Apparently, due to the fact that somebody from my former (and most recent) parish discovered this blogsite of mine, there has been quite a buzz there at First Baptist Church in Paris, IL. I can certainly understand that since, while I did make more of an effort to diffuse -- and in some cases dismantle -- what I felt were poorly based or just flat out incorrect beliefs and ideas about the Bible near the end of my time there, this blog nonetheless represents a much more open viewpoint than they would not have fully expected. The truth is, I don't mind people knowing about what I think, but if they're going to talk about it, I'd rather them understand me rather than presume to know (and then gossip about) where I stand from something they heard from someone else or read and misunderstood in the context and purpose of this blogsite.
And so...to my former parishioners:
I certainly understand the confusion that might have been evoked -- as those who sat in a pew and listened to me teach -- to have heard or assumed from this site that I am an agnostic in some way or another. That being said, since the word is out (or at least some kind of "word"), I almost feel a certain ethical obligation to explain a few things...if for no other reason than to prevent wrong or misinterpreted information from hurting anyone who trusted me as their pastor and teacher.
I stated on the last Sunday morning I was at FBC that my beliefs had changed on some things and that my resignation was a decision based upon the desire to be honest and open about my thoughts and beliefs...something I just wasn't completely able to do in a Baptist church setting. I haven't really changed much belief-wise since I left, though my openness in this blog might have made it seem so.
I've always been a "truth-seeker", and so I've never been totally satisfied with any particular "set" of beliefs for any particular long stretch of time. I believe in asking questions, and questions often lead us to study, to analyze, to dig deeper...though that seems to scare the daylights out of some people. Some denounce asking "too many questions" since it can lead one to be "too skeptical" – but...what is "too skeptical"? After all, one can be a skeptic without being a cynic. A true skeptic is one who wants to know the truth and refuses to accept pat-answers or "just believe this because X or Y said so" kinds of answers. A true skeptic in the most positive sense is one who won't even just believe something because a religious tradition, a religious leader, or even an ancient religious book tells him to believe it. That doesn't mean that all religious traditions, leaders or books are necessarily wrong, but it does mean we are all responsible for what we choose to believe and should be careful about what we accept, what we reject, and (especially) what we teach our children. I don't think God is afraid of our questions; in fact, I would think God would *expect* us to use this amazing brain to its fullest extent. Despite what some may think, being skeptical doesn't always lead one to *abandon* beliefs...in fact, the whole point of digging and asking questions is to try to debunk false beliefs and hang on to good ones. I wish more people in general and Christians in particular would do that, don't you? Belief should always be a process open to adjustment.
I'm not a full-blown agnostic and definitely not an atheist. I previously stated in my profile that I had atheistic leanings. Well, I have theistic leanings too! And if we were all honest, most people have questioned God's existence at some time in their lives for one or more of a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, I took that description off because I know it is so easily misunderstood. I am not an atheist, and never will be. Atheism is not, in my opinion, an honest intellectual position. Agnosticism (or certain aspects of it) by contrast is much more honest...though again, I am not an agnostic. A true agnostic is one who (temporarily) suspends beliefs in the supernatural because he or she simply hasn't been personally convinced that the evidence is strong enough. "Agnostic" means "don't know for sure". Suspending belief and taking a stand to say you *don't* believe ( i.e., atheism) are two very different things. I am actually neither one of those things. I do have agnostic *tendencies* about some things, but I also believe that agnosticism and faith are two sides of the same coin in many ways. What do I mean? The objects of faith, despite how so many try to "prove" them, cannot be proven...that's why they are matters of faith! So, one may or may not have faith that there is a God, but that's not because they can *prove* or *disprove* God's existence. Faith or non-faith in God is based upon a collection of ideas, rational evaluations, and personal experiences. I do not "know" God exists in the same way that I might "know" I am typing this on my computer in front of me right now and you do not "know" God exists like you "know" you are reading this on yours. And so, one might say that I don't *know* that God exists, but I have *faith* that God exists. Honestly, I don't know (and niether do you) that there is an afterlife. Why? Because I've not yet experienced it. But I can have faith and hope that there's one. In that way, we are all agnostic ( i.e., we don't "know") to a certain extent in our faith claims. I don't think that cheapens faith, I think it defines faith. I don't think it weakens faith, I think it reveals the essence of faith. Indeed, there is no way knowledge can ever destroy faith since faith is a personal choice. Some of the most well-educated people in the world have faith, some don't. Their choice.
So where do I stand on certain things? Am I still a Christian? One place in a blog below, I stated that I wasn't. Of course, that (as well as certain other things including the title of this blog page) was intentionally provocative in order to spur on discussion and debate on this site (which I really enjoy). So, to unpack that statement a little and answer the question: I would say NO and YES and NO again. "No" I am not a Christian in the way Christians are defined in mainline evangelical churches today. I do not believe saying a prayer in order to be "saved from hell" is anything close to what Jesus originally had in mind when he called people to follow him. Popular Christianity has evolved into something more akin to American pop-religion with lots of beliefs and ideas based upon practically no biblical scholarship and replete with completely mistaken -- sometimes grotesquely so -- biblical interpretations. The modern conservative-evangelical movement has an interesting and surprisingly recent history, but I won't get into that here. Suffice it to say: modern, popular Christianity (especially in this country) is a very culturally powerful but misinformed movement. So, no, I am not a Christian in that way.
However, I would say "YES" that I believe in the mission of the Jesus of history. The Jesus of history is very different (and a lot more challenging!) than the Jesus preached in mainline evangelical churches today. Though I suggested this and other books to the church before I left, read "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" by Marcus Borg to get a quick overview of the Jesus I'm talking about. It will amaze you. Incidentally, Borg is a Christian and a scholar. I don't believe Jesus was as interested in "getting us into heaven" as he was in trying to change the world here and now. He was a social revolutionary who was elevated by his followers to a position of divinity. Hold on there, though. This doesn't mean Jesus wasn't "sent" by God or that God didn't "speak through" or "use" or was somehow "one" with Jesus, simply that those ideas about him arose after his death...and the further from his death you get, the more the divine Jesus evolves in writings by his followers. Interesting enough, that evolution is seen in the very Gospels themselves, though parishioners are not taught this in mainline churches. The scholarship behind the current understanding of the early church and the Jesus of history is quite well understood and developed...it's just shielded from the masses by popular dogma. But (and this is important) scholarly understandings of the historical Jesus and the evolution of the early church doesn't preclude one's choice to believe that Jesus was somehow also God. That is a matter of faith from your own personal experiences with Jesus as you encounter him in biblical stories, in prayer, etc. Some Christians follow Jesus but don't believe that he was a "God-man", others do. My point is that from a historical point of view, Jesus was a social and religious revolutionary –- we need to get to know *that* Jesus first before we just decide all he wanted was for us to believe in him so we wouldn't "go to hell". That second version of Jesus (just believe and live forever) is the easy one. The Jesus of history challenges us to change the world if we want to claim to follow him.
So, YES, I do believe in the mission of the historical Jesus. But... NO I don't claim to follow him as he demanded and (without trying to sound too presumptuous here) I doubt you do either. When you peel back the layes of tradition about Jesus (even those found in the Gospels themselves), you find a man who is uncompromising in his ideals and purposes. Most people today who claim to be Christians simply do not represent what Jesus was truly demanding of his followers. When you come face-to-face with the Jesus of history through study and meditation, he will rock your world to the core. I will refer you to self-study for the details. Leave a comment or e-mail me at kdhuddleston@gmail.com if you'd like some resources for that kind of study. Again, suffice it to say, I am only being honest when I say that while I follow Jesus in some ways, I do not claim to be a disciple in the truest sense (in his "inner circle" as seen in the Gospels) because, quite frankly, some of the levels of personal sacrifice he calls for, I'm just not ready to embrace. Before you might be tempted to judge me on that, I would encourage you to shed *some* of the pre-conceived ideas about the Jesus you've learned about in Sunday School growing up; temporarily mentally set aside the "just-believe-in-him" Jesus preached in churches today that requires little more than praying to him, reading your Bible, and trying not to sin and get to know the Jesus who wanted to change the world...and is more relevant today than ever. Of course, there is nothing wrong with prayer, reading the Bible, and trying to be a good person, but Jesus demanded so much more than that of his followers.
Do I believe the Bible? The Bible is not some magical book handed to us by God. It is an anthology of writings from many people, many places and many times charged with many political and religious motives from the ancient world. However, it is also a book expressing the experiences of others with God through their cultures and times and mindsets. That said, people claim to continue to experience the presence of God through the stories and writings in the Bible – and who can say they're wrong? Nobody. That is a personal faith-experience. The Bible is Christianity's guidebook, and a powerful one at that. Unfortunately, in most churches (though not all!) it's not being taught to Christians correctly because the popular interpretations embraced by the evangelical conservative mainstream hold sway over (and prevent) informed education based upon good, solid scholarship. Preachers preach doctrine and dogma (and even superstition that has no biblical or factual basis), but they are not educating their parishioners. I personally think that is just tragic and (quite frankly) shameful. Christians can learn so much about the book they use, avoid so many hurtful and bogus interpretations, and actually be challenged in the right way if only their pastors would get an education or educate themselves.
Well, I could keep on going...but I will stop with this small book. If anyone who may read this has questions for me, wants to discuss any of this, or whatever, then just e-mail me at kdhuddleston@gmail.com . I would be happy to reply.
Whatever else anyone might wonder, I am not unhappy, not without faith, and not some "fallen" preacher (well, those in certain circles might think so...but I don't put much stock in their opinions anyway
). Yes, I can be very caustic and aggressively critical of conservative evangelical Christianity, but only because I believe that much of what it is teaching is simply wrong. There is a growing movement of churches that are finally getting in tune with scholarship and offering a new and powerful vision of Christianity more in accordance to what the original Jesus was doing, saying and wanted. Who knows? I may end up pastoring a church like that (which should tell you that I am not anti-Christian!).
Best wishes to all.
Kevin
