Liar, Lunatic, or Lord

Christian apologist C.S. Lewis is remembered for a great many things, one of those being a clever argument he gave for Jesus' divinity.  Lewis suggested that, when it comes to Christ, there are only three logical possibilities...either he was a liar, he was a lunatic, or he was indeed the Lord.

My father, a Christian minister, used to give a sermon based on this outline.  (I've spoken before about my father, here)  At the time, I found this line of reasoning very convincing.  After all, these really are your only three options, right? 

Wrong.

Bart Ehrman suggests a fourth possibility, legend, and, as I was beginning to see, the Bible contains a lot of it.  Now, to be clear, Bart is not suggesting that Jesus' existence is legend (in fact, he argues quite forcefully for Jesus as a real historical figure) but, rather, that much of what we believe about him today is legend. 

After I got over the shock of discovering the Bible was not perfect, I turned my attention to the why questions.  For example, if Matthew and Luke were in fact copying from Mark, as most scholars believe, than why do they contradict and/or add to him in key places?  The conclusion I came to, in short, is that some of these stories were actually altered on purpose, often so that the given author could make a theological point (more on this in a later post).  In other words, the legend about Jesus was developing.  This is why the resurrection story, for example, is so much simpler in the Gospel of Mark...layers were being added as time went on.  The legend was growing.  Also, I had never previously considered the fact that the Gospel writers were not neutral sources.  These authors weren't simply trying to record a historical account, as I had always assumed, they were instead trying very hard to convince their audience that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah!  Watch below, as Bart Ehrman puts many of these pieces together...

It was becoming quite clear to me, at this stage of my de-conversion, that disagreements over the truth of Christianity ultimately come down to how one assesses the available evidence.  Barring any sort of new archaeological discovery, we have what we have and we don't have what we don't have.  One side (the Christian apologists) say the existing evidence is plentiful, and should be sufficient to convince any rational person.  Others, such as Ehrman, came to precisely the opposite conclusion after in depth study.  How is one to know? 

Perhaps not all evidence is equal, I reasoned, maybe some types of "evidence" should be given more weight than other types of "evidence"?  It is to that question I will turn in my next post...

A Superstitious People

In my last post I made a passing reference to "superstition" in the Bible but, before I go any further along in my story, I want to underscore this point a little.  As an unintended by-product of copious amounts of reading, I was developing a much deeper understanding re: the culture(s) of those living in "Bible times".  Oddly enough, I had never before associated those two words inside my head..."superstition" and "Bible".  (I realize the term "Bible times" is very broad but it will suffice to make my point here)

As my appreciation for ancient cultures increased, a funny thing happened; it caused me to begin reading the Bible through entirely new eyes...these were the eyes of a modern (scientifically literate) person, peering back into a world filled with wildly superstitious people.  Why hadn't I noticed this anachronism before?  It's as if I had always just assumed the Bible characters were essentially "like us", in this respect, but were they actually?

Just a few thousand years ago people believed all manner of things we wouldn't even dream of believing today, and they did so based on "evidence" that we would never accept by today's standards.  In this world the Gods lived above the clouds, and they controlled every detail of daily life...from throwing down the rain and lightning to causing sickness in those who displeased them.  Your life as an ancient person revolved around the sacrifices/rituals/prayers needed to keep these Gods happy with you.  (Sidebar...on the subject of polytheism in the Hebrew Bible, aka the Christian "Old Testament", check out this interesting documentary)

Bible stories that I had long believed to be historical in nature were suddenly feeling like just that...y'know...stories..

Did Lot's wife really turn into a pillar of salt?  Did a donkey actually talk?  Was Jonah truly swallowed by a giant fish?  Why did God feel the need to stop the tower of Babel?  Surely He knew they would never succeed in reaching heaven...even if they thought otherwise!  Why does the Bible speak of mythical creatures, such as unicorns?  Did the hem of Jesus' garment really possess magical healing powers?  Did the graves open up, after Jesus' death and resurrection, with a bunch of dead people walking around on the streets?  (Look it up for yourself, Matthew 27:51-53)  And, re: the latter story, why does no other ancient historian see fit to mention this?  On and on and on it goes, I could literally give hundreds of such examples from within the pages of the Bible. 

Does this necessarily mean all the Bible stories are false?  No, of course not.  Do some of these stories contain kernels of historical truth?  Absolutely.  Does it mean that ancient people were dumb?  Wrong again.  They were just superstitious, that's all.  But would you believe these stories if they weren't in the Bible?  Why not??

It seems to me that we only have two options here: a) God was super active, in "Bible times", and crazy supernatural stuff was happening constantly, or b) ancient people were really superstitious.  These are not, by definition, mutually exclusive (both could be true simultaneously) but is that the most likely scenario?  Why would God send Jesus down into this sort of world?  And would he really make our eternal destiny hang on believing in what these superstitious people told us, in some book that is additionally riddled with problems (as I discussed last time)?

Maybe there really is a conflict between science and religion, I thought...maybe a belief in God(s) really was humanity's first stab in the dark, like those "new atheists" were saying.  Christopher Hitchens puts it this way, "Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody had the smallest idea what was going on". 

Is The Bible Inerrant?

Shortly after finishing "Why I Became An Atheist" I stumbled into the work of another man, who was to have a large influence on my thinking, namely Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman.  The first book I read, of Professor Ehrman's, was "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", but later I would also read this one, this one, this one, this one, and my personal favorite, this one (although not in that order). 

It was Ehrman's work that was primarily, but not solely, responsible for changing my mind on a "major" theological issue...unbeknownst to me, it was only the first of many such changes to come.  You know an issue is considered "major" btw, among evangelical Christians (this is the world that I come from), if dissenters are branded as "heretics", or some such scary thing, by a significant portion of the community.  Rob Bell, for example, has recently crossed the line that divides "minor" (we're allowed to disagree on this and still be friends) and "major" (if you question this I'll say you're not a real Christian and are "leading others astray") evangelical Christian theology, with his recent book "Love Wins". 

I knew this was a big deal but, despite my best efforts to fight it, I had completely lost my belief in Biblical inerrancy. 

For a while, I tried to hang on to some sort of vague notion of the Bible being "inspired", instead of "inerrant", but eventually I just let go of that as well.  What does it really mean for a book to be "inspired" anyway?  I find all kinds of books "inspiring", but I don't think that God wrote them!

I'd like to simply list a few of the things that I was discovering about the Bible, at this point in my de-conversion journey.  If you click on the last word, of each point (below), it will take you to an example (or numerous) of each problem mentioned.  In the case of number's 7 and 8, I have linked to videos that feature Bart Ehrman himself, both of which are lengthy but well worth watching in their entirety...

1. The Bible was altered. 
2. The Bible contains lots and lots and lots of contradictions.
3. The Bible tells many tall tales.
4. The Bible's authors borrowed & adapted mythical stories from their surrounding cultures.
5. The Bible contains mythical stories that literally millions of Christians (wrongly) believe to be true. 
6. The Bible contains known historical inaccuracies.
7. The Bible contains books that are forged.
8. The Bible is, generally speaking, unreliable.

There are many, many other things I could have mentioned, such as the Bible's clear signs of legendary development (ie. in the resurrection accounts) and rampant superstition.  Later on, I hope to write at greater length on a few of these points, individually, especially as it pertains to their larger implications for Christianity.

What was most surprising to me, about all of this, was that I hadn't known any of it before.  I had spent my entire life in the church and never once, to my knowledge, had these difficulties even been mentioned, let alone addressed or challenged.  Any one of them should suffice, by itself, to demonstrate that the Bible is not inerrant.  Would God really allow so many mistakes in a book that He wrote (or even "inspired"!)?  Where was the evidence that the Bible is "the word of God"?  I was frantic to find it.

Besides, why would God not also see to it that the original manuscripts were preserved?  Even if the originals were "inspired", in some mysterious way, we don't have them.  What we have have, instead, are copies of copies of copies of copies...and if we know that some of these copies were changed, which we do (see point 1), than what about the changes scholars haven't yet discovered (or never will)?

All of these questions, and so many others, were racing through my head.  I could feel the earth shifting underneath my feet, and I knew that my faith was beginning to crumble.

You Can't Handle The Truth!

Before I go any further with my personal story I just want to pause, and reflect a little, on a few of the emotional dynamics that are involved in a de-conversion experience.  It would have been all too convenient for me to turn my back on further investigation, especially after reading John Loftus' book, since my whole world was (and is!) inexorably tied to Christianity.  Sure, I was starting to supsect that Christianity might be untrue, in terms of its factual claims, but what would this mean if it were so?  Could I really just walk away from being a Christian??  How?!?

For one, every member of my family, on both sides, is a "born again" Christian...even up to and including my aunts/uncles, & first cousins etc.  I mean everybody.  And this isn't to mention my work situation, plus nearly all of my friends and acquaintances (also Christian).

I decided, rightly or wrongly, that these issues (of life, death, the meaning of life...) were just too important to leave alone.  I HAD to know, come what may, if Christianity was true or if it wasn't.  Mind you, I'm keenly aware of the fact that not everyone feels this way, at least initially.

My wife, who stunned me recently by annoucing that she too is no longer a Christian, took a de-conversion path that was dramatically different from my own.  I remember asking her one time, while she was still a believer, "If Christianity were indeed false (hypothetically speaking, of course!), would you want to know?".  Her answer was an unflinching "no", absolutely not, she would not want to know.  This took me back a little, at first, but it did help me to better understand why she didn't seem interested in discussing the various issues (pro/con Christianity) that were so enveloping my world.  She most emphatically didn't want to read any books about them either! 

By her own admission one of the reasons, for this reticence, lay in the fact that she wasn't prepared to even entertain the possibility of not one day seeing her grandmother again, in heaven.  If there really is no afterlife, you see, she just didn't want any part of the "arguments" or "evidence" that might convince her of that fact.  We later came to jokingly refer to this as taking the "ostrich approach" (just stick your head in the sand so you don't have to face the arguments)...it also helps if you put your fingers in your ears, and say "la la la la, I can't hear you, I can't hear you...". 

There are two points I'd like to make here...firstly, how frequently are atheists arguing with Christians (both on the internet and in person) who are not even prepared to genuinely consider the possibility that Christianity might be false?  I think this is much more common than we realize.  The factors that hold someone to Christianity are both conscious and subconscious, and these factors are HUGE in their scope, complexity, impact etc.

Secondly, for any Christians who might happen to stumble onto this blog, I simply want to ask you the same question I asked my wife, "If Christianity were indeed false, would you want to know?".  Be careful, please don't answer too quickly here.  You need to permit yourself to imagine that you've become completely convinced of this, and then think through the implications step by step.  For example, would you tell your parents?  Right away, or later on?  Your friends?  Would you stop going to church (right away, or later on)?  How might this impact other areas of your life?  Remember, you might be able to fool other people (into thinking you're an honest seeker after truth) but you and you alone are the one who loses if it's not really the case.
 
Should your answer to this question be "no", than you need to walk away unless/until that changes, but if your answer is "yes", than you owe it to yourself to read some of the best skeptical material on the market today.  (The stuff recommended by atheists, not your fellow Christians)  If you have never done this, than how can you be confident in the truth of Christianity?

What If I'm Wrong?

By far the single biggest challenge to my Christian faith, during this early part of my de-conversion process, came in the form of a book, by John W. Loftus, "Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity".  I'm pretty embarrassed to admit that, previously, I had only been aware of one preacher turned atheist, namely, Billy Graham's former preaching partner, Charles Templeton.  My (devout Christian) mother and I once had a brief conversation about him, but quickly came to the conclusion that Templeton was "never a real Christian".  He must have had "head knowledge", about Christianity, but without the all important "heart knowledge", we reasoned.  (Much later, I would also read Templeton's de-conversion story, "Farewell To God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith", in addition to other similar books such as this one, this one, and this one. These last 3, in particular, are excellent.)

My purpose here is not to provide a review of John Loftus' book, in terms of its contents, but rather to try and capture in words the incredible impact it had on me at the time.  Loftus has said on his blog that his purpose, in writing WIBA, was to overwhelm the believer, and indeed this is precisely what happened in my case.  I believe that most Christians have little difficulty maintaining their faith, even when challenged, since it is propped up by dozens, if not hundreds, of individual pieces (& thought patterns) they deem to be solid on their own (and even stronger together)...if one of those pieces takes a hit, hey, no big deal, there are still plenty of reasons to continue believing!  These reasons are constantly re-inforced through conversations with Christian friends, weekly church attendance, and an extremely limited exposure to skeptical arguments (the internet is changing the latter, as Christian apologist Josh McDowell has noted recently).  But what happens when a sizable number of those pieces, propping up your worldview, are attacked simultaneously?  Well, this can cause one to question their entire paradigm, and in my case, that paradigm was the truth of Christianity.

As difficult as this may be for some people to believe, I was a man in my 30's who had never seriously considered the fact that Christianity might be completely false, in even its most basic claims.  I was just SO sure it was true, to even bother investigating it too deeply would literally have felt like a complete waste of my time. I believe this is why most Christians don't bother reading skeptical books, such as those written by the so called "new atheists".  Contrary to what many think, Christians are not (generally) afraid of these books, they just deem them completely irrelevant.  The real believers KNOW Christianity is true and, besides, if ever they need to brush up on the intellectual arguments, in favour of the Christian faith, a Lee Strobel book is never far away.  (Irony intended)

The night that I finished this book is forever seared into my memory.  After reading the last sentence I just sat there, in bed, my head spinning as I tried (in vain) to process everything I had just read. It was in that very moment I reached a watermark in my de-conversion journey.  Had John Loftus convinced me that Christianity was false? No, not fully. But he had convniced me this was a distinct possibility.  That watermark came in the form of a question, "What if I'm wrong?".  I made a commitment to myself, right then and there, to continue my investigation regardless of where it might lead. It was a scary, and yet somehow strangely exhilarating feeling.

I'd like to close this post with a quote, from James F. Sennett, that captures well how I was feeling at the time (also reflected on page 13 of WIBA), "Once I had no doubt that God was there but I resented him for it; now I desparately want him to be there, and am terrified that he might not be."