Why Am I Posting These Things?

A lot of folks may be wondering why I've been posting things speculating on and even supporting reincarnation. Even more so, they are probably wondering how I got to the point where I'd even be willing to consider it, considering how, at one time, I wrote against the very possibility and tried to present some evidence for my argument. It is evidence that I want to discuss, not just for this, but for a number of directions I have gone in my journey which have deviated wildly from where I was at one point.
     I believe Holy Scripture speaks the truth. I do not believe it is the only source of truth, but what it speaks, when it speaks, is true. But even when Holy Scripture is true, our understanding of the reality it describes may be far more faulty than we like to admit. Frequently, that understanding is colored by culture, and the theology and doctrines of the churches and religious beliefs we grew up in. We are taught that a given verse or passage in the Bible means a certain thing, and frequently we are taught that is the only thing it can mean. This becomes problematic when evidence arrives to challenge that meaning which we have been taught. We are told the choice is binary, either Scripture is true and the evidence is false, or Scripture is false and the evidence is true. Of course Scripture cannot be false, so the evidence must be. But herein lies the flaw in this logic: it is not Scripture which must be true or false, but our interpretation of Scripture which must be true or false. Scripture of course must be true, but our understanding of what it means is not Scripture itself. We cannot equate the theologies, doctrines, and interpretations of Scripture, no matter how sacrosanct, with the words of Scripture itself. Otherwise, we fall into the trap of teaching the traditions of human beings as absolute commandments.
     There is, for example, a tremendous amount of evidence for the evolution of life on Earth. There is so much evidence in fact that it is overwhelming, both from the fossil record and even from DNA. This is why the scientific world, and most mainline denominations have moved on from young earth creationism, and so have I. I fully believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and the interpretation of Genesis 1 I have come to accept supports both a literal six days as well as four billion years of evolution. I can no longer defend something which the evidence does not support. Is Scripture false? Absolutely not. But our understanding of what it's trying to say frequently is, and it is this understanding which must evolve and be willing to adapt and to do the hard work of reconciling both, because the Scripture cannot be untrue.
     This brings me back to the subject of reincarnation. Now, I am not supporting the Hindu, or even Buddhist teachings regarding Karma induced reincarnation. Just the concept that a person's consciousness or soul might be, but does not necessarily have to be, reborn in a second human being after the death of the first one. But more and more, as I have been reading and learning about the experiences people have, and especially with the massive number of case studies which have been done, the documented evidence for it appears to again be overwhelming. Not theory. Not mere theological speculation based on philosophy or an ancient text. Thousands of documented interviews of people's experiences which can literally be explained no other way by any reasonable person. I can either bury my head in the sand and pretend those don't exist, which would be dishonest on a number of levels, or I can accept that these things exist and then examine how I have interpreted Scripture in a faulty way, because the Scriptures cannot be false.
     In this case, the Scriptures themselves do not negate the possibility of reincarnation. They do not support karmic reincarnation, but they do not negate reincarnation itself. In fact, Jesus Himself appears to suggest that Elijah had been reincarnated as John the Baptist, and concerning the man born blind in John 9, the disciples ask Jesus who sinned, the man or his parents that he should be born blind. Think about what they just asked. How could the man have sinned and then be born blind because of it if he did not exist prior to his birth? Furthermore, consider that Jesus does not negate this possibility, He only says that neither his nor his parents' sin caused his blindness from birth. I believe I have brought all of this up before in my writing, as well as how reincarnation does not conflict with the New Testament teaching on the resurrection of the body.
     But the point is that while the Scriptures cannot be false, our understanding might be, and we should never take our understanding, our interpretations of the Scriptures as inerrant and infallible, even if the Scriptures as they were written, in the languages and cultures in which they were written, and to whom they were written might be. We cannot admit the inerrancy of creeds, theologians, and the traditions of various churches and denominations if we are to admit the inerrancy of Scripture. It is logically impossible. We have to be willing to adapt and evolve our understanding of what they are saying with each new piece of evidence and verifiable data. We cannot uphold Scripture and uphold the immutability of our own churches' positions, most of which were established hundreds of years ago and based on the philosophical and scientific understandings of their day. One such case in point is Galileo's conflict with the Roman Catholic Church over the issue of the Earth revolving around the Sun, and not vice versa. Galileo had evidence to support his assertion. The Church still condemned him because what he was saying went against their established doctrine and worldview even though it did not go against the Scriptures themselves. Only their interpretations of the Scriptures.
     I believe in Prima Scriptura, that is, the Scriptures are the primary source of Truth. But they are not the only source of truth, and were meant to supplement the general revelation of truth found throughout the creation and which can be observed and experimentally verified. I intend to hold the Scriptures high, and not the interpretations of it which can be demonstrated to be erroneous when compared to reality.
     At this point, this includes accepting that reincarnation happens, and that there is evidence for it. This makes my previous position faulty. That's okay with me. Tomorrow, more evidence may present itself, and my positions may have to adapt again. Again, that's good. That's healthy. That's called learning, growing, and increasing in understanding. Yes, it requires a change in thinking. Again, that's no bad thing. That's called moving forward, and not staying stuck or moving backwards.
     Being a Christian, and following Jesus Christ, also means having a dynamic, living faith which can adapt to new truths which are presented just as He is a dynamic and living God, not a myth, a statue, or just a picture on a page. Either He's real and active, or He's a figment of someone's imagination, and you probably know my position on that. And if He's real and active, then that understanding of Him must change and grow as a relationship with Him matures, and one gets to know Him better. It must be more important to know Him dynamically, than to remain a part of a church or denomination which is stuck in their own interpretations and doctrines about Him. That is, they are stuck in worshipping an idol of their own creation and imagination, and not knowing Him as living and active.
     I choose to know Him, and whatever He chooses for me to understand next.