Let me begin by saying that I never cease to be amazed (although perhaps by now I should be) by just how differently what appear to be sincere, committed Christians can view a certain issue. Just to be clear, I'm not referring to important matters- such as the divinity of Christ or anything like that; but rather over "secondary issues". What is even more surprising, and yes- appalling- about this disagreement, is just how meanspirited the "dialogue" between two opposing people, or groups, can become. To be honest, it is sometimes downright depressing.

So, how do such disagreements arise? After all, we're all aware (aren't we?) of the passage of scritpure that suggests that it is "by our love for each other the world will know (us)"? And secondly, we Evangelicals agree that the Bible is the authority that should settle such matters anyway. And yet we continue to launch minor wars against each over this issue, or that. Ironically the weapons of our warfare are often examples from scripture itself. One person will fire away with a proof-text from scripture and the other person will fire back with their own. How does this happen? How can we be reading the same Bible and be drawing such different conclusions?

I think recent conclusions drawn in the world of science can help shed light on this diemma. Recent studies have found that the issue of "pattern expectaction" plays a significant role in later "pattern recognition". This finding begins to question man's objective ability to observe results. The issue is not whether there are results to be observed, but whether or not a biased scientist "has the eyes to see them".

I think a similar phenomena often happens in our reading and interpretation of the Bible. Our pre-exisitng biases (which come from a wide variety of sources) shade how we read the Scriptures and more importantly for our purposes here, how we connect the dots.

Let me begin with an example of the kind of dialogue (or perhaps we should call it "anti-dialogue) that I made mention of in the opening. The subsequent "scripture-slinging" that went on in this next example looks something like "pattern expectation" and subsequent "recognition" in my mind.

It was not so long ago that a friend of mine turned me on to the writings of Donald Miller. After reading a couple of Miller's books I was impressed. So, one evening recently I decided to do some online surfing to see what Mr. Miller was up to these days. After coming across his personal website, and a couple of pomo-friendly sites that mention Miller in glowing terms, I came across another website that did anything but.

This 4th website (which I think is best left nameless) bit into poor Donald like you wouldn't believe; calling him a false teacher- and to be honest- far worse. This original post (which lambasted Mr. Miller) was responded to by numerous people in the "comments" section. The comments seemed to be split almost down the middle. Some people agreed wholeheartedly with the chastising of Donald the false prophet, while others seemed intent on offering perspectives on how helpful Miller's honest approach to life and God had been for them.

At one point in the "dialogue" someone suggested that if the person who wrote the original article lambasting Miller, were actually to sit down with him for a coffee or a meal, they'd find he was a really great guy. The original author of the post quickly responded by saying that they would "never share a table with a false teacher such as Donald Miller" - or something very much to that effect. Despite follow up comments where people questioned whether or not this was a Christlike attitude- considering that Jesus himself ate with tax collectors and sinners of many forms - the original poster "stuck to their theological guns"; responding with "proof-texted rants" saying things such as "are you really such a babe in Christ? Don't you know your scriptures? Paul says to cast such a person from your midst and to turn him over to Satan!"

No doubt anyone with an Emerging perspective would have been appalled and perplexed by the attitude of this author. Believe it or not, the root issue that caused the original stir was the fact that Miller apparently uses curse words from time to time in his writing. Regardless of whether or not one thinks a Christian using curse words for literary effect is appropriate or not- is kind of besides the point. The issue at hand, at least in my mind anyway, is why this reviewer (and in her own mind guardian of the one true Faith) seemed to have only two categories in her repertoire.

Either Miller was on the same (and clearly correct) page as herself on a whole host of secondary theological and behavioral issues, or he was a false teacher. There really seemed to be no middle ground. And no number of frustrated responses by readers to the contrary seemed to be able to shake this writer's unteachable attitude. In fact the more people asked for her to re-think her position, the more entrenched she became- no doubt convinced that she was now experiencing persecution for her faith.

As Christians, and especially as Evangelicals, we speak about referring to Scripture to form the basis of our opinions on various issues. And yet, even though we all say such things, we often end up with very different perspectives on a whole host of issues. So why and how does this happen? Is the Bible really that vague?

No, I don't think so. I think the issue often comes down to our pre-existing, underlying beliefs about who God is- and how that colors not just our reading of the Bible, but also our co-ordinating of its main points.

When scientific enquiry really took hold in our society, almost everyone assumed it was a full-proof way to test out various theories about the nature of the universe. You propose a hypothesis and then set out to prove, or if the facts lie elsewhere, disprove it. By moving along in such a systematic manner we believed we would move closer and closer to describing how (if not why) the universe behaves as it does. For a very long time (for most of the modern era in fact) this assumption about the validity and usefulness of the scientific approach was in full effect.

However more recent developments have led some to question the "full-proofness" of the scientific approach. Beyond the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle- which states that you can change something merely by studying it, recent studies have also found that human beings can be awfully dodgy when it comes to pattern recognition.

Put simply, when we expect to find a certain pattern (which is exactly what proposing a hypothesis is all about) we tend to find it; whether it is truly, empirically there or not. Furthermore, by putting on these horse-blinders as such, we can tend to miss the existence of other patterns merely because of the fact that we were not looking for them. Such findings can tend to cast a different light, to say the least, on the infallibility of scientific research.

That is not to say that in such situations all that is going on is mental gymnastics; where we somehow consciously plot deceipt. But rather that while there is often more than one pattern to see, we only see and verify the one we're setting out to find.

Moving beyond "pure science" I think we see similar phenomena at play when it comes to human beings' perspectives on God; and perhaps, even on their "biblically-informed" views of God.

To be clear, I am certainly not leading towards an assertion that all biblical interpretation is inherently flawed. It may be biased- but that does not make it useless. But I do think that as Evangelicals we need to be a bit more honest (or at least a little more humble) in our assertion that it is "scripture-alone" that informs our views. No doubt scripture plays a large part; but so too does the revelation inherent in the created world, the traditions and collective teachings of the historic Church, and the divine whisperings of the Holy Spirit; not to mention our upbringings and our particular socio-economic context.

So if pattern expectation is key when it comes to later pattern recognition then what kinds of expectation seem to be expressed in the Donald Miller debate described above? Well, in my mind I see two distinct perspectives (or perhaps we should call them hypotheses?) about God at play in the dialogue.

I can't help but notice that some people seem to turn to Christianity as a way to categorize life into a fully defined system. Of course I myself am a biased observer but I can't help but think that the underlying motivation behind such an approach is fear. People fear the unknown and so they look to religion to bring everything "into the light". As a result they end up with a neatly-packaged belief about everything- right down to the smallest detail.

Others (and yes I would like to believe that I fall into this latter category) pursue God not because we fear the unknown but rather because we find in it a providential clue. In the unknown we percieve the mystery of a divine imprint. When we think of God we think of a perfect, personal Power that is the very author of truth, beauty and love. And rather than life being a journey into ever-neater, tighter categorizations meant to crush out the fear caused by the unknown, we see life as a somewhat mysterious pursuit of this perfect, personal Power that is at once knowable- and unknowable; who leads us unto greater, deeper depths of wonder.

It doesn't take much forethought or intelligence to realize that these two differing assumptions and motivations for the pursuit of God can lead to very distinct differences in later interpretations of the Bible. Even when we apply what we think are like forms of exegesis to the same Biblical texts these differing revelations of God can lead us to different associations. I don't think there is much room around this. Therefore, rather than SHOUTING at each other with various "misile verses" -always at the tip of our tongues, perhaps we would do better to disagree- agreeably.

I think those of us who see God as an infinitely beautiful, powerful, glorious, merciful lover of our souls would not be doing justice to Him if we were to do anything less. I must admit that often my own actions have not been a good example of this principle in practice. However, I do plan to begin applying this belief to my interactions with others- whether brothers, sisters, or neighbors (which of course accounts for every person on the face of the Earth). I think it is high time that when it comes to our approach to the Bible, and to life, that in line with what N.T. Wright has suggested, we pursue, above all else, a hermeneutic of love.