Four Gospels Walk Into A Bar: A Ready Recollection of Easter Events

Four Gospels walk into a bar. Relax! It’s 2024 so Christians drink. And you don’t know, maybe they’re bar hopping evangelists. Jesus himself frequented places inhabited by sinners. 

Matthew comes in with bell bottoms and a mullet, of course with his own flare, always trying to reinterpret the retro. Luke enters finger pistoling a few folks in his rolled up flannel showcasing his colorful sleeves. Mark, the eldest of the quad, short and stocky, strolls in donning simple clothing not worth mentioning. John, always late, arrives last and with his staple three piece Jordan Petersonesque suit. 

The four perform the ritualistic greeting of three-pat hugs and fist bumps, sit at the old wooden table in the corner and order: Matthew some wine, red; Luke, a locally brewed IPA; Mark, a whiskey; and John, a vodka martini.

Matthew: It’s been a while, guys!

Luke: You ain’t shittin’.  

John gives him the side-eye. He didn’t really approve of Luke’s free use of language, but don’t worry; Luke has worked out theologically why it’s okay for Christian to cuss. 

Mark: Well, let me be the party-pooper because I don’t have all day. Let’s get to it. Matthew, in your text you mentioned rehashing the resurrection. That was an insane Sunday. Changed everything!

Everyone nods in agreement…perhaps for the only time. 

John: I remember it started early with Mary Magdalene arriving at the tomb. 

Matthew:  Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. 

Mark: Yes, Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome.

Luke: Salome was there? I know Joanna was there with the Marys. Some other ladies too.

Matthew:  What are you talking about? It was just the Marys.

John: No, just Mary - singular! 

Luke: Does it really matter who was there first?

John:  Well it kind of does, Luke.

Luke:  It was some ladies. At least no one is saying it was Peter. I heard that firey little preacher Paul say the resurrected Jesus first appeared to Peter. 

Matthew: I’m sure Peter was the one who told him that!

Everyone laughs.


Mark: The sun had just come up as…

John: It was still dark outside. 

Mark: It was early but not that early, John.

Luke: It doesn’t matter, bro. It was early when they got to Jesus’ tomb. Dude! Could you imagine their heads exploding when they get there to find the massive stone moved out of the way!

Matthew: Geeze! I know! What were they thinking on the way? Did they think they could just muscle the thing from the entrance? It had to weigh a couple thousands of pounds, you think?

John: It really freaked Mary out. She was convinced someone body-snatched Jesus. That’s why she took off to tell Peter and that other guy Jesus-loved-a-lot about it. 

Mark: That’s ridiculous. First of all, because I think it does matter, there were definitely more women than just Mary Magdalene, and none of them ever said a word to anyone after what they saw.

Luke: You’re right Mark. 

Mark: Thank you.

Luke: Just about the women, bro, because they did end up telling the disciples. 

Matthew: Hold on. Hold on. Are you guys all saying the giant rock was out of the way when they got to the tomb? Did you fools miss the earthquake?

Mark, Luke, John: Earthquake?!

Mark, Luke and John laugh assuming Matthew is joking.

Matthew: I’m serious! When the angel broke through the heavens it caused an earthquake. Yeah and he proceeded to power roll that sucker out of the way and then sat down on it. What do you think: the stone rolled itself out of the way? 

Luke: And you're saying the ladies saw all this?

Matthew: Of course! How else would I know about it? How could they forget an angel-caused earthquake?

Mark: First off, if the ladies told you about an earthquake they were smokin’ something or were just messing with you. You’re pretty gullible. The three of us would remember something as monumental as an earthquake. And you said an angel rolled the stone out of the way?

Matthew:  Yep! He was the one who told the ladies Jesus had risen. 

Mark: There was no angel.

John: That’s right; there were two angels.

Mark: Maybe you’ve had one too many martinis, John! There was no angel. Just a young guy in a white robe sitting in the tomb.

Luke: You’re right Mark, no angels or angel, but it was TWO men. Yeah, and they were sporting some kind of super bright lightening-like clothing. But, they were not in the tomb when the ladies got there. They spontaneously appeared after the women entered the tomb. 

Matthew: A man or even two men, for that matter, couldn’t roll a stone of that size out of the way. It was definitely an ANGEL, because that’s what spooked the guards protecting the tomb - leaving them trembling! A couple dudes wouldn’t scare trained soldiers.

Luke: Matthew! Shut up!

John, Mark: There were no guards at the tomb. 

John: Even if there was an earthquake it couldn’t have been caused by the angels. They didn’t appear until after Peter and the loveable guy had already visited the tomb and had headed back to Jerusalem. Mary saw the angels ‘cause she was still hanging out at the tomb trying to figure out who stole Jesus. 

Matthew: Okay, we can disagree about whether it was angels or men, multiple or singular, but we are in agreement that someone explained the empty tomb to the women and then encouraged them to go tell the disciples about it. 

Mark: Yes, the young man told the ladies what happened and told them to report the events to the disciples, but…and this is big but, they never said anything to anyone!

Luke: You got it backwards Mark. The men explained the empty-tomb situation to the women but never told the them to relay the info to the disciples. 

Matthew: Then how do you explain the ladies going and telling the disciples what they’d experienced? 

Luke: I didn't say they women didn’t go tell the disciples. I’m just saying the two men didn’t tell them to. I think the experience of the event itself would have led to talking about it.

Mark: Why am I having to repeat myself? Yes, the young guy told them to go tell the disciples, but they NEVER said a word. They were terrified.

John: You guys have your timeline wrong. Mary already told Peter and the love-pudgy guy Jesus’ body was missing before the angel appeared. In fact, Peter and the other guy had visited the tomb and left before the angel showed up.

Mark: John, seriously? Peter never visited the empty tomb that Sunday. 

Luke: No, Peter did go to the tomb, but it was after the two men manifested and told the women to tell the disciples.

Matthew: No Luke, Mark’s right. Peter never went to the empty tomb.

Mark: Thank you!

John: Let me finish with the timeline! After Peter and loverboy had come and gone the angels show up but all they do is ask Mary why she’s crying. After that, Jesus appears to Mary and HE is the one who tells her to report things to the disciples. 

Mark: They never said a word to anyone!

Luke: Jesus never appears to just Mary.

Matthew: He did appear to Mary Magdalene but she was with the other Mary, and they were already in route to tell the disciples about the resurrection. 

Luke: The resurrected Jesus first appears not to Mary or Marys but the two bros on their way to Emmaus. I think, uh, one of their names was Cleopas. 

Matthew: Huh? 

Mark: Emmaus? 

John: Cleopas?

Luke: Yes! Jesus’ first post-resurrection appearance was to the Cleopas and the other disciple on their way from Jerusalem to Emmaus. Remember, he explained to them everything that was happening regarding the resurrection?

Matthew slides his eyes over to Mark and then to John, but they’re as lost as he is.

Luke: …Not ringing a bell? And they didn’t even know it was Jesus until he broke some bread at dinner? When they realized it was Jesus, they turned around and went back to Jerusalem to tell the Eleven they’d seen Jesus.  While they were telling the Eleven about their experience that’s when Jesus shows up in front of all of them.

Matthew: Jesus never appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem! The angel specifically told the Marys Jesus would meet them in Galilee, ninety miles away!

John: Actually, he did appear to them in Jerusalem and only later to a few of them in Galilee. Remember, Thomas wasn’t there when Jesus showed up, and when the others tried to tell Thomas about it he was like, “Uhh yeah, okay guys. And I just shared a blueberry scone with Moses over a couple of lattes.” But then a week later Jesus shows back up to Thomas and he’s like, “Tommy boy, stick that index finger right here in this hole!” And he facepalms Thomas revealing his wound. Best burn ever!

Luke looks to Matthew and Mark for some help.

Luke: What the hell are you talking about?! Yes, Jesus shows up to his disciples in Jerusalem not Galilee, but he appeared to all Eleven. Thomas was definitely there.

John: No, no, no…Thomas wasn’t there. 

Matthew: I’m pretty sure Thomas was there the first go around but I’m CERTAIN, after appearing to the ladies on that Sunday morning, the next time Jesus appeared to his disciples was on a mountain in Galilee.

John: Wrong Matthew! It was in a room, in Jerusalem because they were hiding from the religious leaders.

Luke: Yeah, but that was after he appeared to the two guys on the road to Emmaus. They were the first ones who saw him, not the ladies! The women only saw angels.

Mark: LISTEN! No one saw Jesus. Not the ladies, not Peter, not Cleopat or whatever his name was and not even Thomas. He didn’t appear to anyone…and I’m done with this conversation because you guys keep going on about who told who what and I’ve told you from the beginning the ladies didn’t say a word after their experience at the tomb. They were too scared. I’m done with this.

Mark throws back the last ounce of whiskey and storms out of the pub. 

Luke: What’s his deal?

Matthew: Ahhh, don’t worry about him. That’s just Mark. But I want to go back to what you guys were saying. Jesus first appeared to the Eleven…

John: The Ten…no Thomas.

Matthew:...in Jerusalem? Are you serious? Both the angel AND the risen Jesus himself told the women to go tell his disciples to head to Galilee because that’s where they would see Jesus. 

Luke: Matthew, you gotta be kidding me, bro. The disciples never went back to Galilee. Even after Jesus took off into the sky they stayed in Jerusalem worshiping. I mean wouldn’t you if you’d seen that!?

John: Luke, you’re only partly right, and by partly I mean just a small percentage. Here’s the timeline again. After Mary, and only Mary, ran into the risen Jesus, she went and told the disciples who were hiding in a room in Jerusalem. That same day Jesus appeared to them in that room - minus Thomas who he appeared to one week after that in the same room with the others - still in Jeruslaem. And then, I’m not sure how long after, he appeared to Peter, Thomas and about five others at the Sea of Galilee in Galilee because they’d returned to fish there. 

Luke: No they didn’t. How could they go back to fishing after seeing the resurrected Christ!! And, by the way, Jesus never made it back to Galilee. He took off into heaven from Bethany, just outside Jerusalem. 

Matthew: Huh? No, he definitely appeared to his disciples first on a mountain in Galilee and that was, by the way, also the last time he appeared to them!

John: Are you guys sure we are talking about the same event?

Luke: Are you F-ing kidding me? You are talking about the Son of God resurrected from the dead! How many times do you think that happened?!

Matthew: Yeah, J. It’s kinda THE cosmic event. The most significant moment in history!

John: Yeah.

John stares at his glass swirling his last bit of martini. Matthew pulls out his phone to check his messages. Luke stands up.

Luke: I’m going to go play some darts. 

Luke exits. 

What the Hell? The Slippery Slope to Turning Down the Thermostat

One thing seems certain; we all die! Beyond that no one really knows. I mean…I guess clairvoyant medium types talk to dead people and could explain existence after one crosses the threshold. Hmmm…if you want. But in this post, I reflect specifically on major Christian beliefs regarding the afterlife for those who don’t believe in Jesus as God’s son…yes, The Lost, The Unredeemed, The Pagan, The Unbeliever, The Old Creation, the Nones…and how it lead me toward atheism.

Which Afterlife are you talking about?

If we are honest, a Christian theology of the afterlife is conjecture because the Bible is anything but clear on what happens after you die. Different perspectives exist within its own pages: Enoch “was no more” - seems simply to have vanished (Yoda-esque if you ask me), Gen. 5:21-25. Elijah was lifted into the sky by a whirlwind arriving on the back of a chariot of fire (II Kings 2:1,11). King Saul chats it up with a dead Samuel, a ghostly figure still wearing a robe (I Sam. 28:3-15). The Old Testament often refers to Sheol as the place for the dead, but then isn’t clear on what the hell (Get it?) such a nether world is…for good people? For bad people? A physical grave? The New Testament talks about Gehenna…a burning trash field outside Jerusalem or simply a metaphor for a horrible place? Or Hades…perhaps similar to the OT’s Sheol. But then the NT mentions the Third Heaven (2 Cor 12:2). Can I go there? Or, Abraham’s Side (Luke 16:2). But then you have, at the time of Jesus’ death, what seems a Walking Dead scenario: dead people’s bodies bursting out of tombs and meandering through Jerusalem (Matt. 27:52-53). Oh yeah, and don’t forget the imprisoned spirits of the dead from I Peter 3:19.

Good luck harmonizing that hot mess. I’m not sure the Bible knows what happens after you die. As a Christian, the text forces you to pick a path and run with it…and sometimes end up running away from it. Here’s my decent to…(fill in the pun).

Hell: Eternal Torture

First, Hell…a fundamental evangelical view of a literal fiery realm of torture. We can probably thank Dante for shaping this perspective more than the sacred text, but it still holds a dominant position in Christendom. Hell is the JUST punishment/consequence for those who don’t believe in Christ. Over simply put…it goes something like: All people are sinners. Sin must be punished because God is holy. Jesus died and received the punishment for our sins since we are incapable of doing it for ourselves. Therefore, if you accept Jesus as God’s son then the punishment for your sins is paid for. If you don’t, then you will suffer the just punishment for your sins - HELL! Because God is just.

Never mind the absurdity of atonement theology (another post for another time), but I’d like to suggest that eternal (that’s never-ending) torture in a literal fire pit is not Just but cruel and unusual, perhaps even sadistic. A couple of thought experiments to press the argument:

First, Human 1. A man believes in Jesus as God’s son, he really does, but he also happens to be an asshole. He cheats at business. He is rude and hateful to many people. He lives a greedy and materialistic life. He has an affair; gets the lady pregnant only to abandon her to care for his child on her own in order to save his reputation. “Ahh,” you might say, “He’s not a true believer.” But he is! He really does believe in Jesus as God’s son, he is just imperfect, a flawed human in need of God’s grace! Thank God for grace. He dies…no Hell for him.

