Why don't Christians Agree with Each Other?
10/24/2023
This is a prequel to the next article in a way. I have had some conversations, and disagreements, with others who are Christian, who disagree with some of my conclusions, and anyone who would teach me such things. Most of these conversations are meant in good faith by the ones disagreeing with me, because in their tradition, and in their education, they believe things that I do not, or they question how I could believe things that I have been taught.
Theology, as a college course of studies offers the typical assortment - of which the prize for ministers usually winds up with an M.Div or, if you really love the college scene - a PH.D.Div. There are lower degrees available as well. A Theology degree prepares you in both theory of religion, and the scientific and historical research that has contributed to a “clearer” understanding of the culture a religion forms in, and the context of the times that the religion originated and developed in.
There is a difference between science and religion, science being the current realm of the non-theist. I have often said that science is an excellent measuring tool - it can tell you who, what, where, when and how. It is ill equipped to answer the question "why?", because why is not a question of measurement, of quantity.
Why is a question of purpose, which does not lend itself to numbers or physical observation. Why, generally, is a subjective answer, not an objective one. Why is the purview of religion or philosophy. Science answers objectivity, facts, things that can be proven. Religion/Philosophy answers the subjective, what cannot be measured or proven. “Why?” is to give purpose and meaning to observed facts or occurrences.
Hard science vs. soft science has a similar problems. Hard science is fully measurable - chemistry, math, physics, most of the biological sciences. You can generally see what advantages science has given us in everyday living. Hard science generally produces visible results - things you can see, or hold in your hand. Things you can count on as constant because what it deals with is physical reality in a physical world.
The science and integration of it to explain religion is a soft science. Soft science is where, even when definite empirical proof is not attainable, the best reasonable guess is sufficient as an explanation, for now, until new information becomes available. This covers most of the social sciences, some biological sciences, and any field of study that does not center on the exposure of measurable facts. Examples of soft sciences are sociology, cultural archaeology, behavioral sciences, and theology. Spanning all categories is quantum physics, which is still defining itself.
I'm sure some eyes went up with theology listed as a science, even with the qualifier of being a soft science. It is thought to be the "study of religion", but has become a catch-all category for anything to do with metaphysics. Theology is one of those "step-child" sciences where even a Ph.D. is not taken seriously outside of the discipline. Which is odd, because religion remains a prevalent part of modern human societies globally. It's just a part that the rest of the sciences, soft and hard, consider it a degree in fairy tales.
Theology has many branches - studies in ancient civilizations and the sociology of those times, studies attempting to verify historical references in religious texts, including people and events, ancient languages and cultures, translation, comparative religions. There are biblical specialties in archaeology, anthropology, sociology, translation, history, and development, as well as the doctrinal studies of those fairy tales that much of the world is still attached to.
It is fascinating to me that the whole purpose of the creation of theology is to convince people that religion is not "fairy tales" and doing it using as much of science as possible, with science being a poor tool to measure religion with. How exactly does one measure God?
But they try. It is actually very respectful of the theologians. Science will not accept the basic principle of all metaphysical discussion - that by it's very definition, the metaphysical exists outside of measurable science. It is it's own thing which has influence on the physical world, but exists separately. Much as matter and energy operate in the same space and influence each other, but are completely different things. Science refuses to accept anything that challenges it's most basic principle - that everything can be measured and explained according to physical rules and order.
I don't have a problem with science, or with the metaphysical. I use both, every day. It's not a hard thing to do if you recognize the limits of each area, and use the best of both to get a more complete picture of the world around you.
Here's a "f'rinstance". Your DNA makes you who you are. That is a generally accepted fact of science in modern America. DNA is, according to science a very complex double helix molecule that contains the instructions on how to make you. But how?
The DNA molecule builds other molecules, mostly proteins, which are then integrated into what and who we are. Science says that we are our DNA, and sure, that may be true, but it is an incomplete answer.
It's science questions that are left - mostly how. How does DNA integrate it's information? How does this one DNA molecule, repeated over and over in your body, tell itself to cobble together a bunch of protein molecules into an eye, or a toe. How does the DNA take an exact number of protein, bone, mineral and other molecules and fashion them into a shoulder, and then decide the shoulder is done and go work on a foot using the same basic materials. If I have a pile of my own DNA sitting on the kitchen table, why doesn't it make another me? Oh right, special conditions - we can clone. So that clone may start from the same DNA, and become a physical duplicate (by our observation) but it it really? Identical twins often do not share personalities, or likes - they don't even share finger prints. What causes these differences, which should not occur?
While we are at it, how does DNA manufacture your mind? Science admits it doesn't know - and really, it has no explanation for consciousness in general. Science does itself a great disservice by dismissing anything it can't design an experiment around as "nonsense". Heavier than air flight was nonsense, until it wasn't anymore. That's why quantum is dipping it's toes in the water. Or maybe the answer isn't there, either. Maybe there are things that the human mind is incapable of understanding. Science does not have the humility to even think that.
But this is not rip on science day. This is examining the soft science side of theology - the archaeology and study of ancient cultures, the translation issues, the dynamic between the Roman occupiers and the occupied, the history of Judaism, and how Christianity grew from it, the very early church, historical backing for the people appearing in the New Testament narratives, comparing notes from those verified as historical people to others mentioned.
I do not include apologetics in this list. Apologetics is not science. It is making excuses when scripture conflicts with doctrine. If your scripture and doctrine don't agree, one of the two is just wrong. No amount of gymnastics will make the disconnect right.
As we go through the soft sciences, we make progress - to answer our own questions, but also,we try to answer the questions of the non-believer. That is not an easy task on a good day. While most Christians in general accept scientific finding in their own lives, most atheists will not accept any research, from any source, because they find the entire premise ridiculous. Another prejudice that science kneecaps itself with. Ignoring a theory, premise or idea does not make it go away.
For me and my faith, it is what it is. I am am both comfortable in what I believe and why I believe it. I have no care to convince any committed atheist of any other way to look at things. When asked, I respond with my beliefs and why I believe them. If there is an intelligent exchange of ideas going on, I will continue the conversation forever. There are several atheists that I have met through social media whom I consider to be friends. If it is an argument coming from a genuine ignorance, I may probe a little deeper. If it is just someone mouthing off to get a rise out of me, I politely become a ghost. It does not strengthen my walk to butt heads with a butt-head.
Soft science has one glaring deficiency over hard science. There is never much in the way of empirical proof of anything in any of the disciplines. All of them see what facts they can gather and verify, but the analysis - instead of being a peer reviewed paper with a list of data and conclusions - is more nuanced.
Soft science takes the hard data that it has, and extrapolates conclusions from the data that would "make sense" as an assessment. It is more police work than hard science. It is following evidence where it leads. Investigators with a lot of experience can eventually pull out predictive patterns based on experience, past results, and honestly sometimes a gut feeling - just like your favorite TV detectives. To anyone who actually does it, it is a very rigorous process, and not one that will advance sloppy work.
In following this process, we are sometimes surprised by the things that we find, which creates new questions that go with the answers we have found. Sometimes it is a dead end. Just as in hard science, wrong equals wrong. And just like in hard science, there are factors that can influence the outcome.
Everything from a chase for cash or fame or recognition can influence the field of theology with all of the devastation of the paid scientists of the tobacco lobby who lauded the safety of smoking for so many years. Eventually though, the truth comes out. When it comes out, the truth is either accepted, or buried. Sometimes it stays buried for a long time.
To add further confusion to the chaos, how Christianity is taught at Princeton is different than it is taught at it is taught at SMU, or Notre Dame, or Liberty U. Once you get past the General Theology degree, you get your particular flavor of denomination in a seminary tailored to the quirks and history of your denomination. What is taught at a conservative Christian seminary is going to be way out of whack with what would be emphasized at a progressive Christian seminary. Once you get to seminary, it is doctrine that is taught, not Jesus anymore. You are being prepped to tend sheep as the denomination sees fit, so get on board with how we teach it, or begone.
I am having a conversation with several of my Twitter (X) peeps about this very problem. They (a couple of clergy and one lay member), because of their education in their tradition, disagree with my education which spans 3 denominations formally, 4 more informally, and a bit of church hopping for flavor.
My education combines all that I have learned, formally and informally, to inform my faith. I have found concepts of value, and things that were ludicrous in all of them. While my experience gives me a wide perspective to draw from to strengthen my own faith, sometimes people who receive cradle to grave training in one tradition, lose the ability to give legitimacy to any other tradition. I have found that to be my biggest challenge in my ministry - people being caught in the tunnel vision of "what they know", and lacking the ability to accept any idea that conflicts with what they "know' to be true. I know the atheists are feeling me here.
This is what drove my "deconstruction". I have always found ministry to be easier if I can meet someone where they are and provide connection on that level. To sit and talk with a person and have them know I can see the problem from their perspective allows for more open conversations, more real talk. My demonstrating that I can see the situation through the eyes of the person that I am trying to assist allows that person to give me just the tiniest amount of trust to work with, which many times can make all the difference in the world. We cannot fix anything until we can talk together.
The basis of my Christianity is Mark12:30-31:
Those are my rules of engagement. Show love and kindness. Help as I can. Leave the judging to God. Instructed to do so by Jesus himself, in the words he used to sum up what is important in pleasing God. I find that to be the importance of my ministry - not whether we agree on what a particular verse means, or how important some arcane bit of Bible trivia really is in the grand scheme of things.
I don't use Paul for much, but he has useful advice for all who choose to serve God in the manner that Jesus taught -
"Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." 2 Tim 2: 23-24
So the stage is set. I am comfortable in my education, and in my faith which is now continuously evolving. You, hopefully, have an understanding of the very basics of what the education system is for prospective clergy, and how that contributes to the problem. When the next article comes together, it will be looking at my process when considering what I believe, and how those beliefs are weighed against new information.
Until then, in Peace, Faith and Love,
Ecc. RL Brandner, New Ecclesiastes Ministries