Once I found out the Bible was not an inspired, inerrant text, my Evangelical house of cards came tumbling to the ground.
Several Christian bloggers have taken this statement to mean that once I no longer believed in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Christian Bible, I then became an atheist.
While it is true that once I came to see the Bible was not inspired, not inerrant, and not infallible I abandoned the Evangelical faith, I did not immediately turn to atheism.
My journey from Evangelicalism to Atheism was a long, arduous, and painful one.
My journey actually began when I was still a Christian pastor. Long before I questioned the authority of the Bible, I began to have doubts about Christianity itself. Being a pastor for twenty-five years will do that to you. For the last few years in the ministry, I became increasingly discouraged with the state of Christianity in America. The Christian church was rife with internecine warfare, in direct contradiction to Jesus’s command that the world would know we were his followers by the love we had for one another.
During this time, I abandoned my conservative, Republican political views and began to embrace a liberal political view. As my politics move leftward so did my theological views. I was sympathetic towards the emerging, emergent church movement and I appreciated the work of men like Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis, and Tony Campolo. (and Catholic writers Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day, along with Gandhi)
Towards the end of my ministry, I was a closet liberal pastoring conservative, Evangelical churches. I became quite catholic in my view of other Christians. I was willing to embrace Catholics as fellow Christians and my view on abortion and homosexuality changed from anti to pro.
During this time, I still held on to the belief that the Bible was the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
2003 marked the end for me as far as the ministry was concerned. For a couple of years, I candidated at churches here and there, but I found no church I was willing to go to or was willing to have me. (one church wanted me to be their pastor but I had to commit to only using the KJV of the Bible. I could not do this.) (read The Disaffected Years, 2004-2008)
As time went on, Polly and I decided to look for a church we could call home, a church that we could use our talents to help the church and advance the kingdom of God. Over the course of three years we visited over one hundred churches. What we found confirmed our worst fears about the Christian church, and in November of 2008 we attended church for the last time. (read Wilderness Wanderings, 2002-2012)
Once I stopped attending church, I turned my attention to my theological beliefs. What did I really believe? The first belief to go was my belief that the Bible was inspired and inerrant. (Bart Ehrman was extremely helpful at this juncture) Once free of the notion that the Bible was a supernatural text inspired by a supernatural God, I turned my attention to the core teachings of Christianity.
As I took a fresh, new look the the teachings of Christianity, I came to the conclusion that I could no longer believe what the Bible said about God, the divinity of Jesus, his virgin birth and resurrection from the dead. Simply put, I could no longer embrace the fundamentals of Christianity as truth. While I still think a man by the name of Jesus lived in Palestine, I no longer think this man was God. He lived and he died, end of story.
I took Bart Ehrman’s suggestion and I changed how I read the Bible. Instead of trying to read the Bible though a particular theological lens, I allowed each book and author to stand on its own. All of a sudden, the Biblical text looked completely different. The Bible says, Let US make man in our image. Instead of straining this text through Trinitarian theology, I let it stand on its own. I came to the conclusion that the Bible reveals to readers many Gods, rather than the Three in One God of Christianity. ( I saw a progression from polytheism to monotheism)
As I took a careful look at the New Testament, again without making any attempt to harmonize the competing passages of Scripture, I came to the conclusion that there are several different Christianities in the Bible. I found that the Christianity of Jesus is quite different from the Christianity of Paul. A case could also be made for Peter and James having their own distinct versions of Christianity.
When I look at the natural world with all its wonders, I can fully understand how a person might conclude that a deity of some sort created everything. However, affirming that A God created the universe is far different from affirming that the Christian God, the God revealed in the Bible, created the Bible. I came to the conclusion that there was not a rational way for me to get from A GOD to THE GOD of Christianity. Such a belief required faith, a faith I did not have.(read, You Must Believe in A GOD before you can choose THE GOD.)
From this intense, painful study of the Bible and the literature of other religions, I came to the conclusion that the Christian God does not exist. While I am agnostic concerning whether or not a deity of some sort exists, I decided that, based on how I live my day to day life, I am an atheist.
Most every day, I get an email from a well meaning Christian who wants to know what “hurt” I suffered to cause me to leave Christian faith. Other email writers suggest I must be angry, bitter, or burnt-out. None of these people can imagine someone looking at the Bible and the claims of the Christianity and coming to the conclusion that the Christian Bible is just a book and that the Christian God does not exist.
