The central theme of this episode pivots around Dr. Thomas J. Oord's groundbreaking work, "A Systematic Theology of Love, Vol. 1." In this enlightening discourse, we delve into the profound implications of positioning love as the foundational element of theology, a radical departure from traditional paradigms that often prioritize power or divine omnipotence. Dr. Oord elucidates the necessity of love in understanding the nature of God and our relationship with the divine, asserting that love must permeate theological discourse. We further explore the accessibility of his writing, aiming to engage a diverse audience while maintaining the complexity inherent in systematic theology. Through this dialogue, we invite listeners to contemplate the transformative potential of love within the framework of their faith and community.

The latest episode of The Whole Church Podcast features a profound dialogue with Dr. Thomas J. Oord, focusing on his recent publication, 'A Systematic Theology of Love, Vol 1.' This episode invites listeners to explore the intricate relationship between love and theology, a theme that resonates deeply within the context of modern Christianity. Dr. Oord articulates his belief that love should be the nucleus around which theological discourse revolves. He elaborates on the significance of understanding love not merely as an abstract concept but as a dynamic force that influences human interactions and divine relationships. Throughout the conversation, he challenges the traditional theological paradigms that prioritize power and omnipotence over love, urging a re-evaluation of how love can be systematically integrated into theological frameworks. The episode is rich in content, engaging with the implications of love for church unity and individual practice, thereby providing a thought-provoking examination of how love can redefine the essence of theology itself.

this compelling episode of The Whole Church Podcast, hosts Joshua Noel and TJ Blackwell engage Dr. Thomas J. Oord in a profound discussion surrounding his new book, 'A Systematic Theology of Love, Vol 1.' The episode examines the pivotal role of love in theological discourse, challenging listeners to reconsider established doctrines that have often sidelined love as a primary concern. Dr. Oord articulates his vision of a theology that prioritizes love, proposing that such a shift is essential for fostering genuine community and understanding within the church. Throughout the episode, he addresses the historical context of theological thought, critiquing the dominance of power-oriented frameworks and advocating for a love-centered approach that reflects the nature of God as relational and interactive. This episode not only provides insights into the theological underpinnings of love but also encourages practical applications for listeners, emphasizing the importance of embodying love in everyday interactions to cultivate unity and understanding in diverse communities.

Takeaways:

• Dr. Thomas J. Oord's newest book, 'A Systematic Theology of Love, Vol 1', emphasizes love as the central theme of theology, arguing that it should replace more traditional focuses such as power and omnipotence.
• In this episode, Dr. Oord articulates how love is understood as a rational and coherent aspect of God, challenging conventional theological positions that often neglect this vital concept.
• The discussion explores the importance of fellowship and community in understanding one's relationship with God, underscoring that genuine love manifests through interpersonal connections and interactions.
• Dr. Oord asserts that a sound theology of love must engage with both reason and experience, highlighting the necessity of personal encounters in shaping theological understanding.
• A significant point raised is the need for humility in theological discourse, particularly when addressing the complexities and mysteries surrounding divine love and its implications for faith communities.
• Listeners are encouraged to actively promote positivity on social media as a practical step towards fostering unity within the church and beyond, reflecting the love-centered theology discussed in the episode.

.

You can leave a donation, buy podcast merchandise, check out previous series that we've done, or become an official member of The Whole Church Podcast on our website:

https://the-whole-church-podcast-shop.fourthwall.com/

.

Check out all of the other shows in the Anazao Podcast Network and find merch to support some of your favorite podcasts on the network's website:

https://anazao-podcasts-shop.fourthwall.com/

.

Check out Dr Oord's newest book now on amazon:

https://a.co/d/0dh5BvTn

.

Check out TJ on Systematic Geekology:

https://player.captivate.fm/collection/f4c32709-d8ff-4cef-8dfd-5775275c3c5e

.

Hear more from Joshua on Be Living Water:

https://be-living-water.captivate.fm/listen

.

Listen to all of our episodes with Thomas J Oord with the link to the playlist below:

https://player.captivate.fm/collection/7908711e-0990-4e7c-b604-e5d4e6b1dba2

.

Be sure to check out more from Tom on his website, as well:

https://thomasjayoord.com/

First John 1, 5:7.

In the new American Standard Bible, this is the message we have heard from him and announced to you that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

But if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another. And the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. The epistle of First John was written to assure believers of their salvation. Right.

And it's kind of addressing some false teachings made it to the church that caused a split.

A lot of stuff going on here, but this is the beginning of John's letter and he's writing about the importance of fellowship with God or fellowship with the divine. Dr. Thomas J Ord, why do you think the author here juxtaposes this walking in darkness as evidence that you're not walking with God with.

Instead of saying if you're walking with light, he says fellowship with one another as evidence that we are walking with God. Why do you think that might be?

I suspect because God is present throughout all creation and we can find something of God in real relationships with those beyond ourselves. Sometimes we're sort of focused on our own ways of thinking about God, but we can learn from others.

Yeah, I. I'll affirm that one. I firm that. Hey guys, welcome to the Whole Church podcast. Possibly your favorite church unity podcast, but it's completely cool if it's not.

We're not competing with the other church unity podcasts because that does defeat the purpose. What we are doing though is having a return guest that we've had return many times. If I counted, he might be in the running for most returned guests.

One and only one of our. You know, I hope you don't take offense, but my favorite, my second favorite, TJ, Dr. Thomas J Ord is here with us. Yes. Yeah, yeah, but we're excited.

Dr. Ord is here with us to talk some about his newest book, Systematic Theology of Love, Volume one. And volume one does mean that there will be more volumes that we'll have him back to talk about. So he'll keep being a returning guest.

I said second favorite. For those who don't know, there is a POD Almighty. The one who created all podcasts. The best co host to ever be. It's his show actually.

DJ Tiers on Blackwell. Welcome to your show.

Thank you, thank you. So Thomas J Ord, if you never heard of him, he's a theologian, philosopher, Multiple multidisciplinary scholar.

He directs doctoral programs in open and relational theology at Northwind Theological Seminary. Directs the center for Open and Relational Theology. He's written over 30 books at this point.

We do have a playlist in our episode description for all of our episodes with Tom, because over time he has appeared on the show.

Yeah, a lot.

A lot.

It could be its own mini series podcast. We'll just repurpose them.

Yeah, we'll just take them out, put them on their own thing. But you can go to our website to get one of our T shirts. It's a really fun way to promote the show. It raises money for podcasting needs.

It gets others to know about the importance of our mission to educate, unite the modern church. And my favorite. I'm not wearing it now, but it's the one that's the TJ quote on the back. There's nothing on the back.

Very, very simple, understated shirt. Just has the logo on the front.

You know, I. I think I need to have a second one now, though, that says the other TJ quote on the back. And it's just a quote from Thomas J ort. That'd be pretty entertaining, actually.

Pretty entertaining. So if you want that, I think, to show us, you should probably check out the Unazile podcast network website.

Yeah, you get to see some of the other shows that are like ours.

It's a good one.

Just let us know.

Yeah, yeah. Also, if I did make that playlist into its own miniseries podcast, it could be two and a half TJ's.

I got the J part down, so you can play off two and a half minutes. Okay. Anyway, so for those who don't know, I do have a favorite form of unity that our guest is just not prepared for.

Because usually I try to take our guests in consideration before I just come up with my off the wall silly questions, but today I forgot to do that. So. Holy sacrament of silliness. Because you can't be divided when you're being as silly as I like to be silly. Question time.

TJ and I will answer first and Dr. Ordle let us know which one is the most convincing argument.

Yeah, all right, sounds good.

All right, here we go. Would you rather. Tj, I don't know who you want to go first, but would you rather have a night out on the town of Monstropolis or Zootopia?

If you have a prepared answer, you can go.

Yeah.

I mean, no, I never do, but I would choose Zootopia. You know, it's. They're Both pretty much just normal cities because of the nature of the films. But I don't know.

I feel like Zootopia would be more fun see what some of the other animals are up to. Monstropolis does have monsters in it, you know. And I got to imagine that not every monster is okay with the laughing thing.

Yeah, well, I mean, if you watched monsters at work, they get more into that. Actually, I think we can do a primarily political episode of that on Cismak Ecology. They get into detail of like the power grid.

And my people want one power source over the other. I am gonna say Monstropolis not just to go against tj, but actually Zootopia feels so busy. Like so much is going on. I'm not about that life.

Monstropolis, when the parts we see of it seems a lot more laid back. People are walking to work, kids are playing jump road in the street. Zootopia. There's all this crime and stuff going on.

And there's some crime in Monstropolis. But it just seems like a happier place.

I mean it's a. It is a cop show. Like it's about a cop.

Yeah. But like I feel like our point.

Of view is a little biased towards. Yeah, it's true crime.

But I mean there still is crime in Monstropolis. You have the whole, you know, spider guy. I can't remember his name right now. He does commit fraud. But like it. It just. It does feel less busy.

I feel like Monstropolis feels less busy in the cuisine I've seen. Looks more appealing.

Plus Monstropolis is going to exist in like next year or the year after.

There's that. Well, Zootopia kind of will too. Animal kingdom. Anyway, Dr. Ord, who's winning this? Am I winning with monster Opolis or is TJ got.

I'm gonna give it to TJ with Zootopia.

Yeah, I mean, that's fair. He is pretty much always right.

There's bias there.

Yeah,.

There is bias there. Plus, I don't know, man. It's talking animals. It's cool. So.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Yeah. So, Dr. Ord, if anyone listening isn't familiar with you yet and isn't satisfied with my description of you.

How would you explain your background for someone who just wants to know a little bit about the author of the book and why they should care about your perspective.

Well, I'm a theologian, philosopher. I have been a part of the.

I grew up in a holiness tradition of the Church of the Nazarene and have been a professional theologian for almost 30 years. Now I write books, speak, and, you know, do lots of things.

I have a doctoral program where I have doctoral students in theology, but most of my focus is on something called open and relational theology, and that's what most of our past topic or conversations have been about.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. All he has all the credentials on, you know, all the good stuff. He's a smart guy. I.

He likes to tell me why I'm wrong, that I think that immediately makes you smart. Yeah, Yeah.

I found it's a really easy way to convince people that you are smart.

Just disagree with Josh.

Just disagree with Josh.

Oh, man. No, I. I'm excited. So systematic theology of love, particularly if someone was like, why is this guy the authority on theology or on love even?

Do you have an answer to that? Or do you should be like, there is no authority. I'm just another guy amongst guys.

Yeah. I don't know if there's an authority, but it is a central aspect of my work. For 30 plus years, probably, I guess if you sort of did a testimonial.

The last 45 years of my life, love has been at center of how I think about God and my life and the world. And I've written. Well, you know, this is book number 50 for me, and most of my books have had something to do with love.

If you look at the title or subtitle, love is there. So, you know, my students used to call me Dr. Love. Does that count as credentials?

I think my. My. My testament of why what he says about love matters is you have a few. One, he takes his time to talk to us a lot.

He's just too important to spend this much time talking to us. There's that. The other is everything with the LGBTQ being affirming and what happened with your church.

And you took a real sacrifice standing up for others.

And to me, that's like the utmost form of love, you know, and then the book you wrote afterwards and helping others give credence to, hey, this is a legitimate way to read the Bible and to think about our spirituality. And I don't know, I thought that was particularly loving of you to do that. So I think that'll be my credentials for him.

It's very easy to tell that you care about what you say you care about.

Even after all the times I've disagreed with him on ear, he helped me go to last year's Ortcon, and when I was talking about stuff, he said, if you want to call yourself open and relational, you can. Because I was like, I'm not sure if my beliefs quite fit. You're like, you know, if you want it to, you can. And that was really kind.

Yeah, yeah. That was a good time last year. You ought to come back, both of you.

T.J. you need to come out. I really want to.

I don't know. I'm booked.

Yeah, I might have to wait till next year because. Family stuff, but that. We'll talk about it. For now, though, in your book, you claim that this is the first book titled A Systematic Theology of Love.

Right. And you give several reasons why other theologians might not have written a book titled that and why love might not be their ultimate concern.

They care more about power or God's omnipotence, keeps them from seeing the importance of his love. Stuff like that. And you claim that a wise theologian would actually make love that primary concern. I'm on board with everything you said, but.

And I told you this beforehand, I gave you a warning because I was like, man, if I was a third party, if I didn't know you, and I was reading this, my thought is, well, then what makes you special? Why were you the first one wise enough to make that the price? You know what I mean?

So you kind of knew I was going to put you on the spot because I was nervous asking this. But I do want to kind of hear your response to that, like, why were you the first one?

Well, you know, if you ask some people, it's not a wise decision. It's a crazy decision.

Yeah, yeah.

But, you know, obviously I think it's the right decision. So maybe I'm thinking of myself as wise. And so that's why you're asking that question.

Love is central to me because it's central to my reasons for thinking there is a God at all. Love is also, I think, the central theme in the New Testament, and I can make a strong claim for it being the center of the Old Testament as well.

So I read scripture as love being at the core or the high point. Now, every passage talks about love, and in fact, there are some passages that portray God as unloving.

But when we take the general drift and the main points they have, I think, point to love.

And not only do, you know, I think believing in a God of love to be the most important, but I find that when I talk to folks, whether they're religious or not, whether they believe in God or not, just about everybody thinks love is important. And in fact, better conversations going, talking about the primacy of love than probably any other subject.

And if that's the most important thing to lots and lots of people, then making the connection between love and God, I think, is really important.

Now, expect that not only have other people chosen other ideas as their center power, as you mentioned, being the most common, but there's also been a problem, I think, in defining or knowing what love is. So if a person, if a theologian doesn't have a clear idea of what love is, then they're unlikely to make love the center of their theology.

And part of what I do in this book is give a definition that I've been arguing for, for 25 years in one shape or another of what love is.

And then because, you know, well, I can imagine people who listen to the show and maybe you've never heard of me before, they might think, oh, some guy who talks about love, he's probably like, you know, really soft in his reasoning and kind of anything goes. But it's just the opposite. I'm a very rational kind of person. I want to think consistently and coherently.

And so this combination of having love at the center and this strong desire to have a theology that really makes sense in a coherent and consistent way, I think that's unusual among theologians.

Yeah, I had a couple ideas along with it that I was like, this could be why. I think that's a large part of it.

I think there probably have been, if I had to guess, theologians who would put love as their primary concern but didn't write a systematic theology book.

Sure.

You know, there are probably plenty who were like, once they saw that as a primary concern, actually cared more about theopraxy and didn't write as much.

Right.

You are unique in the sense that, like, you see love as the most important thing and are still very much like systematic, really, like, rational thinking tends to be something really important to you. Also, you know, wording, probably people have just worded something differently, I would imagine. I just.

I don't think you're probably the first one to ever think of it. But you are unique in the sense that you care a lot about this rational stuff and love want to put something in that's systematic.

And I think you're caring about love, but not in a way where you're like, I'm afraid to brush, you know, like someone like me. I'm less likely to write something that's going to go up against the grain and criticize others.

I think for you, part of adding Of Love is criticizing all the books that didn't say of love at the end.

Yeah, that's probably part of it. You know, I'm from a tradition. I mentioned the Church of Nazarene, earlier. Church of Nazarene is part of a broader Methodist or Wesleyan tradition.

And our chief theologian was a guy named John Wesley. And for him, love was the most important. It was central.

But I've noticed that people in my tradition have tended to shy away from that word love, and more often use the word grace. And so they'll talk about divine grace, responsible grace, grace and holiness, those kinds of things.

And I suspect it's because the word love can have so many meanings and can be seen as kind of, I don't know, extreme tolerant, wishy washy, anything goes kind of a thing. And grace sounds more robust and, you know, nobler in some way. So that's probably part of the reason why love hasn't been.

There hasn't been a book called the Systematic Theology of Love as well.

Yeah, yeah, no, I agree, but interesting. The. I mentioned before the domination that TJ and I grew up with was Pentecostal, but it was holiness Pentecostal.

So I think at some point the three of us should talk about, like, the holiness part of that tradition. That's an interesting, interesting topic, but maybe not for today.

Yeah, yeah, it is.

So if you, if you ever are in a position where you're like, just knowing Tom Ord and you spend more time talking to him, eventually you will notice that he thinks things through, tends to think things through very clearly before he answers or if he doesn't, he makes that clear. Which kind of sucks, because I think it'd be really fun to have a series called Rage Baiting Tom Ord. But he's too calm for that.

So the idea is dead in the water.

I'm calm because that series has been my life and I've learned how to stay calm.

Yeah, we missed our window. But for a systematic theology of love, who is the intended audience and, like, what inspired it? And how many volumes are there going to be?

Yeah, I'm planning on three volumes. I was inspired to write it. Well, I first thought about writing it 40 years ago, or maybe not 40.

Let's see, 30 years ago when John Cobb, one of my professors, made a comment about Daniel Day Williams and his theology.

But I really didn't think much about it until a year and a half ago and I was writing a different book, a book that I've started to write six times, I think now, and I just keep writing other books instead of it.

But I just felt like, you know, I've written so much over the years I've kind of had a chance to think my way through a bunch of different doctrines and topics and what we call in theology loci. And, you know, I've kind of got my mind made up about a lot of things.

Maybe if I did a systematic theology, I could put it all down in a coherent way and then add to the kind of the missing holes in that. So that was part of my motivation. And now I forgot your first question. What was your first. Oh, who's the audience?

Yeah, what's the audience? Who were writing for.

You know, the reviews are coming in already on this book and lots and lots of people are saying, I can't believe how clear, clearly he writes and how understandable it is. And I take a lot of pride in that because I really do want it to be accessible to a broad audience.

But I'm also a person who knows that, you know, this book is 450 some pages. It's not the kind of book you're going to give someone who doesn't know anything about theology. It's, you know, it's a true theological book.

