On Not Believing "What We
Please"
[8-15-02]
A frequent visitor to this site, who wishes not to
be identified, sent these thoughts after observing the the
deliberations of the GA committee that recommended approval of the
document, "Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ."
This year's General Assembly Confessions and Christology Committee
managed to stave off the latest attempts at subscriptionism, embodied
primarily in two Overtures that called for the establishment of
normative interpretations of the first ordination vow (02-31 and 02-50).
However, the discussion and debate were often framed in terms that
remain disconcerting. Overture advocates, and even the committee's
primary resource person, tended to frame their remarks in terms that
suggest that, at least for ordained Presbyterian leaders, either one's
beliefs must adhere to some standard or norm judged to be sufficiently
orthodox, or one is somehow guilty of "doing as one pleases."
So far as I could tell, the precise nature of the
transgression of "doing what one pleases" was never clearly
spelled out. My best judgment is that it was intended to refer to either
or both of the following: 1) individual interpretations of the meaning
of theological statements that fail to conform to some presumably
normative standard; and/or 2) the assumption of ordained leadership in
the church despite one's presumably non-conforming interpretation of key
theological statements.
The pejorative valence of the phrase, "doing as
one pleases," is transparent. The phrase suggests a choice, an
illegitimate choice. But what is this choice? Though it is not entirely
clear to me how we human beings come to believe what we believe, it is
abundantly clear, nonetheless, that our most basic religious convictions
are never simply a matter of choice. Yet many of those who are calling
for more definitively articulated theological norms speak and act as if
those who fail to hold sufficiently to their prescribed views are
morally culpable. Are they culpable because they choose not to subscribe
to the presumed orthodoxy? Or are the culpable because they do not
believe themselves to be constrained or morally obliged to forego
ordained leadership within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) if they
cannot conform their views to the presumed orthodoxy? In either case,
they are held to be at fault for what they believe and what they fail to
believe.
It may be that some measure of culpability attaches to
some Presbyterians for their beliefs. There are Presbyterians whose
theological beliefs are ill-formed. Some of these Presbyterians have
come to their beliefs rather casually, without much disciplined or
reflective thought. No doubt there are Presbyterians who have paid
little attention to the scriptures, the confessions, or the traditions
of the church, and feel no need to do so. There are probably even some
Presbyterians who feel at liberty to construct their own theological
views with little regard for any consensual standards of accountability,
whether these standards are derived from scripture, the confessions,
church tradition, the knowledge of the sciences, philosophical theology,
the dictates of reason, or the corroboration of other's experience. Such
persons, however, are surely not typical of those within the
Presbyterian Church who resist the attempt to prescribe theological
standards more particular than those that already exist.
It has been my experience that most people within the
church desire to be in community and communion with others, and are
prepared to believe as much as they are able to believe of what the
church commends to them. In fact, though there are some persons in the
church of such contrary nature that they delight in departing from
generally accepted beliefs, they are far out-numbered by those who are
pleased to consent to the generally accepted beliefs of the church. That
is to say, though there are some persons who appear to be pleased to
believe in divergent ways, there are far more people who seem pleased to
believe in conforming ways. Insofar as one may characterize belief as a
choice at all, a choice that one is pleased to make, there are surely
far more people within the church who choose to believe what they are
expected to believe than there are those who choose to believe
otherwise.
The whole notion, however, that belief is a matter of
choice, a choice between being held accountable to the church and
"doing what one pleases"--to put it in the terms that
significantly framed one session in the deliberations of the Confessions
and Christology Committee-- constitutes a fundamental misapprehension of
the nature of belief. To speak of belief--that is, presumptively
questionable belief--in these terms is shallow, un-self-critical, and
disrespectful of those who hold views judged to be unacceptable. It
presumes a lack of integrity, or at least a self-centered, irresponsible
individualism, on the part of others. It betrays a lack of charity, a
constipation of spirit. At least a couple commissioners in the Committee
were perceptive and articulate enough to declare that the two Overtures
being advocated betrayed a lack of trust.
In my experience, people believe what they are able to
believe. They believe what does not conflict with what they already
know. They believe what makes sense. They believe what accords with
experience. They believe what seems consistent with what they find of
value. They believe what they find important if not necessary to believe
in the context of the lives they live. For the most part, that is to
say, they believe what they feel compelled by experience, reason,
knowledge, and their values and loyalties to believe. And they do not
believe what they feel compelled not to believe for the same reasons.
The latter-day advocates of the new subscriptionism in
the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) failed to make much headway with their
Overtures to this year's General Assembly. That is the good news. The
bad news is that even some moderate theological voices within the
Presbyterian Church, including staff with primary theological leadership
responsibility, have become ungracious in their zeal to reign in the
theological diversity within the denomination. It is time to recognize
the enormity of the insult when it is implied that those who are judged
to hold non-normative views are persons who "do what they
please."
The impulse to hold people accountable for their
contrary beliefs can only be justified to the extent that those contrary
beliefs have been reached irresponsibly, without due attention to all
the sources of knowledge, understanding, and value available to human
beings. When, however, religious views have been reached as a result of
sincere and serious effort to discern as much as is humanly possible the
truth concerning the nature of the God with whom we all have to do,
there are no grounds for disparagement of the believer, however much his
or her belief may differ from what has previously been taken to be
normative within the community of faith. Such disparagement is little
more than a substitute for argument, a failure to engage in honest
theological discussion and debate, a refusal to acknowledge the
possibilities for theological reformulation in the light of new
knowledge and understanding. This is no small thing.
