Theology in the Raw - A Curious Conversation with Pete Enns

Episode Date: August 15, 2024

I always have my guests fill out a "short bio" of themselves so I can post it in the show notes, and here's what Pete said: "I hate writing short bios of myself :-)" Thanks Pete! Anyway, Pete's a well known Old Testament scholar and biblical theologian. I guess you can just Google him if you don't know who he is. Most of all, he's a former baseball player and a huge baseball fan. We talk about that a bit. Oh, and we also talk aobut his faith journey, the Bible, inspiration, the nature of biblical authority, and yes, of course, Christian panentheism. Pete's a super fascinating scholar! And I thoroughly enjoyed his honesty and humility. Register for the Austin conference on sexualtiy (Sept 17-18) here: https://www.centerforfaith.com/programs/leadership-forums/faith-sexuality-and-gender-conference-live-in-austin-or-stream-online Register for the Exiles 2 day conference in Denver (Oct 4-5) here: https://theologyintheraw.com/exiles-denver/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Go back to school with Rogers and get Canada's fastest and most reliable internet. Perfect for streaming lectures all day or binging TV shows all night. Save up to $20 per month on Rogers internet. Visit Rogers.com for details. We got you, Rogers. As you rise to a new day, rise to something more. Good financial game. Introducing the new BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card, the credit card that rewards your good financial habits and helps you rise from bill payer to reward slayer. Rise to it with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card and get rewarded for paying your credit card bill in full and on time each month. Terms and conditions apply. Click the banner or visit

BMO.com slash rise to learn more. Hey friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. I got an exiles and Babylon conference coming up in Denver, Colorado, October 4th to 5th. All the info is at theology in the raw.com. Sign up sooner than later because space is filling up. My guest today is Dr. Peter Enns and I'm recording this intro before the interview. He's actually going to chime in any second now. So he might break into my intro here and I'm recording this intro before the interview. He's actually going to chime in any second now, so he might break into my intro here. And I'm recording this before because I don't have any, I have no clue where this conversation is going to go. Pete is a well-known biblical scholar, has written tons of books. You can look him up on Amazon,

see what he's written. And he, I guess in evangelical circles, he's known for having begun in more evangelical circles and now swims in more, or let's just say less than evangelical circles is a perception of him. I've only read one book by Pete. It was years ago. I thought it was a really fascinating book.

So I haven't really kept up with his work. I just kind of see his name here and there come up, whatever. But I'm like, I like to get to know people firsthand. And so this is going to be a zero agenda. No clue where this is going to go. I just want to get to know people firsthand. And so this is going to be a zero agenda. No clue where this is going to go. I just want to get to know the actual Pete ends. So we'll see how this goes. Welcome to the show for the first time. The one and only Dr. Peter ends. I saw something you shared on Twitter that I literally had to be laughing out loud. I

think I played it like 10 times. You're eating a protein bar, watching thinking about it. And you're, you're watching a video of a, I mean, guys say he discovered the arc of the Noah's Noah's arc and he's looking at a mountain and saying, see, can you see the mountain? He eclipsed you and you're like, it's not a boat. Yeah. I think it's Wyoming or something. So yeah. I mean, that's an old debunked thing that they found Noah's arc someplace. And that's, and, and apparently it slid down a mountain because of an earthquake to conveniently put it down here and see here. You can see the chambers for the end of the animals. Like I can't see a thing. I mean, I don't know what you're talking about, but

Well, I was, I thought it was an actual, like I was looking at it because it just shows a video. You and I'm looking, I'm like trying to see, I'm like, huh? And deep down, like, I don't see a thing, but I'm like trying to convince myself. Maybe it's there. You pop it. It's a, it's not a boat. Oh, who is Pete Enns? When did you stop loving Jesus? No, just kidding. When did you first get that desire to want to go into biblical scholarship? Let's start there. Tell me about that time in your life? Yeah, it was after college and I was, long story short, I went to my high school's annual Turkey Day football game against our rival, right?

And I went with a friend of mine who is still a friend who went to a more conservative, I would say fundamentalist college, and we, and I didn't, I went to an even more evangelical college, but we're good friends. And we happened to meet there another guy from high school who was a philosophy major and was an atheist. And the two of them started talking and debating, and I mean, not in any anger, just talking about, you know, the nature of the existence of God and things like that. And I remember thinking to myself, I couldn't track what they were even talking about,

because I went through college and I had a wonderful time. I learned a lot of things at the Christian college I went to, but I really just wanted to play baseball. So I did that. And so here I am, and it's a few months later. And at that moment, I just got the impulse to study and to say, listen, Pete, I felt embarrassed for myself. I didn't, you know, I didn't say anything. I just sort of sat there listening. But I felt like I want to know what I say I believe in. I want to understand that better. And so I just started reading a lot of stuff and reading the Bible a lot too. And after about a couple years, three years, then I went to seminary and it took

me about two years out of the four years to realize that Hebrew Bible is something that I wanted to get into specifically because, but you know, Tremper Longman, right? Tremper is a friend of mine and he was my professor and my colleague for a while too. But he said, Pete, do the math, you know, the Old Testament is like four times longer than the New. And there are a lot more jobs in the Old Testament, so you don't want to do New Testament. But I was already there anyway because for me, what I was challenged to think about in seminary was how does three quarters of the Bible connect with you? And that's a hermeneutical and theological challenge. I would put it that way now. And that drove me to graduate school. And then

I knew at that point I really wanted to teach. I want to make a living thinking about these things and talking to other people about them and teaching. And, and I've never regretted that financially. Maybe yes, but not in no other way. Yeah. I have to say that story is almost word for word, identical to mine. All I wanted, I wanted to play baseball, played in college halfway through, developed the passion for the Bible. They ended up, I knew I wasn't going to go pro. I the Bible says for myself. I don't want to just like, we have all these beliefs, all these things were told we must believe. And I was like, but I want to know for myself what it says. And sometimes when you go that route, you end up saying, yeah, I think what I was told is right. And other times you're like, I'm

not sure if that was right. And that's been my life and in a nutshell, but what, wait, you're a baseball player. I'm like, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm. And other times you're like, I'm not sure if that was right. And that's been my life and in a nutshell, but what, wait, you're a baseball player. What position? I was a pitcher. I was, I was scouted. I was scouted in college. I had a tryouts and Shea stadium, which doesn't exist anymore. That's where the Mets used to play. And yeah, I had the Phillies and the Orioles and the Blue Jays see me.

