You may recall a few years ago I pointed you towards a project digitising the Codex Sinaiticus – now you can view a digitised version of the Dead Sea Scrolls as well.

Free will is a core belief in Christianity – that is of course unless you are of the Augustinian bent. Indeed fatalism (or to use a more appropriate contemporary term – determinism) is considered sinful by late antique Christian writers.

Recent explorations in to the nature of free will have shown that when you undermine a subjects belief in free will, he or she will be meaner and less considerate to others. This raises all manner of questions namely why? The evidence thus far appears to point to issues surrounding a sense of self – if the situation is presented in a mechanistic manner then the expectation is that the subject will indeed be “meaner”. If on the other hand the given situation includes a more human even humane description of cause and effect – the subject re-asserts their sense of free will.

What does this have to do with theology?

I’ve long been fascinated by the whole idea of free will, namely because much of the western Christian tradition is heavily influenced by Augustine’s idea of pre-destination, whereas it does not feature in eastern Christian thought (other than to say that fatalism is sinful).

Pre-destination, as you might expect, asserts that your salvation has been pre-determined, and nothing you can do will change this outcome. Essentially it takes all responsiblity for you, your actions, and your belief or non-belief out of your hands.

My biggest problem with pre-destination – and I make no claim to being original here – is that it undermines the entire reason and purpose for the incarnation and the resurrection. We believe that the incarnation is about God and man together, working together for the renewal of creation. Yes, we are dependent upon God, and must constantly remind ourselves of this fact. But the grace of our having been created in the divine image, infused with the will and reason of the Logos means that our thoughts, our actions, are not in any way pre-determined, or mechanistic. We enjoy free will so that we might better enjoy and appreciate the journey towards the fullness of being in communion with God. As with with the experiments described in the New Scientist article that found undermining free will had a negative effect on how subjects saw themselves in relation to others; Augustine’s pre-destination undermines this essential Christian journey, as well as the relationships that have shaped it.

We should be as intolerant of pseudo-science, as we are of homophobia, and racism – so says Sir John Beddington the UK government’s Chief Science Advisor – and I could not agree with him more!

Why should this matter to a theologian? Well to start with I live with a scientist (who is also a believer) and to say that we are both in agreement on this point is to state the obvious. Pseudo-science is, as Beddington states a pernicious influence. Because of Pseudo-science, an astonishing number of teachers both here in the UK and in the US believe, and teach “creationism” and “intelligent design”; and even more are afraid to teach proper biological science for fear of facing a backlash from parents, other teachers, and school officials. Purposefully mis-informing young people is wrong, and in any other circumstance there would be a huge public out-cry.

If we are truly representatives of the Gospel – then we have an obligation to stand up and speak the truth. Just as we have an obligation to be honest about social inequality, or cruelty, or oppression, we have an obligation to be honest about pseudo-scientific “theories” that mis-inform, and sometimes even harm people. We need to not only be honest about this “pernicious” problem but as individuals and communities we ought to be responsible and strive to eradicate it.

Pseudo-science is mis-information, it is usually crafted in the service of an agenda or an ideology that is otherwise intellectually or ethically questionable, and it is the cause of suffering.

Creationism is a hot button topic in the US. It is a battleground issue in school boards, churches, and politics. A recent Gallup Poll shows that 40% of Americans believe in creationism. That’s an astonishing number when you consider that the facts on the ground overwhelmingly demonstrate the truth of evolution. Yes – this OC/IC believer, theologian, and bishop rejects creationism in its entirety. There – I said it (grin).

What was not entirely surprising is the breakdown – people with higher education were more than likely to reject creationism, or believe in some form of theistic-evolotion (i.e. that evolution is fact, but that God had a hand in it). What was really curious to me – looking at the table is that the higher the degree level the more eductated people accepted theistic-evolution. Whereas folks who had a BA – when compared to the other categories (i.e. creationism, evolution, or theistic-evolution) were hovering around 30% across the board. So what’s the difference between having a BA and having an MA or PhD that causes that rather hefty shift? Is is simply life experience, and age, or is it something about learning to think in nuances and grey rather than something else, something more . . . . direct?

Then you get to the breakdown based on church attendance – and here’s where it gets really interesting. People who seldom attend church break down relatively evently (again hovering around 30%) across the board for the three categories. Whereas those who attend fairly regularly its pretty close to an even split with only 9% believing evolution happened with no involvement from the Divine. For those who attend church weekly however, the number of respondants who accept unvarnished creationishm is 60%.

Why? And does this figure represnt the bulk of the “uneducated” respondants? If so is the local church their only source for intellectual stimulation? And if that’s true how else are their clergy failing them? Jesus’ teaching does not encourage us to become mindless automotons – indeed his life example is the exact opposite – THINK and think hard, question the convention, expect a bit more depth.

In my mind – a more interesting point is – does it matter, does it really have an impact on one’s faith if one were to say that evolution happened? I believe I have heard one argument that suggests that for a fundamentalist to say that evolution and not creationism is the accepted “teaching” that it means the Bible is a lie, and therefore God is a lie. Oh my! What a narrow view of God you have!

There is a suggestion in this that creationism vs. evolution is the foundation point of faith – that one “believes in” creationism, or one “believes in” evolution . . . the problem is you cannot “believe in” science. Science is nothing more than a collection of facts. It is interesting, and it provides an understanding for the world around us – but it does not inspire some of the more etherial thinking that we humans do. One can certainly accept the facts of science, but one has faith in God – these are two very different activities, which sometimes inform one another, but in the end have totally different functions in our lives.

Here’s an interesting vid (and its transcript) discussing the interrelationship between the environment, embodiment, and faith. Paul Collins, a former Roman Catholic priest speaks about the failure of Christianity to respond to the environment in a throughful manner, and the steps he envisions we might take theologically and in practise to re-establish the balance.

I’ve always been fascinated by the tension between science and religion. I don’t know what it is about this subject that peaks my curiosity so. Perhaps because I don’t see any tension between them and so I feel that I need to understand why others do. Perhaps because I can glimpse some aspects of the key moments when the two were struggling to assert themselves, or even redefine themselves with respect to the other.

Last night I watched The End of God? A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion on BBC (you can watch the episode here until 1 Oct, there is also a permanent summary/essay by the presenter Dr. Thomas Dixon here).

One element of the interaction between the two subjects that puzzles me is the claim, and indeed for some, the belief that religion – and in our particular case, Christianity – provides all the information we need about the natural world. That is to say that the Bible is a user’s manual for planet earth, and from it we obtain “true” knowledge.

For me my faith has nothing to do with the acquisition of knowledge, or facts, at least not in the same way one does research in genetics to understant the genome, and how genes (and their aberrations) effect living organisms. I’ve always approached the faith as a relationship – it is fluid, it is enhancing, it is challenging, it is even enlightening, but it is not an encyclopedic source of “facts” about the world around me. Just as my relationship with my friends, and family is not a source of knowledge about genetics (well – in my case it can be since my other half is a geneticist – grin).

One cannot have a relationship with science. Science will not respond to you, it does not “know” you. And because one cannot have a “relationship” with science, it is not possible to “believe in” science. Thus, to say “I believe in science” is to posit a consciousness, or a relationship that simply cannot be. Science is about the investigation of the natural world – science (real science, not pseudo-science) is “fact”. Science does not, cannot delve into philosophy, meaning, value, because when it does it loses its impartiality, and no longer expresses, or discovers fact.

I guess then, that it is here where my understanding of the faith, and the tradition in which I find myself (OC/IC) is different from say – a biblical literalist who sees the bible as the black and white, beginning and end of “knowledge” and “truth” via revelation. The problem for me, here is that this perspective over-simplifies the scriptures – it smoothes over the rough patches, and turns the bible into an encyclopedia, a manual, a task master. It is none of these things. Moreover, it ignores the grace of free will, and free enquiry that is an essential element of our being human. It seems to me then, that fundamentalism, literalism, de-values the richness of scripture, and degrades the dignity of humanity. Two things I cannot imagine are true to the Christian faith.

Here in the UK the Guardian has a regular column called “Bad Science” which exposes . . . well, “bad” science, pseudo science, and “popular science” ideas – like homeopathy. Maggi Dawn has suggested on her blog the brilliant idea of a “Bad Theology” column. So what bad theologies, or pseudo theological ideas would you include, and why?

This article is rather fun. Apparently reflecting on the divinity (or if you are Atheist – meditating) cultivates brain activity in the areas that promote compassion and a sense of well being.

How cool is that!

“Liberal” churches may be sabotaging themselves by reducing the commitment of their members – so suggests a recent report in New Scientist. The persecution of early Christians may have had a dramatic effect on the spread of Christianity because the sacrifices of martyrs and confessors instilled in others the idea of sincerity: “few would willingly give their life for an ideal they did not believe in”.

Once people believe they are more likely to undertake or endure similar displays of committment. Through a mathematical model, the study suggests that this becomes a “self-reinforcing loop” enabling the belief system to persist over time.

The suggestion is that communities that expect a higher level of committment as displayed through particular behaviour endure and grow whereas those communities which do not eventually dissipate. Comparing liberal Protestant churches and fundamentalist Protestant churches appears to prove the point.

How is this relevant to OC/IC communities?

I dare say that today there might be a few confessors out there, but not too many martyrs. So lets look at the effects of more down to earth forms of “costly sacrifices”.

The study suggests that acts of sacrifice, or self-denial/renunciation by religious leaders has a stronger overall impact on the commitment of others. So, how many of our OC/IC leaders and clergy are regularly participating in the life and community of other churches? From the stand point of a visitor/observer/participant – if my local indie bishop, priest or lay leader is heavily involved in another tradition then this indie thing must not be worth my own personal investment.

This opens the door to the next question, assume our leaders are setting the example, are we doing enough to cultivate, and encourage “membership” through the right of chrismation? That is to say – if our leaders have “sacrificed” the (false) safety net of another church, then are we also encouraging the same within the community as a whole? In short are we actively giving people a reason to give a confident “yes” to the OC/IC way of life, and be willing to whole heartedly throw in their lot with us?

Keeping in mind the above two points, how might the common practice of open communion affect committment to, identification with our OC/IC communities?

Finally, in our history can we point to as an exemplar of commitment to the OC/IC ideal? I can think of a few, such as Varlet and Ofiesh, how about you?

I read with interest this article by Dr. Murdo MacDonald Policy Officer for the Society, Religion and Technology Project for the Church of Scotland on that church’s stance on stem cell research. I then started asking about how this, and issues like it, are being explored in OC/IC communities. However, I have as yet, seen no discussion of stem cell research and similar issues in other OC/IC places (other than here) – have you?

Come to think about it – I cannot recall seeing many (read “any”) discussions of the interplay of science and religion, contemporary ethics, and similar contemporary issues in OC/IC settings – can you?

This leads me to ask: why? Why is it that in our forums issues gravitate towards the same, predictable, limited set: ordination of women, same sex marriage, ordination of LGBT, ritualism, and oh, lets not forget – the all holy “puppy pedigree” monster? Are we that . . . . intellectually, and spiritually “stunted” that we are incapable of intelligent discussion on other, more pressing, indeed more interesting matters?

I know based on knowing the backgrounds of many OC/IC folk, that we have a large cadre of highly intelligent, thoughtful, interesting, well educated people in the movement today – so why are we not enjoying the benefit of their insight, research, and expression of OC/IC ideas on a larger scale than a few clandestine phone calls, or quiet emails passed under the table?

What is interesting to me is the realisation that this narrow “set” of regularly regurgitated issues has a direct effect on how our members perceive this tradition, and how outsiders see us. Don’t you think it is time we make a concerted effort to speak to a wider audience, to cultivate voices of faith, thoughtful, and engaged with issues that matter? What are you, and your local OC/IC community doing to bring about a broader, more in-depth conversation about the OC/IC praxis of today (rather than that of a century ago)?