Leaving Christ(ianity) - A Christian Epidemic
I sat down with a young lady a couple of weeks 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 suspicious. She began by telling me that she was a Christian (past tense) and had since left the faith. Christ was once a part of her confession, but, as she recounted to me, after a long voyage of not finding sufficient answers for her doubts, she believes that she had no choice but to follow her own integrity and renounce Christ all together. I asked her what her problems were and she became very emotional. It was like I represented Christianity and she was ready to take it all out on me.
Ignorance. Pity. Shame. These are all good descriptions of what she thought of Christianity. But the primary description that I felt coming from here was “betrayal.” She had been betrayed by the Church because they duped her into a belief not unlike that of the tooth fairy. When she discovered this betrayal, no one had a valid answer or excuse. So she left. She is now an unbeliever—a soon-to-be evangelistic unbeliever.
One fascination, obsession, and focus (neurotic pulse?) I have in my life and ministry is with regard to those, like this young lady, who leave the faith. You may have noticed this. I have over a dozen books giving autobiographical sketches of those who once proclaimed to be Christian and are now evangelistic atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, with their goal to convert or, rather, unconvert others. I have been in contact with many people who either have already left or are on the verge of leaving. I get emails, phone calls, and visits from the same.
No, it is not a neurotic pulse. I believe that it is the recognition of an extremely serious issue that we are facing today. We are facing an epidemic in Christianity—an epidemic of unbelief among our own. Crowding our churches are those who are somewhere in the process of leaving. No, I am not talking about leaving a denomination. I am not talking about abandoning some institutionalized expression of Christianity. I am not talking about leaving the church (though related). And I am not even talking about renouncing religion. I am talking about those who are leaving Christ.
Over 31 million Americans are saying “check please” to the church, and are off to find answers elsewhere. Jeff Schadt, coordinator of Youth Transition Network, says thousands of youth fall away from the church when transitioning from high school to college. He and other youth leaders estimate that 65 to 94 percent of high school students stop attending church after graduating. From my studies and experience I find that leaving church is many times the first visible step in one’s pilgrimage away from Christ.
The question that we must ask is a very simple one: Why? Why are people leaving the faith at this epidemic and alarming rate? In my studies, I have found that the two primary reasons people leave the faith are 1) intellectual challenges and 2) bad theology or misplaced beliefs.
First, I want to explain this transition process, focusing on the first: intellectual challenges. You might even find yourself somewhere on this journey.
Step one: Doubt
Step two: Discouragement
Step three: Disillusionment
Step four: Apathy
Step five: Departure
Step One: Doubt
Here is where the person begins to examine his or her faith more critically by asking questions, expressing concerns, and becoming transparent with their doubt. This doubt is not wholesale, but expresses an inner longing to have questions answered and the intellect satisfied to some degree. Normally this person will inquire of mentors in the faith, requesting an audience for their doubt.
Step Two: Discouragement
This is where the person becomes frustrated because they are not finding the answers. They ask questions but the answer (or lack thereof) causes them discouragement. Their church tells them that such questions are “unchristian.” Their Sunday school teacher says, “I don’t know. You just have to believe.” Others simply say, “That’s a good question, I have never thought of it before,” and then go on their way on their own leap-of-faith journey.
Step Three: Disillusionment
Now the person begins to become disillusioned with Christianity in general and proceeds to doubt much more deeply. They feel betrayed by those who made them believe the story about Christ. They feel that much of their former faith was naive since not even their most trusted mentors could (or would) answer basic questions about the Bible, history, or faith. In their thinking the intellect has become illegitimized and the church is therefore an illegitimate contender for their mind.
Step Four: Apathy
At this point in the journey, the disillusioned Christian becomes apathetic to finding the answers, believing that the answers don’t exist. They are firmly on their way to atheism, agnosticism, or pure skepticism but don’t have the courage to admit it to themselves or others. Many times those in this stage live as closet unbelievers, believing it is not worth it to come clean about their departure from the faith. They want a peaceful existence in their unbelief without creating controversy. Therefore, they are content to remain closet unbelievers.
Step Five: Departure
Here is where I meet this young lady I told you about. (Really, she was somewhere in-between apathy and departure.) At this stage the fact that they have left the faith has become real to them and they are willing to announce to the world. Because of their sense of betrayal, they feel as if it is their duty to become evangelists for the cause of unbelief. Their goal and mission becomes to unconvert the converted.
“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 over the last week, only one thing keeps coming to mind: how was she a part of the church for so long without the church engaging her on these issues. You see, her issues were numerous, but foundational. She doubted the resurrection of Christ, the inspiration, inerrancy, and canon of Scripture, and the historicity of the Christian faith in general. If the church had legitimized her questions during the doubting phase and truly engaged her from an intellectual front I can’t help but think, from a human point of view, things might have been different. But once she reaches the point of apathy, this seems to be a point of no return.
My life and my ministry is committed to one thing: rooting people theologically by presenting the intellectual viability of the Evangelical faith. While I understand this is not all there is to the Christian faith, it is an absolute vital part of discipleship and foundational to everything else.
Everyone will go through the doubt phase. Everyone should ask questions about the faith. If you have not asked the “How do you know . . .” questions about the message of the Gospel, this is not a good thing. We should be challenged to think through these questions early in the faith. The Church needs to rethink its education program. Expositional preaching, while important, is not enough. Did you hear that? Expositional preaching is not enough. It does not provide the discipleship venue that is vital for us to prevent and overcome this epidemic. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that it does.
The church has been on an intellectual diet for the last century and we are suffering from theological atrophy. What else do you expect when we have replaced theological discipleship with a gluttonous promotion of entertainment, numbers, and fast-food Christianity that can produce nothing more than a veneer of faith seasoned for departure?
The solution: to reform our educational program in the church. To lay theological foundations through critical thinking. To understand that the great commission is to make disciples, not simply converts. And most importantly, we must pray that God will grant a revival of the mind knowing that without the power of the Holy Spirit, no amount of intellectual persuasion can change an antagonistic heart.
Without these, the epidemic of leaving Christ will only worsen.
“The heart will not accept what the mind rejects.” —Jonathan Edwards
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Leaving Christ(ianity) - A Christian Epidemic
- Leaving Christianity for All the Wrong Reasons
- God loves me, God loves me not . . .
- The Cursing Christian 2: Now my pastor needs soap in his mouth!
- Welcome to the world of agnostics
C Michael Patton on 12 May 2008 at 2:49 am #
BTW: This is the single purpose of what The Theology Program is all about. Get this started in your church.
JohnO on 12 May 2008 at 4:53 am #
Amen and amen, Michael!
I’m a firm believer in discipling, not conversion (can you have the former without the latter though?). Christian discipling is about growth, not just in what we do and the breadth and depth we do it, but also in our understanding of why we do it (and it’s not to gain credit with God).
I think Christians are becoming theologically illiterate. The language of faith has been usurped by new-age spirituality and we don’t have the wherewithal to drag it back. The ‘rediscovery’ of humanity’s spirituality has become like Paul’s noticing of the shrine to the ‘unknown god’. “Let me tell you who He really is”, he says. Our problem is that we are rapidly becoming incapable of saying “who He really is” is a way that is distinctively Christian (and, arguably, relevant).
Lisa R on 12 May 2008 at 5:19 am #
Man this is really barking up my tree. I agree with John O. We have dragged so much junk into the foundation of christianity that the foundation can’t help but collapse. I would venture though, if you asked the average pastor about discipling, they would readily suggest that is what they are doing. But sadly, this have become so lost in translation that it has become nothing more than butressing the mission and vision of the local assemblies rather than really teach about the essential doctrines of the faith and thinking through these issues.
Perhaps there should be an Evangelical Manifesto 2: What is discipling.
JoanieD on 12 May 2008 at 5:25 am #
I see the beginnings of a book by you about this issue, Michael. You have certainly done the studying for it.
Joanie D.
Eric Stephens on 12 May 2008 at 6:05 am #
The church, through sound theological education like TPP, needs to take responsibility for educating her members. Good teaching that addresses phase 1 (doubt) would take care of the remaining four issues.
scott gray on 12 May 2008 at 6:21 am #
cmp–
i find that too many of these conversations, or ventings, or running monologues, like the one you describe above, take place over coffee. they are better served taking place side by side working the line at a soup kitchen. way, way too much church effort is about beliefs, and not about living a life of response to christ’s call and teachings. the gospel readings mean one thing when heard in an auditorium of 3000, or in a counselling session when someone has made the choice to leave. they mean something else entirely when shared with 5 or 6 working companions (believers or non-believers, it doesn’t matter) during a break at a habitat for humanity house raising.
my belief is about where this woman’s is. it is an ongoing struggle for me to keep plugged in to christianity at all, especially regarding the endless fussing about orthodoxies. rather, it is the gospel message of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving relief to prisoners, and rest to travelers that i find any connection at all. and not just hearing about it. rather my connection to christ is in being part of an active, ad extra christ-centered ministry.
the conversations over theological principles are icing on the cake, they are interesting, but moot, frankly. the cake is in the ministries where the rubber meets the road.
peace–
scott
Eric W on 12 May 2008 at 6:27 am #
Let me juxtapose a statement in this essay with another one:
CMP:
Dan Wallace:
I won’t presume to speak for Dr. Wallace, but in the combox to his post on the Evangelical Manifesto, he wrote this:
If I am understanding this correctly, he is saying that the spiritually-negative effects of a focus on head knowledge were an underestimated and probably largely-unvoiced problem in Evangelical Christendom.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 7:50 am #
I just returned from a retreat at my son’s Christian school and can readily see how these kinds of things happen. For the main foundational problem is not lack of answers: it’s lack of conversion in the first place. During the retreat, I was struck at the evident assumption of many that the kids are simply assumed to be Christians because they have had years of being in Christian surroundings.
In my small group, I brought up the subject of hell several times - primarily as the destination that we all deserve to go and would go except for God’s saving grace and Christ’s sacrifice. I got an almost total deer in the headlights look. I don’t think many of these students had ever really heard the gospel before.
If we really believe that hell is the deserved destination of all of us and the probably destination of many of our listeners, we need to get over our reticence on the subject. Perhaps there would be far fewer stories like this young lady’s.
scott gray on 12 May 2008 at 8:42 am #
gary–
your focus on hell, and the salvation from it, as your primary principle of christianity, has no resonance at all with a great many of the people cmp is talking about. it would, in my opinion, have no effect on your ‘perhaps there would be far fewer stories like this young lady’s’ conclusion.
while soteriology may be 87% of the ‘purpose’ of christianity for you, there are other principles that you share with people like me, and this young lady. jesus’ social justice teachings are a good place to start, in my opinion.
as i said, a discussion with you about soteriology is, for a person like cmp describes, moot. it makes for lively discussion while you are serving side by side in the soup line with others, though. or on a habitat for humanity building site. or on the drive to an active prison ministry.
peace–
scott
Leslie on 12 May 2008 at 8:54 am #
This is an excellent attempt by Michael in addressing the cardinal issue of handling doubts. And the Church, in a generic sense, has failed to help people with doubts. I remember the time when I came to Christ when I was 15 … I needed a lot of clarifications. But I found no one helpful. A certain ministry just offered to pray for me, as they were clearly ill-equiped to help me. A visiting preacher told me, in time my doubts would flee. Not until I ran into good books that I began to be confident in Christ. HOW TO GIVE AWAY YOUR FAITH by Paul Little, JESUS AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS by Ajith Fernando, A SHATTERED VISAGE by Ravi Zacharias, were the primers in my life. Later, books by Josh McDowell, Ramesh Richard, Darrell Bock, Daniel Wallace, were highly resoureful.
Michael, your ministry is one of the best in regards to helping folks in re-claiming intellectual integrity. I wish you write a book on the subject at hand.
Eric W on 12 May 2008 at 9:05 am #
CMP wrote:
I used to have several of these, including books/stories from Dan Barker and Robert M. Price.
One of the more interesting and challenging books was Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists by Edward T. Babinski. Unfortunately, I loaned my copy several years ago to a local apologist, and have not received it back. ;^D (He’s still a Christian as far as I know, though!)
What did you think of Leaving the Fold, assuming you’ve read it? (Not to be confused with Marlene Winnell’s book of the same title, which I also used to have; she, too, was once a fundamentalist, but education and maturity caused her to leave Christianity.)
Josh on 12 May 2008 at 9:08 am #
Enjoyed the post Michael,
Curious your opinion on something I have been chewing on for a while. In my study and experience with both believers and unbelievers I feel as if the Church (Christianity in general) has tried to go toe to toe with modernism since the Enlightenment, and in my opinion to its error and its degeneration.
Here is what I mean by going “toe to toe with modernism”: because of the skepticism that arose as a result of the reformation and the enlightenment many people sought something “concrete” (in the sense of the 5 human senses) to plant their feet upon. Currently, we have formulated this type of foundational thinking as “science”. We (largely Europe where Christianity was focused at the time) then begin to see, teach and live in a world in which this was the lens by which everything should be measured up against. Soon we have this belief that this empirical system is the only way by which we come to know truth, so we have many theological positions being “adjusted”, apologetics being formulated, and new beliefs been proposed in order to accommodate to this belief.
Now in our current situation we are almost “running scared” or appealing/bowing to modernism as the rule for truth and if we don’t have a good defense or can’t come up with a modernistic type answer we are portrayed as being ignorant or relying on blind faith. However, I do not think it should be this way, nor do I think traditionally Christianity has been this way. I think there are clearly degrees of certainty we can have about certain doctrines and there are “leaps of faith” insofar as we simply cannot know about a lot of things in Scripture (in a strictly empirical sense), but because people find comfort in that “concrete” foundational thinking of the enlightenment, apologists, theologians, Christian scholars etc put themselves in the modernistic boxing match (and in my opinion) get smashed because they are fighting with two hands tied behind their back because the modernists sets the rules of the match.
All of that to ask the question: Why is it that Christians are so uncomfortable with simply saying:
I don’t know? I don’t know how to fully explain the Trinity to you. I don’t know how to fully explain how God the Fathers wrath was placed upon Jesus Christ for the past, present, and future sins of the world. I don’t know how God can be all knowing and humans have free will. I don’t know why if God is all-knowning and all-good he created then permitted Adam and Eve to sin and bring evil into this world.
And then saying, BUT, I believe that these things are true, I believe that Jesus is the son of God and that the Bible is Gods Word. I believe that my sin will separate me from a just and holy God because a just and holy God will not permit anything in His presence that is not Holy and blameless.
I do not have all the answers for you and I certainly do not have all the answers in a scientific or empirical manner. I won’t lie to you there are something’s I don’t understand and seem down right contradictory in my belief system. I am confident that all truth is God’s Truth and you should not be afraid of seeking after the Truth in whatever path it leads you down.
But imitate me as I imitate Christ and watch Him live in me and I promise you that you will see a difference (or at least they should) from other people who do not have the belief that I have. Let my life be a witness to you and lets work together through some of these questions that are bugging you because my faith has been around for over 2000 years and you probably aren’t the first one to ask those questions.
I do not see how this would be “giving up” the Gospel or “backing sliding”, but perhaps I am missing something. Curious your thoughts.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Anna on 12 May 2008 at 9:13 am #
I agree completely with your analysis of the problem, but I’m not sure your solution is complete. I don’t think the “intellectual viability of the Evangelical faith” is what’s “foundational to everything else”. In my opinion, a firm grasp on who God is and who we are in Christ must be our foundation. I don’t know that we have to prove its intellectual viability, but we do have to live in it and share it.
At the core of the gospel is mystery, not reason. Enter into the mystery of the creator God who loved His creation so much that He died for it and sent His Spirit to live and walk with us as friend and guide and helper.
What people hunger and thirst for (whether they know it or not) is God, true communion with the creator of the universe. If we can help them find that, the rest can flow through (as you’ve suggested) discipling relationships and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. But how can we teach what we are not living?
I’m not sure if this is making sense, but I went through a dark time recently of doubt and apathy and the thing that I had to scrape down to was that God loves me, sings over me, died for me. No amount of intellectualism was going to get me where I needed to be, sitting at the Father’s feet and letting His love wash over me and listening to His Spirit testify with my spirit that I am His daughter.
Dale on 12 May 2008 at 9:15 am #
Looking back on it about 7 years ago I was probably somewhere between steps 3 and 4 and didn’t realize it. For me it had little to do with knowledge of theology or doctrines of faith. It was all about the unwillingness of the church to deal with the real issues that confounded me: the problem of evil, the reliability of the scriptures, the apparent conflicts between religion and science. Most of the leaders in my churches approached things from what I now consider to be an anti-intellectual position. We had no right to be confused by those things, being confused represented a lack of faith. Shoving more doctrine and theology at me didn’t help.
The credit for my remaining a Christian probably begins with Lee Stobel and his book “A Case For Christ.” That was the book that revealed an entire new way of thinking, not just about Christianity but about worldviews in general. I have since delved into history, philosophy, science and even theology more deeply and been able to analyze competing worldviews to see if those views are internally consistent. As I began to compare the internal consistency in theism vs the internal consistency of atheism my faith began to grow exponentially. For example, I still have questions about both but I no longer question the historicity of the Scriptures. I understand the issues related to textual criticism and the limits of what we can know. A vague sense that “I can’t trust the scriptures” has been replaced with “I understand where the various manuscripts conflict, why they do so and what core beliefs are valid regardless.”
There are worldviews and pressures coming against the believers that cannot necessarily be combat with more theology and more doctrine. On many occasions the apostles didn’t just tell people they needed to believe. They backed up what they were saying the the historical fact of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Those historical truths are being undermined by secularism and many in the church think that the way to combat this is to just yell it louder and more often as one raises his voice when trying to communicate with someone who speaks a foreign language.
Secularism is force feeding the conclusions of philosophies and ideologies that are based on axioms they don’t understand. I think the church needs to stop assuming that the laity can’t understand or doesn’t want to understand these issues. I’ve heard often that those preaching or teaching the word should never reference what the Greek says, reference the difference between manuscripts or criticize a version’s translation so as not to undermine the believers trust in their Bible. Personally, I think the average believer is sophisticated enough to understand the issues involved if they are explained well.
rick on 12 May 2008 at 9:16 am #
I appreciate how Dan Kimball does it at his church, with his attempts to balance the teaching and promotion of orthodoxy (including apologetics), with orthopraxy.
http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2007/10/dont-close-your.html
In addition, ministries such as the Youth Transition Network help remind us that this is not something that should be targeted just to adults. Students also need to be discipled in the elements of orthodoxy/orthopraxy.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 9:41 am #
Scott:
I don’t know how, not knowing me, you have the temerity to suggest that “soteriology may be 87% of the ‘purpose’ of christianity for” me. Do you know that I give a significant amount of time volunteering not only in church projects for the less blessed but also on my own in the community? Do you know that I have invested the past 4 years of my life (as well as a considerable amount of money) becoming fluent in Spanish for the sole purpose of helping Spanish speakers in our community and that I volunteer every other week to translate for them? That I play music in a nursing home every week?
I am not saying that orthopraxy is not a good thing. In fact, I regularly encourage my son and other kids in both words and deeds that it IS a good thing. What I am saying is that a large percent of the “converted” actually are no such thing; and the easy believist “gospel” being taught in many churches and Christian schools today is largely to blame.
In fact, my main point to those kids was about the reason we go out and do good things. All they told them is that we help others because it makes us happy, because we grow spiritually through it. In other words, it’s all about me, me, me. What I told them is that we go out and do good things for one main reason: that we are thankful that God saved us from the hell we most richly deserve. And I still submit that is a message that people including the young lady have heard rarely, if ever, and THAT’S the message that converts people’s hearts.
Eric W on 12 May 2008 at 9:45 am #
Gary wrote:
What about the Sermon on the Mount? I.e., we do these things, not because it’s our response from being saved from hell, but because it expresses God’s love and causes people to glorify Him.
What about Paul’s statement in Ephesians that we do these things because God prepared these good works beforehand so we, having been saved, should walk in them?
What about James’s statement that doing these things is what true religion consists of? I.e., we do them, not because we’re thankful to be saved from hell, but because this is what God’s people do, because God loves people - and hence we, too, should act like His children, who should imitate their Father.
What about the neglected (in the West) but from-the-beginning Christian teaching about theosis and deification (read Jaroslav Pelikan The Christian Tradition Vol. 1 & 2) that the goal of our salvation involves recovering man’s purpose and state by growing into Him in all respects, and that our doing these good works is part of this process?
If the main emphasis of the Gospel is not necessarily salvation from hell and everlasting gratefulness thereafter, then focusing on that may be missing God’s mark. After all, Jesus and John the Baptist came preaching, “The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the Good News!” not, “Believe in Me or you’ll go to hell as you deserve!” (though that may be a corollary fact).
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 9:49 am #
Eric: Ah, but you are merely begging the question. Why should I care whether these things express God’s love? Why should I care whether God is glorified? The answer: I care about these things because God has saved me from the wrath I richly deserve.
This is like the atheist who told me that the reason we shouldn’t kill is not because God said so, or because people have worth because they are loved by God, but that you can’t have a civilization otherwise. My question to him was: if I don’t believe in God’s word and that He created people with value, why should I care whether we have a civilization?
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 9:57 am #
Followup to Eric: Besides, you are suggesting that these are reasons we can pick and choose from. I do it because I’m thankful that I was saved from hell; you do it because you want to glorify God, etc.
That’s a red herring. They are all one. If I decide that I want to glorify God for my own selfish reasons but I have not been saved from my deserved fate in hell, I am not (to quote the Sermon myself) storing treasures in heaven.
And since they are all one, I am rushing to the bit that from everything I have seen is the MOST NEGLECTED in today’s churches. The world is louse-y with churches that tell people to go out and do things for duty and humanity. But those who preach the reality of sin and hell? Not so much.
One of the things presented to the kids at the retreat was a clip from the movie “Saved.” The leader was presenting those kids in the movie as being Christians who don’t act like Christians some of the time; I think it obvious that most of them are non-Christians who act like Christians some of the time. The difference seems to me a fairly obvious one, but one that is not brought up often today.
Anna on 12 May 2008 at 9:59 am #
Gary,
I suggest the deeper truth is that I care because I know who I am without God and who I am in Christ and I’m growing in the knowledge of who this God is who has freely and lovingly provided a way for me to be with Him. Maybe the focus isn’t so much what He’s saved me from (though I don’t deny the wrath I deserve) but what by grace He’s saved me to - life and fellowship with Him.
Eric W on 12 May 2008 at 10:02 am #
Gary: I edited/revised my comments a bit while you were responding.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 10:03 am #
Anna, don’t misunderstand me. I am not a monomaniacal hell and brimstone screamer. I am not a “bullhorn guy,” though I wish I had the guts to go as far out on a limb as bullhorn guys do for the cause of Christ; Rob Bell knows not whereof he speaks. What I am saying is that you need a full understanding of the bad news before you can understand the good news, and that is not being preached in many Christian schools and churches today. I have listened to a number of these cool, “edgy” seeker-sensitive sermons on the Internet, and there was lots about helping people, and VIRTUALLY NOTHING about sin.
Now, once you understand the bad news, there are lots of good reasons to go on and live out your salvation. I do not deny any of them. I am simply saying that you need to not put the cart before the horse.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 10:09 am #
Eric: I appreciate all you are saying, but I cannot agree with you. After all, the first imperative in your quote is “repent and believe” which makes absolutely no sense until you know what you are repenting of, and why. Now, once you do that, then there are many, many good reasons to go on and work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
Again, I do not deny any of that. Just saying that here (as well as other places of the Jesus, Baptist, etc.) first things must come first. If I don’t understand sin and hell, I cannot repent, and if I do not repent, all the good things I do (supposedly) for Christ are all just filthy rags.
I have to run now - if I don’t answer for awhile I’m not ignoring anybody. Blessings to all.
Anna on 12 May 2008 at 10:11 am #
Gary,
I think I hear what your saying, but submit to you that the “horse” is not who we are apart from Christ, but who God is, was, and always will be.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 10:14 am #
Anna: Yes, naturally God comes first in the sense of “primary,” and a true understanding of God is necessary. I agree with that. But, again, I would submit that a true understanding of Who God is, is not possible without a true understanding of who we are.
In fact, it’s not “first” in the sense of “preceding,” as if it was a step-1-then-2 thing: they come together. If we truly understand Who God is, we understand our position; if we truly understand our position, we understand Who God is. And neither of them is possible without God’s regenerating work in my heart. Otherwise, I am (as the Bible tells us) a slave to sin, dead in my sins and trespasses.
Anna on 12 May 2008 at 10:17 am #
Gary,
Exactly. It can be damaging to preach hell without an equal emphasis on Love.
Richard on 12 May 2008 at 11:02 am #
I, like Gary, believe the problem lies with discernment . . . discerning who is and who is not a Christian.
Jesus told a parable about four soils into which the Gospel was sown. Three did not produce fruit; and, in two of those three, the initial growth, with time, eventually lead to death of the Word. True conversion will always lead to growth albeit sometimes this growth is very, very slow. And, sometimes we become prodigals in order that we may come back into our right mind.
When we drive people away with true Christian discipleship and solid theology are we are forcing them to come to the true conviction of whether or not they are in Christ Jesus?
Our connection with God should rest on whether we love God with all our heart and soul and mind and on whether we love everyone else with that same love.
C Michael Patton on 12 May 2008 at 12:03 pm #
Folks, my point is that the problem is intellectual, not social. People have serious questions that are not even being entertained, but less answered. This illegitimacies our faith—and it should! If we cannot sufficiently answer such questions as “How do you know what books belong in the Bible?” or “How can a good God allow such horrible evil?” do you expect people to continue to float with us?
The intellectual component of Christianity is not the end, but it is absolutely foundational.
Jonathan Smith on 12 May 2008 at 12:15 pm #
Well said, sir. I would agree that intellectual pursuit of Truth has been marginalized. Perhaps we need some quiet piano music to help us focus on discipleship :P. Largely missing also is an openness to frank conversation and acceptance of questions and doubt. I have often fantasized about being able to give feed back and ask questons of my pastor like I do on a blog.
Eric W on 12 May 2008 at 12:16 pm #
If we cannot sufficiently answer such questions as “How do you know what books belong in the Bible?” or “How can a good God allow such horrible evil?” do you expect people to continue to float with us?
Can anyone sufficiently answer these questions? Going into the history of the formation of the canon is bound to raise some even more perplexing and unanswerable questions, and I don’t know how one can get into theodicy without raising the questions about grace and free will over which the church has divided and argued for millennia.
Or maybe you do have sufficient answers for these questions. Please point me to a blog or essay that will convince a non- and/or lapsed believer concerning these things in an impregnable way. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I probably wouldn’t consider finding sufficient answers for these two questions to be a necessary condition for people to continue to float with Evangelicals.
I’m not discounting the need for an intellectual component in Christianity, but per my previous comments and others’ comments, I’m not sure it’s the foundational component for bringing people to or back to the faith. On the other hand, if Christianity doesn’t or can’t be made to make sense, then one can’t expect people to believe or believe again, can we?
rick on 12 May 2008 at 12:20 pm #
I have found bethinking.org a helpful ministry that, with resources from scholars such as Dr. Alister McGrath, is helping bridge that gap. We need to equip people with these available tools.
http://www.bethinking.org/
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 12:28 pm #
About the apologetic aspect: it is something that is very, very important. I totally agree with that. It’s why I study apologetics, and why I encourage my son to study it as well.
But I’m with Eric on the fact that there may not be answers. In fact, I’d go farther than he (on this occasion at least) said. I believe that NO answer will be sufficient without the work of God on that person’s heart. There will always be questions coming up that no amount of logic or evidence will answer.
I put it this way to my kids: it’s perfectly ok and good to have questions, and to ask them. (If we are asked, we should always try to have an answer, of course.) Where you cross the line from legitimate to illegitimate is when somebody gives you a reasonable - not necessarily water-tight - answer, and you don’t accept it. Then you’ve gone from questioning to rebellion. Job had a lot of questions - but one word from God Himself shut his mouth.
I wrote a blog entry awhile back on my blog about this subject, apologetics vs. conversion that might interest some people:
http://cajoneador.blogspot.com/2007/08/problem-in-seeker-sensitive-churches.html
Apologetics is good. But it’s not the Gospel. We should do it; but I still maintain that without the Gospel and saving work of God in peoples’ hearts, no apologetics are sufficient.
C Michael Patton on 12 May 2008 at 12:32 pm #
Eric, let me be frank. Can you answer this question sufficiently? How do we know what books belong in the Bible?
If not, what would make your testimony about the Christ of the Scripture a better option than any other worldview option? A burning in the bosom?
If I were one being evangelized, I would simply see your faith as naive and go on my way, no matter how many social justice issues you were involved in, for there are a lot of people, Christian and non-Christian, who are involved in such issues.
How would you respond to such? What makes one’s profession compelling if one cannot even answer questions about that which gives a foundation to their faith?
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 12:36 pm #
I just submitted a comment that has apparently been lost in the ether … but the gist was that I agree that apologetics is important, but it is no substitute for the Gospel. Frankly, there ARE no answers that will satisfy the querulous and unconverted heart. I always tell my kids it’s perfectly fine to have and ask questions (and naturally I try to answer them the best I can); the problem comes when you get reasonable answers and don’t accept them. Job had questions; one word from God Himself and he shut up.
Here’s a blog entry I wrote about apologetics vs. the Gospel that might interest some people:
http://cajoneador.blogspot.com/2007/08/problem-in-seeker-sensitive-churches.html
Apologetics is good. We should all learn to defend our faith the best we can; but it’s not the Gospel. The Gospel can stand without apologetics; but apologetics will never stand without the Gospel.
Josh on 12 May 2008 at 12:38 pm #
Michael,
I don’t think you can get to those “answers” in the sense that people want them (i.e. in a definitive sense.) You simply cannot do very much (even though many people have tried) with the problem of evil and the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God.
Ultimately the answer you get to this question is: “I am choosing to believe that God will work it out in the end.” Now you can support this with things such as: “God has and will use evil for good” (which I agree with), but logically speaking the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God and the existence of evil does not make sense anyway you twist it even if you throw in the free will card.
I’m not saying that this completely negates the entire system, I’m saying approaching in such a way that there is a definitive answer seems like intellectual suicide because we can’t answer those type of questions in the same way we can answer questions relating to the natural world.
All of that to say, (I think at least), I agree with you as long as you are promoting looking at both sides of the spectrum (which I believe you do very well) rather than simply just taking the “easy answer” once you come up against some type of doubt or problem in your system, which I see the majority of believers do. For example, lets look at the German criticism of the historicity of the Canon and its authorship. Lets see if their reasoning makes more sense than Protestant or Catholic scholarship. This seems to be the most honest way to do it if we want to be intellectual. Yet A LOT of stuff is left in uncertainty and other stuff is simply rejected on the basis of their mode of inquiry (lets work with the texts we have, not so called “tradition”). And we know how Germany has ended up spiritually as a result of their intellectual method of inquiry.
Wow I guess I’m really rambling here
, and I know you aren’t saying that this should be a purely intellectual inquiry (it should be foundational as you have said), but I guess my question is:
To what extent do you want it to be intellectual and what extent is it faith based? Because it clearly is both and I’m curious where you draw the line at.
-Josh
Kaffinator on 12 May 2008 at 12:41 pm #
Not to minimize the problem raised by this post, but why must we believe that disaffected teens are an invention of our own generation?
I’m led to believe that if someone doesn’t experience some spiritual turbulence as they transition from childhood to adulthood, they’re the exception rather than the rule.
The necessary prescription, if there must be one, is for us to know our faith and live it authentically. Michael, I’m all for more theological education in our churches (in balance of course) but I’m not convinced it is going to bring someone on steps 3-5 back into the faith. Her issues sounded like they had to do with emotion and maturity, not intellectual objections. Am I wrong?
C Michael Patton on 12 May 2008 at 12:48 pm #
Josh, I don’t think we necessarily need to separate the intellectual vs. faith based. They are vitally connected.
You also know me well enough to know that I don’t think that every question has a definitive answer. I think the more understanding (intellectual) we have, the more we will be able to say this with confidence. But this ads to the intellectual credibility of our testimony when we are able to admit as such. It shows that we have really wrestled with the issues.
Intellectual stability does not come with simple right answers, but having wrestled with the options and being able to speak to a subject with intellectual honesty.
C Michael Patton on 12 May 2008 at 12:57 pm #
Kaff, I don’t know if you are wrong. I don’t know the heart of the individual I spoke to.
However, having been in ministry for over a decade I see that this crisis is very real. I have encountered thousands of people who have been in the church for years say “Why haven’t I heard this before” to basic questions of the faith.
It is not that I am trying to make people into Calvinists, inerrantists, or premillenialists, I want people to be thinkers who don’t feel ashamed for the questions and doubts they have. The church should be thinking through these issues, even if they don’t have the answer to all of them.
God went to great lengths to reveal himself in history and history is a medium that we must engage in to make our faith viable in the marketplace of ideas. If we do not, we are simply continuing in the error of the fundamentalists, creating a Christian sub-culture that does not ask such questions. If this continues to be the case, then we should expect more leavers, and we should not complain about the bed we have made.
Again, intellect, theology, apologetics, critical thinking is not the end of our faith, but it does form the foundation. Christianity is first about belief. Belief has content, assent, and trust. If we neglect the assent, the trust may be only a veneer.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 12 May 2008 at 1:02 pm #
Leaving Christ(ianity) - A Christian Epidemic
Dear CMP,
If I recall correctly, you are a 5-Point Calvinist. “P” is the Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.
Then by your theological beliefs, if someone is “leaving Christ”, then they weren’t even genuine and true disciples of Christ in the first place. It’s nonsensical, by a Calvinist framework, to talk about de-conversion. After all, they were never “converted” in the first place.
Josh on 12 May 2008 at 1:02 pm #
Michael,
Thanks for the response. So simply put then, you would say that Christianity makes more sense than the other religions from an intellectual position (assuming Western philosophy and logic of course) and therefore one should rest their faith in Christ as a result of reviewing the rest of the options and finding them “more wanting” than Christianity.
If I understood you correctly, ultimately what you are arguing for in this post is to encourage Christians to answer the big questions which should always be wrestled with:
Why does Christianity make more sense that the other belief systems and why have I placed my faith in it as oppose to another belief system?
I agree with this, (and I hate to say it) but I don’t think most religious people (whether Christian or non-Christian) are religious for the sake of the intellectual aspects of it, rather the emotional feelings and social aspects of it. So in your opinion, what do you think should be done (if anything) with people who simply don’t care about the intellectual aspect of their Christian faith?
-Josh
Wayne Leman on 12 May 2008 at 1:04 pm #
Thanks for blogging on this sad topic. I’ve been there with the doubts (while graduating from one of the premier Bible school in the U.S.). It took awhile to resolve my theological doubts.
Since then I have come to realize that what many people have not seen is enough of the life of Jesus radiating from us Christians. If we did not shoot each other within the church so much, if we preached and testified more to how the Gospel has touched painful parts of our lives, I suspect there would be less of a departure of people who used to believe. It is easy to leave something which has never really affected our entire being. It is easy to leave something which is largely theological for us. I believe strongly in the integration of mind and heart. But if treat each other in the Body and the environment and the poor as if we lacked the heart of Jesus, then we can understand some of the departures.
I’m glad for the Evangelical Manifesto which can help us get back on track, at least until we turn it into largely a cognitive thing, as well. I’ve always been thankful for profs like Howie Hendricks who have heart along with solid theological teaching.
Eric W on 12 May 2008 at 1:05 pm #
CMP wrote:
I used to be able to answer that question with no problem. Having read/studied McDonald’s The Biblical Canon, McDonald’s & Sanders’s The Canon Debate, Hengel and others on the so-called “Septuagint,” and observed the New Testament authors’ use of the Old Testament and other sources, I’m not so sure anymore. The edges/parameters are kind of fuzzy. This is probably a topic for another thread.
FWIW, as I understand things, our nation’s founding fathers were schooled in Latin and Greek, and perhaps Hebrew as well (I read that Benjamin Franklin wanted Hebrew to be our national language, though that might be a myth), as well as Greek philosophy, the “father” (if you will) of Christian apologetics. They lived before higher and other criticism assailed the text and/or historicity of Scripture. Yet not a few of them were at best Deists.
C Michael Patton on 12 May 2008 at 1:08 pm #
Truth, nevertheless, it is still a problem. I don’t shake it off in satisfaction with my belief in perseverance of the Saints. We must engage these issues very seriously.
Just because I think people are unconditionally elected does not mean I don’t think we should evangelize. It is the same with this case. We live in the tension of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Both of which are very real.
Samson on 12 May 2008 at 1:09 pm #
Michael,
I agree totally with this blog. Christ said the greatest commandment
was to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. The second is
to love your neighbor as yourself. In other words orthodoxy before
orthopraxy. How can we even start to do the right thing if we first
don’t know where the right thing comes from?
I’m getting tired of all the social gospel Dutch Boys trying to temporarily
plug the holes in the dike of Christianity while kicking those of us
working hard to fix the foundation.
just my 2 cents.
C Michael Patton on 12 May 2008 at 1:12 pm #
Eric, so do you believe in any of the books of the New Testament? Do you believe any of them are inspired? If so why? Do you take a blind leap of faith, hoping that the flipped coin lands in your favor? Or do you rely on an emotional conviction that can be shared by anyone of any religion?
You don’t have to answer this, but I am simply trying to make a point.
Eric W on 12 May 2008 at 1:15 pm #
Eric, so do you believe in any of the books of the New Testament? Do you believe any of them are inspired? If so why? Do you take a blind leap of faith, hoping that the flipped coin lands in your favor? Or do you rely on an emotional conviction that can be shared by anyone of any religion?
You don’t have to answer this, but I am simply trying to make a point.
It’s a good point. We can discuss it over coffee in Dallas some weekend you’re in town. (Oklahoma is not at present a scheduled trip for me.)
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 1:16 pm #
Truth - I also hold to the five points of monergism/Calvinism. You are totally right that “It’s nonsensical, by a Calvinist framework, to talk about de-conversion.” I’d amend that to say “by a Biblical framework”, but you’re right. It seems to me that there are two possibilities:
1. The person was never truly converted in the first place, as you said. This is the one most often brought up. However, I think there’s a second one.
2. God sees that those who come to true saving faith will never fall away permanently. However, in thinking about our walk with Christ, it is supposed to be evidenced by increasing holiness and faith. Yet, if I was God, I would have given everybody perfect understanding, faith, and holiness immediately. Wouldn’t that be a great witness to the world!
Well, maybe. Thankfully, I am not God; clearly, for whatever reason, God has chosen to allow it to be a gradual process. Given that, who knows that the person will not temporarily fall down below where they were originally, only to be brought back later in life? All we know is that once a person is regenerated by God’s Spirit, they will not ultimately be lost; it does not mean they will not go through periods of lack of faith and holiness. (Good thing, otherwise we’d all be lost!)
So, either way we cannot judge that person’s heart. We can neither say (a) they were definitely saved before nor (b) they are definitely not saved now. It’s a work of God either way, and it seems either of the two might be true about that “backslider.” We’ll just have to wait for God to sort it out in the end.
Meanwhile, technically you are right that we should not use terms like “de-conversion” and “de-conversion.” We should probably be more careful on that account. But as long as we know what we mean by them, is there really a major problem?
Dale on 12 May 2008 at 1:22 pm #
I have to agree with CMP here. The original post is about the intellectual veracity of Christianity and the comments go off toward everything but. This was the exact problem I had with the church for years. And to the shame of the church I had to go outside of it to get these questions answered. The joy I had when I found Christians who though critically about their beliefs cannot be expressed here. It reminds me of the innumerable occasions when on a message board those who have legitimate questions about faith are overwhelmed in the waves of theological pedantry between Christians. The lost person wants to know why they can believe the Bible and the Christians veer off into a discussion between themselves about supralapsarianism or something equally unimportant to the lost person.
How can we know it is true? We can’t. But we can, on comparative analysis, come to the realization that theism is just as rationally and intellectually founded as atheism (more so in my opinion.) When compared side by side with any materialistic belief Christianity is, in my opinion, more philosophically viable, historically, viable and metaphysically viable. We cannot know 100% for sure but when the questions aren’t even asked by those who care then the opponent is the one who provides the answers. There are very good responses to the major issues raised by those who are struggling in their faith and the church isn’t providing them.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 1:26 pm #
Dale: It seems to me that you are fighting a somewhat imaginary opponent. First, this is not a group of unbelievers with whom we are arguing about supralapsarianism; this is a discussion between Christians on important issues. Second, please point me to a comment that says intellectual defense of the faith is not important. I have not seen such and certainly have not implied this myself.
All I am saying (repeatedly by now, sorry about that) is that intellectual engagement is important, but ultimately it cannot convert anybody. Only God’s Spirit can do that. And, I stand by my comment that the true Gospel can stand without apologetics, but apologetics cannot stand without the Gospel, at least if we’re more interested in the state of people’s souls than we are in winning arguments. I assume we are all in agreement that the former is more important.
Sarah on 12 May 2008 at 1:51 pm #
Thank you for this.
I recently went through a real faith crisis and was entering in the apathy stage. My faith had never been rocked like it was, and it seemed so random. I became a Christian in college (I’m now five years out, married with kiddos and driving a cheese wagon, go figure!) but I always believed in God. I didn’t want to fake being a Christian or just have a closed eyes kind of faith, but I wasn’t satisfied with the answers I wasn’t getting. I hate the whole “scripture is silent” on fill-in-the-blank issues, even though I’ve now resigned myself to the fact that scripture is silent on things (grrr…) I’m digressing…
Point is, I made the decision to have an eyes wide open faith (along with heart and mind) and just trust that God is real, and He is the God of the bible (my struggle wasn’t so much not believing in God - I see His imprints everywhere - it was more about believing in a loving God even though He doesn’t stop wickedness, God of the bible). I’m still hesitant, like someone is tricking me and I’m a fool for believing, but I know He’s there, because if He isn’t than I’m not - He’s my lifeblood. I need Him.
So, thank you for writing this article. I needed to read it and be encouraged that I’m not some false convert. I also passed it along to my pastor.
Dale on 12 May 2008 at 2:04 pm #
I don’t think the opponent is imaginary. I think it is like the elephant standing in the corner that is being ignored. CMP said this
Folks, my point is that the problem is intellectual, not social. People have serious questions that are not even being entertained, but less answered. This illegitimacies our faith—and it should! If we cannot sufficiently answer such questions as “How do you know what books belong in the Bible?” or “How can a good God allow such horrible evil?” do you expect people to continue to float with us?
The intellectual component of Christianity is not the end, but it is absolutely foundational.
and the conversation appears to me to go in a direction completely unrelated to it. Perhaps I just don’t understand how many of the posts fit into this category. The point I am making I suppose is that apologetics is part of the gospel. The gospel is founded on the real fact that Christ was crucified and died for our sins and rose on the third day. The veracity of the resurrection of Christ is vital for the gospel and those things which undermine its believability must be addressed. Perhaps I just missed the point of the main post. I guess this is important to me because if it weren’t for discovering the intellectual side of the gospel then I would be one of these people being talked about here. And it is what I see in this thread that “drove” me away. I needed answers and I got everything but. But then again, perhaps I’m just missing the point of the original post.
C Michael Patton on 12 May 2008 at 2:11 pm #
Dale, your testimony is why this post was written. I think you have understood this perfectly.
Suzanne on 12 May 2008 at 2:15 pm #
Why do people leave church? It’s complicated, to be sure. I have to think some of it has to do with the shift of focus that I’ve seen since I was a child (I’m in my 50’s). Back then, you went to church because that’s just what you did. Was it fun? Exciting? Relevant? No one really worried about that. You attended church because it was a necessary part of life, because God had told you it was a place to meet Him. Now, things seem to have shifted to a “what’s in it for me?” mentality. I’ve known a number of people who have gone on mission trips, and invariably their discussion on returning centers on how much they got out of it (never mind that the amount of money spent to send people overseas or other far reaches would feed a third world family for a year!). People want a service or a program that gives them something as though simply knowing Christ is not nearly enough. (Sorry, I fear I’m not explaining myself well!) Our churches have become media outlets and the pastors celebrities, enticing people in with the promise of a fine life through a great program. At some point, though, truth creeps in, life doesn’t live up to the promises, and people leave, disheartened. Some never come back….
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 2:15 pm #
Dale, although I would say that the primary problem is neither intellectual NOR social (it’s the unconverted heart, and I do not consider that basic truth to be theological minutiae), I nevertheless agree that apologetics is very important. We should ALWAYS be ready to give an answer to those who ask honest questions. I totally agree on that. There is no place for answers like “how dare you ask that kind of question,” and those who actually give such answers - how many there are, I could not say, since I’ve never met one personally - should never answer that way.
Sometimes, there is a place for “I don’t know”, but those times (a) should be relatively few and (b) should be followed up by “let me try and find out and get back to you.”
Sarah, I’m sorry you went through that. I am glad to hear that a fuller knowledge that our faith is based on history and reason helped you. I could not answer the question as to whether you were truly converted before your crisis or not - only God can - but does it really matter? In case anybody thinks this is all theoretical on my part, that could not be further from the truth. I look back on my Christian childhood and teenagerhood (pre-atheist, pre-Buddhist, pre-Christian); was I a true believer who went through a temporary lapse of faith or a never-believer who finally came to saving faith later in life? I don’t know and, frankly, I don’t care. All I know is I’m in Christ now, and thankful that you are as well.
Anna on 12 May 2008 at 2:16 pm #
Gary: I think you said it so well. The gospel can stand w/out apologetics, but the reverse is not true. That is why I say in my original comment that “intellectual viability of the Christian faith” can not be our foundation. The heart of the gospel is mystery, not reason.
I do think that one of the reasons that we are so divided on this point is the way God has created and gifted each one of us uniquely. The one whom God has given the gift of teaching will prize apologetics and the one who God has given the gift of mercy will prize the doctrines of grace and mercy.
Don’t mistake me, I do think doctine and orthodoxy are very important and foundational - I just don’t think they are THE foundation on which everything else is built, which is what was stated in the original post.
Anna on 12 May 2008 at 2:18 pm #
In fact, I believe true, sacrificial love of those within and without the church would do more to “convince” the doubter than any attempts at reasoned arguments.
Mark Hunsaker on 12 May 2008 at 2:53 pm #
Michael, you said: “The solution: to reform our educational program in the church.”
When I read your words I got goose bumps. I’ve been systematically convinced this is true and the evidence is (as you rightfully pointed out) compelling.
Our Father is very much aware of this and has placed this passion in your heart and the hearts of others. I’m a career educator who has been pulled (quite joltingly) out of my career and am being placed into ministry with this very purpose.
Praise God for His Kingdom and His plan to redeem those who are a part of this epidemic.
scott gray on 12 May 2008 at 3:29 pm #
gary–
i’m delighted you are involved with so many good jesus-oriented ministries. i wish i were working with you side by side, and having this conversation as collaborators in what jesus calls us to do. the entire conversation would be less adversarial. this is one of the problems of blogging; it misses much of the ‘communication’ people do in working side by side. which just reinforces my earlier points.
your statement earlier was :’in my small group, i brought up the subject of hell several times - primarily as the destination that we all deserve to go and would go except for god’s saving grace and christ’s sacrifice.’ there’s lots of things you could have brought up. but this is the one you chose first, or perhaps only. in a later post, you said you ascribed to the five points of calcinism, which are primarily about soteriology. you asked how i have the temerity to ascribe 87% of your christian paradigm to soteriology; well, evidence, i guess, from your very own words.
let me also say that, as a dissillusionment/apathy/departure participant, that statements like this:
“i put it this way to my kids: it’s perfectly ok and good to have questions, and to ask them. (if we are asked, we should always try to have an answer, of course.) where you cross the line from legitimate to illegitimate is when somebody gives you a reasonable - not necessarily water-tight - answer, and you don’t accept it. then you’ve gone from questioning to rebellion. job had a lot of questions - but one word from god himself shut his mouth.”
are condescending. i may be on the transition process, but i’m definitely not one of your kids. your question/response expectations here are not appropriate for two adults talking together.
cmp–
let me respond as an intellectual questioner.
without rehashing too many details, there are too many pieces of the various christian belief paradigms that just don’t hold together when reason is applied. faith comes into play, but the unwillingness of ‘believers’ to engage openly about theodicy issues, injustices in scripture that god perpetrates, and inerrency and infallability issues regarding scripture are part of the reason people walk. (one of the big reasons i love your site here is because you do engage so readily on these and other issues.)
each christian paradigm makes so many sole-truth claims, no two of which can accept belief systems outside their own, that for an intellectual, the entire paradigm you call truth becomes first a variation, then a model, then a construct.
the faith answers to my intellectual questions are not adequate for me to sustain my belief.
this is why i say, for myself, as an intellectual who now finds just too, too much of the christian paradigms presented as contrived constructs, that my connection to christ has to be something other than these belief systems.
that’s why i look for social justice common ground, primarily.
peace–
scott
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 3:52 pm #
Scott: You’re certainly right that there’s lots of things I could have brought up in the group. In fact, I did bring up many things, and interacted with the kids on many things. As Christians I think we are sort of generalists, having to play left field one moment and catcher the next. I mentioned that one thing here because I believed - and still do - that it is a largely un-dealt-with problem in much of Christianity today. Go into a typical church and you can find preaching on just about any subject under the sun nowadays - with the notable exception of sin and hell. The Rev. Mr. Osteen may prefer to personally “focus on the positive,” but there’s a lot out there not much better.
As for speaking to you like I am speaking to my kids, that was not at all my intention. I am truly sorry you took it that way. All I can say is (a) I was truly not thinking of you when I said that, (b) sometimes I tend to “pontificate” (so says my wife, and she’s right as always), and (c) the online environment definitely leads to misunderstandings. My sincere apologies for that.
Does this mean I can give satisfactory answers to your questions? No. I can try; However, much better is somebody who can talk to you directly. As you say, much is lost in translation.
What are some specific issues that you have? I think most of us have “applied reason” at some point in our Christian lives, so I know it does not necessarily cause faith to fall apart. In fact, the application of reason is at least in part what led me from atheism through Buddhism to Christianity in the first place.
Feel free to contact me directly if you wish at my first initial + b i s a g a at y a h o o dot c o m. I always find direct emails a lot more conducive to discussion.
Blessings.
scott gray on 12 May 2008 at 4:07 pm #
gary–
thanks for your kind and gentle response.
peace–
scott
Truth Unites... and Divides on 12 May 2008 at 4:21 pm #
Gary (aka Fool4Jesus): I agree with your post in #47.
CMP in #43: Of course all Christians should evangelize. And perhaps a priority should be to start within the Church simultaneously along to those outside the Church.
It’s why I have a deep concern over mainline liberal churches and Emerging Churches and some Seeker-Sensitive churches, and even Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches! A gospel of easy believism and cheap grace will generate higher rates and numbers of false converts. Besides the obvious eternal damage being done to false converts themselves, another consequence is that false converts by professing and proclaiming themselves to be “Christians” will oftentimes (and hopefully unintentionally) publically damage the corporate witness of the Gospel. Unbelievers will yell “hypocrite” at a false convert professing to be a Christian. Of course, genuine believers have, are, and will continue to blemish the Bride of Christ too, but we don’t need any additional “help” from false converts either!
Someone above said that there needs to be a distinction made between believers and unbelievers in the Church. That means discernment and judgement. If I’m not mistaken, I think both John MacArthur and Iain Murray both made that same observation. I.e., one of the mistakes that the Evangelical Church has made is not delineating between true converts and false converts (not enough fruit inspection).
CMP: “Again, intellect, theology, apologetics, critical thinking is not the end of our faith, but it does form the foundation. Christianity is first about belief.“
I have to chuckle a little. You have declared sympathies with the (heretical) postmodern emerging church.
And oftentimes the postmodern emerging church has “epistemic humility” about the various doctrinal beliefs of Christianity because of its embrace and adoption of postmodern epistemology.
Anyways, if you can have your cake and eat it too, then go for it! God bless you.
Lastly, I’m in agreement with those commenters who say that it’s a matter of the Holy Spirit who regenerates. While I agree that many folks claim that it’s a matter of the intellect, I have also seen on numerous occasions where those arguments and objections set up for unbelief in God are irenically handled and addressed, yet persistent unbelief occurs. So I really think it’s a matter of hardness of heart and a prideful will which refuses to yield to the Holy Spirit which is the true cause. And that more times than not, issues of intellect are a smokescreen.
scott gray on 12 May 2008 at 4:26 pm #
actually, to an intellectual reasoner, issues of ‘holy spirit who regenerates,’ ‘hardness of heart,’ and ‘prideful will’ are, more times than not, smokescreens.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 12 May 2008 at 5:07 pm #
“actually, to an intellectual reasoner, issues of ‘holy spirit who regenerates,’ ‘hardness of heart,’ and ‘prideful will’ are, more times than not, smokescreens.”
Shrug. All three of these issues are biblically based. Most likely, the Bible Itself, the Holy Inspired Word of God, will also be seen as a smokescreen too by the “intellectual” reasoner.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 5:16 pm #
Scott - I can easily see these being stumbling stones to many. Honestly, as a believer who fully believes in plenary inspiration, the 5 solas, the 5 points, etc, sometimes emotionally I want to take some credit for my own salvation. Surely there is something good I’ve done to be worthy!
Realizing the Holy Spirit is the one who did it all in my life is a bit difficult to swallow emotionally, but I accept it because I believe (based on reason, faith, and personal experience) the Bible to be true when it says that I was dead in my sins and trespasses. Reason forces me to accept it.
Would you consider this your major intellectual issue with Christianity? This is a sincere question.
Dennis Elenburg on 12 May 2008 at 5:39 pm #
Michael,
Keep up the good work reclaiming those minds! I’m one of the reclaimed. I left the church when I was not given sufficient intellectual reasons to believe. I was won back by reading Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis on my own. My local church did a lousy job of answering my questions, and I studied physics in college which blew away any shred of faith left by the time I graduated.
I get really pissed off at the feminized, post-modern American church. We’ve lost our focus on truth in exchange for feel good fuzzies and seeker-sensitive content vacuous messages.
I appreciate your ministry, but still find it very disturbing that parachurch resources like yours are even necessary. Why can’t the local church create intellectually sound disciples? Ministry to the lowest common denominator is causing a brain drain in the church for sure.
Preston G. Scrape on 12 May 2008 at 6:01 pm #
Had the Christians not had adequate answers to my pressing questions, I would not have become a Christian. To this self-styled intellectual atheist, the evangelism of “You just have to believe! You don’t want to go to Hell, do you?” was the second most moronic thing ever to come out of a man’s mouth. (The first was, of course, “All truth is relative”.)
So, yes, I agree with this post and the general bent of the comments.
(Strict Calvinism has been much more difficult for me to swallow, but surely I’m not a heretic for that. I’m just too attached to LFW!)
Lisa R on 12 May 2008 at 6:12 pm #
I have not read through all the comments but I would say that the biggest hurdle to this problem is false notion that intellectualism is anti-spiritual.
I heard a pastor say in a rather disparaging way, that studying theology is just about getting information. Well yes, it is and its information that we need. With any other thing or relationship in life, our appreciate grows for it the more information we have. God has informed us of who He is and what this life is about. We cannot understand that without investigation of the information.
The problem, IMHO, is that we’ve built this false dichotomy of spiritual soundness that says we have to “know” God but we don’t take the steps to “know” God. This does nothing at all to address the real questions that real people have about this faith. It starts with information but it certainly doesn’t end there. Because the information should lead us to an increasingly love and devotion for the One who called us out of darkness into light.
scott gray on 12 May 2008 at 6:13 pm #
gary–
you have my attention. i’d love to respond, but i’ve misunderstood the question. do i consider what, exactly, as a major intellectual issue? holy spirit as agent, or bible as true?
scott
Santos on 12 May 2008 at 6:23 pm #
Michael,
I understand and completely agree with your broad point about Christianity
being on an “intellectual diet” for the better part of a century. I agree
also with your statement that theological discipleship is being replaced
with fast-food Christianity. Some people (like your friend, it seems) leave
because their intellect is not being satisfied.
On the other hand, we just had a young couple leave our church because the
Sunday school teaching was “too theological” and not “applicable” by which
they meant it wasn’t therapeutic enough. As long as people are looking to
satisfy their temporal felt needs this will be a recurring problem.
I believe the true Christian cannot “walk away”. They may try and after a
That said, we need to be faithful in what we teach and prepared
while they will truly be miserable (This is what Greg Koukl calls “the christian
curse”
to give an answer to everyone who ask. That is why I am so grateful for
folks like you and Rhome.
Keep up the good work!
Santos
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 6:42 pm #
Why can’t the local church create intellectually sound disciples?
You’re right, of course, but the bigger question is why can’t most local churches (feminized, post-modern, and seeker-sensitive as you note) preach the Gospel, period? Making unconverted “disciples” is not much good, even intellectually-armed ones.
Anna on 12 May 2008 at 6:48 pm #
All I’m saying is you’re not going to reason someone into the kingdom of God.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 6:51 pm #
Scott: Actually, I am interested in whatever is your major intellectual hurdle. You mentioned ‘holy spirit who regenerates,’ ‘hardness of heart,’ and ‘prideful will’ all at once, which seems to me three sides of the same coin. (Sorry for the poor metaphor.) I took that to be a major stumbling stone for you, but perhaps I am wrong.
I don’t mean to dismiss all your other concerns - I just have found that behind multiple objections, there’s very often one big one, and I was wondering what that was. In fact, for many people (not necessarily you) I believe that the root objection is not really intellectual, but emotional. I once heard a very intelligent atheist debate a Christian and though he made various intellectual objections, it was clear that his underlying objection was emotional: “How could God allow so much suffering? How could He??”
Yours may not be emotional in the same way, but maybe we can eat this elephant one bite at a time. Or at least I can learn something.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 6:55 pm #
Anna - Amen, preach it sister!
JoanieD on 12 May 2008 at 6:59 pm #
To rick in #31…thanks for the link to the bethinking website. It looks very good. I went to the page about resurrection and miracles at http://www.bethinking.org/categories.php?CategoryID=5 and I wouldn’t hesitate to refer anyone there for good information. Thanks!
To Preston (whose post I can’t find now and this website no longer allows me to use Control key and F key to find a word on the page)….what is LFW?
Joanie D.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 12 May 2008 at 7:02 pm #
Joanie - I assume he means Libertarian Free Will. I would argue that the presupposition of LFW is what keeps many people who are trying to read the Bible honestly from accepting the five points called “Calvinism”, but I don’t wish to debate that on this thread. We’ve veered off course far enough.
JOHN on 12 May 2008 at 8:31 pm #
Michael:
I could’nt agree with you more on this issue.
I look back at my own upbringing where I grew up in an Evangelical Church in the late 70’s early 80’s, came to Christ at 11-12 at summer church camp, went through our Pastors confirmation class at 13 only to enter my latter teens starting to question things about my faith. I never got any satisfactory answers to my questions such as the belief that we Christians have the right answer to salvation and every other Religion is going to hell. I also got the misguided notion (Which through my recent studies has been dispelled 20 years latter.) that you could’nt ask questions and be a good Christian or that you “Just have to have faith” and the fact that there are essentials and non-essentials and you don’t have to buy into every doctrine except the essentials to be a good Christian.
With these issues going unanwered along, with entering the whole college scene which did’nt include God on the radar screen I stopped going to Church at 18, and did’nt attend Church on a regular basis for 12 years until I got married. Even after going to church again I did’nt really begin to get some answers to the questions that nagged at me until the last year or so. In response to some issues at my church regarding controvertial theological issues, which we’ve discussed recently in this blog I started to study. I found Lee Strobels “A Case for Faith” at the book store invaluable as well as Norman Geisler and Frank Tureks “I don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Athiest” (Geislers book is the best written case for faith I’ve seen to date). And I would be remiss in not saying that I stumbled onto Reclaiming the Mind and The Theology Program which is a God send.
While I have just begun what I feel will be an ongoing study for the rest of my life and I’ve begun to tackle the doubts and questions that I had. Some questions I’ve gotten answers to and some study has opened up new questions which I’m tackling.
I do think that the local churches need to do a better job of teaching. If Sunday Schools for older teens and adults went through a program like The Theology Program and were committed to opening up discussions in a non judgemental manner and stressing to the participants that it’s ok to have questions and doubts you’ll have fewer young folks leaving or if they do leave for a time they will have that foundation you are talking about to fall back on.
Regards
John
Ruth Tucker on 12 May 2008 at 9:02 pm #
As you know, Michael, I have devoted a lot of time researching and interviewing people—before and after writing my book “Walking Away from Faith.” I still get a lot of inquiries on my InterVarsity-sponsored website questioningfaith.com
It’s a tough matter to deal with but in some ways I resonate with those who walk away—–thus, my book has a personal touch as well.
One of the biggest points I make is that people who walk away—who “leave the Christian faith” often imagine that their decision is final. Not so. I tell many stories that have wonderful endings, including the story of a seminary-student walk-away, who became a lawyer and 20 years later attended church to listen to his daughter sing in a youth group. During the congregational hymn “Great is Thy Faithfulness,” he walked out of church when he broke down crying. He has since returned to seminary, graduated, and gone into ministry.
Edward T. Babinski on 12 May 2008 at 9:17 pm #
DR. ROBERT M. PRICE, and his work, BEYOND BORN AGAIN
I’d also like to mention one Christian in particular who left the fold (a former hellfire and brimstone preaching Baptist in his youth), and who excelled in his biblical studies, obtaining two masters and two Ph.D.’s, Dr. Robert M. Price.
I recommend Price’s online book, BEYOND BORN AGAIN, especially as it was composed not too long after he left the fold and many of the theological questions he was asking during that critical juncture were still fresh in his mind.
Dr. Price teaches theology, has a website
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/
a radio call in show, “The Bible Geek,”
http://thebiblegeek.org/home
edits a theological journal, and is working on a response to Lee Strobel.
The story of his journey is told in a piece titled, FROM FUNDAMENTALIST TO HUMANIST
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/price.html
A similar story begins his online book, BEYOND BORN AGAIN
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/intro.html
C Michael Patton on 12 May 2008 at 9:32 pm #
Ed, thanks for posting. I have your book Leaving the Fold I think.
Let me ask you if you don’t mind, In one paragraph (if that is possible), why did you leave the faith? I think it might be nice to help people understand the purpose of this blog post.
C Michael Patton on 12 May 2008 at 9:38 pm #
Also Ed, would you describe yourself as an “evangelist of deconversion?”
If so, would you say your reasoning is:
1. Bitterness?
2. Passion for agnisticism?
3. Desire for people to know the truth?
Or a combination?
Eric W on 12 May 2008 at 9:53 pm #
One paragraph? I’d like to see that, too!
For those who like the whole enchilada, here is Ed’s full deconversion story:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/leaving_the_fold/babinski_agnosticism.html
as well as an explanation of his agnosticism with an interest/belief in life after death.
Ed: I think you have a typo when you write: “The arguments I had used to defend the truth of Christianity were peeled away from me like the many layers of an omen’s skin.” OCR software glitch?
Roger Servin on 12 May 2008 at 10:32 pm #
CMP: “He and other youth leaders estimate that 65 to 94 percent of high school students stop attending church after graduating. From my studies and experience I find that leaving church is many times the first visible step in one’s pilgrimage away from Christ.”
I would venture to say that the reason so many are “leaving” the faith is because they had no true genuine saving faith in the first place. As worship leader of high school ministry at my church I see this firsthand. Most of them have a mechanical, intellectual belief of Christ but are severely lacking in fruit that reveals true repentance. They say that they believe in Jesus but they live and talk like devils. (Not all of them of course… there are a select few that genuinely seem like they love Jesus) I personally do not believe anyone who belongs to Christ can fall away from Him.
- Roger
Edward T. Babinski on 12 May 2008 at 10:39 pm #
Hi Michael,
In a paragraph or two or three… I was raised Catholic and without any appreciable religious doubts, and also confirmed at age 13, though didn’t especially like church going and doubted that the Catholic church held all the truth. I was spiritual. My best friend, also raised Catholic and a year older than I, became enamored of a Charismatic Christian girl who drove him home and to a living room prayer meeting where he apparently became born again, saved, or whatever the acceptable lingo is these days. He invited me to the same meeting, and then took me outside while the people in the house prayed (at least partly in tongues presumably). My friend asked me to open my heart to Jesus as my Lord and Savior and I did, praying with him. I was a sophomore in high school at the time, and my high school history teacher in a public school, plied me with copies of books by the Institute for Creation Research and books about Christians being tortured for their faith, and a New Testament, all of which I read. I cried at coming to the end of each Gospel. (But years later I might add that I noted that I also cried at movies involving any heroic figure who seem to be treated unjustly and defeated or died, but who came back in surprising ways, from the movie about a little alien, E.T., to the tale of the conscious robot in Short Circuit.)
The rest of my story involves attending Evangelical churches, being baptized, being involved in my college campus ministry, evangelizing everyone I knew and praying for the salvation of everyone I knew and everyone I barely knew or didn’t even know; experiencing great joy while praising Jesus that was interpreted as the “baptism in the holy spirit;” then later, speaking in tongues, as well as writing and recording Christian music, and studying Christian apologetics, mostly the Inklings and Chesterton and George MacDonald, and then moving on to studying Reformed Theology, and finally, moderate Anglicans, Christian mystics, and dialoging with some former Evangelical Christian friends who left the fold, and then I left.
Still later, I composed some photocopied newsletters in the pre-internet days, and finally edited, LEAVING THE FOLD: TESTIMONIES OF FORMER FUNDAMENTALISTS.
I also try to stay abreast of all sorts of stories/testimonies/anecdotes, and presently remain agnostic. I like to “hope there’s hope,” just as believers like to say, “I believe that I believe,” though I don’t retain much “faith in the Bible” except for what I would consider to be its most beautiful moving passages.
The Exodus story has quite a range of interpreters and hypothetical interpretations today. But solid evidence remains lacking. The N.T. Jesus in the Gospels strikes me as teaching some things that any modern cult leader might espouse, giving all to follow him. Just look at the commands in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, give to all who ask, asking nothing in return, and, store not up treasure on earth (should Christians even USE banks?), go out two by two to every village, let the dead bury their dead (don’t return home if your parents grow old and ill), a Gospel that sets parents against children, etc. But my questions run to far greater lengths and depths than just those.
My testimony is online, just google this phrase:
If It Wasn’t For Agnosticism, I Wouldn’t Know WHAT to Believe
I’m shy about summing up years of questions and prayer-filled struggles in a single paragraph. Conversely, writing page upon page is yet another way to increase ones chances of being misunderstood. *smile*
Communication is a difficult process that requires time and patience, as well as some similar experienc