1. I’m allergic to contempary Christian music.
2. I never believed in the inerrancy of the Bible (and think it’s rather obvious it’s not inerrant) and got tired of hiding that fact.
3. I realized biblicism (the notion that the Bible is infallible, internally consistent, universally applicable, contains all the truth we need, and makes us certain about most everything) is intellectually hallow and dishonest (see The Bible Made Impossible).
4. I think it’s not only fine to try to ascertain what Jesus meant or what Bible authors meant, in the original culture, but more importantly, if we don’t, we’re not taking the Bible seriously. We love tradition over truth.
5. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to pick and choose what one thinks is inspired and true in the Bible. After all, that’s how the Bible was composed. Someone else picked and chose and copied and translated, so why can’t we? Why do we have to take it on faith and they get to decide? How does one do that you ask? Have an open mind, look at objective biblical scholarship, use some common sense, and let the Spirit speak to your heart. What? You think that’s crazy? If accepting everthing at face value works, then why does evangelicalism have a thousand denominations and opinions about what the Bible teaches?
6. Despite 2-5 above, I think much of the Bible is inspired by God.
7. After studying the historical and cultural context of the Bible and learning how it has sometimes been miscopied, and frequently mistranslated and misinterpreted (by people who care more about tradition than truth), I find it a remarkably progressive book–okay, okay, minus that stuff about genocide and killing women and children, etc.
8. I might be called to love him, but I don’t like Rick Warren, and especially those Hawaiian shirts he wears.
9. R.C. Sproul defending Mark Driscoll makes me a bit nauseous. Okay, a lot nauseous.
10. I not only think believing in The Rapture is delusional, but also believing we live in the end times too.
11. I believe Jesus already returned (figuratively) in the first century (you gotta read my book).
12. I believe the Bible teaches the good guys get left behind (again, it’s in the book).
13. I sometimes agree with R.C. Sproul. For example, he actually pretty much believes #11 too.
14. Going to a U2 concert is a spiritual experience for me.
15. I no longer believe evolution is the enemy.
16. I think intelligent design is a grand idea that needs to be seriously considered.
17. I think one can be a practicing gay or lesbian and still follow Christ.
18. I’m a microbrew enthusiast and love to talk theology over a couple of brews.
19. Rick Perry makes me really nervous (but not as much as Sarah Palin).
20. I hate sexual exploitation but find some erotica perfectly acceptable for adults.
21. I think the evangelical church is sex-negative (okay, there are a few good evangelical marriage sex manuals out there, but that’s the only exception).
22. I think Charlize Theron is hot and I’m not afraid to admit it.
23. I voted for Barak Obama. I still support him but see a lot of things he could do better.
24. I hate it when Republicans accuse Obama of doing or proposing things that George W. Bush (increased the deficit by $5 trillion) and Ronald Reagan did (raised taxes 11 times).
25. I think what evangelicals call “church” is a non-biblical, man-made construct (back to my book, and yes, these are shameless plugs!).
26. I think nine times out of ten spiritual disciplines (praying, fasting, time in the Word, worship, going to cutting-edge, spiritual conferences, and following the latest, trendy book — think Purpose Driven Life) becomes a legalistic treadmill.
27. After studying the issue and examining the historical and biblical evidence, I became a Universalist.
28. I think the emergent “conversation” is good (and I really like Brian McLaren), but wish they’d come to a concluson once in awhile. Just for grins.
29. I often disagree with Bishop Spong, but sometimes I do agree with him.
30. I like Bishop Spong way more than Rick Warren or Mark Driscoll.
31. I think the truth is embodied in a composite of Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Please comment, challenge me, and share your own lists of where you’re at!

Rethinking a Messiah’s Miracle

I’m struck how this miracle—Jesus’ first—and most of his good works, were not performed in churches or synagogues, but among the riffraff and ragamuffins; in homes, at parties, and among common folk outdoors. In fact, most people are surprised to hear that Jesus didn’t found a new religion or an institutional church,[1] nor expect his followers to set up a Christian version of the synagogue. His “church” he spoke of was known in Greek as ekklesia, which merely means a gathering of people under a common cause. The same word is used for a “mob” in the book of Acts.[2] It is not a human institution with professional salaried clergy, a clergy-laity distinction, meetings in buildings, church budgets, hierarchal leadership, and legalistic requirements, such as tithing; most of these were elements the later Roman church adopted and borrowed from pagan culture.[3] This doesn’t mean modern churches are bad (although they can become so and even oppressive when an environment of legalism is allowed to breed), just that they’re optional.[4]

Why dwell on an alternate scenario of the Master’s first miracle? It just might help us see past the religious lens most of us peer through when we imagine Jesus. He is just as likely to create fine microbrews as wine at a party (perhaps more so since most beer is significantly lower in alcohol content than wine). He was known to hang out with gluttons and whores,[5] approved of august celebrations, reminded us he didn’t come to destroy lives,[6] always remembered the poor, and read from a version of the Bible that celebrates human sexuality, rather graphically.

WWJB? We keep coming back to what he would not brew to answer that question. He would make fine wine, craft choice beer, nurture unselfish love, but never, I contend, brew a spirit of religion that cultivates fear, spiritual manipulation, and a legalistic approach to life.

[1] Gary Wills, What Jesus Meant, page 78.

[2] Wills, op. cit. page 78.

[3] Frank Viola and George Barna, Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, page xix.

[4] A Pew poll the week of August 20, 2010 found 18 percent of Americans think President Barak Obama is a Muslim, only one third correctly identify him as a Christian, and 43 percent have no idea what his religion is. The fact that Obama and his family haven’t joined a Christian church as of the time of the poll may influence these confused perspectives and highlights how Americans often put more stock in superficial religiosity than genuine Christian charity.

[5] Matthew 11:19 and 21:31

[6] Luke 9:56

Check out Part 1 and Part 2 of this series.

Rethinking a Messiah’s Miracle

Might I suggest Jesus would favor brewing up a batch of European varieties such as the Floreffe Special Reserve, a rich dark beer seasoned with anise spice and orange peel. At eight percent alcohol content, this Belgium Ale is a joy to drain and represents a choice brew that would easily match the words of the party master when he says, “You saved the best for last.” Perhaps we should do the same. No, we can’t always do what Jesus did, but at times we can emulate his example. We can bless others by “saving the best gifts for last” and love our neighbors to the end with increasing kindness, beyond their expectations.

I wonder if Jesus would give us a taste of his sense of humor. If not a Belgium beer, I imagine him turning water from kegs into one of my favorite Pacific Northwest microbrews. Perhaps a Silver City (near Seattle, WA) Scotch Ale, aged in American Oak with a tinge of whiskey. He would anticipate the lovemaking of the bride and groom that would occur later that night and honor them and their guests with this award-winning choice appropriately named, Fat Woody. After tasting it, the banquet master would laugh at the bridegroom (remember, in the story, he doesn’t realize the wine comes from Jesus and not the groom), when he recognizes the exceptional beer and remembers its name.

“Scandalous to even think of such a thing,” an uptight believer might say. Yet, dwell on this: If Jesus shared with the crowds a scripture appropriate for a wedding, he wouldn’t be constrained by many of the mistranslations we have in our modern Bibles.1 He may remember the Song of Songs when Solomon writes “Your love is more delightful than wine,”2 referring to a beautiful maiden doling over her man. Knowing the scriptures like the back of his hand, he might recall the man and woman describing each other’s nude bodies. You read that right: Nude. First, there is the reference to the woman’s breasts being like clusters of fruit. Then, even though our modern translations use the words “navel” or “body” in a couple passages, the correct Hebrew words in the manuscripts from which we derive ours were euphemisms for female and male genitalia.3 Gotta be naked to notice those. At times our modern Bibles are incorrect and Song of Songs is a tad pornographic—in good taste.

What are some more possibilities? Being concerned with getting to the original truth, perhaps he would create something from the oldest brewery in the world—the origin of beer—the Bavarian Wiehenstephan. Its malty, Dark Wheat Beer, would be worthy of a King. Or maybe an American version of a great German beer, like the Silver City Oktoberfest, an amber lager with a rich malty sweetness. Then there’s the infamous Portland, Oregon Deschutes Brewery. One of their reserve brews like the Imperial Stout, called The Abyss (one beer writer calls it precious stuff), would fit the bill. With delightful hints of molasses, licorice, and chocolate flavors, this 11 percenter would be a fine choice for Jesus to craft, although I trust the banquet master would insist it be served in smaller glasses to encourage moderation.

1. Michael Camp, Beware of Bible Abuse
2. Song of Songs 1:2
3. See Lawrence, Raymond, Sexual Liberation: The Scandal of Christendom, page 23, referring to Song of Songs 5:14 and 7:2.

Check out Part 1 of this series.

WWJB? It’s a legitimate question. Jesus drank with the best of them.1 He made choice wine from water at a wedding in Cana—and lots of it. About 150 gallons. In case you’re wondering, that’s about 800 bottles. And it was good stuff.

“You saved the best for last,” said the master of the banquet to the bridegroom.2 All proof that Jesus approved of earthly celebrations and drinking, despite the fact that some fundamentalists make the ludicrous claim that his wine wasn’t fermented. It was. The Greek word used is oinos, which means fermented drink derived from grapes. In fact, in the Torah, God told the Israelites to use a portion of their tithe to buy food, wine, and strong drink—whatever their appetites craved—for an annual party.3 Like the Cana wedding, it was a time of rejoicing, which the Psalmist echoed when he said “He makes wine that gladdens the heart of man [and woman].”4 The scriptures tell us the abundance of wine is a divine blessing.5

Don’t get nervous, teetotalers. God does not approve of alcohol abuse. Paul told his hearers “don’t get drunk with wine”6 in the Greek continuous tense; meaning don’t be in the habit of overindulging.7 The implication is, it’s fine to tie one on with restraint once in a while, as the Israelites were encouraged to do once a year; just beware of the dangers of drunkenness, in other words, alcoholism. It will ruin your life. Today, unlike biblical times, it is complicated by the deadly combination of drinking and driving.

But what of societies where moderate imbibing is practiced responsibly? If Jesus was invited to a wedding in Belgium or Germany or the home of an American microbrewer, and his mother Mary was worried because they ran out of beer, what would he brew? You can bet your bottom dollar it wouldn’t be Bud Lite.

As a microbrew enthusiast I’d like to offer a few suggestions. Just as the water-into-wine miracle teaches us about God’s lavish provision, his concern over a host’s embarrassment about a poorly planned wedding party, and the importance of bounteous celebrations of life and love, our delving into a WWJB scenario will uncover eye-opening revelations. Ones you can test out in real life. And, if you’re inclined, at the local pub.

We already began with what he wouldn’t brew. Let’s explore that further. As much as I love the Canadian Ale, La Fin du Monde, a robust, flavorful triple-fermentation with a nine percent wallop, I doubt Jesus would brew it. Why? The English translation of this French-named beer is “The End of the World.” My contention is Jesus doesn’t want to send us that message. Some Evangelical Christians delight in saying his return is imminent along with seven years of harrowing tribulation with nothing to look forward to but Judgment Day. They then use this claim to convince you to “accept Jesus” so you’re spared the horror. As I have written elsewhere,8 this interpretation of New Testament eschatology is misguided and naïve. Jesus spoke of the end of the age, meaning the era of Jewish Temple worship (which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD), not the end of the world. Lavish provision and celebrations of life are still in play. We may need to limit them for ourselves at times, but not due to a looming apocalyptic global catastrophe, but rather so we can show concern for the poor and empower them to join the party. Spiritual manipulation through fear is not what Jesus is about, which also highlights how his teaching on hell is misinterpreted.9

1. Matthew 11:19
2. John 2:1-10
3. Deuteronomy 14:26
4. Psalm 104:14-15
5. Genesis 27:28
6. Ephesians 5:18
7. Darwin Chandler, The Royal Law of Liberty, pages 252-253
8. Michael Camp, Last Days Delusions
9. Michael Camp, Embrace Universal Life

To be continued…

Lesson 9
Embrace Universal Life

Before I went to Malawi and early on in my evangelical walk in 1982 I got one major thing right. Faith in Jesus includes emulating his concern for the poor. I packed my bags, joined an evangelical relief agency and headed off to the “ends of the earth,” in this case Somalia, to aid refugees devastated by war.

I also wanted to share my faith with Muslims. My evangelical theology taught me they were lost without someone like me converting them. It didn’t take long to see the logical conclusion of that doctrine. The overwhelming majority of Muslims, steeped in their own fundamentalist religion since birth, were not coming to Jesus. They were toast. Burnt toast and destined for an eternity in hell according to evangelical theology. Problem was, I didn’t buy it. Since I experienced God’s love personally and felt divine love for my Muslim friends, I surmised God’s character demands Henot destine people to eternal separation and torment. I adopted, and kept secret for the most part, the very minority position of inclusivism…that salvation is possible outside of Christendom.

Fast forward to my seventeenth (I lost count) crisis of faith in 2007. Having changed my view on scriptural inerrancy and authority, the church, tithing, the return of Jesus, sexuality, and gay rights, why not go for broke? I had become an open-minded seeker desperately trying to prevent my brains from leaking out. After reading three thoughtful, progressive evangelical authors⁶¹ and another former Pentecostal minister,⁶² a long-time puzzle was solved. Through a combination of Bible abuse and upholding man-made tradition, the evangelical church had squelched a view of salvation that had been espoused by several church fathers including Origen and Gregory of Nyasa.⁶³ It was universal reconciliation…that all would eventually be reconciled to God, thus more in line with God’s character of unconditional love. “Even while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”⁶⁴

Turns out that pesky word “eternal” used in conjunction with “punishment” and supposedly talking about hell doesn’t really mean forever. A better translation is “punishment of the age to come,” for the Greek word aionios is more accurately rendered “pertaining to an age.”⁶⁵ Also, the Greek word for “punishment” always refers to the remedial variety.⁶⁶ So, universal reconciliation doesn’t mean God doesn’t punish evil, just that it’s temporary. I concluded that Paul was right all along: “As in Adam, all will die, in Christ, all will be made alive.”⁶⁷

If you’re going to believe, believe in the really good news.⁶⁸

Certain and Uncertain

As much as I defend these nine lessons, I’m not insisting I’ve suddenly arrived at absolute certain truth. What I am saying is that we must be willing to go where the evidence leads even if it goes against out long-standing tradition or personal bias. Although I believe Christians can be certain of many things (the historical Jesus, his practical and spiritual wisdom, a transcendent meaning and power in the world…God…and a new way of relating to God found in the good news of Jesus), we should hold many views lightly because most of us don’t have a clue what really was happening culturally when Jesus spoke about his coming again, or the aionios punishment of the age, or when Paul spoke of porneia or arsenokoitai, or how the Bible was compiled, copied, and made into a canon of scripture by an editorial committee in the fourth century. There will always be an element of mystery and uncertainty.⁶⁹ If we are to come to sound conclusions about the Christian faith, we must ensure we humbly attempt to follow a reasoned course and not swallow whole what others before us have said…be they conservative or liberal…without careful evaluation.

[61] Talbot, Thomas, The Inescapable Love of God, MacDonald, Gregory, The Evangelical Universalist, and Keith DeRose, http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm

[62] Pearson, Carlton, The Gospel of Inclusion

[63] MacDonald, Gregory, The Evangelical Universalist, page 173

[64] Romans 5:8

[65] MacDonald, George, Op. cit. page 147

[66] Talbot, Thomas, The Inescapable Love of God

[67] I Corinthians 15:22

[68] Luke 2:10 – “I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all people.”

[69] Schaeffer, Frank, Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism)

Lesson 8
Science vs. Religion – Go Where the Evidence Leads

Us vs. them attitudes are in the science vs. religion and creation vs. evolution debates. Typically, the people debating are the extremists, who only see things in black and white. There can be no mixing of their cherished positions. Fundamentalist young-earth creationists who believe in a 10,000 year-old earth based on a literal interpretation of the Bible are pitted against fundamentalist evolutionists, like the New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris as opposed to reasonable atheists like Michael Ruse), who mock all theists for believing in the myth of God and the fairytale of religion. Yet 67 percent of Americans say it is possible to believe in both God and evolution.⁴⁸ The media often reinforces these polarities by distorting any moderate views. For example, they rarely differentiate non-literalist old-earth creationists (who include reputable scientists and technically, theistic evolutionists who believe God created the first life forms) and lump them together with the antiquated ideas of the Dark Ages. Given these realities, here are the lessons I learned:

Evolution is not the enemy. First, it’s possible to reconcile evolution with a biblical worldview. Francis Collins does it persuasively.⁴⁹ Don’t let staunch atheists who have an axe to grind tell you evolution proves there is no God. They delude themselves.⁵⁰ Nor should you allow staunch creationists to argue evolution is incompatible with the Bible. They hold to a rigid literalism.

Evolution is not immune to criticism. Evolution is usually portrayed as one specific unified theory held by all reputable scientists. There are in fact several competing theories and many ways to look at the scientific data. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium that critiqued the Darwinian view of continuous gradual evolution. Gould said the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions of biological design was a nagging problem for gradualistic evolution.⁵¹ Eldredge said the fossil record screams loudly that what Darwin theorized…slow, steady, evolution…is not the case.⁵² Molecular Biologist Michael Denton critiqued orthodox Darwinism in his landmark book⁵³ and subsequently made the case for a form of guided evolution.⁵⁴ Biologist Dean Kenyon, who pioneered evolutionary self-organizational theory, later repudiated it and embraced a design hypothesis.⁵⁵

Intelligent design is neither the enemy nor immune to criticism. Intelligent Design (ID) theory is commonly represented as a fundamentalist wolf in sheep’s clothing. The facts don’t warrant this. ID theory is misused by the Christian Right to bolster their exclusivism⁵⁶ and therefore deemed guilty by association. It should be examined critically, but remarkably diverse intellectuals support the idea. These include agnostic mathematician and Darwinism-critic David Berlinski⁵⁷ and the former most renowned atheist in the world, Antony Flew, who announced to a shocked world that intelligent design must have been involved in the origin of the coded chemistry in DNA.⁵⁸ Moreover, ID is not incompatible with evolution. Tenured professor of microbiology Michael Behe, a leading ID proponent, holds to the evolutionary tenet of common descent.⁵⁹ Finally, critics who claim ID is not a real scientific theory probably have not carefully evaluated the case.⁶⁰

Question the rhetoric of the extremists and look carefully at the evidence for both theistic evolution and intelligent design. Go where the evidence leads.

[48] CBS News poll, October 23, 2005

[49] Collins, Francis, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

[50] Berlinski, David, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

[51] Gould, Stephen J., Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? Paleobiology, vol 6 (1), p. 119-130 (1980)

[52] Eldredge, Niles, Confessions of a Darwinist, The Virginia Quarterly Review, Spring 2006

[53] Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

[54] Denton, Michael, Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe

[55] I heard Kenyon speak at a Discovery Institute event in Seattle, WA in the summer of 2007

[56] The Christian Right-influenced Dover, PA school board forced teachers to make a pro intelligent-design statement in classrooms, despite the advice of the Discovery Institute not to do so.

[57] Berlinski, David, The Deniable Darwin

[58] Flew, Antony, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, page 95 and 123

[59] Behe, Michael, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, page 182.

[60] Meyer, Stephen C., Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, pages 403-415

Lesson 7
Support Gay Rights Not Wrongs

Most of my evangelical friends thought I went off the deep end when I changed my view on this issue. I have to admit, for years I had wondered how anyone could defend homosexuality in light of certain passages of the Bible. But that was before 2004, when I did an honest study of those passages and discovered misinterpretations andbefore I learned that several words in those passages are almost certainly mistranslated.

It started when I began hearing stories from Christian gay people on how they had pleaded for God’s help to overcome their “sin” of homosexuality. They were saying it didn’t work. A personal friend told me a similar story. Despite seeking help in “ex-gay” ministries, God wasn’t changing them into heterosexuals nor taking away their sex drives.⁴⁰ I read a Philip Yancey book⁴¹ where he recommended people read Mel White’s story (without endorsing his conclusions).⁴² White was a former ghostwriter for evangelical heavy weights and had come out declaring his homosexuality and the futility of trying to change. It was then that I clearly saw there was a pastoral problem with homosexuality. But was there a scriptural problem? Was there evidence evangelicals were misreading the Bible on this issue?

Turns out there is. For instance, one word in the Greek New Testament commonly translated “homosexual,” is the word, arsenokoitai, which is rarely found in ancient literature and whose meaning is uncertain.⁴³ It must be a condemned sexual behavior but does not denote homosexuality across the board. To translate it “homosexual” without at least including a footnote about its ambiguity is irresponsible. To understand what the New Testament teaches on homosexuality, one must understand the landscape of sexual practices in the first century.⁴⁴

For instance, when Paul talks of homosexuality in Romans, he’s speaking in the context of idolatry. Historical and literary context leads many scholars to conclude that when the Bible alludes to homosexuality it is talking about common forms of it in the ancient world, namely pederasty,⁴⁵ cultic prostitution,⁴⁶ and homosexual rape (e.g. implied in the story of Sodom), and not committed, loving homosexual relationships, which are supported by Christian movements like Metropolitan Community Church, SoulForce, and even the late Lewis Smedes,⁴⁷ an evangelical author who taught at Fuller Seminary.

Don’t misread the Bible on homosexuality. Open your heart to the plight of gay people who can’t change their orientation despite well-intentioned efforts.

[40] Stossel, John, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel…Why Everything You Know is Wrong, page 185.

[41] Yancey, Philip, What’s So Amazing About Grace

[42] White, Mel, Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America.

[43] See Campolo, Tony, Speaking my Mind, page 67 and Rogers, Jack, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, pages 73-74

[44] Helminiak, Daniel, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality and Cannon, Justin R., The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality

[45] The oppressive male-initiation practice in the Greco-Roman world of men having sex with boys

[46] For example, Cybelene worship in Corinth, Athens, Ephesus, and Rome, which included castrated male priests, and the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth, which had 1000 sacred female prostitutes. See Stark, Rodney, Cities of God, pages 50 and 92.

[47] http://www.soulforce.org/article/748

Lesson 6
Have Sensible Sex

By now, I’m sure some have declared me a full-fledged heretic. Brace yourself, there’s more. Now for something totally uncomfortable…the subject of religion and sex. In my experience, with some noble exceptions (there are some excellent evangelical marriage manuals on sex), the evangelical church has largely been sex-negative, in other words, either it has suppressed open discussion or portrayal of sex for fear of promoting immorality, or it has condemned certain sexual behaviors, from nudity to masturbation to oral sex to all pre-marital sex, based on misinterpretations of the Bible.³¹

My historical studies reveal today’s church views on sex have more to do with Greco-Roman Platonism and Augustine’s warped perspective…despite his wisdom on other topics…than a rational reading of scripture. For instance, the Jewish tradition from which Christianity arose was sex affirming. Correspondingly, contrary to popular belief, the Greco-Roman world, in which the early church grew, was not wholly a debauched sexual culture. The sex-negating Platonists and Stoics, who had fearful attitudes toward “irrational” sexual pleasure, influenced much of it.³² This had impact on early church fathers like Augustine.

One specific is how these sex-negative Greco-Roman values influenced the English translation of the Greek New Testament word porneia. Raymond Lawrence calls it “perhaps the most deliberately mistranslated word in the biblical literature,”³³ when it is rendered “fornication,” and I would argue when it is also translated “sexual immorality” (as in ‘flee sexual immorality’³⁴). Conservative Biblicists have condemned a host of sexual behaviors under that one word, commonly summing it up as perverted sex or all sex outside of monogamous marriage, without understanding what it meant to the original audience. One scholar believes a better translation is “harlotry,”³⁵ for the connotation of porneia is selling oneself to break covenant. Moreover, it is not always about sex, as is evidenced by the times it or its Hebrew equivalent is translated as “idolatry.”

Despite the fact that I would never endorse polygamy as a good idea, the fact is polygamy is never condemned in the Bible nor is monogamy strictly endorsed. In fact, the Torah commands polygamy in the case of the Leverite law³⁶ and supports it at times.³⁷ Polygamy and concubinage were practiced by Old Testament heroes of the faith from Abraham to Jacob to Gideon to David and never censured by God, except excessive polygamy with foreign women outside the faith. The truth is that if Bathsheba had not been married to Uriah, David would not have committed adultery. The biblical literature defines adultery differently than we do in our modern context.³⁸

Likewise with pre-marital sex, the Bible puts limitations on it because of the Jewish concern for pure lineage and because unmarried women were considered property of their fathers. There was no equivalent of today’s single woman, living outside her family’s home. Therefore, the Bible does not specifically condemn all singles sexuality.³⁹

This is not to say that we should emulate the male-dominated society of the Bible or married men have license to run out and grab the first single, pretty woman they see bathing on a rooftop (how David first saw Bathsheba). Promiscuity rooted in selfish, personal gratification cannot be defended. However, it does mean, if we are honest, that we should take the above facts into account when we decide on a sexual ethic for today.

In sex, let the admonitions to love one another, treat each other kindly, and be responsible in our relationships, be the guiding principal, not absolutist rules that were never a part of the Bible’s historical and cultural milieu.

[31] Thelos, Philo, Divine Sex: Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition

[32] Lawrence, Raymond, The Poisoning of Eros

[33] Lawrence, Raymond, Op. cit., page 2

[34] I Corinthians 6:18

[35] Countryman, William, Dirt, Greed, and Sex

[36] Deuteronomy 25:5-10

[37] Deuteronomy 21:15-17

[38] Countryman, Op. cit., page 159

[39] Countryman, Op. cit., page 264.

Lesson 5
Don’t Be Seduced by Political Power

I learned one of the warped mindsets of heavily financed political activism is an us vs. them mentality. Today, this attitude continues to fuel the Christian Right in their quest to save America from moral depravity and reclaim it for Christ. Us vs. them mindsets can also be present in left-wing politics, but that is another story.

Within evangelicalism, black-and-white, us vs. them, groupthink is pervasive. I saw that clearly when I was involved in the pro-life movement and Operation Rescue in the late 1980s. The attitude is one of drawing lines: Republican over Democrat, pro-life over pro-abortion, religious America over secular America, etc. But “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”²⁶ Evangelicalism within the Christian Right has always been about taking control, getting the right candidates in, overcoming the enemy (abortion, homosexuals, liberals), legislating the right laws, forcing an abortion clinic to close, and reclaiming America for Christ, all by manipulating the masses through fear and demonization of opponents. If you don’t vote Republican or for this candidate, hell will break loose. If we pass Obama’s health care bill, the government will take over your life and God will judge us for funding abortion and disobeying the Ten Commandments.²⁷

But these are lies, or if you’re inclined to be more gracious, false dichotomies. We live in a pluralistic society. Good politics is about compromise, not taking control. Real influence comes through open-minded persuasion and loving others, not by winning at the polls or banning abortion or suppressing gay rights. Democrats, as much as Republicans, care about decency and values. God works through more than one political party, outside of evangelicalism,²⁸ and in people of other faiths. As comprehensively argued by evangelical author Mark Noll, the historical record is clear that America is not a Christian nation the roots to which we must return.²⁹ Christianity has had both positive (abolition and civil rights movements) and negative (intolerant, legalistic Puritans and endorsement of slavery) influence on our country.

Do not lust for political power and cultural influence.³⁰

[26] Thomas, Cal, Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can’t Save America, page 54

[27] In a prayer cast organized by the Family Research Council on December 16, 2009, Pastor Jim Garlow claimed the health care reform legislation currently being deliberated in the Senate, violated just about every one of the Ten Commandments.

[28] Cox, Harvey, When Jesus Came to Harvard

[29] Noll, Mark, In Search for Christian America

[30] Ballmer, Randall, Thy Kingdom Come: An Evangelical’s Lament

Lesson 4
Don’t Be Deluded by the Last Days

As a brand-new believer in 1979 I tended to accept the pre-tribulation Rapture view that the Bible predicts Jesus would return a second time before a period of tribulation, to whisk believers up to heaven and leave unbelievers behind to face seven years of apocalyptic trials. After reading several critiques of this view, I realized it was farcical and unbiblical¹⁸, not to mention highly manipulative the way preachers or authors…Hal Lindsey in the 70s and 80s and Tim LaHaye (Left Behind) today…use it to “persuade” people to come to Christ, or else. Despite this, like the majority of evangelicals, I still believed the return of Christ was in the future and possibly eminent, given the state of the world.

Then around 1999, the preterists¹⁹ entered my life; the likes of R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth Gentry, ironically conservative evangelicals who introduced the notion that everything that Jesus predicted in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) was fulfilled between 64 and 70 AD.²⁰ They also viewed the speculation around the return of Christ as madness²¹ and the book of Revelation as written prior to 70 AD;²² hence its predictions were not speaking about thousands of years in the future.

Their reasoning was refreshing. They cried Bible abuse by dispensationalists and the bulk of evangelicals in the widespread unreasonable belief that Jesus spoke of two events in the Olivet Discourse: a coming calamity on Jerusalem within a generation, and then in the next breath about his return to earth 2000 years in the future. After reading the preterists, I reread all those prophetic verses and suddenly they made perfect sense.²³

What I didn’t expect was to come to believe these preterists weren’t going far enough. Considered “partial preterists,” they still believe in a future return of Christ at the time of the resurrection. But for this position to stand, there must be two second comings of Christ, one in 70 AD in judgment on Jewish Temple worship and one at a future resurrection. But this view is problematic because the New Testament does not speak of two second comings at all, or more accurately, a third coming. I found myself agreeing with the “consistent preterists,”²⁴ who say that all the prophecies about Jesus returning occurred at or before 70 AD based on a rational reading of the New Testament and first century historical evidence.²⁵

Imagine that for a moment. Jesus has already returned. The drama is over. There is no need to unmask the mystery or fear the Antichrist, let alone shape American foreign policy around the return of Christ and the end of the world.

Get on with the business of saving the planet and promoting social justice in the world without secretly believing it will all be for naught in the end.

[18] DeMar, Gary, Last Days Madness: The Obsession of the Modern Church

[19] Preterists believe biblical events were fulfilled in the past as opposed to futurists, who believe they will be fulfilled in the future.

[20] Sproul, R.C., The Last Days According to Jesus, and Josephus, The Jewish Wars

[21] DeMar, Gary, Op. cit.

[22] Gentry, Kenneth, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation

[23] e.g. Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this generation shall certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” Matthew 24:34 and “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.” Revelation 1:1

[24] J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia, and www.preterist.org

[25] Josephus, Tacitus, and Eusebius. They cite occurrences of false prophets, famines, earthquakes, wars, and astronomical signs leading up to 70 AD that match what Jesus predicted.

Lesson 3
Leave Churchianity

Surprise! Jesus didn’t found an institutional church.¹⁴ For that matter, he didn’t found a religion either. He also didn’t expect his followers to set up a Christian version of the synagogue, let alone create a parallel Christian universe where microbrews are banned.

When I worked on a church planting team in Malawi, Africa in the 1990s, I studied the early church and began to realize how unbiblical our modern concept of church is. I came to see that professional salaried clergy, a clergy-laity distinction, meetings in buildings, church budgets, hierarchal leadership, and legalistic requirements, such as tithing, were not present in early Christianity. Frank Viola and George Barna make the case that most of these elements of church were borrowed from pagan culture.¹⁵ That doesn’t make them necessarily evil, just not based on the original, and not the model for Christian fellowship. The word translated “church” is the Greek ecclesia, which simply means “gathering” and does not denote an institution. The same word is used for a “mob” in the book of Acts.¹⁶

Evangelical churches routinely espouse modern church membership and active involvement as God’s only way of building the Kingdom and creating mature believers. I recently heard a pastor describe his love for the institutional church in terms normally used for ascribing worship to God.

Undoubtedly, there are churches that are healthy places to grow spiritually, but my experience also reveals how prevalent spiritual abuse is found in fundamentalist and evangelical churches. One could argue that the doctrine of the institutional church is largely to blame for abuses. Why? It promotes churchianity…the practice of making belief in Jesus largely focused on the habits and demands of the institutional church (doctrinal purity, religious behavior), rather than on God’s love. Churchianity encourages authoritarian leadership, which is at the core of spiritual abuse. It also doesn’t encourage people to think for themselves. Blind compliance is sure to follow. “Evangelicals are enamored with power and control. That’s why numbers and measures are so important to evangelicals, and why compliance is next to godliness.”¹⁷
Don’t put up with churchianity.

[14] Wills, Garry, Op. cit. page 78.

[15] Viola, Frank and Barna, George, Pagan Christianity, page xix.

[16] Wills, Garry, What Jesus Meant, page 78.

[17] Mike Yaconelli, in The Post Evangelical by Dave Tomlinson, page 28.

Lesson 2
Beware of Bible Abuse

With some notable exceptions, most evangelicals I know primarily read the Bible devotionally, meaning they read it in a superficial way without regard to the conditions of history, culture, genre, or its own literary context. They also believe it is the infallible Word of God and expect God to speak to them personally through its message. I read the Bible this way for years. But I gradually learned a valuable lesson. Although harmless on occasion, a predominantly devotional approach to Bible study inevitably leads to Bible abuse…handling scripture in a way that the original author did not intend and the original audience would never recognize. Although it is mostly done unintentionally, I find people abuse the Bible in three ways.

Misinterpretation – The most common form is when people take verses or passages out of their literary context, for example, the practice of citing isolated verses to bolster a doctrine. In other words proof-texting without checking the full context. That’s why we should “read the Bible like drinking beer, not sipping wine.”6

Another form of this is practicing poor exegesis and hermeneutics. Exegesis is ascertaining a passage’s original meaning through understanding its historical and cultural background.Hermeneutics is deciding how to apply a passage to our modern circumstances. Without doing the hard work of both of these, it’s easy to misinterpret what the Bible teaches.7 Passages are applied with a wooden literalism, which causes a host of problems, including dogmatic teaching on divorce, tithing, the eminent return of Christ, and sexuality, to name only a few.

Applying Strict Authority – Despite the fact that the Bible does not claim to be inerrant8, fundamentalists and many evangelicals insist it is. When I visited L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland in 1984, I studied this doctrine and concluded there was little evidence to support it. Gradually, I came to believe that the Bible is not a set of timeless maxims to be obeyed to the letter. It never claims to be the Word of God, only that Jesus is the Word come down from God and the Jewish prophets spoke the word of the Lord. When every isolated verse or passage is applied with equal authority, the phenomenon of Bibliolatry results.9

Moreover, the evidence supports the notion that parts of our modern Bible were added by copyists and go beyond the original manuscripts, which we don’t have.10 One example is the controversial passage in I Corinthians 14 often used to justify the suppression of women. It states women should not teach but be silent in church and in full subjection to men. Yet the evidence is strong that Paul did not write these verses but later copyists added them.11 The Jesus Seminar makes this mistake in the opposite direction when it dogmatically concludes portions of Jesus’ sayings are not genuine based on subjective opinion, not on manuscript evidence.12 These discoveries reveal how our modern Bible can still contain divine inspiration…and powerful lessons rooted in godly wisdom…without every part of it being the Word of God or wholly free from human error.13

Mistranslation – There are several places in the New Testament where the English word chosen in most popular translations is almost assuredly not correct. I will cite several of them below. Our modern English translations are not as accurate as we think and should not always be taken at face value.

Read the Bible in its own historical, cultural, and literary context. Don’t worship it.

[6] N.T. Wright

[7] See Fee, Gordon, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth

[8] Countryman, William, Biblical Authority or Biblical Tyranny?

[9] Bible worship; see Thatcher, Adrian, The Savage Text: The Use and Abuse of the Bible, page 4.

[10] Erdman, Bart D., Misquoting Jesus

[11] Fee, Gordon, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, and Erdman, Op. cit., page 183.

[12] Wills, Gary, What Jesus Meant, page xxv.

[13] Wills, Gary, What Jesus Meant and Countryman, William, Biblical Authority or Biblical Tyranny?

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