Pub Theology: 'The Experience of David Bentley Hart'

Jon Reichardt (probably the coolest person at the David Bentley Hart event in Sydney) joins Mitch and Will for a chat about David Bentley Hart's classic theism.

We talk about freedom, universalism, panentheism, theosis and a bunch of other nerdy stuff that we're still trying to get our heads around. If you don’t know what some of the words mean, don’t stress — they aren’t prerequisites for joining us at the digital pub.

The Spiritual Misfits Survival Guide (FREE): https://www.spiritualmisfits.com.au/survivalguide

Sign up to our mailing list:
https://spiritualmisfits.com.au/

Join our online Facebook community:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spiritualmisfitspodcast

Support the pod:
https://spiritualmisfits.com.au/support-us/

View all episodes at: https://spiritualmisfits.buzzsprout.com

Transcript

Will (00:07.059)
Well, here we are in the digital pub again with a first time poddy guest, John Reichardt joining Mitch Forbes and I this evening. Welcome, John.

Jon R (00:20.442)
Hello, hello, good to be here, thank you.

Will (00:24.748)
Welcome back, Mitchell.

Will (00:28.527)
John, what do the good people need to know about John Reichardt? Who, who is this guy?

Jon R (00:34.803)
Mm-hmm.

Jon R (00:41.876)
Well, I am a spiritual misfit.

So it's quite fitting that I'm doing a podcast with you guys called Spiritual Misfits. Um, now I don't actually know how many people, like, especially my, um, OG Christian friends know how far I've kind of ventured away from the fold, um, theologically, so maybe this is a bit of a coming out moment. Yeah. But I mean, I, I gather that, you know, I've been pretty active, um, on socials.

Will (01:07.259)
This is a public coming out.

Jon R (01:16.634)
Um, on and off over the years, like throwing a spanner in the works of, you know, especially kind of more traditional, um, mainstream evangelical views and, um, you know, saying things that, that I think. And, um, anyway, I, where should I start? Um, I moved up the coast with my wife and my son a few months ago.

Uh, from Sydney and, uh, we linked in with Will, um, through, uh, Hannah, Hannah McCauley, Hannah Gearhart, and, um, another friend actually as well, Ellie. Um, uh, I reached out to her and Hannah just like asking if there were any like, you know, uh, churches or Christian communities that we would survive in. Um.

Or, you know, that could survive with me, survive with, survive with me being there. Oh, okay. Yeah. Cool. Um, yeah. And Newie, you know, that's funny cause, um, I was just talking to Ellie the other day and she's like, oh, you know, you should, you and Rach should come up to Newie and go to church in the morning and then get some lunch. So yeah, that would have been funny. I would have been like, Hey, I know that guy.

Will (02:16.298)
I'm proud of you.

Will (02:24.42)
You're in good company.

mitch (02:43.578)
Just happened to be here. We were at a philosophy and theology conference together the other week.

Jon R (02:43.758)
He's a fellow nerd.

Will (02:47.395)
Yeah, well, we hung out.

Jon R (02:50.894)
That's right. Exactly.

Will (02:53.099)
I got, I got to fill in a little bit of context because John, like we, we met, um, you know, at meeting ground one morning and you, we mainly talked about hip hop because you, you know, your day job is music production. You didn't mention that, but, um, very cool, very cool job. And, uh,

Jon R (03:01.91)
Yeah. Ah, yeah.

Jon R (03:09.538)
Mm-hmm. No. I don't know. There was that really tall guy with like... It's that tall guy with super long dreads. I was like, wow, this guy is, is... Yeah. He doesn't really... Yeah. It doesn't match the mold of like DBH fans, you know? Um, I was like, wow, this is cool.

mitch (03:12.066)
John, I think you may have been the coolest person at our philosophy conference. At least the person with the coolest job.

Will (03:18.744)
Yeah. Absolutely.

mitch (03:27.636)
Rob French, yeah, you're right, he is a very cool guy.

Will (03:28.749)
Shout out to them, these are very cool.

Will (03:37.407)
No, we'll talk about DBH fans in a moment and who DBH is if anybody hasn't like felt too alienated and bailed yet. But John and I, first time we hang out, we talk about hip hop. Yeah, we talk about hip hop.

Jon R (03:48.279)
They heard hip hop, they heard hip hop and they bowled.

mitch (03:53.31)
I think this podcast should just be about hip hop. That's what I'm interested in now. Now that we're talking about it, I'm like, I wanna hear your hip hop conversation.

Jon R (03:56.316)
Heheheheh

Will (04:00.171)
Well, yeah, I mean, we'll, we'll let's footnote that, but that got me excited because I like hip hop and then we're hanging out the following night and we start talking about some philosophy and that got me excited and then Mitch was like taking me, uh, cause he took me to Rob Bell. He took me to Dave Bentley Hart. He's my theology date. Mitch was taking me to David Bentley Hart and I was like, Oh, John, you know, you like philosophy.

mitch (04:02.282)
another time.

Jon R (04:07.31)
Yes.

mitch (04:22.778)
Mm-hmm.

Jon R (04:22.827)
Mm-hmm.

Jon R (04:26.954)
Yeah, you turned it into an open relationship, and here I am.

Will (04:30.663)
That's right. I'm into open theism. So I thought I'd be into open theism relationships. Terrible joke. So long story short, the three of us ended up going to spend a day nerding out in the company of David Bentley Hart and a bunch of other people that are attracted to, you know, sitting on a Saturday.

mitch (04:30.942)
Hehehehehehe

Jon R (04:38.106)
Ha ha ha.

mitch (04:43.224)
BLEH

Will (04:58.175)
in a lecture hall and just listening to talking all day about classic theism. So, good night.

Jon R (05:08.054)
Yup. You sold it.

mitch (05:13.346)
It was really interesting and we're here to talk about it.

Will (05:18.219)
We are going to have a bit of a discussion about our experience, more so the ideas than the day itself. But I did think like this episode is probably going to be called the experience of David Bentley Hart because he has a book called The Experience of God. So slightly different, slightly similar. I mean, according to David Bentley Hart's theology, the experience of David Bentley Hart is kind of the experience of God.

mitch (05:33.398)
It's so good, so good.

Will (05:47.577)
Am I right?

Jon R (05:48.299)
Lowercase g.

mitch (05:50.51)
of the time being.

Jon R (05:51.738)
I'm out.

Will (05:52.634)
I'm sorry.

mitch (05:55.111)
Until it becomes, isn't that the progression? Like the finite to the infinite or do we actually become God? Yeah, theosos, yeah.

Jon R (05:59.288)
of theosis.

Will (06:02.287)
Theosis. Let's do it back to me.

Jon R (06:02.554)
Well, yeah, I'm still unclear about that. I haven't read you a guides yet, so you'll have to fill us in on that one, Mitch.

mitch (06:06.5)
Mmm.

mitch (06:14.566)
Yeah. Well, I mean, I don't, I don't know if I can fill anyone in on it, but I, like I have, I've, I can't even remember if I finished that, but I've at least read two thirds of it. Yeah.

Jon R (06:14.898)
Yeah. Have you read it?

Jon R (06:23.538)
Okay. It is.

Will (06:25.632)
That's pretty good for a David Bentley heart book. Now, before we get into the meat, I do want to crack a bev because I feel like it's going to be needed.

mitch (06:27.478)
Yeah

mitch (06:39.286)
Did everyone hear? I just, I did that because I was, I wasn't sure whether we'd missed that bit. So I was like, I'm so thirsty. I'm so thirsty. Sorry, man. Sorry, boys.

Jon R (06:39.717)
It will be.

Will (06:42.747)
You always do it. You always do it too early. I'm so, I'm thirsty too, but I've been sitting here patiently waiting. It's okay. So, so, um, and what else was I going to say? I don't know. We'll, we'll get there. My, my drink comes with a special shout out. It is from a brewer called communion. And, and these beers arrived on my doorstep courtesy of

mitch (07:05.067)
Very cool.

Will (07:12.647)
who's been on the pod and her husband, Luke, who are legends. And apparently the brewers at communion are also spiritual misfits. So there's a double shout out to the communion brewers in, uh, Bernie in Tassie and to Caro and Luke. This is this whole episode is dedicated to you. All right. Here is my cracking beer sound.

mitch (07:17.932)
Mm.

Will (07:36.223)
Okay, do your drinks come with any shout outs or backstory?

mitch (07:39.997)
I feel like spiritual themed, spiritual or Christian themed beers can be your new thing Will because our good friend Jack Turner has invited us to the brewery in Newcastle called Is it the Thirsty Messiah?

Will (07:47.019)
I do.

Will (07:52.987)
Thirsty Messiah. What a fantastic establishment.

mitch (07:57.374)
Yeah. I think that's a Scott.

Jon R (07:57.606)
I, um, one of my, one of my good friends, um, Kieran white is his name. He moved to Norway. Um, gosh, this is a weird backstory. Anyway, my point is that he's also a brewer.

And he is very much a spiritual misfit, you know, Christian, but kind of exploring, you know, these, these kinds of things. And, um, he, he's got a company, a beer brewing company called, um, Eucharist. So, so I was, yeah, I was like, is there a bit of a, like a movement happening right now, you know, cool Christians, like, you know, if that exists.

mitch (08:26.263)
Oh wow.

Will (08:28.111)
So good. Thank you.

mitch (08:31.089)
Mmm.

Jon R (08:39.31)
But, you know, making good beer.

mitch (08:39.547)
I once did a beard.

mitch (08:45.098)
I did a beer appreciation with a dude and he had a brewery. I don't know if it still exists. It was Eden something. Um, it was in the Southern Highlands. And, um, it was really cool. Like he was teaching us all about brewing and beers and stuff. And he brought a bunch of the ones that he'd brewed and, um, like he told some, some hilarious beer stories. But like when someone asked him, how did you get into brewing? And he said, oh, well in the United States, you can't drink till you're 21 or you can't buy alcohol till you're 21 or something. He said, but you can buy hops and grain and water.

mitch (09:16.138)
So his whole beginning of brewing was just like randomly just buying the ingredients to make beer because you could. So it was cool. It was really cool.

Will (09:17.263)
with its

Will (09:24.52)
That's a deconstructed beer. People that listen to this show will appreciate that. You know, it's um.

Jon R (09:25.213)
that is cool

mitch (09:31.137)
Only if you reconstruct it will, because deconstructing beer without reconstructing it, you're left in no man's land, isn't that the idea?

Will (09:33.428)
Well, yes.

Will (09:39.467)
I think that definitely applies to the beer. It does frustrate me when people, people jump and they're like, Hey, don't you deconstruct unless you got to reconstruct, but please don't just give me, don't give me deconstructed beer. I would like a real fermented beverage.

mitch (09:43.16)
And now I know.

BLEH

mitch (09:50.486)
I want it put back together.

Mmm.

Will (09:55.589)
Excellent. OK. What are you guys drinking?

mitch (09:58.339)
John?

Jon R (10:00.997)
I think it's Johnny Walker actually. Like I was in a bit of a bit of a rush cause I was running late and I just grabbed whatever I could find first. And yeah, I think it is Johnny Walker on the rocks. I think it's red.

mitch (10:18.338)
Blue? What's the... What's the color? Red, blue, black?

Will (10:18.847)
Very nice. Mitch, what sort of exotics, babe, have you got tonight?

mitch (10:25.727)
Right.

Jon R (10:26.966)
Yeah. What are you drinking Mitch?

mitch (10:33.038)
Um, I'm drinking a beer called black. Um, it's like literally just a black beer. It's by, um, the good people at good folk in Hamilton. Um, which I go to a little bit. They also have a beer called normal beer. And it's because, you know, heaps of craft beer drinkers go in with like their dads and their uncles and then dad's and uncle's just get me a normal beer. None of that fruity crap. When a normal beer. So that's what they call their lager.

I just think it's pretty cool.

Jon R (11:05.617)
Nice.

Will (11:06.035)
Okay. So let's just, um, let's give people a little intro to David Bentley Hart. How did each of you.

come to this fine gentleman's work and what was it about his thought that was helpful for you when you first sort of came across it.

mitch (11:31.546)
I can't remember exactly, um, where I came across his name. Um, but it was in the context where someone was talking about the most significant, you know, Anglophone theologians or like English speaking theologians, um, of our lifetime. And I always like NT Wright, cause you know, he was the most prominent and influential.

theologian that I knew. So I just assumed he would be, he would be in this list and he wasn't. They named like three people, which was Rowan Williams, John Milbank and David Bentley Hart. Um, I think it might've even been like a gospel coalition, um, article or something. This was years, like probably like 10 years ago or something. I think maybe I'm only like, I'm guessing that it was that, but I can't, I can't like properly remember. Um.

Jon R (12:12.49)
Really?

Will (12:20.085)
Three highly influential theologians to watch out for.

mitch (12:23.518)
Well, no, because at the time, so this is the interesting thing. He was before he released, um, that all shall be saved, which is his book about universals and which I'm sure we'll get into, he wrote a few books that were like, I think there was one entitled atheist delusions or something like that. Um, what was it like Christianity's fashionable enemies or something? I can't remember the subtitle. Um, so he, like, he was.

Jon R (12:24.068)
Thank you.

Jon R (12:42.066)
Yeah. Hmm.

mitch (12:50.918)
know, CPX, even when John Dixon was there, that's the Center for Public Christianity, they interviewed him about that. So about like the existence of God. So he was kind of like celebrated by these groups because he's a classical theist arguing against atheists. And I think at the time everyone kind of exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. It's like that, that weird coalition of people when you've got a common enemy like you allow.

Jon R (13:01.743)
Yeah. He's on our team.

Jon R (13:14.62)
Yeah.

Will (13:15.22)
And the thing is, as, as we'll probably get into, um, if you are the enemy of David Bentley Hart, whether you are a person or a school of thought, watch out because dude has some sass he will unleash on you. For someone who doesn't believe in any sort of eternal wrath, he has some long lasting wrath.

mitch (13:27.327)
Mate.

Jon R (13:28.116)
Oh my goodness. My goodness.

mitch (13:37.334)
Yeah, some earthly wrath. I've heard it like he, yeah, he's in his, in that all shall be saved. He can, he's so brutal, particularly towards Thomists and Calvinists. Um, like he says some horrible things about them and people have picked him up on it, but his defense is that he says, oh, firstly, he says, if an idea is stupid and morally abhorrent, it deserves to be like, you deserve to be called as such. But then he says he never attacks.

Jon R (13:47.896)
yeah

mitch (14:04.002)
people individually, it's always thoughts. So it's the way, it's the way that people think it's the ideas that they have. And if those more, if those ideas are morally abhorrent, you should be able to say so. That's his defense of his, um, of his rhetoric, but he does often call people stupid or what did he say about Richard Dawkins? Do you remember Willow John?

Jon R (14:15.302)
Yeah.

Jon R (14:20.733)
I mean, he loves saying moral cretins.

mitch (14:25.6)
Yeah, yeah.

Will (14:27.72)
How did you first come across him, John?

Jon R (14:30.926)
Um, I think it was pretty similar to Mitch. I may have been John Dixon writing about the experience of God. And, um, I had been on a journey already, like trying to, um, discover, um, a concept of God that made more sense in light of my experience and also that was more cohesive, um,

Because I had, you know, like many of us, I had grown up with that kind of, um, dualistic take of God, which is merely nearly kind of daist, you know, like everything is about separation, you know, like, um, you've been separated from God. And like the only way to get back to God is through, um, Christ's atonement. Um, you know, and God just can't stand to look upon you because it's so angry, you know, all the

penal substitution stuff. He's so angry, so he needs to get his, his wrath out. So he pulls it out on his son instead of you. And then, you know, if you're a Calvinist, if you're lucky enough, you know, you were chosen from the beginning of time to be the elect. And if you're Arminian, you know, at least you have some sort of choice. Well, DBH wouldn't think so because he slams the Arminian take on free will too. Um, but, um, yeah. So I, um.

mitch (15:50.31)
Mm-mm. Hmm.

Jon R (15:58.306)
had been flirting with like Eastern Orthodoxy, mainly because of the shack, right? So I read the shack and I was like, wow. You know, when it first came out and it was super liberating for me. And I was like, where's this guy getting this theology from? So.

mitch (16:09.518)
Hmm

Jon R (16:19.326)
Um, you know, Paul Young had Baxter Kruger, the Trinitarian theologian doing a lot of conferences with him. So I started reading Baxter Kruger's stuff. I started reading, um, about like, um, looking into the fathers, church fathers that he was talking about, like Athanasius and, you know, a lot of the Eastern fathers, and I started to realize that, hang on, like, uh, this isn't

this super kind of individualized thing where it's like, Hey, like if I pray the sinner's prayer, um, I'll have Christ in me. Um, I'll have the Holy spirit in me. Um, but if I mess up badly enough, you know, then I may lose the Holy Spirit and go to hell. Um, and, um, but you know, kind of like switched everything around. Like it's no, actually you're in Christ, you know, and

Um, that idea was like so hard for me to understand at first because I was like, what, you know, like I had this very compartmentalized Western view of things. But the idea of us being in Christ, um, chosen in Christ, you know, as Ephesians talks about, um, from the beginning of time and it not being this sort of like Calvinist take of some people are chosen in Christ and others aren't, but all of us are chosen in Christ.

Um, I kind of, I read a bit of Bart, um, and, um, the Torrance brothers and that kind of put me onto that as well. And, um, then I started going down the path of, you know, penanthism rather than, um, you know, the kind of theistic personalism, um, that, that we had, um, that, you know, that God is.

uh, imminent and transcended at the same time. And, um, uh, I, yeah, I, I read that book by, by heart, um, the experience of God and that kind of solidified, um, a lot of things that I'd already started believing, um, both intuitively and also through like reading other theologians. So, yeah, that's how I came across him first. And, um,

Will (18:38.023)
Mm.

Jon R (18:40.386)
And I did actually come across some lectures that he gave, at least one lecture he gave on universalism before he released that all shall be saved. And I had already been dabbling with at least hopeful, um, universalism through like Brad Jerzak and, um, Robin Parry. Well, Robin Parry's like, he's not a hopeful universalist. He's a, he is a universalist, but, um, yeah, I'd already like read into it.

mitch (19:07.826)
Evangelical though, yeah? Yeah.

Jon R (19:09.846)
Yeah, evangelical. Um, and, uh, yeah, I came across, um, heart and as I said before, like, yeah, it was solidifying a lot of, um, thoughts that had already been developing. So, yeah.

Will (19:25.335)
I think the thing about him is, um, you know, he's obviously, uh, an incredible intellect. He is, you know, he's, he's got, he's got a brain on him. That is for sure. That brain operates maybe at a, at a different level or on a different, you know, plane to many. Um, and, you know, for me, for example, I had read Love Wins.

by Rob Bell and that gave me permission to think about different ideas of heaven and hell and different kinds of interpretations. But, um, if that kind of opened up the questions, reading that all shall be saved was like, oh my goodness. These are very well formed, very robust, rigorous answers. Not just, well, what if?

mitch (20:12.619)
This is it. Mmm.

mitch (20:20.651)
Hmm.

Jon R (20:21.014)
Yeah.

Will (20:23.179)
It's like, this is an incredibly difficult to speak back to because his logic is reasoning, his use of, and this is, you know, kind of one of the things about him is that he really can integrate that early church history with brilliant kind of philosophical reasoning with a deep understanding of scripture and, you know, Hebrew and like...

Jon R (20:28.869)
Yeah.

Will (20:51.739)
The dude knows many different streams very deeply and is able to integrate them in a way that you kind of feel like, well, yeah, what is there to say back to some of that? He's got an intimidating intellect. And that's where it's like, whether you're an atheist or an infernalist or, you know, whatever, he has that kind of presence.

is just, he's a bit of a towering, I guess, theological and philosophical figure.

mitch (21:30.29)
He would say in response to that book, like all the criticisms or the arguments against it just had funded, it was as if they hadn't even read the book or nor understood his argument. So people would write these like essays saying why he was wrong. And he's like, and his response was often like, it seems like they haven't even read this because they completely misunderstand it. And I mean, I think when I first read it, I was like, it's a pretty dense book really, right? For a short book, like it's not easy going. But like, I think it-

Jon R (21:39.726)
and

mitch (21:59.346)
What's kind of convinced me of some of his rhetoric is I've not read, I actually think he's right. Every rebuttal that I've read seems to misunderstand it. Or it's like the rebuttal is, it goes so far as the next point that he makes basically, right? Like, and so the whole thing is an argument is it does seem like almost impenetrable or incontrovertible. Like it just holds together so well.

Will (22:22.659)
Well, it feels at least like, you know, I always did feel like back when the kind of atheist debates were a big thing, when you've got Dawkins debating, you know, whoever, or, you know, William Lane Craig debating whoever. It always feels in those debates, like the two people are just almost speaking different languages. Like they're not meeting each other in the same kind of landscape of ideas.

They're just, they're speaking from different songbooks and it feels like that, like a lot of the critiques of that all shall be saved, for example. It's like, you're not even speaking within the same kind of framework. You know, you, you just, they don't feel like they're the same categories of ideas.

Jon R (22:52.791)
It's interesting-

Jon R (23:09.275)
Yeah, I think a lot of that's got to do with the, um, the idea that, um, the, the heart's operating from a classical view of freedom. Whereas, um, you know, most people these days, their epistemology is founded upon like a libertarian view of freedom.

mitch (23:18.562)
Mm.

Jon R (23:27.143)
So that.

Will (23:27.144)
Yeah, I think we should, you know, if you want to define the differences between those two for focus, a lot of people would just have no idea what are the different views of freedom, for example. So what's the what's the kind of difference between those two?

Jon R (23:43.595)
Alright, I'll have a crack and then you can correct me if I say something wrong Mitch.

Will (23:48.879)
Well, I should say, I should say...

mitch (23:50.122)
We'll just keep filling it in. It'll be like a painting. Someone starts painting and we can all just jump in with some extra colours.

Will (23:55.527)
For, for the listeners, both of you have read a lot more DBH than I have. And I feel like I'm, I'm a casual user. I draw on David's ideas at times when they help me. But Mitch, but Mitch always talks about like the difference between like the best version of an idea and then just like the kind of the street level version.

mitch (24:05.789)
Okay.

Jon R (24:07.042)
Hahaha

Jon R (24:12.166)
Yeah. Don't we all, you know, but anyway, yeah.

Will (24:23.671)
And I'm like the street level understanding of David Bentley Hart. I feel like you guys are further up the, the understanding. So I am going to try and represent the every person, the every listener who's like, what the fuck is libertarian freedom? Oh, you know, like, what are you talking about?

Jon R (24:24.186)
Mm.

mitch (24:34.68)
Mm.

Jon R (24:38.564)
Yeah.

mitch (24:40.804)
I had a humbling moment because there could have been a potential fourth person on this call and when I asked that person if they wanted to do it, who's like the person is way smarter than me, he said, oh, look, I don't know if I've completely wrapped my head around like Hart's theology or where he starts from and where he goes to, so I don't feel like I should say anything about it. And I was like, oh no, oh no.

Jon R (24:58.695)
Oh.

Jon R (25:02.102)
I mean, I-

Will (25:02.39)
Oh, we got it.

Jon R (25:04.798)
To be honest, I've been shitting my pants ever since you asked me to come on the podcast. Cause I'm like, you know, I have the dude's, yeah, the dude's ideas and the way that he weaves them together into this kind of robust, cohesive system. It's like he's a walking systematic theology. Like the more of his stuff I read and the more I kind of see those ideas kind of appear in his work. I'm like, wow.

You're like, his work is so coherent. It's not like you suddenly come across an idea that you go, Oh, that doesn't really gel with what you said in the other book. It's like, Oh no, that's literally an outworking of what you said in the other book. Um, and it's, I'm like, gosh, like to have that sort of brain, that sort of intellectual structuralism, um, is very impressive. So yeah, I I've been shitting my pants. I'm like.

mitch (25:37.962)
Mm.

mitch (25:47.782)
Always. Mmm.

Jon R (26:01.026)
Well, number one, I'm not formally trained in theology. And number two, we're dealing with like, you know, this dude who is like a towering figure.

mitch (26:05.314)
Hehehe

Will (26:12.623)
Well, thankfully you're just at the digital pub and we're just having a chat about our experience and this is not a class on the ideas of DBH and dear listener, if, uh, if we say anything that, uh, is an incorrect representation, like go back to the source material, go and read the books for yourself and, um, just assume that we're just, we're just chewing the fat.

mitch (26:40.232)
Mm.

Jon R (26:40.457)
Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.

Will (26:40.651)
But having said that, what are some different conceptions of freedom? Because I think that even that it's an assumed when we talk about freedom in most conversations, like, and free will is such a big evangelical defense of hell, for example, where it's like, well, God's given people free will. But then we're just, it's just assumed that there's only one definition of freedom or free will, and we all know what that is. So do we want to start to maybe just tease out?

some of the different options there and what we understand DBH to consider freedom.

Jon R (27:18.059)
Do you want to go first Mitch?

mitch (27:21.122)
Um, you know, I was, I was hoping to fill in the painting a bit later, but I can go to crack. Um, yeah, I think, I think for, we have talked about it on a pod before, and I think this is actually super fundamental to heaps of stuff that, um, that, um, that DBH thinks about things, but, um, uh, the kind of, I guess the classical.

the libertarian view of freedom is that you are, you are free to literally kind of do anything, right? So you can make this choice or that choice, or you can do this or you can do that. And it's like, it's this picture that there's nothing constraining any kind of decision that you make. Um, um, a blank slate yet who can make whatever kind of decision, um, you know, you want in any kind of situation. Now we all kind of know that's not even true really, but I guess that's the way that we think about it, that we should be free to be able to make.

Jon R (27:53.794)
Mm.

Jon R (28:04.134)
You're a blank slate.

mitch (28:17.35)
like good decisions or bad decisions and for no apparent reason. I think that's really important part. Like you don't have to have a reason for making the decision, you just get to make it. And that kind of starts to get to David Bentley Hart's criticism of it, is that every decision you make kind of has to have a reason or it has to have a tell or she should be trying to achieve something. So he doesn't think there's really anything as like a libertarian freedom. What he

Jon R (28:22.01)
Yeah.

mitch (28:46.939)
uh... your uh... how do you explain it the every like every

Will (28:52.957)
I have a quote, I have a quote from him on the day that may help. He said, he said, all desire is for the good.

mitch (28:56.107)
Yeah, go, go.

Will (29:00.111)
however thwarted it may be by error, sin. And it's this idea that even in people's bad choices, they're still trying to pursue the good with a capital G. It's just that their freedom is constrained because they're not actually truly free to see with clarity what is the good, the beautiful, the holy. Is that kind of...

Jon R (29:03.248)
Yeah.

mitch (29:27.086)
bit. So yeah, so to be, yes, it to be free for David Bentley heart, like to be completely free. So God is completely free and can't do otherwise, like other than his nature can't pursue anything but good, good goodness, truth and beauty, like the transcendentals. So you can't do anything against those because you are truly free and unconstrained by things that would stop you from choosing them. So he gives an example in that also be saved where he says like, if, if you see someone thrusting their hand into a fire, like over and over again,

You don't say, oh, that person's free. Like they're free to be doing that. You say that person has some kind of like psychopathology that's making them do that. There's actually a constraint on their freedom because a truly free person, um, is not going to do that over and over again. They're going to choose the thing that is for their good. And then because their good is tied up with the good of everything, they're going to kind of choose that, um, as well. So it's like every, every action has like a, an end point or something that you're trying to achieve. And.

The further you go back and the more you ask, why are they trying, why are they doing that? Um, you can always find a more base reason. And that goes all the way back to again, a desire, a pursuit of goodness, truth or beauty.

Will (30:36.487)
Which just makes so much sense. You think about even like a, an easy to go to example is around addiction where it's like, okay, the surface level behavior might be, um, substance use, but we know most people know that beneath that there is a desire for connection or there is a desire for the alleviation of suffering.

And so already you even go down to that layer and it's like, Oh, okay. Like that's a lot more, I can have a lot more understanding for someone wanting to alleviate suffering. And I have for someone wanting to inject heroin, but when you come, you know, you, you realize, okay, everything is kind of, there's something beneath everything. And at the heart of it, God has created us to seek the good, the beautiful, the just.

Jon R (31:06.572)
Hmm

Will (31:28.583)
And we would be if we were free, but that's the whole thing. Like we're not, we're not truly free, which even as I hear myself say that, it feels like a betrayal to my younger self who would have so passionately and fiercely said the universe is not a deterministic place or that we do have that kind of really open freedom. So it's, it's a paradigm shift, but, and it's also like, I guess, in the kind of modern popular.

view of theology, we are free and then we get our consequences, heaven, hell, whatever. But this flips it where it's almost like we are constrained and we experience the consequences, but we are in the process of being freed. It happens the other way around. It's consequences first and then freedom eventually rather than the other way around. Does that make sense?

Jon R (32:10.746)
Hmm. Yeah.

Jon R (32:22.102)
Yeah. Oh, I was just going to say, like, I think it's important to note that he's Eastern Orthodox, so he has a very different take on original sin, to say, you know, your classic Calvinist, you know, who would say that we're all totally depraved. Therefore we literally cannot make decisions that are good because we're that corrupt. Right? Whereas he would...

mitch (32:22.174)
Wait, this gets- Oh, John, I wanna hear you on this actually, you go.

mitch (32:30.135)
Mm.

Jon R (32:50.378)
And I think, well, NT Wright's actually pushed back on this idea as well. Um, cause he's, well, he's not a Calvinist either. Um, to say that no, like our most innate fundamental nature is being image bearers of the divine is good. Right. And then, uh, that was corrupted by sin, um, rather than the other way around, you know, that we hear a lot, you know, with the Augustinian and then later on.

Calvinist take that we're all thoroughly sinful and we can't choose anything good. But it's interesting because in that sense, there's a bit of a similarity between Hart's view and the Calvinist view that the God liberates you, right? To make a good decision, to start being able to make good decisions, you know, so you're not enslaved to sin and enslaved to death.

The, the, but the key difference obviously is that for Calvinists, it's only elect, only the elect who can do that. But, um, but Hart would say, well, no, all of us are the elect, you know? Um, uh, so I just wanted to jump in because I can imagine, you know, a bunch of people going, well, you know, I got taught that I'm totally depraved and therefore I can't make any decisions. Um, because a whole bunch of verses, you know, that often have been mistranslated or misinterpreted. Um.

Will (33:57.831)
Mm.

Will (34:07.545)
Bye.

Jon R (34:14.826)
Even the one we were talking about the other day, you know, the, the hardest deceitful wicked beyond all things. You remember that? Yeah. Just, yeah, like I was, um, uh, I was reading an article by Brad Josak, just to give you a bit of context, um, Mitch, I was reading an article by Brad Josak saying that the, the way the Septuagint, um, translates that verse is, um,

Will (34:20.947)
Mm. Yeah.

Jon R (34:43.186)
The heart is deep beyond all things and it is the man.

mitch (34:49.958)
Yeah, wow. This is completely different. Ha ha ha. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Jon R (34:51.022)
Like, what if that's so radically, it's the opposite, you know? And then obviously like this gets ingrained in like our thinking and our emotions. Like we can't trust ourselves because, you know, at a most basic level we're sinners. And so I think for me, like that classical view of freedom that no actually beneath that on a more truer level.

Will (34:52.478)
So different.

Jon R (35:19.822)
you actually long for the good. Um, and you know, you doing anything that kind of moves you away from the good is. And I think Chesterton said something like this as well. Like you talked about, you know, the man who goes to a brothel is actually ultimately longing for love. Um, and, um, I think it's, it's a very liberating view.

Will (35:23.937)
Hmm.

mitch (35:43.33)
Lewis as well, like he has this whole perverted desire thing, right? Like the desire for food gets perverted and that kind of stuff. Like desire for sex, like they're all like for the good, but they get perverted as opposed to their good desires that get, that go awry. Yeah.

Will (35:57.305)
It feels like in the, you know, people call it worm theology, the kind of like really Calvinist you are, you can't trust your heart and you just, you are deceived. It feels sort of like that puts the blame on you.

for any constraints to your freedom. Whereas maybe what I'm drawn to in this idea is it actually, it does not put the blame on you. You are a good creation. And there are all of these constraints on many levels, external, that exist. And you're not the dirty rotten sinner that's responsible for, you know, because again, it's kind of weird that they're kind of.

Jon R (36:12.915)
Yeah.

Jon R (36:22.962)
and yeah

mitch (36:37.026)
Yeah.

Will (36:39.291)
the libertarian thing almost gets mushed in with that Calvinist view, where it's like, you are super deceived and you can't really do anything about it, but also you're responsible and you should have made a better choice. It's kind of like the messaging is all mushed together.

mitch (36:52.858)
Well, it gets all, and I think this is where the big difference between the Calvinist and someone like David Bentley Hart is really apparent, right? Because the Calvinist, like you said, John, say the same thing. You're acting, you're acting according to your nature. So when you sin, you're acting according to your nature. So you do like you're doing really something that you can't help but do because that's who you are. Um, whereas David Bentley Hart has a similar kind of picture of freedom that, but your nature is by nature, you were by nature good. Um.

Jon R (37:05.485)
Hmm.

mitch (37:21.234)
And that has been corrupted or it's been like set off course, um, through sin, death and the devil, like in the world. And so what you need to be is to be freed from sin, death and the devil in order to act true to your nature. So there's this picture that like when Adam and Eve come into the world, um, I can't remember if this comes from Brad Jerzak or like, I don't think it's a heart particularly, but it fits pretty, pretty well with the way that he thinks. But Adam and Eve are born not complete, but perfect. Like, so they're innocent in all ways.

Um, but they still need to develop as human beings, right. And that's like the picture of like all humans, like we're actually born innocent. Um, but not complete. We have to morally develop and we need to, you know, we're called out of nothing into the infinite and we need to like progress and we need to move towards a greater depth of understanding. Um, but what you are from the very beginning is good. Um, and made in the image of God.

Jon R (38:10.765)
Hmm. It's good. Original goodness. Hmm.

Will (38:14.939)
What do you guys think? So I, at this point, yeah, at this point there is a part of me that's like, I kind of, I kind of want to have some things two ways.

mitch (38:17.502)
Yeah, original goodness or blessing or yeah.

Will (38:25.135)
Cause I want to say that so much of our freedom is constrained and often this is the cause for harmful kind of behavior. I also still intuitively and experientially, and I think philosophically want to say that we do have meaningful, some meaningful degree of choice agency freedom. So what, what in your understanding is the kind of DBH, you know, or, or even where you just end up with kind of like.

mitch (38:42.694)
agency.

Will (38:54.375)
preserving meaningful choice and agency while acknowledging that there's always degrees of constraints.

mitch (39:03.39)
This is where I get fuzzy on my what, um, heart thinks actually, because like he's very, and the Eastern fathers are the same, right? They're real big defenders of free will actually, that you have, you have to freely choose the good and you have to freely choose God and ultimate restoration is not some kind of coercion like God has led you to, um, you know, forced you to make a decision it's that eventually through education, um, through enlightenment.

Jon R (39:28.122)
Hmm.

mitch (39:32.438)
And that's sometimes through suffering and pain and difficulty and like hell and purgatory or whatever language you want to use. Yeah. Correction. Eventually you will freely choose the thing that is good, you know, and ultimate goodness being, being God. So, so there is a sense that he wants to, he is maintaining agency and your ability to make real true choices. Um, but then I don't know, I'm not a hundred percent sure exactly how that fits because he's defensive. Um, Oh, sorry, John, you go.

Jon R (39:36.53)
And yeah, correction, yeah. Yeah.

Jon R (39:59.145)
Well, I was just going to jump in on that because I think he actually illustrated it quite well with using the analogy of baseball.

mitch (40:10.27)
Yeah, good. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Is that like you return home or whatever or? Yeah.

Jon R (40:11.714)
Do you remember that? When, you know, they're having, yeah, that eventually everyone gets home, but like everyone's gonna have a different journey. It's gonna take people, like someone might have a home run, you know, like, so I suspect that he would say that ultimately everyone's gonna get to that point of, you know, that kind of grandiose eschatological vision that Paul has, you know, where God will be all in all, you know, 1 Corinthians 15.

mitch (40:24.595)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Jon R (40:42.542)
But how long that takes depends on the individual's freedom. So we have no idea. And that comes down to his translation of the Greek for, for instance, in Matthew 25, where it talks about eternal judgment. But the Greek is aeonios calaisis. So it's.

mitch (41:08.494)
Hmm.

Jon R (41:09.19)
the age of correction, right? And we, so it's an age and we don't know how long it takes. So him along with all of these like, you know, key figures in church history, like Gregory of Nica, would say that, exactly, yeah, Origen. I just like saying Nica because he oversaw the council of Nicaea, right? Cause everyone, when you say Origen, they'll be like,

mitch (41:16.194)
Hmm.

mitch (41:28.242)
origin yeah

mitch (41:36.286)
Yeah, yeah, he's a saint, he's a saint. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ooh, hair dick. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Jon R (41:39.006)
Yeah, they'll be like, Oh, it's a heretic, which isn't true. But, you know, um, but, uh, yeah, Nisa, um, yeah, that the, the idea that, um, uh, we are

Will (41:41.819)
Yeah.

Jon R (41:53.906)
We can either be complicit with sin or complicit with the work of the Spirit in us, or the work of Christ in us, drawing us, you know, like he quoted that passage from Paul talking about moving from glory to glory, you know, like you still have the freedom to respond to the work of the Spirit in terms of how quickly you transform also into the likeness of Christ. And that may take ages, you know.

Literally ages, aeons, aeoneos, you know? Um, but, and that's where I see him integrating the aspect of free will. And he does this as well, very much with his Theodicy. Um, uh, you know, if you've read, um, Doors of the Sea, um, where basically he's, he's taking like, uh, an early church father's take on, um,

mitch (42:39.938)
to see.

Jon R (42:49.19)
on the problem of evil as far as I know as well in terms of integrating like, um, basically, uh, spiritual forces of evil, um, that are somehow impacting, um, what's going on in everyday life. Um, um, thwarting our decisions, having impact on us. I mean, some of the church fathers even believed, I remember this from a Greg Boyd book that some of the church fathers even believed that like,

Principalities and powers would even have an amount of control over certain geographical regions, right? So like they would say that, you know, if there was like something horrible that happened, you know, a so-called act of God isn't an act of God at all. Like it was an act of an evil principality, an archon, right? Yeah, yeah. So it's this sort of like cosmological...

mitch (43:34.866)
Is it an archon of this world or? Yeah. Yep.

Jon R (43:43.558)
warfare theodicy, right? Um, that's, that's going on where. Like, it's so, so much more complicated than, than anyone thought. Um, and it's also interesting because it's very, it pushes back very much on like that typical modern kind of naturalist rationalist take that, hey, this is all rubbish and fairy tales. But here we have this towering, you know, intellectual figure saying, Hey, like.

mitch (43:55.637)
Hmm.

