A Priest

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Locks

To:

Sent: 25 September 2001 23:47

Subject: Re: Greetings from England!

Hello Rodney,

Greetings from England too!

I don't know what gave you the impression that I'm an American. On my email page I do ask Christians to read my feedback in order to avoid too much repetition and if you had you would have known I'm from the UK. I think it is obvious in my discussion with Dr. Garrett and is explicit in my chats with John Richards and Mark McFall. See my feedback.

Could I ask that you do read my feedback before more correspondence. When my site was new, I started off by replying to every Christian who wrote but it soon became impossible to keep up with the volume and so I refer people to my feedback where you will find most of your points already discussed and I'll point you to the URL's (and others to back up what I write) as I go along in this email. I hope that doesn't sound too blunt an opening as I do nevertheless appreciate the time you have put into reading substantial portions of my site and links as it is. I understand it sounds like a huge task to read everything, but actually my writings are not that voluminous and can all be reached from "contents part 1" at http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/home#contents. I would add that when I have (rarely) written to someone with criticism of their website I have always so far carefully read all of their site before offering my opinion.

I apologise for the size of this email, but if I reply to questions I like to give a substantial response so that I can work material back into my website, either in feedback discussions or into a FAQ I'm working on. So don't take it personally or worry that I'm some sort of tenacious nut on your case! :-)

<< In fact I might tentatively suggest that philosophical objections to Christianity do

not receive adequate attention, as yet, on your web pages. >>

In my discussion with Ashley Coogan I explained that

"It was not my intention to provide very much in terms of

arguments against Christianity, as there are already so many sites

doing this. I became more concerned to provide support for new

de-converts from Christianity. Virtually all of my arguments given against

Christianity have been shaken out of me by Christians during feedback and

other discussions."

If you want Philosophical discussions then they are already well served on the Secular Web library via http://www.infidels.org/library/index.html and plenty of the discussion boards you will find on the secular web and at other philosophy websites.

I didn't feel it was my niche to repeat all this (even if I had the time), and neither did I feel it was that important. Like you, I read the mystics when I was a Christian and didn't feel that it was important to be able to follow complex abstract philosophy to understand Christianity properly. See my discussion with Ashley Coogan.

<< And perhaps therein lies my greatest difficulty with all that you have been

doing. For in so many ways it does seem to me that you are reacting above all

to what I would call the 'liberal protestant' agenda. >>

I get diagnosed all kinds of reasons for why I am not a Christian anymore, from a supposed bad experience, a poor relationship with my father, not having been "born again" etc. Never yet has a Christian taken the larger view and confronted the fact that people leave Christianity from all Christian traditions and diverse walks. As I wrote:

"It is a common misapprehension to claim that those who leave Christianity never understood what Christianity was "really about." The full range of Christian types leave Christianity, from all denominations, doctrines, and persuasions. From the most liberal to the most fundamentalist. The philosophical liberal, the conservative orthodox, the born-again and the hyper-charismatic fundie...apologists, theologians, missionaries, ministers, fundamentalists and liberals. The broad spectrum from professional to lay Christian of all Christian types." See my guest essay at http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/slocks.htm

The basic problem with such diagnosing of ex-Christians is that it does not address what really happens. The most common reason for deconversion appears to be that through research and thinking, many Christians come to honestly believe supernatural Christianity is untenable. This is seldom confronted as possibly being the real reason by Christians. Christians do not believe Christianity is untenable or that anyone who has really experienced Jesus/God can abandon their faith. Therefore our problem with it "must have been" due to a bad experience etc. or that we were never "true Christians" in the first place - see seek and ye shall find? So we get diagnosed all kinds of spurious flaws. However, the history of ex-Christians is otherwise. It is not because the churches are corrupt, wishy-washy or anything else, but rather that honest thought into one's religious beliefs often leads people out of that belief much to their surprise and indeed sometimes shock. See my discussion on the resurrection for much more on this and an example of the sort of information one may dig up that leads one to find Christianity unbelievable. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html

<< I cannot help thinking that the best way to give it up would be

simply to dispose of my gear and never set foot on water again. I honestly

don't think I would want to spend so much time running a web page defending

my decision to renounce the practice. I am of course daring to suggest that

you "protest too much, methinks". >>

Firstly it is hardly a "decision" to become an ex-Christian. Nobody really "chooses" to disbelieve in Christianity whilst a Christian - as if they were looking for a reason to reject it - quite the opposite is the case! How many of us can testify to pouring over books of apologetics and asking in prayer for guidance as our faith was crumbling! I have explained this repeatedly on my website and if you read my feedback you will see why I say this.

