Krista Tippett on listening to those of other faiths

The guys over on Nomad Podcast recently interviewed Krista Tippett, a Christian who hosts a public radio interview program called On Being. I’ve never listened to her show before - though I may need to catch up with some episodes - but it would seem she makes a habit of interviewing people of all beliefs, of asking lots of good questions, and really actively listening to the answers.

So, the Nomad guys asked her, in listening to and conversing with all these other faith traditions, does she ever feel pressure to convert to one of the other faiths? I thought her answer about belief was helpful [at about 34:00]:

None of [these conversations] make me feel like I have to convert. But here’s what I would say: the cumulative effect of all of these conversations… has instilled in me this expansive and ever-expanding sense of mystery. So my sense of mystery is quite different from when I started. And [has increased] my comfort level with that, and just really being able to take a delight in that [the sense of mystery]. So no, I don’t feel like I have to convert, but I also think that I have less and less of a need to be able to tie everything up with a neat bow. If something doesn’t completely make sense, or it’s not logical, or I don’t see how these things fit together, it doesn’t threaten my faith, and I can leave it to the realm of mystery.

And honestly, I find that I can to back into the tradition, into Christianity, that there’s a reverence for mystery there, for the things that we won’t be able to explain in this lifetime, that I actually think modernity kind of neglected. It’s really very liberating to recover that, and to take delight in it. And I actually think that a reverence for mystery - there’s something that Einstein said, that a reverence for mystery is at the heart of the best of science and the arts and religion - I actually think that a reverence for mystery, which is an orthodox orientation, creates this beautiful space for deeply religious people to remain deeply grounded in their identities and inhabit this puzzling, amazing world full of religious others.

Mere Fidelity Podcast on NT Wright

I’ve recently started listening to the Mere Fidelity podcast, a theological conversation between Americans Derek Rishmawy and Matthew Lee Anderson, and Brits Alistair Roberts and Andrew Wilson. On a recent episode they took up the topic of Anglican theologian NT Wright.

Now it’s no secret to any readers of this blog that I’m a huge NT Wright fan; I have given away more copies of Surprised By Hope to friends than any other volume, heard him in person once, and in general point to him as one of the most influential authors in my theological development over the past decade. I’ve read most of his recent popular-level books, and the first three of his Christian Origins series. (His two-volume fourth part of that series is sitting in my to-read pile.)

All the participants on the podcast expressed a great deal of admiration and appreciation for Wright before launching into their criticisms, but it was the criticisms that had me wanting to shout “but… but…” at my phone as I listened. I think much of my disagreement with them may be explained by my American layman’s perspective, and indeed they may have provided enough caveats through the podcast that we’re likely not in great disagreement, but I want to trace their thoughts and my responses here if only to benefit my own thinking.

Wright’s Characterization (Caricature?) of Evangelicalism

This is where I’m going to bang heads with the MF guys (and probably mostly Anderson) the most. At one point he says this:

[…in Surprised by hope] he [Wright] has a narrative about evangelicalism that’s largely de-historicized. That rips even hymn verses out of their context and uses them to show all of these problems within the evangelical milieu. And he says lots of true things in doing so, but he creates such a caricature of the mentality that he’s disagreeing with along the way that I think it’s really unfortunate. [at 13:20 or so in the podcast]

And later on:

The only reason anyone should ever by ‘surprised by hope’ in this world is if they ignored Augustine, ignored Calvin, ignored Aquinas, ignored Luther, ignored everyone who has been saying ’new creation’ and ‘resurrected bodies’ for the past two thousand years. [at 20:45]

Here, I suppose, the evangelical academic’s caricature is the layman’s sense of reality. I would respond to Anderson here that for every historic evangelical who would largely align with Wright, thus making Wright’s claims a caricature, that there is likely a current evangelical who would not, or at least who knows little on the subject, thus making the “caricature” something much closer to reality.

At the sampling of evangelical churches I’ve belonged to in my 37 years (including Baptist, Bible, Christian & Missionary Alliance, and Evangelical Free), never once have I heard a full-bodied story of resurrection taught in the way Wright proclaims it. Most often the eschatology isn’t taught at all, or it’s lightly glossed over - certainly never brought in a way that emphasizes (as Wright does) how that understanding of the Kingdom impacts how we live in the here and now. My conversations with fellow church members anecdotally indicate that the Left Behind series continues to more significantly influence the common evangelical layman’s view of end times than anything else. (Maybe the upcoming Nic Cage remake of the Left Behind movie will change that? Nah.)

As to the specific point about ripping lines of hymns out of context, I’ll say just two things. First: that the hymns he calls out are some which I have grown up loving dearly, which makes Wright’s criticism a bit painful; second: That this bit of the book will fall flat with American evangelicals within the next 10 years or so since most of us are singing only modern praise songs now, the content of which typically struggles to be correct theologically about even the basics of the faith, and which almost never addresses eschatology.

Anderson doesn’t let it go, though. Later on he argued that Billy Graham’s view of resurrection and heaven isn’t really that different from Wright’s, if you know the code words:

For all the good that he [Wright] is doing, the straw man has brought an unnecessary antithesis and hostility towards the older ways of framing things that doesn’t realize that evangelicals have shorthand, and a whole cluster of concepts behind that shorthand, and it’s not all as bad as NT Wright presents it as being in his lay-level work. [at 22:50]

A couple of thoughts here: first, I wouldn’t assume that Wright “doesn’t realize” that evangelicals have this shorthand. I would assume it is familiar to him and most all scholars who have even a passing familiarity with the history of evangelical thought. However, Surprised By Hope is a popular work, and at the popular level I think there are many, many evangelicals who aren’t familiar with this shorthand.

Fortunately, Rishmawy chimed in on this point:

You and I know that’s shorthand… [but] I think there are times when the shorthand has gotten lost in pop evangelicalism or pop fundamentalism or whatever, where people hear this and are, like, ’this is totally new’ and you’re right, my pastor has kind of sounded like that. The best of the tradition has never lost sight of this. [at 23:20]

I’m not sure what bits of evangelical tradition Derek deems “the best”, but his comments about that shorthand being lost in pop evangelicalism are, in my experience, right on. When I heard Wright speak in Nashville a couple years ago he noted that, as a surprise to him, he’d developed ‘something of a side ministry’ helping American evangelicals find their way out of the Left Behind sort of theological mess. I’m one of those, and grateful for it.

At another point in the discussion, Roberts, in making an (apparently obligatory on Mere Fidelity) Oliver O’Donavan reference brought up a point that I very much appreciated - that American fanboys of Wright, in feeling that Wright is some sort of Pied Piper (no, not that Piper) leading them out of evangelicalism, would not be feeling their current disillusionment with Wright on social issues if they understood his theology more fully. To wit:

It was Oliver O’Donavan in a conference in dialog with NT Wright that I attended - he made the point that Wright always makes these hyperbolic statements that seem to be anti-traditionalist in order to cover up just how traditionalist he actually is, how conservative his position is, because otherwise people wouldn’t realize how firmly in continuity it is with Reformed evangelical tradition. [at 19:20]

This has actually led me to appreciate Wright even a bit more lately than I had before, because I find myself having pushed pretty hard against evangelicalism the past several years, only to consistently find that while I am often sympathetic with the plight of some of my more progressive brethren, I can’t fully get on board with them when it comes to much of their social progressivism. It’s encouraging to have someone like Wright seemingly closer to that middle ground where I often find myself.

To the esteemed gents on Mere Fidelity - first, thanks for the great conversation. Yours has quickly become a favorite podcast of mine. But I’d urge you, in the midst of your theological erudition, to not so quickly pooh-pooh Wright’s pop characterization of evangelicalism. By many accounts he is speaking evangelical truth at a level that is reaching many who may never delve into Augustine, Calvin, Aquinas, or Luther. And for that we should be thankful.

The Mere Fidelity guys are promising a second discussion on Wright to discuss the Reformed folks’ issues with his theology. I’ll listen with interest but, not being Reformed myself, without much of a dog in the fight.

My Podcast Listening circa January 2014

At the moment I’m subscribed to 14 podcasts. I do all my podcast listening on my phone - mostly in the car or (during the summer months) while running or doing lawn work. (This has a nasty side-effect where I get a really backed-up queue in the winter months, but oh well.)

For the purposes of organization I’ll group them into four rough categories: Tech, Entertainment, Theology, and Other. I’ll address them in that order.

Tech

Accidental Tech Podcast - OK, surely the guys like Dan and Geof who are actually reading this are familiar with ATP. A weekly podcast around Apple tech nerdery, it features Marco Arment, John Siracusa, and Casey Liss. Lately they’ve spent far too much time obsessing over the new Mac Pro - which I complained about on Twitter and Casey subsequently appreciated - but usually it’s an entertaining listen. Average Duration: 90 minutes.

Pragmatic - This is a new one on my list; in fact, I’ve only listened to the first half of the first (well, sixth) episode. It’s a weekly podcast which purports to address the “practical application” of technology. Average Duration: 60 minutes.

Entertainment

Filmspotting - A long-running public-radio-originated discussion of new films, punctuated with movie marathons highlighting overlooked titles from movie history. This is my first listen every week. Hosts Adam Kempenaar and Josh Larsen keep the discussion lively and provide many more good ideas for film watching than I will ever have time to keep up with. Average Duration: 75 minutes.

Disasterpiece Theatre - This one also has the virtue of being hosted by my friend-of-a-friend and sometimes acquaintance Stephen Granade. Imagine yourself in a Hollywood pitch room and pitching the most ridiculous movie ideas that (let’s all admit) could probably get made. Stephen and co-host Alex White are quick- witted and hilarious. Enjoyable stuff. Average Duration: 30 minutes.

The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith - This one is a little more of a niche, I guess. Goldsmith interviews movie screenwriters about their story, writing methods, and experiences in the entertainment industry. I find it fascinating to hear storytellers talk about the craft of writing a good story. Average Duration: 80 minutes.

WTF with Marc Maron - D-list comedian Marc Maron invites celebrities into his garage/studio and records hour-long interviews that range here, there, and everywhere. I almost gave up on this one until Don Chaffer reminded me that the 2-minute skip button could be put to good use. Skip the first 12 minutes of Maron plugging his comedy act and get straight to the interview. Maron asks really good questions, isn’t afraid to ask about God, religion, and philosophy on life. Average Duration: The interview portion is usually 60-70 minutes.

Theology

The Mortification of Spin - My buddy Mike set me on to this one a month ago. Comes out weekly or so, hosted by Carl Trueman. Besides winning the award for most cleverly-named podcast, this one does me good to remember that there are Calvinists on the internet who I can still agree with most of the time. (I said on the internet, friends. There are lots of Calvinists I agree with most of the time among my personal friends and acquaintances.)

Nomad - I think Randy linked this one a couple months back. Hosted by two British guys, this one is fairly emergent (is that still a thing?) or liberal evangelical. I don’t find myself agreeing with them too much, but I find it a valuable listen because it helps me identify the places where liberal evangelicalism starts to go off the rails and needs to be dialed back. And they’re right sometimes, too. (This may be the most backhanded podcast recommendation ever.) Average Duration: 65 minutes.

Then we come to two that have the distinction of featuring internet friends of mine:

The Pulpiteer - this one features the sermons of pastor Andy Croel of Carson City United Methodist Church in Michigan. I dig Andy’s sermons. He always points me to Jesus, has a good perspective on the text, and gives me something to chew on while keeping it under 30 minutes. Amazing. Average Duration: 30 minutes.

Trying Too Hard - This one also features Andy Croel in conversation with Arkansian UMC buddy Matthew Johnson. OK, I’ll be honest: they’ve only published two episodes so far and I haven’t listened to either of them yet, but they’re queued up on my phone and I’m looking forward to them. That’s worth something, right? Average Duration: 23 minutes.

Misc

Dads Being Dads - I’ve only listened to part of one of these so far; can’t remember who recommended them. But what I’ve heard so far has been good. It’s refreshing to hear dads talk about being dads. (As an aside: it’s curious to me that while you’d find this kind of parenting discussion going on in the Christian blogosphere on mom blogs, you have to go to the secular arena to hear the dad’s perspective. What’s up with that? But that’s a thought to be more fully formed in a separate blog post.) Average Duration: 60 minutes.

Fresh Air - OK, you’ve heard this show on NPR before, right? I don’t really need to say any more than that. I like that they split the show segments into separate feed items, so I can delete the bits I’m not interested in and keep the others. Average Duration: varies based on segment. 45 minutes max. Some as short as 6 minutes.

Song Exploder - I just subscribed to this one as well. It only has one episode so far. The goal is that they will interview a musician each time and have that musician play a track and then “explode” it - examining the different tracks, production, etc. This interests me as a musician, so I’m subscribing for now. Average Duration: 15 minutes.

The Thousand People I Tried To Be - This one has a feed but no episodes yet. I’m still waiting for my buddy Geof to edit and publish his first interview. I like the concept, and would enjoy it if he makes it a consistent thing. Average Duration: unknown.