Untangling Christianity Podcast

In this episode John and Gregg are joined by Evan from Virginia, the second person ever to contact the podcast. Evan found the UC podcast through his wife’s concerns about Kyle Idleman’s not a fan.

Having mentioned that he plays in a church worship band Evan joins John and Gregg to share his insights on Church worship music.  Evan notes that not only the order / type of music is strategic but that, in his church, the worship players are very aware of the type of setting that they are wishing to create and take time to re-assess how well they are doing at accomplishing their goals.  They also discuss how they believe that God is at work in the church and through the worship experience and how this seems to be impacting the community.

Gregg wonders about whether Christians are ever “taught” to praise or to worship and questions whether the assumption that such teaching is unneeded is valid.  John then wonders, What would such instruction look like?  Evan notes that the worship team typically sets the scene and that the congregation “follows” the worship team.

Gregg first wonders about the difference between “praise” and “worship.”  Next, he would ask people to consider the difference between their everyday life, their acts of worship / praise, and the meaning and content of the message (the preaching) that they are about to hear.  In other words, Gregg would prompt people to consider how these three things are / should be integrated and how they are / should be kept distinct.

For example, if one has a particular emotional response following the end of the musical set, should that be taken to indicate that the message that is about to be delivered is more important for that particular listener?  Or how exactly should we understand the this relationship?

John sees this as an example of the need / importance to interpret one’s own experiences (and to do so competently).  Gregg agrees: this is both a basic call to self-awareness and a need for Christians to engage in certain practices in order to develop particular skills.

The post Exploring Worship Music with Evan (126) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss the article “Between Easter and the End,” posted in the Untangling Christianity private Facebook group.

John found the article both tough to unpack and to be difficult to connect with / find value in. When Gregg wonders why John feels disengaged from the article, John notes that in his view the author is globalizing her experience to all Christians (rather than presenting the matter as her own experience), and this makes it hard for him to relate to.

Particularly, John finds the author’s contention that our lives are not “improving” / Christians are not becoming more Christ-like fast enough to be unrealistic and even inaccurate. Gregg echoes John’s concerns and notes that the matter is presented by the author in a very nebulous way, and yet Christians who complain of not being like Jesus should be able easily to identify what constitutes Christ-likeness. If not, then such transformation may already be happening without one’s knowledge.

For Gregg this is a matter of lacking proper integration of faith and life in such a way that should Christians detect no transformation in their lives over the short-term, then one needs to have more accurate expectations about how long such things take.

Conversely, if Christians detect no transformation in their lives over the medium-term then this should prompt them to re-assess their situation (and perhaps their understandings of Christianity / their beliefs, or their expectations) and ask some hard questions / make some difficult choices.  John notices that the article, interestingly, makes no reference to our action or to our reflection on where we are at (and why).

The post Unsatisfying Transformation (125) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg return to their discussion from the last episode titled Problematic Praise Music following comments by listener “Lynette.” In partial response to Lynette, Gregg undertook to re-write the lyrics to one of the main Christian choruses of which Gregg was critical.

Gregg’s new (amended since their reading in this episode) lyrics to “How Great is our God” are:

Creator, father, king,

So you called a single race

How true is your claim,

Yet Israel grew proud,

Righteous in word and deed,

How great is your love,

Love and truth entwine,

The promises you kept—

How Great are you God

How Great are you God

How Great are you God

John sees these lyrics as a great improvement on the original because they offer explanation about / indicate why God is “great.” Gregg notes that this was a major source of his own discontentment with the original lyrics: they claim to present God as “great” and yet offer so very little about who God is that is coherent and so little in support of the claim of God’s greatness.

Instead, Gregg argues that Christian choruses should function similarly to stained glass windows, where in medieval churches the stained glass windows were not only beautiful but played the important role of teaching Bible stories to the (essentially) illiterate masses. As such these windows are actually to be “read” in a particular manner as the story progressed from frame to frame, much like a modern day graphic novel.

Gregg argues that, in response to listener Lynette’s view that Christian choruses need not necessarily be comprehensible to non-Christians, these songs must a) be comprehensible to Christians and b) must not undermine the possibility of belief by non-Christians, and c) must do what they putatively claim to do.

On the first point, Gregg notes that any lyrics he sings must be clear enough at least for him to agree or disagree with what they are claiming / presenting. On the third point, the lyrics to a song should be thematically coherent with their title, such that the lyrics to “How Great is our God” should present a clear (and hopefully, compelling) image of God’s greatness!

So Gregg sees the lyrics to “How Great is our God” as entirely disconnected with the purpose of the song which, according to its title, is to communicate why / how God is great. Specifically, the non-chorus sections of the song are:

a) “The splendor of a king, Clothed in majesty, let all the world rejoice…”

Yet these appear simply as a collection of Christian “soundbites” (i.e., God is King, light, trinity, holds time and is worthy of exaltation). So they do not tell a story / paint a picture of God in any coherent or even aesthetically meaningful way, nor do these lyrics describe God in such a way as elicit the idea of God being “Great” (except perhaps the “lion and the lamb” reference, which is unexplained and disconnected from the rest).

John favours Gregg’s approach here because it is addressing the solution and not focusing on the problem. John notes his concern around wanting the podcast to bring solutions and new ideas instead of continually bringing problems and criticism. Gregg believes the ratio of “pushing back” versus “offering” seems about 3 parts to 1 part in the podcast. However, Gregg sees this ratio as necessary because he and John are not simply identifying problems but helping Christians who do not see these issues to identify them as problems. And this involves, at least in part, teaching Christians to develop the “stance and posture” of looking for / assessing the degree of integration between their beliefs and life / living “in the real world,”

Thus there is a different way of seeing that is required if one is going to be able to make sense of the problems and of the solution—if we are going to be able to see them as such.

Gregg explains this situation (where the church lacks the ability to see the issues for what they are, and thus accepts a marked lack of integration between belief and life) on the example of being in a dysfunctional family: in a dysfunctional environment all manner of inappropriate behaviour is taken to be normative, yet it is not.

So in many evangelical contexts Christians have construed the matter so that belief and life are only related be way of hierarchy, where belief “trumps” life. So in many church environments there appears to be excessive distinction between sense and meaning in life versus in faith.

The post Praise Music Progress (124) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

This week’s episode is sparked by a satirical post titled Worship Leader Caught In Infinite Loop Between Bridge And Chorus from the Babylon Bee.

This leads to a critical discussion of two songs–How Great is Our God by Chris Tomlin and I’ll Obey (author unknown).

Gregg asserts that worship music should more accurately articulate God and the wider message of Christianity instead of trite, simplistic phrases that point to incredibly complex subjects about the same things.

John also references a book he recently finished titled Fleeing Fundamentalism: A Minister’s Wife Examines Faith which he resonated with.

The post Problematic Praise Music (123) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg follow up from the previous episode where they both find it problematic when there is only one “politically correct” view on a given matter. Gregg offers an example of this, when he was living in Vancouver and attending a party. At the party a number of people were commenting on how their children’s personalities were directly related to / determined by the moon’s stage in its cycle on the date of the child’s birth.

Beyond the fact that Gregg finds this view very unlikely (if not hopelessly untenable), Gregg notes the difficulty in broaching the subject of what leads people to hold this view and / or inquiring about what would be sufficient for these people to change their minds.

John raises the example of a coaching seminar that he attended and how, if the “good vibe” that participants experienced during the seminar was experienced in a Christian context, this would explained with the blanket statement that “the Holy Spirit being present” Gregg agrees that in Christian contexts emotionalism (and particularly the experience of positive emotions) tends to be equated with the presence of the Holy Spirit, yet the Bible abounds with examples of God acting via the Holy Spirit to admonish, correct, and otherwise critique human beings. And such situations are not accompanied by “positive” emotions—just the opposite!

So Gregg notes that in situations like the coaching seminar or a church worship service we should instead begin looking at what went well on a human level, versus automatically assuming that God is the source of the matter. Gregg’s concern is how, approached in this way, Christian belief and practice becomes superstitious (where superstitions are programmatic or formulaic, such as: “do X to achieve Y”). Superstitions help us feel secure in a world that is threatening, but are ultimately problematic because they represent overly simplistic / reductionistic ways of living in with the complexities of the real world.

By contrast, Gregg argues that a credible belief has room for critique and implies dialogue, whereas with superstitious beliefs attempts to dialogue about the belief result in people being labelled (as unenlightened, close minded, etc.) and usually marginalized. Further, superstitious beliefs are uni-dimensional whereas a properly Christian belief is very multi-layered.

Gregg finishes by explaining that, in his view, Christianity has credibility because it integrates well with our human experience of not being in full control of our own lives. Thus from his perspective the idea “writing one’s own story” is a ridiculous notion, because life is always ‘bigger’ than you and me. Instead we try to occupy the narrator’s position in our own lives.

Further when Christians dismiss the absence of God’s response or what seems to be God’s absence at seemingly crucial moments Gregg sees this as rather Buddhist: there is no right or wrong, only neutral. So there is no need for justice and love is reduced in value and meaning. Alternatively many Christians hold the view that “what comes around goes around” yet this is a kharmic perspective—grace is very different.

The post Superstitious Christianity (122) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg pick up from their last episode where they discussed the idea of how the craftsmanship sees meaning in an object and brings this meaning forth. For example, a sculptor may see a figure within a block of stone and simply removing the unnecessary pieces in order for the figure to be seen.

John contrasts this the conclusions of a friend whose studies of postmodern thought led him to conclude that in postmodernism there is no inherent meaning, there is just whatever meaning one brings to the object or situation. Thus postmodernism was portrayed as bankrupt and invalid.

Gregg responds by wondering how most Christians would feel about and respond to the other options, particularly philosophically modern options. So where the modernists would claim “universal reason” (such that all people can and should see things the same way, and where they fail to do so they are simply being unreasonable). Yet as Gregg notes this is a philosophical notion, not a theological notion.

John wonders about the origins of this way of thinking and Gregg offers René Descartes as a good starting point. Descartes wanted to make everyday thinking and reasoning as reliable as mathematical reasoning and so tried to model the one on the other. He insisted that we only have a right to believe that which appears to us in a clear and distinct matter and which we arrive at by following the proper method (such as not basing our views on hearsay or improper evidence).

John also offers his experience of encountering a series of podcasts by people who have abandoned their Christian faith, and they too seem to have some very reasonable (or well reasoned) views about their beliefs. So for John the question is: who is right here? John notes that the other typical Christian response is that those who don’t agree are being intellectually dishonest (or are simply sinful and need the Holy Spirit’s help).

Gregg agrees that the idea of universal reason is deeply problematic. In his view, in fact, the cohesiveness of many churches is based on the fact that there is often very, very little discussion among parishioners as to what people actually believe. For if we knew how different our beliefs were from that of our fellow church-goers this would pose a serious problem to church unity.

In terms of this issue Gregg believes that the Bible’s key focus is the place for Christians to begin, namely: understanding who / what God is, who / what human beings are, and how the two are best to relate to each other. This orientation then allows readers to approach the Bible so as best to understand it. Gregg also emphasizes how particular postmodern thinkers (such as Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard and Michel Foucault), by alerting us to the problems within modern thought—the same modern thought that seems to have so completely captured the evangelical church—these French thinkers provide us insights that allow us to live life more honestly (and therefore more fully and more truthfully).  In this regard see Jamie Smith’s Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism.

John wonders about how this plays out in terms of Gregg’s church discussion group. Gregg notes that there are three stages to the discussion: discussing a) what one believes, b) why one believes what one does, and c) how to assess the validity of one’s beliefs. Among these, insight into the second and third components is very limited. Gregg ascribes the unfamiliarity (and perhaps inability) of most people comfortably to work with the second and third components to the fact that most Christians embraced their faith as children or teenagers, ages when they did not have the skills and experience needed properly to evaluate such matters. Further, very few churches teach parishioners to critically assess their beliefs—they are simply taught what to believe and how to act as a result.

Instead, Gregg believes that Christians must cultivate (and encourage within their fellows) a mentality of interest and excitement about learning more about one’s faith and developing a critical understanding of one’s Christian beliefs! So Gregg is critical of church contexts where there is a high degree of fear and concern for young adults who are going away to attend post-secondary education: often the very fact that churches pray so ardently that young people not be “pulled away” from their faith is a clear indication that that church has not done its job in raising these young adults competently to be using their brains in the critical examination of their own beliefs.

The post When Reasonable People Disagree (121) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss John’s reading of Deep Work, by Cal Newport. A recent interview with Cal Newport is found on the Productivityist Podcast.

John wonders specifically about how the themes and concerns of the book relate to Christianity and lack of depth / thought in one’s beliefs. The author offers a philosophical argument for depth (or concentration that leads to “deep work”) and examines how “notions of sacredness and meaning have evolved though human culture.”

Referring to Descartes the author quotes All Things Shining (by Dreyfus and Kelly), that the thinking individual who seeks certain knowledge essentially trumps truth offered by kings or by God.  John wonders if this seems a fair presentation / how we are best to understand Descartes.

Gregg responds that Descartes is seen as one of the premier figures of “modern” philosophy. Descartes observed that people held all manner of contradictory beliefs, such that neither the education nor number of people holding a belief guaranteed its truthfulness. In contrast, in mathematics the proper use of reason (applying one’s reason according to a specific method) always yielded correct results.

As such Descartes set out to create a method similar to that used in mathematics for obtaining certainty, such that all people would come to the same, universal and true understandings / have true knowledge. This would yield happier, longer lives and grant a greater degree of control over the natural world. Nor was Descartes’ orientation to remove God from human reasoning and life but to adjudicate between competing claims about God (again, so that we could arrive at certain, true beliefs).

From Gregg’s perspective the glory and the terror of the Enlightenment is that it put human beings in a more central role than ever before. Gregg then argues that the ability critically to adjudicate various perspectives is itself essential to a Christian way of being. So while modernist philosophy changed the starting place (and moved it from God to the individual), Gregg sees this as appropriate: how can human beings “start” from anywhere other than themselves?

In response to the notion that modern philosophy has not only removed a sense of mystery from life but has in fact made life nearly unlivable Gregg sees this as both true (and somewhat sad) but also necessary for what it is to be a human being. In other words, with the Enlightenment there is a necessary recouping of our agency and responsibility that human beings, at least from a Christian perspective, we were never mean to have given up / been without.

The post Deep Work (120) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg again welcome listener “Anna” to the discussion.  Much of the conversation centers on Anna’s responses to the earlier discussions in the last two episodes.

The post Another Conversation with Anna (119) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg recap their discussion from last episode with long-time listener Anna.

John explains that he felt greatly encouraged to hear Anna’s story, despite the fact that Anna has experienced setbacks and that there certainly has been no “happy ending” in it for Anna.

Gregg also values the discussion with Anna and describes her story as “true to life,” particularly in the sense that he and John have had so many interactions with Anna over the past several years and yet the experiences that Anna highlights and the perspectives that she offers have a consistency that Gregg believes offers them a high degree of credibility.

Upon reflection John explains that he resonates most with the fact that Anna does not present a “success story” about her relationship with God but rather describes a relationship filled with various successes and failures, connections and disconnections (with both God and others). So despite the differences that John sees between his own experiences and those of Anna, John seems a number of commonalities.

John is also intrigued by Gregg’s notion that we may experience God in a certain way but only for a certain time. This seems to run counter to the typical understanding that we experience God in the same way all the time. Gregg sees this as an excessive focus on “individual relationship” with God. So in Gregg’s view God is not trying to “win us” at any cost but is rather trying to advance God’s kingdom, and within that goal God is seeking all of humanity.

When John wonders about a Bible verse claiming that God is “the same today and forever” Gregg demurs: he objects to the way in which Christians gather a hodge-podge or pastiche of Bible verses to support arguments or simply as the basis for worship music. In Gregg’s view this is evidence that Christians lack any full, rich sense of “narrative” concerning God and instead have settled for a collection of soundbites that do not present a coherent story of idea but rather stimulate and / or reflect our emotional responses.

So where Gregg sees these soundbites—even the more “crescendo” soundbites related to Jesus life and death (and implications thereof)—as being detached from the larger biblical story, this necessarily results in these crescendos losing the force, beauty, and subtlety that they truly possess when situated in their proper context.

Regarding Anna’s experience of losing her sense of closeness with God, Gregg explains that his sense of proximity with God is renewed through study (of the bible / biblical research). Further, Gregg continues to be amazed by the findings of his research that continue to show the primacy of God establishing and advancing God’s Kingdom, even as Gregg’s own experience of asking for God’s direction at a pivotal moment (and having many people praying for direction at this moment) resulted in what Gregg sensed was God indicating to Gregg to “be about his work” and was not a direct reply to the matter / situation being prayed for!

So Gregg highlights the two extremes to be avoided: either thinking that I am “in the middle” of God’s map or “completely off” of God’s map. Further, Gregg wants to be careful not to endorse notions that are superstitious when it comes to believing in God / being a Christian. So superstitions are formulaic responses where certain actions generate certain responses. But God is not like that.

The post Bible Pastiche (118) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg connect with long-time listener “Anna.”

Anna was the first Untangling Christianity listener to respond with feedback to John and Gregg and has been listening for over 2 years now.  Anna explains how she was listening to many podcasts about Christianity at that time but responded to John and Gregg because she found them to be “approachable.”

Anna describes her own Christian situation as having had some remarkably intimate and compelling experiences of God’s presence, and yet finding other Christians unable (or unwilling) to accept that Anna’s experiences are valid.

More difficult still, Anna explains how these experiences have stopped, and how she longs to feel re-connected with God in this way (and lonely because of this absence).

The post Anna’s Story | Interpreting Experience (117) appeared first on Untangling Christianity.