basis for belief. Part 1: The Theology of Instincts

How do we arrive at our own set of theological beliefs? what guides us? I am afraid this post may raise more questions than it answers. For me this subject has been the terrain on a journey of thought for a fair few years now.

A few weeks back I was talking to a friend I had not seen in a while. They were describing to me the church they are worshipping at regularly these days. "They're okay with homosexuality" my friend said, before adding with passionate intensity, "because I could never be part of a church that that didn't accept gay people".

Although the language of my own theological position might lead some to believe otherwise, the church I go to now, accepts gay people. That is to say, it accepts people who are gay. However, although I could not give you chapter and verse, I believe our position on practising homosexuality is that it is a sin.

This isn't a piece on homosexuality, it just happens to be a subject that illustrates the principle. I must confess at some level I was impressed with my friends attitude. It was that passionate, instinctive response that gave me cause for admiration. I have found myself , so, so often, having to be counter intuitive when it comes to certain theological matters. Counter intuitive in order to maintain integrity within the evangelical framework where my beliefs seem to sit best. So, say for example, that my first response to homosexuality was not disgust but empathy, was not judgement but acceptance then I would have to weigh that against what I believe the bible seems to teach. If the bible seems to say to me that homosexuality is a sin then for the sake of my beliefs in the authority of scripture (and let me be clear, the bible does not say judgemental attitudes are good or that empathy for homosexuals is bad, far from it) I must then submit my first (and most instinctive) response to that higher principle. Integrity in tact? Possibly, depending on your definition of integrity. If my guiding principle is to be true to scripture, then yes. If it is to be true to myself, then no. Unless being true to myself is to be true to scripture in spite of myself. let me put it this way. If I was supreme being, an awful lot of murderers would get off Scott free because I felt sorry for them. Sometimes you just have to bow to a higher law.
What I envied in my friend was their ability to believe wholeheartedly in what they felt to be instinctively right. An intuitive response to doctrine. This just feels wrong, therefore, it sucks and I am not going to believe it. A theology of instincts.

When I was a child I reasoned like a child. For me there was only one kind of Christianity. Our kind, the kind I was taught. It was simple. On meeting other Christians I would assume that we were on the same page. I knew nothing of the reformation or the canon of scripture, or really even denominations. God was loving. Jesus died for my sins, the bible is Gods word to mankind etc. It was that simple to me.

But something went wrong. Although I was raised in a house where my Father held to Calvinistic theologies, for example, I was intuitively sure (and they never taught either in Sunday school) that you could lose your salvation. I had no idea of "perseverance of the saints" and not a clue who Arminius was. Still don't, truth be told. I had no clue about doctrine. My faith was built from the half formed ideas that I had gleaned from the twin sources of parental wisdom (via the bible) and my own intuitive imagination.

When I got to bible college, years later, I was utterly shocked to hear about the early church councils , and of how our heavenly, divinely inspired scriptures were compiled and decided on, effectively, by a committee. I had never...and I mean NEVER thought about how the bible, the very thing I based my life on, was compiled. I had never even considered when the gospels were written, or if the people who were supposed to have written them had really written them. My only thoughts had been as to whether I believed them or not. Not where they had come from.

The whole process shocked me in its ordinariness. In its utter humanity. There seemed almost nothing divine about the process, Way too messy. How on earth could I have got this far and not even considered it? It beggared belief. It really did.
I have since come to terms with the sheer humanity of it all. I love the earthiness of scripture. I see the warts and all approach to narrative as an indication of its historicity, with its flawed heroes and its apparent contradictions.You would never include what is included if it was a fit up! I see the bible as divine because it shows how God gets involved in our mess, because he comes into our darkness and shines his light and our darkness doesn't overcome that light. Its a compilation of 66 books with multiple authorship spanning across human history but God is in it from Genesis to Revelation.

But it raises the question. On what basis did I accept that the bible was my divine authority? The word of God to me, to be obeyed without question?

I suppose it goes back to those early church councils, set up to define orthodoxy and build a comprehensive canon of scripture. What was their purpose? To refute heresy and to build a clear basis for authority. Here's the bottom line, and I am speaking form a protestant perspective here, with out scripture we may as well believe anything. Many of Paul's letters are in and as of themselves written for that very purpose, albeit initially on a local level. To define sound doctrine and good practise. I have to believe that just as God was sovereignly "in" the situations whereby the individual authors came to write the words, using their language and personality to get down just what he wanted to be there (without possessing them and controlling their hands as they wrote), that so was he sovereignly "in" the minutiae of the councils decision making, causing what he wanted to be included to "float to the top". In short I have to have faith in it, in the same way that I have faith in Jesus. There are many depths to be plumbed here but I want to get to the heart of the argument so I will.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.~ 2 Tim 4:3

This to me is the most convincing argument for orthodoxy. As with homosexuality, as with the doctrine of hell and, to a lesser extent, for me, male leadership there are many things that are traditionally included in the gospel which seem more unpalatable now than they ever did. I am not immune to it, I am a child of my age.

If my instincts alone were to come into play I would, in all honesty, do away with hell, promote women bishops and Arch Bishops and outlaw any form of discrimination against homosexuals whatsoever.

But when I joined the church I came to understand one fundamental thing. That my instincts were, if not motivated by sin, then tainted by it. (The heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things, who can know it? Jer 17:9). And in order to join the body of Christ I must die to myself, lay down my understanding where ever it contradicted God. Humility is the key. And so my instinct is (I told you I would be getting back to this) that while my friend may feel unable to be "part of a church that does not accept gay people" I feel far more strongly that I am unable to be part of a church that throws off all accountability and believes and practises only what it likes. The day you find yourself in a situation where no part of your worship contradicts your own desires, only agrees with your own world view and reflects your own opinions, is the day, I humbly suggest that the thing you are worshipping may just be your self.

Next time I hope to be looking at this in a little more detail.