So I've got in mind students of theology, theology nerds, folks who want to kind of have a go a little deeper. But I'm trying really hard to use prose and language that lots of people can understand.

Yeah. Which I think is super important.

It's always been my biggest issue with academia in general is that so often the most important works can only really be understood if you're already fairly well entrenched.

Yeah.

Yes.

Well, one of the biggest problems with that, something I think Tom navigates really well in this work, is like, a lot of times what I could. Academics mean by a word. And the colloquial use of that word are wildly different things.

So you're reading it and you're like, this sentence makes no sense. And that's because academics mean something different by that word. And I feel like you did a really good job balancing it. And I think if I'm.

If I was reading correctly, I got the feel that sometimes you were intentionally avoiding words that might have been confusing given the context.

Like, I felt like you were in a way where you were like, I'm not going to use this word because it might mean something different to different groups. I'm not sure if. Yes. But it felt like it. Definitely.

I did that tons in this book. Yeah.

There was a few times I was like, yeah, did he not use that word on purpose? Okay, that's good to know.

It can be just as important. Not to use a word than to use a word. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm pretty intentional. I'll say. Pretty is not strong. I'm extremely intentional about my language.

Yeah. Yeah. That's why we've had so many semantic conversations with you over the years.

It's a good choice for an author and a debater to have. Sorry. I was looking at your bookshelf and I just thought to myself, wow, he's written more books than I currently own at this point.

That's hilarious.

That is funny.

Yeah, well, I'm trying to keep it reasonable. Moving out of an apartment when you have a lot of books sucks. So, you know, I keep it small.

Ebooks are great. Inaudible. Yeah, yeah.

But it's not paper. But you make an argument that God is both spirit and has real substance.

Could you briefly explain how God can be both of those for us who haven't read the book yet?

Well, I don't usually use the word substance. I usually use the word material. God is a spirit with both material and mental aspects.

So this is one of my most unusual claims in this book, one of the most controversial, at least among people.

They do a lot of reading and theology because the major Christian theologians, and here I'll pick on Thomas Aquinas, have been very explicit that God is immaterial, has no material dimension. And they usually tie that to God being invisible, God being different from us in some way. Sometimes they'll say God is an immaterial mind.

But the problems arise if we think that God has no materiality. And then we. We're trying to have some kind of way to think about how this totally immaterial God can interact with material reality.

And of course, people who believe in supernatural God like Thomas Aquinas, can just kind of say, well, God can do whatever God wants because God's God, God's omnipotent, yada, yada, yada, which is punting, I think. So I'm making the claim that God has both a material and mental aspect, just like you and I have material and mental aspects.

And that's one of the reasons we can plausibly or coherently talk about God interacting in creation. Now, this material aspect is not something we can see with our eyes or taste with our tongue or sniff or whatever.

So even though it's material, it still remains invisible and not perceptible by our five senses. But this move actually aligns better with Scripture than most people have imagined.

And I offer lots of quotes from biblical scholars to support this claim.

So you also spend A lot of time describing God as both love and as Spirit. Why do you think it's important that we understand God as both?

Yeah, good question. I mean, the book makes the claim that love should be central, and that gets played out chapter after chapter.

But if there was a second attribute in terms of importance, I'd probably put spirit, because I think it's a way to talk about God's. I'll use the word composition, what God is made up of, or the technical philosophy Word is God's ontology, what kind of being God has or is.

And so spirit's important to me because I care a lot about thinking about God's action in the world and trying to make sense of that. And then that makes me ask, well, what kind of actor is God? What kind of composition does God have? Or is God made up of?

And I go to that word spirit, as problematic as it has been in some contexts. But I think it's still the best word that I can use to talk about God's ontology.

Yeah, yeah.

No, and I like that. And you knew at some point I was going to bring up time because I can't help myself.

Good.

And I like everything you said, but I want to know how you're going to answer this, too. So you make a claim in the book that God experiences time the same way that we do.

But you're also claiming that God has a material aspect, that God is either everywhere or in all things in some way. Given special relativity, we know that different gravitational pools, different places, experience time differently than we would.

So if God is everywhere, how could he possibly experience time the same way that we do?

Yeah. The key issue here is whether or not God experiences time sequentially or successively one moment after another. And that's my primary commitment.

That is analogous to how we experience time. What the theory of special relativity suggests is that maybe the rate that time moves is different in different regions.

And I can affirm that maybe God's time moves faster than ours. Maybe God's time moves slower than ours. But what is analogous is that both for God and for us, there are successive moments.

And so that's going to, in my view, stay the same for God and creation.

So now I'm just theorizing, but I'm curious if we do discover, because black holes do weird things that we are able to use, like gravitational pull, whatever, black hole in time travel back into the past, something like that, does that provide any complications for how you view God as material in all things and still experiencing time sequentially?

Yes, if time could reverse itself, I'd have to change my doctrine of God.

You're just asserting that time can't because we have to think something. And just going, I don't know, isn't really. That's not something that you would be satisfied with.

Yeah, I think every serious theologian has to come up with the best theory of who God is and what God is. Like they can, given their experience, given Scripture, given what others have said, given science, etc.

And in doing so, they have to make decisions about things like the nature of time, whether or not God is a cause, etc. Etc. Whether or not God has a mental or material aspect. We all have to. If you're serious, you have to make decisions about those things.

I'm putting this view of God on the table. I think it's the best one on offer. I know of no better view of God than the one I'm giving in this book.

But I could be wrong and things could change and I might have a change of mind and something might come up that made me alter my views. But to my knowledge, at this point in time, this is the best view of God that I'm aware of.

Right. So on the topic of time, the way time is perceived is dependent on light.

For us, if you were 7,000 light years away and able to look at Earth, you would see Earth as it was 7,000 years ago right now. So do you think that could have any effect on God's relation to time? Is he just so? Is he? If he is everywhere, is he super far away? Is he?

How does that.

Yeah, well, if God's everywhere, God can't be super far away. God be right here, wherever here is. Right.

So I think the notion of God's omnipresence is even stronger reason to think that God experiences time moment by moment in succession like we do.

And so this idea of light years and distances between things, if we take omnipresent seriously, really shouldn't have an effect on how we think about God in time. Because again, if God's omnipresent and time is an aspect of all reality, then God is going to experience experience time.

So I think this is going to tie in really well to the next question.

I personally, given what we know of time, how it's experienced differently depending on light, how it's experienced differently depending on gravitational pool, whether or not it exists when not observed seems to be a pretty interesting question. I think it's so we know so little about time, it's hard to make any affirming statements that involve time.

But I still agree with you, at least biblically, it seems as though God is sequentially experiencing relationship with us. I'm just not sure that I have enough to say. That also means he's always experiencing everything that way. Like, I just don't know.

Because time seems to be something we don't know enough about. That I'm like, I want to hold this really loosely and say I affirm that relationship bit.

But how God's experiencing just existence and time itself, I'm gonna have to. I'd be like, to me, it is a mystery that I want to solve, but I'm getting to the mystery language.

And there's multiple ways of using that I'd like to. I try not to use it that way.

Usually I want to use it in the way of like awe inspiring or something about the divine that's like just above me that I want to reach. But in this instance I'm like, I am kind of using it in the.

I just don't know if I can solve this, which I know you have a little bit of a problem with.

Yeah, well, I mean, I don't want to claim that I know for sure that God experiences time like us, because as you know from this book, I'm often saying that I not even 100% sure there is a God, let alone that God experiences time. But I am saying that this is what I think is the most plausible explanation of things. And this is where we're going to disagree. Maybe.

I think if you really want to say God's a loving individual, you're committed to saying God experiences time. Why? Because love as we know it is a time oriented activity.

And unless you're going to define divine love as something radically different than anything we know, and therefore define it away, then I think you're committed to having some notion of a God who experiences time in some way.

So a person like me who's writing a book on systematic theology of love and putting love at the center, I have to ask myself, okay, well, what is love like? Well, it turns out that love seems to be a relational activity that responds to the past and anticipates values for the future. So it's time oriented.

You could define God's love as timeless. It's just that it wouldn't be love as we have any understanding of.

Would you be okay with me being more of a. Yes. And like, I affirm that God at least has to experience, at the, at the minimum, has experienced love in that subsequential way.

But I'M also thinking if he is in all places, what we know of time and how the many things that affect it, that there's probably also more to, but not less than how God's experiencing time.

I think I agree with that. Yeah. I'm kind of stuck on why it changes things if God is present to all of reality.

You know, just because some places time seems to unfold at different rates based on gravitational pull and stuff.

So I'm thinking if he's in two places at once, I'm not sure how that works because we don't know of anything large enough to really do experiments on and see. Well, what if it's so big that it's have multiple different gravitational pulls on it and. I don't know.

Yeah, yeah. I guess back to my earlier thing, what I'm fundamentally committed to is a God who experiences succession of motion of moments.

So let's say I'm going to just pick Galaxy R has a time rate slower than our galaxy. If God's present to both of them, God is experiencing both sequences of time. This one is slower than the other.

It doesn't mean God is timeless or outside of time in the future or something. Yeah, yeah. Or in the future, whatever.

Yeah, that makes sense. Okay, I'm with you.

Our perception of time doesn't have necessarily any bearing on its existence.

And my thought process is slower than Tom's, so he has to explain stuff. Maybe that's what divine love is like sometimes too. You got to slow it down.

Yeah.

You have a chapter on mystery and you discuss a couple of good and bad ways people use mystery in theology, like Josh is about to do.

So you think that there's any way that the humility that comes with embracing mystery could be helpful to church unity without having it used defensively as a means to justify bad theology?

I like this question. Since you guys talk a lot about. Excuse me. Since you guys talk a lot about church unity, I'm glad you brought this up.

I do think humility and mystery can help us maintain a sense of unity by reminding us that we haven't got God figured out entirely. And I think that's an appropriate appeal to mystery. If you say, you know What? I'm not 100% sure God is like this.

I'm not certain even that there is a God. I think that helps people kind of lower their expectations and they're more open to dialogue with someone who's not dogmatic.

As you guys know from our past conversations, there are two responses to mystery that I don't like one I call a defensive mystery, which is a person who, instead of changing their views about God when they're argued into a corner, just throws out the mystery card and says, well, you know, God's ways are not our ways. I think that's cheating in the theological conversation.

But I also don't like those people who most of them are on the progressive side, who throw out the mystery card in terms of God is absolutely beyond anything we could imagine whatsoever.

I think we do need to make real claims that are rational and plausible about who God is, all the while admitting we haven't got God figured out fully and we aren't certain.

Yeah, good stuff.

So a claim made early on in this book is that you build your theology on reason and experience, love and life, however, rarely feel like they fit into a systematic structure. So how do you think it's possible to embark on using experience to help structure a project like this one?

Yeah, I mean, the question kind of makes it sound like someone could embark on this project and not have experience be their way of going about doing systematic theology. And now, of course, plenty of people claim that Wayne Grudem claims to have his theology based on the Bible.

But if you read Wayne Grudem and any other person's theology very carefully, you quickly realize that their experience is shaping how they interpret the Bible, how they understand reality. And so experiences inevitably a part of the process of doing theology, including constructive theology, systematic theology.

I'm just being explicit about it in ways that some other people don't want to be. Other people will claim, well, I'm not basing this theology on experience.

I'm basing it on the church Fathers, or I'm basing it on, you know, what science is telling us about the world. Well, they too, are operating from their experience of the Fathers or experience of history, their experience of science.

So experience is always going to be a part of it. You're right that experience is sometimes not easily constrained or accounted for by reason.

And that's one of the tricks that a theologian has to work with, and that's to try to come to terms with. Can you give a reasonable account of experience?

And my way of going about things is typically to say, you know, we have to interpret experience, but experience should shape our use of reason, and we shouldn't have reason clamp down and eliminate experiences. In some ways, experience comes first because it's inevitable that it's going to have impact on how we think about God.

So that means, you know, sometimes blowing up some of my ideas because they don't fit experience and trying something else. What I really want to try to avoid then is having making two claims based on experience that are contradictory to one another.

I suspect that when that happens, there's another way to overcome that contradiction. At least I'm looking for it when it happens. And that's how I think about reason and experience.

Yeah, yeah. You actually had a talk with Jonathan Foster on his podcast about whether or not love can be talked about in a systematic way.

So I'm going to try to remember and plug that down below. I do, I want to touch on a little bit because experience, it's a. It's an interesting thing that you pull from.

As someone who grew up a lot more conservative, I'm still more conservative than probably most of our other friends, if I had a guess. But I don't think overall I would consider myself conservative. I don't know. Terms are weird, labels are weird. I don't like them.

But I have found in our circles that I tend to be in now more academic, more, you know, progressive leaning Christianity, tend to dismiss a lot of stuff that I grew up with in Pentecostalism when it comes to like speaking in tongues, healings, a lot of that kind of stuff. It's like, okay, well that's not real. And I'm like, well, I've seen it.

I've experienced speaking in tongues, I've experienced healings, I've seen these things happen. So it's a little bit like when academia seems to belittle that or dismiss it.

I'm like, something feels off to me when I've seen these things happen or I've experienced it for myself personally. So I actually really like that. You kind of do put an emphasis on it. Like it's not all just head. Some of it is what we have experienced does matter.

I totally agree. And I think academics are foolish to dismiss speaking in tongues, healings, etc. When of course they're legitimate.

You know, you and I probably, at least I've been in places in which I think people were faking things and it wasn't all genuine. But yeah, we have to take the weird experiences of life into account.

Now, sometimes experiences are put into a particular interpretive framework and told that they mean something when another framework can give just as good or even better account of what's happening. So, for instance, speaking in tongues, I used to speak in tongues an awful lot of.

And when I had an interpretive framework for speaking in tongues, which said that momentarily God took over my body and took Control of my mouth. And these words that came out were the precise words that the Holy Spirit wanted me to say.

Now, when I speak in tongues or hear other people speak in tongues, I don't think God is controlling them. I think they're voluntarily letting their mouth run in whatever way.

I'm not saying that it's just them and God has nothing to do with it, but that interpretive framework that I put on it is different.

And so I can appreciate the experience of speaking in tongues, but give it a different interpretation based on my view of divine action and creaturely response.

I don't want to get too stuck in the rabbit hole, but I really like that explanation because something that really bothered me as a kid, even that it wasn't until more recently that I've started trying to make sense of, because I basically was like, oh, it's not going to make sense. Ignore it. Ignore it. Ignore it. Yeah, the people. Because, you know, grew up in a castle.

A lot of people in my family, it was like different parts of the family spoken tongues similarly, but not similar to one another. Like, my dad had a specific thing.

When my dad speaks in tongues, I think anybody knows it because it's really specific and it sounded different than other people's. And that always bothered me a little bit because I'm like, okay, if it's the language of the angels, why is it so different?

Like, my language doesn't sound so different from other people who speak English. And then if it's like God taking over, well, why is he taking over one person differently? You know, like, it never quite added up.

So understanding that humans are also playing a role in whatever is happening there, even if it's not just all in your head, helps make sense of that. So I actually do really appreciate that.

Yeah. Good. Yeah.

There's a much scarier answer, which is it wasn't the language of the angels. Yeah, Some other celestial being. Well, there's, like, old John's tongue sound a little different. They're summoning something.

No, he. He's just secretly, unbeknownst to him, he's been talking to Odin. Everybody else is talking to Poseidon. That's really what's happening.

But, you know, this. This is another good example. Let's take what some people call demonic oppression, or they would say possession.

Sometimes people do really weird things. Their eyes roll back. They. They, you know, some. I've seen some weird things in my life. So how do you give an account of that?

Well, if you're someone who believes in demons, you might Say that in those instances the demon has particular influence on the person. Or other people would say control, but I don't think demons control people.

But you might also say if you don't believe in demons, you might say, well, that's a mental illness issue, or they've got some sort of thing going on in their. And give a kind of a naturalistic account.

In both cases, you're taking the experience seriously, but you're giving a different account of what's behind that experience. And so theologians like me who take the experience seriously, we can sometimes have different accounts of why that experience happened that way.

But we're not dismissing the experience entirely.

Can I venture to try to make you uncomfortable with a story? Go for it. I usually don't talk about stuff like this because I know a lot of our more academic leaning friends might shudder at stories like this.

But I just kind of like, I think your framing might help with this a little bit. I remember seeing and it was something to me that like, it never felt quite real. Like it felt weird to me.

And even looking back on it, like, so it was at a church camp, as many of my stories are.

There was a younger kid, in the sense that he was smaller, who was lifting a full grown adult up and he's like kind of doing like a speaking in tongues kind of thing. He's telling people what's going on in their life. That for all intent that we know of, he shouldn't know about this stuff. So people called it demon.

I was really quick to be on, yeah, that's the only explanation I could think of. And then, you know, I thought about. It was like, okay, well, you know, maybe he overheard some stuff and that's why he knows this thing.

Or maybe it was an adrenaline rush or why he was able to do that.

And I think I like this idea better of maybe it's some mixture of like human cooperation with something spiritual and it's not one thing or the other. I actually do think I like that explanation better. It makes that experience less scary at the very least.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And my explanation is not dismissing demons as, no, impossible. I'm not making that.

I'm just saying we have these experiences, we have to try to account for them. There's different models to try to account for them. The question is which model overall makes better sense?

You guys know that I don't think God can control anyone or anything at any time.

So I'm incorporating that view when it comes to speaking in tongues and saying, nope, when people speak in tongues, God doesn't control them in that moment. They're contributing something. But I'm not dismissing the possibility that God is inspiring it somehow, you know, co creating alongside creatures.

I'm saying that's a real possibility.

Yeah. Well into your credit, you know, that accounts for. Why would a loving God let someone be controlled by a demon? Answer.

He wouldn't.

Maybe they're cooperating with the spirit in that way. And then.

Yes.

Yeah. Like, like it. It does seem to make sense of like human cooperation with the spirits. It's not one thing or the other. And I'm like, ah, yeah, that.

It just seems to make more sense. Yeah, yeah, I do. I like that a lot.

And the Bible credit, because I have to do a Bible every now and then so people know that I'm still like a guy who likes the Bible a lot. Paul does talk about practicing and exercising your spiritual gifts.

Yep.

That doesn't make sense with the normal frameworks we talk about. I think it makes sense what you're talking about, so.

Right.

Yeah.

Why would you have to be asked to practice your gifts if God takes control of you when you're doing your gifts? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So we are. When I say we, I mean me. Trying to get our hands on, once again, me. An exorcism book that is only sold to clergy and mental health professionals.

Aiding clergy in terms of demonic possession and exorcisms. So if you're listening and have that kind of access, reach out, let me know. I'll pay for it. I want to know what's in that book.

I want to know what that book says.

Also not related to TJ Sings. Just random recommendation. Michael Heiser, been on the show before also. May he rest in peace. All the good things. I liked him. He was a great guy.

I don't know how much I agree with the stuff that he said, but if you're just interesting in like the lore, like Jewish Christian lore, you think that stuff's interesting. He does write a demon book. I thought it was really interesting. I did not agree with his takes on a lot of it.

But I'm like, man, this is really interesting when you dig into all the different. Because, you know, I feel like not everybody reads the whole Bible and very.

And even fewer people read the whole Bible than the subliminal, you know, the extra texts that go with it. So you can piece all that together. He did it, so now you don't have to. Yeah.

But Tom, what is the plan for the other volumes of A Systematic Theology of Love? When can we Expect volume two. Where should we go to buy it?

Well, you can get Systematic Theology Volume 1 on any bookseller online. Bookseller, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, whatever. There's both the hardback, paperback, audio and ebook.

So you know the question of, well, how can you even have any knowledge of this God who I'm saying exists and creates, etc. Then I'll move into the special revelation that at least Christians think can be found in Jesus of Nazareth.

Talk about Christology, what Jesus was up to, his person and work. Those are kind of standard categories for systematic theology.

I'll have a chapter there on the Trinity which will be probably very controversial because the Trinity doesn't play a central role in my theology and others people that does. So I'm going to lay out the reasons why you should or shouldn't believe in a Trinity and which models make the most sense and etc.

Then I'll move into salvation and what that looks like when we put love at the center. Sanctification. That'll be plenty of things to talk about for volume two.

Volume three then picks up with some of the remaining what we call loci, which are topics in systematic theology. Things like ethics, ecclesiology, religious pluralism. Probably do a science and religion chapter, eschatology in things.

And then one of the unusual things. Most systematic theologies begin with a methodology chapter, a method.

And I'm going to put that at the very end of mine because I think it's boring to most people. But anyway, that's the layout of things. Can I say one other thing real quick if folks listening would like to be along for the journey?

I'm posting these chapters on substack and there's both a paid and a free option there to read through and make comments.

People who did that for this first volume, not only did it affect what I wrote and I made changes based on their advice, but I also listed them in the acknowledgments in the book and sent them a signed copy of it.

Nice.

I was gonna say, I think you should publish the methodology completely separate, make it a name. Just boom. Fourth book. There's the methodology. It'd be way funnier.

That's not a bad idea actually, that's not a bad idea.

I. I'm excited to hear Christology. That's what I'm excited for. Other things I would just like to hear Tom talk about it. Don't have to be in these books.

I would like and I see or something. I want to hear your thoughts on the, like the numinology, like specifically gist of the Holy Spirit, I think would be fun at some point.

And something that really bugs me, like a lot of people write systemic theologies that never write anything about theopraxy. That's something that interests me. I'm like, okay, cool, I know this stuff now. What do I do with this?

By theopraxy, do you have specific practices in mind or just in general, like the Vegas one?

If we're saying like, love is the primary thing about our theology, what does that mean about how we're acting in the world? And you know, I think that would be interesting. Or like, how does that impact how we're doing? Churches? Should churches be less intellectual?

Sexual focus? Should it be more hugs at church? You know, I know I'm being silly now, but like, I. I'm curious. What are the implications of it, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I'll get a little bit at that when I do the ethics and the ecclesiology. I. I haven't decided. Yeah, usually in the ecclesiology there's a section in which people talk about the sacraments, baptism.

Yeah, you know, that kind of things. And I'll probably do that. I haven't. I haven't got there yet. My head hasn't, you know, I'm not thinking carefully about it yet.

Part of the fun of writing books is you learn new things along the way and. And your plans change as you write. And so I'm sure that will happen in. Yeah, in the next two volumes.

Well, then this might even be a call to Jonathan Fox. Somebody listening. This is one of my. When I go to. So Systematic theology, you're getting it covered.

You usually it's, you know, Reformation people, straight white CIS guys, probably Baptist. Yeah, the same thing's unfortunately true if you come with like, spiritual disciplines or something like that.

Like one that I used to really love, I still actually appreciate. I can't remember the guy's name. I think it's Donald Whitney. We had him on the show too.

But he like, went through like, prayer and all this different stuff and like how we do these things and not like a rigid, formulaic way. But I'm like, where is that from? Open relational theology or process theology?

Where is the here's how I practice this because I'm like, I love a lot of what we're saying, but it seems to stay so abstract sometimes that I'm like, I don't know what to do or my old practice is still good. I just need to change the beliefs.

Yeah, there'll definitely be a chapter on prayer in that third volume, because that's a huge one.

Prayer is awesome. Well, you know, I say prayer is awesome. I mean, I love reading about prayer. I do also think prayer is awesome.

But when people write about prayer, it's always interesting because you, you can get anything from, well, you're really just doing it for yourself to God beckons at your call. If you live the right way, you can, you get some weird stuff. When people write about prayer, it's always fun.

Exactly.

Right?

Yeah.

So one thing, you know, Tom, that we do like to always do here on our show is to end discussing something practical that our listeners could go do, which ties into what I was talking about. Perfect. So what do you think?

If someone's listening to this, is there something you think they could stop and do as soon as the podcast is over that would help better engender Christian unity?

Right now I would say a person should go on their social media thread whatever they like to be on most and say something positive. Positive in response to something they see there. Be a. An encouraging voice on social media.

Unlike the world.

I will say one of my. One of my favorite things to see. I'm in a lot of Kingdom Hearts groups on social media.

My favorite video game and I love like, you'll have someone post something that's like, well, hey guys, I don't know how to beat this thing in the second game. And like usually what you end up in the comment section is people be like, occupational believe you don't know. I did that in middle school.

You know, whatever. People just saying stupid stuff like so many times in this community specifically it's like, oh, hey, I had a hard time with that too. Try this.

And I'm like, man, it's just so weird seeing positivity. And a lot of times I'm like, that is moving to me because I'm just got so used to expecting negative comments.

Yeah, my favorite games are not like that. Very much the opposite of that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean most things are.

I think what, what would change in the world if we. Everyone listening went out and became that light and was a force of positivity on their social media? What happens?

Well, I think folks would probably at Least some of them would reciprocate. And so we would start having an avalanche of more positivity.

It might make people see more clearly the decisions made by leaders that are not positive, that are taking us into war, trying to get us to fight with each other. So, you know, the ripple effect of positivity is unfathomable in its entirety. So it's hard for me to give a clear answer to that question.

I just know things can change for the good fairly quickly when people act for the good.

Right, Cool. So, you know, you've done it before. We've all been here before. We're about to do what we like to call our God moment.

The way we like to end the show, we call everyone out to share where they've seen God recently in their lives, whether it be a blessing or moment of worship or a challenge, whatever the curse case may be. I used to say curse. God's not cursing people these days. At least not to my knowledge.

I always make Josh go first to give the rest of us enough time to think about our God moment. So, Josh, do you have a God moment for us this week?

I'm gonna give an ongoing God moment. I think I mentioned it on the air.

I know I mentioned it to you and Christian that just, like, I had a few months there while just being really grumpy about everything, even something I'm like, actually, I know I'm not upset about this. Why did I respond that way? And, like, the last week or so since I mentioned that to you guys and was like, hey, could you guys pray with me?

And I think it's just, like, sometimes you just need to, like, verbalize, I need help. And that changes your mindset. And, like, I've even had people at work mention of, like, they were like, why are you so happy?

We are short, like, three people. And I'm like, I just tired of being not happy, you know? Yeah. So, like, I see a change in my daily life, and I feel better.

So that's gonna be my ongoing God moment. Yeah.

There's one time last week I was short five people.

Were you still happy that day?

You don't just kind of exist at that point.

Yeah. You're just like, yeah, whatever.

Yeah.

Well, the shit's gonna be happening. Yeah.

So for me, my God moment, Easter probably is gonna be my answer. Big, safe answer.

What's that?

Well, do you have 40 minutes? But for Easter every year, we usually go to my grandma's house. You know, after church, everyone eats lunch. She cooks.

It's just A nice little family get together. And when I say little, I mean, you know, I'm pretty much immediate family only and then they're immediate families and so on.

So it's like 30 people, but it's nice. This year was at my sister's house, had a little change of venue. Got to see all my family members, my cousins, and that I don't get to see so often.

It's great. It's just nice to be around a big loving family, which we are most of the time very blessed, extremely blessed to have that.

So, Tom, do you have a God moment for us?

Well, I was thinking some of the most positive things lately in my life is the responses I have received from a new movie that I've done and it's just come out, released this movie. It's a 40 minute kind of documentary kind of thing on photography and nature.

And I'm gonna, in the next month or so, a lot of groups are gonna show it and I'm gonna do Q and A, but I just have been feeling very good about the positive responses people have given to the film so far. Cool.

Are you gonna.

The movie is called Seer S E E R Subtitle A spiritual nature photographer explores Love.

Okay, cool. I think I found it or found something that'll tell me where to find it. Okay, that's all I need.

Thank you. Yeah.

Have a little filmmaking spin when you're done writing books.

That's right. Oh, it's a film I've been working on for a year, so I've been doing it while I've been writing.

And in the month of May, I'm showing it to maybe six or so different times. If folks get on my newsletter, they can see the showings and find a date that works for them.

I think all of them are free, so yeah, I'd love to have them check out my film.

Cool. Super cool. So if you like this episode or not, please consider sharing with a friend or an enemy. Share with your cousins especially.

Now's a good time. They probably just saw you because Easter. Yeah, cheat a little. Check out our website. Buy one of our T shirts to promote the show.

It helps us raise money for podcasting needs and lets others know about the importance of our mission to educate and unite the modern church.

There is another one of our shirts that I wear a lot and I never remember what it's called, but it's the one where we have our logo on the back as a word map.

Oh yeah, that thing is cool. Why don't I don't it's cool. Why don't I know what that's called? It's like the diverse church.

Maybe.

Maybe. I don't know, but that one's pretty sick. It is cool, though. Yes. Looks like a broken brick building. That's what you're talking about, right? Maybe.

That doesn't. That isn't how I would describe it. But sure,.

It's fine. I'll. I'll find it eventually. Yeah, but we'll know next time and we'll tell you guys.

Check out some of the shows on the Onazole Podcast network, though. We got Theology on the Wrongs with Leah Robinson, Dr. Reverend Leah Robinson, and Dr. Christy Whaley. Not reverend yet. Let nothing movie.

You got Christian Ashley, you want something a little bit different there. And then TJ and I are both on systematic geekology if you want to hear some faith in pop culture stuff.

We've had a few episodes of just Me and Him recently. Yeah, not the norm.

No, it's not. But we hope you enjoyed it.

Coming up, we'll have Dr. Reverend Leo Robinson back on to talk about her upcoming book on the harm of conversion therapy and how the church has handled LGBTQ peoples. Then we'll be having another roundtable discussion on evangelism, mission work, and other means of outreach.

After that, we plan to soon begin a series on behind the scenes of ministries from the local church to publishing and and more and beyond. So that'll be exciting. We'll probably have Tom on to talk about that, too.

So at the end of season one, of course, Francis Chan is going to be on the show.

Maybe he doesn't know about it, though, but one day, no idea.