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.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

I think your D&I will only further complicate matters. Pastors/church leaders seem to have their hands full expounding their own church's doctrine much less all the available views out there. There would be chaos and further confusion.

The underlying problem is that this so-called omniscient, omnipotent, God, could not produce a document that didn't lend itself to thousands of interpretations.

When differences arose in the early church Paul told the congregation that "God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." (1 Cor. 14:33) Can you think of any book more confusing than the Bible?

Indeed, I cannot. Nevertheless, there are no shortage of stubborn Christians who assert the Bible is absolutely clear and concise in everything it conveys to them. However, there are some Christians out there who might be persuaded to adopt a more flexible theology for the sake of maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm. It is the more reasonable and compassionate Christians I hope to reach.

[PinSeeker]

If you can't see the point then you are the point.

If you were the point instead of me, I would be able to see the point while you would not. Since I see you as the point, then I cannot also be the point unless we can both be the point. Are we both the point?

Maybe he means you're both pointy-headed.

[William]

[Replying to post 68]

RightReason: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with White Supremacy.

William: I must say that I am surprised by this confession from you as you appeared to me to be a real history buff in regard to the RCC.
Not to worry. Perhaps it's one of those things which happens to someone besotted with anything. They tend to turn a blind eye.
The reader without such barriers will know exactly what I refer to. One simply has to google the Catholic support for Nazi Germany. Plenty of information to help one decide how this self-proclaimed Church of Christ did things during that time in history.
Certainly there is evidence of historical significance regarding atrocities which the RCC was involved with. Perhaps because you believe that 'whatever the church loosens or binds' makes that 'whatever' acceptable to Christ?


RightReason:Again, I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to other writings???

William: Are you suggesting that no other writings were known of and rejected by the newly forming RCC?

[RightReason]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

there are some Christians out there who might be persuaded to adopt a more flexible theology for the sake of maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm. It is the more reasonable and compassionate Christians I hope to reach.

It is amazing to me you do not understand what you get wrong here. Again, you are looking at Truth as something as negotiable, and therein lies the problem.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 73 by William]

RightReason: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with White Supremacy.

William: I must say that I am surprised by this confession from you as you appeared to me to be a real history buff in regard to the RCC.
Not to worry. Perhaps it's one of those things which happens to someone besotted with anything. They tend to turn a blind eye.
The reader without such barriers will know exactly what I refer to. One simply has to google the Catholic support for Nazi Germany.

Yes, please do. I encourage you to know your history. If one does, he will see lots of greats in the Church fought against Hitler. Here’s one very prominent great who did just that . . .


Hugh O'Flaherty CBE (28 February 1898 – 30 October 1963), was an Irish Catholic priest and senior official of the Roman Curia, and significant figure in Catholic resistance to Nazism. During World War II, the monsignor was responsible for saving 6,500 Allied soldiers and Jews. His ability to evade the traps set by the German Gestapo and Sicherheitsdienst (SD), earned O'Flaherty the nickname "The Scarlet Pimpernel of the Vatican".[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_O%27Flaherty

RightReason:Again, I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to other writings???

William: Are you suggesting that no other writings were known of and rejected by the newly forming RCC?

Of course, the Church rejected writings. Guided by the Holy Spirit, she instructed the faithful what received their seal of approval and what did not. I still do not understand your point.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 69 by bluegreenearth]

The only time we see harm associated with gender dysphoria is when they are prevented from receiving proper medical care and feel compelled to take it upon themselves to alter their anatomy instead of having a qualified doctor safely perform the procedure.

This is absolutely not true. You need to do a little homework. Plenty of reports of people suffering from gender dysphoria who say they did not benefit from their medical care and some even saying they received poor care and care that ultimately negatively affected their health and well being.

Plenty of harm in what you would call medical treatment for gender dysphoria. . . .


Patients receiving hormone therapy as part of their gender-transition treatment had an elevated risk for cardiovascular events, including strokes, heart attacks and blood clots, according to a study published in the American Heart Association's journal Circulation.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 093959.htm


Sex hormones for gender transitioning hike risk of stroke, heart attacks, study findsNearly 4,000 Dutch trans women and trans men given hormones during their gender transition had an elevated risk for strokes, heart attack and blood clots

https://nationalpost.com/health/sex-hor ... tudy-finds


Breast cancer risk in transgender people receiving hormone treatment: nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands

https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1652

For the majority of transgender people, prior to receiving medical treatment, they had an extremely high risk of committing suicide. Hormone injection and/or surgery is the only reason these people are still with us. I prefer someone live a life of their choosing than end their life because they were unable to cope.

You cannot know that hormone injection and surgery are the only reasons some trans haven’t killed themselves, especially since the suicide rate after surgery is still higher than the general population. Again, you’re letting your politics and ideology trump facts.


Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0016885

All I've done and will do is politely and kindly recommend that people keep their unfalsifiable opinions to themselves because doing otherwise is clearly causing objective harm to everyone.

Right back at ya!

If someone were demonstrate to me that imposing my opinion on people was causing objective harm, I may or may not change my opinion but certainly wouldn't continue imposing it on anyone.

Right back at ya!

Quote:
I couldn’t agree more. People deserve dignity and respect. We owe it to them to not deny facts/science/truth or encourage behaviors that are beneath their dignity and harmful to their long term peace/happiness/fulfillment.


If you truly believe that, you will keep your unfalsifiable opinions about same-sex relations to yourself.

It’s because I believe in the dignity of the human person that I can’t support your unfalsifiable opinion that same sex relations are good.

You realize what you may be referring to as science are typically opinions claiming to be based on science. Things like recommendations by the American Medical Association or current American Psychological Association standards of procedure are not free from ideological influence/trends/bias/and societal pressure. They aren’t even in and of themselves scientific fact/truth.


When I had my first child, it was the AMA’s rec that you place baby on his tummy. A few children later, the AMA changed its recommendation and said a baby should be placed on his back. And big surprise, today, I believe the rec is the baby should be placed on his side. I think today the AMA does not recommend the baby sleep in the same bed as his parents, even though many studies show this to be beneficial. The decision is influenced by culture and what research one chooses to emphasizes.


When my mother had me, doctors told women bottle feeding is just a good as breastfeeding. In fact, she was told it was even better – why science could fortify milk with all the essential vitamins a baby needs and she would emotionally and psychologically benefit by not being tied down with a nursing baby. Well, what do you know 10 years later, too late for an entire generation, the science shows breast milk is best. Not only does it have things that can’t be replicated in formula, it is easier for babies to digest, and the mother/child bonding is very beneficial. Gee, what do you think might have influenced doctors all over the world to tell my mother’s generation to forget about breastfeeding and give their babies’ bottles? Hint: It wasn’t science or facts. It was culture. It was “women’s lib�. It was trends. It was technology (we saw that we could and didn’t stop to think if we should).

My mother was also told by her family doctor that she should go on HRT(Hormone Replacement Therapy) to help her transition into menopause. Women everywhere were being sold HRT as a way to reduce or eliminate having to suffer from hot flashes. Today, it isn’t standard medical procedure to recommend all women who reach the age of menopause to go on HRT. Why? Because they found there is a link between HRT and breast cancer. Too late for my mother who was diagnosed with breast cancer after having been on HRT for 10 years and had to have a mastectomy and go thru chemo. Oh, but yeah, she never had to deal with hot flashes.

So, as you can see just because a group of peer related professionals agree to some standard medical practice does not in fact mean they are always right. And it certainly shows that in fact these “recommendations� or “standard practice� taught are often influenced by culture and ideology. These are the same types of things that highly affect things like current medical treatment for gender dysphoria. You are very naïve to think it is only science behind these things.


[quote[]Quote:
Gaaaaaaah . . . so is pedophilia and bestiality and yet we know via reason and observation those things are disordered sexual behavior.


Didn't I debunk this response already or was that from someone else's post? [/quote]

Well, since I haven’t seen you debunk anything I would say that’s a no.

I am open to the possibility that someone on here might have an argument and supporting data to alter my worldview; it just hasn't happened yet.

Ha, ha, ha . . .

I am reminded of the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes! No one dares speak about what we all know to be true because we’re afraid to speak, less we be guilty of disagreeing with the Emperor or even each other!

When it comes to homosexual acts, it is the elephant in the room that no one dare question.

We can see with our own eyes that males and females have compatible genitalia. Their parts literally fit together. The world we live in shows us a man and a woman were intended to physically come together. There is no similar observation in homosexual acts. Same sex couples either have to simulate sex with one another or stick parts of themselves into body parts that were not intended to be used that way (as is scientifically demonstrated with harmful health consequences). Two people of the same sex attempting to have sex with one another with the purpose of becoming a family is illogical. There is nothing in nature that shows us that it is ordered behavior.

A moral truth that is subject to God's opinion contradicts the definition of objective moral truth.

Ha, ha, ha . . . that is if we accept your opinion of who God is. God doesn’t have an opinion. God is truth.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 69 by bluegreenearth]

A moral truth that is subject to God's opinion contradicts the definition of objective moral truth.

Ha, ha, ha . . . that is if we accept your opinion of who God is. God doesn’t have an opinion. God is truth.

I agree RR. This point of dismissing God as an opinion is greatly misleading. God is truth, our opinions matters not to Him. He is that which He will be.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 69 by bluegreenearth]

A moral truth that is subject to God's opinion contradicts the definition of objective moral truth.

Ha, ha, ha . . . that is if we accept your opinion of who God is. God doesn’t have an opinion. God is truth.

I agree RR. This point of dismissing God as an opinion is greatly misleading. God is truth, our opinions matters not to Him. He is that which He will be.

For your claim to possess any value at all, it must be falsifiable and survive every test designed to falsify it.