Blog

Blog

Evangelical vs Progressive Christianity

What do they actually believe?

Part three: God’s Relationship With Humanity

It’s worth noting that I do not believe in the creation story, nor the myth of Adam and Eve. It is not my intention here to get into a debate about the apologetics of creation. For me, the myth of the creation story and what supposedly took place in the Garden of Eden is irrelevant for this discussion. However, both of these congregations do believe in these stories. So, what matters here is how each congregation views…

God’s relationship with humanity.

Evangelical: We believe God wants to bring about a new humanity by redeeming every part of us and our stories. We believe that man was originally created in the image and after the likeness of God, free from sin. Humanity (Adam and Eve) sinned and consequently experienced not only physical death but also spiritual death (which is separation from God). The consequences of this sin affect the entire human race. All human beings are born with a sinful nature and are alienated from the life of God and incapable of remedying his lost and depraved condition apart from divine grace.”

Progressive:We believe that… when God created the world, and human beings in particular, God said, “This is good.” Our origin story is one of goodness. We believe this goodness applies to all of humanity.”

Let’s break down the evangelical statement to see if we can decipher what they are really saying.

Evangelical: “We believe God wants to bring about a new humanity by redeeming every part of us and our stories.”

New humanity? Huh? What exactly does that mean? I googled “new humanity” and found lots of christian sites that referenced that expression, however none of them made sense in the context of this statement. Also, what does it mean to “redeem every part of us and our stories”? Once again this is so vague as to be worthless in application.

Evangelical: We believe that man was originally created in the image and after the likeness of God, free from sin. Humanity (Adam and Eve) sinned and consequently experienced not only physical death but also spiritual death (which is separation from God). The consequences of this sin affect the entire human race.”

So, we are back to original sin, are we? How curious that it’s the corner stone of christian dogma and yet it is not named, stated or taught anywhere in the bible, The concept of original sin wasn’t even developed until the fourth century CE by Saint Augustine.

The doctrine of original sin is not named, stated or taught in the Bible.

I have been skeptical of  “original sin” for as long as I can remember. Even when I was actively involved in evangelical circles, I did not accept the concept that mankind was condemned from birth. I addressed this opposition in an earlier blog of mine titled “Why I Let Go of Christianity.”

One week, the message from the pulpit was that “in our natural selves dwells no goodness at all, that apart from Christ, our best deeds are no more attractive than soiled, puss drenched rags. Before Christ, goodness is cosmetic, badness is defining.” The pastor went to great lengths to explain that the god of the bible hates mankind but if we joined the Jesus Club, he would like us. Yipee!!!

I never returned to that or any other church. It’s been several decades, but the message is still the same.

Evangelical:  “All human beings are born with a sinful nature and are alienated from the life of God and incapable of remedying his lost and depraved condition apart from divine grace.”

Let’s see if I understand this correctly. All human beings are born morally corrupt and wicked because of something some guy named Adam did 6,000 years ago, (which God can’t let go of) and the only way to get back into God’s favor (and not burn in hell) is to join the (very exclusive) Jesus Club?

Compare that with how progressives view God’s relationship with humanity.

Progressive: “We believe that… when God created the world, and human beings in particular, God said, “This is good.” Our origin story is one of goodness. We believe this goodness applies to all of humanity.”

I like that view of God’s relationship with humanity. I contacted my friend at the progressive church and asked him if his congregation believed in “original sin”. This was his reply.

“No! We believe in original blessing, that is, that everything God has brought into being is already beloved. It always has been. We do not deny the reality of sin in the world, but we talk about it as everything, whether personal or systemic, that moves us away or interferes with us living to the fullest as God’s beloved children.”

Hmm, let’s see… “born lost, depraved and separated from God” or “born blessed and beloved by God”? Unless you’re an evangelical, this is an easy one.

Another point for Progressives 3-0

Coming up next

Nature of Salvation

Evangelical: We believe that salvation from the guilt and condemnation of sin is possible only as the gift of God’s grace and that whoever by faith receives Jesus Christ as His Savior becomes a child of God. His salvation is not the result of any human effort or merit, rather it is the work which Christ accomplished through his life, death, burial, and resurrection that purchases salvation.

Progressive: The teachings of Jesus have led us to believe that… Christ died for all the world and God’s love is accessible and available to everyone, everywhere. The embrace of God is an inclusive, unstoppable love that calls us to believe and bear witness to the belovedness of every human being. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.

 

From Where I Stand

Sept. 24, 2023

Dale Crum

 

<Previous Post / Next Post >

Blog

Evangelical vs Progressive Christianity

What do they actually believe?

Part two: The Trinity

“I believe in one God, and no more.” Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

I need to interject here that I do not believe in the Trinity, nor do I believe that there is any basis for it in scripture. However, that is not relevant here. Since both these congregations do believe in the Trinity, we shall see how each respond to that belief.

As I said in my previous post, since both of these congregations are Christian, i.e., based on the Bible, I expected to find very few, if any, differences in their mission statements. I was wrong… very wrong. The differences were striking. The most notable being their view of God and how man relates with God.

I have divided the sections of their mission statements into areas of belief and compared them that way. There are nine and we shall compare one each week. This is part two.

The Trinity

Evangelical: “We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are identical in essence and equal in power and glory; they possess the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and are worthy of the same worship, confidence, and obedience.”

Progressive:  “Our theological heart and soul has been formed by a Trinitarian understanding of God as Creator, Redeemer, and Spirit. We trust the flow of God’s love toward us and toward all people as it pours out endlessly from the relationships we discover within God’s very self: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We understand this relational aspect of the Trinity as a divine dance of love originating in God long before creation.”

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? It seems to me that although evangelicals know the different parts of the trinity, what role each part plays is not well articulated in their mission statement. But I have other concerns about how they explain the Trinity.

Evangelicals: “These three are identical in essence and equal in power and glory; they possess the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and are worthy of the same worship, confidence, and obedience. “These three identities are worthy of our worship, our confidence and our obedience.”

So, if the three parts of the Trinity are identical in every way, why do we need the concept of the trinity? I’m just sayin’.

But more importantly, how do evangelicals respond to this Triune God? What seems clear (again) is that there are expectations for humans based on the nature of God. If God is perfect, then we as humans are required to worship and obey God. It would appear that, for evangelicals, our relationship with God is not so much a result God’s attributes but rather through our actions or “works”.

One last point about the evangelical statement is that it’s merely a standard orthodox statement of faith, borrowed from several different sources. Nothing in their statement is either original or thoughtful. It is obvious that the authors of the evangelical’s mission statement simply copied and pasted ideas from other various evangelical sources.

The expression “in power and glory” comes from the last line in the Lord’s Prayer.

For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever. Amen

Nothing original there. Much of the later part of this statement originated with the Westminster Confession of Faith , which says…

He is completely holy in all his purposes, works, and commands. To him is due whatever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require from angels, human beings, and all other creatures. (1646 CE)

Not sure why the word “service” has been replaced with the word “confidence” in contemporary mission statements. It seems that “service” would be something the god of christianity would like to demand of “all creatures”.

I found several mission statements from other denominations that say nearly the same thing. This one is from a Pentecostal Church. Note how similar these two statements are.

Pentecostal: We believe that there is only one true and living God, eternally existing in three Persons, namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  We believe each is a distinct Person, but all of one essence and all having the same nature, perfections, and attributes, and each is worthy of precisely the same worship, confidence, and obedience.

Evangelical: “We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are identical in essence and equal in power and glory; they possess the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and are worthy of the same worship, confidence, and obedience.”

Since the authors of the evangelical mission statement have not bothered to put any extra thought, (except to change the word order) into what the trinity really means, then neither will I.

Compare that with the progressive view of the Trinity.

Progressive:  “Our theological heart and soul has been formed by a Trinitarian understanding of God as Creator, Redeemer, and Spirit. We trust the flow of God’s love toward us and toward all people as it pours out endlessly from the relationships we discover within God’s very self: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We understand this relational aspect of the Trinity as a divine dance of love originating in God long before creation.”

It appears that progressives do a better job of articulating the nature of the trinity by delineating its three separate parts: Creator, Redeemer, and Spirit.

“We trust the flow of God’s love toward us and toward all people as it pours out endlessly from the relationships we discover within God’s very self.”

Having grown up evangelical, I was intrigued by this expression.  The idea that God’s love flows toward “all people” is definitely not an evangelical belief.  We will explore this in more detail in the next installment of this series.

“We understand this relational aspect of the Trinity as a divine dance of love originating in God long before creation.”

I was so perplexed by this statement about the trinity, that I reached out to the progressive congregation for clarification. One of their pastors responded the next day. Here is his reply.

“I certainly cannot answer “how exactly the Trinity represents a divine dance, etc.” because, obviously, it is a very mysterious if not mystical concept! But my best way of trying to grasp, in some way, how Trinity might be revealing God’s self as a community of three persons is that I believe God shows God’s self to be an eternally relational being. But there was a “time” when our relational God existed (for how many eons??) but without any created beings with whom to be in relationship. We teach that God has forever been in a loving relationship within God’s self, which in time, flowed into all that God created for God’s company and enjoyment.”

Let’s see if I understand this right. God has always been about love, even before there were created beings with whom God could share that love. Yet “in time” God’s creations were able to enjoy the flow of God’s company and endless love.

I might not believe in the trinity or creation, but I like this view of a loving God. As a former evangelical this is really quite refreshing.

(For the record, The Westminster Confession of Faith is a 12,000-word document and the expression “the love of God” is only mentioned once and only once. The Progressive’s statement about the trinity has 82 words and mentions God’s love twice. You do the math.)

Therefore, I award another point for Progressives 2-0

 Coming up next

We will look at how each congregation views God’s Relationship With Humanity.

Evangelical: We believe God wants to bring about a new humanity by redeeming every part of us and our stories. We believe that man was originally created in the image and after the likeness of God, free from sin. Humanity (Adam and Eve) sinned and consequently experienced not only physical death but also spiritual death (which is separation from God). The consequences of this sin affect the entire human race. All human beings are born with a sinful nature and are alienated from the life of God and incapable of remedying his lost and depraved condition apart from divine grace.

Progressive: We believe that… when God created the world, and human beings in particular, God said, “This is good.” Our origin story is one of goodness. We believe this goodness applies to all of humanity.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

Blog

Evangelical vs Progressive Christianity

What do they actually believe?

Part one: Foundation of Faith

“I know that this bold investigation will alarm many, but it would be paying too great a compliment to their credulity to forbear it on that account. The times and the subject demand it to be done.” Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason 1794.

Moving away from my religious upbringing has allowed me to step back and look at my evangelical roots with a new perspective. While I was involved in evangelical circles it was nearly impossible to objectively examine what I was being taught. Once I started to analyze what evangelicals actually believe, (based on their mission statements), I began to see some glaring, deeply rooted flaws.

I need to interject here that I do not hold to the beliefs of either Evangelical or Progressive Christianity. I no longer call myself a christian and therefore feel no obligation to defend any christian dogma.

Nonetheless, I was curious to see how the mission statement of a progressive church differed from the mission statement of an evangelical church. I chose one evangelical and one progressive church (both of which I have a history), went to their webpages and compared their “mission statements”.

Since both of them are Christian churches, i.e., based on the Bible, I expected to find very few, if any, differences. I was wrong… very wrong. The differences were striking. The most notable difference being their view of God and how man relates with God.

Surprisingly, what became obvious to me rather quickly was how vague, ambiguous, and unclear the evangelical mission statement was. I kept asking myself, “What do they really mean by that?” I reached out to the evangelical church to ask for clarification. One of the pastors agreed to speak with me, but the conversation proved unproductive. Perhaps I was asking questions he could not answer. I’m not sure he had ever actually read his church’s mission statement. (I should have enquired about that at the beginning of our conversation.)

If someone is being vague or ambiguous about what they believe, it usually means that they don’t really know what they believe. And that’s what I found over and over with the evangelical mission statement. Conversely, the mission statement of the progressive church was less wordy, less ambiguous and much less vague, as we shall see.

I have divided the sections into areas of belief and compared them that way. There are nine and we shall compare one each week.

Foundation of Their Religion

Evangelical: “We are a group of people trying to figure out what it looks like to live in the way of Jesus with the heart of Jesus today. We are built on the values of presence, practice, wholeness, family, renewal, and roots. We are grounded in the lives and faith of those who have gone before us, but also, we believe Jesus has a beautiful mission for us in the present.”

Progressive: We are a progressive, Christ-centered church, founded on the life, teachings, death, resurrection, and eventual return of Jesus Christ. We believe that we belong to God long before, or even if we never believe in God. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.”

Let’s take a closer look at exactly what is being said here.

Evangelical: “We are a group of people trying to figure out what it looks like to live in the way of Jesus with the heart of Jesus today.”

“Trying to figure out…?” It appears from this statement that they believe they will be somehow pleasing to God if they could only figure that out. No wonder they’re confused. They’re trying to adapt the teachings of the first century Jesus into their modern-day world. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman gives an eye-opening evaluation of Christians who try to do that.

Jesus was a first-century Jew, and when we try to make him into a twenty-first-century American we distort everything he was and everything he stood for.”

So that’s why they’re still trying to figure this out. It’s an error of reasoning. It can’t be done. Dr. Ehrman has more to say on this issue of making Jesus a twenty-first century Christian.

Most televangelists, popular Christian preacher icons, and heads of those corporations that we call megachurches share an unreflective modern view of Jesus — that he translates easily and almost automatically into a modern idiom. The fact is, however, that Jesus was not a person of the twenty-first century who spoke the language of contemporary Christian America (or England or Germany or anywhere else). Jesus was inescapably and ineluctably a Jew living in first-century Palestine. He was not like us, and if we make him like us, we transform the historical Jesus into a creature that we have invented for ourselves and for our own purposes. Jesus would not recognize himself in preaching of most of his followers today. He knew nothing of our world. He was not a capitalist. He did not believe in free enterprise. He did not support the acquisition of wealth or the good things in life. He did not believe in massive education. He had never heard of democracy. He had nothing to do with going to church on Sunday. He knew nothing of social security, food stamps, welfare, American exceptionalism, unemployment numbers, or immigration. He had no views on tax reform, health care (apart from wanting to heal leprosy), or the welfare state. So far as we know, he expressed no opinion on the ethical issues that plague us today: abortion and reproductive rights, gay marriage, euthanasia, or bombing Iraq. His world was not ours; his concerns were not ours, and—most striking of all—his beliefs were not ours. Did Jesus Exist

“His beliefs were not ours!” Let that sink in for a second. I once attended a mega-church in the suburbs of Denver. Not only did they attempt make Jesus a contemporary, but they also made him a suburbanite.

Vague Beliefs:

This statement of belief offers no clarity to what they really believe.

Evangelical: “We are built on the values of presence (vague), practice (vague), wholeness (vague), family (vague), renewal (vague), and roots (vague). We are grounded in the lives and faith of those who have gone before us (vague), but also, we believe Jesus has a beautiful mission for us in the present (vague).”

What exactly does it mean to be “grounded in the lives and faith of those who have gone before us”? How would this manifest itself in their weekly services? What exactly is this “beautiful mission” they speak of? It would appear that they really have no idea. It sounds nice, but there is nothing of substance to support any of this.

Progressive

Compare this with how Progressives articulate the foundation of their beliefs.

Progressive: We are a progressive, Christ-centered church, founded on the life, teachings, death, resurrection, and eventual return of Jesus Christ. We believe that we belong to God long before, or even if we never believe in God. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.”

Comparison

The Progressive’s foundation seems to be built around the attributes of God. “We belong to God… God’s love is eternal… and does not require any transaction on our part.” Conversely, Evangelical’s foundation is built around works: “we are a group of people trying to figure out…” They must do something to earn God’s approval because it doesn’t appear to be freely given.

This paradox is something that we will see quite often in our evaluations of the evangelical mission statement. They outwardly purport that “salvation” is a gift and cannot be earned by any measure of “works”. However, that is not what is found in their mission statement. We shall see that, for evangelicals, there are certain requirements that must be met in order to attain (and keep) salvation. In the words of Thomas Paine…

“Everything in this strange system is the reverse of what it pretends to be. It is the reverse of truth.”  The Age of Reason.

Therefore, I award a point for Progressives 1-0

Coming up next:

We will look at how each congregation views a belief in the trinity. Feel free to make your own evaluation before reading the next installment.

Part two: Belief in the Trinity

Evangelical: We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are identical in essence and equal in power and glory; they possess the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and are worthy of the same worship, confidence, and obedience.

Progressive:  Our theological heart and soul has been formed by a Trinitarian understanding of God as Creator, Redeemer, and Spirit. We trust the flow of God’s love toward us and toward all people as it pours out endlessly from the relationships we discover within God’s very self: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We understand this relational aspect of the Trinity as a divine dance of love originating in God long before creation.

 

From Where I Stand

Sept. 10, 2023

Dale Crum

 

< Previous Post / Next Post >

 

 

 

Blog

The Lonely Church

(Although the Church’s name and location have been changed most of this actually happened.)

 

It’s well known by people with active imaginations that buildings, like family pets, have unique personalities.

There are many stories about buildings with personalities. This is one about a church. And when we say “church”, we aren’t talking about a gathering of people.

We are talking about the actual church building.

The church, in this story, is a building made with red bricks and has occupied a corner on South Marion Street for over a century.

It was built, as they used to say, “in the middle of nowhere” but as the years passed, houses and neighborhoods popped up around it. It was known by its neighbors as Marion Street Presbyterian Church.

We’ll call her Marion for short.

 

 

 

Marion was not the only church in this town. In the middle of downtown there lived a big cathedral of great importance. His name was Saint Andrew. (No one would have dared call him Andy.) He was the grandest church in town and he was very proud of that.

He hosted a small congregation, and he felt that they were very fortunate to have him as their church. Many visitors came to admire the grandeur of his French Gothic architecture.

 

 

 

If they wanted to sit quietly and enjoy the somber organ music floating gently through his lofty rafters, that was fine with him. But the only thing he really desired from them was their admiration, not their love.

 

 

 

 

However, Marion was not that kind of church. Like St. Andrew she had a bell tower, a large sanctuary, a pipe organ, lofty high ceilings and rafters.

 

 

 

“Every good church should have rafters” Marion said proudly.  She loved that feeling when the music touched her rafters.

 

 

Unlike St. Andrew she was a neighborhood church, and had a strong connection with her congregation. She also was admired and revered, but not for her architecture. Her people were a part of a community, and she was the center of that community, and that gave her a great sense of belonging.

 

Of course, Sundays were her favorite days. She had classrooms for the children and even a nursery. She loved the nursery. And as the years passed, she watched the children grow up and their children take their place.

As the families grew, so did her congregation. Several times, over the years, her sanctuary had to be made bigger to hold all the new people. She felt a great sense of security knowing that she was a church of families. She was their church and they were her people. Marion was especially proud that her congregation was made up of multigenerational families; children, parents and grandparents. There was a feeling of security in this. She felt complete.

But that was many years ago. Sadly, Marion’s people were all gone. It had been a long time since anyone had walked through her doors. The sanctuary, which used to be filled with people and music, was now empty and silent. She felt a deep sense of loss.

She was alone and lonely. The years of silence had caused Marion to fall into a prolonged and profound sadness. She had lost her sense of purpose and her identity. “What is a church without people?” she asked. She couldn’t understand why her people had left her. She was a good church and she had done her best to make them feel safe and secure.

What she didn’t know was that, (despite what she was telling herself) it was not her fault that her people had left. But we’ll get to that topic shortly.

1950s

During these long months and years of loneliness, she would think of happier times. Her favorite memory was the day of her dedication; a very special day in the life a church building. It was 1954 and her congregation had just finished construction on a new and bigger sanctuary. They had even added a new piano. Her sanctuary was full on Sunday mornings. This made her happy.

During her dedication service people were putting objects into a steel box, (a time capsule). It seemed to her that these objects must have great importance to them. As each person placed something of prominence in the box, they explained why it was an important item to the history of their congregation. It would be her responsibility to keep them safe and secure. As they placed the time capsule behind her corner stone and the cement dried, Marion felt a great sense of pride and a warm connection to this congregation which referred to her as “their church home”. She would not let them down.

She had an identity. She had purpose. She was loved. And that made her happy.

Marion loved the sound and feel of the organ and piano music. She especially liked it when they would open her windows and the loud melodious music would spill out into the neighborhood. (The neighbors like it too!)

Church buildings are keenly in tune with the emotions of their congregation. Marion loved all the experiences that went along with being a church. Weddings and holidays were times of happiness.

She also felt the sadness of funerals and did her best to make the solemn music of the organ as comforting as possible. She would comfort her people in such times.

 

 

Each year when it was cold outside and the ground was white her congregation put a tall tree in her sanctuary. Even though the ceiling was tall, the tree almost reached the rafters. It was decorated with lights and shiny ornaments.

She felt it made her look pretty.

 

 

 

 

1970s

What she didn’t know was that her congregation was changing. A time came, in the 1970s, when a new youth pastor began recruiting from a local university, resulting in more and more young people attending the church.

This influx of young people meant that her sanctuary got even more crowded than before.  A second service was added to accommodate all the new young people. The music changed as well. Marion could feel that there was more energy in it. And she liked it. There was more laughter, as the young are prone to laugh. These young people lingered in the church long after the families had left to go home. She liked that too.

 

Little did she know how all these new young people would change her life.

1979 – The Split

While church buildings are keenly in tune with the emotions of their congregation, they know nothing about church politics or church doctrine. Marion began to sense something new from her people. It was something that she had never experienced before. She didn’t recognize it at first, and didn’t have a word for it, but she learned later that it was called “disagreement” or “division”. She didn’t understand why, but she felt that something was terribly wrong within her congregation.

What Marion didn’t know was that her congregation was actually a small part of a much bigger collection of congregations from all over the country. The word we use to describe such a collection of congregations is “Denomination”. There are as many different types of denominations as they are different types of people. People are free to choose a denomination that best fits their personality. Marion’s congregation was part of a denomination called Presbyterian, which is a formal word meaning “ruled by elders

In 1979 the Presbyterian denomination decided that all their congregations (including Marion’s) should be ruled by elders that were “representative of the make-up of their congregations with respect to age, race, and gender.”  What this meant for Marion’s congregation, was that anyone could be an elder, including young people and women.

The leaders of Marion’s congregation agreed with the idea of having young elders. As a result, half of the board of elders were made up of newly arrived young people who had no history and no allegiance with the church building.

As to the other point, there was a disagreement over whether women could be pastors and elders. Some of her people agreed with the Presbytery and thought it was okay for women to be elders and in positions of authority. However, the pastors and elders (composed entirely of men) believed that the role of women was to be submissive to men. In addition, they believed that women should never be in positions of authority over men. After many discussions it became clear that the two sides could not come to an agreement. It was a very tense time in the life of Marion’s congregation and there was nothing she could do to help.

Had she known what dark clouds were looming on the horizon, she would have been even more distressed. Her life was about to change… and not for the better.

Dark Clouds

Later that same year, when there were leaves on the ground, the pastors and elders left the building to have another meeting with the Presbytery to discuss the issue of women as elders. While they were gone some men arrived and began changing the locks on all her doors. “What are they doing?” she wondered. “How will my people get back in?”

So, when her people returned, they were locked out. They tried their keys and peered through the windows, but to no avail. They finally left. “Maybe those men who changed the locks forgot to give my people their new keys”, she thought. “They’ll be back!”

The next day, Marion heard a key at one of her doors. “My people are back”, she thought. But they were accompanied by a gruff, rather stern looking man, whom she didn’t recognize and instantly didn’t like.

Her people were carrying boxes.

Under the watchful eye of the stern man, they put their personal things in the boxes. She could feel that they were stunned and a bit sad. And then, still being carefully watched, they were escorted out of the building.

If Marion had had the words to describe this day, she would have said that it felt like a divorce. Someone she deeply cared for was leaving, and they didn’t even have a chance to say goodbye.

Little did she know that they would not be coming back.

The next Sunday she anxiously waited for her congregation to return. Her sanctuary, which was normally full to overflowing twice on Sundays, had barely enough people to fill up half of the sanctuary. She was confused by this, “Where are all my people?”

What she sensed from those who were there that day was sadness and shock. There was no happy music. Their singing was soft and solemn and their voices hardly even reach her rafters. She began to feel a sense of panic. Something devastating had happened but she didn’t understand what.

The following weeks she anxiously waited for all of her congregation to return, but they didn’t. The small group that stayed with her, were mostly the older people who had been with her for years. The new young people, who had no history with Marion, left with the pastors and elders.

Marion sensed that those who stayed were sad, and she was sad with them.  Over time she came to realize that those who remained, no matter who they had as elders, were still her people, and she was their church. It was her responsibility to be as comforting and as welcoming as ever. And she was!

The first woman elder of this congregation that stayed behind, was a grey-haired woman named Adda. (center)

Marion liked her for the kindness she showed to others, (something that wasn’t always the case with men who were elders).  In addition, Adda was nearly as old as Marion and had been part of Marion’s congregation for many, many years. She felt a special connection with Adda, and as she watched Adda getting older, she realized for the first time that she was getting older too.

 

2000s

Twenty years passed and the church was a much quieter place. With each passing year there were fewer and fewer people in her congregation. It seemed to Marion that there were also more funerals. Her congregation was literally dying and that made her sad.

There was very little music in those days and what music there was, would not have been able to spill out into the street, even with the windows wide open. Parts of the building had not been used for years. The nursery which was once an active place wasn’t used at all anymore.

Adda was now 91 years old. She and the other gray-haired people that made up her congregation were old and tired. Like Adda, Marion had given so much of herself over the years and she wondered how much more she could give.

 

 

She was an old building and now there were fewer people to attend to her maintenance. Her windows were dirty and filled with dust bunnies and spider webs. There was dust everywhere. Marion felt old.

Saying good-bye – 2003

One Sunday in early 2003, there were more people than normal in the sanctuary. She liked that. Maybe the worst was over and she would have a congregation again. But she felt no joy or happiness from the people who were there. It was a somber and sad occasion.

What she didn’t know was that her congregation could not afford to keep the church open any longer. The forty members who still remained voted unanimously to dissolve the congregation. Which meant they were all leaving. This would be their last Sunday Service at the Church on Marion Street.

They called it a “celebration”, but it was anything but a “celebration”. Some former members and some neighbors came to bid their farewell. Everyone felt a great sense of loss, but none more than Marion.

When the service was over and the last person left, the door closing behind them echoed loudly within her empty walls with a great sense of finality. Then there was only silence. Her worst fear had come true. She had lost the people who had been with her for such a long time and she knew now that they would not be coming back.

Adda passed away two months later.

New Life in a New Language

Marion was still reeling from the loss of her old congregation when a new congregation showed up. They spoke a different language and their music was different but none of that mattered to Marion. There were families again in the sanctuary.

She cherished their voices, their laughter, and their music. She was somebody’s church again and she would be the best church she could be for these people. She was aware that she was still in need of some repairs, but when these new families gathered in her sanctuary, she felt happy again.

These people stayed for several more years and Marion loved every minute of her interactions with them.  But the day came when they went away as well. She was confused. She wondered if it had been her fault they were leaving? She knew that she was in need some repairs, but she was still a good-looking church. At one time she had been revered in the neighborhood. What happened? She couldn’t understand why her people kept leaving her. She had done her best to make them feel safe and secure.

2017 – Demolition

One day in 2017 something unusual happened. Men in suits came and walked through her hallways and stood in her sanctuary. “Oh goody”, she thought. “They will see what a lovely building I am and they will bring a new congregation for me.” But that is not why the men were there.

 

 

 

What she didn’t know was that these men were real estate developers who wanted to buy the church building and turn it into apartments.

 

When she finally understood what these men wanted, she was perplexed. “I’m a church. That’s what I was built to be. I’m not an apartment. I wouldn’t even know how to be an apartment.” The little she knew about apartments was that they had walls. They were planning to divide her sanctuary and put-up walls, lots of walls. “How could there be community with so many walls? I’m a church”, she repeated.

 

One day a new sign appeared outside her front doors. What she didn’t know was that the sign was a notice of demolition. The developers where petitioning the city to allow them to tear down the old building.

She didn’t understand what “demolition” meant, but one day she heard some neighbors say as they were walking by, “So, they want to tear this old church down? That would be a shame. It should be designated as an historic landmark.”

“So, that’s what ‘demolition’ means,” she thought.  “They want to tear me down? But, I’m still in good shape. I have a lot of life still left in me. I could still make a good church home for some congregation.” She didn’t understand what “historic landmark” meant, but she felt it might be something that could save her from “demolition”.

2018 – Buildings are like elephants, they never forget.

One day, a large group of people arrived. They were obviously happy to see each other and greeted one another loudly and with such happiness. There was laughter too. It had been a long time since she had heard such sweet laughter, and she liked it.

 

As they walked through the hallways and into rooms where no one had been in years they talked about their memories of being in the building. Remember this room? We had some great times here. Remember this person or that person? Remember? Remember? Remember?

 

“Yes, I remember these people”, thought Marion. “They are the ones who left so many years ago without even saying goodbye. They’re back and maybe they’ll want me to be their church again. That would be so nice. Maybe I won’t be made into apartments after all.

 

After reminiscing their way through the building, everyone gathered in the sanctuary.

 

 

 

Marion was a bit embarrassed by her appearance. What would her unexpected guests think of her? The organ was gone and there was so much dust on the piano. But none the less, she was so happy to be hosting a congregation again.

 

People were talking about their memories of attending church here. Some of them had been married here, others had attended funerals in this sanctuary.

Some of them spoke of the Holiday Tree that had made her feel so pretty. Someone even mentioned the time capsule which was still behind her corner stone. Maybe they had come for it.

Many of the people who were there that day had a been a part of that group of young people who had left so many years ago.  Someone pointed out that they had become a group of senior citizens. Everyone roared with laughter because it was so true. Where had the years gone? Marion loved the laughter. It had been many years for her too. Marion wished they would sing a hymn. This was the group that had made her rafters vibrate.

No sooner had she made that wish when a woman, named Marlane, stood up and started singing a hymn (without organ or piano). “I recognize that voice and that song,” Marion thought.

 

“How can I say thanks for all the things you have done for me. Things so undeserved, but you gave to prove your love for me…”

 

 

Soon everyone was standing and singing with her. “There’s that old feeling again”, thought Marion. She wished someone would jump up and open the windows so this music could roll out into the neighborhood like it used to. She remembers these people like it was yesterday, and it felt so good.

But after the song, their laughter turned to tears. Their sadness reminded her of the many funerals she had hosted over the years. It was then that she realized they were saying goodbye to her.

Then it hit her like the ton of bricks that she was. “This is a funeral… it’s mine. I’m hosting my own funeral.”

Marlane stood up again and said, (now in tears), “This church is our home and our family. I kind of feel like a stepchild where I go to church now, because nothing has ever felt quite like this church.”

There were many affirming Amens.

 

Marion wanted to cry with her because she had missed them too.  If she had arms, she would have embraced Marlane and everyone else as well. She wanted to thank them for such a wonderful day.

As the service ended people lingered about in the sanctuary as if they didn’t want to leave. Marion didn’t want them to leave either.

When the last person left and the door shut behind them, Marion desperately tried to hold on to the echo of the hymn that had touched her rafters, but there was only silence. This time she knew for sure that they had said their final goodbye and were never coming back. She began to weep.

2020 – The beginning of the end… or so she thinks.

Another year passed. Occasionally, a few people wandered through the building, but Marion hardly noticed them.

 

One day some workmen arrived and removed all of the pews in her sanctuary. “This is it”, she thought. “I cannot be a church without pews.”

“Where would my people sit?”

“This is the beginning of the end for me. Soon there will no longer be a church on Marion Street.” She resolved herself to her fate.

 

Two things she didn’t know:

First thing was, that she was still revered in the neighborhood. Her neighbors wanted her to stay a church too. They did not want the old historic building torn down, especially to make way for high density housing. They took their protest to the city and requested that the church building be designated as an historical landmark. They were able to block any attempt to rezone the property.

 

 

The developer admitted defeat and put the building back up for sale.

 

 

 

 

 

Second thing was that a thriving congregation, on the other side of town, was looking for a church building to accommodate their growing congregation. They were in need of classrooms for their children and a fellowship hall where people could hang out. They were the ones who had removed the pews, to make way for a new floor and new chairs.

Marion had been mistaken.

 

The men who arrived with tools weren’t preparing the building to be demolished. They were fixing her up to be their church.

Day after day these people returned to work on the building. They painted her walls and cleaned the spider webs from her windows.

Over the next several weeks Marion began to realize that these people were not tearing her down. “This is not demolition”, she thought, “this is construction.”

Finally, she was receiving the much-needed repairs she had been longing for.

The sanctuary began to change and look much different.

New carpet!

New floor in the sanctuary!

New Speakers

New chairs so her people had some place to sit.

New paint for her sanctuary.

 

All the dust was gone and she looked pretty again.

The Wait is Over

She began to feel hopeful and optimistic for the first time in years. “I’m going to stay a church”, she said joyfully! And she was correct. These people were preparing her to be their church.

The reconstruction took months but one Sunday the long wait was over. There were people again.

This felt so familiar, but when the music began there was a noise she didn’t recognize. She would later learn that the new “joyful noise” was caused by guitars and drums. “Oh my, how things have changed with church music”, she thought. She preferred organ music but the drums and guitars really were quite exciting, and it was so nice to hear music and singing again.

A Hateful Note.

One day while everyone was away, a person came to her front doors. She peered out to see what he was doing. He was taping a note to the door. As she watched him, she perceived something that she had never known before. It made her reel back as if she had been stung. When her people returned and discovered the note they too were visibly upset. What was it in that note that made them so upset?

What she didn’t know was that some people from other churches disapproved of her congregation because they were “inclusive”. The note was condemning her congregation for offering unconditional love to everyone, no matter who they were or who they loved.

Despite the opposition from these outsiders, Marion’s congregation went ahead and offered unconditional love anyway. That pleased Marion greatly.

Marion later learned that what she had felt with the note-giver was something called “hate”. She had been fortunate as a church building and had never experienced hate with any of her congregations. Little did she know that other church buildings experienced hate on a regular basis. But for Marion it was new, and she didn’t like it. There was no place for it within her walls.

The Irony of it all

If Marion had known anything about irony, she would have appreciated that the people who had left so suddenly all those years ago, had done so to prevent women from being in roles of leadership. Conversely, the congregation that had rescued her from demolition and had given her new life, had women pastors. But that didn’t really matter to Marion because she had learned from Adda that LOVE is more important than who’s in charge. And the love she felt from this new congregation was strong. Besides, Marion had long known that women were more nurturing than men and that they were the glue that held congregations together.

In addition, Marion felt a strong connection to many of the people in this congregation. Like her, many of them had felt alone and lonely. Many had been rejected by other congregations. Some of them, like her, had experienced periods of discouragement and despair. Some new visitors who walked through her doors felt apprehensive and fearful, wondering if this church would be any different than others they had attended. They feared they would be rejected again. Marion joined her congregation in welcoming them all. They would be accepted here under her roof.

It had been a long time since Marion had thought about the steel box (time capsule) that was still safely behind her cornerstone. “If someday, someone comes back for that steel box, they can have it” she thought. She no longer needed it. She was creating all new memories with her new congregation.

Safe at Last

 

One day there was a ceremony, and they hung a sign above her front doors. It looked like a badge, with the words “Historic Landmark”. Marion wore it proudly, knowing that she would never again have to worry about being demolished.

She had a renewed sense of purpose and identity. She was their church, and they were her people. They had finally found each other! She felt young again because she was useful and needed. This loving congregation had given an old church, like her, a new chance at life and she would not let them down.

The Church on Marion Street is no longer lonely.

 

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

Blog

The Boogie Man of Secular Humanism

I had no idea what Secular Humanists actually believed, but I feared them anyway.

In my last post I discussed a dream about turtles that led me to discover a diversity of belief systems other than christianity. One of those alternate beliefs was that of Secular Humanism.

Every group has their anti-group. There can be no “Us” without an opposite “Them”. Every religion needs an enemy in order to maintain group cohesiveness (and insure hefty donations). When I was a practicing christian and still highly involved in the church, secular humanists were that enemy; our boogieman, you might say.

We were told that “we must stand firmly against humanistic error.” What that “error” was exactly, I never really understood, but as a good member of the fold, I went along with what I was taught.

I had never actually met or even talked to a secular humanist, nor had I ever read any secular humanist literature. It was about time I found out (for myself) what secular humanists really believe. What I found truly surprised me. Turns out, we were taught to fear something that is actually quite freeing. If you’re a secular humanist, I hope your nodding your head and chuckling (with me) at my ignorance.

If you’re still involved in a christian community and have been taught, like I was, that humanists are evil, just take a minute and read what they actually believe. It’s okay.

What do Secular Humanists actually believe?

First off, let’s define the words secular and humanism.

  • Secular: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
  • Humanism: an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

In my investigation of Secular Humanism websites, I found one in particular that was very informative from Capital District Humanism Society (CDHS). The following is from an on-line article entitled, “You May Be a Humanist.”

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good. – American Humanist Association

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. – The Humanist Magazine

Humanism is a joyous alternative to religions that believe in a supernatural god and life in a hereafter. Humanists believe that this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge and that we owe it to ourselves and others to make it the best life possible for ourselves and all with whom we share this fragile planet. A belief that when people are free to think for themselves, using reason and knowledge as their tools, they are best able to solve this world’s problems. Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy of those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. – The Humanist Society of Western New York

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. – Humanists International

Wow! That’s what they really believe? What’s so scary about that?

It doesn’t take much thought, however, to understand why Christians would be so threatened by these statements. Look at some of the things Humanists believe and contrast those ideas with christian dogma.

  • responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment
  • a rational philosophy informed by science
  • affirming the dignity of each human being
  • standing for human rights and social justice
  • a joyous alternative to religions
  • this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge
  • people are free to think for themselves
  • take responsibility for and shape their own lives
  • does not accept supernatural views of reality

After reading this article, I realized something quite remarkable… I might be a Secular Humanist. Oh my!!

In Defense of Secularism

I would argue that a strong case could be made that atheists and secular people actually possess a stronger or more ethical sense of social justice than their religious peers.

One of the most prominent secularists is Phil Zuckerman. I first discovered Zuckerman in an article entitled Atheism, Secularity and Well Being.

He writes:

According to Psalms 14 of the Bible, people who don’t believe in God are filthy, corrupt fools, entirely incapable of doing any good. Although those sentiments were written over 2,000- years ago, nonbelievers are still stigmatized to this day.”

(“The fool has said in his heart, there is no God” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.” Psalms 14:1)

“It is often assumed that someone who doesn’t believe in God doesn’t believe in anything, or that a person who has no religion must have no values. These assumptions are simply untrue. People can reject religion and still maintain strong beliefs.1 Being godless does not mean being without values.2 Numerous studies reveal that atheists and secular people most certainly maintain strong values, beliefs, and opinions.”

Atheists and secular people have very clear and pronounced values and beliefs concerning moral, political and social issues. I would argue that a strong case could be made that atheists and secular people actually possess a stronger or more ethical sense of social justice than their religious peers. (They) are less likely to harbor ethnocentric, racist, or nationalistic attitudes. Strange then, that so many people assume that atheists and nonreligious people lack strong values or ethical beliefs – a truly groundless and unsupported assumption.”

There you have it. I can choose to not believe in christian, or any other religious dogma, and still choose to believe in many other things. Letting go of christianity actually freed me to make my own choices regarding ethical and social justice issues. I suppose I’m rather fortunate to be living in the twenty-first century. A couple of hundred years ago professing such beliefs could have earned me a center seat at a community bonfire.

  1. This statement correctly describes my personal experience.
  2. The line should read: “Being godless does not (necessarily) mean being without values.” An obvious exception would be our 45th president, who was both godless and morally bankrupt, yet he was widely heralded by christians as the new messiah. Something, I’ll never understand.

Coming next: While researching Secular Humanism, I discovered an article by a christian public school teacher who believes that Secular Humanists are impeding his right to (and I quote) “publicly appeal to our God or to discuss our faith to our captive audiences of schoolchildren.” We’ll see how much of his argument against Secular Humanism is accurate and how much is fabricated. It is surprising, if not alarming, to realize what he would like to teach his “captive audience”.

 

From Where I Stand

Feb. 9, 2023

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

Blog

An Enlightening Dream About Turtles

Letting Go of Christianity. Now what?

I had completely let go of christianity and no longer called myself a believer.

Now what?

I no longer believe that the bible is inspired by God, or inerrant or even relevant.

Now what?

Christianity is no longer a viable option for me.

Now what?

If I stopped believing in christianity, does that automatically mean that I don’t believe in anything?

Am I an atheist by default?

Is there anything out there worth believing?

An Enlightening Dream

These questions lingered in my mind for months after letting go of christianity. I was in limbo. Fortunately for me, I had a dream about turtles. Yeah, you read that right… turtles.

In that dream I was wandering around carrying a turtle. Somehow it slipped out of my hands, and I started looking for it. (You know how dreams are.)

A voice in my dream asked what I was looking for.

“I’m looking for my turtle”, I replied.

“You need THAT turtle?” the voice asked.

I looked at the ground and there were turtles everywhere. Turtles of all shapes, sizes, and colors. I woke up wondering what that dream could possibly mean. I pondered on it for weeks.

 

Soon after that, I was at my local garden center and there were garden decorations with words on them. A rabbit had the word “Love” on it and a dragonfly had the word “Serenity”. (You get the idea.) Then I noticed a turtle, and to my astonishment, the word on it was, “Believe”. I immediately purchased it and put it in my garden.

 

 

So, how can I make sense this dream? My former christian friends (who were no longer talking to me) might have told me that God was reaching out to me and that I had been mistaken to leave. An atheist might have said that it was simply serendipitous and that there was nothing supernatural about it. I would have to disagree with both of them. I really have no explanation for this dream and its subsequent fulfillment, but I assure you that I’m not making it up.

“Believe?” Believe what?

Here is what I understand my dream to mean. Even though I had figuratively dropped my turtle of christianity, I didn’t need that turtle because there were plenty of other turtles I could pick up (and believe in).

True to my character, I began to read and investigate other options. I approached this new adventure with the same vigor I had when I was a new christian. I read a lot, and searched for something to believe in. Along that journey, I picked up and examined the turtles of progressive Christianity, Atheism, Secular Humanism and the writings of Thomas Paine and Dr. Bart Ehrman.

The Age of Reason

My quest led me to a book entitled “The Age of Reason.” by Thomas Paine, (a contemporary of the Founding Fathers). His book opened my eyes to a whole different way of thinking about religion. It was exactly what I was looking for. During my time in christian circles I could not find anyone who would/could discuss religion rationally. Thomas Paine did exactly that.

He opens “The Age of Reason” by stating exactly what he does and does not believe.

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.”

“But lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them. I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, or by any church I know of. My own mind is my own church.”

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

“Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and for my part, I disbelieve them all.”

A dream come true!

So, there you have it. My concerns about being in a void of belief after letting go of christianity were completely unfounded. I learned, (and this is the best part) that there is so much out there to believe in that doesn’t require faith. I was finally on solid ground, and it felt good.

Coming up next: The Christian Boogie Man

During my years going to church we were taught from the pulpit to fear (and hate) Secular Humanists. Those scoundrels were out to destroy christianity. However, when I looked into what Secular Humanists really believe, I was astonished to learn that all my fears were based on lies.

 

From Where I Stand

Feb. 2, 2023

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

Blog

Why I Let Go of Christianity

Many people have their own “deconversion story”. This is mine.

Notice that I didn’t say, “Why I let go of God”. That’s a topic for another time. The issue at hand is why I let go of religion and specifically Christianity. 

At age 17, I had what could be called, a religious or “born-again” experience. Almost overnight my life changed, and I became what was then called a “Jesus Freak.” I started reading and studying the Bible every day and I couldn’t wait to share my newfound faith with anyone who would listen and to many who wouldn’t. Looking back, 50 years later, I still believe that my religious experience was somehow valid, but my view of Christianity has changed greatly since then. I have grown up and so has my view of religion.

First off, let me say that I didn’t choose to become a christian because I was afraid of going to hell. I knew nothing then about the concept of “original sin”, and had never heard of the expression “to accept JC as your personal lord and savior”. (Whatever that means!) Nobody, lead me to Christ, (as is said in christian circles). I was alone at the time of my conversion and baptism. It was beautiful and memorable and it changed my life.

At that time, all those years ago, like many teenagers, I was discontented with my life. My father had converted to Christianity when I was in the third grade, so I grew up going to church. I really don’t remember much from all those early years in Sunday School, but I did remember the verse, “Behold I stand at the door and knock.” (Which, unbelievably, comes from the book of Revelations with its disputed authorship and questionable validity.) But at that moment, 50 years ago, I believed that Jesus was knocking, so I opened the door and invited him in as a friend. Little did I know how much baggage came along with that experience.

Behold, I stand at the door and knock.

 

One of the first things I did as a new christian was to actually read the bible, something I had never done before. Wanting to be the very best christian possible, I read it cover to cover multiple times in the first couple of years. However, the more I read the bible (some parts really are quite disturbing) and the more active I was in the church the harder it became to reconcile what I was learning at church with what I was learning in my higher education.

American Politician and 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum once told a group of supporters to stop supporting State run colleges and Universities because they were indoctrinating our young with worldly ideas. He went on to say that many children lose their faith in college. Here’s his quote

“It’s no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to college,” said the former Pennsylvania senator. “The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America. And it is indoctrination. Because you know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it.”

CBS News Jan. 25, 2012

This kind of thinking drives me absolutely crazy, but I must admit, it’s what happened to me. I entered college with a faith conviction and left without it.

When someone starts to question religious dogma, christians usually attribute it to “radical secular indoctrination”, because that’s the easy explanation. But there’s more to it than that. When I got serious about college I became exposed to many different ideas, and serious thinkers. Your world view expands when you expand your mind. If it doesn’t, you’re not doing it right. I started to admire and seek out people who practiced rational thinking.

To my great surprise that form of rational thinking could not be found in my christian circles. I sought out people I admired from my church who, I hoped, would be able to discuss religion rationally. However, there was no one who was willing (or capable) of engaging in that kind of thinking. My questions were usually addressed with invalid reasoning and accompanied with memorized scripture verses. There’s a saying in christian circles, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” Using scripture to address my questioning was like putting a punctuation mark at the end of our conversation. It signaled that the discussion was over and nothing further needed to be said.

Back then I still believed that the bible was inspire by God and inerrant. I still wanted to be the best christian I could be, so I reluctantly accepted their explanations. It never once crossed my mind to ask the right questions. Did God really say it? How do we know? What if I don’t believe that quoting scripture settles everything?

As any student of social sciences knows, when someone begins to question the social system in which they find themselves, at first there will be increased communication between them and the group in order to provide correction to the wayward soul. However, if the person continues to question the status quo of group norms, all communication will cease. All I wanted was to talk about religion rationally. However, the message was clear, questioning wasn’t allowed. I lost a lot of friends that year. Some of you can relate. And that angered me.

The next five to ten years were pretty painful. How did something that was so beautiful in the beginning turn out to be so wrong? Was it me? After all, christianity wasn’t flawed, was it? It had to be me. So, of course I blamed myself, over and over again. The messages from the pulpit also confirmed that conviction. Weekly sermons were a constant reminder of how we were displeasing God that week. I later referred to sermons as the “sin of the week”. There was always something we were doing wrong and our guiltiness was inescapable.

Fortunately, I gradually began to question what was being taught from the pulpit. Maybe it wasn’t me. Maybe it was the message. I kept that idea to myself.

I was becoming disillusioned with the empty dogma of Christianity and attended church less and less. One Sunday, on a rare visit to church, the message from the pulpit was that “in our natural selves dwells no goodness at all, that apart from Christ, our best deeds are no more attractive than soiled, puss drenched rags. Before Christ, goodness is cosmetic, badness is defining.” The pastor went to great lengths to explain that the god of the bible hates mankind but since we joined the Jesus Club, he liked us now… but just barely.

This way of thinking (original sin) is the basis for all Christianity, and I rejected it. I simply no longer believed the lie that “in our natural selves dwells no goodness at all” or that it is “humanistic error” to believe that people are basically good. I wondered if I could still consider myself a Christian.

I went away that morning thinking, “haven’t these people ever had a cat?” (You’ll notice that I didn’t say OWN a cat. You can’t actually OWN a cat.) It reminded me a joke I once heard.

German Shepherd, Doberman and a cat have died. All three are faced with God who wants to know what they believe in. The German shepherd says: “I believe in discipline training and loyalty to my master.” “Good,” says God. “Then sit down on my right side. Doberman, what do you believe in?” The Doberman answers: “I believe in the love, care and protection of my master.” “Ah,” said God. “You may sit to my left.” Then he looks at the cat and asks, “And what do you believe in?”
The cat answers: “I believe you’re sitting in my seat.”

I love cats, so that joke made me chuckle and the god I wanted to believe in would chuckle too. Don’t get me wrong, I like dogs too. Unlike cats, they’re so obedient, so loyal and so adoring. Everything a good christian should be. Cats on the other hand, by their nature, aren’t any of those things. I just couldn’t imagine that the God of the whole universe would strike down that cat because His ego needed to be stroked by adoration. After all, my feelings don’t get hurt when my cat chooses to completely ignore me, (which is just about any time she’s not hungry). I don’t feel less about her (or myself) when she refuses to obey me. I actually love that about her.

Should I hate cats because they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that I am the master? Was I supposed to only love my cat if she behaved like a dog? What if my personality is more cat-like than dog-like? If God likes cats, could God like me? How could I believe in and serve the god of Christianity? After all, He hates me simply because I am who I am, a human.

I never went back to that or any other church.

Besides, you never see a cat at a dog park.

The final straw for me was how christians justify their treatment of the LGBT community, and their use of Leviticus 18:22 and other verses to vilify what they simply cannot understand. So, one day I was thinking about it and wondering why an omniscient god would include such incendiary verses knowing the suffering it would cause people all throughout history. Then I had an ah-ha experience. He didn’t.

For the first time in my life, I came to understand that the bible was written by men. Despite what I had been indoctrinated to believe, it was suddenly clear that the bible is neither inspired nor inerrant. So, with that insight, the fog that had obscured the fallacies surrounding Christianity was finally lifted, and I was freed from its tyranny. This was a turning point in my life, almost as important as my original conversion.

I always thought that I would return to church someday, and that I would be able to reconcile my world view with what was being taught in churches. It took years, (decades really) but one day, not too long ago, I simply “let go” of Christianity. I finally understood why questioning wasn’t allowed. I find it ironic that a religion which claims exclusive ownership of “the truth”, employs deceptive means to maintain it. The Christian narrative must be protected at all cost. You can’t risk allowing people to see what’s really behind the curtain. It’s impossible to still believe in an all-powerful Wizard, when you’ve seen the truth.

Recently, several people have invited me to join them at their church. I always graciously and gently tell them that I am not interested in attending church. Without failure they have responded that there would be really good music at their church. Don’t get me wrong, I still really enjoy listening to good gospel music. However, the music would undoubtedly be followed by messages so full of fallacies and subterfuge, (which were so clear to me now), that I would have to get up and leave. The music wasn’t worth the message.

As the saying goes, “The truth will set you free”.  And for me, it did.

Coming up next:

So, now what? Letting go of religion left a gap in my life. I spent half of my life believing in something that turned out not to be true. How do I fill that gap? Fortunately, I had a dream about turtles that answered that question.

What did my turtle dream teach me about letting go of Christianity? It’s simpler than you might imagine.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Jan. 12, 2023

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

Blog

Desperately Seeking the True Meaning of Words

In this last part we’re still exploring Scott Allen’s desperate attempt to convince Evangelicals that a toxic new religion is out to redefine words. In this part we’ll look at the intrinsic problems with a dictionary that Allen says is “built from the Bible up for a nation of free people.


Built From the Bible Up

Allen:  “America’s founders understood this. Noah Webster, “the father of American education,” compiled the “American Dictionary of the English Language” in 1828 because he recognized that a nation of free people required a dictionary built “from the Bible up.” His dictionary contained a greater number of biblical definitions than any other reference volume before or since.”

Noah Webster’s dictionary online has a list of over 1,000 words that are in the King James bible but are not currently in common use. It’s an interesting read, if you’re up for it. Maybe If we bring back words like abhorred, haft, bewail, or concubine we’d be a better society.

Liberty and Justice For All?

Allen: “In the old dictionary, “justice” was defined as equal treatment regardless of race, sex or religion. In the new dictionary, justice is equal outcome, regardless of personal action or behavior.” 

For somebody who is promoting biblical truth, we certainly don’t see the same level of integrity from Allen himself. Does anyone else see the problem here with the idea that in an old dictionary “justice” would be defined “as equal treatment regardless of race, sex or religion”?  

Allen called the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary a dictionary built from the bible up for a nation of free people. Let’s put this quote in the context of the times in which this dictionary was written.

A Nation of Free People?

  • January 7, 1822 – The first group of freed American slaves settle a black colony known as the Republic of Liberia when they arrive on African soil at Providence Island. The capital, Monrovia, is named after President James Monroe. (In 1824, the city was renamed Monrovia after James Monroe, president of the United States at the time. Monroe was a prominent supporter of developing the city as a place to relocate formerly enslaved Black people from the United States of America and Caribbean islands, as an alternative to abolishing the institution of slavery in America.)
  • July 4, 1827 – In New York State, slavery is legally abolished.
  • April 14, 1828 – The copyright for The American Dictionary of the English Language is registered and the book published that year by Noah Webster.
  • April 6, 1830Joseph Smith organizes the Mormon Church, known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, in Fayette, New York. He published the Book of Mormon on March 26, 1830.
  • May 26, 1930 – The United States Congress approved the Indian Removal Act which facilitated the relocation of Indian tribes from the east of the Mississippi River. Although this act did not order their removal it paved the way for increased pressure on Indian tribes to accept land-exchange treaties with the U.S. government and helped lead the way to the Trail of Tears.
The Trail of Tears as painted by Robert Lindneux in 1942. More than 60,000 Native Americans were forced to leave their ancestral lands and travel to reservations thousands of miles away.

The Trail of Tears as painted by Robert Lindneux in 1942. More than 60,000 Native Americans were forced to leave their ancestral lands and travel to reservations thousands of miles away.

  • October 8-10, 1832 – The six-year campaign known as the Trail of Tears begins when Washington Irving, Henry Leavitt Ellsworth, and Captain Jesse Bean, at the Arkansas River, begin one of the first steps in the U.S. campaign to remove Indians from their homes on the east coast.
  • December 29, 1935 – The Cherokee tribe is force to cede lands in Georgia and cross the Mississippi River after gold is found on their land in Georgia, which results in the Treaty of New Echota. (After gold is found on their land? Justice served? Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote a letter to then President Martin Van Buren saying that the removal of the Cherokee people from their land was… “Such a dereliction of all faith and virtue, such a denial of justice… such deafness to the screams for mercy were never heard of in times of peace… since the earth was made.”)
  • November 7, 1837Elijah Parish Lovejoy (1802-1837), a native of Albion, Maine was murdered in Alton, Illinois by a pro-slavery mob while defending his right to promote the abolition of slavery in the United States. (Wonder how many Christians were in the mob.)
  • September 3, 1838Frederick Douglass, the future abolitionist boards a train in Maryland to freedom from slavery, with borrowed identification and a sailor’s uniform from a free Black seaman.
  • October 27, 1838 – Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs issues an order for the expulsion of Mormons from the state of Missouri.
  • February 15, 1839 – In Jackson, Mississippi, the first state law allowing married women to own property in their own names is passed. (Women wouldn’t earn the right to vote for another 80 years.)

Justice for all… white men.

Noah Webster’s 1828 definition of “justice” only applied to men and specifically to white men.

“Commutative justice consists in fair dealing in trade and mutual intercourse between man and man… it is a duty to do justice to every man, whether friend or foe.”

But justice only applied if the foe was a man… a white man. In 1828 the expression “do justice to every man” did not apply to Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, anyone with brown skin and obviously not to women of any colored skin.

An Erosion of Power

Allen: The “oppressors” use language to create a “reality” that is imposed upon so-called victims– often without them being aware of it– as a means of maintaining power and privilege. The “victims” can liberate themselves by “unmasking” these (untrue) socially constructed realities.”

There is possibly no better example of this than Allen himself. Being a white male from North Carolina, it’s not at all surprising that he, as a person of privilege, is completely insensitive to the 1828 phrase “a nation of free people”. And when the “so-called-victims” try to liberate themselves by unmasking these untrue socially constructed realities he says they are eroding the biblical meanings of words.

Is 1828 really the time for which Allen wants us to get the “true” meaning of our words? We’re starting to see just why he is opposed to language changing to be more inclusive. There can be serious consequences for actually allowing liberty and justice “for all”. Especially for those wishing to maintain their power and privilege. So, what is Allen really afraid of?

A New Sheriff on the Block

Allen: Over the years, as this toxic new religion has begun to displace Christianity at the center of the culture, biblical meanings have been eroded, and words have been redefined. A new foundation is being laid—word by word—a foundation for a culture that is already showing itself to be intolerant, uncivil, inhumane and tyrannical.”

One doesn’t have to dive too deep into YouTube to find a plethora of Christians spewing hate speech. From where I stand, these Evangelicals are the ones who are intolerant, uncivil, inhumane and tyrannical. Why doesn’t Allen address them? Instead, he’s decided to do battle with a toxic new religion (that doesn’t even really exist). While at the same time, he ignores an even more toxic old religion in his own back yard. It’s easier to vilify some fictitious enemy than to confront the toxicity amongst your own.

Let Language Grow

An article in QuirkyScience shines a different light on how language shapes culture and how culture shapes language.

“The transference of ideas or concepts is communicated through ever-growing, ever-changing language. Language is alive. New ideas should not be shackled by old terminology. Language should expand with expanding knowledge.

This obviously is not how Allen views language.

Allen: “For too long, Christians have stood by and allowed this to happen with little resistance—often uncritically adopting (and thus reinforcing) the new meanings. It is high time this come to an end. If we as followers of Jesus fail to steward the true meaning of words and language, who will? If we do nothing to resist this toxic new religion, how can we say that we love our neighbors? As Kelly Monroe Kullberg says, “Biblical truth and wisdom are the highest love for human beings.”

Highest Form of Love

Allen is suddenly trying to make this whole argument appear to be an altruistic endeavor to show that he, as a good Christian, loves his neighbor; (something that has been noticeably lacking until now). Due to the level of deception Allen uses in this article, I’m not convinced that his evangelical version of “biblical truth’ is actually true. Nor do I believe that Allen’s Evangelical version of Biblical truth is the highest form of love for human beings.

In my first draft of this paragraph I wrote that it obviously must be a very scary time for Christians, but as I thought about it, I realized that it’s not quite true. It’s not a scary time for ALL Christians. It just seems to be a scary time for Evangelical Christians and more specifically White Evangelical Christians. They’re so threatened by anyone who doesn’t believe as they do. Why?

I have Christian friends who rather than being obsessed with defending their version of the truth, they’re obsessed with God’s Love. When I have visited their church they talk about it a lot. They don’t seem to be threatened by my confessions of non-belief. Why should they be? Their favorite verse and mantra comes from Micah 6:8 “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.” Which they do. How could my non-belief threaten that?

Unlike Allen, my non-evangelical Christian friends say that for them, God is the highest form of Love. Their church’s mission statement says, “God’s love is accessible and available to everyone, everywhere. The embrace of God is an inclusive, unstoppable love that calls us to believe and bear witness to the belovedness of every human being. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.”

Imagine…

From where I stand, it’s possible to imagine a world that’s different from the paranoia filled world created by evangelicals. Let’s not fear teaching critical theory in our schools and universities. Imagine a society of thoughtful human beings who are gaining a full and true understanding of how the world works. Imagine a group of people who understand that language is ever growing and ever changing. Imagine a language that is alive and expands as we expand. Imagine a world where new ideas are not shackled by ancient terminology and mythology.

Imagine a world where you can tell Christians by their love and not by how they define words.

It’s easy if you try!

 

 

From Where I Stand

Feb. 9, 2022

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

Blog

The True, the Whole Truth, So Help Me God

In part one, we saw that it was actually Allen who inaccurately redefined freedom, love and justice. Dictionaries from three different eras were pretty consistent in their definitions of these words. However, it was Allen who put his own conservative spin on these words and changed their meanings to fit his purpose.

In part two, Allen created a fictitious melodrama with a five-headed villain who is redefining words and causing serious damage to our society.

In this part we’ll see why Allen believes it’s important to recover the biblical meaning of words and to live our lives according to the true meaning of words as found in the bible.

Allen: “For Christians, it is vital that we be open-eyed and discerning about the destructive ways that language is being manipulated. To do this, we must recover a biblical lexicography. “We cannot be the Church if we lose our vocabulary and the conceptual framework that makes us Christian. Nothing is more needful today than the survival of Christian culture” Christian culture survives if we understand that words have objective meanings… that are given by God as revealed in Scripture.  God is not some impersonal cosmic force, but a person, and He speaks and reveals Himself to us.”

“Objective meanings that are given by God”? Now there’s conflict of terms right out of the gate. What if I don’t believe that God is person? Am I rejecting an objective truth? But finally, we’ve come to the root of Allen’s proposed dilemma. We need to restore the true meanings of words that God originally assigned to them. Now, how does Allen propose we do that?

Another Christian writer named Elizabeth Youmans supports Allen’s premise that words are God-given. She writes, “Therefore, is it surprising that the enemy would target language to dumb it down and rob and pillage us of a biblical vocabulary? When words are defined biblically, they help us think and reason… and free us from secularism.”

There’s that fear of secularism again. I was curious about this so I emailed Dr. Youmans and asked three questions. Who is the enemy? What is a biblical vocabulary and how can it be robbed and pillaged? What does it mean to define words biblically? She responded by sending me the entire text of what transpired in the Garden of Eden as found in Genesis. But that’s a topic for another blog.

Words Are a Gift

Allen: “The written Word of God has come to us through the Jewish nation. Most of our best words, in fact – new, adventure, surprise; unique, individual, person, vocation; time, history, future; freedom, progress, spirit; faith, hope, justice – are the gifts of the Jews.”

Is anyone else’s crap detector going off right now? I’m not a linguistic historian, but I can say with confidence that the words he calls “gifts of the Jews” are not uniquely Jewish.

We have a vague dastardly new villain that is trying to destroy our language to control us, but on the other hand we have heroes to save us, and it starts with the Jews because they gave us our best words.

Anyone want to venture where this discussion is headed.

Allen: “These (Jewish) words are gifts—priceless gifts to the whole world. Yes, they were given through the Jewish people, but their ultimate source is God,”

What a Surprise!!!

Serious Consequence of Redefining Words

“The Word” who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This is why we are not free to redefine words like freedom, love, justice, and many more without serious consequences.

The concept of “The Word” (Logos) becoming flesh and dwelling among us is a very Greek idea that goes back to the age of Plato. The fact that it made its way into the New Testament is a tribute to Greek philosophers and their influence on whoever wrote the book of John. But that’s a topic for better scholars than me.

So what are those serious consequences?

When the Judeo-Christian roots of Western civilization are rejected, the result will inevitably be a loss of human freedom, tyranny, and bloodshed. This is a lesson we urgently need to heed in our time.

There we have it. The serious consequences of rejecting the Biblical definition of words are “loss of human freedom, tyranny, and bloodshed.” Oh my! Looking at this historically is it really accurate for Allen to suggest that American history is void of slavery, tyranny and bloodshed? That just seems far fetched. Anyway, I’m sure if we keep reading, he will give us the solution to our pending doom.

The solution

Allen: “Our task is to deeply understand the true meaning of words and order our lives accordingly. Not only this, we need to speak the true meaning of words to the broader culture.”

The true meaning of words? Excuse the pun, but what does he mean by that? Does anyone want to guess where Allen suggests we find the true meaning of words? Keep reading and it will become clear that for Allen, Christians hold the ultimate truth and that their truth must be shared with the broader culture so it can be accepted and obeyed by all.

In These Trying Times

Allen: “In these trying times, this will lead to conflict. We must be gracious, kind, and compassionate, yet refuse to be silenced or pressured into going along with false definitions. There is probably no more powerful way of being salt and light at this moment in history.”

What does he mean by “in these trying times” and “at this moment in history”? Once again Allen is being vague and for a reason. It’s a dog whistle for Evangelicals everywhere who would understand this reference to be from the book of Esther.

“If I continue to remain silent my family and I will be wiped out.  Perhaps I was put here for Such a Time as This!”  (Paraphrase of Esther 4:14)

This storyline has been used by believers since the time of Esther. Their lives and their families are in danger from some vague evil that is out to destroy them. Apparently, this new evil villain is out to spread false definitions. Oh dear!

Allen: “Words are not empty vessels to be filled with whatever meaning we wish. They are not tools to be manipulated to acquire power. Words are precious conveyers of reality. They need to be treasured, conserved, embodied, and passed down to future generations. God’s Word is the North Star that guides us into all truth.”

What is Truth, Dammit?

Jesus said, “everyone on the side of truth listens to me” (John 18:37).

Allen, neglected to add the next verse, Pilate said to him, “what is truth?” There is no recorded answer from Jesus. Not to worry, Allen is about to answer that question for him.

So Allen, what is truth?

Allen: “God’s Word is the only sure foundation for free, flourishing societies. The church is the repository and steward of the truth. We contribute to building flourishing communities as we understand, and order our lives according to, the true meaning of words. This should begin in our families and churches, but also in our interaction in the public square.”

Onward Christian Soldiers

We have been blessed by God to be a blessing, and there is no more powerful way we do this than by how we use and embody language.

This conjures up a rather comical image in my mind of a Christian soldier but rather than carrying a shield and sword he’s carrying a dictionary, but not any dictionary, as we shall see it, it needs to be an 1828 Noah Webster dictionary. So as the song goes, Onward Christian Soldiers marching off to war… with an 828-page dictionary.

 

I can imagine a conversation like this in the “broader culture”.

Man: (Speaking to a woman) I really love you!

Woman: I really love you too!!

Christian Soldier: Hark, I couldn’t help but heareth thy professions of love one to another. It is important that both of ye are sure what thou really mean by “love”. (So, he begins to read Noah Webster’s definition of love… all 453 words.)

Man: Come on Babe, let’s go. This guy’s a twit.

Woman: Good idea. Let’s get away from this dweeb.

Christian Soldier: Verily, I say unto thee, those words are not found in my dictionary. I adjure you in the name of free men everywhere and to avoid tyranny and bloodshed you must refrain from using unauthorized non-biblical vocabulary.

Man and woman walk away muttering something under their breath.

Christian Soldier: Hark, I heareth that… and I’m not sure what thou hast suggested is even possible.

Salt of the Earth?

“We must refuse to be silenced or pressured into going along with false definitions. There is probably no more powerful way of being salt and light at this moment in history.”

Have to wonder how he supports this idea biblically. Whatever happened to “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Can’t find anywhere in the bible where it says, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples… how you use and embody language.”

The irony of Allen’s argument is that in an attempt to disseminate his understanding of the truth he is using deceptive means. It was he who changed the true meaning of love, freedom and justice to his fit his own purpose. Now he’s altering the spirit of scripture to make “false definitions” the most important issue for Christians. Not a surprise though as this kind of deception has been going on since the first century. New Testament scholar Bard Ehrman in his book Forged says “The use of deception to promote the truth may well be considered one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian tradition.” And so it continues 20 centuries later. At least it’s a longstanding tradition in Christianity.

If Allen wants to be taken seriously by anyone other than evangelicals, he needs to stop ranting about some fictitious melodrama that is not even mentioned once in the bible. Then he should roll up his sleeves and get to work solving some real-life problems like poverty and human suffering that are mentioned again and again in the bible. Nonbelievers don’t want to hear what he thinks is important for Christians. We want to see how his beliefs make a real difference in the world.

Consider these words of Edgar Guest

I soon can learn to do it if you’ll let me see it done;

I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast may run.

And the lectures you deliver may be very wise and true,

But I’d rather get my lessons by observing what you do;

For I might misunderstand you and the high advice you give,

But there’s no misunderstanding how you act and how you live.

One good man teaches many, men believe what they behold;

One deed of kindness noticed is worth forty that are told.

Who stands with men of honor learns to hold his honor dear,

For right living speaks a language which to everyone is clear.

Though an able speaker charms me with his eloquence, I say,

I’d rather see a sermon than hear one, any day.

Coming next: Built From the Bible Up?

In the final part of this series we’ll take a closer look at Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary. According to Allen, it is a dictionary build from the Bible up. But there are some serious issues with this dictionary that Allen considers essential for a nation of free people.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Feb. 2, 2022

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

Blog

The Five-Headed Beast

In part one Allen claims that words are being stripped of their true meaning, which poses a grave danger to our society. In part two Allen names the Villain who is responsible for causing this calamitous situation and we find out it’s a five-headed beast. We’ll take a brief look at what these five philosophies actually are and see if we can discern why they make a toxic mix that is so threatening to Christianity. I have included some lengthy explanations about each head of the five-headed beast because it is important to not rely entirely on someone else’s take on what they really mean.

 

The new religion is a five-headed beast.

Allen: “Again, the new religion isn’t merely secular or atheistic. It needs to be understood as a toxic mix of postmodern relativism, Marxist social analysis and a Nietzschean will to power. All of this feeds into and supports the redefinition of words and language.”

The Five Heads of the Beast

Secularism

So, what is Secularism?

Separation of religion from state

The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures religious groups don’t interfere in affairs of state, and the state doesn’t interfere in religious affairs.

Religious Freedom

Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.

Secularism is about democracy and fairness

In a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law and parliament. No religious or political affiliation gives advantages or disadvantages and religious believers are citizens with the same rights and obligations as anyone else. Secularism champions universal human rights above religious demands. It upholds equality laws that protect women, LGBT people and minorities from religious discrimination. These equality laws ensure that non-believers have the same rights as those who identify with a religious or philosophical belief.

 

Not quite sure why Allen and other Christians would object to this. Is it toxic to believe that “Secularism is about democracy and fairness, or that in a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law?”

Perhaps what he objects to is the phrase “The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures religious groups don’t interfere in affairs of state, and the state doesn’t interfere in religious affairs.” From where I stand, secularism is a good thing.

Atheism

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there are no gods nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods (plural).


There are as many different kinds of Atheists as there are Theists. One of the most rational discussion about how theists misunderstand atheism can be found on the YouTube channel Genetically Modified Skeptic. What’s more important to discuss than a definition of Atheism is how Atheists are misperceived by Theists.

Phil Zuckerman in his well documented article entitled Atheism, Secularity and Well-Being writes that “it is often assumed that someone who doesn’t believe in God doesn’t believe in anything, or that a person who has no religion must have no values. These assumptions are simply untrue. People can reject religion and still maintain strong beliefs. Being godless does not mean being without values. Numerous studies reveal that atheists and secular people most certainly maintain strong values, beliefs, and opinions.” In addition, compared to religious people, atheists are actually less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less anti-Semitic, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less close- minded, and less authoritarian.”

If asked who I would trust more, an Atheist or a Theist, I would choose the former. From where I stand Atheism is not as toxic as some would have us believe.

Post Modernism

Post Modernism says that there is no real truth and that knowledge is always made or invented and not discovered. Because knowledge is made by people, a person cannot know something with certainty – all ideas and facts are ‘believed’ instead of ‘known’. People believe that they know what the truth is, but they will think that the truth is something different later. This is the opposite of ‘objectivity’, which says that the truth is always there and people have to discover it.

Since postmodernism says that the truth is just a thing that people invent, people can believe different things and think it is the truth and all be right. Postmodernism says that one person should not try to make another person believe what he believes, because it means nothing to say that one belief is right and the other is wrong. Postmodernism says that if somebody has a belief and tries to make somebody else believe it also, it means that they are just trying to have power over them.

I can see how this would be very threatening to Christians. This one head of the five headed beast opposes the very essence of Christianity. No objective meaning of words? No objective truth that goes beyond normal limits or boundaries? No objective reality? Pretty scary stuff for theists.

However, Allen does indeed believe in objective truths.

Allen: “Christians “understand that words have objective meanings… that are given by God as revealed in Scripture.  God is not some impersonal cosmic force, but a person, and He speaks and reveals Himself to us.”

If I’m not mistaken, he just supported postmodernism’s idea that truth is just something groups have invented and believe to be true. What if I don’t believe that “God is actually a person”? Am I rejecting objective truth? How about the six-day creation story? Is that an objective truth?

Postmodernism says that different groups can believe different things, and that no one group should try to make others believe what they believe. From where I stand, I would agree.

Marxist Social Analysis

Marxist Social Analysis is a method by which researchers expose how communication phenomena influence taken-for-granted assumptions regarding who “ought to be” and “ought not to be” empowered in a given society. The thoughts and beliefs of the ruling class tend to be accepted both by those in power and those disempowered by them. Thus, the underlying goal of a Marxist analysis is to reveal the ways in which (words) help create and maintain, political oppression.

Allen: “Marxist social analysis sees the world as a zero-sum competition between “victims” and “oppressors.” The “oppressors” use language to create a “reality” that is imposed upon so-called victims– often without them being aware of it– as a means of maintaining power and privilege. The “victims” can liberate themselves by “unmasking” these (untrue) socially constructed realities.”

I’m not an historian, but I believe there is enough evidence to declare that religion is one of the most egregious oppressors in the history of mankind and specifically Christianity in the common era. It seems that Allen is arguing on the side of the ruling class. Notice that he calls the disempowered “so-called victims”. Is it possible that Allen and evangelicals in general don’t want people to discover the real truth? That the bible has been and still is being used by the Church to create and maintain social control.

Members of the disempowered group are starting to question the control of the church. They are attempting to unmask the false realities that the Church has been using for millennium to maintain power. This is perhaps why Allen and other evangelical are so threatened by this. Could “the redefining of words and language” actually lead to freedom from religion?

Critical Theory

Allen: “Today, this form of Marxist thought is widely taught on college campuses under the rubric “critical theory.” Critical theory studies have mushroomed in the English, history and social science departments of Western since the 1960s, completely replacing the older study of Western Civilization.”

Since Allen chose to include “critical theory” here, we’ll address it now. Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole. It differs from traditional theory, which focuses only on understanding or explaining society. Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep human beings from a full and true understanding of how the world works.

When Allen says that “critical theory” has replaced the older study of Western Civilization” we have to take a look at exactly what he is saying. The older studies of Western Civilization simply taught nothing more than names and dates. Let’s remember that history is written by the victors. Critical theory’s aim is to help students gain a full and true understanding of how the world works. Why would Allen oppose that? Guess we’ll see later.

Allen: “I’ll have more to say on this in my next entry in this series.”

Nietzschean Will to Power

Nietzschean will to power: There is will to power where there is life and even the strongest living things will risk their lives for more power. This suggests that the will to power is stronger than the will to survive.

Allen: “Words are no longer about truth. Nietzschean will to power seeks to manipulate or coerce others into using new definitions—even leveraging the power of the state as a means of attaining cultural supremacy. Now you begin to see the approach of the new religious orthodoxy towards language. Words are no longer a means of communicating truth. They are tools to control others, and ultimately to become master.”

Not sure where Allen got the idea that “will to power” seeks to manipulate others into using new definitions, or that the state is involved in this sinister plot to attain cultural supremacy. When Allen says words are no longer a means of communicating truth, does he mean “his truth”? And when he says that words have become tools to control others, is his fear that the Church is losing its power to control others? An increasing number of people are beginning to question the Church’s authority? No wonder he’s on this crusade.

Important questions for Allen.

  1. Have Christians ever used words to control others?
  2. Is leveraging the power of the state as a means of attaining cultural supremacy something both political parties do or just liberals?
  3. Is this new religion you speak of really a religion? Does it have members, bylaws, and buildings where they congregate? Do they have tax exempt status?

Allen goes on to quote Orwell’s famous book 1984 as a chilling view of how the state can use language to control the masses. The famous quote from 1984, “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” was viewed, even before 1984, as a rather prophetic view of the future of our society.

What the rest of us call Big Brother, Allen calls a toxic new religion. Perhaps Allen is using this language because his readers would have a more visceral reaction to a villain called “a toxic new religion” than “Big Brother”.  By attributing manipulation of language to a new toxic religion (which doesn’t even really exist) Allen is alerting his readers to a new threat that needs to be feared. But no worries, he offers a salvation from this “toxic new religion”. Can you guess what it is?

Allen: “There is, as the Bible says, “a more excellent way.”

What a surprise!

What we’ve discovered in this discussion is that, for Allen, a new toxic religion (which in reality is neither a religion nor toxic) consisting of secularism, atheism, postmodernism, Marxist Social Analysis and Nietzschean Will to Power. Somehow when all these concepts are combined it leads to a redefining of words and language. So, we have to ask, why is that so threatening to Allen?

Allen: “Over the years, as this toxic new religion has begun to displace Christianity at the center of the culture, biblical meanings have been eroded, and words have been redefined. Christian culture survives if we understand that words have objective meanings… that are given by God as revealed in Scripture.?

Ah, there it is. Christianity is being replaced at the center of culture and is losing its power. It’s all about power.

Coming next:

In part three of this series, we’ll explore more about Allen’s God-given objective truths, where we actually got our “best words”, why this melodrama resonates with his readers and how he proposes Christians deal with the new toxic threat.

 

From Where I Stand

Jan. 26, 2022

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >