Untangling Christianity Podcast

This episode is the fourth of a four-part series where Gregg reads excerpts from—and comments on—an excellent  conversation that took place in the Untangling Christianity Facebook group.  All comments and names are used with permission of the authors.

In this podcast Gregg engages with Amy’s comments about “preaching the Word of God” and “sensing the the Holy Spirit’s movement.”  He notes that the “typical” evangelical response is one that focuses almost entirely on trust and belief.  Yet Gregg explains that belief and trust are not “biblical principles” in that neither one of them “stands alone” but, instead, each in fact represents one “pole” of a complimentary opposition (or a mutually-informing tension).

So in order best to engage with Amy’s comments he takes the approach of decreasing trust and belief and increasing suspicion and scepticism.  For example, Gregg is skeptical—that is, he doubts or finds it rather questionable or simply does not believe—that most Christians without exegetical training (and likely without a commentary in hand, in the pew) would know if a verse is being taken “in context” or not.  Similarly, Gregg is suspicious—that is, wary of false orientations and hidden motivations—about how Christians view humility.  Specifically, evangelical culture tends to value certain virtues (such as humility) more than other virtues (such as confidence).  Yet in my experience it is just as easy to hide unvirtuous motivations behind a veneer of humility as it is to misrepresent a confident person as “proud.”  Further, humility also is not a “Biblical principle” but, instead, confidence and humility are two poles within a “productive opposition” (or a necessary tension).  So both are equally valuable.

The point is that false humility is no worse than pride, but because it is harder to detect most Christians tend to favour and promote humility, rather than confidence, in any given situation.  Why?  Because it’s safer.  Which really means: because it takes less effort, both to claim humility and to prioritize it.  Yet when it comes to teaching the Bible, I don’t want someone who is humble for humility’s sake—I want someone who is duly confident!  That is, someone who has the necessary skills, knowledge and dispositions to do the job well and to be clear, level-headed and persuasive about what s/he believes (and why).

The result, then, of applying scepticism and suspicion to the typical, evangelical perspective is that what is typically taken as trustworthy can also (and legitimately) be seen to be problematic.  And what seemed like a good formulation to believe can also (and legitimately) be seen as a formulation that is questionable.

Gregg does not know what “preaching the Word of God” means, if it means anything more than “someone preaching a sermon and referencing the Bible.”  So instead of talking about “preaching God’s word,” Gregg advocates just talking about “good preaching.”  And this often prompts questions, such as “What do you mean by good?”  Such a presentation results in explanation of the matter at hand rather than demonstrating membership (and worse, doing so as if the topic were clear and uncomplicated, which he argues it certainly is not).

Similarly, Gregg has no sense of what constitutes “the movement of the Holy Spirit,” if it is anything more than “some way in which a person or people whose reliance upon God empowers them relative to their finitude, fallibility, and / or fallenness.”  In cases such as this, he believes that Christians would be well served by examining more closely the nuances and complexity of such matters as perceiving the Holy Spirit.

Finally, Gregg highlights how offering non-Christians theological (and thus theoretical) conclusion in the form of an explanation for what logically should be an existential (and therefore, a practical) response in the form of an example. is both terribly common and yet broadly misses the point.

And what is the point?

The point is that, both for non-Christians and for Christians, the only valid expression of the Christian faith is one that relates to, impacts upon, and is impacted by real life.

Instead, then, of offering a conclusion to non-Christians (which could be summed up as “the Bible is true and God is real” and implies, then, that the important part is understanding the right things—or getting the right “truth”), Christians need to offer truthful evidence that their claims are relevant and impactful for human existence.  Doing so requires Christians first to show how, and how much, the truths in the world around them inform their beliefs and how read the Bible (such that, by being broadly informed—by sound psychology, sociology, and philosophy—Christians actually do demonstrate living as their best selves and offer compelling, embodied examples of “full functioning”).

The post faith AND suspicion; belief AND scepticism (156) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

This episode is the third of a four-part series where Gregg reads excerpts from—and comments on—an excellent  conversation that took place in the Untangling Christianity Facebook group.  All comments and names are used with permission of the authors.

In this podcast Gregg explains his comments at the end of the previous episode, #154, where he explained that establishing the most appropriate, most productive relationships of dependence result in being one’s fullest and “best” self: being the most properly independent and also most functional version of myself, and so the happiest.

He notes a subtle but important difference between happiness (as the result of becoming “fully functioning” or becoming one’s “best self” and following St. Augustine’s work in De Beata Vita) and the formulation of the aim of Christianity prized by many Evangelicals, from the Westminster Confession Shorter Catechism, Article #1.  It states: “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”

Gregg’s views the WCSC Article #1 to deviate significantly from the New Testament, which is remarkably clear: those who follow Jesus are to hold as their highest priority what he paraphrases as “loving God entirely,” and as their second priority “loving themselves rightly, and others likewise.”  In other words, the purpose of human existence is to be in a love relationship with God (based on truth) and to allow this truth-based love relationship to impact and flavour all other interactions and pursuits.

Gregg argues that the reason that the WCSC Article #1 fails to align with the Bible’s prioritization due to a skewed emphasis on one aspect of the Christian God’s nature and a corresponding under-representation—or de-valuing—of another, equally central and equally important aspect of the Christian God’s nature.

Simply stated, the Westminster Confession Shorter Catechism puts too much emphasis on God’s sovereignty, not enough emphasis on God’s fatherhood and parenthood.  By corollary, it puts too much emphasis on truth (and the importance of declaring, promoting, and defending that truth—hence the action of “Glorifying God”), not enough emphasis on love (and the necessity of receiving and give love—the state of being loved and in love with God, and allowing that mode of being to flavour and direct my actions).

Gregg sees at least three problems resulting from this skewed emphasis.

First, the WCSC #1 promotes not human enjoyment of relationship with God, with oneself, with others, and with the created order but the enjoyment of God alone, as though that is sufficient (and is what God intended, as if the created order were only an intermediate and temporary structure rather than a necessary reality).  But this is not in keeping with the focus of the biblical text: God gives every good thing for enjoyment (including ourselves!) and the created order is not to be superseded or abolished but renewed and remade when God’s kingdom is fully realized.

Second, Gregg believes that those who have an affinity for the WCSC’s viewpoint in Article #1 attempt to formulate the implications of this view more fully.  In other words, he offers a challenge to these people, to ask themselves: If I take “enjoyment of God” to be my chief goal, what effect should this “enjoyment of God” most likely produce?  In other words, what is the logical impact of any “enjoyment?”

The question is aimed at helping those who promote the Westminster Confession to consider whether the purpose of human existence is more an act or more an outcome, such as a state of being?  (This returns to Gregg’s comments equating “loving God entirely” with the state of being “loved and in love with God,” rather than loving being first an action).

On the Westminster Confession framing it is an act (even “enjoyment” is stated in the verbal form: “to enjoy God”).  This is an action.  From my perspective, while action is certainly involved the purpose of human existence is to achieve (or at least frequently experience) a state of being / state of mind, out of which our actions, thinking, and dispositions will necessarily be best oriented.  Further, I think that my framing the matter has the advantage of being supported and corroborated by a large body of scientific evidence (such as understandings in psychology and neurology, that show that how we perceive and experience the world is determinative for all of our engagement with the world).

Third, summarizing such massive concepts, while possible, must be done with both strict attention to one’s sources and with the understanding that summarization requires skilled and thoughtful formulation.  On the first count, Gregg argues that any summary of the primary “goal” (or as mentioned in #154, the primary “orientation”) of human beings according to the Christian faith requires a very close reading of the Bible’s own claims in this regard.  And the WCSC #1 seems to fail in this regard.

Concerning the need for “skilled and thoughtful formulation,” in Gregg’s view any attempt to summarize the primary goal or orientation of human beings relative to God (and the primary task that humans are to undertake in that regard) is much more than citing biblical passages or simply regurgitating their content.  Instead, a fully hermeneutical approach is required.  In other words, an approach that considers not only the biblical texts in terms of their immediate and broader contexts, but that also considers what it means for human beings to live life as a human being.

Gregg clarifies this approach in offering his reformulation of the primary orientation and task of humanity from the perspective of the Christian faith: “The primary ‘orientation’ of a human being is to love God entirely, love her or himself rightly, and to love others likewise, and that the primary ‘task’ of a human being is to enjoy living and enjoy becoming who one is meant to be: to enjoy the created order, to enjoy others, and to enjoy her or himself in the context of being in a relationship of dependent independence with God—that is, through being in a love relationship based on truth, with God, who both knows me more truly than I know myself and loves me more deeply than I love myself.”

The post Problems with the Westminster Confession (155) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode Gregg continues his review of—and commentary on—a conversation that took place in the Untangling Christianity Facebook group.  NB: All comments have been quoted (and names mentioned) with permission.

As with the first podcast in this series, this podcast is likely to move faster be “denser” than most, and so re-listening to sections may be helpful.

The basic topic under discussion is whether Christians actually engage with non-Christians well (that is, in a way that is “on their terms” and that respects the views and understandings of non-Christians).  In particular, Gregg sees the role of interpretation as the overarching concern, as well as the necessity for life and faith to be fully and duly integrated.

So Gregg comments that “Hence my emphasis in the Integration Project on “real life” and insisting that the only Christianity that makes sense and that is worth holding is one where faith and life are related in a way that is truly and appropriately reciprocal.  In other words, where life informs faith just as faith informs life.  And where we read (or understand) the Bible in light of the world and read (or understand) the world in light of the Bible.  Theologically, this is about interpreting the most accurate relationship between salvation and creation—the one that best reflects both biblical and “real world” information sources by doing justice to both, in their own contexts and through their interaction.  And here I cite my mentor’s formulation: ‘creation frames salvation, salvation refigures creation’.”

One of the clearest indicators of the impact of truthfulness of Christianity and of God’s love upon us as Christians is our willingness to engage with the outsider on equal terms.  Particularly, this means listening to other party’s perspective well enough to be able to repeat it back to them to their satisfaction and ask questions that engage them about their views!

Further, this means figuring out the parts of my views that are problematic  (and how: irrational, unloving, excessive, etc.) to others.  This is done by:

The above dispositions and skills manifest in our conversations by the ability (and sensitivity) of Christians to ask productive questions.  Here are some examples of productive questions (questions that, ironically, Gregg never hears Christians ask of non-Christians):

Gregg finishes by noting the primacy of the “greatest commandment” and how its result is human happiness (which both follows Augustine’s thinking in De Beata Vita and is the focus of the Integration Project, where such happiness is the result of becoming “fully functioning” or becoming my “best self” through loving God entirely, loving myself rightly, and loving others likewise).  Yet he explains that many Christians have been taught that their “chief aim” is something different, namely “to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”

The next podcast in this series examines the Westminster Confession Shorter Catechism Article #1, where Gregg argues for a subtle but important difference between focusing on happiness (as the result of becoming “fully functioning” or becoming my “best self”), which occurs as a result of being in right relationship with God, with myself, with others and with my world and aiming “to glorify God and enjoy him forever” as one’s top priority.

The post Meeting Non-Christians Where They Are At (154) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode Gregg summarizes–and responds to–an interesting conversation that took place in the Untangling Christianity Facebook group in mid-September 2017.  Note: all comments have been quoted (and names mentioned) with permission.

Gregg begins by indicating that this podcast is likely to move faster be “denser” than most, and so re-listening to sections may be necessary.

The basic topic under discussion is whether Christians actually engage with non-Christians well (that is, in a way that is “on their terms” and that respects the views and understandings of non-Christians).

After reading portions of his interaction with Amy, Gregg reads the main parts of an exchange between Amy and Anna. Gregg comments on a number of aspects of the conversation.  Particularly, he remarks on the need for such conversations to be sustained in order for participants to gain deeper insights and greater clarity (“sustained” in terms of engaging with a variety of related sub-topics that contribute to the assumptions held by many Christians regarding the main topic, and clarifying these assumptions and / or debunking false understandings, as necessary).

This podcast represents the first in a series of three that summarize–and respond to–this conversation in the Untangling Christianity Facebook group.

The post Understanding Non-Christians Starts With Them (153) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode Gregg discusses comments made in the Untangling Christianity Facebook Group regarding comments that he made in episode #149.  Specifically, a listener is advocating against Gregg’s view and is stating that Christians are seeking to engage with outsiders and are, generally, doing a good job at it.

Gregg introduces the discussion by noting the difference between framing a matter “positively” (or according the potential gains associated with the program) versus framing a matter “negatively” (or according to the existing problems that need to be overcome).

He poses a preliminary questions: How do we (Christians) approach something familiar so that we can see it in a fresh way?  In other words, are we right to Christians like the “fish” that cannot see the water that surrounds it.  Yet Gregg believes that this analogy does not hold because no one is every in only a single cultural context.  On the other hand, it seems that the more likely notion typically at play for Christians is the belief that they are to be “separate from the world,” which results in what Gregg sees as a “disconnect” Christians and outsiders.

To this end, Gregg argues that the best way to measure how well Christians are relating with non-Christians on their terms is to ask the non-Christians!  Yet it is rare for Christians to have sustained conversations with non-Christians (rather than estimating the effectiveness of our programs for “seekers,” etc.).  Stated differently, there is a need for Christians actively to be seeking feedback from others.

Otherwise, Christians risk applying their own categories, understandings, and views to outsiders (and thus not just completely misunderstanding the outsiders but being perceived as “out of touch” and even “disconnected with real life” by such individuals).  So this also means that Christians need to stop insisting that non-Christians think / believe like Christians in order to understand that Christianity is true.  Yet no self-respecting person would do this.  Instead, Christians want to present how Christianity is rational, which means approaching non-Christians on their terms.  This means asking ourselves (and non-Christians!) “What’s in it for them” to attend a Christian event, come to a church service, etc.

Another notion that Gregg finds to be problematic is the Christian view that, if they don’t have all of the answers, they have all of the answers that count.  Gregg finds this simply to be untrue: there is a great deal of brokenness in Christian circles.  Further, there is often both a confusion of God’s notion of “right community” and the notions of such that are popular among Christians, and there is confusion about the role of the Holy Spirit such that, for many Christians, the Holy Spirit can be counted on to improve their abilities in all areas of life (and thus their sense of their own responsibility often seems greatly reduced).

In terms of churches needing to be places that outsiders find to be relevant and “open” to outsiders from their perspectives (or from an Integration Project perspective, allowing Christianity to be presented in an “embraceable” way), Gregg advocates that churches are not first to be places of worship but places where love and truth are promoted and embodied in a manner that creates “sufficient” conditions for most people, most of the time, to relate rightly with God, with themselves, with others and with the world around them.

So by orienting themselves toward “Christian approachability,” a main focus of Christian gatherings would be to have discussions about things that participants believe to be meaningful and significant in real life.  Indeed, Gregg sees the only reason to continue with “church as it has always been done” is if Christians believe that the massive decline in church attendance and Christian credibility is due to those outside of the church.  Yet Gregg disagrees: there is massive evidence to show that

Further, part of the reason for both of these declines is an overemphasis by Christians on a) salvation (over creation) and b) biblical knowledge (over experience and living in the world).

Ultimately, Gregg views most Christian attitudes toward outsiders to be arrogant and ethnocentric, with Christians believing that “they have the goods” and so their job is “to speak” (and that they are only to listen to outsiders long enough for the non-Christian to feel comfortable in hearing a presentation of the Gospel).

