Why Do We Do This? (CH2PT2)

Have you ever thought about how the Bible is read? We call it the "Word of God". Christians believe that when they are reading the Bible, God is speaking to them. They believe that the Bible comes from God. When we read the Bible we see God speaking to us with words, audibly, literally, and physically. All this gives the impression that as we are reading the Bible what we are reading are the actual words that God said to write. As if what we are reading is the words God told some men two thousand years ago to put down on paper.

This being the case, it seems that the most intuitive way of reading the Bible would be to start with the assumption that everything written in it directly comes from God. Thus, if the Bible says that squares are circles then we have to believe that God says, "squares are circles". If the Bible says that yodeling is for sissies then we have to believe that God says, "yodeling is for sissies".

There are two things which really fuel this idea. The first is that God does not lie (Heb. 6:8). The second is that God makes clear His will (Rom. 1:25). God would not confuse us by giving us a book which did not mean what it said. If God is all-powerful then surely he has the ability to ensure that the interpretation of the Word be as easy and plain as possible for readers of all time to be able to follow its instructions. All this suggests that when we read the Bible the primary, or preferred, method of interpretation ought to be the literal.

I believe that this is represented by what is called Biblical Literalism, in our day. What the Bible says ought

to be interpreted literally. Now this can be applied differently. Some think that because they read the Bible literally it means that the surface, or face-value meaning of the words is the authoritative interpretation of scripture. Others think that to understand the Bible literally means you have to delve into history to know what the author was actually trying to say. Still others claim that to read the Bible literally we have to harmonize, or in other words, create a hybrid text which actually reveals to us the literal meaning of God's word. There are many ways to be literal about the Bible, and you would think that since it is such an easy method,or such a clear way, to know what God's will is for us today that there would be more consensus on this matter.

In a rather strange way, Biblical literalism forgets the very thing that makes a book... a book. Books are not just written to be carbon copies of a persons mind, nor are they written to be the sole representation of a past event. Books are written to be timeless. Books are written to be immortal. Books are written to be eternal. And when we make the Bible such an absolute authority we shed the Bible of its mystery and depths that can only be plumed through the awareness that God moves in ways unexpected.

When I first came back to the Lord, I didn't want to take anything for granted, and that especially included my Bible. I desired to understand it the way that would contribute the most to my spiritual development and relationship with God. I grew up in an area that is dominated by fundamentalism. Every Christian believes that if the Bible says it then that's how God wants it, and that ends it. There is this all to common belief among Christians that because the Bible says something then that ought to end debate, questions, or inquiry into the matter. This, of course, is merely an extension of the idea that the Bible comes from God, but goes further to say that if something comes from God then its authority is absolute.

I began to study my Bible with this awareness that if it came from God then it ought to have those qualities of authority and literalism that I was seeing everywhere around me. But I found that there were certain things that what most fundamentalist Churches believed were not at all the literal interpretations of Scripture. In fact, it seemed that for the most part literal-orientated Churches were very accommodating to having symbolic or "spiritual" interpretations in those areas that were most self-serving to the Church. What I found were two very big problems. The first is tithing, and the second is hell.

Every church that I know of teaches tithing. Many churches do it with a Jedi mind trick involved, but when pressed on the issue they believe that the Bible teaches tithing and it is a thing that every Christian ought to be doing in service to their God to support the church. I have talked to many pastors on this issue, and have come to this conclusion fairly. This means that according to the dominant view of the Bible proposed by the church I ought to be able to read the Bible literally enough to determine that tithing is what God expects of me. If I read the Bible literally and it does not conform to what most churches say then it would seems that I either need to abandon the Bible all together on the assumption that the only appropriate interpretation is the literal, and hence Christianity, or that I need to reconsider what the appropriate method of interpretation actually is.

The word "tithe" is only mentioned twice in the New Testament. It's not in the Epistles, which are dated earlier. The two times it is mentioned come from the same story. Matthew and Luke both tell the story which means that the New Testament only, really, has one mention of the word tithe, and here it is:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law : justice and mercy and faithfulness ; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others" (Mat. 23:23).

Now in reading the Bible literally it is important to not dismiss this verse simply because there is only one mention of it. Jesus is clearly advocating tithing, which means that we should assume God is advocating tithing. But to simply single out this one aspect of this verse would be to pick and choose what can be literally seen in this verse. Another thing which is clearly in this verse is that Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees, or he is speaking about the Pharisees. The other thing to notice is that Jesus is speaking about past events. He is not saying that the Pharisees should tithe in the future, he is saying that in the past Pharisees should HAVE tithed without neglecting justice.

This does not negate the force of what Jesus is saying about tithe. But it does give us some considerations that need to be addressed. First, Jesus is not giving a direction to his disciples as to how he wants them to behave. In fact, when it comes to giving the only thing Jesus directs them to is the widows "mite" (Mark 12:43). Jesus could have taught them about tithe at that moment, but he didn't.

The reality is that the New Testament church did not practice tithing. Jesus' words are hardly indicative of any normative quality in the lives of the believers, and Christ only offers those words as a critique of a group of people that existed outside the influence of those who followed Him. If we are going to take Jesus' words concerning the Pharisees as normative for Christians today then we might as well take seriously his call for the "Rich Young Ruler" to sell all he owns so that he could follow Jesus (Mark 10:21).

Plus, we do have many teachings in the Epistles as it concerns generosity, giving, and supporting the church that makes no mention of tithing (1 Cor. 16, 2 Cor. 8-9). Paul tells believers to decide in their hearts what to give. He tells believers that giving should not be a burden for the poor. The rich should give more, and the poor should not be expected to give. Paul's teaching on giving is vastly different then the teaching on tithing. Paul had plenty of chances to call his teaching on generosity an extension of tithing, but he did not.

As far as Paul was concerned tithing was simply a part of the Law which was over, finished, ended (Gal. 3:25). Interestingly enough, if we are going to take a literal position on tithing then we would have to apply the same understanding to tithing as it was represented in the Bible. Clearly, tithing has nothing to do with the New Testament. So if Christians are expected to tithe based on the literalness of the Bible then we should see what the Bible literally says:

" 'A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD." - Leviticus 27:30

What was the tithe? And what wasn't it? The tithe was not income based. In a market economy the tithe is almost entirely senseless. The tithe only applied to landowners. And it only applied to farmers and herdsmen. Whatever the land produced either in produce, or animals was considered as tithe-worthy. This is the literal meaning of tithe. It was not a universal, all encompassing, command on the people of Israel. In today's society it would be business owners who paid the tithe, but that is only conjecture.

What the Bible tells me about tithe almost turns the whole enterprise of the church on its head. A Church which both accepts tithes and promotes Biblical literalism is making such an affront to border on blasphemy, but we do not have to go that far. But one word definitely seems applicable. Hypocrite.

Tithing is one thing that no literalist can actually take literally, it simply does not seem possible, but it is very likely that most literalists believe and practice tithing. Thus, if the application of symbolic or "spiritual" meaning in the Bible is to be limited as much as possible it seems that this dictum is not followed at all when it comes to tithing. Why not simply follow, preach, and teach what Paul says in the Corinthian epistles? Why make it more confusing? More complex? My desire for simplicity was helping me see how easy the first believers tried to make things on the early church. But I still needed to know how to find direction two thousand years later.

It seemed that Biblical literalism had a strike against it.

Why We Need The Bible (CH2PT1)

Have you ever read the Bible? Most likely not. You've probably read Psalms, some Pauline letters and a few of the Gospels. Oh, and I bet you've read Proverbs, too. The Bible is a very interesting book in the Christian sub-culture. In many ways we love our Bible, but we never open its pages. If we hear of a preacher who might be "misrepresenting" the Bible we rally in arms to attack that persons character. We cry out against him for his offense to God's Word, and yet most Christians have little knowledge of what their Bible actually says. Christians from all corners will defend the cause of having the Bible represented accurately, but no one will take the time to read it for themselves. What does this say, Christian?

I remember when I first got saved, as a teenager, one of the first things I did was read the New Testament. I went to a private school, so I wasn't teased for bringing my Bible to class, but I wasn't exactly the norm, either. I read the Bible cover to cover three times in High school. As an adult I led Bible studies and used the Bible to minister to the unsaved. I loved the Bible. I studied the Bible. I taught the Bible, and I shared the Bible. But even with all this, I still did not know enough of the Bible to defend myself against rational opposition.

The truth is that it cannot be done. When we look at the Bible rationally we realize the Bible has issues.

I. Why We Need The Bible

For all our lackadaisical attitude toward the Bible in our personal spirituality, in the community of believers the Bible is the benchmark of normative Christian behavior. A church that decides to diminish the importance of the Bible in its customs, preaching, and teaching might as well separate itself from the idea of Christianity all together. This is not an argument for the way things ought to be, but is simply a statement of the way things are.

Given this reality, the Bible does have to be taken seriously. Technically speaking, Christianity does not require a Bible. The word, "Christian" is simply an affirmation that Jesus is Lord. As long as a person submits himself to Jesus then the appellation of Christian is deserving, but to claim this title in the face of opposition to the Bible carries with it a burden that seems hypocritical and duplicitous.

This reality causes us to ask, "What is so important about the Bible?" Why do we measure a persons faith according to our allegiance to a book? What is it about the Bible that gives Christians the right to judge another persons spiritual beliefs as being either Christian or non-Christian? Does not the importance of the Bible in modern Christianity seem more indicative of legalism than the authentic spirituality Jesus taught in the Bible? If my faith is between me and God, why would I need a Bible?

The Bible is the first document that the first believers sought to define their faith through. Jewish followers of Jesus read the Scriptures and applied those Scriptures to Christ (1 Cor. 15:3). There was no New Testament, but there was an Old Testament, or to put better, there was a Torah, the Prophets, and Wisdom literature that would later comprise the Old Testament that Jews adhered to in various ways as a canon, and there was the teachings of the Apostles, which would be carried on to the Epistles (Acts 2:42). So the Bible is in a very real way the earliest and most authentic representation of what Christianity is and was to the first believers. Just as the Declaration of Independence or the Mayflower Compact is crucial for the understanding and practice of American democracy, so the Bible is critical for the understanding and practice of the Christian faith.

But there is more. All the above analysis' consider instrumental or utilitarian reasons why the Bible is necessary for the Christian faith. None of that gives us any reason why a person should consider the Bible as being spiritually significant for their faith today, as Christians. Apart from the words, sentences, paragraphs, literary genres, and books of the Bible, the Bible is more than an instruction manual. In fact, I would say that the Bible is needed for Christians today exactly because it is NOT an instruction manual, but a witness. The Bible is an invitation to an experience. The same experience that believers had thousands of years ago which transformed their lives into the image of the Risen Lord (Col. 1:3-6). The Bible is a witness of the Gospel (Rom 1:2), and the Gospel is the core principle of a community that calls itself the People of God (1 Pet. 4:17).

For Christians who have an experience of the risen Lord that changes their life the Bible becomes necessary because it is an invitation to continue in that same experience. The Christian needs the Bible, because the Bible doesn't just "teach" the Gospel, it gives the Gospel life in the spiritual practice of the believer. In this sense, the believer does not NEED the Bible, but rather gets to have the Bible. Just as a person does not NEED a recipe to eat dinner, but is so thankful for having one to create the experience of eating like a civilized person. Just the same the Bible creates the experience of the Gospel for the spiritually inclined. Technically one does not need it in the sense of oxygen or water, but to live to one's full potential in Christ it would be foolish to ignore it.

This being the case. What happens if we cannot trust the Bible? If the Bible is so intimately linked to the spiritual development of the Christian faith, then what do we say of Christianity if the Bible is "debunked"? What would it matter if we could prove with certainty that Jesus rose from the dead, that the God of Abraham exists, and that our universe was created and designed by a divine hand? If the Bible was untrustworthy then no hope for Christianity would exist apart from the first generation of believers.

Further, religions would've developed which most likely mimicked the teachings of Paul or Jesus and perhaps in a very real way the "spirit" of Christianity would have persisted, but it's impossible to say what would really happen. Just as if, there were no Declaration of Independence or Mayflower Compact we could be sure that most likely America would be completely different, if non-existent, to the point that we would not even want to call it America, but it does not necessarily mean that American democracy would be eradicated. Hence, we can kill Christianity if we kill the Bible, but the Gospel is something that could technically live on without Christianity. The Gospel exists beyond the Bible, just as democracy exists beyond our founding documents. And just as our democracy may still exist even if we had no founding documents, so too, our religion could still exist without the Bible, but the kind of religion it would be, would be radically different then the one we have to such a point that it would be difficult to imagine it being effectively "Christian".

The reality is that the Bible is the most easily verifiable relic we have to prove or disprove the Christian faith. If it can be shown to be a cause of cognitive dissonance, or to be adding complexity or prohibiting the practice of maintaining a clear conscience then we would have good reasons to think that the Bible is unreliable, and that the Christian faith is no longer sufficient for today's spiritual believers. So a Christian can in full confidence engage in the intellectual understanding of his Holy Text understanding that even if such a text is discredited the Gospel itself can remain unaffected. And it can be argued that in the interest of faith and the Gospel that such an undertaking is of a pure heart and a clear conscience. We have the obligation as believers to test ourselves to make sure that what we believe is in line with the Gospel, not the Bible. 

Philippians 2:22 - But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel.

1 Thessalonians 2:4 - On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.

Deconvert At Your Own Risk (CH1PT4)

The title of this book and the method it uses was selected very carefully. Atheism is a rising concern to the Christian faith. And it should be. My own experience with Atheism should attest to this. But I do not think it raises the concern it ought to for most Christians. Many Christians think Atheists are a threat to the Christian faith. They think that atheists reject the truth and that they suppress it with their arrogance and pride. Many Christians would be shocked to learn and understand that atheists are right about many things. In many ways, if Christians learned this, they might think that they would loose their faith.

It is never a good thing for Christians to loose their faith, or for anyone for that matter. I hope no one reads this and thinks that there is no reason to be a Christian, or that because atheism is correct in many things it means that Christianity is now doomed. I don't want people to become "unconverted". This book is not about promoting doubt, or the endless despair one realizes when doubt cannot be overcome. I am not out to get Christians to question their faith, but rather to question their beliefs. And in many ways, it needs to be recognized that if Christianity is a cause for atheism then we must certainly consider why this is, and what changes need to be made to prevent this.

Beliefs and faith are two very different things. Beliefs are formed through the acquiring of information or data. We package this information into beliefs. The many sources that provide information are varied. There are reliable and less reliable sources. There is a long tradition of debate concerning what are the reliable sources of information for beliefs. This is represented under the philosophic discipline of epistemology. But to put simply, faith informs belief. It is not the belief, itself.

There is a special kind of Christian language which speaks of faith as the content of one's beliefs. For instance, the Christian faith can represent a certain set of beliefs, but faith proper, that is faith in its most basic sense, is not a set of beliefs, but an orientation that allows for certain beliefs to form. So it is entirely possible for a Christian to question his beliefs without ever experiencing a threat concerning his faith. It may turn out that a particular set of Christian beliefs is wrong. It may turn out that the entire set of Christian beliefs is wrong, but this says nothing of faith. Nor does it say anything of whether or not God is deserving of faith.

A deconversion does not question a person's faith, nor does it seek to change it. A deconversion only seeks to purify faith. A person who becomes an atheist turns his back on faith, he may hold unto a certain sense of hope and optimism, but he denies the kind of transcendent orientation required to achieve faith in God. He may have a kind of proto-faith, one that is intrinsic to all people who try to live to their highest potential, but he is not open to faith in God, unless there is some kind of evidence, or syllogistic argument to do so. The atheist for all intents and purposes is unconverted.

Now it is true that the line between a deconversion is dangerously close to an unconversion. I will be the first to testify to this reality. Many have sought the purity of their faith and have ended up as atheists. I know of many atheists who have gone down the road to understanding and have ended up not believing. It is a very common narrative. And it is one that should not be ignored or underestimated. Because of this the modern church has seemingly taken an anti-intellectualist stance in the culture war, and it has not fared well. As a Christian you should be afraid of loosing your faith. It is a very real possibility and one I cannot guarantee will not happen if you apply yourself to deconversion. For many, when our beliefs change we reconsider the reliability of the source we received that information from in order to form that belief. This is a prudent action and one that cannot be repudiated, and we have to accept this risk if we are going to commit ourselves to a pure faith.

Deconverting is dangerous. Just as it is dangerous to walk around with gold in your pockets. In fact, one can say that converting your gold to money provides security and safety to walk around in the land that you are visiting or living in. There are risks and reward for every decision we make. The decision to deconvert or discover the purity of faith has the same implications, and it very well could result in the abandoning of Christian belief. One has to decide whether or not the risk is worth it.

If there is one thing I have learned from my own story it is that everyone relates to their faith differently, uniquely, and personally. I cannot give you a formula for faith. I cannot tell you what will happen once you seek to purify your faith. We all have different perspectives and will all react differently to information and how to process it. Some of the greatest harm done to me was by Christians treating me like a devil because I questioned some of their most cherished beliefs. It is a hard reality to overcome, but just like thieves will gather around a man carrying gold in his pockets so will hypocrites gather around a man with a pure faith. The danger can cause hurt, pain, and unnecessary suffering. It can cause some to become angry, bitter, or even calloused. In the quest for a pure faith our hearts can turn and we can become the very antithesis of what we wanted to become.

This happened to me. When I desired to be the best Christian I could be, I began talking with atheists, thinking I could convert them. I studied them and their beliefs, and I further studied what the Christian responses were to their arguments. Arguments turned into arguing, and intellect became passion. My personal reactions were revealing to me that my faith was not as strong as I believed it actually was. It only opened me to the reality that at heart I really believed that my faith was powerless and reason could ultimately defeat my faith, which it did. I was not prepared, I did not have a guide, and ultimately I did not have the right understanding of faith in order to persevere it when it came against great opposition. I could have really used this book.

That is what this book is for. I not only believe Christians should seek a pure faith, one unencumbered from the bias of their conversion, but that every Christian at one point or another will face a crisis of belief, because they are being confronted with the reality of what is required to have a pure faith, and will be unprepared for such a confrontation, and they will either betray their faith by hunkering down into legalism, traditionalism, or authoritarianism, or they will betray their faith by abandoning it all together. This book is meant to show a third possibility. Conversion is not fated to meet the extremes of hypocrisy or abandonment. It can be deconverted.

