I sat down with a young lady not too long ago and had a conversation. This was a conversation about faith—her faith. Better put, this was a conversation about a faith that once was and is no more. She was a very interesting and bright lady—inquisitive, well-read, and very suspicious. She began by telling me that she was a Christian (past tense) and had since left the faith. Christ was once a part of her confession, but, as she recounted to me, after a long voyage of not finding sufficient answers for her doubts, she believes that she had no choice but to follow her own integrity and renounce Christ all together. I asked her what her problems were and she became very emotional. It was like I represented Christianity and she was ready to take it all out on me.
Ignorance. Pity. Shame. These are all good descriptions of what she thought of Christianity. But the primary description that I felt coming from here was “betrayal.” She had been betrayed by the Church because they duped her into a belief not unlike that of the tooth fairy. When she discovered this “betrayal”, no one had a valid answer or excuse. So she left. She is now an unbeliever—a soon-to-be evangelistic unbeliever no doubt. She was at such a point in this process that no matter what I said, she was not open to listen.
One fascination, obsession, and focus (neurotic impulse?) I have in my life and ministry is with regard to those, like this young lady, who leave the faith. I’m sure you have noticed this. I have well over a dozen books giving autobiographical sketches of those who once proclaimed to be Christian and are now evangelistic atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, with their goal to convert or, rather, unconvert others. I have been in contact with many people who either have already left or are on the verge of leaving in the form of emails, phone calls and visits in person.
No, it is not a neurotic impulse. I believe that it is the recognition of an extremely serious issue that we are facing today. We are facing an epidemic in Christianity—an epidemic of unbelief among our own. Crowding our churches are those who are somewhere in the process of leaving. No, I am not talking about leaving a denomination. I am not talking about abandoning some institutionalized expression of Christianity. I am not talking about leaving the church (though related). And I am not even talking about renouncing religion. I am talking about those who are leaving Christ. (And this is coming from a Calvinist who does not believe that the truly elect will ever leave).
Over 31 million Americans are saying “check please” to the church, and are off to find answers elsewhere. Jeff Schadt, coordinator of Youth Transition Network, says thousands of youth fall away from the church when transitioning from high school to college. He and other youth leaders estimate that 65 to 94 percent of high school students stop attending church after graduating. From my studies and experience I find that leaving church is many times the first visible step in one’s pilgrimage away from Christ.
The question that we must ask is a very simple one: Why? Why are people leaving the faith at this epidemic and alarming rate? In my studies, I have found the two primary reasons people leave the faith are 1) intellectual challenges and 2) bad theology or misplaced beliefs.
First, I want to explain this transition process, focusing on the first: intellectual challenges. You might even find yourself somewhere on this journey.
Step one: Doubt
Step two: Discouragement
Step three: Disillusionment
Step four: Apathy
Step five: Departure
Step One: Doubt
Here is where the person begins to examine his or her faith more critically by asking questions, expressing concerns, and becoming transparent with their doubt. This doubt is not wholesale, but expresses an inner longing to have questions answered and the intellect satisfied to some degree. Normally this person will inquire of mentors in the faith, requesting an audience for their doubt. There are many reasons for the onset of this doubt. Here are the three that are primary:
Maturation: Much of the time it comes from simple maturation. People grow and begin to ask serious questions about their beliefs and that of their parents. It is the stage of intellectual maturation in which discernment becomes strong.
Intellectual challenges: Often, the doubt comes from intellectual challenges. Challenges to the Bible’s reliability. Challenges from science. Challenges to the very need for a belief in God. Tonight, Bart Erhman is speaking at the Sam Noble Museum at the University of Oklahoma. I am sure that he will challenge many of the college students intellectually, causing some of them to question their faith in the Scriptures.
Experiential challenges: These type of challenges come from God’s actions (or lack thereof) in our lives. This is exemplified by prayers that don’t get answered, the apparent silence of God in a person’s experience, or (and related to the former) a tragedy out of which you or someone else was not rescued.
Any one of these (or all three together) can be the catalyst in someone’s journey away from Christianity.
Step Two: Discouragement
This is where the person becomes frustrated because they are not finding the answers. They ask questions but the answer (or lack thereof) causes them discouragement. Their church tells them that such questions are “unchristian.” Their Sunday school teacher says, “I don’t know. You just have to believe.” Others simply say, “That’s a good question, I have never thought of it before,” and then go on their way on their own leap-of-faith journey.
This causes great discouragement in the life of the person as they begin to see that their questions and concerns are legitimate enough not to have an answer among those who should. “Are others scared of these questions? If so, why?” are the thoughts of the doubter.
Step Three: Disillusionment
Now the person begins to become disillusioned with Christianity in general and proceeds to doubt much more deeply. They feel betrayed by those who made them believe the story about Christ and the Bible. They feel that much of their former faith was naive since not even their most trusted mentors could (or would) answer basic questions about the Bible, history, or faith. In their thinking the intellect has become legitimized and the church is therefore an illegitimate contender for their mind. Once the mind has been lost, the turn has been made. They may still be emotionally routing for their former faith, but it will soon pass as their intellect will talk them out of their emotional conviction. This is a very sad place for the leaver as they realize that they are truly leaving. They will go through a long period of depression and indecisiveness here.
Step Four: Apathy
At this point in the journey, the disillusioned Christian becomes apathetic to finding the answers, believing that the answers don’t exist. They are firmly on their way to atheism, agnosticism, or pure skepticism but don’t have the courage to admit it to themselves or others. Many times those in this stage live as closet unbelievers, believing it is not worth it to come clean about their departure from the faith. They want a peaceful existence in their unbelief without creating controversy. Therefore, they are content to remain closet unbelievers. For some, this helps them to deal with the depression that their loss of faith has afforded. If they are never honest with themselves or others about it, they don’t have to deal with it.
However, not everyone stays in the apathy stage.
Step Five: Departure
Here is where I meet this young lady I told you about. (Really, she was somewhere in-between apathy and departure.) At this stage the fact that they have left the faith has become real to them and they are willing to announce it to the world. Because of their sense of betrayal, they feel as if it is their duty to become evangelists for the cause of unbelief. Their goal and mission becomes to unconvert the converted.
This is the stage that Bart Erhman is in as he speaks tonight. His zeal is his sense of betrayal. Either he feels that he has to legitimize his departure by taking as many along with him as he can or he is truly attempting to help people quit living a lie out of true concern. Either way, his emotional commitment to Christianity is gone and reversed. He is now an Evangelist for unbelief.
“I don’t really even care what you have to say to me,” she told me that day. “I just don’t believe anymore and there is nothing anyone can do about it.” As I thought about this young lady, only one thing keeps coming to mind: how was she a part of the church for so long without the church ever engaging her on these issues. You see, her issues were numerous, but foundational. She doubted the resurrection of Christ, the inspiration, inerrancy, canon of Scripture, and the historicity of the Christian faith in general. If the church had legitimized her questions during the doubting phase and truly engaged her from an intellectual front I can’t help but think, from a human point of view, things might have been different. But once she reaches the point of apathy, this seems to be a point of no return.
Folks, we have a lot on our job description. But rooting people theologically by presenting the intellectual viability of the Evangelical faith must be top on the priority list and it must come early. While I understand this is not all there is to the Christian faith, it is an absolute vital part of discipleship and foundational to everything else.
Everyone will go through the doubt phase. Everyone should ask questions about the faith. If you have not asked the “How do you know . . .” questions about the message of the Gospel, this is not a good thing. We should be challenged to think through these questions early in the faith. The Church needs to rethink its education program. Expositional preaching, while very important, is not enough. Did you hear that? Expositional preaching is not enough. It does not provide the discipleship venue that is vital for us to prevent and overcome this epidemic. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that it does.
The church has been on an intellectual diet for the last century and we are suffering from theological atrophy. What else do you expect when we have replaced theological discipleship with a gluttonous promotion of entertainment, numbers, and fast-food Christianity that can produce nothing more than a veneer of faith seasoned for departure?
The solution: to reform our educational program in the church. To lay theological foundations through critical thinking. To understand that the great commission is to make disciples, not simply converts. And most importantly, we must pray that God will grant a revival of the mind knowing that without the power of the Holy Spirit, no amount of intellectual persuasion can change an antagonistic heart.
Without these, the epidemic of leaving Christ will only worsen. We will have more evangelists of unbelief than we do the Gospel.
190 replies to "“How People Become Evangelists of Unbelief” or Leaving (Christ)ianity – An Evangelical Epidemic"
Lost coin. Lost sheep. Prodigal son. Prodigal daughter.
Some prodigals never come back. Some lost sheep never want to be found. Some coins are lost forever.
Take it to the Lord in prayer, talk to the prodigal, love the prodigal, be shunned by the prodigal, pray some more, and trust Him for the outcome.
It’s in His Hands.
Eric and Brett,
I don’t want to make this blog about me. I have my own blog and you are welcome to come over and engage if you like. I am systematically going through many of the reasons that caused me to leave the faith. I am open to hearing the very best arguments possible for the Christian faith. I think I have heard most of them, at least from evangelical scholars but I am willing to learn. One of the problems that I had with evangelicalism when I was a part of it, was the kind of smugness that said we have a corner on the truth. I know that is due to the presupposition that the Bible is truth but it still comes across as somewhat smug to me.
Michael T,
Yes, I was referring to William Lane Craig, the well known Christian apologist who has two Ph.D.’s. The man is brilliant but I don’t think he is intellectually honest. He has said that the inner witness of the Spirit trumps evidence. To me that is no different than the Mormon saying they don’t care about problems with the Book of Mormon because they have the confirmation of the burning in the bosom .
I agree with you that we all approach evidence with a set of presuppositions or a world-view. However, if you are unwilling to change those presuppositions or world-view if the evidence demands it, then I think you are not being intellecutally honest. I also think that we should all be 1) aware of our presuppositions; 2) skeptical of our presuppositions; and 3) attempt as much as it is possible to step outside of our world-view and look at things from other perspectives. I think only then are we truly being intellectually honest. Even then, however, I would not pretend that we are being “objective,” because I don’t think its ever possible for us, since we are the subject, to ever be truly objective. We should strive for it but we can never fully achieve it, in my opinion.
I agree that a genuinely true conversion can’t fall away but they can fall away from the pew for sure. Christ….. no. I have always believed that despite my armenian roots.
I live in NYC area and before a calvanist church have been to mostly AOG and non denoms. Alot of folks here in those churches have alot of baggage for addictions. Many have stories of rededication and backsliding etc.
I work in healthcare and hear the same thing from addicts that have exposure with christian programs,rescue missions etc. They talk the talk but aren’t walking it so they go to outpatient SAS programs. There are many people that need alot of support that maybe the chcurch folks can’t provide or want to get involved with. If they cont in their sin there are some I believe God takes home early,death,trauma,violence. My inner witness bears witness with quite a few I have met they are saved but they can’t get free.
But thats just one segment of the culture IMO. The ex of the lady above doesn’t fit my type of person but I must say it doesn’t look good for her. A extended family member once professed Christ and walked the walk but has fallen away after adultry and has not returned and it doesn’t look good for him either if he were to die today.
There are some aspects of my armenian churches I miss primarily fear of God .
Michael,
FWIW, As I look at your five step process, it seems to me that I experienced only 1) Doubt, 3) Disillusionment, and 5) Departure. I did not experience #’s 2 and 4. As far as anything the church could have done, I doubt it but it would have been nice to see them try. Instead, my local church simply ostracized me and demonized me. In their mind, I am like Judas.
I tend to think that most Christians don’t really want to think very deeply. Their Christianity makes them “feel-good;” it tells them they are special and that God loves them and watches over them. It provides them with a good social outlet (and in Southern Baptist circles a lot of good food!) where they can be around people with similar beliefs. It provides a support network when problems in life, such as sickness and death, arise. Why would they want to challenge all of that with examining carefully the basis of their religion? The simple truth is that most don’t. In addition, they are usually told that doubts arise from Satan and the solution is to resist the Devil, pray harder, read the Bible more, and be faithful to the all the services of the church. If there is something that you don’t understand about the Bible or theology, just have faith and God will explain it all to you when you get to heaven.
Well, Ken, how many people want to think deeply about anything? I know I very often don’t, and I’m a reasonably bright fellow (and, darn it all, people like me!).
What we are seeing is Christianity against a hostile culture — again. There are ways in which this culture is even more dangerous than 2nd century Rome. Today, everybody is an ubermensch, determined to follow his own path with zero tolerance for loosers who just shut up and try to live their faith quitely.
The fact is, the faith is based on the preposterous idea that Jesus was physically alive after his execution, and that this new life was in such a way that precluded his ever dying again. And no, I can’t prove it.
And the problem is that these nice people Ken talks about are just trying to answer questions about which little can be said. Life is a mystery, as is death and faith and loss and love. What they should say is, ask any question you like, read anything you like, demand explanations for anything you like, but Christ is risen.
And answer your own damn questions.
No theology can replace a realife experience with God’s real amazing power. It has been said that until Jesus gets from your head to your heart it is all just speculation.
One of the things I love about Christianity is the stories of people changed by Christs power. He changes you from the inside out. So learn all you want that to me is a side note. People stay because it has power and meaning and reality for them.
Her dissapointment can be a stepping stone to this transformational experience. And by the way it is scriptural, ask the apostle Paul!
Christ uses peoples struggles to bring them to Him.
The Church is not the Great Healer of Hearts, only Christ can do that.
@Michael – I certainly appreciate your desire for the church to engage on an intellectual level. Even if it doesn’t help this “problem” I still think it would be a good thing.
@ken – If christians are not willing to embrace something like your abridged, 3-step guide to being a skeptic, I don’t see how they can every truly have a conversation with me. The arrogance inherent in assuming that the bible is the perfect word of God is a direct adversary to meaningful discussion
@ken – they have to tell you that doubts are from Satan, that’s how they protect people from thinking.
@Bryan – I agree with your last statement. With the internet, there is no reason for a truth seeker to expect his/her church to answer any questions. Church is primarily a social club which attends a performance once a week. It’s unfair to expect true help[intellectually, monetarily, emotionally] from your church.
@R.Guyton – Many of us who walk away from Christianity have experienced those things. It’s a huge jump to say your transcendent/supernatural experiences prove Christianity. In fact, every religion has these experiences, and many non-religious people also have them.
Michael
Thanks for this, I have been back and forth on the first three steps quite a bit. I still believe, but I’m not always sure what I believe. I wasn’t able to find many answers around me, so I went online, and almost lost my faith.
I agree that bad theology was the most difficult thing for me to overcome. As a former fundamentalist, I had trouble being intellicually honest and still believeing.
I emailed lots of authors of bible blogs, trying to find some answers but found few that wanted to help. Some have been helpful, but I got the answers, “just pray to God, he is your only hope”, sorry no time, or I just have faith to say why I have faith destroys my faith. I got those answers quite a bit.
I have found lots academic (and some not so academic) bible bloggers talk about their doubts, but few talk about why they believe. It seems fashionable to be the doubting Christian online, that is not much help for the already doubting Christian. I think these academic bloggers feel they are being more academically honest, and he or she might be. But if you are in these fields of biblical study and you are a believer, I feel it is your duty to help the body of Christ grow closer to God and Jesus with your work. And that means explaining your work to the lay person of the church.
– R Guyton
I think the problem is most people who leave don’t have a experience with Jesus
I see that JohnCW disagrees with me about the personal experience aspect. I have heard many say they don’t have an experience.
You left out one step in the Discouragement Phase:
The doubter is presented with answers to their intellectual
obstacles or told to read books that are so inadequate that
it causes the questioner to suspect that their is no
honest intellectual answer available.
As one who earnestly wants to help provide the honest answers, you must continue to denounce the easy and erroneous answers to circulate so widely in the Christian community, many designed merely to appeal to only those who already believe but which fall on doubting ears as ludicrous. You have done a fair job at this in the past and I encourage you to continue to do so in earnest.
c. michael patton
Thank you for this. As a deconvert, I have lost track the number of accusations as to why I’m no longer a Christian because of what the other person thought. Claims I wanted to sin, or didn’t have enough faith, or didn’t try hard enough, etc.
You approached this from the aspect of what the deconvert says; not some pre-determined prejudice super-imposed on every statement. While not every story exactly correlates (nor do I think you meant to imply that) there were numerous times I found myself nodding my head to what you wrote. “Yep—this guy gets it.” I can assure you—this is rare.
I can’t give many helpful suggestions as to what Christianity can do to prevent deconversions; obviously I am persuaded the material is insufficient to sustain Christianity. As much as the church is ineffectual in handling deconverts; it is catastrophic as to handling the silent victims in deconversions—family members.
At least the deconvert eventually reaches serenity and joy with their position; many parents, or siblings or spouses are left in this perpetual limbo where they try to maintain a relationship with the deconvert moving in a different direction but the church disassociates and even ostracizes their own family member. Does the person support the deconvert? Do they support the church? Or do they live in the pain of the uncomfortable middle?
Greetings!
I’m a former pentecostal/charismatic. I was a very devoted follower up until about a year ago. Now I’m a very devoted non-follower..
I would say I experienced items numbered one, two, three, and five. I actually had a moment of conversion from christian to atheist, and it was MUCH like my moment of conversion to Christianity, I felt like my eyes were opened. I must admit, my life as an athiest has been much less stressful than as a christian. I don’t feel the need to categorize people into groups (believer/non-believer, evil/good, straight/gay etc..). As I’ve studied more and more also, my reasons for rejecting religion become more and more clear. I think the fact that apologist even exist is proof enough that Christianity isn’t real. As I understand it, you believers have an ALL powerful, ALL knowing, Infinitely loving, supernatural being living right inside of you.. I think if that were true, then we (non-believers) would all know it. You yourselves should be VERY suspect that someone has told you that, and then added the caveat that you have to just believe it on faith, and if you don’t, that supernatural being is going to burn you in hell for all eternity…
If you’re beliefs do turn out to be true, then I’d have to say that’s a pretty stupid way for a deity to make a religion work..
The irony is that, for some questions, there are no real answers anywhere else either.
The elephant in the room is the elephant itself. Where (along with all other life) did it come from? For that matter, where did the room come from? IOW, what is the origin of existence? Science has no answers, so can’t really relieve intellectual uncertainty.
The best answers for these questions are found in Theism and the best version of Theism is the JudeoChristian narrative.
In order to reject Christianity, the supernatural element of the resurrection must be either explained or ignored. The Biblical accounts and references are so early they cannot be ignored and, after all, SOME explanation must be offered for the existence of Christianity itself. How did it start? How did it grow so much by the time of Nero that he was able to blame the fire on Christians?
God has given adequate reasons to believe him. He speaks for himself. I don’t think anyone will ever submit more evidence to his case then the very evident creation. I don’t believe the excuse that their intellectual questions have gone unanswered or at least not to those who are leavers and have become evangelists of doubt and are the subject of this post. The God of Abraham and Moses and David has given proof after proof and miracle after miracle, prophecy fulfilled and promises kept and still they will not believe. It is an old reply, but the problem is not the intellect, It is sin. If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God..search the scriptures. I’m not saying that we do not need missionaries and preachers, teachers and TTP type education but God is evident and those who put him on trial will be held responsible. We are accountable to each other and accountable to God as to how we served each other. Most of these nay sayers and leavers are not asking question they are putting God, the God they KNOW exists, on trial. They are wasting a lot of their time and they are causing many to stumble along side of them. The majority of these leavers don’t need coddling but scolded . One problem I see along with the lack of study, love and faith that is missing in the church is the lack of fear of the Lord . Do some think the accusations they charge against God would not have brought them discipline if they took the same attitude and posture with their earthly fathers? And they think their heavenly Father will not hold them responsible? I’m sorry but I lean toward the thought that most of these cases are usually nothing more then self indulgence.
1Co 16:13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
Ken,
Let’s assume that God does miraculously speak to individual people for a second (i.e. let’s say Paul’s experience on Emmaus Road actually occurred). Would it then be intellectually dishonest to say that this experience is more important then some evidence which may point the other way?
That being said I’m not 100% sure what WLC is trying to communicate. When it comes to the faith/evidence issue I tend to agree with what Greg Boyd has said a number of times that “faith may go beyond the evidence, but not against the evidence.” Now of course you can all debate until your blue in the face about whose got the correct evidence and interpretation of that evidence, but it is still ultimately about the evidence. Even CMP has stated that he would cease to believe if it could be proven that Easter morning the body was still in the tomb (this is likely impossible in practice, though it is at least theoretically possible). Now of course it is true that someone who has faith is going to put greater value on certain pieces of evidence (i.e. evidence suggesting an early date for the Gospels) while someone without faith is going place emphasis on other evidence (i.e. an early date for the Gospel of Thomas), yet I don’t see this as “intellectual dishonesty”. As you yourself state pure objectivity is impossible.
Michael, I looked at a Youtube clip that Dan Kimball posted on his wall a few months ago of Scott McKnight talking about how he speaks to the college group at his church every year and preaches the gospel. Every year some kids receive Christ as a result. Dan Kimball said he was in tears when he heard Scott say that. I think this is VITAL! There are so many kids who grow up in the church who’s parents THINK are saved..but they in fact are not. It then stands to reason that when they go off to college and their beliefs are challenged….without God’s indwelling Spirit, they will go down that path as you have described it. Our church has gone N.T. Wright social-gospel over the past six years. Our college kids have no concept of evangelism…although they are actively engaged in the community serving. It breaks my heart to see what has been lost! I feel at this point that the gospel itself has been watered down and the soteriological flavor from the pulpit is now questionable. GOD HAVE MERCY!!
We need to preach the gospel in our churches….to our youth….to ALL!
God has given adequate reasons to believe him. He speaks for himself. I don’t think anyone will ever submit more evidence to his case then (sic) the very evident creation.
But there is also adequate evidence in some persons’ minds to disbelieve [in] Him – e.g., the problem of evil in this same “very evident creation.”
Of course, we can answer that problem/question by telling them about Satan and the Fall and man’s sin nature.
However, a lot of people indeed have or will have an intellectual problem with an answer that says the world’s problems are because a woman had a snack after talking to a snake.
So is arguing for the intellectual validity of Evangelicalism the answer?
God appeared and spoke to Abraham.
God appeared and spoke to Moses.
God appeared and spoke to Paul.
All three were very intelligent/intellectual individuals (or at least Moses and Paul were, educationally speaking).
God appeared and/or spoke to the various prophets of the Old Testament.
Cadis..
Which “God” are you referring to?
There are several people commenting that are far more qualified than I to dispute the evidence that you find indisputable. I studied the evidence, its not very good…
Jimmy
Jimmy, to whom are you speaking?
Caddis.. comment number 66.
Michael T.,
You said: Let’s assume that God does miraculously speak to individual people for a second (i.e. let’s say Paul’s experience on Emmaus Road actually occurred). Would it then be intellectually dishonest to say that this experience is more important then some evidence which may point the other way?
If one assumes (presupposes) that God does speak to people and did in fact speak to Paul, then yes that would be significant evidence FOR PAUL but not necessarily for me because all I have is a written record of it and there are many people both in history and today who claim that they have seen Jesus and spoken with him. (See Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today by Phillip H. Wiebe). The problem is that they all have different messages from Jesus and some of them contradict each other.
You said: That being said I’m not 100% sure what WLC is trying to communicate. When it comes to the faith/evidence issue I tend to agree with what Greg Boyd has said a number of times that “faith may go beyond the evidence, but not against the evidence.” . . .I don’t see this as “intellectual dishonesty”. As you yourself state pure objectivity is impossible. . I can’t say about Boyd (I do like the fact that he sees the problems with penal sub.), but WLC has specifically said that no evidence can disconfirm the witness of the Spirit in his heart. To me that is intellectual suicide.
Ken:
Thanks for the heads-up about Wiebe’s book. I just ordered a copy after viewing and reading some pages. Cheap hb and ppb copies (new and used) via Amazon merchants.
Dave Z.
Here is the sort of thing an unbeliever or deconvert might say, to your assertion that Christianity has all the answers, and Science does not:
Is it really true that Science has no explanation of origins, and Christianity does? Is just saying “God did it” really an explanation? Why is the sky blue: God did it. Why do we need food: God did it. Why are rocks hard: God did it. Why do we need Vitamin D? Because God did it.
Is this really a satisfactory answer? “God did it” is just an all-purpose, standard stock phrase, that really expresses the lack of an answer. It fails to get at the specificity of anything; it is vague. It really says, “I don’t know – and I’m not interested in finding out.”
This “answer” is also unsatisfactory in other ways as well: it leaves begging the question, “If God created everything, then where did God himself come from?” To say he is the uncreated creator, is just incoherent.
For many people, “Godidit” is not really an “answer” at all. Thinking that it is and answer, some might say, is just pride and vanity.
Whereas Scientists today are far more humble. They come up with many answers. But ultimately? They admit that they don’t know how the universe was before the Big Bang.
Finally, Scientists learn to simply live with this admission of their own frailty, a lack of an answer. Like humble people should, before the mystery of Life. Here they are surprisingly like the very few good Christians, in their truer Humility before the mystery of Creation and ultimate truth.
OK Brett, first of all, you misread me. I did NOT say Christianity has “All the answers.” I did say that some questions have no easy answers – that science cannot explain the origin of the universe or the origin of life. In other words, those who leave because of disillusionment with answers to such questions are not finding those answers anywhere else either.
Second, to say that an uncreated entity is “incoherent” is no more so than saying the physical universe popped into being from nothing or that life arose from crystals. And by the way, the idea of an uncaused cause is no more incoherant than an infinite regression of causes, which is the concept you seem to be expressing.
Stephen Hawking (by no means a Christian) seems to be desperately working on some explanation for the universe that does not require a singularity, maybe because he dislikes the fact that Big Bang cosmology sounds just a little too close to Genesis 1:1.
I find it ironic that in your final sentence you use the term Creation, clearly implying a Creator. In other words, “God did it.”
You know the more I think about it the more your argument seems lacking. For example, I’ve been working out in the yard today. If someone were to ask how my yard came to have certain plants and landscape features, by your standards I couldn’t say “the gardener did it” because, according to you, that answer “really expresses the lack of an answer. It fails to get at the specificity of anything; it is vague. It really says, ‘I don’t know – and I’m not interested in finding out.”’
OTOH, maybe I could just go ahead and express “pride and vanity” and say “The gardener did it.”
While my my journey has been in 100% the opposite direction I am forced to agree with Ken Pulliam. I have lived all most all my life in the state of Utah and have sent many years trying to convince my neighbors that one must base one’s faith on something objective and not just a subjective experience. I am not opposed to subjective experience (I have definite charismatic leanings), but I do not think we can base our faith on them. Any religion worthy of its salt can produce an experience. I am convinced there are good intellectual reasons for believing in Christianity (I am not going to try to outline them here though I made a beginning and so far it is just a beginning to give some of my reasons on my own blog.) But I do not think we as Christians can just ignore the intellectual arena. Nor do I think we can simply write off all intellectual objections as excuses.
Of course there are intelligent beings in the universe that make things; human beings make gardens. But it remains to be seen if the universe itself is such a creation. By a sort of superman in the sky. That seems rather anthropomorphic, and proud.
My main argument is not that Science has all the answers to origins; scientists admit that they do not. When will Christians be as honest?
Many scientists speak of a Creation; to find common ground with Christians. But to speak of Creation does not imply a creator; science often believes the universe was created, but not by a man-like God. But by other natural events.
Ken,
Although off-topic, I too have some problems with penal substitution (the foremost being that no one understood things that way for 1100-1500 years depending on if you credit the doctrine to Anselm or Calvin). However, I would say anyone who states that rejecting Penal Substitution makes one a unorthodox Christian or even a non-Evangelical is wayyyy off in right field somewhere. I know some people try to make this a central issues (especially Reformed folks), but it simply isn’t unless your willing to say that for over half of the history of the Church individuals were Unorthodox and (according to some it’s most vocal advocates) heretics. These types of fundamentalist I don’t even bother engaging with.
Moral Government, Ransom, and Christus Victor (Greg Boyd’s view by way of Gustav Aulen) theories should be acceptable in Evangelicalism. Now the fact that they may not be as of late I think reflects a drift that is occurring in Evangelicalism away from the center and towards either the Fundamentalist or Liberal extremes (more so the Fundamentalist, though your Emergent types certainly lean towards the Liberal end), but this issue should not be at the core of the movement when it is healthy (which it currently isn’t). Personally I find elements of Truth in all these views and I think it is the forcing of one view to the exclusion of others can be harmful and dangerous.
Long story short, rejecting penal substitution does not require rejecting the Christian faith or even the historic Christian faith.
Brett, to say “superman” or “man-like” God is far removed from Christian belief. In fact, I’d say you’re the one betraying a man-centered idea of existence, one that is more “anthropomorphic, and proud” than the Christian concept. What I mean is that your conception of God is an example of “creating God in your image.” That is not the Christian view.
It seems to me that you accept the explanation of the gardener because you are already convinced gardeners exist. Therefore it makes perfect sense that the landscaping was created by a gardener. But regarding the universe, you reject the idea of a God creating it because you have already decided there is no God. The explanation is the same in either case. The difference is in your presupposition, and that is why the “God” explanation of the universe makes no sense to you.
So, what do you think about the claim of the resurrection, as I mentioned earlier?
So Brett,
Are you finally admitting to those of us who have followed you, and suspected as such along that you are a non-Christian?
Just asking you to come out of the closet if you are.
Brett,
I’m not so sure science has as rosy of track record as you would like to think it does. How many drugs which were supposed to help us have actually made things worse? Does anthropogenic global warming exist or doesn’t it? Should I have 3 servings of meat a day or 2? How bout the fact that science gave us the most healthy thing imaginable – the ability to blow ourselves to smithereens.
Ultimately neither science or religion has the best track record
One of the primary promises of Christianity is suffering and the apparent absence of Christ to our site, “though you do not see him now, you love him.”
I would be careful not to universalize the promises of the Bible. It is not a magic book. It has a context and an audience.
Science may provide the tools, but the tools aren’t good or evil, religion is what uses the tools to kill, think 9/11 and you’re just getting started…
mbaker:
Brett = Dr. G, remember?
That explains everything he writes/posts here.
Great point CMP, I was going to say that as well, but couldn’t think of a succinct way to put it without writing an essay. Many of the promises in the Bible are not universal or have a context to them which makes them so they shouldn’t be taken at face value.
Yeah, I think there is an interpretive element involved in the Biblical promises.
Still, I have witnessed many miracles in my life – perhaps not spectacular ones but amazing none the less.
I certianly did one time when I found my sister before she died. Long story, but as skeptical as I am about such things, this was a miracle that is very difficult to explain outside transcendent intervention. While my faith is not founded on such subjective events, they are really nice to have and I welcome them anytime!
Jimmy,
I like to think of Auschwitz.
Let’s keep this thing on track. It is veering.
[…] Here is a post that a friend drew my attention to. I encourage you to read it, and may God grant us repentance for forsaking the Great Commission as we have. […]
“I think the problem with any institution that requires allegiance to a doctrinal statement is that it does not allow one any real intellectual freedom. That is not to say there are not intellectuals in these schools. Nor is it to say that the academic requirements are not high, they are. However, as I mentioned earlier with Craig, everything is filtered through a predetermined set of beliefs.”
Spoken as a true fundamentalist who never attended a university. As someone who attended UPenn and UNLV, let me just tell you, Ken, if you want freedom of individual thought, you’re not going to find it in the university. I’ve never felt stifled at seminary or Bible college, but then again, I actually believe Christianity is true.
“I agree with you that we all approach evidence with a set of presuppositions or a world-view. However, if you are unwilling to change those presuppositions or world-view if the evidence demands it, then I think you are not being intellecutally honest. I also think that we should all be 1) aware of our presuppositions; 2) skeptical of our presuppositions; and 3) attempt as much as it is possible to step outside of our world-view and look at things from other perspectives. I think only then are we truly being intellectually honest.”
No, only then are you being intellectually dishonest. This is what I get from every atheist: “Uh, oh yeah, we all have presuppositions, but mine are more objective than yours, even though they’re never totally objective.” I’ve got news for you, there not objective AT ALL. There’s no such thing as being a little objective, or stepping outside your worldview AT ALL. This to me is the greatest atheist delusion.
continued
There’s always a tip of the hat to what is obvious, but then a regaining of the ground by asserting that atheists are more objective, even though not totally objective, than Christians. Not quite, Ken. Evidence doesn’t EVER determine your ultimate beliefs. EVER! Your ultimate beliefs define reality and therefore identify, organize, and interpret the evidence AT ALL TIMES. Our atheism is given to us at an early age. I believe it is part of the sin nature, and fostered in our culture, mainly in implicit forms. Religious beliefs are simply stacked on top of it, or in my view, supernaturally replace our ultimate belief of unbelief with true faith. Otherwise, it’s simply a tug of war that eventually ends in the assent to it, or it’s a life of intellectual simplicity that never asks those questions. But let’s not be dishonest with ourselves and pretend that uninterpreted data moves the belief that interprets it in the first place. There is no such animal on the planet.
“One of the problems that I had with evangelicalism when I was a part of it, was the kind of smugness that said we have a corner on the truth. I know that is due to the presupposition that the Bible is truth but it still comes across as somewhat smug to me.”
Allow me to be perceived as smug for a moment and point out that this objection is an emotional one, not an intellectual one. You had stated that your problem was intellectual.
Michael,
I would add sin to your list. I think unrepentant sin cuts off the life line that was convincing an individual to believe, since it must be supernatural to have genuine faith, and ends with the person being judged by God in being convinced of the falsity of Christianity. I know tons of former Christians, and sin was the first step that I saw in a decline toward unbelief.
The second is emotional. I don’t really see a whole lot of intellectual Christians leaving for intellectual problems. There are problems with all beliefs, including atheism (which in my view, has more problems than any religion I can think of). I do know tons who are angry though because of bitterness, resentment, etc.
I’m confused. You proclaim Calvinism and then distress over limited salvation? You should be celebrating the fact that not all are saved is being proven true. I am an atheist and former calvinist whose faith crumbled when I realized appeals to things like a holy spirit were non-falsifiable and essentially culturally sanctione control beliefs. Also what Calvin’s Calvinism led him to do to Michael Servetus.
Chuck, I don’t understand your question. I am more than willing to discuss the particulars of this post, but I am thinking that what you are talking about is too tangential for this post.
One thing, however, I do think is that Calvinists can and should take this issue very seriously, just as we take the necessity of presenting the Gospel in a coherent way seriously.
Hodge: “There are problems with all beliefs, including atheism (which in my view, has more problems than any religion I can think of). I do know tons who are angry though because of bitterness, resentment, etc.”
Thanks for helping me out, Hodge.
CMP titled this blog post: “How People Become Evangelists of Unbelief”
CMP details the “how”. And you Hodge, have helped me to understand *WHY* these apostates become evangelists of unbelief. And as you said, it is because they are angry from bitterness and resentment.
Anger, bitterness, and resentment is what fuels them to become evangelists of unbelief.
In contrast, love and compassion for others is what fuels Christians to become evangelists of belief.
Wow. Anger, bitterness, and resentment… sounds like Satan. He got cast out of Heaven. He wants revenge.
Love and Compassion… that’s Jesus.
Evangelists of Unbelief versus Evangelists of Belief.
Hodge,
I agree that one’s world view does shape how one interprets the evidence. However, I also believe that one can change world-views when they come to realize that the evidence is more coherent within another world-view. I think Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is helpful in understanding how these changes happen.
Here is a synopsis:
1. A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs (p. 4).
a. These beliefs form the foundation of the “educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice” (5).
b. The nature of the “rigorous and rigid” preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs exert a “deep hold” on the student’s mind.
Continued in next post
2. Normal science “is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like” (5)—scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.
3. To this end, “normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments” (5).
4. Research is “a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education” (5).
5. A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly “subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice” (6). These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions—”the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science” (6).
a. New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community.
b. When a shift takes place, “a scientist’s world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory” (7).
In my case, I found that the evangelical Christian world-view was internally contradictory and that the “facts” of the real world did not fit within that world-view as well within another world-view. So with great reluctance and over a long period of time, my world-view changed.
As for saying its due to sin, I understand that is what your world-view says to explain why one would leave Christianity but I think its false and I think its condescending. First, if all I wanted to do was sin, I could have remained in Christianity. It doesn’t seem like a lot of Christians have much of a problem doing what they want to do (e.g., Ted Haggard). Second, your view implies that there can be no good intellectual reasons for doubting and then leaving the Christian faith. History shows that view to be false.