The post Christians Disconnected From Outsiders (152) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode Gregg talks about the necessity for Christians to be pursuing excellence and the conditions for inclusivity within Christian communities.

He does so by drawing on his experience of moving from a small town is South-Central Alberta to Canmore Alberta, 15 minutes from Banff National Park, and the differences in employment experience that his spouse has had in their previous location versus in the town of Banff, where she is currently employed.

Gregg explains how the atmosphere in his new town is one where everyone seems excited and pleased to be there, and as a consequence seem eager to welcome new comers and share what they value about living in this place.  By contrast, in his previous town people seemed mostly just to “find themselves there” and to be confined to small thinking and even a smallness of being.

The comparison is made between Christian churches: communities are open to outsiders and generally “inclusive” when people value their environment because they delight in the opportunities that it offers–they value the selves that they are becoming through being connected with this community or church.  By contrast, Christian communities become “exclusive (and thus cliquey or club-like in mentality) when they find themselves with limited goals, aspirations, and options and the fear and resentment that this breeds of those who are outside of this restricted approach to life.

Gregg also notes the sharp contrast between the employment opportunity his spouse was offered in Banff, where the focus is achieving excellence, versus previous employment opportunities in their former town (which seemed very much to focus on mediocrity).

Further, he argues that excellence is not only a valuable orientation but that to be a Christian yet not  to pursue excellence in any given area is to undercut one’s ability to relate rightly with God!  Similarly, the gains made through the pursuit of excellence in one area will properly set our expectations–and create synergies–for the pursuit of excellence in other areas.

In this way, a commitment to excellence and seeking environments that offer valuable opportunities for self-development (and so create openness) are lifestyles: they require our full attention and life-long dedication.  Gregg links these lifestyles with the aims of the Integration Project and suggests 5 tips that will help to promote excellence (over mediocrity) and inclusivity (over exclusivity):

He describes the Integration Project as a way of being most human by being in right relationship with God, with oneself, and with others.  By corollary then, he notes that excellence should be a hallmark both of rich humanity and of right humanity.

The post Excellence and Inclusivity (151) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg re-connect to discuss the idea of whether we “deserve” certain things. John takes this idea from the Bronnie Ware’s book, The Top Five Regrets of the Dying (upon which John has also podcasted).

John is intrigued by the notion of whether we “deserve” certain things and how we would know. John notes that the typical Christian answer to the question of “What do we deserve?” is often along the lines of, “We deserve nothing but God’s judgement and punishment because of sin” (i.e., hell). John also notes the American notion of “perusing happiness” how it often carries the air of something people think they “deserve.”

Gregg wonders: what word or words could we substitute for the word “deserve,” to help clarify its sense? John substitutes “needed.” Gregg offers two different options. First, “mandated” (in the sense that one is mandated or destined to have goodness and happiness). Second, “eligible” (in the sense of being eligible or allowed to have goodness and happiness). Gregg sees this whole notion as deeply related to the degree of control that one has (or thinks that one should have) over one’s life.

John wonders though: is Gregg avoiding the question (or is the question even valid)?

So Gregg contrasts the “deserving” orientation with the “purposeful” orientation. With the first one is discarding or removing that which prevents one’s happiness. With the second one is pursuing happiness with a degree of responsibility and ownership. In other words, humans need happiness in order to be what they are meant to be, which Gregg admits is an “essentialist” argument (and thus some would take issue with it as such).

John would see that much of this boils down to the idea that human beings have intrinsic value, and how / how much we recognize this.  Gregg wonders whether certain guiding orientations are—and whether love in particular is—the key to understanding this whole notion best.  Specifically, the idea that doing the same thing over again and hoping for different results (as a definition for insanity) is remarkably close to the reality that, when we love someone, we continue to work with them / help them to improve beyond the point of what we would normally consider to be “reasonable” or “rationale.”