Relatedly, Christians often describe belief as a "choice" but how can that be? How can one honestly "choose" to believe something is true? Either something convinces me or it doesn't. Is it even psychologically possible to believe something you don't believe? Can you choose to believe that insects have four legs Lev.11:21, 23 or that commands to kill babies Ezechial 9:4-6 and hamstring horses Joshua 11:6 are commands from a good God ? I find such things unbelievable, without having to make a choice. It seems obvious to me - see crazy stuff from the Bible. I could multiply examples but if you follow my long debate and research into the resurrection starting at www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html then you will see the sort of material that convinced me I was mistaken about Christianity. It was not a choice to not believe, just a feeling of realisation that I had been wrong.

Although from my discussions some do indeed abandon their beliefs without much fuss, depending on their temperament, plenty of others don't have an easy time. When one's whole world view and picture of reality changes this can be very shocking indeed and take a lot of talking through. As I recounted at seek and ye shall find? :

"I spent a while going out with a girl whose father was the principal of a liberal English theological college. The first time I met him I was taken to a service where they were saying goodbye to the vice-principal who was leaving the college to get a job "in the world." The story about her I was given at first was that she "had enough of religion" and was just off to do something different for a change. Later I got to know her quite well and soon found out that after years of theology and a PhD on the Christology of some obscure church father, she had come to the conclusion that xtianity was a big mistake. Not only did I learn that but also that many people at that college came to the same conclusions in the course of their studies....I also heard that those who did "lose faith" took it in many different ways (according to the principal). I was told that some found it liberating whereas others were pretty devastated by the discovery. After all, apart from the obvious shock of having one's whole world rewritten, many were in their 40's or 50's and had devoted a large part of their personal and professional lives to religion and were (apparently) bewildered as to how to start again."

Do you really think that it is likely such people would not want to talk about it and share their experiences? For example, recently I had an email from a former Eastern Orthodox Christian Priest who felt quite alone in his predicament and was very keen on finding others he could talk to. I would consider it a great pity if such people were told there are no resources for them as the best approach is to keep quiet. As I say there is no "exit counselling" from the church and I receive plenty of emails from ex-Christians ranging from the average lay ex-Christian in the pew to the ex-missionary, ex-apologist and ex-priest. Some say that this sort of ex-Christian material is a fascinating lifeline - one of the few things that help them keep their sanity and realise they are normal. I also get some appreciative emails from Christians who say it has made them think. Some of our American ex-Christian friends do not know any non-Christians other than via the Internet. Often the Christians around them assure them that apostates are very wicked and have something terribly wrong with them. To find so much sanity and mental health outside of religion rather than the slough of despond their Christian background has prepared them for is a great relief. So I don't think I should keep quiet about what I and others have found and our experiences out of Christianity.

Personally, I did not have a bad time as a Christian - actually I enjoyed it very much, even the growing intellectual and emotional difficulties were stimulating in a way, but nevertheless I cried when I found that I could no longer believe in Christianity. Indeed many people go through quite a bit of turmoil at the start of such a conclusion, but I've never known anybody not feel a whole lot better as time goes on. How much time it takes varies quite a bit though.

Many people feel they must have been stupid for being "duped" for so long, some getting quite depressed about it (see the quote beginning "I had a rather abrupt intellectual crisis my last year of college" at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/henry_quon.html). However there doesn't seem to be much limit to the intelligence of the people who are duped for a while, so I encourage people not to feel so bad about what many feel were wasted years. Just consider the likes of ex-Christians like Don Cupitt, John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Lüdemann, Michael Goulder etc. (available via my site) all of whom are top brains and yet were very committed (supernatural believing) Christians for a large part of their professional lives before they deconverted. Also, as you can see from my site, a major change of world view gives an enormous drive for research and a fascination with what is going on, and it is not unusual for a new deconvert's personal library to quickly double in size!

However, when the dust settles there is indeed often a much more laid back attitude and less of a desire to talk about it so much. Personally, this is not my only web activity and I spend far more time on music and astronomy both of which feature on another website that I keep separate from the "Leaving Christianity" one. Also my non-Internet life gets far more of my time and most of that is spent playing with my daughter and pursuing interests quite other than any thoughts on religion.

