Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Embarrassment

At the time of my deconversion, I was active, both in leadership roles, and as a participant in a local church. Since I could no longer maintain the beliefs required for membership, I resigned my positions. It was clear the questions I now faced, and the study that I had done far surpassed anything that a teacher or leader was prepared to respond, I retreated to not participating.

This dramatic change in my personality was noticeable. I heard whispers of rumors as to why, but did not pursue it any further. Due to my frustration at being unable to join in what was once such an important part of my life, I asked my wife if we could change churches. She agreed, and we began attending a church at a greater distance, where friends attended.

At this new church, with a fresh start, I was candid with the leadership as to who I am, and that I would like to participate in some way, shape or form. After quite a few discussions, that gradually became more and more uncomfortable for the leaders as they tried to politely explain I did not fit in and I was not welcome to participate, it sunk in my thick skull that church is not a place for a deconvert. Oh, it is fine for us to attend and sit in the pew. But to be an active part of the church?—that is too difficult and contrary to the design of the intention of a local congregation.

To my wife’s relief, as well as my own—I stopped attending. It was too stressful on both of us. “All’s well that ends well”—right? A new wrinkle appeared; our friends are moving, and they will no longer be attending that church. As near as I can tell, she has not developed any other friendships or connections in that church. I feel as if I set my wife on an island and then abandoned her!

The solution is simple, of course--go back to the local church. But I suspect why she wouldn’t--Embarrassment.

It would be embarrassing to have a husband who became an atheist. To explain it. To have the sideways looks, and questions, and “prayer requests” and knowing glances. I was far too immersed into Christianity to be ignorant of how effective a local congregation can be in embarrassing a person who does not belong. “Birds of a feather MUST flock together and make sure no other Birds are allowed in the flock”…or something like that.

It wasn’t that long ago that being divorced was a reason for exclusion. I grew up in a conservative Baptist environment. The thought of a Divorcee holding a position as a deacon or deaconess or trustee or Sunday School teacher or nursery worker or…well! The thought was unthinkable. When one got a divorce, the proper thing to do was either resign yourself to never being charge of even the flannel graph board in the Second Grade Sunday School class OR (and the far more preferable choice) move elsewhere. Go elsewhere. Be a church attendee elsewhere.

Of course, since those days divorces have become more and more and more common, and such an exclusionary policy, even in practice if not in precept, is far rarer.

What changed? It is still a divorce. We still use the same Bible. God didn’t reveal “Matthew Version 2.0” that updated Jesus’ position on divorce. Society has changed, and with that change, Christianity has changed as well.

Thirty years ago, if my wife returned to this particular local church, with a certificate of divorce from me, that would have been equally embarrassing. An anathema. A person that should “go away.” Now, it would be pitied, but not a reason for rejection. Many in the church are now divorced—to reject another member for that would be unheard of.

But the idea of a husband who deconverted? That is NOT acceptable. There must be something wrong with him! Maybe there is something wrong with her? Maybe they have some deep, dark, secret sin, and THAT is why there is a deconversion in the works. How humorous! If my wife divorced me for being a non-Christian—that would be acceptable. But to remain married to a deconvert? Well—those birds just don’t flock together, if you know what I mean!

As a young child, my parents took me to Bill Gaither’s Basic Youth Seminar. (If you have ever attended, this is proof enough of my conservative background.) At one of the first meetings, Mr. Gaither asked the group to stand and sing a song. To my young mind’s astonishment, somebody had let in some crazy Pentecostals! I had never seen anyone raise their arms when they sing! We were transfixed. We even hoped to have more singing, just to see those arms go up! We could not have been more fascinated if they had put on gorilla suits and started jumping around.

Believe me, had any of those Charismatic appeared in OUR church, and dared raise their hands during “Amazing Grace” a few well-placed glances, the very, VERY stiff arms firmly pointed down where they are supposed to be during songs, and the obligatory “cough, cough” would set them straight. They would understand that Birds which raise their wings when chirping most certainly do NOT flock here!

And over time, as more people integrate with others, the raising of hands has become less and less dramatic. With the advent of “Community Churches” rather than denominational demarcations, people of various worship styles find themselves in the same pew, and think less of it.

Hymn books are out; words on a PowerPoint are in. Pianos and organs are out; bands with drums and guitars are in. Suits, ties and dresses: out. Khakis, Slacks and Polo’s: in.

Have you contemplated the changes of what was “acceptable” in 1977, as compared to what is “acceptable” in 2007? What changed? Did the Bible change? Did God change? Or have people’s perceptions in society change? Was it JUST as acceptable to welcome a Divorcee in 1977 as it is now? Was it wrong to not do so?

All that being said, a deconvert is still out. We are apostates. Speakers of heresy. We are non-Christians not interested in becoming Christians and often better informed than most Christians sitting in the pews. I understand it. I get it. In fact, many places on the ‘net you can find arguments as to all the rudeness and discourtesy that can be justifiably leveled against us heathens, by virtue of our deconversion. That we should be clearly and specifically informed how our feathers are NOT welcome in the flock. No way. No shape. No form.

That being said—why must my wife get caught in the fray? Why should it be embarrassing to her for having a deconvert husband? She is truly an innocent victim in all this.

Yet she is. It would be.

I can’t help wonder, with the changes we have seen in the past 30 years—what will be acceptable in 2037 that is not now? Will deconverted spouses become as common as divorced?

It will be fascinating to see how Christianity will deal with the shift in society caused by increasing numbers of deconverts. The question that will amuse me during this change is this: “Is your god changing; or are you?”

21 comments:

  1. DagoodS,
    I thought your rant about divorcees, etc., was right on the mark. It is society that has changed - you know as well as I do that the Bible's message today is just what it was when it was being hand copied by monks.
    But I was really surprised that you would complain about not being allowed a leadership role in a church! Isn't that equivalent to saying, "I don't believe in CPR, but I still want to be a lifeguard" - ? You won't take direction from the Boss, but you want to be an executive assistant?
    I hope that church attendance does, as you predict, dwindle as a result of people deconverting. I can't understand how someone who didn't believe in God could ever want to further the kind of lie that you say Christianity is - because that is a terrible lie indeed. And I have never considered the Christian social scene any great attraction. However, my guess is that God will, as usual, be the one given a back seat. Don't worry - in another ten years (and I think I'm being conservative), you'll likely be welcomed as a Bible Study leader.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My mistake, jennypo. I have talked about my church experience before (figure most of my readers would be bored of the topic by now) and in my briefness must have left the impression I was looking for a leadership role in the second church.

    Not at all.

    I am quite aware that a deconvert who is an atheist will not fit the requirements of a leadership position in any church that my wife would attend. All I was looking for was a place to attend. Meet people. “Plug in” as it were, as best as possible.

    I asked if I could attend a Small group? No, they would prefer not. Help out in some ministry, maybe? Well…er….while my help would be appreciated of course…it was really designed for Christians, see…and…well…um…what if someone requested information about becoming a Christian…and…well…

    Probably the most humorous incident is when the Church decided to hold a series of “Skeptic’s Nights.” A time for people to come and ask “the TOUGH questions!!” (It was even recommended people bring their non-believing friends to learn.) I went the first night, and out of politeness, kept my mouth shut. I did, however, e-mail the Pastor leading it, explained who I was, and gave him some questions.

    After an exchange, it was suggested that Skeptic’s Night was for Christians who had tough questions, not for non-believers. Perhaps I should read a book by Lee Strobel? *sigh*

    Isn’t that funny? The Church did not even want me, as a skeptic, to attend their Skeptic’s night!

    I could give you a list of the leaders that initially eagerly desired to talk to me, but after our first (and only conversation) passed me off to another leader as they had no answers to my questions (and knew it) and had no resolution as to where to place me in a church. The next leader would pass me to another person and so on. That, too, was humorous.

    In retrospect, I don’t blame the church. They were right. It is simply not designed for people like me. However, there is a still a part of me that wonders what I and my wife are supposed to do? I would love to attend church with my wife. I would love to join in a Bible study and actively participate. I have no intention of deconverting anyone (although they are welcome to try to convert me. I am on their home turf, after all.) I was a church attendee for 39 years. To rip that out of my life is not the easiest thing.

    Unfortunately, as you and I know with the history of divorcees, the Church tends to be reactive rather than proactive. As deconverts grow (and it does seem to be a growing movement) I would like to see the Church actively take part in determining what to do about it. Rather than react 30 years from now, looking back and saying, “Gee, this is what we should have been doing all along.”

    Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post Dagoods.

    In your response to Jennypo you said:

    "After an exchange, it was suggested that Skeptic’s Night was for Christians who had tough questions, not for non-believers. Perhaps I should read a book by Lee Strobel? *sigh*"

    This brings back memories. Lee's books were what helped to bring on my deconversion in so many ways. It's amazing that the church refers us to these books for answers. *gulp* I remember when I finished them I thought, "That's it? That's all you've got?"

    My thinking is, Skeptic Nights for Christians might help to escort more then a few from the pews, if all they are doing is depending on Lee Strobel for apologetics.

    I don't know if the church will ever react positively to the deconverted crowd. You are right, they have morphed over the years regarding certain other "sins."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I live in El Paso, TX. Most of the churches where I live are Catholic, and like them or not, they have terrific ministries here that help the desperately poor in Mexico. St Pius church is also one of the best resources for children with crippling deformities, mental retardation and other birth defects. I have great admiration for some of the nuns there who have devoted their lives to care for those children.

    This is what I enjoy getting involved in. I volunteer because I can, and there are people who really need the help, and sometimes just need a friend.

    Sure they tell Bible stories. Sure they say prayers. I don't care. I have never seen blatant and stressful moments of decision like I was put through as a youngster. What is that to me? I still want to be involved.

    There are a lot of people who volunteer for these ministries. Only two people there know of my apostacy from Christianity - my wife and a friend. We just don't let anyone know, and it is never an issue. Catholics also have a way of departmentalizing their beliefs anyway, so that makes it easier. They believe during the mass, but rarely do they discuss faith outside of mass.

    My old Baptist background was a different matter. It was all-encompassing. Faith came up as a routine topic for conversation. This would make it difficult to get away with being a closet atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm glad I'm not the only one having an adverse reaction to Lee Strobel's books. I'm starting to get tired of people recommending it, because based on what I've read by him, and what's been written in response, I'm always left with "That's the best you can do?"

    **We still use the same Bible. God didn’t reveal “Matthew Version 2.0” that updated Jesus’ position on divorce. Society has changed, and with that change, Christianity has changed as well.**

    It's fascinating, isn't it? Even to compare the early Christians to today's Christians: the Biblical message hasn't stayed consistent. What was taken literally 2,000 years ago is now considered a metaphor.

    Based on the posts you've made before, I do think you'd make an excellent contribution to a church. You've clearly studied the Bible and the history behind it. It's almost odd that a church wouldn't want you, because you'd think they'd use that opportunity to strengthen the faith of its members. However, I use the word "almost" because I'm also not surprised that you were passed from leader to leader in terms of seeking questions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. DagoodS,
    I am sure that it has been really hard on you and your wife to have given up so much. Looking hard at what we believe is necessary, but admitting we were wrong about something that makes up a good portion of our cultural identity is long-term difficult. Having made the difficult decision, you can't go back to where you were, even if your church says it's okay. Even if you participate, you'll never be in the same headspace again as the people around you. I think trying to support your wife despite your differences is admirable, but there are two problems here, and only one of them involves stupid church people.
    One problem is that, yes, we have foolishly succumbed to capitalist culture, and in an effort to gain as many adherents as possible, presented the church as an open and sympathetic social club for humanity at large. The "come as you are" doctrine has been hocked unflaggingly in an attempt to swell membership (and, sadly, funds). God has been presented as a kind-hearted but helpless deity who is glad for anyone's help (and money) in his vision to be a nice guy and "help people". YOU have to give generously so that he can do that. Now the church looks hypocritical in the need to backpedal and add restrictions like "unless you're an atheist" to their open door policy. It's glasnost all over again.
    The real problem is, God isn't that kindhearted old fellow after all. He doesn't need your help or mine, and he is in no need of money. And his church was never meant to be a social club or a charitable organization. The Bible speaks of the church that is the body of Christ, which has nothing to do with buildings or crosses or committees, but is made up of people all over the world who have had their sin forgiven and who are indwelt by the living Spirit of God. The Bible also speaks of local churches, which are meant to be physical representations of that spiritual community - groups of those who belong to the body of Christ who come together to demonstrate their communality in a corporate worship of God.
    Allowing the participation of those who do not worship God has nothing to do with exclusivity but rather purpose. If you could participate in such a community, it would actually be a good argument that those who make up the church really are hypocrites to whom God is less important than the society they have constructed.
    It's not that you aren't good enough. It may be, but it shouldn't be, that you aren't toeing the party line and might cause other adherents to ask questions about a God they don't know well enough to get answers from.
    But after all, that's not really your fault. It's ours.
    The whole point of the church is worship. Any gift given to God, whether financial or service, is to be an extension and expression of worship. If you don't believe in God, you can't worship him.
    We may come just as we are to God. We may search for him with skepticism. We may bring all of our sinfulness to Jesus without fear of judgement. A seeker ought to be welcomed to view the church, to ask questions (no matter how skeptical). There ought to be a place where you can raise tough issues. But contrary to the impression we've given, God is sought and found by individuals, not groups. The church can testify to what it has found, and it ought to be open to reasonable challenge, but it can't give you the answers that you need. Those can only come from God.
    We dare not serve or worship the Living God with anything less than his own Spirit. Allowing others to sends a message to the world that the service is what is important, rather than the worship. I know that's no big deal, IF there's no God.
    BUT, if God is real and living, your "participation" in the expression of worship to him would be an utter mockery to him and to you.
    DagoodS, if you are ever in Vancouver, let me know. You can come over for dinner. I'd gladly hang out with you and your wife. I'd work with you. I'd volunteer in the community with you. But I couldn't with any integrity serve and worship God with you. Surely, despite the difficulty this causes, you can understand? Surely you know that if I could set such a thing aside, I really would be the feel-y, mindless hypocrite that Christians are accused of being?

    ReplyDelete
  7. DagoodS, why don't you and your wife attend a different church where people don't know you? Maybe that's not an option for you, I don't know. But as I was becoming more skeptical I participated in Bible studies and Sunday School and asked questions that were on the fringe of what was acceptable, without raising suspicions. You cannot do this at that church since they know of you, but what about in another church where they don't know you?

    With your keen intellect do you talk these issues over with your wife? Surely she cannot answer your questions either. Talk these issues over with her, if you haven't already. Maybe she will begin to see things your way? Have her read a book with you and discuss it. Let her choose one and you choose one and then discuss each of them like a Bible study? Surely intelligent people who disagree who love each other won't get upset, right?

    Just my two cents.....

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry ‘bout the delay. Caught up at work.

    A few responses:

    HeIsSailing, I am envious of your position.

    Zoe and Heather – you both made me chuckle about Strobel. I was in a Christian bookstore this past Holiday Season, and you know those signs that hang above with terms like “Family” or “Children” or “Study Guides”? Directly underneath the sign “Fiction” was Strobel’s “The Case for Christ.” I desperately wanted to take a picture, but could not figure out a way to do it without being offensive. Yes, I am aware of cell phone abilities, but that seemed…sneaky.

    I, too, find it interesting this is the best they can offer. As we all know, those books are written with the predominate view to bolster a belief already instilled. Not convince a skeptic who has researched the topic.

    John W. Loftus – it was with the idea of attending a second church, where we didn’t know anybody that I was hoping for a fresh start. It was with some naiveté, that I hoped the new church would be more open to an atheist attending. I probably could have “kept it under the radar,” joined a Bible class, and started pounding with questions.

    But I felt as if I should not have to hide my atheism. I am an atheist. I purposely was up-front, so that I could never be accused of “hiding” my identity, or joining under false pretenses. I said, “Here I am. Here is what I believe. Here is why. I would like to be a part of something Here.” To which they replied, “Here is the door.” *laugh*

    Yes, I have discussed some with my wife. It is not a topic that is open for discussion in our marriage. Regrettable—perhaps. But understandable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. jennypo,

    Thank you very much for the considerate comment. You lay out your position very well, and in a thoughtfully, kind manner. It is comments like yours that should be the standard (but unfortunately are not) in internet interactions.

    I do have a few things to say, of course.

    It could arguably be stated that Christians are required to worship their God in everything they do, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 3:17) It is not limited to a time, or locale or program or certain environment. Curiously enough, one could even argue within the Biblical concept of God, that in my apostasy, I am glorifying God by being a vessel of wrath for him to destroy, and in a sense, I am worshipping God, too! (Rom. 9:21-23)

    Simply stating that everything done in a Church (including making the coffee) is done to worship God, fails to take into account that EVERYTHING a Christian does, regardless of where or when, should be done in a manner of worship. Including out amongst us heathens. I fail to see the argument that a Church or a Program or a Time becomes hallowed. Untouchable and unapproachable by non-believers.

    However, I also understand your point that the over-reaching purpose of a community of believers, gathered together under one goal is to worship God, and that an individual within that group that does not believe in a God cannot further the purpose.

    How much in common, would you say, must a theist be, to qualify as serving with God’s own spirit? For example, what if a deist chooses to worship with you? Clearly they do not believe in the same god as you do, but they do believe in a god. Would that qualify as being enough?

    Or what if a Hindu desired to do so? What of an agnostic? What of an atheist (such as myself) that would be thrilled to bits to be convinced that your God was truth, but is not?

    Where do you draw the line? How close to your God must they be? I wonder if you have started a slippery slope by demarking certain people as not appropriate to worship with, and I am curious as to how you determine which ones are and which ones are not.

    jennypo: BUT, if God is real and living, your "participation" in the expression of worship to him would be an utter mockery to him and to you.

    You really think so? Frankly, I would be stunned that the ultimate creator of the Universe—the being that came up with the notion of quantum’s, and atoms and time, and consciousness, and stars, and planets and gravity would be all that bent out of shape having an atheist sit in a pew.

    Further, it seems surprising to me that the Entity that came up with “Test everything; hold on to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21) would consider it a mockery when I do exactly that.

    Finally, if I AM to truly search for the truth, why is it that I should NOT do so among worshipping believers? That strikes me as peculiar.

    Yes, I do actually understand, jennypo, why the church does not desire the likes of me. What I don’t understand is why it is afraid of the likes of me. Truth never cares how many questions you ask of it. Falsehood avoids questions. Why is it they avoid my questions, ya think?

    ReplyDelete
  10. ***My thinking is, Skeptic Nights for Christians might help to escort more then a few from the pews, if all they are doing is depending on Lee Strobel for apologetics.***

    ***It may be, but it shouldn't be, that you aren't toeing the party line and might cause other adherents to ask questions***

    I suspect these are the key fears of church leaders in discouraging (or disallowing) deconverts' involvement.

    Thems can be durn persuasive arguments those deconverts bring to the table!

    ReplyDelete
  11. DagoodS,

    **underneath the sign “Fiction” was Strobel’s “The Case for Christ.”**

    That would've been hilarious.

    What really did it for me in terms of his books is there was this one section defending God's actions in the OT -- the guest speaker in Strobel's book actually said God did the children a favor by killing them, because he then saved them from sin and automatically got them into heaven. Had they lived, they would've ended up in hell.

    I just paused when I read that, because if that's followed through, wouldn't that make abortion a good thing? And killing children a good thing? Sure, the person doing all those might not end up in heaven -- but think of all the people who would be, simply because they were killed before they could make a rational choice.

    I think the response to that was basically God can do whatever he wants -- but still. Ir was a chilling justification.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi DagoodS,
    You well point out that for a Christian, even eating and drinking are to be done to the glory of God and are, as such, a part of our continual worship. This kind of worship is personal and individual, even when carried out in company of others. It rises from the heart to God. The worship of a church should be different, otherwise I (who am not by personality drawn to the church) would very gladly spend my Sundays at home worshipping God alone or with some likeminded people. The beauty of a church is that first, it is a demonstration. When I go to church, I am not simply worshipping, but I am publicly showing myself to be worshipping. I demonstrate my remembrance of the Lord Jesus to other humans and to angels as a reminder to them of what he has done. I also put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, laying aside personality, culture, all social status,connections and affinities, in order to show that Christ is what matters, that He is enough, that his Spirit in me is enough to tear down every social barrier and bind me to people that are otherwise unattractive to me. He is our attraction, and he is the one that binds us together. In New Testament churches, those who were unwilling to follow Christ were placed outside the circle of fellowship (this is not the excommunication of history). They could attend the church gatherings, but not participate.
    I realize that our churches today have strayed very far from this ideal. We have instead created charitable organizations and social clubs, in this aspect making it unreasonable to exclude anyone. But we are wrong when we do so. This is not the purpose of the church.
    ***How much in common, would you say, must a theist be, to qualify as serving with God’s own spirit? For example, what if a deist chooses to worship with you? (DagoodS)
    We need one thing, and one thing only in common - Jesus Christ. If his death and resurrection have washed us from our sin, then we may come together to worship, regardless of other doctrine. If we have Christ, then we will be indwelt by God's Spirit. Of course, I can't see this in order to judge, so I must accept his word for it unless his actions are so blatantly against God that his word is clearly a lie. If you lie and call yourself a Christian and there is nothing in your life that openly dishonors God, then it isn't my responsibility but yours and God's. But you don't. You confess yourself to be an atheist. Knowing, what can I do but point out the mockery of our sharing a public worship of and working with God?
    ***Frankly, I would be stunned that the ultimate creator of the Universe—the being that came up with the notion of quantum’s, and atoms and time, and consciousness, and stars, and planets and gravity would be all that bent out of shape having an atheist sit in a pew.(DagoodS)
    I couldn't agree more. What I mean to point out in my rather jumbled way is that there is a vast difference between sitting in a pew and participating in the work of the church. Come to my church and I'll even sit beside you! But you won't be allowed to offer money or teach a class...
    ***What I don’t understand is why it is afraid of the likes of me. Truth never cares how many questions you ask of it. (DagoodS)
    There are two reasons why your questions are unwelcome in a church. One is a good one, the other is just as pathetic as you think it is. I'll point out the reasonable one first, although it is by far the rarest, practically speaking - there are times when a community that meets to remember the One who binds them together ought to move past the basics and begin to build on the foundation, learning and sharing and encouraging one another. Questions that go back to the fundamental aspects of our understanding of God are at times VERY helpful and, as you say, do nothing to harm the truth, but rather serve to illuminate it. But it is also healthy SOMETIMES for a Christian to move forward in experience even if they are lacking in intellectual understanding. I don't mean that the intellect can be ignored indefinitely, only not focussed on for a time. A couple who are constantly questioned about their knowledge of each other's love will have little opportunity to build trust. We need not be blind, but we need not be always running to answer others' questions, either.
    The second and more obvious reason that the church is "afraid" of people like you is that, frankly, there is a lot of "humbug" in the church. There are a lot of people who are drawn by personality to a cause, a tight social group, structured meetings, opportunities to participate in musical performances or a leadership capacity, etc. They don't want you upsetting the apple cart with irrelevant questions about Truth. There are people who think the point is to follow without questioning. They appreciate the excuse they've been offered to renounce the responsibility of thinking and call it "faith". To them, you raise both the issue of their guilt as intelligent beings and their fear of such "faith" being completely unfounded - which it, by its very nature, is. There's a lot more at stake for people like this than simply the Emperor's embarrassment. A lot of them have poured out their lives, cut off family members, and invested financially and emotionally, in the church. Your questions rock their whole world.
    Yes, for one who knows, truly, that her sin has been forgiven, who attempts to be intellectually honest, who demands harmony of thought and experience, whose questions have been answered by a real and living God with whom she may communicate, whose faith in God is founded on reason and experience, rational challenges do no damage, because the Truth is unassailable. Such people form the spiritual church, and are meant to come together to form the physical church, but I believe them to be in the minority. I could be wrong - as human beings, we are not without sin and may choose to subject ourselves to it, turning away from reason and our human responsibility to think, even God offers us freedom from that subjection. Sometimes I make that foolish choice, so I won't judge others who do, but it is truly a foolish choice. In this aspect, your criticism is well warranted.
    My question is, then, why would you ever want to participate in a church? Why not simply attend with your wife? Don't lots of people do this? Are you looking for social connections? Wouldn't it be better to try to find them on the basis of something you really do share? Okay, that wasn't just one question, and you don't have to answer. It's your personal life, but I just wonder, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DagoodS when I visit my Mom or brother on Sunday (rarely) I will go to church with them. If those church people only knew!

    I know a pastor of a church in my small town who actually wants me to attend his church, knowing that I don't believe. I actually find it strange that a church does not want you to attend. They wouldn't mind it, I think, if we would attend and both shut up! ;-) How long would a Freethought organization want a Bible thumper to attend their meetings and quote Bible verses?

    ReplyDelete
  14. jennypo, quick clarification, a reply, an answer and a coincidence with a question.

    Clarification

    I have no interest in teaching a class. I understand the craziness of the concept of an atheist teaching in a conservative Church. (Obviously I am exempting Unitarians throughout this discussion.) All I want is to participate. Attend a class where Christianity and the Bible is being discussed and ask a question or two. No—NOT take over the class on demands of a harmonization of the Resurrection accounts. But just enough to ask something and maybe learn a new perspective.

    Maybe I can learn a new thought.

    jennypo (and this goes toward answering some of your questions) I LOVE discussing Christianity and the Bible. True, it is from more of an academic exercise than an experiential guide. Do you know of atheistic scholars that enjoy sitting around discussing these subjects? Not many, I can tell ya. If I want to discuss these topics with people in (at least somewhat) the know—it is at a church.

    I have a question for you, in this regard, though. Imagine your pastor had some connections and was able to bring THE preeminent archeologist regarding Ancient Near East. The One everybody else turns to as THE authority as to the current state of archeology. And this particular person has focused their study on how archeology has supported the Tanakh, and is well versed in presenting the various position and proofs.

    And this person was, through these wonderful connections, able to come for a week of informative sessions at your church. Only one problem—this person is a Jew. Who holds Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and most certainly NOT the Son of God.

    Would they be allowed to “teach” in your church?

    Although this theory has not been tested, I would strongly suspect every church I ever attended would conveniently overlook the person’s view of Jesus and gladly welcome them for a week of teaching.

    Where does one draw the line from that an atheist that knows a thing or two about the Bible and would like to attend a class and ask a question once in awhile?

    A reply

    And we get to the heart of the matter. I asked what is the basis for which people must have commonality to worship, and you said “Jesus Christ.” But it is not quite limited to that, is it? It isn’t enough for “Jesus Christ” but it has to be the ”correct Jesus Christ,” true?

    I get this from these two statements:

    jennypo: We need one thing, and one thing only in common - Jesus Christ. If his death and resurrection have washed us from our sin, then we may come together to worship, regardless of other doctrine. If we have Christ, then we will be indwelt by God's Spirit. Of course, I can't see this in order to judge, so I must accept his word for it unless his actions are so blatantly against God that his word is clearly a lie.

    jennypo: In New Testament churches, those who were unwilling to follow Christ were placed outside the circle of fellowship (this is not the excommunication of history). They could attend the church gatherings, but not participate.

    And this is exactly where the trouble comes in. Remember those divorcées? Remember what the justification that was used for NOT giving them positions, or not associating with them or treating them as social pariahs? Why—it was because they were not worshiping the “correct” Jesus Christ. Because those who worshipped the ”correct” Jesus Christ did not get divorced.

    We have churches that exclude homosexuals because they do not worship the “correct” Jesus. We can take our pick—Calvinists need not worship with non-Calvinists: wrong Jesus. Catholics and Protestants each point their finger (and can exclude each other) because the other fellow has the wrong Jesus. Universalists vs Hell-and-Brimstone and so on.

    I strongly suspect, jennypo, that there are churches aplenty that would exclude YOU for worshiping the wrong Jesus.

    So the question that is the very essential, even necessary to this discussion is this—what is the “correct” Jesus?

    And, interestingly, here is where we diverge. You state that “foundational” aspects are only one part of the church, and the other is “experiential.” I understand what you are saying—that “knowing” is not enough, we need to apply.

    But, but, but…

    If the foundation is incorrect, the only times application is correct of a wrong foundation is by mere coincidence. Without a correct foundation—application is as useless as guessing by throwing darts.

    The question, then, remains—which is the “correct” Jesus by whom we can worship in commonality, jennypo?

    An Answer

    You asked some good questions.

    Why would you ever want to participate in a church?

    Because I was enjoyed church for 38 years. If you enjoyed doing something for 38 years, wouldn’t you want to continue? I like Christians—my morals align with Christianity. I enjoy the study of Christianity and the Bible. I like helping the community. I like being in a group with common goals (although not perfectly aligned) as myself.

    But most importantly, my wife goes to church. I love being with my wife, even doing things I don’t normally enjoy—just to be with her. My children go to church. Same reason.

    Why not simply attend with your wife?

    My mind moves too fast. It is hard to sit through pedantic sermons on how to apply a parable, when I know the synoptic modifications to the parable, the why the changes, the textual criticism of the origins of the parable, the possible theories as to what the parable was written for, etc.

    As I said in an earlier post, it is like hearing “2+2=4” week after week when I know Calculus.

    I could last through the sermons and experiential side of church if occasionally I was allowed to also join in the foundational aspect. What I am informed is that I must always hear “2+2=4” and never, EVER join in the discussion of higher mathematics.

    Don't lots of people do this?

    No. Talk to deconverts.

    Are you looking for social connections?

    Yes. And so does everyone else in churches. Why do we have College Age groups? And Young Marrieds? And “50+”? And Senior Citizens? And Divorce Groups? Face it; if ALL it was involved worship, there would be no reason to break out the groups in such a fashion.

    We are ALL looking for social connections primarily (albeit not exclusively) along relationship bases similar to our own.

    Wouldn't it be better to try to find them on the basis of something you really do share?

    He He. Yep. I have a relationship with a Conservative Christian Wife, who desires to attend a Conservative Theological Church, and a husband who was such a Christian and deconverted because of knowledge gained.

    How many groups are there out there for such a couple? Curious that even your concept of God, in setting up the church, was unable to account for such a thing…

    A Coincidence

    Had an interesting happening occur yesterday, and thought of you. I attended my niece’s wedding. In a Baptist Church, with Baptist Pastor, Baptist Ceremony, Baptist reception—the whole bit.

    And in the ceremony, it was pointed out, with distinct specificity, that while we are there to celebrate a marriage, more importantly, and more predominately, we were there to worship Jesus. We were there to celebrate God.

    I couldn’t help but think of our conversation here.

    Should I have been there? If so, why is attending a wedding where it is emphasized that the reason for the service was to worship God, but not a church service?

    (And thank you, again, for your response. Quite enjoyable both in presentation and content.)

    ReplyDelete
  15. John W. Loftus,

    I don’t think a freethought association WOULD like a Bible-thumper constantly spewing verses. Especially in the circles you and I hang, where we know the verses as well as, if not better than the Bible-Thumper.

    However, if a person who attended was a scientist, who believed in evolution, and wrote papers in support of evolution, and then acquired knowledge that resulted in them supporting creationism—well, I think you and I agree a Freethought Association would be fascinated to talk to such a person to see what evidence was so compelling to make the change.

    Why does the pastor want you to attend a church? Do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  16. DagoodS,

    You mentioned earlier that you and your wife don't discuss these issues (I'm hoping I'm remembering this in the right context), and I was curious as to why?

    Given her belief structure, I would assume that she would see your current spiritual status as "hellbound" and since her belief is the absolute truth, why doesn't she discuss this? Is there a part of her that's worried she might lose her belief as well?

    This question isn't asked in sarcasm, but geniune curiousity. And of course, you are under no obligation to answer. :) It just struck me as interesting that she doesn't want to talk about it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. heather,

    Short answer: When we discuss theology we fight. In any other area, while we may disagree, eventually we come to a consensus and resolve our differences.

    But when it comes to God, we get along like gasoline and a blowtorch. Why continue in acrimony when there is so much we get along?

    Long Answer:

    My wife has known me for 26 years or so. Long before we were married. She has been (both as my wife and not) in Sunday School Classes, Small groups, Church, meetings, social gatherings, etc. with me. She recognizes that I know far more about the Bible and Christianity than she does. In an intellectual show-down, both before my deconversion and after, she doesn’t have much chance. (And, don’t forget, I argue for a living. If I am “turned on” it takes a steamroller to stop me!)

    There is no point and no gain in attempting to intellectually argue with me, from her standpoint. When I first announced my change in beliefs (then to weak atheism), she wanted me to have counseling. I agreed to go to whomever she picked.

    She picked a former pastor that was the smartest person she could think could possibly cause me to pause. After our first meeting, he did not see much hope. He gave me a book to read (Philip Johnson *grin*). I read it, gave him an 8-page review, and sent HIM a book (Short Introduction to Atheism.) I looked forward to our next meeting, to be scheduled at his convenience.

    Apparently he is quite inconvenient. It has been three years. After two no-return calls, I stopped bothering.

    I think that ended my wife’s hope for an intellectual to convince me otherwise. She thinks I am being conned by the devil.

    For her, it is a simple faith—she believes because she believes. And Pascal has her firmly in grip. She truly believes in the fire, brimstone, gnashing of teeth, eternal fire. To contemplate changing beliefs would bring her (and more importantly our children!) into danger of entering such a place.

    No, she is not worried about losing her belief. I won’t challenge her on it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. DagoodS,
    It seems I have misunderstood your point. I thought that by "participation" you meant joining in the activity of the church. Of course, if the church seeks to share with people the message of the Bible via a Bible class, then there shouldn't be any issue with you attending and asking questions, whether you are atheist, Muslim, or pagan.
    I am surprised, however, if you find many people "in the know" about the Bible on an academic level in a church. For a Christian, it may be interesting to examine the Bible from a purely academic perspective, depending on personality, but the use of such a perspective ALONE is limited in relation to Christianity itself. Remember that in a church Bible class, there are going to be a lot of Christians who are not by nature drawn to study for study's sake, but rather for what they can draw from what is, for them, far more than a history book. This is no excuse to ignore the academic aspect, but it may be a side issue for many of them. Truth, on the other hand, ought not to be a side issue.
    A university class might be a better venue for you to discuss Christianity and the Bible as an "academic exercise" rather than a "spiritual guide". I once took a Bible class at a secular university and the professor seemed very open to questions and various perspectives, and I think an atheist perspective was likely the predominant one among the students.

    ***Although this theory has not been tested, I would strongly suspect every church I ever attended would conveniently overlook the person’s view of Jesus and gladly welcome them for a week of teaching.
    Where does one draw the line from that an atheist that knows a thing or two about the Bible and would like to attend a class and ask a question once in awhile? (DagoodS)

    You are right, DagoodS. Unfortunately, we have tried to do things "our way" instead of the Bible's. We've changed something that belonged to God into a thing that tries to belong to everybody else, and that is why the church you see is so screwed up, and so distant a thing from the God it ought to reveal. Many people have, in the name of Christianity, blamed Israel for failing to recognize her king. I wonder how many of us would recognize our God if he showed up as a carpenter in one of our churches?
    Nonetheless, there must be a line drawn between what IS and what SHOULD BE. The fix for our problem is not to make the church more palatable to more people. It wasn't meant to please you and me. It was meant to please God.
    While archaeology is interesting and useful, it is not the purpose of the church. All the work and worship of the church is meant to be carried out by those who make up the spiritual church. I'd be the first to sign up for an archaeology seminar no matter who was teaching it, but I maintain that holding such a seminar is not the business of the church.
    That this is done regularly in reality validates your point, though.

    ***The question, then, remains—which is the “correct” Jesus by whom we can worship in commonality, jennypo?
    You are right again, if we look at the church as it commonly appears. The fact that we who call ourselves Christians cannot get away from is that if we deny the Bible as our ultimate authority, then we end up with - well, exactly what you describe as the reality of today - a million different ideas of Jesus and how we ought to worship him.
    But if God has, indeed, revealed himself to the intellect, then the Bible may be read and understood rationally. That there are so many ideas of what it means comes from the fact that so few people see it as a revelation from God, but a collection of theories about God. If the Bible is read this way, then nothing needs to be harmonized and every sentence can mean ten things. If the Bible is God's revelation of himself, then the meaning of every statement must submit itself to the moderation and restriction necessitated by every other statement. This distinctly narrows the possibilities!
    If the Bible is not authoritative, then the church is not an entity designed by God, but a social club; a business; a charitable organization. And why indeed shouldn't you participate, except that your questions are a threat?
    The Jesus of the Bible may be freely worshipped in commonality by those who own him to be God come in the flesh. What other Jesus asked his followers to take bread and wine in remembrance of him? What other Jesus advised his disciples to love each other for his sake? Only a real knowledge of a Jesus who is in reality God can ENABLE us to lay aside every difference, to forget the hurts and wrongs of hard-headed humanity, and come together in unity - not to be entertained by a good band or a fascinating sermon - but to worship and remember the God who has touched us individually and uniquely. Any other Jesus is insufficient.

    ***We are ALL looking for social connections primarily (albeit not exclusively) along relationship bases similar to our own. (DagoodS)
    Yes, we are. And this is what churches have become. But this is not the purpose of a church.

    ***How many groups are there out there for such a couple? Curious that even your concept of God, in setting up the church, was unable to account for such a thing…(DagoodS)
    I was thinking of non-church groups. Surely you and your wife share other interests?
    The God I know never sought to account for such a thing. The church he designed wasn't meant to be a support group for people of similar tastes, personalities, backgrounds, or world views. It was meant to bring together people of different personalities, backgrounds, ideologies, priorities - based on a single commonality: Jesus Christ. He revealed this design in the same book in which he revealed Jesus. The God I know hates conformity and uniformity. He loves unified variety.

    ***...why is attending a wedding where it is emphasized that the reason for the service was to worship God, but not a church service? (DagoodS)
    The bride and groom may have, in this case, chosen to make their wedding a celebration of God. I don't see this as the primary purpose of a wedding, but whatever. The point is not that you may not be where people are worshipping. The corporate worship of the church is different from everything else we may do individually or together. When the church (I mean the people who make up the spiritual church) comes together AS a church (I mean the physical representation of the spiritual church), there is no room for participation by anyone who is not part of the spiritual church. (Ugh. Sorry if I am making this MORE confusing.) This is because AS a local, physical manifestation of the spiritual church, we are demonstrating our unity in Jesus Christ. But I may scrub my floor or volunteer at my local nursing home or eat dinner to the glory of God, with the company and help of my Buddhist friend.

    I applaud your obvious love and respect for your wife. I respect very much that you and she have been able to set your disagreement in this aside in order to love and support each other. I think it would be utterly pointless and destructive to your relationship to continue discussing this with each other. Props to you both for your wisdom, commitment, and love.

    ReplyDelete
  19. DagoodS,

    I commend you and your wife for being able to reach a resolution on this -- as in, don't discuss it. I know the events leading up to your atheism weren't easy.

    **Apparently he is quite inconvenient. It has been three years. After two no-return calls, I stopped bothering.**

    You know, this seems to be very common among the de-conversion stories I read. The de-converts can no longer intellectually buy into the belief system, and the end result is that people either drop them, such as this pastor, or say that they must simply have faith. But neither address the root issue.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Where does one draw the line from that an atheist that knows a thing or two about the Bible and would like to attend a class and ask a question once in awhile?

    I think there are agnostics and atheists in the Society of Biblical Literature! Crossan was it's President.

    Why does the pastor want you to attend a church? Do you know?

    Well, he's an intellectual like us and thinks my questions will only be lead Christians into a deeper faith. As a Calvinist he probably thinks I'll return to the fold. We served on the same local ministerial association when I was its President and he was the treasure, so we're also friends.

    ReplyDelete
  21. again, great post!

    I have been trying to find a position in church for a while, because I have a background in humanitarian work and I want to help the missions team design good projects in the third world, but I am finding resistance too. I am atheist as well, and most people just seem to be so weirded out that it gets uncomfortable.

    This whole subject confounds me, it seems so odd that a lot of Christians are afraid of atheists--part of me thinks they are worried our views will make sense to them...

    ReplyDelete