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 had been a Christian, but had since left the faith. Christ was once a part of her confession. However, after a long voyage of not finding sufficient answers for her doubts, she came to the conclusion that she believes she has had no choice but to follow her own integrity and renounce Christ all together. That said, when I asked her to share with me what her particular problems were, she became very emotional. It was just as if I represented Christianity, and she was ready to take all of it out on me.
Ignorance. Pity. Shame. These are all word descriptions she associated with Christianity. However, through these superficial word descriptions, it was evident that the best root word to describe her feelings was “betrayal”. She had been betrayed by the Church, because they duped her into a belief not unlike that of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. When she discovered this “betrayal,” no one could provide a valid answer or excuse. So she left. She is now an unbeliever—a soon-to-be evangelistic unbeliever no doubt. I discussed the issue with her for quite a while. However, she seemed to have come to the point in this process that she was no longer open to counsel, no matter what I said.
As many of you know, a part of my ministry is dealing with people who doubt their faith just like this young lady. I possess well over a dozen books containing a plethora of autobiographical sketches of people who once proclaimed to be Christians. Yet, these same individuals are now professing evangelistic atheism, agnosticism, or skepticism. They are “evangelistic” in that their avowed goal is to convert, or rather “unconvert”, others to their world view system of unbelief. I have received e-mails, phone calls, and personal visits from numerous people who have either already, or are on the verge of leaving the Christian faith. On a positive note, may I say that many of those individuals have been restored to a faith in Christ.
Leaving Christianity is one of the most serious issues facing the Church today. Right under our noses, an epidemic is confronting Christianity— the “disease” of unbelief spreading among our very own. The ironic fact is that there is a great assembly of people in our churches who are somewhere in the process of leaving. No, I am not talking about them leaving one denomination, only to join another Christian group. I am not talking about abandoning some institutionalized notion of Christianity. I am not even talking about the explicit renunciation of their expressed beliefs. I am talking about those who are leaving Christ. (And this is coming from a Calvinist who does not believe that those who are 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 the church is, on many occasions, the first visible step in one’s pilgrimage away from Christ.
There are so many complicated reasons why people “leave Christ” and I don’t propose to do justice to them here. However, I do want to discuss the observations I have made of the steps that people take in leaving Christianity.
Step One: Doubt
This is the case when a person begins to examine his or her faith more critically by asking questions, expressing concerns, and becoming transparent with their doubt. One normally finds this step coming from teenagers, or those in the process of transitioning from adolescence to their teen years. However, this step frequently applies to individuals included in demographics that reach much farther out than the teen years. This step of doubt is not wholesale, but expresses an inner longing to have questions answered and the intellect satisfied, at least to some degree. Normally, a person experiencing this step will seek out mentors in the faith, someone he respects who will listen to his “doubt.”
While there are several diverse reasons that are responsible for the initiation of this doubt, three primary causes stand out:
Maturation: Much of the time, the cause is purely reflective of one’s age progression, a phase in life we like to call “simple maturation.” As people grow older, they begin to ask more serious questions about their beliefs (and their parents’ beliefs as well). During this stage of life, intellectual maturation, or at least what we perceive to be such, becomes a stronger motivator in our life. We begin to grow in our critical thinking, and discernment skills grow stronger.
Intellectual challenges: Often, the doubt comes from intellectual challenges in the form of questions. “Is the Bible truly reliable?” “Does science demonstrate that there is no proof of God?” “Why do I even need to believe in God?”
Experiential challenges: These types of challenges come from God’s actions (or lack thereof) in our lives. This is exemplified through prayers that don’t get answered, the apparent silence of God in a person’s experience, or a tragedy from which the doubter or someone else was not rescued. These experiential challenges can be catalysts which ignite intellectual challenges.
Any one of these (or all three together) can fire the starting gun on the voyage away from Christianity.
Step Two: Discouragement
This follows doubt, as a person becomes frustrated because he is not finding the answers to his questions. The answers (or lack thereof) cause his discouragement. He becomes further discouraged because he has little or no hope that acceptable answers to his questions will ever be found. His church tells him that merely raising said questions is “unchristian.” A Sunday school teacher may offer an ambivalent response such as, “I don’t know. You just have to believe.” Another might simply say, “That’s a good question, I have never thought of that before. . .” and then proceed on their own way, their own leap-of-faith journey, totally oblivious, just as if the question had never been asked.
These experiences cause obvious and great discouragement in the life of the beginning doubter, who sees his questions and concerns as legitimate, and they deserve to be answered. “Are others scared of these questions? If so, why?” are the doubter’s thoughts.
Step Three: Disillusionment
It is at this step that disillusionment sets in the mind of the doubter. He becomes disillusioned with Christianity in general and proceeds to engage in more serious doubt. He feels genuinely betrayed by those he had trusted most when he first believed. He becomes skeptical not only of what is, in his mind, an unwarranted story about Christ and the Bible, but also of the very people who encouraged and influenced him to believe such an untrustworthy myth. He is further disillusioned that the faith which he had been persuaded to believe was so saturated with naivete that not even his most trusted mentors could (or would) answer basic, elementary questions about the Bible, history, or faith. In his thinking, a person’s “legitimate” intellect was discarded out of hand, supplanted by the church becoming an “illegitimate” contender for the minds of gullible believers. Once the mind of the “Disillusioned Doubter” has been lost, the turn has been made. He may still be emotionally rooting for his former faith, but this will soon pass as his “intellect” talks him out of his emotional conviction. What a very sad place this is for the doubting “leaver,” as he realizes for the first time that he is truly leaving Christ. It is at this point that he will likely go through an indefinite period of depression, despondency, and indecisiveness.
Step Four: Apathy
At this stage in his journey away from the Christian faith, the disillusioned “former Christian” becomes apathetic to finding answers, as he is convinced that the answers don’t exist. He is treading headlong down the path of skepticism, agnosticism, or all-out atheism, but he doesn’t have the courage to admit it to himself or others. An individual in this stage frequently lives as a “closet unbeliever.” He is convinced that it is not worth the risk to come clean about his departure from the faith. He desires an uneventful and peaceful existence in his state of unbelief, without creating any controversy. This may help him to cope with the depression that his loss of faith has brought about. If he isn’t honest with himself or others about it, he won’t have to deal with it. Surely, he may continue to hand out bulletins at church, sing in the choir, show up to socials, take a mission trip here and there, and even teach a Sunday School class, but he no longer believes. He is content, for now, to stay in the closet.
However, not everyone stays in the apathy stage.
Step Five: Departure
(This is where I met the young lady I introduced to you at the beginning of this post. In actuality, she was somewhere in between apathy and departure.) At this stage in the process, the fact that one has left the faith has become real to him, and he is ready and willing to announce the fact to the world. Because of his sense of betrayal, he feels as if it is his duty to become an “evangelist of unbelief.” His goal and mission now becomes to “unconvert” the converted.
This is the stage where many former Christians, such as Bart Erhman, reside. In my opinion, Dr. Erhman is full of zeal due to his sense of betrayal. Either he feels that he has to legitimize his departure by taking with him as many 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 of 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, one thing kept 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, the issues she confronted 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 on an intellectual front, I can’t help but think things might have been different. But once one reaches the apathy stage, that seems to be that point of no return.
Folks, we have a lot in our job description. But rooting people theologically by presenting the intellectual viability of the Evangelical faith must be at the top of the priority list and it must come early. While I understand this is not all there is to the Christian faith, it is an absolutely vital part of discipleship and foundational to everything else.
Everyone will go through the doubt phase. Everyone should ask questions about their 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 our faith walk. (Taking my own advice, I am reading this to my 14-year-old daughter right now. Why? She needs to hear it.) The Church needs to rethink its educational programs. Expositional preaching, while very important, is not enough. Did you hear me? Expositional preaching is not enough. It is not the correct venue for the discipleship 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, instead prioritizing entertainment, numbers, and fast-food Christianity that can produce nothing more than a veneer of faith seasoned for departure?
The solution: We must reform our educational programs in the church. We must lay theological foundations through critical thinking. We must 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 and the spirit, knowing that without the power of the Holy Spirit, no amount of intellectual persuasion can change an antagonistic heart.
Absent these solutions, the epidemic of leaving Christ will only worsen. We will (if we don’t already) have more evangelists of unbelief than we do the Gospel.
355 replies to "Leaving (Christ)ianity"
I have begged God to help me in my doubts and again tonight I pray God help me in my unbelief and bring me back. This is not easy for people who doubt and it often causes families to break up and take sides.Christians need to help those who are doubting and not condem. Would love good answers to my doubts.
Would like answers thank you Michael for your response. Waiting now to hear from you.
I have emailed you twice with the answers and invite for discussion. Did you get the emails? Again, off topic for here, but I would love to exchange with you through email. If you did not get them, email me and I will send again (michaelp at credohouse dot org).
It seems to me that the people who leave because they don’t like some facet of the Old Testament or other are, in effect, choosing the Evangelical Bible Culture over God Himself.
The problems are not problems if one does something with the Old Testament other than treat it as half-educated Evangelicals treat it. At the margin, the offended Christian could say “Well, then, I just don’t like the Old Testament,” and direct his or her study to the New. What percentage of the Church proper is Evangelical? 10%? 5%? It would be easy to continue as, say, an Episcopalian, or a mainstream Methodist, or even a Catholic, rather than abandon God.
But rather than jettison Evangelical doctrines like inerrancy, these folks feel better leaving the Church than simply changing denominations. It’s as though they think, “If the Evangelical view of Christ is wrong, no view can be right.”
I conclude that Evangelicals are taught that their version of hermeneutics is actually more important than Christ. And that, friends, is idolatry.
Regarding what I consider to be “the half-educated Evangelical view of the OT”:
God could not simply command Bronze Age man to become 21st century man, could He?
There are two problems with that. First, the differences in mindset are so dramatic that they simply would not have been able to do it. We tell our Bronze Age leader, “You should not enslave people.” He replies, “Well, what should I do with the people I conquer, then? Eat them?” You say, “Uh… well, you could try not conquering them…” And he replies, “So I should let him conquer me instead?” “How about conquering him and then letting him go?” “He’ll just attack me tomorrow. You’re arguing for perpetual war! And what did I conquer him for in the first place?” See the problem?
And the second problem is, the 21st century, with its millions of abortions and hundreds of millions of government-sponsored murders, is not all that much better.
God’s way is better: He approaches each culture where it is, and gives them a version of their own laws that bends them in the direction of His ideal, a few steps at a time. The result over time is permanent change.
How do you think slavery came to be regarded as wrong? God instituted the Jubilee to show how He felt about slavery in the first place; and over time men came to apply the lessons to all their practices. God DID abolish slavery. It took Him about 3000 years — but no other approach ever even began the project.
I appreciate too the comments emphasizing how important prayer is. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor 10:3-5
I’m a bit leery to chime in– 109 posts before this one. But I’ve been thinking pretty hard about this issue for a while now. Rather than present conclusions, I’ll submit the results (so far) in the form of questions.
In my view these are behind much of what’s been discussed. And I agree that it’s critical, particularly for those in leadership, to deal with them. So here goes: in order for a person to sustain their faith, it must pass three tests.
Is it rational? Is Christian theism rationally coherent?
Is it relevant? Does Christianity address the fundamental questions of our existence: purpose, meaning, ethics? I’ll omit the afterlife because for many young people this is an abstraction. They haven’t yet taken seriously their own mortality.
And finally, is it real? Can the Christian life actually be lived? If so, where are the examples? Christianity makes more than merely theological claims. It also claims that those who embrace it will be transformed into the likeness of Jesus. Does that really happen consistently?
To me this last is the acid test. If the Church fails here, the first two alone cannot sustain belief. At least not for a young person confronted dozens of times a day with messages and images intended to subvert their faith.
’nuff said
Paul was an intellectual and said he let go of all of his intellect (ie beliefs, opinions, etc). You see how he, the intellectual, was not persuaded by apologetics, but by Jesus. Paul says in his epistles that arguments do nothing (especially those concerning genealogies, opinions, etc)and it’s all about faith. In fact everyone including Jesus said it’s all about faith and obedience. The only people who think intellect plays a part are Americans, Europeans, etc, of modern times. They allow humanism and doubt to guide them. Therefore, this is an issue of lack of faith. Only God can change minds and hearts. And he can change anyone. No amount of intellectual arguing will change minds or hearts. Plus, anyone who is Christian because of intellectual reasons is most likely holding fake belief. There’s a reason Jesus said to have faith like a child. Children, normally speaking, believe with no question. We need to believe God, not humans, without question.
The problems are arrogance, doubt, and rebellion. Many people just do not want to acknowledge the fact that humans are powerless, are inherently evil, and were made to serve God. The hurt excuse is exactly that, an excuse. I have been hurt by many racist “Christians”, segregated or even ignored. I always blamed them for their evil, not God. If you have been hurt, go to God. Where do people come in? Some people just do not want the truth. In a prior post, someone mentioned that when a woman’s family member committed suicide, the pastor spoke of suicidal people going to hell (which is in the bible), and she walked out. Just accept the truth for what it is!
Instead of wasting time doubting, have faith in God and only go to him for wisdom, understanding, and guidance. When churches realize that this is the correct route, then they will do what’s right and simply preach, teach and live the gospel. Realize that most of the world will never accept Jesus. Acknowledge Romans 1, ie that humans know about God but choose to reject him.
Have sent e-mail to the address and tried to respond to the first and only one and I am unable to because their is no such address.
@Craig: The limits of an open blog are too obvious, but if you note, I do quote and always refer to Holy Scripture! And as I have said many times on the blogs, I believe in the “presupposition” and complete authority of Holy Scripture, and what the Reformers called the “sola Scripturia” in the debate with late medieval theology. So the Holy and Sacred Scipture is always my foremost “ethos”.
Btw, your OT “suppositions” are looking poorly here! You too need a good Study Bible it appears, I know one… The ESV Study Bible! 😉 I also like: The Reformation Study Bible, ESV also…R.C. Sproul, General Editor, but note Keith Mathison is the Associate Editor. Indeed Judeo-Christian tools are very important. And also, Mathison’s book, ‘The Shape of Sola Scripturia’ is a nice read! And note again Craig, I was at one time a NT Lecturer, so yeah I read and love books! And always want to share what I see as the “cream” of GOD’s given men and ministry over the centuries. So keep reading mate! 😉
@Cerbaz: We cannot do your biblical homework for you! But you too keep reading, maybe you will find the assurance and power of God’s Holy and “breathed-out” Scripture!? Again I say Christ is both the “Rhema” and the “Logos”!
This is from the ESV how do you interpret this
The Defeat of King Sihon
26 “So I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon the king of Heshbon, with words of peace, saying, 27 ‘Let me pass through your land. I will go only by the road; I will turn aside neither to the right nor to the left. 28 You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink. Only let me pass through on foot, 29 as the sons of Esau who live in Seir and the Moabites who live in Ar did for me, until I go over the Jordan into the land that the Lord our God is giving to us.’ 30 But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day. 31 And the Lord said to me, ‘Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.’ 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz. 33 And the Lord our God gave him over to us, and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. 34 And we captured all his cities at that time and devoted to destruction[b] every city, men, women, and children. We left no survivors. 35 Only the livestock we took as spoil for ourselves, with the plunder of the cities that we captured. 36 From Aroer, which is on the edge of the Valley of the Arnon, and from the city that is in the valley, as far as Gilead, there was not a city too high for us. The Lord our God gave all into our hands. 37 Only to the land of the sons of Ammon you did not draw near, that is, to all the banks of the river Jabbok and the cities of the hill country, whatever the Lord our God had forbidden us.
Cerbaz,
It seems to be rather straight forward. Where is your interpretation problem?
“The necessity for God as a precondition for rational thought” is not, in my opinion, a trick to make belief in God legitimate, but the only sensible attempt to explain logically how there can be rational thought in the first place, once we accept the existence of rational thought as a given.
Yolanda mentions preaching the Word and apologetics as both needed in the post-modern world, yet post-moderns tend to connect through neither of these primarily, rather through relationships and experiences, “what works” for each individual. I haven’t given up on the Word or apologetics, but I think the missing piece is the life and love of God being lived out through the Church, not so much our words. “Not caring what you know until I know you care” is key.
“Apostasy” on biblegateway.com is of some interest. Matt. 24:10 “Many will turn from the faith” and 24:12 “the love of most will grow cold”. But in I Timothy 4:1 “in later times some will abandon the faith” (to follow demon words). Wondering if it will be some or many/most, or if most will turn but only some of those will be demon-led in the process while others are led by other factors.
I’m a big fan of Clark Pinnock’s book “Reason Enough” which argues for the faith from five different dimensions. No one thing is “absolute proof”, nor are all five together “absolute proof”, but all five together make it very reasonable to have faith, so that faith is not blind. It’s not that there is no evidence outside of faith; it is that some will find the evidence convincing while others will not, more like a court case than a scientific conclusion.
@philwynk: WE are on the same page mate! I am always a classic Anglican, and I hope both “catholic” and “reformed”, sadly fewer and fewer today understand what “Evangelical” Theology really is! Note, I even read Barth, but not much “Barthianism”. And oh sadly too the great Luther is read rarely these days! As Walther von Loewenich said in his Luther bio: “He related Holy Scripture to personal existence. This is the essence of his hermeneutic, his teaching concerning the interpretation of Scripture… we may note that he borrowed the Christological meaning from Augustine.” (page 94) Oh that the Evangelical Churches knew Luther’s doctrine of the Cross once again (“theologia crucis”).
AS a wee “churchman” I believe in the pastoral ministry, as the spiritual and prophetic instrument of God, in the great “Kerygma” of Christ!
Christian Smith has a book out called Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is not a True Evangelical Reading of Scripture. Another good one is Scot McKnight’s Blue Parakeet. Third, let me mention Clark Pinnock and Barry Cullen’s The Scripture Principle, and finally Bob Finley’s Reformation in Foreign Missions (the chapters on how the Gospel is spreading in Asia, Africa, and Latin America).
It could be that the betrayal or duping is a legitimate accusation against a certain religious and cultural tradition regarding how we live, interpret and present Scripture, and not really a charge that the Bible is untrue or that Christianity is wrong.
