Revisiting the End of History Illusion

some thoughts on perspective

Four years and three months ago, I wrote a short blog on the end of history illusion. To sum it up, it’s easy to see our growth over the last ten years, but it is hard to imagine how we might possibly grow over the next ten.

We get the idea that we “have arrived.”

Since it’s been about half-way to the ten-year mark, I want to touch on a few things that have happened since I first learned of the “end of history illusion.” Then, I want to make a few additional points about it I think you’ll find helpful.

1. In 2021, Laura, Cayden, and I moved back to north Alabama, which is something I would haven’t even considered in 2020.

2. Second, we moved to Alabama to accept a preaching job, which is something I didn’t think was possible. What church would want me with all my baggage?

3. Then, I restarted my undergrad program and completed a B. S. in Bible and Ministry thanks to a full scholarship.

4. During that time Laura and I had another baby, Ellie Shay.

5. This year I’ve started graduate school.

This isn’t all, and it doesn’t include a lot of personal growth stuff I could include, but this just shows how much things can change in a short time.

If I stopped now and said, “Well, I have arrived,” who knows what I would miss out on in the next five, ten, twenty years and beyond?

But what if…

Inventors stopped inventing.

What else could be invented? What else do we need?

Scientists stopped researching new medicine?

What could we possibly discover that we haven’t already?

Philanthropists stopped seeking new ways to lift up the unfortunate?

How could we possibly end more suffering than we already have?

And what if…

The End of History Illusion and Theology

One of the things that stumped me when I first began questioning some of the beliefs I was raised with is why people who I was told were “liberal” didn’t look much different than people who were alternatively labeled “conservative,” “fundamentalist,” or “legalistic.” (Think moving between different sects within a denomination)

It wasn’t long before I learned that these terms were generally used to describe people who were on different parts of the spectrum from the one using the labels.

To someone who is as far “conservative” as one can be, everything is liberal.

To one who is as far “liberal” as one can be, everything is conservative.

In these cases, these terms mean little more than “good guys” and “bad guys,” and this doesn’t seem all too helpful.

People who use these terms in these ways may believe different things about worship, salvation, the Bible, church governance, parenting, the environment, science, politics, etc., but there really is no difference between them because as long as they continue to operate from this perspective, they won’t be able to bring about positive change by entering into meaningful dialogue/ collaboration with the “other side.”

Until there are no “other sides,” we fight against ourselves.

What is the root cause of all this?

My fiends, allow me to introduce the end of history illusion.

“Liberals” and the End of History Illusion

Erase from your minds the sectarian framing of “liberals” above. We’ll still deal in very broad terms, but they’ll be more helpful for our purposes here because we’ll be approaching the actual definition of “liberal” and “conservative” (hint: liberals aren’t Christians who use pianos and conservatives aren’t Christians who say women can’t lead public prayers)

Let’s imagine someone who still claims Jesus as Christ the Son of God, but they do so with a few major differences from the typical, evangelical perspective most of you were raised with.

• They doubt that most miracles, except the resurrection, took place in actual history (including the virgin birth).

• They don’t view Genesis 1-11 as a literal, historic account of history.

• They have an alternate explanation for the supernatural accounts of demons and angels in the gospels.

To be transparent with you, I disagree with the first proposition, tend to agree with the second, and have no idea about the third. On the second, I see Genesis 1-11 as being about history, but I do not read it in the “literal” sense taught by Apologetics Press, AiG, and CRI. On the third, I literally (ha) just have no idea. I’ve never experienced anything like those stories, and I’m not always sure how to interpret them.

Now, why does this liberal fellow believe, or not believe, all of this?

Well, the key word is “modernism.”

As the ever-trustworthy Wikipedia says, Liberal Christianity “is a movement that interprets Christian teaching by prioritizing modern knowledge, science and ethics.”

Do you see the assumption here?

The assumption is that modern knowledge, science, and ethics has arrived.

Our assumptions, methodologies, experiments, logic, and conclusions are objectively correct and will never need to change.

Again, we have arrived.

Do you see how short-sighted this is?

Undoubtedly, the modern world has given us a lot of awesome and helpful tools, but to say we have arrived is to really miss out on the wonderful future ahead.

Instead, liberal theology needs a huge dose of the word perhaps and a few helpings of what if.

“Conservatives” and the End of History Illusion

Now our conservative test-case believes the exact opposite of that liberal dude.

• They believe that every miracle, especially the resurrection and the virgin birth, took place in actual history.

• They view Genesis 1-11 as a literal, historic account of history.

• They believe there were actual demons and angels affecting the lives of humans in the first century, and these beings exist and are active today.

On the third point, I was actually raised to believe that angelic and demonic activity stopped sometime during the first century, which is admittedly mighty convenient, even if it is true.

Now, why does this conservative fellow believe all of this?

This one is obvious, no Wikipedia needed:

“The Bible says it, and that settles it.”

Some people would say, “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it,” but those people don’t realize that it doesn’t matter whether or not they believe it; the Bible still says it, amen? (I hope you catch my sarcasm here. I can play this game as good as anyone).

But the liberal Christian would have a very good response here:

That may be what the Bible says, but is that what the Bible means?

In other words, is the Bible meant to always be read literally? Is the point of Genesis 1-11 to give us a literal account of creation? Should we read Revelation 20 as an account of an actual thousand-year reign? Are we meant to read the Bible like this or does this kind of reading miss the point?

What is actually being said is, “I understand the Bible this way, I believe it, and that settles it.”

In this system, one’s understanding of the Bible is elevated to the same level as the knowledge of God itself. It is very dangerous to disagree with someone who believes this way because you may be in danger of excommunication or hellfire. But it’s also dangerous to disagree with the liberal fellow above because you may be viewed as uneducated, ignorant, behind-the-times, etc.

You see how both sides suffer from the end of history illusion? And how this ailment breeds division?

We can sum up the end of history of illusion in one word: arrogance.

Humility: The Antidote to the Illusion

If one passage could sum up an attitude that would help dispel this illusion, it is Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 8:1-3.

Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge, but anyone who loves God is known by him. 1 Corinthians 8:1–3

To dispel this illusion, what if we prioritized love above all else and placed theological correctness a tier, or several tiers, down? Or reframe those questions and the necessity of them entirely?

How might this work?

Well, let’s start with how we talk about our particular opinion, interpretation, or whatever.

I’ve heard a lot of good thoughts on this, but I think…

One solution to this could be…

Perhaps Jesus meant…

One possibility is…

It could be that…

Allow me to suggest…

Do you see how these, and other variations, are all ways to communicate truths we believe (and maybe strongly believe) but still invite others to the table to share their opinions as partners, not opponents? Do you see how this opens up the way to discussion and collaboration?

This isn’t weakness or cowardice; it takes a whole other level of strength. Because this means being willing to be wrong, being brave enough to hear others out, and being courageous enough to admit when you’ve changed your mind.

It also shows the person across the table from you that they are free to do the same.

Weakness is hiding behind certainty. Weakness masquerades as strength by arrogantly purporting it has the answers. Weakness refuses to hear others out because of the fear it might be wrong. Weakness desperately holds on to the illusion to avoid uncomfortable change and progress.

And here’s the cool thing…

This could all be bogus, and I’m the one that needs to return to the world of good guys and bad guys, liberals and conservatives, and legalism and fundamentalism.

I’m open to being wrong about that…and not in a “disarming to convince you I’m safe so I can convert you” kind of way.

So whenever you read something of mine, see it as an invitation to challenge yourself, but also see it as my invitation for you to challenge me. We are all in this together. Above all, love God, and you will know that you are known far more than you could ever know.