Matt Slick is a Christian apologist and the founder of The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM). CARM identifies as “a conservative Christian Ministry” that wants to equip Christians to defend the faith and reach the “lost” for Jesus (1). The ministry was founded in 1995 and purports to be “one of the oldest and largest Christian Apologetics sites on the internet”.
Importantly, in the context of Rachael Slick’s (Matt’s daughter) deconversion and commitment to atheism, CARM affirms biblical inerrancy, stating that the “Bible is the Word of God, and its original manuscripts are free from all errors and contradictions”. Biblical inerrancy played a role in Rachael’s rejection of the Christian faith.
Rachael was born in 1992 and speaks about how she grew up in a very devout, religious home (2). She recalls seeing her father’s used and worn “gigantic old Bible” around the house. Rachael had theology drummed into her from a very young age, and she recalls how her dad would make her debate him on various issues when she was just five years old. Matt would demand technical accuracy from Rachael in these debates.
Her father would often speak at churches on matters of apologetics, and she would attend. He often boasted to others in the audience about how much theology his daughter knew and then used her as a benchmark to motivate others (and, by inference, suggested that most Christians knew less theology than a five-year-old). Rachael recalls how her father would often stop his car on the side of the street to debate Mormon missionaries, and that eventually missionaries would stop visiting the Slick household.
One perceives the stringent fundamentalism in Rachael’s upbringing in her homeschooling. The environment was strict, and her textbook taught against the theory of evolution. As creationists often do, Rachael was taught the “dangers” of evolutionary theory. CARM “does not affirm macro-evolution”, namely “the formation of life on earth from a single cell that evolved via natural selection over millions of years into the species all over the earth”.
By the time Rachael went to college, she was well-versed in theology and arguments (3). She attended philosophy and religion classes and would often raise her hands “at every opportunity” and sprout “well-practiced arguments”. She would often speak with her philosophy professor after class about God.
But it was a question about morality and the Bible that caused Rachael to doubt her faith. In a conversation with an individual named Alex, Rachael asked,
“If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?”
Alex could provide no answer, and neither could Rachael. She came to believe that “there was no possible answer that would align with Christianity.” That is when the transition happened,
“I still remember sitting there in my dorm room bunk bed, staring at the cheap plywood desk, and feeling something horrible shift inside me, a vast chasm opening up beneath my identity, and I could only sit there and watch it fall away into darkness. The Bible is not infallible, logic whispered from the depths, and I had no defense against it. If it’s not infallible, you’ve been basing your life’s beliefs on the oral traditions of a Middle Eastern tribe. The Bible lied to you.”
“Everything I was, everything I knew, the structure of my reality, my society, and my sense of self suddenly crumbled away, and I was left naked.”
“I was no longer a Christian. That thought was a punch to the gut, a wave of nausea and terror. Who was I, now, when all this had gone away? What did I know? What did I have to cling to? Where was my comfort? I didn’t know it, but I was free.”
Coming from the very religious background she did, Rachael’s rejection of the Christian faith received a negative reaction from others, including her parents,
“I am fairly certain I broke my mother’s heart. Many people accused me of simply going through a rebellious stage and that I would come around soon. Countless people prayed for me. I don’t know how my dad reacted to my deconversion; I haven’t spoken to him since I left home.”
She also received hundreds of both accusatory and supportive emails. Motivating her to engage the latter were the “desperate” letters, which were “the ones from people who lost their faith and felt like they’d also lost everything else.”
Rachael claims to have “love for those caught in religion,” and wants “to help show them that there is goodness without God.” She is “interested in the psychology behind religion, what compels someone to remain religious, and the nature of the mental process required to believe in something so incongruent with reality.”
Her Father’s Reaction
What was Matt’s reaction or response to his daughter’s rejection of the faith he drilled into her and her embrace of atheism?
Atheism, along with secular humanism and Mormonism, is one of the worldviews CARM identifies as a primary ideological enemy, which would make Rachael’s sudden embrace of atheism feel like a dagger into the heart. It caused Matt distress and heartache. In a post intended for his critics, he writes,
“As a Christian apologist, I sometimes come under attack from all sorts of people in various religious and non-religious contexts. They use whatever they can to insult and mock the Christian faith. In light of this, one of my daughters, Rachael who abandoned the Christian faith many years ago, became an atheist. Since then, she has moved towards theism, per our last conversation. As a result of her not being a Christian, unbelievers will sometimes bring her up and try to use her against me and the Christian faith. Usually, it is atheists who do this, and many of them have been quite hateful in their mockery. But, to be fair, some atheists have been very compassionate and have avoided resorting to using a daughter against her father” (4).
Matt’s pain over the “loss” of his daughter is apparent,
“Have any of you ever suffered the real loss of children both physically and spiritually? Have any of you buried a child? Have any of you watched another child slip away into spiritual darkness and tried to prevent it, only to encounter failure? Have you ever wondered what you could have done differently? Have you played over and over in your mind a long list of your failures and dragged your own soul through the pain of remembrance regularly? Have you? I have.”
What Explains Rachael’s Rejection of the Faith?
There are likely several factors behind Rachael’s rejection of the Christian faith that extend beyond just the single doubt she expressed to her friend Alex.
Perhaps her father exposed her at too young an age to theology. It is unusual for children at the age of five to be debating their fathers on matters of theology, as well as having theological arguments and positions drummed into their minds, which could have a damaging affect on the development of a child.
Inerrancy was likely another issue. Rachael had to accept a dichotomy her father presented to her, which is that the Bible is either fully inerrant or must be false and not the Word of God. This view can be problematic for many because the challenge it presents to the individual is that if just one error is discovered in the Bible (historical, scientific, or ethical), then the whole edifice collapses into a smoldering heap. The doctrine of inerrancy is controversial, debated, and not accepted by all Christian apologists and theologians.
Questions do, however, emerge. Why did she jump from Christianity into full-blown atheism? Was she duped by another false dichotomy that the only two options in the world are Christianity and atheism? What about other worldviews (like agnosticism) or religions and forms of spirituality? One might wonder if there are other reasons—perhaps emotional and psychological ones—reaching back into her childhood that caused her to reject the faith.
The emotional response to her former faith also became apparent in her tweets, suggesting a strong reaction to the fundamentalist religion she was raised in.
References
Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society, and Philosophy 
This is an excellent post that does a great job of covering all the angles. I think Rachael Slick has that rare personality trait that keeps her mind thinking logically no matter what is done to it. Only 3% of the population have this trait. I am one of them too. Our minds are like corks that keep bobbing up to the surface to breath the air of sweet reason. Unfortunately, the rational mind is still a fallible mind and a deep dive into irrationality might last for decades.
What is infallible about the Bible is its disposition on the nature of God and man. Everything else in the Bible is cultural. The storytelling, all the different literary styles, and the regulations God put on the Hebrews to turn them from primitive pagan savages into philosophers who rivaled Plato and Aristotle.
Rachael has made a determination about her faith based on a factual error. Plato called such errors, “lies in the soul.” This type of lie is so deeply imbedded in the mind that it becomes part of one’s personal identity.
I believe that in time, Rachael’s logical mind will gnaw away at her atheism until it finally dissolves, for there is no greater failure of reason than atheism. In my case it took nearly 30 years to return to my Christian roots. Although I must say that I only lasted 6 weeks as a Protestant Evangelical because of all the logical fallacies that govern its religious doctrine.
Can I ask which logical fallacies govern it’s religious doctrine ?
Excellent question, Programmer. Take a look at Martin Luther’s 95 Theses. From where does Martin Luther get the authority to redefine the Christian religion? Answer: From himself, not from God. Martin Luther is not mentioned in the Bible, yet Martin Luther created out of nothing, the doctrine of “sola scriptura,” scripture only. That is but one, fatal contradiction that destroys Protestantism as a valid expression of Christ’s Gospel teachings.
I think your position on this is like that of Rachael: she hung on just one issue and threw away all the rest. Like you said, if she’s really after rationality, she will surely soon find atheism very illogical in the quest for a meaningful construction of reality. In your case, I don’t get why Martin Luther’s Sola scriptura is all there’s to consider between protestantism and catholicism. And you haven’t even explained why even that is wrong. Maybe you can come out clearer. I love to hear you out because this to me is weightier than the casual treatment you have given it.
What faith did you end up embracing after leaving protestant evangelism?
Aaro, I returned to my roots as a Roman Catholic. Of all the world’s religions it is logically consistent, culturally, spiritually and intellectually full of treasure.
The people on this blog pick out what they perceive and opine are failures of religious people and attach those failures to the religion. I went through the same disappoints as the bloggers posting and commenting here, but I never became bitter. I never blamed my failure to perceive or understand clearly, on the religion. I always held myself accountable for my faith.
Thus, I am able to criticize Pope Francis and excoriate pedophile priests while owning my own faith. My faith is my own and thus, unaffected by the evil that men do.
Thank you for your cogent explanation of your faith. Different religious sects have different rules, and they have made a determination using the Bible and/or Apocrypha as to why they support these same “rules.” All I need to know is Jesus Christ and him crucified; raised from the dead; sitting on the throne in heaven. I too spent years looking at many other religions but, by the grace of God, landed on my knees at the cross. There is debate among about many things, yet I must stand before God some day and only answer this question: What did you done with my Son? I cannot answer for anyone other than myself. My reasoning and beliefs run deep and across many disciplines from science to the Bible. I only want to hear from God, “well done, thou good and faithful servant.
I’m not sure the argument she gave Alex works – that if morality is objective then its application cannot change. Gravity is objective, but its application on the earth is very different to its application on the moon. Likewise the application of objective morality changes depending on circumstances.
Tim. Gravity works the same on the moon as it does on earth. The earth has more mass than the moon. That is the difference. But gravity works according to natural laws that are the same all over the universe.
if what you believe in results in you never talking to your daughter ever again, you maybe have to question whether those beliefs are worth having
The Bible has plenty of fallacies. But it is overall true. The Book of Mormon helps make its messages plainer, or more aligned with God’s will.
How does the Book of Mormon make its message plainer? Mormon and Christian theology is very different, so they both can’t be true.
They are the same.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doctrine and theology is of Jesus Himself, John 3:16. He is the Son of God and our Savior and Redeemer. Mormon was a great prophet of Him. Like Moroni, his son.
It’s not the same, because the Mormon view of God is completely different than what Christians believe about God- ask a Christian and a Mormon if God has a wife and “spirit children”- the Christian would say no, of course not, while the Mormon would say yes. Christians also don’t believe we can become gods, and reject the Book of Mormon. That’s why we have separate churches.
Which Christian Church? The Roman Catholic? The Greek Orthodox? The Baptist? The Methodist? The Evangelical pick your choice? Which one is Christian? All of them, right? The Bible has the truth of God. God is our father, we are created in His image. Men and women. Genesis. How could we not have a spiritual mother? How can we not obey Jesus and be like Him? His words, His commands. Latter-day Saints believe in and uphold the doctrines of the Holy Bible. Many do not. They try, but they do not have the full truth of God, His Church, nor His Son. Prophets are a part of it. Who is your prophet of God? Where is that in the Old or New Testament?
Jesus said beware of the false ones.
Are there true ones?
These are the last days, get ready and usher Him in.
All the churches you listed reject the Book of Mormon, but affirm the Trinity, which Mormons deny. Even the concept of the “image of God” means something different to Mormons and Christians. God the Father is not an exalted man with a physical body. If you believe in a “Mother God”, then you believe that there’s more than one God, and that goes against what the Bible says.
“Who is your prophet of God?” Jesus, who was the ultimate prophet.
“Jesus said beware of the false ones.” Yes, like Joseph Smith.
Jesus is The Ultimate Prophet, but God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Surely God does nothing save He uses His servants, His prophets. Peter was a Prophet. But the apostles were all killed… Thus an apostasy, a world bereft of God’s chosen priesthood holders.
Did Christ say He would be the last one? Sounds like the Muslim message of Mohammed, not the Christian Bible.
So God the Father to you is a deity without parts or passions?
That is what traditional Christianity has taught and inculcated, which is wrong.
Jesus of Nazareth in His ultimate physical act resurrected and became like the Father, as he commanded us to do. All in the Bible and recorded by his apostles and Prophets, and later by Joseph Smith. And every Church of Jesus Christ president and prophet today and forever.
Nephi, of the Book of Mormon, the same.
You call us Mormon. Fine, that is a nickname that takes away from our Christian identity as many are bent on doing. Are you an American? I should call you Yankee, or gringo, or some other nickname that derives from being a U.S. citizen. If Mexican, then chavo or cuate. Nicknames have their place.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, I take His name upon me to remember Him always, to keep His commandments.
I am saved by Him and I love Him and I will be resurrected thanks to Him! I will follow Him as He commands and I will repent in His name and be glorified like Him and return to our Father, glorified and exalted all. John 17:3. Read that whole chapter.
Just because I am not a traditional Trinitarian does not remove me from Christianity. Rather, I an a Christian who believes our interpretation is more correct, affirmed by modern prophets, the same message as all the ancients.
The Bible is not the only holy Book, as Muslims think the Quran, or Jews the Torah.
God is not limited to 66 or 70 some books. He is bigger, and more powerful.
And loving. He and His son command me to love, not to hate, and forgive all their trespasses.
I share this not out of hostility but out of care and concern. Brotherly love is the higher law.
So, yes, I am a Mormon and a Yankee.
I am also a Christian and a U.S. citizen. I am also a child of God and a Saint, a follower of Jesus Christ.
I may not be your brand of Christian, but I was born one and plan to die one, and I and you will be resurrected someday. Thanks to Jesus.
Thanks for sharing, we can all bring ourselves closer to God, the Father, and His Son, whom we worship and serve.
If a meat eating restaurant called a vegan place of food “not a restaurant”, would that be true or accurate? Just because a place does not serve the same food that one believes in eating, does not stop that place from being what it actually is.
Be ye therefore perfect as I am. Everything you see me do, so has the Father. I am paraphrasing the Son of God from the Holy Bible.
You may not agree, but the Restored Church on the earth is a vibrant brand of Christianity. The Book of Mormon affirms the message and veracity of it.
Take it up with God, it does not or should not be contentious. Contention is of the Devil.
Each restaurant offers their menus. May we all find our true diet and be filled by the Word of God.
We can eat His supper and be filled with the Holy Ghost and be made whole.
Christ is the only way, we can agree. John 14:6.
God is most certainly Exalted, as is His Son. They invite us to follow and be like Them.
Thanks for sharing your spiritual food. I will always try to feed others.
I don’t get it. I mean, I REALLY don’t get it. I think there is a lot more going on here than the article was able to cover in this space. I mean, if some laws from the Old Covenant did not carry over into the New, why does it mean God cannot exist? First of all, God could exist, and The Bible could be wrong. Second, God could treat different sets of people in separate eras differently if He created them both and created the Law. My own children are different human beings. The rules I give them do, of a necessity vary slightly from one child to another. Like I said, I REALLY don’t get it.
Matt Slick as quoted in the OP said his daughter, Rachael, was moving back to theism. Is that true? If so, what were her reasons? It’s worth knowing.
I don’t think the inerrancy issue can be waved away easily. If the Bible is not reliable on things that are subject to some sort of verification/falsification, why should we believe its assertions about what is in principle not verifiable/falsifiable? And if we don’t believe some of its assertions, why should we follow some of its precepts and prohibitions? At that point, the whole thing ceases to be authoritative.
I