Joshua Harris leaves Christianity?

[ktgrok]

6 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

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.

That's what I was trying to get at, that he agrees with you, that it is not the focus, or shouldn't be. That it should be about living out a life of love and goodness and light, and embracing that in others. 

[Faith-manor]

5 minutes ago, Quill said:

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 interpretation 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...

 

So much this. 

[ktgrok]

For what it is worth, many Christian traditions would say that God reveals himself to us in many ways only one of which is scripture. The natural world is the other big one. (and our own selves being the third, as we are made in his image)

[EmseB]

14 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

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.

In the healthiest churches (heck, organizations in general) that I have been a part of or seen, this is not how things operate. They do not pick out verses as an excuse to pick on people or go around looking for little faults, or arbitrarily enacting rules like no beards, or KJV only, or if you listen to music with this type of rhythm you must repent, or if you use this word you are oppressing people, etc. 

The unhealthy organizations I've been a part of (or have been witness to) have done this, and further, there is no accountability or larger group to appeal to if they are that controlling.

If an organization's leadership takes those two verses out of context in order to run roughshod over people and they are themselves deciding what is sinful and what isn't, I'd run far, far away. In fact, I have.

I would disagree with others who say that the entire Bible and Christian church is made up via groups of people doing this sort of thing, but I am not prepared to engage on a whole debate about early church history, cannon, or anything else at this point in the day...or in my life, lol. I will say that I think disagreement on certain points can be handled in a healthy way, and people can even agree to disagree on what a text means without it causing animosity or division. But that, in general, it is very difficult for human beings to do this. I think in American politics more and more this happens too, where if you disagree with a certain policy or issue, then you must be labeled a certain way, and if you agree with that policy, you must fall in a certain other category. We are losing room for people to disagree on much of anything without being labeled and put in a ditch on one side of the road or another. I have seen this in religion where if I happen to think you can do X and still be a Christian, I must be a progressive liberal, but if I do think certain things are actually able to be labeled definitively as sins, then I must be a conservative bigot. 🤷‍♀️ I find it's an easy way to write people off without having to engage in any kind of logical argument or study, but I'm sure I'm guilty of it in certain areas of my life as well.

[Bluegoat]

54 minutes ago, Quill said:

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...

 

 

What you are saying is that it should be achievable without a community.  That's what the Church is, fundamentally, and it's what the Bible is too - forms of the community as it exists in Christ.  

It's a logical enough conclusion from the point of view of an individualistic version of Christianity, I guess.  But if Christianity is not individualistic, it's asking for a contradiction.

[TravelingChris]

19 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

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. 

Both dh and I were Catholics growing up and changed to mainline to a little more Conservative Protestant-  Methodist, 3 flavors of Presbyterian, and attending essentially mainlinish Baptist (once at a church for about 3 months and otherwise at Base Chapel overseas).  

THe current situation with our children is none are Atheists.  One is sort of Agnostic sort of theist.  One is more conservative than we are (in a bad way too-by misinterpreting divorce rules and being legalist, but on good days, she is much more like us).   THe last one is not sure exactly what she believes but likes attending church, though not necessarily ours but she is searching and not ruling out anything.  She is certainly not an Atheist and probably at a minimum, a theist.

 

As to what  I have observed with people who came from very legalistic backgrounds (which includes some Catholics, not others and the same with Atheists too), is that they often rebel-  either leaving original and moving more towards the center or if their personality is much more black and white, often right back to legalism on the other side.

Our current church has probably a majority of members who aren't into legalism of any kind but I certainly know of some in the congregation who are legalistic- one is basically a Catholic, , a certain number who hold strange theological beliefs but grew up in the denomination and somehow never learned or paid attention to sermons. and most of my friends  and others who are pretty chill folks who love the Lord but aren't focused on denominational stuff--- most of these people- including us, have worshiped in other denominations when we lived or had lengthy visits in other areas or have kids who have joined other churches, and we aren't focused on denomination.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

What you are saying is that it should be achievable without a community.  That's what the Church is, fundamentally, and it's what the Bible is too - forms of the community as it exists in Christ.  

It's a logical enough conclusion from the point of view of an individualistic version of Christianity, I guess.  But if Christianity is not individualistic, it's asking for a contradiction.

Well, I guess that is true. I don’t view spirtuality about the community first. I view spirituality as about the person: what that person does with his or her one little life, how that person shows love to his fellow creatures, how one conducts oneself. I think the community is important in terms of, say, doing good in the world. In practical terms, many people working towards the same goal accomplishes far more than what anyone could do alone. But I guess I don’t put much emphasis on community in terms of wanting to be with people who just believe the same things I believe. I mean, sure; I want that some. It is the nature of being social creatures. But I haven’t found that amongst a certain faith tradition. 

[Faith-manor]

10 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

This thread grieves me, as a Christian. I have a lot of thoughts but they’re probably not the type welcome in these discussions. 

Arctic,  think you should say what you want to say. You have a good, and gracious heart. I think it's fine for you to contribute, and speaking for myself, I'm not interested in anyone being shut out. When something rocks a faith community like major leader in the faith making a radical change in belief system, it's a shocker for many and need to flesh out their feelings on the subject.

[MercyA]

30 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

This thread grieves me, as a Christian. I have a lot of thoughts but they’re probably not the type welcome in these discussions. 

Yes. I've been thinking about this discussion all afternoon, and grieved is the right word. I hope that you will feel free to contribute. I, for one, am very interested in what you have to say.

Edited July 30, 2019 by MercyA

[JustEm]

18 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

I’m not sure how well I can put it into words, all that is bothering me.  But it seems to shake down to Christians like me who love God’s word and want to handle it rightly, with holiness and reverence and humility, seeking to take as much of ourselves and our cultures and interpretive lens out as possible, are being called ‘all that is wrong with Christianity’.

 

Why does liberal Christianity get to define the standard for what is best and most god honoring and point the finger at zealous fellow believers as the issue?  Why are those of us who love one another and pursue a life in as close a conformation to biblical principals and truth the bad guys?  Where do these fallen away or nominal adherents get off in telling millions of fervent believers that they’re wrong, when they hardly even have a stake in the preaching, teaching, and day to day living out of the Word?

 

This distresses me greatly - that someone like Harris who has lived a very legalistic life and struggled greatly somehow means MY faith and walk are the problem?  Or that because Bill Gothard behaves badly that every reformed or conservative believer (who holds any precepts from scripture that aren’t completely counter to what he perverted) are suddenly culpable for his theological twisting?

 

I am a reformed, conservative, traditional believer who tries to test everything I live and all the preaching I hear against God’s word.  I am fallible and fallen, prone to so much error, but if I believe the counsel of God is as fallible as me, I’m a fool for putting my faith in it.  In humility I try to approach these things with the goal of loving God and those he puts in my life, but not sacrifice the former to appease the latter.

 

And according to discussions like this, that is the problem.  Believing God’s word is true and his testament of his own might and power and glory is worth defending makes ME the scourge of Christendom?  The faith is only valuable when the lowest denominator of belief is maintained?  Where is the righteousness?  The Christ seeking?  The obedience and reverence?

 

This grieves me so much.  I can’t even capture it fully.  Words fail.

 

For me, it isn't that your belief in God's word is true that is some sort or scourge.  It is that all of the corruption across all the denominations makes me question the validity in the Bible being in any way God's words.  I've never believed it was the literal word, but that it was inspired by God.  But with everything I know about the history of Christianity, I've started doubting that the Bible is anything more than a man made tool to get people to follow a man made construct.

[PrincessMommy]

10 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

I’m not sure how well I can put it into words, all that is bothering me.  But it seems to shake down to Christians like me who love God’s word and want to handle it rightly, with holiness and reverence and humility, seeking to take as much of ourselves and our cultures and interpretive lens out as possible, are being called ‘all that is wrong with Christianity’.

 

Why does liberal Christianity get to define the standard for what is best and most god honoring and point the finger at zealous fellow believers as the issue?  Why are those of us who love one another and pursue a life in as close a conformation to biblical principals and truth the bad guys?  Where do these fallen away or nominal adherents get off in telling millions of fervent believers that they’re wrong, when they hardly even have a stake in the preaching, teaching, and day to day living out of the Word?

 

This distresses me greatly - that someone like Harris who has lived a very legalistic life and struggled greatly somehow means MY faith and walk are the problem?  Or that because Bill Gothard behaves badly that every reformed or conservative believer (who holds any precepts from scripture that aren’t completely counter to what he perverted) are suddenly culpable for his theological twisting?

 

I am a reformed, conservative, traditional believer who tries to test everything I live and all the preaching I hear against God’s word.  I am fallible and fallen, prone to so much error, but if I believe the counsel of God is as fallible as me, I’m a fool for putting my faith in it.  In humility I try to approach these things with the goal of loving God and those he puts in my life, but not sacrifice the former to appease the latter.

 

And according to discussions like this, that is the problem.  Believing God’s word is true and his testament of his own might and power and glory is worth defending makes ME the scourge of Christendom?  The faith is only valuable when the lowest denominator of belief is maintained?  Where is the righteousness?  The Christ seeking?  The obedience and reverence?

 

This grieves me so much.  I can’t even capture it fully.  Words fail.

While I wouldn't put it in those words exactly, it is basically what I've been pondering about this thread too.  Who gets to decide?  Not even sure how best to bring it up either, so I just kept quiet.  It seems to be an issue  because there are so many different traditions within Christianity.   It was certainly a BIG question I had back 15-20yrs ago when I started questioning.  However, I didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.    But, yes, I do feel like those of us who try to follow our faith carefully and lovingly are lumped in with those who are more legalistic.  I think somewhere up-thread someone hinted at how hard it can be to define what is legalistic.  One person's living out their faith with themselves, and their family, is another person's legalism. 

[JustEm]

13 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

While I wouldn't put it in those words exactly, it is basically what I've been pondering about this thread too.  Who gets to decide?  Not even sure how best to bring it up either, so I just kept quiet.  It seems to be an issue  because there are so many different traditions within Christianity.   It was certainly a BIG question I had back 15-20yrs ago when I started questioning.  However, I didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.    But, yes, I do feel like those of us who try to follow our faith carefully and lovingly are lumped in with those who are more legalistic.  I think somewhere up-thread someone hinted at how hard it can be to define what is legalistic.  One person's living out their faith with themselves, and their family, is another person's legalism. 

 

I think, for people who have been harmed by the harsh judgement of whole communities of Christians they once called family it can be easy to not see the good in any Christian.  How could they possibly trust Christian A's intentions and for a lack of a better word goodness when Christians X, Y, and Z who they were incredibly close with turn away from them. 

I can imagine it is hard to feel lumped in with the hurtful Christians that seem to be everywhere for many people. A lot of grace is needed when having discussion with people you have truly been hurt by their entire Christian community or who fear being hurt if they reveal their struggles.

[ktgrok]

37 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

I’m not sure how well I can put it into words, all that is bothering me.  But it seems to shake down to Christians like me who love God’s word and want to handle it rightly, with holiness and reverence and humility, seeking to take as much of ourselves and our cultures and interpretive lens out as possible, are being called ‘all that is wrong with Christianity’.

 

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is referring to sincere, kind, good hearted Christians as being all that is wrong with Christianity. I don't see you, Arctic Mama, shaming others for say, dating, wearing pants, listening to secular music, believing in evolution, or even supporting say, gay marriage. You may disagree with other Christians on any number of similar topics, but don't recall you shaming others, trying to control them, or telling them they are not Christian. you are living your life as best you know how, according to what you believe. That is not the same as what some here are saying they are experiencing, and what drove them away. 

At least, I don't think that is what is being said. I may be filtering that through my own opinion. 

Good Christians can disagree sincerely on any number of things, and do. What becomes dangerous is when some Christians try to narrowly define anyone who disagrees with them as not Christian. If you grow up in such a tradition, than as soon as you question one thing, it becomes a quick jump to giving up the entire tradition, because that was how it was always presented to you, one particular way or no way. 

I don't believe that you, if your kids came to you and joined a different denomination, would be shunned by your family or their salvation denied. 

[J-rap]

On 7/29/2019 at 4:00 PM, GoodGrief1 said:

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

I think you are spot-on.

[MercyA]

30 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

For me, it isn't that your belief in God's word is true that is some sort or scourge.  It is that all of the corruption across all the denominations makes me question the validity in the Bible being in any way God's words.  I've never believed it was the literal word, but that it was inspired by God.  But with everything I know about the history of Christianity, I've started doubting that the Bible is anything more than a man made tool to get people to follow a man made construct.

People are fallen and will fail us. That fact doesn't make Christ any less real or the words He said less true. It doesn't nullify the significance of His sacrifice. 

I can't pretend to know what it's like to have so much of your faith bound up in one church and then have that church fail you. That would shake my world, too. I hope and pray that you will continue to seek Jesus with your whole heart and not give up. There are forces in this world that would like nothing better than for you to lose your faith. Please keep reading the Word, and praying, and seeking. "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you."

Edited July 30, 2019 by MercyA

[EmseB]

8 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

I think, for people who have been harmed by the harsh judgement of whole communities of Christians they once called family it can be easy to not see the good in any Christian.  How could they possibly trust Christian A's intentions and for a lack of a better word goodness when Christians X, Y, and Z who they were incredibly close with turn away from them. 

I can imagine it is hard to feel lumped in with the hurtful Christians that seem to be everywhere for many people. A lot of grace is needed when having discussion with people you have truly been hurt by their entire Christian community or who fear being hurt if they reveal their struggles.

I think this is fine as far as it goes, but I generally find the people doing the lumping in (not here specifically) don't really care if they truly hurt or say things that are hurtful about Christians in general when expressing themselves. In other words, in general I don't think this sentiment goes both ways or that grace and harsh judgement are exclusive, which is ironic if we're talking about people who have been hurt by those things themselves.

[ktgrok]

5 minutes ago, MercyA said:

People are fallen and will fail us. That fact doesn't make Christ any less real or the words He said less true. It doesn't nullify the significance of His sacrifice. 

I can't pretend to know what it's like to have so much of your faith bound up in one church and then have that church fail you. That would shake my world, too. I hope and pray that you will continue to seek Jesus with your whole heart and not give up. There are forces in this world that would like nothing better than for you to lose your faith. Please keep reading the Word, and praying, and seeking. "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you."

I think for the person in question, it isn't about one particular church. It is the idea of the church throughout history. The bible is the bible because the church put it together. The church - specifically flesh and blood real men- decided what should be written down, what should be gathered together, what should be considered scripture. If she doesn't trust that process, or the people who were a part of it, how can she trust that book they put together - that is what she is saying. To have faith in the Bible as God's Word is to have faith in the people and institutions that put it together. 

My issue is something different, and does relate to a particular church, in that my anger and frustration toward it over things NOT related to God were keeping me from being in the right head space toward God. Or rather, my anger and frustration were keeping me from wanting to talk about religion, from spending time on it, from attending services, etc. The people were in my way, when they should be my conduit, my door. And so I left, despite believing it to be the original church, not giving up my identity or my spritual heritage, but seeking refuge elsewhere, similar to someone leaving a country that is no longer safe for them, not because they want to no longer be that nationality but because they need to seek safe harbor elsewhere. So a totally different thing. It was a nice side benefit that I happen to agree doctrinally with many more things at my current parish/denomination, but that isn't the main reason I left my former "home". I was content to disagree but still remain, similar to someone who disagrees with things their country does, but stays. When it became damaging, I left. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Ktgrok

[TechWife]

18 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

I’m not sure how well I can put it into words, all that is bothering me.  But it seems to shake down to Christians like me who love God’s word and want to handle it rightly, with holiness and reverence and humility, seeking to take as much of ourselves and our cultures and interpretive lens out as possible, are being called ‘all that is wrong with Christianity’.

 

Why does liberal Christianity get to define the standard for what is best and most god honoring and point the finger at zealous fellow believers as the issue?  Why are those of us who love one another and pursue a life in as close a conformation to biblical principals and truth the bad guys?  Where do these fallen away or nominal adherents get off in telling millions of fervent believers that they’re wrong, when they hardly even have a stake in the preaching, teaching, and day to day living out of the Word?

 

This distresses me greatly - that someone like Harris who has lived a very legalistic life and struggled greatly somehow means MY faith and walk are the problem?  Or that because Bill Gothard behaves badly that every reformed or conservative believer (who holds any precepts from scripture that aren’t completely counter to what he perverted) are suddenly culpable for his theological twisting?

 

I am a reformed, conservative, traditional believer who tries to test everything I live and all the preaching I hear against God’s word.  I am fallible and fallen, prone to so much error, but if I believe the counsel of God is as fallible as me, I’m a fool for putting my faith in it.  In humility I try to approach these things with the goal of loving God and those he puts in my life, but not sacrifice the former to appease the latter.

 

And according to discussions like this, that is the problem.  Believing God’s word is true and his testament of his own might and power and glory is worth defending makes ME the scourge of Christendom?  The faith is only valuable when the lowest denominator of belief is maintained?  Where is the righteousness?  The Christ seeking?  The obedience and reverence?

 

This grieves me so much.  I can’t even capture it fully.  Words fail.

 

I have been equally grieved. I think you did a good job putting some of what I have been thinking into words.

I may not be as eloquent, I feel very raw for a lot of different reasons.

Why does anyone else get to decide that the beliefs of outliers, like Josh Harris, are representative of my faith? Why does anyone who does not understand my faith get to tell me how wrong it is based upon the teaching of someone who professed to have my faith, but really did not? I see it in others areas as well, with people outside churches trying to redefine what a church should believe.

Additionally, I've long thought one of the problems in  modern evangelicalism is that we have "Christian celebrities." People are put upon (or climb up on) pedestals that they were never meant to occupy. They become, in some ways, idols. Unfortunately, when people fall of the pedestals, or in some cases, are pushed off of the pedestals, the faith of those who followed them is shaken. They must tease out whether or not they believe Christ, or believe in a man or a power structure.  Some people are, I think, genuinely confused and have difficulty separating man or power structure they have been under from what is actually true. They many genuinely believe that the people they are following are accurate representations of Christ and Biblical doctrine, when in fact they are not.  But, if they haven't been taught from a Scriptural perspective they may not be able to distinguish between them. The Apostle Paul addressed the church at Corinth about this very thing in 1 Corinthians 1-4  - they were following men, not following Christ. In our times, I think if he were here, he would ask us "Are you of Josh Harris? Beth Moore? Insert big name preacher here? or, are you following Christ?"

 

[JustEm]

13 minutes ago, MercyA said:

People are fallen and will fail us. That fact doesn't make Christ any less real or the words He said less true. It doesn't nullify the significance of His sacrifice. 

I can't pretend to know what it's like to have so much of your faith bound up in one church and then have that church fail you. That would shake my world, too. I hope and pray that you will continue to seek Jesus with your whole heart and not give up. There are forces in this world that would like nothing better than for you to lose your faith. Please keep reading the Word, and praying, and seeking. "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you."

 

Thank you for your words.  I am trying to keep praying and I don't think I'll give up any time soon.

To the first bold part,  my struggle is the belief that what is in the Bible about him and his sacrifice isn't just fiction.  I do fully believe in a God but the God in the bible and the divinity of Christ is what I haven't concluded if I believe anymore.  It breaks my heart to feel that way but it is simply the truth.

To the second bold part, it isn't that it was bound up entirely in one church and that church failed me.  It is more, once I started seeing the flaws of the Catholic church throughout history I started exploring Christianity separate from the Church and just saw the same thing over and over.  That is when I started questioning how I can have a belief in a book that was written and put together by fallen men.  Since coming to that realization nothing I have read has helped me trust there is truth in the Bible.

[EmseB]

Just now, TechWife said:

 

I have been equally grieved. I think you did a good job putting some of what I have been thinking into words.

I may not be as eloquent, I feel very raw for a lot of different reasons.

Why does anyone else get to decide that the beliefs of outliers, like Josh Harris, are representative of my faith? Why does anyone who does not understand my faith get to tell me how wrong it is based upon the teaching of someone who professed to have my faith, but really did not? I see it in others areas as well, with people outside churches trying to redefine what a church should believe.

Additionally, I've long thought one of the problems in  modern evangelicalism is that we have "Christian celebrities." People are put upon (or climb up on) pedestals that they were never meant to occupy. They become, in some ways, idols. Unfortunately, when people fall of the pedestals, or in some cases, are pushed off of the pedestals, the faith of those who followed them is shaken. They must tease out whether or not they believe Christ, or believe in a man or a power structure.  Some people are, I think, genuinely confused and have difficulty separating man or power structure they have been under from what is actually true. They many genuinely believe that the people they are following are accurate representations of Christ and Biblical doctrine, when in fact they are not.  But, if they haven't been taught from a Scriptural perspective they may not be able to distinguish between them. The Apostle Paul addressed the church at Corinth about this very thing in 1 Corinthians 1-4  - they were following men, not following Christ. In our times, I think if he were here, he would ask us "Are you of Josh Harris? Beth Moore? Insert big name preacher here? or, are you following Christ?"

 

This is a great article about just that, as it pertains to Josh Harris specifically, but also a larger picture of a movement he was a part of. It is critical of the Young Restless and Reformed set, but in a way that I think voices why so many of us feel hurt or lumped in or defamed by these movements -- movements that do engulf a lot of people but that I think, from this side of Christianity, many more of us are wary of. My favorite pull is this because it cuts through so many, many organizational and denominational lines:

 

Quote

As soon as you identify God’s purposes with those of yourself or your organization, ordinary Christian principles—honesty, decency, etc.—quickly disappear. A few years ago, a minor evangelical arriviste was caught in serious sin. His employer’s announcement of this might be summarized as follows: “When we are doing so well for the Kingdom of God, we can expect the Devil to attack our best men.” Maybe. But the logic was that of every tinhorn cult leader: The evidence that we are corrupt, or employ seriously corrupt people, is really just evidence of how important to God’s Kingdom we are. How convenient. It is the Christian equivalent of Wall Street’s “too big to fail” ethic.

 

[MercyA]

1 minute ago, Ktgrok said:

I think for the person in question, it isn't about one particular church. It is the idea of the church throughout history. The bible is the bible because the church put it together. The church - specifically flesh and blood real men- decided what should be written down, what should be gathered together, what should be considered scripture. If she doesn't trust that process, or the people who were a part of it, how can she trust that book they put together - that is what she is saying. To have faith in the Bible as God's Word is to have faith in the people and institutions that put it together. 

Not necessarily. I trust that God guided the process. I've found His Word to be true over and over and over again. 

Like someone else said earlier, I'm not up for a lengthy discussion right now on how the Canon came to be. The fact that all of the books in the New Testament were written either by the apostles themselves or by people with very close connections with the apostles is encouraging to me. (I know there is some debate about the book of Hebrews; I believe for many reasons that it was likely written by Paul.)

[ktgrok]

8 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

Thank you for your words.  I am trying to keep praying and I don't think I'll give up any time soon.

To the first bold part,  my struggle is the belief that what is in the Bible about him and his sacrifice isn't just fiction.  I do fully believe in a God but the God in the bible and the divinity of Christ is what I haven't concluded if I believe anymore.  It breaks my heart to feel that way but it is simply the truth.

To the second bold part, it isn't that it was bound up entirely in one church and that church failed me.  It is more, once I started seeing the flaws of the Catholic church throughout history I started exploring Christianity separate from the Church and just saw the same thing over and over.  That is when I started questioning how I can have a belief in a book that was written and put together by fallen men.  Since coming to that realization nothing I have read has helped me trust there is truth in the Bible.

 

7 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

No.  It is to have faith that God is big enough to control the transmission and preservation of his revelation *in spite of* and *working through* those fallen men and institutions.

 

If he can transform the very nature of man, as the Bible affirms, is he somehow not big enough to fulfill the much lesser miracle of preserving his word and worldwide church through the ages?  Is his power so removed from us and diminished that he is at the whims of men? 

 

This is probably one of the blessings of faith - my study into this has only strengthened my confidence and broadened my data pool to support this view, not diminished it. 

 

@TechWife yes, exactly what you said.  Thanks for capturing some of what has been distressing me.  I think if we consistently go back to the word and fellowship and discipleship with other believers who sharpen and encourage us in this, with the centrality of God and not cult of personality at work, so much of this is rooted out for the heresy and destructive belief that it is.  I hope, and pray for that, anyway.  *hug*

Oh, I meant the person saying she was struggling, not you, that SHE is doubting that, not that you do or should. I happen to agree with you, but that's my gift of faith. The OP doesn't have faith in that at this point, was what I was saying. But I do see the difference in your perspective (and mine, to a degree) and what I said the OP's view is. But again, you are basing your argument partly on what the Bible says, which becomes circular logic. She can't base her faith in the process on the book the process created...that lacks logic from what I can see. The faith has to come before that. 

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Not necessarily. I trust that God guided the process. I've found His Word to be true over and over and over again. 

Like someone else said earlier, I'm not up for a lengthy discussion right now on how the Canon came to be. The fact that all of the books in the New Testament were written either by the apostles themselves or by people with very close connections with the apostles is encouraging to me. (I know there is some debate about the book of Hebrews; I believe for many reasons that it was likely written by Paul.)

Actually, that's not really believed by many in mainline Christianity, and not what I was taught in my secular university studies. Several books are believed to have been edited later as well, with different endings, etc, from what I remember. 

[JustEm]

12 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Not necessarily. I trust that God guided the process. I've found His Word to be true over and over and over again. 

Like someone else said earlier, I'm not up for a lengthy discussion right now on how the Canon came to be. The fact that all of the books in the New Testament were written either by the apostles themselves or by people with very close connections with the apostles is encouraging to me. (I know there is some debate about the book of Hebrews; I believe for many reasons that it was likely written by Paul.)

 

She was specifically clarifying where I am at in my struggle.  I'm glad you don't have that problem but I do.  And no amount of reading about how the Canon came to be has changed it.  

[livetoread]

I don’t know his story, but for many of us ex-believers, it wasn’t how we were treated that led to our loss of faith. I doubt it had much to do with him either, but I could be wrong.

 

[ktgrok]

I feel I should clarify, there are plenty of people at different points in the Christian spectrum, such as myself, who have never considered the Bible the inerrant, literal word of God, and yet who consider it to be sacred, important, and a huge part of our faith. 

And who also have no ill will towards those who feel it is inerrant, literal, etc. We disagree, but that doesn't mean condemnation. I have great respect for many much more conservative than me. And I know many of the more conservative people here have respect for me. At least I think they do! (if not, maybe don't tell me, lol!)

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

She was specifically clarifying where I am at in my struggle.  I'm glad you don't have that problem but I do.  And no amount of reading about how the Canon came to be has changed it.  

I'm glad I was able to put it into words properly, hope I didn't misspeak. 

Also, as an aside, have you read much C.S. Lewis? When I was at a very low point in my faith journey two books really really helped ground me. One was Mere Christianity, and the other, later in life, and maybe more helpful in daily living, was The Screwtape Letters. Obviously that one is fiction, but man, the logic of the story had Truth in it that made sense to me. But if you haven't read Mere Christianity, try it. Or reread it if it has been a while. it comes at Christianity from an entirely different perspective - it does NOT start with the Bible, and in fact I think it barely talks about it at all. It starts with an examination of self, human nature, etc. Might be more workable for you and where you are at. (disclaimer, I found it amazingly helpful, my DH did not at all and thinks I'm crazy)

[TechWife]

6 minutes ago, EmseB said:

This is a great article about just that, as it pertains to Josh Harris specifically, but also a larger picture of a movement he was a part of. It is critical of the Young Restless and Reformed set, but in a way that I think voices why so many of us feel hurt or lumped in or defamed by these movements -- movements that do engulf a lot of people but that I think, from this side of Christianity, many more of us are wary of. My favorite pull is this because it cuts through so many, many organizational and denominational lines:

 

 

Excellent article, thanks. I do think Josh Harris' influence predates the YRR set, though. He was around in home school circles long before they became a prominent influence. He was certainly folded into it, but his influence reaches back much further. The author of this article might not be aware of that, though.

 

[MercyA]

8 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

Thank you for your words.  I am trying to keep praying and I don't think I'll give up any time soon.

To the first bold part,  my struggle is the belief that what is in the Bible about him and his sacrifice isn't just fiction.  I do fully believe in a God but the God in the bible and the divinity of Christ is what I haven't concluded if I believe anymore.  It breaks my heart to feel that way but it is simply the truth.

To the second bold part, it isn't that it was bound up entirely in one church and that church failed me.  It is more, once I started seeing the flaws of the Catholic church throughout history I started exploring Christianity separate from the Church and just saw the same thing over and over.  That is when I started questioning how I can have a belief in a book that was written and put together by fallen men.  Since coming to that realization nothing I have read has helped me trust there is truth in the Bible.

I'm so glad you're not giving up. Thank you for clarifying where you are at and why. There was a time in my life when I hadn't rejected Jesus but was only really and truly sure about the existence of a Creator. It took years of struggle and (frankly) lots of foolishness on my part, but ultimately I found Jesus to be exactly Who He said He was. 

I hope that you are reading books and articles that are written by orthodox believers--not just critics--and that you're reading the Bible, too.

I wish you all the best. I am confident in God's ability to guide you into truth. 

[JustEm]

10 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I'm glad I was able to put it into words properly, hope I didn't misspeak. 

Also, as an aside, have you read much C.S. Lewis? When I was at a very low point in my faith journey two books really really helped ground me. One was Mere Christianity, and the other, later in life, and maybe more helpful in daily living, was The Screwtape Letters. Obviously that one is fiction, but man, the logic of the story had Truth in it that made sense to me. But if you haven't read Mere Christianity, try it. Or reread it if it has been a while. it comes at Christianity from an entirely different perspective - it does NOT start with the Bible, and in fact I think it barely talks about it at all. It starts with an examination of self, human nature, etc. Might be more workable for you and where you are at. (disclaimer, I found it amazingly helpful, my DH did not at all and thinks I'm crazy)

I haven't read those 2 books in years.  Thank you for the suggestion as I recall liking them both very much.  I'll pull Mere Christianity off the shelf when I'm done my current read.

You didn't misspeak and I appreciate you clarifying my words for others.  I'm pregnant, incredibly nauseous, and words don't seem to come easy to me when I'm trying not to vomit, ha.

[MercyA]

6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Actually, that's not really believed by many in mainline Christianity, and not what I was taught in my secular university studies. Several books are believed to have been edited later as well, with different endings, etc, from what I remember. 

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "many in mainline Christianity." I took an excellent course on the Canon years ago, taught by a lawyer who had left the faith for many years but eventually returned. I'll have to see if I can find some of the resources he recommended. I believe my position is historically accurate and aligned with orthodox teaching. 

[JustEm]

12 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I'm so glad you're not giving up. Thank you for clarifying where you are at and why. There was a time in my life when I hadn't rejected Jesus but was only really and truly sure about the existence of a Creator. It took years of struggle and (frankly) lots of foolishness on my part, but ultimately I found Jesus to be exactly Who He said He was. 

I hope that you are reading books and articles that are written by orthodox believers--not just critics--and that you're reading the Bible, too.

I wish you all the best. I am confident in God's ability to guide you into truth. 

 

I've been reading the Bible and the saints.  I actually don't like reading critics because I don't want their bias to shape my conclusions. 

[JustEm]

@MercyA and @Ktgrok thank you for listening to my struggles and offering insight for me to ponder. 

[MercyA]

@hjffkj, congrats on your pregnancy (and sorry about your nausea)! 

[chiguirre]

35 minutes ago, TechWife said:

 

I have been equally grieved. I think you did a good job putting some of what I have been thinking into words.

I may not be as eloquent, I feel very raw for a lot of different reasons.

Why does anyone else get to decide that the beliefs of outliers, like Josh Harris, are representative of my faith? Why does anyone who does not understand my faith get to tell me how wrong it is based upon the teaching of someone who professed to have my faith, but really did not? I see it in others areas as well, with people outside churches trying to redefine what a church should believe.

Additionally, I've long thought one of the problems in  modern evangelicalism is that we have "Christian celebrities." People are put upon (or climb up on) pedestals that they were never meant to occupy. They become, in some ways, idols. Unfortunately, when people fall of the pedestals, or in some cases, are pushed off of the pedestals, the faith of those who followed them is shaken. They must tease out whether or not they believe Christ, or believe in a man or a power structure.  Some people are, I think, genuinely confused and have difficulty separating man or power structure they have been under from what is actually true. They many genuinely believe that the people they are following are accurate representations of Christ and Biblical doctrine, when in fact they are not.  But, if they haven't been taught from a Scriptural perspective they may not be able to distinguish between them. The Apostle Paul addressed the church at Corinth about this very thing in 1 Corinthians 1-4  - they were following men, not following Christ. In our times, I think if he were here, he would ask us "Are you of Josh Harris? Beth Moore? Insert big name preacher here? or, are you following Christ?"

 

I think the root of this problem is that there is no formal hierarchical structure in nondenominational Christianity. So you get whoever is the most telegenic as the spokesman for that branch of Christianity. That's why Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Jerry Falwell Jr, Josh Harris and Beth Moore play such an outsized role in defining how both evangelicals and everybody else perceive that faith tradition.

I'm not sure there's any solution to this problem. Certainly, any solution that does emerge has to come from evangelicals themselves. 

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Arctic Mama said:

This grieves me so much.  I can’t even capture it fully.  Words fail.

Arctic, for the world I never meant to hurt you!!! I am so sorry. You are a really wonderful person.

All I can say is that from my perspective, I don't really think that progressive "christians" define christianity all that much really. I think maybe its a perception, but the UMC is dying in the US as are most of the mainlines that might have a more centrist or progressive approach. The largest protestant denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention, and it seems to be doing just fine. I think some of the pain right now for many good hearted traditional christians is that there have been a lot of "fallen angels" recently at a time in history where the bad news folks always have the mic, the craziest ones always have the mic. Somehow they always get to be the "voice".

But those folks aren't the biggest reason I am where I am. And You and Mercy or any IRL other truly lovely christian people like you are not the reason i am where I am. Please do not take the weight of that on your shoulders. If anything, people like you were the strongest reason that I had to stay in the faith. The reality is that the christians who have hurt me so deeply aren't the ultimate reason. Did they have an influence in my choice to really dig down, dig deep, ask the tough questions? Yes. But, ultimately, they don't hold any responsibility here. I'm a big girl. It's all on me, and I wouldn't be comfortable just playing the blame game. That said, I do think that maybe it could be constructive for believers to hear our stories. Of course there are people who suffered some pretty bad abuse, and their journeys are different from mine, and I think they have a lot more to say to the churches they've left. A lot more. Especially if their abuse was swept under the rug, and abusers got a way with it. Given what happened at SGM, I think that this kind of scenario has a lot more to do with Joshua Harris's faith re-evaluation than mine.

I alone take responsibility for the fact that I can no longer accept the answers that christianity provides for the discrepancies I find in the bible, in the art or interpretation, in practice, etc. Totally my gig. It's not on anyone else.

I also won't say that the bible being used as a weapon so often did not have an effect. That would be disingenuous. But that's on the people who did it, not on worldwide christianity. 

Please know that I really respect you. I really have no desire to be hurtful to you.

[Faith-manor]

45 minutes ago, livetoread said:

I don’t know his story, but for many of us ex-believers, it wasn’t how we were treated that led to our loss of faith. I doubt it had much to do with him either, but I could be wrong.

 

It seems from his statements, that it might actually be the converse...the way he treated others caused regret, the regret caused questioning, and the questioning lead him down this road.

[Faith-manor]

And with this, I'll bow out. I'm not doing a good job explaining myself or my journey or anything related to deconstruction or deconversion, and all it's doing is causing other people pain.

Peace to all. Peace and comfort to Joshua, Shannon, and their children, extra especially to the children.

[EmseB]

8 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

And with this, I'll bow out. I'm not doing a good job explaining myself or my journey or anything related to deconstruction or deconversion, and all it's doing is causing other people pain.

Peace to all. Peace and comfort to Joshua, Shannon, and their children, extra especially to the children.

I for one think you've done an excellent and gracious job of explaining yourself. For whatever that's worth. 🙂

[TravelingChris]

On 7/29/2019 at 4:37 PM, FuzzyCatz said:

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?

We were parents of teens and younger when this book came out. We didn't like the whole courtship thing because it was completely unpractical in our case and we didn't agree with it philosophically,  I put unpractical first, not because it was the most important reason for our rejecting it, but because it was the easiest way to get out of the hairs of some true believer.  By practicality- we meant that our children would go to college and not be near us, most likely, or certainly with the oldest, before we were moved to another location.  

As to the lack of education, another person I am not fond of is Joel Osteen, who isn't a college graduate, nor graduate of a seminary or divinity school (which usually is after college, and preaches (IMHV) a false gospel of prosperity.

[TravelingChris]

On 7/29/2019 at 5:31 PM, 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 in my church do not know and generally think people like me are in the wrong.  And we have been getting from the left, from the right, and from the screwed up psychologically side.  We stay because our pastors aren't, most of the people we hang with aren't, the church is doing good things in the community,  etc, etc, 

[TravelingChris]

On 7/29/2019 at 5:41 PM, 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. 

I know plenty of people who do legalism by selectively editing--- like part of one verse and applying it to things it was not meant to apply to.  One popular example are the people who get upset over music or tv or something else cultural.   Those people have  Philippians 4:8 in mind "Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable if anything is excellent or praiseworthy think about such things."  And  then ignore true, noble, right, and excellent and come up with some strangeness about how we can only listen to Christian radio or we are damned.

[ktgrok]

14 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

You and the other ladies made me feel a little better!  It’s been a rough several months in Christendom, from what Emse linked with the YRR movement and Harris, to the terrible Boko Haram attacks this weekend and the suffering of our missionary friends and Christian brothers and sisters in China.  It really feels like being besieged from all sides, and then Christians just trying to do their best in clinging to Christ and biblical doctrine in faithfulness (and need!) get lumped in with the jerks and charlatans and legalists.  That on top of the pain and disillusion in this thread just totally broke my heart. It’s a lot of suffering across a variety of semi-related topics.

 

Ah, yeah, I get that. I'm one of the only Christians I know, and yes, I've seen some true hate leveled at people of belief in general, and Christians in particular, and it IS painful and hurtful. Hugs. 

[TravelingChris]

23 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. 

Completely incorrect.  I know personally legalists who think you aren't a Christian if you vote for X.  I know another man with psych problems who has strange and offensive legalistic views.  In fact, only a very few of the people in my church who are legalistic could be considered fundamentalist and in general, no one ever calls Presbyterians fundamentalists because we practice infant baptism amongst other practices that the fundamentalist churches have.

[QueenCat]

3 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

I’m not sure how well I can put it into words, all that is bothering me.  But it seems to shake down to Christians like me who love God’s word and want to handle it rightly, with holiness and reverence and humility, seeking to take as much of ourselves and our cultures and interpretive lens out as possible, are being called ‘all that is wrong with Christianity’.

 

Why does liberal Christianity get to define the standard for what is best and most god honoring and point the finger at zealous fellow believers as the issue?  Why are those of us who love one another and pursue a life in as close a conformation to biblical principals and truth the bad guys?  Where do these fallen away or nominal adherents get off in telling millions of fervent believers that they’re wrong, when they hardly even have a stake in the preaching, teaching, and day to day living out of the Word?

 

This distresses me greatly - that someone like Harris who has lived a very legalistic life and struggled greatly somehow means MY faith and walk are the problem?  Or that because Bill Gothard behaves badly that every reformed or conservative believer (who holds any precepts from scripture that aren’t completely counter to what he perverted) are suddenly culpable for his theological twisting?

 

I am a reformed, conservative, traditional believer who tries to test everything I live and all the preaching I hear against God’s word.  I am fallible and fallen, prone to so much error, but if I believe the counsel of God is as fallible as me, I’m a fool for putting my faith in it.  In humility I try to approach these things with the goal of loving God and those he puts in my life, but not sacrifice the former to appease the latter.

 

And according to discussions like this, that is the problem.  Believing God’s word is true and his testament of his own might and power and glory is worth defending makes ME the scourge of Christendom?  The faith is only valuable when the lowest denominator of belief is maintained?  Where is the righteousness?  The Christ seeking?  The obedience and reverence?

 

This grieves me so much.  I can’t even capture it fully.  Words fail.

 

I would be considered a liberal Christian. I don't have any problem with the above. Now, I'd have a problem if you said, "And I wear a skirt all time because it glorifies God AND if you don't, you aren't glorifying God." Or, "I don't drink, it's a sin if I do AND it's a sin if you do too." That is the kind of thing I consider to be legalism. 

[Joker]

I truly feel for all who are struggling. I feel that I have been fortunate to struggle with parts of my faith but never with having that faith (if that makes sense?). I've always been a Christian and held a solid belief in God but I have struggled with finding my place within Christianity. 

I grew up in a Baptist church and I guess I was fortunate to have family who didn't hold tight to all of their beliefs. I knew we, as a family, didn't agree with their beliefs on dancing and alcohol. There were other things but those were the things that stuck out to me when younger. So, I never felt my faith and beliefs had to be so rigid. When I married dh, he was actually an atheist but thankfully he is now a Christian. We've definitely struggled together to find our place these past several years but, again, we have been fortunate that our faith has held strong.

As adults, we've tried many different churches and never encountered any judgment until people found out both of our dc are part of the LGBTQ+ community. We have been told often that we can't be "real" Christians and be ok with that. I find it interesting that this is such a line in the sand for so many with so many other things happening in our world. I'm not bothered by their ridiculousness anymore thankfully because I am secure in my beliefs and relationship with my faith. My biggest concern for my dc was them not losing their faith altogether and I am so thankful we found the Episcopal church because they are both in good places now with their faith. 

I wish we could all focus on those things that we share instead of our differences (as there are many among the different denominations).

[Lady Florida.]

First, let me say I'm not trying to deconvert anyone. I am however going to share my experiences so those who are not sure of what they believe have two sides to consider. 

 

8 hours 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.

When I first started questioning I didn't even consider other Christian denominations. I already belonged to a fairly progressive church and going conservative wasn't something that would have been where I wanted to go. I actually decided not to look at any of the three Abrahamic religions because to me they all had similar origins and that was the god I was doubting. So right off the bat Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were off the table. 

I looked at the Eastern belief systems as well as pagan and new age ideas. I spent about two years exploring what I wanted to convert to before I realized I didn't want to convert to anything at all. There was no single aha moment, just a slow realization that none of the dieties or belief systems made enough sense to me. It made more sense to realize the saying "They can't all be right but they can all be wrong" was true as far as I was concerned. 

 

8 hours ago, Quill said:

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. 

I'm sorry that's a problem for you, and I know it's a problem for a lot of people who question their faith. I was fortunate to have found an inclusive homeschool group before I let go of my beliefs. It's understandable to not want your kids to suffer and lose friendships because their mom is examining her beliefs. It shouldn't be that way. I've never understood that type of Christianity - the type that shuns people who don't toe the line. 

8 hours ago, maize said:

 

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.

My family is rather small and some are only marginally religious but dh has a large extended family with varying levels of faith. It doesn't affect anyone's love for each other. However, faith and religion are considered private in both of our families so it isn't something that's discussed. 

 

7 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Hmm..I guess I never thought of the Bible as the literal, exact word of God,

I come from a background (Catholic) that doesn't see it as literal either. I never met anyone who believed in a literal interpretation before we started homeschooling. 

[Lady Florida.]

2 hours ago, livetoread said:

I don’t know his story, but for many of us ex-believers, it wasn’t how we were treated that led to our loss of faith. I doubt it had much to do with him either, but I could be wrong.

 

Same here. My deconversion had nothing to do with treatment from other Christians. In fact, most of the Christians in my life then and now are caring, loving people. They had nothing to do with why I shed my belief.

[EmseB]

14 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

I'm sorry that's a problem for you, and I know it's a problem for a lot of people who question their faith. I was fortunate to have found an inclusive homeschool group before I let go of my beliefs. It's understandable to not want your kids to suffer and lose friendships because their mom is examining her beliefs. It shouldn't be that way. I've never understood that type of Christianity - the type that shuns people who don't toe the line. 

I had kind of the reverse experience with an atheist friend (well on two separate occasions, but one couple lived far from us so it wasn't a real issue because we didn't/couldn't hang out anyway). Anyway, it was that any contact I initiated after their deconversion was seen as pitying or trying to re-convert them or something like that. I really didn't know how to act because I felt like abandoning the friendship would be seen as shunning but they were so resistant to any contact, and coffee and playdates were avoided and then eventually met with something like, "I'm just not in a place right now to interact with people who have faith that I don't hold to anymore." Which is fine, everyone can do what they want, but watching someone go out and get all new friends and not wanting to hang with you anymore because you're religious is just as difficult, I would think, as the other way around. It was really shocking to me because I thought we had a deep friendship outside of our shared faith.

Also, if you're in a coop of a certain faith and parents are supposed to be teaching classes...I think toeing the line is kind of important. It's not so much shunning as it is that if you don't adhere to a certain values system anymore, participating in groups that do gets really sticky. I don't think I could go teach in a co-op of kids from our local Sikh center, for example, and I could see them accepting my kids if we were exploring their religion, but not if we had rejected it as a family. But I wouldn't call it shunning. Does that make sense?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, EmseB said:

Also, if you're in a coop of a certain faith and parents are supposed to be teaching classes...I think toeing the line is kind of important. It's not so much shunning as it is that if you don't adhere to a certain values system anymore, participating in groups that do gets really sticky. I don't think I could go teach in a co-op of kids from our local Sikh center, for example, and I could see them accepting my kids if we were exploring their religion, but not if we had rejected it as a family. But I wouldn't call it shunning. Does that make sense?

I can see the bolded and, since I am not hostile towards Christianity, it was preferable to stay in my Christian co-op than to “defect” to a group with no faith basis. And I’m not gonna lie, I was glad to be part of a Christian community when I went through breast cancer because I appreciate people caring for me and my family spiritually as well as in practical terms. 

AFA teaching classes goes, it matters for some classes but does not matter for the majority. If I’m teaching a sewing class, for example, it does not matter what I believe about the Bible. The co-op I belong to is ecumenical and includes a significant range of denominations, including many Catholics, a few LDS, many Protestant affiliations and a tiny smattering of non-Christians. 

I can see how it could go the other way too, with someone leaving the faith not wanting to hang with their Christian buddies as they formerly did. Depending on how big a role the faith plays in your friendship, it could be difficult to relate. I unintentionally made a friend feel I was rejecting her when she invited me to go with her to a Women of Faith event, which we had done together before. At the time, I was in anguish about my crisis and felt like saying, “I am not a woman of faith!” But I didn’t tell her anything about where my head was and just gave her what she later described as, “a cold No.” So, she thought I was, for a reason she didnt understand, abandoning her as a friend, when really it had nothing to do with her as a person; it was entirely me feeling that I could not be with a bunch of crying, singing, praying women of faith. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Completely incorrect.  I know personally legalists who think you aren't a Christian if you vote for X.  I know another man with psych problems who has strange and offensive legalistic views.  In fact, only a very few of the people in my church who are legalistic could be considered fundamentalist and in general, no one ever calls Presbyterians fundamentalists because we practice infant baptism amongst other practices that the fundamentalist churches have.

Yeah, I have to recant that statement. People get legalistic about political affiliations, too, for example, or class requirements. So...yeah.