Absurd n. utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense.

Bizarre n. markedly unusual in appearance, style, or general character and often involving incongruous or unexpected elements; outrageously or whimsically strange; odd.

The human mind can entertain bizarre things.

I remember when I was young, I had this nagging and, at times, paralyzing fear that (get ready for this) I was the only person that really existed, and the rest of the world was either self-produced or a big test of some sort. No, this was not a chronic fear. It was intermittent. It happened only when I let my imagination and thoughts of “the possible” entertain me. Absurd? Yes. But terrifying nonetheless. I did not want to be the only person who really existed. I did not want reality to be a test. I did not want my mom to be only a mom in my mind. During these times, I would be sent into an existential crisis that would, to say the least, ruin my day. You must understand: this fear was not rational. It was quite absurd. My thoughts would create a vortex of terror which was built only on what I thought might be possible, no matter how unlikely. I came to later find out that this is an actual psychological condition called “solipsism.” I am not kidding. Look it up. Though I have not been in this vortex since I was a kid, I trained myself not to go there. As irrational as it was, as crazy as it may seem to me know, I have learned that there are certain places that I don’t go simply because my mind is not as stable as I think.

The human mind can entertain bizarre things. Life is bizarre. I mean, think of it: we are actually conscious organisms who are self-aware. We came from a union between two other beings. We grew in the belly of a woman and then spent years clinging to that woman for support. We find a limited extension in space and cannot transcend the confines of our bodies. We eat, we drink, and we breathe air to survive. Harmony of sound waves (music) can make us laugh, cry, or get angry. Emotions control the majority of our lives and they are nearly always the result of relationships with other beings. We believe in right and wrong. Almost always, we think we are right and others are wrong. Yet due to this recurrence of “life,” we become used to it and it eventually becomes defined as “normal.” Here and there we catch glimpses of how bizarre life really is. Through the conception and birth of one’s own child, we see it. Sometimes when we look up into the sky we see it. Here and there joy can make us forget that life is normal. But for the most part, the idea of bizarre is reserved for those things that don’t fit into the categories we unwillingly find ourselves in. I suppose that this paragraph is trying to help you reimagine the world around you. Reality is not normal at all if by this it means we “get it.” We don’t ”get it.” We live it, but we don’t “get it.” We believe reality, not because it is unbizarre, but because it is . . .well . . . reality.

Solipsism does not make the reality cut because there is no rational reason for believing it is an accurate representation of the world around us. The evidence is against it. This is why I don’t go there. I have come to realize that my mind is too weak.

There are other places that I don’t go in my mind. When I was in my first year of college I had another existential experience. I have had this many times since. It haunts me and can make me crazy if I allow it. It is hard to explain (and I don’t know of any formal psychological conditions it goes by) but here it is: I don’t like time. Yes, time. Most specifically, I don’t like the present or the past, either in theory or reality. Hang with me. I think that it is completely bizarre that we live in the present moment, but it is always passing by. I cannot ever catch and hold anything, for it is always fleeting from the present. For this reason, when I go here, I find it hard to define life. Who am I? Am I the sum total of my past experiences? But the past has no ontological value now. If this is true, who am I now? I can get insanely frustrated that I can’t freeze a moment and just be. I am always becoming, but never am. The moment I am, the same moment has passed. Where in time am I? What is “present”? If all of this is true, is there really a “me”? When I am in this mode, I am haunted by the possibility that I do not exist either the way I want to exist or the way I think I exist. If this is true, in what sense do I exist, if at all?

But, again, this is an irrational thought pattern. Where this ends is insanity and untruth. Just because I cannot figure out the mechanics of my existential experience, this does not mean that my existence is forfeited. But I still don’t go there.

I remember in college, having a philosophy professor who attempted to convince the class that everything we see and hear are merely translations of reality, but not reality itself. He was not arguing that reality did not exist, but that reality, as we think we know it, is purely subjective. The color red did not really exist, it was just how our mind translated “color.” Solid matter did not really exist, it was just how our mind processed the sensation of “matter.” Heat did not exist, it was just how our minds interpreted things. Our minds simply react to certain stimuli and translate them according to preset patterns that may or may not reflect reality. When this class first began, I laughed at the prospects of such subjectivism. However, after volley upon volley of his arguments for subjectivism, I was totally depressed. I did not want to entertain this philosophy any longer. It hurt too badly.

This philosophy, while interesting to entertain, ends in a place that does not account for the evidence. Like with the rest, I don’t go there. I can entertain very absurd things when I do. My mind is not that stable.

Those are three absurdities that have affected me personally. Those are three places that I don’t go. Not because I think that they might be right, but because I can get caught in a vortex of irrationality that suddenly seems like wisdom – yea, the very graduation of knowledge. But there are a thousand other places I have seen people go that are in the same family:

• Belief that suffering does not exist (pantheism)
• Belief that we are all beings living inside another being (panentheism)
• Belief that we were other beings in former lives (reincarnation)
• Belief in total and utter meaninglessness (nihilism)
• Belief that we never really move since there are an infinite number of half steps to take (“Zeno’s Paradox”)
• Denial of the existence of other minds (solipsism)
• Disbelief in the past (i.e., we were created a few minutes ago with pre-programmed memories)
• Paranoid delusions of marital infidelity, death, robberies, and sickness
• Belief that being came from non-being (atheism)

All of these things can control you if you allow yourself to go there. All of them have what can seem to be perfectly reasonable arguments when suffering with their thoughts for too long. But they just don’t make sense. What they contribute to a worldview is neither rational or systematic. They posit a theory and then seek to birth this theory in isolation from intuition, evidence, and wisdom. Therefore, I advise people that these places are not safe places to go, at least for too long.

However, nothing is going to stop people from teaching and believing that one or more of these is the more sensible option. In fact, some will make the argument that one of these offers the least bizarre of all the options. But, again, how bizarre something is is not a criteria for judgement. Everything is bizarre, but not everything is an option. Everything is bizarre, but not everything demands respect. Everything is bizarre, but not everything is true. Everything is bizarre, but that does not mean everything is formally absurd.

Look at what I believe: I believe in a heaven that exists on a plane parallel to our existence. I believe in angels, demons, and a being called Satan. I believe in transcendent good and evil. I believe in a God who is quite empirically elusive. I believe in a God who loves us. I believe in a future judgement by this God. I believe that this God became man and died on a piece of wood to satisfy himself!

Bizarre is not the issue. However, bizarre + absurd does not work. Existence coming from nothing is not only bizarre, but totally absurd. Minds coming from non-minds is not only bizarre, but impossible. Meaninglessness is not only bizarre, but outside of my experience. And while someone might make a good argument that all of reality exists only in your own mind, the evidence does not play a part in such a worldview.

I don’t have the time or sanity to entertain absurd notions that do nothing more than mess with my head. I am not that strong. I don’t go many places anymore. Bizarre places? All day long. Every time I open my eyes I enter into a bizarre world. Absurdity is where I draw the line.

Christianity is bizarre, but it does make the most sense out of the world. Christianity is bizarre, but not absurd. So when you begin to doubt your faith based on bizarre beliefs, don’t fail to realize that your life is much more bizarre than you are able to see right now. Bizarre is not the issue. Formal absurdity is.Similar Posts:

• Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?
• 10 Arguments for God's Existence
• Ten Arguments for the Existence of God
• Why is There Something Rather than Nothing? The Only Six Options
• Merry Christ-miss from the American Humanist Association

It is no secret that our culture today has been/is undergoing a massive paradigm shift with regards to the way people come to know truth. The atmosphere of the intellectual landscape has changed. For many, confidence, certainty, and dogmatism have been replaced with doubt, skepticism, and agnosticism. All truth claims are held in high suspicion. Those still working under the old paradigm of absolute truth and absolute knowledge are thought by this new generation of thinkers to be naive at best and power mongering manipulators at worst.

Within the philosophical and theological communities, this new generation goes by many names: Post-fundamentalism, Post-Christian, Post-Evangelical, Post-Liberal, “emerging”, and the most common postmodern. While these names may not be sufficient to completely convey the ethos of this generation, they all have one important element in common—they are all post something. They are all emerging out of something. The culture is moving beyond where it was before. And this is not necessarily a bad thing.

How do you know who to trust?

Before Google, before the internet, before twenty-four-hour world news, before community run encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, before Facebook, before blogs became the premier source for truth, before the introduction of our globalized culture where alternative truth claims are literally at ones fingertips, people could be much more confident that the truth claims to which they adhere were an accurate representation of reality. Why? Because we did not have so many alternatives to confuse the issues. The naivety that this intellectual isolation provided, while quite comforting, is no longer a luxury that we can afford to entertain and expect to have an audience in the real world with the Great Commission. Truth is no longer simply a matter of going to the local parish on the corner and inquiring of the pastor. It is much more complex and confusing. Today, people are looking for answers, and bewilderment is the most common result. Doubt, depression, and disillusionment are often the result as people pan-handle for truth. Thousands of alternatives present themselves at your front door at every turn. After a while you just don’t want to answer the door anymore. The question “What is truth?” or, better, “Where is truth?” is the great ambient question that saturates the thinking of our culture whether we know it or not.

People are suspicious

Suspicion. This is a good, rich, and sad word that is only needed because of humanity’s moral downfall. To be suspicious means that you are in a “state of uncertainty or doubt.” Or better, “Suspicion is the positive tendency to doubt the trustworthiness of appearances and therefore to believe that one has detected possibilities of something unreliable, unfavorable, menacing, or the like.” Synonyms for suspicion are doubt, mistrust, or misgiving. Our culture is in a perpetual state of uncertainty about truth; our culture is suspicious—suspicious of you and suspicious of me. Heck, I am even suspicious of you! Why? Because Christians claim to have the truth about the most important questions in life. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the truth. We have presented ourselves at the front door, and our message of exclusivity is, more often than not, falling on deaf ears.

While the problem is no secret, the solution is harder to come by. It would be easy to say “sin” is the problem. While this would be the answer that fits within the Christian worldview, it is a bit simplistic. Yes, sin is the problem. Its my problem as a knower of truth and my problem as a seeker or truth. I can’t know perfectly and neither can you. I can’t seek perfectly and I often don’t where to go. Because of these epistemological (“how we know”) difficulties, the focal point for theology is no longer Bibliology as it once was, but prolegomena. Prolegomena is the theological discipline that focuses on issues that need to be covered before truth claims can be asserted and debated. Prolegomena deals with the “first things” of theology. Methodology, theological systems, epistemology, and sources for truth are all issues of prolegomena. Because the world does not work with the same assumptions that it used to, I believe we must create common ground before we can reach our culture. This common ground must first and foremost deal with the issue of suspicion. The distrust that people have for you when you approach their door with a Bible opened to your favorite verse is real and needs to be answered. Trust needs to be gained.

Not only this, but this disarming of suspicion must have a subjective component to it as well. You and I are not speaking from a megaphone from our isolated island of naivety (at least we shouldn’t be). We are affected by the change as well. I have seen just as much confusion, suspicion, doubt, and discouragement among believers in recent years as I have among unbelievers. People are leaving organized religion in droves, and the denominations are depleting in numbers. As I said before, I myself find it hard to know who to trust.

What I want to propose is a method of theological inquiry that goes a long way in disarming both the skeptic out there and the skeptic within. It is called “irenic theology” or the “irenic method” of doing theology. The word “irenic” is taken from the Greek irene which means “peace.” Irenic theology is learning about truth in a peaceful manner, accurately representing the opposing belief even when you disagree strongly. In many ways it is the opposite of a dogmatic methodology which seeks to tell people the truth by positioning itself as the only true option.

Requirements of the Irenic Method

Willingness to learn, adapt, and change: The Reformers brought theology out of the dogmatic slumber of the dark ages. They challenged the unfounded traditions and abuses of the past, giving the church a bright light of hope as the Gospel was rediscovered. They also sought to prevent the church from ever revisiting the difficulties proclaiming the principle of Semper Reformanda which means “always reforming.” The Reformers knew that truth must always be tested and ready to be reformed. This understanding presents our search for truth as a journey that will not end until Christ comes for the church (1 Cor. 13:12). We will always see in a mirror dimly. The greatest reform or each of us, in both mind and body, will come when Christ comes. Today, we must be willing continue to carry this banner and reform as well. The irenic method demands that we approach our study ready to alleviate ourselves of any sacred cows that might have crept in without warrant. We must be willing to reform our theology if the evidence makes such a demand. This is easier said than done, but it is necessary nonetheless.

Willingness to take a risk: When you present all views accurately, the best arguments from all positions are presented so that people have the chance to make up their own minds, knowing both the strengths and weaknesses of all relevant positions. In short, learning and teaching theology in an irenic way gives people the chance not to believe so that they might truly believe. There is risk involved in irenic theology, especially for teachers. Those being taught may or may not identify with or be convinced of your particular persuasions. But it does not fare well before the Lord for us to sweep the other options under the rug in fear of the possibility of desertion. People will find out the other options in a Googling generation. Once they do, you will have lost their trust and will not have an audience with them any longer. They will see you as manipulative, naive, or, at best, misinformed and incompetent. Irenic theology demands that the risk be taken.

A broad knowledge base: No longer can people study in isolation, seeking to confirm their prejudice with what they read or whom they listen to. We must be willing to challenge ourselves and expand our thinking. If you are a Calvinist (as am I), you must be able and willing to represent the Arminian position (or any alternatives) accurately. Irenic theology demands that you allow for no straw men arguments or any hint of belligerence. In other words, you should know enough to present their case so well and respectfully that if the strongest apologist for their position were to be in your audience, he or she would give you a thumbs up, affirming the accuracy of your information and appreciating your peaceful tone.

There is an old folk tale that has been spread more times than I can count about counterfeits currency. Some would say that just as those who investigate counterfeits only study real currency in order to identify counterfeits, so should Christians only study the truth in order to identify untruth. This is a very modernistic illustration which is not only untrue, but will hardly serve as a justified model for discovery in a suspicious world. The first fallacy is that the illustration is simply untrue. Counterfeit investigators do study every type of counterfeit that is known. Second, this illustration arrogantly assumes that they are already in possession of the truth against which to measure the false. It necessarily requires that you do not examine the options. Therefore, it seeks to keep you in isolation. This is fine and good if you actually do have the truth, but who is to say that you do? Here is the key: Any number of rival truth claims can use this illustration to keep their people in naive ignorance. Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, or any other religion can use this illustration to keep their own at bay. It will not deepen beliefs but it will confirm prejudice. For many who follow this methodology, they are in for a rude awakening. We must be willing to study broadly and consider deeply the alternatives if we expect to have and produce intellectual honesty. Without it, how do we expect to stand before God with integrity?

Benefits of Irenic Method

Your beliefs will be more real: No longer will you believe something simply out of a subjective emotional conviction that can be shared by all people of all world religions, but because of an honest wrestling with the issues. God gave us our minds and He expects us to use them. He has no favor for the naive (read the Proverbs). His desire is for us to see the truth and be convinced of it.

You will have degrees of conviction: Without an irenic method, all beliefs carry the same degree of conviction. They are black and white. You either believe them or you don’t. There is no in-between. While the irenic method will give you greater conviction on many things, it will also demand less assurance with other things. And this is par for the course of human inquiry and understanding. None of us can have perfect conviction to the degree God does.

In Christianity, there are many non-essential doctrines about which sincere believers disagree. Often, due to the strengths of the arguments for alternative positions, the evidence demands that we be very timid about setting them up as tests for orthodoxy or holding to some things too strongly. If God’s revelation is clear, then we speak with the same clarity. If God’s revelation is not so clear, we represent it as such. Being Christian does not mean that we know it all or have a secret decoder ring when it comes to difficult issues. We have to look to the evidence and take a stand, even if that stand says “I’m not sure” or “I don’t know.”

You will have a hierarchy of beliefs: As Roger Olson put it in Mosaic of Christian Belief: “Beliefs matter, but not all beliefs matter equally.” The irenic method demands that we see that some beliefs are more important than others. In other words, all doctrines are not worth dying for on a hill. Once we begin to see this, we will have gained an audience because Christians will all be speaking the same language. While disagreements will definitely still exist, people will see that there is a center of peaceful unity upon which we all agree. The list on Google for “What is a Christian” suddenly gets much, much smaller. The person and work of Christ is the center of our theology and must be spoken of by all Christians with unity and conviction.

You will have disarmed all skeptics: No longer will people see us in the likeness of a used car salesman or a determined lawyer, but as those who truly care about the truth. People will see that we have entrusted them with the ability and confidence to make their own decisions. All talk of knowledge being manipulative will necessarily cease for it will find no basis in reality.

Our world is confused. They feel betrayed and manipulated. There is information overload and people don’t know where to turn. But this does not mean that many are not seeking for answers. We have the only thing that matters: Jesus Christ. Though we believe that the power of the Spirit is the only reason people turn to Him, this does not mean we are for throw tact, understanding, and empathy out the door. God will use these things to bring people to him.

In conclusion: Don’t underestimate people’s ability to spot a fake. Ask yourself continually if you are a fake. Don’t be afraid to learn. Christ has not given us such a faith that demands blind adherence. Pursue truth will all your being. Trust that God is not afraid of questions and doubt. He is pretty big. I think He handles honest doubt better than naive commitment.Similar Posts:

• Googling for Truth: The Importance of Irenic Theology in our Postmodern World
• Googling for Truth: The Importance of Irenic Theology in our Postmodern World
• Postmodernism: How to disarm a suspicious culture
• The Sufficiency of Probability in the Christian Belief
• All the Right Beliefs for all the Wrong Reasons

I suppose my first exposure to the “dark side” of this world came when I read a book about the evil origin of all other Bible translations other than the King James Version. I was completely blown away. Everything I knew was wrong. There was a secret deception in the Christian camp! And the guys who wrote about this deception knew what they were talking about. At least, as far as I knew, they knew what they were talking about. After all, they were referring to history, Greek, and textual issues. This was all stuff I had never heard about. I supposed they had uncovered a secret plot. And I bought it. Why? Because I did not know any better. However, over the next few months, I investigated more thoroughly and found out there were going to be some issues were I to blindly accept their “scholarship.” First, I would have to reject just about everything I had read to date. Luckily, J. Vernon McGee used the King James, so he was safe. But most of the other books I had been reading used a variety of “off-limits” translations. Second, I came find out there were others out there who knew history, Greek, and textual issues, who did not agree with the findings of the King James Version crowd.

Over the years, I committed myself to becoming an expert in whatever area related to my Christian studies. I first started with textual criticism. I read everything I could find on the issue. I eventually made the decision that the position claiming the King James Version was the only acceptable translation (which I soon found out was called “King James Only”) was off-base, to say the least. That was one of the easier decisions to make. I then moved to issues of creation/evolution. I exhausted myself trying to learn everything that was known, said, and argued about every position out there. I even carried around a notecard workbook with all the terms, positions, and arguments, and would quiz my family and friends (they eventually quit hanging around me!). Then I moved to studies of Revelation. Then to the “synoptic problem.” Then to the charismatic gifts debate. Then to the canon. Everywhere I went, I entered with a desire to understand as well as anyone out there (after all, I had a mind that worked just as well as anyone’s), but was left scratching my head, finding it hard to know who to trust.

Today, things are only more confusing. It was bad enough back then. But now with the internet, there is no end to alternative positions, soapboxes, and know-it-alls. I have finally realized I could never be an expert in every area. In fact, I was losing hope at becoming an expert in any one area. I had a choice to make. The way I figured, I could do one of four things: 1) keep plugging away at everything, hoping I could someday speak with authority on all things; 2) close my eyes, hold my ears, and just make the choices I hoped were best;3) become a hopeless relativist, believing that the never-ending options translated into never finding “the” truth; or 4) find a way to lean on trusted sources of integrity.

I have chosen number four. I will never be an expert on everything, but I can find honorable and studied men and women who are truly searching for the truth and have devoted more time than I will ever be able to log in their area of expertise. Like it or not, I have to “outsource” much of my studies to other people. I call this “referred conviction.”

Referred Conviction: knowledge or belief that comes through the valid trust we place in the expertise of another.

Although every one of these could be a blog post in itself, here are the things I generally look for in a scholar:

• Do they have a reputable education?
• Are they balanced?
• Are they overly dogmatic?
• Are they overly non-committal (i.e. “academic agnosticism”)?
• Do they recognize and bring to light the difficulties with their own positions when debatable?
• Are they prone to demonize those who don’t agree, or do they speak to them with a humble, respectful tone?
• Are they recognized and/or endorsed by others whom I deem to be reliable?
• Does their position ostracize other positions solely due to their associations (i.e., “this can’t be right, it is held by Catholics”)?
• Have they recanted or admitted when they have been wrong before (this is a big one, as it shows the scholar is not “in it” to hold a fort, but to discover truth)?
• Do they know when to quit?
• Is their scholarship and ambition based on a fringe or nonessential issue?
• Is their identity found in and tied to a particular institution, denomination, or ministry which demands certain conclusions?
• Do they know and promote the difference between essentials and nonessentials?

I could go on, but I think this gives you an idea of what I mean. And you know what? It is sad to say, but when these criteria are followed, the choices for good “scholars” shrink quite a bit. I am not saying every one of these must be present in perfection, but if five or six are represented, then I have good reason to refer my conviction to that individual.

Some of you may be asking why “Christ-honoring” is not one of the criteria.  You must understand that these criteria have come to define “Christ-honoring” to me.

By the way, if I see these phrases represented too much, I quickly move on:

“I am absolutely certain that . . .”
“There is not a doubt in my mind . . .“
“The church has always believed . . .”
“Everyone knows that . . .”
“It is perfectly clear . . .”
“No educated person believes . . .”
“Nothing could be further from the truth.“
“How can you be so stupid?”
“Have you completely lost your mind?”

Conversation stoppers do not a valid argument make.Similar Posts:

• King James Bible: Historical Map
• King James Bible: Historical Timeline
• “Someone Knows Something I Don’t”
• Why I am Proud to be a Protestant
• The Anatomy of Belief (5): Referred Conviction

We Evangelicals talk a lot about essentials and non-essentials. Rightly so. We talk about distinguishing between those areas in our faith – those doctrines – which are central or “cardinal” doctrines, and those which are not so important. However, we often have trouble when someone asks us to define, distinguish, and defend this whole “essentials/non-essentials” distinction.

I have written on this many times, but I am going to attempt to be somewhat comprehensive here. That translates to “long article forthcoming.” But I think that this exercise is representative of a pressing issue in Christian discipleship. So put on your seat belt. It is going to get bumpy.

At the Credo House of Theology (our headquarters in Edmond, Oklahoma), right when you walk in the front door, you see written on the wall the Latin words in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. Translated into English, this means, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” This phrase (often wrongly attributed to Augustine) comes from an otherwise obscure German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century named Rupertus Meldenius. It has served as a place holder for a sort of Evangelical credo or statement of faith (hence, it is the first thing you see at the “Credo” house). It expresses the idea of orthodoxy and grace existing together. It reminds us that there are essential Christian beliefs and there are those matters of lesser importance.

I remember hearing a pastor once say concerning doctrine, “You are either one-hundred percent right or one-hundred percent wrong. There is no in-between and there are no gray areas. God is not confused or unsure. Why should we be?” While this might be true concerning God, for us, things are different. For now, we see in a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13:12). While we have our share of those with more of a fundamentalist mindset, who have a thousand lines drawn in the sand in the name of truth, we also have our share of liberals, whose mindset compels them to erase as many lines as possible in the name of grace or love. We must be careful, balancing grace and truth.

Defining Essentials and Non-Essentials

Paul spoke about those things that are “of first importance [protois]” (emphasis mine). Christ spoke about straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel (Matt. 23:24) and the “weightier things of the law” (Matt. 23:23). The very existence of creeds and pithy statements of faith in the Bible evince the truth that there are many issues that are of “first importance.” Here are a few examples of biblical creeds and succinct statements of faith:

Deut. 6:4:
Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD alone.

1 Cor. 12:3:
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor. 15:3-7:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.  Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. (emphasis mine)

Phil. 2:6-11:
[W]ho, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1 Tim. 3:16:
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Heb. 6:1-2:
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

1John 4:2:
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.

Each one of these represents an early summary of Jewish/Christian belief, focusing in on the most important issues.

As I said, this is one of the things that (should) distinguish us as Evangelicals. We are those who unite around those things that we believe are the weightiest, the things that are the most important, while we (should) give (some degree of) liberty in the non-essentials. I often tell people that there are some things which I believe that I would die for; there are some things which I believe that I would lose an arm for; there are some things which I believe that I would lose a finger for; and then there are some things which I believe that I would not even get a manicure for.

Like in all areas of life, we need to learn to choose our battles carefully. But in order to do this, we must first come to know the difference between essentials and non-essentials.

But (as the criticism goes) it is not that easy to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. More importantly for now, many Evangelicals have simply never been exposed to this and therefore practice their theology in a much more legalistic way, believing every conviction that they have to be representative of a hill upon which they should die.

Here I want to elaborate upon and expand the discussion a little bit. While we need to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, we also need to recognize that there are different types of essentials. Along with this goes my belief that there are different ways to “break fellowship” based on our beliefs. In other words, not all essentials are equal. Some are essential to the very foundation of Christianity, but some are only essential to a particular denomination or expression. This will require different types of breaks in fellowship.

Let me start with a chart, then I will briefly break it down:

click on chart to enlarge

Essential for salvation: These are the most essential doctrines of all essentials. This includes what every Christian should always be willing to die for. In essence, if someone does not believe the doctrines that are “essential for salvation,” they are not saved. Hence, it is at the center of the circle.

What I include:

• Belief in God (there is no such thing as an atheistic Christian)

Issues pertaining to the person and work of Christ:

• Belief in Christ’s deity and humanity (1 John 4:2-3; Rom. 10:9)
• Belief that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy (1 John 1:10)
• Belief that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave for our sins (1 Cor 15:3-4)
• Belief that faith in Christ is necessary (John 3:16)

As with all of them, I am sure that there are some ancillary matters that could be included, but this gives you the key doctrines. Without these, you simply don’t have any sense present of what it means to be a Christian.

Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy: These include beliefs “essential for salvation” but are broader in that they express what has been believed by the historic Christian church for the last two thousand years, no matter which tradition. This is expressed by the Vincentian Canon (434 A.D.): “that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” The exception of fringe movements has never been valid for this canon. It is simply asking, “What have all Christians everywhere always believed?”

Some of what I include:

• The doctrine of the Trinity as expressed at Nicea
• The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully man and fully God) as expressed at Chalcedon
• The belief in the future second coming of Christ
• A belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture
• A belief in God’s transcendence (his metaphysical distinction from the universe)
• A belief in God’s immanence (his present activity in the world and our lives)
• A belief in God’s sovereignty (while there are different ways to define sovereignty, this basically purports that God is in control)
• Belief that Christ is the only way to a right relationship with God
• Belief in eternal punishment of the unredeemed

To be sure, some of these doctrines “develop,” or mature, but their maturation is only in relation to their seed form which preexisted their more mature expression. (For more on this, see here.)

Please notice that these are essential, even if they are not as essential as those expressed in the previous category. In other words, these do not represent negotiables. These are still cardinal doctrines.

But we could also include in this section a grouping entitled “Essential for Historic Orthopraxy.” This would include all of those practices and sins about which the church has been united in its belief. This would include humility, helping the poor, belief that homosexuality is a sin, issues of stewardship, respect for the imago dei (which would deem abortion wrong), and the need to evangelize the lost.

Essential for traditional orthodoxy: Again, these will necessarily include all of those from the two previous categories, but add some distinctives of their own. Essentials here will include all of those that are foundational to one of the three main Christian traditions: Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism. These are beliefs that distinguish one tradition from the next, but are not absolutely essential from the broader Christian worldview expressed above.

Some Protestant distinctives would include:

• General belief in the major pronouncements of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AD)
• Belief in the necessity for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ
• Belief that justification is through faith alone on the basis of Christ alone
• Belief that Scripture alone has ultimate and final authority on all matters of faith and practice
• The canon of Scripture made up of 66 books (excluding the Deuterocanonical books)

Some Roman Catholic distinctives would include:

• Belief in transubstantiation (the bread and wine turn into the actual body and blood of Christ)
• Belief that justification is through faith and works
• Belief that both Scripture and unwritten tradition have ultimate authority as they are interpreted by the Magisterium
• Belief in the authority of twenty-one ecumenical councils
• Belief that the Pope is the infallible vicar of Christ
• Belief in the Marian dogmas
• Belief that the canon includes the Deuterocanonical books

Some Eastern Orthodox distinctives would include:

• Belief in the infallibility of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AD)
• Belief that the liturgy of the Church is part of the Gospel
• Rejection of substitutionary atonement and the imputation of Adam’s sin
• Salvation by grace through faith as God works these out through our unification with Him (theosis)
• Traditional inclusion of the Deuterocanonical book (although there is some debate about this)

Again, for each one of these tradition, these represent essential distinctions which, while not as cardinal as those in the previous two categories, are important nonetheless.

Essential for denominational orthodoxy: This will be similar to the above, but one step down in importance, dealing as it does with the particular and peculiar denominational expressions by the various Protestant traditions.

Some examples:

• Credo-baptism, i.e., Baptism is only for believers (Baptists)
• Infant baptism (Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans)
• Unconditional election (Reformed and Presbyterians)
• Arminian theology (Methodists, Nazarenes)
• Belief in the continuation of the Charismatic gifts (Pentecostals, Church of God)

While these might be considered worthy of breaking local fellowship in practice, they are not important enough to break ultimate fellowship. In other words, these represent legitimate debates that should not affect our unity.

Important but not essential: These are those beliefs that do not describe any particular tradition necessarily. They are important, but not that important.

Some examples:

• Beliefs about particulars in the creation debate
• Belief whether the books of Jonah and Job are historical accounts
• Beliefs about the authorship of 2 Peter
• Belief about particular end-time schemes (i.e. premillennial, amillennial, post-millennial)
• The order of books in the canon
• Which translation of the Bible to use from the pulpit
• Which Gospel was written first
• How often one should celebrate the Lord’s supper
• Whether or not Christ taught in Greek or Aramaic

Not Important: These are beliefs that people have concerning Christian doctrine that are not important for any expression and do not affect Christian devotion or spirituality.

Some examples

• The date of Christ’s birth (Christmas)
• What kind of music to play at church
• Whether to use real wine or grape juice at communion
• Whether to hold Saturday night services
• Whether or not John the Baptist was an Essene

Pure speculation: That is just what these are – speculation. We just don’t know one way or another, nor does it matter.

Some examples

• Did Adam have a belly-button? (yes, he did…it would just look funny otherwise)
• Belief in the eternal destiny of pets? (except I know my dog Rocky is going to heaven)
• What was God doing “before” creation? (creating hell for those who speculate such things)
• Will there be meat to eat in heaven? (we can all hope)
• Will there be sex in heaven? (we can all hope more)
• How long was it before Adam and Eve fell? (two hours after Eve was created . . . ask me why some other time)

So far, my purpose has been to stimulate a deeper level of thought about the difference between essentials and non-essentials. Really, I just want to convince you that there are different levels of essentials and non-essentials.

Now (take a deep breath), let’s move on and talk about the criteria which makes a doctrine essential.

Defending Essentials and Non-Essentials

So far so good? I can hear the objections:  ”This all sounds really nice. But who decides what are essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines? The Pope? Your local church pastor? The SBC? Al Mohler? Or is it my private interpretation of the Scripture? Alas, with such a question, the divisions start all over. “In essentials, unity.  Sounds nice, but impractical.”

I don’t think we have to be so pessimistic about this. I actually think that there are certain criteria that most thoughtful people can agree constitute the foundation of our faith – the essentials. I have them narrowed to four in no certain order. It is important to note that I am persuaded that all four must be present for a doctrine to be considered essential for salvation or essential. These criteria would pertain only to the first two circles: 1) Essential for salvation and 2) Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy.

1. Historicity: Does the doctrine have universal historical representation?

This first criterion is one of historical agreement. This is a form of “consensual faith” (consensus fidelium). This criterion of universal consensus follows the canon of Saint Vincent of Lérins mentioned above: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, “that which was believed everywhere, always, by everyone.” In other words, an essential cannot be something new like the doctrine of the Rapture. Neither can it be something that has lacked historic unity by Christians across time like the perpetual virginity of Mary. As well, it cannot have limited geographic representation, like certain Eastern liturgy. The question here is, Have all Christians of all time everywhere believed it?

2. Explicitly Historical: Does the history of the church confess their centrality?

This is like the first but differs in an important way. Here we are saying that if the history of the church has not explicitly confessed this as a central issue, then it is not. For example, the history of the church may confess that the Christian worldview includes a firm confession of a belief in the historicity of the Flood narrative, but it has never been a part of the central teachings to the degree that a denial of such is a damnable offense. When combined with the first criteria, the exception cannot define the rule. The point here is that we take seriously God’s work in the history of the Church through the Holy Spirit. If the church has universally believed that a certain doctrine is both true and central to the Christian faith, that doctrine deserves serious consideration as being among the essentials.

3. Biblical Clarity (Perspicuity): Is the doctrine represented clearly in Scripture?

One of the principles that the Reformers sought to communicate is that of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. The Reformers did not believe that all of the Scripture was clear (a misunderstanding of the doctrine of perspicuity), but that all that is essential for salvation is clear. In short, if something in Scripture is obscure, then it is not essential. Augustine even held to such a principle stating that one must not build doctrines on obscure passages (On Christian Doctrine). For example, one should not build essential doctrine on what the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 16:19) are, or what it means to be “baptized for the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29). Unfortunately, both Catholics and Mormons have done just that. If a passage is obscure, no essential doctrine can be derived from it.

4. Explicitly Biblical: Does any passage of Scripture explicitly teach that a certain doctrine is essential?

The Scriptures speak about a great many things, but it is explicit regarding that which is of essential importance. For example, as I noted before, Paul says to the Corinthians, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4; emphasis mine). The “of first importance” tells us that Christ’s death and resurrection “for our sins,” from Paul’s perspective, are essential components of Christianity. Without such, according to Paul, there is no Christianity (1 Cor. 15:12ff). As well, the Gospel of John speaks about the importance of faith. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18). This passage explicitly makes faith central.

Again, these four criteria, I propose, must all be present. I think I am committed to this. If one or more is lacking concerning a particular doctrine, I believe that it is not possible for one to legitimately argue for its core necessity. (But again, this does not mean that the issue is not important.) As well, all four feed off each other and are somewhat self-regulating. In other words, if someone doubts whether something is clear in Scripture, all he or she has to do is look to history.  If something is not clear in the Scripture, we will not find that it passes the test of historicity. This is why it is of vital importance that Christians not only be good exegetes, but also good historians.

Conclusion

For some of you, this is the first time you have been exposed to this way of thinking. I pray that you consider the major points of what I am saying even if you do not agree with the details. I am not an ecumenicist, but I don’t think that we should have ill-will or break fellowship with people unnecessarily. I do believe that we have the right and obligation to define what it means to be “Christian.” While I don’t think we should over-define it to the point where our circle of fellowship is so small that it only includes “you and those two,” we need to be careful, as under-defining our faith is just as dangerous as over-defining it. It is very easy to slip into theological maximalism (fundamentalism) or theological minimalism (liberalism). But we are Evangelicals. This means that we are “centrists,” uniting around the most important issues and giving varying degrees of liberty in less important issues. While it is true that because something is non-essential this does not make it negotiable, it is also true that because something is believed strongly does not make it central.Similar Posts:

• Essentials and Non-Essentials: How to Choose Your Battles Carefully
• What are the essentials to Christianity? Four Criteria
• Evangelicals: We Can and Must Distinguish Between Essentials and Non-Essentials Better
• Four Types of Theologians
• More on Evangelical Apostolic Succession

The last few months, in keeping up with my weekly reading of “what is happening now” in theology, I have begun to experience theological nausea. My spirit is sick and it is about to hurl. I don’t know what that looks like, but it does not feel right. There are simply too many “opt outs” being offered – we are beginning to look more like a cafeteria than a church.

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty . . . right? Let me try to briefly state the issue that I have, today, at 5:24pm CST. I am getting the feeling that Christian apologists and theologians, in order to make our faith more palatable to the outside world, are attempting to move all difficulties of our faith into the “non-essential” category in order to create “opt outs.” This is where just about everything outside of the person and work of Christ becomes negotiable. When does the form of Christianity we offer become something different than the historic Christian faith?

