Christiana said in the comments of my deconstructing daniel post:
I think many people are confused about what the essentials really are. They will die on the hill of textual dating, marriage roles, politics, clothing, music styles, church polity and organization etc all the while leaving, justice, mercy, faith and love in the dust.
Which reminded me of a recent post from James McGrath’s blog, Exploring Our Matrix. My wife and I have both benefited from the post this week. It is a refreshing reminder, and a surprise that this emphasis is so easily neglected or forgotten. I’m just reproducing the post below because McGrath did such a good job.
I’m grateful to Richard Beck for highlighting Paul’s own words on an important subject. Paul is famous for his emphasis on faith, and much contemporary Christianity follows his lead on this point.
Yet when it comes down to it, Paul says that there is something more important than faith – more important even than the sort of faith Jesus talked about as capable of moving mountains:
If I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing…And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love (1 Corinthians 13).
Richard’s own conclusion is likewise worth quoting:
The defining criterion of Christianity isn’t faith. It’s love.
February 5, 2010
Biblical scholar Peter Enns says of his book Inspiration and Incarnation that it is “an attempt to bring an Evangelical doctrine of Scripture into conversation with the implications generated by some important themes in modern scholarship.” My paraphrase of that statement would be that Evangelicals should not automatically reject the findings of modern biblical scholarship. In discussing the fear some Evangelicals have towards the implications of modern biblical scholarship, Enns writes:
“…fear cannot drive theology. It cannot be used as an excuse to ignore what can rightly be called evidence. We do not honor the Lord nor do we uphold the gospel by playing make-believe. Neither are those who engage the kinds of issues discussed in this book necessarily on the slippery slope to unbelief.”
In my previous post I included the quote below, relating a view of the book of Daniel as a later writing rather than as literal history and prophesy:
Like his New Testament counterpart, the Revelation of John, Daniel was written to strengthen his people during a difficult time. Whereas John wrote to Christians under the persecution of Domitan, Daniel wrote to Jews under the persecution of Antiochus. By casting his history as a series of predictions, Daniel hoped to show that the present sufferings were indeed a part of God’s plan for his people.
Accepting this view can lead to a couple of different conclusions:
- Rejection of the inerrantist view and seeing the story as the work of men and not of God.
- Rejection of the inerrantist view but seeing the story as still divinely inspired.
The theory in support of the second conclusion would state that the author did not intend to deceive his readers. This genre of prophetic literature was common at that time (so the theory goes), and the audience would have known to read the book allegorically. The book still communicates that the sufferings of the readers were part of a bigger plan and that God had not departed from Israel.
I do not know Enns’ view of the book of Daniel in particular, but this view is generally consistent with his approach, accepting some modern conclusions and findings about the bible without giving up his trust in its divine inspiration.
While I do not hold the same kind of faith in the inspiration of the bible, I find his approach engaging and honest. Enns’ analyses of biblical history seems trustworthy, in contrast to scholars (apologists?) who place certain presuppositions higher than evidence in reaching their conclusions. Regardless of your view on what kind of book the bible is, grappling with issues like these is essential for understanding its real meaning.
February 4, 2010
According to Wikipedia, cognitive dissonance is “an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.” The more rigid a religion is in its creeds, the more cognitive dissonance can result from clashes with the real world. It is very hard for me to point to just one thing that created enough cognitive dissonance for me to start the questioning process. But perhaps the final straw came from a sermon on the book of Daniel, which for me called the doctrine of inerrancy into question.
The sermon itself was an exposition on the prophesies contained in the book of Daniel, the point being that if God was faithful to answer prophesies then we ourselves should be able to trust him now. The pastor had waded through a lot of complex material in an attempt to explain what the the prophesies in Daniel were really about and how they had played out in history. While I admired his attempt to grapple with the material, as a history buff the solutions he had learned about seemed contrived, like they were trying to force the evidence to meet preconceived conclusions. Enough for me to venture onto the Internet in search for more information. A dangerous precedent!
Bonus points if you can identify this lion
In a nutshell, the book of Daniel is held up as including prophesies of the coming of the Messiah, along with predictions of various kings and kingdoms coming and going. According to this website, “the book itself claims to be the work of an exiled Jew in Babylon, during the period of about 586 to 536 BCE.” Since a number of the prophesies appear to deal with events which transpired around 165 BCE, an early dating of 586 BCE could indeed constitute fulfilled prophesies.
The general consensus of modern biblical scholars however places the writings to around the time period of 165 BCE. One reason for this, as fundamentalists would be glad to point out, is that a later dating after the events noted in the prophesies had already transpired does not depend on a belief in the supernatural. Unfortunately for the fundamentalists there are other solid literary and historic clues which support this later date.
Viewed as a later writing, the purposes of the book can be understood a different way:
Like his New Testament counterpart, the Revelation of John, Daniel was written to strengthen his people during a difficult time. Whereas John wrote to Christians under the persecution of Domitan, Daniel wrote to Jews under the persecution of Antiochus. By casting his history as a series of predictions, Daniel hoped to show that the present sufferings were indeed a part of God’s plan for his people.
For me it didn’t take much reading to realize this view of the book just made more sense to me. I was actually asked about a year later by this same pastor “what it was in my heart that made me think this view of Daniel was true.” I replied that I didn’t think it was anything in my heart making me think that way, it is just where the evidence seemed to lead. I really think it is only a “heart issue” that causes someone to believe in the earlier dating of Daniel because of a desire to maintain a certain view of the bible rather than more dispassionately considering what is really going on in the book. Of course this is all based on my own limited understanding of the textual issues and historical details at hand, but that is the best I can do. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.
For me faith pretty much fell apart at that point. I felt the advice I received to deal with those doubts and to try to hold on to faith all pointed to returning to a blind trust of the bible. Much of what I read seemed to exhort people to reject their own reason (as human, corrupt, and fallible) and accept the sweet and pure truth of God’s word the bible. Which to me still sounds like a clarion call to shut off your mind and just believe.
Maybe if I had been in a more progressive tradition I would have dealt with those doubts differently. Maybe if I had been surrounded by voices calling me to more progressive views of scripture I would have been able to see a different way. But I wasn’t, and I didn’t, and faith made more sense discarded than clung to at that point. On one hand it hurt and I responded with a lot of anger. On the other hand it has helped me to think for myself, to form my own opinions, and to read, read, read. And to be honest that has been a pretty good deal for me. I am grateful for a deconstructed faith.
January 31, 2010
Here is a link to a really good new blog, Irreducible Complexity.
The author of the blog, Ian, says about himself and his writing:
I study the bible, with bits of Christian origins and early Christianity thrown in. I’m also an atheist, both in the sense of not-believing-there-is-a-God, and believing-there-is-no-God. I’m fascinated by all kinds of things, from typography to chess, from conlangs to competitive swimming, from creative cartography to the mathematics of music.
This is my bible and religion blog. I have been studying the bible for 20 years now. I’m particularly interested in New Testament criticism, although I have a soft spot for non-canonical Christian literature and try to dabble and keep up with the broad movements in Hebrew Bible scholarship and early church history.
Ian is a very intelligent, sympathetic, and well-informed writer. If you are interested in the Bible and Christianity you will definitely learn something by visiting his site. Enjoy!
January 27, 2010
I have added a short page to the top of this site to gather links about the role of religious belief in marriage. Please take a moment to check it out. Any feedback positive or negative would be much appreciated. Thanks!
January 26, 2010
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”
2 Corinthians 6:14-15, King James Version
In reading about fundamentalism I have been better able to understand my own experiences in Christianity. But it can be upsetting when I see fundamentalist assumptions I didn’t really think about before or which did not affect me much. Fundamentalists assert their principles are universally Christian and their doctrines comprehensive, but that does not mean they really are. Like the Christian concern of being “unequally yoked” in marriage to an unbeliever.
Google the phrase “unequally yoked” and you will find web site after web site discussing the mortal danger a Christian faces if they marry an unbeliever, and web site after web site offering support for Christians who find themselves for whatever reason in this undesirable condition. Now while the verse quoted above does not speak specifically to marriage, I would agree it supports the principal that Christians are supposed to be uniquely separated and different from those around them, with obvious implications for marriage. But are there other ways of looking at this verse?
First, I will say that the verse contains a healthy dose of common sense, completely apart from any issue of biblical authority. Who would tell another person to be unequally matched in marriage? Sure, we celebrate diversity between married partners, but most marriages are built on sharing things in common.
Are shared religious beliefs alone enough for two people to be considered “equally yoked?” Consider two Christians from radically different cultures or socio-economic
backgrounds. Maybe shared religious belief will provide adequate compatibility in marriage, but maybe not. What about their approaches to raising children, to politics, to women working outside the home, to caring for the poor, to watching TV, to which way the toilet paper roll goes? Perhaps being equally yoked entails more than just a faith commitment. Maybe there is more complexity and nuance to marital relationships.
Or what if beliefs change over time even if both partners remain Christian? As a recent commenter here noted: “. . . my husband and I are so far apart in our beliefs (even though we are both believers) that we might as well be atheist/Christian. His God is not the God I worship for sure. I am very progressive. He is . . . ahhhh . . . he is not.” I do not know their situation, but I would think it is likely they did not enter marriage that far apart. Or if they did, things have changed in some way since they were married.
I think the Christian emphasis on being unequally yoked in marriage exacerbates situations which are already difficult to navigate. All marriages are hard at times, and a measure of biblical condemnation does not help. Fundamentalists assert there is only one way to interpret the bible – their literalistic way, with their own sets of rules and a black and white view of the world. If one accepts the fundamentalist false dichotomy they are left either embracing that entire vision of Christianity or rejecting it all, without much middle ground. And perhaps one is then left with embracing everything about their spouse or rejecting them entirely, emotionally and intellectually if not physically.
I have rejected conservative Evangelicalism, and in doing so have rejected its fundamentalist underpinnings. I reject fundamentalist thinking regardless of what direction it comes from, conservative or liberal, theist or atheist. And I reject any assertion that my marriage is going to fail because we are unequally yoked. In fact, I think my wife and I are quite equally yoked and compatible, and I am not going to have fundamentalists define my marriage otherwise.
“…whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever, is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” (Philippians 4:8).
January 16, 2010
I never read blogs until about eighteen months ago, just never got into them, now I follow a bunch. Most of them I read because I learn new things in one way or another, all but a couple are related to religion in some shape or form. The ones I tend to benefit from the most are by people who have come from a similar conservative Evangelicalism and either left or reworked their beliefs in order to stay. It can be a lonely experience, for me not because I was alienated by friends but just because they did not share a similar experience. Yes, blogs have their limitations, and “just anyone can write anything out there,” but really all forms of communication have limitations and particular uses. The Internet is pretty interesting that way, bringing together people who have very specific interests or backgrounds.
I have especially appreciated blogs where people share something of how their changing beliefs affected their friendships with others, particularly in marriage. It is helpful to know there are others finding their way through similar struggles; that usually isn’t something found in the public library. Regarding writing about marriage, The Woeful Budgie wrote a particularly poignant and heartfelt post, you can read it here. She expresses so well how hard it can be to talk about these things in a marriage.
If you can relate in some way or know of other blogs like that, please take a moment to leave a comment. And if you think it sounds strange, atimetorend recommending a post by The Woeful Budgie, don’t worry, I do too!
January 8, 2010
2009 was a tough year in a lot of ways. I was out of work in the beginning, but working again before the end of January. Plenty of changes for us, new job, new church, lots of new friends. And writing a blog. A unique and challenging year, that is for sure.
We are celebrating the evening with my extended family at my parents house in the big wintery woods of Pennsylvania (Penn’s woods). So just a little “Happy New Year!” to you all out there. Hope you are enjoying the time and are looking forward to the new year as much as I am. Thanks for stopping by!
December 31, 2009
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven…a time to rend, and a time to sew… Ecclesiastes 3:7
I would like to introduce a new visitor to this site, she will go by atimetosew, at least for now. She is a lovely individual, a committed Christian, a mother of four beautiful children, and my long-suffering wife of over 13 years. I have been sending her individual posts for a while, but she has recently started reading here directly. Which has, to say the least, been an adventure for both of us!
If you have read anything of the angst of deconversion here, you can be assured she has suffered through as much or more than I have this past year. And we’re still in this thing together somehow. Now I get to see how much my own thoughts I write about here line up with reality… ;^)
Following is her first guest post.
—– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —–
Guest post written by atimetosew (my wife).
To all of you who are faithful (or sporadic) readers of my husband’s blog, I write this post to thank you and to introduce myself. Thank you for your comments, your listening “ears”, and your support of my husband through what we would both consider a “messed up year.” ATTR was up and running some three or four months before I knew about it. Even then, my husband was reticent to share his posts with me. Ouch! That was hard for a wife to take. I remember saying, “I thought we were friends.” Yet, some things were too hard to work through at the time. Thanks for being there for him when I couldn’t.
As for blogging, Mr. ATTR has been after me for several months. I’ve been a journaler all my life, but exceedingly private about it. The thought of a worldwide community of anonymous readers is extremely intimidating. I’ll give this a try, but make no promises. I don’t think or write as well as Mr. ATTR. If you wish to follow our marital journey through this mess, my blog will be located at atimetosew.wordpress.com. I’ll warn you, though, that I’m much more of a “rambler” than Mr. ATTR. I imagine that my posts will be a bit more practical…but perhaps more whimsical as well. Time will tell.
As for me…who I am…where I belong…that is harder. Even with all we’ve been through, I still am, or would like to be, a follower of Christ. I’m on a journey to seek out what that means. It’s a journey I’ve been on for 23 years or so now. Sometimes the more I travel, the less I know. Nevertheless, I’m very seriously seeking.
December 27, 2009
“Go where the evidence leads” was a recent topic among several biblioblogs concerning academic freedom in seminaries, starting with a post by Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. I am including a couple links in case anyone is interested in the somewhat esoteric discussion. Both provide good summaries of the discussion and are blogs well worth perusing.
Exploring our Matrix – The Bible, Christianity, and Scholarship
Biblia Hebraica – Go Where the Evidence Leads
On my own tangent, regarding going where evidence leads and relating to the Christmas narratives, Al Mohler wrote a post a few years ago making this statement:
“The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.”
For the record, I do not agree with this statement. A person does not have to give up being a Christian if they do not believe in a historical and literal virgin birth. Nor do they have to give up the right to formulate their own opinions. Mohler’s definition of Christianity is not universal; a claim conveniently asserted, but not so easily supported.
Maybe it should read:
“The real question is this: Can a Fundamentalist Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth and remain a Fundamentalist Christian? The answer must be no.”
I would be fine with that, let him define his own sect. :^)
There are of course many Evangelicals who would agree with his statement. I am not trying to make a case here either for or against belief in the virgin birth. However the statement goes well beyond the belief itself. It is a statement requiring Christians to have this belief, which is a relatively modern understanding.
The Fundamentals
“The Fundamentals” was a series of articles published and widely distributed in the early 1900’s to defend conservative Christian faith against the influence of liberalism. The articles outlined a number of doctrines deemed essential, or fundamental, to the Christian faith. It is in that sense that belief in the virgin birth is relatively new as a fundamentalist tenet. Certain beliefs cannot be challenged. Certain conclusions are ruled out a priori, before considering evidence, with the “right” answer pre-determined. Orthodoxy, “right thinking,” takes precedent over thinking and forming opinions. If use of reason should lead one to consider something contrary to those established by the orthodox tradition, it could only be that the reasoning was prideful because “God’s reason is higher than man’s”. A less subtle version might be the famous bumper sticker, “God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It.”
Where does “I don’t know” belong in the equation though? There are a lot of unknowns about the gospel accounts. As ancient history published years after the fact and scarcely if at all documented in contemporary sources that will always be the case. Fundamentalists say that the bible is inerrant and seek to explain away any seeming problems by providing logical possibilities as solutions. That may be well and good as a position of faith, but it is not following where the evidence goes. Is belief in the virgin birth a strong candidate for a required belief? Where should the line be drawn? And who should draw it?
“Where does the evidence lead?” That question should be fair game for anyone, skeptic or believer. If it is reasonable for people to draw different conclusions about the evidence, or make a choice knowing evidence is lacking, why should it be unreasonable to try to follow the evidence, or to simply state, “I don’t know what happened?” How can faith require that others know with certainty what one takes on faith? I think I want my “I don’t know” back.
December 23, 2009
