

THE EVANGELICAL EXPERIENCE

THE EVANGELICAL EXPERIENCE

_Understanding One of America's Largest  
Religious Movements from the Inside _

Anthony Coleman

Copyright © 2015 Anthony Coleman All rights reserved.

ISBN: 1515160408  
ISBN 13: 9781515160403

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The "NIV" and "New International Version" are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
CONTENTS

Introduction

1. Entering the Faith

In The Beginning

Born Again

Complexities

2. Defining an Evangelical

Core Convictions

Historical Roots

Evangelicalism and the Wider Christian Community

3. Jesus

Jesus as Savior and Atoning Sacrifice

Jesus as Lord

Jesus as Friend

4. Salvation

Born-Again: Forgiven, Filled with the Spirit, and Part of the Body of Christ

Heaven and Hell

Sanctification

5. The Bible

Authority

Personal Use

Interpretation

Scholarship

6. Ethics and Praxis

Holiness/Purity

Service

Evangelism

Spirituality

Worship

Community

7. Theological Diversity

Inerrancy

Genesis

Baptism

Free Will and Salvation

Destiny of the Unevangelized

Hell

Atonement

Women in Ministry

Homosexuality

Eschatology

8. Evangelical Leadership

Influential Pastors

Evangelists and Apologists

Theologians and Biblical Scholars

Authors and Speakers

9. Doubt Within Belief

The Problem of Evil

Religious Diversity

Biblical Complexities

Anchors of Belief

10. Leaving Evangelicalism

The Real World

Seminary

Disorientation

Re-Orientation

Conclusion: Thoughts on the Validity and Future of the Faith

Appendix: "The Breaking Point"

Endnotes
INTRODUCTION

_"We live together, we act on, and react to, one another; but always and in all circumstances we are by ourselves. The martyrs go hand in hand into the arena; they are crucified alone. Embraced, the lovers desperately try to fuse their insulated ecstasies into a single self-transcendence; in vain. By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies - all these are private and, except through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes."_

ALDOUS HUXLEY, _T HE DOORS OF PERCEPTION_

Perhaps this book would be better entitled "An Evangelical Experience." What I write is from only one perspective, because I am an island universe. The phrase "The Evangelical Experience" is, therefore, a misnomer. There is no Evangelical Experience, only my experience and yours. Some from the Evangelical community may read my observations about the movement and find their own thoughts reflected back. Others might feel that I misrepresent some aspects of the faith. My goal in this short book is simply to add to the pool of information about what it's like, from the inside, to be an Evangelical.

In brief outline, I considered myself to be an Evangelical, born-again Christian for roughly ten years. From junior high into my mid-twenties, my identity was largely wrapped up in this faith. Church, Bible study, theology, small groups, evangelism, personal prayer, service to God, and service to others in Jesus' name - this was what I lived and breathed.

During these years, my academic training was also thoroughly Evangelical. I received an undergraduate degree in biblical studies from a private Evangelical university and went on to earn a graduate degree in theological studies, splitting my time between a Lutheran seminary and another Evangelical university.

Eventually, due to what I perceived to be major theological tensions in my own religious tradition, I left the faith. From my perspective, I didn't consciously choose to walk away; my mind simply went where it went. I found that I was unable to believe many of the core tenets any longer, and therefore, I just stopped. It's not what I wanted. In fact, I actively fought against it. But no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't stop my own thoughts from leading me away from the beliefs I held most tightly. This loss, or change, of faith was arguably the most traumatic experience of my life. It felt as if my entire identity, everything I was, was falling apart and I had nothing to hold on to, including the community I loved so much. It led to a long period of confusion, fear, anger, shame, wandering, and the feeling that life had lost its meaning. I call it "living in Ecclesiastes." But although leaving it was painful, as I look back on my time in the faith, I am grateful. I am grateful for the positive ways the movement has shaped me. I am grateful for how it made me take my life, ethics, and spirituality seriously. And most of all, I am grateful because it was a stepping stone to where I am today.

I am writing with a pen name. I do this not because I am ashamed of my thoughts or because I fear how my former community would react to me, but mostly because I see this faith as a good thing for many people I know. Introducing doubt into the minds of current Evangelicals, including those I know personally, is not my goal. Rather, I am writing to those outside the church who want to add to their understanding of a large segment of the American religious population, and to those inside the church who may already have questions similar to the ones I had. Many people live good, love-filled, meaningful, and passionate lives within this faith and I am not looking to de-convert those for whom that is true. Although there are elements of Evangelical thought I find harmful, I could say the same thing about other religions and atheist or agnostic thought as well. Over the years, I've become a live and let live kind of guy. That being said, beliefs matter. They affect how we act in the world. And I think I am closer to a true understanding of the world now than I was then.

In the pages that follow, I will share my experience as an Evangelical Christian and outline some of the core theological distinctives of the movement. Many books have been written about Evangelical theology and I won't say anything here that you couldn't find in a typical systematic theology textbook. What I can add are some observations about how these doctrines affect those inside the religion, or at least how they affected me. It's one thing to be able to explain a doctrine theoretically. It's another thing to accept the doctrine and live it. This distinctive is something I hope to add to the conversation, and, I hope, makes this book worth writing.
ENTERING THE FAITH

\- 1 -

I want to start with a more in-depth look at my backstory. In my own life, the autobiographical writings of others - Rachel Held Evans, John Hick, Dale Allison, Thom Stark, Edward Babinski, etc. - have been helpful for understanding the thoughts and experiences I was going through. For me, reading someone else's journey and finding myself in it was powerful. It let me know that I wasn't alone. Whether you come from the Evangelical tradition, another faith, or a non-faith background, I hope that my story can inform yours in some way.

IN THE BEGINNING

I grew up in what some might call a "nominal" Christian home. Our family was part of the United Church of Christ (a very liberal denomination) and we went to church most Sundays. If asked, we would have certainly said we were Christian, but faith wasn't, at least explicitly, core to our lives. We didn't study the Bible at home, didn't pray together, and didn't really talk about God or faith in the house. Church was a Sunday thing and seemed to be somewhat separate from the rest of our lives. Our congregation consisted primarily of older couples and was, to be honest, a fairly dull and dry place to be, at least for a young adolescent. Services consisted of reciting pre-written corporate prayers, singing old hymns out of old hymnals (the language in those things still makes me think that most people don't have a clue what they are singing), and listening to a short sermon. I remember complaining that there seemed to be sleeping gas pumped into the room. This is what church was for me and my family. I hesitate to use the word "nominal" because it is often used as a derogatory term to refer to people who identify as Christians, but aren't "really Christian." My parents are loving, moral people who believe in and worship God through a Christian church. Although we didn't explicitly talk about God in the house, that was also part of our family dynamic: we were private about a lot of things. But regardless, God, the Bible, Jesus, Salvation, etc. did not seem to be a part of our lives on a day to day basis.

Enter Pentecostalism. While I was bored on Sundays and itching to get home to watch the 12:00 football games, my friend seemed to have a totally different experience. He loved going to church, was active in his youth group, talked about his faith, read his Bible publicly, and only listened to Christian music. He was "on fire." When he brought up his faith, I tended to get somewhat uneasy and self-conscious about my own lack of knowledge in the area. He invited me to his church and Bible study regularly, but I always shot him down - until one summer weekend when my life would be changed.

I had finally caved in to my friend's proddings and agreed to attend a weekend church retreat at a cabin up north. Candy, late nights, games, and the lake; I was a pretty regular 14 year old kid, so it seemed like a good deal to me. I packed my bags and hopped in the church van for a weekend of fun. And it was fun...but also a complete shock; I had never experienced anything like this. Before we even got to the retreat center, we stopped at an outdoor revival service put on by a Pentecostal group. It's hard to recall exactly what happened, but I remember people falling over "slain in the Spirit," loud and passionate worship, many on their knees in prayer and adoration in the pouring rain (the service was held during a thunderstorm), a fiery preacher pleading with us to accept salvation, and several people standing up out of wheelchairs or throwing canes aside due to miraculous healings. Wow. And all this before we even got to our cabin! I stood by myself in the back of a large tent, in shock for most of the event. I had no idea how to respond. From my background, this wasn't even in the same category as "church." A new world has just been opened.

When we got to the cabin, we went straight to bed for the night because we had busy days in front of us. Each morning began with Bible study and each night ended with Bible study, giving us a chance to discuss and reflect on what we learned throughout the day. When we got together to read and talk about Scripture, I was completely out of my element. I doubt I said two words the whole weekend during those times. But even if it may not have showed, I was intrigued by how passionate these people were about God. They read the Bible like God had written it specifically for them and had inspired a new personal message each day. Scripture was a gold mine containing treasure more valuable than anything money could buy. They talked about God like He was their best friend, like they could hear His voice leading or could share their thoughts with a Listening Ear anytime they needed. God was an experienced reality for these people. He was Lord, and He was Savior. He was Love, and He animated their being. Although I was uncomfortable much of the time, I truly did see something different in this community - something wonderful.

BORN AGAIN

At the end of the retreat, after fun and games and Bible study after Bible study, a leader took me aside and asked if I "knew the Lord." I'm not sure how I responded, but probably said something about where my church was or what denomination I was a part of. She explained to me that the Christian faith wasn't about going to church or being a part of a denomination. Neither of these things could get you saved. True faith was about accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior and letting Him lead your life. She explained to me that I was a sinner in need of forgiveness, and the good news was that this forgiveness was offered to us freely through the cross. All I needed to do was accept... and so I did. I was led through a sinner's prayer, repented of my sin, and committed my life to Christ. I was born again.

Coming back from the weekend, I was a changed young man. My life was, in an instant, full of the love of the Lord. Although I initially tip-toed into joining my friend's Bible study because of some uneasiness about being a novice Christian, I eventually became a full participant. I began studying and praying on my own and was focused on my walk with God. It was an exciting time in my life.

Within a year or two, I had become increasingly aware of differences between my Bible study group and my church community. Because I was still fairly young and couldn't drive, I continued to attend my family's UCC congregation. But where was the passion? I would go to Bible study on Wednesdays where we shared our lives with each other, studied God's Word, and prayed together; then I would go to church on Sunday and fall asleep. As soon as I could drive, I began to church shop.

It wasn't long before I found a better fit for my Sunday mornings at an Evangelical Free Church in my hometown. They had modern worship (I'll still take a guitar over an organ), cute girls who went to my high school, and engaging youth programming. Like the Pentecostal group I had spent some time with, this community seemed to have something that my family's church lacked. We were passionate about Jesus and grounded in God's Word; I couldn't ask for a better place to grow in my faith.

Throughout high school I became more involved in my new church and more separated from the UCC. I spent most of my money at a local Christian bookstore, devouring any spiritual wisdom I could get my hands on. I also became interested in Christian music and wore explicitly religious clothing at times. At school, I was known for my strong faith and had no problems sharing it with others. Rooted in Romans and the Gospel of John, the gospel message was simple; we are all sinners who have fallen short and are in need of redemption, without which we can only expect just punishment. But because of the work of the cross, there is no need to experience this punishment. Simply accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and you can be assured of Heaven when you die. Meanwhile, it's time to live your life for Jesus and tell others about the salvation he offers. A few of my Christian friends and I started a Fellowship of Christian Athletes group that met once a week and attended other student-led Bible studies in the mornings. I also personally shared the gospel with many of my close friends, sometimes inviting them to get a meal and walking them through a Christian tract or bringing them to youth group. In fact, it became increasingly difficult for me to hang out with my non-Christian friends without feeling that I should be sharing Jesus with them. I tried to use opportunities at parties and my relationships to reach out and help people find God. In general, I did a good job of not being pushy, but I also didn't miss many opportunities to evangelize. Nothing was more important than getting people, especially those I knew and loved, "saved."

There were certainly ups and downs in high school, but my faith was strong. I would sometimes wake up in the middle of the night, feeling as if the love of God was rushing through my veins. "God loves me!", I thought. "What else could matter?" As I started to look toward college, I realized that I wanted to be in a spiritual atmosphere where I was fully accepted, a place where I didn't feel like an outsider because of my faith. Although I had some opportunities that made more financial sense, I decided to go to a small, private Evangelical Christian college. The choice wasn't difficult. My walk with the Lord and developing into the person He wanted me to be was what I was most interested in. I entered college excited to be surrounded by like-minded friends.

COMPLEXITIES

My college experience was amazing. Going from a public high school to an explicitly Christian college was a fantastic change, and I instantly felt very at home. Instead of being part of a small minority and being consciously different than my peers, I came to a place where we all shared the same set of assumptions and outlook on life and faith. We were Christ followers and were here to see where he would lead.

In my first two years of college, I was never more sure of my faith. With everyone around me believing the same things, and brilliant professors who were also professing Christians, how could there be any doubt? I think it's around the 20 year mark when everyone is most confident that their viewpoint is correct. You get the feeling that if someone were only to look at the evidence objectively, there is no way they could disagree with you. Whether it be religious, political, moral, or any other type of belief, it's at this time when we seem to know just enough to be sure. The complex debates behind "accepted theories," about, say, Republican economic policy, the system of Capitalism, the morality (or immorality) of abortion, or the nature of your own Scriptures, are unseen. There may be some gray, but it is only on the fringes of a mostly black-and-white picture. This is where I was at. I entered into debates with old high school friends through e-mail, trying to show them the logical conclusion of all the lines of evidence. The historical evidence pointed to Jesus, the philosophical evidence pointed to God, and if you prayed about it and looked at it objectively, God would show you the truth. I began putting Christian tracts in mailboxes at night and would leave them around stores I shopped in. Spreading the gospel was the only thing that really mattered, and I had no doubt that this was what God wanted me to do. It was at this time that I decided to switch my major to biblical and theological studies. I felt I had a good mind and a passion for defending the faith intellectually. Authors and apologists like C.S. Lewis and Greg Boyd were my heroes and I wanted to get on a road that would make me like them: a logical defender of the faith.

Most of my junior and senior years were spent in the classroom or the library. I ended up with a double major (education was my other discipline) and was passionate about both. I took classes in Systematic Theology, Apologetics, the History of Israel, the Gospels, Paul, and any other elective I could sneak in to my schedule. I couldn't get enough. I loved the arguments, I loved the new knowledge, I loved learning about Scripture. If I was walking down the hall, I was probably reviewing a teleological argument for the existence of God. My morning showers might be spent trying to understand what Paul meant by "justification." My head was swimming in the ocean of theology, and I went where the tide took me. Although I was conscious that I tended to live in my head more than others, and even that it was affecting some relationships, it was a world that I loved and it didn't bother me that my thoughts were sometimes elsewhere. It came with the territory of becoming a future theologian, and it was territory that I was willing to live in.

But although I enjoyed the arguments, the historical reasoning, and the systematizing of a divine text, there were times when my certainty turned to confusion, and the gray would creep into my black and white. There were times when my mind wouldn't stop running and when doubts would enter in. Over the course of my final two years of college, I would enter periods of doubt and inner turmoil every six months or so - periods during which it was hard to think of much else.

I remember one particular mini-crisis about the apparent difference in perspective regarding "faith and works" between Paul and James. Because Paul was so central to my faith, especially the idea that we are saved by grace and by no effort of our own (as it is to almost every Protestant - this concept in a very real sense _is_ the gospel), this was a big deal. Of course we could all agree that "faith without works is dead," but some parts of James seemed to flat-out contradict Paul, particularly when James stated that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Wait, Paul says we are justified by faith alone, right? After reading several perspectives on this issue, I couldn't come to a conclusion on the matter. It bugged me. But I was still young; clearly the professional theologians knew better than I did. I believed that the fog would clear with more study and could push the issue to the back of my head for a later date.

Another mini-crisis for me was the composite nature of Scripture. As just one example, in my History of Israel class I was introduced to the evidence that there were two separate introductions of David in 1 Samuel. One seems to have been spliced into the larger story and is an awkward fit (in the inserted story, Saul doesn't know who David is even though he had already been introduced to him in the larger narrative). And the manuscript evidence seems to support this as well, because we have versions that do not contain the added material. I remember this contrasting wildly with my view of the inspiration of Scripture. If God was the ultimate author, or even if there were just one human author for any given book, why would something like this be in the Bible? But again, there were smarter people out there - my professor being one of them - that I trusted had the answers. I could safely table the issue and be confident in my faith.

During this time, I kept on accumulating biblical knowledge. I was at an Evangelical school, but was not sheltered from "liberal ideas." In fact many of my professors seemed to accept theories that I thought were incompatible with Evangelical faith. I learned about the varying theories about the development of the Pentateuch, the composite nature of Scripture, the haziness surrounding the formation of the canon, the questions of authorship, the archaeological evidence suggesting that some biblical events did not happen as depicted, the competing scriptural views of the conquest and settlement of the Promised Land, the differences in the accounts of the life of Christ (especially the Gospel of John), and other tensions in the New Testament (e.g. Paul's account of his conversion versus the account provided in Acts, different attitudes toward Mosaic law, etc.). All of these ideas were fresh, and I was okay that I hadn't integrated them into my theological views. Even if I didn't personally have them nailed down, I felt the answers were out there. I was generally more concerned with if I was a Calvinist or not. Intra-Christian debates were more pressing to me, as everyone around me accepted the basic tenets of Christianity anyways. The overall framework of my faith generally seemed solid, although there were moving pieces within. It was a luxury that being immersed in a Christian community afforded me, but it was a luxury that would not last.

I will continue the story of my faith journey in a later chapter.
DEFINING AN EVANGELICAL

\- 2 -

Defining Evangelicalism can be tricky business. Evangelical authors and secular historians of the faith range from believing the movement can be summed up in a few short theological propositions, to throwing their hands up, saying that it is too wide and diverse to define at all. Along with those historians who see more unity than diversity, I believe that although Evangelicalism is certainly a "wide" movement, it can be broadly understood by looking at its core doctrines, historical roots, and relationship to the wider Christian landscape.

CORE CONVICTIONS

Probably the most natural way to understand the Evangelical movement is to give an account of its core doctrines. Different theologians and historians may give slightly different lists of what constitutes the movement's core theological convictions, but these lists overlap significantly. One popular account is given by Alister McGrath, a well-known Evangelical theologian. In his _Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity,_ McGrath lists six beliefs that, if held, would properly label one as an Evangelical:

  1. The supreme authority of Scripture as a source of knowledge of God and a guide to Christian living
  2. The majesty of Jesus Christ, both as incarnate God and Lord and as the Savior of sinful humanity
  3. The lordship of the Holy Spirit
  4. The need for personal conversion
  5. The priority of evangelism for both individual Christians and the church as a whole
  6. The importance of the Christian community for spiritual nourishment, fellowship, and growth

From my experience, these six points summarize the core Evangelical convictions well. To trim up the language a bit, Evangelicals believe in:

  1. The total authority of Scripture for knowledge of God, ethics, and praxis
  2. The divinity of Jesus Christ and his role as rightful Lord and Savior of humanity
  3. The necessity of being "saved," or experiencing personal conversion
  4. The importance of having an ongoing "personal relationship with God"
  5. The priority of evangelism
  6. The importance of the Christian community for spiritual nourishment

Again, authors are going to debate what statements should be included or excluded from lists like these. Of the six, you could probably reject "the importance of the Christian community for spiritual nourishment" and still properly be labeled an Evangelical. I include it, with McGrath, because although it isn't a theological necessity, community - especially the focus on being involved in "small groups" - is so heavily emphasized that it profoundly shapes the culture and feel of most of these churches. I also made a slight change from McGrath's "lordship of the Holy Spirit" to the more frequently used language of having a "personal relationship with God."

In my opinion, having formerly been a part of the faith, an individual holding these six core convictions could properly be identified, and would probably self-identify, as an Evangelical.

HISTORICAL ROOTS

Because Evangelicalism can be difficult to define, its history can also be difficult to trace. Although there is some debate over what historical events have influenced Evangelicalism the most, historians of the religion often view Evangelicalism as a continuing development, with roots stemming from three distinct movements: historic orthodox Christianity, the Protestant Reformation, and the Great Awakening of the 18th Century. In _The American Evangelical Story_ , for instance, Douglas Sweeny argues that "Evangelicals are a movement of orthodox Protestants with an eighteenth-century twist." The influence of each of these separate elements is helpful for understanding the character of modern Evangelicalism.

First, Evangelicals see themselves as historic, orthodox Christians. This is often apparent in a church's endorsement of certain early creeds such as the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Chalcedonian Creed, some of which were developed at early Christian ecumenical councils. At these councils, various theological views were deemed to be "orthodox" (i.e. true or correct), while others were rejected and eventually labeled as "heretical." For instance, the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, stating that Jesus was both fully God and fully human, was vehemently debated and ultimately decided upon at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E. After this council, to hold any other view would put one outside the boundaries of mainstream Christianity. Major theological beliefs were then turned into creeds, or statements of core belief. In Evangelicalism, the self-perception of being within the bounds of orthodoxy often manifests as the idea that one is holding on to true or pure Christianity, the form of authentic Christianity that has been there from the start. To remain in the boundaries of Evangelical theology, one must hold to the core doctrines of orthodox Christian belief as defined by early Christendom.

