While I believe my Dobsonesque childhood damaged me in certain ways, I am thankful for my evangelical upbringing if only for, ironically, my skepticism. My parents taught me to be skeptical of everything, other than my own religious views. I was to be on the look out for big government moves to a New World Order, raise a cautious eye to new religious movements (or “cults”), and question everything that society and science through my way. They just didn’t expect that they gave me the same tools to critique my own religious upbringing.

But what now? I continue to keep a skeptical view, including of the sociological reports I must read for my academic life as well as the science I read in pop culture. But what about the rest of my life? Can I move past that Christian worldview? Is it healthy to continue to brew on past beliefs? As a religious studies major, it is inevitable, and I probably have made it harder on myself by choosing such a discipline. But what about this site? Is it a help, or a hindrance to mature growth?

Are we ex-Christians sulking about, fooling themselves that we are providing positive reinforcements for other non-believers and soon-to-be non-believers. Or is it what we say it is – a resource for former and skeptical religionists? Perhaps health and instruction is not part of what we do. Perhaps we are merely deconstructers, allowing the faithless to flounder in their own philosophies of non-belief. Is it possible for this sort of community to act as just another crutch, another religious-like entity that cannot think beyond itself?

I present these questions not as a criticism, but an inquiry – not as a debate, but a conversation. When is it time to move past perpetual de-conversion and just live? For some of us, this article will ring more truth than others. We are all at different stages in our lives. What stage are you in? Is the project of de-conversion a healthy step, an immature one, or a little of both?

Comments, please.

- The Apostate

There are many theories about the fate of the Ark of the Covenant, of which the majority revolve around its transportation to Egypt and beyond or a secret location in Israel in which the Ark was hidden away prior to the Babylonian conquest. One such theory that is particularly intriguing is the Ethiopian legend. The Ark is only a small part of Ethiopia’s long and peculiar legend and history associated with both Judaism and Christianity.

The Ark of the Covenant is said to contain the “testimony” of God’s covenant with the Hebrews (Dt.31:26), a golden jar with manna and the rod of Aaron (Ex. 16:32-34, Heb. 9:4). However, 1 Kings 8:9 states that the only contents of the Ark were the two tablets of stone. The Ark, even from its Biblical record, is concealed in smoke and mirrors as High Priests themselves, notably the first one, Aaron, were only allowed to see the Ark on specific days. The Ark was covered when carried among the Hebrews and hidden in the Holy of Holies. This Biblical account of the Ark of the Covenant follows its many journeys from the wanderings of Egypt to the “Promised Land” of Palestine. The Ark of the Covenant was the subject of many narratives throughout the Tanakh, including its capture by Israel’s nemesis, the Philistines. It was not until the 6^th century BCE that the Ark disappeared from the Biblical records when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. Consequently, the Ark then became an artifact of legend comparable to the Holy Grail.

In November, many Ethiopian Orthodox Christians made a pilgrimage to the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion in Axum, Ethiopia, during the Festival of Maryam Zion. The Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion is the oldest and most significant church in the ancient African nation. The significance of the church is twofold. It holds the legacy of the nation’s first Orthodox Christian’s emperor, Ezana, in the 4^th century who is claimed to have constructed the original. It also is the only church in the world to claim possession of the original Ark of the Covenant. Various scholars and treasure-seekers, such as Dr. Bernard Leeman and Graham Hancock, have supported the validity of this claim. The notion that the ancient Jewish artifact is resting in Ethiopia may be absurd or at least counter-intuitive to the average reader. However, the claim made by the Church of Mary of Zion might be deceptively coherent once one is learns of the traditions and legends associated with Ethiopian nation.

Like most legends, the tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is a delicate mixture of fact and fantasy. The claim of the church’s origins is obvious to the average Bible reader. The Book of Acts of the Apostles gives us a narrative in which the apostle Philip meets an Ethiopian eunuch on the road to Gaza (Acts 8). The eunuch is stated to be a treasurer of the Queen of Ethiopia, Candace. In the passage the eunuch is conveniently reading a prophecy in the Book of Isaiah, a book in the Jewish Tanakh, at which time Philip proceeds to interpret the prophecy in the light of the new Christian movement. After his conversion, the eunuch is said to continue on his way, presumably back to Ethiopia.

Contemporary historians doubt the validity of the Book of Acts and consequently this narrative is dubious. Part of the ambiguity is seen with any history of the Axum Empire. The Axum Empire was located in Northeastern Africa and developed from the 4^th century BCE to its domination in 100 CE and lasted until around the 7^th or 10^th century CE. It is more likely that a Syrian Greek, Frumentius, who converted the Axumite emperor Ezana to Christianity, had brought Christianity to Ethiopia. However, the Christian tradition brought with it the legends and traditions of its Judaic predecessor, to which the Ethiopians had seeming connections.

The Kebra Nagast, or the Glory of Kings, is a book dated back at least seven hundred years that contains the developed legend of the Solomonic dynasty of the Ethiopian royal family. According to the Kebra Nagast, Ebna Lahakim was the first Emperor of Ethiopia and was the son of Israel’s King Solomon and Queen Makeda of Sheba. His royal name was David, after his Israelite grandfather, and the name was later changed to Menelik I in Ethiopian tradition.¹ Contemporary scholars argue whether the ancient kingdom of Sheba is actually in Ethiopia or if it is in modern-day Yemen. Regardless, the tradition is that Ebna Lahakim visited his father’s kingdom and upon his return he was to receive one son of each of his nobles and each of his temple priests along with a replica of the sacred Ark of the Covenant. This may seem strange at first, but it is written that Solomon welcomed his firstborn son joyfully and offered him the heir to the Israelite throne. Ebna Lahakim, however, preferred to rule his mother’s realm in Ethiopia. Solomon had Zadok, the high priest, anoint Ebna Lahakim before the Ark of the Covenant as king of Ethiopia under the royal name of David (or David II).² Ebna Lahakim would return to Ethiopia not only as the ancestral heir to the throne, but also as the spiritual heir of the Israelite throne.

The return to Ebna Lahakim’s nation would not be without a significant event to the history of Ethiopia. According to the Kebra Nagast, an angelic intervention caused Zadok’s son Azarias, who was destined for Ethiopia along with the other priestly sons, to plot the removal of the Ark of the Covenant to take to Ethiopia. With the assistance of heavenly beings the plot was successful. Once the convoy back to Ethiopia was out of Israel and into Egypt the conspirators told Ebna Lahakim of the scheme. Ebna Lahakim has previously thought the convoy held the promised replica of the Ark, but the conspirators had in fact switched the two. Ebna Lahakim is said to have danced for joy before the Ark as his grandfather had and all the deities of Egypt shattered into pieces.³ Henceforth, as the Kebra Nagast proclaims, Ethiopia would follow the God of the Israelites and turn away from their deities of stone.

There are three major and equally significant criticisms of the tradition of the Ark being held at the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion. The first obvious criticism is of the validity of the Kebra Nagast itself. The story is told in a myth-like fashion and creates doubters among the scientific community as well as other pseudo-scientific circles. The underlying criticism, however, is the political use of the Kebra Nagast. The earliest claims to the text present the writing of the text to the 13^th century, aligning it with the emergence of a new kingship that claimed heritage from the Solomonic dynasty. The story in the Kebra Nagast solidified the new dynasty for the next seven hundred years until its fall in 1974. The argument is that the creation of the myth of the dynasty was used as political propaganda. This certainly gives a motive for the creation of the text but is hardly hard evidence against the narrative, nor does it explain the problematic claim of the possession of the Ark of the Covenant.

A second damaging criticism builds on top of the political motive of the Kebra Nagast. The second criticism is the argument from silence. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims that no one is allowed to ever see or touch the Ark⁴ except for the a designated person who never leaves the confines of the Church. Again, the argument from silence is hardly a convincing one, especially when in accordance with the Tanakh’s laws about the Ark. The silence of proof does, however, create doubts in a society in which empirical evidences are key to any claim. It is important to note that after the bloody revolution of 1974 that during the Mengistu regime, no one came to investigate the validity of the Ark.⁵ The fear of even the possibility of a powerful religious relic is evidence of the instilled belief of at least the possibility of the validity to the claim.

The final criticisms are mainly competitions for the claim to the Ark. Competing theories range from a hidden Ark of some vague location in Israel to a specific claim that the Ark is underneath the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Skeptics might say that the Ark would have certainly been destroyed by the Babylonians or by simply by the deterioration over time. Furthermore, skeptics might say that the Ark itself, based on a Biblical record, never actually existed. Some of these competing theories are based on probabilities whereas others are based on faith in one text or another.

The Ethiopian claim, whether true or not is an intriguing one, if not only for it’s simple, yet mythical, tradition. A recent complication of the Ethiopian claim have allowed for new interpretations. One new interpretation finds a synthesis between the theories of the Ark of the Covenant. Like all good compromises, the synthesis would probably leave a bad taste in each of the different theories’ mouths. The complication in Ethiopia is the assertion that there have been linguistic problems in the communication of what the Ark of the Covenant is. It has been mentioned that the “Ark” is actually the original tablets that were the contents of the “Throne” of the Ark of the Covenant. The claim follows that the original tablets are what is held in the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion and that the throne, if any, that it sits one would have been a copy of the original. Since there is no current evidence of the original tablets, if they have ever existed, it should be maintained that there is no evidence for their location in Ethiopia or Israel. The problem with the theories is that they continue to look at the journey of the Ark in a structural and linear fashion. Munro-Hay states that the spiritual or esoteric belief in the Ark entertains reverence not through science, but through faith and mysticism that allows them a connection to the Holy Land of Israel.⁶

The Ark of the Covenant, as the Kebra Nagast states, is a heavenly object and thus even that “original” Ark of the Israelites was only an imitation of the “True Ark of the Covenant”. Even the Biblical accounts of the Ark, which were written hundreds of years after their claimed narratives, present the Ark surrounded in mystery as though even they did not know the actual origins. The Ark was a representative model of the promise from the Hebrew God, YHWH, to his chosen people. To understand the Ark as a single material object that has survived through the millenniums would be to misunderstand the purpose and even the truth of the Ark as a covenant. It could very well be that the narrative presented in the Kebra Nagast gives not only an authority to the Solomonic dynasty, but also a spiritual lineage for the Ethiopian people represented through their “Ark of the Covenant” as it did for the Jewish people.

The connection between the ancient Ethiopian state and the Judeo-Christian tradition can be followed through any given number of examples. The existence of a powerful Axumite Empire is a validated claim that has given credibility to the historical account of the Tanakh and other rabbinical writings. The introduction of the Kebra Nagast to the west in the 17^th and 18^th centuries has presented a whole new journey of the Ark of the Covenant that was previously not even considered. The simple narrative of a “stolen” Ark has been accepted by the adherents of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church for centuries and cannot be brushed off because of the convenience of political utility or its sacred nature. That said, the possibility of such an object surviving millenniums of travel and war is remote. Furthermore, the interpretation of the Ark of the Covenant being a singular material object is western and is narrow-minded at best. The sacred and esoteric nature of the Ark of the Covenant continues to keep it shrouded in mystery and in the hands of those spiritually initiated in the tradition of the God of Abraham.

- TheApostate

Elements of Jesus’ secrecy are still prevalent in the other synoptic gospels but are given internal explanations based on the author’s purpose. Matthew, for example, whose audience was probably Jewish, explains Mark’s prevailing propensity to Messianic secrecy by using Jewish scriptures, such as in Mt. 12:16 and 13:11: the gospel writer recalls passages from Isaiah, not only reduce the significant of the secrecy, but also to highlight the prophetic fulfillments of Jesus. Yet looking at the earlier Markan source, we do not have such explanations of fulfillment of scripture. Contrarily, Mark does not give many explanations to any of the references to Jesus’ secret nature apart from the obvious references to basic privacy.

Three different types of secretive references are made in Mark’s gospel: avoidance, prohibitions, and revelations. Emic explanations often result in the dismantling of all three separately, refusing to recognize that Mark intermingled an underlying theme. It is important to note that, in all likeliness, the entire concept of Jesus’ Messianic secret was a Markan invention, leaving much scholarship to ask why Mark invoked such a notion, most like an additive to the historical Jesus.²

For the sake of space I will merely state that the differences between the secretive references are merely categorical, each involving their own set of argumentation. Yet, most discourse concerning the Messianic secret is limited to the prohibitive aspect of Jesus’ ministry, in which he demands demonic entities to keep quiet concerning his Messiahship (1:25, 1:34, and 3:12), as well as commanding the healed to keep silent about his deeds (1:43-45, 5:43, 7:36, and 8:26). Scholars have not much concerned themselves with the avoidance aspect, and probably rightly so, since they can be explained away quite easily (1:35, 7:24 and 9:30). Although both of these secretive aspects would certainly support the Messianic secret thesis, Gnostic Christians are more indebted by the revelatory material in Mark (3:13, 4:11, 4:34, and 9:2ff), as well as some fairly cryptic passages that are not easily explicated (12:35-37 and 13:32ff), and are more or less futile to attempt any meaningful interpretation.

The secretive revelatory material in Mark differs in nature from the other two aspects, since it does not strictly concern the Messiahship as such, but rather to the secretive or cryptic nature of Jesus’ teachings. Hence, the revelatory or teaching material does not strongly attribute to the argument that the Messianic secret points solely to the failure of the Jewish people to recognize the Messiah, as T.A. Burkill argues³ , or that the true Messianic secret culminates at the resurrection of Christ as others have argued.⁴ If, however, any of those explanations are correct, it does not take away from the possibility from deviant explanations such as those presented by the Gnostics.

It is not difficult to comprehend how Mark may have attributed to the application of the Gnostic principle of gnosis to early Christian groups. Mark repeatedly separates the disciples from other listeners: at times this separation is physical, such as the appointment of the disciples (3:13) and the transfiguration (9:2ff) – both of which happen on a mountain. Additionally, the transfiguration distinguishes a core within the disciples themselves, setting apart Peter, James, and John. More importantly, however, the separation of disciples from other followers frequently concerns the explanation of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven such as in 4:34, stating that Jesus would only speak in parables to the crowds, yet explained the meanings to the disciples in private. Wrede replies that elevating the idea of separate education of the disciples is only intelligible for “modern eyes”, only to fill subjective gaps.⁵ Wrede, however unfortunate, is at a disadvantage in his explication due to his lack of awareness of the Gnostic text that would not be discovered for another half-century.

In fact, the Gnostics did, as we will later examine, elevate and utilize the idea of special education to the disciples. Whether one believes this to be Mark’s intention or not is a matter of faith, and it is impossible to solidify with any amount of certainty. The teachings of Jesus according to Mark allow for esoteric interpretations, if one so choses. In 4:11, Jesus says, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables…” Hence, Jesus continually taught in parables, often leaving many in amazement and, as noted above, only explained the true meanings to his apostolic initiates.

As noted in most Bibles, the ending of Mark is under some controversy, with some important early manuscripts ending at 16:8, whereas others include twelve extra verses. It is probable that the twelve verses were not the original ending, but it is as of yet uncertain whether the authentic ending was lost or if it ended at 16:8. My own interpretation is that the current ending is either similar to the original or was added very early. The longer ending does not appear to be very congruent with later orthodox traditions, and seems favourable to a Gnostic interpretation. In this ending, Jesus specifically appears first to Mary Magdalene, unlike the ambiguity of Matthew (28:1-10) or the completely contrary account in Luke (24:1-40). Secondly, Mark refers to Jesus appearing “in another form” (16:12), certainly not a phrase that would be invented by orthodox Christians in the 2nd century combating the Gnostic idea of docetism.

The significance of the presentation of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel as offered above is that Jesus was, in the very least, misunderstood and/or he was purposely cryptic. The former idea would be used to explain the veiled Messiahship, perpetuating the idea that Jesus purposely did not want to reveal himself before its time. Many have interpreted the historicity as an explanation for why Jesus was not immediately recognized as the Messiah.⁶ The latter idea would be advanced by adherence to Gnostic Christianity. Debate continues about the dating and authenticity of early gospels, but most scholars accept an early dating of some Pauline writings, the precedence of Mark (as compared to the other canonical gospels), and a relatively early dating of the Gospel of Thomas (as early as 50 CE, but at late as 140 CE).

The certainty of the relationship between Mark’s Gospel and Paul’s letters is dubious, but it is fair to say that the majority of evangelion was spread through oral tradition in the combination form of chreia (providing a brief narrative frame for a saying of Jesus⁷) and adage. Paul likely had access to such oral traditions, and the Gospel of Thomas appears to be a document based entirely on this method of oral tradition, often encapsulated simply by “Jesus said, [then an adage of Jesus].” This use of chreia is important because the narrative frame is often more prominent than the saying itself – many of the differences among the gospels, especially Thomas, are not the sayings, but the frame in which they are said.

In the time between the writing of Mark’s Gospel, between 65 and 80 CE (I tend to favour the 70-73 CE dating due to Mark’s ‘mini-apocalypse’), and the surge of Gnostic Christian writings, in the mid to late 2nd century, there was likely an explosion of diverse teachings and traditions concerning the personage of Jesus in order to account for the vast assortment of writings that have been made reference to in orthodox writings as well as those of which we have found in the 20th century. The vastly different perspectives of Jesus were often resultants of the placement of his attributed sayings in contrasting situations. Some Biblical scholars note at least three different trajectories from the time of Mark onward, each with their own texts, traditions, theologies, and internal diversities.⁸

The Gnostic Christians arguably gained root around the time of Mark and has captured much attention in the 20th century, especially since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts. The comparatively radical Gnostic Christians competed as a trajectory alongside what would become orthodox Christianity, as well as different forms of Jewish Christianity, and was eventually forced underground when it was declared heretical by an ever-increasingly hierarchal and relatively unified church in Rome.

Gnostic Christianity is best represented by a theology of material dualism amalgamated with cosmological myths drastically opposed to the Judeo-Christian worldview; Jesus was not a Saviour of the sinful, but rather a divine transmitter of special knowledge – delivering the Truth to those whom were worthy.⁹ This view is portrayed in Gnostic Gospels ranging from the Gospel of Thomas (50-140 CE) through to the Gospels of Peter (70-160 CE), Judas (130-170 CE), Mary (130-200 CE) and Philip (200-250 CE), just to name a few. There are many prevailing features in these Gnostic Gospels that appear to be borrowed from the tradition of Mark: the disclosure of teachings to certain persons, the enigmatic nature of the teachings, and the nature of Jesus’ appearance.

The relative dating between Mark and the Gospel of Thomas is unknown, but there is no mistake that Thomas accentuates the notion of secrecy. The Gnostic gospel even begins, “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke…;” the first verse following the introduction is just as arcane: “”Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.” Thomas already diverges towards a strictly Gnostic interpretation by insinuating that salvation comes solely from knowledge, a soteriological argument that is silent in Mark.

The revelation of special teachings to exclusive persons is present, just as in fourth chapter of Mark, except for in this case the teaching is revealed only to one disciple – Thomas. Unlike the Gospel of Mark, which makes vague references to the explanation of parables, the Gospel of Thomas, in saying 13, explicitly states that Jesus gave Thomas three secrets, none of which were to be disclosed to the other disciples nor are they written in the text. Not only does this secret revelation carry on a tradition of esoteric teachings, but also disseminates the convention of restricted worthiness. The same principle will be used in the Gnostic Gospel of Judas, even though the recipient changes to Judas rather than Thomas; the idea is the same as Jesus whispers to Judas, “Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom.”¹⁰ We see the same attitude again in the Gnostic Gospel of Mary; after Peter requests Mary to teach, she replies “I will teach you about what is hidden from you.”¹¹

Not only is this a continuation of exclusive revelation, but also appears to be taking some literary freedom and filling in a narrative gap in Mark 16:9-11. The passage in Mark informed readers that Mary had indeed seen the resurrected Christ first, as previously mentioned, and then followed Jesus’ instructions to tell the other disciples, yet they did not believe her. The Mary gospel plays on this narration, stating that she saw Jesus in a vision, yet the disciples did not believe her.¹² It is evident that the Gnostic gospels were stressing the secretive nature through extremely limited revelation, much more so than Mark’s gospel.

Mark usually limited his revelation to the twelve apostles, and at the very most to the three most intimate disciples, yet each of the Gnostic Gospels purposely restrict the special teaching to one, emphasizing the esoteric nature of Christ. An additional argument could be made that the disciples that did not receive “the mysteries of the kingdom” or “the special knowledge” were literary devices meant to contrast the writer’s purpose with that of opposing viewpoints at the time.

While the exclusivity of revelation radically re-interprets Mark, the teachings themselves are much more subtle, yet equally powerful. Mark is a short, concise, and often theologically primitive. Because of this fact, other Gospels, both Gnostic and those that became known as canonical and orthodox, could add what was felt necessary to advocate a certain theological or philosophical idea (or ideal), without radically perverting the original source. Deducing from the two-source hypothesis, this is exactly what the writers of Matthew and Luke did.

As mentioned earlier, Mark makes vague references to the secrets of the kingdom of heaven and then makes use of parables to explicate this nature of this kingdom, only to reveal their true meanings to the disciples. One can only speculate on the criticisms the Gnostics must have had towards those who would argue that the secrets of the kingdom of heaven was actually the secret of the redeeming Messiah; we know that the Gnostics ridiculed Luke’s literal resurrection, harshly pronouncing it a “faith of fools.”¹³ Even the idea that the disciples, who were apparently given the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, continually misunderstood the teachings of Jesus, even after the resurrection, as their disbelief is illustrated in the last chapter of Mark: this in itself is an argument for the reduction of twelve (or three) recipients of the secrets in the canonical gospels to one in the Gnostics.

The problem with trying to explicate the comparisons or contrasts of Mark and the Gnostic gospels in reference to the teachings themselves is the limited narrative of the former and the esoteric quality of the latter. In the Gospel of Thomas, in saying 13 after the disclosure of the secrets to Thomas, the other disciples inquire into the aside, only to receive the response that the revelation of those secrets would surely cause the other disciples to stone Thomas and then they themselves would be destroyed; afterwards, in saying 62, Jesus asserts that the mysteries are told to only those who are worthy.

Later, there is a reference to the Jewish-Christian trajectory in saying 39, stating that the Pharisees have hidden the keys of gnosis, not only had they not let anyone attain gnosis, but they themselves have not. Mark 4:11’s revealing of secrets is expanded and prioritized in the Gospel of Thomas, becoming a foundation for Gnostic Christian gospels. In the Gospel of Judas, the secrets revealed are those of the Gnostic cosmology, similar to that found in the Pistis Sophia. In the Gospel of Mary, the secret is the adultery of dualism, borrowing ideas similar to Platonic Idealism.

Because of the uncertainty of the historical relationship between the Gospels of Thomas and Mark, the only claim that can be made with any certainty is that a tradition of withholding certain knowledge had developed between the time of Jesus and the writings of the gospels, with Mark taking a looser, cautious approach and Thomas promoting a much more radical perspective. I personally doubt the earliest datings of the Gospel of Thomas that would admit a precedence of Thomas before Mark or two competing independent traditions. The overlapping sayings that are found in Thomas and the synoptic gospels point more convincingly to fracturing of trajectories, especially if there was a so-called later “gnosticizing redactor”, after Mark rather than a Thomasine precedence or a dual primacy of Mark and Thomas.¹⁴ The writers of the Gnostic gospels, at least after the Gospel of Thomas, certainly had access to the Markan text whether they extensively used it or not.

The most conclusive argument concerning the relationship between Mark and the later Gnostic Gospels is that the ambiguous and seemingly unexplained references to secretive acts and teachings in Mark’s Gospel was exploited and advanced by future works. To claim that the canonical gospels are of much more authority solely because of the reliability of their dating could possibly be erroneous; not only is there is reason to believe a relatively early dating of Thomas, it is also possible that the Gospels of Judas and Mary were written shortly after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Messianic secret in Mark’s Gospel, later reduced in Matthew and Luke, may have simply been a way to explain why Jesus was not recognized as the Messiah, but the tradition that developed in Gnostic trajectory did not interpret it as such. Rather, the secretive nature of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark allowed an opportunity to present the Gnostic Saviour, a source of divine knowledge, ready to bestow the secrets of the kingdom of haven upon those select few who were worthy.

Note: This paper is a sketch of a larger piece I am currently working on. The underlying arguments remain, but I am constructing a 30+ page article which will offer much more discussion on many of the assumptions I had to take for granted in this smaller paper. Any criticism is beneficial and is greatly appreciated.

- The Apostate

¹ Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. Trans. J.C.G. Greig. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1971. p. 11.
² Ibid., p. 33.
³ Burkill, T.A. New Light on the Earliest Gospel. New York: Cornell, 1972. p. 5. Also Burkill, T.A. Mysterious Revelation. New York: Cornell, 1963. p. 319.
⁴ Helms, Randel McCraw. Who Wrote the Gospels. Altadena: Millennium Press, 1997. p. 12.
⁵ Wrede, p. 44.
⁶ Helms, p. 12.
⁷ Arnel, William. Relig 211 Handout. A Glossary of Technical Terms. “Chreia”. University of Alberta. July 24, 2006.
⁸ Litke, Wayne. Relig 313 Lecture. University of Alberta. October 3, 2006.
⁹ Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House, 1979. Vintage, 1981. p. 17.
¹⁰ Kasser, Meyer, and Wurst. Eds. The Gospel of Thomas. Washington: National Geographic, 2006. p. 23.
¹¹ Gospel of Mary. BG 8502. 6:3.
¹² Ibid., BG 8502. 7:1-2 and 10:1-2, 3.
¹³ Origen, “Commentarium in 1 Corinthians.” Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909): 46-47.
¹⁴ Quispel, Gilles. “The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament.” Gnostic Studies. Vol II. Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Near East, 1975. p. 16.

Many Christians doubt not only evolutionary theory, but also the actual physical evidences for it (certainly a radical skepticism indeed!). Christians, by necessity, doubt not only Hinduism, but also its philosophically astute and more universal descendant, Buddhism. If they can doubt such a sophisticated and ancient religion such as Buddhism, then certainly New Religious Movements, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Latter Day Saints, that call themselves “Christian” are certainly no match for those of “sound theology”. Furthermore, scores of Christians doubt that morality apart from God is not only improbable, but completely impossible. And almost every Christian doubts that the universe can be explained without a divine presence. I celebrate such skepticism!

But why do Christians stop there? I understand the skeptical world-view, as I was deeply ingrained with a distrustful outlook of non-believers in my youth. Of course, those non-Christians were merely “lost,” whereas it was the true deceivers – the “cults” of Christianity and other religions – that were much more dangerous. Following my apologetic heroes of past and present, I utilized a combination of seething cynicism and Biblical prowess to combat such spiritual and intellectual duplicity. Many other Christians do the same. But why stop there? Why can we laugh at the Latter-Day Saint’s mention of the angel Moroni and the reforming teachings of Joseph Smith’s new scripture? Why do we immediately rebuke the Islamic prophet Mohammad’s revelation? Why is this possible, yet such vehement, mistrusting, pessimistic, suspicious skepticism not leveled at one’s own religion?

Faith has become a great many things, but it perpetually appears to be belief without doubt before anything else. Doubt has been and continues to be viewed as a poison to many. In my own family, doubt is held under great suspicion – such irony! Some individuals that have commented on our blog have even attributed doubt as Satan’s influence in our lives! I suppose a Christian’s doubt of everything non-Christian comes from their God: how very convenient for them. How this works for the de-convert I am unsure. I am certain someone will tell me that my own doubt crept in because of some spiritual shortcoming. How ye doubt my sincerity and former righteousness in the eyes of the Lord! How skeptical you are!

My own de-conversion came before I had ever even heard of Dawkins, Hitchens, or Dennett, or before I started taking Darwin or contemporary evolutionary theory seriously. It came before I read a word of Ehrman, Funk, Mack or any other so-called “liberal” scholar. I was not stabbed in the back by a church member or rubbed the wrong way by an uncomfortable sermon. I may have been disappointed with the hypocrisy of Christians, but that was my very impetus for attending a Bible College: to be on the forefront of a Biblical revival, one that was passionate about the Word and not based solely on the shallow emotional sensationalism I have witnessed. Although far from perfect, I lived a rather dull life and was not given many opportunities to commit any serious grievances against my Saviour – perhaps it was my self-righteous pride that led to my downfall? Yet, what I feel led to my de-conversion was the realization that my own hypocrisy was found on the double-edge sword of apologetics: what good was my faith if it could not stand up to the same rigorous criticism that I held others to?

Slowly but surely, my beliefs rotted away as I found that I had not only been deceiving myself, but I had deceived others. I too had given pre-packaged answers. In my younger years, Josh McDowell gave me fuel, later it was C.S. Lewis and William Craig. Still later, I found a deeper, more profound faith in the works of Tillich and Kierkegaard. Yet none seemed capable of explaining the obvious shortcomings I continually found in my skeptical inquiry of Christianity, whether in the historicism of the Bible or the philosophy of religion. The radical faith I found in the Christian existentialists could only last so long. Whether it was something as mundane as the choppy seams in the Gospel of John, or as major as the lack of Biblical or philosophical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, I found that the evidence which held my beliefs together was as shaky as the honest Mormon who tried to convince me that there really was a golden book that only Joseph Smith could read, or the Muslim who passionately argued that an angel really did appear to her founder, correcting the perversions of Judaism and Christianity.

I think this is a very hard thing for us to do. Not only is empathy, to walk around in another’s shoes, extremely difficult, but to actually critique and question your own views on virtually anything sometimes feels like pushing a camel through the eye of a needle. While we sometimes whine and complain about the country or city we live in, we will often defend it by bragging any exaggerated feature – this is easy for me as Vancouver has been repeatedly rated as the most livable city in the world by The Economist. Now imagine if we extend that to something much more controversial, such as our religion. Many not only live their entire lives based on these supernatural beliefs, but also stake our eternal being on such faiths.

Many of the articles on this site, including the recently reposted Easter special “Is He Live or Is He Memorex” by HeIsSailing, deal with what happens when some Christians start to question their literalistic, or even symbolic, faith. Certainly the resurrection, as written about in the that article, is key to the Christian faith, but what about the rest of the story? I have not only heard of, but also espoused many of the pre-packaged, shallow, non-skeptical answers to blatant contradictions through out the Jesus narratives. The historical and sometimes ideological anti-semitism of Christianity has led Christians to such a deviant understanding of the early Christian scripture that is horrendous by any rational standards. The Jewish authors of those text that we now include in the New Testament were so obviously meaning to interpret perceived spiritual events through their tradition that to see a historical document of any sorts is beyond reasonable comprehension. Now only if Christians would start treating their own beliefs as they treat everyone else’s.

-The Apostate (formerly known as “Thinking Ape”)

Like Mike, I too grew up as an evangelical conservative Christian, although not an in-your-face preaching type, I held fundamentalist views (Young earth, Biblical inerrancy, etc.), and was politically conservative. I had reservations about the hawks among my party (Reform/Canadian Alliance at that time), but I was both economically and socially conservative. However, in my second year of Bible college, I thoroughly studied the Sermon on the Mount which led to a political paradigm shift – away from conservatism and into a radical liberalism. Although I was still theologically conservative, my political shift forced me to take a look at my overall intellectual composition. It was at this time I came across an instructor at my conservative Bible college that I thought was completely heretical. I vocally and intensely opposed him at every turn during our Philosophy and Contemporary Church courses.

This instructor taught that morality was not something that should be the focus of our faith, but rather something that was built up after the foundations had been laid. Eventually his message would ring true for me. Our God was not a score-keeping God: even as Cosmic Judge, God did not sit there giving A’s, B’s, and C’s to us based on our good works or evil deeds. It was more important, however, to be authentic, and this authenticity would lead to conversations among fellow Christians and non-Christians, and more significantly, a breakdown of an “us versus them” mentality. As I started to increasingly agree with this particular instructor, and attending their new church meeting group, I learned how today’s evangelicalism was the result of modernism rather than a pursuit of the true church and point of Jesus’ ministry.

However, as life took me to a different locale and I could no longer participate in that particular conversation, I would continue to look for another group I could join, but I could not find any like it. I began to re-evaluate my notes I had taken when studying under my previous instructor. At the same time, I tried to solidify my faith with the works of Soren Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, and other Christian existentialists. However, the doubts that had started in Bible college could not be contained. Although those doubts had started with the Bible, it went far beyond that: experience with Christians, relationships with unbelievers, philosophy of religion, etc. Eventually, when I genuinely asked myself, “Why do I believe what I believe” I no longer had an answer.

I could hold to reading the scriptures in a new way, but what way is the right way? And do we hold this new way simply because we are uncomfortable with what the text is actually speaking, or because of the need to evolve our religious beliefs? Mike stated on his own blog,

I’ve commented before on the irony that most atheists I know actually seem to agree with the conservative, literalist interpretations of scripture held by most fundamentalists and evangelicals. I suppose (in part) because those interpretations are much easier to disbelieve and debunk.

I agree with Mike (well, the first statement anyway). But I don’t stop with this simple recognition: I understand why de-converted Christians look at scripture in this way. For Agnostics like myself and scholars such as Bart Ehrman, we understand that the authors of the books we now call “scripture” did not believe, for the most part, that they were writing “scripture.” We recognize that there are actually books in the Bible that are in complete opposition to other books in the Bible. We recognize that the earliest Christianities were just as full of deceit and intolerance as the fundamentalists today are. The fact is, Jesus was an Jewish apocalyptic fundamentalist. Paul was a post-Jewish apocalyptic fundamentalist. Jesus and Paul were not postmodernists nor were they pluralistic in anyway what so ever. Neither had any interest in the grand “conversation.” They knew the truth and delivered with, dare I say, a divine audacity. Although Paul wavered back and forth on the subject of grace and morality, there is little dispute that Jesus wavered at all – in no way did Jesus believe his blood would affect the sins of all those who would later call themselves “Christians.” Atheists and agnostics read into the literal meaning of the scripture because, for the most part, that is how they were written. Sure, there are many instances of symbolism – but for what? A complete overhaul of the complete plan of salvation? A the complete overhaul of the complete basis of Jesus’ own teachings?

The embarrassing aspect of Christianity is not the intolerance, as many liberals claim, it is its incoherence: its complete inability to give a straight and uncompromising position. The emergent church is just one more evolution in Christianity, in a long list of evolutions, including, but not limited to, American evangelicalism, European modernism, Lutheran and Calvinist Reformation, Medieval Catholicism, Augustinian revisionism, Constantinian dominionism, Ignatian authoritarianism, Gnostic elitism, Johannine spiritualism, Pauline mythologizing, and, of course, Jesus’ own re-interpretation of Judaic law.

It is at this point that I would like those who hold to the “Emerging” perspective to inform me of their own views. I don’t even care so much for a response to my post and my accusations, but I want to know what you actually believe, in a concrete way. What is the Bible actually to you? Who is Jesus? Who is Paul? What is salvation? Does heaven exist? How about sin? I could go on, but I think you got the point. Obviously I am speaking to the more liberal wing of the emerging church, not the “post-emergent,” intolerant, neo-Calvinist wing of Mark Driscoll and company. What stops you from reaching the place of non-theist Bishop Spong?

I enjoy dialogue with the emerging church because they are not afraid to talk, to have a chat, and they admit limited revelation. What I have yet to fathom is how we can stop at arbitrary points in our skepticism and rebuild. I have tried, and as I have stated before, I want a reason to believe. I know many within the emerging movement are artistically or philosophically minded individuals – I want to know how this process works for you because it certainly did not work for me.

-The Apostate

I had so many great headlines for this story. If it was not so long, ambiguous or condescending I would have stuck with: “Evangelicals Chose God over Democracy in American Politics”. I admit, the title I selected is still a little harsh and maybe a little misleading but it is getting my opinion across about a poll released by the Pew Research Center back in August 2006. Polls on religion and politics in the United States are always interesting. Specifically, my “favourite” question is the one concerning the influence the Bible should have on United States laws versus the will of the American people. The exact question reads, “Which should be the more important influence on the laws of the United States – Should it be the Bible or should it be the will of the American people, even when it conflicts with the Bible?” The following are the questionnaire results of white evangelicals, white “mainline” Christians, Catholics, and secular Americans:

• Secular: Will of the American people= 91%, Bible= 7%
• White mainline: Will of the American people= 78%, Bible= 16%
• Catholic: Will of the American people= 72%, Bible= 23%
• White evangelical: Will of the American people= 34%, Bible 60%

I would love to be able to admit my surprise, shock, and disbelief, but I can not. At first one wonders whether those 60% of evangelical Christians actually understand what they are saying when they admit that the Bible should more influence over American lawmaking than the will of the people. Essentially, these people are admitting the defeat of the great American democratic project in favour of a single-source authority. It is very nice and pious to say you want your Scriptures influencing your lawmaking, but this is not what was asked. In order for the Bible to have more influence than the will of the people, it must first be interpreted by a figure of authority. That is to say there is someone qualified to accurately interpret the Bible. I think we had this once. From what I have read in the history books, that did not go over so well (well, the Roman Catholics might not agree but they are not the ones confusing their contemporary politics and religion – according to the poll). It is interesting that these are evangelicals admitting this. These are the supposed theological descendents of Martin Luther’s protestant reformation against the authority of the Pope and the priesthood of all believers. The irony. The people who rebelled against the spiritual authority and theocracy ruling Europe are now supporting the spiritual authority and theocracy of America.

The trouble is, I do not think most evangelicals see it this way. The equation does not compute. The concepts are so horribly simplified that the questioning of authority and the Bible translates as, “What do you support – Good or Evil?” Evangelical Americans are forgetting the reason that church and state are not fused together in the Constitution of the United States is so that they do not end up like Afghanistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Believer it or not, there is more than one interpretation of the Bible. For evangelical Christians, the Pope does not speak for all Christians. God forbid, literally, that George W. Bush II speaks for all Christians. So who is interpreting the Bible in order to deny the will of the American people? Apparently Mike Huckabee and Kenneth Copeland.

-The Apostate

Morality: It doesn’t matter whether conservative theists cannot understand where a non-believer receives their morals, the fact is we share a common thread of ethical decency. Even in cases that their are tangible radical differences, such as sexual license, et al., an unbeliever is no more likely to engage in orgies, sexual crimes, divorce, and/or promiscuity than theists. Non-theists are simply more likely to admit it (it takes less than a semester at a conservative Bible college to figure this out).

Intellectualism: Atheists are not smarter than theists. Theists, likewise, are not smarter than atheists. While I do believe that fundamentalists suffer in the realm of academic integrity, the majority of sophisticated mainstream Christian scholars are exceptional scholars. The belief or non-belief in God is an issue of whether one can accept the value of faith or not.

Happiness/Joy/Peace: There was little joy when Jesus died on the cross, or even when he, according to the Bible, resurrected – unless you want to read into something that isn’t there. However, today’s Evangelicals often use anecdotes of happiness and peace and evidence of their spiritual truthfulness. Atheists, on the other hand, while being accused of Epicurean lifestyles, often speak of the peace they have with the letting go of religious guilt and a belief in hell.

The above are my simplified, and perhaps simple, observations and opinions – nothing more. I am under the impression that an individual, whether theist or atheist, will be immoral, ignorant, and/or unhappy regardless of their belief or unbelief in God. God cannot make you be moral nor are you more moral because you believe in God. Your lack of belief in God is not going to make you smarter nor do you hold your unbelief because you are intellectually apt. The only constant I see is that change from an unhealthy lifestyle, whether it was a theistic or atheistic one, is good. Those who felt that Jesus saved them from alcoholism are as credible and should be praised as much as the atheist who escaped the clutches of permanently excruciating existential guilt.

An individual prone to do unethical deeds will do them regardless of their belief or unbelief in the supernatural.

An individual prone to ignorance will be ignorant despite their belief or unbelief in the supernatural.

An individual prone to depression and despair will be unhappy in spite of their religious adherence, or lack thereof.

-The Apostate

There is no way of getting around it: Christianity, in any form other than the most original Jesus movement (in which we can probably only see a glimpse of through the Ebionites of the 1st and 2nd centuries), is directly antithetical not only to the Jewish tradition, but to the Jewish people. This is the most dishonest aspect of contemporary evangelicalism: “we” are friends with “you” [Jews] here on earth, but guess what – you messed it all up and now only “we” [Christians] can regain the paradise lost. And you know what? The Jewish people know what Christianity means for them and know what Christians believe. They know you are playing the “friend of Israel” card because that is what is needed for evangelical End Time fanaticism (where they will also have to suffer the Tribulation along with all of us heathens and heretics).

Christianity is the bastard brother of rabbinical Judaism, not its loving child. The perverted meshing of Greek theology with a warped Jewish mythology led to this unholy offspring. There is little wonder why the Jewish community never found the Christian perversion appealing or remotely truthful – those that did were swept aside by the Pauline-Johannine tradition. Jacob Neusner famously wrote in Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition,

[These religions represent] different people talking about different things to different people.

In the collection, Disputation and Dialogue: Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter, the late rabbi, and scholar, Eliezer Berkovitz rightly expressed that,

Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism

There is little “believing” in Judaism, Harold Bloom asserts. Yahweh does not ask the Jewish people to “believe” – they are to “trust” in the Covenant: a covenant that has invariably been broken by God, especially if the Christians of Pauline tradition are right.

For those interested in the major discrepancies and ironies in the Jewish-Christian discussion, I suggest that you read about the other side rather than always trying to explain why Christianity is not opposed to Judaism. If you are interested, Harold Bloom is a good starting point, and Neusner is an excellent scholar in the area:
The Book of J (Bloom)
Jesus and Yahweh (Bloom)
Intellectual Foundations of Christian and Jewish Discourse (Neusner)
Judaism When Christianity Began (Neusner)
Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition (Neusner)
The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition (Cohen)

But please, when you realize their is something perverted about the new Christian plurality, don’t follow the lead of this guy (start 2:20 minutes in for Mark Driscoll’s good stuff):

-The Apostate

P.S.

I wrote this article several months ago, but only now did it seem relevant, especially after Pat Robertson just condemned George W. Bush for his [sad and belated] attempt at peace in the Middle East.

Today I seem to meet a lot of modern-day SuperChristians. Sure, in the gospels they might be condemned as “Pharisees,” but, of course, they really do love Jesus. So who is a SuperChristian? How about someone who doesn’t drink or go out partying? I have always found this interesting. Do these people know Jesus was a Jewish man in the 1st century? Have you ever been to a Jewish wedding? Well, back in 1st century Palestine, these weddings were “off-the-hook” as we young wannabe-gangsters say. Jesus himself famously gave the best stuff at the end of night, even after everyone was already tanked (John 2:1-10). It is amusing to watch the lengths these SuperChristians go to explain that passage. And if John’s gospel is too mystical for you, the relatively anti-semitic Gospel of Luke furthers the Lord’s party animal instincts: “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” (Luke 7:33-34).

This isn’t a post about whether Christians should drink or not – I don’t care. I write this as I watch the conclusion to the Iowa primaries and see one pretentious Baptist minister and a Mormon ideologue finish in the top two spots on the Republican side of the spectrum. As Mike Huckabee, who is anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, anti-gun control, and pro-capital punishment won the first of political orgies for the 2008 American elections, I continue to wonder in amazement about that “crucial evangelical vote.” What do these evangelicals really think about the teachings of the person they call Christ? Did Jesus have a picket saying “I made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!”? My mind just isn’t wrapping around it anymore. Could you imagine the little Palestinian revolutionary saying that he is both “pro-life” and “pro-death penalty”? Could you imagine the so-called Son of God telling people that prayer is between themselves and God, but at the same time making official state “Prayer Days” and demanding prayers to be “brought back” in schools (whatever that means)? One has to wonder why evangelicals don’t read into the reason behind Jesus’ constant prayers of solitude – not to mention various explicit commandments to do so.

And how about that martyrdom complex? Even the earliest Christians, as we see in the example of Polycarp, martyrdom was the sign a “true Christian” – someone who was totally “souled out” for Christ. Some of the earliest Christian writers even went so far to say that if you were not martyred, you were barely a Christian. Today’s persecution complex is much more tame, but still extremely prevalent. If hardship comes towards you at the hands of others, you must be doing something right – Satan and his minions are testing your faith. I am amazed how often I hear an evangelical speak of being persecuted in some way. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t – but they sure let everyone know about it.

So who is a SuperChristian? Do you party less than Jesus partied? Do you picket with more passion than Jesus picketed? Do you support causes that alleviate the immorality of the world so Jesus doesn’t have to hang out with the scum of the world the next time around? Do you pray louder than Jesus prayed? Do you annoy everyone around you more than Jesus did, just so you get your just desserts? If you answered yes – you are a SuperChristian.

-The Apostate

However, if people want wealth from their religion, Christianity isn’t usually the place to start – just taking a look at the first book of the New Testament should be enough to scare away any religious gold-diggers. No, charismatic Pentecostals do not win converts by Biblical exegesis or even appealing to the heart: they proselytize via the sensations. I know many moderate Pentecostals. I have lived with Pentecostals. I often ask these religionists very intimate questions concerning their conversion experiences. The vast majority that I have “interviewed” (about 80-85% of over two dozen – all from at least five different churches on three different continents) came to their Pentecostal faith through a “miraculous event” held at some sort of revival or mini-revival: prophecies, faith healing, speaking in tongues, slain in spirit, etc. Only two were “born-again” Christians before being “baptized again” – the rest were from either non-religious, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or “nominal” Christian backgrounds.

I have also attended a few of these smaller mini-revivals, usually in Pentecostal or non-denominational churches in the late evening – although nothing like a big tent Benny bash. I have had words of prophecy spoken to me, an attempted slaying, and a friend beside me alternate between whispering and shouting various unintelligible syllables. They say (who, I cannot remember, nor is it important) that around 20% of the general population is pre-disposed to not to be hypnotized – I think I am one of the five. Why? It isn’t that I don’t feel anything, because I do. It is because from a very young age I learned that the senses play tricks. I watched old Moody Institute videos on how people feel things that aren’t there or that don’t happen. I learned that the power of suggestion is greater than the majority of people are capable of admitting.

So, knowing all this – knowing that this charismatic charade could very well be anything from a well-intentioned hoax to purposeful deception to a the genuine work of the Almighty – could a non-believer “convert” another non-believer? Could someone attuned to the psychological workings of the Charismatic “slay” someone without any help from Above? Almost three years ago, an “atheist” British psycho-illusionist, Derren Brown gave it a whirl (granted, it is a video clip and be a fraud due to editing):

The pastor at that church did not end up endorsing Derren Brown. Any thoughts?

-The Apostate