Will (43:56.098)
Yeah.

mitch (44:06.23)
Yeah.

Jon R (44:09.402)
I actually believe in the idea of spiritual evil being out there and spiritual good being out there and that affecting our day-to-day life.

mitch (44:16.63)
Well, he, um, he, um, no, well, he's famous for believing in fairies. So he and Sally Vickers and, um, and, uh, John Milbank, they all believe in fairies. And so I, I had the funny experience. Um, I had the funny experience of accidentally meeting David, uh, DBH in the bathroom three times. So just randomly through the course of the, like three days that I saw him, we just happened to go to.

Will (44:17.274)
Okay, this brings up some stuff. You go first, Mitch.

Jon R (44:41.786)
just had a sneaky sword fight.

Will (44:42.455)
as in you were just waiting in the bathroom for two days, waiting for those three times when he needed to use it.

mitch (44:48.212)
It felt like he was going to have that thought because we just honestly, like three times in a row, I came out of the stall and he was in there and I was like, he's going to think I'm stalking him. But it was just literally, it was just before the sessions and I always like pee before a session because I don't want to feel uncomfortable. And I think he was doing the same. Anyway.

Will (45:05.263)
Hey man, your freewheel was constrained, right? It wasn't a choice, it was just the constraints of the bladder.

mitch (45:10.294)
And so I'm thinking like by the, by the second time I thought, Oh man, next time I've got to think of something like interesting to say to the guy. So I can have like a genuine conversation with him. And so the thing I decided to say, because I thought it could be taken in any way. So I said to him, as we were leaving, it was the first time he, like he seemed to put out that there was no, there was no towels to dry your hands. And I was like, Oh man, I'm sorry. We've just got the blower. Like that was the first thing I said. And then I, and I was like, that was.

Jon R (45:31.436)
Mm.

Jon R (45:38.806)
Welcome to Australia, mate.

mitch (45:40.682)
Yeah, we just got the blower. Like that was so stupid. So then I'm like, I think of something charming and interesting to say. So the next time we were walking out and I said, Oh, David, I've really enjoyed your work and I credit you with helping me believe in fairies again. And I'm like, this is a great, this is a great line, right? And then he looks at me and he goes, well, um, you know, that the evidence is vast in every tradition, in every part of the world.

Will (45:41.157)
Thank you.

Will (45:45.095)
Thank you.

mitch (46:08.494)
Every like different people group has said like there are such a things as fairies. And he goes, I don't tell this story often, but maybe he said, maybe I've told it once before. I've heard him tell it actually with an interview with Sally Vickers, but he tells this story about going to a particular wood and like just hearing these voices and freaking out and kind of running out and being like convinced that they're kind of nymphs or fairies or something. Anyway, just a cool DBH anecdote for everyone. But to get to Jon's point, that's...

Will (46:34.139)
I love it. I love it.

mitch (46:37.658)
A huge part of his picture of the world is that there are other forces at play. Um, other things that, um, that, that have a say in how things go. And that sounds exotic, but then like you read CS Lewis and he's saying the same things, right? Like the ultimate destiny is for all these powers to find their place under Christ. So like as Christ is the, the organizing or ruling principle, like all the, the gods, you know, the so-called gods who were worshiped by other nations.

Jon R (46:41.966)
Yeah.

mitch (47:05.77)
Um, they all find their place under Christ and all that, that whole kind of spiritual realm is realigned, um, under Christ. So, yeah. Sorry.

Will (47:15.087)
Okay. There are a few things I feel like we need to go into here. Um, you know, and, and it's kind of all part of, again, like mapping out the DBH worldview, but this, this also is where I do, there are some things that I feel attention with. So I'm very okay with the idea of, um, like when we talk about evil or even when we talk about, you know, um, the, the Satan, the Satan, the Satan.

Like this idea of there being like some sort of, I think Brian Zahn says Satan is more than a metaphor, but less than a personality. And I like that because it's like, there's some sort of sense in which there are forces again of corruption and evil that go beyond just what seems like logical from just adding up individual people's bad choices.

mitch (48:08.087)
Mm.

Will (48:08.783)
So there, you know, I can get around the idea of there being lots of unexplained things, mysteries, whatever we want to call them, et cetera. That's all cool. But here's the thing, a big part of David's like framework, which we talked a fair bit about the other day was that he talks about a lot of, I guess, uh, contemporary theological visions paint God as like John was saying, separate from creation.

So you've got God over here and then you've got creation over here. And God is kind of occasionally or regularly, depending on your view, dipping in, interacting, but like, um, you know, there's a separation. And David says that a big part of the problem is that people view God as just another being among beings. So you're a being, I'm a being, the fairies are being the angels are being.

mitch (49:01.686)
Hmm.

Will (49:06.511)
God's just another being who happens to be bigger and more powerful, but is also kind of within the same framework. And his whole thing is that actually this is where we need to recapture a sense that God is not just another being among beings, but God is what all being emerges from and exists within. And so you, if you have any being, whether you're the human, the fairy, the tree, your being only exists within the ground of being.

mitch (49:26.317)
Mm.

Will (49:35.779)
which is God. God is what all things are held within. And John mentioned panentheism at the beginning, which is kind of, you know, people might be familiar with the term pantheism, which is that all things in the universe just add up to God, basically. Panentheism says that the universe is, is again, all held within God, but the God is also somehow more than just the components of the universe.

mitch (49:36.49)
Mm.

Jon R (49:59.452)
Also separate, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

mitch (49:59.622)
infinitely more than the universe itself. Well, but he, it was interesting on the day, cause he, um, he tried to say the distinction between those two things, um, is made up and not real because like the, the things that we call pantheism really are like more similar to, you know, what people would say panentheism is anyway. Um, which was interesting.

Will (50:13.024)
Yes.

Will (50:21.091)
He did blow that line. But this is where, okay, so here's my, here's my question. Honest question is like, I, I love this and it's been a liberating paradigm shift for me in recent years to view everything as truly in Christ, everything as within God, it really helps me to see all people, all different religions, all different, you know, experiences of the world and to see all of them as part of the divine being.

Jon R (50:22.069)
Yeah, I do remember that.

Will (50:49.751)
and to see all of it as belonging, you know, Richard Raw would say everything belongs. Like in some ways it really helps me with that, helps me to do away with the separation that is so unhelpful. But then I'm like, well, wait a second. Where does this mean that evil exists within God? It does this mean that evil is a part of God? Does this mean that the Archons that David might believe exist, like are they, are they part of God's nature?

Are they part of God's being? So this is where I.

mitch (51:21.102)
Well, he would say that the Archons are, the Archons are rational, like spiritually rational creatures like us, right? So they have the same, the same spiritual freedom that we have to make like good and bad decisions. But I mean, we did talk about this a little bit the other week at, um, the Toronto Inn, was it the Toronto Inn? I mean.

Will (51:39.643)
Tron are. Well, what was it called? Um, pub choir was happening in the back, which is the most heartwarming thing I've experienced.

mitch (51:46.938)
Yeah, yeah, it was like, it was genuinely beautiful. It was really good night. I mean, so for someone, a classical theist like David Bentley Hart, but all classical theists, evil doesn't have its own substance or existence. It is evil is privation, it's deprivation. It's the it's the deprivation of the good or it's parasitic. It doesn't have its own kind of

Jon R (52:13.446)
Yeah.

mitch (52:14.706)
ontological existence. And that's like a really important part. So yeah, everything is contained within God, but evil isn't even really a thing. So it doesn't have so it's not part doesn't have to be part of God's nature. But my pushback is what's the alternative? The alternative is a dualism, like a genuine dualism that something else exists other than God. And where does that something else come from? Like if it if

It either has its own existence. So you end up with, again, the gods are just a being among a couple of other beings, or it was generated by God himself. So I don't think you get out of, you don't get out of that problem by like jumping in the process theology camp or the open theism camp, I don't think. I know, I know, I know, I know. I'm just like, I'm just trying to say what's the alternative.

Will (53:02.923)
Oh, hey, I didn't even bring it up, man, but you know, I know that's

Jon R (53:08.231)
I

Will (53:08.551)
It's lurking in the background. And I will name it for any, if anybody who listened to the trip, the trip fuller episode, most downloaded episode of the podcast to date, um, you know, trip is incredibly compelling. And if you listen to trip, describe open theism process theology, you know, it's so, I just find myself nodding along because so much of it makes sense experientially of, of a world in which there are.

mitch (53:15.978)
Mm-hmm.

Will (53:35.791)
genuine possibilities in which God is not kind of orchestrating everything. And again, a lot of these ideas, like they're kind of, they can look like similar ideas that are worse ideas. Because that's where I'm like, if you line up all the nuances of Calvinism, Arminianism, open theism, classical theism, they kind of all have like overlapping parts, but then

Jon R (54:04.622)
Hmm

Will (54:05.283)
divergent parts. So some people might be getting lost with some of this and fair enough. I'm lost in some of the maze of this. I agree with you that the alternative of there being another being that is generative and self-sufficient is problematic. I like, and this is kind of the language, you know, that DBH uses when describing God is that God is the only ultimate reality and everything else is contingent. And.

Jon R (54:13.035)
Yeah.

Jon R (54:34.165)
Yeah.

Will (54:35.003)
Contingent things depend on something else for their existence. And I just think philosophically that makes complete sense of why there's anything here, but why for everything here, there is a first and ultimate non-contingent cause that seems kind of self-evident. Otherwise you get into a very wormhole-y paradoxical situation.

Jon R (54:58.693)
What

Will (54:58.703)
But then it's still, I guess this is still the biggest problem that even, I think David would openly acknowledge that the problem of suffering and evil is still the biggest thing that you can't kind of neatly resolve, even if you have the best theological vision in the world, because it's still like the level. This is kind of my pushback. I, the whole idea that evil is just a negation or, um, like it doesn't really exist.

It just feels like it would be so heartless to say that to someone who is suffering very tangible outcomes as a result of people in the world.

mitch (55:36.226)
But the effects that... Well John, I wanna hear what you have to say cause I feel like you've been, you go.

Jon R (55:41.095)
Yeah, yeah, gosh, there's a lot of things he said just then, Will. I think I would add to say that rather than, obviously like that is the classic kind of, I remember Augustine saying that, you know, that the evil is the privation of the good. I think it's helpful seeing it as the corruption of the good. So I'm sure maybe this is just semantics.

But it is, you know, with, um, free will agents having some level of, of freedom that's also been tainted by, you know, all of these dynamics that we've already discussed, like, um, you're, you're left with like this vision, at least the way that I see it is that either, either you can partner, uh, with the trajectory of existence.

or the trajectory of non-existence, right? And I think it was, Greg Boyd put that in one of his books. He kind of got that from Bart saying, Bart had this idea called dasnistige, which is the nothingness. And I tend to put sin and...

mitch (56:39.778)
Hmm.

Jon R (57:02.838)
Yeah, seeing in that metaphysical category, I can't see how it can exist in any other category. It's like anything that moves towards non-existence. And I think it's important to, at least as far as I understand, to understand that in classical theism, like we discussed before, you still have degrees of freedom, right,

mitch (57:09.149)
Mm.

Jon R (57:32.41)
created by God and they're very wide parameters, hence why we see so much destruction, death and evil, right? Um, I was a bit confused when, uh, Hart said that really it's pantheism, but then he went on to say that a lot of people don't truly understand what pantheism is. So I was like, is he just being like an elitist about semantics? Um.

mitch (57:53.346)
Hmm

Jon R (58:00.854)
Because, you know, language is contextual and whether like a word is, there is a truer definition of a word or not by some academics doesn't often matter when you're talking to, when you're thinking about how it's used in popular contexts, right? So I was left thinking like...

mitch (58:21.038)
That's a good point.

Jon R (58:23.25)
Is he really like from a popular perspective, is he a panantheist? Because his theology definitely seems to suggest that he's panantheist, right? Because he's, because as I understand pantheism, the idea of, you know, everything and everyone is God and that, you know, at least certain versions of pantheism have the idea of the yin and the yang, you know, that like, uh, evil.

and good originates from God. Well, Hart would definitely not say that. Right. So, so I don't know how he would clear that up. Maybe Mitch knows. What do you think, Mitch?

mitch (58:57.079)
Hmm.

mitch (59:07.549)
Now, I mean.

Will (59:07.594)
And maybe in his defense, you know, I mean, that was his...

Uh, answer to a question in a short question and answer time. You know, I'd suppose there's some level of like, maybe he wouldn't necessarily say that in, maybe say it again.

mitch (59:16.165)
What?

mitch (59:21.934)
He, he talks, well, I think he would, I think what I took him to be saying is that there's no serious religion that is like the pop version of pantheism, right? So that, that picture that we said, everything like the sum total of everything is God. I think what he was saying is there's no serious religion that actually thinks that. So.

Jon R (59:40.75)
and

mitch (59:42.31)
Um, and he makes, he does make a big thing about serious religions and non-serious religions. So like there are, like, there are a bunch of like pop versions of anything, right? But he doesn't, like, he doesn't feel the need to have to talk about them. But like, whether it's like Vedanta or, you know, like so part of the Hindu world or like Buddhism or something. I think he would just say that what pantheism is to them is pretty much what he's talking about anyway. And what we're all talking about as panantheism. That's what I took him to be saying at that point. In terms of.

Jon R (59:46.584)
Yeah, that's true.

Jon R (01:00:05.978)
Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Will (01:00:10.359)
And that's the thing you say that I refer to more about the difference between the best version of the idea and everyday usage. And I think there's a... Sorry.

mitch (01:00:13.554)
Exactly. Yeah. So, I mean, he does, he does fall into the danger of telling other people what they think at that point. Um, so, but like he's who, like, I'm not going to do that, but maybe he actually, he, he is a scholar of religion and not just Christian religion in answer to the, in answer to the question.

Will (01:00:30.895)
Well, I think that's, that's part of the, just real quick, just that's, that's a part of the experience of DBH that I think is interesting where it's like, yeah, I suppose it does the level of intellectual robustness make up for the apparent arrogance and elitism that comes through. Maybe that's a separate question, but you carry on.

mitch (01:00:50.168)
Mmm.

Jon R (01:00:54.208)
It is a great question. Sorry, you go Mitch.

mitch (01:00:55.894)
Hmm. No, I was going to, I was going to riff on the evil thing. Um, but do you want, do you want to just switch that? Oh, I'll just say, I'll just say the thing. So on the day, and he's talked about this before, so he's, he's an explanation of where evil comes from is that. Um, so all like not even God can create, um, a finite being, uh, or an infinite being without a finite existence. So he says that every.

or the trajectory of all spiritual rational creatures is to start finite and become infinite, you know, so they become gods. And so he says not even God can create, you know, an infinite being, just out of, you know, without having a beginning, without having a finite beginning. So everyone is like coming into the world and becoming or moving towards the infinite. So we're coming out of nothingness, our trajectory is towards not from nothingness into the infinite. And so evil is like a necessary

possibility in that to have spiritual, like free rational creatures, it's a necessary possibility. So it's not contained within God. But that privation is a necessary possibility for that trajectory. As you come out of nothingness. So what nothingness is, is that is, you know, is evil, like, and that's where you're coming out of.

Will (01:02:11.23)
I do, I do really like, I like that. And I really liked the way you phrased it before, John, do you want to participate with things in the direction of non-existence or existence? Because it's this idea that.

mitch (01:02:20.247)
Hmm.

Will (01:02:23.691)
All again, all things shall be saved. All things will be reconciled. If you have a Christianity that's worth anything, that seems to me at least, like a foundational belief that all things will be made whole and healed. And so that in some sense, um, there, there obviously is no eternal life of evil. Evil cannot be eternal in a genuinely Christian vision of things. Maybe. Um, that was a nice, nice little bit of chess there, Mitch.

Jon R (01:02:29.227)
Mm.

mitch (01:02:50.171)
I just really had to take my jumper off, I'm so hot. Sorry for the nip slip.

Jon R (01:02:52.34)
It was great. It was a great moment of free the nipple.

Will (01:02:52.839)
But for those that are on the list, I know we're talking about the ocean. This does come towards, and we're at an hour, so we should probably start to, you know, I mean, we can chat for as long as we want, but sort of to get towards the end times, you know, again, a huge idea that was discussed on the day and that we talked about afterwards was this idea of theosis and that

The trajectory in kind of heart's theological vision of all things is that all things will be made part of God, of the everlasting, of the infinite, in a way that kind of there is no separation at that point. There is no evil at that point. You know, we are in Christ. Christ is all. There's nothing else.

And so I suppose the heresy hunters kind of hear this idea and they think, well, you know, it's almost like a form of idolatry that you will become God. But it's also, um, again, how do you maintain any ongoing existence separate from God in a way that actually makes sense eternally? It's so, theosis is kind of this, this is how everything that appears to be separated.

is put back together again. Um, but I, uh, this is, this is a big idea and it's, uh, again, it's like very difficult to get your head around because for me, it brings up various questions around a big thing. I suppose is this sense of continuity that the, the Christianity that I have grown up with said that in some sense, will as an individual would continue on into eternity as will the individual.

But I don't know in a picture of theosis, does will continue or does will just become part of a whole in which will is no longer kind of recognizable as an individual? And I don't know if there's necessarily, maybe you can have theosis and the continuation of multiple personalities. But what are your thoughts around this theosis kind of concept?

mitch (01:05:12.11)
I think, I mean, I think on the day at lunchtime, we were talking about this a little bit, like the NT Wright vision of, you know, the kingdom is basically just a continuation of here. So his old, his old piece, like the New Jerusalem coming out of the clouds, it's a redeemed and restored earth. We have a physical existence that is largely like this one, but without suffering or pain or evil, right? Like that's, at least that's how I read him, what I read him to be saying.

Um, and theosis does, and in a lot of ways, like I think even Tim, Tim Kelly used to say this, he's like, Oh, whatever you miss out on now, you get then, you know, if you miss out on hugs and love and laughter and, you know, food, great food and strength, it's like the, the Christian vision is like whatever you miss out on here, you get there unless you, well, unless you, unless you have the, um, unless you're unfortunate enough to be born in a non-Christian family or, um, or.

Will (01:05:50.618)
Thank you.

Jon R (01:05:53.55)
Hmm

Will (01:06:00.053)
No need for FIMA.

Will (01:06:06.607)
We'll be right back.

mitch (01:06:08.458)
as part of a different religion, then you're screwed. But for those of you who are fortunate to be part of the chosen, um, and there is something so deeply kind of attractive about that. And theosis does start to go, Oh, like you still starting to do, do I, you know, like the loved ones that I've missed, do I know them in, in some kind of like tangible or physical way? And I think Hart would say, yes. Like I think he would, he would say there is a physicality to eternity. Um.

because in the logos, like you have that. I'll just say one more thing, John. This is actually a CS Lewis idea. Okay.

Jon R (01:06:41.319)
Yes, sorry, I feel like I keep trying to jump in. Sorry. We're all going to be saved anyway, so yeah.

mitch (01:06:46.702)
No, no, you're good. Um... .. We were coming one.

Will (01:06:48.563)
It's all in Christ. We are, we're becoming, we're theosising right now. Are we coming on? Yeah.

mitch (01:06:54.802)
I think Sir Sirius Lewis had this idea because I think he like he believed in Theosis. I can't even remember what book it's in but he says, is it in the great divorce? Well he makes his point.

Jon R (01:07:01.602)
The great divorce, probably.

Jon R (01:07:06.058)
Well, it doesn't explicitly say theosis, but it talks about the trajectory of becoming more real, right? Becoming less ghostly, more real. And yeah, you go.

mitch (01:07:12.946)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. More and more real. Like, so yeah, the, the more real. Yeah. Well, he, he kind of linked it to the Trinity and he said like in, in Buddhist theology or like, you know, Buddhist understanding, you become a drop in the ocean, right? So you're in the drop in like you, you're a drop and you get absorbed into the ocean, which is, you know, the great oneness of, of all things in God. Um,

Will (01:07:18.758)
Hmm.

mitch (01:07:38.238)
And he said like actually a Trinitarian picture enables that to be true, but also for you to keep your distinct personhood. Um, so you, it seems weird that you become like another member of the Trinity. Like that seems, that seems if anything's like heretical, but I swear, I swear he says it somewhere, I don't know where, but he, he has that line where he says, well, like a Trinitarian picture means that you keep your personhood whilst also becoming a drop in the ocean, basically.

Jon R (01:07:44.371)
Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Jon R (01:08:04.786)
Yeah, well that makes sense to me because I watched this...

Jon R (01:08:13.286)
Uh, video chat that he did with some guy where he was asked about this, you know, what about our pets? What about our animals? Um, and he was very strong on the idea of a pocket, a pocket to a pocket to stasis, that's it, right? Um, including everything that all things shall be reconciled. And in some way we're going to know like our pets, we're going to know everything that we experienced in this life, but obviously in a more

mitch (01:08:20.119)
Mm.

mitch (01:08:31.233)
Yeah.

Jon R (01:08:42.026)
you know, glorious way. Um, so I don't think that he negates the idea of, um, us somehow being individuals. It's just that we're fully and properly integrated, um, within love, within the Trinity, within everything as it should be, you know, and I think that's Pauline language as well, you know, there's a lot of passages where Paul talks about everything being reconciled in Christ, everything being

put back as it should be, you know, under the Lordship of Christ. Um, integrated. Yeah. I think that's a good word for it.

mitch (01:09:20.834)
The other image they use, I think on that point, John is, I don't know if it's hard himself, but like other orthodoxy legends, maybe John Bear uses this one. Um, he, he talks about, um, you know, like when you're purifying metals, right? And so when you throw like whatever kind of metal into the fire, like it burns off everything that's not. So again, that's like the evil. Um, but then the metal takes on the properties of the fire. So it continues, it keeps its own properties, but it takes on the properties of the fire, so heat and light.

Jon R (01:09:45.678)
Hmm

mitch (01:09:50.518)
Um, what are the properties of fire? Are there, I don't know, but I'm heating light. Let's just say those two. So you like.

Will (01:09:56.451)
I love it's a classic analogy, like refining fire is something we talk about all the time, but it's like, I am no goldsmith. I do not actually know much about the general gist of it, but.

mitch (01:09:59.537)
Oh!

mitch (01:10:03.342)
Yeah. How this actually works. Yeah. No. So he was like, yeah, you end up taking on the properties of God as well. Right. So that gets absorbed into your, into your essence. The other one is they talk about the burning bush. So it's fully a flame, but not consumed. Um, so you're a flame with the life of God, but still, you know, not, not consuming the essence of you.

Jon R (01:10:03.861)
Ha ha ha.

Jon R (01:10:23.422)
Yeah. And it is very orthodox. Like Athanasius talked about, you know, God becoming man so that man may become God. Which I think he would find in, you know, that Peter passage talking about sharing in his divinity. I mean, I can't even, I can't remember it word for word now, but...

Um

Will (01:10:52.647)
That's OK, no one here expects you to. Ha ha ha.

Jon R (01:10:54.892)
Yeah. Sorry to the biblicists.

mitch (01:10:57.113)
There is a cool...

Will (01:10:59.759)
Well, that's, it is, it is a, when you go back and read, and I bought the David Bentley Hart, you know, New Testament translation on the day, and I've been reading that and his goal is to as much as possible, obviously acknowledging that even he, like anybody has their translation biases kind of baked in, but his goal is to translate in a way that's like bluntly literal and free of as much

doctrine and prejudice that has been overlaid over hundreds of years. You read the NIV and you don't realize it, but you're reading doctrine overlaid on the text. And he's trying to just make it kind of as blunt as possible, even where the grammar gets just awkward by writing. But when you go back to the New Testament and you have this sort of lens of looking for in Christ and this kind of like all things becoming one, this kind of more Eastern meets Western.

mitch (01:11:38.469)
Mm.

Jon R (01:11:44.998)
Mm.

mitch (01:11:46.306)
The

Will (01:11:58.955)
mix is it's so striking how much of it is there when you peel back a lot of the doctrine that you have been handed over the top.

Jon R (01:11:59.598)
Hmm.

Jon R (01:12:06.618)
Oh, I mean, the whole thing about patristic universalism, you know, the more you dive into history and like, you know, the work of J. I think it's J.W. Hansen and, uh, L'Area Romeli, um, where, um, you see that like in the first 500 years, um, there were six major theological schools and only one of them, um, taught, um,

mitch (01:12:24.475)
Oh, she's great, yeah.

Jon R (01:12:36.042)
eternal conscious torment. And then four of them taught universalism, patristic universalism. And I think that's another big thing that we need to clear up for like, you know, especially those that are scared of like, does this just mean pop universalism? Where like, it doesn't matter what I do. Everyone's just going to get saved like this, right? And like the, you know, the consequences of evil are, I just ignored. And that's not at all the case in patristic universalism. Like it believes that.

mitch (01:13:04.974)
Mm-mm.

Jon R (01:13:06.242)
There is an internal judgment. There's an internal fire that everyone has to pass through. And some will be there for much longer than others. Right. And it's going to be painful. And anyway, coming back to what I was saying before, but you see that in history, like some of these like major figures in the church were Universalists.

mitch (01:13:15.65)
Hmm.

mitch (01:13:21.474)
Hmm.

Jon R (01:13:33.058)
And that it was common. I mean, even, um, Augustine wrote about it being common, um, during his time. Um, so I think, uh, it's, it's super important to, to see that, Hey, this isn't just some sort of like, you know, feel good progressive thing and not that I want to like, have a go at, uh, progressive in general, I am progressive in a lot of ways, um, but it's also like, this is deeply orthodox, right? Um.

mitch (01:14:01.067)
Hmm.

Will (01:14:01.687)
It's ancient. Yeah. It's, it's both it's yeah. I mean, I think a lot of things are, um, when we, when we dig beneath the, the historical surface, ideas that seem new and in vogue are often, you know, recapitulations of ancient ideas. And it's really cool when you realize that, oh, I'm not going off the deep end. I'm going, going into the depths of my tradition.

Jon R (01:14:02.668)
Yeah.

mitch (01:14:17.198)
A recovery. Hmm. What it-

Jon R (01:14:20.323)
Hmm.

mitch (01:14:29.89)
Hmm.

Jon R (01:14:30.11)
Yeah, there's a stream that's been around for so long that you can just jump into.

Will (01:14:39.759)
I, um, I love the, the Theosas stuff as it was just discussed. I feel like it does make me hopeful. The idea that there can be both a continuation of life in some way, as we know it, while also being completely unified and made whole. And I feel like, you know, as we come towards the end of this chat, he did, he did, I wrote some notes about some of my favorite phrases that he used on the day, and he talked about how we are words within the word, we are.

Jon R (01:15:08.566)
Hmm.

Will (01:15:09.227)
utterances within the utterance. We are logoi, logai within the logos. And I think that's a beautiful way of putting it that we are, and even just thinking, you know, I love the poetry of the fact that a human body is the same ratio of like water as the earth and that we exist within all kinds of like microcosms of big universal truths.

Jon R (01:15:11.258)
Hmm.

mitch (01:15:14.151)
in the logos.

Jon R (01:15:15.162)
Hmm.

Jon R (01:15:28.938)
Mm.

Will (01:15:37.095)
And I mean, he's a very different communicator, but in some ways when we went to see Rob Bell, which funny story, Mitch, John was there and, um, has his own hot takes on seeing Rob Bell live. But, but like Rob is like, you know, uh, and for people that haven't, haven't listened, we did a similar kind of episode debriefing our experience of seeing Rob live, but, but Rob is all about like connecting the big

mitch (01:15:44.447)
Right away! Hey!

Jon R (01:15:45.972)
I was.

mitch (01:15:49.506)
Hehehehe

Will (01:16:05.231)
universal cosmological space, quantum physics stuff with the everyday experience of being you as a human. And I kind of feel like that's what we're talking about here as well, where it's like we are microcosms and little words that express the divine word that is everything and that we're on, you know, this path that brings it all together. And I love just one more thing that is on my mind from the day I loved.

mitch (01:16:12.822)
Hmm.

Will (01:16:33.603)
I don't know if this was said from the stage or it was just in our conversations at lunch and stuff, but the idea that the Genesis story can be read as an unrealized story, as a, as a, this is actually a picture of both the beginning and the ending and that creation and there's this idea that creation and fall kind of happened simultaneously, but that when things are, you know, restored, they'll also be at their true beginning.

mitch (01:16:44.162)
Hmm.

Will (01:17:03.875)
And in some ways we haven't yet arrived at the beginning. Now, some people will listen to that and it's like, that's philosophical, wanky shit that has nothing to do with me going to my job tomorrow. But as a poetic philosophical person, I'm like, it's such a beautiful idea. Say the thing about creation not happening yet. Cause that is, that is cool.

mitch (01:17:13.369)
But that's like creation hasn't happened yet.

mitch (01:17:22.578)
Yeah, well, that's it. Like that's what they, the creation hasn't quite happened yet. And it's got all to do. Um, yeah, I mean, I think you said it like you, yeah, but it has all to do with the coming out of nothingness, right? So like creation will finally be when, you know, when Adam and Eve, so the, the representative humans or the whole of humanity, so Adam and Eve are not individuals, but the whole of humanity joined, you know, in a garden or together in, uh, in the great oneness.

Jon R (01:17:33.942)
Mm.

mitch (01:17:52.118)
Hmm.

mitch (01:17:55.262)
Yeah. The, the, the fall, I think the fall stuff, like the fall happening in, uh, like not it being a reality that has it, that doesn't happen in history or doesn't happen in time, but kind of happens in what language did he use for it? Like a temporal. Okay. Yep. Yeah. So it's an a temporal reality. The fall is an a temporal reality, but it's not a progression. It's not like, it's not like everything was perfect. And then it went suddenly wrong. Um, it's just.

Jon R (01:18:10.246)
He used the word atemporal.

mitch (01:18:23.67)
by nature of it coming into existence, it was already, you know, or at least already had the potential for wrong.

Jon R (01:18:29.61)
Yeah. Well, I guess it makes sense that if, if something finite is created, then it must always have the potential to go astray, right? It must always have the potential to, to move towards non-existence, to, you know, to riff on what we were discussing before. Um, so in that sense, you know, the fall is always possible. Um, and it's always happening and we're, we're fighting it in some sense or another.

mitch (01:18:59.05)
And HM4 makes it like, it solves so many problems. Like all those billions of years of, you know, animal suffering all of a sudden is not, you know, big, you know, not part baked into the plan. Like, yeah, it was, it was a potential of possibility always.

Jon R (01:19:11.082)
Hmm

Will (01:19:18.326)
Yeah, I mean, there's so much.

within this school of thought. Again, like we said, it's ancient and it's part of the tradition, but it's also like it moves in the opposite direction of so much of what has been the version of the tradition that we have been handed. And we often have this picture of God who's like, you know, the architect at the desk, sitting down, making the drawings, figuring it all out, taking a long deliberation session, and then creating everything. And it's not like that.

mitch (01:19:34.091)
Mm.

Will (01:19:49.827)
Like in this, in this paradigm, it's not like God was again, God was a being sitting there figuring things out and then coordinating, but it's almost like God as being in its very nature and God being love in very nature. This, this is just the, this is the expression of that. And again, this is, you know, is that, is that, uh, what does God's

Jon R (01:19:59.191)
Mm.

mitch (01:20:09.966)
Hmm.

Will (01:20:16.451)
God's choice or freedom look like in that? Maybe that's another question for another day.

mitch (01:20:20.31)
Well, I think Hart gets himself in a bit of trouble actually with Catholics because he kind of, he basically says God could not, not have created. You know, there's no, there's no deliberation in God. Like God's not going, Oh, should I do this or should I do that? Like God is pure actuality. Well, intention and actuality together is that I think that's exactly kind of the way he talks about it. So, so there's no, like it's not got, there's no, there's no possible.

Jon R (01:20:40.148)
I think that yeah that sounds right.

mitch (01:20:49.058)
picture of God where he does not create basically. And because like, you know, so much of Christian theology is built on, you know, God's completeness and, you know, creation not being necessary. There's this, there's this semantic discussion that goes on between him and a few other theologians about that word necessary. So it's like, is it necessary? Like it's necessary in the sense that God has to be God. And to be God is to bring into existence all that is possible to bring into existence.

Jon R (01:21:00.056)
Yeah.

mitch (01:21:17.798)
I Jordan Daniel would another, uh, a Maximus scholar has this same idea. Like God actually has to bring into existence everything that is possible to exist, because if he doesn't, then there's something that lies beyond the possibility of God and therefore God is not God. Um, it is getting into some like random philosophy at that point, but it makes sense when you actually think about it, you're like, yeah, no, that does make sense. Like it has to, how could it be otherwise? Sorry, John.

Jon R (01:21:35.423)
It's super interesting as well.

Jon R (01:21:43.278)
Oh, I was just going to say like, even from, you know, the, the very basic premise of, of there being no deliberation, like you said before, no pause, because there's no such thing as like time in the same way as we understand it, then every action is always an action that was always going to happen because we're talking about the infinite.

mitch (01:21:55.386)
Yeah.

mitch (01:22:09.538)
Hmm. Would John Daniel, John Daniel would go so far to say that, um, every possibility will be actualized, so it kind of has to be, and then all the evil will become, um, like completely untrue or, um, yeah. In the end, because every, like, again, every possibility has to, has to come into existence, otherwise it lies without the scope of God. I have no idea what that.

Will (01:22:11.44)
Hmm

Jon R (01:22:36.144)
That's a, that's a multiverse shit right there.

mitch (01:22:38.886)
It is. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I'm not like I'm beyond my depth of like understanding that. But there's something intuitively about it that you go, yeah, if that is the picture of God, then that's kind of how it has to be. I don't know. Yeah.

Will (01:22:39.128)
Yeah, that's how you can help with this. I'm completely aware.

Will (01:22:52.207)
I'm acutely aware as we come towards the end of this one that some people, like the three of us obviously, we freaking love talking about this weird stuff. And some people, like possibly all of our wives, I know at least two out of three of our wives.

mitch (01:23:04.214)
Hehehehe

Will (01:23:13.935)
I'm like, what the fuck are you doing talking about this shit? It doesn't matter.

mitch (01:23:15.715)
Hehehe

Jon R (01:23:16.634)
It's just a waste of time. You know, actually just on that note, just quickly, I am quite sad that we didn't get to touch upon how good theology actually impacts your real life and linking. For instance, I really was hoping that we'd touch upon ACT and religious trauma, complex trauma and the work of, gosh, I forget his name, but there's a bunch of...

mitch (01:23:19.06)
It is, yeah, I get that.

mitch (01:23:30.58)
Mmm.

Will (01:23:31.675)
Oh.

Jon R (01:23:46.034)
psychologists and psychoanalysts that have been coming out recently, looking into religious trauma in depth and just the link between like eternal torment and some of these ghastly ideas that we find in Christianity and what it does to the whole person, not just the psyche, but you know, holistically what it does to a person, um, and then anyway, so I was like,

mitch (01:23:56.439)
Mmm.

mitch (01:24:04.846)
Hmm.

Will (01:24:08.583)
I think you just divided yourself back for round two, John. For sure.

mitch (01:24:14.386)
That does sound like a great topic for an episode.

Jon R (01:24:14.514)
Sorry guys, more wanky intellectual shit.

Will (01:24:20.227)
Well, no, I love that. Like why does it actually matter? I mean, obviously the three of us, and I know a lot of people do, but I think to make that connection would be cool to talk a bit more about how that, you know, the ideas have consequences. Yeah.

Jon R (01:24:22.007)
No, I do.

Jon R (01:24:29.958)
Oh, it's, it's so important. And that's what Bell did, right? You know, for all the flack that Bell does, like he liberated so many people. Um, you know, it's ironic, like so many, like fundies and conservatives will say, oh, he's led so many people astray. Well, then for those, those others, like probably three of us, like he was a gateway into still being a Christian because he wasn't in an ivory tower.

mitch (01:24:41.602)
Hmm.

mitch (01:24:55.106)
Hmm.

Jon R (01:24:58.742)
like, you know, heart and some of these other theologians we're talking about, but he linked like those ideas to real lived human experience.

mitch (01:25:06.082)
Hmm. They really did. Well, and I think like it'd be interesting if I was a more disciplined, smarter person, I would sit down, get the transcript of Rob Bell's, um, you know, presentation and some DBH and actually see the, the overlap and continuity between them. Cause I think even in con like you, like Rob Bell's touching on consciousness and like, you know, uh,

Will (01:25:07.503)
That's a good point.

Mm.

mitch (01:25:31.846)
Yeah, like panenthes and like all these kinds of things. You can see he's influenced by this kind of thinking, but he just says it.

Will (01:25:37.073)
Oh, you've got to assume that Rob has read DBH.

mitch (01:25:39.646)
Yeah. And he just says it in a way that is like far more accessible and, you know, like most people can kind of, you know, grasp. Yeah.

Jon R (01:25:47.266)
Yeah.

Will (01:25:47.631)
Well, that's the thing. I mean, we didn't really talk that much about the actual experience of the day. We talked more about the ideas that it was kind of a gateway into, but the experience of the day was, I kind of joked about at the beginning, but like sitting in kind of a, you know, stuffy lecture theater sort of, you know, that kind of stereotype, but I think like John's saying, and I think it is worth a follow-up chat, those ideas that exist within

stuffy lecture theaters, whether they're hearts or, you know, pipers or whatever, those ideas do shape the consciousness of communities and lived experience. And yeah, whether or not, again, we're participating in the trajectory of healing and wholeness, or of continued harm and religiously, you know, instigated and motivated harm.

But I think we should leave that for another day. I will just say, um, I know some people, they, they love to get together at the pub and discuss the footy. I think that would be heaps crap and I don't care about it. Um, I mean, I would, I would gladly chat about the Matildas for, for 90 minutes. Um, but, but this is definitely my kind of pub, pub theology chat. And I hope dear listener, that if you've been with us.

Jon R (01:26:52.538)
..

mitch (01:26:56.814)
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Will (01:27:14.639)
And you made it this far that you got something out of that.

mitch (01:27:18.106)
I'm not going to rank topics of conversation at the pub because I could talk about footy at the pub. That would be okay. But look, I will say this is not inferior. This is not an inferior chat to talking footy at the pub. And like, yeah, if I was being really honest, this is the stuff I like to talk about.

Will (01:27:36.807)
Well, this is the beauty of the pub as is also the beauty of God is that everything belongs.

Jon R (01:27:42.903)
Yeah.

mitch (01:27:43.214)
True.

Will (01:27:46.911)
Awesome. Well, thank you, fellas.

mitch (01:27:48.674)
Thank you Will, thank you John.

Jon R (01:27:50.887)
Thank you.

Will (01:27:53.079)
Okay. On that note, see you next time. Peeps.