"I find your piece intriguing. There is a warmth towards those (such as my parents) who attended Elim and yet a maliciousness towards the Bible and biblical faith. You say that you and your family 'bought into' the church package and yet I thought the biblical idea was that we were 'bought out' of sin and the world.
Your creedal list is a misrepresentation of beliefs and rather misleading. All that stuff about stinking to God and being eternally tortured and God torturing Jesus on the cross, raising Jesus... to prove his point...
In the churches I attended (including Elim) I never heard the speaker say that new life involves accepting Jesus and 1, 2, 3 etc. Living your life according to (local) church standards is an individual issue. If you don't like the standards move on. It's not the standards that save you. Turning away from the 'old life', to use a cliche, is not a bad thing is it? My understanding is that this is a continual process, a daily attempt to turn from that which is spiritually detrimental. Sometimes we fail and at other times we succeed.
An interesting dilemma Steve. You sense the numinous and yet you battle with what you see as rational. Although, you are not saying it outwardly your problem is two-fold: the legitimacy of the Bible as God's revelation and the acceptance of evolutionary theory as dogma.
Like you, I confronted the full spectrum of theology, both at Mattersey and Cardiff and I also found it traumatic, and I also placed my beliefs and theological understanding on the scales and sometimes they would tip one way and then the other. This taking and testing continues today but my liberation came not in a paradigm shift but a deeper appreciation of the Bible as God's revelation to us.
It seems to me that your theological reconstruction and changed world view resulted from choice not necessity because I was exposed to the same varieties of theology, the same critical studies, the same methodologies but I did not abandon the Word but embraced it more. And please don't say that I have put my brain in a jar or something like you say about 'intelligent fundamentalists'. I have and do continue to test my 'fundamentalist' faith (I prefer to call it biblical) and I have read the texts critically and daily in the original languages for years now (mind you, my Syriac is getting a bit rusty. I'll have to read a bit more Aphrahat).
As for the science bit, instead of accepting a particular science world view (Darwinism) I decided to expose myself to those disciplines and do a science honours degree (Biology with a small amount of physics and chemistry). And guess what? Science isn't the problem, it's the world views underpinning it - uniformitarianism and Darwinism. It's not the evidence that's the problem, its the interpretation of the evidence. A geologist with a uniformitarian world view looks at a cliff face and says, 'look at those epochs and eras, those millions of years'. I look at the same cliff face and say, 'look at those sedimentary rocks laid down by water - a universal flood'. Is my interpretation any less valid? No. You say that you reconstructed your world view based on science, historical research and logic. Well I continue my world view based upon those things, and, of course, I sense the presence of God, the one revealed in the Bible, not just the Presence out there but the one who made himself known in and as a human - Jesus.
You speak of your minister as free-thinking. Most atheists I speak to on the web say they are free thinkers. Nobody is free. We are all shackled by our genes, our intellectual and physical limitations, our upbringing, financial and economic situation and... world view. Maybe he's not as free as you might think. Remember what Jesus said to the religious leaders, 'you are slaves to sin... if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.'
After what I have read I am not surprised by the world according to Steve. No Bible anymore just the universe. You criticise Dawkins but he is right. Without the Bible you haven't got a leg to stand on. Acceptance of cosmic and biological evolution precludes God. If evolution were true why bother with God - he becomes redundant. Hey, don't go on about meaning. Without the Biblical eschatological view there is no real meaning. The Eastern religions teach that life is a cyclical curse which results in non-existence if you get off the wheel and Islam is a skewed replica of Judaism which turns life into a lottery of good and bad works.
Talk about can't see the wood for the trees, 'God hasn't gone out of God's way to tell us anything concrete about what God is like.' Back to basics Steve, the Bible.
Analysis of God? Can't be done. I keep getting that challenge from my atheist acquaintances. Prove God! God would not be God by definition (Supreme Being, ultimate reality etc) if he could be tested (I am using the masculine in the generic grammatical sense not in the sexual sense). But, God has unveiled what he wants us to know about himself through the Bible and Jesus.
