Email no longer excites me. Bill notiÂfiÂcaÂtions. Spam. NewsletÂters I’ve forÂgotÂten to opt out of. In the earÂly 2000s, though, my email was filled with mesÂsages I could actuÂalÂly look forÂward to with hapÂpiÂness instead of annoyÂance. A lot of those emails have been replaced by newÂer ways of keepÂing touch. My dad and I don’t email each othÂer anyÂmore; instead, we’re a text or phone call away from each othÂer. And numerÂous othÂer peoÂple I used to email are now FaceÂbook friends whom I rarely interÂact with anyÂmore. … Bummer.
AnothÂer comÂmon batch of emails that once graced my inbox were mesÂsages sent to a Yahoo! group — rememÂber those? — called OperÂaÂtion Salvation.
I don’t rememÂber how I came to be in the group, but it was foundÂed by two young ladies whom are remain acquaintÂed with me to this day (thanks again, FaceÂbook): Hilary and Karisa. The group — OSians, colÂlecÂtiveÂly — was pretÂty active, and every day comÂing home from work, I could expect to find new conÂverÂsaÂtions to catch up on from the group.
UnforÂtuÂnateÂly for them, I was at a point in my “spirÂiÂtuÂal jourÂney” that didÂn’t realÂly favor mixed comÂpaÂny — and by that I mean the comÂpaÂny of those who weren’t the same type of BapÂtist I was. OperÂaÂtion SalÂvaÂtion welÂcomed ChrisÂtians of all stripes; it was co-foundÂed by a Catholic, of all things!
I was very much hung up on the “what felÂlowÂship hath light with darkÂness” ChrisÂtianÂiÂty of the funÂdaÂmenÂtal BapÂtists, so I drew the line in the sand at every opporÂtuÂniÂty, and I made a fool of myself to those poor girls over someÂthing as silÂly as labels.
“BapÂtist” wasÂn’t enough for me. Oh no. I was an indeÂpenÂdent funÂdaÂmenÂtal BapÂtist who believed in the pleÂnary inspiÂraÂtion and inerranÂcy of the Bible and preserÂvaÂtion in the King James VerÂsion, who believed in the pretÂribuÂlaÂtionÂal rapÂture and preÂmilÂlenÂniÂal return of Jesus, and yes, who believed in a recent creÂation across a litÂerÂal six days.
It was a mouthÂful, but for the first sevÂerÂal years of being in church, I harshÂly defendÂed those labels everyÂwhere I was givÂen a platÂform. While it did get someÂwhat heatÂed arguÂing about the terms — or whether someÂone even needs to label themÂselves all up for the sake of what they believe — with a few OSians, the group was full of grace and nevÂer kicked me to the curb.
Although they probÂaÂbly should have.
But what I want to explore a bit here is just what all of my old labels meant and whether the labels stuck with me til I left ChrisÂtianÂiÂty? If I were a ChrisÂtÂian today, knowÂing what I know now, would I keep any of the same labels?
Independent
The first term is probÂaÂbly the simÂplest: being indeÂpenÂdent meant that my church wasÂn’t conÂnectÂed to a netÂwork of others.
That’s not to say that my church — GarÂriÂson Creek BapÂtist, then at its old locaÂtion — wasÂn’t assoÂciÂatÂed with othÂer churchÂes. We had a close relaÂtionÂship with a BapÂtist church the next town over, among othÂers, I’m sure. HowÂevÂer, being indeÂpenÂdent, the church wasÂn’t beholdÂen to any outÂside denomÂiÂnaÂtionÂal authority.
I always believed that indeÂpenÂdent churchÂes were the way to go, though throughÂout my years of belief, I’d briefly be a memÂber of a Church of the Nazarene conÂgreÂgaÂtion and would become an active, Bible study-leadÂing memÂber of a PresÂbyÂterÂian Church in AmerÂiÂca conÂgreÂgaÂtion a few years later.
Were I to be a ChrisÂtÂian today, I’d be an indeÂpenÂdent — perÂhaps even more so than I ever was back then.
Fundamental
As a funÂdaÂmenÂtalÂist, I believed two things:
- That we were adherÂing to the funÂdaÂmenÂtals, or first prinÂciÂples, set down for the church 2,000 years ago, and
- That we took a strict, litÂerÂal interÂpreÂtaÂtion of the Bible.
For the first point, I can conÂfiÂdentÂly say that that is bunk. Nobody meetÂing in a brick and morÂtar buildÂing called a church, chapel, catheÂdral, etc. is pracÂticÂing the ChrisÂtianÂiÂty of 2,000 years ago, for example.
As for the secÂond point, well, every BapÂtist church I came into conÂtact with — indeed, every church I came into conÂtact with — taught that Satan was once an angel called Lucifer, which is just one of the many failÂures of so-called “strict, litÂerÂal interÂpreÂtaÂtions” used by Christians.
Were I a ChrisÂtÂian today, my funÂdaÂmenÂtals would likeÂly look pretÂty difÂferÂent from those of most churches!
Baptist
This label was a big one. “BapÂtist” set the tone for what church meant — a sinÂgle elder led conÂgreÂgaÂtion comÂposed by those who were saved by grace through faith and then bapÂtized by full-body immersion.
BapÂtists, at least the ones I comÂmuned with, fanÂcied themÂselves inherÂiÂtors of a great long line of churchÂes, datÂing back to Jesus himself.
We didÂn’t sprinÂkle babies, and we only bapÂtized the believÂer once.
I didÂn’t stay a BapÂtist. The furÂthest I got from it was joinÂing the Nazarene church, which I mostÂly did for my then girlÂfriend. I nevÂer did assent to cerÂtain of the Nazarene beliefs, includÂing that salÂvaÂtion can be lost — which is ironÂic conÂsidÂerÂing that years since leavÂing ChrisÂtianÂiÂty behind, a friend of mine from that church let me know that I was still on their church roll, and to this day I still get occaÂsionÂal FaceÂbook invites to what I would think are memÂbers-only events. I digress…
A few years latÂer, after returnÂing to BapÂtist churchÂes for a while, I found myself at a PresÂbyÂterÂian church. MulÂtiÂple elder-led conÂgreÂgaÂtion, sprinÂkling mode of bapÂtism, and an emphaÂsis on art and the beauÂty of creation.
I liked it a lot, though I nevÂer did realÂly accept the sprinÂkling bapÂtism stuff.
When I left ChrisÂtianÂiÂty, I endÂed that periÂod by being a blend of BapÂtist and PresÂbyÂterÂian, though I had no church home.
Were I a ChrisÂtÂian today, I’d have no time for denomÂiÂnaÂtionÂal ties… or traÂdiÂtionÂal church ties at all. Small gathÂerÂings of believÂers in homes would be much more what I’d be takÂing part in.
Who believed in the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible
“PleÂnary” is a fanÂcy word — theÂoloÂgians love fanÂcy words — meanÂing “absolute.”
“InspiÂraÂtion” means that the Bible was inspired by — or litÂerÂalÂly “breathed out” by God, that the words of the Bible are his words.
“InerranÂcy” means “withÂout error.” If the Bible spoke on a matÂter, it did so with absolute authorÂiÂty, for God makes no mistakes.
TogethÂer, this meant that the Bible was the unquesÂtionÂable source of absolute truth.
HowÂevÂer, over time I’ve come to realÂize how variÂably that “unquesÂtionÂable” is applied.
To use my preÂviÂous docÂtriÂnal examÂple, try telling most ChrisÂtians that Satan isn’t a fallÂen angel, and you’ll probÂaÂbly be talkÂing to someÂone who disÂagrees with you. AddiÂtionÂalÂly, angels look and act like men, and there is nothÂing in the Bible that preÂvents men from havÂing a pluÂralÂiÂty of wives.
