Another One Gets Off the Evangelical Bus: Thoughts on A De-Conversion
June 1, 2009 by iMonk
BeAttitude gives his reasons for Why He Walked Away From Christianity. Don’t skip this. Read it carefully and don’t start talking. Just listen.
1. I always want to commend anyone who moves to a position of authenticity for themselves. If you don’t believe the claims of your own Christian community, then by all means please move to a position where you are able to say “This is what I do believe.” What you don’t believe is a step along the way. We’ve got thousands of Christians who are actually unbelievers, agnostics and atheists. We’d all be better off to ring a bell and go to our real position. Even if it makes mom and dad cry, which it will.
2. The hand of the new atheists is heavily apparent here. If you don’t believe their assault on the Christian faith and religion in general are making an impact, you’re out to lunch. Their arguments may be weak and answerable, but they are persuasive to millions of ordinary people. Most Christians won’t be professional apologists and they aren’t coming to your seminar or class. For many people, a Chris Hitchens or a Sam Harris are devastatingly confident voices of self-proclaimed reason. Investigation may prove otherwise, but that’s hardly well-publicized or well communicated.
3. The hand of shallow evangelical thinking is just as apparent. Does this read like Bart Ehrman’s discovery that inerrancy wasn’t true? Yes, and I say where are the evangelicals with the courage- and that’s what it will take- to say that simplistic inerrancy isn’t the default Christian position? Where is the awareness that the vast majority of the Christian world isn’t playing by the rules of a minority segment of evangelicalism determined to make their ideas of inerrancy the definition of Christianity. Read the Catholic Catechism on the inspiration of scripture, for goodness sake. Find out why you don’t have to have your faith detonated like Ehrman did, by a bomb that was defused long, long ago.
4. Once the content of the Old Testament is out there folks. you better have some answers and some honesty. Here’s a violent, bloody book of sacrifice and war, much of it endorsed by God. Books like Christopher Wright’s The God I Don’t Understand aren’t going to sell many copies among today’s Christians, so very few Christian young people will ever hear someone really wrestling with these questions. It’s not an easy problem, and anyone who concludes that atheism is more moral than a God who orders up violence and destruction shouldn’t be ridiculed. But as Razi Zacharias has pointed out over and over, atheists like BeAttitude are engaging in a moral argument that atheism itself undercuts. The believer in God has a problem with what God does. The atheist has a problem with the fact he/she has a problem. So after we’ve all vented, we actually come back to a common problem: can we trust our own moral instincts completely to give us all of the truth?
5. BeAttitude has discovered that Christianity- and theism in general- is extremely unlikely. The problem with so many preachers and teachers is they speak constantly as if Christianity is so obvious, so apparent, so easy, so plain, so likely to be true that only morons are unbelievers. Wrong. I once had a preacher at our ministry who would say you were stupid to not believe in God or the Bible. Now the Bible says the fool says in his heart that there is no God, and I believe that….from inside the faith. But from outside of it, it’s very unlikely that miracles happen, that dead men rise, that God speaks, etc. It’s totally unlikely. But as C.S. Lewis says, so are noses. So is everything else. You have to move past that, and if you have been in an environment where all of your questions were placed in the category of “what stupid, foolish and unbelieving people say,” then you kept quiet, and now, like BeAttitude, the whole business seems completely outrageous. Well…it is. And the Psalms bear witness to that as does the rest of scripture. You have to be in that place a bit and to consider that the biggest claim Christianity makes isn’t that God parted the Red Sea, but that there is a reason there is something rather than nothing.
6. BeAttitude is now free to say that Christians have terrible flaws and have done terrible things. What does that tell you about the kind of Christianity we’ve fostered? That’s right….we blame our critics. We deny our history. We explain away our bloody and oppressive actions. We act as if being a Christian- on the large and small stages- must entail a loyalty oath to defend the indefensible. This is, of course, bizarrely ironic given the fact that we are the one religion that openly proclaims we are so bad we can’t do anything to help ourselves.
7. The doctrine of hell needs a lot of work in how we present it. (See C.S. Lewis for details.) Again, bad evangelicalism rings through statements about 70% of the world going to hell for refusing to believe Jesus is God. There’s a big conversation on hell that gets silenced whenever it breaks out. The doctrine of hell becomes a pragmatic flag that has to be waved to create the requisite conditions for aisle-walking evangelism. I have to answer this objection every week. I always say the same thing: Christianity doesn’t empower Christians to tell others who is going to hell. It reveals who God is and who we are. It gives us the Gospel. It asks us the question: How are your sins forgiven? It doesn’t put you or me in the place of God in what we know about anyone. It addresses you. Not groups. Not bumper sticker theology. Your real life in relation to a particular God and what he has revealed. But BeAttitude has walked into the dilemma that Jesus is the one who delivers the Christian doctrine of hell most plainly. If you judge that Jesus isn’t to be believed on those matters, then there is NO argument about theology and NO apologetic that’s going to repair that problem.
8. Which reminds me that BeAttitude has very little to say about Jesus aside from 1) he didn’t do everything I think he should do and 2) the Gospels may be a different kind of literature than I was told. I always note that Jesus seldom leads the reasons people abandon the faith. Not faulting BeAttitude at all. I just would say Jesus is the “heaviest” factor in any consideration of Christianity. Not a minor matter. If he’s the clue from God to all these questions humans have, then he changes everything.
9. I am a Christian because I was born into that culture and family? No, as true as that is, I am a Christian because I remain one, despite the strong arguments against Christianity provided by being in a Christian family and culture.
10. Let me repeat myself. So much of what you will read here is the price tag of the typical evangelical view of the Bible as inerrant, without significant issues, never raising moral questions, always explainable, etc. If it were not for Jesus, passages like Genesis 22 would put me right where BeAttitude is now. His objections are significant and important. There is an entire discussion and level of understanding Christianity that BeAttitude hasn’t been introduced to within an increasingly shallow and doctrinally compromised evangelicalism.
Why is an A/G quoting Luther? (on the billboard)
I googled it and found this on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism
It does have an interesting tale of how thinking on faith has changed through the years and philosophers.
@JohnB5200, who wrote: “I agree with DLE.
If BeAttitude had seriously wanted answers, he could have found them.”
We don’t agree. You place the burden on theBeAttitude, while I am placing the burden on the Christians around him.
Placing the burden on him is one of the major, major faults of modern Christianity. It is why people like theBeAttitude exist and why they fall away from the faith. While everyone is ultimately responsible for his or her faith, it is the COMMUNITY of faith that failed theBeAttitude. It is the responsibility of leaders to lead, teachers to teach, and disciplers to disciple. When these people (excuse me) SUCK at what they do, either because they have no training themselves or they stopped caring a long time ago, then people like theBeAttitude are inevitable.
If you or I grew up in a house where all the walls were painted black, and we were told by the most important people in our lives that all houses have black walls, why should we assume other houses have walls that are painted a color besides black?
Our belief systems are largely a product of our environment. If the environment is bad, how are we going to turn out excellence? A bad tree does not produce good fruit.
In theBeAttitude’s case, the community around him comprised the bad tree. The community failed and the result was bad fruit.
We Christians have got to stop going for the jugular by laying all the blame on the victim. That only excuses us from culpability. I see theBeAttitude as a victim of a lack of decent training. If he went 33 years and crapped out in the end (though I doubt the final epitaph has been written on his Christian life), then a whole lotta people along those 33 years failed him severely. They need to own up to that failure. WE need to own up to that failure.
Haven’t read Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” but have read “The Dawkins Delusion” by Alister McGrath – which intelligently answers the usual atheistic arguments. McGrath began his career as a noted scientist, then obtained a doctorate in theology, and has bested Dawkins in more than one debate. When I returned this book to my local libray, the librarian exclaimed “Wow, someone’s written the book I was looking for!” She had read “The God Delusion” and had found it laughable and unconvincing, and was wondering who would take on Dawkins. I highly recommend the McGrath book. Have not yet read his latest, “A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology” but have heard it’s excellent.
In all of this giant discussion I have yet to hear anyone say(although imonk hinted it)that God is the one who converts. We are just messagers of the story.
or: How much good have people done in the name of God? Feed the hungry, cloth the naked and so forth?
DLE-
I apologize for my mis-representation of your position. I did not read the last sentence of your post closely enough.
I should have said I agree with the first paragraph of your post, but I disagreed with the last statement regarding the assignment of culpability.
I’ve always felt that Christians pointing out there good works was not a particularly helpful apologetic, no matter how much it corrected false information.
I don’t mean to say pointing out good works are apologetics. This is in response to how many people have been killed in the name of God. Christians do some good things.
