A brief introduction to two forms of theology that are as old as the Bible itself, but have labels that are only a few decades old. One of the biggest problems in Christian theology arises out of the simple belief that God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. The problem? … why, then, is there so much evil in the world? This Gordian Knot has killed the faith of many believers, including some of the biggest names in theology and in church ministry. Open Theology and Process Theology seek to solve this problem by challenging the claims that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. They would say that the future is not clear to God, simply because it hasn’t happened yet and all options are on the table (in part because humans have free-will). They would also say that there are things that God cannot do! Not just simply that he can’t create a round square, or a rock too big that even he couldn’t lift; instead, that he can’t stop evil things from happening or intervene in somebody’s circumstances. Most people, especially Evangelicals, would say that this lessens God: God becomes smaller if he isn’t omni-everything. Our guest today would beg to differ. Dr. Thomas Jay Oord has a PhD in Theology, many years experience as a pastor, and now directs a doctoral program at Northwind Theological Seminary and the Center for Open and Relational Theology. He’s also a philosopher, a scholar of multi-disciplinary studies, and author of several books. He first tells his story of coming to realize that his traditional conservative Christian faith had failed him when he came to grapple with some of the bigger questions in life, and shortly thereafter that Open Theology answered those questions. Then he gives us a brief overview of what exactly Open Theology and Process Theology are all about. As always, tell us what you think… Find more about Dr. Oord (Thom) at https://thomasjayoord.com/. Information about the doctoral program that he refers to in the episode can be found at https://www.northwindseminary.org/faculty-bio-pages/single/thomas-j-oord%2C-ph.d 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 expert gives us his insight into this disturbing, embarrassing … and growing … problem in the 21st century church. Spiritual/clergy abuse has been much in the news as of late. Some of the names that have filled religious and secular news feeds in the past few years include large organizations like the indigenous residential school system in Canada, the Roman Catholic Church, the recent Southern Baptist Convention and Hillsong Church in Australia, as well as individuals such as Jean Vanier, Mark Driscoll, Ravi Zaccharias and Bruxy Cavey. In this episode, we talk to Dan Koch to get an expert’s insight into this problem. Dan has developed a diagnostic tool to help other counsellors screen their clients for past clergy/spiritual abuse, and used that to generate some powerful statistical data and identify some disturbing trends. We also look at how most cases of spiritual abuse produce four parties that have been hurt, each requiring a different response from us. The first two are obvious: the victim, and the abuser. Both need counselling, restoration and restitution, and there may also be legal considerations. The third are often overlooked: the spouse and children of the abuser. Imagine the confusion, sense of betrayal, and embarrassment they feel. And to add insult to injury, they sometimes have to endure shunning from members of the church who should be supporting them. And the fourth group includes the broader community who had previously derived benefit from the ministry of the abuser. They too will experience confusion and a sense of betrayal. But they may also be wrestling with deep questions about what to do with their earlier experiences — before the abuse occurred — with the person who later became the abuser. Do those experiences need to be rejected/forgotten? Are their baptisms, or weddings, salvation experiences, or counselling sessions now invalidated? Will they now need to throw out their copies of any books or music written by that person who later became the abuser? (If your answer to this last question is yes, will you also rip out the book of Psalms from your Bible, given that many of those were written by David … remember his sordid story of essentially raping Bathsheba and then trying to cover that up by orchestrating the murder of her husband Uriah, and then writing Psalm 51). As always, tell us what you think… Find more about Dan Koch at https://www.dankochwords.com/yhp.html. 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

Our understanding of Hell has been evolving for thousands of years … and we’re the ones making all the changes! Dr. Meghan Henning (Associate Professor of Christian Origins; University of Dayton, OH) gives a scholar’s view on the historical evolution of JudeoChristian thinking about this … “place?” … state? …. concept? For thousands of years,the ancient Hebrew  — people like Abraham and Sarah — thought that everyone who died went to Sheol … a dry, dark, and dismal place that was more like a memory than an existence. They had no concept of a final judgment, no places of reward or punishment. No Heaven, or going to be with God. Sheol could even be experienced while one was still biologically alive! One could choose the way of life or the way of death (by following or rejecting the Law of God), and the outcome of that choice would even affect the quality of one’s life experiences. For the next couple thousand years, the Hebrews began to develop ideas that were emerging in the cultural zeitgeist. Ideas that might have started with the Egyptians, the Zoroastrians, the Assyrians, and Babylonians. Now, the idea of reward and/or punishment in the afterlife was coming into view, although this was more directed at certain groups or categories of people (especially royalty, military leaders, and heroes). The average person couldn’t really expect too much. Then Greek thinking changed everything, including everyone’s understanding of the soul and the afterlife. Both were eternal, and applied to everybody, including commoners. But we’re still a long way off from the Lake of Fire and eternal conscious torment. It was only when the early Christian church flexed its muscles that we see the kind of hell that Dante immortalized in his painting, and that we picture today. Clearly, the concept of “Hell” has evolved … and done so at our hands. Here are three of the best quotes that Meghan gave us: “We have a number of depictions of afterlife spaces in Greek and Roman tradition … Hades is a place that you can visit. You can go on a tour. And that idea of being able to tour Hades has a profound influence on ancient Jewish apocalyptic thought, and on early Christian apocalyptic thought.” “People often ask me: ‘Does Hell exist?’ and the first response that I give is there’s no way to know. That’s just not something we can know because that’s not the question that these texts are asking.” “Be very careful about assuming that human beings can adequately determine a divine system of justice without bringing to it all of our ideas of fairness that are part of our own social contexts. As a group, Christians don’t have a great track record with that. For 2000 years, we have been defining as ‘theologically fair’ Roman systems of torture.” As always, tell us what you think… Find more about Dr. Henning at https://udayton.academia.edu/MeghanHenning. 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 look forward at the ideas and episodes we’ve been working on for this new season. After a four month hiatus, we’ve come back! In this inaugural episode, we briefly re-introduce ourselves to the audience, explain the four month hiatus, talk about our modus operandi, reaffirm the mission or vision of our podcast and our target audience, and give thumbnail sketches of the episodes we’ll start releasing over the next few months, including: the evolution of hell (Meaghan Henning) spiritual abuse, and clergy abuse (Dan Koch) why theology is not like science (Bethany Solereder) Open Theology; Process theology (Thomas Jay Oorde) “The Genealogical Adam” (Joshua Swamidass) getting into, and out of, the vortex of strange beliefs (Kerry W. Noble) the Old Testament slaughter that changed how I read the Bible (Eric Siebert) deconstructing faith in Canada (Peter Schurrman and Angela Bick) Enjoy! To contact Peter and Angela about taking part in their research study (Canadians only), email them at schuurmanandbick@gmail.com 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 third and final look back at the last 20 episodes: our “Origin and Evolution of …” series. In this final episode of Season 3, we looked back a third time at the “Origin and Evolution of …” series of episodes that we started at the beginning of the year. That series was a deep-dive follow-up to a pair of episodes released a year and a half ago in which Dr. Chris Barrigar unpacked the central hypothesis in his then recently published book … Freedom All the Way Up: God and the Meaning of Life in a Scientific Age. His thesis was that God created the universe with the singular goal or purpose of producing agape-capable beings. In our 20 episode deep-dive, we brought in 17 scholars with PhD degrees in their respective areas of expertise on a spectrum ranging between science and theology/philosophy, the majority of whom call themselves Christians. Judging by our weekly download numbers, our audience (drawn from 31 countries worldwide) seemed to be enjoying the on-going dialogue. They were quite OK with us looking at evolution on many levels  — stellar, planetary, geological, chemical and even biological in general (#63-71) — as reflected in a healthy weekly increase in our download numbers. But there were two particular stages in our 20-episode journey which were a bit too unsettling for some of them. As soon as we began talking about human evolution (#72-78), a very noticeable fraction of our audience ran straight for the exit doors. For them, humans evolving from hominid ancestors that we share with the chimpanzees/gorillas and the Neanderthals/Denisovans, and acquiring a wide range of myth/religion-making cognitive abilities, was just a step too far. We’re guessing these listeners were more on the conservative side of the spectrum of Christian faith. The other very clear drop in our weekly download numbers occurred when we started looking closely at the divinity of Jesus, and Christianity being the one “true myth”, and the Resurrection being the evidence for these audacious claims (#81-85). We’re guessing these listeners were more on the skeptical or even atheistic end of that faith spectrum. We’d be curious to hear your own reflection on the series of episodes. What points or guests stood out for you? What were the positive take-home points? Was anything unsavory for you? We’re also curious about your recommendations for topics, themes and guests as we prepare for Season #4 (tentatively resuming in the Fall). As always, tell us what you think … 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 a

A close look at how this is quite different from mere resuscitation of a dead body, and how it’s the crucial evidence for Christianity being “the true myth.” images by bluegate, congerdesign and Kathysg from Pixabay For millennia, we humans have been making myths: stories of heroes, villains, tests-of-character, conflicts, rescue missions, and more. It’s a distinctly human trait, and the foundation for the many world religions that we’ve constructed. One recurring theme is that of the dying-rising god. In last week’s episode, we looked closely at the claim that “Christianity is the one true myth,” the fulfillment of the deepest yearnings of the human heart, expressed in all those other myths, and distinguished from all of them by a preposterous sign: the resurrection of Jesus. If there’s any truth to that sign, that puts a very powerful spotlight on a very unique story that actually took place on the world-stage, in real-time, in full view for close inspection and rational inquiry! So we had to investigate this claim of the resurrection of Jesus. What kind of evidence is there for it? Are there alternative explanations? Why did so many claim this, even upon the threat of martyrdom, and why do so many believe it today. What are the main skeptical arguments against the claim? A methodical, logical approach says there are only two possible outcomes: it either did not happen, or it did. We started with the first of those two outcomes: why so many people at the scene claimed it happened, when in fact it never did. And we found only two explanations that are popular among skeptics: either those early believers hallucinated it, or they lied about it. And we saw how neither of those explanations are consistent with the historical data at hand. Another possibility would be that they did see a living, breathing Jesus … but there was no resurrection because, in fact, Jesus never died in the first place. Either he recovered from the execution done at the hands of trained and expert executioners, or the living, breathing “Jesus” was in fact an exact twin brother that those early believers and the opponents to their preposterous claim didn’t know about. Once again, neither of those explanations are consistent with the historical data at hand. That leaves only one outcome for us to consider: that Jesus of Nazareth was executed, killed, and … resurrected. As Sherlock Holmes famously said: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” One can still choose to reject that claim, but is the underlying reason for doing so more of a philosophical/emotional one than a rational one? Near the end of our discussion, we needed to clarify what we mean by “resurrection.” Is it simply making a dead body start living again? That would sound miraculous at first; a violation of the Laws of Nature. Until one starts to realize that even we humans are already starting to learn how to do that … millions have been brought back to life using CPR, cardio-electric shock, adrenaline infusions, cryopreservation, and more. We’re even starting to use genetics to revive species which went completely extinct a long time ago! But in all those cases, the revived body goes on to grow old, get sick again, and eventually die. This was also what happened to everyone in the Bible who was supposedly brought back to life: Lazarus … Jairus’s daughter … Tabitha/Dorcas … Eutychus … and several others in the Old Testament. Except, some claimed (even at great personal risk), for one other person: Jesus of Nazareth. But their claim wasn’t that Jesus was simply resuscitated. Instead, that he was resurrected. Transformed into something completely different. Into a whole new way of being human. A good analogy for resurrection is the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly, or a tadpole into a frog. If caterpillar’s could speak, they would all shout adamantly that: “Caterpillars just don’t fly! No caterpillar in all of history has ever been able to fly!” And those caterpillars would be right. And yet, so very wrong!? So when skeptics reject the Resurrection on the basis that: “dead bodies don’t just come back to life again … that just doesn’t happen,” they would be mostly right. Usually, that does not happen. And they would be partly wrong: sometimes even we humans can bring people back from the dead, and we’re getting better at it all the time. And … it needs to be said … those skeptics would also be barking up the completely wrong tree: in the case of Jesus, we’re not talking about resuscitation, but about resurrection. I think this topic deserves much more than a casual glance followed by a disgruntled rejection. As always, tell us what you think … To find more about our interview guest Dr. Mike Licona, go to his faculty page and his website. 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

Literary scholars such as JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis see Christianity as not only the fulfillment of ancient Hebrew prophecies, but also the deep-seated yearnings of the human heart, expressed through a multitude of myths and religions. images from OpenClipart-Vectors and InspiredImages [Pixabay] Our previous episodes looked at hominids a few hundred thousand years ago acquiring cognitive abilities which equipped them to think abstractly, symbolically, and religiously (episodes #75, #76, #77, and #78 ), which they [we] used to create a long list of religions. And then over the past few weeks, we’ve looked at the evolution of two particular world religions: Judaism (episode #80) and Christianity (episodes #81, #82, and #83). That sequence of episodes might have misled some listeners to conclude (or think that we ourselves have concluded) that Judaism and Christianity are no different from the many other religions that humans have concocted from large collections of myths. However, some modern literary scholars have concluded that Christianity is separate from all those other myths: in fact, that it alone is the “True Myth” which not only fulfills ancient Hebrew prophecies, but also the inner yearnings of humans going back tens of millennia, expressed through mythic tales that go back to the dawn of recorded history. Those scholars include JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis … as well as today’s guest: Dr. Louis Markos. We talked to Dr. Markos about what myths are, and how we modern humans in the 21st century are no less prolific in myth-making than our ancient ancestors, and that all those myths draw on common themes expressed through archetypal characters. We also looked at the possibility that our evolving ancient brains contained key ideas/impulses which we’ve been processing over millennia into mythic tales, which in turn pointed us and drew us toward the Divine in a driven-search for truth … somewhat like migrating birds and butterflies being born with an innate navigational sense and a comparable subconscious drive to fly thousands of miles to a particular destination every year. And we explored some intriguing questions, like: are those key ideas/impulses which were implanted into our heads part of what it means to be “made in the image of God”? is music — another deep-suited impulse in humans which moves us intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually — an abbreviated form of myth? is all of this yet another form of Divine inspiration? do science and reason together form the only pathway to truth, or can we also get there through imagination, intuition, belief, and faith? As always, tell us what you think … To find more about Dr. Louis Markos, go to his faculty webpage, his Amazon author page, or his Youtube channel. 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, … Subscribe … and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Paul and John seem to paint a different portrait of Jesus than those who walked and talked with him (last week’s topic). Last week, we looked at the first half of that paradoxical Christian expression: Jesus was “fully human and yet fully divine.” We learned that the people who walked and talked with him found him to be a fully human, Jewish Messiah who would redeem Israel. But the Apostle Paul and the author(s) of the Gospel of John paint a very different portrait. John refers to Jesus as “the Logos” (a universal, impersonal, cosmic force of reason) and as a universal Savior of all mankind (the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world). Likewise, Paul also refers to him as something much more than human. We asked a New Testament scholar  — Dr. Christopher Zoccali — to help us reconcile these two different perspectives. We picked away at some unsettling questions: why do Luke (in his writing of the Book of Acts) and Paul seem to tell different versions of Paul’s history, particularly his road to Damascus experience? Did Luke not get it right? exactly what/who did Paul encounter on that road to Damascus? did Paul ever meet Jesus … either in the flesh, or as some kind of cosmic, divine being? did Paul’s teachings of a cosmic, divine Jesus influence the writing of the Gospels? why did Paul never write about the life of Jesus: his birth, parents, specific teachings (like the Beatitudes, or his parables), miracles, followers, or conflicts with the Jewish authorities (since Paul was part of that establishment)? Instead, Paul seems to only ever talk about Jesus’s death, as if Jesus’s life story is unimportant. if Paul was sent to the Gentiles, why did he always go to the synagogues (where Jews meet) to tell them about Jesus being the Messiah (a very Jewish message), rather than to the city squares (where the Gentiles could hear a more universal message)? when he spoke to the Greek philosophers in Athens — the perfect audience to hear about Jesus being “the Logos” or a cosmic, divine being — why did Paul simply talk about Jesus being “a man” who would judge the world? We ended with a thought-provoking scenario of Paul essentially acting like a time-traveller, in the sense that: he moved forward in time in the normal fashion for several decades, saturating the entire region with an image of Jesus being a cosmic, divine being; that image began to re-contextualize the memories of his listeners who walked with and talked with Jesus twenty or thirty years before Paul started sharing this new perspective; after those twenty or thirty years of Pauline influence on how the people who walked and talked with Jesus would remember Jesus, the writers of the Gospels interview those people about what had happened fifty years or more prior: those writers record their stories, now remembered and re-contextualized through a “post-Pauline lens”; that recorded story moves forward in time in the usual fashion right up to the present (you and me): we read those stories, which transport us backward in time almost two thousand years, but do they take us to … … a version of events which are remembered precisely accurately? … or a version of events which have been … re-shaped? Is this the kind of paradox that always comes up in movies that involve time-travel: someone goes backward through time to influence earlier events, so that now the outcome of the story is changed (sometimes radically!?). As always, tell us what you think … To find more about Dr. Christopher Zoccali, go to his personal web-page or to his faculty web-page. 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 people who actually walked and talked with Jesus in the first century clearly saw him primarily as a Jewish Messiah. One particular Christian tenet that has been the hardest to wrap my brain around is the idea that Jesus was “fully human, and yet fully divine”. This week, we look at what the people who walked and talked with him thought, and whether that thinking changed over the course of his time on earth. So we grouped them into five different categories: (1) before he was born: Mary and Joseph (his parents), Zechariah (temple priest), and the wise men from the east talked about this baby being the king of the Jews, being given the throne of David to reign over Jacob’s descendants forever, and restoring the covenant with Abraham. Note the very heavy emphasis on him coming to Jews and doing what a Jewish Messiah would do, rather than a cosmic, universal Savior sent to take away the sins of the world. (2) at his birth: the shepherds were told he was the Messiah … Simeon, who had been waiting for “the consolation of Israel”, saw this baby as the Lord’s Messiah … and the prophetess Anna said the baby would bring the redemption of Jerusalem. Again, I’m hearing “Jewish Messiah”. (3) Jesus himself said he came only to the lost sheep of Israel. How does this fit with him being a cosmic, universal Savior sent to take away the sins of the world? Or did he also see himself as the Jewish Messiah? (note: our guest this week will shed some light on this “false dichotomy”) (4) during his public ministry: John the Baptist, Andrew, Philip, the Samaritan woman, Peter, the people at “the triumphal entry”, one of the two thieves on the cross, the Roman soldiers, and even unclean spirits … they all specifically referred to him as the Jewish Messiah (aka: king of the Jews … the Chosen One … the Christ). (5) after the Crucifixion: at the Ascension, his followers asked “is this when you restore the kingdom to Israel?”, something that a Jewish Messiah was expected to do. Their sermons almost always took place in the synagogue (where Jews meet) rather than the city square (where everyone would hear) and regularly used very Messianic language. The writer of Acts sometimes specifically summarizes their speeches by simply saying they “showed how he was the Messiah”. Clearly, the message that everyone was getting and giving was: Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. I had thought that the Jewish Messiah was only ever going to be a human. But this Jesus as the Jewish Messiah sounds quite different from the cosmic divine being (the Logos) that we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John (we learned last week that this was written over half a century after Paul saturated the region with his own cosmic divine view of Jesus), or in the rest of the New Testament (written mostly by Paul). So, what do I do with that? To answer that question, we talked to Dr. Richard Middleton, a theologian with expertise in Old Testament theology and Christian worldview. He showed me a whole different perspective on what it meant to be a Jewish Messiah … on this idea of a “cosmic, divine Jesus” … and on the idea that Jesus was “fully human, and yet fully divine”. As always, tell us what you think … To find more about Dr. Richard Middleton, see his blog-site, faculty page, profile at Biologos, and his Amazon book page. 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

