Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Sharing the Good News

What Good News?)

I am in the middle of describing patterns of un-Christlike and ineffective evangelism, methods that are used by those approaching the conversation in bad faith, who want to own their “opponent” rather than convince a “brother.”

I want to start off today by pointing out the self-defeating approach of wanting to convince someone of the beauty of your faith…by trying to tear down theirs. I have heard many say that they come to share “the good news” with me, only to then spend all their time regurgitating tired accusations against Joseph Smith. That’s the good news you have to share?

This humorous anecdote captures the same spirit as this sort of evangelism: I just got married to the love of my life! She is beautiful, she is kind, she is everything I ever wanted, and I just have to share my love for her with the world! So, I walk up to my neighbor and proceed to tell him what an ugly cow his own wife is!

It is an insecure people who try to establish the superiority of their faith by tearing down another’s. When I see this approach so frequently used against my church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it makes me wonder what it is about our faith that makes others feel so threatened in their own beliefs. Is it perhaps that our “good news” is one of the most liberally gracious gospels of them all? That we testify that we are literal children of God, with the potential to become full divinity? I cannot say for sure, but I find it telling that so much emphasis is put on trying to color our “good news” as wrong, rather than testifying to the superior beauty of their own.

Speak From Beauty)

True evangelism speaks from beauty and hope, not fear and accusation. As a missionary, I learned to approach others by sharing the good that we had, not by trying to make their own faith sound bad. Since I genuinely had something exciting and hopeful to share, it was quite effective, and there were many who were drawn to our message and wanted to learn more of it.

Of course, our good news means nothing if it isn’t true, and I am proud of our missionary program that we emphasize a spiritual confirmation from God as being the only evidence of truth that matters. Don’t take my word for it, don’t let your own emotions cloud your judgment, take it to God and let Him be the final word.

I find that this method of sharing beauty and letting God confirm it is so much better, so much enlightened, than trying to tear down another’s faith. If you actually have a beautiful message to share, focus just on that, and the shortcomings in any other ideology will become self-apparent. We do not need the evangelism of cutting away another’s foundation and dropping them into a pit, then offering them your hand out of it. That is the definition of a toxic, abusive relationship, with forced dependency and manufactured helplessness. That is how cults operate, and it is a devilish and evil method indeed.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Signs of Bad Faith Arguments

Different Approaches)

I have spent the last couple days denouncing the aggressive approach that some take towards my faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, how they seek to crush the good beliefs that I hold, how they make very apparent their anger and hatred; and I have also spoken in favor of establishing a relationship, of honoring the faith of one another, of having opening an honest dialogue over differences of belief.

We can have interfaith dialogue. We can strongly disagree. We can even say, “I believe that my church is the one, true church, and I hope you come to see that for yourself.” And we can do all of it in a manner of brotherlykindness.

For the rest of this series, I want to flesh out the definition of unproductive, un-Christlike “evangelism.” In the past two posts I tried to give some examples of both good and of bad, but now I want to call out specific attitudes and practices that I have only ever seen be used by those possessed with a destroying spirit. These approaches are wrong, whether employed by others towards my faith, by members of my faith towards others, or by me towards anyone.

What Are Your Intentions?)

Intent is what matters first. Even before considering the substance of what is said, why it is said is what actually determines whether a critic comes in good faith or not. Intent means the reason behind the approach. Everything good or bad that follows in the conversation will directly stem from that underlying reason. Determining the intent of a critic is the first thing that every person seeks to understand, evaluating it subconsciously and then changing their entire posture according to what they perceive.

Sadly, having a person tell you their intent is the least reliable method of knowing what it is, as everyone will of course profess a sincere and worthy one. Most deceptive of all, they might even believe their stated intent themselves, but then the following conversation can betray other motives. Because, at the end of the day, intent does not lie. Over time, it always manifests its true form, and that true form always shapes the overall conversation, whether to good or evil.

Every critic of another’s faith will say it is their intent is to bring back to the fold those who have gone astray. They love the lost sheep, and the idea of their eternal torment compels the critic to come and save who they can. Very well, but how do you intend to save the lost soul? As we explored in the last posts, not all approaches are conducive to the convincing of others. Do you intend to win souls through sacrifice and service, through establishing a relationship and being genuinely curious to know another’s heart, through speaking from the place of a friend? Or do you intend to save souls by crushing what beliefs they have so that all that remains are yours? Because if that is what you intend, then you do not intend to save anyone at all.

If you come to convert by dismantling, then it is a destroying spirit behind your intentions. You have deemed a belief as unworthy, and your intention is to purge it. You do not intend to save a brother; you intend to damn an enemy. You do not come to save the world, but that the world through your judgment might be condemned.

And as I said earlier, when those are your intentions, that shapes all the conversation that follows.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Motives Behind Attack

Satanic Evangelism)

I think the most important question when one starts criticizing another’s faith is, “why are you doing this?” What compels one to just start going off with all the things they see as wrong in another religion? To disparage something that they know others hold as sacred?

The answer that I always hear is the same: “I’m trying to help you to see what that you’ve been misguided, so you can be saved. I’m doing this because I love you.”

Which is about as sensible as when a man strikes his wife and says he does so because of how much he loves her. Berating people for their sincerely held beliefs and insulting that which they hold sacred is abusive. It is not loving. It is not caring. It comes from a desire to tear down and not to build up. It does not seek to save. It seeks to condemn. It is not Christian. It is devilish.

Dabbling in the Dark)

I know this, because I participated in it on my mission. Back in 2009 I left on a two-year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On that mission, I often came across evangelists from other faiths, and I am sorry to say that we would occasionally get into lively sparring sessions on why we believed in our church…and why they shouldn’t believe in theirs. “Bible bashing” is the common term.

Now, when we were trained as missionaries, the potential for these Bible bashes came up, and the guidance we were given for what to do in such situations was always consistent and clear: “just don’t.” Don’t look for scriptures to prove the other side wrong. Don’t criticize or demoralize. Don’t try to win. Just don’t.

Unfortunately, pride and ego are very strong, and at times I did enter into these verbal mud-wrestling matches. And from that experience, I can attest to the motives and the feelings that are behind the dismantling of another person’s faith. It is not love, it is not charity, and it is not a desire to help them. It is cruelty. It is wanting to beat them, to make them lose. It is hoping for their damnation and rubbing their faces in it.

It is evil, pure and simple, and I repent that I ever participated in it to any degree.

The Pleasure of Domination)

The instruction of our missionary trainers was absolutely correct. No one should ever descend into Bible bashing another person’s faith.

Does that mean to never discuss spiritual differences and never respond to attacks against your faith? No. I do think there is a place for defending oneself and clarifying one’s position. I do think one ought to correct the record when his faith is misrepresented in public forums. I do think there can even be value in structured and civil debate. But if one cannot see the difference between these and disparaging and insulting another’s faith, then they cannot see the difference between righteous defense and devilish destruction. Or he is willfully ignoring the distinction because he still wants the pleasure of breaking what another has.

Because, at the end of the day, insulting someone else’s beliefs does feel “good.” It feels powerful and addicting. It rewards the carnal sensibilities within. It both satisfies and deepens one’s hunger for contention.

A person who ridicules another for their sincere beliefs does not want to save that person. He wants to dominate that person and feel superior to them. He is lashing out from a place of insecurity. I know this because I sadly experimented with those behaviors myself. I know the genuine darkness that I felt in my heart when I gave in to this temptation, and now I recognize that same darkness in those who disparage my faith. I know the ill will that it is behind it, so I do not excuse it. Not in myself and not in them.

Not only is this sort of theological bullying evil, it is also ineffective. If a person actually did sincerely wish to save a brother or a sister, then this would never be the method that they should use. We’ll take a look at what that better method would look like next time, and even consider the example of a skeptic of the LDS faith who uses it correctly.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 13:47-59

47 The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment;

48 Whether it be in the warp, or woof; of linen, or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in any thing made of skin;

49 And if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it is a plague of leprosy, and shall be shewed unto the priest:

50 And the priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up it that hath the plague seven days:

51 And he shall look on the plague on the seventh day: if the plague be spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in a skin, or in any work that is made of skin; the plague is a fretting leprosy; it is unclean.

52 He shall therefore burn that garment, whether warp or woof, in woollen or in linen, or any thing of skin, wherein the plague is: for it is a fretting leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire.

53 And if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague be not spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin;

54 Then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more:

55 And the priest shall look on the plague, after that it is washed: and, behold, if the plague have not changed his colour, and the plague be not spread; it is unclean; thou shalt burn it in the fire; it is fret inward, whether it be bare within or without.

56 And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be somewhat dark after the washing of it; then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof:

57 And if it appear still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it is a spreading plague: thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire.

58 And the garment, either warp, or woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean.

59 This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of woollen or linen, either in the warp, or woof, or any thing of skins, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean.

We conclude this chapter with an examination of what to do if an infestation is found within a garment. The garment might be made from the skin of an animal, or from flax that has been spun into linen, or wool from a sheep. Given its organic nature, it was susceptible to spreading disease, just like human skin. In this case, there were two stages of testing. The first was to see if the discolored spot spread. If it did, the garment was destroyed. If it didn’t, the spot was cleaned. If the cleaning had no effect, the garment was still destroyed. If it did have an effect, then the discolored section might be cut out and patched, or if it appeared perfectly clean it could be used without modification.

Throughout this chapter we have compared the presence of leprosy to the spreading of dangerous ideologies and trends in society. In today’s verses, the corruptible garment may well represent a man-made creation that has gone astray. Like a leaking nuclear reactor or an internet filled with pornography, things that we make with our own hands are just as susceptible to spreading corruption that harm us. As with the garment, we can consider whether the creation can be cleaned or patched or salvaged, but if not, it must be destroyed.

This concludes the preliminary instructions regarding the treatment of leprosy in man and garment. In the next chapter we will learn some more about the rituals and offerings to be made for the sake of a leprous person, and we will continue to consider what symbolic meaning that might have more broadly for our day.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 6:27-30

27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.

28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.

29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.

30 And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

I discussed yesterday how the animal to be sacrificed not only stood in for the sinner but was also symbolic of purification as well. Today’s verses continue to make that dual meaning even clearer. It is a symbol from man of what is wrong, what he must give up, but it is also a symbol from God of what is right, what He gives to us out of mercy. How fitting a duality, given that it is in our broken and wrong places that so many of us truly discover the Lord.

Verse 28 emphasizes the purifying quality of the sacrificed animal in an interesting way. It talks about how if a clay pot held the meat at any point, it must be broken, whereas a brass pot could be reused, though it had to be scoured first. Some scholars have suggested that this scouring was not about removing impurities from the brass vessel, but to removing purity. The brass pot had to be reclaimed them from its exalted state to one of regular, earthly use, whereas the clay pot had to be broken was because its material was porous, thus the residue holiness couldn’t be scrubbed out.

That interpretation might be accurate, though I see another possibility as well. Perhaps the two different treatments were symbolic of the differing effects that God’s purification has on His children. Some people receive the purification of God as a condemnation because they are still united to their sin, thus the purifying process breaks them. It would make sense that cruder, “earthen” vessels would be used to symbolize that. Meanwhile, the other effect of God’s purification is that those who are already more aligned to Him survive and become improved by the experience. That is represented by the more durable, refined brass pot.

And, of course, this pattern continues fractally. Even inside the righteous soul that survives God’s purification, there is still the part that is broken and the part that is improved. Both exist within the same person. Part of us is shattered and discarded when we meet the Lord, but part of us finally comes into its own and shines.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Threat of Good People- Patterns Big and Small

Pattern of Hate)

I’ve spent the past two days discussing the tendency of those that feel wrong to try and tear down those that seem right. The reason for this is that the very existence of the holy is a testament against the impure. The holy prove that moral living is possible, and that it is better, which means that the immoral are worse and deserving of blame.

This pattern is nothing new. To his friends Jesus foretold, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you,” (John 15:18-19).

To his enemies Jesus said, “Ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning,” (John 8:37, 44).

The children of the devil seek to destroy Jesus and also hate those he has chosen. Thus, the impulse of the wicked to destroy the righteous is nothing more than an extension of the devil’s desire to destroy God.

Woven Through All)

This animosity isn’t just political, and it isn’t isolated to one instance. What we see in our private lives is but a fractal strand of a war that is cosmic and universal. There are branches of this struggle that are relatively low stakes, such as when the awkward child tries to tear down his more successful peer, but it is the same spirit behind it that would murder a God.

The immoral want to destroy the moral because evil wants to destroy good. Meanwhile the good, if they are truly good, emulate the God at their root and seek to redeem the wicked.

Just as these cosmic, eternal forces have fractal strands woven into our society, so too, there are strands woven into our own selves as well. There is an agent of evil within us that seeks to tear down our good parts, because those good parts remind us that there is a better version of us inside, and that we are not meeting our full potential. And there is that agent of good in us that seeks to redeem the evil part and raise it to its holy potential. As we learn to find the right solution within ourselves, we will learn how to find it in our society, and our society will join God in His solution for the entire universe.

We are all part of one cosmic ritual or another, and the outcome that we support in the eternities is echoed in the outcome we seek in ourselves.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 23:24

24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

Yet again the Israelites are commanded not to worship false gods in place of the Lord. Today’s verse takes it further, though, commanding Israel to actively overthrow and break those idols. The Israelites are to be the anti-idolatry. A faithful Israelite and an unbroken pagan god cannot remain in the same place, for either the god will be broken or the Israelite will become unfaithful for not doing so.

I confess, I am not sure that I can fully identify this same attitude in my own life. Certainly there are all manner of sinful behaviors that are totally incompatible with my faith, but if I find those practices occurring around me my reaction will depend on my location. If I am out in public, or in someone else’s domain, my natural behavior would be to remove myself from that place, not to destroy the problematic elements. On the other hand, I would not tolerate anything that I perceived as an idol or a vessel of sin to stay within my house. Should I find drug paraphernalia in a drawer or pornography on a hard drive within my own home I would destroy those things.

Perhaps this difference in attitude is cultural. We do not have the legal right in our Western civilizations to destroy the things of others just because they are an affront to God, and I don’t see many Christians looking to die on that hill. Of course, it does not seem that the Israelites toppled every pagan edifice when they were a captive people in strange lands either. Perhaps such absolute refutation and destruction of false gods is dependent upon living in a free theocracy.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 9:13-16

13 And the Lord said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.

14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.

15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.

16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Pharaoh had held out for two plagues in a row, so now came the third. The Lord sent Moses yet again, and Moses was to deliver a most weighty speech to Pharaoh. Through Moses, God used language like “I will…send all my plagues upon thine heart…and upon thy people,” as well as “I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee,” and also “thou shalt be cut off from the earth!”

And all this was only the preamble! In verse 16 God made a most dramatic assertion. He told Pharaoh that the only reason why the Egyptians had enjoyed their place as a great world power was so that God could make an example out of them! God had made Pharaoh powerful so that He could break him, and show the world that the God of the Hebrews was master over all! God had propped Pharaoh up simply so that he could take a terrible blow!

We often remind ourselves that God is a God of love, and truly He is. But He is not one-dimensional. He is also a God of justice, a God of judgment, and a God of retribution. He redeems the innocent, but He also condemns the wicked. God tells us that He “shall wipe away all tears” from the faithful, but also He asserts that “vengeance is mine” against the wicked. Thus, in addition to His lovingkindness, God is capable of anger, of going to war, and of utterly destroying His enemies like no one else can. And, I would argue, nowhere is this side of God made more clear than in His dealings with the Egyptians.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Optimism in a Falling World- Luke 9:52-56

And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

COMMENTARY

And they did not receive him, and when James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Yesterday I considered Jonah’s desire to destroy the wicked. Today we see an example from Jesus’s own disciples to do the same. Because Jesus and his followers were denied access to a city, James and John sought to kill all the inhabitants with fire.

But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.
James and John might have believed they were serving the spirit of justice, yet Jesus avowed that they were serving another. What they sought was simply vengeance, and Jesus’s purpose was not to bring vengeance, but salvation.
I believe that many of those who hope for the destruction of the wicked take their cues from the stories of the Old Testament. It is in those early books that we read accounts of the earth being flooded, of fire and brimstone consuming cities, of the armies of the Lord stamping out other nations. In these stories there is a definite immediacy between evil actions and divine retribution. One could not go to war against God without quickly enduring the consequences of that action. But what is forgotten is that this was the Old Testament and the earth was in a fundamentally different situation than it is now. Mankind had been expelled from the Garden of Eden and the atonement had not yet been made. Things were far stricter, and there was little to buffer between sinful acts and the holy justice administered in return.
But Jesus Christ had come to be that buffer. Jesus Christ had come so that the immediate justice for evil works could be born out in his own body instead. Divine justice still applies, even to this day, but now it is executed in him, while mankind is given a second chance.
Thus today we now live under the New Testament. And that means that if we look at the evil in the world today and crave punishment for the guilty, we are denying the fact that that punishment was already endured by our Savior. We are therefore looking for a double punishment, one carried out upon Christ and one carried out upon those he died to save. That isn’t justice at all. Like James and John, we are not comprehending what manner of spirit we are of. It is a cold, cruel, and evil spirit, one that has nothing to do with Christ.