After reading her account, I don't know if I've ever seen someone express so emphatically how ready they are to hear the "real" gospel.

I also wondered if the guy might have told the nicely dressed family "sorry, I'm waiting for people in shorts and flip-flops to sit down, they need me more". Certainly no one would do that, but it would make the story super interesting.

As I read the woman's blog I was struck by how much guilt she expressed about not indoctrinating her children in Christianity's teachings. I wonder if Christianity would have the same impact on people if you removed the guilt and the concept of hell out of it's teachings?

Cara--Would she read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis? Or even the Narnia series. The older kids would love it.

My son and daughter were raised in the church but when my daughter was 25 she decided to marry a man who was an agnostic. she told me she was an atheist. I asked her if that would be unequally yoked? Anyway, after 5 years he asked her for a divorce. She asked me what the Bible said and I said, "Let the unbeliever go!" So they divorced. She came back to the Lord after that remarried and is raising her kids in the church. My son never left. He believes and lives for the Lord.

I was raised Presbyterian and could never understand Catholic guilt and or Baptist guilt!

Cara - I hope your friend wouldn't mind a book with "God" in the title, because I'm thinking of books that would "introduce the gospel message in really simple, non-theological terms" like you asked.

Here you go:

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis- there's a reason it's a classic. If she's an intellectual type,this one would be good.

The Prodigal God by Tim Keller- My new favorite book. He explores the Prodigal Sons parable in great detail. The best I've ever seen. (You should read it too!) It explains the Gospel so well, so wonderfully, and yes without all the big words.(What might be good for her to see in this, is that "religious people" don't necessarily represent God or the gospel.) He shows that the elder brother needed forgiveness as much as the younger brother. The Gospel comes alive in this book!

The Reason For God - by Tim Keller - pretty blatant title. There's no concealing the title but it's a great book.

The Unknown God by Alister McGrath - Really interesting way of introducing the Gospel. Using Paul as his model, he starts with secular philosophers and goes to God. Very non-theological and very non-dogmatic. Almost touchy-feely in an intellectual sort of way. Designed to be VERY easy to read.

I also think a book about Jesus would be a good idea. Like:
"More than a carpenter" by Josh McDowell

Jared, help, what would be a good Jesus book for her?

Anyone else?

ok Richard, just clarifying that you were saying that you felt that the church, not Christ Himself, teaches guilt.

all churches?

Why can't they agree on even the most basic of doctrines?

Richard,

I'd argue that in terms of the essentials of Christianity, the basic doctrines (Sin, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection, etc), there is way more agreement than disagreement among Christians. You're right that we put different spins on everything (because we're human) and churches can vary pretty widely on non-essentials, but I've been in different churches, even ones of different language/culture (such as in Ukraine) and I feel the brotherhood/sisterhood of fellow believers in those circumstances.

They all claim to have God's guidance in interpreting scipture

I think the healthiest churches claim not "God's guidance in interpreting scripture" but rather the truth of Scripture itself, mixed with a good helping of humility in our abilities to get it right.

Richard,

I believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth, but, like sanctification, it's a process that takes time. As I said above, on the essentials there is great agreement, and Christian who disagree on smaller points of doctrine and methodology still can enjoy a great bond of fellowship.

You mentioned arminianism/calvinism. What other areas do you see wide disagreement? I'm assuming possibly the credo/paedo baptism argument, gender roles in ministry, etc. Other things?

Richard,

There are smarter people on this blog who can give a better answer than I can, but I'll take a shot.

My short answer is that if God were easy to understand, He wouldn't be God. The debate you're referring to is us being like the blind guys trying to understand the elephant. If God is God, there have to be some things about Him that we don't understand (e.g., the Trinity)

Richard,

If we can turn this conversation around a bit, are there any things in scripture that you feel we can be sure about? I'd like to hear your perspective.

I understand your concern/frustration, but I don't share it. I don't see the chaos you're seeing (but I'm notoriously over-optimistic about the church as well).

Rather than seeing confusion, I see us all "looking through a glass darkly" - what we're seeing is true, but we haven't yet seen it in all its glory (nor could we handle that).

Plus, a lot of the chaos is around things that we think are hugely important, but which my guess is God is just not that concerned about.

I think God wants us to be logical in our dealings with Him, but logic can not take us all the way there. If it could, that would be a problem (a God who can be figured out is probably a false God).

Again, let's talk about what's not ambiguous - do you feel that there are items you could put in the "not ambiguous" pile? (I'd place the resurrection there right off the bat).

