The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 162. Christianity and the Modern World | Bishop Barron

Episode Date: April 19, 2021

Bishop Robert Barron and I sat down on March 5th, 2021 to discuss a variety of topics in the realm of the importance of the bible, the bridge between religion and biology, the nature of good, how the limits of the bible can be useful, why young people are leaving the catholic church, the hunger for serious deep conversation on religious topics done intellectually, and more. Bishop Barron is the founder of Word on Fire catholic ministries and auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Los Angeles. He is also a number one Amazon best-selling author and has published a number of books on theology and spiritual life. He has been invited to speak about religion at the headquarters of Facebook, Google, and Amazon and is one of the most followed Catholics of the world on social media.Find more of Bishop Barron on YouTube @Bishop Robert Barron and on https://www.wordonfire.org/

Welcome to the Jordan B Peterson podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson. This is episode 14 of season 4 and was recorded on March 5th, 2021. It's titled Christianity and the Modern World. In this episode, my dad spoke with Bishop Robert Barron. They discussed a variety of topics including the importance of the Bible, the bridge between religion and biology, the nature of good, how the limits of the Bible can be useful, why young people are leaving the Catholic Church, the hunger for serious deep conversation on religious topics done intellectually and more. Bishop Baron is the founder of Word on Fire, Catholic Ministries, and auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. He's also a number one Amazon bestselling author and has published books on theology and

spiritual life. He's been invited to speak about religionselling author and has published books on theology and spiritual life. He's been invited to speak about religion at the headquarters of Facebook, Google, and Amazon, and is one of the most followed Catholics in the world on social media. This episode is brought to you by Relief Factor. Every day aches and pains, the kind that come from exercise, motion, injuries, we're working for me, are one of the leading causes of sleeplessness, inability to work, and visits to the doctor. That's why a leading health clinic in Seattle invented a hundred percent drug-free relief

factor. It contains four key ingredients that each activated different metabolic pathway that supports your body's natural response to pain and inflammation. And now tens of thousands of people are using it to become mostly or completely pain-free. Eric, our podcast engineer, has been dealing with everyday pain in his hands and his neck. He was skeptical at first, but he followed the directions, take three day until the pain goes away, and almost immediately noticed relief in his hand. Took a few more weeks, but now the pain in his neck has lessened.

If you have everyday aches and pains, too, remember relief factors 100% drug-free and designed to be taken every day so you can get out and stay out of pain. The only way to know if relief factor will work for you is to try it yourself. The best way to do that is to order the 3 week quick start. It's discounted just 1995 plus shipping and handling so it could be easier to try. Just go to relieffactor.com slash Jordan and order a 3 week quick start. You'll be glad you did. Again, to claim your three week quick start for 1995,

go to relief factor.com slash Jordan. Enjoy the episode. Hello. If you have found the ideas I discuss interesting and useful, perhaps you might consider purchasing my recently released book Beyond Order. 12 more rules for life, available from Penguin Random House, in print, or audio format.

You could use the links we provide below or buy through Amazon or at your local bookstore. This new book Beyond Order provides what I hope is a productive and interesting walk through ideas that are both philosophically and sometimes spiritually meaningful, as well as being immediately implementable and practical. Beyond Order can be read and understood on its own, but also builds on the concepts that I developed in my previous books, 12 rules for life, and before that, maps of meaning.

Thanks for listening, and enjoy the podcast. Hello, everyone. I have the pleasure today of speaking with Bishop Robert Barron. We've spoken before on YouTube, but felt that it was worthwhile doing so again. It's been a long time, and many people have reached out to both of us continually asking us to converse and so we felt that that would be useful and something at least in principle of public interest. Bishop Maren is the founder of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries and auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Los Angeles. He's a number one Amazon bestselling author and has published numerous books, essays, and articles on theology and the spiritual life. He has been invited to speak about religion at the head

quarters of Facebook, Google, and Amazon. And is one of the most followed Catholics in the world and Amazon and is one of the most followed Catholics in the world on social media. Thanks for agreeing to talk with me again and I'm looking forward to this conversation. Yeah, my pleasure, Jordan. Great to see you too. So why do you think that people have written to you and to me suggesting that we converse? What's your take on this? It's surprising to me in some sense because it's not really my bailawick, you know, obviously I've been putting my nose in there

anyways. I think for a number of reasons people see the work you do as at least opening a door to the religious dimension of life or a deeper dimension of life. I'll tell you a story. I got up in front of the bishops of the United States because I was chairman of our committee on evangelization. And I talked about why we're losing a lot of young people.

I went through some of the statistics and then reason why we're losing them. And then I gave various signs of hope. And one of the signs of hope I gave was, I call it the Jordan Peterson phenomenon. And what I meant was this, I told the bishops, here's this gentleman gets up in a pretty non-historyonic way and speaks for several hours in some cases

about the Bible and young people all over the English-speaking world are listening to them in theaters and they're by their millions on YouTube. And I said, you know, I'm not here to endorse everything that Jordan Peters is saying, but I think that in itself is a sign of hope. And so that became a source of some conversation among the bishops. But I do think it's a sign of hope. And I said to them, and it's really in some ways to our shame, that you are making the Bible more compelling and appealing in many ways than we were.

That's our, that's our, that's our, of Bayleywick. That's our profession as the Bible. But you are opening the Bible up in a way that young people, especially, were finding very compelling. And you were indeed, I think, thereby opening a door toward a, you know, a richer and fuller understanding of the Scriptures. I think that's part of it. But I also think it's the opening to the realm of objective value. So I think as I read you and listen to you, you talk a lot about the objective realm of value that's not simply a matter of my subjective whim. I'll decide what to do or I make up my values as I go along. But there's something about the tradition, something about what's been given to us,

an objectivity to moral value, aesthetic value, intellectual value. And see, to me, that's, I mean, it's a good way, a gateway drug to religion, because God, I would say, is the ground and the source of objective value. And when you sort of hyper-subjectivize the whole operation, that becomes questionable. So I think your work there too has sort of primed the pump for a deeper exploration of God as the source of these objective values. There's a couple of thoughts I'd have about it. But I remember well that time. It's almost as if we need a third category, subjective, objective, and something else that

is an admixture of both. I mean, there's things I come across information in the biological sciences particularly, that speak deeply of intrinsic morality. And you see this, you can look at the work of Franz DeVol, for example, who's a Dutch primatologist, and he's been studying the social interactions of chimpanzees. And chimpanzees share a tremendous genetic overlap with human beings.

And from an evolutionary perspective, we diverged from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, something like seven million years ago. Our cultures also share, or our biology also shares properties with that of bonnables, but I'm going to talk about the chimps for now. DeWall has been interested in what makes a chimp leader. So chimps organize their societies essentially in patriarchal fashion, the top chimp is male. That doesn't mean there aren't high status females,

there are, but the fundamental power structure appears, let's say patriarchal. And it's, in the popular eye, it's easy to assume that the top chimp is the most physically intimidating. But that's actually not the case. What DeWala's shown was that is that alpha chimps who maintain stable sovereignty, let's say, are more engaged in reciprocal interactions than all the other chimps in the troop. So they're very generous and reciprocal. They play fair. Now you can get the odd situation where a chimp troop will be ruled by a tyrant,

but the structure becomes unstable, and the tyrant chimp tends to be overthrown by coalitions of other male chimps torn to pieces. And so, and said then, if you think, well, maybe there is a pattern that constitutes, this is the case, crucial issue as far as I'm concerned, is there a pattern of behavior that typifies stable sovereignty? And I think that's in some sense the fundamental religious question. Is there a pattern of behavior that constitutes stable sovereignty? And if so, what does it consist of? Yacht, Yacht, Panksepp has looked at rat behavior and rats, juvenile male rats engage in rough and tumble play.

And when you pair them together, if one rat is 10% bigger than the other, he can dominate the lesser rat. And so they do that, and they establish their relative dominance. And then if you repeatedly pair them together, which is a crucial issue, it has to be repeated pairings. The lesser rat has to invite the dominant rat to play. So that's his role and the larger rat agrees and plays. But if the larger rat doesn't let the little rat win 30% of the time across repeated playbouts, the little rat will stop playing. And what I read

that, it just blew me away. It's so significant because it shows, imagine that part of what morality is. It's, morality is precisely that pattern of behavior that serves to keep repeated interactions going. And those repeated interactions might be across days or weeks or months or years or decades or centuries or eons, tremendously long time span. And so what you get is the emergence of a pattern of behavior that's stable for the individual and stable for society. And that, as that's instantiated more and more deeply, it becomes something we can observe and something that we adapt to and something that then becomes part of our central nature. And for me, that's the way into the, that's the bridge between biology and religion right there.

And because it looks like there's an evolved ethic that even goes beyond human beings. This episode is brought to you by NordVPN. I don't know how this is allowed, but with NordVPN, you can unlock Netflix and your favorite entertainment websites. I use one while I'm traveling. Do you know you can't get Disney in some countries? NordVPN has a 30-day money-back guarantee and unlimited bandwidth. A VPN connection establishes a secure connection between you and the internet.

Via the VPN, all your data traffic is routed through an encrypted virtual tunnel. NordVPN has an extension for Chrome browser, and if you're not using Chrome, you should be, which is lightweight and user-friendly from the first click. It secures your browsing in seconds. You can have six simultaneous connections and for NordVPN's birthday. Every purchase of a two-year plan

will get you one additional month free and a surprise gift in Treesing go to nord VPN dot com slash Peterson and use code Peterson Because they're it looks like there's an evolved ethic that even goes beyond human beings Yeah, no, I wouldn't deny for a second. There's a biological ground for a lot of this business And I'm with LaNurgen the the great Canadian philosopher, that the condition for the possibility of real objectivity is a properly-constudent subjectivity.

So I like your opening comment about something that bridges the two. We don't just live in the subjective, but not objective as though they're discreet. But it's a properly-consuming subjectivity, which means one free of various prejudices, one free of various fears, one free of games of self-denial and all that, that can properly intuit the objective value. An objective value does indeed come up

out of the physical, the some degree. I mean, we're embodied creatures. So the biological plays a role in that for sure. But I think too it goes beyond it. I mean, it goes beyond simply a question of survival of the individual or even of the species, but certain values, you know, of the truth and beauty and the good that transcend that, although they're grounded in it for sure. Well, this is one of the things I really wanted to ask you about because I do think in evolutionary terms and across the timescale that evolutionary biologists and physicists have come to accept. And so that's a universe that's about 15 billion years old on a

planet that's about 4.5 billion. And with life being three and a half, and mammalian life, say, being 60 million years, that's my time span. The biblical time span is much truncated in relationship to that. And that sets up a certain tension between the biblical stories. Certainly if they're read as objective truth. But the Catholic church, from my understanding, has, and this comes from

the Pope himself, the Catholic Church has already accepted the basic tenets of evolution. But I don't know, yes, is that wrong? Sure, oh no, absolutely. Yes, okay, so, but that begs the question, because for me, and I'm sure this is part of the sticking point for young people, and maybe for people in Western culture in general is that it's easy to say that that that evolutionary theory has been accepted, but that still begs the question. It's right. Okay. So fine. You can you can look at the span of life over three and a half billion years before you get to human beings, but our religious stories talk of a reality that looks like it's about 15,000

years old, something like that. And so that, I'm not blaming the church for that, obviously. And I think the stories in the Bible are far older than 5 to 10,000 years. I suspect they were part of an extraordinarily ancient oral tradition that stretches back tens of thousands of years, because that's the rule rather than the exception. But, and I don't know to what degree the Catholic thinkers within the church are working constantly to attempt to reconcile these two viewpoints apart

from saying that they do accept them both. Yeah, but I don't think they're apples and oranges in a way. I mean, I don't worry too much about that issue. I'm not trying to read the Bible as a scientific text. It's not about the evolutionary process. It's a theological and spiritual text that's discerning truths that are, I think, available within our experience. But there are discrete moments there. I mean, the scientist who talks about evolution, fine, I've listened to him or her, the Bible's not concerned so much with that, but it's giving us a theological interpretation of history and indeed of the cosmos, but not in scientific terms. So it has implications for our understanding of the cosmos for sure and of nature, of human nature, but it's not done

in a scientific manner. So it just predates, as you say, I mean, any of what we'd associate now with the scientific method, the last biblical text is around the year 100 AD, and so it long predates that preoccupation. So to me, it's like having an Apple's oranges issue, and I think a lot of that religion science stuff, in that sense, is an early 20th century preoccupation that we should just get beyond. Right, but I don't, I think that may be the case, but I don't think people have gone beyond it.

No, many not. I also think that, and this pertains to something we also talked about discussing, which was the continual drain from the church, the Catholic church, perhaps in particular, but perhaps not in the west of young people. And I think part of that is their inability to make intellectual sense of everything that they're faced with, a religious tradition and a scientific tradition, especially on the biological front, but not only that, they don't know where to place these things in their view of the world.

I think that's partly why my lectures, because you doubt about that, had become popular, because I am trying to do that. And no, I'll say this, you look at the surveys. There's a lot of surveys now that ask young people, precisely that question, how come you left? And people speculate, oh, it must be because of the scandals or because they had a bad experience in church or something.

Number one reason across many years and all the surveys is I don't believe the teachings. And to specify that, religion and science seem to be at odds with each other. So for young people, the scientific way of knowing is the way of knowing. So a sort of scientism at least implicitly holds sway in the minds of a lot of young people. So once you make that move, knowledge equals the scientific manner of knowing.

But then the Bible is non-scientific. Therefore it's, you know, old superstition, bronze age mythology, et cetera. I see what you were doing, Jordan, I think, you were doing what a lot of the church fathers did with the Scriptures, because the church fathers are very interesting. People like origin and Augustin and Christin and those people, they knew fully well in the third and fourth century that the Bible should not simply be read in a sort of, you know, straightforwardly literalistic way. Augustin knew that very clearly, origin knew that clearly, and they talked therefor about the different census of scripture. What you're doing, I think, a lot of your lectures, is what Origin would have called the moral sense of the Bible,

the tropological, the given, it's kind of technical term. The biblical texts are about the moral life. Now, we might say today the psychological life, or what makes you psychologically healthy or more productive. They would have said the moral sense. They knew all about that. And so the text began to open up in these marvelous ways. So, you know, no one, they are, Jacob and wrestling with the angel and the latter going up to heaven, et cetera, et cetera. If you start fussing about, you know, the literal truth of these stories,

you're gonna miss these really deep spiritual insights, which the church fathers knew very well. And I think you were in your own way tapping into them. And the fact that young people were responding to it, see, I think it's very encouraging. That's why I told the bishops, it's a positive sign that you were getting the audiences you were getting around those. Well, the problem with the scientific viewpoint, technically speaking, is that it's a moral within it within its own confines, by definition, it strives not to address issues of value. Now, it can't help it because scientists have to investigate some things and not others, so value enters into it.

But by its own nature, science can't answer and tries not to answer questions of value. Now, it gets more complicated when you look at work like the primatology I discussed earlier, the origin of morality and animals and game playing, say among rats. That starts to move into the domain of morality to some degree. But the problem with science is that it doesn't, it strips out all subjective meaning. It's designed to do that. And that leaves everyone at a loss about what to do with the world of value. And I do believe that stories in particular

address the world of value. That's their function. That's, and the world of value is the world that we act in. It, their guides to action. Well, I come across it all the time in my work on the internet. So I have, you know, dialogues with people that interact with my videos. And they'll say things like,

well, the scientists give us access to the truth, period. The scientific method, that's how you get to the truth. And I'll say, so hamlet tells you nothing true. Plato tells you nothing true. T.S. Eliot's poetry tells you nothing true. Plato tells you nothing true. TS Eliot's poetry tells you nothing true. I mean, who would believe that, except the most ideologically scientific person? Because my fear is a lot of young people

are in the grip of that. They're in the grip of a real ideological side. They don't know how to think their way out of it. And so they just abandon the attempt, but it leaves them nowhere. What you were doing though, is you're showing a way out. And there is a way out. And it's by an introduction into the great masters

of these texts to show you how they function. That's what a good preacher ought to be doing, you know? So let me throw another objection, and this is another stumbling block, I think. And I think this emerges in postmodernism in particular, because the postmodernist, there's reasons for their manner of thinking. So one reason is, so artificial intelligence researchers discovered in the early 1960s that perceiving the landscape was much more difficult than anybody had ever suspected. Originally, it was sort of felt

that objects were just there in some simple way. And the complicated computational problem would be how to move among the obvious objects. But it turned out that it's really, really difficult to perceive the environment. There's an infinite or near-infinent number of ways that you can perceive even a finite set of objects. So, and that means there's there's a multitude of potential interpretations for every set of events. And so that that that was a radical discovery in the computational world, but the same discovery basically occurred at the same time in the world of literary analysis. For the same reason is that every text is susceptible to an an ordinately large number of interpretations, and it's not easy to identify the canonical interpretation, and

maybe the canonical interpretation isn't canonical, it just serves power, for example, and that would be, you know, religion as the opiate of the masses or religion as a political tool. And I think that takes things far too far. But there's a real problem here is that if you divorce the narrative from the objective world and say, well, the narrative is valuable because it gives us a guide to value, then you have another problem is, which instantly, which is, okay, which narrative? And how do we make a hierarchy of value among narratives? We would say, Hamlet is deeper than Harlequin Romance, right? But trying to specify why that is and what deep means is very, very difficult. And you might say, well, the Bible is the deepest

of all narratives, but that's still big, big is the question. Well, compared to Buddhist writings, say, compared to the Upanishads, or compared to any long term complex mythology that's developed over thousands and thousands of years, what makes it canonical? Why is it preferable to Shakespeare, for example?

And so, well, so perhaps I could get you to address that because that's a vicious problem. There's a lot there, and I'll start with your opening remarks about post-modernism, because I quite agree with you. I'm not simply anti-post-modern. In fact, I wrote a book called, Tour de Post-Liberal Catholicism, where I took in a lot of the insights of the post-modernism. One of which is, as you quite correctly say, a sort of legitimate prospectivalism that we never get reality, you know, too cool, right? It is, oh my eyes, there's reality. Again, that's long again. It's only a properly-consuming subjectivity that opens the door to the properly objective.

But one of those ways of properly-cons considering your subjectivity is to put your subjectivity within a community of discourse. So it's never the case that I simply intuit the way things are and end of the argument. No, as Lonergan says, not the Koji toe, that was a trouble with the enlightenment, it's the Koji Thomas, it's always we think. And that means I have my perspective, I bounce it off your perspective, you bounce off somebody else's, we have a disciplined and structured conversation. And in that process, all the different aspects of the real begin to emerge, or like my intellectual

hero, John Henry Newman said, the contents of a real idea is equivalent to the sum total of its possible aspects. That's about 1870, he says that, which is an extraordinary thing because he anticipates in many ways the phenomenologists. You know, when they talk about walking around an object and to intuit its essence thereby, and the walking around is not just eye walk around, but you're walking around it.

Someone else is walking around it. We're all exchanging our points of view. And again, I'd bring this into line with Catholicism, which is always stress the communitarian element that we know precisely in the community of the church. Now, link to the Bible. The Bible is ever like, just open it up. You're a single subjective viewer.

Now, you take in its meaning. Well, no, we've always said the Bible is read within the church in this long interpretive tradition, where I'm bouncing it off of a gustance perspective. We've got it from origin who now throws it to Thomas Aquinas, who now brings it to Newman, and then through preachers and teachers, through the saints. So you've got the technical intellectual interpretation of the Bible. Then you have the saints who, in many way, they embody the Bible.

So I'm going to read a lot of the biblical stories in light of France, of Assisi, in light of Theresa of Calcutta, et cetera. So I like that side, if you want, of the postmodern, which is much more attuned to the communal way in which we come to know things. The big question you raise at the end, and we could spend some time with that, how do you make ultimate judgments and determinations like this one is right, you know? Well, you hinted at it a bit there by saying, well, look, many, many people have worked on this for a very, very long period of time.

And in some sense, it's a living document, right? Because it does have to be, the Bible just doesn't exist as a book on a shelf. It's a pattern of meaning within a context, and the context has to be taken into account. So you say, well, there's a powerful context for its interpretation. It's also a fundamental text in that the Bible is implicit in all sorts of other great texts, like Shakespeare, or anything that's a product of Judeo-Christian culture, that's a deep product is deeply affected by the Bible. So it's there implicitly whether you like it or not.

And so it has to be taken seriously, I would say, even if you don't believe it, but then to the degree that you believe the central oxymns of Western culture, you have to wonder how much of what's biblical you do end up believing because of its implicitness. Oh yeah, I mean, it's all through the Western culture for sure. And the question of belief, in some ways is the most fundamental question

in all of theology. We call it fundamental theology. How do you articulate the meaning of belief? And for the best people in our tradition, belief is always on the far side of reason, not the near side of reason. And that's a mistake that so many people make today, young people especially, faith or belief,

they mistake for credulity or superstition, something subrational. And our best people, of course, have always repudiated that. Authentic faith is on the far side of reason. So reason's done all the work it can and should do. But then there's this moment when the claim is made, they used to do it, right? The God has spoken.

Now, do I believe that or not? I think it's precisely analogous to coming to know a person. I know something about you just from watching you over the years and I can Google you and I can read your books and I can come to some sort of objective knowledge of you. Now in this virtual means, I've met you and so my mind is working trying to understand where you're coming from. But let's, I mean, project into the future. If you and I met in person, you and I eventually became friends.

And at some point, you spoke a truth about yourself, but I could never have gotten on my own. I could never have gotten it from any objective source. You revealed something to me, right, of your inner life. And at that point, I've got to make a decision, well, do I believe that or not? I can't prove it. I can't ratify it. It's congruent with everything I've known. So that's one task I could give. If you told me something that's just wildly in Congress with everything else I know about you, I'd probably not believe that.

But if you tell me something that's congruent with what I know, but goes beyond it. And I have to say at that point, okay, I have to believe that or not. I think faith is like that in a way. So the Bible, I can approach in all kinds of different ways. But the claim being made at the heart of the Bible, of biblical revelation is deostixit. God has spoken, God has said something in this text. Do I accept it? And that has to be a decision that's born

of something beyond reason, not opposed to it, but beyond it. So that's, I think we're belief in the religious sense comes in. So I have, I understand that argument, but I have trouble with it, I would say. So we could talk about faith a little bit. And this is groping around in the darkness. It seems to me that gratitude is a form of faith.

It's a decision in some sense, because you could look at the world and you could say, well, there's plenty of reasons to be grateful and there's plenty of reasons not to be. And so the evidence doesn't necessarily support one interpretation or another, but a decision about whether or not to be grateful is going to affect the way I interpret the world and also perhaps the way it reveals itself to me and the way I act in it and the consequences of my action. So I would say it seems to me to take faith to be grateful and that seems to be a worthwhile faith. It seems to me to take faith to operate always when we don't know what we're doing

and we usually don't know what we're doing. And so part of the reason that you have to have faith is because you're actually ignorant and it fills in the gaps, right? Because otherwise you'd be stuck with a never-ending regress. You just ask why all the time. And then you could never act. Because the why has to end somewhere.

And I think by virtually by definition, it ends with an act of faith. That might be akin to your idea about faith being beyond reasons. It's like, well, look, if I ask you why you're having this conversation with me, you'll give me a reason. And if I ask you why that reason is valid, you'll give me another reason. And if I do that five or six times, you're gonna run out of reasons.

But you're still having the conversation. So that means you have faith that the conversation can go somewhere good. And that's not actually a delusion. No, and actually you're moving toward God and I think that's a classic route in our tradition. And just the way you were doing it, why are we having this conversation? I can give you know these particular reasons, but then ask the why again, ask it a third or fourth or fifth time. Finally, I'm going to get to something

like, well, because I want to be happy, you know, what ultimately motivates the will is some desire for happiness. Well, what's happiness? Well, keep pressing that question. It can't be something simply in this world. We all know that doesn't make us happy in the way that we're seeking. It's something like the Sumum Bonum, right? Some of the ultimate good.

I want to be happy in the fullest possible sense all the time, which is why, you know, tear to shared answer this that I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning unless I believe in God. And that's what he meant was if you do that kind of horizon analysis of every act of the will, even the simplest, like getting out of bed, you finally come to the Summum Bono. Okay, so let me walk through that. Okay, let me walk through that because I think that's a useful thing to think about technically I've thought about identity in this regard because identity is a nested structure. Yeah, it's also a lens through which we view the world and

So if I'm sitting at my typewriter typing you might ask me what I'm doing and the answer is well I'm moving my fingers up and down. But that's true. And the next answer is, well, I'm, I'm producing words on a page, but I'm also producing phrases. And I'm producing sentences and I'm producing paragraphs and then chapters and then a book. And then you might say, well, are you writing a book? Are you being a professor? And I'd say, no, well, I'm being a professor pushing my fingers up and down on this keypad and then you might say well What is what's professor nested in and the answer to that would be something like well good citizen? And then that's nested in good man and then that's nested in well then that's right where you start to encounter

What I think are something like religious presuppositions.'s like well what exactly do you mean by good man? And I think I think psychologically I think well that means to act out the mythological hero and That's exactly the point where that identity touches on something that's I think indistinguishable from religion at that end Now I'm not sure what that means about God per se. I would say this that God in our great tradition could be defined as the good in its unconditioned form. So all the things you've been raising here, so the y, y, y, I'm answering with some kind of good, with a conditioned good, the very fact that I can put it in a wider context means it's conditioned. It's good, I'm seeking it, but it's not the ultimate thing I'm seeking.

So unless we have an infinite regress, which I think is repugnant to reason. And immobilizing, you know, there are people who have neurological conditions that put them into an infinite regress, and they cannot act. Right. So if that's repugnant both, let's say epistemically and psychologically, we have to come to something that's properly called the unconditioned good, good in its absolute form, that which is is desirable simply for its own sake. So a clientus will say, God is called good because God is the supremely desirable. What do we desire, Thomas says, some form of actuality or being? That's why we call God the fully real,

that which is most actual, octospiurus, right? But I like the analysis, it comes not so much cosmologically, but psychologically, from what motivates me. And finally, unless my life just sort of founders into irrationality, I am motivated. Ultimately, I got it. Right, well, I think so, because, you know, me, I would also say, well, let's reject that argument

and say, well, you're not nested in good man, good citizen, hero, and then beyond that, you know, cosmic hero. And I think psychologically speaking, the figure of Christ is if nothing else know, cosmic hero. And I think psychologically speaking, the figure of Christ is if nothing else, a cosmic hero. And I'm saying it, it's nothing else. But it's, it's at least that. Well, what would the alternative be? Well, you wouldn't be doing what was good. Well, then what's on the outskirts of your value structure is something that's adversarial, something that's the opposite of good. And maybe, maybe you're likely, in fact, your psyche is not pure and you, you, you, you,

you vary depending on your faith, I suppose, but, but, but there's no escaping being nested in some sort of transcendent structure like that. And then I think of it this way. So you have these outermost reach of your identity structure, which is something like whatever the idea of good man is grounded in. And I do think it's grounded in this hero narrative. But then I look at the hero narrative, and I think, well, that's a biologically, that's an emergent narrative. It has evolutionary roots. It's something like,

man has discovered that his goal is to move into the unknown, to confront what's predatory and dangerous, and to garner something of great value in return, and to share it with the community. It's an ancient, ancient story. It echoes through the Old ancient story. It echoes through the Old Testament continually. It's even there. It's even there. It lurks underneath the accounts of God's creation itself. And that means that that outermost rim of identity is something

that has an evolutionary origin. And then you think, well, that means that it has to be connected. It's connected with reality in some fundamental sense. Does that demonstrate the existence of God? Well, that's a different question, but you can push, you can make a logical case for the necessity of that hypothesis of goodness to that point as far as I can tell. First, with your example of someone that seems really wicked. And there are wicked people. We can analyze that psychological here or- Two of them are sitting right here. Well, yeah, I mean, because it goes right through the human heart, as Soltenitzen said.

But Thomas Aquinas says, a wicked person, even the most wicked person, is seeking at least the apparent good. So something that appears good to that person. Now they could be totally mixed up about it. It's not in fact good for them, but at least it appears good to them. So even the most wicked person, Thomas says, is incoherently seeking God, because it's always some good. And now he's got the wrong sense of it. But he's still being drawn and motivated

by this first cause of the will, even the most wicked person. See, but I think that's a sign of hope. That means grace is always possible. Now read, whether it's Dostoevsky or Flanaganil Connor and people that talk about the most wicked types, but they're sometimes the place where grace breaks through, you know, because they are seeking God in their perverse way. So in a way, he's got us coming or going, you know, I mean, whether we're Mother Teresa or we're a wicked Dostoevsky character, we're all seeking God in some way. And I agree with you about the Bible, the Bible. Well, I see, I'm not that optimistic because I think that I think I don't think that all

evil actions are misguided. I think that because, and I think that's best illustrated in the story of Cain and Abel. And I could took the story of Cain extremely seriously. I think it has unbelievable explanatory power. It's quite staggering that the power of that story, the explanatory power, especially for how short it is. Cain is resentful. He has his reasons.

His sacrifices were repudiated by God. For reasons that aren't made clear in the text, which is a great ambiguity, because often our sacrifices are repudiated, and Cain is better and no wonder. And he has able around to rub his nose in it as well. But Cain's reaction is, I am going to destroy what God values most.

And now you might say, well, Cain is conflicted and ambivalent about that. And I believe that. But I don't think he was seeking the good when he was shaking his fist at God. Indeed he was seeking the good when he killed, when he struck down. He was shaking his fist at God. Indeed he was, objectively, but he was seeking at least the apparent good for him. In his twisted mind, he thought that was the good. I don't believe it. I don't believe it. I think you can get to a point where you're so resentful. I really believe this, that you're so resentful,

that you will do harm to yourself as well as everyone else and absolutely. But a suicide is seeking at least the apparent good. A suicide person thinks my non-existence is a good thing. So they are seeking the good, but in a twisted, misguided way. And to me, it's got metaphysical roots because I would hold to the classical view that that evils a provodio-boni, right? It's a privation of the good. So good is always more fundamental than evil. It has to be. They're not co-equal principles fighting away.

So I'd repudiate any sort of gnostic or mannequin system that I metaphysical. I believe that too. I believe that. I thought about that a lot. I'm union is being accused of mannequinism, for example, because he took evil so seriously. Who has, sorry, I couldn't hear you. Carl Jung was accused of the mannequinism. But he took evil extraordinarily seriously, which is something that's definitely worth

doing. So look, you look at examples like the Columbine killers. Yeah. Well, you know, the suicide could have come before the murders, but it didn't. And so I don't, I even see maybe in those situations the desire for non-existence not so much as seeking of the good, but a desire to punish God for the inadequacy of his creation. Yeah, oh no, it could be, but at desire to punish God for the, in order to see of his creation. Yeah, oh no, it could be, but at least in their mind,

that's a good thing. So that's the cane connection, that the resentment against God and getting back at God, sure, I see it in the pastoral life all the time. It's a justified thing. They think God deserves it. Because look at what's happened.

But see, but God has his coming or going because that is in fact a quest for God. That's right. Even the most resistant sinner is in fact under grace in that sense. That's why I've always liked both origin and see as Lewis say this, that it's the love of God that lights up the fires of hell.

Right? If someone's in hell, it's the resistance to God's love, but it's lighting up the fires, it's causing the friction. And so God has you coming, you're going. I mean, is God present in hell? Sure, because whatever is has to be grounded in God. And God's even present in the fires of hell, because it's the resistance against God,

that's causing them. You know? So I think it's a metaphysical statement and a psychological statement about the primacy of the good, but it's a source of hope. And a lot of my pastoral work, you know, and you as a psychologist too, when you go into people's pain in a very deep way and preschool all the time to these limit situations where people have lost loved ones they're facing their own death, they're facing tremendous failure. That's where pre-sco, you know, because that's often where grace is going to break through.

There are. So I've encountered situations as a clinician where religious language is the only language that can be used to describe what's happening. That's quite interesting. It's difficult to relay those experiences outside the specific framework of the occurrences. Yeah. I would think of, you know, Hagle said, to know a limit as a limit is to be beyond the limit. And I think that's true here. So whether it's the physical sciences or psychology, our reason comes to a certain limit. But whether it's the physical sciences or psychology, our reason comes to a certain limit.

But then it recognizes the limit as a limit. And that's to be already beyond it in a way. And they often talk about religious questions as limit questions or it's a limit situation. When I begin to ask the meta question beyond questions, or I come to a meta experience beyond any ordinary experience. And that's why again, priests tend to show up at those limit casives.

That's when we're looking into this abyss. And it is from our standpoint, rather abyss-al. I mean, what is it that stands beyond what I can know and control? And there's this, I mean, do a kirkigardi, and there's a kind of leap that that abyss is something loving. And what stands beyond what I can control was a kind of leap that that abyss is something loving. And what stands beyond what I can control

is a force of love that's actually summoning me. And that's why I go back to what I said about Deo's Dixit, God speaking through the scriptures. I think that's what it means. The voice from the cloud is a symbol of it, you know. When someone hears the voice of God, it's coming from the abyss, it always is. Joel, you know, the voice comes out of the whirlwind.

So your eyes are closed and you can't see anything, but from the whirlwind comes the voice. And again, that speech is so important because Joel, where were you when I did all these things? I mean, what do you know about what it's going on? You know nothing about what's going on. But from the abyss beyond reason comes the voice. And the Bible witnesses to that stuff all the time.

And boy, it happens that people's experience, I mean, you and I both know that. When you come up against limits, what comes out of the abyss is a very interesting thing. Well, one of the ways that's interesting to think about this, I think is that, well, let's assume that at the outermost limits of your identity, you don't make the assumption that you're involved in an enterprise that's good nested inside a being that's good. Let's say you take the opposite approach

to that. What happens to your behavior and what I believe I've observed, and I tried to document this particularly in my book Maps of Meaning, is that you start acting in ways that make everything worse very rapidly. Yes. And that, and so for I had a debate a while back with an, with an anti-nadelist, David Benatar, and he believes that existence is so rife with suffering, conscious existence is so rife with suffering, that it would be better if it just didn't exist at all. And Dostoevsky's Ivan makes that case in the brother's Karamazov.

Brilliantly. Brilliantly, he tortures his brother Aliyosha, who's the novitiate. And it's a very interesting book because Aliyosha is nowhere near the retoration that Ivan is, but he is the most admirable character in the book because of the totality of his personality, not because of the brilliance of his rational mind. It's a amazing book in that regard. But the problem I had with Benetar's hypothesis wasn't it's axiom because I think you can make a strong case

that there's so much suffering in the world that the question of its validity is a valid question. The problem for me there is that if you do that and you start to act that out, things appear to take a vicious turn very rapidly. You start working against everything that's alive and striving. Yes.

And no, quite right. That's just a lot there. I was thinking of, as you were talking, the Dante's image of Satan at the pit of hell, not in a fiery place, but an icy place, much, much better symbol of stuck. Surrounded by the betrayers. Yeah, to chewing on the three great traders,

but his great wings, he's meant to fly, he's meant to fly up into the presence of God, but all they do is he's beating his wings, and that's our earlier point about he's seeking God. I mean, Satan is seeking God. You have to. That's the way the will functions. But all he's managing to do is make the world around him colder.

So as he's beating his wings, he's just he's creating the media ideology of hell, you know? So that's what happens when someone gets really stuck. They are in fact seeking God. But they, and he cries from all six eyes. He's got six eyes and he's weeping, and he's drooling from these people he's chewing, and he's stuck, and he's making the world colder.

It's a beautiful picture of what happens. It's really useful too for listeners to realize you, if you look at, this is my opinion, and you can take it for what it's worth. The images of Satan in paradise lost and in Dante's inferno are unbelievably instructive. If you all, if you start to understand that what these thinkers were trying to do was to produce an imaginative representation of evil and evil as an embodied and transcendent being. and evil as an embodied and transcendent being.

And the psychological rationale for that, I believe, and it has something to do with our ability to communicate, which you referred to earlier, is that the evil we do is informed by the entire human race's conception of what constitutes evil. And stretching back from the beginning of the time when we began to communicate. So for example, you see this quite clearly. I read the Columbine killer's notes in quite a bit of detail. And it's saturated with satanic thought.

And the reason for that is that that sort of thought is part of the culture because we've come to represent these transcendent figures of evil in poetry and in movies and it happens all the time in movies with characters say like Hannibal Lecter and horror movies and the Milton's Satan who's often viewed at least by some as a revolutionary, here, here, here, it seems to me to be something like the rational mind. It's what happens to the rational mind when it places its presuppositions in the place of God. That because Satan seems to presume that he can replace the transcendent by his own presuppositions. And I think that's my rating of that is that's

actually what happened on earth, not long after Milton wrote when these totalitarian states emerged, something Solzhen, it's not commented on it, where the presuppositions, the utopian presuppositions of man rationally thought out were seen as sufficient to represent everything, the totality, to eliminate the need for something transcendent. And the consequence of that was that they produced something that looked an awful lot like hell. Hell.

And Dante did that more psychologically. And so Milton, Milton being the great poetic genius that he was had a poetic sense that that was what was coming down the pipelines. Do you, I wonder if you read your countryman Charles Taylor, much the Canadian philosopher, because Catholic too, Taylor said that we in the West, so let's say Western Europe, America, Canada, Australia, we might be the first civilization ever, ever to think you can find real happiness apart from a transcendent reference point. And everyone in human history has felt something like the alluring darkness beyond what I can control and know is necessary.

A relationship to that realm is necessary for happiness. We're the first culture ever that said, no, I don't care. I'm indifferent to it. But that does produce versions of hell for sure, because something will take the place of the transcendent point of reference. Well, it seems useful even from the perspective of humility. I mean, I don't know if this is a reasonable thing to say, but a tyrant who believes in God is likely preferable to one who doesn't, because at least, but a tyrant who believes in God is likely preferable to one who doesn't, because at least in principle, tyrant is held accountable by something that

isn't him, where he's an atheist. That's right. And he would get caught, at least in principle, again, in the operation of his own conscience. Don't you? I love the fact in the scriptures. They're very unique this way. They do not apothecize their leaders. And it's very different from so many other ancient cultures where

the kings become like gods. And there's the Bible. I mean, the Bible is, but luckily, honest about its leaders and its kings. Even the greatest, even David, murderer, adulterer, Solomon, Saul, the whole realm of them. That's a brilliant insight of the Bible that all these people are under God and they're under judgment. And that's a liberating idea. And when we lose that, the leaders do become apotheocysed.

Well, you saw that in Rome, constantly in ancient Rome, that literally happened. And there's always a proclivity for that to happen. That's the imperial presidency, you know?'s very important. I always tell when I'm preaching on this subject to Christians, the fact that Jesus is called the Son of God. It was so important because it was dethroning the Roman claim that the emperor was the way, we asked to, so one of the titles, after Julius Caesar is devised, he's divinised, then his son Augustus becomes the son of the God. So when the first evangelist was saying,

I've got good news about Jesus, the son of God. They were saying, right, it's not Caesar, he is not the son of God, this one who Caesar killed, by the way, he's the son of God. But the Bible's always making that move of knocking our own pretensions off their pedestals. I think that's an amazing observation actually, and it is one of the things that is extraordinarily striking about the Old Testament is that, and it's so sophisticated psychologically, because what's happening there is that the idea of absolute sovereignty is disconnected from the person bearing the sovereignty.

And so at the very least, again speaking, psychologically, what you have is the representation of God as that which is sovereign. And now each individual can be a representative of that and can have that operate within them, but they aren't that. And that, that, that, well, as I said, at the least that's a brilliant psychological innovation. And the fact that the biblical characters are so, they're realistic to the point of Dostyewski and painfulness. Yes. You know, Abraham doesn't leave home till he's what? 80.

75, 75. He's a late starter, right? And then his life is just one god awful catastrophe after another for the first while. It's like, you know, you have some contempt for him, let's say, because he's hanging around his father's tent. And then he does finally pay attention to the call of adventure to God's voice. and he goes out and encounters tyranny and starvation and corruption. And he makes all sorts of mistakes. And it's easy to be contemptuous, I think, of the biblical characters because of that. But it actually speaks to their intense psychological realism. And it's so useful for people to see that because Abraham, for example, is blessed by God,

despite the fact, despite his evident character flaws, and that's the case for the patriarchs in general. And then for David. Right. A descend of yours, I'll put in the throne, no less forever, to David, who was a deeply flawed character. But I find cool, is that even before you get to the human characters, go to the very beginning of the Bible and you have a dethroning of the cosmic pretenders to the absolute. So in the creation account, you know, sun, moon, stars, planet, animals, the earth itself, all the things mentioned were worshipped in different contexts. So the author is saying, no, no, no, no, they're not divine,

they're creatures. But then he turns it around beautifully, but they have a purpose, which is to give praise to God. So they're not God. They should be dethroned from that. But now they're given the privilege of praising God with their manner of being led by the conscious creature, human beings, who in Catholics know this, whoever comes at the end of a liturgical procession is the one that leads the prayer. So, Genesis, the opening verses, sound like a liturgical procession, you know,

their first is, then that, evening came, morning followed, and the fourth day. And it's like a steady procession of liturgical actors. The last figure, the human being, is the one now that will lead the chorus of praise. To my mind, it's the master theme of the whole Bible, if you want, is we're rightly constituted when we give praise to God and can lead all of our creaturely brothers and sisters in the right praise of God. Sin is bad praise. It's without fail in the Bible,

they went after false gods. They went after the gods of those people. They abandoned the teaching of the Lord. Bad praise leads to the disintegration of the self. So that's now in the psychological order. That's really very, very, very. What you praise is what you pursue. And so if you're pursuing the wrong thing,

then you're going to fall apart. Right, one of the great biblical ideas, I think, is you become what you pray. So what gets your worthship, that's the origin of our word there. What's the highest worth for you? You become that. So you become what you worship.

You're meant to become children of God. But what happens, we end up worshiping something, so every one of us worship something, and we become conformed to that. And then if it's not God, we disintegrate. And then like Satan, we start beating our wings and making the world around us worse so that the world around us disintegrates.

That's the Bible. The Bible tells that story over and over and over again, you know? Which is why, you know, from a Catholic perspective, a Christian perspective, that Jesus on the cross is offering the Father right praise on our behalf. And so now you're getting to the mass, which is very powerful, you know, the mass is the great act of praise where we join ourselves to the sacrifice of the sun, we say, we can form ourselves to Christ. I have to ask you about that because it's just burning a hole in me. Well, I'm in chronic pain, a lot of it, and it's constant, and, know what to do with it, generally speaking. I know things that make it worse.

You said something, a lot of ideas were flashing through my mind and I want to, I want to head at it because it's a crucial concern. You said something so surprising that Christ on the cross was offering up the proper praise to God. It's like, well, I'm not going to just let you say that without noticing it because that's a hell of a thing to say. So I'm going to put together some things that you touched on, and then we can address this.

So you said in the Bible, one of the things that's remarkable about it is the conception of the divine. So the conception of what is of highest worth stripped from some of its obvious objects of projection, the sun, the moon, the cosmos, the stars, but then also earthly leaders of other cultures, idols, and also earthly leaders of your own culture. It says, no, whatever the ultimate divine is, it's not to be found in its fullest expression

in any of those examples. It's something else. Okay, so then the question is, well, what is that else? Well, the Christian answer is, well, whatever it is for in its human form, let's say, it's something human. It's something that humans can aspire to. It's both of those. And it's made manifest in the figure of Christ, something specifically human. But then you have this terrible paradox with Christ, which is partly the paradox that you just laid out, which is a very difficult thing to get a grip on. So what is it exact? Why is what Christ is doing proper sacrifice?

Is it because it is what is it his willingness to bear the pain? What is it? Yeah, that's close to it. So we say the word became flesh. So the word who is always in the presence of the Father. So the word doesn't worship the Father because the word is God. So we shouldn't talk about worship within the Trinity itself. But now the word becomes flesh because the father, God so loved the world, he sent his only son, that all who believe in him might have eternal life in his name. He sends the son into flesh, but into flesh that's been so compromised by sin, so not into a pristine creation. Now what do you have? That's an interesting question, theologically, what do you have sent the son if creation had not fallen?

That's an interesting question. But in What do you have sent the sun if creation had not fallen? That's an interesting question. But in fact, the valuable fall that laid the... Yeah, the fairs' cool pro. Yes, it's a remarkable idea. It is indeed, but like Don Scotus argued, that Franciscan medieval theologian that God would have sent his son, even if we hadn't sent. But that's another question.

Okay, so let's take that apart for just a sec. So that people are clear about it. So the theory here is that there is something wrong with the structure of creation. That's its steepness and sin. And everyone has to ask if they believe that. And it seems to me that people do is there's a sense that things aren't how they should be, that we're not how we could be, that something has gone astray and is continuing to go astray, which is a mystery in and of itself if it's a God created world. It's like, well, why is that precisely? Well, the quick answer is corrupted freedom, you know, or a misguided freedom, you might

say, but the word comes into flesh, into fallen flesh. And the cross is what? The cross is cruelty and hatred and violence and institutional injustice and stupidity. And if you read the Passion Narratives, it's a beautiful sort of poetic presentation of all that's wrong with us. It comes out to meet him. And bearing all of that,

he continues in his relationship of obedience and unity with the Father. So bearing the sins of the world, bearing all the dysfunction and twisted quality of the world, he brings us back online. So in the attitude of the word made flesh on the cross, we see a sinful corrupt hate-filled world now brought painfully back online. That's the sacrifice of the cross that's pleasing to the Father. So we should never play the game of, well, the Father is like a dysfunctional alcoholic father that, you know, is now demanding this blood sacrifice. It's rather, the father is pleased by the son's entry into our fallen situation and his bearing of all that dysfunction, even as he brings us

back online to the father. Okay, so why does, okay, so let's say Christ maintains, I know this isn't exactly the right way of thinking about it, but it'll work for rhetorical purposes, I think. It's, so Christ is tortured by betrayal, by physically and spiritually as well, because the best way to torment someone is to punish them despite their innocence, right? Or maybe worse than that, to punish them because of their virtues. That's even better. And so that's intrinsic in the story as well. Christ bears up under that.

It doesn't repudiate God, it doesn't repudiate His own essence. It's something like that. But then, is the example of that? Is the example of bearing up under that exceptional duress and maintaining a moral stance? Is that the example that redeems the world? Is it that if you do that in your own life, the world is de facto redeemed. It is that, but more because if it's just that, then a palladium system would be true. That we just need a good moral exemplar. It's something more than just merely good. I mean,

it's super huge. What's being asked for? No, true, but it's something more metaphysical about it. It's a reworking of the way things are. If Jesus takes upon Himself all the dysfunction of the world and swathlet it up in the ever greater divine mercy, so it's Christ bearing all of our dysfunction but transfiguring it in his great act of forgiveness and obedience to the Father.

I think all of that coming together simultaneously is the sacrifice that's pleasing to the Father. In some ways, the word from the cross, Father, forgive them. They know not what they do is the most important. Or playing with this too, Jordan, that after the resurrection, so Jesus comes back precisely to those who had denied him and betrayed him and run from him at his moment of greatest need. And it almost any telling of a similar story, if that had all happened, and then the person who had died is back from the dead, and he appears

to those who had abandoned him, you'd expect him to wreak havoc on them. So Jesus shows his wounds to be sure, because the wounds of Jesus are a sign of the world's dysfunction. If I'm ever tempted, when we were younger, the book, I'm okay, you're okay, came out. We're always tempted to say, well, basically, we're okay, you just need a little fixin' up around the edges. Whenever we're tempted to say that, it's the wounds of Jesus that say otherwise. Because the author- That's why I was insisting earlier that I don't,

that it isn't merely misguided good, that churns people towards the darkness. It's voluntary desire to produce the darkness as well. Anyways, I do think that very seriously, and it's an interesting idea is that the ideal is wounded in proportion to the degree that everything has deteriorated away from the ideal and that's almost by definition true, right? Yeah. Yeah, no, that's true, but it's just the very act of the will itself is structured in such a way it has to be seeking some kind of at least apparent good, but that's our earlier issue. to be seeking some kind of at least apparent good. But that's our earlier issue. So the wounds show the dysfunction of the world,

which the Son of God took upon himself, but then the word of Shalom, which is all the resurrection accounts, that Jesus says, peace. So when Paul, for example, says, I'm certain that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature could ever separate us from love of God. How does he know that? Because we killed God, and

he returned with a word of forgiveness. So that means, it's like it's like divine goodness and forgiveness can trump any evil, even the evil of killing God. So we killed them, but yet he returned in forgiving love. I think that's the moment when Christianity is born. In the dual sense of, yes, we kill them. Look at the wounds, but he says, shallow them to us nevertheless, so that I can't run away from him. I can try, you know,

that's what all of the sinners do. I can try, but ultimately the divine love is such that it's it's greater. That's why Paul can also say, we're synabounds, grace abounds the more. That's Christianity. So the greatest sin we killed the Son of God, there's no greater sin than that. We're synabounds, grace abounds the more. And see, all of that was made possible in a way by the great sacrifice of the cross, which is why it's a saving act. Well, that's, I'm striving to understand. No, okay, so I want to ask you a bunch of questions about that.

So we talked a little bit before about the church bleeding. It's people. They're leaving, the young people are leaving. In my sense of a little bit before about the church bleeding its people. They're leaving the young people are leaving. In my sense of that is it's because the church does not demand enough of the young people. Yeah, I think that's right. Doesn't demand enough. And by not demanding enough, it doesn't indicate its faith in their possibility. And so now in Orthodox Christianity, as I understand it, there seems to me to be more emphasis on the idea that it's each human's obligation to become like Christ. That's the goal. Well, that's that's that by definition we could say and we could speak psychologically about this as

well. That means to become the ideal, the ideal that's beyond rationality, even that's what you're aiming at. That's what's hypothetically within your grasp. And it seems to me as well that that's what the mass symbolizes is that, and I'd be happy to have it. Any objections to this, I would be happy to hear. The incorporation of the host is the embodiment. It's the incarnation of Christ within. That's what it's acting out. That's the idea. I mean, in some sense, it's the consumption

of the saving element, but the saving element is actually a mode of being. And this isn't hit home. It's like, look what the church, the church demands everything of you. Yeah. Absolutely everything. And then the reason that that people are leaving is because that adventure isn't being put before the mess. Like, look, you can have your cars and your money and all of that. But that's nothing compared to the adventure that you could be going on. Yes. I wish you'd preached to our people because I think you're absolutely right about that.

The language we'd use is be a saint. That's the ordinary goal of every baptized person is to be a saint. A saint means someone who's holy or utterly conformed to Christ. Now, press that to be conformed to Christ means you're willing to go into the dysfunction of the world, to bear its pain, and to bear to it the ever greater divine mercy and love. Now, fill in the blank, Francis of Assisi. Mother Teresa may be in our time, like when we were younger, if someone said, well, who's a living saint? We all would have said Mother Teresa. But what did she do? She went into the worst slum in the world. I've been there. And she bore the suffering of the world,

literally picking up the dying and bearing their disease and bearing their psychological suffering. And she took on herself the wounds of Jesus. But then think about the smile of Mother Teresa. She brought to that place the ever-greater, more super abundant mercy of Christ. That's being a saint. And you're dead right. I think we're not sufficiently calling our people to that kind of. I can tell you were saying I've experienced. This is really something to see. I spoke in about 150 cities sequentially with a dare to in between and to to large audiences three to ten thousand all the time something like that and I always paid attention to the audience

singly because I was always talking to one person at a time, but also on mass You know to see to hear Because if if the words are in landing in the right place and hypothetically emanating from the proper source, then there's silence. And sometimes that silence can be dramatic. And that's why people say, well, you could have heard a pin drop. It's no one's moving because their attention is 100% gripped by whatever just happened. And one thing that reliably elicited that was the proposition that the meaning that sustains you and protects you from corruption during suffering is to be found in responsibility. And people that and I thought I thought part of the reason that

that produced silence was because no one says that now. They say happiness or they say rights or they say privileges or or they say reward or something like that They don't say pick up the heaviest load you can carry and carry for that matter and stumble forward and I've seen people cut those ideas and put them on t-shirts and play with them and so It's not that the church is asking too little of its people. No, it is asking too little of them. I quite agree. It's precisely, and so there's no heroism in it. And there's no call it. Well, because I can find the, I call it the culture of self-invention is a very boring culture.

Stanley Horowas is a Methodist theologian who said he'd defined liberalism or the modern attitude as I have no story except the story I invent for myself. And that's finally a very boring place to live, it seems to me. In fact, you're part of this incredibly rich and complex narrative, which I would refer to as God's creation and God's providential movement. But I go back to Luke's gospel, you know, when Jesus says to them, Duke and Altum, is it the Latin? We go out into the depths. You people have been hoarse around on the shallow, it's way too long. That's where the fish are, by the way. But also

it's where adventure is, it's where the glory of life is, get out into the depth. And we have, I think, allowed our people to be kind of horse-neuron by the seashore all the time. It's also where what protects you from hell is because you need to be engaged in something that's deeply meaningful enough to justify the suffering. And so, you know, part of what happens in the story of Christ is the only thing deep enough to justify that level of suffering is absolute immersion in a cosmic drama. And then you ask yourself, well, are we each immerse in a cosmic drama? And it's not so

easy to say no to that. It's a life or death situation and everything's in it. Well, I would say the instinct of a Christian is to go where the suffering is. So I spent a lot of my life forming priests, a working seminary, eventually it was the rector of the seminary. So my job was to help these young guys discern the priesthood.

And I would say that's the test. I mean, do you have an instinct to go where the pain is, to go where the suffering is? If you want to live a comfortable life, then don't become a priest. You might be a bad priest, if you embrace a comfortable life, but it's the mother Teresa model, it's the Duke and Altum, go out into the depths,

and the depths meet the depth of human suffering. And do what Christ did. So then what's wrong with what you guys are doing? Why isn't it working? Well, what's what's we are in problem? It's true that we're not doing enough of that. And I do think we've succumbed a bit to the modern thing, which is a preoccupation with rights and freedom and my individuality and so on. But you see this with church activism so much now is that so much so like the church seems to be

replacing itself in some sense with social activism. It's like we've got enough social activists. Yes, well, but I'd say this, Pope Benedict XVI, who's a great intellectual hero of mine, said, the church always does three essential things. The church worships God, it evangelizes, and it cares for the poor. Poor broadly construed, as I say, anyone who's suffering, right? But that first move, as we said earlier, is indispensable.

The church worships God. It teaches the world right praise, because without right praise, the whole thing falls apart. Secondly, it evangelizes. What's that? Well, that's a cool thing, too, because U-1, Gheleon and Greek, good news. They were playing with that because the Romans would have used that

in the Eastern part of the empire to announce an imperial victory. They would send an evangelist ahead with the good news. Who on Gellion? Hey, Caesar won a victory. So these very edgy first Christians who had zero social status, no power, no military behind them said, oh no, no. I got the true who on Gellion. It's about Jesus risen from the dead, who was put to death by Caesar, but whom God raised. So that's the proclamation of the good news that now we have hope, now the sacrifice has been made, and God's love is greater than anything that's in the world. Okay?

Now I got those two things in place, now serve the poor. Now go where the pain is, go where the suffering is. But if you divorce them from each other, and that has happened, so who cares about worship, and that's fussing around with alters and sacrities, and who cares about evangelization, let's just get down and serve the poor, then it does devolve simply into social work, right? But if the three are together, worship God

evangelize the dying and rising of Jesus, and serve the poor, now the church is cooking, you know. All right, so let's look at the second one of those. So, you know, it seems to me, I can understand this, not that whether I can understand it or not, is a hallmark of its validity, but I have to try to understand what I can understand. I can understand the idea that bearing forward

in a moral direction, acting as if being is intrinsically good and that humanity as part of that is also intrinsically good. Bearing up under, bearing all that up as a set of propositions, even in the most extreme cases of suffering, I can see that as a valid moral good. That's Christ's refusal to be, what would you say, corrupted by the injustice of his and terror of his fate. And so that might be something like, you don't have the right to become a tyrant no matter how badly you were tyrannized, let's say.

And I think that's an unshakable moral proposition. But then there's the resurrection element of it because I could say, well, the first thing I would say is, well, I kind of understand that psychologically, parts of us die and they have to die because they're an error. They have to be cast off. And we're reborn constantly as a consequence of our movement, our ascent forward. There's no movement forward without some death of the past. And so I can see the resurrection idea as a metaphor for the part of us that continues onward despite our failures and constantly reconstitutes our spirit. It's not something trivial, but then there's the insistence on in the church of the bodily resurrection, which is, well, let's call that a stumbling block to modern belief.

No doubt about that. That's something more than mere metaphor. And so you might ask, well, why is it insisted upon? Why isn't the proposition that you have a transcendent moral obligation to bear, to operate for the good of all things, regardless of your suffering, a hard line, no justification with the defeat of death necessitated. I'm not trying to make a fundamental critique of the idea of the resurrection,

because I know there are things that I don't know. I know that for sure. And God only knows how the world is fundamentally structured, but, but it seems, and this is a Nietzschean criticism in some sense, to an afferate in criticism, that seems in some real sense to good to be true. Yeah. So, and so what do you make of the, what do you make of the resurrection? How do you conceptualize it even as it's related in the gospels?

Yeah, good. You're raising a lot of interesting things. First of all, everything you said about it in terms of psychological archetypes and metaphors. Good. Fine. I think those are legitimate. I think those are our correct perceptions of things. And it has indeed functioned that way

in a lot of the literature of the world, resurrection type stories. But I think it's really interesting about the New Testament. As Lewis said, you know, CS Lewis when someone said, well, the New Testament is just another iteration of the ancient myth. And he said, anyone that says that has not read many myths because there's something so distinctive

about the New Testament. And what I would say, Jordan, first, this, I think from the first page of Matthew through Revelation, what you get throughout is this, what I call this, grab you by the shoulders quality. They knew about literature that is conveying deep psychological and philosophical truth. Paul certainly knew that literature very well. Doesn't sound like that though.

It has overtones with it. It bears some of that. It has family resemblances with it. But what you find on every page is this Iwan Gellion, this good news. So everything you said is true. I think it is true. But it's not exactly news. It's part of the philosophy of Perennas. It's been around for a long time and a lot of the great thinkers of the world. And again, I agree with it. I like the philosophy of Perennas. But the new testament is people I like the philosophy of premonition, but the new testament is people who grabbed everyone they met by the shoulders to say something happened, something's happened here that we were

not expecting, that was not part of our thought system. And it's so shaken us up that we feel obligated to go careering around the world and indeed to our deaths announcing it and defending it. And what it was, was the fact, here in the test chapter of Acts of the Apostles, this sort of almost tossed off line, we who ate and drank with him after his resurrection from the dead. I don't think people trading in mythic talk use that kind of language.

Mythic language. Again, I say it with high praise. I love the myths, but you know, once upon a time and in a galaxy far, far away, and then a mythic story unfolds. But read the Acts of the Apostles. Do you hear about what happened? It first was up in Galilee and then in Judea, you know those people at John the Baptist, remember John the Baptist? Well, and then this Jesus and then in Jerusalem and then we you aid and drink with him after his resurrection from the dead. It's that's what and then look at Paul, Paul who saw him on the road to Damascus. Now the Paul line letters, man, they do not read like myths. They just don't. And I love the myths.

I love the philosophy of Prennus, but it doesn't read like that. It reads like someone who has been so bold over by something. And he wants you to know about it, and it's changed everything. And I think what it was was what we said earlier. It's, okay, now we know God's mercy and love is greater than anything we can possibly do. Why? Because we killed God. And that's why Paul will say, I'm going to hold up one thing to you, Christ and crucified.

And crucified, I mean, it was the most horrific thing they could imagine in the ancient world. It was deeply embarrassing even to talk about a crucifixion. Paul says, no, no, let me put it right in your face. See, the author of life came and we killed him. But I got the good news. One going on is God's mercy and love is greater because he brought this Jesus back from the dead. Well, you do have the following argument, which is that it isn't clear which is harder to believe whether that happened or whether people made it up

because if they made it up that was really something and that does strike me quite frequently reading the New Testament. There are lines in there that hit so hard you think, hmm, it isn't obvious to me how someone could have just thought that up. So, and there is that, well, in Jung, Carl Jung, I greatly admire, you know, he believed, I think in the same way that C.S. Lewis did that, and he doesn't talk about this that much, but that there is this archetypal mythological pattern of the dying and resurrecting hero that has this psychological reality,

which is extraordinarily deep. But that archetype was realized once in history, and that's the fully realized. So it came from the the mythic realm, let's say the realm of eternal truth, the realm of pattern, instinctive pattern for that matter, and was fully realized at one point in history. And you might think, well, if it's going to be fully realized, it has to start somewhere, you know, it can't start everywhere at the same time or right, right? Was an archetype look like when it takes flesh?

Might be way to get at that. Well, and the thing is we we do see this and it does grip us because movies like we see representations of this all the time in In my new book I talk a fair bit about Harry Potter and In my new book, I talk a fair bit about Harry Potter. And no Harry Potter is definitely an archetype. Take it. Crazy figure. Take it in flesh. Well, clearly, he's in battle with Satan himself, obviously.

I mean, and she has an unbelievably profound mythological imagination. And the thing that's so fascinating about all of that is that because her mythological imagination is spot on, she captivated the entire globe. And there's a men's storehouse of wealth and dominated the entertainment landscape for a decade. And people don't take that seriously, but it's a great mystery to watch that. Absolutely they should. It's a phenol.

Anything that grips people's attention like that is obviously worth paying attention to. So, you know, I know, I know it's called them good dreams, right? So all the sort of archetypal anticipations of the gospel, the good dreams of the race, or do you, the Jungian? I love Jung too. But what happens if that archetype of the person perfectly pleasing to God, you know, conslanguage?

What would happen if that archetype became flesh? And indeed, that's how they put it. The word became flesh and dwelt amongst us. No, I think that's also the question we should each be asking ourselves in our own lives. Yeah. Quite like, well, who could we be? And you say, well, you don't have to ask yourself that question.

It's like, well, good luck't have to ask yourself that question. It's like, well, good luck with your conscience. Then you should be in other Christ. That's the objection to the self-created person. It's like the idea that you can create your own values. It's, well, good luck. Try. Good luck with that project, right?

Yeah, good luck. It's not going to work. You know, Newman referred to the conscience. I always love this this as the aboriginal vicar of Christ in the soul. So I took the language descriptive of the Pope, you know, the vicar of Christ, but he said the aboriginal vicar of Christ.

Which Newman? It's the conscience. John Henry Newman. Okay, because I was thinking of Eric Neumann. So no, John Henry Newman. And it's a beautiful way of describing it, because we'd say the Christ dwelling within you is the voice

of the conscience that's calling you to sanctity ultimately, to heroic self-sacrifice, to being who Christ is. It also is what people worship because here's a way of thinking about it technically. Well, look, when I have a conversation with you, there's something I want from you. I want everything you can give me. I want you to be as there as you can possibly be. That's what I'm demanding all the time, if my attention, assuming a properly constituted subjectivity, if my attention wanders, that means you're not delivering. And so if you're wandering around and everyone's attention is wandering away from you, you're not delivering. And conscience, because we're so social, we're social creatures to the final degree, conscience tells you when you deviate from the ideal. And that ideal is what people worship. They, by attending to that manifestation of the ideal in you,

they worship it. And so that's there. It's there in the, in the demands that we can't help but make of each other and of ourselves. There's no escape from that. And so I, I do think it's a perfectly good question. What would happen? And this is the right question for your life. What would happen if you took that seriously? And so again, what I see is that it doesn't seem to me to be if the church can no longer attract young people. It has to be that they're not taking that with sufficient seriousness.

Now, yeah, I think there's a lot to that. When I was coming of age. When I was coming of age. When I was was the blame. It's like, I know the church is a human organization and all of that. But it's still evidence when I was coming of age. So back in, like say the 1970s, the presumption of the church was, we should make this thing as easy as possible because if we make it hard, these people are going to run away. So we don't want to make it intellectually easy. So I got a very dumb down Catholicism. It was through the grace of God

that I discovered later in life, the very rich Catholic intellectual tradition, but I was going through school, including through high school, you know, banners and balloons and collages, and it was very superficial. We got the clearer impression when I was a kid that English and science and math

and all that were serious subjects, religion was like, religion was like gym or it was like, you know, I don't know what else like art class or something it was considered not that serious. So we dumbed it down intellectually and we lessened the moral demand for sure because we didn't want I think people to run away. And then, you know, I'll say it bluntly, rather pathetically, we tried to be as relevant as possible. That was the term from our time. Right. And that's like the uncool guy at the party, man. Right. You know, if you have to strive to be relevant, you're not on the cutting edge. That's for sure. Right. And so there's a study I read some years ago that I thought was very plausible.

The conclusion was what young people find compelling in a mentor figure are the two things. One is that the person knows a lot about the subject that he or she is sharing, and secondly, they're really committed to it. And when the kid sends those two things, what is a lot to know here, and this guy or this woman, they really believe it. They find that compelling. You don't need the games of relevance. You don't need to dumb it down.

In fact, smarten it up and make it as intellectually challenging and morally challenging as possible. We dropped a lot of practices that were much more common years ago to kind of draw young people into the challenge of it. So that is a problem, absolutely. Well, you know, one of the things that I've been so delighted by is my observation that there's a tremendous hunger for serious conversation. Yeah. It public hunger for it. And when I when I have engaged in my lectures, I'm always extending my myself to my limits of thought, like that's what the lecture is.

It's an attempt to go past what I think. There's absolutely no doubt that everyone in the audience is on board with that. It was the case when I debated Sam Harris, for example, that discussion, which was as technically complex as Sam and I could make it. And that might not be as philosophically complex as the absolute ideal, but it wasn't dumbed down by any stretch of the imagination. And there's just, there was no reason that that, if you spoon feed that material, it catches no one.

And I can tell you this, those new atheists, so Sam and Hitchens and Dawkins, those guys, they were good evangelizers. I mean, for their position, I deal with them all the time. They didn't dumb it down either. They didn't dumb it down. They had the two things I talked about. They were intelligent and they were passionately committed to it. But every day on the internet, when I go into these con boxes, I hear the phraseologies from Hitchens and Dawkins and Sam Harris. A lot of young people read them. They didn't hug them into atheism. They argue them into atheism. So I've been telling our people, we got to stop trying to hug people back into the faith. We have to argue them back

into the faith. We have to argue them back into the faith. We have to make it compelling. And I had a friend. I've been walking with his friend of mine, I'm talking with him. And, you know, he said something quite interesting. He was raised in a communist country and was an atheist after that. He said his family observed Christmas, and he criticized them for that because it

was logically and coherent. And then he realized that all that would happen if they abandoned Christmas was that they wouldn't have Christmas anymore. It wasn't like he had something to replace it with. Right. And so it's magical. You might even call it naïve if you're of the sort of mind that would call that naïve. But do you want to have it or not?

And if the answer is, well, replace it with another weekend, then that's really not helpful. And the problem with the atheists is that they don't have, the best they can offer is something like a materialistic utopia. And I've got nothing against that. I've been talking to people like Bjorn Lomburg and who lay out this vision of an increasingly wealthy world where absolute poverty is a thing of the past and where people can take the levels of health

that are more or less taken for granted in the West and where people can take the levels of health that are more or less taken for granted in the West, for granted everywhere in the world through a process of incremental economic improvement. And, you know, more power to that, I think. But I also know that that that isn't a sufficient story is and that there's a kind of despair that goes along with material security, because the adventure is drained out of it. And Dostoevsky touches on this, and this is where I really learned this when I first encountered this idea. You know, Dostoevsky and notes from underground, says, look, this is something you have to

understand. If you gave people everything they need, so that they had nothing to do but eat cakes and busy themselves with the continuation of the species, if they were so happy that nothing but bubbles of bliss would appear on the surface of the water that they were in, they would smash it all to pieces just so that something adventurous and unique could happen. And so there has to be a call to a higher order of spiritual being, let's say, a psychological being that accompanies that materialism

or it's, or we won't even accept it. It'll kill us. No, absolutely, it'll kill us. It'll smother us. It's got to be the call to sanctity. And the call to sanctity is a call to love. And they're Dostoevsky, you know? Love is harsh and dreadful.

It's not a cute little emotion, or it's not a sentiment. Real love is harsh and dreadful because it means going into the place where people are suffering and becoming another Christ and bearing the burdens of the world. That's serious business. Love is something awful about it, you know, but when you summon someone... But there's also something awful about the judgment, you know, but when you summon someone, something awful about the judgment, you know, because if you love someone, you also hold them to a standard. Yeah, you will they're good, right? And that means holding to a standard. You know, this is Russia,

trigger this in my mind. I'm reading these wonderful books by this priest Walter Chiza, kind of if you know that name, he died in 1984, but for 23 years, he was a prisoner in the Soviet system. So he was arrested in 1939, right when the war got going with the Germans, and make a long story short. He was in Lubyanka prison for five years in Moscow, basically in solitary confinement, then he was sent for 15 years or so to Siberia, to the worst work camps, you know? And he describes it in this book called With God in Russia, in this kind of bald, just straightforward way. But all through it, he says, okay, I wanted the Russian to be a missionary to announce the gospel.

It's not the way I expected it to be. I didn't expect to be in a prison camp, but, okay, this is what God has willed, obviously. At least his permissive will is that I be here. So I'll do what I can. And so for 23 years, this man set up when he was in solitary, a Jesuit program of prayer, and he would go through his day, he had the prayers of the mass memorized. Then when he gets to the camps, they would smuggle in little bits of bread and wine, so he would say mass on a little table clandestinely.

And he would minister in his own quiet way to the people around him. I'm telling that story because in the most horrific circumstances, in a way he never saw coming, he said, okay, but I'll try to be a saint here. I'll try to be Christ, bear the sufferings of those around me and bring the grace of God. He was finally sprung in 1963.

JFK was involved in getting him out with a prisoner exchange. As he left Russia, he's the planes taking off, and he did the center of the cross over the country, blessed the country. And it's incredibly moving story because it's not at all flashy. It's told in a really almost bland manner

But it's someone who decided no I'm gonna go in the depths. I'm gonna deal with what I've been given and it's horrific. I'm in a I'm in a Soviet Siberian concentration camp doing hard labor, but I'll be Christ for the people here That's it. I mean, that's the adventure. There's the hero's journey that he went on. So, well, so let's get back to the to the resurrection idea there. Because again, see, that story to some degree doesn't require the resurrection to underscore his heroism. In fact, to say, in some sense, to say, well, that was motivated by faith in the resurrection, in some sense, undermines the heroism of the action. And again,

I'm saying, I'm not trying to casually dispense with the idea of the resurrection, at not least because of its undoubted metaphorical structure. But there is this crazy emphasis, this crazy idea that somehow bearing up under all that burden reformatted the entire structure of being. And that's associated with, I believe, and I'm no theologian, I believe, that's associated with the idea of the harrowing of hell. Is that, is that, well, yeah, there's something, but I do as a first step though, that's the church. The church, Christ's resurrection is the seed from which the church grows,

and the church is the means by which God wants to reconfigure the world. That's right. We're not there just to kind of whisper our convictions among ourselves. Our whole purpose is to go now and recreate the world. That's the truth is personal. So, you know, it reminds me, I read history and history is so interesting that it's unbearable,

right? If you read history, it's unbearably interesting. And yet, if you go sit in a history class taught by the typical history teacher, it's so dull that you can hardly keep your eyes open. There's, you know, you need to memorize what happened in 1612. And that's not the point. The point is that unbelievably magnificent drama. And so then again, if that story that the church is telling is not being taken up,

it's not being sold. There's something about it that's not being sold properly. I'm not saying I have the answer to that. No, that's true. But I saw this kid once when I was in Montreal and he was about 17 years old. And he was a big guy, big like six foot five guy, and a physical specimen.

And he was standing on the corner of a shopping area. And he had two pink shopping bags in his hands and he looked kind of brief. And I thought, you know, if you came up to him and said, I've got some heroism in battle for you around the corner. He dropped, and you said it right, he dropped those damn pink shopping bags in a second and be off for the adventure of his life.

Yeah. And you, it has to, what is it? Is it a lack of faith that a fundamental faith that is sapping the life blood out of that story? Because you're saying, well, here, I'm calling you to an adventure that's as great as any adventure you could possibly conceive by definition.

This is the ultimate adventure that you're being called to. Yeah, but the, but the hobbit hole is so attractive. I mean, there's so Bill Boah would rather stay in his hobbit hole. I mean, it's comfortable. I got my doilees and it's nice. It's comfortable here. So Gandalf has to summon him to adventure. It's a burden, it's a task.

As the church has got to play that role of Gandalf to get into these hobbit holes and get people motivated to get them out. You know what's a Walter Chiswick? I'll tell you exactly. He's a Jesuit novice in Pennsylvania, 1930 something. And Popeye is the 11th at the time from Rome says, Russia's just gone communist. The church is being persecuted. I need, and he said it this way, I need heroes to go into Russia and you Jesuits, you're kind of my shock

troops. I'm going to summon you into Russia. And young Walter Chisik's 18 or 19 says, he just knew that's where I'm going. And he went up to the speaker and said, I'm in. Okay. They sent him to Rome to study Russian language and Russian liturgy, and they sent him into Russia. So I mean, he was summoned. He was summoned to adventure and he took it out. You're in. You're in. Why? Like, what happened in your life to pull you in this direction and how has it worked for

you? You know what was adjourned for me? I was a Catholic kid, you know, going to Mass on Sunday, but not all of that interest in religion. And I was interested in baseball when I was like 13, 14. But I'm in high school, freshman high school class. And it was a Catholic high school, so it's a religion class. And one of the teachers laid out for us,

one of Thomas Aquinas' famous arguments for God's existence. And I did not disbelieve in God, am I believe in God, but I never in my life thought that you could think about God in a serious way. And it opened up something, it set my mind on fire. And I started going to libraries back in those days, went to libraries. And I was taking these books about times of clinus off the shelf. I had no idea what I was reading, but I was...

I still, to this day day think of those magical days that I had discovered something that just turned my mind on. So that was the opening of the door. Then the other book I read at that time, it was so influential, it was Thomas Merton. You know, Merton, he's a trappist monk. He'd been a man of the world all the way and then had this huge conversion experience

and becomes the most radical kind of monk you can become. And those two tomases, the coinus in Merton had a big impact on me when I was a kid. Because there's something romantic about it. You know, Merton's was the story of someone kind of falling in love with God totally. That's what got me in the door.

And then I followed a lot of the intellectual path. I was always kind of a thinker type. And that got me into the priesthood and then, you know, off I go. But at every stage, it was something like a summoning to mission is language we would use. Summoning to a mission, ever greater kind of mission. That kept me going.

I always found it, I don't know the most compelling option on the table, it always struck me that way, is you look at the options of life, like, well, serving God. Yeah, duh. Wouldn't that be the most exciting? Well, yes, the thing is the one that's it, is that, apart from the terror that that might reasonably evoke, it is the best, by definition,

and again, you could just speak psychologically here, by definition, that's the best game you can play. That's how it struck me when I was a kid, yeah. Well, it's almost a topology, you know. Right, it struck me that way. And I understand everyone's different. Everyone's path is different. But that's how it struck me, how grace, I would say, you know, entered my life.

And I truly, I've been a pres now for 30, what, five years? Bishop now for five years. I've never been, I've never been unhappy as a priest. I mean, I've suffered certainly and I've gone through difficult times. I've never been unhappy though as a priest. I've never been tempted to leave. Never felt like, oh God, why did I do that?

I've never felt that. And this social media enterprise of yours, you know, when I introduced you, I noted that you're perhaps the most well-known Catholic speaker in social media circles. I think that's a reasonable presupposition. Do you have competitors, so to speak? Oh yeah, there's some people. I was one of the pioneers in a way, because I know I came in YouTube first got started, it was 2006. By early 2007, I did a review of Scorsese's movie The Departed, because my instinct was,

let's talk about the culture, let's talk about things going on that have a religious overtone, you know? So I started early 2007, right when you two got off the ground. And then everything else, Facebook and Instagram came along. And then other sort of saw what I was doing and got into the game too. But I guess I was one of the first ones to do it.

Not that I know that world that will. I got all these young people that help me navigate that world. But I've been providing a lot of the content. And so what's that been like? and how has that received by your peers or your superiors for that matter? I would say well to answer the second part first. I think well, I think they saw, oh yeah this is good. I'm glad he's doing it. I'm glad someone has taken the initiative. And they began asking me early on, like, hey tell us more about this and how are you doing it and what are the pitfalls and

how's it working. So I think my superiors have always been very open to it, interested in it. When I've spoken to the, now that I'm a bishop, I'll speak at the bishop's conference meetings about it. And there's always tremendous interest. Now, these are all older men for the most part. They don't know, you know, Facebook from, you know, French fries, but they get it. They get the importance of it and why it's worth doing.

And the success of it in a way has been a source of surprise and delight to me. When I started YouTube videos, I mean, we thought if we got 300 views, we're doing great. I was thrilled when I, my first one got the 300 views. You know, and then it just grew, it just grew from there. And I think it was a willingness to talk about the culture and then engage people.

So I can't do it as much now, but in the early days, I would get in the con boxes and I would really enter into these debates. And as you know, 97% of people that come on con boxes are mad at you for some reason, or they don't like what you're saying. So, okay, I was able to at least have an argument. I could get into the, you know, list with them. Well, I mean, it's interesting. You know, you say that because I've certainly met my fair share of opposition in the media domain, let's say, especially with the legacy media, but I'm stunned by the positivity

of the comments. It's absolutely overwhelming. I can't really make heads or tails of it that it's so consistent and it's been very sustaining to me. I guess the reason I think that's the case is because I think I'm encouraging people, you know, who haven't had any encouragement or enough and that's lots of people, maybe everyone, because I mean, how much people should be encouraged to the ultimate degree, right? They should say, well, you want to reveal the divine within in your own particular way. You could do that. And I'm curious, but you did the Reddit AMA to new a couple of times. Well I did that.

I've done it twice now. And I think one year, I was like, you were first and I was third. And not because they knew me. I'm sure they didn't. But I just got on and said, I'm a Catholic bishop who loves to dialogue with non-believers and atheists or something. Right. So you're also inviting some push back there as well. Yeah, but it was, I loved it. We got an enormous response. Now, a fair amount of the obscenity

and just people that hate religion. See, part of it might be religion, and I'm so institutionally identified with religion, so all that. But I love both times, the questions that emerged and the themes that emerged were very illuminating to me. So I love that world too of entering into it. And it certainly gets attention. People watch these videos, and then I've done a lot of, you know, writing and so on, longer form things. I've done documentary films as well. So what kind of crowd are you getting now with your YouTube channel and your

podcast? What's your audience numbers? Yeah, we're really 77 million or something, you know, total views. Oh, yeah. On your channel? Yeah. Wow, that's a lot. Are people cutting up your videos and posting them in pieces as well? Yeah, sometimes. Sometimes. I'm trying to go at the average.

It depends on the type of video we're doing. But yeah, we're getting, you know, good numbers, solid numbers, not in your ballpark. But, uh, Well, seven million total views is like, that's far beyond respectable. That's, I mean, you'd now, Yeah. Think about comparing that to something like a published book. I mean, YouTube has a reach that's absolutely staggering.

Right. And I appreciate that very much, you know, that all these different forms, and then that's just YouTube, you know, many of all the other forms of social media. So, you know, I'm, look as an evangelist as someone trying to speak for the church. I'm delighted by that.

And, you know, we just did it. We just, as you did. I mean, I think the first video of years I saw, you were in like a poorly lit room sitting in this chair, talking about Nietzsche or something. And I thought, wow, this guy, someone said, oh, he's getting these enormous numbers. And I thought, well, but it's speaks to, oh, he's getting these enormous numbers. And I thought, well, it's speaks to the production quality

that was doing it. Yeah, no, it wasn't. It was the content and the willingness to talk about important ideas and to do it in a way that respects the audience. I think all that is worthwhile, you know? Well, look, that was really good. We got we got nice and deep into it. Yeah, I appreciate that very much. I loved it. I wish it I wish it could have gone on longer.

I had more questions, but I think I've I've exhausted my capacity for for concentration. We went for a couple hours. Yes, well, it's a good natural end, I would say as well. Yeah, no, I loved it, Jordan, thank you. I appreciate you're taking the time, you know. Anything else that you want to say, or that we didn't cover, or just, you know, tell, your wife's name is Tammy, right? Yes, tell her, you know, we did,

just came out with it. It's on YouTube, a series of reflections I did on the Rosary. And I know with her interest in the Rosary that she just go on YouTube and check it out, she might find that interesting. Yeah, it's too bad we didn't have a chance to talk to that about that because- Yeah, but just tell her that because I,

I love the Rosary too, it's a great prayer and it works at so many different levels. You can look at it psychologically and even physically, you know, what that does to you. So have a look at those maybe and you know, give her my best and I remember we were in Rome right after you and I spoke the first time. Our team was in Rome doing some filming and I think we, I forget who we sent it to, somebody in your office, but we did a little video and I knew that your wife was very sick at the time. I didn't know that you were on the verge of your issues, you know.

But I just said, we said mass in my room there in, in, in, in wrong. It's just an hotel room and set it for your wife. So we sent that to you. So let her know that we have been for a long time praying for the two of you. Well, that's much appreciated. And certainly all the care that people have shown, including the care that you've Well, that's much appreciated. And certainly all the care that people have shown, including the care that you've shown, has been extraordinarily helpful.

And she's listening to you on a regular basis. I appreciate that. And she's certainly found the practice of the Rosa Tammy is quite a physical person. And so she's, it's practice for her rather than intellectual endeavor, not that she's incapable of intellectual endeavor, but she's a debt practitioner.

She does, as Daniel Gifford bears, in your hand matters. You know, it's a very physical thing. Yes, well, it helped her maintain peace while she was facing death, essentially, continually. And so that's the ritual element, which we never talked about at all. Partly, I suppose, because we tend towards the abstract and the intellectual, but the ritual, the ritual shouldn't be, yes, exactly. The ritual shouldn't be dismissed. No, I'm a Catholic. Heck, rituals are a whole thing, you know.

Yeah, well, there's peace in ritual, right? That's the thing. You know what to expect. It's a place of safety. And in a world that changes constantly, ritual is the only thing that provides order. And so we may need that now more than ever because things are changing. So unbelievably fast, which is also partly why the church should be careful about being too relevant.

It's like, yep, I agree. I agree. All right. Well, thank you very much. I enjoyed it. Eventually, I got blessed. Me too. Thank you.

I need all the blessing from God. I can get. I can tell you that. So I'll keep praying for you. Thank you very much. [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ OUTRO MUSIC