Human 2: A woman who doesn't believe in Jesus as God’s son. She was born in a country where Christianity was only a minor religion. Don’t get me wrong, she had many chances to believe in Jesus…missionaries presented the gospel to her on several occasions. She just found the presentations lacking. Blame it on a hard heart, culture, science….who knows. But despite not believing in God she treats people with kindness; she joins a humanitarian group during college and helps dig wells for communities with poor drinking water. The experience is impactful enough to lead her to work 20 years for a non-profit helping the marginalized. Okay, let’s be honest….there’s some hanky-panky that goes on before marriage. In fact, she never gets married. There is also some experimental psychedelic use, and she’s been known to drop a few “F-bombs.” But at the end of her life she has literally, physically, and practically made the world a better place. She dies…Hell for her - eternal torture!

Let’s take the thought experiment one step further.

You are a Christian. You have daughter. From the time the doctor cleared her to enter public spaces you had her in church. You taught her about Jesus. You tried to model Jesus. You weren’t perfect, of course, but there was no doubt you did your best to build a gospel foundation for your daughter. But, unfortunately in her late teens she rejects Jesus and the Christian faith…not out of spite, or anger or rebellion. She can’t bring herself to accept it as true. You blame the influence of culture and her obsession with biology and physics. You blame the books she’d been reading…but at the same time you also witnessed her battle. You watched her try to believe. You watched her struggle when deciding to leave the church because, although she loved the community, she couldn’t authentically attend. You saw her pain because she knew you were disappointed. She’d listened to the apologists. She’d read The Case for Christ and experimented with more progressive thinkers like Richard Rohr, Nadia Boltz-Weber and Rob Bell, but in the end she could not authentically believe in Jesus as God’s son.

You die.

She dies later.

You now exist in the bliss of heaven, the presence of God with all the beautiful metaphors of streets of gold and unicorn pets. Meanwhile, your daughter suffers the torment of hell. You are aware she is not with you in heaven so she must be in Hell. Despite her integrity of thought and practice, despite her attempt to believe, despite you knowing her struggle, she will be in Hell, and you are supposed to be elated, the happiest, most fulfilled you’ve ever been for all of eternity while the person you would have given your life for on earth roasts like a rotisserie chicken forever. Not only that, but while you don’t get to experience your daughter in heaven, you do get to spend countless hours with Human 1 who resides there with you.

What’s just? A lifetime for a lifetime. Your daughter lived 88 years…so after 88 years, she’s paid her debt. Okay, let’s do two lifetimes for one: 176 years in hell for her 88 years on earth. Heck, let’s get crazy and say 1000 years in hell for 88 years on earth. That’s got to be more than just, right? No! Forever!

This fundamental view of hell is absurd at best, but more honestly, it’s malicious and evil. It’s not just.

Annihilation: “PooF,” You’re Gone

When I could no longer accept the violence of Hell, I reframed my theology toward Annihilationism. In this belief, when the unbeliever dies, they simply cease to exist while the Believer dwells with God forever. No eternal torture here, just an end. A couple of observations regarding this view.

First, this is what I believe as an atheist. When I die, that’s it. I cease to exist. That’s not really bad. As Mark Twain says,

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

Or as Epicurus put it:

“Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And once it does come, we no longer exist.”

One might argue that existence coming to an end might be a better option than eternity. Part of what makes an experience special, memorable and appreciated is knowing it won’t last. I think the same is true for life. Annihilationism fails to be compelling.

Second, replay the thought experiment from above….eternity without those with whom you love the most seems a less than the ideal eternity. I guess at some point you get use to the forever without them.

Universalism: An “All Dogs Go to Heaven” Kinda thing

In my last couple of years as a Christian I was a Universalist. I rejected the notion that the God I understood in Jesus Christ would either torture or annihilate flawed humans for failure to believe in his son. Instead, I concluded that Christ’s work on the cross, and more importantly the power of the resurrection (the reversal of death), undid the curse of sin (death itself) not just for Believers but for all humanity…. even all Creation. I did not preach such theology because I figured it would lead to unemployment but I believed it.

The problem with Universalism is that, from an afterlife perspective, it removes the need for the belief in Jesus as God’s son. If you believe in Jesus as God’s son, good, you spend eternity as the New Creation with God. If you DON’T believe in Jesus as God’s son, not so good, but you still spend eternity as the New Creation with God. Therefore, if the gospel secures the afterlife for everyone and everything, then what is the purpose of Christ for this early existence?

The purpose of Christ becomes the way of Christ, not for afterlife purposes, but for this life purposes. In other words, the purpose of Christ becomes more about the way he lived, the things he taught, the manner in which he died, rather than what he accomplished for the afterlife. In short, Jesus becomes an ethic for this life, not a life raft for the next life.

If this is the case, if Universalism leads one to focus on the ethic and person of Jesus rather than the atonement of Christ - the invisible transaction between God and sin - then miracles, virgin births, divine humans, and holy spirits have little to do with everyday life. In fact, there is no need to believe in a supernatural being who orchestrated all things. You can follow the ethical teachings of Jesus whether God exists or not. Universalism is perhaps closer to Humanism than Christianity. Humanism…now that’s something I can get behind.

Slippery slope: This is what your mom warned you about

Perhaps a Believer reads this and says, “Of course he is an atheist humanist. Once you leave the fundamental beliefs of Heaven and Hell you slowly unravel toward disbelief…orthodoxy to annihilationism to universalism to humanism to atheism. Yep, that makes sense.” I agree! It does to me as well. The difference is a Believer sees it as a decline toward lies and I see it as progression toward truth.

Family Feud: Jesus Doesn’t Like the Old Testament

Thus saith the lord

If you pressed Christians to name the sacred or foundational text of their faith, I believe 100% would eventually claim the Bible. It seems nearly impossible to believe in the Judeo-Christian God without its influence. That being said, Christians vary radically on the authority they attribute to the Bible…ranging from God uttered every word in its infallible and inerrant pages to it being a nexus of fictional, historical and mythical stories whose meaning morph as the faith community dances with modern life and culture in real time.

I began my Christian life with a fundamental view. During high school I remember believing God guided the hand a Moses as he penned the Pentateuch. But as I continued to study the Bible in college and ministry, the italicized statement above came apart. By the end my ministry, in order to maintain my own intellectual sanity, I dismissed the accuracy of the vast majority of the Old Testament. I was a Christian in spite of the Old Testament and not because of it.

All this to say (as I've said before here) the Bible stands as one of the greatest obstacles to Christian belief. I know of many now non-believers whose deconversion began when they got serious about reading the Bible.

In this post, I want to highlight one way the Old Testament’s (OT ) argues against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Before I begin, I acknowledge that the OT is engaging piece of literature and can be constructive in navigating this life. Personally, I love the grittiness and raw humanity of the OT narratives. Its main characters are as messy as us. Its various genres run the gamut of beautiful and redemptive to violent and depraved.

Ten more commandments

I’m not going to focus on the narratives, characters and themes, but rather specific Divine Laws; that’s right…laws God commanded his people to obey:

  1. Leviticus 24:44 - 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

  2. Deut. 25:11-12  - 11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

  3. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - 18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

  4. Leviticus 21:17-23: 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’”

  5. Exodus 21:7-8 - If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.

  6. Exodus 21:17 - 17 Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

  7. Exodus 21:20-21 - 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

  8. Leviticus 21:9 - 9If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.

  9. Leviticus 20:13 - 13 “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

  10. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I’ll stop with 10 and yes, I cherrypicked ones to fit my agenda. There are many generous, loving and redemptive laws within the pages of the Old Testament…but their existence does not exonerate the laws mentioned above.

Immoral Laws of a moral god

Any rational Christian would not only refuse to practice such teachings but would denounce them. I know of no Christians who keep these commands. Even if you tried, the secular government would arrest you for breaking the law. You’d most likely wind up in prison. These commands pose a serious problem to the Judeo-Christian God.

For many Christians the solution is simple: “We are Christ-followers! We are under the new covenant...Jesus’ teaching, not the Old Testament.” That’s what I would have said. I would have argued that Jesus came to correct the understanding of the OT Law...to show its true purpose. In other words, Christians would agree these commands are horrendous: immoral even! 

This is great! I’m tickled to death Christians don’t practice these laws. That’s not the problem; the problem is if Christians believe these laws were ever authoritative for God’s people at any point.

If you say, “Yes, these laws were commanded by God and governed the daily life of his people,” then you have to wrestle with the nature/character of the God in whom you believe: a God who says the punishment for rape is a some cash and a wedding ceremony; a God who refuses to let the cripple approach his presence because they are dirty, inferior, impure; a God who says it’s okay not only to own slaves but to beat them as long as the wounds heal in a couple of days…

The problem is not, Does God command such things today? It’s, Did God EVER command such things? If he did, are such laws now good? Does that make them moral? If I walked up to any believer on the street and said, “I’m thinking of proposing a bill that would require rapists to marry their rape victim. Thoughts?” or “I’m writing a bill that would call for the execution of any man who has sex with another man. Suggestions?” No sane Christian would consider such proposals good or moral.

God as moral law

The only way to call these divine laws as good or moral is if you take the stance that God determines what is good, moral and ethical. In other words, God is not held to an ethical standard; he establishes it. So these atrocious laws are good and moral simply because they are divine laws. I have a few problems with this mentality.

  1. First, this means God breaks the ethical code which he imposes on Christ-followers? He holds Christians to higher standard than he holds himself.

  2. Second, such draconian and cruel laws starkly contradict the gospel narrative - a suffering savior laying down his life for his enemies. In other words, Jesus would take God to task over such laws (even though Jesus is God…yeah, that’s another post).

  3. Third, even after all that you say, “He’s God. He can do what he wants.” Then I do not want to spend eternity with a being who commanded his people to commit atrocities for whom if Christians committed today, he would send to hell. “God is love”? No, this is a malicious and hypocritical being.

My Bible or your Bible? (My God or yours)

On the other hand...if you say God never really gave these commands to his people, then you are choosing to discount parts of the Bible as completely errant...wrong, a mistake, not inspired and without authority. That begins an interesting dance regarding what is authoritative in the bible and what is not. How do you choose? Who gets to choose? My gay friends would clearly choose to see Romans 1 and the passage in Corinthians regarding gay sex as non-inspired and not authoritative? Women would definitely choose to reinterpret the New Testament passages about women being silent and not having authority over a man (I Timothy 2:11-12).

Who chooses the authoritative sections of scripture: the racist, the fundamentalist, the cult leader, the misogynist, the feminist, the Catholic priest, the Orthodox Priest, the charismatic pentecostal, the evangelical, the Reformed professor, the progressive anglican clergy, the guy in his room with his study Bible, John Piper, Rob Bell, Dr. Dobson, Richard Rohr? As you begin to discount parts of scripture more and more of it unravels. It becomes difficult to know which God you actually believe in.

Re-writting God

These immoral laws found within the pages of the OT are only one of many problems with the Bible. These are not laws from an all-loving and powerful God who desires a relationship with his creation, but man-made laws conforming to the culture of that day and time. We see moral progression within the biblical narrative and we continue to see Christianity progress morally not because God is pushing humans toward a higher standard but rather humans have dragged along an ancient God and refashioned him to our likeness. God is our creation and continues to be so.


My Experience Can Beat Up Your Experience: The Authority of Personal Experience

I see Dead People

One day after a church service, as I stood in the back doing, what to me was the most awkward time on Sunday mornings, “shaking hands and kissing babies,” one of our elderly members greeted me with his usual gentle and kind handshake. “Charlton, my wife tickled my toes last night waking me from my sleep. She does this on occasion.” I could sense the conviction and love in his voice…the problem, his wife had been dead for several years. He then followed with, “I miss her so much.

This beautiful man is not alone with visits from dead loved ones. It’s more common than not for those suffering loss. I would categorize his personal experience as supernatural or spiritual. Alongside his supernatural visit I’d place hearing and/or seeing gods, visits from angels and experiences with other supernatural beings in the same category.

During my time as a Christian I encountered many Christians whose confidence in God’s existence came down to a profound spiritual/supernatural experience they could not explain. For some, the experience even trumped their doubts regarding the errancy of scripture, the problem of evil and the slew of theological inconsistencies. It seemed the hinge upon which their faith hung.

I have no doubt such an experience feels objectively real and profoundly affects the lives of those who have them; the problem I have is with the authority attributed to such experiences - that a supernatural/spiritual personal experience proves the realty of the claims associated with that experience. Specifically in the Christian tradition: an individual’s experience of God’s presence, Christ’s voice, an angel’s message or a visit from a deceased loved one proves the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Experience V Experience

Let me stick with the Christian supernatural experience. If you argue for the objective reality of the Judeo-Christian God from personal experience without any outside criteria, evidence or data to confirm your experience - but is simply the authority of the experience itself, then you must give equal weight to ALL personal experience. If your personal experience is proof then…

  • The farmer abducted by aliens…aliens are real.

  • The hiker spotting Bigfoot…Bigfoot is real.

  • The 21st Century Bastet worshipper, converted because the Egyptian Cat-god visited him in a dream…Bastet is real.

  • The Muslim’s vision of Allah…Allah is real.

  • The family haunted by the ghost within their house walls…ghosts are real.

  • Zoroaster’s 7 visions…the god Ahura Mazda is real.

  • Joseph Smith’s encounter with the angel who directed him to the book of gold plates…The Book of Mormon is authoritative.

  • The many Catholics who’ve seen the Virgin Mary…Catholic Verniaration of Mary is legitimized.

  • Baha’u’llah’s supernatural visit from a maiden while in a dark prison cell…the Bahá’i faith is true.

But, it is impossible for all of these personal experiences to be objectively true since many of them contradict the others; they are mutual exclusive. If it is impossible for all personal experiences to be objectively true, then personal experience cannot be used as an authoritiave or persuasive argument for the reality of the Judeo-Christian God.

Perhaps, at this point, the Christian might be tempted to say, “But so-and-so’s experience doesn’t hold up when…” The moment you undermine the personal experience of another individual by subjecting it to outside scrutiny and thus negate the authority of the personal experience, then you have negated the authority of your own. It too must be subjected to outside scrutiny.

Theater of the Mind

So while for many the supernatural experience is a cornerstone of their faith, for me, the ubiquitous yet diverse and often contradictory spiritual experiences around the globe better serves as an argument for no go rather than a claim for one. It seems more likely to me that the “supernatural experience” is more easily explained by evolved traits among humans.

For example, the “rustling in the bush” theory. A human ancestor is walking through the dark savannah one night when she hears a rustling in a bush. Four scenarios:

  1. She concludes: the rustling is just the wind blowing through the bush so stays the course. The reality: It is the wind. She survives.

  2. She concludes: the rustling is just the wind blowing through the bush so stays the course. The reality: It is a predator. She dies.

  3. She concludes: the rustling is a dangerous predator. She flees. The reality: It is just the wind. She survives.

  4. She concludes: the rustling is a dangerous predator. She flees. The reality: It is a predator. She survives.

The best chance of survival is to assume the sound is a predator. Those who do so, survive at a higher percentage and thus pass down their genes. This leads to the human tendency to see things that are not really there. Ever wake up in the middle of the night to see the man standing in the shadows of your room to only realize it’s your hat and jacket left on top of your dresser?

This is only one example. Others include:

  1. Patternicity, the human tendency to make connections and assign meaning to unrelated events.

  2. Pareidolia - seeing faces in everyday objects.

  3. Human aversion to randomness and the need to assign meaning to it.

  4. The human brain’s necessity to interpret and predict sensory information due to its inability to absorb all information that constantly bombards an individual's sight, sound, touch, taste and smell.

  5. Human propensity for inaccurate memories (memory misattribution and cognitive fluency).

    Couple all of these with the human inclination toward confirmation bias, the power of grief, social pressure, and our culture-shaped meta-narrative…and perhaps we can form a hypothesis for spiritual experiences. It is a bi-product of our evolution and not an experience of objective reality. For me, the pervasive yet vastly diverse “spiritual/supernatural experience” among human beings is better explained as a natural human phenomenon than a supernatural manifestation of a deity.

Incarneanderthalensis: God in What Kind of Flesh?

Let’s start with John:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

Or, perhaps the power apostle Paul who says of Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

These core texts boast a foundational Christian doctrine: the Incarnation - a beautiful idea of the cosmic God taking on human form, wrapping himself fully in human flesh, the Creator becoming the created in the person of Jesus. Believers often utilize this core tenant to argue for the superiority of the Christian faith: unlike other religions where god expects you to make your way to him through the mastery of religious rituals, the Christian god, motivated by his love for you, seeks you out even to the point of putting on human form. It’s beautiful indeed!

The Incarnation, God in the flesh…a.k.a. Jesus is a launching pad for so many theological talking points:

  • The atonement works only if Jesus is fully human.

  • The appeal of the resurrection is not that a god came back to life (gods don’t die), but that a human came back to life.

  • Jesus’ sinless life impresses and inspires only if he was fully human.

  • Jesus’ high capacity to intercede on our behalf before God comes from human solidarity.

  • Sermons highlighting God’s capacity to empathize with his creation are often tied to his having walked in our shoes as Jesus, “God knows personally how you feel!”

  • And…Christmas

So much rests on the fully human Christ!

A Savior to All HominiNs

It is beautiful, unless you are a stocky, large headed, big browed Neanderthal (Homo Neanderthalensis), first discovered in the 19th Century, or the more recently discovered Denisovans, or any other of the 9 human species coinciding with early Homo Sapiens (Smithsonian Magazine). If Jesus was FULLY human, could he also be fully Neanderthal and Denisovan?

Let’s focus on Neanderthals since we know the most about them. Although my understanding of Neanderthals and taxonomy is kindergarten; the little to which I’ve been exposed has produced enough incongruences with my theology to create significant problems.

In 2010, the Human Genome Project finished mapping the Neanderthal Genome. Neanderthal (Homo Neanderthalensis) DNA overlaps with modern humans (Homo Sapiens) at 99.7%. That’s extremely close but it’s not the same. To compare, chimpanzee DNA is 98.8% identical to Homo sapiens, yet we’d never say chimps and humans were the same animal. In other words, small variantions in DNA result in significant differences.

For example, the .3% DNA difference between modern humans and Neanderthals explains why our cousins have shorter limbs, thicker bones, wider pelvises, barrel shaped chests, elongated skulls, prominent brows, wide noses, larger front teeth, larger brains, and brain differences. While some discussion remains regarding whether to classify Neanderthals as a separate species, the DNA evidence is clear, modern humans and Neanderthals are different hominins.

That being the case, if Jesus were fully human, then his DNA would be a 100% match to the homo sapien DNA (allowing for a .001% variance to account for appearance and health differences). If this is true, then Jesus could not have been a Neanderthal.

Christ the Neanderthal?

Here’s where the problems arise for me regarding the Incarnation. (I’m not even going to touch the problems Neanderthals cause for the biblical timeline and the Genesis creation account, which in themselves are substantial).

If the Incarnation argues Jesus as fully homo sapien, then what do we do with the indisputable evidence of other highly conscious human species roaming the earth? For example, evidence suggests Neanderthals used bone tools and buried their dead. More recent research suggest they were a sea-faring species who likely had some kind of language, not to mention their brains were larger than modern humans. This being the case, our closest cousin most likely shared a similar level of consciousness to that of modern humans. If so:

  • Did Neanderthals have a soul? If they did, then could it be lost, unredeemed? Or, if your theology allows for Hell and Heaven, will you find Neanderthal souls there?

  • Did they have the capacity to know right from wrong? Were they sinners in need of a Savior? If so, could a homo sapien Jesus save a Homo Neanderthalensis?

  • Does not the homo sapien incarnation of Christ reveal the divine bias of a god who does not "so loved the world…” but who favors the modern human over other conscious human species?

  • When God says in Genesis 1, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…” Was he talking about Homo sapiens or Homo Neanderthalensis? Did Neanderthals also possess the imago dei (image of God), or is the God-image found somewhere in the .3% difference in DNA?

Or perhaps, we say…”Charlton, you are splitting hairs that do not concern the Bible or God. The DNA distinction is a human creation, not a divine one: a way for people to categorize and label. Jesus died for all conscious hominins, Neanderthals included.” That’s great, but then where do we draw the line in DNA differences? As mentioned above, chimpanzees are 98.8% identical to us? Would we say Jesus died to save chimps from their sins? Could God have come in the flesh of a chimp to save modern humans? Why not, the DNA is a near perfect match. Keeping with that idea: could God have come in the flesh of a Neanderthal to save modern humans? So, DNA differences do matter, which leads us back to the questions I mention above. If the key to the Incarnation is God being FULLY human, how does a fully homo sapien god save other humans who aren’t homo sapiens?

A Homo Sapien Story for Homo Sapiens

I’m sure serious believers can theologically maneuver their way through the questions I raised above, but I think their is a simpler answer. The Bible and the God of its pages were composed/created by Homo Sapiens who had no idea other humans species ever walked this planet. As a result they fabricated a story about a God who is like them, a story concerned with them, and a story for them. Of course Jesus was fully modern human…it’s all he could have been at the time. Perhaps if we wrote the story in our modern day, with our expanded knowledge, the Incarnation would necessitate a trans-species savior.

DNA NOTE:

It might been tempting to disregard the discussion and questions raised in this post by calling into question what DNA science says about Neanderthals and other hominins. That is an option, but if we are to question DNA science regarding Neanderthals then we’d also need to question DNA science we accept and upon which we depend daily: forensics, paternity tests, ancestry tracking, medical test (such as those for identifying Down syndrome & cystic fibrosis), genetic engineering in the food we eat every day, dog breeding, vaccines, hormone production such as insulin and more. If we accept the DNA research with regard to these branches of sciences then we also need to take serious its contribution to other human species.

Bloody Nativity: All the Other Christmas Babies

Its own Worst Enemy

I believe the Bible, the sacred Christian text, itself stands as one of the greatest obstacles to Christian belief. I hope to highlight many of my issues with the Bible in future posts, but in light of the Christmas Season, I want to spend some time reflecting on an episode in Matthew’s birth narrative.

Parents SHouldn’t have favorites

The episode takes place in Matthew 2:13-18. Mary gives birth to the Christchild and immediately his life is in danger! Having heard of a new king’s brith, King Herod suspects the recent royal arrival will place his own throne in jeopardy. In response, he searches for this new monarch to “worship him.” Let me define worship here: slide a dagger across baby Jesus’ neck (or something akin to that). His search fails and in desperation Herod does his due dillegence and: “…[gives] orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under. (Matthew 2:16). If the precision of a dagger fails; hell, use a grenade

Fortunately for Mary and Joseph and their new god-child, an Angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him of Herod’s infanticidal plans. He tells Joseph: “Get up. Take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you…Joseph heeds the warning, packs up Mary and baby Jesus, and heads to Egypt preserving the life of the one who would later be killed for all humankind. Whew! That was a close one.

“Joy to the world, the Lord has come!” - except for all the other moms and dads whose sons where slaughtered by Herod on the first Christmas! “Merry Christmas!” We might be tempted to say, “That’s on Herod! He is at fault!” True, he initiated the massacre, but I think we should also hold God responsible. In the account of the angel warning Joseph, Matthew provides a example of God intervening in a very direct and clear way to save a child threatened by Herod’s plans. According to the text itself, not only could God intervene to save the babies, God did intervene. He was just selective. He only intervened on behalf of Jesus.

One might say, “Well, it was likely, based on the estimated population of Bethlehem in Jesus time, only 10-20 boys.” Tell that that to their parents. Also, writing this paragraph at the 10-anniversary of the Sandy Hook shootings (where 20 innocent children were killed) puts those numbers in emotional perspective. I don’t think that lets God off the hook.

Monster Vs myth

This Christmas massacre should trouble people of Christian faith. Platitudes like “God works in mysterious ways” is a shallow copout for what is clearly, based on the text, at best negligence and indifference on the part of God. If we don’t want to causally dismiss this story it seems we have two options:

  1. The Story is a Factual Event. If the story is true, then we must contend with the character of God. God could have easily saved the other infants in Jesus day. He did not. The loss of only 10-20 boys magnifies God’s negligence. It is a lot easier to intervene on behalf of 10-20 kids than thousands. What does such selective salvation say about God?

    We could justify God’s indifference by understanding it as some part of a larger plan of God. Think about that idea; really think about it. What possible reason could the slaughter of innocent children add to God’s ultimate plan? In what possible world could that be good?

    We might argue God defines what is good and evil and who are we as created beings to question God. Too many problems with such theology. First, even secular, non-believing, culture takes the protection of innocent children as a top priority. Some of the priciest tickets include speeding through school zones or driving around school buses stopped for kids to exit. Many hospitals and fire stations are designated safe havens where unwanted infants can be left without question: simply to protect the child. Even behind prison bars, child molesters, run the greatest risk of physical abuse and murder by other inmates. Even criminals seem to have a child-protective instinct. But God, the great lover, the designer of every child, is somehow good in letting 20 boys get slaughtered when he clearly could have stopped it? God holds you to a higher standard than he holds himself?

    Second, its seems Jesus himself would get in an argument with The Father about allowing the murder of 10-20 innocents. Jesus famously welcomes little children (Luke 18:16) when his disciples try and keep them from him. In another example (Matthew 18:1-6), Jesus gathers up a child to explain to his disciples the “kind” of person who will enter the Kingdom of God and then famously says, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Yes, these texts are about more than children, but we can’t ignore Jesus’ positive interaction with children. How do we then reconcile a God who clearly refuses to intervene in the death of innocent infants with a Jesus who appears to defend them, especially when God is Jesus? If the definition of good is up to God, it seems God breaks HIS OWN ethic when you compare it with Jesus.

    If we believe this story to be factual, then we must wrestle seriously with a biased God, willing to save his own son while allowing the remaining targets to die. I could not serve such a god and that is why I prefer the second option.

  2. The Story is Myth: If the story is not true, then we are left with myth. This makes sense for multiple reasons. Of the four gospels, the escape to Egypt is found Only in Matthew. Even in Luke’s gospel (containing the other Christ-birth narrative) we find no traces of this episode. In fact, the escape to Egypt provides significant issues for the harmony of the two Christmas stories. This should raise some suspicion to its validity. (Read HERE for a post I wrote regarding Matthew and Luke’s birth accounts as two different accounts).

    In light of this, it seems more likely, Matthew back engineered the story to meet his literary structure and theological argument. In his gospel, Matthew emphasizes the Jewishness of Jesus…portraying him as the Fuliffled Moses and Fulfilled Law. To do this, Matthew must connect Christ’s story and person to Old Testament prophesies. A story regarding infanticidal plans gives Matthew a means to send Jesus to Egypt so he could fulfill Hosea 11:1 - “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

    And the death of the other baby boys allows the author to tie Jesus’ story to Jeremiah 31:15:

    “A voice is heard in Ramah,
        weeping and great mourning,
    Rachel weeping for her children
        and refusing to be comforted,
        because they are no more.”

Matthew is not concerned about the divine ethic regarding selective intervention on behalf of threatened newborns and toddlers. He is focused on connecting his claims about Jesus to the authority of the Old Testament. It seems to me:

  • The fact that this episode is found only in the Gospel of Matthew,

  • The significant challenges it creates in attempting to harmonize Matthew and Luke’s nativity accounts,

  • And functioning literarily to connect the person of Jesus to OT authority

makes a strong case that the story is fabricated and not an account of actual events.

If we accept the story as myth, then we must wrestle with the truth claims of the Bible. If it is not an actual event but a mythic tale, then what other parts of scripture might we find in the category of fiction? The trip to Egypt is not some remote story in the back allies of the Old Testament that have very little effect on the believer. This story is at the core of the Christian narrative regarding Jesus. Just ask the Nicene Creed: Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary.

The virgin birth and the resurrection exist as the two pillars supporting the divinity of Jesus. If the author of Matthew fabricated (or retells a fabrication), then one of the pillars is shaky at best. It threatens the truth claims regarding the person of Jesus. It should at least compel believers to take a deep dive into the validity of the New Testament gospels and their claims about Jesus.

Still a Merry Christmas

I can no longer believe in a virgin birth or in the divinity of the Nazarene, but I will celebrate the season. I will say “Merry Christmas!” I will listen to and sing carols of a baby in the manger. I will celebrate a time when the culture at large bends toward kindness. I might even attend a Christmas Eve Service, not because I believe in a god, a miracle baby or a divine human, but because it is still an engaging story and I enjoy a good story.

Merry Christmas!

The Me Inside of Me: A Struggle with Dualism

“I’ve married my soulmate.”

“Grandad’s with us in spirit.

“I left my body and saw myself lying there on the surgeon’s table.”

One Person: Two Parts

It permeates our language and dominates the collective human thought. For some it comes through the conscious experience, for others dreams and/visions, but for many, perhaps even most, religious tradition. I’m talking about Dualism.

In my own words, Dualism suggests humans are more than a material self, more than meat suits, that the truest sense of “the self” exists separately, but connected for a time, to the housing of a physical body. It sees humans as fundamentally two parts: the body/physical/matter and mind/consciousness/spirit/soul.

While Dualism exists within secular thought and while a small minority of Christians claim a materialist worldview, it seems the vast majority of Western Christians are Substance Dualists. Substance Dualism is the belief that God fashioned human beings from two substances: 1) a physical body subject to decay and 2) a an eternal soul (one’s truest essence) which continues to exist after the body’s death. In this post, I’m concerned with this particular form of Dualsim.

Bible, Bodies and Souls

In the diverse books of the Bible, the authors express little interest in metaphysical explanations for a soul and body, yet Christians frequently use scripture as evidence for Substance Dualism. A few examples:

  • I Samuel 28: King Saul meets the Medium of Endor who summons the late prophet Samuel from the dead. She describes him as a a ghostly, spirit-like figure.

  • Luke 23:39-43: Moments before his death Jesus promises the crucified criminal next to him, “…today you will be with me in Paradise.” Some form of Dualism is necessary since the criminal’s body would either 1) be left to decompose on the cross or 2) placed in a tomb when he died.

  • Luke 16:19-31: Here Jesus tells a story regarding the death of The Rich Man, “…the rich man also died, and was buried; and in the hades having lifted up his eyes…” Since they buried the body, one might conclude something other than The Rich Man’s physical body was in hades.

These passages are but a small fraction of those used by many christians to argue for a Dualistic worldview, yet for me, Dualism was one of the Jenga pieces that created an unstable house which eventually collapsed into atheism. Below I give two examples as to why I cannot believe in Substance Dualism.

Inception & Conception

If the soul is fundamentally a different substance than the body and is not dependent upon the body for existence, then when does God fashion the soul and when does he unite the created soul to the created body? When does he join the two substances?

Does he create and join them simultaneously at conception? If so, then what about identical twins where a single sperm fertilizes a single egg which later divides into two cells which then become two embryos. One conception, two souls?

Some might argue God unites the body and soul at first breath, drawing on the Old Testament when God breathes the breath of life into Adam. Such a perspective creates a slew of issues for Right to Life advocates who believe Life begins at conception.

Perhaps the individual soul exists before conception? Does God have a bank of souls he matches up with physical bodies as he forms them? If so, why is there no memory, no sense of self before birth? If there is to be a sense of self after death and if a soul were preexistent to the body then would we not have a sense of self before conception?

For me, what we know about conception, pregnancy and the birth process creates significant issues for the Substance Dualism.

It’s a matter of hardware

Christian Dualism must also contend with the reality of how tinkering with with hardware (brain, matter, the physical) profoundly affects the notion of self.

One personal example: I spent a year as a chaplain for a long-term care facility. Many residents suffered some form of dementia. Dementia is attributed to brain (matter/physical/body) disease or damage which is far more common in the elderly. In my experience as a chaplain, it appeared the damaged and/or diseased hardware (the physical organ of the brain) profoundly affected the resident’s sense of self - which is typically associated with the spirit/soul.

On one particular occasion, I had an extensive conversation in the basement of a resident’s home, with her son in the nearby lounge-chair. We discussed, with great concern, the problems with the basement staircase. In reality this conversation took place in the long-term care facility’s dining room over a cup of fruit, the resident’s son absent. The resident was 100% certain of her location while being 100% incorrect. I had many such interactions during my time as a chaplain.

How does Christian Dualism satisfactorily explain dementia? If the soul is eternal and not subject to decay then why does the individual’s notion of self suffer significantly alongside a “decaying” brain? As the physical goes so does the part of the individual often associated with the spiritual. If there is a soul, what’s happening to it during various stages of dementia?

Dementia is only one example of the self-to-brain relationship: head trauma, Corpus Collosotomies and split-brain research, schizophrenia, psychedelics, and brain stimulation causing emotional states are other major challenges to substance dualism.

Just One

An understanding of Consciousness and Mind continues to challenge our greatest thinkers and research capabilities - it remains a great mystery. Perhaps the object itself will never fully understand the object, but we should keep trying. In the meantime, it makes more sense to me intellectually and experientially that our sense of self emerges from the physical organ of the brain rather than an eternal soul crafted by a divine designer.

The Problem of Presence (The High Stakes Game of Eternal Hide-and-Seek)

I begin my explanation of disbelief with, what I consider, a major and fundamental problem with the whole of the Christian doctrine and narrative. It’s  simple, almost too simple, childlike, basic, maybe even trite, but it’s a problem for which I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer…a question quickly dismissed, perhaps because it is too problematic. It is for me. I refer to the issue as The Problem of Presence.

The Problem of Presence:

As a Christian I believed a relationship with God, the loving Creator of the entire cosmos, was the single most important aspect of all existence; both my temporal and eternal peace hinged on my relationship with him. High stakes indeed! Failing to foster this divine-human relationship was not simply missing a golden opportunity I might later regret. Nope…I’d be missing out on the essence of everything!

Then where is he? Really! I know…such a basic question, but that’s the point. God should begin the process of revelation to his dearly loved Creation by showing up. If Communion with the Father is fundamentally the most important thing, not just for me, but for every human living and dead then where is God? According to Christian doctrine God is all-powerful. He has the ability to show up...not disguised as a man, not in the beauty of a sunrise, not in the arms of a loving friend, or in the camaraderie of Christian community.

Rip the damn sky open or split the earth apart and descend upon us in glowing unmistakable holiness declaring, “I’m here! I’m God! You need me! I want a relationship with you! Ask me anything! What can I do to help you know me!?” (Yes, with exclamation marks after every statement). If he truly is an all-loving being with unlimited power who knows how desperately we need him then he should be around more, at least on the weekends…but he is not!

And Jesus…?

“Wait!” you say, "He has appeared in Jesus!” If I remember correctly, the people of Christ’s time executed him because they didn’t believe he was God or, at least, didn’t know he was God. Seems a piss-poor job of divine self-revelation.

“You don’t understand,” you might say, “God revealed himself in a homeless carpenter’s son and he willingly died as a ‘fraud’ demonstrating that he is not a God of coercive power, but of love who in his act of sacrifice reframed the whole power paradigm for humankind!” Well, that’s quite noble of him but it does nothing for the fading christian driving home after a late night of bar-tending sincerely shouting from tortured depths into the night abyss, “Where are you? Just show the fuck up! Just show the fuck up!” If he had, indeed if he had, I would not be typing this post.

The argument of God revealed in stories about a first century Jew, whose remaining “biographies” come decades after his life from second-hand witness who disagree about the foundational narrative details does little to answer the divine void.

A Personal Parallel

My marriage didn’t end well, and if you were to hear the story, I’m the antagonist. I won’t argue with the casted role. During this time, many of my former community might have characterized me as an asshole. I was told to my face that I was “A bad father, a selfish and wicked person.”  Okay; fair enough.

Yet even then, guess who showed up to every one one of my sons’ events - Every. Single. One. (Except when management scheduled me to work and I couldn’t find a co-worker to take my shift.) I even snuck into my former church and hid in the corner shadows to watch my children perform Christian skits. Why? Because in my own broken way, I do love my kids and I want a relationship with them, and relationship requires presence! Please, do not take this example as a feeble attempt to salvage a soiled reputation. Take it for what it is: a selfish, asshole, wicked father who showed up, in person, physical, visible, no mistaking it. But God, the selfless perfection of love, won’t.

Unloving or Non-Existant

You and I did not choose to be here on planet earth; we didn’t decide to be born. Most Christians would say God orchestrated your birth, my birth. He didn’t ask us if we wanted to exist. Instead, of his own perfect volition, he placed us here fully aware that the state of our eternal soul, the soul he fashioned, would depend upon on a relationship with him. This God who knows us so intimately, who knows the number of hairs on our heads (Luke 12:7), also knows a physical, visible, tactile, undeniable appearance would baptize our doubts…would rescue our unraveling faith and lead us into the relationship he desires. Yet, he refuses such a simple and basic gesture as being present. Not very fair. Not so loving.

What’s more likely…God, Who IS Love, is in reality cruel.

Or

He is absent because he doesn’t exist.

A Reason for the Hope

A Reason

Deep in the pages of the New Testament, as the new Christian community bumps up against a Greco-Roman world, the author of I Peter encourages his fellow Christ-believers:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (I Peter 3:15-16)

“Give an answer to everyone who asks you…” I want to take a page from Peter’s advice in an upside-down kind of way. Some people have asked me why I no longer believe in God after 40 years a Christian, raised on the Brazilian mission field and a pastor for two decades. Others have not asked but have wondered. And others have told me that I’m not being honest with myself and I really do still believe…deep down, somewhere in the better parts of my imago dei. Yet, even those who ask have not really had the time or made the time to hear the answer for the “hope” that I have. This blog series sets out to do exactly that.


The Reason

You can read it at your leisure. You can ignore it. You can read parts of it, but it’s my atheist testimony, if you will. But, why? Why would I even take time to explain my reasons for non-belief? Am I just taking jabs at Christians from a wounded and bitter place, trying to hurt or embarrass the Christian community? No. It’s hard to navigate this existence…to find a worldview that orients you in a meaningful and positive way of moving through life. I know Christianity has and still provides an oreinting framework for so many marvelous human beings. But, here’s why I write this blog series.

Often when a christian deconverts, individual christians or sometimes the believing community itself sheds its light on the situation:

  1. Ahh, you never really believed in the first place.”

  2. “You just want to live an immoral life. Your disbelief is simply a way to justify your selfish behavior.”

  3. “Satan has a hold of your heart. He is blinding you to the truth of God’s love and redemption.”

  4. “You’ve been wounded by the Church and your disbelief is not really in God but a way of getting back at the community who’s harmed you.”

  5. “Wanting to belong to secular culture is seducing you away from the truth of God.”

For many, watching your faith erode is terrifying, painful, lonely, and disorienting, and Believers compound such feelings by easily dismissing such a personal, foundational and traumatic experience with trite platitudes. In a way, by using such explanations believers tell you they know better than you what you are thinking, feeling and experiencing - as if they can read your mind, motives and intent. Reactive responses such as these can come across as arrogant and compassionless.

“Why I’m Not a Christian” is my attempt to do two things:

  1. Provide a space where others who are are experiencing doubt or who find themselves in the midst of deconversion can find peace and solidarity, to realize they are not crazy, wicked or alone - a place to tame the shame, guilt and fear that often comes in the process.

  2. To challenge believers to take non-believesr seriously, to legitimize (that doesn’t mean agree) their reasons for non-belief, to not quickly dismiss or label the deconverting. I hope it spurs deeper conversation and empathy.

This blog series is my personal reasons, experience and thoughts. I’m not an atheist apologist. I won’t use the philosophical names for arguments because I likely won’t know them. I’m not a philosopher either. The posts you read here are simply an explanation as to why I can no longer believe in God - and by God in this series I mean the Judeo-Christian God.


Peace And Pause

Thank you for taking the time to read. I hope if you are in the process of deconveting you find PEACE here and if you are a believer, I hope you find PAUSE.