An Agnostic Plea for Compassion

I spent over 10 years as an evolution-accepting evangelical Christian, albeit a rather confused one.  However, layer upon layer of complexity was added to my faith as I began to look into OT historicity last year. The final bombshell was the realization of the claims of some modern biblical scholars about the NT. My faith was dismantled, and while evolution was not the direct cause, it certainly set me on the path to deconstruction.  

As Paul states recently on his blog, Disoriented Theology:

"It’s one thing to reject the historicity of passages I don’t much like – the flood, the genocides, the Old Testament view of a bloodthirsty, vengeful God – but it’s quite another to find that New Testament passages suffer from the same problems. Maybe they don’t, but I suspect some of them do (certainly the authorship questions are just as muddled as they are in the older scriptures)."

What NT problems?  Here is just a sampling listed by episcopal minister J. S. Spong (H/T Paul):

"Are the gospels then capable of being effective guides to history? If we line up the gospels in the time sequence in which they were written – that is, with Mark first, followed by Matthew, then by Luke and ending with John – we can see exactly how the story expanded between the years 70 and 100.

For example, miracles do not get attached to the memory of Jesus story until the eighth decade. The miraculous birth of Jesus is a ninth-decade addition; the story of Jesus ascending into heaven is a 10th-decade narrative.

In the first gospel, Mark, the risen Christ appears physically to no one, but by the time we come to the last gospel, John, Thomas is invited to feel the nail prints in Christ’s hands and feet and the spear wound in his side.

Perhaps the most telling witness against the claim of accurate history for the Bible comes when we read the earliest narrative of the crucifixion found in Mark’s gospel and discover that it is not based on eyewitness testimony at all..."

Questions such as these has enveloped Christianity in a mist of confusion for me.  The central theme of Christianity -- the resurrection -- has lost its essence, and I cannot genuinely call myself an orthodox Christian. Now, when I read this excerpt from the Biologos site, I feel like another bombshell has been dropped upon me:

"Now let's turn to category (2), the case of a person who has been exposed to Christianity but doesn't believe it because they claim not to have enough evidence. I think there are several different possible things that might be going on here:

First of all, just because they claim to be seeking the truth doesn't mean they really are:

(A) They might actually have enough evidence to believe in God, but dishonestly refuse to admit it to themselves, because they don't want it to be true. In this case, they are not actually sincere, and have rejected God not because of inadequacy of the evidence, but because of stubborn rebellion. In this case, there is no reason to think that they would accept God even if they did have more evidence. So it is not God's fault that they do not believe. It should be pointed out that many of the people who saw Christ multiply the loaves, heal people, raise the dead etc. nevertheless refused to believe. It is naive to think that if everyone saw miracles, everyone would believe. Rather the people who don't want to believe become more firm in their rejection of God.

(B) Or, although they don't have enough evidence to believe, they choose not to investigate to see whether it is true or not. In this case, it is their own fault that they don't have enough evidence. If people claim to base their decisions on evidence and reason, it is hypocritical if they reject Christianity without carefully considering whether there is sufficient evidence for Christ's Resurrection and other miracles to show that Christianity is true. In particular, it is utterly irrational to insist on seeing a miracle personally in order to believe if there is lots of evidence that other people have seen miracles. People don't refuse to believe in scientific results unless they personally witness the experiments, so long as multiple reliable people say they have done the experiments, that is enough. Why should religion be different?

I never assume that anybody is intellectually dishonest until I have some specific reason to think they are dishonest. But I've talked to enough atheists to know that most of them do fall into categories (A) or (B), at least to some extent. However, I'm sure that there do exist cases in which atheists are sincere. In this case..."

In the end, my loss of faith will always be regarded as a failing on my part.  I am lost, unregenerate, unrepentant and disobedient.  

This is the message coming from evangelical Christians, even evolution-accepting ones.  As I put things into perspective after a year of doubt and despair, Christianity looks cruel -- a form of survival of the fittest where those that struggle to beleive in miracles are the outcasts.

As most of you know by now, while agnosticism is the label that best fits me, I actually still yearn for faith. With the impending birth of my third child, I want to believe in a heaven, a God who loves, a Jesus who saves.  But my mind doesn't work that way.

I recently dabbled in mainline Christianity, aiming to foster some sort of Christian identity -- what many evangelicals would shun as cultural Christianity.  But alas, my past inhibits my assimilation into what I interpret as a passionless Christianity under the lens of my evangelical upbringing.

Thankfully, over the last year, I've acquired a thicker skin. It's a necessary adjustment to move on with life, find enjoyment, and rid myself of the doubt-induced despair.  I want to kick myself for even attempting to read blog articles in my 37th week of pregnancy, bloated, nauseous, and expecting labor any minute now (both my children came at 38 weeks).  Have I not learned by now that the blogosphere is just poison for my well-being? People taking up arms to face-less targets, me being one of them.

I hope, that if I've accomplished one thing on my little unknown blog, it is to defy the stereotype Christians give to agnostics. If you are a Christian, I hope that you might better understand our challenges and include compassion in your language towards us.

And so I exit the blogosphere yet again, to try to enjoy life even when a huge part of my identity is gone.  To marvel at the seeming miracle of birth without having an answer for why.