May 4, 2025 • 25 mins
In December 2024 Matthew asked Amy and Greg who made them experts on what makes someone a Christian. They answered.
In this episode Matthew takes their answer and explains why he's unimpressed. Especially because of the way their comments negatively affect LGBTQ+ people and those who want abortion to be a valid choice.
1) The Jan 2025 episode being responded to
https://www.str.org/w/-strask-who-made-you-the-experts-on-what-makes-someone-a-christian-
2) the Dec 2024 episode that prompted Matthew's question
https://www.str.org/w/-strask-how-can-so-many-professing-christians-support-things-that-are-anti-christian-
3) When the ‘Biblical View’ for Evangelicals Was That Life Begins at Birth
https://religiondispatches.org/when-the-biblical-view-for-evangelicals-was-that-life-begins-at-birth/
4) EP105 Answering the STR challenge
https://open.spotify.com/episode/54nXmumqLbErTTXE4PtYWD?si=glUJty8XTVadUfNvJwWW7g
5) Godwin's Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
6) Gay Men under the Nazi Regime
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/gay-men-under-the-nazi-regime
7) Trump curtails protections around diversity, LGBTQ rights
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-sign-orders-ending-diversity-programs-proclaiming-there-are-only-two-sexes-2025-01-20/
To contact us, email: reasonpress@gmail.com
our YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@reasonpress2901
Our Theme Music was written for us by Holly, to support her and to purchase her music use the links below:
https://hollykirstensongs.com/
https://hollykirsten.bandcamp.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Episode 133 Greg Coquel is self entitled This Is Matthew and in
this episode of Still Unbelievable I give a little
because Amy and Greg over at STRAsk took my question seriously
and after a bit of deflection eventually attempted to answer
it. Not only that, they even
(00:22):
mentioned me and this podcast byname.
Thanks for the listen bump folks.
You sent enough people over for me to notice the uptick.
Or maybe it's because two listeners plus another two as a
bonus is always going to show onthe stats, but I digress.
First, the context. In December 2024, Greg and Amy
(00:45):
put out an episode answering questions along the lines of how
can professing Christians support anti Christian things
like abortion and LGBT rights? In that episode, Greg said the
following. Something like 65% of Americans
self identify as Christians. That alone ought to tell you
(01:08):
something that not everybody whoself identifies as a Christian
is a Christian. The stats don't lie, apparently,
and Greg has his finger on it. He can tell you who is in and
who is out. Here's how.
To be a follower of Jesus is to embrace the entire Scripture and
(01:30):
all the teachings of Scripture properly interpreted and
understood. You have to properly interpret
all of Scripture and then followall of it.
No deviation allowed, because that is an automatic
disqualification. Qualified Christians like Greg
have achieved that status and exist to tell us mortals where
(01:51):
we're doing it wrong. What's more?
It is really clear to me that massive amounts of people who
call themselves Christians have no interest at all in following
the Jesus of scripture. I assume that following Jesus
also comes under the banner of properly interpreting scripture
and following all of it. Shame on you other people who
(02:13):
dared to call yourself Christians, but to come to
interpretations that differ fromGreggs.
What we have is a massive numberof Christians that give lip
service to Jesus and Christianity who are not in fact
followers of Christ. Then on the matter of abortion,
Greg says. To be in favor of that
(02:34):
institution is profoundly unchristian.
All those evangelical Christianswho once affirmed that life
begins at birth and that the fetus was not a soul were never
true Christians. See link 3 in the show notes.
Thank goodness we have Greg today to correctly interpret
Scripture because those people 50 years ago obviously did it
(02:55):
wrong. So I was pro abortion even after
I became a Christian. So it is possible to be a
Christian and support abortion, Greg?
Or did you mean that you thoughtyou were a Christian until you
changed your tune to correctly interpret and follow all of
scripture and then you were properly a Christian?
(03:16):
Sometimes it's really hard to keep track of what Christians
are actually saying. Do our best to look at the
trajectory people who claim to be Christian are actually on.
And if they're a trajectory thatreally is very much like the
world, especially in weighty concerns like abortion and like
sexual behavior, then they are of the world, regardless of what
(03:37):
their words say. Hey, Greg, what does that say
about Christian you who did support abortion?
What's that say about those evangelicals who affirmed that
life starts at birth? They allowed abortion too, You
know, Are you really going to say to the face of someone who
is a Christian and supports abortion that they are not
really a Christian? Would you say that to the face
(03:59):
of a woman Christian who has hadan abortion?
There's a lot of confusion in the local Christian community.
In other words, people who are identifying as Christians and
who don't even know what that means or what it entails in
terms of moral behavior, virtuous behavior, that's not a
good sign. That, dear listeners, is the set
(04:22):
up. And so, being the spiky,
sarcastic agitator that I am, I retweeted the original episode
ceiling to in the show notes with the question, Who made you
experts of what makes someone a Christian?
And that was that until 5 weeks later when my podcast feed
(04:42):
delivers me an episode where Amyand Greg take my question far
more seriously than I took theiroriginal episode.
Let's dive into that and see what they said.
Here's the first question. It comes from Matthew Taylor,
and he also has there the Still Unbelievable podcast.
(05:02):
OK, so here's his question. Who made you the experts of what
makes someone a Christian? And just to understand where
he's coming from, this was in response to an episode we did on
December 19th about how professing Christians can
support things that are anti Christian, like LGBTQ and
abortion on demand and those sorts of things.
(05:23):
So his question is, who made youthe experts of what makes
someone a Christian? I'm trying to suppress a chuckle
here because it's such an odd statement.
Well, I'm so pleased. I amused to you, Greg, but it's
a question, not a statement. Partly because I suspect that
Matthew has an opinion about what a Christian actually is,
(05:44):
and it's not our opinion. That could well be true.
If someone tells me they're a Christian, I believe them and
accept there's a Christian. I have no other predetermined
criteria that I apply to that question.
And so that's why he's challenging us.
I asked a question, but Greg cansee it as a challenge if he
wishes because in the December 19 episode there are several
(06:07):
examples of Greg declaring that Christians who held to certain
views were not real Christians. That was the context of the
question. An alternative phrasing could be
why should Greg Cocor be trustedas a judge of who qualifies as a
true Christian? In that episode Greg behaved
like a self entitled arbiter of who is allowed to call
(06:30):
themselves a Christian. The question being asked is who
gave him that authority? If I were to ask him what his
view is, I could also ask him this question.
Who made you the expert on what is a Christian and what isn't a
Christian? I'm not the one making
statements on who qualifies as aChristian, asking me that
(06:53):
question would be ridiculous. Did this come from your tactics
book, Greg? If so, it's dumb.
Ask questions of people that relate to the statements they
make. You're the one who made
statements about who is or isn'ta Christian, not me.
Hence the question to you. And by the way, that could be
said about any view anyone has. So this is a very, let's just
(07:18):
say, uncharitable way of asking the question.
Telling people they are not realChristians because they don't
believe what you believe. It's extremely uncharitable.
I'm not offended by it. Good.
It wasn't intended to be offensive.
But at what it does is it betrays a kind of hostility.
Telling people they are not realChristians because they don't
believe like you betrays a not very subtle hostility.
(07:40):
And a subtle implication that I have no right to say anything
about that. You have no right to say
anything about that. Are you sure you weren't
offended by the question, Greg? I certainly don't claim any
right to determine who is or isn't a Christian.
That's why I accept people's word on it.
Greg, on the other hand, says things about other Christians
(08:03):
which definitely gives the impression that he thinks he
does have that right. Hence the question.
Will you get around to answeringit, Greg?
We cannot legitimately weigh in with any reason because then we
are acting like the self appointed authority on the
issue. And because that's exactly how
(08:23):
you behaved. Remember the clips at the
beginning of this episode from the December 19 episode linked
to it in the show notes? Hence the question, Greg.
And like I said, this is a case where sometimes the objection a
person levels at Christians can equal or Christianity can
(08:43):
equally be leveled at their view.
It's not an accusation against Christianity, it's a question,
Greg, and it's aimed at you. And as already stated, I don't
make declarations on what a trueChristian must believe, so
turning it around to me is laughably idiotic.
Someone should write a book on conversation tactics with people
(09:05):
like me. Greg would probably benefit.
Now if he had a point of view about what a Christian was.
Someone who tells me they're a Christian.
I would not ask that question that way.
Because it's not applicable to my point of view.
I would ask the question, what makes you think that's the
correct understanding of what a Christian is?
(09:26):
Sure, if that's the question, you'd prefer Greg answer that
one. But the confident nature in
which you declared who qualifiedas a Christian made it seem like
you already did have that detail, which is why the
question that I asked was wordedthe way it was.
If you prefer a softer question like your version, then maybe be
softer and less judgmental of Christians who hold different
(09:49):
views to yourself. That's the question that should
have been asked of us, but of course, as I recall, we answered
that question. Then what was the fucking point
of suggesting an alternative if you had already made yourself
clear on that? You're quite sure that you have
the secrets to the definition ofa true Christian, so the
(10:10):
question that was asked was who made you that authority?
Seriously, what was the fucking point of pissing about with an
alternative question that you knew you'd answered and I knew
you'd answered? Jesus wept.
The concept of Christian comes from a source, and that is the
Scripture, the New Testament in particular.
(10:32):
In the episode that prompted my question, Greg made multiple
statements that certain attitudes, like the support of
abortion, LGBTQ people, disqualified them from being a
true Christian. Running to the New Testament to
support the definition of Christian isn't going to help
when those very same Christians who Greg disagrees with also use
(10:53):
the New Testament. The word Christian was actually
applied to Christians, not by Christians.
At this point, Greg goes into a completely unnecessary lesson on
the history of the disciples being called Christians, so I'll
skip to the juicy bit at the endwhere he reaffirms his position
that some who claim to be Christians are not true
(11:16):
Christians. Many things that they believe
are completely inconsistent withclassical Christianity.
So if they reject those things that are characteristic of
Christianity. Gaslighting, othering, bullying,
projection, manipulation, lying,cancelling, ostracizing and
other cult like characteristics.And they still want to use the
(11:38):
word Christian. Then my question is why use that
word? I I wonder about progressive
Christians. Oh no, the horror.
How dare Christians try to progress on to being better and
more loving for those who are different to themselves.
All of the things that are foundational to historic
Christianity they seem to reject, yet they still want to
(12:02):
call themselves Christians. Why?
Have you asked them, Greg? Have you had to sit down with
them and try to understand theirposition?
Greg, there are several interviews in the still
unbelievable back catalogue withpeople who Greg would call
progressive Christians. We host those interviews because
we want to learn about them and give them a platform for others
(12:23):
to hear about them, especially those who are authors.
These are interviews with peoplewho genuinely care about the
disadvantaged and the needy. If they want to apply the label
Christian to themselves then I will accept that.
Yet Greg seems far more interested in condemning them
for their overt love of their neighbor.
(12:45):
Maybe the question that I shouldhave asked was if the abortion
advocate or the LGBTQ plus person was the beaten man on the
roadside? Is Greg the Pharisee or the
Samaritan? And so they're going to have a,
a reason, they're going to have a definition.
But then if they give their definition, it probably would
not be helpful for me to say whomade you the expert?
(13:07):
If they turned around and condescendingly said you are not
a true Christian for not believing the same as them on
abortion and LGBTQ issues, then yes, you would have
justification for asking the question.
Because that's exactly why I asked my question, Greg.
It wasn't because of definitional differences, it was
(13:29):
because of your denial of their Christian status.
I wonder if this misrepresentation of the
original context was intentional.
On that and by the way, when youand I talk about what a
Christian is and and indicate that it it has to do not only
just with theological convictions, but also lifestyle
(13:50):
choices, we are not suggesting that we're the experts.
We don't want anybody to believeanything based on the authority
of our proclamation. You know, we always make an
appeal. We make appeals to the text
indicating here's what the text says.
Now, if people object to that, that's fine, but then find fault
(14:13):
with the text. I should say find fault with us
in the way we've used the text instead of just kind of sneering
at us and saying who made you the expert kind of thing.
Well, it certainly sounds like you're using the text to deny
other people their true Christian status, Greg.
So. One of the things that I'm not
sure if we mentioned this in theDecember podcast, and that is
(14:37):
the first Corinthians 6 verse 9 passage where Paul makes it
clear that people who practice certain behaviors are not
Christian. He just says do not be deceived.
People who do these things, a whole range of things including
sexual things, will not inherit the Kingdom.
One Corinthians 6 verse 9 says. Or do you not know that
(15:00):
wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, nor
adulterers, nor idolaters, nor men who have sex with men.
It's direct, and in this Englishtranslation it's clear that sex
between men will disqualify themfrom the ultimate benefit of
(15:22):
being a Christian. So it's easy to see why Greg
would take the view that he doeswhen he says that some who claim
to be Christians are not actually Christians.
Did you notice that sex between women is not mentioned?
Does this mean that lesbians areexcluded from this exclusion?
I am aware that there are genuine theological issues with
(15:44):
this translation and therefore Greg's very literal take.
I will not dive into the detail here except to point out that
Greg's view is the fundamentalist evangelical view
and that there are other ways tointerpret these verses.
So when Greg talks about the correct interpretation of
Scripture, it is legitimate to ask why Greg is so arrogantly
(16:06):
confident in his preferred interpretation.
And talking of arrogance, here are some other passages for
consideration. James 4, verse 6.
But he gives more grace. Therefore, it says, God opposes
the proud but gives grace to thehumble.
Romans 12/16. Live in harmony with one
(16:27):
another. Do not be haughty, but associate
with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.
And Romans 14 verse one. As for the one who is weak in
faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
So I guess I could say, who madePaul the expert?
(16:49):
Well, God did. Please tell me you saw this one
coming, listeners. God made Paul the authority,
Poor wrote it down, and Greg is just following orders.
It's not Greg's fault that thoseat the rough end of these rules
have to deal with the shitty consequences like misogyny,
bigotry, oppression, othering, bullying, cutting off from
(17:12):
family members, losing friends, and more.
Greg is just the messenger. Don't hold him accountable just
because he promotes it. By the way, even if you don't
accept the divine authority of Paul's words, they still are
authoritative given the Christian context.
So if, if I wanted, and, and we've done this before, talk
(17:35):
about what Mormonism teaches, wego back to the Mormon sources
and those who speak for Mormonism authoritatively.
No, we don't hold that those are, that those words are God's
words, but we want to respect the authoritative statements so
that we reflect the views of Mormonism accurately.
The same thing is true about Christianity.
(17:58):
It's a Christianity has a history.
It it is a thing. It is not anything.
It is a thing. It has boundaries to it.
They're theological and they're behavioral.
Who would say, for example, thatthose Christians in the Third
Reich who supported Hitler and the destruction of the Druze
were really Christians? Would Matthew say that?
(18:21):
If they told me they were Christians, I would accept them
at their word. No matter what they said they
believed, if they were involved or at least even passively
involved with the annihilation of the Jewish people in Germany
during the Third Reich, would would he say that was Christian?
God twins law, you lose Greg. I am going to assume that both
(18:44):
Greg and myself will agree that the treatment of Jews by the
Nazis was despicable and that anyone who participated in that,
whether under direction or through bigotry, is a shitty
individual, be they Christian ornot.
Did you know that the Nazis alsotreated gay men the same way?
Sea Link 6. Greg's words against gay men and
(19:06):
others in the LGBTQ plus community and those who have had
abortions create fear in those communities.
Fear for lives and for livelihoods.
It doesn't stop at refusing to bake them a cake. anti-gay
rhetoric in the 1930s helped contribute to the horrors that
happened to real people. Anti LGBTQ plus rhetoric in the
(19:30):
past five years is leading directly to negative
consequences in the form of executive orders by President
Trump. C Link 7.
Greg is very content to declare those in the Nazi regime as not
Christian due to the horrific consequences that occurred while
happily flying the Christian flag over equivalent anti LGBTQ
(19:53):
sentiments today. The lessons of history are not
easily learned by bigots. And if he says it wasn't
Christian, would it be fair to say who made you the expert?
As previously stated, if someonetells me they're Christian, I
accept them at their word. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is not a useful way to approach the issue.
(20:15):
Yeah, Christianity has to be something in particular or it's
nothing. If it's just whatever you say,
whatever words you put into it, then it it means literally
nothing. But we know that it does mean
something because it's a historical group of people that
have had a revelation that they've turned to that we can
look at today. That's objectively available.
(20:36):
Yeah, objectively available publicly to anyone who wants to
read it. So I would say there is a
difference between being an expert and being the standard.
We're not saying that we are thestandard.
We're saying that the OR. That we're the experts.
Well, I, I don't even have a, somuch of a problem as saying an
expert, and I'll tell you why ina second, but we're not saying
(20:58):
that we are the standard that our ideas make up Christians.
We're saying that there's an objective standard, the
revelation of God about himself and about how we are to live as
his people. That's the standard.
Now that I, I think there is some expertise that comes in
when you have used your reading comprehension skills to read
(21:19):
through it and then summarize what it says.
So, but I think his his problem is, is that he thinks what what
we're doing is saying that we are the standard.
No, that is literally not what Iam saying.
My question, loaded with sarcasmas it was, was about you,
specifically Greg, making statements about who was
(21:41):
disqualified from being a true Christian.
So we get to just randomly say. This is what makes.
A Christian who died and made you God kind of approach and
yeah. It's not random at all.
We're, we're basing it on something objective, the
revelation of God about himself and about how we are supposed to
act as his followers. This is people and you can
(22:02):
certainly get better at understanding what the Bible
says about that. You can ignore what it says and
go your own way, but now you've gone away from the standard.
So anyway, I I. This is digressing slightly, but
interesting that they bring up what a Christian standard is.
In my Christian days I sat through many talks and sermons
(22:22):
affirming that there was no behavioral standard that defined
a Christian. Christians, I was always told,
were fallen people who, being aware of their faults, strived
to be better. I was constantly reminded that
it was not our behaviour that disqualified us, but our heart.
We could be Christians and far from perfect.
(22:44):
The point is that God's grace prevailed and we should try to
be better. I do not hear this from grace
words denouncing certain attitudes as being
disqualificationary. But then, I have been in enough
judgmental Christian conversations to know that he
isn't unique. Those are my thoughts on that.
Yeah, there's no way around this.
(23:04):
Essentially, sooner or later, ifyou're going to use a term to
describe something, it's got to be exclusive other things that
the term does not describe. And this is true in everything.
It's not just true in Christianity.
And by the way, our point here isn't that our theological views
are correct. That's something entirely
different. What we're saying is that our
(23:26):
understanding of what Christianity is, is correct.
So what theological differences are you allowed that don't
disqualify you from being a Christian?
Surely disagreeing over whether or not you can be gay and a
Christian comes under the category of theological
differences you're allowed to have.
Oh well, I'm not the expert. Obviously, because we've gone
(23:49):
back to the sources and seen howthe sources themselves
characterize Christianity both theologically and behaviorally.
And that's why I mentioned, well, if if we were doing an
analysis of Mormonism, which we we don't hold to, we'd still be
under the same obligation and actually make the same point.
(24:11):
If somebody said to us, who madeyou the expert in Mormonism or
the authority? I'm not.
I'm reading the authorities and this is what they say.
And basically that's our approach.
And that's where discussion on my question ends.
They're not experts on what makes someone a Christian.
They just take the words of those who were experts.
But those words are subject to interpretation and they
(24:33):
definitely have the right interpretation.
So if you in any way support people who are LGBTQ plus or
want people to be able to chooseabortions, you cannot be a
Christian. Because Paul, that ancient God
ordained expert on Christianity,wrote about them in his letter
to the Hang on, it's here somewhere.
(24:56):
Just a SEC. Never mind.
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.
(25:19):
Our theme music was written for us by Holly.
To hear more of her music, see the links in our show notes.
Episode 133 Greg Coquel is self entitled This Is Matthew and in
this episode of Still Unbelievable I give a little
because Amy and Greg over at STRAsk took my question seriously
and after a bit of deflection eventually attempted to answer
it. Not only that, they even
(00:22):
mentioned me and this podcast byname.
Thanks for the listen bump folks.
You sent enough people over for me to notice the uptick.
Or maybe it's because two listeners plus another two as a
bonus is always going to show onthe stats, but I digress.
First, the context. In December 2024, Greg and Amy
(00:45):
put out an episode answering questions along the lines of how
can professing Christians support anti Christian things
like abortion and LGBT rights? In that episode, Greg said the
following. Something like 65% of Americans
self identify as Christians. That alone ought to tell you
(01:08):
something that not everybody whoself identifies as a Christian
is a Christian. The stats don't lie, apparently,
and Greg has his finger on it. He can tell you who is in and
who is out. Here's how.
To be a follower of Jesus is to embrace the entire Scripture and
(01:30):
all the teachings of Scripture properly interpreted and
understood. You have to properly interpret
all of Scripture and then followall of it.
No deviation allowed, because that is an automatic
disqualification. Qualified Christians like Greg
have achieved that status and exist to tell us mortals where
(01:51):
we're doing it wrong. What's more?
It is really clear to me that massive amounts of people who
call themselves Christians have no interest at all in following
the Jesus of scripture. I assume that following Jesus
also comes under the banner of properly interpreting scripture
and following all of it. Shame on you other people who
(02:13):
dared to call yourself Christians, but to come to
interpretations that differ fromGreggs.
What we have is a massive numberof Christians that give lip
service to Jesus and Christianity who are not in fact
followers of Christ. Then on the matter of abortion,
Greg says. To be in favor of that
(02:34):
institution is profoundly unchristian.
All those evangelical Christianswho once affirmed that life
begins at birth and that the fetus was not a soul were never
true Christians. See link 3 in the show notes.
Thank goodness we have Greg today to correctly interpret
Scripture because those people 50 years ago obviously did it
(02:55):
wrong. So I was pro abortion even after
I became a Christian. So it is possible to be a
Christian and support abortion, Greg?
Or did you mean that you thoughtyou were a Christian until you
changed your tune to correctly interpret and follow all of
scripture and then you were properly a Christian?
(03:16):
Sometimes it's really hard to keep track of what Christians
are actually saying. Do our best to look at the
trajectory people who claim to be Christian are actually on.
And if they're a trajectory thatreally is very much like the
world, especially in weighty concerns like abortion and like
sexual behavior, then they are of the world, regardless of what
(03:37):
their words say. Hey, Greg, what does that say
about Christian you who did support abortion?
What's that say about those evangelicals who affirmed that
life starts at birth? They allowed abortion too, You
know, Are you really going to say to the face of someone who
is a Christian and supports abortion that they are not
really a Christian? Would you say that to the face
(03:59):
of a woman Christian who has hadan abortion?
There's a lot of confusion in the local Christian community.
In other words, people who are identifying as Christians and
who don't even know what that means or what it entails in
terms of moral behavior, virtuous behavior, that's not a
good sign. That, dear listeners, is the set
(04:22):
up. And so, being the spiky,
sarcastic agitator that I am, I retweeted the original episode
ceiling to in the show notes with the question, Who made you
experts of what makes someone a Christian?
And that was that until 5 weeks later when my podcast feed
(04:42):
delivers me an episode where Amyand Greg take my question far
more seriously than I took theiroriginal episode.
Let's dive into that and see what they said.
Here's the first question. It comes from Matthew Taylor,
and he also has there the Still Unbelievable podcast.
(05:02):
OK, so here's his question. Who made you the experts of what
makes someone a Christian? And just to understand where
he's coming from, this was in response to an episode we did on
December 19th about how professing Christians can
support things that are anti Christian, like LGBTQ and
abortion on demand and those sorts of things.
(05:23):
So his question is, who made youthe experts of what makes
someone a Christian? I'm trying to suppress a chuckle
here because it's such an odd statement.
Well, I'm so pleased. I amused to you, Greg, but it's
a question, not a statement. Partly because I suspect that
Matthew has an opinion about what a Christian actually is,
(05:44):
and it's not our opinion. That could well be true.
If someone tells me they're a Christian, I believe them and
accept there's a Christian. I have no other predetermined
criteria that I apply to that question.
And so that's why he's challenging us.
I asked a question, but Greg cansee it as a challenge if he
wishes because in the December 19 episode there are several
(06:07):
examples of Greg declaring that Christians who held to certain
views were not real Christians. That was the context of the
question. An alternative phrasing could be
why should Greg Cocor be trustedas a judge of who qualifies as a
true Christian? In that episode Greg behaved
like a self entitled arbiter of who is allowed to call
(06:30):
themselves a Christian. The question being asked is who
gave him that authority? If I were to ask him what his
view is, I could also ask him this question.
Who made you the expert on what is a Christian and what isn't a
Christian? I'm not the one making
statements on who qualifies as aChristian, asking me that
(06:53):
question would be ridiculous. Did this come from your tactics
book, Greg? If so, it's dumb.
Ask questions of people that relate to the statements they
make. You're the one who made
statements about who is or isn'ta Christian, not me.
Hence the question to you. And by the way, that could be
said about any view anyone has. So this is a very, let's just
(07:18):
say, uncharitable way of asking the question.
Telling people they are not realChristians because they don't
believe what you believe. It's extremely uncharitable.
I'm not offended by it. Good.
It wasn't intended to be offensive.
But at what it does is it betrays a kind of hostility.
Telling people they are not realChristians because they don't
believe like you betrays a not very subtle hostility.
(07:40):
And a subtle implication that I have no right to say anything
about that. You have no right to say
anything about that. Are you sure you weren't
offended by the question, Greg? I certainly don't claim any
right to determine who is or isn't a Christian.
That's why I accept people's word on it.
Greg, on the other hand, says things about other Christians
(08:03):
which definitely gives the impression that he thinks he
does have that right. Hence the question.
Will you get around to answeringit, Greg?
We cannot legitimately weigh in with any reason because then we
are acting like the self appointed authority on the
issue. And because that's exactly how
(08:23):
you behaved. Remember the clips at the
beginning of this episode from the December 19 episode linked
to it in the show notes? Hence the question, Greg.
And like I said, this is a case where sometimes the objection a
person levels at Christians can equal or Christianity can
(08:43):
equally be leveled at their view.
It's not an accusation against Christianity, it's a question,
Greg, and it's aimed at you. And as already stated, I don't
make declarations on what a trueChristian must believe, so
turning it around to me is laughably idiotic.
Someone should write a book on conversation tactics with people
(09:05):
like me. Greg would probably benefit.
Now if he had a point of view about what a Christian was.
Someone who tells me they're a Christian.
I would not ask that question that way.
Because it's not applicable to my point of view.
I would ask the question, what makes you think that's the
correct understanding of what a Christian is?
(09:26):
Sure, if that's the question, you'd prefer Greg answer that
one. But the confident nature in
which you declared who qualifiedas a Christian made it seem like
you already did have that detail, which is why the
question that I asked was wordedthe way it was.
If you prefer a softer question like your version, then maybe be
softer and less judgmental of Christians who hold different
(09:49):
views to yourself. That's the question that should
have been asked of us, but of course, as I recall, we answered
that question. Then what was the fucking point
of suggesting an alternative if you had already made yourself
clear on that? You're quite sure that you have
the secrets to the definition ofa true Christian, so the
(10:10):
question that was asked was who made you that authority?
Seriously, what was the fucking point of pissing about with an
alternative question that you knew you'd answered and I knew
you'd answered? Jesus wept.
The concept of Christian comes from a source, and that is the
Scripture, the New Testament in particular.
(10:32):
In the episode that prompted my question, Greg made multiple
statements that certain attitudes, like the support of
abortion, LGBTQ people, disqualified them from being a
true Christian. Running to the New Testament to
support the definition of Christian isn't going to help
when those very same Christians who Greg disagrees with also use
(10:53):
the New Testament. The word Christian was actually
applied to Christians, not by Christians.
At this point, Greg goes into a completely unnecessary lesson on
the history of the disciples being called Christians, so I'll
skip to the juicy bit at the endwhere he reaffirms his position
that some who claim to be Christians are not true
(11:16):
Christians. Many things that they believe
are completely inconsistent withclassical Christianity.
So if they reject those things that are characteristic of
Christianity. Gaslighting, othering, bullying,
projection, manipulation, lying,cancelling, ostracizing and
other cult like characteristics.And they still want to use the
(11:38):
word Christian. Then my question is why use that
word? I I wonder about progressive
Christians. Oh no, the horror.
How dare Christians try to progress on to being better and
more loving for those who are different to themselves.
All of the things that are foundational to historic
Christianity they seem to reject, yet they still want to
(12:02):
call themselves Christians. Why?
Have you asked them, Greg? Have you had to sit down with
them and try to understand theirposition?
Greg, there are several interviews in the still
unbelievable back catalogue withpeople who Greg would call
progressive Christians. We host those interviews because
we want to learn about them and give them a platform for others
(12:23):
to hear about them, especially those who are authors.
These are interviews with peoplewho genuinely care about the
disadvantaged and the needy. If they want to apply the label
Christian to themselves then I will accept that.
Yet Greg seems far more interested in condemning them
for their overt love of their neighbor.
(12:45):
Maybe the question that I shouldhave asked was if the abortion
advocate or the LGBTQ plus person was the beaten man on the
roadside? Is Greg the Pharisee or the
Samaritan? And so they're going to have a,
a reason, they're going to have a definition.
But then if they give their definition, it probably would
not be helpful for me to say whomade you the expert?
(13:07):
If they turned around and condescendingly said you are not
a true Christian for not believing the same as them on
abortion and LGBTQ issues, then yes, you would have
justification for asking the question.
Because that's exactly why I asked my question, Greg.
It wasn't because of definitional differences, it was
(13:29):
because of your denial of their Christian status.
I wonder if this misrepresentation of the
original context was intentional.
On that and by the way, when youand I talk about what a
Christian is and and indicate that it it has to do not only
just with theological convictions, but also lifestyle
(13:50):
choices, we are not suggesting that we're the experts.
We don't want anybody to believeanything based on the authority
of our proclamation. You know, we always make an
appeal. We make appeals to the text
indicating here's what the text says.
Now, if people object to that, that's fine, but then find fault
(14:13):
with the text. I should say find fault with us
in the way we've used the text instead of just kind of sneering
at us and saying who made you the expert kind of thing.
Well, it certainly sounds like you're using the text to deny
other people their true Christian status, Greg.
So. One of the things that I'm not
sure if we mentioned this in theDecember podcast, and that is
(14:37):
the first Corinthians 6 verse 9 passage where Paul makes it
clear that people who practice certain behaviors are not
Christian. He just says do not be deceived.
People who do these things, a whole range of things including
sexual things, will not inherit the Kingdom.
One Corinthians 6 verse 9 says. Or do you not know that
(15:00):
wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, nor
adulterers, nor idolaters, nor men who have sex with men.
It's direct, and in this Englishtranslation it's clear that sex
between men will disqualify themfrom the ultimate benefit of
(15:22):
being a Christian. So it's easy to see why Greg
would take the view that he doeswhen he says that some who claim
to be Christians are not actually Christians.
Did you notice that sex between women is not mentioned?
Does this mean that lesbians areexcluded from this exclusion?
I am aware that there are genuine theological issues with
(15:44):
this translation and therefore Greg's very literal take.
I will not dive into the detail here except to point out that
Greg's view is the fundamentalist evangelical view
and that there are other ways tointerpret these verses.
So when Greg talks about the correct interpretation of
Scripture, it is legitimate to ask why Greg is so arrogantly
(16:06):
confident in his preferred interpretation.
And talking of arrogance, here are some other passages for
consideration. James 4, verse 6.
But he gives more grace. Therefore, it says, God opposes
the proud but gives grace to thehumble.
Romans 12/16. Live in harmony with one
(16:27):
another. Do not be haughty, but associate
with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.
And Romans 14 verse one. As for the one who is weak in
faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
So I guess I could say, who madePaul the expert?
(16:49):
Well, God did. Please tell me you saw this one
coming, listeners. God made Paul the authority,
Poor wrote it down, and Greg is just following orders.
It's not Greg's fault that thoseat the rough end of these rules
have to deal with the shitty consequences like misogyny,
bigotry, oppression, othering, bullying, cutting off from
(17:12):
family members, losing friends, and more.
Greg is just the messenger. Don't hold him accountable just
because he promotes it. By the way, even if you don't
accept the divine authority of Paul's words, they still are
authoritative given the Christian context.
So if, if I wanted, and, and we've done this before, talk
(17:35):
about what Mormonism teaches, wego back to the Mormon sources
and those who speak for Mormonism authoritatively.
No, we don't hold that those are, that those words are God's
words, but we want to respect the authoritative statements so
that we reflect the views of Mormonism accurately.
The same thing is true about Christianity.
(17:58):
It's a Christianity has a history.
It it is a thing. It is not anything.
It is a thing. It has boundaries to it.
They're theological and they're behavioral.
Who would say, for example, thatthose Christians in the Third
Reich who supported Hitler and the destruction of the Druze
were really Christians? Would Matthew say that?
(18:21):
If they told me they were Christians, I would accept them
at their word. No matter what they said they
believed, if they were involved or at least even passively
involved with the annihilation of the Jewish people in Germany
during the Third Reich, would would he say that was Christian?
God twins law, you lose Greg. I am going to assume that both
(18:44):
Greg and myself will agree that the treatment of Jews by the
Nazis was despicable and that anyone who participated in that,
whether under direction or through bigotry, is a shitty
individual, be they Christian ornot.
Did you know that the Nazis alsotreated gay men the same way?
Sea Link 6. Greg's words against gay men and
(19:06):
others in the LGBTQ plus community and those who have had
abortions create fear in those communities.
Fear for lives and for livelihoods.
It doesn't stop at refusing to bake them a cake. anti-gay
rhetoric in the 1930s helped contribute to the horrors that
happened to real people. Anti LGBTQ plus rhetoric in the
(19:30):
past five years is leading directly to negative
consequences in the form of executive orders by President
Trump. C Link 7.
Greg is very content to declare those in the Nazi regime as not
Christian due to the horrific consequences that occurred while
happily flying the Christian flag over equivalent anti LGBTQ
(19:53):
sentiments today. The lessons of history are not
easily learned by bigots. And if he says it wasn't
Christian, would it be fair to say who made you the expert?
As previously stated, if someonetells me they're Christian, I
accept them at their word. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is not a useful way to approach the issue.
(20:15):
Yeah, Christianity has to be something in particular or it's
nothing. If it's just whatever you say,
whatever words you put into it, then it it means literally
nothing. But we know that it does mean
something because it's a historical group of people that
have had a revelation that they've turned to that we can
look at today. That's objectively available.
(20:36):
Yeah, objectively available publicly to anyone who wants to
read it. So I would say there is a
difference between being an expert and being the standard.
We're not saying that we are thestandard.
We're saying that the OR. That we're the experts.
Well, I, I don't even have a, somuch of a problem as saying an
expert, and I'll tell you why ina second, but we're not saying
(20:58):
that we are the standard that our ideas make up Christians.
We're saying that there's an objective standard, the
revelation of God about himself and about how we are to live as
his people. That's the standard.
Now that I, I think there is some expertise that comes in
when you have used your reading comprehension skills to read
(21:19):
through it and then summarize what it says.
So, but I think his his problem is, is that he thinks what what
we're doing is saying that we are the standard.
No, that is literally not what Iam saying.
My question, loaded with sarcasmas it was, was about you,
specifically Greg, making statements about who was
(21:41):
disqualified from being a true Christian.
So we get to just randomly say. This is what makes.
A Christian who died and made you God kind of approach and
yeah. It's not random at all.
We're, we're basing it on something objective, the
revelation of God about himself and about how we are supposed to
act as his followers. This is people and you can
(22:02):
certainly get better at understanding what the Bible
says about that. You can ignore what it says and
go your own way, but now you've gone away from the standard.
So anyway, I I. This is digressing slightly, but
interesting that they bring up what a Christian standard is.
In my Christian days I sat through many talks and sermons
(22:22):
affirming that there was no behavioral standard that defined
a Christian. Christians, I was always told,
were fallen people who, being aware of their faults, strived
to be better. I was constantly reminded that
it was not our behaviour that disqualified us, but our heart.
We could be Christians and far from perfect.
(22:44):
The point is that God's grace prevailed and we should try to
be better. I do not hear this from grace
words denouncing certain attitudes as being
disqualificationary. But then, I have been in enough
judgmental Christian conversations to know that he
isn't unique. Those are my thoughts on that.
Yeah, there's no way around this.
(23:04):
Essentially, sooner or later, ifyou're going to use a term to
describe something, it's got to be exclusive other things that
the term does not describe. And this is true in everything.
It's not just true in Christianity.
And by the way, our point here isn't that our theological views
are correct. That's something entirely
different. What we're saying is that our
(23:26):
understanding of what Christianity is, is correct.
So what theological differences are you allowed that don't
disqualify you from being a Christian?
Surely disagreeing over whether or not you can be gay and a
Christian comes under the category of theological
differences you're allowed to have.
Oh well, I'm not the expert. Obviously, because we've gone
(23:49):
back to the sources and seen howthe sources themselves
characterize Christianity both theologically and behaviorally.
And that's why I mentioned, well, if if we were doing an
analysis of Mormonism, which we we don't hold to, we'd still be
under the same obligation and actually make the same point.
(24:11):
If somebody said to us, who madeyou the expert in Mormonism or
the authority? I'm not.
I'm reading the authorities and this is what they say.
And basically that's our approach.
And that's where discussion on my question ends.
They're not experts on what makes someone a Christian.
They just take the words of those who were experts.
But those words are subject to interpretation and they
(24:33):
definitely have the right interpretation.
So if you in any way support people who are LGBTQ plus or
want people to be able to chooseabortions, you cannot be a
Christian. Because Paul, that ancient God
ordained expert on Christianity,wrote about them in his letter
to the Hang on, it's here somewhere.
(24:56):
Just a SEC. Never mind.
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.
(25:19):
Our theme music was written for us by Holly.
To hear more of her music, see the links in our show notes.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.