Podcasts about christian god

The God of the Bible  is the Most Relational Being in the Universe.   Bishop Robert Barron, once talked about the uniqueness of the Christian God. God is Love. And then he paraphrased St. Augustine's Treatise on the Holy Trinity. The Father is the Lover. The Son is the Beloved. And the Holy Spirit is the bond of Love between them.   The Father is the Lover. The Son is the Beloved. And the Holy Spirit is the bond of Love between them.   And Jesus says this in this Gospel. Everything I have is from the Father. The Father gives it to me. And the Holy Spirit is going to give it to you.   And St. Athanasius said that out of this relationship between the members of the Godhead, there is creativity. It is like a nuclear reaction. The interaction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is by nature a creative force. ----- You can get the Belonging House Friday Email at https://mailchi.mp/44964233320d/friday-email-signup Christ John Otto writes at https://christjohnotto.substack.com You can support us at https://www.zeffy.com/donation-form/raise-up-an-army-of-artists https://buymeacoffee.com/christjohnotto You can view Belonging House Books here: https://bookshop.org/shop/belonginghouse

In this, the first of two episodes, Matt discusses the first part of Of Ghostes and Spirites, Walking by Night, a book in which a 16th-century theologian tried to explain why, in a world that he believed to be ruled by a Christian God, people saw ghosts. This book provides fascinating insights into Renaissance folklore, beliefs about the afterlife, and theology. And there's a lot of smack talk. Ghosthropology is a part of the KMMA Media Podcasting Network. For sources, transcripts, and a full back catalog of episodes, visit https://kmmamedia.com/podcasts/ghosthropology-podcast/ Connect with the show! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ghosthropology Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ghosthropod YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ghosthropology Email: ghosthropology@gmail.com Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/ghosthropology

Has modern evangelicalism forgotten about key aspects of who God is? In this episode of The Missions Podcast, Alex and Scott welcome Dr. Peter Sammons, Associate Director of Academic Development at Founders Seminary, to discuss the "forgotten attributes" of God—those less-discussed incommunicable aspects of God's nature. Sammons argues that modern Christians tend to focus on God's relational and communicable attributes (like love and kindness) because they are easier to grasp and more emotionally resonant. Sammons stresses that a proper understanding of God's essence and metaphysical attributes is crucial for true worship and doctrinal precision. The discussion also explores why understanding God's immutable nature is essential, especially in missions. Many pagan and world religions depict gods as moody and human-like, but the Christian God stands apart as wholly other, unaffected by human emotion or manipulation. This, Sammons emphasizes, highlights the necessity of theological depth for missionaries. Without it, missionaries risk portraying God as just another tribal deity. Key Points Forgotten Attributes: Focus on God's immutability, impassibility, and aseity, which are often overshadowed by more "relatable" attributes. Essence of God: Importance of understanding God's essence versus merely his relational attributes. Modern Challenges: Cultural and intellectual laziness has led to theological illiteracy and avoidance of difficult doctrines. Missional Importance: Proper theological understanding is critical for distinguishing the Christian God from false deities in missions work. Training Solutions: Founders Seminary offers a Master of Arts in Cultural Apologetics and Missions to deepen theological literacy for missionaries, even remotely. Do you love The Missions Podcast? Have you been blessed by the show? Then become a Premium Subscriber! Premium Subscribers get access to: Exclusive bonus content A community Signal thread with other listeners and the hosts Invite-only webinars A free gift! Support The Missions Podcast and sign up to be a Premium Subscriber at missionspodcast.com/premium The Missions Podcast is powered by ABWE. Learn more and take your next step in the Great Commission at abwe.org. Want to ask a question or suggest a topic? Email alex@missionspodcast.com.

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century German philosopher, sociologist of knowledge, and phenomenologist, Max Scheler's work Ressentiment, which provides an interpretation of Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of that same name. It focuses on his discussion in the third part of the work "Christian Morality and Ressentment" of the Christian conception of God by contrast to earlier conceptions of God, specifically as infinite love. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Max Scheler's Ressentiment - amzn.to/4f3mv18

 The Non-violence or Ahimsa was first introduced from the Hindu-Religion.Ahimsa or non-violence was created for the Braman (Priest) and Sannyasins (Monks) to live a peaceful life in a remote resort. That makes sense.Afterward, Buddhism, Jainism, and Christians had the fatal idea to integrate Ahimsa for everybody in their Religion… And this was one of the biggest mistakes that Religions have ever done!! If we look at the history of India and Tibet:In the 3rd Century B. C “Ashoka The Great” made Buddhism the state Religion of India. In the sixth century A. C., the Huns invaded India and destroyed  Buddhist monasteries. Afterward, the Muslims in the 12th century overtook India… The very downfall for India was Buddhism.What happens to Tibet? The same, conquered and destroyed from China… Do we need more evidence?If somebody or a country stick to Ahimsa, they rather more invite offenders or an invasion… The other Buddhist countries didn't practice Ahimsa and could defend themselves.Even so, the Buddhists are not vegetarian, and that is a contradiction to Ahimsa. The Christian countries made and make wars after wars and killed so many people even in the name of their Christian God that it is hard to believe in their scriptures (Bible). I can't believe in any scriptures when the rules are broken from the Religions Leaders!The worst was the witch-hunt that torched millions of innocent women in the name of the Christian God! If we compare both Religions with the Hindu scripture, we must admit that the Hindu Religion is well designed.Killing or harming of people are not allowed for the Priests (Brahman) and Monks (Sannyasin). Threatening without fighting is allowed to defend themselves. The Warriors (Kashitras) should be the ruler, Civil servants, and soldiers of the country.For the Hindus, it is impossible that a Brahman should rule the country. Because a Brahman has to be peacefully when their country is attacked. For Instance, the Dalai Lama or any Bishop would be inadequate to rule a country… Because their Darma is to be peacefully in any situation and this will never work out for any country. We can also learn from the Hindu scripture that punishment is necessary as it is to live a high morality as the leader. When the leader is immoral the subordinates will become unethical over time.We need punishment to teach people to become better… The Hindu system recommends the punishment should go in steps harder when the delinquent doesn't obey…For instance, your kid is beating up your other siblings.1.) In a friendly voice, you explain that this is not good and that he should not attack other kids.2.) In an unfriendly voice, you remind him what you have said before.3.) In an angry voice, you repeat what you said.4.) You threaten your kid that he will not get any pocket money if he continues.5.) You threaten your kid to hit him when he is doing it one time again.6.) You hit your nasty child…Non-violence (ahimsa) would not work out to educate a nasty child/delinquent…   My Video: Why does non-violence not work? https://youtu.be/lZbCiKk17iYMy Audio: https://divinesuccess.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/Podcast.B/Why-does-non-violence-not-work.mp3

In 1952, at the age of seventy-six, Carl Jung wrote Answer to Job in a single burst of energy and with strong emotion. He completed it while ill, following a high fever, and upon finishing, he felt well again. The book explores the nature of God, particularly what Jung perceived as God's dark side, a theme that preoccupied him throughout his life. In it, the theology first explored in the Red Book—the progressive incarnation of God, and the replacement of the one-sided Christian God with one that encompasses evil within it—found its clearest expression. This makes Answer to Job one of Jung's most controversial works. Jung wrote in a letter that the book, “released an avalanche of prejudice, misunderstanding, and above all, atrocious stupidity.”The fundamental idea in Answer to Job is that the pair of opposites is united in the image of Yahweh. God is not divided but is an antinomy—a totality of inner opposites. This paradox is the essential condition for His omniscience and omnipotence. Love and Fear, though seemingly irreconcilable, coexist at the heart of the divine.The story of Job follows a righteous man whose faith is tested by Satan with God's permission. Job loses his wealth, children, health, and the support of his friends, who insist he must be guilty. His cries for justice go unheard, so that Satan's cruel wager can proceed undisturbed. God allows the innocent to suffer. Still, Job is certain that somewhere within God, justice must exist. This paradox leads him to expect, within God, a helper or an “advocate” against God.Jung flips the traditional understanding of Christ's work of redemption: it is not an atonement for humanity's sin against God, but a reparation for a wrong done by God to man.“God has a terrible double aspect: a sea of grace is met by a seething lake of fire, and the light of love glows with a fierce dark heat of which it is said, “ardet non lucet”—it burns but gives no light. That is the eternal, as distinct from the temporal, gospel: one can love God but must fear him.”When Jung was once asked how he could live with the knowledge he had recorded in Answer to Job, he replied, “I live in my deepest hell, and from there I cannot fall any further.”

Patrick answers challenging questions about faith, shares tips for talking to young adults about belief in God, and recommends useful books on Catholic apologetics. He also explores the curious practice of proxy baptisms in the Mormon church, especially regarding well-known Catholic figures like popes. Patrick addresses listener questions about confession, cremation, and ways to support friends interested in joining the Catholic Church. For insightful advice and real-life wisdom on living your faith, Patrick delivers content you won’t want to miss. Ellie (email) - I need to be first proven that the Christian God exists to believe in Heaven and then be comforted, but I’m unsure about his existence and therefore I’m unsure about any afterlife. (00:51) Craig - What do you do if your friend is dating someone who says that Jesus failed because he didn't get married? (13:22) Lee - How can I help someone else convert? (15:18) Audio: Will Mormons baptize the Pope after his death? (18:21) Was Jesus really nailed to the Cross? (37:27) Mary Joe - Thank you for explaining something I learned in my Theology class when I was young. You explained Causality perfectly! (39:14) Ellen (email) – Can cremation ashes be held in reserve? (41:57) Joan (email) – Patrick said you can’t commit a mortal son unless you know it’s a mortal sin when you commit it, which I assume goes for venial sin as well. Why then, at their first confession, do RCIA candidates confess their sins from the past if they weren’t aware that they were sins until going through RCIA? (47:12)

This sort of thing is a slap in the face to all who are not Christians.

At the time of Diocletian's persecutions, he was a very old man, having served as a reader for sixteen years, then a deacon for twenty-eight years, and finally as a priest for thirty years, for a total of seventy-four years. The pagan judge put him in the Temple of Aesculapius, where large snakes were kept and worshiped as gods. Though the judge meant for Artemon to be attacked by the snakes, the holy priest immobilized them with the sign of the Cross, brought them out of the temple and, in front of the pagan priests, breathed on the snakes, which died instantly. The chief priest, Vitalis, fell to his knees and cried 'Great is the Christian God!' Artemon baptised him along with several of his friends.   The unrepentant judge then condemned Artemon to be thrown into burning pitch, but the judge himself was thrown off his horse into the pitch and died. After this, Artemon went free for a time and spent his time teaching the Faith to his people ("accompanied always by two tame deer," says St Nikolia Velimirovic!). But he was arrested again and beheaded in the year 303.

Scripture: Romans 8:31-39. Christian, God is for us!

Segment 1: • French student supports capitalism but rejects God's authority—freedom is fine, submission isn't. • Believes in the Christian God intellectually… but prefers sin over surrender. • Honestly admits: “Jesus isn't more enjoyable than my current life.” Segment 2: • Todd walks Philip through God's law—liar, thief, blasphemer, adulterer at heart. • Philip acknowledges guilt and judgment… yet shrugs off hell as a risk he's willing to take. • The tragedy? He knows the truth—and still chooses sin. Segment 3: • Todd pleads: See Jesus not just as safer, but as better than sin. • Offers the gospel as a kindness, not just a way out of hell. • Philip admits: “I'm aware of the offer. I'm just choosing something else.” Segment 4: • Smart, kind, but deeply resistant—Scott believes God is evil, not just nonexistent. • Todd uses courtroom analogies to expose justice, sin, and grace… but Scott won't yield. • Scott calls God a moral monster. Todd offers the gospel anyway. ___ Preorder the new book, Lies My Therapist Told Me, by Fortis Institute Fellow Dr. Greg Gifford now! https://www.harpercollins.com/pages/liesmytherapisttoldme ___ Thanks for listening! Wretched Radio would not be possible without the financial support of our Gospel Partners. If you would like to support Wretched Radio we would be extremely grateful. VISIT https://fortisinstitute.org/donate/ If you are already a Gospel Partner we couldn't be more thankful for you if we tried! .

Dan Wells Ph.D. is a scholar of American religious history, consulting faculty at Duke Divinity School, Methodist pastor, and hunter outdoorsman in Muskingum County, Ohio.  On this episode focused on the Christian God & wild snake handling churches of Appalachia, we begin with a haunting story about Dan's ancestors' old home-place. Back-&-forth we share experiences about our Christian upbringings, early skepticisms on the likes of hypocrisy and the problem of evil, followed by Dan's religious calling as an intellectual pursuit. From there we're into the serpents with Dan describing his first-hand experiences at a Kentucky snake church, diving into the history, beliefs, deaths and legal restrictions of these serpent handling practitioners opening conversations about martyrdom & sainthood, the Hopi snake dance, Biblical snake symbolism, and rattlesnake catch-&-release hunting. From there we bring together Christianity and reverence for nature through the teachings of the early desert fathers and mystics. We end on dreams and an allegorical hunting story about God's fatherly protection over his spiritual children.Reading from Foxfire 7: "The People Who Take Up Serpents" by Elliot WiggintonLearn more about Dan at DrDanWells.comSupport Our Numinous Nature on Patreon.Follow Our Numinous Nature & my naturalist illustrations on InstagramCheck out my shop of shirts, prints, and books featuring my artContact: herbaceoushuman@gmail.com

It's Friday, January 24th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus 5 Pakistani Muslims abducted 14-year-old Christian girl On January 9th, five Muslims abducted a 14-year-old Christian girl from outside her home in Pakistan, reports Morning Star News. Sharif Masih, of the Punjab Province, said he fears the kidnappers may try to forcibly convert his daughter, Saneha, to Islam and force her to marry one of the Muslim suspects. He said, “Saneha was lured out of the house by a Muslim girl whose family had recently moved to our neighborhood.” Please pray that God would protect Saneha from harm and return her to her family. According to Open Doors, Pakistan is the eighth most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Congress: Deport criminal illegals On January 22nd, in a vote of 263-156, Congress passed The Laken Riley Act which will be the first bill President Trump signs into law. The act was named after the Georgia nursing student who was brutally raped and murdered by an illegal alien with a long criminal record. This legislation requires criminal illegal aliens to be held for deportation. Gary Bauer, Director of American Values,  wrote, “This is not a controversial idea. In fact, a recent New York Times poll found solid majorities in favor of mass deportations. There was overwhelming support (87%) for deporting criminal illegal aliens.” Bauer concluded, “Kicking out criminals is just common sense. But 73% of House Democrats and 74% of Senate Democrats voted against the Laken Riley Act. The rot in the Democrat Party is deep.” Trump pardoned 23 pro-lifers On Thursday afternoon, President Trump pardoned the 23 pro-lifers imprisoned during Joe Biden's presidency for their attempts to save unborn babies, reports LifeSiteNews.com. Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I set you apart." TRUMP AIDE: “Next, we have a set of pardons for peaceful pro-life protesters who were prosecuted by the Biden administration for exercising their First Amendment right.” TRUMP: “Do you know how many?” TRUMP AIDE: “I believe it's 23, sir.” TRUMP: “Twenty-three people were prosecuted. They should not have been prosecuted. Many of them are elderly people. They should not have been prosecuted. This is a great honor to sign this. (he signs the order) They'll be very happy. So, they're all in prison now?” TRUMP AIDE: “Some are. Some are out of custody.” TRUMP: “It's ridiculous!” The now-pardoned pro-lifers include Joan Bell, Coleman Boyd, Joel Curry, Jonathan Darnel, Eva Edl, Chester Gallagher, Rosemary “Herb” Geraghty, William Goodman, Dennis Green, Lauren Handy, Paulette Harlow, John Hinshaw, Heather Idoni, Jean Marshall, Fr. Fidelis Moscinski, Justin Phillips, Paul Place, Bevelyn Beatty Williams, and Calvin, Eva, and James Zastrow. I urge you to take a listen to the powerful testimonies of 11 of these brave pro-lifers, who urged abortion-minded pregnant women to choose life in March 2021 at a pro-life rescue at a Mt. Juliet, Tennessee abortion mill, through a series of conversations at StifledCry.com. That's StifledCry.com. Trump signs Executive Order releasing final JFK assassination files In addition, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 23, releasing additional government files associated with the assassinations of former President John F. Kennedy, former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., reports The Epoch Times. TRUMP AIDE: “Lastly sir, we have an Executive Order ordering the declassification of files relating to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” TRUMP: “That's a big one. A lot of people have been waiting for this for years, for decades. And everything will be revealed.” The order calls for the National Intelligence Director and the Attorney General to present a plan to the president within 15 days for the “full and complete release” of the remaining JFK assassination records and 45 days for the RFK and King records. Trump and former President Joe Biden previously released thousands of documents related to JFK's killing. Roughly 99 percent of the assassination files have been released as of 2023, according to the National Archives. Episcopal Bishop confronted Trump on homosexuals and illegal aliens And finally, on Tuesday, a female Episcopal Church bishop directly confronted President Donald Trump at a worship service held at the Washington National Cathedral, where she pleaded with him to “have mercy” on homosexuals, transgenders, and illegal immigrants, reports The Christian Post. Bishop Mariann Budde of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington delivered the sermon at the Service of Prayer for the Nation at the cathedral. Near the end of her sermon, Budde directly addressed Trump, who was seated in the front row alongside his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, and Vice President J.D. Vance and his wife, Second Lady Usha Vance. BUDDE: “Let me make one final plea. Mr. President, millions have put their trust in you, and as you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. “In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican, and independent families, some who fear for their lives. “The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meat-packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants, and work the night shifts in hospitals. They, they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches and mosques, synagogues, Gurdwara, and temples. “I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away.” Fox News commentator Greg Gutfeld brought clarity to the conversation. GUTFELD: “She's talking about behaviors. And she's cloaking these behaviors under the false guise of compassion. I mean, she's lecturing a guy who got shot about being in danger. Who is she implying that is putting these people in danger? Are there guys in MAGA hats that are mutilating healthy children and removing their genitals. No, that's her team!” And Liz Storer, Sky News Host in Australia, was equally horrified with the Episcopalian Bishop. STORER: “For shame! So, there you are. I don't know much about the Episcopalian Church, but there's your bishop in Washington, pleading with the new President of the United States to, I don't know, do what? -- for what the Scriptures very clearly call a lifestyle of abomination. “So, I don't know where this woman is coming from. This ‘our God' that she's referring to certainly is not the Christian God!” Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” And regarding her reference to illegal immigrants, President Trump spoke out on Truth Social. He wrote, “The so-called Bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a Radical Left hard-line Trump hater. She brought her church into the world of politics in a very ungracious way. … “She failed to mention the large number of illegal migrants that came into our country and killed people. Many were deposited from jails and mental institutions. It is a giant crime wave that is taking place in the USA. … She and her church owe the public an apology!” Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, January 24th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

The Only God, The Christian God by David Antwi

Rev. Brian Pughsley will be preaching on the topic of: "Submit But Don't Forget" from 1 Peter 2 on this first Sunday of 2025. Listen for pointers on how you can be submissive and still be the strong Christian God desires you to be. Be ready to be encouraged and inspired this week. Time To Shine In 2025 Sundays @ 7:30 PM CST on All Social Media Platforms, Including The Website: www.safehavenpodcast.org Tuesday Inspiration On The 2nd & 4th Tuesdays @ 12:00PM CST On Facebook, Safe Haven Podcast & TikTok Donations Accepted via CashApp: $BrianPughsley Subscribe, Share & Listen

In this encore presentation, Pastor Chris outlines in a powerful way what it means to be an End Times Christian. 

In this intense apologetics discussion, an atheist and a Christian debate the nature of knowledge and the validity of their worldviews. The atheist describes his belief in the reliability of methods that produce consistent truth claims, while the Christian defends the necessity of the Christian God for the foundation of knowledge. The conversation goes deep into epistemology, metaphysics, and the basis for trust in one's cognitive faculties. Men, get real accountability and knowledge to help you become the worldview leader your family and church need. Try out the Hammer & Anvil Society FREE for 90 days. Learn more ➡️ https://hammerandanvil.circle.so/c/join/join-the-hammer-anvil-society ---- Check out our FREE CLASS on 3 Steps for Unleashing the POWER of Presuppositional Apologetics

S. A. Swaffington's Exploration of the Supernatural in the Anglo-Saxon World S. A. Swaffington, an acclaimed scholar of medieval cultures, delves deeply into the mysterious and spiritually rich world of the Anglo-Saxons in her recent work, The Supernatural World of the Anglo-Saxons. Swaffington's research illuminates how the early medieval English perceived the unseen forces that shaped their lives—a world populated by gods, spirits, and enigmatic beings. The Anglo-Saxon supernatural world was rooted in a blend of indigenous pagan beliefs and emerging Christian theology. Swaffington uncovers the layered tapestry of these beliefs, where elves, wights (nature spirits), and revenants (restless dead) were as significant to daily life as the omnipotent Christian God. She examines how these beings were not merely mythical but integral to the understanding of health, fortune, and the natural world. Through an analysis of archaeological finds, ancient texts like Beowulf, and charms such as the “Nine Herbs Charm,” Swaffington reconstructs the spiritual mindset of the Anglo-Saxon people. She also highlights the cultural tension and eventual synthesis as Christian monks documented and reinterpreted these supernatural traditions in their manuscripts. Swaffington's work is both academic and accessible, inviting modern readers to step into a shadowy world where the boundaries between the natural and supernatural were blurred, offering a fascinating lens into the fears, hopes, and spiritual resilience of the early medieval mind.

Atheist Armin Navabi concludes his book by addressing the extreme skeptic who says, "We cannot prove that anything exists." He writes, "The reason that some claim that true knowledge is impossible is because we are limited by our senses and experiences, which are ultimately subjective. We perceive reality through our senses and think about it with our brains, and it's impossible to know for sure whether these senses are actually trustworthy." I've heard this objection many times from atheists, especially when it comes to morality. Does the fact that knowledge is limited by our senses mean that everything is subjective? Maybe the hard sciences can give us knowledge, but what else? Join the show as we discuss how the Christian belief about God can be justified. As always, I will be taking your questions! So come join the show, post your questions in the live chat, and call in to discuss what's on your mind! Help us expand our reach and continue fostering conversations that matter! Generous donors have come together and pledged $14,000 to help meet our budget and fund this important work in 2025! Any gift of $35 or more will receive a free copy of "Stewarding AI: Faithfully Using Creation Resources" once it is published in January. Click here for more info! https://think-well.org/donate/ Content Discussed 0:00 Intro 2:17 Join me for a book study next year! 3:21 Year-End Challenge 4:55 The objection of the extreme skeptic 12:47 How can we know anything? Answering hypothetical realities 20:10 What is the best explanation based on the available evidence? 20:30 What is knowledge? 29:23 Scientism: What it is, why it matters, and why it's wrong 44:45 Beliefs can be justified 46:00 Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? 49:53 If God has a mind, then wasn't he created by another mind? 53:52 Are you treating natural and supernatural explanations as equally valid? 56:25 1st Caller: Further discussion on intelligent and natural explanations 59:55 1st Caller: Witness testimony and extraordinary claims 1:04:00 1st Caller: Should we demand proof and evidence for God? 1:07:14 2nd Caller: Do the arguments for God apply to only the Christian God or any God? 1:22:22 Do you have actual evidence for God? 1:35:00 Closing: Look to next week, other content, and year-end challenge

Hello Interactors,Language shapes power, but it can also obscure and manipulate. Words like woke and decolonize, rooted in justice, are now tools for distortion by figures like Trump and Modi. In this essay, we'll explore how these terms connect to economic and political geography, tracing their co-opting, parallels to colonialism, and the need to reclaim their transformative potential. Let's dig in — and stay woke.STAY WOKE, START TALKINGAre you woke? It's a provocative question these days. Especially since this term was co-opted by the right as a pejorative since the Black Lives Matter uprising of 2020. Even last June Trump said regarding so-called woke military generals, “I would fire them. You can't have woke military.”And then there's Elon Musk. He's been increasingly waging a war on what he calls the ‘woke mind virus'. It seems he started abusing the term in 2021, along with other political rhetoric he's been ramping up in recently. The Economist reports a “leap in 2023 and 2024 in talk of immigration, border control, the integrity of elections and the ‘woke mind virus'.”Folks more on the left are also starting to distance themselves from the term or use it as a pejorative. Including some of my friends. Even self-described leftist and socialist, Susan Neiman criticized "wokeness," in her 2023 book Left Is Not Woke. She argues, as do many, that it has become antithetical to traditional leftist values — especially as it becomes a weapon by the right.According to the definition in the Cambridge dictionary, I am decidedly woke. That means I'm “aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality.” It worries me that people are eagerly running from this word. I'd rather they interrogate it. Understand it. Find it's meanings and question the intent behind its use. We should be discussing these nuances, not shushing them.Using the word in a sentence (in an approving manner), Cambridge offers hints at one of the original meanings: “She urged young black people to stay woke.” In 1938 the great blues legend Lead Belly also urged “everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there (Scottsboro, Alabama) – best stay woke, keep their eyes open." Those are spoken words in his song "Scottsboro Boys", about nine young Black men falsely accused of raping two white women in Alabama seven years earlier in 1931.Not a decade before, the Jamaican philosopher and social activist Marcus Garvey wrote in 1923, "Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!" Fifty years later that inspired playwright and novelist Barry Beckham to write “Garvey Lives!”, a 1972 play that included this line, “I been sleeping all my life. And now that Mr. Garvey done woke me up, I'm gon stay woke.” #StayWoke was trending on Twitter the summer of 2020.In 1962, ten years before Beckham's play, novelist William Melvin Kelley wrote this headline for a piece in the New York Times Magazine: “If You're Woke You Dig It; No mickey mouse can be expected to follow today's Negro idiom without a hip assist. If You're Woke You Dig It.” The article, which is an uneasy glimpse of how mainstream media regarded Black people in 1962, is about how white people co-opt terms from the Black community. His target was white woke Beatniks of the 1960s.Awakening others to injustice in the United States may have originated with white folks inspired by Abraham Lincoln. In the lead up to the his 1860 election, the, then woke, Republican Party helped organize a paramilitary youth movement in the Northern states called the ‘Wide Awakes'. These activists, which included some Black people, were inspired by Lincoln's fight to abolish slavery and promote workers' rights.They took up arms to defend Republican politicians who brazenly awakened others to injustices in America in their campaign speeches. This armed aggression — especially armed Black men — in part is what woke the South to the dawning wokeness across the North. Frightened as they were, they organize their own paramilitary and soon a civil war broke out.RECLAIM, RESIST, REVIVEWords can have unusual lifecycles. The term "queer" evolved from a pejorative label for homosexuals to a term of empowerment. Particularly after the activism of the 1960s and 1970s, including the Stonewall Riots. Its reclamation was reinforced by academic queer theory, which critiques societal norms around sexuality and gender. Today, "queer" is widely embraced as a self-identifier that reflects pride and resistance against stigma.Christopher Hobson, of the Substack Imperfect Notes, suggested in a post about the word polycrisis, this progression of terminology:Proposed — A new word or meaning is introduced through individuals, cultural interactions, academia, or mass media.Adopted — A word or meaning is embraced by a community, shaped by social relevance and media influence.Spread — Diffusion occurs through social networks and media exposure, leading to wider acceptance.Critiqued — As words gain popularity, they face scrutiny from linguistic purists and cultural commentators. The appropriateness of a term can be questioned, highlighting the intent behind its dissemination.Institutionalized — Widely used words become institutionalized, appearing in dictionaries and everyday language as standards.Hobson adds one other stage that is particularly relevant today, ‘pipiked.' It's a term he ‘adopted' as ‘proposed' and I'm now ‘spreading'. It comes from Naomi Klein's book, Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World. Hobson writes:"A useful concept she introduces is ‘pipikism', which she takes from Philip Roth's, Operation Shylock, one of the texts about doppelgangers that Klein engages with. She quote's Roth's description of ‘pipikism' as ‘the antitragic force that inconsequencializes everything—farcicalizes everything, trivializes everything, superficializes everything.' This captures the way in which the concepts and frames we use to help understand our world are rendered useless by bad actors and bad faith, caught in ‘a knot of seriousness and ridiculousness that would never be untangled.'" (3)This lifecycle certainly applies to the word woke, but let's turn to a term more closely related to economic geography that's also in the cross-hairs of being ‘pipiked' — decolonize.Like woke, the term decolonize began as a call to dismantle injustice, exposing the deep roots of exploitation in European colonial systems. It symbolized hope for liberation and justice for the oppressed. Over time, like many critical terms, its meaning shifted. Once radical, decolonize risks becoming performative as its potency weakens through co-optation, especially by bad faith actors.Narendra Modi exemplifies this, using decolonization rhetoric to promote Hindutva, a Hindu nationalist agenda. His government renames cities, revises textbooks to erase Muslim rulers like the Mughals, and marginalizes minorities, particularly Muslims, under the guise of rejecting British colonial legacies. This parallels America's own rewriting of history to reinforce a white Christian narrative. Protestant colonizers replaced Indigenous names and erased Native perspectives, reframing days like Thanksgiving, a time of mourning for many, into celebratory myths.DOCTRINES, DISSENT, AND DOMINIONEarly colonial educational curricula framed colonization as a divine mission to civilize the so-called savages. Native Americans were often depicted as obstacles to progress rather than as sovereign peoples with rich cultures and governance systems. Systems, like the Iroquois League, impressed and inspired the early framers of American government, like Benjamin Franklin.But it was Christian dogma like the Doctrine of Discovery, a theological justification for seizing Indigenous land, that was integrated into educational and legal frameworks. Slavery was sanitized in textbooks to diminish its horrors, portraying it as a benign or even benevolent system. Early 20th-century textbooks referred to enslaved people as “workers” and omitted the violence of chattel slavery.Early colonizers established theological institutions like Harvard University, originally intended to train ministers and propagate Christian doctrine. My own family lineage is culpable. I've already written about Jonas Weed (circa 1610–1676), a Puritan minister who helped colonize Weathersfield, Connecticut. But there's also the brother of my ninth Mother, Jonathan Mitchell (1624–1668). He was a Harvard graduate and Puritan minister who played a pivotal role in shaping the Protestant-oriented writing of American history.He promoted a Christian God-given view of history, framing events as manifestations of God's will. He emphasized covenant theology that cast Puritans as a chosen people. As a fellow at Harvard, he shaped the intellectual environment that influenced figures like Cotton Mather, who's Magnalia Christi Americana (1702) depicted New England as a "city upon a hill" destined to fulfill a divine mission. JFK ripped this quote from history, as did Reagan and Obama to further their campaigns but also to ingrain messages that started with people like Mitchell and Mather.Institutions like the church and universities advanced Christian-nationalist ideologies that justified colonial rule, marginalizing Indigenous, African, and non-European cultures by framing European Christian values as superior. European imperial powers reshaped local economies for their gain, turning colonies into sources of raw materials and markets for goods. Monocultures like sugar and cotton left regions vulnerable, while urban centers prioritized resource export over local needs, fostering uneven development.By the mid-20th century, America had risen to global dominance, cementing its power through institutions like the IMF and World Bank, which reinforced economic dependencies. Decolonization movements emerged in response, with nations in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean seeking justice and sovereignty. Yet many former colonies remain trapped in systemic inequalities shaped by imperial and American influence. While initiatives like the G-77 — a UN coalition of developing nations promoting collective economic interests and South-South cooperation — aim to reshape global systems, progress remains slow and resistance strong.Today, Project 2025 seeks to revive Christian-nationalist doctrines, echoing colonial practices. Signs of rising authoritarianism, white Christian nationalism, and silencing dissent are evident. The Levant, too, reflects another iteration of the colonial Doctrine of Discovery — seizing land and subjugating oppressed populations under theological justifications.Even in the early days of American colonization, there were woke voices. One of them happened to be another ancestor of mine. My tenth grandfather, Stephen Bachiler (circa 1561–1656) was an English clergyman and an early advocate for the separation of church and state. His life exemplified the struggles for religious autonomy in early American history, but also the importance of sustained critique of power and injustice.Educated at St. John's College, Oxford, he became the vicar of Wherwell but was ousted in 1605 for his Puritan beliefs. At nearly 70, he left to New England in 1632 to establish the First Church of Lynn near Boston. It was there it is assumed he cast the sole vote against the expulsion of Roger Williams — a proponent of equitable treatment of Native Americans and a fellow Separatist.Both men showed a commitment to religious freedom, tolerance, and fair dealings. While they were clearly colonizers and missionaries, each with their own religion, they were also relatively woke. They showed the importance of a sustained quest for liberty and justice amid prevailing authoritarian orthodoxies.Trump wields language as a tool to cement his prevailing authoritarian orthodoxies. He surrounds himself with figures who reduce substantive critical discourse to noise. His media allies, from Fox News to populist voices like Joe Rogan, amplify his rhetoric, diverting attention from systemic injustices. These platforms trivialize urgent issues, overshadowing genuine grievances with performative derision and bad faith gestures.When language meant to confront injustice is co-opted, maligned, or muted, its power is diminished. Performative actions can “pipikize” critical terms, rendering them absurd or hollow while leaving entrenched problems untouched — many rooted in centuries of European colonization. Yet Trump's alignment with a new breed of colonization deepens these issues.Figures like Elon Musk and JD Vance, champions of libertarian techno-optimism, feed into Trump's agenda. Musk dreams of private cities and space colonies free from governmental oversight, while Vance benefits from Silicon Valley backers like Peter Thiel, who pour millions into advancing deregulation and creating self-governing enclaves.These visions are the new face of colonialism — enclaves of privilege where exploitation thrives, disconnected from democratic accountability. They mirror the hierarchies and exclusions of the past, dressed as innovation but steeped in familiar patterns of dominance.In this age of populism — another word twisted and worn thin — vigilance is essential. Language must be scrutinized not just for its use but for its intent. Without this, we risk falling into complacency, lulled by superficial gestures and farcical displays. Stay awake. Words can preserve the power to transform — but only when their intent remains grounded in uprooting injustice and inhumanity.References:* Cambridge Dictionary. Definition of woke. * Economist. (2024). Immigration, border control, and the ‘woke mind virus': Tracking political rhetoric. * Hobson, Christopher. (Sep 13, 2024). Imperfect Notes: In conversation with Pete Chambers. * Klein, Naomi. (2023). Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.* Macmillan Publishers. (2023). Crack-Up Capitalism: Market Radicals and the Dream of a World Without Democracy. * Neiman, Susan. (2023). Left Is Not Woke. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.* New York Times Magazine. (1962). Kelley, William Melvin. If You're Woke You Dig It; No Mickey Mouse Can Be Expected to Follow Today's Negro Idiom Without a Hip Assist.* Press, Eyal. (2012). Beautiful Souls: Saying No, Breaking Ranks, and Heeding the Voice of Conscience in Dark Times. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.* Roth, Philip. (1993). Operation Shylock: A Confession. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.* Time Magazine. (2023). India's textbook revisions spark controversy over history and ideology. * Walker, Corinne A. (2024). Aeon. What is behind the explosion in talk about decolonisation. * Dull, Jonathan. (2021). Post-Colonialism: Understanding the Past to Change the Future. World History Connected, 18(1), 125–142. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Questions Covered: 01:50 – Mr. Akin ….I had my future told to me after I had a staring contest with a guy who had the ability to view my future life like watching a video in fast forward….pausing when he saw things he thought important….this is how he explained it to me…He was able to see all the way to my last day….something he said he hadn’t been able to do with others…. not only could he see my life through my eyes …but could also see what was going on all around me….. I met him at work …. Mr. Akin have you ever heard of this type of ability before…..can you help me understand what happened and why please…. 12:47 – What if the priest doing Mass is really old and suddenly dies during the service? How's that handled? 15:50 – Which Church Sui Iuris would extraterrestrial join if they accepted the Faith? 16:56 – Has Protestant exorcism ever been validated??? Is Protestant exorcism only the goofy stuff like Bob Larsen and Benny Hinn yelling and throwing invisible spiritual inner chi fireballs at their subjects? Or does it have any credulity like the most severe case I've seen with the Warren family helping MAURICE “Frenchy” THERIAULT on camera footage? 21:58 – Did Jesus have a body before he was born as a man? 24:54 – How does Odo not turn into a pile of goo when he uses a transporter? 32:52 – Most people get half of their DNA from their mother and half from their father. I assume Jesus got at least half of his DNA from Mary, but what about the other half? Was he 100% Mary? Did God just “invent” 50%? Do you think God made him resemble St. Joseph? 35:24 – Could someone be a Catholic atheist? 39:36 – If we discovered the Creature from the Black Lagoon, would it be permissible to eat it on Lent? 45:07 – If a ship of volunteers is collected to go to Mars, should the Church insist on sending a Bishop? 50:05 – I work with a non-Christian lady who used to be a Hindu and claims to believe in the Christian God. She was not a very nice person from what I saw how she treated other people. One day, she told me a story that when she went to a Church to pray because she was having a problem at that time, she saw blood on her palm. The light in the Catholic church was dim so she looked at the palm intensely and didn’t know what it was. After few seconds the blood disappeared. She got spooked and thought that was a spooky Church so she went to the Anglican Church nearby. Before she told me the story, I was listening to the life of St Padre Pio who had stigmata. My question is does stigmata happen to anybody? …

This podcast brought to you in part by Better Help. Save 10% hereSave on Dwell herePurchase the Adventure Bible here Click here to get a 25% discount on the Dwell Bible App. During today's conversation on Back Porch Theology we're diving into a rich, nuanced and deeply encouraging theme that Dr. Howard recently preached on at his church, Dillon Community in CO, called, The Joy of Being Human. The fact that Ally and I are getting to dialogue with Doc H about the joy of being human here at DCC, which is located high in the Rocky Mountains seems especially fitting because there's just something about looking at the grandeur of that mountain range, the peaks of which are already flocked with early season snow, heralded by a brilliant blue sky and groves of Aspen trees waving their golden leaves like pom poms that amplifies the joy of belonging to a God who created this kind of exquisite beauty. Speaking of beauty, today's conversation is going to take us on a super scenic tour comparing how the beginning of this divine love story we call the Bible – the genesis, if you will, of our relationship with God - unfolds much like a wedding: we find a metaphorical betrothal in Exodus, when the only true God - who breathed this glorious universe into existence – effectively gets down on one knee and asks us to spend the rest of our lives with Him. Then if you really lean in and listen, you'll hear the echoes of wedding vows in Leviticus – I promise that book isn't just about Mosaic law and communicable diseases, y'all! And when we get to the redemptive history recorded in the book of Numbers, we discover the relational rubber hits the road hard because the Israelites have moved past their honeymoon stage with God and are learning how to live day-after-day with Him in a desert where they're often disappointed and uncomfortably dependent upon their heavenly husband for provision and protection. The Bible isn't a rule book, or a textbook, or a collection of benign morality tales. It is the true story of what it means to be human – created by a perfectly loving God, in the very image of His trinitarian personhood. Genesis 1:26-27 clarifies that He created us in the image of the divine US - of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. Saint Augustine expounded on that mysterious truism when he declared that, “Only the Christian God exists in perfect community among Himself,” which also means that to be created in God's image is to be hardwired for real relationship. The trinitarian God of the Bible is self-sustaining. He didn't create us because He needed a bunch of mindless minions to do His bidding or who were somehow obligated to Him in blind allegiance. God created us on purpose for a purpose, as Jeremiah exults, His plans for us include a hope and a future and Paul adds that His plans for us will ultimately lead to our good and His glory. Our Creator is not some uni-browed bully, waiting to smack us over the head with a big Bible if we step out of line, y'all. He is instead a compassionate Redeemer, who loves us more than we can possibly ask or imagine. The joy of being human must be inextricably married to the experiential truth that God lovingly planned us into existence or it's simply theoretical...

Let's talk about some of the ways your thinking will change as you get exposed to ideas that may be foreign to you but start to make a lot more sense when you experience the miracle of recovery.You thought you could do this alone and discover that your own puny willpower is of no use whatsoever in fighting this disease. In fact, alcoholics and addicts are some of the most wilful people who have ever walked the earth, but then they discover that addiction will simply not yield to willpower. No matter how hard or how many times they have tried.Addiction will yield, however to a power greater than yourself – any power that's not just you.  You can call your group a higher power, or you can go with the Spirit of the Universe, or with any number of conceptions such as a Christian God, Buddha's teachings or what is found in the Holy Koran.   It says in the Big Book of AA :”The purpose of this book is to help you find a power greater than yourself which will solve your problem”. You get to define your own higher power. How brilliant is that?It never occurred to me that I would find liberation in discipline. That feels like a contradiction in terms, but it really isn't. Allow me to explain. When I was drinking and using, I followed every desire and whim chasing a high, chasing sex, or excitement or whatever my ego demanded I must have now. I was equally the victim of my own fears – fear of looking bad in your eyes, fear of financial disaster, afraid of losing my job or my lover. I had no rudder to guide my thinking or actions.It wasn't until I began to live by a set of principles as taught by AA that I was freed from my compulsions to drink, abuse drugs, or chase pleasures wantonly. I finally had some rules to live by: honesty, kindness, and altruism as opposed to selfishness all the way, all the time.I also learned that there was victory in surrender, another apparent contradiction. It wasn't until I admitted I was powerless over alcohol and that my life had become unmanageable that I regained the power of choice – the choice not to drink, one day at a time. I went on to embrace the idea that a power greater than myself could restore me to sanity. And it all started with surrender – the admission of powerlessness paved the way for real power, real victory over King Alcohol.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThe Declaration of Independence affirms that all human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Yet the Declaration is silent about who this Creator is. Is it the Jewish deity or the Christian God? Or is it the god of the philosophers — the blind watchmaker of the Enlightenment? The Constitution, on the other hand, doesn't mention the divine at all, except for the phrase, “Year of Our Lord.”Mainstream liberals and conservatives, whatever they may think of the silence regarding God in our founding documents, believe in the American experiment. But as Jerome E. Copulsky writes in his new book, American Heretics: Religious Adversaries of Liberal Order, throughout American history there have been those who do not, radical groups who opposed the American project, root and branch, for being liberal, as opposed to Christian. In his book, Copulsky, professor at Georgetown's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs, writes about the Loyalist churchmen who opposed the American revolution, the proslavery theologians of the 19th century, the “Theonomist” theocrats of the 20th century, and the “Integralists” of our own time.Jerome joins Shadi Hamid and Damir Marusic to discuss his book, but as often happens in Wisdom of Crowds, the conversation takes an unexpected turn. Early on, Shadi presses Jerome to specify exactly what a secular liberal Founding really means for religious practice in the public sphere. Then Shadi submits his own interpretation of the modern state as an inherently secularizing force.Damir brings the question of the secularity of the American project to bear upon current events. To what extent was the American liberal state ever “neutral”? Or is technocratic liberalism the default, unspoken “religion” of the American state? Or was it, until Donald Trump came along? And is Trump, by filling his cabinet with representatives from various American ideologies, violating liberal neutrality, or simply exposing it for the fiction that it always was?In our bonus content for paid subscribers, Jerome discusses the National Conservative movement, as exemplified by intellectuals like Patrick Deneen and Adrian Vermeule, and its influence on Vice President-elect J.D. Vance. In the second Trump term this movement will have unprecedented access to power and, Jerome argues, pose a serious challenge to — and even a “betrayal” of — the American system.Required Reading* American Heretics: Religious Adversaries of Liberal Order by Jerome E. Copulsky (Amazon)* The Declaration of Independence (National Archives). * The Constitution of the United States (National Archives).* Everson v. Board of Education (FindLaw).* George Washington's Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island (National Archives). * We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition by John Courtney Murray, S.J. (Amazon).* Common Good Constitutionalism by Adrian Vermeule (Amazon).* Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future by Patrick Deneen (Amazon). This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Governance and Markets.Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!

In pp. 77–79 of The Defense of the Faith (first edition), Cornelius Van Til addresses the fundamental differences between Christian and non-Christian perspectives on ethics, particularly focusing on the role of the will of God as foundational to ethical systems. Van Til begins by asserting that God's will is absolute and self-determinative. God is eternally good, not becoming good through a process, but being so by his very nature. Unlike humans, God does not have to achieve goodness; it is intrinsic to his eternal character. Therefore, God is both absolutely necessary and absolutely free. Van Til introduces a key distinction between Christian and non-Christian viewpoints. Christians uphold the concept of an absolutely self-determinative God, who is the necessary presupposition for all human activity. Non-Christian ethics, however, assume that if the Christian God were real, he would stifle ethical activity. This is because non-theistic views perceive God and man as having wills conditioned by an environment, implying that God must also achieve goodness through a process. Van Til critiques Platonic philosophy, noting that Plato's conception of “the Good” was ultimate, but his god was not. For Plato, “the Good” was abstract and separated from a fully personal God, leaving the ultimate reality as dependent on the element of Chance. Thus, even if Plato spoke of the Good, it was not self-determined or sovereign in the Christian sense. Modern idealist philosophers tried to build on Platonic thought by proposing an “absolutely self-determinative Experience,” but ultimately failed, according to Van Til, because they made God dependent on the space-time universe, blending time and eternity. As a result, God became dependent on external processes rather than being sovereign over them. The core ethical difference between Christianity and non-Christian systems is the acceptance or rejection of an ultimately self-determinative God. Van Til argues that without the presupposition of God as absolute, there can be no coherent or purposeful human experience, including ethics. The absolute sovereignty of God is not a hindrance to human responsibility but rather its foundation. Van Til makes a point to distinguish Christian doctrine from philosophical determinism. While both affirm necessity, philosophical determinism is impersonal, suggesting that everything is determined by blind, impersonal forces. Christianity, in contrast, asserts that the ultimate reality is personal; God's sovereign will underlies the possibility of genuine human freedom and responsibility. Chapters 00:00:07 Introduction 00:05:31 Ethics and the Christian Philosophy of Reality 00:11:45 The Christian Conception of God 00:18:02 The Absolute Contrast between Christian and Non-Christian Ethics 00:29:48 Contrasts with Platonism 00:47:18 Contrast with Idealism 00:52:10 The Central Ethical Distinction 00:55:22 Contrast with Philosophical Determinism 01:05:11 Conclusion

It's Witness Wednesday! Segment 1 Summary: • Philip's Struggle with Faith and Commitment: A young man raised in a secular French culture navigates his belief in a Christian God but hesitates to fully commit. • Capitalism vs. Socialism: A candid comparison of the U.S. and France's contrasting systems and their influence on quality of life and values. • Morality and Lifestyle Choices: Philip's internal conflict about sin, freedom, and responsibility in light of his current lifestyle. Segment 2 Summary: • Facing the Reality of Hell: Todd discusses the consequences of sin and the differing levels of suffering in hell based on one's actions. • Jesus' Sacrifice and Its Relevance: Philip grapples with the weight of choosing Jesus over sinful indulgences, sparking a reflection on consequences and redemption. Segment 3 Summary: • Non-Conformity and Personal Expression: A discussion with a student about the motivations behind self-expression and its deeper implications on identity and faith. • Divine Justice vs. Human Justice: Todd contrasts societal norms with biblical principles, unpacking the concept of sin and God's ultimate judgment. Segment 4 Summary: • Questioning Divine Mercy: A debate on why a benevolent God would allow sinful people to live, featuring Scott's skepticism influenced by cultural thought leaders. • Life Through God's Mercy: Todd asserts that despite humanity's guilt, life is a gift of grace, offering a counter to Scott's doubts. ___ Thanks for listening! Wretched Radio would not be possible without the financial support of our Gospel Partners. If you would like to support Wretched Radio we would be extremely grateful. VISIT https://fortisinstitute.org/donate/ If you are already a Gospel Partner we couldn't be more thankful for you if we tried!

Exodus 3:13-15; John 14:8-11; Acts 2:1-4 - The Nicene Creed begins with an affirmation that there is "one God," though it makes clear as it goes on that it is not only the Father, but also the Son and the Spirit who are also to be worshipped as God. With this statement, we are plunged into the heart of the mysterious, beautiful doctrine of who the Christian God is: the doctrine of the Trinity and the love of God. A sermon by Cameron Heger. [Part 2 of our series "The Nicene Creed: The Ancient Theology of the Triune God"] Questions for reflection: 1) Why is it important that we spend the effort necessary to think rightly about God? Do you find it naturally exciting or difficult? 2) How is the Trinity different from polytheism (multiple gods), modalism (God shows up in different modes), and subordinationism (Jesus is a lesser god/entity)? 3) Why do you think the Trinity became such an important concept for Christians despite the word not appearing in the Bible? 4) Cameron (following Fred Sanders) argued that we might get our best glimpse at the Trinity in the major moments of salvation history--through the missions of the Father (at the Exodus), the Son (at the incarnation/crucifixion), and the Spirit (at Pentecost). As God acted to save His people, we learned more about who He is. What do you think of this? 5) In John 17:24, Jesus shared about the love He experienced from the Father before creation. What light does this shed on the idea that "God is love"?

We continue our series on Ex-Pastor’s wives and daughters with Bex. How Religion Lowers our Expectations The World I Want to Live In What Kind of Father is the Christian God? Karl Forehand is a former pastor, podcaster, and award-winning author. His books include Out into the Desert, Leaning Forward,  Apparent Faith: What Fatherhood Taught Me […]

Romans 13:1-7

Discussion Questions Sermon Overview: The Glory of God as Our Highest Aim. Because God is good, living, and promise-keeping, live for his glory.1. The central motivation of every Christian: God's glory (v. 1a)2. Three reasons to glorify him:-He's a good God (v. 1b)-He's a living God (vv. 3-8)-He's a promise-keeping God (vv. 12-15)3. Two ways to glorify him:-Trust him (vv. 9-11)-Praise him (vv. 16-18)Digging Deeper:    Read Psalm 115  1. In one word, what comes to mind when you think of glorifying God? 2. What are some of the most common things people live for? What is alluring about those things?  3. How is living for God's glory different from any other pursuit? Why is living for God and his glory better? 4. As Christians, we can often talk about “glorifying God,” sometimes without a clear picture in our minds of what exactly that means or looks like. How did this sermon on Psalm 115 help you better understand what it looks like to live for God's glory? 5. It is clear in verse 1 that the author wants all glory, all honor, and all praise to be directed not “to us,” but rather to God. That's not normal. What would cause a person to pray such a prayer? 6. Psalm 115 provides us with reasons to glorify God. The first reason is that God is a good God (v. 1b). How easy or hard is it for you to believe that God is good? How come? 7. How does the goodness of God motivate us to live for God's glory? 8. The second reason Psalm 115 provides us for living to glorify God is that he's a living God (vv. 3-8). Why should the fact that our God is a living God motivate us to live for his glory? 9. A third reason we see for living for God's glory in Psalm 115 is that our God is a promise-keeping God (vv. 12-15). How should this truth (that God keeps his promises to us) motivate us to live in such a way that he is made much of (glorified)?  10. Are there specific promises God has made in his Word that have become precious to you? Please share.  11. One of the ways we can glorify God is by trusting him (vv. 9-11).  How does trusting God glorify him?  How does a failure to trust God dishonor him?  12. We can also bring glory to God through our praise (vv. 16-18). What are ways we can praise God throughout the week?Prayer

Al Fadi and Dr jay Smith  discuss more doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam and today they start with the trinity; they point out how the Christian God is relational both in the God head and with His creation.  They point out that we are made in God's image to be relational too.  Second they show the difference between Christians who are children of God versus Muslims who are slaves of Allah. Children can call God Daddy, and communicate with God without fear; Muslims are afraid of their God and must submit to him as master. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pastor Dru explores the contrast between the cold, transactional relationships the Romans had with their gods and the loving, sacrificial nature of the Christian God, emphasizing that God's love is unique and personal.

Jordan Hall tries to convince Jim that the reality of the Christian God is logically necessary. They discuss points of agreement & resonance between their views, relational ontology vs substance ontology, belief as mental operation vs existential commitment, a hierarchical stack of concepts, the complexity lens, the conceptual level on which relationship belongs, relata as contained within relationship, relationship as the most real, the impossibility of imagining being without relationship, oneness & multiplicity & relationality, moving from the philosophical to the theological, hypostasis, the standard model of physics, the coordination of experience with theory, dehumanizing the persons of the Trinity, alternatives to a single universe, unfolding within lawfulness, pure nominalism, the Nicene Creed, whether the Trinity adds information to complexity, whether a cosmic consciousness defies physics, the laws of causation, theology as the discipline of reality, the existential commitment that belief constitutes, fath as livingness, the meaning of a personal God, an ongoing expansion of the relationship with reality, faith vs ideology, 3 forms of belief in Plato, the meaning of pistis, John Vervaeke's religion that is not a religion, refounding life on pistis, whether one can be a Christian without thinking so, Biblical literalism, the prescriptive & annoying stuff, good fiction, great literature as a means of accessing high-dimensional reality, the mediocrity of academic Biblical criticism, and much more. Episode Transcript JRS EP8 - Jordan "Greenhall" Hall and Game B JRS EP26 - Jordan Hall on the Game B Emergence JRS EP 170 - John Vervaeke and Jordan Hall on The Religion That Is Not a Religion JRS EP 223 - Jordan Hall on Cities, Civiums, and Becoming Christian Heidegger, Neoplatonism, and the History of Being: Relation as Ontological Ground, by James Filler JRS Currents 100: Sara Walker and Lee Cronin on Time as an Object JRS EP 240 - Stuart Kauffman on a New Approach to Cosmology Jordan Hall is the Co-founder and Executive Chairman of the Neurohacker Collective. He is now in his 17th year of building disruptive technology companies. Jordan's interests in comics, science fiction, computers, and way too much TV led to a deep dive into contemporary philosophy (particularly the works of Gilles Deleuze and Manuel DeLanda), artificial intelligence and complex systems science, and then, as the Internet was exploding into the world, a few years at Harvard Law School where he spent time with Larry Lessig, Jonathan Zittrain and Cornel West examining the coevolution of human civilization and technology.

Religion really does poison everything.

Blaise Pascal was a mid-1600s mathematician and philosopher. He presented an argument for religious belief from a mathematical standpoint that has come to be called Pascal's Wager. The problem is that this argument is often misunderstood and applied in ways that Pascal never intended. In Chapter 8 of "Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God," Armin Navabi argues that Pascal's Wager "does nothing to prove the nature of God," and "falls apart completely." Is this true? Should Christians stop using Pascal's Wager in our conversations? Let's take a look and think well about Armin's objections and the intended use of Pascal's Wager. Content Discussed: 0:00 Intro 5:36 Response to Armin Navabi 7:15 Background on Pascal's Wager 13:30 Armin's 2 ways that Pascal's Wager breaks down 19:45 How world religions affect Pascal's Wager 25:48 Atheist caller 26:26 If you could prove the Christian God exists, would you become a Christian? 27:40 The Christian God isn't good because he creates people who go to hell for eternity 35:05 Is the most perfect God one who gives us voluntary existence? 43:34 Can we be free if God knows the future? 1:00:18 Is there a cost to following God?

The Christian God is the best explanation for the world we experience.

How can we know if God, Jesus and salvation are real? How do we reconcile the loving Christian God when there have been and are so many other world religions? Can we trust a book as old and disputed as the Bible? Series Overview: Faith and doubt make excellent dance partners. In this series, we'll explore some of YOUR biggest questions about life, faith and God. Each week, we'll tackle a different theme: After You Die, The Bible & Science, The Validity of Faith, and a wrap-up Grab Bag.

Climate Hits the Kitchen; Louisiana Goes Godly; Tipping is Racist Karel Cast 24-72 Storm in Texas and the South; Caribou, Maine at 103; The West Coast is Burning...it's summer but how does all this effect you immediately? Look no further than the kitchen! Olive Oil is more expensive than crude; Maple Syrup more than a barrel of oil per gallon. Louisiana has decided the 10 Commandments needs to be in schools, and while the morality isn't such a bad thing, the fact that it's tied to a Christian God is problematic. Do you know how and why we tip in the USA? Well, it has everything to do with exploitation and slavery. Yes, slavery. So why do we keep it? Watch on YouTube and listen wherever you get your podcast. Subscribe at YouTube.com/reallykarel @ReallyKarel is all social media and website reallykarel.com The Karel Cast is heard three times a week on all your favorite streaming services and the video can be seen on Youtube. Karel is a history-making #LGBTQ talk show host currently living in Las Vegas with his pup Ember.

Questions Covered: 02:24 – Could life have come about naturalistically? 06:10 – My wife is agnostic. How do I reply to the questions, why should she care, and why should she believe that it’s the Christian God that exists? 16:39 – My convert friend is asking how do you know when something is dogma vs doctrine? 28:45 – Within the holy family, did Joseph have the spiritual authority of Mary and Jesus? 30:55 – What is the rule of the magisterium in regard to translation of the bible and why should we heed to those translations? 36:08 – How specific does my confession have to be for it to be valid? 41:55 – How do we know that St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letters are reliable? 45:05 – Can an unbaptized person receive the sacrament of confession? 47:35 – Has the use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion been abused? 52:20 – There are verses in the bible that say that miracles are signs, but it also says the devil will use them. How can the Church confidently say that the miracles it approved of are from God and not the devil? …

Blaise Pascal's Case for Christianity I.    The Genius of Blaise Pascal  A.    Amazing life of Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) B.    Pascal as an apologist; not a fideist (unlike Soren Kierkegaard) C.    Nature of apologetics. Defend the Christian worldview as objectively true, compellingly rational, and pertinent to all of life (1 Peter 3:15) II.    Pascal's Case for Christianity A.    His apologetic be reconstructed. Order. Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.  B.    We consider only two elements: the wager and the deposed royalty argument; there are more. See Douglas Groothuis, Beyond the Wager: the Christian Brilliance of Blaise Pascal (InterVarsity Academic, 2024).   III.    The Wager: Risks, Rewards, Options A.    We should bet on God being rule instead of betting on God's unreality in light of the possible consequences.     I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true.  B.    Theoretical reason: Is P true? How can I know this? C.    Prudential reason: What do I gain or lose by believing P? What actions should I pursue on this matter? D.    The outcomes and belief states 1.    Believer, if Christian God exists:Gain: eternal life; avoid hell. Infinite gainLoss: worldly pleasures. Finite loss 2.    Believer, if Christian God does not exist:Gain: pleasures of religion. Finite gain    Loss: worldly pleasures and truth. Finite loss 3.    Unbeliever (atheist or agnostic or member of other religion), if Christian God exists:Gain: worldly pleasures. Finite gainLoss: eternal life; gain hell, infinite loss 4.    Unbeliever, if Christian God does not exist:Gain: worldly pleasures. Finite gainLoss: nothing. E.    Given the stakes, we should investigate the claims of Christianity with an open mind and open heart and not be indifferent.  There are only three sorts of people: those who have found God and serve him; those who are busy seeking him and have not found him; those who live without either seeking or finding him. The first are reasonable and happy, the last are foolish and unhappy, those in the middle are unhappy and reasonable.   IV.    The Human Problem and Puzzle A.    What sort of freak then is man! How novel, how monstrous, how chaotic, how paradoxical, how prodigious! Judge of all things, feeble earthworm, repository of truth, sink of doubt and error, the glory and refuse of the universe! (131/434). B.    How to live with the human burden in light of reality; “deposed royalty” who can be restored through Jesus Christ C.    What are the options? We will look at two “live hypotheses” V.    A True, Rational, and Significant Explanation. A.    True explanation of the human condition: one that agrees with objective reality; factual; realism. B.    Rational explanation: one that explains who we are in accordance with the evidence and sound reasoning. C.    Significant explanation: one that gives us value, meaning, and realistic hope for being human in the world. Philosophical anthropology is a very important part of any worldview. D.    Manner of explanation: abduction (inference to best explanation)   VI.    Views of Being Human: The New Age Worldview A.    New Age or spiritual worldview: Ken Wilber, Oprah Winfrey, Deepak Chopra  1.    Background belief on humanity a.    Pantheism: everything is divine. b.    Monism: all is one (or nondualism) c.    Morality is not absolute, but good and evil dissolve into a universal and impersonal oneness. 2.    New Age view on humanity a.    Human nature is really a divine nature: we are one with an impersonal deity. b.    Human problem: we have forgotten our true identity as divine, one with all things, and unlimited. c.    Human solution: Find the divine within through meditation, yoga, self-realization seminars. 3.    Questioning New Age philosophy a.    Human beings are limited in power and goodness; this is evident and not a delusion or matter of ignorance. b.    There are moral realities that reveal a moral dualism: good and evil; right and wrong; virtue and vice. Rape is always wrong; kindness is better than wanton cruelty. VII.    Christianity: Deposed Royality A.    Background belief: personal theism—God as Creator, Lord, Judge B.    Pascal's point can be strengthened by natural theology: arguments for God's existence from nature and in accord with reason.  C.    Human nature: created in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:27) 1.    Uniqueness of humanity: ethics, culture, language, religion  2.    Human greatness: creativity, intelligence, etc. (#113/348) Thinking reed. It is not in space that I must seek my human dignity, but in the ordering of my thought. It will do me no good to own land. Through space the universe grasps me and swallows me up like a speck; through thought I grasp it.  3.    Human dignity: image-bearers of God (Psalm 8:3-5) 4.    Disjunction from the rest of the living world; different in kind, not just degree D.    Human problem: we are fallen, warped, alienated, deposed 1.    Human evil: sexism, racism, pettiness, greed, envy, ad nauseum 2.    Our moral and spiritual corruption (Psalm 14:1-3; Mark 7:21-23) 3.    Corruptio optimi pessima: “There is nothing worse than the corruption of the best.” 4.    The essential problem: pride, self-centeredness, egotism (Romans 3:9-20) 5.    Escaping our condition through diversion Diversion. If man were happy, the less he were diverted the happier he would be, like the saints and God. Yes: but is a man not happy who can find delight in diversion?  E.    Neither angel nor beast, but human It is dangerous to explain too clearly to man how like he is to the animals without pointing out his greatness. It is also dangerous to make too much of his greatness without his vileness. It is still more dangerous to leave him in ignorance of both, but it is most valuable to represent both to him. Man must not be allowed to believe that he is equal either to animals or to angels, nor to be unaware of either, but he must know both.  F.    Humans! Wretched and great  G.    The reality of death; life kills us all; finite time to figure it all out (Hebrews 9:27). VIII.    Finding Truth, hope, and Purpose A.    The human condition requires a radical, transcendent cure B.    Jesus Christ provides this liberating cure for all people  1.    Jesus: You must repent (Matthew 4:17). 2.    Jesus provides forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration (John 3:16-18; Romans 5:6-8: Ephesians 2:1-10) 6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:6-8). 3.    The message is liberating for everyone; we are all deposed royalty (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 4:12; I Timothy 2:5-6). C.    Being human with knowledge, hope, and integrity 1.    Jesus is a God whom we can approach without pride and before whom we can humble ourselves without despair.  2.    A world view that makes sense of oneself and others 3.    The strength to love and serve through Jesus Christ, “the Mediator” (Pascal's term) The Christians' God is a God who makes the soul aware that he is its sole good: that in him alone can it find peace; that only in loving him can it find joy: and who at the same time fills it with loathing for the obstacles which hold it back and prevent it from loving God with all its might.   4.    Provides incentive to give oneself selflessly to God and God's liberating program for humanity. 5.    Know then, proud man, what a paradox you are to yourself. Be humble, impotent reason! Be silent, feeble nature! Learn that man infinitely transcends man, hear from your master your true condition, which is unknown to you. Listen to God.  Resources on Blaise Pascal and the Human Condition 1.    Douglas Groothuis, Beyond the Wager: The Christian Brilliance of Blaise Pascal (InterVarsity, 2024).2.    Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 2nd ed. (InterVarsity Press, 2022). 3.    Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (InterVarsity Press, 2000). Critique of postmodernist ideas in philosophy, theology, ethics, race, gender, and the arts.4.    Blaise Pascal, Pensées, ed. Alban Krailsheimer (Penguin, 1966). Standard collection with an excellent introduction by Krailsheimer.5.    Blaise Pascal, The Mind on Fire, ed. James Houston (Bethany House Publishers, 1997). Collection from Pensées and Pascal's shorter works. Excellent introduction by Os Guinness.6.    Michael Rota, Taking Pascal's Wager: Faith, Evidence, and the Abundant Life (InterVarsity, 2016).7.    James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalogue, 5th ed. (InterVarsity Press, 2009). Compares major worldviews, including each worldview's understanding of the human condition.   Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

If the Christian God and the Mormon God got into a fight, who would win? In this episode, S. Richard Bellrock shows just just how unfair the fight would be.

Sit down with Jonathan Youssef for a compelling conversation with Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett, authors of The Deconstruction of Christianity: What It Is. Why It's Destructive. How to Respond. This discussion examines the pervasive and unsettling movement of faith deconstruction sweeping churches today. Whether it's affecting your loved ones, straining relationships, or stirring doubts within you, this episode provides crucial understanding and guidance.Together, we will try to understand the core aspects of the Christian deconstruction movement, its origins, the meaning of deconstruction hashtags like #exvangelical, and why it attracts so many people, particularly those disenchanted with traditional church teachings.Alisa and Tim offer strategies for thoughtfully and empathetically engaging with those questioning or abandoning their faith in Christ, emphasizing responses grounded in a biblical worldview.Whether you are seeking to support a loved one in turmoil, understand the dramatic spiritual changes around you, or find answers to your spiritual doubts, Alisa and Tim provide valuable insights and answers that promise to enlighten, challenge, and encourage.Listen and gain tools and confidence to address deconstruction with clarity and love, ensuring your faith and relationships can withstand the challenges of these transformative times.ALISA CHILDERS is a popular speaker and the author of Another Gospel? and Live Your Truth and Other Lies. She has been published at the Gospel Coalition, Crosswalk, the Stream, For Every Mom, Decision magazine, and the Christian Post.TIM BARNETT is a speaker and apologist for Stand to Reason (STR). His online presence on Red Pen Logic with Mr. B helps people assess flawed thinking using good thinking, reaching millions monthly through multiple social media platforms.After you listen to this episode, you may have questions. We would love to hear from you! To ask Jonathan a question or connect with the Candid community, visit https://LTW.org/CandidAlso, join the conversation on our social media pages:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/candidpodInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/candidpodTwitter: https://twitter.com/thecandidpodTRANSCRIPT:This transcript recounts Candid Conversations with Jonathan Youssef Episode 246: The Deconstruction of Christianity with Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett.Jonathan: Today, we have quite a special situation. We have two of my favorite guests that we've had in the past, Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett. And they have teamed up and have written a book together, The Deconstruction of Christianity: What It Is, Why It's Destructive and How To Respond. Thank you guys so much for taking the time. We're all across the nation and different nations here. Thank y'all for taking the time to be on Candid Conversations.Alisa: It's great to be back with you.Tim: Yeah, it's good to see you.Jonathan: Well, I think before we jump in we've Alisa and I and Tim and I, we've separately had conversations around this area, but I love the way you break down your book into these three parts: Exvangelical, Deconstruction, and Hope. But just again for those who are new to the terminology, let's define deconstruction and separate it and define exvangelical, and then we'll talk about the reasons for the writing of the book.Alisa: Which one you want to take, Tim, exvangelical or deconstruction?Jonathan: You each get one.Tim: All right. I'll start with deconstruction. You know this is a tough definition to nail down. In fact, this took quite some research and quite some time. In fact, I actually changed my mind on how I was using the term. At least initially when I started teaching in deconstruction a few years ago, I thought there was a way that we could use the word deconstruction in a healthy way and there was a way we could use it in an unhealthy way. And we were seeing this kind of thing happening, especially on social media. You'd have people like Lecrae or John Mark Holmer or other notable evangelicals using deconstruction as a healthy way, here's a good way to do deconstruction.Tim: That's right. And on the other hand, there's a whole lot of this other stuff that's very unhealthy. That's how we originally thought until we did serious research into what's going on in this deconstruction space, especially on social media where we're seeing a movement or an explosion. And what we saw there was that there isn't anything healthy. In fact, there are defining characteristics of the deconstruction explosion that are unbiblical and just completely wrongheaded.So at the end of the day, where we landed on this—and again, we say this is the hardest sentence we wrote in the book, but here's where we landed on our definition of deconstruction: It's a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without requiring Scripture as a standard. And all those words are important in that sentence. So it's a process, but it's a very specific kind of process. It's a postmodern process. Whereas where you would think (this is what many claim) is that they are on a search for truth, what we're finding is that it's not really about truth—in fact, by postmodern we mean that there isn't a goal of truth; there's actually a denial of objective truth, that objective truth cannot be known. And so there's that on the one hand. On the other hand, you have this rejection of Scripture as an authority. And so when we put those things together, we think these are the defining characteristics of what deconstruction is all about. And we can kind of go into more detail and give some examples of where we've seen that, but that's a starting point.Alisa: Right and then the exvangelical hashtag is often used synonymously with and at least in conjunction with that deconstruction hashtag. And it's a little bit of a tricky hashtag because it doesn't simply mean, at face value, no longer evangelical. But it's not like you have people who were raised Presbyterian and they become some kind of more liturgical Anglican or something and they use the ex. They are not using the exvangelical hashtag for that. What we're seeing with the exvangelical hashtag is that, first of all, it's very difficult to define what evangelical is. And that's kind of a word like deconstruction that's defined in a hundred different ways. So there's the Bevington's Quadrilateral that characterizes the evangelical movement under four pillars of personal conversion, emphasis on the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, biblical authority, and evangelism. And yet, if you ask people in the deconstruction hashtag what is evangelical, those beliefs are in the background for sure, but what they primarily see is God, guns and Trump. It's what is perceived in their minds to be this unholy alliance between evangelicals and the political right. And so it's all kind of mashed together, along with things like spiritual abuse and purity culture and conservative politics. It's all kind of this ball that all gets kind of mixed together and then it all gets thrown out as exvangelical. And so in some cases they're conflating evangelical with the historic Christian gospel, and in other cases, they might actually be throwing out some cultural things that are Americanized that aren't necessarily a part of the gospel. And it can be kind of like a mix of both. But it's important like when Tim talked about the shift of authority, its' like the only thing that matters for the exvangelical and deconstruction is that they are leaving behind what they perceive to be toxic beliefs. And so as best as I can analyze are it's any belief outside of yourself that you would be asked to submit to, surrender to, kneel to that is not necessarily something that resonates with you inside.Jonathan: Interesting. So you're the ultimate authority, which goes to the deconstruction definition of Scripture being the authority.Alisa: I do think it boils down to that, yes. Jonathan: Do you find this is a uniquely American phenomenon? I don't even know if phenomenon is the right word to use there.Tim: That's a really good question. I think that there's a few reasons why we're seeing this in particular in North America. It's happening in Canada, too, not just the U.S. I think that we're seeing a culture that's dominated by a philosophy of relativism on the one hand and then on the other you have this kind of explosion of social media within the last decade or so. And I think bringing those two things together in particular—And then maybe a third thing, and that is the American church and how we have, I think, neglected the life of the Christian mind. We used to say the church teaches what we believe really well but not why we believe it. So us apologists, we're trying to train up the church in why we believe these things. But to be honest, when you look at the research now that's coming out in the last couple of years, people who identify as evangelical, I think it was in our book we say 42 or 43 percent of U.S., so Americans, who identify as evangelical do not believe that Jesus is god. They think He's just a good moral teacher. Hold on a second! So these people identify as evangelical but they're not Christian. I mean, this is crazy! So you have, on the one hand, Christians, people who are professing to be Christians because, hey, I was born in America or I was born in Canada. That's the default, right. It's like in your genetics or something. Yeah, so you have that on the one hand, so there's no real understanding or foundation for what real, orthodox Christianity is. Then you have this dominant culture, I mean, it's coming from every direction, this idea of relativism. It's literally the water that many of your young people especially are swimming in, and they don't even know they're wet. And then of course you have social media, this platform now, where I have access to, I mean, the world. I have access to memes and TikToks and these, for many, they think these are compelling arguments. I can't tell you how many times I'm sitting here at my desk and I get a message coming in. It's a meme or a TikTok video that someone sends me and says, “Hey, can you respond to this? I don't know what to say. I don't know how to respond.”And I watch the video or I read the meme and I think, Really? This is not a good argument. It's not even close. Usually, it's not even an argument. And so when you bring all those things together, I think that makes America susceptible to the deconstruction movement for sure.Alisa: there's also the Trump element in the American version of deconstruction. It's just such a huge part of that that is so uniquely American. But as Tim said, I think deconstruction is happening everywhere. I know progressive Christianity is happening. Even in the Middle East I've gotten emails of people wanting my book to be translated into Farsi because it's even coming into the Middle East. So where there is progressive Christianity, there is dn. But I suppose it's just taking on maybe a different type of flavor here in America.Jonathan: Well, and even the Trump effect has ripple effects around the world to where people in foreign nations see Trump and think, Oh, well, he's their definition of Christian. Let's talk about the prevalence. Because I think there are some who think this is just happening out in large cities or this is not affecting everyday people. There can be a disconnect to just how much influence this is having. And it can be people who are watching and consuming these things that aren't even talking about it with their family because they know how the family will react when there's genuine questions and doubt. So tell us a little bit about what you're seeing with the prevalence of both of these concepts entering into homes.Alisa: Well, I think we're in a different world now, so this is an interesting anecdotal piece to this. When I go out and speak I'll often ask an audience, “How many of you have heard the word deconstruction in the context of faith?” And the older the audience, the fewer the people have even heard of it. And yet, when I go speak to students it's 90 percent. But it blows my mind. Even at women's conferences where women … the ages are 20 to maybe 60, 70, you might have 20 percent raise their hand that they've even heard of the concept.And so what I mean by we're in a different world is decades ago you had to get a book deal. There was major exposure with ideas. And so I think that there are some of us who are still living in that world and don't realize the prevalence of some of these ideas on social media. For example, we have many posts documented in our book where it's somebody that nobody's ever heard of an probably never will know their name, but their video has millions of views, hundreds of thousands of likes, and if you think about the reach of that versus somebody that you might have seen on TV decades ago or maybe in a Christian bookstore even or in the catalog that they would send out, that's a lot of people. But social media can reach so many people with a message where it's not even necessarily surrounding a particular personality.And so I think the prevalence of it is on social media, so someone's exposure to it is probably going to be directly related to what types of social media they have and how often they engaging with it. Tim: And the other element to this, the older folks who have exposure to it, is because they have a loved one, usually a younger loved one, who is going through it and now we're just, as we label it, this is what it is, deconstruction, they say—it clicks. Oh, that's what my nephew is going through, or my grandchild or my son or my daughter or whatever. So it does kind of filter up to that older generation. They're seeing the aftermath usually. It's like why is my grandson no longer following the Lord? Well, it turns out they went through a process called deconstruction. Jonathan: Well, and I imagine some of the reactions can be unhelpful, and that's why, again, I think it's important that books like yours are out there and podcasts and stuff that you guys are producing is out there, so that there's a heightened awareness but also a helpful response. Because we do have a response and a calling, but we need to make sure we're doing it in a right and biblical way.I wonder if we could come to the origins of this. I know Carl Lawson writes in the foreword in your book about technically the beginning is, when Demas, who fell in love with the world, abandoned Paul and the ministry and the faith. But I mean in this particular area, is it with social media? Was there a particular person or is it just postmodernism in general? Where do you find your origins to these movements?Tim: Well, it's true that we could trace this thing past Demas. We can go all the way back to the Garden of Eden, always. But just more recently in the 1960s we see postmodern philosophers like Derrida in particular, who is the father of deconstruction. Now of course, his application of deconstruction was to textbook religion. He argued that objective meaning, objective truth, could not be known, and that there was no actual truth, so the reader could import just as much meaning as an author of a text. And what we traced in our research is we saw there is a connection here. In fact, we discovered a book by John Caputo, who is a scholar and actually follows Derrida and applies Derrida's philosophy not just to textbook religion in general, but in fact, to Christianity. And he wants to do this postmodern move even on the words of Jesus. And so he gives application in his book. What would Jesus think about, say, homosexuality today? Well, He would look around the world and see loving, monogamous relationships and He would be affirming. Even though Derrida says, yet, in the first century, no, Paul and Jesus, they had a certain view on this, but we're going to bring new meaning to the text. In fact, the way Derrida describes this is Derrida says the text actually never arrives at a meaning. In fact, he has this analogy of a postman delivering a letter, and it's like the letter never arrives at its destination, and in that sense, Christianity has not arrived. There is no set fundamental beliefs that you need to hold to—in fact, they are always changing, never arriving.So this is kind of the history, and of course there's lots of people who don't know who Derrida is, they don't know who John Caputo is, and yet, they are taking a page out of his playbook. They are thinking in terms of that kind of postmodern philosophy as they look out at religion. It's not what is actually true corresponds to reality; instead, it's there is something else going on. Oftentimes, it's personal preferences are the authority, or maybe they're looking at the culture and saying, “Yeah, look, the culture is more accepting of sexuality and so we ought to be too.”Jonathan: Yeah, just like in the days of Noah. Help us understand who are some of the primary voices behind this today? I know we talked about how when you're on social media it can be a lot of nameless, faceless people who just have an opinion and they want to create an argument or a non-argument that has an effect on people with their emotions. Are there any that are writing or have some influence as, you know, even by way of warning people, hey, be careful of so-and-so because it tends towards this trajectory?[24:42] Alisa: Well, I would say there's, in my mind, and Tim might have some others, but in my mind there's one figure in particular that is, in my view, the most influential, although he's not primarily promoting quote/unquote “deconstruction,” is Richard Rohr. Richard Rohr, his ideas, his universal Christ worldview, is—Interestingly, when I was researching the coaching and therapy sites, I found all the ones I could find online of people offering services to coach you through deconstruction or even offer you therapy through your deconstruction—and by the way, these therapy and coaching sites are not helping you to remain a Christian; they are not interested in where you land, they just want to help you along your subjective journey.But even the ones that aren't claiming to be Christians, there's always this recommendation—I looked at all the book recommendations, and there is a Richard Rohr book there every single time, even among those that don't claim to be Christians. And so what Rohr has done, I think, is, especially among people who want to retain the title Christian but might be more spiritual but not religious, or some sort of a New Age-y kind of Jesus is more of a mascot kind of thing, Rohr has really given them a worldview to put in place of what they've turned down. And he does talk about deconstruction in his book, Universal Christ, and he says it's like the process of order, disorder, and then reorder. Well, that sounds good at face value. You're taught a certain thing, and then something messes it up and as an adult you have to do some digging and some work and then you reorder. But that's not exactly what he's talking about. His order stage is what he calls “private salvation,” your private salvation project. In other words, Rohr doesn't believe in personal salvation, he believes in universal salvation, he's a universalist. So he's saying that's like the kindergarten version of faith, this kind of Christianity where you have personal faith and you have this God of wrath and judgment. All of that just needs to be disordered so that ultimately you can reorder according to his worldview.Now I bring up Rohr because he's so influential. I mean, he makes his way into so many of the deconstruction conversations. But beyond Rohr, it's tough because there can be platforms that swell up and get really big, and then I've seen them shut down after they have maybe 20,000, 30,000 followers, even up to hundreds of thousands of followers. I've seen several of these platforms just kind of get burned out and they shut down. So it's hard to say, but I would say Derek Webb, Caedmon's Call, is an important voice in there. You've got—Well, Jon Steingard was for a while when he ended up shutting down his YouTube, but he was the lead singer of Hawk Nelson. He was commenting for quite a while. Jo Luehmann is pretty influential. Who else, Tim?Tim: Well, there's—I put them in different categories.Alisa: The NakedPastor.Tim: The NakedPastor for sure. So there's guys who, and gals who have deconstructed and posted that they've deconstructed online. So that would be someone like a Rhett McLaughlin, who 3 million people watched his video four years ago. He's been keeping people updated every year; they do kind of an anniversary thing. That sparked so many people on their own deconstruction. Now what's interesting about Rhett is he didn't necessarily tell you how toTim: Yeah. And that was enough for some people to say, “Maybe I should do this too.” Now there's other platforms out there, and all they do is criticize Christianity, or they mock Christianity. Those are big on TikTok. I mean, there are massive platforms that have half a million followers and millions of views, okay, and I could go down and list some of those for you. But the point is they're not necessarily talking about deconstruction and the process, but they're just saying, “Hey, here's what you guys believe, but here's my mocking, here's my criticism.” Then there's this other stream, and this is the NakedPastor or Jo Luehmann and others who aren't just mocking Christianity or criticizing Christianity but they're trying to advocate for a certain kind of process, okay, and that's where you're going to get a little more detail on how this deconstruction thing works out. And so they've been, in fact, Jo Luehmann and the NakedPastor, David Hayward, and—Jonathan: Joshua Harris. Didn't he do a course through that?Tim: That's right. Joshua Harris, when he—again, on Instagram. That blew up. There were like 7,000 comments in response to him just posting, “I'm no longer a Christian.” And you could see the responses, and I'm telling you, there were many who said, “This post is what set me on my deconstruction journey.” So there's at least three different categories of influencers out there, and they're all playing into the same thing, deconstruction, but they all are coming at it from a different angle.Jonathan: Alisa, for those who are familiar with your story, how is this movement different from the path that you were on?Alisa: This is a great question because I've actually changed my mind on how I talk about this. So over ten years ago I had a faith crisis that was really agonizing. It was years long. I landed fairly quickly in going through some apologetics arguments, knowing that God existed, but just the doubts that would nag at me were just years of this agonizing research, reading thousands of pages of scholarship, just trying to figure out if what I believed was actually true. And it was propelled by a progressive pastor. I didn't know he was progressive at the time, but I was in a church where there was this class going on and it set my friends, a bunch of my friends, into deconstruction. And so when I wrote my first book about my journey, I actually called the process that I went through deconstruction because it was horrible, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. It was agonizing and I had to kind of de-con-struct. If you just take the word at face value, and then build back from the beginning.But interestingly, when I would go online and I would talk about my deconstruction, deconstructionists would come on and say, “No, you didn't deconstruct.” At first, that was so confusing to me. I was like, “Well, were you there?” I mean, it was like this horrible, agonizing process.Jonathan: I'm the ultimate authority here.Alisa: Yeah, right, I know. And they said, “Well, you didn't deconstruct because you still hold to toxic theology. You still have toxic theological beliefs.” And that's when I realized, oh, okay, so this isn't just—even though I knew it wasn't a good thing, I knew it was a horrible thing because, again, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, but it wasn't about truth. It's actually about leaving behind these beliefs that they think are toxic. And let's say you completely do hard work of years of studying and you decide that you are a sinner and that Jesus did die on the cross for your sins, that the Bible is God's Word and that what Jesus claimed about Himself is true and that He proved it by resurrecting from the dead, if you hold to those beliefs, along with the biblical sexual ethic, you have toxic theology and you've got to go back to the drawing board and start over.So that's when I realized, okay, there's more to this. And so I actually correct myself—Jonathan: There's a goal.Alisa: Yeah. I correct myself in the new book and say I don't actually use the language of deconstruction to describe what I went through because I was on a truth quest. I wanted to know what was true, whether I liked it or not, whether it resonated with me or not. In fact, what was interesting in the class I was in where all my friends ended up deconstructing, and I mean all that I know of, there might be two that I lost touch with that maybe didn't, but most of the people that I know of did. And everything in that class was all about what resonates with me. I mean, we would … they would talk about Bible verses and say, “Well, that just doesn't resonate with me,” and they would toss it aside. And I was like, “You can't just do that.”And so I didn't deconstruct, and so I corrected my language on that and really changed my mind about what I think it is. And I think what I'm hoping to set the example for others is people who are wanting to use the word because it was trendy—because I really had a thing about that. Why am I using the word? Why am I hanging onto the word? And I had to realize there's no reason for me to use that word. Because what I did was search for truth. I tested all things, held fast to what is good—that's biblical. I don't need a postmodern word to describe that. And so that would be my journey with this word and kind of my relationship with it is that I've changed my mind; I didn't deconstruct. It was—Jonathan: You re-entrenched.Alisa: Yeah, they just think I circled some wagons and found some people to agree with me. Which is so interesting to me, because they weren't there. And that's the thing. Pete Ens, I've seen the comment from him, “Oh, Alisa doesn't know … she doesn't understand deconstruction, she doesn't get it.”And I'm just like, “Were you there? You weren't there. You have no idea what I went through.” But it's like they're so quick to say, “You have to respect my lived experience,” but they are the first ones that will not respect your lived experience if you land at historic Christianity for sure.Jonathan: That makes sense. You guys have spent hours on places like TikTok researching what leads people to deconstruct and what they all have in common. What are the common threads that you've noticed through that?Tim: Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, some of the factors that we've noticed that kind of launch people into a deconstruction are things like doubts, unanswered questions. Virtually all these stories have some instance of suffering or pain, and we've all been through that. There's church hurt, there's spiritual abuse. Now we've got to be careful about that a little bit, because sometimes it's a real abuse that happens, of course, we would all want to say that is horrible and we stand against that. That is not of God. And so when a pastor engaged in that kind of thing, he needs to be held accountable for it.But then on the other hand there is what we might call perceived abuse or perceived harm. And this is where things like teaching the doctrine of hell. In our research, we found that that's called, you know, teaching your kids, it's child abuse. If you say that Jesus died for your sins, that's considered toxic and abusive to tell someone that, yet that's the gospel message. So we want to make sure that we distinguish between those things.Of course, we just mentioned earlier about politics and Trump and all that stuff. So there's these different elements that you'll see peppered within these stories. Now we want to be quick to say that not all deconstruction stories are alike. In fact, they are often very unique, and that's because every single person is unique. So if you've heard one deconstruction story, then you've only heard one, you haven't heard them all. But there are these common threads.One question that we asked when we were doing our research is why is it that two people can grow up in the same house, they can go to the same church, the same youth group, they have the same parents, they experience some of the same trauma, suffering, whatever, and yet one will deconstruct and the other maybe becomes an even more faithful believer. What's going on there?And what we found is it comes down to—at least one element—a faith foundation. What is it, what is your faith foundation? And of course, this is going to be different for different people, and what we need to be asking, we're challenging the church to ask, is what does it mean to be a Christian? Oftentimes, you know—and this is a question I was asked when I was in university by my friends who were not believers, “Tim, why are you a Christian?” And I honestly shot back, “Because my parents are Christians.” That was my first response. I knew that ain't right. That was embarrassing. I'd grown up in the church. I'd done all the church stuff, and yet I did not have a strong Christian foundation and a strong Christian faith. And so I, at that point, was very susceptible to this kind of deconstruction, right, because I could—if TikTok was big at that time, I could have watched a video and, “Okay, I'm outta here. This has been refuted.”So I think that all those things that I mentioned earlier can make you a good candidate for deconstruction, but they don't have to lead you