When I left the faith many years ago (I have since come back) I was forsaking a faith that only captured a small part of the truth. I hardly knew Christ and my faith was grounded on propositions, the Gospels only quoted to support those propositions. I think it is easy to walk away from a faith like that, there is only an intellectual attachment and I had faith in doctrines not a person. I think the evangelical belief in the Bible as the Word of God (something that I feel uncomfortable about – it’s Jesus who is the final revelation) that has led to this shallowness, the Bible is seen as a quick fix for everything
Ruben,
This reminds me of a story Richard Foster told . He saw a picture of Jesus giving the Bible to the world. He said that is backward. The Bible gives Jesus to the world.
I have had people tell me Foster is wrong Jesus gave us the Bible.
Two different points of view.
Also, Jesus is the Word. Read the Gospel of John.
” I think the evangelical belief in the Bible as the Word of God (something that I feel uncomfortable about – it’s Jesus who is the final revelation) that has led to this shallowness, the Bible is seen as a quick fix for everything”
But how do you know that revelation without the testimony (The Bible)?
I think that the most dangerous attitude to walk into something like this with, as a Christian, is “oh, well, it’s only a small minority somewhere that I’ve never seen that does things this way…most normal people, like my church, are fine, and there’s no real issue”.
Holy fingers in holy ears, nyah nyah nyah.
iMonk, fantastic article as always. I don’t remember where I read the story, but most people who grow up in non-religious (not necessarily Atheist) households turn to a church later in life, and the largest reason they give for changing is because their spiritual needs are not being met. So while the non-religious folk are becoming more mainstream, there are plenty of people going both directions
There was a time when I would have been apprehensive about even going to review this list of reasons because of the challenge it would mean. But now, I was pretty sure what I was going to see, and I can honestly say that nothing on that list surprised me at all. I’ve wrestled with all of them and read books on most of them. I can say that finding the answer to all of them did not bring any real faith. My faith is the result of a long 18 year experience where God showed be what would happen to me if I continued in the sin I was engaged in, and that the only reason it hadn’t happened thus far was because of his grace. This is something I only know from my own experience and couldn’t prove it to anyone. In short I was blind and now I see.
I think it’s good beattitude has done his list and is walking away. If he gets far enough away he might turn around and be able to see the Church of christ as it can only be seen if you stand far enough away. I’m stealing from Chesterton here.
Michael, you wrote:
“Apologetics deals with reasons, evidence, objections, etc. But I have almost never seen apologetics alone have any sort of evangelistic impact. Our problem, at root, is not intellectual or evidential, but moral.”
This is why I tend to prefer presuppositional apologetics over the evidential sort. Neither can ultimately convert the human heart and give spiritual sight. However, presuppositional apologetics, in my view, is more helpful, because it goes to the crucial matters of 1. the ultimate *foundations* for one’s thinking and 2. one’s ultimate heart/mind/soul *allegiance*– self and autonomy, or God and dependence on Him in our thinking and living.
Left to ourselves and our sinful preference for our own reasoning and understanding, Christianity *will* look foolish. We naturally tend to think that we are sufficient, and we need no God to tell us who He is, who we are, and how we are to think and live. It’s not a matter of evidence; it’s a matter of *allegiance.* (This does not mean there is no place for giving evidence and answering questions and objections to the Christian faith.)
As I wrote above, no form of apologetics has the power to convert people to Christ. I tend to go with the presupp kind because it gets to the heart of the issue, which is an issue of the *heart.*
However, as others have written here, most churches aren’t teaching serious apologetics of the presuppositional *or* evidential kind. This is a very grave problem. Christianity is *not* an anti-intellectual religion, and I lament it when churches, especially, treat Christianity as such, a la “Don’t ask questions; just believe!”
“Reason” doesn’t work. You can’t give good reasons for accepting Christianity, at least not that would be persuasive to clear-thinking outsiders.
“Faith” is arbitrary. Why believe in this, and not that? Indeed, why suppose that it is important to “believe” anything special, other than what we would normally be inclined to?
And then there’s personal inclination. One goes to church for an aesthetic experience, or in order to meet people and look good, etc. But churches can’t always give people what they want. Musical styles are divisive, and there is always a more “with it” church somewhere else. As society, churches, and people all change over time, the chances of mismatch approach certainty.
What’s left? Maybe the “innoculation” theory. Sure, Christianity is boring and nonsensical, but since religion exists everywhere, and nominal Christianity beats the hell out of turning Moslem, better send the kids to Sunday school once in awhile.
