January 25, 2024 • 39 mins
Have you ever wrestled with the tension between faith and doubt, or grappled with the unsettling notion of uncertainty in your spiritual journey? Pete Enns and Jared Byas of the Bible for Normal People podcast join us for a birthday season conversation that dives into these very waters. As they share their insights from "The Sin of Certainty" and a generous approach to scripture interpretation, we peel back the layers of traditional evangelical thought, challenging the status quo and illuminating the value of diverse perspectives in our collective quest for truth.
The conversation takes a deeply personal turn as I reflect on my own evolution from a knowledge-centric pastor to one who embraces the interplay of truth and love. The episode sheds light on the ways in which personal instinct and experience are too often sidelined in theological circles, making a case for the importance of honoring our humanity as we engage with our faith. We address the necessity of dialogue across differing viewpoints within Christianity, a call to expand our theological horizons and embrace the richness that comes from varied understandings of the divine.
As we probe into the contextual theology and evolving Christian thought, the session becomes an exploration of the dynamic realms of faith and reality. The historical Jesus, the ever-expanding universe, and the potential of consciousness after death are all part of the tapestry we examine, inviting listeners to join in a celebration of curiosity and open-mindedness. This episode isn't just another theological discussion; it's an invitation to journey from a place of knowing to a profound state of wisdom, alongside guests who inspire us to persist in our exploration of these deep and meaningful topics.
Life After Leaven is sponsored by Sub:Culture Incorporated, a 501c3 committed to eradicating cultural, social, spiritual, financial, and academic barriers for Black College Students. If you are interested in giving a tax deductible donation toward our work with black college students, you can do that here. Thank you for helping us ensure temporary roadblocks don't become permanent dead ends for students with marginalized identities. You can follow us on Instagram: @subc_incorporated, Facebook: facebook.com/subcultureinco, and Twitter: @subcultureinco1.
Our episodes are written and produced by Tamice Namae Speaks LLC.
Don’t miss out on what Tamice has planned next! Follow her on Instagram and Twitter, or subscribe to her Patreon page.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
What's up everybody, welcome to another episode of
Life After Levin.
I'm your host, tamise SpencerHelms, and we are in the special
birthday season and if you'veread Faith on Levin then you
know about the chapter calledthe Naughty List, where I talk
about the fact that there weresome white men on that list, a
few white men, but some whitemen on the Naughty List that
helped me get free and learn tothank for myself.
(00:23):
And I have two of them on thepodcast today, pete Inns and
Jared Byas, and they are thehosts of Bible for Normal People
podcast, which I know you'veheard me talk about, but today
we're going to get to talk tothem directly.
So welcome, gentlemen, welcometo the show.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Thanks for having us.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Yeah, so I'm actually going to just jump in because I
think this conversation isgoing to be rich.
I came to find Pete first Ican't exactly remember what year
it was, but I had left kind ofwas dealing with evangelicalism
in the sense that it was failingme left and right, especially
(01:02):
as I tried to navigate TrayvonMartin's death and then Black
Lives Matter movement, and Ifound this book called the Sin
of Certainty, and what stood outto me about it was that I had
just been journaling andthinking about the fact that the
ways that I had thought aboutGod and the Bible and everything
was very us and them, and therewere questions I hadn't had
(01:23):
answered.
There was so much dissonancewhen I was reading the Bible
that I think that that bookreally came at a perfect time,
because what it did is it gaveme wiggle room, breathing room
to begin to reengage, and so I'dlove to have us talk about some
of the ways that you haveframed the Bible from.
You know, the Bible tells me.
So I went backwards, right, soI got all the books after I read
(01:45):
the Sin of Certainty.
So I'd love to have you talkthrough some of the motifs in
those books.
But before we do.
That.
Jared's book came out not toolong ago as well, which really
taught me about having agenerous I want to say orthodoxy
, but a generous epistemology,so to speak, where, like the
(02:06):
ways that people know are allvalid and the ways that people
approach scripture is reallyimportant that the context that
they're in plays a role in theways that they read and
interpret the scripture.
And just the way that you wroteabout that, jared, it was so
easy to read, and I've doneseminary, I got master's degrees
(02:26):
and this was the first book.
Both of your books, both ofyour writing styles are very,
very easy to read, which is whyI wanted to have you on the show
.
I think people will reallyglean from you.
So talk to us a little bitabout some of the inspiration
behind your books.
I'll start with you, pete, andthen we'll talk a little bit
about the inception of Bible forNormal People.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
Well, I think all my books are born out of my own
need to think through things,and I've had good challenges in
my life, intellectually,epistemologically, to think
through the nature of scripture,and a lot of that began in
seminary, but then in earnest ingraduate school, doing a PhD,
(03:10):
and I just wanted to be true,you know, I wanted to have
authenticity, I didn't want toplay a game, and history is what
history is and it has to beinterpreted.
But there are certain thingsthat are just really not
questioned by most people whostudy scripture or do theology,
and I just wanted to come toterms with those things and
(03:30):
think about how, when your Biblechanges, what does it mean to
even talk about God and to methat's really where it goes at
the end of the day like thewhole issue of God and the world
and how are those two thingsrelated?
Will the Bible present certainmodels for that, some of which
(03:54):
are probably helpful and othersof which may not be as helpful?
And we have this Christianfaith that's tied to the
scriptural tradition, and so wealways have the hermeneutical
problem.
We always have the problem ofhaving to deal with this stuff,
and the church has known thissince forever.
You know, this is not a newthought.
That came up from people likeus who are just weird, but it's
(04:18):
been intensified in the past fewhundred years with, I think,
scientific advances and alsojust an increased understanding
of history.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Thank you, Jared.
Talk about your book and kindof what led you to writing that.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Yeah, I think what led me to writing it was
recognizing.
I mean two things.
One, I wanted to write a bookabout truth, but it just so
happens that if you want towrite a book about truth, but
through the lens of how theBible frames truth and then the
history of the Christiantradition, I ended up writing a
book about love, because itturns out that within that
(04:56):
tradition those things are notas opposed as it seems, and so a
big thing for me was hearingthis phrase over and over tell
the truth in love.
I'm just telling the truth inlove and how that's been used as
a stick to hurt people and soit's a misuse of Paul in
Ephesians.
And so it's really my to Pete'spoint.
(05:19):
It's my wrestling with thatphrase and saying, okay, what do
we actually mean when we saytelling the truth in love, and
how do we use that and how do wemisuse that?
And looking at truth and lovein the Bible.
But even more personally, Ithink for me what it came down
to was growing up in a Christiantradition that really elevated
(05:39):
the intellect over all else.
The best Christian is thesmartest Christian.
The best Christian is the onewho knows everything.
It worked for me because I wasa smart guy.
I knew how to think goodthoughts in terms of, I knew how
to put the pieces together, Iknew how to, you know, rehearse
what I've learned and to spit itback out to everybody and it
(05:59):
was applauded and lauded.
And I got to be promoted and Igot to be at the front and I got
to teach everybody and I becamea pastor and all of that.
And, looking back, as I'vegotten older, it was devoid of
character.
It wasn't the people and then,as I reflected, mostly women in
my churches who loved.
(06:20):
Well, they were not the onesthat were applauded and lauded.
It was me who happened to besmart and could, you know,
regurgitate a bunch of facts andthere's seen something very
anemic and thin about that thatdidn't jive with what I knew of
the biblical texts, but also ofthe Christian tradition and what
(06:40):
I knew about Christianity.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
I think about that a lot because I remember so.
I was introduced toevangelicalism when I was 17.
I met why Jesus in hell it wasa play about, hell is one of
those hell houses andimmediately knew that it was
important for me to graspconcepts.
