First, phenomenal job. I enjoyed every minute of all 4 parts and could tell you both put a tremendous amount of work into this series, excellent work. I hesitate to bring any thoughts since I didn’t do anything except listen. You guys did all the work. But from what I heard as I listened, you both seem like you’d be curious and interested in the thoughts of a listener who truly enjoyed this, and also loves Lewis, and thinks about these things all the time. Also, a disclaimer- I am a close friend of Dom’s, (and let me humbly say for the record that all of his good ideas came from me).
Also, it’s truly refreshing to hear two strangers who love God (and CS Lewis) have a conversation about difficult political/moral issues that doesn’t dissolve into a chaotic stalemate. You two are clearly beautiful, thoughtful, and very smart people, that was made clear throughout this entire conversation. That alone was worth the listen so thank you both again for such a lovely and refreshing conversation. It is a tremendous witness to the power of God and what being His people should look like in our world today.
One more initial thing- I agree and give a loud amen to almost all of this conversation, truly. The amount of the interview where I would stand with you both and say amen heavily outweighs the amount where I would differ. Therefore I don’t think I need to go through where I agree cause I would be here all day. There were a few things that stood out to me that generated thoughts that I’ll share, if that’s ok, but I don’t want in any way to give the impression that my takeaway is mostly bad or a sense of disagreement, it’s not.
Apologies for the length, but essentially here is what I was looking for more of as you guys talked.
1. Shared agreement on the objectivity of good/evil, true/false, beauty/ugliness and also shared agreement on the meaning of the words we are using, also
2. By what standard do we make judgements about these things? And
3. Nuancing the “moral equivalency” of left and right
The main thing I found myself wanting more of during the conversation, was some form of shared agreement on a couple especially critical questions today - “Is there such a thing as objective good and evil, true and false, beautiful and ugly?” And, if yes, then “by what standard are we able to make these judgements?”
I think today we live in a culture guided by what O. Carter Snead calls “the anthropology of expressive individualism” defined in part by an overemphasis on “nuance” and “complexity” in the face of very important moral and political issues, and as we weigh and sift these deep and challenging questions, especially as Christians, I believe we need to be able to agree on some fundamental/indisputable truths (authority of the Word of God, for example) in order to sift through the deeper more complex issues. Said another way- I think we as Christians have to be able to settle on some indisputable things, in order to have a meaningful conversation about disputable things.
Dom touched on this need to define and come to an agreement on some of our terms with the part about - “what is church?” Or another way to ask - “what do you mean when you say ‘church’?” etc. Is there an objective shared meaning to that word that clearly has profound implications for us as Christians? You guys were able to talk around it some, but ultimately unable to truly land that plane because the terms and the standard by which we understand these things wasn’t defined enough. I also know there can be time constraints too, so if you didn’t do a 4 part/hours-long series I probably wouldn’t even bring this up 😂
So because of this ^, bear with me and hear me out, at times in this conversation it felt like we were swimming in an unacknowledged sea of grey. For example, it seemed like someone’s past pain or sense of safety could be the primary guiding standard for their choices. I think there were a few times when the issue of our culture’s “anthropology of expressive individualism” should have been brought up. Satan, especially in politics, weaponizes the anthropology of expressive individualism- that says we are fundamentally autonomous individuals, that we are not primarily motivated by love and duty to God and neighbor- but are instead motivated by a deep sense of individual rights and liberties. That we are not born dependent (and usually die dependent) on God and others but we are born free and that the human experience will be most fulfilling when we realize our own desires and exert our individual will. I think this false Rousseau-ian/Nietzsche-ian anthropology is so deeply embedded in all of us, and has a profound influence on conversations like these, and there were a few times where I wish it could have been named and brought into this conversation.
I particularly saw this at play during the part about church. Again, bear with me and please trust that this comes from a place of sincerity, but it was very interesting to me that Christina was willing to easily say that Christians have a responsibility to vote in a national election, but was unwilling to be prescriptive with a believers responsibility to attend a formal worship gathering. To be clear- I’m not at all minimizing or discounting abuse that happens in the church, there of course may be a need to temporarily break from church entirely in an effort to heal and search for a new body. But it did seem like there was a “past-pain hermeneutic” at play in the conversation that trumped a clear responsibility and calling in scripture to not forsake the gathering. This is just one example of a dynamic in the conversation that I think could have been named and teased out more.
Another sense I got from the interview at times was “it doesn’t matter if you vote left or right as long as you remember you’re part of another Kingdom.” I give a hearty amen to the second part but I would push back slightly on the beginning part of that sentiment. I think it actually does matter, because our Kingdom is intensely preoccupied with what is good, true and beautiful, and those things are not in the eye of the beholder, they’re in the eye of The Beholder. That doesn’t mean a Christian has to always vote left or right, but it does mean that we have to be able weigh both sides against His standard alone- to be fair Dom did mention this I am now remembering- but I think this means that there will be times where one side or the other side will be much farther from that standard and we need to be able to talk about that and admit that. Moral equivalency is not an absolute truth here. Both sides aren’t equally just/unjust at all times. Easy example, the right in WWII Nazi Germany, we can all agree went too far and completely delegitimized themselves as a political party for faithful Christians living in Germany at that time. Unfortunately, many still voted for them, but we can now agree that it wasn’t a coherent and faithful way to steward their vote. Of course it’s easier to see that now 80 years later and much more difficult to see it and agree on how that manifests today, especially in our algorithmic, divisive, and outrage-based landscape.
Again, sorry for the length of this comment, I hope you read this and know it’s because I listened intently to all 4 parts and truly enjoyed it and was captivated throughout. Dom, great work on the Screwtape article and Christina you are an excellent interviewer and again, exceptional work on putting together this 4 part series, truly incredible work. Loved every minute. Thanks for doing this.
Jeff please don’t apologise for the length of comment — I’m deeply grateful for how you have sincerely engaged with the fruit of my labour here! I appreciate everything you’ve said and can see the sincerity in your posture as you brought up each point. I’d like to chew on everything and give it some real thought before addressing it all (assuming you’d like to continue the conversation?) So I might get back to you in a few days if that’s okay? Thanks again for being here. Needless to say, welcome to book club! 😃
Okay, it's Monday and I'm back! I spent the weekend really trying to digest your comments and formulate a good response. Some areas still feel like they may need teasing out through dialogue (fancy joining me on the podcast at some point, Jeff? ha!) But ultimately, here's where I'm landing with it.
Firstly, I think I take my small audience for granted, and not in a good way. I get pretty minimal engagement on these articles and episodes, and it lulls me into a false assumption that most of my listeners have been with me for a while and have a background of established, objective truths upon which the foundation of my episodes are built. Ultimately, it's lazy on my part, and arguably sinful because I'm toting around a false humility about my "tiny audience" which is actually just another way of saying that I don't need to steward this platform that God has given me intentionally with each and every episode. This leads me to basically just forget that I'll be gaining fresh listeners all the time who absolutely do need a reminder about what we mean by right and wrong, good and evil, ugly and beautiful – and by Whose standard we base these things. Basically, that's my long way of saying that I take your criticism of not defining terms better as a well-needed kick up the butt on my end. So thank you!
That said, I think it's probably worth sharing a little bit more of my motivation for what you identified as a "past-pain hermeneutic" – because I think you did indeed pick up on something there, and it dances with how I approach the topic of individualism, too. Buckle up for a story.
This podcast was born in response to deep heartbreak as I watched a mass exodus of American friends leave the church all within a 3-year time frame. Meanwhile, my husband and I were also experiencing church hurt during this time, and we watched some of our closest friends here in England be taken advantage of and gaslit (I know gaslighting is a trendy word these days, but it accurately reflects what happened here). We subsequently found healing as we moved to a church closer to home, and most of our English friends who had been hurt also found healing in new churches. (We've since had to move away from our home town, and finding a theologically sound church has been incredibly challenging since then).
But while, in England, we were all reconnecting with church after feeling quite burned, I watched my American friends move further and further away from not just church but God. And I was both grieved and confused at a lot of the reasons which they sited for walking away. Most of it was based in what I could only describe as a complete misunderstanding of both what it means to live under freedom in Christ and what it means to be in communion with the Holy Spirit.
Strangely, I saw a common thread of poor theology and anti-intellectualism both from the churches that hurt us here in England and from the friends who were walking away over in America. And I have desperately wanted to reconcile people to truly understanding who God is and what it REALLY means to follow Him.
For that reason, I do naturally think of the audience of people who are listening to me and feel that traditional church spaces are the least safe place to be right now. I think of people who see church as a place of coercion and control – a feeling which is often parallel with the sentiments towards political candidates. So when it comes to talking about people needing to get back to church, I'm very intentional with how I approach this topic – not because I think gathering together is less important than voting (it's categorically MORE important, I'd say) but because I feel deeply convicted to meet my audience where they're at.
I use Lewis as the basis on which I do this podcast because A) I'm a huge fan and he's informed so much of my own theology in deeply healing ways, and B) He brings to light that which is explained in the Scriptures in such a beautiful, logical way that even those who might not be picking up their Bible right now would still be compelled to recognise the truths which their Bible contains. My mission for this particular group of people won't shift unless God tells me to, but I DO pray that I can continue to refine how I can approach their hurt with both compassion and truth, not watering down what needs to be said for the sake of staying vanilla and likeable.
I think, what I was trying to get at more than anything, was very much in alignment with your previous criticism that we define terms better: what do we mean by "formal" gatherings? In my mind, house church, small Bible studies, prayer groups, and friends who regularly keep you accountable in your faith are not entirely dissimilar to the Acts church, and I suppose I just wanted to open the door to that definition for those of my listeners who may still find that walking into a large worship service on a Sunday morning is too much for them. I will never deny that we should be gathering together with the intention of breaking bread, praying together, studying the Scriptures, and blessing the community. I will, however, want to tease out what that looks like for a mass generation of reconstructing Christians who are potentially trying not to lose their faith altogether.
In terms of how that relates to the topic of individualism, the subtext that you were perhaps picking up on is what's become a huge pillar of my theology in the aftermath of the deconstruction movement: I believe that a lack of understanding the tension between freedom and surrender has festered under our current culture and poor theology. Those of my friends who might see God as a tyrant (we're talking people who arguably know the mechanics of the Bible better than I do) fail to recognise what extreme dignity they were paid by that same God dying on a cross and then STILL allowing them the freedom to reject Him. In a culture where individualism underpins everything, I often take the approach of how this honour of individual freedom might compel us into deeper relationship with the God who gave it to us.
In some ways, I think we ARE born "free." I think the ultimate freedom, by the world's standard, is the ability to sin against the Almighty, and by exercising that soiled definition of what it means to be "free," our world continues to cry out in brokenness. I truly believe that it is only by the power of the Spirit and by a deepening understanding of God's character that we come to accept the surrender and wholeness of finding our place within His Kingdom and not within our own individual aims. Only then do we discover the flip side (the REAL side) of freedom – which is the ability to choose HIM over ourselves and find, as Lewis puts it, "everything else thrown in." Not sure if I've explained that clearly, but it's definitely my aim in how I approach this topic of dignity/personal choice/freedom. Again, I want to meet people where they're at and work my way back to where God asks them to be.
Finally, in relation to that sense you got of "it doesn't matter if you vote left or right" – well, my intentions simply weren't communicated well if this is what you took away. I certainly DO think it matters how we vote (it's why I think it matters that we care about politics at all – because there are indeed policies which align more with God's Kingdom than others). But I suppose I tried to stay as neutral as possible for a few reasons: Obviously, the biggest thing for me is that if we endorsed a candidate, we'd have alienated an entire group of people who needed to hear this conversation. But on a more personal note, having not lived in America for 10 years (and wanting these episodes to be somewhat relevant for non-American listeners), I don't feel like I have any authority to speak on which party was the better choice from a Christian perspective, and so that ambiguity behind the scenes on my end probably lent itself to an ambiguity on the front end. I had Christian friends from both sides who saw deeply challenging and sinful policies and character traits from either candidate, and I don't have the lived insight to know what how these leaders would have altered the lived existence of those under their power. So from my perspective, the best thing I could do was encourage people to seek God's wisdom and behave like His people not only in the process of voting but in the aftermath of it all. That's what I meant when I said I care less how people vote and more how they respond after the election – because if we hinge everything on the vote, we get lazy after the election, thinking that the work is done.
Dominick did a much better job, I think, of clarifying that there are absolutely times where our Christian faith does not allow us to be morally neutral in politics, so I'm grateful for his insight there. My heart in it all, I think, was that if people are compelled enough to seek first the Kingdom, then His wisdom would enlighten them in how they approach politics and vote. That's my airy fairy side coming out, I suppose, but hey, the podcast is called "Magic Like This." The power and wisdom of the Holy Spirit is the only magic we need.
I hope that answered your points sufficiently. I realise you may not agree with me on every point, but please know I really appreciated the feedback you gave me, and I'll absolutely be praying for God to use it to show me where I can do better in this little corner of the internet that He's commissioned to me. God bless! :)
Also, Dom and I have recorded before and plan on recording again soon and we talked about having you on to talk further. I’d love the chance to do that because I think it could be really clarifying for folks. Words like “church hurt” and “religious trauma” I think can be helpful but also can be very confusing and disorienting for people and I often find clarifying questions are needed (if there is trust and a relationship there). Maybe we recorded an addendum to your guys’ interview and do it on church? Don’t have to but an idea! Thanks again for being so generous with your time and talents.
Thank you for sharing all that, your back story, who your audience is and why you speak to them, it definitely helps me see where you’re coming from. I am truly sorry to hear there has been such pain around something that is supposed to be one of the greatest gifts to us, the Church. I can identify with some of your pain, especially around seeing friends deconstruct their faith and wanting to help them see Christ again. That can be very very painful and difficult to watch happen in real time. Makes sense why you’d be so invested in screwtape too, considering this particularly is a fundamentally spiritual battle.
After I posted my comment I worked overnight and went back and re read some Screwtape letters, I rediscovered letter #16, it’s about church and very relevant to this part of the conversation, it was clarifying for me as I processed your interview with Dom’ about Screwtape.
I THINK I understand where you’re coming from on the individualism stuff, but like you said may need to tease that out more over a pod or something some time later in order to truly understand. If I can I wanted to recommend a short video but Carter Snead. A guy I mentioned in my comment. His book “what it means to be human” was a huge best seller and I think he kind of cracked the code on this issue. I’ll see if I can link the 5 min video here in case you’re interested. I think he does a good job of exposing a war between 2 different anthropologies taking place today.
Thank you again for the interview and the engagement. It’s been nice hearing more from you and getting to know you. Hope we can engage more in the future! Talk soon!
First, phenomenal job. I enjoyed every minute of all 4 parts and could tell you both put a tremendous amount of work into this series, excellent work. I hesitate to bring any thoughts since I didn’t do anything except listen. You guys did all the work. But from what I heard as I listened, you both seem like you’d be curious and interested in the thoughts of a listener who truly enjoyed this, and also loves Lewis, and thinks about these things all the time. Also, a disclaimer- I am a close friend of Dom’s, (and let me humbly say for the record that all of his good ideas came from me).
Also, it’s truly refreshing to hear two strangers who love God (and CS Lewis) have a conversation about difficult political/moral issues that doesn’t dissolve into a chaotic stalemate. You two are clearly beautiful, thoughtful, and very smart people, that was made clear throughout this entire conversation. That alone was worth the listen so thank you both again for such a lovely and refreshing conversation. It is a tremendous witness to the power of God and what being His people should look like in our world today.
One more initial thing- I agree and give a loud amen to almost all of this conversation, truly. The amount of the interview where I would stand with you both and say amen heavily outweighs the amount where I would differ. Therefore I don’t think I need to go through where I agree cause I would be here all day. There were a few things that stood out to me that generated thoughts that I’ll share, if that’s ok, but I don’t want in any way to give the impression that my takeaway is mostly bad or a sense of disagreement, it’s not.
Apologies for the length, but essentially here is what I was looking for more of as you guys talked.
1. Shared agreement on the objectivity of good/evil, true/false, beauty/ugliness and also shared agreement on the meaning of the words we are using, also
2. By what standard do we make judgements about these things? And
3. Nuancing the “moral equivalency” of left and right
The main thing I found myself wanting more of during the conversation, was some form of shared agreement on a couple especially critical questions today - “Is there such a thing as objective good and evil, true and false, beautiful and ugly?” And, if yes, then “by what standard are we able to make these judgements?”
I think today we live in a culture guided by what O. Carter Snead calls “the anthropology of expressive individualism” defined in part by an overemphasis on “nuance” and “complexity” in the face of very important moral and political issues, and as we weigh and sift these deep and challenging questions, especially as Christians, I believe we need to be able to agree on some fundamental/indisputable truths (authority of the Word of God, for example) in order to sift through the deeper more complex issues. Said another way- I think we as Christians have to be able to settle on some indisputable things, in order to have a meaningful conversation about disputable things.
Dom touched on this need to define and come to an agreement on some of our terms with the part about - “what is church?” Or another way to ask - “what do you mean when you say ‘church’?” etc. Is there an objective shared meaning to that word that clearly has profound implications for us as Christians? You guys were able to talk around it some, but ultimately unable to truly land that plane because the terms and the standard by which we understand these things wasn’t defined enough. I also know there can be time constraints too, so if you didn’t do a 4 part/hours-long series I probably wouldn’t even bring this up 😂
So because of this ^, bear with me and hear me out, at times in this conversation it felt like we were swimming in an unacknowledged sea of grey. For example, it seemed like someone’s past pain or sense of safety could be the primary guiding standard for their choices. I think there were a few times when the issue of our culture’s “anthropology of expressive individualism” should have been brought up. Satan, especially in politics, weaponizes the anthropology of expressive individualism- that says we are fundamentally autonomous individuals, that we are not primarily motivated by love and duty to God and neighbor- but are instead motivated by a deep sense of individual rights and liberties. That we are not born dependent (and usually die dependent) on God and others but we are born free and that the human experience will be most fulfilling when we realize our own desires and exert our individual will. I think this false Rousseau-ian/Nietzsche-ian anthropology is so deeply embedded in all of us, and has a profound influence on conversations like these, and there were a few times where I wish it could have been named and brought into this conversation.
I particularly saw this at play during the part about church. Again, bear with me and please trust that this comes from a place of sincerity, but it was very interesting to me that Christina was willing to easily say that Christians have a responsibility to vote in a national election, but was unwilling to be prescriptive with a believers responsibility to attend a formal worship gathering. To be clear- I’m not at all minimizing or discounting abuse that happens in the church, there of course may be a need to temporarily break from church entirely in an effort to heal and search for a new body. But it did seem like there was a “past-pain hermeneutic” at play in the conversation that trumped a clear responsibility and calling in scripture to not forsake the gathering. This is just one example of a dynamic in the conversation that I think could have been named and teased out more.
Another sense I got from the interview at times was “it doesn’t matter if you vote left or right as long as you remember you’re part of another Kingdom.” I give a hearty amen to the second part but I would push back slightly on the beginning part of that sentiment. I think it actually does matter, because our Kingdom is intensely preoccupied with what is good, true and beautiful, and those things are not in the eye of the beholder, they’re in the eye of The Beholder. That doesn’t mean a Christian has to always vote left or right, but it does mean that we have to be able weigh both sides against His standard alone- to be fair Dom did mention this I am now remembering- but I think this means that there will be times where one side or the other side will be much farther from that standard and we need to be able to talk about that and admit that. Moral equivalency is not an absolute truth here. Both sides aren’t equally just/unjust at all times. Easy example, the right in WWII Nazi Germany, we can all agree went too far and completely delegitimized themselves as a political party for faithful Christians living in Germany at that time. Unfortunately, many still voted for them, but we can now agree that it wasn’t a coherent and faithful way to steward their vote. Of course it’s easier to see that now 80 years later and much more difficult to see it and agree on how that manifests today, especially in our algorithmic, divisive, and outrage-based landscape.
Again, sorry for the length of this comment, I hope you read this and know it’s because I listened intently to all 4 parts and truly enjoyed it and was captivated throughout. Dom, great work on the Screwtape article and Christina you are an excellent interviewer and again, exceptional work on putting together this 4 part series, truly incredible work. Loved every minute. Thanks for doing this.
Can confirm all my good ideas come from Jeff.
Jeff please don’t apologise for the length of comment — I’m deeply grateful for how you have sincerely engaged with the fruit of my labour here! I appreciate everything you’ve said and can see the sincerity in your posture as you brought up each point. I’d like to chew on everything and give it some real thought before addressing it all (assuming you’d like to continue the conversation?) So I might get back to you in a few days if that’s okay? Thanks again for being here. Needless to say, welcome to book club! 😃
Sounds great!
Okay, it's Monday and I'm back! I spent the weekend really trying to digest your comments and formulate a good response. Some areas still feel like they may need teasing out through dialogue (fancy joining me on the podcast at some point, Jeff? ha!) But ultimately, here's where I'm landing with it.
Firstly, I think I take my small audience for granted, and not in a good way. I get pretty minimal engagement on these articles and episodes, and it lulls me into a false assumption that most of my listeners have been with me for a while and have a background of established, objective truths upon which the foundation of my episodes are built. Ultimately, it's lazy on my part, and arguably sinful because I'm toting around a false humility about my "tiny audience" which is actually just another way of saying that I don't need to steward this platform that God has given me intentionally with each and every episode. This leads me to basically just forget that I'll be gaining fresh listeners all the time who absolutely do need a reminder about what we mean by right and wrong, good and evil, ugly and beautiful – and by Whose standard we base these things. Basically, that's my long way of saying that I take your criticism of not defining terms better as a well-needed kick up the butt on my end. So thank you!
That said, I think it's probably worth sharing a little bit more of my motivation for what you identified as a "past-pain hermeneutic" – because I think you did indeed pick up on something there, and it dances with how I approach the topic of individualism, too. Buckle up for a story.
This podcast was born in response to deep heartbreak as I watched a mass exodus of American friends leave the church all within a 3-year time frame. Meanwhile, my husband and I were also experiencing church hurt during this time, and we watched some of our closest friends here in England be taken advantage of and gaslit (I know gaslighting is a trendy word these days, but it accurately reflects what happened here). We subsequently found healing as we moved to a church closer to home, and most of our English friends who had been hurt also found healing in new churches. (We've since had to move away from our home town, and finding a theologically sound church has been incredibly challenging since then).
But while, in England, we were all reconnecting with church after feeling quite burned, I watched my American friends move further and further away from not just church but God. And I was both grieved and confused at a lot of the reasons which they sited for walking away. Most of it was based in what I could only describe as a complete misunderstanding of both what it means to live under freedom in Christ and what it means to be in communion with the Holy Spirit.
Strangely, I saw a common thread of poor theology and anti-intellectualism both from the churches that hurt us here in England and from the friends who were walking away over in America. And I have desperately wanted to reconcile people to truly understanding who God is and what it REALLY means to follow Him.
For that reason, I do naturally think of the audience of people who are listening to me and feel that traditional church spaces are the least safe place to be right now. I think of people who see church as a place of coercion and control – a feeling which is often parallel with the sentiments towards political candidates. So when it comes to talking about people needing to get back to church, I'm very intentional with how I approach this topic – not because I think gathering together is less important than voting (it's categorically MORE important, I'd say) but because I feel deeply convicted to meet my audience where they're at.
I use Lewis as the basis on which I do this podcast because A) I'm a huge fan and he's informed so much of my own theology in deeply healing ways, and B) He brings to light that which is explained in the Scriptures in such a beautiful, logical way that even those who might not be picking up their Bible right now would still be compelled to recognise the truths which their Bible contains. My mission for this particular group of people won't shift unless God tells me to, but I DO pray that I can continue to refine how I can approach their hurt with both compassion and truth, not watering down what needs to be said for the sake of staying vanilla and likeable.
I think, what I was trying to get at more than anything, was very much in alignment with your previous criticism that we define terms better: what do we mean by "formal" gatherings? In my mind, house church, small Bible studies, prayer groups, and friends who regularly keep you accountable in your faith are not entirely dissimilar to the Acts church, and I suppose I just wanted to open the door to that definition for those of my listeners who may still find that walking into a large worship service on a Sunday morning is too much for them. I will never deny that we should be gathering together with the intention of breaking bread, praying together, studying the Scriptures, and blessing the community. I will, however, want to tease out what that looks like for a mass generation of reconstructing Christians who are potentially trying not to lose their faith altogether.
In terms of how that relates to the topic of individualism, the subtext that you were perhaps picking up on is what's become a huge pillar of my theology in the aftermath of the deconstruction movement: I believe that a lack of understanding the tension between freedom and surrender has festered under our current culture and poor theology. Those of my friends who might see God as a tyrant (we're talking people who arguably know the mechanics of the Bible better than I do) fail to recognise what extreme dignity they were paid by that same God dying on a cross and then STILL allowing them the freedom to reject Him. In a culture where individualism underpins everything, I often take the approach of how this honour of individual freedom might compel us into deeper relationship with the God who gave it to us.
In some ways, I think we ARE born "free." I think the ultimate freedom, by the world's standard, is the ability to sin against the Almighty, and by exercising that soiled definition of what it means to be "free," our world continues to cry out in brokenness. I truly believe that it is only by the power of the Spirit and by a deepening understanding of God's character that we come to accept the surrender and wholeness of finding our place within His Kingdom and not within our own individual aims. Only then do we discover the flip side (the REAL side) of freedom – which is the ability to choose HIM over ourselves and find, as Lewis puts it, "everything else thrown in." Not sure if I've explained that clearly, but it's definitely my aim in how I approach this topic of dignity/personal choice/freedom. Again, I want to meet people where they're at and work my way back to where God asks them to be.
Finally, in relation to that sense you got of "it doesn't matter if you vote left or right" – well, my intentions simply weren't communicated well if this is what you took away. I certainly DO think it matters how we vote (it's why I think it matters that we care about politics at all – because there are indeed policies which align more with God's Kingdom than others). But I suppose I tried to stay as neutral as possible for a few reasons: Obviously, the biggest thing for me is that if we endorsed a candidate, we'd have alienated an entire group of people who needed to hear this conversation. But on a more personal note, having not lived in America for 10 years (and wanting these episodes to be somewhat relevant for non-American listeners), I don't feel like I have any authority to speak on which party was the better choice from a Christian perspective, and so that ambiguity behind the scenes on my end probably lent itself to an ambiguity on the front end. I had Christian friends from both sides who saw deeply challenging and sinful policies and character traits from either candidate, and I don't have the lived insight to know what how these leaders would have altered the lived existence of those under their power. So from my perspective, the best thing I could do was encourage people to seek God's wisdom and behave like His people not only in the process of voting but in the aftermath of it all. That's what I meant when I said I care less how people vote and more how they respond after the election – because if we hinge everything on the vote, we get lazy after the election, thinking that the work is done.
Dominick did a much better job, I think, of clarifying that there are absolutely times where our Christian faith does not allow us to be morally neutral in politics, so I'm grateful for his insight there. My heart in it all, I think, was that if people are compelled enough to seek first the Kingdom, then His wisdom would enlighten them in how they approach politics and vote. That's my airy fairy side coming out, I suppose, but hey, the podcast is called "Magic Like This." The power and wisdom of the Holy Spirit is the only magic we need.
I hope that answered your points sufficiently. I realise you may not agree with me on every point, but please know I really appreciated the feedback you gave me, and I'll absolutely be praying for God to use it to show me where I can do better in this little corner of the internet that He's commissioned to me. God bless! :)
Also, Dom and I have recorded before and plan on recording again soon and we talked about having you on to talk further. I’d love the chance to do that because I think it could be really clarifying for folks. Words like “church hurt” and “religious trauma” I think can be helpful but also can be very confusing and disorienting for people and I often find clarifying questions are needed (if there is trust and a relationship there). Maybe we recorded an addendum to your guys’ interview and do it on church? Don’t have to but an idea! Thanks again for being so generous with your time and talents.
Found that video you shared super interesting. And yes! I’d be totally up for recording with you guys and unpacking this stuff more. That sounds fun!
Thank you for sharing all that, your back story, who your audience is and why you speak to them, it definitely helps me see where you’re coming from. I am truly sorry to hear there has been such pain around something that is supposed to be one of the greatest gifts to us, the Church. I can identify with some of your pain, especially around seeing friends deconstruct their faith and wanting to help them see Christ again. That can be very very painful and difficult to watch happen in real time. Makes sense why you’d be so invested in screwtape too, considering this particularly is a fundamentally spiritual battle.
After I posted my comment I worked overnight and went back and re read some Screwtape letters, I rediscovered letter #16, it’s about church and very relevant to this part of the conversation, it was clarifying for me as I processed your interview with Dom’ about Screwtape.
I THINK I understand where you’re coming from on the individualism stuff, but like you said may need to tease that out more over a pod or something some time later in order to truly understand. If I can I wanted to recommend a short video but Carter Snead. A guy I mentioned in my comment. His book “what it means to be human” was a huge best seller and I think he kind of cracked the code on this issue. I’ll see if I can link the 5 min video here in case you’re interested. I think he does a good job of exposing a war between 2 different anthropologies taking place today.
https://youtu.be/_PpF4dVdwJs?si=Jebzcd2Nyqzsu-m5
Thank you again for the interview and the engagement. It’s been nice hearing more from you and getting to know you. Hope we can engage more in the future! Talk soon!