Answering Jim Palmer’s 14 Objections…Part I, Doctrine

            Former mega-church pastor Jim Palmer’s social media posts created quite a stir. In it he list 14 talking points as to why he stopped teaching Christian doctrine.

            Of course if you’ve been on social media much, you know that what happened was very predictable.

            On one side of the coin, there were great “huzzah’s” on the part of many who have grown tired of some of the shenanigans of organized religion, mega-churches, and of Christianity in general.

            And in the opposite corner of the social media boxing ring came the flaming attacks of those who indignantly found everything Palmer said to be wrong.

            I intend to do neither of those. I do not know Jim personally but would love to sit down with him over coffee and hear more of where he is coming from. My reading of his points led me to realize that he was very aware of the limitations of social media attention spans and that there is much more behind what he is trying to share than what could be shared in the space given—in order to avoid the “Too long, didn’t read,” known as “TLDR” in the Internet age, and so I found myself thirsting for more of where what he said was coming from.

            Also, you will find as we talk together about his comments in the coming blog posts, that Jim and I agree on many of these points, and perhaps in some areas we do not.

            Indeed, in my recent book Superhero: Being Who God Says You Are, I take issue with some of the same points Palmer makes in his post. In many ways I agree with Palmer, in some ways, perhaps not so much.

            I am definitely not here to attack Jim Palmer, but I know many people have questions about some of his points and would appreciate a different point of view. This will be a calm discussion, maybe coffee with Jim Palmer will be in my future—I would value the opportunity to be his friend.

Discussing The Intro Paragraphs

            Here are the intro paragraphs from Jim’s post dated June 19, 2023:

            As you know, I once was an evangelical megachurch pastor and my pastoral career stretched over many years. Eventually, I could no longer teach Christian doctrine with a good conscience and realized this teaching was not truly changing people’s lives…and so I walked away from the whole enchilada.

            Below are 14 things that the misguided religious establishment doesn’t want you to know. Speaking for myself and my personal experience, I was not able to see or admit these things to myself. I truly got into ministry initially because I wanted to make a difference and help people, and I relied upon the belief-system I learned as the proper framework to achieve this. It took a lot of post-religion reflection to see the ways of this belief-system was hurting people.

            I offer the below list in hopes that you might disentangle yourself from harmful beliefs and attitudes impacting your life. (Copied from Facebook post)

Christian Doctrine

            Although he does not say this directly, I perceive that what I am about to contend in agreement with Jim is inferred in the rest of his post. What is often called “doctrine” is the tradition of man.

            While most churches would agree that traditions are not necessarily wrong, something we term “traditionalism” is. Traditionalism is when we give man’s interpretation of the Word of God an equal status with the inspired word (and doctrine) of Scripture.

            Case in point, in my own Sunday morning Bible class, we were discussing the problem with traditionalism and the teacher that week asked people to bring up some harmful traditions of our church from the past (or present). No one had an answer. The teacher brought up and old issue from decades ago where the communion table used to be covered with a cloth (presumably during the open window days before central heating and air systems, when the open windows would allow flies and gnats to head for the grape juice), and when someone decided the cloth under the climate controlled era to be no longer necessary—some folks got mad. There was something special, to them, about having the emblems of the Lord’s Supper covered and unveiled right before the prayer.

            So yeah, that was kind of weird. But not terribly harmful.

            So the next week I was teaching and I clarified the problem, and just helped people to see why we (and other church systems as well) struggle with this “doctrinal/traditionalism” issue. We do not call our traditions with the force of doctrine “traditionalism,” we enshrine them as doctrine.

            For instance, in my tradition of worship, much has been made about the account in Acts 20 where the church in Troas met on the first day of the week to “break bread.” Over more than a century in the church of Christ movement, this has come to be a doctrine (the taking of communion every first day of the week), one that if another group of believers do not adhere to it, they are in error and out of the fellowship of true worshippers.

            When the passage is examined closely, there are enormous challenges to using this example as a “doctrine” of mandatory Lord’s Supper observance every first day of the week (i.e., what we consider Sunday) and furthermore, why would what is mentioned in this occurrence be compulsory for every church, every Sunday?

            The problem is that the very phrase translated “break bread” is permissive of the communion act, but it also can just refer to eating a meal. Which is it? Many commentators prefer the “communion” interpretation, but as Palmer notes, this is the preference of their belief system. The text itself, while permissive, is not proscriptive.

            Not only that, this “first day” issue is a bit problematic. First of all, this is a Gentile writer (Luke) describing the actions of a belief system that is Jewish. The first day of the week for Jews started at sundown on the Gentile Saturday, while the non-Jewish first day started (and still starts) at “middle of the night” or midnight-ish. (I don’t know how accurate their time measurement was, the Jewish system seems more clear to me. So the question is, did the believers at Troas meet on Saturday after sundown, or did they meet on our Sunday before sundown?

            If we are to make a big deal, and indeed a litmus test for being in or out of the grace of God, over the specific day of communion (and there are other issues as well), then this matters. For Acts 20:7 notes that Paul spoke until after midnight (was it now Sunday by the Jewish timing, or Monday morning by the Greek?), then a young guy falls asleep (a long-embraced tradition in church gatherings?) and then falls from a window to his death.

            Then they “break bread.”

            Was it Sunday or Monday very early? Was it communion, or a meal, or both? And while this occurs in this instance in Troas, is this example of either eating a meal or observing the death and resurrection of our Lord something that is found in other places in Scripture, is there a command to do it every week at a certain time?

            Well, communion is vitally important, our Savior established it. But he said “do this in remembrance of me…” (Luke 22:19), but did not specify the interval. We know from early church writings that the Lord’s Supper was a vital part of their worship. But in a true spirit of determining “doctrine,” can we say that unless you abide by the example (which as far as timing and even whether or not the breaking of bread was a meal or communion) in Acts 20 that it truly is a litmus test for the faithful?

            This is just one example of one of the issues that Palmer has with organized religion enforcing a “doctrine” on others in a way that is not supported by Scripture. So yes, I agree with Jim, if he is speaking of “doctrine” in that sense, that I cannot teach as a firm truth what men have decided (without full Scriptural authority) is a compulsory act of obedience, or else you are not one of the true followers.         

            But on the other hand, when the Christ re-states the eternal doctrine of Scripture as:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:37, 38)

            He is restating the eternal doctrine, one that I hope Jim can and still does embrace. In this doctrine the Savior, the One and only Way to the Father (according to his own doctrine), is simply stating the truth that the Creator of the universe, the lover of our souls, is indeed immutable. From the beginning of time, and even outside of time, the God who gave life to all of humanity has used his words to mankind to teach the beauty of the prime doctrine: Our service to God comes from loving him, which comes from walking with him, learning the beauty of who He Is through the Word of God, and then in gratitude and joy extending that love to all.

            My hope is that this is the “Christian Doctrine” that Jim Palmer has not rejected.  

            For as opposed to all other worldviews and religious notions—this one is unique. It is not based upon doing good deeds to achieve salvation—rather, it is a true love (agape love, a sacrificial doing what is best for others because our Creator has endowed us with the best, the indwelling Lord of life) that is shared because it cannot be contained.

            And so, if I have perceived Palmers intent on rejecting “Christian Doctrine” as rejecting the traditionalism of well-intentioned organized faith systems—I agree with him. We stand together.

            But to reject the prime doctrine, the loving of God because he absolutely adores his creatures, and the sloshing of that love on all around us from the joy that we have—I cannot even imagine the depth of emptiness that would require for me to reject that doctrine.

            God is alive. He is revealed in Holy Scripture, no, the Scripture is the revelation of who he is. It is an utterly remarkable record of the nature of what is eternally real, and what is true of life on earth.

            I embrace the ultimate doctrine of Christ, and my prayer is that Palmer does too.

            Next post, I will analyze what I find to be the most curious statement in the introductory material of Palmer’s post: “I truly got into ministry initially because I wanted to make a difference and help people…”.

            Tune in next time…that one really challenges me as to what a megachurch pastor was seeking to begin with…

            Peace and love…Stevo