More than anything else, Ineeded to grasp these concepts,
and I'm wondering about that asa person of color who comes into
(07:07):
evangelicalism.
That's one of the things that,initially, you start to
appreciate right, I have to behonest about that.
You're like well, they'rereally deep and they really know
scripture.
And these evangelicals likethey go Line upon line, and it's
not the certain type ofpreaching style I'm used to.
And over time, though, what Istarted to realize especially,
(07:28):
you know, in 2012, wheneverything kind of hit the fan
was that the concepts themselveswere not a very helpful
container.
They really did not help menavigate being a black person
right in this country, and sowhen sort of this way of knowing
and being in the world and thisway of knowing and being in
(07:50):
Christ, so to speak, began to bein conflict with each other, it
really, for a lot of us, wasextremely devastating, and I
know there were a couple ofarticles that came out about
black people leaving the churchbecause of those types of things
.
So I'm wondering were you?
When you think about ways ofknowing Pete?
I want to ask you this we thinkabout ways of knowing.
(08:12):
What do you think is the mosthelpful way for us to help
people have that first step,that first giving them the
permission to begin to say, like, if it feels wrong, if it seems
kind of odd, that it's okay togo with that thought, is that
question making sense?
Yeah, how would you encouragesomebody in that makes tons of
sense.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Actually, you know, I think one thing that
evangelicals are taught from thecrib is to not trust your
instincts, not trust your heart,but to always question that.
The problem is that you'reyou're asked to question that on
the basis of a theologicalsystem which is, first of all,
rather abstract and also, youknow, it turns out rather
(08:57):
limited in focus.
You know, I think there are,there are wonderful things about
what we might call classictheism or, you know, classic
theology.
There's a lot of stuff that wastalked about, but it was still
somewhat restricted in itsperspective because of who was
doing the thinking, especiallyover the past 500 years in
Europe and then coming to to thefurther, to the West.
(09:19):
So I think our humanity isimportant and no, no one human
perspective should be elevatedover other human perspectives.
We have to talk to each otherand that's where I would start
with people.
I mean, I have had to learn,believe it or not, I've had to
learn to listen to that voiceinside of me that says this just
(09:42):
isn't right, and that'ssomething that usually kick
starts a deconstruction process.
You know the term for today,but it's true, it's something
that you just know inside this.
This doesn't sit right with myexperience.
And you say, well, who caresabout your experience?
Well, that's told by people whohave a theological system which
(10:03):
is rooted in their experience,just like everybody else's.
Right, I think just normalizingthat is hopeful for people,
just to say, okay, let's justrelax, you get to have your
thoughts and feelings.
Sometimes they can be augmentedor shifted in conversation with
other people.
Right, I mean might have andthere's nothing wrong with that.
(10:25):
But but to dishonor ourhumanity is, I think, a big
problem and it's something of astaple, I think, and at least
the evangelical that I've beenaware of.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Yeah, I've been noticing that a little bit.
I love to have you speak onthat journey because I've
noticed that one of the thingsI've been watching a lot of cult
documentaries and one of thethings that goes across the
board and this feels realfamiliar.
I mean, it's really just thiswhole idea of right like
(10:55):
abdicating your agency.
You're like sort of outsourcingintuition and leadership and
there isn't much.
I've been thinking a lot aboutconjure and how, how do we pull
truth from the inside?
But for so many of us, jared,this question's for you, so many
of us who grew up inevangelicalism, yeah, we're
(11:16):
taught we have a sin nature,that our heart is deceitfully
wicked.
Can you help us think about away to frame the scripture
differently?
I know that for most of us, ifwe were evangelical, the Bible
was very important and scriptureis the word of God.
It is the truth of God that wasgiven to us.
And so for folks who are kindof feeling that thing that Pete
is talking about, that movement,that jostling can be really
(11:40):
hard.
But I found in my own processlike I've actually fallen more
in love with scripture as I'velet the scripture breathe.
Can you talk to us?
What does it mean to letscripture breathe.
How can we reframe truth inthat way and still kind of keep
our love for the scriptures?
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Yeah, I think one thing that comes to mind is
thinking about the scripture ashaving a relationship with the
text, and a lot of us grew up asyou said.
It's a very authoritarianrelationship.
The scripture is over me and Iam to be subject to it at all
costs.
And so, when you talk aboutreframing, what would it look
(12:17):
like to think about it as arelationship between equals,
where we honor ourselves, asPete's talking about, where we
honor our own intuitions and ourfeelings and experiences and
community, and we bring that tothe text not to be scrutinized,
to be picked through and be toldthat it's wrong, but as valid
(12:37):
in its own right.
And then we have the scriptureand we can bring that to the
table as well, and then we canbe in conversation with the two
and in some of those ways, wesay this is really valuable,
given my experience and how Ithink about things, and I can
really learn a lot from this andcan grow from this and other
ways in which this is harmfulfor how I.
(12:59):
This is not something that Ineed to take with me, and so, to
see it as a relationship and Ialso say that to say it's okay
to struggle with it just likeyou would in any relationship.
It's not to be.
We don't wanna be abused in ourrelationship with the text, and
for that to happen there can'tbe this power dynamic where it
(13:19):
is over us to tell us the pure,unadulterated truth, because
usually the reality of it isthat most often I think of the
Wizard of Oz, where you sort ofpull the curtain, oh, and
there's just typically a whiteman who's actually doing the
talking.
Behind the quote Bible right,there's always an interpretive
(13:41):
lens.
So even when we have thatauthoritative approach, the
Bible itself doesn't sayanything.
It is our interpretive lensthat does the talking.
And if we aren't careful we canactually just obliterate our
own experience and our own senseof self and our own sense of
right and wrong, not because Godsaid it, but because I heard a
(14:04):
couple of preachers or read acouple of commentaries that told
me this is what the Bible says,and so we can start to see the
Bible as a conversation partner.
And then we actually mightstart to see that the Bible
itself models this for us, thatit doesn't have a univical
meaning kind of one voiceapproach.
It doesn't just say the onething.
(14:25):
So when people ask us, what doesthe Bible have to say about?
Often, the answer is well, itdepends on where you look right.
Well, it says this here and itsays that there, and there's a
multiplicity of voices.
The Bible itself models thisconversation for us if we have
eyes to see.
But sometimes it's hard to haveeyes to see when you are
trained from being a small childto think my agency doesn't
(14:48):
matter, my perspective doesn'tmatter, my feelings and
intuitions about the world andhow it operates doesn't matter.
I just have to listen, to quotethe text, which, again, isn't
usually listening to the text.
It's listening to thoseauthority figures in your life.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Absolutely, absolutely.
I was thinking about thisphrase that you use, pete, and
one of your books I can'tremember which one it was that I
learned and I started using andthrowing around Like I knew
what I was talking about and Ididn't, so I'm gonna have you
explain.
Monolatry and the idea that sohere's how I synthesized it and
(15:26):
how it was helpful for me wasthis idea that here is a group
of people who are basicallyfiguring it out as they go.
They are taking what they knowso far about God and writing it
down and it grows and it changes.
And it was so helpful to thinkabout how Israel's even
monotheism kind of evolved overtime.
(15:46):
So can you talk to us aboutmonolatry and like how maybe
involving that kind of a conceptin the ways that we do faith
might be helpful.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Yeah, sure, I mean.
Monolatry means and we'redealing here with the Hebrew
Bible, right?
So this is something that'smore relevant there.
By the time we get to the NewTestament, things have changed a
bit.
But monolatry means you worshiponly one God.
That's a mono, one lottery.
That's a Greek root meaningworship.
(16:20):
So you worship only one God,but you recognize the existence
of other gods, and the ancientIsraelites were absolutely
monolatrous.
They were not monotheists inthe later sense of the term, I
think in later Judaism thathappens but early on they were
products of their culture asmuch as anything else.
