Considering the Authority of Scripture
We are not, as Disciples, a creedal people. Congregation's may, on occasion, lay out a statement of belief, but these are usually set out as a guide to what one might find taught in the church. They are not, however, seen as tests of fellowship, something that one must believe to become part of a congregation.
In lieu of creeds, the founders of the Stone-Campbell movement, of which the Disciples are one branch, turned to Scripture -- more specifically to the New Testament, which they considered the constitution of the church. The charge to us as a people was not to believe whatever we wanted, but to believe that which was taught explicitly in Scripture.
To Alexander Campbell, the Bible is to humanity what the "sun is to the planets in our system -- the fountain and source of light and life, spiritual and eternal" (quoted in Kinnamon and Linn, Disciples, Chalice Press, 2009, p. 27). Having examined the issue of covenant, which Michael Kinnamon and Jan Linn offer as the constraint on unbridled individualism, the authors of this important broadside to the Disciples movement turn to Scripture. Being that we don't have creeds, the Bible would seem to hold even more importance for our tradition. Unfortunately, as the authors of this book, and Gene Boring in his Disciples and the Bible (Chalice, 1997) does well, suggest that our ability to hear and understand scripture is hindered by a pervasive biblical illiteracy. While this lack is not limited to Disciples, we more than most traditions suffer from this lack.
Part of the problem that we face is that the Founders assumed that the message of Scripture was clear, but Alexander Campbell's own principles of interpretation suggest that it's not tat simple.
If we insist that Scripture has something important to say to us, and that each person has the freedom to interpret that text -- without either creeds or a magisterium to guide them -- then are we not at a disadvantage if the majority of our people are biblically illiterate (I would suggest that Stephen Prothero's Religious Literacy be consulted on this issue -- see my review here)?
But even if there is literacy and understanding of historical and theological context, what do we make of differing interpretations? Especially when the issues before us are rather controversial and even life and death in importance?
In lieu of creeds, the founders of the Stone-Campbell movement, of which the Disciples are one branch, turned to Scripture -- more specifically to the New Testament, which they considered the constitution of the church. The charge to us as a people was not to believe whatever we wanted, but to believe that which was taught explicitly in Scripture.
To Alexander Campbell, the Bible is to humanity what the "sun is to the planets in our system -- the fountain and source of light and life, spiritual and eternal" (quoted in Kinnamon and Linn, Disciples, Chalice Press, 2009, p. 27). Having examined the issue of covenant, which Michael Kinnamon and Jan Linn offer as the constraint on unbridled individualism, the authors of this important broadside to the Disciples movement turn to Scripture. Being that we don't have creeds, the Bible would seem to hold even more importance for our tradition. Unfortunately, as the authors of this book, and Gene Boring in his Disciples and the Bible (Chalice, 1997) does well, suggest that our ability to hear and understand scripture is hindered by a pervasive biblical illiteracy. While this lack is not limited to Disciples, we more than most traditions suffer from this lack.
Part of the problem that we face is that the Founders assumed that the message of Scripture was clear, but Alexander Campbell's own principles of interpretation suggest that it's not tat simple.
Searching to know the historical circumstances of a book (who the author was, why the book was written); distinguishing between what is commanded, promised, or taught through a thorough study of the book's language; considering the dominant usage of particular words to understand their meaning -- these hardly suggest that the Bible's message is one the average church member can quickly comprehend. If interpreting the Bible is a task that belongs to the whole church (meaning the universal church) and needs to be "rational, critical, and scholarly," as Campbell and others insisted, it seems to us that Boring is correct in his assessment: "The simple gospel, in contrast to 'human speculation,' became a buzz word for all later Disciples until the present day. [But' the term 'simple' has not been an unmixed blessing in Disciples efforts to articulate the Christian faith." (Disciples, p. 29).
If we insist that Scripture has something important to say to us, and that each person has the freedom to interpret that text -- without either creeds or a magisterium to guide them -- then are we not at a disadvantage if the majority of our people are biblically illiterate (I would suggest that Stephen Prothero's Religious Literacy be consulted on this issue -- see my review here)?
But even if there is literacy and understanding of historical and theological context, what do we make of differing interpretations? Especially when the issues before us are rather controversial and even life and death in importance?
Comments
The denominational glue for the DOC has to be Scripture. The fact that we may disagree on its interpretation is healthy - that means it was important enough for us to engage with it and our engagement with Scripture was profound enough that we came away with clear understandings. What is important is that we honor Scripture as the primary source of divine revelation - this is the most reliable way to learn about our God and what our God expects from us.
Without a magisterium and without creeds there is all the more reason for us to unite behind the foundation of Scripture and for our 'teaching elders' to be fully engaged in their teaching ministry.
The problem of biblical illiteracy is real and it needs to be addressed. Acknowledging contemporary sensibilities, it seems the thing to do is to Sell, Pitch, and otherwise Promote Scripture for what it is: the foundation stone of our denomination as well as of our faith - with due caution that it not become a new Idol.
We need to use Scripture, teach Scripture, and preach from Scripture as much as possible. And in doing so we must do so with passion and joy for what we find in the text, not shying away from hard passages and we must avoid anachronistic teaching.
We need to show people how to discern God within the words of men, and how to use Scripture to discern the contours of our relationships with God and with each other.
That has to be the focus of DOC unity within congregations and between congregations.
John
Chuck