Faithful: As Christians, we generally do not wish to face the hard facts. We prefer to only look at the good sides of what we like and gloss over the negative. However, this approach is very one-dimensional in nature. We must have a balanced view of everything we look at, including ourselves and what we consider ourselves to be part of. This particular discussion is an outgrowth of the discovery of exchristian.org, which details user-submitted stories of people walking away from Christianity for one reason or another. There are stories of people who were in a dysfunctional, syncretistic sort of Christianity, people who had been badly treated by "Christians," and people who simply took stock of their faith and decided the whole thing was bunk and took off for other pastures. The first two are easily resolved in our minds because we know that they had nothing to do with "real" Christianity. In this case, it is very easy for the Church to place blame and get on with it all. However, it is this last category that the Church sweeps under the rug--what no one wants to face.

It's not surprising, either. Some of the stuff that I read was among the most painful and thought-provoking discourses I've ever gone through. In fact, I would caution those that do not wish to read outbursts against Christians or Christianity to avoid reading the links in this discussion. Much of the writing is quite provocative and reactionary, lashing out in every direction. Others, like this story describing one woman's Christian experience, are just simply challenging to the very core of what it means to be a Christian.

How should the Church deal with this? One of the stories on exchristian.org stated that the Church considers any believer that turns away to be acting in a state of conscious rebellion against God. I would tend to agree with that observation. However, how can that be said about the experience of the woman above? After reading, I got the impression that she was sincerely searching for Truth, and when she decided that the facts did not support Christianity, her desire to support what she considered to be Truth forced her to turn away from Christianity/religion. That has forced me to look back on what I consider as the very core, the foundation of what I believe and why I believe it as well as analyze a great number of possibilities about God, our existence, who we are, and what Christianity is all about. [Since I've been so long-winded here at the beginning, I'll save my discoveries and thoughts until later in the discussion.]

Hopeful:  I would agree that this is probably one of the hardest discussions in which I will ever take part.  Reading through the different "deconversions" is rather telling as to what could turn a person away from Christianity.  It seems that legalism and illogical reasoning are real biggies for those deconverted souls who actually seem to have given this thought.  This, of course, just goes to show that those in the church should be careful not to just accept any old teaching given to them.  I think also that these stories, such as the last one that Faithful linked to, show how much the church as a whole can misunderstand the mainstream world.  We must realize that intelligent, rational people logically come to the conclusion that there is no God.  At the same time, we must also not forget that intelligent, rational people logically come to the conclusion that God exists.  It all relies on what that person is willing to accept as usable evidence.

Faithful:  Evidence plays a massive role in our faith as a foundation.  The other major factor is our experience, which is generally closely related to evidence.  When I analyzed my own relationship with God, I realized that regardless of all else, the concept of God cannot be disproven to me because of my experience of interacting with Him on different planes of involvement.  Everything else requires some level of faith in other people (no matter how small, it's still there) and that very faith could leave room for doubt (in theory).  The problem people face is that they often expect rational thought to bring them to know God (much like the Greeks), and when it can't, they decide there must be no God.  We can only expect rational thought from finite minds to take us so far when attempting to understand and grasp the essence of an infinite being.  So it's not that these people are being "illogical" per se, but rather they are unwilling to believe what they cannot prove with their senses and intellect.  What bothers me is how I can sense and experience God at times, yet other people do not experience that or are able to cast it off as emotionalism (and perhaps it was).  The Church would say that the person really did experience God and they have rebelled against Him or they never did experience Him because they never were really saved.  In light of some of the stories from exchristian.org, I'm not sure if I can go along with either point.  Yet the nagging question is:  If they were a Christian, how could it have been so dry, so stale that they could just walk away?

