Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

In this episode John and Gregg discuss some feedback by listener “Anna.”  Anna re-posted a Face Book post by Mick Mooney where he offered some views on what the gospel is. Mick writes:

“The truth is that we all have our interpretation regarding what the gospel actually is, what promises it contains, what power it extends, and whom it includes.”

Out of this Anna was considering, “What does it mean that scripture is inspired by God?” John notes the importance of Anna’s question because he too finds the subject of inspiration to be confusing.

Gregg is impressed with how Anna approached the article and expressed some doubts about the author’s perspective. Gregg values Mick Mooney’s emphasis on how the Christian story can be powerfully transformative of one’s life. Yet unlike Mick, who portrays this story as impacting people in a solely positive way, Gregg sees the need in his own life for critique and rebuke (and sees these as deeply interwoven with the Christian story and the kingship of Jesus—the “gospel”).

Gregg sees Mick’s view as confusing the fact that interpretation is necessary and the notion that, because all people are unique, our interpretations are necessarily unique (and so an interpretation cannot be wrong). For example, Gregg explains that someone can play the notes of a musical score correctly or present the lines in a play correctly and yet fail to play the piece or act the part correctly (through inattention to how loud or soft to play, or to what type of emotion / intensity to display while acting).

Thus there may be four good interpretations to a given biblical passage, but not fourteen or forty. Gregg emphasizes that biblical interpretations—all interpretations, in fact—are a matter of “better and worse,” and so we should strive to come to / embrace the best interpretation possible. Thus Gregg’s view is that endorsing a single, unique perspective or a multitude of acceptable interpretations are both seriously flawed ways of understanding: a) how human beings engage with truth claims and b) what sort of text the Bible actually is.

So Gregg compares Mick Mooney’s view with that of Josh McDowell, who is arguing that inspiration amounts to God ensuring that every word of the Bible is exactly “correct:”

“The process of inspiration extended to every word (“all Scripture”), refuting the idea of myth and error. Since God is behind the writings, and since He is perfect, the result must be infallible. If it were not infallible, we could be left with God-inspired error”

Gregg sees this as mistaken thinking and agrees here, in essence, with Mick Mooney: interpretation is crucial, and not only for how we read the biblical text but how the biblical authors engaged with God and the world around them such that they were able to author texts that are sufficiently accurate in describing who / what God is, who / what human beings are, and how the two are best to relate.

Gregg explains that, contrary to Josh McDowell, we apply interpretation (and indeed, creativity and imagination) not on the level of the individual word but on the level of the sentence and certainly the overall story!  Thus it is not a matter of biblical authors being puppets or biblical texts being “dropped from heaven” but of these texts being a blend of both divine and human production and being sufficiently capable for the purpose of informing human beings (rather than the mistaken notion that these texts are infallibly capable).

John returns to the original notion and wonders about what makes a text “inspired.” Gregg sees inspiration as a threefold matter of i) writing, ii) preservation (of what has been written) and iii) canonization (or recognizing the nature of what is written).

Gregg summarizes inspiration as: the process of God carrying out God’s interest that the biblical text be sufficiently clear and yet robust, diverse and yet uniform, etc., in order that these texts offer indications that are understandable, compelling, and informative about who / what God is, who / what human beings are, and how the two are best to relate.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

In this episode John and Gregg discuss some of Gregg’s ideas about sin.  John sets the discussion in the context of N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Joy, which John is reading along with his parents.

John notes how N. T. Wright’s emphasis on Jesus’ bodily resurrection is an indication that the kingdom of God has (partially) come already, and reflected on Gregg’s previous comments in episode #75 about “Jesus not coming to save us from our sins.”  Gregg is quick to add that the second part of that sentence was: Jesus came to inaugurate the kingdom of God.

To John’s surprise Gregg explains that he sees deliverance from / forgiveness of sin as being very important, but sees this as something that happens within or subsequent to the inauguration of God’s kingdom.  So Gregg explains that the coming of God’s kingdom represents not simply the fulfillment of the covenant but the fulfillment of everything, in the sense that all things are God’s and that God is re-claiming all things.

John also considers the nature of sin: what is it, and sin “the same” from the Old and New Testament.  Gregg understands sin as a barrier between human beings and God, such that sin represents things that one does or fails to do, consciously or pre-consciously, that impedes humans from being able rightly to relate with God.

John wonders what this looks like for Gregg, personally.  Gregg offers the contrast that while God continues to love us irrespective of what we do and who we become our own, human ability to relate rightly to God is deeply affected by the choices we make and / or fail to make.  From Gregg’s perspective a major issue is that Christians do not make the connection between sin as something that one should not do and the reasons why a particular action is problematic / why God would want us to act in other ways instead.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

In this episode John and Gregg discuss the topic of Christian apologetics.  John contextualizes the discussion by explaining how he goes through various rhythms of being more and then less engaged with the podcast, and how listener feedback is often a stimulus to rekindle John’s interest.

Specifically, John remarks on Lynette’s contention that he (and Gregg, in particular) are actually “apologists” for the Christian faith.  Gregg is doubtful that what he and John are doing could be considered as apologetics, particularly because Christian apologetics aims to convert non-Christians to Christianity and Gregg aims to “convert Christians to better ways of thinking and being.”

So when John raises his issues with Christianity, Gregg sees that they are both of very similar opinion that the issues that John raises.  Gregg then offers that apologetics seeks to offer better ways of thinking in pursuit of better beliefs, and that it is mainly an intellectual (and particularly, epistemological) exercise.  Gregg sees that all of these orientations on their own are problematic.

John focuses on the notion of “conversion,” and wonders if this is all that is involved in apologetics.  For example, isn’t apologetics also about supporting an existing view / defending one’s own faith (for oneself)?  Yet John’s own experience of engaging with apologetics was actually to convince himself of the validity of Christian belief.  John likens this to “mentally assenting to being in love with someone.”

Gregg comes back to John’s notion of “ownership” (and indeed, what constitutes ownership) and notes that, according to his exposure to Christian apologetics, there typically seems to be a real lack of ownership amongst those who express their Christianity in that way.

Gregg sees this lack of ownership and over-intellectualization as deeply linked to (and likely derived from) the notion that all truth is in / originates from the Bible.  Gregg views this notion as itself untruthful, unspported by the biblical claims, and so as an unhelpful “addition” that Christians have appended to the Christian faith.

John directs this to a practical example, such as if Gregg’s kids go off to college.  John wonders how Gregg will respond–will he be worried?  Gregg doesn’t think so.  First, because his children have had first hand experience of how their lives have been changed in positive ways (such as their parents re-uniting after 20 months of separation) and how Christianity, the church, and their parent’s claims about God’s involvement have been prominent throughout this process.

Second, Gregg and his spouse have ongoing engagement with their children about what their children think: the emphasis is on what the children think (and what they find compelling) rather than trying to persuade them to believe this or that.  Third, Gregg notes that some “versions” of Christianity need to be thrown out!  So he is very sympathetic to the possibility that new information may well help us to view our beliefs in a more truthful light.

So Gregg believes that when people a) have the space to think for themselves, b) are presented with new ideas, and c) have sufficient amount of supports (through those who are good advisers and counselors) that they are then able to weigh up this new information together with their existing beliefs in the best way, and so likely come to the best determinations about them.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

In this episode John and Gregg discuss the focus article of the September 2015 edtion of The Atlantic magazine: “The Coddling of the American Mind,” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.

Gregg wonders about the hyper-sensitivity that seems to be dictating how we are (or better, how are not) to interact with each others. Particularly, the article points to the troubling reality that students’ emotional responses to a topic seem increasingly to be more important than the truthfulness, importance, or validity of the topic itself.

Two terms have become somewhat synonymous with phenomenon. First, “microagressions” are small acts or word choices that on the surface appear harmless but are thought of as a kind of “violence,” such as asking a person of Asian descent where they were born. Second, “trigger warnings” are alerts that professors are expected to issue regarding course content that may offend students or even “trigger” past trauma, such as warning that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby includes misogynistic content.

The authors conclude that universities are to be places that aim for—and are oriented toward—truth, and then finish the article with a list of “common cognitive distortions,” or ways that people engage with the world from an overly subjective view point.

Gregg likens this heightened sensitivity to our emotional responses to an issue and / or its presentation (rather than to its validity, importance, or even truthfulness) to a major theme prevalent at Swiss L’Abri during his 6+ month stay in 2014. Interestingly, the notion that many Christian students seemed to cherish was that discussion and / or criticism never validated hurting someone’s feelings. In other words, the truthfulness of an idea or perspective seemed to take second place to considerations of how such information might impact someone.

John, however, thinks that this seems like a tough matter to decide: it seems callous and arrogant to push someone who has undergone something traumatic to ignore or “get over” their past in order to be able to engage with triggering material. Gregg agrees, and yet explains that in his own case there were existing safety valves in the university and students already know their pressure points and so mostly need to be making prudent choices according to their existing understanding.

John agrees, and appreciates the authors’ comments that this current orientation within universities may in fact prepare students poorly for the work world or for further studies, because students are unprepared for critical engagement / opposition to their ideas and ways of thinking.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

In this episode John and Gregg discuss one of Gregg’s recent blog posts where Gregg lays out his approach to others, both Christians and non-Christians, in preparation for examining (and as distinct from) how Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias (and other Christian apologists) engage with non-Christians.

Gregg notes that he is very excited by this blog post because it lays out his perspective. Further, his next blog post further expands on this first post and lays out why he holds this perspective and how this fits in with his approach throughout the podcast.

John focuses on Gregg’s 5th point: “I want to advocate to others the joys, benefits, and truths that I have experienced and come to believe about myself and life, in light of rightly relating with God. ”  John is struck by how different this is from wanting “to tell others about Jesus so that they don’t go to hell,” and sees this approach as something that he can relate to.

Gregg likens the typical evangelical Christian response that John has outlined to a situation where “everything is on fire and you need to get out of the building!” Gregg explains that this is not how matters work in his life—he has much more time to make decisions and engage with questions, and so sees the matter similarly for others.

Gregg also notes that his 5th point is not necessarily describing how he will tell people about God, but that his goal here is to “jubilate in becoming my best self as one who is loved by, in love with, and rightly relating to God.” So here Gregg might be engaging with others about parenting, or about self-care, or the value of a rigorous approach to Christian belief, or some other true thing that he has come to know in & through rightly relating with God, even though this need not be about God or Christianity specifically.

Next, John raises Gregg’s 3rd point: “my starting place with anyone is not the Bible but my humanity. By starting my engagement this way I enter the process of mutual understanding (my first interest, above) where it is most likely to meet with success and situate truth-seeking (my second interest, above) within its proper framework: in both cases, beginning with the human and creational. The goal here is living with others according to my best understanding of how life works: creation frames salvation; salvation transforms creation.”

John wonders how starting with our humanity is a good idea or even possible, seeing that humans are innately sinful and so need God in order to make right decisions, etc. Gregg notes that there are generally a constellation of ideas that accompany this sort of concern, such as the idea that God is first (and in some Christian traditions, humans are so distantly second that we essentially have no value).

John notes that, in contrast to Gregg’s approach, the typical Christian approach to non-Christians sounds like a transaction, almost like selling life insurance. Gregg replies that in good part he realized that his excitement about this writing is seeing how his recognition of the rampant suspicion in our Western culture has oriented him to providing some of the truth value to the Christian truth claims before ever presenting these claims!