Joshua Harris leaves Christianity?

[umsami]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7297889/Christian-author-advocated-against-premarital-sex-says-hes-lost-faith.html

"The information that was left out of our announcement is that I have undergone a massive shift in regard to my faith in Jesus. The popular phrase for this is "deconstruction," the biblical phrase is "falling away." By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian,' he revealed. "

This makes me sad.  I hope he realizes that there are many denominations, many types of Christians, and accepting LGBTQ folks, does not make you a non-Christian.  

[Tanaqui]

As an atheist, I'm all for deconverting. Wherever he ends up, though, I too hope he can recognize that Christianity doesn't have to look like purity culture.

[GoodGrief]

I suspect his personality is one that gravitates toward rigid formulas, all or nothing.

[ktgrok]

This is one reason I try to make sure my kids know there are many flavors of Christianity, and religion in general, and do NOT pretend to have all the answers. Because if you do claim to have all the answers, or your religion does, then as soon as someone gets "stuck" with one they can't answer, they stop believing the whole things. 

I read a while back that the children of fundamentalists awere the most likely to end up as atheists, and the children of Atheists and Catholics end up as fundamentalists. Basically, if you start out as all or nothing you remain all or nothing...but it might be the flip side of what you started as.   I could be remembering wrong, but it  was enough of a percentage that it was one of many reasons we currently attend a mainline Episcopal church, the denomination I was nominally raised in, rather than a Catholic Church. 

I do feel badly for him, as I think he probably started with flawed information in so many ways, I think he was manipulated by people he trusted, I think that fall out effected many parts of his life, and I am sure this is a huge stress for his family relationships. 

[catz]

I was not familiar with this guy.  I also think growing and evolving and broadening your world view is just something that can happen your entire life.  So this doesn't make me feel sad at all.  Good for him for growing.  I was raised one religion and now attend a UU church.  I know plenty of Christians that date and support LGBTQ marriage though.    And it's sad a long marriage is ending, but maybe they realize they shouldn't have been together.   Who knows - maybe his wife was uncomfortable with his shifting faith.  They did marry quite young.  

I do wonder how a 21 year old publishes a book and ends up being so influential?  I see he didn't go to college until 2015.  It seems puzzling to me that people would pick a book by someone with so little life experience to use as such an essential part of parenting their own kids.  Especially if that type of courtship wasn't part of their own upbringing/getting into marriage experience?

Edited July 29, 2019 by FuzzyCatz

[MercyA]

I was never a fan of the courtship model of dating, but the loss of his faith and the separation from his wife are more tragic than I can say. 

[Aura]

I saw this, too, and appreciated his willingness to apologize and to be upfront about his changing beliefs. It can't be easy to do something like that with the world watching you, knowing that a lot of people that he has probably looked up to and/or considered friends are now going to alienate him. Paradigm shifts are just really hard, and I can't imagine having everyone watching and judging all the while.

From https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/29/author-christian-relationship-guide-joshua-harris-says-marriage-over 

Quote

 

He added: “I have lived in repentance for the past several years – repenting of my self-righteousness, my fear-based approach to life, the teaching of my books, my views of women in the church, and my approach to parenting to name a few.

“But I specifically want to add to this list now: to the LGBTQ+ community, I want to say that I am sorry for the views that I taught in my books and as a pastor regarding sexuality.

“I regret standing against marriage equality, for not affirming you and your place in the church, and for any ways that my writing and speaking contributed to a culture of exclusion and bigotry. I hope you can forgive me.”

 

 

[Beth S]

His wife's IG also explains her "exvangelism" choice.
They also have 3 teen children.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Beth S

[Guest]

I have yet to read the article, but I expect it’s going to be very familiar territory for me. I think this is a huge downside in being raised with a certain rigid outlook on faith. It’s very house-of-cards. 

He’s got guts, though, I’ll say that. Through my years of struggling with belief, I almost never discussed it IRL. I feared the fallout way too much. 

[PrincessMommy]

He's lived his whole life in a glass house.  His parents were pioneers and prominent speakers in the early days of  the homeschooling movement.   Dad talked about his kids a lot in his lectures. Then he went to Cov Life and became the lead pastor...which always struck me as weird since he was so young.  I assumed (rightly as it turned out) that he was basically a tool for CJ Mehany.   When that ship started to sink fast, he stepped down and went off the seminary in Canada.  I thought that was the best decision he could make.    I wonder if its like he's finally living his young adult years where he can question what he's believed and wrestle with his faith - only he's doing it in public.   At that time he left for sem I was hoping his studies would take him away from the rigid Evangelical Protestantism that he had grown up with and preached, and maybe move to a more historical and traditional tradition such as Anglicanism, Catholicism, Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox.  I'm sad that both his marriage and his faith has fallen apart.

I do agree that he's not real clear about what part of his beliefs make him feel he's not a Christian.   But, in some sense it makes sense.  I live a few miles down the street from Cov.Life.  My kids and I have had lots of interactions with Cov Life families and I'm friends with a few.  I have family members who are former and current members.  But, my kids had mostly negative experiences because we didn't go to Cov. Life.  The teens (friends, not family)  would question my kids and say in surprise, "You're a Christian???  How can that be, you don't go to Cov. Life."   This was even when we briefly went to the Baptist church... you can only imagine what they thought when they found out we were Orthodox. 🙄  The kids really did seem to think theirs was the only "true Christian" church in our area.  It boggles the mind!!   I'm not sure they actually taught this from the pulpit or classroom, but there was a long culture of "us vs them" within Cov. Life.  They kept to themselves - even with extended family.   So, I can see how, in his mind, he no longer follows that rigid theology...ergo he's no longer a Christian.  

I hope he continues to question and look... but, as a Christian,  I do hope he circles back around to Christianity.  I just wish he would do it quietly (I know, it's not a thing in our internet age).  

Edited July 30, 2019 by PrincessMommy

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Question. Do legalists know they are legalists, or is the legalism justified/explained as something else, where they don't realize that's what it is? 

IME, the belief is that it follows logically from scripture. So, just to use an example I doubt anyone disagrees with, in the Ten Commandments, the scripture says, “Thou shalt not steal.” So, the legalist would say, there it is; no grey area: you shall not steal. So, a legalistic person would do the same thing with other scriptures and say, “See? It says this in this scripture. Therefore, if you do differently, you are willfully doing what the Bible says not to do.” 

Not saying I agree; just that that’s how one gets there. 

[QueenCat]

1 hour ago, FuzzyCatz said:

 

I do wonder how a 21 year old publishes a book and ends up being so influential?  I see he didn't go to college until 2015.  It seems puzzling to me that people would pick a book by someone with so little life experience to use as such an essential part of parenting their own kids.  Especially if that type of courtship wasn't part of their own upbringing/getting into marriage experience?

 

His book was extremely popular among legalists/fundamentalists and even a bit in mainstream denominations. People viewed this young man as an authority figure in a weird sort of way. Lots of youth/college Bible studies based on his books. It gave me the eebie jeebies. 

[QueenCat]

12 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Question. Do legalists know they are legalists, or is the legalism justified/explained as something else, where they don't realize that's what it is? 

 

Generally justified, they don't tend to call themselves that. 

[PrincessMommy]

1 minute ago, QueenCat said:

 

His book was extremely popular among legalists/fundamentalists and even a bit in mainstream denominations. People viewed this young man as an authority figure in a weird sort of way. Lots of youth/college Bible studies based on his books. It gave me the eebie jeebies. 

I do too.  I was just tell my SIL about the time his wife, my daughter, came home with that book.  I was disappointed but had no ammunition at the time.  I just wasn't comfortable taking dating advice from a 20yr old (not even married at the time).  

[Garga]

7 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

 

 The teens (friends, not family)  would question my kids and say in surprise, "You're a Christian???  How can that be, you don't go to Cov. Life."   This was even when we briefly went to the Baptist church... you can only imagine what they thought when they found out we were Orthodox. 🙄  The kids really did seem to think theirs was the only "true Christian" church in our area.  It boggles the mind!!   I'm not sure they actually taught this from the pulpit or classroom, but there was a long culture of "us vs them" within Cov. Life.  They kept to themselves - even with extended family.   So, I can see how, in his mind, he no longer follows that rigid theology...ergo he's no longer a Christian.  

I hope he continues to question and look... but, as a Christian,  I do hope he circles back around to Christianity.  I just wish he would do it quietly (I know, it's not a thing in our internet age).  

 

I have seen this before.  I suspect you’re right—that he thinks that if he can’t follow an extremely rigid view, then he must not be Christian at all.  

Edited July 29, 2019 by Garga

[PrincessMommy]

1 hour ago, FuzzyCatz said:

 

I do wonder how a 21 year old publishes a book and ends up being so influential?  I see he didn't go to college until 2015.  It seems puzzling to me that people would pick a book by someone with so little life experience to use as such an essential part of parenting their own kids.  Especially if that type of courtship wasn't part of their own upbringing/getting into marriage experience?

I think it was the timing.  I think he book was in reply to the culture which was becoming increasingly "worldly".  Also, because he was young the kids could relate to him more than if an older pastor/leader was preaching it.  

I have never read the book, but from what I know it's not all bad advice.  Waiting until marriage for sex isn't a novel idea within religious communities... it just that some people take it too far and make it into a legal requirement.  It became an idol within certain communities.    

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

So, I can see how, in his mind, he no longer follows that rigid theology...ergo he's no longer a Christian. 

I shouldn’t speak for him, but I can say this about my own experience: I don’t “label” myself a Christian very readily, because I know that by disbelieving or doubting lots of things I was raised to believe, most of the Christians of Evangelical stripe would not grant me that. My mom and dad, if I sat down with them and laid it all out all the things I doubt or disbelieve, would call me an Apostate. They would not say I am still a Christian. 

So, just for nitty-gritty examples, I was taught that the Bible is the accurate, complete, inerrant and sole Word of God. Christians (my experience) all believed this. If someone didn’t believe this, they were not Christians, so I was taught. Therefore, if I am looking at scripture and saying any of these things: “I think this is a mythic tale told by ancient peoples;” “I can see how ancient peoples believed this, but it does not fit with what we now know;” “I think this is a mistake or an exaggeration;” or “I don’t believe this is what God wanted to communicate to us, therefore not God’s Word.” If I say these things, I clearly don’t believe the Bible is the accurate, complete, inerrant, sole Word of God. According to how I was raised - then, not a Christian. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

I think it was the timing.  I think he book was in reply to the culture which was becoming increasingly "worldly".  Also, because he was young the kids could relate to him more than if an older pastor/leader was preaching it.  

I have never read the book, but from what I know it's not all bad advice.  Waiting until marriage for sex isn't a novel idea within religious communities... it just that some people take it too far and make it into a legal requirement.  It became an idol within certain communities.    

I read the book I Kissed Dating Goodbye when it was a new book. I mostly agreed with it at the time. 

It was not merely about not engaging in premarital sex. It was about not dating. Think Duggars and their “side hugs” and courtship model. The book itself did not strike me as legalistic or brow-beating in its tone, though remember, I thought the same way at that time, so maybe I didn’t think so because I agreed. The idea was predicated on the belief that “shopping” for mates by dating is practicing to have non-lasting relationships. You’re practicing for divorcing when you find you don’t like XYZ about this person. 

I even leant the book to my SIL, whose kids were older than mine, which seems extremely embarassing to me now! 

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Quill said:

IThe idea was predicated on the belief that “shopping” for mates by dating is practicing to have non-lasting relationships. You’re practicing for divorcing when you find you don’t like XYZ about this person. 

 

Anyway you slice it, this is a ridiculous proposition to accept from someone who hasn't been married and has zero stats to back it up. I never understood the popularity of this (and it was WILDLY popular) when I graduated HS in northwest Arkansas.

ETA: David French had  really good piece on this today from a conservative perspective (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/whither-evangelical-purity-culture-thoughts-on-the-legacy-of-a-lost-pastor/). The passage that stood out to me was:

"This is what writer Katelyn Beaty called the “sexual prosperity gospel,” an “if/then” transactional relationship with God that manufactures a series of promises from scripture and then creates a form of Christian entitlement and expectation. “I did what you asked, Lord, now may I see my reward?”

The supposition was that if/when these rewards fail to materialize, it can cause a total collapse of their faith.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Anyway you slice it, this is a ridiculous proposition to accept from someone who hasn't been married and has zero stats to back it up. I never understood the popularity of this (and it was WILDLY popular) when I graduated HS in northwest Arkansas.

Right. Like taking child-rearing advice from Gotthard. Or anybody who hasn’t raised kids themselves. 

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

IME, the belief is that it follows logically from scripture. So, just to use an example I doubt anyone disagrees with, in the Ten Commandments, the scripture says, “Thou shalt not steal.” So, the legalist would say, there it is; no grey area: you shall not steal. So, a legalistic person would do the same thing with other scriptures and say, “See? It says this in this scripture. Therefore, if you do differently, you are willfully doing what the Bible says not to do.” 

Not saying I agree; just that that’s how one gets there. 

Huh. I guess I'm a legalist, then. 😉

I've personally always thought of legalists as those who add to Scripture, requiring things it does not--as Jesus said, "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." So, for example, a Baptist preacher who refuses to set foot in a movie theater or play cards and requires the same of his congregation--I would call him a legalist, because the Scripture does not speak to those things. Not engaging in traditional dating would fall under the same category to me. 

Also, legalists may be people who are so concerned with strict commandment keeping that they neglect things that are even more important. I think it's so interesting what Jesus says about that here:  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." 

My two cents. 🙂 

Edited July 30, 2019 by MercyA

[MercyA]

52 minutes ago, Quill said:

 

I even leant the book to my SIL, whose kids were older than mine, which seems extremely embarrassing to me now! 

Oh, my, when I think of some of the books I've recommended in the past, I shudder!  So much I did not know and thought I did.

[Garga]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

So, just for nitty-gritty examples, I was taught that the Bible is the accurate, complete, inerrant and sole Word of God. Christians (my experience) all believed this. If someone didn’t believe this, they were not Christians, so I was taught. Therefore, if I am looking at scripture and saying any of these things: “I think this is a mythic tale told by ancient peoples;” “I can see how ancient peoples believed this, but it does not fit with what we now know;” “I think this is a mistake or an exaggeration;” or “I don’t believe this is what God wanted to communicate to us, therefore not God’s Word.” If I say these things, I clearly don’t believe the Bible is the accurate, complete, inerrant, sole Word of God. According to how I was raised - then, not a Christian. 

That’s exactly how I was taught, too.  I hadn’t realized just how far I’ve come away from that sort of thinking until I went out to lunch a few months ago with someone from my old childhood church.  She’s in her 70s now, so there was no point in arguing with her, but I had to bite my tongue through the whole lunch.  She was the same, but I have changed a lot.  

My change was slow, though, and I had time to adjust.  If I‘d changed abruptly, it would have been disorienting and I’d have wondered if I was Christian at all.