No way. I was good. I went to a tryout camp. It was run by Ed Cranepool, who used to play for the New York Mets back in the 70s. He was running it. He told me flat out, he said, you could pitch double A, but he said, they don't draft you to pitch double a they draft you because they see you getting to the minors in X amount of years and rightly, so I didn't have what it takes to do that I could have been a really decent minor league pitcher for a couple of years, but

Plus I don't know what position you played but my arm it just You know some people just have a physiology that doesn't allow them to do that. It just, it's, it's a very painful thing to do for your body. So what position did you play? I was an outfielder, but I actually, I actually blew out my elbow after my freshman year took me to red shirt a year, took another year or DH another year. And then actually I rested it for two years. So I ended up coming back. But, um, yeah, people don't understand throwing a ball I was like, I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm

going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to the gym. I'm going to go to and I, I was the kind of guy that I have a play through pain of 20 years old. I'm invincible. And I just, it just tore at my elbow. Right. Did you have Tommy? You didn't have Tommy John surgery. No, no, no. I probably would have if I was a pitcher and I wanted to keep going. Yeah. No, I, I, and I was a good college hitter. I was like, you seen major league. I was Serrano. You throw me something. You throw me something middle in and I, I can hit it and I could hit it.

I mean, there's some balls I hit that were hit really hard, but you throw me anything off speed, middle out. I'm toast. I became a pitcher because you could tell me I'm going to throw a curve ball. It's going to be a foot off the plate when it lands. I would, I would swing at it anyway, cause I can't see it. Yeah. And that's why I like doing that to other people, you know, that's really it. So if I had to go back in time, I would have spent way more time working on my eye, be able to see that out of the hand, know the difference between a ball that's an inch outside. Then I still need to get a piece up with two strikes and one to three inches outside that I need to lay off. I just was set on how hard can I hit this ball every single time? And that's all

I did in practice. I didn't, I didn't work on just more of the precision, you know? Yeah. Oh, the glory days. It amazes me watching, you know, I, I watch, I'm a Yankee fan. I shouldn't say that too loud. I don't know who's going to hate me because of that, but I get hated enough. I don't need more reasons. I'm a Dodger fan. So I respect that. I respect the Dodgers, but you watch games and these guys, how could you not swing at that pitch? How could you hold up? It's amazing to me. It's just, and the ball's coming a lot faster than they were coming at me when I was in high school. I mean, there's 82 miles an hour probably, and this is like, you know,

in 98 and I don't know how they can do it. It's just, it's probably, I think hitting might be the hardest thing to do in sports. Well, who said that? Was that Yogi Berra? I, I, I, I would agree. I mean, it's, you have a 90 mile an hour fastball, which is slower than most, almost all, every major league pitcher was at point five seconds. It's just like a split second to determine what pitch it is, where it's going to go, whether you should swing or not. And then putting this still, you know, the bat on the ball, this round thing, the sweet spot with the same, with a small sweet spot and it's rounded and you're off a quarter

inch and it's a ground ball or a pop-up or something. It's amazing. My favorite baseball quote is Honus Wagner who played back in the early part of the century. He said, playing ball is the easiest thing in the world if you're a ball player. That pretty much says it right there. If you're a ball player, you can do this, but it's something that you're a ball player. I'm like, that pretty much says it right there. You know, if you're a ball player, you can do this. But it's something that you're born with. And, and to play at a certain level, you really have to be born with a certain skill

set. And even like your eyeballs, you know, I hand coordination. And, you know, so I love the game. And I did not know that you played in college. That's fantastic. Where can I ask? Where did you go to college? I went to master's college. Okay. John McArthur. Sure. Yeah. Well, I went to Messiah college,

which is in central Pennsylvania. So yeah. Probably similar. Well, we're, we're to the right of you. We're, we're to the right of everybody except for Bob Jones, I think. But I'm going to Yankee stadium for the first time in September.

I'm so excited. Are you really? I'm so excited. Are the Dodgers coming to town? Oh, it's been a dream of mine. Are the Dodgers coming to town? No, it's been a dream of mine. Are the Dodgers coming to town? No, no. I'm actually, I'm moving my daughter, she's going to film school in New York in a couple of weeks. So we're going to go out and visit her. I actually have a work thing

there and then also an excuse to see my daughter. And then I'm like, I have to go to, I've dying to go to Yankee state. I know it's not the old one, but- Well, yeah, it's, it's just be ready to sit in traffic. That's all I can tell you. Unless you're going to take a train there from someplace else. We'll be walking. We're staying across the river. It's like a one, one and a half mile walk. Oh, good for you. That's fantastic. Perfect. Yeah. Good for you. We do have to walk from the Bronx to we're staying in Harlem, East Harlem, East Harlem, part of Harlem after I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure.

I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I've been to Fenway a couple of times. That's just magical. I wriggled Wrigley once and I've never been to Yankee Stadium. And yeah, I'm so excited. Some of the old aura is there, but it's not the same, but it's nice. It's better. It's a better field than I've been to all three. I've been to the original one, the renovated one, and then this one and the other different experiences. But good for you. I'm glad to hear that. Well, I mean, judge is having another historic year. Is he going to break his old record? I mean, this guy just can't be stopped. He's nuts. He has what an OPS of a thousand

right now after I just saw the stat. Only nine other players have had this high of a career OPS after I think 4,000 at bats or something like that. Nine other players have had this high of a career OPS after I think 4,000 at bats or something like that. Nine other players. And that's, I don't know who they are. They didn't get the list, but it's he's, he's insane. He's of course, he'll also strike out a lot, which I hate. He does. Yeah. Yeah. But he's got that swing that if you hit it, you know, if he gives it to you in a certain area, he's going to hit it a mile. So at the time of recording 39 home runs, what was it? July 30th.

I mean, he, he, he could get 60 again. He could. And don't forget. I mean, he had a horrible April into early May, the first six weeks he was hitting like 200 under striking out five times a game. And, and you know, you give him five more home runs, even he'd be, you know, in the mid forties right now. And that would be like, okay, he's probably going to make it. So I don't think he's going to break his own record, but I think he'll be, that's

my guess. I think he can hit another 20 more, maybe be close to that. Okay. So you go to, um, yeah, I actually talked to tremper years ago. He was the one that said, yeah, Pete was one of my students and then we became colleagues. So you taught it. You taught at Westminster theological seminary, a big powerhouse reform school. I've never been there. I've only known people that have, have gone there. It seems to have a really high academic standard from, from my vantage point. Um, What was your time there? Like, I know you had some, you had a, you had a story there. Well, I mean, it wasn't, it was, it was good and it was not good. But as a student there,

I was a student there for four years and I was whatever was 24, I think, when I started seminary, maybe 25. I just remember learning a lot. They teach a system, a reform system, a particular kind of reform system that really only Westminster does. I can sometimes just see, oh my goodness gracious, I can see the whole thing sort of coming together. And it was wonderful. And we had an approach to the Bible that they call biblical theology,

which other people use the term, it means something a little bit different at Westminster, but it's basically seeing the Bible as a narrative that begins and ends in a garden, right, and of Revelation, the beginning of Genesis, right, and how that story has twists and turns. And we respected the tension between systematic theology and biblical scholarship. Biblical scholarship works in historical particulars and trying to understand settings, and sometimes systematic theology, I think in its best is going to respect that too, but sometimes systematic theology is more interested in sort of the high mountain peak moments of the Bible and not the dirty ones, you know. And so that was, I learned a lot. It was wonderful. And I think it set me up well for graduate school for, I mean, I knew Hebrew really well, you know, as an M.D. student. But what happened at Harvard, what happened there was I was just in a model and a way of doing things that I had always been told,

yeah, respect it, but don't do that. And within literally Preston, a couple, three months, I sort of began to understand, yeah, they have a different system. And their system takes things into account that the system I learned didn't really take into account. And it started to become a, you know, the overused word, a paradigm to help me understand the Bible that I think was less, I'm trying to use the right word here, less defensive, less apologetically driven. And a lot of that had to do with working with Jewish professors.

And obviously at seminary, that wasn't a part of my experience. And I just saw a different way of thinking about things, you know? And it really changed me. And I got it. Did it challenge your faith? Did it challenge your faith at all? You know, oddly enough, no, not really. I mean, I think it did in some respects, because I think it's probably in graduate school that I really started thinking it's probably in graduate school that I really started thinking directly and overtly about hell and how I'm looking at all these classmates of mine and some are from Israel, you know, they came from all over the place. And I have teachers who, you know, I can't expect James

Kugler or John Levinson to think like I do. And they know a lot, too, about the history of Christianity and the New Testament and, you know, Paul, and they knew that stuff really well, too. And I think the biggest challenge that I had wasn't specific things you might encounter, like, you know, did the patriarchs ever actually live, or are they eponymous ancestors? Or, you know, what about the ex ever actually live or they eponymous ancestors or, you know, what about the Exodus and the conquest, things like that. That kind of stuff, I sort of just, I wanted to dig, I knew I had to and I wanted to dig into it. But the challenges were more, I'd say, personal. And I'm dealing with people here. And I just, I came to a conclusion, at least I floated it around in my head, I said, I

can't see God holding these people responsible for not being evangelicals because they're born in Israel, right? Or they've been Jews their whole lives. I mean, who knows what I would have been had I been born someplace else at another time or another place, right? So that was a challenge, you know. The other stuff, I could factor it in. I could work with it. You know, I could think about the nature of scripture in a way that includes things like maybe folklore and myth.

I can work with a scripture that has historical narratives that are nonetheless shaped and molded for particular ideological purposes. You know, I can, to me that's just being human and I think I had a strong enough incarnational theology to be able to say, well, this is the way things are. I mean, God works through people and doesn't make them into robots. So, you're going to see this human mark all over the Bible. And the question is, what do you do with it theologically? And for me, those are fun questions to think about, as long as my paycheck doesn't depend on coming up with a certain answer. See, that's always been the difficult thing for me.

So, that sounds like that's also part of your story. So, um, if I remember correctly, you wrote the book inspiration and incarnation. Did I get the title? Right. Yes. Uh, uh, I want to say 2005. That's right. Okay. I, I, I remember, um, I was flying to SBL from Aberdeen where I was a PhD student and I remember hearing some buzz about the book and I was like, Oh, I'm my flight home. I'm going to read it. And I really enjoyed it. It made a lot of sense to me. Um, if I remember hearing some buzz about the book and I was like, Oh, my flight home, I'm going to read it. And I really enjoyed it. It made a lot of sense to me. If I remember correctly, gosh, it's been 20 years. I can't remember my kid's name yesterday. But if I remember the whole point of the book was Jesus was a hundred percent God, a hundred percent human. Each one doesn't take away from the other. His divinity doesn't take away from his actual humanity. What if scripture, what if we viewed scripture in the same way, fully inspired, but also a hundred

percent human, not 50% human, not 10% human, but 100% human. I don't remember at that time whether it was a full charge attack against inerrancy. Maybe it, it wasn't really, I don't know. don't know. I didn't take it that way. Pete Slauson I didn't pose it that way. I posed it more... Pete Slauson A better understanding of what we mean by things like... Pete Slauson Yes, definitely. Like, okay, if the Bible is, let's just say, of divine origin, and if god is involved in it somehow. What is also a thoroughly human product the way jesus is thoroughly human but also divine okay so that's great but what are the implications of thinking that way about the bible part of that is taking.

Very seriously the implications of the human context of scripture. So, you know, for example, Genesis one, you know, been around the block here a thousand times, but Genesis one, in my opinion, does not describe how the universe came into existence. But that's not an error. That's not a problem. That's antiquity. And we have, again, the historical particularity of it all is something that biblical scholars tend to work with and be interested in. So for me, it was trying to bring that historical particularity of Scripture into conversation with doctrines of Scripture that frankly never address this stuff and don't work with it. And I was able to do that because the tradition that I was a part of, the Westminster tradition for all its conservatism has in its history people who did think about that thing that issue very deeply and typically

in the biblical studies departments, but also Warfield. B.B. Warfield was not an idiot. You know, he thought about things, and he wrestled with some things, and I don't always agree with what he says. So, there's a trajectory at Westminster Seminary for having that kind of a nuanced, hermeneutical, theological, historical, trialogue about the nature of the Bible. And we know a lot about that history that B.B. Warfield didn't know about 100-some-odd years ago that, you know, before the Dead Sea Scrolls, we didn't know very much about. And so, you know, the data sort of keep coming in about the historical particularity of Scripture and how, I'm going to use the word limited, how limited Scripture is by virtue of its historical situatedness,

right? And it's a pleasant irony that many evangelicals will be very adamant about the historical nature of the Bible and I say, okay, that's great. But that has implications theologically. If it's really historically situated, how do we do theology? And enough to keep talking about this, but what helped me most studying with Jewish scholars at Harvard was understanding that this has always been an issue ever since there's been a Bible. First with Judaism, wrestling with these texts that have their own historical situatedness, that assume you're in the land, right? But then we're in exile, or we're back in the land but we don't have a king, or we're driven in the diaspora afterwards, you know. So there's

always this, the challenge of scripture is always, this is, I'm going to say it anyway, I hate saying always statements, but I'm going to put it this way. The challenge of scripture is always the wrestling between its historical particular situated nature and the fact that we are living in a very different historical time. And that has always been, it's not just modern people, it's medieval people. It's the early church that gave us the creeds. They're living in a different situation. They're not living in a Jewish apocalyptic moment like the New Testament writers are. They're living in a different different time and they put the pieces together differently.