down the path of deconstruction. This is why it's really, really important that the church needs to be helping to develop and disciple Christians so they have a strong foundation so when that crisis hits, they are able to stand firm in their faith. So let me ask this question. There may be a simple answer. Is the faulty foundations that people are building on essentially, I mean, is the answer anything but Christ? Is it in the institution of the church or in the leadership in the church or your favorite Christian singer? Is it … do you find those the main threads that came back?Alisa: That's an interesting question. I think, you know, when I think about foundation … Because I was trying to think through this question even within my own context. So one of my sisters was not a Christian until she was an adult, and she would say that openly; that's part of her testimony. She grew up in church. We grew up in the same home, we had the same discipleship, the same youth pastors, pretty much the same experiences growing up, same environment, and yet our foundation was different because I was a devoted Christian as far back as I can remember. I mean, I don't even remember a time where I didn't absolutely know that the Bible was God's Word and Jesus was who He said He was. And yet, for my sister, she grew up in the same environment but had a totally different foundation. she did all the things, she cooperated with it, but She never personally trusted in Christ.Jonathan: Going through the motions, yeah, okay.Alisa: Yeah. And she may not have even realized that. You might have asked her at 12 years old, “Are you a Christian,” she might have said, “Well, yeah,” but she didn't know that she wasn't until she actually got saved as an adult. And so I think the foundation is more of a personal thing. The way I see it is the level of understanding you  might have had. We have a lot of this sort of seeker-sensitive model that's over the past few decades has gotten really big. I'm not saying it's wrong to have a large church or try to be sensitive to people who are seeking, of course. But some of those seeker-sensitive and megachurch models really watered-down the gospel, really sacrificed discipleship for numbers. And I think that that has resulted in a lot of people growing up in churches that maybe—And I'm not … We don't speculate on this question in the book, were they really saved, were they not because we don't know the end of their story either, but I do think even right now we have a lot of people in our churches who maybe may not be Christians because they may not be getting the gospel, they're not getting Bible teaching. And they might like the community and even like and believe certain things about it, but everybody's foundation is maybe going to be a little bit different. That's kind of how I see it.Jonathan: Well, I mean, not to steer us theologically, but I mean it has to be the work of the Spirit in the life of a person, and that's all in the sovereign timing of the Lord. I wonder if sometimes in this American evangelical mindset from an older-generation perspective we have this understanding that my children should be Christians and they should be following the ways that I direct. And then I should start seeing spiritual fruit in their life. Like, well, I don't know. I mean, is there something wrong with that happening at a later point? Just thinking from a parental, a parent's perspective. Maybe I've gone into the weeds there a little bit.Alisa: Like Tim said, each deconstruction story is unique. I would say it like this. Every deconstruction story is unique and yet they're kind of all the same, too, in certain points. I know we're getting in the weeds a little bit, but as a parent, I wouldn't want to push my kid to say they believe something they don't really believe. I'd want them to come to that on their own. And that might come later, certainly, yeah.Jonathan: And there's a level of you want your child to be honest with you, and I think sometimes we can put a false expectation on your child to be going to be at a certain place when they're just not ready for that yet. And so what they're actually deconstructing is deconstructing whatever that false view—again, as you said, there's different stories of deconstruction. But ultimately, if you deconstruct and never return back, to your point, there was never faith to begin with. You experienced the benefits of a covenant community or whatever it is. As Hebrews says, you were tasting but you weren't of that, you know … not all Israel is Israel.Do you think it's potentially because parents are unwilling to engage in the hard questions of the faith? Or do you think perhaps there is always just people who are going to rebel against Christ? Is it all of the above? In your research, I don't know if you're working with people who have gone through it and then interviewing them. Are you tracing things back to a particular point? I think we all want to say, “Where does the blame lie?” Are you finding that?Tim: I think it's all of the above. A lot of these stories have unanswered questions. In fact, Alisa did a debate on Unbelievable with Lisa Gunger, and she makes this really tragic statement where she said, “Questioning was equivalent to sinning in our church. If you questioned the pastor, you questioned his teaching, whatever, you were in essence sinning.”So confessing to your questions is confessing your sins. And that mentality, I mean, we wrote a whole chapter called “Questions,” In that chapter, what we're trying to do is a little bit of a wake-up call. We're trying to rattle the church a little bit and say, “Hey, we can do better. We ought to be the place where people feel safe to ask their questions and express their doubts.” And I hope that everyone listening to this hears that. Tim and Alisa are not against questions—in fact, we're apologists. We travel around and we're doing our best to answer questions, so we're not against that, and we want the church to be a safe place.And I mean we give an example of Tim Keller. At the end of his sermons, his services, he would do like a 40-, 45-minute Q&A time where he would just stick around and, okay, come on up. And in New York City, where you have like diversity of people, diversity of views coming in, you're going to have skeptics, you're going to have atheists, you're going to have whatever coming in, asking their hard questions. And when you think about it, the way we have our churches structured, at least most of them, there isn't really a Q&A time. That would be like a very special thing. Maybe every few months the pastor will take questions or something. Jonathan: A special treat. Yeah, yeah.Tim: That's right. But for the most part, that's not there, and that can give a lot of people the impression that questions aren't allowed here. You just listen to what's spoken, do what you're told, and that's the end of it. So I think that's part of it. But you also mentioned, yeah, maybe there's a rebellious heart, too. You can't read the Bible very far without seeing someone who has a rebellious heart. So we—Tim: That's right. Just a couple of pages in. And so you end up seeing that this is a realistic element that we need to be talking about, too, and that's why we devoted an entire chapter to the deconstructor, because there are things about the deconstructor that are important to be aware of from a biblical anthropology perspective. And so there certainly are people who are seeking answers, and we want to be there to provide answers. But then there's also these questions out there that are seeking exits. And you see lots of those. You see them in Scripture and we see—When you've got Richard Dawkins saying, “Well, who made God?” Richard Dawkins should know better, you know. When my four-year-old asks that question, okay, fair enough. But when you have an academic from Oxford asking that question as if it's legitimate of the Christian God, something else is going on.Jonathan: I remember Keller teaching on Job, and he says Job is filled with questions, right, but the issue was that he never left God. He didn't say, “I have questions and now I'm going to go over here and ask them.: But he kept asking the questions of the Lord in his particular situation. And he was saying that questioning can be a good thing because it's, as we talked earlier, all truth is Christ's truth, so there's nothing to be afraid of. You're not going to get an answer where it should cause difficulty. But rather, you're sticking close to the source and you're going to get your answers within reason. But rather than going—And it's interesting, because that's what these TikToks and all these things are creating is new avenues for you to go and ask questions and find a story that resonates with you, right, that's the big terminology that we were using earlier. So that resonates with your story and how you feel, and then where did they land? How do we invite this sort of cultivating an openness for asking of questions? Is it let's have a Q&A session at the end of church? Is it, you know, we need to start training our parents to have them understand that your kids asking questions is a good thing because they're coming to you versus no, everything is fine and I'm going to go to YouTube and find the answer because I think you're going to be mad at me or whatever it is. Help us think through that from a church perspective. Alisa: Well, I think starting with the parents is a great place to start because if we can train parents to be the first person to introduce some of these difficult topics to their kids, we know statistically the first person to introduce the topic will be viewed as an expert in the eyes of the child. So when we as parents are the first people to talk to our kids about gender and sexuality and all of these different things—and promoting an environment where we're not weird about it, we're not acting awkward about it, then we want to be the Google. I want to be Google for my kids. And that means I'm going to be really honest when they ask their questions and sometimes give more information than they wanted.My daughter, she jokes with me like “I know I'll get a straight answer from you with whatever I ask.” And so maybe even training parents to ask your kids questions like “Hey, what's your biggest question about God?”And parents don't need to be afraid of what their kids say, because it's perfectly fine to say, “Wow, I've never really thought about that. Let's think that through together,” and then go do some research and continue to engage with your kid about it. But I think in the home, if we can start there, that's a great place. And then the church can help come around parents with even youth groups doing Q&As and pastors doing Q&As. I think that's a huge way to promote that environment from the home, all the way through the church culture.Jonathan: Okay, let's do a little sort of engaging with others segment here. What would you say to those who are seeing their loved ones go through deconstruction or exvangelical. What would you say to them? Buy our book.Tim: Yeah, that. And I mean the first thing that I would say is stay calm. It can be not just earthshattering for the person going through deconstruction, but the loved ones of those deconstructors it's often earthshattering. We talk about this in the book, actually. To find out that my kids who I've raised in the church come to me and say, “Dad, I don't believe any of this stuff anymore, I'm out,” that would be crushing.And I would want to remind myself: stay calm. I've heard so many stories, and they're actually horror stories, where a child comes to a parent and says, “I'm deconstructing” and the parent just loses it. “How could you do that?” And they overreact, and of course that's not going to help. That's the first thing.I would want my kids right away to know that they are loved, period. That this doesn't change my love for them. It's not “I love you, but let me fix your theology.” It's “I love you, period. You're still my daughter. I'm still your dad. That's not going to change.”And then another thing just to add is say thank you. It must have taken a lot for that individual, if they come to you and share that they've deconstructed, it must have been a big deal to do that. So I would say, “Thanks for sharing that with me and me being the person that can be there for you.” So those are introductory things. Obviously, relationship is going to be so important. It's not necessarily that you're going to be able to maintain the relationship. We've heard stories of people getting no-contact letters from their loved one saying, “Your theology is toxic. I don't want anything to do with you and so we're done. Here's my no-contact letter.”But if they're willing to stay in your life, then we want to do whatever is possible to  maintain that relationship without compromising truth. Truth is absolutely necessary. But you want to be in that relationship as long as possible, because that's where you're going to be able to have probably the best impact.Its' interesting you brought up Job earlier. And Job's comforters started on the right track. They were there and they sat with Job—Jonathan: Silent.Tim: Silently for seven days. And then it was when they started to open their mouths they got themselves into trouble, and I think we can learn something from that. So we want to hear, “Hey, tell me your story.”One of the first questions I would want to know is, “What do you mean by deconstruction?” If they're using that word, I want to know if they just mean, “Hey, I'm asking some questions. Hey, I don't know if I believe in this view of creation, baptism, and maybe I'm changing.”Okay, that's different than what we're seeing online, okay, this idea of a postmodern process. So I want to nail down, okay, what are you going through and what kind of process or methodology are you using to go through it? I want to be able to identify those things.And of course, in the book we talk about this idea of triage. If you have a gunshot wound to the head but a broken finger, they're treating the gunshot wound to the head, right, the thing that's more serious. And in a similar way, once you understand where this person's coming from, you've heard their story, you're going to be able to do some triage. Okay, what's the most important thing in this moment? Is it that I answer all these questions that I'm having? Is it that they just need me to be with them because they are going through something? And I think that's important because sometimes we miss the mark. Especially as apologists, oh, let me answer that question. Let's go for coffee. I'm going to fix your theology and then we'll be back on track.Jonathan: We're going to fix the problem, yeah.Tim: That's likely not going to happen. And then finally, I would just say continue to pray. We cannot underestimate the power of prayer. If someone is going through deconstruction, what they need is God. They need the Holy Spirit. And so let's petition God on their behalf. Let's pray that God does whatever is necessary to draw that person back to Himself.Jonathan: All right, now thinking for the person who is considering deconstructing their faith. And again, that could be a myriad of different positions along that path, but what are the things you would want them to know?Alisa: Well, so here's what I would say. If someone is considering deconstruction as if it's like an option, “Oh, maybe I'll deconstruct my faith,” and there's no crisis that's actually throwing you in deconstruction, I would say you don't need to do that. There's no biblical command to get saved, get baptized, and then deconstruct your faith. You don't need to do that. If there are some incorrect theological views that you—maybe you grew up in a very legalistic stream of Christianity. Maybe you grew up in the Mormon church. Maybe you grew up as  Jehovah's Witness and you need to go to Scripture, make Scripture your authority, and then get rid of beliefs that were taught to you that are not biblical. I want you to know that that is a biblical process and that is what you should do.Jonathan: This is what we call disentangling, right, that we were talking about.Alisa: Yes. In our book, we would call it reformation. But yeah, Jinger Duggar calls it disentangling. I don't care what you call it. I would just really encourage you to not use the word deconstruction, because deconstruction is a very specific thing that isn't about getting your theological beliefs corrected according to the Bible, and so we want to be reforming our faith according to Scripture. And so if you need to disentangle, as Jinger would say, or reform beliefs that were unbiblical, please do that. And that can be a very long process. It can be a difficult process. But if someone is listening who's maybe propelled into deconstruction through some church abuse or whatever it might be, my encouragement would sort  of be the same. It's actually good for you to get rid of beliefs that led to abuse, that Jesus stands against abuse as well. But I would just encourage you not to get sucked into this sort of deconstruction movement, because it's not based on absolute truth. It's not based on Scripture. And it's not going to lead you to any sort of healing and wholeness spiritually. And so whether you're just considering it intellectually or you're just interested, I would resist it. And that's … There's going to be well-meaning evangelical leaders that will tell you you can deconstruct according to the bible, but I don't think you can. And so let's keep our language and the way we think about this biblical rather than bringing in a postmodern concept that just clouds the … muddies the water and causes confusion.Jonathan: All right, this is good because this goes to the next level. What do you say to those who believe that Christianity is toxic or patriarchal? What's your word to them? And then the follow-up to that would be for believers. When do we engage and when do we not engage with people who are kind of promoting that sort of ideology?Tim: I would want to ask some questions, like what do they mean by toxic, what do they do they mean by patriarchal, to nail down those definitions. Are they appealing to something objective or are they appealing to something subjective based on their own personal preferences? I think it's really important that we start with what's true before we can look at whether or not something is toxic, or harmful, or whatever. In the book, we give the example of you stumble upon someone who's kind of beating on someone's chest, and in that moment it may look like they're being abused, but you come to find out that actually they've had a heart attack, and that person is not beating on their chest, they're doing chest compressions, doing CPR. That totally changes how you see that action, right? It goes from being, hey, that's harmful and toxic to, wait, this is lifesaving, this is lifegiving. So I think that's really important, when I see a deconstructionist talk about how hell is causing child abuse, I want to know, first of all, if there is such a place as hell. For them, it's not even on the table; it's not even the question, right, because it's a totally different philosophy, a totally different worldview. I want to look at is this true?I give the example of I told my kids not to jam a knife into the wall socket. Well, why not? Because there's electricity in there and it could electrocute you and kill you. So any good parent warns their kids about that. Or touching the hot stove, these kinds of things. Is it harmful for me to tell them not to do that? Everyone agrees, no, that's not harmful; it's not toxic. Now, it would be toxic if there was no such thing as electricity. If I'm just playing these games where I'm trying to torment my kids so they're scared to do whatever, to actually make them terrified of the stove or something. No. Okay, the reason that they need to be careful around this hot stove or not stuck, stick stuff in the wall outlet is because there are dangers. And if hell really is this kind of danger, then we ought to appropriately talk about this issue. Look, I'm not talking to my three-year-old about eternal conscious torment. You know what I'm saying? Obviously, there is some appropriate when the time is right. Sexuality, we appropriately talk with those … about those issues with our kids. But we do talk about those things, and that's because they're true, and that's were we start.Jonathan: That sort of answers a little bit of the next question, which is that you both dedicated the book to your children. And we're, I think, we've kind of addressed it in terms of being available. But in light of everything that you know and all that is going on with deconstruction and the questions and the struggles of the next generation, how are you taking this and applying this as you raise your children?Alisa: Well, I know that this research has definitely affected how I parent. In fact, I went through a phase in the early stages of the research where I would hear myself saying things, and I was like, “That's going to end up in their deconstruction struggle.” And I found myself almost becoming way too passive for it was probably just a couple of months when the research was so intense, and it was new. And it was like, oh my gosh, all these things i'm saying to my children is what people say they think is toxic and that's what they're deconstructing from.And then I swung back around and I'm like, no, it's my job as a parent to teach my kids what's true about reality. Just because maybe culture things that 2 + 2 = 5 now doesn't mean that I need to cower and say, “Well, you know, I'm not going to be too legalistic about 2 + 2 + 4.” No. 2 + 2 = 4. You can believe what you want, but this is what's true. And so I actually, you know, what I've started to do is tell my kids “Look, it's my job as your mom to teach you what's true about reality. And what you believe about God and what you believe about morality is in the same category of science, math, logic. These are facts about reality. It's my job to teach you. Now, you are the person who chooses to believe it or not.”And so what I've tried to do is really engage my kids in conversations, but knowing also that statistically they might deconstruct one day. I have to leave a lot of that to the Holy Spirit, and also to try to model to my children what a real believer looks like. I think that's a huge, a huge element in parenting is letting our kids see us repent to them if we sin against them, in front of them. Reading our Bibles on a regular basis together, praying together as a family. Not just being Sunday Christians. Here in the South it's real easy to just be that Sunday Christian and then—Jonathan: Haunted by the ghost of Christ.Alisa: That's right. And then you just live like He doesn't exist the rest of the week. And that's the thing about the Bible Belt. Certainly, people aren't acting  … like doing pagan sacrifices during the week. They are pretty much good people. But it's just not relevant to their lives until Sunday comes around. And just being different from that in front of our kids is something I've really tried to engage. And just engaging their questions without pushing them, I think, is a huge thing. Like you mentioned earlier, is letting them have their own story and their own journey. And even as my sons wrestled with the problem of evil for about two years really intensely, I really didn't want to push him. And I just validated that that's a good question, that's an honest question to ask, and let's talk to the Lord about it, let's think through some things. But trying not to push him to just settle really quickly so that he can work this out for himself, with discipleship and the guidance of parents. But that's one of the ways it's really affected my parenting.Tim: That's so good. Yes and amen to all of that. Jonathan: Okay, I second that. All right, give us some hope. This is your part three. Part three. This can all sound pretty scary and off-putting and you need to block it out.Tim: It really really does seem hopeless, especially if you spend any time kind of typing in hashtag deconstruction or hashtag exvangelical. I mean, I would go into my office here and start working and writing and I'd come out and I'd just be like … my mood has changed.Jonathan: Spiritual warfare, for sure.Tim: My wife knew it, oh yeah, my wife saw it and my kids could see it. It was really discouraging. And so I feel for those parents who have that loved one who's going through this, and many do, so we wanted to make sure we end the book on a hopeful note. And one of the things that we were thinking about—in fact, I think it started with a phone call. I called Alisa, and I remember I was sitting at my dining-room table and I had a sermon that I was going to give on deconstruction. And I'm like, Alisa, I need to end this thing with something hopeful because it is so … And I had, actually, a parent reach out to me before I gave the sermon, saying, “I really hope that you're going to give us some hope.” Because they have a child themselves, a young adult, who's deconstructing. I'm thinking, okay, what is it Alisa? Help me out here.And we just started talking back and forth and so I don't know how this came up, but eventually we started thinking about Easter weekend, right, we're coming up to it. Of course, you think about what was going on Friday night. It's like Peter's there; he's seen his Savior, his Messiah being crucified, and his world is turned upside down. We could just imagine what that was like to go through this traumatic experience. And then, of course, it jumps to Sunday and Sunday brings with it resurrected hope, right? And you have the angel shows up, tells the women, you know, go and tell His disciples AND Peter. Like Peter really needs to hear this. Friday night, he denied the Lord three times. It was a bad night for Peter. But he's going to receive this resurrection hope on Sunday.Well, we actually titled the last chapter “Saturday” because we think that a lot of people are living in what could be described as a Saturday. Now again, we're not told much about that particular Easter Saturday, so we can only speculate, but really, I mean, what kind of questions were the disciples, in particular, Peter, asking? Were they starting to doubt some of the things that they had been taught, maybe like trying to explain away some of the miracles they had seen? It wasn't supposed to happen this way, was it? And so there's self-doubt, there's all this trauma that they've experienced. Now of course, Sunday was just around the corner. We think that, look, if that hope can come for Peter, then it can come for you and your loved one, too, right? We don't know what that Saturday looks like. It may not be tomorrow. It may not be just one 24-hour day. It could be months down the road; it could be years down the road; but we think this is a message. Because if it can happen for Peter, it can happen for your loved one. And I think that can move us from a state of “This is completely hopeless, what good can come from this? How can this be undone,” to a state where, no, we can be hopeful. Jesus rose from the grave after being dead. And when that happened, Peter's faith is restored. “Do you love me?” He says, “Yeah, I love you.” Three times, kind of like paralleling the three denials.Jonathan: Exactly.Tim: And then the Church is built on this confession. So I mean that brings me hope, and hopefully it brings hope to others who are going through this.Jonathan: Just one final question. Have you seen anyone who's been restored out of this?Alisa: You know what? I have heard a few stories, but these are people that have platforms. So I have several people that are part of my Facebook community who have said they deconstructed into progressive Christianity but have been brought back. I have had a couple of people on my personal podcast who had deconstructed. One is a guy name Dave Stovall. We actually tell his story in the book. He was in the band Audio Adrenaline, and he deconstructed into progressive Christianity and then a local pastor here in town discipled him back to the historic Christian faith and had all these difficult conversations with him and engaged him in conversation. So I think we are seeing some. We're not seeing a lot yet, but I think a lot of the stories maybe are just more private, where people aren't necessarily shouting it on social media. But yeah, the Lord's at work, absolutely.Jonathan: That's good.Tim: Yeah, I can echo that, too. We've been … A I travel around teaching and speaking, I'll have people come up to me and usually you get a lot of people saying, “Thanks for hits information. I had no idea this was going on.” But this one guy, he said, “I went through deconstruction.” And he said, “It was when you put up your definition of deconstruction that you had me because that”—Alisa: Wow!Tim: I thought he was going to push back and be like, “But that's not how you define it. Instead, he said, “You had me as soon as you put up your definition.” Why? “Because,” he said, “that exactly described the process that I was going through.” And yet, here he was on that Sunday morning at church kind of completely kind of turning a corner and willing to say, “No, I'm willing to follow the truth wherever it leads.”And that led him to affirming that the Bible is God's Word, and now he's trying to align his beliefs. And of course, that's a journey we're all on. I have false beliefs right now; I just don't know which ones are false, right? I'm always trying to correct my mistaken beliefs and make them align with Scripture. And praise the Lord, that was the journey he was on.Jonathan: Oh, amen. Well, the book is The Deconstruction of Christianity: What It Is, Why It's Destructive and How To Respond. Alisa Childers, Tim Barnett, thank you, guys, so much for being on Candid Conversations. I've really enjoyed our talk today.Alisa: Me, too. Thanks so much.Tim: Yeah, this was a lot of fun. Thanks for having us.Jonathan: God bless.

At the time of Diocletian's persecutions, he was a very old man, having served as a reader for sixteen years, then a deacon for twenty-eight years, and finally as a priest for thirty years, for a total of seventy-four years. The pagan judge put him in the Temple of Aesculapius, where large snakes were kept and worshiped as gods. Though the judge meant for Artemon to be attacked by the snakes, the holy priest immobilized them with the sign of the Cross, brought them out of the temple and, in front of the pagan priests, breathed on the snakes, which died instantly. The chief priest, Vitalis, fell to his knees and cried 'Great is the Christian God!' Artemon baptised him along with several of his friends.   The unrepentant judge then condemned Artemon to be thrown into burning pitch, but the judge himself was thrown off his horse into the pitch and died. After this, Artemon went free for a time and spent his time teaching the Faith to his people ("accompanied always by two tame deer," says St Nikolia Velimirovic!). But he was arrested again and beheaded in the year 303.

At the time of Diocletian's persecutions, he was a very old man, having served as a reader for sixteen years, then a deacon for twenty-eight years, and finally as a priest for thirty years, for a total of seventy-four years. The pagan judge put him in the Temple of Aesculapius, where large snakes were kept and worshiped as gods. Though the judge meant for Artemon to be attacked by the snakes, the holy priest immobilized them with the sign of the Cross, brought them out of the temple and, in front of the pagan priests, breathed on the snakes, which died instantly. The chief priest, Vitalis, fell to his knees and cried 'Great is the Christian God!' Artemon baptised him along with several of his friends.   The unrepentant judge then condemned Artemon to be thrown into burning pitch, but the judge himself was thrown off his horse into the pitch and died. After this, Artemon went free for a time and spent his time teaching the Faith to his people ("accompanied always by two tame deer," says St Nikolia Velimirovic!). But he was arrested again and beheaded in the year 303.

GUEST: ANDREW DeBARTOLO, Director of Operations, Liberty Coalition CanadaTo borrow a popular term today, the United States is in “transition”. Whereas the nation once “identified” as a broadly Christian nation (the Declaration of Independence refers multiple times to the Christian God), a real transition (in contrast to the imagined transitions and marriages of the transvestite/homosexual movement) has and is taking place to a present-day post-Christian, neo-pagan nation, where Satanic statues are displayed in state capitol buildings and a reworked Marxist-based, anti-Christian religion of woke-ism has captured many minds and all institutions.How and why has this happened in a nation so known for and influenced by Christianity? Is it…Infiltration of nefarious forces (e.g. globalists and Marxists)?Leavening principle of sin over time?Compromising churches exerting less influence?Christians unengaged from culture and politics?Judgment of God “giving over” the nation to unrestrained sinfulness (Rom. 1)?Whatever the reasons—and no doubt there are more—here we are in our present state of depravity and foolishness (i.e. thinking and living as if there is no God).So what should Christians do now? Broadly speaking, there are three general responses:FAITHFULNESS: A primary focus on personal sanctification, family discipleship, and the local church, along with some civil engagement such as voting, running for public office, and supporting organizations that advocate for Christian-based policies. Example: G3 Ministries, John MacArthurACTIVISM: a more muscular posture that aims for spiritual and cultural change, including local church advocacy in politics and issues, on-the-street confrontation of sin, and a willingness to unite across theological divides to accomplish political objectives. Example: Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk.DOMINION: the belief that Christ reigns over all and thus a mandate that institutions and society be reclaimed, possibly by force if necessary, to reflect overtly Christian laws and magistrates. Example: full-throated Christian Nationalists, some in New Apostolic ReformationWhich response most honors God and the example His Son and His disciples set? Join us this weekend on The Christian Worldview as Andrew DeBartolo, Director of Operations for Liberty Coalition Canada, describes what is occurring in his country and ours and what he believes Christians should do.

What would convince you of God's existence? Specifically, the Christian God. What would change your mind and cause you to convert? I name three things: Christian aliens, miracles, and religious experience. That's not an exhaustive list, but those things would dramatically raise my credence in Christian theism. I spend the most time talking about religious … Continue reading CA131 What would convince you? →

Questions about whether one can argue from the existence of evil straight to the Christian God or if more arguments are required to get there and whether Abraham sacrificing Isaac would be considered a good action since God commanded it. Does the existence of evil argue for the God of the Bible or only for a monotheistic God in general? If Abraham sacrificed Isaac, would the action be considered good since God commanded it?

The dominant narrative is that Western culture is headed for ever greater levels of atheism, agnosticism, or at least departure from belief in the Christian God. Andy Crouch returns from his sabbatical to question this narrative. He points out that the dominant secular worldview of the West - deterministic, rationalistic, and reductionist - is starting to run on empty. Can this lead to a greater hunger for the Christian God? Curtis and Andy examine what Christians would need to do to meet this hunger, including reexamining our own understanding of the Gospel itself.   The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World by Ian McGilchrist   At the Origins of Modern Atheism by Michael J. Buckley   The One, the Three, and the Many: God, Creation, and the Culture of Modernity by Colin Gunton  

In this compilation of calls from an atheist, Greg answers questions about the nature of objective morality, who goes to Hell, and how one can move from the cosmological argument for the existence of God to the God of the Bible.   Topics: If we can unify our understanding of morality by agreeing on a common goal, then isn't that objective morality? (02:00) Who goes to Hell? (18:00) How do we move from the need for a first cause to the existence of the God of the Bible? (42:00) Mentioned on the Show:  Conversations with an Atheist – Download the compilation of Greg's discussions with Ian (includes an additional question) Related Links: #STRask: Why conclude the beginning of the universe points to the Christian God rather than one of the other explanations people offer? A Simple Explanation of the Cosmological Argument – Short video from Reasonable Faith