It was believÂing — not pracÂticÂing or intendÂing to pracÂtice, mind you, just believÂing — that men may have mulÂtiÂple wives which got me kicked out of the PresÂbyÂterÂian church, after I was sat down in a room with the elders of the church and basiÂcalÂly givÂen an ultimatum.
Were I a ChrisÂtÂian today, I’d of course still hold the Bible as my guide, but as before, it wouldÂn’t look quite like most ChrisÂtians would be used to. It’s amazÂing how much traÂdiÂtion and denomÂiÂnaÂtionÂal idioÂsynÂcrasy that even Bible funÂdaÂmenÂtalÂists have trouÂble getÂting rid of!
Preservation in the King James Version

The King James VerÂsion of the Bible, also known as the AuthoÂrized VerÂsion, was the only acceptÂable transÂlaÂtion of the Bible.
All sorts of wild jusÂtiÂfiÂcaÂtions were givÂen for why that was the case, and while I have to admit that just havÂing one verÂsion of the one book that docÂtrine could be derived from made things a litÂtle easÂiÂer, it was also a posiÂtion which did not stand up to scrutiÂny over time.
ThroughÂout my time as a ChrisÂtÂian, I came to use a variÂety of transÂlaÂtions, though I’d come to preÂfer the New AmerÂiÂcan StanÂdard Bible and the EngÂlish StanÂdard Version.
Were I to be a ChrisÂtÂian today, I susÂpect that I’d be using those same versions.
The pretribulational rapture
The first of two eschaÂtoÂlogÂiÂcal — or “end times” — docÂtrines that we BapÂtists loved to insist were imporÂtant enough to apply labels over perÂtained to the timÂing of the rapture.
The rapÂture, for those who don’t know, is genÂerÂalÂly believed to be a miracÂuÂlous event whereÂin God would call all believÂers, bodÂiÂly, to HeavÂen. Those believÂers who were already dead would be resÂurÂrectÂed. Those who yet lived would be transformed.
I believed that this rapÂture of the saints would occur at the beginÂning of the Great TribuÂlaÂtion, a sevÂen year periÂod of increasÂing tumulÂtuous activÂiÂty on Earth durÂing which God will pour out his wrath upon those who remain while an evil trinÂiÂty — the antichrist, false prophet, and best — rule the world. All of which culÂmiÂnates with the…
Premillennial return of Jesus
The tribuÂlaÂtion periÂod would end with the gloÂriÂous return of Jesus, who would set up a 1,000 year reign on Earth, durÂing which there would be peace and harmony.
And finalÂly, this periÂod would culÂmiÂnate with the final judgÂment, whereÂin a new heavÂen and a new earth replace the old.
I’m not sure what sort of eschaÂtoÂlogÂiÂcal view I’d take were I a ChrisÂtÂian nowaÂdays. Since leavÂing ChrisÂtianÂiÂty, I haven’t studÂied the end times stuff much, so my views on what the Bible says about it have been frozen in time as they were back in 2010.
A recent creation across a literal six days
FinalÂly, I was a young Earth creÂationÂist. Yep, I was one of them. I not only folÂlowed the likes of Dr. Dino and Answers in GenÂeÂsis, but I had bought and read a variÂety of Answers in GenÂeÂsis’s books and argued against “evoÂluÂtionÂists” any chance I could, includÂing in places as irrelÂeÂvant to reliÂgious debate as the phpBB.com comÂmuÂniÂty.
I viewed pubÂlic school with susÂpiÂcion for tryÂing to push an evil agenÂda of lying about our origins.
This attiÂtude perÂsistÂed throughÂout my ChrisÂtianÂiÂty, and I’d probÂaÂbly be a young Earth creÂationÂist again were I to be a ChrisÂtÂian today, but cerÂtainÂly not because “the eviÂdence” points to it.
If we go by the eviÂdence, Earth is pretÂty clearÂly mulÂtiÂple bilÂlions of years old, and aging every day accordÂing to preÂdictable natÂurÂal processes.
I’m not conÂvinced, howÂevÂer, that that would be incomÂpatÂiÂble with a recent creation.
There is a mock idea in phiÂlosÂoÂphy called last ThursÂdayÂism, a posiÂtion which states that the uniÂverse was creÂatÂed in a funcÂtionÂal, mature state last ThursÂday. Like a show startÂing in media res, so to would the uniÂverse have begun in the midst of the action, with mature adults; eviÂdence of the past such as craters, fosÂsils, and scars; and so much more.
That idea is intendÂed to mock young earth creÂationÂism — if the Earth was creÂatÂed at a mature point 7,500 years ago, it could have been creÂatÂed at a mature point last Thursday!
And sure, absoluteÂly, but just because you can mock someÂthing doesÂn’t mean it’s false.
I’d be a young Earth creÂationÂist, but I’d accept that the world operÂates accordÂing to how sciÂenÂtists have deterÂmined it operÂates, which is more than I can say for so many creÂationÂists who disÂmiss evoÂluÂtion as “evil-ution.”
But what am I really?

I’m not a ChrisÂtÂian today. So far as I know myself, I’m an atheÂist, though like WinÂston ZedÂdeÂmore, I “love Jesus’ style.”
I’ve always had a penÂchant for the wild and wonÂderÂful, though, since getÂting into the superÂnatÂurÂal back in midÂdle school. I realÂize the valÂue of being skepÂtiÂcal, and I absoluteÂly respect the work of sciÂenÂtists; howÂevÂer, that doesÂn’t stop me from letÂting my imagÂiÂnaÂtion and sense of wonÂder run a litÂtle freely.
Inquiries about reliÂgion fit right along into that. I don’t look at reliÂgion and see it as a blight that needs elimÂiÂnatÂed. ReliÂgion is humanÂiÂty reachÂing out in hopes to underÂstand the world around us, tryÂing to make sense of the world around us in ways that make sense to those doing it. Yes, it has been used as a tool to oppress. So has sciÂence or ecoÂnomÂics or simÂply havÂing a bigÂger stick than a neighÂborÂing peoÂple. It’s human nature to fail to be excelÂlent to one anothÂer, sadly.
I have been on both sides of the Christianity/​secularism divide, and I have failed to be excelÂlent to the othÂer sides pretÂty consistently.
Despite all of it, though, I am grateÂful for friends I have made along the way — friends like Hilary and Karisa of OperÂaÂtion SalÂvaÂtion — who have disÂplayed a remarkÂable long-sufÂferÂing through the years, both durÂing our OperÂaÂtion SalÂvaÂtion memÂberÂship and in the years since as friends on FaceÂbook. I’ve lost friends along the way, sure — friends I well and truÂly cared about, regardÂless of difÂferÂences in beliefs — but life goes on, and I wish them well.
I am tired of the antagÂoÂnism so often found between ChrisÂtians and atheÂists, parÂticÂuÂlarÂly when most peoÂple are so modÂerÂate in their beliefs that they get along with everyÂone just fine regardÂless of beliefs. Why do those who take their beliefs more seriÂousÂly have to be so adversarial?
We aren’t going to change anyÂone’s mind by insultÂing them. There has got to be a betÂter way, but I’m not going to change the world by tryÂing to find it alone. I’d love to hear your thoughts below on how sociÂety might be strengthÂened, despite (or perÂhaps even because of) our differences!
ReliÂgion is also, often, a gateÂway into a comÂmuÂniÂty. This is a powÂerÂful draw for many people.
I didÂn’t know I was a Last ThursÂdayÂist. Although I don’t believe I was statÂing “The uniÂverse could have been creÂatÂed five minÂutes ago” to mock anyÂone. Just to make the point when the actuÂal “moment” of creÂation took place is not realÂly relÂeÂvant to much.
I recentÂly read of a new Bible transÂlaÂtion that, among othÂer things, rearranged the order of the books. Now I can’t find it. I feel like it just went to press this year.