Confessions of a Bible Thumper

How a Former Evangelical Survived the Christian Right,
Rejected the Radical Left, and Recovered a Rational Faith

Introduction

            The enigma of Christian fundamentalism and most of evangelicalism is the loss of the biblical concept of freedom and the development of the unbiblical system of performance-based religion. Based on their preoccupation with biblical inerrancy and literalism, most of evangelicalism has succumbed to a deep-seated and insidious legalism that grips conservative bible-believing Christians with an iron fist that refuses to let go. From the asinine superficiality of extreme fundamentalism to the more thoughtful faith of moderate evangelicals (but no less performance- and law-based) the conservative church is in spiritual bondage, suffering from a severe drought of grace--something with which it should be inundated given what the Bible truly teaches. As one conservative church member said to me recently when I asked him why he stopped attending church, "I got tired of jumping through hoops."

            Although there may be glimpses of freedom among some progressive evangelicals, legalism typically reigns supreme, taking various forms within individual churches and denominations. The censorious gradations include on one side of the extreme written and unwritten codes for dress, behavior, speech, sex, ministry, and non-essential doctrines (e.g., restrictions on skirt lengths, body piercings, alcohol use, most if not all divorce, certain sexual behaviors even among married couples, women in ministry, adherence to the King James Bible only, and fundamentalist statements of fairh). Moderates aren't nearly as strict yet have their own written and unwritten legalistic codes that include measuring a person's godly maturity based on how well they practice spiritual disciplines, such as praying and reading the Bible, and their degree of commitment to, and financial support of, an institutional church. In short, legalistic evangelicalism focuses primarily on what believers must do for God rather than on what God has done for them. Afraid of teaching true biblical freedom, the institutional church attempts to control people through its emphasis on creating and enforcing laws derived from misinterpretations of the Bible and traditional non-biblical teachings rather than allowing individuals to govern themselves under the overriding law that Christ taught--love for God and neighbor.

            Shamefully, the church also suffers from a shortage of clear thinking. Mark Noll laid out that case in his seminal book where he stated in the first sentence, "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." 1 Not exactly an encouraging sign.   Although Noll recognizes certain virtues of evangelicals, such as sacrifice and generosity to the needy, he concludes they are not exemplary for their thinking.

            Ironically, the enigma of the radical religious Left is their extreme emotional overreaction to the Christian Right. Garry Wills calls this "the new fundamentalism", a term he uses to describe the work of the team of scholars who make up the Jesus Seminar.   "Though some people have called the Jesus Seminarists radical, they are actually very conservative. They tame the real, radical Jesus, cutting him down to their own size." 2 Wills is no card-carrying fundamentalist.

            Confessions of a Bible Thumper is the product of my journey of 25 years as a card-carrying evangelical who, frankly, got tired of jumping through hoops. Disillusioned with anti-intellectualism, superficial platitudes and pseudo-spiritual pat answers, both blatant and subtle legalism, litmus tests for outsiders, and the gross and widespread mishandling of the Scriptures, I left my bible-thumping ways only to find that many liberal alternatives to the Christian Right aren't much better.

            For example, I thought Bishop Shelby Spong was coming to my rescue when I saw his book, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism . However, although he had some meritorious views and he's right on with his evaluation of the fundamentalist mindset, I discovered he was like one of Wills' "new fundamentalists," who "cut Jesus down to his own size" and confidently declared the Bible a fraud in another book of his, Sins of Scripture , with a host of emotional speculations and little hard facts. I learned that most biblical scholars don't take such views seriously because their authors, like conservative Christians, ignore any evidence that doesn't fit their point of view.

            Then there's the alternative secular perspectives. Ones that rightly reject the extremism of the biblical literalists but their alternative is a purely naturalist worldview where spirituality is merely tolerated and believers are often humored as ignorant fools, or even downright mocked, as in the writings of Darwinist Richard Dawkins or atheists Sam Harris. Again, I find a type of new fundamentalism in these views, where evidence for God or purpose and meaning in the cosmos is either ignored or pitifully explained away through intellectual gymnastics. The radical Left's response to the Christian Right may be spot on in its diagnosis, but outrageously off the mark with its cure. In short, they throw out the baby with the bath water.  

