A Story Worth Living

Philip All right. Welcome to All Are Yours. We’re back with another one.

Sean Welcome, Philip.

Philip That’s right. Welcome, Sean.

Sean Yes.

Philip Yes, we are here. It’s still us. It is only us. Maybe at some point we’ll have other people join us — that’s the idea, the desire at least.

Sean If you took the amount of conversations that you and I have had about having other people that we were going to have conversations with — if you had taken just our conversations about it, we’ve basically already interviewed maybe a dozen people.

Philip That’s true. This room is small for that. Can’t fit in all those people. But if we were to switch to video and get people in that way —

So anyway, those are just ideas. Just prepping our audience for a potential.

Sean Have you heard the joke before — you probably have — where somebody will say, “I have a face for radio”?

Philip Yeah.

Sean So we are definitely okay with just audio, because it was big enough to actually decide we were going to have a thing called a podcast anyway.

Philip That’s right.

Sean But whether or not we need to see our faces — and the other — I mean, you’ve actually done it, because you’ve been a guest on some —

Philip Star.

Sean A professional podcaster.

Philip That’s right.

Sean Yeah. I think I have only been on one that was recorded, but we were live.

Philip Okay.

Sean And they just had cameras in the room.

Philip Okay, cool.

Sean So that’s my only vodcast.

Philip I have no video podcast.

Sean Yeah.

Philip But anyway, at some point. Maybe when we get —

Sean That’s a different story.

Philip That’s correct.

So, this time we wanted to talk about story. And for a few different reasons, and maybe coming at it from a few different angles.

First off, because all are yours includes story. And in some way, even — at least you; maybe I didn’t have a chance to despise —

Sean — as well.

Philip — to develop my hate.

Sean In the name of Jesus.

Philip Yes. And then, coming across you, I’m like, okay, I don’t want to go in that direction.

Sean I was the warning character.

Philip That’s right.

No, but definitely both of us, I think, have an appreciation for story — and a growing appreciation, for all the different reasons. So we wanted to talk about our worldview story and how that connects.

And maybe, before we get into that, to prop it up a little bit. People have probably heard of even Doug Wilson’s culture wheel, right?

Sean Yeah. Worldview wheel, culture wheel.

Philip Worldview wheel, culture wheel. That’s right, worldview wheel. He’s talked about this a lot before, and about how you need the four different spokes of the worldview wheel to be able to have a consistent worldview.

He talks about having the catechesis, which is the dogma, the philosophy, how you answer the questions. So you catechize your kids, your students, yourself: how do you answer the doctrinal questions?

You have the lifestyle, which is the actions. How do you do your work? How do you live your life? Does your lifestyle actually align with your catechesis?

You have your liturgy — so the different rituals, the different maybe memorabilia in some way.

Sean Symbols.

Philip The symbols, right. So how you demonstrate some of that.

And then the fourth one is narrative. So what is your story? Who are your people? Who are the heroes? Who are the bad guys? What’s the arc in your story?

And so Wilson talks about these spokes having to connect, align, be consistent with one another — and even that the axle there within the spokes, he names as grace and gratitude. So grace is the one that keeps the wheel spinning. But you need to have these four spokes to it.

Sean Yeah, I really like that. Because in our backgrounds — even though I have a couple more decades of background, I guess — but in our church backgrounds, I think we both have more of an experience with “Christian equals a good catechized person.”

Philip Right.

Sean So get your sentences right. Your statements, your propositions of truth, theology — get those right. And of course those tend to promote labels that then are nicknames, or summaries of groups of sentences about different things.

But there’s a heavy emphasis in our background on the one and not necessarily the other spokes of that wheel, and it can tend then to become very two-dimensional, I think, rather than three-dimensional.

Story is still, on one hand, something that you can get from pages —

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean — obviously it’s a thing that can be verbally or orally transmitted as well, like before there was the printing press. There were still lots of stories; that’s actually how histories got communicated, was through telling of stories. The Odyssey, or The Iliad — those are big epic stories.

So story, on one hand, could still be two-dimensional. But it starts to put some flesh on the skeleton.

I don’t think that we would want any of the other spokes apart from catechesis, apart from truth and good statements of the truth, whether it’s a Bible verse or a description of what’s in that Bible verse. But story has a lot more color. It has some more flesh, some warmth to it.

Liturgy, maybe not as much warmth, but a lot of color. Lifestyle, a lot of warmth. Did I say liturgy has — I meant liturgy has color?

Philip Yeah, you said color.

Sean Yeah. Whether or not warmth — lifestyle is all about warmth.

And story seems to have that mix of some catechesis — if it’s a good story, it’s going to be true with how the world works — and yet it’s going to have some more color and warmth that pulls along the heart, I guess, not just the head.

Philip Right. Yeah, I think my upbringing, my cultural background, definitely was a big emphasis on the catechesis. So, getting the answers right, getting the doctrine, the truth statements right.

Sean Well, that way you could also then feel really good about bashing the heretics who got it all wrong.

Philip Right. Well, and I think — if I were to give grace, or assume good motives, to the foundation of that: I think a lot of the catechesis in those questions is even what drove a lot of the persecution in the Russian church. So it makes sense why there would be such a big emphasis on those sorts of things.

Sean Tell that part of the story.

Philip Right, there you go. Well, because what was being opposed, what was being hated, was those statements of truth. Jesus is God, or Jesus is not God. There is a God, or there is no God. The battle was with atheism, the battle was with secularism. And so that sort of battle was fought at the definitional level.

We’ve talked about my grandpa here before — his big emphasis was words, sentences, grammar. He lived his life fighting the battle at that level.

Sean So he paid a cost in his life for that.

Philip Right.

Sean But in terms then of trying to flesh out more proactively in life — obviously in terms of getting attacked, his life demonstrated that he believed what he said.

Philip Right.

Sean In terms then of opportunities, or time, to more proactively demonstrate it — did he get to do that?

Philip Well, the other part that is there, and was there, is the liturgy aspect of it.

Sean Okay.

Philip I think the Russian church had, and has, a lot of liturgy, symbolism, things that we do. But what was missing in that liturgy is maybe an explanation as to why — or, when there was an explanation, it wouldn’t connect with the heart. It would connect with “this is just the way we do things.” Right —

Sean — hand not talking to the left hand.

Philip Right, right.

So: big emphasis on catechesis, emphasis on the liturgy. And not much after that. I think lifestyle — I mean, as all people, and Christians also, it’s much harder to live out what you’re saying than just to say it.

Sean And as Wilson would point out, that is actually then a demonstration that something is wrong in the catechesis. Because — what’s the statement? Theology comes out your fingertips.

Philip Right.

Sean So whatever is coming out your fingertips is actually demonstrating what you really believe in your theology, or catechesis. Even though lots of times we try to build up our catechesis as being awesome.

Philip Right.

Sean And apparently it’s not, according to the fruit that is visible.

Philip Right. And so, having the catechesis, having the liturgy, and even having the lifestyle — I think there are a lot of Christians who, whether or not they have all their t’s crossed and i’s dotted, are pleasant people, are happy people, their kids like being around them, other people consider them friendly. So that kind of lifestyle maybe is pleasant, jealousable.

But the narrative aspect, even there, a lot of the time is missing. And it’s missing when it comes to both build and battle. So when it comes to making progress — either progress in advancing, progress in building, or progress in battling and fighting against, or in defending.

Just catechesis, liturgy, and lifestyle, I think, misses a key ingredient that the narrative aspect brings: understanding what part of the story arc you’re in, and being able to interpret that story, and interpret who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, how this connects and relates.

So even as an example, the 2020 closures, the shutdowns. A lot of Christians had a hard time placing characters, or explaining their characters.

Sean They didn’t see that Fauci is with her.

Philip That’s right. They just —

Sean — didn’t see it. And they could have. And it’d have been so much better.

Philip Right, exactly right.

And so I think when you have the story aspect of it, the narrative, you then can live that story — or you understand that you’re living a story.

And apart from Doug Wilson, Nate Wilson I think does an awesome job of hammering this point from all the different angles and perspectives — him being a storyteller.

Sean On their podcast: stories are soul food.

Philip Right, exactly right. So being able to understand — not just enjoying the fiction for the fiction’s sake, which is good too, enjoying a story, but then being able to understand the story you’re living, and then even living a worthy story.

Sean Or to see the story that God is telling, where we’re supposed to be the characters, in whatever chapter we’re in of the book of the story that he is telling.

So, so far we are really trying to avoid, today in this discussion — we’re avoiding catechetical labels. So if we’ve agreed — and I just can’t think of what the name of the game is, where you try to describe something to get the other person to say the word.

Philip Yeah, it’s not charades. Charades is when you show it.

Sean Yeah, and Pictionary’s when you draw it.

Philip Right.

Sean But yeah, so we’re talking about the story of things that do have catechetical definitions, labels, names, et cetera. But we are excited to talk about the story part, without — you know — self-limiting.

Philip Right. Well, and on a lot of it, I think the catechesis, the labels, the camps, the tribes, whatever, are helpful. They are helpful as nicknames. They’re helpful to understand. And so we are not against that in any way.

Sean I’m all about labeling people.

Philip That’s right. We label everything.

Sean Which — yeah, Proverbs is full of labels. So that we would see other people and figure out which kind of character they are.

Philip Right.

Sean Yep.

Philip And I think one part of what appreciating story teaches us is that there are a lot of times when labels are simplistic and misleading — or could be — when you look at them too narrowly. Or maybe you have a predefined, an earlier experience of somebody with a certain label, and then you assume everybody is like that.

And so God, a lot of the time, even in the Bible, and I think even in our own history, makes us test our labels that we thought were already set.

So, even having to make room for a character like Donald Trump in the outworkings of God’s providential, redemptive plan. I’m sure there were Jews who had to make room for Cyrus. Where it’s like, how does this work? This is not —

Sean Yeah. I’m about ready to start Esther, which is a historical story — and Ahasuerus, or Xerxes I, he’s absolutely crucial to God’s providential protection of the Jews.

Philip Right.

Sean And not because he was a believer, not because he repented, or whatever it was — became a Yahweh worshiper.

Philip Right. So then we have these sorts of labels that make it easier to live our life, that make it easier to put things in categories and move along. And we know who to ally with, we know who to maybe oppose.

But God tells a story in a very interesting way, where a lot of the times we end up having to decide: are we going to ally with somebody that we thought was at a different label? Or maybe it’s not an ally — maybe it’s a co-belligerent, in that way. Or, am I going to vote for Donald Trump? So this is again a question that Christians had to wrestle with.

And I think when we look at labels and catechesis and that sort of thing in a simplistically unhelpful way, we look at it too flat, too two-dimensional, like you mentioned before — where story provides a three-dimensional approach, where there’s a lot more necessary nuance to the situation.

Sean Yeah. If I just label Donald Trump as a clown, I couldn’t vote for him. But could there be a ridiculously high-capacity clown? That is doing things that he doesn’t even know — he can’t even explain why he’s doing some of the things that he is. But other people could see the arc. And then be like, okay, well — it’s not great that he’s a clown. On the other hand, all right, well, he’s going, he’s doing something.

Philip Right. And I mean, we already mentioned Doug Wilson, but I think Doug Wilson is a master in this way: being able to understand the story, and even building bridges with people who, on the catechesis level, he might not agree with completely, or maybe is even very far away from. And other people look at that and say, how could you ever work with this person across the aisle?

But it makes sense for him, because he’s reading that story, or he’s looking at it that way. And these are things that he’s talked about himself, and has tried to get people to think through.

Sean So, when it comes to labels we’re not using in today’s recording, but looking at it from the story standpoint: back in the day, as you were reading the story of the Bible and you were hearing some different options for what story God was telling, there were some particular plot points, or movements along the way, that you found to be less compelling, and some that were more compelling.

So can you talk some about the less compelling story versions that made you think, hmm, well, there is something better, or more appealing, more jealousable even, about this other plot?

Philip Right. Well, and I think — yes, we could fight the catechesis, we could fight the definitions, the terms. But before I get into answering your question, maybe two things, just to till the soil there, so it’s relevant.

We lose our kids — Christians lose their kids to the world — typically not because of catechesis, but typically because of stories. Kids follow a certain kind of story. This is why paying attention to what your kids are consuming on a story level is so critical, so important. Whether that’s movies, shows, books, whatever that is — for them to be able to take in the right stories, the right arcs, and specifically even how good and evil is defined.

And I think the same thing, though, within a Christian context. Christians also have different stories. Eschatological stories.

Sean That was really close to a label.

Philip That was not a label, though.

Sean It was an adjective.

Philip I thought about it.

Sean It was a lowercase E.

Philip Correct.

Sean And then adjectives.

Philip There’s no label there.

Sean Yeah.

Philip People have labels in that category.

Sean Yep.

Philip But yes. I’m not pinning any labels.

But yeah — we like or don’t like certain kinds of stories, and these arcs as well. And a lot of the time, what is compelling, what is persuasive — or even what is the opposite of compelling, pushing us away, maybe — isn’t even the catechesis as much as the story. And we’re not always willing, or wanting, to admit that.

I think unhelpfully, both the people who are pounding on catechesis refuse to admit that story actually plays an important part, and also the people who are swayed, convinced, persuaded, compelled by story — whether or not that story is true — also usually don’t like to admit that. “No, I’m compelled by the truth, I’m compelled by the fact.”

But what was it that pricked your attention?

Sean I’ve definitely heard some people say that they are compelled by the beauty of the story, and therefore that has caused them to overlook, like intentionally blur out, some of the individual details that maybe catechesis demands an answer to. So, what does this mean? It means this — but it’s more beautiful in their mind if they can, you know, like those paintings where you squint at them to see something and you don’t have to see the individual points within it.

Philip Right. You can just step back and look at the whole thing.

Sean Right. People who claim that has moved them, as well.

Philip Right. And I mean, that’s the way that God has designed us, and that’s the way that God is as well. God is a storyteller. He has told, and is telling, a story. And he’s wired us to appreciate that. He’s wired us to pay attention to beauty, to pay attention to things like sacrifice, things like victory, things like justice. These are all different themes and traits that a good storyteller will use to make his story compelling.

So I don’t think it’s anything to be ashamed of, or even to try to hide. If you’re using story to compel others, to persuade others — or even if you are compelled and persuaded by story — I think it’s important to understand what place that plays.

Sean Yeah. So we still have the question on the table, but now I’m adding a parenthesis.

Philip Okay.

Sean Because — it’s not that there’s probably an easy way to tell this story that is too simplistic, but: C. S. Lewis was in a debate. I think he was in a debate about miracles with a particular lady, and everybody said that this lady mopped the floor with him. Whatever happened in the actual argumentation, she defeated him, and defeated him soundly. And it was a theological or philosophical debate on the existence of miracles, the supernatural.

And it was not that long after his failed debate that the Chronicles of Narnia started to come out. Clearly those didn’t come just because he failed this apologetic debate. But he saw the ability to communicate a supernatural universe, and the place of miraculous things, amazing things.

He actually was more successful in communicating a world where an amazing sort of — again, supernatural — kind of existence, without using any definitions. You read the Chronicles of Narnia, they’re hard to not enjoy. And they make you assume what kind of universe you’re living in.

And that is way more successful in Lewis’s life, at least, of what he produced or how he argued — the Chronicles of Narnia way more get us to think about the deeper magic than maybe his just straight-up debate about whether the universe is supernatural or not.

So we’re not opposed to the catechesis, not opposed to the debates. But there is still something powerful —

Philip Right.

Sean — that brings you along and gives you a taste differently than just reading the dictionary.

Philip Right, exactly right. And so, again, I think listening to Doug Wilson, listening to Nate Wilson, when they talk about story, God as a storyteller, paying attention to the way God tells stories — that drove me to start paying attention to the way God tells stories.

So, the arc in the Bible, the story arc. The way that — maybe on a micro level, within the biblical narrative — God delivers his people. Story by story: what happens, what kind of pattern, rhythm. To be able to hear God’s voice in the story, like, if I didn’t know who the author was, to be able to recognize: hey, God told this story.

There are these sorts of patterns and rhythms that we see in the Bible where we could determine, it seems like this is the way God tells stories.

And there are also explicit themes, and maybe even points, that God tells us to pay attention to when he’s telling the story. So, his big emphasis on glory — on his own glory, and even the glory for his people. This is a big theme in God’s story, that we see throughout all of Scripture. Sometimes it is in the background, and sometimes it’s very much in the foreground.

And specifically then, in that theme of glory, the way that God comes at that glory — even, I think you mentioned it again this last Sunday, when Moses asked God to show him his glory. And God’s answer was that he is gracious to whom he’s gracious, and he has mercy on whom he has mercy. And so this aspect, or this theme, of God’s mercy is a theme in God’s story that he has.

Pagan stories don’t have that. This is God’s voice. Who determines that? Who —

Sean Yeah, definitely not in the gods of men. You would have maybe the god who has a bunch of power. Maybe there was a god of mercy somewhere, but typically — I can’t even think of, of the half dozen gods I can think of that get major billing in the stories, mercy was not a thing that they were concerned with. Power obviously was a thing they were concerned with. Or maybe like sneaky sort of wisdom-y —

Philip Right.

Sean — not really wisdom, but knowledge, and ability to use that.

So, definitely not a god that had all the power and was full of mercy. Men don’t make up that God.

Philip Right.

Sean Men make up something without mercy, actually.

Philip Right. Well, and connected with that mercy, a theme that we see in Scripture about God, and about his storytelling, and even the story that he’s presenting, is his steadfastness — and particularly his steadfast love. His, in some sense, loyalty, I guess, in that way. And maybe even steadfastness to his own word, steadfastness to his own promise.

Sean Yeah. I mean, he delights in not just accomplishing things, but in saying what he was going to accomplish, and then accomplishing it. He delights in us living by faith. And in order to live by faith, you need to know that the person is trustworthy, that they deserve that trust, that faith. And so you’ve got to tell them what you’re going to do before you do it.

Philip Right.

Sean And potentially — and obviously, in God’s story, there’s lots of waiting time, where you would actually then wonder: did he forget that he said he was going to do that? Did he change his mind? Did he change the terms?

Philip And this happens a lot in Scripture — where his people are: what happened? What’s going on?

Sean Yeah. We are still at some point in many cycles of needing to do that. And however many layers of the plot he’s got going on.

Philip Right.

Sean He’s infinitely wise. So he’s telling all kinds of little stories as part of the big stories. Or, sometimes it’s referred to as the metanarrative. That’s not a theological term, so I feel like I could use that label.

Philip Well, and it’s not really a label. It’s just the term.

Sean Sure. Let’s go with that.

So, the big story. And how many layers of understories? Which would include individual persons, would include families, would include nations, would include generations — at least those different, where you’ve got groups of people. Those are part of — they all have their own little plots —

Philip Right.

Sean — and conflicts, resolutions, where they’re waiting for God to do something, he does it. Then they forget that he did it, and then they’re wondering three minutes later if he’s going to do the next thing that he told them he was going to do.

Philip Exactly right. And so his steadfast love — and I think that whatever the term is there that gets translated “steadfast” —

Sean That’s right.

Philip You mentioned that earlier. It’s used a lot. It’s everywhere. You start paying attention to that, and it seems like, this is a big theme. This is a big metanarrative, in that way, of a message that God is getting across, wanting us to pay attention to: his steadfast love. And that’s connected to what you said — him saying things, him making promises, and then him fulfilling those promises, him coming through. And that’s where his trustworthiness is demonstrated.

Sean Yeah. I like to think of God’s attributes — and I don’t know that Jonathan Edwards in one sentence described it like this, but: if God is infinite, then any one of his attributes is taking on that infinite quality as well. And because they are God’s, and they are infinite, they are excellent. So anything that God is, is infinitely excellent.

To us finite beings, our finite thinking, it’s going to be beyond us. So whatever God tells us is one of his character parts is beyond what we could spend an eternity on, if we were focused on just that one thing. Because we’re never going to grasp infinity the same way.

So his justice is infinitely excellent justice. His wisdom is infinitely excellent wisdom. And his power — there’s no power like his anywhere. Any understanding we have of power is just a kernel, a taste, of what his power is.

And this also means, then, that his grace, his love, his steadfast love, his trustworthiness, his commitment, his loyalty to his word — these are all infinitely excellent things.

And pre–Genesis 1:1 — because we know in Genesis 1 that there’s some kind of discussion among, it seems like, the persons of the Trinity: “let us make man in our image,” kind of idea. So if we were to take that back pre–Genesis 1:1, and imagine the persons of the Trinity in conversation — and I’m only thinking of that in terms of what’s revealed in Genesis 1; it seems like maybe somehow that was happening.

Okay, so here the persons of the Trinity are wondering: you know what, how should we show off the steadfast love that we have, that’s infinitely excellent? Well — we’re living in that story.

Because even Jonathan Edwards’s book, The End for Which God Created the World, is God’s glory. Okay, so there isn’t any other glory like God’s. It’s wrapped up in the various attributes that he has as well. So God is after the maximum demonstration of his glory.

What story do you tell to then get maximum glory at the end? And we’re living in it. He knows the best way for him to get the glory.

Philip Right.

Sean He knows the best way for him to demonstrate who he is, what is great in the various parts. Again, not trying to divide him into parts — but he has revealed himself to have these attributes. And so that we would love him.

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean Know him, yes — catechesis — but also love him, in terms of seeing the story. And the lifestyle, at least, probably.

Philip Right.

Sean So: how is that steadfast love unlike anybody else’s steadfast love? Anybody else’s is purely a reflection, which, as image bearers, shouldn’t be a surprise.

But so we’re looking to see the maximum display of steadfast love in this story of his creation, of his world, his history. And we should try to not miss that.

Philip Right. Well, and I think there are maybe two requirements, or —

Sean This sounds —

Philip — necessities.

Sean This is the catechesis about narrative, right here.

Philip That’s right. This is narrative catechesis.

Sean Yep.

Philip No — but to be able to demonstrate steadfast love. So, a story that is in the Bible: was it the prophet Hosea, whom God told to marry the prostitute?

Sean Yes.

Philip And so this was a demonstration, a story that God was having the prophet live out in real time, to showcase God’s steadfast love. He had him marry this prostitute. The woman then betrayed him, committed adultery, was living with some other guy. And then God told the prophet Hosea to go buy her back.

And this was a story that God was showing about his relationship with Israel.

So what was required there in that story was betrayal on the part of — I forgot her name.

Sean Yeah.

Philip But on the part of that prostitute, on the part of the woman — that, in order for that love to be steadfast, to actually be shown loyal, things had to be bad. And those bad things had to be on the part of the object who is to receive this steadfast love. And so she had to be —

Sean Gomer.

Philip Gomer. That’s right.

Sean “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.”

Philip Right. So here God is setting up this situation. He’s setting up the story to be lived out. And he is saying that this is a metaphor, a symbol — it’s explaining his actions toward Israel.

And so the woman Gomer had to be unfaithful. She had to be not steadfast. She had to demonstrate that kind of characteristic, in order for Hosea to be able to demonstrate his steadfast love to her. If she was not unfaithful, then his steadfastness would not have been as great. If things are easy, it’s not that glorious.

Sean Yeah. Because Jesus said, you love those who love you — big whoop. Everybody can do that.

Philip Right.

Sean So: love your enemies.

Philip Right.

Sean Well, this is showing actual depth of love. It’s not that “love those who love you” means it’s not love —

Philip Love.

Sean — love what is beautiful doesn’t mean it’s not love.

Philip Right.

Sean But there is a depth, or breadth even, to a love that loves your enemies. That loves the less beautiful into —

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean — more loveliness. Or overcomes the resistance, or the betrayal, like you’re talking about.

Philip Right. And there’s a certain kind of glory, depth, like you’re saying, that has that.

And so the betrayal had to happen. That’s the first part, maybe the first necessity, for that steadfastness to be demonstrated.

And the second part of it was for Hosea, in that instance, to be the one to go advance and take the action to buy her back. So he was the deliverer in that situation. It’s not that she ended up coming back on her own, or that somehow a third party figured it out and made it happen. He took action, and he was the deliverer.

And over and over in the biblical narrative, in a lot of different stories, God’s message to his people is: watch me work. Watch me work. I will deliver. And even a lot of the praises that are sung to God are about past deliverances that they remember him doing — whether it’s Egypt, or then conquering the land. Over and over again it’s about God coming through.

Sean When it seems like it’s impossible. And they don’t deserve it.

Philip Right. Exactly right.

Sean They have done everything to deserve him abandoning them.

Philip Right.

Sean And it looks like it’s over. There’s no way that it could get fixed at this point. And in those impossible, undeserved moments is when the steadfast love initiates, to overcome and resolve it.

Philip Exactly right.

So, having those — and this is all me answering your question about —

Sean Oh, I know it.

Philip Um —

Sean Dear listener, do you know it? That’s right. I know it.

Philip So, about having those aspects in that story, and seeing that in the Bible. Okay, so when I see this kind of story — this is God. God is the author here. God is telling the story.

Or, if I would ask it a different way: what kind of story would God tell? If God were to tell a story, how would he tell it? What would it be like?

Drawing that from the Bible, it would have those narrative ingredients in it: there being ultimately this glory that is demonstrated through steadfast love. And that being showcased by the object of that steadfast love doing everything they can to forgo it, to drop it, to run from it. And the subject, the one who is giving that steadfast love, being the one who comes through, and is faithful, and delivers, and pulls that in.

Sean Yeah, what do they call that — like devices? A story device, a kind of thing that you can use that accomplishes a certain effect in a story. These are the devices, these are the plot points, these are the typical pieces that he would use.

Philip Right. And what makes it — I think what is necessary there is for those parties to be the same parties. So if I want to show my wife how much love I have for her, it has to be her that I’m showing that love to. I can’t then show it to somebody else. And so, having that sort of — again, both the object —

Sean So you’re saying, like, I have husbandly love for my wife, and then I show that to a mistress.

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean But it’s the same — I’m trying to argue that it’s the same behavior, affection, sacrifice, expense, but it’s marital love given to this other woman. I can’t claim that that is the actual steadfast love, because I’ve switched the target.

Philip Right. We would say that is not steadfast love. That is the opposite of that.

Sean Right.

Philip And we would even —

Sean I can’t say that that is the fulfillment of my marital love, having transferred it to another person.

Philip Right, exactly right. I think that if we were to see that kind of story, we would be right to look at it with disgust. We would be repulsed by it. We would be drawn away from that sort of story.

If a husband vowed his love to this woman, and then his objective, his goal, that he explicitly said, was to show this woman and show everybody else, show the whole world, how much love he has for this specific woman — and then that woman betrayed him. And so he would switch her with somebody else.

Sean What if that woman killed his favorite something?

Philip Right. His dog.

Sean Yeah.

Philip No, but — yeah.

Sean We need something even more valuable than the dog.

Philip Yeah. But so, the woman did the worst thing to — she did everything possible for him to reject, replace, change the object of his steadfast love. He was in full right to do so.

But that’s still not him demonstrating steadfast love to her, to this woman — if he were to reject her, if he were to turn away from her.

And again, if this is the story that we’re reading — like we’re watching a movie, we’re reading a book, and this is where the arc is bringing us to. And at the end, it’s like Gone with the Wind, where he’s like, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” And then he walks away.

Sean Yeah.

Philip That’s like the first cuss word in Hollywood, or something.

Sean Was it?

Philip I think that’s what it was. I think that was the first cuss word in Hollywood. At least, I remember hearing that.

Sean What the heck.

Philip Yeah, what the heck.

But so he says that, and he walks away. And that’s the end of that movie. And if that was the end of this movie that we’re watching — and in that case, she did make his life miserable, and he was not trying to demonstrate steadfast love to her — but if it were, it’d be a letdown. We’d be disappointed. That would be an unresolved story.

And so, seeing that in the Bible, and then looking at — okay, what, in this case, eschatological story has that sort of narrative? What is consistent with the way God tells the story? That’s where I was compelled toward one and not the other.

Again, that’s not what convinced me. But that’s what made me think twice. Made me look at it again, look at it closer.

Sean It was a burr under your saddle.

Philip Right.

Sean This doesn’t seem —

Philip Right, exactly right.

And so yeah, I think that is important to consider. I think it’s important to understand and to draw from the Bible even not just the catechesis, not just the definitions, but the actual story as well. To draw from the Bible: what kind of story does God tell? If God is telling a story, what is the right way for me to understand it, look at it — and to have that also be determined by Scripture, by the Bible.

Sean Sure. I think we could apply from another angle also related to the story. So, when we’re seeing how God likes to bless — he blesses people for the sake of not just their life, but for their glory, their praise of him. And so he says the kinds of things that he gives as blessings, the kinds of things he cares about his people having, for their good.

And he is the one who said that blessings come in at least two broad categories. One would be spiritual blessings; the other are material blessings. Paul goes out of his way in Romans 15 or 16 to talk about: you got spiritual blessings, it’s appropriate for you to share your physical or material blessings back with those from whom you got the spiritual blessings.

So the categories are God’s categories. The book of Psalms in particular is full of — well, how does God give good things to his people? What kinds of good things does he give? He gives soul things, and he gives body things. He gives today’s things, he gives generational things. He gives truth that we can know. He gives land on which we can live, and have fields that are ready to harvest, kind of thing.

So when we look at how he likes to give blessings in the story, it is also strange that not just do some people then think that there can be a new woman, but sometimes they think, well, God actually has then decided he’ll still give some good things to the original woman, but only the spiritual things. He’ll not actually then give the rest of the physical things that it seemed like he cared about giving her previously.

He promised he was going to give her a certain kind of land. And there were going to be cities that were full, and there was going to even be a king over the land, on a throne, for a certain period of time. Actually — nope.

Some say that the original woman doesn’t deserve blessings anymore at all, and he’s moved on. Some will say, well, no, he’s going to give her some, but not all the original —

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean — and not the fullness of kinds of blessings. She’s just going to get salvation, lowercase S. Deliverance. “Deliverance” is less the catechism term.

Philip Right.

Sean And — well, again: who says? That is different than everything he’s been doing in the story so far.

And I get, there are questions about our story — because even, what does Wilson say about the orange shag carpet in between the story? But then I think he’s missing out on some other part.

Philip Right.

Sean So yeah: blessings — what kind? How do you see it in each chapter along the way? And then why did we get to a chapter where, eh, the spiritual ones are the only ones that matter for them —

Philip Right.

Sean — at this point?

Philip Well, yeah. It’s like a guy inviting a woman to marry him. He has all these promises to her: this is the sort of house, you’re going to live in this sort of mansion, and you’re going to have all this wealth and everything. And so she agrees to follow him. And then when they get there, there’s nothing there.

And he’s like, well, I didn’t really mean what I said. I meant it differently. And if you misunderstood it, that’s your own fault.

I mean, that’s also a letdown. That’s not steadfast love. That’s not that trustworthiness.

Sean Yeah. I feel like at times in the past, at least, if you would have made that kind of marriage covenant and then you didn’t fulfill it, then the wife, and/or her family, could even take legal action against you for not coming through on what you said you were going to do.

Philip Yeah, you’d be a liar.

Sean That’s what it seems like.

Philip Right. So we don’t want to call God a liar. God is not a liar.

Sean No. It’s not as though his word has failed.

Philip Right. The Bible says that.

Sean Yeah.

Philip Right, exactly right.

And so what I think, though — even that rug part of it, having a certain kind of continuity in story, which I think is important. I think having continuity in the story is crucial, and a good storyteller is going to have that, and they’re not going to have random tangents.

Even like Lewis — some people maybe claim that some of his stuff is kind of off the cuff, random, like, how did this get in here? But even learning and understanding a bit more about what Lewis was doing, what he was doing with the overall story of what he’s saying, those pieces come into place. There’s a place for them.

And so, same with God, I think, as a good storyteller. And this is what Paul gets at in Ephesians 2, about specifically the mystery of the church. Him saying this is a mystery — where there’s a part of it which also a good storyteller, I think, will have, that is a twist, or a surprise. It is in some way unpredictable, in the good way. That: wow, that was very pleasing. I did not expect that flavor to be there. And a good storyteller will have that.

Sean Yeah. There’s irony.

Philip Right.

Sean Reversals.

So, as I have been starting to do more reading on Esther — the story of Esther is fairly well known, but as is always the case for me when I’m starting to prepare to teach something, then I get to learn even more about it than just however many times I’ve read it.

So, the number of reversals in Esther is much more significant than just Haman —

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean — building the gallows for Mordecai and then Haman getting hung on it. That is one of the reversals. But there’s actually a reversal even just from beginning to end of the whole book, because it starts with a feast and it ends with a feast. But it’s a totally different feast. It starts with Ahasuerus throwing a feast to show off how awesome he is. It ends with the Jews, and their creation of the Feast of Purim, as a demonstration of God’s protection of them and how they are surviving.

And there are actually a few other ones along the way. So it also turns out in history that Ahasuerus throws this huge 180-day kind of convention, and then a seven-day feast at the very end, where it actually seems like this is where he is convincing his military officials to start a campaign against Greece again — which then they lose, three years later. So he’s showing off all of his power and might and splendor, and then we actually find out that whatever this banquet, this party, was preparing for, he lost. So he didn’t actually have as much power as they thought.

Which even is true — this is all going to a bigger arc in a second — even is true in Esther chapter 1. So he’s got enough power to throw 180 days of a party, and then his own wife won’t come when he sends for her. He doesn’t even have fullness of power in his own palace. And again, whether she was right for rejecting what he wanted, because he was full of wine — whatever. But it still shows he couldn’t even get the queen to do what he wanted, let alone defeat Greece.

So there are reversals all throughout. And it’s showing God’s providential protection of his people through these reversals, and through the irony — especially the king couldn’t sleep the one night, so he has the royal records brought out and read to him. And it shows Mordecai had delivered him. And so then Haman comes in the next morning, and the king is saying, what should I do for the man that pleases me? And Haman totally thinks it’s for him, so he comes up with this great way of being honored — and then he has to do that to the guy that he’s been hating for the last couple of years.

Philip He was coming in to the king to talk about killing that guy.

Sean Yeah. And all of that guy’s whole people.

Philip Right.

Sean And yeah — great stuff.

Which is like a microcosm of a bigger version of: God had promised blessings to Israel. They reject the Messiah. So God shares blessings now to another group. That isn’t him being done — it’s actually to cause — so that’s a surprise.

Philip Right.

Sean In fact, the mystery.

Philip Right. The Bible assumes that this is a surprise.

Sean Yeah. It is a surprise that then we find out God has been planning, to share blessings with even more people. But that’s not done either, because those blessings shared with the extended group of people are actually used by God to bring about another reversal, where then the Jews are like, hey, wait a second, we do want back in.

Philip Right. And then, when Paul talks about that — Romans 9 through 11 — he ends with praising the author. Like: who could have thought of this sort of story? This is reversals, ironies, twists. It’s all in there. Who could have thought — who is his counselor? Nobody.

Sean Yeah. Is there any better doxology in all of the Bible than at the end of Romans chapter 11? With the final “from him and through him and to him are all things.”

That’s totally an artist’s sort of description. “From” is his idea; “through” is his power that brought it about; “to” meaning that the honor and recognition go back to the origin, to the source, to the author. If it’s a sculptor — to the one who had the idea, who used the skills with his tools, and then when you go into the museum and you look at the sculpture, you praise the one who made it. You praise the sculptor. Or in this case, you praise the author.

So the greatest worship doxology in the Bible immediately follows this story of God’s work in being faithful, in particular, to save all Israel.

Philip Right.

Sean And so if you mess with who Israel is, that doxology is not as awesome.

Philip Right.

Sean If you say that Israel doesn’t matter, then you’ve just gutted the doxology. You’ve gutted the actual worship of the storyteller. And that sort of flattening it out, that sort of redefinition — that’s missing praise.

Philip Right. Yeah, it’s not as glorious of a story. It’s not as good of a story.

And so, if this is going to be the best story, and if we use God’s own definitions and God’s own examples in the Bible, micro examples of the best story — if we were to define the best story according to God, well, it would have that. It would have him making a vow, a promise, a unilateral promise. And the object of that promise was to betray, be unfaithful. Him then continuing to remain steadfast to that object. And having a — “interesting” is too weak of a word — having a unique, page-turning approach to fulfilling his steadfast love and demonstrating it to that same object. In a way that —

Sean — you thought there was no way.

Philip Right. There was no way. And there happens to be this.

So even, I’ve read gripping stories where there’s a side narrative in the story that you’re not really sure what it has to do with. It seems like it’s that orange rug or whatever, that frisbee in the tree or whatever it is. And then at the end, it’s like: this side narrative is what made it right in time, to connect all the pieces and bring about the ultimate deliverance. It’s like, this author’s a genius. He totally had me going, and all the pieces connected at the end there.

That’s glory. That’s a good story. And I think that in eternity we’re going to be praising the author for that story. And we’re going to see the little piece that we all were a part of in the overall story of his glory. Redeeming Gentiles is a part of that story. Being steadfast to Israel is a part of that story. But it’s all demonstrating his glory — and the best way to demonstrate it is drawn, again, from himself.

Sean Yeah. Well, and — because we don’t have the final pages, in terms of knowing exactly how it’s all going to look, even though God has told us a bunch of things so that once we see them happen, we’ll be like, oh right, he keeps doing everything that he says he’s going to do.

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean But if we purpose to not try to read the story, then we are limiting our worship.

And even as the very next hinge in Romans goes to: therefore, based off the mercies of God, present yourselves as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to the Lord. The failure to pay attention to the story is messing with our worship and our walk. It’s messing with our doctrine, and with our daily obedience. It’s messing with our layers and depth of jealousability. It’s messing with our actual understanding of who God is.

Philip Right.

Sean And is it okay to start out at the kiddie level of appreciating stories, and then develop it more and more? I mean, that’s also how God made the story to work.

Philip Right. That’s the only way.

Sean Yeah. We don’t get to be master story-understanders on page one. We don’t get that, because he says — which is fine. But to commit to only stay on page one is to also not appreciate what he’s given us.

So it’s okay to be in process. Like you said, we don’t have another option than to be in process, according to God. While it is just easy to say, well, because we’re all in process, we don’t have to worry about it. It’s not worrying about it — but it is trying to really appreciate the fact that God has given us a story to pay attention to for a reason. And it seems like for our worship.

And then even to appreciate how to not be conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of our mind. And so, transformed by this meditation on how our God works.

Philip Right.

Sean And where he’s putting us in the story for the sake of what is next.

Philip Well, then in that case, Paul said that it matters. He said that understanding and contemplating and knowing about what he’s saying in Romans 9 through 11 matters to what we’re doing in Romans 12. Even it connecting, like what you’ve pointed out before, Romans 8 to Romans 12. Us not losing faith in — God not cutting us off.

Sean Yeah. Is it true that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord?

Philip But he betrayed Israel. He did, did he not? And then Paul goes into Romans 9 answering that question — because you’ve said that before, where he assumes that people are going to ask that question.

Sean Yeah.

Philip And then he goes into Romans 12 of: now you know all of this, now therefore this is how you’re going to live, basically.

Sean Yeah. So, “is knowing the story practical” is just a different way of addressing that. Well, apparently the argument, the demonstration of the narrative, is practical. It’s not actually disconnected from then what I’m doing with my body. Or then, immediately, how I’m connected to the church body as a member, a part in the body with a giftedness to serve. It’s not disconnected — it’s actually something that we depend on for the practical parts.

Philip Right. Yeah. It’s a story worth living.

Well, I think we succeeded in not —

Sean We at least succeeded in not saying any of the — that’s what I’m saying.

Philip Yeah, I don’t know if we succeeded about anything else, but at least about that. I don’t remember —

Sean Yeah. Eschatological.

Philip Yeah. Or even eschatology.

Sean I mean, I said the word “salvation,” but “soteriology” would be the label. But that wasn’t one we said we weren’t going to —

Philip Yeah.

Sean — that wasn’t one we were trying to avoid.

Philip But that’s — I guess that’s not really a label, though.

Sean So maybe one more thing, that is really — this is going to get right on the line. Then we can be done.

Philip Okay. We’ll turn it off right away.

Sean Yeah. Because when some people describe the story that God is after, they refer to it as the story of redemption.

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean And would even include that in their hermeneutical model: that the goal of God’s glory is salvation and redemption.

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean And — okay. But I think that also is a little bit too narrow. Like, the salvation of our souls is what gives him the most glory, and therefore the object of his plot.

But the salvation of our souls actually seems to be unto more things. And those more things are the reconciliation of the world, and new earth and new heaven, where we continue with our saved souls in glorified bodies, with then more work to do, and cities to rule over, and nations that are honoring Jesus as king.

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean So while creation-fall-redemption is a decent three-part act, redemption — when that is limited in the story to just the spiritual things — is still missing out on what God said he cares about, what he’s demonstrated, and what he seems to have described as still coming as more blessings.

Philip So —

Sean The nations are a part of his story. And Israel in particular is part of his story — in the land, and the trees, and the cities, and a throne in a particular city.

Philip Right.

Sean So Jesus’s return in body and his reign on earth is crucial to the story. Not just that we got forgiven.

Philip Right. Well, and this is — yeah, talk about practical. This is what excites me to care about those things.

Sean I just read Luke 19 this morning, and the ten servants each getting a mina.

Philip Yeah.

Sean And then the one who made ten, he got ten cities.

Philip Right. And seeing and understanding that, even in this case, it’s more than just about redemption. It’s more than just about saving our souls, in that way.

We’ve mentioned before, but the work that we’re trying to build up — we’re currently collecting the hay for the mud bricks for Comeford College. But it’s what gets me excited about that vision: of caring for both the way we read and interpret Scripture, but then also the way we approach history and reality. The way we see and appreciate the different place that nations in history have for that story of God’s glory. The different place that certain things in reality — science, art, business, politics, modern-day nations — have in God’s story of his glory, in what he is doing there.

And that redemption is a part of it, but it doesn’t encompass the whole story. There is so much more to it than just that part of it.

Sean Which is more beautiful than some of our alternative story readers —

Philip Right.

Sean — try to claim, that they have the beautiful story. No — we’ve got the doxological —

Philip Right.

Sean — end of Romans 11 story. Talk about beauty.

Philip There you go. All right. Well, we did it. We could be out.

Sean Amen.