Heresy of others

Today I received an e-mail from someone I don’t know and who didn’t introduce himself. It’s an anonymous rant that came out of the blue. The e-mail had the following text:

“I demand a 2nd answer ! ALL RECONCILIATION … means DEATH OF JESUS ON THE CROSS is “in vain” … they are ALL GOING TO PARADISE anyway. Karsten Risseeuw, you are an IRRELIGIOUS TEACHER !”

Such an e-mail seems embarrassing for the sender. However, it happens regularly. Such an e-mail is evidence of ignorance, arrogance, self-righteousness and aggression. They are emptying the goiter and I hope that this will take some of the pressure off the station. Such a writer also testifies that he is neither familiar with my channel and website nor with the Bible.

The text is full of contradictions. On the one hand, an answer is “demanded”, on the other hand, condemnation has already been defined with the word “false teacher”. So it’s not an honest question, but rather an attempt to hide the intention. The question is intended to declare “openness”, although a “demand” contradicts this. What arrogance.

Capital letters have the effect of “shouting” on the Internet. That’s not the subtle way. This man was clearly upset, but did not investigate anything further, neither on my YouTube channel nor on the kernbeisser.ch website, where everything he “demands” is mentioned and justified in detail.

I haven’t gotten upset about emails like this for a long time. I know which corner they come from. Here I merely mention it as a typical reaction of an evangelical who is firmly trapped in black and white thinking and certain doctrines. It is an example of a tangible problem of evangelical subculture. Anyone who tells others off and thinks that everything can be divided into “right” and “wrong” ends every conversation. There is no openness, no curiosity, no willingness to talk and it would be the wrong signal to respond with arguments. Here one encounters an attitude to life and faith that is unhealthy, sectarian and alien to life, but which thrives particularly well in an evangelical environment.

I receive letters like this on a regular basis. Behind this is always the same “unspiritual mindset”.

Trench warfare

On this website and on my YouTube channel, I am particularly addressing evangelicals, post-evangelicals, ex-evangelicals and anyone interested in evangelical thinking. It is a world full of black and white thinking, demarcations and “absolute” opinions. In such an environment, it is particularly challenging to even hint at a different view or a different perspective on a topic. Even a critical examination of a teaching from the supposedly “correct” understanding of the Bible inevitably leads to unpleasant reactions.

A discussion of doctrinal opinions is helpful for many people because critical questions are often not allowed in free churches and free church communities. If I mention controversial topics on this website, it immediately triggers resistance from “right-believers”, even if others would like to see such critical topics. I understand the controversy and the various reactions. It is precisely these topics that are most urgently needed for an open and serious exchange.

I have been speaking out publicly on questions of faith and the Bible for over 20 years. Controversial topics are particularly interesting. From this time I learned that you can not only receive e-mails as mentioned above. Remarks and comments in comment columns often degenerate without delay into a battlefield of opinions, which regularly results in trench warfare. There is argumentation, with arguments for and against, and there is blithe heresy, as in the e-mail above.

Of course, it could be done differently. See the article linked below.

Cross-bubble communication

There are many evangelical websites and channels that can easily maintain communication with thousands of subscribers. Everyone talks and thinks about the same thing. On the Kernbeisser website and the Kernbeisser YouTube channel, this is not quite so easy. I work at the interface to other bubbles. I do cross-bubble communication, so to speak. In doing so, I point out other doctrines, question typical evangelical thoughts and formulate inspiring ideas and thoughts that other believers have. I do this because I am convinced that this is an enrichment and that knowledge of other perspectives is absolutely necessary for a serious discussion.

I live at the points where different interpretations meet, I try to build bridges and enable people to leave narrow ideas behind. Not everyone likes that, of course. That is why there are rejections, such as the one I mentioned above. Hard teachings create hot heads and cold hearts. It is immediately countered aggressively and denounced.

Hard teachings create hot heads and cold hearts.

Clear boundaries are essential

Heresies and trench warfare are of little help in promoting more sobriety, openness, calm and curiosity for discussion in this evangelical environment. That’s why there was never a comment function on the website. There should be no such disputes, which would only encourage narrow-mindedness and black-and-white thinking. I know of several other websites and YouTube channels that have never had a comment function switched on. I can empathize with that. Who has the resources and the desire to “accompany” trench warfare?

Last week I turned off the comment function on the YouTube channel. It wasn’t the first time. There is, of course, a desire to maintain an exchange, to express agreement or disagreement. That is why I have repeatedly tried to keep the comment option open. However, I cannot allow ongoing aggression in my own home. There are people who post overlong texts, probably in the hope of unsettling some readers. They move in opposition and try to hijack the comment columns without having the courage to start their own channel.

There are also people who try to fill the comments with overlong texts, others by posting the same text under as many videos as possible. Still others are obviously happy to have found a serious channel and post their whole life story because they would like to be heard by another person for once. I understand that too, but such comments have nothing to do with the video content and are therefore not published. Some just grumble to themselves. Still others think that they are “neutral” if they only use “biblical passages” against me, i.e. if they refrain from a personal and well-considered answer. Bible passages answer everything and never need to be interpreted, do they? I have seen these and many other tactics dozens or even hundreds of times and I won’t go into them again. When these reactions increased disproportionately in the last few weeks, I radically switched off the comment functions. Calm returned and I found time to concentrate on important things again.

If I want to make a positive contribution to the quality of life and faith of many people, I have to clearly state my boundaries on a daily basis, true to the motto “If you’re open to everything, you’re not quite right”.

The Bible as a standard

Nothing is more annoying for an evangelical than when I use the Bible to show that hell does not exist. Hell is, in my experience, the secret occupant of the throne of evangelical doctrine. You can see this in people’s reactions when you break away from the familiar beliefs and, for example, want to critically examine the old familiar doctrine of hell on the basis of the Bible. Orthodoxy is measured by acceptance of hell, not by belief in God’s work in and through Jesus.

Why is it annoying that I expose hell as untenable on the basis of the Bible? Because evangelicals have an understanding that their thoughts and actions are “true to the Bible” and “biblical”. You only want to believe what the Bible says and “therefore” hell must be in the Bible, even if it is not. This then leads to conflicts. Anyone who radically advocates doctrines that have nothing to do with the Bible exposes their ideas as pure ideology.

While Jesus and the apostles focus on God’s actions for this world and for people, ideologues lose sight of people. Then it’s all about ideology (ossified guiding principles), which must be defended with fire and sword and enforced at the expense of people. Bible passages are quoted for these ideological teachings, but often without regard to the basic text and context. Bible words thus become ideological loudspeakers that convince some pious people, but from which others resolutely turn away.

The Bible is and remains the core on which we can base our Christian faith. Paul himself was still able to visit the apostles in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18). We can no longer do that. He was also able to advise the Corinthians, should they have any doubts, to ask the eyewitnesses of the resurrection and mentioned over 500 such people (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). These now all need the resurrection itself and cannot be reached. We are left with the Scriptures as a testimony.

Understanding the Bible is a neutral desire, but it can be contaminated by evangelical black and white thinking. Many people are turning away from this contamination because it has been exposed as toxic. In my discussion, I hope to contribute to a more differentiated debate without prescribing how one “must” or “should” think and without falling into the trap of “right” or “wrong”. Because the Scriptures already existed when evangelical theologies were still a long way off. We can pursue these questions in a relaxed manner and, with a great deal of attention, both keep an eye on the times of that time and also learn to see our time.

The more I got to grips with the Bible, the more I was able to let go of evangelical ideas and replace them with better thoughts.

Those who learn are on the move. Cultivating a culture of learning means not having arrived at your destination yet, but setting out on a journey together with curiosity. For orientation, I choose the Bible, which has never struck me as narrow-minded or one-track minded. On the contrary: the more I engaged with the Bible, the more I was able to let go of evangelical ideas and replace them with better thoughts.

Stages of the debate

Those who grapple with questions of faith and life do not stand in a single place, but move along an imaginary line of development. I have therefore recognized several stages of development in my own confrontation. The following topics were discussed in turn:

1. 40 years ago: Biblical teaching (read, understand, apply, compare, test, rethink)
2. 25 years ago: Linking being human and being Christian (and how it can be misdirected from doctrine)
3. 15 years ago: Self-understanding of the community (and how it arises from teaching)
4. For 5 years: Vision of a better faith community (the desire for authentic relationship and real faith connection).

Not everyone will consider all of these topics to be relevant for themselves. This order does not apply to everyone. What I have written here as 4 points concerns myself. It is a sketch of my arguments. None of these points has been completed. What I would like to point out is this: You learn in ever wider circles.

Am I a false teacher?

Other people’s accusations do not define me. This is not self-aggrandizement. People who denounce others are only talking about their own mindset. Paul, for example, also often had the wind from the front, but did not allow himself to be determined by others (1 Corinthians 4:3-6). He stood up for what he had realized.

I’ve learned this: when others call me a false teacher, it’s almost never about real arguments, it’s just emotional defense because I seem too threatening. I seem threatening because I use the Bible to remove hell from the Bible, for example. Evangelicals, on the other hand, constantly claim that hell is in the Bible. So I refute the doctrine with my own authority. That is dangerous and that is why they resort to the last weapon, heresy. Heresy is the rejection of further debate, but with the retention of one’s own supposed superiority.

If you question evangelical ideas, things can quickly become very narrow.

People regularly write to me about similar experiences they have had in their faith communities. Freedom of thought is often deliberately avoided and blocked there. If you question evangelical ideas, things can quickly become very narrow. I just think that’s why you should look there. That’s what I’m trying to do here, completely imperfectly and without radical pretensions. This is my contribution to the debate. Do something positive with it or leave it.

Projection screen

I step outwards and automatically become a projection surface. I have come to terms with this because I have realized that it helps many people to call a spade a spade. Mentioning controversial topics often enables people to discuss them themselves. That’s why I’m writing this down here. I’m just a help, a kind of particle accelerator, so to speak. Because when we find words for our questions and thoughts, something becomes tangible. This allows us to think about it further. Even the realization that you are not alone in asking critical questions helps. That is the purpose of this website and my videos. They are intended as input to help you free yourself from restrictive teachings and thoughts.