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.

Coming Home to the Wild Goose!

Despite the oppressive heat, last week’s Wild Goose Festival in North Carolina, proved to be a refreshing respite for my wandering soul. I went there to promote my newly launched book and discovered something I have sorely missed of late: a dynamic like-minded community within a progressive Christian movement devoid of religious overtones. I had a honkin good time at Wild Goose!
                First, there were the surprising parallels with my big idea. I thought my book (Confessions of a Bible Thumper) was unique with its craft beer theme—which anchors my spiritual evolution in a pub and uses microbrews as a metaphor for true freedom in Christ. But as my daughter Beth and son Nate helped me set up our book booth, no more than 100 feet away stood the beckoning beer tent run by a popular Durham microbrewery! As I perused the schedule, my eyes locked on sessions entitled “The Theology of Beer,” and “Beer and Hymns.” Hmm… my kind of festival! I mused.  Before long I found new friends like Pastor Jimmy Chalmers, known for praising God for hops and brew techniques as much as grace. And Bryon Berghoef, author of the forthcoming book, Pub Theology, about his experience connecting with God and friends in pubs and other unlikely places. Here we are below discussing the future of microbrew theology and attitudes in the church.


Pastor Jimmy Chalmers, Bryan Berghoef, Michael Camp, and friend
at the Wild Goose Festival, Shakori Hills, NC, June 24, 2012

                Despite the incredible interest in my book—amazing conversations and half-decent book sales—I found it more challenging and inspiring learning from workshops and making connections. Nikole Lim shared how she used photography and video to start a mentoring and scholarship program (Freely in Hope) to help women in Kenya affected by sexual abuse and poverty. Roger Wolsey, author of Kissing Fish, had an excellent session on The Progressive Reformation. Not only did I hear Frank Schaeffer speak (he had endorsed my book), but finally met him and his wife Genie. Phyllis Tickle spoke on the history of Christianity and how every 500 years a reformative stream arises in society. We are in one now, she says, called the Great Emergence. Finally, there was a sneak-preview of portions of a new film called Hellbound? that is due out this fall (I was unable to see it but there is a trailor, which you gotta see!). As does the Universal Life chapter in my book, it dissects and debunks the doctrine of hell and the churches that teach it. I also met and had a delightful conversation with Rich Koster of the Christian Universalist Association (I love this guy) and Eric Elnes of Darkwood Brew.
        If you attended Wild Goose, I’d love to hear your experience. If not, I highly recommend it and if out West, do attend Wild Goose West in Oregon this coming Labor Day weekend. If you resonate with emergent, progressive, or convergence Christianity, attend Wild Goose and support this amazing now-annual festival—a needed answer to the partisan and polarizing Christian Right and standard evangelical fare. I welcome your comments.   

The Christian Nation Myth Revisited

Despite the fact that he's Catholic and evangelicals have been historically suspicious of Catholics, Rick Santorum has managed to do something Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, and Newt Gingrich failed to do: win the hearts of the Christian Right. How? By focusing on social and conservative issues, such as marriage, family, and abortion (and paradoxically, contraception, something evangelicals are typically not against), and by his bulldogged campaigning that has left the others in the dust. Unlike Romney, whose Mormonism is even more suspicious, Santorum is delivering the goods for Christian conservatives, including the cry to revive our nation's Christian heritage.

At one of his campaign stops in Louisiana, he pitched his message to 1,000 strong at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church. At one point, the pastor delivered a message that summarizes the movement's motivation (and that evening's theme) and why they are now pinning their hopes on Santorum: "This nation was founded as a Christian nation," he said. "If you don't like the way we do things, I've got one thing to say: Get out! We don't worship Buddha. We don't worship Muhammad. We don't worship Allah. We worship God. We worship God's son Jesus Christ." [1]

Hmm... does that sound American to you? In Confessions of a Bible Thumper, I relate how I always wrestled with such claims and how I discovered the myth of a Christian nation. The Christian Right rewrites history ignoring the historical evidence that clearly shows our founding fathers to be a conglomerate of Christian progressives (most would be considered liberal heretics by the Baptist Church audience!) and students of the Enlightenment, with a slim minority being what we would call evangelical Christians. And would they make such assinine statements, that those of other faiths should just get out? Hardly! This pastor, and Santorum's association with his church, reveals a disturbing, familiar theocratic theme: Only those who worship our way, or at least only those who like our "Christian" way of governing, are deserving of citizenship.

There were two other statements that revealed this pastor's narrow-minded bias. He said, "We don't worship Muhammad." Well, who does? Last I checked, Muslims don't either. Worshiping Muhammad would be heresy to them. He also said, "We don't worship Allah." Are you sure, pastor? Last I checked, Arab Christians, who believe the same as you do, worship Allah. "Allah" is merely the Arabic term for God. So, yes, you actually do worship Allah, sir. You just don't know it!

I had hoped with the work of moderate evangelicals like Mark Noll (In Search of Christian America) and Gregory Boyd (The Myth of the Christian Nation), this kind of talk would be scarce by now. But no, the fallacy continues and apparently is the rallying cry of Santorum and his supporters. God help us. I welcome your comments.

[1] Time Magazine, April 2, 2012, The New Christian Right, page 33.

A New Spiritual Age

I recently read Harvey Cox's latest book, The Future of Faith, and took away a few nuggets of truth that are very encouraging. First, Cox divides the history of Christianity into three periods: the Age of Faith, the Age of Belief, and the Age of the Spirit. The Age of Faith was the two centuries after Christ, when followers embraced the Spirit and emulated Jesus in community. "Faith" is more accurately translated "trust," as this period was not about doctrine but trusting a new way of relating to God through Jesus.

The Age of Belief--which includes the dark ages--is from the time of Constantine to the 20th century. During this period the focus was on what one believed--either orthodox dogma and creeds or heresies--rather than trust in Christ. Some of this period is still going on within fundamentalism and literalist evangelicals as they dig in their heels around various traditional views. For example, Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll told his flock not to read The Shack because it promoted unbiblical ideas. I'm not sure why he didn't encourage people to read it and decide for themselves. This "Age of Belief" mindset puts more emphasis on what one believes rather than on how one acts in terms of loving others and living like Jesus did. Notice how a conservative blog portrays and endorses Driscoll and how many times "heretical" and "false teaching" are mentioned. "Age of Belief" people will find it difficult to admit that The Shack might have some redeeming value, even if they disagree with some of it.

The Age of the Spirit, Cox argues, has begun and will continue to emerge as new paradigms replace fundamentalist and literalist thinking and as the number of non-Western Christians grow. This Age is also a renewal of the initial Age of Faith (Trust), as focus isn't on the details of what one believes, but how one is led by the Spirit of love (Not that what one believes is irrelevant, but it is secondary to love). I have seen this trend, especially in the last ten years, and trust Cox is correct. The Age of the Spirit is here to stay.

Everything in Moderation

I often remind my children that it's best to observe this rule of thumb--everything in moderation--when it comes to personal behavior. Without it people fall into the trap of alcoholism, drug addiction, and obsessive gambling, etc. The same rule of thumb can be said about religion and faith. Without moderation, people succumb to extremism, whether Islamic radicalism or Christian fundamentalism/evangelicalism. The cure for extremism is for moderate and progressive voices to speak sense, expose lies, and stand up for the victims of extremist ideology.

I introduced the abuses of evangelical extremism in the Christian Right in my nine lessons and expound on it in my forthcoming book, Confessions of a Bible Thumper. Here I want to share two examples of how moderation fights extremist Islam. First is Somali women's rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim turned atheist who exposes the victimization of women in radical Islam in her book Infidel. This is a courageous yet disturbing account of her journey out of fundamentalist faith and into rational and compassionate humanism. Although I think she ignores progressive ideas on faith when she rejects all religious thought and becomes an atheist, I applaud her heroic stand against the radical elements of Islam and her defense of women's rights. Her atheism seems to be a natural reaction to her experience and not the fundamentalist variety. A kind of moderate atheism.

