I don't want to go into too many biographical details here, but there are many reasons why the books of Brian McLaren and the questions raised by the emergent church movement resonate with me. Having grown up in a mostly evangelical environment in Germany and having been trained at both public university and evangelical schools and seminaries, I had lived for a long time with the arrogant opinion that while I obviously didn't know everything there is to know about God, I certainly knew and understood everything of importance in the Bible for a Christian believer. I was also certain that those convictions and beliefs would never change! It took many years and some intriguing and challenging discussions with people from very different backgrounds to notice and admit the limitations and errors of my own views (including my understanding of some central biblical doctrines) and how my previous disposition had prevented me a great deal from really listening and making an effort to understand where people were coming from and what they were saying. It was a humbling and also very freeing experience to start to leave all that behind and to read Jesus' kingdom message in a new light!
I'm not quite the avid reader I used to be, but I'm trying to follow current events as much as I can, particularly developments in the church (and by "church" I'm not referring to any particular denomination) and in politics. Recently I heard of the Great Emergence conference in Memphis and Phyllis Tickle's main address recapping key points of her book with the same title. Jonathan Brink blogged about the event and pointed out her statement that besides the positive consequences of the "Sola Scriptura" ("Scripture Alone") principle of the Protestant Reformation, we also need to be aware of its destructive influence in creating 26,000 denominations, largely because of the emphasis of biblical interpretation by the individual Christian and also by narrowing the source of authority to the Bible alone, instead of recognizing also other crucial factors like the guidance of the Holy Spirit, community, science and experience. Her provocative statement that it's no longer a matter if but when "sola scriptura" will no longer be the focal point of Protestant biblical interpretation, sure caught my attention! In a discussion with Jonathan, he emphasized that all she's talking about is a more robust toolbox to eliminate some of these divisive tendencies of the past and to give us better insights into God's story, not about abandoning the important role of Scripture altogether.
There are 2 problems I still have with this view. The first is about historical accuracy. Have we really understood Martin Luther's and the other reformers' emphasis of Scripture's ultimate authority correctly if we understand it as a narrowing of biblical interpretation and along with it all the negative aspects of individualism? (For those who don't mind reading a more thorough discussion on the historical and theological dimensions of "sola scriptura" and the reformation, Craig D. Allert wrote an instructive article about it a few years ago).
My personal impression of Reformation history points in a different direction than Phyllis Tickle's one-dimensional analysis. "Sola Scriptura", in my opinion, was rooted more in Luther's experience than in a carefully crafted theological system designed to be airtight against human error. His newfound understanding of the biblical term "the righteousness of God" and with it the liberating understanding of the gospel message were as life-changing and faith-changing as was the Damascus experience for the apostle Paul. At the same time he had to deal with a powerful religious institution that was unwilling to be open towards any criticism or challenge of those traditions and beliefs that Luther saw in clear contradiction to the teaching of Scripture and to the gospel of free grace through Christ, made available directly to the priesthood of all believers. "Sola Scriptura" in this context did not mean a rejection of tradition or the authority of the church altogether. It was a necessary corrective in his view, based on the recognition that the church and with it every believer has no automatic safeguard to be kept from perverting doctrine and practice into something that is completely contradicting God's will. That's why Luther emphasized so strongly that everything we do and teach must be evaluated through the lense of God's revelation, and God's revelation in turn cannot be properly discerned without diligently searching the Scriptures.
I don't believe for one moment that Luther was unaware of many other factors that influence our personal interpretation of the Bible or that he was trying to somehow suppress them. He did recognize though that things like the guidance of the Holy Spirit or learning from our experience and our proper understanding of both could be caught up in that same corruptive dynamic if they were seen and used independently from the focus and evaluation of God's will revealed in the written Word. In addition to that, Scripture with its emphasis on the finished work of Christ continued to be the solid bedrock of his personal faith, through many situations of doubt and temptation. In this sense - as the expression of clinging to God's unchangeable and always trustworthy promises, sometimes seemingly defying all logic, defying many contradicting experiences and other instincts - "sola scriptura" (and through it other rediscoveries of central biblical truths like "sola gratia" - "grace alone", "sola fide" - "faith alone", "solus Christus" - "Christ alone") will never be outdated or irrelevant or ripe for Christendom's regular 500-year-rummage-sale, as Phyllis Tickle described it.
My second problem with the view that we need to overcome the "sola scriptura" principle is the kind of change it seems to promise. Is our individualism and our tendency to elevate our personal convictions really rooted in the Reformation's high view and exclusive authority of Scripture? And will the "enlargement of the toolbox" (apart from the question whether this is really such a radically new concept and practice) bring about the unity that the authors of the New Testament had in mind when they challenged us to regard others higher than ourselves?
Jonathan challenged me to show how holding on to the "sola scriptura" principle could actually lead to more unity rather than less. Let me try and explain what I meant by that. And since I encouraged the use of a specific example in the discussion with him, I will use the issue of the split during the Reformation as my illustration. How can Protestants (and particularly those of evangelical persuasion) ever come to a point of unity as long as they insist that through their lense of scriptural interpretation the veneration of Mary and the saints, the infallability of papal doctrine, the exclusive validity of sacraments given by Roman Catholic clergy, purgatory and prayers for the dead etc. are serious errors and are prone to lead people away from the biblical description of faith? After all, Roman Catholic scholars are just as convinced that their view of God revealing Himself through Scripture AND the tradition of His chosen church leadership are just as scriptural! In other words: is "sola scriptura" indeed a fallacy by definition since all interpretations are necessarily fallible, and is this principle doomed to continue to erect walls rather than tearing them down?
I guess the answer to this question depends on the kind of unity that is envisioned. If a united public front and mere organizational unity is the goal, an emphasis pointing away from doctrinal differences and towards goals and convictions that all denominations share, may indeed have a good chance to make considerable progress in that direction. But it may at the same time lead to a watering-down of the gospel to the point of a mere "I'm ok, you're ok" kind of philosophy where for this "unity's" sake all hard issues are no longer discussed or moved to the backburner as seeming distractions or obstacles from that main goal. Imagine for a moment how that kind of approach would have totally collided with Paul's statements in Galatians against those teaching and believing in a continuing need of Christian believers to follow the Jewish law, or with John's warnings in his first letter regarding Gnostic-type interpretations of Jesus' coming into this world. It seems to me that the unity Jesus wanted was not one that would simply ignore all doctrinal type of truth, as much as it is also true that doctrine as the main focus easily can lead us astray as well from the heart connection He wanted us to have with God and with one another.
No, I don't believe we can move away from "sola scriptura" without losing our compass at the same time. How could unity in a biblical sense still be fostered and achieved? Let's look at it realistically. Very few of us will be involved in top level ecumenical encounters between different denominations. I don't believe that a radical new move towards meaningful unity will happen from the top down. At the same time, all major changes and movements have begun with one person or very few people. However and to what degree God will use us as individuals, unity will have to begin in small ways on a personal level: How do I as a Protestant (and as a pastor!) talk about Roman Catholics? How do I talk to them? How would I react if one of my daughters wanted to marry a devout Roman Catholic one day?
The unity I envision is not a unity we try to create by purposely ignoring obvious differences or by giving up the search and struggle for objective truth in God's Word as an unreachable goal, but simply by willing to enter a continuing conversation and by willing to listen and get to know the person first of all. If proving the other wrong is my main agenda, unity will never happen. If on the other hand we can share our stories in a safe environment of trust and sincere endeavor towards understanding, we may very well discover that there is more that unites us than divides us. And the things we continue to disagree about don't need to be a wall any longer but actually provide an opportunity to explore why we have such different opinions and to celebrate the fact that we can be friends in spite of having such different views.
Having the Bible as our common source and the mutual conviction that - despite our personal limitations and skewed lenses - this Word has the power to guide us and change us, can provide a bridge or at least an empty map that we can explore together. The dividing factor, in my opinion, is not the view of Scripture as our ultimate source of authority but the way we approach it together. With a large dose of humility, a keen awareness of our own deficiencies, and a willingness to try hard to listen and understand the other on his or her terms, we still may never agree on everything, but we will in many cases recognize beyond our differences a person who also loves Jesus Christ, and more importantly one who is loved by Him. Unity in that sense is not so much found in the percentage of overlap in our opinions but in the very process of the journey we are determined to travel together and in the unexpected moments of mutual discovery we are able to make along the way.
I'm not quite the avid reader I used to be, but I'm trying to follow current events as much as I can, particularly developments in the church (and by "church" I'm not referring to any particular denomination) and in politics. Recently I heard of the Great Emergence conference in Memphis and Phyllis Tickle's main address recapping key points of her book with the same title. Jonathan Brink blogged about the event and pointed out her statement that besides the positive consequences of the "Sola Scriptura" ("Scripture Alone") principle of the Protestant Reformation, we also need to be aware of its destructive influence in creating 26,000 denominations, largely because of the emphasis of biblical interpretation by the individual Christian and also by narrowing the source of authority to the Bible alone, instead of recognizing also other crucial factors like the guidance of the Holy Spirit, community, science and experience. Her provocative statement that it's no longer a matter if but when "sola scriptura" will no longer be the focal point of Protestant biblical interpretation, sure caught my attention! In a discussion with Jonathan, he emphasized that all she's talking about is a more robust toolbox to eliminate some of these divisive tendencies of the past and to give us better insights into God's story, not about abandoning the important role of Scripture altogether.