Where I Am At Now (CH1PT3)

God is not done with me, yet. I have come through the wasteland and have a very secure understanding of my identity in Christ. I believe in God, I believe Jesus is God, I believe in the Trinity, and I believe that the Bible is the normative standard for Christians as Christians. And I believe that the church is God's idea to carry the Gospel to the world. Though, I make these confessions, I assure you that as you read more about the details of these beliefs you will be challenged and maybe even think twice that I am serious about what I say.

I was not sure I could even call myself a Christian, even though I believed in God, and even though I had put my trust in the new life of Jesus Christ. I believed I was inferior still to most Christians and that I simply did not compare to what they believed. I felt like I had a damaged faith, like I was a spiritual amputee. My experience as an atheist opened my mind to the rigor of intellect, and I was not too quick to accept many things that seemed quintessential to the Christian faith.

Biblical literalism, Hell, homophobia, miracles, and eschatology simply made me uncomfortable. When I decided to put my trust in Christ I knew that I couldn't completely accept these troublesome intellectual burdens. I tabled them in my mind and made the choice in good conscience to be open and willing to abandon my course if the outcomes could not fulfill the potential of new life that defined the trust I had put in Christ.

Because of my previous experience I could not allow myself to simply "go along" with what others told me I had to believe in order to be a Christian. But at the same time, as a Christian who backslid I felt guilty of not being "on-board" with what all the Christians around me believed in. It was alienating and isolating.

I was in the wasteland. But it is important to note that I was in the wasteland... by choice. The one thing that fueled my spirituality and my continued commitment to my faith was the fact that I would not let my mind be swayed by tradition, popularity, or authority when it came to the intellectually burdening aspects of Christian belief. I would rather have a anemic faith then a blind one. I'd rather have amnesia then a guilty conscience. I'd rather be alone then among traitors. I had hope. I held strong. And I persevered. Eventually, I came out of the wasteland.

My identity as a Christian is not rooted in my experience in a church, nor is it found in my conformity to

certain creedal positions. I don't feel that my faith rests on others agreeing with me, or in affirming how "uplifting" or "moving" my story is. In many ways, I am still that isolated, alienated, and lost person. In many ways the wasteland is still apart of me. It wasn't me who got bigger, better, or more skilled. It was my God through me.

Through this narrative, I will express many of my insights and discoveries that led me to new understandings and transformations in faith, but the reality is that when all is said and done, I give all credit to God. He is the one who guided me, protected me, and fought for me when I didn't want to fight for myself. How do I stand in faith? Because God helps me. How did I find my way out of the wasteland? I can't say if I did. All I know is that all I see is God. If there is a wasteland all around me then that really doesn't matter, does it?

My identity, my confidence, my assurance comes from God. I read my Bible in the confidence that it comes from God. I go to church in the identity that Jesus is my Lord. I fellowship with other Christians in the assurance that the Holy Spirit is with us. I don't need any sort of conformity or psychological confirmation that my beliefs, or spiritual practice is somehow given a stamp of approval from others in the Christian community. I have come to a place where all I depend on is God.

My heart is open to accountability, direction, rebuke, and correction from anyone. I don't consider myself better then anyone, and don't think I have it all figured out. I often seek out accountability from those who would disagree with me, so I can get a clear picture of what I am missing, or not missing. I often seek wisdom and rebuke from others, and surprisingly am met with trepidation and fear. Christian love keeping those they can manipulate accountable, but free thinking people become too "rebellious". My desire is not to be in agreement with others, but to have a clear conscience.

I am not by any means a perfect Christian, but I think my commitments to simplicity and a clear conscience have led me to where I am now, and have enabled me to say in confidence that I am a child of God, that He has a plan for me, and that in Jesus I have new life. To be sure, my commitments to simplicity and a clear conscience caused me many pains as well, but I am sure that the reward was worth it, and that the experiences I had along the way conform to a pattern I discovered inherent in the Christian faith.

In the end, the only word I could form for what I had gone through is a "deconversion" rather then the other way around. If it is, as some say, that Jesus was the perfect human and Christianity is a call to what God had intended for humanity to be, all along, then the "conversion" of the Christian faith is not a call to become something else, but a call to stop becoming other things. In money, conversion is not something special. It only demonstrates the land and government to which you are visiting. But deconverting would be extra-ordinary. It would put you in touch with the source of money... the standard. Just the same, this book is not about erasing Christianity, or calling into question the practice of conversion. What we hope to find is the source of conversion. We want the standard! When you have a vault of gold the economy seems like a periphery concern. Just the same, when Christians know the source of their faith the tides of theology are of little interest. I had to go through a wasteland to discover what I did, and I carry many scars on my psyche because of it. Hopefully this book can alleviate future sojourners from the same hardships.

My Story (CH1PT2)

I was born into a secular home. I was raised by my mom. Her mom and step-dad helped raise me, but I called them grandma and grandpa. I noted that my grandpa was my mom's step dad, because already before my first memory divorce was embedded in my family. So was alcoholism. My grandma was drunk during most of my childhood. She raised me while my mom went to school and became a nurse.

I was sent to a Christian school, but my exposure to Christianity as a child came more from my neighbor who took me to Catholic church on Sundays then anything else. As a child, I never thought about my need for God, or even salvation. I never thought about sin, hell, or God's punishments. The only thing I really wanted was to know my Dad. I didn't know him at all. He left me and found a new family. He lived only about an hour away from me, but it was more like a galaxy. I only saw him a handful of times in my whole life, and most of those were before the age of 5. Most of my childhood was spent looking out the window waiting for him to pick me up. He made plenty of promises, but few follow throughs.

I was thirteen when I gave my life to the Lord, for the first time. I was a pretty radical Christian from the start. I would walk to local hangouts and try to tell complete strangers about the Lord. At the beach, the grocery store, or just along the street. I would also organize prayer meetings with other believers my age for the salvation of unbelievers. I read my Bible constantly, and learned much about Christianity on my own. I spiritually grew up in a fundamentalist charismatic setting.

In reflection, many of my early religious experiences were motivated by emotional distress then anything

else. When I became a teenager relationship with my mom began to spiral out of control. She had built her life around the idea of being a good mom, and when I began to push away from her, because of a need to form my own identity, she panicked and began to unwind. Her life before becoming a parent was marked by instability, insanity, suicide attempts, and alcoholism. She reformed, got a degree, and became a nurse. She truly was a wonderful mom, but she could not handle the pressure of loosing my love and affection. And I wanted more.

When I was sixteen my mom attempted suicide. I had no knowledge of her past life. From that moment on, I spent as little time as possible at home. Church was my sanctuary. And I have no hesitation in saying that during these years my relationship with God was mostly dictated out of necessity rather then volition. Because of this, I was more willing to embrace ideas and beliefs that simply made no sense, or were contrary to other beliefs. My desire for emotional well-being was more important, and it was natural for me to sacrifice good conscience in order to protect something I felt was threatened. I began to speak in tongues and show manifestations of what other believers called "signs" of the Holy Spirit.

I got married at eighteen. I believed God had a plan for my life. A literal plan that could exist in a book, or something. God had mapped out my life, and it was my duty to spiritually discern this secret plan and live according to it. This is a common charismatic belief, and it gave me comfort, for a time. It helped me disassociate the horrible things happening in my life. My mom became a gambling addict and alcoholic. She gambled away her house, her car, and her marriage. She lost her job, because she showed up drunk to work. She went from making over twenty dollars an hour to minimum wage at a gas station (This was in the 90's when such wages were really high). She got a boyfriend who beat her up constantly, and showed up to family events drunk, angry, and violent.

I believed God had a great plan for my life, and that he would use me in a special way. I believed God would provide a path for me to enter ministry and I would be a great light for Him, for others to follow. This belief preserved me from falling into the despair of what was happening all around me. The problem was that God's plan never happened. I was sure God would open a way, and I believed I had heard these special instructions in my heart. I was wrong, and I had to face a very real problem. Either I had done something to hinder God's plan for me, or there never was a plan.

I remember clearly this being one of the first great conflicts I encountered with my faith. I buried the conflict. I persisted in my faith and fought to believe that God still had a plan for me. My mom had ended her life when I was twenty. For about five years I watched her fall apart and destroy her life slowly. By the end, she came to believe she had been diagnosed with cervical cancer. Her plan was to let the cancer kill her and during this time she would work hard to earn some money to pass unto me in her death. This would be her final act of love for me. It would be her redemption, in her mind.

By the time she found out that she did not have cervical cancer, she had let the infection eat away her ovaries, and she had to have a hysterectomy. She got into deeper debt with medical bills, and she was given what she feared most. A new lease on life. The discovery that she would live was a death sentence to my mom. She killed herself that year.

I didn't blame God for her death. How could I? But her death was a real physical manifestation of what conflicting beliefs could cause. I could not deny that. And that reality began to eat away at me. Through the constant failure of my own machinations I began to slowly become ineffectual in my own faith. Until one day I simply gave up.

I was about 25 when I fully realized that my faith was dead. I had been married for seven years and I had a child. My wife was still a believer, and I was very committed to my marriage. I still am. I began to read philosophy. Ayn Rand and Objectivism came to influence me greatly. Atheism opened up a whole new world for me. Reason simplified life. It gave me clarity. I found that I didn't need to rely on some secret plan that was impossible for me to ever figure out. I could simply do what I wanted to do, and as long as I was rational, I needed no further justification.

Naturally, I became angry toward Christianity. I began to see how much I was manipulated and how much silliness existed in the Church. This caused tension between me and my wife. She was a faithful believer, and my attitude was putting her in a position of either showing me love and acceptance or defending her faith. For a few years, I studied philosophy and debated on internet forums. I became quite proficient and confident in my ability to make rational judgments. More confident then I ever was in spiritually discerning what God was doing in my life.

But there was not one thing I could allow myself to do, and that was to tear down my wife's faith. Don't misunderstand this point. During this time, I definitely wanted my wife to be as I was. But I wanted her to see how ridiculous Christianity was, and not feel betrayed by it, like I had. I didn't want her to become an atheist in anger, but to become one in freedom. I knew that a decision had to be made. And I decided that the only way to bridge the gap would be to open myself up for criticism. I proposed that we have a meeting with a pastor and he could explain to me the merits of Christianity or explain the errors of my understanding. I thought the plan was a good one. In this process I could speak my mind and show how the arguments in support of Christianity are flawed.

These meetings were not very fruitful. I am pretty sure I showed how futile the pastors arguments were, but in order to take this plan seriously I had to genuinely invest myself in the criticism offered by the church. I did not take this decision lightly, and I did begin to see flaws in the atheist system on its own merits. I began to see how dogmatic many atheists were, and this made me question my own position. I began to see many of the evidentiary claims for the existence of God and the counter-claims made by atheists as never ending. It's not that the atheists were proved wrong. I just saw how the theists were never proved wrong either. I agreed in many ways that the case against Christianity was a good one, but in the end I still saw that there was more to everything then just the things we see. I still had to admit to myself that the universe could not explain itself. In the absence of a verifiable option, I turned to a practical one.

I didn't have all the answers when I decided to become a Christian. All I had was the knowledge that I needed to recognize something bigger then myself existed. This made me a believer, even to a nominal degree. It made me open to the suggestion that the resurrection of Jesus was powerful for the early believers. Because of this, I came to believe in the new life that Christianity was founded on, and this gave rise to a risen Lord. I didn't have any evidentiary basis to claim that God created the universe, or that Jesus walked out of an empty tomb, but I had a belief in something eternal and a hope for a new life.

When I first decided to reenter my Christian faith I had huge concerns. My first was how to cogently identify myself as a Christian without falling into the same trap I had fallen into before. If Christianity necessarily meant cognitive dissonance then I could not be a Christian. I committed myself to that one caveat, but if I could have my own caveats then could I truly be a Christian. I was very concerned and confused and I felt I had no method of finding out how to find my spiritual identity. My single determination was to avoid cognitive dissonance.

The rest of what follows in this book will represent my journey from this point forward. I began this journey with the sole determination to be able to express my faith in such a manner that would not lead me to the same place I was before. In my search to find my own Christian identity, I felt I had to begin from scratch. I looked into the historical, philosophical, and theological roots of Christianity with a clean slate, and I didn't want to take anything for granted this time. I knew that I would need to know the reasons of why I was going to believe in what I believed in, and I always assumed that my search would lead to the form of religion I was surrounded by, which was Evangelical Fundamentalism, but that did not turn out to be the case. As I began to research the Bible, Christology, Theology, and faith I began to see a much wider and approachable Christianity not represented by many churches.

My Story (Ch1Pt1)

Every conversion begins with a story. This book is no exception to myself. This book is part narrative, part theology, and part philosophy. It reflects me. It's entirety is a story in itself, but it is much more. The journey I have walked has shaped my beliefs, my perspective on my beliefs, and my desire to believe certain things over others. It has done the same for you. So the first part of this journey is to lay our cards on the table. We cannot move further if we think we can be in relationship with God in a vacuum.

I: The Structure of the Story

In this story I want to convey how the choices I made throughout the journey were what ultimately led to

my eventual and in many ways inevitable backslide from the faith. But most importantly through it all, even in the darkness, something was being worked in me. I don't mean to hint to any "supernatural" work of God, but rather ideas and beliefs have a way of embedding themselves into our psyche in such a way that we cannot deny them, even when we are in the physical process of denying them. The term that has been most aptly applied to this event is "cognitive dissonance", the circumstance where two opposing beliefs are held simultaneously. I can testify that cognitive dissonance exists and that it can be detrimental to Christian faith. The cure for cognitive dissonance is good conscience. Good conscience is aided by simplicity.

There is Biblical grounds to make this claim, "keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith" (1 Tim. 1:19 NAS). Later, Paul says that having a good conscience is the measure of a leader in the church (3:9). And in the chapter after that Paul equates the dulling of our conscience to demonic activity (4:2). The Biblical teaching of a good conscience goes beyond 1 Timothy. 

It is throughout the corpus of Paul's litany. In Romans, Paul teaches that the laws of God are discernible through our conscience (2:15) and that our conscience bears the witness of the Holy Spirit (9:1). And Paul makes clear what the Biblical understanding of our conscience is in 1 Corinthians. When the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols is brought up, Paul simply asks what one's conscience says (10:27-29). But in a brilliant fashion Paul notes that if one is asking the question then one clearly has a conscientious objection to it, and should be aware of that, plus as a believer we are not merely responsible for our own conscience, but the conscience of our brother. Just as it is not cool to drink in front of an alcoholic we have to look out for each other. Paul is not the only teacher of a good conscience in the New Testament. 

Peter also says in his epistle, "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence ; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame" (1 Peter 3:15-16 NAS). And elsewhere Peter says how baptism is a sign of our good conscience in Christ (3:21).

The Bible affirms having a good conscience. It affirms it in the practice of faith, and in the maintaining of faith, and it affirms it in the achievement of faith, our baptism. It affirms the activity of the Holy Spirit in a good conscience, and it affirms the activity of the demonic in a dull conscience. Thus, from this teaching, the Christians can measure objectively his own status with God according to the level of cognitive dissonance present, or not present, in one's belief system.

But a good conscience is in itself a rather abstract term. A sociopath can have a good conscience. Right? Well, that would imply that by good, what we mean is a state of non-contradiction with other states. In this regard, a sociopath has no conscience at all. A good conscience will certainly have an equilibrium with all other beliefs, but this cannot be the only qualifier. Although, I think it can be a significant one. After all, one can argue that by simply living, one must make a continual choice to live and this implies a conscious value for life that is disregarded by the sociopaths lack of value for other people's lives. One does not have to make a case for intrinsic values that must be accounted for in this regard, because they are already implied in the act of living which everyone must conscientiously participate in. Rather, instead of looking for moral absolutes to underpin what a good conscience must represent, it is more advantageous to consider methodological aids which accompany the attainment of good conscience.

In this regard, simplicity is the fore-bearer of good conscience. Philosophically, this is easier to see then Biblically, but we will consider both, and there is a case to be made for both. We have made the claim that a good conscience is such a state that maintains an equilibrium with all other beliefs, some beliefs are necessary, like the belief that life is valuable, others are more contingent, like the belief that bridges are the best method of crossing water. From this idea of equilibrium, simplicity of belief becomes the primary arbiter of whether or not such beliefs conform to good conscience. Simplicity, thus signifying the degree of ease a belief integrates itself to other beliefs. Thus, we can derive a very reliable and testable method of determining whether or not a person is living in good conscience. Are they living a simple life? Thus, it can be argued that the more simply a person chooses the live the less likely it will be to detect cognitive dissonance in their beliefs.

Simplicity is not just a philosophic virtue. It is also a Biblical one. It is a bit harder to piece together in the New Testament corpus, because it's language has been determined culturally and philosophically, but it is present. Paul tells the Corinthians church that our devotion to Christ is marked by simplicity and purity (2 Cor. 11:3). The word he uses is aploteß (572), which means "singleness, simplicity, sincerity, mental honesty, the virtue of one who is free from pretense and hypocrisy, not self seeking, openness of heart manifesting itself by generosity". In the Bible this word had two meanings which coalesced into a dual interpretation on most accounts. In most uses in the New Testament this word is used in conjunction with a generous person. The meaning implied is that the simpler you live and the less you need, the more you will be able to give (8:2, 9:11, 13, Ro. 12:8). There is a derivative of this word (573) which denotes clarity of vision. For the New Testament writers simplicity was a virtue that led to the benefit of others.

There is another word in the New Testament which correlates with simplicity and that is hsucazo (2270). It is the idea of a simple life, or quite life. Paul tells the Thessalonian church to have an "ambition to lead a quite life" (1 Thess. 4:11). It means, "to keep quiet, to rest, cease from labor, to lead a quiet life, said of those who are not running hither and thither, but stay at home and mind their business, to be silent, i.e. to say nothing, hold one's peace". In this sense, it is not the minimalist mentality that leads to simplicity, but a commitment to hard work and self-reliance that leads to simplicity and ultimately the generosity of the church. In Ephesians 4:28, believers are admonished to work hard so that they can have more to give to others. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10-13 Paul teaches believers that not leading this quite, self-reliant life leads to idleness and gossiping which divides the church.

This word is also used in 1 Timothy to instruct believers that a quiet, hard-working, and self-reliant life leads to holiness (2:2). And Peter uses this word to convey that it results in inner beauty, or the inner integrity of heart (1 Peter 3:4). There are other words used to denote simplicity, like Acts 2:46, "Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart". Paul uses another word to denote simplicity in 1 Timothy 6:6, "But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment." And the word used for "contentment" (841) means, "a perfect condition of life in which no aid or support is needed, sufficiency of the necessities of life, a mind contented with its lot, contentment".  And perhaps the best connection in scripture between simplicity and good conscience is found in 2 Corinthians 1:12, " For our proud confidence is this : the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity [simplicity], not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you."

The Biblical testimony confirms our philosophic conviction that simplicity is the manifestation of good conscience. Granted, "simplicity" is a harder term to nail down then "good" when it comes to actually recognizing it. In the New Testament alone we can see at least five words which convey the idea of simplicity. What does a simple life look like? And more importantly, what about a simple belief structure to organize information? It seems in trying to understand simplicity we make things very complex. And we kinda miss the whole point. But it is important to consider the Biblical witness to what is being said, because simplicity and good conscience are the foundation of what will be argued for in this book.

These are not just good philosophic ideas, they are also good Biblical ideas, and this is the story of how I came to find this out...

Introduction to Deconverted

If you are reading this, you are probably a Christian. If you are not a Christian, please keep reading as you might identify with the narrative and argument presented in this book. But if you are a Christian, then you might be one the the two kinds of Christians I have in mind, as I write this. For the first kind, I have to be rigourous and careful with everything I say, because you are most likely examining this with a magnifying glass waiting for me to slip and say something like, "Jesus is not God", "The Bible is just a book", "The church is hypocritical", or "Believe a false gospel!". I don't want to attack you with this book, but I am against you. This should not be seen as a bad thing, or even a negative thing. Two people can oppose each other and heighten the awareness of the good, the positive, or the beneficial. I think fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity is heading toward a disasterous outcome, and I think this because of its many erronious beliefs. But I recognize that they must believe the same thing about me, and I understand that they must be extra-critical of others who do not look or act the same as they do. It is because of this that I write to you. Examine me. Criticize me, please. If the door to your heart is closed then unleash your mind upon me, and give it your full attention.

If you are the other kind of Christian, then you might not even want to call yourself a Christian at all. You might not even be a Christian. You struggle with doubt. You think the Bible is a record of violence, immorality, and authoritarian hypocrisy. You might think history and science has closed the book on Christianity and that the only reason to cling to faith is some emotional handicap. It may not be that blatant, but I bet the thought has crossed your mind. Maybe you are really good at locking it down, but in the stillness, it's there. For some reason you really want to be a Christian, or a spiritual person, but you simply can't identify with it. Maybe you go along with the desire, thinking that it's good enough, but the reality is that you are deeply afriad that all you are is a fake.

Deconversion is not an unconversion. Etemologically speaking, they are, but by deconversion, the idea of conversion is not being violated. When a person gets unconverted, they loose their salvation. Their conversion is lost, forgotted, or abandoned. A person who is deconverted, finds the source of his conversion. When you deconvert money you get gold, or the source of money. Deconversion can be just as tragic as loosing one’s salvation, and it could lead to this end as well, but if this is not risked then the reward is not earned. This is not a book which seeks to question the idea of Christianity, or is going to claim that Christianity has got it all wrong for thousands of years. I don't want anyone to loose their conversion to Christ, but just the opposite, it is my hope that every reader will experience their conversion in a new light through the deconstruction of their faith.

Deconstruction is not a villianous term. It is not negative or positive. It makes no claim for relative or objective truth. And the term itself is often misinterpreted. This book does not ask one to abandon one's faith in order to rediscover it. Nor is it asking one to be willing to destroy one's faith in the service of that faith. What this book will do, though, is examine evidence and arguments in an unbiased manner, and consider what it means to be a Christian, in light, of what the fairest considerations are of this process.

Deconversion is an intellectual process that will enable you to develop a discipline of conversion for every moment. Deconversion is a claim that as a Christian the one thing we should never take for granted is our own conversion. Deconversion is a building up and not a tearing down. When you can look at your faith and your beliefs in the same light that anyone else might look at them, and then still find a reason to make the same choices then you have been deconverted. When you can recognize what those reasons are, and what your faith truly means in light of those reasons then you have been deconverted.

To the first kind of reader, the fundamentalist, this means something far more than what is going to be asked of the second reader, the believer in exile. To the fundamentalist, you will have to question your core beliefs about the Bible, Jesus, God, and faith in order to truly understand your conversion and to be able to sustain it in a modern world. You will most likely have to be willing to sacrifice good standing with family and friends in order to fulfill this process, but in the end your identity will be your own. And if, in the end, you can still maintain in good conscience a position in fundamentalism then you are free to do so. I am not against fundamentalism. I no longer identify myself as one, because I believe it is wrong, but I think it is possible for a fundamentalist to be able to hold to their faith in good conscience, just not likely.

To the second kind of reader, you will be asked to actually devote your whole being to Christianity. You will not need to have your core beliefs questioned, because most likely you have already questioned them. But maybe in this process you have become disconnected and alienated from your own faith. Maybe you have become comfortable in the wasteland of doubt. You cannot reside there. You will need to be willing to hope and have an identity to yourself. I can't claim to give you the answer you need, because a conversion is really about finding that answer yourself, but I can claim to remove many obstacles that exist today for effectual faith.

I will tell my own journey and the beliefs that have been questioned in me, and the answers I have found. This is a journey that all believers must go through in one way or another, because sadly, the Christianity represented by most of our churches is not the Christianity that should exist in the 21st century. Many preachers and church leaders are unwilling to change, and rightly so. There is a lot to fear in the modern world as it relates to traditional ideas in the Christian faith. But it can't be said the church that was founded two thousand years ago was unprepared to make the changes and adaptations it would need to in order to live in the 21st century.

In fact, we will find that the opposite is true. Through deconversion we will find that the Christianity founded over two thousand years ago was perfectly suited to adapt and change to its surroundings and environment and that it was able to thrive and grow and blossom in such environments. Our modern world has provided one of the most difficult environments for Christianity to adapt to. Only when we embrace the critical tools that the modern world has given us can we fully embrace Christianity in a modern setting and live in good conscience with a simple faith.

In this book the topics of the Bible, Jesus, God and faith will be discussed, deconstructed, and rebuilt. In the end we will have a faithful representation of Christianity for the modern world, without agenda or bias, it will be up to the reader at such a point to determine if such a representation is for them or not, but the requirements of good conscience will be set. Let the choice at that moment reflect your character.

A Tragic End, And A Hopeful Beginning

Friendship sucks.
This is a story of how two friends met, maybe had unrealistic expectations from each other, could not resolve

their differences, and ultimately destroyed everything around them, because of their pride. I participated and perhaps contributed to a great deal of this malevolence. I wish things could have been different. But what can you expect.... Friendship sucks.
I met a guy whom I considered to be very smart and of equal standing when it comes to my own intellectual proclivities. I thought we got along splendidly, and things were good for a time. You could say that we had different theological angles to things. My understanding was that he was more narrow, rigid, and fundamentalist orientated. He seemed to come from this neo-fundamentalism that is present in the newer generation of Evangelical apologists and theolgians like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Licona, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas, and so on. These are thinkers that for the most part are really pushing the Evangelical Church forward as far as scholarly work goes, but for the most part all the same systems are still in place. I was being persuaded at the time I met him into a more neo-orthodox/emergent/progressive view of Christian theology. I was being influenced by theologians like Paul Tillich, Martin Buber, Edward Schillibeeckx, John Shelby Spong, and Karen Armstrong (yes, I feel I earned liberal points in mentioning a woman theologian).
The point being that theologically I had no problem with my new friend, but I knew that he would most likely have issues with my theology. I took a bet that no matter our differences our friendship would prevail and ultimately, if my friend believed me to be truly outside the "circle", as you might call it, then he would call me on it. In fact, I depended on it, for at that time I was sincerely concerned as to whether or not the developments taking place within me was really the direction that was good for me. My gambit was that this new friend would call me out on my shit.
Looking back. This may have been unfair. After all, this is coming on kind of strong. I doubt most people enter into friendships thinking man I can't wait to risk this guys respect by attacking his most personal beliefs. I entered into this friendship thinking that we were already battle partners taking gun fire together and swearing to carry each others bodies back to be properly buried. I had false expectations. And I truly am sorry that I had to get this poor innocent man wrapped up in my drama.

But if he began as being innocent, he surely did not end that way. Our friendship ended once he began gossiping about me to my pastor. You see we both went to the same church, and I was trying to get more involved. I will grant that I understand that my beliefs are not exactly kosher when it comes to the Evangelical party line. I may be unwilling to recite their code, but I have come to resolve just about all these issues with my own theological understanding of grace, compassion, and discernment. I felt that I was in good conscience trying to participate in a Church that would most likely consider my beliefs as anathema, because I honestly thought that such revulsion on their part was what needed to be examined, and that if any conflict emerged from it then it could not be because of my doing, but because of their own dogmatism and legalism.
To make a long story short, the pastor asked my friend about me. My friend knew why the pastor was asking about me. He knew of my intention to participate in ministry at this church. And my friend spoke ill of me behind my back, and never told me about it. Though we had many occasions where we met afterward.
I do not blame this man for protecting his church. He clearly thought I was a predator, which I think says more of his theology then it does of mine. I think his actions were aimed at benefiting the Church, and are thusly to be spoken of as meritorious. If I am going to be betrayed then I wish it could always be for such good reasons.
Here's the facts. No pastor should ever EVER ask another person's friend for information that could cause division between those friends. And no friend should ever EVER speak ill of their friend without first calling that person out on it. If my friend thought I was being a predator then the last thing he should be doing is speaking to other people about it. The longer he delayed the more he increased the chances of me doing real damage. I was acting in good conscience. The last thing I would ever want to do is unintentionally harm another. If someone saw this potential catastrophe ahead of time and simply stayed quite about it then I have no other choice but to see them as a coward.
I tried to do the "right" thing. When I learned what had happened. I kinda freaked out. I called him out. I was pissed. REALLY PISSED. He tried to remain cool and collective, and this only came off, to me, as being manipulative and revictimizing. Eventually, I laid everything out on the table for him, and he rationalized away all the signs of his cowardice. When I asked him why he thought he never told me about this talk he had with his pastor about me. He admitted that he should have told me. When I asked him why he didn't. He simply had no answer. He apologized. And I find that consoling on a certain level of patheticness.
The fact of the matter was that his apology was empty to me. It was empty because he could not honestly answer why he chose to withhold information from me that would have been really important to share with me. You see this is only the tip of the iceberg. His withdrawal was systematic and repressive. By the time this closed door meeting took place with the pastor, I had already experienced many "exclusions" from this friend that were callous and petty. I had decided to rise above and be grateful for whatever kind of friendship I could have with this person, but after this event it was over.
Besides, it is not him who should be sorry. It is me. I am sorry I ever expected from him that which he could not give. But this exit led to a more promising beginning. At this church I met some good people. And they were kinda stepping out the door at the same time I was. I connected to a small cadre of rejects, heretics, and "secular" Christians. We found each other at a very interesting time. We have been meeting together for about six months now, and things are really great. I have found that the previous Church was nothing like the denominational covering that they have. The people who I met while walking out the door, so to speak, really knew what the denomination was all about, and I began to learn. I began to finally find something I could call a spiritual home. I found the Quaker Church.
I have chosen to write this story, because some time has passed since this happened. And I feel that I have settled down from my initial reaction. I have apologized to his person for the chaos I caused and how unfair I was to him. I still wait for his apology to me, but I doubt it would matter much. I do not say that because I resent him, or desire to resent him. I say it, because I have already forgiven him. At this point his apology would only be for him. I pray that he can understand why that is important, but ultimately I have simply moved on and I wish the best for him, but it is important to put out there, because I really think that this story is symptomatic of the problem that is happen in Christianity right now. We are so quick to condemn and judge, and we hate that, but I have to say that Christianities problem is not being too judgmental, or too critical, or too biased. The problem with Christianity is that it is no longer honest. I would have had no problem with my friend condemning me to hell, just as long as he had the balls to do it himself, but clearly he felt that some closed-door meeting was the best place to do that without my case being made for myself. Clearly, this pastor felt that such meetings was how a persons character could really be determined without considering what it said of his own.

I wish I could say something different about the Church and about my own religion, but I consider myself and my new group of friends as heretics ultimately to the Christianity that exists today. I am trying to live a simple and honest Christian life, and for some reason this seems completely unChristian in every Christian circle I come across. I am not dumb enough to think that I have it all right and they have it all wrong. I am fine with Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and Evangelical extremists. I just wish that they were fine with me.