More on Ten Signs

I have given more thought to the whole Ten Signs thing and wanted to take a different approach. I've already pointed out some overall problems with the list and I've already pointed to those who are directing specific answers to the items on the list -- all well and good -- but there is another angle here. What about the places that they're right?

Okay, now, hold on. Don't get your knickers in a twist. Often times, in a discussion, an opponent will point out a valid problem with your view. It may not invalidate your view, but it is a valid problem that you must address. Our knee-jerk reaction would be to dismiss or defend, but if you are going to remain reasonable and protect integrity, it is a good idea to address those things. And this list actually has some of those things.

My first point is a general one. I commented in my earlier post that there is a lot about overreaction. According to the list, if you are a Christian you will "vigorously deny", "feel outraged", "feel insulted", "laugh", your face will turn purple, you will "spend your life looking for little loopholes", and so it goes. Now, I objected because it's an ad hominem, but it's a good idea to check yourself. Is that you? Here, think of it this way. You say, "2 + 2 = 4" and someone else says, "No, no, 2 + 2 = 5." Is it necessary at this point to "vigorously deny", "feel outraged", "feel insulted" or the like? No. They're wrong. There's no need to get animated about it. The right response is to work through the problem, not start yelling. If your response is more emotional than rational, it is likely that you're feeling threatened and there is no need for that ... you know, since you know the truth ... right?

The second thought is also a general one, and related to the first. What is your response to the list itself? Are you feeling confronted or defensive? Or do you have answers? If Christianity is the truth, then there should be answers, shouldn't there? So when we have detractors (as we are promised to have), we should be able to defend the faith and not need to go to war, so to speak. The biblical phrase is "stand firm". We should be able to take up the arguments against us, examine them, and figure out answers. No need to be defensive while we defend the faith.

There are, in fact, points made in the list that ought to be acknowledged. Item 3 says, "While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor 'speaking in tongues' may be all the evidence you need." The premise that modern science has proven the non-existence of God is foolish, but there is some truth in some cases to the accusation that some Christians find proof in things that are not proof. I've heard people argue that they were "slain in the Spirit" and, therefore, were quite sure of what they believed. I've asked, "Where does that come from?" I've received no answer because it's not in the Bible. The phrase does not appear. The event does not occur. The only thing remotely related was when God knocked Saul off his donkey. You'll find no such event anywhere else in the New Testament. So when did this kind of extra-biblical event become a biblical certainty? Or take the ever-so-popular story about NASA's computers that discovered Joshua's missing day. "Proof!" we cry. Except it's not. It's a hoax -- nonsense. And despite the fact that it has been demonstrated repeatedly by both believers and non-believers to be a myth, I still hear the argument made. All I'm saying is that we need to be careful about the evidence we admit.

Another sad point is the final (or #1) argument: "You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a 'Christian'." In far, far too many cases those who call themselves Christians are ignorant about Christianity. They don't know their Bibles. They don't know doctrine. They don't know Church history. The point is true. Far too many people who call themselves Christians today like the verse, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" without actually knowing the truth. Studying is too much work. Digging into that stuff is too hard. Doctrine is pointless. History is meaningless. They hang on "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion" (manifest nonsense) and ignore so much stuff that the Bible affirms (like the importance of doctrine, the communion of the saints, etc.). Now, I still say that a Christian is not a Christian based on how much they know about Christianity. And I heartily question the assertion that "many atheists and agnostics" know more. Still, we ought to examine the accusation. If God commands "Study to show yourself approved, rightly handling the Word of Truth" and you say, "No, that's too much work", you're standing on the side of the atheists and agnostics, not God. And if "you shall know the truth" and you don't and refuse, perhaps there is reason to question whether you are indeed a Christian. I'm not making accusations here. I'm just suggesting self-examination.

It is said that "That which doesn't kill you will make you stronger." Well, okay, maybe. These type of things, like these "Ten Signs", need to be addressed because we are commanded to defend and contend. If what we believe is true, there are answers and we ought to 1) know that there are answers and 2) look for them. On the other hand, if we receive an accusation with truth in it, that ought to serve as an aid, a helpful redirection. You know, "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith" (2 Cor 13:5).