I Survived the Christian Right: Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home
By Michael Camp • Feb 4th, 2010 • Category: thinkingOK, I confess. There are only nine lessons, but ten sounds better.
A quest for a reasoned faith based on honest questioning. That was largely what my 25-year sojourn in evangelicalism was about. Although evangelicals are not a monolithic block comprised only of conservatives (progressive evangelicals are becoming more influential), I found the movement and my experience saturated with the mindset of the Christian Right.
This mindset often calls things “truth” when they are only half-truth, thus making falsehood hard to detect. I didn’t find my whole experience bogus—I was and still am enthralled with Jesus’ teaching, signs of God working in my life, and supportive of things evangelicals do right, like fighting poverty through organizations like World Vision. But what I increasingly found was a lack of authenticity and reasoned perspectives on faith.
I weathered the theological storm and made it home to a progressive Christianity, taking with me valuable insights derived from ten eye-opening discoveries. There I go again. I mean nine. The following are lessons readers open to new paradigms can learn. I touch on the evidence behind these lessons by citing sources the reader can follow and provide a fuller explanation of them in a forthcoming book.
Lesson 1: Avoid Legalism Like the Plague
One day I was enjoying a beer with a friend in a popular pub near my home when I noticed someone who went to my former evangelical church. After I picked myself off the floor due to shock from seeing him in a bar, we greeted each other and I asked if he still attended.
“I finally left last year,” the man said.
“Do you mind me asking why you left?” I asked.
“I got tired of jumping through hoops.”
What an apt way of describing what I also experienced in the majority of the six or seven evangelical churches I attended over the years. Why do some churches make our faith journey into an obstacle course on a field of required religious practices and doctrines? Could legalistic control have something to do with it? Again, there are some admirable exceptions, but as Brennan Manning once said, “the American church accepts grace in theory, but denies it in practice.”1
Evangelical Christians largely conform to a performance-oriented approach to God: Regularly attend church to worship God our way, pray and read the Bible daily, go to a home group, adhere to a particular statement of faith, believe the right dogma and the future return of Christ, be pro-life, dress modestly, don’t drink (or if you do, please don’t do it in front of us), avoid risqué movies, don’t put swear words, sex scenes, or questionable doctrines in your books,2 refrain from producing music on a secular recording label, and whatever you do, don’t vote for a Democrat. And those are the more moderate rules! In summary, avoid contamination by the world, heretics, and liberals and insulate yourself in the squeaky-clean alternate evangelical world we created.
I saw many evangelicals forget that “we are no longer under the supervision of the law,”3 and “whoever loves his fellow human being has fulfilled the law.”4 The lesson? Evangelicalism is inundated with religious baggage and a host of man-made written and unwritten regulations that have nothing to do with authentic spirituality. Since “Christ is the end of the law”5 or a law-based approach to God, we are free to govern ourselves under Christ’s one overriding law of love.
Find ways to love God and love your neighbor and don’t worry about fitting into some legalistic evangelical mold. Or any kind of Christian mold, for that matter.
[1] Manning, Brennan, The Ragamuffin Gospel, page 14
[2]For instance, several Christian publishers rejected the book, The Shack. Subsequent editors eliminated blatant references to universalism before publishing it according to James B. De Young in an article entitled, Revisiting The Shack and Universal Reconciliation.
[3] Galatians 3:25
[4] Romans 13:8
[5] Romans 10:4
Michael Camp is a former development missionary for evangelical aid organizations and a church-planting ministry. He lived in Africa for seven years, earned a Master degree at Eastern University, and was a senior writer for World Vision. These “heretical” lessons and more evidence for them are in a book he is currently writing entitled Confessions of a Bible Thumper: My Sojourn as an Evangelical and Quest for a Reasoned Faith. Addicted to multi-tasking, he is also brewing a second book in his mind with the working title, Smart Ways to Change the World (and Avoid Unintended Consequences). To follow his progress and read more of his ideas, visit his blog at Deep Thought Pub.
Email this author | All posts by Michael Camp
This item mirrors my personal experience. I will watch for your book with interest. Do you have an ETA?
Enjoy the journey. Like you I strongly dislike legalistic thinking and practice. I personally ascribe to being moderate in all things. I love secular music, dancing, having a mixed drink but I do not like swear words at all. Love is the thing. Doing each moment what you think would be the most loving thing to do. Offering grace to others as Jesus did cannot be done without the help of The Holy Spirit, at least for me. However, how are folks going to know what grace is unless we have offered it to them. Mending the world, offering love, mercy and grace and practicing and offering justice for all, these are the important things not living legalistically. I admire some of the evangelicals like Tony Campolo, etc. Hope you will post the other (9).
matthew,
Ah, the ever elusive ETA. I’m shooting by the end of the year but I’m still in the finding-the-right-agent stage. Check my blog or follow me on Twitter from my blog, to check for updates. Thanks for your interest.
Micheal
Growing up Orthodox Catholic I thought I was getting free of Sacrificial Systems when I left to “Have a Personal Relationship with Jesus” Then a whole new Sacrificial System was put in it’s place i.e. 1. The bible as the forth person in the trinity. 2. verse by verse & chapter by chapter legalism. 3. Learning to win people for Jesus by good debate skills. 4th The eventual damnation of most souls due to their not accepting the aforementioned set of ideas. Thank God for a steady stream of progressive catholic thinkers as well as some protestant fellow travelers like yourself brother.
Pastor Bill Langill jr.
From Middle Earth
#1 is a great lesson. Unfortunately, I’ve found that one of the results of legalism on those who leave it is a pendulum swing in which they avoid any kind of norms or firm standards like a plague. When I worked for Every Church a Peace Church as Outreach Coordinator, I found that liberal churches, while generally “for peace,” were reluctant to say that violence or war were always wrong. That struck them as “legalism” or “judgmental” to those in the military. On the other hand, if evangelical congregations were convinced that Jesus taught pacifism, that settled things.
One of the big questions of the American churches is how they can avoid both legalism and a form of tolerance that simply devolves into normless “anything goes.”
Michael WW,
You are right. The risk is people avoiding standards. But avoiding legalism doesn’t mean “anything goes.” It means measuring ones behavior by the law of love, not legalistic demands. If a behavior violates love for a neighbor, it is wrong. Of course, that means individuals need to police themselves, which is just too scary for the Caretakers of Religion. They rather control people. Inevitably, not everyone will agree on what is acceptable but it is appropriate for people to make a case for a “normal standard” based on love. This is far superior, in my mind, than the system of control that is present in many churches and that is the basis for all Religion.
Michael Camp, I agree with your thinking. Even in ethics, one ethic has several ways that it can be worked out or lived out. Nothing is black and white but legalism trys to make it only black and white. All of the new testament, for me, is all about love and making our actions intentional based on love. This calls for moment by moment discernment on our part. With the help of The Holy Spirit an individual must call upon their knowledge of the bible, their previous experiences of God and their education. This is a difficult path to travel and we cannot do it alone. God and others must help us but the final decision of what is to be done, is ours. The bullet stops with me. If all our actions are accomplished in this manor then love will prevail in the end. We must always consider what affect our words and actions will have in any situation so that it is for the best for all concerned. Debating was previously mentioned but I do not think this is a good method, it is too much like legalism and you have a winner in the end. In love there is a win win situation not just one winner that by being the winner feels superior to another. Using the method of intentionality, we will make mistakes as we go because we do not know enough or experienced enough. However, with practice, more learning, more experience we get better and better. We are always in progression. This is a process and a journey with mistakes made along the way but that is the journey of faith, falling down and getting back up. Finding spiritual practices and using them to open ourselves to the wisdom and presence of God will help us on this journey of mending the world and treating all with the respect and love each child of God deserves. For me, every person born into this world is a child of God. It’s not based on what we believe. Conversaton around a table with others is a great way to allow for intentional love and everyone has a say. We learn by sharing with each other not dictating to anyone. One on one conversations sometimes allows for more intimate conversation but is more difficult, you use the value others bring to the table. I think conversation is far superior to debate or any dictorial practice. You cannot force anyone to do something against their desire or belief, or should not. We, like God, can only guide and nudge. LOVE IS THE THEME !!!!
I’m wondering if it is really possible to avoid “legalism”. Isn’t any ethical, moral, or social value labeled “legalism” if you disagree with it, but not if you agree?
For example, I’ve been in a small discussion group (you might even call it a home church) for several years. Last year a racist started showing up and voicing his opinion. Were we being “legalistic” about his views when we confronted his racism? Should we have accepted racism as a value welcomed in our discussions? We never told him to leave, but I’m sure our disagreement with his views felt to him exactly like the “hoops” in our former fundamentalist/Evangelical churches.
People gather around common values. If you avoid sharing any value in public discourse that may not have 100% agreement, then you won’t have much to say. Any expression of a shared value in your group is legalism toward any person who doesn’t share the same value.
Mike L.,
Confronting legalism doesn’t mean people abandon their ethical, moral, and social values. Legalism is a strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit. It’s an over emphasis on codes of conduct and under emphasis on personal freedom. Sure, your group has a value of not being racist, but how is that legalistic? You love all equally and encourage others to do the same. That’s not being legalistic. Christ’s way is making the law of love the rule, and not a set of behavior codes. So, one still has a love ethic to follow. Legalism is more when a church or individual makes a strict code of conduct a requirement for salvation or acceptance or pleasing God, so a person is measured, not by how they love others, but how well they perform a duty–attend a church, meeting, regular prayer, follow a code of speech, dress, refrain from certain taboos, strictly conform to rules, etc.