True Believers vs Belief, Faith, and Truth

When you encounter a True Believer, your first impression and feeling is confusion. It is hard to conceptualize how they can think as they do. It is apparent they have deeply held beliefs that are irrational. If not irrational, then representative of a deep cognitive dissonance. Yet they hold their ideas with a calm unflinching devotion. Their devotion to what they believe is more important to them than what they believe.

No. They don’t believe in The Truth, or what is true. Those require a genuine and true object. What they have come to believe, even though it is false, they believe is ultimately true. The defining characterization for the label of “True Believer” is devotion to their belief that supersedes trustworthiness or realness belonging to the object of their belief.

To help clarify consider Christians. A Christian, in contrast, is defined by the object of their belief: Christ. My belief in God is important. However, it is only important because of the object of that belief. Belief apart from God doesn’t bring me value. Any value I may have comes from the object of my belief. Not solely from the believing. The belief is important. Consider the events of the Apostle Thomas and his encounter with the risen Christ. However, that value is inextricably linked to the reality of the object. Not so for True Believers. Their value is principally in their believing. Not in whether what they believe is actually true or good or valuable. And they cling to their belief religiously.

They are True Believers not because what they believe is genuinely true. Not because their belief is in some way “true”. They have found something to believe and are now devoted to the act of believing. Not devoted to truth (or Truth). Not devoted to real or Reality. They are worshipers of believing and their lives are conformed around their believing.

They believe masks will save them from disease. And no debate is allowed. Contrary ideas that masks do not work must be suppressed. Not because these ideas are truly dangerous. Because these ideas and data and facts challenge their narrative of belief. These ideas are dangerous because they challenge their beliefs. Therefore, to stop your spreading these alternate ideas, the normal restraints on public discourse are abandoned. The True Believer knows in their heart it is acceptable to call the presenter of other ideas “non-caring”, and “hateful”, and “killer of old people and the vulnerable.” Not because any of these are true. It is acceptable, in their belief system, because it is true according to their belief system.

True Believers believe a required vaccine, followed by a mandatory booster, that has an essential booster, supported with a necessary and essential additional booster, and will require another booster, will save them from getting sicker than you. If you raise a concern that any vaccine that must be repeated on a short schedule must not be very effective, you are dangerous. If you combine this with reports of harm associated with the vaccine, you are a denier and dangerous. You must be censored. Not because your point is wrong or bad. You are dangerous because you challenge their belief narrative.

A True Believer believes cow flatulence is irreparably causing the buildup of greenhouse gases that produce a climate change which is going to make their life in 10 years really really hard. And because of cows and pollution from only industrialized nations, we have to drive electric cars. Now! So, who cares if the disadvantaged and poor can’t afford to buy gas to get to work? Climate change!

It’s not what they believe that matters. What matters is that they believe. And the fact that you don’t believe the same is very disturbing to them.

Christians Aren’t Immune to True Believism

True Believers show up in the Christian culture. When a fellow Christian convolutes the Gospel or sanctification or living in community with True Believism, it masquerades as noble and good. It has all the characteristics of the actions of the Pharisees without the intellectual underpinning. As Darrel Harrison and Virgil Walker of Just Thinking Podcast have noted, True Believism in Christianity confuses theology for feel-ology. These feelologians are often so enamored with their belief they are unaware they have lost focus on a proper object of belief.

A few examples of True-Believism spreading among Christians:

Pushing one another to get vaccinated against COVID because it is demanded by loving others.

Shaming other Christians for not wearing a mask and disregarding their personal convictions or other problems, and telling them to get over their discomfort because wearing a mask is a symbol of loving others.

Accusations of using harsh tone when a simple disagreement over an issue has occurred, and insisting on winsomeness in our interactions with non-Christians to the point of dulling truth because it is demanded by loving others.

Critical Race Theory and Wokeism also fall under this very large umbrella issue, as do so many other viral concepts. It is one that reminds of the necessity of having our minds submitted to the will of God along with our hearts. It is a hard work that requires intention. Purpose and understanding.

Instruct me, O Yahweh, in the way of Your statutes,
That I may observe it to the end.
Cause me to understand, that I may observe Your law
And keep it with all my heart.
Cause me to walk in the path of Your commandments,
For I delight in it.
Cause my heart to incline to Your testimonies
And not to dishonest gain.

Psalm 119:33-36 LSB

The Husband’s First Duty: Remember

Duties of a Husband, Part 3

Remember

I know. You were expecting another word or phrase. Something else. Remember seems out of place. This seems wrong. Your heart is resisting. Remember doesn’t belong at the head of this list. Your feelings strongly object. This isn’t the great beginning you were expecting. It feels like stumbling out of the starting gate.

We expected “Love your wife”, or some form of that, as the first and foremost duty of a husband. Shouldn’t love come above all? You know, 1 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 5, and Colossians 3:19. And, how can we ignore all the sloppy cultural reference to some esoteric concept of the emotional feeling we call love.

It’s not that you are wrong to expect loving his wife would be a husband’s first duty. However, loving his wife is the application of this duty.

A husband must remember.

Remember that he is always preaching to his wife, to his children, to the body of Christ, and to the unsaved world Christ’s love for the church.

Every act and inaction, every word and way those words are spoken, every manner in which you publicly and privately act toward your wife is a sermon. You are proclaiming and showing what Christ’s love of His church is by the way you are loving your wife.

So, it is love. But, it is real Biblical love delivered as an unending sermon in your day-to-day living. Neither simply nor just emotion we wrongly associate with “love”. The incredible fullness of the act in all its complete purpose. Love that is specific and personal to the object, your wife. And simultaneously purposeful in its fulfilment of revealing how Christ accepted humiliation, rejection, and unjust punishment for the purpose of redeeming His bride and bringing glory to the Father.

Remember is not:

Let’s begin with a short look at some very wrong thinking of husbands and wives. These are what this duty is not. It is not “Happy wife, happy life”. Giving in to every whim and desire of your spouse because you think that is going to bring peace to your relationship is preaching a false gospel. It is also not going to make her truly happy, by the way. Remember that you are a sinner. And, so is she. Just like you, she may have a wrong view of what she needs to be happy. Her desire for happiness are not always going to be aligned with the will of the Father. While a clean and orderly home may be signs of a happy family, they will not cause it. Having a great job and great house to live in may be a sign of a healthy marriage. But, it will not cause it. Just like all of us, simply because your wife thinks she needs something to be happy does not always also mean that is what she actually needs to be happy.

If you are a Christian, then you have been redeemed from your sin, and now have the ability to not sin. So, stop sinning. And, carefully, lovingly, humbly help watch and protect your wife from sinning. When she does, and if you are able, you intervene and accept the consequences for her mistakes. When you are able, you redeem her from sinful circumstances. Only Christ can and has taken the punishment for her sin. He has paid the price and redeemed her fully. Just as He has you. And that example is the sermon you must preach in your actions.

This ties in to another duty, though. So, more on this later.

Remembering is not living separate lives while sharing the same house and bed. You cannot have your own set of friends, your own bank account, your own social life and your wife have hers. This is not how Christ loves the Church and gave Himself for her. This doesn’t mean you refuse any social engagements that your wife isn’t included in. It does mean you refuse social engagements your wife is excluded from. You can go on a hunting trip with your male friends, or go to a movie with other men. You cannot, however, deny your wife time with you because you are doing these things more often than you should. Like before, we’ll explore this in another duty of the husband.

Remember is:

To Remember, you must first know. Know what the love of Christ for His Church is. What it looks like. If you don’t know, you’ll need to get to work studying God’s Word. But, chances are, you know some, or have a little idea. So, let’s begin there.

The duties that will be explained all flow from this need to Remember. But, we can begin by using a few examples to help understand what we mean by Remember.

First, keep in mind that any example we create using our experiences will have limited usefulness. As long as we keep the example within those limits, it can be helpful.

So, keep that in mind and consider this. Let’s assume your wife is going about her daily routine. She is a kind, gentle, and caring person who has built many friendships. In one of those friendships, your wife said something to her friend that caused deep harm. It may have been unintentional, but the harm occurred. Now two families are at odds. Where there was once friendship and fellowship, there is not division and animosity. What should you do? The answer is Remember. Look for ways to heal her and help her heal the harm. Be present with her in her distress. This is not the time to go fishing. If you had planned a hunting trip with your best buds, that just got cancelled and you don’t mind. If you do mind, then you failed to remember. Hunting trips can be rescheduled. Your wife’s soul cannot. And, the sermon you are preaching cannot. The God you serve will be revealed by the sermon you choose to preach. So, Remember.

This is the foundational duty. All others on this list are built on the foundation of the husband being – intentionally, carefully, clearly living out – the love of Christ for His church in the husband’s love for his wife.

Remember

Awake vs. AWOKE

” Awake, sleeper, And arise from the dead…”

The Apostle Paul

You cannot cause someone to accept or admire another culture by forcing them or teaching them to despise their own. Someone who comfortably affirms the good things in their culture while acknowledging those things that are wrong and need to be improved will be able (or enabled) to do the same for other cultures. Including ones that are exceptionally different.

This has been the historic character of American culture. The music industry of the 50’s -90’s pulled music styles from different cultures into one another. Artists influenced by cultural genres very different than their own would purposefully use those styles, methods, intonations of other cultural genres. It was both an acknowledgment of the value of those and the creation of new amalgam of culture.

This grew out of and flourished in a metaculture that was Judeo-Christian. “Honor your father and mother…” You cannot do this while despising your culture. “You shall not bear false witness…” honesty and reality, never perfectly in place, were still valued. “Love your neighbor as yourself…” requires a denial of self-love and emphasis of loving others. These are what is being destroyed.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) corrupts and is culture destroying. CRT cannot correct mistakes in any culture because it demands the replacement of culture with an anti-culture.

Meaning the CRT-based culture, once dominant, will immolate. Why?

Because behind the curtain of CRT is the controlling force of power-worship. The unacknowledged driving force is a desire for power and control. While the culture being lost is characterized by Judeo-Christian influence, CRT (and it’s mate, WOKEism) is Marxist.

The Raising of Lazarus, Jean Jouvenet, 1711, Los Angeles County Museum of Art

“For this reason it says, ‘Awake, sleeper, And arise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you.’ Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. ”

Ephesians 5:14-17 NASB

Missionaries into the culture

The modern missionary works have produce good fruit and, well, not-so-good. Let’s cut to the point. Good missionaries carry their culture with them but not as part of the Gospel. Their culture is always subservient to the Gospel. In other words, cultural ideas and norms have to be held with great humility and readily replaced or used as the Gospel applied.

For example, when a Christian missionary encounters a culture that does not wear the same clothing, it is best for the missionary to take on that culture’s clothing norms and preferences. One important exception would be when that cultural norm for clothing is no clothing. There is a Gospel reason for covering certain parts of our bodies and certain amounts of our bodies. Another exception would be when that clothing is part of a cultural religious practice or act of their worship. Such as face coverings in certain countries. The missionary now has to consider a “meat-offered-to-idols” scenario, and carefully consider what the Gospel requirement would be.

The first missionary work always begins in your place. My neighborhood. Our sphere of operation (work, school, commerce, social). It is here that a conflict of worldviews is underway. Failure to realize that CRT is not an “analytic tool” that we can use, but a replacement force that will silence the Gospel is destroying the culture and our ability to speak the Gospel into that culture.

The sleeping must awake.

If You Can’t Give a Straight Answer, Perhaps Your Thinking is Crooked

Imagine, if you will, a leader of a large organization being asked, “At one time you believed ‘X’. Do you still believe ‘X’?” Instead of a straightforward “Yes”, or “No”, or even “I’m in the process of changing my position on that”, he chooses to talk about a completely unrelated ‘Y’ and ‘Z’, and act as though ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ are more important. Would that be OK?

I’m hoping you are thinking, “Of course not.”

If I ask you, “What is the Biblical teaching regarding ordaining women to be preachers in the church?”

Or, “Is it possible to be a Christian and be same-sex attracted?”

Or, “Does God create men in female bodies?”

Or any other hot topic, lighting-attracting, super-sensitive question in the current culture.

How long would your answer be? How clear are you willing to be with your answer? Can you answer in a straight-forward manner with the purpose to be understood without ambiguity?

---

Speaking clearly isn’t optional. We may want clear speaking to be preferred, or say that speaking clearly is better. Trustworthy communication is essential for any healthy culture. However, for the Christian, being known as people who are aligned in their minds and mouths is more than just a good thing. It is essential. Speaking the truth from God’s Word without compromise is more than just preferred. The mission and purpose of the Body of Christ as composed of individuals places a demand on how we communicate.

Think of it this way-
Words have meaning.
Meanings convey ideas.
Ideas have consequences.
Consequences like life and death. Happiness or despair. Eternal life or eternal death. The consequences of ideas we share with words are profound.

Christians, both toward one another and to the culture we live in, have a greater demand for clarity, precision, and straightforwardness in our speaking than do non-Christians. There are at least two reasons.

First: We have been given a command to speak clearly. Precisely. Not to be confused with plain or simple speech. It doesn’t mean that we cannot make complex arguments when needed. Whether simple or complex, our speaking must be characterized by clarity in meaning.

In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus corrected a common practice among the people of giving greater authority to words by adding an oath to them. They would add a claim or oath, believing this produced greater weightiness to their words. It was an attempt to make their words be more trustworthy. Their statement – the one containing the meaning – wasn’t sufficient on its own. In this practice, adding the oath was necessary to validate it. At least in their minds.

Jesus’ teaching contradicted their thinking and confronted the deeper issue.

Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

Matthew 5:37 ESV

Jesus wasn’t making a case for not swearing oaths. He wasn’t creating a legalistic rule so that centuries later the new-pharisees could judge one another over whether or not we should recite the Pledge of Allegiance. What comes out of the mouth begins in the heart (or mind, Matthew 15:18 and Luke 6:45). What we speak is inextricably linked to what we are thinking and what we believe (Romans 10:9-10).

In case that’s just not clear enough …

But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

James 5:12 ESV

This is particularly true for our leaders. Whether secular or spiritual, we need our leaders to speak understandably. For Christians, it is even more important that our pastors, elders, denominational leaders be characterized by speaking clearly. Clear speaking in a manner and character that is clearly understandable and transparently understood.

When you have to hide what you believe from the Body of Christ, you can no longer claim what you believe is Biblical. Nor can you claim that your actions are healthy for the Body of Christ.

If you cannot speak clearly, plainly, understandably to the Body of Christ about what you believe, you can no longer claim you are thinking and acting Biblical.

If you cannot teach in a clear understandable manner the truth you hold, that truth is no longer Biblical.

Laelius Socinus; 29 January 1525 – 4 May 1562 . Convinced other reformers he held to the doctrine of the trinity even though he had rejected it. He feared the rightful condemnation he would receive if he confessed what he truly believed. Listen to Phil Johnson’s presentation of his deception.

I’m not pushing for simplistic speech. Some complex thoughts require a very complex presentation. In actuality, some very simple thoughts benefit from complex presentation. However, that complexity is clearly and easily understood. When a good speaker / teacher presents a complex theological argument to better capture the necessary understanding of the issue, it is still clear and precise in the presentation. If you get to the end, and those listening cannot say, “I got it”, there has been a failure in a “yes” or a “no”.

Secondly, it impacts the Gospel. We must be known for speaking in a clear straightforward way. When the Gospel is presented, it must be clearly presented. In all of its stages. When presented to an unregenerate person, their hopelessness and need, the hope and gift of Jesus, and the full-measure of how to obtain that gift must be extremely clear in presentation. To the regenerated who needs exhortation, instruction, admonition, or comfort. The words must transmit the ideas with precision and clarity.

“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

Stephen, speaking to the Leadership at Jerusalem, Acts 7:51-53 ESV

The scenario that opened this discussion – leaders and their answers. If they don’t know the way, is it safe to follow them? If you are following someone who cannot tell you where they are going because they are afraid of your response to their answer, should you reconsider their motives in leadership?

Copyright © Why Six Days? (Ronald C. Marks), 2019. All rights reserved.

Please Don’t Try to Tell Me Where I Am When It Is Clear You Don’t Know Where You Are – Part I

Jonathan Dudley posted an article at Huffington Post entitled, “Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution“. He states this is in somewhat of response to Al Mohler’s comments to the opposite, that Christian faith instead should embrace a young-earth position as what scripture teaches. Mr. Dudley begins with a few statements that clearly indicate he has a very narrow understanding of the issues related to science and how it relates to theology (or Christianity), and the issues regarding scientific evidence of the age of the universe. He is indoctrinated, and is able to demonstrate that very well.

Mr. Dudley introduces his position by claiming, “anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition”. Let’s set aside the pejorative label “anti-evolutionists”, but note its use. Jonathan misrepresents scientist who have evaluated the data and come to the conclusion that science supports a young universe. He misrepresents the theologians who have studied Scripture and come to the conclusion that scripture clearly teaches a young universe. He misrepresents the Christians who believe the words of Jesus Who clearly claims that the world was created by a special act of creative work that precludes evolution. I am all of these. There are many Christians “out there” who fall under at least one of these. Jonathan’s narrow view and dismissive statement makes reading the rest of his article burdensome.

Mr. Dudley follows up with a fallacious appeal to authority. Not a very good next step. His statement, “As a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, [Christians have] abandoned [Christian tradition].” It is good that Jonathan is pursuing increased education. I applaud his degree from a seminary and his desire to pursue education. Neither the degree nor the pursuit of education make him qualified to address this particular issue. Worse is his attempt to make the pursuit of knowledge some type of essential part of this argument. Compounding the mistake, Jonathan associates Christian tradition with belief that science informs Scripture regarding the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth. Christian tradition is that Scripture informs science.

Mr. Dudley’s arguments are filled with errors and missteps. Christians throughout history have valued science, including those of the current age. It is true and tragic that some groups of Christians have made anti-intellectualism a hallmark of their personal spirituality. And, some mainstream evangelicals have wrongly associated study and increasing knowledge with being anti-spiritual. But, neither of these are inclusive of all or even the majority of Christians. Jonathan exasperates his error by treating historic theologians and historic scientists as two divergent groups. This isn’t true. Ancient theologians were often also scientists. Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Mendel, Kepler are a few names to simply begin building this list. Yes, Christians value science. Not because it was a separate way of knowing that included theology. They valued science because it was part of a larger body of knowledge that all pointed to the Creator.

Here we see Mr. Dudley’s fundamental error: That science and theology have always been two separate realms of “knowing”. There are many ways that science and theology may be viewed. Although great philosophers have sought different ways to describe these views of science and religion, they generally can be described as Ian Barbar’s four areas: “conflict”, “independence”, “dialogue”, and “integration”. I personally find Alexander’s restatement of “dialogue” as “complementary”, and “fusion” instead of “integration” as more accurate. Historically, these have all either merged into and then diverged at a later time from the fusion or integration model. In this historical model (from a Western philosophical perspective), science and theology are seen as working hand in hand, with theology as preeminent as the source of truth, and science as one of the tools to understand that truth. Scripture was viewed as the written revelation of true events, true concepts, true ideas and true knowledge that trumped anything humans would develop or derive from any other source – literature, philosophy, science. Mr. Dudley’s failure to comprehend this makes it difficult to treat his views and opinions as much more than uninformed angst.

read on to Part II

Copyright © Why Six Days? (Ronald C. Marks), 2015. All rights reserved.