Navigating Faith Deconstruction in a Post Modern World with Myron Penner, PhD | The New Evangelicals
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2024
- The New Evangelicals: The conversation with Myron Penner this week explores the transition from pre-modern to modern to postmodern eras, focusing on the relationship between faith, reason, and truth. It delves into the intellectual history of these movements, the impact of modernity on theology, and the deconstruction of texts in the postmodern context.
If you'd like to support our work, you can DONATE here! - www.thenewevan...
Subscribe and never miss a video! - / @thenewevangelicals
Follow us on social media!
Instagram - / thenewevangelicals
Facebook - www.facebook.c...
Threads - www.threads.ne...
TikTok - / thenewevangelicals
Twitter - / newvangelicals
Check out our website for merch, educational materials, and how to join our community! - www.thenewevan...
The New Evangelicals exists to support those who are tired of how evangelical church has been done before and want to see an authentic faith lived out with Jesus at the center. On this channel, you'll see videos from our founder Tim Whitaker and our incredible guests as they react and respond biblically to topics such as Christian Nationalism, church hurt, terrible Christian movies, bad conservative Christian takes, and MUCH more!
We are committed to building a caring community that emulates the ways of Jesus by reclaiming the evangelical tradition and embracing values that build a better way forward. If you’ve been marginalized by your faith, you are welcome here. We’ve built an empathetic and inclusive space that encourages authentic conversations, connections and faith. Whether you consider yourself a Christian, an exvangelical, someone who's questioning your faith, or someone who's left the faith entirely, you are welcome here!
#thenewevangelicals #christian #deconstruction
Wow, this was so helpful! I'm straddling the gap between a rigid "do this and you'll be a good Christian" and "I just want to have faith in Jesus, Love God, and Love my neighbors with no strings attached." I appreciate understanding the perspectives on how scripture is understood. Thank you so much.
I think i need to watch this episode 3 more times before i can begin to understand! 😂😂 thank you both so much!💖
around 49 minutes, you said something about the religion "living" and it sparked something in my mind.
living things are always changing. the thing must change to be alive. If the religion doesn't change, it will die, and that is a lesson that strict rules lawyers need to learn.
I’ve been studying the Postmodern Culture and the Church series that was edited by James K.A. Smith and it is so nice to hear what I have been learning being articulated in a much more approachable way. Thanks guys.
lol, christianity is still going to fade to black, it's on the way out mate.
This is a really good conversation and inspired much reflection for me. I apologize in advance for writing such a long comment. But maybe someone will find something of value in it.
Regarding Derrida and deconstruction: I can't help thinking there are some questionable assumptions being made whenever this subject is raised today. I first started hearing about "deconstruction" among ex-vangelicals on twitter in 2016/2017. At that time I never heard anyone talk about Derrida, or use derridean concepts or terminology. I wondered if there might be a connection between Derrida's deconstruction and ex-vangelicals' deconstruction, but I never saw one. And I still haven't, except for the connection invented by right-wing critics of today's religious deconstruction from fundamentalism. The truth is, as far as I can make out, there is no influence by Derrida in today's deconstruction movement, apart from the use of the term "deconstruction," which means something with virtually no connection to what Derrida meant by it.
I think people started calling their experience deconstruction because it was similar to "deconversion," but had several advantages over the latter - first, deconstruction does not necessarily imply leaving one's faith completely; and second, it implies an ongoing process of removing pieces from a constructed whole in order to rethink them, and is not simply a one-time event.
It's important to remember that in the 90s especially, Derrida and deconstruction became a bête noire for cultural conservatives, along with postmodernism as a whole. It functioned as essentially a scarier, more contemporary synonym for radical relativism and nihilism. I read many screeds by conservatives (since I was then fairly conservative myself) condemning Derrida as claiming that the world is completely without meaning, since all truth claims are equally valid and therefore equally invalid. They claimed he said the whole world is text, and all interpretations are purely relative, with none any better than any others. Even at the time I knew this interpretation was false - in fact, I had a friend who was earning his MA in philosophy at a conservative Catholic school, and he told me how he aspired to study Derrida -- as a Catholic himself - under John Caputo. He knew better, as of course did Caputo.
After Derrida's death, he became a lot less relevant to conservatives, and fearmongering around postmodernism stopped inspiring the big money donations it did in the 90s. So the fundies went on to other forms of fearmongering, and they switch up their targets about once every year or two now. But the rise of religious deconstruction was a perfect opportunity for them to revive one of their big hits from the old days. They knew they could inspire fear by invoking the threat of Jacques Derrida, so that's what they're doing, along with using it as a stick to beat current religious deconstructionists with.
So basically my point is: all this guff about Derrida is pure nonsense with no basis in fact.
And as long as I'm writing an insanely long comment, I might as well add this: the reason fundamentalists insist that their Christianity is the ONLY valid Christianity is because of their uncritical acceptance of the basic conservative story about the world, the narrative that provides a framework for everything else. The story is that there was some time in the past (exactly when varies, depending on the conservative) when things were Good. Then some terrible people started to destroy everything that is Good - these people also vary, but are typically named as liberals, progressives, Marxists, relativists, feminists, socialists, Democrats, Black people, "activists," academics, scientists ... basically, it's any group who questions any aspect of fundamentalist doctrine. But these destroyers hate what is Good. So we, the virtuous, the Christians, the people who hold onto true values, we must fight to stop this horrific destruction of the Good, and restore it to its former pristine purity.
If this is your story of the world, then of course it would be impossible to admit that progressive Christians are just as authentic as fundy Christians. After all, it's the progressive Christians who are the evil ones who hate the Good and spend all their time trying to destroy it! How could that ever be a valid form of Christianity??
From what I've seen, this basic story, this worldview about the bad people threatening the Good, is common to every single cultural conservative I've seen, as well as most political/economic conservatives. Different groups mean different things by it, but there is a lot of overlap between them. They understand and can tolerate one another even when they disagree about specifics, because they intuitively know that they are all involved in the same fight, a fight against forces of darkness, a fight that dominates everything they understand and see about the world. The only time they will truly attack another conservative is when that other conservative allows some element of another way of seeing the world to creep in. For example, this happened recently when a very conservative pundit opposed Christian nationalism on the grounds that we should be able to live in peace with others. The pundit had momentarily stopped seeing the world through the lens of "fighting the forces of darkness who seek to destroy the Good," so he was attacked.
I believe this conservative story should always be kept in mind as a fundamental hermeneutic principle when interacting with fundy Christians. It will usually explain why they are acting the way they do, and it will stop us from being baffled and frustrated by their blinkered and dishonest ways of thinking. As far as they are concerned, we are the enemy. It's as simple as that.
Thanks for sharing your reflections. I resonate with it as a Christian socialist ☺️
@@Dennyballoons Glad to hear it - and I'm a Christian socialist too!
Excellent discussion gentleman, thank you.
Already excited for this interview. Tim always delivers great content.
Brilliant conversation.
Yes the current evangelical theology is not historical before 200 yrs and grew out of the reaction to modernism, and then made their position increasingly solid as a reaction. I wonder if they would accept the medieval peasantry attending church every week as Christians according to the boundaries they want to put around 'correct belief' today.
@@ajthomas2937 not in US don't know what Biden is doing, don't support him. I don't believe any political side is 'God's side'. I believe in Jesus teaching to love others as ourselves. I believe in his call to he bringing of release to the oppressed, healing to the broken hearted. I believe the call to follow Jesus means standing with the overlooked, the outcast, and criticising those abusing their power. I do read the Bible and from Genesis to Revelation that is what I hear.
There are policies on both right and left that align with that. In an election I have to choose which party has policies to help the most and exploit the least. Different Christians come to different views.
However if someone refuses to accept legal election processes (all the lawsuits collapsed because no evidence) and defends those who stormed the seat of government. Then that is not a matter of right or left policies. I believe Biden won in 2020 on the basis that when a choice of just 2, people voted against Trump not for Biden. (record turnouts to be sure) If the Republicans dared to offer a different candidate they might get votes that will instead go to Biden.
How is Biden changing God's law?
The God of the Bible who wiped out all but 8 people in the flood? Or told Joshua to kill everyone in the cities, man, woman, child, animals too?
Frankly l'd rather act with love to everyone as all hold the image of God, and be wrong than to hate people, threaten them, and all the stuff far right throw at any who don't agree with them and God say (Matt 25) get away from me I do not know you, for you saw me hungry etc and did not help
Great break down and discussion of these philosophies! Definitely going to check out Tim hulls video with Tim Barnett!
This is just so good and has made me understand so much more than I thought thanks Tim
First reaction to seeing a guest with the last name of Penner: Oooh - I wonder if he's related to any of the Canadian Penners we knew during our time teaching at a Bible college in northern Alberta?!? And then he's a professor at Trinity Western? I'm guessing there are some extended family connections out there someplace. ;-)
Thank you for bringing a fresh, healing perspective to theology, sir!
A quick search indicates he is perhaps or was an MB Mennonite.
If you continue in my word then you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth and the truth will make you free.
@@ajthomas2937 Yeshua is the Lord of the Sabbath. And the true Sabbath is the rest of the Lord. Into which we enter by the faith of Yeshua. I have been in the true Sabbath since 1984. And haven't hungered nor thirst since. In Jeremiah it speaks of the Law of God (Not the letter of the Law of Moses, but the spirit of the Law of God) written upon our heart. When this is done it becomes a natural part of our character and we can never break it. But the New Covenant is the covenant in the blood of Yeshua.
if only you had the truth eh?
@@HarryNicNicholas I have the truth. Yeshua is the truth.
Coming to mind in all this is the debate of Light being a particle or a wave and it turning out to be more accurately both and a whole lot more. Yin yang rather than either or. Also as I heard a Rabbi say " get two Jews together and you have three opinions". From my Senior year of Anthropology, we can't have totally objective interpretation, there will always be subjective bias in it. That has to be accounted for and the Cultural Paradigms bias as well. Never 100%. Thinking along the particle and wave. Religion and Faith is more like looking at the wave part of light and Reason and the current Science as the particle look at light. But if you look at it as both, you arrive at a third and a whole lot more point of view.
I remember in my Anthropology class talking to my professor about different views and saying why not both or something derived from combining rather than this vs that and she said to the affect that's not the way it's acceptable. Why not.
I guess from my background, I grew up a kind of deconstructionist. But a positive not negative one. The "but on the other hand there is this" to a "this is the only way of interpretation". Grew up with a Father who was the presiding Bishop of a Charismatic Episcopal Protestant influenced branch of the Church of the East ( the church of the Middle East to India that once was in China and traces it's foundation to Thomas)who preached to a variety of churches. And his nominal faith was shaken up by the testimony of the Japanese Socialist Christian Kagawa and a vision of Jesus and the greater than the universe of God's love in his eyes. Now, I'm a member of a more conservative church in the ELCA now.
Always see and feel the forest and the trees.
So never was a Fundamentalist Evangelical but have always wrestled with that dogmatic worldview and it's opposing "scientific" secularism. I enjoy listening to your podcasts. This was a good one.
It's just hard for me to talk about biblical interpretation without mentioning the Holy Ghost. He's pretty necessary.
What makes the Bible truth is when you experience the Word of God. I can't make you understand that the Holy Spirit lives inside of me. He turned in my belly like a baby, and I gave birth to two children. How do I explain to you that the Holy Spirit burns on me like fire, but I'm not consumed. The Bible has become life, and the Word becomes truth. How do I tell you that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob speaks to me in my heart and thru scripture. My flesh does not understand, but my spirit does. I have experience, Jesus. Continued experiences with Jesus can not be taken away. I have even seen an angel with my 4-year-old grandson, and he explained exactly what I saw.
Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The scripture is the revelation of the Logos. The vision of Yeshua. It is measure of truth. All truth must comform to scripture. It is only properly interpreted by the Spirit of Truth. Who will lead us into all truth. Yeshua said to His Father. Thy Word is truth. He was one witness to the truth. I have a second witness. The Knowledge of God is truth. The Jewish people rejected Yeshua because they require two witnesses. I am Yeshua's corroborating witness. The Amen.
That's the problem...postmodern thought there is no absolute truth, only interpretations...
It's not a "problem", it's reality. Absolute truth is unknowable, unless you're God. Whether you like it or not, everyone's brain including yours formulates what makes best sense to them. For one person to claim their view is absolute truth is pretty arrogant, don't you think?
Jesus believed in Hell, Tim doesn't. Hmmm. I wonder who is right?
did he? Or did he end stories with the gnashing of teeth as a pattern. Like an opposite version of 'they lived happily ever after'?
@@helenr4300 There's no denying that Jesus knew, believed, and warned about the absolute reality of Hell. Re: Matthew 5:22, Matthew 7:23, Matthew 13:42-50, Matthew 24:48-51, Matthew 25: 41, Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:43, 49, Luke 12:5, Luke 16:19-31, Luke 19:27, John 3:14,15, John 3:36, John 5:24, just to site a few mentions. Read from the King James and not some modern watered-down version. I feel sorry for Tim, as he is leading many souls into gross error.
@@rickyblackburn-n9e look to the first language manuscripts. Matt 5 : 22 gehenna. 7:23 'go away from me'. 13:42-50 post parable 'fire weeping and gnashing of teeth'. 24: 48-51 part of parable about what the slave master will do, also weeping and gnashing of teeth....
Jesus uses Gehenna, a place despised and feared due to its history, but a known earthly place. He uses weeping and gnashing of teeth. Even fire. But never the later development of hell as a place of eternal torment. That came out of the not even in the Apocrypha book of Enoch dating to the Maccabean rebellion between the testament but claiming to be from Noah's time.
Jesus referred to pruning branches and throwing into the fire where they will be burnt up. The fires of gehenna or a waste tip may burn forever but the stuff thrown there doesn't last for ever. Weeping and gnashing of teeth, whilst a turn of phrase used in Jesus' storytelling, still does not mean anything like eternal torment. Jesus never said anything about the modern concept of hell.
@@rickyblackburn-n9e and btw King James version was not the first English translation nor the most accurate. The king authorised it as he didn't like the Geneva Bible, he wanted it to edge more to protecting the divine right of kings, eg him. Because he was king and this version was Authorised (here in UK I grew up calling it the AV ; not KJV though both the same) he got to demand it was the only one printed and the only one to be used in the then state ruled churches.
Meanwhile in centuries since more manuscripts have been found and some older than the KJV team had available. Modern translations are not watered down, they have better historical sources. Yes every translation is limited. Even if you and I were fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek, we would still miss stuff that made sense then, puns, political references (eg Revelation) the stuff that only a cultural insider would pick up. So translators often have to pick what word in English (or any modern language) means. Heck English is spoken all over and we still have words that other countries using English don't get. So yes all translations are imperfect, which is why it is good to compare version on something like Bible Gateway website as can see the breadth of possible ways to translate certain bits.
Example : in the OT the Hebrew doesn't use words for wife, husband and marry. It is a man who takes a woman. But from KJV to modern versions, translators will use wife, husband and marry when the rest of the text shows they are in a long term living as family context. Shock horror, Adam and Eve don't have a wedding, they are united by the act of having sex.
So no there is no 'the Bible clearly says' that doesn't devalue the Bible, it allows us to approach it with more honesty and humility. Too often we read it with a certain set of assumptions in our minds, from church leaders, 2000 yrs of hell mythology development (Dante and Milton have a lot to answer for) being told growing up what it says, that means we read in those inherited views. It is really hard to set our learned culture aside to read it as if never encountered it before.
@@helenr4300 Let me put it this way: The King James Version works just fine. It clearly teaches an eternal Hell.