Myth #3: America is a Christian Nation

A popular view among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians is that we have lost our originally founded Christian nation to liberal and secular influences. We need to return to our Christian moorings as a country or face God's judgment, which has already started in the form of economic recession and possibly through attacks by Al Qada and now ISIS. There is some lost "golden age" to which American Christians need to return, the belief goes, or else.

Last night, at our discussion group, we watched a DVD on nonviolent movements that included the story of the lunch counter sit-ins during the civil rights movement headed by Freedom Rider James Lawson. It reminded us about this myth of an American Christian nation. This is where we need historical honesty. Anyone who looks objectively at the history of America concludes that there really is no "lost golden Christian age" on which we were founded. Every generation of Americans has had societal blemishes that could only be characterized as unchristian (or, more accurately, unlike a nation following Christ), from the founders perpetuating slavery, to our treatment of native Americans, to the stain of child labor practices during the industrial revolution, to suppression of women's rights, to segregation and oppression of African Americans, etc.

Intellectually honest evangelicals like Mark Noll (In Search for Christian America) and Greg Boyd (The Myth of a Christian Nation) have exposed this myth through careful examination of the intentions and actions of our founding fathers. The American idea, of course, was based in some ways on the principles of a loving God found in the Bible, e.g. "All men are created equal" and "endowed by rights by their Creator," but this is a far cry from America being a unique "Christian nation." Enlightenment ideas also heavily fed into American democracy. Only a few of the founding fathers were conservative Christians. Many of them--Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams, Washington, et al--were Deists and Universalists, and would be considered liberal heretics by conservatives today. Although many believed in "Divine Providence," this did not mean they believed in all of the Christian "orthodox" biblical teachings.

Jesus was not a Christian, nor did he found Christianity or an institutional "Church," and America is not a distinctly Christian nation. Yet, I and millions of people, seek to follow Jesus' teachings in order to make the world a better place. As I hope to demonstrate in my next book, sound study of history reveals this paradox and opens the door for a new spirituality our society desperately needs. If these things are myths, what is a more historically-grounded faith in Jesus?

Myth #1: Jesus Was a Christian

[Part of series, 36 "Christian" and Secular Myths You Should Know]

Most people make this common and unexamined assumption that Jesus Christ was what we call a “Christian” and, in fact, the very first Christian, the one for which the religion was named. Travel back into the first century, however, step into the sandals of anyone who knew or encountered Jesus of Nazareth and you will realize how untrue this is.[1]  As history, the New Testament, and other sacred texts attest,[2] Jesus was a Jewish teacher or Rabbi living in first-century Palestine who closely followed the tenets and traditions of the Jewish prophets and law. The difference was, not that he represented a new faith, but that he brought a revolutionary way of interpreting an existing faith—pre-rabbinic Judaism of the first century.

His way was to interpret the Torah in light of its very own love ethic, making love the priority over law, while closely following the voices of the Jewish prophets. These were reforming prophets who identified corruption within the Temple sacrificial system, foresaw its demise, and announced a future new covenant between God and the descendants of Abraham. Jesus followed their lead with his own authority and called for the original purpose of the Jewish community—to be a light to draw Gentiles (non-Jews) to the one true God of justice and love. Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew calling for radical reform of the Jewish faith while opening the doors for non-Jews to enter into relationship with God in the spirit of a new Jewish covenant that made the Jerusalem Temple system obsolete. His first followers were all Jews. They believed he was the “anointed one” (the meaning of ‘Christ’) whom the prophets had foretold, not someone who would abolish Judaism and begin a new religion, but someone who would reform it.   

---

[1] What Jesus Meant, by Garry Wills

[2] Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

36 Modern “Christian” and Secular Myths You Should Know

Yes, I believe all of these are myths, in one way or the other, either as specific assertions or as blanket statements. At least, I will attempt to make the case that they are, based on biblical, historical, linguistic, archeological, and, in some cases, scientific evidence. Think about each one and see if some of them surprise you in light of others. Stay tuned for a blog post on each.

1 - Jesus was a Christian
2 - Jesus Founded Christianity and the Church
3 - America is a Christian Nation
4 - Jesus is a Myth
5 - Jesus is Irrelevant
6 - The Bible is Infallible
7 - We Should Obey the Bible
8 - The Bible is Altogether Unreliable
9 - English Translations of the Bible are Trustworthy
10 - The Bible Has No Spiritual Authority
11 - The “Kingdom of Heaven” is About the Afterlife
12 - Jesus Predicted the End of the World
13 - The End Will Come When the Gospel is Preached to the Remaining Unreached Ethno Linguistic Groups of the World
14 - Jesus is Coming Back
15 - Only Christians are Saved
16 - Atheists are Evil
17 - You Deserve to Go to Hell
18 - Jesus Took the Punishment for Our Sins
19 - Jesus Taught a Literal Hell
20 - Universalism Means God Won't Judge Us
21 - Paul Was a Misogynist
22 - There Were No Women Leaders in the New Testament
23 - Monogamous Heterosexual Marriage is God’s Standard
24 - God Condemns Homosexuality
25 - Sex Outside Marriage is Always a Sin
26 - Sex is Not a Moral Concern
27 - Science Has Proved There is No God
28 - Progressive and Liberal Christians Are Heretics
29 - Conservative Christians are Bigots and Religious Nutcases
30 - God Commands that Believers Belong to a Local Church
31 - Believers Should Tithe to a Local Church
32 - All Religions are the Same
33 - All Religions Besides Christianity are False
34 - God Hates Divorce
35 - Evolution is Not Biblical
36 - Intelligent Design is Not Science

VIDEO: 9 Theological Ideas You Should Question and Why - Part I

Have you ever questioned theological views of yours or others' faith tradition? Have you ever wondered if there is more to it than what pastors and religious leaders teach? Then listen to my "9 Theological Ideas You Should Question and Why" video based on my own journey coming out of evangelicalism into a faith more closely based on the biblical and historical evidence. In Part I, you'll get a glimpse of why you should question:

1) The Infallibility of the Bible - neither worship it nor trash it.
2) The Bible as a Self-Evident Rulebook - learn a more responsible way of using it.
3) The Modern Concept of Church - history teaches us "church" is not what most think it is.
4) The Notion of the "End Times" - where the "last days" really belong.

A Challenge to a Literalist View of the Bible

There are two things that must be said in challenge to literalism. One, if you believe every word of the Bible is true, then you are obligated to rethink certain issues in light of biblical evidence. For example, salvation, in light of evidence that reveals the original Greek language of the NT does not teach the doctrine of everlasting damnation but rather teaches what some call "Christian Universalism," and the fact that many if not most of the early church fathers also held this view. This is part of the historical record for anyone to see if they look carefully enough. 

There are of course many other issues as well that demand attention because of misreadings stemming from the literalist community's practice of lazy biblical interpretation that is not true to the original language and culture of the Bible, e.g. the need to rethink the church, homosexuality, the end times, etc. If one believes the whole Bible is true then make it the original words and historical context that you believe, not later traditions, mistranslations, or misinterpretations. Be sure your Bible belief is on a firm foundation.

The second challenge is that a literalist viewpoint is tantamount to worshiping the Bible, not God. The Bible never claims we should view it the way literalists do. It never claims to be inerrant and the early church never used the NT as such. Literalists go beyond the original intent of Jesus, Paul, and the earliest church. If you believe the Bible is all true, you must go beyond the pat answers and proof texts and go straight to the original language and historical setting when addressing contentious issues. If this is not done, it's using the Bible irresponsibly. 

If in the course of this examination it becomes evident that the Bible is not all 100% factually true, the question is, Then what in the Bible can we trust? It must be hit home that there's plenty to trust in a fallible Bible, written by humans who claim to have encountered God, just as there's plenty to trust in any fallible historical manuscript. Just as historians use tools of historical evidence, authenticity, archeology, logic, etc., people of faith can use their minds, spiritual discernment, common sense, and historical & biblical evidence to ascertain what's trustworthy in the Bible. We won't all agree on details and some things will remain a mystery, but there are many things we are bound to agree on. For example, the love ethic of Christ, the new way of relating to God and humankind through the lens of love not the written code, that runs as a powerful theme throughout the NT. A theme that says Love for neighbor, not religious affiliation or believing the exact right doctrines, fulfills what God desires.

What can one trust in the scriptures? We trust the overall themes, the conclusions, the overall message of the Jesus Movement (as portrayed in the NT and other historical commentary), not assigning equal absolute authority and certainty to every individual word, verse, or passage. We draw out a message from the pattern and conclusions the biblical/historical record comes to (the Gospels, Pauls' letters, and historical evidence that reinforces the NT or highlights reasons to suspect parts of it). That kind of trust in holy writings is a more genuine faith. It respects the mystery of God's revelation and calls for a responsible use of a set of historical writings from which we can learn an inspired message, rather than insisting on a strict, adherence to an "infallible" text, or else. The former leads to unity, not uniformity, as readers major on what really counts: love, trust, and hope. The latter leads to division, as readers focus on whose interpretation is the absolute correct and infallible one and judge others who disagree.

Why Christians Should Thank Bart Ehrman

As I shared in my book, Confessions of a Bible Thumper, my spiritual evolution drove  me to a place where I began to view the Bible differently; not as an inerrant, wholly-Divine , unified book, but  as a human collection of writings that, in my mind, still had telltale signs that Divine fingerprints were on it. It wasn’t the infallible Word of God throughout anymore. But it also wasn’t altogether a myth or nowhere inspired. It had inherent problems, yet still contained the Logos (rationality, reason) of God in many narratives, passages, and themes. Suddenly, the Bible became “possible,” not “impossible.” Author Bart Ehrman helped me make this transition.

I call this moving from a devotional approach to the Bible (not always bad) to an historical-critical approach. When I looked at the Bible only devotionally, I was forced to ignore the contradictions and inherent problems I saw within its pages. But I wasn’t being biblically and intellectually honest. When I learned how to look at it historically and critically, I could finally reconcile being honest (about what I read and studied in the Bible) with my faith in Christ.  For me, when people only look at the Bible devotionally, with no deep questions about its origins and inspiration, they can’t have a wholly genuine faith. Authentic faith only comes when we are intellectually honest about our doubts and misgivings. It also only comes when there’s a desire to find the original intention of Jesus and his earliest followers, or else one’s faith rests on later human tradition.

Many Christians fear Bart Ehrman because he has written several books that challenge the traditional view of the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity. (By the way, this is a pathology soon to be categorized in modern psychology as “Fear of Bart” or “Bartophobia”). They think embracing his views will cause people to lose their faith. After all, Bart Ehrman, a former evangelical, is now an agnostic. These people forget one very important point. Bart Ehrman never claims historical criticism of the Bible logically leads to agnosticism.  “It did not lead me to become an agnostic,” he confesses. He continues: “My personal view is that a historical-critical approach to the Bible does not necessarily lead to agnosticism or atheism. It can in fact lead to a more intelligent and thoughtful faith.”[1] In truth, he admits many of his scholar colleagues, who also agree with most of what he reveals in his books, are still strong believers. Ehrman’s agnosticism didn’t come from studying biblical origins, but from a separate philosophical problem: how to reconcile faith with “the powerful reality of human suffering in the world.”

Historical criticism of the Bible has led me and others to a more reasoned faith and it can do so for Christians who fear the implications of reading a critic like Ehrman.  Bart Ehrman has done Christians a great service. He has opened the door that most conservative theologians and pastors (many of whom learned the logic and reason of the historical-critical approach in seminary but were afraid to share it for fear of confusing their audiences) have kept closed for too long. This is a door to an intellectually-satisfying and therefore more genuine faith. Not one that is one hundred percent certain about everything because “the Bible says so,” but one that follows where the historical, cultural, and linguistic evidence leads and finds much to trust about the Path of Christ without  insisting everyone believe the same thing. Thanks Bart Ehrman, for opening that door and helping many of us to walk through it. And, thanks for being intellectually honest in the way you have defended the historicity of Jesus in Did Jesus Exist?

What are your thoughts on Bart Ehrman? Do share your opinions, pro or con.

---

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted,  pages 272-273.

Why It’s Good to Rethink Our Faith

Note: After, hearing feedback from the UCC Church, I revised my message for this topic, rather than focusing exclusively on sacred texts (last post). What do you think about rethinking ones’ faith?

Abridged version of my message to UCC Church of the Manger in Bethlehem, PA, August 2013:

I want to take you on a journey of rethinking faith. I’ll share how I had to do that, why I believe it’s good to do, and encourage you to do the same. You see, I thought I had arrived at the station. The movement I was a part of (evangelicalism) had figured most everything out. But I still had nagging doubts. Are we really right about the doctrine of hell? The gay issue? How we practice the institution of church? How we proof-text everything in the Bible? Is the Return of Christ really at hand? I saw contradictions in the Bible. Doesn’t anyone else see them? The pat answers I heard didn’t work for me.

I also saw the fruit of the status quo: Fundamentalist mindsets, wooden literalism about the Bible, wild proclamations about the end times, legalistic churches, spiritual abuse in certain conservative churches, gays and lesbians treated like broken toys that need to be fixed, and gender inequality, to name a few. So I began a journey into the world of forbidden questions. Why should we rethink our faith? I discovered three reasons:

1 – We may have unwarranted assumptions

Like the three blind men who touched different parts of an elephant and thus each defined it differently because of the assumptions they held, we can assume one thing is true when it isn’t. Only when we have a “paradigm shift” and see the whole picture, do we get closer to the truth.

Example: I had a genuine spiritual experience connecting to Christ but then assumed the tradition I joined had historically and culturally accurate interpretations of the Bible, salvation, the end times, etc. One example is the view of original sin and the atonement. It wasn’t until I discovered the Eastern Orthodox view of sin and salvation that I realized my tradition—evangelicalism—had an interpretation based on Augustine’s theology and there was a whole history and tradition of Christianity that had an alternate view that makes more sense and is more consistent with the teaching of the NT. Eastern Christians, who trace their traditions back well before Augustine, have very different notions of how to view the Bible, original sin, atonement, and salvation than traditional Protestant, Reformation, and Catholic views.

Lesson: We need to come to the Bible—the source of much of our theology—with a clean slate, without assumptions, and with a broad knowledge of history, culture, and original language. Most of us don’t, reading it with a lens of assumptions we learn from our tradition that may or may not be accurate.

2 – We or our teachers may not have all the facts

One day while learning the Somali language in the 1980s in East Africa, I approached three different people with the customary greeting, “How’s your soul?” They all three burst into laughter. Turns out, I mispronounced one word. Rather than asking how their soul was, I had said “How’s your diesel fuel?” When we don’t have all the facts, we inevitably mispronounce, misread, misinterpret, and/or mistranslate the Bible and history.

Example: See the earlier post on this topic to see a list of facts I learned about the Bible that are essential to deciding how we should view and use it.

Lesson: These facts lead one to conclude that the Bible is not a uniform, universally applicable Rulebook or Instruction Manual. When we take the Bible on its own terms, in historical context, in light of how it was compiled, copied, and translated, we learn it never claims to have as much authority most people give it. It is still reliable, because much of it is verifiable history and full of timeless wisdom. But it is not infallible. We should take the Bible seriously, but not always literally. Not everything has equal weight. Discernment is needed. This fits Paul’s teaching: The new Way is to be led by the Spirit and not by the written code. Scriptural principles and grand themes and conclusions supersede instructions regarding specific first-century issues. Jesus and Paul sum up the Scriptures: Love is the only Law. In fact, we are released from the Law, as Paul concludes, and from a law-based approach to God. Hence, we should refrain from using the OT or NT like a book of timeless axioms.
 
3 – Rethinking our faith can lead to walking closer to the original Path of Christ

Finally, as we rethink our faith, we often discover we actually get closer to what Jesus, Paul, and others meant in their original context. We become more solidly grounded on the original Path of Christ.

Example: Did Christ really teach there is such a thing as eternal damnation? Revisiting that question has led many to conclude the answer is “No.” There are serious mistranslation issues with the terms “hell” and “eternal punishment.” Many early church fathers and leaders throughout history believed and taught the “universal reconciliation” of all humankind—that all eventually would be reconciled to God through Christ—without circumventing God’s judgment on sin and evil. (Within evangelicalism, I was totally blind to this fact and the facts cited about the Bible).

Lesson: Learn what historical figures and movements have taught about controversial doctrines. You’ll discover that some were harsher than we thought and others were more progressive. For example, when researching the history of Bethlehem, PA [the town where I gave this message], I discovered Peter Bohler, a Moravian leader and founder of Bethlehem and Nazareth, PA in the 1740s. Universalist tendencies were not unknown among Moravians and Böhler himself believed in the universal reconciliation of all people. Böhler believed that the grace of Christ was so compelling that it would eventually win all hearts!

Conclusion: Why rethink our faith? We never know what we will learn. We just might discover a whole new and encouraging way to look at the world.

Rethinking Sacred Texts

This is a 7 minute  speech I'm giving to my Toastmasters group next week. It's pracitce for a part of a larger talk I'm giving to a United Church of Christ congregation in Bethlehem, PA on August 4th.
______________________________________

Thank you for inviting me to speak. I want to take you on a journey today. As you are familiar with my book, you know I came to a crossroads in my Christian experience,  where I began to question some long-held traditional beliefs, did some research, and began to change many of my viewpoints. Today, I’ll share an important leg of my spiritual evolution—how I came to rethink what sacred texts are.

First, what do I mean by sacred texts? Well, the Bible of course, but also other documents less familiar to most of us. Has anyone heard of the Gospel of Mattathias, Gospel of the Egyptians, I Letter of Clement, Letter of Barnabas, The Shepard of Hermes, or the Wisdom of Solomon? Most people haven’t. But these are all books that either a prominent church father or the early church accepted as part of the Bible!

When I was in the evangelical tradition, I was taught there were only two ways to look at the Bible.

1 – The [conservative] “correct” way - a uniform, infallible, authoritative, clear set of rules for humankind. An instruction manual. Submit to scripture. Obey the Word of God.

2 – The liberal way - contains many historically inaccurate accounts and is largely unreliable and irrelevant for the modern world. Yes, read the Bible as great literature. But it doesn’t hold real answers to the questions of life.  

One of my main discoveries is history teaches us both of these views are wrong. There’s a middle way that is more true to the evidence. The first place that points us to this middle way is the historical record of where the Bible came from. Let’s examine some facts. Imagine that I’m tacking these facts on a board and later we’ll tie them together.

·        The NT was not dropped from the sky in its entirety – it is a collection of books that took years to compile and there was substantial disagreement about it.

·        The first complete, uniform, recognized listing of the NT wasn’t until 363 AD and it didn't include Revelation, which wasn’t accepted until 397 AD.

·        The four gospels were written 30-60 years after Jesus. Paul’s letters were written 15-33 years after Jesus. The first followers relied on oral tradition, not scripture, for the Jesus story. For decades, even centuries, there was no NT in its modern form.

·       The Bible of the early church was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT which included the Apocrypha, 11 books that Protestants don’t accept. 

·        There were many gospels besides the four – e.g. Hebrews, Egyptians, Peter, Thomas; some thought to be forgeries, some not.

·        The respected church father Clement of Alexandria had a 2^nd century NT that included many books that never made it into the NT.

·        Revelation was never fully accepted by the Eastern Church (today, it's not used in liturgy); it was rejected by many church fathers.

·        Luther advocated that the NT should be graded, some books more inspired than others. He thought Hebrews, James, and Revelation should be secondary.

·        The Bible we have was copied over and over. There’s strong evidence that some NT passages were inserted by copyists to reinforce a theological bias.

·        Scholars and historians have found errors in the NT (and the NT never claims it is inerrant); but most of them are immaterial; however, a few aren’t.

·        There are good reasons why some of the other sacred texts were not included in our Bibles; e.g. bizarre teachings and forgeries; but the Bible itself has bizarre teachings, e.g. women can’t speak in church and the Jesus-like-he's-on-acid book of Revelation. Also, a consensus of scholars say I & II Timothy and Titus are inauthentic.  

·        There are good reasons many books were included, e.g. Jesus’ and Paul’s sound, timeless, egalitarian, teaching on love, forgiveness, and community that revolutionized Jewish and Roman society.

Conclusion: Now, let’s tie these facts together. What can we conclude? Perhaps you’ll agree with me, that these facts show it's better to hold the Bible more loosely in terms of it being a universally applicable, uniform message from God. Don’t grip it so tightly. Come to respect it more, not less, as we see both the wisdom of God within its pages and the human element in its formation… and that the early church, although they generally agreed on some of the books, often accepted books that are not in it and questioned books that are. The New Testament is not always internally consistent and wasn't considered infallible.

This "lighter" approach is taking the Bible and other sacred texts more seriously, in historical context, albeit not always literally. When we do that, we can look past the dross and find the gems of the Bible—the principles that teach us about what God is like and how to live our lives; but not in a legalistic way, but a way that is consistent with how the Bible was compiled and copied and what it teaches in its historical/cultural context.

In summary, these list of facts I shared influenced me to rethink how one should view sacred texts and come to a new conclusion: that there is a middle way, between a conservative and liberal position, to view the Bible, that is more true to history.   

6 New Paradigms Essential for Convergence Christianity - Part I, the Bible

For years now, Christian writers and thinkers like Brian McLaren, Eric Elnes, and Phylis Tickle have been talking about a New Convergence (NC) in Christianity--a coalition (some know it as the emergent church and expressed in such movements as The Wild Goose Festival) of liberal mainliners, restless evangelicals, and progressive Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, all converging over a progressive, social-justice-focused theology, closer to the original message and movement of Jesus. My contention is, in order for this modern recapturing of Jesus' love-ethic-over-religious-dogma to stick, there needs to be a clear demarkation between the old world view that all these streams held at one point to a large degree and new spiritual, well-defined paradigms based on solid scriptural and historical evidence. Othewise, the conservative roots and branch of each stream will continue to hold it back and deem it suspect. So, here's my take on 6 essential paradigm shifts the NC needs to embrace and express.

1 - An Historical Approach to the Bible - By historical, I don't mean one must accept everything in the Bible as exactly historically accurate, but that the "biblical" way (true to what the Bible actually teaches and how it was compiled) of viewing the Bible is as an historian reading a human document (parts of which, each individual 'historian reader' deems inspired by God). Without an historical approach, the Bible is abused and used to oppress others, e.g. the anti-gay error (both of these I expound in my book). This historical view is opposed to the traditional, literalist view, which claims the the Bible is wholly God's Word and inerrant, self-sufficient, self-evident, internally consistent, and universally applicable. Christian Smith, Garry Wills, and many others have shown the fallacy of this literalistic view, while maintaining respect for the Bible as containing a message from God. The NC must be able to articulate this historical approach. For example, perhaps, stating the following, not as a litmus-test creed, but as an alternate paradigm:

• The Bible is not the Word of God but contains the Word of God.
• The Word of God is the Logos, the rational wisdom of God, as best expressed in Christ.
• We discern God's Logos and how to apply it by reading the Bible with an understanding of its historical, cultural, and literary context, how it was compiled and translated (biblical/historical scholarship), with the help of the Spirit, and a dose of common sense.
• We learn to apply the Logos of God in the Bible to our lives by focusing on its grand conclusive themes--trust (faith), grace over law, hope, and love--not specific admonitions that don't claim to be universally applicable.

There are five other new paradigms I'm suggesting, which I'll describe in future posts. They have to do with recapturing the meaning of "church" (hint, it's not an institution), rediscovering the Good News, embracing hope not fear of the future, understanding the inclusive, universal message of Christ, and embarking on a spiritually-fueled social-justice mission. Stay tuned for these other five and let me know your thoughts on New Paradigm #1.

4 Ways the Bible is Abused

Read the Bible like drinking beer, not sipping wine. – N.T. Wright

In my book, Confessions of a Bible Thumper, I tell the story of how I came to believe the Bible is routinely abused, particularly by fundamentalists and evangelicals, but also by the general public. I make the case the Bible should be taken seriously as an historical document written by human beings that has much inspirational material from God, but nevertheless, is not a heavenly, literal instruction manual to be applied across the board. Discernment is necessary in applying the Bible’s message to modern believers. Here are four ways well-meaning readers abuse the Bible, usually unknowingly:

1 – Not Understanding Translation Problems – Contrary to popular belief, the translation of the Bible is not straightforward. There are many instances where scholars can’t agree on the correct translation for a Hebrew or Greek word or there are variant meanings. Moreover, there is sound linguistic evidence there are many words in our English Bibles that are mistranslated. Bottom line: Although this doesn’t mean we have to question everything we read, readers should not be dogmatic that what they read is the end-all meaning for a word, verse, or passage.

2 – Misinterpreting Passages – There are three major ways this happens. (1) reading verses out of context (not paying attention to the surrounding background or a writer’s overall point), (2) misunderstanding the history, culture, or literary style behind a text, and (3) selecting certain passages from the Bible while ignoring other themes or principles on the same topic in other parts of the Bible. This is why one should read the Bible like drinking large glasses of beer (gaining fuller context), rather than like sipping wine and reading things piecemeal. Moreover, without an understanding of background history and culture, it’s very easy and common to misinterpret the meaning of a passage.

 
3 – Misusing the Claim to Authority – The Bible is not a set of timeless axioms to be strictly obeyed to the letter. It never claims to be such. Even most narrow literalists prove this by ignoring certain verses. For example, most conservatives don’t allow women to be pastors or teachers but, contrary to Paul’s admonition in I Corinthians 14 and one in I Timothy, they permit women to speak in the church. They are selective literalists. The point is, as N.T. Wright says, “…there is no biblical doctrine of the authority of the Bible.” Don’t get me wrong, I believe the Bible contains authoritative material. But its authority is not an across-the-board application. Its authority is found in as much as it reflects rationality and a remarkable dose of wisdom and moral inspiration that applies to one’s modern context. The Bible doesn’t always do this nor claims to. Not making this distinction gets “biblicists” in trouble as they attempt to get people to “submit to scripture.” Encouraging people to “love your neighbor as yourself” is a worthy goal, but teaching that all Christians must follow Paul’s admonitions for church order (which is also often misinterpreted) in the name of obeying God is just stretching the limits of whatever authority the Bible has. It also leads people to worship the Bible over and above God.

4 – Mislabeling Authenticity – Inerrancy advocates would have us believe the Bible is infallible with no errors whatsoever. But this flies in the face of biblical evidence. In my book, I cite a sampling of places where the Bible is clearly contradictory. As an historical document that sometimes cites eyewitness testimony, the Bible is comparable to other historical writings—it inevitably gets it wrong sometimes. This doesn’t mean it’s mythological, just that it’s a human document at its core (it doesn’t claim to be dictated by God). Such advocates also claim the Bible is wholly authentic. This also flies in the face of the evidence. Textual criticism is an important part of Bible study that not only reveals original meaning but how close and to what extent our modern Bible matches the ancient texts closest to the originals. Evidence suggests the Bible contains copyist errors and inauthentic passages. These aren’t huge discrepancies, but they need to be taken seriously. For example, that one passage (I Corinthians 14:34-35), where Paul says women shouldn’t speak or teach in church, was most probably added by a copyist with theological bias who wanted to keep the status quo of suppressing women in society (See Paul the Egalitarian).

In my studies, I discovered the modern, Western, evangelical way of looking at the Bible (infallible and the only authority for faith and practice) is not even supported by the Bible itself. And, other Christian traditions—the Eastern Orthodox Church, for example—have more rational ways of viewing the Bible that are much less susceptible to Bible abuse. I’ll continue to explore how to expose Bible abuse in later posts, but this is a good introduction to four common pitfalls serious students of the Bible need to avoid. Agree? Disagree? Please join the conversation.

Book Review: Pub Theology, a Provocative Brew!

Pub Theology: Beer, Conversation, and God, by Bryan Berghoef, published by Cascade Books

Disarming and ingenious; cleverly crafted with a residual sweetness

 

Bryan Berghoef is an author after my own heart. He loves beer… and Jesus. But not the Jesus we typically find in our traditional institutional church structures, where brutal honesty is squelched, members are spoon fed answers, and the goal is to produce clones who all believe one body of doctrine but don’t think for themselves. No, Bryan’s Christ is humble (open to listen to other perspectives, embraces religious diversity, and makes love, mutual respect, and communal exploration paramount) and his beer is good. It creates the scene for this story—the local pub—one of the best places where a faith (and no-faith) community can learn a whole new paradigm for Christ-like fellowship.

And that’s what you’ll do if you read Pub Theology. You’ll learn and experience the pub-theology way. Not only how Berghoef, a pastor of a church in Michigan, begins a regular meet up at a brewpub to discuss theology, philosophy, and the meaning of life, but how it attracts an eclectic variety of wayfarers—from conservatives to progressives to agnostics—who experience a challenging and encouraging environment to both deconstruct and discover their faith, or just learn from another—even, or especially, from an atheist, one of the long-time attendees. Which is why you’ll also discover a safe haven, where condescending religious authority is discouraged and the most doubting are welcomed with open arms, and some damn good microbrews.

In telling his story, Berghoef meets head on some of the most controversial faith issues of our day that sorely need addressing. Not only how to rethink church and outreach, but for instance, how to rethink the Bible, still taking it seriously, but being honest about its sometimes contradictory nature and how we need an understanding of its history and culture to discern its message for us today. Moreover, including exploring more inclusive themes for God, questioning faith that is motivated by a fear of hell or God’s punishment, and understanding the sporadic ways the early church developed cherished doctrines, such as the Trinity or the divinity of Christ. In the end, Berghoef deals with some of the objections people have about interfaith dialogue in a reasoned, respectful way that acknowledges the need for a safety net: the discussions don’t lead to leaving one’s faith but to knowing God’s heart for people.
 
Pub Theology is a fascinating open-minded spiritual journey that will stretch your faith or non-faith and show you an innovative, alternative model for human interaction on theology and the great questions of life. I highly recommend it. Enjoy Berghoef’s journey, but please note: it’s more appreciated when read with a glass of your favorite craft beer!

Pub Theology on Amazon | Pub Theologian Blog

Film Drives One More Nail in Hell's Coffin

When I first heard about Hellbound?, Kevin Miller's new documentary that critically examines the doctrine of hell, I was encouraged. With the recent plethora of books and commentary on the topic that challenge the traditional position (including two chapters in my book, Confessions of a Bible Thumper), how captivating would it be to put this doctrine under fire on film? Sounded promising. Well, now that I've seen the film (twice), sure enough, my hope for a visual fair hearing of a "biblical" (warning, loaded term) view of universal reconciliation was realized. The movie was sheer genious.

Miller and co-producers David Rempel and Brad Jersak just didn't lay out a case for rethinking hell but forced viewers to face the conventional dogma of eternal damnation head on. We heard straight from the mouths of conservative pastors and evangelists (from the whole spectrum--right-wing wackos from the infamous Phelps church to hip but hyper-conservative Mark Driscoll to moderate-sounding theologian Kevin DeYoung), without interuption, where the notion of hell leads. They let the doctrine speak for itself, in other words. That's when the emotional disconnect between everlasting punishment for one half to 99.99 percent of the human race (depending on who was defending it) and an unconditionally loving God hit viewers like a ton of bricks, kiln-fired to 2000-degrees Farenheit. Huh?, was the unspoken response, just as Rob Bell had asked.

But Miller and company don't leave you there. Just when you were thinking, there must be a better way, through theologians, scholars, and studied authors,* they piled on the preponderance of evidence that hell is a modern misinterpretation of religious narratives anchored in an ancient history we know little about. Gehenna, erroneously translated as "hell" in the New Testament, is a metaphor for judgment in this life, God's justice is restorative, not retributive, the term "everlasting" is mistranslated, and much of the early church embraced the idea of universal reconciliation. The overall impression the film leaves is inspiring and redemptive. Cries of heresy by convervatives are misplaced as should be a sense of superiority by Universalists. So much of this stuff is a mystery. The question boils down to, what kind of God do we think we serve?

Run, don't walk, to see this film. It's an important commentary on our religious divide. It fairly lays out a continuum of positions. It opens up a vision for the nonviolent paradigm Jesus espoused. The honest listening and questioning is refreshing. The music is powerful. Five out of five stars. Easy. After you view it, come back here and join the conversation through your comments. Or, better yet, grab a brew of your preference and have a discussion with friends.

*My only critique of the film is minor. They definitely interviewed top voices who expose the problems with the traditional view, such as Robin Parry (pseudonym is Gregory MacDonald) and many others, but they left out one important author, Thomas Talbott, who in many ways began this conversation about rethinking hell in 1999 with his watershed book, The Inescapable Love of God.

Beer and the Bible

John and I got a laugh over the way the brewing noises of Sound Brewery (Poulsbo, WA) keep interupting our video shoot. I decide not to cut it, better to see the lighter side of amateur video. With a glass of a delicious dark Abbey-style ale in hand, I explain how I started down the road to rethink the Bible from my conservative evangelical days. There are two important chapters in my book that address this, Investigating Inerrancy and Confronting Bible Abuse. Check it out and stay tuned for more!

New Book Distills Faith and Fellowship Over Local Brews

Press release on book is out!

“Confessions of a Bible Thumper,” out June 19, traces author’s spiritual journey from devout evangelical to progressive believer; challenges status quo on modern religious issues.

Seattle, WA (PRWEB) May 08, 2012 -- When a former Christian conservative and missionary begins to question his faith, where does he find God? In Author Michael Camp’s case, inside a microbrewery near Seattle, Washington. He’s not imbibing irresponsibly, but rather enjoying Pacific Northwest craft beer, reflecting on his 25-year evangelical sojourn, and talking reasoned theology with friends.

“Confessions of a Bible Thumper: My Homebrewed Quest for a Reasoned Faith” tracks Camp’s story and his nine eye-opening revelations that caused him to rethink an array of conservative doctrines, including paradigms on the Bible, the church, the “end times,” gay and lesbian rights, and salvation.

Read full release

The New Spiritual Paradigm: Not Church

I recently cracked open the newest issue of Time magazine, which displayed the words “10 Ideas That Are Changing Your Life” on the cover, and was pleasantly surprised one of those ideas mirrors one of the major themes in my book: Many believers need to be saved from the church. The article explained how American society is experiencing a shift in its concept of spiritual community. More and more people, without rejecting God, are leaving the institutional church and rethinking “religion.”

Time’s article calls the number four idea “The Rise of the Nones,” the Nones being the now 16 percent of the population who say they have no religious affiliation. That percent does not correlate with the 4 percent of Americans who identify as atheist or agnostic, meaning 12 percent of these “Nones” are still believers. Their hunger for spiritual meaning and connection is still strong. Many have fled the doctrinal battles, hierarchal control, and spiritual abuse happening inside the church to create grassroots Christian communities, often meeting in homes.

There is an irony to this phenomenon. This movement of Nones and Not Church (what one Sunday gathering calls itself) is worlds closer to the original intention of what New Testament writers called ekklesia, in Greek, or what is commonly translated “church,” than what fundamentalist, evangelical, and Catholic churches have become. In Confessions of a Bible Thumper, I explain (as does author Frank Viola) that a more historical and linguistically accurate reading of the Bible does not support our modern concept of church.

I’m excited about this trend. I believe a Not Church movement has begun. A movement that exposes controlling churches and denominations, such as Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM), which I was apart of in another life (and whose abuse is thankfully gradually being exposed here and here) and Mars Hill Seattle, whose recent extreme “church discipline” case was reported by KOMO 4 News Seattle. Moreover, I would hope, it would be a movement that funnels energy and money into fighting poverty and oppression, pursuing social justice, and simply loving others unconditionally (Jesus stuff), rather than building ego-driven empires that too often control the flock, idolize the Bible, and canonize doctrine. As I say in my book, the models for such communities are endless, way beyond simply a home church movement. I welcome your comments.

Did Jesus Hate Religion?

That is a question that Jefferson Bethke addressed in his "Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus" video that went viral. When I watched it, I found myself agreeing with a lot of Bethke's assertions, but was uneasy with the way in which it was expressed. It seemed like he wasn't getting to the root of the problem that I see in religious institutions.

Then I saw David Brooks' fascinating article on how Bethke caved to his critics; people like Kevin DeYoung, who "corrected" Bethke, saying that Jesus, although he hates self-righteousness, doesn't really hate religion because he observed Jewish holy days, went to the Temple, founded the church, instituted church discipline, initiated communion and baptism, and didn't abolish Jewish law. Bethke apparently wrote DeYoung in an email exchange and admitted to him that he actually "agrees 100 percent." Ahh, so this is perhaps why I was uneasy about the video. The "religion" Bethke critiqued was not the same as the one that DeYoung defends. But it's the religion that DeYoung defends that needs the critique!

In my book I make the case, based on historical analysis by people like Garry Wills, that Jesus in fact did not found a church, perpetuate Jewish law, and insitute a set of rituals to be followed to the letter. These ideas are read into the New Testament, not derived from a fair, exegetical reading of them. When Jesus taught on the church, he did not have our modern churches in mind, particuarly ones that promote spiritual abuse in the name of "church discipline," he is widely misunderstood on Jewish law (that's why Paul says "we have been released from the law" and "we are not under its supervision"), and in fact, not only was he opposed to this type of religion, but confronted the corruption of the Temple and accurately predicted it would be destroyed!

David Brook argues that disaffected youth and protestors have to do more than just cry injustice. They have to come up with an appropriate alternative, preferably based on an already establshed counter traditional school of thought, or else their critiques are vague and ineffectual. Excellent point.

On the other hand, in my mind, the answer to the "religion" Bethke ranted about is not DeYoung's view of Jesus' religion. Jesus' religion was a religion of the heart, where love is the only law. It wasn't a religion of unquestioned institutions and ecclesiastical authority. The alternative to DeYoung's "religion" (and the issues Bethke addressed) is Jesus' established but misunderstood philosophy of the loving reign of God. I appreciate your comments and thoughts.

Price of Biblicism Part II - Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll

I thought I'd go onto another topic, then a friend sent me a link to this blog, which discusses a recent church discipline action taken by Mark Driscoll's church, Mars Hill, right here in Seattle. Talk about spiritual manipulation and abuse!This is a another sad example of the price of biblical literalism, as a church uses Matthew 18 and a few other verses to "discipline" a member who fell into "sexual sin" (having non-sex contact with a single woman and having sex with his finance). They issued him a church discipline contract to sign that spells out his requirements for gaining restoration (including writing out his whole "detailed sexual sin and emotional attachment" life history! - and "all sins" during this time period!). Then when he refused to sign it, leadership sent instructions to the church to not even talk to this guy unless he was willing to abide by the hoops they set up (check out the level of control they stipulated in the letter to the church). So, he's basically booted out of the church with the whole congregation not only knowing his "sin," but commanded to shun him.

Where do I begin? This whole case makes me so angry. It's similar to what I encountered in PDI/SGM back in the 80s and 90s and share in my book on the chapters on church and bible abuse. First of all, even if one believes the Bible should be applied this way to spell our exactly how to discipline someone (which I don't), Mars Hill has gone way beyond the Bible! Where does it say draw up a contract in Matthew 18? Or get the guy to spill his guts by listing all his sins? Moreover, when Jesus said if a sinner doesn't listen to one or two or three others, then tell it to the church, he wasn't talking about broadcasting it to a mega church. The term is "gathering" and in a local setting it was always a small group. When Jesus said "treat him as a tax collector or pagan," since when does that mean don't talk to him unless he's ready to sign a contract and grovel to the demands of leadership? Last I checked, Jesus treated the Gentiles and tax collectors pretty well and told his disciples to do the same.

The amazing thing is, when you read the case, you'll see that by any reasonable standard the guy really did repent of his "sin." He just refused to sign the contract and good for him. But again, this case also reveals the incredible paranoia of the church over sex, a obsession that doesn't follow from a fair reading of the Bible as I explain in my chapter called The Sex God. You see, technically, having sex with your fiance, if love rules, is not a sin. I don't have time to go into it now but this is one of those fabricated offenses the church overreacts to. Look, read the case. This man wasn't spotless in what he did, but he's now paying the price for a church that adheres to a strict biblicism--and one that even goes beyond what the Bible teaches. This blantent spiritual abuse and manipulation and controlling behavior must be exposed.

The Price of Biblicism

I've written elsewhere about the dangers of fundamentalist or evangelical biblicism--the practice of attempting to apply the Bible's teaching based on the assumption that it is inerrant, self-sufficient, self-evident, internally consistent, and universally applicable. One obvious example is the way biblicists use the Bible to condemn gays and lesbians to an agonizing struggle to become "ex-gay" or remain celibate. Others are when they use it to preach salvation in very exclusive ways or still another, when they teach the supposed "end times," which is, by the way it's taught, extremely manipulative.

These results are the "price of biblicism," the fruit of making the Bible into something that the original writers (and God, I believe) never intended it to be. Another grave example I highlight here is the real-life case study of Soveriegn Grace Ministries (SGM - formerly People of Destiny International), a 30-year-old denomination that is now going through a very public investigation of ongoing spiritual abuse of church members and leaders. The root of this, I contend, is this denomination's strict adherence to biblicism.

The heart of most of the problems in this denomination is how it views its leaders' authority. For example, they take very literally Hebrews 13:17, which says "...Obey your leaders and submit to them. For they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will have to give…an account." And as the leader of SGM, C.J. Mahaney, recently taught, they believe God has inspired and preserved these specific words in Hebrews with their churches in mind.

To see the fruit of taking such a Scripture so literally and applying it to church leaders, pastors, and members, one only has to visit two websites that track a myriad of cases of serious, spiritual and emotional abuse. SGMSurvivors.com and SGMRefuge.com are chock full of stories from former SGM members who report on specific examples of leaders using verses like Heb. 13:17 to control people's lives, impose psycological guilt trips, and manipulate/reject members or other leaders when they stand up to the abuse. It's a sad commentary, but important for people to be aware of so I encourage interested readers to check these sites out. The abuse can only stop when things come to light.

I was recently reminded of these websites when I noticed one of the founding leaders of SGM, Larry Tomzcak, had finally posted his story of how he was spiritually abused more than 13 years ago. Also, having attended one of these churches back in the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s, I have personal experience. Finally, one friend of mine from those days, Darla Melancon, wrote a book about her family's abuse (I just discovered last year), called The Things I Learned After Being Kicked Out of Church. These sites and this book is a massive case study on the horrific price some people have to pay for biblical literalism.

Buried Truth Revealed Pisses Off Religious Elites

BOOK REVIEW: The Kairos, by Paul E. Hartman - Buy on Amazon

What if someone found sound historical proofs from Jesus’ lost years that revealed two shocking revelations about Jesus’ life? What if conservatives considered one revelation to be blasphemous, and liberals counted the other as mythological? Paul Hartman, in his new religious thriller, The Kairos—a term that signifies a point when God breaks into human history—deftly answers those questions. You don’t want to miss the ramifications found in this book.

When Hartman’s protagonist, Dr. Lute Jonson, a world-class archeologist and Dead Sea Scroll scholar, decides to unveil to the world these heretofore hidden proofs (scroll fragments accurately carbon-dated to the early first century), all hell breaks loose. Jonson inadvertently puts himself, his family, and friends in grave danger as powerful fundamentalist religious and secular forces (where else could you find Vatican officials and CIA agents working together?) race to stop him before he reaches a international media outlet. You won’t be disappointed with the book’s global intrigue that takes you from Jerusalem to northern Alaska, or its heart-stopping twists and turns, or an ending that’s anything but predictable.

What’s at stake, according to some, is the faith of a billion Christians worldwide. But the message in Hartman’s fictional account of what could be, goes beyond what the book’s characters think to the heart of Jesus’ message: follow the way of love, not historically-bound law, and embrace this love that drives out fear. Moreover, it goes to the heart of how we read the Bible. This engaging book reveals both a Jesus we never knew and one we always did, while reminding us to embrace the marginalized of our day.

Don’t let the few places where the protagonist sounds overly religious scare you away (the ongoing internal prayers and scripture citations were a tad overkill for me). You’ll get beyond that minor wrinkle and into a fascinating story and premise with realistic Dead Sea Scroll scholarship. I recommend this book! * * * * * [five stars]

31 Reasons I Left Evangelicalism and Became a Progressive But Not a Liberal

Okay, in the spirit of Rachel Held Evans' blog post on 13 Things that Make Me a Lousy Evangelical (and a Lousy Progressive and a Lousy Feminist), I've come up with my own list of 31 reasons I left evangelicalism and became a progressive (for lack of a better term) but not a liberal. So, here we go:

1. I'm allergic to contempary Christian music.
2. I never believed in the inerrancy of the Bible (and think it's rather obvious it's not inerrant) and got tired of hiding that fact.
3. I realized biblicism (the notion that the Bible is infallible, internally consistent, universally applicable, contains all the truth we need, and makes us certain about most everything) is intellectually hallow and dishonest (see The Bible Made Impossible).
4. I think it's not only fine to try to ascertain what Jesus meant or what Bible authors meant, in the original culture, but more importantly, if we don't, we're not taking the Bible seriously. We love tradition over truth.
5. I think it's perfectly acceptable to pick and choose what one thinks is inspired and true in the Bible. After all, that's how the Bible was composed. Someone else picked and chose and copied and translated, so why can't we? Why do we have to take it on faith and they get to decide? How does one do that you ask? Have an open mind, look at objective biblical scholarship, use some common sense, and let the Spirit speak to your heart. What? You think that's crazy? If accepting everthing at face value works, then why does evangelicalism have a thousand denominations and opinions about what the Bible teaches?
6. Despite 2-5 above, I think much of the Bible is inspired by God.
7. After studying the historical and cultural context of the Bible and learning how it has sometimes been miscopied, and frequently mistranslated and misinterpreted (by people who care more about tradition than truth), I find it a remarkably progressive book--okay, okay, minus that stuff about genocide and killing women and children, etc.
8. I might be called to love him, but I don't like Rick Warren, and especially those Hawaiian shirts he wears.
9. R.C. Sproul defending Mark Driscoll makes me a bit nauseous. Okay, a lot nauseous.
10. I not only think believing in The Rapture is delusional, but also believing we live in the end times too.
11. I believe Jesus already returned (figuratively) in the first century (you gotta read my book).
12. I believe the Bible teaches the good guys get left behind (again, it's in the book).
13. I sometimes agree with R.C. Sproul. For example, he actually pretty much believes #11 too.
14. Going to a U2 concert is a spiritual experience for me.
15. I no longer believe evolution is the enemy.
16. I think intelligent design is a grand idea that needs to be seriously considered.
17. I think one can be a practicing gay or lesbian and still follow Christ.
18. I'm a microbrew enthusiast and love to talk theology over a couple of brews.
19. Rick Perry makes me really nervous (but not as much as Sarah Palin).
20. I hate sexual exploitation but find some erotica perfectly acceptable for adults.
21. I think the evangelical church is sex-negative (okay, there are a few good evangelical marriage sex manuals out there, but that's the only exception).
22. I think Charlize Theron is hot and I'm not afraid to admit it.
23. I voted for Barak Obama. I still support him but see a lot of things he could do better.
24. I hate it when Republicans accuse Obama of doing or proposing things that George W. Bush (increased the deficit by $5 trillion) and Ronald Reagan did (raised taxes 11 times).
25. I think what evangelicals call "church" is a non-biblical, man-made construct (back to my book, and yes, these are shameless plugs!).
26. I think nine times out of ten spiritual disciplines (praying, fasting, time in the Word, worship, going to cutting-edge, spiritual conferences, and following the latest, trendy book -- think Purpose Driven Life) becomes a legalistic treadmill.
27. After studying the issue and examining the historical and biblical evidence, I became a Universalist.
28. I think the emergent "conversation" is good (and I really like Brian McLaren), but wish they'd come to a concluson once in awhile. Just for grins.
29. I often disagree with Bishop Spong, but sometimes I do agree with him.
30. I like Bishop Spong way more than Rick Warren or Mark Driscoll.
31. I think the truth is embodied in a composite of Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Please comment, challenge me, and share your own lists of where you're at!