Experience

There is a constant undercurrent among a large number of American Christians that tastes very much like the world that we are commanded not to befriend (James 4:4). It is in the method by which we determine what is or isn't true.

The world today, especially here in America, likes to decide what is true by experiment. This is obviously the case in the world of science, but it's equally so in the world of everyday living. Oh, we don't call it "experiment" there; we call it "experience". That is, if we experience it, it's true. If we don't, it is questionable at best. You'll find this in phrases like I've heard from people when they say, "Yeah, I tried that 'born again' thing ... it didn't work." That, in face, is the most popular form of experimentation -- "success" -- "Does it work?" If a church, for instance, wanted to grow its numbers and started a program they believed would accomplish it, the program is successful if it increases their numbers and, therefore, true. (Thus we see churches trying to mimic well-known megachurches in an attempt to get the same results.)

In fact, in the end, for most people "does it work?" is the standard definition of "truth". If it "works", it's true. If it produces the results we were looking for it's true. If it doesn't "work", it's not true. Now, I don't think you would have much difficulty in seeing how this might just be problematic for Christians. You see, what humans define as "works" as opposed to what God defines as "true" don't always align. And I've just hit on the problem. When we start our definition of "true" with humans, we've missed the point.

Here, let's see if I can throw out a quote for you and see if you can catch it. "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32). Sound familiar? Now, put that together with perhaps a lesser known verse from Proverbs. "Every word of God proves true" (Prov 30:5). But ... we (Christians) know that, inside. We know that the Word of God is true. So ... why is it that we still have this tendency to define truth experientially?

There is in American Evangelicalism an inclination to discard certain things. Evangelicals prefer not to include Church History in their examination of the truth. There is a distrust of higher learning. There is deliberate skepticism toward intellectualism. Theologians often use two terms: orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The first is right thinking and the second is right practice. Which of the two is more important for most Evangelicals? What you believe isn't nearly as important as what you practice. In fact, many Evangelicals are proud to denounce creeds and confessions. "No creed but Christ" is their creed. Oh ... wait ...

What ends up happening, then, is that instead of relying on history, on the accumulated wisdom of the Church, on the basic premise that Christ has built His Church and the Holy Spirit has led His people into all truth, many Evangelicals defer to their own experience. Doctrine isn't important. Right thinking, right theology, a correct view of God and His Word, these aren't important. What is really important is that I feel close to God, that I experience Him. It places my deceitful heart as the final arbiter of truth.

Experience is good, but we must keep in mind that our experiences may deceive us and our conclusions from them may be faulty. On the other hand, "every word of God proves true". Wouldn't it be better if we derived our definition of "true" from the One who is Truth. You know, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life ..." I don't know that we fallen humans are nearly as well equipped to adequately determine "what works" as we think we are. And that might lead to experiences we may not enjoy.