Joshua Harris leaves Christianity?

[Aura]

Quill, I think we must have come from a similar religious background! So much of what you say mirrors my experiences!

1 hour ago, Quill said:

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. 

But in my experience if you believe the bolded, and especially the underlined, then you can't really be saved, or at best you're apostate.

It's kinda weird, cause I have actually listed it out something like that, and the response I got was along the lines of: "Of course that's true for ancient people or the 'unreached' who didn't have the Bible, but we have the Bible, so..." and then they launch into all the reasons why what you just said was wrong. The disconnect is staggering.

[ktgrok]

8 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

. 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.

 

Hugs, Faith-Manor! Can I suggest a resource for you, as you heal and go through your deconstruction? The Liturgist Podcast is an amazing bit of honesty, done by people coming from various parts of the Christian world who have ended up very far from where they started - many of the guests and some of the hosts would no longer consider themselves Christians, and those who are Christian have found a very different way of being so. It's hard to explain.....but it's about asking questions, NOT about having answers. Just lots of people asking questions, discussing things in an open safe way, etc. I think you might find it very healing as some of them have had similar experiences to what you and others have talked about here - coming from a background that prescribed very precisely what is and isn't a Christian, and having to figure out what it means if they don't fall into those categories anymore. Most amazingly, EVERY discussion is polite, kind, and without yelling, pontificating, etc - even topics like abortion, etc. It's incredibly refreshing. 

https://theliturgists.com/home

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

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. 

Yes this.  There are approximately 40 branches of Christianity from which spring all the different denomination affiliated as well as independent churches in the USA. While doctrinal differences between some are small, many of them have very significant theological variances.

40 branches. Clearly, the bible is not inerrant or it would be simpler to discover codified truth or if it is inerrant, humans simply can't understand it well enough to proclaim anything to be true, and it would be avarice for me to continue to claim that "I believe" as a religious statement has any veracity. If god had wanted to be known and understood by human kind, he/she/it really missed the mark when choosing this methodology of imparting theological truth. It just simply became impossible for me to continue to believe. It would be like saying "I believe in a flat earth".

But, if Josh and Shannon are currently at a similar place, I doubt that is where the journey began. I think it sounds like first they realized that their version of christianity, the SGM, purity movement was causing them heartache, and further self examination revealed that the beliefs were damaging, and then once at the damage part, the damn breaks and often leaves a person doing a full examination of what he/she believes which is where the dominoes start to fall.

I hugged dh hard last night. We are pretty darn lucky that we've found a way to make our marriage work despite the fall out of the collapse of religious belief in myself as well as two of our four adult children. We could so easily have ended the same way the Harris's are. 

 

[livetoread]

I’m someone else who went from a conservative Christian (but not legalistic or fundamentalist) upbringing to no faith, as did my dh. The process was hard but I’m happier on the other side of it, marriage intact and flourishing. As a private person, I shudder to think of going through it in the spotlight. I wish the best for him and his family, and I admire his willingness to recognize the hurt he has caused. It’s rare.

[Faith-manor]

19 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Hugs, Faith-Manor! Can I suggest a resource for you, as you heal and go through your deconstruction? The Liturgist Podcast is an amazing bit of honesty, done by people coming from various parts of the Christian world who have ended up very far from where they started - many of the guests and some of the hosts would no longer consider themselves Christians, and those who are Christian have found a very different way of being so. It's hard to explain.....but it's about asking questions, NOT about having answers. Just lots of people asking questions, discussing things in an open safe way, etc. I think you might find it very healing as some of them have had similar experiences to what you and others have talked about here - coming from a background that prescribed very precisely what is and isn't a Christian, and having to figure out what it means if they don't fall into those categories anymore. Most amazingly, EVERY discussion is polite, kind, and without yelling, pontificating, etc - even topics like abortion, etc. It's incredibly refreshing. 

https://theliturgists.com/home

Thank you, I will consider listening. It may take me a while to be brave enough to do it. Having never experienced any respectful discussion on the topic besides, surprisingly, this one, it's hard to open myself up to it. The attacks from the IRL christians whom I once called friends or from family whom we have been forced to sever ties with, have been excruciating. It is always amazing to me the sheer triumphant joy some people have when proclaiming I'm going to burn in hell, tortured for forever. I have come to the realization that they live in such fear for their own lives due to their beliefs, that they simply don't have room to care how much they hurt others.

I'm in a good place now, and though will have to take meds for the rest of my life because the fight or flight response will never really go away, I'm on much lower amounts, and go whole weeks without ever having to take the "as needed" anxiety med. It was a HUGE step to be willing to open up to the very progressive, "feed people, love people, everyone welcome at the table" United Methodist Church we attend and agree to take on the music director role,  so I tend to be pretty skittish. Thankfully, my role is purely professional, and though I would not call myself a christian any longer, I have never stopped loving sacred music.

[DawnM]

14 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? 

 

It is justified.  And truthfully, what one person calls legalism, the next might call obedience, etc...

14 hours 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. 

 

The legalists take it a step further (or 5 steps further!). Jesus said to look at a woman with lust in your hearts it the same as committing adultery.  (Matthew 5:28) So you can't go to the "worldly" movies that might cause someone to lust, wear anything but neck height shirts, skirts that don't show anything, and don't wear make up.  And boys, don't look at girls who don't dress the way I stated previously.

That probably isn't the best example or explanation, but look at Josh Duggar who grew up with extreme legalism in that area.  Touching his sisters and paying for elicit sex with a woman who wasn't his wife.  

I grew up in pretty extreme legalism.  Not quite Duggar like, but some similarities.  I still struggle with what is ok and what isn't.  

[vonfirmath]

14 hours 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 don't remember how old I was when I heard about the book. I agreed with a lot of the tenets and was wishing I could live my life as more courtship and less dating. and it still made me uncomfortable that he was so young. It was like "This sounds good, but its not tested and tried by time. He's not even married!" But it certainly answered a yearning of my heart and how I WISHED it could be.

[MercyA]

@Quill and @Faith-manor, thank you for sharing some of how you got from here to there in your own understanding of these things. I, too, went through a period when I questioned what I believed and why, and it was a dark and difficult time.

I believe that regardless of the ways man has misused His word, God remains True. "Let God be true, and every human being a liar." 

Believers in Christ may differ in their interpretations of some passages, whether it be due to pride or selfishness or tradition or lack of knowledge or simple misunderstanding. But the essential truth of our faith remains: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"--on that we agree and on that we stand. 

This is a sobering and useful discussion. Love to all.

[ktgrok]

38 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Thank you, I will consider listening. It may take me a while to be brave enough to do it. Having never experienced any respectful discussion on the topic besides, surprisingly, this one, it's hard to open myself up to it. The attacks from the IRL christians whom I once called friends or from family whom we have been forced to sever ties with, have been excruciating. It is always amazing to me the sheer triumphant joy some people have when proclaiming I'm going to burn in hell, tortured for forever. I have come to the realization that they live in such fear for their own lives due to their beliefs, that they simply don't have room to care how much they hurt others.

I'm in a good place now, and though will have to take meds for the rest of my life because the fight or flight response will never really go away, I'm on much lower amounts, and go whole weeks without ever having to take the "as needed" anxiety med. It was a HUGE step to be willing to open up to the very progressive, "feed people, love people, everyone welcome at the table" United Methodist Church we attend and agree to take on the music director role,  so I tend to be pretty skittish. Thankfully, my role is purely professional, and though I would not call myself a christian any longer, I have never stopped loving sacred music.

Oh my...I'm heartbroken for you, and the pain people have inflicted on you!!! Let me reassure you, there is NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING like that on this podcast!!! It is 100 percent open, love, support. It is by people, and for people, that have been through what you have been through. One of the creators is a former youth minister, who grew up with extreme legalism himself, and I believe he is now the one that embraces a name given to him by a Buddhist teacher. As I said, they often discuss that they have no idea if they are Christian, or even deist, anymore. it's all very much about asking questions, pondering aloud possible answers, and supporting each other. Period. NO ONE ever attacks, shames, etc on that podcast. If you feel cautious, maybe listen WITH someone you trust to turn it off for you, if they see you getting upset? But the hosts themselves wouldn't be saying anything mean, although sometimes they refer to things that happened to them, not in a dwelling on it way but if even a hint of a reference to former legalism, or people being hateful to them, might upset you than I respect that boundary. But otherwise, it sounds like it might really help you, just to hear others in a similar journey sharing. 

3 minutes ago, MercyA said:

@QuillBut the essential truth of our faith remains: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"--on that we agree and on that we stand. 

This is a sobering and useful discussion. Love to all.

Actually, there are plenty, including many Franciscans, who would say that the idea that Jesus came down because man sinned gives too much power to mankind, and that Jesus would have been incarnated no matter what, because he wanted to. And there is a LOT of nuance as to what exactly the death of Jesus does/did. 

[mom2scouts]

12 hours 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...” 

My DIL is Jewish, so we've had quite a few discussions about Leviticus. It contains both religious laws and civil laws. The civil laws were intended *only* for Jews and were often mostly intended for health reasons (like eating pork or shellfish). Other things in Leviticus *are* religious laws and are later addressed in New Testament books. People don't know how ignorant they sound when they argue "but you eat seafood and wear mixed fibers!". Those laws were never required to be followed by Christians.

[Lady Florida.]

16 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I

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 wondered the same thing but having never been a part of that culture there's so much I didn't/still don't understand

16 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I always wondered this too. I'd never heard of him until I started homeschooling tbh. Same for IBLP, Vision Forum, etc. etc.  Those types of books weren't ever a thing in our circles. At least that I was aware of. 

 

Same here, and we still called ourselves Christians when we started homeschooling. I was raised very loosely Catholic and dh was liberal mainstream United Methodist, to which I converted when we married. I never had contact with the legalists, restrictive types, or even creationists, until we started homeschooling. At least not that I know of - if they were part of my circle they never revealed themselves as such. I never heard of Ezzo and and so many other people who were apparently big in those circles. James Dobson is probably the only one I heard of who gave Christian parenting advice, and even then I didn't know much about him. I thought he was kind of a Christian Doctor Spock. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Lady Florida.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, MercyA said:

@Quill and @Faith-manor, thank you for sharing some of how you got from here to there in your own understanding of these things. I, too, went through a period when I questioned what I believed and why, and it was a dark and difficult time.

I believe that regardless of the ways man has misused His word, God remains True. "Let God be true, and every human being a liar." 

Believers in Christ may differ in their interpretations of some passages, whether it be due to pride or selfishness or tradition or lack of knowledge or simple misunderstanding. But the essential truth of our faith remains: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"--on that we agree and on that we stand. 

This is a sobering and useful discussion. Love to all.

I appreciate your efforts. 

One issue, for me, is that this still grows out of the Bible and what was penned there. It could be true, but if I find fault with a lot of the Bible, including the premise that it is the Word of God, then believing what Jesus came here for and who he was is also arbitrary. I have a strong attachment to what you might call the doctrine of Jesus; I was raised to believe it and find it difficult to totally leave those beliefs behind. I was indoctrinated into Christianity; it is hard to reject the most basic tenants of the faith. It Would be like being, say, a vegan butcher. Or a pacifist soldier. 

[Lady Florida.]

As an atheist I'm never sad when someone sheds their faith. He even said not to feel sad for him, that he's happy in his decision to leave Christianity. However, I hope he will learn that not all Christians (or any religions for that matter) are like the restrictive one in which he was raised and lived for most of his life.

I also feel bad for the changes he'll experience in relationships. Most likely friends (and possibly family) will either turn their backs on him or see him as an object of pity, and maybe even a challenge to bring back to the fold. I hope he's been fostering friendships outside his former church groups. 

 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, mom2scouts said:

My DIL is Jewish, so we've had quite a few discussions about Leviticus. It contains both religious laws and civil laws. The civil laws were intended *only* for Jews and were often mostly intended for health reasons (like eating pork or shellfish). Other things in Leviticus *are* religious laws and are later addressed in New Testament books. People don't know how ignorant they sound when they argue "but you eat seafood and wear mixed fibers!". Those laws were never required to be followed by Christians.

I still find that to be cherry-picking, because it still comes down to some group of (male) scholars sitting around a table and deciding what applies and what doesn’t. Also, there’s a bunch of stuff repeated in the NT that I find abhorrant, like instructions on “masters” to be kind to their slaves and for slaves to be good little doobies and obey their masters. 

 

[DawnM]

Oh wow, I guess I didn't know he wrote that many books.  I just looked at Amazon.   Several books on what he believes and why it matters......although now I guess it doesn't matter so much because he no longer believes it.

It is unfortunate.  There is a tendency to feel as if, once you don't follow all the tenants of your particular church, you are not truly a believer anymore.  I hear it a lot in very conservative evangelical circles.  

[Sneezyone]

17 minutes ago, Quill said:

I still find that to be cherry-picking, because it still comes down to some group of (male) scholars sitting around a table and deciding what applies and what doesn’t. Also, there’s a bunch of stuff repeated in the NT that I find abhorrant, like instructions on “masters” to be kind to their slaves and for slaves to be good little doobies and obey their masters. 

 

There is a "red letter" Christian movement afoot which tends to discount/downplay passages written by men of power/prestige/privilege for men of power/prestige/privlege and focus on words directly attributed to Jesus. I've always felt it was hubristic, on my part, to presume that the confounding of languages didn't also include a confounding of wisdom/knowledge. There are so many nuggets/kerrnels of truth/commonality spread amongst the peoples of the world.

[MercyA]

48 minutes ago, Quill said:

One issue, for me, is that this still grows out of the Bible and what was penned there. It could be true, but if I find fault with a lot of the Bible, including the premise that it is the Word of God, then believing what Jesus came here for and who he was is also arbitrary. I have a strong attachment to what you might call the doctrine of Jesus; I was raised to believe it and find it difficult to totally leave those beliefs behind. I was indoctrinated into Christianity; it is hard to reject the most basic tenants of the faith. It Would be like being, say, a vegan butcher. Or a pacifist soldier. 

I feel for you, I really do. We get to know each other here, and I have always had the sense that you are open and intellectually honest and, for lack of a more precise phrase, a good person--a better person than me, probably. 😉I have no doubt that you have wrestled and thought and studied and haven't come to these conclusions quickly or lightly. However--and I sincerely hope I'm not overstepping here--I think it very possible that your attachment to the doctrine of Jesus arises from something other than indoctrination. I hope you'll stay open to that possibility, however improbable or illogical it might seem to you now.

Thank you for the kind and respectful discussion. ❤️

Edited July 30, 2019 by MercyA

[Faith-manor]

25 minutes ago, Quill said:

I still find that to be cherry-picking, because it still comes down to some group of (male) scholars sitting around a table and deciding what applies and what doesn’t. Also, there’s a bunch of stuff repeated in the NT that I find abhorrant, like instructions on “masters” to be kind to their slaves and for slaves to be good little doobies and obey their masters. 

 

Agreed. Once the jenga pieces started being pulled from the tower, I found myself unable to embrace the cognitive dissonance it took to overlook some of these things. It is not surprising to me that when this happens to people, they end up landing in various places along the belief map. I'm sure deconstruction doesn't inevitably lead to deconversion, but I am sure there is a fairly good percentage of folks for whom it does.

[JustEm]

I am basically where @Quill is in regard to Christianity.  I was raised as a well catechized Catholic and for the last 10 years have been raising my children Catholic.  Sadly,  I have little love for the Church anymore and with the fall from the Church came my fall from Christ. Basically, if I can't trust the things the leaders of the Church on Earth and when going back in Church history can't really find a time where they were trustworthy, than why trust the earliest leaders.  How does one separate the poor leadership of the Church from Christ when my belief in Christ came from those very leaders I have no trust in. Currently, all it seems like throughout history, select men have been deciding things for the majority. 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I feel for you, I really do. We get to know each other here, and I have always had the sense that you are open and intellectually honest and, for lack of a more precise phrase, a good person--a better person than me, probably. 😉I have no doubt that you have wrestled and thought and studied and haven't come to these conclusions quickly or lightly. However--and I sincerely hope I'm not overstepping here--I think it very possible that your attachment to the doctrine of Jesus arises from something other than indoctrination. I hope you'll stay open to that possibility, however improbable or illogical it might seem to you now.

Thank you for the kind and respectful discussion. ❤️

It may be. I have landed in a weird spot. My life still hangs on quite a lot of Christian construct. So I hang around Christians, though I have friends of many different stripes of the faith. I still go to church. I just sent my kid to a Christian camp for two weeks. But there are times when it is pretty uncomfortable because people assume I believe certain things and they discuss them with me on that assumption and, unlike Josh Harris, who I guess decided to accept whatever fallout is coming, I rarely take off my Christian cloak and say what I believe, or don’t believe. (Though, ironically, here I am sharing it world wide...) Really I find myself pretty much homeless in terms of a faith tradition. (Interestingly, this is true for me politically, too...) 

[MercyA]

2 minutes ago, Quill said:

It may be. I have landed in a weird spot. My life still hangs on quite a lot of Christian construct. So I hang around Christians, though I have friends of many different stripes of the faith. I still go to church. I just sent my kid to a Christian camp for two weeks. But there are times when it is pretty uncomfortable because people assume I believe certain things and they discuss them with me on that assumption and, unlike Josh Harris, who I guess decided to accept whatever fallout is coming, I rarely take off my Christian cloak and say what I believe, or don’t believe. (Though, ironically, here I am sharing it world wide...) Really I find myself pretty much homeless in terms of a faith tradition. (Interestingly, this is true for me politically, too...) 

Right there with you on the two bolded! 

[JustEm]

16 minutes ago, Quill said:

It may be. I have landed in a weird spot. My life still hangs on quite a lot of Christian construct. So I hang around Christians, though I have friends of many different stripes of the faith. I still go to church. I just sent my kid to a Christian camp for two weeks. But there are times when it is pretty uncomfortable because people assume I believe certain things and they discuss them with me on that assumption and, unlike Josh Harris, who I guess decided to accept whatever fallout is coming, I rarely take off my Christian cloak and say what I believe, or don’t believe. (Though, ironically, here I am sharing it world wide...) Really I find myself pretty much homeless in terms of a faith tradition. (Interestingly, this is true for me politically, too...) 

 

I have actually taken off my cloak with some people.  I do still go to Mass because I can't seem to bring myself to stop, although it means nothing to me at the moment.  But I have been very honest with my mom and sil, who are devout Catholics, about my struggles.  Both are sympathetic and have seriously tried to talk logically about things to me but it gets me no where.  All I see is that they can look passed all the corruption and still have faith.  While I'm just not there and don't feel I ever will be.   I have not talked about any of this with the women in my catholic home school group because I fear some will turn from me.  Ironically, the head of our group is moving away and just asked me to take over running it.

Edited July 30, 2019 by hjffkj

[Heathermomster]

☝️  example of legalism would be clothing.

Some churches have an atmosphere that promotes a really strict dress code.  Maybe the men wear suits and all the women wear skirts as a sign of female submission/modesty or seriousness.  DH and I were traveling and randomly visited such a church.  I was dressed very well and wore pants.  I was the only woman wearing pants in a sea of plain long skirts.

We recieved a lot of curious looks including some from a teenaged girl rocking a miniskirt with a pair of gorgeous stiletto heels.  Mind you, the skirt and heels were awesome; however, it was curious that I was dressed modestly in dress pants and that seemed to be a problem.  I believe a family on travel seeking to fellowship and worship with fellow believers trumps dress code, but whatever.  BTW, the wearing of a skirt is in no way indicative of a broken and contrite spirit.  

[Faith-manor]

11 minutes ago, Quill said:

It may be. I have landed in a weird spot. My life still hangs on quite a lot of Christian construct. So I hang around Christians, though I have friends of many different stripes of the faith. I still go to church. I just sent my kid to a Christian camp for two weeks. But there are times when it is pretty uncomfortable because people assume I believe certain things and they discuss them with me on that assumption and, unlike Josh Harris, who I guess decided to accept whatever fallout is coming, I rarely take off my Christian cloak and say what I believe, or don’t believe. (Though, ironically, here I am sharing it world wide...) Really I find myself pretty much homeless in terms of a faith tradition. (Interestingly, this is true for me politically, too...) 

Same here. I get it. Even within the the midst of the very progressive, everyone at the table, feed people, love people, church with few doctrinal demands on those not ordained or in spiritual leadership positions, I still wear my disguise. It's easier to do that, than to deal with everyone else's reactions.

[ktgrok]

13 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

I am basically where @Quill is in regard to Christianity.  I was raised as a well catechized Catholic and for the last 10 years have been raising my children Catholic.  Sadly,  I have little love for the Church anymore and with the fall from the Church came my fall from Christ. Basically, if I can't trust the things the leaders of the Church on Earth and when going back in Church history can't really find a time where they were trustworthy, than why trust the earliest leaders.  How does one separate the poor leadership of the Church from Christ when my belief in Christ came from those very leaders I have no trust in. Currently, all it seems like throughout history, select men have been deciding things for the majority. 

This is the biggest reason I am not currently attending a Catholic church. I was finding that the people and the institution or becoming a barrier between me and God instead of a conduit. That was my cue to find somewhere else. I don’t know what my long-term outcome is, I’ve heard Catholics say that the very best Catholics believe the church for at least a decade, LOL. But I see how this can happen, and I see it happening to me, but I think I caught it early enough.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

I have actually taken off my cloak with some people.  I do still go to Mass because I can't seem to bring myself to stop, although it means nothing to me at the moment.  But I have been very honest with my mom and sil, who are devout Catholics, about my struggles.  Both are sympathetic and have seriously tried to talk logically about things to me but it gets me no where.  All I see is that they can look passed all the corruption and still have faith.  While I'm just not there and don't feel I ever will be.   I have not talked about any of this with the women in my catholic home school group because I fear some will turn from me.  Ironically, the head of our group is moving away and just asked me to take over running it.

I have been in a similar spot. At one point when I was at, let’s say, my most apostate, a friend asked me to join her in leading a class for kids about faith! Gah! I kept the cloak on. I taught the class. I considered telling her where I was at in my head, but when I walked into her house and obseved the crucifix over her fireplace mantel, decided that would be social suicide and didn’t go there. Cloak up! I did later feel extremely grateful she is one person I did not confide in. She turned out to be the most judgemental person I have ever met. 

I did have one friend IRL who seemed to disappear out of my life shortly after I discussed this topic on these boards (this was several years ago). I don’t know if it was coincidental or some other reasons, but it seemed probable to me that she read my thoughts on this board and protectedherself and her kids from associating with me. 

[JustEm]

11 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

This is the biggest reason I am not currently attending a Catholic church. I was finding that the people and the institution or becoming a barrier between me and God instead of a conduit. That was my cue to find somewhere else. I don’t know what my long-term outcome is, I’ve heard Catholics say that the very best Catholics believe the church for at least a decade, LOL. But I see how this can happen, and I see it happening to me, but I think I caught it early enough.

 

See, for me, when I first started doubting my faith I considered looking into other christian denominations.  But I concluded that they are all going to have the same issue in my mind, they are all based in something I don't think I can trust as Truth because that Truth came from men with an agenda.  It has nothing to do with this denomination believes XYZ and I don't agree with it, or that another one believes ABC  and I don't.  It has to do with the whole idea that I can no longer look to a point in history where I actually don't believe people were just putting their interest above others and hence can no longer trust the supposed Truth of Christ.

[G5052]

12 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

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.

 

One of my friends at church observed that the law and legalism have a cruel, illogical edge to them apart from the love and grace of God. Consider that they stoned rebellious sons in the Old Testament versus the story of the Prodigal Son where the father lets his son go while clearly having hope that he might return one day. It's hard for me to understand why God put out such a cruel law in the Old Testament though. I find the Old Testament hard to read at times and focus these days primarily in the Psalms and the New Testament. Some in fundamentalist circles (i.e. "The Whole Counsel of God") disagree with that, but that's where I am. 

 

[JustEm]

14 minutes ago, Quill said:

I have been in a similar spot. At one point when I was at, let’s say, my most apostate, a friend asked me to join her in leading a class for kids about faith! Gah! I kept the cloak on. I taught the class. I considered telling her where I was at in my head, but when I walked into her house and obseved the crucifix over her fireplace mantel, decided that would be social suicide and didn’t go there. Cloak up! I did later feel extremely grateful she is one person I did not confide in. She turned out to be the most judgemental person I have ever met. 

I did have one friend IRL who seemed to disappear out of my life shortly after I discussed this topic on these boards (this was several years ago). I don’t know if it was coincidental or some other reasons, but it seemed probable to me that she read my thoughts on this board and protectedherself and her kids from associating with me. 

 

Ultimately, we are better off without the people who would turn their backs on us if they knew.  But getting through that hurt will be hard.

I actually accepted the position of taking over the group because I am prayerfully still trying to reconcile with the Church and Christ.  I haven't turned my back entirely but if I ever do I'll pass the running of the group to someone else.

[G5052]

27 minutes ago, Quill said:

It may be. I have landed in a weird spot. My life still hangs on quite a lot of Christian construct. So I hang around Christians, though I have friends of many different stripes of the faith. I still go to church. I just sent my kid to a Christian camp for two weeks. But there are times when it is pretty uncomfortable because people assume I believe certain things and they discuss them with me on that assumption and, unlike Josh Harris, who I guess decided to accept whatever fallout is coming, I rarely take off my Christian cloak and say what I believe, or don’t believe. (Though, ironically, here I am sharing it world wide...) Really I find myself pretty much homeless in terms of a faith tradition. (Interestingly, this is true for me politically, too...) 

 

I'm solidly still in the Christian construct, but I see a lot of failure in the church at large. That doesn't affect my overall view of God though. I'm active in the local recovery community and a jail ministry where I see vividly how the church fails those with addictions, broken homes, mental illness, etc. etc. I went through a time where I doubted whether the current church we go to is the right one because of a strong fundamentalist element that seemed to ignore struggling people in tough circumstances. But they have changed a lot in the last few years, and we're comfortable there. There's more "living out" now versus being dogmatic. 

[73349]

2 hours ago, mom2scouts said:

My DIL is Jewish, so we've had quite a few discussions about Leviticus. It contains both religious laws and civil laws. The civil laws were intended *only* for Jews and were often mostly intended for health reasons (like eating pork or shellfish). Other things in Leviticus *are* religious laws and are later addressed in New Testament books. People don't know how ignorant they sound when they argue "but you eat seafood and wear mixed fibers!". Those laws were never required to be followed by Christians.

I grew up without learning any church history (and my DH, who did his church's religious ed program all the way through, somehow also got very little). Could you (anybody who knows, not just m2s) tell me why Christians would include these books in Bibles if they don't apply to Christians? I would've thought they would only print what they wanted to teach.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

Ultimately, we are better off without the people who would turn their backs on us if they knew.  But getting through that hurt will be hard.

I actually accepted the position of taking over the group because I am prayerfully still trying to reconcile with the Church and Christ.  I haven't turned my back entirely but if I ever do I'll pass the running of the group to someone else.

I agree but I did not wish for my kids to suffer because their mom was all mixed up. The one friend who distanced herself from me pulled her kids away from mine as well. I was very afraid of that happening on a large scale, since my kids friends (at the time) were almost entirely from our homeschool community. 

[maize]

Based on my own observations, legalism/scrupulosity seem to often go hand in hand with a tendency towards anxiety. I have a couple of family members whose OCD often manifests as religious scrupulosity.

In terms of religious practice and commitment, I've seen this tendency lead both towards very intensive religious practice and complete rejection of religion when imperfections in a church or belief system are found. Inflexibility in either direction.

In cases where some family members remain religiously committed and others deconvert it seems hardest to navigate if both persons tend towards inflexible/scrupulous thinking--because both see the other as entirely and irrevocably wrong. 

I'm from a large family, some of my siblings have distanced themselves from the faith we were raised with and some of us remain committed; there have been some rocky adjustments, some grief on both sides, but having just come from a week long family reunion I am feeling very grateful for a willingness on all parts to embrace compassion and love and make the adjustments needed to maintain relationships. My siblings are my favorite people in the world and I actually feel closer rather than more distant through the conversations we have had surrounding individual faith journeys. My mom is a deeply religious person and having some of her children leave the faith has been very difficult for her but she has told me more than once how grateful she is that all of us children have remained close with each other; amongst us, we can disagree on pretty much any given opinion--but we love each other deeply. That above all is what I hope for my own children.

Edited July 30, 2019 by maize

[ktgrok]

37 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

See, for me, when I first started doubting my faith I considered looking into other christian denominations.  But I concluded that they are all going to have the same issue in my mind, they are all based in something I don't think I can trust as Truth because that Truth came from men with an agenda.  It has nothing to do with this denomination believes XYZ and I don't agree with it, or that another one believes ABC  and I don't.  It has to do with the whole idea that I can no longer look to a point in history where I actually don't believe people were just putting their interest above others and hence can no longer trust the supposed Truth of Christ.

Hmm..I guess I never thought of the Bible as the literal, exact word of God, so I never had the moment it sounds like you had. It was always to me the human documentation of mankind interactions with God, from man's perspective. So not inerrant, but the best we have, and to be read and interpreted in the light of the style of a particular book or passage, the time it was written, how it has changed over time, etc. Sort of like how a history book can be very flawed by the author's bias, but it doesn't mean the battle being described didn't happen, or that the politician they are quoting didn't say what the books says he did, but that I need to be careful how I interpret it, understand the author's bias, discuss and muse on what ELSE the politician said that wasn't quoted, etc etc. And of course I always looked at many parts of it, like the creation story, as fable or story teaching moral truth, not factual history, which is consistent with how say, the jews would have seen it. That may not work for you, I doubt it does, but if you always see the Bible that way, then for me at least, there is no moment of "wait, that's not true!". It was always just our own interpretation of God's interactions with us. 

37 minutes ago, G5052 said:

 

One of my friends at church observed that the law and legalism have a cruel, illogical edge to them apart from the love and grace of God. Consider that they stoned rebellious sons in the Old Testament versus the story of the Prodigal Son where the father lets his son go while clearly having hope that he might return one day. It's hard for me to understand why God put out such a cruel law in the Old Testament though. I find the Old Testament hard to read at times and focus these days primarily in the Psalms and the New Testament. Some in fundamentalist circles (i.e. "The Whole Counsel of God") disagree with that, but that's where I am. 

 

This is why we are going back to using Telling God's Story, courtesy of Well Trained Mind Press. It starts with the New Testament for kids, for this reason. 

19 minutes ago, G5052 said:

 

I'm solidly still in the Christian construct, but I see a lot of failure in the church at large. That doesn't affect my overall view of God though. I'm active in the local recovery community and a jail ministry where I see vividly how the church fails those with addictions, broken homes, mental illness, etc. etc. I went through a time where I doubted whether the current church we go to is the right one because of a strong fundamentalist element that seemed to ignore struggling people in tough circumstances. But they have changed a lot in the last few years, and we're comfortable there. There's more "living out" now versus being dogmatic. 

Yes, I have to look to those who are loving their neighbor, and being the force of Good and God and Truth and Beauty in the world. That's where I find my place. I find that in various ways, via certain Catholic religious traditions, via the Nuns on the Bus, via Richard Rohr to some extent, as well as the Moral Monday protests, the weekly feeding of the hungry at my Episcopal church, the small changes like fair trade coffee that they serve there, the way the other local Episcopal church marches IN the Pride parade each year, etc. 

I can have all my Catholic beliefs that I do hold on to and attend an Episcopal church, and my husband with his "I have no idea what I believe, if anything at all" can also attend, and we are both welcome, and encouraged. We are where questions are embraced. 

[Faith-manor]

1 minute ago, maize said:

Based on my own observations, legalism/scrupulosity seem to often go hand in hand with a tendency towards anxiety. I have a couple of family members whose OCD often manifests as religious scrupulosity.

In terms of religious practice and commitment, I've seen this tendency lead both towards very intensive religious practice and complete rejection of religion when imperfections in a church or, belief system are found. Inflexibility in either direction.

In cases where some family members remain religiously committed and others deconvert it seems hardest to navigate if both persons tend towards inflexible/scrupulous thinking--because both see the other as entirely and irrevocably wrong. 

I'm from a large family, some of my siblings have distanced themselves from the faith we were raised with and some of us remain committed; there have been some rocky adjustments, some grief on both sides, but having just come from a week long family reunion I am feeling very grateful for a willingness on all parts to embrace compassion and love and make the adjustments needed to maintain relationships. My siblings are my favorite people in the world and I actually feel closer rather than more distant through the conversations we have had surrounding individual faith journeys. My mom is a deeply religious person and having some of her children leave the faith has been very difficult for her but she has told me more than once how grateful she is that all of us children have remained close with each other; amongst us, we can disagree on pretty much any given opinion--but we love each other deeply. That above all is what I hope for my own children.

I am really glad for you. So many families never get to this place.

Being alone, not having friends, is not as hard as it used to be. I have dh and my kids, and that is turning out to be enough. I think it might be easier when we leave this area. There isn't much diversity, and the population is too small, so everyone is up into everyone else's business. No privacy. Ugh. At this point, I am learning to embrace the solitude. The hardest work is for my kids and I to not slip up around the two elderly mothers/grandmothers. They aren't particularly emotionally and mentally stable at this time. They'd probably have heart attacks or strokes, and I mean that literally, if they got wind of what we really think and believe. So the cloak remains. I'm pretty certain when they pass away, and I'm truly free, it's going to be an amazing burden lifted.

[ktgrok]

5 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I am really glad for you. So many families never get to this place.

Being alone, not having friends, is not as hard as it used to be. I have dh and my kids, and that is turning out to be enough. I think it might be easier when we leave this area. There isn't much diversity, and the population is too small, so everyone is up into everyone else's business. No privacy. Ugh. At this point, I am learning to embrace the solitude. The hardest work is for my kids and I to not slip up around the two elderly mothers/grandmothers. They aren't particularly emotionally and mentally stable at this time. They'd probably have heart attacks or strokes, and I mean that literally, if they got wind of what we really think and believe. So the cloak remains. I'm pretty certain when they pass away, and I'm truly free, it's going to be an amazing burden lifted.

The most recent Liturgist podcast is on dealing with loneliness, actually. I have not listened to it yet, so no idea what they say, but maybe apropos. https://theliturgists.com/podcast

[Faith-manor]

5 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

The most recent Liturgist podcast is on dealing with loneliness, actually. I have not listened to it yet, so no idea what they say, but maybe apropos. https://theliturgists.com/podcast

Thanks, I think that I might actually be adventurous enough to try this one tonight! Lots of hugs to you. You and Mercy and so many others are being really awesome about this. It is refreshing even if it is just online discussion.

[MercyA]

3 hours ago, whitehawk said:

I grew up without learning any church history (and my DH, who did his church's religious ed program all the way through, somehow also got very little). Could you (anybody who knows, not just m2s) tell me why Christians would include these books in Bibles if they don't apply to Christians? I would've thought they would only print what they wanted to teach.

We believe that the Old Testament is the true story of God's dealings with the people of Israel. It teaches us not only about the history of the Jewish people, but about God's attributes and character. We can learn valuable lessons by studying the lives of people like David, Daniel, and Esther. Also, the Old Testament contains very specific prophecies about Jesus' life, written hundreds of years before His coming. 

Hope that helps! 

Edited July 30, 2019 by MercyA

[maize]

23 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I am really glad for you. So many families never get to this place.

Being alone, not having friends, is not as hard as it used to be. I have dh and my kids, and that is turning out to be enough. I think it might be easier when we leave this area. There isn't much diversity, and the population is too small, so everyone is up into everyone else's business. No privacy. Ugh. At this point, I am learning to embrace the solitude. The hardest work is for my kids and I to not slip up around the two elderly mothers/grandmothers. They aren't particularly emotionally and mentally stable at this time. They'd probably have heart attacks or strokes, and I mean that literally, if they got wind of what we really think and believe. So the cloak remains. I'm pretty certain when they pass away, and I'm truly free, it's going to be an amazing burden lifted.

Loneliness is hard.

And loneliness was part of what forged the bonds my family has; we never did have much community beyond immediate family because we moved so frequently during my growing up years--international moves where we had to cope with new languages and cultures and always being the outsiders. A big family was a huge blessing under those circumstances; we had each other, we needed each other. That closeness has helped a lot with navigating the complexities of changing faith and relationships.

[JustEm]

36 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Hmm..I guess I never thought of the Bible as the literal, exact word of God, so I never had the moment it sounds like you had. It was always to me the human documentation of mankind interactions with God, from man's perspective. So not inerrant, but the best we have, and to be read and interpreted in the light of the style of a particular book or passage, the time it was written, how it has changed over time, etc. Sort of like how a history book can be very flawed by the author's bias, but it doesn't mean the battle being described didn't happen, or that the politician they are quoting didn't say what the books says he did, but that I need to be careful how I interpret it, understand the author's bias, discuss and muse on what ELSE the politician said that wasn't quoted, etc etc. And of course I always looked at many parts of it, like the creation story, as fable or story teaching moral truth, not factual history, which is consistent with how say, the jews would have seen it. That may not work for you, I doubt it does, but if you always see the Bible that way, then for me at least, there is no moment of "wait, that's not true!". It was always just our own interpretation of God's interactions with us. 

 

 

I always had the same interpretation of the Bible as you have.  It is not the literal, exact word of God.  And that is one reason I still have belief in God.  But once I get to Christ as our savior all I can see is it as another story and not something that I decide for myself as truth.  The more I dive into my belief in God the farther I get from the idea of a savior because it just seems so trivial in the grand scheme of creation.  

[EmseB]

6 hours ago, Quill said:

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.) 

Right, I guess in the legalism I'm familiar with, the only reason you'd feel convicted was because of sin, and listening to rock music, smoking, short skirts, watching the "wrong" movies were sins that you should turn from (as you state) and if you didn't, it meant you weren't a Christian, which means you weren't saved. I'm confused about how that wouldn't all be a salvation issue. That's what makes it so dangerous, IMO to be a legalist, because you're telling people that if they watch Ghostbusters and don't feel bad about it or even (gasp) watch it again, they aren't saved aka they aren't Christian, aka they are going to hell.

I mean the holy, set apart thing was about not sinning in the forms of this that I'm familiar with. If you were not holy or set apart (by doing these very specific things that weren't biblical at all) you were sinning, and if someone brought it to your attention and you didn't change, you were sinning unrepentantly, which was absolutely an issue, ultimately, of salvation along with being able to belong to the group (in this case a Gothard group).

I guess I'm trying to mesh what you're saying about it not being a salvation issue and it still being considered sin. That was the whole problem in the groups I know about -- they turned these  random things into sins and that made them into an issue of salvation if you weren't willing to stop doing them. And some were incredibly ridiculous like grown men should be clean shaven and not have beards for goodness' sakes. And in the case of people like Philips and Gothard, they were exactly who Jesus described as whitewashed tombs.

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, whitehawk said:

I grew up without learning any church history (and my DH, who did his church's religious ed program all the way through, somehow also got very little). Could you (anybody who knows, not just m2s) tell me why Christians would include these books in Bibles if they don't apply to Christians? I would've thought they would only print what they wanted to teach.

Because all of the OT points to Christ. The entire Bible, OT and NT combined all is the story of Christ. All of the sacrifices, continual cycles of Israel's apostasy, etc., every prophecy about a messiah from the OT all points to Christ. Many (most? even if they regard genesis as mythical I think, but could be wrong) Christians today believe that even the account of the first man and woman of Genesis points to Christ's eventual coming to save mankind after they sinned. So if you leave all that out, a lot of the prophecies Christ fulfills, places he quotes the OT, references he makes to the law and all of the Jewish religious leaders' hatred of him make no sense.

In short, the OT very much does apply to Christians, just not in the same sense as it applies to the Jews.

Edited July 30, 2019 by EmseB

[Bluegoat]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I still find that to be cherry-picking, because it still comes down to some group of (male) scholars sitting around a table and deciding what applies and what doesn’t. Also, there’s a bunch of stuff repeated in the NT that I find abhorrant, like instructions on “masters” to be kind to their slaves and for slaves to be good little doobies and obey their masters. 

 

 

But why do you think that is cherry-picking?  They are working within a prescribed tradition of interpretation.

The Scriptures have never been intended to be used as something that stands alone, in Judaism or within any of the traditional Christian churches.  They exist along side a paradigm for understanding them and working with them.  You need both, or it is indeed arbitrary.  It's like this business with "inerrant".  Sure I guess Christians believe that, but not if you don't actually know how to read them.  And by "you" I don't mean individuals because part of the system for reading is that it's not about individuals.

As for masters and slaves - the Bible doesn't tell us specifically anything about class sytems.  It doesn't tell us you can't have slavery, or that you shouldn't buy t-shirts made in sweat shops, or that you ought to be supporting trade unions or minimum wage legislation. It takes for granted that people find themselves in any number of possible social arrangements with greatly varying degrees of autonomy, and which they may or may not have the power to change.  What it tells us, as Christians, is that we are always to treat other people well despite these various social positions and designations and that we are all equal in Christ.  If we accept that, it shapes our political institutions fairly profoundly.  

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, hjffkj said:

 

I always had the same interpretation of the Bible as you have.  It is not the literal, exact word of God.  And that is one reason I still have belief in God.  But once I get to Christ as our savior all I can see is it as another story and not something that I decide for myself as truth.  The more I dive into my belief in God the farther I get from the idea of a savior because it just seems so trivial in the grand scheme of creation.  

You might find Father Richard Rohr's work on the Universal Christ interesting. I believe I've heard him say that if you are asking if you are saved, you are missing the point entirely. 

https://www.ncronline.org/news/spirituality/new-book-richard-rohr-says-universal-christ-changes-everything

Edited July 30, 2019 by Ktgrok

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, whitehawk said:

I grew up without learning any church history (and my DH, who did his church's religious ed program all the way through, somehow also got very little). Could you (anybody who knows, not just m2s) tell me why Christians would include these books in Bibles if they don't apply to Christians? I would've thought they would only print what they wanted to teach.

 

They are part of the history of God's people.

The NT is meant to be the lens for Christians to look at the OT.  It's not that everything is weighted or understood in the same way.  Even books within each section are meant to be read differently.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, EmseB said:

mean the holy, set apart thing was about not sinning in the forms of this that I'm familiar with. If you were not holy or set apart (by doing these very specific things that weren't biblical at all) you were sinning, and if someone brought it to your attention and you didn't change, you were sinning unrepentantly, which was absolutely an issue, ultimately, of salvation along with being able to belong to the group (in this case a Gothard group).

My experience was mostly with people who did not believe one could lose one’s salvation. But to unrepentantly commit sins once you “knew better” was to “cheapen God’s grace”. There was also the whole “bearing fruit” meme, so if someone was still happily going to see Ghostbusters and listening to AC/DC, they were either “searing their conscience as with a hot iron.” Or, another explanation was that the Gospel never took root, like in the parable of the sower. The seed fell on hard ground and the birds gobbled it up. So for that, yeah, I guess that was implied as a salvation issue. But usually, I got a mixed message that, on the one hand, all our righteousness was as filthy rags and there was no way to earn salvation with righteous behavior, yet on the other hand, if we were the bride of Christ and the Holy Spirit was within, we could not go on sinning. 

[EmseB]

9 minutes ago, Quill said:

My experience was mostly with people who did not believe one could lose one’s salvation. But to unrepentantly commit sins once you “knew better” was to “cheapen God’s grace”. There was also the whole “bearing fruit” meme, so if someone was still happily going to see Ghostbusters and listening to AC/DC, they were either “searing their conscience as with a hot iron.” Or, another explanation was that the Gospel never took root, like in the parable of the sower. The seed fell on hard ground and the birds gobbled it up. So for that, yeah, I guess that was implied as a salvation issue. But usually, I got a mixed message that, on the one hand, all our righteousness was as filthy rags and there was no way to earn salvation with righteous behavior, yet on the other hand, if we were the bride of Christ and the Holy Spirit was within, we could not go on sinning. 

Ah, okay. That makes sense. The Gothard, etc., people I knew and know of now do believe one cannot lose their salvation, however, you are not saved if you are a man and insist on wearing your hair long, or if you are a woman and want to wear a skirt above the knee, or even in some circles wanted to use the wrong translation of the Bible. Basically, those outward, legalistic things show your salvation. You cannot love Jesus and not give up rock music. The two are just incompatible. And in order to protect yourself from being tempted by those sins, you can't hang out with people who do those things.

And, further, if you're doing all the right things outwardly like that, your heart could be rotten to the core (which it often was if you were trying to meet all these outward standards and trying to enforce them in others), but it didn't matter because appearance was everything.

It was very damaging.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

But why do you think that is cherry-picking?  They are working within a prescribed tradition of interpretation.

The Scriptures have never been intended to be used as something that stands alone, in Judaism or within any of the traditional Christian churches.  They exist along side a paradigm for understanding them and working with them.  You need both, or it is indeed arbitrary.  It's like this business with "inerrant".  Sure I guess Christians believe that, but not if you don't actually know how to read them.  And by "you" I don't mean individuals because part of the system for reading is that it's not about individuals.

As for masters and slaves - the Bible doesn't tell us specifically anything about class sytems.  It doesn't tell us you can't have slavery, or that you shouldn't buy t-shirts made in sweat shops, or that you ought to be supporting trade unions or minimum wage legislation. It takes for granted that people find themselves in any number of possible social arrangements with greatly varying degrees of autonomy, and which they may or may not have the power to change.  What it tells us, as Christians, is that we are always to treat other people well despite these various social positions and designations and that we are all equal in Christ.  If we accept that, it shapes our political institutions fairly profoundly.  

In my hare-brained opinion, if there is a God who wants us to know him/her/it, who wants us to develop ourselves as spiritual creatures, that should be achievable without a Bible, without councils of guys sitting around deciding what’s what, without a church heirarchy. People the world over and throughout history have sought out the spiritual and have revered the divine, whether they ever heard of Jesus or the God of Abraham or whatever. 

It’s like hj was saying about the church: throughout history, scripture and intepretation of scripture has been used for the purposes of those “interpreting” it. I find that unreliable. 

I ask myself, “What would be spiritual to me if I never heard of Christianity?” And I think the answers are in nature and order and beauty and love. This morning, a butterfly emerged from its chrysallis on my cilantro plant; I have been watching it since I first found several small caterpillars on my herb garden. That is very spiritual to me. Altruism in others is the face of the divine to me. The impulse to love, particularly love given with no ability to return. I don’t know if that makes sense to anyone but me. Anyway...

 

[JustEm]

18 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

You might find Father Richard Rohr's work on the Universal Christ interesting. I believe I've heard him say that if you are asking if you are saved, you are missing the point entirely. 

I will look into him, thank you.    Though I've never questioned whether I was saved or not.  Only God can answer that question, the best I can do is strive to form my decisions based off Christ's life and will.  So, since the truth of Jesus being God is the core of my belief system and I start questioning that it all just falls apart.  

I'm clearly not going to start changing the way a treat other people but if I don't believe Christ is God then I won't identify as Christian anymore.  I haven't decided what I believe yet. that takes time i gues.

[Faith-manor]

37 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Right, I guess in the legalism I'm familiar with, the only reason you'd feel convicted was because of sin, and listening to rock music, smoking, short skirts, watching the "wrong" movies were sins that you should turn from (as you state) and if you didn't, it meant you weren't a Christian, which means you weren't saved. I'm confused about how that wouldn't all be a salvation issue. That's what makes it so dangerous, IMO to be a legalist, because you're telling people that if they watch Ghostbusters and don't feel bad about it or even (gasp) watch it again, they aren't saved aka they aren't Christian, aka they are going to hell.

I mean the holy, set apart thing was about not sinning in the forms of this that I'm familiar with. If you were not holy or set apart (by doing these very specific things that weren't biblical at all) you were sinning, and if someone brought it to your attention and you didn't change, you were sinning unrepentantly, which was absolutely an issue, ultimately, of salvation along with being able to belong to the group (in this case a Gothard group).

I guess I'm trying to mesh what you're saying about it not being a salvation issue and it still being considered sin. That was the whole problem in the groups I know about -- they turned these  random things into sins and that made them into an issue of salvation if you weren't willing to stop doing them. And some were incredibly ridiculous like grown men should be clean shaven and not have beards for goodness' sakes. And in the case of people like Philips and Gothard, they were exactly who Jesus described as whitewashed tombs.

Agreed. And everyone was always up into everyone's business so they could hen peck the ones they decided were unrepentent. But even now as abhorrent as I think that is, I can't say they are wrong from a biblical perspective. 2 Thessalonians 3:14 - If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Galatians 6:1 Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. 

I will say that I think the gentleness thing gets overlooked a good bit. As far as "any trespass", that's a pretty open, broad statement which makes it really easy to pick on people. Somebody gets to decide what a trespass is and isn't. Those that decide have all the power.

It isn't as if there is zero basis for this practice. It's pretty plain. If the leadership decides that thing X is a sin, then they are exhorted to go 'root it out", and none of the above sounds particularly pleasant. So I am no longer angry with the person who told me after my father's failed murder/suicide attempt to "Get right with God before something worse happens to your family" for their viewpoint. The church actively taught that people were punished and often the innocent suffered due to the sin of others. They weren't going to blame him. That was outside the pale of what they could imagine because he'd been an elder there for 30 years. It had to be someone else's fault that he went berzerk. So it landed on me since I was the "liberal" of the two offspring that they had access to go after - it wasn't my church, but we live two blocks away so an easy target. It totally makes sense to me if one believes this scripture is the word of god. Oh, there will be people who will come along and say, "Well that's not what it really means", then put a spin on it. However, whose to say their spin is any more accurate than the next person's? There are several ways to interpret all of it. No one can say for sure their way is the one and only way. The Westboro Baptists think they are right. That hardly bears thinking about!

It is what it is. I get that I have to be relegated to the rubbish pile of life in their eyes. In their rule book, someone has to be blamed for such an awful thing occurring to one of "their own", and they have a responsibility to figure out who that is and disassociate from the offender. In their version of christianity, their very souls are at stake for not doing it. Their kids souls....can't have such a bad influence around. I also have come to see that there is no basis per scripture to say they are wrong either. If there is truth within the bible, it is avarice -  with christians themselves entirely unable to come to any kind of reasonable consensus about what that is - to pick one and say, "yup, that's the right one." I get that there is this nifty thing called the Apostle's Creed. I used to think it was pretty darn awesome and kind of congealed the necessary stuff. However, two years of diligently trying to make that work within the context of faith based community, lead me to believe that it doesn't really do the job. Too many holes. Too many threads that unravel at least for me. Kudos to all of those for whom it is enough because seriously, you are better off not having to go through what I've been through, or Quill, or Joshua Harris, Bart Erhman, Rob Bell, and many, many others.

I give props to Peter Enns. I've read a lot of his stuff. Some times he almost convinces me I could maybe, just maybe be a believer again. But I can't. I think it would utterly destroy me to even try.

I really hope that some how, some way, it won't be so bad for Joshua, Shannon, and their children. I suspect though that since their exit began from the SGM, it's been pretty damn awful!