Did decades of apostolic teaching of a cosmic divine universal Savior influence the eyewitness accounts — recorded in the Gospels many decades later — of a very human Jewish Messiah? Over the next few weeks, we’ll be looking at how the first century Christian church evolved its understanding of Jesus. To do that, we’re going to rely heavily on what they said and did about Jesus. But our only source of that kind of information comes from the Gospel accounts and the Book of Acts. So before we start that part of the conversation, we’ll want to look at how that eyewitness testimony itself evolved over the course of many decades. We’re going to hear from a New Testament scholar — Dr. David Carr — about how the first Gospel account of Jesus was written a couple decades after Paul had been writing and preaching about Jesus being a cosmic divine Savior (and that the story that Mark wrote about was yet another decade or two in the distant past before Paul even began teaching this new narrative). And that the next two Gospel accounts (Matthew and Luke) were recorded after yet another decade or two of more apostolic teaching and further theological development of this new view of Christ. And then finally John’s Gospel — the one who easily portrays the most cosmic, divine portrait of Jesus — was written after yet another decade or two of that apostolic teaching. A lot can change over the course of even just one decade, especially when the whole cultural zeitgeist around you is changing. Think how your memories and impression of any politician, or rock star, or favorite actor from ten years ago has changed. Now try to remember someone from forty or fifty years ago. So imagine yourself as one of those people who had walked and talked with this person who was very much human, but now for the past forty or fifty years everyone was saying was very much a cosmic divine being. Wouldn’t that shape your recollection and interpretation of events when some interviewer/writer comes through town and asks you to tell your favorite Jesus-story? There are hints of that re-shaping in the Gospel stories themselves. That internal thoughts (which are very subjective) were not quite lining up with external actions (which are very concrete and objective): if those people really thought that Jesus was “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” as John’s Gospel announces at the start of Jesus’s public ministry, then why were those two guys on the road to Emmaus so scandalized, saying they “had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel”? if Mary, one of his closest female disciples, knew Jesus would die and then be resurrected, why was she on her way to the tomb with spices two days later to prepare his body for burial? And then so distraught when the dead body wasn’t there anymore, as she would otherwise have expected? if his closest disciples knew this was all part of the plan, why were they cowering in fear behind locked doors, and then returning to their earlier careers as fishermen? if the apostles all knew all along that the Gospel message was meant for the whole world — Jew and Gentile alike — why were they always going to the synagogue (where the audience would be decidedly Jewish) to “teach that Jesus was the Messiah” (just look critically at their sermons in the Book of Acts), rather than preaching in the the city square where anyone and everyone would hear their universal message? and why were they disputing so long over circumcision, dietary laws, and opening their doors to Gentiles (this is a recurring theme in the Book of Acts)? These and other details in the stories tell me that they didn’t “always know” that Jesus was the cosmic being that, decades later, they professed to follow. None of my questions and statements here are intended to disparage the Gospel message, but rather to bring the Gospel texts themselves into tighter focus: if they are the foundation on which one builds an understanding of who Jesus is, then wouldn’t it be good to fully understand that foundation? To know its limits? Its strengths … and weaknesses? This week, we’re going to come to grips with what the Gospels are — a collection of stories and interpretations that were shaped and revised over the course of decades — before we use those texts to unpack the bigger question of “who is this Jesus of Nazareth?” over the next few weeks. Stay tuned … As always, tell us what you think … To find more about Dr. David Carr, see his faculty pages at Roberts Wesleyan College and at Northeastern Seminary. 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