• A legacy that teaches those listened to him to use faith rather than reason as their guide,
  
• A legacy that pretends that one can be learned and religious without one biting into the other irreparably,
  
• A legacy that fosters doctrinal divides among an already divided church in the name of "biblical scholarship" and "being led by the Holy Spirit",
  
• And most importantly, in my opinion, a legacy that says it is good to spend one's life in trying to understand a book that, by nature, can never be internally consistent with itself.

I’ve been away for awhile and wanted to apologize for the lack of posts. I hope to change that over the next few weeks. When faced with ignorance, bigotry and religious idiocy, there is only so long one can remain silent.

The article to which I owe my current ridicule is found at NARLA’s Religious Liberty site (here). And it pushed me over the edge because in it, author Alan Reinach takes the time to assert the ludicrous idea that same sex marriage actually threatens religious liberty!

Despite his organization’s usual attempt to strengthen the hand of the persecuted minority which would, in turn, strengthen his own hand (he is, after all, a minority too), Reinach appears to have let his jealousy in seeing the small successes of a group he secretly opposes get the best of him. Hell hath no fury like a bigot scorned.

We’re already off to a bad start when he begins his piece with the usual platitudes of “hate the sin, love the sinner” and “I’m not attacking gays as people because Jesus died for them too, [but boy have they got a surprise in store when Jesus comes again]”. But really, when it comes down to it, what do you say to someone who feels morally smug in his own sexual fantasies but still demonizes those whose urges are different from his own? I had to look at my calendar three times while reading his article and remind myself that it wasn’t 1950.

Reinarch makes his point by pointing to a few examples and asking us to take pity on those “persecuted” religious groups like the Catholic adoption agencies that were forced to extend the same rights to homosexual couples wishing to adopt children that they extended to heterosexual couples wishing to adopt after Massachusetts passed a law enabling equal standing for homosexual couples more than a year ago. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, Vatincan head of the Pontifical Council for the Family was quoted by the Fides news service at the time as saying that allowing homosexuals to adopt children, “would destroy the child’s future, it would be an act of moral violence against the child.”

Boo hoo. Cry me a river. But persecution? Hardly! Why don’t we ask him where he got this information? What statistics did he present? What case studies was he referring to? The answers may shock you: his own bigoted mind, none, and none--he is simply pulling this opinion out of his ass which was, in turn, brought about because he believes the words of a book that tell him homosexuality is an abomination to the supernatural Being who makes universes.

Reinarch asks us to ponder the question of why this case had to be a zero-sum game. Couldn’t the state have made homosexual-friendly adoption agencies available to the public while allowing private religious groups their right to deny the children in their care access to homes owned by gays? Aside from the absurdity of the idea (a foster care home that doesn’t put its kids into homes), another dimension of the anti-gay argumentation comes to light: if this had been another protected class denied access to services (even privately) because of their gender, race, etc., it would be relatively easy to find the agency withholding the service guilty of discrimination.

For example, could we forgive a Catholic adoption service that refuses to serve blacks? Hell no! How about a Pizza Hut that refuses to serve women? Get outta here! Though farfetched given what homosexuals have had to gone through, we may one day even see a situation where a heterosexual couple is denied services on account of their heterosexuality. And, if so, the couple should rightfully win. Why? Because sexuality, whether homo or hetero, is and should be a protected class.

So when Reinach proceeds to tell us that it is wrong to equate the moral position of religious groups with racial segregation in the 1950s, we know he is talking out of his ass. Anyone who has even remotely read speeches and sermons by religious leaders surrounding the “separate but equal” days knows well that many, many Christians felt very comfortable with the ideas presented to them in their Bibles regarding ownership of slaves and the subjugation of races. Indeed, the Bible is rife with such examples and only a modern eye used to having his dogma spoon-fed and interpreted for him could claim otherwise. The analogy of Christian-sponsored segregation/subjugation of 60 years past is a good one because it shows us that religious ideas change in response to public pressures. The pro-racial segregation pushers of yesterday have become the pro-homosexual segregation folk of today. Eventually, even these will migrate to another forum where they can sell their wares of bigotry.

Eventually, Reinach comes clean, albeit through the cloak of religious sentiment. He reveals to us his intentions for homosexuality to not be granted certain fundamental rights. He prefers the practice of private faith to trump the rights of humans wishing to love and be loved. He even smugly hopes that, “Californians will have the opportunity to reaffirm that marriage consists of a man and a woman,” when it comes to the ballot in November.

But why? Why can’t he disagree with homosexuality as a moral position and yet extend to them the same rights that he himself enjoys? If pushed, I have no doubt that he would admit that we live in a secular nation with a secular constitution. And because of that, he would agree that many various activities should be legal even though he wouldn’t do them himself. So why is it so hard for him to empathize and do unto his fellow man what he would wish to be done to himself?

Christianity is indeed bankrupt.

• the Constitution has been trashed and must be restored

• the U.S. has supported and committed torture and it must end

• the economy has been wrecked by the power elite in both government and corporate America and that greed will stop, regulations will be enforced

• the Iraq War has been a disaster and we need a way out while acknowledging that we bear responsibility for bombing that country back to Ur

• universal healthcare is a human right and we’ll find a way to provide it

• our infrastructure - bridges, roads, water, sewer systems - will be fixed

• No Child Left Behind will be canceled and we’ll figure out how to improve our schools

• unwarranted searches and surveillance of citizens will stop

• there will be no more fooling around about the environment

• a fair solution will be found for immigration

• government ethics legislation will have real teeth

• separation of church and state will be restored

• every last political hack (thousands of them) appointed by the Bush administration to government agencies will be fired, replaced with non-partisan competents

• earmarks will disappear entirely from legislation – let them be properly legislated

• the wealthy elite have had it their way long enough, reaping collective trillions of dollars on the backs of the middle and lower classes and now it is their turn to pay it back

“...once one realizes the Bible is not the word of God, one should go on to establish a positive philosophy of life and not worry much about that book. That approach is obviously outside the scope of BE's calling. I'm finding the goals of (several groups are mentioned--Ed.)...of much more interest than debating fundamentalists. But I wish you good luck at freeing more minds from the myths of Biblical inerrancy, and I'll keep reading BE to see what luck you are having.”

You have touched upon one of the most divisive issues in the freethought movement, DW. Do we directly confront and challenge the supporters of religion and the Bible or do we go our own way by setting a good example and developing a positive philosophy and let them go theirs? The approach of the freethought organizations you mentioned is contrary to that of BE's.

This [country] is composed of millions of people whose support for the Bible ranges all the way from lukewarm to fanatical. In numbers and wealth their dominance is overwhelming and easily proven. One of their spokesmen alone, Jimmy Swaggart, has a yearly budget far in excess of that of all freethought groups and publications combined.

The disproportionate relationship between the forces is tremendous and that's why television exudes so many people who belong in the Middle Ages. We are told to turn off the set or change the channel if we don't like the program, but isn't it about time they started changing the TV, not us. Even the government buttresses them. If I was told I would no longer be taxed or subject to financial audits while my neighbor continued as before, that would be positive assistance, not just hands off.

Atheist, humanist, and other freethought publications have provided more than enough proof to show the partition between church and state more closely resembles a back door screen than a wall. This situation must be altered. Establishing a positive philosophy of life is commendable, but what follows? What do you do with it? Do you rest on your laurels and hope religionists will follow your example? How could that happen when they don't even know you are an atheist? In effect, the status quo would remain as before with biblicists dominating the scene.

Two crucial questions must be faced by all freethought organizations: (1) Why should religionists, biblicists, and apologists come to the freethought movement when they are convinced they already have the truth and (2) why should these same groups listen to anything the freethought movement has to offer when they have been taught from infancy that atheism, humanism, agnosticism, etc. are works of evil? To some they are the devil incarnate.

The only way to dispel people of these illusions is to go on the offensive, which few freethought organizations and publications are willing to do. Some even admit their reluctance. But, the fact is that a major reason the Bible is so all-pervasive is that millions of its supporters have taken their case to others. Missionaries have traveled the world and converted millions as Christian dominance is Latin America domonstrates. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have not become rapidly growing sects by sitting at home praying the world will see the wisdom of their ways and beat a path to their door. Aggressive proselytization is their hallmark.

Your tactics of adopting a "positive philosophy of life" actually amounts to nothing more than assuming a defensive posture, i.e., accepting conditions as they are, and is doomed from the beginning. You don't win on the defensive. Most freethought organizations and publications are not significantly converting people to their point-of-view but only picking up those who have rejected religion and/or the Bible for reasons of their own. Members of the religious/biblical community must be re-educated from the ground up. Most have been programmed from birth and it's up to us to deprogram.

Although important, battles over prayer in the schools, nativity scenes, "In God We Trust" on the currency, etc. are essentially secondary. As long as people believe the Bible is God's word, conflicts of this kind will continue unabated and remain an understandable by-product. Once people no longer believe the Bible or have their allegiance to it dramatically shaken, their interest in these secondary issues will naturally fade. That's why BE teaches a kind of Sunday-School-in-Reverse. Our program is one of going back to the basics, starting over, and exposing all the facts that should have been heard in Sunday School but weren't. But we can't do it alone.

You mentioned "luck," but that's not what matters. Thousands of knowledgeable people willing to put in the needed time and effort are what count. Serious and intense effort over many years in a protracted struggle are mandatory. Anti-religious humor, denunciations of the religious mentality, exposures of corrupt ministers or popes, and comparable tactics are subordinate, [if] not superficial, and easily countered.

Your statement with respect to fundamentalism missed the mark, DW. BE merely seeks to debate those most supportive of the Book while all others observe, so views can be sharply delineated and many may be moved further from the Bible by having their faith weakened. Converting a fundamentalist in a dialogue is of far less importance than influencing the audience.

BE doesn't exist to debate fundamentalists. Millions of people in this [country] are not fundamentalists or atheists but lie somewhere on the long spectrum [in between]. The common denominator is that nearly all support the Bible to some degree.
Many people have no strong views one way or the other but are just listening. Your poignant letter deserved an extended reply.

1. Grab the nearest book (that is at least 123 pages long).
2. Open to p. 123.
3. Go down to the 5th sentence.
4. Type in the following 3 sentences.
5. Tag five people.

Islam is at once the most and the least interesting of the world's monotheisms. It builds upon its primitive Jewish and Christian predecessors, selecting a chunk here and a shard there, and thus if these fall, it partly falls also. Its founding narrative likewise takes place within an astonishingly small compass, and relates facts about extremely tedious local quarrels.

As a former Adventist, I am a bit torn in my support for what you are proposing. The WRFA is, in general, not a sensible bill in that it allows for more egregious violations of civil rights then under the current system. The ACLU, according to their website, has said that it will oppose the bill ONLY IF it is not amended from its current form. Their review of all cases since 1977 where religious freedom in the workplace was involved concluded that more harm than good would follow if the WRFA was passed.
 
Would NARLA consider standing with the ACLU in opposing WRFA if amends were given allowing specific exemptions, such as yours, to be included?

Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi’s latest newsletter (#190—“What is a Christian Lifestyle?”) is truly depressing. It confirms for me the exact reasons why I left the Adventist church specifically, and eventually Christianity generally. As such, I felt it was necessary to comment on it here. This could hardly be a complete critique, but it is my hope to confront the biggest issues and let the reader sort out the rest on his/her own.

BACC: What does it mean to live a Christian lifestyle in the twenty-first century?  Some might question the relevance of this question by arguing that the Christian lifestyle today is not any different from what it has always been, because it is based on the Christian faith which has not changed.  It is true that the Christian faith has not changed since it rests on Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  What has changed, however, is the historical and cultural setting in which Christians are called to live and witness for Christ. 

Me: What seems to me to be a glaring contradiction is how a Christian can undergo a historical and cultural shift within their lifetime if their deity is, indeed, unchanging and his power is supposed to keep them from changing within the cultural tide. Assuming that the believer keeps his/her “faith”-end of the bargain, doesn’t this necessarily mean that their deity doesn’t actually possess the power as originally thought?

BACC: Our ancestors in Europe and America lived in a rather homogeneous world largely influenced by Christian values. Today we live in a pluralistic and materialistic society whose values are often openly and avowedly anti-Christian.

Me: What history book is Bacchiocchi reading? Christianity wasn’t born in Europe and I can’t think of a Christian today who would point to Europe of the Middle Ages and think, “Ah, sweet morality!” Given Bacchiocchi’s position on the Catholic Church, I’m surprised he can even say such things! The world has always lived in pluralism as every culture has had their own Gods save those cultures strong enough to extend their boundaries and push their Gods on men of alien lands. Animism and polytheism were rampant in the ancient world and still are today. This is a good thing for Christianity too as, had they not existed, the early church would have had nothing from which to borrow its Christ-myth narrative.

BACC: The gradual shift that has taken place during this past century away from a theistic view of the world in which God is the ultimate reality from whom we derive and to whom we are morally accountable, toward a materialistic view of the world in which matter is the ultimate reality from which we derive but to which we are not morally accountable, has produced the secular values that dominate our society today.

Me: Materialism simply states that all objects, being of the natural world, must necessarily be made of matter. Morality is not defined here. For that we must turn to other philosophies. Nevertheless, moral responsibility is to ourselves and our communities and not the matter from which we all came. In the end, if a material God can also be said to abide by a set of moral standards, then we can skip the middleman and petition ourselves to said morality just as He. That is, unless God is the arbiter of morality in which case, we can determine by some strange inner sense that he may not necessarily be moral since moral commands can be tossed about by his whims.

BACC: The criterium for what is right or wrong, is no longer divine revelation but human feeling and pleasure.  If a certain action makes a person feel good and gives pleasure, then it is right.

Me: This is a bit disingenuous. In reality, most nontheistic codes of morality are based on the Hammurabi-esque principal of “Do no harm to others.” That the current Christian philosophy once again models the old principles of asceticism that once plagued the church —equating pleasures *wink wink* with sin--is upsetting.

BACC: Christian’s divorce is at approximately the same rate as non-Christians.  Christians consume alcoholic beverages at about the same level as non-Christians.  Christians watch movies which portray violence, infidelity and perversion like the non-Christians.  Christians dress, dance, gamble and adorn themselves like the non-Christians. Christians listen to the same rock music and attend the same rock concerts frequented by non-Christians.  In most communities Christians behave so much like their non-Christian neighbors that they are indistinguishable from them, apart perhaps from their going to church.

Me: And why shouldn’t they? As the apostle Paul once said, are not all things lawful for them having purchased forgiveness and their eternal reward through faith? And if they are keeping their end of the deal by believing on Christ in faith who is said to strengthen them, whose fault is it when they find themselves lacking in strength?

BACC: Our own Seventh-day Adventist Church is a case in point.  Historically our Adventist church has emphasized the importance of living pure and healthy lives in preparation for the soon-Coming Savior.

Me: Not only is it unfortunate that such people feel the need to live “pure and healthy” lives because a God commanded them to rather than of their own accord, but it is also mind-bogglingly insane how anyone could still believe that the Savior’s coming is, in any sense of the word, “soon”.

BACC: In theory, these principles of Christian behavior are still part of our Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental beliefs.  In practice, however, there is an increasing number of Adventists who are neglecting or even rejecting their church standards, choosing instead to eat, drink, dress, dance, divorce, remarry, adorn their bodies and amuse themselves like the rest of the world. Their argument is that the church standards are restrictive, outdated and engender legalism.

Me: Such “standards” are restrictive, outdated and do engender legalism. Their argument is correct.

BACC: The compromise in church standards causes considerable pain to those Adventists who are committed to live their Christian faith according to the teaching of their church In a sense they feel betrayed by those who wish to be members of the Adventist church while at the same time living like the rest of the world.

Me: Why? Why should what others do with their bodies, their wardrobe and their free time in any way concern you? How can you be “betrayed” if your trust was never placed in man, but in the personal God you claim to encounter every day?  Please tell me!

BACC: There is no doubt in my mind that church leaders do play an important role in upholding high moral standards.  The history of Israel teaches us that leadership can make a great difference in the moral life of the people.  Repeatedly we are told that bad kings led the people into apostasy, and that good kings brought about spiritual revival and reformation.

Me: Again, I see this as a fault of the underlying religion. If the God being worshipped is real and capable of any feat, then he should be capable of keeping them behaving as perfectly as he wishes them to as long as they are keeping their end of the “faith” deal. That people look to their leaders is no fault of theirs--that is the human response. Instead, it is the fault of the God who can no longer command their attention. Show me a God who can be sold down the river by a human king and I’ll show you a figment of your imagination.

BACC: An example is the Roman Catholic Church who in recent years has hardened her position on contraception, abortion, celibacy, and divorce, yet it has failed to persuade the majority of its members. Surveys indicate that the vast majority of Catholics ignore or reject the official policy of their Catholic church on these matters.  The same hold true in Protestant churches where church members often ignore the official pronouncements of their church leaders. This erosion of respect for the authority of religious and civil institutions should concern us, because it fosters deeper uncertainty and doubt.

Me: Aha! Finally some truth! Dr. Bacchiocchi, are you listening to the words coming out of your mouth? You are actually saying that doubt and uncertainty, skepticism and the use of one’s (God-given?) reason is a bad thing. This flip-side implies that you believe that blind faith, trust and gullibility are good things. In addition, you betray your Protestantism by suggesting that any Christian should listen to a human religious authority on matters of the heart rather than their own hearts and minds which God should have direct access to. Oh, and I just noticed that you included civil institutions in your list where you only listed actual religious institutions. And Isn’t it precisely because mankind is beginning to listen to secular civil institutions that have a higher standard of evidence and also to their own minds, that they are losing the respect for religious authority?

BACC: In my view the solution is to be found not in simplistic ecclesiastical rules or pronouncements about how Christians ought to live, but rather in studying and discovering together what the Bible has to say about the Christian faith and practice.  It is important that believers become Biblical informed and convinced about the rightness or wrongness of certain actions.

Me: Fair enough, however, keep in mind that this means you will also have to accept their individual conclusions on the matter even when they come to disagree with your interpretations up until now.

BACC: Today it is no longer sufficient for a pastor or a denominational paper to tell church members, for example: "Don't drink alcoholic beverages because it is sinful."  The response of many individualistic minded members will be, "Who says it and why?"  What we need today is to present convincing Biblical and medical reasons for the imperative of total abstinence.  This is what I have attempted to do in my book Wine in the Bible.

Me: Haha, I admire the fact that you completely miss out on the irony of your own statements. Man should not listen to a church pastor or religious authority on the matter, but they should listen to you (a religious authority) give your interpretations on the Bible’s positions… Good one! How about this? How about people read their own Bibles in the privacy of their own homes without any outside influence save their personal God “guiding them in truth and righteousness” and then we’ll see what they come to believe on the matter.

BACC: This is the conviction that has motivated me to write several books on significant aspects of the Christian lifestyle.

Me: No doubt it has, but you still are missing the point. Writing the book is the same as giving a sermon to your congregation. Both require that the listener hear your opinions on the issues (as opposed to getting them directly from the Holy Spirit). Why not save your time, energy and the appeals for money to help fund your projects by admonishing your readers to get it from the Holy Spirit directly and leave such books alone?

BACC: During the past 25 years of teaching and preaching around the world countless times I have seen radical changes in the lifestyle of people who became convinced by the Scripture and convicted by the Holy Spirit that certain habits or actions were wrong.

Me: And there have been, no doubt, equal numbers of people who have still disagreed with you. But you don’t count this as evidence against the truth of your preaching do you? Count the hits and ignore the misses….nice! Again, it comes down to you not having an appropriate method for gauging truth. When you come to the point where you believe that people changing positions to come and agree with you is somehow a guarantor of the Holy Spirit at work, there’s no telling where you’ll end up! By your reckoning, I am the Dalai Lama of preaching seeing how many people I have agreeing with me in private emails and on public forums. And yet you and I are opposed. How can it be? Is God the author of confusion? Using your epistemological standards, yes, he must be.

BACC: I have learned through my ministry that unfortunately there are many sincere Christians who are sincerely doing what is wrong.

Me: Illogical. If being a sincere Christian means that you have faith in Christ and let him work in you, then any failure must necessarily be the fault of Christ since it is He who has claimed power to make them work anew.

BACC: [Christians] sincerely believe that women can serve as the head of the home and of the church, as long as they are competent to do the job. 

Me: I can’t believe I’m still reading your bigoted fucking newsletter. Women take note! Dr. Bacchiocchi values you like a farmer values a prized cow!

BACC: The concern of many Evangelical theologians, preachers and evangelists has been to emphasize how we are saved, rather than how do we live our new life in Christ.

Me: Maybe this is because the writers of the book they hold in high esteem didn’t plan on being around much longer since Jesus promised them a heavenly rapture in their lifetimes. As such, there isn’t time to dwell on such concerns when Christ will be coming back soon to take them away. Nevertheless, why should living a new life in Christ be an externally acquired skill? If kids can learn to walk and do a host of other things on their own, why must they learn such a skill from another fallen human being rather than from God directly who is supposed to be powering them? You’re not taking your own gospel seriously enough.

BACC: To put it differently, the concern has been to teach people how to become Christians, rather than to train them on how to live the Christian life. To be more  specific, we have failed to help people understand how the acceptance of the Gospel affects the way we eat, drink, dress, adorn and amuse ourselves, as well as  the way we relate to such larger issues as abortion, poverty,  pollution, nuclear war, and social injustices. 

Me: Man, sounds like you’re in for the long haul! Again, your gospel has failed you. “Soon” does not mean soon, “Quickly” does not mean “quickly”? Perhaps each new copy of the Bible sold should include a complementary thesaurus with the section on antonyms in bold! Methinks Paul, upon learning all that entails “Christian” living more than 2000 years later, would have been inclined to leave the faith had he truly been given the gift of prophecy!

BACC: Many assume that once people have accepted by faith Jesus as their Savior, they will automatically learn how to live their new life in Christ.  Obviously this is not true.

Me: God can code a billion proteins in our genetic code and remembered to give us the skill to go to the bathroom when our bladders are full, but he forgot to code for our ability to live morally as he wishes us to live when we surrender to him in faith? I think this negates the omni powerful attribute just a bit. The Christian God = 0, Non-Christian Gods = 1.

BACC: On this central truth of the Gospel [“faith alone”], there can be no compromise. But, although justification is by faith alone, this faith is not alone.  If it is an authentic faith it will inevitably bring forth good works. 

Me: So, by faith alone you mean faith not alone. Yeah, that makes sense. (Motions to waiter, “Check, please!”)

BACC: Our Adventist conviction on the necessity of good works to validate the authenticity of our redeemed relationship with Christ is based on the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

Me: Definitely debatable and, by a random sampling of Christianity, both laypeople and scholars, Adventism is not winning this debate.

Look, if good works “validate” ones salvation, and if it is Christ who is supposed to be working in the lives of his people, then he has clearly failed and is, furthermore, a moral hypocrite of the worst kind for denying them entrance to eternal life when he himself made the rules governing its accessibility and yet failed to live up to them through the lives of the faithful.

BACC: It is not the one who confesses Christ by calling Him "Lord, Lord" but the one who "does the will of my Father who is in heaven" that will enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt 7:21).

Me: And yet since the will of the believer is bound to Christ, any failure to follow Christ’s will must necessarily fall to Christ. If it falls to man then this means that man’s ultimate salvation depends on his own ability to follow rules and somehow work independently of Christ’s power which should already be working in him.

As an atheist, I think this entire argument is ridiculous. Faith is completely worthless and heaven should be based upon good works and good works alone. This would immediately eliminate the need for competing faiths throughout the world, all of which are ultimately based on untestable claims. Think about it, why should God care what we puny humans believe is true after all? Why does our interpretation that he is “pink” matter at all if he is really “blue” and can simply show us as much and end the confusion? It would be like demanding that a coworker agree with you that you are the most handsome man in the office in order to secure your help on his project. Why would you make such a rule unless you’re an asshole?

Since legalistic Christians and their God want us to live upright lives anyway, why not just cut out the BS and live right lives? If God is who the Bible says he is, then he is clearly able to communicate with us via our consciences in such a way that he is convincing to each and every one of us. This, of course, means that faith is worthless since our own consciences would guide us in determining the morality of certain actions. As I see it, humans are a morally confused bunch because they adopt the moral stance espoused by certain holy books at the expense of the morality that is already given to them and that resides in their consciences due to their being born to the human species.

BACC: Perhaps it is the fear of being labeled as "legalists" that has kept many Evangelicals authors from addressing some of the specific aspects of Christian living. Even in our own Adventist church there has been a tendency in recent years to avoid teaching, writing  and preaching on "church standards."

Me: This is just ridiculous coming from a person who proclaims that he is worshipping a living, eternal God with whom he has a personal relationship. What possible interest would books and other static media have on a such person if what he believed were really true?

BACC: The reluctance to teach members how to live the Christian life  derives from the fear that such teaching can cause a sense of guilt and insecurity in the mind of those who do not live up to God's expectations.

Me: Well, the feelings of guilt are certainly real and the depression that follows is even more real. And the constant up, down, up, down leaves many feeling nauseous. Such a rollercoaster ride of emotions is befitting of a cult-leader interested in emotionally attached zombie followers and not of an all-powerful Deity. Joy should be the hallmark of a good religion, not penitence and sorrow at one’s inability to live up to an arbitrary and unfair standard.

BACC: …when  persons respond to an altar call to accept Jesus, we try to process them as fast as possible into church membership. We take them through a short prayer, a compressed series of Bible studies on the fundamental beliefs of the church, then we baptize them and give them a warm handshake to welcome them into church membership. After that they either sink or swim depending on their resources.

Me: This sounds contrary to the conversion story on the Road to Emmaus where a guy had been reading the Old Testament and was able to make a quick conversion once he had a few key questions answered for him. So why is there a discrepancy between his life and the life of converts today? And whose fault is all of this? Who told Christians to make conversion a rush job? Considering that the New Testament gives no formal advice on the conversion process of a new Christian, why not change the rules? And why is God such a bad teacher?

BACC: There are two essential components in a Christian lifestyle: faith and works, being and doing, faith and action. 

Me: Just in case it wasn’t clear to anyone what he really thinks about the “only by faith” idea that Martin Luther reformed with.

BACC: Sometimes what new converts need most is not indoctrination but a demonstration of how to live the Christian life. There are skills in Christian living that can best be learned by the example of a godly Christian.  It is has been rightly said that Christianity is more caught than taught.

Me: I’m just having a hard time reconciling the idea of discipleship with Christ who is supposed to the center of our focus for everything and the idea that we should be looking to other humans for support, instruction and help in doing the very things that God wants us to do. If we can look to other humans to do them for us or instruct us, what’s the point of believing in Christ?

BACC: Sometimes I have felt foolish and at other times presumptuous for attempting to write on aspects of Christian living on which I have no expertise. Moreover some of the topics are complex and controversial, requiring more reading and thinking than I had time to do.  Yet my failure to complete this project, does not diminish the importance of lifestyle in the Bible.

Me: I’m just having a hard time imagining why you think you should offer us something after all these years of revelation and the Christian gospel unless they are somehow inefficient in and of themselves.

BACC: The problem is that the books of the Bible do not provide us with an organized topical treatment of all the issues confronting Christians today.

Me: That’s the understatement of the millennia! (You might want to check out the possibility that it’s because all of Jesus’ followers expected to go to heaven in their lifetimes. Never in their wildest dreams would they have imagined that you or I would be here—that their cult leader’s prophecy where he said he’d come back soon would fail! And yet here we are…)