Some thoughts on God as the author of truth
Because I finished seminary before entering medical school in my late twenties, I am often asked why I made that career change at that time. I never had a well-articulated answer to that question until just recently, at age 78. And, strangely, for this protestant minister the inspiration for understanding the answer came from an amazing interview on a recent “60 Minutes” episode with Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston.
In that interview, Cardinal O’Malley discussed the changing winds in the Catholic Church under Pope Francis. And when confronted with the question of ordaining women, he made the following statement: “If I were founding a church, I would love to have women priests. But Christ founded it and what he has given us is something different.” In other words, as I understood him, the Cardinal was saying that despite his own thinking (and feeling) on the subject, he was bound by the traditional interpretation of his church–that by choosing all male disciples, Jesus was indicating that he never wanted women in the highest positions within the movement that grew out of his earthly ministry.
Church historians and theologians have long debated the legitimacy of that church doctrine. And, clearly, many other church organizations have either not come to the same conclusion or have concluded that what Jesus modeled in his earthly ministry is not necessarily binding for all time. But there are still huge parts of church doctrine and practice that are based on an unwavering commitment to the idea that what the Bible directly says or indirectly suggests must be accepted as normative forever. And that’s why, I now realize, I couldn’t stay in the church as a minister even though I am a committed “follower of Jesus.”
In other words, I somehow knew that I could not be bound by the idea that Biblical record and church tradition would have to define “truth” for me in my daily occupation. And what I found so appealing about becoming a doctor was that the “truth” that would direct my daily life would be determined not by blind devotion to tradition and scriptural “authority” but by the discoveries of current medical scientists using their mental gifts from the Creator God of our time.
Imagine the practice of medicine if we had to be bound by the dictates and discoveries of past giants in medicine. We would not stand for it, either as patients or doctors, but we too often meekly accept such authority in our spiritual lives.
No wonder so much evil occurs “in the name of religion” mired in debates and distortions about the meaning of past teaching and understanding, such teaching itself often mired in the limited understanding of truth at that time. Given that Jesus is also understood as “fully human,” does that not automatically limit his understanding of matters social and political to the culture and practice of his time? Might not his choice of only men as disciples be understood in the context of the male dominance of his time–versus an example to be hallowed as binding for all future church life?
I believe that God is the author of all truth–including new truth discovered and understood currently. Why should the God of unfolding and continuing creation be bound by the limits of past tools and insights? When Cardinal O’Malley wistfully admitted his own feelings about women becoming priests, I believe he was in tune with a God who continues to unfold new truth in his creation to those willing to be open to a vital and living God.