America's Four Gods

A fascinating new book by two Baylor University professors discusses American's conceptions of God. It is entitled, America's Four Gods: What We Say About God--and What That Says About Us, by Paul Froese and Christopher Bader. Based on their research, the four conceptions of God are:

1. The Benevolent God
2. The Critical God
3. The Distant God
4. The Authoritative God

Here is a story about the book from ABC News:




I intend to read the book and perhaps have some additonal posts on the subject.

P.S. I just discovered that USA Today has an interesting article with some charts illustrating the relation between one's conception of God and other issues such as homosexuality, poverty, disasters, and the USA.

Also here is a link to the book's website. There you will find a test to determine your conception of God (that is, if you believe in one).

"Parsonage Allowance" and other Tax Advantages Available to Clergy




Creflo Dollar's "Parsonage"

 


The "Parsonage" on the Inside

 

The IRS allows "ordained ministers" who are employed by a religious institution to exempt the money they pay to maintain a residence from taxation ("Parsonage Allowance"). This is not a deduction but an exemption (full amount is substracted from income).  The only limit on the amount is the "fair market rental value" of the house. So, a Mega Church Pastor, such as Creflo Dollar (or Eddie Long, or T.D. Jakes, or Rick Warren, or Joel Osteen or whoever), can exempt the fair market rental value on his home from his income. Fortunately he can only do this for his primary residence (as they usually own several homes). 

Let's say that the Pastor's primary residence is valued at $5 million. A general rule of thumb for fair market rental value is 1% of the value of the home. In this case, it would $50,000 a month or $600,000 a year. That money is exempted from his income. He doesn't have to pay federal, state, or Social Security taxes on it. In addition, if he has a mortgage, he can also deduct the interest paid on it. This amounts to a double deduction but it is legal under IRS rules. Assuming his interest rate was 5%, that would be another $240,000 a year that could be deducted from his income. At this point, he could make well over $850,000 a year without owing any taxes.

If that is not bad enough, as an ordained minister, the Pastor is also allowed to opt out of Social Security. That means a savings of at least another 15% of his income. This is a special privilege available to ministers.

Granted, most Pastor's do not have the income of a Creflo Dollar or a Bishop Eddie Long but they are entitled to the same perks from the Government. This is, in my opinion,  a clear violation of church and state. Why is the IRS giving special tax breaks to religious leaders? It forces every other taxpayer to subsidize religions that they may not believe in.

With the deep debt that the USA is in, we need to look for more revenue sources. One way to get some immediate relief is to quit subsidizing pastors and churches.  Why won't politicians call for eliminating these tax breaks? Because it would be political suicide and most only care about getting re-elected.

We need statesmen today not politicians. Thomas Jefferson, in The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, written three years after he penned the Declaration of Independence, said: "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."

Is the Bible Clear on How Someone can be "Saved"?

This post appeared on Luke's CommonSenseAtheism blog on Monday of last week. I am re-posting it here for any that may not have seen it.

One of the factors in my de-conversion from Evangelical Christianity was my realization that the Bible does not read as one would expect a divine revelation to read. First, it simply reflects the ideas and beliefs of the time and culture in which it was written. It would seem that if it were a divine revelation, it would present ideas that would transcend those of its times. For example, why doesn't it condemn slavery? Why does it attribute mental illness or epilepsy as demon possession? Second, it contains much information and detail that seems to be unimportant and unworthy of a divine being. For example, the detailed genealogies in 1 Chronicles (9 chapters) and the gathering of 100 Philistine foreskins by David (1 Sam. 18:25-27). Third, it is ambiguous on important matters such as how one is to be "saved" or redeemed to God. In an interview that I did with Luke on his Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot, I said:

If the Bible is really a revelation from God and if God really loves man and really wants to reconcile man to himself, would he not have made it much clearer how someone is to be saved? I know that if my children were separated from me and I had the opportunity to write them a letter to tell them how to get back to me, I certainly wouldn't do it in parables and language that's ambiguous enough that it can be interpreted a thousand different ways. I would do my best to make it crystal clear how they could find me .. and if I would do that as a finite human being, certainly God being infinite and being omniscient could find a way to do that. So as I looked at the Bible, as I read it, as I studied it I just came to the conclusion that it cannot be from a divine being.

Most Evangelical Christians will maintain that the Bible is clear on how to be saved. For example, Kevin Bauder, the President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, writes:

In other words, the aspect of Scripture that can be understood by anyone is its saving message. Any truth that is essential to salvation is clearly and comprehensibly revealed "in some place of Scripture or other." Anyone can learn the way of Salvation by reading the Bible. It is no small matter that the way of salvation has been revealed in language that any person can understand. We do not have to rely upon sophisticated intellectual tools. We do not have to rely upon specially-endued ecclesiastical spokesmen. If we can read the Bible in our hands, then we can know how to be saved ("Fundamentalism: Whence? Where? Whither? Part 8").

Bauder is espousing one of the main tenets of the Reformation--the perspicuity of Scripture. The Reformers argued that one could understand the major teachings of the Bible without any help from the Roman Church. The RCC, on the other hand, maintained, that they, and only they, could properly interpret the Scriptures. One Roman leader is reported to have said that if we allow each person to interpret the Bible for himself there will be total confusion and an unlimited number of sects. That is precisely what has happened.

The fact is that Evangelicals cannot even agree among themselves as to what the Bible requires for salvation. They unanimously maintain that faith is required but they disagree on the meaning of faith, the exclusivity of faith, the origin of faith, and the object of faith.

The Meaning of Faith: What Exactly is Involved in Saving Faith?

Those who believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God cannot agree among themselves as to what exactly is involved in having saving faith. For some, faith is simply intellectual assent. For example, on the website of the Grace Evangelical Society, one reads:

Faith is the conviction that something is true. To believe in Jesus (“he who believes in Me has everlasting life”) is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 4:14; 5:24; 6:47; 11:26; 1 Tim 1:16).

No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one’s sin, baptism or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered part of, faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life (Rom 4:5; Gal 2:16; Titus 3:5). This saving transaction between God and the sinner is simply the giving and receiving of a free gift (Eph 2:8-9; John 4:10 ; Rev 22:17).

For others, such as John MacArthur, John Piper, and J. I. Packer, saving faith is much more than simply intellectual assent. It is that plus submission to the Lordship of Christ? In his very popular book, The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith? , MacArthur argues that obedience

• is included in the "definition of faith, being a constitutive element in what it means to believe" (p. 171).
• is "an integral part of saving faith" (p. 174).
• is "synonymous with faith" (p. 174)
• is "indivisibly wrapped up in the idea of believing" (p. 176).

This is no minor controversy as it involves precisely what is required in order to be saved. It has evoked a number of books in which evangelicals debate one another on the nature of saving faith (1). The various positions are diametrically opposed to one another and cannot be harmonized.

The Exclusivity of Faith: Is Faith Alone Sufficient for Salvation?

While evangelicals such as John MacArthur and the Grace Evangelical Society disagree on what constitutes saving faith, they do agree that faith alone is the single requirement for salvation. Others who also believe the Bible to be inspired and inerrant, though, disagree. They would insist that water baptism is also required. Those evangelicals who trace their lineage to Alexander Campbell (including the churches of Christ, the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Evangelical Christian Church in Canada, and the Christian Church [Disciples of Christ]) believe that faith plus baptism is necessary for salvation. Campbell, a former Baptist, became convinced that the Bible demanded baptism in order to receive forgiveness of sins. He maintained that he was following the clear teaching of Scripture. Campbell’s maxim was: "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent."

On the churches of Christ website, one reads that through baptism:

•You are saved from sins (Mark 16:16 1 Peter 3:21)
•You have remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
•Sins are washed away by the blood of Christ (Acts 22:16; Hebrews 9:22; Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 3:21)
•You enter into the church (1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 2:41,47)
•You enter into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:3-4)
•You put on Christ and become a child of God (Galatians 3:26-27)
•You are born again, a new creature (Romans 6:3-4; 2 Corinthians 5:17)
•You walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-6)
•You obey Christ (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 10:48; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).

Other evangelical groups also insist that baptism is an important element for salvation, although they would disagree with Campbell that it follows faith (and must be by immersion). For example, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, holds that baptism precedes faith and somehow produces faith. On their website, they state:

Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person's heart (see Matt. 28:18-20; Act. 2:38; John 3:5-7; Act. 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., 1 Peter 2:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13). This faith needs to be fed and nurtured by God's Word (Matt. 28:18-20), or it will die.

Evangelical Anglicans also hold that baptism regenerates. (2) The vast majority of evangelicals, however, disagree; but, yet all claim to be following the "clear" teaching of the Bible.

The Origin of Faith: How is Faith Generated?

Bible-believing evangelicals also cannot agree on how man acquires faith. Calvinists say that faith is a gift from God. According to them, Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God (see here). While Arminians say that faith originates in man. According to them, The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. (see here).

So, some Christians read the Bible and conclude that God determines who is saved and implants faith in those people and other Christians read it and conclude that any man can choose to have faith. This is a crucial matter but yet Christians reading the same Bible come to different conclusions.

The Object of Faith: In Whom Must One Have Faith?

Most evangelicals would hold that one must have faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. However, there is a growing movement among evangelicals who maintain that one can be saved without ever having heard of Jesus. For example, the evangelical John Sanders writes:

Saving faith … does not necessitate knowledge of Christ in this life. God’s gracious activity is wider that the arena of special revelation. God will accept into his kingdom those who repent and trust him even if they know nothing of Jesus ("Is Belief in Christ Necessary for Salvation?" The Evangelical Quarterly 60.3 (July-Sept. 1988): 252-53).

Similarly evangelical theologian Clark Pinnock states:

Faith in God is what saves, not possessing certain minimum information… A person is saved by faith, even if the content of faith is deficient (and whose is not?). The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved ... The issue that God cares about is the direction of the heart, not the content of theology (A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions [1992], p. 158).

In other words, these evangelicals hold that as long as one has faith in accordance with how much revelation one has of God, that is sufficient for salvation. Other evangelicals violently disagree. They insist that one must have faith specifically in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. (3) But then this group of evangelicals disagree among themselves on precisely what one must believe about Jesus in order to be saved. Must one believe that Jesus is a member of the Trinity, co-equal with the Father and the Spirit or is it adequate to believe that Jesus is the Son of God without being more specific? The debate goes on.

So, what must one do to be saved? It depends on which bible-believing evangelical you ask. Even though they all agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, they cannot agree on what it says. As I stated at the beginning, it seems to me that if the Bible were really a divine revelation, it would be clear and unambiguous throughout but at the very least it would be plain on how one is to be saved.

ENDNOTES

(1) After MacArthur published his Gospel According to Jesus in 1988, Zane Hodges, a longtime professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote a book opposing his position: Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (1989). Charles Ryrie, another professor at Dallas Seminary, tried to take a middle of the road position in his book, So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ (1989) disagreeing with both Hodges and MacArthur.

(2) See Article XXVII in the Thirty Nine Articles (1563) and "The Public Baptism of Infants," in the Book of Common Prayer (1662).

(3) See D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (1996) and John Piper, Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to be Saved? (2010). For a debate among evangelicals on this subject, see John Sanders, Ronald Nash, and Gabriel Fackre, What About Those Who Have Never Heard?: Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized (1995).

"If you want to know about God, you might want to talk to an atheist"

"If you want to know about God, you might want to talk to an atheist," so says an article in the LA Times by Mitchell Landsberg. It is based on a recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Landsberg asks the question:

So why would an atheist know more about religion than a Christian?

American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.

"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."

Atheists and agnostics also tend to be relatively well educated, and the survey found, not surprisingly, that the most knowledgeable people were also the best educated. However, it said that atheists and agnostics also outperformed believers who had a similar level of education.

This fits my experience as well. When I was a believer, I was aghast at the general ignorance among my fellow Christians on the Bible and Theology. Even in a fundamentalist Evangelical church, most Christians have never read the entire Bible, most could not give reasons for their faith (apart from perhaps some religious experience), and most did not know exactly what they were supposed to believe doctrinally.

If you want to take the quiz, it can be found here.

Evangelical Pastors and the Desire for Academic Respectability

Glen Scorgie is a Professor of Theology at Bethel Seminary in San Diego. He has lectured extensively in Asia including China. He has an interesting post entitled, "As Theology Totters in the West." He begins:

The People’s Republic of China has enthusiastically embraced Western science and technology, and modernity’s materialistic worldview. Pictured above is the imposing business faculty of China’s Renmin (the People’s) University. Here this leading Communist university trains a new generation of Chinese business leaders, offering MBA degrees in global economics along capitalist lines. What you won’t find at the university, however, is a faculty of Christian theology. China is still disdainful of religion, and a robust program in theology would only encourage it. But how different it is in the West, right? Well actually, not so much. Christian theology is in serious decline in the West, even in evangelical seminaries and other institutions of higher learning. Pretty soon it may be on life support here as well.

He says that Western schools have been heavily impacted by pragmatism. As in China now, people in the West are interested in education that will produce an income. He says:

at one time the term “divinity school” conveyed in an intentional way an institution’s commitment to specializing in the study and transmission of the legacy of special revelation. The closely cognate term “seminary” has a more professional and vocational focus—an institution for the training and formation of clergy. St. Mary’s College, where I studied at St. Andrews, has been known since 1411 as the divinity school within the larger university, and I am pretty sure it would be loathe to change its name to seminary, for the reason mentioned above. I suspect that at the seminary where I teach (and where we dropped the adjective “theological” a while ago) we now have a predominantly professional vision of our institutional mission, and in light of that it is debatable whether divinity is still as strong a collective focus. The name we have adopted and the way we operate would suggest that we really are what we call ourselves, a seminary—a professional school in which it is no longer justifiable to regard the study of divinity (the specially revealed things of God) as our primary focus.

He says that North American administrators are driven by the market and they have to provide what their constitutency want. He writes:

With new, ever shorter and more pragmatic curricula being considered, for marketing and recruitment reasons, by accredited seminaries throughout North America, it remains to be seen what the future of theology or divinity will be. The growing consensus among number-crunching administrators is that an introductory (and quasi-catechetical) survey of doctrine will remain important to the preparation of ministers, but beyond such a minimalist baseline anything deeper is strictly optional. Already theological libraries lie largely idle as seminary students are rarely expected to probe deeper than the contents of their survey course textbooks.

I find his analysis interesting. One phenomena that I watched develop in the 80's was the introduction of a new professional degree called a "Doctor of Ministry." The D.Min. degree could usually be completed in summer modules and the classes were mainly related to church management and administration. Little or no theology required. When I was teaching at International Baptist College in the 1980's, we began a D.Min. program. I was somewhat leery of the degree mainly because I perceived it as a "watering down" of what historically has been required for doctoral degrees. However, there was a big demand for the new degree and there were a number of potential students desiring to get a Dr. in front of their name and administrators willing to do what it takes to get more revenue. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with additional professional education for a minister, certainly education is always good. But it seems to me that ministers and especially fundamentalist evangelical ministers are very eager to call themselves "Dr." Many of them have honorary degrees; many of them have degrees from diploma mills; and the D.Min. would become a means to get a "real" doctorate without the academic rigor historically required for such a degree. I have often thought that this desire to be called "Dr." was due to an inferiority complex (i.e., intellectual inferiority).

Are Evangelical Christians Guilty of Child Abuse?

On ExChristian.net, I found an excellent letter to the editor written by Galen Rose. She says that teaching children superstitious beliefs and especially fear-based superstitious beliefs is harmful. I agree with her. She writes:

Some recent letters on these pages and elsewhere have brought my attention to an important issue which is too often ignored or swept under a rug. It needs to be recognized that in some religious sects, the emphasis is clearly on fear. One is preached at to do whatever he’s told by the “sacred” texts or he will be very, very sorry. Imagine how frightening this world must be to those who believe that every word in those texts is the literal truth, who believe there are witches, demons and devils lurking in every dark corner, with the sole purpose of leading them astray and/or making their lives miserable. (I mean the kind of witches who allegedly suspend the laws of nature with incantations, potions, etc.) Clearly, for these people, life is a frightening passage over the knife edge of obedience to supernatural powers. One misstep can bring on the punishment of everlasting pain. This is indeed a very scary way to live.

This is the world that some churches and Sunday schools are teaching the children. Now, if the world really is like this, full of witches, demons and devils, then it would certainly be helpful to know this. But, if we are not certain this is true, does it make sense to send the kids down this fearful path? Life can be difficult enough for children, with all the insecurities they must deal with concerning fitting in with others, dealing with the opposite sex, deciding on a career path, and all the rest. Does it make sense to add the fear of an assortment of malevolent, supernatural creatures to their lives?

In the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions. I suggest that it makes sense for parents to do some research on this issue. Many people think the Bible has all the answers to how the world really works even though nothing in that book has changed for nearly 2,000 years. Would you consult a 2,000 year-old medical book on how to treat a cancer? The past few hundred years have seen an explosion of scientific knowledge and we are surrounded by the fruits of the scientific method. Science works. There’s really no reasonable argument on this issue. Consider the printing press this newspaper was printed on, and the automobile, airplane, computers, TV, vaccines, surgical procedures, Velcro, and the zipper in your pants. The fruits of successful science surround us.

Now, consider that supernatural causes were once attributed to thousands of things which we now can explain using only the laws of nature. These things include everything from thunder and lightning to volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, childbirth and disease. Science works. Now, can you name just one thing that used to be explained by the laws of nature but has since been discovered to be supernaturally caused? Anything at all? No? Neither can anyone else. Do you see a pattern here?

In the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions.

Science doesn’t have all the answers and it never will, but it works; it continually expands and refines our knowledge of how the world actually works. Now, consider if you will that mainstream science has never uncovered any evidence whatsoever of witches, demons, or devils. If these things existed and had effects on our world, those interactions would be there for us to detect and measure.

Think about this: electrons are so tiny they are invisible to even the strongest microscopes and have never been seen. Yet, we have detected and measured their interactions with other objects and fields, written equations describing them, and can predict with great accuracy how they will act in various experiments. We know enough about them that we can design electronic circuits which give us the HDTV, the microwave oven, the computer and hundreds of other gadgets, plus those same electrons power our homes, giving us heat and light and the means to power dozens of other devices. Science works. Science is dependable.

Should you or your church and Sunday school be teaching your children about witches, demons, and devils when the only “evidence” for them consists of anecdotal claims and ancient texts written by people who thought the earth was flat (Matthew 4:8)? As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This is why mainstream science has rejected these creatures.

Do you know what your kids are “learning” in Sunday school? Have you asked? Could it be that putting the fear of such creatures into children without very good cause is as immoral as threatening them with the boogeyman? Is there anything more important than the mental health of your children? Please think about it. Maybe your children will thank you some day, as mine have thanked me.

I think many people who went to evangelical Christian churches or Sunday Schools as children can relate to the fear of hell. Many churches capitalize on the fears of children in order to "get them saved." And then child evangelists and even adult evangelists come through and make it their goal to instill fear in the hearts of the children. How many children have gotten "saved" over and over again as another preacher came through with a terrifying story of hell or the devil. Does all of this constitute a form of child abuse? I think it does in some cases.

The Bible Keeps Women Down

Al Mohler, the President of the flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the world, has an interesting article on his website entitled: "Hard to Believe? Biblical Authority and Evangelical Feminism." Mohler makes reference to an article in the 2010 edition of Sojourner's magazine by Anne Eggebroten entitled: "The Persistence of Patriarchy." It seems that Eggebroten, who teaches Religion at California State University (Northridge) paid a visit recently to Mohler's good buddy's church, John MacArthur's Grace Community Church in Southern California. MacArthur, of course, is one of the best known leaders of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity. His church is a "mega-church;" he has authored numerous books, and has his own school (The Master's College and Seminary). Molher calls MacArthur "one of the most respected and influential preachers of our times, with perhaps the most widely-disseminated ministry of exposition in the history of the Christian church."

So, what did Eggebroten find in her visit to MacArthur's little empire? “God is male, all the pastors, deacons, and elders are male, and women are taught to live in submission to men.” She should have expected as much because she had already visited the church's website. There, I had listened to Anna Sanders lecture women on how to live in submission to their husbands. “We need to beat down our desire to be right and have our own way,” she had said, citing John Piper, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, and Martha Peace—all authors published in the last decade. “It’s his way, his rights, his expectations, and his plans. … Be a helper.” Eggebroten ran into a woman with a degree from the school where she teaches. She asked the lady: “Is women’s submission to their husbands stressed in this church?” The answer, of course, was yes.

Molher calls Eggebroten on the carpet for being surprised at what she found. He says:

Anne Eggebroten’s article represents what I call a “National Geographic moment” — an example of someone discovering the obvious and thinking it exotic and strange. It is like a reporter returning from travel to far country to explain the strange tribe of people she found there — evangelical Christians believing what the Christian church has for 2,000 years believed the Bible to teach and require. So . . . what is so exotic?

I actually agree with Mohler. Why should anyone be surprised that a church that takes the Bible as literally the Word of God would put women down? The Bible clearly does that and so anyone who wishes to follow the Bible will also do that. Eggebroten says:

Here’s the question: Is God permanently committed to the kinds of social hierarchy that existed in the first and second millennium B.C.E. and continued until recently, when education and voting were opened to women? Or does the vision of Paul in Galatians 3:28—“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus”—take precedence?

Mohler rightly calls her on "sloppy exegesis" here. He says:

In Galatians 3:28 Paul is clearly speaking of salvation — not of service in the church. Paul is declaring to believers the great good news that “in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” [verse 26]. He concludes by affirming, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” [verse 29]. To read Galatians 3:28 the way Eggebroten reads the verse, you would have to believe that the Apostle Paul was in direct contradiction with himself, when he restricts the teaching office to men in letters such as 1 Timothy and Titus.

The reality is, as Mohler says, Paul is not contradicting the overall teaching of the Bible on women. It does actually reflect the "the kinds of social hierarchy that existed in the first and second millennium B.C.E. and continued until recently." Eggebroten would like to find a change in perspective on this subject from Paul but she is misguided. In addition to the passages that Mohler cites, Paul also told women to be silent in the church and learn from their husbands (I Cor. 14:34-35) as well as implying that women are more easily deceived than men and need to allow their husbands to make important decisions while they concentrate on motherhood (I Tim. 2:12-15). This was the role of women in ancient cultures (and today in fundamentalist churches) and so, one should not be surprised to find the Bible supporting it.

Mohler is correct when he says: Paul is not liberating the Church from the Bible. In the end, that is the real issue. There are Christians who would demand to be liberated from the Bible? Now that is what really should be shocking. That is why I think liberal Christianity also fails. It wants to try to reinterpret the Bible to agree with modern culture and it is simply not possible without tearing out huge sections of the Scripture. The Bible, reflecting the culture in which it was written, reduces women to an inferior position to men. If one believes the Bible is the Word of God, then one must follow this teaching.

An Anthropologist Describes Fundamentalism

Recently I have had some posts on Fundamentalism. I used to consider myself a fundamentalist Christian. In the circle in which I lived, it was considered a "badge of honor." It was equivalent to being a biblical Christian, one who remained true to the Bible in spite of the opposition from the world.

Today for most people the term "fundamentalist" is a pejorative term. It refers to anyone who is too extreme in their religion. Many times it carries the connotation of someone who will resort to violence in support of their religious beliefs, such as Islamic fundamentalists or even Christian fundamentalists who kill abortion doctors.

So, the term "fundamentalism" means different things to different people.

In his book Introducing Anthropology of Religion,  David Eller describes fundamentalism from an anthropological point of view:

Religious fundamentalism derives its name from the notion of "fundamentals," those things--beliefs, behaviors, organizational structures, and/or moral injunctions--that are felt by members to be most essential or central, the oldest, deepest, and truest aspects of it. (p. 276).

He sees three common elements in religious fundamentalism:

First, religious fundamentalism is for something, namely what it perceives to be the fundamental and crucial elements of its faith, which constitutes the worldview and "the truth" for practitioners. In the case of Christianity, these fundamentals typically focus on the Bible even as a literal and inerrant document and source of knowledge; a certainty that their path is the true path and therefore, the exclusion and sometimes condemnation of others (even other Christians) as corrupt and lost; a sharp distinction between religion and "the secular," the latter of which is inferior or actually evil; an eschatology in which the end-time is near and only they will survive into the new kingdom, that is, an apocalyptic view and a sense of being "chosen"; an uncompromising moral standard; and increasingly, a willingness to participate in politics to institutionalize all of the above, including a more or less conscious desire to dismantle the separation of church and state. . . .

Second, religious fundamentalist is against something. . . As Marsden proceeds to argue, fundamentalists "must not only believe their evangelical teachings, but they must be willing to fight for them against modernist theologies, secular humanism, and the like" (George Marsden, "Defining American Fundamentalism, p. 23). . . Fundamentalists see themselves as militants. . . They are, in their words and often enough in their works, at war with the world (pp. 277-78).

For some this means total separation from the world, such as the Amish, or other communal groups. For others it means separation from what they perceive to the be the evil pleasures of the world, such as gambling, dancing, drinking alcohol, certain types of music, certain types of apparel, and so on. For still others it takes on an activist form whereby the world is engaged and attempts are made to change the world. This could be through evangelism (either mass meetings or personal "soul-winning"), and/or through political means, such as attempts to "legislate morality,"  post the Ten Commandments, reinstate prayer in schools, teach "scientific" creationism, and so on. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition are examples of this type of fundamentalism. An even more extreme example is the Christian Reconstructionists, a Calvinist group (which would eschew the label Fundamentalist), whose stated goal is to enforce all of the OT laws including stoning homosexuals, adulterers, and so on.

Eller notes a third common thread of fundamentalism--it is enamored with the past. The past, when the fundamentals were formed and truly practiced, looms as a kind of golden age, an ideal and idealized way of life. Fundamentalisms thus emerge as one variation of the cultural nostalgias produced by the modern world--memories of a better, purer time (p. 279). Fundamentalism favors the past over the present. This is evidenced oftentimes in their choice of hymns over more modern worship music, in the use of the King James Bible over newer translations, and so on.

Here are some additional characteristics of a fundamentalist mentality:

• Intellectual and moral absolutism--"we alone have the truth."
• Obsession with who is and who is not a real "fundamentalist"
• The need to be "certain"--doesn't like ambiguity
• Submission to authority is a prime virtue--the written Scriptures as taught by the (male) leader
• Sense of being special--we are God's children, we have the truth and everyone else is lost
• Resistance to change--any change is seen as compromise which is almost always wrong

Probably the common thread through all of these is the suspicion of any modern ideas. Modernity, for fully understandable reasons, undermines all the old certainties; uncertainty is a condition that many people find very hard to bear; therefore, any movement (not only a religous one) that promises to provide or to renew certainty has a ready market (Peter Berger, The Desecularization of the World,  p. 7 cited by Eller,  p. 282). This is why conservative and authoritarian religions are growing. They provide a rock of certainty in a fast-changing world. They provide simple and divinely authoritative answers to the complexities of life. For certain people, this has a tremendous appeal.

As Eller concludes:

No religion is immune to fundamentalist tendencies, especially in a modern world of religous and cultural pluralism, rapid social change, and strong religious beliefs and sentiments. All fundamentalisms share a certain reactionary or defensive nature--even a certain militancy--although they also vary significantly not only between religions and between societies/states but also within religions. They are also, it is quite clear, no utterly unique to modern times but can be found in all times of change and threat--which are almost all times. They are ultimately one of the recurring forms of "revitalization movements" that arise in all societies (and not only in religious institutions) during moments of turmoil and (real or perceived) social decline. . . . The fact that these very circumstances are certain to continue and even intensify in the future suggests that fundamentalisms are likely to persist, and it also proves conclusively that "modernity" is not the death of religion but may rather give it new and energetic life" (p. 301).

So, one should not be surprised at the rise of fundamentalism in the 20th century. Since the last century brought the greatest amount of change to the world, it is only natural that there were a segment of society that resisted that change. As Eller points out, fundamentalism is a mentality and it is not unique to religions (although that is the most visible and potentially dangerous kind). As we move into the 21st century, one can only expect more rapid changes in society and therefore stronger resistance from fundamentalists.

John Loftus Nails 30 Theses to the Door of Evangelical Christianity

My friend and follow apostate, John Loftus (author of Why I Became An Atheist and editor of The Christian Delusion), has put together 30 Theses that evangelical Christians must believe if their religion is true. While he has some way to go to get to Luther's 95 Theses, I think these are sufficient to show any reasonable person that it just doesn't make sense to believe the Bible and be an evangelical Christian. If one wants to believe, fine, but please acknowledge that it takes a surrender of the intellect to do so.

1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.

2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.

3) There must exist a perfectly good, omnipotent God, who created a perfectly good universe out of a desire/need to glorify himself by rewarding in heaven the few human beings who just got lucky to believe by being born at the right time and place, and who will condemn to hell those who do not believe.

4) That the highest created being, known as Satan or the Devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent God, and expected to win--which makes Satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.

5) That there was a first human pair (Adam & Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it's argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.

6) That although there are many other similar mythological stories told in Ancient Near Eastern Literature that pre-date what we read in the Bible, the stories in the Bible are about real events and real people.

7) That although we see completely different perspectives and evolving theologies in the Bible, including many things that are barbaric and superstitious to the core, it was authored by one divine mind.

8) That when it comes to verifiable matters of historical fact (like the Exodus, the extent of the reign of David, Luke's reported world-wide census, etc) the Biblical stories are disconfirmed by evidence to the contrary as fairy tales, but when it comes to supernatural claims of miracles that cannot be verified like a virgin birth and resurrection from the grave, the Bible reports true historical facts.

9) That although a great number of miracles were claimed to have happened in the different superstitious cultures of the ancient world, only the ones in the Bible actually happened as claimed.

10) That an omniscient God could not foresee that his revealed will in the Bible would lead believers to commit such atrocities against others that reasonable people would conclude there is no divine mind behind the Bible. I call this The Problem of Miscommunication.

11) That God created human beings with rational minds that require evidence before they accept something, and yet this same God does not provide enough evidence but asks them to have faith instead.

12) That although people around the world are raised in different cultures to believe in their particular god(s) there is only one God and he will judge all people based upon whether or not they believe Jesus is Lord.

13) That Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy even though there is not one passage in the Old Testament that is specifically fulfilled in his life, death, and resurrection that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today's historical-grammatical hermeneutical method.

14) That although there were many false virgin birth claims about famous people (like Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato) mythical heroes (like Mithra, Hercules) and savior gods (like Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus) in the ancient world, Jesus was really born of a virgin.

15) That while there is no rational explanation for how a person can be 100% man and 100% God, and although ancient pagan superstitious people believed this can take place (Acts 14:11-12; 28:6), Jesus was incarnate God in the flesh.

16) That while the results of science are assured when it comes to chemistry, physics, meteorology, mechanics, forensic science, medical science, rocket science, computer science, and so forth, when it comes to evolutionary science that shows all present life forms have common ancestors, or when science tells us that dead bodies do not arise from the grave because total cell necrosis is irreversible, the results of science are wrong because the Bible says otherwise.

17) That although there is no rational explanation for why Jesus had to die on the cross to atone for our sins, his death atoned for our sins.

18) That although historical reconstructions of the past are are notoriously difficult because they depend on the poor evidence of history, and even though historians must assess that evidence by assuming a natural explanation for it, and even though historical evidence can never establish how to view that evidence, the Christian faith can be established historically anyway. My argument is that when it comes to miraculous claims, yesterday’s evidence no longer can hold water for me, for in order to see it as evidence, I must already believe in the framework that allows me to see it as evidence. In other words, in order to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for me, I must already believe the Christian framework that allows me to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for Christianity.

19) That although there is no cogent theodicy that can explain why there is such ubiquitous and massive human and animal suffering if a perfectly good omnipotent God exists, God is perfectly good and omnipotent anyway.

20) That while scientific tests on petitionary prayers have produced at best negligible results and at worst completely falsified them, God answers these kinds of prayers anyway.

21) That even though Christianity shows evidence that it is nothing but a cultural by-product of human invention there is a divine mind behind it anyway.

22) That Jesus is the Son of God even though the textual evidence in the New Testament conclusively shows that the founder of the Jesus cult was a failed apocalyptic prophet who prophesied that the eschaton would take place in his generation, which would involve a total cosmic catastrophe after which God inaugurates a literal kingdom on earth with the "Son of Man" reigning from Jerusalem over the nations.

23) That although there can be no moral justification for the sufferings of animals in this created world, a perfectly good God created this world anyway. We don't even see God's care for the lower animals in his supposed revealed word, which is described in Psalm 119 as his "perfect will." Think otherwise? Then read what I wrote here.

24) That although the only method we have for determining the truth in factual matters is methodological naturalism, which assumes a natural explanation for any phenomena, and although this method is the hallmark of the sciences, the phenomena of the Bible can be exempted from this method as applied through Biblical Criticism, and believed anyway.

25) That although God's supposed revelation in the canonical Bible is indistinguishable from the musings of an ancient, barbaric, superstitious people, the Bible is the word of God. As SilverBullet recently said: “...the lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence. It seems to me that there is nothing in the Christian scriptures, no sentence, paragraph, or idea, that couldn't be anything more than the product of the humans alive at the time that the apparently divinely inspired scriptures and ideas were "revealed". Sure, its possible for a god to reveal himself in an inspired book, and throughout history, in ways that are indistinguishable from the work of human minds and human minds alone. But how probable does that seem to you?”

26) That although it's claimed God got the attention of Abraham, Moses, the Pharaoh, Gideon, Mary, Joseph, and Saul (who became Paul) and that he knows how to get the attention of anyone and everyone, there is no objective evidence he's trying to get the attention of the billions of people who don't believe. In fact, Christians are much more concerned than God is that non-believers are converted. Just compare the lengths to which Christians will go in order to convert non-believers, with a God who has the means to convert everyone and yet does nothing to help them do this. If you say God is helping to convert non-believers then tell us how to objectively know God is actually doing this.

27) Christianity is a faith that must dismiss the tragedy of death. It does not matter who dies, or how many, or what the circumstances are when people die. It could be the death of a mother whose baby depends upon her for milk. It could be a pandemic like cholera that decimated parts of the world in 1918, or the more than 23,000 children who die every single day from starvation. These deaths could be by suffocation, drowning, a drive-by shooting, or being burned to death. It doesn't matter. God is good. Death doesn't matter. People die all of the time. In order to justify God's goodness Christianity minimizes the value of human life. It is a pro-death faith, plain and simple.

28) That God's punishments are good, right, and just, even though it means sinners are thrust into a surprisingly dangerous world, and in death will be blindsided by an eternal punishment in hell, which is "Christianity's most damnable doctrine." In this world how do you think human beings first learned that venomous creatures like certain kinds of spiders, snakes, ants or scorpions could kill us? People/children had to die, lots of them. How do you think human beings first learned that polluted water or lead poisoning could kill us? Again, people/children had to die, lots of them. It was inevitable since God never told us what to avoid in order to stay alive. We had to learn these kinds of things firsthand. The same thing can be said for hell. People do not know their choices will send them to an eternal punishment in hell. For if we knew this, and if it was possible not to sin at all, we wouldn't sin. Do you doubt this? Then consider that if you knew with certainty that by crossing a line drawn in the sand you would get beaten to a pulp by a biker gang, you would not do it!

29) When believers like Christians or Muslims contend their faiths are based on reason, one may simply object that this can’t be so because their god in fact doesn’t allow it. Using reason to arrive at any other belief than the correct one will earn you an eternity in hell. Thus, reason is an evil to be avoided....Blind, unquestioning, and unexamined belief is what the theist’s retributive god truly desires, not a belief grounded in reason. And yet they maintain Christianity is reasonable.

30) The Christian thinks there is an objective absolute morality that stems from their perfectly good God, which is both eternal and unchangeable. But the morality we find in the Bible is something quite different than what they claim. Morality has evolved. What we find in the Bible is not something we would expect from a perfectly good God, but Christians believe there is a perfectly good God anyway. So Christians must choose, either 1) hold to a philosopher's god divorced from the historical realities of the Bible, or 2) continue to worship a moral monster.

Characteristics of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity

Jeri Massi, whom I consider to be a friend and who has an excellent blog, has an interesting post on her site called: "A Sociologist Lives Among Christian Fundamentalists: His Conclusions." Jeri is a former fundamentalist Christian who has left that realm but is still a believer (I will allow her to define exactly what label best describes her current beliefs). The post is about a book by James Ault entitled: Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church . Ault is a sociologist who spent two years as part of a Fundamentalist Baptist Church in Massachusetts. His book is quite interesting. Jeri summarized some of Ault's findings in her post. She writes:

The Oral Tradition of Fundamentalism created a ready-made culture where one had not existed before, complete with its own history and its outlook of being at the center of a cosmic struggle. This cosmic struggle, by the way, is not the victorious struggle of Christ to overcome Satan and sin, but rather the struggle of Fundamentalism to restore the present culture to godliness.

The “wall of virtue” – a dress code and code of behavior that makes the Fundamentalist distinct from the rest of society. This springs up far more as a reaction against modern secularism than from any details in the sacred text, even if the sacred text is made to support the details of the wall of virtue.

Outrage – The perception that Fundamentalism is part of a cosmic struggle (the most important part) to return secular society and liberal religion back to God creates a sense of rightness in harangue, protest, confrontational behavior against those perceived to be “on the other side,” and in some instances of illegal and even violent behavior. The Fundamentalist mindset is that people who do not share the views of Fundamentalism are actually, knowingly rebelling against God fuels the fires of outrage. Several writers have noted that the culture of outrage against society, even though the outrage is usually law-abiding, nonetheless reflects the selective nature of the way Fundamentalists approach the Bible. . . .

Charismatic male leadership (the shaman) – . . . their culture is dominated by a few men who pass down the decrees that set the tone for the movement. This shaman approach does stratify Fundamentalism. A Bob Jones Fundamentalist is not identical to a Jerry Falwell Fundamentalist or a Jack Hyles Fundamentalist [or a John MacArthur Fundamentalist]. Baptist Fundamentalism, in fact, can be seen as many small empires, loosely confederated together by the sense of being the last (or most important) fighters in the cosmic struggle to set religion right again.

The different strata of Fundamentalists may not like each other, but they sense a certain strained unity as they confront far worse issues around them. But the shaman is the centerpiece of much of the identity, belief, and behaviors of Fundamentalism. Reading the Bible tends to serve what the shaman decrees rather than being a means to verify what the shaman has proclaimed. Therefore different shamans in Fundamentalism have made decrees that are entirely contrary to the Bible, but their followers refuse to believe this, or simply don’t know that their leaders are speaking in opposition to Scripture. . . .

Impending Cataclysm – The fuel that drives much of Fundamentalism is manifested in two heralded events: The Rapture/Tribulation and the Downfall of America. At different times, depending on external circumstances, the one will have supremacy over the other as the main tool for drawing large crowds, making audacious predictions of doom, and whipping up emotions. The advent of 2000 and the New Millennium brought on an incredible host of Rapture predictions in the late 1990’s, but as the day drew closer, many Fundamentalists fell back on the safer theory of the downfall of America. I mean, there’s nothing worse than waking up on January 2, 2000 with egg on your face and your foot in your mouth.

The tragedy of 9/11 bolstered Fundamentalism’s sagging credibility. Then again, if you predict cataclysm for 90 years straight, sooner or later you will be proved correct. But cataclysm in the Fundamentalist Oral Tradition represents divine judgment that sets earthly conditions right and returns people to a previous ideal state. This ideal state is entirely mythical: Religion will return to doctrinal purity where Christianity (the Fundamentalist version) is openly acknowledged by everybody to be the superior religion, and brown-skinned natives will be ready to receive it; America will return to a pre-modern culture that is drug-free, harmonious, and economically productive. Even Israel will re-form, become a religious nation again, and this time it will accept the Messiah, Jesus Christ, like it should have done the first time, and all will be set right. . . .

Outdated, isolated, and remote – Being out of date has never hindered Fundamentalism before because it could draw in people who felt alienated in modern culture. Fifty years ago, Fundamentalists were distinctively conservative but still able to participate in American society as a recognizable part of it. Fundamentalism offered a genuine remedy because it shared many assumptions and premises that many Americans recognized and even accepted. Fundamentalism, rather than forcing a lot of change onto its converts, simply persuaded them to re-prioritize their values and live in terms of things they already knew to be true. . . .

The internet has raised challenges to Fundamentalism that were not foreseen by the shamans of the Fundamentalist Oral tradition. The situation ethics, selective interpretations of the Bible, and scandals that are part of the very weave of Fundamentalism are now being challenged and debated openly, in forums where the shamans cannot exert control. But this is not one-sided. Fundamentalism relies upon hierarchy, and part of its membership just as vigorously opposes the new challenges because they threaten the fabric of Fundamentalism. The internet, rather than really reforming Fundamentalism, is polarizing it.

While Jeri would consider these characteristics to be only true of fundamentalist Christianity which she believes is a caricature of "true Christianity," I think they are basically true of historic Judaism and Christianity.

1. Oral Tradition--this of course is how religions, including Judaism and Christianity, were passed down from generation to generation until the traditions were written down. Paul himself says that the gospel was received by oral tradition (1 Cor. 15:3) and he tells Timothy to continue to pass it down (2 Tim. 2:2). Of course, Jeri would say that Paul was unique and that once the NT was completed, divine revelation ceased. I would argue that not all Christians agree that revelation has ceased. Many throughout history and today believe that God continues to speak to them.

2. Wall of Virtue--Many of the OT laws were designed to mark Israel off as separate and distinct from the world around them. Some of the practices that were forbidden them were not inherently immoral but they were prohibited because they were practiced by the Gentiles and God wanted his people to be distinct. He prefaced some commands with "Be ye holy, as I am holy" (Lev. 19:2; 1 Pet. 1:15-16). The word "holy" refers to being "set apart," or "separate" from everything that might defile. Over and over, Yahweh told the Israelites that they were to be different than the nations around them. They were a "special people," a "chosen people," and they were not bring shame upon the name of their God. The NT picks this up and transfers the notion to Christians.

3. Cosmic Struggle--I think the Bible clearly presents the notion of a "cosmic struggle" between good and evil. While Fundamentalists interpreted this primarily in terms of lifestyle issues (which the Bible does address), they are not totally off base to see the world in terms of "us" (the insiders, "God's people") vs. "them" (the outsiders, the children of the Devil) (John 3:36; 8:44).

4. Male leadership--this definitely is Bible-based. The leaders of Israel were male; priests had to be males; the disciples were male; elders or pastors have to be male. It seems that the Fundamentalists are just following the Bible here.

5. Impending Cataclysm--once again, I think this comes directly from the Bible. Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet in a long line of apocalyptic prophets (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, John the Baptist, etc.). He taught that the end of the age would happen before the first generation of his followers passed away (Matt. 24:34; see chapter 12 in The Christian Delusion). While Christians have reinterpreted Jesus' words as well as other prophecies to fit with the fact that its been 2000 years and the end has not come; the fact remains that Jesus taught he would return soon and the disciples, including Paul, believed he would in their lifetimes.

6. Outdated, isolated, and remote--I would apply this to all religions which cling to the superstitious ideas of ancient peoples. Science has shown time and time again that there are natural explanations for what people used to think required supernatural agents. There are still unexplained phenomena but I don't see any need to doubt that they too will be explained naturalistically eventually.

So, while Jeri Massi presents a stinging criticism of Fundamental Christianity, I think her criticisms apply equally to any form of Christianity that takes the Bible seriously.

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 .

Franklin Graham Earns over $1 Million a Year

A USA Today article published in October of last year reported that Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, earned over $1 millon in 2008 (Big non-profit organizations have highly paid leaders). I am not opposed to people earning large salaries, after all, it is the American way; but I do have a problem with people who claim to be Christian ministers (word means "servant") earning enormous paychecks. Graham earned $633,722 as President of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and another $483,000 from his second job as President of Samaritan's Purse. The former is supposed to be a missionary and evangelism organization, and the latter, a Christian relief organization to help the poor.

What Graham took in was mere "chump change" compared to Television Evangelists such as John Hagee, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen. It, of course, is very difficult to get figures on exactly how much income these people get because they don't release the figures or they hide them among various entities to which they belong. Here is what I have been able to find:

John Hagee in 2001 "earned" $842,005 in compensation and $414,485 in benefits. This does not include all the money from his tapes and books.

Creflo Dollar (that is his real name) does pretty well too. He and his wife live in a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta. When he started another church in NYC, he purchased a $2.5M apartment there. He has two Rolls-Royces and his church has not one but two lear jets.

Joyce Meyer in 2002 "earned" a $900,000 annual salary and her husband, the Vice President of her ministry organization, "earned" $450,000. In addition, the ministry's board of directors agreed to provide the couple with free personal use of a corporate jet and luxury cars, a $2 million home where all bills are paid by the ministry and a separate $50,000-a-year housing allowance. The ministry paid $1.475 million to buy three houses for the three Meyer children. The board authorized Joyce and Dave Meyer to control a $790,000 fund to be used at their discretion for bonuses to "executive management."

Benny Hinn is going through a divorce so I expect his real net worth will become public but we know this much: In 2008, he made a cool $800K in less than two days "work" in Australia. Hinn’s salary is somewhere between half a million and a million dollars per year. He also gets royalties from the sales of his books and personal perks for Hinn, family and his entourage include a $10 million seaside mansion; a private jet with annual operating costs of about $1.5 million; a Mercedes SUV and convertible, each valued at about $80,000.

Joel Osteen,  in 2006, earned $13 million on just one of his books, Become a Better You . His Amazon page shows that he now has written over a dozen books. He recently bragged that he told his church to stop paying him his $200K annual salary. How magnanimous of him. If I were making millions off of books, I think I could turn down a measley $200K as well.

The really big money comes from book sales. As of the end of 2008 Rick Warren had sold around 40 million copies of his book: The Purpose Driven Life . Estimates of his royalties for this one book alone would be around $100 million dollars. No wonder he "reverse tithes" to his church (gives 90% and keeps 10%).

Below is a list of other prominent evangelicals and their annual compensation from the Chronicle of Philanthropy:

Neil J. Nicoll, CEO-------YMCA--------------------$432,600
Paul F. Crouch, CEO-------TBN-------------------$419,500
Janice Crouch, VP---------TBN---------------------$361,000
Elinor Hite, SVP----------YMCA---------------------$352,080
Richard Stearns, CEO------World Vision---------$336,472
William F. Horan, CEO-----Operation Blessing--$333,654
Gordon Robertson, CEO-----CBN------------------$326,820
Dennis Ryberg, CEO--------Young Life------------$279,338
James Daly, CEO-----------Focus on the Family-$240,002
Charles F. Stanley, CEO-In Touch Ministries---$226,704
Alexander D. Hill, CEO-InterVarsity Fellowship-$171,088
Michael Treneer, CEO------The Navigators------$161,476

At least these salaries are known. Some in the Southern Baptist Convention are "hopping mad," that the Convention will not publish the salaries of its executives. The blog Baptist Planet reports:

The most recent published figures we could find for top SBC leaders’ salaries are from 1990. They’re cited in the book The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention by James C. Hefley. According to that book, five top SBC executives at the time were paid more than $100,000 a year. . . .The five, according to [Southern Baptist Advocate Editor Bob] Tenery, were Lloyd Elder, President, Sunday School Board, $157,086; Harold Bennett, President-Treasurer, Executive Committee, $151,079; Larry Lewis, President, Home Mission Board, $113,583; Keith Parks, President, Foreign Mission Board, $113,000. The Annuity Board decline to report renumeration (sic) for its newly-elected president, Paul W. Powell. Tenery further noted that the top six men at the Sunday School Board, where Tenery is a trustee, were paid $715,475 in salary and benefits.. . .

Even simple adjustments for inflation for the equivalent positions today result in very comfortable salaries for all. Such adjustments do not consider the implications of the subsequent revelation of extravagance by Bob Reccord while he headed the SBC’s North American Mission Board. Reccord funneled $3.3 million to business friends, including current SBC President Johnny Hunt, while NAMB staff was downsized. His severance package of two years’ salary plus benefits reportedly exceeded $500,000.

A 2005 Associated Baptist Press article noted that even members of the SBC’s own Executive Committee must sign a pledge not to reveal employee salaries. Details from Reccord’s rein emerged only because NAMB marketing director Mary Kinney Branson escaped without signing the standard agreement.

Branson is a former marketing director for the SBC’s North American Mission Board and her book [Spending God's Money: Extravagance And Misuse In The Name Of Ministry ]is “an insider’s account of the extravagance and financial mismanagement there” (See this article).

On the blog, Stop Baptist Predators, Christa Brown writes:

Branson provides details that implicate high Southern Baptist officials and those details are not flattering. For example, (NAMB President) Bob Reccord “had a $1 million fund he could use at his discretion, no questions asked and no receipts required.” (Branson at p. 61)

Can you imagine any other organization that would allow an official to spend such sums with so little oversight? According to Branson, that $1 million fund was replenished each year, and in Reccord’s last two years, the fund was reduced to $350,000. In other words, the money didn’t just sit there. He spent it. “No receipts required.”

When Reccord resigned, 41 Southern Baptist leaders signed a letter, praising Reccord and essentially whitewashing his “undisputed misuse of funds.” (Branson at p. 18) One of those signers was Johnny Hunt, who is now the president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Another was evangelist Jay Strack.

According to Branson, after Bob Reccord left the North American Mission Board, “auditors discovered that payments were being made to evangelist Jay Strack ($300,000) and Bob’s mega-pastor Johnny Hunt at Woodstock Baptist Church ($92,000). Final payments were sent after Bob resigned but before he left the building…. There were no written contracts. So nearly half a million dollars was paid to Strack and Hunt through verbal agreements with Bob.” (Branson at p. 113)

I know that the great majority of pastors and Christian workers are paid very modest wages. However, there is a significant number of high profile "leaders" who are compensated quite nicely. Sounds pretty foreign to the concept of a servant, doesn't it?

Evangelical Pastors are Discouraged and Depressed

The son of the late Jerry Falwell is concerned about what is happening among evangelical pastors. Half of pastors would leave the ministry tomorrow if they could. Seventy percent are fighting depression and 90 percent can't cope with the challenge of ministry. Those are the statistics Pastor Jonathan Falwell laid out to thousands of ministers who were in Lynchburg, Va., Tuesday for the "Refuel" conference. The well-known pastor stated bluntly, "Something is wrong in ministry" (see article).

While I would not criticize anyone for having clinical depression, depression due to discouragement is another matter when it comes to an evangelical Christian pastor. He (there aren't very many shes in evangelical pastorates) is supposed to be a child of God, have direct access to the throne of God to ask for help and provision, be certain of going to heaven when he dies, have all of his sins and guilt removed, what in the world does he have to be depressed about--if what he believes is really the truth? The very name of the conference is interesting-- Refuel . Why is it that Christians have to constantly be refueled and recharged in order to keep going? Why do they have to be reminded all of the time that their God is real?

Another article reveals even more telling statistics based on a survey of 1,050 evangelical Pastors (note these are evangelical pastors not liberal pastors):

• 89% considered leaving the ministry at one time.
• 57% said they would leave if they had a better place to go—including secular work.
• 77% felt they did not have a good marriage!
• 75% felt they were unqualified and/or poorly trained by their seminaries to lead and manage the church or to counsel others. This left them disheartened in their ability to pastor. 
• 71% stated they were burned out, and they battle depression beyond fatigue on a weekly and even a daily basis. 
• 38%  said they were divorced or currently in a divorce process.
• 30% either has an ongoing affair or a one-time sexual encounter with a parishioner.
• 23% said they felt happy and content on a regular basis with who they are in Christ, in their church, and in their home!

The same article also gives the following research distilled from Barna, Focus on the Family, and Fuller Seminary.

• 1500 pastors leave the ministry each month due to moral failure, spiritual burnout, or contention in their churches.
• 50% of pastors' marriages will end in divorce.
• 80 percent of pastors feel unqualified and discouraged in their role as pastor.
• 50% of pastors are so discouraged that they would leave the ministry if they could, but have no other way of making a living.
• 80% of seminary and Bible school graduates who enter the ministry will leave the ministry within the first five years.
• 70% of pastors constantly fight depression.
• 40% of pastors polled said they have had an extra-marital affair since beginning their ministry.

Now why I am posting this? To gloat? No, I truly feel sorry for anyone who is depressed or who feels locked into an occupation that they don't enjoy. Life is too short to go through it like that. I post this because, in my opinion, it confirms my conclusion that evangelical Christianity is not true. It seems to me that if it were true, there would be a marked difference between Christians, especially Christian leaders, and the rest of society. If anything, it seems that evangelical pastors are in a worse condition than the average nonbeliever.

What is Evangelical Christianity?

I have entitled my blog, Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity. There is considerable confusion today over exactly what constitutes Evangelical Christianity. So, I want to take the time to clearly define what I mean when I use the term Evangelical.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines evangelical as: emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual.

The English word originated around 1531, according to Merriam-Webster. This, of course, was the time of the Reformation. Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Chapel in 1517 and the Reformation was on. During Luther's lifetime, the churches which followed his teachings were known as Evangelical Churches. It wasn't until after his death that they came to be known as Lutheran Churches. Eventually, evangelical became more or less synonymous with Protestant.

Going back to the Merriam-Webster definition, note that there are essentially five components to it.

1. Salvation by Faith
2. Atoning Death of Christ
3. Personal Conversion
4. Authority of Scripture
5. Importance of preaching vis-a-vis ritual.

Each one of these beliefs were forged in opposition to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the 16th century. Salvation by faith alone (sola fide)apart from works was the great re-discovery of Martin Luther. In his study of Paul's Letter to the Romans and especially chapter 1 verse 17 (For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."), Luther became convinced that the teaching of the apostle had been lost in the Roman Catholic Church of his day. He felt that good works and rituals had been added to faith and thereby destroyed the pure grace of God in salvation. Thus, his emphais on salvation by faith alone.

This faith, however, must have the correct object. It can't be faith in the sacraments of the church or faith in one's good works but faith in the atoning death of Christ as the payment for one's sin. Luther and Calvin were very instrumental in developing what would later be called the penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement.

When one came to rest his or her faith in the atoning work of Christ, one was converted. Later evangelicals would call this experience being born-again, being saved, or accepting Christ as one's personal savior.

Luther and the Reformers insisted that the ultimate authority for Christians was not the pope nor the church but the Bible itself (sola Scriptura). This has always been a hallmark of evangelical Christianity.

The URL for my blog is FormerFundy.blogspot.com. When I was a Christian, I considered myself a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical. What is the difference in the terms? The term fundamentalist orginated in the early part of the 20th century as evangelicals took a stand against Modernism or theological liberalism. They maintained that there were certain doctrines that were fundamental or essential to the Christian faith. While there was never complete unanimity on the fundamentals, they always included the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection and the second coming of Christ. These doctrines were some of the specific ones being denied by the theological liberals of the day.

Until the late 1940's, the terms evangelical and fundamentalist were more or less synonymous. There might have been a slight difference in emphasis. Fundamentalist were known more for what they were against whereas Evangelicals were known more for what they were for. In 1948, Harold Ockenga called for a New Evangelicalism. One that would be more open to dialogue with liberals. He felt that evangelicals should infiltrate the liberal seminaries and denominations rather than separate from them. Some evangelicals embraced Ockenga's call and others rejected it. Those who rejected it preferred to be called Fundamentalists. Thus, separation from liberalism became the hallmark of the fundamentalists.

Today, both terms, evangelical and fundamental, have taken on different connotations. Fundamentalism has become a term of derision and is used to refer to just about any kind of religious fanatic, including abortion clinic bombers, Mormon polygamists, and Islamic terrorists, etc. Evangelicalism has become a catch-all term to refer to just about any Christian who is not a theological liberal, a cultist, or a Roman Catholic. There is a great diversity of beliefs within modern day evangelicals from self-help gurus like Joel Osteen to charismatic healers like Benny Hinn to religious right leaders like James Dobson.

So, in order to clarify, when I use the terms evangelical or fundamentalist, I am using them in the historical sense of the terms.