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?

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

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.

Is Your Church Guilty of Spiritual Abuse? Check the Top Ten Signs

Don't underestimate the danger of spiritual
abuse. It devastates one's pysche, causes
depression and post traumatic stress disorder,
and leaves victims spiritually barren.  

Spiritual abuse: When those in spiritual authority manipulate, intimidate, and control others out of lust for power or fear of sin or insignificance. One or more of these signs doesn’t necessarily mean abuse is present, but the more signs, the more likely it is taking place.

Spiritual abuse is a stain on the body of Christ (I experienced it and write about it in my book). Today, many American churches and denominations are susceptible to it, particularly “reformed” Calvinistic churches or those with a highly disciplined authority structure. I cite examples from my experience including Sovereign Grace Ministries and Calvary Chapel. But spiritual abuse is also subtle and not easily recognizable unless one knows the signs. Learn these top ten signs so you can detect, expose, and help prevent abuse in your Christian community.

1 – Your pastor has an authoritative style of leadership. Churches that abuse typically have one controlling leader whose personality and ideas dominate church sermons, teaching, and decisions. He gathers elders and other pastors around him who submit unquestioningly to his authority. Members and other leaders are not encouraged to think and develop independent of his influence. Signs: (1) Lead pastor’s Sunday sermon is streamed via video to satellite churches. (2) The polity of the church is such that the lead pastor or pastors are shielded from real accountability. (3) There’s a strong focus on members submitting to their leaders and lower leaders submitting to higher leaders. Jesus never organized a hierarchy but told people to be servants. Paul’s form of biblical eldership was based on equality not submission.

2 – You are expected to commit to rigid rules for church membership and submit to church leaders’ authority. Despite no biblical mandate for formal church commitment or ecclesiastical authority in Scripture, spiritually abusive churches push a rigid form of membership and submission to church leaders as obedience to God. A hierarchy develops of members submitting to group leaders to elders to pastors to an executive board, which is controlled by the founder or lead pastor. Signs: (1) Members are required to sign a contract or agreement with strict rules for doctrinal beliefs and behavior. (2) A church discipline process is spelled out in detail that members must agree to.

3 – The church has a very wide view of what’s considered non-negotiable doctrines and behaviors and a very narrow view of what’s considered negotiable. Rather than making Christ’s one law of love for God and neighbor as the most important characteristic of a believer, belief in the right doctrines and certain religious behaviors becomes the main measuring stick for Christian maturity. Signs: There’s a lot of church documentation and teaching on correct doctrine.

4 – Any expression of concern about church decisions, teachings, or behavior of leaders is interpreted as disloyalty or sin. When a member or leader questions or challenges the status quo, they become suspect of being disloyal, told to submit, and even manipulated to do so. If they don’t, they are forced out. Signs: The history of the church or denomination includes leaders and members being fired or leaving under less-than-peaceful circumstances.

5 – The church deflects tough questions about their faith and doctrine. Only safe questions are allowed. There’s a veneer of openness but the bottom line is people are told not to be divisive about church doctrine. Pushed too far, sincere, reasonable questions are shut down in the name of unity. But biblical unity is not about creating uniformity. It’s about loving one another. Signs: Members are not encouraged to accept and explore their doubts but rather submit to what the church says is “orthodox” teaching.

6 – Church discipline is overdone and over taught in the church. Leaders will deny this by pointing to the percentage of discipline cases. But you need to measure the threat of discipline as well and how it’s done. Spiritual abuse happens when the interpretation of Matthew 18 and other Scriptures is very narrow and goes beyond what is stated or what can be reasonably applied to a contemporary situation. Signs: (1) There’s a long document about church discipline policy. (2) There is no appeals process for someone accused. (3) Members suspected of needing church discipline, or who are subject to it, must sit through lots of long meetings with leaders. (4) Shunning the accused is common when someone is deemed unrepentant or chooses to leave the church. Identifying “sin” and real “repentance” can become highly subjective and the church ends up shunning people for minor offenses (disagreeing with leadership or doctrine or what constitutes moral behavior) and rejecting people who have repented but haven’t jumped through sufficient hoops (e.g. signing a “discipline contract”).

7 – Your church and/or denomination has ex-member websites with stories of spiritual abuse. It’s one thing if a few disgruntled ex-members complain, but when a large number of people come out with stories about spiritual abuse, and are willing to post their stories, it’s a huge red flag. Especially when the stories reflect a pattern of misuse of authority, manipulation, and doing damage control to protect the reputation of the church. (See sample list of ex-member websites below).

8 – The church has a very strict definition of gossip. When members have concerns about the church or strains with relationships, they are expected to keep their thoughts to themselves. Signs: Any sharing of negative experiences in relationships, even if it’s healthy venting to a close friend, is perceived as sinful gossip.

9 – The church interprets Bible verses on women in submission to the nth degree. Women are expected to submit to their husbands. Paul’s teachings on women are rigidly and unevenly interpreted—e.g. wives are reprimanded for being unsubmissive but husbands are rarely reprimanded for not loving their wives like Christ and never for not submitting to their wives (Ephesians 5:21 tells believers to “Submit to one another”!! ). Signs: (1) Some churches teach husbands to monitor their wives communications, e.g. email. (2) The debate about women’s roles in the church is not up for discussion despite many alternative biblical interpretations, even in conservative churches, e.g. Four Square, Vineyard, and Evangelical Covenant churches allow women in leadership.

10 – A church deals with cases of sexual abuse in ways that serve the interest of the church not the interest of the victims and their families. When a member of the church is sexually abused by another member, rather than following the law and best practices (reporting it to local police and social services), a church will keep the abuse quiet under the guise of handling it “biblically.” Victims are forced to “forgive” their abusers and remain in their social sphere with no protection from post-traumatic stress and future abuse. Abusers are protected from local authorities and social stigma while victims and families are forced to remain silent about their pain, even to close friends, in the name of squelching “gossip.” Signs: People are familiar with this happening in the Catholic Church but it’s also common in Protestant churches. E.g., in 2012, a lawsuit was filed against several Sovereign Grace Ministries churches, the co-founders, and other leaders claiming cover up of child sexual abuse.

What should you do if you think spiritual abuse is taking place at your church? There is no set answer to this question, as it depends on the situation in the church. People should leave highly abusive churches and don’t look back or feel guilty. If spiritual abuse is not entrenched and it’s only in isolated cases, you should consider approaching a trusted leader in the church with your concern. How they respond will to tell you to what extent it is prevalent or if they desire to stop it from spreading. If they don’t acknowledge a problem and use abusive techniques like 2, 4, 5, & 8 above, it’s probably a highly abusive church and you should leave and consider warning others.

Have you seen other signs? Are there other ex-member groups we can add to this list? Please comment and add your thoughts and experiences with spiritual abuse.

Helpful Resources:
Spiritual Sounding Board – a blog that exposes spiritual abuse and encourages the abused
Abuse Resource Network – information on both sexual and spiritual abuse for Christians
Provender – a clearinghouse of sources on spiritual abuse
The Wartburg Watch – Dissecting Christian trends including spiritual abuse

Ex-member Sites:
Mars Hill Refuge
Joyful Exiles (Mars Hill Church)
SGM Survivors (Sovereign Grace Ministries/People of Destiny)
SGM Refuge
Calvary Chapel Abuse

Books:
Toxic Faith by Stephen Arteburn and Jack Felton (classic from early 1990s; one of first to uncover the problem in run-of-the-mill churches)
Churches that Abuse by Ron Enroth
Recovering from Churches that Abuse by Ron Enroth
The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen
Spiritual Abuse Recovery by Barb Orlowski

Update on Conservative Evangelical’s Dirty Little Secret: Spiritual Abuse

Last year I blogged about two major denominations’ recent exposure of spiritual abuse in the media and blogosphere, Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) and Seattle Mars Hill Church. With new developments, I offer this update. SGM (which I attended in the 1980s and early 90s and tell the story in my book) is now the target of a lawsuit that names several pastor defendants claiming they covered up both sexual and physical abuse done by members and possibly one pastor.

First of all, this sounds eerily familiar. My friend Darla Melancon wrote a book a couple of years ago (Things I Learned After Being Kicked Out of Church) exposing a similar cover up and manipulation in her SGM church (the church I used to attend years ago). Second, after reading an amendment to the lawsuit, I discovered my old friend from that same SGM church, Pastor Mark Mullery, is named as a defendant in the lawsuit! One good thing is the church he pastors now, SGM Fairfax, VA, just voted last week to leave the denomination. I’ve reached out to him, but he hasn’t revealed anything about their specific situation (it’s been 18 years since I’ve seen him). Bottom line is, SGM is going through a huge shaking due to persistent, documented accusations of spiritual and now sexual abuse. (As catalogued by the good folks over at SGM Survivors and SGM Refuge).

Now Seattle. With SGM’s lawsuit ringing in my ears, years of following stories by SGM and now Mars Hill ex-members (see Mars Hill Refuge and Joyful Exiles), a wonderful phone conversation with a new blogger friend Julie Anne over at Spiritual Sounding Board (she’s a tigress when it comes to exposing abuse), and a new development at Mars Hill Church (they moved one of their branches closer to where I live), I decided I needed some first-hand experience getting to know Mars Hill. I visited the downtown branch last Sunday. Kind of twilight zonish, it was, going back to a conservative evangelical church after 7 or 8 years. Mostly smiling, friendly twenty-thirty-somethings, terrific upbeat music, polished and professional leaders, and state-of-the-art technology streaming video of Mark Driscoll preaching on a massive screen.

The problem of pinpointing spiritual abuse and warning people is these churches often look so good on the surface. Everyone is smiling, there’s a spiritually-satisfying atmosphere, the sermon is full of jokes and encouraging teaching. It takes a discerning eye to spot it. I was reminded of Jonna Petry’s story from Mars Hill that reveals this problem of an appealing veneer over destructive abuse behind the scenes. I also remembered the long Membership Covenant members are required to sign before they join, which lays out strict rules for adhering to church doctrine and understanding church discipline. That document was red flag number one.

Seeing Driscoll on the screen was red flag number two. All the churches in the city stream Mark for sermons. There is no local teaching at MH church plants! No need to clone. Every church gets the same guy and sermon. This fits one of the major characteristics of spiritually abusive churches—they have an ambitious, charismatic, and controlling leader with little or no accountability. Streamed sermons to all church campuses is a great control mechanism.

As sermons go, Driscoll’s was upbeat, funny, encouraging, and extremely simplistic. I had heard he had toned down his more bombastic side, so no expletives. There were the typical Calvinist fundamentalist beliefs, almost hidden behind the charismatic delivery. “We all deserve to go to hell,” he slipped in. “God chose you, predestined you to be in Christ…” [with the corollary, God predestined non-believers for eternal wrath, left unsaid]. “Don’t build your children’s identity by telling them what they are good at… but that they are in Christ.” This was the put-down-worldy-social-sciences-for-the-true-biblical approach. Why not do both, Mark, and tell them they’re good at some things because God made them that way? Red flag number three. Beware of manipulation through fear of hell and black-and-white thinking.

