The Hierarchy of Biblical Revelation: A Theology of a Gay Student
Life presents me with decisions every day. Some are obviously inconsequential. Others seem important but actually aren't. Still others seem unimportant but are in fact what define my character and integrity, for better or worse.
What informs my decisions, especially the important ones? Of the many inputs I can consider, which are higher than others? All these possible influences can be divided into three categories: Scripture (the Bible), Tradition--the historical belief and actions of the Church over the centuries--and personal conviction or feeling.
For example, I believe the Bible explicitly commands Christians to give to the poor. In addition, I know that historically the Church has striven to do such a thing, with varying degrees of success and failure. Finally, I know from personal experience that helping the poor, while often sacrificial and difficult, is ultimately rewarding. Of the three reasons for love and service, which is the most important? What if the Bible said something different about helping the poor? Would it be all right to adhere to Tradition instead of Scripture? If my personal experience shows me that giving to the poor is not rewarding because every homeless person I give money to uses it to buy drugs, would I be justified in quitting it despite Scripture's mandate to continue?
Orthodox Protestant Christianity believes that the first and foremost source of revelation for living is Scripture, followed by Tradition and personal experience/conviction. A corollary issue is the relationship between dogma, doctrine and opinion. Dogmas are beliefs that are absolutely essential to true, orthodox Christian belief. For example, the Trinity (God is one God dwelling in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Doctrines are beliefs that, while definitely important, are not absolutely essential to orthodox Christian belief. Most denominations are split along various doctrinal lines, such as infant baptism or the level of inspiration given to the Gospel writers. Thirdly, opinion issues are those which may not have an explicit Biblical basis, and which are definitely inessential to orthodox Christian belief. For example, the so-called Age of Accountability (which attempts to answer the question, "If a baby dies before it can understand, and therefore accept, the Gospel, will it go to hell or heaven?).
Back to the hierarchy of revelation. Getting this issue of Scripture/Tradition/personal conviction right is incredibly important to a life lived theologically correct, and that is where I believe Michael Guinn misstepped.
The main issue with Michael is not that he has a homosexual orientation, or that he is vocal and perhaps militant about it. It's not about his dressing in drag, or posting on Facebook that he likes men, or acting especially flamboyant. Michael's core problem is a theological one: the hierarchy and authority of revelation, of theological sources.
From what I've read, seen and heard of Michael, his basic defense whenever he's presented with the Biblical basis for why his lifestyle is immoral is something to the effect of, "Well, I know that God's got my back on this, and I know that he loves me, so even if you all don't understand, I know that God and I are tight." Here are some direct quotes (original format and spelling):
Michael, I hold nothing against you personally. Assuming you have truly accepted the free gift of salvation from the Lord--which only you and He can know for sure--I believe you to be a child of the Living God who will never leave you nor forsake you. Thankfully, His mercy abounds enough to envelope us in our times of theological wanderings. I pray you find the Truth someday.
Related Posts:
Michael Guinn: A massive round-up
Michael Guinn scales the media mountain...
Tags: theology, scripture, tradition, conviction, revelation, dogma, doctrine, opinion, Michael Guinn, homosexuality, gay students
What informs my decisions, especially the important ones? Of the many inputs I can consider, which are higher than others? All these possible influences can be divided into three categories: Scripture (the Bible), Tradition--the historical belief and actions of the Church over the centuries--and personal conviction or feeling.
For example, I believe the Bible explicitly commands Christians to give to the poor. In addition, I know that historically the Church has striven to do such a thing, with varying degrees of success and failure. Finally, I know from personal experience that helping the poor, while often sacrificial and difficult, is ultimately rewarding. Of the three reasons for love and service, which is the most important? What if the Bible said something different about helping the poor? Would it be all right to adhere to Tradition instead of Scripture? If my personal experience shows me that giving to the poor is not rewarding because every homeless person I give money to uses it to buy drugs, would I be justified in quitting it despite Scripture's mandate to continue?