While I will readily admit to being burnt-out and having spells of anger and bitterness, at the end of the day, my defection from Christianity is rooted in an intellectual pursuit that led me from Evangelicalism to atheism.
For me, it has always been about the Bible.
The evidence for Christianity just isn’t there. Slim to none. A lot closer to none. I didn’t become hurt or bitter. I just didn’t like the message og Hell and superiority because god chose me and the women are separate but equal was really getting to me . Researched Christianity and decided it was no more plausible than Hinduism or Islam or any other persons god.
Later, it dawned on me that there really is a very natural and plausible way for life to have occurred on Earth and there are even a number of plausible ways for the Universe to have formed without any supernatural intervention.
The final nail in the coffin was when I found out in studies, prayer has no effect on illness in scientific efforts to study the prayer phenomenon. In fact, if people know they are being prayed for, they had worse outcomes in at least one study. What kind of god doesn’t show and let you know it is there especially when your sick believer/friends who believe really are asking sincerely for help?
There simply is no god. Now, there are amazing coincidences and phenomenon we don’t understand but that doesn’t make those things supernatural. If it occurred then it is a natural phenomenon is how it appears at this time, IMHO.
Gosh, I remember my Christian days and thinking of atheists as bitter, angry individuals. Of course there were those who had lost faith and I also thought they were really just hurt deep-down. Then I lost my faith, became more critical about dogmatic assertions. I became liberal, then very liberal, then pretty much atheistic. I don’t the like the baggage that goes with atheism and still felt of a pull towards the mysterious (by that I mean what is not now understood, not necessarily that which is supernatural). I’m guessing that for fundamentalist and evangelical Christians it is natural to think as those who worry about your soul do. I think doubt is honesty. I didn’t leave religious orthodoxy to enter into scientific orthodoxy, either. For my part I’ll drink from as many wells as satisfies me and try to keep an open mind. I think there is a certain personality type that makes rigid thinking natural. I have struggled with that my entire life.
I take it you read Bart Erhman’s “Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium? Finished that one a few months ago and it really frames the New Testament in an interesting light.
Not yet. I have the book but I haven’t read it. So many books, so little time.
I haven’t done ‘the reading’. Haven’t conversed with many atheists. I just.. don’t believe. I grew up believing, that was just what we did in our family. But I think there are a ton of people out there who believe ‘just in case’. Sort of like hell insurance. They pray and go to church and pretend with all their heart just in case there really is a hell because let’s face it, who wants to go there?
Question for both Bruce and the various Christians you refer to as contacting you. Why do they so seldom comment on your blog? It seems like most of the comments are from atheists or free-thinkers of some sort. I rarely notice Christians commenting either out of anger or curiosity. Just wondering why.
Good question, one that I have asked myself. In the previous versions of this blog, I got a lot more comments from Christians, so much so that I quit blogging for awhile. The mental anguish their comments caused was overwhelming.
I approve most every comment Christians leave so I am not keeping them from commenting. I do get email, but even with email, I get less from Chrstians than I used to. (I do, however, get a lot more email from people struggling with their faith)
Sometimes, I think, Christians don’t know what to do with me. They like my critique of American Christianity but they despise my atheism.
So, I have no answer for your question. Not that I really want angry Christians leaving a bunch of comments. Angry Christian comments can mentally distress me. They are are reminder of what I once was and a reminder of everything I despise about Evangelical Christianity. I also think when there are a lot of angry Christian comments it tends to keep some people from commenting. They fear being attacked by the angry Christian commenter.
Not an answer…just me thinking outloud.
People do get tired of angry comments. They may have not found you, or don’t care. Just thinking out loud. (Copying you
)
On my contact page I have a long “don’t email me if” statement that has reduced negative email. My writing tends to end up on different Christian sites. They use my writing as “proof” against whatever they are against in Christianity. One Catholic site used a post of mine to show how wrong Protestants are. One Evangelical man, Tony Breeden, even set up a blog to deconstruct my life. He lost interest after a month or two.
So far, for the month of August, there have been 68,490 page views and 43,694 unique visits. These numbers are higher than normal due to the Schaap scandal. I think a “few” Christians have figured out I am here.
I even heard from a old friend from college and my youth pastor when I was a teen. The former left a thoughtful comment, the latter, not so much.
They are probably afraid of coming back. Might get cooties or something.
Hi Canadian Atheist,
I am not sure why these people are seldom commenting, but I do think that Bruce would get quite a deal of hate mail. I visited the Jesus is a Liberal blog and they posted some of the less distasteful hate mail they get on their website from Fundamentalist Christians You can see it at http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/hate_mail.html.
If these Fundamentalists get upset with the above Christian website, how much more are they likely to be upset with an atheist exposing Fundamentalist flaws in their theology and behaviour.
Shalom,
John Arthur
Bruce,
Found you account interesting. I had wondered why you left IFB as I did, but we ended up in two very different belief
models. Now I see the big difference, I did not lose my faith in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible.
I still find your thoughts interesting. I am not one that demands that everyone agree with me. So I will keep coming here, and probably commenting fairly often.
I notice some of the questions above about Christians commenting. I just found your blog (through Jeri Mass/Blog On The Way) and find myself liking you and your tone. We obviously don’t agree on some things, but that is okay with me. I like thinking, even if we come up with different answers.
Hope you are doing well pain-wise.
Found *your* account.
George, go away.
I’ve been thinking along similar lines lately, and I think it’s because I’ve discovered Ehrman too. It is possible to “explain away” the discrepancies in the Bible with evangelical doctrine, but it’s a lot easier and more harmonious to interpret it the way you say: Just to let the text speak for itself.
Lately, I’ve been thinking this: If no one had told me what to believe about the Bible, what would I think of it? I would think it’s a human book written by people with differing beliefs.
And if no one had ever mentioned God to me, I don’t believe I would have ever thought of Him for myself.
To the restless wanderer, if I may comment on your post:
For the last few years in the ministry, I became increasingly discouraged with the state of Christianity in America. The Christian church was rife with internecine warfare, in direct contradiction to Jesus’s command that the world would know we were his followers by the love we had for one another.
I’ve read through your biographical links, (read The Disaffected Years, 2004-2008) and (read Wilderness Wanderings, 2002-2012), and understand you have a long history with the church and various congregations. That is a lot of churches by the way.
The observation you experienced was the current state of Churchianity which is not to be confused with Christianity. Churchianity is the correct observation you’ve listed:
*internecine warfare
*contradiction to Jesus’s command to love other followers
summarizing your Disaffected years:
*apathy
Judging Christianity by Churchianity standards would definitely have turned me away. However, as I’m sure you’ve read, it is contra the action to occur:
Matthew 7:16
“You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”
I took Bart Ehrman’s suggestion and I changed how I read the Bible. Instead of trying to read the Bible though a particular theological lens, I allowed each book and author to stand on its own.
Although I’ve not read Ehrman’s book, the process you describe is actually how I deepened my faith in Christianity. I find it peculiar that the process had an opposite affect of your view of scripture.
However, affirming that A God created the universe is far different from affirming that the Christian God, the God revealed in the Bible, created the Bible. I came to the conclusion that there was not a rational way for me to get from A GOD to THE GOD of Christianity
…snip/…
While I will readily admit to being burnt-out and having spells of anger and bitterness, at the end of the day, my defection from Christianity is rooted in an intellectual pursuit that led me from Evangelicalism to atheism.
I appreciate that you are still open to thoughts and comments on the subject and have not become entirely embittered by your experience. If you are interested in furthering your intellectual journey I recommend a fellow Christian blogger, Vox Popoli.
Good health and God speed on your wanderings.
Thanks for your response. I agree that Christians probably don’t know what to do with you. Arguing with some loser like myself who claimed to be a Christian for 30 years is probably a nice bit of sport to many Christians. But, when faced with someone like yourself who was a real life preacher for a long, long time, they are probably intimidated and a bit scared of what they might find out. I imagine vitriolic one-way emails might be easier than genuine discussion on a comment board.
I faced many similar questions about the “inerrancy” of the Bible. At one time I believed that if there was any error in the entire book, it would mean it could not be trusted to be the “Word of God.” Eventually I did see discrepancies in things like numbers, chronology, names. So I worked through the issues, and somewhat still am at it, and did come to a different understanding of the Bible and its inspiration. Basically, it’s that God did not dictate the words the authors used. This came partially from seeing in the Bible and experiencing myself that God never micromanages people, and that includes the writers of the Bible. They wrote from their experiences with God. The Spirit of God still was “leading” them and using their experiences and their words, and over time others experienced God through their writings, resulting in those writings being recognized and accepted as “Scripture.” Humans did really contribute to the writings, so of course there would be different perspectives. For me, those differences are not enough to say there were “different Christianities,” just different emphases and angles. I don’t see the Bible as merely a book of laws and doctrines. The writing of N.T. Wright helped me clarify this for myself.
I read Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” a few months ago. I was kind of shocked. He jumps to conclusions, exaggerates, minimizes, contradicts himself, selectively reports, asserts some things without providing evidence, misrepresents, uses double standards, and just generally seems to attempt to create alarm in his readers. After reading the entire book, I can say it is written to convince people of Ehrman’s own conclusion. He occasionally explains some of the methods of textual criticism, but for specific texts he rarely presents anyone else’s conclusions, even though he claims “It is written for people who know nothing about textual criticism but who might like to learn something…” What he wants them to learn is how to see things the way he does. He fails to present important information (such as the amount of the Biblical text that is not in dispute) and creates alarm (“error-ridden”). He does not address any doctrine of inspiration except the plenary verbal view, thus leaving us with his belief that the Bible is a “very human book” with no implication that God has anything to do with it. I haven’t read any of his other books; I don’t feel that I can trust him.
I’m not trying to convince anyone to see this the way I do or to change what you believe. I’m just saying do your homework; examine the issues from as many perspectives as you can. Don’t listen to just one or two people. There are more than a couple of options.
I couldn’t disagree with you more on Ehrman. His evidence is quite solid and the only objections I have seen is over his conclusions.
Why do you demand of Ehrman what no Evangelical does? I don’t see Evangelical writers liberally quoting from Ehrman or Robert M Price. Ehrman writes from the perspective that the Bible is a human book written by humans. Claims of inspiration is a faith claim, a claim that has no place in a discussion about the text. The fact tat the Bible says it is inspired doesn’t make it so. As far as I know, there is evidence for the Christian God, let alone that God divinely inspired a book.
Yes, Ehrman has an agenda…we all do. Academic neutrality is a myth. The entire Evangelical house is built on the foundation of an inspired, inerrant text. Discredit this view and the house comes tumbling down. Ehrman does a good job showing how the Evangelical view of inspiration and inerrancy is unsustainable. (and unlike you, I have all of Ehrman’s books and, of course,I read the major books on inspiration on the Evangelical side when I was a pastor)
I think, perhaps, someone can hold on to some form of liberal view of the Scripture. In my liberal Christian days I enjoyed NT Wright’s writing. I don’t think the liberal view is compelling but I can see how a Christian might find such a view sufficient.
The Evangelical view? It is built on intellectual dishonesty, no matter how well intentioned, and we should applaud Ehrman for exposing this.
That said, I do take issue with Ehrman’s approach, academic superiority, and his, at times, over the top methods. This, however, does not negate the good work he does. We all have our faults, well at least I do.
What? You disagree with me about Ehrman? I’m shocked!
I just don’t think he validates many of his claims and assertions so I have to question them. An example – he cites the infamous Q, stating that it “was probably a written account, principally of Jesus’s sayings, used by both Luke and Matthew for many of their distinctive teachings of Jesus.” No one has ever seen Q, either the original, a copy, or a reference. When conclusions are based on imaginary accounts, I can’t give it any credence. I won’t go into any other issues with Ehrman here. And yes, I have only read one of his works; if I had the money & time, I might read more, but for me there are enough problems with his methods in the one book to cause me to distrust his work – far more problems than I have found in the Bible. I’m not sure what you mean by “liberal view of the Scripture” unless it’s any view other than plenary verbal which results in believing in absolute inerrancy. I would call other views “Evangelical” such as Wright’s and disagree that they’re built on intellectual dishonesty. For me it’s not just either “inerrancy” or “human book.” There are other options.
Pingback: Why The Bible Is Immoral Today | Jessica Sideways.com