And for me, that's exciting. That's fun. That's, I get to think about things like that. I just don't know what all the answers are, you know? And I'm happy with that too. I thought if you have a PhD, you're supposed to know all the answers. Well, you're supposed to act like you know all the answers,

but I don't. Maybe eat candy bars while you do a TikTok video. Like, you know. answers, but I don't. Maybe eat candy bars while you do a TikTok video. So I really care about my health, which is why I try to eat healthy. But even though I eat healthy, there are certain nutrients that are just really hard to get through diet alone. This is why I've been drinking AG1 almost every day now for over a year. With every scoop of AG1, I know I'm getting nutrient diversity from a variety of whole food source ingredients. One scoop a day provides you with essential nutrients and promotes my gut health and also supports my immune health. What I do is I usually drink it first thing in the morning before I have my coffee. And I seriously,

I noticed a difference. I have more sustained energy throughout the day. I don't have that afternoon crash. My mind is clear and I just feel better. I would say AG1 is perfect, especially if you're like in a high stress job or if you're on the go a lot, especially if you travel a lot. So I travel a decent amount and I always pack AG1 when I'm on the road.

Sometimes I'll even take it twice a day since traveling takes a lot of wear and tear on your body and AG1 really helps keep you healthy when you're on the go. It's super easy to drink, it actually tastes good, it has like a mild, refreshing flavor that's not overly sweet, it goes down easy so you don't wake up dreading it.

If there's one product out there that I trust to support my whole body health, it's AG1. That's why we have partnered with them for so long. Start investing in your health with AG1. Try AG1 today and get a free bottle of vitamin D3K2 and five free AG1 travel packs with your first purchase. Just go to drinkag1.com forward slash TITR. That's drinkag1.com forward slash TITR.

Check it out. I mean, what you're saying just sounds a lot like that famous saying by, is it John Walton? The Bible's written, it's not written to us, but it's written for us kind of thing. Like they weren't thinking of you when they were writing the Bible. They had no clue about modern Western post-Enlightenment. Yes. Not at all. Right. Right. Yeah. And The only thing I would add to that, I talk like that with my students, but if we get into a deeper kind of conversation, the issue is, okay, it's not written to you, but it's written for you. That little word for is loaded with theological, hermeneutical, and even philosophical issues. And I want

to say this, the way that, okay, what John says is true throughout history. It's not just today, it's true throughout history. The question is, how did, let's say, early Jews of the Second Temple period, or the New Testament writers, or the early church, how did they make the Bible for them? Well, they got pretty darn creative with the text, allegorical interpretation, Midrashic interpretation. So, it's not the text itself. Again, in a deeper conversation, I'd be nuancing this very differently, but in the text itself, in a way is driving the conversation, but you're also going beyond the text pretty quickly to say things that probably the author of

Hosea or whatever we're talking about wasn't saying. But you make that tradition relevant to you, and that's a Jewish discussion, that's just a Christian discussion. That's a Jewish discussion as well. So in my PhD, I did a lot of work in inter-testamental Judaism. And we see this, one of the classic texts is, it's sometimes called pseudo-philo, first century retelling of the biblical story. And some of the retelling is pretty much what we have in our Masoretic text. Other things are pretty, are not there, but are part of the kind of the traditional Jewish way of, you know, reading a story or they might come across a problem like Joseph marrying Asenath. Jews aren't supposed to marry Egyptian, you know, but the text, the biblical text doesn't do anything. It's like,

Oh, you married Asenath. And people were like, what's going on here? So there's, there's a lot of expansion. There's a whole book called Joseph and SNF to try to justify how could this righteous Hebrew marry this pagan woman? And it talks about her conversion story and all these things. And it was like, wait, there's not nothing in the text of her converting or, or one Enoch, which is one of the most influential books in yeah, around the time of the most influential books in, yeah. Around the diamond, the new Testament across the board. And there's a lot of expansion on all kinds of things. The watchers and Genesis six and so on. So they expand what you're saying. What you're

saying is not, it's just kind of pretty basic stuff. No, I agree. It is basic and it shouldn't be controversial, but I think it still makes some people uncomfortable because it makes the Bible, it makes it suggests that interpretation has a subjective element to it. Well, it also challenges certain views of inspiration, which is what your book did, right? I mean, 20 years ago, people, how was it received? I mean, I'm sure, but, I think mixed, I think, I think much more positively than negatively. And you know, because the subtitle was, still is, evangelicals and the problem of the Old

Testament. And the Old Testament has been a problem for Jesus people, I would argue, since Paul. Paul also had to think through how do I handle this, my own tradition when I see Jesus as the climax of the covenant? How do I read it? And Paul reads it somewhat differently than he would have read it before. He sees things that are different. So I think in evangelicalism, the problem of the Old Testament is, I think, acknowledging that the Old Testament's not the problem. It can be a problem if you have certain notions of what inspiration means and what revelation

means and what authority means. And so what I was trying to do was really introduce elements into that discussion, especially the inspired nature of the text, to say whatever your theory of inspiration is, it has to account for how the Bible is actually working, how it's actually behaving and what it actually says. That's a strong way of putting it, what it actually says, you know, but I just mean keeping in mind the fact that these words meant things to people, you know, when they were written, and they don't mean quite the same thing to us because we're not living in their world. So it's, it's actually it was an attempt to talk about what do we mean when we say inspiration. That's really

what the book was about. Based on these things that nobody wants to talk about, or if they talk about it, it's buried in footnotes in the evangelical articles or books. But I want to bring those things out to the forefront and say, listen, this is stuff that is the reason why people sometimes stop being Christian, because they're told the Bible works a certain way, and then you hear about the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Numa Elish or the Atra-Hasus Epic or whatever, right? It's like, why didn't you tell me that stuff? Pete So, according to your Wikipedia page, I'm going to read it here. It says, your publication of the book Inspiration and Incarnation led to

institutional strife and the eventual loss of ends is teaching position at Westminster theological seminary by 2009. The reason why I read that is 2008. Oh, they messed up. Okay. But they made me wrong there. Wiki got wrong. Don't I read that? Cause I'm not looking for like non-public gossip or whatever, but can you talk to, Oh sure. to what I just always heard just from a distance, like there was something that happened Wikipedia references it. What, what happened with, well, I assume it had, it was related to the book or it was, it was related to the book and you know, all institutions

have an evolution and I, that book was stuff I was teaching my students. Actually, let me just put this, I want to work it out, put it in writing, and that's what I did. But as I was, from the time I began the book to the time I published it, the personnel at Westminster had changed significantly. And there were, you know, a critical minority mass of professors who, for whatever reason they had, didn't think that was a profitable discussion to have because everything we need to know about the Bible has already been said in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was written in the 1640s. And so, I think the book became for some people really a pretext for changing the seminary for people perceived to be too much on the left not to be there anymore.

