The Reason Evangelicals Leave the Faith Part 2
Previously, I’ve discussed the main reason many young evangelical Christians leave the faith. The problem that many apostates have with Christianity is the veneration of the Bible as the completely perfect Word of God, without flaw or blemish. When a curious person begins to notice apparent contradictions in the text, often they conclude that the faith is based upon faulty foundations, and they abandon it.
The Fundamental Misunderstanding
According to Islamic doctrine, the only real “miracle” that Mohammad performed was the was the writing of the Qur’an. Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammad and enabled him to write the text of his scripture. Muslims hold the text in incredibly high regard, claiming that it is entirely perfect in its original language, and that it is perfectly preserved by the divine will of Allah. Sound familiar? It should, because this is the same position that many Christians hold about the Bible. Oh, we don’t claim that Gabriel came down and dictated the whole texts of the books of Scripture to the authors of Scripture, but we do hold that the text has been perfectly inspired and preserved down through the ages by God, and that it contains a consistent revelation of the truth in all situations. This teaching has become a core doctrine of the evangelical Christian faith, and I think that it reflects a poor understanding of the Christian gospel.
Don’t misunderstand, I have a high regard for the Scripture, and I do believe that the Bible was inspired by God to the writers of its books. I also think that many of the so-called “contradictions” in the Bible can be rationally reconciled with careful consideration. What I fear, however, is that this belief has become the central tenet of Christian theology, so if it can be shown to be erroneous, the whole Christian faith falls apart. The Christian faith becomes Bibliocentric instead of Christocentric.
Making or Breaking the Christian Faith
In my view, while the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is important, it neither makes or breaks the Christian faith. Those who have placed the Bible at the center of the faith are missing the point, because the point of Christianity is that the God of the universe wants to have a relationship with humanity. Apostates caught up in Scriptural “problems” forget that they were not ultimately convinced of the truth of Christianity by the arguments presented in the Bible, but that they (if they were genuinely converted) had a personal experience with God that convinced them of His love. Often, the Bible was an important part of that experience, but ultimately, God spoke to them in a personal way through the work of His Spirit within their hearts.
Those who hold the Scripture as the absolute center of the faith have obviously ignored the fact that the Christian church thrives throughout history whether the Scripture is available to believers or not. The church spread like wildfire before the completion of the canon, and in modern times, it spreads like wildfire in places where Scripture is outlawed. This is because the work of Christ is not bound by even the pages of the Holy Text of Christianity.
So, if your on the way to deconversion, or if you’ve solidly deconverted, perhaps you can see that your objections to the Bible don’t automatically equate to objections with Christianity. Perhaps you’re just looking at the Bible in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons?
This video is relevant, and although I don’t necessarily agree with all of what this hermit says, I really enjoy looking at him, so you might as well!
Related Posts
Why I am a Heretic
Scripture Generates the Church
Scripture: The Word of God or the Word of Man?
Tags:apologetics atheism bible inerrancy Scripture Share This
Recently
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:33 am
Thank you for this. very well articulated, and right on the mark.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
So you’re saying that God’s Word is inerrant, but that doesn’t matter too much?
Just curious: Do you see this scenario opening the door for someone’s misguided attempt to know God apart from His Word? (Using the argument: “You study the Bible while I pursue the most important thing—God Himself.”)
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Milestoneworship: The church spread like wildfire before the completion of the canon,…
Ironically, the only verification for this claim is contained within the very books (Acts of the Apostles) you seem to indicate inerrancy should not be held as primary. If the books are wrong about it spreading like wildfire, perhaps it DID require the books the spread like wildfire.
Yes, Josephus (possibly), Tacitus and Pliny the Younger would indicate the religion spread—but nothing more extraordinary than other beliefs of the time.
Milestoneworship: Perhaps you’re just looking at the Bible in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons?
Can you tell me where to find the “correct” way to look at the Bible? Please note the careful wording of that question. It is NOT: “What is the correct way to look at the Bible?” but rather, “How do I determine the correct way to look at the Bible?”
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Jesse-
I don’t think that is at all what Jeremy is saying…although there are plenty of Christians throughout history who have had to do just that.
I think what Jeremy is saying and what I would say (trying not to put words into his mouth that he may not agree with) is that the now traditional methods of looking at the scriptures to find God are problematic. This because they use a form of literalism that I think the origional authors and cultures that produced them woudl have never intended. For example, in the original cultural contexts to question which was the true historical account of the death of Judas would have seemed and obscure and absurd question because the inerrant truth of the scripture is not found in that fact.
If that makes any sense.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
DaGoodS: I’m speaking tentatively here, and I’ll admit that I haven’t completely thought your question through, but my first impression is that the method you’ve described in your previous discussions is perfectly fine for determining the correct way to look at the Bible. Take all the facts into consideration, and pretend that you are an outside “impartial” observer in evaluating the text.
My point in the post is not necessarily to explain a proper method, though. Instead, it is to demonstrate that “scriptural inerrancy” isn’t a “make or break” docrine of the Christian faith. It is really important for Christians to come to terms with in regard to their fiath, but not a deal breaker either way.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Ephesians 5:25-26 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (26) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (5) And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The only thing I or anyone else has that is not subject to our emotional feelings and the ups and downs of society is the Ever Living never dying, eternal preserved Word of God.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
So the account of Judas’ death doesn’t need to be correct because it’s not important? Doesn’t it seem a bit like a copout to say that only the untrue stuff isn’t important? It seems to me this opens up the Bible to a pragmatic discounting of anything I happen to disagree with (Franklin’s cut and paste method).
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 pm
This was a good post. Thanks!
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 pm
I’m curious, Jeremy: how do you know that inerrency isn’t a make or break doctrine? What doctrines are deal breakers? How do you know the difference between the two? If you have no reliable source for truth, how can you make that claim with any surety?
March 24th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Jesse,
I think that central doctrines are things like the existence of God, the diety of Christ, and His resurrection. These are the doctrines that make up the creeds of the Christian faith, and if you were to ask an uncommitted lay-person what Christians believe, these doctrines would be the first things out of their mouths. Teachings about the Bible would come much later on in their description.
You wrote:
I think that you are vastly overstating my position. Don’t forget that personally I have a high view of inerrancy. I’ve never claimed that the Bible is unreliable, and that is what it seems that everyone is trying to pin me down to saying. I’ve not even, in this post or the discussion, really talking about the proper way to interpret the Bible.
What I think is going on here is that many of us are afraid to trust the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit within our lives. Again, remember that the whole point of Christiannity is that we can have fellowship with the God of the Universe! We don’t, like the Muslim, have to live our lives the best that we can, and hope that in the end, when we finally meet up with Allah, that He’ll decide that we’ve done well enough to have fellowship with him. Instead, you and I can have a real relationship with God right now. God is speaking to us personally-through His Word, and in our hearts. Christianity is bigger than even the words on the pages of Scripture.
March 24th, 2009 at 7:45 am
[…] networkBlog Networks « An Old Line on the Horizon - A Review of U2’s Latest Album | The Reason Evangelicals Leave the Faith Part 2 […]
March 24th, 2009 at 10:39 am
“So the account of Judas’ death doesn’t need to be correct because it’s not important?”
I don’t think that I ever said that the account was unimportant. In fact the opposite is true. The differences in the accounts to me, rather than having to be “reconciled” so that they can be trusted, offer us an even better option. That option is the ability to ask the question, “Why did the author choose to parlay this event in this way, as opposed to the way that the other author chose?” To me, this gives valuable insight into the truth that the authors were trying to convey in their testimonies to the Truth. And, that truth found at the center of the scripture is “the WORD.” This does not give us license to go Jeffersonian and cut and paste what we like and dislike. That says that one account is truer than another. Not so! Each account is completely true. The question of how and why then must be entertained. This I think begins a dialogue between us and the WORD–being a Concept, a Being, a Happening that cannot be contained within a historical book, or a scripture for that matter…because that WORD “is God” (John 1): infinite, all consuming, untamed, dangerous, inexhaustible, known and yet unknown God.
Which brings up the idea expressed in the question, “If you have no reliable source for truth, how can you make that claim with any surety?” It is not that the scripture is not a reliable source of truth, but rather that the idea of “surety” is not compatible with the nature of that truth as it is made manifest to us through the gift of “faith.” There must be room for the “holy doubt” which makes the difference between faith and belief. This is the difference between salvation and knowledge.
To me, trying to nail the word down renders it somewhat unreliable. Because, the scripture is testimony to God by the 1st hand witnesses of God. This allows for the beauty of perspective, culture, and personality—all of which I believe offer as much or more insight into the truth than a containable, factual, historical document could, because these are evidences of life (better yet, of lives). Whereas, giving credence to this vital and dynamic mystery removes the blinders so that its reliability to shine through, and this renders it transformative.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Milestoneworship: …but my first impression is that the method you’ve described in your previous discussions is perfectly fine for determining the correct way to look at the Bible. Take all the facts into consideration, and pretend that you are an outside “impartial” observer in evaluating the text.
Ahh…thank you. I do like this method (but you already knew I would say that. *grin*)
I am understandably disappointed we deconverts (and apostates) have not communicated better that we have applied such a method in many areas regarding the Bible—historical, sociological, cultural, language, authorship, doctrinal, dating, textual criticism, philosophical, scientific, composition and yes…inerrancy.
So…Mile Stone Worship…where do you think the Bible is in error? If it is not inerrant…