If you are convinced that deconstructing faith is dangerous, and you are annoyed by the “trend”, this article is an attempt to help you see things a little differently. It’s an article that’s trying to deconstruct your view of deconstruction.
Letters from a Skeptic (Part 10)
[Note: This is one post in a series on Greg Boyd’s book Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with his Father’s Questions About Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
For this session, we’ll cover Correspondences 21-23
SUMMARY
Greg and his dad turn their conversation to the issue of hell in the next several letters. Edward raises a very common and appropriate question: how can the love of God be squared with the idea of hell? As Edward describes, this question is a hugely important matter for many people. It may impugn the character of God.
Greg acknowledges the difficulty of the issue and lays out a way of thinking about the topic that might be helpful. First, he admits that the Bible is rather “opaque” on this topic. He argues that we should proceed from solid ground in the Bible to our thinking on hell. For example, we know that God is revealed through Jesus Christ but that Old Testament saints who did not know Jesus and yet will be with God… even non-Israelites. Thus, we may suspect that God can/will do similar things for people who do not hear the Gospel because of tyrannical governments or inaccessibility to the gospel.
Additionally, Greg argues that the Bible teaches that humans who end up in hell actually choose this for themselves. He argues that heaven is locked from the inside by their own free-will choices and that God has not locked the doors to hell from the outside.
INTRIGUING QUOTES
If the chance evil in our world is difficult to accept, the chance evil in eternity is utterly impossible to accept. How can one go to hell by the accident of where he happened to be born? -Edward, April 4th, 1991
If you’re looking for absolute certainty in resolving the issue, you’re probably going to be disappointed. -Greg, Apirl 27, 1991
The character of God is on trial in my life, and this is very relevant evidence which needs to be considered. -Edward, May 12, 1991
CONVERSATION STARTERS
Is the concept of hell a difficult one for you? Why or why not?
What are your thoughts on hell? Are they based on scripture or popular imagination?
If you’d like more questions, make sure you pick up a copy of the book. It has several questions for each correspondence.
Next time we’ll cover correspondences 26-27
Letters from a Skeptic (Part 9)
[Note: This is one post in a series on Greg Boyd’s book Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with his Father’s Questions About Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
For this session, we’ll cover Correspondences 21-23
SUMMARY
In these letters, Greg and his dad discuss the formation of the canon and the reasons for assuming the Bible should be valued above other holy books. Edward raises questions that many people have about the selection of the books of the Bible. For example, why did the church wait until the 5th century to identify the canonical books? Or, why are there differences between the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox collections?
Both of these questions have solid answers, as Greg demonstrates. The canon of the Bible was officially identified in the 5th century but they only affirmed what was largely agreed upon since the 2nd century. The differences between the canon is a reaction to the Protestant reformation of Martin Luther. The Catholic church had long distinguished between the apocryphal books and the rest of the Bible. Many Christians still consider the apocryphal books to be beneficial reading but not inspired.
INTRIGUING QUOTES
While your presentation of Christ and the Bible has been very compelling to me, I still have a lot of hurdles to jump before I can leap onto your ship of faith. -Edward, December 11, 1990
The New Testament forms an incredible monument which stays very much intact, even if some noteworthy stones are removed. -Greg December 28, 1990
Narrow-mindedness does not attach to what you believe, but how you believe it. If I refused to consider any perspective, any religious book, and any philosophy which disagreed with my own, that would be narrow-minded. But just because I hold to a belief that disagrees with other perspectives, other religious books, and other philosophies doesn’t itself make me narrow. -Greg, March 15, 1991
CONVERSATION STARTERS
What do you think about how the canon was selected?
Greg emphasizes relationship with Jesus over the need to answer every question. What do you think about this approach?
If you’d like more questions, make sure you pick up a copy of the book. It has several questions for each correspondence.
Next week we’ll cover correspondences 24-25
Letters from a Skeptic (Part 8)
[Note: This is one post in a series on Greg Boyd’s book Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with his Father’s Questions About Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
For this session, we’ll cover Correspondences 18-20
SUMMARY
In these letters, Greg and his dad discuss the nature of the Bible. Edward acknowledges that Greg’s arguments in favor of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection are quite strong. However, he argues that it is creating severe cognitive dissonance because he cannot simultaneously believe in God when he finds the Bible so unbelievable.
After discussing the issue of cognitive dissonance and explaining to his father how one can separate belief in Christ from concerns about the Bible, Greg addresses Edward’s issues with the difficulty of understanding the Bible.
If you’re not aware, Greg’s answer presupposes some important information. For example, the idea of the Bible’s inerrancy as assumed by many in evangelical churches received its current definition in the late 1970s. Greg appeals to the larger horizon of church history and tradition to approach this issue. If you’re interested in diving into Greg’s points in these chapters, you should read a couple of his more recent works where he fleshes out his ideas and even takes some different approaches thirty years later. See Cross Vision and Inspired Imperfection.
INTRIGUING QUOTES
You can’t ask me only to consider your strong arguments and bypass your embarrassing material. -Edward, September 27, 1990
It seems to me that a good many of your problems with the Bible arise from misconceptions about what kind of book the Bible is supposed to be. -Greg, November 6, 1990.
So, Dad, taking the Bible seriously does not necessarily mean taking it all literally. -Greg, November 6, 1990
CONVERSATION STARTERS
In what areas do you deal with cognitive dissonance?
What do you find embarrassing or troublesome with the Bible? How do you deal with that?
What do you make of Greg’s argument that you arrive at your view of Scripture based on your understanding of Jesus?
If you’d like more questions, make sure you pick up a copy of the book. It has several questions for each correspondence.
Next week we’ll cover correspondences 21-23.
Letters from a Skeptic (Part 7)
Letters from a Skeptic (Part 7)
[Note: This is one post in a series on Greg Boyd’s book Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with his Father’s Questions About Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
For this session, we’ll cover Correspondences 16-17
SUMMARY
In these letters, Greg and his dad address the topic of Jesus’s resurrection and why Christians use it to claim that Jesus is God. Edward notes how Greg’s arguments are interesting and somewhat reasonable. However, he struggles to reconcile them with a worldview in which he knows that people don’t come back to life after they die.
Greg addresses Edward’s concerns by outlining some of the arguments in favor of seeing Jesus’s resurrection as an actual historical event. If you’ve never studied these arguments, Greg provides a good, introductory summary.
What’s most interesting about their conversation, is the candidness with which Edward approaches the issues. He is very honest about his issues. While Greg is confident his father will ultimately choose to embrace the Christian faith, he repeatedly emphasizes his care for his dad and his enjoyment of their conversations.
INTRIGUING QUOTES
I don’t know why the disciples thought Jesus rose from the dead, but it seems to me that any explanation is better than the one which assumes that He actually did rise from the dead. (Edward, May 29, 1990)
Let me first respond to your concern that I’m growing tired of your skepticism. Perish the thought! I admire the strength of your character and the astuteness of your questions and objections. I’m loving this! Beyond my love for the subject, I’m just enjoying dialoguing with you about the most important things in life. We’ve never talked like this before. (Greg, June 16, 1990)
What I’m trying to do, Greg, is reconcile the force of your evidence with a worldview that makes more sense to me. Concluding that Jesus was God just doesn’t. (Edward, July 16, 1990)
CONVERSATION STARTERS
What are the reasons Greg provides for believing in the resurrection?
What challenges does the claim that Jesus rose from the dead raise for your faith?
What do you take away from how Greg and Edward dialogue with one another?
If you’d like more questions, make sure you pick up a copy of the book. It has several questions for each correspondence.
Next week we’ll cover correspondences 18-20.
Letters from a Skeptic (Part 6)
[Note: This is one post in a series on Greg Boyd’s book Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with his Father’s Questions About Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
For this session, we’ll cover Correspondences 13-15
SUMMARY
In correspondences 13-15, Greg and his dad turn their attention to the topic of Jesus. Greg’s dad asks many important questions. Two of the most significant are the reliability of the Gospels and Christians’ dependence on these documents for their faith.
Specifically, Edward wonders how one could base their faith on ancient documents that seem to have been pieced together from earlier sources and arrange the material in significantly different ways.
If you’ve never looked into issues of the Gospels’ reliability or how Christians can approach the Bible as a historical resource before adopting it as the basis for their faith, you should read this section. Greg provides numerous, succinct points that provide a helpful introduction to the issues.
INTRIGUING QUOTES
Christians, especially the “born- again” types, are always quoting the Bible to back up their beliefs. They justify their beliefs as absolute truths because “the Bible tells me so.” All I can say is, by whose authority is the Bible granted this lofty position? (Edward, February 24, 1990)
Most of the Christians I’ve ever run into are so certain that they’re right—on every point—that there’s little sense in discussing anything with them. (Edward, April 14, 1990)
I agree with you, Dad, that most evangelicals treat the Bible as though it fell from heaven, but I think this is a mistaken conception and has nothing to do with inspiration. (Greg, May 23, 1990)
CONVERSATION STARTERS
Have you ever thought about the Gospels as historical documents? How does that affect the way we approach them?
What do you think of Greg’s arguments about the general reliability of the Gospels?
How have you thought about the Bible’s inspiration? What’s good and bad about your approach?
If you’d like more questions, make sure you pick up a copy of the book. It has several questions for each correspondence.
Next week we’ll cover correspondences 13-15.
Letters from a Skeptic (Part 5)
[Note: This is one post in a series on Greg Boyd’s book Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with his Father’s Questions About Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
For this session, we’ll cover Correspondences 11-12
SUMMARY
In correspondences 11-12, Greg and his dad explore the topic of prayer in greater depth. Greg’s dad raises some really important questions. Why would God care to communicate with such insignificant creatures like humans? What is the purpose of prayer? Why doesn’t prayer seem effective?
Greg provides some really helpful responses. For example, he shows how “smallness” does not equate to “insignificance.” In fact, one’s ability to love something that appears radically disproportionate is usually an example of extravagant love.
Greg also points to the complexity of life as a reason many prayers seem to go unanswered. He likens it to a military captain who cannot accommodate all the wishes of his son, who is caught in the crossfire, because he must handle the larger battlefield at the same time.
Additionally, Greg suggests that making requests of God in prayer is a small part of prayer’s purpose. Instead, prayer is meant to cultivate a relationship between ourselves and God. We do not like it when someone only makes requests of us. So, we should cultivate a life of prayer that is not entirely centered on making requests of God.
INTRIGUING QUOTES
I’m wondering why, if your view is the Christian view, have I never heard it before? (Edward, December 15, 1989)
The main function of prayer is simply to be with someone you love: to talk, to listen, or to simply “commune” with your Creator. (Greg, December 28, 1989)
If petitionary prayer could be conclusively “verified,” it would turn God into a sort of cosmic vending machine. Make your requests, pull the lever, and abracadabra, you have your wish granted. (Greg, December 28, 1989)
CONVERSATION STARTERS
Do you pray? Why or why not?
What is the purpose of prayer?
If you’d like more questions, make sure you pick up a copy of the book. It has several questions for each correspondence.
Next week we’ll cover correspondences 13-15.
Letters from a Skeptic (Part 4)
[Note: This is one post in a series on Greg Boyd’s book Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with his Father’s Questions About Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
For this session, we’ll cover Correspondences 8-10
SUMMARY
In correspondences 8-10, Greg and his dad dive deep into questions about the existence of God. The exchanges provide a great illustration of what it’s like to engage in deep, meaningful discussion with someone. Both men write letters from places of passion and reason, but they openly acknowledge as much.
Edward wonders how we might square our existence with the notion of a personal God. He argues that God does not seem to personally care about creation, because of the atrocities we face. You can feel the weight of this argument when he recounts the tragic loss of his wife when Greg was a child. If you have ever faced such a personal tragedy, you will likely resonate with the questions Edward asks.
Rather than rely on philosophical arguments, Greg spends time discussing the experiential parts of his faith that enabled him to move along the path of emotional healing. Too often, Christians imagine that all questions stem from intellectual issues of the faith. If only people really understood what Christians think, then they wouldn’t object to the faith. This completely ignores the real life tragedies people face. It does little good to make intellectual arguments and deny the power of emotional experiences.
INTRIGUING QUOTES
“I admit that you’ve to some extent cleared away some of my obstacles to believing in the Christian God, but it’s starting to feel sort of like a game to me.” (Edward, August 4)
“Why believe in God in the first place? I have a lot of reasons, Dad. Some of these come from the head, while others come from the heart. Some involve very sophisticated philosophical reasoning, whole others come “straight from the gut.” (Greg, August, 21)
Evil tends to propagate evil, individually and societally. And this is part of what is meant in Christian theology by “original sin.” (Greg, June 18)
“I was torn between two opposing convictions. The world, with all of its beauty, design, intricacy, and personal characteristics, demands that there must be a God. But, I thought at the time, the suffering of the world says that there can’t be a God.” (Greg, November 23)
CONVERSATION STARTERS
Do you tend to rely on emotional arguments or intellectual ones? Is there a better balance than the one you strike?
What are you thoughts on the contrast between the beauty of the creation and tragedies in life?
What argument about the existence of God do you find most (or least) compelling? Why?
If you’d like more questions, make sure you pick up a copy of the book. It has several questions for each correspondence.
Next week we’ll cover correspondences 11-13.
Letters from a Skeptic (Part 3)
[Note: This is one post in a series on Greg Boyd’s book Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with his Father’s Questions About Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
For this session, we’ll cover Correspondences 5-7.
SUMMARY
Greg and his dad, Edward, continue their conversation with letters about issues of free will, the problem of evil, and God’s power. In correspondence 5, Edward asks about what might be called “natural evil” (i.e., earthquakes, famines, birth abnormalities, etc.). This is a powerful question that needs to be thoughtfully considered by Christians and doubters alike. How do we reconcile God’s existence with the imperfect world?
Greg approaches the question by pointing out how many natural disasters could be diverted or minimized if humans were not so greedy. For example, famines would be a nuisance but not a problem if we distributed food resources more generously across the world. Additionally, he incorporates the Christian belief in the existence of spiritual forces to account for some of the problems we face.
Notice how Greg acknowledges that belief in spiritual beings may be a bridge too far for his dad at this point in the journey. It’s a wonderful example of how we should willingly acknowledge when some of our responses in conversation are clearly based on presuppositions we’ve adopted but do not share with our friends.
In the 7th correspondence, Greg and his dad discuss the issue of God’s omnipotence (aka all-powerfulness). Greg offers an intriguing way of thinking about God’s power in relation to God’s creation. You should definitely read through it for yourself as it requires more space to explain than we have in this summary.
INTRIGUING QUOTES
I would argue that most of the pain and suffering in the world is the result of evil people, not nature, and that even the pain caused by most natural disasters could be minimized or eliminated if humans were what God created us to be. (Greg, May 29)
It seems like every question just leads to ten more questions. Do you think we’re getting anywhere, Greg? Not that I mind. My brain hasn’t had to work like this for decades, and I enjoy it. But I wonder if you’re going to tire of it. I’d certainly understand it if you did. (Edward, June 6)
Evil tends to propagate evil, individually and societally. And this is part of what is meant in Christian theology by “original sin.” (Greg, June 18)
Not that I buy your “cosmic warfare” business, but I can at least see how a person could intelligently believe it. (Edward, June 26)
CONVERSATION STARTERS
Do you believe in spiritual beings? If so, what do you think they’re like?
How do reconcile God’s power with the evil in the world?
What are your thoughts about human free-will? Do we have it? Or no?
If you’d like more questions, make sure you pick up a copy of the book. It has several questions for each correspondence.
Next week we’ll cover correspondences 8-10.
Letters from a Skeptic (Part 2)
[Note: This is one post in a series on Greg Boyd’s book Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with his Father’s Questions About Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
For this session, we’ll cover Correspondences 2-4.
SUMMARY
As we saw last week, this book hits the ground running with difficult questions. Greg’s dad does a wonderful job of getting right to the point. In correspondences 2-4, Greg and Edward wrestle with the problem of evil, suffering, freedom, and the nature of God’s knowledge.
Edward’s dad asks specific questions about the problem of evil. He does not waste time with abstract theoretical questions. Instead, he uses specific, horrific examples. As Greg notes, these types of issues require extreme sensitivity to discuss. Greg goes so far as to acknowledge that anyone who experiences such pain (or is close to someone who does) would have every right to question God’s goodness.
Part of Greg’s answer depends on his proposal that the creation of a free world can only coexist with an acceptance of risk. Free will poses a risk because people can choose to do either good or evil with their freedom. Further, Greg argues that our capacity for evil is matched by our capacity for goodness. If we can be good to a million people, then, we can be evil to a million people as well.
In the final correspondence for this week, Greg and his dad discuss the issue of God’s knowledge. Greg espouses an idea that is commonly known as open theism. He acknowledges it’s not the traditional view of God’s knowledge. Space does not permit an adequate summary of his view in this blog post. So, I’d recommend you read the correspondence or buy his book God of the Possible for a more in-depth look at his view.
INTRIGUING QUOTES
“I don’t feel that question can be swept away so easily” (Edward, March 23)
"This is a very tough question, to the point where it’s almost insensitive to even give an answer.” (Greg, March 29)
“I simply refuse to accept that existence can be the senseless nightmare it appears to be if, in fact, this short life is the only life there is.” (Greg, April 11)
CONVERSATION STARTERS
Why is the problem of evil such a difficult question for people who believe in God? Especially, the Christian God?
Greg acknowledges that some questions may seem insensitive to answer. How do we approach such questions?
What do you think about Greg’s proposal concerning God’s knowledge of the future?
If you’d like more questions, make sure you pick up a copy of the book. It has several questions for each correspondence.
Next week we’ll cover correspondences 5-7.
Letters from a Skeptic (Part 1)
[Note: This is one post in a series on Greg Boyd’s book Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with his Father’s Questions About Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
Greg Boyd is a pastor, theologian, and scholar who has written numerous thought-provoking books over the years. If you’d like to learn more about him, you should check out his website.
Letters from a Skeptic is a series of correspondences between Greg and his dad, Edward Boyd. For the next couple of months, we’ll work through the book. Each week you will receive a summary of the reading, intriguing quotes, and conversation starters.
The idea behind this series is for you to invite someone to read this book with you. Books provide a great way to enter into conversation with other people. It offers a neutral third party to help you have better conversations. You and your friend can direct your thoughts, questions, and frustrations at the author and not one another.
So, let’s get started…
For the first session, we’ll cover the Preface, Invitation, and Correspondence 1.
Summary
This book is closely based on a series of letters between Greg Boyd and his father, Edward Boyd. It chronicles their correspondence over nearly 3 years. Unlike other books about defending the Christian faith, Letters from a Skeptic reads like a conversation between two people who love each other and genuinely care for one another regardless of the outcome of their conversations.
In his invitation to his dad, Greg invites his dad to engage in a conversation about the Christian faith as a means to increase their understanding of one another and strengthen their relationship. Though Greg is perfectly clear about his desire for his dad to follow Jesus, nothing in Greg’s approach suggests their relationship depends on the result of the conversation. It’s a great example of how faith conversations are best held in the context of loving relationships.
The book dives right in as Greg’s dad asks about all the harm Christians have done in the name of Christ. From the crusades to the Inquisition and everything in between, Edward powerfully notes the shortcomings of Christians and suggests this should invalidate the Christian faith because the Church is supposed to be Christ’s representation.
Boyd addresses this question by distinguishing between Christians who follow Jesus and the institution of Christianity. SInce God is love, God grants humans freedom. And, since free creatures can choose either good or evil, the evil done by Christians is due to sin and not God.
If you feel like Greg’s initial answer leaves some things unsaid, just wait. Greg’s dad won’t let him off easy. As we’ll see in the next few letters, their correspondence probes these issues deeply.
Intriguing Quotes
“This correspondence is a testimony to the transforming power of persistent love and honest communication in sharing the gospel.”
“It also just seems right, as a part of our father-son relationship, that we be open with one another about our worldviews.”
“Also, unlike you, I’m not a trained philosopher, so if you write to me like you wrote in your dissertation, forget it! I won’t be able to follow you. So you’ll have to keep it simple. “
“Well, you wanted an objection: You’ve got one. I look forward to your response. Give my love to Shelley and the kids.”
Conversation Starters
What do you like (or not) about how Greg initiates this conversation with his dad?
Greg and his dad write letters because it gives them more space to talk. Why do you think the context of difficult or intricate conversations matter?
What do you think about Edward’s objections? Do they resonate with you? What about Greg’s response?
If you’d like more questions, make sure you pick up a copy of the book. It has several questions for each correspondence.
Next week we’ll cover correspondences 2-4.
After Evangelicalism (Part 9)
[Note: This is one post in a series on David Gushee’s book After Evangelicalism: The Path to a New Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
Chapter 8: Politics: Starting over after white evangelical’s embrace of Trumpism
In this chapter, Gushee addresses what he identifies as the major problem of intertwining how we practice our Christian faith and engage in the political landscape. Gushee pays particular attention to the decades-long process that has led to conservative Christianity being almost synonymous with American Republicanism.
As he develops his argument, Gushee identifies two factors that pushed conservative Christians into a deeper relationship with the Republican party. First, conservative Christians perceived GOP politicians as a means to an end. The politicians would theoretically support policies that would enable the flourishing of Christianity in America. Second, the Democratic party increasingly embraced secularism and took stances many conservative Christians perceived as antithetical to the Bible’s teachings.
As an anti-dote to what he sees as a major problem for evangelical Christians, Gushee offers his “Seven Marks of Healthy Christian Politics.”
A distinctive Christian identity — not a civil religion
A politics of hope, not fear
Critical distance from all earthly powers—not partisanship, partnership, or surrender
A discipline provided by a Christian social teaching tradition—not ideology or improv
A global perspective — not parochial or nationalist
A vision for the common good - not the Church’s self-interest
A people who practice what they preach — not hypocrites or load shifters
Intriguing Quote(s)
“There is no way that the Bible can be said to produce a single, coherent political vision or ethic. It has proven to be usable for endless alternative politics: theocratic, royalist, authoritarian, fascist, ethno-nationalist, slavocratic, colonialist, Christian democrat, revolutionary, reformist, liberal, libertarian, socialist, communist, anarchist, quietist, millenarian, and even today’s social-conservative white evangelical Republicanism.” (138)
“Christians who are confused about their core identity often abandon the teachings of Jesus for the demands of other lords, notably, the nation itself—without knowing they are doing so.” (145)
“Politicians are generally far less interested in hearing Christian moral convictions stated in their presence than in co-opting Christian influencers for their own political purposes. They feign interest in the former while pursuing the latter.” (146)
Conversation Starters
How would you assess the relationship between your faith and your politics?
Can you identify the areas where your preferred political party takes stands that are unbiblical?
Should Christians reject partisan politics? Why or why not?
After Evangelicalsim (Part 8)
[Note: This is one post in a series on David Gushee’s book After Evangelicalism: The Path to a New Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
Chapter 7: Sex: From Sexual Purity to Covenant Realism
In this chapter, Gushee invites the reader to reflect on the typical evangelical approach to sexual purity and to consider an alternative path forward. Gushee’s chapter does a particularly good job of tracing the (often negative) influence of Christian purity culture.
One of Gushee’s contentions revolves around the implications of “purity.” When we frame our discussion of sexual ethics in terms of “purity,” Gushee suggests that we implicitly tell ourselves that every “mistake” will result in our dirtiness. The results of this framework can be destabilizing to people. This is especially true for young people whose hormones are activated at puberty (10-13 years old) but must maintain abstinence physically and mentally until they are married. Statistically, more people are getting married in their late twenties than ever before. Gushee suggests this puts an unrealistic burden on people.
The problem of purity culture is exasperated by people who engage the entire issue without every seriously reflecting on the detrimental effects it has on LGBTQ people (especially those who are still closeted in our communities of faith). Gushee suggests that post-evangelicals must find a way to remedy this entire situation.
Gushee pushes for a much more inclusive sexual framework than the vast majority of evangelicals find acceptable. Instead of focusing on “purity,” Gushee encourages embracing a covenantal approach to our sexuality. According to Gushee, responsible human sexuality that is not coercive or exploitative should be endorsed as a baseline, but not embraced as the ultimate ideal. Instead, he argues that Christian sexuality should focus on covenantal relationships instead of simply human flourishing or happiness.
Intriguing Quote(s)
“Purity language is about what is morally right and wrong, but it deploys a language more visceral than customary ethics-talk; it lives in the neighbor-hood of dirt, disgust, pollution, and revulsion, not merely objective wrong-doing. As used in the evangelical subculture, it brought sexual shame to a whole new level.” (124)
“Sometime in the 1990s, the cultural tide began shifting. Moving just a bit with the times, some evangelicals adopted a kinder, gentler rhetoric of “love the sinner, hate the sin.” But, in the end, this was not that much kinder or gentler—hating the sin involved plenty of disgust-producing rhetoric that inevitably, and sometimes literally, bled into gay and lesbian people’s lives. The role of disgust in dehumanizing people must never be underestimated.” (127)
“Sexual-ethical perfectionism errs on the one side. Sexual libertinism errs on the other. Evangelicalism erred on the one side to avoid erring on the other. I hope that the covenant realism proposed here manages to find a middle way.” (135)
Conversation Starters
Have you ever seriously reflected on your views about human sexuality? Why or why not?
How do your views on sexuality impact people around you?
What would you keep or change about the way issues of sexuality have been dressed in your life (church, family, school, etc.)?
After Evangelicalism (Part 7)
[Note: This is one post in a series on David Gushee’s book After Evangelicalism: The Path to a New Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
Chapter 6: Church: Finding Christ’s People
Having explored how he understands the Old Testament narrative and Christ’s Gospel in the previous two chapters, Gushee proceeds to explain his definition of the church. Rather than spend a majority of his time pointing out the issues he sees with evangelical communities, Gushee offers the reader and inside look at the kind of faith-community he finds life-giving.
Gushee emphasizes the need for Christians to find a local community of people who enter into a covenant with one another and God. The covenant relationship binds the people together as they walk through all sorts of issues in life. This chapter especially invites the reader to find a community of people that are Seeking the Kingdom. This is the name of the group Gushee started at his local church. The name emphasizes the ongoing nature of Christian maturity and development.
Gushee’s explanation of the church is both expansive and challenging. He emphasizes the universality of the church. God seeks all people and our churches should reflect that diversity. Additionally, Gushee’s explanation of the church challenges us to grow in faith together with other Christians. This is not a devotional group that rests on platitudes. Instead, it seeks out God’s truth. Wherever the Spirit leads, Christians should follow. Gushee argues this will lead us to far more inclusive spaces than typically found in evangelical churches.
Intriguing Quote(s)
“It is possible—indeed, it is sadly well documented—that groups of people claiming to be churches can become negations of the church. Churches can become divided and divisive, unholy and hateful, racist and xenophobic, alien-ated and alienating from the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ.Some people leave churches like that, thinking mistakenly that they have left the church. Instead, they have left negations of what Christ intended the church to be. Fleeing such communities may not be a sign of wavering faith in Jesus; it may be an affirmation of it.” (107)
“We may not be able to find Christ’s people where we thought to look. But I am convinced that we can find them.” (107)
“The Christian life does not thrive in isolation, and podcasts are not enough. Find flesh-and-blood kingdom people in a real physical space somewhere and do life together as far as you can manage it.” (112)
Conversation Starters
What does your engagement in a faith community look like? Does your involvement allow you to know people on a deep/personal level?
Is your church diverse (ethnically, generationally, etc.)? What enables this or prevents it?
After Evangelicaliism (Part 6)
[Note: This is one post in a series on David Gushee’s book After Evangelicalism: The Path to a New Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
Chapter 5: Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Lynched God-man, Risen Lord
Having explained how he understands the Old Testament’s purpose for constructing a post-evangelical faith, Gushee moves on to explore how post-evangelicals might approach Jesus. His chapter relies heavily upon the work of New Testament scholar, James Dunn. As Gushee points out, every account of Jesus is built upon someone else’s account: the Gospels, the epistles, the Catholics, the Calvinists, and etc.
With this observation in place, Gushee identifies four evangelical accounts of Jesus: 1) Jesus the Crucified Savior; 2) Hallmark-Christmas-movie Jesus; 3) Jesus Who Wants You to Succeed; and 4) Vacant Jesus fillable with any content we want. Gushee suggests that each of these versions have varying degrees of truth in them (with the first one being far and away the best), they all leave out many important facets of Jesus’s life and ministry.
Gushee’s main point is that we should look to the Synoptic Gospels to understand the kernel of Jesus’s reality according to himself. He suggests that this account of Jesus will serve as the best antidote to our distorted accounts. Moreover, the account of Jesus we find in the Gospels radically contradicts the more distorted evangelical versions of Jesus and offers us a better way forward into a post-evangelical faith.
Intriguing Quote(s)
“We suggest that for Jesus, the kingdom has seven key marks. God interrupts history, (1) unmistakably giving evidence of his presence, creating changes in human life toward (2) deliverance, (3) justice, (4) peace, (5) healing, and (6) inclusion of exiles and outcasts in community. Human beings can only respond with (7) joy—unless, that is, they prefer the world as it is, in which case they invite divine judgment.” (91)
To my post-evangelical friends, this is my request: please do not think that the problem with the religion you are leaving behind is Jesus. If you return to serious encounter with Jesus as we meet him in the New Testament, I do not think you will be disappointed. For me, the place to begin is in that most primal core, where we meet the prophetic, radical, just, powerful, defiant preacher of the dawning reign of God.” (100)
Conversation Starters
Based on your awareness of the Christian faith, how would you describe Jesus and his ministry today?
What would you identify as problems with the “evangelical Jesus”?
How does the Jesus of the Gospels challenge our understanding of Jesus today?
After Evangelicalism (Part 5)
[Note: This is one post in a series on David Gushee’s book After Evangelicalism: The Path to a New Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
Chapter 4: God: In Dialogue with the Story of Israel
After spending the first several chapters deconstructing problems with evangelicalism and its authoritative sources, Gushee begins his reconstructive project in chapter 4. In this chapter he acknowledges the various strands of theology which played especially formative roles in the construction of his theological perspective (kingdom of God theology, social gospel theology, Holocaust theology, liberation theology, Catholic social teaching tradition, and progressive evangelical social ethics).
The majority of the chapter is spent outlining Gushee’s summary of the Old Testament narrative. He suggests that our theology should be shaped by a reading of the Old Testament which is enriched by conversations with post-holocaust Jewish thinking. This leads Gushee to acknowledge the “multi-vocality” of scripture in which the various biblical authors and later interpreters wrestle with God’s covenant faithfulness and the reality of evil in the world. One of the chapter’s most important contributions is to emphasize the loving nature of God in the Old Testament.
Intriguing Quote(s)
“The burning-children test constrains all claims about God, Jesus, and the church that I will make in this book.” (70)
“Elie Wiesel also used that word: ‘I believe in a wounded faith. Only a wounded faith can exist after these events. Only a wounded faith is worthy of a silent God.’” (76)
Conversation Starters
What theological traditions have influenced your thinking?
Have you ever read Christian (or Jewish) thinkers who might challenge the way you understand the Christian life?
How should the Holocaust challenge or change the way we construct our theology?
After Evangelicalism (Part 4)
[Note: This is one post in a series on David Gushee’s book After Evangelicalism: The Path to a New Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
Chapter 3: Resources: Hearing God’s Voice Beyond Scripture
In the previous chapter, Gushee challenged the stereotypical evangelical understanding of Scripture. He follows that conversation by suggesting Christians tap into other God-given resources for living as a Christian in the world. He identifies three categories of sources.
Church Tradition: Gushee suggests that Christians take the first 7 centuries of Christian history very seriously because it is shared by all the major versions of Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant denominations). However, Gushee thinks our engagement with Tradition should be done in a critical manner. We may honor them while acknowledging places they got it wrong (i.e. rampant anti-Semitism).
Human Capacities: Gushee pushes back against the notion that Scripture can provide us all the answers we need. He points out that we routinely rely on external sources of knowledge. Thus, he suggests that we be honest about this and we intentionally tap into human capacities for rationality, experience, community, and etc.
The Arts and Sciences: Not only should we utilize our God-given capacities, Gushee suggests we should also tap into the arts and sciences. He argues that these are avenues for knowledge that do not need to be in competition with the Christian life. They are methods by which we can pursue truth and since all truth is God’s truth, they are methods by which we can pursue God’s truth.
Intriguing Quote(s)
“Post-evangelical Christians should allow explicit engagement with these internal conversation partners to inform our reading of the Bible and our efforts to follow Jesus faithfully, rather than pretending that tradition and church leadership are not mediating biblical interpretation” (47).
“We can pay due homage to the Tradition of Christianity. But we will not ask it to absolve us of the necessity to think for ourselves and to take responsibility for what we decide” (51).
Conversation Starters
What have you been taught about the Bible? (i.e. it has all the answers, it’s infallible, etc.) Have you ever thought about or struggled with the way the Bible has been explained to you?
How does your church/community relate the Bible and science to one another?
How do you search for truth? What sources do you look to for answers or guidance?
After Evangelicalism (Part 3)
[Note: This is one post in a series on David Gushee’s book After Evangelicalism: The Path to a New Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
Chapter 2: Scripture: From Inerrancy to the Church’s Book
In the second chapter, David Gushee tackles what he sees as evangelical’s problematic relationship to the Bible. His primary concern relates to the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy. (FYI you can read “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” to understand what Gushee is addressing.) Gushee argues that the evangelical conception of the Bible cannot be sustained. He points out that most introductory courses to the Bible present problems with this theory.
He offers two approaches to the Bible he thinks are more helpful than the evangelical approach. First, Gushee argues that Judaism’s relationship to the Bible after Jesus’s life and death offers an important conversation partner for Christians. They treat the Bible as a text to be questioned and explored. Second, Gushee suggests that evangelicals should learn from the Catholic church how to treat the Bible as Sacred Scripture. The Catholic church sets a schedule to ensure the Church works through the Bible over the course of several years. The result is Catholic Masses where the Bible plays a more central role than many protestant services.
Intriguing Quote
“One way to say it is that despite its profound meaning and historic role, the Bible cannot bear the weight that evangelicals expect it to bear” (Gushee, 30).
“Hints offered in 2 Timothy, as well as what we know of the canonization process, give us another way to hold the Bible as sacred—a way that does not require a brittle dogma of inerrancy. This way is to recognize that the Bible is and always has been the church’s book. Ever since the canonization decisions were made by the church, the Bible has, with the help of the Holy Spirit, been continually forming the church that itself canonized these texts. It is a loop between church, Spirit, and Bible, and it is enough” (Gushee, 38).
Conversation Starters
What do you (or your church) think about the Bible’s inspiration?
What could our understanding of the Bible gain from Jewish and Catholic approaches to the bible?
What would happen if you completely reimagined your view of the bible in the ways Gushee suggests?
After Evangelicalism (Part 2)
[Note: This is one post in a series on David Gushee’s book After Evangelicalism: The Path to a New Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
Chapter 1: Evangelicalism: Cutting Loose from an Invented Community
Gushee starts his book with a quick history of the evangelical movement (He acknowledges his provocative summary and hopes to persuade the reader to accept his interpretation of the movement’s history.)
According to Gushee, the American evangelicalism movement starts in the World War II era. He suggests that a diverse group of Christians all came together to combat perceived problems with Roman Catholicism, liberal Protestantism, and fundamentalist Christianity. He writes, “My core claim is that the modern American evangelicalism that so many of us are now abandoning was a brilliant social construction, an invented religious identity, that over decades yielded something like an actual religious community.”
By claiming that evangelicalism is a relatively new movement in Christian history, Gushee wants to challenge evangelicals to see themselves in a larger light. At the same time, he encourages people who are discontent with evangelicalism to recognize that they are not abandoning the Church (with a big C) by abandoning evangelicalism.
According to his analysis, Evangelicalism’s roots in fundamentalist movements ultimately led towards the movement’s problems. Additionally, he suggests that this led to a disastrous conflation between evangelicals and political movements in the United States. Specifically, he suggests that the Evangelical movement has naturally become associated with Republicanism because of its historic development,
Gushee closes his chapter with. a powerful reminder that because the Evangelical Christian witness is a damaged representation of the Gospel it is doing great harm to many people in our culture.
Intriguing Quote
“This move (political identification) may have provided a welcome shared identity and purpose for most white US evangelicals, but it shattered the earlier big-tent coalition, at least insofar as it had included many nonwhite and politically progressive evangelicals. It also deeply compromised the religious identity and mission of evangelical Christianity. Incidentally, it has also erased any meaningful distinction between evangelicalism and fundamentalism; at least on the political front, that distinction has collapsed” (Gushee, 24)
“If that one available version of the faith, the version that we offer them, is corrupted, then our people may naturally conclude that they had better flee before church itself damages their one and only soul” (Gushee, 27).
Conversation Starters
What is Evangelicalism and where did it come from?
Why do you think evangelicalism is so closely identified with the Republican party? What are. the potential pros and cons of this reality?
How does the church reflect Jesus? What prevents us from doing so?
After Evangelicalism (Part 1)
[Note: This is one post in a series on David Gushee’s book After Evangelicalism: The Path to a New Christianity. The aim of these posts is to help you start conversations with people in your community. Invite someone to read this book with you and discuss it together. You don’t need to agree with each other or the author to benefit from doing this type of activity.]
David Gushee’s After Evangelicalism: The Path to a New Christianity is a great book to read and discuss with someone who doesn’t think like you. It offers people from all different backgrounds and predispositions a way into a conversation about issues that matter.
If you are a proud evangelical, you’ll be challenged to confront important issues facing your expression of the Christian faith.
If you are a disgruntled evangelical, you’ll hear someone who has some of the same issues with evangelicalism as you. This will afford you the chance to consider a different expression of the faith.
If you are an exvangelical but still a Christian, you’ll likely find an ally in these pages. This can be encouraging to you.
If you are a complete outsider, you’ll get access to some important struggle sessions taking place within Christianity.
Most importantly, if you’re someone committed to (or interested in) living the Doubters’ Club lifestyle, you’ll find encouragement to keep conversations open and to prioritize loving people.
Whether you read this book by yourself or with a small group of friends. Each post on After Evangelicalism will follow a similar format.
A recap of important points in the chapter.
An intriguing quote or statistic
A couple of conversation questions.
Let’s dive into the Introduction.
Recap:
In the introduction, David Gushee summarizes the problems he sees facing evangelicalism. As the book suggests, however, he is not interested in deconstructing the Christian faith for deconstructionist reasons alone. Instead, he wants to offer people who find themselves disillusioned by evangelicalism a way forward through the “evangelical maze in order to come out on the other side—not just alive and intact, but still interested in a relationship with Jesus” (Gushee, 11).
Intriguing Quote/Statistic
“‘If that book is right, I would need to throw out half my library and start over again. That’s not happening.’ That ended the conversation” (Gushee, xi).
“According to the Pew Research Center’s landmark 2014 Religious Landscape Study, adults who had been raised evangelical but who had either switched to another religious tradition or no longer identified with any religious tradition comprised roughly 8 percent of the total US population. That’s about 25 million people” (Gushee, 2).
Conversation Starters
What is your relationship to evangelicalism?
Are you willing to rethink everything in your life? Or are you too invested to seriously consider changing your mind?
What problems/issues do you see in evangelicalism? What benefits do you see in evangelicalism?