My previous post about “insularity” didn’t really head in the direction I’d intended. While it touched partly on the issue I wanted to address, I probably didn’t make my intended points clear.
I mentioned how limited my own understanding had been regarding doctrinal diversity within “the church”. I had a lot of (wrong) assumptions about the general conformity of Christian beliefs.
To a degree that created a “trust shortcut”, giving the illusion that something could be accepted on trust if it had a Christian label.
Those assumptions were changed through interacting with others outside of my familiar theological world. Realisation of significant doctrinal differences across the Christian community made me aware of the need to reassess all of my beliefs: all of those things I’d taken for granted.
One of the points I intended to make in the previous post was the way we can misinterpret the world outside of our religious (and political) cocoons. In other words, I wanted to consider whether our understanding comes from seeing “the real world out there” or from a collection of assumptions we’ve adopted through listening to others. To what extent is our understanding of the world based on fact (what is real, what is actually true), and how much is based on prejudices we’ve picked up?
When we hold onto, and even promote, an opinion about the nation or community in which we live, we are no less responsible for ensuring there’s a foundation of truth behind those “political” views, than we should be regarding our doctrinal beliefs.
Promoting political error is no less a compromise to our Christian witness than promoting false doctrine. Both are rooted in lies.