It seems deconversions, from Christianity, are a popular thing now. Those that get attention on the Internet are people who are well known for one reason or another, and given these people advertise their trek away from Christianity, it’s worth considering their rationales for abandoning their faith in Christ. One I came across yesterday was a gentleman who attended the seminary my wife an I graduated from some years ago, Westminster Seminary Philadelphia. In addition to being a long-time Christian, he was also a musician, “Influential Christian Rapper and Westminster Theological Seminary Grad Denounces Christianity.” I would encourage anyone to carefully read his reverse testimony, and note why he decided to denounce his faith in Christ.
These stories of deconversion are fascinating because they all reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of faith in the modern secular world. Of those I’ve read, and it’s been more then a few, the people who are rejecting Christianity don’t seem to understand they are trading in one faith for another (I feel compelled to highlight that, dear reader, because I fear you will pass it by without considering the implications of that fact). The impression one gets, and I’m confident it’s accurate, is that these people think they are leaving faith in Christianity for not-faith. Whatever view of reality they’ve decided to embrace, to them, is not faith, and does not require faith. That is for Christians or other religious people. They’ve decided they are no longer Christian, thus not religious, and thus do not need faith. This is the primary delusion of modern secularism and its understanding of metaphysics, or ultimate questions about the nature of reality. They believe since they’ve decided they don’t need to address these issues, they are off the hook.
If you read Mr. Goodwin’s own words, it is clear he believes the only thing in the dock (or on trial as in a court of law) is Christianity. He doesn’t demand of whatever he believes now, if he would even admit of belief, that it needs to be defended. This is a critical point that should not be lightly dismissed. I’ve come to call it, “the consideration of the alternative.” I’ve noticed in these testimonies of Christian rejection, the person never seems to address the issue of truth. As in, since I’ve decided Christianity isn’t true, then what alternative is true. Something else has to be true if Christianity is not. This seems to have never occurred to these people. Those influenced, uncritically, by secularism simply think this way. It seems self-evident to them that that the burden of proof for validity rests primarily, even solely, on Christianity.
As you consider Mr. Goodwin’s seemingly sincere pain at the process he’s gone through and having to share it with others, we must not let him off the hook. Not so much for his sake, but for ours and those we love. I would never say his struggles with doubts about the Bible are not valid or real. The problem is that he and other deconversionists , and secularists in general, believe doubt is a one way street. C.S. Lewis wrote something I would encourage these to consider:
Agnosticism is, in a sense, what I am preaching. I do not wish to reduce the skeptical element in your minds. I am only suggesting that it need not be reserved exclusively for the New Testament and the Creeds. Try doubting something else.
I practice the consideration of the alternative all the time because when I doubt (and everyone doubts, or should) I understand doubt it not a one way street. I always seem to come back to biblical, orthodox, conservative Christianity.
I found a great fictional example of this in the Babylon Bee (which will be getting it’s own post): ‘Why Do Good Things Happen At All?’ Asks Atheist Struggling With His Faith. Exactly! This fictional atheist (I doubt such an atheist exists unless it is an ex-atheist) realizes his worldview, like any worldview, his faith, is in the dock. I wonder if Goodwin will doubt his new beliefs, and place those under as much scrutiny for their validity as he has the Bible. We can pray he will.
I would suggest there is a much bigger context than merely the text of the Bible itself, that being the most important thing the biblical writers declare: A man coming back from the dead, what we know as the resurrection. The question before the jury is, did Jesus of Nazareth physically, bodily, objectively come from from the dead, or not. Did some people (all pious Jews) witness Jesus resurrected from death and interact with him? Or not. If he did not, how do you explain the rise of Christianity against all odds? Read Acts, as well as the epistles, and the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was what Jesus’ closest followers declared from the very beginning. All the sermons or speeches in Acts declare the resurrection as historical fact (see Peter’s first sermon in Acts 2).
So we must ask, any honest person would ask, and I would encourage Mr. Goodwin to ask, how do you explain this? Remember this is true, or not, either historical fact, or not, events that really happened, or not. If they, and it, did not happen, how do you explain it all? To me it takes more faith to believe it was invented, made up, fiction to one degree or another, than that it all happened pretty much the way the Bible says it happened. If it could have been invented, made up, merely fiction (which didn’t exist in the ancient world), I would invite Mr. Goodwin and the Bible’s critics to tell me exactly why and how was. I’m open to the evidence, but all we usually get is assertions that it was. I’m putting the burden of proof on the critics, those who reject the historicity of the biblical accounts. I’m laying out my case in an upcoming book, and I invite the critics to make theirs.
Recent Comments