Discovering Christianity or Accepting Christianity.

The job of a typical pastor in evangelical circles in Canada is to convince his congregation that the Bible supports his statements. The idea being that people want to be like the Bereans - checking to see whether the scriptures say what the pastor says they do.

Let me suggest something crazy. This might be a bad idea.

Its not that I think the Bible is not the final authority. I say this, because I think it is. Permit me a few moments of your time and I think you may be able to see why.

Meet John Smith. John is a computer programmer with good intelligence and is a very analytic thinker. Julie Jones is an Art Major from a wealthy family who has travelled all over the world. Bob Holmes has been to seminary got average grades, and has just become a pastor of a new church.

John and Julie go to church one day and hear Bob's sermon. Bob starts his sermon by saying 'I was just reading a devotional book yesterday and I love how it talked about how we could trust God for everything, big and small. My brothers and sisters we need to trust God for everything - even down to how your teenager performs on his midterms, its all in God's hands.'

Unfortunately, Bob who has misread the intent of the author of his devotional who doesn't believe that you can pray good grades into your child's life. After all, Bob was only an average student and frequently misinterprets what he reads.

John, who is very analytical sees the problem with Bob's logic straight away. He immediately dismisses his pastor's point. Every time Bob gives a sermon, John feels that Bob's responsibility is to convince him using compelling logic. If he fails, John has no responsibility to accept what he says. Unfortunately, although John is smarter and a better thinker than Bob, he doesn't have all the background in hermeneutics and Jewish culture that Bob does. The next Sunday, John remains unconvinced when Bob gives a sermon about the ways God interacts with our lives. Although Bob was completley correct, he just did a poor job arguing for his point.

Julie on the other hand, is a very emotional thinker. She loves the idea of trusting God with everything. However, she recently went through a divorce and had her heart broken. She feels like God has let her down, and although she doesn't question her pastor's logic or biblical knowledge, she feels like he is in an ivory tower - disconnected from the sufferings of his congregants. "Maybe God takes care of all the needs of people in the Bible, but her certainly hasn't done that in my life" Julie was overheard telling her close friend.

So we have a number of problems here.

John has started to think for himself. Basically he takes the beliefs that makes sense to him and starts to form a theology out of it. One thing he accepts, another he does not. He reasons this way: "If Christianity is true, then it must be logical. I have deemed the pastor's point illogical, therefore it cannot be Christian." In the end, the only things that are Christian are the things that are logical to John. Unfortunately, if you compared the thoughts of a thousand John's out there, they would all have *very* different theologies.

Julie has also started to think for herself. She reasons this way "If Christianity is true, then it must be real to life. I have deemed the pastor's point to not be real to life, therefore it is not Christian." Unfortunately, if you compared the thoughts of a thousand Julie's out there, they would all have *very* different theologies.

Bob has also started to think for himself. He uses the basic training he got in seminary and combines it with the things he reads and experiences in life. He reasons this way "If Christianity is true, then it must be coherent. I have been given basic Christians truths and tools to analyze and interpret the Bible, so if I find a devotional that passes all my seminarian tests, then it must be true." Unfortunately, if you compared the thoughts of a thousand different pastors they would all have *very* different theologies.

These differences between the Bob's Julie's and John's are not minor. They literally worship different Gods. One God is willing to grant almost any prayer that is asked. Another sees the suffering on earth and believes that God only gives us the power to maintain good character as we go through life. Another believes that God has spoken to them and told them that its OK for woman to preach. Another says that they can't be talking to the same God because the Bible clearly forbids it. These are not minor differences. These leave and interact in ways that contradict each other - they both cannot be following the same God.

The fundamental problem I see is that everyone is trying to 'discover' in one way or another what Christianity is. As they go through the process of discovery they end up baptizing their own opinions as Christian. Each person views every theological statement as an opinion to be evaluated - the ultimate trustworthiness of a statement is their's to determine.

But there is another way to view such things. It could be that Christianity is a set of truths to accept. To live as if they were true, even if at first you don't believe it. In fact, there may be truths which you shouldn't understand because they are very deep. The Bible talks about 'Meat' vs 'Milk' and truths which only the spiritual man can discern. It never claims to make sense. Its interesting, because CS Lewis said that its the Christian truths which we most dislike or find hardest to believe that are the most helpful, because they reveal the points where our compass is off. Christianity is something that you 'pass on' and 'entrust' to faithful persons who are able also to teach others.

John objects to this because his pastor isn't trustworthy. Bob seems to be making up what's in Christianity on the fly. But perhaps the problem is that John needs to go a different church structure (a more hierarchical one) where each pastor isn't allowed such freedom in their teaching. Or more to the point, perhaps he has to learn to trust his own intellect less.

Julie objects to this because the truths need to resonate with her heart. Perhaps what she needs is to talk to a Christian counsellor who can help show her how the Christian truths interplay with her experiences. Or more to the point, perhaps she needs to learn to try on a different set of lenses through which to view the world.

Bob might object to this because he feels that he is trained to be a Bible expositor, to figure out what the Bible says. Perhaps, he needs to spend some more time with the Church Fathers. Or more to the point, perhaps he should spend some more time delving into what the role of a shepherd is.

If someone chooses not to do this and wishes to use the power of their own intellect or the truth of their own life experiences to discover what is true and what isn't. That's totally fine. Its just that you can call you're conclusions 'Christian' Instead, you have taken a set of Christian principles and chosen which ones to keep and which ones to discard. The result is your ideals and principles. You aren't a Christian, though you may be a good person who built many of their principles on Christian ideals.

To be a Christian is to take Christian principles and walk through the precarious journey of accepting them and acting as if each of them were true, even the ones you find most difficult to believe and accept.

Obviously this little entry leaves many questions unanswered (how could such a suggestion be fully defended in so few word - where is the 'official' set of Christian doctrines etc.?) but I think that everyone will at least see the problem I am trying to identify with the approach that Bob, John and Julie have taken towards Christianity.