https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=Zm6jvfDQb6k
I think something that’s really interesting, if people are listening to you carefully there, is noticing that the way that you’re practicing what you’re talking about, seeing the world in pattern, you’re not just seeing these disparate events happening and treating them as seemingly random things, but you’re using the lens that we’re given, the patterns that we’re giving through Scripture and the story of Jesus and what God’s been doing since creation and for all of time, and kind of seeing the world through those lenses, that we have these religious groups with a god man and sacrifice but no absolution and their scapegoats. All of these are kind of biblical terms and it’s not arbitrary. That’s a way that we begin to kind of inhabit that story, I’m guessing. You mentioned that it comes easily to you, but I imagine it’s also something that you would recommend to people, learning to see the world through those patterns and use that language even, because language isn’t neutral. No, I think so. I think that one of the best, let’s say a Christian that is struggling with materialism or kind of lives in a material world, one of the things that can help you break that is to start by typology. I think most Christians accept typology as an acceptable way to interpret Scripture, except for the real scholar-scholar types. We don’t want them anyways. We don’t want to talk about them anyways. Let’s say in an embodied, real Christian life, reading the Bible through typology is a way that is acceptable. By doing that, you can start, which is that if you, for example, when you read Scripture, you ask yourself, let’s say you read Genesis, then you always compare it to the story of Christ and you say, how is Christ’s story mirroring or reflecting the story that you see in Genesis? By doing that, you start to kind of practice these analogical thinking, you could say, where you start to see that this pattern is playing out in these different spheres using sometimes slightly different, let’s say slightly different examples. Once you start to get the language and you start to see that, okay, so Christ is on the cross and he’s dying and he has a good thief and a bad thief next to him. And you’re like, okay, well, what’s going on here? Does it have to do with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Well, yes, it does have to do with the knowledge of the tree of good and evil. And does it have to do with the promise that God told Adam that he would die? Yes, it does have a relationship with that. So that’s just a little example. But once you start to see that, then slowly the patterns start to meld, at least that’s what I think. And then you can actually, then you can start to see the world through the Bible rather than stand above and interpret the Bible like a scientific data that you’re analyzing using all your methods of exegesis methods or whatever. It’s a different way of entering into the life of scripture. And I think we see that even in the New Testament writers as they’re writing, how they can pull together these different quotes and allusions and just subtle hintings at different passages, they’ve so saturated themselves in what for them would have been like the Hebrew or Greek Old Testament, that it’s just the language that they speak when they’re thinking of this human experience, they think of it through the lens of this story. And that’s how we really begin to internalize the Bible.