            Thankfully, not everyone's reaction to the Christian Right goes this far. Rational faith and sound intellectualism are alive, although certainly not prevalent, among a minority of evangelicals or neo-evangelicals, a handful of social conservatives, some moderate liberals, and many who today call themselves "emergent" postmodern believers. I have even discovered some agnostics and atheists who respond to the Christian Right with refreshing intellectual honesty and who are at odds with their peers.

            My story is about how I fell into conservative Christianity, found a mixed bag of blessings, and slowly realized its fatal attraction towards law-based religion. It's how I came out the other side with a more rational faith and a renewed concept of grace and freedom. In each chapter, I'll share a personal story that illustrates how I navigated the doctrinal waters of a particular issue including biblical inerrancy, heaven, hell, salvation, evangelism, the theology of mission, the institutional church, the call to care for the poor, the authority of the Bible, and how to interpret the Bible. My reflections will cover many of today's hot-button issues, such as the role of women in the church, abortion, eschatology (end-times theology), science vs. religion, the creationist/intelligent design/evolution debate, the politics of religion, and the church's view of sexuality, pornography, and homosexuality. Oh... and how can I forget? I even spend a paragraph   on the teletubbies. Hey, Jerry Falwell thought it was important!

            I explore my personal experience with the good, bad, and the ugly of the evangelical church today. Undoubtedly I'll have a few jabs for Catholics and liberals as well. I share experiences I've had as a born-again believer, a member and lay leader of conservative and charismatic churches, a locally ordained Baptist pastor, a volunteer with the pro-life organization Operation Rescue, a cross-cultural missionary and community development worker in Africa for seven years, and a writer, consultant, and marketing specialist for Christian aid agencies.

            My journey began during a time of personal crisis while in college when I experienced a profound and wonderful spiritual awakening and began a love relationship with one who I still believe is God's personal expression of himself to humankind--Yeshua Mashiakh--better known as Jesus Christ. My new-found affection for Christ was followed by years of a love-hate relationship with the deeds and doctrines of the evangelical church. Love for its core message about the mind-blowing good news, that the Creator of the universe had broken into our tumultuous world with a radical message of grace and unmerited love. And love for the wing of the church that truly loves its neighbor--who care for the poor and needy at home and abroad, mostly through charitable, relief and development parachurch organizations.   But there was an accompanying hate--for the superficiality, judgementalism, petty legalism, and abuse of the Bible that the church so often exhibited. What culminated was a soul-searching crisis of faith that led me to ask a series of dangerous questions.

            Based on the obvious discrepancies I saw in the Bible, is it possible to reject the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible and still believe it is inspired? Can one reject literalist approaches to scripture and still believe it has authority when handled correctly? How can evangelical Bible teachers be so confident that only those who "accept" Christ as personal Savior will go to heaven after they die? Why did my first experience with a non-Christian culture--Muslims in East Africa--convince me that this teaching is legalistic and damaging? Since I saw much of the church had been wrong on slavery and racism, could the church be wrong on the homosexual issue? Why does it refuse to even consider the biblical, linguistic, pastoral, and scientific evidence I discovered, that the six Bible passages claimed to condemn homosexuality (that's right, there are only six) have been mistranslated and misinterpreted? Can one believe in the incarnation and resurrection of Christ and still condemn the legalistic teaching in the church on sexual behavior and personal conduct? Why had not anyone in my church experience taught what I learned from historians, that much of the sexual taboos taught in the church are based on the influence of Greek stoicism that misinterpreted the Apostle Paul's teaching? Why was polygamy and concubinage openly practiced by heroes of the faith in the Old Testament with no censure from God, even encouraged in the Levirate law and never corrected by Christ, yet the church insists on the practice of monogamous marriage and abstinence before marriage? After I studied language and culture and what scholars know about New Testament Greek and ancient Hebrew, how is it that I discovered there are many words and passages that are most assuredly both mistranslated and misinterpreted in our English Bibles? Why haven't those translations been corrected? Today, when I read the first 11 chapters in Romans in one sitting, why do I walk away with a profound understanding of grace and our freedom from legalistic law? Why had I never noticed that before when I was in the habit of reading it piecemeal? Why do I rarely hear freedom from law taught in the church when Romans clearly states "We are no longer under the supervision of the Law?" Why do a majority of evangelicals embrace grace in theory, but rarely in practice? Is it possible to deplore the law-imposing politics of the Christian Right and still champion the influence of Christians and other religions in the public square? Can one support the concept of a worldwide body of believers but denounce the inherent structural legalism prevalent in the modern institutional church? And most importantly, do I really have to watch the 700 Club, follow James Dobson's every word on the radio, vote for conservative Republicans, listen primarily to Christian radio, support Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series, and become a member of an institutional local evangelical church? Well, er... of course not. And, come to think of it, why the hell can't I talk theology while enjoying a few microbrews at the local pub!? Why not, indeed! Didn't C.S. Lewis, the British theologian often idolized by evangelicals, use to do enjoy a Guinness or two (not to mention a cigar or two) while talking theology in the halls of Oxford?

            To be fair, many evangelicals have this same love-hate relationship, although the media, for some odd reason (No! It couldn't be bias, could it?) isn't fond of reporting on them. There are many progressive evangelicals that at the very least, deplore the abuses of the pray-TV personalities, the health and wealth proponents, the extreme legalistic fundamentalists, the Bible literalists, the end-times prophets with their silly predictions, and would join me at my favorite pub for an Alaskan Amber. Some have been rallying around a cry for a grace awakening, condemning the petty rules, expectations, and truisms that much of the church espouses. Others are beginning to question the evangelical stand on such issues as homosexuality. From black-sheep sons like Mel White (who wrote Religion Gone Bad ) and Frank Schaeffer (son of evangelical guru Francis Schaeffer, who wrote Crazy for God ), to a list of others still in the fold like Philip Yancey, Tony Campolo, Brennan Manning, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Becky Garrison, Os Guinness, Mark Noll, and even a seasoned and more moderate Billy Graham, many have written or spoken extensively on the lack of grace and intellectual integrity in the church and the need for reform. I have drawn on these and other scholars outside evangelicalism--those who I see championing a more reasonable faith--to paint a picture of my own case for reforming the contemporary quest for spirituality in general, and for evangelical Christians in particular. Oh and lest I forget, I also draw from that ancient wellspring of Christian scholarly thought. Augustine's City of God , you ask? No, The Wittenburg Door--the world's pretty much only religious satire publication--or as I like to call it, the Mad Magazine of Christendom. OK, my credibility is now shot, but I contend there are many gems of truth found in religious humor!

            In all my years as an evangelical, I never considered myself part of the Christian Right. Probably due to a combination of some progressive views I held all along that put me outside the fundamentalist camp, and partly due to denial. I was always uncomfortable with many of the views of personalities like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson (although, I admit for a season, I listened to Dobson regularly), but found myself in churches where friends would reveal their wholehearted support of leaders of the Christian Right. I always leaned toward balancing the proclamation of the Gospel with caring for the poor as Jesus taught, which was an ongoing debate within evangelicalism, with conservatives calling physical ministry a "social gospel" which distracts from the main mission of evangelism and progressives calling it indispensable to the holistic message of Jesus. In truth, I had one foot in and one foot out of the Christian Right. Today, partly because evangelicals have never been able to detangle themselves from the Christian Right, I no longer consider myself an evangelical Christian. The term "evangelical" has become an unhelpful label with a definition to which I no longer subscribe, not to mention an image that conjures up in people's mind positions that make me squeamish. Although I still consider myself an orthodox Christian, I can no longer attach myself to the "evangelical" signpost. Having said that, I still find myself agreeing with much of what comes out of those who would be defined as progressive evangelicals.

            At this point, it is helpful to define some essential terms for the reader. First the term "evangelical." Although there has never been a well-defined boundary for this subsection of modern Christians, I define them, from my personal experience, as members of an institutional Protestant church (either denominational or non-denominational) who stress the need for a life-changing or "born-again" religious experience, profess faith in the Bible as the authoritative "Word of God", encourage spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ through missions and personal witness, and believe that one receives salvation only by formally accepting Jesus and his atoning work on the cross. Within this rather broad definition are various degrees of conservative viewpoints, with the most conservative called "fundamentalists," and the more liberal called "progressive evangelicals" (who today are sometimes called neo-evangelicals). What is distressing about this fairly universally accepted definition, is not only its narrowness, but also what is missing. Jesus said outsiders will know his followers by how they love. That seems to me like a more important criterion than believing dry doctrines, as important as some of them might be.  

            As for "fundamentalists", it becomes obvious that while all fundamentalists are evangelicals, not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. This is another distinction that the media rarely makes. I define "fundamentalists" as the most conservative evangelicals who see the Bible as inerrant and infallible, read and apply it in a literal way, and draw from it a system of laws and strict codes of conduct. Although fundamentalists are sincere and dedicated believers, they are the group most susceptible to developing into cults. From here on, I will affectionately call them "fundies."

            To be sure, the line between fundies and non-fundies is not well defined. For example, many, if not most evangelicals who don't consider themselves fundamentalists would still believe in the inerrant and infallible Bible. They also have their own behavior codes, albeit less strict than fundies'. For simplicity sake, fundies are the most conservative evangelicals with a tendency for more legalistic rules and a more straightforward and literal approach to reading the Bible with little consideration for its historical and cultural context. I was always astonished how many times I found myself in what I thought was a moderate evangelical church but where fundies were prevalent. I was equally astonished to discover how many moderate evangelicals I knew who practiced a literalist approach to reading the Bible.  

            I don't use the term "literalist" in the sense that someone reading the Bible necessarily develops a blind literal interpretation that doesn't allow for figurative or poetic language. That is sometimes true. But to me, a literalist is broader than that. A literalist is one who insists on the "plain meaning" of the text regardless of any cultural, historical, and literary facts that shed light on the original intent of the author. A biblical literalist is one who is careless in reading and interpreting the Bible and when presented with sound evidence that a traditional interpretation should be revised, rejects it in favor of their view of the   "plain meaning." This, to me, is dishonoring the scriptures, not honoring them. This isn't to say that every passage of the Bible has a secret meaning, only that the "plain meaning" of the text can only be ascertained if the cultural, historical, literary, and lexical context is well understood.

            Next is the "Christian Right," which is made up of right-wing Christian movements and organizations that support conservative social and political values. The "Religious Right" are the same, but would include conservative Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. Are all evangelicals part of the Christian or Religious Right? Of course not. (The popular media loves to lump all evangelicals together as a bunch of back-woods biblical-literalist bigots). There are progressive evangelicals that are adamantly opposed to the Religious Right's agenda. However, I believe it is fair to say that a sizable number, if not a majority of evangelicals, and probably all fundies, are at least aligned with the values of the Christian Right if not directly supportive of their organizations or at least partially supportive of them.  

            Because popular media is so outrageously extremist in their caricatures of conservative religious people in general, it might surprise some to discover that I have never found evangelical Christians to be evil people--even the most conservative. With the rare exception of some extreme fundies who really do appear to hate anyone who doesn't subscribe to their warped theology, most evangelicals are sincere, well meaning, and loving people. I admire many evangelicals, albeit mostly ones from a progressive perspective, but some conservatives too. However, and here's the rub, I have often observed them unintentionally misinterpreting the Bible and feeling compelled to support oppressive policies based on these misinterpretations. As I will describe in Chapter X, many of them are themselves victims of what I call Bible abuse, which I define as the misuse of scripture out of fear and a misguided system of interpretation or, at worst, for the purpose of controlling others. In short, my position is that most evangelicals are well-meaning but misguided.

            This book is addressed to any person who is willing to examine the evangelical movement and popular-culture reactions to it with an open mind. Whether you the reader are a religious conservative, religious liberal, agnostic, or an atheist, hopefully you will encounter conclusions with which you will wholeheartedly agree, but undoubtedly there will be others with which you vehemently disagree. When you find yourself among the latter, think of consumer advocate John Stossel. Famous for his role on ABC's 20-20, Stossel wrote a book recently called Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity . In it he uses his research and investigative skills to challenge the conventional wisdom of our day. What I like most about Stossel is that he is an equal-opportunity offender.   From what I can tell, he is uncharacteristically unbiased--he himself is a libertarian--and uncovers the myths and lies on the right and the left. The subtitle to his book is "Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong." Now, I have to admit because I am human, that I could be wrong on positions I take in this book. When you encounter a radical view opposed to your own, I challenge you to think to yourself, "OK, that sounds outrageous to me, but I could be wrong." The only way to get at the truth is to dig it out. But you can't discover it out if you don't have an open mind or you're not willing to do the hard work of fact finding. "The God of truth is not served by avoiding truth." 3

            Tony Campolo, the left-of-center evangelical firebrand once wrote a book called We Have Met the Enemy and They are Partly Right . This idea for Campola's book is the prescription and cure for the evangelical church's tendency toward black-and-white thinking. Black-and-white thinking puts the "enemy" in the "all wrong" category and doesn't recognize that they are partly right. So the Religious Right can't see merit in any position or person who doesn't take their position on abortion, for example. If someone is not all or substantially right on their issues, in their mind, they must be wrong. Likewise, this is prevalent among the Left. To them, all conservative Christians are right-wing wackos who have no meritorious views. Black-and-white thinking is the scourge of both the Right and the Left. Campolo has a knack for challenging the Christian Right and Left to rethink their hard-nosed positions and acknowledge that not everything is so clear cut. Black-and-white thinking makes people blind to the fact that even our enemy has something to teach us.

            A few years ago, I was inspired to create a blog after watching the recent movie called Luther about the 16th century reformer played by Joseph Fiennes (also in Shakespeare in Love ). Martin Luther, after seeing many abuses and misuses of Roman Catholic religion in his day, rethought his faith and culture, discovered new truths he was unaware of before, and helped restore Christianity to much of its original core and freedom. I hope to address many similar issues of our day in this book where there is a need to rethink, restore, and reform our ideas in the areas of faith, the church, politics, culture, and sexuality. As you will see in some of the stories I tell, the reason I began to rethink issues was because of disillusionment. The reason I had to change was because of new-found knowledge, facts, or truth. The chapters in this book will describe such instances of transformation through the telling of an experience I had. In other ways some chapters will reveal how I haven't changed but have come to reinforce time-tested answers.

            The book has four main sections. The first part will address the persistent problem with performance- or law-based religion that leads to gradations of legalism in the church. I share stories on how I came to recognize this problem and then trace the roots of legalism and the loss of biblical freedom in early Christian, Roman Catholic, and Protestant movements from the influences of Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, medieval theologies, and American Puritanism. Through reflections on my experiences, the chapters in this section reveal the bad fruit of legalism in our modern context and introduces its cure--the recovery of the doctrines of grace and freedom found in the New Testament. The second section includes some of my recollections that demonstrate the epidemic of misusing and abusing the Bible. It traces where this practice came from, and how to recover a more honorable way of handling the scriptures. It may surprise some readers that evangelicals who practice what I call Bible abuse, as I mentioned above, are not intentionally misusing the Bible. Often they are victims themselves of a faulty teaching on how to read and study the Bible that is perpetrated in the church. The third section contains chapters on my search for an appropriate response to conservative evangelicalism, the phenomenon of the radical Left's reaction to the Religious Right, and how their responses are at times also based on black-and-white thinking. It includes a chapter on how the Left can abuse the Bible and another chapter on the conflicts with science and faith and a reasonable way of reconciling them. Finally, the last section outlines how I came to settle on a more rational faith and what I see as the way out of these dilemmas for those who are open to reform in the church and in our pluralistic society.

            Luther was an independent thinker and I share that tendency. Aside from a few exceptions mentioned earlier, independent thinking is a rarity in the evangelical and even the liberal church today. The lack of such thinking is due to the very human tendency of always seeing things in black and white. In either camp, one is under subtle pressure to think the group's way, for by definition, their way or position is accurate.

            Tammy Bruce, the feminist, lesbian, pro-choice advocate is paradoxically a persuasive defender of certain political conservative views. As a former director of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW. she shares about her experience with "group-think". Among her pro-abortion colleagues there was no room for independent thinking, but only group-think--going along with the movement's "traditional" stances. Whenever she brought up dissenting perspectives while discussing the politics of abortion, she was shut down.

            What the evangelical church and society in general needs are independent thinkers who don't succumb to group think and black-and-white thinking. People who are not afraid to question the status quo or the traditional view, but equally aren't afraid to go where that independent fact-finding and evidence takes them, on the right, left, or center. You can't put such people in a box. Tami Bruce can maintain her pro-choice position while advocating limits to abortion.

            To all those who insist on thinking for themselves, I invite you to read on and assess my experience, the conclusions I come to, and the evidence presented to support them. This book is not the definitive statement on these issues but hopefully may become a starting point for some to do further study and read some of the authors I have cited. It is my desire that the reader use these sources to help them consider the case for reforming the evangelical movement, rejecting the radical Left's response, and recovering a rational faith based on the grace of God and sound biblical, pastoral, psychological, and scientific evidence.

1 Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, page 3

2 Wills, What Jesus Meant, page xxv

3 Biblical Authority or Biblical Tyranny, Countryman p. 1