In a fascinating twist, one of the first people I saw when I approached the church was… my across-the-street neighbor! Despite the fact that last year I warned him about Mars Hill, he and his wife joined the church. He told me he’s now a home group leader and has meetings every Tuesday, right across from my house! It’s a small world. (As I write this, they are meeting). He revealed red flag number four. He told me they discuss the previous week’s sermon every meeting. No need to address local concerns, just reinforce Mark’s teaching. This is a tactic my SGM church used to make sure everyone swallowed the red pill and ensured the “anointed leaders” are in charge—even of what to discuss at home groups.

After the service, which included a long appeal for giving and the church’s financial situation (not pretty and which was red flag number five; members are pestered to give more and more to the church to meet pressing needs), I went up to talk to pastor Tim Gaydos, a handsome man with a friendly smile. I’m not sure what he thought when I told him I don’t believe in biblical inerrancy and am a Christian Universalist. “Is there a place for me here?” I asked, after explaining some of my background (25 years in evangelicalism before jumping ship). The conversation continued something like this:

"Sure, we welcome everyone who attends,” he said. “Not everyone is a member.”

”But I read your membership covenant,” I said. “I found it very narrow. Does that mean, someone with my beliefs could never be a member?”

I detected a switch in tone. “Well, yeah, there are doctrinal conditions for members.”

“Why?”

He used his hands as an illustration. “We hold on tight to the non-negotiables and are open handed to negotiables. Most large evangelical churches today don’t have membership. But we think it’s important. It tells us who our real sheep are to care for.”

Sounds like attendees are second-class citizens, I thought. “But what if I couldn’t agree with the covenant… your non-negotiables?”

“If you decided you couldn’t agree with them, why would you want to become a member?” he asked.

Good question. Why indeed? I thought. “I get that. You’re right,” I answered. Later I realized I should have said, Because I believe that loving people in community is more important than believing all the same doctrines. “But my question is,” I continued, “why are they so narrow? Why does the church see the need to have doctrinally rigid conditions for members, like believing in inerrancy? Many sincere believers don’t believe in that and consider it a negotiable.”

He didn’t answer directly. He seemed a bit flustered. Said something about not apologizing for believing the Bible is inerrant. Nice guy, Tim. But I detected red flag number six. Abusive churches don’t welcome questions—especially tough questions. And I hadn’t even gotten started! They also hate ambiguity and have a paranoid need to have everyone agree.

Bear in mind before the streamed sermon, they played an interview with an Ethiopian pastor who apparently is one of Mars Hill’s overseas church plants. I asked Tim about how that works. They pay the pastor’s salary, he told me. “What about the future of that church?” I asked, implying there is an unhealthy dependency potential.

“Well, the goal is that the church would eventually support their own pastor to make it sustainable.”

Having been a church planter/missionary myself in Africa for seven years, I am all too familiar with this model. It’s probably the worst strategy one could undertake if you wanted to plant healthy long-term churches, but the best strategy if you wanted to do something quick and easy and look really good. Typically, such a model produces a dangerous dependency (sustainability becomes a pipe dream), local residents don’t trust the pastor—they know he’s milking the white foreigners and suspect he’s only in it for the money—and oftentimes he is. I warned Tim about this problem, but he didn’t seem to take it seriously. Red flag number seven. Were appearances more important than strategic thinking? Then again, why should he trust some fallen-away Universalist?

Finally, after our conversation, I strolled over to the bookstore. Not very big, that’s for sure. Why? Well you can only fit so many Mark Driscoll books on shelves. They made up more than half the books along with a few others like fellow Reformed pastor John Piper. Red flag number eight. Control members’ library. I had also heard Driscoll on YouTube tell members not to read The Shack.

Julie Anne has spurred me to think about doing something more concrete about exposing abuse and helping to prevent it. This visit was a start. Next, I’ll talk with my neighbor. Stay tuned. Comments welcome.

Shooter, not God, caused Newtown tragedy

Someone wrote a letter to the editor of my hometown newspaper, The North Kitsap Herald, and implied God used the Newtown tragedy to punish the country for legislating God out of the public sphere. Here's my response (and below) that was published on January 4th, as well as another good response from James Behrend: http://www.northkitsapherald.com/opinion/letters/185674471.html
______________________

I don’t doubt Don Wiens is well meaning (“Reaction to school shootings in Newtown,” page A4, Dec. 28 Herald). But when he implied that God didn’t prevent the Newtown shooting because we’ve legislated God out of public life, he parroted the standard conservative “Christian” line from the likes of James Dobson, Franklin Graham, and the American Family Association.

They’ve been touting a vindictive God for decades, stating mirrored threats at every national tragedy to scare and manipulate the populace to buy into their warped theology: the nation has fallen away from God (pushing prayer out of schools and permitting gay marriage) and divine judgment has prevailed. I know. For 25 years, I was a part of that movement and trace my spiritual evolution out of it in my book, “Confessions of a Bible Thumper.”

Wiens and his national counterparts overlook the heart of the very God they claim to serve. Jesus condemned public displays of religion, told his followers to pray in secret, and taught the reign of God is not about Old Testament-style retribution, but rather cultivating a kind heart, loving your enemies and fighting for social justice.

Wien’s citing a C.S. Lewis book as proof of divine judgment is also misguided. A loving God may not always be “safe” because His justice is restorative — He has a knack for winning over renegades — not because He’s vindictive.

The truth is, the Newtown shooter was a home-schooled, mentally ill loner whose mother had an arsenal of guns. His deranged act wasn’t God’s instrument of justice for our rejection of fundamentalist religion. There may be underlying reasons for violence in our society, but God’s revenge isn’t one of them.

Michael Camp
Poulsbo, WA

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.

A Unifying Trend in the Body of Christ

When Frank Schaeffer came out with his latest article on Huffington Post, I was encouraged. Not exactly known for being the most diplomatic communicator when speaking of his evangelical past, he confessed he had erred in his tendency to "burn evangelicals" in  his writing. "Instead of damning each other, maybe we can learn to show mercy to those with whom we disagree, taking our cue from a teacher who said that love of enemy — not correct theology or politics — is all that can make us whole," he wrote. Wise words indeed.

I commented on his post and told him I'm glad he has made this turn, but hope he doesn't lose his prophetic edge. There's a difference between condemning the other and offering loving constructive criticism. I can only hope that my writing has done the latter. If I have crossed the line and condemned, I was wrong and wish to join a more compassionate approach.

Then I saw this on Patheos (What do you want to see in the future for Evangelical Christianity? ). At Wild Goose East, three young evangelicals sat down with Frank to talk about the issues that matter to both of them. "Many conservatives would have wanted to lay into Mr. Schaeffer for his “heresy” and the “evil” he is spreading with his liberal message. But after spending a week witnessing Mr. Frank’s love and Christ-like character, I was convinced that despite our major theological differences that he was a brother in Christ and I wanted to get to hear his story."

Thank you Brandon Robertson for sharing your story. What struck me was Brandon's heart as much as Frank's. "I just wanted to publicly commend Mr. Frank Schaeffer as a young, conservative evangelical Christian who believes that liberals, moderates, and conservatives can all work together to see God’s Kingdom come and will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Yes, the day has come, when divergent Christians have this attitude and can actually work together (despite their wide differences in theological/ideological views). Brandon calls Frank "liberal," and emphatically includes "liberals" in his list. I'm encouraged that a wing of the conservative Christian movement has take a huge step toward unity and someone like Frank Schaeffer has done the same. I commend both Brandon and Frank. If liberals, progressives, moderates, and conservatives can learn to agree to disagree, agreeably, and in respect and love, and not demonize the other, we just might get a slice of what Brandon Robertson desires: the Reign of God come and God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Let it be.

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.

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!

Why the Christian Right Should Support Gay Marriage

(Even Though They Believe It's a Sin)

Conservative churches need to do everything they can to reconcile with the LGBT community. I have written about the paradigm shift that needs to take place for this to happen and how it occurred in my evolution from conservative to progressive believer. Interestingly, until yesterday, I thought the only argument to present to my evangelical friends in favor of a reconciliation, which in my mind should include acceptance of gay marriage, was to show that the traditional Biblical basis for rejecting all homosexual behavior is flat-out wrong. This is still a good strategy, because the case is so strong that those "clobber" passages have been mistranslated and misinterpreted and that the NT law of love prevails in such cases. One can be a practicing homosexual and a Christian.

But wonders never cease. Misty Irons, a young mother, seminary graduate, and conservative Christian, has made a brilliant case that conservatives should support civil same-sex marriage, even though they believe it's a sin. How can this be? Irons says it's simply an issue of civil liberties and supporting such liberties is always to the church's advantage.

Think about it. Even the Christian Right always argues for religious liberty and concedes that people like Buddhists and New Agers should have a right to practice their religion, even though they would call it an idolatrous practice (I would add they do this in countless ways, e.g. not calling for a legal ban on pre-marital sex even though they call it a sin). The reason is simple. To protect their own religious liberty, the church supports the liberties of others they disagree with. This is the American way, after all. So, why not support the liberty of the LGBT community on the gay marriage issue?

You must read Iron's rationale, which is really quite good. She says the church should allow homosexuals the right of same-sex secular marriage to affirm their civil liberties, but still have the right to keep the conservative church's religious marriage homosexual free. She doesn't concede that there are progressive churches that would choose to accept homosexual religious marriage, but then again, her audience here is conservative Christians.

I was pleasantly surprised to see her logic and candor. Of course, as to be expected the conservative church is not taking up her recommendation. In fact, her own church forced her and her husband to leave their denomination as a result of her plea. Not surprising. But also take note she is a speaker at the Gay Christian Network conference next January. Way to go, Misty. And thank you for your insight and showing me I have another tool in my arsenal with which to challenge my evangelical friends on this issue.

The Root of the Anti-Gay Church

The source of anti-gay homophobia in the church is the Christian worldview that buys into incoherent biblicisim. It's the view that the Bible is God's Word and the literal exclusive authority for Christian faith and practice. It claims the Bible is (1), inerrant, (2), self-sufficient, (3), self-evident in its meaning, (4), internally consistent, and (5), universally applicable. These are the root of a host of misguided theologies in mostly conservative churches, not the least of which is the anti-gay rhetoric and "ministries" that attempt, in the name of God, to de-gay GLBT people.

But as Christian Smith argues in his new book, The Bible Made Impossible, this worldview is indefensible. In light of logic, the Bible's own assertions, and the historical/cultural context of its writings, none of these five claims hold up to scrutiny. Therefore, the many theologies associated with this brand of biblicism (in addition to the attack on gays are the "end times," idolizing the institutional church, and making moralism superior to love) are false.

A more sensible way of looking at the Bible can still uphold much of it as inspired by God and holding a type of authority. However, this alternate way recognizes much of what it asserts was never meant to be universally applied as a set of behavior codes but is culturally or historically conditioned. Moreover, many of its proclamations are misinterpreted or mistranslated due to the misguided assumption that the divine word is always self evident.

In the case of religious conservatives, a handful of passages are used to condemn all homosexual behavior while ignoring the cultural evidence that biblical writers were addressing unique sexual sins, such as cultic prostitution, pederasty, and exploitation; also ignored is the New Testament powerful theme that all things are lawful as long as no harm is done to one's neighbor and love rules.

I trace my own personal evolution from evangelical narrow biblicist to progressive believer, and particularly my transformation from an anti-gay to a pro-gay position, in my forthcoming book Confessions of a Bible Thumper. As I was sincere and well meaning in my views, so are today's religious conservatives. The path to understanding is wrought with psychological and theological struggles. Activists should challenge prevailing narrow views on homosexuality, but should also be aware how entrenched this worldview root is.

I welcome your thoughts and comments!

Why Rick Perry Makes Me Nervous

I have to admit, Rick Perry's rise to prominence among Republican presidential candidates, shortly after he convened a prayer meeting (The Response patterned after The Call), makes me nervous. Why? It has to do with his close alliance with the theology, ministries, and at least one former pastor of mine on the evangelical Christian Right.

On the surface, Perry has remarkably diverse political positions. While maintaining conservative credentials, he has called for a quick exit out of Afghanistan and Iraq, college financial assistance for children of illegal immigrants in Texas, and once used an executive order to create a mandatory HPV vaccine program for schoolgirls to fight cervical cancer. These are some of the reasons he has been attacked by other Republicans at the debates. He's doesn't fit neatly into their box. That part is good.

On the other hand, in other ways, he does fit the conservative bill. He scoffs at global warming, claims there are holes in the theory of evolution, and has a disdain and distrust of big government. Yet, these aren't the reasons I'm nervous. You see, I'd agree there are problems with orthodox Darwinian evolution (but support other unorthodox evolutionary theories) and have no problem with the "concept" of limited government, albeit I disagree with most conservatives on where to draw the line.

No, the reason I'm nervous is Perry (and Michelle Bachman for that matter) still buys into the popular evangelical fairy-tale notion that America is a Christian nation the roots of which we must return, or else. His kick-off prayer meeting was part political ploy and part rallying cry for true believers. By quoting strategically selected scripture (Joel 2), he told the audience, and the whole conservative evangelical movement, that he's one of them--one who, in the context of the OT prophet Joel, is calling our nation to repent of our sins (think gay and abortion rights) and return to the Lord. At Falwell's Liberty University, Perry said "America is going to be guided by some set of values. The question is gonna be, whose values? It's those Christian values that this country was based upon." Never mind that's not exactly true. We're equally based on Enlightenment values and some of the "Christian" values of our early history were detestable.

But what makes me really nervous is how Perry and the religious right and my old pastor Lou Engle (of The Call) define "Christian values." It's an extremely narrow, black-and-white view of Christ that I am all too familiar with, having spent almost 25 years in this movement. It's a view that ignores huge swaths of Christ's teachings. One that promotes OT law over NT grace (think Perry's pride at the 200+ executions in his state), militaristic solutions over non-violent alternatives, criminalization of homosexuality, protection of the rich from equitable tax increases, literalistic biblicism, and control (influence at the very least and dominion at worst) of government and major sectors of society. Some very devoted Christians would say these aren't Jesus' values at all.

These evangelical pseudo "Christian" values consider anyone outside the conservative fold as part and parcel of the enemy in a world of "spiritual warfare." It can't recognize that God works outside the institutional evangelical church/parachurch, reveals himself to people of other religions, and our current President, although obviously not perfect, is a devoted follower of Christ and might actually have some Christian values of his own!

What makes me nervous is not the Christian values, but the inconsistency in claiming them--the narrow mindset--and how it negatively affects public policy.

Don't be Deluded by the Last Days

I Survived the Christian Right
Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home

Lesson 4: Don't Be Deluded by the Last Days: As a brand-new believer in 1979 I tended to accept the pre-tribulation Rapture view that the Bible predicts Jesus would return a second time before a period of tribulation, to whisk believers up to heaven and leave unbelievers behind to face seven years of apocalyptic trials. After reading several critiques of this view,18 I realized it was farcical and unbiblical, not to mention highly manipulative the way preachers or authors—Hal Lindsey in the 70s and 80s and Tim LaHaye (Left Behind) today—use it to “persuade” people to come to Christ, or else. Despite this, like the majority of evangelicals, I still believed the return of Christ was in the future and possibly eminent, given the state of the world.

Then around 1999, the preterists 19 entered my life; the likes of R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth Gentry, ironically conservative evangelicals who introduced the notion that everything that Jesus predicted in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) was fulfilled between 64 and 70 AD.20 They also viewed the speculation around the return of Christ as madness 21 and the book of Revelation as written prior to 70 AD;22 hence its predictions were not speaking about thousands of years in the future.

Their reasoning was refreshing. They cried Bible abuse by dispensationalists and the bulk of evangelicals in the widespread unreasonable belief that Jesus spoke of two events in the Olivet Discourse: a coming calamity on Jerusalem within a generation, and then in the next breath about his return to earth 2000 years in the future. After reading the preterists, I reread all those prophetic verses and suddenly they made perfect sense. 23

What I didn’t expect was to come to believe these preterists weren’t going far enough. Considered “partial preterists,” they still believe in a future return of Christ at the time of the resurrection. But for this position to stand, there must be two second comings of Christ, one in 70 AD in judgment on Jewish Temple worship and one at a future resurrection. But this view is problematic because the New Testament does not speak of two second comings at all, or more accurately, a third coming. I found myself agreeing with the “consistent preterists,”24 who say that all the prophecies about Jesus returning occurred at or before 70 AD based on a rational reading of the New Testament and first century historical evidence. 25

Imagine that for a moment. Jesus has already returned. The drama is over. There is no need to unmask the mystery or fear the Antichrist, let alone shape American foreign policy around the return of Christ and the end of the world.

