Untangling Christianity Podcast

In this episode John and Gregg discuss the difference between dialogue and debate, focusing on a number of distinctions between the two that John found on-line.

John notes that while he generally agrees with the definition of dialogue, he also preferred some of aspects of debate.  Gregg notes that how Christians view and present their knowledge represents an area of weakness in the Christian church and a loss of credibility with those outside of the church.  In other words, Christians typically see themselves as already having all of the answers and so they engage with non-Christians from the perspective of “how can I help you understand this.”

Gregg sees this as ultimately condescending and advocates instead the perspective of Hans-Georg Gadamer, who notes that being involved in a dialogue means trying to bring out the strength in the other person’s perspective.  This is not simply to understand the other’s view but actually to further it.

Yet this also begins with wanting to understand others, and to be understood by them.  Similarly, rather than aiming to teach others “the truth of Christianity” Gregg seeks first to learn from them, regardless of their belief set or worldview.

The post 106: Debate vs Dialogue appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss their thoughts on two podcast episodes from The Whitehorse Inn (“Sustainable Churches” and “Consumerism, pragmatism, and the triumph of the therapeutic“) which listener Amy linked to in the Untangling Christianity Facebook group.

John explains how he found the first podcast rather inaccessible. Specifically, he had trouble relating to what seemed to be a heavily Reformed emphasis, the use of Christian jargon, and the general sense of “inside baseball” among the participants. So John is curious about what Amy values in these podcasts and, at the same time, he is careful to note his hesitation that his critical comments not discourage listeners from initiating discussion or offering feedback.

Gregg notes big differences between the two podcasts. On the one hand, Gregg also perceived the first podcast as an “inside conversation” that abounded with assumptions (many of which were problematic and needed to be challenged). Yet all the more Gregg appreciated how the interviewee in the second podcast, Christian Smith, was very careful not to overstep his research or to speculate beyond his findings.

Despite this, Gregg takes issue with Christian Smith’s notion of relevance and what Smith calls the Pathetic impulse in American evangelicalism to be respectable and relevant” (24:50). Yet where Smith seems to define relevance in terms of being present / visible on the socio-political stage Gregg counters that the lack of Christian evangelical credibility, and so their irrelevance, is based on their unwillingness to engage thoughtfully with the larger issues facing Christianity (such as evolution, human sexuality, the nature of hell, etc.).

John expresses frustration with the approach taken in the first podcast. For instance, their explanation that the church should focus on “word and sacrament ministry” is repeated numerous times yet not defined. He also finds their summary that “what the church should offer is the communion of the saints and the fellowship of believers and a life that grows out of the gospel” to be inaccessible and incoherent–what does this even mean and how does it connect with real life?

Gregg agrees. He also found several of their examples to be really problematic. So at 27:30 “The reality is that you go to church . . . (or that you ought to go) to hear the message of Jesus Christ and him crucified and risen again for the forgiveness of all of our sins.” Gregg sees this as the focal understanding shared by the three participants, yet in Gregg’s view this is an incorrect view. In other words, this quotation amounts to the view the Bible’s principle role is to offer information about God.

Yet Gregg understands the Bible to be offering information about who / what God is, who / what human beings are, and how / what the optimal relationship between the two should be. And then, secondarily, the Bible offers information about how humans should relate to each other and to the natural world.

Thus in Gregg’s view the participants in the first podcast have a fundamental misunderstanding about what Church is and what should be happening there. So Gregg views human existence and action / engagement (generally, and especially with God) to be crucially important, whereas the participants seemed overly focused on their theological positions that did not “touch ground” and make sense in light of real, lived existence

Lastly, John and Gregg discuss how starting from different places necessarily brings us to different positions. In this regard Gregg insists that everyone, and especially Christians, must start with their humanity because to do otherwise is to lose touch with one’s origins (and so one’s context for existing and in existence).

The post 105: A Trip to the White Horse Inn appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg begin by discussing John’s experience of explaining the Untangling Christianity podcast to co-participants at Podcast Movement 2015 and from this they consider when and how to tell someone that one is a Christian.

John notes that, while briefly explaining the Untangling Christianity podcast, he was asked if he was a Christian and he responded: “I don’t know.” John expresses uncertainty about how one should define the term (or whether typical definitions “work” anymore) and then asks Gregg how he would respond, if Gregg were asked this question, and wonders how Gregg would define the term “Christian.”

Gregg notes that he considers the context of the question (and it’s place in the conversation) to be an important guide to how he would respond to the person asking him. Gregg goes on to explain that often the focus of someone’s questioning, when asking if Gregg is a Christian, is to find out whether Gregg is an authentic human being.

As such, Gregg does not always assume that simply acknowledging his faith in Christianity or allowing the other person’s line of inquiry to direct the conversation is the best move, but will instead gauge the situation and reply accordingly with the aim of “earning a hearing,” which may only be possible over the medium or long term.

The post 104: Are You A Christian? appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss books that they have been recently reading.

John explains that he has been reading N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope with his parents.  Given that this is the first book by N. T. Wright that any of them have read, John notes that the absence of fuller explanations (particularly on matters that Wright has discussed / argued at length elsewhere) is unsatisfying.

John also notes how his interest has recently been captured by the book of Job, particularly because it seems so self-contained, and how in searching for books on Job he has come across Peter Enns’ book, The Bible Tells Me So.  John is rather excited to see that his current study of Job / the Bible is holding his attention much longer than he typically experiences when reading on such topics!

Gregg, in turns, recounts that he is reading several books by Ravi Zacharias: Why Jesus? and Beyond Opinion.  Gregg’s interest in Zacharias was peaked by a post that listener Amy put in the Untangling Christianity Facebook group, and Gregg notes that he has also watched several of Zacharias’ videos and read 2 or 3 articles from RZIM website.

In addition, Gregg is reading Myron Penner’s The End of Apologetics.  John is surprised by the book’s premise, yet Gregg explains his longstanding misgivings about the “apologetic enterprise.”  So Gregg juxtaposes what he and John are doing on the podcast with looming focus that apologetics places on “defending the faith,” and how this is often a misplaced expectation in a non-Christian world that views Christianity neither as a subject of interest nor as a threat, but actually as largely irrelevant.

In other words, by anticipating being attacked (or at least questioned) by non-Christians, Christians often adopt a defensive stance (as the subtitle of one of Zacharias’ books: “Living the Faith we Defend”) such that their expectations ultimately keep them from being able to relate to others in easier, more normal manner (that, ironically, may allow them much greater possibilities in communicating the love and truth of Christianity than the typical apologetic approach)!

More worryingly, Gregg is concerned that Zacharias has misunderstood postmodernism and, as a result, misjudges postmoderns and so approaches them in a way that ultimately devalues them.  This is a particularly important as our North American culture is largely postmodern, and so Zacharias’ understanding of postmodernism is rather definitive for his apologetic approach.

Further, Gregg notes the disparity between apologeticists, who start with knowledge, and the widespread understanding in continental philosophy (following Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time) that human beings always start with a sort of tacit “understanding” gleaned through lived existence: understanding something’s use by using it.  Gregg connects this with the need to realize that the apostle Paul’s approach on Mars Hill (i.e., his focus on immediately “telling” about the gospel rather than first “living it out” to his hearers, in Acts 17) while necessary and beneficial at the time, is no longer relevant.

Rather, because North Americans in particular have become super-saturated with information about God and Christianity (even if such contains a good deal of misinformation), yet they have also seen the numerous failings and inconsistencies of Christians, today Christians must first overcome their suspicions before (and in order to) “earn a hearing” with postmoderns.

The post 103: Has Apologetics Run Its Course? appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg go further with offering the benefit of the doubt: the idea of viewing others as generally “doing their best” in a given situation. John is hesitant about commenting on the experience of Gregg’s father and brother being killed (this discussion last focused, and which raised some doubts for John), but Gregg demurs: in his view, no experience or human understanding is “sacred” or beyond question / criticism.

John raises two type of situations. First, everyday situations such as friction within a dialogue among coworkers. In this case John realized that by assuming that his co-worker was doing his best at that time would greatly ease the tension and frustartion that John felt at the time. Next, John raises situations which we might categorize as “evil.”

Gregg’s view is that people are responsible for their actions, and sometimes assuming that someone is “doing their best” when acting in a way that we find problematic or hurtful can inadvertently carry with it the idea that they are less responsible for those actions as a result. A further criterion for Gregg is that that person, even if s/he doesn’t recognize a particular action on their part as problematic or hurtful for someone else, must be nevertheless be willing to value others as another being. If they are unable or unwilling generally to maintain this attitude toward others, then in Gregg’s view the idea of “doing their best” just doesn’t make sense.

John notes that, for him, giving the benefit of the doubt is a starting point and is also the best way to be able to “let go” of your frustration in situations where you will never have enough information fully to understand what happened or why.

Yet Gregg notes that in evangelical Christianity this inclination can be taken too far. This is so because a) Christians typically do not deal well with conflict, b) they believe that they are always meant to be ‘nice’, and c) Christians often misunderstand: when people act in ways that are detrimental / hurtful to others it behooves us to bring this to their attention—this is a way of loving others.

Gregg next suggests that perhaps we need to balance a focus on the other (and believing that s/he is “doing their best”) with a focus on oneself (by honouring situations where one needs to address the other party, even if resolution or even recognition seems unlikely). In other words, in certain situations for Gregg to value himself he needs to express his view / response to the other party, and similarly stating the impact of certain actions to another party may help that person identify a habit or attitude that they were unaware of, or whose impact they did not know.

So to Gregg’s mind, part of loving one’s neighbour is being willing to communicate about some of the rough edges where you and your neighbour connect.

The post 102: Giving the Benefit of the Doubt appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss some questions about versions of the Bible, the book of Job, and the upcoming discussion group / gathering that Gregg is facilitating.

In the book of Job, John notes that Job’s friends also take the perspective that Job has done something to cause God to act against Job.  Gregg responds that, as far as he is aware, that when something had “befallen” someone the Judeans expressed this as God having “caused” the event, and that doing so was a way of acknowledging God as the one who had created all things and set them into certain relationships with each other.

John next wonders about the discussion that Gregg will be facilitating at his church. Gregg responds that in the first meeting will focus on having the group discuss some of the preliminary needs, such as what is needed to create a safe and productive space for discussion, what their goals and expectations are, and what might constitute “success” for them.

Gregg also notes that he will be open about his desire to steer the group in two general directions.  The first is toward understanding how we assess a certain matter or topic.  The second is toward understanding what we do once we reach the end of our own ability to assess something.  In other words, how do we adjudicate expert opinions on a given matter?

Gregg also hopes to highlight the difference between understanding the Bible as offering propositional truth versus presenting a tensional view of reality and human existence, such that human beings need to balance a variety of tensions in order to live well.  For instance, Christians (and all humans) need both belief and skepticism, faith and suspicion.

The post 101: More About Job | Church Discussion Kickoff appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

Today John and Gregg celebrate–and reflect on–100 episodes of the “Untangling Christianity podcast!”

John begins by mentions how he and Gregg have met their goal of publishing 100 episodes in (at least) 100 weeks, and by keying on a listener’s question, from Amy, about whether the podcasts have changed over time.  He notes that his perspective has changed gradually since the beginning of the podcast, but mostly in becoming more comfortable being “where he is at” and with the fact that John has a number of questions about Christianity, and being accepting of that fact.  John also explains his hope that, in future, the UC podcast will include “other contributors,” such as the recent interview with Dan Dailey.

Gregg, too, would like to “open up” the podcast.  Gregg envisages this as having opportunities for some of the things that he and John have been discussing to be applied / “lived out” in real life.  So he notes the discussion groups he will be facilitating over the summer and autumn, and wonders what possibilities there may be for those participating in the groups to share (their experiences in the groups, what they are thinking about relative to the topics, etc.).

The post 100: What’s Next for Untangling Christianity? appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss the idea that being a Christian should be “easy,” a notion with which Gregg largely disagrees.

As part of doing his own work John has been making slow progress in his reading of a Chronological Daily Bible, with commentary by F. LaGard Smith.  John has been in Genesis and comes across a section where Smith inserts a section observing that the book of Job possibly happened at the same time.  Gregg references Dillard and Longman’s Introduction to the Old Testament to offer some information on Job, including considerations of its genre.

John questions Smith’s conclusion about the reason for Job’s adversity.

Job’s life will become the basis for a literary masterpiece dealing with suffering and the issue of its causes.  Little does this humble man know how his very personal adversity will be a source of comfort to multitudes of fellow-suffers for centuries to come. That fact alone might well have something to do with why he is called upon to experience such adversity. (page 22)

So John wonders, does God really bring suffering? Or, at what point does suffering amount to “evil”?

John wonders how Gregg would discuss this topic with someone espousing a perspective that God brings direct suffering to people’s lives. Assuming that they don’t know each other overly well, how would Gregg “push back” against this perspective? Gregg notes in such a context, where there isn’t a close relationship and not any context for intimate discussion, he would actually not respond if the problem of evil was a “raw” issue for him.

Given that proviso, Gregg notes a key difference when it comes to “not understanding” suffering (or even evil). First, there is the notion that one does not understand the situation in its entirety, so not knowing the causes or why certain choices were made or why this resulted (and not that). Second, there not understanding how something can happen and yet God can remain good.

John then raises the notion of whether God actually caused the event. Gregg replies that, providing that he was not in a “raw” state of emotion about the issue, he would be very curious to understand how someone might know that, for example, Gregg’s brother’s death was caused by God. Further, this connects with the issue of God’s goodness being at stake in such situations, and Gregg believes that those in the grip of such situations must resolve this question.

Gregg begins by noting the importance of the “disciple’s prayer” and the fact that being taught to pray that “God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven” is clear indication that all that happens on earth is not God’s will. Gregg sees this as definitively precluding the notion that God “causes” all things to happen, including things that we would broadly understand as being “evil.”

Further, in reading passages from Job 1 and 2, Gregg observes that it is actually the entity called “Satan” who acts against Job, not God! Gregg wonders if the typical Christian “misreading” of Job (that sees God causing Job’s suffering rather than permitting it) is due to the human need to explain suffering by making God in control of everything, so that the world is not a scary place. Yet Gregg notes that the Bible contradicts this: God is not in full control. On this point Gregg distinguishes between God being unable to do something and God having chosen, for a variety of reasons, not to do something—that God “limits” Godself.

John returns to his initial question, and Gregg summarizes his view: in the wake of / after the fallout from painful, difficult, and even evil things there are still new and different possibilities that arise. These are not necessarily better possibilities, but they are truly new and different possibilities that did not exist before. It is out of this new context (which includes the reality that those who have suffered in particular ways are best able to empathize with and support those presently enduring such sufferings) that Gregg believes that we may be most able to “love our neighbours,” without God in any way causing the suffering.

The post 99: Is Christianity Easy? appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this podcast John and Gregg once again return to “the Eagle” in order to discuss the notion of experience and, particularly, to contrast everyday experiences with exceptional experiences.

Gregg begins by explaining how he wants to relate exceptional experiences, and particularly experiences of God, to something called Speech Act theory (by J. L. Austin). John seeks a definition for experience and Gregg believes that experiences in general are composed of—and require—three components: 1) an external event that I can recognize and evaluate as being “really there,” 2) my own action of recognizing and evaluating such an event, and 3) my responses to whatever I recognized and evaluated.

From Gregg’s perspective, experiences of God are different than everyday experiences because they involve different categories and require that we ask different questions. When it comes to experiences of God, Gregg categorizes them by / believes that they must meet four criteria: availability (how prevalent are such types of experiences), reliability (how susceptible are such types of experiences to being misread / how difficult are they to validate), purpose (what is the role of experience generally and of this particular experience, when it comes to believing in God), and value (what types of experiences are valuable and what type of importance should we attribute to them).

John finds this helpful. Gregg goes on to note that the third and particularly, fourth point here are very important. In other words, understanding the value that we attribute to an experience is extremely important, because people use certain experiences as signs or validations of the way they think or what they believe. In other cases, we identify certain situations as “experiences the God” and yet these serve more as indications of God’s presence rather than offering specific ratification or validation of my thinking or beliefs (about God, the Bible, Christianity, etc.).

As Gregg explains, his difficulty with situations such as seeing eagles in the sky at a crucial moment it that those who encounter the Eagle take from that experience something (such as as a degree of validation for their thinking or the current disposition on a certain matter ) that the experience itself does not have the density to offer.

John wonders: if these are some of the difficulties with exceptional experiences, what good things can we draw from these experiences? Gregg’s view is that, despite the fact that one does not have certainty about the significance of a particular experience, the positive side is that i) by being more attentive to the general nature of experience, and ii) having a greater understanding of exceptional experiences in particular, then iii) we are better able to evaluate experiences on a number of levels (and attribute appropriate value to them) such that we can draw better conclusions from our experiences.

Gregg then explains one of his own experiences, that he interprets as being an “exceptional” experience, by examining it using this adaptation of the three categories of Speech Act theory.

The post 98: Examining Exceptional Experiences appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg welcome Dan Dailey, author of the blog post that’s been the subject of the last two podcasts–Episode 96 and Episode 95. Dan’s posts, The Sin of Forsaking Fellowship, is here: https://danieldailey.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/the-sin-of-forsaking-fellowship/ .

John and Gregg talk with Dan to get a better sense of the intentions behind his blog post with the goal of giving him “a fair hearing” regarding his perspective on church and church-going. This after speculating in previous episodes about Dan’s situation and motives.  They’re grateful for Dan’s willingness to dialogue and the opportunity to talk with him firsthand.

John and Gregg both look forward to the listener feedback on this episode.

The post 97: Talking Church with Dan Dailey appeared first on Untangling Christianity.