The Complex in a Nutshell

 

Every so often here behind the lines, one encounters something simple that can give insight into something that is complex and convoluted.  I came across the following brief passage in the public archive of a chat list frequented by Anglicans of a liberal theological persuasion:

The statement that “I’m not homophobic, I base my position on the clear word of Scripture” is blind on the following point. Our beliefs, all of them, are humanly based; that is they arise from psychological and or sociological factors in our personalities. These inner, unstated preferences find corroboration in various schools of thought which we experience in daily life, one of them being the Bible. The bible passages which appear to be anti-gay, anti-lesbian are chosen sometimes unconsciously,  because they seem to confirm already held values. There is no belief which is not a mix of philosophy/theology and personal phobias and other priorities. To say that we base our beliefs on the bible is to be blind to the inner workings of the self. To say that we base our beliefs on our fears is to deny the power of thought, philosophical or theological to modify or change the inner, unreflective, compulsions. 

If ever one wanted to encapsulate why the gulf that has emerged between so-called liberal theology and Christians who reject it, one could not do much better than to quote this passage.

Here we have it, the blunt, direct characterization of the beliefs of the faith as being exclusively human in origin.  There is no mention of, or room for, the concept of divine revelation.  Beliefs are humanly based, arising from psychological and sociological factors.  (It is not insignificant to note that, were one to search for a body that was intrinsically anti-religion, and virulently anti-Christian, the first two places to look would be the psychology and sociology departments of a university.)

The denial of revelation continues in the characterization of the Bible as a school of thought, deriving from experience.  It would be wrong to deny the presence of human hands in the writing of the Bible.  It is not a dictated or transcribed piece of work, as the Koran or Book of Mormon claim to be.  However, to characterize it as only a record of human experience, even human experience of those erstwhile psychological and sociological religious beliefs cited in the passage, is to separate one’s self from the historic tenets of the Christian faith as surely as it is to claim that it is a dictated or a transcribed work.

Here is also the assertion that there is nothing in the Bible other than what we choose to read into it.  And the reader is reduced to something much closer to an automaton, rather than a free (and responsible) moral agent, in the assertions that one can read in the Bible only what one already holds, or what apparent phobias and priorities predetermine that one will read.  How one is to square this with the Christian view that men and women are created in the image and likeness of God is not clear.

The inner workings of the self certainly are not to be ignored.  Making these workings the be all and end all in determining what we believe is certainly a giant leap away from Christian teachings.  Such a self-centered approach is virtually impossible to reconcile with the Christian call to lose one’s self, indeed to give one’s self to one’s Lord, in order to gain one’s true self, and for all eternity.

The final sentence of the passage does not seem to belong to the rest of it.  The point it seeks to make is not clear, even though there is little to disagree with in the statement itself.  But the reference to a power to change inner, unreflective, compulsions is very confusing in the context of the preceding portions of the passage.  We are presented with a self that is somehow incapable of doing other than reading what the self is, apparently, predetermined to find in a passage from the Bible (or any other text, presumably).  This self cannot, apparently, overcome psychological and sociological factors (unspecified in the passage, but apparently very compelling in nature) in deriving the meaning of the passage.  Indeed, there is nothing, on the showing of the passage, that exists, external to the self, that can have any influence on it when it undertakes this task.  Yet suddenly, deus ex machina, (sorry, but I couldn’t resist), there appears something, a power within that self, that can, apparently, enable it to emerge from its hamstrung state of bondage and transform itself. The question arises: With that kind of power within the self – the whole premise of the passage is that nothing exists outside the self that is of any consequence – why is the self in such abject bondage when it seeks to interpret a passage from the Bible?  The image it conjures is that of a man who cannot take a step without assistance, but can, apparently unaided, leap a tall building in a single bound. 

In any event, it is not my intention to criticize the passage.  My aim is to point out that when a person who subscribes to the content of the passage, with its incredible (though perhaps inconsistent) characterization of the self as being the be-all and end-all when it comes to beliefs, and the consequent elimination of any place for the concept of the transcendent, is placed together with someone who believes and professes the Christian faith, there will be inevitable disagreement.  The disagreement will be profound, because the presuppositions in the passage are completely incompatible with the revealed truths of the Christian faith.  Radically so, in fact, because revelation is virtually banned from consideration in matters of faith in the passage.  It will not matter what the presenting issue of the disagreement turns out to be.  The differences are utterly irreconcilable when, according to the rules of the passage, the self is supreme and one supreme self is pitted against another supreme self.

Anglicanism has shown itself to be utterly incapable of either refereeing such a clash of selves, or of authoritatively dealing with this placing of the self above all else.  For the Christian who wonders why Anglicanism is in the state it is in nowadays, he need only read the above passage, and realize that its premises, which are utterly at odds with Christian revelation, are both prevalent and accepted among Western Anglicans.