Doctrine of Theological Diversity & Inclusion?

[bluegreenearth]

With the establishment of an official doctrine, a church congregation may only be exposed to a single theological perspective on any given issue to the exclusion of many equally plausible alternative theological perspectives. Consequently, the average Christian views pastoral guidance from their church leadership as prescribed law rather than a subjective interpretation of the law. In many instances, average Christians are unaware that diverse interpretations of contested scriptures are available for their consideration. Whether it is deliberate or unintentional, minimizing or restricting the availability of diverse theological interpretations in this way helps church leaders maintain control of the prevailing perspective held by the congregation.

It is easier to persuade Christians to adopt a single interpretation of scripture endorsed by the church when they believe it to be the only viable option. Obedience to doctrine is further reinforced by the church’s authority to assign punitive consequences for the heresy of developing unauthorized alternative theological interpretations. In most modern churches, the most extreme form of discipline is expulsion from the membership. Since the church is a primary source of community for its congregation, the threat of excommunication is a strong incentive to dogmatically accept only the authorized interpretations of scripture and remain in compliance with established doctrines.

At the same time, there are diverse perspectives on matters which are not essential for salvation that the church allows individual Christians to decide for themselves. In 1577 A.D., the Lutherans settled on the “Formula of Concord� that declared insignificant theological issues as “…neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God.� The Anglicans also developed a similar perspective during the 17th century when they determined that God really only cares about the moral state of a Christian’s soul and is indifferent to things like proper church governance. However, the problem of multiple plausible interpretations exists here as well and is exposed when theologians consult the scriptures to distinguish nonessential matters from matters essential to salvation. Different theologians arrive at different perspectives on what is and isn’t essential to salvation based on their diverse interpretations of Biblical texts. Meanwhile, none of them have an objective method for ruling-out competing interpretations or even their own interpretation.

Occasionally, an issue emerges that is divisive enough to cause a significant number of Christians to risk challenging established church doctrine. For these Christians, it is no longer a simple choice between obeying or disobeying God as the church might have them believe. Instead, many of these frustrated Christians find themselves having to contend with several choices; each choice claiming obedience to the true will of God. Of course, Christians on all sides of these debates will articulate logical arguments and point to Biblical support for why their particular interpretation of the scriptures should define church doctrine more than any alternative interpretation. What they all fail to understand, though, is that an ability to demonstrate a theological justification for one interpretation does nothing to disprove any of the competing theological interpretations.

When faced with various unfalsifiable interpretations of Biblical texts, theologians have no objective standard by which to mitigate for confirmation bias or other conscious and subconscious prejudices which may influence personal preference for one perspective over another. The historic consequence of this impasse has been the fragmentation of Christianity into thousands of competing denominations. Even within a single Christian denomination, unresolvable doctrinal disputes continue to divide the church’s congregation. In fact, some critics have argued that the Bible’s ability to justify almost any theological perspective has produced as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians.

A potential compromise could be achieved by adopting a “Doctrine of Theological Diversity and Inclusion� that reveals rather than conceals plausible alternative interpretations of contested scriptures. To imagine the functionality of this, consider how diversity and inclusion (D&I) awareness programs in the workplace contribute to increased employee satisfaction, improved productivity, and above average employee retention. For instance, if two diverse groups of employees each submit an equally viable proposal for achieving a shared goal, their creativity is rewarded when the leadership permits each proposal to proceed rather than arbitrarily demanding the implementation of just one of the proposals. In other words, the leadership assumes an agnostic position towards each viable proposal since they have no way to justify choosing one over the other. As a result, employees from both groups are willing to contribute more innovative ideas when their diversity of thought is not discouraged in the workplace. More importantly, inclusive workplaces that welcome diverse perspectives exceed their competition in recruiting the most qualified and talented employees which leads to even more innovation.

The Christian church would equally benefit from D&I awareness by soliciting various theological perspectives and openly disclosing where contested scriptures have multiple plausible interpretations. Adopting a doctrine of theological D&I will better position the church to facilitate compromise by remaining agnostic in situations where Biblical guidance is ambiguous rather than arbitrarily enforcing a single interpretation. Instead of feeling compelled to dictate which interpretations of scripture are authorized, the church leadership may simply encourage their congregation to seek direct revelatory guidance from the Holy Spirit. After all, if Christianity is true, the burden of directing people towards the proper interpretation of difficult scriptures should resides with the Holy Spirit and not with fallible theologians. As such, the Christian theologian’s responsibility should not necessarily be to speak for God but merely to facilitate someone’s introduction to the Holy Spirit as the mechanism by which God may speak for himself.

A doctrine of theological D&I compels theologians to have faith that God will guide each unique Christian towards an appropriate interpretation of a difficult scripture regardless of whether it aligns with church tradition or not. In this way, the existence of contradictory interpretations is rendered inconsequential because it may be the case that God does not intend for every Christian to live by the exact same interpretation of an ambiguous Biblical text. Rather than being an unfortunate byproduct from the utilization of fallible human authors to communicate his words, the debatable language which comprise select Bible passages may have been deliberately designed by God to be ambiguous in order to facilitate personalized plans for a diverse population of Christians.

It must be clarified that a doctrine of theological D&I does not restrict theologians from conveying their own personal interpretations of ambiguous scriptures even if the church as a whole assumes an agnostic perspective. To the contrary, a doctrine of theological D&I encourages theologians to communicate their individual perspectives. However, their pastoral obligation would also compel church leaders to disclose plausible alternative interpretations for consideration. Otherwise, a failure to reveal all the theological options could potentially deprive a valued Christian of a Biblical interpretation God intends for that individual.

Furthermore, the church must not abuse its authority by discouraging Christians from accepting an equally plausible interpretation of a contested scripture which does not conform to the majority perspective since there is no objective method for resolving such disputes. Therefore, theologians must resist the compulsion to impose their fallibly biased interpretations of imprecise Biblical texts on a diverse congregation for the sake of establishing or reinforcing arbitrary church doctrines. In fact, such authoritarian practices have been observably and unnecessarily destructive to the Christian community. Instituting a doctrine of theological D&I will help the Christian church to recover from the damages caused by fallible yet non-negotiable doctrines.

In closing, the establishment of a theological D&I doctrine would facilitate a compromise for almost any internal theological dispute regarding the interpretation of ambiguous scriptures. From arguments over the Theory of Evolution to decisions about Planned Parenthood, a doctrine of theological diversity offers church leaders an ability to satisfy their pastoral obligations in way that fosters compassion rather than division. As long as the core components of Christianity are maintained, there doesn’t appear to be any logical or theological reason to reject the application of D&I awareness to church doctrine. If Christianity is a relationship and not a religion as many Christians assert, then adopting a doctrine of theological D&I will serve to grow that relationship by encouraging congregants to seek direct revelatory guidance from God. Otherwise, this self-imposed obligation to support non-negotiable but fallible church doctrines will only continue to drive people farther away from a relationship with Jesus.

[Divine Insight]

If Christianity is a relationship and not a religion as many Christians assert, then adopting a doctrine of theological D&I will serve to grow that relationship by encouraging congregants to seek direct revelatory guidance from God. Otherwise, this self-imposed obligation to support non-negotiable but fallible church doctrines will only continue to drive people farther away from a relationship with Jesus.

I totally agree.

The only problem is that to think that a person has a personal relationship with Jesus is itself an obvious delusion.

Why?

Well, to begin with just as you have pointed out different people will have different ideas of what Jesus supposedly expects from humans. Thus proving that all of these people cannot be having a relationship with the same entity.

Therefore it should be crystal clear that these people are simply inventing their own ideas of what they think Jesus should stand for and then convincing themselves that this imagined deity agrees with them.

Moreover, how many people are going to imagine that Jesus disagrees with their views? Not many.

Therefore all we end up with when we encourage people to seek a relationship with an invisible imaginary Jesus are people who simply use this imagined Jesus as support for their personal views and opinions.

So it's far better to get people to realize the truth. Their opinions and views are indeed their own. They can still stand up for those opinions and views. They simply need to be open about the fact that these are their own opinions and views and not the inspired divine knowledge attributed to Jesus.

People really need to move beyond this idea that some supreme being supports their views and opinions. They need to take responsibility for their views directly. Any anyone who has convinced themselves that their views represent the views of a supreme being has already deluded themselves beyond all hope of taking any responsibility for their own views.

So either join a church and accept their dogma. Or take responsibility for your own views. Pretending that our views are Jesus's views only creates extreme problems. That just causes people to abandon any personal responsibility for their views entirely.

[bluegreenearth]

If Christianity is a relationship and not a religion as many Christians assert, then adopting a doctrine of theological D&I will serve to grow that relationship by encouraging congregants to seek direct revelatory guidance from God. Otherwise, this self-imposed obligation to support non-negotiable but fallible church doctrines will only continue to drive people farther away from a relationship with Jesus.

I totally agree.

The only problem is that to think that a person has a personal relationship with Jesus is itself an obvious delusion.

Why?

Well, to begin with just as you have pointed out different people will have different ideas of what Jesus supposedly expects from humans. Thus proving that all of these people cannot be having a relationship with the same entity.

Therefore it should be crystal clear that these people are simply inventing their own ideas of what they think Jesus should stand for and then convincing themselves that this imagined deity agrees with them.

Moreover, how many people are going to imagine that Jesus disagrees with their views? Not many.

Therefore all we end up with when we encourage people to seek a relationship with an invisible imaginary Jesus are people who simply use this imagined Jesus as support for their personal views and opinions.

So it's far better to get people to realize the truth. Their opinions and views are indeed their own. They can still stand up for those opinions and views. They simply need to be open about the fact that these are their own opinions and views and not the inspired divine knowledge attributed to Jesus.

People really need to move beyond this idea that some supreme being supports their views and opinions. They need to take responsibility for their views directly. Any anyone who has convinced themselves that their views represent the views of a supreme being has already deluded themselves beyond all hope of taking any responsibility for their own views.

So either join a church and accept their dogma. Or take responsibility for your own views. Pretending that our views are Jesus's views only creates extreme problems. That just causes people to abandon any personal responsibility for their views entirely.

While I completely agree with the ideal described in your response, experience has taught me that it is nearly impossible to convincingly argue that perspective to fundamentalist Christians. Instead, I try to work within the Christian worldview in order to offer a more persuasive path towards accomplishing a shared goal of maximizing well-being and minimizing harm for the most people. It is how people act on their beliefs that concerns me more than the beliefs themselves.

[Divine Insight]

It is how people act on their beliefs that concerns me more than the beliefs themselves.

But if their belief is that Jesus backs up their views, then why would they act any differently from what the believe?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Sure, from my and your perspective, they seem to be extrapolating their personal opinions onto their concept of God in various circumstances. Of course, I can't say this is true for all or even most Christians but think it is a fair assumption for a significant number of them. It is my hypothesis that many Christians conform most of their theology to the doctrine of their church rather than through their own analysis of the scriptures. As such, an unnecessarily rigid doctrine might be discouraging them from considering more flexible interpretations of the Biblical texts.

For instance, consider the divisive topic of gay marriage. While the loudest minority of Christians create the impression that their personal disgust for same-sex relationships is what drives their theological interpretation of the scriptures which allude to homosexual activity, many Christians will actually admit to having no personal problem with gay marriage apart from the fact that their church leadership insists the practice is sinful based on an orthodox interpretation of the scriptures. Meanwhile, other Christians have been "guided by the Holy Spirit" to an alternative but equally plausible interpretation that excludes same-sex marriage between consenting adults from the other types of homosexual activity condemned in the Bible. Whose to say which Christian interpretation is correct? Both claim the Holy Spirit guided them to their respective interpretation. By what objective standard could such a dispute be resolved?

A doctrine of Theological Diversity & Inclusion will suggest both interpretations could be correct depending on the circumstances. From the Christian worldview, what would be the theological objection to presuming God has a unique and perfect plan for every person? Why would it be unreasonable for Christians to believe that God deliberately inspired the scriptures relevant to homosexuality to be written in dead languages that would inevitably lead to imprecise translations and inconclusive interpretations for the explicit purpose of guiding each of his unique followers to divinely customized plans for their lives?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

the average Christian views pastoral guidance from their church leadership as prescribed law rather than a subjective interpretation of the law.

I should hope so. Isn’t that the point of the Church? So, we can know we are getting it right?

Whether it is deliberate or unintentional, minimizing or restricting the availability of diverse theological interpretations in this way helps church leaders maintain control of the prevailing perspective held by the congregation.

Gosh, I hope so. The Church is entrusted to safeguard Sacred Scripture and correctly teach matters of faith and morals. Without a Church with authority and control, we could not have a unified message. This would be very confusing for Christ’s followers.

Obedience to doctrine is further reinforced by the church’s authority to assign punitive consequences for the heresy of developing unauthorized alternative theological interpretations.

Yes, less we have a bunch of incorrect teachings being taught.

In most modern churches, the most extreme form of discipline is expulsion from the membership. Since the church is a primary source of community for its congregation, the threat of excommunication is a strong incentive to dogmatically accept only the authorized interpretations of scripture and remain in compliance with established doctrines.

Well, one would think, however history reveals that not to be the case. Many have created or adopted different interpretations than Christ’s Church and simply left and started their own, if it is something they felt strongly about.

Also, keep in mind, the Church always welcomes discussion and even differences in opinion on many, many things. It is actually often rare, when the Church might have to step in and tell someone they have crossed the line and should not be teaching falsehoods.

At the same time, there are diverse perspectives on matters which are not essential for salvation that the church allows individual Christians to decide for themselves.

Yes, there are many things like this, hence my statement above. For these things the Church allows Christians to differ in their views.

Different theologians arrive at different perspectives on what is and isn’t essential to salvation based on their diverse interpretations of Biblical texts.

True.

Meanwhile, none of them have an objective method for ruling-out competing interpretations or even their own interpretation.

False. The only objective method is to acknowledge that Christ established One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Only to her did He give authority (the keys to the kingdom). So, if you are listening to some church that came onto the scene later, then you can’t be sure they are getting it right, as they do not have the authority.

Occasionally, an issue emerges that is divisive enough to cause a significant number of Christians to risk challenging established church doctrine. For these Christians, it is no longer a simple choice between obeying or disobeying God as the church might have them believe. Instead, many of these frustrated Christians find themselves having to contend with several choices; each choice claiming obedience to the true will of God. Of course, Christians on all sides of these debates will articulate logical arguments and point to Biblical support for why their particular interpretation of the scriptures should define church doctrine more than any alternative interpretation. What they all fail to understand, though, is that an ability to demonstrate a theological justification for one interpretation does nothing to disprove any of the competing theological interpretations.

What they fail to understand is they all do not have the authority to pick up the Bible and give their own personal interpretation, if it contradicts the Church’s teaching. Heck, at this point, they have already trusted Christ’s Church to give them the Bible in the first place, but then they think that same Church is not authorized to interpret it? That makes no sense.

When faced with various unfalsifiable interpretations of Biblical texts, theologians have no objective standard by which to mitigate for confirmation bias or other conscious and subconscious prejudices which may influence personal preference for one perspective over another.

Yes, our Christian faith is based on FAITH and REASON. The same faith required to believe a man named Jesus existed, walked this earth, and was the Son of God is the same faith required to believe He established One Church, He put in charge, and expected us to listen to, “He who hears you, hears me�

The historic consequence of this impasse has been the fragmentation of Christianity into thousands of competing denominations.

Correct, an yet no impasse necessary if one applies both his faith and reason or knows history.

Even within a single Christian denomination, unresolvable doctrinal disputes continue to divide the church’s congregation.

Yep, exactly what Christ hoped to avoid and which you don’t see in His Church, the Catholic Church. You always see this in other Christian denominations because they don’t even claim to have authority.

In fact, some critics have argued that the Bible’s ability to justify almost any theological perspective has produced as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians.

Sure, unless like I said, a person applies logic and reason and recognizes obedience to Christ’s established Church, which is what ironically you criticized at the beginning of this post.

A potential compromise could be achieved by adopting a “Doctrine of Theological Diversity and Inclusion� that reveals rather than conceals plausible alternative interpretations of contested scriptures. To imagine the functionality of this, consider how diversity and inclusion (D&I) awareness programs in the workplace contribute to increased employee satisfaction, improved productivity, and above average employee retention. For instance, if two diverse groups of employees each submit an equally viable proposal for achieving a shared goal, their creativity is rewarded when the leadership permits each proposal to proceed rather than arbitrarily demanding the implementation of just one of the proposals. In other words, the leadership assumes an agnostic position towards each viable proposal since they have no way to justify choosing one over the other. As a result, employees from both groups are willing to contribute more innovative ideas when their diversity of thought is not discouraged in the workplace. More importantly, inclusive workplaces that welcome diverse perspectives exceed their competition in recruiting the most qualified and talented employees which leads to even more innovation.

This is a wonderful idea for a secular democratic institution, but fails to recognize Christ’s Church is not a democracy. We did not elect Jesus our King. He is King by right of His divinity and truth is not determined by democratic vote. Your premise fails to understand the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, not innovative human ideas.

After all, if Christianity is true, the burden of directing people towards the proper interpretation of difficult scriptures should resides with the Holy Spirit and not with fallible theologians. As such, the Christian theologian’s responsibility should not necessarily be to speak for God but merely to facilitate someone’s introduction to the Holy Spirit as the mechanism by which God may speak for himself.

Congratulations! You just described the Catholic Church. But I have to tell you, God beat you to it.

A doctrine of theological D&I compels theologians to have faith that God will guide each unique Christian towards an appropriate interpretation of a difficult scripture regardless of whether it aligns with church tradition or not.

If it doesn’t align with Sacred Tradition, then it isn’t what Jesus wanted. He established His Church, gave her the Keys to the Kingdom and her, “He who hears you, hears me�. He promised to remain with His Church and that the Holy Spirit would guide her in all truth. He referred to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth telling her, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven� The first Christians were told to hold onto not only that which has been written down, but that which has been passed onto them via word of mouth, and via oral tradition.

In this way, the existence of contradictory interpretations is rendered inconsequential because it may be the case that God does not intend for every Christian to live by the exact same interpretation of an ambiguous Biblical text.

I mentioned before, we all can expect to get some different insights from a particular reading and this is cool and what Jesus wanted, but to believe something drastically different than what the Church teaches is wrong and would be a harmful system.

As G.K. Chesterton once said, “I don’t want a church to be right when I am right. I want a church to be right when I am wrong.�

Who would want it any other way?

Rather than being an unfortunate byproduct from the utilization of fallible human authors to communicate his words

You mean byproducts like the Ten Commandments communicated to us through that fallible guy Moses? God has always used fallible men to communicate with us. We are expected to have faith and listen to them because He has chosen then and given them this authority.

, the debatable language which comprise select Bible passages may have been deliberately designed by God to be ambiguous in order to facilitate personalized plans for a diverse population of Christians.

Personalized plans, yes – love that, but not if they contradict Church teaching. Jesus did not want division, rather unity. You seem to be equating diversity with division.

It must be clarified that a doctrine of theological D&I does not restrict theologians from conveying their own personal interpretations of ambiguous scriptures even if the church as a whole assumes an agnostic perspective. To the contrary, a doctrine of theological D&I encourages theologians to communicate their individual perspectives. However, their pastoral obligation would also compel church leaders to disclose plausible alternative interpretations for consideration. Otherwise, a failure to reveal all the theological options could potentially deprive a valued Christian of a Biblical interpretation God intends for that individual.

Or, revealing all theological theories could deprive Christians of truth. It could lead him down the wrong path. It could be dangerous for his salvation. It would also simply be confusing and stressful. I trust my Lord and His promise to remain with His Church.

Furthermore, the church must not abuse its authority by discouraging Christians from accepting an equally plausible interpretation of a contested scripture which does not conform to the majority perspective since there is no objective method for resolving such disputes.

So, you mean basically what the majority of Christendom does now? And I disagree with your last sentence – there is an objective method of resolving disputes and Scripture even told us as much . . .

“If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then consider him a pagan and a tax collector� The first Christians took their matters to the Church, as directed. The Church is the objective standard – at least that is what Jesus said.

Therefore, theologians must resist the compulsion to impose their fallibly biased interpretations of imprecise Biblical texts on a diverse congregation for the sake of establishing or reinforcing arbitrary church doctrines.

You falsely assume their interpretations are fallible. The Catholic Church teaches papal infallibility. And you falsely assume Church doctrines are arbitrary. I have no idea why you would think any of the Church doctrines are arbitrary.

In fact, such authoritarian practices have been observably and unnecessarily destructive to the Christian community. Instituting a doctrine of theological D&I will help the Christian church to recover from the damages caused by fallible yet non-negotiable doctrines.

