I will keep this relatively short. I was raised a Friend (Quaker). In my early teens my stepmother started dragging me to a Fundamentalist church. The differences were so stark between the teachings of the two that I left religion and I even ran away from home when I was 16. Fortunately, my Quaker grandparents took me in, so I wasn't living on the streets. I'm a reader (again, because of my grandparents) and I started reading about Christianity, comparative religion, anthropology, archeology, and so on. I haven't been a Christian for going on 53 years now, but I find that I live a more Christ like life then most Christians I interact with. Even though I fell away, the teachings of Christ still resonate with me and I find the core of his teachings in other faiths. I believe that that core exists in all faiths, but the core is corrupted by men to use as a means for control and power.
Great article. However, I have to say, not all Christians think that the Bible is the foundation of their faith. Or at least not all of it. I myself find value only in the Gospels and I don’t even see them completely reliable - at least not the English translations. I am of the opinion that certain sections that are openly indicative of Christian theological beliefs have been added at some point in time after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Perhaps before. Perhaps quite relatively recently. I don’t believe Jesus even believed in ECT, much less talked about it to any audience and any section of the Gospels that support suggests this is not to be accepted as something taught by Jesus and certainly not anything that I am obliged to accept as a teaching of Jesus (Jesus’s teachings with respect for how human beings are to regard and treat each other are the only aspect of “Christianity” that I have any belief in or respect for or see any relevance or value in. ) Likewise, I don’t acknowledge any authority other than the God revealed by Jesus in the Gospels (one who is exactly like him) I certainly do not acknowledge any human being as a moral authority over me and I most definitely do not acknowledge “The Bible” (any translation) as an authority or guide that may instruct me as to how to feel or what to believe about homosexuality, marriage, sex, race, gender, child rearing, political and social issues, science, history, people of different backgrounds and cultures, mental health issues…Anything at all, actually. Anything of value relating to these sorts of issues in the Bible can be found elsewhere or through some other way than a source as problematic as the Bible. Any “wisdom” in it can be found elsewhere also or is not what I consider “wisdom” Many proverbs are not so much wisdom as common sense that most people are already familiar with depending on their experience of life. Others are irrelevant to the time and culture and society I live in. I know this sounds arrogant, but as I am a person who has been traumatized by the Bible as well as Christian beliefs derived from biblical passages lifted from their proper context and given a meaning that the author most certainly did not intend, I think my distaste and distrust can be understood. Trauma has triggers and the Bible is a trigger for every traumatic experience I had during my time as a Christian. Just looking at one used to cause me a sudden intense anxiety. Reading any part of it, even the “nice” parts triggers memories of the sleepless nights filled with fear and despair that I experienced, again due to beliefs that are derived from the Bible or more correctly (as you point out) the interpretation of various passages that the church I belonged to taught and the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and all the implications of this particular product of Evangelical imagination.
I think it has done far more harm than good and in recent times has done only harm and will continue to do only harm.
I wish you and all others who write about it would stop generalizing. I was actually brought up to completely disregard the Bible as source of divine revelation or authority. My parents are Catholic and Catholicism has a vastly different view of the Bible than Protestant and Evangelical denominations. Also, even by Catholic standards, my parents were not at all interested in the Bible. Naturally, they were aware that Catholicism does regard the Bible as an authority. However, tradition is an equal or greater authority. Even as an authority, it is very different from how Protestants and Evangelical denominations view it. As far as my parents were concerned, Jesus and his teachings were what they want sister and me to be exposed to and they did not care that this knowledge was imparted through passages from the Gospels being read aloud during the Sunday Mass. They did not send us to Catholic schools or even CCD classes. Neither my sister nor I were confirmed as Catholics (a sacrament that most Catholics undertake at 13 years old. Both of us ceased to attend church as soon as we were free to make this choice. Neither of us are religious Christians now. I am not at all certain what my sister believes. I do know that she displays and values the behavior towards others that Jesus taught as much as any “biblical” Christian and more than some. I have had my experiment with a very different form of Christianity than Catholicism and as I have already described, it caused me nothing but pain and ruined my life which was already almost at that point when I made the mistake of trying to find a solution in Christianity. I don’t know how to find my way back to the way I was as a child. A child whose parents assured me that God was good and loved me and that his son Jesus proved this by his teachings and behavior as described by the readings I heard from the Gospels in church. Catholicism (at least in the church we attended) is not obsessed with “sin” and human sinfulness and no sermon any priest ever delivered in my hearing made me cry or caused me anxiety. It’s been so long since that time, but my overall impression in my memory is talk of God’s love and how to apply the teachings of Jesus in real life. Neither of my parents have ever read the Bible. Not because it was forbidden or actively discouraged. They simply had no interest in doing so then or now. Yet if anyone were to say on my mother’s hearing that all Christians base their faith on the Bible, she would be offended.
Hi, Patti. I appreciate your comment, feedback and perspective, and you sharing some of your own spiritual journey. Yes, I realize there are many different interpretations of the Bible and that people's experience and understanding of the Bible are vastly different. You're also right that my criticisms of the mishandling of the Bible come more from my Protestant/Evangelical background, which I will make not of when doing posts like this. Thanks again for your thoughts!
Thanks. However, I wish to apologize for my tone, which was far from courteous or respectful, and for the incorrect statements I made regarding the Bible and its connection to Catholicism.
As to my tone, I am still unable to be objective or fair where the Bible is concerned. I was a member of a Southern Baptist Convention affiliated church and someone with your experience and professional qualifications surely knows what churches like this believe and teach regarding the Bible, the way that many key passages that support some of their important beliefs and doctrines, and from other articles that you have written and I have read, I know you are aware of how much emotional and spiritual confusion and trauma all this can lead to. While it initially appears to offer a comforting certainty with respect to some very important issues, many people have a hard time accepting Evangelical Christianity’s definition of the Bible, its manner of interpreting it - what I suppose could be described as biblicism, a word which is problematic in that it has several different definitions depending on the beliefs of the person who is defining it, but which I define as not just a “literal interpretation” but the practice of giving equal “treatment” or authority to all the content of the Bible, as far as using it as a moral, legal, or social guidebook for those living today. Laws and attitudes that belong to a tribal society thousands of years ago in the Midd East are not appropriate for Christians today. Even the New Testament is not always an appropriate source for what Evangelical Christians want to use it for today. “Biblical” marriage and “Biblical” child rearing practices are not appropriate for today’s society. “Biblical” doesn’t mean “good” or appropriate or even “Christians.” The Evangelical theology that is either derived from or supported by Old Testament religious beliefs was something I found very traumatic. The biblicist approach to the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, was extremely difficult and traumatic. To be told that Jesus’s teachings included warnings hell and all that that said about God…
Anyway, I probably will never feel like reading the Bible again, even though I have a very different understanding of what it is. It will probably always be a trigger for me.
However, I apologize for my claim that it was not a the foundation for all Christian denominations. It is - how can it be otherwise when the earliest and only form of Christianity in the Roman Empire considered the ancient Hebrew Scriptures and the epistles and Gospels attributed to various apostles as inspired and authoritative writings. The Catholic Mass is at least partially derived from the parts of the Gospels and the service traditionally included 3 readings from the Bible - 1 from the OT, 1 from the NT epistles and 1 from one of the Gospels. It’s just that my experience with both Catholicism and an evangelical Christian church led me to feel like the Bible is everything to Protestant and other non Catholic denominations while Catholicism has a more reasonable and far less dogmatic approach to it. But this is only my own experience. I really have no idea about the Bible’s place in Catholicism and Catholic theology.
I apologize of accusing you of “generalizing” (you did not) I have just read so many posts and comments recently from people who definitely lack your credentials and experience with respect to Christianity in general and the different forms in particular, it who have had negative experiences with Christians and definitely generalize as to what characteristics are true of all Christians - hypocritical , homophobic, patriarchal, misogynistic, judgmental, racist, hateful, sin-obsessed, bigoted, the list of unpleasant traits goes on. It’s upsetting because my own experience with Christians (Catholic and otherwise) has been entirely positive. All the Christians I met through my involvement with a Baptist church were really nice, welcoming, friendly, compassionate people. Even the pastors was so different from the horror stories I have heard about from other ex-Christians. He was a gentle and compassionate man who never gave a sermon about hell, never expressed judgmental and/or hateful or discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals, non-Christians, women, other religious or ethnic groups. Maybe my experience was very, very atypical, but it seems to me that most Christians, like most people in general are decent people who are doing the best they can to make it through life and the difficult, often painful situations that life throws at them. Even non religious people can be hypocritical, intolerant, judgmental, hateful, etc. People are who they are and belonging to a particular religion or denomination of a religion doesn’t mean that one should automatically be assumed to possess a certain personality.
Anyway, I apologize for letting my baggage lead me to misunderstand certain statements in your article.
I really did enjoy it, as I have other articles you have published. Your recent article about hell was wonderful. As you know, the fear of hell is very common among Christians and your article contained important information that helps to get past this.
A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO “THE BIBLE AFTER GOD”: Reading Scripture with Faith, Humility, and Love
As a strong believer in Jesus Christ, shaped by my own miraculous experiences—the 2007 pulmonary embolism in Madison and the 2020 Miraculous Awakening seizure and vision in Baraboo with Estela’s hand and the sense of infinite presence—I approach articles like “The Bible After God” with both openness and discernment.
A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO “THE BIBLE AFTER GOD”: Reading Scripture with Faith, Humility, and Love
As a strong believer in Jesus Christ, shaped by my own miraculous experiences—the 2007 pulmonary embolism in Madison and the 2020 Miraculous Awakening seizure and vision in Baraboo with Estela’s hand and the sense of infinite presence—I approach articles like “The Bible After God” with both openness and discernment.
I have engaged deeply with deconstructionist ideas, yet I remain anchored in my personal faith journey and gratitude for knowing Jesus.
The author raises valid concerns about how the Bible has been misused, the diversity of interpretations, and the dangers of rigid systems. These deserve honest reflection. However, the piece ultimately moves away from the historic Christian conviction that God has spoken definitively in Scripture and supremely in Christ.
Below I offer a counter-article that engages the original’s main sections while staying rooted in Christ and comparing key claims to Scripture.
STRENGTHS ACKNOWLEDGED
The article rightly notes real problems: textual tensions, translation differences, interpretive disagreements, and tragic misuse of the Bible for violence and control.
These are well-documented and have caused genuine harm.
Its table contrasting Systematic Theology and Religious Deconstruction is a helpful framework for discussion.
The call to prioritize love, justice, and care for the marginalized echoes Jesus’ own teachings.
ENGAGING THE CORE CLAIMS WITH SCRIPTURE
On Systematic Theology and “False Premises”: The author argues that traditional systematic theology rests on flawed premises, especially the divine inspiration and unity of Scripture, and labels it “doctrolatry.” Yet Scripture itself invites ordered reflection: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16‑17). Jesus treated the Old Testament as authoritative and unified in pointing to Him (Luke 24:27, 44). The early church summarized core beliefs in creeds while wrestling with mystery. Systematic theology, at its best, is not rigid idolatry but a humble attempt to love God with our minds (Matthew 22:37). Deconstruction can purify, but total rejection of coherence risks leaving us without anchors. As Paul wrote, “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Corinthians 15:3) — there is a coherent gospel core.
“Which Bible Should You Read?” — Canon, Translation, and Interpretation: The article highlights diversity in canons, translations, and hermeneutics. This is true, yet the Protestant canon of 66 books emerged from early church recognition of apostolic authority and consistency with Christ. Jesus affirmed the Hebrew Scriptures (Matthew 5:17‑18) and promised the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into truth (John 16:13). Major translations (NIV, ESV, NASB) agree on essentials. Stylistic differences, like in James 1:26‑27, do not overturn core doctrines. Responsible interpretation follows the grammatical‑historical method while allowing for genre (history as history, poetry as poetry, parable as parable) — exactly as Jesus used parables (Matthew 13).
Rejection of Christian Theism and Miracles: The author refutes “the entire construct of God conceived by Christian theism” and treats miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and hell as implausible folklore. Scripture presents a personal, relational God who acts in history: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). The resurrection is the cornerstone: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile” (1 Corinthians 15:17). Eyewitness testimony, the empty tomb, and transformed disciples support this historically. Hell is sobering but flows from God’s justice and respect for human choice (Matthew 25:46; Revelation 20). Love without justice is sentimentality; God is both (Exodus 34:6‑7).
False Dichotomies and the “Love‑Centered” Bible: The piece offers Option C (Bible as ancient literature) as an alternative to inerrancy or fairy tale. Scripture supports a better view: the Bible is fully human and fully divine — God‑breathed through real authors in history. Jesus is the true center: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Love is primary (“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another” — John 13:34), but it is love defined by Christ’s cross, not our preferences. We do not “compost” uncomfortable parts; we wrestle with them in light of the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), trusting the Holy Spirit.
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS DECONSTRUCTION: NOT TOTAL OPPOSITES
Systematic Theology builds coherence while Deconstruction can expose idols. Both find their place under Christ.
Many faithful Christians practice semper reformanda — always reforming — holding core truths while critiquing abuses.
Deconstruction can be a purifying fire rather than total demolition when submitted to the living Word.
MY BALANCED APPROACH AS A BELIEVER
Read the Bible prayerfully, asking the Holy Spirit for illumination (John 16:13).
Study it in community with historic creeds as guardrails.
Hold tensions honestly: justice and mercy, sovereignty and responsibility, wrath and love.
Test everything against the character of Jesus revealed in the Gospels.
Embrace the Bible as God’s love letter that meets us in our humanity while calling us higher.
FINAL WORD
The Bible is not merely ancient literature or a tool for self‑actualization. It is the living Word that points us to the Living Word, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:12; John 5:39).
If we seek the primacy of love, we find it supremely in the One who laid down His life for us.
I invite readers — whether deconstructing, doubting, or doubting their doubts — to encounter Jesus in the pages of Scripture with an open heart. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
I have engaged deeply with deconstructionist ideas, yet I remain anchored in my personal faith journey and gratitude for knowing Jesus.
alism. Why does my phone post these early??!! We all know the Bible will, but the meanings are so deep and so very different from what i was taught! I think the trouble is with the traditional religious leaders interpreting the Bible for us in very specific and very traumatizing ways.
I truly appreciate your article. It’s spot on. I can appreciate your struggle, and the reason you write so much. Bless you. And i hope you feel terrific again soon. By the way, just for the heck of it: Jesus had complete contact his last three years with a form of God we know as Christ. He still spoke in human way that is sometimes hard to interpret, when he c wasn’t speaking with the voice of his Father. (All the I Am statements). But he still got across the idea very well that the Kingdom is within us, and we eventually find ourselves free to grow and evolve toward the expression of Christ within ourselves with our hearts and minds. Or at least, that is my latest discovery of truth. And it’s empowering and holy-making for us, and very beautiful.
College, ELCA Lutheran), i began to think fit myself and become more uncomfortable with the Bible. Life continued to bring me new experiences which certainly were not all intellectual. By the time i got into Medical B School, the thought of going to any b traditional church and the thought of reading the Bible was abhorrent. In fact, though i continued to believe in an increasingly large and all-encompassing God, i could not use the word “God” for a couple of decades. I finally officially listed myself as “eclectic” rather than Christian.
However, life continued to teach me and guide me. Nowadays, at age 78, i teach classes in the Christian Kabbalah weekly, and call myself a Christian again. Just a different sort of Christian. I remain very familiar with the Bible curiously, and I’m teaching people who came out of rigid fundament
I left the church more than a few decades ago. After worshipping the Bible as if it were somehow God represented in print for me while I was in Junior High, on my way through a degree in Biology at a V Christian
Good piece. But the question “Which Bible should you read?” already cracks the door open. Once you realize there are multiple canons and hundreds of translations, the idea that there’s one pristine book sitting there untouched by human hands starts to wobble a bit.
Where I agree with you is that most people think they’re reading the Bible when they’re really reading a translation layered on top of centuries of interpretation.
Where I’d push it further is the history. The canon didn’t fall out of the sky. It came through debates, councils, politics, and a long chain of human decisions about what stayed in and what got left out.
Ironically, that’s exactly what I discovered while getting my degree in Bible and religion. The deeper I studied the text, the harder it became for me to stay in church. Not because I lost interest—because I understood the history.
Once you see the layers, you can’t unsee them. So the real question isn’t which Bible to read. It’s what happens when you finally understand where it came from.
While human systems often trade the Living Word for rigid structures, the Remnant understands that true Scripture is an encounter with the Sovereign God of Israel. We do not fear the complexity of the text, for our Covenant identity is anchored in the Eternal Reality of a King who is restoring His people in our very sight.
Its a great read. After a long and thoughtful article I sometimes dont know exactly what to say. Maybe just a few stories. I was a mormon missionary in my 20s. I went to a persons house and was reading the Bible with them. She was a very educated woman and had many notes in her Bible. She showed me one page and she had labled a few verses Forshadowing. I was offended that she would treat the word of God like literature. Haha
Also I remember on my mission arguing that the Bible was not perfect. I pulled out scriptures that were contradictions I talked about how it was compiled and how it was only in the 3rd century or something that it was compiled. Then I'd try to quote scriptures to prove another point. I'd try to show that the Bible wasn't 100% accurate then argue that they should believe me because of Bible verses.
And lastly I just reread the creation story because of a comment about the creation. How did I read that so many times and never see that it is told twice in completely different styles with different facts. The reason is that I read the Bible to confirm my existing beliefs not to see what it said.
Im only half way through and have many questions thoughts and comments.
I understand how the Bible could be read as an anthropromorism of God. Im starting to be open to God again after leaving religion and this immaterial god is appealing. But do many religious Christians believe this? My religion took the Bible true as far as it was translated correctly but most that I talk to say the Bible is completely true. Perhaps because they have not read the parts where God regrets making man or commands genocide. Perhaps those in seminary see god as eternal, immaterial, unknowable but do everyday members believe this.
I have read the Bible, mostly the NT but I've been over the OT at least once. I've read parts of the books that weren't in my Bible (KJV) and never found much of substance in them. Bell and the dragon and the infancy gosple of Thomas as examples. There are weird stories in my KJV but I always found the other books too strange. HEREs a hard question is there any doctrine or stories that are worth telling in any of these books. Perhaps some of the female teachers are of significance. But the stories were just too strange for me to take seriously. Jesus cursing then healing a person???
I grew up on the beauty of the KJV but read the NIV when KJV was completely incomprehensible. I dont read any Bible now but I had my leather bound Bible since i was 16. I've underlined I've read every day for decades. I dont read it but I can't throw it away. I hate it and I love it. That physical book sits in my son's room, and I may never get rid of it.
I was thinking about God lately and wondered if there was any use starting in the Bible. I could just start with the idea of "goodness." I'll admit the Bible and my other scriptural readings BofM, D&C, have set the basis for my religious thinking but I like to think i can reject all of that and just find God through thought.
Been reading Brandon’s Mindshift you tubes on his literal interpretations of the Old and New Testaments . If we read the literal narratives of biblical accounts with a rational, questioning mental process, one of the conclusions I’ve made to myself that the God of both Old and New Testaments is that the Yahweh deity of the biblical Israelites behaved in an uncaring, cruel, and wrathful way in the accounts of Israel’s military conquests of the hostile tribes occupying portions of their Promised Land, all prosecuted by a hostile, vengeful Yahweh. The narratives attributed to Yahweh describe a jealous, genocidal , and inconsistent God. This literal conception of a God flies directly in the face of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving, and tolerant deity Christianity has indoctrinated to its past and current believers. I feel serious doubts about the validity and truthfulness of the canonical doctrines of portrayed in this God.
I will keep this relatively short. I was raised a Friend (Quaker). In my early teens my stepmother started dragging me to a Fundamentalist church. The differences were so stark between the teachings of the two that I left religion and I even ran away from home when I was 16. Fortunately, my Quaker grandparents took me in, so I wasn't living on the streets. I'm a reader (again, because of my grandparents) and I started reading about Christianity, comparative religion, anthropology, archeology, and so on. I haven't been a Christian for going on 53 years now, but I find that I live a more Christ like life then most Christians I interact with. Even though I fell away, the teachings of Christ still resonate with me and I find the core of his teachings in other faiths. I believe that that core exists in all faiths, but the core is corrupted by men to use as a means for control and power.
Great article. However, I have to say, not all Christians think that the Bible is the foundation of their faith. Or at least not all of it. I myself find value only in the Gospels and I don’t even see them completely reliable - at least not the English translations. I am of the opinion that certain sections that are openly indicative of Christian theological beliefs have been added at some point in time after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Perhaps before. Perhaps quite relatively recently. I don’t believe Jesus even believed in ECT, much less talked about it to any audience and any section of the Gospels that support suggests this is not to be accepted as something taught by Jesus and certainly not anything that I am obliged to accept as a teaching of Jesus (Jesus’s teachings with respect for how human beings are to regard and treat each other are the only aspect of “Christianity” that I have any belief in or respect for or see any relevance or value in. ) Likewise, I don’t acknowledge any authority other than the God revealed by Jesus in the Gospels (one who is exactly like him) I certainly do not acknowledge any human being as a moral authority over me and I most definitely do not acknowledge “The Bible” (any translation) as an authority or guide that may instruct me as to how to feel or what to believe about homosexuality, marriage, sex, race, gender, child rearing, political and social issues, science, history, people of different backgrounds and cultures, mental health issues…Anything at all, actually. Anything of value relating to these sorts of issues in the Bible can be found elsewhere or through some other way than a source as problematic as the Bible. Any “wisdom” in it can be found elsewhere also or is not what I consider “wisdom” Many proverbs are not so much wisdom as common sense that most people are already familiar with depending on their experience of life. Others are irrelevant to the time and culture and society I live in. I know this sounds arrogant, but as I am a person who has been traumatized by the Bible as well as Christian beliefs derived from biblical passages lifted from their proper context and given a meaning that the author most certainly did not intend, I think my distaste and distrust can be understood. Trauma has triggers and the Bible is a trigger for every traumatic experience I had during my time as a Christian. Just looking at one used to cause me a sudden intense anxiety. Reading any part of it, even the “nice” parts triggers memories of the sleepless nights filled with fear and despair that I experienced, again due to beliefs that are derived from the Bible or more correctly (as you point out) the interpretation of various passages that the church I belonged to taught and the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and all the implications of this particular product of Evangelical imagination.
I think it has done far more harm than good and in recent times has done only harm and will continue to do only harm.
I wish you and all others who write about it would stop generalizing. I was actually brought up to completely disregard the Bible as source of divine revelation or authority. My parents are Catholic and Catholicism has a vastly different view of the Bible than Protestant and Evangelical denominations. Also, even by Catholic standards, my parents were not at all interested in the Bible. Naturally, they were aware that Catholicism does regard the Bible as an authority. However, tradition is an equal or greater authority. Even as an authority, it is very different from how Protestants and Evangelical denominations view it. As far as my parents were concerned, Jesus and his teachings were what they want sister and me to be exposed to and they did not care that this knowledge was imparted through passages from the Gospels being read aloud during the Sunday Mass. They did not send us to Catholic schools or even CCD classes. Neither my sister nor I were confirmed as Catholics (a sacrament that most Catholics undertake at 13 years old. Both of us ceased to attend church as soon as we were free to make this choice. Neither of us are religious Christians now. I am not at all certain what my sister believes. I do know that she displays and values the behavior towards others that Jesus taught as much as any “biblical” Christian and more than some. I have had my experiment with a very different form of Christianity than Catholicism and as I have already described, it caused me nothing but pain and ruined my life which was already almost at that point when I made the mistake of trying to find a solution in Christianity. I don’t know how to find my way back to the way I was as a child. A child whose parents assured me that God was good and loved me and that his son Jesus proved this by his teachings and behavior as described by the readings I heard from the Gospels in church. Catholicism (at least in the church we attended) is not obsessed with “sin” and human sinfulness and no sermon any priest ever delivered in my hearing made me cry or caused me anxiety. It’s been so long since that time, but my overall impression in my memory is talk of God’s love and how to apply the teachings of Jesus in real life. Neither of my parents have ever read the Bible. Not because it was forbidden or actively discouraged. They simply had no interest in doing so then or now. Yet if anyone were to say on my mother’s hearing that all Christians base their faith on the Bible, she would be offended.
Hi, Patti. I appreciate your comment, feedback and perspective, and you sharing some of your own spiritual journey. Yes, I realize there are many different interpretations of the Bible and that people's experience and understanding of the Bible are vastly different. You're also right that my criticisms of the mishandling of the Bible come more from my Protestant/Evangelical background, which I will make not of when doing posts like this. Thanks again for your thoughts!
Thanks. However, I wish to apologize for my tone, which was far from courteous or respectful, and for the incorrect statements I made regarding the Bible and its connection to Catholicism.
As to my tone, I am still unable to be objective or fair where the Bible is concerned. I was a member of a Southern Baptist Convention affiliated church and someone with your experience and professional qualifications surely knows what churches like this believe and teach regarding the Bible, the way that many key passages that support some of their important beliefs and doctrines, and from other articles that you have written and I have read, I know you are aware of how much emotional and spiritual confusion and trauma all this can lead to. While it initially appears to offer a comforting certainty with respect to some very important issues, many people have a hard time accepting Evangelical Christianity’s definition of the Bible, its manner of interpreting it - what I suppose could be described as biblicism, a word which is problematic in that it has several different definitions depending on the beliefs of the person who is defining it, but which I define as not just a “literal interpretation” but the practice of giving equal “treatment” or authority to all the content of the Bible, as far as using it as a moral, legal, or social guidebook for those living today. Laws and attitudes that belong to a tribal society thousands of years ago in the Midd East are not appropriate for Christians today. Even the New Testament is not always an appropriate source for what Evangelical Christians want to use it for today. “Biblical” marriage and “Biblical” child rearing practices are not appropriate for today’s society. “Biblical” doesn’t mean “good” or appropriate or even “Christians.” The Evangelical theology that is either derived from or supported by Old Testament religious beliefs was something I found very traumatic. The biblicist approach to the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, was extremely difficult and traumatic. To be told that Jesus’s teachings included warnings hell and all that that said about God…
Anyway, I probably will never feel like reading the Bible again, even though I have a very different understanding of what it is. It will probably always be a trigger for me.
However, I apologize for my claim that it was not a the foundation for all Christian denominations. It is - how can it be otherwise when the earliest and only form of Christianity in the Roman Empire considered the ancient Hebrew Scriptures and the epistles and Gospels attributed to various apostles as inspired and authoritative writings. The Catholic Mass is at least partially derived from the parts of the Gospels and the service traditionally included 3 readings from the Bible - 1 from the OT, 1 from the NT epistles and 1 from one of the Gospels. It’s just that my experience with both Catholicism and an evangelical Christian church led me to feel like the Bible is everything to Protestant and other non Catholic denominations while Catholicism has a more reasonable and far less dogmatic approach to it. But this is only my own experience. I really have no idea about the Bible’s place in Catholicism and Catholic theology.
I apologize of accusing you of “generalizing” (you did not) I have just read so many posts and comments recently from people who definitely lack your credentials and experience with respect to Christianity in general and the different forms in particular, it who have had negative experiences with Christians and definitely generalize as to what characteristics are true of all Christians - hypocritical , homophobic, patriarchal, misogynistic, judgmental, racist, hateful, sin-obsessed, bigoted, the list of unpleasant traits goes on. It’s upsetting because my own experience with Christians (Catholic and otherwise) has been entirely positive. All the Christians I met through my involvement with a Baptist church were really nice, welcoming, friendly, compassionate people. Even the pastors was so different from the horror stories I have heard about from other ex-Christians. He was a gentle and compassionate man who never gave a sermon about hell, never expressed judgmental and/or hateful or discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals, non-Christians, women, other religious or ethnic groups. Maybe my experience was very, very atypical, but it seems to me that most Christians, like most people in general are decent people who are doing the best they can to make it through life and the difficult, often painful situations that life throws at them. Even non religious people can be hypocritical, intolerant, judgmental, hateful, etc. People are who they are and belonging to a particular religion or denomination of a religion doesn’t mean that one should automatically be assumed to possess a certain personality.
Anyway, I apologize for letting my baggage lead me to misunderstand certain statements in your article.
I really did enjoy it, as I have other articles you have published. Your recent article about hell was wonderful. As you know, the fear of hell is very common among Christians and your article contained important information that helps to get past this.
The best bible to read?
No bible.
I think it was Marcus Borg who said,”The Bible is all true. Some of it actually happened.”
A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO “THE BIBLE AFTER GOD”: Reading Scripture with Faith, Humility, and Love
As a strong believer in Jesus Christ, shaped by my own miraculous experiences—the 2007 pulmonary embolism in Madison and the 2020 Miraculous Awakening seizure and vision in Baraboo with Estela’s hand and the sense of infinite presence—I approach articles like “The Bible After God” with both openness and discernment.
A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO “THE BIBLE AFTER GOD”: Reading Scripture with Faith, Humility, and Love
As a strong believer in Jesus Christ, shaped by my own miraculous experiences—the 2007 pulmonary embolism in Madison and the 2020 Miraculous Awakening seizure and vision in Baraboo with Estela’s hand and the sense of infinite presence—I approach articles like “The Bible After God” with both openness and discernment.
I have engaged deeply with deconstructionist ideas, yet I remain anchored in my personal faith journey and gratitude for knowing Jesus.
The author raises valid concerns about how the Bible has been misused, the diversity of interpretations, and the dangers of rigid systems. These deserve honest reflection. However, the piece ultimately moves away from the historic Christian conviction that God has spoken definitively in Scripture and supremely in Christ.
Below I offer a counter-article that engages the original’s main sections while staying rooted in Christ and comparing key claims to Scripture.
STRENGTHS ACKNOWLEDGED
The article rightly notes real problems: textual tensions, translation differences, interpretive disagreements, and tragic misuse of the Bible for violence and control.
These are well-documented and have caused genuine harm.
Its table contrasting Systematic Theology and Religious Deconstruction is a helpful framework for discussion.
The call to prioritize love, justice, and care for the marginalized echoes Jesus’ own teachings.
ENGAGING THE CORE CLAIMS WITH SCRIPTURE
On Systematic Theology and “False Premises”: The author argues that traditional systematic theology rests on flawed premises, especially the divine inspiration and unity of Scripture, and labels it “doctrolatry.” Yet Scripture itself invites ordered reflection: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16‑17). Jesus treated the Old Testament as authoritative and unified in pointing to Him (Luke 24:27, 44). The early church summarized core beliefs in creeds while wrestling with mystery. Systematic theology, at its best, is not rigid idolatry but a humble attempt to love God with our minds (Matthew 22:37). Deconstruction can purify, but total rejection of coherence risks leaving us without anchors. As Paul wrote, “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Corinthians 15:3) — there is a coherent gospel core.
“Which Bible Should You Read?” — Canon, Translation, and Interpretation: The article highlights diversity in canons, translations, and hermeneutics. This is true, yet the Protestant canon of 66 books emerged from early church recognition of apostolic authority and consistency with Christ. Jesus affirmed the Hebrew Scriptures (Matthew 5:17‑18) and promised the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into truth (John 16:13). Major translations (NIV, ESV, NASB) agree on essentials. Stylistic differences, like in James 1:26‑27, do not overturn core doctrines. Responsible interpretation follows the grammatical‑historical method while allowing for genre (history as history, poetry as poetry, parable as parable) — exactly as Jesus used parables (Matthew 13).
Rejection of Christian Theism and Miracles: The author refutes “the entire construct of God conceived by Christian theism” and treats miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and hell as implausible folklore. Scripture presents a personal, relational God who acts in history: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). The resurrection is the cornerstone: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile” (1 Corinthians 15:17). Eyewitness testimony, the empty tomb, and transformed disciples support this historically. Hell is sobering but flows from God’s justice and respect for human choice (Matthew 25:46; Revelation 20). Love without justice is sentimentality; God is both (Exodus 34:6‑7).
False Dichotomies and the “Love‑Centered” Bible: The piece offers Option C (Bible as ancient literature) as an alternative to inerrancy or fairy tale. Scripture supports a better view: the Bible is fully human and fully divine — God‑breathed through real authors in history. Jesus is the true center: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Love is primary (“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another” — John 13:34), but it is love defined by Christ’s cross, not our preferences. We do not “compost” uncomfortable parts; we wrestle with them in light of the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), trusting the Holy Spirit.
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS DECONSTRUCTION: NOT TOTAL OPPOSITES
Systematic Theology builds coherence while Deconstruction can expose idols. Both find their place under Christ.
Many faithful Christians practice semper reformanda — always reforming — holding core truths while critiquing abuses.
Deconstruction can be a purifying fire rather than total demolition when submitted to the living Word.
MY BALANCED APPROACH AS A BELIEVER
Read the Bible prayerfully, asking the Holy Spirit for illumination (John 16:13).
Study it in community with historic creeds as guardrails.
Hold tensions honestly: justice and mercy, sovereignty and responsibility, wrath and love.
Test everything against the character of Jesus revealed in the Gospels.
Embrace the Bible as God’s love letter that meets us in our humanity while calling us higher.
FINAL WORD
The Bible is not merely ancient literature or a tool for self‑actualization. It is the living Word that points us to the Living Word, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:12; John 5:39).
If we seek the primacy of love, we find it supremely in the One who laid down His life for us.
I invite readers — whether deconstructing, doubting, or doubting their doubts — to encounter Jesus in the pages of Scripture with an open heart. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
I have engaged deeply with deconstructionist ideas, yet I remain anchored in my personal faith journey and gratitude for knowing Jesus.
alism. Why does my phone post these early??!! We all know the Bible will, but the meanings are so deep and so very different from what i was taught! I think the trouble is with the traditional religious leaders interpreting the Bible for us in very specific and very traumatizing ways.
I truly appreciate your article. It’s spot on. I can appreciate your struggle, and the reason you write so much. Bless you. And i hope you feel terrific again soon. By the way, just for the heck of it: Jesus had complete contact his last three years with a form of God we know as Christ. He still spoke in human way that is sometimes hard to interpret, when he c wasn’t speaking with the voice of his Father. (All the I Am statements). But he still got across the idea very well that the Kingdom is within us, and we eventually find ourselves free to grow and evolve toward the expression of Christ within ourselves with our hearts and minds. Or at least, that is my latest discovery of truth. And it’s empowering and holy-making for us, and very beautiful.
College, ELCA Lutheran), i began to think fit myself and become more uncomfortable with the Bible. Life continued to bring me new experiences which certainly were not all intellectual. By the time i got into Medical B School, the thought of going to any b traditional church and the thought of reading the Bible was abhorrent. In fact, though i continued to believe in an increasingly large and all-encompassing God, i could not use the word “God” for a couple of decades. I finally officially listed myself as “eclectic” rather than Christian.
However, life continued to teach me and guide me. Nowadays, at age 78, i teach classes in the Christian Kabbalah weekly, and call myself a Christian again. Just a different sort of Christian. I remain very familiar with the Bible curiously, and I’m teaching people who came out of rigid fundament
I left the church more than a few decades ago. After worshipping the Bible as if it were somehow God represented in print for me while I was in Junior High, on my way through a degree in Biology at a V Christian
Good piece. But the question “Which Bible should you read?” already cracks the door open. Once you realize there are multiple canons and hundreds of translations, the idea that there’s one pristine book sitting there untouched by human hands starts to wobble a bit.
Where I agree with you is that most people think they’re reading the Bible when they’re really reading a translation layered on top of centuries of interpretation.
Where I’d push it further is the history. The canon didn’t fall out of the sky. It came through debates, councils, politics, and a long chain of human decisions about what stayed in and what got left out.
Ironically, that’s exactly what I discovered while getting my degree in Bible and religion. The deeper I studied the text, the harder it became for me to stay in church. Not because I lost interest—because I understood the history.
Once you see the layers, you can’t unsee them. So the real question isn’t which Bible to read. It’s what happens when you finally understand where it came from.
While human systems often trade the Living Word for rigid structures, the Remnant understands that true Scripture is an encounter with the Sovereign God of Israel. We do not fear the complexity of the text, for our Covenant identity is anchored in the Eternal Reality of a King who is restoring His people in our very sight.
“… which includes notes throughout that describe useful hunting tips.” 🤣
And crossan quote is chefs kiss
Its a great read. After a long and thoughtful article I sometimes dont know exactly what to say. Maybe just a few stories. I was a mormon missionary in my 20s. I went to a persons house and was reading the Bible with them. She was a very educated woman and had many notes in her Bible. She showed me one page and she had labled a few verses Forshadowing. I was offended that she would treat the word of God like literature. Haha
Also I remember on my mission arguing that the Bible was not perfect. I pulled out scriptures that were contradictions I talked about how it was compiled and how it was only in the 3rd century or something that it was compiled. Then I'd try to quote scriptures to prove another point. I'd try to show that the Bible wasn't 100% accurate then argue that they should believe me because of Bible verses.
And lastly I just reread the creation story because of a comment about the creation. How did I read that so many times and never see that it is told twice in completely different styles with different facts. The reason is that I read the Bible to confirm my existing beliefs not to see what it said.
Im only half way through and have many questions thoughts and comments.
I understand how the Bible could be read as an anthropromorism of God. Im starting to be open to God again after leaving religion and this immaterial god is appealing. But do many religious Christians believe this? My religion took the Bible true as far as it was translated correctly but most that I talk to say the Bible is completely true. Perhaps because they have not read the parts where God regrets making man or commands genocide. Perhaps those in seminary see god as eternal, immaterial, unknowable but do everyday members believe this.
I have read the Bible, mostly the NT but I've been over the OT at least once. I've read parts of the books that weren't in my Bible (KJV) and never found much of substance in them. Bell and the dragon and the infancy gosple of Thomas as examples. There are weird stories in my KJV but I always found the other books too strange. HEREs a hard question is there any doctrine or stories that are worth telling in any of these books. Perhaps some of the female teachers are of significance. But the stories were just too strange for me to take seriously. Jesus cursing then healing a person???
I grew up on the beauty of the KJV but read the NIV when KJV was completely incomprehensible. I dont read any Bible now but I had my leather bound Bible since i was 16. I've underlined I've read every day for decades. I dont read it but I can't throw it away. I hate it and I love it. That physical book sits in my son's room, and I may never get rid of it.
I was thinking about God lately and wondered if there was any use starting in the Bible. I could just start with the idea of "goodness." I'll admit the Bible and my other scriptural readings BofM, D&C, have set the basis for my religious thinking but I like to think i can reject all of that and just find God through thought.
Been reading Brandon’s Mindshift you tubes on his literal interpretations of the Old and New Testaments . If we read the literal narratives of biblical accounts with a rational, questioning mental process, one of the conclusions I’ve made to myself that the God of both Old and New Testaments is that the Yahweh deity of the biblical Israelites behaved in an uncaring, cruel, and wrathful way in the accounts of Israel’s military conquests of the hostile tribes occupying portions of their Promised Land, all prosecuted by a hostile, vengeful Yahweh. The narratives attributed to Yahweh describe a jealous, genocidal , and inconsistent God. This literal conception of a God flies directly in the face of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving, and tolerant deity Christianity has indoctrinated to its past and current believers. I feel serious doubts about the validity and truthfulness of the canonical doctrines of portrayed in this God.
Well, you've done it again. Excellent article. I wish it has wide readership and attentive efforts for understanding.
Sorry about the COVID. very engaging article.
Thanks, Edward!