[PrincessMommy]

39 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Oh, my, when I think of some of the books I've recommended in the past, I shudder!  So much I did not know and thought I did.

I thought the same thing when I read her post.   We're all works in progress.  

[EmseB]

42 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Huh. I guess I'm a legalist, then. 😉

I've personally always thought of legalists as those who add to Scripture, requiring things it does not--as Jesus said, "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." So, for example, a Baptist preacher who refuses to set foot in a movie theater or play cards and requires the same of his congregation--I would call him a legalist, because the Scripture does not speak to those things. Not engaging in traditional dating would fall under the same category to me. 

Also, legalists may be people who are so concerned with strict commandment keeping that they neglect things that are even more important. I think it's so interesting what Jesus says about that here:  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." 

My two cents. 🙂 

Yes, this is how I've always thought of legalism. Growing up it was things like boys can't have long hair, people can't listen to rock music or drink or dance, girls should wear skirts/dresses only, etc. It was ideas that weren't biblical, certainly weren't about salvation, but were treated as such. I would say that it would be legalist to prescribe any one form of dating/meeting a potential spouse to be The Christian Way of Dating. I never really got that vibe from Harris' book, but I know that many, many people took it that way because people like to latch on to prescriptive methods. I see the same thing in homeschooling circles a lot.

I would differentiate between legalism (described above) and fundamentalism (a doctrinal view of things like inerrancy of scripture, deity and personhood of Christ, resurrection of Christ etc.). One can be a fundamentalist without being a legalist.

[HS Mom in NC]

2 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Question. Do legalists know they are legalists, or is the legalism justified/explained as something else, where they don't realize that's what it is? 

The ones I know don't realize they're legalists.

[teachermom2834]

His book was all the rage when my oldest ds was a preteen. A woman at co-op actually gave me the book and told me my ds had to read it because he was too flirtatious. I think my ds was 12 yo. Ugh. 

I was intrigued when he came out and apologized a few years ago. It went beyond abstaining from premarital sex. 

Poor guy, whatever he is going through. It really isn’t his fault that a bunch of people with more life experience than he had, as a young guy, took his book and made it a cultural phenomenon in some circles.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Yes, this is how I've always thought of legalism. Growing up it was things like boys can't have long hair, people can't listen to rock music or drink or dance, girls should wear skirts/dresses only, etc. It was ideas that weren't biblical, certainly weren't about salvation, but were treated as such. I would say that it would be legalist to prescribe any one form of dating/meeting a potential spouse to be The Christian Way of Dating. I never really got that vibe from Harris' book, but I know that many, many people took it that way because people like to latch on to prescriptive methods. I see the same thing in homeschooling circles a lot.

I would differentiate between legalism (described above) and fundamentalism (a doctrinal view of things like inerrancy of scripture, deity and personhood of Christ, resurrection of Christ etc.). One can be a fundamentalist without being a legalist.

I doubt, though, there would be a legalist who wasn’t also a fundamentalist. IME, when people have legalistic rules for themselves (or their spouse, kids, congregants, etc.) these things are based in their minds on scripture. So, for example, my parents were opposed to smoking, tattoos and piercing. (All piercing. I did not have pierced ears until I was twenty.) Obviously, the Bible never addresses any of these subjects, but my parents believed this falls under, “Know ye not that thine body is the temple of the Holy Spirit?” It’s important to note that my parents do not believe they are/were ever legalistic. They literally pulled us out of a private school because of legalistic practices being foisted upon us. They apparently believed that *actual* legalism was legalism they didn’t agree with. Prohibiting pierced ears and basing it on scripture is still legalism, but they did not think they themselves were legalistic. 

When people create these rules, they base it on scripture. There are scriptures that could be extrapolated, for instance, someone may say, “a man is not to wear the garment of a woman, neither a woman shall wear the garment of a man,” is a scripture, so therefore, women shouldn’t wear pants and men shouldn’t wear rompers. 😂 There are scriptures to be not “of the world” and to think only on the things that are good and pure; this can be extrapolated into you shouldn’t watch R-rated movies or listen to music that has cussy bits or says, “I’m on a Highway to Hell...” The point is, legalism and fundamentalism go hand in hand because once you believe that the scriptures can only mean what it appears to mean in our English translations, and that that scripture is the final Word of God, it’s easy to see how people make up rules that aren’s specifically in the Bible. 

[Ottakee]

32 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I would differentiate between legalism (described above) and fundamentalism (a doctrinal view of things like inerrancy of scripture, deity and personhood of Christ, resurrection of Christ etc.). One can be a fundamentalist without being a legalist.

Yes, this.  I would say I am a conservative fundamentalist but hopefully not a legalist.   My Bible study this week is on Romans 14 where it discusses this very thing.  Fundamentals of scripture, salvation, etc stay the same, but there is a wide range of allowable preferences and cultural differences within those parameters.

[73349]

3 minutes ago, Quill said:

I doubt, though, there would be a legalist who wasn’t also a fundamentalist. IME, when people have legalistic rules for themselves (or their spouse, kids, congregants, etc.) these things are based in their minds on scripture. So, for example, my parents were opposed to smoking, tattoos and piercing. (All piercing. I did not have pierced ears until I was twenty.) Obviously, the Bible never addresses any of these subjects, but my parents believed this falls under, “Know ye not that thine body is the temple of the Holy Spirit?” It’s important to note that my parents do not believe they are/were ever legalistic. 😂

Isn't not marking/cutting the skin in Leviticus? (But so is not eating shellfish, and I don't see that one getting much attention from Christians.)

I think he and his wife have probably had a long couple of decades of it. I respect the humility reflected in his statements.

[MercyA]

1 minute ago, whitehawk said:

Isn't not marking/cutting the skin in Leviticus? (But so is not eating shellfish, and I don't see that one getting much attention from Christians.)

I think he and his wife have probably had a long couple of decades of it. I respect the humility reflected in his statements.

It doesn't get much attention from me because I'm not Jewish. 😉 

Christians aren't required to keep Old Testament law (thank goodness), except those portions repeated by Jesus and the apostles:

"Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Romans 10:4

"...We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ..." Galatians 2:16

"...You are not under the law, but under grace." Romans 6:15

Much legalism arises from a misunderstanding of how Christians are to relate to Old Testament law. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, whitehawk said:

Isn't not marking/cutting the skin in Leviticus? (But so is not eating shellfish, and I don't see that one getting much attention from Christians.)

I think he and his wife have probably had a long couple of decades of it. I respect the humility reflected in his statements.

It may be, I don’t know. But what you’re pointing out was part of the problem I began having with what I had been taught. Keeping the Sabbath, for example; it bothered me that we did nothing whatsoever to keep the Sabbath. (Going to church on Sunday was not at all “keeping the Sabbath”.) 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

It doesn't get much attention from me because I'm not Jewish. 😉 

Christians aren't required to keep Old Testament law (thank goodness), except those portions repeated by Jesus and the apostles:

"Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Romans 10:4

"...We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ..." Galatians 2:16

"...You are not under the law, but under grace." Romans 6:15

Much legalism arises from a misunderstanding of how Christians are to relate to Old Testament law. 

Yeah, but that doesn’t keep Christians (IME) from whipping out Leviticus when it suits their purposes, for example, “A man shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman...” 

[TechWife]

4 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I do wonder how a 21 year old publishes a book and ends up being so influential?  I see he didn't go to college until 2015.  It seems puzzling to me that people would pick a book by someone with so little life experience to use as such an essential part of parenting their own kids.  Especially if that type of courtship wasn't part of their own upbringing/getting into marriage experience?

His younger twin brothers, Brett and Alex, published even younger, IIRC. Their book was Do Hard Things. I read it at the time and didn’t think much of it - they hadn’t done anything hard yet. 

The Harris kids are the children of Gregg and Sono Harris. They are a big family - six or seven kids. They were huge in homeschooling in the US during the 1980’s and 1990’s.  By virtue of who their parents were, the entire family had celebrity status in the homeschool world. They were able to sell their books and the ideas contained in them on name recognition alone, IMO. 

[Katy]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I shouldn’t speak for him, but I can say this about my own experience: I don’t “label” myself a Christian very readily, because I know that by disbelieving or doubting lots of things I was raised to believe, most of the Christians of Evangelical stripe would not grant me that. My mom and dad, if I sat down with them and laid it all out all the things I doubt or disbelieve, would call me an Apostate. They would not say I am still a Christian. 

So, just for nitty-gritty examples, I was taught that the Bible is the accurate, complete, inerrant and sole Word of God. Christians (my experience) all believed this. If someone didn’t believe this, they were not Christians, so I was taught. Therefore, if I am looking at scripture and saying any of these things: “I think this is a mythic tale told by ancient peoples;” “I can see how ancient peoples believed this, but it does not fit with what we now know;” “I think this is a mistake or an exaggeration;” or “I don’t believe this is what God wanted to communicate to us, therefore not God’s Word.” If I say these things, I clearly don’t believe the Bible is the accurate, complete, inerrant, sole Word of God. According to how I was raised - then, not a Christian. 

 

What's interesting to me is that no where in the Bible does it say that everything in it is to be interpreted in a specific, literal, 21st Century Western Worldview, but the churches that focus on this sort of thing assume they are fully capable of interpreting everything in the Bible.  I prefer the Catholic thought that while yes, the Holy Spirit can lead you, the Bible is a living document and if you don't understand something you should be educated about it rather than naively assuming your limited interpretation is the only interpretation.

32 minutes ago, Quill said:

Yeah, but that doesn’t keep Christians (IME) from whipping out Leviticus when it suits their purposes, for example, “A man shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman...” 

 

Some people whip out Leviticus.  Others reference the multiple verses in the new testament that say basically the same thing.

Others say that that particular interpretation of Leviticus is wrong and the original meaning was don't sexually abuse children.

 

I read the book when it came out too.  I was in college. I'd already been dating so I didn't subscribe to the theory, and my parents were way less religious than I was, but it did lead to a bunch of spiritually abusive behavior IME.  I was attending an Assembly of God church at the time.

[Bluegoat]

3 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Question. Do legalists know they are legalists, or is the legalism justified/explained as something else, where they don't realize that's what it is? 

 

I think it can be both. Some legalists seem to have a particular personality type.  People who have a hard time seeing nuance, or who don't understand that things aren't always true/false values, or that people can have quite complicated motivations.

But often too they build a system around that kind of stark logic.

[Bluegoat]

Quote

I doubt, though, there would be a legalist who wasn’t also a fundamentalist. 

 

Oh, yes, you can find them everywhere.  

[Faith-manor]

I am saddened that the marriage won't survive, and the children will have to learn a new normal, and deal with these big life changes. That's the part that stinks.

However, I am glad he is being very honest about how dangerous and spiritually abusive his belief system was. 

As for the de-conversion, it appears that Shannon has announced something similar on her instagram. 

My own journey has been pretty horrific. Just gut wrenching. My marriage nearly ended. I know first hand what it means after 30 years of marriage to have the foundation shaken to the core, and then have to figure out how on earth to rebuild after that earthquake. It's a process that I'm not surprised mostly ends in divorce. My sister told me one time that de-conversion was the very worst thing she has ever experienced, causing great trauma and mental stress, and yet somehow simultaneously also brought tremendous relief. I didn't understand it at the time. Boy oh boy, now I do. So my heart goes out to both of them. Even though I see so much damage caused by what they believed and pedaled with their celebrity christian status, I feel compassion for them. 

I hope they are able to find comfort and peace.

 

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Yeah, but that doesn’t keep Christians (IME) from whipping out Leviticus when it suits their purposes, for example, “A man shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman...” 

Oh, for sure, and it drives me crazy! If a Christian wants to look like a complete hypocrite, one of the quickest ways to do it is to quote the Old Testament as though we are still under that law. 

The New Testament already speaks to that issue in multiple places; I have no idea why Christians feel the need to go back to Leviticus. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by MercyA

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

It may be, I don’t know. But what you’re pointing out was part of the problem I began having with what I had been taught. Keeping the Sabbath, for example; it bothered me that we did nothing whatsoever to keep the Sabbath. (Going to church on Sunday was not at all “keeping the Sabbath”.) 

This is super interesting to me, because this is one of the two main issues I see as legalism in my wonderful church. We have many ardent Sabbath keepers, even though that was the only of the 10 commandments NOT specifically repeated by Jesus and even though the New Testament very clearly says:

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day"

and

"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind."

The other issue is alcohol. 🍷🙂 

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Yeah, but that doesn’t keep Christians (IME) from whipping out Leviticus when it suits their purposes, for example, “A man shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman...” 

This. And it conveniently overlooks the passage in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the Prophets: I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Paul and Jesus appear to contradict one another, and of course this caused issue between Peter and Paul. This is the sword on which evangelicalism and fundamentalism falls. There are a myriad of interpretations, none of which can be proven to be "the right one". So there is the "fulfill' means nullify the law, and the "not abolish" means that christians should abide by the law a much as civil law allows (obviously stoning mouthy teens is not going to be acceptable unless willing to go to prison for the faith), and the "we'll ignore the parts of the law we don't like while enforcing the parts we do like" which then means there are a gazillion denominations all of whom argue over what parts of the law are supposed to be the parts enforced, and what parts aren't, followed by the "special revelation" folks like Bill Gothard who just adds a whole new layer of "law" on top of what is already there. And at some point, if a person can no longer reconcile the cognitive dissonance, the pain begins.

In the end for me, realizing that the bible is used, by in large, as a weapon became too much for me.  I don't pretend to know what Joshua Harris thinks or believes, but I sense from his statements that he has similar thoughts.

[MercyA]

13 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

This. And it conveniently overlooks the passage in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the Prophets: I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Paul and Jesus appear to contradict one another, and of course this caused issue between Peter and Paul.

Not at all; the fact that the law still stands does not mean Christians are under it. The speed limit on a road in the next town over might be 35 miles per hour, but here in my town I am not under that law. It doesn't mean the law has been abolished; only that it doesn't apply to me where I am right now in time and space.

Definitely there were issues* between Peter and Paul and I find it fascinating. They were people just like us, after all. 🙂 

*ETA: To clarify, personal issues like this: "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I [Paul] opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, 'If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?'" In other words, Paul was calling Peter out for his legalism. 😉 

Edited July 30, 2019 by MercyA

[Faith-manor]

Just now, MercyA said:

Not at all; the fact that the law still stands does not mean Christians are under it. The speed limit on a road in the next town over might be 35 miles per hour, but here in my town I am not under that law. It doesn't mean the law has been abolished; only that it doesn't apply to me where I am right now in time and space.

Definitely there were issues between Peter and Paul and I find it fascinating. They were people just like us, after all. 🙂 

That is how you interpret it, or your pastor, or whatever. But that is absolutely not what is preached in many denominations and churches. It really isn't. And even if it is preached, it isn't practiced. Generally, every single one I've ever known has had it's laundry list of favorite bits and pieces of the law that they hammer, and then everything else can be ignored because "we aren't under the law". So I respect that the above is what you believe, and you think it is right, and probably you are in a faith based community that maybe even adheres to that. It is not, however, the lived experience of many people.

And again, there isn't any proof that this interpretation is the correct one. It's one of many that you would argue are wrong, but that doesn't make them wrong. Interpretation is a subjective business, and this subjective mess is definitely causing a lot of once very devoted christians to leave the faith. At some point, the house of cards can't continue to be propped up. It's too weak. I get though that this is not something that those on the inside can accept or embrace. I do appreciate your very respectful response! That is also not my lived experience. Those that know of my de-conversion locally have either totally shunned me, or spent time insulting me, and then attempting to save my soul. If they'd actually given a damn, a hug and a cup of coffee might have made a much more positive impression than the other. However, I've also forgiven them for that because I understand that they lie in fear. Their church preaches that they can't keep company with the likes of me, and if they don't "soul win" they are outside god's will. So I get it. It hurts. It literally, physically hurt. I ended up with blood pressure and tachycardia problems, anxiety and panic attacks as well. This is why my heart hurts so much for Joshua, Shannon, and their kids. I can just about imagine, coming out of the SGM culture, just how bad this is. SGM is worse than what I dealt with which was a LOT.

MercyA, I do appreciate your gracious approach.

[MercyA]

Hugs to you, @Faith-manor 

I understand and share your concerns. I think most Christians are trying to do the best they can. As @PrincessMommy said above, we are all works in progress. 

I don't discount your experiences. Perhaps I've been more fortunate than most in finding the congregations of which I've been a part. When it comes down to it, though, for me (not preaching at you here), God is who He is regardless of how people act. 

Thank you for your very kind words. They mean a lot. ❤️

[Faith-manor]

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Hugs to you, @Faith-manor 

I understand and share your concerns. I think most Christians are trying to do the best they can. As @PrincessMommy said above, we are all works in progress. 

I don't discount your experiences. Perhaps I've been more fortunate than most in finding the congregations of which I've been a part. When it comes down to it, though, for me (not preaching at you here), God is who He is regardless of how people act. 

Thank you for your very kind words. They mean a lot. ❤️

The feeling is very much mutual!

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

I doubt, though, there would be a legalist who wasn’t also a fundamentalist. IME, when people have legalistic rules for themselves (or their spouse, kids, congregants, etc.) these things are based in their minds on scripture. So, for example, my parents were opposed to smoking, tattoos and piercing. (All piercing. I did not have pierced ears until I was twenty.) Obviously, the Bible never addresses any of these subjects, but my parents believed this falls under, “Know ye not that thine body is the temple of the Holy Spirit?” It’s important to note that my parents do not believe they are/were ever legalistic. They literally pulled us out of a private school because of legalistic practices being foisted upon us. They apparently believed that *actual* legalism was legalism they didn’t agree with. Prohibiting pierced ears and basing it on scripture is still legalism, but they did not think they themselves were legalistic. 

When people create these rules, they base it on scripture. There are scriptures that could be extrapolated, for instance, someone may say, “a man is not to wear the garment of a woman, neither a woman shall wear the garment of a man,” is a scripture, so therefore, women shouldn’t wear pants and men shouldn’t wear rompers. 😂 There are scriptures to be not “of the world” and to think only on the things that are good and pure; this can be extrapolated into you shouldn’t watch R-rated movies or listen to music that has cussy bits or says, “I’m on a Highway to Hell...” The point is, legalism and fundamentalism go hand in hand because once you believe that the scriptures can only mean what it appears to mean in our English translations, and that that scripture is the final Word of God, it’s easy to see how people make up rules that aren’s specifically in the Bible. 

I don't know if legalism is really that tied to fundamentalist religious belief, though. I think you can find symptoms of legalism across many, many beliefs (even secular tenets or things like feminism or intersectionality -- where you aren't considered a real X or be in the in group if you don't believe or do Y or Z and much more serious than that, I've found people think if you don't agree on certain secular issues, you're anathema to that group even if you might think you ostensibly belong just based on, say, physical characteristics). I don't think this legalism necessarily comes from a fundamentalist belief in some kind of scripture, although I do think legalism can come from that place. I don't think it's exclusive to fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist believers in other religions, or even that religious people specifically are more prone to legalism than other groups of people. I think it's just something people in general are prone to, as far as cliques, in groups and out groups, etc. I know many people that would not be considered fundamentalists by any stretch, but they have their own version of legalism going on, or maybe tribalism is a better word? I think in general, we all want to think the things we do or don't do make us better than others. Maybe it's not overt or something we think about on the surface all the time, but I think it is something humans are generally prone to. Even if it's something silly like etiquette or driving, like thank you notes or RSVPs. Someone can have very strong convictions about those things personally but not have a legalistic attitude about it, someone else might think that someone who doesn't do those things is fundamentally a worse human being and look down on them for not doing whatever the thing is and wonder out loud, for example, why the new mom of a NICU baby still hasn't sent out her thank yous and maybe she just wasn't raised properly (I wish this was not a real-life example, but it is, and the person didn't happen to be religious!!).

To bring it back to Christianity, I belong to a whole (Christian) denomination of thousands of people, some of whom are tattooed, some are not; some have wives working outside the home, some do not; some homeschool, some do not; some go out to eat on Sunday, some will not; some women cover their heads during worship, some do not...and on and on. BUT in order to join the denomination, you have to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and vow to work towards the purity and peace of the church as a whole (among other things). So how does that all work out practically? First, a lot is given to one's own conscience. Everyone struggles along to give everyone else liberty in things that aren't explicitly clear in the Bible. Secondly, what parents require and what the church requires is totally different. If my parents wouldn't allow me to pierce my ears, the elders' stance would be that I should obey my parents, but ear-piercing has nothing to do with church membership or salvation. This doesn't mean there aren't legalists among us, but church leadership has a limited role in what they prescribe for home or personal life. It's not perfect. I don't see how a church could be perfect. I'm not a legalist, but I'm sure when my kids grow up they will have beef with some ways I raised them or interpreted my beliefs towards their general welfare. I really can't help that, to a certain degree, I guess. In our denom, I would say that there is a constant tension that is present in trying to find a balance between obeying God's word and having liberty in a lot of areas that scripture never really speaks to, but having multiple elders who are accountable to a larger body has greatly helped reduce what I see as one person or one group of people going off and requiring things and instituting it as Good or Bad a la Gothard.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

This. And it conveniently overlooks the passage in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the Prophets: I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Paul and Jesus appear to contradict one another, and of course this caused issue between Peter and Paul. This is the sword on which evangelicalism and fundamentalism falls. There are a myriad of interpretations, none of which can be proven to be "the right one". So there is the "fulfill' means nullify the law, and the "not abolish" means that christians should abide by the law a much as civil law allows (obviously stoning mouthy teens is not going to be acceptable unless willing to go to prison for the faith), and the "we'll ignore the parts of the law we don't like while enforcing the parts we do like" which then means there are a gazillion denominations all of whom argue over what parts of the law are supposed to be the parts enforced, and what parts aren't, followed by the "special revelation" folks like Bill Gothard who just adds a whole new layer of "law" on top of what is already there. And at some point, if a person can no longer reconcile the cognitive dissonance, the pain begins.

In the end for me, realizing that the bible is used, by in large, as a weapon became too much for me.  I don't pretend to know what Joshua Harris thinks or believes, but I sense from his statements that he has similar thoughts.

Exactly. This is exactly my experience. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, MercyA said:

Not at all; the fact that the law still stands does not mean Christians are under it. The speed limit on a road in the next town over might be 35 miles per hour, but here in my town I am not under that law. It doesn't mean the law has been abolished; only that it doesn't apply to me where I am right now in time and space.

Definitely there were issues* between Peter and Paul and I find it fascinating. They were people just like us, after all. 🙂 

*ETA: To clarify, personal issues like this: "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I [Paul] opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, 'If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?'" In other words, Paul was calling Peter out for his legalism. 😉 

Speaking only for myself, I came to think if so many different people were understanding the Bible in so many different ways, and if so many people believed their own interpretation of the Bible was The True One, it didn’t seem likely to me that the Bible is what God uses exclusively as His Word. Even the idea that God would use multiple writers over a couple thousand years, and then “rely” on a group of men who would get together and cannonize the various old writings into “God’s Word” - meaning no disrespect to those who believe it - seemed pretty strongly improbable. 

And that’s without even considering all the many ways different people, from regular old parents to pasters to bishops to Popes, throughout history, have used the Bible to sanction or legitimize everything from child abuse to animal abuse, to slavery, to disrespect of women (the “weaker vessel” 🙄), to war, to raping the earth of resources, right on down to nit-picky things like whether or not a twelve-year old can get her ears pierced. 

It seems to me that if there is a God and he wants us to know him (or her; even the use of male pronouns speaks to the domination of faith by males; I think the Divine is genderless personally), then we can know God without a Bible, a concordance, a Quran, a Holy Father, church on Sunday (or Saturday, or whenever), VBS, a study guide, or a small group leader. So that’s where I landed ultimately. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, EmseB said:

but ear-piercing has nothing to do with church membership or salvation. 

IME, nobody hinged things like piercing on salvation, but there was still the expectation that, if one was saved, one should turn from sin, so you wouldn’t go get a tattoo (seen as a sin) if you were already saved. Nobody ever said or implied that watching Ghostbusters made you a non-Christian, or smoking or wearing too short of a skirt. The assumption was, if you were holy and set apart, you could surely not do any of these things without feeling “convicted”. (BTW, a pretty devastating affliction to foist on an OCD kid with scrupulosity fears.) 

[Bluegoat]

A lot of these kinds of fundamentalist evangelical groups have felt like they have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to using the Scriptures, and they also tend to use a very post-Enlightenment way of reading, often without realising that there are other possibilities.  It really is reinvention though, questions like how to deal with the OT were really addressed in the early days of the Church, or what it means that the law was fulfilled but we are still under it.  And the patristic method of reading the texts was not the modern way and it's far more robust.  I can't help but see these things as created problems.

You still get people who are legalists though.  Scrupulosity is a good example, it's a personality issue that can rear its head in almost any thought system.