Get on with the business of saving the planet and promoting social justice in the world without secretly believing it will all be for naught in the end.

18 DeMar, Gary, Last Days Madness: The Obsession of the Modern Church
19 Preterists believe biblical events were fulfilled in the past as opposed to futurists, who believe they will be fulfilled in the future.
20 Sproul, R.C., The Last Days According to Jesus, and Josephus, The Jewish Wars
21 DeMar, Gary, Op. cit.
22 Gentry, Kenneth, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation
23 e.g. Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this generation shall certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” Matthew 24:34 and “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.” Revelation 1:1
24 J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia, and www.preterist.org
25 Josephus, Tacitus, and Eusebius. They cite occurrences of false prophets, famines, earthquakes, wars, and astronomical signs leading up to 70 AD that match what Jesus predicted.

Avoid Legalism Like the Plague - Lesson 3

I Survived the Christian Right
Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home

Lesson 3: Avoid Legalism Like the Plague - One day I was enjoying a beer with a friend in a popular pub near my home when I noticed someone who went to my former evangelical church. After I picked myself off the floor due to shock from seeing him in a bar, we greeted each other and I asked if he still attended.

“I finally left last year,” the man said.
“Do you mind me asking why you left?” I asked.
“I got tired of jumping through hoops.”

What an apt way of describing what I also experienced in the majority of the six or seven evangelical churches I attended over the years. Why do some churches make our faith journey into an obstacle course on a field of required religious practices and doctrines? Could legalistic control have something to do with it? Again, there are some admirable exceptions, but as Brennan Manning once said, “the American church accepts grace in theory, but denies it in practice.”

Evangelical Christians largely conform to a performance-oriented approach to God: Regularly attend church to worship God our way, pray and read the Bible daily, go to a home group, adhere to a particular statement of faith, believe in the right doctrines and the future return of Christ, be pro-life, dress modestly, don’t drink (or if you do, please don’t do it in front of us), avoid questionable movies, don’t put swear words, sex scenes, or questionable doctrines in your books, refrain from producing music on a secular recording label, and whatever you do, don’t vote for a Democrat. And those are the more moderate rules! In summary, avoid contamination by the world, heretics, and liberals and insulate yourself in the squeaky-clean alternate evangelical world we created.

I saw many evangelicals forget that “we are no longer under the supervision of the law,” and “whoever loves his fellow human being has fulfilled the law.” The lesson? Evangelicalism is inundated with religious baggage and a host of man-made written and unwritten regulations that have nothing to do with authentic spirituality. Since “Christ is the end of the law” or a law-based approach to God, we are free to govern ourselves under Christ’s one overriding law of love.

Find ways to love God and love your neighbor and don’t worry about fitting into some legalistic evangelical mold. Or any kind of Christian mold, for that matter.

Leave Churchianity - Lesson 2

I Survived the Christian Right
Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home

Lesson 2: Leave Churchianity - Surprise! Jesus didn’t found an institutional church. 9 For that matter, he didn’t found a religion either. He also didn’t expect his followers to set up a Christian version of the synagogue, let alone create a parallel Christian universe where microbrews are banned.

When I worked on a church planting team in Malawi, Africa in the 1990s, I studied the early church and began to realize how unbiblical our modern concept of church is. I came to see that professional salaried clergy, a clergy-laity distinction, meetings in buildings, church budgets, hierarchal leadership, and legalistic requirements were not present in early Christianity. Frank Viola and George Barna make the case that most of these elements of church were borrowed from pagan culture. 10 That doesn’t make them necessarily evil, just not based on the original, and not the model for Christian fellowship. The word translated “church” is the Greek ecclesia, which simply means “gathering” and does not denote an institution. The same word is used for a “mob” in the book of Acts. 11

Evangelical churches routinely espouse modern church membership and active involvement as God’s only way of building the Kingdom and creating mature believers. I recently heard a pastor describe his love for the institutional church in terms normally used for ascribing worship to God.

Undoubtedly, there are churches that are healthy places to grow spiritually, but my experience also reveals how prevalent spiritual abuse is found in fundamentalist and evangelical churches. One could argue that the doctrine of the institutional church is largely to blame for abuses. Why? It promotes churchianity—the practice of making belief in Jesus largely focused on the habits and demands of the institutional church (doctrinal purity, religious behavior), rather than on God’s love. Churchianity encourages authoritarian leadership, which is at the core of spiritual abuse. It also doesn’t encourage people to think for themselves. Blind compliance is sure to follow. “Evangelicals are enamored with power and control. That’s why numbers and measures are so important to evangelicals, and why compliance is next to godliness.” 12

Don’t put up with churchianity.

9 Wills, Garry, What Jesus Meant, page 78.
10 Viola, Frank and Barna, George, Pagan Christianity, page xix.
11 Wills, Garry, Op. cit., page 78.
12 Mike Yaconelli, in The Post Evangelical by Dave Tomlinson, page 28.

I Survived the Christian Right: Beware of Bible Abuse

Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home

OK, I confess. There are only nine lessons, but ten sounds better.

A quest for a reasoned faith based on reality. That was largely what my 27-year sojourn in evangelicalism was about. Although evangelicals are not a monolithic block comprised only of conservatives (progressive evangelicals are becoming more influential), I found the movement and my experience saturated with the mindset of the Christian Right.

This mindset often calls things “truth” when they are only half-truth, thus making falsehood hard to detect. I didn’t find my whole experience bogus—I was and still am enthralled with Jesus’ teaching, signs of God working in my life, and supportive of things evangelicals do right, like fighting poverty through organizations like World Vision. But what I increasingly found was a lack of authenticity and reasoned perspectives on faith.

I weathered the theological storm and made it home to a progressive Christianity, taking with me valuable insights derived from ten eye-opening discoveries. There I go again. I mean nine. The following are lessons readers open to new paradigms can learn.

Lesson 1: Beware of Bible Abuse – With some notable exceptions, most evangelicals I know primarily read the Bible devotionally, meaning they read it in a superficial way without regard to the conditions of history, culture, genre, or its own literary context. They also believe it is the infallible Word of God and expect God to speak to them personally through its message. I read the Bible this way for years. But I gradually learned a valuable lesson. Although harmless on occasion, a predominantly devotional approach to Bible study inevitably leads to Bible abuse—handling scripture in a way that the original author did not intend and the original audience would never recognize. Although it is mostly done unintentionally, I find people abuse the Bible in three ways.

Misinterpretation – The most common form is when people take verses or passages out of their literary context, for example, the practice of citing isolated verses to bolster a doctrine. In other words proof-texting. That’s why we should “read the Bible like drinking beer, not sipping wine.” 1

Another form of this is practicing poor exegesis and hermeneutics. Exegesis is ascertaining a passage’s original meaning through understanding its historical and cultural background. Hermeneutics is deciding how to apply a passage to our modern circumstances. Without doing the hard work of both of these, it’s easy to misinterpret what the Bible teaches. 2 Passages are applied with a wooden literalism, which causes a host of problems, including dogmatic teaching on divorce, tithing, the eminent return of Christ, and sexuality, to name only a few.

Applying Strict Authority – Despite the fact that the Bible does not claim to be inerrant, 3 fundamentalists and many evangelicals insist it is. When I visited L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland in 1984, I studied this doctrine and concluded there was little evidence to support it. Gradually, I came to believe that the Bible is not a set of timeless maxims to be obeyed to the letter. It never claims to be the Word of God, only that Jesus is the Word come down from God and the Jewish prophets spoke the word of the Lord. When every isolated verse or passage is applied with equal authority, the phenomenon of Bibliolatry results.4

Moreover, the evidence supports the notion that parts of our modern Bible were added by copyists and go beyond the original manuscripts, which we don’t have. 5 One example is the controversial passage in I Corinthians 14 often used to justify the suppression of women. It states women should not teach but be silent in church and in full subjection to men. Yet the evidence is strong that Paul did not write these verses but later copyists added them. 6 The Jesus Seminar makes this mistake in the opposite direction when it dogmatically concludes portions of Jesus’ sayings are not genuine based on subjective opinion, not on manuscript evidence. 7 These discoveries reveal how our modern Bible can still contain divine inspiration—and powerful lessons rooted in godly wisdom—without every part of it being the Word of God or wholly free from human error. 8

Mistranslation – There are several places in the New Testament where the English word chosen in most popular translations is almost assuredly not correct. I will cite several of them below. Our modern English translations are not as accurate as we think and should not always be taken at face value.

Read the Bible in its own historical, cultural, and literary context. Don’t worship it.

1 N.T. Wright
2 See Fee, Gordon, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth
3 Countryman, William, Biblical Authority or Biblical Tyranny?
4 Bible worship; see Thatcher, Adrian, The Savage Text: The Use and Abuse of the Bible, page 4.
5 Erdman, Bart D., Misquoting Jesus
6 Fee, Gordon, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, and Erdman, Op. cit., page 183.
7 Wills, Gary, What Jesus Meant, page xxv.
8 Wills, Gary, Op. cit. and Countryman, William, Op. cit.

Take the Insider's Tour of Evangelicalism

I'm a former Baptist missionary, aid worker, and Senior Writer for World Vision. I want to take you on an insider tour of evangelicalism, one of the fastest growing religious movements in America today. If you’re tired of Bible thumping or were ever tempted to thump a Bible thumper, this tour could be your cure. Laced with wit and humor (I hope you think so too), my journey takes you from my conversion amidst the 1970s Jesus Movement to Muslim animistic Africa with plenty of church-experience stops along the way to expose the good, bad, and the ugly of the evangelical movement.

But I don't stop there. Often disillusioned with evangelical institutions and dogma, I venture into the realm of the radical Left and their response to the Christian Right, only to find that religious conservatives don’t have a monopoly on fundamentalist mindsets. With clowns to the Christian Right and jokers to the secular Left, what is the average Joe to do who believes in God, is weary of organized religion, enjoys sex, watches the Daily Show (OK, Comedy Central also works), and can’t turn down a good microbrew? Well, before you throw in the towel and affix the new nifty atheist symbol to your bumper, you might want to check out my proposed alternate way: recover a reasonable faith that takes the New Testament call for freedom from man-made religion seriously, rejects narrow literalism, and insists on going where the evidence leads.

In my unique iconoclastic style (again, I hope so), I explore the fundamentalist roots of the church, charismatic and mainstream evangelicalism, the new progressives, including the emergent church, and over reactions to the Christian Right such as the writings of Bishop Shelby Spong and Sam Harris. By weaving personal stories and anecdotes together with some of the most controversial hot-potato issues of our day, I ponder such thought-provoking questions as these while answering them with clear reasoning and meticulous references from scholars, historians, and scientists:

• How and why do some Christians abuse the Bible?
• Why is the traditional doctrine of hell based more on tradition than on what the Bible truly affirms?
• Why is the evangelical church wrong on the gay rights issue?
• What’s all this rigmarole about the end of the world and Jesus’ return?
• Why are Christians wrong when they claim someone like Gandhi isn’t “saved?”
• Is there a reasonable way to solve the religion vs. science debate?
• Is materialistic atheism really ruling the day intellectually?
• And the real stumper, Can we ever recover from the damage done by the Teletubbies?

If you want to learn how to squash fundamentalism wherever it rears its ugly head, on the Right or the Left, and yearn for some clarity in religious thought and the culture wars, my tour in the form of a new book called Confessions of a Bible Thumper, may be your ticket to an authentic and progressive spirituality independent of dogmatic trappings. What part of this tour are you fascinated with?

Confessions of a Bible Thumper

Why haven't I posted anything in a while someone asked? Well, I've been busy working my day job and on a new writing project (could turn into a book) that I will begin to preview here. I welcome all your comments.

How a Former Evangelical Survived the Christian Right, Rejected the Radical Left, and Recovered a Rational Faith

Introduction

The enigma of Christian fundamentalism and most of evangelicalism is the loss of the biblical concept of freedom and the development of the unbiblical system of performance-based religion. Based on their preoccupation with biblical inerrancy and literalism, most of evangelicalism has succumbed to a deep-seated and insidious legalism that grips conservative bible-believing Christians with an iron fist that refuses to let go. From the asinine superficiality of extreme fundamentalism to the more thoughtful faith of moderate evangelicals (but no less performance- and law-based) the conservative church is in spiritual bondage, suffering from a severe drought of grace—something with which it should be inundated given what the Bible truly teaches. As one conservative church member said to me recently when I asked him why he stopped attending church, “I got tired of jumping through hoops.”

Although there may be glimpses of freedom among some progressive evangelicals, legalism typically reigns supreme, taking various forms within individual churches and denominations. The censorious gradations include on one side of the extreme written and unwritten codes for dress, behavior, speech, sex, ministry, and non-essential doctrines (e.g., restrictions on skirt lengths, body piercings, alcohol use, most if not all divorce, certain sexual behaviors even among married couples, women in ministry, adherence to the King James Bible only, and fundamentalist statements of fairh). Moderates aren’t nearly as strict yet have their own written and unwritten legalistic codes that include measuring a person’s godly maturity based on how well they practice spiritual disciplines, such as praying and reading the Bible, and their degree of commitment to, and financial support of, an institutional church. In short, legalistic evangelicalism focuses primarily on what believers must do for God rather than on what God has done for them. Afraid of teaching true biblical freedom, the institutional church attempts to control people through its emphasis on creating and enforcing laws derived from misinterpretations of the Bible and traditional non-biblical teachings rather than allowing individuals to govern themselves under the overriding law that Christ taught—love for God and neighbor.

Shamefully, the church also suffers from a shortage of clear thinking. Mark Noll laid out that case in his seminal book where he stated in the first sentence, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Not exactly an encouraging sign. Although Noll recognizes certain virtues of evangelicals, such as sacrifice and generosity to the needy, he concludes they are not exemplary for their thinking.

Ironically, the enigma of the radical religious Left is their extreme emotional overreaction to the Christian Right. Garry Wills calls this “the new fundamentalism”, a term he uses to describe the work of the team of scholars who make up the Jesus Seminar. “Though some people have called the Jesus Seminarists radical, they are actually very conservative. They tame the real, radical Jesus, cutting him down to their own size.” Wills is no card-carrying fundamentalist.

Confessions of a Bible Thumper is the product of my journey of 25 years as a card-carrying evangelical who, frankly, got tired of jumping through hoops. Disillusioned with anti-intellectualism, superficial platitudes and pseudo-spiritual pat answers, both blatant and subtle legalism, litmus tests for outsiders, and the gross and widespread mishandling of the Scriptures, I left my bible-thumping ways only to find that many liberal alternatives to the Christian Right aren’t much better.

Read entire Introduction...

Ted Haggard's Darkest Hour

The case of Ted Haggard and his recent fall from grace is a truly bizarre story. Haggard initially minimizes the accusations by Mike Jones (I bought meth from him, but didn't take it; I got a massage from him, but didn't have sex with him - sound familiar? "...but I didn't inhale"), but eventually confesses his own deception: "The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring about it for my entire life..." He still says not all of what was claimed was true, but enough of it is. Meanwhile, Mike Jones passes a lie detector test partially--the part about him having sex with Haggard he fails. Perhaps he was stressed at that time, says the test implementer, and says he will do it over. Whatever the outcome is irrelevant now that Haggard has at least admitted deception, sexual immorality, and a "dark side".

Haggard is now mocked by the left and tolerated by the church, as a fallen brother, whose sin now exposed, was part of God's will as "God is a holy God and he chose this incredibly important timing for this sin to be revealed, and I actually think it's a good thing. I believe America needs a shaking, spiritually, " so said a leading board member of Haggard's church.

God is using this to shake America? Isn't he using it to shake the church? Shouldn't people be angry that the church continues to foster deceptive leaders? Or, is there a deeper element that should be faced--the fact that narrow, legalistic teaching bears the bad fruit of deception, hypocrisy, and in some cases deep sexual frustration?

One of the bizarre elements of this is how no one seems to be asking how a anti-gay-rights evangelical influential leader could fall into homosexual sin in the first place! Doesn't it appear like he was a man struggling with homosexual orientation and finally gave in? If so, his story must be reminiscent of Mel White's, although Mel didn't openly preach against homosexuality.

In 2003, Haggard was quoted as the new President of the National Association of Evangelicals: "This is evangelicalism's finest hour. It is the time for evangelicalism to assert itself in the public debate of ideas." If that was their finest hour, today is one of their darkest. And, another piece of evidence that the church is in desperate need of a new reformation.