I wasn't the first person to leave and I wasn't the last one to leave or to be forced out. I wasn't fired, but I tell people I got resigned because I knew what was coming and I wasn't the last one to leave or to be forced out. So I didn't, I wasn't fired, but I tell people I got resigned because I knew what was coming and I wasn't about to let anybody get their meat hooks into me when it wasn't a process that would have I think been handled with integrity or handled well. You know, so it's, it was a long time ago. I'm thankful for, you know, being there and I have no regrets. I mean, studying there and teaching there for 14 years has been a part of just who I am. And I'm truly thankful to God for that, just my life. But I'm also glad I'm not there anymore. And I've been out longer than I was in at this point in my life. And it's given me a chance to do

what drove me to graduate school in the first place, which is I just want to think about this stuff and see how the pieces come together and not worried about the sort of Damocles hanging over me if I make a mistake. Yeah, if I remember correctly, somebody, and again, it was a fleeting comment somewhere somebody said, you know, but like, there was, the tension was described to me as like between systematic theologians and biblical scholars. And I feel like there's always going to be that tension.

Systematic theologians like things ironed out and they like systems and they want to clean it up, where biblical scholars typically are okay with the room a little messy. You know, they're going to throw the socks over there. They're going to leave the bed on me. No, no. What we do is we say the socks are over there. The room is messy. You don't see it. That's the difference. But it's's like as people said, Pete, you're letting the worms out of the can or whatever and I say, no, they're already out. I'm just pointing it out to you. Like that, the worms are actually falling off the table. They're going down the hallway and you don't want to see them. I agree with the way you put it, that it's between systematic

theology and biblical theology. I would say that it's a particular kind of systematic theology which at Westminster historically is more a branch of apologetics. So the purpose of systematic theology is this is the system in coordination with our tradition, which is really instigated by the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is thoroughly biblical, right? So all this stuff is together. And systematic theology is an attempt to explain that and bring that to people's understanding. And a biblical studies department that, for historical historical reasons might question some of those things it that butts up against that.

But I will say that Westminster wasn't always like that. It was the change in personnel that sort of aided and abetted that kind of a clash between the two. I mean, I love thinking about what I do and how theologians handle this, and I love having those kinds of conversations, but at conservative institutions, it tends to be that systematic theology is a stopgap between belief and unbelief. That's because the Bible is systematized, this is how it works, and biblical studies has to support that. If it doesn't support that, it's gone off the rails

and it's dangerous and we have to start firing people. Jared I think it would be hard to be in a, doing genuine biblical studies the way I like to do it in a confessional institution. I, and that sounds, it sounds hyper Protestant. It's, it sounds very individualistic, but I just, if you're going to hand me a sheet that tells me all the right answers, then I'm not motivated to study it. I don't want to, if, if here's the view of hell that you must believe. And it's like, well, I'm not going to look at the verses then. Cause it's like, what's the's the point in seeing what they mean? If you're already telling me what they mean or if, and the longer that doctrinal statement gets, the more handcuffed I feel

to actually study things. If you're already telling me where I must land, like to me, genuine inquiry sets out without a predetermined destination. You're studying the text so that you understand what it means, not here's what it means. Now go study it. It's like, well, why am I going to go study it then? You know? So I don't, you know, this is, I get this from, I used to get it from like, you know, 19 year olds, the offense and 19 year olds, but like they're, they're kind of examining, do I want to go to the school? Are you sound? Are you sound? Meaning like, do you believe everything I believe? It's like, well, if you already have all the right answers, don't spend a dime investing in education for people to tell you what you already know. Like, and

it is the hubris to like say as a 19 year old, I have it all figured out and I'm going to put a professor in the doc to see, do you agree with me? I'd like, well, then let me study under you. If you're that, I would like to have the opportunity to have all the answers. You know, the joke at Westminster was, and this happened to me too. You come to seminary, I've got like five questions I need to work out. And by the end of the first semester, you've forgotten what those questions are. And you realize, oh my, I haven't even begun to think about this stuff. That's what an education should do. And I want to say that Westminster did that for me, right? It did. After a semester, I'm like, this is deeper and richer than I could possibly understand. I actually had in my mind, I would go to seminary, I would listen to the lectures, I'd have my English Bible open in front of me, and I would just put little notes on the side telling

me exactly what these things mean. And then I realized, well, the margins might not be big enough for the discussions people have had over this issue or that issue. Right? But yeah, it pains me to see young people already have that sense of confidence and almost personal enlightenment. And you know, that happens in churches, happens in schools, and they haven't even begun to think about some of these things. They just have, they've basically been trained in a certain kind of an apologetic approach to scripture. Like, here are the answers to all the hard questions. And yeah,

it's sad to see. And I don't think, I actually think that helps create atheists because they find out in their 30s or 40s that these answers aren't working very well. It's more complicated. But I was always told it can't be complicated. It just has to be, you know, simple because it's the Bible. It's simple. And I just tell students now the history of Judaism and Christianity contradicts that notion because they keep studying it and arguing about it and debating and all that. It's not a simple book. It can mean simple things to us, but it's not a simple book. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I agree. How would you describe your, let's say,

so since you published that book 2005, you got left, got resigned from Westminster. How would you describe your Christian journey in relation to say American evangelicalism? I know that's a loaded term, but I'll just let it sit. Over the last almost 20 years. Pete Yeah. I would say, you know, a move away from identifying myself with that in any way. I don't hate people who are evangelical at all. I mean, I have many friends. I teach in an institution that has an evangelical heritage. It's sort of on the periphery because they're American Baptists, they're not Southern Baptists,

they're more Northern and liberal, but they're still part of an evangelical context. And so I try to say it without prejudice, but for me, an evangelical model doesn't explain the world to me very well. It doesn't explain the Bible to me very well. It doesn't explain the Bible to me very well. And so it's not something that I hold to intellectually. And probably a big shift in that was for a lot of reasons.

Just realizing, you know, for example, I've sort of been Episcopalian since about 2010. I say sort of because I just, I have psychological issues with joining churches. I just, I got my lawyers working on that and my team of therapists, but to see a different way of being Christian that's not Biblistic, for example, right? They read scripture that's, they read more scripture than evangelical churches do they have You know three or four readings on a Sunday and people listen, you know, and they say the word of the Lord and they mean it You know

They meet it in a non evangelical way, but they mean it right and I've found more I found more what I think I need to grow in a liturgical environment. Other people haven't, and that's fine. We're all in different places. I'm just saying for me, that's sort of been the journey. So I'm not against people who are evangelicals. I'm not really big on how politics and evangelicals sometimes come together. But for me, the issue is as an intellectual model, I don't find it to be sustainable. Yeah, that's helpful. Yeah. I think that just a term evangelical. I don't, I've been thinking for 10 years is, is this still a useful term? There are

contexts when I will use it to describe myself and others when I won't, because it just means so many things to people. And I just have about 18 footnotes to how I'm using the term. And even, even just even like, you know, I spent, I did my PhD in the UK. I was just talking to a British friend this morning about this, that the British evangelicals, it just has a, such a different spirit about it. So like, it's not political in the same way that the US is. They have their problems, but you can have very different theological views and still go to the pub and hang out. You're able to like debate things and it doesn't destroy a relationship, let alone a church. We're here. I just think people are typically not capable of that for the most part. But yeah, I don't know if it's

any, because it has been so politicized more and more, right? Do you get that sense that when, if an American calls himself an evangelical Christian, there's a good chance they might be speaking more politically than they are even theologically. Right. And more theologically, I'd say of fundamentalism than evangelicalism. I mean, I know plenty of evangelicals cannot stand what's happening politically in the name of evangelicalism. And I think, you know, the term probably just caught on because, you know, Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan and the influences of the 80s. And here's where we are. And I think it was the co-opting of the term centered around abortion, frankly.

I think that has really been the unifying element that politically that has sort of brought this group together and all sorts of people claim the label of evangelical that I say, you're not an evangelical, you're a literalist fundamentalist. Those two are not the same thing. But honestly, I think that ship has sailed. In my opinion, I don't think there's any really chance of salvaging the term because of how

people hear it and understand it. In certain contexts, you can use it, you know, in certain contexts you can use it, but not outside. What would be a replacement? Let's go back to the roots. It wasn't Carl Henry, the early Folkfoller Seminary, the fundamentalist evangelical divide. Like it wasn't even the evangelical Christian identity created in response. We're not fundamentalists, but we're also not full on secularists. What would be the modern equivalent to the original intention behind evangelical? Is there one? I mean, if I just say I'm a Christian, it's like, well, that, okay, that isn't kind, you know?

I don't know. Maybe that's the best way to put it. I don't know. That's a good question. I haven't thought about that. What could be a replacement term? Some might say the new evangelicals, you know, there's or the Exvangelicals who still want who still think enough of the term to keep it in their name But also want to say we're not like that anymore, you know But I don't know that it's a good question. I don't know what term would come up. It would have to be a thing of grassroots movement, not anybody putting a label on people. Like, how do you want to be known as? And people are leaving evangelicalism for that reason.

And even Christianity for that reason. It's just gotten too tied up with the political assumptions. It feels like it's getting more and more too. Oh yeah. So you've got to, I just realized you've got a book coming out in January. Is it kind of telling your story? I lost you.

What book is that? I don't think, if I have one coming in January, I'd like to know what it is, cause I haven't read it yet. Are you, wait, wait, no, I could have swore a whole lot of, I have the last year ago, February. I haven't come out, but not. That's the last one. Which one's that was curve ball. Which one's that curve ball. Yes. That one. Oh, it already came out a year over a year ago. What, what did you do? Your research

president, what did your research? I had a heart attack. I have a book coming out in four months, five months. Oh gosh. I need to see the date on that. I could have sworn I read 20, 25 and now it's not even coming up on Amazon. What the heck it is. I guarantee you it was February of 2023 curve ball. There's curve ball. I think you would know. I think I do know. I don't know if there's a, if you're an office fan, but there's a scene with a Dwight shoot throughout the day. Why did you watch the office? Oh yeah. They're out the, what is it? The teppanyaki and they got the, you know, the cook with, you know, tossing all the food and everything. And Dwight shoots corrected

him on the best kind of nice. I think he would know one of the best characters ever. And TV, I can't confirm February 7th, 2023. Oh my word. I just read that three as a five. Sorry for the heart attack. What? I love that. It's a baseball title curve ball. That was that, is that intentional? Was there a little, yeah, it was intentional with baseball. I even have a little bit of baseball in at the beginning of the book to talk about why I said sure but you know if you can't hit a curveball you have to adjust if you don't adjust you leave the game right and life is like that to life those as curveballs and you know how are we going to adjust to that

how are we going to and And I think the history of Christianity has been making some adjustments to things. And so, I talk about that. I really get into science in that book too, because some of the things I've had to work through has been Einstein. Quantum physics, which nobody understands, including me, but it has, it gives us models of the nature of reality that are very different than sort of a mechanistic view. You know, I really, I don't, I don't say anymore, if I catch myself, I don't say things like God is up there looking down because there's no up. Technically speaking, up is relative and if you have a flat earth, you can think of God as being several levels above, you know, whatever, whatever.

And the highest heavens is where Yahweh is, most high, you know, He's at the highest part, but that's not our cosmology. We have a different one. So, so what do you mean when you talk about God? To me, that's a very basic question and it's science that has just done its thing. Nobody's trying to beat up God or anything. They've done their thing. And then quantum physics, that's a whole reality that they had to invent another math for just to explain it and things

on the very small level don't behave like things on our level. To me, it's like this universe is mysterious. It's awesome. Even it's frightening, actually. When you think about how small we are and how insignificant we are on the cosmic scale. One of the points of the book was if reality is that inexplicable, if we're just stunned into silence, if God exists, this deity is beyond our pay grade to comprehend, right? And so, and I feed on, you know, contemplative writers who, and Orthodox writers who, you know, say silence is a good posture before God, because we just

don't really understand. Our job is to live well, is to reflect what we say we believe at the people around us, and not to feel like we have, we can articulate in words fully that which cannot be fully articulated in words. That's why I'm not a good evangelical, because that usually doesn't work very well, even though I think it could, your view of the Bible as being maybe more messy than your average evangelical. Would you say your view of the Bible, viewing it that way, has led to a higher view of God? Yes. Because, I mean, what you're saying there, that sounds very almost Bardian. He's Holy Other. We will never, you know, that's a very high view of God. And if you have a too ironed

out view of Scripture, it's almost, that's what you're saying at least, that you're almost like putting this holy other God in more of a, in a kind of a box. Well, down to our level, right? Which is, I think, the great heresy, if we want to talk about it that way. And I think you, I appreciate the way you put it. It absolutely has led to my being very comfortable with the idea that I'm just doing the best that I can to try to understand some things. God is beyond my reach. And I think the things like the size of the universe and subatomic particles helps me understand that. So I mean,

not to freak your listeners out or anything, but I'm not a pantheist. Pantheists. That's a way to lead. I know I'm not a pantheist, but I also don't beat up my wife. I'm not a pantheist. Pantheists believe that everything is God, but I am a panentheist that God is in all things and all things are in God, because God is the ground of our existence. God is the ground of existence. He is, and that's why people say, you know, I need proof that God exists. And I've come to the firm conclusion that is not the right question to ask because you're already assuming that God is an object that can be proven by logic or this or that, and that reduces the ground of existence to a piece of existence.

