Here in this final installment of my look at Tim Sledge’s book, Goodbye Jesus, I want to discuss what I feel is the deeper, underlying issue, not only to what Sledge discusses in his book, but to so much that is problematic in so many Christian-Atheist debates about Christianity in general and the Bible in particular. It has to do with the very way the Christian faith and the Bible are even presented in both the academic world and America in general. But first, let’s have a final look at what Sledge is his new, enlightened view of the Bible and the Christian faith.
Sledge says at the end of his book, now that he is no longer a Christian, he has been able to analyze the Bible with a more skeptical and rational point of view. And now he has done so, he sees the story of Jesus isn’t “divine truth,” but rather just “an evolving fictitious, historical drama.” Here are a number of his now enlightened positions and observations regarding the Bible:
- He reasons that if the Gospel message truly was meant to be for every continent, generation, and human being, then the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus should be irrefutable.
- If God would have made that resurrection evidence irrefutable, it could have accelerated Rome’s embrace of Christianity by 300 years and could have prevented all those deaths of the Christian martyrs.
- Why doesn’t Jesus actually appear to the whole world every Easter to share the plan of salvation?
- Paul mentions in I Corinthians 15 that after the resurrection Jesus “appeared to the twelve,” like he didn’t even know Judas killed himself before Jesus rose!
- Sledge approvingly cites the Jesus mythicist Richard Carrier, who claims that Paul knew nothing at all about Jesus’s earthly ministry.
- He writes, “Why didn’t the God of the universe—walking among mankind in the flesh as Jesus—do a sidebar on germs? Simple answer: Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who had no idea germs existed.” [Implication? If Jesus really was God, he would have made sure to teach people about modern scientific knowledge back in the first century!]
- He writes, “Remember how hard it was to keep E.T. hidden in the popular movie about the little alien? How do you hide the God of the universe who is walking around as a human for 30 years?” [I truly do not get his point on this.]
- He (mockingly) “laments” any childhood friends Jesus may have had who died young and who thus weren’t around when Jesus started his ministry and revealed himself to be God—too bad for them! They’re in hell now! Why did Jesus wait for 30 years to reveal himself???
- Sledge actually claims to have calculated the total years of punishment in hell for every human being in history to total “1,080,000,000,000,000,000,000 years of deserved “torture time.” And then says that it is just unreasonable to think that Jesus’ six hours on the cross could be enough to cancel all that out.
- Sledge also speculates that if ancient people had access to the modern scientific knowledge regarding biology, chemistry, and physics, they probably would have never come up with the silly notion of human beings have a soul.
There are more things he says, but these ten examples should be enough to illustrate the intellectual acumen of his newfound humanist enlightenment worldview—it isn’t that much. These are absolutely silly and childish observations and comments. There is no sense in even trying to specifically address them. And yet, the really shocking thing is that these are the kinds of comments I have read from many atheists, Jesus mythicists, and other ex-Evangelicals, all of them convinced that these comments reflect real critical thinking and scientific insight. No more religious mumbo-jumbo for them! Science and reason be praised!
But come on, if you are quoting the likes of Richard Carrier, I’m not going to be able to take you seriously…at all. If you want to read absolutely nuttiness, just read my series on Carrier, starting here. He claims the New Testament talks about zombies, outer-space aliens with death rays, and cosmic sperm banks!
It is obvious, though, that their depiction of Christianity and the Bible is an ignorant and childish caricature of what Christianity and the Bible actually are. It is equally obvious that their “enlightened views” are just as silly, precisely because they are based off of their ignorant and childish caricatures. It is all just profoundly sad to see. In their minds, they think their comments and arguments are airtight and enlightened. In reality, they are just silly and nonsensical. But if you live in an intellectual and spiritual vacuum, you can’t see that (probably because you’re not getting any air and your brain can’t function properly).
The Heart of the Problem
This brings us to the heart of the problem. How did Sledge end up embracing such silly so-called “enlightened” views? It should be obvious that even though he had been and Evangelical pastor for decades, his own grasp of the historical, Orthodox Christian faith is was virtually non-existent. The “brand” of Christianity of which he was a part—namely, that of American Evangelicalism—has sadly shown itself to be very much stuck in an intellectual and spiritual vacuum of its own. If you stay in that world for too long, at some point people are going to fail you and at some point you yourself are going to make a few bad choices—and when that happens, you’re going to be forced to acknowledge that much of what is found in American Evangelicalism is rather shallow and thin.
But having said that, I don’t want to give the impression that everything in American Evangelicalism is bad. Some of the best biblical scholars I know are within the Evangelical community. A whole lot of good has come out of the Evangelicalism that Billy Graham pioneered. Upon reflection, the failures of Evangelicalism are the same failures in many other branches and denominations and branches of Christianity—the fact is that probably the majority of Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians probably don’t have a firm grasp on many of the core tenets of the Christian faith. How could they? They are busy living their lives and there is only so much you can learn if the extent of your Christian life is a single Sunday service and possibly a Wednesday night service as well.
The danger of such nominal Christianity is that it too easily conforms itself to the passing fads and fancies of the culture. Sledge was a pastor during a time when “church growth programs” were all the rage, thus for him, Christianity was little more than that. In addition, the Evangelical Christian experience ever since the 80s has been often wrapped up in End Times speculation, an increased politicization of the faith, and more and more “apologetics ministries” that weren’t so much giving a defense of the historical Orthodox Christian faith, as they were making pseudo-scientific arguments for a young earth or were effectively reducing the Christian faith to little more than a rational proof that could be argued by intellect and reason alone. Sort of like, “If we can just prove Jesus rose from the dead—if we can just win that argument—the people will have to admit he is God!” …as if the entire Gospel is nothing more than winning an argument.
That is why that kind of brand of American Evangelicalism has proven to be so anemic. That kind of intellectual and spiritual vacuum does not produce mature image-bearers who grow up in Christ. There is a deep mystery and seriousness to the Christian faith that was handed down to us by the apostles. It is sacramental, not utilitarian. It evokes wonder and awe, not cheap debate points. It calls followers of Christ to humbly pick up their cross and die to themselves, while working out their salvation every day. It is a journey and a process of transformation. It is what Orthodoxy calls theosis—becoming more and more human by becoming more and more like Christ, and by becoming more and more like Christ, becoming more and more like God. Growing up into the fullness of Christ so that we can be the image-bearers of God we were created to be. It is a holy mystery and truly mystical understanding of reality. Sadly, that is something that just seems to be utterly missing in much of the Evangelical world. There is no sense of that sacramental and mystical worldview that lies at the heart of the historical Christian faith.
That is why Sledge’s book and life story is so sad. Despite living and pastoring within the Evangelical world for decades, he just “missed it” when it came to what Christianity really is. Sadly, that is probably the case for quite a bit of people. When you maintain a rather shallow and utilitarian understanding of the Christian faith, you are going to reduce everything to a program and you’re going to count Christian “success” in terms of numbers. And you’re going to be self-satisfied with half-baked, pseudo-intellectual arguments that you think “prove” Christianity is true and “wins the argument.”
At some point, though, all that is going to prove to be disappointing and vapid. And if you are like Sledge, you’re going to chuck the whole thing, only to have the exact same mentality as you try to “prove” Christianity is false and “win the argument” by appealing to the authority of the likes of Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier. Yet you’ll never realize you’ve just trade one set of half-baked propositions for another set of half-baked propositions.
And all the while, the narrow way awaits. But very few end up taking it.
I mostly agree with you, but I do have a question.
What do you mean by sacramental? When I became a believer, I was taught and still agree that there are ordinances in the faith, such as water baptism, communion, and baptism in the Holy Spirit and there are also practices such as a wedding ceremony often with symbolic elements, as well as attending worship services and going to a Bible study. Is your meaning similar or different or what?
Well, it is larger than just specific sacraments. It relates to the way in which human beings are to live and and relate to God’s creation. “Salvation” isn’t just “going to heaven when you die” (i.e. the way most Evangelicalism tends to view it), but it is a transformation of a person in the image of Christ/image of God, so that he/she can be that “priestly-king custodian” of God’s creation that was His intention for human beings to begin with. It means seeing everything we do in this world as a priestly action in which we offer it up to God.
This might sound odd, but it is the best example I can give. Once I joined the Orthodox Church and fell in love with the beauty of the liturgy, it seemed I “heard” the liturgy in everything I listened to–I heard the liturgy in Zeppelin. So, “sacramental” emphasizes truly a “different worldview,” in which everything is just seen in a different light.
Thanks, and I agree that salvation is much more than “fire insurance” as is commonly taught.
“And all the while, the narrow way awaits. But very few end up taking it.”
And there we agree, at least on the last half of that statement.
Surveys indicate that with each passing decade, fewer and fewer educated people in the industrialized Western world believe in the supernatural. Fewer and fewer people believe that “the narrow way” even exists! People are leaving Christianity in droves. Sledge is just one of tens of thousands. There are now more “nones” in the United States than there are Roman Catholics, who represent 20% of the US population! That is a dramatic change from just 10 years ago. Belief in the supernatural is dying in the educated West. Why? Answer: the evidence that the supernatural operates WITHIN our universe is slim to none! There may be (alleged) evidence for the existence of a creator, but such evidence in no way confirms that this creator has permitted the violation of his (her, their or its) natural laws, which by all evidence, have NEVER been violated since the moment of the Big Bang.
The fact that millions of people CLAIM to experience the supernatural is not good evidence. Several hundred years ago, every person on the planet claimed to experience the sun revolve around the earth. They were wrong. Subjective perceptions are NOT good evidence, even if they occur by the millions.
The truth is, the evidence strongly suggests that if there is a Creator, he is impotent, indifferent, or dead. Your god, Lord Jesus, died a long, long time ago. You can stop saying prayers to him. He can’t help you.
Science is our best and most reliable method of discovering universal truths, not ancient holy books.
So it doesn’t matter if we ex-evangelical-turned-atheist counter-apologists are still “fundamentalists” in the eyes of Christian philosophers and intellectuals, like yourself Joel. It doesn’t matter because the educated people of the West don’t buy the new and improved (sophisticated) version of Christianity any more than they buy the fundamentalist version. Sophisticated versions of Christianity such as yours are in decline in the West along with the rest of western Christianity. Is Orthodoxy growing by leaps and bounds? No. Young people are leaving and not coming back, just as in most other branches of Christianity.
And why isn’t the new and improved version of Christianity growing? It isn’t growing because the new and improved version still claims that a virgin was impregnated by a ghost and that a brain dead corpse came back to life to levitate into outer space. Most educated people (who are not indoctrinated as children by this religion) are just never going to accept these fantastical claims as historical facts. They see these claims for what they are: silly, scientifically ignorant tall tales. No amount of philosophy and sesquipedalian argumentation is going to save orthodox Christianity from going the way of the Greek and Roman religions…into the dustbin of history.
Belief in the supernatural is no longer the accepted cultural norm, Joel. And that is a BIG problem for Christian apologists.
“There may be (alleged) evidence for the existence of a creator, but such evidence in no way confirms that this creator has permitted the violation of his (her, their or its) natural laws, which by all evidence, have NEVER been violated since the moment of the Big Bang.”
–Spoken like a true deist who holds to a mechanistic understanding of the universe (something not too many scientists adhere to anymore).
–I’m sorry that you apparently think Christianity is all about giving “magical/supernatural” answers to scientific questions. You might as well go and criticize Robert Burns’ “My love is like a red rose” for being stupid because it gets botany all wrong. Sorry, you don’t even understand what you are criticizing.
Your sophisticated version of Christianity is not selling, Joel. Check the membership numbers of your denomination (and almost all other denominations). The truth is that Christianity is dying in the West. It is dying for one simple reason: More and more educated people no longer believe in the supernatural.
This is what you need to understand, Joel: Skeptics do not need to know one single philosophical concept to rationally reject your beliefs. Your entire belief system is based on the alleged existence of the supernatural, and the existence of the supernatural is no longer viewed as a given in our society. I predict that in just a few generations, Christian children will be embarrassed to admit to their schoolmates that their parents still believe in “gods” and “devils”.
Intellectual Chrisianity is a contradiction in terms; an oxymoron. Religious faith, however rational those experiencing it claim it to be, relies on belief in the supernatural. There is no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. It certainly isn’t ‘obvious’ as you’re fond of claiming. Intellectual arguments derived from belief in the supernatural are built therefore on an invalid premise.
You can pontificate all you like about the profundity of your beliefs but you’re doing no more than someone who intellectualizes the debate about whether the tooth fairy wears a pink dress or a blue one.
Your response is simply childish and petty, and based on a deistic assumption that takes a meat cleaver to the notions of “natural” and “supernatural.”
To say “Belief in the supernatural is irrational because you can’t ‘prove’ it by ‘natural’ means” is, in itself, an irrational an illogical statement.
All supernatural claims are superstitions except to those who believe them.
Christian apologists chortle at the supernatural claims of Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons but are shocked and indignant when they and other skeptics chortle at Christian supernatural claims. You do realize that Muslim, Hindu, and Mormon scholars have fabricated similar sophisticated rationalizations for *their* equally bizarre supernatural beliefs.
You don’t believe the supernatural claims of Mohammad and Joseph Smith because you believe they were liars or mentally unstable. I and many skeptics believe the same is true of Paul—the ONLY undisputed eyewitness to an alleged resurrected Jesus sighting.
How do you know that Paul was not mentally unstable or a liar, Joel? Why do you put so much trust in the word of ONE man who lived almost 2,000 years ago?
I dont think you really know much about other religions.
And the resurrection is not a “supernatural claim.” It is a historical claim.
What “supernatural claims” of Muhhamad are you referring to?
Nobody thinks Paul was mentally unstable or a liar.
Claiming that a dead corpse reanimated and transformed (resurrected) and then appeared to multiple members of his religious sect is a supernatural claim if there ever was one! You are playing word games.
Most Jewish and Muslim scholars believe that Paul was either a liar or mentally unstable. If you don’t believe me, listen to this Jewish rabbi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWfOd-6pTNI&feature=emb_logo
But let’s assume that Paul was not intentionally telling untruths and he was mentally healthy. Why do you base your entire life on the word of this ONE alleged eyewitness and the disputed (alleged) eyewitness testimony found in the stories of three of the four Gospels (there are no appearance claims in the original Gospel of Mark), books which the majority of NT scholars believe were not written by eyewitnesses or even by the associates of eyewitnesses?
You are just engaging in simplistic caricatures and baseless speculation.
And I dont “base my entire life on the word of one alleged eyewitness.” Again, an oversimplistic and childish caricature on your part.
Your entire worldview rests on the testimony of one first century man and four ancient stories, found in four ancient books, which most experts believe were written by authors with no connection whatsoever to the alleged characters in those stories.
And you claim that MY views are oversimplistic and childish.
Come on, Joel. Why don’t you admit that the real reason you believe this ancient tall tale is because of your intense subjective perceptions that the ghost of the man in question communicates with you in some mystical fashion each and every day!
Yes, the way you characterize the Christian faith is oversimplistic and childish, as your comment plainly shows.
Joel: Your overarching goal is to present a new and improved version of Christianity that commands respect among intellectuals. But until you drop the supernatural components of your new, sophisticated version of Christianity, few non-Christian intellectuals are going to find your beliefs…intellectual (intelligent). The truth is, your belief system is based on superstitions and insufficient evidence.
Science has proven to be a far superior method of universal truth discovery. Religion is always catching up to science, not the reverse. Trust science, Joel, not ancient holy books.
I didn’t say what your second statement quotes me as saying. You made it up; it’s a strawman, Joel.
As for your ‘rebuttal’ of my comment, did you demonstrate in what way it was petty and childish? Of course not; it’s is no more than ad hominem name calling.
Good going, Mr Intellectual; an ad hominem and a strawman in one comment. Very impressive.
The strawman is your depiction of what Christianity is. It is childish and petty. As for name-calling and ad hominem, equating Christianity with “belief in fairytales” is a perfect example of that.
And I wasnt saying you LITERALLY said that line. But it crystalizes the gist of your comments.
I was an agnostic and was headed for destruction in one way or the other until I had a Paul-like experience and became a believer. It was the hardest decision I ever made, but the best by far.
Please (briefly) share your Paul-like experience.
I was raised in a Presbyterian (PCUSA) church and never heard the gospel that I can recall. I was introduced to MJ in college and used it to relieve my depression. I was alone resting on my bed reading “Be Here Now” by Baba Ram Dass and getting more and more depressed, even on MJ, which was the first it did not work.
I cried out, “I have nothing to live for. What have I to live for?” Then I had a vision of a king on his throne and he said, “Do not live for yourself, live for me!” In my desperation I accepted the offer and was given a gift of a candle in my stomach that I could see when I closed my eyes. This was all super strange. My Sis asked me to come to her church. I agreed and when I was praising God my candle lit! Other things I did did not result in that. So I continued going. There is more, but that is a summary.
A short while later the candle went away. I asked God why so dramatic? And God’s answer was, “The dog was nipping at your heels.”
Interesting story, Donald. And I’m sure you sincerely believe it. But is it possible that this event only happened in your mind? How do you know it wasn’t a dream or day dream?
I agree that that first experience might have been a dream or a day dream or an illusion of some sort of wishful fantasy. But then things happened that strain my ability to see them as coincidence or fanciful.
I went into work following that Sunday and my boss asked me if I wanted to become a programmer and I went for an interview that same week, they offered me a job and I moved there within a month! This was an extremely rapid change in my circumstances. Moving cut me off from my supply of MJ and also meant that my on-again off-again relationship with my current sort-of-girlfriend was ended in a decisive way. She could always turn on the charm and draw me back in, but not now as I was a 1000 miles away, so I was freed in a way that I could not free myself.
On my final Sunday at my Sis’s church, they laid hands on me and prayed for me and I was baptised in the Holy Spirit. I was going to prophesy and I heard the words I was going to say, “God says …” The thing is, I had never ever heard of prophecy or that it was described in Scripture, I was totally clueless. One thing I did know was that I was not God, so I squelched myself from speaking the prophecy. For whatever reason, God had given me sign spiritual gifts and I knew NOTHING about them, I did not even know they were possible today. But I sure wanted to find out more ASAP and I did.
I’m sure the occurrence of so many odd events within a short period of time seems “miraculous” to you, but if we ask a large number of people, of many different religions and even agnostics and atheists, many people will admit to having experienced a bizarre sequence of odd events in a short period of time. So either Jesus is performing miracles for everyone, or your odd experience was merely a coincidence.
Trust science and reason, my friend, not your subjective perceptions of reality.
Peace and happiness!
Gary, I’m sorry, but you are not really “trusting science and reason,” and you are basing your opinions ultimately on your own subjective perceptions of reality. The entire Enlightenment creed, “I think, therefore I am,” is rooting all reality in the “Subjective I”–You are simply fooling yourself by saying, “I’m just going by science and reason.” You’re not.
Gary,
I do trust science and reason, that is one reason I follow Joel, he does also, and he like me is also a believer. These ideas of trusting science and reason and being a believer are not contradictory, despite the claim of many that they are.
Here is my claim: As a believer with sign gifts, sometimes I hear an “inner voice” that tells me things that I did not know or notice or whatever. I attribute that inner voice to God, but I agree it MIGHT be my subconscious thoughts or whatever. But this “inner voice” has steered me and given me important info at various times in my life. Because of its track record, I have learned to trust it. So I get all the benefits of science and reason plus a kicker that benefits me/us in ways that at least to me seem to be beyond science and reason. I accept all blessings that God wants to bestow on me.
When I was an agnostic, I, in effect, prayed a form of the agnostic’s prayer: “God, if there is a God, please reveal yourself to me.” As an agnostic, I really had no expectation for God to show up, but I was open to the possibility, as far out and fantastical as it seemed, as I was desperate. If and when you ever get desperate, I hope you remember this prayer.
You, Randal Rauser, and other “sophisticated” apologists have honed the skill of denigrating your skeptic debate opponents in a (desperate) attempt to win the argument. What else can you do? The evidence for your supernatural tall tale is so weak! You are quick to label most skeptics of Christianity as ignorant ‘fundamentalists’:
“The Bible is a very sophisticated, nuanced collection of books, of many different genres of literature. So only ignorant, knuckle-dragging fundamentalists—Christian or atheist—accept the plain and simple reading of the Bible as the intended meaning of the Bible authors. If you skeptics only had my level of intelligence, education, and sophistication, you would see the obvious truth that virgins really can give birth to demi-gods and brain dead corpses really can levitate into outer space.”
Disputed, 2,000 year old, eyewitness testimony for a walking, talking (resurrected) dead body sighting is NOT good evidence, Joel. If someone told you that someone told them that 500 people in rural Uganda saw a corpse exit its grave and levitate into space, I will be good money that you would not believe it. So why do you believe a similar claim from the first century? I’ll tell you why: Your subjective perception that THIS dead guy lives somewhere within you!
It is amazing how you cannot see how you are just spouting Fundie misconceptions. It doesnt take a great degree of intelligence to just read properly.
The problem for you, my friend, is that modern people see through the sophisticated smoke screen you have created; a smoke screen created to maintain your childhood belief in your invisible friend, Jesus.
Dr. Anderson is right. Gary and Neil don’t understand what they’re making fun of.
The version of Christianity Dr. Anderson is pushing isn’t “new and improved” at all, but indeed, has been around for 2.000 years. As a practicing evangelical, I have no problem admitting that, sadly, much of modern evangelicalism is a caricature of real, orthodox historic Christian belief.
If Gary and Neil wish to mock that caricature, have at it, fellas; I might even join you! But don’t kid yourselves into thinking that what you’re making fun of is real, orthodox Christianity.
It’s akin to watching Monty Python’s *Life of Brian* then deciding that if that’s what the real Jesus was like I don’t want any part of that ridiculous messiah nonsense.
The reason many modern intellectuals abandon organized religion, esp. Christianity, has absolutely nothing to do with a rise in science. In the 13th c. Thomas Aquinas saw no divide between faith and science. Nor did Isaac Newton in the 17th or Fr. Georges Lemaitres (the Roman Catholic monsignor who developed the Big Bang Theory) in the 20th. Nor does Dr. Francis Collins (former director of the Human Genome Project) in the 21st.
Most of the atheists I’ve met are not atheists for intellectual reasons but are atheists for much more subjective reasons. That they can’t or won’t see that is sad indeed.
Being an atheist does *not* guarantee objectivity. Nor is the almost paranoid skepticism of anything even remotely supernatural or religious evidenced by Gary and Neil, evidence of critical thinking.
Pax.
Lee.
Besides which, who says it’s “irrational” to believe in things (eg the supernatural) which science can’t prove or disprove? Seems to me to make that argument is to do so based upon a preconceived idea–namely that *only* what science can prove should be believed. Or that reality *only* consists in what science can *prove* exists. That idea smacks of scientism to me, this idea that nothing is real which science can’t prove or explain. But *why* should reality be that way?
I mean, human consciousness exists yet science still can’t explain how inanimate matter evolved into conscious, thinking, self-aware, moral matter. And IF, as many scientists argue, evolution hasn’t wired human beings to discover Truth, but merely to survive, how can we even trust that our concept of science is truthful and accurate?
Pax.
Lee.
It seems to me that fundamentalists make the mistake of believing that it’s “all or nothing,” meaning that either all of fundamentalism’s claims about the Christ, the Bible and Christianity are true, or none of them are. They never seem to come to grips with the fact that their fundamentalist presuppositions were/are just that-presuppositions and that the truth of Christianity doesn’t and never has depended upon said presuppositions. One would sort of expect someone like Ehrman, a critical thinker and PhD, to have sorted all of this out by now.
Hundreds if not thousands of other believers–including other PhDs-have been able to see the difference and make the transition (I did it myself; I discarded much of fundamentalism without chucking my faith), which causes me to believe that the main objections of skeptics like Prof. Ehrman actually have nothing to do with intellectual issues but are coming from somewhere else. It also reaffirms my observation that merely being an academic scholar doesn’t guarantee one will be objective or free of bias.
Ehrman’s objections after I read them in his other books surprised me, mainly due to the fact that he’s obviously a brilliant scholar and gifted author, one who did his graduate studied under the late great Bruce Metzger, no less. And yet other scholars like Evans (and Metzger before him) have substantially addressed all of Ehrman’s major arguments, certainly the ones he keeps making in his popular books.
For example, I was very disappointed with Ehrman’s grasp of the nuances of OT theology in his *How Jesus Became God,* and in particular how he totally glosses over the Shema and the way Paul reframes it around Jesus.
Anyway, very interesting topic.
Pax.
Lee.