Riiiiiiiight . . . . by dividing the Body of Christ and endorsing indifferentism and moral relativism. We already have seen the drastic effects of that on our culture.

In closing, the establishment of a theological D&I doctrine would facilitate a compromise for almost any internal theological dispute regarding the interpretation of ambiguous scriptures.

I’m not sure one can compromise truth.

From arguments over the Theory of Evolution to decisions about Planned Parenthood, a doctrine of theological diversity offers church leaders an ability to satisfy their pastoral obligations in way that fosters compassion rather than division. As long as the core components of Christianity are maintained, there doesn’t appear to be any logical or theological reason to reject the application of D&I awareness to church doctrine. If Christianity is a relationship and not a religion as many Christians assert, then adopting a doctrine of theological D&I will serve to grow that relationship by encouraging congregants to seek direct revelatory guidance from God.

You mean direct guidance from their own little gods. How convenient.

Otherwise, this self-imposed obligation to support non-negotiable but fallible church doctrines will only continue to drive people farther away from a relationship with Jesus.

Ha, ha, ha . . . I think Christ’s Church will take her chances and continue to do her job of safeguarding Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition by continuing to be non negotiable when it comes to truth.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 6 by RightReason]

Before I respond, may I ask how you are able to separate my quotes from your own statements in this forum? When I click the "quote" button, it puts the entire response in one box. I would like to highlight individual sections and respond to them as you have.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 6 by RightReason]

Before I respond, may I ask how you are able to separate my quotes from your own statements in this forum? When I click the "quote" button, it puts the entire response in one box. I would like to highlight individual sections and respond to them as you have.

You do so by breaking the response text with a [/quote] tag. After you complete your reply to that section, use the

tag to continue quoting the next section from the poster you are replying to.


Tcg

Edit: If you go the test sub forum, you'll see an example of this were I replied to my own, "This is a also a test", entry. Use the quote function to view the tags I've added between the Break #1, Break #2, and Break #3 additions in the last reply.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

I should hope so. Isn’t that the point of the Church? So, we can know we are getting it right?

How can we determine if the fallible theologians who lead the church are getting it right?

Gosh, I hope so. The Church is entrusted to safeguard Sacred Scripture and correctly teach matters of faith and morals. Without a Church with authority and control, we could not have a unified message. This would be very confusing for Christ’s followers.

I'm confused. My review of church history doesn't seem to demonstrate that there has ever been a unified message or followers of Christ that haven't been confused by the "Sacred Scripture" in one way or another. How were you able to confirm that the Church has reliably and correctly taught matters of faith and morals?

Yes, less we have a bunch of incorrect teachings being taught.

How do fallible church leaders decide which teachings are correct or incorrect without an objective method for resolving such disputes? If there is an objective method, please describe it.

It is actually often rare, when the Church might have to step in and tell someone they have crossed the line and should not be teaching falsehoods.

Again, how do fallible church leaders determine when a line has been crossed when there is no objective method for resolving such disputes? If an objective method exists, please educate me.

The only objective method is to acknowledge that Christ established One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Only to her did He give authority (the keys to the kingdom). So, if you are listening to some church that came onto the scene later, then you can’t be sure they are getting it right, as they do not have the authority.

How is that an objective method? Isn't that just another subjective interpretation from some fallible church theologian with a bias and motivation to favor Catholicism? If not, please demonstrate how it is objective.

What they fail to understand is they all do not have the authority to pick up the Bible and give their own personal interpretation, if it contradicts the Church’s teaching. Heck, at this point, they have already trusted Christ’s Church to give them the Bible in the first place, but then they think that same Church is not authorized to interpret it? That makes no sense.

How was it determined that the interpretation of a fallible theologian will always be more accurate than the interpretation of any other fallible human being? Isn't that a logically fallacious argument from authority? If it is not logically fallacious, please educate me.

Yes, our Christian faith is based on FAITH and REASON. The same faith required to believe a man named Jesus existed, walked this earth, and was the Son of God is the same faith required to believe He established One Church, He put in charge, and expected us to listen to, “He who hears you, hears me�

I will respond to this epistemological inconsistency in a separate post.

Yep, exactly what Christ hoped to avoid and which you don’t see in His Church, the Catholic Church. You always see this in other Christian denominations because they don’t even claim to have authority.

Anyone can make claims about anything. The key is to develop an objective method for determining whether a claim is true, false, or unknowable in a way that mitigates for confirmation bias. Have you mitigated for confirmation bias in your analysis? If so, how did you mitigate for it?

Sure, unless like I said, a person applies logic and reason and recognizes obedience to Christ’s established Church, which is what ironically you criticized at the beginning of this post.

Isn't willful obedience to church dogma an a-priori influence that will corrupt any a-posteriori conclusion regarding the reliability of the church thereby disqualifying it from being logical or reasonable? In fact, doesn't that make the entire exercise circular?

Your premise fails to understand the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, not innovative human ideas.

If the church is guided by the Holy Spirit and the church is staffed by human beings (theologians), then wouldn't the diversity of innovative theological perspectives be the product of that divine guidance? If not, how do we determine which theological perspectives are genuinely inspired by the Holy Spirit and which are not?

Congratulations! You just described the Catholic Church. But I have to tell you, God beat you to it.

It has been my understanding that the concept of receiving spiritual authority directly from the Bible to individual Christians through the Holy Spirit rather than church tradition was the foundation of the Protestant Reformation and not Catholicism. Is that incorrect?

If it doesn’t align with Sacred Tradition, then it isn’t what Jesus wanted. He established His Church, gave her the Keys to the Kingdom and her, “He who hears you, hears me�. He promised to remain with His Church and that the Holy Spirit would guide her in all truth. He referred to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth telling her, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven� The first Christians were told to hold onto not only that which has been written down, but that which has been passed onto them via word of mouth, and via oral tradition.

How was it conclusively demonstrated that what we know as "Sacred Tradition" accurately reflects what Jesus actually said? How can we claim to know what the "first Christians" were told when the best and most complete manuscripts which claim to document the words of Jesus don't date any earlier than several decades to hundreds of years after the crucifixion and after the initial versions of Christianity had already been compiled and evolved into updated versions of the faith? If we accept this kind of manuscript and orally transmitted evidence in support of an extraordinary supernatural claim, are we then obligated to accept similar claims from other traditions supported by the same kinds of evidence? How is this line of reasoning any different from that of a cargo cult or people who believe in extra-terrestrial alien abductions?

As G.K. Chesterton once said, “I don’t want a church to be right when I am right. I want a church to be right when I am wrong.�

Who would want it any other way?

Again, how was it objectively verified that the fallible theologians who interpreted the scriptures were not mistaken or influenced by confirmation bias or personal prejudice? I don't understand why anyone should be satisfied with that arrangement.

God has always used fallible men to communicate with us. We are expected to have faith and listen to them because He has chosen then and given them this authority.

If it were the case that those fallible men were mistaken or had a sinister motivation for leading people to believe God was speaking only through them, how would anyone discover that if they are expected to have faith and listen to them rather than justifiably question their presumed authority? How is that obedient behavior intellectually honest or even sensible?

You seem to be equating diversity with division.

Diversity can be both unifying and divisive depending on whether people choose to embrace or reject it. I choose to embrace diversity.

Or, revealing all theological theories could deprive Christians of truth.

As stated earlier, I will respond to this epistemological inconsistency in a separate post.

]there is an objective method of resolving disputes and Scripture even told us as much . . .

“If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then consider him a pagan and a tax collector� The first Christians took their matters to the Church, as directed. The Church is the objective standard – at least that is what Jesus said.

So, a Biblical passage is the objective and reliable method for determining if the Church's interpretation of the Bible is accurate and reliable? Please explain how this reasoning isn't circular.

You falsely assume their interpretations are fallible. The Catholic Church teaches papal infallibility. And you falsely assume Church doctrines are arbitrary. I have no idea why you would think any of the Church doctrines are arbitrary.

Your argument for the infallibility of the Church's Biblical interpretations is that the Church teaches papal infallibility? How convenient. Am I misunderstanding something or is there a logical fallacy here somewhere?

I’m not sure one can compromise truth.

Ha, ha, ha . . . I think Christ’s Church will take her chances and continue to do her job of safeguarding Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition by continuing to be non negotiable when it comes to truth.

This is also an issue with epistemology that I will explain in a separate response.

[PinSeeker]

I say just preach the Gospel. God will take care of the diversity in His time.