Her.meneutics: This Is Your Brain on Evangelicalism

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Banned Books and Blasphemy | Main | Top 10 Posts of the Last 30 Days »

October 12, 2009

This Is Your Brain on Evangelicalism

NPR reporter Barbara Bradley Hagerty's Princeton lecture last week revealed a woman highly ambivalent about evangelical spirituality.

Christine A. Scheller

In 1995, NPR religion reporter Barbara Bradley Hagerty was interviewing members of Saddleback Church for a Los Angeles Times Magazine article on why some churches grow and others don’t. She talked with a woman named Kathy Younge about her spiritual journey. Younge was suffering from recurrent melanoma, but she didn’t believe God was trying to kill her; she believed he was giving her a transcendent purpose. As Hagerty and Younge were talking, the journalist says, the air grew thick, moist, and warm, as if someone was breathing on them. She felt enveloped in a circle of light.

This is the story Hagerty opened with at a Princeton University Center for the Study of Religion lecture last week. She was there to discuss her most recent book, Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality (which CT magazine reviewed this May). I was surprised to hear her validate evangelical faith so openly given that, as a regular attendee of the center’s lectures, I’m accustomed to hearing that faith's adherents talked about as if they were part of a carnival sideshow.

The experience presented Hagerty with a crisis. She says she was “spooked” and shut down the discussion quickly, but on the drive back to LA, she began asking herself questions: What happened? Was it a delusion? A chemical reaction? God?

The veteran journalist set out to answer some of these questions for herself, others like her, and her NPR listeners — most of whom, she said, aren’t members of the Southern Baptist Convention. In her research, she discovered that 51 percent of Americans say they’ve had a dramatic spiritual experience, but that 93 percent of National Academy of Science members don’t believe in God. “If 51 percent of Americans had schizophrenia, scientists would want to study it,” she concluded. She decided early on to include her own experience in the book, because, she said, journalists tend to be like anthropologists, treating their subjects as specimens. She wanted readers to know she was one of them.

Hagerty's research led her to a Navajo Peyote ceremony, a conference on near-death experiences, and to scientists who study what happens to the brain during spiritual practices. She concluded that scientists tend to see the brain like a CD player, a closed system in which events are merely chemical functions of the system. But, she said, it’s possible that the brain is more like a radio in that the sender is separate from the receiver. If, for example, NPR is broadcasting a program and a listener’s radio breaks, NPR is still broadcasting. Likewise, she said, “people who have vivid transcendent moments are able to tune into a reality that many of us ignore.”

Hagerty doesn’t believe that science currently has the ability to prove or disprove God, although it might in the future. She also believes that the case for materialism “isn’t as much of a slam dunk as it’s made out to be.” It’s just as likely that our brains are “finely tuned to connect with the divine,” and that we are on the verge of a paradigm shift.

Hagerty only interviewed people like her — people, she said, whom she wouldn’t be embarrassed to invite to a dinner party. During the Q&A after the lecture, she said she comes from a bias of accepting the rules of science as “the legitimate rules,” a bias she still prefers, even though she believes that as long as elite scientists dominate the debate, there will be little progress away from the dominant paradigm of our time. Younger scientists are getting restless though. The notion that we’re just a bundle of cells apparently doesn’t ring true even for them.

Toward the end of the Q&A, a young scholar from North Carolina asked if Fingerprints of God might not be good for evangelical types, who don’t trust science. Someone else asked if all religious experiences are equally valid. Hagerty said she didn’t get why evangelicals trust medicine but not other branches of science, and told a story of being interviewed by two evangelicals on what she thought was a secular radio program. One of the hosts asked if it wasn’t possible that for non-Christians, the experiences were demonic, given that Satan appears as an angel of light. The author was taken aback and said she couldn’t judge that, even though she would call herself a Christian.

It was an ironic ending to a narrative that began with a spiritual experience at a premiere evangelical megachurch. Apparently the only metaphysical truth worth considering is happy truth, and all evangelicals mistrust science.

We should be grateful, I suppose, that a paradigm shift may be on the horizon. We should also be grateful that intellectuals of various sorts are warming to the idea that there might be a non-material world. I just wish they understood how foolish it sounds — when they’re coming to conclusions that simple-minded believers have arrived at for millennia — and yet they continue to relegate them to the sideshow.

Christine has written about two other Princeton lectures on her blog, Exploring Intersections.

Comments

Most of the world believes evangelicals mistrust science because so many evangelicals have made such a spectacle of themselves over evolution, over Terry Schiavo, over global warming, over "abortion causes breast cancer," over the Gardasil vaccine, over purported racial superiority, over gender differences, over the origins of sexual orientation, over a flat earth, where, gee, over and over again, they seem to really mistrust science. That they are relegated to the side-show of intellectual discourse isn't entirely the doing of secular scientists.

Scientists aren't perfect, nor they correct all the time, nor are they all "materialist" or secular, but it's hard to blame some "elite scientists," (more anti-science-propaganda words) for rolling their eyes when evangelicals try to "prove" the existence of God or the authenticity of a religious experience. Why should scientists take evangelicalism seriously when so many evangelicals (or at least the loudest ones) don't take science seriously?

God gave us minds; He must have meant for us to use them. The very real anti-intellectual strain in parts of evangelicalism is sad, and unbiblical, and alive and well at CT.

Let me summarize Christian Lawyer's comments: Evangelicals are stupid and meanies! Waaaaaa!

His comment was well written and has valid points. I can't say the same for yours, you succeeded at making yourself sound like an idiot while trying to degrade his post.

A - Well, aren't you just an eensy weensy sensitive, today. CL's critique was full of generalizations meant only to disparage evangelicals. Period. (He does this alot.) That's who he is, and that's what he does. But didn't you kind of do to me what you accuse me of doing to him? Hello, Mr. Pot! See, I didn't say he sounded like an idiot like you said I did. But it's okay. I forgive you.

Just wanted to point out that, if memory serves, "Christian Lawyer" = she, not he.

And though I frequently disagree with her, I think she makes quite a good point in her comment here. I totally agree with her. Evangelicals need to get over their anti-science mindset. They need to stop being afraid of everything.

Patrick - CL is a she not he? - well,I had no idea. Thank you for the correction. I will start addressing her as Ms. CL. (I'm kind of old fashioned that way.)
Re: "Evangelicals need to get over their anti-science mindset." Really! All evangelicals everywhere have an anti-science mindset? I mean, is "ANTI SCIENCE" printed on us somewhere? Like on our forehead? Seems to me that this is a good example of a logical fallacy or something. Ah yes. It is called a hasty generalization: "...a person will infer an attribute common to all members of a group based on knowledge of a small sample size of that group." But I must say, it is interesting how often scientists are wrong. (What? Have I, too, committed here a hasty generalization?) But isn't it fun to kick evangelicals around? And yet you get offended when one "kicks" back a little by pointing out your logical foibles.

I'm wondering...is this Dan the same Dan who posts anti-Catholic remarks on other CT sites? If it is, then here, eat these words: "hasty generalization." If it's not the same Dan, disregard this. Thank you.

Maryann; Let me ask you this first: Are you the same Maryann from Gilligan's Island? Because if you are I just want you to know I liked you better than Ginger. Just kidding. No, I'm not that "other" Dan whom we should hereafter refer to as Dan the Heretic. In fact, I enjoy going to a Byzantine Catholic Church on occasion although I'm not Catholic. And my son just married a very conservative Catholic.

CL's response should be re-read by Dan. She stated the following. "The very real anti-intellectual strain in parts of evangelicalism is sad, and unbiblical, and alive and well at CT." She did not state the words 'all' but 'parts' and she used the phrase 'many evangelicals' in the beginning of the comments. Her response may have stated a bit too cynically (I have been guilty of this too) but they have much truth to them. To read how Evangelicals have been guilty of anti-intellectualism in science and in many other areas may I suggest that you read the 'Scandal of the Evangelical Mind' by Mark Noll.

Dan,

No I don't mean ALL evangelicals. I mean the loud ones, the leaders, the ones who give the group a bad name. You've inferred the logical fallacy. And let's face the facts, many evangelical leaders in the public spotlight DO present themselves as "anti-science," *even if* they try to throw in some rhetoric to show that they embrace scientific inquiry.

"But I must say, it is interesting how often scientists are wrong."

I fail to see how that's interesting. Of course scientists are wrong about things. Scientists disagree about things all the time among themselves. But the fact remains that without modern science, we wouldn't have automobiles, airplanes, antibiotics, fertility treatment, cancer treatment, vaccines, space exploration, and all kinds of good stuff that allows us to understand and explore our surroundings.

"But isn't it fun to kick evangelicals around?"

I didn't realize that's what I was doing. And I think you fail to realize that I identify myself as evangelical. And I, on occasion, struggle to reconcile my faith with scientific discovery. But I know the culture(s) and subculture(s) I live within, I'm plenty familiar with evangelicalism, and I'm not afraid to confront its flaws.

CL said, 1. "Most of the world believes evangelicals mistrust science because so many evangelicals have made such a spectacle of themselves over evolution, over Terry Schiavo, over global warming, over "abortion causes breast cancer," over the Gardasil vaccine, over purported racial superiority, over gender differences, over the origins of sexual orientation, over a flat earth, where, gee, over and over again, they seem to really mistrust science. That they are relegated to the side-show of intellectual discourse isn't entirely the doing of secular scientists."
Answer: Hmmm. I wonder what part of the world she is referring to and speaking for? Oddly,she doesn't say. Does she include Africa? The middle east? Or is it Europe with its post modern sensibilities that only counts? And which science do we mistrust? Obviously, naturalistic/materialistic evolutionary science. What evangelical wouldn't? But there are scientists who don't hold to the N/M evolutionary theory - so I've been told. (How dare they! The nerve! They are anti-science obviously.) And how dare I as an evangelical Christian disapprove of killing someone by refusing them water or dismembering them in utero! "We've got the Constitutional right to do those things, by golly." And what's with the "racial superiority" and "flat earth" comments? I don't even no what she's referring to there. Do you cultural critics out there realize that evangelical Christians led the abolition against slavery movement? And how about the billions of $ given by evangelicals to feeding and clothing those in the grip of poverty worldwide? You see, CL engages in this kind of rhetoric against evangelicals b/c her views run so counter to evangelical's in many areas. (Read her other posts and you'll see what I mean - but I'll let you decide.) And pointing out her logical fallcies is no effort.

@Patrick - So what if some evangelicals are loud? Having convictions against the evils in our society and voicing them loudly makes you anathema? As for finding it interesting that scientists are wrong, let me answer with several eg's. For years most biblical archeologists told Christians that there was no Ninevah - it was a myth (read -stupid christians) Then they found Ninevah. And mainstream archeologists have mostly held that the Pool of Siloam was a legend. (But we evangelicals knew better.) Then recently they found the Pool of Siolam. Archeology, I know, is only one science. But how about the number of times the theory of evolution has been changed/revised? And so its okay if the non-believers are skeptical and shout loud and clear. But not evangelicals. So, yes it's kind of interesting. (read: hypocritcal)
"But isn't it fun to kick evangelicals around?"
I wasn't referring to you specifically. But really, it's all the rage to criticize evangelicals. Just listen to the media. The media routinely dismisses and satirizes evangelicals. (And apparently that's where CL gets her information.) And just try to take up for Terri Schivo in a liberal crowd, or say that homosexual behavior is a sin, or say that you don't believe gays should have the civil right to marry. Patrick, if you say those things too loudly you will be included with the rest of us "knuckle draggers". Remember Patrick - the church (evangelicals included) is the Bride of Christ. Not good to kick around the Bride of Christ. You never know when the Groom might get mad.

Dan: I guess that the best way to summarize your responses would be "How dare you question us!!!" If God be God then he has no need for you to help him cross the street as if he were a little old lady. On a different topics perhaps we do need to work with the media to fix our reputation. It seems that then we have documentaries done on us (Friends of God, Jesus Camp and Religulous) they focus on the oddities and extremes found on our diverse landscape. The oddballs do not speak for us all. Why not interview students and profs from Wheaton College or see what humanitarians are doing to make a difference.

I know an evangelical who insists that men have one less rib than women do, because of the creation story with
Adam. He really is sincere. I told him to consult a medical book and count the rib bones on a skeleton. He said that doctors LIE. He was too fat to count his own rib bones. (Dan: Yes, I am from Gilligan's Island, and I have been trying to leave for years. Please, can anyone help? Thankfully, the professor has been able to build us a computer from seawood, monkey hair and the mirrors that Ginger brought. We power it by forcing small mammals to frantically run inside little turbines. But wait...after seeing some of the posts on a lot of these CT sites, I'm not sure I wanna go back.)

Maryann - Good post! You have a great sense of humor. ;-]
I've met Adam before (figuratively speaking), several times in fact. But when you look in the dictionary for the definition of the word "evangelical" you won't see Adam's picture. In other words, he doesn't define evangelicalism.

Then you'll also like my post on Obama receiving the Peas Prize.

@ GW: 1."How dare you question us!!!" Nope, not true at all. Just name names next time. Be specific. Don't paint with a broad brush the whole movement. Don't rely on simplifications and generalizations that are almost meaningless. And don't lie. Be honest. To do less reflects a dishonest and simple mind that cannot truly critique. But don't you hear it alot from Christians, too: "You know what's wrong with the church (as a whole)? The church blah blah blah(fill in the blank). Meaningless drivel! I understand why those outside evangelicalism do it. But I really wonder why those inside engage in it, too. The church (evangelicals included) are the Bride of Christ. Do you think the Lord likes hearing His bride criticized by those within? 2. "The oddballs do not speak for us all." Absolutely true. 3. "...perhaps we do need to work with the media to fix our reputation." I wouldn't hold my breath. 4. "Why not interview students and profs from Wheaton College or see what humanitarians are doing to make a difference." Capital idea. Recommend that to MSNBC. See how far you get. But that's not a newsworthy story. Now if a Wheaton student were to shoot someone, the liberal press (in my opinion) would probably portray Wheaton as a right-wing conservative compound staffed by the Posse Comitatus. Read CL's post again. Ask yourself this: how many of her criticisms does she provide with evidence. Nada. And there is a snobbery to her tone that is almost palpable. Her post lacks clarity of thought in my opinion, and that's why I summarized it as I did.

Kudos to Dan a true ambassador of the Lord Jesus Christ. A man whos insight surpasses all others, humble and caring. But I have to know Dan why are you poking around on a forum intended for women? (But then I have to ask the same of myself) And with that I am moving on. Dan I suggest that you do the same.

GW - "...why are you poking around on a forum intended for women?" I'm just a sensitive kind of guy. And golly, GW I didn't realize there was a gender test here.

Dan, you're doing a fabulous job of proving my point. SOME evangelicals make anti-intellectual, anti-science spectacles of themselves and then can't figure out why they are relegated to the sideshow of intellectual discourse.

If you knew anything about me, you'd know I grew up in a warm, positive, intellectually stimulating, "Good News" of the gospel, evangelical church. I have great respect for intellectual evangelicals such as Francis Schaeffer, although I disagree with him almost completely. Falwell, Dobson, Perkins, not so much. I have friends and family who are evangelicals whom I love and respect immensely. My statements were specifically directed toward "some" evangelicals or "the loudest" evangelicals, or "the anti-intellectual strain within PARTS of evangelicalism." That you skip over those words when reading does not mean I didn't write them.

As to your claim that the number of my "criticisms" "provide[d] with evidence" is "Nada," are you serious? I'm one of the most link-happy posters on these threads. Over on CT's Liveblog, I've posted links to a CIA Report, a Congressional Research Report, a Miami Herald article, a US Supreme Court case, and a reference to a book by author and title. That's all in one current thread. Here on Her.meneutics, and on the Politics Blog, I've posted links to articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek and Time (I think), numerous legal opinions, research studies, copies of Congressional bills, public laws, and a host of other supporting authority, including pages (by page number) to the draft healthcare reform bill.

And, speaking of anti-intellectual evangelicals, let me suggest that when you're inventing facts, you try to avoid "facts" that are demonstrably false.

@CL - Thank you for your review of your qualifications and accomplishments. Let's review your original post: 1. "Most of the world believes evangelicals mistrust science..." Really? Most of the world? What's your evidence? And did you include Africa? The middle east? South America? Or is it just your world? And which of the sciences do they mistrust? You didn't tell us. 2."...so many evangelicals have made such a spectacle of themselves..." Care to name names? Or is it just more convenient to remain vague. 3. "...over evolution..." Well, that would cover about 80% of evangelicals. And since you didn't qualify the word "evolution" nobody knows what you mean. Why be so vague? 4. "...over Terry Schiavo..." Try treating your sick dog like they treated Terry S. The authorities would kick down your door and arrest you. Probably well over 80% of evangelicals were appalled by that issue. 5. "... over global warming..." First, you're out of date, CL. It's called "climate change" now. And you're going to say Evang.'s who have disagreed with the causes of climate change as being anti-science? Funny, some climatologists are now saying CO2 emmisions may have very little to do with the weather, that the climate change is merely cyclical. Not only that but some climatologists are saying that we're in for a cooling cycle for the next 20-30 years. Are those scientists also anti-science? 5. "...over "abortion causes breast cancer," Most Evang.'s I know rely on facts. Yet, you include with your broad brush that amorphous group called "some Evangelicals". Again, care to name names? 6. "...over the Gardasil vaccine". See #5. 7. "...over purported racial superiority..." Cite your evidence, counselor. You are slandering a whole group. Most non-evangelicals will never see the "some" all they will pay attention to is the "evangelical". 8. "... over gender differences..." What the heck do you mean here? You are intentionally vague, I assume? Why? 9. "... over the origins of sexual orientation..." Last research I read said the jury is still out. Also, since "some" evangelicals don't toe your PC line, that makes them a spectacle? I think that's snobbery. (And you infer that evangelicals are judgmental. Please.) 9. "... over a flat earth, where, gee, over and over again, they seem to really mistrust science." Cheap shot, CL. Beneath your intellectual dignity, don't you think? Again, cite your evidence. Well, then why slander "some" evangelicals with that silliness? You know, CL, if you had broad brushed a racial group (eg.african americans/hispanics)or another religious group (eg. muslims) like you did evangelicals here, you would have been treated with contempt. Or if you had gone into a court of law and used your post as evidence, you would have been laughed out of court. Or if you had turned this in as a writing assignment in a college sophmore English class, the prof. would have bled red ink all over it. Shoddy thinking on your part. But what do I know? I'm just a 6th grade language arts teacher. I know, however, it is fashionable to kick evangelicals around nowadays. And fun, apparently. But some of us kick back just a little. Have a nice day.
:-)

It's been interesting reading evangelicals arguing among themselves about unfair attacks, about painting a whole group with a broad brush, not getting facts straight, mocking them in ways that would be horribly politically incorrect if another group were attacked, etc. I say it's interesting because Catholics are attacked that way on a regular basis...and evangelicals are some of the biggest attackers. Just read the CT blogs. By the way, I am Catholic, a professional writer and I write for some major Catholic publications.

This might be about Dan' Church

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FkbgeR8LKs

@ Maryann - Nice to hear..er...see your voice again. Too often true what you say. But, to be fair. It happens both ways. I was at a beautiful mass last year in a most beautiful Catholic church. The music was traditional (Wow!) and the homily - not too bad. But the monsignor who spoke made some mildly negative comments about protestants. I was not offended, tho my son spoke to him later and told him he didn't think his comments were quite accurate. They both laughed and parted ways. But the document Evangelicals and Catholics Together is a start for a rapproachment, don't you think. As I said in my last post, I like to attend a Byzantine Catholic church every now and then. And we evangelicals should be forever grateful for the catholic churches' preservation of the holy scriptures. As far as evangelicals attacking catholics on a regular basis, I don't see it much anymore in the Evang. churches (and they are conservative), but I'm not in a position to receive it either like you may be as a writer. Read your post on the Peas Prize. Good.

@Basil (and CL): Here's two for you. Since we're trading you tubes. And you get TWO for the price of your one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tc9HRxHGgY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VATmgtmR5o4
Enjoy!

Yeah! Heap coals of fire on our heads why don't ya! I love classical and traditional spirituals.

@Basil - "Heap coals of fire on our heads..."? No,I sent those to you (and CL) not to "zing" you - but to bless you. (Doesn't the Bible say to "bless and curse not"?) But you liked them! So, I think I did succeed. I hope CL liked them, too. They are some of my favorites.

This is more of a comment for the Web producers of this site. In the regular Christianity Today section, there is a "Print icon" which eliminates the clutter, illustrations, etc. It makes a short printout, (with or without the blog, hopefully) etc. It would be very nice to have this. Enough said---thank you if you consider this.

Beautiful music on youtube. Thanks. Didn't like the bible burning one, though. Reminds me of the story that I heard about the old timer who refused to accept any contemporary translations of the bible. He said, stubbornly, "If the King James bible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

@Maryann - Glad you liked the music. You can't beat Hale and Wilder or Pavarotti. H&W were concertizing alot during the '60's and '70's I think. I understand they started out with their names reversed on the marquee, but that didn't go over too well with their church audiences. (This could be purely anecdotal, however.) And when Pavarotti sings Nessun Dorma, my sinuses clear. (slight hyperbole, here)

Haha. Who said Christians don't have a sense of humor? I love it.

Is it really anti-intellectualism your witnessing in parts of evangelism? Or is it obedience?

We are told.... Trust in God only.

We are told to love our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength and to lean not on our own understanding.

We are to rely on Holy Spirit to bring us into all Truth.

We were given an earth to steward, children to raise, and yes, a mind to use etc. But we were never ment to do or utilize these things apart from Gods love and provision.

Jesus said, "You can do nothing apart from me"

What you call "evangelicals making a spectacle of themselves over" I call supporting evidence of the aforementioned

God states in Jer.33:2,3 2 "This is what the LORD says, he who made the earth, the LORD who formed it and established it—the LORD is his name: 3 'Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.'

He must be come greater and greater we must become less and less.

WE trust the Creator to make sure the creation (Medicine and Science)is something we the created should adhere to and/or partake of. And it isn't always... for it's not always His. Sometimes it's the created creation. A second hand speculation rather that a first hand revelation/Truth.

To mistrust science and medicine isn't anti-intellectualism nor is it to mistrust God but to trust in Him... and to call His creations creation into speculation(mistrust).
For true medicine and true science doesn't exist apart from God but rather because of Him.

It's the way people blindly trust medicine and science to be His or always of Him or what He wants for them that is disconcerting.

I am not ashamed to say I mistrust "medicine and science" and the practitioners there of. If the blind lead the blind they both fall into the ditch...

Everything God gave us he intends for us to use. But there is a right and healthy way that is God's way. For it is written: There is a way that seems right to man but it leads to death.

By the way, just because someone mistrusts science doesn't make them anti-intellectual. God is very intellectual afterall he created intellect...and I'm all for Him.

I must admit your point that we oft times relegate ourselves to "as you put it" the side-show of intellectual discourse in trying to prove Gods existence etc. that's it's not necessarily the fault of anyone else is true...
For only God can prove God...a lesson I've painfully learned in trying to get my sons etc. to believe... I often wondered God why aren't you backing me up here?...Why are you not giving me the wisdom and right words to speak?...My Father is supposed to be speaking through me? He's never confirmed yet, but I believe the answer is faith and simply trust. Only then will God give me and us the winning arguments; the convincing tools.

I notice you are quick to mention scientists aren't perfect.... how bout making some allowance for fault for evangelicals...

Some of us are quite willing to risk looking the side-show.

@Heather: Word! I will pray for your sons. Psalms 31:22c "...You heard the voice of my supplications/When I cried to You...23 O love the LORD, all you His godly ones!
The LORD preserves the faithful /... 24 Be strong and let your heart take courage,/ All you who hope in the LORD.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

This Is Your Brain on Evangelicalism

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

This Is Your Brain on Evangelicalism

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives