Posted by Karen on: 05.28.2008 /
Mike O. asked for this a couple weeks ago. Thanks to Helen for allowing me to post it here; sorry it has taken so long!
I accepted Jesus into my heart at age nine in a Presbyterian Sunday school class. I went on to be baptized (sprinkled in the Presbyterian tradition and then dunked in the Pacific Ocean by Greg Laurie, who was then an assistant pastor at Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa and is now an internationally famous evangelist ). For the next 20 years, I belonged to conservative evangelical churches, attended bible studies and did Christian outreach work both locally and supporting missionaries overseas.
I had questions and doubts about god’s existence off and on, principally during my young adult years, but I managed to repress them until I went through a midlife crisis in my late 30s. It was at that point that church activities and sermons began to feel dull and repetitive. Wasn’t I supposed to have peace and contentment as a follower of Christ? Why did I feel resentment and confusion? All the adolescent rebellion I’d never experienced in adolescence (I was the “perfect Christian girl”) bubbled to the surface and I began reevaluating my life, both informally and in therapy.
I’d always been on the “wrong” side of political and social discussions in church, because I was a feminist and a political liberal. I managed to keep my mouth shut and not disagree too strongly for years, but at this point that started to get really old. I had repressed and stifled myself for so long, I couldn’t do it anymore. And I was annoyed by the narrow-mindedness of my fellow Christians. Even the women my age hewed to traditional roles for females. Instead of enjoying open, authentic relationships, I felt like we all had our “happy Christian faces” on. It wasn’t acceptable to admit that we were struggling with doubt or depression. Those few who did were usually told to “get right with the Lord” and told they weren’t praying, reading their bibles or relying on god enough. “God didn’t move - you did,” was a familiar answer to these “backsliders.”
But because of the midlife crisis, questions that I used to suppress kept resurfacing. Instead of “praying against unbelief” I started entertaining those questions and admitting my doubts (to myself - not to anyone else). I started reading, reading, reading and reading - everything I could find, online and off. The inconsistencies and brutality I saw as I read the bible objectively (not through the filter of conservative interpretation) were shocking. I’d never realized there were so many historical and scientific inaccuracies in scripture. I confronted the fact that fundamentalism demanded that I believe in nonsense like young earth creationism, the reality of the occult, Jesus’s imminent physical return to earth and a literal satan. As I examined these beliefs, they seemed increasingly false and silly.
After several years marked by pain, tears, prayer, confusion and shame, I decided I could no longer keep my self-respect, be honest with myself and still call myself a conservative evangelical.
Along with this realization, it was like a door swung open in my mind. Outside was a huge, beautiful world I’d only glimpsed through the cracks of the confining mental box I had always lived in. I realized how much variety there was in religious thought, philosophy and doctrine! I never would have allowed myself to examine all this before: It was forbidden and frightening. Now, I devoured it, again by reading, reading, reading and also in discussion with new friends I began making outside my church circle. (For years I had had almost no non-Christian friends.)
Over a couple of years, I studied Judaism, Hinduism, paganism, New Age beliefs and Buddhism, while still off-and-on attending a conservative Christian church with my family and considering myself a theist. I attended a liberal Christian church for a short time, and sampled services at several others, but none of them impressed me. I could tell I would fit in better politically at those churches, but I realized I could participate politically through activist groups: I didn’t need church for that. I also realized I could do volunteer work through charitable, non-sectarian groups.
So why did I need to continue attending church and identifying myself as a Christian? Many things about Christianity made me sad, angry and uncomfortable. The biblical support for slavery, racism, the history of repression, violence, misogyny and sexual abuse - where was the promised holy spirit, who was supposed to guide and comfort Christians and the church - Christ’s body here on earth? He didn’t seem to be up to the job. And I didn’t want to be identified with the often-horrific misdeeds of the church.
Yet I clung to the memory of several spiritual experiences I’d had in my life that seemed very real to me. But as I examined each of them (maybe half a dozen) in my memory, I also examined possible alternate explanations. Had god really been talking to me during prayer, or was it my own subconscious chiming in? Was the sense of transcendence I felt during certain worship services really supernatural, or was it an emotional reaction - one that I also felt at great concerts and touching poetry readings?
A turning point came when I learned that people from other religions claimed to have had similar experiences. I honestly didn’t know this - I thought Christians were the only believers that had spiritual revelations, or at least the only “authentic” ones. Yet these other believers thought that their experiences were as valid as mine! I asked myself why I had the right to rely on my personal experiences, but discount other peoples’ experiences. Suddenly, that seemed very arrogant of me. I decided that either there were many paths to god, each one as valid as the others, or - just maybe - there was no god.
That last thought rocked the ground underneath my feet - almost literally. I was afraid to think it again for several days, but it eventually popped back into my head. Could it be that god didn’t create humans, but humans created god?
After a disappointing post-Katrina church service, I decided I couldn’t continue attending my conservative evangelical church. I explained this to my husband. He wanted me to attend church with him, but he understood my decision. I have to admit: Not going to church felt great. I wasn’t even guilty! The “fellowship” at church had felt phony and shallow to me for a long time, and the new friends I was making in the secular world were just as dear and close as my church friends had been - probably more so. With weekday mornings hectic and Saturdays a rush of kids’ activities, I loved the long, lazy Sunday mornings without church.
There’s lots more to the story - rediscovering my latent interest in science, learning about evolution for the first time and eventually admitting (reluctantly) that I was an a-theist, a non-god-believer, a few months later. But that’s the gist of my deconversion story. I’ll close with something Michael Shermer wrote that mirrors my experience well:
“The conjuncture of losing my religion, finding science, and discovering glorious contingency was remarkably empowering and liberating. It gave me a sense of joy and freedom. Freedom to think for myself. Freedom to take responsibility for my own actions. Freedom to construct my own meanings and my own destinies. With the knowledge that this may be all there is, and that I can trigger my own cascading changes, I was free to live life to its fullest. … a world without monsters, ghosts, demons, and gods unfetters the mind to soar to new heights, to think unthinkable thoughts, to imagine the unimaginable, to contemplate infinity and eternity knowing that no one is looking back. The universe takes on a whole new meaning when you know that your place in it was not foreordained, that it was not designed for us - indeed, that it was not designed at all. If we are nothing more than star stuff and biomass, how special life becomes.”
Comment by: Siamang
1Thanks, Karen. Great to read that.
Comment by: Jason
2At nine years old don’t you think that you were too young and uninformed to make a decision about your religion? Perhaps some of your dissatisfaction with Christianity relates to your own lack of control in choosing the faith. Having not been given the opportunity to learn of the alternatives to faith you embraced them later in life when you were better acquainted with them?
How is your husband managing the differences in your beliefs? I assume that he still goes to church as you don’t say. Have his views been altered by your deconversion? I’ve read deconversion tales elsewhere that have literally torn families apart. Entire family trees ostracise the deconverted and interfere with marriages to try to keep the son or daughter who is married to the new atheist away from them. It can be quite harrowing apparently.
The doubts that you mention, do you think that all people have them if they are religious? Do you think that they repress this as you describe repressing your own questions? Why do you think that is?
Sorry for being so forthright in my questions but I was never raised in a religion so I’ve never deconverted. I find the subject fascinating.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
3Jason wrote:
Jason, I know that Christian parents are encouraged to bring their children up ‘in the faith’. If you think the alternative is your children going to hell, of course you don’t want that so you will do everything you can to help them adopt your beliefs. Plus, of course, you think it’s the right and best way to live.
I think this happens with all sorts of things in childhood - we accept stuff and later on we revisit it. I think everyone wants their children to have an accurate understanding of the world. For Christian parents that means their children being Christian too.
One of the things I noticed about marriages where each spouse believes differently (or one doesn’t have religious beliefs) is that the spouses figure out a way to cope with each other’s beliefs - but it’s very difficult to deal with the reality that they each want to raise the children with their own beliefs (or lack thereof). Especially for a Christian, presumably, who believes heaven or hell is at stake. But also for an atheist spouse who doesn’t want their child indoctrinated with something which to them is at best wrong, at worst, ridiculous/abhorrent/harmful.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
4Karen, thanks for sharing your deconversion story here. I can relate to many aspects of it - like when you rethought whether your spiritual experiences could have another explanation, and how it changed your beliefs to read more widely and learned about the experiences and beliefs of people who weren’t Bible-believing Christians.
And the initial fear about leaving it behind, then the freedom.
I wonder how much is related to age - that there’s an age at which compliant women think “Hey wait a minute. I have a brain. I should use it!”
Comment by: A Deconversion Story « Rediscovering “Church”
5 05/29/08 6:33 AM | Comment Link |[...] about Jesus and the Bible that makes people either never believe or “unbelieve”? This Deconversion Story helps to shed some light on that [...]
Comment by: Jason
6Helen said:
That doesn’t extend to atheists though. At least not this atheist. I’ve provided my children with facts about many religions. I’ve deliberately tried to be unbiased although I realise that this is not really possible. I’ve phrased my answers to questions about faith in terms of “some people believe…” because I want to give my kids options. I don’t want to limit their options.
Such is my dislike of indoctrination that I’ve tried to avoid it completely.
I do agree that it is sensible to reassess your views from time to time. Not merely childish views that are discarded but grown up ones too.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
7Jason, I’ve noticed that atheist parents are often willing to present their children with a variety of options. I don’t know of any conservative Christian parents who have done that. Like I said I think it’s because so much is at stake. I expect there are things you didn’t give your children a choice to do because you thought it was too risky. Like playing with matches. Maybe it’s like that for conservative Christian parents - saying ‘go explore the religious options out there’ seems too risky.
What I’ve done with my children has changed as my affiliation to church has changed. I took them with me as soon as I went back to church after they were born. (My atheist husband didn’t mind since it meant a quiet Sunday morning at home alone). When I stopped going I said I’d take them if they still wanted to go but as I suspected they had no strong allegiance to it and they were happy to stop going. When they were young and I was a conservative Christian I felt it was my responsibility to teach what I believed to them and encourage them to become Christians too. As I developed doubts I also started to think, maybe I don’t want my kids indoctrinated this way. So I was happy they didn’t want to go anymore although I felt like that should be their choice.
Comment by: Jason
8What, we’re not supposed to let them play with match now? Sheesh, what next? Not letting them play in the road. ;)
I can understand teaching things to children that we hold dear to our hearts. I don’t agree with it but I can understand it.
You know that Hil and I are vegetarians. We buy and cook only food that does not come from an animal except for dairy products and free range eggs because no animal needs to suffer to get that. Although I’m a bit dubious about milk. Anyway, because we have only vegetarian food our children are fed a vegetarian diet.
That does not make them vegetarians though. Vegetarianism involves a decision to avoid certain types of food and to embrace a certain way of eating. My children are free to eat meat and occasionally do when at their aunts, grand parents or at friend’s houses, or even when they go out.
This is an analogy on how I see religion in their lives. They are exposed to choices and are free to settle on one (or none) when they reach the age where they can make informed decisions. If I forced them to follow my choice I’d be inviting trouble in later life.
Comment by: Steve
9One of my favorite Christian authors (fairly conservative, and definitely evangelical) always says, “If there was a better way, Jesus would be the first one to encourage you to take it. IF you don’t agree with that than you don’t think very highly of Jesus.” Of course he is also a philosophy professor at a prominent public university, so I think you would have to expect some pretty open-minded thinking…
Comment by: Karen
10Thanks for the feedback guys! Siamang, nice to see you here. ;-)
Oh, absolutely, I do now. However, I have to tell you, early adoption of Christianity is extremely important to Christian parents. By far the number one prayer of parents at infant dedication services at my old church was, “Please Lord, let my child come to know the personal savior at an early age.”
As Helen says, when a child is considered literally dangling over the pit of eternal hellfire, getting him/her “born again” quickly is a top priority. (Of course, there are “age of accountability” guidelines and so forth, but still the idea is to better be safe than sorry.)
Also, just because I converted at a young age doesn’t mean I never revisited that decision. All/most evangelicals will probably tell you that they “recommitted their life to Christ” one or more times as adolescents and adults. So I did make conscious choices to embrace the faith later as a young adult and in my 20s.
Oh, definitely. Family and social pressure is a huge part of why deconversion is so terribly difficult.
In my case, my mother died right around the time I started questioning Christianity. My older relatives (aunts and uncles) either preceded her or followed shortly - and they are the extended family that most embraces evangelicalism. So I didn’t have to deal with extensive family pressure, except from my very strict fundamentalist sister who doesn’t know I’m an atheist but doesn’t like me much anyway so I don’t bother telling her. ;-)
My brother knows and as a gay liberal he’s fine with it. My husband was very, very disturbed for several years but just recently I feel like he’s coming to accept me more and more. He still goes to church (not the one we attended together) but more sporadically than before (we used to be every single Sunday and several times a week attenders).
My inkling is that all religious people have doubts to one extent or another. I don’t know about fanatics like suicide bombers, but I think even they would have to, if they’re human.
I remember in bible studies and small groups people did sometimes confess to doubts or questioning, but that was typically seen as a pretty big problem that needed much prayer and “laying on of hands.” I think religious people learn to overcome doubt or just live with it through praying more fervently, counseling with a pastor or lay leader, confessing it to their small group or mentor or immersing themselves more fully in the Christian community.
Absolutely no problem - ask away! I find it fascinating to imagine not being raised in any religion, actually. Did you feel left out when the other kids talked about god or religious holidays? I think in the U.S. religion is so ubiquitous in peer groups (or it was when I was a kid, may be different now)that I would have felt deprived if I didn’t have some religion that I “belonged to.”
Comment by: Jason
11Thanks Karen.
I moved around a lot as a kid but England isn’t exactly what you’d call a religious nation anyway. I spend several years in Reading which has huge Indian and Bangladeshi communities. The dominant religions were Hindu or Islam. Yet I went to a Christian school.
Easter got mixed up with Ramadan and Holi and Christmas so I just went with the flow and ignored them when I could. As a child the day off school was much more important than the reason for it.
I don’t know many people who go to church except at Christmas or for weddings or funerals. The really religious people I know personally are in the minority.
Comment by: Chris Kirk
12Fascinating discussion here. Thanks for sharing your story Karen. I’m always intrigued to see the path along which people walk to find certain conclusions.
Personally, my journey had not been disimilar from yours. I, too, was raised in a conservative, Chrisian home and converted early. I, too, experienced a long-running discontent with the Christian faith as it was presented to me. This eventually led me to disconnect from the institutionalized church.
However, I have found that I can maintain a belief in a God, but not buying into the dogma and misinterpretation that has surrounded Christianity. In fact, I’m still nauseous about Christianity, but love the way Jesus taught and pray everyday. I guess what I’m saying is that I chose an atheism to the God I was presented in Christianity, but choose to believe in the God that I believe is portrayed in sacred texts and human experience throughout time. I’m not sharing this to convert you as I think it is perfectly fine for you to arrive at the atheistic conclusion. I just wanted to share my perspective as one who is still believing, but not believing.
I recently downloaded this song and I think the lyrics explain what I’m trying to say:
“I am an atheist when it comes to the God of violent jihad / I am an atheist when it comes to the lord who converts by the sword/ I am an atheist when it comes to the mission of politicians using religion as ammunition.”
“I believe in you-the artist of trees and galaxies / I believe in you the poet of oceans and rivers and streams / I believe in you the god of compassion who calls us to action / I believe in you.”
by Brian McLaren and Aaron Stumpel
Comment by: Rev. Dan
13Awesome Karen, thank you for writing this (and y’all for posting it)! :)
My experience is pretty similar to Karen’s, and the bits about the “Holy Spirit” being omni-non-present and repressing doubt are especially resonant.
I was five when Christianity was forced down my throat, and I greatly resent the indoctrination and anti-reason which I was consistently fed. All of my Christian teachers were well intentioned and did an outstanding job of helping to pave my personal road to Hell. Nice people do a lot of really evil things out of ignorance and religious belief.
My parents kinda took a different route… instead of ever talking about their beliefs (they profess to be LDS, but don’t attend church regularly) they decided to let other people do it for them, specifically in the form of sending me to a Baptist school. For those who don’t know, Baptists are no fans of LDS theology or of the LDS Church. It weighed heavily on me as a kid that my parents were going to burn in Hell for all of eternity because their version of Jesus was different.
One of the most difficult parts of leaving church is the difficulty in making new friends and being rejected by one’s church friends. My Christian friends would listen to my honest expressions of confusion about Christianity and then tell me that I was being arrogantly prideful to use my intellect to challenge God, and that I needed to stop thinking (I’ve literally been told that by numerous Christians) and start trusting in God, who would/could somehow turn off my poisoned brain. I argued that any faith that’s True could withstand scrutiny, and that if God had any actual power or interest in me that He’d clue me in where I was wrong. My non-Christian friends just didn’t/couldn’t understand why it was such a big deal to just leave church. When one goes through the process of divorcing oneself from the church one is trapped in a very difficult and lonely place.
One of the most remarkably disappointing things about Christianity to me is the perpetual talk about “having a relationship with God.” God never spoke to me, though I poured my heart in God’s direction regularly. To me, God is like a “friend” who gives you their phone number but screens their calls and never picks up when you call (with the exception that the “friend” actually exists). To extend the analogy, I think that those who claim to “hear God speak to them (either literally [via a small, still voice], or figuratively [via "moving one's heart" or through reading the Bible]) seem to be confusing the “leave a message and I’ll call you back” greeting on the answering machine with an actual conversation with the person they’re calling.
The story of Lot being “Godly” by offering his daughters to be gang-raped (Genesis 19) was a profound stumbling block for me. This spoke volumes to me about the “Father” relationship Christians allegedly have with God.
Christians are encouraged to brainwash their children as early as possible:
and …
and …
More of the same genre of thing here:
more Bible verses
When you’re raised in “the ways of the Lord” you’re taught how to continually doubt yourself, that you’re an evil sinner, etc., etc. This stuff is taught as being superior and more true than even mathematics. (In fact, mathematics isn’t “True,” but is a systematic logic that can only ever be “valid,” but I digress.) The end result is that smart, sensitive kids are subjected to continual abuse and are intentionally “broken” so that they’ll become obedient.
If this is alien to you (if you were fortunate enough to grow up a-theistically) and you’d like an accurate portrayal of what it’s like to grow up with religion, I can’t recommend the movie “Jesus Camp” highly enough. After having watched “Jesus Camp” I had traumatic flashbacks which were akin to the experiences of war veterans after watching Platoon or Saving Private Ryan. The movie was remarkably similar to my experience with Christianity.
I blogged a lot about Jesus Camp, and have the trailer and a transcription of the trailer here (I wrote a bunch of stuff that doesn’t need to be repeated here, so I’m linking to my blog. I’m not trying to advertise, honest… I’m trying to stay on topic.):
http://outchurched.com/2006/09/03/jesus-camp-trailer-reviews-free-screening-offer.html
In the movie, there’s a kid who sits in front of everyone and confesses the sin of disbelief while thumbing through a Bible. I was totally like that kid. Even mentioning that part of the movie starts me tearing up.
If you don’t wanna read any more of what I have to say about “Jesus Camp,” you can check out the trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE
I think this is a major reason that Christians have so much difficulty accepting homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships are often far more open, honest, and authentic than heterosexual Christian relationships, and I think Christians find this fact to be remarkably threatening.
“Why do these gay sinners have a better relationship than I do with my Covenant-Marriage spouse? Wait… no, their relationships are meaningless because they don’t have Jesus. They just look better because they’re wallowing and flaunting their sinful lifestyle and are mocking God… yeah, that’s the ticket.”
Christians, particularly the Fundamentalist ones, believe that the Bible in the infallible Word of God… every word is literally true. Anything that seems to disprove Christianity must be rejected, because if one thing in the Bible is wrong then that proves that God can’t even ensure that His Word is accurately transmitted through history and the whole thing should be tossed out. The world is very black and white to most Christians and admission that there’s any grey in the world is an admission that they’re completely wrong. What do you do if your entire worldview is completely wrong (there is no God, Satan, Heaven or Hell)… you suffer and have to wallow in uncertainty. If you’ve never been taught how to actually think (ie.- if you’ve never developed a good epistemology) then the prospect of having to work through what it’s like to live in Reality (the one you’ve been consistently taught is evil and satanic) is extremely terrifying.
Most Christians (certainly the ones I’ve known) take this to mean that they should completely reject as false any evidence that suggests that the Bible is just a bunch of stories.
Just like you can’t explain an elephant to a bunch of blind people, you can’t explain Reality to those who have willfully turned off their brains.
@Helen:
I don’t mean to nitpick but I think that using a phrase that suggests that atheists have a “lack of beliefs” isn’t a very good way to describe what you’re meaning*. There’s an implication that atheism is akin to nihilism because of a “lack of belief.” The common manifestation of that false implication is that it’s only possible to be a moral person if you’ve based your values on religious dogma, which is backwards.
For example, I believe that the scientific method is a great way to approach the acquisition of knowledge and that knowledge and reason are good. The fact that I don’t believe in a big space papa who needs to order me around to make me prove my devotion to him doesn’t mean that I have a lack of beliefs… on the contrary, I hold what I consider to be superior rational beliefs instead of irrational/anti-rational ones.
* I use similar phrases periodically but have recently come to appreciate that it has negative unintended consequences so I’m working to remove it from my writing. If you read something I’ve written recently that uses it, it’s because I’ve made a mistake.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
14I almost forgot:
Thanks for giving me a moment on the soapbox. :)
Comment by: Jason
15Wasn’t it the Jesuits who said: “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
16Dan, thanks for sharing your experience. Going somewhere as a child where you were told your parents were going to hell - that must have sucked.
About beliefs - I understand what you’re saying. You’re the first atheist I remember who wants to be described as having beliefs. I generally refer to my beliefs about morality as ‘values’ or my ‘worldview’.
I’ll probably keep saying lack thereof when the context is religious beliefs, because of atheists who have said “it’s more accurate to say I lack a belief in god/gods than to say I have a belief regarding their non-existence”.
I don’t think there’s a perfect solution - language often has connotations and associations for other people that we can’t control, no matter how carefully we try to express ourselves. Communication is a complex thing.
Comment by: Karen
17Jason:
What’s been the reaction (if you know) to Tony Blair’s declaration of devotion to Catholicism? Do you see any kind of revival of religious faith in England? I used to know some missionaries there and they were always upset about the highly secular nature of society in the UK.
Comment by: Karen
18Hi Chris! Thanks for your comments.
Just to be clear, I really didn’t feel discontented with my faith for the vast majority of my time as a Christian. Yes, there were the doubts and questions I described, but I was very successful at repressing them and so most of the time I was very happy as a Christian and completely convinced I was going the right way.
I understand, Chris. And no problem on posting your thoughts here, whether you’re trying to convert or not (which I understand you’re not!) ;-)
I can understand how someone would come to a kind of deistic belief system, if they were to give the “benefit of the doubt” to those religious experiences that so many people seem to have.
For me, however, the problems with deism are two-fold:
1) Through what may be some kind of genetic quirk, I have this deep-seated need to be completely intellectually honest with myself. And when I am in that posture, I have to admit that it seems more unlikely than likely that there’s a supernatural being in the universe (or of the universe, if you prefer).
2) Even if there is a supernatural force in the universe - so what? I don’t have an emotional need to connect with that force because I feel perfectly happy not believing. And if there is a force out there that doesn’t interact or influence humanity, surely it doesn’t “care” whether we acknowledge it or not.
So unless I can see some benefit to deism (for me or society at large) I choose to remain what I am: An agnostic atheist.
Comment by: Karen
19Rev. Dan:
Hi Rev. Dan - thanks for your kind words!
That’s really weird that your LDS parents would send you to a Baptist school where you would get some anti-Mormon teaching. Did they not realize the aversion to LDS that Baptists have, or were they trying to give you several viewpoints?
Yes, that was a standard comment in many sermons I heard in fundamentalist and evangelical churches: You’re thinking too much, you need to submit to god’s will and all will become clear.
You know, I’m still too chicken to watch it, for exactly this reason. I’m scared it’ll hit too close to home and really sadden and anger me, plus give me nightmares about my own childhood indoctrination.
This is true for a certain minority of (very loud and zealous) Christians. But one major thing I’ve learned interacting here and at other OTM blogs is that moderate and liberal Christians do not feel this way. Many/most of them do not take the bible literally and they are not “black and white” thinkers.
I was raised in the evo-fundy tradition and I was taught that all “true Christians” were of the conservative sort. We thought that moderate Christians were as bad (or worse off) than atheists, in fact. But it’s actually the conservatives who are in the minority when it comes to the U.S. population.
Comment by: Jason
20Karen said:
After a decade in power he’d become unpopular as a leader, the nation wants change and blames things that have gone wrong or things that haven’t been fixed on him. His public conversion just makes him look unstable as a man. In his own words “a nutter”.
As for a revival in religious faith I’d have to say that Blair’s conversion is likely to have to opposite effect. In general we just aren’t that interested in religion anymore.
If any religion is on the rise my feeling is that it is Islam. It certainly appeals to the disaffected youth in inner cities. Anglicans have never been very good at appealing to the poor.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
21We didn’t discuss religion much as I was growing up… well, not much beyond “did they teach you to use words like that at Christian School?” (The true answer was “no, dad… I learned them from you,” though I don’t recall ever having said that… I would have gotten the belt. The rule at their house was “for every swat you get at school, you’ll get two at home.” My biological father* broke several paddles while beating my bare bottom on multiple occasions. The rod definitely wasn’t spared at school or at home.)
I think they sent me to Baptist school because I had scored highly on the academic assessment tests (I was supposedly “really smart” then, so what the hell happened to me?) and they wanted me to get the best possible education that they could afford. I recall them seeming irritated after the interview with the principal prior to being admitted. I’m now convinced that the school accepted me because they were interested in my biological parents’ money and because I would likely reflect well upon the school academically. (I was put in a self-paced learning program within the school for a while [around second grade-ish] and was told that I was “advanced.”)
I also think that they didn’t want to accept responsibility for raising me and that it’d be good for me to get a religious education from anybody other than themselves. One of my public school teachers once told me that I was an adult child living with child adults (my parents decided that I was such an evil terrible kid that they were wasting money sending me to a Christian school so they yanked me out during 7th grade).
While both of my biological parents have a long history with the LDS church, I’m of the opinion that they really don’t understand the differences between evangelicalism/fundamentalism and mormonism. I can only really recall a few times when religion was discussed. When the LDS home teachers would come over (every couple/few weeks… I don’t recall exactly how often) I would dismiss myself and hang out in my room.
My biological father loved nature and used to say that he felt like he was “at church” when he was out in the woods or out on the lake fishing. My biological mother and I once had a discussion about Jesus while we were walking into Wal*Mart. She professed that she “believed in Jesus” and I asked her “which one?” She looked very puzzled and said “there’s only one Jesus…” and I replied “I can think of several different versions of Jesus… the LDS Jesus, the Biblical Jesus, the Christian Jesus, the Jehovah’s Witness Jesus, etc. etc.” The conversation abruptly ended.
Once, while I was in Bible College and living in their house, I was sitting at the kitchen table reading the Bible (studying for class) and my biological father rhetorically asked: “Doesn’t the Bible say that children should obey their parents?” I looked him in the eye and said “Doesn’t the Bible also say that parents aren’t to provoke their children to anger?” He murmured “I don’t know” and shuffled off to watch TV.
My biological mother asked me to go with her to an LDS service for Mother’s Day (or something like that) once and I went along with her. Her LDS friend saw how uncomfortable I looked and took me out to Del Taco to get a burrito until the service was over.
My grandmother was a multi-generational Mormon. She started down the LDS evangelism path with me once when I was in my late teens. I told her flatly that I loved her very much and that I had no interest in discussing religion. She dropped the subject and never brought it up again. She died while I was in high school (I was the last person to see her conscious and the last words I said to her were “I love you Olly!”), several years before I embraced Christianity as an adult.
While there are moderate/liberal Christians, my experience is that a majority of Christians are binary thinkers. When I was a Christian I flatly rejected the notions of “limited inerrancy” and liberal theology (completely different from being socially liberal) and felt that those who picked what they liked out of Scripture and ignored the rest were “smorgasbord Christians.”
According to the Bible, God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. If the God of the Bible cannot transmit His own Word through human history, then that God is false because He is not omnipotent. If the God of the Bible is omnipotent and has purposefully allowed His own Word to be perverted/altered through human history, then He’s quite a game-playing jerk. I strongly feel that if one accepts the God of the Bible then one pretty much has to accept that the Bible is Inerrant. Otherwise, I feel one should just admit that they believe the Bible is mythology.
Inerrancy is different from Biblical Literalism. It’s possible to conclude that the language regarding all things being created in seven days is figurative without rejecting the “literal truth” of the Inerrancy of Scripture. After re-reading what I wrote, I realize that I strayed from what I meant. Sorry ’bout that. I get to typing and sometimes don’t realize the implications of some of my phrasing/word choices. It’s hard to edit your own writing, and it’s remarkably hard to effectively and precisely communicate using a language which is so full of words with multiple meanings and nuance. Thank you Karen, for giving me the opportunity to clarify.
I’m absurdly verbose because I don’t know how to communicate my thoughts as precisely or tersely as I’d like. I’m the kind of person that has to circle the airport several times to ensure that I’m landing at the right one. I talk around things before I make my point mostly because I want to ensure that I’ve given enough context to whomever is reading my thoughts that they might understand what I mean although I don’t speak or write well/mis-speak. My brain works faster than my fingers and exponentially faster than my mouth. Fairly often I make little sense to people I’m talking to because I get excited and the wrong words spill out of my mouth because I’m several sentences ahead in my thoughts. (I had this happen at RailsConf several times today. It helps to slow down and pause in-between sentences, but I still struggle with this. This isn’t helped by my referential and often obscure sense of humor.) I read and re-read what I post multiple times, but it’s really really hard to edit one’s own writing (you might be amazed at how much of what I’ve written that I delete before posting).
One of the pragmatic benefits of embracing reality (affirming that I am an atheist) is that it rules out any justification for feeling “persecuted by God.” If the Bible was even remotely true, it would mean that God’s plan for me was to be physically and emotionally abused at home and at school, that God created me (and countless others) to suffer, and that God has a remarkably perverse sense of humor and likes to fuck with me.** No thanks, I’ll take a cold, uncaring universe any day since that means that the bad that happens to me isn’t part of an orchestrated plan but is either a result of the behavior of damaged people, the consequences of my own actions, or the product of inanimate objects***. It’s quite nice to be the cause of my own problems since I can forgive myself and learn new behaviors.
I really appreciate y’all allowing me to get this stuff out of my head. I’m not quite sure why I feel your blog is the appropriate place for all my rambling, other than y’all are nice folks. I’ve posted a lot of snark on my own blog(s), so it’s much easier to be serious/open/direct here.
* I have a great deal of difficulty referring to my biological parents as being my “parents” or “mom and dad” because those terms evoke a sense of respect that I feel that they do not deserve (I haven’t had any contact with anyone I’m directly biologically related to in over seven years). “Family,” to me, means “the Manson Cult.” I think this was a major reason I was susceptible to the false promises of Christianity as an adult… acceptance and community are very powerful things to those who have never/rarely experienced functional versions of them. A number of the relationships I witnessed during my Christian experience were very appealing
** There’s not “nice” way to put that… I’m not trying to be offensive.
*** C.S. Lewis describes this in “The Problem of Pain.”
Comment by: Rev. Dan
22Somebody mentioned to me today that they thought it was really interesting to see the Pope give a big speech about how Catholics should attend to the needs of the poor and then get literally hauled away like a pharoah in an absurdly ornate gold-plated platform carried by men.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
23Rev Dan wrote
Dan I really appreciate you sharing more of your story. I’m sorry your parents were abusive to the point that even now you’d rather not call them ‘mom and dad’.
I agree with you about community - it’s very powerful. I hope we do have a bit here - we seem to have enough that we enticed you out of lurking, anyway :).
There was a point when I realized the people in church who I hoped were my community - my friends - were just ‘people I went to church with’. That was a difficult realization and once I discovered the community I believed I’d find there - of course, because why wouldn’t people saved by grace be the safest, most grace-filled people on earth? - didn’t exist as I had hoped, my whole belief system was shaken to the core. Because if what the Holy Spirit was supposed to produce wasn’t there maybe the Holy Spirit wasn’t real.
In my years of Bible study I came across a verse in the Old Testament, from a passage the author of Matthew’s gospel ascribes to Jesus: It says he wouldn’t crush a bruised reed or snuff out a smoldering candle wick. If this is true Jesus was SAFE. But Christians turned out to be profoundly unsafe. So much for community - I was out of there emotionally and that led to me being out of there physically once I was ready to leave what had been much of my social network (such as it was).
That used to be my experience too, but these days I’ve been around enough moderate/liberal Christians to start believing those who are telling me that actually, conservative Christians are a minority among Christians in the US.
I’m also reading The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis inside the Church by Christine Wicker, a friend of mine (Jim introduced us) and ex-strict-Southern-Baptist. In the book she discusses how conservative Christian counts of themselves have been about four times higher than their actual numbers. You might find that book interesting. Christine posted here about her findings which substantiate the theme of the book.
Actually I do think there is middle ground. What if there is something transcendent and human beings tried to capture and explain that in writing, sometimes coming close, always limited by their cultural context? What if there’s something behind the Bible which calls people to be the best they can be, but the Bible imperfectly describes that? On the whole people have more issues with the God of the Old Testament than Jesus. Maybe that means as human consciousness has evolved humans have come closer to understanding what ‘good’ is.
I don’t know - I’m just saying that once I contemplated this as a middle ground it seemed more plausible than inerrancy and resolves all the issues like the places the Bible seems to contradict itself (I was taught none of those are real contradictions but I have trouble with that explanation). Anyway not that I want to get off onto Bible issues - just to say I think the middle ground position is more plausible than inerrancy.
I tend to care more about the effects of doctrine than doctrine - and peoples’ beliefs are very hard to change anyway - I’m opposed to doctrine that messes people up and leads them to hurt each other but if people are doing good things and saying it’s because of their belief in Jesus then, whatever - at least they’re doing good things. And if they’re the moderate/liberal type of believer they probably aren’t going around trying to convert others, which I appreciate. My view about that is: if something is worth converting to, show my by your life rather than telling me and maybe I’ll be interested enough to ask, and THEN you can tell me.
Wow, this is getting long - I’ll stop :). Except to say - good point about the Pope. I know a lot of Christians who are uncomfortable about what churches spend money on, who would agree with you. Oh, one other thing - thanks for reading over your posts - I try to do that too with mine too. Although admittedly I don’t always manage it due to time constraints.
Comment by: Jason
24Rev. Dan, wow! It sounds like you’ve got plenty of reasons to be angry at religion.
Your comment about the pope could equally apply to the Dalai Lama as head of the Tibetan Buddhists or the Queen as theoretical head of the Church of England. Power comes with it’s trappings. I don’t think that the message that we should feed the hungry, clothe the naked and enrich the poor is bad because a well fed, well dressed, rich dude says it. It just shows their hypocrisy in a clearer light.
A clever theologian would argue that Jesus lived in poverty and led a simple life preaching compassion and brotherly love. They might argue that the churches have corrupted this idea. Why then do people listen to church leaders? Is it because they believe that it is only other churches who suffer from corruption and that their church is the righteous one?
Honestly, I think it must be. Rather than get into a “No True Scotsman” argument I must say that religions are made out of people. Without acceptance of the beliefs and a willingness to go along with the instructions of other people in the church, nobody would be harmed by religion. It seems that our human sociability can work against us.
Comment by: Mike O
25Sorry, I’ve been hunkered down studying for an exam (which I PASSED). But way back up in #1, Jason said
Now that I’ve been fairly involved with y’all, and I’ve learned that the latent unanswered questions sometimes need to be addressed, I entertain them openly with my wife (who is a pastor) and a few trustworthy friends. I just read a passage out of Judges the other day that’s a bit disturbing to me. I’m not at the place where I would chuck my faith over it, but admitting I don’t get it - it’s good.
Karen in #10
OK, that was funny!
Comment by: Mike O
26Dan said in #21,
My old boss/friend used to say, “people often mistake my sense of humor for a rare pituitary condition.”
Comment by: Karen
27Yay! Congratulations!!
Does this exam have anything to do with the job search?
Comment by: Mike O
28Yes, it does. Kind of like a realtor not having a license, no matter how good they are, nobody will trust them. It’s not the same as licensure, but similar to a lesser degree.
If I were a Basset Hound, you could say I just got my papers saying, “Yup, he’s really a Basset.”
Comment by: Jason
29Yes, well done on the exam Mike. I think questions are always good. If you don’t understand something it is better to explore that than to push it aside and hope that it resolves itself.
Having said that I do think that Christians tend to put the bible up on a pedestal as a perfect work. I think that it’s just inviting someone to come along and push it off by pointing out inconsistencies or uncomfortable aspects of the text.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
30LOL! Awesome! Congrats Mike for passing your exam!
There were a bunch of stories in the Bible that made little sense. That didn’t necessarily mean that the Bible is then automatically manure, but that *I* didn’t get parts of it. Cheers Mike for being reasonable and honest. I respect that fo sho. :)
Comment by: Rev. Dan
31Shortest. Rev. Dan. Comment. Evar! ;)
Comment by: Mike O
32Yeah. I hope this doesn’t make my your ball of yarn, but I must admit I’m still in that camp.
Be gentle with me?!?
(Is that saliva?)
Comment by: Karen
33;-) Now see, that wasn’t so hard, was it? (Just teasin!)
Comment by: Rev. Dan
34It literally was less difficult/time consuming. I’d spent 2+ hours on that last ramble when I probably should have been resting and/or slinging code. :)
I’m probably going to be swinging back into lurker mode soon. Well, were I smart I’d do so… I’ve now taken on more development work than I can currently handle. That just means it’s time to step it up and Get Real. :)
http://gettingreal.37signals.com/
Comment by: Rev. Dan
35I know I probably seem rabid, but I really did “get my shots.” ;)
FWIW, I’m getting a better sense of who y’all are and that’s causing my respect/admiration to grow. Thanks all for that.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
36Dan way to go on the short posts :). What kind of work do you do, if you don’t mind me asking?
It’s been fun having you join in the conversation. I hope you can still contribute occasionally, in between doing your Real Work :)
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
37Mike, congratulations on PASSING your exam! (I like how you put that in capitals :)) I hope that will help you get a job.
Comment by: Mike O
38Well, the market is still pretty bad, but it will help me be more competitive.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
39What a nice way to tell me to STFU! However, you blew it by asking me a question afterwards! Doh! ;)
I’ve been doing software QA for the past 8-or-so years, but have recently “hopped the fence” to the Dev. side. The grass is actually greener on the QA side but that’s just because it’s where everybody seems to dump their manure.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
40That totally reminded me of having a kidney stone. Ugh.
Comment by: Mike O
41[plop-clink]
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
42Silly me :)
All these years of noticing it’s greener on the other side and I never knew that was why! :)
Thanks for telling me what you do.
Comment by: Ben
43Karen,
I’m really sorry to hear about this. I consider myself to be a Christian Conservative and I find it confusing that you would be going to church, reading your bible and praying and somehow have a “liberal” political view. I’m not certain what liberal views you agree with but some are clearly against the word of God.
Anyway, what I would like to share with you is perhaps a bit of light I’ve come across (I’m sure I’m not the only one that has.) However, I understand that there is a conflict between science (evolution) and God’s creation story and what I didn’t understand is that the “scientist” had any argument at all. Finally, I was able to understand why the scientist pushing evolution have no real argument. Everyone is some how assuming that the laws of physics (gravity, light, energy etc..) have always been there because we humans have a hard time of understanding the term Nothing. We apparently believe that all of these laws have always been there because in our experience, they have. I believe that these “laws” that we humans have Discovered were laws that were created by a master designer so that life in our current form could even exist. I have yet to hear an explaination from an evolutionists that tells me how the laws of physics that make life possible before it could be created or create itself came into existance… not to mention time itself, or even the simple 3 dimensions that we all exist in as well. I’m guessing that this is why the bible says that we can not comprehend these things. Try and imagine nothing, not time or even 3 dimensions and then imagine something happening by pure chance inside of that and then you exist inside of that. I get stuck at just trying to imagine the non-existence of 3 dimensions.
Just using the simple cause and effect principle, anyone can understand that our finite lives here on earth and their beginning had to come from something some where which would lead to something being infinite to at least start our series of finite life cycles. Whether you believe that “infinite” is God or just the hydrogen gas that has “always been there.” I believe that you are looking at science under the wrong assumption. It was not our understanding of science that created our own existence, it is a God that created us in his own image and that gave us the intelligence to discover these things (laws) and create science. Many people have this backwards.
Please note, I am not an expert at these things. I just hope my experience can enlighten your life. And lastly, how can creation under estimate its creator? Have you ever weaved a basket just to have the basket denounce your existence? The first creation that started to under estimate his creator was called Lucifer and he is the father of confusion.
Comment by: Mike O
44Ben, you’re making the same logical leap many Christians make - that what the bible says is true. You’re basing your position on something atheists don’t believe in, so it holds no water. They don’t care that the Bible says that in the beginning there was nothing, because they don’t trust the Bible. In their minds, it’s less of a leap to say time/dimensions/gasses always existed than it is to say the only God has no beginning.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that God created the universe. When? I don’t care. But I do think he created it.
Your agrument is akin to them trying to support the non-existance of God using evolution - you don’t believe it, so you’re going to reject it out of hand. They don’t believe us.
Comment by: Ben
45Mike,
Thank you for your reply. I was attempting to point out that their belief of the gases always being there is actually more difficult that once thought. Usually, when someone is asked to think of nothing, usually a 3 dimensional space of just empty space is thought of. My question goes further than where did all the gases come from that supposedly started the big bang, but why is there even 3 dimensions to begin with? Not only do atheist have to believe that the gases just always existed, but some how the physical space for the gases to exist in also always existed along with all of the laws of gravity and energy that go with it. If atheist believe all of this stuff, they either have way more faith than I do or they are just attempting to explain away the question in order to ignore it so that they could comfort their conscience in the notion that there is nothing higher to answer to. I’m sure you are right Mike, it probably won’t matter what I write here on this website. No one will change their mind and continue the path that they are on, all I can do is try…
Comment by: Mike O
46They at least believe something existed that could evolve into the gases. I’m not 100% sure that they care what existed, just that it seems to be less of a stretch for them to believe in matter existing with no beginning, than it is to believe in God.
True statement. There is no argument you can make to change anyone’s mind here. But you can pray. If the God we believe in really exists, we need to leave the “convincing” to Him.
Besides, Christians are in the minority here. In fact, I see myself as an “unbeliever in atheism” in this context :)
Ben, how long have you been around here, and what is your background? I am also a conservative Christian, but I’ve come to the place that while I may be conservative in my faith, my “conservatism” is not the point. Does that make sense?
I’ve learned a LOT in my time here about how non-Christians think and process the world, and why/how they don’t process things the way we do.
Comment by: Jason
47I’m afraid we don’t. Gases require molecules in agitation, for example hydrogen, one of the simplest atoms is gaseous only in certain circumstances. I can imagine circumstances where hydrogen is a liquid, either at low temperature or under a great deal of pressure. Decrease the temperature further or increase the pressure and I can imagine a solid hydrogen. Hydrogen is made up of sub atomic particles. A single electron and a nucleus consisting of a single proton. We can further break down a proton into sub atomic particles called quarks and that is where is starts to get really strange.
I can imagine an early universe following the Big Bang where even the building blocks of atoms are unformed, where quarks in their many flavours are the stuff of the universe. I can imagine a time where all these quarks existed in a supercondensed state in an infinitesimal space. Quarks and anti-quarks existing simultaneously in the same space without any space as such.
No space of course means that the concepts of space-time become meaningless. I have a very hard time imagining a universe without space-time. I see no reason to assume anything before this singularity at the beginning of the universe.
I don’t have to assume that something has always existed to discount God. In fact the evidence suggests that the universe is finite rather than infinite.
I suppose this beggars the question of the cause of the universe. A wonderful and fascinating question it is too. Surely something must have caused the universe as singularity to break apart? Maybe but given that we know so little about this early state we can’t really tell. I’d say that it is worth investigating and definitely worth avoiding the assumption that “God did it”.
Whether God did it or not we should proceed with our investigation under the assumption that we do not know the answer. If we do this then we are not trying to prove a theory but trying to determine an event.
Comment by: Mike O
48I like how you said that.