Means of Truth

Paul Was Wrong

2015-08-23T20:16:00.001-07:00

'Paul was wrong'....It was a simple yet profound thought that entered my mind more than 11 years ago. The implications were staggering. I had always been taught and believed that the Bible was inerrant. At the time, I believed in what is technically known as verbal plenary inspiration: The authors were inspired by God to write His words, with liberty to use their own voice and perspective, and all of the words came together to communicate a perfect, equally authoritative truth, including all historical and scientific claims. If God is perfect, and he inspired or breathed into the words, then the truth communicated by those words were completely true. Yet here was this thought nagging at me, threatening to completely destroy the rigid framework that I had regarding the nature of Scripture, on which my entire faith was based.

The thought wasn't planted in my mind by some rogue professor in college. I knew very few people who were not Christians. I went to evangelical Christian schools where the opposite was taught. I had no external reason for the thought to be there, and I also knew its implications would mean some level of ostracism by some of my conservative evangelical community. I had every external reason in the world to quickly dismiss it and continue to go with the flow. And yet, there it remained. Over the years, all of these reasons why it shouldn't have been there has given me great peace that God put me on this path for a reason.

You might think I came across some contradiction that I couldn't reconcile, or that there was some irrefutable scientific or historical evidence to prove a claim Paul, or the Bible in general, made was wrong. No, I had read all about those contradictions. I knew that all someone had to do was to give one incredibly improbable, but technically plausible answer to maintain inerrancy; and whole books were written about these brain-twisting scenarios (I’ve read some of them!).

At some point, I simply started to become uncomfortable with Paul's emphasis on the second coming of Christ.

It seemed clear to me that Paul was aggressively setting his audience's expectations for an imminent, physical return of Christ. He taught that many of them would be alive when Christ returned. He said “we shall not all die, but we shall all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet-call. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will rise immortal, and we shall be changed.”[1] Keep in mind that when Paul wrote the word "we", he wasn't thinking about present 'you', or some futuristic 'them'. He meant himself and/or those to whom he was specifically writing.

Paul gave a similar message to the Thessalonians: “For this we tell you as the Lord’s word: we who are left alive until the Lord comes shall not forestall those who have died; because at the word of command, at the sound of the archangel’s voice and God’s trumpet-call, the Lord himself will descend from heaven; first the Christian dead will rise, then we who are alive shall join them, caught up in clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”[2] He was addressing this only because some people were dying, and the church (again, taught to expect the imminent return) was confused as to what would happen to these dead people when Jesus returned. He also encouraged the Thessalonians to “wait expectantly for the appearance from heaven of . . . Jesus.”[3]

Ultimately, I came to firmly believe that Paul emphatically believed in the literal, physical return of Christ within his lifetime OR the lifetime of those he was writing to.

Paul didn't know the day or the hour, and I imagine he would have admitted this fact. But that does not mean he didn't think that soon meant literally soon. I may not know the day or the hour of when the temperature outside will reach 40 degrees, but I fully believe it will happen sometime very soon. If that didn't happen for 2,000 years, I'd be clearly wrong in that belief.

Peter also addressed the delay by saying the famous phrase about a day to God being a thousand years and visa versa. This, however, doesn't take away the fact that Paul believed what he did. If he was wrong about this very fundamental aspect of the Christian faith, what else could he have misunderstood?

The most common response to this comes from those that think that Paul never stated it would definitely happen, but only that the church should be expectant for it to happen at any time. This belief just does not line up with the evidence and is based on a preconceived idea that he simply can't be wrong in order to interpret what he said in this way. No, he didn't just passively say it could happen soon, he aggressively and proactively said it would happen soon.

Some people have said that they can believe he misunderstood the timing, but the Bible is still inerrant because God knew the words about the second coming, and more specifically the resurrection of the dead, were for the final group of Christians, not them. This is an even less logical position. There are many ways you can tell someone about the future without saying "you will not all die". You can tell people to always be expectant, without saying that something is definitely going to happen very soon. Paul can't suddenly be right by us changing the audience from the New Testament church to some futuristic people to whom the statement may actually, someday apply. You have to first believe in inerrancy in order to read the Bible this way. Even if this is the case, it seems quite sad for the people to whom Paul was writing. We at least know it may or may not be 'we' who will not die before Christ returns. They, however, simply believed Paul when he said 'we'.

Other passages from Paul started to make a little more sense to me considering 'Paul was wrong'. Paul promoted a lifestyle reflecting his beliefs about the world’s approaching end. He saw little need to care about worldly matters. He proclaimed: “What I mean, my friends, is this. The time we live in will not last long. While it lasts, married men should be as if they had no wives; mourners should be as if they had nothing to grieve them, the joyful as if they did not rejoice, buyers must not count on keeping what they buy, nor those who use the world’s wealth on using it to the full. For the whole frame of this world is passing away.”[4]

In other words, Christians should be apathetic about everything in this dying world – including families, friends, love, possessions, happiness, and sadness. This would make total sense if there was no "future" to plan for or to expect. How would you act if you were 100% convinced Jesus was returning sometime within the next 20 years or so? I wouldn't care about my 401k to start.

'Paul was wrong' about the timing (and perhaps nature?) of Jesus' physical return. I did not come to this conclusion lightly or without significant research, for I knew that I could no longer accept inerrancy with this belief. In fact, I spent a number of years reading books about the second coming, about Jesus' own claims of the "end times", and the confusing topic of what the "kingdom of God" actually means. I learned all about preterism, and the concept that many (or all) of the predictions in the Bible actually came true with the destruction Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. I learned how to understand the "end of the age" as being the complete destruction of the Jewish way of life. I followed the path wherever it led and always came back to the same conclusion regarding Paul. I knew acceptance of one error meant that error could be the answer to more questions. And I was also acutely aware of how dangerous this path was in terms of leading to subjective truth and creating a gospel of my own design.

For many years thereafter, I believed you couldn't have a reasonable faith without inerrancy (I still think the logical reasoning for wanting inerrancy is strong), and that you couldn't be reasonable and believe in inerrancy (due primarily to the issue I laid out above). I was in a place that was truly limbo. I had no idea how to have faith without the soothing belief that there is no error in Scripture. When that belief collapsed, I was adrift, without any foundation on which to stand with any degree of certainty. I was strangely at peace with it all, but also knew that it would take a long time to get back to firm footing, whether or not I would somehow be able to convince myself to not believe what I had come to believe.

'Paul was wrong' was a thought and subsequent belief that changed my entire life. I have since built an entirely new faith structure; one that is centered not on a perfect Bible of God, but in the perfect Word of God, Jesus Christ. I understand one might question my ability to trust in who Jesus was or what He said if I'm willing to accept possible error in the Bible. I simply believe that the synoptic gospels are inexplicably consistent in their description of Jesus and what He said and did; and that they are an entirely reasonable source to rely on to know and believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The book of John is a bit different, but it is also a very reliable source of authoritative truth, confirmed by early church eyewitnesses, and helps us understand the significance of his life and the meaning behind what he taught (though not necessarily word for word what he actually said).

The remainder of Scripture is my primary source for spiritual truth, and represents both the history of humans’ interaction with God, and of God's interaction with humans. Jesus really is the key for me to understand Scripture. If something contradicts what Jesus taught, then it’s not truth. He defines and frames all truth.

I believe that the Bible is the highest, but not only, form of God's communication directly to us and that objective truth can be found therein. I simply am no longer bound to defend every word as literal; or to believe because the Old Testament says that God said something, that he really did; or that because a Biblical author thought slavery was morally acceptable, that I have to as well.

I don't think faith was ever meant to feel safe. 'Paul was wrong' is not safe. It's messy. I don't blame anyone for disagreeing with me, or not being able to embrace such unsettling ambiguity regarding the nature of Scripture. As some might expect, I have had to manage a torrent of questions and doubts concerning my faith and the Bible over the years, and may continue to do so at some level. But so far, 'Paul was wrong' has been the catalyst to a much deeper and stronger faith than I ever thought possible.

I still don't have it all figured out or have all the answers, but what is reasonable faith if not belief in the midst of educated uncertainty? I believe my faith will continue to grow stronger in the balance of certainty and uncertainty, and I choose to embrace both without fear.

1 I Corinthians 15:51-52

2 I Thessalonians 4:15-17

3 I Thessalonians 1:10

4 I Corinthians 7:29-31

Reflection on the Middle Finger

2013-12-31T09:38:00.000-08:00

I flipped a man off the other day in a McDonald's drive through. After an initial re-check in his rear view mirror, he stormed out of his car and proceeded to menacingly approach my car, all while yelling a string of profanities peppered with the threat of breaking my finger. I simply told him, repeatedly, that he should get in line next time. For a split second, I thought about what I was going to do if he got closer to my car, but surprisingly, I didn't flinch or move or express any interest whatsoever in this man’s aggression. I was numb. ‘So this is life when you are hurting’, I thought.

You see, this McDonald’s had two lanes for ordering. At the end of a long single line of cars, you could pick between the two lanes. As you get closer, you rely on the car in front of you to make their choice before you pull forward. This man had driven past the long line of cars and swooped into the right lane opening in front of me. I can’t say I was furious. I was simply agitated at this blatant lack of regard for those of us in line. I rarely crank up that lever of profanity, but this day, it felt right. He looked in his side mirror and I let him know that I was devoid of love for him, that I thought he was a scoundrel, and that I hoped he would be screwed in return for screwing me out of my place in line.

I’m ashamed to admit that this is sometimes how I think and feel, but I don’t typically respond in this way. I was having a really bad day. Not an excuse for my behavior, but a reason nonetheless. As my brother so eloquently put it, I was “marinating in the pot of self-pity”, that was “flavored with excuses and kept hot with justifications”, or simply engaging in some “stinkin’ thinkin’”. I felt like a failure, that I wasn’t good enough and my faults were too big to overcome. I felt frustrated and sad. All I could think about was who I wasn’t, my weaknesses, my distracted and sporadic mind and the negative impact I was having on my family because of these weaknesses. I knew things would get better, but they’d only get better because I would forget or choose to ignore the depressing reality at hand. Emotions seem silly when you recount them, but they were very real at the time.

My reaction to a relatively minor inconvenience was a reflection on me, and I knew it. I was hurting. I found some other jerk besides myself to focus on for a minute and I was almost relieved to have the reprieve to my own personal suffering. I needed to be angry at that man so I didn’t have to be angry at myself for those few seconds. When the guy got out of his car so quickly, I suddenly realized that I had given him that same reprieve. We were two strangers, broken men, colliding in a brief moment in time, grasping at an insignificant, fortuitous opportunity to redirect our negative emotions on someone other than ourselves.

Mark 12:31 says to ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’. What this situation reminded me of is just how difficult it is to love your neighbor when you don’t love yourself. Luke 6:45 says that ‘what you say flows from what is in your heart.’ Sometimes we fool ourselves into thinking that our response to the brokenness and ugliness of hearts around us is an outward facing mirror to the world. We want to let people see just how ugly they really are.

What I learned is that in this warped pursuit of justice, we really just let people see how ugly we really are. That middle finger was actually a mirror facing me, showing me my own ugliness and pain…a real-time reflection of my own soul, not the soul I was intending to condemn. Sometimes those who offend or hurt us are just hurting, broken people desperately wanting to keep the focus on other people’s brokenness rather than their own. Responding in kind only confirms our own need for the same. I am called to a higher standard, as are we all who claim to follow Jesus, and it starts by loving myself and who I am created to be. It’s a life long journey.

Homosexuality and Christianity: A Call to Compassion

2013-11-14T18:27:00.000-08:00

I’m not going to give an opinion on the morality of homosexual relationships. There are plenty of opinions on this issue. Lines have been drawn in the sand. I get it. And I understand the challenges. My brother is gay. We grew up in a Southern Baptist church. Believe me, I get it.

I’m not going to be yet another voice calling everyone to just love each other. This sounds really great, and it’s true, but most people say it like it’s this magical thing that will solve the problem. Love is complicated sometimes because love is demonstrated by doing things for people. What may seem like the loving thing to do to one person, can be extremely offensive to another, depending upon the frame of reference and your beliefs. Of course love is important, but there is a precursor to love that I feel is often missing in any discussion on this topic—Compassion.

Compassion is sharing in feeling. The Samaritan of Luke 10 “felt compassion” before he loved the beaten man by doing something for him. We need to stop talking and stop trying to “love” and start feeling first.

Compassion isn’t always easy. Sometimes you’ve never been in the shoes of someone else, and it’s difficult to actually feel something when you’ve never felt it before. So to all of us who have never had someone tell us that our emotional and physical attractions are wrong, we have to do our best to think through how we might feel in a similar situation.

If you’re a heterosexual, think about how much this attraction drives what you do, how you feel, the people you hang out with and how you hang out with them, the thoughts you have, who you love and want to love, the feelings you have towards other people, how you interact with other people, how you view yourself as a human being, and so much more. Just contemplate for a brief moment the immersive effect this reality has on your life and how little you consciously decide to act in the way you do. It's so....natural, and normal, and…you. Now, imagine, no matter how difficult it might be to do so, that you were just told that how you respond to this attraction, all of it, is an abomination. That feeling the way you do is twisted and the roots of a horrible sin that will result in eternal torment and separation from God.

Imagine being told that your attraction to the opposite sex is a temptation, and you are only judged on how you respond to the attraction. How would this affect you? How would you define what was “the act” and what was simply “you”? If you believed it to be true, would you have the courage to try to re-wire who you are and how you feel as a person in order to be able to be intimate with someone of the same sex? On a deeper level, could you bring yourself to the level of attraction and pursuit needed to sustain a happy relationship and/or marriage with a person of the same sex? Would you be able to choose celibacy and a life of constant struggle to contain your feelings and thoughts? While many might discourage such an “impossible” hypothetical, I think it is a valuable way to gain some perspective.

While conservative Christians have the most work to do in the compassion area, I do think compassion is reciprocal in any sensitive subject. A majority of Christians have a deeply held belief, either through extensive contemplation and study or by simply starting their framework of faith with the assumption, that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in every single aspect. It is truly, word for word, God's word and is the final and singular authority for all of life. Many thinking Christians believe this while also believing that it should be interpreted with an understanding of time and culture. These Christians, after studying the handful of verses on homosexuality, come to the conclusion that the Bible's condemnation of this activity is not bound by culture and time, or simply wrong, but is applicable for all of time.

These Christians then have the often difficult decision of what to do with his belief. Some, in error I believe, feel it necessary to go to the streets to condemn the sin of everyone else, often in a selfish attempt to increase their own self-worth. How these people don’t read the story of the Pharisees who bring the adulterous woman to Jesus, and see themselves, is utterly beyond me.

Others, of the more loving and reasonable sort, believe they need to stand up for ethics and morality and urge each other to live holy lives that do not go against Scripture, much in the same way they might encourage singles to abstain from sex until marriage. These Christians see no way around their beliefs about Scripture and what they believe it says regarding this issue. If you don’t currently share this belief, can you at least feel the difficulty of wanting to encourage people in their relationship with God and help one another remove the barriers of sin that limit our relationship with God, but not come across as judging? If you believed homosexuality is a sin, and someone you love is gay, how would you respond? Can you feel how emotionally difficult this would be? How would you “support” them and still feel like you’re honoring God and your own personal beliefs? Would you allow a spiritual leader in the church to actively and openly engage in what you and/or others believe to be sinful behavior? There are many more difficult questions.

This issue is complex because it involves these very deep, personal aspects of people’s lives: faith, identity, equality, and justice. When you pit someone’s view of Scripture (essentially their faith infrastructure) against someone else’s identity and sexuality (and the pursuit of equality and justice by their supporters), people will get emotional and fired up to protect those areas most important to them. As a comparison, we once pitted people’s view of Scripture, along with their economic interests, against other people’s identity and skin color (and the pursuit of justice and equality by their supporters)…the result was the Civil War. While this is not a perfect analogy, there are interesting similarities to the lengths good people will go to protect these deeply personal aspects of their lives.

Homosexuals that believe in God, the truth of Scripture and want a relationship with Jesus must make a decision on what to do with the claim that how they feel is the root of a horrible evil. Traditional Christianity offers a difficult choice: a gay person must either deny a part of who they feel they are as an individual and have access to the deep, personal relationship with God that most of us crave; or they accept themselves and who they feel they are, and give up any hope of a deep, personal relationship with God. If you believe this, you must meditate on the gut-wrenching effect that such a statement has on homosexuals, whether or not they actually agree with you. Faith and identity are so far down in our psyche, it feels to me like telling someone they have to kill one of their two children. If this was a real scenario, I would propose that most of us would be sick to our stomachs if we asked someone to make such a choice. We would feel sick because we would be overwhelmed with compassion. Even if you believed you were right that it was immoral to have both children, or felt the Bible condemned a person who had both children, the deeply painful and difficult impact that opinion would have on that parent's life, and the compassion you feel towards them, may give you significant pause before you hand them a gun. Again, not a perfect analogy, but gets closer to the compassion we need in this discussion.

Ultimately, I’m not asking homosexuals to have compassion on those that are hateful, abusive, or demeaning, or those that hurl insults and leave you with the feeling of being less than human (although to be radical followers of Jesus, that should be the goal). I am asking that homosexuals find the courage to be compassionate on those that feel that the truly loving thing to do for someone they care about is to confront them if they are on the wrong path or engaging in certain behavior that may be separating that person from God and encourage their turning away from such a path. It feels a lot like judgment, but if you filter things through compassion, and understand it is a logical and perhaps even loving approach based upon their own set of personal beliefs, you can control your reaction to it.

I am also asking that Christians find the courage to be compassionate towards homosexuals that either choose to interpret/view Scripture differently and still be a follower of Jesus or that choose to reject Christianity completely because of its traditional stance on this issue.

Over time, perhaps people’s view of Scripture will change to fundamentally alter beliefs about homosexuality, much in the same way people’s view of Scripture slowly changed to fundamentally alter beliefs about slavery. On the other hand, this may never happen. We have to deal with the reality at hand, which is that we have a great divide of belief on an extremely personal and emotional subject for both sides of the debate. I believe that if we can truly have compassion with one another, we can then, in turn, love one another and ultimately live with one another in Christian community. Once you have compassion, I believe you are in a better position to formulate what you believe and how you should respond to those who believe differently than you.

I personally hope that compassion will lead us to understand the deeply personal impact that the topic of homosexuality has on so many people. I think we should agree to disagree on this issue and move forward to advance the Kingdom together. But even if your compassion does not lead you to the same conclusion, I believe it will allow all of us to talk less, listen more, and love better.

Love in the Extreme

2013-09-19T20:11:00.005-07:00

God loves you because you exist. It's that simple and humbling at the same time. There is no purer form of love. Our current reality, which is a reflection of our fallen state, is that this is very difficult, if not seemingly impossible for us to do. We all find it naturally easier to love and appreciate those people that provide tangible or emotional value to us.

My mom is an LPN and has cared for a girl (actually a woman who is now in her late 20s) who has needed 24/7 care from both people and machines since she was born. Let's call her Tracy. Tracy does not have muscle control of anything but her blinks. Only those extremely familiar with her can decipher her grunts, groans, and blinks and be reasonably certain they know what she wants. She lies in the same position all day and can only move if someone moves her. No one really knows her mental capacity. Tracy has very little, if any, value to give. I struggle to comprehend this life. Do her parents love her in the same way that they love their other 3 kids that are healthy and 'normal' and give so much in return for their parent's love? I can't say for certain, but I can imagine that the parents struggle with this.

Our kids are literally extensions of ourselves. Most of us find it is easiest to love ourselves, and by extension, it's not that difficult for people to love their kids (especially younger children). Among a whole list of things, kids give meaning and valuable purpose to our lives. We may view them as our proxy, and despite our desire for them to have the best, we tend to fill our own need for self-worth and validation through their successes. Kids give us something, and although we try not to love them just for that reason, the give and take is so much intertwined with that love, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Our spouses represent another aspect of love. We choose to give our heart to this person, yet we take the leap of love in the risky hope that our spouse's love will catch us in return. My choice to marry Gretchen was in part driven by my trust in her that she would indeed always love me in return. Even in marriage, our love is partly due to the hope that something will be given in return. In some marriages, like that of a former college professor, one spouse becomes incapacitated physically (and perhaps mentally) and the other spouse spends the rest of his or her days as a physical caretaker in addition to the normal task of being their emotional caretaker. This is a demonstration of a Godly form of love, one that sacrifices and loves despite receiving much of anything in return, and despite sometimes feeling miserable extending that love. Loving does not always make us happy, and if it does, you’re not really loving.

It's also interesting to note that love for God is often driven by what He does or can do for us. We love Him because we get something from Him, not because He is simply worthy of love. If God did not give eternal life, would you still love Him and serve Him?

If you peel back enough layers of our ‘love”, there is often that selfish motivation, that one thing or things we get in return for giving...and like an addiction, those things control our actions. You might find tangible rewards like help when you need it, money, things, sex, etc. and intangible rewards like happiness, self-worth, sense of accomplishment, pride, etc. We often do the right thing, but it is at this deeper level that our human version of love is so completely and utterly distant from the love of God.

God extends love due to our intrinsic value alone. His love is not based on what we give or what we do.

I am inspired by this form of love. I want to see the intrinsic value in people and love them without the pollution of their practical or emotional value to me or the things that they do. The belief that God is the immovable mover of love is critical for me. Because He loves humanity unconditionally, and I am created in His image, I also have been given the capacity to always grow closer to this perfection. If He does not love us in this way, then there is no hope that we can move beyond the practical, yet ultimately selfish, give and take currency of love that we currently exchange.

I appreciate the love that is given to me, and enjoy the rewards of loving others, and in reality need all these things desperately in order to love. But I'm proposing that this is not in our original design and shouldn't be the acceptable reality. My reality is that I often love less when I am given little to nothing in return, including the potential hope for something in return. We shouldn’t ignore our emotional need of receiving love and rewards for love, but we should constantly strive to depend less and less on this need to effectively love and value people. We should strive to be closer to that place of full redemption where love is purely given with no strings attached, whether consciously or subconsciously.

You will often find me an advocate of balance, but when it comes to love, I believe we should always work towards being extreme, where we give unconditionally and despite what is given in return.

The Genesis of Means of Truth

2013-09-01T17:12:00.000-07:00

I received my weekly visit from the neighborhood Jehovah's Witness church recently. Rather than my usual, polite acceptance of the literature and listening to their thoughts and encouragement to seek the truth, I told my story. I don't think they'll be back for a while. I told them politely, but emphatically that I would not join their church. Sad. I was kind of growing fond of them.

I realized during this conversation that I admired their discipline and willingness to pound the pavement to make their message known. I can learn much from these people. I was saddened by their message of "truth" over love, but I admired them for their passion. And I also credit them for this inaugural post of this blog.

I started this blog because I believe I have a message that can benefit others, and also because I realized I personally needed an outlet, whether or not my thoughts ended up resonating with others. I hope to communicate that message over time through this blog, but to start...I thought I'd use the conversation to share a few insights.

I was struck by how similar JW's are to the Pharisees of Jesus' time. They know all the answers. They believe in truth and that they have found that truth. They are an exclusive club. You either assent intellectually to their set of beliefs or you cannot join their church. The Pharisees knew the Bible better than anyone in their day. They were disciplined, educated, committed, and faithful. They had their list of beliefs perfectly defensible using the Old Testament and their interpretation of it. Jesus didn't seek out these people to spend his time with, although I imagine He saw value in their noble attributes. He sought out those with the most potential to change the world, those who acknowledged that they did not have all the answers, but had the courage to follow Him wherever the journey of truth took them. God did not reveal himself to the world through Jesus in order to give us answers. He revealed himself through Jesus to give us life. It took courage for the disciples to leave a stable life of certainty, and enter the dynamic and often confusing journey of following Jesus. I'd also propose that they never did reach certainty, especially as it related to Jesus' ultimate purpose in His death, resurrection, and anticipated second coming. But their lives were altered in such a profound way that they literally changed the world.

Jesus' way was defined by social and spiritual transformation. He preached sacrificial love and unconditional forgiveness. He often did not give answers to difficult questions, but used the questions themselves to reveal the heart of those asking them. His harshest words were reserved not for the "sinner", but to those religious leaders who thought the term did not apply to them. He let the consequences of sin be the judge, and let love lead people to the truth. He did not give his disciples a list of doctrines to intellectually assent to before they could join Him, He showed them how love is the greatest of all commandments and from which all others flow.

Before you think, "yeah, you tell 'em Daniel"...the JWs only represent one extreme of this "monopoly on truth" and certainty=faith mindset. It can subtly be found in most major denominations within the communities of those who claim to follow Jesus. It's not as formally pronounced as JWs, but it reveals itself in the ostracizing of those who are courageous enough to lay aside what they have been told and ask tough questions with an open mind and even hold beliefs that are against the grain.

The intent of writing this blog is not to give my answers to tough questions, although that may happen at times. There are enough very intelligent, highly-informed people with opinions out on the web or in books for pretty much any topic of interest. I think what is needed more is a change in tone, and less emphasis on certainty being the hallmark of "Godly" people. If there is a huge ideological divide on a complicated topic, I believe the truth is often found in the mean or average of the broad range of intelligent, well-thought-out belief, or a combination of various concepts throughout the spectrum. Listening is essential to the journey of truth in these complicated areas. I am an outlier in certain beliefs, but I recognize the improbability of me being right in these areas and only hold an outlier belief if I have spent considerable amount of time studying the range of belief and coming to a well informed decision.

In most cases, there are simply too many topics to perform this level of study to be anything but humbly holding to tentative opinions with an open mind.

Take this thought and apply it to faith, lifestyle, family, politics, and other areas with hotly debated topics, and you get this blog. My goal is to give myself a forum to process concepts, but hopefully to also encourage and challenge others to change the spirit of the many debates we have in these areas. I have sought and continue to seek to listen more than I speak, but the JWs I visited with stirred something within me. I realized that I had certain ideas that I wanted to communicate in a more public way. I felt I had something to add to the conversation. And hopefully, through these thoughts, I can further my own transformation to be more like Jesus, as well as encourage others in the same.