Future-Self vs Current-Self: Shame or Admiration?

Imagine your future-self is diametrically opposed to your current-self; would your future-self want to engage with your current-self? Or would your future-self be embarrassed by the way your current-self engages?

Recently, I’ve been abnormally active in a particular Christian theology/apologetics Facebook group. In that time, I’ve been ridiculed by several members and accused of being delusional, hallucinating my Bible studies, and being a fake profile. This isn’t just regular group members; even one of the admins joined in.

This reminds me of Dionne Warwick’s comment to Snoop Dogg and Tupac:

“You guys are all going to grow up. You’re going to have families. You’re going to have children. You’re going to have little girls, and one day that little girl is going to look at you and say, ‘Daddy, did you really say that? Is that really you?’ What are you going to say?”

Harkening back to the second greatest commandment, half of Sudoku Apologetics focuses on consistent behavior: are we treating others the way we want to be treated?

• I don’t like being called delusional. So I don’t call people delusional.
• I don’t like being accused of hallucinating my research. So I don’t accuse others of hallucinating their research.
• I don’t like being disparaged for disagreeing with them, so I don’t disparage others for disagreeing with me.

At least, not without substantial, ready-to-provide documentation (such as Synthetic Smartness Man). But as a practice, as a course of discussion, as a matter of regular engagement: I don’t keep that vocabulary in my mind, let alone in my pen (keyboard?). Do I fail in this regard? More so than I like thinking about, and my anxiety ensures that many of my thoughts are what I don’t like thinking about.

This leads me to the question I initially asked: imagine you’re 10-15 years in the future and now completely different. For example:

• If you were a Provisionalist, you’re now a Calvinist.
• If you were a Calvinist, you’re now an Open Theist.
• If you were a Christian apologist, you’re now a Progressive Christian.
• If you were a Progressive Christian, you’re now an evangelical.

Looking back on your current self, are you proud of your behavior? Would you want to be the person your current-self is engaging with?

When I look back over the last 5 years, I’m generally okay with what I see. I can honestly say that, despite so many failures, it’s clear that I have intended to take others seriously, to understand the issues at hand and not merely the talking points, to seek unity where possible. Certainly my bank account reflects that, with how much I’ve spent on Progressive Christian books…

When I look back on my earlier years in apologetics, however… that’s an entirely different story. About the only positive thing I can say of that time is that I was engaged, active. I certainly didn’t behave well; I didn’t treat people well, either. A lot of the groups I was banned from, Christian and non-Christian, the admins were justified and right to ban me. A number of the people who blocked me were justified in blocking me. I failed, repeatedly and regularly, through no one’s fault but my own.

One key thing that drove many of my earlier failures was my dismissal of love as long as I was speaking the truth. Well, at least, I convinced myself that I was speaking the truth. After all, of course I was right, definitely right, couldn't be wrong, right?

That's usually the worst kind of right.

And then I read John Marthur’s quote:

"Truth without love has no decency; it’s just brutality. On the other hand, love without truth has no character; it’s just hypocrisy."

John MacArthur

Twelve Ordinary Men

That transformed my understanding of 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 13:1–3 (ESV) -If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

You see: it doesn't matter if I’m right, if I don't have love. I have to have both truth AND love. And to be clear, this isn’t about niceness: this is about choosing the least offensive option available. Consider Paul in Romans:

Romans 12:16–18 (ESV) -Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

This doesn't mean there's never time for harshness, but it does mean that harshness probably, usually, isn't the best option most of the time.

This is part of what drives me so hard today: I know how much I failed, and I don’t want to see the apologetics community continue in those same steps. I want them, my community, my family and friends, to do better than I did. Hopefully the standards I hold to today, which I struggle and often fail to reach myself, are good standards, standards that keep us accountable, that prevent abuse, that encourage integrity and sincerity.

This is why I take the Micah Coate situation so seriously: using non-Christian language to describe brothers-in-Christ fosters distrust and suspicion, which leads to fear, which leads to anger, which leads to… Oh, hey, Yoda, didn’t see you there. 😀

This is why I take my Michael Heiser research so seriously: if the one group is right that he’s teaching polytheism, that’s a serious issue; if they are wrong, however…. distrust and suspicion.

So, I’ll ask again:

Would you want to engage with your current-self, if you were on the opposing side? Would you want to be called the things you’re calling others? Accused of those same things?