For the past few months, my wife and I have been meeting periodically with some family members to discuss our religious differences. The conversations have been interesting.
When we tried this during our deconversion six years ago, it didn’t go well. Emotions were simply way too high. This time around, we’ve all come to accept the status quo, so there’s less pressure on both sides. The conversations have gotten heated at times, but nothing like they used to. Overall, I feel like they’ve been going pretty well, though I don’t think any positions have been changed, and I don’t expect them to.
Most of you know that my wife and I once believed the Bible was completely inerrant, and this was pretty much the consensus of everyone at our congregation. The Bible’s flaws had a lot to do with our leaving Christianity, and I tend to refer to them any time I’m discussing religion with someone. But these family members have reacted to this in a way that I don’t really understand, and that’s what I want to talk through in this post.
Example 1
In one of our meetings, I suggested that we look at an example of something that I think is a contradiction in the Bible, so I pointed their attention to the two different accounts of Judas’s death. I’ll give a brief synopsis of the problems here, but if you’d like to read about it in detail, check out this post.
The gospels tell us that Judas, Jesus’s most infamous disciple, betrayed him for 30 pieces of silver. In the Gospel of Matthew, Judas brings that money back to the chief priests, because he regrets what he’s done. They refuse to take it, so he throws it at their feet, leaves, and hangs himself. There’s no indication that the priests ever found out what happened to him, but because the 30 pieces of silver are blood money (a bribe to take Jesus’s life), they decide not to put it back in the treasury. Instead, they buy a field with it and use it as a cemetery for strangers. That field comes to be called “Field of Blood,” because of the money used to buy it.
In Acts, we get a completely different story. There, Judas uses the money to buy a field for himself. Somehow, while he’s in the field, he falls, ruptures his abdomen, and bleeds to death. Again, the field comes to be called “Field of Blood,” but now it’s because Judas bled to death all over it. There’s no indication that it was used to bury strangers.
We talked about a number of the discrepancies between those two accounts, but I mostly focused on Matthew’s claim that all of this fulfilled a prophecy “spoken by the prophet Jeremiah.” The problem is that the prophecy Matthew quotes can’t be found in Jeremiah. The closest passage is in the book of Zechariah. My family members didn’t immediately know how to answer that problem, which is completely fine — it deserves research.
So in the next meeting, one of them said he had read an article where someone argues that Matthew says “spoken by the prophet Jeremiah” because Jeremiah literally spoke it, but didn’t necessarily write it down. I found that explanation really disappointing. First of all, if that were the case, why would Matthew mention it? He shouldn’t have even known about it, but we could get around that by saying that God gave him the information through revelation. The real problem is that it would be meaningless to his audience. Stating that an event fulfills a prophecy is offering a piece of evidence. It’s making the argument that this event falls neatly into God’s plan. But when the prophecy can’t be found, it ceases to be evidence. It ceases to make a point at all, unless it’s the point that I’m making: Matthew made a mistake.
But there’s an even clearer problem. The writer of Matthew didn’t just write this one section, he wrote an entire book. And it turns out that “spoken by the prophet ______” is a pretty common phrase of his. He uses it in Matthew 1:22, but goes on to quote a passage from Isaiah 7:14. In Matthew 2:17, he uses the phrase to refer to Jeremiah 31:15 (the very same prophet he refers to when talking about Judas). In Matthew 3:3, he uses the phrase to refer to Isaiah 40:3. We just found 3 examples within the first 3 chapters of Matthew. When he says “spoken by the prophet,” he still means that it was recorded as a prophecy.
These are the points I presented, but my family remained unconvinced. How is that possible?
Example 2
That same night, I offered another example. I told them that the synoptic gospels claim Jesus was crucified on Passover, but John’s gospel claims that it was the day before. Again, if you’d like more information on this one, check out this post. After we looked at all the passages, they didn’t have anything to say. Again, I get that. It’s surprising stuff to see when you think the Bible is inspired. And I also don’t expect them to suddenly change their minds. They need time to study it and think about it. So that’s how we left it.
We usually try to meet every Friday or so, but we didn’t meet again for 7 weeks. Last Friday, we finally got back together, and when I brought back up how we had left things, they said that they hadn’t had time to look into the issues surrounding the day of Jesus’s death. That simply makes no sense to me.
Again, they attend a congregation where virtually everyone there would say that the Bible is inerrant. So pointing out a potential contradiction should motivate them to go into deep-study mode. But it didn’t. Even if they aren’t bothered by the implications of a contradiction, we are. And since they believe we’re bound for an eternal Hell, you’d think that would inspire them to study the issue.
So I backtracked a bit and told them that I didn’t really understand why they wouldn’t have made time for this in 7 weeks. I suggested that perhaps they didn’t think the Bible needed to be inerrant. If that was the case, then I could see why they wouldn’t be bothered by the two examples I brought up. But they didn’t really commit to a position on inerrancy either way. I’m not sure how much they’ve thought about it before.
What’s behind this?
College football is huge down here, and these members of my family are die-hard Alabama fans. They always have been. But as much as they love Alabama, they wouldn’t pretend that Alabama is objectively the right team to pull for. Sure, they could talk about how well Alabama plays, and they could talk about how great a coach Nick Saban is, but they know that a Tennessee fan isn’t going to be “converted” to Alabama by those arguments. And those aren’t even the reasons why they’re fans to begin with. One’s love for a sports team is a subjective thing. You love them simply because you love them.
But when it comes to religious beliefs, those are truth claims. As such, they should have evidence that shows why they’re objectively true. But I’ve started to realize that many people, like my family, belong to a particular religion for the same reasons that they follow a sports team. It’s just what they know.
In these discussions, my family members only know that my wife and I have to be wrong. When we bring up issues with the Bible or Christianity, they don’t really have a response, but that doesn’t seem to bother them. When we’ve asked if they think the Bible should be inerrant or not, they don’t really say. When we ask why they believe it, they mostly appeal to how it makes them feel personally. If they had more substantial evidence, they would offer it. But they don’t believe for the same reasons that I believed. If I had been asked why I believed the Bible was inspired, I would have begun talking about its prophecies and amazing consistency. I would have been wrong, but only out of ignorance — not because I hadn’t thought about it. Truth claims require evidence.
To be fair…
This is a pretty critical post about some people that I love. While I find their outlook to be confusing and frustrating, I do appreciate that they care enough about us to pursue these discussions. My wife and I didn’t instigate them — our family did. So that’s definitely a point in their favor. I don’t expect for either of our views to change, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Right now, I don’t think they’re considering the possibility that they could be wrong. If they would be open-minded about that, then who knows where things could go? After all, the basic facts are’t all that complicated: the Bible says what it says. On the surface, it’s very clear that it has inconsistencies and inaccuracies. The only question is what that might mean. When someone says they know who the creator of the universe is and that they know his plan, they should have some way to demonstrate it. Facts matter.
Finding Truth 
“And I find them educational, if for no other reason than it gives me an insight into thought processes that are very different from my own.”
I’m curious, Nate. Wouldn’t these thought processes be familiar to you, having once been quite devout?
LikeLike
Man I’m glad they are coming to talk, I hate they aren’t being receptive….but let’s be honest most of any faith aren’t objective by nature. Good luck friend.
LikeLike
Well, the beliefs are familiar, but I’m finding that their reasons for believing are very different from the ones I had. Since I was a kid, I’ve known that religious beliefs are beliefs about reality, and as such, they are either objectively true or false. Therefore, evidence is paramount.
I thought that my beliefs had really good evidence. I wasn’t that interested in the textual history of the Bible or Bible archaeology. And people I trusted who had studied those things claimed that the evidence in support of the Bible was overwhelming. On top of that, I never encountered people who claimed otherwise. Even though I knew a lot of people that I thought had wrong beliefs, they still considered themselves Christians. So while we disagreed over doctrine, none of us were questioning the Bible itself. I thought I was on firm footing.
I thought most of the other people from my old congregation thought similarly, but I’m finally realizing that many people just don’t think deeply about it. That’s what seems so foreign to me. I was just working from a completely different foundation than they are.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the comment, Matt! Good to hear from you 🙂
LikeLike
It may help to take an honest look with them at what evidence and inquiry look like. They probably need to understand what special pleading means, what probably vs possibly mean, etc. It probably won’t get through as long as you’re talking about Christianity. You may have to look at Islam or Mormonism and compare how those faiths talk about themselves vs what you can find from Wikipedia and the historical record. The most fatal thing is for people to see themselves doing exactly what looks stupid coming from someone else. But I don’t think you can get them to see (1) proper examination methods and (2) the errors of their faith, concurrently. You may want to attempt decoupling them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTW, I should say that what you’re doing is commendable, and hard, and I wish you the best of success. I haven’t had much myself in similar situations. I think about what I would do if I had the same opportunity of discussion again. But the opportunity may be an illusion. There may be no actual openness there.
To my prior point, I thought of a shorter way to say it. If a person isn’t good at math, putting a gun to their head won’t make them better at it. They need to get better at math where the stakes are low, before they tackle math problems on which their life hangs in the scales.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Nate,
I really admire you for the attitude you are bringing to these discussions, and I guess I respect your family for the same. As I understand it, they have changed significantly towards you – from separating from you (you said they had a word for the practice, but I have forgotten it) to discussion seems to me to be a positive step.
Unlike everyone else who has commented, I find myself in a position halfway between both “sides” – agreeing and disagreeing with each. That obviously gives me a different perspective, and while I don’t expect you to agree fully with me (maybe even at all), I think it is worth offering that perspective.
You know I don’t agree with much of their approach. While you don’t see the evidence as I do, you know that I genuinely believe that the evidence points in the direction of christianity, and I wouldn’t be able to take their approach as you have reported it. And I don’t share their view of many aspects of christianity, especially of the Bible.
But there is more than one sort of evidence, and some people value one sort more than another. For example, some atheists say they would be convinced if they saw God grow an amputee’s leg back, but others say that even then they would choose to believe they had hallucinated rather than believe God exists and did a miracle.
So logical proofs, hard facts, personal experience, a trustworthy authority or the coherence of a set of beliefs are all different ways for different people to test a belief or a hypothesis. Perhaps you are discounting a form of evidence that you are not drawn to but they are.
There are of course possible explanations to the two cases you raise. I won’t bother going into them – you probably know them. And taken alone, many of them are quite possible, even likely. The problem for inerrancy is believing that every last one of those explanations is true. But nevertheless, it makes your case less strong than you think. (And if someone accepts what the historians say, the cases are trivial.)
There is more than one sort of information in the Bible. Not everything is intended to be historical in the sense that we understand the word. Ancients were inclined to include fanciful elements in stories to get points across, while preserving the historicity of the core of the story. Oral traditions allowed stories to be varied around the edges, again while preserving the core. You and I have talked about this many times before, and you have Peter Enns (and likely others) on this point.
I realise that an inerrantist would find it difficult to accept what I have just written, but I personally think inerrancy can often be a doctrine strongly held in theory while not strictly applied in all cases.
I think we have to face the fact that subjectivity is pervasive. It isn’t confined to fundamentalist christians. I have come across many unbelievers who are just as evidence-free in their thinking as you have described. In Australia, I would say a vague non-evidence-based agnosticism is the most common view of God and religion.
At the risk of being provocative, I have seen it in you. When we have discussed issues like how the universe began, free will and naturalism, and the idea that a non-inerrant Bible throws doubt on christianity, I have felt that you haven’t had answers, but believed the naturalistic and sceptical view on those matters with a similar level of faith as you describe in them (though doubtless you have given them more thought and reading!).
I recognise that you don’t see it that way, and there are some here who will say the same about me. But that just reinforces my point. Subjectivity is all around us and in us, and if we understand the possibility that we are subjective, we can avoid being quite so critical of those we disagree with.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt, if he has been reported correctly, believes that on matters of religion, ethics, politics, etc, we all form our beliefs intuitively and then rationalise our conclusions later. That is a great blow to your comparison of rationality vs football team fandom, and to my view of myself too. I’m not sure if I agree, and doubtless his conclusions are more subtle than that. And doubtless we are sometimes capable of rationalising truthfully and even changing our intuitive conclusions on that basis – as you have reported occurred in your life.
But it reinforces again that the situation you have described is not, in my view, as black and white as you have suggested. I don’t think that changes the issues you and your family face in discussing these matter, but it may give you some better awareness of the issues from a different perspective, and may help blunt the edge of your response a little.
Again, I appreciate what you are doing, and the fact that you are reporting this here. Thanks for the opportunity to add a different view. Best wishes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why would your Christian family feel the need to study Christian apologetics regarding alleged contradictions in the Bible when they have all the proof they need: “in their hearts”?
Jesus speaks to them every day. Jesus makes them feel safe and secure when times are scary. Jesus gives them peace when times are tough. No matter what happens Jesus is there for them. They can feel it. He “talks” to them in a “still, small voice”. He “moves” them. He “leads” them.
Jesus answers their prayers. Remember when Aunt Beth had a bad case of the flu, everyone prayed, and Aunt Beth was better the next day! Jesus healed her. There is NO other explanation.
With evidence like that who cares that some smart-ass “scholar” says that there are errors in the story about how Judas died or on which day of the week Jesus died. Jesus is REAL, right here, right now, inside of them. They can feel him.
That is what you are up against, Nate. That is what many of us are up against with our conservative/evangelical Christian family and friends. Until we find a way to prove to them that the voice/presence inside of them is…THEM…they aren’t going to care about possible errors in the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How interesting. UnkleE and I must have been typing at the same time because I did not see his post until after mine had posted.
When UnkleE talks about “other forms of evidence” I believe that he is referring to what I just mentioned in my previous post. If you believe that an invisible being resides inside your body; communicates with you daily in secret, non-audible ways; and performs miracles on your behalf; it is very hard to accept that your invisible friend exists only in your imagination, and that the “miracles” you have experienced are simply random, rare coincidences that happen to everyone from time to time.
Your family (nor UnkleE) will ever seriously consider the possibility that Christianity is false until they begin to question the reality of the invisible friend who lives within them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Matt. My wife and I have tried to use other religions as examples, but they haven’t really understood the point we’re making with that yet. It’s hard for me to understand why they seem so mystified by it, but I’m still hopeful that we can find a better way to say it that will be impactful for them. I do think you’re right, though — that seems to be one of the core problems.
LikeLike
UnkleE,
Thanks for the comment. I definitely appreciate your perspective on it. I think you make some really valid points, and I’m going to let them simmer for a bit.
The one thing I can go ahead and comment on is that I did think of you a bit during these conversations. Because of you and some of the other Christians I’ve interacted with on here, I made sure to tell these family members that the direction of our conversations depended on what they thought about inerrancy. If they don’t think inerrancy is necessary, then there’s not much point in going through the kinds of details I was bringing up.
To be clear, I actually do think they lean toward inerrancy, but they might be afraid of getting painted into a corner. I really don’t want them to feel that way. It’s a shame that these discussions usually devolve into “us vs them,” when they should really be a team exercise in discovery. I didn’t write the Bible, and no one in my family did either. None of us should really feel the need to defend it — let’s just look at it closely and consider the different possibilities. But instead, we all stake out our positions and argue.
Granted, I know more about the subject at this point than they do. And while they don’t really want to acknowledge that, I know they’re aware of it, and that probably encourages them to keep their guard up even more. I wish it inspired them to learn more about it for themselves, but they seem reluctant to do that, too.
Anyway, like I said, a lot of what you said resonates with me. Throughout all our conversations, I’ve been trying to find out more about the reasons behind their belief, because I know they’re probably very different from the ones I had. I just don’t feel like they’ve really been able to answer that yet. We’ll see where it goes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Gary,
Thanks for weighing in.
I do think there’s an element of that going on with my family, but the brand of Christianity I came from tends to minimize those personal aspects of the religion. That’s why I’ve always been so surprised that showing them problems with the Bible wasn’t more impactful. We all knew lots of people who claimed to be Christians but “got it wrong,” and those individuals largely didn’t know what the Bible actually taught. They all felt they had some personal connection, but since they couldn’t all be right about that, it made us skeptical of the personal connection stuff. But I guess when my family is faced with seeing the problems for what they are, or backpedaling on the personal stuff, they choose the latter.
LikeLike
Beliefs are rarely discrete decisions. Beliefs are a framework. People can change beliefs relatively easily if it does not affect the overall framework. But when a belief affects the coherence of the framework, then changing the belief requires a great deal of cognitive reorganization.
Sometimes people put in a great deal of effort to rationalize their current framework (e.g., apologetics). Other times, they just avoid resolving the question. They put it “on the shelf”, as Mormons say. And sometimes, people (especially in cults) try to avoid anything at all that might cause cognitive dissonance.
But people can and do change their frameworks. Sometimes it happens suddenly and painfully, but I think it usually happens slowly, as people gradually figure out how to reengineer their framework to accommodate a new fact. Hopefully, your family can do that, at least to some extent, but….
I would bet you don’t really want your family to change their beliefs so much as you want them to understand yours. If they choose to go on believing, that’s fine. People disagree about stuff all the time. But because you have been where they are, you understand how much their religious beliefs are a core part of who they are and how they see the world. You want them to understand why you do not believe because you want your family to understand who you are.
I totally understand that because that’s where I am with my family. Unfortunately, I get the impression that most of my family only ways to talk about these things in order to persuade me, not in order to understand me. So we don’t talk about it very much. In fact, nobody in my family has ever asked me WHY I came to believe what I believe. That is frustrating and a little bit hurtful. But I have to admit that younger Christian me never asked any atheists why they were atheists, either. So, I guess I understand a little bit.
Ultimately, you may never get what you want from them. It may be that they don’t have the cognitive or emotional time, strength or desire to rearrange the whole framework. But that’s ok. The fact that your family is willing to sit down and talk to you about these things is vastly more important than whether they understand or agree with you. It means they love you.
After reading almost everything you’ve written here, I know that you know and appreciate that. I have enjoyed reading about your journey. I hope you can help them reorganize their own framework, but I’m mostly just glad that they have decided their framework is not incompatible with your family’s framework. Love covers up a lot of engineering problems.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Framework of beliefs – reminds me of Evid3nc3’s series:
Why I Am No Longer a Christian: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate – think the outsider test for faith might help? (The concept, not the necessarily book.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“but I’m finally realizing that many people just don’t think deeply about it. That’s what seems so foreign to me.
I see. Thank you for the clarification. I also think that many people don’t think deeply about why they believe — their motives.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anyone miss it: Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States; leader of the Free World; commander in chief of the most powerful military on earth; and, in sole control of the American nuclear codes.
I’m still waiting to hear from UnkleE about available properties in Australia for my American family of four. How’s New Zealand compare to Australia in the standard of living and ease of emigration?
LikeLiked by 1 person
maybe we can save money on tickets by travelling together…
LikeLike
Sounds good, William.
In all seriousness. I am horrified. I love the USA but if Trump starts doing really crazy things, I’m leaving. I hope he was just blowing hot air during the campaign and will be more of a moderate once in office.
Time will tell…
LikeLike
Honestly, I’m really sick about the election. I’ve been avoiding the news pretty heavily since Tuesday. It’s just too depressing. I’m filling my days with work, Netflix, and Star Wars podcasts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate, I so wish you could get everyone who comments on your blog together to join you and your wife for a week-long retreat. It would be priceless! I find all of you so refreshing in a world of sleep walkers. I do not have the benefit of having any Christians who are willing to confront these issues with me. There have been brief moments when they acted like they would but it would never last long. A few discussions and they found that I just wasn’t worth their effort. So, Nate, these people who spend time with you regularly must truly love you. Those who are not inclined to think about or question their beliefs find people like us exhausting. But I have begun to believe that, more than anything, deep down, they’re scared. Scared of damaging their faith. It seems Gary may have had first-hand experience with this because his comment is spot on:
“Jesus speaks to them every day. Jesus makes them feel safe and secure when times are scary. Jesus gives them peace when times are tough. No matter what happens Jesus is there for them. They can feel it. He “talks” to them in a “still, small voice”. He “moves” them. He “leads” them.”
I sincerely wish that I could turn off my mind the way others do and just be at peace, just have unshakable faith. As I continue to seek the reasons why God chooses to be elusive and that His Word is seemingly contradictory and erroneous, at least to me, the worst part is not the possibility that I might be wrong. It is the idea of losing my best friend. The only one who loved me unconditionally. The only one who could change those things in me I couldn’t change on my own. The one who I can lean on, who is in control, who heals me. The one who teaches me right from wrong and empowers me to live righteously and helps me to love others. I feel like I cannot live without him. This pull continues to draw me toward him no matter what I hear that I find confusing. I hope that pull is my faith but often I fear that it is reluctance to face the truth. I keep saying to myself, yes, this is weird and this looks like a mistake but it’s just because I don’t understand. It is arrogant of me to think I’ll grasp and of these things until or unless he allows me to.
Nate, I love how you wrote that you and your wife just want to know/live truth. That has been the goal of my life for over 20 years. But I am terrified that truth is not the solid ground I once thought it was. It is fickle and changes with our perception and experience. Instead of truth being the object and goal, truth is instead the fruit of our own minds. At least, that’s the only truth that matters, isn’t it? The truth we each cling to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I feel amazed and apprehensive about Trump as many of you do. I have been in the US this last week or so, and so have seen the election first hand instead of from my usual safe distance in the antipodes, and that makes it slightly worse.
Gary, properties are more expensive in Australia than in the US generally. Here in Houston where I am currently, you could get a decent house for under $200,000 that would cost maybe 4 times that in Sydney, a city of comparable size where i live. New Zealand may be cheaper, and the people there are nicer and the lifestyle more laid back, but there be earthquakes! Nowhere is safe!!
LikeLike
“I do not have the benefit of having any Christians who are willing to confront these issues with me.”
Hi Julie, I’m sorry about the way you are finding things. There are plenty of people here willing to discuss issues like I guess you would want to raise, and I am at least one christian who is happy to have a go at any question. I think there are answers that are based on evidence and lead to faith, and don’t require pretending, but the truth may not turn out to be what you have always been taught.
LikeLike
unkleE, It isn’t as though I have a specific question I’m asking you or anyone else to”answer.” It’s everything. It’s every one of the issues Nate has raised on the blog. It’s every time scripture contradicts itself. It’s every time God of the ot is different than God/Jesus of the nt. It’s the lack of love, power and unity among “christians.” It’s every law of the ot that Christians ignore while upholding others with fervor. It’s the treatment of women in the ot (David’s concubine, rape and forced marriage of virgin prisoners of war), it’s the confusing message of the gospel and salvation (faith comes from God but we must have faith to be saved)….It goes on and on. The questions never stop. Ever. It’s emotional torture.
So here’s a question. Why is someone who wants to believe with all their heart and has sought after him all their life still struggling with doubt and still unable to find peace? Why wouldn’t he speak to their heart and surround then with loving brethren? Why wouldn’t he reveal himself to that person and comfort them with his unfailing truth? Why wouldn’t he help them understand the scriptures and resolve the problems, or otherwise give them peace about those things they can’t understand? And please don’t suggest that I need to surrender or that I’m not humble or I’m stubborn etc…
LikeLike
Hi Julie
Those were very heartfelt comments you made. I am sure that those of us who have struggled with faith would emphasise with you.
Indeed I continued in an assistant pastor role for two and half months after my faith was shattered. In that time I tried not to damage the faith of those in my church. The last sermon I preached was on doubting Thomas. I cast him in a very sympathetic light given my own struggles at that time. I was interested to note how many folk came up to me after the service saying how much they appreciated my words which were in essence ‘it is OK to doubt’.
Now one and a half years after that time I still have not told most people why I left the church. The congregation think I had a nervous breakdown. I decided it was best to let them think that rather than damage their faith as they looked up to me as the person ‘with all the answers’.
I found the process of losing and leaving faith very painful. But I realised I could not minister to others if I did have any personal conviction. I am convinced that many people of faith have real doubts but suppress them.
I did know some folk who said they had no doubts. Indeed they were convinced ‘God’ spoke to them. However overtime their prophecy was proved false so I concluded that whatever voices they were hearing it was not a god.
unklee and I have reached different conclusions, but I will say in unklee’s defense he does at least try to address with the concerns of those people of faith who are struggling. You will most that most of the folk that comment on Nate’s site are not particularly sympathetic to unklee’s contributions.
Anyway I wish you the best in your search.
LikeLiked by 2 people