Someone mentioned on the forum that he'd been searching for decades for a Christian narrative that made sense to him. It reminded me of my own quest. I responded that after giving up hope of finding such a narrative, I wrote my own over a period of many years (54 so far – it's still being written).
I recalled the very first thread I ever started on any Christian forum, which I was able to locate today. I originally posted it way back on December 21, 2009 under the title "Do the Fall of Man and the Atonement actually make sense to you?" I said the conventional understanding of those doctrines was simply impossible for me to believe.
I got the predictable defensive and even angry responses, of course, but I also entered into a wonderful dialogue with a guy named Ittarter who initially responded:
"Awesome. I fully support the paradigmatic shift you experienced. If you are interested in reflecting more on what happened to you, cognitively speaking, I recommend James Fowler's Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. He outlines five stage of faith and their defining characteristics. You have reached what he calls "individuative-reflective" faith, which demythologizes one's cognitive commitments in order to construct a personal and explicit meaning-system, one that is rationally defensible and attends to the reality behind a given symbol rather than the symbol itself."
Ittarter - an extremely bright guy - was my introduction to Stages of Faith, which I've mentioned in several threads. He was pegging me as being at Stage 4 at the time, which was probably correct although I think I've evolved to something more like Stage 5 at present. (That's not bragging - Stage 5 is simply "different" from Stage 4, not inevitably "better.")
Here is the post of mine from 2009. Reading it today for the first time in almost 15 years, I was struck by how much of it I can still live with (or at least not be completely embarrassed by):
Try as I might, I've been unable to find explanations of such core Christian doctrines as the Fall of Man and the Atonement that make sense to me - i.e., that are intellectually satisfying even to someone who would sincerely like to believe them. Many years ago, after a postgraduate stint at a Baptist seminary, active involvement with Campus Crusade for Christ and my own studies of such heavyweight theologians as Barth and Tillich, I finally said: "I'm no longer going to pretend to believe things that are contrary to common sense and logic, my own life experience and my innate sense of what any creator of the universe could possibly be like. I'm no longer going to try to believe things I simply can't believe."
I didn't make those statements in an arrogant way. I remember many times, when I was active in Campus Crusade or a student at the Baptist seminary, saying to my wife: "In some ways, it would be great to be as simple as these folks seem to be. In some ways, I really envy their ability to accept without question things that strike me as utterly unbelievable." And I meant it. How much simpler life would be if one could cling to the Bible as though every line were the inerrant Word of God and to the Sunday School view of reality preached in a Baptist church. But I, at least, just couldn't do it, and I could no longer even pretend to do it without feeling as though I were being completely untrue to myself and perhaps risking serious mental problems. I decided to move forward with Paul Tillich's fundamental question as my starting-point: "Why is there anything? Why is there not nothing at all?"
These days, I say Christianity is the "template" for my beliefs. By this, I mean Christianity does indeed explain the world in which we live better than any other religion or belief system I've studied. It does seem to me that we live in a created universe, there is a benevolent intelligence behind it, there is a genuine (non-illusory) distinction between good and evil, and our world is moving ever-more-rapidly down the path toward the sort of living hell the Bible predicts for the end times. I believe the Bible is "true" in some broad theological sense. I can accept that Jesus embodies the qualities of the creator and somehow reconciles me to the creator. I try to live my life as though all this were true, which is my definition of faith. Beyond this I suspect, on the basis of my own common sense and logic and my own life experiences (including a fair number of paranormal experiences), that the ultimate explanation is way more mysterious than anything being preached from the pulpit of any church.
Does this sort of attitude force me to "pick and choose" the parts of the Bible I find convincing? A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y. Does it put me in the role of the pot questioning the potter? Undoubtedly it does. Are some of my beliefs well outside the Christian mainstream? Indeed they are. After many, many years of serious study, for example, I find that the evidence for reincarnation is compelling. Does the fact that I'm a "picking-and-choosing, potter-questioning, reincarnationist, Christian-template believer" bother me at all? Not a bit. I believe that a refusal to abandon common sense and logic, a determination to rely on my own life experiences and studies and to follow the evidence wherever it leads me has strengthened my faith that there is a creator and an afterlife and that our lives have meaning and purpose. I know this approach gave me and my wife a depth of faith that sustained us through seven years of her breast cancer and eventual death in a way that completely amazed her caregivers and that I'm confident a more superficial religiosity would not have done.
Looking at doctrines such as the Fall of Man and the Atonement in conservative Christian terms, I'm curious as to what sense anyone thinks they make? Taking these doctrines at face value, the creator of the universe allowed a purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being to beguile the first woman into disobeying the creator's command not to eat the fruit of a particularly attractive tree. When the naive woman (who, by definition, didn't know the difference between good and evil) succumbed to the urgings of this purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being (as the omniscient creator had always known she would), the creator decided her single act of disobedience had somehow infected mankind and all the rest of creation. Some vast period of time later, the creator made everything OK, at least from his perspective, by sending his son to die on the cross and by this act somehow redeeming mankind and rectifying all wrongs. But thereafter, the creator allowed the purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being to continue to roam the planet for at least 2000+ years, wreaking havoc and leading souls astray while the creator tried to win these souls for himself by working through those who believed in his son and were willing to spread the message of salvation.
Hello? Does this actually strike you as making any sense? Do you have any intelligent response beyond, "That's what the Bible says, pal, and therefore I believe it"? Believe me, I'm not being hostile here. I was astounded when I began my serious study of doctrines such as the Fall and the Atonement to find that there are several, largely inconsistent theories as to what they mean and how they work - i.e., there is nothing vaguely resembling agreement, even among theologians. And none of it made sense to me, except perhaps at the level of: "Well, let's at least see if we can try to logically connect the dots in some mathematical-equation sort of way that doesn't make the core doctrines sound completely absurd."
What does make sense to me is that the creator's purpose for all of creation (i.e., heavenly host and humans alike) is to produce beings who have made a cons cious, free will choice between good and evil and established their worthiness to be part of his kingdom. Without a dimensionof evil, there would be no opportunity to make moral choices and accomplish spiritual growth. So I don't believe that "Satan and his minions" are "at war with the creator" in any sense resembling that in which a typical Christian uses these phrases; I believe evil is an integral part of the creator's plan for creation and serves the creator's purpose. The "Fall" occurs on an individual basis. I further believe that Jesus is the creator's illustration to mankind of what "godliness" looks like, as well as the creator's message to mankind that those who fail to measure up to this standard can still be accepted into the kingdom. This to me is the "Atonement." I realize that this is scarcely mainstream Christianity, and I'm not trying to convert anyone, which is why I always jokingly describe myself as nothing more than Pastor Lanny of The Church of What Lanny Believes. [Or O'Darby, as the case may be!]
I would be curious to know how those of reasonable intelligence who have given serious thought to the matter are able to cling to traditional notions of the Fall of Man and the Atonement.
(Rather a long and in-your-face first-ever post, I must admit, but there it is.)
I didn't make those statements in an arrogant way. I remember many times, when I was active in Campus Crusade or a student at the Baptist seminary, saying to my wife: "In some ways, it would be great to be as simple as these folks seem to be. In some ways, I really envy their ability to accept without question things that strike me as utterly unbelievable." And I meant it. How much simpler life would be if one could cling to the Bible as though every line were the inerrant Word of God and to the Sunday School view of reality preached in a Baptist church. But I, at least, just couldn't do it, and I could no longer even pretend to do it without feeling as though I were being completely untrue to myself and perhaps risking serious mental problems. I decided to move forward with Paul Tillich's fundamental question as my starting-point: "Why is there anything? Why is there not nothing at all?"
These days, I say Christianity is the "template" for my beliefs. By this, I mean Christianity does indeed explain the world in which we live better than any other religion or belief system I've studied. It does seem to me that we live in a created universe, there is a benevolent intelligence behind it, there is a genuine (non-illusory) distinction between good and evil, and our world is moving ever-more-rapidly down the path toward the sort of living hell the Bible predicts for the end times. I believe the Bible is "true" in some broad theological sense. I can accept that Jesus embodies the qualities of the creator and somehow reconciles me to the creator. I try to live my life as though all this were true, which is my definition of faith. Beyond this I suspect, on the basis of my own common sense and logic and my own life experiences (including a fair number of paranormal experiences), that the ultimate explanation is way more mysterious than anything being preached from the pulpit of any church.
Does this sort of attitude force me to "pick and choose" the parts of the Bible I find convincing? A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y. Does it put me in the role of the pot questioning the potter? Undoubtedly it does. Are some of my beliefs well outside the Christian mainstream? Indeed they are. After many, many years of serious study, for example, I find that the evidence for reincarnation is compelling. Does the fact that I'm a "picking-and-choosing, potter-questioning, reincarnationist, Christian-template believer" bother me at all? Not a bit. I believe that a refusal to abandon common sense and logic, a determination to rely on my own life experiences and studies and to follow the evidence wherever it leads me has strengthened my faith that there is a creator and an afterlife and that our lives have meaning and purpose. I know this approach gave me and my wife a depth of faith that sustained us through seven years of her breast cancer and eventual death in a way that completely amazed her caregivers and that I'm confident a more superficial religiosity would not have done.
Looking at doctrines such as the Fall of Man and the Atonement in conservative Christian terms, I'm curious as to what sense anyone thinks they make? Taking these doctrines at face value, the creator of the universe allowed a purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being to beguile the first woman into disobeying the creator's command not to eat the fruit of a particularly attractive tree. When the naive woman (who, by definition, didn't know the difference between good and evil) succumbed to the urgings of this purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being (as the omniscient creator had always known she would), the creator decided her single act of disobedience had somehow infected mankind and all the rest of creation. Some vast period of time later, the creator made everything OK, at least from his perspective, by sending his son to die on the cross and by this act somehow redeeming mankind and rectifying all wrongs. But thereafter, the creator allowed the purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being to continue to roam the planet for at least 2000+ years, wreaking havoc and leading souls astray while the creator tried to win these souls for himself by working through those who believed in his son and were willing to spread the message of salvation.
Hello? Does this actually strike you as making any sense? Do you have any intelligent response beyond, "That's what the Bible says, pal, and therefore I believe it"? Believe me, I'm not being hostile here. I was astounded when I began my serious study of doctrines such as the Fall and the Atonement to find that there are several, largely inconsistent theories as to what they mean and how they work - i.e., there is nothing vaguely resembling agreement, even among theologians. And none of it made sense to me, except perhaps at the level of: "Well, let's at least see if we can try to logically connect the dots in some mathematical-equation sort of way that doesn't make the core doctrines sound completely absurd."
What does make sense to me is that the creator's purpose for all of creation (i.e., heavenly host and humans alike) is to produce beings who have made a cons cious, free will choice between good and evil and established their worthiness to be part of his kingdom. Without a dimensionof evil, there would be no opportunity to make moral choices and accomplish spiritual growth. So I don't believe that "Satan and his minions" are "at war with the creator" in any sense resembling that in which a typical Christian uses these phrases; I believe evil is an integral part of the creator's plan for creation and serves the creator's purpose. The "Fall" occurs on an individual basis. I further believe that Jesus is the creator's illustration to mankind of what "godliness" looks like, as well as the creator's message to mankind that those who fail to measure up to this standard can still be accepted into the kingdom. This to me is the "Atonement." I realize that this is scarcely mainstream Christianity, and I'm not trying to convert anyone, which is why I always jokingly describe myself as nothing more than Pastor Lanny of The Church of What Lanny Believes. [Or O'Darby, as the case may be!]
I would be curious to know how those of reasonable intelligence who have given serious thought to the matter are able to cling to traditional notions of the Fall of Man and the Atonement.
(Rather a long and in-your-face first-ever post, I must admit, but there it is.)
In reading an Amazon review of a very serious work of systematic theology last year, I was struck by the three-star review of an atheist who said: "I read and understood this, just as I've read lots of other Christian theology and apologetics. And yet, I remain an atheist. I can't simply make myself believe things I'm constitutionally incapable of believing."
I admired the atheist's honesty. I thought, "Yes, that's exactly the point. We have to exercise our most diligent efforts to arrive at a belief system we're constitutionally capable of believing, one we can really believe. What else can we do? Anything else is just pretending."
So that's why my Christian narrative is indeed my Christian narrative. My quest included mountains of theology and apologetics – enough to tell me that no one else's Christian narrative was going to make sense to me. I accept the consequences of being a one-man church (as well, of course, as the possibility my narrative may ultimately prove to be partly or wholly wrong). Again: What else can I do?
Since this is becoming a rather long blog entry, I'll save until next time a discussion of how my narrative has evolved since December 21, 2009 and why I'd now view myself as being more at what James Fowler called Stage 5.
This is one of the best discussions I've found of the stages. He starts at Stage 3, the first two being somewhat infantile:
Stage 3: Synthetic-Conventional Faith
In Brief: A “conformist” stage, very sensitive to other people’s expectations; authority is located externally; beliefs and values may be strongly held, but are not subjected to critical scrutiny; …
knownunknown.wordpress.com
Here's the book itelf:
