Sigh…
So here’s what’s been going on lately. Most of you who read this blog already know that when my wife and I left Christianity, it wrecked most of our family relationships. My wife’s parents and siblings, as well as my own, felt that they could no longer interact with us socially after our deconversion. We were no longer invited to any family functions, and our communication with them all but disappeared. We would speak if it was about religious issues, or if there were logistic issues that needed to be worked out in letting them see our kids, etc.
Over the years, things have gotten a little better, especially with my wife’s parents. Things are by no means back to normal, but at least our infrequent interactions have become more civil and more comfortable. A few weeks ago, I even had a phone conversation with my father that lasted about half an hour and had no references to religion whatsoever. It was nice.
Nevertheless, the awkwardness is still there, just under the surface. And we’re still blacklisted from all the family functions.
Throughout this time, I’ve occasionally reached out to my side of the family with phone calls, letters, facebook messages, etc, in an effort to discuss the issues that divide us. I don’t get much response. I’ve always been puzzled by that, since I know they think I’m completely wrong. If their position is right, why aren’t they willing to discuss it?
In the last five years, I’ve also been sent books and articles and even been asked to speak to certain individuals, and I’ve complied with every request. Why not? How could more information hurt? But when I’ve suggested certain books to them, or written letters, they aren’t read. When I finally realized that my problems with Christianity weren’t going to be resolved, I wrote a 57-page paper to my family and close friends, explaining why I could no longer call myself a Christian. As far as I know, none of them ever read the whole thing. And sure, 57 pages is quite a commitment. But they say this is the most important subject in their lives…
This past week, the topic has started to come back around. A local church kicked off a new series on Monday entitled “Can We Believe the Bible?” It’s being led by an evangelist/professor/apologist that was kind enough to take time to correspond with me for several weeks in the summer of 2010. I’ve never met him in person, but a mutual friend connected us, since he was someone who was knowledgeable about the kinds of questions I was asking. Obviously, we didn’t wind up on the same page.
My wife’s parents invited us to attend the series, but it happens to be at a time that I’m coaching my oldest daughter’s soccer team. So unless we get rained out at some point, there’s no way we can attend. However, we did tell them that if practice is ever cancelled, we’ll go. I also contacted the church and asked if the sermons (if that’s the right word?) will be recorded, and they said that they should be.
Monday night, the weather was fine, so we weren’t able to attend. And so far, the recording isn’t available on their website. However, they do have a recording of Sunday night’s service available, which is entitled “Question & Answer Night.” I just finished listening to it, and that’s where the bulk of my frustration comes from.
It’s essentially a prep for the series that kicked off Monday night. They’re discussing why such a study is important, as well as the kinds of things they plan to cover. What’s so frustrating to me is that I don’t understand the mindset of evangelists like this. I mean, they’ve studied enough to know what the major objections to fundamentalist Christianity are, yet they continue on as if there’s no problem. And when they do talk about atheists and skeptics, they misrepresent our position. I can’t tell if they honestly believe the version they’re peddling, or if they’re purposefully creating straw men.
A couple of times, they mentioned that one of the main reasons people reject the Bible comes down to a preconception that miracles are impossible. “And if you start from that position, then you’ll naturally reject the Bible.” But that’s a load of crap. Most atheists were once theists, so their starting position was one that believed in miracles.
They also mentioned that so many of these secular articles and documentaries “only show one side.” I thought my head was going to explode.
And they referred to the common complaints against the Bible as “the same tired old arguments that have been answered long ago.” It’s just so infuriating. If the congregants had any knowledge of the details of these “tired old arguments,” I doubt they’d unanimously find the “answers” satisfactory. But the danger with a series like this is that it almost works like a vaccination. The members of the congregation are sitting in a safe environment, listening to trusted “experts,” and they’re injected with a watered down strain of an argument. And it’s that watered down version that’s eradicated by the preacher’s message. So whenever the individual encounters the real thing, they think it’s already been dealt with, and the main point of the argument is completely lost on them.
For example, most Christians would be bothered to find out that the texts of the Bible are not as reliable as were always led to believe. Even a beloved story like the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus writes on the ground, we’ve discovered that it was not originally part of the gospel of John. It’s a later addition from some unknown author. To a Christian who’s never heard that before, it’s unthinkable! But if they’ve gone through classes where they’ve been told that skeptics exaggerate the textual issues in the Bible, and that the few changes or uncertainties deal with only very minor things, and that none of the changes affect any doctrinal points about the gospel, then it’s suddenly easier for them to swallow “minor” issues like the insertion of an entire story into the gospel narrative.
Sigh…
I’m going to either attend these sessions, or I’ll watch/listen to them once they’re available online. I may need to keep some blood pressure medication handy, though.
Finding Truth 
Thanks, anaivethinker!
LikeLike
Haven’t you yet run out of places to pontificate yet? You just left Vi’s blog in a huff!
LikeLike
@archeopteryx1
A huff? That’s a misconception.
LikeLike
Hey guys … aren’t you sorta’ getting away from the point of Nate’s posting? I think Brandon left a pretty nice comment. This doesn’t happen very often so maybe we could leave it at that? Not trying to be the blog police. Just making an observation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi thee,
Happy anniversary! 🙂
That’s not information I’ve run across before; can you recall where you heard it?
Let me explain the point I was getting at: whether or not the event related in that story ever actually happened, all the evidence currently points to the story not originally being part of the gospel of John. So, to me, this brings up a lot of questions about inspiration. If God really did inspire the writers of the Bible, wouldn’t it be a problem to add a story to one of the gospels? And if it came from some other inspired source, why don’t we have it too?
Our approaches to this are just very different. I think you view Christianity as the default view that all people should have; therefore, instead of needing evidence to convince you it’s true, you’d need substantial evidence to convince you it’s not.
When I was a believer, I thought Christianity was true, but that’s because I thought it had superior evidence. However, when I found out that it seemed to have failed prophecies, contradictory passages, incorrect history and science, and its texts showed signs of interpolation and editing, my opinion of that evidence changed. And I realized that Christianity made some extraordinary claims. Without extraordinary evidence to back them up, there was no reason to keep believing them.
So I think I intuitively knew that the default position should be skepticism. I mean, isn’t that how you view every other claim? By default, you don’t believe Mormonism, Islam, or Hinduism. No one had to prove to you that those religions were false — you just didn’t believe in them, because they’re not prevalent in your country. And it would take a great deal of evidence for you to believe in them. The same should be true of Christianity.
Does that help explain my position a bit better?
Hope you guys enjoy your anniversary — congrats on 38 years!
LikeLike
Thank you Nan 🙂
I get tired of trying to make everyone play nice.
LikeLike
Hardly.
LikeLike
The woman caught in adultery story doesn’t show up in any copy of the gospels before the 4th century CE. It was first placed in Luke, but there were those who thought it fit better in John, so it was moved. So much for a concern with accurate reporting.
LikeLike
I’ve read that some scholars think the passage has similarities to the style of Luke, but I don’t think I’d heard anyone say that it was actually added to Luke at one point. Do you remember where you ran across that?
LikeLike
I had it last week, but I don’t have it now, and it’s well after midnight. I’ll go through my browser history and see where all I was last week, that should jog my memory. I may have actually bookmarked it, I’ll check my bookmarks too, just not tonight.
LikeLike
Nate, tell me something, are you attending this sessions because you expect to learn something new you don’t already know or do you silently suspect you could be wrong in your disbelief and that christianity is right you just didn’t get the correct interpretation or are you doing it for family and maybe because you don’t have a better way to employ your free time?
LikeLike
Regarding the story of the lady caught in adultery I had posted a comment on another blog, that Arch might have in mind:
‘D.A. Carson in his commentary on John’s Gospel notes that John 7:53 to 8:11 was not found in any Eastern text of the Bible before the tenth century. It is missing from all the early reliable manuscripts of the Bible. All the early church father omit it. Where it is included in ancient texts there is usually a note included questioning its authenticity.’
LikeLike
William,
I suppose we could discuss miracles within the framework of your questions. From my experience that usually turns out about as much fun for me as a root canal, but I am sometimes willing to do it in order to provide data for others to consider.
I think what Nate describes as going on with his family is pretty awful. Nobody can ever be forced or blackmailed into believing anything they don’t, or disbelieving anything they know either. This “shunning” business has always struck me as quite evil and un-Christian.
LikeLike
Hello Nate,
This moved me. I’m so sorry that it has been your experience. If my sons decide to not follow Christ, then I hope and plan to behave differently. If that happens, I’ll ask for your insight and help. Truth is truth. Wisdom is wisdom. I consider your words and manner to be wise. I love my sons, will love the partners they choose and the children I hope they will bring to our home in my elder years.
You may know that I care about the Bible and consider it valuable. That said, I don’t think that the class is a good use of your time. It makes me so sad that your parents don’t consider a grandchild’s soccer game to be an expression of the Gospel. It is to me.
Thanks for your honesty and for what it can teach a Christ follower about what we are doing wrong. I wish I could implore your parents as elders in my faith to see things differently.
Pascal
LikeLike
Makagutu,
that’s a good question and one I would like to hear nate answer.
I wanted to add my perspective though. If I were in nate’s place, I would be going so that i could catch all the issues and expose them to those who invited me – but I dont think that makes me closed minded.
When i was a christian, I was sure that christianity was true – so when I listened to other points of view, I opened my ears and listened to what was said and evaluated it, but all the while I fully expected to be able to find them wrong…. I’m not longer a christian even though my handling of information has not changed.
I dont know if nate is the same or not, but I dont feel wishy-washy on this topic. I hold a certain amount of confidence in it, seeing as how I’ve put a lot of time, study and thought into it, but while I think my position is better than theirs, I still know that I do not know everything and could be mistaken,
I think my position will hold up better than theirs, but if holes in my position are exposed, I wont ignore them, i will face them and reevaluate as I hope they will also do.
LikeLike
98% of what, thee-n-counter?
are you saying that 98% of the bible is confirmed?
If you are, I would suggest that is a gross misrepresentation of reality. But think about this, the bible makes spiritual claims and it makes physical claims (historical, scientific, archaeological, etc). Some of the physical can be verified or tried, while the spiritual claims cannot be.
If we find that even a small portion of the things we can check end up being inaccurate, why should we have confidence that the spiritual/supernatural/un-verifiable claims are accurate?
and i would suggest that the bible is less than 98% verifiable, if that is what you were saying.
LikeLike
Well, I can resonate with pretty much every point that you raised. I think that the way you characterized as an inoculation is clever and accurate. Lately I’ve come to regard the friends and family issue as one with asterisks. They aren’t friends, their friends*. It isn’t family, it’s family*. But I think the question you raised on the question of the apologist is a good one. I’m not quite sure where their minds set comes from either. But they got the same inoculations. They got the same water down strains. And I think that someplace in their minds, they just never got past that dismissiveness. They’ve still never really seriously tried to square the circle.
LikeLike
@Nate
I’m super sorry to hear this. Incidentally me and my wife have just came out of the closet to my in-laws who are stanch Brethrens. Thankfully everything went better than expected. Don’t think they really cared about why I disbelieve as they totally backed off after confirming that I was baptized – they believed in “once saved always saved” sort of reformed doctrine (not exactly full blown Calvinistic).
So yes, I’ve put this off for more than a year and it is great that family ties are still there. I do hope that things will get better for you and yours.
In the meanwhile you do have other friends in your area that functions like a community? If not perhaps it may be good to join some hobby club or something. No man is an island after all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think its great that the religious are actually being compelled to even do seminars which deal with (attempt to deal with) objections they can no-longer ignore. That’s a positive sign! Imagine this happening just 20 or 30 years ago? Never. Not in the US, at least.
LikeLike
Probably not, because my info said the 4th century.
LikeLike
I smiled at the last question. 🙂
I may not actually make it to any of these, since I’m coaching soccer at the same time (as long as the weather’s good). But I’ll try to watch them (or listen, if just audio) online, if they post them.
I don’t think Christianity is right, and I don’t expect to learn anything I don’t already know. I’m always open to learning something new or being shown where I’m wrong, of course, but I don’t expect for either to happen. I’m only entertaining the idea of going, because if I don’t I know I’ll be accused of not being open-minded or being afraid of information, etc. Also, if some of my family members are going, I’d like to know what they’re hearing. The odds of us ever resolving our differences are extremely low, but they’re not zero — so I’m willing to put in whatever work it takes, just in case. I hope that if I consistently show a willingness to see both sides of the issue, then they eventually will as well.
LikeLike
I think you’re right, John. In fact, in the “preview” sermon I listened to, they acknowledged that. It was 2 evangelists speaking to an audience, and they talked about how more and more people no longer view the Bible as God’s word, or view its morality as abhorrent, etc. That part was edifying, at least. 🙂
LikeLike
Powell,
I’m so glad that things went well in talking to your in-laws.
And yes, we have an entirely new circle of friends now, and things are good. Some of them are religious, but don’t really care that we aren’t. And we’ve met some others from a local Meet-up group, and that’s been a huge help. Also, as luck would have it, there’s a couple that we were close friends with at our old church who have recently deconverted as well. It’s been really nice rebuilding that relationship. He comments here from time to time (earlier in this thread, in fact) and goes by Matt.
LikeLike
Hey Matt B,
Good to see you again! 🙂
You make an excellent point about the evangelists receiving the same inoculations.
I’m sorry that you can resonate so much with what I’m saying… I’ve wondered how things are going for you and Janelle. Are y’all around the 2 year mark now?
LikeLike
Pascal,
Thanks for the kind message. My biggest hope is to eventually get to an “agree to disagree” place with my family, but their beliefs about “church discipline,” as Ruth called it, currently prevent that.
And I may have been misleading: they’re supportive of the kids’ soccer. They didn’t realize we practiced during those times when they invited us, and they understood why that would keep us away.
Thanks again!
LikeLike