I grew up in church, departed from and eventually rejected the Christianity of my youth, finally descended into a pit of utter nihilism, and then rediscovered belief and faith in an unlikely turn of events — so, on one side, I truly relate to what BeAttitude has to say. Many of his reasons for leaving the faith were the same as my own. On the other side, I hold out hope that he will someday rediscover his faith, as well. Sometimes, you have to let go of fake religious pretensions in order to find what is real. It’s a dangerous journey, and most don’t come back from it — but some do.
The key for me was actual experience of God — and, yes, I’m being mystical and spooky here. My problem is that there is no rational argument for God’s existence that I can’t counter-argue, so reason is just not a foundation on which I can build faith, not without intentionally suppressing the rational progression of my thoughts when they start probing out beyond the standard stock of Christian apologetics.
For me, it took the literal indwelling and supernatual activity of the Holy Spirit, which was something the religion of my youth would not touch with a ten foot pole. I think there was a very good reason why the apostles made sure that those early converts received the Holy Spirit, and that’s because literal experience of God is a necessary element in sustained faith and belief. The purely cerebral game is one that we’ll never win, not in the long run.
–quote–
9. I am a Christian because I was born into that culture and family? No, as true as that is, I am a Christian because I remain one, despite the strong arguments against Christianity provided by being in a Christian family and culture.
–quote–
I’m curious as to what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that you are a Christian because of where you were born or are you merely saying that is the reason you became a Christian?
One of the most common responses in England (and I suspect the States as well) is “I was born a Christian”. What they really mean is that they were born in what was perceived as a Christian country and they have a basic understanding that being a Christian involves one of Jesus, God, Church and religion. Being a Christian is about turning away from a life without God (where we make ourselves or anyone but God as the focus of our living) and ask for forgiveness – as Paul writes in Galatians, the Law shows us that we cannot be good enough on our own, we are not able to fulfil the whole of the Law.
Now before anyone points out any errors in my “argument”, let me point out that I’m far from perfect and I don’t expect to understand everything (or be able to put all those thoughts into an universally readable form) this side of glory! I know I make plenty of mistakes! (That doesn’t mean I don’t want you to point them out)
Being a Christian is not about being “religious” or doing good works (we cannot “work” our own way to Heaven because our good works are “as filthy rags”) but, as James states, we demonstrate our faith by our works – everyone has gifts and, as a Christian, we want to use our gifts for His glory – some are called to youth work, others to pastoral ministry, some to chat with friends over a cuppa or be the friendly face at the door, others see a month or a lifetime overseas.
In fact, just reflecting on many of the things I know I’ve done wrong makes me rejoice that the Lord of all the Universe did it all because I am unable.
On a slightly different point, apologetics alone cannot convince you to become a Christian. What they can do is point you to the Cross, lead you to a place where you need to consider the possibilities. God/Jesus is the one who does the saving after all!
“Our problem, at root, is not intellectual or evidential, but moral.”
Meaning too few works, or lack of charity in social circumstances? Not sure what you mean here Imonk.
Erp,
If your still interested let me address this point:
“What qualities should a system of beliefs have that should be trusted, that one should have faith in? It is the supported by evidence, rational, revisable, testable, and tested that is important.”
This is not faith this is confidence in facts, you are describing empiricism. Religion can and should be rational and supported by evidence , but not in a conclusive manner. What you miss is that your definition is a small and cramped way to address a wide open world. Strictly within the realm of science there are many untestable theories and there are many truths for which we can not give sufficient evidence.
If you seek truth you will quickly learn that some truths are not testable. Your criteria will fail you on many important questions: questions of morality, eternity, purpose, and serenity.
Religion is an untestable part of metaphysics, but the truth or falsity of religion is very important. If it’s true then nothing in the world is more important if it’s false it’s still interwoven into human nature (that fact is based on strong evidence) and provides the basis for morality, a critical part of a functioning society. So like it or not very large parts of our worldly understanding and daily lives hinge on questions science can not test.
Teenage Mutant Ninja:
On the basis of respectful engagement of the topic, it stretches the limits of moderation at least half of the time you post. On most Christian sites, many of your comments would bring about a firestorm. I hope you appreciate that you get quite the free forum here, and I get lots of practice saying “No….I’ll let that one go.”
ms
Teenage Mutant etc….or as anyone with kids would call you..–TMNT
We all “believe” in all kinds of things whether we’re religious or not. Maybe it seems arbitrary. Maybe, sometimes, it is arbitrary. However, there’s no such thing as a human who doesn’t “believe” in some things without evidence or because reason has led them to every choice in their lives.
I would imagine romance would be dead in such a person….if they existed.
“What qualities should a system of beliefs have that should be trusted, that one should have faith in? It is the supported by evidence, rational, revisable, testable, and tested that is important.”
This is not faith this is confidence in facts, you are describing empiricism. Religion can and should be rational and supported by evidence , but not in a conclusive manner. — Memphis Aggie
Then somebody had better inform whoever made and distributed those tracts with the little toy train diagram with the FACT boxcar ahead of the FAITH caboose. Especially when the only evidence for the FACT is that “The Bible Says So!” via lots of quoted proof texts. Those tracts always disturbed me.
We all “believe” in all kinds of things whether we’re religious or not. Maybe it seems arbitrary. Maybe, sometimes, it is arbitrary. However, there’s no such thing as a human who doesn’t “believe” in some things without evidence or because reason has led them to every choice in their lives.
I would imagine romance would be dead in such a person….if they existed. — Terri
Oh, they exist. Check out the history of the French Revolution for such triumphs of the Age of Reason. And they’re still out there, usually in the form of Activists — the type of Activists that wind up on South Park.
I am so grateful for what you do.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Do you mean to say that faith is oversold as fact? This is not Catholic teaching. The Pope recently wrote about the commonality that atheists and religious face although from distinct viewpoints. Doubt is part of everyone’s faith and everyone’s struggle. Atheists and religious both share crises of confidence and go through ups and downs. He quoted St Therese of Lisieux as an example of a fully devoted religious immersed in the faith since childhood and who yet still has to battle with doubts.
One of my coworkers has a quote posted in his classroom: “You may not live what you profess, but you WILL live what you believe.”
With God’s grace, this may well simply be another step in BeAttitude’s journey to Christ. He’s been shaken loose from all the things he professed; now he comes to what he believes. If he continues to seek the TRUTH, I think he will eventually come back around to Christ.
It’s been my experience that many people who turn from their faith did so because of some watershed event in their lives. I’d like to ask him what precipitated his decision; what was the straw that broke his back? And that is where Imonk’s point about argument and apologetics comes in: now is the time that BeAttitude needs to see real Christ-love in action. He’s not in a place where he can be persuaded by reason; he needs to see God’s unreasonable, scandalous love in action and extended to him. And that has to come from Christians.
it is fascinating that within a week of posting his thoughts on losing faith in Christianity, he was laid off from his job.
Originally, I paid very little attention to the picture of the church sign. But after reading it, I think it’s dead wrong. Reason isn’t the enemy of faith, our emotions are.
DLE,
WROTE: Placing the burden on him is one of the major, major faults of modern Christianity. It is why people like theBeAttitude exist and why they fall away from the faith. While everyone is ultimately responsible for his or her faith, it is the COMMUNITY of faith that failed theBeAttitude. It is the responsibility of leaders to lead, teachers to teach, and disciplers to disciple. When these people (excuse me) SUCK at what they do, either because they have no training themselves or they stopped caring a long time ago, then people like theBeAttitude are inevitable.
———-”Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Do you think that in a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?’”
I wonder, DLE, is the ‘COMMUNITY’ of faith to be held responsible for Aggrippa not coming to faith? Did Paul fail Aggrippa; therefore, he must be held responsible? So the burden was on Paul not to fail in his presentation of the gospel, not Agrippa to embrace the light of truth? Interesting.
fishon
“I can say that finding the answer to all of them did not bring any real faith. My faith is the result of a long 18 year experience where God showed be what would happen to me if I continued in the sin I was engaged in, and that the only reason it hadn’t happened thus far was because of his grace.” Thank you Scott. You are one of the few here to speak to the core issue. And very well spoken. Most everyone else is dancing around it. Lots of “apologetic”, “evangelical”, “goodness”, “objection”, etc.
Like Scott, and all the rest of us, what is beAttitude going to do with his sin? That’s the question he must answer. He’s right in one way. What happened 3000 years ago on a plain in Israel really doesn’t have much to do with his life.
And yet, in a very vital way it does matter. What happened 3000 years ago is connected to that day on Calvary a thousand years later and right up to today and his sin today.
Memphis Aggie,
I *think* what Michael is trying to say (not completely certain, obviously, as I’m not him) is that the evidence is already there for Christianity, but that ultimately, the non-Christian’s deepest issue is one of the heart. Will one submit oneself to God, or will one continue to trust in oneself as one’s own highest “authority”? Evidence definitely plays a role in Christian conversion (for many people), and evidence, as part of apologetics, can be helpful, but it is ultimately a matter of submitting oneself and one’s will to God.
(If I’m wrong about any of this being what Michael is saying, I trust that he will correct me.
)
Memphis Aggie,
Also, see Larry Gieger’s comment above mine. It is helpful on the “moral” component of unbelief, regarding Christianity.
Oops, *Geiger*
” “More people have been killed in the name of God than in the name of gold.”
Really? Why would you think so?””
” “More people have been killed in the name of God than in the name of gold.”
Really? Why would you think so?””
Wow, I’m not sure how that first post happened, but your point about them overlapping is a great one. Especially in our society, God and Gold are two sides of the same coin. God loves capitalism, it seems.
I was also thinking of how the Bible is used as a weapon, compared to say, Adam Smith. Paul and how he’s been used to justify slavery and oppression of women. Spreading Christianity as a rationale for the genocidal conquest of the new world. Northern Ireland, etc. Just recently here we had a child abuse case where the father said he was simply following Biblical principles when he beat his child.
The OT is mostly violence, and you don’t have to surf far before you can find blogs where claiming Jesus was a pacifist will get you flamed.
That’s where I run aground on the idea that God must exist before we know what good and bad is. The altruistic impulse was necessary for our evolution; it’s built in. Perhaps that’s what is meant by being created in the image of God. Perhaps along with original sin we have original good.
I think the broad point that the new atheists make, that religion causes more harm than it does good, should not be dismissed out of hand.
There are overlapping factors on the “goodness” Venn diagram, too. If someone’s passion is to feed the homeless, they’ll feed the homeless with or without a church.
If we were to compare the things that don’t overlap on the diagram — good things that people do only because they’re Christian vs. bad things that people do only because they’re Christian — I’m not sure what we’d find.
Perhaps those non-overlapping things don’t even exist. Perhaps Christianity as practiced mostly serves as a cover for our own impulses.
Thank you for linking this post and for the response to it. There is certainly much that could be said about sin and grace in Christ.
I note with sadness that the author of BeAttitude has a Lutheran background. He certainly reflects the writings of Dawkins/Harris/Hitchins/Dennett, though these are hardly original or unique. I believe it is possible to reason oneself out of faith. This is not to say that faith is a blind leap or unreasonable, but that it is strongly relational and existential as well as intellectual. Apologetics and rational arm wrestling will only get one so far. If our intellectual doubts keep us from prayer, from worship, from participation in the sacramental life of the Body of Christ, faith will indeed grow cold and die. I recognize as a trained scientist that this isn’t a scientifically provable statement, but that’s the nature of relational things, I’m afraid. If I continually press for evidence of my wife’s love, I will wind up destroying my love for her. Fortunately, there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus. Not even our doubts and skepticism.
BeAttitude’s post is a poignant view of what faith looks like when it has died. None of us who believe is immune.
“None of us who believe is immune.”
Amen to that, wcwirla.
Suppose five years ago, someone had asked BeAttitude “Do you believe?” I imagine he would have said “Yes.” I don’t know if he was struggling with doubt then, or how long this has been going on, but I don’t imagine he woke up one morning and said “Hey, I think I’ll stop being Christian.”
I get a sense of a lot of weariness, a lot of depression, a lot of beaten-down by the struggle to reconcile what he had been raised to believe and the doubts he was feeling. I don’t get triumphalism. I do get a prickly self-defensiveness that wants to get his retaliation in first: one of his posts on the falsity of Christianity was a case of a nun from a Traditionalist – and I suspect schismatic – Catholic order who had been acquitted in a dangerous driving case that resulted in the deaths of two teenagers.
That’s not a reasoned argument on “how I was convinced Christianity was false”, that’s a wounded person striking out with “If it’s true, why aren’t all you Christians better than ordinary folks? And if you’re not better, how dare you condemn me?”
Great post / thinking Michael. Thanks. E.
Martha – nicely said. Amen.
You don’t wake up thinking, “I’ll stop being Christian.” You wake up and realize that you haven’t been for a long time.
And yet the Father waits for and welcomes his prodigal sons home again.
A question I’ve had for a while is why is it that the Christian Scriptures has Jesus appearing for Thomas to allay his doubts? And if it was done to allay his doubts, out of pity for his lack of faith, or just to convince him, why is that lacking so much for the modern day skeptics?
I wish BeAttitude could step outside of his Christian box and perhaps try to look through a different prism. Not believing in the claims of Jesus does not make one an atheist, it makes one a non-Christian. Judaism, and a more scholarly view of Scripture would have been an antidote to at least half of the complaints.
Headless Unicorn Guy
Aha! Now I finally get your username!
Hmmm…but does this mean you see yourself as a martyr in an Age of Reason?
I’ll have to psychoanalyze this a bit further!
Thanks Christopher
Wow! So much to think about here! Thank you, iMonk, for bringing this to more people’s attention! And thank you, all of you learned folk, for bringing to bear such excellent arguments!
Although not knowing BeAttitude, I understand his struggle to make sense of the religion of his youth when compared to what’s happening in the world arena. He also shows his heart: a very brave thing to do in a world/society/culture dominated by those who must insist theirs is the only way.
I also understand the walking away, as well as the need to list the reasons why. When I was almost 28, I walked away from the religion of my youth. I was a Jehovah’s Witness and, even four years after leaving, while I couldn’t bring myself to return I still thought it was the only way. But, six months later I said “yes” to Jesus’ offer of a lifetime relationship with Him and have spent an incredible 20 years on that road.
As I look at BeAttitude’s post, I realize something has taken his eyes off the Lover of his soul and placed it squarely on the screwed up people who claim to be His. Listen to what BeAttitude wrote about his beliefs: “I did truly believe in God for most of my life and worshiped and prayed to him daily. I believed he was at work in my life at all times and using me to touch other people’s lives. … With the countless religions of the world, I began to question why the god of the Bible is more believable than all other gods worshiped on earth.”
In my two decades with the Lord I’ve discovered that some of His children put more stock in their denominations than they do in Him. Some haven’t yet grasped that it’s more about relationship than rules. Some believe you can’t be Christian if you don’t regularly go to church. Some haven’t immersed themselves in the Word to know what’s in there, missing out on the vignettes and subplots that explain God’s love. Some have allowed others to interpret Scripture for them, not knowing that often these are taken out of context.
I don’t know the languages in which the Bible was written but I know Who wrote it, and I believe:
as Job continued to do even though his world was falling apart.
as Gideon did, that a God who empowers isn’t afraid of questions.
as Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah did, that God could save them but they’d still worship Him even if they died.
as the beloved apostle John did, when encouraging disciples to accept Jesus though they’d never seen or heard Him.
as my poor mother did, that people will hurt you (and have, badly!), but God never will and His Word is always true.
as a former pastor of mine did, when he stated, “When we get to Heaven, God’s going to straighten out all our theologies, ’cause we all have it a little wrong somewhere.”
I know in whom I have believed. I know to the core of my being that:
God is love;
Jesus’ died for every person who ever lived or ever will live, not just for those who have said “yes” to Him;
only God knows the heart so we cannot say whether or not someone else is accepted;
the flip side of that coin calls us to live what we believe;
none of us will fully understand until we go Home because a finite mind cannot wrap itself around The Infinite.
It is my prayer that all of us, BeAttitude included, will understand that God is not afraid of questions, nor is He upset when we’re angry with Him. I also pray he will accept that people’s inherent right to choose can make for some pretty lousy decisions, none of which can be laid at the feet of Love.
all of Heaven’s best to you and yours,
Margret
Headless Unicorn Guy
Aha! Now I finally get your username!
Hmmm…but does this mean you see yourself as a martyr in an Age of Reason? — Terri
More like a guy who had a vivid image burst into his head back in Spring of ‘99 that wouldn’t come out until three color pieces and a 2000-word short story later. (Besides which, I have a fairly common name; “Headless Unicorn Guy” is unique.)
Yes, I have seen obsession on Reason to the detriment of all else. I work in computers and you see a lot of it in my field. Immerse yourself in the machine too long and you become a machine. And the destruction of the world becomes “Only a six-point-one Gigadeath Situation — Insignificant”. (Actual quote from one poster boy of Sola Intellect.)
Also remember that the Unicorn is also a symbol of Purity. (Which was the original angle of the picture; the Age of Reason corollary came later.) I live in SoCal (Ground Zero of the Sexual Revolution) and am just old enough to have spent my formative years in the Fifties; when I came of age, La Revolution Sexual had hit and I found myself in an alien universe with unicorn blood staining my boots to the ankles while the mob cheered in mass orgasm. Like Howard the Duck, trapped in a world I never made.
BTW, I did not find this out until today, but A.N. Wilson, prominent biographer and atheist, “re-converted” to Christianity recently.
His story might serve as an informative contrast to BeAttitude’s experince.
One article among many is at http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090507/a-n-wilson-returns-to-the-faith/index.html
“Ground Zero of the Sexual Revolution,” eh? Well, be careful over there! You might wake up in the middle of the night to find a mob of amply-bosomed blonde lovelies banging on your door like the men of Sodom, demanding to slake their lusts.
A note of clarification regarding my fellow North Carolinian, Bart Ehrman. It wasn’t his discovery that the inerrancy of Scripture was not true that “detonated” his faith. Rather, his inability to reconcile a loving, all-powerful God with a world of suffering. See his most recent book for his thoughts on the possibility of faith without inerrant Scriptures…well worth reading!
iMonk,
The primary problem is that human pride makes us incapable of admitting when we don’t know the answer to a given question. Because we cannot stand unanswered questions, we seize on the best available answer and insist that it is satisfactory, no matter how poor it may be. We then use peer pressure tactics to enforce this view as “known truth” and close our minds to discussion. No greater example of this can exist then the insistence on the 24 hour yowm in Genesis.
As Christians, I think we make 3 fundamental mistakes that make our faith ridiculous:
1. We assume that Moses and the Old Testament prophets were perfect men who revealed God perfectly like Jesus Christ. (In contrast, I believe that Moses commits two of the greatest sins in human history in Exodus 33.)
2. We assume that morals are relative. Any act performed by God is okay because “might makes right”. (In contrast, I believe that the love of 1 Corinthians 13 is the basis of morality and that God cannot perform certain actions because of his loving nature.)
3. We assume that hell is absolute. God actively punishes those who do not believe in him forever. (In contrast, I believe that God is warning us of the consequences of making decisions for ourselves by rejecting his offer of the grace, forgiveness and guidance of Jesus Christ. What would it be like to live forever among those who do not believe they require the forgiveness and grace of God? Reject Jesus Christ and you will find out that it is not as much fun as you might think.)
It is very frustrating for me to watch people peddle entirely inadequate defenses of these basic problems as “Christian truth”. We need to admit our ignorance and question our basic beliefs. Aside from the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and a small set of attendant beliefs, everything should be on the table and no question should be ridiculed.
robert van de water
I found Christ when I had a need for Him in my life. After the need to fill the void was filled, a new need emerged. Understanding. Understanding of what had happened to me, and of how I needed to relate to it.
I found that the vehicle for this understanding came in studying human nature. If human nature is really good, then its just limited by external forces thru oppression, and salvation comes from the outside thru eliminating that oppression created by others.
But if human nature is fallen, then the evil exists in everyone, therefore everyone has a personal accountability for it, and some kind of salvation is needed inside on a personal level for it.
When I looked at the world for examples of the above, the two pre-eminate figures were, of course, Christ on the one hand. And then Karl Marx on the other. Hitchens, by the way, comes from an unashamed Communist background, as the followers of Marx see that as the only real salvation of the world. Talk to any atheist and it will be the same, as this becomes their only hope.
It was then that the Bible truly started to make sense to me, as this is pretty much what the message of it is all about. Its a binary thing, and it all works according to the one way or the other. Those attempting to straddle these ideas will find nothing by conflict.
So to me, learning about this ‘contrast’ and explaining it to others is how I approach pretty much everything. Understanding man has a fallen nature can’t help but lead one to Christ, so that is what I hammer on in all my endevours. God’s Word will always shine a huge spotlight on that theme.
great post. thought provoking and humbling. i appreciate it.
i have a sister who recently “de-converted” after a long series of events. she spent time listening to WOTM Radio (Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and Todd Friel) and they told her that if she didn’t look like the picture painted in the book of James, then she could NOT be a Christian…and she started to believe them.
ultimately, she’s been reading Hitchens and Dawkins (and every other anti-theist she can find), and she finds their “logic” compelling. she is not willing to call herself “athiest” yet, but is now “agnostic” at best.
the failure of Christianity, in my opinion, is our rigidity. “we are right, and the detractors be damned (literally).” we’ve forgotten that the heros of our faith were flawwed and fallible. we neglect that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon were failures and sinners…who were used by God in spite of their frailty. we like to paint a picture of what we think we should be, then try to live up to that false ideal.
God expects us to be real. He expects us to be honest. He expects us to say “i don’t know” when that’s the best answer we have. instead, we try to put on a good show…impress others with our righteousness…and play games. we throw around words like “inerrant”, “Calvinist”, “Arminian”, “sinner”,”salvation”, and “hell”…not understanding what we’re talking about. we’ve put God in a box and are determined to define Him, whom we cannot understand. we place on the Infinite, characteristics that we (the finite) can grasp, rather than accept that we cannot comprehend Him. we drive people away as a result.