For them, a scientific theory, once “proven”, describes reality as it actually is in itself. They have bought into the re-envisioned interpretation of scientific history as presented in their school text books and the story of science as a body of knowledge that simply progresses, adding, as it were, fact to fact, as it builds up an increasingly complete picture of our reality. Whilst, maybe, I can understand this view as most people are unaware of the u turns, wrong turns and double u turns that have occurred in the development of many of our scientific descriptions of reality, what I find harder to understand is that people forget that a description of a thing is not the thing itself.

Descriptions, thoughts captured in verbal signifiers, can never be the thing they describe. Not only that but they are intrinsically attached to our empirical perception of the world. They describe our macro reality, the reality we perceive and comprehend which is not the same as reality as it exists before our perception. They are necessarily analogical and as such are imprisoned within our a priori view.

Our descriptions, at the end of the day, are really nothing more than metaphors. We might label them theories, or even go further, and label some of them as facts, but actually, after all is said and done, they are nothing more than analogies. Reality is described as being like something, operational labels are assigned and defined in descriptions which in turn find their meaning in the context of other descriptions, which reciprocally find their meaning in still larger descriptions; modern myths which like their ancient predecessors, function to try and help us grasp hold of our world, understand it, and tame it.

These stories, sophisticated though they undoubtedly are, do not tell us about reality as it actually is but about reality as it appears – and the two are not the same. More than that though, because a description of a thing is not the thing, neither do they fully inform us of the reality that appears; rather, in a very real sense, they actually shape what appears. They form the backdrop and plausibility structures against and upon which we as characters, set within our own stories, live out our lives. They alternatively resource and resist our understanding and grasp of nature, and shape and colour our world view. 

But it should not be forgotten, new stories can be written, and the old rewritten, our world can be re-imagined, and it is thanks to the creativity of such authors that scientific understanding progresses.

Brian McLaren

Brian McLaren is my hero. When my studies sent me down the post modern route, and caused me to doubt all of what I had come to believe, it was McLaren that brought me back. His book, “A New Kind of Christian”, made me realize that, though I had accepted the post modern epistemology, it did not mean I had to throw out all that I had come to believe. Discovering McLaren was a major turning point for me. Here was a significant Christian leader, respected, though not always agreed with, by other Christian leaders, who validated my own thinking. In a sense, discovering McLaren gave me permission to explore thoughts which till then had been forbidden within a fundamental Christian mindset.

The two talks I enjoyed most: “Rediscovering Christian faith as a way of life”; and “Postmodern and Postcolonial”.

http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/shop/talks/speakers/47

I really liked what McLaren had to say about truth and it is sits well with my own thoughts.  I find I am tired of rationalistic theological categories that first conceptualize and then hypostatize such that God is made to be something less.

Keith Ward

Keith Ward has taught philosophy at Glasgow, St. Andrews, Kings College, London and Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and was Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford for twelve years. His talk entitled “Why there is almost certainly a God” is a direct response to the forth chapter of Richard Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” entitled: “Why there certainly is no God”.

Unlike other responses to “The God Delusion”, Ward attacks Dawkins’ minimalistic materialistic understanding of reality. Dawkins adopts a position rejected by nearly all modern day philosophers and in the process demonstrates a profound lack of understanding.

I am not certain I agree with all of Ward’s talk but I suspect that is more due to him tailoring the content to his audience. For me it seems he curtails too much to the authority of scientific discourse and makes far too much reference to “scientific fact”.  Also, he makes reference to the sense of smell being the result of an electromagnetic wave. Although, in a way, because fundamental particles can be considered as waves and the sense of smell can also be thought of in terms of the interaction of reality modeled as such, I suspect, really, he simply meant to say that colour, taste and smell have something in common, in that they are all constructs of our mind.

Anyway, aside from that, his talk is well worth a listen.

http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/shop/talks/speakers/928

Frank Schaeffer

In these talks, Frank Schaeffer shares his story of how he and his father helped shape the modern American political landscape and helped found the Religious Right – something he now deeply regrets! His story is very interesting and I particularly enjoyed his reflections on doubt as a necessary component of creative inspiration.

http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/shop/talks/speakers/1065

Nigel Varndell

Nick Varndell works as the Interfaith Manager at Christian Aid. I really enjoyed his talk provocatively entitled: “Slavery is biblical”. If you read my blog regularly you will know I hate the word “biblical” as, as far as I am concerned, to label something “biblical” is effectively to make a meaningless statement.

http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/shop/talks/speakers/32

Todd Bentley:

I could not care less about your tattoos, your past history as a drug addict or a paedophile, your ridiculous visions of heaven, whether you see angels, and/or whether they are male or female, whether you make Bat Man sounds, or that you kick, punch, body slam people in, or not in, the spirit. None of this concerns me. I don’t even care whether you are “biblical” or not as, as far as I am concerned, “biblical” is a meaningless word; though, in some way, I have to admit, your carry-on is certainly no worse than some of the mad stuff I read in scripture.

But I do find offensive, the god you worship.

Your god seems to want to pander to the needs of a narcissistic, neurotic American Christian (sub)culture in desperate need of a bless-me-up. Of all of the problems inflicting our planet, your god chooses to focus on the needs of the rich, over fed, over consuming, few - and also, of course, any that can afford to increase their carbon footprint to jet over and join you.

I have said I don’t care about your visions of heaven but, actually, I do, in a way, because it is matters of this reality which concern me, not portals into other dimensions which may, or may not, exist. I don’t want a beam-me-up god, I want a god who is going to get down and dirty in the realities of this world.

I realize there is need in America too, but where is the evidence that your “revival” is making any impact on that front? Certainly the infirm and ill flock to your meetings in need of healing, but I have not yet, for all my searching on the internet, found one shred of evidence that you are actually helping these people. I do note, though, that your “ministry” is proving to be very lucrative. Perhaps you could provide some transparency into your income and we would understand that all of the profits are being redirected to worthy cause. Perhaps you could also invest in some formal mechanism / process for verifying the healings that you claim occur in your meetings. This, it seems to me, would do nothing but increase your credibility, and would make sound sense, unless, of course, you do have something to hide.

You make claim to a whole host of miraculous happenings but the miracle I hope and long for, the biggest miracle of all, is that I/we might change. That, instead of worshipping the god of consumption and consumerism, I/we might discard such idolatry and look to the God who dwells with the poor and the marginalized, the powerless, and the defeated; this God, who challenges me to live a wholly different life of service and love, is the God I fail and I do not recognize him in Florida.

Paul Eddy writes:

The Bible is clear that sex is a gift from God and is intended for a life-long committed relationship of marriage between a man and a woman. Any sex outside marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual is therefore against God’s plan for his children and his will.

I do not think the bible is clear on anything. Apparent perspicuity, or stability in meaning, is the function of the interpretive community and not the text. Meaning seems clear until one steps out from the confines of one’s community to find others who read the same text and yet reach radically different conclusions. There are not quite as many interpretations as there are readers – although, actually, there possibly are: no two readers are ever going to absolutely agree - but there are certainly as many as there are interpretive communities. Those that claim a literal understanding as the understanding are simply unread; else they have only chosen to read - or listen to – others already in agreement.

Eddy writes

Ordinands who believe they have sexual desires towards people of the same sex are able to be ordained priests so long as they maintain the Biblical standard of no sex outside marriage, just like single heterosexual priests. They may openly declare that they believe they are gay, but must remain celibate.

I have no idea what the phrase “biblical standard” actually means. I doubt Eddy regards something as biblical just because it is in the bible. The biblical text is far from univocal on matters of morality. Biblical standards are not always that great in my opinion! Only a certain reading which chooses to attenuate a good deal of the Old Testament would suit the modern ethical palette.

Also, while we are on the subject of “biblical doctrines”, I thought something close to the heart of most Evangelicals is the doctrine known as the “priesthood of all believers.” How is it that “bible believing men” such as Eddy are able to stay in communion with a church which clearly distinguishes a priestly caste? Surely – to use Eddy’s terminology – this is a “first order issue”? Could it be that something other than a concern for “biblical principles” is influencing Eddy’s theology?

Concerning the ordination of woman bishops, Eddy writes:

Some parts of the evangelical wings of the Church and certainly the Anglo-Catholic wings would have problems here, although this is generally felt to be a second order issue. There will be diocese/Provinces at Gafcon and Lambeth who will and will not appoint women Bishops.

Why is the ordination of woman bishops a “second order issue”? On what “principle” do these Evangelicals decide one issue to be “first”, and another “second?”  Could it simply be that their homophobia outweighs their misogynism?

Saint Paul:

I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.

Todd Bentley:

What’s more, several days later I was taken back into heaven to Paul’s house! But this time I didn’t go inside. I stayed outside where I saw a ladder in his back yard like the one described in Genesis 28, Jacob’s ladder. [I've come to understand that there are ladders like that in heaven in order to ascend and descend into different realms because heaven has places, geographical places. For example, the first heaven is where we live on the earth; the second heaven is the invisible realm of Ephesians 6: 12; and the third heaven where I was with Paul, it's the Paradise of God (Rev. 2:7).] So I jumped onto the ladder and began to climb up into another realm. I saw around me that it was all clouds so I began to pull those clouds back. As I did, a hole opened up in the heavens. Immediately then, out of heaven, flowed the color green, not just a light; it was like a green liquid and it was pouring onto my eyes! When I asked God about this, He said, “You are coming into the throne room; you are beneath the sea of glass; there is a rainbow around the throne. It’s not just above the throne; it’s a circle around the throne, a rainbow, emerald, green in color.” ["And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald" (Rev. 4:3).] I had just climbed into the fourth realm of heaven which is the throne room, (with more realms to follow). I went up from the throne room into the fifth realm which is the heavenly city. I saw streets that are golden and mansions and I noticed that it was very different from the Paradise of God (third heaven) where there are hills, still waters, and flowers. It wasn’t as peaceful. Next came the sixth realm of heaven which is the place where the angels live. There is literally a realm reserved for Michael, Gabriel, all the arch angels and all the angels under the arch angels! This isn’t the second heaven, the angel and demon realm, where they battle. It’s just a realm where the angels dwell. Then the last heaven I saw, the seventh realm was other universes and the solar systems; undiscovered universes and planets that God has created.

To raise the issue of homosexuality above the Nicene Creed and belief in the Trinity seems to me to border on idolatry… If this is all about the authority of scripture why haven’t people threatened to leave over the church not obeying Christ’s commandment to reach out to the poor? A third of the parables and a sixth of Christ’s words in the Gospels are about wealth possession, but we don’t hear too much about that.

Pastor Phelps makes my point very well: in an online article entitled “’God Loves Everyone’ The Greatest Lie Ever Told” he lists “701 [p]assages [of scripture] [p]roving God’s [h]ate  & [w]rath for [m]ost of [m]ankind”! (italics mine) Now I know we might want to question his interpretation of many of the references he cites, but that is partly my point: it all boils down to either interpretation and/or the acceptance that in many of these passages, God does not come off in the best possible light.

My own personal position is that much of what is written in the bible - especially but not exclusively in the Old Testament - is ethically distasteful to the modern mind; and not only that, I believe, the Old Testament paints a poor image of God: he (the masculine personal pronoun intended) is a misogynistic, narcissistic, judgemental, tribalistic, pedantic, schizophrenic, controlling, violent and vengeful personality; the Old Testament god is clearly not worthy of our adoration or worship.

From this perspective the bible is definitely not Christian! The God I worship, the God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, is very different. This is the God who teaches us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. And who demonstrates his ethic of love in the ultimate of self sacrificial acts.

In my view, and I would suggest in the wider Christian view – though, perhaps, not very often explicitly stated, and despite the opposite sometimes being explicitly stated in many evangelical circles – Christ relativises all that came before.  His ethic of love is the foundation of our hermeneutics, and it is on this cornerstone we build our understanding. Only according to this reading of scripture am I prepared to accept the bible as Christian.
 

In this connection, a back article in the New Scientist caught my attention. In a piece entitled “Can we learn to love uncertainty David Malone writes:

Few notions have become as deeply embedded in our culture as the belief that there is a perfect certainty to be had – and the desire to have it. It has survived virtually intact the transition from religion to rationalism as the touchstone of our society. Even as science squeezed out belief in God and scriptural certainties, a perfect law-governed creation remained; it was just under new management. Science has become, in the minds of many, the new guarantor that there is certainty and that we can attain it.

I am continually frustrated how often people prefer and defer to scientific discourse assuming that it has a god’s eye perspective on our reality enabling it to function as an arbitrator for all truth. Such a view simply makes no philosophical sense. The reality of the matter is that we live in an uncertain world and absolute truth is beyond our comprehension and we must content ourselves with this situation.

 Malone continues:

We need to reach an accommodation with uncertainty. Not only is the universe uncertain, but so too is human knowledge. Science as a process should never have fostered any illusions about this: it was always about provisional truths – and new it.

Perhaps it is time for us to finally accept that we shouldn’t believe in science because we think it’s certain, but precisely because it is not.

I agree with Malone, though I would want to stress, this is not to introduce the “god of the gaps” by the back door. I am not saying that we can only go so far but then must give up and write off any further understanding. In fact I am saying the opposite: we must keep on searching; we must keep on peeling back the different levels of reality and accept that we are on an endless journey. 

Absolute truth claims are nothing more than an idol to the “god of the gaps”. They foreclose on further debate or investigation concerning the object of enquiry. Malone writes:

Certainty is totalitarian. It forecloses further thinking. Not one of the theories devised by Newton, Darwin, Einstein or Planck is certain and perfect. Powerful and beautiful they undoubtedly are, but they are still partial and incomplete approximations of truth.

Malone suggests that:

… serious thinkers are not afraid of uncertainty. For them a theory’s uncertainty or incompleteness is not a failing but a positive and creative condition in its own right. The profound discoveries of modern mathematics and science show that life and thinking flourish only in the liminal and fertile land that lies between too much certainty and too much doubt. The art of scientific inquiry is to tack back and forth between the two.

I would suggest that this be true irrespective of the domain of enquiry. It is true of the scientific enterprise but, perhaps, more so true when God is the object/subject of our enquiry.

Malone finishes with a quote from Bertrand Russell:

Uncertainty in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales… To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing.

And I would suggest absolutely necessary if knowledge and reflection concerning our world, ourselves and God is to increase. In a very real sense, questions are far more exciting than answers.