One difference between conservative and moderate-to-progressive Christians seems to involve the nature of biblical authority, reason and morality. To explore this a bit, let me introduce a little pagan philosophy. According to Socrates, Plato posed this question to Euthyphro, translated here into Christian terms:
Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it’s commanded by God?
This is Euthyphro’s Dilemma, so-called because either answer presents us with theological problems. If something is commanded by God because it is moral, then God is not the highest authority, since God must be subservient to a greater quality called morality. On the other hand, if something is only moral because God commands that it is so, then morality is an entirely arbitrary standard that depends on God’s whim. Both alternatives seem equally unacceptable.
The resolution to this dilemma is that, included among the characteristics of God such as omniscience and omnipotence, is omnibenevolence. God is all-loving. Therefore, God can not command anything for us that is not ultimately best for us and the rest of God’s creation. God is not subservient to morality, but because of God’s love for us, God’s commands aren’t really arbitrary either. (For a fuller explanation, see God and Morality by Derrick Farnell.)
What I find interesting is an implication of this resolution to the dilemma. If God’s commands, as required by God’s very nature, are what is best for us, then morality can be objectively determined by reason independent of God’s revelation in Scripture. Now I accept the Bible as authoritative, but not as innerrant, and I’m often accused of “picking and choosing” Scripture to justify my opinions. In discussions on this blog and elsewhere, the conservative argument ultimately rests on “the Bible says it, so that settles it.” I’ve never had a good response to that argument other than the observation that the Bible contradicts itself, so we all end up picking and choosing verses to justify our positions.
But this observation that God is omnibenevolent and that God’s commands are therefore based on what is best for us gives another way to think about this. We must either accept that a) everything God commands us in the Bible is good for us, even if our intellect is not able to understand why, or that b) anything commanded in the Bible that is not good for us does not come from God. The first proposition places a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible over our ability to reason, and the second places our ability to reason over a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.
There are many commandments in the Old Testament that we understand as having been superseded by the new covenant through Jesus Christ, so let me stick with the New Testament. Paul says that gays are condemned to live outside God’s grace, and that women can not hold positions of authority over men. Both these statements often seem to be in conflict with Jesus’ teachings, such as loving our neighbor as ourselves, or loving our enemies. (I really don’t want to get into yet another debate on these issues, but am just using them as examples.) If the Bible is inerrant, then we have to conclude that loving our neighbor as ourselves requires rejecting gay marriage and women pastors. It may seem that loving gays would mean allowing them the sacrament of holy marriage, or that loving women would mean allowing them full equality in our churches. But we are wrong. God, who is all-knowing as well as all-loving, has commanded us differently through the pen of the apostle Paul. This is the position of conservative Christians.
But I can’t buy it. I too believe in an all-knowing and all-loving God, but I also think our faculty of reasoning is a gift of God and not as fallible as conservatives would have us think. I just can’t logically see how loving gays means making them accept life-long celibacy or else forcing them from the church. I can’t think of any rational argument why keeping women out of positions of authority is an act of love. I humble myself before God and others, but I’m sorry, I just can’t see how these can be part of God’s morality, commanded by God out of God’s perfect love for us. Here I stand, I can do no other.
So this seems to be a fundamental difference in theology between Christian conservatives and progressives. By knowing God’s nature, are we capable of understanding God’s reasons for God’s commands to us, and thereby able to better discern God’s will? Or are we forever incapable of understanding why God has seemingly commanded those things that by our reasoning seem to violate God’s all-loving nature, and so forced to accept these commands anyway?

