The Contagion of Perceived Analysis

A Christian man who took a slightly different tack on a particularly debated ecclesiology once challenged a pastor he met on the issue. But when the pastor responded with Bible and reason, suddenly the man’s chest didn’t puff out the way it had at first. His mocking tone disappeared, and he end up saying, "Well, you need to sit down with my pastor. He explains it better." What happened to the machismo and dogma? What happened to his sense of being completely untouchable in his position atop the theological ladder? Was the pastor that good at debate? No. The man just had a confidence and a sense of understanding that he inherited rather than developed on his own. I call this “the social contagion of perceived analysis” because the individual thinks they’ve seriously analyzed the issue when they really haven’t. In other words, confidence and a feeling of understanding are contagious.

The sense of understanding and confidence is contagious.

People will often feel like they understand the doctrine they claim to believe when it is really one or more of the people around them that actually understands it. It's scary to think of how many in a group/church are the same way! It could end up that really only one man in a group understands the doctrine he's putting forth, and everyone else is just a confidence groupie, contracting confidence from someone else who may have done the same from someone else, and so on up the chain. So while there’s a sense of understanding and confidence as a group, it's made up of individual ignorance, willful blindness, or both.

This feeling leads people to not verify things. Why would they? They already feel strongly that they're right. And they end up living under the illusion that they came to their understanding by serious and honest analysis, when they really haven't. They're simply feeding off of the confidence of another and repeating the soundbites they heard from them. This is how entire groups of churches come to believe doctrines that may not be accurate. Pair that with other problematic mentalities such as it's heretical to ask questions. Pair it with the perceived heroism of being the "last true church". Pair it with the misuse of Greek and Hebrew to suit one's needs. And now you end up with a church that thinks they're right about everything when almost no one in it knows what they're talking about.

"But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." 1 John 2:20

I have even known churches that take this verse to mean that you can claim absolute dogmatism on every little thing (regardless of how little Scripture might be given on the subject) as long as you have the right scriptural qualifications and you're filled with the Spirit. It's strange how they're the only ones who in every disagreement are qualified and filled with the Spirit! To them, the saying "good men can disagree" is a real paradox.

All of this is not just the behavior of low-information Christians, as you might expect it to be. Very intelligent people also do this, because this flaw is not a function of intelligence or lack thereof. It is a function of having hearts and minds affected by the curse. The etiology (root cause) of the contagion of perceived analysis is human pride.

The Pride of Theological Dominance

Some doctrinal movements are simply not content to be right. They have to be more right. Why? Because that makes them distinguished. They are ultimately striving for extra significance in the pride of theological dominance. So, they assert with undying confidence a different take on a Bible truth, often intentionally putting themselves in the minority because there is a sense of heroism in being the "last man standing".

The Pride of Peer Acceptance

In the churches I'm talking about, the people often stand around and talk ad nauseam about the particular doctrinal issue they have chosen despite the fact that everyone there is already on the same side? Who are they trying to convince? Why do they have to continually tear apart their doctrinal opponents when none of them are there? Well, it is all about peer acceptance. They have to continuously repeat the mantra and say the code phrases. They have to blow the dog whistles (the little phrases that give away that you're in the group). They have to repeatedly assert the doctrine or others might think they are wavering.

The Pride of Having the Mentor’s Favor (Or the Fear of Man)

We naturally grow a respect and admiration for those that feed us spiritually. This is not wrong in every case. But sometimes this respect turns into a sycophantic, sniveling kind of man-worship. I can't blame the followers entirely in this. Sometimes the leader doesn't do enough to prevent this response. Sometimes they even foster it. And that is when repeating the doctrinal dog whistles in the ears of the pastor become a loyalty test. By asserting my dogma, the leader knows I'm happy to be his. And yes, this does happen in Baptist churches also. I see it in the region I in which I live. This may also be considered the fear of man, because even if you think to question the paradigm you're afraid of the repercussions.

I'm willing to assert that many/most things in the Scriptures are in fact dogmatically clear. But if we’re honest some issues are not clear. Despite centuries of debate, there are still vast swaths on both sides of some issues while they leave the clear issues alone. But if a pastor’s desire is to control people, the wrong thing to say is, "some issues are complicated and a little less clear". If control is what I want, it's better to always make sure that what I say is unquestionably right. I might even use 1 John 2:20 to put myself in that position. Scripturally unsanctioned dogmatism is often used as a form of controlling people's minds. But my desire should be to give the people under my purview to God and to tell the truth such as it is. They are His already anyway. They might ask me hard questions. They might not like my answers. They may even end up disagreeing with me and leaving. They might end up picking a side on an issue that I think they shouldn't. And they probably won't worship me. But I'm supposed to be a shepherd, not a king.

What if I picked a deviant form of ecclesiology/bibliology/soteriology in order to be accepted by peers, to gain the favor of a mentor I respect, or out of fear of man? Someone who knows nothing other than dogma isn't simply asserting their confidence in the Bible. That’s just what they say they’re doing. They're also asserting unwavering confidence in their own heart, which is unwise. They are saying, "I trust my heart always". They're saying they're always Spirit-filled. They're asserting that it's impossible for them to ever interpret the Bible with fleshly motives. For others maybe, but not them. They are apparently above us all.

Unfortunately, we cannot eradicate the effects of the sin nature on our minds in this life. So, how do we prevent the contagion of perceived analysis? Well, the only mitigating solution is epistemic humility, or intellectual contriteness, in the areas where the Bible has not given us the right to do otherwise. To avoid dogma in some things does not mean you doubt your position or that you doubt the Bible. It doesn’t produce the wishy-washiness of knowing “nothing for sure”. It simply means you’re teachable, correctable. It simply means you are not willing to trust your own sinful nature and your own deceitful heart in every case. What happens if I may have chosen my current doctrinal “sacred cow” out of the pride of theological dominance without knowing it?

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

I suppose for now, we should try to make it a habit not to defend our positions with 1 John 2:20 unless we commit to following it with Jeremiah 17:9, and aggressively examining our motives and understanding.