When Faith is Hard - A Conversation with Terryl Givens
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ม.ค. 2023
- For today’s episode, we were honored to bring back the inimitable Terryl Givens. Terryl and his son Nathaniel have recently released a new book, called Into the Headwinds: Why Belief Has Always Been Hard - And Still Is.
This is a remarkable book and addresses some of life’s most profound questions, especially as they pertain to the modern world. Terryl and Nathaniel argue that though many of us see faith as “hard” in our scientific and rational age - but the reality is that for many years faith may have been too easy. People of faith, and Christians in particular, have long benefited from being a part of the in-crowd-since Rome adopted Christianity as its official religion, it’s been quite comfortable to call oneself a Christian. But Terryl and Nathaniel say that that may have produced a more fragile discipleship, and one that focused more on how we believe than on how we live.
So in this conversation, we dived into all of this with Terryl - including how he defines faith, the limits of agency, how reckoning with our own biases is key to our own spiritual life, and how we can look well outside our own tradition to find examples of true discipleship.
We’re sure that most of you know Terryl, but just in case: Terryl Givens is a Neal L. Maxwell Senior Fellow at Brigham Young University. He formerly held the University of Richmond's Jabez A. Bostwick Chair of English, where he was professor of literature and religion. He is the author and coauthor of numerous books, including All Things New, The God Who Weeps, and The Crucible of Doubt.
Nathaniel Givens, Terryl’s co-author on this book, has been published in First Things, the Deseret News, and RealClearReligion on the topics of faith and politics. With graduate degrees in economics and systems engineering, Nathaniel works as a data analyst and entrepreneur.
![[ไฮไลต์] แบดมินตันหญิง ไท่ ซือ หยิง vs เมย์ รัชนก อินทนนท์ รอบแบ่งกลุ่ม | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LUCG0H5qkpQ/mqdefault.jpg)
If the immediate church experience was as thoughtful, intelligent, open, free and as undogmatic as this, I would return to church activity tomorrow. It’s so sad that it isn’t.
Do you think it's much different for people like Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, or others? Therein lies a paradox: if we hold a torch, but tell ourselves we will wait for the room to get brighter before we enter it with our own torch... how will the room get brighter?
@@LuckySawdust Good point Alan. However, right now, I don’t have the exceptional energy nor the preponderance to endeavour on such a task. I need time to gather my wherewithal about me. I’m not prepared to enter the lions den and suffer the abuse I received back then for simply asking difficult questions.
I’m not prepared to be called names anymore.
@@Callisto74 knowing your own limits/boundaries is wise, and valid -- like any relationship where change must be acknowledged, it helps to have a 'bank of goodwill' built up, to make sure it can withstand the strain placed on it by introducing perspectives that are likely to challenge someone's view of things!
Even for Bro. Givens, or Bro. Bushman, I imagine their take on things has created 'friction' with some of their fellow congregants. It sounds like they've made peace with it -- and they seem to have found a way (like the 12 Apostles of old) to work together despite differences of opinion/belief on certain things. That's where I'm at, personally -- staying in the ward, recognizing others may not have the energy to engage the way I do -- and trying to love them as the Savior would, embracing their (and my!) faith, regardless of where we find ourselves on that path.
I hope you are able to find a well of energy, and a welcoming friend who can stand by you if you decide to re-engage!
@@LuckySawdust Thankyou Alan, your words mean a lot.
In my case, my wife and I, together with my father in law attended The Lichfield Ward in Uk. I started asking tough questions back in the days when nobody else was doing it. I was alone in my questing. To my dismay, the members, many of whom had known me since childhood reacted fairly aggressively. Mormons like to have all the answers and I think the fact that they didn’t unnerved them. Eventually, we got to the point when we couldn’t attend that ward. I’m still a Christian however, and I still live much the same life as I ever did. I’m still a member of record, no action was ever taken against me. My Concerns were sincere. But I no longer believe the exclusive church claims of the church. Even President Uchtdorf invited me to write to him and I got a very nice letter in return.
Anyway, my father in law continued his church attendance at that ward. He has a different name to me and I think the members forgot he was a family member. So, when we left, the members badmouthed us and put us down as a matter of routine. He was unable to bear it anymore and it upset him greatly. He left the ward, moved out and attended another ward in Worcester.
Although, a combination of many factors, Lichfield Ward included made his very ill. He then contracted pneumonia and consequently, he died.
We still feel that we cannot attend that ward. True, we have lost our belief in the church but besides that, we could not, would not attend that most unchristian place which is the Lichfield Ward.
I love the Gospel, and I have been a member all my life, 77 years.
I have learned a lot but these Come Follow Me years have been a great blessing. It has come at a time also of many questions and of many who have studied The Gospel who are helping those with questions. Heaven for The Lord's help in our day !
In the Evangelical world
I have learned prayer is to Praise!
We often in LDS world forget that…
What if we taught that we pray not to get or to know but to give and to praise!
To thank!
How fun! I love this discussion. Thanks guys.
When we pray, we often need to look outward to see the answer, which is frequently carried or reflected by another.
I too have been deconstructing my faith, but it is more a combination of what Aubrey and Terryl have said is at the foundation of theirs. For me, the ultimate truth at the foundation of everything is the need to expand my capacity to love (from Aubrey), and to help others do the same. For me this means that the purpose of life is to learn to love everyone, especially our enemies and the unlovable. But, of course, this can only be achieved by unbinding ourselves from the chains of hell (Alma ?), thereby increasing light and our moral agency (from Terryl). In other words, to better love we need to find ways to unbind ourselves from the appeal of short-term dopaminergic hits (pornography, drugs, compulsive shopping, i.e., any addiction). And why? So that we can put position ourselves to better love and serve others. Love is at the foundation for me.
What is certainly not true is that the pursuit of happiness is the purpose of life. As Jordan Peterson has said (and I paraphrase because I am too lazy to look it up) is that if you are lucky, happiness will descend upon you unexpectedly from time to time during your life. Terryl has explained the reasons for this elsewhere.
Also, thank you Tim for stating your belief in evolution today. I suspected but wasn't sure. I left the Mormon church almost 40 years ago because I was unable to reconcile (at that time) the truth of evolution and the virulent anti-evolution stance of virtually everyone in the church. This coupled with the necessity to become perfect seemingly preached at every meeting was just too much for me . I became physically ill every time I went to church (thanks again Tim for talking about your struggles with scrupulosity). I remember the day I decided to leave the LDS church: I was standing in a courtyard at college and a clear voice came into my head that asked “have you done your best?” I said “yes”, and the voice said, “are you able do better than your best?” The weight of the world was lifted off of my shoulders and I could finally breathe again.
Thank you for all you do. Keep up the good work! I love you guys.
This is a great podcast. He never disappoints and always uplifts me.
Ok
Minute 48
Expound…
It feels more right to say this sacrificing man is working for God!
We must open our narrative for full on explanation of these types of people
Eric Liddel
Hudson Taylor
Katie Davis
Gladys Aylward
And sooo many more!
Life is risk! Thanks guys!
Very good.... intro of podcast seems to always be read in a hurry.... :-)
I’m surrounded by Serious Evsngelicals.. they are suspicious still..
Thry hold us as separate not at the table.. good point. I feel it.
Wrath strikes me as a passion, also. Can't really have a wrathful god who is also without passions.
There seems to be an accepted LDS paradigm day in and day out… one path of thinking and it involves protecting the Church all All done in it.. past and present. When one steps out if that and changes paradigm to open up more possibilities and less protection… It is not welcomed
It’s treated like a Hot Potato
No one wants to hold it.. but pass it off.
14:30 the rationalist delusion sounds much like david berlinski’s “the devil’s delusion, atheism and its scientific pretensions,” a response to richard dawkins’ “the god delusion.”
Minute 42….
I see the discomfort here in the conversation.
Why? We must ask why is that uncomfortable?
Would it not be helpful even life saving to many or to some to
Clarify this?
In the Church it is the most approved to KNOW and defend all.
My friend 10-15 years ago defended all the Church did as from God. Then in the last 3 years, she came up against the Church not recognizing her need and “ making mistakes”.
But because there was never taught in the Church the human part of the Church, she had to choose that the whole was wrong not just a part.
certain Givens ...
I was not impressed to say the least. Chapter 1 brought up interesting ideas about secularism, but the chapter on rationalism was just beginners psychology with an overgeneralized conclusion which leaves the entire field of instrumental rationality untouched. On Scientism started with the claim, "now that we've concluded exclusive rationality isn't a valid framework" when the "proof" they gave in the proceeding chapter wasn't robust enough to earn a good grade even in an intro to philosophy college class. I'm super unimpressed if this is the apolegitc rigor we have to look forward to in years to come, please step it up.
God? Are you kidding? There are few things sillier the believing in an invisible man in the sky.
Maybe move on then
Most of the greatest thinkers of history have been theists. But I think I'll listen to good ol' Katie Brown, TH-camr extraordinare. Thomas Aquinas? Overrated. Pascal? A complete fool. John Henry Newman? His brilliance pales in comparison to that of the illustrious Katie Brown.
You'll probably miss the point of this and think "that's an appeal to authority, what about all the geniuses who didn't believe in God?" And you'd think that because you missed the point.