If you grew up in—or converted into—Evangelical Christianity, this is the abbreviated history of the truth you were born into. To you and me, it felt timeless. But it wasn’t. It evolved.
Joe, this was fascinating reading. I'm about as deconstructed as a born into evangelical gets but this had so much information and history and it was riveting reading the whole way through!
I've still got most of my long form reading attention span infact. 😂 Honestly though, it really was fascinating reading. I wish my evangelical relatives would even entertain the truth in it but I'm sure it would fall on deaf ears.
It may have been long, but damn it was worth the read! Oof! This one hurt. We as human beings really seem to know how to fuck shit up like it's our job. Here's to praying we somehow figure out how to get it right in the end.
I loved this. Thank you for writing it and sharing it. It's a great history of how we arrived at this moment and of my own personal story of deconstruction.
‘Literalism: Truth without mystery’ love this phrase. Recognizing and fully appreciating mystery was the first step in my post-evangelical life. Prior to that I was a reformed theology bro who believed in ‘Cartesian salvation’: I think, therefore I’m saved.
I’ve been retracing the timeline, now, and working it out in my mind. James’ letter was the closest in time to Jesus’ death and resurrection. Then Paul - who encountered Jesus on the road - consulted with the disciples to better understand what happened. (per Galatians - which is the next in the timeline.) That checks out, to me. I’ll be reading the NT with a new lens, going forward. Will be interesting to pick up new pieces as I do.
Joseph Smith was a mocker. Growing up in Las Vegas, I had a lot of Mormon exposure. In fact, part of my own timeline includes my mom, as a single mother, being “converted” to Mormonism when we moved to Illinois, for about a minute, and never picking it back up when we returned to LV. But that’s another story. LV was the next settlement after UT and I had a bunch of Mormon friends through high school. I’ve done quite a bit of independent research on that whole situation. I’m convinced JS had a copy of several “sacred” texts behind the curtain as he dictated his “revelation” to his friend and wife. Thus his rather comical rendition of religion.
Anyway. I’ve definitely rambled. (And your question was prob for Jonathan 😂) The order that was decided in the text we call the Bible is really interesting to me now. Especially as it has framed the religion we know. Why not put James’ letter first? It’s the closest in time AND he was a relative of Jesus. Then Paul’s letters. But I guess they had to introduce Jesus. Right? My imagination tells me that the disciples, MMJ, were scrambling - in a sense - to provide documentation for what Paul and then Luke had disseminated. All very interesting. 🤨
Most scholars I follow would date James 80-100 CE, well after Paul. (And say it is pseudepigrapha—not written by James.) The earliest book imo is probably 1 Thessalonians around 50 CE. Dating the NT books isn’t a perfect science and some conservatives push for earlier dates that I think stems from their own dogma vs research.
I heard somewhere recently the idea of "the sin of certainty." How much harm has been done because we were so sure of what we believed. Thanks Joe for this. It wasn't a bit too long.
Brevity may not be one of your virtues, Joe, but I enjoyed reading the entire article. My reaction; "Yeah, that's about right; that's the way it was and the way it is." I read a book years ago that traced American Christianity through each period of the last 250 years. Christianity has been a reflection of what-went-on-in-American-History and NOT the reverse!. That book (wish I remembered the title), had one section you did not include; the U.S. in the Vaudeville Age which described the antics of characters like Aimee Semple MacPherson and Billy Sunday. Today, church services still may include nonsense like wrestling matches or motorcycle races simply to excite congregations. I would like to hear more about the formation of the canon. It is an important issue which was quickly passed over in my church history classes. Those church councils sound more like they were political conventions. Nothing new under the sun. Thanks, Joe...I am getting much help and insight from your blog. Deano (Vineyard Ex-Pat).
Thank you. You connected more of the dots I’ve been trying to connect. I’m in the middle of not just deconstructing a spiritual path, But also a business one and also a few personal paths.
Joe, this was fascinating reading. I'm about as deconstructed as a born into evangelical gets but this had so much information and history and it was riveting reading the whole way through!
Great! I was worried it was too long 😂
I've still got most of my long form reading attention span infact. 😂 Honestly though, it really was fascinating reading. I wish my evangelical relatives would even entertain the truth in it but I'm sure it would fall on deaf ears.
It may have been long, but damn it was worth the read! Oof! This one hurt. We as human beings really seem to know how to fuck shit up like it's our job. Here's to praying we somehow figure out how to get it right in the end.
For real
I loved this. Thank you for writing it and sharing it. It's a great history of how we arrived at this moment and of my own personal story of deconstruction.
Yes, that was a long article, yet, it held my attention. A lot of good information and thoughts are included. Thanks for posting.
‘Literalism: Truth without mystery’ love this phrase. Recognizing and fully appreciating mystery was the first step in my post-evangelical life. Prior to that I was a reformed theology bro who believed in ‘Cartesian salvation’: I think, therefore I’m saved.
So you’re telling me… Paul was the original Joseph Smith?
But, seriously… good stuff. Thank you.
😂😂😂
This was my exact thought also
The question is does it make you rethink how you view Paul or Joseph Smith?? :)
Paul for sure. Sheds some light on how religions are formed and how Christianity is no exception
I’ve been retracing the timeline, now, and working it out in my mind. James’ letter was the closest in time to Jesus’ death and resurrection. Then Paul - who encountered Jesus on the road - consulted with the disciples to better understand what happened. (per Galatians - which is the next in the timeline.) That checks out, to me. I’ll be reading the NT with a new lens, going forward. Will be interesting to pick up new pieces as I do.
Joseph Smith was a mocker. Growing up in Las Vegas, I had a lot of Mormon exposure. In fact, part of my own timeline includes my mom, as a single mother, being “converted” to Mormonism when we moved to Illinois, for about a minute, and never picking it back up when we returned to LV. But that’s another story. LV was the next settlement after UT and I had a bunch of Mormon friends through high school. I’ve done quite a bit of independent research on that whole situation. I’m convinced JS had a copy of several “sacred” texts behind the curtain as he dictated his “revelation” to his friend and wife. Thus his rather comical rendition of religion.
Anyway. I’ve definitely rambled. (And your question was prob for Jonathan 😂) The order that was decided in the text we call the Bible is really interesting to me now. Especially as it has framed the religion we know. Why not put James’ letter first? It’s the closest in time AND he was a relative of Jesus. Then Paul’s letters. But I guess they had to introduce Jesus. Right? My imagination tells me that the disciples, MMJ, were scrambling - in a sense - to provide documentation for what Paul and then Luke had disseminated. All very interesting. 🤨
Most scholars I follow would date James 80-100 CE, well after Paul. (And say it is pseudepigrapha—not written by James.) The earliest book imo is probably 1 Thessalonians around 50 CE. Dating the NT books isn’t a perfect science and some conservatives push for earlier dates that I think stems from their own dogma vs research.
Ok. Good to know. I’ll keep digging. 😎
I heard somewhere recently the idea of "the sin of certainty." How much harm has been done because we were so sure of what we believed. Thanks Joe for this. It wasn't a bit too long.
This is incredible and enlightening: between what I knew, what I believed, and what I now know and believe.
Brevity may not be one of your virtues, Joe, but I enjoyed reading the entire article. My reaction; "Yeah, that's about right; that's the way it was and the way it is." I read a book years ago that traced American Christianity through each period of the last 250 years. Christianity has been a reflection of what-went-on-in-American-History and NOT the reverse!. That book (wish I remembered the title), had one section you did not include; the U.S. in the Vaudeville Age which described the antics of characters like Aimee Semple MacPherson and Billy Sunday. Today, church services still may include nonsense like wrestling matches or motorcycle races simply to excite congregations. I would like to hear more about the formation of the canon. It is an important issue which was quickly passed over in my church history classes. Those church councils sound more like they were political conventions. Nothing new under the sun. Thanks, Joe...I am getting much help and insight from your blog. Deano (Vineyard Ex-Pat).
Thank you. You connected more of the dots I’ve been trying to connect. I’m in the middle of not just deconstructing a spiritual path, But also a business one and also a few personal paths.
Okay then … well done and here’s another perspective.
https://substack.com/@lisablume/note/p-159019867?r=jzve5&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action