Hi. Here I am with thoughts swarming again that I need to share! So building off of the Buzz Words post I last shared, I have come to understand (remember, I've been out of the U.S. for quite awhile) that some Christians are worried about what is being called progressive Christianity and "wokeism". Others have been "deconstructing" their faith. What I understand this to mean is that people have grown up believing things that they thought were clear in the bible, come to find out they were more cultural teachings than biblical teachings. Or they were strong traditions but not necessarily strong biblical principles. Or they're not sure and are taking another look. So in order to weed those things out, you have to deconstruct what you know and reconstruct it again under a new lens. Others feel that questioning these teachings is a form of turning away from God. And if taken too far from scripture, it could be. But if scripture is held onto tightly, it should be a trusted practice.
If you really are a truth seeker, you should not be afraid to question what is man made or man discerned. If something is true and good and biblical, then when you search, you will find it. I do think there is value in not jumping on political bandwagons or modern bandwagons too quickly, but you should also not necessarily be afraid of them. We should be discerning and not afraid to speak up if we see something that seems out of line, but we should also be able to defend why it's out of line.
This doesn't only apply to Christianity. In this post, I want to take a look at something taught in church and Western society, which is a hell that consists of eternal torment as punishment for not following God during one's lifetime, or as many believe, for not praying to accept Jesus. I also want to look at something that is taught in U.S. public schools, which is this:
So let's deconstruct some religion and also science!
I first heard about different biblical interpretations of hell from a few friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses about 10 years ago. I was very surprised as I assumed that the doctrine of a hell that is "eternal conscious torment" was very clear in the bible because it was so widely accepted. However, they argued that the word hell in the bible more likely means a final annihilation, as would literally happen if fire consumed something. They gave plenty of verses to support that theory.
This theologian, Preston Sprinkles, does an excellent job of examining all scripture on the subject. I honestly hadn't come across anyone else who preached this same interpretation who is not a JW until I stumbled upon this youtube video this morning. I did not search for this topic but it literally just popped up. I was actually just introduced to this theologian this past week as he was a guest on Phil Vischer's Holy Post podcast. If the video isn't showing up on your device, here is the link.
If you have time, I would highly suggest that you watch it. When I first heard this theory 10 years ago, I pretty much breathed a sigh of relief. I couldn´t actually pinpoint where and when I had learned about hell, which made me realize how highly accepted and woven into general Christian, or even American culture, that it is, or at least was when I was growing up. I had heard many non-Christian friends express disgust at a God that would punish people with eternal torture because they didn't know Jesus. I also was confused by it and couldn't comprehend it myself. It didn't add up. I never doubted God, his presence, his power, or his love, but the hell I understood didn't fit in with that. So to me, not only does the annihilation of people who choose evil make more sense than eternal torture for those who "grew up in the wrong religion", but it seems to have a LOT more biblical support. I can't argue that the interpretation of eternal torment is 100% incorrect, but I can argue 100% that it is not conclusive and should therefore be deconstructed.
I'm not saying this to make Christianity more pallatable to anyone. I'm not saying it because I have a problem with consequences or justice. I am saying it because I think it's sound. And I think examining this issue can make a really big difference in how we understand God and how we explain him to others. You can also tell from Preston's video that, one, he has studied this subject long and hard. He even wrote a book about it in 2011, which he is building upon in this video. He also says that this is a view that has been held throughout centuries, although the predominent view is "eternal conscious torment". But again, after seeing his examination of the scripture, I can't really understand why eternal torment is the predominent view, rather than it being presented as an alternative theory. Is it because we've found it easier to use fear tactics than to live by radical and sacrificial example as Jesus did? And what does the bible say about the subject of fear? Does it align with God´s character? That's a whole other topic!
Okay, now let's deconstruct science. A dear friend recently said that Christianity is the religion that is most promoted culturally in American schools. I had a strong reaction on the contrary. Of course different youth probably have different experiences at different schools and in different states, but as a Christian who attended public school through high school graduation, I felt as though anything related to God or Jesus were basically taboo at school. They were avoided and intentionally cut out. I understand that it's done to separate church and state since public schools are government entities. I understand and respect that. However, I argued that a different religion was actually being pushed, and that religion is atheism. I believe this because with God being made a taboo subject and evolution being taught in the way that it is, atheism is highly promoted as the intellectual understanding of the history of the world.
Now, I know that many people share this view and homeschool their kids for this very reason, but have those who perhaps share similar thoughts as my friend deconstructed their understanding of evolution? Have they deconstructed cultural understandings of science and let the scientific facts speak for themselves, or do they follow notions and cultural acceptance of theories without really digging in for themselves?
What has actually been proven in regards to evolution? Very little, actually. Yes, Darwin proved this:
Over time, birds with stronger beaks outlived birds with smaller beaks on an isolated island. The population naturally selected and converted into a species with stronger beaks. That is evolution. (Actually, I don't think that explanation was great but it gives the jist.). But how did we get from the bird beaks evolving within one species to the evolution of one species into another, from single cell to mutli cell, from water living to land living, flying, etc? What is the proof? Many people think, and I would argue that it is because of the way it is presented to them in school that they think that way, that the evolution of man from apes and less complex life forms before that is as trustworthy science as, say, the earth revolving around the sun. They understand or assume that it has passed the scientific method over and over again under different circumstances and has somehow been proven. And this is so far from the truth.
Let's look at biologist Michael Denton, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. In the year I was born (1985) he wrote a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. In 2016 when the book and I turned 31, he wrote a second book called Evolution: A Theory Still in Crisis. Here is a quote from Amazon.
"He argues that there remains 'an irresistible consilience of evidence for rejecting Darwinian cumulative selection as the major driving force of evolution.' From the origin of life to the origin of human language, the great divisions in the natural order are still as profound as ever, and they are still unsupported by the series of adaptive transitional forms predicted by Darwin. In addition, Denton makes a provocative new argument about the pervasiveness of nonadaptive order throughout biology, order that cannot be explained by the Darwinian mechanism."
Denton is not the only biologist to be fired up and outspoken about this topic. And he doesn't call himself a Christian but an agnostic. I think that if science and schools want to truly remove religion from the curriculum in an attempt to honor separation of church and state, they must take an agnostic approach, not an atheist one. An agnostic approach would more humbly admit "we don't know" from a scientific standpoint rather than connecting dots all over the place to pretend like we know. Images and ideas like this:
are based on so much unproven theory, to the point that if shared in school, we're filling kids heads with something that is religion, not science. And in teaching kids that science has proven that they were not created by God, you may be teaching them something very wrong and bad. You may be guilty of kidnapping children from their loving father and creator. Will you listen to the testimony of someone who says they are trans-gender, a modern issue, but not listen to testimonies about the supernatural, an ageless issue? Why are all those testimonies that point to the supernatural disregarded? That doesn't sound scientifically sound.
Why do we teach something with so little proof in science class? Can you think of other theories that are so unproven but yet so highly relied upon? Maybe it's upheld because it appears scientific and attempts to explain a huge question, whereas supernatural activity cannot be contained in a natural science class. Supernatural activity cannot be explained through science, but evidence of it can. Anyway, just like history class is being "deconstructed", largely influenced by recent racial tensions, we should consider the same in science as well. The topics you teach says something. The author of the content you teach says something. How much time you spend on topics conveys something. How you teach it conveys something.
It's all indoctrination so in my positively honest opinion, you better be darn sure of the validity of the doctrine you are instilling, especially when the doctrine causes people to see that God regularly and mercilessly tortures outliers (eternal conscious torment) or is completely nonexistent (evolution). Church, culture, if you want to teach that God uses the protocol of eternal torture for anyone who doesn't pray the prayer to accept Jesus before they die, then you should really have some clear and consistent, undisputed evidence of that in scripture. That's a big claim! Does it say, "When you die, you either go to heaven or hell." Does it have a step by step handbook? Preston Sprinkles shows 50+ verses that say God destroys the wicked at the final judgment, but just three that seem to imply that he tortures them eternally. Then that concept is often tied into another verse that equates not praying the prayer to accept Jesus with wickedness, therefore sending someone straight to eternal torture upon death.
Schools, government, if you want to teach that man was not created in God's image but rather evolved from an amoeba, and if you want to continue putting that blasphemous image in kids' heads, you should be able to prove it like you can prove Newton's laws of motion. Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, believed that science and religion must be studied together. He wrote The New Atlantis where he mingled Christianity with the scientific method. Albert Einstein is quoted saying, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God".
In conclusion, let's be sure of what we teach, and if we're not sure, either don't teach them, or make sure uncertainties are highly evident when we teach and consider other uncertain explanations.
"Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." -James 3:1
"If anyone should cause one of these little ones to lose his faith in me, it would be better for him to have a large millstone tied around the neck and thrown into the sea." -Mark 9:42 (GNT)
I would argue that teaching that God is merciless or even sadistic or that God is a fictional fairy tale are contributing reasons that many little ones lose their faith. I'm not knocking teaching these topics to mature audiences, but teaching them accurately. Drown in the sea? Those are harsh words, Jesus. However, I don't see a conclusive hint at eternal torment.
What do we know for sure? Jesus said that the most important commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love others as you love yourself. The bible says that pure and perfect religion is caring for widows and orphans. We should make disciples of people all over the world and teach them to follow Jesus, who embodied sacrifical love for the greater good and reunited fallen man to God. Let's stick to that.
We know that the earth is round, it rotates on its axis, and evolves around the sun once every 365 days. Man's presence and actions has an effect on the health of the entire earth and all its inhabitants. Natural is healthy but we can intervene if need be. We know sooo much about the natural world: anatomy of every creature, physiology, chemistry, physics, ecology, math, etc. that we can travel the world and into space, transplant hearts, and communicate instantly across the globe. But we can't give or create life. We can manipulate living cells to an extent, but we can't give life to a cell or any creature. Let's also stick to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment