In his literary classic, “Mere Christianity,” C.S. Lewis effectively addressed the misconceptions being propagated by those who denied Christ’s deity while seeking to affirm his ethical virtues and scholarship. The passage is quite well known and I believe serves as a worthy launching point for addressing the subject of discernment.

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him (that is, Christ): ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse… You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit on Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

What Lewis illustrates is how easily we can allow ourselves to fall for deceptions of our own making by trying to twist facts to conform with the parameters of our pre-existing worldview. It becomes easy to adopt fallacies and convince ourselves of that we can manipulate what is self-evident to make it more palatable based on the limiting concessions we will permit.

What Lewis exposes is not a fringe concept, but a view of Jesus held by the majority of the world’s population. Whether it be atheists, followers of various traditional and non-traditional religions, or even a significant number of professing Christians. There is no way to misconstrue who Jesus said he was. There are myriad examples throughout the gospels and the epistles that address this fact and establish Christ as the fulfillment of the prophesies.

For the sake of space, I will deal with one clear example that comes from the mouth of Jesus himself. This took place as Jesus was beginning his ministry and comes from the book of Luke.

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” …When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away. – Luke 4:16-21, 28-30

Those who were outraged by Jesus words and sought to stone him did so because they knew he was claiming to be the Messiah. They deemed Jesus to be a heretic and a blasphemer. The religious leaders and civil authorities saw him as a threat because they knew he was claiming to be God. They believed Jesus’s claims to be pompous, delusional, and/or deceptive. On many occasions we know that the Jewish leaders tested his authority by trying to trap him in his teachings. Inevitably, they were “triggered” and conspired to take his life. They rightly discerned the terms of the competing views, but reached the wrong conclusion. Doubtless this is because they were certain that they were in the right and succumbed to their own predilections. They would not allow their righteousness to be called into question. Their pride kept them from considering the evidence right in front of them.

I point this out because I have been struck by a dearth of discernment from those professing faith in Christ. In many cases, they outsource their critical thinking and have come to accept that following the perceived consensus will stand them in good stead. They fail to understand that in Christ’s time, the masses almost entirely got it wrong about Christ and this was even true of those who were closest to him.

We know discernment to be a spiritual gift where, much like the gift of prophesy, one can supernaturally recognise what otherwise is beyond the grasp of human knowledge alone. Such individuals are able to exercise wisdom and insight beyond what is humanly possible based on readily available evidence. Anyone can make prophetic claims or assert what is not evident at the time, but to know whether an individual actually possesses the spiritual gift of prophesy or discernment is tested by the track record of seeing their assertions verified over time.

We also know, however, that even when the proof is finally revealed, many still fail to avail themselves of the basic discernment derived from available evidence. Where discernment is the product of an earnest test for truth, we are not dealing with a cypher, wrapped in an enigma, covered with secret sauce (credit to Newsradio). The type of discernment I will be arguing for is not exclusive to those uniquely gifted, but accessible to all who are motivated to discover what is true.

Not only is there a blindness that comes from turning away from the source of truth, but when we give oxygen to our fleshly propensities, even Christ followers can be blinded to reality. It may be simple stubbornness or possibly pride that impedes our capacity to recognise or admit our folly so completely that we manage to make A + B = kumquat. As one who has been devoted to finding out what is true and with a track record suggesting that I have been given the gift of discernment, I have seen a great deal of wilful deception among professing believers.

There will be a natural tendency to dismiss me as somehow being an expert on discernment; let alone qualified to offer a primer on such a subject. For any sceptics, I want to point out and remind you of a number of facts:

• God himself is the one who informs us that discernment is a gift of the Holy Spirit. This means that people exist with this gift – just as others are endowed with gifts of prophesy, leadership, teaching, encouragement, charity, and mercy (Romans 12), healing, helping, administration, speaking in and interpreting tongues, wisdom, knowledge and distinguishing between the spirits. Therefore, denying that discernment is a gift is to belittle God. Just as many can exhibit the capacity for most of the qualities above that are listed as gifts, we know that some are uniquely equipped.
• Expertise is not something one can lay claim to, but must be subject to scrutiny. The irony is that many who would be prepared to write me off due to my lack of formal academic credentials or formal recognition have been taking up the mantra of “follow the experts;” thus outsourcing their own obligation to discern to others based on the presumption that experts exist. Worse yet, as I will get to, they are putting faith in select experts based on approved assumptions while ignoring those with similar or superior training that reach different conclusions. Consequently, they defer to the presumption that some are uniquely equipped while ignoring the testing of truth claims to validate purveyors of truth or discredit those making false proclamations.
• I am not asking you to trust me, but to decide whether the guidance I give can be supported as a means for determining truth. Anyone who blindly concludes that God either does or does not exist and fails to do the research for themselves is a fool. Much of the advice I will be offering comes from my deep exploration into biblical claims to decide whether my faith was more than wishful thinking. Through this process, I was profoundly strengthened in my faith and the most significant growth has come from trusting in God for what I would or could never do on my own. We are told that even the elect will follow false teachers, so we know the pitfalls exists and this demands that we hone our ability to test for truth to not go astray. If my advice doesn’t meet that standard, it must be ignored. That is discernment in action.
• These rules are not to be taken in isolation, but are cumulative. The more rules that are in effect, the higher likelihood that you are getting an accurate read of the situation. This is why a notion such as “trust the experts” is so dangerous since it is self-referencing and many voices pointing to the same source without applying standards of truth, the more likely that one will drift into deception once that “expert” is summarily debunked.
• Possessing any spiritual gift or blessing is not determinate of personal virtue. To take one example, God imbued Solomon not only with a supernatural capacity for wisdom, but bestowed upon him unparalleled wealth. Despite these blessings, Solomon was riddled with character flaws and a propensity for sin. These failings do not negate the reality of his gifting.

Keeping all of this in mind, the method I am applying here is using laws of logic as a means of establishing what is true. Even setting aside discernment as a gift, Christ told us: “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world – to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” – John 18:37b Jesus, thus, unequivocally avers that recognising the truth is a characteristic of believers. All who claim Christ as their Saviour, therefore, have no excuse beyond laziness, apathy, or willful blindness to not discover truth. The rules I lay out are not inaccessible, but self-evident for the elect.

With this as the foundation, let us now move into the principles:

Rule # 1: Trust only those who are trustworthy.

     To assess one’s trustworthiness requires that we have the capacity to test whether or not their truth claims comport with reality. When declarations are made that have yet to come about or rely on evidence that is not provided or is inaccessible, this cannot be taken as validation. Claims to expertise or years of formal education are not assurances of integrity. Below you will find other standards that any truly reliable source would be happy to allow as means to scrutinize the veracity of anyone claiming to be dependable as arbiters of truth.

Rule #2: Evasion, projection, and deflection are surefire signs of a liar and/or ideologue.

Do they welcome challenges or debate in order to support or clarify their statements? When making an argument based on principle and conviction, there is no need to divert attention elsewhere by emotional outbursts, ad hominem attacks, or name-calling. I have had debates with many people and have commonly been treated to the reasonable sounding rejoinder of “Let’s just agree to disagree.” In my experience, this phrase has never come from someone who is winning an argument; but is carted out when they have made an assertion they can’t back up. Those who read my articles know that I consistently seek to make cogent arguments after clarifying the terms and language as well as pre-emptively addressing matters that might be misinterpreted. I also take it to the next level by presenting what I believe will be the most likely challenges to my arguments. A primary reason I chose to call my blog “Burning Strawmen” is because I am so accustomed to hearing people debating points I never made because they will not confront my argument head-on and in context. Just listen to a Canadian Parliamentary session and I guarantee not one direct question will receive a genuine response. It is all evasion and subterfuge.

Rule #3: Listen to critics who reach divergent conclusions and apply these rules to assess the veracity of their claims and soundness of their methodology.

     Even those earnestly committed to integrity can be self-deceived. The entire foundation of Christianity is the recognition that we are sinners and oriented toward pride, self-preservation, and many other inducements that can cloud our judgment. We don’t even like to admit when we are wrong when the evidence is irrefutable and amassed in front of us. As they say, there are three sides to every story: Yours, mine, and the truth. Those willing to hold themselves accountable are far more reliable than those who resist – not only because this level of vulnerability is risky of itself, but because truth is more likely to emerge because of the accountability process. Distrust either those making truth claims or their detractors whenever there is an aversion to being accountable or no system in place to enforce it.

Rule #4: Consider the belief system underlying those we are being asked to trust.

     Going back to Jesus’ words to Pilate – who incidentally responded dismissively with, “What is truth” before summarily walking away without waiting for a response – truth is uniquely conferred onto those who are genuine followers of Christ. There is a corollary to this as we read from the lips of Jesus as reported in John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” If you are being subjected to purported truth claims from someone who is not a faithful follower of Christ, know that he or she is already suspect as a source.

Rule #5: Where possible, take into account conflicts of interest that could compromise or corrupt the one offering the declaration.

     In the legal system, there is a policy in place whereby judges who may have a vested interest in the outcome or where a relationship exists between the judge and any party that they are tasked to pass judgment on, the judge has a duty to recuse himself. This standard is established, not because such circumstances guarantee they will not be impartial, but to avoid the appearance of partiality. It should be noted that when one fails to declare a conflict of interest and recuse themselves; this does not mean they can be trusted to adjudicate fairly. In fact, it suggests that such a person is far less deserving of the benefit of the doubt because of their unwillingness to step aside.

Rule #6: Determine if an individual might be incentivized to convince others to come to a prescribed conclusion.

     This is a more specific iteration of the consideration related to conflict of interest. If one has a financial incentive to convince others to reach a conclusion, chances are they will do all they can to lead their audience in that direction. While it is deliberately established as an adversarial system, let us again look at a court of law. Both the defendant and the prosecution are committed to putting their case in the best possible light. Prosecutors might do what they can to eliminate exculpatory evidence and the defendant will be motivated to obfuscate and distort evidence that could result in their conviction. Lawyers for the defence specifically, have a vested financial and reputational incentive to win the case and deceit can be seen as laudable to achieve a favourable outcome for their client. This is true in every sphere of endeavour whether personal, public, or relational. By default, we want to do all we can to highlight or even exploit our positives and minimize or bury our failures.

Rule #7: Root out any flawed starting assumptions that fall outside the facts in evidence.

A favourite ploy of atheists who like to assert that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” as grounds for denying God’s existence. While one could argue the merit of this mentality, the application starts by violating the premise being declared. The idea that there is a God who created everything yet cannot be physically seen is presumed to be an extraordinary, thus unfounded, contention. The problem is that when we delve into the complexity, order, precision, and material to permit life -let alone life itself – falls well outside anything that can be explained by a formula consisting of blind undirected chance and time. That doesn’t even include a mind, sentience, logic, moral and natural laws, to name but a few concepts that are impossible to explain or refute. To deny the extraordinary claim of a creator is to necessarily embrace the extraordinary corollary that everything was derived from nothing. Any detective walking into a crime scene who starts with the assumption that the dead body in the room had to have met their fate through a series of coincidences will not be seeking truth, but the best explanation to fit their predetermined conclusion. Such a person will not find an external source because their starting assumption does not permit.

Rule #8: A slogan is not an argument.

     One need only walk a mile in the Birkenstocks of an activist and you are bound to be inundated with catchy slogans. Much of my writing is focused on debunking this shorthand as a means of propaganda and emotional manipulation that almost always bears no resemblance to the complexity of the issue. To choose but one example, just investigate the organization that calls itself “Planned Parenthood,” and their claims to defend “reproductive choice” and it is self evident that parenthood and reproduction are antithetical to their mission. It is especially revelatory when a group or system attempts to bolster their credibility by using language intended to suggest they represent the values of their detractors. No pro-lifer attempts to paint themselves as on the side of baby-killing or the eradication of the family. Never presume a slogan – for example, “safe and effective” – as anything more than a soothing mantra if it is not backed up with evidence.

Rule #9: Emotional pleas are often exploited to conceal the absence of evidentiary support.

When we watch movies designed to tug on our heartstrings, we know we are being manipulated. When it comes to matters that are not so innocuous and impact our lives, this ploy can quickly take a sinister turn. Inspirational leaders have advocated for socialist and communist principles through promises of a place where everyone is equal, no one goes hungry, and where everyone has access to exceptional healthcare. In every case, the inverse is true and the touted utopian outcomes transform into dystopian nightmares of tyrannical oppression and democide. This failure to take into account the true nature of man will inevitably result in disaster. Even where those who are gullible enough to believe in their own propaganda are powerless to bring about their aspirational visions; there is no way to test the factual basis or viability of an emotional entreaty. Once the infrastructure is in place to subjugate a population, it is too late to have a change of heart. Discernment in this case is not just based on the perceived sincerity of the current rulers, but the dangers that can ensue once less benign forces have taken the helm. This is the discernment borne of our awareness of the irredeemable and corrupt nature of humanity.

Rule #10: Never assume incompetence where a just case for malevolence can be made.

If this sounds like I’m taking things too far, note that I am not suggesting ill-intent should be assumed. Ask a child with their hand in the cookie jar, a teen caught sneaking upstairs at 3am, or a man spotted at a restaurant holding hands with someone who is not their spouse. Chances are They will start by stammering and offer innocent explanations for what you just observed. Our natural propensity is to yield to temptations, since we are only tempted by what satisfies an urge. When caught engaging in a self-serving activity, the guilty person will obfuscate, minimise, or outright lie by default out of self-preservation. We carry out deeds we’re not proud of in secret in hopes of not getting caught. Once exposed, all bets are off. We can assume that the more one has the means, opportunity, position of authority, and/or lacks Christian convictions, the greater the likelihood they will exploit a situation. Anyone who is recalcitrant about providing evidence, holding themselves accountable, or otherwise subject themselves to scrutiny, chances are their declarations, professed innocence, or ignorance is cover for a paucity of integrity.

Rule #11: Beware of shifting narratives, bait and switches, and logical inconsistencies.

     To illustrate how these principles converge, let’s look at the concepts of discrimination and tolerance where the narratives build off and conflict each other. Those who argue in favour of affirmative action claim white privilege keeps blacks from succeeding by insisting that blacks need the help of whites in order to succeed. All blacks are victims and all whites are privileged regardless of actual circumstances because they are seen monolithically based on their “race,” the very issue they claim their policies are intended to correct. They ensure blacks are accepted into schools even if they lack the requisite grades; thus, hobbling their success by ensuring they are not qualified for the academics or their chosen career. Furthermore, voter IDs are racist because their contention is that blacks are less equipped to acquire ID. They also institute social programs to aid poor communities with particular focus on blacks, services that require IDs to access. They will also rally behind black criminals to ensure lighter sentences, even though most victims of black crime are other blacks. There is no coherence or core to these positions since they are adapting policies to fit their biased worldview and ultimately seem to only see blacks as social constructs – the definition of discrimination.

Rule #12: Be on high alert to examples of hypocrisy. We needn’t get nit-picky on the issue to search for examples. Consider the ruling class who issues dire warnings about “climate change.” If they own a beachfront property, travel on private jets, and ignore other major polluters while insisting that action is needed because we face an imminent threat, they clearly don’t believe their own propaganda. Any feigned concern for the fate of humanity is a lie and they should not only be ignored, but rebuffed and mercilessly mocked – where possible, at the same time. Such people are the secular televangelists that are similarly exploiting their audience for fame, power, and wealth. Setting policies for the masses that they exclude themselves from – especially where those initiatives enrich them and increase their power while depriving the public of these things is how elitists and tyrants roll.

Rule #13: Distinguish between objective and subjective truth claims. Anyone who espouses the position that people can have their “own truth” need to be dismissed out of hand. Stances that are not backed by evidence based on objective standards are known as opinions. Their claims might strike one as being wise or foolish, but that is irrelevant since opinions prove nothing.

Rule #14: Do not underestimate the temptation to conform and avoid confrontation.

     Most people are content to “go along to get along.” Whether the enticement is derived from not endangering a job, a relationship, not rocking the boat, fear of retaliation, fear of social disapproval, seeking social acceptance, concerns over retaliation, or any number of positive or negative incentives. Those who are easily intimidated cannot be trusted to stand on principle even at the expense of truth for the same reason that self-serving manipulators lack this virtue. Both are putting self-interest first. Pay close attention to the whistleblowers and those who speak out at great personal cost. If they are self-serving frauds trying to enrich themselves some way, that will be easily exposed. If they are being attacked, stifled, or otherwise persecuted, but not discredited, they are likely the ones telling the truth. Christians know to expect persecution as a consequence of living out their faith. The hard part is that secrecy is key to bribing, blackmailing, threatening, or otherwise manipulating others. This brings us back to the need for accountability and standards of evidence.

Rule #15: Be aware of the influence of social proof.

     Social proof is closely related to peer pressure, but is often undervalued as an influencer of behaviour and thus warrants a rule of its own. The “crowdspring” website defines the term as: “a psychological and social phenomenon where people are unable to determine the proper behaviour and instead, assume that people around them know more about the current situation and behave like other people.” It should be noted that marketers view this as a resource to be exploited in order to induce people into buying their product. This has parallels and implications for many aspects related to discernment. When forces are at work to nudge people in a certain direction – especially when there is monopoly control over the content and flow of information – this can be abused to shape a whole mindset by creating baseless starting assumptions and building off this faulty foundation to steer us into a system of fallacious claims promoted as truth.

Rule #16: Propaganda and gaslighting are real.

     Propaganda is merely an elevated level of social proof that does not merely seek to prod society toward a specific trajectory, but completely manage what is presented as reality. This involves the imposition of certain narratives, beliefs and value systems that are presented as assumed and unimpeachable. For instance, we are told that there must be acceptance of “transgenderism” because the disturbingly high suicide rate is associated with being marginalized. While the suicide statistics are genuine, there is no proof that affirmation will bring these numbers down. In fact, the growing tide of “de-transitioners” (those seeking to reverse the chemical and surgical damage purported to turn a male into a female – or vice versa) is exploding. These accounts are hidden since that might deter others from attempting the same “transition.” As a Christian, we can expect those who deny their true identity to be emotionally fragile and at risk of depression and suicidal ideation. There is every reason to believe that propagating, endorsing, and encouraging gender confusion in vulnerable young people is increasing the number of those becoming suicidal. This is also to be expected once these individuals realize that changing one’s sex is impossible and only results in mutilated bodies who cannot procreate and places them on the margins of society.

So, in summary, we have a responsibility – especially as believers – to discover and live according to what is true. That requires taking the time to consider the credibility and potential corrupting influences attributable to the source. It means we need to be concerned with demanding evidence, seeking corroboration, and being wary of fallacious and circular argumentation. It demands that censorship never be justified because self-interested sources can claim the right to arbitrate about what is true, or what constitutes mis, dis or malinformation.

I challenge you to present a single instance of abuse, malfeasance, tyranny, or act of oppression that did not violate some or all of the above standards. Once a system is in place that entrenches the authority of some to claim to be the ultimate plumb line for truth outside of the authority of God and scripture, we are vulnerable to great evil.