Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

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.