The Inquirer and the Believer
A Fellowship Discussion on Truth, Faith, and the Search for God
Renaissance Ministries | March 23, 2026
Featuring a dialogue with Michael Sherman
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
— John 13:35
Introduction: An Unexpected Guest
Our fellowship gatherings usually consist of the same familiar faces — believers wrestling together with Scripture, theology, and how to live out our faith. But today was different. Today we had a visitor.
Michael Sherman joined us — a high school friend of Dr. Thomas Abshier, and in many ways, the philosophical sparring partner who helped shape Thomas’s early passion for searching after truth. Michael describes himself not as a believer, but as an “inquirer.” He came not to argue, but to understand. And in the process, he helped us understand ourselves better.
What followed was nearly two hours of genuine dialogue — the kind of conversation where both sides listen, where questions are welcomed rather than deflected, and where the search for truth takes precedence over the need to win.
This essay captures the key themes of that conversation, not as a debate to be scored, but as a journey we took together.
Part I: The Inquirer’s Stance
“Am I a Believer?”
Susan Gutierrez asked Michael directly: “Are you a believer in Christ?”
Michael laughed — not dismissively, but because the question touched something deep. His answer was unexpected:
“Am I a believer? That’s a great question. My answer is: I’m an inquirer. I want to know, not just which Christian version is right — Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox — no, I want all of it. I want those two soldiers who killed each other over Protestant versus Catholic to say, ‘Wait, wait, wait — here’s the Bible. You got a Bible, same script, right?’ Not shoot each other because they believe it’s Protestant or Catholic.”
Michael’s concern is the history of belief as division — Catholics and Protestants killing each other for 700 years across Europe. Eastern Orthodox versus Roman Catholic. Believers certain enough to die, and certain enough to kill.
His response to this history is not to abandon the search for truth, but to hold truth with open hands:
“Instead of the word ‘truth,’ I use the word ‘likelihood.’ When something seems true to me — like, duh, can’t get around it — I don’t go all the way. I’ll say, ‘Okay, true? No. How about 99.99999 percent likely.’ Because I know my biggest growth would be if — like ‘the world is flat’ or Newtonian physics — there’s a new thing I want to be able to see.”
The Flat Earth and Newtonian Physics
Michael offered two examples of how humanity’s “obvious truths” have been overturned:
The flat earth. For most of human history, the flatness of the earth was self-evident. “Any dang fool can see — if you look out on the horizon, what? Round? Are you nuts?” It took astronomy and mathematics to reveal that our direct experience was misleading.
Newtonian physics. For 350 years, Newton’s laws were the rock-solid foundation of physics. Then Einstein’s 1905 paper overturned everything. “A lot of advances happened from 1900 to 2000 — a lot of it centered on understanding that questioning an allegedly obvious truth needed expansion.”
Michael’s point: if even our most certain knowledge can be overturned, shouldn’t we hold all beliefs with humility? Shouldn’t we remain open to growth?
The Blind Men and the Elephant
Michael invoked the ancient parable of the blind men and the elephant — each touching a different part (trunk, leg, ear, tail) and each reporting a different “truth” about what an elephant is.
“Every blind man told the truth, quote unquote, according to his experience. And the bigger truth is: how does that fit together to give us an idea what an elephant is?”
His approach: gather all perspectives, find the common ground, and work toward a more complete picture. No single blind man has the whole truth. Neither does any single religion, philosophy, or worldview.
Part II: The Believer’s Response
Susan’s Testimony
Susan Gutierrez responded with her own journey — not as argument, but as testimony:
“I have been convinced that Jesus is my Savior, that He died for my sins. I didn’t used to believe, and I went through a real process to come to that belief. But boy, there’s a lot of other details.”
Susan distinguished between core convictions and ongoing inquiry:
“Being a believer is somebody who believes that Jesus died for his sins. He came, lived a life without sin, was killed — completely unjustified — then the Father rose him from the dead. Now he has the ability to restore our relationship with the Father, because he takes our punishment, and he has the ability to lead us in paths of righteousness.”
But she emphasized that belief doesn’t mean closed-mindedness:
“I’m very open to what people have to say, because maybe they will say something and I’ll say, ‘Oh, I haven’t thought of that angle.’ But I’m not going to change my perspective on ‘Christ died for my sins.’ I’m solid in those few things.”
The Verse That Stopped Everything
In the midst of the conversation, Thomas shared John 13:35:
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
Michael’s response was striking. He stopped the conversation to write it down:
“Gee, it’s rare that I find — okay, I have my total favorite Bible lines, my middle level, and my ‘yeah, that’s details.’ This is in my A-list. Rarely do I find something that zoomed to the top so fast. That’s beautiful. That’s beautiful.”
Why did this verse resonate so deeply with an inquirer who hesitates to call himself a believer?
Because it cuts through centuries of theological debate and offers something concrete. Not: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples — if ye have the correct doctrine on transubstantiation.” Not: “if ye believe in predestination versus free will.” But: “if ye have love one to another.”
Michael saw immediately that this verse answered his deepest concern — the definition of “good”:
“Part of my struggle is so many people define ‘good’ this way or that way. I respect them all. I add to the pool. I try to get rid of the parts that disparate us. But how about that as a starting point? John 13:35.”
Love as the definition of good. Love as the mark of discipleship. Love as the standard by which all truth claims must be measured.
Part III: God Is Everything
The Eastern and Western Views
Dr. Abshier offered his foundational premise:
“God is the entire world. There isn’t anything that isn’t God. We are God’s experience of his mind, inside of his mind. What he wants to do, I believe, is to create an experience for himself — the perfect experience of harmony living inside of his experience.”
This is a more Eastern conception than typical Western Christianity — closer to Hindu ideas of Brahman (the ultimate reality of which all things are manifestations) than to the Western image of God as a separate being “up there” looking down.
Michael resonated with this:
“God is everything. I love that as a base point. When we blind men are trying to assess what an elephant is, we try to pool our info and say, ‘Oh really, it has that too?’ We’re trying to figure out the everything and work with it.”
But this raised a question: If God is everything, then isn’t evil also part of God?
The Problem of Distinction
Michael drew a Yin-Yang diagram to illustrate the issue:
- The whole circle is God
- Within God, there is “self” (you) and “other” (everything else)
- Within self, there is the imprint of other (your upbringing, education, relationships)
- Within other, there is your impact (your contributions to the world)
- This nesting continues recursively forever
If God is everything, and evil exists, then evil is part of God. How do we resolve this?
Thomas offered a resolution:
“The whole point of this exercise of God creating a creation was to be able to make difference in viewpoint. So you could have relationship, and you could have love for one another. If it was all just God’s soup — all just one — there would be no experience of love, because there is no other to love.”
The creation of distinction — of self and other, of good and evil — is necessary for relationship to exist. Without separation, there is no love. Without the possibility of evil, there is no meaning in choosing good.
“The fact is, it’s all elephant. And there are parts of it, and the parts can talk to each other, and it’s actually meaningful. It’s not as silly as a head talking to a foot. I’m talking to you, and I think you’re different than me, and I’m very convinced of that. But on a deeper level, we could say you and I actually are one.”
Part IV: The Tension in Scripture
Armond’s Troubling Verse
Armond Boulware brought a passage that had stunned him — Exodus 32:11-14. After the Israelites made the golden calf:
“The LORD said unto Moses, ‘I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them, and I will make of thee a great nation.'”
Moses intercedes, reminding God of His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. And then the troubling verse:
“And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”
Armond was honest about his reaction:
“My mind was just blown away. I had never read anything that said ‘the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.’ That was a foreign idea.”
What Does This Mean?
Several interpretations emerged:
Susan’s interpretation: Moses plays the role of Christ — interceding for a guilty people, standing between them and judgment. God’s willingness to relent shows that intercession matters. Our prayers, our repentance, our standing in the gap — these change outcomes.
“In this particular story, Moses is taking the kind of role that Christ takes for us. We deserve eternal wrath because of our sins, and Christ has paid for the wrath we deserve by his own life.”
Isaac’s observation: The language varies across translations. The NASB says “the LORD relented of the harm which He said He would do” — not quite “repented of evil.” The underlying point remains: God responds to human choices. His plans are not fixed fate but living relationship.
Leonard’s contribution: He shared a variant reading from the Joseph Smith Inspired Version:
“And the Lord said unto Moses, ‘If they will repent of the evil which they have done, I will spare them and turn away my fierce wrath.'”
In this reading, the condition is clear: God’s response depends on human repentance.
The Larger Pattern
Isaac connected this to other Scriptures:
- Noah: God was sorry He had made mankind and vowed to destroy it — but spared Noah because of his righteousness.
- Jonah: God sent Jonah to prophesy Nineveh’s destruction — but relented when Nineveh repented. (Jonah was furious: “What was the point of my whole trip?”)
The pattern: God’s “plans” to judge are often conditional. Human repentance, human intercession, human faithfulness — these change the outcome. We are not puppets in a predetermined script. We are partners in an unfolding drama.
Part V: Inquiry vs. Faith
Ever Learning, Never Arriving?
Charlie Gutierrez (whose audio kept breaking up throughout the meeting) managed to share a crucial Scripture. In Athens, Paul encountered philosophers:
“For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.” (Acts 17:21)
And from 2 Timothy 3:7:
“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Charlie’s point: inquiry is good, but it can become an end in itself. There is a difference between genuine seeking and perpetual browsing — “floating around trying to gather as much as you can” without ever committing to anything.
“Stay curious — it’s an important idea. But we have to, at some point in our journey of curiosity, nail some things down as reliable and true.”
Leonard’s Story of the Four Sons
Leonard Hofheins shared a story from the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) that illustrated the difference between passive and active seeking:
A prophet named Lehi received a vision from God. He shared it with his sons. One son — Nephi — took it to heart: “I believe what my father believed. I believe he saw something. But I’m going to see if I can see it myself.”
Nephi inquired of the Lord directly, and received the same vision — but with even more clarity and understanding.
The older brothers, Laman and Lemuel, had questions too. But when Nephi asked them, “Have you inquired of the Lord?” their response was: “The Lord makes nothing like this known to us.”
Leonard’s point:
“They were depending on man to explain a divine vision. Whereas Nephi, who believed his father, received the same — no, even more in-depth vision.”
The difference between the brothers: One asked God directly. The others waited for someone else to explain it to them.
“We, as children of God, have the ability and the obligation to inquire of the Lord, because He is the truth, the fountain of all truth. He is the source of truth. And each of us can receive that confirmation, that knowledge, that understanding of truth.”
The Key: Asking God First
Susan emphasized the order of inquiry:
“It makes a big difference if we’re going to the Lord first or if we’re going to the Lord last. Are we checking AI and what the doctor says and what the lawyer says and what the politician says and what your neighbor says — all of it — or do we go to God first? ‘You’re my teacher. I want You to teach me and lead me and guide me.'”
Leonard added:
“What is it? It is an act of faith. When you show the Lord just an inkling of faith in Him, and Him being the source of these concepts and this truth, He is so wanting to just pour it out into you.”
Part VI: A New Understanding of Evil
The Revelation in Conversation
Dr. Abshier shared that something shifted for him during the conversation:
“In this last conversation with Michael, I actually had an entire new theology regarding evil arise for me.”
The new understanding:
“God is perfectly good, and His anger is so great at the evil that is not His way, that He will destroy anything that comes into His presence that tries to invade His domain. There is no mercy whatsoever for that which is evil. It is black and white — that which He loves and that which He hates. And His hatred is complete destruction.”
This resolves the tension: God does not create evil. He does not tolerate it in His presence. The consequence of sin is separation from God — being “outside the circle,” outside the holy domain.
“If we sin, we don’t have any place, any part. We cannot be present with the Lord. We are outside of it. And the price that was paid — like David said, ‘Against thee, and thee alone, have I sinned’ — whenever he did ungodly things, he was sinning against God. And the cost of that was utter annihilation, utter separation from fellowship with God.”
The Cross as Resolution
This is why the Cross matters:
“Jesus died and paid the price. The propitiation — that’s the word the New Testament uses — actually is paying the debt of the person that sinned and deserved fiery hell because they were separated so much from the Father. That was the price required, and that was what God demanded of that soul that violated His way. And Jesus paid that debt.”
The drama is not merely legal or mechanical. It is relational. Sin separates us from God. Christ bridges the gap.
Part VII: What We Learned
From the Inquirer
Michael reminded us of several things we too easily forget:
1. Humility about our certainty. The history of human knowledge is littered with “obvious truths” that turned out to be wrong. We should hold our beliefs firmly but not arrogantly.
2. The tragedy of belief-as-division. Christians killing Christians over doctrinal differences is a scandal. Whatever truth we have found, it should produce love, not violence.
3. The beauty of genuine conversation. Michael’s willingness to listen, to ask questions, to take notes, to appreciate Scripture — this is what dialogue should look like.
4. John 13:35 as a starting point. If we want to define “good” in a way that all seekers can recognize, we could do worse than “love one to another.”
From the Believers
The fellowship offered its own insights:
1. Belief is not closed-mindedness. Susan demonstrated that deep commitment to Christ can coexist with genuine openness to new understanding.
2. Inquiry must lead somewhere. Perpetual seeking without commitment becomes a kind of evasion. At some point, we must act on what we know.
3. Ask God directly. The difference between Nephi and his brothers was not intelligence but initiative. God answers those who ask.
4. Human choices matter. The Scripture shows a God who responds to repentance, intercession, and faithfulness. We are not pawns but partners.
5. The Cross resolves the tension. God’s holiness demands separation from evil. Christ’s sacrifice bridges the gap. This is the heart of the Gospel.
Part VIII: Discussion Questions for the Fellowship
On Inquiry and Belief
- Michael distinguishes between “belief” (closed, certain) and “inquiry” (open, seeking). Is this a fair characterization of belief? How would you describe the relationship between faith and openness to new understanding?
- Michael uses “likelihood” instead of “truth” — even 99.99999% likely rather than “true.” What are the strengths of this approach? What are its dangers?
- Charlie cited 2 Timothy 3:7 — “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” When does inquiry become evasion? How do we know when it’s time to commit?
On God and Evil
- Dr. Abshier’s premise is that “God is everything.” If this is true, how do we account for evil? Does the conversation’s resolution (evil as separation from God’s presence) satisfy you?
- Armond raised Exodus 32:14 — “the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” How do you understand this verse? What does it teach us about God’s nature and His relationship with humanity?
On Love as the Standard
- John 13:35 moved Michael deeply: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” Why did this verse resonate with an inquirer who hesitates to call himself a believer? What does this tell us about how to engage seekers?
- If love is the mark of discipleship, how should this shape our engagement with those who hold different beliefs — whether other Christians, other religions, or secular inquirers like Michael?
On Asking God Directly
- Leonard’s story of Nephi and his brothers highlights the difference between waiting for human explanation and asking God directly. What has been your experience with inquiring of God? What helps or hinders this practice?
- Susan emphasized going to God first, not last. In practical terms, what does this look like? How do we balance human wisdom (doctors, lawyers, experts) with divine guidance?
On This Conversation
- What did you learn from Michael’s participation today? How might his perspective help us engage more effectively with seekers?
- Dr. Abshier said this conversation produced “an entire new theology regarding evil” for him. Have you experienced theological insight emerging from dialogue with unexpected people? How do you evaluate such insights?
A Closing Reflection
Michael left us with a question that deserves continued reflection:
“How do I refine the broader truth on what to believe?”
This is not a faithless question. It is the question of every honest seeker — including believers who want their faith to be genuine rather than inherited, tested rather than assumed, lived rather than merely professed.
The Christian answer is not “stop asking” but “ask the right Source.” Inquire of God. Ask directly. Listen for His voice in Scripture, in prayer, in the counsel of believers, in the circumstances of life.
And as we inquire, let us remember the standard by which all our truth-claims will be measured:
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
If our theology produces love, we are on the right track.
If our certainty produces contempt, something has gone wrong.
Michael is still inquiring. So are we. The difference is not that we have stopped asking questions, but that we have found Someone worth trusting — even when the questions remain.
A Closing Prayer
Lord God, we thank You for this conversation — for Michael’s honest questions, for the fellowship’s willingness to engage, for the insights that emerged as we talked together.
We confess that we do not have all the answers. We hold our beliefs firmly, but we know our understanding is incomplete. Keep us humble. Keep us seeking. Keep us open to Your truth, wherever we find it.
We pray for Michael — that his inquiry would lead him to You. Not to a system or a doctrine first, but to a Person. Help him see Jesus in us — in our love for one another, in our willingness to listen, in our commitment to truth.
We pray for ourselves — that we would be the kind of believers who attract seekers rather than repel them. May our certainty be warm, not cold. May our faith produce love, not arrogance.
And we thank You for John 13:35 — a verse that stopped even an inquirer in his tracks. Help us live it. Let the world know we are Your disciples by our love.
In Jesus’ name, Amen.
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
— Matthew 11:15
Participants: Dr. Thomas Abshier, Susan Gutierrez, Charlie Gutierrez, Leonard Hofheins, Armond Boulware, Isaac Gutierrez, Michael Sherman (guest)
Related Christos Content: “Where Was God? The Holocaust, Theodicy, and the Question That Won’t Go Away” (Addendum essay); “When Belief Confronts Belief: The Otranto Martyrs, Iran, and the Fire We Need”; Christos AI Theological Grammar