The Reason Evangelicals Leave the Faith Part I
I realize that I owe DagoodS another post in the series, Christianity’s Biggest Difficulties, and I’ll return to that soon.
Recently, I’ve been jarred by the apparent apostasy of some very good friends. Through the years, all of us hear of the unfortunate “backsliding” of those who were once faithful Christians, but that is not what I am describing here. Most “backslidden” Christians don’t deny the truth of the Christian faith; most come to the conclusion that their selfish desires are simply more important than Christ. I am describing people who were once devout Christians but have vocally left the faith and are now claiming that their previously held faith is not the truth. These are the kinds of people that I believe Hebrews 6 speaks of: those who “have been enlightened…” but “fall away.”
As I talk to these good friends who have “fallen away,” the overwhelming problem that they have with Christianity, at least evangelical Christianity, is the central document of Christianity, the Bible. The Protestant Reformation placed a high value on the Inerrancy of Scripture, the idea that the Bible is the perfectly preserved word of God, without flaw or error. Since then, the evangelical church has adopted this doctrine and placed it at the core of Christian theology.
The problem for many evangelicals is that when they take a look at the Scripture, they find a document that, at least at face value, appears inconsistent or flawed. The books within both the Old and New Testaments seem to disagree with themselves in a number of places, depicting a God who is unchanging and immaterial in one passage, and a God who changes His mind and physically walks in the Garden of Eden with His children in another.
When a skeptical-or even open-minded-Christian takes an honest look at these problems, his faith is put to the test. Many Christians, some of my closest friends included, have decided that a Scripture this internally conflicted cannot possibly be inerrant; therefore they conclude that they cannot trust any of the Bible’s claims-if it is flawed in one place, it cannot be trusted throughout. So, they walk away from the faith.
I’d like to dialogue more with you all about this. If you are a believer, how do you handle these problems with the Scripture vs. the Doctrine of Inerrancy? If you are an apostate or an un-believer, have I misstated your case? What are your thoughts on inerrancy?
Related Posts:
Biblical Inerrancy - The Meat of the Matter
Biblical Inerrancy: From the Bible, or Enlightenment?
The Reason Evangelicals Leave the Faith Part 2
Tags:apologetics apostasy atheism bible Christianity inerrancy Scripture Share This
Recently
March 20th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I am glad to see you opening up your blog to this topic. I think that it is critically relevant to what is going on not only with those who are walking away from the faith, but also for those who are remaining within the faith, but who find themselves longing for a deeper meaning than that which they are being fed from the majority of pulpits.
The Post-Enlightenment methodologies of logic that have become so ingrained in us as members of the Western World (methodologies that go unquestioned because they are so much a part of who we are that we can no longer detect them) have seeped into every area of our society, and religion has in no way escaped this. As such, we have reduced both the Bible and God to objects to be studies, boiled down, dissected, labeled and “understood.” And, when I say “understood” I mean it in a way that means contained and held within our minds. This is a fallacy of the modern mindset of the church. This is the mindset that requires a type of doctrine and inerrancy that position themselves in opposition to ideas central both to the essence of Judaism and to the way of Jesus. And, the schism created by this problem is an event that is I believe doing one of three things to those populating the church: Leaving them behind as non-relevant and dead; driving them away from the faith completely; or causing them to take part in progression into the emergence of the church of the third millennium.
Peter Rollins describes the essence of the scriptures and the journey of the Church as a crater, and the nature of God to the event that created that crater. The scriptures are reactions inspired by the event or happening that is God–that is Truth. And, this understanding opens the doors for that which I believe to be the central question of the contemporary church, which I believe can be expressed like this. Which is the central core of the faith: a doctrine/scripture/understanding that we can hold onto, contain and study or a faith in/struggle with/seduction by a God that transforms us?
March 20th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Chris, I think that I agree with your general point. I would, however, probably not go as far as you appear to in regard to the “understandability” of God. Were I to characterize you as a philosopher, I would place you (at least what you’ve written here) squarely within the Romantics. These philosphers, whose thinking eventually gave us Kant, understood the limits and paralytic nature of Pure Reason, so they advocated a return to instinct as the only way to comprehend transcendent truth.
In that era, the mainline church surrendered the authority of Scripture in favor of the kind of mysicism that I think you’re describing. Instead of making the Orthodox Church more relevant to the culture, the Orthodox Church sounded its own death knell.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
“…the mainline church surrendered the authority of Scripture in favor of the kind of mysicism that I think you’re describing.”
Don’t you think though that they each define one another, and that the embracing of one without the other leaves orthopraxy and orthodoxy enemic? That Spiritual impotence is what I think sends scads of people out the back door of the church, because it betrays the power that the church embodies. It is a breach of logic. That the Infinite can be contained. That the omniscient can be known. Should not the idea of God and the Scriptures be seen as authoritative, but vocative…rather than objective? To let go of mysticisim is to let go of a paramount factor in distinguishing faith from belief. To be in agreement with a creed or doctrinal statement because you logically and comprehensively ascribe to it is belief. But, faith on the other hand, requires (without negating authority) as certain “holy doubt” (if you will).
March 20th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
That should say “a certain” not “as certain.” Dark rooms and laptops make for poor typing.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:04 am
I think maybe we’re missing the point here. I’m most interested, at least in this post, with discussion of the idea of the inerrancy of Scripture. I don’t know that I’m prepared to discuss the problems and successes of the church, per se.
March 21st, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Mile Stone Worship,
You do not “owe” me anything. I have enjoyed the two previous posts and the resulting discussions. They have adequately answered the question I asked (“What is your methodology?”). Please don’t feel as if you are in any way obligated to post any more on the topic.
I know, as a fellow human being, I have often entered theistic discussions and about 75% of the way through, find I have lost my interest, or moved on to other things, or have become too busy in other endeavors.
Now as to your question here–obviously I can’t answer for your friends, but as an Evangelical whose first big leap away from Christianity was in the field of inerrancy, I can tell you how it went for me…
As an Evangelical I was taught the Bible was inerrant. This meant apparent inconsistencies between books were not inconsistencies, but could be resolved. We rarely focused on story consistencies (such as Judas’ death) after being given what appeared to be a satisfactory resolution—we focused more on doctrinal inconsistencies. Grace vs. Works. Eternal Security. Loving neighbors and confronting apostasy. Divorce. Those sort of things. How we developed the concept of “Scripture interprets Scripture.”
We were also taught the books were historical. Exodus happened, if not precisely as recorded, at least 95% similar. There was a world-wide flood. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in a manager, attended by Shepherds. The Gospels and Acts were historical documents—as accurate (if not more) than our 8th Grade History Book.
We also were taught the traditional authors—Moses for the Pentateuch, David for Psalms, Isaiah for Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, etc. The most exciting debate allowed was for the authorship of Hebrews.
Then something happens. What that “something” is varies from deconvert to deconvert. For some it is being confronted in the field of science; others it might be a question posed by a book or relative. For me, it happened to be active internet interactions with skeptics.
And we start to read. We read and read and read. And as we read, we start to see claims from a different perspective. Geological problems with a world-wide flood. Archeological, anthropological, literary and historical problems with Exodus. Historical problems with Gospels and Acts.
Scientific problems with Genesis 1-3. Problems with authorship, including Moses, Matthew, etc. Philosophical problems like the Problem of Evil, or the genocides of the Tanakh.
And, of course—contradictions. Demonstrations of contradictions in stories and proposed resolutions. Both internal and external.
Each of these studies (for me) were like hairline cracks in a mirror. So small you couldn’t see them. But once inerrency fell, it was the hammer the hit the mirror, causing it to crack along these fissures.
The difference is (coincidentally, considering our discussion) in methodology. We switched from a “top down” approach to a “bottom up” approach.
By a “top down” I mean an approach where a conclusion is made and then verification is sought out to support that conclusion. For an inerrantist, it is any logical resolution that can conform the two (or three) stories. Judas died by hanging, then the rope broke, so his body fell and hit some rocks, bursting open. We already knew it was inerrant—that there was a resolution—all we had to do was find it.
I find the resolutions to the post-resurrection appearances humorous. The inerrantists KNOW they can be resolved, so from a “top down” approach, they have the woman madly dashing about, meeting angels and Jesus willy-nilly, and the disciples jumping back and forth from Galilee to Jerusalem as if they had a private jet!
For the deconvert, it is as if a light goes on—a drastic change in methodological approach. Rather than have a conclusion and look for support, we look at what we have and then come to a conclusion. Inerrancy just happens to be an easy one. We see two contradicting stories, and approach it as we would any other two contradicting stories. Where we would see contradiction between two newspapers, we also find between Matthew and Acts.
We then start applying this new method to other areas of Biblical study. All of a sudden, taking geology combined with history, and the merging of the two stories of the Flood, we come to the conclusion it is a story. A myth. That Matthew the disciple is not the author of Matthew the Gospel. And so on.
Inerrancy discussion provides a change in methods, resulting in a new viewing of the Bible. We discover it is a human creation. Nothing more.
Mile Stone Worship Scripture this internally conflicted cannot possibly be inerrant; therefore they conclude that they cannot trust any of the Bible’s claims-if it is flawed in one place, it cannot be trusted throughout.
Not quite. What we find with the new method, that by looking solely at the Bible, there is no way to create a method as to where it is accurate and where it is not. We start applying outside facts (archeology, history, Greek comparison, etc.). We find we can only trust the Bible’s claims when verified by other sources. Or where they are irrelevant.
This doesn’t cause us to lose a God, nor even to lose Christianity necessarily. Just to not trust the Bible as the source to find a God.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Dagwood says it best:
And we start to read. We read and read and read. And as we read, we start to see claims from a different perspective.
Bart Ehrman challenges the status quo on the texts of the Bible, yet rather than honestly engage him Evangelicals reject him out of hand becuase he is not a Christian, doesn’t believe in inerrancy, etc.
I recently was involved in a discussion on another blog about the Lot problem. How is it that Peter calls Lot just and righteous when it is clear from Lot’s conduct he was a wicked man.? If we take the Bible for what it says……….there is a real problem. People try and fix the problem by suggesting that Peter was referring to Lot’s positional righteousness. Of course the text does not say this. I reject what the Bible says becuase it is inconsistent with a common understanding of morality and ethics. Giving virgin daughters to wicked men to violate, sleeping with your daughters and having children by them is wicked.
At the end of the day the Bible, for me, is a flawed, errant book of great wisdom and value. It is not the end all, the truth of all truth but it is a book that is worthy of being read, discussed and understood.
Des this mean I no longer believe in God? Of course not. I have come to realize God is greater than a book and he/she/it is not the property of Evangelical Christians alone.
I usually find more help and common agreement with the writings of atheists and agnostics becuase they seem to be able to look at the textual issues without getting all caught up in the hermenuetical hoops that some interpretations require believers to jump through.
Bruce
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
Bruce,
While what you say about most Christians’ response to Ehrman is valid, there are a number of Christian–and non-Christian, I might add–scholars who reject his claims because many of them represent the fringes of Biblical scholarship. I would argue that many Christians are engaging Ehrman, from the popularist Lee Strobel, to the more scholarly approaches by Habermaas and Craig.
You wrote:
While I understand where you are coming from, I think that perhaps you assume too much about the atheist/agnostic side of things. Many, if not most of the atheists/agnostics that I’ve read on this subject do have an agenda of their own as well. For example, most have a bias against the supernatural, or even unexplained phenomenon, that guides their writing. I’d hardly call this objective.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Actually, it is not the Bible that claims the Bible is the “inerrent” Word of God. It is a collection of writings of many kinds, and at the time of writing, not all parts of it were assumed to even become part of the Scriptures. It is the claim of people reading the Scriptures that they are perfect and flawless. But they are not perfect and flawless, they are written by people, even if those people were led and inspired by God. It is not as though he possessed them for the duration of the writing, hence causing them to cease having background experiences and cultures, etc. But, the reason it is important to not throw the Bible out altogether as a way of knowing God is for precisely the same reason it is not to be considered infallible. These people, the authors of the books of the Bible, have much to offer. More to offer even than the best theologian of our day, who can look at the words recorded by the ancients and form orthodoxy as well as orthopraxy based on what is recorded there, but can not go back and experience firsthand the ancient retelling of oral traditions held for centuries, or miraculous signs and events unfolding before their eyes in the days of Jesus, or many of the other things recorded there. Yes, we can and do experience radical movements of God in our own days, but these are valuable resources from a time long since gone. They are like treasure in a storehouse that is irreplaceable. Please do not throw them out, God himself cherishes them. They are history. They are His Story.
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:41 pm
So, Theresa, how do you interpret 2 Timothy 3:16? I’d be interested in your take on that passage. Sounds like it supports inerrancy to me…but what do you think?
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:36 am
[…] worship, musicJoin my networkBlog Networks « The Reason Evangelicals Leave the Faith Part I […]
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:38 am
“I think maybe we’re missing the point here. I’m most interested, at least in this post, with discussion of the idea of the inerrancy of Scripture. I don’t know that I’m prepared to discuss the problems and successes of the church, per se.”
Well, I really wasn’t trying to open that conversation up, but rather to apply a general idea that is affecting the church as a whole to the scriptural topic. I think that the same ideas are those that affect the way we see scripture, and the same schism is created in our logic. The beauty of Scripture and the transformative power for the individual that is found in its person by person, human, reactionary response to the event of God is lost when the term “inerrant” is read with the filters of fact and historacity. It is the Truth of scripture that has no error…not the fact. The fact is interpreted by those giving testamony to it.
I hope that clarifies. What I was trying to speak of before.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Chris, I think you are on the right track here. as the next post clarifies.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:49 am
It does seem that many Christians accept a false dichotomy between inerrantist Christianity and atheism. When inerrantist Christianity breaks down for them, they wrongly believe that atheism is the only option that they have left, and so, sadly, abandon their faith. Where this idea that you have to be an inerrantist to be a Christian comes from I’m not sure; any ideas?
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16
First, 2 Timothy 3:16 isn’t about about inerrancy, but about inspiration, usefulness for teaching, etc. There is a difference: it’s perfectly possible to hold that the Bible is all of those things but that it isn’t inerrant.
Second, 2 Timothy 3:16 isn’t specifically about the Bible, but about Scripture. 2 Timothy was written before the formation of the canon (obviously, otherwise it wouldn’t be in it), so this verse can’t have the canon as we have it in mind. It may be that this verse is about a type of literature, and that all and only examples of this type of literature are collected in the Bible, but it could also be that it’s about the Torah, or the OT, or some other class of literature. Whatever it means, I don’t think it’s clear that the author of 2 Timothy 3:16 believed that he was writing Scripture, which I find fascinating.
August 15th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I wouldn’t necessarily call it apostasy, but rather an change or shift in theological consciousness. Understand that as the Protestant Reformation sought to bring to light much of the darkness held during the control of the Medieval Church, the real grassroots lie in the secrets held by the institution at the time. There is a solid reason why the Vatican will not release certain documents publicly. Underground films such as “Zeitgeist” try to reveal controversial elements of Christianity originating with pagan ideas of linked astro-theology or world deities having similar copycat salvation methodologies which eventually has begun to raise the question.. is Christianity really all that exclusive, or has the “medieval” institution which has used the crucifixion and salvation to stir fear, control, and manipulation in the heart of the masses for over 1,500 yrs been packaged as a money-making fraud of the age?
Should the copycat theories in other mythologies be proven to be authentic, then the real issue isn’t the infallible Word of God, but rather in its apparent intrusion, misappropriation of theology into making Christianity solely exclusive for the sole purpose of institutional control.