Matters of Interpretation -- or more on the death of sola scriptura
My post on the apparent demise of the principle of Sola Scriptura, as interpreted by Phyllis Tickle in The Great Emergence, has gotten some attention from the comment section -- both here and at CCBlogs. The reason we rally around ideas like Sola Scriptura is that it gives a sense of coherence to our faith. We need a foundation, a base from which to work. For the Reformers it gave a platform to argue for changing the way the church exists. In matters of debate, let's turn to Scripture. Two centuries back, a group of Christians gathered on the American Frontier (Western Pennsylvania and Kentucky), and said, things have gotten too complicated, we've got too many rules and regulations, so lets return to the source -- in this case the New Testament -- in search of a simple Christianity that we can all affirm. Of course each of these reform movements faltered because the trick didn't work.
So, where do we go? I proposed turning to a quadrilateral that at least mythically goes back to Wesley (but really is part of a broader conversation in 18th century English church life) of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Of course the question is: Whose Reason and Whose Experience counts?
I want to introduce another bit of information to the conversation. This time I'd like to turn to Joe Jones, one of the leading Disciples theologians (and father of new Union Theological Seminary president Serene Jones). He writes concerning matters of authority:
I think this is helpful -- in whatever sense the Bible is authoritative for us today, in what ever way it is the norming norm for us today, we as church must receive this text and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God interpret and apply it. As we see in Acts 10-11, Peter gains a new understanding of his own faith, one that allows him to expand the borders of what he thought possible. When it comes to matters such as the place of women or gays in church and society, are we receiving a new insight from the Holy Spirit? The question then is, how do we check if this is from the Spirit?
So, where do we go? I proposed turning to a quadrilateral that at least mythically goes back to Wesley (but really is part of a broader conversation in 18th century English church life) of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Of course the question is: Whose Reason and Whose Experience counts?
I want to introduce another bit of information to the conversation. This time I'd like to turn to Joe Jones, one of the leading Disciples theologians (and father of new Union Theological Seminary president Serene Jones). He writes concerning matters of authority:
God is certainly the supreme authority for the church's witness. God has revealed Godself in historical self-communications to Israel, in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in the life of the apostolic church. The Bible, as witness to God's distinctively self-communicating life, is the penultimate authority for the church's witness. But the Bible always needs interpretation and application by the church, which has happened in the living traditions of the church. Yet this interpretation and application of the Bible by the church always requires the empowerment and guidance of the Holy Spirit. (Joe R. Jones, A Grammar of Christian Faith, Rowman and Littlefield, 2002, 1:114)
I think this is helpful -- in whatever sense the Bible is authoritative for us today, in what ever way it is the norming norm for us today, we as church must receive this text and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God interpret and apply it. As we see in Acts 10-11, Peter gains a new understanding of his own faith, one that allows him to expand the borders of what he thought possible. When it comes to matters such as the place of women or gays in church and society, are we receiving a new insight from the Holy Spirit? The question then is, how do we check if this is from the Spirit?
Comments
It is true that in practice the Reformers never did practice sola scriptura. As you know, as a Baptist, when Zwingli was confronted by the more biblicist anabaptist request to adopt believer baptism he let other considerations determine his decision.
But even Catholics would have, by and large, affirmed the principle of Scriptura Suprema, but with the caveat that the church's teaching office would determine appropriate interpretation. Ultimately, for the Reformers it was a matter of who got to interpret -- the church or the individual. But again, even there the Reformers fudged!
So, ultimately this is and always has been a question not of biblical authority but rather the proper limits of acceptable interpretation.
Scripture being primary does set healthy boundaries by which tradition is evaluated; experience discerned as truly being the Holy Spirit or some other spirit; calling people to experience the application of their faith into their day to day experiences; while seeking the conforming of our minds more to the mind of Christ than to the world which includes intellectual humility like reportedly Thomas Aquinus learned.
I believe Mr. Wesley demonstrated how these 4 interact with Scripture as primary.
In Mr. Wesley's Notes on the NT, he quotes John Albert Bengel, who in 1742 observed: Scripture is the foundation of the Church: the Church is the guardian of Scripture. When the Church is in strong health, the light of the Scripture shines bright; when the Church is sick, Scripture is corroded by neglect; and thus it happens, that the outward form of Scripture and that of the Church, usually seem to exhibit simultaneously either health or else sickness; and as a rule the way in which Scripture is being treated is in exact correspondence with the condition of the Church.
I think a helpful book in this dialogue is The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism by Ben Witherington.