by Aaron Davis
STILL WITH ME?
Stepping into the next phase of this book, there will be questions presented which I hope will reveal what may have been previously unforeseen, based upon how we have been taught to process information. As we continue to delve deeper into what may be unexplored waters of thought for you, if you find yourself coming up with more questions than answers, I would emphatically say, good! I’m convinced that answers are often only found while pursuing the questions leading to them.
I hope that you are already reconsidering some of the questions that you have put on a back burner. Maybe you assumed you’d never have the answer to them, or maybe, even more exciting to me, you’re asking new questions that you have never considered before. If that’s the case, then we are together confronting the possibility of new discovery. Ultimately, I believe that it’s what we do with those questions that determine if we become a contributor or an obstacle to progress.
Typically, from a religious perspective, questioning is not considered to be a healthy topic to encourage. Leaders for hundreds, even thousands of years, have considered their position on religion as it relates to experiences, evaluated it, and then told us (the people) what we should think about our given scenario. But I have to question if it is not healthier to take a case-by-case approach to questions, instead of presenting an absolute solution on situations.
If leaders tell you what to think, you become resolved on that which fits within the parameters of their resolve. But if a leader or teacher teaches you how to think, when new scenarios that differ from their experience become apparent, the process for reaching a solution that relates to your direct scenario becomes possible, instead of trying to shove a square peg that worked in the previous situation through the round hole of the newly presented scenario. The old adage applies here: “Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.”
ADVANCEMENT THROUGH DISCOVERY
In the 1800s, when previously unknown forms of energy began to be discovered, I can imagine that many a physicist discounted the possibility of understanding them, if initially they even acknowledged them at all. But there were some who were willing to pursue the questions that their discovery presented, expand the limitations of their previous paradigms, theorize, seek to explain, and even mathematically prove what they had postulated.
In doing so, the physicists didn’t discard what they previously came to understand or know through their hundreds of years of pursuing and clarifying physical law. On the contrary, this enlightenment of new information was all built directly upon the foundation of what their predecessors had come to learn, understand, and establish.
The traditionalists of their day may have been concerned that the others were attempting to rewrite physics; maybe they even threatened ideals that were previously held sacred within their group. But in this scenario, the new physicists weren’t trying to discredit the hundreds of years of previous development; they were seeking to provide answers for the truth of what was previously not even known to exist, and that truth was based directly upon and quantified through the very principles established by their predecessors. If this new enlightenment provided additional balance and insight into their passionate pursuit of understanding, then discovery would be an advancement for all of science, and ultimately mankind.
QUANTUM PARALLEL
Together, we are about to question, confront, and build upon some previously embraced perspectives of biblical theology, beginning with the subject of the kingdom of God. My intent is not to attempt to rewrite what we have learned about the Bible. As a matter of fact, for those who continue to faithfully read each chapter, you will see that what is being questioned is not an adding to or taking away from anything that has been written, just a questioning of the possibility that there may be more to what was written based on interpretation, upon our progression in history, and upon our continued spiritual evolution toward deeper revelation.
Both from my experience and based on studies of church history, Christians are resistant of new truth (perhaps because of fear), often labeling the questioning of traditionally accepted “truths” as “heresy.” Yet, in this case of labels, I wonder if much truth may be hiding behind this door. If you examine history (even within the realm of Christianity), every progression toward the new came with opposition from those who only embraced the old.
SOME THINGS OR ALL THINGS?
Revelation 4:11 (AMP)
Worthy are You, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and dominion, for You created all things; by Your will they were [brought into being] and were created.
At one time, singing in harmony was considered to be of the devil because Gregorian chants were the norm. Later, the introduction of the pipe organ split the church. In my lifetime there has been argument over whether or not certain beats, chord progressions, or musical styles were satanic. However, if God created these things (all things for His pleasure) and they have been perverted or distorted, I would argue that it is not the music or beat that is evil but those who are using that which was created and intended for God, for their own evil purposes. The tool does not take on the nature of evil; it takes on the nature of the one using it.
Like a hammer, or any tool for that matter, I can use it as it was intended and created, or I can misuse it as a weapon in any capacity that my brain can come up with. It’s not the hammer that becomes evil; it is simply a tool in the hand of the one who yields it to accomplish his will: to build or to destroy. If a man takes what God has provided for him and perverts it or uses it to establish another kingdom other than God’s, is it the provision that is evil or what man did with it?
If God is the provider and we take His provision and finance evil desires with it, it’s not necessarily the provision or God’s intent for it that was wrong, but man’s misuse of it. History has revealed that a king may rule righteously and be defined as a good king, yet his son may come along years later, rule the exact same geographical area, and his rule be the downfall of the kingdom through unrighteous or bad choices, subsequently going down in history as that of an evil or bad king. It’s not the kingdom that is bad. It’s not even the power that is bad. It’s the use or misuse of that which has been provided to him through his authority and power, which ultimately defines him and the kingdom he establishes.
CREATED TO CREATE
Bearing in mind that all things were created by God and for God, and reflecting on the fact that in the Bible it was Lucifer who attempted to exalt his throne above God, I question if it’s feasible that when we take something that God created and say it is satanic, in an inadvertent way, we aren’t exalting the devil’s throne above God’s. It’s just a thought, but one that I think may be worth consideration.
From a biblical perspective, we as human beings have more creative power than Satan, who, from what I can derive, has little beyond the power of persuasion—convincing man to do his will and establish his kingdom in the earth. So when we give Satan credit for creating something that God created for His pleasure, are we not, in fact, ascribing Satan creative power that God himself did not ascribe to him?
If the Bible is truth, God created all things (John 1:1–3). And if God did, in fact, create the laws of this physical and invisible realms (Colossians 1:15–17), and if these things were created for His pleasure (Revelations 4:11), then our ignorance of the value or importance of some aspects of His creation is not necessarily a bad thing, but just a different thing—one we should attempt to reconcile in our own perceptions.
Our discovery of something (including a process or law) that He created for His pleasure that may have been kept from our knowledge based upon our advancement in understanding or progress in history is not necessarily heresy. In fact, I question if it is not heresy to deny the application of something that God created for us, or worse yet, to give credit to the devil for something that God created and intended for man.
SEEKING SENSE
When I set out on
this journey of discovery, it wasn’t with the intent of questioning what I had been taught; it was with the sincere desire to understand aspects of God and the Bible that made no sense to me and seemingly made no sense to a lot of church leaders either, based upon what I heard spoken from pulpits concerning the parameters of the proper way to process life and its events.
As I sought answers, I listened to sermons from pastors of congregations of hundreds of people to some of the largest churches in the world, and what I heard directly and indirectly was often, whether in contentment or bitter discontentment, a frustration that they didn’t and couldn’t understand why some things happened the way that they did. It was as if they said, “I don’t understand why this happens but . . . ” and then went on to defend their lack of understanding.
I’m not implying that we will be able to uncover the answers of all that we have failed to understand; I just wonder if there are more answers available than what we have yet discovered or processed, either now or somewhere in the future as additional revelation is released.
Whether right or completely out-in-left-field wrong, through a unique sequence of events I have encountered over the course of the past couple of years (which will be specifically addressed in future chapters) possibilities and thought processes revolving around scenarios that my previous experiences never led me to even consider. As a result, I have found a place of at least semi-resolve in some of the issues that were at times overwhelmingly perplexing voids in my understanding.
It started with curiosity surrounding my watch advancing fifteen minutes that night on my back deck. But then as I applied myself to understanding the deeper things of God, as often happens with asking questions, more questions arose. Questions surrounding tragedy, the will of God, if God interacts with us, how He interacts with us, His limitations in these interactions, and our role in His will being established.
JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY
When I was a detective working a case, I would often, for hours and hours, consider as many scenarios relating to the case as my mind could come up with in an attempt to solve the mystery. Sometimes the trail of those questions presented a dead end; other times the questions led to a fork in the investigative trail, presenting additional questions. Sometimes I would rack my brain and physical efforts to the point of complete exhaustion and have to bring in a set of fresh eyes by simply asking another investigator to review my case and share with me what he saw in the facts that perhaps I did not.
There was an end goal in mind. It didn’t matter to me how we got to the answers or who took the credit for getting us to that point. What was important to me was that I was responsible for building and resolving a case where someone was victimized. It was my job to investigate that crime, bring the criminals to justice, and bring closure to those whom the crime directly affected.
I was commissioned to serve and protect the people within a specific kingdom, if you will. I was given jurisdictional authority within that kingdom, and there was an expectation from the powers of that kingdom that I exercised the authority that was delegated to me. If I did not exercise my authority or abused that authority within the parameters of the law that I swore to uphold, then I was held legally responsible for failing to fulfill my oath to serve and protect those under my jurisdictional authority.
As a leader and pastor, if there is an answer to be had and if God is capable of revealing it to me, either through the enlightenment of my experiences or through someone else as a catalyst, then I’m of the mind-set that it is not only beneficial but there is maybe even an essential expectation connected with my commissioning to at least consider what has been presented to me as a possibility. Then I will subsequently compare it with what I have previously come to understand to see if there is any validity to what may be implied through the additional perspective.
As history reveals, sometimes new findings confront popular opinion and previously adopted interpretations. When this happens, there is often a defensive response from those who embraced the previous mentality or subscribed to it. I’ve seen cases in which an entire town believed that a man was guilty of a crime. He was sentenced to life in prison, and after a decade, new evidence was presented in a retrial that swayed public view from a previously staunchly guilty verdict to undeniably innocent!
I challenge you with this: Even if you have previously come to different conclusions about how you view God and what you believe (or don’t believe) about Him, exercise the maturity to allow and consider new evidence if and when it presents itself. In a legal case, it could be the difference between the innocent victims remaining victimized and the criminally responsible continuing to walk in freedom. If there is a possibility that the presentation of new evidence could overturn a verdict, would you concede that a retrial and reconsideration of the evidence should at least be weighed, even if there is a possibility that the jury may reach the same verdict?
I believe that this is the case as it pertains to many of the ideals presented in Quantum Christianity. We currently exist in a place in history where additional perspective is being revealed to us (this book is a small part of it), and like the advancement of knowledge concerning physics in its progression through theoretical and quantum physics and quantum mechanics, I believe that God is revealing Himself in different ways to different people. There are those who are not only willing to seek God outside of any previous religious confines, but are actually called to do so. I’m convinced that these inquisitive men and women were created that way because God wants to be known in deeper ways than He has ever been known, and there’s an enlightenment taking place in the lives of thinkers and believers around the globe. They’re seeking information and understanding, and as a result, mandating a revisiting of traditionally embraced thought processes.
Most commonly, those who oppose change will use scriptures like “I am the Lord, I change not” to defend their disregard of progress. But, again, looking at history, nothing that we have come to conclude as progress in the church came without the old opposing it (many times with this same argument).
This is a lesson in human nature, not theology. God always knew what the price of progress would be. His people were not always discerning enough to perceive or openly receive the source from which it would come. After all, no example more clearly defines human nature’s resistance to the new with such a blatant lack of discernment for what God was doing than how “God’s people” treated Jesus Himself when He was on earth.
WHEN OUR KNOWLEDGE OF AN UNCHANGING GOD CHANGES
In the pursuit of understanding is where we will find the answers. Answers rarely come without first the consideration of the question.
Malachi 3:6 (KJV)
For I am the Lord, I change not . . .
Hebrews 13:8 (KJV)
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.
Throughout scripture, we see God instructing us to ask and seek in order to find. Surely this implies that we don’t already know it all and there will be times in which it will be necessary to ask the One with the answers for clarity.
James 1:5 (NASB)
But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
I can easily foresee the possibility of situations in which we miss God when we live as though we have Him completely figured out.
In this scenario, we often exercise the habit of making Him look like us. In fact, if we think we understand Him, then I wonder if it is possible that we have probably already conformed Him into our image. In order to continue to understand such a complex God, there must remain a mystery in our relationship with this One who has purposed to work beyond our capacity to imagine (see Eph. 3:20). To endeavor to know Him is to embark on an adventure in which questions increase.21
We often use the phrase God doesn’t change scripture when talking about God during changing times, but I wonder if we could simply see the situation for what it is—if, in fact,
it’s not God who is changing (or has ever changed) but rather how we see Him or how He has revealed Himself to us. Surely, He is big enough that He could reveal something to us about Himself that we previously did not know.
When considering the life of Jesus, He presented an aspect of God and His character that, to that point, man had not completely seen or understood. The presentation of Jesus’ revelation of God and His character didn’t alter who God was (or who He is) in any capacity; it simply changed man’s perception of Him.
Jesus, in His explanation of the kingdom of God, more clearly defined who God is. In many cases, this created a wedge between those who subscribed to traditional views of God and the law. But the end result was the liberation of the church through the understanding of who God was and who we are to Him within His kingdom established through Christ.
It’s not that God changed one iota, but rather through the revelation and kingdom example presented by Jesus, man’s relationship and understanding of God was modified. As a result of the New Covenant through Christ, so was the world’s experience with Him.
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
A great majority of people on earth subscribe to a belief system revolving around some sort of spiritual realm and many have even had varying unexplainable but very personal experiences relating to it.
From a biblical perspective, in its very first chronological scriptures, we see that the physical realm as we know it was created by the spiritual realm. Whether that creation takes place over billions of years or happens instantaneously, whether the catalyst was a physical Big Bang or God speaking was the Big Bang that set it all in motion—that question is not for me. The debate becomes a matter of semantics.