To this Gregg adds the notion of “hope” to that of “expectation.”  Thus where people believe that they destined for happiness or that they are mandating happiness for themselves, is this really self-love (rather than simply wanting better things for oneself)?  Gregg believes that self-sacrifice seems always involved in authentic self-love.

So self-love involves having a strong yet easy sense of one’s own intrinsic value.  In other words, one would continually be aware that one’s purpose in life is to be happy—to be in fulfilling love relationships—and so be focused on how to realize such relationships in all areas of one’s life.  In this way, Gregg sees happiness as both a “commodity” to acquire and as a “task” to perform.

Coming back to the original distinction, Gregg compares the two views as being a debt model (being “owed” happiness) and an asset model (desiring “to accrue” happiness).  In the debt model one should ask: how did the debt occur?  So the first perspective views others as the debtors whereas the second perspective views others as potential trading partners.

Finally, to the degree that both the “commodity” and “task” view (relative to the need for happiness) are correct, Gregg sees this as a hiding-in-plain-sight argument for the validity of Christianity, because it inherently recognizes, promotes, and provides the means for achieving both!

In other words, the goal of human beings is to pursue happiness through pursuing truth and love!

The post What Do You Deserve? (150) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode Gregg goes further regarding the Integration Project.

He begins by expressing doubt that “seekers” actually exist, arguing that this is a fictional category of people created by Christians.  Instead, Gregg views those people who appear most open to Christianity as perhaps a) those with past exposure but who have not been marginalized by Christianity, b) those who have ulterior motives for attending Christian events (such as being attracted to / in a relationship with someone who is Christian).  In other words, these people are typically better identified as members of a larger group such as agnostics or atheists, but for various reasons are willing to be engage with Christianity in certain ways / at certain points in their lives.

Next, Gregg draws some distinctions between the aims of church, typically, and the aims of the Integration Project.  He sees a significant disjunction in that churches are aimed at and “for” Christians, yet Christianity claims to be relevant and necessary to everyone.  One indication of this disjunction is that churches rarely if ever consider how outsiders will quantify the value to them of a given church, Christian organization, etc.

Thus Gregg proposes that for the claims of Christians (that Christianity is relevant and necessary to all people) to have integrity, Christians need to be asking themselves: “What is ‘in it’ for outsiders (to participate in this Christian event, with this Christian organization, etc.?”

So Gregg correlates the non-existence of seekers with the inability of churches to consider their programs, and even Christianity itself, from the perspectives of outsiders: these two tendencies are mutually reinforcing with the effect of ensuring that evangelical Christians effectively isolate themselves and render their message irrelevant.

The post Feeling Dirty at Church (149) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode, Gregg takes the discussion of the previous few episodes (on Coaching versus Christianity) as a point of departure to begin a new, solo podcasting series that focuses on “love and truth in Christianity.”

Gregg explains the importance of this  focus using the tagline of the Untangling Christianity podcast: “Defusing destructive ideologies, unsnarling confused ideas, considering love and truth in Christianity.”  Specifically, John and Gregg have spent considerable time over the past 140+ episodes clearing away a variety of destructive perspectives and straightening a variety of confused ideas.

Comparing the perspectives associated with evangelical Christianity to a table that is full to over-flowing, Gregg notes that the process of engaging with these destructive ideologies and confused ideas has been to “clear space” at this table in order for something that is new and different to be place upon it, ready for consideration.

So Gregg introduces the Integration Project, which aims at furthering human flourishing by empowering participants to recognize, pursue, acquire and re-distribute two core human needs: love and truth / truth and love.  The Integration Project (or IP) positions these two needs as co-central components within a complimentary opposition (or a productive tension).

Gregg explains the origin of IP and how it is both a project and concerned with integration.  Gregg also explains the need to offer definitions for each of the principal terms used, or at least to offer “working definitions” (that are not final but allow for some fixed understandings).  Finally, Gregg notes that members of the Untangling Christianity Facebook group will have the opportunity to participate in an Integration Project “seminar series,” starting this autumn.

The post Considering Love and Truth (148) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg round-out their “coaching versus Christianity” discussion.  Gregg begins by affirming his perspective that it is both normal and potentially helpful to find oneself more deeply engaged or compelled by pursuits other than Christianity.

John wonders: what core questions could help listeners ask themselves to evaluate theses types of situations?

In response, Gregg advocates “bracketing out” any guilt that one may feel about the matter, instead ask oneself: What do you value about this other activity? What keeps you coming back to this other activity?  In short, ask What is it about who you are and about the nature of this this other activity that forms a “vital connection”?

John wonders where Gregg has most experienced this.  Gregg explains that it was becoming and living as an agnostic that provided him some of the most profound insights about himself and about the faith that he had been living before (and had rejected because it was unliveable).  However, Gregg notes the significant difficulty with this idea: few Christians could seriously value an activity or orientation that results in the rejection of Christianity.

In this sense, Gregg is not so much suggesting that Christian listeners reject their Christianity but is asking all listeners to be really focused on truth and really focused on love.  Further, Gregg is asking listeners to be rigorous and deeply honest in evaluating how well Christianity—as the framework that is supposed to be the most effective in invigorating and perpetuating love and truth—in really working out for them?

So Gregg notes that the same orientation that led him to agnosticism (i.e., not wanting to believe a lie and instead wanting to believe what is most truthful) eventually, through the context of new understandings and new experiences, led ‘back’ to a new and different Christianity.  Thus Gregg sees similarities between coaching and agnosticism: it has a different theory (and approaches matters from a different perspective) than Christianity.

Yet this is not an attempt to harmonize coaching and Christianity, but rather to allow what is integral to both to “come out” in order that certain inputs from coaching can inform Christian belief and practice and vice versa.  Gregg also contrasts this with the typical Christian way of engaging with non-Christian perspectives, which is “to start with Christianity” in order effectively to Christianize the new perspective—to make a “Christian version” of coaching, for example.

Instead Gregg advocates starting with the other perspective in order to allow its full content and real strengths to be most evident (and then allow this content and strength to positively impact Christianity).  By leveraging the strengths of this other perspectives Christians may be able to overcome a narrower—and less helpful—way of engaging with their faith and with the world, such as Gregg saw when facilitating the Sunday morning class at his church.

So Gregg recommends holding one’s Christian views and the contrasting perspective (for instance, coaching) in tension and taking a much more indirect approach to one’s faith when doing so.  In other words, asking questions about the general understandings or larger content of Christianity rather than becoming pre-occupied with smaller, more isolated notions (such as using individual verses or a single biblical passage to “trump” coaching rather than comparing coaching with the larger understandings of the whole of Christian Scripture).

John notes the power of understanding our values.  Values can be a huge informer into our identity, and working with values requires removing judgement.  Values are the things that make us fell most alive and when violated (or in opposition to our values) make us the angriest.  They are an intrinsic part of us and usually don’t change very much.  So for John clarity and the absence of chaos are major values, and so he experienced dissonance when looking for that clarity in Christianity.

John and Gregg also discuss Gregg’s new Integration Project: a set of services for churches and Christian organizations designed to, as the per the podcast’s tagline, “defuse destructive ideologies, unsnarl confused ideas, and consider love and truth in Christianity.”  Gregg is especially focused on presenting love and truth in the context of Christian formation.  Further, Gregg explains a new, “in lieu of” church global program called Life & Faith.  So if church is mostly for Christians, Life & Faith is simply for people.

Thus the Integration Project integrates life and faith and incorporates love and truth, and it comprises a curriculum, a series of seminars, a mentorship program and the global program, Life & Faith.  Gregg is now actively promoting the Integration Project and seeking to provide his services in facilitating this project in a variety of contexts.

John and Gregg close the episode by John explaining that he will be taking a step back from the podcast as he finishes his coaching certification and considers some new options for the near future, while Gregg embarks on some solo efforts, presenting and explaining the Integration Project on the podcast.

The post Going to the Next Level (147) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.