odd man out.

Thus far on this blog, I’ve avoided delineating my own beliefs about the ethics of same-sex relationships, and I’ve done so very intentionally.  I think there are much more important questions for Christians to be asking right now, questions like, “How do I love and enter into genuine relationship with someone whose beliefs are different from my own?” and “Which specific beliefs must I share with someone else in order to participate in Christian community with that person?”  I think these kinds of questions lead to many more fruitful conversations and positive interactions than do questions about what the Bible says about something, or what this Greek word means, or what sort of hermeneutic is healthiest in a postmodern culture.

Don’t hear me wrong: I think it’s important for Christians to have specific, well-reasoned beliefs about homosexuality, and I don’t want us to play dumb on our convictions.  But as a growing number of Christian denominations affirm same-sex relationships, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for Christians holding traditional views to dismiss or ignore the new ethic (and those people who follow it).  The interactions between people with different beliefs are where I get interested.

A couple of weeks ago, James Walters, a PhD student at Princeton Theological Seminary, wrote a blog post about how people read scripture, and he is both insightful and rather distressing in his conclusions.  While discussing a recent online debate about homosexuality between a few authors, Walters observes:

“I imagine that if you read the posts, you probably agreed more with the author whose position you already sympathize with and disagreed more with the position you oppose. In other words, I honestly doubt that any of you (or I) was convinced by the opposing argument. Why is that? How can we read two compelling cases for interpreting texts and somehow come out on the other side only more convinced that ‘our side’ is correct and ‘their side’ is wrong?

“Here’s why: we read the Bible with our minds already made up as to what the Bible actually ‘says’ or ‘means.’ That is, our interpretation of Scripture is pretty much pre-determined by the way we approach Scripture and our ‘cultural’ assumptions.”

Richard Beck recently wrote something similar about how Christians often seek the “biblical” answer to questions without defining for ourselves what “biblical” means.  Quite often, the end result of this sort of scripture discussion is that people cling very desperately to specific beliefs, assuming those beliefs are completely rational and assuming contrary beliefs must be irrational (or biased, or ignorant, or selfish, or political).  And when a different belief is irrational, then the person who holds that belief is often assumed to be irrational as well—and how can you possibly talk with an irrational person?

Here’s an example of what Walters is getting at.  The website for the Gay Christian Network features a pair of articles arguing a particular side of the homosexuality debate: one argues gay Christians should remain celibate, and the other argues God blesses same-sex marriages.  I’ve chosen this site as an example because, in addition to the depth and quality of each article, it doesn’t provide any qualifications or background for either author.  You’re simply provided with two opposing arguments and must evaluate them based on the quality of the arguments alone.

Now, if Walters is correct, there’s a good chance most people won’t be persuaded to change their views based on the strength of either argument.  And I’m not saying they should—I understand that beliefs are the result of a number of different influences, experiences, and feelings.  What I’m getting at is that I think we should all approach conversations about controversial topics with a healthy dose of humility, extending to each other the grace of assuming everyone involved in the conversation is a rational person who is sincerely seeking God’s truth and guidance.  Or, as Walters concludes:

“I want to end with an appeal. Next time you find yourself trying to figure out how that ‘crazy other person’ obviously cannot see the ‘reason’ of your own position, think about how that person’s conclusions might seem perfectly legitimate and reasonable to them. And think about the way that your own logic is pre-determined by a number of factors that you never consciously deal with. You may still retain your opinion of things, but it just might help you understand how someone who disagrees with you only does so because they are trying their best to be faithful to Scripture…just like you are.”

I’m curious about whether this kind of humility would help us answer questions about how we can love others whose beliefs differ from our own; I think it starts with us trusting each other enough to recognize how maybe, just maybe, two honest, selfless, humble people could hold completely different perspectives on the same issue.  Although it might not lead to agreement, that sort of humility seems to be a prerequisite for authentic love.