I caught some flack for a comment I posted recently on Revelife, to the effect that the Protestant church needs to understand itself as a protest movement within the church catholic to remain intelligible, and that the way
sola scriptura is used is often borderline heresy. (The flack was not public because the person did the biblical thing and approached me about it one-on-one.)
Of the first part of the comment all that needs to be said is that though I am not Roman Catholic, neither do I consider myself a protestant. The church movement I am a part of (the Church of God Reformation movement, with ministry headquarters in Anderson, IN), has not primarily understood itself in those terms, as it grew out of Wesleyan holiness concerns meshed with Anabaptist social postures. Still, from where I stand it seems that both the Church of God movement and the Protestant reformation are in danger of losing perspective and seeing themselves as ends in themselves. That is a problem.
My friend was fine with that, after some discussion, but my comments about
sola scriptura still bothered him (since
sola scriptura is more or less the battle-cry of Protestants, even today). So let me explain. We all have influences, people who have or who continue to influence the way we view the world, the way we think about things and the way we read scripture. For me, some of my influences are scholars like N. T. Wright, Gregory Boyd and William Cavanaugh, some are professors I had at university, and some are people I've known like Mark Shaner, my first youth pastor and Travis Blankenship.
These influences fall in the Roman Catholic category of Tradition. Everyone who has read and attempted to understand scripture before us teaches us how to understand scripture (or, in many cases, how to avoid misunderstanding it). The problem with the way Protestants often use
sola scriptura is that it often comes to mean not that only scripture has authority, but that only my tradition's reading of scripture has authority.
Stanley Hauerwas, drawing on ethicist Alisdair Macyntire's account of moral practices, has written that the individual is wholly unsuited to the task of scriptural interpretation. The idea of "just me and the KJV" is a myth. In truth, we can only even begin the task of interpretation once we have been shown how by an individual or a community. What is more, it is the character of the community that will largely determine how we interpret what we read. "To put it as contentiously as possible," Hauerwas writes at one point, "Only a pacifist church can read the Sermon on the Mount rightly."
This begs the question, then, how does a church become dedicated to nonviolence if not through first reading and understanding Jesus' teachings? For Hauerwas, again, the answer is Tradition. As we grow up in the church, there are saints and martyrs who influence us by embodying what faithful discipleship look like, and thereby giving us a key to interpreting scripture rightly.
If the account Hauerwas (and, for that matter, Stanley Fish) gives us about the nature of scriptural interpretation is anything like right, then
sola scriptura is potentially a dangerous and self-deceptive standard around which to rally.
What do you think?
- Who has influenced the way you think about the world?
- Has anyone influenced the way you understand scripture?
- Is this view of Tradition incompatible with your view of sola scriptura?
-NDSR
Comments (10)
I appreciate the effort to help make protestants more aware of how we are also dependent upon Tradition. I think this is a needed correction. There's one piece of the Roman Catholic Church's view of Tradition that most protestants will still find unacceptable: that apostolic Tradition is both authoritative and infallible. With emphasis on the infallible part, but surely many corners would reject both.
To support my claims:
According to "The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent" (Nov. 13, 1565), all faithful Catholics must agree: "I shall never accept nor interpret it [Scripture] otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
I'm very interested to see how this discussion goes.
I think many people (on both sides of the debate) misunderstand Sola Scriptura to mean as you put it "just me and my KJV under a tree" is the final authority. Most Christians would agree that we all have many spiritual authorities--church traditions, spiritual leaders, church elders, examples of lives of faith, sound scholarship, etc. Rightly understood, Sola Scriptura simply maintains that, if there's a disagreement in substance between these sources (say on Indulgences?), then a faithful reading of the Word of God should serve as the Ace of Trumps in settling the question.
Some grist for the conversation mill:
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11)
“But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Matthew 22:31-32)
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:39-40)
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. (Luke 24:44-45)
Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29)
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Matthew 4:5-7 -- Jesus and the devil engage in a battle of proof-texts? That always fascinates me.)
Flattered.
1. Shane Claiborne, Gregory Boyd, Cliff Sanders, Wendell Sutton, Steve Seaton, Kurt Saleirno, Nick Don Stanton Roark, Raphe Adair, Judy and Michael Weeks,
2. Mainly others have helped me with my understanding of scripture. Some professors from my old college have also. Many good men and women have exampled a life scripture encourages for me as well. That's a bigger help.
3. I don't think so.
A proper understanding of Sola Scriptura does not damage tradition. It just sets that if tradition doesn't agree with Scripture then tradition is wrong, because Scripture is never wrong. Tradition of course influences how we interpret the Scripture, and rightly so. It's just that when the two conflict one has to stand as authoritative over the other.
You mentioned Wesley as an influence, at least indirectly as per your denominational influences. He has what is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. He sets forth four influences and the order in which they should be ranked, excerpt from Wikipedia entry pasted below.
<li>Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)<li>Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church<li>Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation<li>Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in ChristI tend to agree with Wesley on this.
As for my influences: The big names that have influenced me are Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Paul Washer, Voddie Baucham, Shane Claiborne, and Lee Camp. That's the modern influences I have anyway. As for the dead guys, who are amazing to read and that have been an influence: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Augustine of Hippo, William Wilberforce, and C.S. Lewis.
Aside from all those big name people are the people I came to know when I first moved to Southern IL and started going to a more traditional church as opposed to the charismatic non-denominational I was attending. They taught me to exercise discernment and that lead to a lot of interpretation changes.
1. E. Stanley Jones, George Fox, Paris Reidhead, William Volkmer, Richard Boyd, Dan Kiniry, Justin Cox, Patrick Ersig, you.
2. I think that the biggest influence initially was Richard Boyd who was the assistant youth pastor at the church I was attending when I became a Christian. A year later, I moved to college and eventually settled under the teaching of William Volkmer. I can definitely see how they affected my views of Scripture and life.
3. I don't think they are necessarily incompatible.
I am not Catholic or Protestant. The protestant churches are those that came out of the Catholic church traditions by their own interpretation in the Scriptures. Baptists were not those that protested against the Catholic traditions and teachings. There are a direct product of the AnaBaptists that you mention above.
The Scriptures are the final authority in all things. There is nothing wrong with the influence of others as long as it does not conflict with Bible directives. I have many books in my library that I may use as a form of interpretation unless I feel that the author has not given a clear explanation of his teachings. The Bible is God's Word for mankind. I read my books just like eating fish; I will eat the meat but spit out the bones. There are no bones in God's Word, only the sincere milk and meat of the Word for us to feast on every day.
@mr_randyc - The Anabaptists did protest against infant baptism, which is how they got their name.
As is often the case, my involvement in the discussion is limited to that of an outsider since I am not of any named church, although it might amuse me to answer those questions anyway.
Your position continues to intrigue me. The questions you raise often go straight to the edge of the abyss and I wonder if you are even aware of it. By "abyss" I mean truth that cannot be known through words.Challenging mainstream applications of sola scriptura, which I agree are often dangerously myopic, is really only a hair's breadth away from challenging God's reportedly perfect stewardship of supposed scriptural inerrancy through all the ages.
The theory that one’s understanding of scripture becomes more perfect through study, discussion and time, according to the will of God, is really just another case of circular logic whose only glue is faith – faith being imbued with premium importance for just that purpose. The problem is not how you approach Biblical authority – the problem is Biblical authority. Greater understanding of truth is not attained by word-parsing the Bible in ancient and modern languages, no matter how fluent or scholarly.
There is another way to find out what the big deal was two thousand years back. For example, how do you know Jesus taught pacifism? Perhaps you know because he lives inside you – a certainty that can only be arrived at after contemplation.
Then we ask, well then, how did W know God told him to invade Iraq? Simple: W does not know Jesus. How do I know this? God told me.
Sorry. That’s what happens, though, through reliance words alone. If that smacks a little of Zen, hey.
Don't you ever get the feeling that you are on that abyssal edge, peering in, walking along perhaps but neither retreating nor leaping?
1. Who? Many. Jesus is my primary influence with Buddha in close consultation. Nietzsche. My father. Billy Graham. MLK. Then there's this rogue's gallery: T. Leary, C. Sagan, A.Crowley, Ram Dass, Malcom X, C. Castaneda; and assorted musicians, painters and poets.
2. Again, Jesus. And Herman Hesse.
3. I guess I answered that one already.
Thanks for articulating my position on this. I should probably have already thought this completely through. "Bible only" is a delusion.