Richard,

Well, of course I was referring to the resurrection of Jesus :-) - I'm familiar with the mythological resurrections you're referring to and could look up some stuff for you to read on that, if you'd like. C.S. Lewis in particular wrote some beautiful stuff on the topic that you're referring to here.

Can I ask a question, at the risk of offending? I can't tell if you are a) a Christian who is struggling a bit in his faith, b) a non-Christian who is interested in Christianity but is hitting these roadblocks or c) an atheist who is trying to spread doubt by pretending to be a. or b.

Let me know - again, I apologize for the nature of my question, but if c, I can point you to some good comments threads on this blog (hundreds and hundreds of comments) where we've been down this road before with other individuals.

Richard,

First off, I am so sorry to hear about that tragedy in your life. I cannot even imagine . . .

I'd be glad to try to answer your questions, but I'd need more specifics. But, on another topic, I'd be interested in the details behind the shaking of your faith. Was it more a reading of the Bible but not understanding it? A sense of contradictions or ambiguity? A feeling that history doesn't bear out the Gospel (I get a sense that may be part of it due to the observation you've made about the resurrection account being similar to other resurrection stories/myths). Or an observation of the differing opinions among Christians of good faith?

I can't promise it will help you or satisfy you in any way, but you are welcome to hang out here with us and engage in conversation. Pull up a chair, throw a steak on the grill, and join in :-)

Bill,
What shook my faith was a combination of all the factors you menioned. I read the Bible and what bothered me wasn't the things I didn't understand, it was the things that I couldn't understand. By that I mean the things that just did not add up, no matter how many angles I looked at them from, and I spent years trying to explain them to myself as well as others, but nothing I came up with seemed satisfactory.

Bill,
I think that we are alike in the way we think about things. It's a human trait to want answers to our questions. The problem with that is that nobody wants to really answer them, especially in regard to questions about God. Any serious questions about spiritual things are seen as a threat to the church's authority. We are just supposed to accept things "on faith". Are you familiar with the teachings of Cornelius Van Til? His presuppositional apologetics are the result of this line of thought. It was either him or someone commenting on his idea that said that "unless you start with the concept of God, you just can't get there logically". I think I got that quote right. It's been a while since I ran across it and I'm not sure it's verbatim.Since God's thoughts (Isa.55:9)are on a different plane than ours, it would seem to be impossible to know God with the faculties we were created with. You've probably heard the statement "all truth is God's truth". I take that to mean that all scientific knowledge has been given to us to learn and benefit from by God. If he did that for us, and knowing him is so much more important than any thing in our temporal existence on earth, then why did God place himself outside of what we can know by logic and science? If he wants to have a relationship with us, why is he playing hard to get? We are asked to seek God, but he didn't really give us the ability to find him with the mental tools he gave us. I know you'll say that he revealed himself to us in the person of Christ, but a close examination of that account, as you called it( as opposed to the other myths), is indeed just another unsubstantiated legend.Since you are interested in history, you might take a closer look at the history of Constantine and his council of Nicea.
Maybe I've gone on too long( I think my steak is starting to overcook). There are so many questions that I would like to discuss with you, but I guess I don't have to throw them all at you at once. We'll talk more later, I hope.

Bill,
Why do you put Christ's resurrection story on a different level of historicity than the other stories. Isn't that just betraying your bias? Did you know that the often quoted passage from Josephus has been determined by scholars to have been written by someone else at a later date? I'm referring to the passage
where he speaks of a resurrected Christ. I believe that's the only mention in his writings of Christ at all. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. I was going to buy Josephus once and try to wade through it,but the mere weight of the text scared me away.I think Strong's weighs less(almost).

Richard,

Shrode is way more qualified than me to answer (or even converse about) your questions, but I wanted to dig into this statement:

Why do you put Christ's resurrection story on a different level of historicity than the other stories. Isn't that just betraying your bias? Did you know that the often quoted passage from Josephus has been determined by scholars to have been written by someone else at a later date? I'm referring to the passage where he speaks of a resurrected Christ.

Because the difference between the myths you mentioned and the records around Christ's resurrection is pretty vast. In the resurrection of Christ we have an event that purports to be historical, can be pinpointed within a few years in the early part of the first century, within the reign of a certain Roman procurator, etc, and which was shortly followed by a movement of believers that were willing to die for the truth of the resurrection. Within about three centuries the tiny group of original believers had grown large and the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the state faith (not necessarily a good thing, by the way). I realize as a Bible college student you already know all this stuff.

Now, of course, the early believers may have just been deluded. But this is what I mean by "more historical".

I know the Josephus quote you're referring to. The first time I even heard about it was many years ago - I was reading Dr. Merrill Tenney's book about the New Testament (I'm pretty sure) and he took care to mention that most scholars believe that quote to be a later interpolation in the text. So I have never hung my faith upon what Josephus said :-) (he was a scoundrel anyway . . . )

I'm the non-Theologian Thinkling, remember? I can't even spell Helmoot Theelickee

I could use a Bratwurst. Richard, did you bring any Brats?

Mild with just a small kick. I'm a wimp

Shrode
I graduated from Florida Bible College,when they were in Miami, before they moved to Hollywood,Fla. and the president ran off with a lady he met on their tennis court.The school had been growing steadily up to that event,but after that it was all downhill.His wife and son kept it going a little while longer at that location, but they had to sell the building they were in eventually because of falling attendance(the old Hollywood Beach Hotel) and move to Kissimmee.Under different leadership, it struggled along for years, but it was only a shell of what it once was or what it could have become.The problem they had with Thieme's teaching that I mentioned was his idea that the key to spiritual life was I John 1:9. They looked at his emphasis on that passage as an easy way to consider yourself spiritual when you had not really matured in the Lord. They thought that would create a class of Christians who were more concerned with themselves than the things of the Lord and the work that God wanted them to do. In hindsight, I think the real problem they had with it was the fact that students were going to other sources for their information instead of toeing the party line. Their basic doctrinal stance was a middle of the road emphasis on grace. They abhorred Calvinism, mainly because of the doctrine of predestination,but they also taught the eternal security of the believer(no matter what),so they weren't leaning toward Arminianism either. They were strongly dispensational as well, with the expected emphasis on the pre-Tribulational Rapture. They were non-denominational, but the majority of the students came from Baptist backgrounds like I did. A lot of them went back into Baptist churches in their ministry work as well after graduating. The president and a few others came from a Presbterian church, but what they taught was basically the same as what I got from my Baptist church. I guess there are a range of positions in most any denomination. When I got back to my home church in Tampa, there was a girl going there who had just graduated Bob Jones.She taught one Sunday School class while I taught another one, and I didn't see much difference there. Bob Jones may have been stronger on fundamentalism than a lot of Baptist groups, but my pastor kind of leaned that way himself,so she fit in pretty well.

Shrode
I read Atlas Shrugged and a few other of Ayn Rand's works and was aware of her atheism, but I just kind of ignored that while I was reading her stuff. The part that I enjoyed were her political views. The turning point for me happened as I was on a blog about spiritual abuse. Most of the people there were Christians, but they had bad experiences in their churches and were looking for answers to the things they had gone through. I was drawn into the discussion, because while most of my church experience was pleasant enough, there were a few things that they shared that were similar to situations I had experienced. One of the people mentioned a book by Dr. Marlene Winell that she had found interesting. It piqued my curiosity and I got it out of the local library and read the whole thing. When I started the book I was prepared to dimiss it, but then it started to make sense to me. She had grown up in the church, but then started to take a closer look at their beliefs and practices and it all came unravelled for her. I found her story fascinating and looked into a number of others by people with similar experiences. A good number of them were former pastors, like Dan Barker and John Loftus,and others were former missionaries and church workers, like Valerie Tarico. Like I said, I really wanted to dismiss their views at first, but the more I read the more I started to agree with them. I guess I committed the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge, but once I did, I couldn't put that genie back in the bottle again(how's that for a mixed metaphor?)
If you want to classify me, I guess you could call me agnostic now. I'm not prepared to totally dismiss the idea of God, it's just that if there is one, then I don't see how it can be the one depicted in the Bible. A lot of his actions could be considered immoral by even our fallen human standards. He's certainly not someone you would want living next door to you, or someone you would want to have a relationship with.
Darn, I'm venting again. One of the things that people find offensive about church people is a relentless drive to recruit people to their group or doctrine. The truth is, it seems to be a trait that even non-believers are afflicted with. I don't want to come across to you like that. I am not trying to convert you, I just want you to understand why I'm where I'm at now.
My wife forgot the brats. Would I be justified to stone her?

Richard,
Thank you so much for sharing your story with me! I'm quite interested. I know that was personal for you, but it was very helpful for me.

Oh how I wish you hadn't found that blog! ;-) J/K. I think you would have found something like it sooner or later...

Everything I've read and heard from people who have left conservative Christianity, is that it started with "spiritual abuse." Guilt trips, fundamentalism, hypocrisy or whatever.

I suppose there might be others who just left for intellectual reasons alone, but everything I've seen is that it starts from being wounded, and then the wounded spirit goes searching and finds there's a whole new world out there for non-believers, and that it's not so bad, even freeing.

No, don't stone your wife. Where is she on all this by the way? That may be off-limits for me to ask, so feel free to say so... I just wonder if you and she agree on these things.

Sorry to be so personal. Blame it on the pastor in me, or just my personality. I ask cuz I care, really.

That story about Tennessee Temple is hilarious!

but you're not trying to say that because I left the faith that I was never in it to begin with, are you? I think that I was truly a Scotsman.

No, not at all. I think you believed, and now you don't, just as you said.

What I said was, What got you out of that mindset? Though I wonder if you were ever in it?

What I was referring to was the fundamentalist, legalistic mindset...not Christianity. I suspect you were never a fundamentalist uptight legalist type even when you were a believer. But I don't know. That's what I was wondering about. I picture you as being, during that period, a "reasonable Christian" in the middle of a bunch of nuts. ;-)

What do you mean by "I was truly a Scotsman"?

And how did you find our blog?

Shrode
I'm sorry, I thought you had heard the " no true Scotsman" saying before. It refers to the widely held belief that if you ever leave Christianity, then you never were a Christian in the first place.
I was drawn to the spiritual abuse sight because I could see some similarites between what other people had experienced and certain tendencies among the leadership in some of the churches I attended. Most of what I suffered could probably be better characterized as neglect and being the victim of petty politics. The closest I came to outright abuse was the summer mission trip I took to the Bahamas in my second year of bible college. The head of the mission was an OK guy(he even let me fly his airplane), but his wife was certifiable(even he admitted that)

Bill
In my studies at bible college, we pretty much covered the whole bible. What God commanded Israel to do in the conquest of Canaan was explained by pointing out that the Canaanites were evil people who got what they deserved. Killing the babies and little children as well was looked at as somehow doing them a favor by not letting them grow up to be full-fledged heathens, and letting them slip in under the "age of accountability" thing.All the killing done at God's command was considered OK by characterizing the sixth commandment as only a prohibition of murder.Apparently any killing done in the name of the Lord got a free pass( and we question the Koran?).
The first couple of chapters of Job was explained by saying that the lessons Job learned were more valuable than the lives of his children. After all, didn't God send him a set of replacement children at the end? Think about the family you have now and ask yourself if that would work for you. It makes even less sense when you realize the whole thing was because of a bet than God made with the devil.If God is ommiscient, why was any part of what happened to Job necessary?
Like I said before, my faith didn't start to unravel with the death of my son's mother, but looking back, I wonder why not. I got the usual explanations for why God allowed it to happen,from it being a test of my faith, to an attempt by God to draw me closer to himself, to maybe a result of a lack of faith. Nobody had the nerve to suggest to my face that it might have been because of some sin in our lives, but from some peoples' dealings with me after it happened, I suspect that that was what they were thinking at the time. A year or two after this in the church I was attending, the worship leader's son contracted a severe case of meningitis. They had been at a family gathering on Saturday when their son developed a fever that just got worse no matter what they did.Sunday afternoon, they hospitalized him. By Monday he was in a coma, and in spite of the prayers of the whole church, he died on that Tuesday. The worship leader was like me at the time- he got through the ordeal without losing his trust in God.His wife had the opposite reaction, and it was the end of her faith. She even asked me how I had gotten through my experience with my faith intact, but the answers I gave didn't satisfy her, and she soon left the church and her faith in God because of the situation. Shrode- what would you have said to her as her pastor? Have you ever had to deal with a similar situation? My own pastor went with me into the hospital to pray for my dying wife and even asked God for her healing. He had always maintained in sermons that God had used him to heal people on occasion.After he had seen her, he told me on the way out that God had given him the message that she was going to die. I was just too overwhelmed by things to give it much thought at the time, but later it started to bother me that he felt it necessary to tell me that. Was he just trying to get me to face reality, or was he giving God an out? In thinking about it later, I'm just not sure which it was.

Speaking of colleges I found the secular colleges on the east coast much more legalistic than the secular collages on the west coat. In the east we were treated like we had no brains. In the west we were treated like we had brains!

Shrode
You're right on the money about trite answers to unanswerable questions. I should have been humble enough when she questioned me to admit I didn't have an answer. The pastor of my church at the time who preached at my wife's funeral was the protege of the other one I mentioned, but he was like you instead of his mentor. On the day of the funeral after everything was over, he and I went off to a local river and just went fishing for a while. No mention was made of anything to do with the tragedy.We just sat on the bank and talked about nothing at all. The only discussion I remember was about how we should cook the catfish we had caught, but before we could decide, it jumped out of my bucket and back into the river.The next time he came to see me, all we did was watch a ballgame on TV and make more small talk. I think that he knew that all I really needed was to have someone there to talk to.

Just ducking in for a moment. Richard, once again, I'm so sorry for what you've been through.

One comment - and maybe I'm off-base here, so let me know. You wrote:

Like I said before, my faith didn't start to unravel with the death of my son's mother, but looking back, I wonder why not. I got the usual explanations for why God allowed it to happen,from it being a test of my faith, to an attempt by God to draw me closer to himself, to maybe a result of a lack of faith.

One thing I've never understood: why do people have to come up with a "why" when someone dies? Death is a horrible, horrible thing - I've been spared close contact with it in my time so I don't have the cred to talk much about it, but it is, after all, something that happens to all of us. Of course, the tragedy is often the timing - someone dies young, or with young children, or a child dies, or etc. Awful stuff. But it is part of life on this earth. I don't know why you had to endure your wife's death and I haven't. I don't know why a child dies suddenly. I certainly hope I wouldn't leave my faith as the worship leaders' wife did over that, but that would be a blow almost beyond bearing.

I don't know if I'm making any sense, and I certainly hope this is coming out right. I guess I'm with you and Shrode on this - I don't know why tragic deaths happen. I do think that there is reason behind everyone's life, but - here again I'll probably frustrate you - I fall back on the mystery, and the fact (I believe) that God's view of death is very, very different from ours. It is an unnatural thing - something, I believe, that we're not meant for (which is why it's so awful).

Anyway, difficult subject. I love (LOVE) the book of Job, but I can understand the distaste you would have with it. I don't take it the way you do, it doesn't lead me to question God (but rather to appreciate him more) - I'm not sure if I can pinpoint the reason why it affects differently.

It's late, I'm babbling here, probably time for bed.

You guys continue the convo - it's my turn to flip the steaks. I just threw some foil-covered baked potatoes on as well . . .

It seems that there are no answers either way, but the latter seems to create more problems from our human point of view.

Well, it's interesting you brought up Job earlier, because it's a great example of "no answer" that still leads to worship of God.

I very much believe that there is purpose in everything in the universe. So, yes, choosing between purpose or none in the midst of a tragedy, I'll take purpose every time. Of course, whatever I believe about truth has no real bearing upon what the real truth is, but a God who I don't understand very well compared to chaos and darkness . . . I'll take God. I believe in Him.

Regarding Job - was he "happy" with the replacement children, etc? I don't think we can assume that. Were his real children OK? If they were with the Lord, yes . . . We're not allowed to look behind that curtain yet, but tragedy and death here under the sun will not always (hardly ever?) make "sense" to us. What happened to Job didn't make sense to him. But it wasn't worthless - how many countless millions of people have read Job in the midst of suffering and have been edified and strengthened by it?

I think of Job's famous declaration: "The Lord has given, the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord" - it represents a proper view of who owns everything, and who works his own good pleasure regardless of what we think the right thing to do is. Now, I say all that but must add this: I am not so passive nor posessed of great intellectual confidence or arrogance to say that the tragedy that happened to you was "part of God's plan", because I don't even really understand how all that works - I may as well be saying that the color of triangles is seven. We speak lightly an flippantly about the eternal . . . as Job said (and I think he got this right) "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."

That's rough stuff. But I believe it's real stuff. And I believe it makes sense. Just not always on this side.

Richard--I never visited Bridgewater college. JMU was the closest to UVA. What I have had to work through is forgiving those who have hurt me in spite of them not admitting they have hurt me--such as the Dean of Women at JMU. I guess it was my rebelliousness against the rules. I left that college and went back to EWU.

You are right to avoid the subject of your beliefs with your wife. My husband and I have been unequally yoked for almost 45 years and agree on many things but not the Church. I try to answer his questions with books such as Josh McDowell's "A Ready Defense," but it has become too much for me. I attend a Evangelical Covenant church were there is a Sunday School teacher who is willing to answer my husband's questions. He wore out our former pastor who stopped debating with him. I encourage you to look for a church where there is someone who will debate with you. Would your wife be willing to change churches?

Thinklings
Looking back through your archives, I can see you've had this discussion before. My apologies. I enjoy talking with you and do not want to wear out my welcome. I'm referring to the post about CS Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" and some of Jez's postings.