Deconversion stories from Biblical Errancy
JB
The author of this correspondance also has his own website where these writings together with further reflections can be found. JB has also included his Tough Questions for the Christian Church at his site.
Letter #763 from JB Via Email
(JB sent us a series of letters that represent the kind of mental agony many people endure when they decide to make that qualitative leap from religion to reality, from Scripture to sanity. Few aspects of this transition are more traumatic than confronting friends and relatives who are yet to make the escape and who are critical of those who have. Although JB was a dedicated Christian for many years and taught the Bible with exceptional comprehension, his wisdom and his conscience would no longer allow him to maintain an aura of unreality about his life. So he defected to the other side and this is part of his story. Because JB's journey, doubts, and questioning is representative of thousands, we have decided to make his correspondence available to all, many of whom can no doubt identify with his ordeal. When asked for some general personal information JB stated, "I studied the Bible and evangelical apologetic literature for 23 years on my own. I had no formal training except in Sunday School, which is almost entirely useless for really knowing Christianity. Many years ago I was in Campus Crusade for Christ in college, and I was president on my campus (Emory University in Atlanta) for one year. If it matters, I have a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and I work as a technologist and a manager at a major instrument company.
My objective is not really to prove anything, although that would be nice. My real objective is to demonstrate to my in-laws that I came to disbelief competently, and not out of ignorance, whim, or in reaction to an emotional or spiritual conflict, or out of evil in-tent, as they are wont to think. If I achieve this, I will consider my effort successful. It will make my relationship with my in-laws bearable again."
He begins his first letter by saying,
"The following was in response to a nasty letter my father-in-law sent me upon first learning of my deconversion. My intent was to set the tone for a cordial relationship, to prevent my father-in-law from cutting off all conversation, which he had threatened to do in his letter, and to undermine the false assumptions he was making about my loss of faith....
In response to my father-in-law's letter I said, "For 23 years I was a Christian. During that time -- but especially after having children -- I was very serious about living the Christian life and I studied the Bible to learn how to live it. As I studied, I began to encounter difficulties. For many years I overlooked these difficulties and accepted Christianity anyway, believing that the difficulties must have resolutions which I simply had not discovered yet. However, the more I studied, the more numerous and prominent the difficulties became, to the extent that I could not overlook them any longer. I redoubled my efforts, studying the Bible and reading the apologists, and giving Christianity every benefit of the doubt. One day last Christmas season I sat down and opened my Bible for personal devotions and suddenly recognized that I did not believe it anymore. The cumulative force of the difficulties thoroughly and completely discredited Christianity, even for a sincere and willing believer, and the church simply cannot answer the difficulties. I was a sincere, dedicated Christian, seriously trying to live the Christian life, and I lost faith as a result of studying the Bible -- quite contrary to my own wish. I know that my very existence, as a Christian who rejects the faith based on knowledge of the faith, is threatening, and I understand why you have reacted so strongly. My wife and I have experienced many of the same emotions about this that you have. Our loss of faith is something that happened to us while we were doing the things that Christians are supposed to do -- not something that we willfully or maliciously decided. (Why would we? It would have been much easier to continue on as believers.) The whole process has been wrenching for us, and, like you, I have lost many hours of sleep because of it. However, knowing what I know, it is impossible for me to believe again. Belief is not something a person decides to do -- belief is something a person experiences as a result of what he or she knows. To affirm something that 's impossible for me to believe would be lying, and I cannot do it with a clear conscience. [My father-in-law had told me I should believe anyway, whether Christianity is true or not!]
To one of my in-laws I said, I am glad your letter said that you want to maintain good relations between the families. We want the same. It is because we wanted to maintain good family relations that we did not reveal our loss of faith when it first occurred. We wanted to slowly move away from the faith to give you all a chance to get used to the idea and spare you the shock. But we were found out by accident, and so now we all must deal with it. You also said you do not want to debate the issue, and we agree, because debate would result in a family feud. However, I believe that there will always be tension between our families if we close off two-way dialog about the issue. I am willing to discuss the issues with you or any other family member.... Can we keep open the possibility of having a fair, two-way dialog?"
(Next month we will read the letter JB sent to his pastor--Ed.)
Letter #770 from JB Via Email
(Last month's issue contained a letter in which JB explained why he left Christianity. In this second letter JB continues the kind of inter-relational conversation one can expect during an open rejection of religion in general and the Bible in particular by relating the following statement to his pastor.)
To my former pastor:
Last night I learned that my father-in-law called you and told you that my wife and I have lost faith. Let me confirm that it's true that we have indeed lost faith. I had intended to inform you myself at a time of my own choosing, because I did not want you to be in the dark indefinitely about whatever must have happened to us. Anyway, I might as well take this opportunity to anticipate some questions you may have, so I will do so now.
First, the reason we lost faith is simply that we came to the conclusion that the Christian religion is false. I came to this conclusion, quite contrary to my own wish, after years of sincere and thorough study of the Bible and evangelical apologists. My wife followed me into unbelief soon after I lost faith, because of her long and intimate familiarity with my comprehensive knowledge of the Bible and my ability to make sense of it and defend it, which I had demonstrated over the years while leading my small group Bible study. When I told her that I had lost faith because of the serious and foundational fallacies of the Bible, she knew that my new position had to be well grounded in fact, because nothing else would have caused me to change. She knows that there is no secret persistent sin, or angry defiance against God, or unpleasant experience with the church behind my loss of faith. She had seen me struggle to resist coming to this conclusion, but the contrary evidence overwhelmed my intellect, and, if I may paraphrase Josh McDowell, "my heart cannot worship what my mind cannot accept." There is much more that could be said here, but I want to be brief. If you inquire, I will be glad to fill in the story with more detail.
Second, neither the members of my small group nor anyone else at MC [church] know that we have lost faith. When I lost faith, I simply told my small group that leading the Bible study had become too stressful, and that I would not be leading it anymore -- the truth, but not the whole truth. We did not reveal our loss of faith for two reasons. ...
We decided that it would be too traumatic to tell the children.... Instead we are teaching them to think critically and helping them come to their own conclusions as they are ready.
And I did not want to shake the faith of my small group members, especially while we ourselves were in the throes of coping with the collapse of our entire world view. So, since no one knows, you will not need to do any damage control with my former small group members.
Third, I release you from any bond of confidentiality that my father-in-law may have placed on you when he spoke with you. Although we don't make a point of telling people, my wife and I do not mind any longer if other people know that we have lost faith.... You may mention or discuss the matter with others at your own discretion....
Fourth, you may take our names off the church roll at your leisure. We received a call from a deacon of the church shortly after we stopped coming to church, and I believe we told him we were taking a break from church to reevaluate our beliefs and to spend more time together as a family. Of course, we no longer expect to come back, and so our names can come off the roll. We are not in a hurry for you to do this, however, as it makes little difference to us whether we are on the roll, although it is probably abhorrent to you to keep atheists on the church roll any longer than absolutely necessary.
Fifth, we harbor no animosity toward you or the church in general. Some church leaders, whose power of reason is strong enough that they should know better, are culpable for misleading or deceiving people, because they immorally teach dogmas whose truth they recognize to be uncertain. I regard most church leaders, however, simply as victims of the Christian Delusion. I believe the Delusion commandeers the leader's rational faculties and shields itself from the light of reason. I regard myself as formerly a victim of the Delusion, and I regard you as still a victim of the Delusion. If I regarded you as undeluded, then I *would* have animosity toward you for knowingly manipulating people with falsehoods. I hope that the impact of my loss of faith will put a chink in the armor of your Delusion, and ultimately liberate you from its repressive control. After the difficult transition period, life really is better this side of Christianity.
Finally, I regret that we left the church without a word, especially after having worked with you in various ways to make MC [church] successful. But from our point of view, we had no other choice. How could we possibly have asked you for pastoral support to figure out how to live without faith?! And the relationships we had cultivated in our small group were exactly antithetical to the kind of relationships we would have needed to support us through this loss. Your duty and theirs would have been to shepherd us back into the fold, and so we had to struggle through the loss of faith on our own. In this limited sense, loss of faith is harder than the loss of a loved one, since there is no support of (believing) friends or family to carry one through a loss of faith. Although the news has reached you earlier than I would have chosen, I am glad that you now know why we left. It has bothered me that we left you uninformed about the nature of our departure. In any case, I hope that our relationship can remain cordial, although obviously it must be on different terms than before.
(Last month's issue contained a letter written by JB in which he explained to his pastor why he left Christianity. In this, his third letter, he attempts to relate the ideological problems he had with the Bible. He states--Ed.),
The following is a short document I wrote to collect my thoughts the day before I told my wife that I had lost faith. I wrote the document for my own use never intending to share it with anyone, and so I do not try to prove anything, but only to summarize what I had learned over the years....
SOME ELEMENTS OF MY DECONVERSION
The church tends to ignore controversial teachings in the Bible:
(a) Speaking in tongues
(b) Baptism for the dead
(c) Women must wear head coverings
(d) Doctrine of hell
(e) Sons of God in Genesis 6
(f) Necessity of poverty to follow Jesus (Luke 14:33)
(g) Many of Jesus's unclear teachings.
The church has been on the tail-end of positive social movements
(a) Eradication of Nazism
(b) Abolition of slavery
(c) Women's suffrage
(d) Civil rights for African Americans
(e) Women's opportunities for service.
The Bible is unclear or vague on major issues
(a) Abortion
(b) Divorce
(c) War
(d) Church discipline
(e) Debt
(f) Paedobaptism
(g) Soteriology (including justice of substitutionary sacrifice)
(h) Christology (for example, Trinitarian theology)
(i) Satanology
(j) Nature of the afterlife
(k) Eschatology
(l) Fundamentals of the faith
(m) Standing of Jewish believers in relation to the Law.
The Bible is inconsistent on major issues
(a) The nature and existence of the afterlife
(b) The efficacy of works of the Law with regard to salvation
(c) The distinction between soul and spirit
(d) Large theological gap between Old and New Testaments
(e) Greek influence on Israel's late Old Testament theology
(f) Differences between Jesus and Paul in the New Testament
(g) Differences between Paul and James in the New Testament.
The Bible records scientifically impossible events as factual
(a) The creation narrative
(b) Noah's deluge
(c) Solid dome over the sky
(d) Earth supported by a foundation
(e) Popular answers from the church have been nonsense
(f) None of the more rational answers survives scrutiny.
Shortcomings of the prophecies
(a) Many Old Testament prophecies are too vague to be tested
(b) Many Old Testament prophecies are yet unfulfilled
(c) Prophecies were not written prior to the events forecast
(d) Jesus does not fit the Messiah described by the Old Testament
(e) New testament prophecy is largely incomprehensible.
There are contradictions throughout the Bible
(a) Staff or no staff? (Mk 6:8/Lk 9:3)
(b) Healing of centurion's servant
(c) Three days and three nights?
(d) Day of crucifixion?
(e) Post-resurrection events (Mt 28, Mk 16, Lk 24, Jn 20-21, Acts 1:3-12, 1Cor 15:3-8)
(f) Sovereignty of God? (2 Peter 3:9)
Problems with the Canon
a) The canon is disputed by the church
(b) There is no objective basis behind the canon
(c) Jude quotes the non-canonical Book of Enoch as scripture.
Problems with authorship and transmission of the autographs
(a) Many books of the Bible have no statement of authorship
(b) Some books in the canon are pseudepigraphical (lie about authorship)
(c) Both Israel and the church altered the texts
(d) The church conflated the text.
Problems with interpretation
(a) No single hermeneutic is adequate for interpretation
(b) The meanings of words and phrases have been lost
(c) Cultural references have been lost
(d) Many books and passages admit multiple interpretations
(e) NT authors were free and loose in their interpretations.
Fundamental problems with every systematic theology
(a) Covenant theology muddles distinctions between Israel and the church
(b) Calvinistic reformed theology stumbles at the existence of evil
(c) Dispensational theology is too hopelessly complex to be credible
(d) Arianism destroys the sovereignty of God
(d) Roman Catholic theology introduces unbiblical and irrational ideas
(e) The Bible neither presents nor lends itself to systematic theology.
The only hypothesis that fits all the data
(a) The Bible is not the actual Word of God
(b) The Bible is a human creation, arising through natural social processes
(c) The theology in the Bible is not immutable, but has changed over time.
Therefore
(a) The Bible does not address every issue for which we need a word from God
(b) Being inconsistent, the Bible: is unsuitable as a final arbiter in disputes, is a false witness presenting fiction as truth, is untrustworthy in its statements concerning the supernatural, and is neither a sufficient nor reliable guide for living.
WHERE TO FROM HERE FOR ME?
I have spent 23 years seeking answers in the evangelical church without success. Therefore it seems advantageous to withdraw from the church and from teaching the Bible and spend my time more productively. The evangelical church is hypocritical, because it claims to have the truth, but it systematically ignores, denies, and covers up the serious rational challenges to its dogma. I also reject the outright the leap of faith required to find a place in liberal churches. In my opinion they are engaging in institutionalized self-delusion.
(Last month's issue presented a letter written by JB to his pastor in which JB delineated some of the reasons he went from being a 23-year Sunday school teacher to being an atheist. He received a critical reply from his pastor and decided to write a fourth letter in order to provide the following itemized refutation of the pastor's judgments and conclusions--Ed.),
The Pastor says, Dear JB. You have not had a "Loss of faith". You have believed a lie (Romans).
JB replies: In your theology, either I was never a "true believer" in the first place, or I am still a true believer, but I have erred. This is a fine theology until one actually experiences the unmentioned third option: I was a true believer, but I lost faith because the FAITH ITSELF was in error. Those who know me best also know that this option does exist and hence that Paul must have been wrong. By the way, there ought to be room in your theology for people who truly fall away. The writer of Hebrews contradicts Paul and acknowledges that believers really can fall away.
The Pastor says: You are a smart man JB but you are not smarter than Jesus!
JB replies: Your theme throughout your message about my being a "smart man" is irrelevant to the question of whether Christianity is true or false. The problems with Christianity are plain enough that anyone of average intelligence can see them, if they will only look. Even if someone does not see them through the rose-colored glasses of interpretation provided by the church, it does not take above-average intelligence to understand the problems when someone points them out. In fact, intelligence actually hindered me from discovering the problems in Christianity, because I could think of so many more ways to rationalize the problems than most people could. As to the intelligence of Jesus, he himself misquoted Old Testament scripture, attributed the Pentateuch to Moses when it could not possibly have been written by Moses, and got the details wrong in the Old Testament story of David and the shewbread. It is odd how the Son of God could have made such errors, isn't it?
The Pastor says, Even if you reject Jesus as deity, he was by all historical accounts the most profound and wise teacher who has lived. He taught that you should fear God.
JB replies, This is an unsubstantiated statement that you are repeating from the evangelical apologists. The "all historical accounts" that you speak of are essentially nothing more than the four gospels, and these are so problematic that they discredit themselves. As to Jesus being "the most profound and wise teacher who has lived," this has been convincingly discredited. I can give you a reference if you care to read the opposing view.
The Pastor says, You are a smart man, but not likely any smarter than King David, King Solomon, Moses, the Apostle Paul, and other historical figures who were smart enough to believe in God.
JB replies, The modern Age of Reason didn't start until about three hundred years ago. Until then most of the western world, except for some educated Greeks, was mired in superstition. The question of God's existence would hardly have even occurred to them. For a thousand years after Aristotle, people believed that an iron object would fall faster than a wooden object of the same shape and size. It wasn't until Galileo that this easily refuted belief was overturned, because he was willing to test it. This shows that "time-tested" beliefs may not necessarily have been tested at all. The prevailing culture dismissed the truth, preferring to believe what it had always believed, not unlike what is happening with Christianity today. David, Solomon, Moses, and Paul also believed the world was flat and that the sky was a solid dome of transparent material holding an ocean of water off the earth (reference available upon request). Shall I believe that, too? You have committed the fallacy of arguing from authority, and I have shown why it is absurd to do so.
The Pastor says, You are not a novelty JB. Even Nebuchadnezzar had a battle with pride and the false belief that there is no God. He returned to his senses.
JB replies, No, I am not a novelty, but if I looked only at the examples the church gives me, I might be excused for thinking that I am novel. The church conveniently ignores the stories of people who have reasoned their way out of Christianity. If their criticisms are touched on at all, it is in parody. Why doesn't the church study the serious critics of Christianity and refute them in Sunday School? Surely if Christianity can really hold up to the challenge, this would be a way to bring more of the "wise" into the church, of whom Paul says there are so few. Why is not only your church, but the church universal, ignoring this unsaved population? I know why -- the ignorant and the credulous are easier to convert. You believe that I, like Nebuchadnezzar, have a problem with pride, and that is undoubtedly the reason you keep calling me a smart man. On the contrary, I came to disbelief in all humility, against my own wishes. Succumbing to the contradictions, inconsistencies, and incoherencies of the faith has nothing to do with pride.
The Pastor says, You are a smart man, but you are not omnipresent. Therefore, you cannot KNOW there is no God somewhere in the universe can you? Therefore you cannot be an Atheist. No honest, rational, logical person would ever claim omnipresence except God himself. You are not really ready to make such an irrational claim as Atheism are you JB?
JB replies, You believe the Christian apologists too readily. There are many things wrong with what you say here. Let me point out two.
First, you load too much meaning onto the word "atheist." The word literally means "without theism." An atheist, that is, a person who is not possessed of a belief in a god, does not necessarily make the assertion that "I know there is no god," although some do. I myself am an atheist because I am not possessed of a belief in a god. My belief in God evaporated when I lost faith, through study of the Bible. However, I do not assert that "I know there is no god." That goes beyond logic, as you say. If you put a gun to my head and force me to defend some assertion about my atheism, I would assert something like, "It is so unlikely that a god exists, that for all practical purposes I can live my life as if no god does exist. Practically speaking, then, I can actually believe that there is no god, even though I cannot demonstrate beyond all possible doubt that no god exists." I hope from this explanation that you can see that agnosticism (literally "without knowledge") overlaps atheism, and that the two are not two distinct categories, as you have assumed. A person can be both an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. That is, a person can hold the position that we have no knowledge of a god, and the same person, simultaneously, can be unpossessed of a belief in a god.
Second, lack of belief in a god does not require omnipresence. It is simply a state of mind of a person. Now, I would agree with you that to assert truthfully that no god of any kind exists would require omnipresence, and, I might add, omniscience. (JB should have rightfully placed the burden of proof upon the pastor's shoulders and asked him to prove there is a God--Ed.). However, it is possible to assert truthfully that the CHRISTIAN GOD does not exist, with no need of omnipresence or omniscience. This is because the characteristics alleged of the Christian God make it an incoherent concept. Without going into lengthy detail (but I can give you a reference upon request), I will just say that the Christian God is like a square circle. Any reasonable person, without being omnipresent or omniscient, can assert truthfully and confidently that a square circle does not exist anywhere in the universe.
The Pastor says, At best JB, you might qualify as an Agnostic. I'm sure deep in your heart is a wound painful enough to cause you to need to believe the lie that there is no God. Perhaps it eases a struggle over death, your own or someone you love or loved?
JB replies, Why can't Christians simply accept the fact that sincere believers can reject faith based on purely intellectual examination? I was perfectly content and comfortable believing Christianity. It was losing faith that put me in an uncomfortable position. When I first lost faith, I actually believed that I would live the rest of my life in existential despair. But I had to disbelieve, despite the consequences, because the intellectual bankruptcy of Christianity was so profound. I also discovered that the alleged existential despair of unbelievers is a lie created by the apologists to keep believers tame.
The Pastor says, God is merciful JB. You will never be able to explain all his ways.
JB replies, But I never required an explanation of all God's ways. I do require an explanation of all the blatant contradictions, inconsistencies, and incoherencies of the Christian faith. If Christianity were not so thoroughly discredited, I would still be a believer. Your entire message begs the question of the accuracy of the Bible. You'll never convince me of the truth of the Bible by ignoring its problems.
The Pastor says, Innocent people are being led by you. You are a smart man, but you are jumping out of an airplane with no parachute and dragging others with you. How will you compensate your children and your wife in eternity for your error?
JB replies, So, I can snatch my wife and the kids out of God's hand? You credit me with too much power. I'm not indoctrinating any of them. It is the church that indoctrinates. I am doing nothing other than expecting them to examine the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Of course, you know that the church could never survive this way. That is why it resorts to indoctrination of children, and the younger the better. After all, the church has to get to them before they are capable of critical thinking.
The Pastor replies, This is no scientific game JB. You are culpable before an almighty God.
JB replies, This statement makes an appeal to fear. Although it has become unfashionable to talk about Hell, Christianity is indeed a religion based on fear. Jesus's only unique contribution to religion was the invention of Hell. Before Jesus, the Jewish faith viewed death as a rest and a comfort to look forward to after this weary life. It is as if a sadistic God, in the initial creation, had mistakenly left this loophole, and so he sent Jesus to take away even the hope of a final peace in death by threatening the living with Hell after death.
The Pastor says, You are a smart man. Seek wisdom.
JB replies, I sought wisdom in the Bible, believing that God's Word must be wise. And there IS some wisdom in the Bible, human wisdom, because human nature has not changed over the course of history. But when I found and confirmed contradictions, inconsistencies, and incoherencies in major doctrines, including soteriology, I found it impossible to trust the Book on its own authority alone. You or I could write a better Bible.
The Pastor says, Don't be the fool who has said in his heart that there is no God.
JB says, I've already addressed the assertion that "there is no God." However, the foolishness of it is not saying it in your heart. If there is a foolishness, it is saying it out loud in front of your believers, as I have done. It's almost more trouble than it's worth.
The Pastor says, Unbelief is an earthly sport. Carl Sagan became a believer the second he entered into eternity.
JB replies, Do you care to prove this unsubstantiated assertion? And it's OK with me if you write plainly and say "Hell" instead of "eternity." Softening the "gospel" (literally "good news") of Hell keeps contemporary people in the pews, but I can see right through it.
The Pastor says, Behind every agnostic is a conflict with God. You are a smart man JB, but you are not smarter than God. Humble yourself under his mighty hand!
JB replies, I have as much conflict with Yahweh, the ancient Hebrew tribal war god, as I do with Allah, Thor, Zeus, Brahma, Mithra, Isis, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, or any of the thousands of other gods created by the mind of man. By the way, you are only one god away from being an atheist yourself. If you'll only give up belief in Yahweh, as you have given up all these other gods, you'll be without a belief in a god. Maybe you would like to tell me why you believe in this one last god, and deny the rest? Maybe you would like to explain to me and my in-laws why your belief in Yahweh has nothing to do with the culture that you grew up in; that if you had been born Arab you nevertheless would have believed in the Jewish god Yahweh, and not Allah, for example. After all, I need to know which god to humble myself to. If I had to lay bets on eternity, I would have to cast my lot with the god of Islam. His hell is worse and his heaven is better than that of the Christian god. According to ALLAH anyone who says that Jesus is the son of God is damned, but according to YAHWEH, anyone who does NOT accept Jesus as the son of God is damned, so I cannot accept both religions, as they are incompatible. Tell me which god is the right one. I really need to know. And give me some solid reasons, please. After all, it's your word against Allah's; you are a smart man, Pastor R, but not as smart as Allah.
The Pastor says, You have embraced a belief that denies God is. You have become a believer in the religion of unbelief. Your position changes nothing in the universe, heaven, or hell. It is self-defeating. Call out to God for deliverance from Satan's greatest and oldest deception JB!
JB replies, More unsubstantiated assertions. My sarcasm above will answer this as well. Why don't you give me some reasons to believe these things, instead of making bald assertions? Surely the Holy Spirit speaking through you can't be outwitted by a mere human speaking reasonably, can it?
The Pastor says, I will count it a privilege and an act of friendship to help you back when you are ready. I miss you and your family.
JB replies, It is impossible for me to believe again, knowing what I know. If you see me coming back, you will instantly know that I have lost my ability to reason. However, we miss MC [church], too. The loss of a church family was the hardest part for my wife. It's too bad that Christianity is too narrow to extend fellowship to former believers who have rejected the faith based on knowledge of the faith. Is MC [church] really a "church for the unchurched," proud that even an atheist [an atheist, married to a believing member of the church, used to run the church soundboard]) could work the sound board and feel a part of things? Then extend the hand of fellowship to my wife and me, and invite me to disclose my reasons for unbelief to anyone who asks. Give your congregation the chance to reach out to me in Christian love and reconvert me. The church accepts people "Just As I Am," as the hymn goes, but only so long as they are ignorant and credulous enough not to ask embarrassing questions....
The Pastor says, I appreciate your actions toward MC [church] people. Please continue that behavior. As the Shepherd of this flock I would count it as a personal attack for you to influence even one MC sheep toward your unbelief. I would be assertive and passionate in my contact with you. I trust this is a non-issue.
JB replies, "Sheep" is an apt word. You know as well as I do that there is no way these people can sustain faith in the face of reason, and that is why you feel you must protect them. As long as you can keep them ignorant, they will be your "sheep," but if you allow them to be exposed to reasonable criticisms of Christianity you know that they will begin to think for themselves and become the freethinking "people" they were meant to be. Then you will lose all control. We have our own reasons for not revealing our loss of faith to MC [church] people, and so I don't expect that we will clash on this, although it is possible that our unbelief could come out by accident as it did with our extended family. However, I take your statement as a threat of blackmail. What you are really saying, in plainer terms, is "keep quiet or I will defame you." I've seen you do it before. You're very good at it, and it is ugly. Remember? Early on, I myself stood up in the congregation and backed you up the first time I saw you shun someone out of the church. My comments and initiative turned that meeting in your favor and could very well have prevented a schism. Ironic, isn't it?
P.S. I don't envy you in the position I have left you in. If you DO answer my challenges, you will be inviting me to recite even more challenges to the absurdities of Christianity, with my in-laws looking on, particularly if you keep spouting the sophistries of the Christian apologists. If you DON'T answer my challenges, then you will leave them wondering whether Christianity is defensible. And if you make some excuse to cut off the dialog, you disobey the inspired Word of God, which enjoins you to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect....," (1 Peter 3:15). I have expressly asked you to give a reason, and you are obligated by your own Holy Book to answer. You say you don't have time? The inspired Word of God leaves no room for this excuse since you are to "be prepared IN SEASON AND OUT OF SEASON; correct, rebuke and encourage--with GREAT PATIENCE and CAREFUL INSTRUCTION." (2 Timothy 4:2 NIV). The Bible leaves no middle ground. It forces believers to act one way or another, to be hot or cold, but not lukewarm. The unrelenting Bible forced me away from the faith in the same way. So, what are you going to do? Don't bother trying to switch our conversation from e-mail to the phone. I want our exchanges written out for all to see. E-mail is not at all like preaching from the pulpit, where no one has the opportunity to hold you to account for your statements, is it? I am in the position of strength. My position is relatively straightforward, while yours is impossible to defend reasonably.... And I have nothing to lose, because, unlike believers, I am willing to follow truth wherever it may lead, as I demonstrated when I left the faith I loved. If the truth leads me back to the Christian faith, then so be it. You, on the other hand, have an entire world view (read, "delusion") and a livelihood to lose if you follow the truth. So, what are you going to do?
Letter #782 from JB Via Email
(In the May 1998 issue we related the conversation JB had with his pastor as a result of having left the church and Christianity. What follows is the advice JB gave to one of his in-laws regarding what to say if the minister should call. JB says),
Now that I have backed my former pastor into a corner, I wouldn't be surprised if he calls you. He may send an e-mail, but he will probably use the phone instead. He will probably offer you some perspective from which to view my disbelief, likely saying that I am rebelling against God because of some hidden inner conflict, and/or that Satan is attacking me. He will likely tell you that I am misunderstanding and misusing scripture, and that there is really nothing behind the challenges I have raised. He may say that I am raising the issues only to hide behind them, because the real issue is some emotional or spiritual conflict, and he may use the word "smokescreen." He may assure you that all the questions I have raised have answers, and if you seem troubled by my challenges, he might even refer you to some apologetic books. He will likely offer you some high-sounding but vacuous assurances that, yes, Christianity is indeed true.
What he probably WON'T do is to answer the challenges I have raised, at least not in a serious way. If he does try to "answer" some of my challenges, ask yourselves why he is answering only to you and not to me. Does he know that I will expose his "answers" and show they are absurd? You see, ministers tend to avoid discussing whether Christianity is TRUE or FALSE, because they know they cannot defend the "truth" of Christianity. Instead, they ASSUME that Christianity is true and carry their listeners along on this assumption. I expect him, as I would expect most evangelical ministers, to avoid talking about whether or not Christianity is TRUE, and instead to try to turn your focus onto hypothetical emotional conflicts, or attacks of Satan, or character flaws in ME. If he does this, ask yourselves whether weaknesses in me, even if true, have any bearing at all on whether or not Christianity is true. I think you can agree with me that even if I were a murderous, lying, cheating scoundrel, the challenges to Christianity that I have raised stand on their own merit and deserve serious answers. The net effect of his call will be that he will have gotten himself off the hook, and won't have to answer my challenges, because he will have persuaded you that my challenges to the truth of Christianity are not the real issue. He will be taking advantage of the fact that as believers you are already inclined to accept his explanation and perspective. If you read this message before he calls, may I suggest that you not accept his explanation and perspective at face value? Instead, may I suggest that you tell him you would like to see him respond to ME by e-mail with serious answers to my challenges relevant to the question of whether Christianity is true or false? If you do, then watch for him to subtly discount the validity of your request, probably by rehashing some of what he has already told you. But do you think it is really too much to ask of an ordained minister of the gospel, trained at seminary, to defend the truth of Christianity? Why not press for an answer? And why would a trained minister avoid answering, anyway, if the truth of Christianity could be defended?
Letter #784 from JB Via Email
(Last month we published the advice JB gave to one of his in-laws regarding what to say if JB's former pastor should call. The following letter was written by JB in response to some comments made by JB's former pastor in a letter to JB's in-laws, primarily JB's father-in-law).
The Pastor says, Dear P & S [JB's in-laws], My heart breaks with you over the circumstances with JB. Make no mistake, JB is wholly culpable for the direction of his family.
JB replies, Responsible, yes, but I have nothing for which to be culpable. If I continued to teach them a religion that I now know to be false, then I would be culpable.
The Pastor says, JB is rejecting God because God has not acted nor communicated to us in ways that JB feels is reasonable.
JB replies, Well, it is more than this. The alleged communications extant from God are UNreasonable. It is only because Christians are told by ministers, parents and others whom they trust, that the Bible is God's Word that they are willing to overlook the problems in it and convince themselves that they just don't have enough knowledge of their own to understand what God means. The real problems with the Bible are, in this way, transformed into problems of the reader so that the reader blames himself or herself, when the Bible is really to blame. But what sense does it make for God to endow us with reason, and then expect us to believe an inconsistent, contradictory, incoherent revelation?
The Pastor says, I have no doubt that JB is angry with God.
JB says, You may have no doubt, but it is not true. I covered this in my previous message. And who are YOU to tell ME what I feel, contradicting my own description of what I feel or don't feel? Your entire interaction with me has been condescending, very unbecoming for a minister of God.
The Pastor says, I suspect long ago JB felt conflicted over incidents in his life that he felt a loving God should not/would not have allowed to happen. You may know him well enough to suspicion such life experiences.
JB replies, This is a theme that you (JB's father-in-law) wrote in your first letter to me, also. It's not true, but let's grant for the moment that it is, for the sake of argument. Let me ask you this. If I am angry with God because there has been some conflict in my past, what bearing does this have on the question of whether or not Christianity is true? It has no bearing at all. The question of whether Christianity is true stands totally independent of my very existence, much less any conflict or anger I might have. Even if I had never been born, the question of whether Christianity is true or false still stands.
The Pastor says, Whatever his reasons.
JB replies, I told you the reasons very clearly in my earlier messages. But you have no choice but to deny that my reasons are valid because the foundation of your religion would crumble if you accepted them as true.
The Pastor says, JB is at war with the God he preaches (now) does not exist. That's a no-win conflict for JB.
JB replies, False. I'm not at war with a phantom god. I am defending myself against the scorn of my in-laws by demonstrating to them that my unbelief is reasonable.
[To P and S, my in-laws]. By the way, I am content for you to remain in your belief. I only want you to have a reason to respect me again, and I'm trying to give you that reason by letting you see that I have come to my own personal unbelief competently, not as a whim or in emotional reaction to something in my past experience. And, in case there is any question in any-one's mind, I am also content to remain in my UNbelief. If you think I am experiencing any internal struggle because of it, you are mistaken. I can't say it any plainer than this.
The Pastor says, My encouragement to you is simply to continue to pray for JB, his wife and the kids. JB will continue to use "reason" as his moral high-ground.
JB replies, Well, I'll give you this, R [my former pastor] -- you're not spouting the sophistries of the Christian apologists now -- you're going exactly contrary to them. The apologists make a career out of attempting to show that Christianity is REASONABLE. It was Josh McDowell himself who said, if I may paraphrase, "My heart cannot worship what my mind cannot accept." I am willing to return to Christianity if it can be shown to be reasonable. I'm not asking anyone to show that Christianity is TRUE, but only REASONABLE (but you will not have done this if you leave my challenges unanswered). But is any one of YOU willing to leave Christianity if I can show that it is UNREASONABLE? Until you become willing to do this, then it is unfair to even ask me to return to Christianity, because you expect me to take all the risk for the outcome of testing the truthfulness of Christianity. Furthermore, if you are unwilling to do this, then you are being IRRATIONAL, by definition. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but you need to see the difference between following the truth no matter where it leads, as contrasted with making all the evidence fit a preconceived notion, which the human mind, being very flexible in this regard, can do. So, R [my former pastor], go ahead and disparage reason in a backhanded way. I, on the other hand, will disparage irrationality plainly and clearly.
The Pastor says, He wants to debate.
JB replies, No, I am not looking for a debate. Look at my response to your last paragraph below for an explanation of what I have done, because I have accomplished what I set out to do. Do you see it yet?
The Pastor says, I suggest that this level of deception is conquered only by fasting and prayer. He is already familiar with the truth of God's word.
JB replies, Well, not quite. I'm already familiar with the FALLACIES of "God's Word," and that's why anyone who wants to maintain his or her own faith must retreat to fasting and prayer, and telling oneself that JB is "deceived." Engaging oneself in a sincere debate over the fallacies of "God's Word" will almost certainly lead to the loss of one's own faith.
The Pastor says, Because JB has requested a defense of my belief in God and Christianity (separate issues) I am sending him a video debate entitled, Atheism Versus Christianity. I am sending you a copy as well.
JB replies, A debate! Let me guess -- you picked one in which the atheist made a poor showing and lost the debate. Debates are good for raising issues in a lively and entertaining way to get people to begin thinking for themselves, but they are no good at all for establishing truth. This is because the outcome of a debate usually depends much more on the skill and preparation of the debater than the subject matter under debate.
P [my father-in-law], my previous offer to you still stands. I'll watch this video if you will read or watch something of my choosing. If you agree to my condition, then I'll hunt down a transcript, a videotape, or an audiotape of a debate in which the atheist won. They're not too hard to find.
And R [my former pastor], don't accuse me of being unwilling to watch the video. I am willing, but I have to get something of value in exchange, tit for tat. That's fair, especially since I spent 23 years reading, listening, and looking at pro-Christian materials exclusively. If this videotape is "different" from the rest and "really" answers the issues, then it will be simple to get me to view it. P [my father-in-law] only has to read, view, or listen to one item of my choosing.
The Pastor says, Also, I will be sending some follow up questions and answers on paper that were not covered in the debate.
JB says, I hope they cover MY challenges that I raised in my previous messages. For 23 years I let the Christian church set the agenda and dance all around the real issues without ever addressing them directly. Now I'M setting the agenda.
The Pastor says, In the final analysis JB is already firmly rooted in his deception.
JB replies, "Deception" again. Say it enough and my in-laws will believe it. The "firmly rooted" part is right. I methodically studied the Bible and church doctrine for 23 years, and so I am intimately aware of the problems.
The Pastor says, God can and is willing to deliver him, but JB must turn to God.
JB replies, Which, being translated, means that I must accept God not only without reason, but contrary to reason. Begging the question is an elementary logical fallacy, but theism and Christianity depend on it for their existence.
The Pastor says, JB is not simply a victim.
JB replies, Correct. I am not a victim. I used to be a victim of the Christian delusion, but not anymore. I have raised a number of serious issues which you obviously can't answer, not because of any deficiency on your part, but because they are unanswerable. I still do not hold any animosity toward you, despite my tough talk. If you open your Bible one day and find that your faith has evaporated, like I did, I offer myself as a friend to help you deal with it. I promise not to expose your unbelief, unless you give the word, and I know how to put you in contact with people and resources that can ease the transition away from a life of faith. Right now you think it can never happen, and perhaps you never will lose faith, but if you do, look me up.
The Pastor says, He has willingly taken up an argument against God as creator. He is like a kid waving his finger in the face of God yelling, "prove it! I dare you!".
JB replies, This is not my attitude at all, as you will see when I explain below what I have done.
The Pastor says, The fact is God has and is proving that he exists (Romans 1).
JB says, Referencing the Bible as proof begs the question -- again.
The Pastor says, Again, I hurt deeply with you.
JB says, Yes, all of us have hurt deeply. Christianity takes such a grip on people's lives, that it is very hurtful indeed to discover that it is a false religion or to lose a friend or family member to irrationality. A more sensible religion would scorn people only for misdeeds, not misbeliefs. If I had kept my unbelief secret and kept up with going through all the Christian motions, no one would have seen any difference in me, and all would be well, even though I disbelieved. But, because I have acknowledged my unbelief openly, I am branded immoral with no evidence at all of any other misdeed. Incredible! This religion rewards you for keeping up a lie and punishes you for telling the truth!
The Pastor says, And I will pray for God's miraculous and undeniable intervention.
JB replies, Miracles have their own problems, but there's no use clogging up the works with a critique of miracles at this time. Let me just say that if I were to come back to faith, your assumption of its being miraculous would be unjustified. My return would easily be explained, as I said previously, by my losing my ability to reason, which could happen through brain damage from a car accident or by natural senility, for example.
The Pastor says, I fear for JB sincerely. He does not realize what he's doing.
JB replies, I remained a Christian for 23 years because I DID realize the consequences. If Hell were real, anyone would be a fool to dismiss the only Entity who could keep him out of it. Despite the fact that Christians don't talk much about Hell anymore, the fear of it still keeps many people in the faith, as it did me. It took a boatload of solid evidence to move me beyond that fear into disbelief. It was the fear of Hell that kept me from leaving the faith on only a few inconsistencies, but, as I said in my previous message, I found that the intellectual bankruptcy of Christianity, including the doctrine of Hell, was pandemic and profound. That discovery completely liberated me from any residual fear of Hell. And the weight of the evidence I have collected as a result of fearing Hell makes my present position unassailable to those who would presume to turn me back.
The Pastor says, I will be satisfied to send JB the information I've referred to. I will get those materials out as soon as possible. JB will likely keep trying to bully me into a debate. God's not asked me to play that part. I feel no compunction or desire to do so. I am sick over this. My battle tactics on behalf of JB and his wife (other than sending this initial material) will be with acts of wisdom and prayer.
JB replies, OK, let me explain why I'm not interested in a debate. I have already accomplished what I set out to do, which was to show that you are unwilling to defend the truth of Christianity. You are willing enough to defend Christianity under the ASSUMPTION that it is true, but you are not willing to defend the question of whether Christianity itself is really TRUE or FALSE. I don't need a debate, because I've already won what I was after. You gave it to me on a silver platter when you said, "God's not asked me to play that part," (how convenient for you) and, "I feel no compunction or desire to do so." Sorry to rub it in, but I don't want my in-laws to miss the significance of what has happened here. You, an ordained minister of the gospel, trained at seminary, "feel no compunction or desire" to defend the truth of Christianity, not even to retrieve a lost sheep strayed from your own congregation! As for "bullying" you, my taunts to you were measured to get YOU to respond, not to shake my finger at God. I needed some kind of response from you to draw this exchange to a resolution for my in-laws' sake. AND THE RESOLUTION IS THIS, THAT MY CHALLENGES TO CHRISTIANITY STAND UNANSWERED. It's not your fault, though, R [my former pastor], as the many challenges to Christianity are unanswerable. You've done the only thing you could do, which was to extract yourself from a losing battle. You got yourself off the hook for more abuse, and did some damage control with my in-laws on your way out. No doubt, God will take care of the rest, yes?
The Pastor says, P.S. By the way, the "shunning" by me of the member which JB is referring to was over a married man who fondled a teenage girl in our church. He worked with our youth. He admitted it to me in private, but later denied it in public to spare his marriage. I obeyed the biblical guidelines in that entire matter. I just wanted you to know that.
JB concludes, True, but irrelevant to the point I was making in my previous message, which was that you threatened me with blackmail. Worse yet, the "biblical guidelines" induce you to do so, an example of the "absolute standards of biblical morality."
Editor's Response to Letter #784
When your pastor refused to engage in debate and intellectual interplay with respect to the Bible, JB, you should have reminded him that he does not have that option according to his own book. Scripture clearly requires dialogue according to 1 Thess. 5:21 (" Prove all things"), 2 Tim. 4:2 ("convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching"), Jude 3 ("ye should earnestly contend for the faith"), James 3:17 ("But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason"), and, of course, 1 Peter 3:15 ("Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you"). If your former pastor would rather amble off into the sunset than debate, he is not only disobeying scripture but behaving hypocritically by failing to practice what he preaches; namely, follow the Bible.
Letter #786 from DH of Lebanon, Oregon
Dear Dennis. The series of exchanges between JB and his pastor spread over the past few issues have constituted some of the most powerful material I've read in BE. Thanks for sharing it with all of us. I'd like to encourage JB to revise his narrative into an autobiographical pamphlet so it could be shared with an even wider audience. If he does, let us know! The pamphlet could either be in printed form or, even better, as a file(s) on the Internet where we could read and download to pass along to others.
Coincidentally, with my mail yesterday along with BE #185 came a copy of Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith," a book I'd ordered from Freedom From Religion Foundation. I'm already well into that fascinating autobiographical account of a former fundamentalist preacher who rejected Christianity due to intellectual reasons, coming to the same conclusions as did JB. Retelling personal stories of how we came to achieve a status of disbelief can be highly interesting as well as instructive (and it is my opinion that some people will respond much more easily to the facts presented within a personal story than they will by reading the facts alone, a fact "discovered" by the conservative-oriented magazine Reader's Digest many decades ago). Many of us have gone through those transitions and reading about others' struggles and outcomes can be helpful. Other books I recommend along this line are Edward T. Babinski's "Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists" (Prometheus, 1995) and "Jesus Doesn't Live Here Anymore: From Fundamentalist to Freedom Writer" by Skipp Porteous (Prometheus, 1991). Also excellent is a dual volume set by Austin Miles, "Don't Call Me Brother" (Prometheus, 1989) and "Setting The Captives Free" (Prometheus, 1990), to be read in that order.... Keep up the good work.
List | next | Leaving Christianity contents