Christian: That's an interesting observation: Our Christianity not only involves faith in God, but also calls for faith in people. When someone becomes a Christian, they believe the message given to them by a person. It wasn't just faith in God. They believe that what the person (parent, pastor, friend, etc.) is telling them is true. Was Jesus born of a virgin?  Has God told me this--and yet hasn't man passed on the story? And has not man told me that this story is from God? Therefore, Christians are susceptible to doubt and, unfortunately, disbelief. I don't think Christianity was dry and stale for the woman Faithful referred to. She seemed to jump in with both feet and experience much of the Christian life. Her interpretation changed, however. What this makes me wonder is, how can I determine if what I experience is truly God or my interpretation of things, based on what I've been taught to believe? The feelings, the "inner voice," the peace, the burden for lost souls--these are all ambiguous at best. This woman experienced these things, interpreted them one way for a time, and then chose another way to interpret them. Why? I think it's largely a slow deterioration of trust in Christianity around them. If I attended certain churches (in any denomination) for an extended period of time, I believe there would be a great chance for me to reject Christianity, because when I'm honest with myself, unfortunately much of my faith rests in Christianity as I am told it and shown it (more than I would care to admit). And that Christianity is often very weak and conflicting. I'm beginning to see that my faith just might be so slightly, and yet so dangerously misdirected. Is my faith truly resting in God?

Hopeful:  When Faithful states, "...but rather [the unbelieving] are unwilling to believe what they cannot prove with their senses and intellect," I would have to disagree that this is a semantically correct statement.  I may appear to be nitpicking, but I believe it does highlight a misunderstanding that many people have.  Just because a person has ceased to accept Christianity does not mean that he/she is unwilling to believe the unprovable.  Almost every belief relies on some sort of assumption.  Very precious little is undeniably provable.  The hypothetical person mentioned most likely replaced the base assumptions of Judeo-Christian thought with base assumptions of Agnosticism, Atheism, or whatever else.  This person may be more logical or he/she may be less, but that state of being is not determined by whether the person agrees with popular Christian doctrine.  As per Christian's statements, I generally agree.  Perhaps we should take more heed to 1 Thess 5:21 (NAS) when it states, "But examine everything {carefully;} hold fast to that which is good."  Maybe we shouldn't automatically believe when another person claims that specific interpretations are undeniably accurate.

Faithful:  From a different viewpoint:  Perhaps our greatest problem is not surmounting the obstacle of evidence but rather living out what we believe.   This isn't religion we're talking about, but rather how deep your relationship really goes.  Do you really do what Jesus would do or do you just say you want to?  

The following words are those from a homosexual atheist who graduated from Southeastern College (Assembly of God Bible College) who later walked away (his story is here...  if you read this, expect to be offended. That's the way it was written):

Much of what seemed to pass for Christian joy struck me as shallow. I became convinced, and still think, that much of pentecostal (and christian in general) spirituality is an attempt to escape living one's life in accordance with the teachings and example of Jesus in the gospels (however fictional they may be). It's a hell of a lot easier to worship Jesus than it is to live like him [emphasis added]. So if you want to witness to me, don't tell me about how oozey and nice you feel having Jesus in your heart. Tell me what you did this week to feed the hungry. Tell me how many bedpans of AIDS patients you emptied this week. Tell me how many prisoners you tutored in reading at the county jail. If you don't have something like that to tell me then shut your f---- pie hole about how much you love Jesus. You liar!

Our greatest rebuke.

Christian: This closely ties into what we've been saying all along. When Christians don't act like Christ, there is a loss of trust in them and in what they believe to be true. However, living in accordance with what one believes doesn't make what one believes to be true. It simply demonstrates integrity. While this may give some validity to their beliefs, it probably won't cause anyone to become a Christian. And Christians acting unchristianlike alone won't cause someone to leave Christianity, in my opinion. It's definitely a factor, and most definitely turns people away from Christianity who have never believed.

As Faithful stated, it's experience/perception that convinces you ultimately to continue to accept or reject Christianity--regardless of other's actions. If someone (or even your own conscience) can convince you that the way you've interpreted your experiences is incorrect, you'll turn away. Most people who leave Christianity comment on the "cracks" that appear in their foundation of belief. Perceived inconsistencies, unresolvable conflicts, etc. Not many cite the inconsistency of beliefs with actions. Even this atheist, if you read his "testimony," falls in this category.  On a side note, this atheist preached a better sermon in the above quote than I've heard in a while at church!

This little discussion merely scratches the surface on this topic. The Church has been unwilling to face people who have turned away, and instead we throw stones. Those who claim to be enlightened and have a deeper experience than the world call "God's Wrath" down on those who also consider themselves enlightened and "freed" from their former life of faith. We say "God loves everyone," but that doesn't stop us from building walls and bombing the other side in animosity.