The Haxtun-Fleming Herald - What can we reason but from what we know? -Alexander Pope

Time flies when you’re having fun, or at least when you’re a National Weather Service reporting station. For the past couple of decades, the daily routine has included recording highs and lows of the previous weather day, precipitation amounts, wind velocities and directions and other noteworthy meteorological events. While ultimately compiled and collated with other volunteer observer sites across the nation, the original data is most often hand recorded prior to being sent in over the net. Depending on the hurry to the morning, individual information ranges from carefully scribed entries to nearly undecipherable scratching.

Climatology represents summaries of weather data in which comparisons are made, differences examined, and anomalies noted. Until the numbers are compiled, sorted, averaged and compared, raw data has little individual significance. The relative significance of a particular high or low may depend on the daily recording time representing the previous 24 hours. What kind of equipment was used to gather the data? How accurate is the information? What is the human error associated with manual entries and multiple data sets?

All of these considerations describe in part the essence of “messy data.” As much as we might like for it to be clear cut and logical in its presentation, the observer, the weather service personnel and meteorologists — anyone interacting with the collection and flow of data — is involved to some degree in interpreting the information. What assumptions can be made about missing data? Does the next entry constitute an average of the previous 48 hours instead of 24? Are all observers trained in the same manner or are there variations in how observations are conducted?

Theology is all about messy data. As much as we crave certainty in religion, there are a great deal more uncertainties than absolutes. Are historical writings authored by one or many? Did Paul pen all the letters attributed to him or were some written by others under his name? Where do science fact and science fiction find their way into scripture? How do we account for variations in personal interpretation? What about the conundrum of dealing multiple creation and flood stories? How do we reconcile a mighty vengeful God with a God of love and peace? Is one interpretation always right, implying that all others are wrong? Some of the most valuable responses by a friend and Old Testament scholar are often prefaced with, “It’s complicated!”

Don’t obsess about getting it all right. The amount of literature to interpret can be messy and overwhelming. “Don’t ever quit. Just keep it simple. You’re going to find that there will be times when people will have no stomach for solid teaching, but will fill up on spiritual junk food — catchy opinions that tickle their fancy. They’ll turn their backs on truth and chase mirages. But you, keep your eye on what you’re doing …; keep the Message alive; do a thorough job as God’s servant (2 Tim 4:2b-5, MSG).”

Being faithful is not the same as figuring it all out. One could even say that ambiguity is what keeps our faith alive and vital, even when it looks and feels like messy data.