Orthodox Protestant Christianity believes that the first and foremost source of revelation for living is Scripture, followed by Tradition and personal experience/conviction. A corollary issue is the relationship between dogma, doctrine and opinion. Dogmas are beliefs that are absolutely essential to true, orthodox Christian belief. For example, the Trinity (God is one God dwelling in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Doctrines are beliefs that, while definitely important, are not absolutely essential to orthodox Christian belief. Most denominations are split along various doctrinal lines, such as infant baptism or the level of inspiration given to the Gospel writers. Thirdly, opinion issues are those which may not have an explicit Biblical basis, and which are definitely inessential to orthodox Christian belief. For example, the so-called Age of Accountability (which attempts to answer the question, "If a baby dies before it can understand, and therefore accept, the Gospel, will it go to hell or heaven?).
Back to the hierarchy of revelation. Getting this issue of Scripture/Tradition/personal conviction right is incredibly important to a life lived theologically correct, and that is where I believe Michael Guinn misstepped.
The main issue with Michael is not that he has a homosexual orientation, or that he is vocal and perhaps militant about it. It's not about his dressing in drag, or posting on Facebook that he likes men, or acting especially flamboyant. Michael's core problem is a theological one: the hierarchy and authority of revelation, of theological sources.
From what I've read, seen and heard of Michael, his basic defense whenever he's presented with the Biblical basis for why his lifestyle is immoral is something to the effect of, "Well, I know that God's got my back on this, and I know that he loves me, so even if you all don't understand, I know that God and I are tight." Here are some direct quotes (original format and spelling):
[T]he only sin is in the sexual side of being gay...in my opinion and through the many hours of prayer I've spent with the Lord since I became a christian [sic], I believe whole heartedly that I'm not sinning just because I'm gay, that is not where the sin is...homosexuality is not a perversion of love, not only do i resent that statement but it hurts me deep in my heart when i have someone tell me that the love that i feel for another human being that when i see someone [that] i want to live with for the rest of my life that that love is a perversion...that cuts deep! and you can say what you will but i will swear til the day that i die that love between two gay [people] is soo far from being a perversion. and while this will probably stary up an entire other conversation... the god given love between two people, cannot be a perversion, and i WHOLE HEARTEDLY believe that!!!Sorry, Michael, but feelings should never be the basis for theological belief if Scripture (and Tradition, I might add) explicitly teaches otherwise!
you tell me that i act as if i know better than god, but you do the exact same thing to try and say that you know FOR SURE that what i do is wrong! the fact is that that is what you believe...you don't know it for sure... none of us will know these things for sure, none of us can say to another one that any of us are necessarily wrong or right... only God can say that what is wrong and right we can only pray and hope that what we interpret god to say is correct.While there is some truth to the idea that there are certain things we cannot know with absolute certainty, if we took Michael's argument to its logical conclusion, we would never decide on anything! There are concepts in Scripture that we can definitively affirm: worshipping idols is absolutely and in all situations completely wrong; looking lustfully at a woman is equal to committing physical adultery with her. Simply at face value, these two examples are unequivocal in the Scriptures. There are countless, more complex theological conclusions in Scripture which it is reasonable to assert are knowable.
until the day I'm judged by God himself, I can only strive to live my life in the best way possible to be his child and to love and adore him in everything I do.The "best way possible" to live our lives is to search the highest level of moral authority over us--Scripture--and try to live by it! The bottom line: Scripture comes before personal feelings. Scripture is the basis for orthodoxy (correct beliefs) and orthopraxy (correct action).
Michael, I hold nothing against you personally. Assuming you have truly accepted the free gift of salvation from the Lord--which only you and He can know for sure--I believe you to be a child of the Living God who will never leave you nor forsake you. Thankfully, His mercy abounds enough to envelope us in our times of theological wanderings. I pray you find the Truth someday.
Related Posts:
Michael Guinn: A massive round-up
Michael Guinn scales the media mountain...
Tags: theology, scripture, tradition, conviction, revelation, dogma, doctrine, opinion, Michael Guinn, homosexuality, gay students
posted by Seth at 5:41 PM
7 Comments:
First, let me say that I think you've pegged this one correctly. Yet I have something to say that shoule make you think which I hope you will take the right way.
I know you are a Christian, and while I no little to nothing about your personal life, I have no reason to assume that you are anything less than serious about your faith. Thus, I speak, not out of arrogance, but merely to--as I see it--correct.
You note, "There are concepts in Scripture that we can definitively affirm" but I do not think you are correct. Oh, most reasonable people would agree on the meaning of certain Scripture, but there are too many contentious passages to make your statment worth much of anything.
The problem is this: a book cannot say anything in and of itself. We run into this problem with the constitution all the time. Do we take things literally of figuratively, as frivolous jokes or serious at sin.
The problem with Protestantism, is that it makes each man the authority on Scripture. Thus we have... how many denominations? Now, there are many, many noble protestants, and there are many horrible Catholics, but the Catholics will always have something the Protestants lack. We have the authority of a two thousand year old institution behind us.
It might seem ironic that bring up the Church with all the problems we have been having with gays in our priesthood. I only note that some authority is needed. The Church may be wrong, but if she is wrong in her modern interpretations, couldn't she have been wrong with the books she included in Scripture some millenia ago?
Again, I hope to avoid "Catholic smugness", and I hope you realize that. I hope it helps you think. God bless, and stay firm on this one.
None offense taken whatsoever; I greatly appreciate your comment.
First off, I am no Catholic scholar. Heck, I'm not even much of a Protestant one. But it seems to me that if Protestantism's problem is that it makes every man an authority on Scripture, Catholicism's problem is that it makes one single, fallen and fallible man the authority on Scripture.
Surely some of the Catholic church's history has been atrocious and unBiblical? Where would we be now if it weren't for men who were willing to think for themselves and challenge the Church? Wasn't it right that Luther saw some problems in the Church and wanted to reform it (not split it)? I fully agree that "some authority is needed." It seems to me that neither side--all men are authorities vs one man is the authority--works very well. I doubt it will ever "work well" before Jesus returns.
Today we're seeing the other side of the coin from the Reformation: the Church has solid positions on important issues (say, abortion or homosexuality), yet liberal, "enlightened" "free thinkers" disagree with the Church and are trying to change it. This time they are wrong.
The Church may be wrong, but if she is wrong in her modern interpretations, couldn't she have been wrong with the books she included in Scripture some millenia ago?
Yes. I must take it as a matter of faith that God has protected the integrity of the cannon. But that's the beauty of Christianity: as much factual evidence is accumulated in defense of Biblical concepts/history, all the evidence in the world is not what makes us believe. The faith given to us by the Holy Spirit is what enables us to believe. To us believers, that is all the evidence we'll ever need.
Two points. First, I do not believe the Church is wrong on anything. This seems almost preposterous, but it is nonetheless true. Yes, her children have behaved horribly, but doctrinely, she is firm and sound and right.
The reason for this isn't that we let one man handle everything. The Pope is only infallible on select manners, and rarely teaches a completely new doctrine. Often as not, he merely expounds on an old teaching, highlighting some forgotten truth like Benedict did with his encyclical God is Love. The reason for the infallibility is God's promise to Peter that "on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." And again, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
A man, in and of himself is fallible, and so too is a Pope--Dante placed some of them in Hell in the Inferno. But if God is with the Church, that would explain why she is still standing, despite a world that thinks she is dying.
Can you think of any matters in which Luther demonstrated where the Church was wrong?
I admit that this is one of the areas where I am especially weak. In fact, if you could offer a book that might explain the Protestant Reformation to me, I would gladly add it to my list. Thanks.
Nice one, Frank. I should have thought of that one myself, having taken a theology class based around that book. Yeah, I recommend it as well. Find the cheapest price online here.
The idea that the Church is not wrong on anything does in fact seem preposterous, yet it also sounds freeing. The innerancy I believe in applies to the original manuscripts of the Scriptures themselves; the men who interpret them can be fallibe. Once again, I am no Catholic scholar, so I am writing with very little educated authority on the matter. I understand the Biblical foundation of the Catholic Church (Peter as the rock, etc.), even though the interpretation seems a little far-fetched to me.
But if God is with the Church, that would explain why she is still standing, despite a world that thinks she is dying.
I fully agree. There's no way the body of believers around the world could survive if God wasn't here to preserve us. But that doesn't mean we've got everything right.
What was Luther right about? The biggest one off the top of my head is the selling of indulgences. The whole point of it was to raise money for construction of some cathedral, and it played on the ignorance of unthinking and illiterate peasants (I hope I'm not being harsh here). Another problem I believe the Catholic church has is its emphasis on works salvation. Thirdly, I don't believe I as a Christian need a priest as a mediator between me and God the Father. Christ the Son is my mediator, and I can "approach the throne of grace with confidence."
These are interesting issues; I'm looking foward to continue this discussion.
I ordered the book Frank. Thanks. I'll let you know what I think of it once I finish it.
Seth,
What was Luther right about? The biggest one off the top of my head is the selling of indulgences. The whole point of it was to raise money for construction of some cathedral, and it played on the ignorance of unthinking and illiterate peasants (I hope I'm not being harsh here). Another problem I believe the Catholic church has is its emphasis on works salvation. Thirdly, I don't believe I as a Christian need a priest as a mediator between me and God the Father. Christ the Son is my mediator, and I can "approach the throne of grace with confidence."
The selling of indulgences was an abuse. Doctrinely, there is nothing wrong with indulgences. Making a sacrifice now can atone for the sin of oneself or other souls in purgatory, at least according to Catholic belief. Yes, Luther was right that the bishops were abusing their power, but asceticism is consistent with Church teaching, and though a change in emphasis was needed--less about money, more about sacrifice--Luther's reform went too far.
At times the Church seems to empasize works too much, but it is assuredly an integral part of salvation. I cannot cite verses exactly, but "He who loves me will keep my commands" and "Not everyone who crie "Lord, Lord" will be received by my Father". Faith without works is "dead".
It is true that we can do nothing to merit God's graces and earn eternal life with him. Yet that does not mean we do not have to try. There are far too many Christians who "believe" and go to church, but do not put these beliefs into practice. Admittedly, I find myself in this camp from time to time.
I will leave it to God to judge, but a man who neglects works will soon lose his faith, rendering the distinction somewhat trite.
Your last point is a difficult one. It comes back to the power of binding and loosing given to Peter and the apostles. Obviously the power to forgive sins is God's alone, but he can give it to whom he will, and priests becomes instruments of the Most High.
The Sacrament of Reconciliation gives grace to the person who receives it so that he or she will better be able to fight temptation. But there is another reason for the sacrament as well. It is imprtant to know that we are forgiven, and the priest's absolution gives us this recognition.
It is also important to make the effort to become closer to God. Otherwise, we may find ourselves sinning only to ask forgiveness immediately thereafter. This is still possible for Catholics, but the confessional is there to make presumption a little more painful.
Wiser, I am enjoying this discussion. Unfortunately, this week has been incredibly busy and I leave on Saturday for a choir tour over spring break. Hopefully we'll be able to continue this discussion when I return, perhaps over email...
Yes, I would like that very much. Obviously school has to be a priority--something about graduation.
I'll be visiting a friend this weekend, so I'm not entirely sure how often I will be able to access my email, but as long as neither of us is in a hurry, I say we press on with all tepidity.
Post a Comment
<< Home