Considerations for evangelists
Consider your message of the good news. Can you imagine Jesus proclaiming your message? Does your message of the good news emphasize an avoidance of judgment with a vague description of hell? Notably, even evil repents for a while when faced with potential destruction (Jonah 3:9). Perhaps your success at getting a “decision” from people is only a temporary self-preservation response from the evil in them (James 2:19). Notably, Jesus called His disciples to make disciples of His Word. Are you also a disciple who understands the secret things? Perhaps you should be first be a disciple before trying to make a disciple. In particular, before evangelizing to others, do you think you should first understand the signs that Jesus indicated would accompany those who believe (Mark 16:17-18)? Perhaps you should seriously consider the extreme potential hazard Jesus described in the rare time He discussed evangelicalism (Matt 23:15). Were the Pharisees professing the wisdom of man or God, and how do you know which wisdom that you are professing?
Consider the good news of the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus when He first started His ministry (Matt 4:23). That was three years before the cross, so could He have proclaimed “believe that I am the Son of God who was sent by My Father to die on a cross for all your sins; and, if you accept me as your Lord and savior, then all your sins are forgiven and your future is a place called heaven”? Or could He have proclaimed some sense of “My Father has destined to save some of you from hell”? It is unlikely that He made either proclamation because scripture is clear that the people did not know until much later that Jesus was the messiah and a suffering servant. So, what did He proclaim? Did the message of good news change over time? Did He proclaim truths based on the OT images, or was it a distinct message unique to the NT?
Consider whether the Bible states anywhere that if you “accept” some understanding then you will be saved. If there was some understanding to accept, then would it not make sense that God would have clearly stated that requirement in His Word at least once? How many opportunities did Jesus have to state your version of the good news? How many times could He have said the words “just accept me”? Why did He not say it to the people who came to Him professing what they had done in His name? Too soon? Then why not say it on the cross? If the message of the good news is to “accept” Him or some understanding of Him, then wouldn’t it make sense that He would clearly express it on the cross? After His resurrection, why not make it clear? Does He express it to the two men on the road to Emmaus? Does He make it clear to the disciples? The church is telling you what you must do for salvation, but do you realize that it is never mentioned by Jesus or anyone else? When you tell someone to just “accept” Jesus, do you realize that you are telling them something that is not biblically true? Should that bother you?
Consider that according to religion, the “knowledge of God” is often reduced to the “essentials” of the faith. Notably, each belief system defines their particular understanding of what is essential, but many use a trilogy of three verses as the basis (John 3:16; Rom 10:9; Rom 8:1). Of course, John 3:16 is arguably the core message of evangelism, where Jesus states that “whoever believes” will have eternal life; yet, what does it mean to “believe”? There are many instances where people “believed” Jesus well before there was any indication of the cross. What did they believe? What two things are we to believe in order to please God (Heb 11:6)? Importantly, is the faith to believe those two things a gift from God, or an act of your will (Eph 2:8; John 1:13; Rom 9:16)? In particular, do you imagine that you are the source of your faith? If you think so, then are you then stealing God’s glory by praising yourself instead of God (Matt 16:17; John 6:29)? So, when you ask someone to make a decision of the will, are you not making faith a work of human hands? Are you causing them to stumble? Are you giving them a reason to boast? Can anyone ever truly believe what you tell them to believe, or do they have to receive that understanding solely through direct interaction with God’s Word? Also, do you believe that a “decision” must be made before death? Where does it state that in the Bible? Does it not make sense that God would make that critical fact perfectly clear? Why then is the gospel preached to those who died (1 Pet 4:6)? Are you assuming something contrary to scripture? Consequentially, have you based the first “essential” belief of interpreting John 3:16 as some version of “you must make a decision before you die” on a misunderstanding of “faith” and a false assumption?
Consider whether Jesus states something new with John 3:16, or whether He is restating truths based on OT images. Can you find the OT images that He employs? Notably, John 3:16 is part of a private conversation with the teacher of Israel and not a public announcement of good news. What is the context of the conversation? Jesus is explaining what He calls “heavenly things” that go to the heart of understanding the spiritual perspective. Do you think you can reasonably explain all the secrets discussed in John 3? Do you speak of what you know (John 3:11)? If not, is it wise to quote a single verse from the middle of a private discourse of which you do not reasonably understand? Is it fair to use a single verse to impel someone to make a decision of the will to accept your uncertain understanding even though they do not even realize that there are secrets to be understood? Are you telling them what to believe, or how to find understanding? Are you trying to convince them of your understanding, or are you making them a disciple by encouraging them to seek Him is His Word to understand the secrets?
Consider the meaning of Romans 10:9. What is the context? Is Paul chiding the Jews who were trying to create their own righteousness? In chapter nine, Paul gives a long argument stating that God’s election is based on nothing man has done, so why would he contradict himself in the next breath by supposedly saying that you can do something to save yourself? Does that make any sense? Is he talking about the attempts of self-righteousness versus a righteousness that comes from faith? So, is he talking about about the initial moment of salvation, or about being made holy (i.e. sanctification)? Notably, Paul gives us the OT affirming image before he commands them to confess and believe. (He is laying a pearl on the surface, but who sees it?) What is the context of the OT image, and what is Moses describing? Is he talking about how to make a profession to be “justified,” or how to be “sanctified” through God’s Word? When someone is challenged to identify where in the Bible it says to “accept” Jesus, Romans 10:9 is typically the only verse that is offered. However, can you see how this single verse is taken totally out of context? So, have you based the second “essential” belief of interpreting Romans 10:9 as some version of “make this profession of faith and you will be saved” on a misunderstanding of God’s Word? Notably, the misuse of Romans 10:9 is a perfect example of religion wrongly taking an individual verse to form a belief statement. Arguably, the concept of “confessing” Jesus (the Word) is the same image as depicted in the OT for “meditating” on the Word; because, a literal translation of the Hebrew would be to “mutter” the Word day and night. Is God’s Word always on your mind? Are you sowing God’s Word within yourself?
Consider how many religious people have a favorite verse. Notably, a while ago I was surprised to learn that R.C. claimed Genesis 15:17, but now I understand why. However, perhaps the “favorite” verse I hear most often is Romans 8:1, with the phrase “no condemnation” being perhaps the most powerful image of the worldly perspective. So, do you also believe that the verse confirms that you will avoid God’s punishment if you “accept” Him? Notably, the verse starts with “therefore,” so it is important to correctly perceive Paul’s preceding truths regarding the nature of sin. Critically, if you believe in the concept of having a “free will” that decides whether or not to sin, then presumably either you do not understand Paul’s thinking or do you not agree with him. However, if you do not understand Paul nor agree with his thinking, then should you quote his “therefore” statement? Also, he states that this truth is for those who are “in Christ” and not those who “accept” something. Apparently some transcripts include the additional clarification that the truth is for those “who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” So, Paul is using the phrase “in Christ” which he describes elsewhere as a mystery that is revealed. Can you explain the mystery and how to walk according to the spirit? Critically, if you do not understand and agree with Paul’s understanding of sin, and if the mystery of being “in Christ” has not been revealed to you, then how can you be sure that you correctly understand the truth of 8.1? Finally, the meanings of “punishment” and “condemnation” are not the same – agreed? Romans 8:1 is an amazing truth, but obviously many are relying on their own understanding. So again, have you based the third “essential” belief of interpreting Romans 8:1 as some version of “you will avoid God’s punishment if you accept Him” on your own understanding of God’s Word? Your perception of this one verse may fit the mantra “if you accept Jesus, then your sins are forgiven and your future is heaven,” but can you be sure that is a true understanding of what Paul is depicting? The nature of sin and its condemnation is a challenging image to understand, so is it wise to use this verse casually without understanding?
Consider that from the literal perspective, the perception of “God’s sovereignty” in election is easily apparent in scripture. Notably, when I began my journey into God’s Word, I was quickly persuaded to accept the intellectual reasoning of the Reformed perspective of God’s sovereign election. Yet, while I understand the arguments for why the reprobate go to hell, could the good news from Jesus ever imply that message? Could He have said in any manner that only some people are destined for heaven based solely on His Father’s will? Is it possible that Jesus initially hid that message, but revealed it later? Why the apparent avoidance by Jesus? Did He hate the message as much as those who are not Calvinists?
The argument for “unconditional election” is often based on Paul’s “golden chain” of salvation and his subsequent discussions of Jacob/Esau and the vessels (Romans 8:29-30; 9). However, the big downfall with the worldly perspective is consistently the matter of perceiving the images as depictions of external versus internal truths. Therefore, instead of perceiving the image of God loving Jacob and hating Esau as a depiction of literal people or nations of this world, consider whether God intended the image to symbolically depict the two nations at war within each of us; a war between the spirit and the flesh that is frequently depicted elsewhere in scripture (Gen 25:22-23; Gal 5:17). If so, then Paul is not depicting how God hates certain people such that He effectively allows them to condemn themselves, rather how God hates the evil parts in each of us and allows them to condemn themselves.
Obviously, there is an image of “free will” being depicted in scripture, and some within religion decide to focus solely on the image depicting a necessity to “respond” to God. Yet, some within religion believe, regardless of what you do in this life, that certain “elect” people are destined to heaven and all others to hell, a concept commonly referred to as “double predestination.” Notably, while both sides can recite verses that support their particular view, both sides also deemphasize or ignore verses that do not support their particular view. Einstein certainly did not deemphasize or ignore any of his images, because he knew that a correct understanding could not have any contradictions, and that his line of thinking had to “work” in all instances. However, if both sides of Protestant religion simply “agree to disagree” regarding this apparent contradiction, then can either perception of the good news be deemed correct with an unsolvable conundrum at the foundation of its belief system? Is it possible that the God of the universe could not clearly communicate His critical message of good news? Is His purpose to cause confusion? Notably, my confidence level in the spiritual perspective rose dramatically when I realized how this apparent contradiction is easily resolved by God’s line of thinking.
My plea to evangelists is to reconsider the practice of employing a few verses to “create” a message of “good news” in an attempt to convince others to join your belief system. Arguably, you are “cherry-picking” sentences from a huge book of divine revelation to craft your impression of another person’s eternal destiny. Certainly, encouraging others to join your community of loving people is a wonderful purpose, but depicting that community as being those who accept a certain understanding of God’s Word is offensive. Because, the mere existence of a “belief statement” divides the world into “believers” versus “unbelievers” of that church’s statement. Therefore, while evangelists can claim that their church is “open” to everyone, any belief statement that creates an “us versus them” scenario is divisive by its very nature, and counter to the love of God. So, again, if you cannot perceive Jesus as proclaiming your particular message of the good news, then should you reconsider the manner in which you introduce God’s Word to others? The great commission is to make “disciples” of God’s Word, not to make converts to your particular understanding of a few “divine” verses. Importantly, does not God depict the Pharisees as the “evangelists” of their “religion” of that day?
Arguably, the entire concept of evangelizing a “religion” is based on a flawed understanding of God’s Word, and a primary misperception is regarding the biblical image depicting the church of God. The common perception is that God’s Word depicts a transition from the “Jewish” way of religious practice to the “Christian” way of religious practice. Presumably, whereas the OT depicts Jews as joining the church through circumcision, the NT depicts Christians as joining the church through baptism. And, instead of worshipping God by the practice of slaughtering animals as depicted by the Mosaic law, presumably Christians are to worship God by the practice of holy communion as depicted by Jesus at the last supper. Yet, even religion admits that it cannot pinpoint the “start” of Christianity, because neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any NT author “proclaims” that a new “religion” had arrived on the scene with a new “belief statement” and a new set of religious practices. However, just like the Pharisees did with the Mosaic law, man’s wisdom “crafted” a religion based on a literal perspective of the NT images depicting the “new” church of God. The next chapter will discuss whether the Bible truly depicts two “religious” dispensations of Judaism and Christianity, and what God is depicting by the image of His “holy ones” being called out of darkness to join the “church” of God.
Evolution of the “good news”
As discussed, the typical biblical worldview has evolved with the evolving “norms” within society. Presumably, an evolving biblical worldview is acceptable in most people’s minds, but can it ever be acceptable for the “good news” of God’s Word to also evolve over time? Perhaps one could “expect” that a worldview would evolve with an evolving society, but should you not expect that the perception of God’s message of salvation would remain constant? Let’s consider how Christianity first created its message of the good news, and how that message has evolved over time.
Logically, if you perceive that the God of the universe has provided you words of divine revelation, then you would expect that those words would reveal wisdom, while claiming that any perceived “truths” supersede all other truth statements in the culture. And, just as the Jews created religious traditions based on their perspective of the Mosaic law, a similar effort was made to craft a new religion based on the NT images. Yet, since the NT does not depict the explicit “rules” for worship, the early church perceived the image of Peter receiving the keys to the kingdom as depicting a “divine gift” being given to the papacy to create the appropriate religious traditions within Christianity. Presumably, just as Israel practiced Judaism based on traditions established by the Pharisees, the new church would practice Christianity based on traditions established by the line of popes.
Consider how the “wise” men of early Christianity gathered at councils to formalize their belief statements by debating aspects of the nature of God, such as the divinity of Jesus, and the matter of the Trinity. The church felt the need to clarify its understanding because there were competing perspectives (e.g., Arianism, Gnosticism) being promoted. Of course, the creeds depict Jesus as the Son of God who died for our sins, and that He will come again to judge the living and the dead. Notably, the creeds also depict that God is somehow three parts in one, but the many statements just restate the same ambiguous image depicting that God is three, but He is one. Importantly, a person’s “salvation” was depicted as being “conditional” upon joining the church and accepting the church’s creed as being the truth. If you disagreed with the creed, then you were effectively “cursed” as being a heretic, and unable to be a member of the church.
Ultimately, according to the creeds established by the early church, Jesus will judge everyone, but if you accept the church’s doctrines, then you will have a better chance in the day of judgement to be counted among the righteous. Importantly, the church did not claim that you were saved by joining the church, rather that by becoming a member of the church, you could then receive the blessed sacraments from the church which will hopefully lead to your salvation. Still today, Catholicism depicts an image of uncertainty around salvation by making it dependent on how you live this life. Arguably, that image was the original version of the good news espoused by the Christian church for over one thousand years.
Consider how the creeds were intended to resolve the debates about the nature of God, yet still today they require a blind acceptance because the stated wisdom is derived mostly from the “imagination” of men, and not solely from clear perceptions of images depicted within God’s Word. Arguably, the church was requiring people to believe that their salvation was conditional on the acceptance of a theological theory that even the wise men of religion did not clearly understand. And, if the wise men of religion today still cannot not clearly perceive the nature of God from within His Word, then what hope should you have in them being able to clearly perceive the nature of man who was made in that image, and how the nature of man will be restored to holiness? Arguably, the ongoing existence of the “abstract” creeds clearly depicts religion’s admission of its blindness towards the nature of God and His good news, yet still today the church tells people to blindly accept its “belief statement” or risk eternal damnation.
Consider the potential consequences that result from the church’s original perception of the good news. In particular, what image of God’s Word was ultimately formed in the “minds of the people” after one thousand years of church dominion? Arguably, based on the wisdom of a few self-professed “wise” men, this “new” religion convinced a large majority that, according to the scriptures, the good news of salvation was conditional upon them “joining the church” by agreeing to its creeds. Such that, from the start of Christianity, the purpose of God’s Word was promoted as depicting how people should “respond” to God, and the consequences for failing to respond appropriately. Consequently, for over a thousand years, the church continued to kept God’s Word from the people, while exercising its “authority” to depict its doctrinal precepts and its religious traditions as being the divine understanding of God’s Word, and the means towards your salvation.
It is difficult to imagine a time of greater consequence upon mankind than the extended famine of God’s voice that occurred during the period of early Christianity. Because, whereas many Jews presumably could recite much of the OT from memory, the early Christians were compelled to concede that the church had an exclusive God-given ability to read and interpret scripture. So, while the Jews heard God’s voice depicting the OT images, particularly the images of Israel, Christians were encouraged to simply consider a few abstract images of God and Jesus as depicted by the church’s creeds. Consequently, thanks to the great deception by the early church, the perception of God’s Word was transformed in the minds of the people from the obvious “story of Israel” to a “tool” that God had presumably given the church such that it could reign as “God’s kingdom” on this earth. Of course, as corroborated in many ways by church history, absolute power corrupted absolutely. Yet, arguably the more significant consequence is that the people would never return to God’s intended image of His Word.
Thankfully, God did eventually provide a modern translation that made His Word more widely available, and He encouraged some brave men to question the wisdom of the church. Yet, was the famine quelled, such that the people responded with a devout passion for His Word? If not, why not? And, was the inquisitive nature of a few men sufficient to truly “reform” man’s thinking, such that new lines of God’s thinking were being revealed? If not, why not?
I suspect that most people, even without an academic degree in the study of religion, have a general understanding of how the Christian religion was formalized by Constantine in the fourth century. And, most people probably appreciate how the Roman Catholic Church was essentially the only organized religion within western societies until the sixteenth century, which is when Martin Luther and others instigated a “protest” against some of the church practices at that time. Since then, many Protestant religions were formed, yet each with their own particular belief statement (i.e. creed) about the good news of God’s Word.
Arguably, the primary motive that drove the Reformation in the sixteenth century was not about seeking a new understanding of God’s thinking, rather it was simply a rebellion against church traditions that obviously went beyond reason. And, if you investigated the theological reasoning behind the practice of indulgences, then you would appreciate why some felt that a rebellion was necessary. Notably, the Catholic Church has maintained its “treasury” such that indulgences can still be distributed to those in purgatory, so the rebellion did not change the church’s thinking on that matter.
Consider how the reformers argued that much of established church tradition was not biblical, yet they still maintained the same literal historical approach to God’s Word. And, in their effort to establish their own “wise” church traditions that were presumably based “solely” on scripture, the reformers changed the message of the good news from the conditional image of “joining the church” to the “reformed” image of the five solas, which are sola scriptura (scripture alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone). However, while it is a “catchy” phrase to state that salvation is based on “Christ alone through grace alone by faith alone,” that theological image is vaguely depicted in scripture, so it must be explained such that people can appreciate the significance of the statement. Consequently, various wise men each started their own belief systems that presumably explain “in their own words” the good news of God’s way of salvation, and what it means to have “faith” in God.
Consider how the Reformation and the printing press made God’s Word available to the masses, yet the masses still relied on the wise men of religion to fashion their belief system of the good news. Because, just as my father advised me as a child, it was still perceived that the “holy scriptures” were too difficult for a “lay person” to understand. Arguably, still today, just as the pope and clergy are assumed to have a “gift” of divine knowledge, there is a similar perception that you must have the proper seminary “education” to discern the wisdom being revealed by scripture. Yet, are you allowing academia to self-proclaim itself as the only capable “revelator” of God’s Word, much like the early Christians allowed the church to proclaim about itself?
Famine of God’s voice
Consider again how the early Christians did not read God’s Word because many of them literally could not read anything, and even if they were able to read, God’s Word was only available in a foreign language. Importantly, lay people were not even “allowed” to read scripture, and they would be labeled a “heretic” with the risk of severe punishment if they denied the church’s total authority over scripture. God’s Word was literally being withheld from the eyes and ears of the masses. Yet, not only was God’s voice taken “hostage” by the church, but the church instead fed the masses its wisdom; arguably what Paul calls the “wisdom of this world” because of its “earthly” and “natural” (i.e. unspiritual) perceptions of scripture, which are the result of approaching God’s Word with the “worldly” perspective (consider James 3:15, 17).
My heart ached as I considered how God’s Word returned “void” for so many centuries because of the church, and it was hard to imagine a sadder time in world history than the severe famine of God’s voice during early Christianity. That is, until I considered the present time. Because, while God has offered His Word to the masses for over four hundred years, people today still prefer to simply hear someone else’s interpretation of verses instead of focusing on the images being depicted by God’s voice. Does anyone “mutter” God’s Word continually to themselves? Do you? If not, why not? Arguably, no one seeks God’s voice to understand the images within His Word, rather they only perceive the biblical images as they are depicted by the words from other people, such that the severe famine of the voice of God has never ended.
Consider why you do not study God’s Word by yourself, but rather rely on someone else to provide you with an understanding of scripture. Arguably, the Bible is primarily perceived as a big history book, and I can certainly appreciate the perception that God’s Word is a “collection” of texts written by various people who were somehow “inspired” by God. Most people naturally perceive that each writer had his own particular objective, such that while each book depicts matters related to God, they are perceived as confusing words coming from different voices talking about their particular place in time.
Arguably, everyone perceives the Bible as books of history coming from the voices of men, instead of perceiving scripture as a story coming from the voice of your loving Father. However, does it make sense to assume that the Bible is a history book when you are told explicitly that scripture is literally the voice of God? Understandably, it is difficult to imagine that the God of heaven would read a book to you of past and future events, yet it feels natural to imagine that the earthly voices of men are speaking to ancient people. And, if the Bible is perceived as a collection of books recording history, then it makes sense to rely on historians and “wise” men to “discern” the meaning of words from ancient people about ancient times. Consequently, while a personal study of all 66 books might be considered an admirable goal for some, the reasonable course of action appears to be that we should rely on the “expert” guidance of others. Because, since “they” went to school and studied the scripture, and since their commentary is “peer reviewed,” then their interpretation is certainly worthy of consideration – right?
Certainly, if you have a medical question, then you should want your medical doctor to be educated at a medical school. However, should you want your spiritual “doctor” to be educated at a seminary? Notably, when I was considering a seminary degree, I was warned that “where” I went for a seminary education would greatly determine the “slant” of Christianity that I would be learning. At the time, I found this extremely confusing, because I thought that all seminaries had the same objective; that is, to reveal God’s line of thinking within scripture. Silly me. As I quickly discovered, seminaries provide an education of their particular religion’s perception of God’s Word.
Consider how you would perceive the concept of a religion that evolved primarily from the wisdom of a single man. Yet, if you were to study the history of Christianity, then you would find that essentially every belief system founded since the Reformation effectively originated from a particular man who made “converts” to his particular line of thinking. Therefore, in a sense, every religion technically started as a cult, in that they were each inspired principally by one person’s line of thinking.
Obviously, the “leader” of a church movement must have certain qualities to “sell” both himself and his message, and often the manner in which a message is delivered determines whether a person is considered a worthy leader. People often prefer style over substance. And, when the masses perceive that scripture is too difficult to understand by themselves, then they will rely on others for their understanding, and their entertainment. Arguably, any flamboyant speaker with credentials could easily become a spiritual “leader” who presumably depicts a “biblical” message of the good news because some of his words come from a part of scripture, albeit a very small part. So, whether the words come from the preacher at your church, or from the writer of your commentary, the line of thinking that you are consuming evolved from some variation of the good news as uniquely discerned by the wisdom of a single man.
Arguably, in a sense, the early church was wise to forcibly restrict others from considering any new lines of thinking; because, after the Reformation, the wisdom of man “freely” crafted many different lines of thinking regarding the good news of salvation. Of course, as expected, the unencumbered wisdom of man is very creative in crafting a peace-peace message of the good news that is very comforting, such that the masses remember and share catchy phrases instead of muttering the voice of God. Will you continue to seek the wisdom of men such that the famine of God’s voice continues in your life?
Current state of religion
Consider, while the message of good news has evolved, the one thing that has not changed is the manner in which God’s Word is perceived. Without exception, and perhaps by definition, “Christian” religions approach scripture with a literal historical perspective, and each religion claims that its belief statement is “biblical” because it employs specific verses as proof points. However, no religion can claim to profess the absolute truth, because aspects of every belief statement result in inconsistencies or apparent contradictions with other parts of scripture, consequently no religion can absolutely refute all other religions. Arguably, the root cause of the inability to profess an absolute truth is the literal historical approach, but the wise men of religion would rather agree to disagree rather than consider the possibility of a common error.
Of course, while the Protestant religions debate the proximate cause of your salvation, many within the other half of Christianity still perceive that Catholicism is the only true religion. However, even the Pope himself realizes that claiming exclusivity to their version of the truth is tenuous at best, such that many Christians now perceive that they can comfortably agree to disagree on “theological” matters as long as they agree on the “essentials” of the faith. However, much like the early Christians who accepted the church’s doctrines without any true understanding of God’s Word, is the god of this world simply making it easier for people to accept their “favorite” religious belief statement based on a similar blind faith?
Interestingly, even though there are numerous variations of religion for people to choose, those who call themselves a “Christian” is in decline worldwide. Notably, the decline has mostly occurred in “developed” societies, whereas Christianity is presumably making advancements in some developing societies. Apparently, as many have generally argued, the rise of scientific knowledge and critical thinking in advanced societies is precipitating the decline in religion, because “educated” people presumably recognize that the “wisdom” in God’s Word is archaic at best, and even wrong in many instances. Presumably, since even an elementary level of scientific knowledge “clearly” refutes the creation account, all “truths” of God’s Word must be placed in doubt, because how can you believe anything if some of the core beliefs of religion are absolutely wrong?
As part of my journey, a goal was to consider how others perceive God’s Word, and much of this effort conveys my understanding of how many of those within religion currently perceive the Bible. Of course, given my diverse religious experiences over 50+ years, it is easy for me to convey the typical Christian perceptions. Yet, I have also devoted much time to consider the views of those who argue against religion, and that effort has surprisingly produced much of the fruit in my journey. Because, while I understand how a critic of religion might feel satisfaction by “tearing down” man’s thinking regarding a particular biblical image, there is a much greater satisfaction when the spiritual perspective perceives the same image in a way that “builds upon” God’s line of thinking. So, whereas Christians must avoid the hard questions of their religion if they want to avoid the confusion and uncertainty, I seek them out to gain confidence that there are no inconsistencies when a hard question is approached with the spiritual perspective, and invariably the effort leads towards further inferences of understanding.
Consider how it is currently very easy to find numerous “un-testimonies” from people who have left a religious belief system after going through a process called “deconstruction,” which is simply the thoughtful analysis of a truth claim. Arguably, what distinguishes deconstructionists from Christians is their willingness to consider rational thinking. Notably, those who argue against religion share the same basic perception that God intended His Word to be perceived in a literal historical manner. However, deconstructionists recognize that a critical analysis of scripture reveals that the literal meaning of scripture does not make sense, typically in regards to the expected nature of God, so they perceive that religion’s various claims of divine understanding are doubtful at best. Yet, in the end, deconstructionists are no different then the typical Christian, because they both build their particular image of God based on the parts of scripture that make sense to them, such as employing the moral teachings of Jesus as a guide for living life. Notably, if there is a difference, I sense that most deconstructionists consider that their perception of God is a personal matter, such that they do not claim, as Christians do, that their understanding is an absolute truth for all people.
Deconstructionists typically conclude that the Bible cannot be the “inerrant” Word of God, rather they perceive that scripture is a collection of independent “mythical” texts written over many years by people with different beliefs. And, when approaching God’s Word with a worldly perspective, it is quite easy to come to that conclusion. Modern scientific knowledge and historical facts refute many aspects of the creation account and the story of Israel, and the claim of an absolute biblical moral truth is easily refuted by the inconsistent nature of God. Arguably, anyone who perceives that the Bible is depicting literal images of this world will find it impossible to “logically” argue against the deconstructionists’ conclusion, because a thoughtful analysis of God’s Word by anyone with the worldly perspective will always result in the perception of mythical stories and a warped image of God. Unfortunately, very few Christians are willing to do that thoughtful analysis and question their current beliefs, and the deconstructionists who have done the thoughtful analysis simply settle for something less.
Interestingly, I perceive that many deconstructionists have studied God’s Word more than most Christians. That perception should not be surprising, because it requires significant thought energy to change any core belief, particularly a belief created during childhood, and a belief that dramatically impacts the answers to the three great questions. So, consider how difficult it must be to “un-believe” religious dogma that was drilled into you by your parents and teachers, and how it must feel to be ostracized by a community that was the source of all of your relationships. Of course, many Christians are not “thoughtful” believers of God’s Word, so it can be easy to leave behind a belief system that you never truly considered. Yet, if you put your trust in the guidance of religious parents and teachers, then try to imagine the frustration when you realize that you were being led by people who were being illogical by ignoring rational thinking. I feel an empathy for the deconstructionists, but deep frustration towards mankind, particularly towards the wise men who presumably studied God’s Word.