@Glenn Shrom: Amen to the last paragraph! This was “philwynk’s” point also! The Great Mystical Body and Economy of God In Christ… “because through HIM we both (Jew & Gentile) have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” (Eph. 2: 18)
Great post. I am a former evangelical myself. I am now firmly entrenched between atheism and Christian agnositicsm. I’m 42 and finally came to terms with my unbelief about a year ago. I was the model Christian child, youth and adult. I attended the same Baptist church for over 35 years, was saved at six, baptised at ten, was a Royal Ambassador, a leader in my youth group, a Sunday school teacher for about 15 of those, a deacon (chairman twice) and the head of a pastor search team for my church. I battled doubt for most of my life because the Bible contradicted reason in my opinon. Things that were clearly untrue were put for as correct (young earth; denial of evolution; literal belief of Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, etc.) . I squelched all of this for years because I did not want to create conflict among family and friends. I was miserable.
Due to events at my church that forced us to leave within the past year, I was finally able to jettison my belief in the Christian God. He is an illogical and inconsistent figure in the Bible and the orthodox views of creation, fall, salvation and restoration are nonsensical, IMO. The problem in my case was not a lack of discipleship; it was that Christianity doesn’t have any good answers to the questions of existence and suffering. Certain questions are always out of bounds with accusations of heresy always lurking in the background. Everything that can’t be answered is left to the realm of mystery – the ultimate cop-out.
I’ve never been happier than I am now as an ex-Christian. I no longer feel the weight of cognitive dissonance about holding two beliefs that contradict each other. I’m not an evangelist, but I am ready and willing to state why I don’t believe. Although I understand why many people need religion and I do not begrudge them for it, I faind that Christians are mostly Christians because they have been raised that way and are afraid of uncertainty.
I would add that when someone does “leave the faith”, this is not the same as saying that the person was saved and has now lost their salvation, since it could be a dead faith to begin with, such as what James talks about.
In this case, it is quite possible that leaving the dead faith is a step on the way towards living faith – not a net loss for the person, but a net gain all around as the person begins to walk with more integrity and maturity, and masks are taken off which did nobody any good.
Some may do best with the mask off and among believers who can influence and pray for them, others may do best out on their own finding out the truth the hard way. Some do best away from those who are pseudo-believers to begin with. For some, whether they stay or go is no worse, since they are destined to perdition either way.
While we should do all we can to influence people to trust Christ, speaking the truth in love, we must remember that Christ gave perfect testimony of Himself and of the Father, yet was still rejected by many, so someone else’s departure from the faith does not equate to our failure in God’s eyes.
The important thing is that if someone stumbles, they should be offended at the Gospel, and not because of our fleshly offenses.
I’d say that Robert’s posts provide an excellent example of the Gordian Knot of Calvinism. Robert’s questioning the faith and convictions of former believers are the antithesis of Christian love. Robert assumes that everyone who has left the faith was not really saved. Yet if Protestantism, and Calvinism in particular, stand for anything, it is assurance in one’s salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Former Christians like Cerbaz and myself were as fervent in our faith and assured of our salvation in Christ at one point as Robert is presently of his own. There is no guarantee that Robert will not one day reject Christianity himself. Certainly, he doubts this will ever happen, but so did every fervent believer who eventually left the faith.
This is the lie of Protestantism: that one can be assured of one’s own salvation. First, it is impossible to quantify faith. Every Christian has some amount of doubt about his own faith even if he squelches and denies it. Second, one cannot project one’s current faith condition into the future. There is only the present and the believer’s current faith condition. Anything else is speculation.
Dostoevsky was right. God placed an impossible burden upon man by requiring faith as the conduit for salvation. The only logical alternatives are that Christianity is false or that Universalism is true. In either case, Christianity does not offer anything different or better than any other creed that champions the Golden Rule.
@Greg: If it is on your heart (Cerbaz), then go with it, personally! But note too again Glenn Shron’s # 23, a very good word! I fear “Cerbaz” has been among some very poor, if not bad “evangelical” (so-called) teaching, and it appears for a very long time, very sad! Note Glenn’s statement “pseudo-believers”! I know this is a hard statement, but truth in reality oftens hits hard, especially when people start rejecting God’s Word, and then expect the church to say nothing, or speak smoothly. But again, prayer is often best at times like this, especially for our one brothers daughter. Note, I have a beautiful Lesbian niece (my younger brothers oldest daughter, 24), who lives with her lover, and used to claim Christ. Now she just lives “in the world”. Saved? Not according to the Scripture! Aye, I have been up this road! I must leave her to God!
AJG wrote:
This, and not “mystery,” is the ultimate cop-out. You Bulverize all Christians as simply fearful. This may match your experience, but it certainly does not match mine.
In truth, while there are lots of denominations where people are afraid of heresy accusations and personal reactions as you describe, I’ve spent the majority of my Christian experience (almost 40 years now) among people that are not afraid at all. You should have switched denominations if you didn’t like the one where you were.
For the record, I was raised Jewish and agnostic, and became Christian at the age of 18; and I’ve overcome long since whatever fears I’ve had of uncomfortable answers. I currently attend a Vineyard church.
But God is real; He operates in real time, so while I’m not a good Evangelical anymore, I still worship the God of Israel with my whole being.
AJG wrote:
Mystery is inevitable. Man is encountering the real God who created the 3-dimensional universe, so He must exist outside of it. He will necessarily have characteristics that make no sense within 3 dimensions; so the existence of mysteries like the Trinity or like Christ being man and God simultaneously are precisely the sort of thing we should expect.
What would be a real mystery, in my humble opinion, is if our universe could be explained by human intellect in its own terms. Think it through; on atheism, there is no particular reason why we should expect the ability to explain anything, let alone everything. Nor is there any reasonable explanation for curiosity, for the expectation of meaning, for genuine love, for the concept of justice, and so forth.
AJG wrote:
None of those beliefs are necessary for salvation, nor are any of them required for Christian obedience. As I said in an earlier comment, you solved a local, denominational problem by making an enormous, life-altering change. You could just as easily have left the Baptist church and become a Catholic, where nobody would condemn you for rejecting those positions.
I do sympathize with your misery, more than you know; but I think that leaving Christ to solve it is like cutting off your legs because your toenails were poking holes in your socks.
AJG also wrote:
I beg to differ; Christianity explains it perfectly. Maybe your local version of it does not, but there are plenty of places you can look where those things are explained expertly.
But my question to you is, what else does? Yeah, I agree, what you’ll get in the average Baptist church is thin gruel, but what you get from the atheists on these questions is irrational to the point of ridicule.
If there were no light, we would have no eyes, and we would have no concept of darkness. By exactly the same reasoning, if there were no meaning, we would have no concept of meaning, nor would we have any desire to know what our universe means.
W Craig states “If we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
I don’t know the policy on this sort of thing here, but I wrote a book explaining exactly the sorts of things we’re talking about here, and if I do say so myself, it’s pretty good. So for AJG, Cerbaz, and anyone else who’s wrestling with ideas and thinks his church does not encourage such wrestling, allow me to recommend:
“He’s Greater Than You Know: Essays for a Doubting Christian,” by Phil Weingart. I don’t think they allow links here, so you’ll have to scan Amazon for it, but it’s there. Enjoy.
PS: I do know the policy against self-promotion; but I genuinely do want to help, so I’m hoping that the need in the current conversation excuses what would otherwise be a netiquette violation. If not, please forgive me, O Moderatus.
@AJG: Assurance of Salvation is a “gift” of God, even John & Charles Wesley taught it! But the perseverance of the Saints, i.e. the Perseverance of God with the Redeemed, is again GOD’s lifetime work.. Jude 1:1 ; 24-25. All of this is “to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.. etc.” (verse 25)
Again, not a word from these “apparent” undone/ruined-once believers, as to the Parable of the Sower! (See Mk. 4: 16-19, etc.)
Note too, I am an old combat vet (retired from the RMC – Royal Marine Commando’s – Reserves), an old mustang…the Vet’s will know what that means. My last combat service was Gulf War 1 in my early 40’s. My first was as attached to the American Marine 3rd Force Recon, out of Pu Bai, in the Nam (1968). The point is, in my life.. I have had some bad days in combat, lost some real close friends, but really never doubted the will or presence of God In Christ, never! Oh yes, I have had my share of PTSD, but by God’s grace, only lightly so. So yes, GOD In Christ has kept me, and gracious so! In many ways, I walk very lightly, at least for myself and I take nothing for granted! I am very blessed and very thankful for God’s great providence! soli Deo gloria!
I’m amazed and saddened that @Fr. Robert and @Greg (Tiribulus) seem in most of their comments to be demonstrating exactly the sort of attitude that Michael called out in his original post. Michael stated “If the church had legitimized her questions during the doubting phase and truly engaged her on an intellectual front, I can’t help but think things might have been different.” Far from legitimizing questions, what I’m hearing from both of them is that Michael’s friend, and @Cerbaz, and @AJG are demonstrating their probable reprobateness (?) or arrogance against God, for asking the questions they ask. Though their words make at least a halfhearted show of concern, the message that comes through is basically “who are you to question God? Deal with it or burn.” That attitude, I believe, is one of the most powerful God-repellants on the planet (and since I’m Arminian, I believe that those who provide such repellant should be careful lest they be fit for a millstone).
@Cerbaz, you have failed to engage @Craig Benno’s excellent question “but what about Jesus?” Your objections are primarily drawn from Leviticus and Samuel. Don’t forget that the Pharisees & lawyers of Jesus’ day had Leviticus & Samuel, were as sure as Robert and Greg that these were the word of God, and completely missed Jesus too…you know, the guy who said “you have heard it was said…but I say?”
I would encourage you to take a look at Jesus without the fundamentalist and Calvinist baggage he’s too often been laden with. You just might find him validating a whole lot of your objections. And if you’d like dialog with someone who’ll be a lot more sympathetic than some of the folks you’ve encountered here … a doubter who’s still attracted to Jesus … connect with me over at nailtothedoor dot com (see posts on “evangelism”) and let’s talk.
Michael,
Your previous answers to challenges to your soteriology were a relevant example, insofar as you criticize church leaders for practices you yourself demonstrably engage in for defending your own beliefs. When they do it, you correctly perceive it leads to a loss of faith in church leadership (and thence in God, to the degree that faith in God is nurtured by church leadership); and you describe that progression in various ways. When you do it, though, it’s apparently okay, even though it results in the same progression (with descriptions I then quoted from your original article for parallel illustration purposes. Those aren’t my scabs, those are the scabs you yourself reported.)
Out of the five major issues you are apophatic on, at least two are very centrally important topics for the shape of Christian theology (trinitarian theism and soteriology). If your young woman has logical difficulties with them, and you tell her to disregard commonly legitimate signs that a mistake is being made somewhere, because these crucially important and prevalent issues cannot be understood rationally and even to try is heretical, then what is she going to do?
More to the point, why criticize other teachers and church leaders when they do the same thing, resulting in the same discouragement and disillusionment? Shouldn’t you be defending them for doing the same thing you do, on those hugely important topics, even though it leads to discouragement, disillusionment, apathy, etc.?
Michael: “If the church had legitimized her questions during the doubting phase and truly engaged her on an intellectual front, I can’t help but think things might have been different.”
Okay, how does telling her, during her doubting phase, that issues shaping 80% or more of Christian belief cannot be legitimately judged by the criteria for indicating a mistake is being made, and even to try to coherently understand them is heretical–how does that truly engage her on an intellectual front?
(With some other commenters, I’m also puzzled how you could spend hours talking with her and come away with no idea what her problems were. If you had said that was pastoral confidentiality, I’d’ve understood, but it doesn’t usually take me more than a few minutes to hear things like “The OT (and/or NT) seems too brutal for other things I’m being taught,” or “The Trinity doesn’t seem to make sense” or “I don’t even know why we’re supposed to believe the Trinity is true in the first place, the few scriptures people tell me about don’t seem to add up to all that” or “I’ve been taught such and such about salvation or condemnation is true, but that contradicts other things I’m taught over here or what I read in the scriptures over there” or so on.)
(Note: not actually trying to post more than one comment; I thought the second one might be more practical. Please delete this one and whichever of the other two you prefer.)
This, and not “mystery,” is the ultimate cop-out. You Bulverize all Christians as simply fearful. This may match your experience, but it certainly does not match mine.
I said mostly. Mostly != All. You’re misrepresenting me.
The number one predictor of a person’s religious affiliation is the religious affiliation of their parents. This is true of ALL religions, including Christianity. So I stand by my assertion that the reason most people become Christians is because their parents were.
For the record, I was raised Jewish and agnostic, and became Christian at the age of 18
Good for you, but you need to recognize that you are an outlier, not the norm.
AJG wrote:
You’re the one who said it as though it was relevant to the discussion, so backing down now over the difference between “most” and “all” is puzzling. But it’s ok, we don’t need to be adversaries.
The relevance of my own situation is that the outlier demonstrates that Bulverism is Bulverism, and an error no matter how many people you think it affects. If those who are not born Christian can believe Christianity after significant investigation, then “most people are born into it” may demonstrate an interesting anthropological fact, but cannot be a sound explanation for why people believe what you think is unbelievable.
Besides, most of the Christians I know personally are more inquisitive than most atheists think they are. It’s part of the “I left” profile — the leaving Christian imagines him- or herself to be more inquisitive, intelligent, and well-informed than those he or she left behind. I don’t offer this as my own, counter-Bulverism (!) but simply point out that there are relevant personality quirks in all sorts of places, on all sides of the issue. So let’s not get lost in them, k?
BTW, in case you’re not familiar with the term, “Bulverism” is a name invented by CS Lewis to describe a particular form of ad hominem fallacy, the ad hominem circumstancial.
I’m really interested in what you think does provide a sound explanation for existence and suffering, and why you don’t accept the good explanation offered by the character of the Christian God.
Indeed things can get messy on the theological blogs, if one might look carefully, I myself spoke first and foremost “theologically” about this issue, rather than ad hoc or towards this brothers daughter. I also find it interesting that some like our friend here, an Arminian takes a theological shot himself! Indeed our personal theology is always going to shape our attitudes, and especially us Calvinists, who believe that God is always sovereign & providential! So no apologies from me! This actually only again convinces me how important and even critical our approach to the doctrine of God must be! For the presupposition of God’s Word and its authority is always a foremost issue in proper theological and doctrinal understanding!
So again, may the “games” (battle) begin! And make no mistake, the Battle is always in and over the Word of God!
Robert, I was really disgusted with your initial posts, which showed little to no pastoral wisdom. Tell me, as a hospital chaplain, would you say those same things to a patient in hospital who was expressing their doubts and fears to you.
@Craig: I can see that you are actually new to “doing” theology! One must “think”, and try not to get your emotions strictly involved!
You have no clue to how I handle my pastoral ministry, save to say that GOD is sovereign & providential! But of course pastoral and hospital chaplain work are not done on the blogs, thankfully! 🙂 The one on one is always the real place of pastoral work, of course outside the place of Word & Sacrament, i.e. “preaching”.
Btw Craig, I am a real “conservative” Brit., both bilbical-theologically and politically! This also causes sparks with liberals! And btw, I consider your theological approach rather sloppy and liberal! How’s that mate! Clear? I hope so! 😉 I mean we must draw our lines!
Robert. I am labled by many things, by many people. None of them worry me. Blogging is more than a place for theological debate…we don’t know if the person Michael as written about reads his blog or not. I certainly know that if I was that person, and read what you did, I would not have been ministered to and encouraged within a pastoral framework.
Where is love one another?
Greg.
As Christians we have a pastoral duty in caring for our wounded. Yes we need to speak the truth, but we need to speak it in love.
The post of Roberts that I was referring to was the one that said perhaps she is not one of the elect. I truly do not believe that that is any business of anyone but God’s. The Scriptures show us that there are 5 tenses of Salvation.
1) We were saved.
2) We were being saved.
3) We are saved.
4) We are being saved.
5) We will be saved.
Within God’s economy, if that women in question is one who will be saved, then that means at this point in time, she is also one who was saved and is saved.
I can really imagine from Roberts post that as a hospital chaplain he would just dismiss this woman as being not part of the elect.
Robert.. I would love to read you actually engage with just how you would engage personally with a real live person, who was expressing their doubts and fears to you.. because so far, you have failed to do so.
Indeed our brother Greg makes the only point of true pastoral theology, i.e. “Truth”! And surely the pastoral and the theological are wedded together! This is the great beauty of John Calvin’s theology, he was the consummate pastor-teacher! And after over 500 years he is still being read, and affecting the Church “catholic” & “reformed”!
Amen Greg!
Where is the love for those who doubt?
@Craig: YOU just don’t get it do you? This is a theological blog, a place to think aloud, and my point about the “female” or woman, was yes the great doctrine of God, that we see in the Parable of the Sower! And indeed btw this Parable hammers Arminianism theologically! I am not saying that one cannot be a Christian and be Arminian, but doctrinally and theologically, and most especially its doctrine of God is most flawed!
I am in contact with Michael and he has responded with great help and by the way I am a women Craig.
@cerbaz: A Woman? Well that changes, nothing! But, it does account for the subjective, somewhat. ‘Women are from Venus and men are from Mars’! 😉
Never ceases to amuse me how certain types of Christians can go on about God’s love and mercy while demonstrating a spirit completely devoid of love or mercy. No, I’m not suggesting it’s loving to twist the truth. I *am* suggesting that the Christ who would not quench the smoldering wick or bend the bruised reed, looks nothing like the people who are so sure of their own doctrine they will trample roughshod over one who is struggling to reconcile their faith with their experience. Must be nice to have all the answers, eh? Too bad they’re not to the questions real, hurting people are asking.
@Cerbaz, I’m sorry you have to go through this. I’m glad you’re connecting with Michael though. He actually seems to give a rip. I only pray you consider whether you’ve left the fold because of Jesus or because of those who wear his name on their sleeve.
@Dan: So now YOU can judge between love and mercy? Funny, very funny! And you have not walked in my shoes that’s a certain mate! I bet I got 20 years on you or more! 😉
I believe my words were “demonstrating a spirit completely devoid of love or mercy,” Robert. I can’t judge your heart, I can only see your words. And your words ain’t merciful, dude!
Thank you Craig for your Christian love and for reaching out to a doubter. God will bless you and thank you for your prayers.
Well “dude”, your words ain’t so sweet either, but even worse, they are theologically lacking! And again “dude” I got years on you! And, we must seek to speak the “truth” in love! And real love speaks “truthfully”, ‘In Christ’! But what does ‘In Christ’ mean? So tell us, biblically & theologically!