Another more promising example is Dr. Hawa Abdi, another Somali woman (I've always admired and loved the strong-willed beautiful women of the horn of Africa) who stood up to the Party of Islam in Somalia in defense of her own moderate humanitarian efforts to fight suffering and injustice (which includes, like Hirsi Ali, the condemnation of female genital mutilation). Read the details in Nicholas Kristoff's article, Heroic, Female, and Muslim. The Party of Islam's militia tried to take control of her hospital but she heroically faced them down.

As a moderate Muslim, Hawa Abdi has much more influence to stop extremism because she remains a Muslim and attracts other moderate Muslims to support her efforts. (I make this point on Lesley Hazelton's excellent post on the subject). Whereas Hirsi Ali's atheism hinders Muslims from hearing her message, Dr. Abdi's Muslim faith helped rally other moderate Somali Muslims to protest the Party of Islam's actions.

It's encouraging to see moderate and progressive thinkers exposing the lies and abuses of extremists wherever those extremists are. In Somalia, Hawa Abdi's courage to fight Muslim extremists, and the outrage voiced by the world's Somalis, is an encouraging glimmer of hope that moderate ideals can win out.

John Shelby Spong and the Hereafter

When I first started this blog five years ago, people told me "your ideas remind me of Bishop Spong," the liberal theologian and former Bishop of the Episcopal church. Having never read him (as one just starting to emerge out of the sheltered enclave of the evangelical subculture), I checked out his books. In a way, these people were right. Spong was coming to similar conclusions as I, saying we should rescue the Bible from fundamentalists and that the popular literal and narrow interpretation of scripture is nonsensical (e.g. on gays, women, inerrancy, etc). While still embracing Jesus as one who revealed God and encouraging us to follow his example of selfless love.

Yet upon closer examination, I decided Spong goes too far. He seemed to doubt almost everything, concluding there was no supernatural elements in the Bible including the resurrection. Those positions seemed to me to be just as "fundamentalist" as the literalists, by deciding on these issues, not on the merit of objective biblical scholarship itself, but from a preconceived position. Like other progressives like Garry Wills would, I still feel that way. However, after seeing Spong speak last month in Seattle (touting his new book, Eternal Life: A New Vision), I have a new appreciation for his spiritual journey. I found him to be delightful, sensible, and full of compassion. And, one who believes in life after death, albeit without telling us exactly what it will be like. (I mean, who can?)

That's exactly what the new movie Hereafter does as well. Although sometimes excruciatingly slow, the movie gives us a glimpse of a place beyond death where light and peace await, without labeling a source of the light as God or Christ. Hereafter seems to base its theory of beyond on the many near death experiences that have been documented. Spong's book doesn't focus on those but is based on Spong's own personal research and vision for experiencing eternity starting now in a way that transcends religion. To me, the movie and Spong's book is at the very least a wonderful sign of spiritual yearning and sense most people seem to intrinsically possess, which is a stark contradiction to the popular view of materialism. Just some of my observations.

Firing Based on Religion: A Right or Wrongheaded?

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that World Vision can hire and fire employees based on their religious beliefs. Three former employees, terminated for their beliefs, had filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination. Having worked for World Vision for two years, here's my take.

World Vision has a right to maintain their organization according to their purpose, which is to render the poor humanitarian aid motivated by Christian faith. Other Christian and non-Christian organizations have that same right. But is the narrow way they define Christian faith accurate?

World Vision argues if they don't screen their employees for their Christian commitment, the organization would not be pursuing their mandate, to help the poor (regardless of the faith of the poor) as followers of Christ.

Here's a couple considerations. World Vision and other Christian organizations like them only follow this policy within the U.S. and other predominantly Christian countries. In Muslim countries, for example, they are forced to hire local non-Christians since there are too few believers. Why doesn't this prevent them from pursuing their mandate?

Other Christian organizations, like Habitat for Humanity and Mercy Corps (this organization's founders were evangelicals), maintain their Christian identity without requiring their employees to be believers. If these organizations can do it, why not World Vision? Is there something wrong with an organization that purports to give aid indiscriminately but has discriminatory hiring policies?

Then there's the terminated employees themselves, two of which worked for World Vision for ten years. Turns out they are still Christians, they just don't see eye to eye on the deity of Christ and the Trinity. World Vision's statement of faith, which new hires have to sign on, is based on conservative interpretations of the Bible (including the infallibility of the Bible). Two questions: (1) Why don't they allow people to differ if they still consider themselves Christians? and (2) Shouldn't employees have the same freedom of religion as all U.S. citizens, the freedom to change their religious values without fear of losing their job? (as long as those values don't undermine the core purpose of the organization--which in this case, they surely do not. I don't see how a worker's stand on the Trinity or the deity of Christ will harm relief and development efforts).

Conclusion: World Vision has a right to run their religious-motivated organization as they see fit, but I believe their hiring and firing policy is wrongheaded. When their daily operations of humanitarian aid does not require each worker to have an orthodox faith (as they define it), why not let people of all faiths and no faith take part? As Jesus said, "whoever is not against us, is for us." If the employees weren't undermining the mission of World Vision, allow them their freedom of belief. World Vision needs to rethink their policy.

A Model for Community Change through Local Nonpartisan Politics

by Jo Ann Goodson, Deep Thought Pub guest blogger

“If you don’t vote Republican or for this candidate, hell will break loose. If we pass Obama’s health care bill, the government will take over your life and God will judge us for funding abortion and disobeying the Ten Commandments.”

This statement represents one of the things I think is so very wrong in our politics today and makes me want to run and hide instead of fighting back. For one thing I really do not like getting involved in politics but I do not have a choice if I really want changes to be made in the way we live in community. There are good things happening but there appears to be so much more that is wrong. I am involved in a group in my city that is trying to make a difference in how we live in community and how we can best help each other. We want a much better place in which to live and have our being. Our group is made up of Christians, Jews, Muslims and folks with no faith. The name of our group is called CHANGE, Community Helping All Neighbors Gain Empowerment.

We are not trying to make our city Christian. We are trying to organize to bring about social justice, equal opportunities for everyone, good education for our children and promote an environment in which they can better learn, health issues, what can be done about suspensions, dropouts and bullying in our school system. These are only a few things that we are currently working on. Some of the things we want to accomplish can only be done if our city government and CHANGE can work together. Thus I must be involved in politics if I want my wishes and prayers for my city/county to be accomplished.

I think we can be an example of how good politics can be performed. Working together for the greater good of all. Respecting each other and our differences by putting aside our own agenda, whether Christian or other, and working for the good of everyone. We do not threaten anyone with what will happen if they do not do as we say. We compromise and come to a good working plan together. In the end we can celebrate together on a job well done as we look at the results of our efforts. Our national government could take a lesson or two from us. We have accomplished some really good stuff together so far.

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.

A New Reformation

Christianity needs another reformation. It’s been almost 500 years since Luther tacked his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenburg cathedral that drew attention to the corrupt and misguided practices of the Catholic church. The Protestant movement produced great reforms including freely-translated scriptures, the end of the practice of indulgences, marriage for Christian leaders, and many others. Although Catholicism has had some positive changes in recent years it still needs radical change (e.g. optional marriage for priests and nuns) since it never had its own reformation. Evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity are steeped in beliefs and practices that I believe are in dire need of reform. What reforms are necessary? Here are six important ones:

1. Honorable Interpretation of Scriptures – Very few Pastors and Leaders teach people how to study the Bible honorably. Verses are commonly taken out of context, sound historical and cultural considerations are rarely taught, original language is usually ignored, and there is widespread confusion about what literalism really means. Conservatives practice what I call “selective literalism”, in which someone selects a verse that supports their view and says, “The Bible says…” while ignoring the full context of the passage, linguistic, historical, and cultural facts, translation alternatives, and other verses in the Bible that bring clarity. Also, albeit a small percentage, there are a number of key mistranslations of words or passages in the majority of English Bibles.

2. Limits to the Authority of the Bible – Far too often, the OT is casually quoted as if it has equal authority with Christ and His new convenant. Inerrancy defenders have never adequately explained the obvious discrepancies in many Biblical passages (claiming the original documents were inerrant just reinforces that we don't have an inerrant Bible in our hands). Advice from Paul to the early church, 2000 years removed from our modern context, is blindly accepted as law for believers today.

3. Freedom in Christian Behavior – So much Christian teaching ignores the established fact that believers in Christ are “released from the Law” (Romans chapters one thru 10) and in fact, released from a Law-based approach to God. Nevertheless, performance-oriented Christianity is rampant. Believers are told a host of commands that are either derived from the OT law that they aren’t under (e.g. tithe 10 percent to the church and attend church weekly), concocted from a law-based reading of the NT (e.g. establish a daily prayer time and regular “witness”, don’t allow women in leadership), or created from traditional non-biblical teaching (e.g. do not drink, dance, go to certain movies, engage in singles sexuality, etc.)

4. Ensuring Love is Fulfillment of the Law – Rather than making Christ’s and Paul’s command to make love for God and love for neighbor the guiding principle for Christian behavior, churches have made adherance to a set of both written and unwritten laws and a traditional non-biblical definition of holiness the standard.

5. Refutation of Dangerous and/or Misguided Teaching – The church has done well refuting cults but failed in its refutation and denouncement of cultic-like (at worst) and misinformed (at best) teaching such as the seven-year tribulation belief (Left Behind), non-scientific origins teaching (Creationism), condemnation of homosexuals, and extreme anti-abortion teaching.

6. Reform of Sexual Mores – The church adheres to a sexual standard based on tradition more than the Biblical record. Behaviors such as masturbation, singles sexuality, nudity, and certain sexual practices are condemned by inference not direct Biblical admonitions (e.g. the word translated ‘fornication’ or ‘sexual immorality’ is from the Greek word ‘porneia’ which historically didn’t include all sex before marriage or masturbation). Church moralists ignore the obvious Biblical acceptance of polygamy, concubinage, sex with servants, certain forms of prostitution, the erotic literature of Solomon, the property-related context of the Jewish view of adultery, and the practice of heterosexual and homosexual shrine prostitution (false worship to false gods) when interpreting right sexual mores for today.

Rethinking Faith and Freedom

I was inspired to create this blog after watching the recent movie called Luther about the 16th century reformer played by Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love). Martin Luther, after seeing many abuses and misuses of religion in his day, rethought his faith and culture and helped restore Christianity to much of its original core and freedom. I hope to address many similar issues of our day where there is a need to rethink, restore, and perhaps even reform our ideas in the areas of faith, politics, culture, and sexuality. I have had to rethink issues in my life, sometimes a few times over, when confronted with new-found knowledge, facts, or truth, and some of these posts will describe such instances, while others will ask new questions or simply reinforce time-tested answers.

Luther was an independent thinker and I share that tendency. To all those who insist on thinking for themselves, I invite you to grab a mug of your favorite brew and hang-out in this Pub; share your comments, so that myself and others can learn from your experience, or just have a good read. Ironically, the day I post this is Martin Luther King day 2005, a time to honor another great independent thinker who also rethought and reformed the culture and freedoms of his day.