And the point was Yahweh isworthy of worship.
(16:44):
Don't worship other gods.
That's why God gets jealous.
If you worship other gods,what's there to be jealous about
if they're not there?
Now I happen to think that noother gods exist.
I think there's one creator ofthe multiverse, that's me.
But the ancient Israelitesdidn't think that, and that's
fine.
See, this is because they'rethinking contextually, as we all
(17:07):
do.
I mean, how can you not do that, right?
So this is to me an objectlesson for understanding how the
Bible itself is a, atheological tradition, and all
theology is rooted in ourexperience, our context, our
(17:30):
location, all those kinds ofthings.
And so I read texts that aremonoliths, like Psalm 95, you
know, for Yahweh is a great God,a great King above all gods.
Why?
Well, in his hands are the deepplaces of the earth.
He created the mountains, hecreated the seas.
That's what makes him so great.
The other ones are there, butdon't worship them.
What a waste of time.
That is right.
(17:50):
So this is contextual theology.
They're thinking about Yahwehin the context of their own time
and place in the history ofhumanity, and it's okay to leave
that behind and to thinkdifferently about God.
And you know, part of that isthe whole Jesus thing, you know,
comes into place here and howour own understanding of the
(18:13):
nature of God as a people offaith, going back roughly 3,000
years now, how that's always onthe move, it's always changing,
it's always adapting, it'salways adjusting.
That is the history ofChristian thought, right?
So it starts in the Bible witha topic no less important than
what is God like?
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Yeah, Is there one or are there many?
Well, and maybe can I just puta cherry on the top of that,
because I think what you saidthere, pete, is actually very
important for people tounderstand, Because when you
mentioned earlier how to reframeour Bible, like Pete just gave
a really important way toreframe the Bible, which is I
(18:55):
was always taught the Bible isthe rock.
It is the unadulterated,word-for-word, literal word of
God.
And then theology and theChristian tradition is
everybody's interpretation ofthis, but what Pete's saying is
no, this is an example of thatother thing.
They are not of a differentkind.
And when you read the Bible asa library, a theological
(19:18):
tradition, library that evolvesover time and how it thinks
about God, you start to thisbinary between the quote literal
, inerrant word of God and allof our musings and traditions
about that.
That binary starts to breakdown.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
Yes, absolutely.
Oh my gosh, I love, I just lovethe idea of thinking about that
.
These are people figuring itout.
And when I started reading theOld Testament that way, it
really helped with some of theproblematic stuff it was like,
well, maybe they did think Godtold them to do that.
I mean it just took so muchpressure off of some of the
(19:55):
stories and it humanized a lotof the stories from me, because
it's like, yeah, I'm trying tofigure God out too, like I think
we all are.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
It's so helpful.
One quick story to me, can Ijust?
Speaker 1 (20:07):
add something.
Yes, absolutely please.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Thanks for that.
I remember a student at Easternyears ago really wanted nothing
to do with faith.
I mean, she grew up in a housethat you know.
Whatever I'm done, I'm here butwhatever.
But what turned her back on tothinking seriously about
Christian faith is the humanizedversion of the Bible, when and
(20:30):
specifically it was the Gospels.
It was like wait a minute,they're actually adults,
thinking through stuff andsaying things.
They want to say right, andthat's like.
That's not helpful if you havea literalistic view of the Bible
and it's authority in your life.
But it's wonderfully freeingwhen you see that as a pattern
(20:53):
of the life of faith, thinkingthrough things and articulating
as best as you can and neverthinking you've got it all right
, even saying God is love.
What does that mean?
I mean, what do you mean by God?
What do you mean by love?
What do you mean by is?
That's a difficult concept butyou can say it.
But say here's how I understand, how it works right, and that
(21:17):
to me is very, very freeing.
But it doesn't sit well withcertain models, certain
iterations of the Christianfaith where the Bible, like
Jared says, has been this rock,this foundation and all these
little things that we think arejust diversions from that.
We got to get back to the realthing.
Well, the real thing is alreadydoing it for us, it's already
(21:38):
showing us and I find that justI mean, the older I get, I'm
just so happy about it.
It's just, it's freeing.
It's like I don't have to beright about everything.
In fact, I know that I'm notright about most things I talk
about.
I'm fine with that, except forthis, what we're talking about
now.
I know I'm right about that,but apart from that, I'm willing
(22:02):
to have some way.
But it's freeing to not have toknow the mind of God.
Yeah, it just is.
And just experience, live andand experience gone in different
ways, not simply in reading theBible or thinking theologically
, but just being a human beingand existing and experiencing
things.
That's, you know.
(22:23):
I hope that's where it's at.
I hope that's the right path togo, because that's where I am.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
Yeah, yeah, you mean both, now that I'm over the hill
.
Have you?
Have you done a much work,jared?
Have you done much work aroundhistorical Jesus?
The reason I asked is becausehe brought up the Gospels and
another.
There's only like seven whitemen on my naughty list and there
was another white man on thatlist, john Dominic crossing, who
(22:48):
I love Right.
Have you all done much thinkingabout historical Jesus?
If so, like how does it playinto your reading of the Gospels
?
This was not on the questions,I just have it.
Well.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Yeah, I mean, I think you know my area is definitely
not as much in the New Testament, but I do think it's.
It's funny.
You know, pete and I just didan episode for the Bible for
normal people where we talkabout Some of the birth
narratives.
It was a Christmas episode andwe talked about some of the
birth narratives of Jesus andwhat we realized even just in, I
(23:22):
think how we felt about itgoing in was this sense that
yeah, it's all fine and good totalk about all this diversity
and Context and genre andliterature of the Bible in the
Hebrew Bible, like the OldTestament, that's fine.
But once you start messing withpeople's picture of Jesus, it's
almost like we have this innate,like, yeah, we get that for all
(23:42):
the but, but Jesus is different, right, and it's like, okay,
it's, it's time that we kind ofrip that band-aid off and start
talking more openly about howknow this is.
This is the same in the NewTestament.
This is the same in our, in theGospels as it relates to the
picture that we have of Jesus.
And again to Hebrew, to Pete'spoint earlier that the problems
(24:06):
are or not the problems, but theway we see it in the context
and the history is differentbecause it's a different time
and it's a different place thanthe Hebrew Bible.
But the idea that we aregetting some Video recording of
Jesus and how Jesus actuallyacted and talked and that's what
we get presented in the Gospelsas though it's a history
(24:27):
textbook that's a hundredpercent accurate it's not.
It's not that that's wrong,because there's things that are
the New Testament is not lyingto us.
It's that once we put it inthat framework, we maybe are
already thinking about it in away that the New Testament
wouldn't think about it.
It's already imposing moderncategories Onto the text and I
(24:51):
think that's an important thingto recognize, because sometimes
we can put our modern categoriesand say it's with either this
or it's that and it's like we'llput the ancient eyes on it.
They're not thinking incategories of this or that.
There are other categories youknow, for instance, thinking
about how do you hold up peopleof Priority and importance and
(25:13):
stature in the ancient world,how do you write about them
Right, how do you acknowledgeand tip your hat to the
influence that they have in theworld and how do you make sure
you're writing a character thatis, you know, worth our
admiration, if you know thatabout how things are written in
in the world of the NewTestament, you're gonna see that
(25:34):
influence and how the gospelwriters are talking about Jesus
right, so that when Luke iswriting his birth narrative,
you're going to see how that'sRecognizable in the ancient
world around people like aCaesar.
And so those are the kind ofthings that we, we can.
(25:55):
I guess what I'm trying to say,too, is we have to go back not
just in, look at the ancientcontext, but also the categories
of thought in the ancient world.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Yeah, so enough.
