Monday, October 01, 2007

My Deconversion Story – In Which we Learn how a Fundamentalist Dies

It became apparent, when I was very young, that my mother and I were to become mortal enemies. Our doom was to eternally fight.

She was quite a yeller, my mother. No so much in her volume (although that option was also utilized at times), but in her tone, and expression. Mom was not subtle about being angry. Nor who she was angry at. Further, she and I had similar personalities, causing more instances of confrontation.

Mom had the particular habit of chastising you for a bit, then angrily slam pots and pans (or putting away dishes, or sweeping, or whatever she was doing) while not saying anything except an occasionally infuriated glance at you. After a long silence, you presumed it must be over; you would start to slink away—

“WHERE do you think YOU are going? I am not finished with you yet!”

And another round laying out chapter, verse, sentence, word and letter as to what we had done wrong. The best tactic was to stay silent and on one of those long periods of quiet, slink far enough away to be out of eyesight. Hmm…”stay silent.” What is wrong with this picture? Not my strong suit!

“WHERE do you think YOU are going? I am not finished with you yet!”
“Gee, Mom. How am I supposed to know? Can you give some sort of signal, so’s I’d know?”

KA-BOOM!

For the most part, day-to-day, we would get along. Chores would be completed. Homework finished. Supper eaten. Playtime exhausted. And we would not cross paths enough to cause friction. But when one of us lingered too long in the other one’s world—watch out!

We fought now and then in elementary school. Picked up speed in Junior High. By High School each of us had obtained a Black Belt in Fighting each other. And then I went to college…

Upon my return, I realized Mom was not so wrong after all. In fact, she had some valid points. We started to get along. We still fought, but it was like our hearts weren’t in it. Rather than a doomsday battle, in which someone may get killed—it was more of a dress rehearsal of the memory of previous years. We even started to agree more than disagree.

And just when she started to get interesting as a person (not a screaming parent), Mom was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Mom expected the worse. She was right. Surgery was performed; chemotherapy was administered. And for a period of time, it seemed to be in remission. But, as cancer can, it came back with a vengeance, and was here to stay. We prepared for her to die.

I would come home from work, intent on spending as much time as I can with my mother. My fondest memory is sitting with her on the couch; together we would make fun or cheer out support for the people on Oprah. I know—it sounds stupid—but after years of being in opposition with each other, the unity we shared (alas, at the expense of others) was very bonding.

The couch gave way to a hospital bed. Oprah gave way to reading together.

I don’t know if you have lived in an environment of eventual assured death, but it takes on a surreal quality. You become used to having a holiday and thinking, “Yep, that’s Mom’s last Easter. Yep, that’s Mom’s last Mother’s day.” You saw friends and thought, “Yep, last time they will see Mom this side of heaven.” Everything is “last” before the inevitable death.

Because we were Christians, and Mom was certain of her place in heaven, it was treated as the long good-bye. We wouldn’t see her for years, but in some distant future, we would see her again. Forever. There is quite a bit of comfort in it. Again, almost a surreal comfort. It is difficult to explain in words, so perhaps an illustrative example of living with the reality of Christian death:

One evening I came home to a strange man in our living room, and cardboard pictures strewn throughout the room.

Mom: [brightening] Oh, good. You’re home. We are caught between the plain handles and the curved handles—which do you like better?

They were picking out her casket. The man was her funeral director. For the rest of the evening we (including my brothers and sisters-in-law) had a smashingly good time, along with my mother and father, designing her casket, and making the funeral arrangements. We were as meticulously concerned about each element as if we were picking out a new car and just as happy; with Mom being as active and joking as much as anyone.

At one point someone noticed the director kept turning his head and dabbing at his eyes. He was crying.

Family member: Uh…are you O.K.?
Funeral Director: Yeah. But I have never seen anything like this…
Member: Surely you have planned burials for Christians before?
Director: Yes…but nothing like…like…

Member: I would think it would be easier, since we are having a good time.
Director: Easier? No, I am used to bereavement and sadness. This…I am not used to. Quite honestly, if this was what every funeral was like, I don’t think I could stomach it.

To us, Mom’s dying was sad, but it became such a reality we could joke about casket colors. Eventually, she got out of the bed less and less. Then not at all. She became non-responsive. We started a 24-hour watch to know when. On my shift, at 4 in the morning, I watched my mother die.

Up ‘till now, you have read my impression of what my Christianity was. I thought I would let another family member step in on this one. This is a letter my mother wrote three weeks before she died:

SUFFICIENT GRACE

As a small child raised in a Christian home and a wonderful church pastored by H.S. I accepted the Lord Jesus into my heart and life. I claimed His promise of forgiveness of sins that “someday” I would go to Heaven when I died and live eternally with Him. However, although we all know that physical death is the inevitable end to life on this earth, it is really difficult to believe in our own death while we have our youth and our health.

God has given to me a rich and full life with a husband who is more dear and sweeter than words could ever express. Then He gave us four wonderful children plus three more married into our family – and now six very loveable grandchildren. It also seems that wherever we have lived, we have been privileged to know the very best people on the face of the earth as friends.

Then one year ago as I was going merrily along life’s way with plans for many more years of “things to do and places to go”, very suddenly one of the most dreaded words in the experience of man came into my life – CANCER. On that afternoon in the doctor’s office, I felt that my world as I knew it stopped turning, then reversed and began turning in a different direction.

I knew that the days ahead would be like nothing I had ever come close to experiencing before. Would I really find the precious promises in the Word to be true? Would I find my own statements of faith in God to be a reality, or only an empty mouthing of words because all of my life has been free of problems on this scale? Would I be a fit vessel to have God accomplish though me whatever His plan or purpose might be in this situation? How should we pray?

In the days that followed with X-rays, tests, consultations with other doctors and plans for radical surgery, so many passages of scripture became fresh and alive in a brand new way. One of these was Isa. 43:2-3, “When thou passesth through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy one of Israel, thy Savior…” As I sat in the X-ray departments and doctors’ offices waiting and felt my life tumbling down like a tower of children’s blocks, I would quote this verse over and over again and find comfort and reassurance in those beautiful words.

God began to reveal His love and care to us in countless ways both great and small, usually through people. The overwhelming goodness of people – family church family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and medical personnel – has been astounding. Surely for every need there has been someone to offer to fill the need, often before we ask or even realize the need exists. Not until a time like this can anyone know what is means to have people tell you, “ I am praying for you.” The calls, visits, cards, gifts of food and flowers, offers of physical help and ever-so-many other acts of kindness have been beyond anything we could ever have thought.

So how should we pray? Phil. 4:6-7 says “Be careful (anxious) for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplications with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God which passes all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” We have felt from the beginning constrained to pray as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself prayed in the garden in Luke 22:42, “…Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thing be done.” We began to ask for a miracle, knowing that God indeed has the power to perform just exactly that – but only if this was his choice for us.

The initial surgery revealed an advanced state of ovarian cancer, with the slim chance of a cure with chemotherapy. For 2 or 3 months even the doctor was optimistic, but then the disease revealed itself in my right lung. When I asked the doctor for an update on my prognosis at that time, he shook his head and said, “Now we are talking miracles.”

Then began what for me has been so far the most difficult period of time emotionally. I could find comfort in reading the promises of Scripture, but in the middle of the night would waken and then lie in the dark and think of all the potential horrors to come. My insides would feel all tied up in knots and the miserable night would stretch on. Being a nurse and having seen many sad and agonizing deaths from cancer over the years certainly was no help. To make matters even worse, my 79 year old mother was diagnosed with cancer 2 months after I was and I was deeply concerned about all the same horrors for her. Knowing that I wasn’t even able to help out in her situation.

After a few weeks of such turmoil, the Lord brought home to me a truth that has stayed with me ever since and once again brought joy back into my life. Here I was, although still relatively comfortable and able to enjoy many facets of living, suffering with tomorrow’s troubles just as if they already existed. At that time He suddenly and mercifully took my mother home – and she escaped all the things that I was concerned about for her. God truly gave me “Peace that passes understanding” and I was able to say that as long as TODAY is good, or even partly good, I will not spoil it by suffering with tomorrow’s troubles – which may or may not ever come. Since then life has become precious in a new way and I have savored and treasured each day as a wonderful gift from God.

Now we have entered a new phase in the progress of this disease. Further surgery has revealed far-advanced cancer with death looming in perhaps a few weeks or months. Medical science can offer only palliative measures and it appears to be clear to us that God in His sovereignty has not chosen to perform a miracle in this case. But life is still good and still precious and we thank God for each day that He gives.

How can we now pray? Besides asking that if it be His will that any difficult time be shortened, I pray that whatever His purpose might be in whatever time is left that these might be accomplished. And then I pray for family. Any difficulty that I have had or have yet to see will soon be over – forever!!!! But they have so much yet to face.

I’m so grateful to be going through this in 1988 rather than even 5 or 10 years earlier. The advancements and resources available for home care are remarkable. Although I am not able to eat or process enough food to sustain life, I am being fed and given continuous pain medication with a portable computerized pump connected to a tube in a vein in my chest. This allows me to walk around in the yard or go away in a car. As long as the pump works well I remain quite comfortable.

Managing all this equipment requires a great deal of loving care from the family, and I am so thankful to the Lord for each of them. God has given us precious times of sharing, making final plans, laughing, crying and caring for one another. Somehow our openness with each other has helped to ease the pain of impending separation.

Have I found His precious promises regarding His care, comfort, joy, peace and abiding presence to be true? OH, YES INDEED! True beyond all human imagination or comprehension. I now fully understand the depth of meaning behind the words of II Cor. 12:9, “…My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness…”

The people in our lives continue to bless us in innumerable ways with their prayers and support and countless acts of love. As it is now physically impossible for us to sit down and write to you individually, I would like to use this opportunity to say “than you” to each one of you.

Although we are not given may details about heaven, I like to picture the possibility of being on the Welcoming Committee there, and as the years pass on this earth being able to greet each one who has been so dear to me here. Or better yet, perhaps He will return for His own even before I must leave. For now it is comfort enough for me to say with the old hymn writer, “We’ll say good night here, but good morning there.”


Chapter 9

28 comments:

  1. Dag,
    This is simply the most powerful testimony I have ever read! Thanks for posting it. Despite all her earlier flaws, your mom was experiencing the presence of God in that critical last year. She is in the presence of God now. Thanks for posting it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. These last two articles have been deeply personal, and very moving to me. It is not easy or fun reading for me, because I can relate to much here - but life is painful sometimes. This is an effort on your part that I appreciate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, Jim Jordan and HeIsSailing.

    The last two blog entries have not been the easiest to write or post. Many times we deconverts give such a brief synopsis of our previous belief, often in the form of “I was a Christian for ___ years, obtaining ____ position in the Church and when ____ happened, I started to question my beliefs.” We then launch, more fully, into what that questioning was. The arguments. The problems. The debate.

    I am guilty of this more than anyone, since I am far more interested in gaining knowledge, than in recounting old history. I already know what I once believed and now believe; who cares? What can I now learn?

    Having decided to dive head-long into this vain adventure, I am trying to give glimpses into what Christianity was to me. When you have believed so strongly that you have joked about a dying parent’s funeral arrangements on the assurance you will see them again…well…having someone claim you were not a “true Christian” or “didn’t really believe” has insignificant force, and no impact.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dagoods, thank you so much for sharing this with us. There's little I can say, other than to share a little bittersweet story of my own.

    My grandfather (who lived in Palm Springs at the time) was visiting us in Atlanta, when he suddenly had a terrible seizure in a mall and had to be taken to the hospital. It was there they discovered the tumor. After stabilizing him, the doctors arranged to have him flown back to California. I visited him a few weeks later (I was only 6 at the time) and remember him giving me a commemorative "eyewitness" medal for Halley's Comet (which my dad and I had seen at an observatory that year). His hand shook so badly I was worried he'd drop it. It was the last time I saw him.

    As it became apparent that the chemo and radiation wouldn't help, and the tumor was inoperable, he was moved home and a home-care nurse came. The nurse was a very attractive woman of Mediterranean descent (Lebanon, Turkey or Greece, we can never recall). As my grandfather's condition worsened, dementia set in, and he started flirting with the nurse to the point he even proposed to her. My grandmother pretended not to mind, but the nurse was soon thereafter dismissed and replaced with a more matronly figure. When questioned, my grandma said "oh, she kept bringing all this middle eastern food for her lunch, and it was making my disposal smell like garlic. That's why I asked her to go."

    My grandfather was and my grandmother is very devout Missouri Synod Lutheran (or as Garrison Keillor puts it, "Misery Synod"). As earth-shattering as my grandfather's death was, she still believes with utter conviction that she WILL be with him again moments after her own death.

    She made an unintentionally hilarious remark this summer at her 80th birthday party cum family reunion. After all the fun at her birthday dinner, she felt wonderful and told my cousin and me so: "Oh, I haven't been this happy since Grandpa died!"

    We knew what she meant. I think.

    ReplyDelete
  5. DagoodS,

    Thank you so much for sharing your experiences in such a raw way. However I die, I hope I am able to demonstrate the kind of beauty your mother knew and demonstrated. No doubt it is with difficulty that you write about these things, especially in light of your views. I respect your willingness to expand this discussion beyond the theoretical.

    I see what you are trying to illustrate here and sympathize with your frustration over the judgements others make about you. Obviously, you are the only one capable of knowing whether or not you are a Christian.

    But I'd like to remind you of one thing: being a Christian is, fortunately, not based on how sincerely, deeply, or devoutly we believe.

    If you were a Christian at the time of your mother's death, then (whether or not you have changed your beliefs) you still are one. It's not like a coat that you can take off.

    I am not judging you. I can't tell you what you are. I can't see what is between only God and you. I know that only you can know that. But to have been a Christian and not be one now is an impossibility. We are not the ones who make ourselves Christians, nor can it be undone. God - at our choice - is the only one who can transform us in this way. Everything else is a sham.

    It is, however, obvious to me that a sincere and all-encompassing belief in Christianity is something that was not easily thrown aside by you. I do believe you that your belief was rent from your grasp and could not have been retained by you with any amount of integrity. I am beginning to see, through your stories, just how painful a journey it has been for you, and I hope the things I say never ignore or belittle that pain.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a wonderful, honest and unsparing story you are weaving here, DaGoodS. I read through all the installments this morning (neglecting work!) on a recommendation from HIS over at the deconversion blog.

    I'm in a similar situation with my husband, who remains a fundamentalist Christian several years after my de-conversion. We just don't talk about it, because if we did our marriage probably would not be tenable anymore. It is sad, but it seems unavoidable if you want to stay "unequally yoked."

    Your mom's statement brought tears to my eyes and a lump to my throat: Even in heaven she pictures herself volunteering on a committee! ;-)

    Part of me is glad that she had such a strong set of beliefs to hold onto when faced with serious illness. The skeptical part of me marvels at how strongly we humans can delude ourselves with unproven beliefs ("we'll all meet up again in heaven"), and I have to wonder whether we've evolved to rely on that kind of system (call it denial, or delusion or hope or whatever) in order to cope with mortality. It's fascinating to think about.

    As I said to HIS, next time someone tells me a deconvert "was never a true Christian," I will have someplace to refer them. Thanks for making this effort and putting so much of your story online.

    ReplyDelete
  7. jennypo: If you were a Christian at the time of your mother's death, then (whether or not you have changed your beliefs) you still are one. It's not like a coat that you can take off.

    What do you base this on? The writer of Hebrews does not agree:

    (Heb 6:4-6) For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

    From this we see that, not only is it possible to once have been saved and lose salvation, but it is also impossible for DagoodS or I to be restored, even if we repent. :)

    This passage, of course, is one of those that makes people uncomfortable, and is a great example of scriptures that few "believers" are willing to take literally, and at face value, despite the constant claim that they do so to all scriptures.

    ReplyDelete
  8. micah cowan,

    The "believers" you speak of may ignore any part of the Bible they wish, but you and I can't. We are left denying its truth, as you do, or accepting nothing that disagrees with it, as I do. I think you'll agree that what others do is beside the point, for us.

    If you read the book of Hebrews in its entirety, (or, if you wish, even the chapter you have cited) you'll find that the meaning of the verses you point to is not just as simple as it may appear when read by itself. This section of Hebrews in particular talks about moving past the stage of repentance and faith in God; the basics of salvation, so to speak, (6:1,2) precisely because if this were needed again it would (as you point out) be impossible to receive again.

    "When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, saying, "I will surely bless you and give you many descendants." And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised. Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.

    God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure.

    It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:13-20)

    My salvation is not based on my faith, but on God's inability to lie. All my faith did was let him apply it to me.

    If it were, indeed, possible for a Christian to "fall away" there would be no restoring him/her.

    But if we throw away all the theological arguments and simply read this, it appears to be saying, quite simply, "Quit trying to repent and get 're-saved' - that's done, the end is sure. Live it out."

    Indeed, further chapters of this book go on to examine the great difference between the old covenant of the Law under Moses and the new covenant through Jesus Christ: under the Law, repentance and sacrifice had to be repeated again and again, but the writer to the Hebrews says,

    "...by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin." (Hebrews 10:14-18)

    ReplyDelete
  9. The passage clearly does not say anything about "if it were possible to fall away", but instead, that "anyone who shall" cannot return. "Anyone who shall" rather strongly implies that it is possible to do so.

    A plain reading of the text does not say, "let's not go over the foundations of repentance again, because it's impossible to fall back (and thereby require repentance again)", but "let's not go over the foundations of repentance again, because repentance a second time won't do you any good if you fall back".

    Note too that it's not the "falling back" that produces the theological paradox that the Hebrews writer gives as the reason for this situation not working out, but that it's the "repentance again" that produces a paradox (Christ being re-crucified and put to shame). Christ being re-crucified doesn't make any sense as a reason why we can't fall back, only for a reason why we can't return. If the writer believed it was impossible for us to fall back, he wouldn't have presented evidence for why we can't return, since it'd be impossible for us to need to return. Instead, he'd give us a reason for why we can't fall back. You'll notice only pastors, and not the Bible, are the originators of those explanations.

    This is exactly what I was referring to when I said by not being willing to take the Bible literally; you're uncomfortable with what is actually being said, so you pretend it says something else.

    Don't you think the writer of Hebrews, if he'd meant "if it were possible for someone to have been once-enlightened, and to then fall away, then it would produce [insert hypothetical-only theological dilemma]", he'd have written it that way? Anyone who truly meant such a thing would never phrase it as "it is impossible for those who were once enlightened" (would you have?); it represents a deliberate choice to imply that it is possible for people to have been once, but no longer, enlightened.

    ReplyDelete
  10. jennypo,

    I was a long-time Calvinist. Which means, whenever Eternal Security came up we read Hebrews 6 & 10. I have to agree with Micah Cowan, despite the exegetical handstands, leapfrogs and backflips, a plain reading would state that these are Christians who were once saved, and no longer are.

    I do appreciate the sentiment, though. Thank you.

    I did see something interesting in the passage you quoted in Hebrews 6:13-20. What is the difference between God saying he will do something and God giving an oath he will do something? And why is it the author of Hebrews says it is in the giving of an oath (as well as his nature) in which God cannot lie?

    Is the author saying unless God gives an oath, he can lie?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Karen,

    Thank you for sharing. Sometimes it feels as if I am doing this marriage thing all-wrong. Everyone else in their deconvert stories have spouses who also deconvert, or they divorce and find a wonderful second spouse, or the spouse understands or so on.

    It is most comforting to know that if I am doing it incorrectly, at least one other person out there came to the same resolution as I did. I am not alone in doing it this way to preserve a marriage.

    You cannot know how much that means to me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm so glad that's helpful, Dagoods. I too have read stories where couples deconvert simultaneously, or at least start questioning at roughly the same time.

    Then there's Dan Barker (I'm sure you've read his story), whose first marriage ended but who later married Annie Laurie Gaylor, a kind of secular hero.

    But I've also heard from a lot of people who also reach the kind of uneasy "truce" that we have found with our respective spouses. It's not uncommon at all in my experience with many former believers.

    My husband and I actually did come to the brink of divorce (and not only over the religious conflict, though that was high up on the list) but eventually decided that we had too much to lose: Substantial assets, our extended families, two boys who benefit greatly from living full-time with dad and mom, and lots of mutual friends.

    Of course, the closeness that spouses should share is not quite there when such a core issue is off-limits for discussion, but that's the way it is, at least for now.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DagoodS,

    Your mother's letter was very moving. Meeting one's death with that type of calmness and grace cannot be easy, regardless of the belief system.

    In terms of your de-conversion story, I think this is serving as a helpful reminder to everyone: it's not just a matter of being convinced intellectually that one side is "right." Rather, this type of de-conversion really does mirror a divorce. This wasn't just something you did -- this was someone that you were. It sounds like, previously, you could no more seperate your beliefs from you than you could your (literal) heart. For someone like me, I think I can treat a deconversion process too casually, having never experienced it myself.

    ReplyDelete
  14. DagoodS, Karen...
    My heart goes out to you. For my part, the idea of simply avoiding a topic of conversation in order to preserve the marriage is not something I'm certain I could agree to. I absolutely adore my wife, and our three children, but I'm pretty sure the most important thing to me about our marriage is honest and open communication (but loving: not the "Jerry McGuire" kind of "honest" relationship; sometimes being "honest and open" really does include knowing when to keep your mouth shut).

    To be honest, I really don't know what I would do in your shoes. I suspect I'd probably hang in there until I couldn't stand it any more. But the idea of letting my kids' mother tell them that if they don't believe in Jesus, they'll go to Hell, without my being able to hint that there might even be a possibility that there is no Hell, would especially trouble me. I don't think I could go on that way forever.

    Of course, one of the things that I worried the most about after deconverting was, "what will this mean for our marriage"? As it turns out, it's actually meant very little. But, unlike you, my wife, though still a Christian, is no longer fundamentalist.

    The kids watch Veggie Tales and even the Davey and Goliath DVD set my Mom sent them. The kids sometimes listen to or sing Christian songs, and I've never said anything about it. Sometimes they express worries about Hell ("Am I going to Hell? Is Daddy going to Hell?"), and I explain that I don't believe in Hell, but since my wife isn't inclined to believe in Hell anymore either, I don't get any flack about it. Neither of us tell the kids any more that homosexuality is "evil"—in fact, we try to undo our previous claims to that effect. Sometimes we (usually they) go to church, but it's usually one where we won't be "preached at"; Quaker churches are nice that way, as theirs is a pretty simple variety of theism (in some of the more liberal cases, not even that) without much dogma (just follow the "Guiding Light").

    In short, I've been very lucky that my wife has made just enough changes in perspective, without exactly following in my footsteps, to make both a comfortable marriage and open and honest communication possible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ***What is the difference between God saying he will do something and God giving an oath he will do something? (DagoodS)

    This is just the point - when we take an oath, we have to appeal to something greater than us as witness, but to God, simply saying something and taking an oath are the very same thing because there is nothing greater than him to swear by. He swears by himself because what he says is utterly trustworthy. If God could lie outside of an oath, he wouldn't be able to take an oath at all.

    I guess I've been outvoted on the irreversibility of salvation. Maybe one of you could explain how you reconcile the fact that the writer is claiming God offers the Christian "an anchor for the soul, firm and secure", if I may "fall away"?

    micah cowan, on careful review, I don't think that I am running away from facing anything in this case. I can agree with you that if it is possible for us to "fall away", it is indeed impossible to be re-saved. That much is very clear. But why? Because Christ can't be re-crucified - and his death is the basis for our salvation, not our faith.

    I'll grant you that Hebrews (and the rest of the Bible!) is not written the way that you and I would be likely to write it. But while I don't know much about theology, I am a little familiar with two other things that appear to me to be relevant here: communication and Eastern thought. The Bible is not written from a Western perspective. We like things laid out in progression, and no beating around the bush. This definitely can lead us into problems with the Biblical writers, whose words may be translated into European languages, but not into Euro-style thinking. I don't think anyone needs a degree to understand the Bible, but neither can it be read without taking into consideration what we know we must take into consideration when we attempt to understand any communication more complex than a comic book: when, why, where, how, and to whom it was written.

    I offer you this challenge: Let's forget about who's right and who's wrong. How about we both go and read the book of Hebrews this week in a translation we aren't used to (just to shake up our thinking a bit) and with the resolve to try not to apply a lens to shade our understanding - no matter what that means for us. (This should be a whole lot easier for you, since you don't believe the Bible is true, so if it is saying something you don't like it's no big deal - whereas I do believe it to be 100% true so what it really does say makes quite a bit of difference to me! Nevertheless, I, like you, seek truth above convenience or comfort, so I shall try.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Heather,

    You are right—Christianity was something that I WAS, not something I believed. (For this reason, my deconversion story is problematic to critique. One could have to critique who I was, not just what I believed.) It is a non-separable mixture of belief and action upon belief. Because I believed it to be true; I acted in conformance with that belief. Because I acted in conformance with that belief; it reaffirmed the belief was true.



    Micah Cowan,

    I don’t have to tell you from my perspective you are very lucky. Unfortunately we are dealt our lot in life and must do the best we can with what we have. There are many people in far worse marital and family situations than this, so I should learn not to complain.

    ReplyDelete
  17. jennypo: Maybe one of you could explain how you reconcile the fact that the writer is claiming God offers the Christian "an anchor for the soul, firm and secure", if I may "fall away"?

    Because when the author is talking about an anchor, he is not referring to those who “fall away.” Look at the people he is talking about immediately prior to saying they have an anchor. It is those who “work” and do “labor of love” and “minister to the saints” (6:10) and are “diligent” (6:11) and “not sluggish” and “imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” (6:12)

    Look at the flow of the chapter, jennypo. First the author describes those that “fall away” in vs. 1-8, and what happens to them. In verse 9, he starts off with, ”BUT we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation…” (emphasis added) At vs. 9 he makes a hard right turn to start discussing a different crowd.

    This is a compare/contrast. Vs. 1-8 are the “fall away,” vs. 9-20 are the “saved.” In vs. 8 the “fall away” get their just deserts, in vs. 11 is the “saved” getting their just deserts. You are using the benefit from the contrast to those who “fall away.”

    As to oath-taking, actually we don’t appeal to something greater than ourselves anymore. The “…so help me God” is becoming archaic. But the real point is that the author is emphasizing this was not something God just said, but something God made an oath about. Is there a difference between God saying something and God making an oath? How does that work?

    ReplyDelete
  18. jennypo: Maybe one of you could explain how you reconcile the fact that the writer is claiming God offers the Christian "an anchor for the soul, firm and secure", if I may "fall away"?

    Well, let's keep in mind that I no longer have a motivation to demonstrate that the Bible (or even any individual book therein) is internally consistent, since I don't believe that it is. And, I'm not trying to actually demonstrate whether DagoodS or I could be restored to salvation, since I don't believe in any such thing, but only that the Bible has some support against such a thing occurring (quite possibly in conflict with other evidences, though at the moment I'm not aware of anything particularly credible). I can think of answers to your question (what happens when you let go of the line connecting the ship to its anchor? Can it be reattached?), but to be honest, I think such arguments are a little silly.

    micah cowan, on careful review, I don't think that I am running away from facing anything in this case.

    I'm thinking my words may have been a tad harsh, and if so, I do sincerely apologize. It smacked of a particular line of pseudo-reasoning that I have gained a distaste for. I have become increasingly aware of just how emotionally-driven our human psyches are (myself being far from an exception), and try to point out when I think self-justification is getting in the way of reason... and of course, and despite all effort to self-analyze, relying on others to point the same out to me (with evidence), and praying (to no one in particular) that I'll have the humility to accept the truth, at least on occasion. :)

    But while I don't know much about theology, I am a little familiar with two other things that appear to me to be relevant here: communication and Eastern thought. The Bible is not written from a Western perspective. We like things laid out in progression, and no beating around the bush.

    If I understand you correctly, you're claiming that we shouldn't expect the Bible to be straightforward, because that's not the style of writing they were accustomed to.

    Except that I think you forget that a lot of our current mechanisms for reason and explanation come from classical Greek thoughts (Greek being, of course, the language of the New Testament). And, apart from parabolic, hyperbolic, and allegorical writings, the Bible seems to be written quite straight-forwardly, and intended to be read so.

    In any event, what we're actually talking about here isn't a case where something is being stated in a round-about or indirect way: we're talking about something that indicates a particular intent of meaning behind the words (and rather directly, at that). A case where, if the intent had been other, these words would be not indirect, but downright deceptive.

    I offer you this challenge: Let's forget about who's right and who's wrong. How about we both go and read the book of Hebrews this week in a translation we aren't used to (just to shake up our thinking a bit) and with the resolve to try not to apply a lens to shade our understanding - no matter what that means for us. (This should be a whole lot easier for you, since you don't believe the Bible is true, so if it is saying something you don't like it's no big deal - whereas I do believe it to be 100% true so what it really does say makes quite a bit of difference to me! Nevertheless, I, like you, seek truth above convenience or comfort, so I shall try.)

    Don't forget, I once also believed it to be 100% true. You may of course disagree with my perspective on this, but my perspective remains that I believed the Bible to be 100% true, right up until the moment I allowed myself to read it without any "lens", at which point I began to discover it to be... other than 100% true.

    I'd take you up on your offer, but what value would it bring me? Suppose I decided that your take on Hebrews was completely accurate. What effect would that have? I'm still left with all the rest of the Bible which I am already 100% convinced is flawed (even as originally written), and will not be comforted by a possibility that I might "still be saved", if it is by a salvation that I don't believe exists.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ***Because when the author is talking about an anchor, he is not referring to those who “fall away.” (DagoodS)

    (Sorry if I am belaboring what I realize wasn't your point in the first place, but if I remember right, you like rabbit trails...) :^)

    So what you are saying is, if I'm destined to be someone who doesn't fall away, then I have an anchor, I'm safe? Fat lot of good that does me when I don't know if I'm one of the ones who are going to "fall away". Where is the security in that? No, if the Bible didn't make any more sense than arguments like this, I'd huck it out too.

    ***Is there a difference between God saying something and God making an oath? How does that work? (DagoodS)

    If we go back and look at what God said when he made this "oath", his words (translated into English) were: "Blessing, I will bless you." He didn't say, "I swear on the Bible I will bless you". I don't know about the U.S., but in a Canadian court, a person who wishes to simply promise to tell the truth rather than swearing on the Bible is considered to be "under oath". God's word is the same as such an oath because he cannot lie - so when he promises to bless Abraham, he simply says that in blessing him, he will bless him. If I said that, it would be circular. It would offer no proof at all. But since God has nothing greater to appeal to than himself, his future action becomes the surety for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  20. ***If I understand you correctly, you're claiming that we shouldn't expect the Bible to be straightforward, because that's not the style of writing they were accustomed to. (micah cowan)

    Not quite. What you say about Greek language and thought is quite true, and is well reflected in other parts of the New Testament. But this book in particular is written specifically to Hebrews, presumably by someone quite familiar with Hebrew thought. It is not that I call it indirect, but that much of Asian and Middle Eastern writing puts first what European places second - to our way of thinking, placing emphasis on the contrast rather than the idea at hand. I am not slamming down the gavel on this - in order to speak on this passage in particular with any academic authority, I'd need more education than I have. There may be something I'm missing, but it is not evident to me at present, which is the only reason I suggested taking a second look at this. I wasn't suggesting that if you free yourself from your assumptions, you'll see it all my way... :^)

    ***I'd take you up on your offer, but what value would it bring me? (micah cowan)

    True, maybe none in relation to your views of God and the Bible. But then, neither you nor I professes to be seeking Truth (in the ultimate sense) anymore - so this is beside the point for both of us. Neither one of us needs to offer any reasons for believing as we do - unless we want to talk about it. You don't answer to me. You don't have to read anything or prove anything. I realize that you aren't going to change your mind. But what's the point of you saying "I believe..." and me saying "I believe..." if we can't look seriously at each other's (and our own) basis for believing - not to change our ideas, but simply to understand?

    You can believe, if you like, that the Bible is a crock, therefore any interpretation is fine because it isn't consistent anyway - it's only when we want to discuss the text that we have to demonstrate that our understanding of the meaning doesn't create its own inconsistencies. Whether or not the Bible is 100% true is, for our purposes, beside the point. We were only discussing what it SAYS, not whether or not it's true. If we were talking about the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran instead, I'd still suggest we go back and look at the text as much as possible without our assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  21. jennypo,

    It is not what you wish the Bible to say. It is not what you believe the Bible to say. It says what it says. We can re-read and re-re-read Hebrews in 20 different translations; it will still say the same thing. Only those who are “diligent” and perform a “labor of Love” and “imitate those of the faith” will receive God as an anchor.

    Hebrews 6 is a comparison and contrast. If you are one of the persons of vs. 9-20, you have no danger of “falling away.” Therefore, you have an anchor.

    It is no secret the Bible is in constant tension regarding the human involvement vs. the Divine involvement in salvation. Hebrews 6 is yet another example of that.

    There is a plate of cookies on the table. There is a plate of cookies on the counter. Mom says, “DON’T eat any of the cookies on the table.” Implicit within that command, since there are two plates of cookies, is that we may eat cookies on the counter.

    God Speaks. God gives oaths. God cannot lie when giving an oath. Implicit within that statement, since there are two occasions upon which God speaks, is that God may lie when speaking. To keep telling me what I already know (God giving an oath) fails to address this problem—what happens when God speaks?

    If it is the same as God giving an oath (i.e., that he cannot lie) then why is the author of Hebrews emphasizing it was an oath, not just God speaking? How can an Oath from God be “more true” than a statement from God, if both are true? Are there degrees of truth?

    If God lied—how would you know?

    ReplyDelete
  22. ***It is no secret the Bible is in constant tension regarding the human involvement vs. the Divine involvement in salvation. Hebrews 6 is yet another example of that. (DagoodS)

    The trouble here, DagoodS, is that we can't discuss specifics. Though neither one of us adheres to Calvinist theology, it is inconceivable to you that the Bible could not. So much so that you see no point in even trying to read it again with a resolve to look beyond our own assumptions.

    The tension that to you is so obvious is not so obvious to me. The implicity of the statements you point to are only so if the communication is very simple - imagine trying to haul a sentence out of, say, a philosophical essay and extrapolating the kind of ideas that you seem to think are warranted here, for instance. Complex communication must be viewed in its entirety before any extrapolation can be justified.

    Let's look at your example. Mom says, "Don't eat the cookies on the counter." "Mom"'s character and previous statements have to be taken into consideration before we can say with any certainty that she is implying that we may eat the cookies on the table. If one of Mom's general rules is that we may not eat cookies before dinner, and it is 4 pm, and she plans to have the cookies packed up and out of the house by dinnertime, then there is no need to issue a separate ban on eating the cookies on the table - we won't have the opportunity to eat them anyway.

    We run into the same kind of oversimplification problem with the oath/lie issue:

    ***God Speaks. God gives oaths. God cannot lie when giving an oath. (DagoodS)

    The Bible does not make this statement, you do. The Bible says that SINCE God can neither lie nor appeal to anything higher than himself, his oath is no different than his speech - utterly trustworthy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. jennypo: The tension that to you is so obvious is not so obvious to me.

    *shrug* The debate between Arminianism and Calvinism has raged for centuries. The debate between “faith” and “works” has raged for millennium. The debate of what one has to do to be saved (i.e. circumcision) began at the start of Christianity.

    If you choose to ignore a tension that has literally caused people to kill each other, divide entire sects, and cause bloody battles by sweeping this conflict under the rug as “not being obvious to you” there is little point in having the discussion.

    As to saying God cannot lie on an oath, what are the “two things” of Hebrews 6:18? Hint, read the verse right before it.

    jennypo, you can justify this to yourself by claiming it is complicated, and Eastern thought, and complex communication, and therefore what you want to believe could possibly be true, because it is one of many alternatives.

    I am sorry, but I work in a field that simply “wanting” something to be true does not make it so. Trying to hide it behind claims of complexity with long and many words is what we excel at. When we don’t want the jury to understand.

    You are free to believe what you will. It would not work under my methodology.

    ReplyDelete
  24. DagoodS,

    It appears that I have misrepresented myself. Please don't think I am suggesting that my understanding is valid because there is a multiplicity of views. Nor am I interested in convincing you that I am right. (although that would be a delicious side-dish, if an unlikely one, it isn't our purpose here!) :^)

    But shouldn't we, if we are going to discuss a thing at all, have to present our own reasons for what we think? Shouldn't those reasons be the things that we can discuss, rather than our beliefs themselves? And when we do hit a brick wall in terms of communication, ought we not to consider the possibility that we may, with our own limited perspectives, have missed something, and go back and re-examine the source of our information?

    I do not suggest that the complexity of the communication is an excuse to accept any and all viewpoints. Rather, it ought to narrow the possible conclusions. The reason I point out the complexity of what is being communicated by books like the Bible is that it requires more effort, both on the part of the communicator and on the part of the receiver. When the issue is complex, we can't take a single sentence and extrapolate all kinds of meaning from it. Rather, we have to take each statement and compare it with all other statements, letting each narrow the other. If we read with any seriousness Confucious, the Koran, Buddhaic writings, etc., we have to do the same. The Bible is only different in that its claim of infallibility requires that its text be held to a higher standard - all the parts of a message must be reconciled before it may be accepted as authoritative.

    If the law could be approached as simply as I think you are saying you'd like to approach the Bible, you'd be out of a job. We could ignore precedents and context, and simply refer to section and subsection. It would be open and shut.

    I don't dispute that there has indeed been a debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. What I dispute is its validity based on the Bible. When two groups fight over the meaning of something, what they want it to mean may be as much a factor as the actual content of the thing itself. Is that tension inherent in the Bible, or does it exist outside of the text itself?

    ***As to saying God cannot lie on an oath, what are the “two things” of Hebrews 6:18? Hint, read the verse right before it. (DagoodS)

    The whole point of an oath is the appeal to something greater as our witness, since we as humans can and do lie. But there is nothing greater than God, so it would be pointless for him to appeal to anything greater than himself as a witness. If he could lie when not under oath, there'd be nothing stopping him when under oath. Why appeal to an untrustworthy witness?

    Why did God make an oath in the first place, if he can't lie? "Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath." (Hebrews 6:17)

    He was emphasizing both his intention and the trustworthiness of his character by telling what he was going to do and calling himself as a witness.

    One immutable thing (God's word) would have been enough, but God wanted to make it very clear to us, ("that we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." - Hebrews 18-20) So God emphasized his unchanging purpose by calling himself as witness, confirming his statement with his own immutable character (the second immutable thing).

    ReplyDelete
  25. jennypo,

    The tension is not obvious to Calvinists, either, because to them, just like you, their view of how salvation happens is valid, based upon the text. The tension is not obvious to Arminians, either, because to them, just like you, their view of how salvation happens is valid, based upon the text. The tension is not obvious to Judaizers, either, because to them, just like you, their view of how salvation happens is valid, based upon the text. The tension is not obvious to Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, Mennonites, Quakers, Liberals, Conservatives, Fundamentalists, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, etc. etc. etc., either, because to them, just like you, their view of how salvation happens is valid, based upon the text.

    Am I making myself clear? ALL of you claim that your particular view of how salvation happens, is obvious to ALL of you, and that the tension caused is by the OTHER people not following the Bible correctly.

    What skeptics and non-believers, outside the system see, is the problem exists in the varying beliefs and statements among the varying authors/editors of the different books collected together. We would expect the same tension in a book entitled “66 ways to play Soccer” or “66 ways to plumb a sink.”

    jennypo: The Bible is only different in that its claim of infallibility…

    Since there is no “one” author to the Bible, nowhere can the Bible make the self-claim it is infallible.

    jennypo: If he could lie when not under oath, there'd be nothing stopping him when under oath.

    Ahh…now you starting to understand. And if he can only tell the truth, there is nothing “more” requiring him to tell the truth when giving an oath. Exactly. There IS no difference between telling an oath and making a statement. So why does the author of Hebrews specifically emphasize God took an oath?

    Perhaps you do not realize the Jews considered YHWH capable of deceit. 1 Kg 22:23; Ezk 14:9; 2 Thes 2:9-11.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ***Am I making myself clear? ALL of you claim that your particular view of how salvation happens, is obvious to ALL of you, and that the tension caused is by the OTHER people not following the Bible correctly. (DagoodS)

    What do you suggest we do about this? I am not, as I think you are implying, saying that only I am right and others should share my view, but rather that the text of the Bible itself must to examined in order to discover its meaning – not the varied views of self-interested theorists. As individuals, we claim to be interested in truth rather than supporting our own causes, therefore I have made the suggestion that we exchange reasons for what we see, then go back and look at the text with as open a mind as possible. Is there a better way of approaching this?

    ***Since there is no “one” author to the Bible, nowhere can the Bible make the self-claim it is infallible. (DagoodS)

    This is circular. Your statement is true unless there is one "editor", whose own infallibility allows him to claim that the books he has caused to be collected and accepted are infallible. This, of course, takes us back to God - as does every question about the Bible. Thus, what we may say with surety is: IF there is no God, then the Bible's claim to infallibility stands condemned not only by the multiplicity of writers involved in its creation, but by its own statements about God, and by the impossibility of a claim to infallibility by any human-authored book (no matter how many authors were involved). IF there is a God, then such a being certainly may oversee the writing, the collection, and the distribution of a book like the Bible, and its self-claim of infallibility is reasonable.

    ***Ahh…now you starting to understand. (DagoodS)

    I hope so. :^) I am trying my best here.

    ***Perhaps you do not realize the Jews considered YHWH capable of deceit. 1 Kg 22:23; Ezk 14:9; 2 Thes 2:9-11. (DagoodS)

    The statement you make is true only if we ignore the pejorative element in the word “deceit”. In each case you cite here, DagoodS, God is offering a lie to those who refuse truth. Not to those who are ignorant of the truth, but to those who have outright rejected it. It has nothing to do with God’s trustworthiness, and everything to do with the great power and responsibility of the human to choose for herself.

    “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2Thessalonians 2:11,12)

    The writer to the Hebrews doesn’t leave us wondering why a God who cannot lie would make an oath – we are told outright that his purpose was to make it clear to us, who make oaths as confirmation of our statements, what his unchanging purpose was, is, and always will be. God is, in effect, speaking our language, communicating via our own cultural norms. It isn’t God whose word is untrustworthy, it’s us – because our own word is untrustworthy, we have trouble believing even a God who is. God doesn’t ignore our weakness, but offers us assurance using a medium familiar to us, while at the same time reminding us of his own character – which is, as you point out, what we are ultimately thrown back on anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  27. One last comment, jennypo, as this appears to be going nowhere.

    jennypo: I am not, as I think you are implying, saying that only I am right and others should share my view, but rather that the text of the Bible itself must to examined in order to discover its meaning – not the varied views of self-interested theorists.

    Ah, so you think you are wrong? The “text” of the Protestant Bible consists of 66 books written by different humans, edited by other humans, copied by other humans. It is of little surprise they disagree. It is not a cohesive whole. Depending on what book one chooses to review, and discover that book’s meaning, it can conflict with a different author’s book.

    jennypo: This is circular.

    I quite agree. I didn’t state the Bible self-claims the Bible to be infallible. You did. I was attempting to point it out. Methinks I was too subtle.

    jennypo: God is offering a lie to those who refuse truth.

    Right. So God deceives. Just like I said. How this statement helps your case is beyond me. Are we now saying “God cannot lie, unless the other person is not willing to believe the truth, and then God can lie?” Making my point, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ***One last comment, jennypo, as this appears to be going nowhere. (DagoodS)

    Gotcha. :^)

    ReplyDelete