A scholar’s perspective after decades of research: “we’re talking about a whole network of politicized ideals that has used the bodies of adolescents to gain political power … Purity Culture has become rape culture.” This movement seems to be anything but what it appears to be. Evangelical leaders compelling adolescents to be sexually pure (Purity Pledge cards and rings; Joshua McDowell’s True Love Waits, and Josh Harris’s I Kissed Dating Goodbye), while they themselves were embroiled in sex scandals and cover-ups (the Southern Baptist Convention; Falwell Jr; Swaggart; Haggard; Ravi Zaccharias). The rise of a Purity Movement based on so-called “Biblical” principles which are not found in the pages of the Bible. A movement with laudable goals (purity; integrity) and naive promises/hopes which ended up causing an immense amount of pain and suffering through shame, guilt, and condemnation. We talked to Dr. Sara Moslener, who has spent decades researching this movement, interviewing people and scholars, and writing a book about her findings. Some of the things we talked about include: the rise of this movement was driven in part by religious pressures (the Moral Majority, the Religious Right; True Love Waits [SBC]; purity pledge cards and purity rings), but also political pressures (Federal Welfare Reform bill; Abstinence-Only education) and federal funding boycotts against Disney (Ellen Degeneres “coming out”) the Free Love generation and the Sexual Revolution Evangelicals borrowed much of their sexual ethics from Roman Catholicism, but didn’t take the corresponding theology because “that’s Catholic theology” …. Evangelicals don’t have a theology of the Feminine Divine, or of celibacy, but do have confused and naive ideas about “a Biblical marriage” and other “Biblical principles” “we’re talking about a whole network of politicized ideals that has used the bodies of adolescents to gain political power” the backlash against the Purity Culture movement, both within Christianity and from the public/secular sector Purity Culture tells young girls that “if you have sex before marriage, you’re a chewed up piece of gum” female authors like Rachel Held Evans, Sarah Bessy and Elizabeth Esther push back on Purity Culture; Emily Joy Allison starts #ChurchToo Josh Butler writes Beautiful Union — a deeply male-centered perspective in which sexual pleasure (for men) is emblematic of God’s love for the Church — which receives immediate criticism and is quickly withdrawn, and Butler resigns from his ministry “purity culture is rape culture”; the former teaches that male sexuality is innately aggressive, and feminine sexuality is innately passive and nurturing: put these two together and you naturalize rape … an anthropological truth: it’s women’s job to make sure that men’s sexuality is contained (James Dobson and others) numerous sex scandals involving the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and many individuals (Swaggart; Haggard; Lentz; Falwell Jr; Hybels; Ravi Zaccharias, … ) this normalization of a rape culture is in part behind white Evangelicals voting for Trump despite his morality, life-style and what he says (the infamous Access Hollywood tape) the myth that the white Evangelical family, as the foundation of the nation state, is a safe place, and that church is also a safe place. But both turned out to NOT be safe places! the linkage between Purity Culture and Christian Nationalism creating home school coalitions Trump’s attempts at religious piety (e.g., holding up a Bible in front of a church which had been cleared of protesters using tear gas; references to Bible verses) the more impactful sexual revolution happened in the 1920s, when it became acceptable to separate sex from procreation the sexual revolution(s) eventually hit Evangelicalism (in the 70s?) what we didn’t have in the 70s was the concept of consent …. and Purity Culture did not help: Purity Culture became rape culture gender identity, and the corresponding politics the After Purity Project: interviewed 65 people who grew up in and out of Purity Culture, and now talking to scholars about the data; a book is in the works. As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … Find more about Dr. Moslener at her personal website, and at Central Michigan University’s article which highlights the After Purity Project. If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like you may also like Episode #48, where we talk to Kristen Kobes Du Mez about Christian Nationalism and toxic masculinity, or Episode #114 with Frank Schaeffer about the birth of the Christian Right and the rise of the Moral Majority. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Too often, the Christian response to questions about human sexuality is to point to Leviticus, and similar Biblical passages. Like other religions, Christianity has a few laws, taboos, and prohibitions about a variety of life issues (diet; holidays; technology; money; dead bodies). But when it comes specifically to human sexuality and gender, Christians have come up with a very, very ….. VERY …… long list of things to regulate and prohibit. And the application of that preoccupation starts very early for many Christians. Many children find out before they’re two or three years old that touching their genitals actually feels kind of good, but the typical parental response to this self-exploration is to quickly scold the child and tell them how “you don’t do that …. at least not in public!” That’s the beginning of a life-long journey of associating sex with