Doug Pagitt on Way of the Master

Holy Cow.  I try to be biblically generous, but Doug Pagitt makes little sense in this short interview with Way of the Master's Todd Friel.  It's just a small segment near the beginning of the show.  Look, I'm no Way of the Master fan or defender, and Friel really could have done much more with this conversation, but Pagitt shows both wacky theology and an inability to have a meaningful conversation based on...words...and ideas.

Best quote from Pagitt: "There?" 

Comments

[Josh Mc Alister]

Wow. That really was crazy to listen to. At first I was "rooting" for Pagitt in the interview, but then I realized that he wasn't really making sense. The worst part was that it seemed rather Bill Clinton-ish in that you couldn't peg him down.

[Alan Cross]

That was, well, surreal. I think that Pagitt didn't want to be nailed down in answering questions so he obscured the conversation by acting shocked. He knew what Friel was talking about and if he has no way to articulate his position without acting the way he did, then his gospel is not able to be communicated. What a mess. I've been familiar with Pagitt for a long time and have appreciated some of what he has said in the past, but it appears that Emergent is headed into an abyss.

[Big Chris]

I wonder if Doug and Todd had prior run-ins with each other. Todd used to work for KKMS here in the Twin Cities prior to latching on with Ray and Kirk at WOTM. I used to listen to Todd every day, because he was interesting radio. Todd is a pretty sharp guy, though he sometimes doesn't come across as such because of his "persona" on the radio.

Interesting audio. I really think there must be something in the past between these two.

Big Chris

[Eric Blauer]

I am sure the content of the podcast and the Pagitt/gospel issue are worth looking into but...that podcast intro....and voice...is it human or what? Is it for real?

I hang my head at yet another nail in the coffin of the churches attempts to be relevant. Is it really that hard to just be normal for us? WOTM has made me cringe on many different issues...

Here is yet another cultural and artistic fence that the church puts up to between the lost and the truth of the gospel. They dont see that but, I am sure many people just walk by our sincere attempts to preach, teach and share the gospel but our odd, cheesy, backward attempts at being hip...erect fences that separate us. So we keep on talking while too many people keep on walking.

Taking on flesh doesn't mean taking on hollywierd.

[Steve McCoy]

Big Chris, in the interview Doug said stuff that made me think they don't know each other and that Doug doesn't know Todd's point of view prior to talking.

[Tim]

Wow, Pagitt was terrible. So much for believing what the Bible says about hell, huh?

[Gary]

Hey, I want to be the defender here and say that in my experience (I have been interviewed by "WOTM" before) they probably SEVERELY edited this....

[Steve McCoy]

Gary, I emailed the ministry and they said it's the full, unedited interview.

[ryan]

Both guys could have done a better job in listening to each other and not being so harsh with each other. The most telling part I thought, was when Todd just straight up asks "where does a good Buddhist go when he dies. Doug is speechless, no words at first. It could be because he thought he was being set up, but if your true beliefs require you to get that uncomfortable to answer such a question than that is troubling. Plus the Platonic perspectival stuff got old after awhile.

[brad andrews]

listened to it.

baffled.

paggitt is losing his steam.

i don't care who is interviewing him.

[revolutionfl]

is "pretty sharp guy" another way of saying "self-righteous jerk"?

pagitt's theology is whack, but friel's behavior is unexcusable.

[Sam DeSocio]

Man this should kill us. If Doug and Todd both love Jesus, then the conversation they just had was sinful. I can tell you one thing that was not present -- love. It reminds me of Conn speaking about speaking the doctrine of grace in a graceless way.
No matter what we think of these two guys, the only one who benefited from that conversation is the Devil.

[Brenton Balvin]

Wow.

[Timmy Brister]

I tried to what were Pagitt's theological reference points, and as best I could understand, he sounded very much like a panentheist or process theist. For example, he appeared to reject the idea of God transcendent from the world and seemed to reject the idea of an eternal place where God dwells (heaven). Furthermore, his emphasis on the rejection of Platonic dualism leads me to think that the more appropriate alternative is a unitive or holistic version of the world where God's active presence is manifest in creation (his body).

Did anyone else think this or am I way off here?

[Timmy Brister]

Oops. The first sentence should have read:

"I tried to *understand* what were Pagitt's theological reference points . . ."

Sorry.

[Jeremy]

"No matter what we think of these two guys, the only one who benefited from that conversation is the Devil."

Actually, I benefited from it as well. It has made clear to me the need to protect ourselves (and others we care for) from Pagitt.

[josh]

come on guys. for real?

pagitt went on a show and got jumped from the 2nd question. it's tough enough to give a satisfactory answer to a critic when you have time to prepare. no matter what you say they've already got their mind up. it's only 10x's harder when you get jumped like that with rapid-fire questions that don't let up. doug was trying to adjust on the fly and give some context for his answers only to get the question flipped and the words changed right in the middle of his answer.

the host was constantly being condescending by calling him "pastor" and was just a jerk. i'm still quite unsure how people's ethics gets a pass but someone's theology gets them nailed to a piece of wood.

it'd be great if everyone was talking about how the host was ungracious, rude, short, condescending. but that's not going to happen. i don't know why i expected anything different from the wotm guys who jump "lost" people on the street and spin polemical webs in order to trap them into a conversion answer.

that to me is much shaddier and critique worthy than doug trying to talk about the legitimate problems with platonic, dualistic versions of heaven and hell. and while you may not agree with that steve, i know that is a conversation and point that you at least understand has some validity.

[matt]

What makes their lack of grace even more egregious is that, prior to the interview, THEY BOTH KNEW WHERE EACH WAS COMING FROM. And becuase of this they both sought to attack the other's point of view. Todd with a direct frontal attack of Doug's pastoral orthodoxy, and Doug with a manipulative discrediting of Todd's philosophical worldview as a basis for orthodoxy.

Now here's the question nobody is asking:

WHY WOULD DOUG GO ON THESE SHOWS?
(I say these becuase Bob Hyatt linked to another such interview on his blog)

I don't want to speculate on his motives, although I'm sure some will. It simply baffles me.

[Steve McCoy]

Josh, I have posted numerous times (understatement) on fundys...folks like the WotM guys (and at least once on them directly...the banana thing). I don't like their ministry approach or their approach to this interview. I think they sound like jerks too.

But I've heard the interview at least 3 times in full and there is no excuse for Pagitt's answers either. If he sounded flustered that would be fine, but flustered people don't usually bring up Plato and Dante.

And you say Friel was condescending by calling him "Pastor?" How does that work?

You say the ethics of Friel are getting a pass and Pagitt is getting nailed for his theology. Yet it sounds a lot like you are slapping Friel and giving Pagitt a pass. Hello? So because Pagitt's theological unraveling happens on a show with jerks means we aren't allowed to call out Pagitt?

Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows how hard I have tried to be fair to Emergent/emerging folk. I'm sympathetic to the wider emerging conversation. I'm much less patient with fundys and have called them out repeatedly. But this interview, regardless of Friel's approach, begs us to call out Pagitt in the name of biblical clarity and forthrightness.

[Steve McCoy]

Matt, you said...

"What makes their lack of grace even more egregious is that, prior to the interview, THEY BOTH KNEW WHERE EACH WAS COMING FROM."

Pagitt said the opposite, that he didn't know.

You said, "WHY WOULD DOUG GO ON THESE SHOWS?"

Yeah, dunno. And who doesn't research the show you are going to be on to know their point of view?

[josh]

steve.
i agree you. you've been pretty fair and balanced. the reason i still read your blog even though we're from different perspectives. my thoughts were more directed towards some of the other commenters who were simply writing doug off. if any of the commenters can even discuss intelligently the problems of platonic thought in relation to heaven and hell . . . then i'll withdraw my original comment. i'm certainly willing to be wrong on this . . . but it seems like guys like friel and others who jump to nail pagitt and others are unwilling/unable to even have a cursory understanding of some of the historical context that effects our interpretative framework.

while i agree that some of doug's thoughts are at the periphery of "orthodox", they are no more at the periphery than any of the disconnected proof texting that friel was doing. thus i'm willing to give a guy the benefit of the doubt when it appears his "theology" is producing sound ethics. meanwhile friel's and other fundies "theology" produces a poor ethic.

my concern or disconnect with much of the criticism of the "emergent" crowd from the fundamental/conservative camp is that their head honchos can sit around and debate calvinism in detached academia in their suits but when a pastor of a local church stretches out his "theology", even when his practice is exemplary . . . excuse the obvious pun . . . but all hell breaks lose.

again . . . i wouldn't have a problem with anybody on here or anywhere else calling doug out. and while i can't speak for doug . . . i'm sure he'd be fine with it too . . . if only those who are critiquing him had but an elementary understanding of the larger context of plato, historical paul, enlightenment, and the list could go on and on.

this is something that friel obviously didn't understand or was familiar with. so instead of engaging the thoughts of platonic dualism . . . he just resorted to ambushing doug with rapid-fire questions.

just like it would have been difficult to talk about the world being round with people who thought the world was flat, i think that it's hard for some who have only known the world to be flat (i.e. influenced, raised, reered in a platonic world) to see that the world is indeed round.

[matthewsmith]

What a train wreck. I'll avoid reading or listening to anything from WOTM OR Pagitt in the future.

P.S. Friel's use of the term "pastor" in addressing Pagitt was straight out of the O'Reilly handbook. Use a neutral descriptive term to sound derogatory. It takes a special gift to pull that one off.

[josh]

matthew.
that's what i was trying to say with friel being condescending in how he was saying it.

[Steve McCoy]

Josh and Matthew, I can generally agree with that. I didn't hear it that way since when you speak down to someone as Friel did, all of it sounds that way whether it's an argument or a title.

Josh, the good thing about Friel is that we can look beyond his jerkness and still discuss the content. Pagitt either would not (or could not) do that. And I would love to see Pagitt discuss the idea of "place" that Jesus mentions in John 14:2-3. If we can't speak in the kind of terms Jesus uses, there is a problem. You may try to argue that "place" isn't a physical location in this passage, but then you should also be able to understand and answer Friel's question in the same light. The point is, we should be able to converse with this kind of terminology REGARDLESS of one's particular take on platonic influence.

[josh]

fair enough. but i would argue the converse as well.

"You may try to argue that "place" IS a physical location in this passage, but then you should also be able to understand and answer pagitt's thoughts in the same light. The point is, we should be able to converse with this kind of terminology REGARDLESS of one's particular take on platonic influence."

and do so without bullying him.

[Steve McCoy]

Josh, the problem is NOT with Pagitt's understanding of "place," but that Pagitt thoroughly recoiled from even using the word "place" in the context of discussing life after death. Making the converse statement to what I said above is meaningless unless you can use the word "place" in a conversation about heaven and hell. Right?

So I don't think Pagitt and Jesus can be in the same conversation together in John 14. Pagitt either couldn't or wouldn't process the concepts.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[Timothy Bertolet]

Josh, you invited commentators to intelligently discuss Platonic thought in relationship to heaven and hell. I would simply point out just because one believes heaven is a place doesn't mean that it is platonic. There is a 'spatial dimension' well attested in ancient cosmology and first century Judaism. The apocalyptism of first century Judaism. Jewish scholar Jon Levenson notes that refering to an eartly Jersualem and heavenly Jerusalem is frequent in Rabbinic literature (Sinai and Zion, p. 141).

Also:
“Ancient Israelite cosmology conceived of a cosmos of three levels: heaven, earth, Sheol. This same conception of the universe was transmitted to early Judaism, though the emphasis on the transcendence of God which characterized late Second Temple Judaism presupposed a sharper distinction between the heavenly world and the earthly world. This spatial dualism (heaven as the dwelling place of God and angels; earth as the dwelling place of humanity) coincided with the temporal or eschatological dualism in the sense that the kingdom of God, or the age to come, was a heavenly reality which would eventually displace the earthly reality of the present evil age.”
D.E. Aune, T.J. Geddert and C.A. Evans. “Apocalyptism” Dictionary of New Testament Background, (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervasity, 2000) 54

There was spatial dualism in a Jewish worldview although there notion of the "age to come" kept them from being Platonic.

Steve, I agree with your comments about "place" and I would suggest that not only does the Bible affirm this (as you noted), I think we can find it fits perfectly and naturally within the first century worldview, and is not Platonic.

A view of heaven as a place does not, I would argue, ultimately led to a bad ethic, see Col. 3:1-10, although some have used 'heaven' as an excuse to not take care of God's creation, that is wrong.

I think we have a problem if we can't ask: "where is heaven" because Jesus is still incarnate in a body (albeit resurrected and glorified), so where is Jesus?

At what point does one's view of heaven's nonexistence bring one against the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene creed which (a) confess the creation of heaven and earth and (b) affirm Jesus' ascension into heaven?

[ryan]

Josh "bullying" is not something I think Doug has to worry about. He dishes it out quite well, and had his share of moments in the interview in which he was less than congenial.

Bottom line, both were less then Christ-like and seemed more interested in showing or telling the other how they were wrong instead of listening. In my experience, those mentalities are a recipe for disaster.

[Daryl]

I listened to that interview and have no idea why people think Todd was being a jerk here. Remember, he was not talking to a respectable Christian brother, he was talking to a wolf who is deliberately and systematically leading Christians into damnable heresy.
That does not require kid-gloves, it requires hard questions and anathema's

[Rob Willmann]

I transcribed the entire Friel-Pagitt interview and put it on my blog. You can find it here:

vibist.com.

Thanks.

[joseph Grigoletti]

I have my disagreemets with Todd, but come on its hardly being a jerk to ask a professing Christian if he believes there is one way to God. If you say that there is another way to God besides Jesus you are not a Christians hands down. Heresy and disagrement with evangelistic methods are on way different levels.

[Matt]

Doug Pagitt could not answer any of the questions straight. "Can a good buddist go to heaven?" If you have to think hard on that one, you may need to re-examine yourself.

Todd may come off as annoying sometimes, but his heart is for the lost. Have any of you considered the amount of "backsliders" in America? People need to hear ******WHY***** they need to be saved first, then have the gospel preached to them.

People seem to "accept" Jesus all the time for health, wealth, happiness, and a smooth ride through life. Try preaching that gospel to the martyrs in China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc.