Hegelian Dialectic or "Consensus Process"

Do you see the contradiction between the philosophies of the world and His Word?

We are warned in His Word:
2Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires.

We are either being transformed by the renewing of our minds by His Word or we are being brainwashed with the philosophies of the world.

This is an example of the consensus group philosophy:

For the benefit of those who have not yet heard of the Hegelian Dialectic, let me briefly run through it as taught by Authority Research Center president, Dean Gotcher. The Hegelian Dialectic or “Consensus Process” is a 200 year-old, three-step process of “thesis, antithesis and synthesis”, developed in the late 1700’s by a German named Georg William Friedreich Hegel that results in what we now know as “group-think”. It is a system Dean calls “Praxis” that Socialists have used for centuries to seduce, seize and control mass populations without warfare. It is also in full operation here in the United States under such names as: “Outcome Based Education”, “Goals 2000”, “Sustainable Development”, “School To Work”, “DARE” and many more. It’s all about embracing “tolerance, diversity and unity” for The New World Order. To put it in layman’s terms, it’s brainwashing.

Here’s how it works: A group gathers, and has agreed beforehand that each in attendance will ultimately surrender his or her own personal position on any given issue to the will or “consensus” of the group after processing to consensus through dialog. In a Christian setting, the presupposition is that the group’s will determines “the will of God”. The group’s “facilitator”, whoever that may be, mediates between sides, be they “good and evil”, “for and against”, “republican and democrat”, “liberal and conservative”, etc., whatever the case may be, often instigating heated confrontations between the opposing sides for the purpose of suggesting compromise as the perfect solution to restore and maintain the peace and the relationships of everyone involved.

The resulting outcome or consensus is then re-introduced if necessary, at the next meeting for more “Praxis”, more dialog and more compromise until another “consensus” is reached. Then the “process” repeats all over again…and again…and again until the facilitator’s desired outcome is achieved. Over time, the convictions and concerns anyone may have had originally are processed away beyond recognition or relevance leaving one and all to accept the facilitator’s pre-determined outcome as the consensus of the group. It’s no longer a question of what is right or wrong, good or bad, lawful or unlawful, but rather HOW WE ALL FEEL ABOUT IT… no absolutes , no conscience, no convictions, no laws, no Constitution, no Bible and NO GOD !!!..only consensus…and a contrived consensus at that. That’s the Hegelian Dialectic.


I’m sorry, but that does not speak to me at all. Truth comes from reality, and there does seem to be a consensus on that.


Although it is true that the thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach is not particularly biblical or otherwise reliable, and that Hegel’s name is commonly associated with it (e.g., in the Porcine History of Philosophy and Religion), it’s not actually very accurate as a representation of Hegel’s thought.
The specific approach described is indeed untrustworthy as a way to truth. But it is not an accurate description of all examples of a thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach. Conversely, it is true that pinning down the exact points of conflict between competing positions and investigating them may be helpful in moving forward towards a resolution - there can be some use in the ideas.
Hegel, like many others, was inclined to put his system ahead of the facts. That is the key problem. But the critique is also not too careful of the facts.


Screenshot_2021-04-03 twitbiblio on Twitter This or that questions, Funny emoji, Smiley

I’m pretty sure that I get your principal point, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Seems that you’re saying that decision-making based on a consensus of feelings is the path to perdition, and I certainly don’t believe that that kind of decision-making is best more often than not. I’ve been unhappy with a lot of consensus-made decisions over the years. But … I don’t think the U.S.–much less the world or, for that matter, the Visible Church–is ready to turn to a “pray-on-the-matter and then cast lots” approach to making decisions.

Take, for example, the issue of deciding what counts as “the Word of God”. Would you be comfortable with a “Pray, then cast lots” approach to deciding which parts of the Bible are “the Word of God” and which are not? Personally, I think whoever decided that The Song of Solomon should be included as “the Word of God” was nuts, but there it is, smack dab in the Bible, leaving me scratching my head. And, as for all the books of the New Testament, written AFTER 2nd Timothy, how would they be counted as “inspired by God” if they hadn’t been written yet and nobody “prayed and then cast lots” to determine what God has to say on the matter? Although I, for one, would be quite happy to see The Revelation to John dropped from the Canon.

I’m curious how much actual Hegel your Dean Gotcher has read? I used Hegel significantly in my PhD dissertation, and will admit that he is notoriously hard to interpret. But the account you’ve given here is not recognizably Hegelian. Here’s a good place to start for an overview of his philosophy if you’re really interested: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I suspect, though, that your main point has less to do with Hegel than a critique that we are not using the Bible properly. That’s a legitimate question, and I think you’ll find a group of people who are perfectly willing to subject their beliefs to critique, so long as the critique-er comes with the same attitude.


“The Porcine History of Philosophy and Religion”???
Gee-willikers! This thread has turned out to be a durn college course for me.

I do take heart though, from the fact that you’re not as Conservative in your views as the feisty Reformed Calvinist folks behind American Vision. Those guys raise the hair on the back of my neck. They believe in Christian Sharia.

Excerpts from Hegelian Dialectics: The Devil’s Winning Tool

He (George Hegel) said it is “narrow” and “dogmatic” to assume that of two opposite assertions, one must be true and the other false. He rejected the Bible and proposed that man is on an evolutionary journey and that human history is the record of a process of conflict and synthesis that he referred to as the dialectical process of Spirit , believing that man would eventually reach his highest state, ultimately arriving at “the Absolute Idea” which would be so perfect it could not be challenged or synthesized…

HEGELIAN DIALECTICS IS EMPLOYED BY ECUMENISTS to break down the walls of separation between denominations, between liberals and evangelicals, between Protestants and Catholics, to create Christian unity, and it is used BY INTERFAITH DIALOGUERS to tear down absolute truth and replace it with broadminded religious tolerance.

If some believe that Jesus is God and others believe he was merely a great teacher, and if some believe that man is a fallen sinner separated from God and others believe he is essentially good and one with God, and if some believe that God is the Almighty who created all things but is not a part of the creation and others believe that God is the sum total of all things – those are the old contradictions and we must move beyond such things. This is what they are saying.

Screenshot 2022-03-03 at 16-17-04 Hegelian Dialectic or Consensus Process - Open Forum - The BioLogos Forum

Before you post quotes like this, you have a lot of homework to do, to make sure the author accurately represents what you seem to stand behind. I’ve lost track of the number of things misrepresented here. I hope you are simply mislead and will commit yourself to educate yourself on the topics covered in your OP.

But I suspect you will not, based on your other activity in the forum here. Which is sad. You argue passionately but ineffectively, because you continually throw wrong claims into posts as if they prove something to us.

Well, they do, but not what I suspect you intend.


Could you be more specific about what you believe is misrepresented?

Shannon, I was planning to simply ignore you from now on, but since you asked for specifics, I will give them to you. Again, if you’re going to make claims and quote like you do, you had better make sure you can support every statement. If you read carefully around here, you are surrounded by people who understand what they think and why, AND they can explain it to you in their own words. They have put in a lot of work on their own, which you need to do.

Here’s an inexhaustive list of your misrepresentations in your OP:

You misrepresent folks who come to the Biologos forum and consider as valid the work that they do as intolerant of sound doctrine and gathering teachers around us to suit our desires. You may not agree with the views expressed here, but many of us are here, because we are redeemed by the Lamb of God and seek to hold our faith with integrety.

Again you misrepresent Christians and seekers involved with Biologos as being brainwashed by the philosopies of the world, which you later misrepresent and misunderstand.

Do not attempt to invoke the work of philosophers, until you have put in the work to read them yourself and understand what they say. You (and I) are not qualified and should know the extent of our limitations. I have a backgound in critical theory and the humility to know, it takes real expertice to work well with these materials and ideas. You will need a minimum of 2 years to put the work in to get a basic understanding. Until then, don’t bring it up.

Again, the claims you quote, demonstrate you haven’t done your homework, aren’t qualified to comment on the topic, and are not able to evaluate the source you quote.

This is simply wrong. If you understood Outcomes-Based Education, you would not have included it here. Go research it from the beginning.

Again, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

Once again, you are out of your water, if you think this is brainwashing.

Do you even know what DARE is?

I dare you to put together a well-reasoned essay with real research that can demonstrate that tolerance, diversity and unity are problematic. Then you can move on to explaining what a “New World Order” using real information.

Can you provide a technical definition for “brain washing” and then document how that relates to Biologos and the forum participants?

You can’t possibly be reading the discussions that go on here in the forum and think that we have all agreed on much. You also demonstrate that you don’t understand the consensus process and what it IS used for. Policy makers must use it to actually get things done, for example. This bunch of free-thinkers is hardly a consensus group. You will have to work much harder to prove it, not just assert it more.

You seem to be implying that this has to do with what happens here among the forum participants. Your claim is wrong, and again, you demonstrate you haven’t read much of what people here write.

Again, you show you don’t read what people write here or how the conversations go. You obviously ignore the contributions of Christians here, who do rely on our Bibles and our God. For example, done any reading in the specifically God-oriented, or prayer-oriented threads? Maybe start there.

I don’t know what your purpose is for coming here, but what you accomplish is making vile accusations and dragging Christians through the mud, making baseless claims accusations that will simply drive agnostics and seekers farther away from Christ, because honestly, Shannon, you bring the name of our Lord into disrepute. Who would want to know the one you claim to represent?
If you see yourself as some sort of Old Testament prophet come to bring down the Lord’s judgement on us sinners here, I recommend you look to yourself first, and remember Jesus’ words to the phraisees.

I would love it if you will actually go study and learn and consider the things you clearly misrepresent and misunderstand in your post here (and others). If you do, it would be great to hear from you in a few years to see what you’ve learned and how you’ve changed.

Until then….


Do you not believe there are sources which are actually against Christ? The world without Christ is against Him. Why are you and I having such difficulty in fellowship? When we have a mixture of the philosophies of the world alongside the Word of God, the Word of God becomes adulterated.

There is only one Gospel which is true

There is only one Jesus the Christ

There is only one Truth which is found in the Person of Jesus the Christ

There is only one faith which is fruit of His Spirit

Yes, I see we are not in agreement. It is best for all who disagree to avoid my posts. I am not offended by this. Belittling or demeaning others because we have a different understanding or perhaps not enough worldly education is from the flesh not the Spirit. I have posted studies of the Word of God as taught through Pastor Bill Klein, Bible Translation and Exegesis Ministries. No one has corrected the information but only mocked and argued the studies because they are contrary to the philosophical teachings here. Opinions do not equal truth.

There are many teachers out there, most of which are the false teachers Paul warned of. Not many are called by God to teach. The warning from the Lord Himself is that the road is narrow and few they are that find it. What does that mean, Kendell?

Do you believe BioLogos changes and transforms the born again one from the inside?

We agree. But you extrapolate beyond that and make claims about reality that are false and base them on what you presume is your infallible interpretation of early Genesis.


You can’t just tell people who disagree with you to buzz off. This is not your forum. You could always start your own blog, and then crush all dissent.


She just did. XD

I know. Look at the comment I was responding to.

I disagree, but here I am.

Christianity has never considered the world an illusion. All truth is God’s truth, and that includes scientific observations. It is not Hegel’s fault the earth is old. God gave us nature and it is what it is.

Organizations such as AiG, Genesis Apologetics, and CMI promote ideas which are neither scientifically sound nor in the Bible. That is not sanctified. The misrepresentation of geology and biology, the attribution of concepts which do not accurately reflect evolutionary thought, and selectivity of data, constitute false witness.


Bob and weave; Isaiah Thomas has nothing on you.
You may try to redirect from your original post and attempt to garner sympathy, or to arrogate to yourself prophetic authority, but that will not do.

You are responsible for what you post here, what you quote, your understanding of it, the value of it and your purpose behind it. You have been called out for posting false accusations, misinformation and lies, either on purpose or because you don’t understand them. And now you continue to stand by them.

There is clearly nothing to say to you; your ears are stopped by pride.
There is nothing to hear from you but desception.


Well I for one wholeheartedly agree with this, Shannon. So too do many of the other participants on this forum.

What we disagree with is having opinions and beliefs ascribed to us that we do not hold. You say that “belittling or demeaning others because we have a different understanding or perhaps not enough worldly education is from the flesh not the Spirit.” Yet when you address us as if we were unbelievers just because we take science seriously—something that in many cases we have to do in order to do our jobs properly—you yourself do precisely that.

Why are you here, Shannon? Are you here for fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ? Or are you here to make accusations, point fingers, and throw bricks around? One of the rules of this forum is that you should assume legitimate Christian faith on the part of anyone who does not explicitly identify otherwise.


“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.