Matthew Paul Turner is a Christian blogger, author, and former fundamentalist. He has authored 10 books and is the former editor of CCM (Christian Music Magazine). He’s one of my favorite Christian bloggers and was kind enough to agree to an interview.
Your blog name is “Jesus Needs New PR”…
I started blogging in 2006. However, before it became the name of my blog, “Jesus Needs New PR” was a book title for a collection of essays about how the actions, words, and sometimes stupidity of various segments of the Christian culture impacted Jesus’s “image.” But despite being signed to a Christian publishing house, the book never released. Fourteen months later, after the writing and editing was finished, the head guy at the publishing house deemed the manuscript too controversial and refused to release it. I took it to five other publishing houses, four of which were Christian imprints — all of them said no. At some point during that time, I started the blog.
Why do you think Jesus needs new PR?
Pat Robertson? That’s too easy of an answer, of course, but I think evangelicals like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and many others like them have created a Jesus that is ugly, scary, political, anti-gay, pro-Fox News—you know, they “created” Jesus in their own image.
But why does Jesus need PR at all?
Pullquote: America’s Jesus is more of a brand name than anything else, a money-making commodity that churches manage using basic business-type practices.
In the end, that’s the point — Jesus doesn’t need PR or shouldn’t. But America’s evangelical culture has turned Jesus into something that can benefit or be hurt by good or bad PR. Today, America’s Jesus is more of a brand name than anything else, a money-making commodity that churches and large “non-profits” manage using basic business-type practices like strategy development, viral marketing, and publicity and public relations.
In the book, one of the chapter titles was called “JESUS is a Registered Trademark.” In that chapter, I discussed the differences between the JESUS™ people have created and the Jesus we read about in the gospels. JESUS™ can be manipulated or branded into almost anything we want him to be, from a wealth-and-prosperity-providing genie to a hateful Messiah who will one day return with an eternal axe to grind. It’s difficult to do that with the Jesus of the four gospels.
Why doesn’t Jesus just set the record straight himself?
I don’t know, Daniel. Certainly, I could offer a few silly cliché answers that you and I have heard a thousand times. But in the end, I don’t know.
It seems you spend almost as much time as me laughing at terrible Christian videos and news stories. Why do you blog about them?
Pullquote: I’m not going to let religious fear — the same junk that I grew up in — dictate whether or not I will address a particular topic.
Because some of the stuff that Christians say and do is hilarious, and just because I believe in Jesus doesn’t mean I don’t find a lot of the “Christian stuff” unbelievable and crazy. And too, sometimes what people say on behalf of God is really sad, depressing, or just plain bullshit.
The thing is, I was raised in a culture of religious fear, a place where it was frowned upon to challenge the pastor because “he was God’s chosen man.” I think that type of thinking still exists today, a “Christian fear” that says people shouldn’t speak their opinions about popular well-known Christians because they’re considered “God’s man or woman.”
I have a lot of friends in the faith blogging community who are very careful about what and who they will blog about. Last year when well-known Minnesota pastor John Piper implied that the tornado that hit downtown Minneapolis was God’s little message to the Lutheran Church (they were preparing to vote on whether or not to allow gay and lesbian clergy), I know several bloggers who were scared to blog or Tweet about their opinion because it was John Piper. And let me tell you; some of the members of John Piper’s fan base are scary, mean-spirited disciples who troll the Internet seeking out non-Piper fans to devour.
But over the years, I’ve grown accustomed to receiving my fair share of fear-filled hate mail. But I’m not going to let religious fear — the same junk that I grew up in — dictate whether or not I will address a particular topic. So, I guess that’s one of the reasons why I blog about much of the same stuff that you blog about, because it’s insanity.
So you get hate mail from believers too?
All the time. But mostly, I receive a lot of nice mail from believers and non-believers who appreciate my point of view. Quite honestly, while I love hearing people’s stories, I try not to take either extreme too seriously. Cuz in the end, it’s just a blog. :)
What do you think about atheists?
I have a great deal of respect for atheists. Certainly, I can understand why a person would come to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist. I have moments in my life when I come to that conclusion too.
Why do you believe God exists?
Pullquote: Choosing not to believe in God would fundamentally change who I am. It would be like me cutting off my legs.
One of the reasons why I believe in God is because I was raised in a culture where believing in God was as American as buying a Ford. “God” is a part of my culture, history, and subconscious. I’ve never known what it means to live without an acknowledgement of God, and I’m the first to admit that that reality certainly plays a role in why I believe today. The one significant difference in my belief as a child and my belief today is that “fear” doesn’t play a role. Today, my belief in God is a choice based on a whole bunch of non-scientific emotions and feelings that I have personally experienced which compel me to have faith.
And you know, Daniel, for me, choosing not to believe in God would fundamentally change who I am. It would be like me choosing to cut off my legs or something like that. I’d be making a choice to live as only half of the person I’ve become. Would I survive without my belief in God? Sure. But I’d be different. So it’s not like I choose to believe in God, but given the options, I choose to continue believing in God.
Do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, did miracles, and rose from the dead? Why or why not?
I believe in the Jesus of the four Gospels — from his teachings to his resurrection. That said, my faith doesn’t exist in a vacuum, which means I have lots of questions within my beliefs about Jesus.
Perhaps St. Augustine’s quote best sums up “why” I choose to believe. He said, Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. I believe my journey of following Jesus helps me pursue love and peace and reminds me to not live selfishly. While it once existed around fear and dogma, it’s evolved into a belief that is fluid, inclusive, and hopeful. Can people learn and experience those things outside of Christianity? Sure. But within my journey, engaging Jesus helps me focus on life’s important things and to resist holding onto the things that don’t matter.
Of course, the Adderall helps.
Do you think there’s enough evidence for those supernatural events to convert an atheist?
Pullquote: To be honest, I’m not sure I believe there’s enough circumstantial evidence to convert a Christian.
To be honest, I’m not sure I believe there’s enough circumstantial evidence to convert a Christian.
Your last book, Hear No Evil, is about your experience in the Christian music industry. Tell us a little about that.
Hear No Evil is a collection of essays about my experiences with music — from growing up singing in church, to not being allowed to listen to Michael Jackson, to eventually becoming the editor of CCM, a Christian music magazine. In a lot way it’s a coming of age story about how music opened my mind, pushed me out of my comfort zones, and helped make me into who I am now. Haha! See? I told you I could write clichés.
Oh, and some people think it’s pretty funny.
Is secular music from God or Satan? :)
I don’t know, man. Perhaps if I listened to secular music, I could answer that.
[Yes, that's a joke. —DF]
You have over 20,000 Twitter followers. Tell me your secret… please?
My only advice is this: Be kind to thy twitter, and thy twitter shall be kind to you.
You’ve been accused of being @xianity. Now’s your chance to set the record straight…
I don’t know why people think I’m @XIANITY. It’s a compliment, because the guy who is @XIANITY is pretty darn funny. But it’s not me. Promise.
Mr.Turner, Thanks for the interview. It’s kind of nice to have a,let’s say,reasonable believer come by and discuss things with us. Yet I do have a question that I hope will not offend you. Why is it that you fear change? Life is change,change is growth. Life is about change to a large degree, I’d even go so far as to suggest that once change/growth stops one starts the process of dying. Granted, when one grows or changes they are no longer who they were,but that’s the point of growth and change, and life.
Interesting interview. I come from a religious family. I would only say that it feels better living without those nagging questions, rather than living in your comfort zone.
Daniel, UF is the best blog I follow. Thanks for all the work you put into it!
I think most authentic followers of Jesus have doubts. Matt 9:24 “…I believe! But help me overcome my doubts.” It’s just not kosher to admit it.
Thanks to Matthew Paul Turner for being real.
Thanks David, that was kind to say.
Good interview on both sides. Nice work Daniel, and nice work Matthew. It’s always good finding level-headed people to read and such.
Pingback: Popular blogger & atheist Daniel Florien questions me about Jesus, faith & blogging | Jesus Needs New PR
Two of my favorite blogs in one place! Nice start to the day. Thanks, guys!
For a minute there I thought a sane, cool, normal, CHRISTIAN blogger was an April Fools Joke.
The good news is that he has doubt. I am not concerned that every person on earth be an atheist, I am however concerned that people that have ZERO doubt are insane. Agnosticism is the first step to freedom.
Great interview Daniel. I agree with an above poster; I prefer your blog to those of PZ, Hemant, and Andrew Sullivan and I am not sure why more people don’t agree with me.
I loved that interview. I’m going to check out his books on Amazon. You guys are like “The Friendly Atheist and The Friendly Christian 2.0″ :)
If most Christians were like Matthew, maybe we’d all get along much better. Unfortunately, it is the evangelicals (like Pat Robertson and his ilk) that are the loudest.
Kudos to Mr. Turner. I will start reading his blog today.
It’s refreshing to “meet” a reasonable person of faith in a published interview such as this one. Matthew Paul Turner’s belief seems to spring primarily from his childhood heritage of faith, and his choice to continue believing seems to be based in emotion. He’s not alone. Millions of people give up rational thought in return for the comfort and safety of embracing only the happy parts of their particular set of learned pseudo-truths. I don’t think it’s the healthiest thing to do, but perhaps for some it’s a stepping stone to thinking logically someday.
I don’t understand why you think he’s reasonable.
He’s basically stated, he Believes what he Believes because its what he wants to Believe. This is someone who specifically chose to not examine their own beliefs but instead to focus on the feel-goody-ness of it. Instead he absorbs it so completely into his identity he views it as part of his body, to loose that belief would be like a death.
He might be labeled a “former fundamentalist” but I’m not seeing the real difference here. Utterly close minded and ultimately no different in beliefs from a raving “God Hates FAGS” loony other than what causes he chooses to support and rhetoric he uses. The only difference is he chooses to laugh at other crazy christian beliefs instead of lambasting them for not following the true path.
Fundy Lite I suppose.
I don’t understand why you think he’s reasonable.
I guess it’s because he doesn’t seem to have that stereotypical hard-ass attitude being displayed these days by many of the Catholics, fundamentalists and evangelicals with bully pulpits. To me he seems to be more open minded and not utterly close minded as you have perceived him to be. His attitude seems more reasonable to me. I don’t think his beliefs are reasonable, however, nor his reasons for holding on to them. I think the choices he has made are understandable but not really logical. I thought I made that clear in my comments, but I probably should have explained myself a little bit better.
There’s a difference between having reasonable beliefs and being a reasonable person. I don’t have a problem with religion if it’s a purely private matter so no faith schools funded by tax payers, no automatic representation in the House of Lords, no right to discriminate against others because “faith” trumps the rights of others and certainly no thinking that the Church should be above the law which others have to abide by.
Basically, whatever you believe personally is s’allgood until you start hurting others because of it.
Pretty much so yes although I’m willing to admit that it can’t be as black and white as this.
I just don’t understand how someone can reconcile this:
with a belief system that promises unending torture for those who don’t believe. Someone who wasn’t raised in a culture that worships God (or the Christian version of God), or someone who doesn’t buy into the emotional appeals, will burn forever? Really?
And if you’re one who doesn’t believe in eternal punishment then we’re clearly not talking about Christianity. One has to wonder what the point is of dragging along this whole belief system.
That said, I appreciate any believer willing to provide an honest and up-front interview with a blog that generally makes fun of believers. Kinda like entering the lions’ den. So kudos.
(I didn’t want to sound too mean after my last post.)
There is a great quote from an atheist going to speak at a group of Christians. I think it was Dennet. Standing at the lectern he said-
“I feel like a lion who has just stepped into a den of lambs”
IF God (Judeo-Christian God that is) is real and true then it doesn’t matter the culture or heritage or upbringing, according to God and the Bible (remember the big IF at the beginning) everyone is given enough evidence to make their choice.
Jeremy,
Some of the earliest Christians rejected the doctrine of hell and eternal damnation. Even among Evangelical Christians today (at least in academia), it’s a topic of debate. The majority would certainly argue for it, but there is a growing minority that does not.
In other words, believing in “eternal torture” for “unbelievers” is absolutely not prerequisite to calling oneself a Christian accurately.
Jeremy, I can say that on my journey from belief to, well, not-belief, I rationalized that hell didn’t exist and that “god” so-called wouldn’t condemn people to eternal damnation. I chose to think of “eternal torture” as a metaphorical “place”–I tried to do a little combining of Buddhist philosophies about birth/rebirth and hells and that people who had done wicked things would, by their very actions, be “reborn” into a hell of some sort. It wouldn’t be an arbitrary “You didn’t go to church–go to hell!” Only by reconfiguring how I characterized “god” was I able to maintain any belief in said god.
I second everyone’s comments. This blog has been a treat and I enjoy how like Mehta you are engaging believers in some excellent conversations. I wish I could do the same kind of thing in my family.
MPT has a great blog and is a great dude. It’s unfortunate that someone has to point out “stupid Christianity” such as what you get on TV. As a believer myself, I try to push for MPT to be on TV and respresenting us. Most others are just embarrassing…..I don’t know how they get their gigs!
Nice interview! Never been to your blog before, but if you don’t mind I might take a look around :)
I am pleased that the interviewee never became the interviewer. He answered his questions admirable.
This was a really great way to start the morning. Progressive Christians don’t see a secular parallel to the faith community. Since that community does so much to sustain and promote the compassionate, hopeful, socially engaged life they desire, where do people like this turn when they are ready to move on?
To liberal Christians: Do you think it’s possible to build secular communities that inspire and sustain these values? Ones in which you would be comfortable if you felt compelled to leave your current place?
“Progressive Christians don’t see a secular parallel to the faith community.”
I dunno about that.
To answer your question, I absolutely think that that’s possible. To take your question on a tangent, I don’t think that’s the direction that current atheist thinkers and movements are tending toward.
What potential secular parallels do you see? I’m curious because the only one I can think of is the Unitarian movement and I don’t know if it’s best to categorize it as secular. Another way of framing the same issue is why people who leave religion generally do not build the same in-depth communities around similar social and personal issues?
I’m partially reflecting on why, after leaving Christianity, I had little desire to look for such. For a short while I considered joining an Episcopalian church but gave up the idea as being a poor focus of my time and energy. This was during an approximate 6 month period when I was thinking the supernatural elements of Christianity were unlikely but I was not completely settled in said opinion. I guess I’m looking at the community aspects of Christianity for some possible answers as to why some of us leave and some don’t.
I’ve spent a lot of time listening to liberal Christians and always seem to leave confused as to why they still have a primary identification as Christian.
Does the former require the latter? I’d be very, very interested in joining some type of “secular” community that was built on those types of values. But I’m not interested in leaving the church.
Unfortunately, I do. I’m sure I’m biased given my perspective, and to a point, you’re technically correct. I don’t see secular people getting together weekly to celebrate their secularism and to be inspired to love and serve others. But, I do see plenty of like-minded people gathered together around a hate of religion that falls into the same pitfalls as some religious groups. “Hate the sin, love the sinner” seems to be about as unrealistic for a lot of secular folks as it is for the fundamentalists on the other side of the aisle.
I’m reflecting on socially positive, liberal Christian communities. The acerbic nature of some or many atheists opens up a different line questions, I think.
Preface: I had to look up acerbic. Never heard that word before :)
Gotcha. I’m not aware of the communal aspect, at least in the traditional, in-person sense. However, I’m also not sure I’d limit community to in-person. Especially because of the Internet, what constitutes a community has changed, and I think you can find atheists communities all over the web.
The socially positive piece is interesting, though … I’m not aware of any.
This is opinion based on experience, so don’t take it as more than that. I think that in plenty-to-most liberal churches, you find people who are much more humble about the epistemic claims that traditional Christianity makes. They don’t claim to “know” that the Christian God exists in the same way as more “conservative” groups do, and they understand what they mean by that. You also tend to find emphasis on the socially positive elements of the faith.
The thing is, those socially positive activities are grounded in faith, faith that Jesus is the “way shower”, or belief that all people are equally God’s children and deserve to be treated as such, etc.
I guess this is what I’m saying, what’s the one overarching point of unity that would bring cohesion to the type of community you’re interested in? It seems to me that you/we would need to have that, but I’m not sure what it is (or if it exists?).
Great interview Daniel and MPT.
Enjoyed the dialogue
Nice interview. I finished feeling more informed, as well as more confused.
I’ve mentioned before that I never had to deconvert, I grew up secular. People who make the transition from one side to the other fascinate me. The idea of knowing now that something you used to believe is absurdly wrong is really amazing. Amazing that the human mind is capable of that kind of change.
Mr. Turner is an even odder case. He began the path of enlightenment. He abandoned the magical thinking, and embraced rationality. Then stopped. To me, he is the oddest of all cases. He can balance comfortably on the knife edge between the two sides of thought, clearly viewing both sides without falling off.
It must be challenging to live with so much cognitive dissonance. The rational person deals with it by using reason to discard ideas that are in conflict. The fundamentalist uses faith to ignore evidence that contradicts his belief. Mr. Turner seems to be able to wield both with equal skill.
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
-Galileo Galilei
Same here Revy.
Does anyone else see a certain inconsistency in the following statements:
“The one significant difference in my belief as a child and my belief today is that “fear” doesn’t play a role.”
“And you know, Daniel, for me, choosing not to believe in God would fundamentally change who I am. It would be like me choosing to cut off my legs or something like that.”
Am I misreading this, or is he saying he no longer believes in God out of fear, yet he believes in god because he fears who he would be without god?
The most telling part of this interview is the honesty he exhibits about the lack of evidence for god.
“Today, my belief in God is a choice based on a whole bunch of non-scientific emotions and feelings that I have personally experienced which compel me to have faith.”
I am willing to bet Mr. Turnert doesn’t rely on his “feelings” as evidence of the existence of things beside god. As pointed out by others though, it’s nice to have a believer drop by who is nice to us heathens and honest about the lack of evidence supporting his faith.
That may be an inconsistency, Bill, but that’s not what I understood when I read it. I hear him to be saying that belief in God is so integral to his personhood that he can’t imagine that he would remain himself without that belief. I don’t equate that with fear.
By way of analogy, I would be afraid of losing my wife if I thought she were about to leave me. But, that’s quite different from me saying that I can’t imagine what I or my life would be like without her.
Does that make any sense?
“That may be an inconsistency, Bill, but that’s not what I understood when I read it. I hear him to be saying that belief in God is so integral to his personhood that he can’t imagine that he would remain himself without that belief. I don’t equate that with fear”
I think we are reading his comments the same way but coming to different conclusions. I agree that he’s saying it’s an integral part of his personhood – that he can’t imagine what would be left of him without god. But I also see him saying he doesn’t see real evidence for god and instead goes on his “feelings” about god’s existence.
Continuing to hold beliefs in the face of contrary evidence – or at least a lack of evidence – becuse you can’t imagine who you are without them, is holding on to the beliefs out of fear of who you are without them. A fear of the unknown you without god.
I guess I’m just not seeing fear at work in his analogy. Using the marriage analogy differently, if on Valentine’s Day, one might say something like this to one’s spouse, “I love you, and I can’t imagine what my life would be without you.”
That sentence is probably not communicating “I’m afraid of what my life would be without you,” although it could be in some other contexts, I guess. It probably is saying “You have become such an integral part of me that I am no longer me if you are not a part of my life.”
I agree that we’re both interpreting, and I’m not married (bad pun) to my interpretation; What I don’t agree with is that the “fear” interpretation is the necessary interpretation of what he’s saying. I think there are other interpretations that work (and obviously, IMO, work better).
i think I understand what you’re saying, but your marriage analogy lacks a step. If you add the following statement I think it works better:
“…and I’d divorce you except I just can’t imagine who I would be if I wasn’t married.” ie…I’m afraid of life as an unmarried person.
That’s the way I see Turner’s statement. “I’m staying in a relationship with god (who I admit doesn’t have a lot of supporting evidence), eventhough it would be rational to get out, because I fear who I would be without him.”
By the way, I’m not saying fear is a particularly bad reason to make a decisions. I decide things all the time out of fear of bad consequences, I just found the statements above internally inconsistent. Plus I have a hard time understanding the decision here from an apparently rational and intelligent person.
Okay, I think I’m tracking with you. What I don’t see, and you do see, is the necessary “divorce” step to the analogy, which is the only piece that seems to make fear necessary.
I think it’s possible to be afraid of who you might be if your life changes drastically. But I also think it’s possible to simply imagine what you life might be given a dramatic life change without being fearful of it. To use his analogy, I’m not afraid that I’m going to lose the use of my legs tomorrow, but I know that I wouldn’t feel like myself if I suddenly did. Experiencing fear about losing one’s legs would be perfectly normal, but I’m not sure it’s necessary to feel fear when imagining that type of drastic change (is it?).
What I also don’t see, that you see, is an implicit or explicit “even though it would be rational to get out…” Is it the “non-scientific reasons” sentence?
Anyway, I’m probably over-analyzing a simple analogy in a blog interview and making way too much of it :) Thanks for the interesting conversation, Bill. Gotta run!
yeah i saw that too: “non-scientific emotions and feelings ” is very telling. All religion has a massive foundation on “feelings”. I once watched a ‘sinner’ and ‘troubled’ friend of mine hold hands with a preacher and they began chanting Jesus together per his instructions…just the word ‘Jesus’ over and over. They both began to cry uncontrollably – tears streaming down their faces – I mean whaling!! The sinner was transformed by this experience. Logic and reason doesn’t hold a candle to the emotion he felt. My own sister asked me not to speak reason to her for fear she would lose her religion – it is a source of immense comfort.
I turned it over in my mind and come up with the idea that it just sounds like ordinary sentimentality. “Non-scientific emotions.” I bet a lot of otherwise reasonable people have similar problems they don’t worry about how they fit into rationality.
Imagine your aging parents are selling your childhood home and selling their excess of belongings to move to a smaller place across the country, somewhere warm. Will you tell me you would not understand how that could affect an otherwise reasonable person? Part of me is there – while it’s not really, you moved away a long time ago. Strangers will live in my bedroom! That hasn’t been your bedroom in a long time. This is just one example. You can reason it out, but there’s going to be a feeling of loss for an inanimate object, the home of all your memories physically owned by another family or even razed for a new housing development or strip mall.
Most of us have sentimental attachments to material objects that are not useful for anything. It is easier for some people to rid themselves of objects and retain memories than it is for others, so I’m not saying this is universal, but everyone has emotions. Do you visit any graves and leave flowers? If you are tasked to scatter ashes of a loved one somewhere that person loved to be, do you just dump them in the toilet? Do you keep them on the shelf because you don’t want to let them go, or do you take them to that beach they asked you to? Is any of those responses reasonable? You like that souvenir from your vacation, it’s cheesy and a little broken from your last move, doesn’t go with the decor and your spouse hates it, and it’s not your vacation, it’s not even from the site, it’s a piece of baked clay made in China, why not just throw it away? I love my grandmother’s china dishes, they’re not my grandmother, and I really wish I had been able to talk to her as an adult, but she died when I was 19. I have one grandparent left and I do the best I can, but I also keep my “heirlooms,” and there’s not a lot you can do to convince me to part with them. My mother tells me her mother-in-law was a foul person actually… honestly, so is my mother. I set that aside and keep the things I like and remind me of good times, so there is denial involved, no doubt.
If I was raised in a specifically oppressive culture, perhaps – I imagine there are beautiful traditions in every land, along with some horrors. To go somewhere and say you were never raised in that environment may be a lot like cutting off your legs. How do you pretend that upbringing is not a part of who you are and that if it’s good, no change needs to be made?
This guy’s description of his Christianity really reminds me of the superstitious beliefs that are really just sentimental – that letting go feels totally abnormal. Not freeing. You don’t know until you throw stuff away how freeing it actually is, but see things from the side of the collector, the sentimental person. Those things feel like they have too much meaning in them to just discard.
How you were raised is a part of who you become, and to some extent of how you process that, cannot be denied or be something you need to eliminate entirely. If he had said, for example, One of the reasons why I believe in God is because I was raised in a culture where believing in God was as American as alcoholism and obesity. “God” is a part of my culture, history, and subconscious, that might also be true. He said Jesus might need better PR, so he put that little spin that it was rather more like buying a truck. He likes to think of it that way. I think most of us like to think of things we need and cling to for sentimental reasons in the better light. He was asked a question from an atheist, so he defended the normalcy of it, and most of us would if asked a similar question.
Kodie – I think your analogy is weak. Particularly for me because my attachment to objects is very limited. (For instance – I have no problem with the idea of my childhood home being sold and someone else sleeping in my bedroom.)
But more importantly if you were holding on to an object because you couldn’t imagine what your life would be like without it, you would in fact be holding on to it out of fear. Fear of what your life would be like sans the object.
Many people do not have the same problems, e.g., the childhood home, for example. I think even a reasonable person could be expected to have feelings about it, even though they think it is also what’s best for their parents, and it’s not even that nice a house. It doesn’t matter if you don’t share that exact problem with parting, it’s that you can imagine this plays out all the time for a lot of people. Some people have no problem weeding out “things” that serve no purpose, while others feel better with a small cache of mementos, and even others who become paralyzed by them.
Imagine that analogy with people, then. I mention my grandmother who died when I was 19. I was old enough to have had more adult-like conversations with her, but I don’t remember doing so. Then she went in a home and didn’t seem fully aware for a few years, then I took the call and found out she died from my aunt’s second husband. I have heard she was a bit of a hoarder herself, an alcoholic, and a racist. I don’t remember her that way, would I like to have a conversation with her now, if I could? Would I love her? Wouldn’t I rather let her stay how she was to me? A nice fun grandma with a bit of a problem getting the dishes completely clean, who made weird desserts, who made lip farts on my cheek and left bright pink lipstick? It’s not that I keep her items to remind me, either, it’s moreso that I admired them when I was in her house and seized them to have for myself when I got the opportunity. My other grandmother is always giving me things that I said I liked, and I’m glad she’s still alive to see me use them in my home, and to have conversations with every week or two.
In the sense then, Jesus is a “person,” like a friend MPT grew up with, that he sees in a certain way, who has always been there. Like my grandma, just the way I remember her, not how I was told she actually was. I just think the portion of the interview sounded a lot like normal sentimentality. If having a grandma is normal American behavior, then having a Jesus can be too – at least as he sees that’s part of his upbringing. If there’s anything bad he’s heard, he’s not willing to believe it or incorporate it into his concept of god. I don’t know how to describe this any other way, then it just sounds like a normal behavior that even reasonable people have, just not with Jesus. While there are dispassionate people who do not let sentiment fog up their behavior or thoughts, and are always able to reason things without sentimental bias – sell the house, don’t accumulate “stuff,” grandma was a jerk – most people do at least acknowledge a tug on their feelings when they have to part with stuff, or conflict with their image of a person who was loved.
Actually most people never really confront it if they don’t have to, and happily live with their delusions as long as they’re not harmful. I’m not saying it is right or wrong (well, yeah, it’s kind of eh), I’m just saying that’s what this guy’s story sounded like to me. He’s willing to believe in a god that “needs better PR,” because that’s the imagery he’s invented, that’s as normal American as buying a Ford, and as lovable and kind as my grandma. Other people have sold you a different version that’s “not true,” or at least not useful to him to interpret that way.
Without Jesus, who would he be? Like I said, after you get through purging your stuff that you clung to, you get amazed how much better you feel, while you’d predicted feeling worse. I thought he mentioned “fear” in the sense that he doesn’t fear things like hell, or fear that he’s being the wrong kind of Christian and worry about measuring up to some churchy standard that he was raised with, that that type of fear is gone.
Now he just holds onto it as some badge or identity, just how he is. Lots of people do lose things and manage not to suffer the loss of their identity – Chuck Close is an amazing artist in a wheelchair following an aneurysm that paralyzed him. Roger Ebert is probably my favorite new person who was always there and I didn’t know how smart he was. I am also saying, it’s pretty normal to feel like you wouldn’t be yourself if something counts toward what you feel is your identity, and that reasonable people do sentimentally unreasonable things and think such thoughts as much as they say this Jesus thing is wholly different.
Bill: ” Particularly for me because my attachment to objects is very limited.”
I’m the same way. I have absolutely zero attachment to material wealth. Yes, I like to live comfortably but if my entire house burned down I would not feel as if my legs were being cut off. The person in this story may agree – since Jesus himself instructed to sell all you own and come follow him. What he is afraid of is certainly not material wealth! It is losing his belief system.
Childhood brainwashing is incredibly strong – there is comfort in friends and community that all think alike. It’s as if you’re drifting off to sleep on a water bed and someone says – hey! WAKE UP! Come over here and relax on this pile of rocks! Ummm no – I’m more comfortable over here with my belief in heaven and love and the peaceful God that I was taught to know.
If he stopped believing, I think he’d be really surprised at how much he didn’t change as a person.
I completely agree. I almost feel more like myself (if that makes any sense); the only part that’s different is the lack of fear and self-doubt.
I see a lot of myself here. The difference is that when confronted with this dilemma:
“…choosing not to believe in God would fundamentally change who I am…I’d be making a choice to live as only half of the person I’ve become. Would I survive without my belief in God? Sure. But I’d be different.”
I realized that either way I would lose half of who I was–my rationality was a true and strong part of my identity, and could not survive if I decided to hold onto faith in spite of my rational understanding of the world around me. So in the end, I chose to hold onto the half of myself that was truly myself, instead of the half that was held captive by my upbringing and culture.
My reflections at the time were quite similar. I framed it, at least in part, as a commitment to following the truth where ever it led.
Well said.
Pingback: An Unreasonable Faith and Matthew Paul Turner | ChurchCrunch
There are countless millions who profess a belief in an (historical) Christ, that he lived, died, even rose again and yet they are utterly powerless, remain unchanged. So what gives? Where’s the power, the love of God, the transformed nature, how do too possess these (Christlike) attributes?
Belief alone is (obviously) not the answer. This man believes in an historical Christ, and he is right, but only partially, but there is more, so much more.
Any idea’s, thoughts?
“Any idea’s, thoughts?”
Yes – you make les sense every post
He does have occasional bouts of sanity. However, they do seem to be very few and far between.
Thanks Roger, I’ll take that as a rare compliment sir! Ha, all the best.
The process of (eventually) arriving at the truth is not necessarily a rational, ‘sense’ making adventure Bill. Particularly if one is/has been estranged from the truth his or her entire life. Actually, it’s a rather startling but beautiful experience.
Here’s a hint…what’s the ‘all’ that the Bible says his disciples ‘left’ to follow him? They didn’t leave their homes, their wives, families or even their vocations, they kept fishing, etc so what was it? Have you ever pondered that? (Yes, there are isolated cases where post resurrection converts left/sold houses, traveled in ministry, etc but I’m specifically referencing the ‘all’ that scripture says they ‘left’ to follow Him).
…and less sense…
John C,
What qualifies you to judge whether or not his belief is sufficient/partial or not?
The very word ‘judge’ implies a harsh critique along with a sense of finality, neither of which applied to my comment BR, read it again please, no judge am I. When we hear people speak of a belief in Christ, its almost always from a past tense, an historical perspective, ie where’s the ‘evidence’ etc, Mr. Turner candidly admitted that he didn’t have any yet he still ‘believes’.
What is the gospel message BR? Its’ Easter’ right? So if we believe that JC lived, died and was resurrected 2000 years ago, how (exactly) does that impact your life…today?, That is my point.
As unpleasant as the word “judge” is to you, you have to own your words, John. You use your words to judge people constantly to your measurement of what the truth is. You might think the truth is the truth and that you didn’t make it up, but you seem to be oblivious to that factor. It’s still not up to you to measure anyone else by it – you look after yourself and don’t worry your fuzzy little head about anyone else. Or else you can admit you judged, as unpleasant as that may be to have to admit, and to look over your words before you post them if judging is something you don’t mean to do and don’t want us to call you on it.
Here’s my beef with the comment you made:
So what gives? Where’s the power, the love of God, the transformed nature, how do too possess these (Christlike) attributes?
This is a simply Q&A interview, nothing more, nothing less. I’ve followed Matthew’s blog for quite a while now, and I know (at least if what he says there is true), that there is plenty of fruit. I think you’re rushing to a judgment, or if you don’t like that word, decision, about him, but you don’t know enough about him to make it.
How do you know if he possesses Christlike traits or not? Your comment just doesn’t seem fair based on what you know. That’s all I’m saying.
No, I wasn’t addressing him or his interview specifically BR, but rather the overall issue with ‘contemporary’ Christianity, an historically based ‘belief’, etc, not in the way you seem to have concluded. Maybe I should have been more specific (who me, fail to communicate clearly? ha :) All the best.
John C: “Belief alone is (obviously) not the answer. This man believes in an historical Christ, and he is right, but only partially, but there is more, so much more.
Any idea’s, thoughts?”
Yeah, my thought is what about all the humans who lived and died BEFORE Christ? Who was their savior? Did they not have a spiritual nature? Were they the equivalent of dogs in your eyes – unsaved heathens condemned? Your silly insistence on the “Christ” figure is foolish – as that figure has always been around – just given a different name. Humans have always created a savior – in some form or another. It’s what we do.
“And let me tell you; some of the members of John Piper’s fan base are scary, mean-spirited disciples who troll the Internet seeking out non-Piper fans to devour.”
That can really be said of any popular speaker…insert: Mark Driscoll, insert: Rob Bell, insert: Andy Stanley
I mean that’s why after Rob’s “Velvet Elvis” came out he actually addressed it in their gathering. He told his members to lay off the bloggers going after him…some of their defenses of Rob became more than defenses they became attacks, I pick up the same vibe from lots of people. I’m just saying. Sorry I picked up on one thing like this, believe me, I hate when people read something I write, then pick out one trivial thing to harp on. IDK it just kind of hit me when I read it. As someone who reads everyone from Bell to Sweet to Rollins to Piper to McManus…it seems they all have “those people.” Might as well not demonize one guy or his crowd.
Peace to you.
Sounds like his beliefs are closer to Buhddism O.o
Pingback: A Must-Read « wait and hope
Daniel,
Can I translate this interview and publish it in portuguese?
Thanks
Go for it!
Can I translate it into Klingon then?
“One of the reasons why I believe in God is because I was raised in a culture where believing in God was as American as buying a Ford. “God” is a part of my culture, history, and subconscious.”
Which is to say “I believe because others believe”. I would like to know if there are any other (better) reasons?
Pingback: Linkie Goodness #7 « Should Know Better By Now
Pingback: Weekly Meanderings « Faith Spread the News
Pingback: Popular blogger & atheist Daniel Florien questions me about Jesus, faith & blogging - Jesus Needs New PR