Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Removing the Constraints

The Problem)

In my last post I explained how the Problem of Evil, the common argument that the suffering of the world is incompatible with the existence of God, was dependent upon two presuppositions.

  1. That God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent.
  2. That our reality is created out of nothing.

When both of these are combined it means that God could have created our existence to operate by any system that He wanted, but He chose to specifically use one where suffering was necessary for growth and transcendence. And what is more, because we, ourselves, are created ex nihilo as well, we never had any agency in being added to this system, nor any say in the consequences that await us on the other side.

But I finished the last post by promising to show that not all Christian faiths, and not all non-Christian faiths, hold to these two presuppositions, and that this conundrum comes apart in these other contexts. I will show one example of both.

Eternal Souls)

The first example comes from my own Christian faith: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Our theology is unique among Christians in that we believe that we are co-eternal with God. Not only in the sense that we will live for eternity after death, but that we lived for eternity before birth. We believe that our souls, like God, are uncreated, and therefore their nature is not subject to His design.

This is important for two reasons. The first is because it suggests that the way suffering seems to be a necessary component for cultivating the fulness of our potential is baked into us from before the creation of this world. It is not a stipulation that God put upon us but a pre-existing quality that He had to account for. He designed this world to be suited to our nature, not the other way around. It is also likely that the pains of an afterlife torment are simply inherent to our pre-existing nature when we choose to live after the manner of rebellion, not an arbitrary consequence crafted by God.

The other important point is that our entering into this current state was voluntary. We believe that God proposed the creation of this world and mortal experience to us, with an understanding of all it would entail, including the hardships and dangers therein, and that we willfully chose it. We chose it because it was the right method to draw out our full potential, to develop us to be like Him.

From this perspective, the Problem of Evil is hardly a problem at all. The suffering of this world is essential to us. Not because God made it be so, but because of our inherent nature. Yes, God is all-powerful, and He could intervene in every tragedy and remove all suffering from us in the moment, but it would frustrate the entire purpose of our being here. If God prevented all pain, that would never teach us to stand forthright against the storm, only to cower behind God’s skirts. And God did not force any of this pain upon us, we chose it so that we might win the greater good on the other side.

Universal Consciousness)

Shifting gears now to a non-Christian perspective, Advaita Vedānta, one of Hinduism’s major philosophical schools, teaches a principle of universal consciousness, which states that all of us and all of creation are not separate beings at all. All of our perceived reality is but a part of one super-entity called Brahman. Thus, our perceptions of being separate beings that inflict pain upon one another, or being victims of a cruel and indifferent universe, are mere illusions. When people hurt one another, or when nature hurts humanity, it is actually just that universal consciousness hurting itself.

The Problem of Evil doesn’t make sense when our suffering is but the left hand injuring the right. No, the injury is not good, but there is no outer deity to get mad at for subjecting us to this experience. We only experience this pain because we are so insistent on our sense of individualism, trying to see ourselves as separate from the super-reality that binds us all together. All we have to do is to let go of the self, relax back into the universal consciousness, and we no longer become a subject of pain.

Thinking Outside the Box)

Obviously, I do not expect many of my readers to agree with either of these viewpoints, and therefore to not necessarily be freed from their anxiety about the Problem of Evil. But I think it is still important to see that the problem is one that arises because of presuppositional beliefs. This conundrum is not inevitable. It exists only because of context, and it evaporates in another context. It is, therefore, hardly a binding principle, and we do not have to be fettered to it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Combinations of Presuppositions

Gaining an Understanding)

In my last post I explained how I never understood the Problem of Evil, which is the common argument that the suffering that we see in the world is logically incompatible with the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God. So, to comprehend this viewpoint better, I went to some online forums to discuss it with both atheists and Christians who see this argument as credible. It took a fair bit of time, and a lot of back and forth, but finally it made sense to me. I realized that the reason it never resonated with me, but did with others, was because we had a different set of presuppositions that entirely changed the context of how we view reality. Now, I still do not have those presuppositions, so the conclusion that the suffering of this world is incompatible with God still does not resonate with me, but I do understand why it would for others. I understand why it could very well resonate with me if I shared those same presuppositions.

As an aside, I think this is an important lesson in appreciating the different beliefs and struggles of others. Very often the conclusions that others draw seem so strange and incoherent to us, and by focusing on the conclusions, we usually just continue to confuse and frustrate one another. We have to get lower, down to the underlying premises that lead to those conclusions, the fundamental beliefs that make the position become sensible and rational.

But anyway, using the information I gained, I want to spell out exactly what the presuppositions are that would make suffering and God’s goodness hard to hold in the same mind, and in the next post I will show why a different set of presuppositions would not.

The Presuppositions)

The first presupposition we have already identified. It is that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent. He loves His children, He wants goodness and happiness in the world, and He has the power and knowledge to secure it.

But as we will see, this alone is not enough. There is one other necessary presupposition, and it is often overlooked. It is creation ex nihilo, the belief that God created the universe, all of its systems, and the human species, out of nothing. All of our reality is a closed box that God had full control over the designs of. All of the ways that this life is, are because God personally wanted them to be that way.

This second presupposition is key, because without it the obvious counterargument is that yes, God does want goodness and happiness, but in His infinite wisdom He knew that a fulness of joy could only be found in overcoming great trials. He did not only want His children to have peace, He wanted them to be heroes. He wanted them to choose righteousness even when it was hard. He wanted them to be driven by a love that could overcome any adversity.

But for the critic who believes that the existence of God assumes creation ex nihilo, this counterargument holds little weight. The critic can readily agree that yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that true depth of character is acquired only by suffering. Yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that greater good is obtained through temporary evil. But then…why is humanity of that nature? If the universe is a closed box that God designed every part of, then why design humanity to operate by those rules? Why not design a humanity that becomes heroic, and loving, and strong by just having nice things happen to them?

A Sensible Question)

With both of these presuppositions: an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God, combined with creation ex nihilo, I think that critique is very strong. I do not know that I can see any convincing argument against it. I have seen how other Christians try to refute it, and at the end of the day they seem to be trying to pry off one or the other of those presuppositions. And that’s fine if you don’t happen to agree entirely with them, but most of the Christians in these arguments do actually hold both as essential to their faith.

But not every Christian denomination does hold to these presuppositions, and certainly not every non-Christian denomination. There are faiths that are absent one or the other of these claims, including my own, and to us this Problem of Evil loses its power. We will examine that in more depth tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- My Confusion

An Old Argument)

The Problem of Evil is a famous argument that the existence of evil causes a logical contradiction with the existence of God. The argument goes all the way back to the Epicurus, the Ancient Greek philosopher, and it goes as follows:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Clearly, this argument is specific to a certain popular conception of God, the “triple-omni” creator who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Critics who use this argument often say that it would therefore be possible to accept a God who is missing one of those characteristics, but not a God who has all three. Maybe He really is good but doesn’t have the power to totally eradicate evil? Maybe He really is all-powerful, but He isn’t totally good?

My Confusion)

I wanted to explore this concept more, because frankly this argument has never had any sway over me. People point to the existence of terrible suffering and evil in the world, and how it tries their faith, and I’ve never been able to sympathize with that conundrum. I simply didn’t see why the existence of one the precluded the existence of the other. To me it always felt like there was a premise missing:

Premise #1: God is all-powerful, all-caring, and all-good.
Premise #2: There is suffering in the world, including of innocent people.
Premise #3: ???
Conclusion: Therefore, premise number 1 and 2 are in contradiction. The existence of premise #2 is plainly observable, so premise #1 must be the falsehood.

Obviously, I can understand that because God is powerful and good people want the evidence of that to be a perfect, peaceful world…but isn’t that what He created? That describes the Garden of Eden exactly. He really did make a perfect world, and it was only when His children performed evil therein did it transform into a fallen world. It didn’t fall because God didn’t have the power to keep it there. It fell because He willingly handed the creation to man to “have dominion” over it, and man caused the fall. This was a choice, not a lack of power.

And now, one might say, since man did take that perfect creation and corrupt it, and now there is suffering, why wouldn’t a powerful and loving God save and redeem it? But once again…isn’t that exactly what He is doing? Isn’t the message of the gospel, that He sent His son to die for the sins of the world, unlocking the capacity to restore paradise from within our hearts, reclaiming us, one soul at a time? And obviously some may prefer that He would redeem it more immediately, not by this slow, gradual process, but I think we see in the story of Noah how that would not be an act of kindness. God did stamp out all evil on a large scale once before, and hardly anyone was able to survive it. Is that really the more immediate method that we would like Him to use on us today? It seems clear that the slow, deliberate method of winning souls is due to God’s mercy towards us, not due to a limitation of His power.

Learning From Others)

However, this Problem of Evil argument still bears real sway over many people in our society, atheists and Christians alike, and I decided I wanted to understand it better. I wanted to see if there was something that I was missing. A piece of the logical formula that I hadn’t appreciated before. So, I created a few posts online, both directed towards believers who struggle with this conundrum, and atheists who subscribe to it. I explained my inability to understand the validity of the argument and asked them to enlighten me.

I evaluated the logic of what they said and pushed back in many cases, because most arguments amounted to little more than an emotional desire for peace today. That is a totally understandable feeling, but hardly a logical contradiction of God.

To my delight, though, I was able to find some commentators who gradually led me to understand what I was missing. It took a bit, because these commentators had presumptions they didn’t even recognize, which were presumptions I didn’t even have. Recognizing what these were, and how if I did have those same presumptions, it would similarly test my faith, I finally felt like I understood the argument. I still didn’t agree with it personally, but I saw the valid points that it raised. In my next post I will explain what these critical presumptions are, and why they don’t apply to me.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Possibility of an Answer

With difficult spiritual questions we sometimes just need to know that an answer is possible, even if we don’t yet know what it is. Shapes and shadowy forms suggest something concrete beyond the veil, and that is enough for man to believe.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Summary

Wandering Thoughts)

I’ve spent the last two weeks on this series, discussing the ineffective and outright bigoted ways that people evangelize against other faiths. It is a subject that has stirred my passions many times in the past, and certainly again while writing each post. At several points I thought I was finished but then had “one more thing” that I wanted to include. I apologize that this hasn’t made the series very structured. What you see in this blog is my personal study in its raw form, not a refined or final product.

As such, I thought I ought to make one final post to summarize everything that came before, to try and bring it into a clearer, more concise package. Here are what I personally take out as the core distinctions described in this study:

1. The distinction between having a respectful dialogue on doctrinal differences and trying to win an argument over the beliefs of another.

A respectful dialogue on doctrinal differences is defined by:

  • Seeking a sincere understanding of the other’s position.
  • Letting each side define their own beliefs.
  • Acknowledging personal uncertainty, admitting to gaps that are filled by faith.
  • Being open to being wrong, to gaining greater enlightenment and changing.
  • Being driven by a spirit of brotherhood, with genuine appreciation for one another.

Trying to win argument over the beliefs of another is defined by:

  • Being filled with a spirit of destruction.
  • Trying to define the faith of the other.
  • Mocking what is sacred to the other.
  • Maintaining absolute certainty in one’s position, considering it impossible to be wrong.
  • Being fueled by a spirit of contempt, needing to own one’s opponent, needing to condemn them.

2. The distinction between evangelizing for a faith vs evangelizing against a faith.

Evangelizing for a faith is defined by:

  • First establishing a genuine relationship of care and respect for the other party.
  • Speaking from the beauty of your gospel.
  • Inviting all to listen and learn more if they wish.
  • Presenting your doctrine as something to add to the faith they already have.
  • If the other party is not interested in investigating further, still maintaining respect and an ongoing relationship of brotherly-kindliness.
  • Leaving all judgments to God, not assuming His position.

Evangelizing against a faith is defined by:

  • Describing all that is wrong in the other’s faith.
  • Seeking to take away what faith a person has.
  • Condemning the other person, standing in for God to judge them.
  • Offering your doctrine as the last remaining option after their original faith has been destroyed.
  • Creating a relationship of spiritual dependency in the other person.

In Conclusion)

I spent so long on this subject because I believe it describes a pernicious evil that goes largely unrecognized in our culture. It is presented under the guise of “I’m trying to help save souls,” but secretly seeks to crush them. It is one of the most relevant modern examples of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and it is those sneaky, camouflaged sins that need the most attention to call them out.

I also wanted to be clear that I’ve been on both sides of these matters, and I shared about those experiences a few times in this study. I know what it is to have a positive, uplifting, mutually-faith-reinforcing conversation with people that believe differently from me. I also know what it is to want to win an argument and decimate the doctrines of another person. I’m trying to live after the better pattern now, but I have at times given in to ego and pride just like anyone else. As such, I know the spirits that lie behind both approaches. I know that the first kind is good, and of God. I know that the second is evil, and of Satan.

I know the pure, clarifying, life-giving water of genuine spiritual dialogue. I know the devilish surge of adrenalin in the wine of contention. The latter is seductive, but the former is life-giving, and I hope that you and I may approach one another as brothers and sisters and share a drink of it together.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- The Example of Joseph Smith

A Principle of Tolerance)

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and as such, have been instilled with the principles of religious liberty and mutual respect that our founders so strongly espoused. I do not know if many outsiders understand how deeply that principle is ingrained within our church. I would like to give two quotes that demonstrate the sort of teaching that we were given on the matter by our founder, Joseph Smith.

First, when asked by newspaper editor John Wentworth to give a description of our beliefs Joseph Smith detailed our 13 most fundamental tenets, now canonized as our 13 Articles of Faith. Number 11 reads as follows: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

Even more emphatically, Joseph Smith declared the following to a gathered congregation of the church in Nauvoo, “If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.”

Further Context)

It should be noted that Joseph penned the first quote in 1842, he spoke the second quote in 1843, and he was murdered in 1844. Before making either of those quotes, Joseph Smith had already been disparaged, tortured, and nearly killed many times over. His people had had their homes burned, their women raped, and their men slaughtered. Since 1838 the state of Missouri had had a standing order permitting the killing of any member of the church.

It is certain that some of those who oppressed and killed Joseph Smith and his people were of the same denominations that he spoke in defense of the rights of in 1843. He made that declaration knowing full well who his attackers were, apparently able to separate the devilish nature of the individual from the respectable faith of the whole.

Of course, the doctrines he restored stood in disagreement to doctrines in those other churches. And yes, he taught that these other churches had adopted false creeds which were an abomination to God. But those doctrinal disagreements did not mean that he reviled the sincere holders of those beliefs or wanted their churches to be crushed. Indeed, his words show quite the opposite. Joseph Smith is arguably one of the most perfect examples of both having utmost respect for the beliefs of others, while also disagreeing profoundly with them. He knew that people have the right to their faith, and that changing the beliefs of another was to be done only by loving invitation, not by decimation of their doctrine. I will finish with just a few more quotes from him that illustrate this clearly.

“If I esteem mankind to be in error shall I bear them down? No! I will lift them up… If I cannot persuade him my way is better, I will ask no man to believe as I do,” (Joseph Smith Papers).

“In relation to the power…which I hold, I would say it is in consequence of the power of truth in the doctrines which I have been an instrument in the hands of God of presenting unto them and not because of any compulsion on my part… I ask, did I ever exercise any compulsion over any man? Did I not give him the liberty of disbelieving any doctrine I have preached if he saw fit?” (Joseph Smith Papers).

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained… only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned,” (D&C 121:41).

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- The Folly of Condemning

Illogical Condemnation)

It is a strange experience listening to the predominant criticisms of my faith, the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most critics make it a point to express that we are not sinful or selfish people. They acknowledge that we tend to be a kind, caring, sacrificing, serving, and loving community. In statistical studies we regularly rank at the top for charitable giving, family cohesion, Biblical knowledge, and clean living. When our own people of Grand Blanc, Michigan were slaughtered in their pews for their faith last year, our community contributed heavily to the family of the shooter who also died in the tragedy. Everyone seems to agree that our behavior is exemplary, that our attitude is in great alignment with what Christ exemplified.

So, what then is our great evil that requires such a drastic intervention of evangelists coming to break our faith and convict us of our damnable state? Wrong-think.

Our loudest critics respect the sort of people our beliefs have cultivated us to be, but they still intend to crush those beliefs so we can finally be saved. They want to chop down the “evil” tree, even as they admit to it bearing good fruit. It is a paradox that they cannot reasonably explain, they only know that they want to kill this tree regardless of the good it serves. They do not consider whether the fruit will wither if the tree is dead.

In the end, their intention is the same as Thomas Sanford, that shooter who slaughtered our congregants in Grand Blanc, Michigan. It may be a quieter version of that spirit, but they still hold that same intention to destroy. They show a complete ignorance and utter lack of respect for the thing they want to kill, but kill it they must.

Sinful Condemnation)

If it wasn’t clear already, I’m pretty fired up about this topic. I believe that the disrespect for the sincere beliefs of another is a grave stain in our society, especially when the subject of that disrespect is otherwise a commendable citizen and neighbor. The sin that is being performed here is playing God.

At the end of the day, even the best of us are idiots, and idiots have no place condemning a brother. That is rightfully only the Lord’s position, and the rest of us should leave judgment to Him. Playing God is wrong, no matter which of us do it, but when the people doing it are condemning those who are statistically more moral, it is particularly backwards and infuriating.

It is infuriating when I do it. It is infuriating when you do it. And worse than infuriating, it is a sin. Jesus explicitly forbade it in Matthew 7:1-2. “Condemn not, that ye be not condemned. For with what condemnation ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Those who love to tell me how stupid I am for believing Joseph Smith is a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and most importantly who tell me that I’m going to hell because of these beliefs, are condemning me where they have no right to do so. Their condemnation of me has no effect on the state of my soul, that remains strictly between me and God, but as Jesus explained in those verses, their condemnation does have an effect on the state of their own future judgment. I pray that they will seek forgiveness for their condemning spirit.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Can You Change?

Follower of Truth)

Yesterday I spoke about how each of us not only require faith that God is real, but that we are following Him in the right way. Personally, I do believe in receiving spiritual witnesses from God, and I have received them myself, but even those still leave me in a place of faith and trust, not perfect knowledge.

In the end, this means that I have to accept that I could be wrong. I could be in the right church, but wrong in my conception of it. Or I could be in the right family of faith, Christianity, but wrong in the specific denomination I attend. Or I could be right about there being a God, but wrong about following Christ. Or I could be wrong about there even being a God. All of these are possible. At each deeper level, I feel more certain of my belief. I feel so certain of many of them that it would take a divine intervention to unseat me…but even so, I could still be wrong.

When it comes to the church that I am baptized in, the leaders that I listen to, the spiritual rituals that I observe, and the standard of life I try to live, I do these things because I think they are right and I am trying to follow the Truth. My first and foremost commitment is to the Truth, and I am trying to follow it wherever it leads me. It has led me to change some aspects of my discipleship, and it has reinforced others, and I expect it to continue to do so until I meet it face-to-face.

Willingness to Change)

I frankly do not believe that it is the same with many who come to accuse me of false beliefs. In conversations with them I have tried to express this shared foundation of uncertainty, the fact that both of us are operating on faith, the mutual possibility of being wrong, and the humility with which we should therefore approach one another…only to have them refuse to meet me on this common ground. They express that they know their creeds are divinely authored. They know their interpretations are correct. They know that I am wrong and going to hell.

I found this unjustifiable certainty very confusing, and I described a theoretical to make sure I was understanding them correctly: “Let’s suppose you and I both die tomorrow, and we meet at the gates to heaven, and Jesus is there to welcome us, and he informs me that I was misguided in my faith. He says that I should have belonged to your church all along and not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this situation, I genuinely believe that I would accept his word. I would accept your position as being the correct one and mine as being wrong. What’s more, I would accept whatever judgment Christ has for me given that I went astray. Whatever his judgment is, it is, by definition, just and right. Or, if I would not be so gracious in correction, then I here admit it would be because I was proud, and arrogant, and more in love with my own conceptions than with my Savior.” And then, having given this theoretical and my personal feelings about it, my follow-up question to the person attacking my faith is very simple: “What about for you if the situation was reversed? If Jesus told you that you were wrong, would you renounce your faith and accept ‘Mormonism?'”

What I found very telling was how uncomfortable everyone became when I asked this question. They would not give me straight answers. They would tell me that what I was asking was a logical impossibility, and therefore pointless to engage with. They would say that Mormonism is false as an absolute fact, and that therefore the mental exercise was absurd. They would tell me that in my half of the theoretical it would be too late for me to accept the true faith after I had died, focusing on that aspect rather than addressing their half of the theoretical. One way or another, they simply would not entertain the possibility of receiving correction in their faith, even as a thought experiment. They were closed-minded and closed-hearted, and there really was no point in continuing a conversation with them.

A healthy dialogue of differences can only be had between two people who are both seeking the truth. But to be a seeker of truth, by definition, means not yet having it fully. When one of the people in the conversation is not a seeker, when they insist upon already being the haver and the other person being the not-haver, then they hold a fundamental air of superiority and have closed themselves to one direction of dialogue only: them telling you what is right, and you accepting it or staying wrong. There can be no back-and-forth, no mutual understanding, no lifting each other to greater clarity. This is a pattern of domineering and abuse, and it is not how Christ meant for us to reason with one another. Once a person shows that they will insist on such a dynamic, I will not continue to participate any further. I insist on better than “perfect” knowers. I insist on flawed seekers of truth.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Admission of Uncertainty

Admission of Faith)

Today I wanted to cover one more example I frequently see of un-Christlike and ineffective doctrinal critique. An attitude that once it manifests, I conclude that the critic is acting in bad faith, more interested in winning a debate than convincing a brother.

And that is when they show absolute certainty of their position.

I believe this bad-faith approach is an extension of our debate culture. In a formal debate, there is no room for uncertainty and nuance. A debater must show absolute confidence in his opinion, and his only aim is to prove that position is correct. I find it very tiring that so much of online discourse falls into this same mindset, that people cannot merely share different views, or disagree, or even argue like real people anymore.

Because real people actually know very little and believe very much. And real people are able to admit that.

As I have said all throughout this series, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I believe that my church is true. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, I believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, I believe that this church is uniquely endowed with the priesthood authority of Christ, I believe that the path to fulness of union with God is through the principles and ordinances of the gospel, I believe the unique teachings of the premortal existence and afterlife and the potential to become like God are true. I believe all of these points, some of them extremely strongly, and also…I could be wrong on all of them.

I admit to true and sincere faith, not to sure and certain knowing. I am an active member of my church because I genuinely believe in its divine mission, but I cannot claim that there is zero chance that I have been deceived. I genuinely think that I am both rational and well-attuned to the spirit and conscience within me, but I have been wrong about some things in the past, and I can be wrong about more.

I am willing to admit all this because it is honest. One might think this admission might present a weak and vulnerable point, but not really, because I know that any critic of my beliefs is also operating by faith in areas of uncertainty, just like me. Just as I cannot perfectly know my position is right, you cannot perfectly know that it is wrong. Yet there are many critics that pretend that they do know perfectly, and once they make that arrogance clear I have no interest in listening to them any further, because they are liars, deluded by their own pride.

Gaps in Every Faith)

The fact is that every single one of us has gaps in our knowledge of the truth. Gaps that have to be filled with faith. When we pretend to have no gaps, that is when we are truly deceived.

Every Christian has faith that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of the world, but even beyond that they have faith that their own church is in alignment with that Lord and Savior. Because, if we are being honest, every Christian church in the world today has a gap between them and Jesus, and that gap has to be filled with faith.

When we look at the earliest Christian churches, there is a gap of decades between the end of the New Testament, and the next Christian writers. And among those writers (Ignatius, Clement, Didache, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.) we see disagreements and division. Thus, there is a gap of certainty to be filled with faith on which, if any, of the second wave Christian writers were correct. Eventually these doctrinal divisions led to the establishment of formal creeds to settle the disputes. This is another gap of certainty as to whether the conclusions of those creeds were correct, or whether the oppositions to them were. Eventually major schisms occurred, such as the separation of the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches, and this is another gap of certainty as to which side, if either, was correct. Later, some would accuse the church of having lost its way. Another gap of uncertainty. Reformers would attempt to correct the orthodoxy through the formation of new churches. Another gap. And in some cases, such as with my faith, it is believed the true authority had been lost long before, and had to be entirely restored, not just reformed. Another gap, to be sure.

And then, even after all that, even if a specific Christian church is the true embodiment of our Lord’s gospel today, an individual within that church will still need to correctly understand and interpret that church’s doctrine, which is yet another gap of certainty.

The reality is that each and every one of us has many gaps that we fill with faith to hold the beliefs that we do, and anyone who claims otherwise is deceived. If there were not these points of uncertainty, there could be no honest disagreement about what Christ’s truth was, and clearly that is not the world we live in. Ideally each of us would say that even though we believe we have found the truth that is most consistent, most justifiable, most supported by the evidence…that we can still acknowledge that others who disagree may have sincere and valid reasons for doing so.

On top of our faith in Christ, there is faith that we are also in his correct church, and there is faith that we understand the doctrines of that correct church correctly. And so, we believe and express that belief sincerely, but we also couple that conviction with the humble admission that our knowledge is imperfect, and that other people have good reasons for thinking something different.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Making Up Beliefs

Defining My Faith)

I am in the middle of describing patterns of un-Christlike and ineffective evangelism. These are ways that people show that they are coming to the table in bad faith, more interested in owning their “opponent” than convincing a “brother.”

Today I will be highlighting the practice of defining another person’s beliefs for them. This is a theological strawman argument, where you assert beliefs that another church holds, and show why those beliefs are ridiculous. The only problem, though, is that the people in that faith doesn’t actually hold those beliefs!

Recently I saw this video of Jonathan Pageau expressing this exact experience in critics of his Eastern Orthodox faith, and it was interesting to see that his church is experiencing the same sort of misrepresentation that mine does. This is not a limited experience, rather it seems to be a common technique of spiritual bigotry.

One of the most common ways this is used against my faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is to find an outlandish quote of a long-since past church leader and demanding that we defend the doctrinal views expressed there. It doesn’t matter that neither I, nor any members of my faith actually hold that position, we’re told that we are required to. A requirement that actually goes against our fundamental understanding of authority, as we explicitly claim to not view our leaders as infallible!

Another common critique is our worship of Joseph Smith. Something that we simply never have done and never will! He has only ever been held in the same esteem as any other prophet or leader of God’s people. The same that any other Christian would view Moses or Peter, that is how the Saints have viewed Joseph from 1820 until now. He is extremely important, an essential character in the history of the faith, deserving of our respect and study…but never worshipped. Worship is limited to our God and Jesus and no one else. But you cannot imagine the number of times I have told that to people, only to have them smile, shake their heads, and inform me that that’s not what I really believe.

Speak For Yourself)

One of my favorite experiences while serving as a missionary for my church was when we came across a Pandit of the Hindu faith. We sat down with him for probably about an hour and heard him explain his faith in his own terms. It was beautiful. I really learned a great deal in a short amount of time, saw parallels between our beliefs that I never expected, and left realizing that Hinduism was far less “weird” than I had been led to assume. Did I leave as a Hindu? No. But I left as a better person for having let a person define his own faith to me, rather than trying to force him into the box of my misconceptions.

So it should be in all of these conversations. Unless you have spent extensive time studying the beliefs of a faith from the actual practitioners, you do not understand their faith and cannot debate its merits with accuracy. And obviously, most critics of a faith will have instead only learned about it from its detractors, and there cannot be a worse method of education than that!

But even if you do learn the church’s theology in a genuine manner, that still tells you nothing about the idiosyncrasies in the faith of the individual within that system. Some people are orthodox and some people are lax. Some people put more emphasis on what the scripture says, some people prefer the teachings of their modern leaders, and some people are guided by their own conscience. Even when all the same doctrines are shared by a people, different lenses and perspectives will result in a broad array of diverse interpretations of those doctrines. Thus, after you have done the genuine work to understand the faith as a whole, then you still must learn the faith of the individual that you are actually speaking to.

Thus, if your first interaction with me is to speak against my faith, you are a fool. You don’t even know anything about what my faith even is, and if you don’t know anything about what it is, then what is your justification in speaking against it?