(18 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...I have often been puzzled by how defenders of the Christian faith attack me and my views by taking the biographical route, pointing out the course of my faith journey, identifying a flaw in it, and then drawing the conclusion that if I had not thought X or been convinced by Y then I would have seen the truth and not been led astray.
The way this narrative usually works is this: “If Ehrman had not been raised a fundamentalist he would have realized… x, y, and z … and he then never would have left the faith” OR “If Ehrman had not held X view he would not have been so easily swayed when he realized it was wrong” OR “The problem is that Ehrman appears to have thought Y and that’s not at all what true evangelicals think” and so on and on.
The reason I find this puzzling is that people get their notions of how I was raised or what I thought from things I’ve written and said and in most cases they completely misunderstand or, even worse, just flat out misrepresent what I’ve said. I’ve always found it rather funny when some very conservative evangelical scholars accuse me of thinking in black and white when they take something I’ve said and not been able to recognize the nuance.
Just to name a name…. Craig Evans, in his book Fabricating Jesus, devotes an entire opening section to how once I realized that there were textual variants in the manuscripts of the Bible that I ended up losing my faith. Surely, he reasoned, I could have had a more flexible understanding of inspiration than THAT!
But the problem is that
Interested in joining the blog? It costs very little, and every penny you pay goes to charities helping those in need. Go for it! Click here for membership options
People who have reached fundamental beliefs usually approach both their own beliefs and those of others as if they already know all there is to know, so they make assumptions. They think others need to learn from them and not that they have something still to learn. I’m sorry you have to deal with such a lack of understanding on something so personal and that people misrepresent you in such a public way.
I’d like to know more about your journey from the problem of suffering to agnostic atheism to materialist.
It’s a long story! But I go into it a bit in my book God’s Problem if you’re interested. Also if you look up Bart’s Biography on the blog you’ll see a bunch of posts. Maybe I’ll repost some of the ost relevant ones.
I did read God’s Problem but I must have forgotten that part. Would love to get some reposts on the topic because it’s something I really struggle with. Your writing style is much easier to read than some of the more philosophical writers who are honestly way beyond my grasp. Would also appreciate any recommendations from you or other commenters.
It seems to me really rare for one settling this issue at 40! But I think this is a major reason for why you get so much hate over this. Because your decision was clearly a very well contemplated one, after years of experiences and deep thought, and at the same time, you have a deep knowledge of Christianity, both theologically and historically: you know Christianity too well to reject it!
Professor Ehrman, you left the faith but, the way I see it, perhaps it hasn’t left you. God could be using
you to bring truth to those of us who once believed every word in the Bible was God-given.
The amazing work you are doing to help others surely will have you among the sheep, not the goats
if Jesus’ parable (Matthew 25:31-46) shows us what will happen. To me that means you are one of His
own, whether a believer or not!
If there is a God, he may well be!
Hear, hear! 🙂
You write that you ‘remained a Christian of an increasingly liberal stripe until you were about 40’. Please can you spell out what you DID believe during this liberal period which you felt still defined you as a Christian. You have occasionally arranged for liberal Christian scholars to speak about their beliefs but I have never found their explanations satisfactory; I have been unable to determine what they see being a Christian means.
I didn’t have just one belief the entire time — my beliefs were evolving the more I learn and knew. But the entire time I did believe that God existed and that Christ revealed what God was like, one who gave of himself for others and wanted humans to do the same, for example.
In life and war, many offensive incursions only serve to expose the deep uncertainty and defensiveness of an attacker’s position. Stridency in the face of accumulated textual contradictions fails the supposed higher-power-given human logic test. Just chalk it up to another bite of the Genesis 3 apple.
“But I was a bit floored to read it, and called him up. We’ve been friends for years, and he really could have asked me about it.”
What was his response when you called him?
I don’t remember exactlyl; I think he acknowledged it. I can’t remember if he apologized or not.
For me, it was facing the terribly negative reality of Replacement Theology (supercessionism – “the flaw in the heart of the crystal” – Soulen) in a Proto-orthodox Gnostic strain (Marcion) and in orthodoxy itself, and the way that bankrupt concept was used to “justify” the rampant rejection, character assassination and murder of non-Christians. The viral German anti-semitism of the 1930’s-40’s was merely borrowed from church fathers like Chrysostom. Only trust what produces love, and orthodoxy produces unloving spiritual duality.
What is the old saying?….”Every accusation is a confession.” When you address your critics who make this argument, do you engage them with the underlying reasons for your change in views? I guess that would just lead to the “God makes humans suffer because his will is inscrutable” dead end but it would seem like thinking people like your friend mentioned above would engage with the argument.
Sometimes, I do, yes. ButI don’t try to make converts!
Appreciate you! Thank you for this!
Correct me if I’m wrong, maybe I missed something, … but this article states what is NOT the reason you became an agnostic or atheist (not sure which term you most identify with), not because of this, not because of that … but it never comes out and states plainly why you did leave the Christian faith …
So … why?
I could no longer explain how there could be a God active in this world given all the pain and misery in it. I discuss the matter in my book God’s Problem.
Bart- as an unevangelical Latter-Day Ebionite, I don’t understand why your background comes up at all. The points you make are of interest to me and I didn’t really need to know your current thinking on matters of the Spirit.
Here’s my take on Christian history in three sentences.
1Put words to the Ineffable
2Argue about said wording
Repeat ad infinitum (well,at least for 2K + years)
Why do you think this comes up? Is it only with Evangelicals? Or are inerrancy folks the only ones interested in debating?
Mainly because they don’t like teh fact that I express views directly contrary to theirs AND that I used to have theirs. They have to explain that combination, so they dig….
Bart, you’ve mentioned a few times that you had a “born again experience” several times. Is that something you’d be willing to share in more detail? I’m not of that faith but understand the concept. I had limited exposure to Catholicism, which doesn’t promote a lot of born again experiences (that I can recall). So what did your born again experience entail, if that’s not too personal a question?
It’s a very long story, but for me it was just that I had been raised in an Episcopal church but then “made a personal commitment” to Christ “as my Lord and Savior,” and “asked Jesus into my heart.” This made me born again.
I tried that once as a kid after it was explained to me that it would change my life. I felt nothing. No fireworks or blinding lights. No feelings of euphoria. Nothing. I’m always interested in other peoples stories to learn what they experienced. Thanks for sharing.
What issue did cause to leave Christianity and identify as an agnostic?
I could no longer believe there was a God who was active in the world given all the pain and misery in it. I explain it a good bit in my book God’s Problem.
Maybe I should post on that.
The majority of Christians do NOT share the fundamentalists’ view of the Bible (inerrant/infallible) and yet continue in their faith, so clearly being a Christian is not dependent on such a view. In my own journey, however, the turning point was reading through the entire Bible for myself and coming to the conclusion that it clearly is a product of people, not divine intelligence. And what it said about God and the world did not make sense to me. I haven’t found any religion or sect that presents a view of God that fits into the world I see, just a lot of mental gymnastics trying to make it all fit together. So while one’s view of the Bible does not necessarily connect to your faith, for me the change in my understanding of the Bible was a decisive turning point.
Yes, I agree. My take on it is that the Bible presents a number of different HUMAN perceptions of god or the God experience. The Bible doesn’t IMO, reveal anything about God (assuming there even is a God), but it reveals a helluva lot about people, most particularly the people of the Ancient near East over a certain time period.
Bart, when you were a liberal Christian, did you think apologetics was still worth it?
Nope. I realized it was a futile endeavor.
Dr. Ehrman,
A few years ago, I had some doubts in my faith like the existence of God and the Christian concept of the afterlife. But I kept my faith, I guess, more for emotional reasons than rational or intellectual basis. One “emotional” reason I hold on is the hope for God’s vindication for the suffering of the innocent. Very timely with the death of children in Ukraine right now. I can’t imagine them not having to live full lives. The idea of an afterlife that will give them a chance to grow up into adults attracts me, but again, I understand, it’s an emotional faith. I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Henry Pascual
That is the very reason I held on to my faith as long as I did.
Parable- many mystics of all religious kinds think that sensing the Divine comes through a sensor located in the heart. Now this might not be exactly the same as the “emotions” you describe, but this goes with the view that thinking may actually get in the way of that connection. Just pointing out that that this is a common view.. more common than the idea that God is approached through the brain.
I feel like going off on a tangent.
This made me think of an article I read a few weeks ago by Jon Sacks, the former chief rabbi in England. He was explaining why the bible never banned slavery.
He said that God didn’t think it was wise to go against beliefs and practices that were deeply ingrained in the population. He didn’t believe in slavery but he left it for the people themselves to work this out.
Of course, this is ridiculous. God made all kinds of other demands and his people never worked worked out the problem of slavery. Over two thousand years later, the western world started getting rid of it.
But here you have an intelligent man promoting transparently shallow thinking to defend his beliefs. And I’m sure that he got to meet the Queen and all kinds of big shots.
https://www.rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/mishpatim/the-slow-end-of-slavery/
Often times our personal identities are closely tied to our worldviews. Anything that threatens our worldview can feel very, well, threatening! The personal reaction can be visceral, despite ones level of education and erudition. Of course the irony is that part of being a good evangelical Christian for some is trying to convince other non-Evangelicals to abandon their own worldview and get “saved.”
People wonder if, like Darwin, you have experienced a personal loss which shook to the core the belief in a divine “force” or “person” that regulates existence justly or mercifully. Darwin even attributed evolution to God, his disbelief came only after the loss of his child. If that was the case, how would you comment the fact that most people persist in religious beliefs especially because religion(s) help them deal with loss and grief.
During your years as a liberal Christian, how did you square things like in the Old Testament God commanding genocide (eg Numbers 31), or Romans 1 and homosexuality? I’ve been what I’d call a fundamentalist Catholic (was in seminary to be a priest at one point) but am close to leaving it for agnostic atheism.
I found much of teh Old Testament (and a good part of the New Testament) to be highly problematic and not representative of what God was really like.
I have often heard in fundamentalist channels that “an atheist is some one who just got mad at God ((death of a child or so on)) and that’s why he denies god.” How could you be mad at something that you don’t believe exists?? Or if you are mad at god, you certainly can’t be an atheist!!! I just started asking, “Aree Christians really just Moslems that got mad at Allah?”
I know! People ask me all the time why I’m angry with God. It’s a very puzzling question indeed for someone who doesn’t believe there is a God….
That is what I used to be told… I used to reply, “Why would I be angry at something that I don’t believe exists.”
Friends could not understand how I could come to my own conclusions, but did not realise that I did not want to share my reasons because I firstly did not want the debate and secondly, I did not want my conclusions to possibly sway them away from something that made them happy.
Thanks for posting this Bart. I’m guessing here, but I suspect most fundy scholars and others you debate find you to be a real problem, because :
a. you know your stuff
b. you’re a talented debater, and
c. you’ve “been there done that” so to speak, having experienced and lived various forms of Christianity. I suspect they see you as a kind of Melvillian white whale, a real thorn in their side.
I can clearly see that you take time and effort to clarify that your work does not in any way affect somebody’s personal beliefs. That separation you try and create is clear to me. It’s disappointing to me that they take lazy short cuts and cheap shots. Someone like Michael Bird does not dignify himself in any way when he writes :
“A genuinely erudite scholar of ancient texts and a fierce debater, Ehrman is the bane of traditionalists and the champion of sceptics. A pity, then, that he is almost always wrong.”
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/how-god-became-jesus-bart-ehrman-gets-it-wrong-again/10099302
This is cheap stuff IMO, very tawdry.
Keep up the good work.
Ha! Mike’s a good guy but, well, that’s not much of a refutation, is it?
And how does Mike know that Bart is wrong?
Logic!
Aha!
I feel your pain. As one who spent 38 years as a member of a fundamentalist Baptist church, and since coming to the realization that many, if not most of their beliefs don’t add up, the same things are thought about me by those folks who can’t seem to step away for even one second to THINK outside those boxes of indoctrination.
Although I still believe in a Spirit that they call “God”. Actually, I have no doubts about the spiritual realm (another story). Anyway, they all think I am “lost” merely because I do not share THEIR beliefs. And they think I became this way for the same types of reasons folks say what they say about you.
Go figure indeed!
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
I’m pretty new to this blog, just joined in!
I’ve should start by saying that your work has made me learn and understand more about the antiquity and Christianism. I also left faith and have certain similarity with you in the views about god and bible, however, I learned all the things I know now years after I left Christianism. Keep up the good work sir!
Deconstructed faith is never black and white. It appears rather astounding to me that those of the faith are able to maintain it knowing and contemplating religious human history.
Having read several of your books which i thoroughly enjoyed btw, i find it interesting that you spend no small amount of effort pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible, and i wonder why? These things are not in dispute among serious students of the Bible. Inerrancy for example is untenable. Pseudepigraphal writing is antiquity is not as much the exception as the rule. Historicity was not the writers’ intent. And none of the above is a reason for faith. None of the above are characteristics of “inspiration.” If a misplaced faith based on things like the above did not come crashing down as you learned the truth, why didnt it? What about your comments about finding out perhaps Mark was wrong on the Abiathar/Ahimelech issue? Did this not shake you to the core? Had you not held such firm convictions to in this case inerrancy and internal consistency, why would this have mattered? But it did, very much. It’s ok. 99.44% of christians undoubtedly also have faith based on false premises.
But no, that had nothing to do with your loss of faith. It was the problem of suffering, yeah thats it. Or was it? I ask sincerely.
I do this because I think the fundamentalist understanding of Christianity does a lot of harm and I want people to understand that it’s just not true. And yes I left the faith for reasons connected with suffering, not biblical scholarship.
Osu, serious questions for you: without holding to a doctrine of inerrancy, upon what premises can faith be built, and how would one know?
Well it certainly ain’t because a person got hit by lightning on top of their gazebo and ever since then they may have had acute migraine headaches and blurred vision but praise God they have had the power lol.
Faith is faith, you know? I hesitate to say anyone’s faith should be based on evidence of any kind. Heb 1:1 you know?
Inerrancy… well it’s kinda like reading the Oklahoma state newspaper. After the OU game, they may portray the cowboys in a very heroic light, but in the end they at least got the score right.
The Bible does that too. It isn’t inerrant, but the broad strokes paint a picture. I guess ultimately it’s a question of the resurrection of Jesus. One May note that there is some debate in the gospels on who saw what and when they saw it, But the tomb is empty in all of them. Even the pseudepigraphal ones.
I guess faith is based on… faith.
As far as the Oklahoma State newspaper goes… I do think Oklahoma University is the antichrist… I think it says that somewhere in the Bible and if it doesn’t it probably should – but I don’t need no newspaper to tell me that 😂😂😂
Ever think you’ll go back? 🙂 “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it” Proverbs 22:6. Never say never.
I never do! In any event, I would go back as an adult, not a child….
Great topic. It speaks to my own experience reevaluating my faith over the last 8 years. In my Mormon community as well, people assume if you leave the fold they’ve got it all figured out. You have been lead astray by the philosophy of man, are angry with God, or are just sinning, or all three! It’s hard to explain the actual evolution of a faith journey, but the most important aspect is that everyone is entitled to one, and it doesn’t require sinning or anger at the gods to simply change your views. Appreciate so much your lectures, books and blog. They truly have been a catalyst, opening my understanding and passion for historical religious studies. Cheers
I’m listening to an interesting podcast at the moment called ‘Mormon Stories’. You can listen to it on Spotify.
I was fortunate in having taken a biographical route that never included the perverse and enormously destructive “Bible Inerrancy” church doctrine. So I have no trouble at all recognizing that a change of heart (and mind) about that doesn’t have anything to do with (dis)belief in God.
Those who are not only colorblind but also incapable of seeing shades of gray suffer perceptual impairment they will perforce apply to the entire world and everyone in it.
If the only tool you have is a black and white hammer, you’re going to treat everyone and everything like it’s a colorless nail.
felt compelled to agree with Judith and the rest, so was allowed to express our opinion* but was compelled to own up to my bad language and worse puns
* https://mobile.twitter.com/histericaljesus/status/1505818820417449986
If someone misrepresented your view, that’s wrong, and that’s one thing. But could not a Christian say (from our perspective) — without being dishonest — that your change of view regarding biblical inspiration and your belief that there were irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible were the *first* factors among others that caused you to go down the road whereby you eventually lost your faith?
I don’t see how *that* would be objectionable to you. After all, any change of mind away from Christianity can be rightly construed by a Christian observer as part of a trajectory that ultimately led to falling away from Christianity.
Any conversion of one view from another (and I have undergone many, myself) is an accumulation of contrary or “anomalous” premises that don’t fit into one’s current view. After so many of those, the person ultimately decides to change their overall opinion or worldview. Then in retrospect they (and also outside observers) can say that there was one thing that started that entire process, while not being the ultimate reason.
So, for example, in my change from evangelical to Catholic, the very first issue where I changed my mind was contraception, which “got the ball rolling.”
I can see how it would look that way. But my faith wasn’t based on the inerrancy of the BIble, but on a relationship with Christ. I think my changed of view of the Bible (no longer inerrant) really wasn’t what led me away from the faith — almost all my Christian friends in seminary and my PhD *agreed* with me on my view of the Bible. I would have continued on as a person of faith, even if it wsa a very liberal form of Christianity, if it weren’t for the problem of suffering. (In part that’s because I didn’t start out as an evangelical: it wasn’t the only kind of Christainity I knew)
Are URLs / links allowed in these comments and/or in the forum? I could not access any “rules.” When I find something that seemed to be that, I clicked on it and nothing happened. 🙂 So I don’t know what the rule is regarding links.
I can understand why using links in the midst of trolling or “preaching” would be objectionable, but not in the course of a serious, sincere dialogue, using links to one’s own writing in the sense of a “footnote”, and assuming the good faith, honesty, and sincerity of the other: which is what I always strive to achieve.
I certainly understand the wisdom of a two comment per day limit: having observed what happens in discussion forums these past 26 years online.
It might cramp a serious dialogue-in-process (that’s the downside), and tend to encourage what I call a “Twitter / soundbite mentality” but overall, it’s a good policy.
Sorry: I’m not sure what yu’re referring to. Did someone post a link in a comment?
Bart, I can see the problem of suffering as the root cause for leaving the Christian faith. One of my major problems (I was raised Catholic) and points of disagreement was (still is) Christian soteriology. I’m now an agnostic atheist. But I think your agnosticism runs deeper than the problem of suffering, no? Is it true that you question even the existence of a supernatural power because you don’t find any compelling evidence for it? For example, why not just be a deist of some sort?
Yes, I’m an agnostic atheist. I dont’ believe there is any superior divine being in the world, but don’t think there’s any way to know.
Your comment about “the world” and “being” is what struck me and I agree. Christianity limited God to just this “world” and defined him as a “being”. But whatever created the Universe (and all others if they exist) is much superior and may not be considered a “being”. Is “consciousness” a being? I believe Paul presented his “Gospel” in Rom 1:16 – 2:16 which puts no such constraints or definition of God. Paul infers “Essence” of God (creator) and Essence is not a being. I found the following article, that “may” be more truth than speculation. Paul says the Essence is found in Gods creation, and whatever created the Universe would be the “creator/God”. https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956
You mention being raised in church from childhood but really became a Christian at a later time. My experience was much the same, as I was raised from infancy in an American Baptist Church that was right near the American Baptist Seminary of the West and where the faculty often spoke on the pulpit. The minister of the church I grew up in was Loren D McBain, whom you may have heard of as you for time was a pastor of a church in that organization. I went through motions of accepting Jesus at a young age, but it was in 1970 in the early stages of the “Jesus movement of the 70’s) that I actually became a Christian. I started attending Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa when the original small chapel was just beginning to over flow but only when Lonnie Frisbee would be the speaker. So I was wondering if this is around the time you actually accepted the Faith? I converted when I finally admitted to myself that I could not define who, what or the personality of God. Accept that God was God without religious definition.
42 years old man from Italy. I hold a Master Degree and a Phd in history.
I am a former cradle catholic indoctrinated since childhood like the 90% of people in my country. Never believed to original sin, creationism, the flood, papal infallibility and transubstantiation.
My parents, both teachers, are quite liberal, nonliteralists and have many secular and Jew friends. I always liked the synoptic gospels more than the 4th, especially the parables focused on behavior and good works. Never been a big fan of Paul and Augustine, loathed the faith-only protestant interpretation and the exclusivism; the idea of blood atonement seemed cruel and unfair to me.
Growing I became more skeptic, thanks to Israeli archaeologists I learned that the old testament is more myth than actual history, I understood that the vengeful Yahweh is not more real than Odin or Zeus and now I identify myself as a non-abrahamic deist, like Thomas Paine. I like the worldview of Spinoza too.
Your essays about NT, together with books written by liberal scholars like Funk and Crossan or by Jews like Dr Vermes helped me a lot to overcome my fears, but evangelical fundamentalists and their hysterical apologetics made my deconversion faster.
Welcome to the blog!
I forgot to mention the bishop John Shelby Spong, who passed away few months ago. In Italy he was not very famous but I really appreciated his attempt to reform theology, to go beyond old theism and to reconcile modern science and belief in a creator.