On Promoting Discussion To Provide A Solution

I want to share my response to a Facebook conversation today because considering the conversation brought up some conviction in my own mind about what my approach should be to my writing in the future.

Josh and I get a lot of flak for being "Controversial" in a lot of our speaking and writing. Um, that's not going to change. What I hope folks understand is that the point is not to make waves or cause division, it is to encourage folks to think for themselves and study to find the truth, rather than just sucking down "what they've always heard."

The most legitimate argument a non-believer can have toward us as believers is that most of us choose to believe a lot of "facts of our faith" based on tradition instead of truth.

If we agree that our faith is founded on the person of Jesus Christ, we have to pursue an accurate interpretation of what He actually says. Before we can do that, we have to actually know what He says. That is an area of conviction for me. After 25 years of faith, how faithfully do I truly pursue the truth and how faithfully do I attempt to interpret accurately. And then, how faithfully do I share that truth with others.

We are not responsible to change hearts or minds with the truth. Jesus does that. But we have to know it in order to tell it, so that it can be used to burden or soften hardened hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Anyway, here's my part of the conversation. It's not very detailed but I think you'll be able to follow it and maybe find some part of it compelling.



I shouldn't involve myself in this conversation, but I want to make a couple of points that need mentioning. 

In response to the "Two universities so I'm a debater" comment- it really doesn't matter. James is arguing the complexities of argument (or debate) rather than discussing the supposed facts or the arguments themselves. That is why "academics" and "debaters" historically don't do much. They're too busy arguing about someone else's belief system to put theirs into practice. 

To the point about the decline of belief in God or as Keith put it, the need for a god comfort, I would bring up the old saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." Our pride tends to push us more and more towards a humanistic worldview, until something comes up that we cannot handle on our own. 

I understand this could then be argued from either side. Either we disprove the existence of God by claiming that we create Him in our own minds to help us cope, or we can use it as support for proof of God's existence- the proverbial "God-shaped-hole" in every human psyche suggesting that we wouldn't need or desire to create Him did He not already exist. 

I would also point out to James, that 50 years of experience has always been a better teacher, and therefore a better supportive argument, than, "I went to college." 

Again, most of what we learn in college is taught from someone's worldview, and is therefore skewed in some way by their interpretation of the facts rather than a revelation of the facts themselves. I think any educated person would agree that first-hand experience has historically been more authoritative and less tainted by "interpretation" than second or third-hand information. So "I went to college" is never an authoritative argument on any subject. 

I don't accept any man's opinion as the "truth" on any philosophical or theological topic, regardless of the letters behind or in front of their name, if I cannot use factual and experiential evidence to support it. 

 Does that make my opinion authoritative? 

Absolutely not. 

It simply means that the developed human mind must come to its own conclusions by comparing the evidence of experience with what it "knows" to be true. This evidence has brought us to differing conclusions. 

That does not add or take away any weight from the number of degrees or certificates I may choose to hang on my "I love me" wall. 

My experience in the military and the experiences of my friends who are still serving, my friends who have lost children or spouses, the circumstances of my own life, all carry more weight for me than what some humanist professor told me while hiding behind his podium or his blog, while never confronting the issues that confront people in real life. 

I believe that both "believing experts" and "non-believing experts" fail their students and followers by speaking from the "debate" perspective, while avoiding real social, psychological, philosophical, emotional, economic, spiritual, and sociological issues altogether. We would rather "discuss" the issues than provide a solution. Because debate or discussion allows me to feel arrogant or comfortable in my own opinion, while providing a solution usually requires me to step out of my comfort zone in selflessness and humility.

As Forest Gump would say, "That's all I have to say about that." ...for now.