«
»

how evangelicals lost me, and why I might go back (pt2)

Yesterday, I discussed a bit about our notion that music is the equivalency of worship, and how this has become a predominant belief (whether admitted or not) in church culture. I had a good conversation with a couple friends on that today, and they brought up some interesting points, which I’ll probably explore at a later time. For now, I wanted to point out this comment, made by Tristan. She brings up a very good point, our connection to the “system” will often hinder us from seeing the difficulties created by said “system.” Food for thought.

So, moving on, let’s talk a bit about the second cause for my separation from the evangelical church. Apologetics. I realize that the evangelical church and I have some pretty different views on various issues (IE Biblical issues), and I’m fine with that (fine as in I’ll probably debate whomever wants to, but I understand why you believe what you believe), but the way in which every apologetic “lesson” has been taught (At least to me, I can’t testify to experiences outside of my own) has been on the verge of childlike.

I’ll hearken back to my last apologetics lesson (shortly before I began to leave the evangelical fold, I believe I may have posted on it at the time), it was during my time in a college ministry. One of the questions was essentially “How do we know that the Bible is true.” We were then shown a table with a various number of manuscripts that we have of the Bible, compared to the number of manuscripts we have for other works, the Iliad and the Odyssey, Julius Caesar, and a few other well known works. The point was we have X number of manuscripts which is Y times as many manuscripts as we have of these other works, thus we know that the Bible is true because we believe these other works are authentic (with considerably less manuscripts to work from).

Now, my immediate reaction was “No one bases their entire life off of these other manuscripts, thus the level to which we must require authenticity from a Bible must be higher than that of any other work.” Beyond that, as we start to look at the argument posed by the person that night we see that he really didn’t answer the question. He simply proved the Bible was written, and has been copied. Beyond that, we don’t really have any shred of evidence (based on his argument) that the Bible is true. While the words “Textual Criticism” were mentioned, they were not actually explored.

Also on the docket for that night was the infamous creation/evolution debate. I won’t touch on that other than quote the following (which constantly rings in my mind when I think of church apologetics): “Every time the church and science disagree, the church has been proven right.”

I wonder what Galileo would do if he heard that…

It goes beyond just those two instances, when discussing Lee Strobel’s various works with a local youth pastor (over twitter!) he said “When I read those books I nearly lost my faith.” It took me a few minutes to understand the point he was trying to get at, that we’re given these arguments filled with holes and without touching the meet of “the opposing side’s” argument, in hopes that it will placate us enough to not have to think about it anymore.

The problem is, you can’t continue to feed people surface level answers and hope that it’ll get them through. Eventually they’ll be challenged, and the arguments you provided won’t hold up. Why do churches lose so many youth when they hit college? Is it only the “scene” that’s more attractive, or is it that someone is finally offering some intellectual stimulation that has been missing from their lives?

I think the church doubts it’s laity’s ability to deal with some of these hard issues. I understand the idea of shepherding, and wanting to protect your flock from “harm”, but honestly, by ignoring the issues you’re hurting far more than helping. Interestingly enough, I haven’t yet met a person who has worked through Biblical criticisms and have had it hurt their faith. Changed it, yes, but killed it? Just more food for thought there.

I’ll echo Ehrman here, and say that I’m not positing that we replace sermons with lessons on which books Paul (probably) didn’t write, but instead I’m hoping (asking, pleading, begging!) that the evangelical church puts more faith in its laity. Construct logical apologetic sessions, and don’t simply put something out there and hope it eases the mind. Allow for our human tendency to question, and embrace it! If the church isn’t a safe place to deal with these issues, then the church is lost.

email2friend

This entry was posted Sunday, June 14th, 2009 at 9:56 am and is filed under books, church, failure, religion. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Kyle
    In my experience the church has simply been too lazy to deal with apologetic issues. They stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the threat from pop atheism - which despite being filled with bad reasoning, is championed by people who don't know any better and can easily demolish Christians whose entire faith is rooted in abstract emotionalism.

    The example you cited at the beginning of the post shows the bad reasoning coming from people in churches who are told to teach "apologetics" without really knowing what it is. Yes, the number of manuscripts is significant, but you don't use that to "prove the Bible is true," rather to establish the general reliability of the texts against critics who say "we can't actually know what the Bible originally said!" but don't give this same objection to other ancient documents. Proving the truth of the Bible is a totally different subject from textual accuracy! For what it's worth, I think things like Lee Strobel's materials make a fine introduction to apologetics, but I agree that it's important to tell what the other side thinks as well.
  • "Pop atheism" would probably best be termed new atheism, or at least that's how it's being referred as w/in academic circles.

    "For what it's worth, I think things like Lee Strobel's materials make a fine introduction to apologetics"
    I refer to my earlier statement on Strobel. I've never been impressed.
  • Derek F.
    It's late, and I can't write anything cause I'm studying for a final, but these two posts were great!
  • Tristan
    For me, I think it is incredibly important to question everything that we hear in church because without that constant questioning, how will we figure out what is truth and what is propaganda that we're being told is true? As Christians we should be studying and praying and doing our own research on what the preacher preaches, what we learn in Sunday school and whatnot. Without the questions, it becomes impossible to differentiate what is real and what is not. I've been to churches where people didn't bother bringing their Bible because the verses are projected onto a screen and they read along there. To me, it's laziness. When people are actively participating in the service, there is an immediate connection to what is being said, which makes for a perfect opportunity to see if what the preacher is saying and what the Bible says is lining up. It's not very popular because we want to assume that we're being told the truth, but very often that is not the case.

    And as a side note, I find it ridiculous that people don't believe that science and christianity can work together.

    P.S. Your summarization of my comment sounded way smarter than what I actually said! haha
  • Good discussion starter.

    Faith is about far more than intellect, of course, but it must engage our intellect. A friend of mine argued that it behooves everyone to be as well-educated in matters of faith as they are in other aspects of their lives: I haven't rushed to try and get a theology PhD (to match my science one) but I understand where he's coming from.

    When St. Paul said "not many of you should presume to teach, because teachers will be judged more harshly", he wasn't wrong! Teaching those who are in a questioning, challenging stage of life requires a questioning, challenging mind: we tend to overlook that, and present someone offering pastoral certainty instead. And when our minds cease to be questioning, we tend just to repeat half-remembered half-baked arguments uncritically.

    Your comment about churches loosing youths when they hit college struck a chord: I think the thing that finally made me angry with the creationists was seeing teenagers being peddled that stuff, and knowing that they were being set up for a fall: follow God, or follow modern science. What an apalling false dichotomy to throw at vulnerable people.

    Your line "Interestingly enough, I haven’t yet met a person who has worked through Biblical criticisms and have had it hurt their faith." struck me, though: I know that lots of Evangelicals come to Oxford to study theology, and find that doing so completely demolishes their faith. Someone I knew, who had been a leading light in student Christian work, didn't simply become more skeptical, or liberal, he simply found that studying theology rigorously left him with no faith at all. That isn't uncommon, I think. And it's salutary.
  • Freud wrote a criticism of the way religions educate people. In essence, we are very good at catechizing, but not good at actually dealing with questions. We teach people which questions they can and cannot ask. Therefore, we never have to answer any of the really difficult ones.
blog comments powered by Disqus
ramblings-theology-my thoughts