In this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors, we begin by finally tackling the age-old question, “If you’re blind, how much does it matter if your spouse is hot or not?” As you may guess, a query of this magnitude has multiple layers of nuance, but we do give our best shot at an answer. We then resist a caller’s temptation to try to steal food from the mouth of a homeless, as well as engage with another caller about the difficulty of wanting to be yourself in public but not being free to. Another listener suggests a “new way” to conceive of God and Christianity, about which our resident agnostic is uncertain and doubtful (shocking, we know). We briefly discuss the thorny issue of “stumbling our weaker brother” before we dive into our main topic: the refugee crisis in Europe and throughout much of the world (and you’ll never guess which segment of society has found a way to be on the wrong side of yet another issue!). Christian shares his thoughts on our obviously Islamophile president, while Jason tells a heart-wrenching story about being robbed of positive male role models. Christian is biebered when people are no longer marginalized but celebrated, while Jason’s bieber will leave you on the edge of your seat clinging to his every word.
Also, marshmallows with a nice chemical topping? Yummmmm….
Podcast #198: Crucifying the God who Hates Us
Podcast #351: Movies, TV, and Video Games
Podcast #143: Online Dating, Media Conspiracy, and Co-habitation
Podcast #201: Letting God Off the Hook
I can’t listen to this show anymore. I’m sitting in my office at work listening to Feeding Frenzy and I can feel my face turning red with a burning all consuming anger at the people who claim to follow the same peace-loving, refugee-welcoming Jesus that I try to follow. This week has been a Facebook friend delete-fest for me. A newsfeed clear of bigoted anger and fear had me thinking humanity may be decent again when I began listening to this podcast and was reminded of the hate and fear that drives so many people who claim a faith that is supposed to be the antithesis of fear and hatred. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and also wants to turn away refugees is no brother of mine. I’ve always been a unity in the church person. We can’t agree on everything, but we can agree on Jesus. Apparently that is not the case. If you can’t welcome the refugee, we aren’t following the same Jesus. and I hope you choke on your bread and wine you brood of vipers.
I don’t blame you. I’m not sure how much longer I can do Feeding Friendsy. It makes me too angry. I was happier when these people were hidden…
It would be a very funny segment if those people didn’t really exist in numbers significant enough to actually influence society.
Well at least you have the Rapture in common with them….
Who needs love when you share a common belief that God will Houdini our asses outta here right before shit gets real?
1. It’s more than a little ironic to hear Jason explain how it’s OK to mold sacred teachings to fit your own local narrative, and then condemn conservatives for doing the exact same thing. Scripture is putty in the hands of liberals who want to jettison hell, support abortion, ordain women priests, condone contraception, OK same sex marriage, etc. But then we have to take a literal, wooden, (dare I say) fundamentalists interpretation of the sermon on the mount? Laugh. Out. Loud.
2. These families clearly need to be helped in some way. I don’t know why the only two options are “take them in or leave them to die” isn’t there something else that can be done?
3. The world is starting to wake up (despite pansy liberal protests) and see Islam for what it actually is. The religion is fundamentally incompatible with almost everything the modern world cherishes most. As the mask slips off, there is an alarmed number of citizens who don’t want those ideas promoted and festering within our borders. I think if the far right heard a more realistic view from liberals on this topic there would be less extremism. As it stands, liberals have their heads in the sand on Islam (with a few notable exceptions) and that is helping fuel conservative panic. We need everyone to come together and deal with the problem of Islam. We have to find a way to be compassionate while avoiding the same fate as the native americans.
The obvious reply to the “if one-in-a-million refugees could be a terrorist…” argument is “if one-in-a-million firearm owners could be a school-shooter…” promptly followed by mic-drop.
1. Not sure exactly what you are referring to here. I think my point was that on some level we all read Scripture through our own lenses and perspectives. And I don’t “support abortion,” or want to “ordain women priests,” and my views on the other things you list are more nuanced than you imply (and I don’t recall ever having addressed them on the show). But yes, you should love your neighbor as yourself. Sorry if that is too wooden.
2. I think the Right is hypocritical for cheering on the Iraq war and then turning away refugees (and this applies to some on the Left as well). We never pretended to have a solution, that’s not our job.
3. You probably know that I am pretty much on the same page with one of the “few notable exceptions” on the Left when it comes to Islam, but that doesn’t mean we should turn our backs on refugees, who are the victims of terrorist Islam and not the perpetrators of it.
Absolutely!
As I see it, it is not rejecting those views to fit a “local narrative” but rather to fit the overarching narrative of scripture with a hermeneutic that views God as actually being good (which is what Christ’s teachings and life undoubtedly suggest).
And I might come back and reply to the Islam comment after class. 🙂
Random thoughts:
• If I were blind, I think personality would be more important than looks. Though, I suppose if you were still active, you’d want someone who was at your own fitness level so they could keep up with you.
• But if we give you our money, we’ll just be creating a cycle of dependency and discouraging you from going out and finding real jobs for people proficient in philosophy and theology, such as: Starbucks barista, Gamestop clerk, man playing guitar on subway platform for spare change, and adjunct professor making minimum wage at a community college who moonlights as a Starbuck’s barista for the health benefits.
• I would guess at least 80-90% of Christians are in the place where they feel like they can’t be themselves or say what they want to say for fear of social disapproval or losing their job as pastors. Much of our church culture is based upon conformity and keeping up appearances. Good Christians don’t curse. Good Christians don’t drink. Good Christians don’t disagree with their leaders. Good Christians can’t be Democrats. Good pastors can’t believe in X.
• I used a blog and a pseudonym to say all of the questions and doubts I was having. For a while, I wouldn’t even link my blog to my social media accounts because I was still afraid. Then lately, I just stopped caring. And I keep a running tally of how many times I’m told now that I’m not a real Christian and/or that I’ll be going to a hell that I no longer believe exists.
• Give me ten more years and I might be saying “Bullshit!” in church the same way some people say “Amen!”
• Here is how Christianity would make sense to me: You meet at 8:00am. You sing a song. Your pastor spends 5 minutes saying something inspirational. Then he hands out volunteer assignments from the local community: mow a lawn for an invalid, give a senior a ride to the doctor, read to kids in the hospital, tutor a refugee family, hand out sandwiches and water to homeless people.
• Stumbling your brother… yet one more method of control for the church to guilt its members into obedience to its every dictate.
• I think you’re confusing Christianity with “Christianity”. The former is the teachings of Jesus as related to God and how we should treat our fellow man. The latter is a violent, hyper-capitalistic, nationalistic, Americana religion that uses the same terms as Christianity, but believes in nearly the polar opposite.
Christianity is concerned with widows, orphans, the sick, the oppressed, those suffering injustice, and those lost and discarded in a world system that views human life as very cheap.
“Christianity” is mostly concerned with correct theology, gays, abortions, the pledge of allegiance, and American (and even white) Supremacy.
• Yes, I realize that this runs dangerously close to the “No true Scotsman…” fallacy. Go fuck yourself.
• We can’t take in Syrian refugees because one of them might be an ISIS agent who gets access to a gun and kills a bunch of people and we can’t have them taking all of the mass murderer jobs from decent American folks.
• Much of conservatism is founded on the fear that one day minorities are going to do to us what we’ve done to them for hundreds of years.
• “I pledge allegiance to the world…” Christian pushes for the One World Government. He’s in league with the Anti-Christ!
• To be fair, the Egyptians did start the whole senseless murder thing by ordering the Jewish male babies put to death. So the 10th plague is sort of a karmic repayment of Egypt. Also, there’s no evidence of the Israelites coming from Egypt so they probably weren’t there and the whole story is a fine example of a national myth.
• Of course, also to be fair, Joseph sort of enslaved the Egyptians first by taking their grain and then selling it back to them during famine years. Dick move, Joe.
Reeeeally? And how do we “deal” with the problem of 1.57 billion people having a Kenneth-unapproved religion? Pray tell.
Tell you what? I’ll ditch hell, let women speak in church and have control over their bodies, and welcome the gays, and you ignore the Sermon on the Mount and we’ll find out when we die which one God was more concerned about.
Hi Jason,
I wasn’t intending to impute all of those views (female ordination, abortion, etc) onto you. I was just making a general point about what I’m reading from you and others. I should have made that more clear.
Everyone agrees that we should love our neighbor, but that can need a lot of nuance at times. We also need to promote the general welfare and that’s not always a clear path. Especially when it involves making ten thousand people who claim to follow Mohammed citizens in your own country.
The point is that you seem to be fine nuancing the shit out of positions that don’t sit well with you. But when other people do the same through conservative lenses you cry foul. Seems hypocritical to me.
I can see how it is hypocritical to support the Iraq war and then turn away refugees. But sometimes new information combined with prudence can make hypocrites of us all.
I realize that it’s probable none of these refugees are bomb strapping terrorists for Allah. But their kids might be. See Jihad John or the Muslim youth of the UK in general. I personally don’t want more and more muslims moving into the U.S.A. I think their religion and their laws are awful. Taking in more of them makes me nervous, but if that’s what must be done so be it.
Majid Nawaaz is making a great start!
I hope you see that you’re just doubling down on the same inconsistency. Either scripture has an objective message that WE must conform ourselves too, despite our own preferences, OR it is an intellectual exercise where we jigger it’s teaching and historical context to allign with whatever we happen to fancy. Don’t be mad because people picked different items in the Christianity buffet line. You just have different local narratives to accommodate.
Different sides of the same coin 🙂
Hello,
I have no problem with that goal. We should all read scripture in with a narrative that suggests affirms God’s goodness, justice, holiness, etc.
But do you allow scripture to speak and let the cards fall where they may? Or do you presume to judge God by your own cultural norms and philosophy. I think that may be where we part ways, but I understand that both liberals and conservatives play that same game with different results.
Nice to meet you btw 🙂
I would certainly say that I (do my best to) allow scripture to speak and let the cards fall where they may. However, consistent with belief in the living God, that is informed by and present in culture and does not remain static.
I guess what I mean to say is: of course I understand God through my own culture, it’s impossible to not and everyone does. I find nothing wrong with this, because there is no ‘outside-looking-in’ and as I said earlier, that’s entirely in-line with belief in an immanent, living God.
As for me, I find the overarching narrative is most convincingly rooted in the incarnate God and Christ’s ministry which was characterized by subverting political/religious authority and loving sinners, the needy, and oppressed. So it is more legitimate to critique ideologies that are contrary to this than to reject the very ideology presented to us in Christ.
I mean that affirming gays is not apples to oranges with aiding refugees; it’s not the same game.
And thanks! I’ve been lurking the past few weeks and figured I’d join in the frenz…I mean, fun! 🙂
I had a pretty frustrating facebook week myself. No unfriending, but I may have been blocked by a few people.
I agree that the practicalities of loving our neighbor require nuance. My point is that the knee-jerk response on the part of guys like Trump and those who like him (the majority of likely Republican voters polled) is not one of love-thy-neighbor, but instead smack of xenophobia and racism. Examples abound.
We can’t continue to bring in Syrian refugees, we might go from 366 to 367 mass murders for the year…
I’m not mad at all.
Though I do disagree with your framing of the issue simply because everyone picks and chooses when it comes to scripture.
Probably so! But it’s hard to love a stranger. Even harder when you think they might want to kill you. It was good to hear your perspective on the topic and I think you have a powerful point. The world needs more compassion.
Austin,
I guess what I mean to say is: of course I understand God through my own culture, it’s impossible to not and everyone does. I find nothing wrong with this, because there is no ‘outside-looking-in’ and as I said earlier, that’s entirely in-line with belief in an immanent, living God.
If there is no “outside looking in” then why condemn social conservatives for not “loving their neighbor”? It’s not that they lack understanding of some objective truth regarding Christ’s sermon on the mount, they are only understanding God through their own culture like you are! There is no “correct” view on Jesus sermon on the mount given post modern gobily gook. So why all the condemnation?
Sure, cultural relativism is “in line” with a belief in an imminent good God. It’s in line with ANY belief! Which is why postmodern thought is for chumps 🙂
With its relativisation of truth, postmodernism has contributed to the absolutisation of desire satisfaction. When the search for objective truth no longer guides your life ones own desires and whims become the ultimate compass. What should we think about hell? Who knows! Every interpretation is relative! So what’s left to guide our view of the topic but personal preference? Same with abortion, same sex marriage, refugees, etc. The real freaking gold in these conversations comes when postmodernist protest at someone’s misinterpreting their OWN authorial intent. See for example Jason explaining that I had mischaracterized his views. See how authorial intent has a “view from nowhere” when it applies to yourself…. But not scripture or anything else. The mind boggles.
As for me, I find the overarching narrative is most convincingly rooted in the incarnate God and Christ’s ministry which was characterized by subverting political/religious authority and loving sinners, the needy, and oppressed. So it is more legitimate to critique ideologies that are contrary to this than to reject the very ideology presented to us in Christ.
But are you sure these ideologies really are contrary to the ideology presented in Christ? Aren’t you just interpreting that Christ like ideology through your own cultural framework and relative belief system?
You take away with your left what you give with your right.
Welcome to the battlefield.
An excellent retreat to nowhere
Does your church have statues in it? Yes? You’re interpreting the ban on graven images to exclude them.
Do you not work on Saturday? No? Well, Christian theology explains away the need to follow the scripture.
Do you eat lobster? Well, something something ceremonial law vs. moral law…
Okay, do you eat rare or medium steaks? You’re violating the first church council ban on eating blood.
I’m not contending that we don’t all interpret the scriptures. Obviously we must use our minds and develop or subscribe to some method of interpretation. The existence of various interpretations and interpretive methods in no way entails relativism. It also doesn’t entail everyone arbitrarily picking and choosing to suite their already preconceived notions.
You have to keep it up. Ridiculing these people’s memes and unintelligent, misinformed statements may be the only way to get them to stop and think, “hey, maybe I am being an asshole”.
Unless one happens to embrace a liberal hermanuetic and then they are defacto just picking and choosing what they want, right?
One down, 1.569999999 billion to go. 🙂
I’m not judging the hearts of any individuals. I’m saying there are two ways to approach the divine. You can
1. Put your own philosophy and personal preferences in the driver’s seat
Or
2. Allow the teachings to speak for themselves and submit yourself/ conform yourself to the word of God.
Postmodernism is an excuse to pursue option 1. You may not feel that you need an excuse and that’s fine. I just don’t find the first option to be very authentic.
Sincere question: What is the difference between 1 and 2?
In option one man molds the divine. In option 2 the divine molds man.
May I propose a topic for “Dick Move, God”? Eve was the only woman on the planet, along side her husband and two sons. Then God commanded them to reproduce. Oh, and he made a point of making childbirth extremely painful…. but just for her.
Ha! I remember Jason and I talked about this a long time ago. I wish I could remember what episode it was because it turned into a pretty funny conversation.
Practically speaking, as I understand our fellow commenter, the difference between our outlooks on scripture is how we respond to the things we both see in the bible which appear to be contradictory to other things in the bible, the character of Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospels, or the basic reason which God gave us.
I reject them as contradictory. He has faith that God must have a very good reason for those things which we’ll discover when we meet Him.
Only problem with that is that the “divine” is recorded by man. So with 2 we can interpret God based on the beliefs of individuals who have been affected by their culture, or with option 1 we can do our best to ignore the parts of the bible that clearly reflect the writers cultural bias. Obviously option 2 leads to biases based on our own culture, but that seems better than the 2,000 year old biases you get with option 1.
Yes, but the Lord chose to have His words recorded by those individuals who had been raised in said culture. These are the words He predestined be recorded. Once you begin jettisoning “cultural bias” from the text and inserting your own cultural norms you have gutted the word of God and molded scripture in your own image. I don’t believe God intended His word to be treated like a rag doll with each and every culture altering it however they saw fit. Nazi Germany likes these verses, America likes those, Rome takes these, the East prefers this, and so on and so forth. It renders the text meaningless.
@Christian Kingery,
What do you think of this?
https://youtu.be/h3OH44auo4Q
1. I was surprised when jason did not correct christian’s pronounciation of ancillary. I have never heard it pronounced anCILLary. We say ANcillARy.
2. I was a rabid DXP fangirl for many months but i am finding it more and more like my experience of reading John Grisham: i read every one of his novels and am irritated afterward every single time. As extremely intelligent as you both are, i can’t understand your willingness to wallow around in shit all the time, especially with the inanity of feeding frenzy. Facebook memes and shared posts are going to reinforce your biased for sure, but aren’t shedding much light on anything.
3. I think i get that you are recording a conversation that you would have whether or not anyone was listening, but i swear you remind me of my mother who has been watching fox news for quite awhile. She watches their nonsense and then gets all het up about it, but she never reads anything that is balanced or presents the ideas from the other point of view. She recently stopped watching fox news and she feels hella happier without the constant diet of sensationalism and hype. Imagine if you two started looking for what you would LIKE to see in the world.
4. I do enjoy the music and movie refrerences you mention. There are definitely moments of brilliance in each show; i’m just starting to find the repetition tiresome.
5. And no i don’t have a podcast of my own, so i’m sure i can go fuck myself. But i actually care about the two of you — those moments when your vulnerability comes through are moments when i remember why i loved you guys in the first place.
6. Bottom line is i think you way oversimplify every complex topic you bring up. I agree that jesus would have us care for the refugees, but doing so doesn’t happen in a vacuum. My bias is that the US government is so screwed up that something like admitting refugees can never even be discussed rationally because of the screeching tone of most of the internet and the rhetoric that passes for conversation in our country. From the tiny bit i understand, there are many women and children who need refuge from the situation in syria. I’d like to see someone anyone who says hey let’s help these people, how can we do it. But no, it’s all about posturing and politics and fucking maintaining the status quo.
7. Definitrely there is income inequality in our country, but it seems to me that the long-term or even medium-term consequences of insisting that the wealthy pay for everything for the less wealthy is a very bad idea. Again, where is the leader who says we are making it crazy easy for the rich to get richer and crazy hard for the poor to do anything but stay poor, so what small steps could we take to make some changes. It’s just too easy to assert that we should take from the 1% and give it to the poor. Giving to the poor without also addressing the many reasons and conditions of poverty isn’t going to solve anything.
8. The thing about being agnostic or post-christian (which is what i consider myself) is that i have the benefit of having been IN the church and experiencing the good parts of that as well as the legalism and the judgment. I wonder about my kids and your kids too who do not have the foundation of belief. In other words, being agnostic has a different quality when it is a belief system that one comes to after being a christian as opposed to a belief system that one starts out with.
9. I love you guys like friends and brothers and you are, after all, responsible for having seth on your show, which started me on a journey to most excellent healing, so i will always have a soft spot for the DXP show, hosts, and community. I’d just like for you to expand your discussions a bit and look more for what you want to see, rather than constantly talking about the stereotypes you are always on the lookout for.
10. Sending you lots of positive regard.
The fact that our inability to see things objectively sucks dosn’t make it any less true. The fact is everybody DOES interpret the bible at least slightly differently. So either God intended it to be read more subjectively or he’s just a really shitty writer. Another possibility is that it was writen by men with at least slightly contradictory beliefs and we just chose which of them we follow.
I don’t accept for a minute that humans lack a capacity for objectivity. In fact, I think that whole line of reasoning is absurd. We’ve put a man on the moon, cured disease, mapped the elements, perform astrophysics, clone sheep, etc. and we accomplished all of this lacking any ability to be objective?
Didn’t you write that last comment with the intention of communicating a certain message? Now that it’s on paper is there no way to crack the code and figure out what you REALLY meant to say? Is it all subjective? Is there no right or wrong way to interpret your comments?
If not then the liberal relativistic hermeneutic is revealed to be ridiculous….
The third possibility is that scripture was never intended to be read in isolation from the teachings and Traditions of the Church…. But that is a different conversation 😉
I’m not trying to say that it’s impossible to determine what an individual verse or book of the bible teaches, but the bible as a whole is incredibly complecated and everyone understands it differently based on their own personal experiences. If God had wanted to reveal ultimate truth to the world through a collection of books he could made it whole lot simpler.
Evan,
I agree that the bible is not in the correct form to sufficiently teach us everything we need to know. But why think that it’s supposed to be? That’s a protestant presupposition that has been the Achilles heel of the reformation for quite some time. We can all see that it makes no sense for the bible to be relative to each reader, but what’s the alternative with a book that seems so open to interpretation? Enter Eastern Orthodoxy/Catholicism.
However, all of this is a little off topic. Even if we only had scripture exclusively it would still be better to approach God’s word with a heart that is prepared to trust God and be open to His revelation. The liberal hermeneutic is incompatible with that virtue.
You’re probably right that my arguments would make more sense aimed at conservative protestants. Most of the arguments I’ve had about this issue have been with Orthodox Prespiterians. As to your second point, I don’t think my inability to accept scipture as inffallible has as much do with a lack of trust in God as it does with a lack of trust in the men that wrote it and the men that decided it was inffallible.
If you don’t trust the human authors, nor the humans who collected the books, there is no reason to call yourself a Christian. Just walk away and leave it alone. Forge your own path. That’s what I would do if I felt that way.
As for myself, it’s not that I have good reason to trust the human authors/collectors so much as I have good reasons to trust they were inspired by God. Which commands the obedience of faith. If you are open to taking another look from a different perspective…. see here
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/lawrence-feingold-the-motives-of-credibility-for-faith/
I can’t walk away because I’m still drawn to the person and teachings of Jesus, as well as many of the teachings of writers like paul and John. I do have moments where I think “Why the Hell do I still believe any of this”, but than I read passages like 1 Corinthians 13, 1 John 4, and the sermon on the mount and go “oh right, that’s why”. In the end it’s ideas like “God is love”, “Love your Enimies” and ” faith, hope and love remain” that make willing to accept that somthing special was really happening in the early church.
That’s great! Hang in there buddy, and give the Church a look. It’s well worth your time to hear out the world’s oldest and largest expression of Christ. You might find that something pretty special is still going on today 🙂
Very well said, Evan.