Recovering Evangelicals

A scientist who specifically studies the bacterial flagellum using some of the most cutting-edge research tools clears up a few myths and misconceptions. Much of Dr. Michael Behe’s defense of Intelligent Design rests on claims made about the bacterial flagellum. It certainly has become his signature, and one could even say it’s become the symbol or mascot of the ID movement (like the polar bear became for the global warming movement). Some of his claims are often challenged by opponents of ID. To shed some light on the subject, we reached out to several scientists who actually work with the bacterial flagellum (Behe does not). Here, we speak to Dr. Nicholas Mitzke, who gives us a basic introduction to this bacterial machine, demystifying it and clearing up some misconceptions that have been built up around it. Points that we discussed included: misconception #1: the flagellum is not just one unique thing that cannot be altered in any way without completely losing its function. There are in fact thousands of different versions of the flagellum, each with differences in their amino acid sequence (which necessarily means their gene sequence was changed), and some of them are even missing certain protein parts, and yet all of these altered versions retain their function. misconception #2: the flagellum did not in fact arise through a series of intermediate steps, each intermediate being non-functional, before finally becoming a functional machine. Instead, we’re now getting glimpses of its evolutionary journey through various stages of different functionality. proteins in general can evolve, changing amino acid sequences in many ways, and yet retain their original shape, and therefore full function how the rotary engine in the flagellum converts chemical energy into a rotational movement; it uses an acid battery that spins an “electric” rotor the flagellum is made of multiple copies of 20 proteins; 99% of the flagellum is the long whip (tens of thousands of copies of one particular protein); the other 19 proteins are at the base of the flagellum, forming one machine that creates the flagellum (the “type III secretion system”) and another machine that rotates the flagellum (the motor). misconception #3: given the statement above, the type III secretion system is NOT a “devolved” flagellum misconception #4: cellular machines (like the flagellum) do not need a mechanic to assemble the different parts into a functional machine (a misconception based on our familiarity with human-made machines). Instead, cellular machines can make themselves!? Self assembly!!! [we talked about this in detail in episode #131] misconception #5: the flagellum motor does not work through pistons, gears, fan-belts, and other such moving parts (as might be misconstrued by the frequent references to the flagellum being “like the outboard engine of a boat”). Instead, they work through a series of simple shape-shifts … the protein parts just bend a bit this way or that, causing other subtle shape-shifts in their neighbors. we introduced another bacterial machine called the ATP-synthase, because this will become a key star in next week’s episode about the evolutionary origin story of the flagellum. It’s basically two small machines combined into one: an ion pump, and an energy molecule factory. we heard a very condensed version of that evolutionary origin story, one that links three very different bacterial machines (the type III secretion system, ATP synthase, and the flagellum), in order to whet listener’s appetite for next week’s episode. This story is very much like someone encountering a complete stranger, noticing some absolutely striking resemblances in facial features, and finding out that the stranger is a cousin/sibling they never knew about. As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic. To learn more about our guest expert, visit his faculty profile page. If you enjoyed this episode, make sure you’ve listened to our interview with Michael Behe (or listen to it again, now that you’ve been informed). Also, if you haven’t already heard the other episodes in this mini-series, you might benefit from our basic introductions to how genes and proteins work. Episode image by Raman Oza from Pixabay. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Most people don’t know: the genome is a formatted database with read/write memory systems which can reorganize itself to produce new species. This is a re-release of an episode we put out almost two years ago. In the episode that preceded this re-release, and which set the stage for this interview, we had given a thumbnail sketch of genetics as most people understand it. We distilled that common understanding into five basic statements, and showed how most people think new species (or new cellular machines, like flagella) somehow arise from genetic mistakes and accidents. And we said we would be talking to Dr. James Shapiro, a world-leading geneticist with 60 years of experience in the field and who co-leads a large group of world-leading scientists working to correct this fundamental misunderstanding of genetics and evolution, in order to fact-check that common understanding. It turns out, it’s not just outdated, but deceptively wrong! Here’s what he told us about those five basic statements. Fasten your seat belts! (1) it’s all about DNA: who you and your children are is all completely determined by your DNA; Your brain cells, muscle cells, blood cells … and all the other cells of your body … have exactly the same DNA; and yet they’re so very unique in many ways! What makes them different from each other — and you from anybody else — is determined largely by another molecule: RNA. (2) DNA is a long molecule which gathers together many genes, like beads on a string, which code for the proteins that your body is made of; Only a very small fraction of your genome (the total collection of all your genetic material) codes for proteins; just a few percent in fact. Most of the rest of your DNA codes for RNA molecules which regulate the entire genetic machine. Also, any given “gene” (discrete chunk of information) is not like one of those beads on the string: instead, it has bits and pieces scattered all over your genome. (3) cells do everything they can to protect those genes from any kind of change; In fact, your cells have built-in mechanisms which do the exact opposite of that: they actively change the organization of your DNA, in response to evolutionary pressures, by: – moving large chunks from one position to another, even between chromosomes (recombination and reorganization); – moving large chunks between completely different species (“horizontal transmission”, in contrast to the standard “vertical transmission” from your parents); – combining the genomes of two different related species to produce a new third species (hybridization) or produce an entirely different kind of organism (the origin of the mitochondria and chloroplast); (4) UV light and mutagenic chemicals cause random mutations in the DNA, which can alter the function of the proteins they encode; Cells have very good error-correcting mechanisms which undo those kinds of mistakes, as well as those made when the “photocopier” (the DNA-duplicating machine) goes on the fritz; (5) those random mutations accumulate over time, producing individuals with new characteristics (e.g., blood type; hair color) and eventually … a new species; The occasional random mutations which might make it through the error-correcting mechanisms referred to in #4 above are completely unable to explain the origin of major changes in a given species (new “phenotypes”), let alone the origin of entirely new species. How much more wrong could we have been? This new and improved understanding of genetics and biological evolution opens up new ways to defuse the debates which keep coming up when creationists push back on the Theory of Evolution. Or on the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum! As always, tell us what you think … If you want to hear our summary of the common [mis]understanding of genetics, and the backdrop for this interview, check out Episode #69. As a bonus, that episode also explored nine reasons why some people push back on the whole idea of evolution (in some cases, because they just don’t properly understand genetics and evolution). To find more about Dr. James Shapiro and the group of scholars he co-leads seeking to bring awareness to this new understanding of genetics, go to The Third Way of Evolution. Episode image from Pixabay (and modified). To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist and Intelligent Design proponent, gives us his perspective of ID, and responses to several counterarguments against ID. To start off our deep-dive into Intelligent Design, we wanted to talk to a knowledgeable representative of that movement. Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist who has been waving that flag for three decades now, and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute (“ID Headquarters”), was a great choice for this first conversation. In addition to exploring a variety of biochemical and physiological concepts, our main goal was to get his response to several counterarguments against Intelligent Design which we hear often (and resonate with). Our points of discussion included: he’s not a Young Earth Creationist … he does accept human evolution from an ancestor we share in common with the apes; as an Intelligent Design proponent, he believes that the evolutionary steps had to have been guided (not random or undirected) “irreducible complexity” refers to a system/machine which has multiple parts and requires ALL of those parts to maintain its original function [our response: “sure, but it CAN be changed or reduced to do other functions”] his often-used analogy for irreducible complexity is a mouse-trap cells are made up of nanomachines which are made out of many parts, all of which are essential or the machine no longer works (“so they’re irreducibly complex”); his often-used example is the bacterial flagellum motor (BFM) he argues that this irreducible complexity can not be accounted for by Darwinian mechanisms counterargument #1: you can indeed take away certain parts, and what remains can still be quite functional, albeit perhaps not as a flagellum motor (or mousetrap). The BFM can be stripped down to a much smaller number of parts leaving another bacterial machine (the type III secretory system) which has a completely different function (it’s involved in squirting proteins out of the cell, rather than in giving the cell mobility). Also, many of the individual parts of the BFM can serve other functions on their own. counterargument #2: ID proponents tend to limit the discussion to “Darwinian” evolutionary mechanisms — random, undirected mutations of single base pairs — and avoid a more modern understanding of genetics which includes large-scale genetic changes which are orchestrated by the cell (duplication; reorganization; shuffling of whole sections of DNA; recombination; horizontal gene transfer; epigenetic changes) counterargument #3: if we’re going to attribute changes to a Designer, what do we do about examples of bad design (not just strange or clunky design …. but actually horrible design which produces indiscriminate suffering and death) counterargument #4: ID is not science. It doesn’t propose hypotheses that can be tested. It doesn’t explain the phenomenon (the mutation or new genetic trait), it only attributes the phenomenon to a Designer who worked in a mysterious way that we might never understand and for reasons that we can’t see counterargument #5: ID is more religion than science, and forces people to choose between the two (in a zero-sum fashion) there is another entirely different bacterial nanomachine called ATP-synthase which has jaw-dropping genetic and structural similarity to the type III secretory system at the heart of the BFM, but has yet another completely different function (it makes energy molecules, rather than squirt out proteins or give the cell mobility). This similarity might give clues regarding the evolutionary origin of the BFM. We’re going to get into this in much more detail in a couple weeks with experts in this area As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … If you haven’t already heard the two episodes that preceded this one (Episode #130 and #131), you really should: they’re all part of a mini-series we’re doing on Intelligent Design, and they set the stage for this one. You may also like Episode #70, where we talked to Dr. James Shapiro (an Emeritus professor with decades of hands-on experience with genetics at several world-renowned universities) about how cells routinely move large chunks of DNA around. To find out more about Dr. Michael Behe, see his website or his page at the Discovery Institute. Episode image: Ciker Vector Free Images from Pixabay. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Before hearing from Intelligent Design advocates, we thought we’d give our listeners some useful background information about how cells work …. it turns out it’s all about making shapes out of string. Before we present our interviews with Drs. Michael Behe and Jonathan McLatchie (both leading proponents of Intelligent Design), we feel we should give our listeners a quick Cell Biology 101 to explain some of the concepts that will frequently come up in those interviews, and which easily mislead non-experts. So, in this episode we’ll talk about how cells make proteins, and how it’s the sequence of amino acids (which is directly decoded from the gene sequences) which determines the 3-dimensional (3D) shape of the protein, and that in turn gives the protein its functionality. In this casual conversation, given at a NON-EXPERT level, Scott and I talked about: the string of DNA gets decoded into a long string of amino acids (we came up with two metaphors for this long string: toothpaste being squeezed out of a tube, and “Silly String” being squirted from an aerosol can at a party) that string of amino acid is called a protein; protein adopts a 3D shape that directly gives it its functionality the toothpaste / Silly String forms a long strand which flops all over itself, forming loops and folds and a completely disorganized mess; the strand of protein would also form a disorganized mess, except for the fact that the amino acids themselves begin to interact with each other and generate attractive/repulsive forces that cause it to fold and compact the loops into a particular 3D shape force #1: electrostatic attraction … a series of positive and negative charges which strongly attract each other, kind of like a sock sticking to a towel when you pull them out of the dryer, and have to peel the sock off force #2: electrostatic repulsion … a series of positive versus positive charges (or negative versus negative charges) which push each other apart, kind of like your hair standing on its end when you put your hand on a van de Graf generator at a science museum force #3: hydrophilic/hydrophobic attraction … a series of “water-loving” amino acids want to stick together (like sticking a piece of paper to a window just by making it wet); in the same way, “water-hating” amino acids want to stick together force #4: hydrophilic/hydrophobic repulsion … a series of “water-loving” amino acids and “water-hating” amino acids push away from each other (like oil and water not wanting to mix) force #5: atomic bond sharing … two amino acids both grabbing on to a hydrogen (like two people fighting over a trophy) or both becoming physically connected to a shared sulfur atom (like two people being hand-cuffed together) force #6: peg-and-socket connections …. groups of amino acids clumping together like a ball, and then inserting themselves into another group of amino acids which have formed into a doughnut shape (like buttoning up your shirt, or putting a jigsaw puzzle together) force #7: each type of amino acid holds its two arms out at different angles (both forward; or one backward and other forward; or both at 90 degrees from forward [or 60 degrees, or 45 degrees, or ….]), and as you connect these different types together (by getting them to hold hands), the angles of their arms begins to make the straight strand of protein kink up and loop in certain predictable ways we discussed how the sequence of the amino acids in the protein uses these forces and interactions to constrain the protein strand into specific and predictable 3D shapes, like: filaments, poles, tubes, beams, sheets, planks, pegs and sockets, and other shapes we did a mental exercise of creating a screw or a bolt using these forces and interactions, and also building an ion channel that you might find in a nerve cell! other intricate, complex and beautiful things can also be explained by naturalistic mechanisms: the Grand Canyon was created by simple geochemical and geophysical forces, or the beauty of a sunset against a stormy sky with a rainbow off to the side is mathematically explained by optical physics and gradients of air pressure, temperature and humidity reducing such complicated cell biology to “just chemistry and physics” doesn’t need to diminish “the Creator,” any more than showing that Leonardo DaVinci is “only” working with simple paints and a stick/brush; one is still free to invoke a Creator … or to deny the same. this raised questions about teleology and the processes being goal-directed, and science tending to be too reductionist a second VERY important topic we discussed was how these inanimate protein parts can self-assemble. Yes: SELF-ASSEMBLY! It sounds like magic, but it’s a common feature in cell systems, and it’s relatively easy to explain (we did this by having Scott jiggle a drawer full of spoons). No need for a little technician with a screw-driver and hammer in hand to put those parts together and a third VERY important topic: changes in the genetic information do not have to be simply a single change at one point in the strand of DNA or one single amino acid at a time (as YEC and ID advocates want listeners to believe). Instead, cells will commonly move and reorganize large segments of DNA at a time, coming up with entirely new combinations, which in turn leads to new genes. duplication (of parts of genes, of whole genes, or even of whole chromosomes!) accounts for the problem that YEC and ID advocates frequently raise: the original copy can still fully take care of the originally intended cell function, while the duplicated copy can go on to enhance its function, or even become adapted for a completely new purpose. Yes, you CAN have your cake and eat it too! duplication and re-shuffling of genetic information explains the evolution of proteins (we showed how easy it is to change a spoon/shovel into a knife/axe, or a stiletto/poker, a fork, a hammer). The immune system routinely takes this shuffling/re-building to a whole new level. coaptation: a protein can remain intact and serve more than one function, even in entirely different systems, or it can be slightly modified to now serve a new function As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … If you enjoyed this episode and/or if you want to learn more about the genetic aspects of this discussion, you should check out Episode #70, where we talked to Dr. James Shapiro (an Emeritus professor with decades of hands-on experience with genetics at several world-renowned universities) about how cells routinely move large chunks of DNA around. Episode image by Milada Vigerova at Pixabay. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

A short introduction to start a mini-series on this Christian apologetic idea, and some of the reasons why we have such difficulty with it. Intelligent Design” has attracted much criticism — certainly from the secular, scientific community, but even from Christians of all stripes … including ourselves. Over the next few weeks, we’re going to talk to some of the most prominent advocates of this controversial idea …. as well as to scientists who are the world experts in the areas on which those advocates build their pro-ID arguments. But before we do that, we thought we’d re-release an episode that we recorded three years ago, which introduces this controversial idea and sums up many of the reasons why we find it so hard to fully embrace it. Our main stopping points in the discussion included: why “Intelligent Design” is hard for Christians to resist: “we’re made/designed by God, and God would be intelligent” why we can’t embrace Intelligent Design: too many examples of design which are not just clumsy (the retina of our eye) or unclear to us (goose bumps; ability to wiggle our ears; fingernails), but even many which are just fundamentally wicked: the joining of our food-pipe and wind-pipe results in a horrible death for people who breath at the wrong time while swimming, or took too big a bite out of their sandwich, or who have Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), or gastric acid reflux leading to respiratory dysfunction; childbirth: without modern medicine, too many mothers and babies die a horrible and slow death through exhaustion from not being able to expel the baby, or slowly bleeding to death, or having the life slowly squeezed out. it’s awkward (to say the least!) to speak of a God who intervenes in our lives to give us beautiful design when there are these examples of horrible design, just like it’s hard to attribute good outcomes to an intervening God when horribly bad things happen to other people around us (like saying “God steered this tornado right around our house and saved us from destruction,” when that same tornado destroyed the neighbor’s house and killed his kids) those “horrible examples” are better explained by evolution working from the bottom-up and landing on solutions to a problem that work most of the time, than a carefully-considered design from the top-down we need more clarity and nuance around words like random, undirected, designed, and orchestrated genetic evolution does not only operate through small, incremental changes in the genetic code (which is as far as Intelligent Design advocates want to take this conversation); there are many other mechanisms that lead to sudden and big changes (many of which we talked about in detail with Dr. James Shapiro in Episode #70): gene duplication, with subsequent modification and selection pre-programmed gene shuffling and re-organization information inherited from the mother through machines inside the egg (the mitochondria) and molecules (glycoproteins) on the “skin” of the egg recombination of pairs of chromosomes “epigenetics” (this is an umbrella term which simply means everything that doesn’t involve genes”) even the writers of scripture, the ancient Hebrews, recognized childbirth as an argument against design, which is why they re-framed it as a punishment against breaking a Divine law. God can create using naturalistic mechanism (the Big Bang; chemical evolution; genetic evolution; natural selection) the “horrible examples” described above are not examples of previously good designs which were broken by the Fall in the Garden, as many Young Earth Creationists will propose; they are instead fundamental designs right from the start. As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

“Why not just throw the worship service out the window, and re-think what it means to be a Christian community?” Most Christians today have nestled into, or hopped between, a very standard modern expression of Christian faith, one that involves meeting for an hour on Sunday and having an unchanging mixture of songs, scripture reading, announcements, sermon, and prayer. Many people are leaving churches, and even Christianity itself, because it just doesn’t meet their spiritual needs. Today, we talk to Dr. Evan Amo, who did theological training at Princeton Theological Seminary and after a few traditional conservative Christian pastoral placements, asked: “why not just throw the worship service out the window, and just re-think what it means to be a Christian community?” Here are the main points in our conversation of his spiritual journey and his own answer to that question: grew up in a typical mainline Presbyterian church with a traditional worship style that was beginning to experiment with “contemporary worship”; quite comfortable and satisfied in that setting and with those traditions; “inerrancy and ‘personal relationship’ was the default thinking there” went off to university which introduced him to a more critical approach to the Bible, and joined a different Evangelical church which was a bit less conservative; both began to challenge some of his theological upbringing also began developing musical skills; formed a band following his undergraduate degree, and some Christian leadership experience at a Christian camp, as well as “doors being closed” in his music career, Evan began graduate training at Princeton Theological Seminary never had aspirations for typical pastoral career, but wanted something “outside of the box”; theological interests started curving toward social justice and liberation theology; these were hugely influenced by socio-political upheavals in the U.S. at the time after graduating from Princeton, he served for two years in a large church in North Carolina; then moved on to a temporary supply pastor position in a nearby small rural — and very conservative — Presbyterian church; this help shaped his sensitivity toward, and abilities to speak to, people with a very different worldview served four years in a small aging African-American church in Denver, including the years of COVID and racial unrest in the U.S. most recently, he has started a whole new venture in Denver, supported by the Presbytery of Denver, one that is completely different in how it engages Christian faith; a spiritual community that combines worship in nature (meditation hikes) with social justice and compassion work with marginalized groups in the inner city; this includes people from other faith traditions (Catholic) and world religions (Judaism; Buddhism); also very connected to Celtic spirituality, and indigenous spirituality his vocation better addresses issues in the current Post-Christendom age (marked by a major disaffiliation of society from traditional church) church and state have traditionally been kept separate ….. Christian Nationalism seeks to reverse that; conservative Christians have nostalgia for a long-gone era …. feel threatened by on-going cultural and demographic changes in which white people become a minority our discussion of Celtic/indigenous spirituality led to a lot of exploration of panentheism in Christian thinking (including the Apostle Paul) which many contemporary Christians are either unaware of or they react strongly against that is there a disconnect between trying to worship God in a very natural setting (remember, Evan’s doing this in the Rocky Mountains of Denver) while engaging in inner city ministry? And for other cities which don’t have such natural beauty (the heart of Detroit) or don’t have “an inner city problem” (rural Idaho), how can they learn from and apply this new idea? Evan is also an accomplished musician, and gave us a lot of descriptive insights about his two albums (their inspiration; their meaning), and excerpts from several songs As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … Find more information about Evan’s new way of “doing church” at their website or Instagram account, and his music at www.bruisedreeds.bandcamp.com. If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like Episode #115, where we talked with Dr. Gregory Mobley about interfaith learning and finding God in unconventional places. Episode image by permission from Dr. Evan Amo. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Four particularly toxic ingredients make it especially hard for some (many?) Evangelicals to maintain their belief system beyond a few decades. Christianity, in the West at least, is certainly experiencing a “great falling away”: churches closing, memberships dropping, people leaving the faith entirely. Some might conclude they’re leaving in order to better enjoy “sex, drugs and rock and roll.” But a closer look reveals that their departure has so much more to do with simply being unable to hold on to something that just produces so much doubt, internal conflict, cognitive dissonance, and challenges to personal integrity. And a variety of forms of religious abuse have certainly helped people out the doors. We certainly found this to be the case for the four of our listeners whom we interviewed over the past four weeks. We learned that all four of them have rejected the form of Christian faith that they grew up with and held quite comfortably for a couple decades. Two of them no longer go to church at all, while a third one attends as an atheist. And none of them would again embrace the label “Evangelical.” But all four are still always listening, reading and talking about ….. Christian things. They’re still “scratching the itch”! In this episode, we distill some themes, commonalities, and lessons learned from those four conversations. Points that we covered include: the strange beliefs of their original Christian faith seemed to be so normal and acceptable at the time, but now they see moral atrocities, unscientific claims, philosophical paradoxes, and theological conflicts there are four “toxic ingredients” that need to be revised or gotten rid of: inerrancy and infallibility of scripture hell theology (esp. eternal conscious torment) Penal Substitution Christian exclusivism too many people don’t correctly understand in detail the origins of the Bible, and its human input inerrancy and infallibility is never mentioned in the Bible; Jesus often turned scripture upside-down; even people who claim to adhere completely to inerrancy/infallibility don’t take many parts of the Bible “literally” Peter Enns (episode #57) and Mark Elliott (episode #116) had no concerns about Luke’s claim that the Bible is more like a human diary or notebook, than a Divine dictation the origin of the doctrine of inerrancy/infallibility is very recent, and rooted in politics and religious control the origin of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and Infallibility what did Jesus mean by “not one least stroke of a pen will disappear from the Law before all these things are fulfilled”? This is often a proof text for people who defend inerrancy and infallibility for many people, Christianity is all about avoiding hell the great difficulty in believing God could be as brutal, judgmental, and vindictive as that Penal Substitution: the horrible idea that God just NEEDS to see blood spilled before he can forgive and forget, even the blood of someone who has nothing to do with the “crime” Christian exclusivism: that all other religions, and even many strands of Christianity, are on the wrong path and will find themselves in hell Evangelical Christianity has many beliefs that are equally “off-track” as any other world religion (the “prosperity Gospel”, Penal Substitution; Christian Nationalism; anti-gay/anti-trans Christianity) Jesus is the basis for salvation in the sense that he held up a model for us to follow that we need to strive for … the “Good News,” or Euangelion many atheists and adherents to other world religions are doing a better job of living out that Good News message than many Christians In addition to the four “toxic ingredients,” there’s another ingredient that may not be toxic, but is still very problematic … the ideal of having a “personal relationship” with the Divine does autism impair ones ability to experience a “personal relationship”? if one still finds value in the Bible and strives to follow the teachings of Christ, but drops those four toxic ingredients and the problematic one, is that still a truly Christian faith? Orthodoxy versus orthopraxy: showing one’s faith through their works … the parable of “the sheep and the goats” listener feedback on our FaceBook Discussion forum: Doug, Merv and Lori: “please give us more of these interviews …. we can relate to these people” Doug: Scott’s comment about nihilism being the next stopping point for those who give up Christian faith … finding ultimate meaning Mi K.: Christianity is not monolithic …. there are many forms which bear no resemblance to each other …. having problems with one form should not require rejecting all of them Nichola: “Evangelical” is a label which can’t be rehabilitated is the arc of Christianity approaching another inflection point? … will 21st century Christianity look as different from 20th century Christianity, as the latter looks from 10th century, or 5th century, or 1st century Christianities As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like Episode #14, where we first talked about four core problems with Evangelicalism. More specific points that we skimmed over were discussed in greater detail in episodes #19 (Penal Substitution), #42 (“personal relationship”), and #88 (Hell). Episode image from Pixabay. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

A traumatic experience while serving in a church led to a complete deconstruction of her Christian faith: she’s still “a hopeful Christian agnostic” who finds Jesus’ message “beautiful and life-giving” Another one of our listeners tells her story. Rachel Sanders also grew up in a conservative Evangelical home, and went to a Southern Baptist church, but it was her years in Christian elementary, middle and high schools, and then a Christian college which really instilled in her a Fundamentalist Christian worldview. For a couple decades, she was quite comfortable in that faith system; doubts and questions rumbled in the distance, but she was able to keep the cognitive dissonance suppressed. Until she and her partner began ministry work in a church out of state. An escalating series of clashes and confrontations with members of the congregation and the pastor led them to not only leave that church, but then triggered a full theological deconstruction. That storm shipwrecked her faith! She now calls herself a “hopeful Christian agnostic,” because she still finds the message of Christ to be beautiful and life-giving. But for now, returning to a church, even as just a pew-warmer, is out of the question. Some of the points we talked about with Rachel include: parents were divorced from her earliest memory step father had been a Baptist minister, but his ordination was removed because he married a divorcee grew up in a large Southern Baptist church; very conservative; attended a Fundamentalist Christian elementary school, and then private Christian high school; Bible classes taught them Young Earth Creationism, Purity Culture; evolution is a “theory without much evidence”; “accepted Jesus into her life” at age of five …. “did I understand what Jesus was saving me from, I don’t know”; fully embraced her early Christian Faith; happy to have a guidebook for her life her faith was purely intellectual during elementary school years, but more on an emotional level when in her teens; the lack of emotional investment prompted a crisis-of-faith huge personal impact of a missions trip to Haiti went to Asbury College (recently in the news for its “revival”), where she developed a Wesleyan tradition the “slippery slope” … “well, if this part of the Bible isn’t “true”, then what about that part?” was not taught about a literal/historical Adam and Eve, but isn’t sure what they did with Original Sin has long been conflicted with their teaching about hell; wondered “what’s the point of Christianity if there is no hell?” “the sermon-cycle of shame and regret” and “thought-terminating cliches” her deconstruction process was catalyzed/accelerated by the political unrest of the past few years for years, got comfortable with cognitive dissonance over theological problems; but abuse and betrayal by her church community tipped her over the edge a traumatic experience with a senior church ministry leader crystallized the ending of her faith; she and her partner left church behind them connected on-line with other people who had been hurt by the church, and that fueled the deconstruction of her theology still looking for a church that hasn’t weaponized the Bible still holds a faith in a creative Life Force … calls herself “a hopeful agnostic Christian”; still attracted to Christ, and his message Scott asks if nihilism is the next step the label “Evangelical” has been hijacked, and we need to recover its original meaning Christianity is so much more broadly based than just “Evangelical” Christianity; need to explore its full dimensions before rejecting the whole theology it’s OK to not know … there’s freedom in mystery As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … If you’re interested in other personal life stories of people we’ve interviewed, check out this thematic collection. Episode image by Tim Hill from Pixabay. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Her spiritual journey was going perfectly well, until life circumstances blind-sided her and the “body of Christ” failed her, putting an end to her journey. This week, another long-standing member of the podcast discussion group drops into our “studio” and shares her spiritual journey. She was perfectly comfortable for the first few decades with her very Conservative Fundamentalist Evangelical upbringing, fully accepting all of that theology without question. But when tragic life circumstances led the people closest to her — “the body of Christ” — to betray and abandon her, that’s when the deconstructive questions really began. Not only did those relationships unravel, but so did one theological tenet after another. A few decades later, she’s really not sure what she can believe or trust anymore. And yet she’s still “scratching the itch”. Our discussion covered the following points: grew up Plymouth Brethren … very conservative “came to faith” as a five year old, purely out of the fear instilled by a Bible class teacher giving a graphic presentation of hell as a child, only hung around church kids was not allowed to go to movie theater because “you might miss the Rapture!” found at 15 that she was adopted, which sparked an identity crisis while at a church youth campfire event, she witnessed other people who seemed to have a much more emotional and expressive spirituality, which started her doubting about her salvation/spirituality looking back at her church environment: it felt safe because it was all she’d ever known … it was her social life one sermon heavy with “worm-theology” [you are good for nothing] had long-lasting impact up to her late teen years, she was completely comfortable with her spirituality and her religious worldview; that began to change, though cracks started to form in her belief system around: prayer didn’t seem to work; bounced back off the ceiling how the church — “the body of Christ” — mishandled a very difficult event in her personal life, resorting to judgment and ostracization, rather than love and support; this was a deeply felt betrayal after leaving that church and joining a new one, another difficult life circumstance was once again not handled well, and once again raised questions about her Christianity the podcast opened her eyes to morally questionable stories in the Old Testament (e.g., Episode #98) churches and Christians use language which is foreign or unclear to people who don’t live in the church despite giving up much of her original faith system, she’s still “scratching the itch” … listening to faith podcasts, reading religious books, discussing theological ideas Christians too easily and quickly “cherry-pick” Bible verses the oral history which preceded the writing of Scripture raised a lot of doubt about how much we can trust the Bible; questions about inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration, certainty; the “slippery slope” non-Biblical books can equally be a source of inspiration and spiritual development the “personal relationship,” free-will, and prayer still fully believes in a Higher Power … a creative life force need to become comfortable with mystery … not knowing … the anti-thesis of certainty some forms of Christianity can sound eerily cult-like; psychological control Ruth shared an example of how her early Christian self occasionally surprises her by popping up in her speech and thoughts the three main reasons that people give up on the Christian faith that they first grew up in: preferring to live a life of “sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll” (frequently the trope that people in the pews might think is the explanation) intellectual problems with the theology / Bible, and the assault on personal integrity that those bring religious abuse; the church community poorly representing “the body of Christ” As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … If you’re interested in other personal life stories of people we’ve interviewed, check out this thematic collection. Episode image by Tarek Darwish from Pixabay. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Another listener tells his story of navigating a long and meandering path through Evangelicalism: many detours, but the same destination. This week, we talk to an old friend of both of ours: Paul Almas. Paul played a key role in Luke’s reconstruction journey, was someone that both Luke and Scott looked up to 20 or 30 years ago in two very different church settings, and has been an ardent supporter of the Recovering Evangelicals Project from the very beginning. He’s constantly plugged into various podcasts and sending us articles of political, religious, theological, sociological, and/or philosophical interest. Points that we talked about in today’s conversation include: his father was a circuit preacher in rural Canada in the 30s and 40s Paul was steeped in Fundamentalist, Dispensational Theology … Young Earth Creationism …. inerrancy/infallibility of scripture …. he fully embraced all of this for the first two decades of his life a very tightly knit family and social group (church congregation) for young members in this community, becoming a pastor/missionary was top priority, while secular work was second choice in order to pursue what ultimately became his career (industrial design and consulting), Paul needed to leave the constraints of his community and go to the big city (Toronto) to get education; this exposed him to a whole new world started to ask questions in his youth years, especially when the church brought in travelling preachers/evangelists with their emotionally manipulative revivalist tent meetings as a young adult, he was very much involved in teaching, leading, and serving as elder and board member in the churches he attended (and helped build) in his 40s, became disenchanted with the church as an institution became critical of much of the theology that he had held firmly during the first two or three decades of his life, particularly the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture, morality of many Old Testament stories, Dispensational Theology, atonement theology, the blood of Christ, his concept of God, the Trinity, etc. …. needed to soften his positions on those aspects of his theology and belief system, eventually reconfiguring parts and even rejecting other parts outright when he subjected his personal theology to the creative problem-solving methodological tools that he developed for his business (industrial consulting), or the critical thinking that comes with the Scientific Method, he found big holes and gaps (see 29:00 – 32:00) he still fully believed in a creative force, but had serious problems with the arrogance and certainty that theology invoked … still “has not landed” on many theological issues about which he previously had great certainty what is Paul’s secret? why has he been able to give up on many of the same theological tenets that other people have blamed for the shipwrecking of their faith, and yet still retain a firmly committed Christian belief? Answer: you have to learn to be comfortable with mystery … requiring certainty is fatal to belief no longer interested in the institution of church, but greatly values the fellowship and community of church any regrets about that journey? … none at all … rough patches were learning and growth opportunities even as he’s “turning up the seats, putting up the chair tables, and getting ready for final landing approach,” he’s getting excited to meet the creative force from which we came when asked can/should Evangelicalism be recovered, his answer was: “I don’t think so. I’d never use the label anymore.” We need to find a new label for what we want it to mean. As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic … If you’re interested in other personal life stories of people we’ve interviewed, check out this thematic collection. Image by Kevin Klarer from Pixabay. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive