical text, we note that the commands to love found in Deuteronomy come after the Israelites’ quintessential experience of being delivered (that is, deeply cared for and loved): the Exodus.  So take in context, God is commanding love within the pre-existing context of a long and established history with a people who have good reason to understand clearly how—and how much—God indeed loves them! 

Experientially love begins as a preoccupation, but this preoccupation results in action.  However, this is not to suggest that love matures from emotion into action.  Instead, Gregg views love as an abiding orientation chiefly characterized by excess.  In being ‘excessive’ love always seeks expression, both as joyful exclamation and as catharsis.  And while this expression may take the form of thoughts and words (letters, poetry, songs) it also become concretized, through our choice-making, into action.

So while love is not a matter of the will, neither is it a matter of pure desire.  Instead love, like other emotions, has its roots in understanding.  So just as fear arises when certain phenomenon or states of affairs threaten my existence, so love begins when I perceive, at a profound level, that in the other I am being offered goods necessary to my existence.  And while love is often coupled with perceptions of the beloved’s qualities (beauty, character, etc.) love also distinguishes itself from admiration (or infatuation).

So while it involves the will, love is not derived from the will.  And while it expresses desire, love is not solely a matter of desire.  This distinction both clarifies that emotions are not subservient to the intellect (but exist in tandem with it, each having its own role) and focuses on the necessarily self-involving nature of love: love involves (and is predicated upon) a deep, ‘gut level’ understanding that the beloved offers goods necessary to my existence and / or flourishing.

The post 53: Can Love be Commanded? appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss Chapter 8 of Darin Hufford’s The Misunderstood God. John notes Hufford’s lack of scriptural references is both refreshing and problematic (as Hufford globalizes his own experience to his readers).  Gregg replies that, in contrast to Kyle Idleman’s Not a Fan (where Gregg and John were able to evaluate Idleman’s views based on the scriptural texts from which he drew them and how Idleman interpreted them). The validity of Hufford’s positions (on God and Christianity) are harder to evaluate because they aren’t based on biblical texts and the only sources cited to establish their validity are Hufford’s experiences.

Gregg  notes in Chapter 7 how, in contrast to the notion that God created humans to “worship God and enjoy God forever,” he finds Hufford’s notion far more compelling: God created humanity “because love requires expression” (p. 76).  In other words, we are created to be in a love relationship with God.  John resonates with Hufford’s comments about being far more deeply complimented / appreciated by those who know him best.  For Gregg this co-incides with his own personal emphasis on truth and love being at the core of one’s relationship with God where one is truly known and deeply loved.

Gregg cites the need for inter-reliance among Christians in order to strike this balance such that, while some Christians are capable and interested in deeply examining the Bible yet others have abilities that are more practically oriented, and both are required.  In Gregg’s view  Hufford is communicating his experiences and insights about God, however by insisting that they be framed within 1 Corinthians 13, Hufford ends up twisting the text to fit his experiences and views. In other words, it appears he has let the format of his communication drive the the content. This is problematic.

Gregg believes the reason for this is the tendency of evangelicals to be weak in two key areas: idea formulation and deeper dialogue.  Specifically, Gregg notes that by globalizing his own experiences Hufford doesn’t invite reader into a dialogue with him (e.g., “Could matters be as I’ve suggested?  If so, how might this how you view God?”). Instead the presentation has a tone of take-it-or-leave-it.  And not only is this an innately unsuccessful mode of interaction, but it is at odds with the very view of God that Hufford is presenting (where God is generous, open, inviting, etc.)!

The post 52: Gold in Them Hills | Chap 8 of The Misunderstood God by Darin Hufford appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss Chapter 7 of The Misunderstood God: The Lies Religion Tells About God by Darin Hufford. John begins with a quotation from page 72, “Why did God create us? Because love requires expression.” John finds this notion startling and compelling while wondering about its validity.

Gregg believes two factors, in combination, are necessary to validate the truth of an assertion about God. First, one must have the best understanding of who God is and what Christianity is about. Second we must bring our own self understanding. And so the discovery of truth comes through the bi-directional and mutually informing tension between the biblical text and our understandings from human experience / knowledge.

We need to allow our understanding of God that comes the biblical text to aid in solving conflicts between the competing understandings we have of divine and human identity.

So while we need to allow room to form understanding from our experience (both of being in a love relationship with God and of living in the world), we also need to use scientific knowledge to guide us in adjudicating between competing interpretations of the Bible.

To confirm Darin’s notion of “Why God created,” Gregg begins by noting that love and God’s love (for humanity, creation, etc.) runs through the entire Bible. Further, the nature of love often points to the excess and the ‘more’ of love, which is in keeping with the desire (and even, perhaps, the need) to create.

In turn, Gregg notes two major concerns with Hufford’s approach. First, Hufford formulates the issues he presents rather loosely and sometimes unrealistically, which makes his conclusions unconvincing (see page 69 for an example). Second, Gregg notes Hufford globalizes his experiences to his readers, assuming everyone has more or less experienced the same things he has.

Gregg believes it would be more helpful if Hufford generalized from his experience in order to derive principles that could be broadly accessible to his readers (see page 70 as an example). Gregg notes his experience of feeling alienated as a reader when authors globalize their experiences (assuming everyone has felt or experienced what they have), particularly when Gregg cannot relate to those experiences. And so the author’s point (and sometimes his credibility) is lost.

Gregg reiterates that information sources from the world around us (including scientific knowledge, general knowledge from “living in the world,” and knowledge about God via being in relationship with God) are in a productive, mutually informing tension with our understandings of the biblical text. While each is “vying for the fore,” when integrated well and taken as a whole these act as “checks and balances” to ensure better, truer understandings.  The result?  Better modes of living and being.

John and Gregg discuss Darin’s view that God made God-self vulnerable to have relationship with us. For John the notion of God’s vulnerability seems to be contrary to God’s divine nature. He wonders how hard such “vulnerability” is to God?

Gregg suggests viewing our hearts as a stringed instrument’s “resonance chamber.”  If God, who is love, has a similar resonance chamber it must be so much richer and fuller than ours. God’s chamber is orchestral. Thus, God likely feels far more deeply and truly than we do. And God does this without the detrimental effects humans often have in the face of extreme emotions. For example, becoming crushed, overwhelmed, or bi-polar as a result.

The post 51: Generalize Not Globalize | Chap 7 of The Misunderstood God by Darin Hufford appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

This week John and Gregg kick things off by reading an iTunes review that summarizes well what they are trying to do.  This being the 50th episode it’s also a good time to reflect again on how the podcast is going.  Gregg’s “high light” is that, really, there have been no “low lights.”  John relates some mixed feelings about how many new topics we’ve opened up without necessarily closing the ones we’ve already started.

Next the conversation turns to the different topics they have explored (or want to explore in more depth) as well as John’s reflections on the speed of his own journey to untangle Christianity.

John wonders where Gregg sees things going 50 episodes from now, when we get to Episode #100.  Gregg hopes to become clearer and clearer about what Christianity is and what it is NOT.  He also believes that we’ll continue to uncover the complexity of many of these issues–how they are not a simple as many people make them out to be.

John shares his hopes for the road to episode #100.  John thinks out loud about trying to systematize the subjects we are discussing and trying to make sense of in a way that would be more accessible to others, like an eBook or a longer document, without getting too carried away or attempting to create another systematic theology.

This idea resonates with their original goal of being “for” certain perspectives and advocating certain beliefs instead of being “those guys who are against a bunch of stuff.”  Yet they are cognizant that in many earlier episodes they found it necessary to push back against many popular views in Christianity.  So they believe that the podcast will increasingly follow a trajectory toward formalizing what they understand and believe by presenting a clear case for their perspective (rather than simply reacting against that of others).

In this regard Gregg re-uses his illustration of approaching a table already packed with ideas and conceptions.  In order to set the table rightly we then have to clear some of these ideas and conceptions away, replacing them with better understandings.  So while some may perceive us as overly negative we believe this process is a necessary step in the process.

As the episode finishes John underscores his need / desire for more than just “head knowledge” of God–experiencing God.  Gregg agrees that this is an important component of faith and also emphasizes a proceeding question: considering why one should even believe in God. John reflects on Gregg’s focus of “interpreting our experiences” and considers how this might affect how he has seen or not seen God in his life.

Question to the audience: How do you feel about the ebb and flow of topics on the podcast? Do you like the path we are on as we move from topic to topic or should we have a narrower focus?

The picture 50 is by chrisinplymouth via flickr used under a Creative Commons license.

The post 50: Retrospective | Looking Back and Looking Forward appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

Gregg begins this episode by relating how his mediation training can help people be their best selves, which he also sees as both the focus and result of being a Christian.  Part of his excitement concerns the hope that mediation can contribute towards restoring relationships–moving beyond the disposability of relationships to seeing yourself and the other person in new ways.

So in a mediation context each disputant has their view of the truth and each may well have a true view of their position, however putting that truth in the context of the whole often changes things.  John observes how, ironically, Christian culture is typically uncomfortable with “multiple truths” and instead there must be one “right” and one “wrong.”

In contrast, Gregg notes how people portrayed in the gospels were deeply moved by the things Jesus did and who Jesus was–how Jesus met and “knew” people.  Gregg goes on to note how Jesus’ actions (and God’s response) to humanity’s situation is set in the context of the covenant.  Gregg also notes how much we lose sight of “God as parent” by overly focusing on “God as Sovereign.”

Gregg observes that Christians are often so focused on God as “truth” and as “sovereign” that they are not amazed, as they should be, by how God fulfilled the Covenant in spite of humanity not holding up their end of the bargain.  In other words, Jesus going to the cross was an act of obedience out of love, such that love is the driving component and the lens through which Christians are to understand God as “parent.”

So Gregg’s own experience of loving God is not based on Jesus dying on the cross as an act of love, but is based on experiences in his own life where he believes that God has ‘shown up’ in particular acts of healing and remaking that Gregg categorizes as being “loved and known,” and that this is in fact what we see in the gospel stories: God is interested in making us whole in order that we may be able to enter into and maintain right relationship with God.

John pushes Gregg on his definition of love in conjunction with duty and obedience.  Gregg, while not dismissing the importance of duty within love, insists that duty comes out of desire and not the other way around.  John relates that, in his experience, duty fails to “deliver the goods” on its own.  John likewise notes how duty seems key to Christianity because, as a Christian, you “do what you’re supposed to do” in order to get to heaven.  Hence duty is key because this form of Christianity is essentially about “trying harder.”

Yet where John accepts that the goal of this flavour of Christianity is having a fulfilling love relationship with God, Gregg asks how John’s expectations about this relationship were set by how those Christians who claimed to have such a relationship either i) demonstrated it or ii) explained those aspects that weren’t visible to others?  John acknowledges that this was mostly intellectual–there were no “real life” examples.

Gregg then returns to the notion that love is to be our guiding preoccupation.  Thus in Gregg’s view God not only loves us but is in love with us (in a manner that can be discernible and compelling).  Gregg also notes the disconnect when thinking about creation such that, since Augustine, we have been concerned with how God created.  Yet the ‘why’ of creation–why God bothered to create in the first place–gives the ‘how’ its proper context (and allows us to understand what is really going on).  And Gregg categorizes this as ex amore: creativity out of and aimed at love.  This concept is also discussed in Episode #45 How and Why.

In this way, Gregg notes that if the “content of the cross that saves the world” is Jesus’ filial obedience, then this is the ‘how’ of salvation.  ‘Why’ did Jesus obey?  Out of love for God the father and love for us.

The post 49: God as Sovereign and Parent | Chap 6-7 of The Misunderstood God by Darin Hufford appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg continue their discussion from Episode 47 around Kyle Idleman’s message from May 25, 2014 titled The Inside-Out Way of Jesus: Humbled To Be Exalted (week 2) and attempting to answer listener Brandon’s questions.

The notes John refers to taking from Idleman’s message are here.

Gregg sums up his view of this sermon by Kyle Idleman be wanting to re-focus on the correct guiding principle within Christianity.  So instead of focusing on ‘heaven or hell’ Gregg suggests that the message of Christianity (and its proper focus) is first that God loves you.  Second, that God is truly sovereign and truly parent.  Third, that God desires to enact a love relationship in a context of truth (and truth-seeking) and that God will instigate that relationship, even if that is by means of you being exposed to the biblical text or to Christians who demonstrate God’s love to you in how they respond to you.

So Gregg rejects Kyle Idleman’s view that humility–humbling ourselves–is the answer for any situation in which we find ourselves.  Instead, Gregg argues that humility’s proper context is the Christian’s proper, overarching orientation: loving God entirely, loving yourself rightly, and loving your neighbour likewise.

Gregg reflects on the unrealistic expectations that seem to accompany Idleman’s perspective, such as seeking opportunities to be humbled (or even humiliated?).  For example, asking why we never post photos of ourselves in compromising situations (such as a family argument).  Yet this is not being proud but being normal: we share moments of failure selectively but share moments achievement broadly and indiscriminately, because we’re not looking for feedback in such cases.

Instead, Gregg suggests that when we fail it is our love relationship with God that can stabilize and re-energize us.  And where this is not the case, Christians should ask themselves some frank questions, such as a) What does your relationship with God look like?  b) On your best days, what do you imagine that it could look like?  c) How do you think that you can get there (and what do you think it will cost)?

Further, when we see ourselves habitually doing things that we “don’t want to be doing,” to communicate with God: 1) What need do you see this habit meeting? and 2) Asking God, “How would you like to see this need being met instead?”  We are best to approaching God with these questions from a belief that God seeks to increase our relational attunement with / to God.

The post 48: Starting With the Right Orientation | Listener Feedback appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

Today’s episode and the next where sparked by listener comments and questions from Brandon in Louisville, Kentucky.

Brandon writes:

Hey guys. I’m a casual listener. I might have gotten through the first 10 or 12 podcast so far. Great job producing so much content consistently. A couple things.

Early on Gregg mentioned a book he was looking forward to reading by some one who was an expert in near east history. At the time I tried to google the name but couldn’t find anything. Now I have forgotten it altogether.

So, the reason for my correspondence. I’ve often been frustrated with Christian books that call for total commitment…like we are just supposed to stand there and strain every muscle and tendon in our body thinking about Jesus. I haven’t read anything by Kyle Idleman nor did I know anything about him other than what you guys have mentioned in the podcast. I recently moved to Louisville KY, and haven’t had much luck finding a church in the first couple weeks. So I decided to give Southeast Christian (the local megachurch) a try. Guess who was preaching? It rhymes with smile shy dill man. Anyway, I was really touched by the sermon on humility and I wanted to know what you all think.

In a subsequent follow-up Brandon also wrote:

also, I’d reallly love to hear you all define “love” in relationship to God and man.

In this episode and the next John and Gregg address Brandon’s questions and observations, from Kyle Idleman’s message titled The Inside-Out Way of Jesus: Humbled To Be Exalted (week 2), May 25, 2014.

The notes John refers to taking from Idleman’s message are here.

John reflects on Brandon’s query about the “call for total commitment” by raising questions.  First, What is the source of this message?  Second, How consistently does one encounter this message in the Bible?  In response John wagers that much of the call to “total commitment” is fear mongering: pushing Christians to be really sure that they’re on the “right track.”

Gregg’s hunch is that most Christians have no resources to conceive of Christianity as being other than about going to heaven or going to hell.  He also wonders if, under the circumstances John describes, Christianity becomes an unhealthy preoccupation with “getting it right” instead of living out our current understandings and commitments, however “imperfect” they may be.

John raises Kyle Idlemans’ notion that we need to be humble in order to be exalted, noting Idleman neither clarifies what exaltation is or why we would want it. It sounds to John like Idleman assumes this is something all Christians want without defining what is–Christians just need to humble themselves so they can “have the goodies”.  Gregg sees the focus of exaltation as another instance of Christianity equated with rewards (especially the reward of heaven).

John and Gregg also discuss Idleman’s assertion that being a Christian means not only being counter-cultural but counter-intuitive, and doing so in ways that just don’t feel right.  Gregg’s view is: Maybe yes, but maybe no.  Because if we always proceed with what is “counter-intuitive and feels wrong” then Christianity is made out to be contrary to our instincts, feelings and perceptions are always misguided and that everything Christian is counter to what appears to us to be natural and human.  Instead, Gregg suggests that we can develop and attunement to truth not only intellectually but also through our feelings.

From this John questions whether Jesus came in order to impart good principles or to make a point within the current context that drives towards a larger point / goal?  Gregg emphasizes, on the one hand, that our guiding directive as Christians is to love God entirely, love myself rightly and love my neighbour likewise.  Yet on the other hand, as John states, these right ways of relating are directed toward the furtherance of the kingdom of God.

The post 47: Step Away From the Boat | Listener Feedback appeared first on Untangling Christianity.