How Christian fundamentalism leads to atheism
I have become more and more convinced that Christian fundamentalism has lead more people to turn away from Christ and His Church than any anti-Christian belief or group ever could. My conclusion is based on anecdotal evidence evidence of 27+ years in ministry, 15 years of teaching at Christian colleges, and reading dozens and dozens of works on the subject. I would like to explain my statement and propose a solution that is simple in concept but likely impossible in practice.
Christian fundamentalism arose in the late 19th & early 20th centuries in response to Darwinism, biblical literary criticism and liberal theology. With an increasing number of scholars casting doubt on the historical aspects of the Bible (especially the Genesis account of creation and the flood) as well as authorship of certain books (most notably Isaiah and Paul’s pastoral epistles), many who felt the authority of the Bible was in doubt rallied around a firm and “literal” interpretation of all aspects of the Bible and called on all Christians to do the same. This fundamentalism went so far as to cast doubt not only on Christians who disagreed with them, but also on Christians who continued relationships with Christians who disagreed with them. One famous example of this is Bob Jones’ rejection of his friendship with Billy Graham due to Graham’s continued friendships with “liberal” Christians, and Jones’ ending his relationship with John Brown for his friendship with Graham (this is an example of the 3 degrees of separation rule many fundamentalists employed).
In the 100 or so years since the beginning of Christian fundamentalism, certain key doctrines have reigned supreme, including the belief in literal 7, 24-hour day creation, a literal Adam & Eve, a literal world-wide flood, etc. Absolute belief in these and other aspects of Scripture is demanded due to the fear of the “slippery slope.” That is the idea that if any one of these stories is allegorical, fictional, or mythical at all, then we have no way to know what else in the Bible may not be literal, which potentially compromises the resurrection account. Give up one aspect of literal interpretation, and the whole Bible fails, in their way of thinking.
So how does this lead to atheism? For those raised in fundamentalist churches, doubt is wrong and possibly sinful. When kids from these churches go to college and take classes in biology, for example, and learn about evolution and the research supporting it, that raises doubts about literal 7 day creation. When they learn further that there is no geological evidence for a world-wide flood, that Genesis 1 disagrees with Genesis 2 in the creation account, that Cain had other people to deal with who were not brothers or sisters, etc., then this creates a crisis of faith.
They are told by their parents and pastors to just have faith in God’s Word and that the Bible always trumps science and scholarship. For people who cannot reconcile those obviously diverse ways of thinking, they feel like they have no choice but to reject God because they do not have a concept of Christianity, or religion, outside of fundamentalism. It’s been presented their whole lives as all or nothing, black or white. When Christian fundamentalism no longer fits with what they know, they must reject God and become atheists.
So what to do? There are hundreds and hundreds of evangelical, Bible believing scholars in all disciplines who are teaching, writing, preaching, and leading in various Christian and secular organizations who know that Christian fundamentalism is a failed movement doing more harm than good. If they would just come together and create a statement explaining what they know to be true and that one can be a faithful Bible beleiving Christian and still embrace the truth of evolution, the probablility that Adam & Eve are something other than the historical beginning of the human race, that it’s possible to see God’s Truth in segments of Scripture even if we can’t be sure of authorship, then struggling fundamentalists could have a cloud of witnesses who could show them that they can still hold strong to their faith.
The great scandal of contemporary evangelical Christianity is that we know better but that we insist on pretending that truth isn’t truth because we are afraid that some people can’t handle the truth. This might result in losing church members, readerrship, business, students, etc. It’s economically untenable.
If you believe like I do that all Truth is God’s Truth no matter where it is found, then we have nothing to be afraid of! Take a stand for truth, even truth discivered by scientists and liberal scholars, and show that out faith in the Christ of the Bible need not be shaken. In fact, my strength is made stronger as I read and learn and research more. The inconsistencies of the Bible make so much more sense to me now.
Let’s rally together, learn the Truth, speak the Truth, and live the Truth so that our searching and doubting fundamentalists brothers & sisters can find a welcomming home among fellow believers who are openly searching for God without fear.
Tags: atheism, fundamentalism
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
June 18, 2009 at 9:02 am
I know if sounds as if there are “two creation stories”, but isn’t the second one just an expansion of the first? At least that is my opinion. If you start calling any of the bible a fable, etc., doesn’t that really make other things vulnerable like the resurrection? Don’t you think God could have put into the minds of the writers the story of Adam and Eve? I know there is a question of where the “Children of Men and Children of God” came from. This is a mystery.
The Bible is a masterpiece of literature and I know there are questions, but won’t it be great to have them all answered when we are in eternity?
June 20, 2009 at 4:36 am
The two creation stories do complement each other, but only if you read them as different voices, not if you read them “literally.” They list the order of creation differently. (e.g., animals, Adam, Eve vs. Adam, animals, Eve.)
The Bible IS an absolute masterpiece for sure!
June 18, 2009 at 9:49 am
What you are saying resonates with me and I can see where these ideal have played a role in my own life. I think, though, that too many times people are willing to baulk at Fundamentalists and laugh off how silly they are, and that they are harmful. I think that could and certainly is true at times. It just seems to me that we (meaning more Contemporary Evangelicals) get so razor pointed about critiquing the “other sides” that we lose the spirit we are supposed to have. We are supposed to be loving, and kind, and patient. I am not saying that if sometimes decides that Jesus is a Unicorn that we shouldn’t come to them and explain that, maybe, it is time to outgrown our childish thought processes…. But I don’t see Fundamentalist thought that way. I see it as a very relevant belief system. There is still so much truth in that system. There is still so much faith in it… and if it works for them, as you said all Truth is God’s Truth, why do we have to emancipate them from it? I don’t mean to say that we should allow them to be hateful and disrespectful and condemning. Maybe it is my personal interactions with some very cool Fundamentalist people who respected what I believe and graciously disagree that leads me to have this point of view.
Being Fundamentalist is about adhering to a specific set of ideals. This doesn’t have to be just about the things you’ve listed. I have met and know many Fundamentalists who reject absolute truth, and they do so much like the earlier Fundamentalists, as a reaction to a movement in Christianity that said everything is absolute. There are also Fundamentalists that insist nothing be “old school” Christianity. If it looks, sounds, or feels like traditional church we ain’t gonna do it; “Don’t say VBS, don’t say Sunday school…. We don’t do THAT!” I believe this is a testament to our sin nature. We don’t work in balance. We will either become so rigid that we leave no room for grace and allowing the Holy Spirit to lead people or we will become so flexible that we don’t stand for The Gospel or respect for the Law or Tradition. And I hear ‘em sayin’, “I would rather be too flexible, too loving than be rigid and hurtful…” But I think both can be hurtful and, equally, prisons. And I am pretty sure we are no longer slaves. We are no longer captive. I believe there are those who can be, what I would call, Classic Fundamentalists and be gracious. The type of Fundamentalist that I mentioned before need to be gracious also. For me, avoiding these polemics means not being reactionary, not allowing external events to make me a slave…. Easier said than done!
All that to say, I got nothin’!
June 18, 2009 at 9:51 am
You’re right about the way this works with folks. I would only add that besides the f-word, there are many other bad versions of Christianity that have a similar negative effect. In my experience, few people lose or reject Christian faith who haven’t first learned the Christian faith in a setting where the faith was poorly articulated or poorly lived. When I hear various atheists or Christian revisionists describing the God they reject, I concur that I don’t want to worship that God either but then add that I don’t think the God they describe is the God of the Gospel.
June 19, 2009 at 2:03 pm
You’re blog intrigues me. I find it well intentioned, but lacking in content. What concerns me is that you proclaim truth and advocate for all to follow it, while also claiming that all Truth is god’s truth. To that I ask, what is truth? Sounds rather philosophical, but somebody needs to address such a question considering you did not. So what is truth? After all, are the fundamentalists at least looking and proclaiming truth? But, you, along with various scientific evidentialist claims, are saying they are wrong. But why? They are wrong, according to your blog unless I’m interpreting it wrong, because there has been some type of “truth” (we’ll call it science) to prove it wrong. Interesting. So you’re an evidentialist, saying that fundamentalist holdings of scripture are wrong because they can’t hold up with science? Well this is a pretty weak argument. Let me ask you this. If fundamentalists lined up with science, would that be sufficient evidence that it is “Truth?” Is an interpretation of scripture wrong if and only if science or some other “Truth” that is more viable contradict that interpretation?
It’s interesting that we would go out of our way to discredit fundamentalists, but offer nothing in place but more evidence for things. But rather than being based on belief, it’s based on science. Then we add to that science that a round-about belief structure and call it a better interpretation because it doesn’t conflict with anything. So we’re to “learn truth, speak truth, and live truth” then what are we to be? What is that truth that we’re so vibrantly “acting” out? Is Truth a subject that needs a verb and direct object? What if we don’t believe that all truth is God’s truth? What does that statement mean? If we don’t know what truth is, then we don’t know what God’s truth is. Are the 2 related? What is sin? Is it a created truth by God? I find it incredibly arrogant that somebody would break down fundamentalism with evidentialism, as if it was truth. You might as hang out with Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins. What are all of these articles and research you’re reading? You mentioned it a few times, but failed to list anything. Just wondering.
June 19, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I think anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal. Until someone funds a scientific exit poll on ex-Christian atheists then we really don’t know.
Since there are more evangelicals in America then it stands to reason that more people in America start out as evangelicals. So of the ex-Christians who become atheists more of them will be former evangelicals.
The evangelical critique of the liberals is that they have no place to stand, and as such, they might as well become complete secularists/atheists. Liberals too are becoming atheists.
In my own case I started out as an evangelical but when the underpinnings of it fell through the floor I took a step up in the direction of liberalism, but at that point I felt the force of the evangelical critique of it. Having already rejected evangelicalism there was no place left to go but to agnosticism and then on to atheism.
I suspect many people travel through this same process. I suspect many of us travel the same road we see reflected in the history of modern western thought. First we accept evangelicalism on our Mama’s knees, then later we move on to deism, then to existentialism then on to agnosticism and atheism. Some others move on to pantheism and other sorts of things.
June 20, 2009 at 4:45 am
John, there are at three studies that do what you propose (two published by Prometheus Books, in fact). Add these to the mountains of books and articles written by fundamentalists-turned-agnostic/atheist, and there area couple of unescapable conclusions. 1) When thinking people are told not to ask certain questions and just to have faith, they will invariably leave that faith because they prefer to think rather than just trust. 2) The more Christians are afraid of science, the larger the crisis of faith it creates.
Christians have NOTHING to fear from science. God created everything that scientist have discovered or will discover. Often, they discover His truth first. We should be humbly appreciative rather than suspicious and defensive.
June 19, 2009 at 5:45 pm
In dialogue with atheists, it seems they’re often the most literal-minded, inflexibly sola-scriptura readers I’ve ever encountered. Decades of hearing or resisting fundamentalist hermeneutics have made many atheists incapable of appreciating nuance or any way of reading Scripture other than a black-and-white dichotomy of verbal plenary inspiration of the KJV, or complete fairytale metaphor.
Because fundamentalism claims to make a text the sole sufficient and authoritative blueprint for faith and practice, atheists seem to have a ard time grasping the historical Christian idea that the faith community is the custodian of both the text and its interpretation.
I think atheists and fundamentalists alike would benefit enormously from a little study of epistemology.
June 20, 2009 at 9:34 am
What would that study of epistemology entail?
I’d be interested to hear how you think that should take place.
June 20, 2009 at 9:05 am
Thanks for this. I find your perspective to be clear-headed and very much in line with my experience. The difficulty I have with the resolution to your argument is that if one seeks the truth then that person must reject the premise that the bible is an authoritative text. The truth based on evidence is that it is not and the traditions it proposes and historical perspective it offers is highly subjective, elitist and presuppositional. You seem to be a good man but, how do you reconcile your desire for truth with the claim that the bible need be humanity’s foundational text. How do you argue that its perspective need be adopted by all for them to live in right relationship with god. And what does right relationship look like? Everything you say could be just as easily argued by an imam living in a secular muslim country instructing his more fundamental muslim brothers that the notion of the world being flat is not literal. The bible is one book we have to examine the psychology of mammals seeking an answer to the unknown but it does not provide moral authority for anything.
June 20, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Chuck,
Thanks for the comment & good questions. A couple of thoughts:
“The difficulty I have with the resolution to your argument is that if one seeks the truth then that person must reject the premise that the bible is an authoritative text.”
I don’t think that’s the case. I would like to hear your rationale on this point. Maybe you meant THE authoritative text?
“The truth based on evidence is that it is not and the traditions it proposes and historical perspective it offers is highly subjective, elitist and presuppositional.”
Actually, the truth based on evidence is that the Bible has been an authoritative text for a great many cultures for thousands of years. Now if you want to argue that it shouldn’t bem that’s a different issuee.
“Everything you say could be just as easily argued by an imam living in a secular muslim country instructing his more fundamental muslim brothers that the notion of the world being flat is not literal.”
You may be right about that, and I realize I am making a truth assumption about the Bible in this post. This specific set of ideas refers to an internal discussion among Christians, not the discussion about theism itself. Those are two different issues that need to be handled one at a time.
June 20, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Thanks Dan for getting back to me. I did mean to say “The” authoritative text. I think the bible can have a seat at the table of ideas but is not at the head.
I would agree with you that the bible has been an authoritative text for many cultures and I also believe that it has motivated many of these cultures to practice injustices for the sake of the superstitions therein. Essentially I think it has not bettered humanity. I think the bible keeps us stupid and leads to pretentious morality based on personal feelings of holiness.
It would be interesting to hear the response to your post by Christians. I sent out the URL to this blog entry to Christian friends who are aware of my recent doubts and await their take on my response to you and your post. When I get answers I will send them your way.
Be well.
Chuck
June 20, 2009 at 9:08 am
Silouan,
Why is a Christian “faith community” more credible than a Buddhist one or a Mormon one or a Sufi one? Answer me that and then you might win me back to the fold but your criticism of folks like me who see hermeneutics as a practice of bookish people parsing ancient texts for modern application only contradicts Occam’s Razor and indicates the utter implausibility of Christian faith.
June 21, 2009 at 12:17 am
Ironically enough, Ockham was a devout Christian. Chuck, what would you say are some examples of Christians acting injustly? I ask because I believe there is a huge amount of misinformation out there about the worldviews and motivations of various critiques to Christendom, and am interested in hearing your opinion.
June 21, 2009 at 9:34 am
How about the self-righteous denial of US Citizens their 14th amendment rights because homosexuality doesn’t fit the biblical standard of marriage.
That’s enough injustice for me.
And “ironically” Franco shared Ockaham’s Catholic faith. I think that “true believer” and his history is an object lesson enough of what transpires when one embraces pre-suppositional righteousness.
In my experience the mis-information comes from those with a vested interest in denying the hubris and stupidity practices by holy Christian soldiers throughout history. I’ve read both sides of the arguments okay and have decided for myself.
June 21, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Chuck, I’m truly sorry you feel this way, and have decided.
June 20, 2009 at 10:01 am
I was resisting my urge to comment on this blog because I don’t want to be interpreted as representing the majority of “ex-Christians turned agnostics” but from my experience with peers and those in the Unitarian Universalist church one of the greatest reasons that we turn away is at some point all of the “god-speak” sounds presumptuous and insincere. I’ve seen in in this blog and it not only sounds like another language (Christianese) but it also represents to me (us) the idea that one group of people (Fundamentalists) have the market cornered on spirituality. Examples of god-speak.
Capitalizing the “t” in Truth
Capitalizing the “w” in Word
Capitalizing the “h” in His
Using words like “The Lord” or phrases like “The Lord spoke to me” or I’ve “sought the Lord” on this or “It’s not my words but the Words of God.”
Making proper nouns out of shared words in spirituality, such as truth specifically, can appear pompous.
“Relationship with Jesus – or personal relationship with Jesus”
Comments about god being the “only hope” (hope for what? why are we hopeless? why should we feel hopeless? why would a religion encourage us to feel worthless just to then show us a path to hope? Tear us down to build us up? Seems abusive.)
So… god-speak, whether on CNN or from the pulpit (or on a blog) just makes my stomach turn. And fundamentalists speak that language better than any other group.
You would possible assume that it’s just annoying but it’s actually far more destructive to that. We cringe at it because it represents a limited view of the world, or again, appears to represent that.
Thought I would chime in on this one but I have to say the topic itself is frustrating.
We don’t hate Jesus or the beliefs that the fundamentalists hold… but the behavior itself, the language, the posturing is just disgusting to some agnostics/atheists who were formerly linked to fundamentalism.
To reply specifically to a comment from Silouan, sometimes a closer look at epistemology is validates the movement from fundamentalism to agnosticism… says the Bible College graduate. ;0)
June 20, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Gail,
I appreciate your concerns, but I claim the right to make propoer nouns out of God, Word, Bible, Truth, etc. precisely because those words carry specific valuable meaning to me as a Christian. I would also argue that a Muslim or Sikh or anyone else has that same right when using words or ideas that hold some specific divine meaning for their faith as well.
And you know me well enought to decide if I am pompous or not regardless of what words I capitalize!
June 20, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Dan,
Well the blog is evidence of your pompousness ;0) Does everyone know I’m kidding? lol
Anyway, I reserve the right to declare that the truth I’ve found is that Many Roads actually lead to a good place. There are Many Right Paths rather than just one.
Okay so I must be missing something because capitalizing those words didn’t make much of a difference to me. But, to be fair, I feel the same way about fundamentalist Muslims too… Who has the market cornered on Truth?
June 20, 2009 at 3:06 pm
[...] How Christian fundamentalism leads to atheism [...]
June 20, 2009 at 11:24 pm
What if it has nothing to do with specific groups such as: fundamentalists, evangicals, etc. but instead all of us within the Body of Christ? Why have we allowed so many differences to seperate us over the years of the Church (i.e. denominations)? Every group within the ‘Christian’ community has individuals that are leading others away from the faith…
Bottom line:
Jesus is coming back and He’s expecting one body…when is this going to happen??
June 21, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Jeff,
If Jesus was coming back, as Christians believe, and if he was going to wait until there is unity among those who identify himself as believers…
Well, let’s just say I wouldn’t keep my eye on the sky!
Meanwhile, I share the sentiment. A house divided can’t stand. Christians are losing their place as an influence in our culture, as an example of happy or hopeful people. (The scope of their influence in American history is certainly a thesis material, not blog material lol) More and more, the word Christian evokes impressions of fundamentalists or those who are trying to get people “saved.” If I believed in sin I would say that the only sin that is worth any sort of punishment would be the sin of mistakenly representing the gospel message. If that story is as powerful and holy as some suggest, some believers are going to be in a lot of trouble.
June 30, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Dan,
I think you make a logical argument why “anyone” who takes a “concretely”(if I may coin a term) literal view of the bible may become an agnostic(I’m not convinced anyone is truly an athiest). However, I suspect, based on skeptics comments on many sites, that there are many more people from Catholic and “mainline” protestant background who claim agnosticism/atheism than those from a “fundamentalist” background. I also think most of these people utilize a “concretly” literal interpretation in a straw man argument to justify the position they have already taken.
July 13, 2009 at 11:37 am
Count me in! I teach students who are primarily pre-med that come from very conservative backgrounds. Many times they just have to live in two worlds. I try to help them understand that it is not necessary, but many simply can’t abandon their fundamentalist beliefs because they see no real intellectuals who are serious about their faith. Of course they exist, but they seem to be rare in the circles in which they practice their faith.
August 22, 2009 at 12:29 am
You said, “For people who cannot reconcile those obviously diverse ways of thinking, they feel like they have no choice but to reject God because they do not have a concept of Christianity, or religion, outside of fundamentalism. It’s been presented their whole lives as all or nothing, black or white.”
Even more interesting is that when these people deconvert, they tend to just redress their fundamentalist mindstate in atheist clothing. Have you noticed that as well? These tend to be the types that end up getting categorized “militant atheists” by some people, in my experience. It’s just the exchange of one fundamentalism for another. Of course, by no means am I saying all atheists are like that, either. There are shades of every color.