Research on De-Conversion

Last week I received the following email:

Dear Ken,


I am putting together a project that hopes to address the experiences of people who have "deconverted" from a monotheistic, polytheistic, or religious based faith. One of the tools I am using to collect data and experiences is a questionnaire I put together at Teologye.com – a site I created for this purpose. I especially would like to hear from skeptics, agnostics, and atheists. One of my goals at the end of this project is to publish a book based on the information I’ve gathered from interviews and data gathered via the site.


Would you be comfortable notifying your readers of this effort and the questionnaire? I’ve included the links below. I am hoping to reach as many people as possible and your site’s audience has the knowledge and experiences I am hoping to tap into.


http://teologye.com/


http://teologye.com/questionnaire


Kindest Regards,


Rick Dean

I followed up with Rick and I think his project is interesting. I have completed his questionnaire (only takes a couple of minutes) and I would recommend that my readers do likewise.

Craig Blomberg on De-Conversion

Craig Blomberg is a well-known Evangelical scholar. He is Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary (Conservative Baptist Association). He offers three "consistent factors" that "trigger" a rejection of Christianity. On his blogpost dated Oct. 1, 2010, he writes:

Studies of deconversions find three fairly consistent factors or kinds of experiences that trigger such rejection of Christianity. First, a crisis of some kind unexpectedly intrudes into a person’s life. Maybe it is the loss of a loved one, a major personal failure or even sin, a life-changing injury, a divorce or a devastating financial loss. Second, the community to which this individual has normally turned to for support in hard times turns on that individual instead. Perhaps it is a kind of church discipline that does not seem geared to lead to rehabilitation. Perhaps it involves pat theological slogans that don’t adequately address the complexity of the situation. Perhaps it includes interpersonal estrangement rather than empathy. Third, the hurting person is introduced to and/or for the first time takes seriously and investigates seriously an alternate world view. This may be a different religion or, as it commonly seems today to be, some form of agnosticism or atheism.

According to the studies of de-conversion which he fails to cite, an apostate typically experiences:

1. A personal crisis.
2. A let-down by the church.
3. A questioning of his or her world view.

I don't know about others but in my case, #'s 1 and 2 were not involved. I increasingly came to the conclusion that the Evangelical Christian world-view was inconsistent and incoherent. It did not "mesh" with the real world in which I was living. There was no more reason to believe the Bible was really a divine revelation than there was to believe the Koran or any other "holy book." They all reflected the religious ideas that were prevalent in their time and in their culture.

It is interesting how Blomberg phrases his #3. The person is introduced to and/or for the first time takes seriously and investigates seriously (emphasis mine) an alternate world view.

I think he has hit the nail on the head here. Most Evangelical Christians will not take seriously the possiblity that their world-view (which includes an inspired and inerrant Bible, a bloody human sacrifice which satisfies God's wrath against sin, an eternal hell, and so on) might be wrong. Their minds are closed to that possibility. If you can ever get them to seriously question their world-view and seriously investigate other world-views, there is an excellent possiblity that they will de-convert.

Another De-Conversion Story

There is an interesting video series on youtube by a former Christian in which he painstakingly details the reasons for his de-conversion. Its in many parts but I what I have seen of it is done very well. I especially liked this clip below in which he explains that its not just one thing that causes a Christian to de-convert. There might be one thing that was the "final straw" but there are always multiple reasons. He also shows how that when a Christian doubts one aspect of their religion, they can rely on other parts of it to continue believing. Another important fact he mentions is that de-conversion typically takes years. Its not something that happens overnight.

Index to Posts on My De-Conversion

• Audio: Interview on CommonSenseAtheism

• From Fundamentalist Evangelical to Agnostic Atheist

• Why Do I call myself FormerFundy?

• Audio: Interview on The Priest and Rabbi Show

From Fundamentalist Evangelical to Agnostic Atheist

I was a fundamentalist evangelical Christian for about 20 years. You can read some of my story here and listen to some of it here.

Today I am an agnostic atheist. I am atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any particular deity. I am agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know or have certainty that no deity of any description exists. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Mark Elliott of the Bible and Interpretation website asked me to write my de-conversion story in 1500 words or less. It was posted on his site yesterday. Below is the post:

From Fundamentalist Evangelical to Agnostic Atheist
by Ken Pulliam

I was "born-again," as the Evangelicals term it, in 1978 at the age of 18. I repented of my sin and trusted Christ and Christ alone for salvation. My life changed dramatically and I enrolled in a Baptist college to study for the ministry. After graduating from Baptist University of America in 1981, I went to one of the most conservative Christian colleges in the nation, Bob Jones University. There I earned an M.A. (1982) and a Ph.D. (1986) in Theology. I wrote my dissertation on "Bernard Ramm's Changing Views of Scripture." At Bob Jones the emphasis was on the ancient languages and exegetical theology. It was presupposed that the Bible was the Word of God and thus inerrant. We studied Biblical criticism and contemporary theologies but only from the standpoint of determining how and why they deviated from the "truth." Protestant scholasticism rather than open-minded scholarship was promoted.

Upon graduation, I took a position as an instructor at International Baptist College in Tempe, Arizona. This was a small Bible college in the same fundamentalist evangelical tradition as Bob Jones. I taught Greek, Systematic Theology, Apologetics and English Bible classes. Sometime during my 8th year of teaching (1994), doubts that had been simmering under the surface came to the forefront. One of my concerns came from my teaching of Apologetics. I was convinced that the presuppositionalist school of apologetics (developed by Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary) was right in its criticisms of the classical and evidentialist schools, which taught that Christianity could be demonstrated through rational proofs and historical evidences. As the presuppositionalists pointed out, historical "facts" have to be interpreted, they do not come with their interpretation built-in. One's presuppositions would determine how one would interpret the evidence. Thus, one would never come to the conclusion that Christianity is true unless one first presupposed the truth of the Bible. To do this, however, was simply begging the question. The real question was whose presuppositions are correct. It seemed to me that the non-supernatural interpretations of the evidences for Christianity were more consistent with our knowledge of the real world. As I began to look at the Bible and evangelical Christianity through the eyes of one not already committed to the truth of the Bible, the faith that I had held for nearly 20 years began to look intellectually indefensible.

In 1994, I remember preaching in a church in El Paso and during the course of my sermon the thought, like a bolt out of the blue, popped into my head: "you don't really believe this." The thought terrified me and almost disrupted my sermon. Later that night I went to my hotel room and prayed for God to help me overcome these doubts. I believed that they were Satanic in origin. I determined to study these issues, which were causing me doubts, until I could eliminate them from my thinking. One of the doubts that was plaguing me was the doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). I wondered how the punishment of an innocent person could be just. It seemed counter to man's moral intuitions and these intuitions I believed came to man as a result of being made in the image of God.

I read every book and article on PSA that I could find. I examined all of the classic works beginning with Anselm and continuing through the Reformers, the Puritans (especially John Owen), the Princeton theologians and contemporary defenders of PSA. I found that essentially there was no answer. While various attempts to justify the doctrine were put forward, most admitted that at the end of the day, it was a mystery. For example, A. A. Hodge wrote:

we confess that the divine administration, both as to the coming in of the curse through Adam, and as to the redemption from the curse through Christ, rests upon principles higher and grander than those embraced in the ordinary rules of human law. . . . But while the complete satisfaction which absolute justice finds in the vicarious sufferings of a substituted victim may transcend reason, it by no means conflicts with it. (1)

J. I . Packer argued that Reformed theologians have made a mistake in trying to explain or justify PSA using reason. He says that in an attempt to answer the objections of Socinians and other rationalists, they unwittingly gave up "home field advantage" and played on the Socinians' home turf of rationalism. He wrote:

The almost mesmeric effect of Socinus’ critique on Reformed scholastics in particular was on the whole unhappy. It forced them to develop rational strength in stating and connecting up the various parts of their position, which was good, but it also led them to fight back on the challenger’s own ground. . . . They made the word of the cross sound more like a conundrum than a confession of faith — more like a puzzle, we might say, than a gospel. What was happening? Just this: that in trying to beat Socinian rationalism at its own game, Reformed theologians were conceding the Socinian assumption that every aspect of God’s work of reconciliation will be exhaustively explicable in terms of a natural theology of divine government, drawn from the world of contemporary legal and political thought. Thus, in their zeal to show themselves rational, they became rationalistic. (2)

Packer says that at the end of the day, PSA is a mystery and all attempts to understand it or defend it rationally will fail.

If we bear in mind that all the knowledge we can have of the atonement is of a mystery about which we can only think and speak by means of models, and which remain a mystery when all is said and done, it will keep us from rationalistic pitfalls and thus help our progress considerably(3).

While I could accept the notion that PSA transcends reason, I could not accept the fact that it contradicts reason and our sense of justice. If it is self-evident that it is unjust to punish an innocent man, then how could the righteous and holy Judge of the Universe accept that punishment as the means by which his wrath against sin is propitiated? Could man's redemption be based on an unjust act? I could not resolve this problem. I realize that there are other theories of the atonement besides PSA but all of them base man's salvation on the death of an innocent man. I also firmly believe that the best and most competent exegesis of the biblical text yields the PSA. This is clearly demonstrated, I think, in the work of Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross.(4)

So, after struggling with this issue and others, my faith slowly evaporated. Sometime around the fall of 1996, I admitted to myself that I no longer believed. This was not an easy thing to do. It is very traumatic psychologically and emotionally to admit to one's self that one has devoted his life to an error. To acknowledge self-delusion is difficult. In addition, I had the practical concern of how to support my wife and family since all of my education and training were geared towards being an evangelical Christian minister. I had no marketable skills for the real world. It was, therefore, tempting to keep silent and continue on in my role but I could not do that. I could not live with myself knowing that I was living a lie and pretending to believe something that I honestly no longer did. I was in a real dilemma.(5) Fortunately in my case, I was approached by someone who wanted me to help him start a business. This person, although a family member, had no idea of the intellectual turmoil that I was experiencing. We started the business in January of 1997 and it was successful. I had a new career and I felt relieved. For the first time in a long time, I was able to sleep at night. In the nearly 14 years that has transpired since my loss of faith, I have had no regrets. Sometimes people will ask me if I have doubts today that maybe I made the wrong decision and I can honestly say that I don't. My life is good and I have found meaning and purpose apart from my former faith.

Notes:

1. The Atonement (Nabu Press, 2010), p. 200.

2. "What Did the Cross Achieve: The Logic of Penal Substitution," Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture, Delivered at Tyndale House, Cambridge, on July 17th, 1973, published by Tyndale House, 1974. Available on-line .

3. Ibid.

4. Tyndale Press, 1965.

5. I can definitely sympathize with those men in Daniel Dennett's study of unbelieving Pastors. See "Preachers who are not Believers," Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, March 15, 2010, available on line .

"The Day I Quit Believing in God" by C. Michael Patton

Michael Patton is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and an evangelical Christian minister. He operates Reclaiming the Mind Ministries and a popular blog, Parchment and Pen. He posted an entry on his blog recently entitled: "The Day I Quit Believing in God" . I like to read Patton's posts because he is an unusual evangelical. He is painfully transparent with his own faith struggles and he is honest in acknowledging a number of the problems with evangelical theology. This particular post about the day he stopped believing really resonated with me. It was similar in some ways to my own experience.

He writes:

When I quit believing, I was beginning to sit down on my couch at home. By the time I pulled my legs up beside me, the terrible and foreign realization came to my mind that I didn’t believe. I don’t know why, but as I began to think about God, Christ, prayer, and all those things that form the normal spiritual backdrop to my thoughts, they had been robbed of their primary fuel—belief. I simply did not believe. There was this sudden realization that it was all false. Covering my life like a dark coroners blanket was a new belief: the belief that my whole life I had fooled myself into believing in something that was not true. I did not believe that God was real.

I remember the first time I realized that my faith was slipping away. The thought popped into my head, out of the blue, "how can a person dying 2000 years ago have any relation to me and my sins today?" I pushed the thought out of my mind and went on about my business (I was working on my swamp cooler on top of my home in Arizona). The thought came back though and I realized that I needed to study the matter of the cross and the atonement more. I decided to file this doubt under "unanswered questions," while I continued teaching in the Bible College where I was employed. Occasionally, though, the thought would come back and it was like part of my brain was telling me that "this doesn't make sense" and "it can't be true." I chalked those thoughts up to the devil, thinking that he was trying to cause me to doubt. As I read various theological works on the subject, the doubts got bigger. I began to realize that this was not a matter of doubting some minor doctrine (such as the mode of baptism or type of eschatology) but it was the central doctrine of the Christian faith. That Christ died for my sins is the heart and soul of the gospel message. If that is not true, then nothing else in Christianity is true.

In Patton's case, his faith returned two days after it left. He explains:

I was on the elliptical machine at the gym. I was hoping that some exercise would help. While sweating away, I was reading a book about faith. The book did not really help, it is just part of my memories because of what was about to happen. After 35 minutes of elevated heart rate, suddenly, in a moment of time, it was like I could access the part of my brain again that was responsible for belief. Like a foot is awakened due to renewed blood flow, I felt the same relief in my brain (odd to say, but it felt like the right side) and in my soul. One minute I did not believe, and the next I did. My faculties returned to me and my faith was completely restored as if it never left.

Patton believes that this was some sort of test from the Lord. He says:

Since my “two days as an atheist” experience, I have had a lot of time to contemplate on what happened. I don’t have all the answers, but I am firm in my conviction that God was teaching me something through experience that I already believed in theory: Human effort is not ultimately responsible for faith, God is. In my ministry, I suppose this is important.

He mentions another evangelical leader who told him in private that he had experienced a loss of faith for 3 months. This leader never shared it with anyone publicly.

Well, my loss of faith has lasted for about 14 years now and I don't expect it to return. I felt the same type of mental anquish and emotional turmoil that Patton described for about a year or so. After becoming settled in my conviction that evangelical Christianity is not true, I have never looked back. I can honestly say that I have not had one doubt about my de-conversion. I have never thought, "well maybe Christianity is true after all." Although de-conversion was a painful experience, I can say today that I am glad it happened and I feel very liberated. At this point, I can agree with the words of Jesus: "You shall know the truth and the truth will make you free" (John 8:32).

Breaking Up is Hard to Do--The Trauma of Losing One's Religion

Recently, I have been contacted by two different men who are currently in the ministry but who no longer believe. Both men feel trapped. In both cases, the men's wives do not know the full extent of their unbelief. No one in their churches knows about it. While it seems obvious that they should just resign their churches and move on with their lives, its not that simple. Both men have bills and expenses and no good way to earn a living apart from the ministry. In addition, the stigma that is sometimes attached to an apostate and the grief from family members is tough to deal with.

Even if one is not a Pastor, it is still hard to walk away from the faith. It creates psychological and emotional trauma much like that of going through a divorce. Marlene Winell, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist and former evangelical Christian herself, has written a book entitled: Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion (1993). She also has a practice in which she counsels those who have decided to leave their conservative religion behind. I highly recommend her work.

In the book, Leaving the Fold, she writes:

In general, leaving a cherished faith is much like the end of a marriage. The symptoms of separation are quite similar--grief, anger, guilt, depression, lowered self-esteem, and social isolation. But whereas help for divorced people is readily available, little if any assistance is available to help you to leave your religion. The familiar sources of church support are no longer there, and family members still in the fold may actually shun you (p. 15).

Losing one's religion can create enormous confusion. Winell explains:

This can be a major upheaval because your religion essentially defined your entire structure of reality and your old definitions no longer hold. Notions of who you were, your purpose in life, your relationship to others; needed explanations about the world; interpretations of the past; expectations for the future; and directions about how to feel, think, make decisions, and lead your life have been lost. Letting go of such a massive structure can leave you feeling totally adrift (p. 17).

So, its not easy to break away from something that has been so central to one's life. Something that essentially defined you. Something that provided a neat package of explanations for everything in life. Its like starting life over. Many people just can't tackle such a task.

However, for those that do, once they get resettled, they ususally feel liberated. Winell states:

The experience can also be liberating, like breaking out of prison. If you feel oppressed by all the formulas and judgments, the rules and regulations, you might now feel a great relief, able to think and feel and experience much more of yourself. Some people describe a wonderful, almost euphoric, feeling of "coming home" when settle in to the notion of just being alive and living life now, in this world (p. 17).

For those who might be struggling with a loss of faith and feeling overwhelmed by it all, I highly recommend Winnell's book.

Here is a podcast of an interview of Marlene Winnell in which she gives her de-conversion story. She details her own religious upbringing on the mission field and how as an adult she gradually lost her faith.

The video clip below is an interview of Marlene Winell conducted by Valerie Tarico, who is also a psychologist, former evangelical and author of The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth.


Dr. Winnell talks about how destructive fundamentalist religions can be on children and about her recovery seminars.

Another former Christian College Professor is now an Atheist

A former Christian college professor, and a former writer for Christianity Today, the marquee periodical of Evangelical Christianity, is now an atheist. Although he is remaining anonymous for now, he has a blog entitled: Diary of a Beleaver. In a post called, Beleaver: Misspelled with Intent, he explains the idea behind the term "Beleaver."

About 18 months ago I was having a conversation with my former Christianity Today colleague Drew Dyck @drewdyck about his forthcoming book “Generation Ex-Christian.” In his book, Drew tries to understand the recent trend of Christians in their 20’s abandoning their faith, and then attempts to develop ways in which “believing” friends and family members can try and coax the “Leavers” they know back into arms of orthodoxy.

Following our conversation the term “Leaver” kept cycling through in my head. It had an oddly strange appeal, as if someone had given a voice to something I had secretly known to be true for many years. Nonetheless, it was a secret I had to conceal. I worked at Christianity Today; honesty would have cost me my job, not to mention ostracizing many I hold dear.

Fearful of paying such a price, I suppressed my judgments of faith for the sake of those around me. Yet, as always seems to be the case—when I can no longer run from something that is true of myself—the writer is cursed to write.

As such, the “Beleaver” was born, giving my faceless voice to be the object of countless prayers and petitions.

Drew wants Leavers to see the reasons they have to return.

I’m the willing voice of contented rebuttal.

Welcome aboard  Mr. Beleaver, I look forward to reading more of your story.

5 Steps to Apostasy?

Michael Patton, an evangelical Christian and a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, has a blog entitled: Parchment and Pen. While obviously Michael and I disagree on the truth of evangelical Christianity, I think he is a good guy and he attempts to be fair and honest in dealing with the relevant issues. At least he is willing to deal with the issues, so many Christians smugly maintain that they have the truth and that anyone who disagrees is being deceived by Satan.

Patton, by his own admission, has a fascination with those who leave the Christian faith. He has done a number of posts on the subject with his most recent being, "How People Become Evangelists Of Uunbelief” Or Leaving (Christ)ianity – An Evangelical Epidemic. In the post, he says: I have found that the two primary reasons people leave the faith are 1) intellectual challenges and 2) bad theology or misplaced beliefs. . He finds five steps in the process of apostasy:

Step One: Doubt

Here is where the person begins to examine his or her faith more critically by asking questions, expressing concerns, and becoming transparent with their doubt. This doubt is not wholesale, but expresses an inner longing to have questions answered and the intellect satisfied to some degree. Normally this person will inquire of mentors in the faith, requesting an audience for their doubt.

Step Two: Discouragement

This is where the person becomes frustrated because they are not finding the answers. They ask questions but the answer (or lack thereof) causes them discouragement. Their church tells them that such questions are “unchristian.” Their Sunday school teacher says, “I don’t know. You just have to believe.” Others simply say, “That’s a good question, I have never thought of it before,” and then go on their way on their own leap-of-faith journey.

Step Three: Disillusionment

Now the person begins to become disillusioned with Christianity in general and proceeds to doubt much more deeply. They feel betrayed by those who made them believe the story about Christ. They feel that much of their former faith was naive since not even their most trusted mentors could (or would) answer basic questions about the Bible, history, or faith. In their thinking the intellect has become illegitimized and the church is therefore an illegitimate contender for their mind.

Step Four: Apathy

At this point in the journey, the disillusioned Christian becomes apathetic to finding the answers, believing that the answers don’t exist. They are firmly on their way to atheism, agnosticism, or pure skepticism but don’t have the courage to admit it to themselves or others. Many times those in this stage live as closet unbelievers, believing it is not worth it to come clean about their departure from the faith. They want a peaceful existence in their unbelief without creating controversy. Therefore, they are content to remain closet unbelievers.

Step Five: Departure

At this stage the fact that they have left the faith has become real to them and they are willing to announce to the world. Because of their sense of betrayal, they feel as if it is their duty to become evangelists for the cause of unbelief. Their goal and mission becomes to unconvert the converted.

Since we have a number of de-converted Christians who read this blog, I would be interested in what you think of Patton's five step process and if it aligns with your own personal experience. I would also be interested to hear if you think there is anything the church or Christians could have done to keep you from walking away? Patton believes that the Church needs to deal with issues in a deeper way and not just merely dismiss them. I commend him for that opinion.

I tend to think, however, that most Christians don't really want to think very deeply. Their Christianity makes them "feel-good;" it tells them they are special and that God loves them and watches over them. It provides them with a good social outlet (and in Southern Baptist circles a lot of good food!) where they can be around people with similar beliefs. It provides a support network when problems in life, such as sickness and death, arise. Why would they want to challenge all of that with examining carefully the basis of their religion? The simple truth is that most don't. In addition, they are usually told that doubts arise from Satan and the solution is to resist the Devil, pray harder, read the Bible more, and be faithful to the all the services of the church. If there is something that you don’t understand about the Bible or theology, just have faith and God will explain it all to you when you get to heaven.

As I look at his five step process, it seems to me that I experienced only 1) Doubt, 3) Disillusionment, and 5) Departure. I did not experience #'s 2 and 4. As far as anything the church could have done, I doubt it but it would have been nice to see them try. Instead, my local church simply ostracized me and demonized me. In their mind, I am like Judas.

I look forward to hearing other's comments about their experience. BTW, my friend and fellow apostate John Loftus, recently had a post on this subject and I see he has received 218 comments on it. In addition, I have recently become aware of a book entitled: If God Disappears: 9 Faith Wreckers and What to Do about Them By David R. Sanford. Some other books on this subject which I have read include: Leaving the fold: testimonies of former fundamentalists, ed. by my friend and fellow apostate, Ed Babinski; Walking away from faith: unraveling the mystery of belief & unbelief by former Calvin College professor Ruth Tucker; Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity by my friend and fellow apostate, John Loftus; Beyond Born Again: Towards Evangelical Maturity by theology professor, Robert Price (available to read on-line; Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith by former Billy Graham associate, Charles Templeton and the book by my new friend and fellow apostate Ken Daniels, Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary (available to read on-line). And as I mentioned in a previous post, Ed Babinski has compiled a list of books by former believers.

That should provide a lot of data for anyone who wishes to investigate the reasons why Christians leave the fold. I would love to see a doctoral dissertation done at one of the leading evangelicals seminaries on this topic.

A Former Missionary with Wycliffe Translators in now an Agnostic Atheist

Ken Daniels was a missionary in Africa when his doubts finally overtook him and he had to leave the faith. He describes his intellectual journey in his recently published book: Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary . It is available on-line but I would highly recommend buying the book and distributing it widely. It may be the single best book to give to an honest doubter. It is written on a layman's level and will resonate with anyone who is an evangelical. It also has an irenic tone and does not come across as condescending.

Daniels' evangelical credentials are impeccable. He was born on the mission field and reared by missionary parents. He graduated from LeTourneau University and Columbia Biblical Seminary. He joined Wycliffe Bible Translators soon after graduation from Seminary and began linguistic studies in order to translate the Bible into the dialect of a particular tribe in Africa. He spent a number of years in Africa as a missionary among these peoples. Daniels commitment and dedication cannot be questioned. Yet, he, as I, found that he had to be intellectually honest with himself and leave the faith. This was an incredibly hard thing to do. He was on the mission field, churches were supporting him, his entire family on both sides were Christians, all of his friends were Christians, his whole life revolved around Christianity. He writes:

If I could patch things up by forcing myself to believe again, I would do so in a heartbeat. Unfortunately I have tried that several times, only to be besieged again by doubt, and have come to the conclusion that attempting to will myself to believe that which in my heart I do not believe is futile.

I can fully relate to Daniel's statement. You cannot force yourself to believe something that you sincerely know is false. It just doesn't work no matter how hard you try.

Often ex-believers are asked why we don't just drift off into the sunset. Why do we find it necessary to explain why we have de-converted from the faith? Is it because we feel the need to justify our unbelief? Daniels gives one of his reasons:

It grieves me to witness bright, promising young men and women distracted by the study of fundamentalist theology, or by the prospect of traveling the world to convert people from one empirically unverifiable form of supernaturalism to another. I regret having used up the best years of my youth pursuing religious goals.

I agree. When you consider all of the man hours as well as all of the money that is invested in religion, its mind-boggling. What if all these resources were poured into a purely humanitarian effort? Wouldn't the world be a better place?

Another reason why we former Christians feel the need to explain why we left the faith is because our motives are constantly being judged. Daniels elaborates:

Some of my readers might wonder, "Why did he do it? Why did he leave the riches of his faith for the despair and danger of unbelief? It couldn't be that he sincerely believes Christianity to be untrue; there must be some deep underlying issues he's dealing with, some flaw, some hidden agenda, some dashed expectation." I have been asked this question directly, and my response has been this: you can dig as deeply as you like, and when you get to the bottom of it, you'll find I believe what I believe because I think it's true. There may indeed be some hidden issues that have driven me to this point, but if so, they are as hidden to me as to anyone else. I have shared freely with others and with God the matters I consider relevant to the question, but nothing definitive has turned up.

Christians, especially conservative evangelicals, have a very difficult time accepting the notion that one could leave the faith for intellectual reasons. There has to be a deeper reason, they muse. He probably has a secret sin that he wants to indulge in and he doesn't want to submit to the authority of God and the Bible, or he has been hurt personally by Christians or a church and has taken it out on God, or some difficulty in his life has caused him to become bitter against God and Christianity. Daniels explains how a Christian might "internally process" a de-conversion story like his:

He appears to be sincere, and he seems to have been a genuine believer, but he has now rejected God, so despite appearances, it may be that he never experienced a true relationship with God. According to Hebrews 10:26-27, the penalty for rejecting Christ after having followed him is divine judgment with no further hope for redemption, so Ken must be in danger of this fate. He claims his motives are pure, and that he truly perceives Christianity to be untrue, but there must be some fundamental flaw in him, something that marks him off from other believers who remain faithful to the faith, or he could not justly be subject to the judgment described in Hebrews 10. I don't know what it is, but I trust God's word over Ken's. His willingness to embrace something as problematic as evolution and to believe that the universe could have formed by chance must indicate an underlying desire to disbelieve despite the evidence for God and the Bible. At times he displays an argumentative, arrogant spirit, which may reveal a willful rebellion against God. Perhaps his motives are not as pure as he claims.

On the other hand, he does seem to be aware that he's putting the eternal fate of his soul in jeopardy if he turns out to be wrong, so he must have a high degree of confidence in his belief that the gospel is not true. What could possibly have motivated him and driven him to such a degree of certainty that he would be willing to invite the disapproval of his friends, family, supporters and mission board, to live without the hope of a hereafter, to abandon his calling and sense of purpose, and to risk divine judgment? Perhaps 2 Thessalonians 2:10b-11 pertains to him: "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie ..." This could mean he truly does believe what he says he believes, but God has brought this on him because of his rebellious spirit and his failure to acknowledge God for who he is.

We former believers are usually told that we were not "real" Christians. If we had been true believers we would not have departed the faith (I John 2:19) [see this link, especially comment 7]. My former Pastor had a saying, not sure where he picked it up, a faith that fizzles at the finish had a fatal flaw at the first . His brand of Calvinism demanded that he explain apostates in this fashion. The problem with saying that, however, is two-fold. 1) These individuals do not know my heart. I was as sincere in my belief and trust in Christ as I think anyone could be. 2) If I was not really saved, even though I thought I was, they cannot know for sure that they are genuine believers today. If, as Calvinism says, all genuine believers will persevere in their faith until the end, how does one know that his or her faith is genuine until the very end? There is always the possiblity that they may turn away sometime before they die thus proving that their faith was not real. So, there is no assurance of salvation for the consistent Calvinist.

I will be sharing some additonal insights from Ken Daniels' book in upcoming posts. Again, I highly recommend it.

Atheists in the Pulpit

I came across a fascinating article yesterday in the Washington Post by Daniel Dennett entitled, Skeptical Clergy a Silent Majority. The article deals with a study that was done by Dennett and Linda LaScola of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. He begins the article by saying:

Here are some questions that have haunted me for years. How many preachers actually believe what they say from the pulpit? We know that every year some clergy abandon their calling, no longer able to execute their duties with conviction. This can never be a decision taken lightly, and many of them labored on for years before taking the leap. Are they the tip of an iceberg? Is there a problem of deep hypocrisy separating many pastors from their flocks? What is it like to be a non-believing preacher? How do they reconcile their private skepticism with the obligations of their position? And how did they get into their predicament?

Dennett and LaScola interviewed five Protestant pastors who are all still currently serving their churches, yet have given up belief in God (you can read full interviews here). Three of these men are in liberal churches and two are in conservative churches. Some people, I think, would initially react by saying, how hypocritical of these men to continue preaching when they no longer believe what they preach. I can sympathize with that sentiment but I can also sympathize with the preachers because I used to be in their same shoes.

I started having serious doubts about my faith sometime in the year 1994. I can remember being in El Paso, Texas preaching in a Baptist church and during the middle of my sermon, the thought hit me, you don't really believe what you are saying. It was a frightening thought and almost disrupted my sermon. I was taught to attribute such thoughts to the devil. So I went back to my room and prayed for the Lord to defeat the devil in my life and to increase my faith. I decided to investigate as thoroughly as I could all of the issues that were causing me to doubt my evangelical theology. I was in my 8th year of teaching in a Bible college. I never shared with anyone the nature of my doubts because frankly that is not allowed in strict evangelical circles. It was okay for students or new Christians to have doubts but not for a leader and especially not for someone with a Ph.D. in Theology who was entrusted to teach young people studying for the ministry.

At the end of the 1995 school year, I decided that maybe what I needed was a less academic role and a more pastoral role. Thus, I accepted a position as a Pastor at a local Baptist church in Arizona. I spent two years there and my doubts became worse. The last 6 months of my stay, I was convinced that the Bible was not the Word of God and that evangelical Christianity was like every other religion that exists, man-made. Those 6 months were difficult because I felt like a complete hypocrite. I had to get up and teach something that I personally could no longer believe.

The honorable thing, some would say, would have been to resign immediately. I agree but its difficult when you are married, your wife doesn't work, you have two small children, a mortgage and no marketable skills. What could I do? Resign and go to work at Walmart? It was a very difficult situation. Fortunately, in my case, someone approached me who was starting a new business, a recruiting business, and asked me if I would like to run the administrative part of it. I was delighted. I resigned the church and began my new career. It has worked out very well for me and I have been in the executive recruiting business now for 13 years.

So, I do sympathize with these men, but I also think that they need to find a way to get out of the ministry for the sake of their own sanity and self-esteem. In addition, they need to get out for the sake of their parishoners. I believe its wrong to intentionally mislead them. One of the pastors had this to say about his role:

Here’s how I’m handling my job on Sunday mornings: I see it as play acting. I kind of see myself as taking on a role of a believer in a worship service, and performing. Because I know what to say. I know how to pray publicly. I can lead singing. I love singing. I don’t believe what I’m saying anymore in some of these songs. But I see it as taking on the role and performing. Maybe that’s what it takes for me to get myself through this, but that’s what I’m doing.

I think that is sad and its unhealthy for the church and for the preacher. I wonder how many preachers are doing the same thing as this man every Sunday?

Here is the story of Scott Campbell , an evangelical Baptist pastor who found himself in the pulpit although he no longer believed.



I must also ask why do Christians have so many doubts if the Christian religion is true? Someone in the comment section on the article by Dennett and LaScola said this: Even the most devout and confident among us will have days when we step into the pulpit praying, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief." To which another person replied:

I have often heard religious people say this, and frankly, it boggles my mind. This kind of crisis of confidence seldom, if ever, happen to people in other lines of work. A programmer does not wake up thinking that computers don't really work after all. Biologists don't worry that natural selection doesn't exist. Farmers do not question the wisdom or benefit of growing carrots. With all due respect, it seems to me that if you have difficulty believing something, or you keep coming up with reasons to doubt, you should immediately stop trying to believe it. Put aside religion and if compelling evidence emerges later on, you can always go back to believing. (I'll grant it would hard to do that if religion is your livelihood.) When a programmer develops grave doubts about a design, it is time to abandon that approach and try something new. A Democrat who decides Republican ideology makes more sense should change parties (and vice versa!). What possible benefit can there be to holding back and trying to persuade yourself to ignore a logical conclusion that fits the facts? It is an abuse of your own intellect. You can't do it anyway; your mind rebels. You just give yourself a headache -- or neurosis. It is like trying to eat food that tastes rotten.

He is correct. We don't doubt most things that we believe. Why do so many doubt Christianity? Could it be because its really not true?

The Loss of Faith and Naturalistic Explanations for the Belief in the Resurrection

I came across a blog post the other day in which an evangelical Pastor (graduate of Dallas Seminary) was responding to a letter about two women who were on the verge of losing their faith. I found the post interesting but quite shallow. You can read it here.

I wrote a letter to the author of the post. Here is the text below:

Hi Mike,

I was interested to read the letter posted on your blog that you sent to the individuals who are struggling with their faith. You list three reasons why you continue to maintain your faith. I was a little surprised that you did not mention the "inner witness of the Spirit," as this seems to be the main reason for William Craig and others that I have read (I commend you, however, for not doing that because I think it proves nothing. The Mormons have their "burning in the bosom" to validate their faith and we both agree they are wrong).

You might know that I de-converted from evangelical Christianity after spending nearly 20 years in it. I earned a Ph.D. in Theology from Bob Jones Univ. and taught at a Bible college in Arizona for 9 years after graduation. I too struggled with my faith and eventually it disappeared. I did not want it too but it did.

May I give my opinion on your "three reasons" for remaining a Christian?

1. The lack of sufficient explanation for all things outside of God.

For me, to not believe in God would take a greater leap of faith. Even though he seems to be absent at times, this does not provide sufficient rational for me to believe that everything came from nothing. Intelligence from non-intelligence. Beauty from non-beauty. An understanding of good and evil from an amoral void. Personhood from non-personhood.

First, your argument does not demand the Christian God. The God of the Deists or the God of Paul Tillich or many other possiblities would work.

Second, I am not a scientist but I am told that there are some possible explanations for cosmology. I don't have to have a full answer at this point. I am not willing to just fill God into the blank and say: Goddidit.

2. The prophetic nature of the Scripture.

In Isaiah 53 we read a detailed account of Christ’s atonement and resurrection which was written 700 years before the events took place. This passage is an outstanding testimony to the reality of our faith.

First, I am sure you must know that the Jews did not interpret Isa. 53 to refer to their Messiah. Now that doesn't prove anything one way or another but it lends support to the idea that Christians may be misinterpreting it.

Second, I think it more likely that early Christians went back to the Hebrew Bible to try to make sense out of what happened to Jesus. The disciples did not expect him to die and of course Second Temple Judaism would have considered the fact of his death proof-positive that he was not the Messiah. Therefore, the early Christians needed to find some "proof" for their belief in the Hebrew scriptures.

Third, so I don't consider Isa. 53 a prophecy but rather a statement about the suffering Servant which was later taken by Christians as a prophecy.

3. Finally, and most importantly, I consider the resurrection of Christ.

What an extraordinary claim. Our faith rests on the reality of Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead. It is the focal point of all else. If Christ rose from the grave, then our faith is true. If he did not, God must still exist, but we need to look for him elsewhere (1 Cor. 15: 16-17). Yet I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that he did raise from the grave. We have dozens of first century documents which purport such an event. We have eye witness testimony and we have the mass growth and expansion of the church that evidences that something had to have happened in the first century significant enough to produce a belief that overtook the world. How do I explain the existence of the church without the resurrection? How do I explain supposed eye-witnesses dying for this claim if it were not true? How do I explain someone making up a faith built on the humiliation, rejection, and murder of a first century carpenter Messiah? How do I explain the empty tomb. While people attempt to provide alternative explanations, and while these explanations are possibilities, they are not, in any sense, probabilities. (more on this here: and here). The most probable explanation for these things is that Christ really did raise [sic] from the grave. And the implications are tremendous. I would read my article on the death of the 12 Apostles here.

First, I don't think we have eyewitness testimony. We have reports of eyewitness testimony from second or third hand sources but not first hand sources.

Second, the nature of Paul's experience recorded in Acts is not the same as the nature of the disciples experience recorded in the Gospels, yet Paul uses the same grammatical construction in 1 Cor. 15 to refer to both. Could it be that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection not necessarily a bodily one? I think its possible. If so, his experience could be explained as a vision or hallucination. We know that people have claimed all kinds of mystical experiences both in history and today.

Third, I don't think the early Christians "made-up" their faith. Apologists, I think commonly make the mistake of the "either-or" fallacy. Either Christ arose and Christianity is true or the early Christians made it up. Its really much more complicated than that. That is why I don't find it remarkable that some early Christians died for their beliefs. They held them sincerely. We have plenty of examples throughout history and today where people are willing to die for their religious beliefs. This does not prove that their religious beliefs are objectively true, only that they sincerely believe them.

In the end, I don’t think either of you should be ashamed of your doubt. Doubt is often the a bridge to strengthen your belief. Don’t neglect your mind. Don’t push these questions into a closet somewhere in the back of your mind. God is not afraid of your questions or doubts. You will not be reprimanded for them. Bring them before him and seek the answers to your questions.

I commend you for telling these individuals to think through these matters. That is what I attempted to do and I came out on the other side with no faith. That is the danger of using your mind; but I don't think that if there is a God, he wants us to "check our brain at the door" of the church.

Cordially,

Ken Pulliam

Here is the response I received back:

Thanks Ken.

Completely agree with #1. But this just gives us common ground with regard to God. No need to go any further than that. For me, at least, it is my first step. I, personally, don’t think it is possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist in any way.

While I agree that you have put forth possible alternatives for a belief in the resurrection, I don’t think that you have presented what is most probable. See here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/12/some-alternative-explanations-for-the-resurrection-of-christ/

God bless.

Note that he agrees that #1 does not prove anything. At best it could give you some type of deity but not necessarily the God of the Bible. But as I mentioned, I am more content to just say we don't fully know yet rather than to insert Goddidit as if that is any real answer.

Also note that he does not try to defend #2, the idea of Isaiah 53 as a prophecy, at all.

Then he admits that my explanation for the belief in the resurrection is possible but not probable and he cites a prior post on his blog to give his rationale.

It turns out that post is in reply to a prior blog post of mine entitled: Even More on the Burial of Jesus and the Empty Tomb.

After admitting that all of my scenarios were possible, he concludes his post by saying that unless one has anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions, the belief that Jesus really did rise from the grave bodily is the simplest expanation and the best explanation.

Here is exactly what he says:

In the end, the simplest explanation is that Christ did rise from the grave. If you do not start with anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions (i.e. dead bodies can’t rise, therefore, Christ did not rise from the grave), then you can truly follow the evidence and not search for far-fetched, yet possible, explanations. It is because of acrobats like these that I think it takes more (blind) faith not to believe in the resurrection of Christ than to believe.

I would argue that a supernatural explanation is always the easiest explanation. In fact, it is the lazy man's answer in my opinion. For example, in science, when trying to discover why earthquakes happen, it would be easier and involve much less study or work to just say, Goddidit. And in fact that is what primitive folks believed for millennia. Today, we realize that so many things that appeared to be supernatural to primitive peoples can really be explained naturally. Therefore, I conclude that the best answer to why the disciples believed Jesus had risen from the dead will be a naturalistic one not a supernaturalistic one. Any of the scenarios, I laid out, I think, are more likely to be true than the explanation that Goddidit.

Books by Ex-Christians

My friend Ed Babinski has compiled a list on Amazon of 40 books dealing with the Testimones of Ex-Christians and Non-believers. There is some excellent reading here. The first book on the list, which I have read and recommend, is Ed's own volume entitled: Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists . Here is a preview of it:

Protestant fundamentalism claims many converts each year as the devout serve as "witnesses" to draw people "into the fold". This is where the media hype stops. Little is known of the thousands who leave, frustrated, anguished, confused. For them there are no trumpets of glory, no energized fanfare. No one knows fundamentalism like a fundamentalist, and no one can express what it means to struggle with one's faith to the breaking point, like an ex-fundamentalist. After presenting a fascinating history of "Fundamentalism's Grotesque Past", this riveting new collection offers testimonies of former fundamentalists who became so disillusioned with their church that they chose to leave. Presenting more than thirty personal journeys, this book gives a clear picture of what attracts a person to the fundamentalist faith and what can drive believers away from their religion. Leaving the Fold includes the religious odysseys of those who left fundamentalism behind in favor of atheism or agnosticism, as well as the spiritual journeys of those who remained Christians but backed away from the powerful attraction of fundamentalism. These testimonies convey not only deep feelings and penetrating facts, but the appeal of dogmatic fundamentalism and each individual's struggle to maintain their faith. Leaving the Fold discusses the fears and dilemmas faced by each person who chose to part ways with the church, their gradual dawning of courage to continue asking questions, and their success in giving their intellectual curiosity the freedom it craves. Christians, atheists, and those who may be questioning their own religious convictions will find Leaving the Fold engrossing. This volume also contains acollection of quotations and an annotated bibliography for those interested in tracking down further testimonies.

Why do people abandon the Christian faith?

Dr. Ruth Tucker, an evangelical and a former professor at Calvin Theological Seminary, wrote a book entitled: Walking Away from Faith: Unraveling the Mystery of Belief and Unbelief. I have the book and have read it with great profit.

In a 2001 lecture to the Freethought Association of West Michigan, she gave 5 myths about those who walk away from their faith.

1) They are angry and rebellious.

Tucker says that her studies do not show this to be the case. Rather than anger, deconverts are more likely to experience sorrow and pain when they initially depart from the faith.

2) They can be argued back into faith.

She says this is very rare because the person leaving the faith "has carefully and painstakingly dissected the reasons behind this major worldview change." Committed Christians do not leave their faith without a lot of thought and soul-searching. Its not something that is done quickly or flippantly.

3)Doubters can find help at Christian colleges and seminaries.

She didn't find this to be true.

4)They abandon their faith so that they can go out and sin freely.

She found no evidence for this contention. As a matter of fact, she points out that often those who do not have faith appear to be more moral than those who do have faith.

5) They were never sincere Christians to begin with.

She rejects this because in her research, she came "across example after example of the most earnest and devout of evangelical, fundamentalist believers who became non-theists."

Evangelicals have a really hard time explaining why one would depart the faith. Most that I have encountered since my apostasy seem to opt for either reason #4 or #5. They say either I wasn't "really saved" to begin with or that a desire to commit certain sins drove me away from a belief in God. They just don't seem to be able to admit that someone who has studied the Bible carefully, and understood its teachings as they do, could possibly leave the faith for intellectual reasons.

Tucker went on to list some of the real reasons people give for leaving their faith.


1) The study of science & philosophy

2) The sense of absence of any caring God

3) The critical examination of the scriptures.

4) Disappointment in God

5) The hypocrisy of Christians

6) The perception of a dogmatic anti-feminist and anti-homosexual stance of fundamentalist Christianity.

In my case, I would say that it was primarily #3 and to a lesser degree #5 that led to my de-conversion. I would be very interested to hear from other apostates as to why they abandoned their faith.

Another Former Evangelical Tells His Story

From time to time, I will post on my blog the stories (testimonies) of former evangelicals. Today, I present the story of Howard Pepper. I have known Howard for several years and highly respect him. Here is his story:


I'm new to this website and was fascinated by your story, Former Fundy, largely because it has so many similarities to mine. I can appreciate virtually everything you related. In the extent of our formal education and involvement in ministry/teaching, most of the other participants might not be able to grasp our experience, but I know many have come a similar path, and experienced the same basic things.

From that talk of "experience" I'll shift to the rational/analytical side of issues of faith. I was always fairly intellectual and very curious. Raised in a conservative Christian family and church, I was "saved" around six, and became a serious Bible student by 15 or so, began witnessing, etc. I went to Biola University here on the "left coast." Then on to Talbot School of Theology for an M.Div., and back to Biola for a MA in Marriage, Family, and Child Counseling, which I practiced for 10 years. I was also heavily involved with apologetics, especially under Dr. Walter Martin for 4 years, leading his research and writing department for a year, after seminary. During that period, and after, I encountered nearly every kind of major challenge to Christianity. I thought they all had good answers at the time, and I doled them out.

We (Martin's Christian Research Inst.) were right down the street from Dr. John W. Montgomery, and Josh McDowell, a Talbot grad, came around on occasion. I conversed with Norm Geisler and a few other such notables during those years or prior, and so on. I say this to give you a flavor of my immersion and affiliations--my exposure to top level apologetics.

In retrospect, it's fair to say I became smug. And it would be many more years before I questioned anything at the core of Evangelical theology. You put your finger on what I consider the main reason very few with extensive education and involvement in the Evangelical/Fundamentalist world leave, despite doubts that often crop up--it's too hard to even let oneself question deeply, and too threatening to important relationships, one's own ego, etc., let alone having to deal with possible spiritual fears, which you mentioned--Satan's deception, being damned, etc.

Well, during years of practicing Christian-based counseling, I also went further into apologetics, teaching Francis Schaeffer and the Christian worldview as well as psychology from a Christian perspective. I was also still into biblical and theological studies, and decided I wanted to get a Ph.D., but from a school with a broader perspective. I got into Claremont School of Theology (progressive/Process Theology bastion of Methodism and liberal Protestantism). The program was "Theology and Personality [psychology] with Emphasis in Religious Education." It actually had a good number of conservative students in the Ph.D., as well as other programs, some even more conservative than I. I was there part-time for 4 years, finishing the coursework, but I got derailed and never finished the dissertation and exams.

It wasn't primarily the liberal exposure at Claremont that convinced me Evangelicalism had gotten critical things seriously wrong, but I know the experience helped open me. (It wan't till about a year after leaving that I became convinced, on rational, theological bases, that I needed a new brand of faith. For one, I realized that I had created caricatures (with a lot of help from things Evangelicals wrote and my profs and friends said) of liberals and "liberalism." They hardly resembled, at least at Claremont, what I'd come to expect. Rather, they tended to be consistent in applying "tolerance" (better put as inclusiveness, though with limits), being respectful of me and my views, as well as other conservatives. They were seemingly as devout and spiritually minded as Evangelicals. They liked to pray, worship, etc.

But their theology was clearly very different and they were comfortable in it, and excited. (None of which makes it right, of course--for the still-Evangelicals looking in.)


I'll cut the story short, but share a couple of the key points that finally convinced me I'd been perceiving and interpreting things poorly all those years.

First, it was largely theological. With enough exposure and reading, one does tend to realize the "differing interpretations" point you made is a critical tip-off. It indicates just what you emphasized, that there is little true clarity or "simplicity" in "The Gospel." The "faith once for all delivered..." is wishful thinking--a backwards extrapolation, and not identifiable in the NT. Objectively read, the NT authors are seen to differ significantly, many of them particularly out to defend their brand of orthodoxy, which is actually impossible to fully ascertain without creating a patchwork theology of many authors by "cutting and pasting" (and Jefferson is often ridiculed for an only slightly crasser form of the same).

As you imply, the only viable conclusion is Scripture (the OT as well) is a fascinating, profound, often inspirational human creation, but only that. I also systematically re-examined the supposed evidences for inspiration, Messianic prophecy (and others) being fulfilled, an historical basis for the resurrection, etc., etc., and realized how there was no real substance there, but rather, a strong base of tradition that is tough to see around, partly because it started being built up during and right after the writing of the NT. I came to see that "apostolic authority" in relation to NT books was merely an invention of the proto-orthodox not long after the completion of works that would be eventually canonized.

So a realization of there being no evidence for a Holy Spirit-guided process of recognition of authoritative books--NT or OT--was another key point. There was no reason to take a given book or set of books (e.g., the four Gospels), as uniquely revealed or inspired above other writings of the same periods. There were plenty of other writings, as well, though we have few early-enough copies to clearly establish
dating, just as for most of the NT books. I can't go into specifics here, but I continue to study Christian origins and NT scholarship, and the more I do, the stronger and stronger is the confirmation of the clear insights I began to get about the nature of scripture and the earliest Church, around 11 years ago. (Like you, I have more detail written up, & more yet to come, at www.naturalspirituality.wordpress.com.)

There are a lot more aspects of insights, historical and literary data (e.g., literary analysis and comparison of the NT w/ intertestamental Jewish works, Greek hero stories, Cynic philosophy, Philo, etc.), scientific and archeological data, etc. that went into my changing conclusions. It surely helped that knowledge of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, and even some theoretical physics and astronomy, made it easier for me than the typical Bible student to see that there were very good (not just get-by type) alternate explanations for all key elements of Christian dogma and related experience. That includes conversion experiences, Christian growth dynamics (not taking out, in my view, all spirit/Spirit elements), Christian origins, etc. I think I made sure every important category was covered before I was willing to conclude there was neither good evidence for nor any real need to hold to an Evangelical or "historic Christian faith" kind of theology.

Anyway, thanks, Former Fundy, for your courage and intellectual honesty in what you did years ago, and in sharing it with us. I know there are more like you "out there," but I encounter very few who share the kind of background with me that you do, and I hope we can collaborate more in the future.