Over a decade ago, I involved myself in the discussion boards on the web. My choice was either Belief Net and Belief Corner (neither are in use today). There I would be found discussing and debating my faith with unbelievers (those of different faiths) and atheists and agnostics. Interestingly, I found that, no matter what their faith or position on the existence of God, they helped me to take my faith more seriously than I would have, if left to myself to grow in Christ. Their contentious words caused me to dig deeper for answers and the proof of what I trusted to be true. To my great surprise, therefore, I am as much indebted to them for my growth in Christ, as I am to any Christian preacher, before whom I sat in order to understand the truth of what I had come to believe.
The fact is, no one is without truth to some degree. In the beginning, I thought to instruct unbelievers, atheists and agnostics and not only defeat their worldviews, but cause them to change and accept the truth, as I understood that to be. Nevertheless, it was I who was instructed. I gleaned truths about Christ from their arguments, and my faith in him matured. Their questions led to truths I had passed over or ignored, set aside as it were, because I didn’t have a proper explanation.
Nevertheless, my opponents didn’t seem to share my sentiments, as they took in my worldview. Perhaps, this was the greatest difference between them and me. I grew stronger in my understanding of the truth of my faith, because I took their challenges to my faith very seriously. For their part, however, they remained unaffected by the challenges I presented to their positions. The fact is, they continued to regurgitate their unmodified worldview with others, after I had shown those same arguments to be flawed. Too often this is the case with people who involve themselves in discussions of opposed paradigms. Many folks, after they’ve been shown they err in what they believe, continued to hold to what is obviously erroneous for the sake of assumed truth. At the same time, they reject what was obviously true in the opposing argument for the sake of the errors they also see there.
It would be wrong of me to say or even imply that I had always held true in my quest for truth, or that I remained impartial in every argument. I do know for a fact that I rejected the premise of some, with whom I had known differences, and I rejected their arguments without investigation. For example, I rejected the premise of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Biblical Unitarians out of hand, due to their position on the divinity of Christ. Later, when I did pause to consider their arguments, I began to wonder, if the Lord hadn’t allowed differing Christian worldviews about Christ for the sake of stirring the pot, as it were. In other words, it is much easier to glean truth from God’s word, when one is challenged by opposing points of view on particular passages. In such a context one is forced to consider a premise, which one would fear to embrace, and in doing so, consider ideas one would never apply to the truths, which one does embrace. It is a matter of seeing one’s foundational truth in a different light, so that one could modify it where it is weak, and thus, be strengthened in one’s walk with Christ.
Perhaps, this was the problem that surrounds the discussion between Job and the friends. Both embraced the worldview that God blesses the righteous and curses the unrighteous. However, Job was faced with the fact that he knew himself to be righteous, yet, for all intents and purposes he felt the curse of God upon his life. He lost his wealth and his family. All he had left was his integrity, and that had come under attack by the very folks, whom he had always respected and enjoyed interactive discussion on serious matters. What was Job to do? What happened, and what would become of the truth he had always embraced. The flaws were numerous.
On the other hand, the friends continued to embrace the worldview that God always blesses the righteous and always curses the wicked, despite the obvious disclosure of errors presented them in Job’s arguments. They embraced the errors of their worldview for the sake of the truth they all agreed was there. In doing so, they must condemn Job, but for reasons they couldn’t explain. They imagined a great many wicked deeds on Job’s behalf and evil thoughts held secretly in his heart, in order to defend their own worldview and also account for the calamity that had swallowed Job.
What are we to take away from this? Where do we look for the real, truth when bad things happen to good people? Is God unrighteous? Certainly, many folks believe that at least sometimes he acts unjustly. Why else would they say things like, how could God allow this to happen? Others even reject him entirely, saying something like, there couldn’t be a god if something like this could happen! Therefore, both types agree that god, vis-à-vis the real God, is not the author of chaos, and in the remaining chapters of the Book of Job the Lord’s position is held up for the reader’s consideration.
Smoodock's Blog 