Now when I say the ground of existence, I really don't know what I'm talking about, but it's language that I use to say God is a different category than everything. And yet, I really want to use my words well here because I don't want to be misunderstood, but the divine energy, the spirit, is in every square inch of creation itself. I mean, Catholic theologians, Carl Rahner, for example, would talk like this that Richard Rohr talks this way too. Many people have used the language of how the universe itself is a kind of incarnation. It's the inter-Trinitarian relationship, right, that all things are related. Even the Godhead is related. You know, God, the Trinity is not, God is made up of three things. It's those three things in

relation are God, right? And so, you know, people talk about systems. Nothing exists on its own. Everything is related to everything else. There is no individual, right? From the smallest subatomic particles to the largest things we can think of, things work in systems in relation to each other. And so this universe that is just grand relationships altogether are reflecting the divine energy of relationship. So the cosmos itself is. Incarnation and then call ron goes on to say something like and jesus is the particular. Man if the station of something that's been going on all along anyway but also very very different that starts a new thing. Right now I can't explain that to like, you know, my grandma, actually I don't have a grandmother anymore, but you know, people who are not interested in these

kinds of discussions, this is not helpful. And I don't talk this way, but for me it is, it makes sense to me. They, they would have stopped listening when you said I'm a panentheus, because they're assumptions about what that means rather than say, well, what do you, when I hear that, I'm like, well, tell me what you mean by that. Because as you're talking, I maybe think of Hebrews, I think it's 1-4, so that Christ, or no, all things, or is it Colossians 1? All things consist in Him, all things consist in Him, or the many phrases in Paul, so that God may be all in all. Right, exactly. And I don't know what that means. I've never known what that means.

You have several statements. I'm studying Corinthians right now, first Corinthians, and you have several statements almost salted throughout the letter where you have these kind of summation statements and even the passages that talk about like ultimate reconciliation. It is all of creation being reconciled to God, human and inhuman, Romans eight. Anyway, so that's I'm just like, I want to understand what you're saying better and mole over it, maybe forever. Do you think it's a personality thing? A temperament? I mean, I don't know if you do the integra, but like, I just, I think any Graham fours are probably the best. I mean, I think it's like, I think it's like, I think it's like, I think it's like, I think it's like, I think it's like, I think it's like, I think it's like, I think it's like, I think it's a personality thing? I, a temperament. I mean, I don't know if you do the integra, but like, I just, I think any Graham fours are probably doing better

at the, even this conversation than an indy gram eight, unless they already agree with you, you know, like, or, or, or maybe a one or, I dunno, like any game threes probably has already ordered five books to go. I'm a six with a very strong five wings. So I have no hope in this life because I'm hyper analytical and I just, you know, all that kind of stuff. But I do, I do think it is, I think temperament has a lot to do with it. I think, I think that's a thing worth acknowledging because for people that don't have the temperament and I don't have the temperament, and I don't have the temperament for other things, right?

So it's not just, I have a better temperament. I just have my own particular temperament. I don't expect others who don't share that personality style, whatever we're going to call it, to just sort of hang with this and tolerate it, right? And they bring something else to the table that I don't bring to the table. And I have to learn from them as well again, this this whole thing is about me trying to put the pieces together as I see them as best as I can with integrity and with honesty and with curiosity and

I really hope with a lot of humility because again, I Don't understand God. I cannot wrap my arms around that. You know I use the analogy that theology including my own is a three-year-old like drawing something with crayons and brings it home to mom and says mommy what do you think and mom's like oh that's a great boat. Oh it's not a boat, that's a great boat. Oh, it's not a boat, it's a horse. It's a great horse, right?

That's what I think my theology is. I'm drawing with crayons, and I'm like, I think I got it. And God's like, you're trying so hard. You're adorable, you're fantastic, right? And I'm fine with that. If it leads us to being people that unify not polarize Sometimes debate is great. I mean, I think real debate is important But you can debate without hating other people right you can you can disagree without right away on social media people saying

I think you're a league with Satan You're gonna burn in hell forever and I can't wait to see it happen. Right. I get that stuff occasionally and I don't lose sleep over it, but it's like, I just wish it weren't like that. And I wonder, how did it get this way? Why are we like this sometimes? I have my theories, but it's a sad thing. So it sounds like you're willing to embrace like uncertainty about a measure, a number of things with Christianity, but I would assume there's certain things you would be not a hundred percent, maybe certain, but like more confident that this is a moral good, a racism. I'm going to assume you're not going to be like, you just don't know if it's good or

bad or not. Or massage misogyny or like, should we care for the poor? I don't know if it's right or bad or not. Or massage, misogyny, or like, should we care for the poor? I don't know. Like maybe, maybe not. I just don't know. And, you know, I'm going to assume you do have certain things that you're going to say, no, I would, I would, I would take a bullet. This is something I would very passionately stand for and other things, maybe less. So how, I don't know what my question, I mean, cause other people might say the same thing on the other side. They might say, well, yeah. And I would, I would agree with all those

things and I would throw abortion in, you know, standing up as an abortion or, or standing up for in a, in a see, or the list goes on and on. How do you determine which things are do demand more certainty, more adamant, you know, standing up for versus things that are like more like this is kind of open handed for me. Yeah. That makes sense. Yeah. Like people said, the subjective question.

It's a great question. The difference between dogma that without which the faith doesn't exist, doctrine, things that are important for certain traditions. And then the outer circle is like opinion, you know, things that you can report and what goes where. And that's a very, to me, that's the kind of question that the life of faith is constantly working out. That's my opinion, right? That things can shift. Like when people say, you know, drums and a worship service, that's a dogma. You can't have that. Right? Now, this is like, and others say, well, concern for the betterment of humanity, that's not central

to anything. That's just on the periphery, right? And we have to work out where those things are. And if you can talk to people, it'll help in trying to work those things out. But yeah, I agree. I mean, the list that you just gave to me. I agree with that I mean you hit it right on the head and one reason I do is because Well two reasons one is because it's good for humanity And we can be agents of healing and agents of goodness and agents of love But these are also themes that I really do see popping up all over the place in the Bible and in the Christian tradition.

So those are things that we can do. They're not theoretical, they're not conceptual, how does the Trinity work, all that kind of stuff. It's actually being Jesus to other people. And to me, in theory, I can do that. I can't understand the God of can, in theory, I can do that. I can't understand the God of the multiverse, but I can do that. And I think all this business of the uncertainty

of intellectual uncertainty about certain things, like you said before, that's been a big part of centering me differently than the intellectual animal that I am, where I want to know everything and understand it all. And I realize that I can, where I want to know everything and understand it all. And I realized that I can't, it's a huge relief. Now, don't be a jerk. Oh, it sounds like to put in other categories, like you would have probably more issues of orthopraxy, how a Jesus following person should behave. There's certain values, certain practices that are

just, I mean, very clearly revealed in scripture. Whereas some of the more orthodoxy, some of the more abstract conceptions of God, it seems like you're, you're saying there's a lot less maybe clarity on some of those things. I, I think the mystery is a big word for me and I don't just throw it around because I think if God exists, even though I have problems with saying God existing because it implies taking up time and space or something like that, but if God exists, that word mystery has to come right alongside of it. A knowable mystery, right? But an inexhaustible mystery. I don't know how else to do this without sort of leading with that in my own head. You know, and that makes me think, okay,

so I read the Bible and I don't say to myself, okay, let me find out the one answer that I can write about and beat people over the head with it. It's more I wonder what i'm going to see there today and what effect it's going to have on me And on other people am I going to say this? Well, it's just going to help others, right? So I and it's an old thing but the law of love is pretty important even augustin said that right that you know the right interpretation paraphrasing is what Promotes love that's the right inter that's the right what what you're doing it right if you're coming to that position. And I think there's tremendous wisdom in that. You know, if God is love, no one has ever

seen God. But if we love one another, then God is in our midst, right? That's in First John four. And I take that very seriously too. I don't see God. But if I love other people, that's how I see God. And if I'm in communities of love, that's how I see God. That's why going to church is important to me because I, at least in churches that show that, that are motivated by that, it's like it becomes sacred space. And we could go on and on here for hours, I think, Preston, talking about this stuff. Right? We'll wrap it up. I got one more question.

Good. It just goes back to the label thing. Do you, I'm going to assume, I actually, I haven't followed your work closely for the last 20 years. I apologize. How dare you. Or maybe that's a good thing. So I'm coming in pretty with a blank slate, but I do hear your name associated with, Oh yeah, he's gone liberal or he's progressive. Do you wear those labels liberal progressive and those kinds, or do you just kind of like not really deal with any label or Speaker 3rd-5 those labels don't mean a lot to me. I think liberalism is a moving target. It depends on who you are.

Historically, I'm not. I think in part because of how I understand God to be profound mystery and not liberal. Anything goes, it doesn't matter. I don't think that way. I'm with Brian McLaren here. Words like progressive and conservative are not helpful Because people who are progressive are What they're doing is they're saying yeah, but what about now in the future? What is this gonna look like? But you're still in conversation with the past. You're so part of the tradition. You're trying to move the tradition in a certain direction That's not just progressive that's respecting respecting the tradition but moving forward. Likewise, conservatives, I mean, some are just like the past is all that matters, but I've met very few conservatives in my life who wouldn't also say,

well, yeah, we have to think about how to live things out today and what difference our context makes and all that kind of stuff. So the orientation may be more toward the past, but they know they're living in a different time. Progressives are more just, they're emphasizing something else. And so McLaren says you really need each other. You know, it's a tradition that's moving. It's a tradition that has never stood still. So what is the tradition and how does it move and where does it move is for me a fundamental question of theological integrity and of Christian integrity. Like what does that look like? And so I don't really want to hold on to labels

that I think are already loaded with meaning that will cut down those kinds of conversations rather than encourage them. So I don't, what would I call myself? I don't know. I just say, I'm, I'm Christian. That's really just what I say. Why do you mean by that? Are you serious? Do you really want to know, or you do want to start a fight? Cause if you want to start a fight, I'm going to walk away. If you want to know, we'll talk about it. Again, I think we came full circle. Cause that's almost word for word. What I often

say actually that's well better. What I say, I just, I don't, you know, Mark, Noel wrote that book, the scandal, the even joke of mine and his conclusion was the evangelical church doesn't have much of a mind, little harsh, but not inaccurate. And I just have been so passionate about let, let's, let's not slap thin answers to thick questions. Let's avoid the lazy labels, soundbites, and let's actually think through things. And so I'm with you. I don't conservative people might call me conservative. People might call me liberal. Actually they get both whatever. I just like, I don't care. Ask me a question about a passage and I'll tell you my best interpretation of

that and how that fits into my, my worldview at this moment, you know, but how you put the pieces together. Yeah. And I could be wrong night next week. I might study further and my, you know, come closer to the truth, which is away from what I believed a week ago. So yeah, I, I labels, I just, we need more thinking, more curiosity and less lazy labels slapped on things. So Pete, it was so great getting to know you a fun talking baseball with you and a, where can people find your work? I'm sure they can just Google you and yeah, that's fine. If you want to have some fun, you can follow me on tech talk or Facebook. And some of the stuff I make up, some of the stuff my social media person makes up, which are hilarious. But anyway, so the Bible for Normal People, where it hosts a lot of the stuff

that I'm talking about, the books and things like that. But we have a podcast and a second podcast we call Faith for Normal People, which deals with not specifically biblical things, but larger issues of faith. So that's as good a place as any, just don't come to my house. Okay. And now that I've had you on, you need to have me on your podcast. I'm going to hold you to that. All right. Have a good one. All right, Preston. See ya. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network. Hey friends, Rachel Grohl here from the Hearing Jesus Podcast. Do you ever wonder if you're truly hearing from God?

Are you tired of trying to figure it all out on your own? The Hearing Jesus Podcast is here to help you live out your faith every single day, and together we will break down these walls by digging deeply into God's Word in a way that you can really understand it. If this sounds like the kind of journey you want to go on, please join us on the Hearing these walls by digging deeply into God's Word in a way that you can really understand it. If this sounds like the kind of journey you want to go on, please join us on the Hearing Jesus podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Hi, I'm Haven, and as long as I can remember, I have had different curiosities and thoughts

and ideas that I like to explore, usually with a girlfriend over a matcha latte. But then when I had kids, I just didn't have the same time that I did before for the one-on-ones that I crave. So I started Haven the Podcast. It's a safe space for curiosity and conversation. And we talk about everything from relationships to parenting to friendships to even your view of yourself. And we don't have answers or solutions,

but I think the power is actually in the questions. So I'd love for you to join me, Haven, the podcast.