Devil's Advocate

 I'm told that centuries ago the Catholic Church created a new job description or concept, in an attempt at balance, knowing that zealous people are pretty much defined by closed-mindedly, blindly moving forward under the assumption that they are right and that there is no merit in any other view or method.  They knew a thing or two about "missing things" and if you want someone with a unique skill in missing things (including, frequently, The Point), you want a zealot.
  The new job was called "Devil's Advocate."  Advocate as in "lawyer."  Because they wanted there to be two sides pondered in any important matter.  And without the devil's advocating going on, there was generally just one side of all the coins in their purse.  They didn't want a court case with only one lawyer.

  I have found there is a huge benefit to not simply ploughing blindly forward, fuelled by confidence that I (or my cultural training) am, of course, right.  Playing devil's advocate is a great tool.

  What's the main thing the devil (or his advocate) is likely to say?  "Yea, hath God (really) said?"  This is a simple one.  We need to be asked "Did God actually say that, at all, at any point, on purpose, it being His own idea to say it to us and not our making it up?"  Even in the Garden, Eve was misquoting Him. This was a bad start to something that didn't end well for her.

  So, when we have the intellectual integrity to ask and honestly answer that question (Did God actually say that, in so many words, in all of the things He's recorded as having said in the bible?), it helps.  Mostly, we would answer:

-No.  I can't, I guess, find anywhere He said that or anything close to it.  Not in so many words.  In fact, some verses could be taken to make a case for the opposite, and I'm not scared to look at them without simply trying to get rid of them so I can think what I want.  It appears He didn't say that.  If, therefore, I am living just as if He did say that, I might still be doing something good, or well-intentioned, but best to tone down the closed-mindedness a bit.  Might also be good to be open to learn more on this subject, even if it isn't simply going to validate the view I already have.

-Yes.  I can find a bit where He specifically said this, and it appears to apply still, across centuries and cultures and the different understandings and relationship He has had (covenants and so on) with the different kinds of people.

-Kinda, maybe.  If I take a bunch of bits of various different bits of scripture, read between the lines without projecting my own personal expectations and situation and agendas upon the exercise, think about what I would call principles, I can imagine that He intends me to interpret Him as having this particular position on a matter.  Given allowances made for who I am and what year it is, and my not being one of God's Chosen People, the Jewish Nation and all.  Once again, time to tone down that closed-minded confidence and be willing to at least entertain the idea that others might interpret things differently, and that they might have something of value to offer one.

A growing creature needs to be open to change.  If you want to grow or develop, you can't insist upon not changing.  A closed off, hermetically-sealed doctrine vault is suspicious.  It is suspicious because we are not politicians.  We aren't trying to get judged based on our claims, but on our actual results.  When our results are not stellar (and, in fairness, when it comes to enriching and enlightening young people and their lives, 'we' aren't even doing terribly well with 'our' own children, not in any way that lasts much into their 20s, statistically) it isn't good enough to simply blame the people we have failed to reach and attract and enlighten.  Just judging them (to be unbelieving, incorrigible, unheeding, unrepentant, unenlightened, unwhatever) doesn't let us off the hook for being closed, unattractive, easily dismissed and trite and facile-sounding.  If we've got anything good, it should be hard for them to sum us up, dismiss us, and feel they know exactly what we're selling, and that they don't need it.  They should need to talk to us or read up themselves in order to feel they actually have any kind of handle on what we claim we've got.

Devil's Advocate: Are we just people who decide God told us to do whatever we thought we should do anyway in the first place?  Because that's what Bill thinks.  Is Bill right?  Ever?  Do we have anything offer because an endless infomercial for a product which doesn't actual exist, let alone work?  Do we live in a land of make-believe and let's pretend?  Just to provide ourselves with "comfort"?  Is believing in Jesus like believing in Santa?  Is our religion an opiate for us?  That's what Karl thinks.  Is Karl right?