Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:03):
Knock at the Sky with Liz Charlotte Grant This is Matthew,
and in this episode of Still Unbelievable, I'll be in
conversation with Liz Charlotte Grant Liz's book, Knock at the
Sky is available from January 2025.
I recommend it for anyone who considers themselves a doubter,
questioner, or deconstructor. It is a book that will bring new
(00:25):
perspective to female charactersin Genesis.
I appreciated Liz's book and found her witty and engaging to
converse with. I am sure you'll enjoy this
conversation as much as I did. As always, links to topics we
raise are in the show notes, including links to Liz's website
and where to buy her book. During this conversation, I make
(00:45):
reference to an alternative telling of the Abraham and Isaac
story. I was unable to find the version
I referenced. Maybe I dreamt it, but I did
find another retelling which is also interesting to listen to.
See link in the show notes. Also in the show notes I'll link
to details on elements of Abraham's story that you may not
(01:06):
find. Hello everybody.
Welcome to another episode of Still Unbelievable.
This is your usual host Matthew.Unfortunately, Andrew is unable
to join me this evening. We will get in touch.
Andrew will appear again. I do promise you that I am here
doing another author interview. I love the way that I keep
(01:26):
getting throwing authors to comeand have a chat with.
It's as though somebody thinks Ido something that's OK.
And I'm quite happy with being OK if it means that I get
authors to talk to. Liz Charlotte Grant, thank you
for coming on to Still Unbelievable.
I have read your book. I have listened to you on a
couple of other podcasts. Welcome to Still Unbelievable.
(01:49):
Thank you so much for having me.And you know, that's more than
most authors get. You know, most of the time we go
on podcasts and they don't know what we are or what we've
written or oh man, I'm delighted.
Really, if I I, I have to listento something, I have to listen
to the author if I've got one on.
So I don't like being the first podcast.
(02:11):
So I want to hear them. I want to hear what they've
said. So bad luck to whoever's first.
I'd like to be able to hear how they talk.
And I obviously like to be able to read what they've written.
Because if they're here to talk about something that they've
written, I need to have done them a done them a favour.
That's the wrong phrase. But I need to have done my own
homework and, and read their work.
(02:32):
And if it means I get a free copy of something to read, well,
nobody's losing here. I agree with you.
I'm the same way, yeah. OK, so before we get on to you
Liz, I'm going to throw you to the wolves for a second here.
You're not prepared for this. I haven't warned you about this
question but we did talk in the run up that I work for a drinks
(02:54):
producer here in my part of the UK and one of the benefits of
working for this drinks produceris I get some product to take
home. So this evening I got 3 bottles
of the wonderful apple based product that my company works
for and let's just say there is a fermentation process involved.
So that should give you enough of a spoiler.
(03:16):
So we're we're launching 3 brandnew products this month.
And so I've got 1 bottle of eachproduct to to take home to enjoy
this weekend. But I have somebody who I share
my home with. What should a responsible
husband do in that situation? Should he hide them away and
(03:36):
enjoy them himself, or is he obliged to share them?
Oh, I think you have to share. But I've earned them.
They're mines. I've earned them.
I would want to share them with you personally, but if you hide
them away so that they don't know, you might get away with
(03:57):
it. Yeah, I wouldn't get away with
that. I I absolutely would not get
away with that. Obviously that's tongue in cheek
and obviously that was a bit of fun.
Liz, you say on your website, and I love this, but you,
there's clearly an edginess about you that's attractive.
So you say on your website, I'm a storyteller, a progressive
(04:19):
Christian who believes in extending empathy to all, no
exceptions. Now, clearly there's a couple of
dog whistles in there to a certain demographic.
Why would you write something sotoxic on the top of your
website? Because I'm trying to poke at
them. I, you know, the folks listening
(04:39):
to this podcast understand the Christian culture of the United
States. I'm sure to some extent.
You know, that's where I grew upwithin white American
evangelicalism. I was telling Matthew, I've
lived in Europe, but I am culturally American.
I really, I really AM. And so, you know, within that
culture, you know, empathy is not something that is popular
(05:03):
right now. I don't know if you know about
the book that came out called Toxic Empathy.
Wow, that's an interesting pairing of words to put on a
book cover. It is a strange It is a strange
choice. What has been interesting in the
past few years is that some conservative Christians in the
United States have started to associate empathy with this kind
(05:28):
of toxic kind of all inclusiveness that they have
decided is politically correct. Or I don't, I don't know what
they would say about it, to be honest, because it feels so, it
feels so left field to me. Like it feels like if, if Jesus
is about any, if Jesus is real and if Jesus is about anything,
(05:52):
I believe it would be empathy. That just seems, that just seems
like the point of religion over all, to extend some empathy to
someone else, to try to put yourself in their shoes, to try
to understand, to try to care for them as you would like to be
cared for, right? That's the golden rule.
Yes, absolutely do unto others, and empathy seems to be the only
(06:16):
way that that could possibly be achieved.
Correct, yes. So I'm, I'm mystified, but I, I
definitely, it's funny because I, so I write a newsletter
called the Empathy List and I started this newsletter before a
lot of the talk that was going around that started in these
conservative circles about empathy being a quote UN quote
sin. Wow.
(06:37):
And I, I felt, I felt like I'd been put in the right place at
the right time in some sense to just say that's not true, that's
utter nonsense. And I am not playing that game.
Right, a good few and dear listeners, you know, I put show
(06:59):
notes in. If you haven't checked my show
notes by now, start here. There will be links to Liz's
website and you'll be able to find the newsletter her at the
empathy list, which will includea way to subscribe to it.
So check the show notes. Now I'm going to briefly
reference another author who we we mentioned.
So very recently I interviewed Becca McNeil, beautiful author,
(07:23):
and I mean beautiful objectivelyin the way that she writes.
And I made reference in that interview.
If you haven't listened to it listeners, and you should have
to how she challenged me about empathy in her writing.
And but my challenge to you, Liz, is in response to that
episode, I had an e-mail, a verynice e-mail from a regular
(07:45):
Lister saying that was one of mybest interviews ever.
So that is the bar that I'm aiming for with with this
conversation with you. So let's get on to the reason
why you're here, Liz, and that is your book.
Now I'm going to give you an opportunity to laugh at me
because from my background and my exit from Christianity, I
(08:07):
read the title of your book and I went, yes, this is a book
that's going to put into words my deconstruction because I
deconstructed because of the thefailure of Genesis to match
science. And here is a here is a great
author who has written a book critiquing all the science in
Genesis and why it's all wrong. And this is going to validate my
(08:30):
journey. And the knock at the sky bit was
very much. Disappointing.
I'm getting there. You've ruined my punchline.
Yeah. And your title, Knock at the Sky
resonated with part of that journey for me because part of
that journey for me was knockingon an invisible glass ceiling
saying, God, where are you, knock, knock, knock, knock,
(08:52):
where are you? And a big section of my, my
journey felt like that. So I saw the title and I saw the
promise and I read it and I got heaps and heaps of empathy and
not at all what I was expecting.So congratulations on ruining my
day. But your book is a great read.
(09:16):
Your your book is a great read. I do recommend it to our
listeners. Do read it.
So why did you choose to disappoint me in the writing of
your book? Well, at the time I didn't know
you personally, but now it is personal.
Matthew. No, I, I, I think I became
(09:40):
interested in returning to Genesis for myself because like
you, so many people I know have found Genesis to be so deeply
problematic. Like the way that it is used
culturally as a, as a cultural weapon against people, whether
(10:01):
that is LGBTQ folks, whether that is women, whether that is,
I believe even men. I think the ways that this
ancient text has been used and abused is, is reprehensible.
And I, I, I think for myself, you know, I'm not a theologian,
(10:24):
just so your listeners know, my,my expertise is creative
writing. You know, that is what I
studied. That is my interest.
And so I read the book of Genesis from this literary
perspective, which is to say, I don't actually address issues of
historicity almost at all. I, I almost completely avoid
(10:46):
those questions. I think there are a couple times
probably where I dance around the issue, but really that is
not the point for me in writing this book.
And so the point was much more to explore this ancient
masterwork from a literary perspective.
So for me, I, I wanted to, you know, in the way that you do
(11:07):
with any book, any story, I wanted to sort of surrender to
the world created by the authors.
And so, you know, whenever you read a book, you're sort of
surrendering to the, to the story, to the characters, to the
themes, you kind of enter this like flow, you jump in the river
and you just kind of go with it,right.
(11:27):
And so that is how I wanted to approach this book.
I think, you know, making science out of this book is
nonsense, obviously. I also think, you know,
approaching it in a way that we need to validate ourselves is
nonsense, right? So, and that's often kind of why
we're approaching a book like this from a scientific
(11:50):
viewpoint. But I, I would say, you know,
art, good art like this that haslasted for centuries, millennia,
art like this continues to speakand continues to form,
especially Western culture. And so I wanted to understand,
(12:11):
you know, what does it still have to say to us even if, you
know, my beliefs have changed? I'm like I said, I call myself a
progressive Christian, which is sort of a hodgepodge term
anyway. No one quite knows what that
means. In my case it means I'm not
evangelical anymore and I'm in the main line American church.
(12:34):
Currently attending a Presbyterian Church of of
America. PCUSA.
Actually, no, not PCAPCUSA. So for those who know
denominations, there's a big difference between the two.
And I think for me it was just much more important to approach
the the text as art and see where it took me.
(12:56):
And I think that comes across inthe way you've written it
because those of us who are in my position who have looked at
Genesis from a more critical standpoint are aware that there
is this hypothesis that certainly the first couple of
chapters of Genesis are poetry. And in the translation over
(13:17):
millennia, that source and that pattern of poetry or song or
whatever it was, it is completely lost.
It's just not, it's not replicatable in any of the
languages that the world speaks today.
So we, we, we've lost all of that.
But that's, it's normally assumed that that is applied to
(13:39):
the creation accounts and, and maybe a little bit after, but
you spend a significant chunk ofyour book around the story of
Abraham or, or Abraham to probably be more technically
accurate. What was your decision around
that? Yeah, so this book is, I mean,
it's an interdisciplinary commentary.
So I'm, I'm looking at the book of Genesis and reading it as
(14:02):
literary writer, interpreting itas as such.
I'm also interpreting it using all sorts of different
commentators that are, I mean, mostly I wanted to not hear from
dead white guys. So I myself am white.
I have read and know a lot of wonderful theologians who are
(14:22):
dead white guys, and also some of them have been harmful and
abusive and all sorts of problems For myself.
I needed to read it from a different lens.
I needed to hear different perspectives.
And so that is actually part of the reason that I returned to
Abraham or Abram in the text, because I find him such a
(14:45):
problematic character. It's an incredibly dysfunctional
family. That is, that is shown in this
text. And I cover the beginning of
Genesis through Genesis 32, so which is Jacob wrestling with an
Angel or God or whatever. You know, there's like this myth
of Jacob rolling around in the dirt at night with someone and
(15:08):
then. It is a weird story in itself,
isn't it? Oh, I love that story.
It's so strange. Yes.
I think I'm drawn to these strange stories, you know, and
Genesis is just chock full of them.
There's so many strange stories and characters in this book.
I wanted to address sort of first encounters with God
(15:30):
according to the Genesis author.And of course, Abraham is this
this classic, You know, Abraham hears from God.
Get thee out is the translation.I love the best God's command to
Abram. And he walks away from family
and land and inheritance and hisformer religion to follow an
(15:52):
invisible deity into the desert without knowing where he is
going. And so that's a compelling story
on its own. But then you add in these layers
of different characters in this dysfunctional family history.
And I come from a dysfunctional family originally.
And so I think like many, many of us, right, we all, we have
(16:14):
lots to heal from usually when we reach adulthood.
And so for myself, I was curiousto return and say, you know,
with a lens now for and kind of an understanding of spiritual
abuse and religious trauma just through my own experiences,
unfortunately. I am curious how this reads now
to me. How do I interpret and
(16:36):
understand the story with this founder of three faiths?
You know, Abraham is the founderof three faiths.
And I just was very curious to reapproach.
Yeah. I, I, you know, I don't view him
very kindly after that reapproach.
I mean, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the patriotic
(16:58):
Matthew. Well, yes, post post religion,
my views on on Abraham have changed quite significantly.
I mean, I grew up being fed Abraham as being a great man of
faith and the deconstruction, orrather more accurately the
deconverted community. There's there's this phrase, the
(17:22):
Abraham test that goes round a lot.
And the Abraham test is viewed very dimly it by unanimously
throughout the the deconstructedcommunity.
And we only need to look at modern history to see stories of
people who believe that they've been told that their their deity
(17:43):
has told them to kill their children.
And we rightly view that with horror.
And yet we do not. Yet somehow judgement is
suspended for Abraham. And I know personally people who
would be far more strong in their response about that than
(18:05):
I'd be now. But I am disgusted by that
story. Yeah.
And it's in particular. You mean the story of taking
Isaac to the mountain to? I'm talking like, I admit, like,
like my listeners know. And I'm assuming, but we should
say it for what it is. Yeah.
It's taking his child up a mountain to slaughter his child.
(18:26):
And I'm, I'm being very graciousby not saying those words.
Yes, we we should speak the horror because that is what it
is. And as a quick aside, I'm
assuming you, you know the you know of Seth Andrews.
No, tell me more. Seth Andrews is an ex
evangelical Christian. He has his own podcast but the
(18:48):
reason why I mentioned him is onhis podcast and now I'm going
back a couple of years. He read a fictional short story
of that event from Abraham's life of taking Isaac.
But the story is written from Sarah's perspective and Sarah
(19:10):
realises what's happening and she manufacturers the voice at
the top of the mountain and the goat or rather ram stuck in the
bushes, all without Abraham realising it.
And it's quite a twist and I really enjoy that story.
(19:30):
I don't know what the story is called.
I don't know who wrote the original story that Seth read
out. Seth has a lovely reading voice
and so he reads the story very well.
Listeners, if I can find it, because I'll be reminded when I
go through the edit, I will put a link in the show notes, so
check there. If it's not in the show notes,
good luck finding it so. But it does a really good job of
(19:54):
just taking all the supernaturalelements out of the story.
And when you do that, the horrorof the story really comes up.
And I love it that it's the woman who is not named enough in
the story who is the hero of that short story.
And the man is just a prick, frankly.
(20:18):
I mean, one of the things that was fascinating to me in
studying these characters and I,I used, as I said, I used a lot
of commentators who are not the dead white guys, right?
So I used a lot of black liberation and women as
theologians to interpret especially.
And that comes out in your writing.
Yes, especially the women in these texts because of course
(20:43):
women in the Bible are sort of side characters at best.
Most of the time they are known because of who they birthed or
who raped them or you know, I mean, there's some really
appalling stories that I, you know, as if as a woman, I feel
incredibly offended by. I think for myself, it was very
(21:06):
interesting to read these alternative perspectives because
I think coming at the text as a white sis hat, you know, gender
normative woman, I, I needed a different perspective.
So I, I, I went back to Dolores Williams, who is a, one of the
founding black womanist liberation theologians.
(21:29):
And she she in particular sees Hagar a sort of a, a model for
Black women, the Black female story in the United States,
which of course has been horrific.
Also her retelling kind of give me an imagination for
(21:49):
understanding. You know, she sees the story as
a story in which God calls and resources and it eventually
liberates an enslaved woman and gives her a well in the desert,
which of course was wealth and prosperity and a way to survive.
And also then gives her generations later after her in
(22:14):
which she becomes the matriarch of a new family line.
Now I, I still struggle with that reading because the the
enslaved woman Hagar is forced to become a surrogate of
Abraham's child is abused by Sarah so dramatically that she
(22:37):
actually runs away into the desert pregnant with no water
supplies anything. The rabbi's say that she was
running for Egypt. I mean, imagine walking the, the
Israel Israel's region, the region of Iraq and and going
(22:57):
South to Egypt on foot while pregnant.
So I, you know, there's still and, and then when she arrives
at a well, which was a risk, Godtells her to return to her slave
master. So I, I continue to struggle
(23:19):
with this text, which feels so deeply unjust.
And yet I found myself wanting to make space for these other
perspectives and say maybe that maybe I, I get it wrong from my
perspective, you know, maybe I read this story was some
privilege. And So what does it look like to
(23:41):
say? This woman, Dolores Williams,
who is a scholar of both black female faith and of Genesis, You
know, she reads the story and says the only way that Hagar
would have survived another day is to return.
Like, she will die in the desert.
(24:03):
And God tells her to return and saves her life.
And then later when she is yet again kicked out of the house,
this time by Abraham and Sarah both, we expect her to die.
And she doesn't die. She discovers a wall.
So there's, you know, there are layers to the story that I, I
continue to kind of have questions about.
(24:24):
Now with the Abraham test in particular, I think that one is
very challenging and I did not start to understand and even
kind of come to terms with that until I started digging into the
midrashic literature. So some of the kind of early
Jewish writings that make a lot of space for the silences in the
(24:49):
work, which I find fascinating. And in that chapter I just sort
of tell and retell their storiesof what this event means to
them. There's a lot of it, you know,
in Christian theology and in rabbinic theology, there is a
lot of sort of back bending to try to make sense of a lot of
(25:11):
these these seemingly contradictory things.
You know, people assume God is good and so therefore this
cannot be true that God would say to slaughter the chosen son
on top of the mountain. And yet, like, what does it mean
if God does do that? I mean, I think it's actually a
much more interesting story for all of us to kind of stop and
(25:34):
think through. And this is, you know, of course
this has led to some people to atheism because what the fuck?
Yes, exactly. I think that's an appropriate
response to that. And there's a weird dichotomy in
there in that Abraham's nearly slaughter of Isaac is seen as an
act of faith and God rescuing Isaac from that situation,
(25:58):
although it was his plan all along.
It is somehow seen as glorious that God put them through this
trial just to prove a promise. I mean, was there really not?
Was there really no other way todo it?
Did he really have to choose such a dramatic way to prove a
little point? While at the same time Ishmael
and his mother Hagar are sent off out into the wilderness, and
(26:22):
whether they live or die is utterly inconsequential.
It's my happenstance that they live and Ishmael creates a great
nation, but it's of no relevancewhatsoever.
He could have just perished and died on a dry lake bed with his
mother and never been seen by anybody.
The story would have been no different and the readers would
(26:43):
have cared no less. Yep.
And I think that that is deeply disturbing.
I agree. I think one of the things that
clarified, or maybe I wouldn't even say Claire, I think one of
the things that made sense to meas I studied this text that I
felt many writers had not touched on enough was the tie
(27:12):
between the way that Hagar is treated Hagar and Ishmael and
the way that then Isaac is treated by God.
And I started to see some kind of synonyms like like these were
kind of, there is a parallel here that I needed to observe.
I needed to observe that as the woman is abused and her son is
(27:35):
rejected, you know, Abraham, Abraham's son seems to be
rejected, right? And there is this kind of
parallelism. I mean, that is more karmic than
it is Christian to think that this is the punishment for, you
know, for Abraham's and Sarah's mistreatment of Ishmael and
(27:57):
Hagar. So again, I kind of wonder at
our interpretation of it. I, I, I still don't know what to
make of this story. I just being frank, I, I find it
to be utterly disturbing and I, I can never imagine doing such a
thing. You know the the way that the
(28:18):
Rabbi's make sense of it is thatthey say that the test was to
take the sun there and to bind the sun.
So they call it the Binding of Isaac.
But the story goes. The story goes into a bit more
detail than just binding though,doesn't it?
I think it does. I think it does.
And I think where I come to it is to say, you know, what if
(28:41):
Abraham got it wrong? But I again, I don't know that
for sure. I mean, I think there is a lot
about these early scriptures that are deeply troubling.
And I, I think it's interesting to me that they are troubling.
I, you know, I can't, I, I can'tdefend these actions, nor can I
(29:03):
defend God here, you know? And surely, though, it's got to
be a sign of good moral character to read this story and
say, I'm troubled by this because to read the story and
then spend however long it takesto write a detailed theological
analysis of why this is a good thing that God did and why it's
(29:25):
all an act of faith. Surely to do that is a
troubling, heartless thing to doif you never at any point
acknowledge the horror that is that story.
Because the other thing that we haven't mentioned but we are
both acutely aware of is Sarah saying to Abraham, I can't bear
children. Take my maidservant instead.
(29:47):
That whole thing reeks of non consent.
And there's that is problematic as well.
And that is not a modern thing. Sarah must have known what that
must have been like as a woman to command her husband to do
that. You know, it's not.
Consent isn't a new thing. Consent isn't something that
(30:08):
we've only become aware of in the past 20 years.
No, I think, I mean, this was anenslaved woman, you know, so she
was their property. So again, we're dealing with
several of these layers of unjust societal norms and really
reprehensible behavior. I think the thing for me, which
was deeply troubling was seeing how quickly theological
(30:34):
commentators tried to turn it around to say that it was still
a faithful act when even the text itself is saying that it is
an unfaithful act. You know, that they actually did
not have faith in God. And This is why Abraham had sex
with Hagar to have a baby. You know, they didn't believe
(30:58):
that God would give them a son. And therefore Sarah intervenes.
Now, is it reasonable, and I saythis in the book, is it
reasonable that after 10 to 15 years of not having a child,
that Sarah and Abraham would assume that there was no child
(31:18):
coming? Of course that's reasonable.
You know, of course it is. And I think that's another part
of the story so often, and I sawthis in the commentaries of, you
know, early Christian fathers, Church fathers like Augustine
Chrysostom, Chrysostom, They, they would, they would say that
(31:42):
really it was Sarah's unfaithfulness.
It wasn't Abraham's unfaithfulness.
Sarah had failed. Always the woman's fault, right?
She made me do it. And I think the other part of it
that was very disturbing was hearing from them that Abraham
didn't even sin as he had the woman in his sheets.
(32:05):
You know, they're doing, they'redoing something and they're
saying, you know, as he is laying with Hagar, he is not
lusting after her. He is only, he has his mind only
set on children. And I'm like, I, I don't think
that has ever happened. I mean, that is a miracle too
far for me. That is sorry, that is such a
(32:27):
privileged white guy thing to say.
Let's be honest about it. I know I just, I was astonished
by that interpretation. I'm like, I, you know, anyway,
that one was absurd to me because it's, it felt like a
crisis management meeting in a mega church where they're going.
(32:51):
How do we frame it so that the founder is still a good guy even
though he's done whatever? This just, you know,
indiscretion? And then the true.
Victims, Yeah. And then the true victims of
this story, which are Hagar and Ishmael, they get the majority
of the blame for it all going wrong.
(33:12):
Right. Yep.
They're abused. They're thrown out into the
desert. They have no advocate.
I Yeah, I think the one, the onething that was a comfort to me
is that when Hagar runs into thedesert the first time, God is
actually the first, according tothe narrator's, to speak her
(33:34):
name. So before that point in the
text, none of the other characters even used her name.
Sarah and Abraham do not addressher by her first name.
You're testing my knowledge of that passage.
I'm desperately trying to remember.
It's been so long since I've read it, but yes.
But interesting thing here. They say, you know, take the
(33:56):
slave girl or take this woman, you do what you want with her.
I mean, there's no there's no personal naming of Hagar by
Abraham and Sarah within the text, which I found very
interesting. And you actually say that in
your book? Yes, I.
Remember, yes. And then she, and then she comes
out into the desert and whoever she meets, whether she's
(34:17):
hallucinating, whether she is meeting an Angel or God or
another person, we don't know. But they use her name, Hagar.
That's quite fascinating. I'm sure there's probably some
theological point that can be made about God's naming Hagar in
that point. Maybe there's some kind of
redemption flower that can be brought out of that.
(34:41):
But Genesis never goes there. But interesting side points and
feel free to judge me on this. When my wife and I were talking
about this interview and what wetalked a little bit about your
book and I'd forgotten that you'd mentioned Hagar by name in
your book. And one of us said what was her
name anyway? And we'd both completely
(35:02):
forgotten her name and we had todig out one of our devices and
do a search to find out what hername was.
That is how little known she is amongst people who should know
better. Yes, absolutely.
I mean, I think that is so revealing and I, I would say not
of you, not of you. I would say culturally within
(35:24):
kind of these Christian spaces and then even beyond when we
think about the Bible as a wholeand how people interact with
biblical themes within Western culture, the fact that her name
is not known, I think is very significant.
It speaks a lot about our cultural patriarchy and
preference for the male founder.You know, I talked about the the
(35:45):
male founder CEO in the garage, founding the tech company in his
garage. I think we really want our
founders to be like that. We want them to be faultless.
We want them to have had, have overcome something, have kind of
come from nowhere and be geniuses and completely
(36:08):
trustworthy. This is what we want from our
heroes. I mean, I think so much about
American evangelical culture anyway, is celebrity focused.
And so many of our abuse scandals within Christianity
have focused around these celebrity figures who are
allowed to do whatever they want, basically because people
(36:28):
assume they should be moral, we should trust them and they show
themselves not to be trustworthy.
And I, I mean, I just see some of the same pattern with even
how we relate with Abraham. Instead of saying, you know, the
Bible tells a very complex psychological story about people
who lived 2500 years ago, you know, like or however long it
(36:52):
was. We don't really know.
We don't know if they lived for real.
They. Just yes, quite.
And there's so little we can know about their stories.
Yes, yeah. So in your researching for the
book, because you obviously did do a lot of research about
Abraham specifically, what extrabiblical legends are there about
this narrative and how critically do they differ and
(37:17):
how much of a different light dothey shed on this story?
There's much more of a like biography back story to Abraham
within the midrashem. The rabbi's sort of think of him
as an Elijah figure or like an Isaiah figure where his father.
(37:37):
So there's a whole kind of tie into Babylon and the Tower of
Babel and Nimrod, King Nimrod who is kind of tied into the
Tower of Babel. You know, he seems to be this
mighty man who treks across the desert and seems to have a whole
train of people behind him. And then it seems like he could
be the one who makes people build this tower in the desert.
(38:01):
So anyway, the the rabbi's kind of tie him into the Abraham
story, the Abraham narrative. And they say, well, King Nimrod
worshipped other deities and like most Babylonians would
have. And in fact, Abraham's father
was a maker of idols, and that was his trade.
(38:25):
And Abraham worked in the shop. And so he was recruited, you
know, to be, you know, to sell idols to his neighbors in the
market. And there are these scenes
about, about Abraham destroying idols, destroying the King's
idols who he'd been tasked to babysit.
(38:45):
And then he puts, you know, the axe in the biggest idols arms
and says, well, they did it, youknow, like, you know, I mean,
he's like making fun of his father's customers.
He's he's just being a troll to these other worshippers.
And then there's a whole kind ofseries of sort of Midrash or
(39:06):
sorry, the sort of Daniel story where they're thrown to the lion
or, you know, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are are thrown to
into the fire. There's a whole kind of series
of stories like that with between Nimrod and Abraham,
these kind of showdowns where he's burned and then rescued
and, you know, like a true martyr.
And this is all theoretically. This is all before God calls him
(39:28):
away from his homeland. So this is the, you know, the
prequel of Abraham's story according to the rabbi's.
Now, again, you know, these Rita's myths to me, but not
unlike a lot of Genesis, I wouldalso say, I would also say that
(39:50):
one of the most interesting parts of the story to me
actually was the recounting of Abraham's birth in which his
mother, I think there's a prophecy about Abraham that this
man will take down Nimrod or something.
And so, you know, like King Herod, Nimrod is going after the
(40:10):
baby Abraham. And so Abraham's mother goes out
into a cave in the desert to give birth, and then she leaves
her son there, assuming that he's going to be beaten by, I
don't know, coyotes or something.
And instead the the story goes that the Archangel Michael
(40:30):
essentially breastfed Abraham tokeep him alive.
And they put they actually, the way that it goes is that, and I,
I couldn't really ever quite picture this, but it was like if
Abraham sucked on his pinky, milk would come out.
(40:52):
And you know, the Archangel Michael is his babysitter, I
guess in The Cave. And then after 10 days, he is
walking and talking. And so Abraham is drinking milk
from his finger and then he's walking and talking by 10.
Then he leaves The Cave and has this whole spiritual kind of
peyote encounter with God in thedesert.
(41:16):
And then he was reunited with his family eventually.
And, you know, but it's a kind of wild, I mean, it's such a
wild story. That's it.
Sounds like they cut the most interesting bits when they
assembled the Bible. I know, I know.
I'm like, I, I, well, and I was fascinated because I had never
heard these stories. You know, why American
(41:38):
evangelicalism, and I think evangelicalism as a whole is so
cut off from historical sources,even, you know, I didn't learn
anything about the church fathers.
I didn't understand the desert fathers and mothers.
I mean, finding some of these legends of really wild, crazy
shit, batshit crazy faith, you know, like I, I wanted, I wanted
(42:02):
to find some of those stories because I think these legends
and and this text of the Bible doesn't make a lot of sense
without some more color. Yeah.
And I just wanted more colour, you know?
Yes. I mean, I'm, I'm kind of torn
because yeah, I had, I'm, and I'm assuming you did, too.
(42:25):
I had a very fundamentalist evangelical upbringing.
You know, it was the Bible and nothing else.
And anything that remotely felt like it told a story that was
similar to the Bible but wasn't the Bible was rejected.
So my enthusiasm for those things had been killed before I
was even old enough to choose toread and, and, but now I find
(42:49):
that I'm really fascinated by this kind of thing.
And it does. It puts new colour into the the
stories that are in the Bible and you go, well, of course it
all makes more sense now. It's just part of a collection
of myths. What arrogance to pull these out
fully out of context, remove it from its historical place, and
(43:09):
then lift it up onto a pedestal that it doesn't deserve.
No wonder people have a bullshitappreciation of how it holds
together. I mean no wonder people have
completely misunderstood the entire whole swathes of it.
I mean, just look at Ken Hammondand what he's done from complete
misunderstanding of what the Bible is trying to say.
(43:31):
You know what, I I visited the Ark Encounter recently because I
have family in that region of the United States and I honestly
extended family wanted to visit this.
So the Ark Encounter is a is a full size ark that Ken Ham has
(43:54):
financed and built in Kentucky. As a structure, it's actually
very impressive. It's one of the largest timber
frame, if not the largest in North America, 100% timber
frame. It's this huge boat.
I mean, it's just it's a wild, wild structure.
But I walked in and, you know, there are, there's bamboo kind
of enclosing cages and you know,there's, they made lights out of
(44:18):
clay and, you know, clay pots and, and waterers out of clay
pots and, and there were so manyanimatronic dinosaurs in the
cages. I was like, they really doubled
down on the dinosaurs. I don't, I'm not sure why, but I
think one of the things that wasfascinating is I'm walking
through this and going and one family was supposed to have
(44:42):
built this and I don't know, 150years.
I mean, maybe, but I was like, Ibelieve that's so much less than
I would have before because I just, you know, it took Ken Ham
millions of dollars and hundreds, if not thousands of
people to create this. Somehow we're supposed to
(45:05):
believe that this happened in this way, you know, and then, of
course, they're creating their own language around the flood
narrative. And the, you know, one of my
favorite parts was they're trying to define, you know, what
was it like before the flood that God would have poured out
judgment like this on to people?And there are these tiny little
(45:27):
display cases, you know, you canlook at and you see a little
diorama scene and there's one that's like a Colosseum and
people are fighting each other, you know, in the Colosseum.
And then to the right of the diorama you see a dinosaur AT
Rex coming into the Colosseum. Oh my.
(45:52):
God, one of the things that God was really mad about is that T
Rex's and humans were fighting in coliseums and that's why the
flag needed to happen. So I, I mean, just, you know,
and that's a ridiculous example.So much of that exhibit for me
honestly just made me feel really sick.
I, I just, you know, the people who are attending this, this
(46:16):
museum, coming to this museum, they are true believers for the
most part. And I just thought about all
like, what, what do these men have to gain by providing these
answers, you know, for providingthis level of certainty?
I think for me, one of the things this book became about
was sort of unraveling the doctrine of inerrancy pretty
(46:39):
gently, but trying to createspace for alternative
voices to sit at the table, the interpretative table.
And I, you know, one of the things that has been so deeply
disturbing to me over years is watching how certain men within
(47:01):
evangelicalism will not let go of power.
And their power comes from this knowledge, comes from having
this secret knowledge from God delivered specially to them.
You know, theirs is the only voice to listen to if we want to
know what God thinks. And I think it has stolen the
autonomy from so many people whocould with their agency, do
(47:25):
justice on this in this world and are being convinced by
others not to. And I think so much about this
book project for me was saying you, you can reclaim your
spiritual autonomy. You can find your agency again.
Even even if you believe that this book is 100% true and
(47:46):
inspired, you can still find a way to read this book that
honors people and honors your own sense of agency.
And that's brilliant. That absolutely is.
So that touches on probably the one thing I appreciated most
about of your book and your writing style, which comes
(48:08):
across which is the gentleness with which you write and the
gentleness with which you expressed yourself and
alternative narratives in this book.
Look, I'm 15 years out of Christianity.
I don't need to be treated gently.
I appreciated a good bit of spikiness now, and I am not
(48:31):
offended by somebody dumping a pile of ship onto my favorite
part of the Bible. I, I'm, I can cope with that,
but there are many who aren't there.
There are many who are only recently at their, in their
deconstruction journey. They're still very sensitive.
(48:51):
They're possibly emotionally rawin all sorts of areas.
And Genesis is a treasured part of that.
And for a lot of these people, Genesis needs to be treated
gently and special care and my, my brand of spikiness is not
what those people need to hear. And your book, yeah, what?
(49:14):
Whatever. But your book is good.
Your book is good there. And it took me in a direction
that I didn't expect. And you took me on a journey of
Sarah through many chapters in your book that even now, at past
the half a century, I had never appreciated from that
(49:36):
perspective. So thank you, Liz, for that.
Even have even as somebody who utterly rejects all of that, I
found something in that to appreciate.
And so for somebody, if I had still been in the early part of
my deconstruction journey, your writing in this book would have
brought me to tears. It genuinely would have moved me
(49:58):
a lot more. And so there are people out
there who are still feeling raw,still feeling tender, who is
still finding their way in theirdeconstruction journey, who
don't know where to look, who don't know where to turn.
Your book will help those people.
It will help to put them into a perspective.
And so dear listed, if you are one of those people or if you
(50:19):
can't bear me, but you know somebody who does need this
book, it really is the right kind of book for somebody in
that early part of their deconstruction or even before
they're deconstructing. They might just be questioning
and have doubts. Your book has the power to put a
new perspective onto that story that will put some calm into
someone else's life. So well done, Liz, and thank
(50:41):
you. Thank you, I I appreciate that
some. You know when you write a book,
you're alone, mostly. Yes.
It helps to, you know, hear thatand I have been very moved by by
the range of people who have found something to connect with
in this in this work. And I, you know, I believe that,
(51:02):
as I've said, I believe that good art transcends time and
culture and can, can reach us, you know, and so my goal is to
kind of make this masterwork a little bit more accessible to us
here. You know, and, and to your
point, I think in the United States, but you know, elsewhere
(51:24):
as kind of fascism is on the rise and so often spearheaded by
religious folk within my tribe. You do realize it's only the
people on the left who are the true fascists, don't you?
So all the Christians I read sayI don't know how they make that
work, but apparently that's the case.
(51:46):
I feel the same way. I yes, this this has been a
strange season in the United States politically, not unique,
probably unfortunately, but I yes, just mystifying.
But there is some hope. I mean, we've read in the last
two days only that that person who's shares half of his name
(52:08):
with my name, Matt Gates, the Gates, he's decided that maybe
he's not worthy of a position atthe top of law after all.
Thank goodness, Thank goodness. That's what I should say about
that. I would say, yeah, I one of the
(52:28):
things that has been interestingto think about, though, is that
there will be a whole group of people who, whether they're Gen.
Z or whatever generation they are, they are coming up right
now in this culture and watchingfascism, you know, have its
moment. And those people, you know, so
(52:50):
many, so many American Christians lost faith,
deconverted, deconstructed afterDonald Trump was elected.
And to be frank, I hope that that happens again.
I'm I'm in multiple deconversionsocial media groups because of
(53:11):
what I do in with this podcast. And over the last eight years,
I've seen lots of people drop into those groups and express
something along the lines of thefundamentalist religious people
are fully Trump trained. I can't communicate with them
anymore. My sanity is being affected.
(53:32):
I don't know who I can turn to. I need you people.
I need someone to listen to. And these people are finding
themselves more and more in deconstruction social media
groups because they seem to be the only people that get them.
And so many of these, I don't know what the right adjective
is. Lonely people, there's a better
(53:54):
word to use, but that part of itis they're lonely, but they're
rejected by their loved ones as well.
They feel lost socially and politically and they've got no
one at home that they can trust.And they end up in these groups.
And it's, it is definitely triggering the conversion.
(54:15):
And I am convinced, I've alreadysaid it publicly once.
I am convinced that the next four years are going to see more
of those hurt people looking forsome solace, and the
deconstruction and Deacon version community are going to
find those people, or those people are going to find the
deconstruction and deconversion community.
(54:37):
And we need to be ready for that.
Yeah, I think, I think the loneliness is, is true.
So many of these folks just feelso misunderstood and so alien in
their own culture. And, you know, I think there is
a mercy in that. And you sort of sort of
unveiling that brings you into kind of a, a new truth, like
(55:00):
rediscovering truth, whether in yourself or in the world.
I think it's worthwhile, even ifit comes at great cost.
And I, I then that's not to say that we, we should not advocate
on behalf of those who will be more likely to pay a cost.
As I've said, I'm of a very privileged group in the United
States. And so that's something I have
(55:21):
to keep top of mind for myself to say, you know, there are
benefits, but also, you know, the, the difficulties are going
to come to me less. And so I need to be aware and
mindful of, of those marginal, of marginal identity, you know,
and, and kind of partnering withthem as an ally.
(55:41):
But I, I think one of the, the important things of this time is
going to be providing sort of generous empathy to these people
who in the past have held very harmful beliefs, right, have
hurt people with their theology or their, the way that they have
enacted their theologies. And I think as I've thought
(56:05):
through kind of what is a political response to fascism, I
just continue to come back to this question, these ideas of
story and empathy where it's, you know, we approach these
people with curiosity. We, we tell them our stories.
We make space for their story. That's how people really change.
You know, people don't change because we've convinced them of
(56:26):
something. That's not really how anybody
changes. Right.
So, OK, hard Question Time. Now this really is feet to the
cold kind of question because I've seen it.
I've I've seen this happen when these hurt people arrive in
these deconstruction groups and they need looking after.
(56:47):
They need empathy, they need validation of their fears,
because without that they, they're on the verge of going
crazy. Depression is a dark hovering
cloud. If they're not in it, it's a
very real threat. Sometimes they have a fear of
(57:10):
physical harm to themselves frompeople they love and they arrive
needing empathy. But the challenge that you give
in the statement I read earlier is empathy to all.
And I have seen it happen where one of those people arrives
needing care and then someone else gives empathy to their
(57:33):
abuser. No gives empathy to those who
are causing them their anguish, mental and otherwise.
And that creates a difficult dynamic.
And I don't know what the answeris today.
How do we give empathy with all without making ourselves the
(57:54):
enemy of all? That's good.
I appreciate that question so much because that is a
challenge. I think you kind of just have to
take the person in front of you at their word and start there
because ultimately you're not talking to their abuser.
(58:17):
Their abuser is not in this group trying to get well.
So I, you know, that's how I have tended to do this.
I, I would say also, I don't seeempathy as an excuse for bad
behavior either. Like, I think it's, it's very
reasonable to tell the truth to these people, to confront these
(58:40):
folks who are doing wrong and, and are abusive.
I think we can say this is an evil behavior.
This is not acceptable. And this person does not need to
stay in relationship with that person.
And I, you know, I say this as someone personally, I am no
contact with certain family members.
I'm sorry. And for me, that has been
(59:02):
important to again regain agency.
I think there is a sense in which we feel, I think even
culturally where we want to kindof level the playing field.
And, and by that I mean we feel uncomfortable sometimes making
one person the enemy. And I think we should feel some
(59:25):
discomfort with that. I think I think most people have
many sides to themselves and yetthat doesn't mean we need to be
in close relationship with everyperson, right?
I'm not, I'm not going to go to Thanks Thanksgiving dinner with
my president-elect. You know, I am not even remotely
(59:48):
interested. I think one of the challenges is
for ourselves kind of reckoning with what, you know, do I, do I
want to forgive? What does forgiveness look like?
What would reconciliation look like?
Do I want that, you know, how doI keep myself safe?
(01:00:10):
And I do think there are stages as well and how we kind of
interact with people. You know, for someone who comes
into a group like that and they are deeply afraid for good
reasons, that's not actually a time to.
Be talking about their abuser. That is the time to be focused
(01:00:33):
on them because they are the victim.
And I think it's incredibly harmful for us to be sort of
both sides in that moment. So for me I would say.
I think you're wise there. I yeah, I think, I think that
being able to respond to this person and what they need takes
(01:00:57):
priority over other responses. I think for myself, in my own
journey of healing from abuse, it has been important for me to
reach a place where I can say I do forgive my abuser out of my
own power and agency and I don'twant to be in contact.
(01:01:22):
Yeah. Yes.
The two can be true, and that's fair.
Yeah, so I, I, I actually do have a lot of empathy for them.
And I also don't feel like I have to sacrifice myself in that
decision. You know, I can be empathic and
out of relationships. Yeah.
(01:01:44):
No, no, I think that's a very good advice.
Thank you, Liz. And again, that was something I
sprang on you without any warning.
I didn't tell you that that was going to be a question that was
coming up. So thank you for being on your
feet and on your toes with that one.
And I think we do need to be mindful and I think you'll
comment on deal with the person in front of you is, is very wise
(01:02:05):
and very insightful. And that's probably the best we
can do in the moment. And sometimes, and if there is
the cause of pain out there, if they're not present, then it's
OK not to talk about that and just deal with the person in
front of you and just don't, don't bring it up.
But I think we're going to see this kind of challenge more and
(01:02:26):
more as people come in. And I know Thanksgiving is a
really big thing for you guys and I believe it's around them.
Have you had it or is it coming up soon?
It's coming up. It's coming up.
US English people, we just can'tkeep up.
It's not. It just doesn't feature on our
radar. Thanks.
You know, but you have Guy Fawkes Day and you have, you
know, you have other great holidays.
(01:02:48):
Yes, yeah, yes, fair, fair. We do.
But we only travel across the country to see that the family
that we have difficulties with for Christmas, we don't do it
for these other days. Well, I am a little jealous
about that so. But I, I do remember from years
gone by that Thanksgiving seems to be the big one on, on these
(01:03:11):
groups with, with Americans in them that people struggle, you
know, with their family. And it feels to me, maybe you
can correct me or not, but it feels to me that sometimes
Thanksgiving is more religious than Christmas and Easter over
in America. I think it's probably more about
family. Say it is probably more
religious. You know, I mean, I think
(01:03:33):
American religion overall is much more about family than it
is about Jesus or God. So I would say like the, the
nuclear family is, is much more important to Americans.
So in our respect, I I think there are a lot of expectations
around family and when you're the sole.
Black sheep of the family. What a horrible phrase that is.
(01:03:55):
We need to, we need to come up with an alternative phrase on
that. Too many negative connotations.
But when you're the one that stands out in the family, you've
dared to question the patriarchyand you've dared to question
literalism or what whatever other imagined sin that that
that you've done and the thoughts of being with your
(01:04:17):
extended family of 20 people where everybody's on the same
book and all the conversations about the same thing.
And it's hurtful to you and harmful to you, but you have to
do it. Yeah, it's, we should be mindful
of that. Across the country, there are
many thousands of people having to endure that in a couple of
weeks time. Yes, yes.
(01:04:39):
And I I feel for them. Fortunately for me, I'm just
having friends over, so that's that'll be fun.
That sounds great. Let's make it about friends.
Yes, Yep, that sounds so good. Yes, it's a lot more fun, I
promise. Yeah.
I'm I'm the. Parent of an only child and so
I'm fairly sure that as she getsolder and more autonomous and
(01:05:01):
has her own place, these kinds of periods will be as much more
for her. About friends and it will be
about family. And maybe one day I'll find
myself being in the minority because she's surrounded by
friends and I'm just there because I'm.
I'm old and half senile and no one else will take me.
(01:05:22):
You're with her. Yeah.
Yes. That's the.
Curse that I've blessed her withand.
So going back to your book then,so you.
Focused a big chunk on your bookabout Sarah.
What was your inspiration for doing that?
Because there are other women inGenesis you could have focused
on or being radical, you could have invented a heroin all of
(01:05:49):
your own and centred her around the Tower of Babel.
There is lots and lots of meat to be eat out of Genesis.
So what made you pick Sarah and what attracted you to Sarah and
why did you want to give more power to her voice?
Because she doesn't have much voice.
We have offered some criticism of her in this conversation, but
(01:06:12):
in your book the criticism is a lot less.
And you do actually offer something good about Sarah in
your book as well. Why did you do that?
Sarah is a complex figure. And I find her interesting
psychologically. We actually have a lot of her
words in the book of Genesis andwhich is not always true for
(01:06:33):
women in the story, but she speaks a lot to her husband and
we have that recorded by the authors, whatever that looked
like. You know, again, the historical
questions to me are just a little bit less interesting.
So I, I know that I'm the way I'm talking sometimes sounds
like I'm taking it completely literally, but actually I'm just
(01:06:54):
accepting the reality of the authors.
Yeah, you're, you're, you're treating the text as it's laid.
Out. And I'd say while I am somebody
who likes to see those critical questions about historicity, and
I love those, they're not for everybody.
Some and to, to some people, andmay I even dare say it, the
people who get the most out of your book, those questions would
(01:07:17):
have been a distraction. So treat the text as it is.
And I, I, I appreciated that. Took me a couple of chapters to
get into it, but I genuinely appreciated it.
OK, well that's where I'm comingfrom on this.
I just want to, I just for your,for your listeners who are, who
are wondering, but that's, you know, so within the text, right?
(01:07:38):
So Sarah does a lot of talking. We have a lot of quotation marks
that are attributed to her. And yet I felt like her
perspective was still sidelined.And I felt myself very
interested in what would it feellike to be a matriarch with no
children or supposedly a matriarch, someone who's
(01:07:59):
supposed to be. And I think I, I spent a lot of
time thinking about what did it mean that she was barren And
what did it mean, in fact, that most of the Israelite matriarchs
were barren. And that's actually something
the rabbi's also think about a lot, interestingly.
And, and though they disagree amongst themselves about many
(01:08:21):
things, they don't disagree about this.
They kind of said the reason that the matriarchs are barren
is because God desires their prayers and supplications.
So in other words, God wants to hear their voices, God wants to
hear their prayers and to commune with them.
I find that to be a very interesting perspective because
(01:08:43):
I think the way that these matriarchs are framed within the
tradition that I grew up in was just very, they were just
sideline characters. They just were not that
important. They just happened to have wombs
for these important male characters.
And in fact, there was a, a Jewish feminist scholar who
talked about Sarah and Abraham come from Ur, from this
(01:09:06):
Babylonian heritage, and they worship these maternal deities.
And so, you know when they were going to be much more likely to
give fertility to Sarah and Abraham, this couple who were
unable to have children, right? And so then they leave the
region and leave behind their gods in that region.
(01:09:27):
And now Sarah's kind of faced with the prospect of, you know,
theoretically this God is sayingthat we're going to have
children, but we're not. And by the way, this God seems
to have some male tendencies, even though I don't believe that
God is male or female. You know, there is a sense of
(01:09:49):
the text where it seems to sort of suggest that, or at least,
you know, people have suggested that, let's say.
And so there is kind of a. Question around.
Can this DAD actually do this work?
Because it's not. This DAD doesn't seem to be
female like this is a female area.
(01:10:13):
Can this? Can this DAD?
Do this so. One of the things that the
rabbi's you know in saying that they that God wants the prayers
of the matriarchs. The idea is that God is in
pursuit of these women. So even as even as Abraham has
received this unique sort of call to go out into the desert
and have you know, you're you will have land, you will have
(01:10:34):
children, you have blessing, youknow, as many children as stand
on the seashore kind of thing. The rabbi's are sort of claiming
the same for Sarah. They're saying that part of
leaving her was a way to, I forgot to pursue this woman as a
matriarch as well. And then of course, even in the
(01:10:57):
next chapters, we see God pursuing Hagar in a similar way.
So if you're looking at this kind of pattern, who did these
authors say that this deity is? This deity is in pursuit of
women and the men around them. And yet, like one of the things
that was fascinating to me is going back to the the Midrash
and again the the rabbi's talk about how if Sarah.
(01:11:22):
Had been in the desert. With Hagar, when she ran away
the second time, they say that she actually would not have seen
God, that God would have hidden themselves from Sarah because
God only intended to talk to Hagar.
So there is there is this element of kind of God picking
the person at the bottom still. But you know, obviously among
(01:11:46):
like Abraham is at the top of the food chain in his family.
And then come Sarah and then comes Hagar and then the boys
come, you know, the children andthey're on top of the women,
right? So there is this element of like
hierarchy you're dealing with. And I think I felt really
inspired by Will de Gaffney, doctor Will de Gaffney, whose
(01:12:08):
work explores sort of the side characters of the Old Testament.
So she in particular is fascinated with unnamed peoples
or peoples who are conquered or,or women whose stories have been
kind of forgotten or overlooked.And I found her approach really
(01:12:31):
compelling. You know, if it made me, it made
me think a lot about, you know, how do we write history and how
do we perceive what is true history and how do we interpret
whose story should be central? I think being female myself,
I've always been honestly more interested in the females in the
Bible. You know, those who are women in
(01:12:55):
the Bible are, you know, theoretically they are my
sisters. And so I at the very least, you
know, they are stories about ancestral women, you know,
ancient kind of primeval stereotypes of women.
And I, I am fascinated by that. And I think interestingly among
like when I look among ancient works, this work has a lot of
(01:13:20):
female characters with a lot of psychological depth.
And I find that to be really fascinating too, thinking about
what were women even like at that time, You know, in the BCE
eras, you know, before, before the common era, what were women
like? What, what was expected of
women? I, I think I just have found all
(01:13:41):
those questions very interestingand much more interesting
through the lens of these females.
Thank you for that. And.
I think there is there is something about being a chap
that removes a lot of nuance anda lot of knowledge from the
(01:14:02):
Bible. Let me and let me illustrate
that with one of my own personalexperiences.
So I, I grew up in the missionary environment in Zambia
and it wasn't until, you know, Iactually can't even remember
when it was. But at some point as an adult, I
(01:14:23):
looked back and I had memories and I read stories and I
realised that the girls in the environment that I brought up,
that I was brought up in, had a tougher time than me.
They were judged by their appearance.
You know, I could wear, it was in the 70s and I was in Zambia,
so I could get away with wearingreally tight shorts that were
(01:14:47):
effectively hot pants, whereas agirl would never get away with
that. In fact, when I look back at
some of the school photos I've got, the girls, unless it's PE,
are always in a skirt or dress and it is always down to the
(01:15:07):
ankles. No exceptions ever.
And as a boy growing up in that environment, you never
appreciate that. You never get that.
And it wasn't until I was an adult, but I looked back and I
and I realised, hang on a minute, girls had it harder.
(01:15:27):
And that's before you get on to the whole issues of
inappropriate sexualisation, which again, I never got.
I never appreciated that until Istarted hearing podcasts where
women talked about their missionary kid in experience or
their deconstruction experience.I went Oh well of course.
(01:15:50):
And there is something about being a boy in that environment
where you are completely immune to it.
And that is completely a featureof my upbringing and I feel
almost embarrassed that it took me until being an adult.
But I can't blame 8 year old Matthew for not getting it.
But I can blame, I can blame 48 year old Matthew for not doing
(01:16:11):
anything about it. So where was I going with that?
Where we're going with that is when you look at the Bible, you
look at the story that you're talking about and you look at
this is an environment which is physically tough.
There is no sanitation as we know.
It's either through running water or through personal
(01:16:32):
hygiene and everything in between.
Women had a harder life than men.
Let's just accept that. We're not being weak by
admitting that. Let's just be honest.
So that's kind of where I'm going with that.
So the, I think the women who are not named and not given
(01:16:52):
enough page space are actually being done the disservice
because like the girls in my missionary environment had a
tougher time, The women in that environment also had a tougher
time. Let's accept that.
Let's acknowledge that and and see what we can do to rectify
that. Yeah, give me a lot of well.
(01:17:15):
First of all, I appreciate what you've said so much and I, you
know, I agree with you. How could you know what you
don't know? You know, I think a lot of us
have that experience within white culture, quote UN quote,
white, whatever that is where werealize, oh, our, our black and
(01:17:36):
brown brothers and sisters have been dealing with the level of
hard that we haven't even seen. You know, that is a common
experience in many cultural expressions.
I mean, it looks, it looks different and it's certainly
true between men and women. And, you know, I think one of
the things that I found to be very important is to be able for
(01:17:58):
myself to kind of own the ways that I have failed other people
by not seeing them, you know, and you know, I agree with you.
All we can do is kind of from now, from now on, you know, I
will do what I can to to be a safe person for them and to
decentered myself. I mean, it's, you know, it's
(01:18:19):
just a challenge. But I think one of the the
things in the scriptures, you know, that gave me more, let's
say, empathy for Sarah because so often she's been demonized
like we talked about, you know, either by commentators, you
know, it's her fault. She should have just been
fertile or whatever, you know, she's the one who suggested the
(01:18:40):
issue with Hagar. Anyway, you know, it gave me
some helpful context to think about the rabbinical code at
least later. It's hard to tell kind of what
was cultural at the time or not,but at least when the Rabbi's
are writing their commentaries on this, they are talking about
(01:19:01):
it was a custom that after 10 years of infertility in the
ancient world that a man could divorce his wife.
Wow. And he was completely.
But, you know, within his rights.
To do that, and even within Judaism, it was like, well, you
know, the man is responsible forhaving children before God.
(01:19:22):
You know, the be fruitful and multiply command must be
fulfilled. And we're we're not going to
blame women for not being able to necessarily, but it is on the
man to be fruitful and multiply.So he should probably divorce
his wife and try to have kids with somebody else.
So then you notice in the scriptures, you know, kind of
(01:19:44):
depending on when this was written and kind of why it was
written. I kind of wonder if in the kind
of post exilic period within Judaism, there was this kind of
they would have had some of these codes when this book was
probably written, the book of Genesis.
And so it is notable that. Sarah recommends Hagar to
(01:20:08):
Abraham as a surrogate. After 10 years in Canaan, they
have settled for 10 years. And so there is a sense, you
know, for me, I realized she wasdoing what she could, you know,
to be to keep her husband, to keep her status, to keep, you
know, and that doesn't mean her her motives were pure.
(01:20:33):
They certainly were not pure toward Hagar.
You know, she very much was using her power against her
slave, the enslaved woman. And yet I, you know, also
thinking through that I, you know, I think she's meant to be
more of a sympathetic character than we often see her as.
(01:20:54):
But her her motivation there is self preservation.
So with that as a motive, OK, yes.
And within the culture of the time, OK, yeah, we can
understand it. It's not great, but we can
understand it. But the thing that's really
jumping out at me though, in allof this language, and again, it
would probably bug me to Halo files to read that story again,
(01:21:18):
is it's always a woman's fault that there are no children.
You know, there must have come apoint in time when we realized
that men could also have a faultthat that created this scenario
impossible and and. They they must have.
Been aware of it at that time inhistory that men could also have
(01:21:40):
a fault. They must have, but it's always
a woman. Is Barrow you would.
Hope yeah, I mean, I, I, yeah, I, I agree with you.
I I felt so sick reading storiesof how Abraham interacted with
his wife and with Hagar, you know, just feeling the sense of
(01:22:02):
powerlessness that these women experienced, the sense of total
reliance on this one man for either his advocacy or his money
or his, you know, and I'm thinking about, you know,
Abraham took Sarah down to Egyptand allowed Pharaoh to take her
into his harem. It's.
(01:22:26):
Just. Pretty wild.
And then I've got to afflict them with plagues.
And, you know, Sarah leaves and theoretically that's where they
pick up Hagar. But you know, then it happens
later too. And Abraham is afraid and gives
his wife to a marauding king. You know, it's just one of
these. Like you kind of get these
(01:22:48):
glimpses of what it was like to be a woman in this kind of
primeval kind of patriarchal time of history and, and it
looks terrifying, you know, yes,it's it's day-to-day survival.
It's not. Living it's surviving now it's
that that's how it comes across now when you're reading it
(01:23:09):
through modern eyes and life must have been that makes you
wonder how the human race survived at all, really yes yes
I. Totally agree.
So my mind. Is trying to dig out a memory
and I genuinely can't remember. Did Abraham and Sarah have any
other children after Isaac? Or is Isaac the only one that's
(01:23:32):
recorded and the reason is? That Sarah dies soon after the
encounter on the mountain top. OK, so Abraham.
Does remarry and? I believe he has children after
that, right? That woman and sometimes the
rabbi's say that that's Hagar I mean sometimes they really they
(01:23:54):
say he went back to her. Wow.
But it is it is unclear from thetext.
And so I like thinking about it like that, but I also am like,
maybe not. Yeah, I know you would he.
Imagine Hagar enthusiastic about.
That. Yeah, that's exactly.
You would hope not. Yeah, it's.
(01:24:17):
Interesting segue, Liz. Thank you.
I'm just watching time. Is there anything that I've not
asked you that you really want to talk about or really want my
listeners to be aware of? I think, I just hope.
One of the, the hopes I've had for this book is that it would
(01:24:38):
provide a sense of permission and to be creative with ancient
work in general. But I would say the Bible in
particular, regardless what you believe, it is a very
influential book. And so I, I think there is a a
(01:25:00):
lot to be gained from its close study.
Even if we don't think it's trueor factual, let's say, I think
there is still truth to be foundthere that is inspiring and
interesting. And as I said, I I find it a
very psychologically true book and it's very ancient.
(01:25:23):
It is. It is.
Thank you so so much Liz. So your your book is knock at
the sky. Lovely title.
I really do like the title Seeking God in Genesis after
losing faith in the Bible. Your book genuinely is a a soft
balm to those who are in a doubting stage of that part of
(01:25:43):
the Bible. It gave me, a hard nosed
atheist, a new appreciation of that story from the Bible.
Anybody who's struggling with Genesis will get something out
of your book listeners. I do genuinely recommend it.
Links in the show notes to Liz'swebsite and to Barnes and Noble
where you can get the book. I am sure other booksellers are
(01:26:06):
available. This episode will probably come
out in the new year, Liz, but I will let you know when it goes
live. Thank you so much for your time.
So that leaves me only with my usual final question.
Do you have a favorite Bible character and who are they?
I think it is currently. Hagar because of her courage and
(01:26:33):
her unique interactions that shehad with God, I, I find her
really fascinating. I think that's a a good choice.
You won't be surprised to know that you are the first person
that I've asked this question towho has picked Hagar.
I'm trying that you're not the first one to have picked a
female, but you are the first one to have picked Hagar.
But I'm unsurprised to by I did wonder if you might pick Sarah.
(01:26:57):
And then right at the last second I thought, Nah, she's not
going to go with Sarah. It's going to be Hagar, and I
get it. And you do give a little bit
more appreciation for her. I think she deserves more
consideration. Your your book gives a very good
excuse to give her more consideration.
Maybe we can do a campaign to have a novel and a film about
(01:27:21):
hey, girl's life, please. I would love that, that.
That could be very interesting. Who would play her, though?
Maybe Halle Berry. Maybe Halle Berry.
Or it would. Be who is?
Oh, Zendaya was in Dune. I thought it'd be Zendaya.
Yes, my my daughter. 'S a fan of Zendaya because she
watched her in she was in a sitcom when she was younger.
(01:27:44):
It's something to do with spies or something like that.
I I seem to remember before she before she hit it bigger and hit
hit the big screen. I've, yes, I've, I've not
watched Part 2 of Dune yet, so I've watched the first one and I
went to watch the original Dune before watching watching one
because one must do that. The the, the quality of the
(01:28:08):
special effects shows the time period, let's put it that way.
Yes, exactly. Thank you once again, there's
you have. Been a glorious guest.
It's been a pleasure talking to you.
I'm hopeful that when your next book comes out, we'll have
another chance for another conversation.
I'm looking forward to reading it already.
(01:28:30):
Do you have anything that you'reallowed to tell me about that
might be in the works for the future?
Oh well, I think I will turn my.Attention to the prophets next.
OK, is there a female? Prophet.
They're all blokeys, aren't they?
There are seven female. Prophets, but they are, they do
not have their own books, so that is a challenge for me to
(01:28:53):
find out information about them.Yes, excellent.
That does sound interesting. And yes, that is a conversation
I'll absolutely love to have. So thanks once again.
Liz, you have been listening to Still Unbelievable and Until
Next Time and forever more, be Empathetic.
(01:29:19):
You have been listening to a podcast from Reason Press.
Do you have any thoughts on whatyou've just heard?
Do you have a topic that you would like us to cover?
Please send all feedback to reasonpress@gmail.com.
You might even appear on an episode.
Our theme music was written for us by Holly.
To hear more of her music, see the links in our show notes.