Western Christians are all heretics!

Lets face it, every Christian is a heretic in some way.

Perhaps you think that "Jesus was born as a mere (non-divine) man, was supremely virtuous and that he was adopted later as Son of God" by the descent of the Spirit on him. Heretic! That is called adoptionism.

Perhaps you think Jesus was created by God. Heretic! That is called Arianism.

Think Jesus had a divine side and a separate human side? You heretical Nestorianist!

Think that humans have a divine soul that is trapped in a body? Gnostic!  

Think icons are idols to be destroyed? Iconoclasm was deemed heretical by Nicea II in 787.

Ever talk about the Trinity is like water in that it can be three things (solid, liquid or gas) but is still one thing? Modalism! 

Think the trinity is like an egg where there are three different parts to the whole? I ought to trump you up on charges of Partialism!

I could go on. We are all heretics by someone elses (past or present) understanding of what is orthodox.

So before you or I begin to argue and condemn a fellow Christ follower we view as unorthodox or heretical or holds views that are "counter to the word of God", slow down and breath and perhaps you too will see that we all are heretical in some form or fashion but that does not mean they are evil/bad/horrible/jerks who desire nothing more than to destroy the church and blaspheme against God. 

It could just be that everyone is trying the best they can to describe the indescribable. 

Originally published August 25 2014

THE Scientific Method is a Misunderstanding

Elementary school science class taught me a basis outline of “the scientific method”. I do not recall the specifics but what has stuck with me is the overall flow of: hypothesis, test, measure, and conclusion. Recently I was informed that “the scientific method” is incorrect. Not the method, but the idea that there is THE (or just one) scientific method. Different sciences have different methods.

For instance physics has a method that works for Newtonian physics but quantum physics is more theoretical than material. Biologist have the benefit of knowing the results of their hypothesis much quicker than geologists who have to have a different method while waiting eons for rocks to move. The sciences have methods that make sense in their field but might not make any sense in another field.

Of course, these different methods are neither better nor worse than one another. While these methods are different in their specifics, in a general sense these different methods are unified in their efforts to better understand the mysteries of the world.

These different methods also contribute to a humility among the most respected scientist. A zoologist does not over reach into the field of astronomy in order to correct or condemn. The zoologist knows there are limits to her field and her understanding and those same limits exist in the astronomist. Each field respects the methods of the other fields. There is no attempt to prove the superiority of one fields methods over another. Criticism comes from within the same field - chemists argue with chemists.

For as much as religion has to teach the sciences, I wonder if religion has something to learn from science. 

Scripture is the Christian DNA

Christian historian Phyllis Tickle argues in her book "The Great Emergence" that every 500 years there is a great "rummage sale" of culture. Similar to the shows on television that help people organize their life, culture sorts things into "keep", "toss" and "donate". These efforts raise important questions, specifically, who is the authority that decides what we keep, toss or donate? Thus, Tickle says, the cultural rummage sale always come back to a crisis of authority. 

The rise of the Protestant Reformation saw the Papal authority called into question and the authority of the Bible was elevated. This year marks 500 years since Luther's ninety-five thesis nailed on a door, and the crisis of authority is upon us. 

I have noted the difference in sola scriptura and prima scriptura and how United Methodists have a stronger history and connection to prima scriptura than sola. By way of a metaphor I would like to offer up that for the UMC, scripture is the Christian DNA.

The debate between nature (DNA) and nurture (environment) is setting when it comes to human beings. What makes a human being is not nature OR nurture, but nature AND nurture. DNA is our first draft and our environment can influence our bodies but our DNA is our starting point. Likewise, scripture is our starting point, but we understand the environment effects the writer and reader of that very scripture. Scripture is the Christian DNA - it is our first draft it is where we start.

Humans once had a need for tailbones and wisdom teeth, and the environment has made those parts of us no longer as critical. There are things in scripture that were at one time very helpful to culture, but culture has evolved and those same scripture are less critical. 

I do not fear the environment of tradition, experience and reason having an effect on the Christian DNA. Rather I celebrate that Christianity is a religion that is alive and that the scripture is called "the living word". I celebrate that our scriptural DNA is robust to respond to the ever changing situations facing the world while. I celebrate that scripture is robust enough to exist in a variety of environments and give everyone an excellent starting point to engage in a relationship with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit.