How does church appear to someone raised in a non-Christian home?

Church sucks, that's why men are bored there

My friend Wes posted an article about how communication is set up in the church, and why it’s not effective at equipping Christians to defend their worldview in hostile environments. The article describes what I encountered in church, after I was raised in a non-Christian home and become a Christian on my own by reading the New Testament. The view presented in the essay is how I viewed the church, and is probably how most outsiders view church. I think it explains why young people leave the church in droves once they move out of their parents’ houses.

The author writes:

On the Internet, one soon discovers that many respected church leaders are quite unable to deal directly with opposing viewpoints. In fact, many of them can’t even manage meaningful engagement with other voices. Their tweets may be entirely one-way conversations. They talk at their audiences. They can talk about other voices, but fail to talk to them, let alone with them. Their representations of opposing viewpoints reveal little direct exposure to the viewpoints in question.

[…]Around this point, it can start to dawn on one that many church leaders have only been trained in forms of discourse such as the sermon and, to a much lesser extent, the essay. Both forms privilege a single voice—their voice—and don’t provide a natural space for response, questioning, and challenge. Their opinions have been assumed to be superior to opposing viewpoints, but have never been demonstrated to be so. While they may have spoken or written about opposing voices, they are quite unaccustomed to speaking or writing to them (not to mention listening to or being cross-examined by them). There are benefits to the fact that the sermon is a form of discourse that doesn’t invite interruption or talking back, but not when this is the only form of discourse its practitioners are adept in.

Many church leaders have been raised and trained in ideologically homogenous cultures or contexts that discouraged oppositional discourse. Many have been protected from hostile perspectives that might unsettle their faith. Throughout, their theological opinions and voices have been given a privileged status, immune from challenge. Nominal challenges could be brushed off by a reassertion of the monologue. They were safe to speak about and habitually misrepresent other voices to their hearers and readers, without needing to worry about those voices ever enjoying the power to answer them back. Many of the more widely read members of their congregations may have had an inkling of the weakness of their positions in the past: the Internet just makes it more apparent.

One of my friends who comments here as “Wintery’s Friend” actually did his M. Div, and I think it was he who told me that his seminary had dropped the lone course in apologetics that had been part of the curriculum. Now seminary grads don’t learn any opposing views. They just pre-suppose that the Bible is true in the same way that Mormons pre-suppose their Bible is true. It’s a Mormon epistemology that’s been adopted by Christian seminarians.

More:

If one’s opinion has never been subjected to and tried by rigorous cross-examination, it probably isn’t worth much. If one lacks the capacity to keep a level head when one’s views are challenged, one’s voice will be of limited use in most real world situations, where dialogue and dispute is the norm and where we have to think in conversation with people who disagree with us.

The teachers of the Church provide the members of the Church with a model for their own thinking. The teacher of the Church does not just teach others what to believe, but also how to believe, and the process by which one arrives at a theological position. This is one reason why it is crucial that teachers ‘show their working’ on a regular basis. When teaching from a biblical text, for instance, the teacher isn’t just teaching the meaning of that particular text, but how Scripture should be approached and interpreted more generally. An essential part of the teaching that the members of any church need is that of dealing with opposing viewpoints. One way or another, every church provides such teaching. However, the lesson conveyed in all too many churches is that opposing voices are to be dismissed, ignored, or ‘answered’ with a reactive reassertion of the dogmatic line, rather than a reasoned response.

You can imagine that the first questions that you’ll be asked by a non-Christian co-worker would be things like “why think God exists?” and “why think the Bible is history rather than legend?”. What I’ve learned from listening to pastors is that very few are equipped to answer those questions. Most just assume that God exists and that the Bible is inerrant. And they don’t show their work, because they haven’t done the work. Moreover, they actively oppose apologetics as “divisive” and “prideful”. And so their flocks can attend church for 20 years and never learn a single useful piece of information that can be used in a real-world discussion. If you’re wondering why kids raised in married Christian homes start getting drunk and shacking up with atheists the minute they hit college, then look at the pastors who mocked their honest questions instead of preparing to answer them with evidence.

More:

I believe that there are various problems in the Church that are exacerbated by this. Where they are led by voices that can’t cope with difference or challenge, churches will tend to become fissiparous echo chambers, where people are discouraged from thinking critically about what leaders are saying and doing. The integrity of the Church’s theological conversation will not be tested through criticism and challenge. Churches that are led by such leaders will habitually develop polarized oppositions with their critics.

Unfortunately, in conservative churches, pious church leaders like Al Mohler, Russell Moore, Denny Burk, etc. oppose the use of evidence in apologetics, especially scientific and historical evidence. They don’t like the idea that humans can consider evidence rationally, and make a decision – even though Jesus regularly presents evidence to people who don’t believe in him in the Bible, and expects them to respond to it. The approach of pious Christian leaders to Christian teaching is to parrot Bible verses and hope that it has a magical effect of compelling faith in unbelievers. I call this the magic-words view of the Bible. For example, these pastors would not use peer-reviewed evidence from the social sciences when discussing moral issues like premarital sex, they would just cite the Bible’s teaching on it – to non-Christians!

I don’t know about you, but I think that a peer-reviewed paper on the dangers of premarital promiscuity has far more weight than something like this from Denny Burk:

If the Bible is the word of God, then it merely needs to be proclaimed. It has intrinsic power that cannot be nullified by the most hardened of skeptics. For that reason, we can have confidence in proclaiming it to anyone. And we can say “the Bible tells me so” without blushing.

That’s just fideism, and it’s the majority view among conservative church leaders. If you had to pick a single passage that explained the decline of Bible-based Christianity in America, you couldn’t find a better passage. What’s most surprising is that this fideistic view of Christianity is not even Biblical. The Biblical view of faith is that faith is trust in God, based on evidence. This is why Jesus offered his own resurrection as evidence to a generation of unbelievers. His miracles were also evidence offered to unbelievers. And the Old Testament is filled with examples of people like Isaiah presenting evidence to unbelievers. The fideist view sounds more like the Mormon “burning of the bosom” view.

I think the Mormon / fideist camp is just imposing their own man-made views onto the text in order to get out of the hard work of having to actually study and prepare to have debates with non-Christians. The motivation is laziness, and piety is just how they dress up their laziness to make it seem positive. Unfortunately, the product of this pious laziness is ignorance, and ignorance costs young people their faith. It doesn’t seem to bother these pastors at all that they can’t have meaningful engagements with non-Christians, or that they don’t equip young Christians to defend themselves. They’re oblivious to the world outside of the church doors.

In conclusion, we really need to stop giving respect to fideist pastors, if we expect to train up a generation of young Christians who are able to retain their faith and have an influence. We would never accept Mormon fideism as a sign of competence in any other real-world area of our lives, e.g. – auto repair, software engineering, surgery or tax law. We shouldn’t accept Mormon fideism as a sign of competence in teaching the Bible, either.

Positive arguments for Christian theism

7 thoughts on “How does church appear to someone raised in a non-Christian home?”

  1. And the reason that pastors embrace this easy way out is because they do a decent job of explaining Savior but a terrible job of explaining Lord. They’ve got the benefits of Christianity down pat without the cost of discipleship. So, if you can just sit back and “be saved,” and wait to die some day, then why put the work in?

    The other problem is that they never ENGAGE the culture, they embrace it. So, you won’t see them on the streets witnessing to people hostile to the faith or at the murder mills being a voice for the voiceless unborn. (With extremely rare exceptions.) One of the saddest things I ever saw was a conservative Baptist pastor show up at our abortion mill one day – COMPLETELY unequipped for the spiritual battle. He lasted about an hour and never came back. He knows the Bible inside and out too, but he has no Christian practice.

    This is why the churches are essentially indistinguishable from the world and why they have adopted moralistic therapeutic deism as their religion. “Men without chests” is how CS Lewis put it, I think? Of course young people will leave this charade: they are leaving churchianity and not authentic Christianity, because they’ve never actually seen the latter practiced.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I can tell you what the church looks like to me even as a believer, and mostly it looks like a glorified social club, marriage factory and fertility cult. It’s become as Phariseeical about marriage and parenthood as the Pharisees of Jesus’ time were about the Sabbath. It’s more about conformity and control than about the Lord. It’s no wonder the evangelical church is dying. The congregants focus on their finely trimmed yard and their McMansion in the suburbs and their 2.3 kids and only associate with people just like them and never evangelize.

    That really doesn’t look to me like the sort of thing God had in mind for His church, especially when it marginalizes people who don’t fit into a cookie cutter image.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve only felt comfortable in one or two churches that I’ve visited in the nearly 18 years that I’ve been a Christian. One was a small church in the rural Midwest when I walked in there in street preacher garb just to visit and was asked to give my testimony.

      In most churches if I even MENTION the plight of the babies it’s off to the corner somewhere. :-) If I go so far as to mention Hell and sin and Judgment, the churchians look at me like I just dropped in from another planet.

      Not expecting to see many present day pastors in the Kingdom. Jesus despises the lukewarm but especially when they are “shepherds.”

      Liked by 1 person

  3. What you wrote is precisely the reason why I stopped saying “the Bible says” in public or secular contexts (even in church where some Christians struggle with that notion as well) because we live in a society that no longer presupposes the authority or authenticity of the Bible. Instead, I say “Paul, one of the greatest skeptics wrote” or “Jesus said” or “James, the brother of Jesus, who was convinced of his divinity had this to say” which takes the Bible off the table as a distraction to the gospel.

    Most churches have great programs and say that everyone is welcome but completely ignore the non-believer in content once they’re in the door.

    Like

  4. Also – 100% agree on using evidence as a critical hermeneutic in a post-Biblical society. The problem with fideism is that when someone is presented with a seeming conflict in the scriptures, their faith falls apart. While the Word of God will never fall away, it’s not the same as God Himself.

    While there are textual challenges (e.g. in the days of Abiathar or the census of Quirinius) or historical challenges (evidence of Hebrews in wilderness in Exodus), none of those can touch the death and resurrection of Jesus – which is the central core of the Christian faith.

    The life and resurrection of Jesus is the best attested, verified and contemporary vetted event in ancient history. And that’s not by accident.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to asteelphoenix Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s