You talk of values Steve, and I suppose we can construct values for ourselves but without absolute meaning values are valueless, and without absolute values anarchy ensues. We cannot work out a way of living together without Christ. Only in him can those issues of compassion, fairness and justice be worked out.
History can help us with moral and ethical issues but science doesn't, rather, it's the reverse. The problem is, that without a firm moral and ethical foundation the issues of science become subjective and in some situations, dangerous.
So you want the Jesus of reductionism and guess what you end up with? The Queen of England - a facade with no power for change, a puppet to the latest ideas. A two dimensional figurehead. Your description of Jesus is alien to the Bible - Old and New. You offer us, as Paul says, 'another Jesus and another Gospel'. The message is not to follow the path (hodos) of Jesus but to look to him who is the Path (Way). You place others on a level footing with the Lord and yet some of these would say that they did what they did because they looked up to and served Jesus as Lord and Saviour not as some mere example.
This abandonment of truth and denial of your spiritual heritage has at its heart, not an intellectual issue but an emotional and spiritual one. You 'bailed out' of the church you were in . You were 'appalled at some of the things that were done and said 'in the name of God'. People were pressured to conform. Been there mate. But we don't throw out the baby with the bath water. As Ghandi once said, 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.' Maybe, just maybe, you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction."
"Thanks for your response Huw. It's nice to know that someone's interested! OK, I'll try to formulate my reply in an orderly way, but I want to tackle what you said from where I sense the crux of your argument is: the Bible.
First I want to say that the Think page is intended as a discussion-starter primarily for those with no Christian or religious attachments. I'm not primarily interested in arguing with my Fundamentalist/Conservative Evangelical friends, (although because you've taken the time to write such a thoughtful response it would be poor of me not to here!) because; in my experience the arguments are futile. I know of no conservative Christians who have changed their views about their faith through arguing with 'liberals', but I know many who have changed their views through a process of discovery/backsliding (depending on your point of view!) for themselves.
Anyway, as the Think pages weren't really intended for Christian Fundamentalists, I did not present my theological point of view with any detail, or real depth. I think at the heart of our differences is our view of the bible. You see it as the Word of God, I see it (despite what you might think) as a collection of writings which contain insights into the theological understanding of many people, over many years. The Word of God for me is Jesus himself, a person with whom we must engage, and not a collection of words which some seek to interpret in particular ways.
With that in mind then, my problem with your view of the Bible is that, it seems to me, it has no foundation. Upon what basis do you make the claim that the Bible is the Word of God? (That is to say nothing of what you think 'The Word of God' actually means.) As I understand it, the Bible, unlike the Qur'an, does not claim the status as an infallible written document which comes straight from the mouth of God. The bible is a collection of documents and sources, and undeniably contains a variety of views of God, as well as diverging theological claims about Jesus, morality and ethics. I therefore have serious problems with the idea that this rich and diverse collection of texts can somehow be reduced to a single work which has some overarching theme or thread running through it.
Further, to accept the Bible in a literalist sense; to say that everything the Bible has to say about God is forever true, means that we have to accept the idea that, amongst other things genocide can be justified in certain circumstances, because 'God' orders it in the Old Testament. Frankly, I find that view repugnant and dangerous, as there are those who justify things like the assassination of abortion clinic doctors on that basis. Please understand, I'm not for one minute suggesting that all Fundamentalist Christians are, by definition violent killers! (Although I've met a few who are pretty nasty!) I'm simply saying that the view of the Bible promoted by Fundamentalists has, as a logical conclusion, the capacity for violence in the name of God. As I have studied the Gospels, I see the absolute opposite of this idea in Jesus. Jesus resisted and spoke against violent uprising against the Roman empire, and taught that we should love our enemies, not slaughter them.
Further, Jesus, and the early church reinterpreted the Hebrew scriptures of the day in a way which Fundamentalists would not countenance. In Acts, where Peter has the vision of the blanket coming down from Heaven, he even sees a direct contradiction of Scripture as being the command of God. The Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Jesus (depending who you're reading) is the new benchmark for living. It is obvious, from even a cursory reading of the New Testament, that the early Christians did not treat the Hebrew Scriptures (at least the ones they had) in the way that Fundamentalists treat the Bible as a whole. The Fundamentalist view of the Bible is actually very late in Christian history (the last couple of hundred years), and would have been seen as unacceptable by Christian thinkers from Justin Martyr to Augustin, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther and so on.
So, have I abandoned the Bible? Not at all. I believe that I simply approach it in the tradition of the Christian Fathers, as well as Jesus himself, and look for what is contained within the Bible that can speak to us today. Where things reflect a mindset of the time, as in issues such as the various primitive views of God which include 'His' penchant for genocide, the role of women, issues of sexual ethics etc, and are therefore not relevant to today, then other factors, such as Church Tradition, philosophy, and dare I say it, the leading of the Spirit need to play a role. The Bible doesn't have direct answers to questions like global warming, market economics, the Internet, genetics etc. It can play a role in informing us, but we need much more than the Bible to make decisions on such issues.
And so to science. I am happy to accept that I am not a scientist, but I have read a bit on the subject, and hold that it is not contradictory to have an evolutionary understanding of the world, and also believe that God created the universe. I simply have no problem with the idea that God used the process of the Big Bang and evolution to bring it about. I realise that these are theories, and there is much debate about them, however, they are reasonable working models, and have precisely zero effect on the proposition that God exists!
As a non-scientist, I obviously don't claim to have come to these conclusions on my own. I'm reliant on people like Keith Ward; formally Regious Professor of Divinity at Oxford; Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project, described as "one of the most accomplished scientists of our time"; John Polkenhorne, was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, and he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, as well as being an Anglican priest, Alister MacGrath etc, (all of whom I'm sure you have read) who are all committed Christians an also Big Bang/evolution-accepting scientists. I've read a lot of what they have to say, and as well as making sense to me as a scientific layman, it also leads me to the pragmatic position of accepting that 'if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me!'
My problem then, as I see it, is not in 'being biblical'; it is the nature of being biblical as defined by Fundamentalism. The problem with Fundamentalism is that it is one of many ways of interpreting the Bible, however, it sees itself as being the definitive one. What it boils down to in the end, is 'accept the theological interpretation of scripture as taught by Fundamentalist theologians/teachers, or you are wrong, in error, and in danger of the wrath of God.' I haven't bailed out on Church, on God, on Jesus, on Faith, or even the premise that we are saved by grace through Jesus. I have simply bailed out on the narrow (and in my view irrational) interpretation of those things by Fundamentalists.
If I want to know what God is like, yes I look to science, but I also look to Jesus. If I am looking at ethical dilemmas, I look to the Bible, but also to philosophy, science, as well as other religious voices past and present for perspective. To make the Bible central to the Christian faith seems to me, not only unworkable, but contradictory to Christianity itself. After all, the first Christians did not have the New Testament.
The thief on the cross had no Bible, wasn't baptised, made no confession of faith, wasn't quizzed on his views about the Virgin Birth etc. He simply asked Jesus to remember him, and Jesus simply said yes. For me then, at the core of the Christian faith is an encounter with Jesus. It is a journey; a mystery; something which cannot be boiled down to theological dogma, or confined to a book. It's a flimsy, wishy-washy position if you believe the Bible is the be-all-and-end-all, I know. But I cannot live any other way and still look myself in the mirror. (That's hard enough at the best of times!)
So, there's enough there to be getting on with. I'm sure you'll have a few criticisms of what I've said, so fire away if you want to."
Anyway, when I get a chance I'll put our discussion up there, and anything you come back to me with. Thanks again for adding your voice to the discussion.
Best wishes,
Steve.