1 John 5:1a

In the dozen years since “leaving the fold,” I try to keep up on the Christian world some, and to engage in productive dialog over truths and important spiritual principles. This is one place where that is possible. I believe that I, and others like me, still share important common ground with sincere Christians, though thelogically, my slant on even the fundamentals is significantly different. I no longer take Scripture as divinely revealed in any unique sense, for example, but as a mixture of spiritual wisdom and archaic, often dangerous, dysfunctional beliefs.

I do agree with the first part of the quoted woman’s comments in your article, Michael. However, I strongly disagree with her implication that if doubters had an “advocate” to help them “explore the hard questions of the faith,” they would remain orthodox Christians.

I had many such well-qualified advocates over the years. An apologist myself, I long thought and taught that there were adequate answers for doubters and skeptics. It was only because I KEPT asking more and deeper questions and looking more broadly for the answers, that I eventually could realize the Gospels are the end result of various strains of largely localized myth-making. This combined with necessary social/religious reorganization, and based on a real Jesus who we can know spiritually but not historically; similarly the rest of the NT; and in somewhat different ways, the OT on which the NT was based.

But it was not a purely “rational” line of reasoning in terms of biblical “criticism” or analysis. The most significant reason to NOT be orthodox is that the system, as a whole, IS fatally flawed, based on faulty presuppositions and unsupported claims. But that reason is backed up by a kind of “inner knowing” quite like what I (and apparently most others who were or are Christians) experienced earlier, on the “other side” of some of the same points.

It is also backed by understanding one of Michael’s points: it is “discipleship” or growth in spiritual disciplines, perspectives, attendant actions, etc. that ultimately counts–not orthodoxy of beliefs. And that “discipleship” can be developed in any number of systems of religion or life philosophy, with results comparable to those seen from Christian faith. Those results include the potential of a MORE gracious, liberated, truthful standpoint, in my experience, than doctrinal orthodoxy allows for. (I’m not so postmodern that I deny any gradations in the EFFECTS of belief systems, or in their levels of “truthiness”–to borrow from the great philosopher, Steven Colbert). That takes us back to my theme of common ground in the dynamic processes behind faith development, regardless of outward conflict in many of the theoretical (or “biblical”) concepts.

As I’ve watched this site grow, it’s taken on a different character over the past 1 1/2 years. It’s become a place where very intelligent theologians and very intelligent laypeople often respond with vigor and complex verbage. Some of us “regular” lay people sit and simply watch the whirlwind of activity because much of it is above us and everyday life demands much of us. We learn from this conversation – it challenges us. Yet, I think there are a few things they could learn from us. Often though, our voice is muffled because we feel inadequate to participate.

But that’s ok, especially if those strong, grounded anchors are firmly in place around your leadership and all involved remember the reason this ministry was created. Those anchors are essential so the winds of change don’t push some of us out to sea! I’m glad that I am challenged but not all are as persistent as I am.

Sincerely, thank you for this ministry. You/Rhome and your family are often in my prayers.

Just to let you know half your text is “in the black” and cut off on the right side

It looks like my message also went into the “dark side” so the column needs
to be moved to the left. Otherwise it is illegible.

Pax.

I too find that anti-intellectualism is rampant within the body of Christ

The biggest problem that results from this is the lack of realism of the gospel to the believer. If believing Christ does not result in having real answers to real questions or objections. What good is it? (This means more than just spitting out “Trust God!” or “…because the Bible says so”, but rather, having compassion and respect for the question.)
What good is a gospel that does not engage the reasons for or against it?

I suppose, one might feel a sense of community at church on Sundays and Wednesdays, but more often than not, this turns to obligation and drudgery. One might feel helpful to others if he has all the right doctrinal answers, but this leads to pride and the action of beating others down with the truth rather than setting them free. One also might feel a rapturous connection to Jesus only to have it fade and be left wondering “What have I done to have God abandon me?”

The common denominator in these answers is that belief and commitment are all on the “feel” side. Feelings (as great as they are, or can be) are fickle, often fading as quickly as they began.

What needs to happen is for the church, that is, all of us who follow Jesus, to establish again the philosophic foundations of Christian thought. The lack of integration within ourselves is sometimes astounding. We live highly compartmentalized lives, not allowing our religious lives mix with our work lives or our social lives, etc. Compartmental living is not a result of lack of sincerity in having Christ as Lord (as MacArthur thinks) it is because of a refusal to address doubt in a substantial way.

If James Sire is right when he says “People live what they believe.” Then the area to address is belief, not living or lifestyle. If belief is to be addressed then we must face the doubts and by facing the doubts,

Christ becomes real.

Things were indeed dangerous for him in his new church, because his own beliefs didn’t line up with his congregation.

I knew another pastor with his own non-denominational church. Very intelligent and charismatic fellow. But he never failed to have a wierd and off the wall opinion about some passage or other. Always well researched mind you, almost TOO well researched, because finding the material to dispute his latest idea was tough, and by the time you could find it, he’d be onto something else.

I think you have hit on exactly what many today protest, for example, when critiquing orthopraxy in light of theological positions.

It can be very difficult to figure out the theological positions of some people based on what they write and do. Let me use an example using John Kerry. Kerry says he believes life begins at conception, is personally against abortion yet always votes for the right of abortion. Based on his voting record one would never think he is personally opposed. (I know, I know, but this is for illustrative purposes.)

I understand where friends like James White and Steve Camp stand theologically in their writings. They would certainly say that anti-intellectualism is a big problem in the church today. Whereas with others you can’t really tell what they believe or if they agree or disagree with a things they are critiquing. Nor can you tell how important a disagreement may be if there is one. As you said, “but you rarely seem to communicate how dangerous UNothodoxy is.” So I think your proposition of postmodern method is right on.

As I just scratch the surface in fleshing this out, there actually seems to be two streams of intellectual subversion here. Anti-intellectualism and post-intellectualism. Anti would fall into the description CMP gave while post would be something like the positions McLaren holds. Something like where far-left meets far-right completing a circle.

Thanks,

Mark

The speed of information exchange is changing rapidly. Like it or not, our society has little time to grapple with all the information that is generated and must be sorted through.

So many perspectives are given, that it seems that one lifetime isn’t enough to sort through to a final decision on all that arise. People seem to be content with summary conclusions – the cost to not be content is too expensive.

Question: Within a given year, how much of the churches’ resources should be given over to addressing apologetic issues?