Blowback

I've spent plenty of time in my life refuting those who disagree with biblical theology. Conversations with skeptics and anti-theists have been many. Disagreeing with non-Christians is a given. It's what we do. In fact, it's biblical. Those discussions are interesting, even stimulating. Sometimes I'll learn things. Sometimes I'll have to research things. Sometimes the objections are new. The tiring part for me is not the discussions with non-believers. Nor are the discussions with people asking questions a problem for me. I'm always glad to answer questions. The part that gets tiring for me is correcting views from my allies.

Maybe you've heard the story; maybe not. It's an illustration of what I'm talking about. Christians were so excited when the story began circulating that NASA had a computer that tracked the locations of planets and stars. You see, they had to know where everything was all the time because if you're launching a spacecraft out there, you need to know where it's going and what will be in its path. Well, as it turns out, they ran this computer program backwards and found that some 3000 (or so) years ago there was a day that was too long. It appears, according to this story, that NASA's computer has verified the story of Joshua's day when the sun stood still (Josh. 10)! Wow! Scientific proof! Of course, it takes very little effort to shoot serious holes in that story. Without knowing the locations of heavenly bodies 3000 years ago, it is impossible to verify that they were in the wrong position 3000 years ago. So boat loads of excited Christians jump on this "make me look stupid" bandwagon using it as "proof", and here I am defending the faith ... against well-meaning believers.

It happens all the time. Misguided Christians offer poorly constructed arguments in uncharitable ways. Then I walk on the scene, and I'm labeled with their poorly constructed arguments and uncharitable ways. Over-enthusiastic Calvinists misrepresent the Reformed faith, and I walk on the scene as a "Calvinist", saddled with their misrepresentations and, too often, arrogant styles. It's usually the two that are the problem: Content and style. I'm often having to explain, "Yes, I know you heard that from your neighborhood Christian or the pastor down the street or some other Christian you've come in contact with ... but it's not what I believe." That's content. More often it's style -- and that's more hazy. I will say something like, "Christianity is exclusive by nature" and the response is angry, defensive, finger-pointing, ready to fight. It doesn't match my tone. When examining what happened, it turns out that the last person who said, "Christianity is exclusive by nature" to them also included, "Any idiot can see that!" So I've been the beneficiary of their blowback. (Now, here's a side story. I looked up "blowback", you know, just to make sure I was using it correctly. The first definition was what I had in mind: "The backward escape of gases and unburned gunpowder after a gun is fired" -- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Yeah, that was the idea. They took a shot and I got the "unburned gunpowder" from standing behind them. But the second definition was just as good: "Misinformation resulting from the recirculation into the source country of disinformation previously planted abroad by that country's intelligence service." In this case, my blowback is the result of poor transmission of information that ends up "poisoning the well" so to speak and produces disinformation caused by someone trying to argue for the truth. Wow! Now that's a lengthy aside.)

I understand the problem. I doubt that any two Christians would answer every single theological question the same way 100% of the time. So there will be differences of opinion among honest believers. And not all Christians are at the same point of sanctification -- they don't all have "love" as their primary mark of character. (I suppose honesty demands that I admit that very few of us have "love" as our primary mark of character. It's just that there's some more than others.) So between the disinformation and the less-than-loving approach, I'm stuck with defending things or refuting things that I shouldn't have to defend or refute. And I further understand that much of what we use is shorthand. "Calvinist" is shorthand for a set of beliefs that are actually very small in the pile of theological issues of Christianity as a whole (just 5 points, really). If each of us had to stop and explain what we believed every time, it could make some conversations much lengthier than they are now. So it's easier to say, "Oh, I'm a Catholic" or "I'm a Protestant" to get a snapshot of someone's theology despite the vast differences among Catholics (and the confusing fact that "catholic" refers to "universal" while "Catholic" refers to "Roman Catholic") and the even more vast differences among Protestants. Sometimes our shorthand becomes long division.

I guess I'm just spouting off here. In my interactions with others, I've been told many times, "You're not a standard _____." I'm not a standard "Christian", "Calvinist", and many other things (like father and husband). Good or bad, that's significant. When I'm labeled, understand that I may not fit the mold. When I say something that sounds "Calvinish", realize that I may not hold the same view as that loon down the street that told you he was a Calvinist and believed that God forces unbelievers not to believe or some such. And I rarely carry weapons into conversations. It is not often that I intend to be cruel, unkind, rude, or mean. If I say something that someone else said in an unkind or offensive manner, don't assume I mean it the same way. If I don't call you a heretic, don't assume I am calling you a heretic, for instance. I try to be clear. I'm sorry that too often I have to battle misinformation you received from my allies and injuries inflicted on you by my friends. It is this kind of stuff that is so maddening, so tiring for me. Discussions about the truth I like. Explaining away the errors of my cohorts is much more exhausting. So bear with me.