Belief and Behavior

I had a conversation in a hallway at the Presbytery meeting at Grand Lakes Presbyterian, last Saturday. An acquaintance of some years, no longer in our area, buttonholed me to let me know that he'd come to a decision. He'd come to believe that it is possible for a person to hold two beliefs at the same time: that Jesus Christ is Lord; and, that same-sex relations are not outside God's plan for His people. He went on to tell me that the main reason for his coming to this conclusion was that he had been visiting a number of churches, that he had found conservative congregations to be unwelcoming, and that he had seen the work of Christ being done in more progressive congregations. In particular, he had been impressed by work being done with the homeless in one very liberal congregation. He wasn't being argumentative, he just wanted to let me know that he had had a change of opinion. In the few minutes that were available I tried to sketch out a reply. If I'd had longer (and hadn't had bronchitis) I'd have elaborated in the following ways.

First, there is no a priori reason why you can't hold those two beliefs at the same time. Many do. They are not, in and of themselves mutually exclusive. However, when you take the implications of the first belief seriously, then it becomes much more difficult to hold the second.

Acceptance of the lordship of Christ is not simply intellectual assent, as if it could be given in a vacuum. My belief in the lordship of Christ is not the same as my belief that gravity exists on Mars. An acknowledgement of Christ's lordship (when it is personalized) has very clear implications regarding the way in which I live my life. Right belief (orthodoxy) is closely related to right behavior (orthopraxy). There are, as far as I am aware, no moral implications resulting from a belief in gravity on Mars; but there obviously are implications for my life if I accept that Jesus Christ is my Lord. I can accept that lordship and continue in behaviors that do not honor Him, but that does not make the behaviors right or acceptable, it simply makes me disobedient.

Second, what is really at stake is the question of how I know what God expects of me. That is, how do I know the moral requirements that are mine when once I acknowledge the lordship of Christ. It's a question of epistemology - how do I know what I know? For Christians, the answer must always include God's self-revelation, interpreted by the Holy Spirit, which we know as the Bible. We give content to the notion of Christ's lordship as we understand it within the context of salvation history as revealed in Scripture. Traditionally, Presbyterians have said that the Bible is without error in all matters pertaining to faith and life. That is, when the Bible tells us that God is love, for example, it is impossible for that affirmation to be false. God has not given us a faulty revelation. The Bible is to be trusted. Therefore, we should trust that the Bible gives us reliable information, not only about the nature and character of God, but also about the way in which He wants us to live our lives. To take a non-controversial example, when the Bible says that the Lord requires of us that we should do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:8), then it is not possible for the Bible to be in error. God has revealed what He wants from us.

So why do we question revelation with regard to same-sex behavior? Despite the verbal and hermeneutical gymnastics of some commentators, the Bible is actually pretty clear (see I Corinthians 6:9-11, for example). It seems to me that the difference is that with regard to justice, the Bible agrees with popular culture, whereas with regard to homosexuality, it does not. The over-riding motivation, therefore, seems to be less about compliance with Scriptural norms, and more about accommodation to societal mores.

Third, it's dangerous to take human experience as the determinant of truth. It's surely regrettable that my friend's experience of conservative congregations should have been that they are more judgmental and less welcoming. Nevertheless, experience alone should not lead to the conclusion that one is right (progressive/liberal) and that one is wrong (conservative/evangelical). I firmly believe that we have a responsibility to welcome all people into the local church, we should be radically inclusive (to steal a descriptor that has been purloined by liberalism); but it is not our business to then accommodate biblical truth in order to fit cultural expectations. In fact that is not the loving thing to do. Love does not wink at error, it confronts it. No, for us, experience is always secondary. Our primary source for making sense of God's way with the world is always revelation. If we move our feet from that rock, we end up putting our trust in a foundation of shifting sand.