Second, Evangelicals almost always see themselves as Protestants and are rooted in the main principles of the Protestant Reformation: _Sola Scriptura_ ("Scripture alone" is the source of theological truth); _Sola Gratia_ (we are saved by "grace alone"); and _Sola Fide_ (this grace is activated by "faith alone" and is not dependent on clergy or good works that we perform). Although there are some from outside Protestantism who identify as Evangelical (for instance Evangelical Catholic), the vast majority of Evangelicals consider themselves heirs of the Reformation. These Protestant theological principles continue to be core concepts in Evangelical theology.

Finally, the practices and culture of Evangelical Christianity are similar to practices linked to the 18th Century "Great Awakening" in both Europe and the American colonies. In this movement, emphasis was placed on personal conviction and emotion, while ritual, ceremony, and the role of clergy were de-emphasized. Evangelists such as George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards would preach passionately, warning against hellfire and pleading with those who would listen to accept salvation. This revival or open air style of preaching and evangelism is often a key feature in Evangelical communities, although the style has changed more toward mega-rallies and televangelism. Likewise, personal conviction and emotion continue to hold a higher importance than ritual, ceremony, and clergy. The result of this emphasis is what some refer to as "heart Christianity."

In very broad strokes, these three historical movements have been influential in shaping Evangelicalism.

EVANGELICALISM AND THE WIDER CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

When analyzing the Christian landscape as a whole, there are three major branches to separate: the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Protestant churches. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches are both officially unified organizationally, while Protestantism has splintered into literally hundreds of subdivisions (called denominations). Each of these three major branches sees itself as embodying the truest form of Christianity. The term "Evangelical" applies almost exclusively to the Protestant branch of Christianity.

That being said, individuals within each major branch may hold identical theological beliefs to an Evangelical, the only difference being outward forms of expression (being more tied to clergy, ritual, etc.). It is probably most helpful to simply note that within each branch of Christianity, there is going to be a spectrum of belief ranging from conservative to liberal.

A conservative in any one of these branches is more likely to believe that: (1) the doctrines of the church are literal and true; (2) the Bible is literally the Word of God in a way that is unique among religious literature; and (3) their tradition, or perhaps Christianity as a whole, is the only valid faith and path to salvation. There are Christians from each major branch that are on this end of the spectrum.

A liberal in any one of the three major branches is more likely to believe that: (1) the doctrines of the church may have to be re-interpreted figuratively or symbolically and may not be literally true; (2) the Bible is a collection of books that records Hebrew and Christian religious thought about God, but is not literally the inspired Word of God; and (3) their tradition is one appropriate response to the Divine, but other religious paths are also valid.

Evangelicals are conservatives, almost exclusively from the Protestant branch, who generally have the distinct cultural practices mentioned above, stemming from roots in the Great Awakening. It is again important to note that Evangelicalism is not a denomination, but rather a trans-denominational movement.

Another label that gets thrown around when discussing Christian factions is the "fundamentalist." A fundamentalist Christian is sometimes defined as "an Evangelical who is angry about something." There is some truth to that. But often times the word "fundamentalist" is simply a phrase people use to dismiss a belief as being too extreme to be valid, without critically engaging it. It's usually meant to be derogatory.

A more helpful way to look at Christian fundamentalism is in terms of cultural engagement and biblical interpretation. While sharing the core Evangelical beliefs, a fundamentalist is more likely to withdraw from culture than a typical Evangelical because culture is seen as a threat to their belief system. This can sometimes manifest as a distrust of science or secular (non-biblical) history, and the homeschooling of children. A fundamentalist is also more likely to interpret the Bible in an extremely literal way, leaving no room for discussion of symbolism or the genre of a biblical text (for instance, if the Bible says the universe was created in seven days, then it was created in seven literal days). A fundamentalist, therefore, is generally an Evangelical who interprets Scripture extremely literally and may disengage from the wider culture as a result. Most Evangelicals do not want to be identified as a fundamentalist and may find it offensive to be labeled as such.
JESUS

\- 3 -

It's all about Jesus. Nothing is more important to an Evangelical Christian than Jesus Christ: What he did for you on the cross, and what he wants you to do with your life. Within the Evangelical system of thought, Jesus plays three key roles. Jesus is your Savior. Jesus is your Lord. And Jesus is your Friend. Each of these roles compliments each other and creates a diverse understanding and experience of Christ.

JESUS AS SAVIOR AND ATONING SACRIFICE

The primary way that Evangelical Christians view Jesus is as their personal Savior. One of the reasons that this is the primary lens to view Jesus through is that it often connects to the conversion experience. When you first meet Jesus, it is as Savior.

When someone is introduced to Jesus and the gospel, there is usually some structured sequence of thoughts, a presentation, they are led through which explains the most core concepts of the faith. One of the most common of these presentations is called the Romans Road to Salvation. I literally had a small card in my wallet that contained the Romans Road in case I found myself with the opportunity to lead someone to Christ. This series of verses/ideas follows the book of Romans, which was written by the apostle Paul and is arguably a more fundamental document to Evangelical theology than even the four Gospels. The Romans Road presentation runs as follows:

_Romans 3:23_ : "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." The first step to finding Jesus is the recognition that you have sinned and are, therefore, a sinner. You need grace and forgiveness. If your life were to end today and you were on trial before God for how you lived, you would be found guilty. Sometimes an evangelist will try to get an individual to realize this by listing off the Ten Commandments. Have you ever lied? You are a liar. Have you ever stolen anything? You are a thief. Have you ever lusted in your heart after any person who was not your spouse? You are an adulterer (Jesus, in the Gospels, says that lusting in your heart is equivalent to the act itself). It's hard for someone to argue that they have never sinned. No one is perfect. The evangelist tells the individual that, because of their sin, they can expect just punishment from God.

_Romans 6:23_ : "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." After you admit your sinfulness, the evangelist leads you further down the road. Not only can you expect punishment, but the punishment is death. Often this is interpreted to mean that you will go to Hell when you die (i.e. not only a physical death, but a spiritual death as well). Sometimes other verses in which Jesus warns against hellfire are added here. Discussion about the nature of Hell may also be included and is often presented simply as "eternity away from God." The alternative is the offer of eternal life through Jesus Christ.

_Romans 5:8_ : "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." To save you from eternal death, God sent Jesus to die on the cross for your sins. This is the way that God shows His love to humanity and creates a way for us to be with Him forever. Because God is just, He must punish sin. But because God is loving, He sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice to take the punishment we deserve. This transaction is technically called "penal substitutionary atonement." Just as lambs were slaughtered for the forgiveness of sins in the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus is slaughtered as the ultimate Lamb of God. It is in this way that Jesus dies for your sins and expresses his love to you personally.

_Romans 10:9_ : "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." The transaction is complete and you are forgiven of all your sins when you confess Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Often, at this point, an individual is led through a Sinner's Prayer. An example, put out by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and PeaceWithGod. net, is as follows:

> Dear Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner, and I ask for your forgiveness. I believe you died for my sins and rose from the dead. I trust and follow you as my Lord and Savior. Guide my life and help me to do your will. In your name, Amen.

Thus, from the very beginning, Jesus is presented as Savior. Because the fundamental problem that is being solved by the cross is sin, the fundamental lens that Jesus is seen through is as Savior from sin. Jesus' other roles are important to the Evangelical, but are secondary.

JESUS AS LORD

The initial experience of Jesus is as Savior, but the deepening experience of Jesus is as Lord. In all of orthodox Christian theology, Jesus is not only the Son of God but is also God Incarnate - fully man and fully God. The theories that explain how Jesus was both fully human and fully Divine are complicated and there are several models that try to do so, but understanding this doctrine philosophically is not important to most Evangelicals. It is generally left to the theologians to do so, or perhaps simply considered a paradox. But if Jesus is God Incarnate, he is also necessarily one's Lord or Master.

We have four Gospels that made it into the orthodox canon of Scripture. For the Evangelical, the direct words of Jesus are found in these Gospels (generally, Evangelicals don't play the historical Jesus game in which scholars sift through the Gospel material and try to determine what goes back to the historical Jesus vs. what was simply a product of the early church). Because Jesus is seen as God Incarnate, and we have his direct words recorded, whatever Jesus says in the Gospels is true. Whether it is a theological statement about God, a comment on ethics, an observation about human behavior, a command to his disciples, or a prediction of the future, whatever Jesus says goes. He is Lord.

When one accepts Jesus as Lord and becomes a "disciple," they are signing up for the most difficult mission of their life. Living up to the commands of Jesus is not only challenging, it is nearly impossible. In the Gospels, Jesus commands his disciples to give up everything for him, even to the point of death. He tells people to sell everything they own, giving the proceeds to the poor, and to forsake even their own families if necessary.

> Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
> 
> -Matthew 10:37-39

Ethically, he directs his disciples to "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect." He is uncompromising. Jesus is not some new age spiritual teacher; he is a Hebrew prophet. Jesus commands in the name of God. The Christian journey is one of trying to follow Jesus, failing, and continuing to get up, again and again. If you're resting and okay with where you're at in the journey, you're probably going backwards. There is work to be done in Jesus' name. The Lordship of Jesus Christ demands everything a Christian has, and is not taken lightly.

Within every religion there are going to be members with varying levels of dedication. Evangelicalism is not exempt from this reality. In some churches, Jesus is watered down. He is a Jesus who just wants you to be happy and is always on your side. He is a Jesus you pray to like you were sitting on Santa Claus' lap. One who, you hope, gives you what you want for Christmas. But this is not the biblical Jesus. Authentic discipleship carries a seriousness with it, and authentic Evangelicals have an uncompromising seriousness about following Christ as Lord.

JESUS AS FRIEND

Because accepting Jesus as Lord and committing your life to him is such a severe task, the believer also needs to experience Jesus as Friend. Sometimes this is experienced by reading the Gospels, because, although Jesus is severe, he is also presented as a loving Master who leads his flock gently.

> Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
> 
> \- Matthew 11:28-30
> 
> I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit - fruit that will last - and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.
> 
> \- John 15:15-16

Jesus is also often recorded as sharing table fellowship with tax collectors and notorious sinners. Table fellowship was a sign of intimacy and friendship in the ancient world and it is a comfort to know that Jesus shared meals even with those who were considered sinful by the religious authorities.

> While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
> 
> On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
> 
> \- Matthew 9:10-12

While the experience of Jesus as Friend is aided by reading Scripture, just as often Jesus is experienced as Friend through personal witness to a believer's soul. That "deeper voice" inside us that we might hear in a silent place or when in prayer is often identified as Jesus and a believer may even practice forms of imaginative prayer in which they are encouraged to visualize Jesus speaking to them. In this way Jesus can counsel the believer through specific problems, give encouragement, and tell the believer that they are forgiven and loved. Different people have different beliefs regarding what constitutes "Jesus talking to them." Some might not hesitate to say "I heard Jesus tell me ." Others are much more measured. But most Evangelicals are going to have some concept of experiencing Jesus in their soul as a Counselor or Friend, however that is described.

◆ ◆ ◆

These interpretations of Jesus are fundamental to the Evangelical experience. One has the personal assurance that they are loved and forgiven by God due to Jesus' role as Savior. They have a mission and commands to follow due to Jesus' role as Lord. And they are strengthened and encouraged in the task by Jesus' role as Friend. These roles mutually reinforce one another, leading the Christian on their journey of discipleship. Jesus is, in a sense, the whole deal, and following him should be the believer's primary concern. Anything that stands in the way of that is a danger to one's soul.

One effect that the experience of Jesus has on the believer is generally an exclusivistic outlook on the faith. Unlike in the liberal strands of Christianity and other religions, there is no room for pluralism. Jesus isn't Allah, Vishnu, or any other deity. Jesus is the _unique_ Son of God and does not compete with other gods. Other gods are idols. The superiority of the Christian religion, and especially the claims of Jesus over and against other deities, is heavily emphasized. As John Hick points out in _The Metaphor of God Incarnate_ , these ideas are simply a logical conclusion of traditional Christology (doctrine about Jesus):

> If Jesus was God incarnate, the Christian religion is unique in having been founded by God in person. The Christian story is that in Jesus God came down to earth and inaugurated a new and redeemed community, the church; and it seems self-evident that God must wish all human creatures to become part of this community; so the church is called to convert the human race to the Christian faith.

Another effect that the experience of Jesus has on the Evangelical is a reaction against watered down, "liberal" Christianity. Often in mainline or liberal branches of Christianity, focus will be taken off of Jesus and his unique claims in the Gospels, specifically his claims of Divinity in the Gospel of John. The focus in these churches might be more on God in the abstract, loose spirituality, and social justice causes. The Evangelical is very much rooted in Jesus Christ and may have a strong reaction against what they believe to be a diluting of the faith.

Finally, the experience of Christ gives the believer the comfort that, in Jesus, they have everything they truly need. When life gets chaotic, and you find yourself upset or overwhelmed by day to day, worldly concerns, you can always return to your center - Jesus Christ. Scripture teaches that, "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." True disciples know that nothing on earth will truly fulfill them, that their treasure is only ultimately found in their Lord and Savior. The classic hymn _Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus_ captures this reality well:

> Turn your eyes upon Jesus, look full in his wonderful face. And the things of this world will grow strangely dim, in the light of His glory and grace.

When the believer accepts Jesus into their heart, the things of this world grow strangely dim.
SALVATION

\- 4 -

In the Evangelical drama, the primary role Jesus plays is Savior and the primary thing he does is get you "saved." This can mean a variety of different things, and salvation is a nuanced concept within the religion. Much like a Buddhist may talk about enlightenment as if it were a multifaceted diamond, a Christian may talk about salvation from different angles depending on the context. Although some other diverse interpretations of salvation are available, there are three primary ways that Evangelicals tend to view this concept: being Born-Again, having assurance of going to Heaven after death, and experiencing their soul being changed into the likeness of Christ.

BORN-AGAIN: FORGIVEN, FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT, AND PART OF THE BODY OF CHRIST

The born-again conversion experience is an incredibly powerful and, if authentic, truly life-changing event for the new believer. Assuming they remain in the faith, it will probably be looked back upon as the single most important event of their life. Every time the believer hears Amazing Grace, they will think of this day and thank God.

At the time someone is born-again by accepting Jesus (usually by means of a sinner's prayer), three important realities are generally presented to them: they have been forgiven all of their sin, received the gift of the Holy Spirit who will live in them and guide them on their journey of faith, and have been accepted into the Body of Christ. Often baptism follows this experience as a symbol of what happened when the convert accepted Christ. The "old you" dies and is buried (symbolized by submersion in water) and the "new you" is born (symbolized by rising from the water). As the apostle Paul says:

> If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
> 
> -2 Corinthians 5:17 (ESV)

The first element of the born-again experience, forgiveness of sins, gives the assurance that the believer is loved by God. Depending on the background of the individual, this can relieve a mass of past guilt. Within the faith, there is a sense that the more mistakes someone has made in life, the closer they are to God, because they realize their need for forgiveness. Often prison ministries will emphasize this idea during evangelization. Even if one isn't incarcerated or heavily burdened by past sins, the relief of guilt during this time is like having a weight lifted off of one's shoulders.

The second element presented to the new believer when they are born-again is the gift of the Holy Spirit. At conversion, the believer is told that the Holy Spirit has been sent to live inside them, guiding them in the life of faith. Every born-again Christian has access to the Spirit of God, while non-Christians lack this Guiding Force. The doctrine of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit gives the new Christian an anchor in their own experience of the faith. When dealing with personal issues, they can look inward and receive guidance from that deeper voice within. At various times, this deeper voice may be referred to as either the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or God, due to the doctrine of the Trinity (One God in Three Persons). The Holy Spirit though, is the part of God that is generally seen as dwelling with us on earth. In the Gospel of John, Jesus states:

> If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
> 
> \- John 14:15-17

The third element of being born-again is the initiation into a new community. If a public baptism is held at the time of conversion, it usually includes a formal commitment by the church community to welcome and support the new Christian in their journey. The believer is now part of the family, part of the Body of Christ. This church family is what will help them grow in their faith after the initial born-again experience. Often these are truly love-filled communities, which may be experienced as markedly different than other groups one has been a part of in the past. The believer has found their true home.

Through the born-again experience, the believer, in an instant, has a new identity. They are forgiven of all sin, have been given the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and are accepted into the Body of Christ. They have been "saved."

HEAVEN AND HELL

In John 3, one of the most famous chapters in the Christian Scriptures, Jesus proclaims:

> Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.
> 
> \- John 3:3

The concept of the Kingdom (or Reign) of God, is another nuanced concept in Christianity. In some sense, the Gospels proclaim, it is already here through the ministry of Jesus. When one accepts the Lordship of Christ, they enter the Kingdom of God in the here and now. The way an individual believer and Christian communities live will reflect what it is like to live under "God's rule." The primary characteristic of these communities, living under the rule of God, is self-sacrificial love - love like Jesus loves.

But although there is some sense that the Kingdom of God is already present as seen in the Church and all those who bow to Jesus, there is a deeper sense in which it is not fully here yet. This is expressed as an "already, but not yet" reality. The final consummation of the Kingdom of God will not happen until Jesus returns and brings Heaven to earth. Most people think of the concept of Heaven as a celestial paradise filled with disembodied spirits. The biblical understanding, however, is more along the lines of renewed physical Creation. Creation will be as it was always meant to be: no more death, no more pain, no more suffering. The lion will lay with the lamb. As the writer of Revelation puts it:

> Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
> 
> He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."
> 
> I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
> 
> \- Revelation 21:1-5, 22-27

God's dwelling place is now with his people. He will wipe every tear. This is the ultimate biblical hope. Renewed Creation. Eden again.

In this sense, salvation is never complete in this world. It will only be fully experienced after death or when Jesus comes back to bring his Kingdom. In the minds of a vast majority of Evangelicals, this reality is only open to born-again Christians. If you have accepted Jesus, you will go to Heaven to be with him forever. If you haven't accepted Jesus, you will go to Hell, where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

SANCTIFICATION

One other primary way that Evangelicals may think about salvation is in terms of having their souls "changed into the likeness of Christ." The technical term for this process is _sanctification_. In the process of sanctification, God works - sometimes in painful ways - in the Christian's soul to change them into a more Godlike person. This concept is actually more prevalent in Eastern Orthodoxy than in Evangelicalism, and is often referred to, there, as _deification_ \- the soul becoming like God.

When God purifies the soul in this way, the Christian experiences the fruits of the Spirit: most notably love, joy, and peace. The idea is that becoming a certain type of person, one free from sin, is, in a sense, Heaven. Life is a kind of purgatory, in which the soul makes the necessary changes to be able to be in the presence of God, both now and in eternity.

Of these three concepts of salvation, the born-again experience and the assurance of Heaven are the most heavily emphasized in Evangelicalism.

◆ ◆ ◆

The primary effect that these experiences of salvation have on the believer is _a sense that they are markedly different than the rest of the world_. Born-again Christians, a group with which they now identify, are filled with the Spirit of God, assured of going to Heaven, and being changed into better people. The rest of the world is not. _This creates a massive insider/outsider, believer/nonbeliever dynamic._ Those inside the group are generally seen in a positive light, as "brothers and sisters in Christ" who have the Holy Spirit in them. Born-again Christians can say _Namaste_ \- "the Divine in me recognizes the Divine in you" - but only to each other. Those outside the group are probably going to end up in Hell and are often seen in a negative light. They do not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Stemming from this sense of difference, a related effect of the experience of salvation is a conflicted relationship with those outside the faith. Often the primary reason for an Evangelical to interact with an unbeliever is to convert them. This is almost always done out of an authentic sense of love and sympathy. The believer wants outsiders to come to faith, to experience what the believer has experienced. They want non-Christians to accept Christ and be saved, in every sense of the term. Evangelicals are called to love non-Christians, but the experience and interpretation of salvation creates such a heavy "Christians good/non-Christians bad" dynamic in the believer's mind that this becomes difficult. The apostle Paul displays this idea when he counsels Christians not to become yoked with unbelievers:

> Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
> 
> -2 Corinthians 6:14

So Evangelicals often love and serve people from other faiths, but from a distance. Getting too close, unless the unbeliever is going to be converted, is dangerous.

Finally, a highly related effect on the believer is the development of massive cognitive dissonance when they meet kind, loving people who are not part of the faith. Believers are light. Unbelievers are darkness. Real, complex, unique people, often people that the believer cares about deeply, have to be put into one of these two categories. Clearly, due to the fact that there are genuinely kind people of other faiths or non-faith, the believer is eventually going to run into individuals who strain these categories of thought. Often these relationships can be the first "crack" in the Evangelical framework of faith.
THE BIBLE

\- 5 -

The Bible is an incredibly diverse group of writings. The Protestant canon contains 66 books (27 in the New Testament and 39 in the Old Testament) which were put into their final forms over a period of at least 600 years, with individual materials within the finished writings dating much further back (e.g. although the finished product of Genesis _may_ have been put into final form around the Jewish return from exile in the 6th Century BCE, the creation narratives were formed much earlier in Jewish history). Even on the most conservative reading possible, in which, for instance, Moses is seen as writing the entire Torah, the Protestant Bible was written by over 35 authors.

Most scholars, even within Evangelicalism, would drastically increase that number, usually understanding an individual biblical book as having developed over time, being a product of multiple writers or communities of writers, not just one person. In many cases, as, again, even Evangelical scholars admit, we do not know who the original author or authors were.

These books were produced by writers coming from widely different backgrounds and cultures, with different fundamental assumptions about the world. You have "mythic" origins literature from the ancient Near East, next to tribal law code, next to war annals, next to poetry and proverbial wisdom stemming from 10th Century BCE Israel, next to parts of a songbook, next to prophetic oracles and warnings of judgment, next to four differing portraits of the life of Jesus, next to a history of the apostolic church, next to a highly philosophical treatise by the 1st Century Greco-Roman apostle Paul, next to personal letters, next to apocalyptic literature in Revelation. The Bible is not a systematic set of propositional truths about God. The diversity of genres, time periods, and ideas in Scripture makes sorting it all out, in the field of Systematic Theology, a bewildering task.

In general, though, the complicated nature of the origins, authorship, and diversity of Scripture doesn't matter to the Evangelical believer, _because the Bible was ultimately written by God._ Open up the Gospel of John; God talks to you. Open up to Revelation; God talks to you. Open up to Ecclesiastes; God talks to you. In the Evangelical mind, as the Scriptures themselves state:

> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.
> 
> \- 2 Timothy 3:16

Seeing Scripture as God-breathed and ultimately originating from one Divine Mind drives the Evangelical understanding and use of the Bible. It allows some of these more complicated issues to be pushed into the background so that God can simply speak through His Word to the believer.

AUTHORITY

The most fundamental idea to understand about the Evangelical view of Scripture is that the Bible is _authoritative_. The Bible solves arguments. It tells the believer the truth about the nature of God, morality, and how to live in the world. Because Scripture is understood as being "God-breathed," the Bible carries the authority of God. If Scripture says it, God says it.

While other branches of Christianity see the Bible as authoritative, that belief is sometimes qualified by other "authorities" for theological truth. One helpful model for understanding these sources for theology is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (credited to the 18th Century Methodist, John Wesley). On this model there are four sources for finding truth about God: Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience. Different branches of Christianity, at different periods in history, will emphasize or de-emphasize some of these elements, creating a different climate for understanding theological truth. Evangelicals elevate Scripture far above all other theological sources, so that theological truth is found _in Scripture as interpreted by Reason, Tradition, and Experience_ (i.e. the other sides of the quadrilateral are only means of understanding Scripture).

Although the lower sources are helpful for understanding Scripture (of course we use "Reason" to understand a text), if your tradition, reason, or experience can be shown to be at odds with Scripture, Scripture wins.

In the history of Catholicism, Tradition has generally had a much higher role in understanding theological truth. This can be seen in theological pronouncements coming out of universal Catholic councils (Vatican II being the most recent). The official theology of the Catholic Church, therefore, changes through its developing tradition and as new findings in other areas of human knowledge are uncovered. A potential way to understand the Catholic theological method, at least at some points in the Church's history would be:

In other factions of Christianity, and at other historic periods, different arrangements of this model would be prevalent. For instance, Quakers arguably value Experience over all other sources of theological truth. Other movements may have a true quadrilateral, with no source holding the trump card over others.

But in Evangelicalism, Scripture is King. It is the primary source for understanding God and all true theology must flow from its pages.

PERSONAL USE

The vast majority of Evangelicals are not professional exegetes or scholars. They are regular people, living regular lives, who use the Bible to try to understand God, and how He wants them to live, a little bit better. Therefore, in Evangelicalism, the Bible is most commonly used _devotionally_.

Devotional use of Scripture is profoundly personal; it is between the reader and God. When a believer sits down to read the Bible devotionally, they are using the Bible _as a tool to hear God_. For instance, the believer may read a chapter out of the Gospel of John in which Jesus says "I lay down my life for my sheep." They may then, in silence, listen for what God is saying to them in this verse. Maybe they hear God, with their inward ear, comfort their spirit by telling them that they are loved so much that Jesus laid down his life. Or maybe the believer hears God instruct them in specific ways that they, like Jesus, should be laying down their life for others.

In this devotional style of reading the Bible, historical context, authorship, literary criticism, and authorial intent don't matter. _What matters is that the believer is encouraged, comforted, or strengthened by God - that they "hear God" through the pages of Scripture. Every part of the Bible, then, is instantly relevant to the believer's life_. The passage could be about an obscure battle between Israel and the Amalekites and still find relevance in the believer's mind. Maybe they hear God using that Scripture to counsel them on what elements of their life they need to "do battle with."

You need no background in biblical studies, foreign languages, translations, etc. to use the Bible in this way. You just read it and listen for God's guidance. In the Catholic tradition, this may be called _lectio divina_ , or sacred reading. When an Evangelical says they have a relationship with God, this is usually the primary way that this relationship is fostered.

This personal, or devotional, method of reading Scripture is the primary way the Bible is used by members of an Evangelical church. When doing a Bible study, the historical context and trying to understand the literary structure or wider theological implications of a book are important, but are not primary. The most important element of the Bible study is how the reader is guided by God through the words of Scripture.

INTERPRETATION

While the majority of Evangelicals use the Bible primarily as a devotional tool, pastors, theologians, and more philosophically inclined lay members use the Bible _theologically_. When used in this way, the concern is to develop a true theology from the pages of Scripture. Basically this entails picking a topic and figuring out what the Bible, as a whole, says about it. What does the Bible say about Jesus? What does the Bible say about wealth? What does the Bible say about marriage? The task, then, is to systematize and harmonize all the relevant verses from Scripture.

In Evangelicalism, the method of interpretation currently deemed to be the most appropriate way to authentically determine the meaning of a biblical passage is called the Historical-Grammatical Method of Interpretation. In this method, every effort is made to understand _what the author intended to say_ as understood within his historical context, chosen genre, use of literary techniques, etc. The original authorial intent is the control that determines the true meaning of a text. This may seem obvious, but dabbling in modern literary interpretive methods and the history of Christian biblical interpretation yields a variety of options. Evangelicals are, however, very much tied to authorial intent. There are, of course, debates about what a given author was intending to say in each specific passage.

While, in theory, each biblical text is taken on its own terms and understood through its own voice, in practice, Evangelical interpretation often "smoothes out" difficult or seemingly contradictory texts. This is done because, to the Evangelical, the Bible needs to be completely coherent and unified. There cannot be any actual contradictions, only "apparent contradictions," due to the fact that the Bible was ultimately authored by God. To acknowledge true contradictions in theological content would be to give up the theological farm. If the Bible errs in one place, then the whole Evangelical system is called into question.

The need to find complete theological coherence in every book creates problems for the Evangelical exegete, because different authors in the Bible sometimes say seemingly contradictory things about the same topic. For instance, the writer of Ecclesiastes legitimately thinks that life is pointless. Part of the reason he seems to think this is that, from his perspective, there is no afterlife:

> All share a common destiny - the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.
> 
> As it is with the good,  
>  so with the sinful;  
>  as it is with those who take oaths,  
>  so with those who are afraid to take them.  
>  This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun:  
>  The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of people, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. Anyone who is among the living has hope - even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!
> 
> For the living know that they will die,  
>  but the dead know nothing;  
>  they have no further reward,  
>  and even their name is forgotten.
> 
> Their love, their hate  
>  and their jealousy have long since vanished;  
>  never again will they have a part  
>  in anything that happens under the sun.
> 
> -Ecclesiastes 9:2-6

In the New Testament, of course, there is clearly a belief in the afterlife as seen in the teachings of Jesus, Paul, etc. In fact, you could argue that attaining the positive realm of the afterlife (i.e. Heaven), is the primary concern of the New Testament.

Even within the Testaments, there are opposing views presented. For instance, in the Old Testament: (1) within Mosaic law differing views on various areas of ethics are presented (compare Exodus 21:2-11, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, and Leviticus 25:39-46 regarding the release of Hebrew women slaves and the owning of Hebrew slaves in general, etc.) likely showing a development in Hebrew ethical thought; (2) different prophets have different understandings of the Hebrews' relations to Gentiles (compare Ezra's command for all Hebrews to divorce their foreign wives and send them away to the more universal outlook in later Isaiah, Amos, Jonah, etc.); (3) different books portray alternate accounts of historical events (compare Joshua's presentation of the conquest of Canaan as swift and complete to Judges' presentation as incomplete, an ongoing struggle); (4) differing portrayals of significant Hebrew leaders are seen in different books (compare the Chronicler's idealized view of David to his portrayal in Samuel-Kings); (5) the prophetic writings sometimes disagree with or overturn Mosaic law (compare Isaiah 56:1-8 and Deuteronomy 23:14 regarding eunuchs and foreigners in the assembly of God); (6) there are disagreements on specific historical occurrences (compare Exodus 6:3 to Genesis 15:7 on if Abraham knew the name of "The Lord" - _Yahweh_ in Hebrew); (7) chronologies are confused (Genesis 11-12 has internal inconsistencies regarding the ages of Terah and Abraham, Genesis and Exodus (and Galatians) have inconsistencies about the length of Israel's sojourn in Egypt), etc.

In the New Testament there are: (1) differing views on the legitimacy of the Roman government (compare Paul's positive understanding in Romans 13 in which government is the "servant of God" to Revelation in which Rome is a "Beast" and "the Mother of Whores" - i.e. completely anti-God); (2) developments in Christology and the presentation of Jesus (compare Mark 10:18 in which Jesus seemingly doesn't want to be called "good," reserving that description for God alone, to John 10:30 in which Jesus declares that "I and the Father are one." Also, more generally, compare the synoptic presentation of Jesus vs. the advanced Christological understanding in the Gospel of John in which he is the pre-existing Son of God); (3) differing attitudes towards Mosaic law (compare Jesus' declaration that Mosaic law is the "commandment of God" which we should obey in Mark 7 to his own overturning of parts of the Law in Matthew 5-7. Also compare Paul's understanding of the Law's "non-applicability" compared to Peter's obvious disagreement in Galatians.); (4) alternate ideas, at least on a straightforward reading, about the relationship between "justification" and "works" between Paul and James (compare Romans 3 to James 2; likewise compare the understanding of salvation in Ephesians 8:9-10 to the presentation of the final judgment, seemingly based on works, in Matthew 25:31-46); (5) differences of thought regarding the timing of Jesus' return (compare Paul's clear expectation of a very near return in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 7 (also see 2 Thess 2, 1 Peter 4:7, James 5:8, 1 John 2:18, Rev 22:20, and the "Olivet Discourses" in the Synoptic Gospels) to the recognition that "it might be a while" in 2 Peter 3 and the concession at the end of the Gospel of John), etc.

Sometimes theologians smooth these tensions out by invoking the concept of "progressive revelation" in which God reveals new truths as history unfolds, which may overturn old ideas. More often, differences of opinion and tensions in ideas between different books are simply minimized - categorized as surface level tensions within deeper unifying truths. There is always a way to fit an idea within another idea depending on how far you are willing to stretch them.

Another major aspect of Evangelical interpretation is that some books in Scripture generally work as theological controls, or lenses through which to read other Scripture. This is to say, crudely, that some books are more important than others.

For Evangelicals, the two most theologically influential books in the Bible are the Gospel of John and the book of Romans _._ These two books are filled with core Evangelical theological concepts: the Divinity of Jesus, the significance of his death on the cross and resurrection, the doctrine of man's sinfulness and need for redemption, etc. Most believers don't realize it, but when they read other books of the Bible, they are usually seeing them through the theological control, the lens, of these two books. So, for instance, when the book of Job says that Job was "blameless," this must be explained away as a figure of speech because, as any good Evangelical knows, and as Paul says in Romans, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

By invoking progressive revelation, finding deeper unity to surface level tensions, and using certain core ideas or books as theological controls, the Evangelical interpreter finds the Bible to be a unified work, ultimately written by God.

SCHOLARSHIP

Like pastoral interpretations of Scripture within the church, Evangelical scholars tend to have pressure on them to "make the whole thing fit together" when performing exegesis on a passage of Scripture. Part of the reason for this pressure is that, if the scholar has a position at an Evangelical institution, _their job is on the line if their interpretations are deemed to be outside the bounds of orthodox thought._ This goes for their published work and even, sometimes, their lectures in class.

One highly publicized example of this is the case of Peter Enns. Enns held a teaching position at Westminster Theological Seminary until he published a controversial book, _Inspiration and Incarnation_, in 2005. In the book, Enns pushed the Evangelical limits in several areas of biblical interpretation, for instance labeling Genesis as "myth," proposing that Scripture is inherently bound to the culture it came from (i.e. it's not timeless, contextless writing), seeing the historiography of Scripture as not objective but biased by the purposes of its writers, and finding irreconcilable differences in the theological views of various books of the Bible. After much controversy, Enns was suspended from Westminster in 2008 and left the institution.

Scholars like Enns, who take what they see as some of the convincing results of mainstream scholarship and try to introduce those ideas into Evangelical thought, run the risk of losing their employment - being labeled heretical and outside the bounds of the faith. Although Evangelical thinkers can agree with mainstream scholarship on individual points, say on the composite nature of the book of Genesis, they still generally have to find ways to interpret those findings within a view that harmonizes all of Scripture. The scholar generally needs to affirm that the Bible is without error - however they articulate that - to be considered within the bounds of orthodoxy.

◆ ◆ ◆

The Evangelical understanding of the Bible has several effects on the believer. One major effect is that ethics, at least at first glance, appear to be black and white. Because the Bible gives ethical commands in the form of clear Thou Shalt Nots, for instance in the Ten Commandments, the believer has a text to hang their hat on when determining what is and is not ethical behavior. If the Bible says, "Thou shalt not steal," stealing is wrong. If Jesus says, "Let your yes be yes and your no be no," then any type of falsehood is wrong. While many biblical ethics are uncontroversial, others are not. In our own times, most Evangelicals would interpret Scripture to say that homosexuality in any form is sinful. Indeed, in my own interpretation of the Christian Scriptures, from front to back, the Bible seems to condemn homosexual behavior. Clearly this conflicts with the modern sensibilities of American popular culture. In the past, the issue of slavery was hotly debated in a similar way. But due to the doctrine of the Bible as the Word of God, the Evangelical always has a text to hang their ethics on, making a lot of issues seem pretty clear cut, which, to outsiders, may be much more up for debate.

A related effect to a black and white view of ethics is the fact that Evangelicals are sometimes bound to certain conclusions regarding ethics or theology, even if their experience may conflict with those conclusions. For example, a believer may know people who are in same-sex relationships and feel that nobody is being hurt by this behavior. But _if the Bible condemns the practice, the Evangelical is bound to condemn that practice as well_. Unless they can find a way to honestly interpret Scripture to say something else, they are "stuck." In the theological arena, if the Bible classifies non-believers as wicked or unrighteous, it doesn't matter how counter-intuitive it feels when the believer meets genuinely loving people from outside the faith. They are bound to the theology of Scripture as they honestly interpret it. You can't say that the Bible made a mistake in one place and then trust it for theological truth as a whole. You have to buy the whole package which includes affirming all that the Scriptures truly affirm.

Another effect of the doctrine of the authority of Scripture is an urgency in getting interpretation correct. If God has given humanity a book that tells us His will, we have no excuse for living in a way that doesn't please Him. We can't say, "You never told me that." In short, we don't have an excuse for getting theology or ethics wrong. This elevates the discourse around the interpretation of the Bible to a heated level. Listening to a Christian debate between a Calvinist and an Arminian (see below), you get the sense that the two theologians aren't even part of the same religion. Indeed, the rhetoric sometimes goes all the way to, "We don't even worship the same God!" and the declaration of heresy. Because the Bible is the Word of God, the Evangelical, especially if they are formally involved in theology, feels significant pressure to get the Bible right.

Finally, one positive and comforting effect of the Evangelical view of Scripture is that there is some sense that the answers are out there. The Bible tells the whole drama of humanity from start to finish, gives a complete code of ethics, and shows the believer the true character of God. Even if the individual believer doesn't understand all of Scripture on their own, _they have the comfort that their pastor or theologian of choice does_. The world makes sense and reading the Bible only leads to more clarity. Modern existential angst about "meaninglessness" is mostly foreign to a committed Evangelical Christian, in large part thanks to their understanding of the Bible.
ETHICS AND PRAXIS

\- 6 -

The core Evangelical beliefs, especially the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, profoundly shape Evangelical ethics and praxis. Theology, stemming from Scripture, drives how Evangelicals live in the world. A good pastor is simply going to faithfully interpret the Bible and teach his congregants how to apply it to their lives. The following are my observations, based on my time in a wide variety of Evangelical communities, on how Evangelicals are encouraged to live, structured in categories fundamental to the movement.

HOLINESS/PURITY

One primary category that drives how Evangelicals are encouraged to live in the world is Holiness. The term _holy_ is usually interpreted to mean "set apart." In Leviticus (also quoted in 1 Peter) God tells His people:

> You are to be holy to me because I, The Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
> 
> \- Leviticus 20:26

Evangelical Christians, then, see themselves as a people who are set apart from the rest of the world. Although, in rare cases, this may manifest as a physical separation (i.e. a commune or small community), the most common way that holiness is accomplished is through a focus on being morally upright. Being holy, in this sense, means following the ethical code of the Bible, seen primarily in the Ten Commandments and the teaching of Jesus. Christians strive to uphold the highest moral standard possible, and, according to Jesus, are to "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect." The bar, set at perfection, is as high as possible.

The goal of being morally upright is not only to personally please God, but to look different than the rest of culture and thereby draw non-Christians to the faith. The way that Christians live, under the commands of God, should be a "light to the nations." Other people should see how good life with God is, and be drawn to become Christians themselves. Evangelicals are often conscious of how they look to the outside world and are therefore understandably embarrassed in the cases of moral failures of Evangelical leaders. Even if everything isn't perfect in an Evangelical community, there is often pressure to look good for the sake of bringing others into the fold.

Another concept highly related to Holiness is Purity. When the term _purity_ is used, it generally refers to sexuality, and could be seen as a subset of holiness in general. Sexual purity is understood to be important for men and women, but a higher level of importance is placed on the purity of women. In Evangelicalism, the Bible is generally interpreted as teaching that all sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin. Jesus even takes it a step farther, telling his disciples:

> You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
> 
> \- Matthew 5:27-28

So not just sexual activity, but even lustful thoughts, when indulged, are considered sin - on par with adultery according to the teaching of Jesus. You can imagine how much young men and women may struggle in this area, especially when the age of marriage has risen significantly higher than in biblical times. Evangelical Christians often marry young, and this doctrine contributes to that significantly.

If an Evangelical woman has sex before marriage they often struggle mightily with their self-concept, seeing themselves as "tainted" or "unclean" (to use Old Testament language). If you have sex outside of marriage once, you move from the category of "pure" to "impure," and there is no going back.

But whether it is sexual purity or, more generally, moral uprightness, Evangelicals are called to be holy and set apart from the world in how they act. Holiness leads them to happiness and should lead others to want to follow Jesus and join the movement.

SERVICE

Another category that drives Evangelical praxis is Service. Evangelicals tend to be extremely oriented towards serving the world and working to make it a better place. Their model in this endeavor is Jesus himself:

> Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ 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!
> 
> \- Philippians 2:1-8
> 
> A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
> 
> \- John 13:34
> 
> Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God - this is your true and proper worship.
> 
> -Romans 12:1

Because Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice for humanity, we also ought to sacrifice ourselves for the good of others. This service to humanity can manifest itself in many ways, whether in formal mission trips, volunteering for social causes, or just in daily life as an attitude of putting others before yourself. Acts of service are often genuine, stemming from a deep understanding that this is God's character. God loves and serves others, so we love and serve others.

Although serving others and volunteering for social causes is considered important, there is also a sense that you need to avoid falling into the "social gospel" in which people stop caring about saving souls and are over-concerned with the problems of the world. Diluting the faith to the Mican command to "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8) can take focus off of the explicit gospel and salvation through Christ. Because of this worry, generally acts of service are done explicitly in Jesus' name (for example, a group might pray publicly before performing a service project, etc.). In the background of mission trips, volunteering, and day to day life, the goal of trying to draw others to the faith should always be present. This idea is summed up in the Franciscan saying: "Preach the gospel at all times; if necessary use words."

EVANGELISM

While acts of service and the loving way that Evangelicals live in the world should draw others into the faith, explicit Evangelism is also a necessity. You can't just go around "being a good person" and expect people to get saved. At some point they have to hear the gospel message and accept Christ for themselves.

Evangelism, or explicitly spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, can be done in many ways. In some churches, evangelists are sent out to interact with random people they meet on the street or at a mall. These evangelists may approach others out of the blue and begin to share the gospel, perhaps using the Romans Road presentation discussed above. This method of evangelism is rare, and many Evangelicals would see it as extreme or off-putting. But it does still happen. I have been a part of these groups and sometimes the interactions are even video-taped for later review. Jesus, in the Gospels, instructs his disciples to go out two by two spreading the message of the Kingdom of God. Modern believers, in this way, take up the same cause using the same method.

Another way that the gospel is sometimes spread is through Tracts. In these short pieces of literature, the gospel is laid out in some form or another, sometimes as a surprise ending to a story. Tracts can be handed out to random people on the street, but they can also be left in mailboxes or in public places. Like any movement that is looking to spread, literature can sometimes be an effective aid to that end. Personally, I have left tracts on buses, on seats in coffee shops, in clothing stores in pockets of shirts or jeans, etc. Like street evangelism, handing out tracts is not done often, especially by those more mature in the faith. They can be seen as tacky and most pastors probably wouldn't endorse them. But this method is still used from time to time.

A third way that evangelism is performed is through television. Not only do you have classic televangelists, but often regular Evangelical churches will buy cable access time and broadcast their sermons over the air. The hope here is to expose people to the content of their church and welcome them to come on Sunday. Sometimes pastors will add an invitation to accept Christ at the end of their services on the air, but oftentimes they will simply air sermons aimed at their congregation. This is a growing method of evangelism.

A fourth method of evangelism is the Mega-Rally, which is often aimed at youth. In this method, middle school and high school youth group members are encouraged to get their non-Christian friends to come to the rally; here their friends will hear the gospel and potentially accept Christ. These events are often exciting, with Christian rock or hip-hop music, special effects, engaging speakers, and testimonies of those who have accepted Christ - telling how God has changed their lives. Like the great revivals in the 18th Century, these are emotional events and the attendees are encouraged to accept salvation for themselves. These rallies are often very effective in getting "decisions for Christ" from youth. A highly related method is the summer church camp in which youth are encouraged to invite their friends for a week of fun and introduction to the faith.

A final method of evangelism is simply developing relationships with non-Christians and eventually "sharing Christ" with them. This is probably the most common method among adult Evangelicals as they are usually not going to bring their adult friends to a rally or hand them a tract. Sharing Christ with your friends can take many forms and will be determined by the individual's personality. Maybe the friend is asked to read a book and discuss it. Maybe the friend is presented the Romans Road. Often they are simply invited to church. It's up to the individual believer as to how they practice individual evangelism, but everyone is encouraged to do this in some way or another.

You can't overestimate the importance of evangelism to Evangelical Christians. Based on Evangelical theology, if you haven't accepted Christ, you are destined for an eternity in Hell, which is usually interpreted as eternal conscious torment. If you truly accept that theology, you have to be pretty heartless to just watch your friends go there without trying to get them saved. When I was an Evangelical Christian, any time I was talking to a non-Christian friend or stranger, this was pretty much all I could think about. The only important question was: Have they accepted Christ or not? I had the key to eternal paradise and if I didn't share it with them, they were doomed. My conscience wouldn't let me not share Christ. The only thing getting in the way was me feeling awkward about bringing up the gospel in normal conversation. But how selfish could I be that I wouldn't risk a little social awkwardness for the eternal destiny of my friend!

To the Evangelical mind, no cause is more important than bringing people to Christ. No social issue could be as important as saving souls. This world is temporary; salvation is eternal. The necessity of evangelism weighs heavily on the consciences of committed Evangelical Christians.

SPIRITUALITY

Spirituality is a murky term and, when used in wider culture, can have a variety of meanings. In Evangelicalism, spirituality is usually equivalent to "relationship with God." The phrase "relationship with God" is generally preferred because it differentiates the Evangelical from other religions, specifically New Age thought. Spirituality, or relationship with God, within the church is fostered by Bible reading, inward listening, and several other types of prayer.

As we have already seen, Bible reading is an aid to Evangelical spirituality when it is used devotionally. When the Bible is used in this way, it becomes a _sacrament_ \- something tangible that makes God real to the believer. The Christian can either read passages straight from the Bible, opening to wherever they decide, or use official devotionals in which Scripture is organized according to certain themes. Devotional books are used widely in place of reading Scripture straight through. Whether by reading the pages of Scripture itself, or using a devotional book, the believer simply reads, reflects, and listens for God to speak to their spirit.

This inward listening often becomes a conversation. The believer talks to God and God talks back. The Evangelical relationship with God is a complex topic, but there is a very real sense that one is communing with God. God is presented as caring even about the smallest details of your life ("What should I wear today?", "Should I go see that movie?"), but the believer may seek God's voice more intensely when big life decisions are being made, such as new employment, marriage, etc. The "voice of God" is often felt as a deeper voice than one's own regular thoughts. Often if a thought pops into your mind seemingly out of nowhere, one that you wouldn't think on your own, it is interpreted as the voice of God. This voice often leads the believer in specific tasks that they are to complete - perhaps writing a note to a friend, volunteering someplace, or making certain changes in their life. The relationship with God isn't clear cut. Sometimes the believer may legitimately not know whether it was God talking or just their own mind. Relationship with God is a skill that is learned, and fine-tuned over time.

Besides using the Bible devotionally and having inward conversations with God, several other types of prayer are often practiced. In the prayer of _adoration_ , the believer praises God and thanks Him for the gifts He has given. In the prayer of _repentance_ , the believer examines their own life and confesses their sin. They repent of that sin and renew their vow to live in accordance with God's will. In _intercessory_ prayer, the believer prays for others - their family, friends, co-workers, etc. Jesus even tells us to pray for our enemies. In _petitionary_ prayer, the believer prays for specific things for themselves. As one progresses in the faith, prayer generally becomes less petitionary. Mature prayer is not about yourself, it is about God and others.

Bible reading, inwardly communing with God, and other types of prayer are often combined into a "quiet time." Evangelicals are generally encouraged to have regular quiet times with God, which are often done in the morning, evening, or both - as bookends to the day. Ideally these practices lead to an _ongoing relationship with God_ , during the day.

Evangelical spirituality is always interpreted through Evangelical theology, stemming from Scripture. If the believer experiences something in prayer that disagrees with Scripture, they are to reject that experience as not coming from God. A vibrant spirituality or relationship with God continues to be a hallmark of Evangelicalism.

WORSHIP

Another practice that contributes to an Evangelical's spirituality in a somewhat different way is corporate worship. Corporate worship is almost always in the form of song, with the congregation singing about, or to, God.

The style of worship at a typical Evangelical church is mostly modern. Full bands including guitars, bases, drums, keys, etc. are used along with a few lead singers. Usually these churches do not have choirs, but count on their congregants to sing along. Songs are generally fairly simple, and have repeated choruses which are projected onto screens at the front of the church.

Worship often begins a service and members filter in during this time. It's casual, in the sense that people stagger in, but can also be a personally intense time. Worship is a very individualized experience and members are encouraged to make the time their own. Some will be standing with arms extended, praising God through song, sometimes in tears. Others may be seated and in prayer. Others may be at the back of the church, drinking coffee and chatting as they enter. The music is generally loud enough that the worshiper remains undisturbed. The volume of the music and the instruments used generally give the feel of immersing the worshiper in the song. I once heard a professor remark, in jest, about our university's worship time, that "the base really makes you feel the Holy Spirit."

Worship teams may use songs that are on popular Christian radio, or old classics. Some songs affirm a theological doctrine; others just express thanks to God. An example of one of my old favorites is _When I Think About The Lord:_

> When I think about The Lord,  
>  How He saved me, how He raised me,  
>  How He filled me with the Holy Ghost,  
>  How He healed me to the uttermost.
> 
> When I think about The Lord,  
>  How He picked me up, turned me around,  
>  And placed my feet, on solid ground...
> 
> It makes me wanna shout!  
>  Hallelujah! Thank you Jesus!  
>  Lord you're worthy of all the glory,  
>  And all the honor, and all the praise.

This song affirms the core theological concept of the gift of the Holy Spirit ("He filled me with the Holy Ghost"), connects to the conversion experience ("He saved me, healed me, picked me up and turned me around," etc.), and encourages the believer to give thanks to God, giving Him glory and honor and praise.

Worship is in one sense personal, between the believer and God, and in another sense communal. The community worships together, reaffirming what they, and the body of believers around the world, believe. This strengthens the conviction of the group at the same time as spiritually strengthening the individual worshiper.

COMMUNITY

A final hallmark of Evangelical practice is a focus on community building. Not only does the believer have a large group of people to worship with on Sundays, but they are also highly encouraged to join a "small group," which often meets during a weekday. These small groups allow the member to get to know others at the church on a deeper level, and begin to share life with other believers.

Small groups are generally between 8-12 people. The group will likely be large enough to feel like a community, but small enough to be intimate, allowing people to let their guard down and be more honest. Sometimes these groups are just called "Bible studies" and may also be separated by gender.

Generally the group will have a designated leader, or group of leaders, who have been at the church for a significant amount of time. The leaders may be in charge of picking the biblical book to study, creating questions to discuss, leading prayer, or determining other small group activities. Sometimes these things are determined by the larger church (e.g. all of the small groups in the church may be tasked with studying Galatians with the use of a particular curriculum). A typical small group may run as follows:

  1. Gather: People arrive and meet each other, have a snack, and socialize.
  2. Open in Prayer: The group gathers together, quiets, and opens in prayer, asking God to be present and lead them in their study of Scripture.
  3. Read the Scripture Passage: A leader or other member of the group reads the passage of Scripture that they will be studying out loud. Members are expected to have read the passage and have reflected on it during the week so they can bring their thoughts to the group.
  4. Discuss the Scripture Passage: The group discusses the Scripture -what it means for their understanding of God, what it means to their personal life, etc. Sometimes the group leader will have created, or been given, discussion questions to lead the group through different aspects of the Scripture.
  5. Prayer Requests: After the Bible study, members may be asked to share prayer requests. For prayer requests, if the group is larger, it may be broken up into even smaller groups of 2-4 people. This is not only a time to share requests, but also to tell the group how life has been going personally. Members may ask for prayer in relation to their work, family, or personal life. This is a time that you really get to know people on a deep level and what is shared here is often more revealing than the person would be in any other context. This creates very tight bonds between members of the small group.
  6. Pray: After prayer requests the leader may pray audibly for each member, presenting their requests publicly to God. An alternative would be to have each member pray for one other member of the group, with everyone taking a turn praying out loud for a specific person. Audibly praying together is another powerful experience and leads to a feeling of closeness between members of the group. These are deeply sacred moments.

By means of small groups and Bible studies, believers are built up in their theological understanding and connection to the Body of Christ. One's church family, and specifically their small group community, is often a tightly knit group. The relationships one develops in these groups are often the most important relationships in the believer's life.

◆ ◆ ◆

The overall effect of Evangelical ethics and praxis is primarily the formation of really good-hearted people. Evangelicals are committed to being the most moral people they can be, serving the world like Jesus did, and building up their church communities. They are committed to being people of self-sacrificial love, and this is preached loudly and consistently. Sometimes the focus on strict morality can come off as "holier-than-thou," as abstaining from certain activities can be taken as an implicit criticism of the people who engage in those activities. But Evangelicals are to "love the sinner and hate the sin." If this is done rightly, they should come off as genuine and caring individuals who simply want to love their neighbors as themselves.

Along with the fact that authentic believers tend to be loving and moral people, another effect of Evangelical culture is that they also tend to have heavily burdened consciences. Sometimes a believer has a troubled conscience because of personal moral sin. If you take a moral inventory of yourself daily, with your standard as "perfection," you are going to fall short of your own ideals. Evangelicals know, experientially, that they are deeply flawed. Sometimes this can affect them in a negative way, being overwhelmed with guilt, but sometimes it can lead them closer to God as they ask for and receive forgiveness. Another reason a believer may have a troubled conscience is the constant need for evangelism. Everywhere you go there are people who don't believe in Christ and are therefore in danger of going to Hell, often including your own personal friends. If you aren't consistently telling people about Jesus, you're not doing your job.

A final effect of Evangelical culture is that, due to the emphasis on community, Evangelicals tend to grow closer to the people within their own faith. In small groups, the high amount of vulnerability creates very close bonds. Thus the best friends of believers tend to be other believers. This continues to increase the distance between those who are "in" and those who are "out." As in all of life, birds of a feather tend to flock together. This creates social cohesion within the group and at the same time forms a solidified boundary around that group.
THEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

\- 7 -

Even though Evangelicals share a foundational set of beliefs about God and the nature of authentic faith, they also disagree on a wide array of issues. It is important to note that, when arguing these issues, _they have to stay within the Evangelical framework._ Outside of the argument about Inerrancy (which is a discussion about the nature of Scripture), each of the debates below _must be solved by Scripture itself._ Those are the rules of the Evangelical game. Because a shared core assumption is the reliability of Scripture, whatever the Bible truly says, goes. The question, which has been with us since the Reformation, is: Who has the correct interpretation of the Bible?

Another element that presents itself in these debates is the issue of how important each argument actually is. Churches split over theological minutiae all the time. Each Evangelical is going to place a different level of importance on each of these issues. For the theologically inclined, any one of these could be a hill they are willing to die on, or at least change churches over. Others may not be as attached to their opinions, and may leave it to the theologians to argue. Heated debate over some of these issues has led to a rise in non-denominational churches, which may have faith statements that only include core Evangelical beliefs. The following are some of the more high-profile debates within modern Evangelicalism.

INERRANCY

The debate over inerrancy is a debate about the nature of the Bible. There are, roughly, two positions that Evangelicals can take. The first option is viewing the Bible as _inerrant_ \- meaning that it contains no errors whatsoever, including historical details, scientific facts, and theological content. This view is laid out, in detail, in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy of 1978. Over 200 Evangelical leaders signed this document and it is still held to by a large number of Evangelical pastors, teachers, and theologians. Holding to inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement can sometimes be used as a litmus test to determine if one is within the bounds of orthodox thought. If someone promotes this view they are often concerned to reconcile contradictions in numbers, chronologies, and historical facts, especially in books that narrate the same events, but in different ways (Samuel-Kings covers the same historical period as Chronicles, the four Gospels all uniquely record the life of Jesus, etc.). All apparent contradictions in these areas must be reconciled.

The second option is viewing the Bible as _infallible_ \- meaning that the Bible is completely trustworthy in all matters of faith and practice, but may err in historical detail or scientific assertions. This is the more liberal of the two choices. Generally, those holding this view rely more on the Bible's use of ancient conventions and genres when describing the Bible's trustworthiness. When the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Mark directly quote Jesus in slightly different ways, these scholars do not feel the need to explain it away, and may be fine with the fact that each writer adopted the words of Jesus for their literary purposes.

Confusion in this debate often arises because people may use these terms in differing ways. Sometimes a more liberal scholar will couch his or her words in the "language of inerrancy" in order to avoid controversy. If one were to affirm the infallibility of Scripture but not inerrancy, they may be denied teaching positions at Evangelical secondary schools or universities.

GENESIS

The Genesis debate focuses on the relationship between the first chapters of Genesis and the scientific understanding of the creation of the universe. There are many positions one can take on how to interpret Genesis and each position also has its nuances. Three of the most popular positions are the _literal_ theory, the _day-age_ theory, and _literary framework_ theory _._

In the _literal_ theory, Genesis is taken to be a historical, factual account of the creation of the universe. In the story of Genesis, the universe is created in seven days. Therefore the universe was created in seven, literal, 24-hour periods. Those who argue this position believe that if modern science conflicts with this straightforward reading of Genesis, we must reject science or find a way to reinterpret the scientific data to fit the Bible. This view often extrapolates to some more bizarre theories, such as the Devil creating the fossil record, etc.

In the _day-age_ theory, each "day" in Genesis actually stands for an indefinite length of time - an "age." This allows for the billions of years between the Big Bang and the creation of earth to fit into the biblical narrative. Someone who holds this theory is still trying to fit science into the biblical narrative. Genesis is still seen as a historical, factual account of creation, although its language doesn't need to be taken as strictly literal.

In the _literary framework_ theory, the Genesis accounts are seen as creative stories that give a theological account of creation, but are not necessarily scientific, historical texts. That doesn't mean that there are no historical events behind the text, it just means the text is not to be taken as a "snapshot" of the creation of the universe. On this view, there is less worry about trying to fit science into the Bible. The most important point is that God created the universe, not how He created the universe.

The vast majority of Evangelicals hold to either the day-age or literary framework theory. The literal interpretation of "days" in Genesis, is more common in fundamentalist communities.

A related debate is the issue of a Historical Adam. In the Genesis account, Adam and Eve are important figures and are responsible for bringing sin and death to humanity. Because of Adam's choice to follow the serpent, humanity is subject to the punishment of death. Adam's sin, and by result the ongoing sin of the entire human race, _is what necessitates Jesus' death_. Jesus dies to take the punishment for sin. Without a first man who is responsible for bringing sin, the entire biblical narrative is feared to be untrue. Complicating matters is the fact that Paul, in the New Testament, clearly interprets Adam as a historical person and the consequence of Adam's sin is an important part of Paul's theology. Almost all Evangelicals still hold to a historical Adam, although there are a few voices to the contrary.

BAPTISM

The baptism debate concerns the nature and timing of baptism, as well as the connection between baptism and salvation.

In regards to the timing of baptism, some Evangelicals believe in _infant baptism_ , in which a child is baptized as a newborn. Others hold to _believer's baptism_ , in which a person is only baptized when they are old enough to make the conscious choice to follow Christ.

In regards to the nature of baptism, some believe that one needs to be fully immersed in water for the baptism to be legitimate. Others believe that other methods, such as sprinkling water over the head, are also legitimate.

In regards to the connection between baptism and salvation, some Evangelicals believe that _you have to be properly baptized to be saved._ Others believe that what happens in your heart when you accept Christ is what brings salvation; baptism is simply an outward statement of what has already happened inside the believer. For Evangelicals who believe that Christians must be properly baptized to be saved, correct baptism is clearly a highly important concern. Due to this concern, although I was baptized as an infant, I was also baptized three or four other times, using various methods, over the course of my Evangelical years. Each of these positions regarding the timing and nature of baptism, as well as its connection to salvation, is backed by numerous Scriptures.

FREE WILL AND SALVATION

The debate regarding the nature of free will and salvation, sometimes referred to as Calvinism (the theological view of John Calvin) vs. Arminianism (the theological view of Jacobus Arminius), is fierce. Ultimately this debate is about the character of God. A Calvinist looks at the Arminian understanding of God and says, "That's not the God I worship." The Arminian is just as off-put by the Calvinist position.

The Calvinist position on free will and salvation can be summarized by the acronym TULIP; these letters stand for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. When these theological ideas are combined, the overall effect is the picture of a God who is in total control of history and who predestines the fate of His people in accordance with His will. Total Depravity refers to the idea that humanity is completely and utterly sinful. Nothing we do on our own, even our best deeds, are pleasing to God. Our good works are described as merely "filthy rags" to God. Unconditional Election refers to the idea that God "elects" who will and will not be saved. This decision is His alone and nothing we do adds to His choice. Limited Atonement refers to the idea that the blood of Christ was only shed for the elect and was never meant for unbelievers. Irresistible Grace means that if God chooses you to be saved, His grace is overpowering and you will certainly accept it. Perseverance of the Saints refers the idea that if you have been saved, your faith will persevere through life and into eternity; you can't lose your salvation. On the Calvinist model, human beings do not have true free will as we would typically interpret it, and their destiny depends on God's choice alone.

The Arminian position, unlike the Calvinist position, asserts that God truly wants everyone to be saved, but He leaves it up to us to decide. Human beings are given authentic (sometimes called "libertarian") free will and are in charge of their own destiny. On this model, God gives up some control by granting humanity free will; He offers salvation to all, but will not overpower you or force you to accept it. God legitimately wants things (e.g. the salvation of his people) that He doesn't get. Arminians argue that this picture of God is far more in accord with the biblical idea that "God is love." Love requires choice.

The deeper you delve into these two contrasting theologies, the more you realize just how different their pictures of God are. The Calvinist accuses the Arminian of diminishing the power and ultimate control of God. The Arminian accuses the Calvinist of making God into a moral monster, destining people to an eternity in Hell without giving them a chance to choose Heaven. Both accuse the other side of being unbiblical. There is a wide divide between those who hold these positions and many have broken fellowship or left their congregation over this issue.

DESTINY OF THE UNEVANGELIZED

The debate over the destiny of the unevangelized is about what happens to the souls of people who have never heard about Jesus. There are several main positions that an Evangelical can take.

One position that is available is the belief that everyone who hasn't heard of Jesus and accepted the gospel for themselves will end up in Hell. Because all human beings are sinful, God is just in sending them to Hell, regardless of if they heard about the offer of salvation. Those who take this position argue that it is the only position that gives urgency to evangelism and reaching "unreached people-groups," which we are clearly commanded to do in Scripture. If unreached people aren't perishing, what's the point in trying to bring them the gospel?

Another position, which was popularized by the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, is the idea that if a person hasn't heard of Christ, but "accepts God" within their own religious tradition and lives according to their conscience, they can be thought of as an "Anonymous Christian." In these cases, upon death, the person will be saved by the blood of Christ and realize that it was Jesus who they were following all along. This position has the advantage of holding to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the necessity of his sacrifice for salvation, while also being somewhat inclusive of other religions. Genuine adherents of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, tribal religions, etc. may be saved, even though they haven't accepted the explicit Christian gospel.

A final position is the idea that if someone wasn't exposed to the gospel in this life, they will be exposed to it after death. At this point they will make the choice of whether to accept Christ or not, and their destiny will be based on this post-mortem decision.

HELL

Highly related to the debate over the destiny of unreached peoples is the debate over the nature of Hell. Virtually all Evangelicals believe that there is a place in which souls will be punished for sin. The nature of that realm, though, is up for debate.

The most popular position is that Hell is a place of eternal conscious suffering. Souls who do not accept Christ will suffer consciously for all eternity. This may be conceptualized as physical suffering (i.e. burning in fire, etc.) or perhaps mental torment for having not accepted God. These images come from Jesus himself as he describes Hell as a place where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth," and where "the fire is not quenched."

Another position that some Evangelicals take is often labeled _annihilationism_. In this view, souls may suffer consciously for a time, perhaps a very long time, but will eventually be put out of existence, or annihilated. Those who hold this position believe that eternal conscious suffering contradicts the love of God.

A minority view in this debate is _universalism_. Those who hold this view believe that eventually all souls will be saved. Even in Hell, God will not stop working to win over the hearts of His people. Eventually everyone will accept Christ for themselves and enter Heaven. This is by far the minority view in this debate and holding it may label one as being outside of the bounds of Evangelicalism.

ATONEMENT

The debate regarding atonement is about how Jesus' death gets us saved. What is the connection between his death on the cross and the forgiveness of our sins? By what mechanism does the death and resurrection of the Son of God purchase our salvation? The two most popularly held positions in this debate are the _penal-substitutionary_ view and the _Christus victor_ view.

The _penal-substitutionary_ view is familiar to almost all Evangelical Christians. In fact, if you were to ask a typical Evangelical to tell you what "the gospel" is, a large majority would describe to you the penal-substitutionary view of atonement. As discussed above, this position states that, because we are all sinners, we are due to be justly punished by God. In fact, God, to be a God of justice, _has to punish sin_. He can't simply forgive us and "let us off the hook." But because God loves us, He sends Jesus to take our punishment. On the cross, God is punishing Jesus in the same way He should be punishing us. Christ is our substitute and is being penalized, in a law court sense, for our sin. On judgment day, we will all be deemed guilty before God; the only question is whether or not we have accepted Christ's sacrifice for us. If we have accepted Christ, his blood will cover our sins and we will be forgiven, receiving entrance into Heaven. If we have not accepted Christ, we will be punished for our sins in Hell. This is by far the most widely held view in Evangelicalism. The event of the cross is, on this view, a transaction between God the Father and God the Son on the behalf of humanity.

Those who hold the _Christus victor_ view believe that Jesus' death on the cross was primarily to achieve victory over the Devil and death itself. To overcome death, Jesus had to go through it himself. By the resurrection, Jesus is victorious over death - hence the name Christus victor. By being grafted into the Body of Christ, we too will defeat death on the last day.

It is possible to hold these two views together as complementary understandings of the atonement. Those who hold to the penal-substitutionary view may also believe that the Christus victor view is another valid way to see the atonement. It is far more controversial to hold the Christus victor view and deny the penal-substitutionary view. To deny the penal-substitutionary view is to run the risk of being labeled heretical.

WOMEN IN MINISTRY

The debate over women in ministry is a discussion about what role women can have within the Church. Not only is there debate over whether women can be pastors, but also over whether they can have any official ministry whatsoever. The primary Scripture used in this debate comes from 1 Timothy 2:11-14:

> A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Sometimes this is interpreted to mean that a woman can have no leadership role at all because any leadership role would give her authority over men. Sometimes it is interpreted to mean that women can't preach or teach Scripture. Most often, it only means that women can't be the _lead pastor._ A large amount of Evangelical churches interpret the verses in this way. Other churches see this as a cultural element of Scripture that we do not have to obey literally.

The idea of cultural rules that only apply to the biblical time and culture vs. legitimate, universal, trans-cultural teaching comes up in a lot of debates, especially debates over ethics. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 11:6-10, Paul states that:

> ...if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head...

_This passage is almost always interpreted to be a cultural element of Scripture_ ; it is not required for women to wear head coverings in church. In this case, the "spirit behind the rule" is deemed to be modesty (i.e. it would have been immodest in that culture for a woman to have her hair showing). The modern day application may be that women should not wear provocative clothing in church.

_Determining what is, and what is not, a cultural element is always up for debate._ This concept was highly relevant in the slavery debates and most recently in debates over homosexuality. There are some loose rules that Evangelical teachers and scholars follow when trying to make this determination (for instance does the teaching show up consistently in Scripture, from the Old Testament to the New Testament?, etc.), but it is a murky area and creates a large amount of debate in various areas of ethics and praxis.

HOMOSEXUALITY

The debate over the morality of homosexuality recently came to a fevered pitch in America due to the public battles over gay marriage. Within Evangelicalism, the vast majority of believers understand all homosexual behavior to be sinful. Fifteen years ago, this probably couldn't even have been fairly labeled a debate, as it was consensus within Evangelicalism. Although there are now some minority voices to the contrary, it is still a near-consensus within the faith.

The traditional view stems from a straightforward reading of several biblical texts. From front to back, in the Old and New Testaments, homosexual activity seems to be banned by Scripture:

> Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
> 
> \- Leviticus 18:22
> 
> 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.
> 
> \- Leviticus 20:13
> 
> Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> \- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
> 
> The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
> 
> For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
> 
> Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen.
> 
> Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
> 
> Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
> 
> -Romans 1:18-32

A straightforward reading of these verses leads to the conclusion that all homosexual activity is sinful. It is squarely condemned in the Old Testament (Leviticus) and the New Testament (1 Corinthians and Romans), leaving little room for it to be considered a "cultural teaching." Those who hold this view would say that if we wiggle out of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality by calling it a cultural teaching, then we can wiggle out of anything. The Bible becomes a wax nose for us to mold in any way we choose.

A second possible position that an Evangelical can take is to say that the Bible does not actually condemn homosexuality. Those who take this position argue that the terms we normally translate as referring to homosexual activity are being mistranslated. They might argue that these terms are more correctly translated as "immoral sexual behavior" in a general way, or perhaps as sexuality that includes an unhealthy power dynamic. In this case a detailed argument needs to be made using the original biblical languages.

A final position that an Evangelical can take is to say that the Bible does condemn homosexuality, but this just reflects the culture of the time. We need to move past that cultural teaching, which was only relevant before we knew about genetics, etc. Just as the Bible allows slavery (perhaps even endorsing it), we need to take the trajectory of the most core teachings of Scripture ("love your neighbor," etc.), and move ahead.

This issue has split churches. The heatedness of this debate, to the point of splitting congregations, is not so much about homosexuality per se, but about the Bible. Those who hold the more traditional view believe that if we say homosexuality is acceptable, we are directly contradicting the clear teaching of Scripture and simply accommodating to the spirit of the age. A pastor who caves in to secular culture over and against the Bible, is a pastor unfit to teach Scripture.

The issue of gay marriage is a related but separate debate, as it is more technically about the relationship between Church and State. Some Evangelicals who believe homosexuality to be a sinful practice may still "pro gay marriage," believing that the Church should not be concerned with America's laws. The Church, on this view, is a universal institution and should be concerned with becoming an _alternative_ community to the wider culture, not trying to make culture conform to the Church's teachings.

ESCHATOLOGY

Eschatology is the study of the end-times. Debate over the exact nature of how human history will wrap up comes in and out of of fashion depending on modern world events, usually gaining popularity in times of political turmoil. The release of the _Left Behind_ book series in the early 2000's again renewed Christian interest in this topic.

Almost all Evangelicals agree on two basic concepts regarding the end-times: (1) Jesus is going to return in a public way, and (2) there will be a final judgment of all of humanity, living and dead, resulting in a separation of those who will attain Heaven and those who are destined for Hell. The timing and exact outline of the events surrounding this event are a large matter of debate and often focus on the obscure and esoteric book of Revelation. Revelation is written in the genre of "apocalyptic literature," which uses bizarre symbolism and is historically used to give hope to persecuted groups. The symbolism in these types of books are open to a dizzying array of interpretations. Two of the most popular accounts of the end times events are called _pre-millennialism_ and _post-millennialism._

In the _pre-millennial_ understanding, Jesus will return dramatically and immediately begin a thousand year reign on earth before the final judgment (in Revelation, Jesus is said to have a thousand year reign - hence the term "millennial"). At the moment of this return, believers will be raptured and held with God until the final judgment. This view harmonizes well with verses from other books of Scripture which imply that Christ will "rapture" his people without warning. The series _Left Behind_ is an example of a pre-millennial understanding of the end-times.

In the _post-millennial_ understanding, the thousand year reign will happen before Jesus dramatically returns to bring the final judgment. The millennium, on this view, is seen as either a literal 1,000 year period or figuratively, as an extended period of time in which the church will bring peace to the world. The Church thus prepares the way for Jesus by making the world ready.

An astounding variety of nuances within these positions, as well as positions which hold that the millennium is not a literal event, exist. Some even believe that Jesus _has already returned_ (which happened in 70 AD coinciding with the destruction of Jerusalem), although this is a minority view (technically called _preterism_ ). The book of Revelation invites more differences in interpretation than any book in Scripture. Compounding the difficulty is trying to harmonize verses from other books of the Bible that speak of the return of Christ in a variety of ways.

Most Evangelicals don't focus too much on Eschatology, partly because of the difficult nature of the texts involved, and partly because they believe that their eternal destiny is secure, regardless of the exact nature of end-times events.

◆ ◆ ◆

One effect of the theological diversity within Evangelicalism is the impression that, even if you don't have a detailed theology figured out for yourself, one of the choices in each debate must be correct. Because the scholars who argue these positions are more highly theologically trained than the lay member, the lay member can trust that one of the experts has it right. For instance, in the Genesis debate, the lay member has the luxury of saying, "Maybe the day-age theory is correct, or maybe the literary framework theory is correct." They don't have to iron out an official position and be pinned down if flaws can be seen in that position. You can always fluctuate between the various sides of these debates, and at the end of the day leave it up to the experts.

Another related effect of the theological diversity in Evangelicalism is the solidifying of core beliefs. Because the typical Evangelical is more concerned with intra-Christian debates (Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Genesis, Eschatology, etc.), the hidden assumption that the Bible is divinely inspired is unseen. It is simply "given." And the more people you encounter who take this belief as a given the more it is solidified in your own belief system. When a Christian is debating other Christians, they are not debating those of other faiths, who will attack core beliefs. Thus the threat of examining the believer's most tightly held beliefs is avoided when discussing matters of theological disagreement in the Church.

Finally, as in all of Protestantism, the diversity of theological belief will continue to lead to the splintering of congregations and denominations into separate entities. The history of Protestantism is the history of debate over theological nuance and the founding of new churches based on those debates. The longer history continues, the more divisions there will be within Protestant churches. There will never be an official council that speaks for all of Protestantism or an official theology in these debated areas.
EVANGELICAL LEADERSHIP

\- 8 -

Like every successful movement, Evangelicalism has some element of star power within it. Evangelical leaders may be charismatic and visibly well known, or more purely academic and only well known through their writings. Although most will never see the front of a tabloid, "Evangelical celebrities" include mega-church pastors, evangelists, apologists, theologians, biblical scholars, authors, and speakers. Each of these types of leader exert their influence on the movement in somewhat different ways.

INFLUENTIAL PASTORS

The most highly visible Evangelical leaders are usually pastors of very large churches (sometimes referred to as mega-churches). Although the majority of Evangelicals attend local churches under the guidance of local pastors, they may also follow these more well known national leaders as a supplement. These charismatic figures shape modern Evangelicalism far more than the local minister due their wide reach.

One very common way that these leaders exert their influence on the movement is simply by preaching and making their sermons available online. Large churches almost always have websites and most will post video of the previous week's sermon on their site regularly. So a Christian in Alabama may watch sermons from a church in Seattle and even contribute financially to that community if they feel especially connected to their message. Often individuals may be following sermon series' from several of these pastors at the same time through video or podcast. Twitter and other social media platforms are also becoming more popular ways to follow.

Another way that these leaders help form the national faith community is by publishing books. Some of these pastors can be prolific writers, and even if they aren't, will probably receive help in creating popular level books. These writings can range from the more self-help variety to dense, theological/philosophical arguments depending on the personality and talents of the individual. There is a wide market for Christian literature and these leaders add significantly to that market.

Finally, these well known figures also influence the wider Evangelical community indirectly by shaping the thoughts of local pastors. Local pastors have been to seminary, and definitely have their own unique thoughts and theology, but often, they too, have a favorite mega-church pastor that they follow online, through social media, or by reading their books. Local leaders may reference their more famous colleagues in sermons or simply be heavily influenced by them in their own theological thinking. Often it's not hard to figure out who your local pastor is following on a national level when listening to their sermons.

Some well known mega-church pastors who fit into this category include Rick Warren (pastor of Saddleback Church in California and author of _The Purpose Driven Life_ ), Mark Driscoll (former pastor of Mars Hill Church in Washington and author of _Vintage Jesus, Real Marriage, Who Do You Think You Are?_ , etc.), Greg Boyd (pastor of Woodland Hills Church in Minnesota and author of _Letters From a Skeptic, God at War, The Myth of a Christian Nation_ , etc.), John Piper (former pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota and author of _Desiring God, Don't Waste Your Life, Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ_ , etc.), Joel Olsteen (pastor of Lakewood Church in Texas and author of _Your Best Life Now_ and _Become a Better You_ ), Timothy Keller (pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York and author of _The Reason for God, The Prodigal God, The Meaning of Marriage,_ etc.), Francis Chan (former pastor of Cornerstone Community Church in California and author of _Crazy Love, Forgotten God, Multiply,_ etc.), Tony Evans (pastor of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Texas and author of _Kingdom Man, Victory in Spiritual Warfare, The Power of God's Names_ , etc.), and Rob Bell (former pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Michigan and author of _Velvet Elvis, Love Wins_ , etc.).

EVANGELISTS AND APOLOGISTS

Although less visible than high profile pastors, well known evangelists and apologists also help shape Evangelicalism on a national scale. Christians who are concerned about spreading the gospel will often be familiar with these names and have read their works.

The most common way that evangelists and apologists impact the movement is by writing "apologetics" books. These books are aimed at showing logical lines of evidence that lead to the truth of the Christian faith. Although not strictly an apologetical work (it includes some arguments to defend the faith, but also simply describes basic Christian doctrine), C.S. Lewis' _Mere Christianity_ is probably the most well known modern book along these lines. By reading these works, lay Christians become prepared to logically defend their faith and dialogue with people about the reasons for joining it. Oftentimes, during personal evangelism, a Christian may ask a friend to read one of these books and discuss it as a means of introducing them to core Christian ideas.

Another way that evangelists and apologists exert their influence is by entering into formal academic debates. These debates may be put on by universities and could include arguments over the existence of God, the creation of the universe, the nature of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, the Christian worldview, etc. A relatively new platform for these debates is the Veritas Forum, which is an explicitly Christian group that organizes public debates, usually at well known universities.

Well known evangelists and apologists who fit into this category include C.S. Lewis (author of _Mere Christianity, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Abolition of Man,_ etc.), G.K. Chesterton (author of _Orthodoxy, The Man Who Was Thursday_ , etc.), Ravi Zacharius (author of _Why Jesus?, Jesus Among Other Gods, The End of Reason_ , etc.), William Lane Craig (author of _Reasonable Faith, On Guard, A Reasonable Response,_ etc.), Norman Geisler (author of _I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Christian Apologetics, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties,_ etc.), Lee Strobel (author of _The Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator,_ etc.), Josh McDowell (author of _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_ , etc.), and Gary Habermas (author of _The Historical Jesus, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,_ etc.).

THEOLOGIANS AND BIBLICAL SCHOLARS

Those in the third category of "Evangelical celebrity" are also generally less visible than pastors, and impact the community mostly from behind the scenes. These are the professional theologians and biblical scholars who dedicate their careers to the academic study of the Scriptures and the systematizing of those Scriptures into doctrine.

The primary way that professional theologians and biblical scholars influence the movement is by providing the academic underpinning to the faith. These Evangelical scholars interact with mainstream scholarship and generally provide an alternative, conservative interpretation. They write books on more academic subjects (the historical Jesus, hermeneutics, biblical and church history, theological method, systematic theology, etc.) and may also write or contribute to commentaries on biblical books, taking the Scriptures verse by verse and offering their interpretation.

Occasionally these academics are also skilled speakers and may go on lecture tours at universities or conferences. They may also write popular level books. The current penultimate scholar/speaker is N.T. Wright, who is a world class Pauline and historical Jesus scholar also skilled at translating and communicating his findings to the wider Christian audience. This skill set combination, however, is rare.

Pastors may read these scholarly works in preparation for their sermons or in developing their own personal theology. They may especially rely on these writings for an understanding of the biblical languages, as most pastors do not consider themselves experts in this area.

Well known conservative scholars include N.T. Wright (author of _The Challenge of Jesus, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Paul and the Faithfulness of God,_ etc.), Craig Blomberg (author of _Jesus and the Gospels, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Interpreting the Parables_ , etc.), Allister McGrath (author of _Christian Theology, Surprised by Meaning, The Passionate Intellect_ , etc.), Wayne Grudem (author of _Systematic Theology, Politics - According to the Bible_ , etc.), D.A. Carson (author of _Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and His Confrontation with the World, The God Who is There, An Introduction to the New Testament, The Intolerance of Tolerance,_ commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John, etc.), and F.F. Bruce (author of _The Canon of Scripture, New Testament History, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free_ , numerous commentaries, etc.).

AUTHORS AND SPEAKERS

The final category of leaders who heavily influence Evangelicalism are authors and speakers who are not officially pastors, nor professional scholars. These well known leaders influence the movement through writing books, hosting popular blogs, speaking at various colleges, and speaking at rallies or events for social causes. Although they may be highly educated - often in other fields - they are well known and respected not because of academic credentials, but because they represent the "common man" who is just trying to follow Jesus. Their books and talks appeal to a wide audience as they are relatable individuals.

Well known authors and speakers include Donald Miller (author of _Blue Like Jazz, Searching for God Knows What, Through Painted Deserts_ , etc.), Shane Claiborne (author of _The Irresistible Revolution, The Red Letter Revolution, Jesus for President,_ etc.), Rachel Held Evans (author of _Evolving in Monkeytown, Searching for Sunday,_ etc.), John Eldredge (author of _Wild at Heart, Waking the Dead, Walking with God_ , etc.), and Joyce Meyers (author of _Battlefield of the Mind, Let God Fight Your Battles_ , etc.).

◆ ◆ ◆

The primary effect of having a wide group of visible Evangelical leaders is the solidification of boundaries in which it is "okay to think in." If a well known pastor, theologian, or writer holds to a certain theological concept, then the believer has permission to hold to that theological concept as well. In this sense, these Evangelical celebrities become quasi-authoritative interpreters of Scripture. So if C.S. Lewis held to the Anonymous Christian view (in which those who accept God through their own religious traditions may also be saved), then the believer feels that they can hold to that position as well. It creates large controversy, then, when one of these high profile leaders pushes the boundaries in some theological area. The fear from other prominent figures is that many will be led astray by the heretical teaching. Rob Bell, for instance, flirts with universalism in his book _Love Wins_ , which created a huge stir in the Evangelical world. Many of the leaders listed above felt the need to publicly comment on the book and clarify their own position on the issue.

Another effect on the believer is the assurance that their faith is satisfying not just to their soul, but also to their mind. This is especially due the existence of professional Evangelical theologians and biblical scholars. These scholars do the dirty work of interacting with mainstream scholarship and providing alternative, conservative interpretations. To give just one example, the majority of mainstream scholars do not think that the Gospel of John is of much historical value. In the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks in very different ways than in the Synoptics (for instance, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke Jesus mostly downplays or even hides his role as Messiah while in the Gospel of John he flaunts not only his Messiahship, but even his Divinity), the Christology is significantly heightened (Jesus becomes the explicit pre-existent Son of God, a concept that is, at best, masked in the Synoptic Gospels), the author seems to be aware that Jesus is not going to immediately return (he is concerned, in John 21, that the reader knows that Jesus never promised to come back before the disciple John died), indicating a later date of writing, etc. But for the Evangelical to accept the possibility that Jesus never historically spoke the words attributed to him in the Gospel of John would be a massive hit to their faith. To avoid this, the believer may read their conservative scholar of choice, who assures them that the Gospel is, in fact, historically reliable. Not all of the Evangelical scholars listed above hold to the historical reliability of John - although many might argue that the writer of John creatively takes Jesus' sayings in the Synoptics to their logical conclusion - but the point is that the lay Christian can pick a scholar who does, read his work, and put their fears to rest. The existence of this "academic class" of Evangelicals assures the lay member that their faith is credible to the mind without necessarily having to interact with the wider world of scholarship themselves. This barrier, at times, protects the believer from ideas that could harm their faith.
DOUBT WITHIN BELIEF

\- 9 -

Part of the Evangelical experience of faith is dealing with doubt. Nobody of any theistic faith is going to get through life without, at some point, questioning their belief in God. The particular issue presenting a challenge is going to be different depending on the individual believer, but one question or another will likely plague the Christian at some point on their journey. Generally these doubts are not enough for someone to reject their faith, as reasons to believe often far outweigh any nagging uncertainties. But, as in any religion dealing with things unseen, struggling with doubt is part of the package.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

Probably the most common issue that causes doubt in the Evangelical mind, as it does in all those who believe in a benevolent Higher Power, is the problem of evil. Although the atheist philosopher may lament it, the problem of evil usually does not cause an issue for the believer in a strictly abstract/philosophical sense. When they encounter the question in a college philosophy class, it doesn't often shake the believer's foundations. "If God is All-Good and All-Powerful, why would He allow evil to exist?" This question has been answered in a variety of ways in the history of religious dialogue. Maybe evil is necessary to purify our souls - we wouldn't develop into the people God wants us to be without obstacles. Maybe, if free will is to truly exist, both good and evil need to be actual choices, resulting in our real ability to choose wrongly and hurt other people as a result. This answer can even be understood to cover so-called "natural evil" (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) by assigning those events to the free will of demonic powers (i.e. the Devil has free will too). Philosophically, answers exist.

But while the philosophical question of the problem of evil may not keep the believer up at night, the _experience_ of evil might. When your six year old daughter dies of cancer after you spent a year praying for her, or you personally know someone who was kidnapped and raped, or you go on a missions trip to Africa and see for yourself that people actually starve to death or die of malnutrition; _that_ is what causes a crisis of faith. How could God allow not just atrocities in general, but _this specific atrocity_ to happen? If God has the power to help us, why would He remain silent as a child starves to death? It often takes a shocking personal experience for this question to hit home.

This type of doubt is most often dealt with by leaning on a particular theological understanding. The most common understanding of the relationship between God and evil is that, although we might not see it at the moment, God has a good purpose for allowing each specific evil event to happen. The phrase "everything happens for a reason" is often heard even in popular culture, and sums up this theological position well. In Scripture, Job seems to believe that God is the ultimate cause of his pain when he exclaims, "Though He slay me, yet I will hope in Him" (Job 13:15). Although it is painful for the believer, they are comforted in knowing that "God's ways are higher than our ways," (Isaiah 55:8-9) and that He has a reason for allowing this pain into their life. There are other understandings available (for instance understanding evil through a "spiritual warfare" paradigm in which demonic forces play a large role), but most trust in a higher Divine plan for specific evil events. The more heinous and seemingly gratuitous the evil, though, the harder it is to trust that God has a higher plan behind it. At times, the personal experience of evil can be part of the reason someone gives up the faith. For others who fight through tragedy, it could produce the opposite effect and strengthen their belief in God's goodness.

RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY

Another common issue that causes doubt to the Evangelical is religious diversity. Unlike the problem of evil, the existence of other religions doesn't necessarily cause doubt about the existence of God, but that the believer's own sect is "the true religion." Adherents of any exclusivistic faith, including those of Evangelical Christianity, will have to encounter this issue personally. Those from other, more inclusive religions, such as Hinduism, generally do not struggle with religious pluralism in the same way. Like the problem of evil, this question usually doesn't cause a crisis when thought about in an abstract way, but only when it is _experienced_ \- that is, when the believer actually gets to know people from other faiths.

Often times the Evangelical believer's first encounter with other faiths is in an academic setting - possibly a private high school or college Introduction to Religion course, or perhaps a World Religion class taught by their church. If the believer is first exposed at one of these religious institutions, other faiths are introduced and explained, but the superiority of the Christian faith is emphasized often. Sometimes these classes are even overtly "apologetical," and there will be discussion of why each other world religion is untrue. Believers, in this case, are primarily taught about other faiths in order to better understand how to evangelize their adherents. So, for instance, as you learn the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path of Buddhism, you might also discuss the massive amount of time between the life of the Buddha and the formation of the Pali Canon of Scripture, the insufficiency of Buddhist cosmology, problems with belief in re-incarnation, etc. Or as you learn the core tenets of Islam, you are also exposed to contradictions in the Qur'an, the violence surrounding the origin of that faith, etc. Most conservative churches or Evangelical institutions aren't going to teach world religions without also emphasizing the better reasons to believe in Christianity. To do so, and lead others away from the faith, would be heretical.

What often causes doubt to the Evangelical is not the academic study of world religion, but simply meeting and befriending people from other faiths. Many times this can happen when a believer leaves high school or college and lives is a more diverse part of the country or world, where people from a variety of backgrounds are represented. It is here that the existence of other religions causes problems, because believers of other faiths often look very similar to those from one's own tradition. It becomes harder to see only the negative sides of other faiths when you get to know genuinely kind and loving members of them. The idea that Christians are unique, because only they possess the Holy Spirit, is called into question in these interactions.

Doubt stemming from religious diversity can be dealt with in several ways. First, it could lead a believer to isolate themselves from people of other religions. This can be done by moving to a more homogeneous part of town or perhaps by choosing to work at a faith-based organization in an effort to be surrounded by other Christians. Another way to deal with this kind of doubt is by adapting your theology. The Anonymous Christian idea, in which those who accept God from within their own tradition may also be saved by the sacrifice of Jesus, is becoming more popular as people from different backgrounds rub elbows. It allows the Evangelical to maintain the uniqueness of Jesus while also allowing for some sense of inclusivism. Finally, this type of doubt could be dealt with by increased zeal in evangelism. As the believer experiences more and more people around them who are not Christian, they might study their apologetics and get to work, trying to convert their neighbors, colleagues, and friends.

BIBLICAL COMPLEXITIES

Finally, another common cause of doubt among Evangelicals is Scripture itself. As discussed above, the Christian Scriptures are a very diverse collection of books. Often, even if you are not a biblical scholar, differing ideas presented within the Bible can cause confusion. When an Evangelical is, for instance, raised on the belief that "God is love," we should pray even for our enemies, turn the other cheek, and be people of self-sacrificial love, and then reads that God commanded genocide in the Old Testament, it's going to cause some internal questioning. To the believer who is more inclined towards academic study of the Bible, the questions obviously multiply, spilling into areas like the relationship between Scripture and science, the process of canonization, authorship, internal consistency, external consistency/historicity, textual criticism, etc.

This type of doubt can also be dealt with in different ways. One way that a believer can deal with this issue is to simply acknowledge that Scripture is complicated and leave it to their pastor to deal with. Their pastor is the expert, and if he can solve the issue to his own satisfaction, then that may be good enough for the lay believer. The individual may then focus on a small set of key verses and concepts without worrying too much about more contested issues. Another way to cope with the problem is to default to the idea that it isn't up to us to question God. Just as in the problem of evil, you can simply say "God's ways are higher than our ways" and move on. Finally, if a tension in Scripture continues to trouble a lay believer, they may be driven to more serious academic investigation. Here is where they may rely on biblical scholars and theologians to help explain things further. Conceivably they study until they find a solution they are comfortable with, but sometimes this leaves the believer with many open cans of theological worms at once, which can become overwhelming.

ANCHORS OF BELIEF

While most believers deal with some measure of doubt, there are also many stabilizing "anchors of belief" that usually far outweigh questions such as those listed above. These stabilizing factors help keep the believer in the faith even while they may have unresolved questions.

One anchor of belief is inclusion in a healthy church community, one which makes the simple acknowledgement that it is okay to have doubts. In many communities, doubt (at least certain kinds of doubt) can be openly talked about and is seen as a natural part of the life of faith. In this way, the community shares the doubt and carries the burden together.

Another anchor is the fact that, for most Evangelicals, their families and friends are also part of the same faith. If your mother and father raised you as a Christian, leaving Christianity would not only be an implicit critique of your family (i.e. they don't believe the right things), but you also have to deal with the fact that you are disappointing your parents by making that choice. Shame is a powerful emotion and this choice has the potential to produce a lot of it. Likewise to declare yourself an "unbeliever" may mean severing ties with some of your closest friends. Most Evangelicals aren't on the verge of leaving the faith, the only thing holding them back being their friends and families, but the reality that faith is embedded in family and communal structures adds to the stability of that faith.

A third anchor is the personal spiritual experience of the believer. Evangelical Christians often have strong spiritual lives and are highly focused on their relationship with God. These experiences of God are felt as being extremely real. Personally, even after leaving Evangelicalism, I continue to believe that these experiences are, at least occasionally, veridical. The felt reality of spiritual experience helps stabilize faith, even when elements of one's religious structure are called into question.

For the believer who is more involved in apologetics or academic study of the faith, another anchor may be some logical argument for the truth of Christianity. One popular argument in this category is C.S. Lewis' "trilemma" in which, because Jesus made claims of Divinity in the Gospels, he must be "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord." Another argument that may serve as an anchor is the historical argument for the resurrection of Christ.

Finally, a more negative anchor of belief is the fear of Hell. Due to the doctrine that those who do not accept Jesus will end up suffering eternally in Hell, there is obviously some reluctance (to say it mildly) to leave the faith. Even if you have doubts about your faith, as Pascal famously argued, the safe bet is to believe in God. Of course this assumes your choice is between Christianity and Atheism, not between Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Baha'i, or Deism, etc., and Atheism.

Ultimately, Christianity is a worldview - a complete package for understanding reality. There are individual stabilizing influences, anchors, that help people maintain faith in the midst of doubt, but more importantly, the Christian worldview, like any worldview that someone holds, is completely ingrained in the way you think. It's the air you breathe, the water you swim in. You don't see it, you see through it. One unresolved theological question, say the problem of evil or a specific tension in Scripture, is almost never enough to get a believer to seriously question, or overturn their entire outlook on life. Other worldviews, of course, have their own tensions as well. For someone to doubt their religious faith to a point of leaving it usually requires a series of serious issues to present themselves at the same time or in close succession. For Christians who feel called to go into official ministry, seminary can often be that time.

◆ ◆ ◆

The experience of doubt within belief affects every Evangelical differently, depending on how sharply this doubt is felt. Some will go through their entire lives and only occasionally experience periods of doubt here and there. Others will go through more intense periods of mental turmoil yet retain their faith. Still others will eventually leave their faith due to unresolved questions.

In the Gospel of Mark, there is a story about a man who comes to Jesus, asking for a healing:

> When they came to the other disciples, they saw a large crowd around them and the teachers of the law arguing with them. As soon as all the people saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with wonder and ran to greet him. "What are you arguing with them about?" he asked. A man in the crowd answered, "Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not."
> 
> "O unbelieving generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me." So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth. Jesus asked the boy's father, "How long has he been like this?" "From childhood," he answered. "It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us." "If you can?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes." Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
> 
> -Mark 9:14-24

Evangelicals believe. They believe in God. They believe in Jesus. They believe in love. They believe in the Bible. They believe in the beauty of Creation. They believe in community. They believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. They believe that death is not the final word, that there is a better ending in store. And in all of their belief, they pray, "Help me overcome my unbelief."
LEAVING EVANGELICALISM

\- 10 -

Here I continue the story of my faith journey.

THE REAL WORLD

After graduating college, I took a position running an after-school program that was geared towards helping students from low-income backgrounds further their education. I loved my work and I loved my kids. The team I was on was made up of 40 or so Americorps volunteers, most of us fresh out of school. I felt that I was doing good work and changing the world for the better. And I felt that God was calling me towards this kind of work: what could be more God-glorifying than serving under advantaged youth? Overall this year was a very positive experience for me and seemed to confirm my calling to work with youth. But, even more-so than in college, it was here where an increasing number of significant cracks began to show in the certainty of my faith.

Looking back on it, having spent so much time in an exclusively Christian community, I think the major issue throwing me into confusion was just meeting and getting to know different types of people: people who weren't like me and who weren't Christian. My students were an extremely diverse group both ethnically and religiously. Particularly hard for me to deal with theologically were my Muslim students, some of whom were very devout. I loved all of my kids, and my group of Muslim students turned out to be some of my favorites. They were great kids and were committed to their faith, much like I was to mine. In many ways, they reminded me of myself in high school. One girl in particular was just about the kindest and sweetest human being I had ever met. This reality just didn't fit into my paradigm. If you haven't accepted Jesus and do not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, how could you be this good of a person? If Muslims are going to be judged for not believing in Jesus, where does this put these kids? Suddenly the problem of other religions ceased to be abstract - these were real human beings. I was torn, but had the hope that they would eventually come to Jesus and that God would guide them that way as they progressed in their own faith.

But my students were not the only ones presenting this theological problem; my coworkers were the same way. I met people from all kinds of backgrounds as we came together for a common mission. My coworkers were passionate people, doing their best to serve their students on basically a volunteer's salary. Some were Christians, but others were not. My partner at my school came from a very liberal college and she was an open lesbian. Maybe to even our own surprise, we got along great. She knew that I was an Evangelical Christian and that I probably believed that practicing homosexuality was sinful, and I knew she was about the polar opposite, but it didn't affect our relationship. We never talked about matters of faith and that was probably for the best. But she, and many of my other coworkers, presented much the same problem – there were "good people" doing good things who weren't Christians. In fact, their dedication to service seemed to put many of my Christian friends (and sometimes myself) to shame. I found myself trying to look for their sins and cast them in a bad light, while trying to find the good in my friends and coworkers who were Christian. But the whole saved/unsaved, Christian/non-Christian, righteous/unrighteous dichotomy was called into question. The quality of our lives and how loving we were suddenly seemed to be unrelated to our Creed.

After ending my Americorps stint I taught at a small high school for two years while taking night classes towards a master's degree in theology. I was back studying what I loved and hoped to teach theology at a private high school in the future. I had a great background from college and entered graduate school ahead of the game. It was time to come to terms with my unresolved questions and develop my theology more fully and concretely. Having a better biblical background, my theories and personal theology became more coherent, but also more complex. Meanwhile, I was continuing to work with passionate teachers, most of whom were not Christian, and it was continuing to stretch my way of seeing the world.

SEMINARY

Although I wasn't planning on going to seminary full time, the next year I was offered a scholarship to attend a Lutheran seminary in my area. It was a great opportunity, and even though I had to stop working, it became financially possible to be in school full time. And there was nothing I would rather do.

I took Greek in the summer and loaded up a full schedule for the fall semester: Pentateuch, The Gospel of John, The Gospel of Mark, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and a Church Government course. I had plenty to think about and plenty to digest.

Coming in to my seminary classes that fall was kind of a weird experience. One thing that struck me right away was that most of my classmates had very little background in academic study of the Bible or theology. Many of them seemed to be coming in fresh and had never asked the questions I had asked in college, which was now four years past. By the time they were graduated and preaching, they would have still been in the discipline for less time than I already had been. Many of them were very intelligent, but just seemed to be getting their feet wet. I almost felt out of place and my questions seemed irrelevant to most of my classmates. It was at this time that I realized how much I now understood. Books written by professional theologians were no longer completely over my head, and I often found what I felt to be serious flaws with their arguments (as did the scholars they were arguing against). When I pressed my professors on certain issues, it became clear that they had no answers that I was comfortable with. I was suddenly stripped of the luxury of being a novice. I could no longer point to someone who knew more than me and had all the answers. It scared me as I started to believe there were no answers I would ever be comfortable with.

Another thing that struck me was the lack of concern at this seminary for what I would call "Evangelical questions" - especially defending the authority and reliability of Scripture. One of the most respected professors at this school put out a book answering some basic questions about the faith. Under a heading discussing the authority of Scripture, he seemed unconcerned with a detailed line of reasoning for why Scripture was authoritative and content with saying that people will believe the Bible when they find it "works" for them. He also seemed unconcerned with the fact that the Bible seems to display many competing points of view on some subjects and admitted that ultimately you have to pick and choose between texts. Although I eventually came to agree with him, to Evangelical ears this was tough to take! To admit that Scripture contradicts itself and to not even seem like you care made me angry. What was the point of using Scripture to find the truth about God if, in the end, we just have to "pick and choose"?

As I progressed in my classes, the questions multiplied. Taking so many classes at once, I had my thoughts in just about every part of my sacred text. I simultaneously had questions about the _Pentateuch_ : Who wrote it? What do I do with Genesis 1-11? Is there any actual history in there or is it pure myth? If it is myth, what can we take from it? Why do we have to "work around" the creation texts and try to squeeze evolution in? Wouldn't God want to make it obvious that this was His Word? Why wouldn't He tell us about evolution? Why do the two creation stories contradict each other? Why is the flood story not one coherent narrative, but two different narratives with contrasting details spliced together? Why isn't there evidence for a worldwide flood? Why does the Law contradict itself, or at least develop? How can I deal with the incredible violence? Why do these laws seem so barbaric? Why the anachronisms? _The Gospel of John_ : Is anything in here historical? Did Jesus really talk like this? If so, why are his most popular quotes not found in earlier sources? Who wrote it? Why is it so different than the other Gospels? How did the Christology get so advanced? _The Gospel of Mark_ : How do we get around the fact that Jesus, or at least the writer of Mark, seems to predict the end of the world in the near future? For that matter, why does Matthew even seem to make it more explicit that Jesus predicted the end of the world soon? And why does Paul seem to expect the same thing? How can mistaken expectations be in an inspired text or come from Jesus himself? _1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans_ : What is Paul even trying to say? Is he a coherent human being? Does his theology develop? Who wrote the disputed letters? Is there really a vast difference in the theology of Paul and deutero-Paul? If so, what does that make of our theology? Should we follow Mosaic Law or not? Are we saved by faith, or judged by works? What does he mean by "justification"? Why does his view of government seem to differ so wildly from the perspective of Revelation? How should I interpret "works of the law"? New Perspective or Old, or a mix of both? And how do all these questions relate to an inerrant or infallible Bible, or a God who is trying to reveal Himself through His Word? Could I imagine myself, if I weren't already a Christian, reading the Bible with my current understandings and concluding that it was inspired by God?

Eventually these questions and others piled up to a point where I could no longer take it. My mind became a fog and I felt my faith slipping away. If I was sitting in a class, my mind was going a mile a minute, but I didn't hear one word the professor was saying. I started to have thoughts about "how I used to think." Was I no longer an Evangelical? Was I no longer a Christian? Nothing made sense anymore and I was totally out of control of my own mind. I spent three days writing down all of my questions and doubts, skipping class because nothing else mattered. Due to the length of that document, I'll list it separately as _"The Breaking Point"_ (see Appendix). It essentially documents the ramblings of a man whose life is falling apart. I couldn't consciously get myself to believe the same things I used to believe. My mind just went where it went, and it led me away from the beliefs that made me who I was. I had the feeling that I had spent years and years in the trees and I finally saw the forest for what it was. Eventually, I felt forced to abandon both my commitment to Jesus as God Incarnate and Scripture as the Word of God. I gave up my scholarship and dropped out of seminary. Within the course of a month I went from being a committed Christian planning on teaching theology, to a lost and wandering human being.

DISORIENTATION

Dropping out of seminary and leaving the Evangelical faith was about the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life. Maybe the next hardest was telling the people I loved.

I felt like a complete failure and was afraid of what my family and friends would think of me. Would I now be the non-Christian that I had felt forced to see the bad in? Was I now Paul's "unrighteous" that the "righteous" should have nothing in common with? Would I be completely rejected by my community?

The first person I told was my brother who I was very close with, especially because of our mutual faith. It was about as emotional as I had ever been; I was a complete mess. I then wrote an email to my closest friends and told my parents in person. I had varying discussions with different people, but I revealed my change in belief to only a small group of my closest friends.

The period immediately following my deconversion was one of profound confusion and depression. Who was I if I wasn't a follower of Jesus? What gave my life meaning or purpose or love? Suddenly I didn't care about working with kids. What's the point? We die; that's it. Meaningless. I describe this period as "living in Ecclesiastes" and it was an awful state of mind. It made me think some scary thoughts and consider serious self-harm. It's a place I never want to go back to. For me, it was similar to the experience of a breakup, but multiplied exponentially. I couldn't eat or sleep and nothing seemed to matter. It was very hard to get myself to care about anything and I couldn't seem to find what made life worth living anymore. This lasted for months before the fog finally cleared. During this time I read a few stories of people who had left conservative Christianity, trying to find something I could hang on to. After reading the experiences of others in my position, it seemed like everyone kind of fell in a different place. Some became adherents of other religions, generally Eastern. Some became atheists and set out to destroy the faith of their youth. Some became unconcerned agnostics. And some landed in the Liberal Church. There didn't seem to be one natural place that people in my position went. Everyone needed to cope and move forward in their own way.

RE-ORIENTATION

It has been roughly five years since I left the Evangelical faith and re-orienting myself religiously has been a journey of its own. The challenge is not a small one.

When you leave the religion you grew up in, especially if you were highly dedicated to that faith, _your entire way of thinking in every part of life is up in the air._ As an Evangelical, my entire worldview was based on my faith. The way I felt I should live in the world, my ethics, my thoughts about our origins and my personal future were all based on Scripture. When I lost my belief that Jesus was the Son of God and the Bible was the inspired Word of God, the basis for all my thought was taken out from under me. I was suddenly a tree limb without a trunk. Why was I trying to serve the world? Because Jesus and the Bible told me to. Why was I trying to be the most moral person I could? Because Jesus and the Bible told me to. Why was stealing wrong? Because Jesus and the Bible told me it was. Why was anything in life, including humanity itself, inherently meaningful and of value? Because Jesus and the Bible told me it was. My beliefs and opinions in any area of life that mattered were suddenly all in question at once.

After the initial shock of dropping out of seminary and a period of basically secluding myself from the world, I experimented with liberal Christianity. I read liberal stalwarts such as John Hick and Marcus Borg who took traditional Christian doctrines and re-interpreted them figuratively, hoping to set the direction for the liberal side of the faith. It seemed like a natural direction for me to go. I still felt Christian at heart. The Bible was still "my book" even if I understood its nature differently. I wanted to follow Jesus in many ways even if I couldn't believe official Christian doctrine about him. And I still wanted to live my life fully for God.

I tried going to the church I had previously been attending and re-interpreting traditional Christian doctrines metaphorically. When we sang about Christ's sacrifice or took communion, I tried to think about "sacrifice" being the ultimate way to live - what God wanted from me. When my pastor read Scripture and preached on it, I just tried to focus on how I could use those ideas to become a better person, even if I couldn't wholeheartedly believe the theology behind it. Ultimately, though, after trying to go back to my old congregation and experimenting with a few other communities, I found the attempt to simply be a liberal in the church to be frustrating. Either the communities were too traditionally Christian for me, in which case I was constantly "in the closet" and mostly thinking about how I _didn't_ believe what everyone else believed, or they were liberal to the point that there was no real ideological center that anyone was passionate about. In those communities, I kept thinking, _"Why am I even coming here?"_ The same critiques I had of the liberal church when I was an Evangelical were still relevant - I didn't see a lot of passion or any theological center. It was simply, in my eyes, "wishy-washy."

At the end of the day I felt like if I wasn't 100% wholeheartedly on board with what my church was preaching, I shouldn't be a part of it. While I still find that a lot of really good things come out of my former church communities, I just wasn't fully committed. After a year or two of really trying to make this work, I stopped attending a traditionally Christian church.

During this time, I also began reading a lot of comparative mysticism. I had come across mystics from my own tradition only in passing during seminary. Much of the Christian contemplative tradition comes from Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, so I hadn't been exposed to this strand of the faith growing up either. As I reflected on what, if anything, my faith was based on anymore, it seemed to be the _experience_ of God. If there was one thing that I felt I could hold on to, after all of my theology was stripped away, this was it. When I was an Evangelical, _God was real._ I felt Him. I heard Him. I was comforted by Him. He set direction for my life.

After leaving Evangelicalism, I am aware that this experience could be a delusion. Didn't I hear God tell me to do things that I no longer believe are worth doing (evangelizing, etc.)? Could I believe that, when I experienced God, it was something real and not simply my own imagination? While I had (and still have) those questions and doubts, at the same time, I was also aware that there are people from all major religious traditions who have given themselves fully to the experience of God, and that they often sound a lot alike when describing that experience. Their lives also look very similar. And their lives often look beautiful.

Aldous Huxley's _The Perennial Philosophy_ , Evelyn Underhill's _Mysticism_ , and William James' _The Varieties of Religious Experience_ became stepping stones to reading some of the great contemplatives. St. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Meister Eckhart, The Cloud of Unknowing, The Desert Fathers, Philokalia, The Bhagavad Gita, The Upanishads, The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Tao Te Ching, Kabbalah, Sufis, Buddhist descriptions of meditative states. The contemplative strands of world religions seemed to be remarkably similar. Maybe this common center was the heart of all religion - the core, "numinous," experience from which all the diverse religious thought was based. Maybe I did find something real in Christianity. And maybe that Something Real was bigger than my own religious tradition and the concepts I had been trained to understand It with.

And this is where I have ultimately landed. I'm not ready to give up on the idea of spirituality touching something Real just because I lost the structure that had formed my understanding of that spirituality.

I have no religious structure now except for what I deem to be my experience of God and reading how others describe their experience of that same Reality. Among the diverse forms of contemplative spirituality, I have found my own practice in the form of Centering Prayer, or simply resting openly in the Presence of God without an agenda. Through this practice, I feel like, at times, I experience the healing and peace of God. Somehow in this encounter, my soul is transformed into something different, something better – less self-centered, less needy, more grounded, more authentic, more loving, more free - than it was before. I even still feel like I am guided by the Spirit of God in how to live in this world. Coming from a background where I thought I had all the answers to life's questions written in a Book, I suddenly don't have any firm answers at all. But I have a path.

◆ ◆ ◆

It's a long road. And, now more than ever, I am acutely aware that you never know where it will take you. But to me, there is still no higher life than the religious life. There are no higher questions to ask and no higher paths to tread.

> ...when religion jumps to life it displays a startling quality. It takes over. All else, while not silenced, becomes subdued and thrown into a supporting role. Religion alive confronts the individual with the most momentous option life can present. It calls the soul to the highest adventure it can undertake, a proposed journey across the jungles, peaks, and deserts of the human spirit. The call is to confront reality, to master the self.

I have heard the call. And once you hear it, all other voices seem mute. Like the glory of Jesus, religion alive has made the things of this world grow strangely dim, and also, somehow, strangely bright.

Kierkegaard needed one idea to base his life on: an idea that he could live and die for. If there is any idea that I'll ultimately gamble on, it's that which the major religious traditions promote: A Higher Reality in which our purpose and direction is found. A Higher Reality, the experience of which leads to fulfillment - love, joy, and peace. A Higher Reality through which, contrary to present appearances, the whole human drama will make sense in the end.

Maybe that's too vague to be of value. Maybe "giving myself to that Reality," God, is simply chasing the wind. Maybe the highest ideals and longings of man will prove to be an illusion, and the world is, in the end, a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. It is what it is. If we are simply wandering in a universe without direction or purpose, then all that my heart wants most deeply will remain unsatisfied, or perhaps only satisfied briefly through the imaginative fantasy of my own mind. But I'm not going to live and die for that idea.
CONCLUSION: THOUGHTS ON THE  
VALIDITY AND FUTURE OF THE FAITH

_"Philosophia Perennis: the phrase was coined by Leibniz; but the thing - the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man's final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being - the thing is immemorial and universal."_

\- ALDOUS HUXLEY, _T HE PERENNIAL PHILOSOPHY _

Ultimately I left Evangelicalism because I could no longer believe its core tenets. The issue that pushed me over the edge, as noted in my journal entry (see Appendix), was the apocalyptic eschatology of Jesus. The Historical Jesus scholar Dale Allison explains the term in his _Constructing Jesus_ :

> My claim ... is that Jesus held what we may call, for lack of a better expression, an "apocalyptic eschatology." The words are a convenient shorthand for a cluster of themes well attested in post-exilic Jewish literature, themes that were prominent in a then-popular account of the world that ran, in brief, as follows. Although God created a good world, evil spirits have filled it with wickedness, so that it is in disarray and full of injustice. A day is coming, however, when God will repair the broken creation and restore scattered Israel. Before that time, the struggle between good and evil will come to a climax, and a period of great tribulation and unmatched woe will descend upon the world. After that period, God will, perhaps through one or more messianic figures, reward the just and requite the unjust, both living and dead, and then establish divine rule forever.

The worldview explained by Allison is familiar to Christians, because it is all over the New Testament. What is unfamiliar is the idea that Jesus thought this tribulation and ultimate Divine Deliverance was coming soon. As Allison, again, puts so well:

> His dream, however, has remained a dream. It is not just that, as Matt. 24:36 = Mark 13:32 says, the Son had no knowledge of precisely when the end would come. It is rather that the Son expected and encouraged others to expect that all would wrap up soon, and yet run-of-the-mill mill history remains with us: Satan still goes to and fro upon the earth.

Once the idea of Jesus as an Apocalyptic Prophet was presented to me the whole thing just made sense. The early Christians clearly expected Jesus to return immediately. The synoptic Gospels, on my reading, present Jesus as expecting a final judgment in the near future. It makes sense of his teaching, the warnings of judgment. "The Kingdom of God is at hand."

When the paradigm was in place, I couldn't not see it. The evidence, for me, leads to a Jesus who is most fairly labeled as an Apocalyptic Prophet and who called Israel to repentance before an expected immanent final judgment. He was wrong. The world didn't end and the Divine Rule was not established. My Evangelical faith survived a lot of biblical criticism, but it couldn't survive that.

So I don't believe that the core beliefs of Evangelicalism about the Bible and Jesus are true. That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that the movement isn't a valid response to the Divine.

◆ ◆ ◆

All major faith traditions, even ones which are technically non-theistic, have some concept of Ultimate Spiritual Reality. The biggest difference in understanding this Reality is whether It is personal (usually expressed as "God" or its equivalents in theistic religions), impersonal (The Clear Light of The Void, Brahman, The Eternal Tao, etc.), or, perhaps, somehow both. Maybe, as the mystics say, It isn't even capable of being fully described, only experienced.

I am still a person of faith. I still believe in the Reality we call God and the power of that Reality to transform the human spirit. I believe in this Reality because I have experienced It. If God, or Spiritual Reality, isn't some grand delusion, as the major world religious traditions suggest, Evangelicalism can introduce the believer to It. And Evangelicalism will make its members take this Reality seriously.

For me, Evangelicalism was a place to start my faith journey, but not my home. For others who are unaware or untroubled by what I believe are major theological tensions in the faith, maybe it will remain home. If it introduces an individual to the Divine, and leads to a life filled with love and service, who am I to say that this faith is invalid?

◆ ◆ ◆

In America, Evangelicalism isn't going away. It will most likely continue to thrive, along with traditional Christianity as a whole, mainly in suburbs and rural areas. These areas are a more fertile soil for the faith because they are generally less religiously and culturally diverse. Your next door neighbors typically aren't Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists. True relationships with non-Christians create tension in the Evangelical mind and can make the believer question some of the basic theology of their faith, sometimes to the point of breaking that faith. Therefore, just as in other movements, the more a believer is around like-minded friends, the stronger their convictions will remain.

But as the world becomes smaller, and our communities become filled with people from differing backgrounds, there will be those that need alternative models of faith to that which Evangelicalism can provide. And therein lies the journey.
Appendix: "The Breaking Point"

This is an entry from my journal, written over a three day period during a time when the questions had become too much. It's rambling and some of the references are pretty obscure except to seminarians. But it's real. It's the mind of someone on the verge of leaving the faith.

The biblical citations in this section are from the ESV.

◆ ◆ ◆

I am at about the lowest point I have ever been in my life and I have been for about the past month or so. Over the course of this time all of my doubts about Christianity have come to a head. I have dealt with these things before to varying degrees, but have always come out with my faith. This time seems to be different. There is no "expert" I can point to to solve all my issues now. My professors wrestle with the same things I do and don't seem to have much better answers than I.

Over this time I have felt totally out of control as to where my mind is going. I can't stop thinking about these things and I can't stop reaching conclusions that disturb me profoundly. Since I was maybe 15 years old I have defined myself as a Christian. I _am_ a Christ-follower. He has given my life meaning, purpose, joy, love. I majored in biblical studies at  to serve Jesus. I entered seminary to get a master's so I could teach biblical studies and theology to high school students. My passion was only to know God and to help others know Him. Now my life seems to be falling apart at the seams. All of what I am about seems to be slipping away. Giving up a life of faith and discipleship with Jesus scares me in a way that nothing else ever has. It leaves me without direction and purpose. Just the thought of this has left me in a haze for the past month, unable to really even function. I can hardly have a conversation with my friends or family. I am just consumed with the thought that I am about to leave faith and enter into a world without purpose. I have fought my hardest to hold on, but right now it just seems to be a losing battle. Like I said, my mind just goes in the direction it goes. I feel like I cannot stop it and cannot fight it no matter how hard I try. And I feel like nobody can really understand me. I can't relate my experience to anyone partly because I don't think most of my Christian friends have been at this point (understandably so as they work in and study different disciplines) and partly because I don't want to damage anyone's faith.

This is an attempt to gather my own thoughts in one place. Even as I begin, I feel I cannot capture the torture I have gone through. I am a mess. I'm not eating well and I have trouble sleeping most nights. I skip class and my schoolwork suffers. This is all I think about...

I have always dealt with doubts. Even in my undergrad there were issues I didn't understand and I would go through times where I thought Christianity could just not be true. But I maintained a vibrant faith through and after college. Since then, issues have come to the surface here and there, but never to the point that I thought about leaving the faith. That changed last month. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was the idea that both Jesus and the early church were simply wrong about the immediate return of Christ. Although there may be ways to get out of it, it really seems that Jesus thought he (or whoever the "Son of Man" is) would return "within a generation." Even if he didn't and we can somehow work around those texts (specifically the Olivet Discourses - and there may be ways, but at the end of the day we are still _working around_ them, stretching them to their limits), _certainly_ Paul and the early Christian community thought that Jesus would be back soon (1 Thess 4:15, 2 Thess 2, 1 Cor 7:29-31, 1 Peter 4:7, James 5:8, 1 John 2:18, Rev 22:20). The writer of 2 Peter is obviously responding to critics who point out that Jesus has not returned as the church has said in 2 Peter 3:1-10. Same thing at the end of the Gospel of John. Why would this be in an inspired text? Why wouldn't there be clarity regarding the return of Christ? Some say that the church is meant to live in a mode of expectancy at all times and this is why the Scriptures encourage us to be aware, telling us that the end is near. But why give critics a foothold? Why not simply say, "Look, you don't know when I will be coming back, it could be in 20 days and it could be in 2,000 years. Just be ready." This would do the trick and not make it look like the early church was simply mistaken. This very issue was called by probably the greatest apologist of the 20th Century, C.S. Lewis, "embarrassing!" Like I said, this is just the straw that seems to have broken my back.

I am going to attempt here to give a list of my doubts and questions. These are not minor things for me; I can't stop thinking about them. They don't seem to have good solutions...

1. We don't know who the authors of the Old Testament books are and we don't have the foggiest idea how they came about (this is true to an extent for the NT as well). For instance, all but the most ultraconservative scholars believe that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses (JEDP, or some form of it, is taken for granted). These aren't just liberal scholars, they are Evangelical scholars. Maybe some of the material stems back to a historical person, but that is simply a guess. We have no outside evidence for the events depicted and, in fact, the archaeological evidence for much of Israel's history seems to _contradict_ the Scriptures. The Pentateuch is a _composite_ document containing contradictory laws and details that was woven together over a long period of time (probably hundreds of years, 1000ish - 500ish BCE) by unknown editors using unknown sources from unknown "authors" or schools of thought, probably ending around the end of the exile. These books contain absurd, barbaric laws and unbelievable events. A few examples...

> You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death.
> 
> -Exodus 31:14
> 
> While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses.
> 
> -Numbers 15:32-36
> 
> If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity, he and they _shall be burned with fire_ , that there may be no depravity among you.
> 
> -Leviticus 20:10-14

In Numbers, we are given a test for adultery if there are no witnesses against a woman who has supposedly been caught.

> And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the LORD. And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD and unbind the hair of the woman's head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying "If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has laid with you, then" (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman) "the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away." And the woman shall say, "Amen, amen." Then the priest shall write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness. _And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain...And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children_.
> 
> -Numbers 5:16-28

The priest washes a list of curses into water, the woman drinks it and if she gets sick she was an adulteress? Could I imagine using this test for adultery today? Technically this is Mosaic law which Jews are commanded to live by. To not do these things (stoning Sabbath breakers, making accused adulterers "drink a list of curses", etc.) is to _not do_ Torah – the very commands of God. Israel sees her exile as being the result of disobedience – they did not obey God. This is reflected in Torah itself...

> If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them, then I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit...I will give peace in the land and you shall lie down and none shall make you afraid. And I will remove harmful beasts from the land, and the sword shall not go through your land...
> 
> But if you will not listen to me and will not do all these commandments, if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my rules, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant, then I will do this to you: I will visit you with panic, with wasting disease and fever that consume the eyes and make the heart ache. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down before your enemies. Those who hate you shall rule over you.
> 
> -Leviticus 26:3-17

Just like some Muslims want to use the law of Qur'an, I don't see how an orthodox Jew can get around using the laws of Torah (or Christians who believe Torah is still valid). And I don't know how God could have commanded it in the first place. To me, if Jesus wants us to stop obeying Mosaic law, he should clearly state it. But he only gives hints (like abrogating eye for an eye). He still seems to expect his followers to treat Torah as commands from God (Mark 7:9-11, etc.). Even if I wanted to obey an authoritative Mosaic law, I would have to choose between contradictory materials. Should I retain my female Hebrew slave after six years instead of letting her go as the men (Exodus 21:2-11), should I release her just as a man (Deut. 15:12-18), or am I prohibited from owning Hebrew slaves at all (Lev. 25:39-43)!?

Besides the law, look at the miracles. Sarah turns into a pillar of salt? A donkey talks to its rider? These are not simply miracles, they have a storybook, fairy-tale quality. They do not have the "sober" feel of the miracles in the Gospels (or some miracle accounts from other religions).

> But God's anger was kindled because he went, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as his adversary. Now he was riding on the donkey, and his two servants were with him. And the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand. And the donkey turned aside out of the road and went into the field...When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam. And Balaam's anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff. Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?" And Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have made a fool of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you." And the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?"
> 
> -Numbers 22:22-30

In Judges, Samson has magical hair! How am I supposed to believe that? If I read that in any other piece of ancient literature, I would say it was a myth, or folklore, or whatever you want to call it – not history. I don't get it. How am I supposed to accept a composite document whose laws and details at times contradict each other and which is filled with unbelievable stories as the Word of God? Even if I can, how can I expect others to _and tell them that their eternal fate is on the line_ in the decision? It seems that the reason these things don't bother Christians is _because we don't read the Old Testament_ , especially Torah.

2. Why don't the creation stories of Genesis line up with reality? Of course we can read these as "mythic literature" and say that they are symbolic stories given to a pre-scientific community so they could understand their origins, but even if we do this, they don't line up with what we now know. There never was a time when "it was very good." Animals have been at war with each other for billions of years. The earth has been filled with carnage since its beginning. Ninety-nine percent of scientists are evolutionists. It is as close to a scientific fact as it gets. If this is the case, why wouldn't God give the Hebrews creation myths that reflected this state of affairs? Why wouldn't He give us a story that, when we looked at it, we would have no choice but to bow to the God of Israel? For if this ancient people had such a grasp on our origins, it must be God inspired literature. But that is not what we have. We have to try to squeeze evolution into these stories and many have left the faith because of the difference in the picture of origins. It seems that God is responsible for those people leaving the faith for this reason. They simply went where their minds took them – they simply saw that actual history was not reflected in the Bible. Beyond the creation narratives, the flood story is really a combination of two stories (with contradictory details - how many pairs of animals on the ark?) woven together and the Tower of Babel can hardly be taken seriously as actual history. On top of this add incredible genealogies (with people living 800 years) and angels having intercourse with humans, creating some type of hybrid supermen. Again, we can say that these stories are "theological saga" and that they represent real events in mythical ways (e.g. Babel mythically speaks of a time that the nations spread out due to the influence of sin), but they just don't seem to line up with reality fully. If God wanted us to see that this is inspired literature, the origin stories _should not have to be worked around_. So here, at the very beginning of our Scriptures, I am already just explaining them away.

3. Why is the Old Testament filled with violence? How can God tell the Israelites to go in and kill every man, woman, child, and animal in a city?

>...and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.
> 
> \- Deuteronomy 7:2
> 
> And Samuel said to Saul, the LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, "I have noted what Amelek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amelek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
> 
> 1 Sam 15:1-3
> 
> Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.
> 
> \- Joshua 6:21
> 
> And they stuck with the sword all who were in it, devoting them to destruction; there was none left that breathed. And he burned Hazor with fire. And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua captured, and struck them with the edge of the sword, devoting them to destruction, just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded.
> 
> \- Joshua 11:11-15
> 
> Now therefore, kill every male _among the little ones_ , and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
> 
> -Numbers 31:17-18

How can this possibly be a God of self-sacrificial love? Even the _children_ are put to death!? How can David pray in the Psalms that the heads of Babylonian babies be smashed against the rocks? How is that an inspired prayer? Greg Boyd does about as good of a job as any at honestly dealing with this violence, but his answer is necessarily extremely complicated. Pretty much he comes down to a God who is trying to draw a people out of their violent ways by accommodating to their perspective. He says that God must be "as ugly as His people's hearts require" in order to draw them out. But why would this not be more explicit! God should tell us that is what he is doing! Boyd is a genius, but the theories are so complicated that is seems absurd – and in the process he must admit that, in the Old Testament, _God looks ugly_. If, as a youth pastor, I had my kids read these conquest stories, changed the name of the God to Baal and said, "Look, do you see what the surrounding nations' gods were like?" all of my kids would say, "Yeah, what an evil god that was." But because it is in the Bible and depicts _our_ God, we put our "moral blinders" on. Everything He does must be right. It is not just the conquest narratives that are violent. It's pretty much the whole thing. Plain and simple – God commands genocide in the Old Testament. I don't know how to deal with that. There are theories here and there that I used to be okay with, but I'm not okay anymore. I feel like I have to "work around" the entire Old Testament! Why is that the case? I shouldn't be embarrassed or have to explain away large chunks of Scripture. Would I want my child reading Joshua or Samuel or even the Prophets? Do I not squirm when this material is brought to the attention of Christians by non-Christians?

4. How come there is so much diversity in the Scriptures that we can no longer speak of a single "theology" but multiple "theologies" within its pages? Shouldn't systematic theology be a piece of cake? Well it's not. Different books in Scripture give much different pictures of God. Sometimes He seems in total control of all of history and there is instant justice for wrongdoing (Chronicles); sometimes He must do battle with demons and there is no instant justice – justice waits for the end of time (Gospels). Sometimes God wants his people to love others; sometimes he wants them to kill them. Sometimes (in the OT) the end of life simply leads to Sheol (esp. Ecclesiastes, Psalm 6:5, etc.) but in the New Testament there is a full blown system of Heaven and Hell (although even the NT does not seem to have one coherent view on the matter of what happens to you when you die). Sometimes the rich are blessed (in the theology of almost all of the Old Testament – which is why people can legitimately and _biblically_ preach a health and wealth gospel); sometimes the poor are blessed (Jesus). I guess you can go with progressive revelation, but this leads to so many problems in finding out who God really is! If the Bible is God's Word, systematic theology should not be so difficult! How can so many people read the same texts and come out with such different views of God? Shouldn't the text be understandable as self-revelation from God?

5. If Jesus is the Messiah, how come a vast majority of the Jews of his day missed it? Why wouldn't this be more explicit in the Old Testament? There is no concept of a dying and rising Messiah in the prophets or anywhere else (maybe, just maybe, Isaiah 53, but the rest does not point to this) and the prophecies that are used to "prove" who Jesus was just don't seem to hold up. If the OT even has a consistent concept of "Messiah" he is one who does battle with the nations. For instance, Micah 5 is often used as a Messianic proof text as it is in Matthew 2:5-6. But if I read the verse in context...

> But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. And he shall be their peace. When the Assyrian comes into our land and treads in our palaces, then we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men; _they shall shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword_ , and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; and _he shall deliver us from the Assyrian_ when he comes into our land and treads within our border.
> 
> -Micah 5:2-6

Clearly the deliverer delivers the people from foreign threats! It is a military figure. Now we can spiritualize this or say that Matthew sees a "sensus plenior" (a "deeper fulfillment" of an earlier event, as he certainly does with Hosea 11:1, etc.), but if we do this we are re-interpreting the verse! A Jew has every excuse to say to the Christian – look, Jesus didn't do this. He didn't deliver Israel from her national enemies. It just feels to me like a cop out to say that he will in his second coming. I was brought up on conservative apologetics that used prophecies to demonstrate the remarkability of Jesus' fulfillment. I feel deceived! Again, as Christians we have to say that Jesus re-defined Messiahship (i.e. he does battle with evil spiritual forces, not Rome and the pagans), but why should it have to be re-defined!? If we can't read the Old Testament and come away with a Messiah that looks like Jesus, how can God expect his people to recognize Jesus! And how can their eternal welfare be staked on this fact?! The fact that the early movement was predominantly _Gentile_ seems telling – they didn't have the Old Testament Scriptures to work around! Acts 17:2-3 says that "Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead." For the life of me I cannot figure out how he would make such an argument. Nothing in the OT leads me to this conclusion and I cannot blame a Jew for their conclusions. To Paul their conclusion is because of hardness of heart (Acts 28:26-28) and is apparently deserving of hell-fire; to me it seems to simply come from an honest interpretation of the Old Testament.

6. Why is Jesus totally obscure as to how to treat OT law? Talked about this above, but it bears repeating - I just feel it's a bigger issue than we think. Sometimes he affirms it as God's Word (Mark 7, etc.) and sometimes he contradicts it (overturning "eye for an eye," etc.). Why is disagreement over this very issue part of our Scriptures? Paul says the law is done (if he is even coherent on this issue) even though it is "holy, righteous and good" (Rom 7:12 – and I can't help but feel that Mosaic law seems anything but holy, righteous, and good – if it is, America has some rethinking to do around our law codes), but Peter doesn't think so (see Galatians). What does it mean that Peter would disagree with Paul over what he wrote in Galatians? Peter disagrees with the Christian Scriptures? How can this be the Word of God when the disciples themselves couldn't agree on the issue? And shouldn't Jesus have just been clear? Are we to set aside Mosaic law or are we to keep it? It seems like a simple and important answer. If I keep Mosaic law, I stone people. If I do away with it, I don't. This is a big issue. Paul says do not be circumcised. The Old Testament says circumcision is an "everlasting covenant" and that those who are not circumcised are to be cut off from the people (Gen 17:13-14). No wonder the Jews (and Jewish Christians) didn't agree with Paul – he contradicts the Scriptures!

7. Why is Paul almost incomprehensible? We still can't agree on what he said after 2,000 years (what does he really mean by "justification by faith"?, etc.). That is all I really need to say about this. Although most people don't know that there is so much debate over his theology, anyone who dabbles in Pauline studies will quickly come to see otherwise. The average Christian (and theologian!) will be completely confused by Romans if they read the whole thing and try to make sense of it. All these theologians are working with when constructing Paul's theology are his seven undisputed letters! We can't give a simple account of the guy's theology based on seven short letters? It's not like he wrote volumes; it should not be this hard _especially if God wants us to understand it_! And the fact that there is even debate over how different the message of Jesus and Paul are is hard to deal with. Jesus did not go around telling people to believe in His sacrificial death to receive forgiveness of sins. Maybe Paul and Jesus are closer together than some think, but, to me, there shouldn't even be debate about their being the "gospel of Jesus" vs. the "gospel of Paul."

8. As above, why does it seem like Jesus and the NT writers were just wrong about the end of the world? This should not be reflected in a God-breathed book! It should not be able to be pointed out by critics. It disturbs me profoundly that a scholar that I respect as much as N.T. Wright can say that the problem of the delay of the parousia is a "modern myth." That statement, to me, just doesn't come close to dealing with the evidence. And I've yet to find an Evangelical scholar who can solve this problem without blatantly ignoring relevant texts.

9. On the theological/philosophical side, how can God send a majority of His creation to Hell? How in the world does this reflect a loving Father? Eternal punishment! And how can eternal salvation be based on holding a certain theological position? If I say Jesus is Lord, I'm in. If I say Mohammed is God's prophet I am out. It just doesn't make sense. Muslims and Jews are just as devout to their faith (and probably more so) as most Christians. _How can we make sense of 1.5 billion(!) Muslims praying to God 5 times a day and not coming to the realization that Jesus is Lord?_ Is there really not one among them who "truly seeks" God? Why would God leave them in the dark? And how can we call Jews and Muslims our "brothers and sisters" and take our Scriptures seriously. By Paul's standards, they have rejected Jesus and are consigned to Hell. I cannot, anymore, look at my 18 year old Muslim student  , who is about the sweetest girl in the world, and tell her that unless she believes in Jesus she is going to Hell. I just can't say it, because I can't believe it. It's easy to hold this belief when you go to a Christian college, but not when you personally know Muslims. We can go with an "Anonymous Christian" view, which is where I have ended up, but it just doesn't seem to do justice to what the New Testament says. Likewise, with C.S. Lewis we can make Hell a place that is "locked from the inside" and make all of God's punishment indirect (i.e. He "hands people over" to their own fallen wills), but this again seems to stretch what the New Testament actually says. It looks like God directly punishes people for their sins...eternally. On the best possible scheme we can go with annihilationism or universalism, and one of these would indeed be my hope. But it is only a hope which almost certainly stretches Scripture farther than it can be stretched. The issue of Hell calls into question the love of God. Sure, God loves you so much that He sent His Son to die for you...but pull back the curtain and what are we being saved from? The wrath of the same God!

> ...since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, _inflicting vengeance_ on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction...
> 
> -2 Thessalonians 1:6-9

How can I preach this text next to "for God so loved the world"?

10. How can God punish us for our sins when we were destined to commit them? If we are all fallen creatures in the likeness of Adam, we sin by nature. And yet we are punished for them. I don't get that. I believe in the concept of sin, but being punished for something I had no choice in does not make sense. "Ought implies can."

11. How can there be so many people doing good things in the world that don't believe in God (or believe in a different version of Him)? At  I worked with some of the most dedicated people I have ever met. They gave their all to serve their students. Their passion and commitment to the good of the world puts many Christians to shame. Same thing with the teachers at  . How can this be? It breaks my theological grids. I feel like I have to find their sins and tell myself how they are really selfish underneath. I feel like I have to isolate myself from them because they break my worldview. How different are they from me? They drink a little and have pre-marital sex? Yes they aren't consciously serving God, but their moral lives and passion seem to me to best many of the Christians I know. Do I really believe that "by their unrighteousness they suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18) and that they are "evil, covetous, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and maliciousness" or are simply "gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless and ruthless" (Rom 1:29-31)? This is how Paul describes Gentiles who are not Christians (2 Thess 2:9-12 is very similar) - to be faithful to Scripture I _must_ believe this about my neighbors which means I _must_ look for the worst in them. Something in this black and white picture (and I can't help but read Paul as a pretty black and white kind of guy - 2 Cor 6:14-18, also 1 John 4:6 which seems to sum up the apostles' attitude, etc.) doesn't fit. Like I said, I feel like I have to isolate myself from non-Christians because they break my world-view. It is easy to say that a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist is going to Hell because they refuse to acknowledge God through Christ and be saved _until you get to know them_. I feel like I can only believe the gospel if I let the "other" truly remain an "other."

These are simply a few of the questions that I cannot answer (along with a host of others). I have busted a circuit breaker. I can no longer push these issues to the background. I wish I could unlearn all I now know and return to my high school faith. But I cannot. All I feel like I do now is explain away the Scriptures. I love reading books _about_ the Bible, but it is extremely difficult for me to actually read the Bible itself. For all of our theological sophistication we can't get around a messy messy Bible. If I told a high schooler to simply go read the Scriptures and their faith would be built, I would be scared as to what they would find! I'd much rather have them read C.S. Lewis or Brennan Manning than our own Scriptures! I can no longer say to someone, "just look at the evidence and you will follow it to Jesus." I can barely argue myself to the faith anymore. If I hadn't become a Christian at an early age, I can't imagine I would come to it now. And I cannot preach something that I barely can hang on to myself. And this is a big point for me. I feel like I can't just hang on to a faith that I can't preach. If I _truly_ believe it, I will preach it (including verses like 2 Thess 1:6-9). It seems to me that most Christians don't really have a burden to "share Jesus" anymore. To me this is incomprehensible. If I believe what the Scriptures say about judgment, belief, etc. I have no right not to share this with others. I should be in dialogue (not yelling on street corners, but dialogue) with the people I know. To not be is to not love them. The fanatics on the street corner are at least taking the Scriptures seriously!

Why does going to seminary make people struggle with their faith? Shouldn't reading the Scriptures make me more confident in my faith and make me love God more? Why would anybody who enters a seminary to serve God be driven away by intellectual inconsistencies? Maybe it's because my heart is not right before God. Nobody needs to remind me of my sin. I know I am a deeply fallen creature.

I know my heart is not right or fully devoted as much as I want it to be. Maybe that's why the doubts are coming. I have begged God, cried to God, to stop me from this path. If God is the God who leaves the 99 to find the 1, then come find me! I have simply asked Him to reveal himself to me in a real way. If God has the power to give visions and dreams, why not to me? I simply want to serve God. I simply want live my life as a disciple of Jesus. I want to give my life to serve the world through Christ. All God needs to do is to give me a sign. A direct revelation. One that I cannot explain away. And this is what I have begged for; what I have waited for. But so far, nothing. I don't understand it. Why not give me a story to share? A story that would bring glory to Your name? If you don't even have the power to do this, then why bother serving You? And if this is true it seems that the Bible is simply wrong since You obviously do such things in the texts. If You do have the power, there is just no way in my mind that You wouldn't "throw me a bone" to keep me from leaving faith and spending an eternity away from You. I don't understand.

But even with all these doubts, I just don't know what to do about Jesus. He is the most interesting person in the history of the world. His ethical teachings are upheld by most everyone...he made claims of having absurd authority: forgiving sins, amending Torah (!!!), being the judge of humanity on the final day. I mean, even without the Gospel of John (which, sadly, almost nobody thinks is of real historical value), he still says ridiculous things. The proclamation of the Kingdom of God is unique. He demands total obedience and discipleship from his followers. I really don't know what to do with him. He does act like he is God. Lewis' Lord, Liar, or Lunatic seems like it might hold. I want to bow down and serve him for the rest of my life, but I just don't know how anymore. My entire faith lies on the probability of a historical argument for his life, teachings, and resurrection. But how can someone's eternal destiny be based on how they answer a historical question? I guess you could say that those who truly seek will find, but that just seems not to be the case. _I can't honestly tell myself that everyone who seeks finds._ There are true seekers out there that don't come to faith. This fact may truly be my biggest problem.

How can I set aside all these doubts just by hanging on to a historical argument for a man who lived 2,000 years ago? Especially when these arguments are thinner than I used to think (a little apologetics makes you confident, a lot makes you confused). I recently read a Dale Allison book on the historical Jesus and he had an excerpt from a letter he received. I feel _exactly_ like this man:

> The more I study the Gospels and the life of Jesus (my two main areas of interest), the more I become convinced that quite a few of the convictions of "orthodox" Christianity are really wistful illusions. Though there is hardly time (nor need) to go into the dozens and dozens (quite literally, as I have little doubt you know from personal experience) of historical, theological, and philosophical conundrums surrounding Jesus and the NT, I find myself often extremely disturbed by the implications of these (often) intractable dilemmas. Perhaps this is partly because I entered the community of faith "through the evangelical door" while in college (I am, however, no longer "evangelical" in the traditional sense of that term), but I believe it is predominantly because I am a fairly thoughtful Christian, and I can't get rid of the cognitive dissonance that festers within the mind and heart of one who wants to "believe in and serve God through Jesus" while at the same time doubting that there "even is a God and/or a Jesus" who still "works in the world" today...I am sorry to have written so much, but this stuff floods my mind morning to night, and it has become increasingly difficult to live a life of commitment to Christ in the face of these doubts.

This should just not be. The more I study Jesus and the origins of Christianity, the more my faith should grow. But it seems to be the other way around. And even Jesus says things that I can't imagine coming from a loving God's mouth...

> I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you who to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!
> 
> -Luke 12:4-5
> 
> I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.
> 
> -Luke 19:26-27

Shouldn't Jesus be weeping over those who willingly reject his loving Lordship? "Slaughter them before me"? I don't understand.

So where do I go from here?

A week ago I drafted a faith statement if I leave Christianity...

I will live my life with the assumption and the _hope_ that there is a Creator God who is a God of Love. I will live with the assumption and the hope that He wants me to radically love my neighbor as myself, and to help heal a broken world. I will live with the assumption and the hope that Love beats evil in the end and that death is not the ultimate fate of man – that life ultimately has meaning and purpose. I will fear/revere my Creator in the knowledge that if my life was laid before him, with all of my actions and motives revealed, I could not stand. In the end I will throw myself upon His mercy and hope that my Father is a forgiving God. I will even try to live with the assumption and the hope that petitionary prayer makes a difference and even that God can guide and direct me in specific ways to better serve the world. All of these are beliefs that are un-provable. These are beliefs that help me make sense out of this world and avoid the despair of absurdism and nihilism, the ideas of which destroy the value and meaning of life.

May God have mercy on my soul.

Can this hold? Can I live my life on this hope? God all You need to do is reveal yourself to me and I will serve You forever! I am deathly afraid of leaving Jesus. "Whoever denies me I will deny before my Father." I don't want to deny you! I want to live my life under the Lordship of a loving God! Save me! "Seek and you will find." I am seeking. I know I don't deserve salvation and I know that sin can cloud my judgment of even my own motives. But if "seek and you will find" is true, then I can only beg that You would lead me to the Truth. This is my struggle. This is honestly where I am at. To try to hold on to my faith for the next 60 years in light of these issues seems an impossible task. I don't know what else to do right now but keep walking. But I am afraid I am walking a path that leads away from the faith of my youth. I can only go where my brain and my fallen will take me. "I am weary with my moaning; every night I flood my bed with tears." God have mercy on me.
ENDNOTES

1. Alister McGrath, _Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 55-56.

2. Douglas Sweeny, _The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement_ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 22.

3. For an extended presentation of the differences between conservative and liberal forms of modern Christianity, see: Marcus Borg, _Reading the Bible Again for the First Time_ (New York: HarperCollins, 2001).

4. "Four Step Journey to Peace." No pages. 10 August 2015. Online: <http://peacewithgod.net/but-have-eternal-life/?>.

5. John Hick, _The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age_ (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 87.

6. Helen Lemmel, "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus," Public Domain, original copyright 1922.

7. For a discussion of theological diversity in the Old Testament including this specific example, see: Peter Enns, _Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005).

8. For a discussion of nationalism and universalism in Ezra, Amos, and Jonah, see: Thom Stark, _The Human Faces of God_ , (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011).

9. For more on these chronological issues, diversity in Scripture, and Evangelical approaches to dealing with biblical diversity, see: Kenton Sparks, _God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship_ , (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008).

10. Peter Enns, _Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005).

11. For an in-depth academic study on the Evangelical relationship with God from the perspective of someone outside the faith, see: T.M. Luhrmann, _When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God_ (New York: Vintage Books, 2012).

12. James Huey: Christ for Nations, "When I Think About the Lord," in _Makes Me Shout_ , CFN Music, 1998, MP3.

13. For scriptural defenses of many of these contested issues from an Evangelical perspective see: Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, _Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002). I use many of the same categories as Boyd and Eddy in my own account of theological diversity in Evangelicalism.

14. For a comprehensive introduction to the theory and practice of Centering Prayer see: Cynthia Bourgeault, _Centering Prayer and Inner Awakening_ (United Kingdom: Cowley, 2004).

15. Huston Smith, _The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions_ (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 9.

16. Dale Allison, _Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History_ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 32.

17. Dale Allison, _The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 96. Also see p. 92-95 of the same work for a list of Gospel material indicating that Jesus held an apocalyptic eschatology.

18. C.S. Lewis, _The World's Last Night: And Other Essays_ (Boston: Mariner Books, 2012), 97.

19. The full interview that this quote stems from has since become unavailable online. An excerpt from that interview, however, can be found here: "N.T. Wright on the Delay of the Parousia." No pages. 15 August 2015. Online: <http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/06/n-t-wright-on-delay-of-parousia.html>.

20. Allison, _Historical Christ_ , 4-5.
