Learning to Listen and Read Critically

One should always beware of writing at two in the morning…but I have found myself awake with a burden on my heart, so posting this blog is the best outlet for me.

In an information saturated society, finding someone’s opinion of a matter is not very difficult. In fact, you are reading someone’s opinion on something right now…mine. Here is a question for you. How do you know if what you are reading is truth? Recently, my oldest son (Dillon) asked me about my opinion on a scientific theory he had been taught in school. After listening to my opinion (which was limited on the subject) he shared with me the substance of what his instructor had related. Dillon then did something that I was very proud of…he shared with me the critical application component.

For Dillon, it was not enough to simply hear a theory, he had to process how the acceptance of that theory impacted his beliefs in other areas. For instance, as the theory was explained to him, plate tectonic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics) was supported by some aspects of evolutionary thought. Dillon had already formulated some opinions on evolution theory and the fact that the instructor seemed to use plate tectonic theory as proof supporting evolutionary thought troubled him. To accept plate tectonics, meant that, by default, Dillon would have to confront some presuppositions he held on evolution and either change them…or find other justification for his presuppositions…or, reject some of what he was taught because it did not critically add up.

Let me illustrate:
You walk into your kitchen in the morning and there is a dirty glass on the counter by the sink. You then offer the theory that, during the night, someone arose and got a drink of water. A few moments later, your brother gets up and notices the same glass and offers the theory that during the night, alien invaders (from outer space, not from across the border) made their way into the house and conducted scientific experiments on the tap water and left the glass. Just then, another brother comes into the kitchen and theorizes that the glass levitated from the cabinet to the counter where condensation formed in the glass giving the illusion that someone had been drinking water.
Now to accept the third theory means that, critically speaking, you must believe that inanimate objects can place themselves into motion without an outside force acting upon them. Accepting this theory means that you will be forced to re-examine many other beliefs that you hold as true.
To accept the second theory means, critically speaking, that you must accept the existence of intelligent life forms outside of this world who have the ability to “beam themselves” into your home past your locked doors. You also must accept that they chose to do so in order to conduct scientific testing on your water and needed a glass from the cabinet to do so. Even if the last part is not true, you need a different motive to explain why the aliens from outer space left a glass on the counter.
To accept the first theory means, critically speaking, that you find it more credible than the existence of extraterrestrials which are concerned with the quality of your water, and you believe in the scientific laws pertaining to motion and inanimate objects. The glass on the counter may be able to be explained by the presence of aliens; however, if you already have formulated a belief on their existence, you may not be able to continue to hold that belief and suggest that they left a dirty glass on the counter.

The fact is, there are a number of plausible explanations available to explain why a glass is on the counter. I have a couple of opinions myself (and I made up the story). Whichever explanation one chooses, the critical application of that theory may impact other beliefs that you have…and other beliefs that you have may influence how believable the explanation pertaining to the glass is. This is critical application of information.

I recently have been reading a book by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch called The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church (Hendrickson Publishers, 2003). The authors are progressive thinkers and missiological voices with significant influence in Christianity pertaining to the subject of evangelism within postmodern culture. I have found many of the principles that I have been reading to be agreeable (speaking experientially as a person with experience in evangelism among both moderns and postmoderns). I have evaluated their “theories” by critically applying their principles in a number of situations which I have experienced.

At the same time, I have found many of their “theories” to be objectionable, overgeneralizations, and potentially dangerous. Some of their theories, when critically applied, undermine other foundational tenets of my belief system. So…what does one do when confronted with beliefs that challenge our current worldview?

We only have a couple of viable options when this occurs. We can accept or reject the challenge. Whatever we choose will impact our current belief, AND every other belief that we have that is integrally woven together with our current belief. (If I believe that a glass can move itself out of the cabinet and onto the counter, then I can never again assume that my children left something out instead of putting it away. I also cannot have confidence that my truck is in the driveway…since it might choose to move itself to another place on its own.)

Some people may choose to read Frost’s book and accept it wholesale. Others may reject it out of hand. Whatever a person chooses will depend on what beliefs (influences) they have already formulated and how the principles in the book line up with those beliefs. A word used in biblical study circles for this is hermeneutics (science/art of interpretation).

One of the core principles that Frost explains is that God historically has chosen to reach out to the fringe people of society (p. 42). He stated, “The missional-incarnational church starts with the basic theological understandings: God constantly comes to those who are the most unlikely” (p.42). This assumption is based on pretty “weak” ground citing that the Hebrews were outcasts, so God must be into “outcasts.” Scripture clearly states that God is into outcasts as long as they are part of the peoples of the world. Frost affirms this by stating that God’s future is among … “churchgoing Christians” as well as “ordinary” people (p.42). If one read this passage about fringe people…one could conclude that God “loves” fringe people more than churchgoers and therefore “fringe people” should be the sole focus of the evangelistic efforts of the church. In other words, the church should focus only on the most “fringe” of society. Frost would reject this, though he makes a compelling case that evangelism must intentionally include fringe people. In fact, to be more accurate, Frost would say that the church should modify itself so that fringe people don’t feel like fringe people, but feel accepted in and among the church. I say, “Amen.” This is missional thinking.

Another assertion that Frost makes is that the established church system (a broad generalization regarding all of Christendom from 313 AD until present) is “attractional,” meaning that “God cannot really be accessed outside sanctioned church meetings or, at least, that these meetings are the best place for not-yet-Christians to learn about God” (P.41). Some would react to this assertion and determine that all expressions of institutional (or attractional to use Frost’s term) church are bad. Some may even say that, in response to this thought, all elements of church practice (corporate meetings on Sunday, pastors, Constitutions, budgets, etc) are somehow less than biblical. [Usually…these people prefer a more organic approach where a group of people meet in a house or a restaurant to discuss what God means to them.] Well, Frost addressed this as well (see P.76-77). Essentially, he called for a contextual church, not a complete destructuring of the church structure many Westerners have in mind when they think of church.

Why would someone find the expression of “institutional church” somewhat less than biblical? This is a great question and directly applies to the critical application step alluded to earlier. The fact is, everyone approaches information with a particular “hermeneutic” or interpretive lens. Have you ever noticed how some people can find certain elements in just about anything? Show me someone who is a racist and I will show you someone who can find a justification for segregation in everything from the newspaper to the Bible. Show me a person who has authority issues and I will show you someone who can find “abuse of authority” in every newspaper article on a given day. My favorites are Bible prophesy guys who find significance in every string of numbers out there. I knew a guy once who rejected a UPC key chain as a forerunner to the Mark of the Beast spoken of in Revelation. I read an editorial recently where a man cited Calvin and Luther (among others) as authorities on the fact that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church were the antichrist and the means by which the antichrist would come to power.

Some find the institutional church less than biblical because it does not look like the early church movement of the first Century. Well, neither does the house-church movement. I find few people interested in seeking out a Synagogue for Saturday or Sunday services. Some find the institutional church undesirable because they have a passion to reach people who are more open to other biblical expressions of church. Some find the institutional church to be objectionable because they can’t control it…and they need to have the control or they just aren’t happy.

When trying to listen and read critically, two questions/approaches have served me well: Why does this person feel this way (what is his/her perspective, background, history, experience, hang-up, bias, or burden)? ; and, how does this idea impact what I already accept to be true?
If a woman says to me, “all men are pigs,” I immediately ask myself, what is behind that statement? Was she hurt by a man? Has she experienced something that colors this opinion? Does she really find pigs to be adorable and the statement is really a compliment? Understanding the underlying premise goes a long way to helping me see a person’s perspective accurately.

If someone says that “God hates them,” I not only ask about the background, but I compare that statement to what I already accept as true. For instance, the Scripture teaches that God is Love. If so, God does not hate people. God may hate what people do (sin), but He still loves people (the sinner). If I accept that God hates a person, then I have to throw out my universal belief that God is love and loves all people.

Back to Frost: If the institutional church is really a stumbling block to the cause of the Kingdom, and the only biblical model for church is a house assembly, then many of my ancestors were engaged in unbiblical worship and God has never blessed the institutional church since 313 AD (to use Frost’s dating). Anything good to come out of the institutional church from the 4th Century until now happened, not as a blessing of God, but in spite of Him. Anyone who ever gave themselves over to God during an institutional church worship service did so on their own and without the blessing of God. Anyone who ever thought they heard from God during a church worship service was mistaken and anyone who ever gave money to or prayed for an institutional church actually supported something that God cannot bless.

You may say that this is a bit ridiculous, but I submit to you that it is no more ridiculous than saying that the institutional church is not biblical and the house church is the pure form of meeting with God. You may say that having trained pastors is a ridiculous and unbiblical byproduct of institutional church, but I say that the Bible speaks of having such men as an instrument of God to train, equip, empower, and encourage “the church” to fulfill its mission (Ephesians 4).

The fact is (or at least seem to be) that Frost has a passion and a burden for postmoderns. He also has exposure to many organizations that are unhealthy churches. Further, he sees that incarnational ministry would be more effective than attractional ministry and encourages Christians to intentionally engage with their community at the point and place where their community is. (Amen.) As such, his views should be read with this bias in mind.

A critical read of his work should allow for the bias and evaluate the material. To accept any teaching “wholesale” is to flirt with dangerous and destructive habits. As a teaching pastor, I encourage people I lead to examine the substance of my assertions and to compare the stated messages against the principles in the Scriptures. To my knowledge, the Bible is the only true and accurate record of God’s expressed and implied will. My teaching is subject to mistakes, bias, or even sinful motives. God’s word, endure forever.