What about you, pete?
Speaker 3 (26:11):
Yeah, I think the whole historical Jesus business
is almost like a dirty littlesecret.
That it's, it's, it's a realissue, it's a real, it's a real
problem.
By problem I mean an academic,historical thing to think about,
right, but the, the, theportraits that we have of Jesus,
(26:32):
or they differ.
Well, they're essentially thesame.
Yeah, okay, fine, but they'rereally different too.
You know, I don't reallyunderstand how that, how that
counters the other part of it.
Right, and Something you know,jared, we read Luke Timothy
Johnson's book, right, the, thereal Jesus, right, I think it's
any of it.
But he, he talks a lot abouthistorical Jesus stuff and he
(26:55):
says, bottom line, he says it'sreally impossible to understand,
to know who the historicalJesus was.
What we have is we have fourportraits of Jesus that speak to
their faith in Jesus and hesays that is in and of itself a
historical topic of study.
Yeah, that's about as far backas we can go.
(27:18):
We have, we have their beliefsand they're interacting with
each other.
You know, mark is the earliesta.
Matthew and Luke are definitelytaking mark and changing mark,
or adding or taking things awayor putting things differently,
because they're portraying Jesusdifferently, once again, for
their context for their audience, right, I it's.
(27:40):
Again, we talked about how Jesus, god, is sort of a fluid
concept in the Old Testament.
Right, jesus?
It can be a pretty fluidconcept too historically in the
New Testament and and coming toterms with that sparks
theological conversations that Ithink are very, very important.
Not avoiding it, not bringingin the old apologetic machinery
(28:03):
and saying, well, the Bible, theGospels, are reliable
historically.
Yeah, depends on what you meanby reliable or historical, but
fine, but the thing is thecharacter of them.
There's diversity in thetellings of Jesus and to seize
that theologically andspiritually, to seize that to
say this is what we have, how doI live now in light of that?
(28:27):
And there's not an easy answerto that, and sometimes people
want easy answers, but I thinkthe life of faith is not easy
answers.
I think ultimately it comesdown to just kicking back and
saying this is the journey thatI'm on and I have to believe
that God is around me and in meand through me, and it's all
good.
I'm trying not to hurt people,I'm just trying to understand
(28:51):
and understand about Jesus andthe Bible in the world that I
occupy, the one that I live innow, and that can be really
scary if you have the threat ofhell hanging over you and the
threat of like if you're notright, god's going to look down
with you and smack you a littlebit.
But once you take that away,this life of faith and grappling
(29:12):
with the Bible is life-giving.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
Yeah, absolutely, absolutely so.
On my show when something hitsme, I just kind of let it hang
for a second because it's sotrue.
I mean I really have startedreading the Gospels like I'm at
a museum, you know, like I'mobserving art and doing it that
way.
It's actually.
It brings up completelydifferent things and I've ever
(29:36):
felt for Jesus or about Jesus,even when I identified as an
evangelical Christian.
Just to just admire someoneelse's work and poetry is just a
way that I've been kind ofworking through that.
Let's talk about Bible forNormal people before we like lay
in the plane.
So you start this podcast abouteight years ago.
Is that right?
Eight years ago?
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Something like that.
What?
Speaker 1 (30:01):
year are we in 20.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Yes, we're about to start season eight.
Yep, okay cool.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
So Bible for Normal people is a podcast that I love,
but I'm not sure people on theshow on my show know about it,
so could you just tell us alittle bit about it, kind of
what your hope for the podcastis and who you're reaching with
it?
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Well, it's the only God ordained podcast on the
internet.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
I knew you were going to say that.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
That's the main thing to know about it.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
So what else do you need to know at that point?
I mean, come on.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
But the I mean the mission of what we do is to
bring the best and biblicalscholarship to everyday people.
And the impetus was, you know,early on and through our careers
and for me, even as a prettyevangelical kid, and then going
to seminary, like the things wewere taught in seminary weren't
being taught in churches, theyweren't being taught in the
(30:54):
Christian lifeway stores, youknow where I was taught that all
the good Christian books werethe insights and the scholarship
and the depth and theprofundity of biblical critical
scholarship was not making itsway to everyday people.
And so I mean, in the tideswe're turning where again, like
the story Pete told about thegirl in at Eastern, I had those
(31:17):
profound moments of like I'mkind of done with faith, if this
is what it looks like.
And to have these ahas inseminary where it's like one
ah-ha after the other, it didn'tturn me away from the Bible.
It was like finally I canre-engage this in a way that
makes sense to me.
And so that's our hope forpeople is that they have been
taught their whole life.
Well, this is what the Bible isand this is what you're
(31:38):
supposed to do with it and torecognize there's a whole rich
theological tradition thatanswers those two questions very
differently and in very diverseways of what is the Bible and
what do we do with it?
Speaker 3 (31:50):
And so we have people .
I mean just a piggyback on thatJared, we have people on and our
style is like here's a platformyou know, and you know we
engage, but it's more what'syour passion and how might your
corner of the universe thatyou're dealing with?
(32:10):
How might that affect peoplewho are listening, who are
looking for fresh ways, freshparadigms, fresh ways of
thinking about things?
They don't want to like?
Not be religious Most of themthey still are interested in
having some vital connectionprobably many of them with their
Christian faith, but it's justthis kind of change.
(32:32):
So they're looking for ideas,you know they're looking for
ways to think.
That's really what we're tryingto do also to bring that to
them and say here's another wayof thinking about things.
And a comment we get quiteoften is from people saying I
never knew people thought likethat and it's like, well, yeah,
a lot of people have thoughtlike that for a very long time,
(32:54):
right?
So it's just breaking out ofthe bubble a little bit.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Like I said, I've been watching a lot of cult
documentaries and they talkabout how the way to kind of get
out is education.
So I just thank you all formaking Christianity for people
who are very serious about it,who are deep.
I was doing the least troublething For me.
Finding your podcast, findingyour works, did so much.
(33:25):
In a way, it kind of validatedme.
It validated some of thequestions I was asking, things
that bothered me, but also, letme keep that sort of fervor that
I had as an evangelical when Iwould read the scripture and I
just, I just am so thankful foryou both for what you've put out
into the world and for the waysthat you're helping people
engage on a deeper level.
(33:46):
My last question for you iswhat's perplexing you?
Like, what are you?
What's intriguing you right now?
Like, what are you kind of likethinking about?
I really want to know that.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
Perplexing or intriguing.
Those are two very differentthings.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
But I mean for me.
I think, like for me it'sintriguing when something
perplexes me.
Speaker 3 (34:08):
Yeah, I got you All right.
Yeah, I don't know.
For me I guess it's probably afew things, but it really just
comes down to the nature ofreality and what is real?
(34:28):
Are we a mass of chemicals orare we spiritual beings?
Is there consciousness afterdeath, things like that?
What does it mean to talk aboutGod in an essentially infinite
universe?
Where is this God anyway?
Stuff like that, those don'tparalyze me.
(34:50):
Those questions, that's whatI'm thinking about.
I think the quickest way ofputting it is what is God To me?
That's a very basic questionthat I think, as finite human
beings, it's not a bad idea torevisit that question every once
in a while and to be in aspiritual community where you
(35:11):
can actually do that.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
That was good Thamesy's, but mine has been
kind of psilocybin born.
I'm thinking a lot aboutconsciousness, a lot man why
don't you try it on that?
Google.
It's great.
It really does help you frameand I don't know, don't knock it
until you try it.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
That's what I say, I'm not knocking it, If you know
you know,
Speaker 2 (35:44):
I think mine is more.
I'm intrigued by this massiveshift that's happening in, I
think, our consciousness in theWest away from atomistic,
newtonian, clear and distinctidentities and entities way of
(36:05):
thinking about who we are, intokind of complex system theories
and moving away from an idea ofbeing into the idea of becoming
and relationality and thatthings are in process.
Things are not things, thingsare processes, things are
relationality.
So it just really deconstructsa lot of the frameworks that I
(36:28):
grew up with and it's helping meto think outside the box of
just who we are.
When I say I like ouridentities and how we show up
together and what I alwaysassumed it meant to be an
individual and how those arejust breaking down both from.
you know, for me it's on thekind of quantum mechanics and
complex systems side of thescience of it but then on the
(36:52):
philosophy side of it as well,and how those are quickly
merging into a way of thinkingabout the world, I think, very
different than we've had thelast four or 500 years in the
West Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
Absolutely.
Shout out to Phyllis Tickle.
She was right about that 500years thing, that's right.
Thank you all for being on theshow.
I just I adore what you've putin the world, so thank you for
being heroes to me and forhelping me stay in the game.
Thanks for being on the show.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Thank you to me.
Thank you so much For stayingwith you.
Thank you.
What's up everybody, welcome to another episode of
Life After Levin.
I'm your host, tamise SpencerHelms, and we are in the special
birthday season and if you'veread Faith on Levin then you
know about the chapter calledthe Naughty List, where I talk
about the fact that there weresome white men on that list, a
few white men, but some whitemen on the Naughty List that
helped me get free and learn tothank for myself.
(00:23):
And I have two of them on thepodcast today, pete Inns and
Jared Byas, and they are thehosts of Bible for Normal People
podcast, which I know you'veheard me talk about, but today
we're going to get to talk tothem directly.
So welcome, gentlemen, welcometo the show.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Thanks for having us.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Yeah, so I'm actually going to just jump in because I
think this conversation isgoing to be rich.
I came to find Pete first Ican't exactly remember what year
it was, but I had left kind ofwas dealing with evangelicalism
in the sense that it was failingme left and right, especially
(01:02):
as I tried to navigate TrayvonMartin's death and then Black
Lives Matter movement, and Ifound this book called the Sin
of Certainty, and what stood outto me about it was that I had
just been journaling andthinking about the fact that the
ways that I had thought aboutGod and the Bible and everything
was very us and them, and therewere questions I hadn't had
(01:23):
answered.
There was so much dissonancewhen I was reading the Bible
that I think that that bookreally came at a perfect time,
because what it did is it gaveme wiggle room, breathing room
to begin to reengage, and so I'dlove to have us talk about some
of the ways that you haveframed the Bible from.
You know, the Bible tells me.
So I went backwards, right, soI got all the books after I read
(01:45):
the Sin of Certainty.
So I'd love to have you talkthrough some of the motifs in
those books.
But before we do.
That.
Jared's book came out not toolong ago as well, which really
taught me about having agenerous I want to say orthodoxy
, but a generous epistemology,so to speak, where, like the
(02:06):
ways that people know are allvalid and the ways that people
approach scripture is reallyimportant that the context that
they're in plays a role in theways that they read and
interpret the scripture.
And just the way that you wroteabout that, jared, it was so
easy to read, and I've doneseminary, I got master's degrees
(02:26):
and this was the first book.
Both of your books, both ofyour writing styles are very,
very easy to read, which is whyI wanted to have you on the show
.
I think people will reallyglean from you.
So talk to us a little bitabout some of the inspiration
behind your books.
I'll start with you, pete, andthen we'll talk a little bit
about the inception of Bible forNormal People.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
Well, I think all my books are born out of my own
need to think through things,and I've had good challenges in
my life, intellectually,epistemologically, to think
through the nature of scripture,and a lot of that began in
seminary, but then in earnest ingraduate school, doing a PhD,
(03:10):
and I just wanted to be true,you know, I wanted to have
authenticity, I didn't want toplay a game, and history is what
history is and it has to beinterpreted.
But there are certain thingsthat are just really not
questioned by most people whostudy scripture or do theology,
and I just wanted to come toterms with those things and
(03:30):
think about how, when your Biblechanges, what does it mean to
even talk about God and to methat's really where it goes at
the end of the day like thewhole issue of God and the world
and how are those two thingsrelated?
Will the Bible present certainmodels for that, some of which
(03:54):
are probably helpful and othersof which may not be as helpful?
And we have this Christianfaith that's tied to the
scriptural tradition, and so wealways have the hermeneutical
problem.
We always have the problem ofhaving to deal with this stuff,
and the church has known thissince forever.
You know, this is not a newthought.
That came up from people likeus who are just weird, but it's
(04:18):
been intensified in the past fewhundred years with, I think,
scientific advances and alsojust an increased understanding
of history.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Thank you, Jared.
Talk about your book and kindof what led you to writing that.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Yeah, I think what led me to writing it was
recognizing.
I mean two things.
One, I wanted to write a bookabout truth, but it just so
happens that if you want towrite a book about truth, but
through the lens of how theBible frames truth and then the
history of the Christiantradition, I ended up writing a
book about love, because itturns out that within that
(04:56):
tradition those things are notas opposed as it seems, and so a
big thing for me was hearingthis phrase over and over tell
the truth in love.
I'm just telling the truth inlove and how that's been used as
a stick to hurt people and soit's a misuse of Paul in
Ephesians.
And so it's really my to Pete'spoint.
(05:19):
It's my wrestling with thatphrase and saying, okay, what do
we actually mean when we saytelling the truth in love, and
how do we use that and how do wemisuse that?
And looking at truth and lovein the Bible.
But even more personally, Ithink for me what it came down
to was growing up in a Christiantradition that really elevated
(05:39):
the intellect over all else.
The best Christian is thesmartest Christian.
The best Christian is the onewho knows everything.
It worked for me because I wasa smart guy.
I knew how to think goodthoughts in terms of, I knew how
to put the pieces together, Iknew how to, you know, rehearse
what I've learned and to spit itback out to everybody and it
(05:59):
was applauded and lauded.
And I got to be promoted and Igot to be at the front and I got
to teach everybody and I becamea pastor and all of that.
And, looking back, as I'vegotten older, it was devoid of
character.
It wasn't the people and then,as I reflected, mostly women in
my churches who loved.
(06:20):
Well, they were not the onesthat were applauded and lauded.
It was me who happened to besmart and could, you know,
regurgitate a bunch of facts andthere's seen something very
anemic and thin about that thatdidn't jive with what I knew of
the biblical texts, but also ofthe Christian tradition and what
(06:40):
I knew about Christianity.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
I think about that a lot because I remember so.
I was introduced toevangelicalism when I was 17.
I met why Jesus in hell it wasa play about, hell is one of
those hell houses andimmediately knew that it was
important for me to graspconcepts.
More than anything else, Ineeded to grasp these concepts,
and I'm wondering about that asa person of color who comes into
(07:07):
evangelicalism.
That's one of the things that,initially, you start to
appreciate right, I have to behonest about that.
You're like well, they'rereally deep and they really know
scripture.
And these evangelicals likethey go Line upon line, and it's
not the certain type ofpreaching style I'm used to.
And over time, though, what Istarted to realize especially,
(07:28):
you know, in 2012, wheneverything kind of hit the fan
was that the concepts themselveswere not a very helpful
container.
They really did not help menavigate being a black person
right in this country, and sowhen sort of this way of knowing
and being in the world and thisway of knowing and being in
(07:50):
Christ, so to speak, began to bein conflict with each other, it
really, for a lot of us, wasextremely devastating, and I
know there were a couple ofarticles that came out about
black people leaving the churchbecause of those types of things
.
So I'm wondering were you?
When you think about ways ofknowing Pete?
I want to ask you this we thinkabout ways of knowing.
(08:12):
What do you think is the mosthelpful way for us to help
people have that first step,that first giving them the
permission to begin to say, like, if it feels wrong, if it seems
kind of odd, that it's okay togo with that thought, is that
question making sense?
Yeah, how would you encouragesomebody in that makes tons of
sense.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Actually, you know, I think one thing that
evangelicals are taught from thecrib is to not trust your
instincts, not trust your heart,but to always question that.
The problem is that you'reyou're asked to question that on
the basis of a theologicalsystem which is, first of all,
rather abstract and also, youknow, it turns out rather
(08:57):
limited in focus.
You know, I think there are,there are wonderful things about
what we might call classictheism or, you know, classic
theology.
There's a lot of stuff that wastalked about, but it was still
somewhat restricted in itsperspective because of who was
doing the thinking, especiallyover the past 500 years in
Europe and then coming to to thefurther, to the West.
(09:19):
So I think our humanity isimportant and no, no one human
perspective should be elevatedover other human perspectives.
We have to talk to each otherand that's where I would start
with people.
I mean, I have had to learn,believe it or not, I've had to
learn to listen to that voiceinside of me that says this just
(09:42):
isn't right, and that'ssomething that usually kick
starts a deconstruction process.
You know the term for today,but it's true, it's something
that you just know inside this.
This doesn't sit right with myexperience.
And you say, well, who caresabout your experience?
Well, that's told by people whohave a theological system which
(10:03):
is rooted in their experience,just like everybody else's.
Right, I think just normalizingthat is hopeful for people,
just to say, okay, let's justrelax, you get to have your
thoughts and feelings.
Sometimes they can be augmentedor shifted in conversation with
other people.
Right, I mean might have andthere's nothing wrong with that.
(10:25):
But but to dishonor ourhumanity is, I think, a big
problem and it's something of astaple, I think, and at least
the evangelical that I've beenaware of.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Yeah, I've been noticing that a little bit.
I love to have you speak onthat journey because I've
noticed that one of the thingsI've been watching a lot of cult
documentaries and one of thethings that goes across the
board and this feels realfamiliar.
I mean, it's really just thiswhole idea of right like
(10:55):
abdicating your agency.
You're like sort of outsourcingintuition and leadership and
there isn't much.
I've been thinking a lot aboutconjure and how, how do we pull
truth from the inside?
But for so many of us, jared,this question's for you, so many
of us who grew up inevangelicalism, yeah, we're
(11:16):
taught we have a sin nature,that our heart is deceitfully
wicked.
Can you help us think about away to frame the scripture
differently?
I know that for most of us, ifwe were evangelical, the Bible
was very important and scriptureis the word of God.
It is the truth of God that wasgiven to us.
And so for folks who are kindof feeling that thing that Pete
is talking about, that movement,that jostling can be really
(11:40):
hard.
But I found in my own processlike I've actually fallen more
in love with scripture as I'velet the scripture breathe.
Can you talk to us?
What does it mean to letscripture breathe.
How can we reframe truth inthat way and still kind of keep
our love for the scriptures?
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Yeah, I think one thing that comes to mind is
thinking about the scripture ashaving a relationship with the
text, and a lot of us grew up asyou said.
It's a very authoritarianrelationship.
The scripture is over me and Iam to be subject to it at all
costs.
And so, when you talk aboutreframing, what would it look
(12:17):
like to think about it as arelationship between equals,
where we honor ourselves, asPete's talking about, where we
honor our own intuitions and ourfeelings and experiences and
community, and we bring that tothe text not to be scrutinized,
to be picked through and be toldthat it's wrong, but as valid
(12:37):
in its own right.
And then we have the scriptureand we can bring that to the
table as well, and then we canbe in conversation with the two
and in some of those ways, wesay this is really valuable,
given my experience and how Ithink about things, and I can
really learn a lot from this andcan grow from this and other
ways in which this is harmfulfor how I.
(12:59):
This is not something that Ineed to take with me, and so, to
see it as a relationship and Ialso say that to say it's okay
to struggle with it just likeyou would in any relationship.
It's not to be.
We don't wanna be abused in ourrelationship with the text, and
for that to happen there can'tbe this power dynamic where it
(13:19):
is over us to tell us the pure,unadulterated truth, because
usually the reality of it isthat most often I think of the
Wizard of Oz, where you sort ofpull the curtain, oh, and
there's just typically a whiteman who's actually doing the
talking.
Behind the quote Bible right,there's always an interpretive
(13:41):
lens.
So even when we have thatauthoritative approach, the
Bible itself doesn't sayanything.
It is our interpretive lensthat does the talking.
And if we aren't careful we canactually just obliterate our
own experience and our own senseof self and our own sense of
right and wrong, not because Godsaid it, but because I heard a
(14:04):
couple of preachers or read acouple of commentaries that told
me this is what the Bible says,and so we can start to see the
Bible as a conversation partner.
And then we actually mightstart to see that the Bible
itself models this for us, thatit doesn't have a univical
meaning kind of one voiceapproach.
It doesn't just say the onething.
(14:25):
So when people ask us, what doesthe Bible have to say about?
Often, the answer is well, itdepends on where you look right.
Well, it says this here and itsays that there, and there's a
multiplicity of voices.
The Bible itself models thisconversation for us if we have
eyes to see.
But sometimes it's hard to haveeyes to see when you are
trained from being a small childto think my agency doesn't
(14:48):
matter, my perspective doesn'tmatter, my feelings and
intuitions about the world andhow it operates doesn't matter.
I just have to listen, to quotethe text, which, again, isn't
usually listening to the text.
It's listening to thoseauthority figures in your life.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Absolutely, absolutely.
I was thinking about thisphrase that you use, pete, and
one of your books I can'tremember which one it was that I
learned and I started using andthrowing around Like I knew
what I was talking about and Ididn't, so I'm gonna have you
explain.
Monolatry and the idea that sohere's how I synthesized it and
(15:26):
how it was helpful for me wasthis idea that here is a group
of people who are basicallyfiguring it out as they go.
They are taking what they knowso far about God and writing it
down and it grows and it changes.
And it was so helpful to thinkabout how Israel's even
monotheism kind of evolved overtime.
(15:46):
So can you talk to us aboutmonolatry and like how maybe
involving that kind of a conceptin the ways that we do faith
might be helpful.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Yeah, sure, I mean.
Monolatry means and we'redealing here with the Hebrew
Bible, right?
So this is something that'smore relevant there.
By the time we get to the NewTestament, things have changed a
bit.
But monolatry means you worshiponly one God.
That's a mono, one lottery.
That's a Greek root meaningworship.
(16:20):
So you worship only one God,but you recognize the existence
of other gods, and the ancientIsraelites were absolutely
monolatrous.
They were not monotheists inthe later sense of the term, I
think in later Judaism thathappens but early on they were
products of their culture asmuch as anything else.
And the point was Yahweh isworthy of worship.
(16:44):
Don't worship other gods.
That's why God gets jealous.
If you worship other gods,what's there to be jealous about
if they're not there?
Now I happen to think that noother gods exist.
I think there's one creator ofthe multiverse, that's me.
But the ancient Israelitesdidn't think that, and that's
fine.
See, this is because they'rethinking contextually, as we all
(17:07):
do.
I mean, how can you not do that, right?
So this is to me an objectlesson for understanding how the
Bible itself is a, atheological tradition, and all
theology is rooted in ourexperience, our context, our
(17:30):
location, all those kinds ofthings.
And so I read texts that aremonoliths, like Psalm 95, you
know, for Yahweh is a great God,a great King above all gods.
Why?
Well, in his hands are the deepplaces of the earth.
He created the mountains, hecreated the seas.
That's what makes him so great.
The other ones are there, butdon't worship them.
What a waste of time.
That is right.
(17:50):
So this is contextual theology.
They're thinking about Yahwehin the context of their own time
and place in the history ofhumanity, and it's okay to leave
that behind and to thinkdifferently about God.
And you know, part of that isthe whole Jesus thing, you know,
comes into place here and howour own understanding of the
(18:13):
nature of God as a people offaith, going back roughly 3,000
years now, how that's always onthe move, it's always changing,
it's always adapting, it'salways adjusting.
That is the history ofChristian thought, right?
So it starts in the Bible witha topic no less important than
what is God like?
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Yeah, Is there one or are there many?
Well, and maybe can I just puta cherry on the top of that,
because I think what you saidthere, pete, is actually very
important for people tounderstand, Because when you
mentioned earlier how to reframeour Bible, like Pete just gave
a really important way toreframe the Bible, which is I
(18:55):
was always taught the Bible isthe rock.
It is the unadulterated,word-for-word, literal word of
God.
And then theology and theChristian tradition is
everybody's interpretation ofthis, but what Pete's saying is
no, this is an example of thatother thing.
They are not of a differentkind.
And when you read the Bible asa library, a theological
(19:18):
tradition, library that evolvesover time and how it thinks
about God, you start to thisbinary between the quote literal
, inerrant word of God and allof our musings and traditions
about that.
That binary starts to breakdown.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
Yes, absolutely.
Oh my gosh, I love, I just lovethe idea of thinking about that
.
These are people figuring itout.
And when I started reading theOld Testament that way, it
really helped with some of theproblematic stuff it was like,
well, maybe they did think Godtold them to do that.
I mean it just took so muchpressure off of some of the
(19:55):
stories and it humanized a lotof the stories from me, because
it's like, yeah, I'm trying tofigure God out too, like I think
we all are.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
It's so helpful.
One quick story to me, can Ijust?
Speaker 1 (20:07):
add something.
Yes, absolutely please.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Thanks for that.
I remember a student at Easternyears ago really wanted nothing
to do with faith.
I mean, she grew up in a housethat you know.
Whatever I'm done, I'm here butwhatever.
But what turned her back on tothinking seriously about
Christian faith is the humanizedversion of the Bible, when and
(20:30):
specifically it was the Gospels.
It was like wait a minute,they're actually adults,
thinking through stuff andsaying things.
They want to say right, andthat's like.
That's not helpful if you havea literalistic view of the Bible
and it's authority in your life.
But it's wonderfully freeingwhen you see that as a pattern
(20:53):
of the life of faith, thinkingthrough things and articulating
as best as you can and neverthinking you've got it all right
, even saying God is love.
What does that mean?
I mean, what do you mean by God?
What do you mean by love?
What do you mean by is?
That's a difficult concept butyou can say it.
But say here's how I understand, how it works right, and that
(21:17):
to me is very, very freeing.
But it doesn't sit well withcertain models, certain
iterations of the Christianfaith where the Bible, like
Jared says, has been this rock,this foundation and all these
little things that we think arejust diversions from that.
We got to get back to the realthing.
Well, the real thing is alreadydoing it for us, it's already
(21:38):
showing us and I find that justI mean, the older I get, I'm
just so happy about it.
It's just, it's freeing.
It's like I don't have to beright about everything.
In fact, I know that I'm notright about most things I talk
about.
I'm fine with that, except forthis, what we're talking about
now.
I know I'm right about that,but apart from that, I'm willing
(22:02):
to have some way.
But it's freeing to not have toknow the mind of God.
Yeah, it just is.
And just experience, live andand experience gone in different
ways, not simply in reading theBible or thinking theologically
, but just being a human beingand existing and experiencing
things.
That's, you know.
(22:23):
I hope that's where it's at.
I hope that's the right path togo, because that's where I am.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
Yeah, yeah, you mean both, now that I'm over the hill
.
Have you?
Have you done a much work,jared?
Have you done much work aroundhistorical Jesus?
The reason I asked is becausehe brought up the Gospels and
another.
There's only like seven whitemen on my naughty list and there
was another white man on thatlist, john Dominic crossing, who
(22:48):
I love Right.
Have you all done much thinkingabout historical Jesus?
If so, like how does it playinto your reading of the Gospels
?
This was not on the questions,I just have it.
Well.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Yeah, I mean, I think you know my area is definitely
not as much in the New Testament, but I do think it's.
It's funny.
You know, pete and I just didan episode for the Bible for
normal people where we talkabout Some of the birth
narratives.
It was a Christmas episode andwe talked about some of the
birth narratives of Jesus andwhat we realized even just in, I
(23:22):
think how we felt about itgoing in was this sense that
yeah, it's all fine and good totalk about all this diversity
and Context and genre andliterature of the Bible in the
Hebrew Bible, like the OldTestament, that's fine.
But once you start messing withpeople's picture of Jesus, it's
almost like we have this innate,like, yeah, we get that for all
(23:42):
the but, but Jesus is different, right, and it's like, okay,
it's, it's time that we kind ofrip that band-aid off and start
talking more openly about howknow this is.
This is the same in the NewTestament.
This is the same in our, in theGospels as it relates to the
picture that we have of Jesus.
And again to Hebrew, to Pete'spoint earlier that the problems
(24:06):
are or not the problems, but theway we see it in the context
and the history is differentbecause it's a different time
and it's a different place thanthe Hebrew Bible.
But the idea that we aregetting some Video recording of
Jesus and how Jesus actuallyacted and talked and that's what
we get presented in the Gospelsas though it's a history
(24:27):
textbook that's a hundredpercent accurate it's not.
It's not that that's wrong,because there's things that are
the New Testament is not lyingto us.
It's that once we put it inthat framework, we maybe are
already thinking about it in away that the New Testament
wouldn't think about it.
It's already imposing moderncategories Onto the text and I
(24:51):
think that's an important thingto recognize, because sometimes
we can put our modern categoriesand say it's with either this
or it's that and it's like we'llput the ancient eyes on it.
They're not thinking incategories of this or that.
There are other categories youknow, for instance, thinking
about how do you hold up peopleof Priority and importance and
(25:13):
stature in the ancient world,how do you write about them
Right, how do you acknowledgeand tip your hat to the
influence that they have in theworld and how do you make sure
you're writing a character thatis, you know, worth our
admiration, if you know thatabout how things are written in
in the world of the NewTestament, you're gonna see that
(25:34):
influence and how the gospelwriters are talking about Jesus
right, so that when Luke iswriting his birth narrative,
you're going to see how that'sRecognizable in the ancient
world around people like aCaesar.
And so those are the kind ofthings that we, we can.
(25:55):
I guess what I'm trying to say,too, is we have to go back not
just in, look at the ancientcontext, but also the categories
of thought in the ancient world.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Yeah, so enough.
What about you, pete?
Speaker 3 (26:11):
Yeah, I think the whole historical Jesus business
is almost like a dirty littlesecret.
That it's, it's, it's a realissue, it's a real, it's a real
problem.
By problem I mean an academic,historical thing to think about,
right, but the, the, theportraits that we have of Jesus,
(26:32):
or they differ.
Well, they're essentially thesame.
Yeah, okay, fine, but they'rereally different too.
You know, I don't reallyunderstand how that, how that
counters the other part of it.
Right, and Something you know,jared, we read Luke Timothy
Johnson's book, right, the, thereal Jesus, right, I think it's
any of it.
But he, he talks a lot abouthistorical Jesus stuff and he
(26:55):
says, bottom line, he says it'sreally impossible to understand,
to know who the historicalJesus was.
What we have is we have fourportraits of Jesus that speak to
their faith in Jesus and hesays that is in and of itself a
historical topic of study.
Yeah, that's about as far backas we can go.
(27:18):
We have, we have their beliefsand they're interacting with
each other.
You know, mark is the earliesta.
Matthew and Luke are definitelytaking mark and changing mark,
or adding or taking things awayor putting things differently,
because they're portraying Jesusdifferently, once again, for
their context for their audience, right, I it's.
(27:40):
Again, we talked about how Jesus, god, is sort of a fluid
concept in the Old Testament.
Right, jesus?
It can be a pretty fluidconcept too historically in the
New Testament and and coming toterms with that sparks
theological conversations that Ithink are very, very important.
Not avoiding it, not bringingin the old apologetic machinery
(28:03):
and saying, well, the Bible, theGospels, are reliable
historically.
Yeah, depends on what you meanby reliable or historical, but
fine, but the thing is thecharacter of them.
There's diversity in thetellings of Jesus and to seize
that theologically andspiritually, to seize that to
say this is what we have, how doI live now in light of that?
(28:27):
And there's not an easy answerto that, and sometimes people
want easy answers, but I thinkthe life of faith is not easy
answers.
I think ultimately it comesdown to just kicking back and
saying this is the journey thatI'm on and I have to believe
that God is around me and in meand through me, and it's all
good.
I'm trying not to hurt people,I'm just trying to understand
(28:51):
and understand about Jesus andthe Bible in the world that I
occupy, the one that I live innow, and that can be really
scary if you have the threat ofhell hanging over you and the
threat of like if you're notright, god's going to look down
with you and smack you a littlebit.
But once you take that away,this life of faith and grappling
(29:12):
with the Bible is life-giving.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
Yeah, absolutely, absolutely so.
On my show when something hitsme, I just kind of let it hang
for a second because it's sotrue.
I mean I really have startedreading the Gospels like I'm at
a museum, you know, like I'mobserving art and doing it that
way.
It's actually.
It brings up completelydifferent things and I've ever
(29:36):
felt for Jesus or about Jesus,even when I identified as an
evangelical Christian.
Just to just admire someoneelse's work and poetry is just a
way that I've been kind ofworking through that.
Let's talk about Bible forNormal people before we like lay
in the plane.
So you start this podcast abouteight years ago.
Is that right?
Eight years ago?
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Something like that.
What?
Speaker 1 (30:01):
year are we in 20.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Yes, we're about to start season eight.
Yep, okay cool.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
So Bible for Normal people is a podcast that I love,
but I'm not sure people on theshow on my show know about it,
so could you just tell us alittle bit about it, kind of
what your hope for the podcastis and who you're reaching with
it?
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Well, it's the only God ordained podcast on the
internet.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
I knew you were going to say that.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
That's the main thing to know about it.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
So what else do you need to know at that point?
I mean, come on.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
But the I mean the mission of what we do is to
bring the best and biblicalscholarship to everyday people.
And the impetus was, you know,early on and through our careers
and for me, even as a prettyevangelical kid, and then going
to seminary, like the things wewere taught in seminary weren't
being taught in churches, theyweren't being taught in the
(30:54):
Christian lifeway stores, youknow where I was taught that all
the good Christian books werethe insights and the scholarship
and the depth and theprofundity of biblical critical
scholarship was not making itsway to everyday people.
And so I mean, in the tideswe're turning where again, like
the story Pete told about thegirl in at Eastern, I had those
(31:17):
profound moments of like I'mkind of done with faith, if this
is what it looks like.
And to have these ahas inseminary where it's like one
ah-ha after the other, it didn'tturn me away from the Bible.
It was like finally I canre-engage this in a way that
makes sense to me.
And so that's our hope forpeople is that they have been
taught their whole life.
Well, this is what the Bible isand this is what you're
(31:38):
supposed to do with it and torecognize there's a whole rich
theological tradition thatanswers those two questions very
differently and in very diverseways of what is the Bible and
what do we do with it?
Speaker 3 (31:50):
And so we have people .
I mean just a piggyback on thatJared, we have people on and our
style is like here's a platformyou know, and you know we
engage, but it's more what'syour passion and how might your
corner of the universe thatyou're dealing with?
(32:10):
How might that affect peoplewho are listening, who are
looking for fresh ways, freshparadigms, fresh ways of
thinking about things?
They don't want to like?
Not be religious Most of themthey still are interested in
having some vital connectionprobably many of them with their
Christian faith, but it's justthis kind of change.
(32:32):
So they're looking for ideas,you know they're looking for
ways to think.
That's really what we're tryingto do also to bring that to
them and say here's another wayof thinking about things.
And a comment we get quiteoften is from people saying I
never knew people thought likethat and it's like, well, yeah,
a lot of people have thoughtlike that for a very long time,
(32:54):
right?
So it's just breaking out ofthe bubble a little bit.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Like I said, I've been watching a lot of cult
documentaries and they talkabout how the way to kind of get
out is education.
So I just thank you all formaking Christianity for people
who are very serious about it,who are deep.
I was doing the least troublething For me.
Finding your podcast, findingyour works, did so much.
(33:25):
In a way, it kind of validatedme.
It validated some of thequestions I was asking, things
that bothered me, but also, letme keep that sort of fervor that
I had as an evangelical when Iwould read the scripture and I
just, I just am so thankful foryou both for what you've put out
into the world and for the waysthat you're helping people
engage on a deeper level.
(33:46):
My last question for you iswhat's perplexing you?
Like, what are you?
What's intriguing you right now?
Like, what are you kind of likethinking about?
I really want to know that.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
Perplexing or intriguing.
Those are two very differentthings.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
But I mean for me.
I think, like for me it'sintriguing when something
perplexes me.
Speaker 3 (34:08):
Yeah, I got you All right.
Yeah, I don't know.
For me I guess it's probably afew things, but it really just
comes down to the nature ofreality and what is real?
(34:28):
Are we a mass of chemicals orare we spiritual beings?
Is there consciousness afterdeath, things like that?
What does it mean to talk aboutGod in an essentially infinite
universe?
Where is this God anyway?
Stuff like that, those don'tparalyze me.
(34:50):
Those questions, that's whatI'm thinking about.
I think the quickest way ofputting it is what is God To me?
That's a very basic questionthat I think, as finite human
beings, it's not a bad idea torevisit that question every once
in a while and to be in aspiritual community where you
(35:11):
can actually do that.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
That was good Thamesy's, but mine has been
kind of psilocybin born.
I'm thinking a lot aboutconsciousness, a lot man why
don't you try it on that?
Google.
It's great.
It really does help you frameand I don't know, don't knock it
until you try it.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
That's what I say, I'm not knocking it, If you know
you know,
Speaker 2 (35:44):
I think mine is more.
I'm intrigued by this massiveshift that's happening in, I
think, our consciousness in theWest away from atomistic,
newtonian, clear and distinctidentities and entities way of
(36:05):
thinking about who we are, intokind of complex system theories
and moving away from an idea ofbeing into the idea of becoming
and relationality and thatthings are in process.
Things are not things, thingsare processes, things are
relationality.
So it just really deconstructsa lot of the frameworks that I
(36:28):
grew up with and it's helping meto think outside the box of
just who we are.
When I say I like ouridentities and how we show up
together and what I alwaysassumed it meant to be an
individual and how those arejust breaking down both from.
you know, for me it's on thekind of quantum mechanics and
complex systems side of thescience of it but then on the
(36:52):
philosophy side of it as well,and how those are quickly
merging into a way of thinkingabout the world, I think, very
different than we've had thelast four or 500 years in the
West Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
Absolutely.
Shout out to Phyllis Tickle.
She was right about that 500years thing, that's right.
Thank you all for being on theshow.
I just I adore what you've putin the world, so thank you for
being heroes to me and forhelping me stay in the game.
Thanks for being on the show.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Thank you to me.
Thank you so much For stayingwith you.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com