There are 2 problems I still have with this view. The first is about historical accuracy. Have we really understood Martin Luther's and the other reformers' emphasis of Scripture's ultimate authority correctly if we understand it as a narrowing of biblical interpretation and along with it all the negative aspects of individualism? (For those who don't mind reading a more thorough discussion on the historical and theological dimensions of "sola scriptura" and the reformation, Craig D. Allert wrote an instructive article about it a few years ago).
My personal impression of Reformation history points in a different direction than Phyllis Tickle's one-dimensional analysis. "Sola Scriptura", in my opinion, was rooted more in Luther's experience than in a carefully crafted theological system designed to be airtight against human error. His newfound understanding of the biblical term "the righteousness of God" and with it the liberating understanding of the gospel message were as life-changing and faith-changing as was the Damascus experience for the apostle Paul. At the same time he had to deal with a powerful religious institution that was unwilling to be open towards any criticism or challenge of those traditions and beliefs that Luther saw in clear contradiction to the teaching of Scripture and to the gospel of free grace through Christ, made available directly to the priesthood of all believers. "Sola Scriptura" in this context did not mean a rejection of tradition or the authority of the church altogether. It was a necessary corrective in his view, based on the recognition that the church and with it every believer has no automatic safeguard to be kept from perverting doctrine and practice into something that is completely contradicting God's will. That's why Luther emphasized so strongly that everything we do and teach must be evaluated through the lense of God's revelation, and God's revelation in turn cannot be properly discerned without diligently searching the Scriptures.
I don't believe for one moment that Luther was unaware of many other factors that influence our personal interpretation of the Bible or that he was trying to somehow suppress them. He did recognize though that things like the guidance of the Holy Spirit or learning from our experience and our proper understanding of both could be caught up in that same corruptive dynamic if they were seen and used independently from the focus and evaluation of God's will revealed in the written Word. In addition to that, Scripture with its emphasis on the finished work of Christ continued to be the solid bedrock of his personal faith, through many situations of doubt and temptation. In this sense - as the expression of clinging to God's unchangeable and always trustworthy promises, sometimes seemingly defying all logic, defying many contradicting experiences and other instincts - "sola scriptura" (and through it other rediscoveries of central biblical truths like "sola gratia" - "grace alone", "sola fide" - "faith alone", "solus Christus" - "Christ alone") will never be outdated or irrelevant or ripe for Christendom's regular 500-year-rummage-sale, as Phyllis Tickle described it.
My second problem with the view that we need to overcome the "sola scriptura" principle is the kind of change it seems to promise. Is our individualism and our tendency to elevate our personal convictions really rooted in the Reformation's high view and exclusive authority of Scripture? And will the "enlargement of the toolbox" (apart from the question whether this is really such a radically new concept and practice) bring about the unity that the authors of the New Testament had in mind when they challenged us to regard others higher than ourselves?
Jonathan challenged me to show how holding on to the "sola scriptura" principle could actually lead to more unity rather than less. Let me try and explain what I meant by that. And since I encouraged the use of a specific example in the discussion with him, I will use the issue of the split during the Reformation as my illustration. How can Protestants (and particularly those of evangelical persuasion) ever come to a point of unity as long as they insist that through their lense of scriptural interpretation the veneration of Mary and the saints, the infallability of papal doctrine, the exclusive validity of sacraments given by Roman Catholic clergy, purgatory and prayers for the dead etc. are serious errors and are prone to lead people away from the biblical description of faith? After all, Roman Catholic scholars are just as convinced that their view of God revealing Himself through Scripture AND the tradition of His chosen church leadership are just as scriptural! In other words: is "sola scriptura" indeed a fallacy by definition since all interpretations are necessarily fallible, and is this principle doomed to continue to erect walls rather than tearing them down?
I guess the answer to this question depends on the kind of unity that is envisioned. If a united public front and mere organizational unity is the goal, an emphasis pointing away from doctrinal differences and towards goals and convictions that all denominations share, may indeed have a good chance to make considerable progress in that direction. But it may at the same time lead to a watering-down of the gospel to the point of a mere "I'm ok, you're ok" kind of philosophy where for this "unity's" sake all hard issues are no longer discussed or moved to the backburner as seeming distractions or obstacles from that main goal. Imagine for a moment how that kind of approach would have totally collided with Paul's statements in Galatians against those teaching and believing in a continuing need of Christian believers to follow the Jewish law, or with John's warnings in his first letter regarding Gnostic-type interpretations of Jesus' coming into this world. It seems to me that the unity Jesus wanted was not one that would simply ignore all doctrinal type of truth, as much as it is also true that doctrine as the main focus easily can lead us astray as well from the heart connection He wanted us to have with God and with one another.
No, I don't believe we can move away from "sola scriptura" without losing our compass at the same time. How could unity in a biblical sense still be fostered and achieved? Let's look at it realistically. Very few of us will be involved in top level ecumenical encounters between different denominations. I don't believe that a radical new move towards meaningful unity will happen from the top down. At the same time, all major changes and movements have begun with one person or very few people. However and to what degree God will use us as individuals, unity will have to begin in small ways on a personal level: How do I as a Protestant (and as a pastor!) talk about Roman Catholics? How do I talk to them? How would I react if one of my daughters wanted to marry a devout Roman Catholic one day?
The unity I envision is not a unity we try to create by purposely ignoring obvious differences or by giving up the search and struggle for objective truth in God's Word as an unreachable goal, but simply by willing to enter a continuing conversation and by willing to listen and get to know the person first of all. If proving the other wrong is my main agenda, unity will never happen. If on the other hand we can share our stories in a safe environment of trust and sincere endeavor towards understanding, we may very well discover that there is more that unites us than divides us. And the things we continue to disagree about don't need to be a wall any longer but actually provide an opportunity to explore why we have such different opinions and to celebrate the fact that we can be friends in spite of having such different views.
Having the Bible as our common source and the mutual conviction that - despite our personal limitations and skewed lenses - this Word has the power to guide us and change us, can provide a bridge or at least an empty map that we can explore together. The dividing factor, in my opinion, is not the view of Scripture as our ultimate source of authority but the way we approach it together. With a large dose of humility, a keen awareness of our own deficiencies, and a willingness to try hard to listen and understand the other on his or her terms, we still may never agree on everything, but we will in many cases recognize beyond our differences a person who also loves Jesus Christ, and more importantly one who is loved by Him. Unity in that sense is not so much found in the percentage of overlap in our opinions but in the very process of the journey we are determined to travel together and in the unexpected moments of mutual discovery we are able to make along the way.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I don't believe for one moment that Luther was unaware of many other factors that influence our personal interpretation of the Bible or that he was trying to somehow suppress them."
No one I know is saying this. No one I know thinks Luther was conspiring to create the breakdowns we see. Did he mean to to do that. I doubt it. Shifting the authority from the Papacy to Scripture was a good thing, but it had consequences.
If anything the problems we see today are the natural outcome of the shift gone wild, as Tickle stated, and should not be blamed on Luther, but on us.
The question comes down to authority. Who has the final say on the interpretation process of what the story really says. In arresting the authority from the Papacy, he placed his trust in Scripture "alone", which essentially places it onto the individual. But in creating the concept of "Sola", he inadvertently created what we have today, which by it's nature excludes the other tools.
This is more of an issue of language. It is just easier to say "Sola" because the canon is now fixed. But the process is just as fraught with the same problems it attempted to solve. If anything it is worsened because it places the concept of interpretation into hands of the average person yet gives him no recourse of how to interpret Scripture, which was always historically a communal story.
And the test of the problem doesn't come in those that are trained but in those who aren't. (Sadly, it is those who are trained where most of the problems reside.) In teaching Sola, by it's very distinction, limits the framework for understanding. Scripture itself calls us to the Holy Spirit, to community, to experience, and to science. It calls us to humility.
So in essence, the framework Luther created, caved in on itself by the distinction of Sola. Scripture called us out of Sola.
You also said, "Having the Bible as our common source and the mutual conviction that - despite our personal limitations and skewed lenses - this Word has the power to guide us and change us, can provide a bridge or at least an empty map that we can explore together."
The key word is "can". Yet I would suggest again that history reveals it doesn't. Mostly because the issue of authority is placed onto the individual, not the community.
I appreciate what you desire: unity. I desire that too. But I am just suggesting that the very distinction, which is a structure for operating, you want to use to accomplish it, does not produce it because by it's very nature limits our ability to experience unity.
I would also say that if we lose "Sola" we don't lose Scripture. We release it to be what it was designed to be, part of the whole.
I was considering posting a bunch of quotes from Luther that show his understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit and of experience in the interpretation process but decided against it. Even if Luther's heritage can be salvaged somewhat from the criticisms made, the historic effect is still the same and undeniable. I would rather want to explore the question of timelessness of revealed truths. In Roman Catholic doctrine every official teaching of the church remains true and in effect based on the understanding that it is part of the "depositum fidei" (think of it as the entire "pool" of God's truth made available through progressive steps of revelation through the official church). I think many Protestants would view the "solas" in a similar way as something the Holy Spirit uncovered (or recovered rather, after a time of distortion) as a timeless truth which would make it foolish to just let go. They would argue that the splits as a misuse do not need prevent the proper use of the principle, in other words they would caution not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the whole discussion about formulas and where they lead (potentially or necessarily)is somewhat futile altogether. It seems to me that they'll only lead us further away from the One who simply can neither be defined nor truly understood by and through any given formula.