Part I : Intellectual Preconceptions
We all approach religion with the assumption that we already have a good frame of reference from which to evaluate different belief systems. The problem is that we are all mistaken. One might argue from a certain Christian perspective that we are so tainted by sin that we would have no ability for appropriate evaluation. Whether or not that is the case, I think the argument can be made that the absence of coherent philosophical education in the American public education system has left our citizens with a lack of critical thinking skills. I use here, of course, this definition of philosophy : "Philosophy is the logical clarification of thought." I'm not arguing that Americans are illogical or unintelligent, only that many have been trained to hear conclusions rather than analyze arguments.
The fact is that most Americans do not have a rigorous standard for critical thought that allows them to "own" the intellectual arguments they make for or against a particular belief system. They merely borrow phrases that they have heard others say. "All scholars know that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions." "Honest scientists know that there is no real proof of evolution." One need not be an expert in a discipline to understand arguments in that field. A rigorous (even vibrant) application of critical thinking will allow a respectable degree of confidence in the process of learning and formulating points of view.
Even so, most people approach religion with set boundaries of what they will personally tolerate. "I won't allow myself to be a part of any church that handles snakes, or really believes the bible, or discourages bicycle pathways." "I will not join a congregation that emphasizes social action, or whose pastor does not vote Republican." After a thorough and critical look at our belief systems, such boundaries may well serve as good guidelines for proper decision making. But to the extent that our ideas about what a church or religion should be is determined by thoughts and actions that were formed outside of its own sphere of thought, we run the risk of violating the very system we claim to profess and personalizing the system until we have something new, unique, and foreign to the original system.
As Christians, we have the challenge to conform ourselves to a standard. We are cautioned against thinking that "the system" is appropriately represented by our childhood church or the obnoxious group of believers on the outskirts of town. We are also cautioned against rejoicing when the church downtown tells us that the Truth is what we would have liked to believe all along. The universal church is filled with sinful and fallen people who, both intentionally and unconsciously, have perverted Christianity in their own ways. This is why the Christian Bible is so important.
The scriptures provide the standard by which we can know the system. The snake-handler who does not evaluate the critical arguments against the "long ending" of the Gospel According to Mark is intellectually sinning against God. The progressive who divorces himself from a reliance on the "God-breathed" nature of scripture cuts himself off from divine power and authority. Both are limited by their intellectual preconceptions derived from sources outside the inspired cannon. But Christianity instructs us to not be conformed to worldly standards, but to be transformed by the renewal of our minds (our centers of thought) - through Scripture, through meditation, through worship, through obedience - that by testing (discernment, critical thinking) we may discern what is the will of God, which is good and acceptable and perfect. To the extent that we rebel against this teaching, we construct a personal man-centered code of religious behavior that runs contrary to Christianity.