This evening I had the chance to skype a meeting with some fellow Church of God intellectuals [1] as they had a “normal” meeting that discussed old business and new. Being somewhat new, I was not particularly feisty, though I did get the chance to share some of my own research on the Heliand, a rather little-known document of church history. I was particularly interested to hear the research of others–whether that included migrations in North America, the importance of Margaret of Anjou to church history, or speculations on pre-Adamic man. It is something remarkable to have a business meeting that is devoted to the logistics of planning academic presentations, or dealing with church organizations that show a tendency to discourage the intellectual openness of members, or time to swap ideas and theories about matters of biblical and historical and scientific interest.

It is important to recognize that with some people (including me and the people I was talking with today), there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. This stance means different things to different people. For some people, it means that anything scientists pronounce upon is true and religion is relegated to a “God of the gaps.” That is not how I mean it, though. I take science as one of many fields that makes strong and verifiable truth claims, but that has limitations in its approach as well and only limited relevance. Nonetheless, like history, it is a field that deals in realities and that has limitations based upon what evidence is missing. Scientific and historical theories are at their best when they deal with the evidence on hand, and are tentative enough to recognize that they will be changed when that evidence changes.

What is not always recognized is that theology is a similar sort of study as well. What is acceptable interpretation depends on external reality. Or rather, it depends on views of external reality. What is objective reality to some is mistaken theory to others, as different people credit different sets of purported facts, and have different authorities that they accept as being true. Others may trust authorities in some matters but not others. Life is complicated. In many ways we all have to wrestle with the responsibilities of free will, and what authorities and what truth claims we accept and what we reject, as well as any contradictions that result from our decisions.

What is necessary to gain value from others is a meeting of the minds. We do not necessarily have to agree with everything someone else says, but we do need to know and understand and accept where others are coming from. We also need to provide space for people to think for themselves without fear, but with responsibility. So long as people are willing to admit that something is a speculation, I am generally very free in allowing it without harsh criticism. I tend to seek to be sober-minded in my own pondering, but I like feeding off of the ideas of others who are less restrained than I am. And so I welcome the opportunity to spend time with those of creative and intelligent minds who are able to help provide me with material to bounce off of myself, and who are accepting of my own thoughts and ideas. And it is wonderful to talk with people of like mind.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/a-church-of-god-academic-journal/