16 - Easter and the Resurrection with Alexander Shaia / Transcript

Note: Can I Say This at Church is produced for audio listening. If able, I strongly encourage you to listen to the audio, which has inflection, emotion, sarcasm where applicable, and emphasis for points that may not come across well in written word. This transcript is generated using a combination of my ears and software, and may contain errors. Please check the episode for clarity before quoting in print.

Back to the Audio:


Intro 1:01

Before we get started-quick appreciation to those of you that have gone on to iTunes and rated the show; if you haven't done that, click the button. I would ask you to click all five stars but you're more than welcome to just do four, if you feel so led. But no, seriously, thank you so much for your engagement, for your involvement, and for those of you that have shared the show, you are the engine that drives the conversations that we have. I enjoy doing them and I'm glad that it is helping some of you, as it is me. I would ask if you could click the Patreon button at canIsaythisatchurch.com, learn a bit more about this show. If you’re feeling what is happening here and you'd like to be a little more involved, your generosity would go a long way, more than you know.

Everybody, welcome to the show. I'm Seth, your host. Today we have Alexander Shaia with us again. We are all, and we all have, over these past few weeks, in a season of Lent, we've learned to let things go. We've picked up new things because we are creatures of habit. But there is more than one way to think about Easter, to think about our Lord. And a lot of what we as Americans, I believe, struggle with is a lack of history, a lack of culture and a lack of understanding around many of the holidays that we celebrate. And so I talked about that a bit with with Alexander today and I got a lot out of this and I believe that you will too. Get ready to be challenged, your Easter is not under assault. It is even more glorious, and more beautiful and more worthy than we give it due.

Seth

Alexander, thank you so much for for being willing to coming back on the Can I say this at church podcast. I'm pleased that you've been able to make time to come back on today.

Alexander 3:16

I'm honored and as you and your guests will soon hear I'm recovering from some sort of a respiratory infection. And so I've got sort of a raspy voice but…

Seth 3:30

I think it adds character (both chuckle)

Alexander 3:31

I did a seminar on Saturday, but microphone whispering for hours. So let's see if we can do this today.

Seth 3:41

Well, whisper as loud as you need out, I'll crank the gain on on my end. And so by now for those that are listening, if you haven't gone back and listened to the episode prior that we did with Alexander, please go back and do that. I think it will be pertinent for today's conversation, but you had said something while we were coordinating that Alexander about…just Holy Week, Lent, the Gospel, the history of Easter, and all that goes with that. And I quickly realized that that topic is fascinating. I know very little about it, which shame on me as a Christian, I probably should know more. And so I'm looking forward to discussing that not necessarily at length but in a little bit today.

Alexander 4:29

And here we are recording this just days away from Ash Wednesday. So this is very timely.

Seth 4:40

Well, I guess let's, I guess let's start there. So I want to spend a little bit of time on, I guess the history of Easter, but I'm more interested in how we take that history and view it through a lens the Quadratos view of the Gospels and how I can live in that today. And how Easter can not necessarily lose meaning, but but gain, gain something more whole, for lack of a better word.

Alexander 5:07

Yes.

Seth 5:10

So I guess just a bit of the history of that, obviously we haven't always celebrated Easter. I can't see that happening that on the annual anniversary of Christ's death and resurrection. So what is kind of our, as Christians our story of Easter?

Alexander 5:26

Well, actually, we have celebrated Easter from almost the very first years into what I call the era of the resurrection. And one of the things that many Christians forget and even though our scholars have tended to overlook is that we called Sunday Easter. Every Sunday in Christendom was Easter, and so for about 200 years we celebrated Easter 52 times a year.

And then there came a moment when we began to do something on one Easter a year, which was different from the other 51.

So, Easter is the celebration of death and resurrection. And that was the core experience of every Sunday gathering. And then 200 years into our history, we began to think, well, we needed to do something on one Easter a year that we didn't do on the other 51 Easter's. And so when people say let's talk about Easter, I assume that we want to focus on what's unique about the Easter in the springtime that's different from the rest of the Easter's of the year.

Seth 6:56

Yeah.

Alexander 6:58

And everything in Christianity comes from what's happening on the ground and within the communities? It's like we, we don't create theological feasts, we create feasts which have a compelling spiritual practice to them. So here's sociologically, what I think is happening around the time that we develop an Easter in the springtime, distinct from the other 51 Easter's of the year.

Christianity as an art form, and as a new moment in human consciousness. We are we develop a pan-tribal communion. And as I've talked about in other places that other traditions including our mother tradition, Judaism, have profound beautiful truth that all are one before God, which makes each of us brother and sister to the other.

Seth 8:00

Right. However,

Alexander 8:03

However, before the First Century, and before Jesus and Christianity, we don't have evidence of other traditions, having a room or a table where everyone was welcome to sit side by side. This is really a new way of being family that begins for us in the presence of the historical Jesus in the first century. And even Judaism at this point, organized the synagogue life with either the men in the front of the women in the back, or the men on the floor and the women in the balcony, or the men to the right, and the women to the left of a wall down the synagogue.

So the idea of a table where you sit side by side is quite radical, fresh, and in my view a step forward in our development of our relationship with God in each other.

Seth 9:09

Yeah. And so I guess the table then is an equalizing factor or an equalizing force.

Alexander 9:13

Totally. The table becomes a symbolic expression of Jesus the Christ, where we all share an equal measure and honor and distinction and responsibility.

Well, Christianity in the first 200 years, especially during the time that we were greatly persecuted and executed, when you're running from the Emperor because you're likely to be killed. There's a compelling harmony within the community because we're facing this external force or pressure.

But as we go on and as we spread across the Mediterranean, and our diversity increases. Diversity of gender and tribe and socio-economic status poor and wealthy enslave, and people from the Eastern provinces and the Western provinces this diversity becomes a cacophony. If you can ever imagine Christians having vigorous discussion with each other.

And as the time of persecution lessens, it doesn't go away yet but it lessens. And when it lessens, we have that luxury of debate. And the debate is you're doing what? You believe Jesus how?

You interpret the Scriptures in what way? You're conducting baptisms using what elements?

And this lively discussion, which might have started out as holy curiosity ends up becoming a rather fractious debate and we begin to break apart from each other. And in some ways, because Christianity at this point is not formalized and really is not going to become formalized until all the Roman oppression is gone, and we're no longer illegals. But at this moment, there is a wisdom that moves amongst us that says; “Ah”! Once a year, we must return to the deep spiritual practice of communion, not only as an hour ritual, but as an inner spiritual practice which lessens the dogmatic divisions within us and increases the felt sense of our union and communion, both with our God and each other.

Seth 12:06

I hear that and I feel like church still does that today. Everybody argues about everything. And it makes me think, and this is probably a tangent in my church, we have world communion day. And so I hear you saying that the intent of setting up Easter was to put aside your dogma, and love each other effectively. And I wonder if maybe our…well at least in the West, I wonder if maybe that didn't work well. And so they tried again, with World communion day, but I'd hate to get I hate to get off the topic.

Alexander 12:35

Well, I mean, I think you're right, because what's happened over 1900 years, or almost 2000, years of quote, unquote, Easter, is that it became a historical story and a proclamation about an empty tomb 2000 years ago. And please don't hear me that I in any way doubt that there was an empty tomb and a risen Jesus. I'm just saying that the impact of that feast in our tradition is about present moment spiritual practice, not the proclamation of a glorious sacred newspaper.

Seth 13:17

So talk talk more about that. So I hear you to say that most of the messages and most of the the pageantry, for lack of a better word that you're going to hear is about here is your future hope, look at this one scene of the entire story of Christ and and hinge on that. And you're saying instead that the intent of the Easter story is that today is Easter.

And tomorrow's Easter, and yesterday was Easter.

Alexander 13:47

Yes, and that we are the body and we are ever becoming more the body of Christ.

That to become the body of Christ requires spiritual practice far more than theological discussion. What is so critical is, we are always as Christians and it is our glory, that we have a wide divergence of our thinking about Jesus and about the Christ. And that's exactly as it should be, and it is an incredible bouquet or a diadem. But the reality is that because of the beauty of that theological expression, that we tend to become overly identified with our understanding, and forget that the core practice is how to bring that expression together as as the true incarnate body of Jesus here amongst us today. So that therefore there are ways that we have to learn and be reminded about how we talk with each other.

And yelling at each other or vigorously saying this is a right expression of Jesus to each other is not the way of this wide divergent Body of Christ. So the early church, and early church I'm now going to talk about as we move into the three hundreds which is actually the Fourth century of Christianity, they created a number of things which they thought of as the communities retreat. And the community as a whole was required to be present for this retreat each year.

Seth 15:48

What do you mean required, like you had to pilgrimage there or…

Alexander 15:58

That if you are a baptized member of this community, this is not optional.

As my grandmother would say of us on Sunday lunch or in the American South, Sunday dinner.

I expect you at my table. Or if you're sick, we will have gone to the hospital and brought you flowers. Or if you're in the cemetery will have we will have stopped by this morning. But barring your being dead or sick, you be here. No exceptions allowed.

And it was absolutely incumbent upon a baptized member to remove themselves from everyday life and take part in what the early church conceived up as a essentially a 72 hour retreat, which we today might call the celebration of Easter. So Easter was not just an hour long service or even a few hours. And it wasn't just one day it was three days.

And over these three days, we are going to enter into the spiritual practices, we're going to refresh ourselves, we're going to sort of return to boot camp for how a Christian community chooses to live with each other in such a way that it increases the evident presence of Christ amongst us, and the evident presence of Christ between myself and Christ. So it was both the practice of transcendence, myself with God, and eminence myself with God present in our midst. So the first thing was the decision that they were going to craft this retreat. And the second piece of the decision was that the retreat would happen in the springtime; and in part, that was a historical connection to that day 2000 years ago, or 200 years ago.

But there also was another reality which was it was expressly chosen to be the springtime because the springtime is energetically in us when the sap rises. And when the sap rises, as you come out of the winter doldrums and the sap rises, is particularly a difficult moment in the community life; can be a difficult moment in community life. And we may notice just in a world news and world history, how many street protests and revolutions start in the springtime. There is a natural process in the human self, of a release of energy. And so Christianity recognize this and recognize the incarnation of this and set “ahhhh” for every reason, the spring time is the right seasonal moment for us to have this retreat about how we live with each other.

And the types of spiritual practices we engage. Because we want to create the sense of deepening and the sense of oneness and harmony with each other.

Seth 19:20

I find it striking, Alexander, and I listened to your Christmas episode with Rob Bell. I find it striking that our two I guess, pillars of holidays as Christianity seem to center around, you know, the darkest day on our solar cycle, so the winter solstice and then also the spring equinox. I can't think that that's an accident, it's obviously not an accident, but I find it I find it not coincidence. I don't know what the word is. I find it enchanting that they mirror each other.

Alexander 19:57

Absolutely. And Seth my perspective is it's not coincidental, in fact it's quite intentional. And to go even further, the intention is that Pentecost would be very near the Summer solstice. Pentecost, which is the height of our Christian spirituality would be set in a time very near the most glowingly radiant sunlight of the year. That there's an incarnational, biological, expression of what Jesus the Christ does for us that is also very much like summer solstice and Pentecost.

Seth 20:41

You can't see this, but I didn't think about Pentecost and that actually gave me the skin little hairs raise there. That was…I hadn't thought—I hadn't thought about that.

Alexander 20:51

That's and I mean, for many of us, and I'm, you know, I'm an old Catholic, and I don't know your tradition as well. But for us Catholics, we would talk about Pentecost as the Birthday of the church and I don't know if you have such a phraseology.

Seth 21:08

Yeah, similar and our worship service will have a lot of songs built around our souls are on fire and many nations and many tongues. And so yeah, there's a little bit of that. But it is a celebration of this started or this this began in earnest right here. And it's the ministry that we're still doing today; alot of that language.

Alexander 21:29

So to take the idea of birthday back as a present moment reality that the whole journey of Lent and Easter is about recreating or re-animating the community now. So that the idea of Pentecost as the birthday of the church is because of the spiritual practices that we have reengaged in deepened ourselves, we have set our communion on a new foundation. That foundation is Jesus the Christ, but that we must actually engage in the spiritual practices because we are this wild radical folly of diversity.

It is so much easier to create a communion out of uniformity. We chose to say right at the heart of the world's diversity is our communion. But it's a communion that is not easy to live with unless you were fully engaged in the spiritual practice of it. Sociologically, were historically in the time in the early centuries, where our diversity is overwhelming our felt sense of charity and communion.

We choose to create a three day retreat in celebration of the practices of our union with God and each other, we set those in the springtime, which has the Incarnational aspect of the sap rising, and also a historical connection to the day that Jesus came forth from the tomb.

And now we are going to choose the text for the retreat. This is what, actually, 40 years ago is was the first real marker on my way to Quadratos and the four gospels journey; was that they chose only the Gospel of John to be the text of this retreat.

And I was like, what that just, it stunned me to realize that going back into the early three hundreds, they had already chosen a Gospel for a function; and I'm what did they know about the text of John that made it so compelling that the only John would be the text of Eastern.

So this is interesting because they're saying that, you know, clearly Matthew, Mark and Luke have resurrection appearances. But that's not what they were talking about. It's like, every resurrection appearance is not equal to the experience of Easter that they were crafting in the three hundreds, the fourth century. And so only the text of John has that type of Easter experience. And it was only the text of John, that was prayed and studied and reflected and celebrated. Alright, so now what's in the text of John that would be the core of this experience?

From my perspective and from my sort of trying to put this back together and sometimes I feel like this is one of the detective stories on TV these days where you're using all this science to figure out the fingerprints and these filaments of DNA that are left behind, etc.

I situate the Gospel of John as having come out of the community at Ephesus, late First Century. And what is one of the things that's compelling about Ephesus is of all the of the four places where our gospel text was revealed or composed. Ephesus is a place which had the dilemma of being pantribal, had the gift and had the dilemma. We know that Ephesus receives Paul's preaching in the 40s of the first century, about the oneness of all people. And Ephesus is a place of tremendous diversity where people all the way from…Ephesus is in Turkey but because it was the Eastern Capital of the Roman Empire, which means that the courts were there, people from India and North Africa would come to Ephesus to argue, in the Roman courts.

So Ephesus had this teeming diversity of tribe. We also know that Ephesus had a very affluent and educated population. It had a very, very vital women's community. And the other thing which is so heartbreakingly true about Ephesus is it's affluence was built on the fact that it was the center of the Roman slave trade.

And whereas, the city of Ephesus was this gleaming, affluent city underneath those beautiful buildings were hundreds of miles of tape of caves and tunnels where the slaves were kept in the midst of this vital capital, wealthy, diverse city built upon the slave trade.

Paul preaches oneness, which even is extended to the slaves, which is totally countercultural at this moment.

However, by 50 years later, when we think the Gospel of John is revealed or composed, the Christian community and emphasis is fighting. All the old prejudices, all the old hierarchy, all the old divisions, all the old categories, all the who's the end, and who's the out and who's on top and who's on bottom, all of that is resurfaced. And what John's text must do for this community is bring them back into deeper harmony in Jesus Christ. And so this is the text of the four, which offers a series of meditations on how we move through the human “stuffness” that separates us from each other.

And that that “stuffness” is always going to be there. You don't do this once and it's done. That all the stuff that John brings us in the meditations is something that we might powerfully reflect on once a year. That we need to keep these limitations and wounds in us. We need to keep them in our heart and keep them before our minds eye, not in any guilt or shame sense but because with oneness, you're either moving towards oneness or you're moving away from oneness.

If you're staying static, you're moving away from oneness. There's no rest day with oneness. It's always a matter of which way are you moving? And the material in the Gospel of John is the profound spiritual director for us of what we must keep aware of because if we don't it is going to gobble us whole. And when we get gobbled, we're going to be, we're going to think we're really doing Christian community. But we're not doing Christian community. What we're doing is we're, we're enslaving each other under the idea of uniformity. We're not doing the diverse union of the human family before God.

Now, this 72 hour retreat in celebration is going to be normed off of it's going to use great, beautiful texts from the Gospel of John, as the Easter moment, which remits our union and compels us forward.

Seth 30:35

So why, why John then? I mean, the other gospels obviously have their own passion story, their own passion, play, for lack of a better word. So why, I guess to flip the question, is there anything wrong with the other three? Well, Mark comes to mind it has two endings, depending on what Bible you want to read. So what is missing in the other three that that the early church couldn't glean the same from that?

Alexander 31:04

Because from my work of Quadratos and from what we talked about in the in the previous podcast, each of these gospels performs a function. They're not the sacred newspaper of the history of Jesus. Each text performs a particular function. And Matthew’s function is to show is Jesus in Matthew, Jesus shows us how to wake up and begin a new journey.

Mark’s function is to show us how to move through moments of tremendous trial and obstacle. And Luke's function is to show us how to mature as a disciple and apostle in that way of Jesus; how to be a ever greater service.

John's function, this is the reason it's been chosen, John's function is how you create union and deeper oneness from tremendous diversity.

And, again, the lesser understanding of Christianity today is we're celebrating as historical reality 2000 years ago, so therefore we can use any text of resurrection from any of the four Gospels. That was not the origins of the piece to beast or the feast of Easter was about the spiritual practices that we must engage in, to keep our communion deepening. And therefore they rightly discerned that the appropriate gospel text for that type of Easter experience is John, and I would say only John.

So as you're ready, we'll move into the text and see what power it brought to Christians beginning in the three hundreds or the fourth century.

Seth 33:06

Well, yeah, let's go in; I'm ready. I'm ready. Let's do that.

Alexander 33:11

One of the things is that this retreat, this 72 hours of Easter, this retreat would always begin on a glorious high note. And I won't go into the history of the types of prayers that this retreat would start with, but this retreat did not start with, "you are a sinner far away from God. No! This retreat started with you are made of the substance of God and we are drawn together here for this 72 hours, because you want to be ever more beautiful and radiant expression of that substance.

And we see that early in the text John, when John gives us this very short story, brief account of Jesus renaming Simon as Petros. And the power of this is, and we've sort of lost it because, Petros can be translated as either stone, or rock.

And we've limited this text to Peter, when the whole text of John every figure in the text of John is about all humanity. It's like all of these characters in John arr stand-ins for every one of us.

And so, Jesus is saying, not just to Simon Peter of the First Century, but Jesus is saying to you, Seth, and to everyone who's listening and to me, you are rock or you are stone.

Now what does this mean for first century metaphor and what might this mean today? Well, just to go back to our Jewishness, we know that all the the ritual washing vessels in the synagogue or the temple were made of stone.

Now, why would a washing vessel, which in their senses you washed away your corruption in a washing vessel in Judaism, why would it be made of stone? It's because stone in their belief takes on no corruption. That stone is a permanent, maybe in our language, the metaphor would be better—it's like a diamond or gold, but it has a solid permanence. And Jesus is saying to Simon, and Jesus is saying to each one of us…

You are made of stone, you are made of the core substance of God. That's who you are and no matter what you do in your life, that's not going to change. You can run away from it, you can act against it, you can cover it over, you can forget it, you've got free will. All of those are all of those are choices you can make. But what is true, what Jesus is saying is, I understand, you are made of an incorruptible substance you were made, literally, of God's dust.

And so therefore, the opening meditation, or prayer, of the 72 hours of Easter was to remember this. Remember who you are. Remember the radiance that God has put in you. Remember that it's because of that radiance, because of that love we've come together with because we want that individually and corporately to shine more. So for all of those people who think about that the journey to Lent begins with a Rite of Ashes, I want you to remember that the Rite of Ashes is something that comes in Christianity 700 years later, and it comes from a moment, which is not our best moment. It comes from a time when we have lost the sense that we are inherently connected to God. And it comes from a time where we talked about how far away from God we are, and how we have to earn our way back into God's presence. What a bunch of hooey!

(laughter)

The early Christians had it better. We're not separated from God except maybe in our minds. God is right here as close as our heartbeat, claim it, live into it, know it, feel it, express it. And the feeling in the expression of that will draw you to want to do the work to be ever closer.

So this early Christian celebration of Easter was predicated on this is love calling to love. Jesus saying to you

You are love, that's who you are. And I am the heart of love, in my heart of love draws you closer, allow it.

So then the next series of Easter meditations are going to be to use great passages from John to understand how we are already part of this heart of love, and how we have perhaps forgotten or covered it over or, in some ways, went away from it. The church, in these days, traditionally used a series of Gospel texts with were surrounded with great prayer. And also, during the time that these great texts were read or prayed, we fasted. And we didn't fast because we were simple. We fasted because we wanted too so cleanse our body and our spirits, we want it to be so hungry to understand deeper the voice of love. That we wanted to actually have the longing not only in our minds and our hearts, but in our bodies. And we wanted to understand that the same longing that we had for food was also our longing for the voice of God.

And the texts that were used during this, these hours of fasting and reflection, and asking God to heal us of our brokenness before God, and our brokenness with each other. There were four texts:

  1. Jesus and Nicodemus

  2. Jesus and the woman at the well

  3. Jesus and the man born blind and

  4. Jesus and the raising of Lazarus

And each one of those text, have offered an examination of our life with each other, and how, because we all so deeply care about God and our experience of God. And that in part as humans, we take our longing to our heads and in our heads, we have all kinds of theological ideas, and that those theological ideas are brilliant, and yet they oftentimes end up separating us from each other.

And what we want to do in this early moment of Easter is we want to step away from the dogmatic formulations and fall in love with the fact that all of us are hungering and longing for our journey with God. That is what brings us together.

Seth 41:03

Hearing you talk about fasting in that way makes me sad at the way that people fast for Lent now. Just giving up chocolate or, or giving up Facebook, or giving up whatever. And not knowing the history of that and rethinking it now, “lip service” is not even the right word. It's less than that.

Alexander 41:29

The early church would call this the wedding fast/the marriage fast, in the sense that this fast was not doleful or sorrowful or penitential…it was expected. That we…it was like in the midst of this Easter and our excitement about it. Almost the same as perhaps the excitement in whenever we are on the edge of a major experience in our life where our stomach sort of flutters and our focus is not on food.

So after these great meditations, and I realize for, for the sake of time, I won't go into like the impact of each of the four texts; but that when we come out of this, hearing these texts and reflecting on them and quietly asking for forgiveness before God and for each other for all the ways that we have not lived out the fullness of God's presence with us this past year.

We then enter into this incredible triumphant prayer, which is the full Easter experience. And it is John's text of the foot washing. And again, what's happened of late is that we looked at the foot washing in a historical way as a major marker on the way to Easter. Whereas the early church said; “Oh no. The foot washing is full on Easter!”

Because not as a ritual form alone. But if you understand that the longing for God and the gift of receiving God's grace in you, if you understand that—nobody has to tell you what to do next because what you want to do with that reality is you want to go out and you want to serve. You want to you want to serve everyone. You want to be the love that God has given you.

And this is the full washing ceremony. It was not about just 12 people it was here when our heart fully appreciates the experience of what God has done for me and is doing for me I don't have an option about foot washing. As I have been washed, I want to wash others, I want to wash all others. I want to bend and bow low before all others, and be a servant of our God of love. That might help awaken that same experience in their heart.

And that is only by our participation in the death and resurrection experience of Jesus the Christ that we can truly do quote unquote, foot washing. That as we understand the ego death and the death of our small selves before the greater God of love. That brings us to larger life and that was what the early church understood by death and resurrection. Death and resurrection at the end of life, they considered small death and resurrection they considered large death and resurrection. The moment that in your present moment life, you learn the way to lower your ego, the way you learn to sacrifice in some ways, your own ego desires and learn how to live for larger purpose. Learn how to live a larger reality. That for them was the great death and resurrection experience.

And they said to the degree that you practice that death and resurrection throughout your life, that final death and resurrection at the end of your life is going to be like a small cut on your finger. Because your whole way of being has been living the experience of death and resurrection. Yeah, it brings to mind the

Seth 46:00

Yeah, it brings to mind the the Scripture you die daily and the way that I hear that is a part of my prideful, selfish self, dies daily, and rises daily in love and in abundance and in service and in gratitude.

Alexander 46:16

Yeah, tell it brother, amen!

Seth 46:20

I read you say somewhere or maybe I read someone else say somewhere maybe I heard it. I don't know. You spoke in the differences on when Jesus is on the cross, and they bring him the wine to drink, and there's either a difference, or they bring him his drink. There's a difference between John's Gospel with the other three are different with Mark’s Gospel with the others, and it's pivotal, and I can't remember which Gospel it is, can you speak to that a little bit?

Alexander 46:46

Totally, is exactly the very next point and that is that the first celebration of Easter is foot washing. Because we see in the foot washing our participation in death and resurrection. The second celebration of full on Easter is John's passion and only John's passion.

And it is because in John's Passion Jesus on the cross, the wine is put to his lips in John. And in the other three text Jesus does not take the wine.

But in John's passion, he does take the wine.

And then right after he drinks, the bitter wine, and this is what's important about this, this is not the wine that we serve at table today. This is a very sour, bitter wine that most of us would turn away from.And when Jesus drinks the bitter wine, in John, he says

and now it is finished.

And the spiritual practice of Easter as reknitting the community in the face of love is that we too are being asked by the same power of Jesus Christ to agree to drink of the world's bitterness. That we do not turn away from the bitterness. We do not turn away from the divisions, we do not turn away from the hurts and the wounding, we drink it.

And by the fact that with Jesus, we drink it we also know the power of Jesus to transmute it.

And so then comes the standing and next line in John's text. And I don't mean this in the glorified sense. My tradition, the Roman Catholic tradition, we've got a lot of wounds going today, but I really like to give us some credit where credit is due.

The Catholic translation of the text of John in this one instance is a step above the other translations because they have maintained that the text at this moment should say,

having drunk the wine and said, Now it is finished. Jesus balance his head and delivers over the spirit.

In John and this is why John's passion is an Easter passion, not a Lenten passion. John's passion is death, resurrection at this moment and Pentecost. We're doing a spiritual truth. We're not doing a linear, historical truth, that, that the moment through the Christ, that any one of us can also drink of the world's bitterness by that same reality, then we too, will help deliver the spirit to the world.

Seth 50:00

And by Spirit you mean capital the Holy Spirit correct?

Alexander 50:40

The Holy Spirit. The other three passions at this moment were recount Jesus as saying

Jesus bows his head and delivers over his spirit.

John is

Jesus bows his head and delivers over the spirit

Literally, Jesus breathes out his last breath as the Spirit to the world from the cross.

Seth 50:28

People should have to pay money to hear that or no no, let's give it away for free. It's better free!

I, in the interest of time, and some constructive feedback from people I trust. I want to…so break apart Lent and we rethink Easter, and we move past the pageantry, and we find and embrace Christ that we are made of and being subsistent in. So for the people listening and just a thought in closing as they go into Holy Week into Easter with their church, with their families, with their communities…bring it home. So if we take away and we strip away the pageantry what do they take home? What do they rest in? How do they bring it all together? To summarize it?

Alexander 51:21

Well, I mean, there there couple of things here in it. Yes. I have a 200 page text about the ancient Easter which is about, well it is some 800 years early or older than Holy Week. Holy Week is not…the early church would not have recognized Holy Week because it's predicated on the linear historical meditation on Jesus's last days. And what the early church is doing here is … here are the spiritual practices about how you reform and deepen communion and community. Most of us have nothing, have no power to reformulate Holy Week at this point. My mind invitation is pray Holy Week, be touched by the beauty of it.

But pray it as family and as community, and realizing that the power of it is that…remember the old saying when I was growing up, family that prays together stays together.

That part of the beauty and the power of Easter is in our marriages, in our families, and our communities, that we come together to pray together. That is the great Easter experience is the livening grace that happens in us because we pray together.

And secondly, regardless of what your community may be doing, or regardless of what words you might hear in the sermon, I would ask you to remember that these great prayer services of “Holy Week” are about the incarnate present moment, death and resurrection that's in the midst of your relationships and your family and your community. And reach for that and ask God for the grace of that.

And thirdly, remember that diversity is our largest cross and our greatest glory. Doing communities of uniformity is easier but that's not the journey that God is asking us for today. God is asking for us to find a oneness beneath the thoughts and the superficialities of what we look like and who we are; and to come home to know that beyond all that other stuff, we truly are brothers and sisters of the one source.

Seth 53:54

Amen. Amen to that. I want to save the remainder of your voice and I know you're with family and I appreciate the time that you've given this afternoon. And, as I alluded to at the end, Alexander, I've come to love your work and your ministry.

I've loved reading and people that don't, please follow Alexander on Facebook, he's extremely engaged, and heartfelt and interactive, which is refreshing.

And so how can how can people further engage in this thought process and this way of viewing Christ going forward? Where would you direct them to?

Alexander 54:39

A couple of things. First of all, I would direct people to the website that supports this work which is www.quadratos.com and I'll spell that out. On the website is just a whole range of good information and podcasts like yours. And there's also a store in that store are links to buy the book, Heart and Mind. And especially the what I'm calling the community guides, which is a way for two or more people to come together, to read the journey of the Gospel as my spiritual journey with Christ.

And I just want to really invite people to look at those guides and perhaps grab one other, two other people. This is not about huge numbers.

Bring the Gospel journey alive in your life. Secondly, there is my Facebook page, which is Alexander John Shaia - author. It's my work Facebook page and there's just all sorts of further good material that's on that Facebook page.

So the Quadratos website. And Alexander John Shaia author, Facebook page. And then finally, the book, Heart and Mind: The Four Gospel Journey for Radical Transformation. And the word radical there is really true because if you work with Jesus Christ, Christ is not concerned about superficially changing your mind. Christ is inviting you to live from a deep place in the midst of trial and obstacles, and all the difficult news that we hear today. Do you want to know a radiant path of contentment, equality and service? The Four Gospel Journey for Radical Transformation So thats at the website, the Facebook page and of course the book.

Seth 56:57

Absolutely. Well, good. Well, I will let you go there. Thank you so much.

Alexander 57:00

Seth, thank you so much and every blessing of Easter.

Outro 57:26

Thank you all for listening. Thank you for your engagement. I want to ask you to if you didn't do it at the beginning, do it now. Go to iTunes rank the show. That is the best way that you can help the conversations that are happening here, bubble up on the internet so that more people can interact with them. On top of that, share the show, share it with your family and friends, Facebook, social media, whatever Avenue you choose is a great avenue. And lastly, I would also ask if you feel so led to become a patron at patreon.com slash Can I say this at church you'll also find a link to that on the website. Can I say this at church com.

I am very grateful for those of you that have taken the time and your money to do so. I can't tell you how appreciative I am of your willingness to become part of the community that is the Can I say this a church podcast.

Talk to you next week.

15 - Grateful with Dr. Diana Butler Bass / Transcript

Note: Can I Say This at Church is produced for audio listening. If able, I strongly encourage you to listen to the audio, which has inflection, emotion, sarcasm where applicable, and emphasis for points that may not come across well in written word. This transcript is generated using a combination of my ears and software, and may contain errors. Please check the episode for clarity before quoting in print.

Back to the Audio


Intro 1:00

Hey there! Welcome to another episode of The Can I say This church Podcast. I am your host Seth, excited for the conversation today and I think you will be too. To the handful of you that have gone on and rated the show on iTunes. Thank you so much that helps more than you know. The Apple overlords have an algorithm and it likes ratings and reviews. So for those of you listening right now, just hit pause, take 20 seconds, go review this show, I will be forever grateful will send you a bag of Pop Rocks, it'd be great. I would also ask the same thing for those of you and thank those of you that have gone on to Patreon we are slowly but surely gaining steam there and that will only ensure that the show is able to maintain the status quo and hopefully grow in the future and I am forever grateful. For those of you that have taken the time to do that: your time, your commitment and the donations are greatly appreciated.

Today I have the joy of speaking with Dr. Diana Butler bass who is an award winning author of nine books on American religion. She has her PhD in religious studies from Duke University. She's taught at different colleges at the graduate level. She's currently an independent scholar and she lives in Alexandria, Virginia. We discussed a bit of her history, her theological upbringing and the practice of being grateful, and how we as Christians need to look at gratitude through a lens of Jesus, and how we use that to further the Kingdom for today and live in an economy of grace. And so I look forward to to hearing this much, Diane Butler Bass.

Seth 2:49

Diana, thank you so much for taking the time to join the Can I say this at Church podcast. I appreciate you coming on and I'm looking forward to the conversation today.

Diana 2:59

Well, I appreciate coming on, and I just love the title of your podcast. Because there are all kinds of things I always want to say at church and hold my tongue. Maybe this is my chance.

Seth 3:09

I agree. Yeah, say whatever you want, we'll leave it alone. And then any of those questions that you feel like you want to say, just send those to me and, and we'll work through them together. So I'd like to take a little bit of our time at the beginning just to get to know you a bit. What would you want people to know about you a little bit of your story, your background, and then we'll roll into the topic at hand, which is your upcoming book, Grateful.

Diana 3:35

Well, I think that for the purposes of a podcast with the title you have, is a bit of my, my spiritual autobiography. And I've published rather widely about my own sort of journey. And I was born and raised Methodist in Baltimore, I was born in 1959. My 20 year old daughter loves saying, “Mom, you were born in the 50s”. Well, just as they were ending (laughter), I don't remember them.

So I grew up in a Methodist Church in Baltimore City. And then my parents moved to Arizona when I was 13. And it was there that we just joined another Methodist Church, but Arizona is a very different place than Baltimore. And so I was a young teenager and I went off kind of a my own spiritual journey. From growing up Methodist. I just started going to different kinds of religious and spiritual groups with various friends of mine. Synagogue, Catholic Church; those are sort of the heydays of the charismatic movement in the Catholic Church. Mormon, healing services on the Pima Indian community that was right off of Scottsdale, about two blocks from where I lived.

So I searched around and I wound up in this evangelical Bible Church, which was what I would call “soft fundamentalism”. And it was that kind of evangelicalism that shaped my journey for about the next 10 years. I wound up going to an evangelical College in California, and then an evangelical seminary outside of Boston. And it was there that I figured out, finally, that I was actually really good at theology, and I loved theology. And it bothered me, in the early 1980s, that there were so few women who were engaged in teaching theology, teaching church history, teaching Bible. So I went on to Duke and got a PhD in religious studies. And it was in the years in which I was floating around in sort of the evangelical world that I eventually actually became a member in an Episcopal Church.

When I was in Massachusetts, going to seminary, I joined formally an Episcopal church that was right near the seminary campus. And so I've, for a long time, consider myself sort of an evangelical Episcopalian. And eventually, I sort of began to just drop the evangelical moniker and I realized that my journey was really kind of a big wide journey, in and through American Protestantism, with a lot of curiosity about other forms mostly of Christianity. And so that's my journey, in terms of the kinds of churches that I've gone to different places that I have gone. But all along the way. I've always asked questions.

Where is God?

Where's my heart?

What do we do in the world?

What does God care about?

So these kinds of motivating very experiential questions have always been at the center of my spiritual path and it's pretty good. My birthday is actually not too far in the future as we're recording this just a few days ahead. And I turned 59 this year, and that's pretty exciting to think about six decades of very serious church going and I think my friends would say, of me, that I really have spent now a lifetime reflecting on issues of meaning, of Scripture, of prayer, and of trying to figure out what it means to love God and love our neighbors.

Seth 8:00

That sounds like a lifetime well spent. side little tangent. What do you find is the biggest difference between a pickup alien or versus, you know, even fundamental evangelical? What is the biggest, the biggest change?

Diana 8:15

Yeah, it was interesting, the point of crisis in that dual identity of evangelical and Episcopal actually came not too terribly long after I joined the Episcopal Church, although I really didn't want to admit that it was a crisis for a little bit of time. And that was that the years I spent within evangelicalism we're so focused on doctrine, on having to have the correct views of God. And if you didn't think the right stuff about who Jesus was, and how salvation happened, and how to interpret the Bible then your eternal fate was up for grabs.

And so there was a deep concern for orthodoxy in every kind of issue related to life in the evangelicalism that I knew. Which is a little odd in some ways, because in the 18th century, evangelicalism had started out as not a movement that was terribly concerned about orthodoxy. It was concerned about the right relationship of the heart.

John Wesley, who's considered to be one of the originators of the Evangelical movement, his whole experience was that of a heart being strangely warmed. And George Whitfield, who was his colleague, talked about the need to be born again. And neither of those two things is about doctrine.

But by the time of the late 20th century in the United States when I was floating around the evangelical subculture, everything was about right belief. And if you deviated anywhere, you were in trouble; and so that was part of my experience.

Then in the Episcopal Church, originally what caught my attention was that every single week you know, you said this creed, and I couldn't believe that. No evangelical church, no matter how concerned they were with doctrine, no evangelical church I had ever been in said the creed. And so here was this, this church with these beautiful buildings. And this, you know, beautiful, amazing liturgy and these, these rich hymns and the creed right at the center of the service and I thought, “wow, this is cool”.

This is not really like worshiping in a gym and listening to a sermon on how you must be born again and believe that there's the Rapture.

Seth 11:03

Yeah

Diana 11:06

And I joined the Episcopal Church because I thought it unified things that I really cared about.

11:13 Seth

Yeah, I like that I like that you're allowed to experience emotion because I think you're right. Evangelicalism in my mind is extremely logical. It's it's a or b l, one or zero. And there's nothing in between or that you know, you're not supposed to have anything in between.

11:29 Diana

Right. And that was what was so amazing to me about the Episcopal Church is that everyone evangelicals, I knew insulted mainline churches by saying things like, oh, they're the frozen chosen. But what I experienced is that actually Episcopalians could be very emotive about their liturgy. That is I would see people deeply moved in church through those written prayers, and through the, you know, as you went through the cadences of the church year, and services of candlelight and services of great darkness, like the Ash Wednesday and Good Friday services, and so so I thought, wow, you know, this is this is really amazing. But the Unity didn't hold a whole long time.

Because I began to see very quickly that Episcopalians would recite these creeds, and they form those frameworks for what they believed. But they were also very willing to question them. And, that really scared me. And so I would look around and I would be in church with people who would be deeply shaped by the liturgy, and then you talk to them during the coffee hour, and you'd find out (and this is, you know, back in the 80s) things like they thought that women could be priests.

I went, “Oh my gosh, how can that possibly be? Isn't that a violation of, of the hierarchy established by God in Genesis and then again in the book of Ephesians” and so they really puzzled me.

And then one day at the church I attended, in Massachusetts, this Episcopal Bishop came and did a adult Sunday school hour.

And that church, because it was right next to the seminary, this evangelical seminary, there were actually a lot of people in that Episcopal church who were very doctrinally focused, even though there were others who were much broader and questioning. So it was kind of a mixed congregation. But the people who were the really doctrinally fixated, folks at that congregation attacked the bishop during this Sunday School hour. And the bishop, I remember sitting in that in that, you know, in the audience that was in a parish hall, and the bishop didn't react…he was not reactive at all. He was not mean back to this attack. Instead, he just said, All I can do is tell you one thing. And that is God is love. And that love is a great mystery.

Seth 14:29

Well, I think that leads beautifully into the book that you've written. And I wanted to talk a bit about your heart and your mind behind your most recent book, Grateful. I know that you live, you know, in Northern Virginia, and I know that timeline that you have written this book in over the, you know, the past year and a half, two years and just how, mmmm, what's a good word, hateful the world is and so how are you able to insulate yourself from the attitudes from the politics, how were you able to insulate yourself and write a book about being grateful or the act of gratitude?

Diana 15:08

That's a great question, because I wasn't, I think we live in a culture right now that unless you're a hermit, it's actually impossible to insulate yourself from what's going on in the world. I think the closest thing that we come to, in terms of trying to insulate ourselves is that we create these silos. So at least our engagement of the world, or the way we receive information from the world, is protected is bound read in ways that we approve for that limit us becoming uncomfortable or upset by what's going on in the world.

So I wouldn't say that I was actually insulated when I was writing Grateful.

What I just told you about the the idea that God is love and that love is a great mystery. In some ways, I think that's the the two words sentence that really describes the whole of my spiritual journey. And every project I take on and every question that I pursue in my writing is really shaped by that, that, that God is love and that love is a great mystery. So, when I was working on grateful I actually got the contract for that book and the spring, I believe we signed the contract of 2016. So that meant that during that really horrible, conflicted presidential election year, I was signed up to write a book on gratitude. And so I started doing the research and, you know, just I learned a lot. (I) interviewed a number of scholars who study gratitude and I began reading in a field I had no expertise in at all.

And that is the field of positive psychology and I was really interested in thinking about how positive psychology and theology intersected. And so I'm, I'm doing all that, you know, kind of work. And meanwhile, what's happening, you said in, you know, insulated from the world is that the elections are intruding on this, you know. So I would write or try to write, yeah, I would try to write and then it come up in fixed dinner and watch the news. And it was like, Oh, my gosh, this is horrible. And the election cycle just got worse and worse and worse and angrier and angrier. And finally, that anger that was all around us all, I just got to the point where I had to lay it down and say, Okay, I can't write about gratitude right now.

I can do a little bit more research, but I can't really put anything on the page. I'll get back to it on November 8, and then November 8 happened. And anybody who knows my work, or follows me on social media knows that I am not a fan of Donald Trump. And, you know, it doesn't mean that if you did vote for Donald Trump, you are morally deficient. To say that I don't like Donald Trump is not an attack on anyone who happened to have voted for him.

But for me, it was it was devastating, devastating, painful, almost physical blow when he was elected. And the reason for that is actually in the book, and I don't really want to give a spoiler on that.

Unknown Speaker 19:00

I don’t blame you, it is…one thing I’ve come to appreciate most and…I've been following you on social media for a while. But the stories that are in this book, I think, are relatable to either side, either way, you're going to relate to it, because it's the stories that we have, as the stories that we had yesterday, and the, you know, we're recording this just the day after, you know, horrible shooting in Florida and yeah, I just, mmmm

I mean, the stories resonate and the emotion resonates, which I find is a man is hard. I find emotionally connecting, sometimes it's hard. And you talk a bit about that, how there's the sense that gratitude is somehow viewed as a feminine trait, or not allowed for men, which I think I would agree with. The way I was raised, not the way I was raised, but the way that our culture raises us is you have to be John Wayne, for lack of a better word, you have to be stoic.

Diana 19:58

Right and there is a lot in grateful which is about how violence and suffering inhibits our ability to be able to experience gratitude. And that's what I was really worried about when Trump was elected. What I had experienced through the campaign's was an increasing amount of public violence directed particularly towards women and persons of color. And as a person who believes that God is love and that love is a great mystery. Watching a culture disintegrate into verbal and actual physical violence is devastating in certain ways. So, anyway, I just, you know, I had a book contract, and I had to write. And so eventually, I after about six weeks after the election, I sort of pulled myself together because I was very upset. And I, I just said, Okay, this book is due, April, whatever it was, I think it was a 15th Tax Day; called the publisher told them I was running late, it would probably come in about May 15. And they said, that's fine. And so what happened was, I wound up writing a book on gratitude and the first 100 days of Donald Trump being President, and it was, it was very hard. And your talking about…gratitude of always involves vulnerability and community, and connection.

And right now those three things, vulnerability, community, and connection are all very frayed in American culture, and so you had asked how they insulate myself. I actually went the opposite direction. There was a time, last Lent, I decided that I wasn't gonna watch very much news on the television. And that wasn't really about installation. That was more about sanity. I wanted to I wanted to control the flow of news that came into my house so, you know, we get the Washington Post and listen to NPR and, you know, we would watch one hour of cable news a night rather than anything more extensive than that.

So I knew what was going on in the world. I just didn't get into every sort of jot and tittle and outrage, you know about it. So, but it was obvious while I was working on the book, that in order to really understand gratitude, I had to at least know the despair of the opposite. And our culture right now is very much riddled with with arguments about gratefulness and appreciation. And I'd say we've lost, in large measure, vulnerability community and connection.

Gratitude really understanding it beginning to practice, it might be a way back toward being a better kind of society. least that's what I hope.

Seth 23:08

And so with that in mind, for those listening as a Christian, what is what is gratitude? What are we seeking to do…it's just something we feel, is something we have to do? How do we do gratitude?

Diana 23:23

The first level of gratitude, of course, is that it's a feeling. You know, we walk outside and it's a beautiful day and you say, “Oh, I'm so thankful it's not raining again”. And that sense of wonder or appreciation, just about simple things like that. What we feel, that is gratitude. There are some psychologists and philosophers to say that that's not enough. But I think that that very simple, very primal, human response to when you receive something that you perceive to be a gift, whether it's sunshine or a neighbor coming over and saying good morning or giving you my little bouquet of flowers because she knows you've been feeling bad. That is just like, “wow. Thanks”. You know. And so that's gratitude at its most basic level, a feeling that I experienced that you experience for something good that happens.

But there's another level of it. And that is that idea that gratitude is something that we do. And that level is also one that I think we all have experienced with for good or for ill. And that is if your grandparents give you a present at Christmas, you're supposed to write them a thank you note. So that's more than just how you feel about the present, but it also has to be a recognition and a ritual act, that expresses that gratitude that you return to the giver. And so that is an action of gratitude that’s doing something.

So gratitude is a feeling and it is an action. And those two things, some of us are better at the feelings and some of us are better at the actions. I have known only a scant few people who were good at both.

(laughter)

Most people have to sort of most people when it privileging one over the other. But one of the things of course, that I argue in the book is that feelings and actions, when they're balanced and when they're in harmony is part of health and well being. And when it comes to gratitude, being able to employ both the feeling and the action is I much more full some experience of gratitude. I hear that and in part of me, and probably it's the banker in me hears grandma gives me a gift. I write a thank you note. And so it's, it's a then B, it's transactional and vinyl

Seth 25:49

I hear that and part of me, and probably it's the banker in me, hears grandma gives me a gift…I write a thank you note. And so it's, it's a then B, it's transactional and I know for myself, how I'm not good at that second half of the transaction. I am one that would never send a Christmas card because most of the people I send it to we don't even really talk. So I don't know why I'm doing this and spending 50 cents for each one of you, to send you to send you a card, which sounds horrible.

(laughter both)

But as we talked about before we started recording, that's why I couldn't be a pastor. So how do I…how does…how do you get past the, for myself, the guilt of not being able to reciprocate what the other person probably needs?

Diana 26:30

Well, that is actually the problem with gratitude is that when someone gives us a gift, there is a required or obligatory response. And that little piece right there the obligation, the debt of gratitude, is something that a lot of people are uncomfortable with.

Seth 26:58

Yeah because usually I didn’t asked for it [the gift]. I appreciate you giving it to me but, well, I didn't ask for this.

Diana 27:02

Right. And so now I'm in your debt‽ What! Now I have to, I have to now invite you to a dinner party, or I have to send you a Christmas card or I've got to go out of my way to go down to the Hallmark store and buy a thank you card and spend time writing it, mailing it and put, you know, the whole deal. And so we have had this idea of gratitude as a transaction or an economic exchange. I do this and you do that.

That's not gratitude that's called quid pro quo. And that's what we have gotten in our brains in the United States. We've mixed those two things up, gratitude and quid pro quo. Those are not the same thing.

Gratitude ideally, is free from obligation.

The Giver gives a gift with no expectation of return. So givers have to give gifts freely and beneficiaries return their thanks, not as an obligation, but as a recognition and as a response to the gift. And so, one of the things I argue in the book is that there's a, what I call a, corrupted system of gratitude.

Which I refer to as a debt and duty gratitude. And that is, debt and duty gratitude, is when a benefactor gives a gift in anticipation of what he or she is going to get in return. And then that binds the beneficiary into a relationship, usually an unwanted relationship of exchange, and until the beneficiary carries whatever that exchange is, the beneficiary is in a thrall, in a sense to the benefactor.

That's debt and duty gratitude right there.

Seth 29:14

Yeah. And you see power as well, at the same time, you're not even intending to, but it seems like you, you're now subservient until you repay what is owed.

Diana 29:22

Yeah, that's it. That's exactly right. And you hear this all the time in our culture,,you know.

How could you do that to me, I did this for you? You know, it's also royals in our politics. It's like, well, I gave you a donation. You know, if you can imagine. You're some big corporation and you give…well, this is the discussion we're having the day after the Parkland shooting. We've been having a talk dispute a cultural discussion about the National Rifle Association, and they are all these United States senators who have been given two or more million dollars for their campaigns by the National Rifle Association. You know, any kind of political action committee doesn't give somebody $2 or $3 million without expecting a vote in return.

And so what we do know is it on both on the political right and on the political left, there are politicians who have been given big “gifts” by these benefactors. And those benefactors then control the vote. They expect in return, that that politician will vote the way they want. And that is a system of quid pro quo, or debt and duty gratitude. And it's corrupted...it's completely corrupted. And, and so how do you break through that?

The point that I argue in the book is that that kind of vision of gratitude, debt, and duty is actually in violation of our faith traditions. That is not the kind of gratitude that is depicted in any world religion. And because of course, I'm a Christian, as I say in the book, I'm going to write about that mostly from a Christian perspective drawing from the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament.

But the the principles are very much the same in Islam and Buddhism and in Hinduism. The major world religions do not depict gratitude as debt and duty, even though we sometimes act as if they do in our churches. The way Christianity understands gratitude is that it's a gift and a response. Not that duty.

Seth 31:56

Yeah, I mean, that's Easter. That's Jesus. That's the lens that we need to view everything through, I think. But that's so…it's so hard to do.

Seth 32:08

It's hard to do because we've been taught a different way in Western culture. But what we've been taught in Western culture is clearly killing us and is a deep corruption of the biblical vision. And so we have to ask ourselves, what do we want? Do we want to live within a system of gratitude that traps us and holds us in debt? Or will we follow Jesus? Who when the disciples asked him,

Lord, how do we pray?

Jesus turned around and said to them, we'll pray this way, as we forgive our debtors.

The central point of the Lord's Prayer is freedom from bondage of debt is the release from relationships of exchange and quid pro quo.

We don't usually think about it like that we usually think about “Oh, Jesus, so forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us”. So we're going to ask God to forgive us those naughty things that we do, and we're going to forgive the people who do naughty things against us. That's not what it says. That's not what it says in Greek. And it sure is not the heck what Jesus said when he was preaching it in Aramaic.

Jesus said, forgive us our debts, as we forgive those who have held us in debt. And what he's saying is you pray every single day to strike down the system of bondage that holds you and your neighbors in this unhealthy relationship. And instead, you're going to live in the freedom of gifts, and grace.

That's what the Lord's Prayer says. And people can say that it says something different, but I will take them to the theological bank on that one.

Seth 34:03

I love that I wish there was a podcast version of that Christina Aguilera GIF that you see on the internet that just has her waving her hand saying preach that's I wish there was a an audible version of that!

Both 34:16

Laughter

Seth 34:41

I do have a question. So its inner woven throughout this book and also some of the some of the stuff that you say online and, and if I'm taking this wrongly tell me; so you reference often “white churches are the frozen chosen” and you have today or in the white Methodist or the white Catholics or the white Pentecostals and I can't think that those choices of words are unintentional. And so is there is there something hindering, quote unquote, white culture or white ethnicity that limits us from experiencing gratitude in a way that a different culture can? Or am I misreading something?

Diana 35:21

That is that's very purposeful. I am a white person. And so what I knew I did not want to do, I mean, one of the things that actually was very hard for me while I was working on this book, was not only the fact that Donald Trump was president, and that personally hurt me. But the fact that I couldn't imagine that the world needed one more gratitude book by a white lady who was a middle class person. You know, it just was like, it was just like, I don't need that book. I wouldn't buy that book. What? Who cares about that book you know, who lives in the suburbs of Northern Virginia? It was like I’d be offended by that book in some ways. And so I actually had to think through this, very deeply, and pray through it quite extensively. And you know, what I realized, of course, about white folks like me is that we have been some of the main perpetrators of debt and duty gratitude.

Because we were the benefactors.

And we wanted to use our power to stay on top. And as long as we could think of other people, the poor or black folks or Hispanic people, or, you know, whoever—immigrants or whoever it happened to be, as long as we could think of them as our beneficiaries, and we were benefactors, you could use gratitude as a system of control; and this is absolutely true. Not only sort of in our deep psychology, but you can go back and you can look at this all through the history of slavery. And just in the way white people treat black people, you should be grateful.

No, you don't really need affirmative action, you should be grateful that you're even allowed to attend the University of Virginia now; so just work hard and be grateful. And so so why people have often use gratitude as a mechanism to control populations and individuals that they wanted to keep in bondage.

And, and so, you know, sometimes actually, that worked with men and women too. So, white women, often found themselves in that same position when it came to white men. And so, you know, the there's the ultimate benefactor, and then there's all the people who are the beneficiaries of whatever gifts the benefactor chooses to give. So that whole vision is very tied up in the United States with race.

I wouldn't say that I tackle it entirely directly in this book that I pointed out. And I tried to undo it in this book.

Seth 38:24

No, it's not even it's as I say, it's interwoven throughout. I actually had to go back and reread some some sections to make sure I wasn't isremembering. So.

Diana 38:34

Yeah, and I think it's really important because what happens is that most white churches reinforce gratitude as a transaction. And that has been, that's a big theological problem for white people and for persons of color and for churches and for our society, is that we seem to have “divinized” the idea of God is the ultimate benefactor and all we have to do is, you know…God gives us gifts, and then we're sort of indebted to God. That's not even grace. I mean, the reformers would be holding their feet over the fire on that, and saying, No, no, no, no, that's not how it works.

God is is not that kind of gift giver. And so, I did not want to speak for persons of color, but I did want readers who are not white, to know that I understood at least some level of the way that this has been, gratitude has been, wielded as a weapon against them, and also the fact that I deeply appreciate; if you ever go to black church, they have so much thicker sort of language and worship and understanding of gratitude. So despite the way that white people have tried to use gratitude against black people in this culture

The black church experience, the spiritual experience of African Americans, actually said, nope, we're not gonna let you do that. But you're also not going to take away our Thanksgiving.

We're going to embody thanksgiving Biblically. And and so I think that communities which have been pushed down by debt and group duty, gratitude are actually communities where we can all learn a lot about what it means to have this alternate vision of gift and response gratitude.

Seth 40:42

Yeah, A couple final questions. I'm probably gonna say it wrong. But there is a portion in your work that talks about psychology and something called peak experience and how patriotism is fine but the risk is mutating. I think that's the word you use mutating patriotism into nationalism. And I can't see how that's not any more relevant. It's never going to be not more relevant than it is now. Because that's all that you hear all the time. And so can you speak a bit about what that means peak experience and how that mutates our feelings of gratitude or feelings of love or fear.

Diana 41:26

I'm not an expert and Maslow, who is a psychologist who talks about peak experiences. But you know, peak experiences are these elevating experiences which draw you to levels of gratitude and wonder and you know, the kinds of experiences that make you stand taller and your chest swell and your eyes tear. And they're very dominant kinds of experiences that we have around healing.

You know, when a doctor tells you you're free of cancer, for example, you know, you have a peak experience. Or in religious community, there's often peak experiences. But the place where I talk about it, because I think it's actually most common for many Americans, is around patriotism. And I'm a huge baseball fan. And every year we spend a certain number of our days at National Stadium in Washington, DC. And one of the things I tend not to be that kind of person who has peak experiences around patriotism. For me, it's always around friendship and church. But you know, people have them and every single time you're at the baseball park, there's this stretch where they thank the veterans and play some sort of patriotic song usually Lee Greenwood's I'm glad to be an American. And everybody in the park sort of applause wildly and stands up. And there are people who are like tears in their eyes and the whole thing. And there's vets who are sitting in a special box, and they're all waving to the crowd. And I look at this and I think to myself, okay, this is interesting. And so I recognize that people have peak experiences around patriotism.

And that's, you know, they stand tall, they applaud, tears in their eyes, they feel happy, they feel grateful to be an American, and that's okay. But the line is when you say to yourself, I feel this about being an American. And you can't feel this, about being a Canadian.

Or you can't feel this about being an Argentinian or you can't feel this, about being from Senegal. And the truth is, is that every single person born on this planet was born somewhere.

And that place is their homeland. And that place makes them stand tall. And that place brings tears to their eyes. And that place makes them proud of who they are. And any person who is patriotic about his or her own homeland, should be able to recognize that every other person on this planet loves their own homes wherever they came from and they feel the same way about their home.

But nationalism says that's not possible. Nationalism says there's only one place where you can have those feelings “Deutschland über Alles” Germany over all. The United States is the best and only nation for which you can have those feelings, and everybody else who has those feelings are wrong or misled. And that's the difference. Patriotism, yes. Fine line—nationalism; No!

It's not gratitude if you say, us and only us, but it is gratitude, if you can say, yes, this is a beautiful set of feelings. And this same set of feelings can be accessed by every single human being on this planet.

Because gratitude binds people together, and causes people to be able to emphasize and recognize the full humanity that we all share.

National nationalism cuts that possibility off, and says that only one group possesses those things. And that group is my group.

Seth 45:36

And so how do we do that as it's going to have to be the church, and you alluded to it earlier, you know, in the early 1800s, that’s what the church did. They loved on people. And so how do we do that? How do we establish and I think he used the words an economy of gratitude. And when I hear that, I think everybody gets to have dessert and the fact that I get two pieces doesn't mean that you don't get seven pieces. There's…there's desert. So if we use that metaphor, how do we make sure that the economy is one that gratitude, and grace, and lack of debt, is not scarce? That it is abundant? What do we do?

Diana 46:19

Well, I think that's the key right there. And those two words that you just used-abundance and scarcity.

Functionally, most American churches are still teaching a theology of scarcity. And that is, Heaven is above. And, you know, Hell is below. And Heaven has a limited number of tickets. (laughter..) Essentially, you know, we don't always say it quite that way. Although if you're a Calvinist, you actually do say that.

That you know, you have to do something in order to go to heaven. And that it's Heaven is only for the few.

And so we teach this kind of scarcity really of salvation. You know, if you don't do “X”, Well, too bad, you're going to go to “Y”. You know, that's the that's the deal. And we also teach a scarcity of God's presence, you know, unless you pray in the right way to God, God will not heal you, God will not send you blessings. And so we are surrounded in churches all the time by a scarce theology of scarcity. I think this is actually…I think people have noticed this. And I think that that theology of scarcity accounts for some of the popularity say, of the prosperity gospel. Where I think that the prosperity gospel is really trying to teach a theology of abundance, that God is good that God is loving that God's blessings are everywhere. But where the prosperity Gospel goes wrong is they never fully account for issues of evil and suffering. They always blame that on on us, you know, on human beings. And so I actually have some serious appreciation for the Prosperity Gospel, because I think they're trying to correct a very big problem in American Theology, that salvation, that blessings, that goodness, that grace is only for a few.

But they still, the prosperity people, still determine that in terms of economics, and just don't really account for sadness and oppression and if you can't account for those two things, well then it's difficult to see how it really winds up being the gospel. So I think what we need is we need a more, a more fulsome…a more…just…I've used the word fulsome twice in this interview. But that's the word that I like right now. (laughter both)

I think we really truly need a richer, deeper understanding of abundance. And at this point in time the way I understand abundance is that God created.

God created this universe, God created this world, and that God created a world where we have everything we need.

The poet Wendell Berry, that's one of my favorite lines from his huge corpus of work.

Everything we need is here.

And for us as human beings, what that means is that everything we need is here, that that there that the world actually is an abundant world. It's not a world of scarcity,

That what makes it scarce, is when we abuse it and we try to control it. And we make bad choices about it. And for us to reach towards that abundance is to say, no, we're not going to make those choices. We're not going to live in a world where the illusion is that everything is about slices of pie.

But instead, we're going to live in a world where Jesus says, everyone come to the banquet. And we really need to live that way. As if God really does set the table, and if God sets the table, there is enough for all.

And it's no surprise to me that two of the central stories in sort of in corpus of miracles in the New Testament, are very strong stories about abundance. The feeding of the 4000 and the feeding of the 5000.

And that's God's vision of scarcity versus abundance right there in the Bible.

And so that's how I think, at least in our traditions, and there are beautiful, also very beautiful traditions of theology of abundance in the Hebrew Bible. So, Christians and Jews and Muslims all have a deep theology of abundance. Muslims have an amazing theology of abundance that comes from the traditions of the Quran. Where Hagar is sent out in the desert, you know, with her son Ishmael, and they, they actually are going to die of thirst.

And there's a spring that wells up and the spring is Divine, and they drink.

Seth 51:53

Everything thet need is there.

Diana 51:55

Everything they need is there and so in the great monotheistic traditions, which are at the core of Western culture and Western values is not a theology of scarcity. That is false! Theology of scarcity is idolatry. It is heresy.

The Bible, Jewish theology, Christian theology, Islamic theology, teach abundance.

And if we don't do that, well, our churches are illegitimate. And our culture is corrupted. And that's pretty good example, what's been going on. We've allowed a theology of scarcity to shape our economic life, and it should not.

Seth 52:37

I think I could talk to you for many more hours about this, but we don't, we don't have the ability to do it. We don't need to have the time for that. So for those listening, if you haven't pre-ordered or ordered that just just order the book, I can assure you, in the world that we live in and the climate that you need. Everyone can learn to embrace gratitude a little bit better. And I think Diana, you've done a good job. And I don't know that I would have been able to write it with the world that we live in. I'd say I'm certain that I wouldn't have been able too. Where would you put send people to? How can they connect with you and get engaged?

Diana 53:15

I'm easy to find on social media. I am a very active presence on Twitter. I try to respond to people who asked me real questions and good questions. If they come on to Twitter and just want to, you know, attack me, I will block you. (both laughter)

But I do my best when there's a real serious question that's asked, I do my best to engage it. And also, I have a public Facebook page, my private one is closed, it's actually full. But the public page facebook page is another place to find me through my website, and there's a way to contact me on my website. So you can ask me questions privately. And as I said, I try to engage. I can’t always promise I get to everything. But I do my best.

Seth 54:05

Excellent. Well, thank you again for your time, Diana. I've enjoyed it. It's been a pleasure.

Diana 54:12

It was great to meet you. And I'm so pleased that you liked Grateful. And at this point in time, I think it may well be one of the few pathways we have back toward one another, instead of away from one another at this difficult time in the life of our Nation.

Outro 54:43

Thank you so much for listening.

I would encourage…I would ask for your feedback. Please email us at CanIsaythisatchurch@gmail.com interact with us on Facebook and Twitter. Your feedback only helps to make the show better. If you have like in any way, or have you engaged in any way with any of the podcast episodes that you've heard so far, please consider going to our Patreon page you can find that at Can I say this church com is big huge button up there, like us on Facebook and we will see you in the next episode.

14 - Open Theism with Dr. Greg Boyd / Transcript

Note: Can I Say This at Church is produced for audio listening. If able, I strongly encourage you to listen to the audio, which has inflection, emotion, sarcasm where applicable, and emphasis for points that may not come across well in written word. This transcript is generated using a combination of my ears and software, and may contain errors. Please check the episode for clarity before quoting in print.

Back to the Audio!


Welcome back to the Can I Say This At Church podcast. The last few episodes have been more “heady”, more emotionally driven, more ministry driven. And I still always have that theological edge. I was privileged to be able to talk today with Greg Boyd, about Open Theism, which is a view of the future and how God has His hand in that, and is impacting that, and how our free will is involved in the choices that we make. You'll hear the arguments against, you'll hear a little bit of a pushback on…well, if this is true, then how can I know that “x” is going to happen? I think it's fantastic conversation. I'm excited for you to hear it. So here we go. Dr. Greg Boyd.

Seth 2:02

Dr. Boyd, thank you so much for joining the show today. We'd like to begin with a quick thank you again. And if you could just briefly, tell us a little bit about yourself.

Greg 2:15

Hi Seth, thanks for having me on. It's good to be here. Okay, who is Greg Boyd? Let's see here, I'm a husband of Shelly Boyd, been married for 37…38 years.

We're going on 38 years.

Seth 2:32

Should I edit that you want me to protect you?

Greg 2:35

It’s right, that's all right. She doesn't remember either. You know, after a while, they all start all blurring together. We've got three grown kids, we got five grandkids. I pastor a church here in Maplewood, Minnesota, Woodland Hills Church, and I am President of ReKnew ministries, you find us at reknewed.org. We have a podcast and writings and stuff like that?

Seth 2:56

Fantastic. Yeah, I've enjoyed that website immensely over the last few years. So just a little bit of background. So you know where I'm coming from, for these questions. So I grew up extremely fundamental, evangelical, I would call it “church politics”, and I'm no longer that. And so that's kind of the upbringing of this.

Greg 3:15

Hallelujah!

Seth 3:17

If someone just Google's open theism right now, just to hit pause and Google it, your name quickly comes to the top few results, as I was hoping maybe you could just tell us a little bit about open theism. What do you tell people when they say, “hey, what is open theism?

Greg 3:31

Well, the theism is just the belief that things really do depend on our decisions, your prayer really does make a difference. The things that you decide determine outcomes of things. Going through life here, and it's not a pro-forma activity, we're not going through the motions. Things really hang in the balance, and what we do, for better or for worse.

Now, a little more philosophical way of putting it is that open theism is just the belief that possibilities are real, possibilities are real, because God created agents, humans and angels with free will we have the possibility of going this way, or the possibility of going that way. And since that's what's real, that's what God knows is real, because God knows all reality perfectly, exactly as it is. And so it means that there's no eternal fact about what I will do. There are only facts about what I may or may not do, as the final “Real Thing”, possibilities are real. If it was a fact that I'm going to buy it by a green Toyota in 2021, if that was an eternal fact, then it's not possible for me to not buy a green Toyota in 2021. So possibilities aren't real. If all facts of the future are settled, then there are no other possibilities, not real possibilities.

What we call possibilities is simply our ignorance about the facts. But the open view holds that the possibilities really are real. It's not just a result of our ignorance about what's going to happen. Rather, the final thing to say about the future, at least to some degree, is that it might be this or might be that “Greg might buy the green Toyota, or Greg might not buy the green Toyota in 2021. So that's what God knows.

Seth 5:20

He knows that you might do either.

Greg 5:24

Right. Okay so that's the final, God knows all the facts. And that's the final fact, right now, the final fact is that it’s within my power to go this way or that way, and so that's what God knows this is real.

Seth 5:40

So to contrast that versus what I was taught growing up, which would be more of a, I guess, traditional or fundamental or Calvinist view of things. So that seems to fly in the face of, well, I guess, conventional thought from what you'll hear in many pulpits.

Greg 5:59

sure. Faith, both of classical Calvinism, which holds that, that all facts of history are, are eternally fixed, because God predestined them. But our Arminianism also holds that all of the future facts are fixed or settled but God didn't got and choose that—they just are. God just knows them.

But God isn't the one that settled those facts being the way they are. Which leads to the question, well, then what did settle the facts? If it’s a settled fact from all eternity, that Greg Boyd will buy a green Toyota in 2021. What settled that? Because I'm not eternal. I didn't choose that eternally. So it creates this kind of weird thing that the facts are out there, but nothing made those facts to be the way they are, and they just are from all eternity.

Seth 6:50

Okay.

Greg 6;52

It's kind of a form a Greek fatalism, because the Greeks also held that all facts are sort of eternal. But it wasn't that any God chose those or anything. It's just fate. It just, it's they just are the way they are from all eternity, and it could not be otherwise. Well, that's…that's fatalism.

Seth 7:14

Well, there's no choice in that I do have a random question. Is your lease up in 2021? You're planning on buying a car and a green Toyota?

Greg 7:18

(Laughter) No I’m not buying a new car and not a green Toyota.

Greg 7:27

Fair enough. Have you always been of this viewpoint that you are now, open theist?

Greg 7:35

Yeah, I went through the gamut of all different, you know, possibilities. Over the course of the years. I was just…,this church I was saved in when I was 16, was this classical Armenian. But then I evolved into sort of the, what's called the middle knowledge of the Molinist position, although I didn't know was that at the time but I thought it was a new idea of mine. Turns out, I read it in Origen. I, for a period of time, I was a Calvinist for a couple of years in seminary. That despite myself, I mean, I was a Calvinist for exegetical reasons. I couldn't, you know, come for Romans nine any other way. But I never assumed people liked it. Like, I believe that, but I couldn't. I couldn't see the glory in it. Like, you know, you hang around Calvinist and they're always like, oh, Gods all together good, all together, beautiful. Your gains everything for themselves brings good pleasure is beautiful. And I could never see the beauty in this, you know, I thought it'd be more beautiful, beautiful. If God didn't predestined the majority of human beings go to hell. But I eventually evolved out of that into the open view. This probably 1986, I think, was when I was really making the term. And I felt this way ever since.

Seth 8:48

I assume open theology, what the problem is, I can't find a lot of genealogy of it. So what is the history of this view of God? I mean, there's, there's so much literature on the other two?

Greg 9:04

Yeah, actually, that's the book that is waiting to be written. I have in my file here, a friend of mine down in Florida, has been collecting for 30 years, all this data and open theist in church history, and has Xerox’d me on all of them. And I've got piles sitting over there. But that's not the kind of book I'm interested in writing, but someone needs to write that. But he is traced that the earliest open theist I know of is the guy named Calcidius in the Fourth Century. And he was mainly a Christian commentator on Plato. In fact, his commentaries were very popular throughout the Middle Ages. And it's interesting because he advocates this, but he doesn't call it open theism or open future, but it's clear that's what is. His view is he holds the conditional prophecies is that all prophecies are conditional. They're not what will happen. But what will happen if things don't change, and that things can go this way or that way. And, but he uses commentaries, but no one ever objected to his view of the future, it's quite interesting. And then there was something in the 16th and 17th century, we find various groups from start to advocate this view, was pretty popular mind the early Wesleyans, and they debated it, and then it kind of it ebbs and flows. You know, what's interesting about the past, however, is that they debated these things, but no one ever throughout the heresy charges, that's like a modern thing to say, oh, you're a heretic for believing this, you because you think possibilities are real burn him at the sake.

But you find it being debated. And then in the 20th century, YWAM was one of the ones that really got it on the map, they started in the 50s. And their theology held to this kind of open view of the future. And then the modern openness movement, usually identified with the book, The Openness of God in 1994, Clark Pannock and John Sanders, those guys wrote that book, which all just go on record saying, I wish they hadn't grabbed the title, open theism. I do not like that title at all because it makes it seem as though the distinctive thing about this theology is its view of God.

That God is open. Any Armenian, would say that you know, that God's open to our influence and stuff like that. What's distinctive about this view is not about God, it's about the nature of the future. It should have been called “the open view of the future”, which sounds less sexy than open theism but it's more accurate, because it's really about it's a it's a position of what is the context of reality? Is it all settled facts? Or are possibilities real? And it has a view of the future that to some degree, the future is comprised not of subtle facts, but a possibility?

Seth 11:49

So this will be the old Calvinist coming out of me. So how, so you know, you get the five points, and one of them and I'm going to say it wrong, it's been too long. This is God's in ultimate control. He knows everything. He's all powerful. You can't do anything to change anything. So in that traditional, Western American church view,

So the problem is, it to me that seems not like a very powerful God all powerful, and that he said all the dominoes up, but then he can't put anything to stop any dominoes from changing shape or form…

Greg 12:27

He could if he wanted to. But that would imply that He had to change your mind, and in this view of God never changes in any respect whatsoever. There's, there's never, he has never has a new thought or anything. God is just eternally the same. But I agree with you, I, you know, here's what I never got you. And I believe that I couldn't see what was glorious about this God. Yeah, God could create a world in which every molecule is predetermined, okay, he can do that. But what would be glorious about that, of course, he could do that he's got the power to do that. But there's, there's nothing virtuous about exercising power that is innately yours. I mean, I can wiggle at my little finger, because it's my finger, but you're not going to praise me for it. God's praiseworthy, creative creation, where he's not pulling all the strings. And now he uses wisdom, to, you know, keep the world running and to keep on track and to go after his goals. It doesn't take any wisdom for me to wiggle my little finger. And I went to any wisdom for God to create a world where everything is predestined.

But the Bible exalts God's wisdom and providence, at least as much as it does is power. And you only need wisdom, if you have to problem solve, and you only have to problem solve it, there are agents who have their own will and their own thinking, and you've kind of got to work around them. And that I think, is a much more virtuous conception of God.

The other thing is the idea that God's power is about his ability to control everything. And that's what makes God sovereign. Well, that's that that is as pagan a notion as anything, go go back in history religions, and you'll find that that's always the kind of power that humans have been inclined to project onto the gods, because that's power, we create the Power To Win to be our enemies, you know, to protect ourselves. And so we projected onto the gods and the whole history, religion confirms that. So this is just another, you know, this is sort of a pagan god on steroids. It's got the same old pagan power, just a mega dose of it.

The other things, though, is that the New Testament teaches us, and this is one of the most radical, beautiful teachings of the entire New Testament, that the cross is foolishness and weakness to the world, but to us, it is the wisdom and the power of God. Paul redefines the omnipotent of God by pointing us to Calvary, when God shows off his power, he gets crucified. That's the kind of power that God relies on to to defeat evil and to run the world. And that's the opposite of course of power. That's the power of self sacrificial love. And, and I want always, you know, that that's the divinely inspired is because no human being would ever make that up. That's, that's the opposite of human beings have always said about the gods. This God is so wise and so powerful. He becomes a human being and gets crucified for a bunch of sinners, the very ones who crucify him, that is uncommon-sensical, and mysterious and beautiful. And that's one of the ways you know, it's true.

Seth 15:17

Yeah, I mean, that's the gospel. So you spoke earlier that in the past, when people would come to this view, that the heretical, the big H, on your forehead stamped on there wasn't so quickly thrown out, or maybe not thrown it at all. So why, and this has been accused of view, I've read passages back and forth in snippets of emails that are posted online, where you've had that same problem of being branded and escorted off the premises, for lack of better words.

Greg 15:47

Well they tried, they tried to get me removed from Bethel, and that didn't work. And they tried to get to get me kicked out of the ETS, the Evangelical Theological Society, but I wasn't a member. So that didn't work very well. But yeah, they tried different avenues to try to cut them off. But they haven't been successful, but the H word has been thrown around.

Seth 16:09

So I guess my question is, what is there to lose by entertaining the thought, of an open view?

Greg 16:17

Well, I, you know, from the perspective of mainly it’s the Calvinists who've been the ones who have been, you know, are arguing this, they see it as an assault on the glory of God, because they defined the glory of God by control. And, you know, RC Sproul in his book, Not a Chance, he argues that there's one molecule that's not controlled by God, then God is not God. His definition of God is all controlling, if God was not control, you wouldn't be God. So to advocate open theism would be equivalent to atheism, you know, they, so they just see it as diminishing God's glory. And, yeah, so they branded and throw it, but throwing the word heretic about…what you're doing there is you're, it's a way of, it's just a censorship move. And it's a way of trying to discourage people from taking it seriously.

And the more plausible the view is, the louder they have to scream, because they caricature it, and they don't want it to get a fair hearing, because they're afraid that people actually, you know, look at it sympathetically and they may believe it. And in their view, that'd be a total loss. So they throw out the charge to protect the flock.

Seth 17:24

Well, in my case, I had two options, I could deconstruct and put together everything and what I see and read the Bible and the gospel to be or I could just walk away. And I think many in my generation walk away. So in the open view, one of the critiques that I've read is that it takes my free agency, my free will, and it makes that usurp the sovereignty of God. Can you speak to that a bit? Because I don't understand how that could be. But also something logically makes sense about that statement?

Greg 18:00

Yeah. Notice that they are defining sovereignty as control there. There's that, you know, you're undermining sovereignty of God with your free will! Because sovereignty for them means control. But I would argue why go with that definition of sovereignty? Is that the most praiseworthy form of sovereignty that you can imagine?

I can imagine, when it's a little more praiseworthy, namely, one that’s not all controlling. When it comes to people, we don't respect people who try to micro control others. People might micro control others when they don't trust their character and their intelligence to get the job done working with other people. And I think the same is true God, why would it also be praiseworthy for God be doing something that we otherwise never, you know, find as being praiseworthy?

The other thing I'd say is this, CS Lewis said that in Mere Christianity, at one point he goes,

some people think that it is a denial of God's omnipotence if you were to create agents who had the power to say no to him, but I see it as the greatest act of omnipotence. The greatest act of omnipotence is that God would create creatures who have the capacity to say no to him.

And he created us with that capacity, because unless we have the capacity to say no to him, we can't say yes to Him in any way that's meaningful. And so we have this thing called free will. I think CS Lewis is right. I think it's it's the greatest act of God. Would Calvinists argue that God couldn't create such a being if you wanted to? And then you have to ask question, why wouldn't you want to? Is he threatened by us? What was going on here?

Seth 19:36

Yeah, I heard it was on a different different show somewhere but I heard Brian Zahnd on the other day, talking about Calvinism, saying it is one of the the most…a very good system, but it backs you into a corner that that is not very Jesus based, so very, very grace, based.

Greg 19:55

Well it is a good system if you mean by that just kind of logical rigidity.

Seth 19:59

that's what I mean

Greg 20:03

Yeah, yeah. The TULIP follows, you know, but the best, the best logical reasoning in the world isn't gonna be any good if your starting point is off, you know? I think their starting point is dead wrong.

Seth 20:15

So to take it to an eternal viewpoint. So if I can make my own choices now, what are my restrictions for the afterlife? What are my restrictions for I guess, in salvation, can I still choose to then?

Greg 20:34

Yeah, can we fall from heaven, kind of thing? Well, here's how I think about this Seth l, is that there's an ancient Maxim that it actually predates Christianity goes back to at least 500 BC, to Hericlitus, an ancient Greek philosopher, but he's picked up in the church tradition. And I think it's self evidently true. And this Maxim is this, that we begin by making our choices, but in the end, our choices make us or to phrase it a different way. Our choices, if we continue in them become habits and our habits, if we continue them become our character, and our character, if we continue in, it becomes our destiny. We get solidified in the decisions that we make. And the more you make any decision, the more likely it is that you'll continue to make that decision. And some ways our will is like watering down the side of a mountain, it creates grooves, and the deeper those grooves go, the more likely it is that the water will flow in those grooves rather than anywhere else.

So we get solidified in our in our in our character. And the ultimate endgame of this, I think, Seth, is that we have these choices to go this way or that way. But ultimately end up either with an even greater kind of freedom and the freedom of choice, or we end up in the greatest kind of bondage. That's to say this, that the goal, is for me to make loving choices now to become, to become habitually loving, to acquire a loving character to become a loving person. And when I get to where I am no longer just a person who chooses to love, but I am a loving person. Now I'm truly free. Because I still choose to love but I don't really even have the possibility of choosing otherwise, I don't struggle with that.

So I think for example, the husband who has consistently or that could be the wife, who's consistently chosen faithfulness over infidelity. And that maybe was difficult early on, when they were going through marriage problems, whatever. But by making those choices, they formed their character, to the point where at some point God would see even if these people didn't know God was see that their character is such that they would no longer be tempted to cheat on their spouse than they would be tempted to skin a cat, you know, it's just it doesn't have the allure. And that husband, or that spouse I think is more free than the one who has to struggle with the choice. That the first spouse has free will but the second spouse has a higher kind of freedom, which is the freedom to love out of your character.

And that's where we become godly. That's how God is like that God's character is inherently loving. And the goal of life, I think, is to become that. And so there's a final state where either we love, without the capacity of not loving, or we don't love, and we have no capacity for loving. You can get to the point where you no longer God would still save you if you turned to him. But there's nothing in you that is inclined in that direction. You've lost the capacity to even want to go

Seth 24:19

On your site, renew.org. You wrote an article, and I don't remember when, but it's about the difference between process theology versus open theism. I'd never heard of, quote unquote, process deal.

Greg 24:33

Right, right, the only thing they have in common is we both hold to a possibilities are real to the future that's partly open. The way that we get there is totally different. I mean, in process theology, you've got a God who is intrinsically limited, and who is eternally connected to a world God didn't create the world, ex nihlo, from nothing. God has always been God. And it's always been a world, the relationship between God and the world is the relation between your your brain and your body. Okay? That's the analogy that they sometimes use. And so and God is constrained by this by metaphysical principles, since he didn't create everything. Everything's this has always been the you know, as it is, it was given this God in the world, for eternity, so God's bound by certain metaphysical principles and metaphysical rules. Which I argue in my doctoral dissertation, it's called Trinity and Process, I argue that that the metaphysical constraints of process theology leads to some very unorthodox conclusions. Like God not being able to have special intervention the world, I don't see how the Incarnation is possible, you don’t have a triune God you have a by bipolar God.

And so the metaphysical system of process theology includes the view that the future is open. And so to that degree, it shares this open view of the future, but open theists who hold to the future do it for some philosophic ethical reasons, but mainly for Biblical reasons; but without any of that metaphysical baggage. And so I, sometimes, bristle when people try to compare the process thought with open theism, oh, you're just a stepping stone to process that. It's like that is so much nonsense. It's two very, very different things

Seth 26:21

I researched a few because I wanted to be transparent and ask questions that others would ask, so for some of the criticisms. So I've read other people say or read other people, asserting that Scripture does not hint that there could be anything that's unknown to Him. That everything is in and that this view is, And I wrote it down. Herman Bavinck said that

the the true manner to which he obtains knowledge is sometimes stated in striking anthropomorphic language, but he nevertheless knows everything. And the notion that something should be unknown to him is dismissed as absurd.

Greg 27:00

I totally agree. It's absurd! But what that objection tells me is that the person doesn't know much about open theism. No open theist who is informed would ever say that there's things God doesn't know. We hold to the Gods omniscience, God knows everything. God's knowledge and reality are are coterminous categories. They're identical. Okay, so. So to this objector, I just say, I totally agree, it's absurd to think that God would know something.

You see this person is assuming that future facts are out there. He's assuming a particular view, the southern view of the future, and critiquing open theism. And that assumption, so he's assuming that all the facts about you know, Greg buying a green Toyota in 2021, and everything else there, they are eternally out there. And so if I deny that God knows if I'm going to buy a green Toyota in 2021, this person thinks that I'm saying God doesn't know something. But in fact, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there's nothing out there. Got to know other than those possibilities, I might do this, or I might do that. And so you can't…that'd be like, you wouldn't you wouldn't suppose this objector here. I think it's the name, but

Seth 28:13

Herman Bavinck, he wrote a book 2004. But about a decade ago, it was mostly about a rebuttal to open theism. But I have not read the book to be fair.

Greg 28:26

Well, yeah. Herman, it'd be like if we're in a room and, you know, room full of chairs, and I say, I think God knows that there's 43 chairs in this room?

And he says, No, I think God knows that there's 53 chairs in this room? Well, it'd be weird for him to say, you denying that God knows 10 chairs, you're limiting God by saying he only knows those 43? Well, look we disagree on what God knows, because we disagree about what's in the room. But we all agree that however many chairs are in the room, God knows it. Tou can't say that. My God knows less, because he has less chairs. So also, in the future, maybe comprise all of exhaustive facts if Herman's right, and in which case God would know that, but the future also made be part of the component comprised of possibilities, in which case God would know that, and it'd be just as dumb for me to criticize him. Because his guy doesn't know possibilities, as it is for him to criticize me because my God doesn't know the facts that he thinks are out there.

Seth 29:27

How should we read the Bible? Because Another criticism I've seen is that

Greg 29:30

Left to right, (laughter both), left to right, unless your reading Hebrew, and then you go right to left, and right.

Seth 29:42

And in Greek, you go from bottom to top. I don't know if that's true, but it sounds good.

Um, so the claim is, in the Old Testament, specifically, there's so many times that God himself says that God wants this thing to happen, and what I want to happen will happen, and they usually quote a large section of Isaiah from I think, 40-48, or 44, somewhere in that vicinity. And so how then, are we supposed to interpret prophecy, or future events through the lens of the Bible? If, obviously, I don't know all the possibilities.

Greg 30:18

Yeah, so in Isaiah, you have this, it's often called Second Isaiah, but this refrain, where Yahweh is going to demonstrate that he's the true God, not these idols. And but as you read it carefully, he always says, I will tell you ahead of time what I'm going to do, and then he tells them what he's going to do. Well, obviously, if God's resolved to do some things, he knows it, and so he can declare this I'm going to do. He's not declaring random facts out there he is declaring his intentions.

And when prophecies are of that nature, then they are about the future. But most prophecies are not of that nature. Most prophecies in the Bible are warning about what's going to happen if things don't change. So in Jeremiah 18, for example, it's really interesting because here Jeremiah uses, or the Lord uses, this Potter / Clay analogy, which Paul picks up in Romans 9.

Now look how different it is the way that Jeremiah uses this. The Lord takes Jeremiah to the potter's house. Well, first, the Lord declared disaster is coming upon Israel because of it, since he's gonna allow Babylon to attack it. And the Israelites were saying, we're done, we're gone. It's no use. And so the Lord says, Don't say that.

And so it takes Jeremiah to this potter's house, the potter is fashioning this kind of vessel, but the clay is not cooperating. And so he improvises and forms a different kind of vessel that conforms to the kind of clay he's working with. And then the Lord says, starting with verse 5, you go and tell the people of Israel, that I am the Potter and they are clay, I have the right to do whatever I want you. So I may declare that I'm bringing judgment on you, thats the kind of vessel and fashioning. But if you will change that I'll change it uses this phrase, if you'll change your mind, then I'll change my mind. And I'll fashion blessings for you rather than judgment. But if at any time and He uses that phrase, twice, if it anytime I declare that there's a book, I'm going to bless a nation, that nation turns wicked, that I'll change my mind, and I'll bring a judgment rather than a blessing. Because I'm the Potter and the clay, so I can change my mind if I want to.

And so the whole point of the potter / clay analogy is, it’s what Paul is getting at Romans 9 as well. He's not saying God's unilaterally controlling, this clay you know, making good or bad vessels as He wants. He's saying that God is wisely responding to the clay. And that's the way Hebrew prophecy works.

God says, this is what's going to happen. But it almost always means not “this is what's certainly going to happen. But this is what's going to happen if you don't change”, and he gives it as a warning.

And see, this is how Hebrew prophecy was so different from Greek prophecy. The Greeks were into divination, into the occult, into trying to divine the future, they rip apart animals and take out entrails to try to see what the future holds. And they had all these different ways of trying to divine that, because they were fatalist, and they thought that the future was set in stone, and that the gods were there for know the future.

And so prophecy was about predicting what is going to happen? Well, the Hebrews had a very different view, they weren't fatalistic at all. The purpose of prophecy was to appeal to people's free will so they would change. And and it wouldn't have to go down that way.

We have a lot of people today, in fact, most Christians, they, at least conservative Christians tend to have a Greek view of prophecy rather than a Hebrew view of prophecy. They think that when the Bible says what's going to happen, they're thinking about Nostradamus, or in some, some diviner, and so they read that occult sort of definition into the Bible. And to think that all these things are predictions that have to come true.

Seth 33:56

Yeah, well, I mean, that came in the news recently with Trump and naming the capital of, Jerusalem or Israel, and everyone was like, Yes, this is, this is happening, y'all. Were coming, we are fulfilling the prophecy!

Greg 34:10

Yeah, they get into all that stuff. And we just had four blood moons. And what does this mean? Ahhh!!!

It's a tremendous waste of time.

Seth 34:18

Yeah, but, and you'll hear it on Sundays though you'll hear too many churches of you know, it's what what would you say that the platitudes the things that don't help people, when you're, you know, when someone passes away, or when someone commits suicide or whatever, that I'm sorry. What has been being that you've held differing views throughout your career in your life and your and your growth with Christ? What is the the biggest drawback or the biggest burr for open theism that you have, that you maybe still struggle with; or that the took the longest to get over.

Greg 34:53

The biggest burr with open theism?

See, you know, Seth, it's hard to me to address that I, there's, I wouldn't hold this view, if I didn't, you know, if I thought it had some remaining objections that that were insurmountable. So I just don't…I have trouble answering that. It's biggest drawback, I can't.

Seth 35:19

That’s fair, that's fine. That's a fine answer, I asked the same…

Greg 35:22

I guess, that I've had several people who have given me scenarios where like, they had a dream about something long before it happened. And then it came to pass, or something like that. And so there's, they report things that are really hard to make sense out of, if you hold up the futures part of the open. And what I do in those cases is, is, you know, I can assume that their dream, or that the word that was given them was accurate. And then try and weave that into how that would fit into an open view. Because God can, you know, influence things in a lot of ways that we never see. And a lot of things are subtle that don't seem subtle to us. Or there's I think, in some cases, other explanations where people have selective remembrance about what they dream and they retrofit a dream into what it comes to pass. You know, there's all sorts of phenomena like that.

But yeah, I guess those are the, the more challenging questions.

Seth 36:26

So springboard off that…in counseling people, you know, a marital counseling, or someone has died of cancer, or basically the problem of evil, how an open view doesn't seem very satisfying. It doesn't seem like it would give me closure. If say, my wife was hit with a bus on the way home from work today. And I'm like, What the heck?

Greg 36:48

What would the classical view give you that you don't think the open view can give you?

Seth 36:52

Well, at least something to blame?

Greg 36:58

(Light chuckle)

Say your wife gets killed by a drunk driver, tonight, God forbid. But let's just you know, say that. If God forknew that from eternity? How is that an advantage over my view that God just knew it was a possibility?

Seth 37:14

Well, I don't think that it is an advantage. But my question is, what would you say to someone that comes in? They're broken down their stripped, they're questioning God, why do you let you know babies die of whatever? Why did you let my wife get whatever? And so I guess, what do you say to someone because they're so emotional, they're ripped raw, everything's on the table. And they're most likely on a razor's edge of I'm just going to throw the whole thing out baby, bath water, burn the house down or something.

Greg 37:39

Here, here's why I think the open view has a great advantage is that I can tell them this.

God is not to blame for this, this is not part of God's great plan for your life. You know, His wonderful program, I'm not going to tell you that, you know, this all happens for a reason. You know, God's timing is right on time. God’s providence, writes straight with crooked lines, and all that other junk.

This is a tragedy and that's all there's to be said about that. Now, having said that, it's not all there is be said about it. Because I can also say this, that God promises that he's working in all things, working all these together for the better for those who love the Lord and called according to His purpose. That God has a plan in place that he's been preparing from the beginning of the world, as to how we can bring good out of this incident. And our job is to cooperate with him and doing that. Your wife's death isn't just a meaningless, gratuitous instance of evil. God can bring meaning out of it. But here's the difference. It's like, so that is what a traditional person would usually say. And they think that the open theist can't say that.

“What do you mean? How can God have an eternal plan, if all he knows is the possibilities”, and this gets to the real rub of things Seth.

Okay. So follow this.

People think that God is less prepared for the future, if he has to face possibilities than he is, if he knows just the one line of certainty that's going to happen. They think that gives them advantage. But they think that only because they are pre-supposing that God has limited intelligence. If we have to anticipate possibilities, we're less effective at anticipating possibilities than we are at certainty. Because we have to spread our intelligence thin, we have a finite amount of it, and we have to spread thin to cover all the possibilities. So we're less prepared for any one of 10 possible outcomes, then we would be for just one outcome, because we have less anticipatory power.

But if God is infinitely intelligent, and I'm assuming we both agree that he is, then you can divide up infinity. And so God doesn't have to spread his intelligence thin to cover any number of possibilities. Rather, God can cover each and every one of a trillion, trillion, trillion to the trillionth power possibilities and treat each and every one of those as though they were the only possibility.

All of his attention is on this possibility as though it had to happen. So in other words, God anticipates every possible future, as though it were the only future he had to anticipate. So he has a plan in place to bring good out of evil, that is just as effective as in the traditional view. It's just that—and so whatever happens, I can say, you know, God was preparing a plan for this from the foundation of the world, in case it happens, it's just that I think God is so smart, any number of other things could have happened and if they would have happened, I'd be saying the exact same thing. So it to put it in a nutshell,

I can see stuff dripping from your ear right now, Seth

Seth 40:44

(Laughing)

Unknown 40:45

To put it in a nutshell, only a God of finite intelligence would gain any advantage by virtue of knowing or having a crystal ball as to how things are going to happen. It's like if you're playing God, and chess, you know, God anticipates every possible move. And so every move you make is going to play into his hand, because he's been setting you up for that.

Tou know, every possible move that you can make, and is anticipating it. Know if Gabriel, the angel Gabriel, came up to God and said, “Hey, God, you know, we have this crystal ball, we can see in the future, every move Seth is going to make”, God would say, “Why do you insult me with this thing? You think the crystal ball gives me any advantage? No, I see every possible move Seth is going to make through that crystal ball”.

I'm anticipating it from the beginning of the game as though it had to happen. It's just I'm so smart, I can anticipate it as though it had to happen, even though it didn't have to happen. Any other any other thing could have happened, and I'd be saying the exact same thing about that. So the open view, you don't lose anything, all you do is gain a coherent system that allows you not to blame God.

Seth 41:55

That agency would work the other way… I guess this, I don't have this question written down. So bear with me if I have to rephrase it.

So when when history or civilization or it doesn't matter what planet, what life, is on, if something is going off the rails, then God would go, No, we're changing this, this chess piece no longer belongs here, it belongs “here”, now continue the game. And that would be like that would be like the Incarnation or something similar to that, or am I off base there.

Greg 42:26

That presupposes that, you know, when God set up the chessboard, they God didn't anticipate that that possibility. The parameters of freewill are I think, built into the nature of creation. When God creates the world, he gives a certain amount of say so to free agents, to humans and to angels, and we have say over what comes to pass to this degree, but there's always parameters there. I may have this amount of a free will to affect the world for good, which is also my ability to affect the world for evil. But I don't think I could blow up the world you know, ahead of time.

There's gonna be parameters on it and there's all sorts of conditions and stuff. And so I don't think God has to be you know, kind of intervening to sort of keep the system running well, I think God gets involved every nanosecond, influencing everything. He's always influencing, he's never a passive God he's always active in the world, but not to tweak the system but rather to influence as much good as possible and minimize evil as much as possible to achieve his his his good ends.

Seth 43:32

This is…this makes my brain break a little bit. It's just different from what I'm used to. I want to switch gears and just ask you one final question that I’ve I begun asking of everyone. With the world that the church culture, the vehement disregard for whatever tribe is not yours, what would be, as a pastor, as a leader in the faith, what would be one thing that those listening could take home and begin to install or something that they should look to, to make the Kingdom of God better; or the world we live in better, or the family we were the leader of better?

Greg 44:11

Yeah, well, ultimately, our calling is just to be putting on display the character of God to all people at all times. And that's the best thing we can do for the world. Offer a different kingdom, different way of being. I guess the word I would say right now is, you know, we've had four different times in the New Testament, we're commanded to greet strangers to welcome in strangers.

Jesus, even in Matthew 25 says that you know, when you welcomed in, when you visit the prisoner, clothe the naked and fed the hungry and and give housing to the homeless, you're doing it to me. And that's the criteria of the judgment. We're called to have a love for strangers, philioxenia is the Greek word Helios. It means love. And then also means other. What we what we have going on right now in our culture is a diabolical form of xenophobia, which is fear of each other. And perfect love casts out fear. And when there's fear, there's not perfect.

So to manifest the kingdom, we should be doing the opposite of what's going on in our culture, going out of our way to welcome strangers. You know, Jesus said in Matthew 5, that if you only greet those are greet you what reward is there in that?

It's when we love those that we wouldn't ordinarily love, and even love our enemies, life threatening enemies, in fact, Jesus makes that the criteria for being considered a child of God, love your enemies, bless those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven, Matthew 5:45.

And so I would encourage people to be just outrageously loving, and generous, and hospitable. That's the word hospitable, where you're welcoming people that are outside your normal sphere, your comfort zone, get out of your comfort zone, get to meet some people that don't look like you, have different skin color, talk with a different accent, name a different language, different kind of food, listen to a different kind of music and learn from them. And, and show Christ’s love to them. That's what the world needs right now.

Seth 46:06

Amen. Amen. So for those that want to further engage in, in the topic of open theism, but outside of that, just engage in other theological discussions, where can they interact with you? I know you've got renewed.org, you referenced a podcast earlier?

Greg 46:20

Yeah. You follow me on Twitter, and you can, you know, go to renew.org. There's, on reknew.org, I have this thing called Greg’s library, and I there list, I have about 3000 books that I've listed under different categories for recommended reading, you know, for in this topic, here's the 10 books I'd recommend, and I give a little, I rank them according to their level of difficulty. And so yeah, people find that in doing research papers, I do a lot of people's homework for them.

Seth 46:50

Yeah, no, I, I'm gonna abuse that. Because that will greatly help me as well. Um, well, fantastic. Thank you so much for coming on. And I've had a blast. I can’t thank you enough.

Greg 47:02

It is my pleasure, Seth. Thanks for having me on and talk to you again sometime.

Seth 47:16

Oh, man, what do we do with that? People? possibilities are endless. I don't know about you. But open theism is something that I've wrestled with. I recorded that in January of 2018. with Greg and I've wrestled with it almost every day since then be I can't begin to fathom the God that we worship, knowing that I am not forced into any decision. And regardless of whether or not I make a good one or a bad one, the God of the universe sits with us and sits with me and with you.

Outro 48:04

So appreciative to be able to do this with you, to the handful of you that have become patrons on the show. Thank you so much. To those that have not yet made that decision. If you're if you're enjoying what you're hearing, consider becoming a patron as little as $1 a month helps to make the show go helps to make the show continued to be what it is. And we've got goals, obviously. And as I get closer to those goals, we can help them make the show better. Thank you everyone for your support. Thank you for your feedback online. Twitter has been amazing. Facebook has been amazing, so appreciative of the entire community. And I'll talk with you soon-be blessed.