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

New Book Distills Faith and Fellowship Over Local Brews

Press release on book is out!

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

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

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

Read full release

Buried Truth Revealed Pisses Off Religious Elites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

Support Gay Rights Not Wrongs

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

Lesson 7: Support Gay Rights Not Wrongs - Most of my evangelical friends thought I went off the deep end when I changed my view on this issue. I have to admit, for years I had wondered how anyone could defend homosexuality in light of certain passages of the Bible. But that was before 2004, when I did an honest study of those passages and discovered misinterpretations and before I learned that several words in those passages are almost certainly mistranslated.

It started when I began hearing stories from Christian gay people on how they had pleaded for God’s help to overcome their “sin” of homosexuality. They were saying it didn’t work. A personal friend told me a similar story. Despite seeking help in “ex-gay” ministries, God wasn’t changing them into heterosexuals nor taking away their sex drives.[40] I read a Philip Yancey book[41] where he recommended people read Mel White’s story (without endorsing his conclusions).[42] White was a former ghostwriter for evangelical heavy weights and had come out declaring his homosexuality and the futility of trying to change. It was then that I clearly saw there was a pastoral problem with homosexuality. But was there a scriptural problem? Was there evidence evangelicals were misreading the Bible on this issue?

Turns out there is. For instance, one word in the Greek New Testament commonly translated “homosexual,” is the word, arsenokoitai, which is rarely found in ancient literature and whose meaning is uncertain.[43] It must be a condemned sexual behavior but does not denote homosexuality across the board. To translate it “homosexual” without at least including a footnote about its ambiguity is irresponsible. To understand what the New Testament teaches on homosexuality, one must understand the landscape of sexual practices in the first century.[44]

For instance, when Paul talks of homosexuality in Romans, he’s speaking in the context of idolatry. Historical and literary context leads many scholars to conclude that when the Bible alludes to homosexuality it is talking about common forms of it in the ancient world, namely pederasty[45], cultic prostitution[46], and homosexual rape (e.g. implied in the story of Sodom), and not committed, loving homosexual relationships, which are supported by Christian movements like Metropolitan Community Church, SoulForce, and even the late Lewis Smedes[47], an evangelical author who taught at Fuller Seminary.

Don’t misread the Bible on homosexuality. Open your heart to gay people, who can’t change their orientation despite well-intentioned efforts.

40 Stossel, John, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel—Why Everything You Know is Wrong, page 185.
41 Yancey, Philip, What’s So Amazing About Grace
42 White, Mel, Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America.
43 See Campolo, Tony, Speaking my Mind, page 67 and Rogers, Jack, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, pages 73-74
44 Helminiak, Daniel, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality and Cannon, Justin R., The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality
45 The oppressive male-initiation practice in the Greco-Roman world of men having sex with boys
46 For example, Cybelene worship in Corinth, Athens, Ephesus, and Rome, which included castrated male priests, and the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth, which had 1000 sacred female prostitutes. See Stark, Rodney, Cities of God, pages 50 and 92.
47 http://www.soulforce.org/article/748

The Bible and Gay Marriage

This is the title of the collection of letters published in Newsweek in response to Lisa Miller's article in the Dec. 15 issue on her religious case for gay marriage (Our Mutual Joy). 40,000 readers responded, the vast majority arguing against Miller's case by claiming misinterpretations of the Bible. Here we go again with the scourge of black and white thinking and narrowly focused literalist reading of the Scriptures--mostly by religious conservatives, but also to a lesser degree, by Miller herself. Here's how I see various issues stand:

1 - Defining marriage - Miller is spot on. Conservatives define traditional marriage in a distorted way by conveniently overlooking the obvious acceptance in Scripture of polygamy, concubinage, and forms of open marriage. The list is long of heroes of the OT who practiced these including Abraham, the father of the Christian faith, whose wife gave him permission to sleep with her maidservant, and David, a man after God's own heart, who was rebuked for stealing another man's wife and murdering her husband, then told by God himself if he wanted more wives, God would have given him more if he had only asked. One man-one woman monogamy, as a law, was foreign to the traditional Jewish concept of marriage. Polygamy was not only allowed but encouraged by God through the Leverite law that commanded men to marry their brother's widow if the brother died without fathering children. Point Miller. Let's understand our definitions of terms per the Scriptures themselves. The Bible does not define marriage as explicitly between one man and one woman.

2 - Paul's attitude to marriage - Miller misses an important point. Paul did not regard marriage as an act of last resort, as she claims. Jewish tradition and Scripture encouraged heterosexual marriage as a given, inevitable outcome. In the NT, Paul was stating his view of marriage in light of "the eschalogical challenge," that is, the prevailing belief among the apostles that Jesus would return very soon and a time of intense hardship was at hand. In fact, it came in the late 60s to 70 AD with the terrible events and siege that led up to Jerusalem's destruction. Paul was telling unmarried men it was better not to have marriage as a distraction during such times, but if they couldn't control their desire that it was understandable that they marry. Point religious conservatives. Let's understand the context of a passage.

3 - The sin of homosexuality - Miller brings out several important points but misses several others. What exactly is Paul condemning in Romans and the other epistles? The context of Romans is idolatry. Idol worshipers end up doing things contrary to nature or more accurately, custom, and then become depraved. Is Paul condemning homosexuality across the board or only certain forms of it, such as shrine prostitution and humiliation and rape--common practices in the OT--and pederasty, a common practice among Greeks and Romans. Then there are the words in Paul's writings translated "homosexual" that are disputed by scholars who have no axe to grind. Paul's hearers no doubt did not think of our modern definition of homosexuals when they heard the original Greek words he used, and most definately did not think of lesbians. Point Paul. He was tough on idolatry and legalism and the obvious self-deluded and violent sins. He did not comment on loving same-sex relationships by those who believe in and love God.

4 - The love of Jesus - Miller alludes to it. Religious conservatives claim his love does not condone sin and making judgments about sin. But how did Jesus define sin? His most strident rebukes went to the Pharisees, the most religious zealots of the day who were notorious legalistic hair-splitters who could never find enough grace to make exceptions to the law, nor recognize the overriding principle that Christ taught--that love is the fullfilment of the law. He who loves his neighbor has met the law's demands. We are not longer under the law's supervision. Christ is the end of the law, as Paul taught. So, we no longer have to be fruitful and multiply, nor marry, if we choose not to. We no longer have to keep the ceremonial law, nor the sabbath, if we choose. Women no longer need be under a double standard, but are equal with men. But we do have to keep the law of love and let that be our guide--a guide that can override the letter of the law. Is it possible to love God and your neighbor and have a homosexual relationship? I believe it is. How can it be impossible? It may not produce children, but neither do single parents or those who choose celibacy. Point Jesus. Love trumps the letter of the law.

Challenging Closed Minds

World Magazine, the evangelical national news publication, did an article on Soulforce's Equality Ride (a group of young self-proclaimed evangelical homosexuals) campaign that is visiting Christian campuses to challenge their ban on gay and lesbian students (Uninvited Guests, March 4). Joel Belz first imagines a college deciding if they should allow a group of Muslims on campus who want to do a cultural exchange. That's seems fine, he concludes, it would give opportunity to build bridges, be a positive Christian witness to Muslims, without compromising the college's values. But then, what if the group was Soulforce's homosexual activists--part of Equality Ride? All of a sudden, that proposition makes Christian colleges uncomfortable. They wouldn't want them to show up, but might tolerate them for a discussion before sending them on their way.

Why are they unafraid of welcoming Muslims but afraid of welcoming homosexuals--even ones that call themselves believers? This is the closed-minded attitude that permeates many traditional Christian groups. They have already made up their mind because they already know the truth--so they say. If they are sure about the truth, they should not be intimidated. That is why they should welcome Equality Ride and encourage open dialogue. It should be interesting to see how the 20 campuses respond to these visits, including my graduate school, Eastern University. My experience is that we Christians don't always know what we are talking about when we say we know the truth about something. Misunderstandings, mistranslations, and misinterpretations of the Bible unfortunately are not uncommon. See What the Bible Says... as an example.

The Bible and Homosexuality

If my evangelical friends thought I had gone overboard with my call to A New Reformation, they will think I’ve gone off the deep end with this assessment of homosexuality and the Bible!

I have to admit, for years I have wondered how anyone could defend homosexuality in light of certain passages of the Bible. But that was before I did an honest study of those passages and discovered misinterpretations, AND before I learned that several words in those passages are almost certainly mistranslated! I believe these misinterpretations and mistranslations are grave injustices that need to be rectified.

A few observations that are undeniable: Female homosexuality was never condemned in the Old Testament, hence it was not against God’s law. Female homosexuality is only mentioned once in the New Testament in a seven-word phrase, in the context of idolatry. (Romans 1). There is no Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible that is equivalent to our modern term “homosexual.” The word homosexual first appeared in English Bibles in the 1946 RSV version. The word “sodomite”, referring to a male homosexual, is not in the original Hebrew or Greek. The two words most often translated “homosexual” are the Greek words “malakos” and “arsenokoitai,” obscure Greek terms whose translations are disputed by scholars.

The fact that female homosexuality is not condemned in the OT is amazing. If God was against all forms of homosexuality, why did He mention only male homosexuality in the Holiness code of Leviticus? The code also includes specific laws against incest (spelled out with attention to every conceivable sexual liaison), adultery, rape, and bestiality, but no law against female homosexuality. Its absence is a mystery, unless only certain forms of homosexuality are condemned. In addition, the NT teaches that “new covenant” believers have been released from the OT law. We are not obligated to obey the law, unless it becomes necessary in order to keep Christ’s law of love.

Context—literary, cultural, historical—is King when it comes to proper interpretation of the Bible. The passage in Romans condemning homosexuality is in the context of idolatry. The people doing these shameful acts are not worshiping the one true God, but idols. Are the acts shameful because they are homosexual or because they are part of idol worship? Shrine prostitution, with both male and females, was not uncommon in the Roman empire and among pagans throughout Israel’s history.

The term malakos is translated “effeminate”, “male prostitutes”, or “homosexuals”, depending on the version and literally means “soft” as an adjective. “Arsenokoitai” literally means “male bed”, and is translated “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), “homosexual offenders”, or “sodomites.” Put in their historical context, malakos probably means “catamite” (New Jerusalem Bible), which is the young teen or boy in the common-for-the-day Greek/Roman pederastic relationship, with “arsenokoitai” probably referring to the men who used them sexually.

The church’s traditional view of homosexuality has not adequately explained these facts and perpetuates misunderstanding by not drawing attention to historical and cultural circumstances and the problems with the term “homosexual” as an English equivalent to the original Greek words. For a more detailed study, check the link on the title of this post.