The epistemology thread

[Wayne in Maine]

So, why do Mennonites split off into more groups than perhaps any other group of Christians by their numbers ? Each could say they are hearing the voice of God in how to go about living a Kingdom way of life when from the most liberal to the most conservative there is quite a difference in scriptural interpretation and application ? It doesn't seem that 'communal discernment ' is doing much to portray a unity in Christianity. It seems this was happening in the early Corinthian church as they began saying just what leader they chose to follow and Paul tried to point them back to just following Christ.

What are your thoughts on 'collective discernment' and why so many splits occur when we can't agree to disagree ?

I think I already answered that when I wrote:

The basic point is: If "we" claim to be filled with and guided by the Holy Spirit, then we will hear the same Spirit telling "us" the same thing. God is not schizophrenic: He does not tell different individuals contradictory things on the same matter. If individuals are hearing contradictory voices of God then someone is, in fact, not actually hearing God.

Mennonites are not alone in this. I suspect that 99.99% of the time people, including groups of people, claiming to be directed by the Holy Spirit are in fact being guided by their own personal inclinations and biases.

[Josh]

Were masks required to be worn in Holmes County? Or not? Or just recommended?

Required at the state level. The county government decided to err on the side of the people’s wishes.

With that said, Ohio’s governor did not try to turn Ohio into a police state, unlike Michigan. (He also didn’t brazenly disobey his own health orders in public, like Michigan and California’s governors did.)

[Sudsy]

What are the logical alternatives?
1) Jesus was mistaken and made a false statement.
2) Our understanding of what Jesus said is mistaken.
3) Some who believe they are Jesus' sheep in actuality aren't.

For #2, this could mean that we have heard Jesus voice when He called us to salvation. He called and we began to follow Him. But as sheep are prone to do, we go astray and ignore the Shepherd's voice calling us to follow Him. Things outside the fold are attractive to our independent nature and off we go in areas of danger. The Shepherd comes after us to draw us back to the fold. So, I take it that what Jesus is saying is about mature sheep that don't give ear to other voices and other pastures where the Shepherd is not leading them into.

The SS lesson today was from John 10, and apparently the custom was for multiple shepherds to keep their sheep in the same sheepfold overnight (hence the reference to a doorkeeper, separate from the shepherds, in v. 3). At the beginning of the day, each shepherd would enter and call to each of his sheep, and they would follow him and go out to pasture for the day. Then the next shepherd would call his sheep, and so on. Responding to the shepherd's voice out in the pasture is part of it, but maybe not the primary meaning. Every day Jesus says "Hey Sudsy, come follow me today." Every day his voice becomes a little more familiar.

And then the sermon was from Matthew 6. When you give, when you pray, when you fast -- the hypocrites don't do those things in private, only in public. Practicing those disciplines regularly brings us close to Jesus and helps us hear his voice.

So we have a bunch of sheep all following Jesus. All of us with different personalities and gifts, so he talks to each of us individually (and if he does tell us different things, "What is that to you? You follow me"), but with the goal of following him together as one flock. That's a big job, but he is a good shepherd. It works if we listen to his voice.

Not so much if we listen to the other sheep, or to the wolves who try to distract us. Isn't that usually the source of splits?

Your post got me thinking once again about Romans chapter 14 which begins by saying to not quarrel over opinions and then talks about believers who have different ways of believing how they are to live unto the Lord. Then it goes on to say, who are we to judge another man's servant as how they live unto the Lord. It is not other believers business to judge.

I have been in two church splits over my years of attending 6 different church fellowships and missed one that occurred just prior to my stay with them. The two, imo, were the result of a group within the church not willing to go in the direction of a board of elders as to how they believed God was leading them. Instead of moving on as individual families, they stayed and quarreled over their opinions and attempted to overthrow the leadership. And they used their take on certain scriptures as their support. Not that the issues were heretical but rather opinions on what a true church should be and look like.

Imo, these could have been avoided by obeying Romans 14. As you said, the goal should be to get along allowing for personal convictions as the Lord leads each one of us. At the same time, being aware not to use our freedoms as a stumbling block to others. To me, this is the area where many go wrong. They can't see unity without uniformity. Yet scripture is clear that each of us is at our own state of sanctification and sanctification is not something to be forced on others to attempt to achieve unity through uniformity. So, we end up with split after split attempting to get this true church 'without spot or wrinkle' when scripture says Jesus has already made us this way through washing us in His blood.

So, every group of believers will have believers at various levels of sanctification and we should accept this fact. Rather than quarrel over opinions, like those written in Romans 14, we should get along, accepting one another's convictions regarding how they serve the Lord. And encourage and pray for one another without passing judgment.

I realize there are other scriptures that are used to attempt to maintain a pure, uniform looking fellowship and some use the method of shunning in their practise, which if used should still consider Romans 14 in how these judgments are made.

Well, I guess this can be read as me judging so I best allow Romans 14 to speak to individuals as the Spirit guides each of us. As you say if we draw closer to Jesus in our relationship with Him, we learn to hear His voice more clearly. We do need to have spiritual ears to hear what the Spirit is saying and learn to shut out many of voices, especially those of sources of this world.

[Ken]

When I consider the agendas of the government and big pharma, the power and the money versus the Christian microbiologist, scientists, doctors, and nurses who are swimming against the current ...

What makes you such an expert on the motivations of all the experts out there? What makes you so certain that the highly politicized narratives you promote don't reflect agendas we should be uncomfortable with? If I claimed to be an expert on your motives or the motives and agendas of others here, would you accept that? I sure wouldn't. I would hope people would pile on to say that's just not OK.

I am very reluctant to say that I fully understand anyone else's motives, especially people I do not know well, but I think it is possible to understand data and research designs. To me, it feels like there is a group that approaches this from the opposite perspective. They are quite confident they know the agendas and evil motives of anyone who disagrees with them, but data and research design and all that stuff scientists deal with is beyond them. At my age, I have been surprised by a good handful of people who seemed to have good motives but turned out to be abusing children or committing financial fraud. I have also been surprised by the integrity and intelligence of people I had misjudged. I suspect other people just might be equally fallible when they judge the motives of others, and I suspect we may all be just a little blind about who is trying to manipulate us and how.

Frances Collins is the author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and founder of the BioLogos institute. I think these paragraphs capture my views on what we can know scientifically and why that is not the only factor we need to consider as Christians.

Scientists are not all-knowing and have biases like the rest of us. That’s why the process of scientific research has built-in steps for testing, vetting, and validation by the whole community. While any individual scientist may be biased, the community actively critiques each other’s work to reduce bias and errors until together they develop a consensus on what the data are saying. It’s not a perfect process and one can always find dissenters, but scientists working together are far more accurate than one person’s theory on YouTube. Scientists are trained to communicate where the consensus is uncertain and to not overstate conclusions. They may speak in sound bites in an interview, but if you listen a bit longer you will hear the caveats. So when Dr. Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, tells us what scientists have learned about this infectious disease, he should be listened to.

We need more than science alone to make good decisions. Invoking “science” is not a one-word rationale for public policy; many factors need to be considered. The economic losses and social hardships of the pandemic are painful, and thoughtful Christians will disagree on how to balance those needs with health needs. Even closer to our hearts is the impact of quarantine on church fellowship. As churches reopen, Christians need to balance God’s call to meet together with God’s call to protect the vulnerable among us. We need more than science to make these decisions; we need biblical faith to be wise and discerning (James 3:13-18). As Christians throughout history have shown during other pandemics, our faith is what moves us to deep compassion for the sick, the young, the old, and the vulnerable, as we follow Jesus’ command to care for the least of these (Matthew 25:31-36). Our faith calls us to sacrifice ourselves for others and accept temporary limitations on our freedoms because we have a permanent and complete freedom in Christ (Hebrews 10:34). Our faith helps us be humble and patient when discussing contentious issues (Ephesians 4:2-3). It is our faith, not science, that overcomes fear and brings hope. God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble (Psalm 46:1).

I understand where you're coming from, just not in agreement- you're also assuming evil about an awful lot of Christians, ascribing a lack of sacrifice & compassion from a great many Anabaptists. I think the way they discerned who & what to trust actually turned out well

the word "science" comes from the Latin word "scientia" which simply means "knowledge"

For those who reject science (and I'm not saying that you are), what exactly are they rejecting?

[temporal1]

I find your statement "because it does not feel a very charitable interpretation" especially interesting, as I think we in tolerant liberal America are often guided by this sort of ethic, not wanting to be considered harsh or "unloving".

I know other people who are guided by a different ethic who are willing to be more direct and forthcoming -
and personally I trust those people more.

While it is impolite, I think #3 is the most accurate and aligns best with what Jesus said concerning the narrow way:
“many are called [invited] but few are chosen", and "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many."

I agree completely.
I would also say that this calls for discernment on our part, but not judgement on our part,
if we can keep the two things separate.

i also agree. thinking of Romans 14:4.
which, i believe can be misused in attempt to justify sin.

Romans 14:4
https://biblehub.com/romans/14-4.htm

3The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him.

4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls.
And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. ..

These warning words are direct, not compromised. (They are not suggesting sins+crimes be enabled/ignored.)

Jesus is warning about human discernment versus judgment regarding varying earthly personal choices, that are not sins or crimes, in this case, food choices.

Jesus doesn’t mince words about His privilege as God.

[Josh]

Ken,

Not all who claim knowledge actually have it.

For example, the person who claims lots of knowledge (and science) for how essential oils heal all manner of diseases.

Going back to the subject of this thread, at issue here is agreeing in the first place on what the accepted foundations of “knowledge” are.

[Ken]

Ken,

Not all who claim knowledge actually have it.

For example, the person who claims lots of knowledge (and science) for how essential oils heal all manner of diseases.

Going back to the subject of this thread, at issue here is agreeing in the first place on what the accepted foundations of “knowledge” are.

Science is nothing more than a systematic process for acquiring knowledge (research).

Can be abused? Of course. But there are built-in safeguards for that through the process of peer review and publication of results. But plenty of politicians and companies seek to abuse science for their own ends.

Your example of essential oils is an an interesting one. There is some scientific evidence for general benefits of aromatherapy and some limited therapeutic benefits such as muscle relaxants. But the purveyors of essential oils expand on the limited science to make a lot of absurd therapeutic claims for which there is no scientific evidence. So they may relax your muscles but won't cure cancer (or Covid).

Here is the John Hopkins site on essential oils: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... eally-work

Most actual scientists tend to be very careful about the language they use. Rather than making outright claims, they will tend to say "the evidence suggests...." or "the research suggests..."

[Josh]

My assertion is that a lot of people pretending to be scientists have invaded “mainstream science” and replaced it with a political agenda, or just a self serving one.

The replication crisis is the best citation I can put forward of this.

[Wayne in Maine]

My assertion is that a lot of people pretending to be scientists have invaded “mainstream science” and replaced it with a political agenda, or just a self serving one.

The replication crisis is the best citation I can put forward of this.

Replication crisis? Is that really your best shot at the scientific method as opposed to anecdotal and politically driven “science”?

[Josh]

My assertion is that a lot of people pretending to be scientists have invaded “mainstream science” and replaced it with a political agenda, or just a self serving one.

The replication crisis is the best citation I can put forward of this.

Replication crisis? Is that really your best shot at the scientific method as opposed to anecdotal and politically driven “science”?

Particularly that the most amplified and cited research are the studies that are the most poorly replicated.

The scientific method is fine. The problem is that most of what passes for “science” is not the scientific method.