Not everyone thinks like me

What do I think myself? How do I believe? What is important to me? These questions do not stand alone. If you only have the courage to ask others about their thoughts, feelings and ideas, you can discover something, namely how different you are. Because I only think and feel like myself and everyone else does the same.

Or, as Oscar Wilde is said to have once said: “Be yourself, everyone else is already taken”. And: “Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else” (perhaps according to Jim Wright). The uniqueness of our existence naturally means that although we can talk about topics, we often have different opinions.

Not everyone thinks like me, or even more strongly: no one thinks like me. If that is true, what does that mean for my beliefs? How realistic is the idea that everyone in my community “thinks the same way”?

What is most influential?

Our different backgrounds lead to different expectations and assessments. Of course, this also applies to our beliefs. Even if some communities insist on uniformity and define truth as unambiguous, this cannot hide the fact that everyone sees this “unambiguous truth” with their own eyes and interprets it individually.

Some people are more logic-oriented. Others are more emotionally oriented. Still others trust primarily in themselves and others trust in God. Some insist on worship in church services in order to be completely absorbed, while for others this is too much noise and stimulation. This shapes what you can absorb.

The starting position is different for everyone. Everyone makes of it what they can. That is personal and also a personal choice.

Farewell to old ideas

People come to terms with themselves and their ideas. When people say goodbye to old ideas, this can happen for very different reasons. Some may have discovered that the beliefs of the past do not do justice to current reality. One discovers, for example, that a doctrine of hell is not based in the Bible, but has merely been projected onto it. This can raise many questions and lead to a desire to replace old beliefs with new ones. But how does that work?

You can perhaps imagine it like this:

As an example, I would like to use a short formula: “1 + 1 = 3”. This formula will one day be recognized as flawed. Perhaps it is an old doctrine that stands out so negatively. Perhaps it is also a perceived dissonance in the nature of the community. Whatever causes friction is looking for an improvement. Now imagine two people:

• Person A: This person recognizes that the formula is not correct, rejects it and goes in search of a better formula.
• Person B: This person feels uncomfortable with this formula, rejects it and goes in search of a better feeling.

The new formula

Now both people discover a new formula: “2 + 2 = 5”. It is perhaps preached and lived in a different environment. People have a positive attitude. Something amazing happens with this formula: everyone reacts differently to it.

• Person A: This person realizes that the formula is also incorrect and sets off again in search of a better formula.
• Person B: This person does not recognize the formula, but the better feeling and feels (temporarily) understood.

We react differently to beliefs and their effects. I myself tend to recognize myself in this “person A”. That is my strength and, of course, also my weakness. The coherence of this formula is more important to me than the feeling, because I recognize that the feeling has everything to do with this formula. If I recognize a bad feeling, I look for the reason for it. That is the flawed formula. I see, for example, how inconsistent this teaching is compared to the biblical narrative and what devastating consequences a doctrine of hell has on the lives of many believers.

When I come across a new formula, I ask myself whether this formula works better. I try to imagine the consequences. If I recognize inconsistencies again, I will not be able to accept the new formula. A positive feeling that people share with the new formula does not convince me. I need something else: consistency of reasoning and contexts in the Bible, as well as a sober basis. From this, I hope, a better feeling will emerge. I don’t want to change the symptoms, but to remove the source of the inflammation of bad feelings. Good feelings, I conclude, should then arise from this.

More concretely: I see biblicism practiced in many evangelical churches. It is an attitude of faith that arises from certain ideas and teachings. The consequences of these ideas are devastating for many people. Not only did I become suspicious of the teachings and ideas, but I was also shaken by the consequences. I saw these in myself and recognized them in many others in conversation. As I had been influenced by this biblicism, I was close to the situation. I knew from experience where these feelings and concepts came from. Could I rethink this? I did it this way: I tried to keep the Bible as a reference point, and to ask whether these biblicist ideas came from the Bible. Again and again I realized that the Bible does not think so narrowly, that neither Jesus nor Peter nor Paul were evangelicals, and that the Bible had a liberating message. I too, like Person B, was searching for a better feeling. However, my tactic was to first learn to read the Bible anew instead of imposing a biblicist view on it from the outset. The fact that this was possible shows the different nature of the biblical message. I was able to engage profitably with the Bible without primarily accepting ideological ideas. It also works without ideology or doctrines. That was a great discovery for me.

People like “Person B” saw the original situation primarily from a feeling. The feeling corresponded to a negative experience. With the new formula, on the other hand, the feeling seems to be right. This was not due to the formula, but to the community and the people who supported this formula. The inconsistency in the new formula is therefore not given much weight. There was never a search for biblical justification or agreement. So the new formula, despite its inconsistency, can carry a positive feeling. Those who are looking for a better feeling may then say: This is right for me.

Coming from the same original situation, these people nevertheless have different concerns. The solution and redemption from the old way of thinking follows different criteria. This is one of the reasons why deconstruction processes proceed differently and reconstruction can look different. I also think that each of these people has blind spots. So I also say that about myself. No one has “arrived”, they are all still on their way. That’s why a consciously cultivated learning culture is enriching, because you learn to look beyond your own limits. Life, faith, everything becomes richer and more authentic.

Conscious reorientation

The question for this post is: “What kind of thinker are you?”. There is more than one kind. What is important to you when you are looking for improvement? What are the reasons that something feels “out of tune” and what does it take to make it “right”? Questions like these can help you to better understand your own concerns as well as to remain neutral in a conversation; the other person probably has a different view and their own reasons for their view.

A conscious reorientation is active. This means that you take the helm yourself. What do I/do you want to believe and why? What does this do to me/you and why is it important to me/you?

Rethinking as an ongoing process

There is a further differentiation here: rethinking is not a one-off. We are all constantly rethinking, even if we don’t consciously choose to do so. We live, grow older, end up in new life situations. These all lead to evaluations of previous feelings and impressions. They challenge previous ideas. Do they still work? This can bring us to a point where we have to rethink. It is life circumstances and experiences that make you do this.

Jeremiah, for example, says:

“Return, that I may return, for you are Yahweh my God.”
Jer 31:18

Jesus says repeatedly:

“Repent!” (or: Convert! In Greek: metanoia, to rethink, always with concrete steps in everyday life)
Mt 4,17

And Paul even insists that we should allow ourselves to be renewed:

“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of [your] mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”
Rom 12:2

So rethinking is not strange, but normal. I am aware that each of these quotes has its own particular context. My point here is not about these contexts, but about the fact that these believers did not assume continuity of knowledge. Change and a new direction were part of it, were sometimes unavoidable. Radicality was not to be found in rigidity, but in the freedom to realign oneself. This is remarkable.

It is particularly helpful to realize that an “absolute truth” is not dependent on my ideas. I say this as neutrally as possible: you don’t even have to believe in God to understand the value of rethinking. If there is a God, which I am assuming here, this God transcends my ideas. If you don’t believe in a God, you could still imagine this as a neutral concept. There is a difference between creator and creation – they have to do with each other, but cannot be confused with each other. God is unlimited, whereas I am limited. Wherever I stand with my realization: this is the only starting position for a sustainable change. Rethinking is good, necessary and part of my humanity and my faith. The only question is how I deal with it.

My own limitations mean that I can learn. I would now add that I even “have to” learn if I want to fulfill my life. I have to come to terms with my life, my ideas and beliefs. Blind faith doesn’t help because it doesn’t know the reality of my life. However, if I want to consciously stand in this life as a human being, the opportunity opens up for the first time to recognize the testimony through the biblical texts and then to ask: What does this have to do with me?