I have issues with Jeremiah, a speaker who speaks in our church regularly. He was there again last Sunday and he said a number of things which troubled me, as he usually did. I thought he was alluding to Michael Guglielmucci and the criticisms which have been made against him. These are some of the points I had problems with:

 

1. I don’t understand the statement regarding facts versus truth. I would have thought our faith is based on truth which is built on facts. The birth, life, deeds, death and resurrection of Jesus are facts. They form the truth of our salvation. Our obedience of God’s clear instructions for our lives as stated in the Bible, are also facts. These form the truth of our ongoing relationship with God. I don’t know therefore what instances Jeremiah has in mind which suggests truth can be established or affirmed notwithstanding or regardless of facts. If truth is to be claimed independent of facts, we lose objectivity and truth becomes a malleable matter. If we insist on something being the truth in the face of clearly contrary facts, what do we do with those facts? I understand there will be truths we accept in the absence of facts. I cannot understand however, how we can assert truth in the face of facts which tend to disprove. Josh McDowell in his book “Evidence Which Demands a Verdict” demonstrates how our faith in the truth of the resurrection of Jesus is based on facts.

 

1. Jeremiah made a reference to medical reports. I take it he meant medical reports which tend to disprove occurrence of healings. If he meant we can assert healing occurred notwithstanding medical reports to the contrary, I’m afraid I think Jeremiah is wrong. Maybe I’m being simplistic but I would have thought the question of whether healing took place is a factual one easily established or refuted by evidence – often simple and straight forward medical reports. How is possible to assert healing took place when there is contrary medical reports? He also made a reference to negative media reports which tend to spread fear. I don think by and large there is a conspiracy in the general media to disprove occurrence of healing. Media don’t tend to do that.

 

1. There is also a reference to the rebellion of the 10 spies who weren’t sure about Canaan. He suggested the negative reports of Canaan were a reflection of the “natural state” they were in. The doubt and negative thoughts were said to be a result of this “natural state”. In my simple mind, it was simply disobedience. God’s very clear instruction was that they should enter Canaan and take the land. The 10 spies disobeyed. It was as simple as that. This is an important point because Jeremiah was (I think) making the point that we should not be in our “natural state” as otherwise we would allow negative thoughts to come in which would prevent us from claiming what God has promised. I think that passage about the spies wasn’t the appropriate one to back this up. He needs to find some other source to support the idea that our negative thoughts is a result of us being in our natural state (as opposed to supernatural state).

 

1. He said the church has been in decline since the time of Acts and he though the reason for this was because we have restricted God from pouring out His blessings, being influenced by our negative thoughts and lack of faith etc etc. Really? The reformation wasn’t a revival? The church of England during the 18^th century wasn’t a revival? America in the 1900s? Or South East Asia in the 50s or China recently? Havent the churches there been experiencing a revival? Were there negative thoughts preventing God from pouring out His blessings then?

 

I don’t know…