WHY CHRISTIANS MUST BE CREDIBLE

Almost, it happened to me. I have often been consternated, perplexed, and exasperated that so many Christians seemingly have an attraction to and proclivity for conspiracy theories. Then, I recently read a book purporting a conspiracy theory of JFK’s assassination. This author gave list after list of enumerated “facts” that proved it. His lists were, on their face, overwhelming evidence. I found myself saying, “I’m convinced.” But, as factual as the items of the lists seemed, something kept bothering me. It was only minutes ago, while responding to a post promulgating a false doctrine, that I realized what it was. The post-er of the false doctrine began by declaring what he believed and then giving a long list of apparent facts of Scripture that proved his point. Reading through the list, I realized what both the author of the JFK conspiracy theory and the aspiring theologian were doing. I can best explain it with an analogy. Note the fallacy of what I am doing in the following scenario: I post, “All mammals are white.” I then give my list of “facts.” 1. “Here is an un-doctored photo of a white mouse”—which I post. 2. “and a photo of a white elephant.” 3. “ and a photo of a white squirrel.” I enumerate and post twenty-five photos of white mammals. I have overwhelmingly proved my point. Or, have I? What bothered me about the JFK conspiracy theorist*, wasn’t that I doubted his “facts” but that he presented them as if they were uncontested and as if there were no answering, rebuttal evidence. The would-be theologian listed Bible “facts” but out of context, without essential qualifications, admittance of other valid interpretations, etc. My photos of the white mouse, elephant, squirrel, etc., could all be genuine. But the truth is white mammals, for the most part, are anomalies. For every photo of a white squirrel, there are thousands of grey, red, and black ones. I advise neither taking or not taking the COVID vaccine. But here is what I have heard from many Christians: “I will not take the COVID vaccine because the data is not all in and it has not been proved in studies that it is safe long term.” Then, without question, based on anecdotal evidence they take Ivermectin without the data being all in or studies proving it is safe in the long run. Ivermectin may work. That would be great. That’s not the point. The point is the inconsistency of reasoning. I won’t take medicine X because it has not been proved by studies, yet, I will take medicine Y which has not been proved by studies. Of course, you can give me stories, “evidence” of how John Buck and Jane Doe were healed of COVID by Ivermectin. But, until unbiased studies by aggregate data have verified Ivermectin works, you are just showing photos of a white squirrel and saying all mammals are white. Theories must be proved. Distrust of government-funded “science,” I get. I understand the alarm of government intrusion into our privacy. I concur with the alarm at the government dictating what should or shouldn’t be done with and to my body. I am offended by the President’s scolding and incriminating me for not having had the vaccine. But strong reactionary feelings are unreliable in ascertaining what is true or not true. Those going by strong reactionary emotions most often gravitate to and utilize anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is unreliable. What is anecdotal evidence? It is my showing photos of white mammals as proof all mammals are white. Just because the mouse in the photo was white doesn’t mean most mice are white. Just because a self-prescribed treatment seemed to work and to be safe for Jane Doe doesn’t mean it will work and be safe for others. For decades my mother-in-law was a fervent believer in ingesting barley green as a panacea and preventer of all illnesses of the body. Barley green would keep her healthy. Every morning she would pour a glass of orange juice and mix in her barley green. I loved to tease her. “You swear by the barley green that it makes you healthy. But you always take it in your orange juice. How do you know it’s not the orange juice that makes you healthy?” Only a controlled study with a sufficient number of participants, some drinking just orange juice, some taking only barley green, and some drinking only water could ascertain if barley green, orange juice, a combination of the two, or neither makes one healthy. When I hear a conspiracy theory, I almost always find myself asking its promoter: “How? Just how did they pull that off? How did they get by with that? How? One of the early theories I heard circulating to discourage taking the vaccine was that every shot introduced a computer chip into the recipient--a computer chip the government was going to use to track and monitor folks, and the Antichrist would use as his mark. A doctor chatting with me said, “How do they do that? Every vial of vaccine contains five doses for five different people. How do they sort, introduce, and specify those chips to five different people?” Arguing with conspiracists, you can’t win. If you offer a debunking item of evidence, then that item itself becomes a conspiracy. For example, using my analogy, if you disagree that all mammals are white and say, “Here, look! Here are photos of a grey mouse, a grey squirrel, a grey elephant, the conspiracist will say, “Of course! Those photos were taken by the government.” Or, “Those rascally government workers took the white mice and painted them grey.” “But, oh,” you parry, “studies show that the grey comes from a specific genetic marker.” Then, the response is “That’s because they altered the genes of the white mouse. The grey color is not natural. It’s artificial.” “They. They. They.” It is always an anonymous “they.” But, I don’t have space to chase that rabbit—white one, or not. I am neither promoting the vaccine or disavowing Ivermectin. I am highly suspicious of a government-funded, government-controlled “science.” I believe there is a deep state and other entities that are engaged in Machiavellian machinations. I believe our world is rushing towards a global government that will one day be ruled by the Antichrist. I believe there will be a “mark of the Beast.” I believe there IS a conspiracy going on—Satan is pulling strings, pushing buttons, and powering his pawns. But I also believe that Christians should be all about Truth. When we champion the unproved, the unsubstantiated, the unreasonable, the irrational, we deeply damage our credibility with a world that needs to hear the Gospel. Why should the unconverted believe the Gospel we share after it has seen our posts, read our tirades, the bulk of which are, at their worst demonstratively not true and, at their best, unsubstantiated. God says, “Come now, let us reason together.” And, we believe He is being reasonable because of His track record of speaking the truth. May it be the same with us believers. May we have a track record of posting, sharing, promulgating things that are true in everyday life, so, when we, as Paul, “reason of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come” people will believe we are telling the truth; so, when we share the Truth of the Gospel, those who need it most will find us credible. --Pastor Clifford Hurst *I’m reserving the right to change my mind on the JFK conspiracy.