By: Brian Lawson

Brian:
Those most familiar with IN THE WORD Ministries have come to know Mark McFall through a number of articles and web-content that he has written since 1999.  Over the course of time, Mark has presented his arguments in defense of both the Bible and Christianity, and as one who professes faith in Jesus Christ.  However, due to his own perspectives on Biblical inerrancy, he has presented his ideas in a manner that does not rest well with some Christians.  At times he has been asked how he can still consider himself a Christian in light of his viewpoints.  And that is going to be the focus of this interview: what Mark believes about the Bible, if and how his beliefs have changed in the past few years, and what his belief in Christ is at the present in light of his views.  

So let me begin here with some questions to you, Mark...

Back in 1999 when I began working with you in the ITW Ministries, I would have considered you to be a reasonably conservative evangelical Christian.  I wouldn’t have considered you a fundamentalist regarding Biblical inspiration/inerrancy ideas, but I felt that in most cases you believed that the Bible was reliable, authoritative, and inspired.  Looking back to those days, how would *you* describe your views on the Bible? (Is there any widely known scholar/teacher that you could identify as having a parallel view?)”

Mark:
You are close in your consideration, but as far back as 1993, I began to develop the idea the Bible was without error and completely (without question) reliable on all matters it covers. Since I viewed the Bible in this light, as literally the Word of God, it was not unusual for me to stay clear of situations where that belief may have been compromised. Looking back, I remember completely immersing myself in the Bible where I felt safe and secure.  

Speaking on inerrancy, I’d have to say a radio and television preacher by the name of Harold Camping was probably my biggest influence at that time. As you may remember, Harold Camping predicted the end of the world for Sept. 6th, 1994, due to Jesus Christ’s second coming. Needless to say, Jesus Christ did not return but I continued on as a believer and carried the basic Christian tenet of inerrancy that Camping insisted on into my Christian walk.

Speaking on safe and secure, the Reverend Billy Graham (who, by the way, I still have high regard for), really tapped into my need of security during this time. And while he did not shape my views on inerrancy, he certainly captured and made me aware of a sense of longing for God. To that, I thank Billy Graham for keeping me on path in light of my bad experience with mistaken views regarding Christ’s return.

Brian:
Are your views different now than they were then?

Mark:
My views are considerably different now. However, this change did not come about overnight but thru a long and developed progression.

After the Harold Camping folly I began to venture out of my safe zone into other more open or objective (at least that’s how it seemed at the time) Christian circles. I got caught up with listening to the Christian apologetic radio show, The Bible Answer Man, and from there I became aware of a whole community of apologetic writers that focused on dealing with skepticism. At that time, I remember thinking: “finally, some solid answers.” I’d say, from the end of 1994, to about 2001, is where most of my progression took place regarding inerrancy.

At the height of this progression, my mind began to tire or get bored of Christian apologetic readings that always seemed to say the same thing only by different authors. As I began to devour every apologetic book I could get my hands on, I began to realize that these books are actually for the most part shallow. There really never seemed to be much substance behind these books. As my mind began to hunger for more explorative examinations, I began to venture outside of the safe and secure zones I had been accustom to.

By the end of 2001, 80% of my reading encompassed books written by mainline academic scholars (conservative/liberal) and legitimate biblical scholars of an atheistic persuasion. The more I learned, the more I realized I really didn’t know much. As I began to re-look at my apologetic books, and even some of my own essays, I realized that I while my faith in Jesus Christ was intact, I was no longer a pew-sitting Christian. I had become a Christian of a different caliber where safe and secure was no longer an issue.   

Brian:
In what way are your views different –or- how would you describe your current view on the Bible?  Is there any widely known scholar, or number of scholars that you would consider to have parallel views with you on the issue of Biblical inspiration and/or inerrancy/errancy?

Mark:
While my views on elements or details within the Bible are subject to being quite different than before, my view on the Bible’s basic message of an existing creative God who has an invested interest in human kind, is very much intact. I believe the books that make up our Bible (in its different forms) to be various human reflections of God’s dealings with mankind; and I believe these reflections are captured in theological motifs; a type of Jewish historiography.

Concerning widely know scholars that I may identify with *now* on inspirational matters, I’d say Bruce Metzger, Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and John Meier to name a few.

Brian: 
What, or who perhaps, has influenced you to change your views?

Mark:
Well, I’ve never thought that any one author has been an influence per say, but rather the way that some scholars explore ideas. Basically, their influence on me comes from their boldness of not being afraid to explore ideas not popular within the greater Christian community.

Brian: 
Based on a variety of letters and e-mails that you have received, you have found that some Christians have criticized you for your views on the Bible.  Others have not appreciated your critical thinking and have wondered if you have gone a little too far on occasion.  But at the same time, you have defended the Bible and Christianity, sometimes in the midst of your critical comments and observations.   So, in your opinion, do the concerns of these Christians make much sense to you?  How do you view their concerns?

Mark:
Yes. The concerns of Christians who are not comfortable with my views make sense. I say that they make sense because I too once exhibited the same concern: so I understand. However, they must understand that I now circulate more in critical circles than I do in pro-Christian circles so my level of comfort is relative to my environment.

Recently, a Christian wrote to me out of concern and said: “It is easy to read something in the bible and then believe it...I have always approached the bible that way...” My response to this individual was to ask a couple of questions. Like: “Did you know that Muslims also believe everything they read in the Koran? Did you know that Mormons also believe everything they read in the Book of Mormon?” Just because something is readable, does not make it true. God gave us critical minds and surely He would not penalize a believer for being overly cautious.

Brian:
So, in your opinion, what is the value and reliability of the Bible for believers?  What is its value to believers, and how reliable is it in providing valuable information?

Mark:
For the reader who aligns himself with ancient recordings of a biblical nature, the value of the Bible comes to light when reading stories the reader can identify with and/or gain insight from. In this respect, I probably differ little from the typical Christian perspective. The difference is that I don’t view these stories as literally The Word of God but rather as human reflections. Hence, in my view, the reliability of the Bible is only as credible as human limitations allow.

Brian:
In your understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, do you think that your view of the whole Bible is different than the way that Paul (or the author of 2 Timothy) viewed the Old Testament (or whatever portion of “scripture” he had in mind)?   How would you compare those verses that viewed some portion of “scripture” as being “God-breathed” with your current view?

Mark:
Thank you for bringing up the 2nd Timothy passage. In answer to your question, I do not think my perception is all that different than what the writer of this passage had in mind at the time. Let’s take a look at what was actually said in context:  

“You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired (theopneustos) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The primary emphasis by context seems to be on the Old Testament *usefulness for encouraging* Timothy to "continue" what he has "learned" from his “childhood” in order to "teach" and "correct" for the purpose of counteraction. The word “inspired” (theopneustos) should be interpreted here in the most natural way possible where the writer points back to scripture as the motivation factor of “wisdom” for such conduct. The idea that “inspiration” in this context means anything more than that is foreign to an organic reading. Since we can’t get a feel for this word elsewhere in the Bible because it only occurs here, a review of how classicists used the word reveals that the word never carried the notion of “inerrancy” as portrayed by modern preachers. Beyond that, the only Scripture available at the time 2nd Timothy was written was the Old Testament. So any inference that the author had the New Testament in mind is ill founded as it did not yet exist.

Brian:
Could you identify some things (a few examples) in the Bible that, in your opinion, may be misleading to a believer, and/or are statements that aren’t reliable?

Mark:
Sure.   Depending on the reader, my examples may come across to a lesser or greater degree:  

The very names attached to the Gospels are misleading as it gives the impression they are authored by that particular writer. In contrast, leading scholars have pointed out the names attached to each Gospel came at a later time and are recognized in the academic world as anonymous *regional community* reflections. 
The Gospel writers give the misleading impression that they were present for Jesus’ sayings. In actuality, Jesus’ sayings are told from a 40 to 60 year retrospective and are subject to theological ideas popular at the time of writing. For instance, Jesus is reportedly to have said:  
"Those who would come after me must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their lives will lose them, but those who lose their lives for me will find them" (Matt. 16:24; 10:38). 

If Jesus did utter those words, His immediate hearers wouldn’t have understood the significance of the "cross." After all, Jesus had not yet been crucified. To them, the cross was viewed as a torturous form of capital punishment of the worse kind (Cicero referred to it as "the most cruel and disgusting penalty" of all {Verr. 2.5.165}). The saying would have appeared perplexing since it was generally known that condemned men carried their own cross/stake to the place of execution with no hope (Plato, Republic ii.361; Plutarch, Moralia: De sera numinuis vindicta, 9:55A; Artemidorus of Daldis, ii. 56). Only after Jesus’ death, by way of a reflection of His life and work would such encouragement to devotion likely be tied to metaphoric language. As biblical scholar Joseph Fitzmer explores: "Since it is only the joining of Jesus’ own messiahship with the cross on which he was crucified that makes the metaphor have any sense, the saying, as we now have it, must come from the early Christian community" {The Gospel According To Luke, I-IX, pg. 785})
     

Luke's statement that the census was conducted while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) appears to be misleading when compared to what Tacitus and Josephus report concerning the sequence of governors of Syria. Even conservative scholars like Bruce Metzger and John Meier are under the impression that Luke is deficient at this juncture.  

In the final section in The Gospel of Mark, the writer gives the impression that belief in Jesus Christ will shield the believer from death after drinking deadly poison (Mk. 16:18). I believe this statement to be misleading to the degree that I will never test it.
 
I believe there are numerous supernatural hyperboles in the Bible that exist merely for the purpose of capturing interest. To differentiate my thought process so readers can follow me here. I find it easier to believe that God created the entire Universe, than to believe Luke’s report that Jesus ascended into the clouds and out-of-sight after His mission in a Superman like fashion (Acts 1:9-11). Having said that, I do believe some of the supernatural occurrences recorded in the Bible really happened. Of these, I believe Jesus was a legitimate healer.        

Brian:  
In view of what has been discussed here, I think it would be good for you to explain where your faith rests in light of your views and the critical thinking that you practice. In general, why are you a Christian today and how confident are you that Christianity is true?

Mark:
My faith rests in Jesus Christ due to my philosophical belief that God exists and my acceptance that this Jesus has been correctly identified as God’s Son. My level of confidence regarding this belief is of such that I can not foresee any abandonment. Having said that, however, there are many ideas expressed within primitive and modern Christianity that I do not believe are true.

Brian: 
Is your confidence that Christianity is true as strong as it was in 1999 even though, perhaps, based on different reasons?

Mark:
The belief I had back in 1999 has been tailored to the core. Most of the religious fat I was carrying around has been shed leaving only personal honesty. There was a point in time when I thought atheism might prevail but I just could not bring myself into that line of thinking. I am not the average Christian and I find it odd that others think, or assume, I should be. People’s minds are different. Not everybody processes information in the same way. I hope my more conservative Christian brothers/sisters can understand when I say "I can not process information in the same way you can." My mind thirsts for intellectualism while simultaneously thirsting for God. To abandon one for the other in my mind would be a waist of my life as these are things that I look forward to thinking on day-in and day-out.   

Brian: 
In light of all you have explained, what are you trying to accomplish in this ITW “frontline-apologetics” ministry? 

Mark:
Well, while there are many Christians who access ITW, there are also a lot of skeptics who access it too. The idea behind ITW is to offer an objective place where both Christian and Skeptic material can be viewed and digested. My hope is that both sides will become more educated in their belief and pursuit for truth.

In many ways, the progression of ITW from a fundamentalist website to more balanced website reflects the steps I’m taking in my Christian walk. To those who think that I think that I’ve got everything figured out, let me respond by saying I don’t think this way. I have no preconceived notion that if I confess God in any conceivable way, that he will grant grace concerning allowing me in his presence. The way I see it, if God grants me grace, I certainly don't deserve it. But I will oblige to His invitation.

Brian: 
Relating to my question above, my own faith and commitment to Christ keeps me hoping that what I communicate to others, or whatever I do in life, will somehow serve Jesus Christ and other believers.  Based on past conversations with you, you have expressed a similar outlook.  With that in mind, and unless your outlook has changed, how does this “progression”, and all that you try to do with ITW, serve Christ – what does it accomplish that serves Christ and the body of believers?

Mark:
I continue to share Jesus to others in a manner that reflects His desire for people to see God in their lives. On serving the body of Christ, every ministry serves Christ in its own way. For instance, ministries that focus on alcoholism are usually made up of people who have struggled thru alcoholism and have something to offer back. Likewise, ITW serves the Christian community by focusing on the very thing that its founder has struggled thru. ITW serves in this respect by helping Christians thru their struggles of skepticism and doubt. I believe there is a need here in the Christian community as such expressed doubts are often met with negativism and “hell-fire” for even considering notions that don’t fall into accepted Christian thinking.  

Brian:
After all that’s been discussed here, I hope that reader’s have a better understanding of you, Mark.  I’m hoping also that Christians who are at least as conservative about the Bible as I am, if not more, can appreciate your honesty and accept your faith statements at face value.  I find myself agreeing with some of your viewpoints while disagreeing with a number of your new-found perspectives and skepticisms.  However, I consider you no less a brother in Christ than when we first started working together at ITW, and I appreciate the time you’ve taken to help me, and ITW readers, understand your point of view.

Mark:
Thank you, Brian.  I really enjoyed doing this interview. The transition from a Christian fundamentalist to a Christian of skeptical orientation involved a long process I did not intend to go through. I had seen others go ahead of me into skepticism only to succumb to full blown atheism. As I continued down the road of skepticism by reading books and articles critical of the Bible (like those found on www.infidels.org) and began interacting with atheists on a consistent basis, the realization that atheism is not for me became very real. I could not, and still can’t, bring myself to embrace the notion that God does not exist in light of my perception that the mere existence of our beautiful planet warrants a creator. The idea that the Bible is human rather than divine does not hinder my belief in God as I, like the biblical writers, have my own reflection stories of God’s dealings with me and my family. For me, other sacred texts seem dry and un-relatable, while the Bible comes across as wet and ripe and makes my inner being thirst for more. Some Christians may explain this phenomenon about the Bible to be “God’s Word” and that the Holy Spirit is moving on the reader, but in order for the Bible to be literally God’s Word it must reach standards it is said to have already met, and I don’t think it does. For me, the Bible is more of a devotional piece for the soul rather than a play-by-play hand-book for life.