This channel is distinguished by its high production quality, the professionalism of its hosts, and the appeal of its interviewees. I'm surprised it doesn't have hundreds of thousands of subs.
Thank you. This is just what I needed to hear this morning. Before I started listening I had been reflecting about how withdrawn I have become since the Lockdowns - which were stricter and went on longer in Scotland than England. I was staggered how compliant people were and how they seemed to take pride in being more cautious than the reckless English. It has left me feeling isolated and and guarded in talking even to friends I've known for years, especially at my church. Going to Mass is now more a trial than a solace. I can recognise some of this is my own pride and lack of charity and have confessed it but it hasn't shifted anything - a big dose of Sloth/Acedia I fear. Sounds as if I need to get Elizabeth's book but as she said I basically know what I should do already but it's easier to listen to another podcast or read (or just buy) another book....
Go to God for the grace He freely offers. Immerse yourself in scripture, seeking Him and the power He gives to follow Him. You're not on your own relying on will power.
I’ve been thinking about whether I should write anything on here. Because my desire is to be encouraging and build people up. And for most of this lovely interview there is such a rich and deep encouragement to so many. And here comes the however- the legalism that seeps into a lot of this interview is disturbing and for new and susceptible believers I think there is a vaneer placed over a strong legalism that people need to be extremely careful of. One of my main observations was the conversation about the rich young ruler. There are absolutely appropriate caveats that are given to the interaction Jesus has. That are very important. 1. Jesus always responded to the person and their situation. 2. This is not a reason to sell all you have. 3. It is to do with pride and not avarice. The language that Elizabeth uses at certain points is also very enticing but extremely condemning and without grace and personal responsibility to God. It’s not a one size fits all. What you guys are doing is fabulous and I’m so thankful for the rich and deeply encouraging conversations you folks are having with enlightened folks like Elizabeth. So I am loath to point this out, but it was deeply concerning. I do recommend speaking with Andrew Fellows at some point who has a wonderful nuanced and brilliant approach to the meaning crisis. He used to work at L’abri in Greatham. In fact Jim Paul who is the director there would also be a brilliant interviewee. May you have every continued success and bless many with the wonderful work you are doing! Truly, from a big fan!
Sorry but you are wrong. This is something we actually have to take literally. It's consistent throughout the gospels and the church fathers. It is not legalism, but intrinsic to the new commandment of love. You cannot love your neighbour if you are controlling and hoarding stuff and money that they need. This is the call of the Gospel: to live in response to the outpouring of grace that we have received. Faith is not merely a response of the heart; it is a response that requires our wallets and our action. Just because we feel guilty about that doesn't mean that this is "legalism". It means that we have not understood and accepted the overwhelming generosity of God.
These were IMHO 3 very posh people who agreed on absolutely everything for 1 hour. When people agree on absolutely every single point for that long, it is not a real honest conversation or at least not a really enriching one, but just an exercise in agreeableness. When all participants are from a very particular socioeconomic class, then it is an opportunity lost to engage with someone from another socioeconomic background.
Its a good point but what would you have the hosts do then? Only invite guests on from a totally different class background? I would think that the nature of this podcast is quite self-selecting in terms of class background. Being a religion and society writer/thinker is itself typically quite middle class or upper middle. Not something a working class single mother on benefits is going to have much time or cultural capital for.
The other problem with critiquing someone on the basis of class is it tends to ignore what it is that they are actually saying... investigating the value (or otherwise of that) on the basis of its own merits.
This particularly comes out in discussion of money and "love your enemy". In bourgeois spirituality, questions of money make you "uncomfortable" and "guilty"; enemies are merely people who have politically different views to you. These questions look completely different when situated within liberation spirituality. Then questions of money and enemies actually become real, and not merely about protecting your feelings.
@@WH-hi5ew If this podcast isn't something that a working class single mother would benefit from, then maybe they should cancel it and do something else.
As someone new coming to Christianity, I can't understand the nervousness around talking about sin. The fact that we're fallen, virtually incapable of not sinning - and that's why we need a Saviour - is comforting to me.
Theologians have been thinking and writing about this for a VERY long time. She was showing respect by acknowledging that fact and then making her point.
I am all for preaching against consumerism and for frugality and living an unpretentious life (something I try to practice), but she lost me at climate crisis. The poor benefit from cheap abundant energy too and will be the ones to suffer the most from the net zero type policies that people who utter the words climate "crisis" typically advocate for.
@@WH-hi5ewthe point being made by the person commenting is that we need to make sure that we actually care about the individuals impacted by the extreme policies being advocated for and ask if there is not significant harm that would be caused to people in poorest communities and countries in the world. Everything related to climate alarmism is not what it appears on the surface and just trusting the “science” is actually quite irresponsible. The meaning crisis itself is indicative of huge problems with the enlightenment that have created the kind of anti-Christian sentiments that elevated Science as a kind of new dogmatic religion in its place. If the scientific consensus that we looked for God and couldn’t find him ergo he doesn’t exist can and should be questioned you have to be opened to the idea that other areas of “consciousness” may also be wrong or at least may not have all the information. Anytime someone tells you trust the “experts” they are smarter than you, there is a dogma at work. In the church we need not be afraid of those that question, it should be the same with “The Science”
the way the individual is defined is wrong but it doesn’t mean that the individual does not exist... when my son was born, i was struck by how complete he is as a human being... as an individual, he is complete... he doesn’t need me to add anything to him... so the individual exists... however, that individual encounters many other individuals... for those encounters to be meaningful and therefore stable, meaning is negotiated by necessity...
To say we are "designed" raises a lot of red flags for me, as does, "there's no such thing as an individual". Why do we always speak in binaries? And, the intergenerational "transfer of knowledge" glosses over the fact that, in the context of religion, this means ideological conditioning from a very young age. Brainwashing at worst. Not "knowledge transfer". The irony here is that, self-evidently, Elizabeth is an incredibly individual character who speaks from her personal experience. She is not speaking for a group, organisation or community. She is not constrained by communal requirements. Avarice ... why are we ignoring it?" Because the conditions we live in, politically, economically, make it extremely difficult to do otherwise. For example, I have never owned property, even a small flat. Or a car. I have no insurance. I could go on. If I had to live my life (I'm 71) again, would I do it differently? Maybe. For sure, those of us who have not indulged in a bit of avarice are worse off for it. We struggle harder to survive, to square the circle of survival and greed.
Yes the phrase “you are Enough” is a lie. I agree that we are designed for community but biblically God sees us as individuals: Jesus left the 99 to go after the 1.
Anything not wishy washy on this, either from hosts or contributor, please share timestamp. Hopefully not being a troll, just curious to find the gems.
This channel is distinguished by its high production quality, the professionalism of its hosts, and the appeal of its interviewees. I'm surprised it doesn't have hundreds of thousands of subs.
Thank you. This is just what I needed to hear this morning. Before I started listening I had been reflecting about how withdrawn I have become since the Lockdowns - which were stricter and went on longer in Scotland than England. I was staggered how compliant people were and how they seemed to take pride in being more cautious than the reckless English. It has left me feeling isolated and and guarded in talking even to friends I've known for years, especially at my church. Going to Mass is now more a trial than a solace. I can recognise some of this is my own pride and lack of charity and have confessed it but it hasn't shifted anything - a big dose of Sloth/Acedia I fear. Sounds as if I need to get Elizabeth's book but as she said I basically know what I should do already but it's easier to listen to another podcast or read (or just buy) another book....
Go to God for the grace He freely offers. Immerse yourself in scripture, seeking Him and the power He gives to follow Him. You're not on your own relying on will power.
What a wonderful conversation!
Thank you very much... ☝️😎
Thank you for another wonderful and enriching conversation. 🎉
'Safe space' whining.
Thank you so much for the great discussions. Much of what Elizabeth said, resonated with me. Now off to just keep reminding myself 😊❤️
I’ve been thinking about whether I should write anything on here. Because my desire is to be encouraging and build people up.
And for most of this lovely interview there is such a rich and deep encouragement to so many. And here comes the however- the legalism that seeps into a lot of this interview is disturbing and for new and susceptible believers I think there is a vaneer placed over a strong legalism that people need to be extremely careful of.
One of my main observations was the conversation about the rich young ruler. There are absolutely appropriate caveats that are given to the interaction Jesus has. That are very important.
1. Jesus always responded to the person and their situation.
2. This is not a reason to sell all you have.
3. It is to do with pride and not avarice.
The language that Elizabeth uses at certain points is also very enticing but extremely condemning and without grace and personal responsibility to God. It’s not a one size fits all.
What you guys are doing is fabulous and I’m so thankful for the rich and deeply encouraging conversations you folks are having with enlightened folks like Elizabeth. So I am loath to point this out, but it was deeply concerning.
I do recommend speaking with Andrew Fellows at some point who has a wonderful nuanced and brilliant approach to the meaning crisis. He used to work at L’abri in Greatham. In fact Jim Paul who is the director there would also be a brilliant interviewee.
May you have every continued success and bless many with the wonderful work you are doing!
Truly, from a big fan!
Sorry but you are wrong. This is something we actually have to take literally. It's consistent throughout the gospels and the church fathers. It is not legalism, but intrinsic to the new commandment of love. You cannot love your neighbour if you are controlling and hoarding stuff and money that they need. This is the call of the Gospel: to live in response to the outpouring of grace that we have received. Faith is not merely a response of the heart; it is a response that requires our wallets and our action. Just because we feel guilty about that doesn't mean that this is "legalism". It means that we have not understood and accepted the overwhelming generosity of God.
These were IMHO 3 very posh people who agreed on absolutely everything for 1 hour. When people agree on absolutely every single point for that long, it is not a real honest conversation or at least not a really enriching one, but just an exercise in agreeableness. When all participants are from a very particular socioeconomic class, then it is an opportunity lost to engage with someone from another socioeconomic background.
Its a good point but what would you have the hosts do then? Only invite guests on from a totally different class background? I would think that the nature of this podcast is quite self-selecting in terms of class background. Being a religion and society writer/thinker is itself typically quite middle class or upper middle. Not something a working class single mother on benefits is going to have much time or cultural capital for.
The other problem with critiquing someone on the basis of class is it tends to ignore what it is that they are actually saying... investigating the value (or otherwise of that) on the basis of its own merits.
I've listened to/read a bit of Belle's stuff and she's not posh or middle class
This particularly comes out in discussion of money and "love your enemy". In bourgeois spirituality, questions of money make you "uncomfortable" and "guilty"; enemies are merely people who have politically different views to you. These questions look completely different when situated within liberation spirituality. Then questions of money and enemies actually become real, and not merely about protecting your feelings.
@@WH-hi5ew If this podcast isn't something that a working class single mother would benefit from, then maybe they should cancel it and do something else.
As someone new coming to Christianity, I can't understand the nervousness around talking about sin. The fact that we're fallen, virtually incapable of not sinning - and that's why we need a Saviour - is comforting to me.
Theologians have been thinking and writing about this for a VERY long time. She was showing respect by acknowledging that fact and then making her point.
🙏Lovely to listen to ..🧡
I am all for preaching against consumerism and for frugality and living an unpretentious life (something I try to practice), but she lost me at climate crisis. The poor benefit from cheap abundant energy too and will be the ones to suffer the most from the net zero type policies that people who utter the words climate "crisis" typically advocate for.
In the event that we do nothing about the climate crisis then the poorest will also be the ones who suffer most with that.
@@WH-hi5ewthe point being made by the person commenting is that we need to make sure that we actually care about the individuals impacted by the extreme policies being advocated for and ask if there is not significant harm that would be caused to people in poorest communities and countries in the world. Everything related to climate alarmism is not what it appears on the surface and just trusting the “science” is actually quite irresponsible. The meaning crisis itself is indicative of huge problems with the enlightenment that have created the kind of anti-Christian sentiments that elevated Science as a kind of new dogmatic religion in its place. If the scientific consensus that we looked for God and couldn’t find him ergo he doesn’t exist can and should be questioned you have to be opened to the idea that other areas of “consciousness” may also be wrong or at least may not have all the information. Anytime someone tells you trust the “experts” they are smarter than you, there is a dogma at work. In the church we need not be afraid of those that question, it should be the same with “The Science”
the way the individual is defined is wrong but it doesn’t mean that the individual does not exist...
when my son was born, i was struck by how complete he is as a human being... as an individual, he is complete... he doesn’t need me to add anything to him... so the individual exists...
however, that individual encounters many other individuals... for those encounters to be meaningful and therefore stable, meaning is negotiated by necessity...
To say we are "designed" raises a lot of red flags for me, as does, "there's no such thing as an individual". Why do we always speak in binaries? And, the intergenerational "transfer of knowledge" glosses over the fact that, in the context of religion, this means ideological conditioning from a very young age. Brainwashing at worst. Not "knowledge transfer". The irony here is that, self-evidently, Elizabeth is an incredibly individual character who speaks from her personal experience. She is not speaking for a group, organisation or community. She is not constrained by communal requirements.
Avarice ... why are we ignoring it?" Because the conditions we live in, politically, economically, make it extremely difficult to do otherwise. For example, I have never owned property, even a small flat. Or a car. I have no insurance. I could go on. If I had to live my life (I'm 71) again, would I do it differently? Maybe. For sure, those of us who have not indulged in a bit of avarice are worse off for it. We struggle harder to survive, to square the circle of survival and greed.
Yes the phrase “you are Enough” is a lie. I agree that we are designed for community but biblically God sees us as individuals: Jesus left the 99 to go after the 1.
I've said in sermons to my congregation that God sees us as individuals but makes us into persons. I think this gets at what she is about here.
Clever and nice woman
Anything not wishy washy on this, either from hosts or contributor, please share timestamp. Hopefully not being a troll, just curious to find the gems.
I respect the straightforwardness of your comment, only thing is someone’s “wishy washy” might be someone’s “intriguing”
@@InfinityProTeam true, but ultimately The Brothers Karamazov isn't Harry Potter.
@@conspirisi ahah fair, I haven’t read either, would you recommend?
@@InfinityProTeam I've not read either so you've got me ;-).
Yes! to all of that, and noo
Goodness me I was so hooked on what she shared. Maybe slightly because of how strikingly beautiful she is