Maybe my site gives the impression of more hours spent than it really takes. It is actually quite easy to get a large looking website up in a couple of years merely by tinkering with it every few days. Most of the substance of my website is just email conversations I have had and the putting up of my bookmarks - something that soon accumulates in volume quite impressively over the years! In fact it is often the opposite of "protesting too much" that is the problem. I have a number of emails from ex-Priests whom I have not been able to tease out the stories from, principally because they do not wish to upset their peers and so just slink away, the public seldom knowing the depths of the soul searching they went through. For instance, Dr. Michael Goulder said "So of course it's a sad blow to them to find I've betrayed the cause. And it's a sad blow to me, too. The communion of saints has meant a lot to me. And I find it very hard to say my old bishop - Bishop Hall - who ordained me in Hong Kong, an extremely devoted and saintly man, or my old tutor, Austin Farrer, whom I respected enormously - to think that they are wrong; I don't think anybody finds it easy to leave a community where he's revered its members not only for their intellectual power but also for their sanctity."

I think that is a terrible loss, as the stories from such people that one can find are a fascinating read - e.g. http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/home#profs

Others have also claimed that those critical of Christianity "protest too much." Some claim that this is because the Christian God must still be working in the protesters. Special pleading is the most common logical error in Christian apologetics though. There are also a few brave souls who have websites about their and other's experiences with other religions they are now ex-members of, such as ex-Muslims, ex-Mormons (see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/), not to mention ex-cult members at http://www.freedomofmind.com/

Nevertheless, I am relatively rare - an ex-religious liberal, talking about what I think is wrong with my old religion. Most of the ex-Christians you will find online are ex-fundamentalists, some of whom complain that in retrospect their minds were seriously played with by fundamentalist Christianity which can be very cult-like in some of its various manifestations. These people can understandably feel quite driven to point out what is wrong with being a "fundie."

A few of we ex-liberals feel we have something to say on-line, but our rarity makes sense. Unlike our ex-fundie peers we are not constantly surrounded by highly religious friends and relatives with the Internet as the only form of escape. UK ex-Christians can easily find sympathetic friends to go to the pub with and off-load, but not everyone has it so easy. Even so it still makes fascinating reading to see what has happened to others when one has "been there" personally.

In summary, I don't really think I (or any ex-Christian) is protesting too much, just as the ex-Muslims and ex-Mormons and ex-Moonies are not. I don't think you realise the impact that a major change in world view can have when one previously took their religion as being what the universe is all about - taking our religious beliefs most ardently, basing our personal, interpersonal and sometimes professional lives on this. It should not be a surprise that ex-Christians want to talk about their deconversion and neither should it be a surprise that we also move on to fresher pastures as the years go by. My website looks as fresh as when I wrote it, even if I haven't been mulling religious thoughts over for a few months. So it can be misleading - looking as if I'm constantly on a soapbox about religion, whereas if you knew me in real life you might not even suspect that I have any interests in religious matters.

<< Frankly I find little or nothing in liberal Protestantism upon which to feed, and never have. >>

Many would disagree, and that wasn't my experience. At the time I felt that being an Anglican was a rich and nourishing experience.

<< I honestly believe that it does not end in atheism for more people simply because of their intellectual

laziness and psychological needs. >>

I would also add lack of knowledge. Frequently it is what people find out as they research into religion that leads them out of it. There are many cases of intelligent people loosing their faith in the seminary/theological college. But maybe that comes under your title of "intellectual laziness" as intellectual curiosity - and spiritual curiosity and desire for growth - are often the routes out of Christianity for many people as is abundantly clear in many of the testimonies on my site. Many people just don't get the opportunity to read critical material or are even aware that there is a wealth of such literature that raises problems for their religion, let alone ever reading any of it first hand like you are doing. Unfortunately though it appears even you have not read the material I said was essential (my feedback) before suggesting reasons why I am not a Christian. Ask the Christians you know what books critical of Christianity they have read and compare it with the volume and quality of Christian material that ex-Christians have read. Indeed, plenty of Christians have not even read the Bible all the way through and are rather shocked by it when they do. Of course I am sure you have read it all but would be alarmed if you approved of everything in it like Dr. Garrett did!

Another reason I believe that more people do not abandon religion is due to sloppy thinking. When I deconverted I read some books on critical thinking and was surprised at how many logical errors are made in Christian apologetics, even by very intelligent Christians. Look out for special pleading http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2.html#5 in the next book of apologetics you read.

 << Is there an alternative? >>

I'm afraid you lost me a little after that. If Christianity is not true (a loaded phrase, I know, as it is not that clear cut, so maybe I can just say that the supernatural bits are untenable) then that's not my fault - don't shoot the messenger or expect me to come up with something else. However, the surprise to so many ex-Christians is indeed a better spiritual life after Christianity, no matter how deep they felt it was before. See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html. Connection with a world and people no longer somehow separated from their God via sin, the anxiety of being "saved" and all the clunky theology and dodgy philosophy that goes with the doctrine of the atonement. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html#phil. For a Christian there has to be something wrong to which God/Christ is the answer, and the great wrong for Christians is a spiritual wrong, a division an atheist no longer feels. I think that ironically atheism really is good for the soul. This was a great surprise for me to discover when my faith fell apart.

<< Ultimately the reality or

otherwise of what we speak of as God lies concealed in mystery and that is

hard for our minds to grasp because it means a certain and necessary

humiliation. >>

Is it only the Christian god who is concealed in mystery? (Special pleading?)

Why should we be humiliated? Have you read my thoughts on the similarity of the Christian's relationship to their God with that of abused wives and captives in the Stockholm Syndrome?

<< As the author of the medieval work The Cloud of Unknowing

maintains: 'God may be grasped by love, but by thought never'. >>

Firstly isn't this special pleading for the Christian god? Krishna said

"He who in this oneness of love, loves me in whatever he sees, wherever this man may live, in truth this man lives in me...I am from everlasting the seed of eternal life...in its delusion the world knows me not...all beings have their rest in me...I am the way...he who loves me shall not perish...only by love can men see me, and know me, and come unto me...malignant men hate me...they come not to me, but they go down the path of hell." Krishna - the Bhagavad Gita (c. 500 B.C.)

So why can't other gods be known only by love?

There is even a condition, known as De Clerambault's syndrome where a person believes that they are loved by someone they may not even know - especially when that someone is of a higher status than them. Happiness and a feeling of love is not a guarantee of truth or even that the beloved exists, let alone that they love you back.

But far more disturbing is the idea that one should love a god who doesn't explain himself. This is so much like the love of an abused wife for her husband. What exactly can you know that your god has done to deserve your love when the evidence from the bible and human atrocities and terrible natural disasters of the world speak so loudly against a benevolent deity? Just what should an abusive husband do to his wife before she stops loving him, and what worldly negligence or biblical cruelty would the Christian god have to commit before it became obvious that Christianity is a set of confused beliefs constructed by men built on a foundation of a very primitive war like god?

Mystical feelings are fine, but they hardly point to the Christian god. See Craig's Holy Spirit Epistemology and http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/links/3forms.html

<< Thus it would be not just surprising that some of the atheist groups you have

communicated with have not come to faith, it would be almost impossible, given that

rational thought is the medium in which they operate, and it is precisely the

medium least able to experience God. >>

If one abandons rationality, which god (or even a god at all) does one open oneself up to belief in? I hope the poverty of claiming we have to stop being rational before belief is possible is becoming obvious. Not only is it special pleading for Christianity, and contrary to your claims that I need to present more philosophy, but is an unsubstantiated claim. Not only are most of the people in freethought societies ex-Christians, many of whom will have once felt they had "a dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ" etc., but how do you know that abandoning rationality lays one open to greater spiritual insight? Having been a Christian who had (and still does have) religious and spiritual feelings and who has spoken to many similar people, the claim that rational non-believers now lack something in the spirituality department does not bare up to examination. For some Christians the idea that we might really know what it is like to be a Christian and yet not find that our "true Christian experience" maintained us in belief is unthinkable, so we are frequently told that we can't therefore ever have been "real Christians" in the first place. For that I wrote seek and ye shall find?

<< Of course these have always been marginal

figures and the churches have always been uneasy about them, but if there is

still a possibility of speaking about God, then, paradoxically, it may only

be found in silence. >>

An ex-nun told me that one of the reasons she left Christianity was that she came to realise that a relationship in which one of the participants does not talk to you is not a real or healthy relationship. Again, I think finding God in silence is all fine if "God" is understood in an abstract way, but as soon as this God becomes a silent being with whom you have a relationship then that is a fundamentally unhealthy relationship.

<< Alas, web pages about this cannot be found, >>

Try searching for Thomas Merton.

<< for us in modern technologically superior societies the first step into silence is

the hardest >>

It is too easy for Christians to devalue the spirituality of others. Although it is hard to be reflective when one is busy, this is not people's fault and neither are they necessarily without the capacity. From my discussions and reading I find spirituality amongst the non-religious moderns is quite common. How too do you know that a "step into silence" is the best way or even that what you are attempting to describe is not something that others find? These spiritual feelings are so notoriously ineffable, that to claim others can't do it because of their lifestyles or mindset is just overstepping what one can possibly know about the inner lives of others.

<< Frankly after

almost a decade of depression and darkness to which I have nearly succumbed

little else remains but the silence >>

I'm sorry to hear about the depression. It is a common and very real problem. Gaining or abandoning Christianity is not a cure for a real disease like depression, as I know from many discussions with others who suffer from depression. That said, I think that in its more popular forms Christianity is a religion that wraps one up in oneself and has one's own "salvation" as such a central theme that it strikes me as too egotistic and unlikely to be ultimately helpful. "I" don't interest "me" enough any more to remain a Christian. Personally, my interests have grown more outside of myself. As Karen Armstrong points out, non-theistic Buddhists describe theism not so much as "wrong" but as "unskilful" - wrapping people up in concern with their own ego and salvation, concentration on the "I" whom Jesus came to die for. For Christians who believe that being "saved" means going to heaven, the centre of Christianity is ultimately one of self-concern. Very liberal Christians have more sophisticated beliefs with precious little in the supernatural department. Non-realists, like the Sea of Faith http://www.sofn.org.uk/ tend to be closer to Buddhists mentioned above in their view of religion. As you probably know, Thomas Merton became increasingly interested in exchanges with Buddhists towards the end of his life.

I don't want to trivialise this, but apparently an indicator of the likeliness of suicide is the greater frequency with which people use the word "I." As such it appears that a religion like Christianity in its popular form is too introspective, but if I understand you correctly (pretty hard on the basis of one email, so bare with me) yours is more along the line that Karen Armstrong talks about in the common mystical element between different religions (and secular mystical experience as I mention here). Extinguishing the self - or at least loss of ego in a feeling of union with "the ground of being" as Aldous Huxley would put it. So maybe you feel a union with more than yourself and a letting go of self in your silence. I have no problem with that. I agree with you to some extent. I have also discussed the following with Dr. Garrett (see my feedback):

"Even within the Christian tradition itself, seriously confronting hard

questions, even to the extent of loss of belief, has been seen as extremely

important spiritual growth, all the way from St. John of the Cross and his

"Dark Night of the Soul" to the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and

eventually Don Cupitt et al. St. Therese of Lisieux basically lost her

belief in God during her last 18 months. She came to "eat at the table of

unbelievers" as she put it. She also described how much purer her feeling of

love was when unsupported by the promise of future joy and glory. Eckhart

famously wrote "Man's last and highest parting occurs when, for God's sake,

he takes leave of God." There is a crass unspirituality in the literal and

somewhat material beliefs about the supernatural that much popular

bible-believing Christianity consists of. The religious mystics and geniuses

of the past have seen beyond this. Now that atheism is not illegal or

punishable by slow torture, what was a great discovery for the ancients

going against the overpowering views of their times is a commonplace

discovery for many of us who have "fallen from grace" and are able to

reflect on this."

Unfortunately, as for the desert fathers you alluded to, weren't some of these and other fathers of the Church also famously hoping to get ringside seats at the edge of heaven to watch the suffering of the damned in hell?

"Ah! The broad magnificence of that scene! How shall I laugh and be glad and

exult when I see these wise philosophers, who teach that the gods are

indifferent and men soulless, roasting and browning before their own

disciples in hell."

[Tertullian (c. 160 - c. 220), "De Spectaculis"]"

"That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more

abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell."

[Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Summa Theologica]

Despite any finer mystical moments they may have had, again I think there is something very unhealthy going on here.

<< but then again as has been seen in the

past two weeks in NY and elsewhere, in the face of certain things only

silence will do. >>

It can indeed feel impossible to find anything adequate to say, but I don't think silence is the correct response, anymore than the Christian god's and any other god's silence through the holocaust and countless other atrocities was appropriate. I think we have to say what we can and find something appropriate to do and help. Did you see Ian McEwan's piece? http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552408,00.html. As he said on the radio, if he could not find some decent, even if not fully adequate, words then what are writers for? Being silent enables us to listen carefully, but I think staying permanently silent is neglectful and silence in the face of dire need when one is equipped to help is culpable irresponsibility. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil.html (that link gives some philosophy following this, since you wanted some...)

<< You must be bored already. >>

I certainly wasn't bored and I hope I've not over done it in my reply. I enjoy chatting with anyone intelligent and reflective and I seldom reply anymore to some of the cheap emails I get sent - yours was far from that! I thank you once again for taking the trouble of reading much of my site and I hope that nothing I have said comes over as confrontational. I try to be frank as otherwise I feel that being obscure in order not to offend makes our meaning lost on each other and for less interesting conversations.

I'd be interested in knowing what you think - and I'm sorry for sending you such seemingly a big reading project, although as I said on my email page, it should only take a few evenings really.

Best wishes and happiness in your garden (despite the weather!)

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity