Podcasts about Jack Carson

Matt, hey, my friends, welcome to the off the wire podcast. My name is Matt Wireman, and with over 25 years of coaching experience, I bring to you a an integrated approach to coaching where we look at mind, body and soul. So this being my little corner of the universe, welcome we cover everything from spiritual formation or the interior life all the way to goal setting and how to make your life better with life hacks, and I cover everything in between. So whatever it fits my fancy, I'm going to share with you, and I'm so thankful for your time, and I hope this episode helps you. All right. Well, hey, welcome, welcome to another episode of Off The Wire. This is Matt, still I haven't changed, but I do have with me, my friend. Really proud to call him a friend. And from seminary days, Dr Josh chatro, who is the Billy Graham chair for evangelism and cultural engagement at Beeson. That's a mouthful. Josh, well done. And then he is also, they just launched a concentration in apologetics at Beeson, which is really exciting. They got a conference coming up this summer. Is that also an apologetics Josh,its own preaching and apologetics? Okay? Awesome.And, and largely, you're also, you're also part of the Tim Keller Center for Cultural apologetics, and then also a, they call them fellows at the Center for Pastor theologians as well. That's right, yeah. And you in, you have been at Beeson for a couple years, because prior to that, you were at a you were heading up. And what was it largely an apologetics group, or was it, was it more broad than that in Raleigh?Yeah, it was. It was much more expansive than that. Evangelism and apologetics is part of what we were doing, but it was the Center for Public Christianity, okay? It was also very much in the work and faith movement. And I was also resident theologian at Holy Trinity Anglican in Raleigh. We were there for five years,excellent and and you don't know this because you don't keep tabs on who bought your book, but I've got every one of your books brother, so every every book you put out, and I'm like, I love this guy, and I'm gonna support him and buy his book. So it started all the way back, if you remember, with truth matters, yeah. And I use that book for one of the classes that I built here where I teach. And then then I want to go through the Litany here and embarrass you a little bit. And then it goes to apologetics, at the Cross Cultural Engagement, telling a better story, surprised by doubt. And then one that you just released called the Augustine way, retrieving a vision for the church's apologetic witness. So do you write much on apologetics? Is that kind of your thing?Yeah, I've written a few books on that.So why? Like, what is it about apologetics that has really captured your heart, in your mind and like, as opposed to just teaching theology, yeah, it's a certain it's a certain stream. If folks are first of all, folks are curious, like, What in the world is apologetics? Are you apologizing to folks? Like, are you saying I'm sorry?Well, I do have to do that. I'm sorry a lot. That's a good practice. That's not quite what apologetics is. Okay. Okay, so we, one of the things I would say is, and when I meet, when I meet up with old friends like you, sometimes they say, What have you been doing? Because we didn't see this coming. And when we were in seminary together, it wasn't as if I was, you know, reading a lot of apologetic works. And so one of the things is,and you weren't picking fights on campus too much. You were always a really kind person. And most, most time, people think of like apologists as, like, real feisty. And you're not a feisty friend. I'm not. I actually, unless you start talking about, like, soccer and stuff like that, right? Yeah,yeah, I'm not. Yeah, I don't. I don't love, I don't love, actually, arguments I'd much rather have, which is an odd thing, and so I need to tell how did I get into this thing? I'd much rather have conversations and dialog and kind of a back and forth that keeps open communication and and because, I actually think this ties into apologetics, most people don't make decisions or don't come to they don't come to any kind of belief simply because they were backed into an intellectual corner. And but now maybe I'll come back to that in a second. But I got into this because I was doing my PhD work while I was pastoring. And when you do yourpH was that in in Raleigh, because you did your PhD work at Southeastern, right?That's right, that's right. But I was actually, we were in southern, uh. In Virginia for the first half, we were in a small town called Surrey. It was, if you know anything about Tim Keller, it was he served in Hopewell, Virginia for seven or nine years before he went to Westminster and then to New York. And we were about 45 minutes from that small town. So if you've read Colin Hansen's book, he kind of gives you some background on what is this, these little communities, and it does, does kind of match up the little community I was serving for two years before moving to another little community in South Georgia to finish while I was writing. And so I pastored in both locations. So these aren't particularly urban areas, and yet, people in my church, especially the young people, were asking questions about textual criticism, reliability of the Bible.Those are any topics forfolks like, yeah, something happened called the Internet, yes. All of a sudden now, things that you would, you would get to, maybe in your, you know, thm, your your master's level courses, or even doctoral level courses. Now 1819, year old, 20 year olds or 50 year olds had questions about them because they were reading about some of this stuff on the internet. And because I was working on a PhD, I was actually working on a PhD in biblical theology and their New Testament scholar, people would come to me as if I'm supposed to know everything, or you know. And of course, of course, when you're studying a PhD, you're you're in a pretty narrow kind of world and very narrow kind of lane. And of course, I didn't know a lot of things, but I was, I kind of threw myself into, how do I help people with these common questions. So it wasn't as if, it wasn't as if I was saying, oh, I want to study apologetics. I kind of accidentally got there, just because of really practical things going on in my church context. And and then as I was reading and I started writing in response to Bart Ehrman, who is a is a agnostic Bible scholar. Wrote four or five New York Times bestsellers, uh, critical of the New Testament, critical of the Bible, critical of conservative Christianity. I started writing those first two books. I wrote with some senior scholars. I wrote in response. And then people said, so your apologist? And I said, Well, I guess I am. And so that, yeah, so I'm coming at this I'm coming at this area, not because I just love arguments, but really to help the church really with really practical questions. And then as I began to teach it, I realized, oh, I have some different assumptions coming at this as a pastor, also as a theologian, and trained in biblical theology. So I came with a, maybe a different set of lenses. It's not the only set of lens. It's not the it's not the only compare of lenses that that one might take in this discipline, but that's some of my vocational background and some of my kind of journey that brought me into apologetics, and in some ways, has given me a little bit different perspective than some of the dominant approaches or dominant kind of leaders in the area.That's great. Well, let's go. Let's get after it. Then I'm gonna just throw you some doozies and see how we can rapid fire just prove all of the things that that are in doubt. So here we go. Okay, you ready? How do we know that God exists?Yeah, so that word no can have different connotations. So maybe it would be better to ask the question, why do we believe God exists? Oh,don't you do that? You're you can't, you can't just change my question. I was kidding. Well, I think, I think you bring up a great point, is that one of the key tasks in apologetics is defining of terms and understanding like, Okay, you asked that question. But I think there's a question behind the question that actually is an assumption that we have to tease out and make explicit, right? Because, I mean, that's, that's part of you. So I think sometimes people get into this back and forth with folks, and you're like, Well, you have assumptions in your question. So go ahead, you, you, you go ahead and change my question. So how do we knowthe issue is, is there is that when we say something like, you know, we people begin to imagine that the way Christianity works is that we need to prove Christianity in the way we might prove as Augustine said this in confessions, four plus six equals 10. And Augustine, early church father, and he's writing, and he's writing about his own journey. He said I really had to get to the point where I realized this is not how this works. Yeah, we're not talking about, we do not one plus one, our way to God.Yeah. And when is Augustine writing about When? When? So people are, yeah, 397,at. This point. So he's writing right at the, you know, right right before the fifth century, okay? And, and, of course, Augustine famously said, we have to believe to understand, for most believers, God is intuitive, or what? Blaise Pascal, the 17th century Christian philosopher He called this the logic of the heart. Or I can just cite a more contemporary figure, Alvin planeta, calls this basic belief that. He says that belief in God is a basic belief, and and for So, for for many believers, they would say something like this. And I think there's validity in this so is that God just makes sense, even if, even if they haven't really worked out arguments that they they say, Well, yeah, this God makes sense to me. Now I can kind of begin to explore that. I will in just a second, but I just want to say there's, for most of your listeners, it's something like, I heard the gospel and this and the stories of Jesus, and I knew they were true, right? And as kind of insiders here, we would say that's the Spirit's work. The Holy Spirit is working, and God speaks through creation and his word, and people believe. And so that's that's why we believe now, of course, once we say that people have these kinds of intuitions, or as theologians would put it, this sense of God kind of built into them, I would want to say, as an apologist, or even as a pastor, just a minister, you don't have to be apologist to say this is that we can appeal to those intuitions and make arguments in many different types of ways. Well,hold on one second. Isn't that a little too simplistic, though? Because, I mean, you have the Greeks who believed in all the different gods, and the Romans who adopted those gods and changed their names and like, how do we assimilate that? You know, where, you know Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins famously say, Well, I don't, I don't believe in Zeus. So does that make me an atheist? It would have made me an atheist back in, you know, you know Roman and Latin and Greek times. So, so there's an intuition, but, but how do we delineate that? Well, that's not the right object of that intuition.Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So we have this intuition, you know, we could say Romans, Romans, one is pointing us to, this is what I would argue, this sense of God, and yet we're, we're fallen, according to the Christian story. And so even though we have this sense of God, we suppress that, and we worship false gods, or we worship the created, rather than the Creator. So the Christian story as a as a Christian, helps make sense of both the kind of why? Well, although we have this sense this, there's this common sense of God, it goes in many different directions and and I would argue that even if you deny kind of transcendence altogether, you're still going to have you're going to still make something kind of a god. You're going to you're going to want to worship something. And I think that's that's part of the point of Romans, one, you end up going to worship the created rather than the Creator. So does that get out what you're asking Matt or Yeah,I think so. I think sometimes the arguments that are real popular, even now is like, well, I just don't, I just don't, I just don't believe that God exists, just like I don't believe that Zeus exists, like, what's, what's the big deal? Why? Why are you so adamant that I believe in that God exists? Like to because I don't, I don't know that God exists because I don't see him. So how would you respond to somebody who says, Well, this Intuit intuition that that you say we all have, and that Romans one says we have, I just don't buy it, you know, because, I mean, I'm, I wouldn't believe that Zeus exists, because there's no empirical evidence to show me otherwise. So how would you respond to somebody that's equivocating or saying that, you know, Yahweh of the Old Testament, the God of the, you know, the God of the Bible is, this is just a tribal deity, just like Zeus is. So, how should we? Iwould, I would say so. So I think we can make kind of arguments for some kind of for transcendence. So there's ways to make arguments against naturalism. That's that's what's being promoted. And there's various different kinds of, you know. So sometimes these kinds of arguments that are in the Christian tradition are used to say, hey, we're going to prove God's existence using these arguments. I think I'm not. Are typically comfortable with the language of prove and how it's used in our context today, again, we get into the math, kind of two plus two equals four. Kind of thinking, yep. But I think a lot of those arguments are appealing to both intuitions and they they work much more effectively as anti naturalistic arguments. Not so much saying, Okay, we know a particular God through, say, the moral argument, okay, that we're but, but it's arguing against simply a naturalistic, materialistic. You know, even Evans, who's a longtime professor at Baylor, makes this argument that those, those types of arguments are really good against pushing back against naturalism. So plan again, has a famous argument that says, if naturalism and evolutionary theory are both true because of how evolution theory works, it's not about right thinking, but right action that you perform certain things to survive. Then, if both of those are true, you have no reason to trust your kind of cognitive faculties.Can you tease that one out a little bit? I kind of lost on that one. He said,What planet is arguing? Is he saying? Look, if, if all of our kind of cognitive faculties are just a product of evolution, okay? And by the way, not only does it's not just a plan. Ago makes this argument, it's actually kind of interesting figures who were like Nietzsche and others made this argument that basically, if, if evolution and naturalism is true that all we are is energy and manner and this product of evolutionary process, then we would have no reason to actually trust kind of our rationality, and that's what rationality is actually mapping onto reality. All of our our brains and our minds are really just producing certain conclusions to help us survive. So it would undercut the very foundations of that position. Now again, yeah, being able to observe, yeah, yeah. So, so with that, again, I think that's an example of an argument that doesn't so much. You know, say this is the Christian God. This supports the belief in Christian God. But what it does is it from within their own thinking. It challenges that. It undercuts their own way of thinking, which is what you're assuming and what you're kind of pushing back on, is a kind of naturalistic world. And I think we can step within that try to understand it and then challenge it on its own terms. And I think that's the real strength of planning this argument. What he's doing now, go ahead.Well, that's it, yeah, in his, in his, like, the the Opus is, uh, warranted. Christian belief is that what you're referencing the the big burgundy book.I can't remember where he makes this argument? Yeah, I can'tremember exactly. But like, if all your cognitive faculties are working, somebody who believes that God exists does not mean that they does not negate all of the other cognitive faculties that they're like if they're in their rational mind, that they have warrants for their belief. But, but that's what I what I think, where I'm tracking with you, and I love this is that even like, it still holds true, right? Like there's not one silver bullet argument to say now we know, like, that's what you were challenging even in the question is, how do you know that you know that you know that God exists? Well, you have to layer these arguments. And so this is one layer of that argument that even the Greeks and the Romans had a sense of transcendence that they were after, and they identified them as gods. But there's this other worldliness that they're trying to attribute to the natural world that they observe, that they can't have answers for, and that we can't observe every occurrence of reality, that there has to be something outside of our box, so to speak, out of our naturalistic tendencies. And so even that can be helpful to say, well, that kind of proves my point that even the Greeks and the Romans and other tribal deities, they're after something outside of our own experience that we can experience in this box. Yeah, that'sright. And there's a, I mean again, this, this argument, isn't intellectually coercive, and I don't think any of these are intellectually coercive. What I mean by that is you can find ways out. And so the approach I would take is actually called an abductive approach, which says, Okay, let's put everything on the table, and what best makes sense, what best makes sense, or what you know, what story best explains all of this? And so that way, there's a lot of different angles you can take depending on who you're talking to, yep, and and so what one of the, one of the ways to look at this and contemporary anthropology? Psycho psychologists have done work on this, to say, the kind of standard, what we might call natural position in all of human history, is that there's there's transcendence. That's, it's just the assumption that there's transcendence. Even today, studies have been shown even people who grow kids, who grew up in a secular society will kind of have these intuitions, like, there is some kind of God, there is some kind of creator, designer. And the argument is that you actually have to have a certain kinds of culture, a particular culture that kind of habituate certain thinking, what, what CS Lewis would call, a certain kind of worldly spell to to so that those intuitions are saying, Oh no, there's not a god. You know, there's not transcendence. And so the kind of common position in all of human history across various different cultures is there is some kind of transcendence. It takes a very particular, what I would say, parochial, kind of culture to say, oh, there's probably no there. There's not. There's, of course, there's not. In fact, Charles Taylor, this is the story he wants to tell of how did we get here, at least in some secular quarters of the West, where it was just assumed, of course, there's, of course, there's a God to 500 years of to now, and at least some quarters of the West, certain, certain elite orsecular? Yeah? Yeah, people. And even then, that's a minority, right? This is not a wholesale thing, yeah.It seems to be. There's something, well, even Jonathan height, uh, he's an atheist, says, has acknowledged that there seems to be something in humans. That's something like what Pascal called a God shaped hole in our heart, and so there's this kind of, there's this deep intuition. And what I'm wanting to do is, I'm wanting in my arguments to kind of say, okay, given this as a Christian, that I believe we have this sense of God and this intuition of God, these intuitions, I want to appeal to those intuitions. And so there's a moral order to the universe that people just sense that there is a right and wrong. There's certain things that are right and certain things are wrong, even if a culture says it is, it is, it is fine to kill this group of people, that there's something above culture, that even there's something above someone's personal preference, that is their moral order to the universe. Now, given that deep seated intuition, what you might call a first principle, what makes best sense of that, or a deep desire, that that, that nothing in the universe seems to satisfy that we have. This is CS Lewis's famous argument. We have these desires, these natural desires for we get thirsty and there's there's water, we get hungry and there's food, and yet there's this basically universal or worldwide phenomenon where people desire something more, that they try to look for satisfaction in this world and they can't find it. Now, what best explains that? And notice what I'm doing there, I'm asking that the question, what best explains it? Doesn't mean there's, there's not multiple explanations for this, but we're saying, What's the best explanation, or profound sense that something doesn't come from nothing, that intelligence doesn't come from non intelligence, that being doesn't come from non being. Yeah, a deep sense that there's meaning and significance in life, that our experience with beauty is not just a leftover from an earlier primitive stage of of evolution. And so we have these deep experiences and intuitions and ideas about the world, and what I'm saying is particularly the Christian story. So I'm not, I'm not at the end, arguing for just transcendence or or kind of a generic theism, but I'm saying particularly the Christian story, best, best answers. Now, I'm not saying that other stories can't incorporate and say something and offer explanations, but it's a, it's a really a matter of, you know, you might say out narrating or or telling the Gospel story that maps on to the ways we're already intuiting about the world, or experiencing or observing the world.Yeah, so, so going along with that, so we don't have, like, a clear cut case, so to speak. We have layers of argument, and we appeal to what people kind of, in their heart of hearts, know, they don't have to like, they have to be taught otherwise. Almost like, if you talk to a child, they can't, they kind of intuit that, oh, there's something outside, like, Who created us? Like, who's our mom? You know, like, going back into the infinite regress. It's like, okay, some something came from nothing. How does that even how is that even possible? So there has to be something outside of our. Experience that caused that to happen. So, so say you, you go there, and then you help people. Say, help people understand. Like, I can't prove God's existence, but I can argue that there are ways of explaining the world that are better than other ways. So then, how do you avoid the charge that, well, you basically are a really proud person that you think your religion is better than other religions. How, how could you dare say that when you can't even prove that you're you know? So how? How would you respond to somebody who would say, like, how do you believe? Why do you believe that Christianity is a one true religion? Yeah, um,well, I would say a couple of things. One is that, in some sense, everyone is staking out some kind of claim. So even if you say you can't say that one religion is true or one one religion is the one true religion, that is a truth claim that you're staking out. And I think it's fine that this for someone to say that they just need to realize. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I think they're they're making a truth claim. I'm making a truth claim. Christians are making truth so we're, we all think we're right, and that's fine. That's fine, but, but then we but then once you realize that, then you're not saying, Well, you think you're right, but I just, I'm not sure, or it's arrogant to say you're right. I think, of course, with some some things, we have more levels of confidence than other things. And I think that's the other thing we can say with Christian with as Christians, it's saying, Hey, I believe, I believe in the resurrection. I believe in the core doctrines of Christianity. It doesn't mean that everything I might believe about everything is right. It doesn't even mean all my arguments are are even 100% always the best arguments, or I could be wrong about a particular argument and and I'm also not saying that you're wrong about everything you're saying. Okay, so, but what we are saying is that, hey, I I believe Jesus is who he said he was, and you're saying he's not okay. Let's have a conversation. But it's not, rather, it's not a matter of somebody being air. You know, you can hold those positions in an arrogant way. But simply saying, I believe this isn't in itself arrogance, at least, I think how arrogance is classically defined, yeah. And what is this saying? I believe this, and I believe, I believe what Jesus said about himself. And I can't go around and start kind of toying with with, if I believe he's Lord, then it's really not up to me to say, okay, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna, kind of take some of what he said, but not all of what he said. If you actually believe he rose from the dead and he is Lord and He is God, then then you take him at his word.What is it, as you think about cultural engagement, cultural apologetics that you've written on like, what is it in our cultural moment right now where people you say that thing, like Jesus said, You know, he, he, he said, I'm God, you know, not those explicit words, right? That's some of the argument. Like, no, but you look at the narrative he did, and that's why he was going to be stoned for blasphemy. That's why all these things. But that's, that's another conversation for another day. But, and then you talk to someone, you're like, Well, I don't believe he was God. I don't believe His claims were. Like, why then do you do we oftentimes find ourselves at a standstill, and people just throw up their hands like, well, that's your truth, and my truth is, I just don't, like, just don't push it on me. Like, why do we find ourselves in this? And it's not new. I mean, this is something that goes back to, you know, hundreds of years ago, where people are making arguments and they're like, Well, I just don't know. So I'm gonna be a transcendentalist, or I'm gonna be a deist, or I'm gonna whatever. So how do we kind of push back on that a little bit to say, No, it's not what we're talking about. Is not just a matter of preference, and it's not just a matter of, hey, my truth for me and your truth for you. But we're actually making it a claim that is true for all people. Like, how do we kind of encourage people to push into that tendency that people have to just throw up their hands and say, whatever? Pass the piece, you know? Well,okay, so I think let me answer that in two ways. One's philosophically, and then two are practically. One philosophically. I do think it's, you know, CS Lewis was on to this, as he often was way ahead of the curve on certain things, but on an abolition of man. When he talked, he's talking about the fact value distinction and how we've separated. You know, you have your facts, and then everything you know, where, classically, you would kind of recognize that courage, you know, is a virtue, and that's, it's a, it's a, it's also a fact that we should pursue courage and rather than just my preference of kind of and so there's actually. Be this, but now we have, well, that's a value, kind of courage, and say you should do something, but it's, it's, that's your value and and so we have this distinction between facts, which is, follow the science, and then values over here. And as that has opened up. You have both a kind of, on one hand, a very, very much, a people saying in a very kind of hard, rationalistic way, you know, science has said, which, that would be another podcast to kind of dive into that more science is good and, yeah, and, but science doesn't say anything. So I'm a fan of science, but it doesn't say anything. We interpret certain things, but, but so you can kind of have a hard rationalism, but you also combine with a kind of relativism, or at least a soft relativism that says, Well, this is my truth, because values become subjective. So that's the philosophical take. But the kind of practical thing, I would say, is they need people. One of the reasons people do that is because, it's because they've seen kind of these to reference what you're talking about earlier this hey, this person's coming in wanting to talk about my worldview, and it just becomes this fierce, awkward encounter, and I don't want anything to do with that type of thing, like I don't, I don't want to go down the dark corners of of the Internet to have these, to have these intellectual just like Charles Taylor says, a lot of the kind of arguments are, I have three reasons why your position is untenable. He says something like untenable, wrong and totally immoral. Now, let's have a conversation. It just and so it's kind of like, no thanks. I don't think I want to have that conversation. You do you. And so there's, there is a part that, culturally, something is going on which needs to be confronted. And Lewis was doing that work, and a lot of philosophers have followed him in that but there's also a side of of maybe where our own worst enemies here, and the way that we try to engage people, and where we start with people, and we think, Okay, let's start in this kind of, you know, apologetic wrestling match with people. And a lot of times, people are just looking to cope. People are just looking to survive. They have mental health issues going on, and they don't want another one to pop up because of the apologist. And so they're just looking to try to skirt that conversation and get to feeding their kids or dealing with their angry neighbor. And so we've got to kind of take stock on kind of where people are at, and then how to engage them with where they're at. Now I'm going to apologize. I think all of those arguments are helpful in a certain context, but a lot of times, we've been our own worst enemy, and how we try to try to engage so what I what I encourage students and ministers to do is is start talking about people's stories, and you know how life is going and where what's hard, and asking really good questions, and kind of having a holy curiosity and and often, I was in an encounter with a guy who came up to me after a kind of a university missions thing, and he was an atheist, and he wanted to talk about the moral argument. And I was happy to do that for a few minutes, but then I just asked him. I said, what you know, what do you love to do? Tell me about yourself, and where do you really find joy in life? And he looked at me, and he started to tear up, and he said, You know, I'm really lonely right now, you know, go figure this moment in our world, the kind of fragmented world we live in. And he said, what's really meaningful to me is my is my pet, because he provides solace. And there's this moment where, of course, I mean, here's an atheist wanting to show up at a Christian event, right? And because Christians were nice to him, and he's deeply lonely, and we got to have a pretty meaningful conversation about, you know, the benefits of following Christ in the community, communion with not only God, but with others, yeah, but if I would have just left it at, let's go to the more we would have never got there. But it took me kind of asking the question, which is, in essence, what I was trying to ask is what, I didn't put it like this, but what are you seeking? What are you really after here? And where are you really getting joy in life, and what's going on? And I if we can learn to go there, I think we'll have much more productive conversations. And then just kind of, I heard chatro talk about the, you know, ontological argument. Now let me throw that out there at somebody. I think that's why apologists and apologetics have sometimes been given a bad name. But if you. Actually look at the tradition, the the larger tradition. There's so many resources, and there's so many people, apologists, doing lots of different things, that I think gives us kind of way to actually engage people where they're at.Yeah, yeah. No, that's great. Well, I It reminds me, I believe it was Schaefer who talked about the the greatest apologetic, at least his time, and I think it stands true even now, is welcoming people and being hospitable towards people, welcoming the questions, not looking at folks as adversaries, but fellow pilgrims. And then you welcome them into that space, into that community. And then they're they see that, quite frankly, the faith works. The Christian ethic actually works, albeit imperfect, by imperfect people in imperfect ways. But you know, as we go through pain and suffering, as we go through, you know, elation and disappointment, like there's still a lot that that we can demonstrate to the world through our testimony that it works. You know, so to speak. So I'd love to hear you kind of help walk us through how the Christian story tells a better story about pain and suffering, because that's that's a fact of every person listening is that there's some modicum of pain and suffering in their life at any moment. And then you look at the grand scale of the world and all these things, but just even we can go down to the individual level of the why is there pain and suffering in my life and in the world and, you know, in general. But I like, like for you to just kind of riff on that for a little bit for us, to helpus, yeah. And in some ways, this question, and the apologetic question is a kind of real, a snapshot into the into what we're talking about with, how do we respond to that? Not just as Okay, an intellectual question, yeah, yeah, but it's also a profoundly experiential question. And there's youmean, you mean, and how, in the moment when you're saying, in the moment when somebody asks you the question, not getting defensive, but being being willing to listen to the question, Is that what you mean by that? And yeah,well, what I mean is, that's certainly true. Matt, what I was really thinking, though, is how this is not just something kind of an abstract, intellectual question. Oh, okay, but it's a profound experiential and there's different angles that we might take into it. But I mean, as a kind of snapshot or a test case in our apologetic is, I think there's ways to answer that question that are sterile, that are overly academic, and I and that also, I would say, rushes in to give an answer. And I would want to argue that Christianity doesn't give an answer to evil and suffering, but it gives a response. And let me make, let me explain that, yeah, is, is an answer. Tries in the way I'm using it, at least tries to say, I'm going to solve this kind of intellectual problem, and the problem of evil and suffering in the world, of why a good God who's all powerful would allow the kind of evil and suffering we see in the world is, is one that we might say, Okay, now there's the problem. Now let me give the solution. And this is often done, and we've you maybe have been in this if you're listening into a certain context where a kind of famous apologist says, Here is the answer, or famous Christian celebrity says, Here is the answer to evil, and this solves all the problems, until you start thinking about it a little bit more, or you go home, or three or four years, and you grow out of that answer and and so I think we need to be real careful here when we say we have the answer, because if you keep pushing that question back in time, or you start asking questions like, well, that that bullet that hit Hitler in World War One and didn't kill him? What if the God of the Bible, who seems to control the wind and everything, would have just blown it over and killed Hitler. It seems like maybe it could have been a better possible world if Hitler, you know, didn't lead the Holocaust. Okay, so, so again, I think, I think pretty quickly you begin to say, Okay, well, maybe some of these theodicies Don't actually solve everything, although I would say that some of the theodicies that are given things like free will, theodicy or or the kind of theodicies that say God uses suffering to to grow us and develop us. And I think there's truth in all of that, and there's but what it does. What none of them do is completely solve the problem. And so I think that there's value in those theodicies in some extent.Hey, did you know that you were created to enjoy abundance? I'm not talking about getting the latest pair of Air Jordans or a jet plane or whatever that this world says that you have to have in order to be happy. Instead, I'm talking about an abundant life where you are rich in relationships, you're rich in your finances, but you are rich in life in general, that you are operating in the calling that God has for you, that He created you for amazing things. Did you know that? And so many times we get caught up in paying our mortgage and running hither and yon, that we forget that in this world of distractions that God has created you for glorious and amazing things and abundant life. If you would like to get a free workbook, I put one together for you, and it's called the my new rich life workbook. If you go to my new rich life.com my new rich life.com. I would be glad to send you that workbook with no strings attached, just my gift to you to help you. But here'sthe thing, here's what I want to go back to with a question. Is that the Odyssey as we know it, or this? And what I'm using theodicy for is this, this responsibility that that we feel like we have to justify the ways of God, is a particularly modern phenomenon. I think this is where history comes and helps us. Charles Taylor talks about this in that the kind of way we see theodicy and understand theodicy was really developed in the middle of the 1700s with figures like Leibniz, and then you have particularly the Lisbon earthquakes in the middle of the 18th century. And that was this kind of 911 for that context. And in this 911 moment, you have philosophers being saying, Okay, how do we justify the ways of God? And are trying to do it in a very kind of this philosophical way to solve the problem. But from for most of human history and history of the West, of course, evil and suffering was a problem, but it wasn't a problem so much to be solved, but it was a problem to to cope with and and and live in light of, in other words, what you don't have in the Bible is Job saying, Okay, well, maybe God doesn't exist. Or the psalmist saying, maybe God doesn't exist because I'm experiencing this. No, they're ticked off about it. They're not happy about it. They're struggling to cope with it. It is, it is a problem, but it's not, then therefore a problem. That says, well, then God doesn't exist. Yeah. And it didn't become a widespread kind of objection against God's very existence, until certain things have happened in the kind of modern psyche, the kind of modern way of imagining the world. And here is what's happened. This is what Charles Taylor says. Is that Taylor says what happened is kind of slowly through through different stages in history, but but in some sorry to be gloved here, but it's, it's a very kind of, you know, long argument. But to get to the point is, he says our view of God became small, and our view of humans became really big. And so God just came became kind of a bigger view of version of ourselves. And then we said, oh, if there is a reason for suffering and evil, we should be able to know it, because God's just a bigger kind of version of us, and he has given us rational capacities. And therefore if we can't solve this, then there must not be a god. That's kind of where the logic goes. And of course, if you step into the biblical world, or what I would say a more profoundly Christian way of looking at it is God. God isn't silent, and God has spoken, has given us ways to cope and live with suffering and ways to understand it. But what he what he doesn't give us, is that we're going to he actually promises that, that we're not going to fully understand His ways that, that we're going to have to trust Him, even though we can't fully understand why he does what he does in history all the time. And so this leads into what, what's actually called. There's, this is a, this is a weird name if you're not in this field, but it's called skeptical theism. I'm a skeptical theist. And what skeptical theists Are you is that we're not skeptical about God, but we're skeptical about being able to neatly answer or solve the problem of evil. But we actually don't think that's as big of a deal, because, simply because. I don't understand why God, God's simply because I don't understand God's reasons. Doesn't mean he doesn't have reasons. Yeah, yeah. Andso just beyond your the your finite, uh, temporo spatial understanding of things, right? Like you don't understand how this horrible situation plays out in a grander narrative,right? So it's Stephen wickstra. He had this famous argument. I'll riff off of it a little bit. I mean, just metaphor. He says, if you have a if you have a tent, and we go camping together, Matt and and I open the tent and say, there's a giant dog in there. And you look in there, there's no dog, you would say, Yeah, you're either crazy or a liar. But if I open the tent and say there's tiny bugs in there, and they're called no see ums, you wouldn't, you wouldn't know. You wouldn't be in a position to know. You wouldn't be in an epistemological position to know whether there's a bug in there or not. So you would simply have to decide whether you're going to trust me or not. And then, you know, the claim of the non Christian might be, well, yeah, why would I trust the God given the kind of crap that I see in the world? And I would say, well, a couple reasons. One is most profoundly because God has entered into this world. He has not sat on the sidelines. So even though we don't fully understand it, he has in the person of Jesus Christ, he has suffered with us and for us. So this is a God who says, I haven't given you all the answers, but I have given you myself. And that's I think both has some rational merit to it, and profoundly some intellectual merit to that. I'd also say that the Christian story actually gets at some deep intuitions, kind of underneath this challenge or this problem. It was CS Lewis, who was an atheist in World War One, and and he was very angry at God because of the evil and violence and his his mom dying at an early age, and was an atheist. But then he realized that in his anger against God, that he was assuming a certain standard, a certain kind of moral standard, about how the world should be, that there is evil in the world and that it shouldn't be so, and this deep intuition that it shouldn't be so that certain things aren't right. Actually, you don't have if you do away with God's existence, you just you have your preferences. But in a world of just energy and matter, why would the world not be absurd? Why would you expect things not to be like this. Why would you demand them not to be like this?So a deeply embedded sense of morality that can't be explained by naturalism is what you're getting, yeah?That that we have a certain problem here, or certain challenge with not fully being able to answer the question, yeah, but they have, I would say, a deeper challenge, that they don't have even the kind of categories to make sense of the question. So that's those are some of the directions I would go, and it's first stepping inside and kind of challenging against some of the assumptions. But then I'm as you, as you can tell, then I'm going to say how the Christian story does make sense of these deep intuitions, our moral intuitions, that are underneath the problem, or the challenge of evil and suffering. And then also going to Jesus in the Gospel. And the Gospel story,one of the questions I had on our on the list of questions was, how do we know the Bible is true? But I want to delve into more of this understanding of doubt and how that plays, because you've written a lot on this. But I'd like, could you just direct us to some resources, or some folks, if folks are interested in, how do we know the Bible is true? I'm thinking real popular apologist right now is Wesley. Huff is a great place to go. But are there other like, hey, how do I know that the Bible is true? Because you keep appealing to Christianity, which is in for is the foundation of that is the Bible. So could you give us a few resources so people could chase those down.Peter Williams has written a couple little good books on the Gospels. AndPeter Williams Williams, he's in Cambridge, right, orTyndale house, over there and over the pond. And he's written a book on the Gospels. And I can't think of the name, but if you put it on the internet, it'll show up. And the genius of Jesus as well. Okay, little books, and I think both of those are helpful as far as the Gospels go. Richard, Richard balcom is really good on this, Jesus and the eyewitnesses. As well as a little book that most people haven't heard of. It's a, it's an introduction to the Gospels in that off in an Oxford series, which is, you know, kind of a brief introduction to the Gospels. And he, especially at the very beginning, he gives us John Dixon, who's at Wheaton now, has written a lot of good books on on on this. And it's got this series called skeptics guide to and it does both Old Testament and New Testament kind of stuff. So that little series is, is really helpful. So those are some places I would start. And in my books, I typically have, you know, chapters on this, but I haven't, haven't written, you know, just one book, just on this. The early books, truth matters and truth in a culture of doubt, were, were engaging Bart airman. But really, Bart airman not to pick on on Airmen, but just because he was such a representative of a lot of the the views that that we were hearing, he ended up being a good kind of interlocutor. In those I would just say, I know you didn't. You just asked for books. And let me just say one thing about this is I, I think if you are trying to engage, I think if you take the approach of, let me prove the Bible, let me take everything and just, yeah, I don't think that's the best way. I think you often have to give people some you know, whether it's, you know, the beginning of Luke's Gospel, where he's saying, This is how I went about this. And I actually did my homework to kind of say, this is at least the claim of the gospel writers say, and then, but the real way that you you come to see and know, is you have to step into it and read it. And I think one of the apologetic practices I would want to encourage, or just evangelistic practices, is is offering to read the gospels with people and and working through it. And then certain things come up as you read them, apologetically that you'll, you'll want to chase down and use some of those resources for but I think often it's, it's saying, hey, the claims are, at least that, you know, these guys have done their homework and and some of the work Richard welcome is doing is saying, you know, the Gospel traditions were, were were pinned within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and this. And so that's some of the work that that balcom has helpfully done that kind of help us get off the ground in some of these conversations.Would that be your go to gospel Luke or, like, if you're walking with players, or a go to like,some people say more because of the shortness or John, I I'm happy with them. Allfour should be in the canon. Yeah, no, that's great. And I think a couple other books I'm thinking of Paul Wagner's from text from text to translation, particularly deals with Old Testament translation issues, but then text critical pieces, but then also FF. Bruce's canon of Scripture is a real, solid place to go, if people are interested in those big pieces, but those, I mean, yeah, Richard Bauckham work was really helpful for me when I was like, How do I even know, you know the starting place is a good starting place. So, yeah, thank you for that. Sowhat the challenge is, people have got to make up their mind on Jesus. Yeah. I mean, I think that's where I want to kind of triage conversations and say, Hey, I know the Bible is a big book and there's a lot going on. First things you gotta make a call on. So that's where I'm going to focus on, the Gospels. That'sgreat. No, that's great. Well, you know, a lot of times you, and you've mentioned this earlier, that sometimes in our attempts to give reasons for our faith, we can come to simplistic answers like, Okay, this is, here you go. Here's the manuscript evidence, for example. Or, hey, here's the evidence for the resurrection. Oh, here. You know, this is pain and suffering, Romans, 828, you know, having these quick answers. And I think it stems from a desire to want to have a foundation for what we stand on. But a lot of times, and I think what we're seeing in our culture, and this is not anything new, this topic of deconstruction is not really a new topic is, you know, it's what's been called in the past, apostasy, or just not believing anymore. But now it's gotten a more, you know, kind of sharper edges to it. And and I would love for you to you know how you would respond to someone who is deconstructing from their faith because it didn't allow for doubt or because they were raised in perhaps a really strict Christian home. So how would you respond to somebody who says, I don't I don't like the. Had answers anymore, and I don't, you know, it's just too simplistic, and it doesn't, it's not satisfying. So how would you, because I encounter a lot of folks that are in that vein, the ones who are deconstructing, it's, it's not, you know, there's definitely intellectual arguments, but there's something else in back of that too, I think. So I'd love to hear you just kind of, how would you respond to someone who is deconstructing or has deconstructed in their faith?Yeah, yeah. And of course not. In that situation, my first response it's going to be, tell me more. Let's, let's talk more. I want to hear, I want to hear your story. I want to hear your deconversion story, or where you're at and and to have some real curiosity. Rather than here, let me tell you what your problem is. And let me tellyou, yeah, you just don't want to believe because you got some secret sin or something. Yeah? Oh, goodnessno. I mean, it's right faith, unbelief and doubt is complex, and there's lots of forms of doubt. And we use that word I mean, it has quite the semantic range, and we use in lots of different ways. And of course, the Bible, by no means, is celebrating doubt. The Bible, it's, you know, that we is saying we should have faith. It calls us to faith, not to doubt, but doubt seems to be a couple things to say. We talk about, we talk about ourselves as Christians, as new creations in Christ, but we also recognize that we still sin, we still we still have sinful habits. We're still sinful, and in the same way we we we believe, but we can struggle with doubt, and that's a reality. And it seems to me that that doesn't mean, though, that then we celebrate doubt, as if doubts this great thing, no, but at the same time, we need to be realistic and honest that we do. And there's certain things culturally that have happened, because we now live in a pluralistic world where people seem very sane and rational and and lovely, and they believe radically different things than we do. And just that proximity, Peter Berger, the late sociologist, did a lot of work on this area. This is just it. It creates these kinds of this kind of contestability, because, well, we could imagine even possibly not believing, or kids not believing, in a way that, again, 500 years ago, you know you Luther was wrestling with whether the Roman Catholic Church had everything right, but he wasn't wrestling and doubting the whole the whole thing, yeah, God. So that creates certain pressures that I think we need to be honest about, and but, but with, and part of that honesty, I think, in that kind of conversation to say, Hey, you're not alone and you're not just simply crazy because you're you're raising some of these things because, I mean, that's in many ways, understandable. Yeah, okay, yeah. I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's understandable. And I hear what you're saying, and I'm, let's talk about it now. The the kind of metaphor that that I use is to think about Christianity as a house. Of course, that's not my metaphor. I'm I'm borrowing from CS Lewis, who talked about Christianity as a house and in Mere Christianity, Lewis said he wanted to get people through non Christians into the hallway, and so he wanted to get them into the door so that they would and then they could pick up a particular tradition, they could enter a room. But his approach in Mere Christianity was to represent kind of the whole house. And what I think is happening in many cases is that people, now, I'm riffing off of his metaphor, people in the church. People have raised in the church, so they've grew up their whole life in the house, but it's actually in the what I would call the attic. And the attic as as I talk about it is, is in the house. It's, it's a Christian community, but it was, it was many times they're built out of a kind of reactionary posture against culture, without a deep connection to the rest of the house. It's kind of like, Hey, we're scared, and understandably so, the kind of decadent morality, certain shifts happening in the west with Can you giveus a couple examples of what you're thinking like? What would a person living in the attic like? What would their tradition kind of. Look like,yeah. So a couple of things. One in response to, in some cases, in response to the kind of intellectual movements, the kind of sex, secular and, you know, thinking they would say, you know, intellectualism is bad, that would be one response from the attic, like, don't worry about, you know, thinking. Just believe your problem is you're just thinking too much. So that would be one response, a kind of anti intellectualism. The other response is what I would call a kind of, depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I would call it a kind of quasi intellectual that, and that sounds harsh that I say what kind of mood I'm in, but a kind of quasi intellectual response, which is like, Oh, you want arguments. You want evidence. We'll give you two plus two equals equals God, and we'll kind of match, you know, fire with fire, and we can prove God's existence. And oftentimes, those kinds of apologetic reactions, I would call them, sometimes they're kind of quasi intellectual, because I don't think that's how the kind of bit we come to the big decisions. I don't think it's rational enough about a rationality about kind of what type of humans we are, and how we come to the big decisions and the big truths and and so I think that's one response, and that's why you have a kind of industry of apologetics sometimes. And the way they do it, I'm not saying in some ways it can be helpful, but in other ways, it can cause problems down down the road, and we've seen that at least, like, for instance, with the evil and suffering kind of conversation we were having before. If people say, actually, those arguments actually don't make, don't fully do what they were. We you claim too much for your arguments. Let's just say, like that. Okay, so that's one kind of, so there's a there's a kinds of, well, Christianity, in that side can kind of become this kind of intellectual, sterile work where you're just kind of trying to prove God, rather than this, than this way of life, where does worship come in? Where does devotion come in? What is And so very quickly it becomes, you know, this intellectual game, rather than communion with the living God. And so the emphasis understandably goes a certain way, but I would say understandably wrong goes a certain way, and that argument should be part of this deeper life of faith that we live and so we again, I'm wanting to say the motives aren't necessarily, aren't wrong, but where we get off because we're too reactionary, can go off. Let me give you one other ones. And I would say, like the purity culture would be another kind of side of this where we see a morally decadent culture of sexuality, and we want to respond to that we we don't want our kids to grow up believing those lies. Yeah, as as a friend of mine says, you know that the sexual revolution was actually and is actually bad for women, and we need to say that. We need to say that to people in the church, absolutely. But in response to that, then we create what, what has been called a purity culture, which, which has, has kind of poured a lot of guilt and have made have over promised again, if you just do this, you'll have a wonderful life and a wonderful marriage if you just do this, and then if you mess up, oh, you've, you've committed this unpardonable sin, almost. And so there's a lot of pressure being put on, particularly young women and then, and then over promising and so all of this,can people see that the House of Cards is coming down because they're like, Yeah, my marriage is horrible.It creates this pressure, right where you have to. You have to think a certain way. You have to behave this very kind of way. It's reaction to want to protect them. So again, I'm saying, Yes, I understand the reactions, yeah, and, but, but, and this is, I think, a key part of this, because it's not connected well to the rest of the house. It often reacts, rather than reflected deeply on the tradition and helps fit your way, the centrality of the Gospel, the centrality of what's always been, Christian teaching and coming back to the main things, rather than kind of reacting to culture because we're nervous, and doing it in such a way that, you know, well, people will begin to say, That's what Christianity is about. Christianity is really about, you know, your politics, because that's all my pastor is talking about, interesting, you know, and this is all they're talking about. So that becomes the center,even though the ethic is is, is, becomes the. Center, as opposed to the the philosophy and theology guiding the ethic, is that, would that be another way to put it, like how you live, become, becomes preeminent to, you know, wrestling with doubt and and trying to bring God into the space of your doubt and that kind of stuff is, that, is that?Yeah, I mean, so that, I think one of the things that the the early creeds help us to do is it helps us to keep the main thing. The main thing, it helps us to keep, rather than saying, well, because culture is talking about this, we're going to, you know, kind of in our churches, this becomes the main thing, is reacting or responding, maybe, whether it's with the culture and certain movements or against the culture, yeah. But if you're anchored to the kind of the ancient wisdom of the past you're you do have, you are at times, of course, going to respond to what's going on culturally, yeah, but it's always grounded to the center, and what's always been the center, yeah? And I think so when you're in a community like this, like this, the pressure of, I've gotta think rightly. I've gotta check every box here, yes, and oh, and I've, I've been told that there is proofs, and I just need to think harder. I just, you know, even believe more, even Yeah, if I just, if I just think harder, then I'll eliminate my doubt, but my doubts not being eliminated. So either I'm stupid or maybe there's a problem with the evidence, because it's not eliminating all my doubt, but this creates this kind of melting pot of anxiety for a lot of people as their own Reddit threads and their Oh, and then this, trying to figure all this out, and they're Googling all these answers, and then the slow drip, oh, well, to be honest, sometimes the massive outpouring of church scandal is poured into this, yeah. And it just creates a lot of anxiety amongst young people, and eventually they say, I'm just going to jump out of the attic, you know, because it looks pretty freeing and it looks like a pretty good way of life out there. And what, what I say to people is two things. Number one, rather than simply jumping out, first look what you're about to jump into, because you have to live somewhere, and outside the attic, you're not just jumping into kind of neutrality, you're jumping into cultural spaces and assumptions and belief. And so let's, let's just be just as critical as, yeah, the attic or house as you are will be mean, be just as critical with those spaces as you have been with the attic. So you need to explore those. But also, I'm wanting to give them a framework to understand that actually a lot of the ways that you've kind of grown up is actually been in this attic. Why don't you come downstairs, and if you're going to leave the house, explore the main floor first.And what would be the main floor? What would you say? The main floor?Yeah. I would say themain orthodox historic Christianity, like, yeah. Orthodox historic Christianity, Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, just kind of go into the Yeah. And whatI would say is, for instance, the apostle creed gives us kind of what I would call load bearing walls in the house. So it gives us the places where you don't mess like load bearing walls. You don't you don't knock those down if you're going to do a remodel, and, and, and. So you would recognize the difference between load bearing walls, walls that are central versus actual different rooms in the house, and how? Well, these aren't load bearing walls, but they're, they're, they're, they're how certain people in Christian communities, churches at particular times, have articulated it and and some of these, you could deny certain things, but you could, but those are more denominational battle lines, rather than the kind of load bearing things that you if you pull out the resurrection of Jesus, if you pull out the the deity of Christ and the full humanity of Christ, If you pull out the Trinity. So let's go back to the core. And if you're going to reject, if you're going to leave, leave on the basis of those core things, not okay. I've had these bad experiences in the church now, yeah, what I think this to kind of wrap this up on this is what often happens, or what can happen if someone says, Well, yeah, I've done that, and I still don't, I don't believe Okay, yep, that's going to happen. Yep. But one of the things I suggest, in at least some cases, is that the addict has screwed people up more than they realize, and that the way that they approach. Approach the foundation and the the main floor, it's still in attic categories, as in, to go back to our first question, well, I can't prove this, yeah. And I was always told that I should be able to prove it. Well, that's not how this works, yeah. And so they they reject Christianity on certain enlightenment terms, but they don't reject Christianity as Christianity really is. So people are going to interact with Christianity, I would say sometimes your people are investigating, say the resurrection, and reflecting more on on these central claims, but they're still doing it as if, if it doesn't reach kind of 100% certainty that I can't believe. And that's just not how this works.Yeah, that's, that's food for thought, because there, there's so many people that I interact with that I try to encourage. Like, yeah, your experience was really bad, like I'm affirming that, and that was messed up. That's not That's not Christianity, that is a branch on this massive tree trunk that stinks and that needs to be lamented and grieved and also called out as wrong. So I'm using another metaphor of a tree instead. But I love the because the house metaphor is something that you use in the telling a better story. Isn't that surprised bydoubt? Surprised by doubt? Yes, that's that's what we use, and we march through things, and we use that as, really our guiding metaphor through all the chapters. And that's what I would encourage if you're if you have somebody who's struggling with this, or you're struggling with this yourself, that's That's why a friend of mine, Jack Carson, that's why we wrote the book together, because obviously this is a we had a lot of friends and acquaintances and people who were coming to us and we weren't fully satisfied with all of the kind of works, yeah, that were responding and so this, this was our attempt to try to helppeople. Well, the book right after that was, is telling a better story. And one of the things I've really appreciated in your emphasis over the last few years has been, I would call a more humane apology, apologetic in that, you know, not giving into, okay, we're gonna give you want evidence. We're gonna give you evidence, as opposed to like, okay, let's just talk about being a huma

Front Row Classics is taking a splash this summer with Esther Williams. Brandon and Ben Burke are chatting about 1953's Dangerous When Wet. The two discuss Williams' underrated talents as well as the prolific career of director, Charles Walters. The talents of Fernando Lamas, William Demarest, Jack Carson and Charlotte Greenwood are honored. Brandon and Ben also spend time discussing the legendary underwater sequence featuring Tom and Jerry.

06/17/2025 - Jack Carson -on how doubt and questioning can lead to a deeper faith

A Variety TuesdayFirst a look at this day in History.Then The Big Show starring Tallulah Bankhead, originally broadcast April 15, 1951, 74 years ago. Jack Carson gives Tallulah a singing lesson. Olivia de Havilland and Evelyn Vardin do a scene from "Romeo and Juliet." Martha Raye does a baseball skit. Eddie Cantor appears as "Maxie The Taxi," a Brooklyn cab driver he made famous with a series of skits on television. Baseball player Tommy Hendrick gives Tallulah some of the fine points of the game. Phil Foster remember life in old Brooklyn. Tallulah reads "Casey At The Bat," as De Wolfe Hopper might have done it. Jack Carson and Martha Raye describe what might have happened to Casey when he got home that night!Followed by The Great Gildersleeve starring Willard Waterman, originally broadcast April 15, 1953, 72 years ago, Boys' Club.  The Jolly Boys offer the use of their clubhouse for Leroy and his friends.Finally Can You Imagine That with Lindsay MacHarrie, originally broadcast in 1940, 85 years ago, Two Million an Hour.  A man earns $2 million dollars an hour, two famous authors engage in a public fight, a noted man gets a warm place by the fire through a half a peck of oysters.Thanks to Sean for supporting our podcast by using the Buy Me a Coffee function at http://classicradio.streamFind the Family Fallout Shelter Booklet Here: https://www.survivorlibrary.com/library/the_family_fallout_shelter_1959.pdfhttps://wardomatic.blogspot.com/2006/11/fallout-shelter-handbook-1962.html

Roughly Speaking Roughly Speaking is a 1945 American comedy-drama film directed by Michael Curtiz and starring Rosalind Russell and Jack Carson. The plot involves a strong-minded mother keeping her family afloat through World War I and the Great Depression. The film was based on the autobiography of the same name, published in 1943, by Louise Randall Pierson. 

Martha Raye and Jack Carson

Message from Jack Carson on March 23, 2025

The Shadow Of Fu Manchu. August 07, 1939. Program #39. Radio Attractions syndication. Sponsored by: Music fill for local commercial insert. "The Six Gates Of Joyful Wisdom." The evil Fu at his best (worst). The last episode of the story. Hanley Stafford, Gale Gordon. The Quiz Kids. April 16, 1941. NBC net. Sponsored by: Alka-Seltzer. The first question is, "Would you drink "Aqua Fountus?" Four of The Quiz Kids had appeared on the The Jack Benny Show on April 6, 1941 (see cat. #34963) and on April 13, 1941 (see cat. #34951). Joe Kelly (host), Jack Benny (guest Quiz Kid), Ken Carpenter (announcer), Gerard Darrow, Mary KellyThe Private Files Of Rex Saunders. June 6, 1951. NBC net. "The Plan In The Killer's Mind". Sponsored by: RCA Victor. The system cue has been deleted. Rex Harrison, Edward Adamson (writer), Himan Brown (director), Kenneth Banghart (announcer), Leon Janney, Barbara Weeks.    Front and Center. July 13, 1947. NBC net. Sponsored by: Army recruiting. Dorothy's first tune is "Feudin', Fightin' and Fussin'." Jack Carson tries to make a date with Dorothy. Dick Powell and Dorothy appear in a comic romance about newlyweds. This is a network, sponsored version of cat. #38891. Dorothy Lamour (hostess), Henry Russell and His Orchestra, The Crew Chiefs, Jack Carson, Dick Powell, Hal Gibney (announcer), Glenhall Taylor (director). Bunco Squad. April 20, 1950. CBS net. "The Case Of The Bookworm". Sustaining. A con-artist in St. Louis poses as a scientist. He plans to swindle his mark out of $15,000 by "publishing" his book. The date is approximate. Frank Trumbull (host), Ralph Rose (producer, director), Del Castillo (composer, conductor), Merrick Goldman (writer), Troy Leonard (writer), Joe Walters (announcer).A Date With Judy. October 22, 1946. NBC net origination, AFRS rebroadcast. Trying to avoid a lecture on international relations, Mr. Foster finds himself obligated to buy a diamond bracelet. Louise Erickson, John Brown, Aleen Leslie (creator, writer).  Creeps By Night. July 11, 1944. Blue Network. "Sis Who Did Not Die". Sustaining. AFRS version under the title "Mystery Playhouse". Hosted by Peter Lorre.TOTAL TIME: 2:57:04.068

Jack Carson Show 46-10-02 (01) Runs for County Commissioner

Message from Jack Carson on February 2, 2025

The only movie title ever named after a sound! (I think?) A romantic comedy about a recently divorced couple (Jack Lemmon & Judy Holliday) who quickly discover that being single doesn't always lead to a happier life.  Co-starring Jack Carson and Kim Novak.

EPISODE 66 - “WHEN CLASSIC FILM'S SUPPORTING ACTORS STEAL THE SHOW” - 12/16/2024 There is nothing quite like watching a film when suddenly a supporting character comes in and walks away with the film. (Think THELMA RITTER, S.Z. SAKALL, or GALE SONDERGAARD in almost every one of their films!) This week we are focusing on some of our favorite supporting charters who come in and snatch that scene right about from under the big stars. From JOANNA BARNES' Gloria Upson declaring, “It was just ghastly!” in “Auntie Mame” to the impassioned monologue about love that BEAH RICHARDS delivers to SPENCER TRACY in “Guess Who's Coming To Dinner,” we take a fun look at these powerful performances that we're still talking about today. SHOW NOTES:  Sources: The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (1997) by Roger Lewis; But Darling, I'm Your Auntie Mame!: The Amazing History of the World's Favorite Madcap Aunt (1998), by Richard Tyler Jordan; Tennessee Williams & Company: His Essential Screen Actors (2010), by John DiLeo; “Judy Holiday, Winner of Oscar, Does of Cancer,” June 8, 1965, Los Angeles Times; “Mildred Natwick, 89, Actress Who Excelled at Eccentricity,” October 26, 1994, by Peter B. Flint, New York Times; “Steve Franken, Actor in ‘Dobie Gillis,' Dies at 80,” August 29, 2012, by Daniel E. Slotnik, New York Times;  “Madeleine Sherwood, 93, Actress on Stage, Film and ‘Flying Nun,' Dies,” April 26, 2016, by Sam Roberts, New York Times; “The Making of ‘TheParty',” January 13, 2017, by FilMagicians, Youtube.com; “Beah Richards, 80, Actress in Stalwart Roles,” September 16, 2000, by Mel Gussow, New York Times; “Joanna Barnes, Actress in ‘The Parent Trap' and its Sequel. Dies at 87,” May 12, 2022, by Richard Sanomir, New York Times; TCM.com; IMDBPro.com; IBDB.com; Wikipedia.com; Roger Ebert.com; Movies Mentioned:  Adams's Rib (1949), starring Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, Judy Holiday, David Wayne, Hope Emerson, Jean Hagen, and Tom Ewell; Born Yesterday (1950), starring Judy Holiday, Broderick Crawford, & William Holden; Auntie Mame (1958), starring Rosalind Russell, Forrest Tucker, Fred Clark, Roger Smith, Jan Handzlik, Corale Brown, Pippa Scott, Lee Patrick, Willard Waterman, Joanna Barnes, Connie Gilchrist, Patric Knowles, and Yuki Shimudo;  Cat On A Hot Tin Roof (1958), starring Elizabeth Taylor, Paul Newman, Burl Ives, Judith Anderson, Jack Carson, and Madeleine Sherwood; Spartacus (1960), starring Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Tony Curtis, & Joanna Barnes; The Parent Trap (1961), starring Haley Mills, Maureen O'Hara, Brian Keith, Joanna Barnes, Charles Ruggles, Ana Merkel, Leo G. Carroll, & Cathleen Nesbitt; The Americanization of Emily (1963), starring Julie Andrews & James Garner; The Time Traveler (1964), starring Preston Foster; Goodbye Charlie (1964), starring Tony Curtis, Debbie Reynolds, Ellen Burstyn, Pat Boone, & Joanna Barnes; Barefoot In The Park (1967), starring Jane Fonda, Robert Redford, Mildred Natwick, Charles Boyer, Herb Edelman, and Mabel Albertson; Don't Make Waves (1967) starring Tony Curtis, Claudia Cardinale, Sharon Tate, and Joanna Barnes; Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (1967), starring Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier, Katharine Houghton, Beah Richards, Roy E. Glen Sr, Cecil Kellaway, Isabelle Sanford, and Virginia Christine; The Party (1968), starring Peter Sellers, Claudine Longet, Denny Miller, Carol Wayne, Gavin MacLeod, Faye McKenzie, Marge Champion, Steve Frankel, Jean Carson, Corine Cole, J. Edward McKinley, and Herb Ellis; The Parent Trap (1998), starring Lindsay Lohan, Dennis Quaid, Natasha Richardson, Elaine Hendrix, & Lisa Ann Walter.  --------------------------------- http://www.airwavemedia.com Please contact sales@advertisecast.com if you would like to advertise on our podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joan Crawford won her only Academy Award for her performance in this classic film noir about a single mother who starts her own business after her husband leaves her, which brings her financial success but further complications to her personal life.  Co-starring Jack Carson, Zachary Scott, Eve Arden and Ann Blyth.  Directed by Michael Curtiz.

Support us on Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/user?u=4279967Jack Benny TV Videocasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/6BDar4CsgVEyUloEQ8sWpw?si=89123269fe144a10Jack Benny Show OTR Podcast!https://open.spotify.com/show/3UZ6NSEL7RPxOXUoQ4NiDP?si=987ab6e776a7468cJudy Garland and Friends OTR Podcasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/5ZKJYkgHOIjQzZWCt1a1NN?si=538b47b50852483dStrange New Worlds Of Dimension X-1 Podcasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/6hFMGUvEdaYqPBoxy00sOk?si=a37cc300a8e247a1Buck Benny YouTube Channelhttps://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrOoc1Q5bllBgQA469XNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1707891281/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2f%40BuckBenny/RK=2/RS=nVp4LDJhOmL70bh7eeCi6DPNdW4-Support us on Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/user?u=4279967

Eddie Cantor and Jack Carson

Support us on Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/user?u=4279967Jack Benny TV Videocasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/6BDar4CsgVEyUloEQ8sWpw?si=89123269fe144a10Jack Benny Show OTR Podcast!https://open.spotify.com/show/3UZ6NSEL7RPxOXUoQ4NiDP?si=987ab6e776a7468cJudy Garland and Friends OTR Podcasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/5ZKJYkgHOIjQzZWCt1a1NN?si=538b47b50852483dStrange New Worlds Of Dimension X-1 Podcasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/6hFMGUvEdaYqPBoxy00sOk?si=a37cc300a8e247a1Buck Benny YouTube Channelhttps://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrOoc1Q5bllBgQA469XNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1707891281/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2f%40BuckBenny/RK=2/RS=nVp4LDJhOmL70bh7eeCi6DPNdW4-Support us on Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/user?u=4279967

Welcome to Episode 317 of The County Cricket Podcast! On today's episode, hosts Aaron and Joe sat down to review the standout moments and major talking points from the Eleventh Round of the 2024 Vitality County Championship such as Somerset's crucial 293 run victory over Durham in Taunton, Farhan Ahmed's record-breaking First-Class debut at Trent Bridge and Jack Carson's spellbinding all-round display against Derbyshire in Hove. If you enjoyed this episode please feel free to share it with any cricket fans that you know and be sure to follow us on Twitter for daily County Cricket and Podcast updates!    Check out Joe's socials here:  https://x.com/Joe_Nuttall9   Check out our Instagram here: https://www.instagram.com/thecountycricketpodcast   Check out our Twitter here: https://twitter.com/TheCountyCrick2   Join our Cricket Draft League using the League Code here:  League Code - 356bffb5ff9e   Check out our £1 Patreon membership here:  https://www.patreon.com/thecountycricketpodcast   This episode of The County Cricket Podcast was brought to you in association with our friends at Bear Cricket:  https://www.bearcricket.co.uk/

EPISODE 49 - “Birthday Tribute to Classic Cinema Star Ann Blyth ” - 08/19/2024 ** This episode is sponsored brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/BENEATH and get on your way to being your best self.” ** With her crystal clear soprano voice, porcelain doll face, and fierce acting talent, ANN BLYTH became a much in-demand star in the 1940s and 1950s. While known mostly as a romantic musical comedy star in film such as “Mr. Peabody and the Mermaid” (1948), “Rose Marie” (1954), and “Kismet” (1955), she was also a deft dramatic actress when given the chance. Who can forget her as Veda, he daughter who made JOAN CRAWFORD's life a living hell, in “Mildred Pierce” (1945), or as the down-trodden alcoholic singer in “The Helen Morgan Story” (1957)? Blyth turns 96 on August 13th and is truly a living legend. Listen this week as we pay tribute with an episode about Ann Blyth's remarkable life and career. SHOW NOTES:  Sources: Ann Blyth: Singer, Actress, Star (2018), by Jacqueline T. Lynch; “Ann Blyth: Official Biography,” July 1956, Paramount Pictures; “Film Actress Breaks Back in Accident,” March 10, 1945, LA Examiner; “Actress Ready to Work After Skiing Accident,” January 18, 1946, LA Examiner; “Ann Blyth's Mother Dies,' July 23, 1946, Los Angeles Times; “Bright Future Visioned For Youthful Ann Blyth,” September 10, 1949, by Hedda Hopper, Los Angeles Times; “Angelic Annie,” September 27, 1952, by Richard G. Hubler, Collier's Magazine; “The Blyth Spirit,” October 12, 1952, by William Brownell, New York Times; “Ann Blyth: Bride of the Year,” June 1953, Photoplay Magazine; “A Blyth Spirit From An Earlier Error,” February 28, 1985, by Jack Hawn, Los Angeles Times; “She's Still Singing Just As Beautifully,” March 19, 1989, by Mitchell Smyth, Toronto Daily Star; “Looking Back: Ann Blyth” June 5, 1990, by Ann Blyth, The Hollywood Reporter; “Playing Thier Songs,” October 14,1994, by Libby Slate, Los Angeles Times; “Little Bit of This, Little Bit of That,” September 29, 1997, by Candace A. Wedlan, Los Angeles Times;  “Not Like Veda,” August 12, 2013, by Susan King, Los Angeles Times; TCM.com; IMDBPro.com; Wikipedia.com; Movies Mentioned:  Chip Off The Old Block (1944), starring Donald O'Connor, and Peggy Ryan; Babes On Swing Street (1944), starring Peggy Ryan; Mildred Pierce (1945), starring Joan Crawford, Ann Blyth, Zachary Scott, Jack Carson, and Eve Arden; Swell Guy (1946), starring Sonny Tufts; Brute Force (1947), starring Burt Lancaster, Yvonne DeCarlo, and Ella Raines; Killer McCoy (1947), starring Mickey Rooney; A Woman's Vengeance (1948) starring Charles Boyer; Another Part of The Forest (1948), starring Fredric March, Florence Eldridge, Edmond O'Brien, and Dan Duryea; Mr. Peabody and the Mermaid (1948), starring William Powell and Irene Hervey; Top O' The Morning (1949), starring Bing Crosby and Barry Fitzgerald; Once More My Darling (1949), starring Robert Montgomery; Free For All (1949), starring Robert Cummings: Our Very Own (1950), starring Farley Granger; Katy Did It (1951), starring Mark Stevens; The Great Caruso (1951), starring Mario Lanza; Thunder On the Hill (1951), starring Claudette Colbert; All The Brother's Were Valiant (1953), starring Robert Taylor, Stewart Granger;  Rosie Marie (1954), starring Ann Blyth; The Student Prince (1954), starring Mario Lanza; Kismet (1955), starring Howard Keel; Slander (1957), starring Van Johnson and Steve Cochran; The Buster Keaton Story (1957), starring Donald O'Connor; The Helen Morgan Story (1957), starring Paul Newman; --------------------------------- http://www.airwavemedia.com Please contact sales@advertisecast.com if you would like to advertise on our podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

EPISODE 48 - “STEVE & NAN'S FAVORITE CLASSIC FILMS OF THE 1940s ” - 08/12/2024 ** This episode is sponsored brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/BENEATH and get on your way to being your best self.” ** The 1940s was a phenomenal times for movies. Auteurs like ALFRED HITCHCOCK, GEORGE STEVENS, WILIAM WYLER, and BILLY WILDER were coming into their own with important and personal films that changes the landscape of cinemas. Also, stars like BETTE DAVIS, KATHARINE HEPBURN, CARY GRANT, and HENRY FONDA were defining the screen roles that would make them legends. This week, Nan and Steve will discuss and dissent a few of their very favorite films of the most golden of all decades in film.  SHOW NOTES:  Sources: Preston Sturges By Preston Sturges: His Life in His Words (1991), by Preston Sturges and Sandy Sturges; George Cukor: A Double Life (2013), by Patrick McGilligan; Raoul Walsh: The True Adventures of Hollywood's Legendary Director (2013), by Marilyn Ann Moss; Robert Rossen: The Films and Politics of a Blacklisted Idealist (2013), by Alan Casty; Michael Curtiz: A Life In Film (2021), by Alan K. Rode; Possessed: The Life of Joan Crawford (2010), by Donald Spoto; George Stevens: The Films of a Hollywood Giant (2019), by Neil Sinyard; Wild Bill Wellman: Hollywood Rebel (2015), by Wiliam Wellman, Jr; Stanwyck (1994), by Axel Madsen; Fonda: My Life (1981), by Henry Fonda; Ingrid Bergman: My Story (1980), by Ingrid Bergman and Alan Burgess; Cary Grant: A Brilliant Disguise (2020), by Scott Eyman; Ida Lupino: A Biography (1996), by William Donati; TCM.com; IMDBPro.com; Wikipedia.com; Movies Mentioned:  Christmas In July (1940), starring Dick Powell, Ellen Drew, William Demarest, Raymond Walburn, Jimmy Conlin, Rod Cameron, and Franklin Pangborn; Penny Serenade (1941), starring Cary Grant, Irene Dunne, Beulah Bondi, and Edgar Buchanan; The Lady Eve (1941), starring Barbara Stanwyck, Henry Fonda, Charles Coburn, William Demarest, and Eugene Pallette; High Sierra (1941), starring Humphrey Bogart, Ida Lupino, Joan Leslie, Cornel Wilde, Arthur Kennedy, Henry Travers, and Alan Curtis; The Ox-Bow Incident (1943), starring Henry Fonda, Dana Andrews, Harry Morgan, Mary Beth Hughes, Anthony Quinn, Jane Darwell, William Eythe, and Harry Davenport; Gaslight (1944), starring Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, Joseph Cotten, Angela Landbury, and Dame May Witty; Mildred Pierce (1945), starring Joan Crawford, Ann Blyth, Zachary Scott, Jack Carson, eve Arden, and Bruce Bennett; All The Kings Men (1949), starring Broderick Crawford, John Ireland, Joanne Dry, Anne Seymour, and John Derek; --------------------------------- http://www.airwavemedia.com Please contact sales@advertisecast.com if you would like to advertise on our podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jack Carson and Jimmy Durante followed by Disappearing Scientists.

Matt Greer, David Forrest, Heather Holloway and Jack Carson are here, and they all have Euros fever. We build an XI of Scotland national team players who have played in a notable game against Thistle, discussing each game, whilst also chatting about Scotland, the Euros and what our plans are for Germany. COME ON SCOTLAND!

Even those who live by faith experience doubt, but it doesn't have to end your faith. Drawing from years of guiding Christians through doubt and disillusionment, Joshua Chatraw combines pastoral care and intellectual rigor to address the emotional journey of doubt, offering a new perspective on living a life of faith alongside it. In this breakout session from TGC23, Chatraw and Jack Carson discuss these themes based on their book, Surprised by Doubt. 

On this episode of I Am The Wiz, Wiz reviews the 1942 noir/character drama Mildred Pierce starring Joan Crawford, Ann Blyth, Zachary Scott, Jack Carson and Eve Arden, directed by Michael Curtiz

EPISODE 33 - “Zachary Scott: Star of the Month (May)” - 04/29/2024 Suave, debonaire, and effortlessly charming, ZACHARY SCOTT is best known for his role in MICHAEL CURTIZ's film noir classic Mildred Pierce (1945). As the duplicitous, silver-tongued charmer Monte Beragon, he romances Mildred, played by JOAN CRAWFORD (in her Oscar-winning role), and Mildred's daughter, Veda (ANN BLYTH). This became Scott's signature role: the sexy cad who was usually at his best swindling, seducing, or being a general scoundrel. It was always fun watching Scott's dastardly ways unfold. He could rock a tux, looked naked without a martini in his hand, and always had a cigarette close by. He was so magnetic that he could even make film-goers feel sorry for him. While he seldom got to play the good guy, when he did, as in what is perhaps one of his best roles in JEAN RENOIR's The Southerner (1945), you realize the versatility that he seldom had the opportunity to display. With a career that included over 40 films and dozens of television roles, ZACHARY SCOTT is our Star of the Month. SHOW NOTES:  Sources: Zachary Scott: Hollywood's Sophisticated Cad (2009), by Ronald L. Davis; “Actor Zachary Scott, Leading Man for 3 Decades, Dies of Brain Tumor,” October 4, 1965, Akron Bacon Journal “Who Was Zachary Scott?” www.zachtheatre.org; “Zachary Scott's Guilded Cage,” Spring 2020, by Farren Smith Nehme, www.filmnoirfoundation.org; IMDBPro.com; Wikipedia.com; Movies Mentioned:  Mildred Pierce (1945), starring Joan Crawford, Ann Blyth, Zachary Scott, Jack Carson, Eve Arden, Bruce Bennett, Lee Patrick, and Butterfly McQueen; The Southerner (1945), starring Zachary Scott, Betty Field, Beulah Bondi, Norman Lloyd, J. Carroll Naish, Jay Gilpin, Jean Vanderwilt, Blanche Yurka, and Percy Kilbride; The Mask of Dimitrios (1944), starring Zachary Scott, Faye Emerson, Peter Lorre, and Sydney Greenstreet; Hollywood Canteen (1944), starring Bette Davis, John Garfield, Joan Crawford, Joan Leslie, Dane Clark, Joe E, Brown, Barbara Stanwyck, Id Lupino, Sydney Greenstreet, and Jack Benny; Danger Signal (1945), starring Zachary Scott, Faye Emerson, Mona Freeman, Richard Erdman, Rosemary DeCamp, and Joyce Compton; Her Kind Of Man (1946), starring Zachary Scott, Dane Clark, Janis Page, and Faye Emerson; The Unfaithful (1947), starring Ann Sheridan, Lew Ayres, Zachary Scott, and Eve Arden; Stallion Road (1947), starring Ronald Reagan, Alexis Smith, and Zachary Scott; Cass Timberlane (1947), starring Spencer Tracy, Lana Turner, Zachary Scott, Tom Drake, Mary Astor, Margaret Lindsay, and Albert Dekker; Ruthless (1948), starring Zachary Scott, Louis Hayward, Diana Lynn, Sydney Greenstreet, Lucille Bremer, and Martha Vickers; Whiplash (1948), staring Dane Clark, Alexis Smith, Zachary Scott, Eve Arden, S.Z. Sakall, Jefferey Lynn, and Alan Hale Jr; Flamingo Road (1949), starring Joan Crawford, Zachary Scott, Sydney Greenstreet, David Brian, Virginia Huston, Gladys George, and Fred Clark; Shadow On The Wall (1950), starring Ann Sothern, Zachary Scott, John McIntire, Gigi Perreau, Kristine Miller, and Nancy Davis; Born To Be Bad (1950), starring Joan Fontaine, Zachary Scott, Joan Leslie, Robert Ryan, and Mel Ferrer; Stronghold (1951), starring Veronica Lake, Zachary Scott, and Rita Meceda; The Secret of Convict Lake (1951), starring Glenn Ford, Gene Tierney, Zachary Scott, Ethel Barrymore, Ann Dvorak, Barbara Bates, and Janette Nolan; Dead On Course (1953), starring Zachary Scott and Kay Kendall; Flame of the Islands (1955), staring Yvonne DeCarlo, Howard Duff, and Zachary Scott; Violent Stranger (1957), starring Zachary Scott, and Faith Domergue; --------------------------------- http://www.airwavemedia.com Please contact sales@advertisecast.com if you would like to advertise on our podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Director:  Michael Curtiz Producer:  Jerry Wald Screenplay:  Ranald MacDougall, William Faulkner Photography:  Ernest Haller Music:  Max Steiner Cast:  Joan Crawford, Ann Blyth, Jack Carson, Zachary Scott, Eve Arden Rotten Tomatoes:  Critics: 88%/Audience: 90%

Jack Benny TV Videocasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/6BDar4CsgVEyUloEQ8sWpw?si=89123269fe144a10Jack Benny Show OTR Podcast!https://open.spotify.com/show/3UZ6NSEL7RPxOXUoQ4NiDP?si=987ab6e776a7468cJudy Garland and Friends OTR Podcasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/5ZKJYkgHOIjQzZWCt1a1NN?si=538b47b50852483dStrange New Worlds Of Dimension X-1 Podcasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/6hFMGUvEdaYqPBoxy00sOk?si=a37cc300a8e247a1Buck Benny YouTube Channelhttps://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrOoc1Q5bllBgQA469XNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1707891281/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2f%40BuckBenny/RK=2/RS=nVp4LDJhOmL70bh7eeCi6DPNdW4-Support us on Patreonhttps://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr92rDP5bllDAQAM_ZXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1707891407/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.patreon.com%2fuser%3fu%3d4279967/RK=2/RS=9LbiSxziFkcdPQCvqIxPtxIgZ7A-ReplyForwardAdd reaction

In this video Gavin Ortlund interviews Josh Chatraw and Jack Carson about Rhett McLaughlin's comments about their book, Surprised By Doubt, and why Christianity is a better option than open spirituality. Surprised By Doubt: https://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Doubt-Disillusionment-Invite-Deeper/dp/1587435594 About Josh: https://www.samford.edu/beeson-divinity/directory/Chatraw-Josh About Jack: https://www.liberty.edu/ace/articles/faculty/jack-carson/ Richard Bauckham's introduction to the gospels: https://www.amazon.com/Gospels-All-Christians-Rethinking-Audiences-ebook/dp/B002OSXN9G/ Peter Williams' Can We Trust the Gospels?: https://www.amazon.com/Can-Trust-Gospels-Peter-Williams-ebook/dp/B07DNF73F2/   Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville. SUPPORT: Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://truthunites.org/

EPISODE 23 - “I Coulda Been a Contender: Classic Casting That Almost Happened” - 02/19/2024 It is well documented that the film “Gone With The Wind” started filming before an actress was cast in the lead role of Scarlett O'Hara. Producer DAVID O. SELZNICK made a spectacle out of who would win the coveted role. It became a national obsession. He considered everyone from TALLULAH BANKHEAD to BETTE DAVIS to LUCILLE BALL. He eventually narrowed the field to three finalists: PAULETTE GODDARD, JOAN BENNETT, and JEAN ARTHUR. But in the eleventh hour, a new contender, an unknown Brit named VIVIEN LEIGH, swept in and won the role. Listen as we discuss, debate, and guffaw over other casting choices that almost happened in some of your favorite film classics.  SHOW NOTES:  Sources: Hollywood's First Choices: How The Greatest Casting Decisions Were Made (1994), by Jeff Burkhart and Bruce Stuart; Casting Might Have Beens (2005), by Eila Mell; Jean Arthur: The Actress Nobody Knew (2004), by John Oller; George Raft: The Man Who Would Be Bogart (2015), by Stone Wallace; Life is a Banquet (1974), by Rosalind Russell; Joan Crawford: The Enduring Star (2009), by Peter Cowie; Michael Curtiz: A Life in Film (2021), by Alan Rode; Judy Holliday (1982), by Will Holtzman; Close-up on Sunset Boulevard: Billy Wilder, Norma Desmond, and the Dark Hollywood Dream (2002), by Sam Staggs Montgomery Clift: Beautiful Loser (1992), by Barney Hoskyns; Mike Nichols: A Life (2021), by Mark Harris; IMDBPro.com; Wikipedia.com; Movies Mentioned:  Scarface (1932), starring George Raft, Paul Muni, Ann Dvorak, and Boris Karloff; Dead End (1937), starring Silvia Sidney, Joel McCrea, Humphrey Bogart, Wendy Barrie, and Claire Trevor; The Maltese Falcon (1941), starring Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, Elisha Cook, Jr, and Lee Patrick  The Maltese Falcon (1931), starring Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels; High Sierra (1941), starring Humphrey Bogart, Ida Lupino, Joan Leslie, Alan Curtis, Cornel Wilde, Arthur Kennedy, Willie Best, Elisabeth Risdon, and Henry Travers; His Girl Friday (1940), starring Cary Grant, Rosalind Russell, and Ralph Bellamy; Twentieth Century (1934), starring John Barrymore and Carole Lombard; Mildred Pierce (1945), starring Joan Crawford, Ann Blyth, Jack Carson, Zachary Scott, Eve Arden, Bruce Bennett, and Lee Patrick;  Sunset Boulevard (1950), starring Gloria Swanson, William Holden, Erich von Stroheim, and Nancy Olson;    From Here To Eternity (1953); starring Burt Lancaster, Deborah Kerr, Montgomery Clift, Frank Sinatra, Donna Reed, and Ernest Borgnine; Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf (1966), starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal, and Sandy Dennis; Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), starring Paul Newman, Robert Redford, and Katharine Ross;#023: "I COULDA BEEN A CONTENDER!" --------------------------------- http://www.airwavemedia.com Please contact sales@advertisecast.com if you would like to advertise on our podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode we are joined by Jack Carson, Executive Director of the Center for Apologetics and Cultural Engagement at Liberty University. Jack has co-written a book called, Surprised by Doubt: How Disillusionment Can Deepen Our Faith.  Today he shares with us some insights into how Christians think about doubt and how their questions can either stunt or strengthen their faith. He also shares wisdom in how we can come alongside someone who is doubting their faith and help them draw near to God even amidst their struggles. Become a friend of the podcast by subscribing! Our subscribers are invited to quarterly zoom calls with the hosts, and they have exclusive access through Patreon messages which allows them to ask questions and make suggestions for episodes. Subscribers are also automatically entered into drawings for free books and resources given away by our sponsors. But most importantly, for just $3 a month you become part of the family of friends that keep the Counsel for Life podcast going! Your small membership fee helps to cover the production costs encountered by hosting a free podcast. Thank you for choosing to become a friend of the podcast we are glad you are here and are grateful for you! (Memberships are for one year and automatically renew each month.)To learn more, visit our website: www.counselforlifepodcast.com

Happy Halloween! The Big Show Podcast 1951-10-28 (032) Tallulah Bankhead, Jack Carson, Jimmy Durante, Ed Gardner, The Ink Spots, James and Pamela Mason (Mindi)

Happy Halloween! The Big Show Podcast 1951-10-28 (032) Tallulah Bankhead, Jack Carson, Jimmy Durante, Ed Gardner, The Ink Spots, James and Pamela Mason (Mindi)

In this episode, Caleb talks with Jack Carson about his book, Surprised by Doubt, and more.Links MentionedSurprised by Doubt: How Disillusionment Can Invite Us into a Deeper Faith by Joshua Chatraw and Jack CarsonCaleb's Substack

Jack Carson Show 46-10-16 (03) Meeting at School

Paine Radio ClassicsWe Cannot Say Much of the 'Really Good Stuff' on Here That's Why We Created Paine.tv YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE SHOW BY CLICKING THIS LINK -- *** DONATE HERE *** GET the Intel that's Too Hot For Anywhere Else at P A IN E. TV CONTRIBUTE TO THE SHOW BY CLICKING THIS LINK -- *** DONATE HERE *** ...This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5788750/advertisement

Jack Carson Show 46-10-23 (04) Trouble with the Phone Company

George Feltenstein of Warner Bros joins the podcast to review 5 films from the 1950s now available on Blu-ray from the Warner Archive.  We discuss the merits of the films, the restoration, and all of the EXTRAS so that you can make an informed buying decision.First up is the women's prison drama, "Caged" (1950), starring Eleanor Parker, Agnes Moorehead, and Hope Emerson.  We break down the exceptional performances in this socially conscious drama that make the film still relevant today. Next is the noir thriller "The Damned Don't Cry" (1950), featuring a powerful performance by Joan Crawford, and strong supporting performances by David Brian, Steve Cochran, Kent Smith.  For years this was an underrated film, but now it has returned to its rightful place as one of Joan Crawford's best.  Loaded with extras, this remastered release has never looked or sounded better.Then put on your seatbelt, as we examine the RKO noir classic "Angel Face" (1953) starring Robert Mitchum and a dazzling performance by the beautiful Jean Simmons. A new 4K scan restores this film to its original luster making for a mesmerizing viewing experience.Our next film is pure entertainment, as we review the 1953 MGM musical "Dangerous When Wet" starring "America's Mermaid" Esther Williams, Fernando Lamas, Jack Carson, Charlotte Greenwood, and Denise Darcel. This new 4K scan of the original technicolor camera negatives plus a disk packed with Extras makes for a tremendous new release.And we finish with a review of the lyrical classic "The Old Man and the Sea" (1958).  Writer Earnest Hemingway requested star Spencer Tracy and Tracy's performance earned him another Academy Award nomination.  A new 4K scan of the original color camera negative returns the film to its original beauty, and restored audio means that Dimitri Tiomkin's Oscar-winning score has never sounded better.Purchase on Amazon:CAGED (1950)ANGEL FACE (1953)THE DAMNED DON'T CRY (1950)DANGEROUS WHEN WET (1953)THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA (1958)  The Extras Facebook pageThe Extras Twitter Warner Archive & Warner Bros Catalog GroupOtaku Media produces podcasts, behind-the-scenes extras, and media that connect creatives with their fans and businesses with their consumers. Contact us today to see how we can work together to achieve your goals. www.otakumedia.tv

Jack Carson Show 46-10-02 (01) Runs for County Commissioner

Today's Mystery: Jack Carson calls in Sam Spade for protection after receiving a threatening telegram.Original Radio Broadcast Date: March 5, 1947Support the show monthly at patreon.greatdetectives.netSupport the show on a one-time basis at http://support.greatdetectives.net.Mail a donation to: Adam Graham, PO Box 15913, Boise, Idaho 83715Take the listener survey…http://survey.greatdetectives.netGive us a call 208-991-4783Follow us on Instagram at http://instagram.com/greatdetectivesFollow us on Twitter@radiodetectivesJoin us again tomorrow for another detective drama from the Golden Age of Radio.

Today's Mystery: Jack Carson calls in Sam Spade for protection after receiving a threatening telegram.Original Radio Broadcast Date: March 5, 1947Support the show monthly at patreon.greatdetectives.netSupport the show on a one-time basis at http://support.greatdetectives.net.Mail a donation to: Adam Graham, PO Box 15913, Boise, Idaho 83715Take the listener survey…http://survey.greatdetectives.netGive us a call 208-991-4783Follow us on Instagram at http://instagram.com/greatdetectivesFollow us on Twitter@radiodetectivesJoin us again tomorrow for another detective drama from the Golden Age of Radio.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5236233/advertisement

Today's Mystery: Jack Carson calls in Sam Spade for protection after receiving a threatening telegram.Original Radio Broadcast Date: March 5, 1947Support the show monthly at patreon.greatdetectives.netSupport the show on a one-time basis at http://support.greatdetectives.net.Mail a donation to: Adam Graham, PO Box 15913, Boise, Idaho 83715Take the listener survey…http://survey.greatdetectives.netGive us a call 208-991-4783Follow us on Instagram at http://instagram.com/greatdetectivesFollow us on Twitter@radiodetectivesJoin us again tomorrow for another detective drama from the Golden Age of Radio.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5571712/advertisement

Mindi brings us The Big Show from 1951-02-18 episode (016) with Tullulah Bankhead, Fred Allen, Ed Wynn, Jack Carson, Portland Hoffa, Dennis King, Beatrice Lillie, etc.

Mindi brings us The Big Show from 1951-02-18 Episode (016) with Tullulah Bankhead, Fred Allen, Ed Wynn, Jack Carson, Portland Hoffa, Dennis King, Beatrice Lillie, etc.

2 1/2 hours of Old Time Radio celebrating Valentine's Day!The Aldrich Family. February 11, 1943. NBC net. Sponsored by: Postum. Henry and his sister Mary have both scheduled Valentine's Day parties. In fact, there are lots of parties! The first 27:50 of the program only. Dan Seymour (announcer), Clifford Goldsmith (writer), House Jameson, Norman Tokar, Dickie JonesThe First Nighter Program. February 12, 1948. CBS net. "Love Is Stranger Than Fiction". Sponsored by: Campana cosmetics, DDD Prescription. Comedy/romance about a publisher's secretary who turns out to be a best selling author. Larry Keating (announcer), Irving Teitle (writer), Willard Waterman, Virginia Gregg, Herb Butterfield, Jerry Hausner, Olan Soule, Barbara Luddy, Frank Worth (conductor). The Danny Kaye Show. February 10, 1945. Program #5. CBS net origination, AFRS rebroadcast. Harry James and Kitty Kallen join Danny in a play about "Cupid." Danny sings "It's Never To Late To Mendelssohn," and "Stanislavsky." Show has a cute custom-recorded AFRS ending by Danny. AFRS program name: "Danny Kaye." See cat. #52410 for a network, sponsored version of this boradcast. Danny Kaye, Ken Niles (announcer), Harry James and His Orchestra, Lionel Stander, Kitty Kallen, Buddy De Vito, Eve Arden, Bob Jellison, Dick Mack (director). The Signal Carnival. February 9, 1941. NBC Pacific net. Sponsored by: Signal Oil. A Valentine's Day show. The first tune is, "So Sweet." Kay's first tune is, "There'll Be Some Changes Made." Vera Vague visits an army camp to see her boyfriend, Waldo. Gordon Jenkins and His Orchestra, Johnny Fraser (announcer), Kay St. Germaine, Barbara Jo Allen, Jack Carson, Dave Willock, The Signalaires.  Suspense. March 3, 1949. CBS net. "The Lovebirds". Sponsored by: Auto-Lite. A wife is trying to kill her husband, while everyone is sure that they're just romantic "lovebirds." Anton M. Leader (producer, director), Shirl Hendricks (writer), Harlow Wilcox (commercial spokesman), Harold Swanton (adaptor), Joan Fontaine, Lester Schott, Lucien Moraweck (composer), Lud Gluskin (conductor), William Johnstone, Paul Frees (announcer). 

Midi brings us Tallulah Bankhead, Fred Allen, Ed Wynn, Ed Gardner, Jack Carso, etc.

Mindi brings us another Big Show with Tallulah Bankhead, Fred Allen, Ed Wynn, Ed Gardner, Jack Carson, etc.

Door to Suspense #20 featuring Jack Carson in: Jack Carson Show 11/6/46 CBS, Suspense “Easy Money” 11/7/46 CBS.

Jack Benny, originally broadcast October 6, 1946, Jack wants to listen to the World Series. Also Suspense, originally broadcast October 6, 1957, Misfire starring Jack Carson. Written by a CBS sound effects man, this is a story about an atomic-bomb test that fails to detonate because of a small wrench caught in the door.Visit my web page - http://www.classicradio.streamWe receive no revenue from YouTube. If you enjoy our shows, listen via the links on our web page or if you're so inclined, Buy me a coffee! https://www.buymeacoffee.com/wyattcoxelAHeard on almost 100 radio stations from coast to coast. Classic Radio Theater features great radio programs that warmed the hearts of millions for the better part of the 20th century. Host Wyatt Cox brings the best of radio classics back to life with both the passion of a long-time (as in more than half a century) fan and the heart of a forty-year newsman. But more than just “playing the hits”, Wyatt supplements the first hour of each day's show with historical information on the day and date in history including audio that takes you back to World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ. It's a true slice of life from not just radio's past, but America's past.Wyatt produces 21 hours a week of freshly minted Classic Radio Theater presentations each week, and each day's broadcast is timely and entertaining!

The Big Show followed by Sherlock Holmes

Sealtest Village Store "Yachting Party" May 6, 1948 NBC with Jack Carson and Eve Arden Young Love "Engagement Ceremony" July 18, 1949 CBS

The biggest names in Hollywood and Broadway recorded for AFRS during the war years, The American Forces Network can trace its origins back to May 26, 1942, when the War Department established the Armed Forces Radio Service (AFRS). The U.S. Army began broadcasting from London during World War II, using equipment and studio facilities borrowed from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The first transmission to U.S. troops began at 5:45 p.m. on July 4, 1943, and included less than five hours of recorded shows, a BBC news and sports broadcast. That day, Corporal Syl Binkin became the first U.S. Military broadcasters heard over the air. The signal was sent from London via telephone lines to five regional transmitters to reach U.S. troops in the United Kingdom as they prepared for the inevitable invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe. Fearing competition for civilian audiences the BBC initially tried to impose restrictions on AFN broadcasts within Britain (transmissions were only allowed from American Bases outside London and were limited to 50 watts of transmission power) and a minimum quota of British produced programming had to be carried. Nevertheless AFN programmes were widely enjoyed by the British civilian listeners who could receive them and once AFN operations transferred to continental Europe (shortly after D-Day) AFN were able to broadcast with little restriction with programmes available to civilian audiences across most of Europe (including Britain) after dark. As D-Day approached, the network joined with the BBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to develop programs especially for the Allied Expeditionary Forces. Mobile stations, complete with personnel, broadcasting equipment, and a record library were deployed to broadcast music and news to troops in the field. The mobile stations reported on front line activities and fed the news reports back to studio locations in London. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Entertainment Radio Stations Live 24/7 Sherlock Holmes/CBS Radio Mystery Theater https://live365.com/station/Sherlock-Holmes-Classic-Radio--a91441 https://live365.com/station/CBS-Radio-Mystery-Theater-a57491 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------