Some examples are in order here (please forgive the snarky spirit of the following):

1. Problem with the doctrine of eternal punishment? No problem. We have these two less common options: universalism or annihilationism. You can believe that all people will eventually be saved or that all the damned will cease to exist.

2. Problem with the truthfulness of Scripture? No issue at all. There is no need to believe that the Scripture is true in everything it says, only the “big parts” like Christ’s resurrection.

3. Problem with a donkey talking and other crazy things? Let me point you to an important word: “metaphor.” Yep, just about any portion of Scripture can be turned into a metaphor, myth, parable, symbol, or any number of things. Point being, you don’t have to accept it.

4. Problem with creation account in Genesis? No need to get down. We have lots of options here, including our latest, theistic evolution. The point is that whatever modern science proposes, you can accept. (See number 3 for the means of acceptance.)

5. Problem with God’s allowing for evil? Easy. We have an option that says God, in order to preserve freedom and true love, cannot know about (much less intervene) in the free-will evil choices that people make. Therefore, he is off the hook. Its called “open theism.” Have fun.

6. Problem with the doctrine of election? I understand. This is a particularly nasty one. However, no need to fear. You don’t have to believe this. There is a modified form of divine election which says God’s choice is based on your choice. There . . . the sting is gone.

7. Problem with the exclusivity of Christ? Again, we have the answer. Nowadays, we have this idea called “inclusivism.” With this fancy option, we say that people can be covered by the blood of Christ without actually accepting the Gospel. Awesome.

Next…

8. Speaking of the “blood” of Christ, some of you might have a problem with the idea that the Father sacrificed his son (and that he was actually happy about it). You know all that archaic stuff about sacrifices and the shedding of blood? You don’t have to accept that either. There are some who believe that Christ was an example rather than the subject of “divine child abuse.” God’s forgiveness is based on his love, not blood.

9. Problem with homosexuality being a sin? Don’t let that hold you back. Many of our most astute theologians have been able to rework this issue so that there is an option on the table which proposes that homosexuality was not universally condemned in the Scripture. Though the ranks of those who advocate this may be few, it is enough to create a loophole to get out of this one. There are even many “gay churches” that you can attend.

Next…

10. Problem with male headship in the church and family? This is one of the easier ones. We have tons of representatives in the church (even denominations) which disagree here. You are free to reject any idea of male headship based upon “cultural context.”

Okay. I am done with the examples…

Here is the problem I have. While I hold to pretty traditional beliefs in these areas, many (not all) of these listed I agree with. In other words, I do believe there are some legitimate alternatives, most notably on the issue of election. While I am a Calvinist, being very committed to unconditional divine election, I understand there are alternative options here that are viable. In short, I don’t believe that a rejection of unconditional election amounts to a rejection of Christianity.

However, when does our removal of intellectual and emotional stumbling blocks create an aberration of Christianity that is Christian only in name? When does our theology get manipulated enough to where it is no longer Christian theology? When do we offer so many choices on the Christian smörgåsbord that the cafeteria’s name needs to change? When does our theology cross the line to where it is “something, but not Christian”?

While writing this, I was talking to a friend who said that she knows a person whom she is trying to evangelize, but that this person has some “issues” with the Christian faith. She wants to bring the friend to the Credo House to discuss them with me. I said in jest, “No problem. Whatever issue the person has, we have multiple alternatives! I can get out of anything.” In other words, whatever their problem is, so long as it is not about the resurrection of Christ, “we know a guy” that can take care of it, if you know what I mean.

I am suspicious of any mindset that is compelled to produce all of these “opt-outs” in order to make Christianity more palatable. Who said that was our job? When did palatability become a test for veracity? Sometimes we believe things that are not palatable, don’t we? Is our desire to be intellectually and culturally viable causing our witness to misrepresent “the faith once for all handed over to the saints”? When do we lose the “fellowship of the saints” due to our minimalization of the Christian faith? Just because something is hard to believe, does this give us the right to scavenger hunt for other options? When have we pulled up so many anchors that we are adrift in a different sea? When is it “something, but not Christian”?

I am tired of all the options. Can we just preach our convictions in the church and not the cafeteria?Similar Posts:

• Engaging Postmodernism (3): Changing the Horse
• Engaging Postmodernism (5): Changing the Water
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• Engaging Postmodernism (2): Denying the Horse is Postmodern
• “Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements

In the wake of the Bell debacle, Tim Challies has written an excellent article here about three notable observations.  Overall, I agree with his assessment that the Evangelical world has become too mealy on truth rooted in the historic Christian faith.  He challenges the notion that doubt, opaqueness and unanswered questions have become norms across the landscape.  By implication and particularly related to the Bell incident, these charges bear merit.

However, I find myself a tad uneasy about the charges when viewed from a different perspective.  Meaning, bold proclamations of truth based on the historic understanding of Christian essentials are an absolutely necessity.  I do agree with the critiques of the recent debacle, that once the so-called ‘old paradigms’ are questioned and uprooted, its a slippery slope to beliefs that will necessarily fall outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.  There must be an unyielding to core truths that make God’s plan for salvation both trustworthy and necessary to make Christian belief Christian belief.  There is a foundation by which Christians must affirm the exclusive claims of the gospel and consequences for rejection.

But on the flip side, there has been a divergence of theological distinctions within Evangelicalism.  For the most part these are not positions that uproot the Christian faith.  These are not positions that don’t necessarily challenge the sine qua non of Christianity, but may represent variations in understanding Biblical doctrine or passages that ultimately impact an understanding of Christian practice.

So when we talk about bold proclamations, I think the perspective from which we are making this statement matters. If it is the perspective of claims that will absolutely uproot the Christian faith, then yes we must boldly declare with Paul, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ”.  That is becoming increasingly unpopular in an increasingly pluralistic world.  But if the perspective involves peripheral issues that to varying degrees will impact how we live out Christian faith, then I do believe there is a place for epistemological humility.  That does not mean we have a strong conviction but it also leaves room that competing positions that do not transgress the core faith, might be legitimate options.   Confidence in atonement or the resurrection is quite different than confidence in the age of the earth or the style of worship in the church.  There are issues of varying importance that must be weighed accordingly.

I think issue of perspective equally applies to doubt.  There is a difference between the Christian who has been told that any doubt amounts to a loss of salvation or that they never had it vs. doubt concerning essential truths.  To the former, the Christian needs to be affirmed that doubt is ok.  No, not ultimately because our faith IS based on belief.  But periods of doubt are not necessarily a product of an unrealized faith.  But the person who doubts that essential truths that are rooted in the historic witness of Christian belief are no longer needed, does have a kind of doubt that can result in disasterous consequences.  From this perspective, doubt is not ok.

I fear that if we apply the same measure of dogmatic expression to all areas equally in a stand for “truth” that might lead to overzealous and rigid compliance outside of which will exist the path to post-liberalism or even heresy.   In this scenario, any uncertainty expressed will necessarily be deemed a move down this path.  Unwarranted accusations might abound simply because one has expressed uncertainty, but unmeasured against a standard of significance.  Perspective, I think, should cause us to examine which positions are worth fighting for, which we really need to express concern about and which ones we may disagree with but allow grace in disagreement.  There are some areas where we can have conviction but have to confess that we ultimately don’t know.  I personally believe that rigid dogmatism in areas that require flexibility can be just as harmful of having no dogmatism or certainty at all.

So while I agree with Challies’ assessment and observations, I modify it to say it depends on what it is we are talking about.  Every topic related to Christianity cannot be treated with the same degree of certainty or dogmatism.  Some must, some need not be and there is everything in between.

See Michael’s post here on essentials vs. non-essentials, which provides a pretty good guide on the range of doctrinal certainty.

 Similar Posts:

• Four Types of Theologians
• Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God
• Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God?
• What is Certainty?
• The Patsy Called Relativism

I have read John 11 many times and have been immensely ministered by it.  It seems each time I do, there is something fresh to be gleaned in the text.  So as I listened to this radio broadcast the other day whereby the preacher was identifying three reasons why Jesus wept, I got a little stuck on one point – because of sin.   It was through a discourse about the topic on Theologica, that I realized what I had missed as one of the members pointed out to me.  For whatever reason, I was not drawing that out of the text even though it was quite obvious, especially when correlated with the complete witness of scripture.

In reality, this happens to all of us.  There is something we miss.  We will read our Bible and draw out certain conclusions that may or may not be consistent with what is actually being communicated.   We may understand or we may draw erroneous conclusions.  To be sure, whatever conclusions we draw will impact how we think about God and how we live out our faith.

Needless to say, this is why teachers in the body of Christ are important, to help us understand the Bible better in order to live out a fruitful, Christian life.  It is one of the reasons I believe those charged with the pastoring and teaching task should have training that encourages a comprehensive evaluation of the Biblical text accompanied by spiritual maturity and accountability.

But what happens if the teacher is missing something or drawing conclusions that are not consistent with what God is actually communicating through the text?  What happens if that teacher is relying exclusively on teachers that agree with him and dismissing those who don’t?  What happens if the teacher insists that he believes his illumination of the text is correct because of what he believes the Holy Spirit has communicated to him?  What happens if we only listen to one teacher or teachers that teach everything alike?

I contend that in reality, we need many teachers.  Now those teachers are not restricted to the ones who stand in the pulpit at your church or lead your Bible study.   Bible commentaries are teachers.  The voices of the past through annuls of church history are teachers.     Discourse with other members of the body of Christ is a teacher.  For teaching comes when we learn something about what it is we are trying to understand.   Teaching is done by those who are trying to understand it themselves.  This is why I reject the notion that the study of systematic theology and church history is unnecessary or antithetical to spiritual growth.   Because it presents a plethora of people who were striving to understand the faith that has been handed down themselves.  And if we are trying to understand the Bible better, it seems reasonable to me that we engage in a process that will provide perspectives that maybe we had not considered.

More important, we need diversity. Diversity in teaching is important that encompasses a diversity of viewpoints.  Diversity should present options that drive us to quest to understand what is being communicated.  It should temper renegade and rogue conclusions, which is most likely if there is a single source.  Diversity dispels the fact that I alone can come to right conclusions with just me and my bible or that teacher who is accountable to no one and will not participate in honest investigation.  Diversity presents us with the possibility that maybe we are not understanding something clearly or missing something entirely.  Diversity should hone discernment. Diversity should humble us.

This is not to say that one should go out and make sure they know all competing viewpoints, especially if they are younger Christians.  But I know of those who will only listen to one teacher or type of teacher.  I know of those who reject diversity of thought since they are convinced that the ones teaching them possess the truth.  I know of those who reject investigation of tools presented by other teachers. I know of myself, that like all people are subject to misunderstanding.  No one person can hold the corner on truth and understands everything perfectly.   The only one who has, was born in a manger, died on a cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father.  That leaves those of us who strive to understand him better based on what He has communicated, with our imperfect understanding to recognize we need others to help us understand what we may be missing.   The one who won’t do this most likely leads a cult.Similar Posts:

• A Need for Higher Learning – Part II
• Seven Possible Reasons We Find the Bible Boring
• Overcoming Theological Preservation
• Does the Holy Spirit Interpret the Bible?
• Yes, We Should Follow ‘Man’…But ‘Man’ With Understanding

I was listening to a radio broadcast the other day and the preacher was giving a lesson on the Decalogue.  He provided a description of God’s law that broken down into three categories – Ceremonial, Civil and Moral.  When Christ fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17), it did not mean an abrogation but continuance of the law.  The moral law, as codified in the Decalogue, remains in effect and therefore binding upon Christians. (note this is a correction to what was initially stated)  This of course is the Reformed position in a nutshell, influenced by Calvin and disseminated throughout evangelicalism.

The alternate position, which I adhere to (no, I’m not going to use the D word), is that there is no separation of the Law and when Christ fulfilled the law, he fulfilled all of it.  The moral obligations are instituted under the teachings of Christ, otherwise known as the law of Christ and obligated through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  Christ revealed God to humanity so there is no discontinuity in God’s law.  Since the Spirit was also involved in the apostolic witness to the testimony of Christ and that testimony enscripturated, the Word and the Spirit provide the mechanism for which God’s law is revealed and codified.  This is what is binding on the Christian.  It is of no coincidence that 9 out of the 10 commandments are mirrored in the New Testament since it all comes from the same source.

So while I do not believe that the Ten Commandments are binding on the Christian, I was willing to concede that we essentially end up at the same place – God has imposed a moral law we are to abide by, that there is an objective standard by which we live.  That was until this preacher said something that I have increasingly heard as a defense of their position – the reason the Decalogue is binding on the Christian is to prevent relativism.

This is not new.  I have heard this before.  Basically, he is denying that an alternate explanation to the implementation and adherence to God’s law and insisting that if one does not believe the Decalogue is binding on Christians, they are giving way to subjective truth.  In short, they are compromising God’s truth…and they are wrong. I have heard this same argument used with a variety of competing evangelical positions.  This is truth and must be believed or else you are sliding the slippery slope of relativism.

While I do understand that two competing truths cannot co-exist, does that mean a charge of relativism is warranted? I would say not necessarily.  All truth is relative from our perspective because of human limitations and understanding. But what is necessary to determine is how compatible our truth is to the objective standard proclaimed through the the prophetic and apostolic message proclaimed in the Bible, preserved through the annuls of Church history.  Throughout this history, there have been many doctrinal deviations but that does not mean that those deviations have resulted in or are caused by relativism.

What I fear is that relativism becomes a patsy for disagreement with our truth, based on objective standards derived by employing what we believe to be a sound hermeneutic.  By throwing up the relativism flag, we insist that the alternate position is necessarily compromising truth, which by implication insists that ours is the only correct one.  Might I suggest that this is arrogant and does not concede a possible error in understanding on our part.  Moreover, it influences a form of dogmatism that will not consider altering explanations that contradict our own.  For those who really fear deviating from God’s objective truth, this can become an arsenal to castigate sincere brothers and sisters in Christ as compromising truth.

When we proclaim something to be relative it is relative to the objective rule of faith provided through the prophetic and apostolic testimony to God’s revelation.  We can certainly recognize that there is a body of truth that is consistent to this objective standard, but deviations don’t necessarily undermine it.

So I would appeal to constraint of using relativism as a patsy as it can possibly do a disservice to Christian harmony and our quest for truth.Similar Posts:

• Is Truth Really Not Relative?
• Engaging Postmodernism (2): Denying the Horse is Postmodern
• If God Has Stopped Speaking Then Why Do I Still Hear Him?
• Looking For Peace in All the Wrong Places
• The Moral Indignation of Richard Dawkins

I have never heard God’s voice. I don’t know what he smells like. I have not seen him with my eyes and my hands have never held his. I have never seen anyone brought back from the dead. I have never seen anyone healed of any disease. I have never seen a blind man see or a deaf man hear. If my convictions about God were limited to things such as these, I doubt I would have much faith.

I remember when I was twelve-years-old, God peeked out of the shroud of experiential darkness. This is going to sound silly to a lot of you, but it was special to me nevertheless. I was at the Quail Creek Elementary School Carnival. All the kids went back to it after “graduating” elementary school for years (to show how cool the “post-grads” were). Each year they had a cake-walk. You know . . . where you walked around a circle of 36 numbers while music played. When the music stopped, you stopped. If you were on the number that they called, you won a cake. At that point in my life, I had never won anything that I can remember, but I really wanted to win this cake. So I did what any twelve-year-old Christian would do: I prayed. “Dear God, if you are listening, please show me by allowing me to win this cake. Amen.” The music played. I walked. The music stopped. I stopped. They called out “32.” I looked down. I was on 32. Wow! It was something special. God made me win the cake-walk. He really did care! He was really there. The next year, same time, same place, same prayer. And you know what? I won again. It was unbelievable to this now 13 year-old-kid. It was a miracle! God was indeed on my side.

The next year, I went again. I felt like I was going to meet God at our special place. It was like a date with God. I was so excited. It was a great conformation to my faith for him to take the time to peer out from behind the clouds. Two years before, you could have asked me, “Why do you believe in God Michael?” I might have said, “Because my mom says he is real.” But now you could ask the same question and I would say, “Because he gets me a cake each year. How else do you explain my victories?” There I was, nervous and giddy. The music started playing and I started praying. The music stopped. I stopped. “Number 12,” the lady called out. There must be some mistake, I thought to myself. I am on 20. I decided to try again, this time tagging the ol’ faithful “In Jesus’ name” to the end of my prayer. “Number 5,” she announced. I was on 8. Something had gone seriously wrong. Maybe God was not going to show up. Maybe the other two times were just coincidences. I went home with my head hanging low, not sure how to believe. 

“God Things”

Have you ever heard the phrase “Its a ‘God thing’.” “God things” are those experiences that we cannot explain outside of God’s direct intervention. When we meet someone by “chance” and this encounter turns out to be something that changes our lives, it’s a “God thing.” When we forget our cell phone at home and have to go back only to find out that we left the stove on, it’s a “God thing.” One of my favorite movies of all time is Signs with Mel Gibson. It is all about “God things.” There was one part where Mel Gibson, a priest who has lost his faith, asks his brother if he believes that God works miracles or if the things we cannot explain are just coincidences. His brother tells a story about when he was at a party sitting next to a girl leaning in to kiss her. He then realized that he had gum in his mouth. He turns to take it out and by the time he turned back around, she was throwing up all over the place. He said, “I could have been kissing her when she thew up. I’m a miracle man.” To him, that was a “God thing.”

Personal experience is an important part of our conviction. We want to have “God things” in our lives that confirm our beliefs. To have God speak to us from heaven, to have been around when Christ walked the earth, to have seen the Red Sea part, there would have been no denying “God things.” And if there are “God things,” then there is a God. It’s a simple two step deduction.

To be truthful, I don’t know of many things in my life that I can conclusively say were “God things.” Don’t get me wrong. I believe that I have experienced many ”God things.” But, when push comes to shove, someone could argue that these things, were just coincidences. Because of this, I don’t rest too heavily on my particular interpretation of life’s events, basing my faith in God exclusively on such things.

My real life conviction meter often looks like this:

Notice that while I believe I have a lot of “forensic” conviction for Christianity, my first-hand experience meter is wanting a great deal. This is why my overall real life meter is not as high as I would like it.

Making the Two-Dimensional, Three-Dimensional

We are talking about the anatomy of belief. First-hand experiences, while they should not be the hinge of our faith, do provide one screw to the hinge. And they are nice to have. I often say that experiences make that which would otherwise be two-dimensional, three-dimensional. 

In the anatomy of the body, while the basic components are shared by all people, those components can vary with regard to their strengths and weaknesses. I have a good friend who is about my age who has been plagued with heart problems for years. Sometimes it keeps him in bed for days. My heart, as far as I know, is perfectly healthy. I don’t know why he suffers from this problem while I don’t. I, on the other hand, have weak joints and a terribly bad back. Those of you who have bad backs know how debilitating this can be. Others never have a joint or a back problem one.

It is not so different when it comes to our faith. People’s faith will be strong in some areas and weak in others. Some people seem to experience God in ways that make me drool. They are the ones who have all the answered prayers, see the miracles, and win all the cake-walks! I often lean on their experiences and drink their water in the area of my faith that often seems to be in perpetual drought.

A Man Who Died and Found His Conviction

The power of personal experience is undeniable. Lives are often dramatically changed by just one experience. They can often jump-start our faith and move us in the right direction.

I talked to a man the other day who told me the story of his life. He had been a believer growing up, but had left the faith as he got into the world of academics. While he was a professor at a college he remained a Christian in name only. He had come to reject just about everything he had been taught as a child, believing it to be nonsense. Late in his life, when he was about sixty he had a heart attack and died. According to his testimony, he left his body and went to heaven. While there, he experienced the reality of the presence of God. He was brought back to life a changed man.

Now, I am a hopeless skeptic about these types of things, but I would like to believe it. The problem is that when I hear these stories, they often don’t add up. Many times the heaven that they describe is an unbibical portrait of the afterlife. Other times, the people who die and go to heaven are not even believers! So while I don’t doubt the sincerity of such stories, I don’t really know how to assimilate them into my belief either. However (and this is the main point), this man’s experience became a bedrock of his faith. Since being brought back to life, he has followed the Lord with great passion. His conviction was supported by what he believed happened (and maybe it did, I don’t know). The academic problems that he had (represented by the forensic meter) were no match for his near-death experience. In fact, those academic problems were simply resubmitted to his mind being filtered by his experience of heaven. After this, what had seemed intellectually unlikely before became probable.

Here is what I imagine his conviction meter looked like immediately after his experience.

Notice that his forensic meter is still low. Remember, he lost his faith in academics. However, his first-hand meter is high due to his near-death experience. The overall real life conviction meter is up, but not too high.

After some time of processing this event, this gentleman probably reassessed his previous beliefs being encouraged and confirmed by his experience. After about six months of reflection and further studies, I imagine this is how his conviction meter looked.

Now his forensic meter is on the rise and with it the over-all real life meter. His experience jump-started his faith in this area and effected everything. Again, if you remember, the “Real Life” conviction meter is only one of the three meters that make up our overall conviction. The other two, “Rational” and “Referred” are not in the picture here. However, the way the anatomy of faith works, one sub-meter will eventually affect all the others. I imagine that, based on this experience, he reassessed his rational and referred conviction as well.

This represents the power (not necessarily validity) that these type of experiences can have on our life. In Christianity, we often call them “Damascus Road” experiences for that is where Paul met with Christ and changed his beliefs (Acts 9:1-8).

The Bible and First Hand Conviction

While wonderful and powerful, we need to be very careful about mongering for first-hand experiences to fuel our conviction. They are the most volatile of all. They are readily misinterpreted and easy to forget. They can also become like a drug that we become addicted to. In short, they need to be supported by all the other areas of our faith and not be the sole catalyst for our trust.

For Christians, God’s silence—often called God’s “hiddenness”—should not come as any surprise. Yes, I might do things differently. Were I on God’s board of directors, I might give him some gentle encouragement to be a little more open to showing himself, especially to his own children. But the fact is that we should not expect to win every cake-walk. While we will experience God in many ways, I do not believe that we will see him, hear him, or touch him in the way we often desire. In fact, if we did, I believe the Christian worldview would be compromised. Why? Because the Scripture tells us we should not expect to have our faith confirmed through such empirical means.

Notice here what Peter says:

1 Pet. 1:8-9
And though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

You see, Peter here assumes that we have not seen Christ (or God or the Holy Spirit for that matter). That is, we have not seen him visually. Peter’s point would be moot if he did not mean to include all other forms of experiencing God empirically. Think about it. Peter was not saying, “And though you have not seen him , you love him. (But many of you will hear, touch, and smell him).” The point is that we should not expect to have that type of confirmation of his reality. The fact is that when Christ ascended into heaven, that was the last most of us have seen or heard from him in such a way. Please note (and please bear with me as a belabor this point): I did not say “That was the last time he was active in an evident way”. There is a big difference. The point is that we should not expect to directly experience God through our eyes, ears, or hands until Christ returns. Whether we like it or not, there is a certain degree of silence that is his M.O. for now.

Remember when Thomas demanded to see Christ risen before he would believe?

John 20:27-29
Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

Blessed are those who did not see and believed. Christ knew that the majority of the world following his ascension would have their conviction based on things other than first-hand experiences. In other words, belief—strong belief—is possible without them. There is much more to the anatomy of our faith than these type of experiences.

Seeing the Angels

I am reminded of the story when the prophet Elisha was being hunted by the king of Aram. The king’s army surrounded the city that Elisha and is his servant were resting in. Elisha’s servant went into a panic while Elisha remained calm. There was something happening that his servant was unable to experience. Something Elisha saw that stabilized his faith. Elisha prayed for his servant’s eyes to be opened.

2 Kings 6:17
Then Elisha prayed and said, “O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” And the LORD opened the servant’s eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

While I have given some warnings about seeking to build your faith on first-hand experience, I do believe that it is something that we should not be afraid to seek. I believe that it is very godly and important for us to pray that we recognize the “God things.” They are all around us, even if they can often suffer alternative explanations. For most of us, it is the other aspects of our faith which cause us to see the “angels”. Oftentimes we just need to have our eyes opened. But for the most part it is not going to be our sight that brings conviction to our faith, but our conviction that brings reality to our sight. I think that that is the most important thing I have said here so I will repeat it: For the most part it is not going to be our sight that brings conviction to our faith, but our conviction that brings reality to our sight.

Conclusion

Some people’s first-hand experience of God will make us jealous. We will wonder why God is not so “conversational” with us. Many will see “angels” everywhere they turn. They will be at no loss for cakes. “God things” will be in abundance their whole life.

Many times it is just a matter of perspective. We need to open our eyes in faith. For many of us, God, for some mysterious reason, goes into hiding in this area. This can be frustrating, I know. “Just let me win one more darn cake-walk. How hard is that!” But first-hand experience is only one aspect of our faith. We take what we can get, but our faith does not need to suffer because of a lack of these things.

If your first-hand experience meter is low and it does not look like it is going to change, join the crowd of many strong believers throughout history who have complained about God’s hiddenness. The first-hand meter will never be at full-throttle until we stand before God. Once that happens, I suspect all the other meters will not matter. Until then, seek to have your eyes opened, but don’t lean too heavily on these things. There is so much more that stabilizes our faith than this. As well, be encouraged (not jealous) of others who God does seem to have an experiential open line with. God may have placed them in your life to provide what is lacking in your faith.Similar Posts:

• The Anatomy of Belief (4): Complexities of Conviction
• The Anatomy of Belief (7): Real Life Conviction
• Is the New Atheism Really Affecting People’s Belief in God?
• The Anatomy of Belief (1)
• The Anatomy of Belief (5): Referred Conviction

(Warning: Santa Clause spoiler forthcoming)

I have to admit it. While growing up, Santa Clause was my favorite Saint. Although at four years old, I did not know he was a Saint, nor did I care. He was the guy who partnered up with mom and dad and brought me presents for Christmas. I believed in him because mom and dad said he was real. In fact, I saw him once. It had to be 12am or after. I sat in my bed, anxiously trying to force sleep to bridge the time as it stood at that moment with the time when we would burst into the dimly lit living room with shouts of joy and excitement when we heard some bells. I low crawled down the hall with my little sister. We took a short cut through the dining room peered toward the Christmas tree. There he was. He had lost some weight and had something seriously wrong with his beard, but it was him nonetheless. Santa Clause was at our house. He told us to get to bed. His voice was strangely similar to my father’s. And he was not too jolly. No matter. I wanted to believe, therefore, I was willing to suspend any sense of a critical spirit that wanted to arise.

As the years passed, my desire to believe in him continued, but there were some things that were not adding up. Sure, the cookies and milk I sat out for him each year were gone each Christmas morning. As well, I could not deny the fact that there were gifts present Christmas morning that were not there the night before. And these were presents that were different. A key sign at our house that a particular present was from Santa was that the gift was unwrapped. Not to mention that my most trusted sources for referred conviction, mom and dad, still insisted that he was real. I had plenty of reasons to continue to believe, but there were some things that, again, were not adding up.

Kristie and Angie, my older sisters, provided a very disturbing testimony. They said to me more times than one in confidence that Santa was not real. While I thought they were crazy, they did throw a wrench in the stability of my referred conviction.  According to their account of things, mom and dad were Santa Clause. I wondered if others shared their crazy worldview. This took me back to my encounter with Santa that night. My sisters’ testimony would make sense of why Santa sounded like my dad. Of course, the more I thought about it, it was possible that mom and dad ate the cookies and drank the milk. After all, they did eat and drink too. And my dad really liked cookies. It was well within their capabilities to place unwrapped Christmas presents under the tree. Not only this, but it made little sense that Santa could make it to every house in the world in one night, especially if he was going as slowly as he was the night I saw him. Finally, the kicker came the following year. I was on the pre-Christmas hunt for mom’s hidden place where she stored the Christmas presents. Rumor had it that it was in the south hallway closet. Though it was normally always locked, this particular day it was not. When I looked inside, to the horror of this now seven year old kid, there lay Santa’s suit, boots, and white beard. It was almost final. I just had to get mom and dad to admit their deception and I could put a nail in this investigation, count my losses, and confirm my broken heart. Although my mother attempted to stand her ground for a time, the overwhelming amount of evidence eventually caused her concession. I, since that day, I have not believed in Santa.

We will get back to ol’ Saint Nick in a moment!

Real Life Conviction (evidentia)

“Real life conviction.” That might not be the best way to put it, but it does begin with an “R”! Reviewing from an earlier chapter, this most broadly refers to human experience. It is often called “empirical,” meaning that which we can observe or experience through our senses. It has to do with the evidence. Appropriately, the Reformers called this, along with rational conviction, evidentia. It is stuff that we can see, feel, taste, touch, or test. This can come by way of direct personal encounters or by historical and empirical verification. Whereas rational conviction comes intuitively and works primarily off of logical deduction, real life conviction comes by way of subjective encounter, evidence, and testing. It makes up the third sub-meter in our “conviction meter.” It is a very important part of human epistemology (how we know what we know).

During the enlightenment, there were two schools of thought about where our ultimate source of information came from. The “Rationalists” believed that the most important source for knowledge was intuitive, meaning that we are born preprogrammed with paradigms of understanding. The “Empiricists” believed that the ultimate source for knowledge came from real world evidences. These would be the things we learn through real life experiences and investigation. You know, this is the age old nature vs. nurture debate; the philosopher vs. the scientist. Do we know what we know due to our inherent nature (rationalism), or do we know what we know due to life’s nurturing (empiricism).

The folly in the rationalism vs. empiricism debate only comes when we exclude one or the other. The truth is that both are important components in our knowledge and conviction about things. We are born with a certain rational framework that dictates and guides the information which we, later in life, acquire. Even the scientist who says, “This is my method: I believe in only what I can see and what I can test” (often referred to as “Logical Positivism”), cannot be consistant. Why? Because this very method cannot be seen or tested! Does the scientist believe in this method? Maybe, but it is a rational conviction that cannot be put under the microscope. Therefore it is intuitive. This is what philosophers call a self-defeating belief. Its like saying “My wife has never been married.” A wife, by definition, must be married. In the same way, the method of those who say “I only believe in that which I can empirically verify” is self defeating since one cannot empirically verify the truth of such a statement.

However, our experience provides a powerful guide that can help us to adjust our way of thinking at a fundamental level. It is much easier to believe things that we can test and experience. This is the stuff of “real life.”

How Real Life Conviction Works

When I believed in Santa, I had to look for the evidence to help confirm my belief, and it is ultimately the lack of evidence that ended that belief. Initially, I had testimony from others (referred conviction based purely on authority—mom and dad). This is how my faith in Santa looked at first.

Notice the rational meter is slightly up. Intuitively, by itself, there is nothing formally absurd with a belief in a guy with superpowers, giving presents to all children. It is logically possible. However, there is nothing that would intuitively compel anyone in such a direction either. In other words, it is not logically necessary. Therefore, the rational meter has very little to say here. The referred meter, on the other hand, is very high. Most of my faith in Santa had come from the testimony of my mom and dad. Most of the other kids at my age believed in him to. Therefore, there was a confirmation of prejudice on the playground! But notice the real life meter. It is not too high. The evidences, while present, were not above reproach at all.

Now I am going to introduce into the Real Life meter two sub-meters. Please hang with me.

1. First-hand Evidence (or Personal Experience)

First-hand evidence is comprised of those things that we personally experience. Left unchecked, this, along with emotions (which I will talk about in the section on consent) is the most powerful of all the meters to our belief. Many people work only off this. These are the things that we touch, taste, smell, hear, and see. Speaking of Santa, my first-hand experience came when I actually heard the bells and saw Santa by the tree. With regard to our faith in God, these are the experiences we have that confirm our worldview. This would include miracles, answers to prayer, visions, and other various encounters with what we believe are best explained through a divine agency.

2. Forensic Evidence

These are the bread crumbs of our faith. Anyone who is hooked on one of the crime investigation television series knows what I am talking about. Forensic science deals with evidences which confirm or deny the presupposition. In other words, while first-hand evidence is seeing a man walk through the snow, forensic evidence looks at the footprints left behind. With regard to Santa, my forensic evidence was the presents that were under the tree Christmas morning which were not present the night before. Forensic evidence has a historical element to it. It deals with shadows of the past. What we would expect to have happened if our belief is true. What evidence was left behind and are there any other alternative explanations for this evidence? With regard to our Christian faith, there are many evidences we would expect to find such as human design, innate morality, archaeological confirmation, historical impact and longevity, an empty tomb, devoted followers, and first-hand testimony.

Since much of the Christian faith is based on the testimony of others, some will equate this type of conviction with Referred Conviction, but I think they are different. Referred Conviction is the reliance on others’ conviction which becomes our own based on their scholarship and integrity. What I am talking about here is evidence based on actions and beliefs that we would expect others to have if our faith is true.

Therefore, our Real Life conviction meter looks like this:

God and Real Life Evidence

When it comes to Christian belief, we must recognize that one’s conviction level is not determined by rational or evidential (Real Life) conviction alone (as with the rationalists vs. empiricists mentioned earlier). It is both. We have dogs in both hunts. The Bible presents God as a God who calls on us to “Come and see.” As well, the Christian faith will be strengthened the more we focus on Real Life conviction, looking to both forensic and first-hand experiences.

According to the Christian worldview, God does not hide in the heavens, having already installed in every human all that is needed for a conviction about his reality and his will. He intervenes in time, giving evidences of his presence, love, and redemption. We are not left to blindly grope in the dark, hoping to pin the tail on the right donkey.

The Bible tells us that God has provided his fingerprints on his work, the footprints in the snow. In the Gospel of John, John tell his readers that Jesus did many things during his life, but the selected biography was given so that people would be compelled by the evidence given to believe that Christ is the Son of God:

John 20:30-31
Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Luke, a contemporary of the Apostles and writer of the Gospel of Luke, tells his friend Theophilus that he investigated the events of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection closely. It is upon this investigation in which Luke’s conviction and testimony is based.

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

And we dare not forget the biggest skeptic in the Bible. Thomas, an apostle of Christ, having received the testimony from others (and possibly even seeing the empty tomb), would not believe that Christ had risen from the grave until he (empirically) saw him and touched his wounds.

John 20:25
So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.

Sure enough, eight days later Thomas got his wish and was finally convinced due to first hand evidences that Christ rose from the grave (John 20:26-28).

As well, when Christ rose from the grave, he did not do so in secret, informing someone many years later through an angelic encounter. He could have just gone up into heaven and required blind faith of all his followers. But, according to Luke, Christ was active and teaching immediately after his resurrection, presenting himself to his followers by “many convincing proofs” (Acts 1:3).

In Acts 17, Paul tells the philosophers at Mars Hill that God has given evidence for himself so that we would not be groping in the dark.

Acts 17:24-28
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “In him we live and move and have our being”; as even some of your own poets have said, “For we are indeed his offspring.”

God is close to us, having provided evidences for his existence and activity. Though he does not need man nor dwell with man, he is not far from any of us. He is present and active.

Conclusion

Many Christians fail to explore real life conviction when exercising their faith. This can dramatically influence their conviction level. If we don’t look toward the evidence that God has provided through his fingerprints on history and in our own experience, our faith will be weakened.

Belief in Santa Clause is unwarranted, not because we don’t want him to exist (for what child does not emotionally want to believe in Santa), or even because it is rationally absurd, but because the evidence is simply not present. However, belief in God does not have to be like belief in Santa. We can—indeed, we are called upon—to investigate the claims of the Christian faith.

Also, as this whole process seems to get more complicated, I feel compelled to remind you that nothing I have said is necessarily rocket science. While it is the anatomy of belief, for the most part we are simply looking into how all of us already believe, even if we don’t know these things. My purpose is to give you tools to either diagnose a problem you may have in your Christian belief or to propel you forward in the same.

Later, we will look further into how both first-hand and forensic elements to Real Life conviction add to the testimony of Christianity.

Discussion

1. Does Real Life Conviction contribute to your faith? If so, in what ways?

2. Further explain how belief in God and belief in Santa are different.

3.  Describe how your faith might suffer if your conviction is only based on rational and referred conviction.Similar Posts:

• The Anatomy of Belief (4): Complexities of Conviction
• Why the Santa/God Parallel Does Not Work for Atheists (But Does For Theists)
• The Anatomy of Belief (1)
• The Anatomy of Belief (8): First-Hand Conviction or “God Things”
• The Anatomy of Belief (5): Referred Conviction