The first part of this series can be found here. This post is a bit longer than the others in the series, but it was hard to find a good breaking point.
After coming before the congregation and publicly repenting of allowing doubts to rock our faith, my wife and I weren’t happy with our situation, but we hoped it was going to lead to something better. We had avoided being withdrawn from, so we were hoping we could begin repairing our relationships with family, and in deciding to attend a different congregation, we could take a less public role in the services and keep our children out of the Bible classes without raising too much suspicion. We hadn’t wanted to mislead anyone about our beliefs — we were just trying to find a solution that both we and our families could live with. But we had one or two hurdles right at the beginning.
A couple of people from our old congregation didn’t like the way I had handled the public repentance. For one, my wife wasn’t present since two of our children were sick. My wife and I didn’t see a problem with that, since we were the kind of Christians that didn’t think women should speak during the service anyway — so even if she’d been there, it wouldn’t have changed much. Some of those same people were also disappointed that I didn’t get visibly upset when I went before the church. But my wife and I knew those were minor objections, so we weren’t too concerned about their traction with the congregation as a whole, and we were right about that — our confession/repentance was accepted.
The other issue that caused us some turbulence was our decision to leave our old congregation. I’ve already given our reasons for doing this — I knew I couldn’t go back to a public role in the congregation, so that would always shed doubts on the quality of my faith. And my wife and I were not comfortable sending our kids to Bible classes, which also would have raised a red flag with our former brethren. So our decision to leave was something we couldn’t compromise. Our families continued to ask us to come back to our old church, and we couldn’t tell them our real reasons for leaving.
Despite those hurdles, we followed through with our plan. Each service, we visited a different congregation (all church of Christ), and there are several in this area to choose from. We felt that if we could continue with our end of the deal, things would eventually get back to normal with our families. And at least with my dad, things looked good initially. He sent us a very nice letter following my public confession and stated that he felt we were on the right path. He said that he knew we weren’t 180 degrees away from our doubts, but he was sure that we would get there over time.
But in the end, our parents had difficulty giving us that time. They often wanted to know which congregations we were attending, but we refused to get into that with them. Of course, that made them wonder if we were going at all, which was unfortunate. But we knew if we told them where we were going and when, they would reach out through the network in an effort to keep tabs on us. We just weren’t comfortable with that. We didn’t want to be the Hester Prynne of every church we walked into. They also continually asked us to go back to our old congregation — something else we just weren’t going to do. I do sympathize with them a bit. They honestly believed our souls were in danger, and I understand why they would want to do whatever they could to correct that. But we had hoped after the way the previous 6 months had gone, they would take our repentance and continued church attendance as some small wins and let some time go by before pressuring us on other issues. Instead, the pressure in our families never had time to dissipate.
Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. We don’t do it in the typical fashion, where people dress up and sit around a dining room table. Instead, we get together with about 50 or 60 extended family members at a large, one-room cabin deep in the woods of central Alabama. My grandfather and one of my uncles (as well as a few other family members) built the cabin back in the 70’s, and we’ve used it for family get-togethers since. We ride 4-wheelers, take hikes in the woods, and sit around playing guitars, etc. It’s very informal, and it’s a lot of fun. The weekend after Thanksgiving was always fun too, because I always went camping with my dad, my grandfather, my brothers, and my best friend. I looked forward to it every year.
The day after Thanksgiving 2010, we all loaded up and went for our annual camping trip. I took my two daughters with me, who were 7 and 5 at the time, but my son stayed home with my wife, since he was only 20 months old. My wife’s parents invited her over that Friday to watch football, and everything went fine that morning. She went home during the afternoon to let our son take a nap, but her parents asked her to come back that evening. She had a feeling that they would end up discussing all the religious drama we’d been going through, but she agreed to come over anyway. And though I don’t believe in prophecy, my wife’s prediction did come true.
Her parents began by asking if things were any better for us, which was their way of asking if our faith had grown any over the last several weeks. My wife replied that things were about the same. So they asked if we believed, and my wife said that we had made the decision to believe. This is obviously an important distinction. But when we were still in the stage of expressing our doubts, a few people had told us that if we would just decide to believe, our faith would eventually return. So that was the narrative we had run with in an effort to avoid withdrawal. But my in-laws weren’t happy with that answer, so they began asking specifics: “Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God? Do you believe the Bible is inspired?” And my wife finally just decided to quit using politically correct answers and revert to complete honesty. So she answered, “No.”
The conversation ended in an argument, and my wife called me on her way home. I didn’t get great reception in the woods, but it was good enough to figure out that I was probably on my last camping trip. I didn’t have the heart to tell my dad, so I just tried to make the most of that last trip. That annual camping trip is absolutely one of the things I miss the most.
The next week or two contained many phone calls with family and friends from our old congregation. My wife and I continued to point out that we were still going to church every service, just as we had said we would. But it’s true that we had admitted to no longer believing any of the doctrines in Christianity, so our old congregation felt like they would have to withdraw from us.
Knowing that was coming, I had one more thing I needed to do. My dad’s parents still had no idea any of this was going on. They live about an hour away from me and are stalwart members of their congregation — my grandfather is one of the elders, in fact. So I knew they would hear about everything as soon as our withdrawal became official. So I took a day off work and called them to see if I could come eat lunch with them. They were thrilled to have me over, and we spent some time just visiting with one another. It killed me to have to tell them about it, but I knew it needed to come from me and not someone else. So I finally began telling them about the doubts I had been having, how they began, what I had done about it, and what things were finally coming to. It was one of the most difficult things I’ve ever done. In some ways, it went better than I thought it would, but I imagine that was mostly due to their shock at what I was telling them. I couldn’t bring myself to tell them that the withdrawal was imminent, but I did tell them it was getting to that point. I haven’t seen my grandmother since then, though my grandfather did come to see me about six months later. We talked for about an hour at a gas station near my house (many Christians in the church of Christ don’t feel like they can come in our house now), and I was able to explain my position a little better to him since the initial shock had long since worn off.
Anyway, our withdrawal was made official shortly after I visited my grandparents. We received a letter from our old congregation dated December 5, 2010, in which they informed us we had been withdrawn from. It had been six weeks since I had gone before the congregation with a public repentance. Here’s one of the paragraphs from the letter:
The statement you read in October to the congregation provided some hope that you both were making progress in the right direction. However, we have not seen fruits of repentance since that time — such as efforts to repair relationships and any tangible evidence that you have rejected the human wisdom and skepticism that you say “crept in” and damaged your faith.
I’m not sure how much progress they expected to see in six weeks, but at the same time, I’m glad they didn’t wait any longer. Once we had been officially withdrawn from, my wife and I were finally able to just let go of all the pretense and get on with our lives. We stopped going to church, which actually surprised some people. We had only been going in an effort to stave off withdrawal, but since that failed, we had no reason to continue. We were shocked that anyone was surprised by that.
My wife and I have also speculated that our families wanted the withdrawal to go into effect before Christmas in the hopes that we would come back before we missed out on all the festivities. But honestly, we’re just not that shallow. When we were Christians, our faith was sincere. We held to our convictions, not because they were convenient, but because we firmly believed them. When we left Christianity, we were no less sincere. And the lure of Christmas gifts and get-togethers was not enough to make us pretend belief in something we found to be false. We had tried to walk the thin line between appeasing our families and keeping our kids from being indoctrinated, and we just weren’t interested in trying anything like that again.
There’s a little more to tell, and I’ll start digging into that in the next post.
Finding Truth 
Persto
I agree with almost everything you wrote above, very clearly outlined 🙂
Although, I don’t really understand how you came to the conclusion that:
“the only commonality between Jesus and God is that they are both discussed in the bible.”
As I understand it the bible quite outlines that Jesus is to be considered God. eg: The Father and I are one.
“most NT scholars think that is not what the NT really says or meant to say.”
But thats how it reads. If we consider the bible to be a primary source surely we should take it as it reads shouldn’t we?
Kind regards 🙂 Ryan
LikeLike
Hi Ryan,
For most Christians belief in God and belief in Jesus may be the same sort of belief because of the inclinations of Christian theology, but the beliefs are, in truth, different. It is only through a category-error that they can be brought into alignment.
Belief in God can be argued philosophically and theologically. If theologically the arguments are similar to Anslem’s or Aquinas, but the existence of God is not a question for history, though certain ways of thinking about him are of historical importance.
Belief in Jesus on the other hand can be argued historically or theologically–though it is a different sort of theology, but not philosophically. If belief in Jesus is to be argued historically we have to read the Gospels differently than the way the Gospels are wrote. Normally, to prove the existence of a historical person you would have records, reports, artifacts, or writings of other people who mention that person in specific occurrences. We do not have that. What we have are the writings of people who had very specific and self-interested reasons for portraying Jesus in a certain way. And this portrayal differs markedly from the writings of histories by the Romans in the second and third century. For this reason, scholars have admitted for a long time the problem of deriving Jesus from the Gospels or Paul or any NT writing for that matter. I am not saying the Gospels are entirely fabricated. Just that the line between the supernatural and reality is not always obvious in ancient writings. Just look at Homer or Herodotus. So, if one is going to prove the historicity of Jesus that individual must read the bible differently than the way the bible was wrote. That person must attempt to separate fact from myth and attempt to create a plausible framework for the historicity of Jesus, which would be markedly different from the explanations of Jesus in the NT. You see when doing history you cannot assent to the miraculous, so more probable explanations must be offered. And that is not how the Gospels read.
If you want to argue belief in Jesus theologically it is necessary to accept the historical Jesus–unless you want to make a Gnostic argument that makes the historical Jesus totally unnecessary. Post-fourth century Christian theology gives us the Jesus of the Trinity and before the end of the second century a fully divine and human Jesus had become a theological necessity. The ever-shifting theology of the early Fathers gives us the portrayal of Jesus as he is in the NT. And the Gnostic interpretation did not meet their standards. What is left is something very similar to Paul’s theology, which places all of its emphasis on the existence of a historical Jesus. One who was born, lived, and died in a way that befits the Son of God. The real Jesus has been lost, probably forever, as a result of this theological quest.
My point is not to suggest that Jesus did not exist, but that the evidence we possess is not sufficient to prove his existence because that evidence was shaped by self-interest and early Church theology, which is precisely why we cannot take the NT as it reads. In fact, the only thing I will admit is that early Christians did not accept Jesus because they believed he lived or died, but because they believed the Gospel, which was a summary of things believed by early Christians. It is in the very late first century and early second century that we get the beginning of the image of Jesus as he is now portrayed.
I guess Ryan what I am saying is that: no you cannot read the NT that way because you would not read Herodotus that way, and that is a work of ‘history.’ Even if you accept the basic reliability of the Gospels like N.T Wright early Church theology is still the framework for the NT, and the Jesus the NT portrays is certainly different from the one that actually existed. There is a historical Jesus and a theological Jesus and even they do not align.
Regards
LikeLike
“How are you Unklee?”
Hi Persto, I’m fine, and currently enjoying holidays on another continent. I hope you’re doing fine too.
“I just do not think there is enough NT scholarly evidence indicating the veracity of the resurrection.”
Then you can rest easy, because neither do I. Some scholars think the resurrection is true and can be established from history, some think it is true but is a matter of faith as well as history,some think it is simply a matter of faith, and some don’t believe it is true at all. I am in group 2.
“saying god does not exist; is not the same as saying Jesus did not exist or vice versa”
Again we are agreed. I think believing Jesus was a historical character is evidence for God, but may or may not be sufficient evidence for different people.
“Science, on the other hand, operates through repeated experimentation and observations.”
I generally agree too with your comments about science and history. But it must be said that some science (the early stages of evolution) is not unlike history, in being unrepeatable and less certain.
So we can chalk this up on the wall. We are agreed on virtually everything you said (if I understand you correctly). Thanks for your comments.
LikeLike
But Persto, such wonderful accord cannot go on forever! But even here I only have mild disagreement. : )
“My point is not to suggest that Jesus did not exist, but that the evidence we possess is not sufficient to prove his existence because that evidence was shaped by self-interest and early Church theology”
I don’t think we can prove almost anything outside of maths and logic, but I historians are generally as confident of the existence of Jesus as of almost any other ancient figure. The real questions centre around exactly what we can say about him.
“It is in the very late first century and early second century that we get the beginning of the image of Jesus as he is now portrayed.”
This is a moot point. Some scholars say this, others do not. Of course it depends on how you think he is now portrayed. But the view of scholars like Sanders, Casey, Wright, Vermes, Bauckham and Evans would probably be related to an earlier period than you say, while the views of some on the established churches might be even later.
LikeLike
Unklee, good to hear that! I am quite well. Thanks.
Well, I did not expect us to agree so much lol.
“I think believing Jesus was a historical character is evidence for God, but may or may not be sufficient evidence for different people.”
I believe I see what you are saying. For me, the historicity of Jesus, certainly, strengthens the Christian’s arguments concerning the historical accuracy of the NT, but I just do not think it helps prove the existence of God. In fact, even the early Church fathers were less concerned with a historical Jesus and more concerned with a fully human Jesus. Strangely, this is the primary reason the historicity of Jesus is questioned. How can the being who walked on water also be a man? How can someone born of this world be god? Arius wondered that aloud and suffered the consequences. The early fathers were so concerned with proving the humanness of Jesus they forgot to weaken the miracles and create a much more reliable narrative.
“But it must be said that some science (the early stages of evolution) is not unlike history, in being unrepeatable and less certain.”
I do not think the early stages of evolution are less certain–unless you are saying how it began is less certain. That I would agree with–As for the early stages of evolution, we have a pretty good grasp of that. The first living organisms were simple, like present-day bacteria, in both their metabolism and structure; however, over thousands of millions of years cells gradually became more complex by the process of evolution by natural selection. As early organisms became more complex, major advances occurred. Photosynthesis is one example. And it arose about 2.8 billion years ago in a bacterium-like organism called cyanobacterium. Although, not all species evolved at the same rate. Algae, for instance, was so well adapted that they competed successfully against newer species and so well suited to aquatic life that they still thrive despite the fact that their features are more or less identical to the ancestral algae that lived 1 billion years ago. Overall, not necessarily to your point, evolution by natural selection is a model consistent with observations of natural organisms, experiments and theoretical considerations. It is a historical science documented by the fossil record both today and in the past. As Dobzhansky stated, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
“The real questions centre around exactly what we can say about him.”
For me, I have no problem with Jesus existing. I believe that to be entirely plausible, but I think the issue is less than resolved unlike an impressive number of NT scholars. Of course, I believe that the question–what kind of Jesus existed?–to be an important and useful query.
Regards
LikeLike
“For me, the historicity of Jesus, certainly, strengthens the Christian’s arguments concerning the historical accuracy of the NT, but I just do not think it helps prove the existence of God. “
If one goes from the historicity of Jesus to believing Jesus told the truth, then that must make it as certain as we can be that God exists. Of course there is a big “if” there, but that is what I believe.
“I do not think the early stages of evolution are less certain”
My statement was based on this statement by a Professor of biology:
LikeLike
Unklee,
Yes, I very much agree that if you believe Jesus to be the Messiah and a God then his historicity would buttress that belief. But if you refuse to accept the theology of the early Church then Jesus’ historicity does nothing for God. Although, even if you accept the theological ruminations of the early Fathers the historical Jesus would need to match the theological Jesus for the Christian belief to be sound.
I do not think we are less certain. Just incapable of time travel. All the data points in one direction. Do we know enough? No. But evolution certainly ‘provides a compelling story of how past became present.’
Regards
LikeLike
I should add that is why the discussion about what kind of Jesus existed is so useful and significant.
LikeLike
“if you refuse to accept the theology of the early Church then Jesus’ historicity does nothing for God”
I don’t see it that way. I think Jesus’ words, using passages generally accepted by secular historians as genuine, give sufficient basis – see Jesus – son of God?
LikeLike