Majoring In Majors

When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point "really matters" and the other replies: "Matter? Why, it's absolutely essential."  (CS Lewis, Mere Christianity,  Introduction.)

There is a verse I heard often in my Jesus people days, likely because there was a song attached to it. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths. Proverbs 3:5-6. In the structure of that chapter, two adjoining verses go together as a couplet frequently.  Though there are groupings of six verses or four, the most common is two. Because we were hugely concerned, even obsessed, with what God wanted us to decide in those days, we saw verse six in terms of where the Lord wanted us to go.  Should I go to Michigan or Washington? Should I take the apartment on Silver St or on Somerville St? Should we have chicken or fish chowder tonight?  The Lord will direct my path.  I think this bled back into the meaning of verse five, because I have heard it mostly applied in terms of decisions, or of maintaining one’s trust when circumstances looked bleak or even impossible.

I think there is a second, neglected meaning about doctrine.  When we decide what we believe, there is usually a lot of our own reasoning in there. Even if we associate with a denomination and pretty much accept what its doctrines are, we use its typical arguments to ourselves and to others when contemplating what our theology will be. They usually include a good chunk of human reasoning. We may think to ourselves and advertise to others that "we are only following the Scriptures," but if you press very hard the claim seldom holds.

This is not wrong.  It is inevitable with human beings and protects us from a false literalism about the Bible.  I have concluded over the years – note, I have concluded, I don’t have a direct Bible passage to prove it – that the paradoxes, the tensions, and yes, contradictions of Scripture are intentional, so that we always need the fellowship of the saints to understand doctrines.  There is no private interpretation, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private opinion.” (1Pet 1:21)  A Jewish minyan required ten for prayer, Jesus reduced this to two or three – but not one.  When I have fully and deeply understood that “He who is not against me is for me” (Luke  9:49-50), I need someone to assert back that “he who is not for me is against me” (Matthew 12:30).     But applying reasoning has limitations. People move with stunning rapidity to impression-dominated rationales, thinking they are strictly logical. “I just don’t see how God could reject someone like that.” “I believe that Jesus reached out to the oppressed.” “Jesus could not have meant that we shouldn’t save for retirement.” “Nonviolence is the heart of the Gospel.” “That’s the part of the Law that no longer applies.”  "If we don't defen our religious freedoms we won't be able to worship at all." All of those have some truth in them.  But each is also highly dependent, taking a jumping-off point from revelation and reasoning from that.

This came up recently in the ancestry searches. One of my ancestors (or another Samuel Moor nearby) was one of the founders of the Universalist Society in Bedford in the early 1800s. One other member was marked as "Unitarian," suggesting that the others were not. I forget that the U-U’s were once just individual U’s for a long time, that only got together about fifty years ago. Their buildings around here tend to be older than fifty years. I was surprised there was not a tighter connect even 200 years ago, because they have a theological similarity.  Both are based on an inherited concept of the biblical God that they then applied in forward reasoning, without regard to, and sometimes even in opposition to the scriptures.  They developed an idea of the nature of God, sometimes from long experience and study, and that becomes the new centerpoint. “A merciful God could not send people to eternal punishment.” “The New Testament doesn’t actually use the word Trinity.”  I see the point in both cases. I am not calling them false, nor am I calling the list in the previous paragraph false. I am only noting that we have moved from a biblical theology to a based-on-the-biblical God theology, and there is no bright line that prevents us from going to a knows-a-few-Bible-verses theology and beyond. A lot of people, some in orthodox Trinitarian congregations, are there already.

Also recently, this came up in a discussion of closed versus open communion, and a friend’s profound disapproval of anyone denying the Lord’s Supper to someone who wanted it.  Specifically, he was brought up Roman Catholic, has attended mostly Protestant churches for forty years, but feels eligible to receive when he goes to Mass. He believes no priest has the right to deny him. (This would be a rather Protestant idea, I mentioned.) It took a fair bit of discussion before I realized that my friend was arguing mostly from his impression who God is and what He is like – and he has a lifetime of belief, study, and devotions that have formed this impression.

I don’t want to throw more than one rock or two at this, because this is what we all do, as I mentioned above.  He just does more of it than I do.

I have very little trust in my impressions of what God might like or be like. I see such constructions as too easily influenced by my culture, my personal preferences, and my hidden motives. It is ironic that while those who would accuse me of having a culture-bound idea of God are correct, their appeals to see God in a different way are so deeply resonant with 21^st C politics. The general accusation is true of all of us, but most true of the accusers. I am especially suspicious of any idea that is popular now that was not popular a hundred years ago.  The Spirit of the Age is never the worst of sins – there have been too many spirits of too many ages for any single one to hold the field against the others – yet it is rather obviously the sin that we should be most fearful of, as we will be most tempted to it.

…and lean not on your own understanding. I think that verse’s application to why you didn’t get the job you wanted is secondary compared to its application to what you believe about infant baptism or transubstantiation. Lewis’s solution was not merely to read scripture – we bring our culture to that – but to the beliefs of believers in other eras, as a counterweight to our own. The career of Athanasius is instructive.