Sharpening My Methods

How do I approach change of thinking?

Many interpretations of the Christian Bible have changed dramatically over the millennia. Think models in cosmology, biology, geology, and even in the slow-to-change theology.

But let me explain how I go about things like that. It is most important not to tackle everything at once.

I often see myself as the angel in Revelation, with one foot on solid ground, secure, certain, while the other is on unknown and uncertain waters. I allow the ground to provide limitation, foundation, and correction, while the waters ensure growth, development, and change. This places me in a safe spot between calcification and arbitrariness, without making things too safe.

My approach is built on the conviction that truth is not exhausted by fixed propositions but unfolds through ongoing dialogue—among experience, tradition, reason, and what is perceived as sacred. It treats belief systems not as final answers, but as structured ways of knowing that can stabilize, challenge, and develop the individual. The goal is not to replace one system with another, but to integrate multiple perspectives while remaining open to correction.

The opportunity in this lies in its depth and adaptability. It allows people to move beyond rigid certainty without collapsing into relativism, to grow without losing themselves, and to engage complex realities without premature simplification. It can bridge different worldviews, making dialogue possible where others default to opposition. At its best, it produces a resilient form of faith or understanding—one that can evolve without breaking.

The risks, however, are real. Without sufficient external constraints—such as honest dialogue partners, grounding in reality, and exposure to disagreement—the approach can become self-reinforcing. Its emphasis on integration can lead to subtle forms of self-confirmation, where coherence is mistaken for truth. There is also the danger of moving too quickly beyond structures that still serve an important stabilizing function, especially for those not ready to operate in sustained uncertainty.

Its limitations are equally important to acknowledge. This path is demanding and does not scale easily; it requires cognitive complexity, emotional resilience, and a tolerance for ambiguity that many people neither need nor want. It can also become difficult to communicate, as it resists simple formulations and clear boundaries. As a result, its impact is often indirect—deep for a few, diffuse for many.

In practice, this approach works best when it remains accountable: open to correction, grounded in lived consequences, and held in tension with perspectives that do not easily align with it. It is not a final system, but a way of navigating systems—a method that must itself remain revisable.

This is why I depend heavily on the scenius I am building. You remember this group of people who give birth to genius. Let me restate its basic structure:

• Mutual appreciation.

• Rapid exchange of tools and techniques.

• Success is contagious.

• Local tolerance for the new.

• Innovative integration.

This requires genuine community. We have to invest in the work to develop through these preparatory phases:

• Pseudo community with lots of taboo

• Chaos, attempting to evangelize the other

• Emptiness, being out of words

• Genuine community

Right now, I am intrigued by topics such as AI, process theology, and alignment, and by their influence on our overall epistemology. My book about this will come out on April 8th. It’s called The Mirror Works Both Ways: What Creating Artificial Intelligence Reveals About God.

Another topic that I got jump-started on last week, when I met one of the members of my scenius in person here in Switzerland, is the parentheses around Jesus’ earthly life. I mean his birth at one end, and his resurrection and ascension on the other. I could not let go of the topic as my intellectual, imaginative, and existential overexcitability deemed it worthy of much thought. I am especially triggered by Paul’s hypothesis that Christianity stands or falls with the Resurrection.

This is also what moved me to put words to the process I am describing here.

Here is a bullet list describing it. This list does not work as a recipe to be followed, more like a discipline you inhabit.

Process (iterative, not linear)

• Start from lived experience Take seriously what you actually encounter—inner, relational, and external reality—before forcing it into a framework.

• Engage multiple lenses Bring in different epistemologies (e.g., science, tradition, psychology, spirituality), letting each speak where it has strength.

• Form a provisional synthesis Articulate a working understanding that integrates what currently holds together.

• Test against reality Apply it in concrete life: decisions, relationships, consequences over time.

• Invite friction Expose your synthesis to people and perspectives that can challenge it without dismissing it.

• Revise without collapse Adjust what fails while retaining what continues to hold—avoid both rigidity and total reset.

• Stabilize temporarily Let what works become “ground” for a time, while remaining open to future correction.

• Repeat Treat the entire process as ongoing, not something that resolves once and for all.

While you rinse and repeat, keep these guardrails in mind.

Things to consider (guardrails)

• Distinguish coherence from truth Something can feel internally consistent and still be wrong.

• Maintain external constraints Keep contact with reality, credible sources, and people who can say “no” to you.

• Calibrate to context and person Not everyone benefits from the same level of ambiguity or abstraction.

• Watch for premature transcendence Don’t discard structures that still provide necessary stability.

• Track outcomes over time Look for actual change (clarity, responsibility, relational health), not just insight.

• Preserve tension Some opposites are not meant to be resolved but held.

• Avoid identity inflation Seeing patterns others miss does not make you immune to error.

• Keep the method revisable Not just your conclusions—the way you arrive at them must remain open to correction.

Again, this is more like Hebrew block logic or Gebser’s aperspectivity. Different parallel views are being applied simultaneously, with none given preference prematurely.

The goal is not to find solid ground everywhere. The goal is to keep one foot free.