To Question or Not to Question...

Remember who taught you to tie your shoes? How to drive? How about talking, walking, riding a bike, reading, writing and all the other things that equip us for life in our society? Early on, it was probably parents or siblings. Then school teachers, peers and mass media took over the complicated tasks of enculturation.

Human beings don’t survive infancy if left to our own devices. There are documented cases of severe neglect of children that resulted in a permanent inability to adjust to what we consider normal civilization. Oxana Malaya of Ukraine, born in 1983, was ostensibly reared by the dogs at her home. At age three, ignored by her parents, she resorted to the only source of nurture she could find: the kennel, surrounded by the family dogs.

Rescued at age nine, she needed years of therapy and specialized education to achieve a moderate level of socialization, having skipped the normal human interaction most children enjoy. Oxana is not alone, in every case of severe neglect, tremendous mental and relational damage is wrought by the absence of the usual socializing institutions.

Perhaps some readers figured out how to tie their shoes all on their own, but all of us learned to structure our worlds, define ourselves and relate to others by listening to and observing all the people involved in our maturing process. ALL of our baseline assumptions about the world outside our skulls have been molded by other people. Our inclinations toward what to value, how to behave, what to fear and what to welcome- where did they come from? Without the opportunity to learn from other humans we do not thrive, and we certainly don't have any real ability to know anything beyond basic instinct.

In addition to raw instinct, or innate behavioral presets, humans usually mature into social beings by learning, and we're good at it. Our interior dispositions are built from interpretations of direct experience and narratives of the experiences of others. We learn to navigate the world by trial and error, or by internalizing what someone else has modeled or taught. Early in our species' history, we had a comparatively small set of models to work with: extended family and tribe members. The range of possible explanations about the world changed little.

Obviously it hasn't stayed that way.

Since the invention of written language and mass visual communication, the number of available narratives has undergone its own "big bang." We are assaulted with possibilities, far, far beyond family or village. Once we move into our school-aged years, questions start to pile up: Which way of seeing the world makes the most sense? What way of understanding is closest to actual reality? What way works best for most people? What about non-human creatures and the natural world?

It's exhausting to sift through all the claimants to "a good life." We all start with a default, usually imparted by the adults in our sphere. Some parents or caregivers are vague or passive about directing their child toward one or another popular worldview, while others are fanatically insistent about correctness.

Our societies have evolved complexities we are not well prepared for, so it's no wonder that some of us have decided that it's just too taxing to explore ideas outside the framework of "truths" that we have already settled on, especially if it maintains us in a safe, predictable social position. The cost of pulling apart or challenging our established worldview is too high. What do we do when faced with answers and explanations that feel like an assault on our sanity?

Entrenchment, for one thing. Dig the moat deeper and double down on the mental systems that seem to provide some benefit. For Christian believers, these benefits might include hope in a heavenly future, a harmonious social grouping that suppresses stressful dissent, feeling that one is part of a larger purpose, psychological advantages of thinking that one possesses an anchor of ultimate truth, and the camaraderie that emerges from circling the institutional wagons against perceived enemies.

Strangely, many modern Christians forget that everything we think we know has its source in other human beings, including the composers, compilers, editors and translators of our Bibles. Did these fellow human beings write contextless, timeless, cultureless absolute truth? Or did they tell stories about the human condition as they saw it?

Otherwise, the Bible must be placed in the category of the miraculous, taken on a leap of faith against good evidence to the contrary. Even if the book is miraculous, every part of it is open to interpretation, which is done by... you guessed it: human beings! And yet many Christians convince themselves that somehow their set of interpretations, as taught by their particular church, capture the true miraculous meanings of the text.

Entrenchment is not hard to spot in our present social conflicts. There's big money to be made and political power to be gained by helping Christians fight all the "wrong" worldviews out there.

Honestly confronting the possible cracks in the foundation one's core principles takes courage. Why? Because we are hardwired to feel a mixture of fear and anger when challenged, no matter how reasonable the challenge is. In fact, forget reason, this is about emotions. Human nature drives us to avoid psychological uncertainty as a pre-installed instinct. Doubting one's elaborate ideological-emotional story might well result in unacceptable losses. For human beings there are few disasters worse than losing one's place in the world, and in many belief systems the losses appear to extend beyond the grave.

There's much to lose if one's psychological resources are bet on the wrong horse. And what of death? It's completely understandable that a Christian whose belief in heaven is of such great comfort that it would automatically fortify them against any possibility that it might not be real.

For many who are undergoing a process of deconstruction, it feels as if they are one false move away from tipping over into nihilism. A yawning void of meaninglessness confronts the soul that can't but must leave behind a once formidably constructed worldview.

Supporting this fortification calls for recruiting the highest of authorities to agree. What better way to justify our belief system by appealing to an unassailable, sacred source: God Himself? Once a believer decides that it's reasonable to believe that a powerful and benevolent God wrote down an "instruction manual" for us, he or she can create a well-defended refuge in dogmas like biblical inerrancy.

Case in point is this excerpt from a writer on the Medium platform:

"So, to deconstruct our core beliefs is not so much off-limits out of fear of change or loss of faith. It is just not of value to question a foundation built on the belief there is a supernatural realm where God rules and has provided man with an instruction manual for life, the Bible. Though there are ample examples of prophesies [sic] fulfilled and miracles performed, most of mankind reject [sic] what they cannot touch and scientifically replicate. In the final state of all religions, we are left with what atheists find unacceptable… faith. Consequently, there should be no expectation that one, without that faith, can accept our unwavering core beliefs. Ultimately, the Lord is in control, even of our faith."

 Should We Question our Core Beliefs? Jeff Hilles on Medium

The author is not afraid of change or loss of faith, he just sees no value at all in interrogating beliefs that can't be questioned. What are those beliefs? 1) that there is a supernatural realm where God rules and 2) this God has provided a written instructional tool for living called the Bible. Are his beliefs "too big to fail?"

To rephrase: it's not worth testing the reliability of one's faith foundation, because there's an omnipotent God who supplies faith to believers. There are plenty of prophecies and miracles that help produce that faith, but if you're a person who prefers to justify belief by leaning into a more scientific or evidence-based approach to deciphering reality, you are unable to accept any such notions. This covers "most of mankind." 

Bottom line? God is in control of everything including our faith. Some questions:

What about a person who formerly had a strong faith in certain Christian core beliefs, but ceased to believe? Did God remove their faith?

Core beliefs are propositions such as "there is a supernatural realm where God rules…" and that the Bible is a divinely-produced instruction manual for life. How does one eliminate the possibility that these core beliefs are mistaken? 

Shouldn't there be full agreement from the very beginning on Christian core beliefs? Has the Church always agreed on any set of true propositions? The answer to that is a well-documented "no."

The circular reasoning is dizzying. How do we know about prophecies and miracles that prove the Bible is true? From the Bible, of course! He also seems to support some form of double predestination which destines some people "with faith" will accept the truth and others without will suffer eternal damnation. 

Mr. Hilles offers his opinions in a way that condemns those who don’t agree. Not all believers think that the Bible is "an instruction manual for life," nor does a majority of mankind reject what can't be empirically proven. Also, appealing to a supernatural world of demonic forces arrayed against one's particular version of reality is another common entrenchment tactic. It's easier to reject a threatening challenge by labeling it "evil" than to address it rationally. Later in the essay he states:

"Questioning core beliefs, in most cases, should not be worth our time. This is especially true of Christianity because the source of our 'questions' often comes from our own sin nature or from the evil one."

Do we detect a wee bit of defensiveness in Mr. Hilles? To say that asking questions is a waste of time seems odd when the stakes are so high. So what happens when both the Bible itself and the church disagree on which core beliefs are correct? If the writer did allow questions, we might start with how the Christian concept of a supernatural realm was imported into early proto-orthodoxy from Hellenistic philosophical ideas. It's not in the Old Testament. Or what it means that "God rules." Or the nature of the Bible itself- is it really an instruction manual? What else can we discover about its origins and purposes?

Is exploring one's core beliefs really a waste of time? It might be damaging or unhealthy for someone who is not in an emotional or psychological position to start questioning their foundational assumptions, but for anyone who has the slightest bit of natural curiosity about how their foundation was constructed, especially when confronted with many other possible foundations, it must become an essential part of the journey.

And where would human civilization be without a regular upheaval in "core beliefs?" For centuries, physicians put their faith in curing by balancing the body's "humors." Millions of ancient people were entirely convinced that the movements of stars and planets affected events here on earth, or that flights of birds or sheep entrails could help determine a course of action. Conservatism to that extent assigns us to the wrong side of history.

Has the Church always agreed on its "Core Beliefs?"

If the answer is no, then contrary to Mr. Hilles, a careful Christian would be wise to inquire into the history of any modern set of core beliefs. For his assertion to stand (that it's a waste of time to question one's foundational principles), he must also assert that a) we're using the same singular interpretations and hermeneutic that early Christians did, and b) that our modern understanding is completely consistent with those interpretations, and therefore we now have the exact same correct core beliefs. What if God's church, based on the Bible, has changed her position through time? Why were those changes made? Who decided they needed changing? Why isn't the Bible clear enough to withstand any sort of differing interpretation?

And the answer is no. Tenets that modern churches insist are essential were not widely accepted by early Christians. One need only to read the New Testament to find numerous examples of disagreement on the ways and means of following Jesus. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul records his dissent from the strongly Jewish-flavored Jerusalem church. While we usually give Paul the benefit of the doubt, behind his argument with the "people from James," Peter and Barnabas, was a competing agenda for how this new sect should proceed.

Without Paul, if "the Way" had somehow survived to this day, its adherents would still be members of a small sect of messianic Jews. In Acts 21, Paul and the Jerusalem elders apparently agreed on a compromise that only reinforced the widening gap between the Christians in Jerusalem who were "zealous for the law" (v. 20) and gentile Christians who had only to abide by three critical Jewish rules: don't eat meat sacrificed to idols (which Paul waives when writing to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 8), don't eat blood or meat from a strangled animal, and abstain from sexual immorality.

These and other passages in the New Testament strongly suggest that there were at least two, if not more, Christianities growing from the same root, all having radically different core beliefs.

Next time, We'll delve into some of the surprising views of early church intellectuals to test the claim that there is a correct set of core beliefs that have been in place since the very beginning. 

Questions to Consider

What are some emotional reasons for saying that it’s a waste of time to question one’s core beliefs, even though there are plenty of rational reasons for doing so?

What happens after one leaves behind a carefully constructed belief system? What might be there to replace it?

How might a person remain in a Christian community while rejecting many of its core beliefs? 

For more on possibilities for what might replace a traditional Christian worldview:

McLaren, Brian; Do I Stay Christian?: A Guide for the Doubters, the Disappointed, and the Disillusioned

Lowe Hartley, Brittney: No Nonsense Spirituality: All the Tools No Belief Required