being dirty, and of feeling shame and guilt. As the kids get older, they get dire warnings about masturbation, about not dressing in a way that causes the men in the church to stumble, about the dangers of dating, and the lectures about premarital sex. And once those kids do get old enough to start exploring their own world of sexuality, that shame and guilt is complemented with condemnation if they stray even a little bit outside of very narrowly prescribed pathway of what is called “normal” sex. That shaming, condemnation, regulation and prohibition isn’t only a parent-child transaction. Evangelicals will also direct it at pastors and worship leaders who have been caught in a sexual affair, and the response is usually an immediate termination of employment and ostracization. They’re much more forgiving and compassionate if the offence is a substance abuse problem (drugs, or alcoholism), or embezzling ministry funds; but an illicit sexual affair …. that’s just too much for them. And typically, Evangelicals justify all of this regulation, prohibition, shaming and condemnation by pointing to Biblical passages taken from the Old Testament, especially Leviticus, or to other ones in the New Testament which in turn point directly or indirectly to those Old Testament ones. In this episode, we talk to Dr. Stephen Simpson, who has grad level theological training, is a practicing clinical psychologist with expertise in sexuality and marriage therapy, and is an Associate Professor at Fuller Theological Seminary where he teaches Human Sexuality. We asked him: “why does Christianity cares so much about human sexuality?” Some of the things we talked about include: the Bible really doesn’t say anything about premarital sex the strongly negative preoccupation that Christianity has toward sex (and aversion to it) stems from GrecoRoman thought (which holds a dim view of the physical, and a high view of the spiritual) and Western capitalism (which sees women as property, and marriage as a financial arrangement) sex for love versus sex for reproduction when revising Christian thinking about human sexuality, do we seek guidance from medical doctors and scientists, or follow the lead of society (as we’ve done before regarding women in the workplace, or working on Sundays), or invoke the Wesleyan quadrilateral (church tradition; reason; Christian experience; and scripture)? how the Bible might NOT be the best place to get such guidance (especially not the Pentateuch) because any golden nuggets of Divine truth that might have been there originally are now obscured by ancient male Semitic fingerprints whether or not the Levitical laws were an improvement over the existing cultural norms of that era (Luke is very decidedly in the “NOT” camp on this idea) the fact that Christians will often invoke “the image of God” in discussions around human sexuality, even though there’s no wide agreement about what that phrase means, and no definition of that phrase that brings in aspects of God’s own sexuality and sexual nature (please note: I’m not suggesting that God even has a sexuality or sexual nature; instead, that bringing that phrase into the discussion is just not relevant) how the people sitting in the pews are always decades behind in the thinking of Biblical scholars and theologians; is this because those pew warmers don’t want to stray too far from their parent’s religion, or because their pastors don’t have the boldness to push them out of their comfort zones, or because the seminaries aren’t properly training the pastors, or because those seminaries depend on the pew warmers themselves for funding and support how this Christian preoccupation with sex exacts a heavy toll in the form of shame, guilt and condemnation, much more so for girls/daughters than for boys/sons As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … Find more information about Dr. Simpson and his work at his faculty web-page. If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like Episode #101, where we talk about Divine Inspiration, or of course the two previous episodes in this mini-series on Sex (#117 and #118). Episode image from Victoria Chentsova. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

The typical modern Christian reflex response to sexuality is to point to the Old Testament Levitical laws: so let’s look more closely at those. The ultimate goal of this mini-series of episodes on sex and gender is to get the Christian / Evangelical perspective on why this is such an important and sensitive topic. But knowing that they will almost immediately point to passages found in the Old Testament  — especially the laws found in Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers-Deuteronomy, and the creation narratives found in Genesis — we thought we should first talk to a scholar of Jewish and Christian thinking, who was raised in a devout Jewish home, and who wrote a book entitled “Traditional Jewish Sex Guidance: A History” … Dr. Evyatar Marienberg. There are many peculiarities around the Mosaic Law that sound more like ancient Semitic males writing their own ideas than a divine benevolent Being of cosmic proportions dictating them. For example, for the first thousand years (from “Adam and Eve in the Garden” to Israel in Egypt) God did not find it necessary to issue any kinds of law whatsoever about sexuality (other than “be fruitful and multiply”). And then during the 40-year march through the desert immediately before Israel established its nationhood, there is a sudden explosion of “613” laws of Moses. That Mosaic law pays a great deal of attention to fluids that come from the genitalia (men having wet dreams; women having periods), but absolutely nothing is said about those that come from the mouth (saliva; vomit), eyes (tears), nose (boogers), ears (wax), skin (sweat), belly buttons (dust bunnies), or digestive tract (feces). There is also a great deal of discrimination against females: they are literally worth less (as slaves, or as babies) and have much less freedom. And then there are the horrid laws around how to sell your daughter into slavery, and how to claim a young virgin who was captured in war. These are only a few of the examples that challenge the Divine origin of these laws, rather than their human origin, and call into question the universality and timelessness of these Laws. Some of the other points/questions that we covered include: there are well over 600 specific laws contained in the Mosaic Law “is polygamy legit or not?”; the transition within Judaism toward monogamy the Mosaic Law does not forbid many forms of sex outside of a monogamous marriage relationship (premarital sex; multiple wives; concubines; virgin prisoners-of-war), and doesn’t describe any kind of marriage ritual clean versus unclean males and females are treated differently because, in the eyes of the Mosaic Law, males and females are simply viewed as clearly different … they are just not the same slavery; people being treated as mere property what does “males and females being created in the image of God” mean? what does the image of God have to do with gender and sexuality (Christians often invoke the imago Dei when they defend their views on gender/sexuality) divine inspiration of scripture, and incarnation of God what is the modern Jewish attitude towards homosexuality what does “the two will become one flesh” mean? premarital sex divorce Song of Songs (a sexually explicit book in the Bible) is it really God who’s so concerned about sex and gender, or is it just human males using God as the justification for their views? As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … Find more information about Dr. Evyatar Marienberg at his institutional profile. Also check out his book on the traditional regulations given to Jewish couples about marital sex, as well as another focusing on how Catholicism influenced the rock icon Sting. If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like Episode #57, where we talk to Dr. Pete Enns about the origin and evolution of the Old Testament, or Episode #101 where we talk about divine inspiration of scripture. Episode image: Moses with the Ten Commandments by Rembrandt, 1659 [Gemäldegalerie, Berlin]. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

The first in a series of episodes on this question, this one being a scientific perspective from an ex-Mormon social psychologist This is the first in a multi-part series of episodes that focuses on that very question. It will NOT get into sexual ethics, morality or normativity. Instead, we’re exploring why it is that religions pay widely varying attention to this or that aspect of human existence (diet; money; dead bodies; government; medicine; technology; war), but ALL religions across the board have much to say about sex and gender. This is especially true of Christianity. As always, we’ll get a number of scholars to weigh in on this from their diverse perspectives. This week, we start with an ex-Mormon social psychologist — Dr. Jordan Moon (Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse) — who will look at this from the scientific perspective. He recently published a paper in a scientific journal with the title: “Why are world religions so concerned with sexual behavior?” We thought this was a perfect place to start. Some of the points/questions we talked about include: sex and gender precede the fossil record of single cell life there’s no clear evolutionary advantage, because some life forms still reproduce non-sexually even though they have the ability to do so sexually although each religion might have certain laws about fundamental aspects of life (like diet; what to do with dead bodies; the use of mind-altering chemicals; technology; money; how to wage war), they ALL say something about sex and gender; this has been true across the globe and all through recorded history Christianity in general, and Evangelicalism in particular, have MUCH to say about sex, gender, and sexuality attributing sex to any form of Intelligent Design calls into question the “intelligence” of the Designer: ” …. “why run a sewer system through the middle of the playground?” religion is so obsessed with this because “the stakes are very high”; however religions are not so uniformly or universally concerned about other matters for which the stakes are high (dietary laws; money; technology; war) can human preoccupation with sex/gender be a product of evolution if we don’t see seeds of this preoccupation in our closest genetic relatives (apes) animals don’t seem to have taboos about masturbation, nudity, public displays of affection, homosexual acts … this is all a uniquely human thing if religion’s preoccupation is related to population control or reproductive success, then why is it against polygamy Christian values vs Puritanism correlation studies show one’s degree of religiosity (a psychological term) is better predicted by attitudes about sex than by moral values such as compassion do religions give us our values, or do we gravitate toward religion based on values we already hold do we choose religion because it aligns with our subconscious reproductive goals if religion’s “interest” in sex is primarily related to controlling/encouraging reproductive success, then why do they reserve so much condemnation and shame for people who want to simply enjoy sex for the sake of intimacy and personal pleasure … and why would religion want to stomp out promiscuity the evolutionary cost/benefit ratio for monogamy vs polygamy why did ancient Israelite culture tolerate polygamy, but gradually transition to a monogamous society history has shown that the majority of human cultures have been polygamous does monogamy make human culture more stable and harmonious by keeping the unmated male youths “off the street and out of trouble” the celibacy paradox: why do so many religions require their professional holy men to be celibate why do religions attach so much condemnation, guilt and shame to all aspects of human sexuality, and why is this applied so much more heavily against females/daughters than against males/sons Needless to say, it was a candid and stimulating conversation!? As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … Find more information about Dr. Jordan Moon at his faculty web-page and his personal web-site. If you enjoyed this episode, you might like our previous episode that focused on Intelligent Design. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Words without spaces or vowels and multiple manuscript versions with different words are only the beginning of the problem! Have you ever wondered why there are so many different versions of the Bible: the King James, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the English Standard Version, the New English Bible, the New International Version, and dozens of others? Ever wondered why scholars can still be haggling over how to translate a given verse? The problem doesn’t only begin with needing a trustworthy lexicon that lists the various English meanings for any given Hebrew or Greek word, nor trying to figure out from the context of the words around that ancient word to decide which English meaning to choose. Sometimes you have to guess at the word itself …. because the ancient Hebrews didn’t use spaces or vowels!? So translators had to first decide which strings of letters formed which words, then insert different vowels to see what made the most sense: for example, did “CRT” mean “create”, “crate” or “court”? Our expert — Dr. Mark Elliott — also tells us that the problem isn’t only needing to choose between different possible words, but sometimes you had to choose between different versions of ancient manuscripts which used entirely different words and phrases. Usually, it would seem, you go for the oldest manuscripts because they’re closer in time to the original, rather than the newer manuscripts which might have undergone editorial changes since the original was written. But the older manuscripts tend to be in worse condition: more moth-eaten, mouldy, fragmented, and therefore missing key portions of the text message. And sometimes the decision to choose between different manuscripts came down to the one that aligned more closely with the theology and politics of the translators themselves! We then go through three examples of contentious Bible translation to highlight how these decisions are made, and how they can radically alter the theology that is conveyed in the passage: was Jesus angry when he healed a leper who stopped him on his missionary journey (as an older reliable manuscript indicates), or was Jesus compassionate (as per the newer manuscripts)? did Abraham refer to God in the plural form because he was just confused and misspoke, or because he was condescending to his polytheistic audience, or because he was himself a polytheist at the time? did Matthew “get out of his lane” when he took an ancient Hebrew prophecy about a young woman conceiving and birthing a son as a sign that would be fulfilled just a few years later, and turned that into a centuries-old prophecy of the Virgin Birth of Jesus? As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … Find more information about our guest, Dr. Mark Elliott, at his faculty web-page. If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like Episode #57 (Dr. Peter Enns; origin of the Old Testament) or Episode #81 (David Carr: origin of the New Testament). Episode image from Pixabay. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

A Baptist pastor and Yale theologian tells how he finds additional depth for his Christian faith by learning from other world religions. Our previous two guests — Philip Yancey and Frank Schaeffer — told us how they recovered from the toxic Evangelicalism that they grew up with. The former found it possible to recover an entirely different Evangelicalism, while the other felt the best solution was to cut his losses and leave Christian faith behind. Our guest today takes a third approach: Dr. Greg Mobley found it possible to take the Evangelical faith that was handed to him by his parents and his community, and bring that to a whole new level through music, poetry, philosophy …… and other world religions. Not just other strands of Christian faith, but deepening his theology by marinating in Judaism, Islam … even Eastern religions. It was fascinating that he began as a Southern Baptist, had to go to Yale to become deeply familiar with Judaism, and later had to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to fall in love with Roman Catholicism. One of the lessons he learned was how “everyone sees their own religion as full of grace and compassion, and all other religions as harsh and demanding.” Another important insight: “Judaism and Christianity are siblings, separated at birth. ….. That the two movements eventually separated made possible the preservation of each. …. Jews and Christians can find lost fragments of themes of their respective faiths …. by talking to each other.” And it was great how he liberally sprinkled musical references all through his commentary … his personal love for Blue Grass, but also references to the Band, the Monkeys, Jesse Winchester, Marc Cohn, Jimmie Dale Gilmor, Ray Charles, Mumford and Sons, and even Stompin’ Tom Connors. And he wasn’t just referring to their musicality: he finds important philosophical and theological nuggets in their lyrics. “I think the three greatest Christian theologians of my lifetime are Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, and Leonard Cohen … three Jewish guys, but they could see us and the beauty of Christianity.” We learned so much from Greg; tell us what you think ….. To find more about Dr. Gregory Mobley, see his faculty web-page. If you enjoyed this episode, you might also like our previous conversation with Dr. Justin Barrett , who shared a Christian perspective on humans evolving a mind which was naturally tuned to search for and find the divine and to create religions. Episode image from Pixabay. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

An informal but deeply personal conversation with renowned Evangelical and ExVangelical author Frank Schaeffer. Last week, we looked at a high-profile Evangelical author who grew up in the Evangelical world and fully embraced that worldview until reaching an age where he could assert some independent thinking and autonomy. By then, he had encountered a few too many questions that eroded the foundation of his Evangelical faith, and came to the point that he completely and utterly rejected that Evangelical faith that was handed to him. The exact same things could also be said about another high-profile Evangelical author: our guest this week, Frank Schaeffer. But where Philip Yancey was able to find a new form of Evangelical faith that worked for him, Frank found he had to become an atheist. Well, a form of atheist: Frank calls himself an atheist who believes in God and prays every day. Interestingly, both Philip and Frank told us how they could see God better through nature, art, beauty and romantic love, than they could through their Evangelical communities! Frank Schaeffer had an insider’s look at the Evangelical world unlike most other people. As the son of Francis Schaeffer — a Presbyterian pastor, theologian, philosopher, and art lover — he grew up in a small Evangelical community that ministered selflessly to broken and rejected people. His father’s writings soon caught the attention of Evangelical publishers and leaders, and they quickly found themselves writing best-selling Evangelical books, speaking before crowds of thousands, producing Evangelical films, flying across America on Jerry Falwell’s private jet, appearing frequently on national Evangelical TV networks like 700 Club, and meeting personally with American presidents and other Evangelical world leaders. Frank started walking in Francis’s shoes, on a trajectory which would have had him continuing a nepotistic climb up the Evangelical leadership ladder. But the hypocrisy and corruption that Frank witnessed firsthand, behind closed doors and out of sight from the Evangelical sheep, was a caustic soul-destroying acid. He saw how the sausage was made ….. and he couldn’t stomach what he saw. Out of self-preservation, he rejected that Evangelical world. But not carte blanche. When we asked whether “Evangelicalism” is still recoverable or needs to be forsaken, he was very careful to distinguish between the world of Falwell, prosperity gospel, and Christian nationalism of modern American Evangelicalism, from the grass-roots, selfless, humanity-serving Evangelicalism of his childhood. And so Frank still retains certain core elements of his spiritual formation. He wrote a book with the title: “Why I am an atheist who believes in GOD“; look at the cover and notice his choice of font on that last word. He told us that he “was conditioned to pray and feels like his day hasn’t started without it.” And that “We are spiritual beings looking at a physical world that is purely mechanical and we cannot put these things together. It does not make sense. And so, it isn’t like we’ll find some big answer to the big question that makes sense. We don’t have the capacity to make sense of our most basic situation: that we are biological beings looking at the world through spiritual eyes.” And he continues to devote his time and energies to social justice and the prophetic ministry of speaking truth to power. As always, tell us your thoughts on this story … If you enjoyed this episode, you really should listen to its counterpart from last week with Philip Yancey, and you may also enjoy an interview with one of our listeners who grew up in the Evangelical world, but found he had to leave that and yet misses certain aspects of that life. Find more information about Frank Schaeffer at his website and his podcast. He also recommended his books Crazy for God, Portofino, and Why I’m an atheist who believes in God. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

One of the most recognizable Evangelical authors today; and yet you won’t recognize the self-portrait that he gave us in this conversation! Philip Yancey is one of the most recognizable Christian authors in Evangelicalism today. He has written dozens of books over the past five decades. 15 million English copies have been sold, and they’ve been translated into 40 languages. Two of those books (The Jesus I Never Knew ….  and What’s So Amazing About Grace) have won the Book of the Year Award from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. I’ve long had a mental image about Philip that he had always been a Christian, solidly convinced of his theology … that he grew up in a very typical, middle-of-the-road, white, middle-class to upper-class, Evangelical world, and in a stable, middle-of-the-road strand of Christianity … had a relatively typical and uneventful life … and was otherwise straight-laced, soft-spoken, and not overly emotional. You probably have/had the same preconceptions. We would be wrong. Now you’ll have to add to that list the fact that he was a born-and-bred racist … that he held KKK leaders up in high esteem, and fully accepted racial segregation … that he spent years totally rejecting Christianity, even spitting in the face of it … and that his family life included a lot of physical, verbal, and emotional abuse, substance addiction, and mental illness. And in the middle of all that, Philip tells a story of a profound conversion experience … a powerful, life-changing spiritual encounter. Philip has a unique perspective on Evangelicalism, which is the focus of this podcast. We originally wanted to talk to him about his love/hate-relationship with that world, even juxtaposing his perspective against Frank Schaeffer’s, with whom we’ll be talking next week. But irrespective of his insights re. Evangelicalism, even just hearing Philip’s life story alone is worth the price of admission, folks. And when we asked Philip to sum up at the end of our session with him, he put this pearl of wisdom on the table: “pain redeemed impresses me more than pain removed.” As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … Find more information about Philip Yancey, his blog, his books and upcoming appearances at his website. If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like Episodes #38 and #39, where we give a 101 on Evangelicals and Evangelicalism. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Comments/questions from our listeners and members prompt this deep-dive into this most important of Christian holidays It’s always tempting to do a blog or episode every year on Christmas and on Easter. They’re both such easy, ready-made topics, with many obvious angles and discussion points. Bloggers and podcasters find them hard to resist. In almost 10 years of blogging and podcasting, I’ve only given in once. But this Easter season, several comments/questions from our listeners and our private Discussion group prompted us to weigh in on certain points: Bonnie, Ruth, and Joe: is Easter “just” a Christian appropriation of a Jewish holiday (Passover; Shabbatt) and/or of a secular/pagan spring celebration? Ruth: why hasn’t the traditional bread and wine in this “supper” been upgraded to chicken and fries? Merv: once one lets go of the ideas of “original sin” and penal substitution, what meaning is left in Christ’s death? Mi K.: I would be curious about how in his death he destroyed his enemy. Merv: how have others reformed the meaning of Easter? Scott: Christ became the perfect Jew, fulfilling the covenant with Abraham/Israel Luke: Christ needed to show humans the way to overcome reptilian thinking and achieve humanity 2.0 Luke: God owed a debt to the devil? Edward: since Christ knew he was going to be resurrected, it wasn’t the same kind of sacrifice as a human with literally only one life to lose. As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like episodes #18 (Original Sin), #82 (Jesus: Jewish Messiah) and #79 (humans evolving toward humanity 2.0). Episode image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

A potpourri of our own ideas and perspectives on a variety of comments/questions sent in by our listeners. It’s been months since we looked through the boxes full of comments and questions that our listeners have sent to us through our web-sites, Facebook, emails, and podcast providers. Last week, we abstracted from our short list of favorite picks all the comments/questions that pertained to our 4-part Left Behind mini-series. Today, we look at the ones that were “left behind” after that abstracting!? So, which comments/questions did we cover? the idea of a so-called “Biblical lens” … or “Jesus lens” any lens can actually distort the thing you’re looking at are religions other than Judaism and Christianity also divinely-inspired? the Incan god Viracocca sounds an awful like like Ezekiel’s and Isaiah’s YHWH, as well as like John’s Ancient of Days in Revelation does the Bible talk about YHWH/God talking to non-Jews? the Babylonian Emperor Cyrus was God’s Messiah? how small the world of Western Evangelical thought is what we can learn from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians inter-faith learning and ecumenism Christianity gets some things right, and other things wrong? if you (Luke or Scott) decided to leave your faith, how would your life change? As always, tell us your thoughts on these points … If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like Episode #101 (divine inspiration), #57 (origin of the Old Testament), #12 (Evangelicalism and the Gospel), as well as #82 and #83 (the humanity/divinity of Christ). To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive