when God vanishes (ii)

Bart Ehrman, author of 'Misquoting Jesus,' is an agnostic who was formerly a "born again" evangelical believer. The story of how he lost his faith is recorded in the Washington Post. I have a great deal of sympathy with his story.  I was once a "born again" believer, and it was in part the recognition of endless intellectual dishonesty, both in biblical interpretation and in church practice, that led me to re-conceive my own faith. For me, though, the end result (so far at any rate) has not been the loss of faith, but a radical reconstruction of it. If, like Ehrman, my faith had depended on the inerrancy of the "original texts" of the Bible, I guess I would have lost my faith too. But the truth is that our faith is not solely based in the Bible, and its inaccuracies and inconsistencies have in any case been known about and lived with for a very long time indeed. Coleridge wrote engagingly in 1824 that reading the Bible as if it were a book, and not a divinely imparted magic text, could only enhance its capacity to connect real human beings with God.

When I lost my naive faith, I had the good fortune of coming to land in a place where the Bible is taken in the context of reason and "tradition" (by which I mean the history and practice of the Church, not "traditionalism"), and consequently the inaccuracies, mistakes, inconsistencies and unknowns of the Biblical record do not necessitate an abandonment of faith.

It intrigues me why people continue working, in a negative way, against a faith they have lost. Where does the energy come from? And what kind of a mission is it to spend your life disproving something? Once you've disproved something, surely there are more interesting projects to move on to?

All the same, I sympathise with people like Ehrman who do lose their faith, because I've walked close to that line myself, and see close-up the crisis that ensues when someone who has carved out their life around a profession that goes hand in hand with a belief system that subsequently crumbles. I'm reminded of the middle-aged Priest in David Hare's Racing Demon, who was faced similarly with the crisis of what to do, as a career priest, when the core of faith seems to vanish.

The article about Ehrman borrows John Updike's description of a loss of faith:

Where does it go, this belief in things not seen?  Let's look at "In the Beauty of the Lilies." This is John Updike's novel of the fictional Rev. Clarence Arthur Wilmot, a Presbyterian minister, and his loss of faith. Wilmot, beset by doubt one afternoon in the rectory, "felt the last particles of his faith leave him. The sensation was distinct -- a visceral surrender, a set of dark sparkling bubbles escaping upward . . . there was no God, nor should there be."

I wonder whehter things might have turned out differently for Ehrman had he, like his wife and friend, emerged from a tradition that balanced the Bible with other core elements of faith?

Comments

[tony]

Sure, it's a moving and sad story. But the saddest thing of all, is that this is reported as if it were Something New. Teachers and clergy have known about all this "for ever" - what sort of terrible disservice are we / they doing to people, if we pretend it isn't so?

(And I put this up as a question for self-examination, too.)

[Hugh A]

This sad story spoke to me about the problem of fundamentalists who treat doubt and questioning as a sign of weakness. Faith is about trusting when it is hard to believe not blindly believing because you are told to. For me the one thing that I couldn't ever get away from was the resurrection of Jesus, nothing else fits the known facts. From that starting point I have re-built a faith that is very different from the fundamentalist views I once held but ironically, in its questioning and doubt it has become stronger. I recently came across the following:

The believer can only perfect his faith on the ocean of nihilism, temptation and doubt; he has been assigned the ocean of uncertainty as the only possible site for his faith. Joseph Ratzinger

Wise words – I wonder what became of him!

[hopefulamphibian]

I found the WP article immensely frustrating, because some of the things it says about biblical text and transmission are simply not true (the repeated "centuries after", for example) and Ehrman's reported arguments with the bible sound very simplistic, or naive, indeed. (I'm sure the article can't have done them justice). The problem with the literalist, inerrancy position with which Ehrman began is that it sets up many strange beliefs about the bible and what it says with which a lot of "evangelicals" would disagree, let alone "liberals". (Hate those labels, as you know.) Anyway, Maggi, you put it better than I in what you say above - it just seems extraordinarily sad.

[Paul Fromont]

Thanks Maggi. Will read, and will definitely seek out Updike's, "In the Beauty of the Lillies". Peace.

[jimmy]

I thought your readers may be interested in this collaborative Lent Blog at:
www.nealb.co.uk/lent
Different Christians mostly around the Glasgow area expressing thoughts and reflections on each day of lent.

[Phil]

I too see a strawman in Ehrman's caricature. Even here in America's evangelical heartland (Findlay, Ohio) I've never met a pure biblicist. I would agree, however, that some of the biblical piety reveals a diminished trust in the living Word. It also reveals a diminished imagination. But we all struggle with these limitations. Sometimes, a text sort of fills the void--especially when we believe, deep down, those words are God-breathed.

[jimmy]

I've just read Bart Ehrman's story and I found nothing in it to cast any shadow of doubt upon my personal sense of assurance
that - The word of God is living and active Heb 4:12. I accept there will be inaccuracies in the Bible but nothing that would lessen or weaken the the Nicene Creed.

[Phyllis]

dear maggi,
thanks for posting on this. i am in the process of - how did you put it? - re-conceiving my faith, as well. i have no doubts in the person of christ, nor in god, nor the holy spirit, but beyond that, everything needs a second look. it's a wild mixture of emotions, going through such a transformation. it's not only the what that needs to be re-conceived, but the how - how does one go about deciding what is true and what can be chucked. it's an adventure, for sure, but too lonely to be without angst.

[Phil]

Phyllis-- you worry me just a bit. If how you go about deciding what is true is, indeed, a "lonely" angst-ridden process, then can the church, as a real faith-seeking community (not merely some institutional apparatus) be at all your spiritual mother? Does the church have any constitutive role in your faith?

Can't even your deconversion--as necessary as that may be--have communal dimensions?

I ask not because I think I have all this sorted out... only because I'd like to better understand why this is not a live option... for you, for Ehrman, for many others as well...

[Sally]

As one on the journey I both empathise and question...losing faith is stark moving on in faith and letting go of previously held convictions is not losing faith but re-discovering faith in a new way. Why do so may throw the baby out with the bathwater???

[Aaron Ghiloni]

Maggi,

Thanks for sharing this moving story of your own journey. Being "born again" from "born again" experiences - or losing the "naive faith" you mention - is something that many readers obviously can identify with!

[John Scholes]

Really, do you think Coleridge was an orthodox Christian? Hardly.

Ehrmann was silly and many of his textual 'arguments' are just plain wrong.

The Bible is not 'balanced' by other elements in 'tradition' - that's the bogus 'three/four legged stool' idea that does the rounds in Ecusa. If one is not an evangelical, the only other reputable position is to be a Catholic (Orthodox or Roman). Liberalism is just a waiting room for agnosticism - death by a thousand qualifications (even some from university!). Read your J. H. Newman!

[Richard]

Mr Scholes: Coleridge was, for much of his life, a Unitarian, it's true. But he did move to a more orthodox position later in life. So I think you're being unnecessarily dismissive.

I think you've also made the mistake of mixing up traditional Anglican theology with liberalism. Liberal Protestantism is a way of allowing Christianity to make sense to the modern mind, and doesn't have much to do with the three-legged stool.

One final question: am I, a moderate Anglo-Catholic, 'disreputable' or invalid in some way? I'm curious to know your criteria...

[J. Scholes]

Richard, Coleridge was ruled by his subjective romanticism (as well as his opium addiction), even after he renounced his unitarianism. Any postmodernists who look to him for inspiration will have a hard job staying 'orthodox'. Just look at all the silly tergiversations of pseudo-theologian Brian McLaren. It ends up in fairly predictable pro-gay, pro-feminist, pro-'many roads to God' etc liberalism. A weak doctrine of Scripture is part of it.
What's 'traditional Anglican theology'? The 39 Articles? Jewel? Whose tradition?
I'm sure you're not a 'disreputable' person! But do you really think Anglo-Catholicism is sustainable in places like Ecusa? It's unitarianism with bells. Read Newman, he saw it all coming. & he probably had a good idea about Coleridge.

[Richard]

Excuse me, are we talking about the same church?

You'll probably be shocked to know that there are pro-gay, pro-feminist evangelicals out there...or have they effectively renounced their evangelicalism by holding different views on secondary issues?

I suspect that we're talking different languages here, so I'm not sure this discussion is worth continuing online...

[John Scholes]

Richard, nothing much shocks me at my age. 'evangelical' as a label has largely lost its meaning, it signifies little more than mood music in lots of places, where the Bible is scarcely studied with any seriousness. Does a monkey wearing a crown becoem a king? Homosexuality is not a 'secondary issue', any more than abortion or 'assisted' suicide is.
As for Ecusa, it's done a pretty good job of destroying itself, esp. since GC '03. The +California election will end its 'relationship' with the Anglican Communion.

[Richard]

I'm very sorry that you feel that way, John. Obviously, Anglican politics are painful and we should all hold each other in prayer, rather than point the finger.

You're probably also aware that evangelicalism was very different in its 19th century form from its 20th century one. People like Jim Wallis and Steve Chalke, very influential in some Christian circles, are much closer to the roots of evangelical faith than many mainstream evangelicals, so perhaps 'true' evangelicalism's actually being rediscovered?

[John Scholes]

Richard, I've been ordained many years and never really found that serious issues are dealt with by holding hands and singing Kumbaya. Anybody studying church history should know that. 'Athanasius/Cyril/Gregory/Dr Luther/Archbishop Cranmer/Mr Wesley/Pradikant Barth, this is a painful matter, but ....'
Ask yourself why they're 'painful' and what they signify. Then have a look at the Dioceses of San Diego, Pennsylvania, NewWest etc etc.
I'm not aware that 19th century evangelicals (at least the ones I've studied) thought that abortion was a non-issue or that the doctrine of penal substitution was 'cosmic child abuse'. Jim Wallis makes identical mistakes in his own way to those he criticizes on the right. Reemberwhat Bultmann said about 'presuppositionless exegesis' being impossible. Wallis has forgotten that. Steve Chalke is a lightweight who isn't taken seriously by anyone I know of. (But then I'm not 18 any more!)

[maggi]

John, Richard didn't suggest holding hands and singing Kumbaya, he said we should hold each other in prayer. There's a profound difference. I agree wholeheartedly with him. Even those of us who have been alive and/or ordained for a long time don't earn the right to be patronising and dismissive towards younger Christians. Disagree, by all means, but do Richard the courtesy of taking him seriously.

[Richard]

Hey, I'm not 18 any more either!

Thanks for your comment, Maggi.

What worries me is that when Christians get into debates like this, accusing one another of heresy and claiming doctrinal superiority over one another, God seems - paradoxically - to fly out of the window. It's a far cry from Christ's mandate to his disciples. Like it or not, the liberals, and Jim Wallis and Steve Chalke, are our brethren in Christ, and we, of all people, should be praying for them in love.

A certain man whom I love dearly once talked about specks and planks lodged in an important part of our anatomy. I suggest, John, that you read that story and ponder it awhile. I'll be doing the same.

[José Solano]

John Scholes,

Thank you for your words of wisdom that are taken by some as insults because they cannot find a Christian biblical response. You are so right that issues such as abortion and homosexuality are not secondary issues in Christian life. They are an assault on the most fundamental moral principles of our faith and their justification has an enormously corrosive affect on our society and church. Together with no-fault divorce they are the most damaging assaults on God's temple today. The condemnation of such practices needs to be a top priority of any ministerial work. They are such abominable sins that no minister caring for the souls of anyone should be tempted by political correctness to discuss such matters subjected to mere pleasantry chats. Certainly pray for those condoning such practices and in a spirit of love do whatever can be done to convince them of their errors.

The first effort of the demonic power is to whisper in one's ear "Oh, such practices are loving and essential for one's well being. They increase our joys and reduce our material conflicts. There is nothing heretical about engaging in and condoning such meaningful practices." Lift up the Cross to such tempters. They would have you water down the power of your testimony. Point the finger and never take such absurdities seriously as if they have any merit whatsoever. Show them God's teaching. Let them know that it is not enough to say "Lord, Lord" and sing Kumbaya in harmony. Hold the line for Christ's sake.

[Tony B]

"It intrigues me why people continue working, in a negative way, against a faith they have lost. Where does the energy come from? And what kind of a mission is it to spend your life disproving something? Once you've disproved something, surely there are more interesting projects to move on to?"

Maybe there aren't. I suspect that such people want very much to be Christians, but they cannot convince themselves intellectually. I'm only speaking for myself of course. I find Christianity intensely interesting, I just can't believe it. But there is immense appeal to it. I think this stems from the fact that althought it isn't true, there IS truth in it. I want very much to become a Christian. But I just can't. I almost did two months ago. But doubts crept in again. Maybe I will swing endlessly from doubt to near faith, until finally I pass. Whatever happens, I'm sure there ARE better and more important things to do than argue about doctrine.

[Michael Gardner]

"the church, as a real faith-seeking community (not merely some institutional apparatus...Does the church have any constitutive role in your faith?"

That's the problem for so many of us: we view "the church" as not only that mere "apparatus" BUT as an organ of power and politics that has so often over the centuries been used as THE mechanism of oppression, hatred..and yes, just plain sin on so many human levels that whatever lesson there is supposedly to be learned from Christ has been absolutely squandered by his followers. Starting from that point alone, let alone Ehrman's deeply sincere exegesis; to see him talk is to understand deeply the anxiety he knows he presents. The only authentic alternative is the Kierkegaardian "leap of faith" that still dispenses with all the mandarins & shamans of the priestly caste and lives within that same doubt and uncertainty with regard to Christ, but still accepts it all in the face of the doubts. I see few who have lept so far.