Tag Archives: Liberal Christianity

Post-Atheism, Now What?

17 Replies

secular_creed

Many atheists come to a place in their life where they begin to consider life beyond atheism. When a person first deconverts and decides they are an atheist, atheism is all they can think about.

THERE IS NO GOD, the atheist rightly thunders, but after awhile, in my case, after five years, the atheist begins to develop a more complex, comprehensive worldview. Those who don’t are found on Twitter, Facebook, and in the blogosphere, endlessly waging war against religion.

We have all been there. As we look back on our life as a Christian we feel duped and we feel lied to. Perhaps we became angry for a time and lashed out at anything and everything religious. But, as many of us come to realize, this is no way to live your life over the long-term.

Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not a comprehensive worldview and it most certainly is not a religion. Some of the most frustrating people to be around besides Christian Fundamentalists, is atheists who do no think any further than their belief that there are no gods. All they see is religion and religion must be destroyed if the human race is to survive.

This leads, of course, to a lot of immature, ignorant behavior by atheists. I am involved with all the major social media and I am ashamed and angered by some of things I read written by atheists about religion. Their writing reveals that they are every bit as ignorant about religion as as Christian Fundamentalists are about atheism, agnosticism, humanism, or secularism. Some of these ignorant atheists even have PhD after their names.

Many atheists need to grow beyond the infantile state they are presently in. Getting into a shit-throwing contest with a religious Fundamentalist might be fun and entertaining but nothing is accomplished.

Quite frankly, atheists need to mature beyond atheism.  For many of us, humanism is the vehicle that drives our maturity. We must begin to not only think about the big questions humans have but we must also begin to give thoughtful reasons as to why we think humanism is the best way forward for the human race and our planet.

Doing the atheist version of a two-year old stomping their feet  get us nowhere. The Christian Bible tells the Christian that they should be ready to give an answer to the hope that lies within them. The atheist should do the same.

We must be willing to engage the religious in thoughtful, respectful discussions.  This does not mean we can never use ridicule or sarcasm but it does mean that our defense of the humanist ideal must go beyond just ridicule and sarcasm.

We must be willing and able to defend our worldview and do it in such a way that people will actually hear and understand what we are saying.  If our bigger goal is for the humanist ideal to become the dominate worldview we must use mediums that best advance our message. (and a 140 character tweet is not the best medium)

As a blogger, I have an obligation to not only help people who are considering leaving Christianity or who have already left Christianity, but to also articulate why I think the humanistic ideal is superior to what Christianity has to offer.

I am a proud to be an atheist and I have no intentions to stop calling myself one. But, I am at a place in life where I no longer find atheism to be enough for me. I no longer find it as intellectually and emotionally satisfying as I once did.

I am beyond the “angry at religion” stage and I now must devote my energy towards fleshing out for myself and readers the humanist worldview.

I must get beyond the, “hating religion for religion’s sake” approach. I have always been an accommodationist when it comes to religion and I intend to continue to be so. I see no value in denigrating all religion, treating liberal and progressive religions with the same scorn I treat Fundamentalist religions with.

Not every religion is equal. I can appreciate the religious beliefs of people like John Shore, James McGrath, John Arthur, Fred Clark or the countless other liberal/progressive Christians who read this blog. While I may not agree them, I can admire and respect their beliefs. I don’t see where anything is gained by denigrating people of goodwill like those I just mentioned. In fact, they may just having something to teach atheists, IF our minds are as open as we say they are. (as I learned when I read and reviewed  Paulo Coelho’s book, Manuscript Found in Accra)

Some atheists live under the delusion that we can make the world religion-free.  While we could debate whether or not such a world would be a better place (and I am not decided on this) , the fact is we are centuries away from realizing such a world. Our time is better spent engaging religious people in hopes of making the world we live in more just, peaceful, and inclusive rather than taking a flamethrower to everything religious.

Liberals, Evangelicals and the Bible

30 Replies

hath_god_said

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been following a discussion about creationism on James McGrath’s blog.  The discussion has been quite entertaining.  As an atheist who thinks the Bible is an errant, fallible book made up mostly of mythical stories, I find the arguments between Evangelical Christians and Liberal Christians about the nature of the Bible better than Saturday Night Live.

The recent discussion on McGrath’s blog is primarily between a young earth creationist named Tim, (yes THAT Tim who commented on this blog a few weeks ago and here too)  and McGrath and several other like-minded commenters.

While the discussion is primarily about science, there are a few comments about the Bible, salvation, and who owns the “real” Christian interpretation of the Bible.  McGrath, a liberal Christian, believes his interpretive tradition is the historic tradition of Christianity. Tim, however, believes his literalistic interpretation of the Bible is the historic position of Christianity.

Added to the entertainment is  Tim insisting on knowing the spiritual credentials of McGrath and other commenters.  Tim asked McGrath:

Have you ever come to know Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord?
Do you know Him and love Him today?
Do you believe what He says?

Standard Evangelical stuff.  McGrath did not answer Tim directly, pointed to other things he has written on his blog, and refused to give Tim what he wanted; a clear, concise, testimony of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Why is this important to Tim? Simple. Tim states:

One’s relationship with Jesus Christ has EVERYTHING to do with our discussion. One may be highly educated, yet not wise. For it is the fear of the LORD that is the beginning of wisdom.

According to Tim’s interpretation of the Bible, true wisdom, knowledge, and understanding comes from having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In Tim’s mind. believing in evolution is a denial of the Word of God, and a denial of God himself.

The Evangelical believes the Bible as it is written. For the most part they are literalistic in their reading of the text.  This is why almost half of Americans believe God created the world, as is,  in the last  ten thousand years.  It is, after all, what the Bible says.

Evolutionary biology, geology,physics, astronomy, and archeology tell a very different story. We live in a universe that is billions of years old, a world where humans evolved over millions of years.  It is clear that modern science and creationism are incompatible and no matter how one tries, it is impossible to reconcile the two.

Liberal Christians like McGrath allow modern science to shape their understanding of the Bible. When science conflicts with the Bible, science wins.  The Evangelical, on the other hand, never lets science have the final say. When science conflicts with the Bible, the Bible wins.

Does this mean the liberal Christian has the upper hand? Not necessarily.  While the Evangelical is way too literal in his reading and interpretation of the Bible, the liberal Christian is far too willing to abandon anything that doesn’t fit their modern, scientific understanding of the world.

So, the Evangelical says, The Bible says_________________________ and the liberal Christian replies, that is poetry, allegory, or meant for a different culture or time.  Rarely does a liberal Christian explain how they come to their conclusions on a particular text. It seems they just explain away anything that doesn’t “fit.”

Here’s the problem I have with how liberal Christians read and interpret the Bible. If Genesis is poetry or allegory why not treat the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the same way? While modern science certainly discredits the Evangelical belief about Genesis, can we not say the same thing about the liberal Christian’s belief about who and what Jesus Christ was?

At the end of the day, every Christian is a literalist.  The question is, to what degree are they a literalist.  The Evangelical views most  of the Bible from a literalistic viewpoint, the liberal Christian only views small parts of the Bible as literal.

The  liberal Christian is quite willing to jettison most everything  in the Bible except their belief in Jesus.  Why is the story of Jesus special?

The liberal Christian will argue that modern science clearly shows that creationism is false.  Fine, I agree. But, modern science also shows us that virgins don’t get pregnant, the miracles ascribed to Jesus didn’t happen, and dead people don’t get back out of the grave.  Why does the liberal Christian willingly use science to discard creationism to the ancient relic dustbin but not Jesus himself?  Maybe Jesus was just an allegory or a metaphor? (and I am not a mythicist. I think Jesus was a real person who lived and died in Palestine during the early days of the first century.)

In most cases, I prefer talking about the Bible and theology with the Evangelical.  With the liberal Christian, discussing the Bible with them is often like nailing Jell-O to the wall.  They are a constantly moving target, ever-changing depending on changes in their understanding of the world.

Let me be clear, I think Evangelicalism is harmful mentally and emotionally. I think it teaches people a naïve way of looking at the world than often has tragic consequences. (especially when their beliefs enter the political arena)

In every way, the liberal Christian way of thinking is better for our world. I just wish they would go one step farther, and admit what many of us agnostics and atheist suspect is true; that liberal Christians are atheists/agnostics who like to go to church.

For Further Investigation

Tim’s Blog
James McGrath’s blog

Liberal Christian John Shore Says People Like Me Never Were Christians

19 Replies

john_shore

Liberal Christian John Shore, in a post titled, The Only Sin God Cannot Forgive, wrote:

As for Christians who renounced Christ, who are no longer Christian? Two things: 1. If they don’t care (and they can’t, since they no longer believe that Christ is any more real than the tooth fairy), then the question of what their new relationship is to Christ is the ultimate moot point; and: 2. As much ire as I know this will bring me [and it did: see below], my vote is that such a person was never really a Christian in the first place—by which I mean that their Christianity was always immature. And that’s certainly no crime.

In response to Shore’s shocking condemnation of former Christians-turned- atheists, Libby Anne wrote:

Look, I expect this from fundamentalists and conservative evangelical Christians, the kind John spends most of his time combating on LGBTQ issues. I don’t expect it from people like John. I have to wonder whether John realizes just how much pain he causes when he makes a statement like that. He mentions expecting “ire” as a result of that statement, but does he realize that the anger is rooted in pain? For the amount of time he spends blogging against pain caused in the name of Christianity, I don’t understand how he can be blind to this.

Think about the thing you believe in most, the thing you are most devoted to, the cause you most want to further, the thing that means the most to you out of everything in your life. Now imagine changing your mind on that issue in the future. How would you feel, then, in this hypothetical future, if someone were to tell you that you had never actually believed in that thing? You see, with that one little statement, John is negating the very essence and core of who I was all of those years. And that really hurts.

Like Libby Anne, I expect Evangelical Christians to make statements like Shore made. But coming from someone like John Shore? Shocking, to say the least.  So how did Shore come to this conclusion?

In the above mentioned post, John Shore is attempting to answer a question about the unpardonable sin.  Exactly what the unpardonable sin is (Matthew 12:31-32) has plagued Christians for 2,000 years.  Ask a hundred Christians what the unpardonable sin is and you will get one hundred different answers.

Shore answers the unpardonable sin question this way:

I think what Jesus is saying here is, “I can forgive you for believing that I am not who I say I am. Apparently raising the dead just isn’t enough for some people—but whatever. That’s why I gave you free will; everyone has the right and power to doubt anything they want. But once the Holy Spirit has eradicated forever your reason to doubt who I am by awakening within in you the certain knowledge of who I am—once I have moved, in other words, from an idea outside of you to a reality inside of you—then … well, then we’re bonded for life, because the truth will then be a part of you that you could no longer willfully reject than you could eject your stomach right out of your body.”

See the trickiness? Having the only unpardonable sin be the rejection of Christ means that by definition no Christian can possibly commit that sin. And neither can any non-Christian, since you can’t reject from your life someone who’s never been in your life.

So the answer to your questions is that, yes, there is a sin that God cannot forgive—but it’s a sin that virtually no one on earth is capable of committing. Christians can’t commit it because they’re Christian, and non-Christians can’t commit it because they’re not.

Confused? You should be. Shore’s answer makes no sense. In all the years  I spent studying theology, I never heard an explanation like this for the unpardonable sin.  I think all that Shore does with this answer is show how little training in theology he actually has.

Shore says virtually no one can commit the unpardonable sin.  So there must be some way a person can commit the unpardonable sin or Shore would have said , but it is  sin that no one on earth is capable of committing. (and if this is the case why bother even discussing it)

Shore needs to figure out what he is . Either he is a universalist and everyone, in the end, will be saved, or he believes there is an objective difference between the saved and the lost.

I appreciate Shore’s attempt to make the Christian church more gay-friendly.  Even though I  disagree with how he contorts and reinterprets the relevant Bible passages to come to the conclusion he does, I do appreciate any effort to make Christianity kinder and inclusive.  Unfortunately, Shore’s inclusivist approach stops when it comes to atheists.

Shore would have us believe that a former Christian turned atheist was never a Christian to begin with. But, then he says in the next sentence that they had an immature Christianity. Which is it? No Christianity or an immature Christianity?

The charge of having an immature Christianity is more offensive than being told  you never were a Christian.  I left the following comment on Shore’s post:

I am shocked at the statement you make about those of us who have left the faith. I hope you will rethink what you have written and realize it is offensive to those of us who left Christianity, not because our faith was immature or because we had no faith at all, but because we no longer believed the claims of Christianity. I would love to see how you would square my life with what you have written here.

In this post you sound just like the Evangelicals who frequent my blog. I hope you will think about this.

Shore replied:

Bruce: You used to be an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist preacher, yes? I don’t know how to say this without offending you–in fact, there is no way, of course–but … well, honestly, wouldn’t you agree that of every possible iteration of Christianity, the IFB is the most intellectually and spiritually immature? Just … by its very nature? I think I know as much about IFB as you do, and I’m very comfortable saying that. And I’m hoping you’ll be too–what with you having so … extremely outgrown it and all.

In his comment, John Shore reveals a problem that a lot of Christians have when judging the lives of people like me.

As soon as they find out you were once a part of an extreme Fundamentalist Christian sect, like the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement, they assume your life was static and you never moved beyond your Fundamentalist beliefs.

Shore seems to forget, or not know, that I left the IFB church movement in the early 1990’s, and when I left Christianity in 2008, I had been a progressive/liberal for  years.  While I may have begun the ministry with Jack Hyles and John R. Rice, I left the ministry with Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, Wendell Berry, Brian McLaren, and Jim Wallis.

While Shore can easily dismiss me as long as he sees me as a former Fundamentalist, the fact is my journey out of Christianity was paved with the books of liberal and progressive authors. Coupled with the books of writers like Bart Ehrman, these authors helped me to see that the claims made for Christianity were not true. (and while I respect liberal/progressive Christians, their hermeneutics pretty much render the Bible powerless)

John Shore really stepped in it with this post. I hope he will take to heart take the criticism he has received and retract the statement he made about former Christians turned atheists.  As Libby Anne says, such a statement is hurtful, and more than that, it does not reflect the life of most of the former Christians turned atheists that I know.

Are ALL Evangelicals Fundamentalists?

9 Replies
fundamentalist_bible

Graphic by David Hayward, the Naked Pastor

The short answer is YES.

I’ve had more than a few Evangelicals scream and howl over my contention that Evangelicals are Fundamentalists.  Bruce, I am not, our church is not, my pastor is not, anything like the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches you grew up in and pastored . How dare you label us as Fundamentalists!!

Let me explain why ALL Evangelicals are Fundamentalists.

There is two components to Fundamentalism:

  • Theological Fundamentalism
  • Social Fundamentalism

Theological Fundamentalism

When it comes to theology, ALL Evangelicals are Fundamentalist. To be an Evangelical means believing the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. To be an Evangelical means believing in cardinal doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, and salvation through the merit and work of Jesus Christ alone.  To be an Evangelical means believing Jesus is coming again to judge the living and the dead and that every human being will spend eternity in heaven or hell depending on whether or not they have accepted Jesus as the Savior.  (see National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) core beliefs and  doctrinal statement here and here. There are, btw, far more Evangelicals than those who belong to the NAE.)

ALL Evangelicals are theological fundamentalists. If they are not, then they are not really an Evangelical. What is confusing today is that there are a fair number of liberal, neo-liberal, or progressive pastors, professors, authors, and conference speakers hanging around the fringes of Evangelicalism. Their theology is decidedly not Evangelical but, for some reason or the other, they are not willing to abandon the Evangelical church.

descent_of_modernists

The Slippery Slope That Leads to Atheism

I think the Emergent Church movement is a  good example of a group that has a huge liberalizing influence on Evangelical churches. It is not uncommon for people exposed to the Emergent Church to move on to more liberal and progressive beliefs  and churches.  While some Emergent Church movement adherents still label themselves as Evangelical, they are, when it comes to theology, not Evangelicals. (Mark Driscoll recognized this and left the Emergent Church movement)  People like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Tony Jones, Jim Wallis, et al, are loved by some within Evangelicalism, but they are anything BUT Evangelical when it comes their theological beliefs. (and this is not a bad thing)

When it comes to theological belief, there is little difference between Fred Phelps and Billy Graham.  While there may be differences depending on where a person, pastor or church falls on the Calvinist Arminian divide, in the main, ALL Evangelicals are theological Fundamentalists. (and yes, I am aware of professed Evangelicals who are theistic evolutionists,  open theists, annihilationists, etc.)

Social Fundamentalism

While ALL Evangelicals are theological Fundamentalists, not all Evangelicals are necessarily social Fundamentalists. (though I will show that I highly doubt this is completely true)  The Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church movement  I spent most my life in is fundamentalist theologically and socially,

Social Fundamentalists believe that God and the Bible dictate how a Christian should live their life. Generally, social Fundamentalists have a rigid code of conduct and they tend to judge negatively anyone who does not have the same rigid code of conduct.

Some social Fundamentalist pastors and churches have extensive, elaborate rules and regulations (standards) they expect and demand church members to follow, (in this respect they are no different than Fundamentalist Muslims, Jews, or Catholics)

Many social Fundamentalists are actively involved in right-wing social and political causes. Since all social Fundamentalists are also theological Fundamentalists, they believe the Bible is the divine answer to every social ill. Social Fundamentalists generally have strong beliefs on issues like gay marriage, abortion, and whether or not the United States is a Christian nation. (along with a plethora of other hot-button issues)

Many Evangelicals despise social Fundamentalists. They are the Evangelicals who comment on this blog who say they are nothing like social Fundamentalists.  Sometimes, they suggest that the IFB church movement I was a part of is a corruption of Evangelicalism and I should not judge all Evangelicals the same.

However, press these social Fundamentalist despising and denying Evangelicals and you will often find that they too have social Fundamentalist beliefs. While they may derisively laugh at fellow Evangelicals who think it is wrong for women to wear pants, for men to have long hair, or listen to secular music, they too have certain social behaviors that they think are a sin.

The bottom line is this, ALL Evangelicals are also social Fundamentalists.  To what degree they are is the question.  Because all Evangelicals are theological Fundamentalists, they look to the Bible to decide how to live their lives. Since all Evangelicals believe in the Priesthood of the Believer, they believe every Evangelical can understand and interpret the Bible for themselves.  This belief leads them to develop, from the Bible, a code of conduct to govern their lives. (and they congregate in churches who hold to similar beliefs)

As an IFB pastor, and later as a more open minded Evangelical, I had Biblical proof for EVERY social belief I had. The Bible says_________________________, is the bellwether of Evangelical Christianity. While there may be matters of degree or nuance within Evangelicalism, all Evangelicals are theological Fundamentalists and, for the most part, all Evangelicals are social Fundamentalists.

Evangelicals who question what I have written here will most likely be Christians who are trying to keep up an Evangelical façade while denying Evangelical theological beliefs and/or Evangelical social beliefs.  They have been told time and time again that liberal or progressive Christianity is no Christianity at all, so they fear labeling themselves in a way that will cause them to be considered. by  family, pastor, or colleagues in the ministry, as outside the Christian faith. (a similar problem for liberal Christians who are actually Universalists  and agnostics who are actually atheists)

The old adage…if it walks and talks like a duck, it is a duck is true. Evangelicals are Fundamentalists because of their theological and social beliefs. When they no longer have these beliefs they cease to be Evangelical.

My Growing Problem With Liberal Christianity

43 Replies

On one hand, I understand WHY many people adopt some form of liberal Christianity. They are tired of Evangelical (which is Fundamentalist) Christianity and its attendant certitude and black and white thinking. They are tired of the culture war. They are tired of being viewed as mindless, knuckle dragging Bible thumpers.

So they “backslide” and join churches that are progressive/liberal in their view of the Bible. Terms like inerrancy, and sometimes even inspiration, are rarely mentioned when it comes to the Bible. Focus is on how a person lives rather than what they believe. The social strictures are few and many former Evangelicals love the freedom they have in Christ to pretty much do anything they want to do.

All in all, liberal Christians are good, honest, decent people. The ones who comment on this blog are great people. In most cases, liberal Christians also have liberal or progressive political views.  They tend to support liberal causes like support for gay marriage and abortion. Years ago, they were at the forefront of the Civil Rights battle.

The United States would be better served if Evangelicalism died a quick death and liberal Christianity was embraced by the followers of Jesus. However, I have a growing problem with how liberal Christians view the Bible and how they tend to believe little or anything they are willing to die for.

It seems, for many liberal Christians, that going to church, believing in Jesus, are just culturally accepted things they do. They treat the Bible like they would any other literary work. Outside of, I believe in Jesus, there isn’t anything in the Bible worth believing.

Liberal Christians are known for reinterpreting the Bible to fit their own agenda. They write book after book to explain why the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible is wrong, misguided, or outdated. Never mind WHAT the text says. All that matters is making the square peg fit in the round hole.

Let me share a good example of this from Sojourners. Gary Tandy, Professor of English and English Department Chair at George Fox University, writes:

Some Christians use phrases like “The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is sinful.”  I want to respond: Is it really, really so clear as all that? Don’t you want to open up some room for discussion here? Are you aware that some Christians who read the Bible arrive at a different place?


Instead of certainty, I want to argue for uncertainty. Instead of definitive positions, I wonder what would happen to the climate of discussion if more people said things like “I don’t really know what I believe about this issue” or “I would like to hear more stories from my gay and lesbian friends before I develop my position.” Or even, as President Obama said prior to his interview, “my position on this issue is evolving.”

What I’m suggesting here is that there is a cultural tendency in evangelical Christianity that does not leave room for “evolving” positions, complexity, uncertainty, or doubt.  Rather the assumption seems to be that every Christian should have a clearly defined position on every social issue and even that for some issues there’s only one acceptable position to take. I wonder if conservative Christians were more disturbed by Obama’s lack of certainty on the issue prior to the interview than they were by his stated opinion in the interview.

So here’s my modest proposal. When discussing these controversial issues as Christians, can we exercise enough humility to temper our statements? Can we resist the temptations of certitude, realizing that it draws lines in the sand and reinforces stereotypes that non-Christians already carry about those of our ilk? Can we learn the use of conditional phrases like “Based on my understanding of scripture” or even “I might be wrong about this” or, God forbid, “my views on this are evolving”? Can we remember Anne Lamott’s friend, Father Tom, who suggests that the opposite of faith is certainty?



Here’s the problem…..society is rapidly evolving and changing when it comes to homosexuality, gay marriage, and a host of other sexual matters.  Liberals like Tandy, and the people at Sojourners, want to be evolve with the times. To their credit they want to be thought of as people who promote civil rights for all. They are often at the forefront of the antidiscrimination battles in the United States.

However, they want to hang on the Christianity and Jesus at the same time. They want to give the appearance of believing the Bible. Result? When confronted with unambiguous teachings in the Bible that go against their social agenda they balk and attempt to reinterpret or explain away the clear teachings of the Bible.

The Evangelical Christian, and virtually all Christians for 1900 years, believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful. Let me remind you of what the Bible says on the issue:

  • You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
  • If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltness is upon them.
  • Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
  • For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.

Seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? Yes, I know of all the cockamamie reinterpretations and explanations that liberal Christians use in an attempt to justify their good, decent, human, loving approval of basic human and civil rights for homosexuals. I COMMEND them for their support of  gay rights.

But, I know this is going to sound odd coming from an atheist, I deplore their abuse and misuse of the Bible. Like any work of literature, the text has meaning, words have meaning.  I know liberal Christians hate to hear this but, The BIBLE says _____________.

Tandy wants a Christian environment where issues he finds uncomfortable are held in belief limbo. Tandy writes:

Is it really, really so clear as all that? Don’t you want to open up some room for discussion here? Are you aware that some Christians who read the Bible arrive at a different place?

Look at Tandy’s questions. He desperately wants to believe the Bible is unclear on the matter of homosexuality. But , it is not. He is an English teacher. He values words and their meanings. What does the text say? What would an every day, non-original language educated person, in other words, 99% of the people sitting in the pew, think these verses mean?

Tandy, in classic postmodern fashion wants to have a discussion. Perhaps some discussion is warranted. Like, does the Bible condemn homosexuality itself or the ACT of homosexual sex? What IS homosexual sex? What if a heterosexual couple performs anal sex or oral sex on their partner? Are they 1/2 homosexual? What about people who are bisexual or even asexual?

There are plenty of questions that could be raised BUT what the text says, and my implication, what GOD says, is not one of them.

Tandy, trots out the tired, old liberal Christian line, Are you aware that some Christians who read the Bible arrive at a different place?

Those of you who have been reading this blog for years know there used to be a frequent commenter named Grace who was the epitome of this line. She was like nailing Jell-O to the wall. Outside of, I believe in Jesus, she didn’t have one firm belief about anything. Every discussion with her was littered with obfuscation and “well I see things differently”, or “we will just have to agree to disagree.”

The last church I pastored was a Southern Baptist Church. The Adult Sunday School class was a case study in Gary Tandy, are you aware that some Christians who read the Bible arrive at a different place, thinking. Maybe we should call this kind of thinking Tandyism.

Every week, the class would read the Scriptures, read what the Sunday School Quarterly said about the passage, and then go around the table and say “what the passage of Scripture meant to them.”

Heresy was on display every week. Orthodoxy cringed in horror as people imported their own meaning and interpretation into the text. It didn’t matter what the text said. All that mattered was, “what does it mean to me?”

It seems the “are you aware that some Christians who read the Bible arrive at a different place” has no limits except one. Jesus is off limits. Question anything and everything in the Bible, reinterpret to fit the blowing cultural wind, but hands off of the eternally existent God, second member of the Trinity, creator of the world, virgin born, conceived by the third member of the Trinity, miracle working, dying on the cross for humanity’s sin, rising again from the dead, ascending backing heaven, returning to earth someday Son of God named Jesus, the Christ.

Why is Jesus off limits?

And herein lies the real issue.

I am of the opinion that a fair number of liberal Christians are actually agnostics or atheists who just so happen to like going to church on Sunday. They like the “idea” of being a Christian. They like the social benefits they gain from being part of a church. Simply put, they love Jesus but hate and dismiss the vast majority of the Bible.

People can do what they want, believe what they want. If liberal Christians derive some benefit, support, comfort or peace from being a part of a Christian church, I have no objection. It is their life, do with it what they will.

However, when they venture out into the world and attempt to put a good word in for Jesus by countering the certitude of Evangelicals, then it is proper and right to hold them accountable for how they trash, dismiss, and misuse the Bible.

I find myself in a strange place. On one hand, I know the liberal view of the Bible would make the world I live in a better place. However, I cannot live with what I consider intellectual delusion or dishonesty. If we are going to have a discussion about the Bible then let’s have a discussion about what it SAYS rather than what we WANT it to say.

People don’t like it when I suggest that the God of the Old Testament is a mean, vindictive, self-centered, capricious son-of-a-bitch. “Bruce, you got to understand…..” No, actually, I don’t. I can read quite fine, thank you. Ironic ,isn’t it, that an atheist has a higher view of Scripture than many Christians?

Personally, I would like to see liberal Christians come out of the closet and declare their true agnosticism or atheism. I would like to see them turn their churches into humanist centers for ethical inquiry. They could even still talk about Jesus, the great moral teacher. Lots of good things in the Bible. Lots of abhorrent things too.

Once freed from the strictures of the sect they are a part of they would then be free to say, “this part of the Bible is antithetical to human progress, decency and freedom.”

The Bible is the problem and the answer is NOT to reinterpret it or explain it away. The world would be a lot better off if the Bible was relegated to the  Great Works of Fiction or Ancient Philosophy shelves in the Library. A progressive society, a true liberal society, doesn’t need an antiquated religious text as its guide. Humanism can, and does, provide for us a way for forward.

Liberals and the Bible

62 Replies

I understand where Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians are coming from when it comes to their belief about the Bible. It is liberal Christians I have a hard time understanding. While I certainly wish every Evangelical would become a liberal, that doesn’t mean I think the liberal Christian belief system is rational and logical. In fact, I find liberal beliefs quite confusing and often contradictory. As I have often said, liberal religious beliefs are like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

Every Christian sect believes that Jesus Christ is God. Every Christian sect believes that Jesus became a human, died on the cross, and rose again from the dead three days later. Every Christian sect believes that Jesus, while on earth, was God in the human flesh. He came to earth to become the atonement for humankind’s sin. He was buried and rose again from the dead three days later securing life everlasting for all who will follow him. Every Christian sect believes that Jesus ascended to heaven and some day will return to earth again to usher in his eternal kingdom.

Most sects would also say they believe Jesus was born of a virgin, healed the sick, and raised the dead. The bottom line is this…….Jesus was a supernatural being who came to earth to do a supernatural work. From start to finish, Jesus’s life was anything but ordinary human.

Where do we find the story the Jesus? The Bible. This story is found nowhere else. Surely we all would agree that Jesus Christ is the alpha and omega of the Christian religion and all that every Christian sect knows about Jesus comes from the Bible. Without the Bible there would be no discussion going on about the historicity of Jesus.

On what basis do Christian sects believe what the Bible says about Jesus? Is the Bible just another work of literature? That’s what liberal Christians would have us believe. The Bible is just another work of literature and should be treated like any other text from antiquity.

If this is so then why have doctrinal statements or for that matter have churches at all? If the Bible is just an old book then why invest so much time and money in believing and living out its story? Quite frankly Harry Potter would be a much more interesting God and I suspect children would LOVE going to the First Church of Harry.

At this point……liberals start stammering and steaming….

You see, the Bible really is MORE than just another work of literature. Every Christian sect believes that the Bible is revelatory, that God, through the text of the Bible speaks to humanity. We can fuss and fight over words like inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility but the fact remains ALL Christians give the Bible weight and authority that they give no other text. Without an authoritative text there is no Jesus and without Jesus there is no such thing as Christianity.

We can argue endlessly about the various critical methods and hermeneutics but sooner or later every Christian must say, THIS I BELIEVE. And when they do this they are saying, I believe the Bible, to some degree or another, to be true/factual/correct.

Liberals and Evangelicals alike continue to shed beliefs like lovers and their clothes on a hot, steamy summer night. Science continues to challenge and attack Christian beliefs and Christians back up and retrench. The Christian Church has gone from a doctrinal sumo wrestler to a wasting away anorexic model. Doctrine after doctrine is abandoned or reinterpreted and it seems only Jesus is safe from discard. And even with Jesus, we now have liberals who are quite willing to jettison the virgin birth, Jesus’s bodily resurrection from the dead, and his bodily ascension back to heaven. At the rate they are going the only thing left will be Jesus’s image on a piece of toast.

Atheism is not Christianity’s biggest problem. Atheism will not bring the Christian house down. Christians will do that all on their own. When people realize that NOTHING matters they will conclude that NOTHING matters and they will stop attending church and stop giving their money. The beast will die a slow, agonizing death, a death brought on by their unwillingness to have beliefs that matter.

Currently, there is a battle raging over the historicity of Jesus. Christianity finds a strange champion in Bart Ehrman. He has done much to hasten the death of Christianity, yet here he is, defending their man. I suspect any day now there will be a liberal theologian or pastor somewhere that will say, “Well, we don’t really need to believe Jesus was real to be a Christian.” Game over.

As an atheist, I think Christianity is false. I reject any, and all, claims made by the various Christian sects. I don’t think Jesus was anything that the Bible says he was. While I believe Jesus the man was a real historical figure, I reject any supernatural claim made for Jesus. At best, the Bible is an admixture of fact and error and it is almost impossible to tell one from the other. That said, I have great respect for people who have beliefs they are willing to stand up for and defend. There is something about a person’s willingness to stand up for their beliefs no matter the cost….I admire such boldness, such conviction.

I know someone will be sure to suggest that I still think like a fundamentalist. Believe what you will. While I am most certainly not a fundamentalist, I do admire people who have courage and conviction. I respect people who believe something enough that they are willing to give their lives to it.

Are Evangelicals Embarrassed By The Bible?

Leave a reply

Evangelicals are theological fundamentalists. They believe the Bible, every word of it, is the Word of God. They believe the Bible is inspired (breathed out) by God. While they may hold to differing views on how  God transmitted the text to man, a true Evangelical believes that the final work product, the originals, were inspired by God.

Many Evangelicals believe the the original texts, written primarily in Hebrew and Greek were directly inspired by God. Of course the original texts do not exist. All the Evangelical has to hold on to are manuscript copies, complete with errors. The originals do not exist.

From these flawed manuscripts translations were made. In the 16th century English translations were made using the manuscripts and previous translations in the other languages like Latin. In 1611 the King James Bible was produced and it became the standard bearer for English speaking people for almost 300 years.

Over the last century, and in particular the last 1/2 century, dozens of new translations have been produced. Some are “new” translations of the extant manuscripts and others are “updates” of older translations. (i.e. KJV to NKJV and RSV to NSRV and ESV)

Why all the new translations? Have there been new and exciting finds that have altered the text? Outside of the Dead Sea scrolls, I can’t think of any major manuscript find that would affect modern translations in nay meaningful way.

Here’s what is really going on. Evangelicals are stuck with the Bible. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me. In this modern scientific era the Bible is being challenged on a regular basis and Evangelicals are reeling from the challenge.

A hundred years ago most every Christian believed that the earth was 6,000 years old. We now know how foolish such a belief is but Evangelicals are stuck with a Bible that says, if taken literally,God created the world in six days. The Bible gives the chronology of the human race showing that the human race is about 6, 000 years old. Only the most stubborn of Christians believes this.

A hundred years ago most every Christian believed that homosexuality was sin. (along with many, non-missionary position, sex practices) To them, the Bible was very clear……sodomy, lesbianism, and all other other sexual acts except heterosexual intercourse within a monogamous marital relationship was a sin.

Fast forward to 2011. With no new textual information over the past 100 years, Evangelicals are now practicing what I call revisionist Christianity. They take 1900 years of Church history and theological teaching and throw it out the window. They have no textual warrant to do so but it doesn’t matter. Even the historical data has not changed. (and I am aware of the few novel reinterpretations of the history concerning Christianity and homosexuality) What changed then?

Simple. Society has become more comfortable with homosexuality. We now have laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Some states permit gays to marry. These moves toward a more honest, open, and just society run smack dab into the Bible prohibitions on homosexuality.(and this is why there is a culture war going on) Evangelicals don’t want to be seen as hard-nosed fundamentalists so they reinterpret the Bible and history to justify their new gay-friendly viewpoint.

Evangelicals have faced other embarrassing realities over issues like women in the ministry, women in the workforce, women in politics, and racial equality.  Evangelicals have been forced to repeatedly retrench. Those who don’t join the ranks of hard-core fundamentalists who refuse to enter the modern world.

Hard-core fundamentalists warn that our culture is collapsing and the only hope of recovery comes through a return to explicit, literal teachings of the Bible. Repent or perish, is their battle cry. In their closed, little mind they are the watchman on the wall warning everyone of impending doom.

While Evangelicals by definition are fundamentalists they recoil in horror at hard-core fundamentalism. They want nothing to do with their crazy cousins. What’s the Evangelical to do? If he thinks science reveals to us the natural world and how that world works he has a real dilemma on his hands. If he accepts some form of evolution, believes the astronomical and geological record shows a world millions and billions of years old what’s he to do? If he believes cultures change and that the moral and ethical teachings of the Bible are deficient and at times outdated what can he do?

Here’s what he can’t do. Remain an Evangelical. Being an Evangelical requires fidelity to the Biblical text. Once a person says “did God really say this?” they have left the ranks of Evangelicalism and moved towards progressive/liberal Christianity. (which is a good move in the right direction)

It is time for Evangelical Christians to own up to their embarrassment. Stop giving silent consent to the culture warriors. Be true to your beliefs. No need to play the “let’s revise the Bible and history” game. If you still want Christianity and Jesus there are non-Evangelical sects ready to take you in. (and that’s not to say that I don’t have serious problems with how liberals do “theology” but that’s fodder for another post)