Growing up in conservative evangelical Protestantism, there was one thing I took for granted from the time I could communicate: when it came to the Christian faith, everything had to be substantiated by Scripture. Scripture was the sole foundation for Christian beliefs and morals. Indeed, later, while in training for ministry at Bible college, I came to understand that Scripture was not only the foundation for beliefs and morals, but for one's entire worldview, how one thought about pretty much everything.
When I became an Episcopalian, in 1996, one thing of which I was well aware was that many of the clergy with whom I came in contact were to the left of me theologically, and that their view of Scripture was far different from mine. Indeed, my parish priest, no raving bleeding heart liberal by any stretch (he's a navy chaplain who takes out his frustration on the target range with M-16s, for cryin' out loud), has a view of Scripture sharply different from my own. And when he and I have talked about various moral issues--meaning, mostly about sexuality since that's what the Episcopal Church spends a lot of energy on--it's been clear that our views of Scripture influence and shape our convictions. Indeed, it is precisely our understandings of Scripture and the place of Scripture which yield differing positions on various issues.
But this is a phenomenon not solely manifested between, broadly speaking "liberals" and "conservatives." Even among my fellow evangelicals, who share the same beliefs about the authority of Scripture and of interpretive method, there are sharply divergent understandings of, for example, the role of women in the ordained leadership ministry of the Church.
Clearly, then, when it comes to Scripture, it's not always just about Scripture. In fact, it is my contention that none of us ever argue from the standpoint of Scripture alone. There are two reasons why.
First, the very nature of the interpretive act requires extrascriptural presuppositions and resources.
This is largely uncontroversial. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't concur that the meaning of words and the historico-cultural context of Scripture are not always readily available to the reader--even one who reads in the original languages. Many evangelicals, who uniformly confess a high estimation of Scripture's authority and infalliblity, have on their shelves lexicons, books on Bible manners and customs, magazines on biblical archaeology, and so forth. In fact, it is precisely because they (and others like them) hold such a high view of Scripture that they utilize these resources.
Now some would contend that this hardly constitutes evidence for my accusation that one cannot argue from Scripture alone. None of us are native speakers of classical Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic. None of us live during biblical times. Therefore these tools are needed precisely so that we can get at what Scripture means and not be misled by our own assumptions about what words mean and what certain customs are signifying.
But this merely makes my point. We already bring to Scripture our own cultural and personal presuppositions. We need these tools so that we can hear Scripture on its own terms.
Now some would concede that point. But they would then argue that what one must do in interpreting Scripture is to let the Bible interpret itself. This is the principle of letting what is clear in Scripture shed light on that which is unclear. But this principle itself is a presupposition. And furthermore, it requires of us an already intuited (if not articulated) prioritization of texts and doctrines. Take for example, the debate about the role of women in the ordained leadership ministry of the Church. On the one hand, you have one text saying we are one in Christ, that there is no distinction between male and female. On the other hand you have Paul's prohibition against women exercising authority over men. Granted, there are many more texts supporting either assertion. Indeed, it is precisely because these two assertions are supported by other Scriptural texts that one has to choose to which one will grant priority. But one can only do that with an already-present theological grid that ranks texts in light of that doctrinal understanding.
But not only does the nature of the interpretive act require extrascriptural resources and presuppositions, similarly, the nature of the doctrinal debate entails dogmatic presuppositions, including the place and authority of Scripture itself
If even on the "naive" reading of Scripture, one is bound to utilize extrascriptural resources and come with extrascriptural presuppositions, then on the higher level of doctrinal engagement, one cannot but come with theoretical viewpoints already in place. One of those is necessarily the role of Scripture itself and the nature of its authority (or even whether it has any authority). For example, if one believes the Scripture to be inerrant in the original autographs, then one is clearly going to have an understanding that will subsume modern viewpoints that conflict with Scripture under the "straightforward" reading of the text. If one believes the Scripture to be infallible (which is a different understanding than inerrancy, though inerrantists also believe the Bible to be infallible), one is likely also to give Scripture the "final word" as it were. But if one believes that Scripture is merely a monument of human endeavor--important, influential and pervasive, but just a human text--then one is apt to include Scripture among the many voices in a moral debate, but Scripture is granted no greater weight than any other text or interlocutor.
So in all our engagements over Scripture, we utilize extrabiblic resources and come to the texts with extrascriptural presuppositions, and if we come to an impasse in our dialogues, to what do we appeal to get us through the aporia? We appeal to words and grammar, which is an appeal to an extrascriptural linguistic authority. We appeal to historical context, which relies on the work of archaeologists and linguists. We appeal to other Scripture, which relies on a presupposed prioritization (and interpretation) of other texts. We appeal to a hermeneutic. We appeal to reason. And so on.
In short, all disagreements on Scripture must appeal to an extrabiblical authority, and therefore all disagreements over Christian morals are disagreements about authority. And when it comes to appeals to authority, the choices are limited. There is the authority of (one's own) reason. There is the authority of one's community. And there is the authority of the historic Church. One can argue for the priority of one over the others. Even given one's prioritization of these authorities, one can still engage others even within one's own commitments about authority. Indeed, these authorities may well overlap within one's convictions, but everyone will espouse one over the others.
And so, in the end, biblical arguments are arguments about authority. Perhaps if we recognized that, our disagreements might be more quicly resolved, or the illusions that "we all believe the same thing anyway" more quickly dispelled.
Good Morning Cliff,
Very good stuff. I was thinking about a comment to adress Sola Scriptura and trying to speak to it...I think you did a wonderful job. THere is no such animal, for there must always be a structure of Authority from which it is understood. Even if it be individual interpretation, it is not truly individual for there will always be some sort of system of understanding to guide and govern. Some are easier to see than others...the R.C.'s are pretty clear, the Orthodox as well. I am trying to speak to the Anglican governance (quit smiling) and it gets tricky. I have been trying to respond to Craig, who has commented on my page with difficultly. I can speak to the foundations of the Anglican Church which look very much like other Apostolic Churches, but it doesn't really look like them in general at present. There are fundimentalists and universalists and Catholic minded folk all thrown in the mix. The best I can come up with now is that it resembles a family at Thanksgiving dinner, recalling the history of their exsistance (not meant to be negative) People remember it differntly and wish to place the importance of thier continuation as family. But amidst all the arguing there is something that keeps them at the table
1) The Lordship of Christ over them
2) The understood obligation they have to one another as the family of God.
It is a very messy place...but then again taking hard looks at other places its not really much different. I have yet to meet someone who didn't defy some point of interpretation at one point or another...even if it was by turning the head for a second or two to extend hospitality to a friend or 'family member.'
Jeff:
You make good points. I am often told, "You are looking for the perfect Church." And I suppose, truth be told, there is that longing.
On the other hand, I am looking for the perfect Church--perfect in the sense of complete (or if you prefer, most complete). This is the vaunted "fullness of the Faith" which Orthodoxy claims.
Sure, every Church has its problems, and we all make investments in the churches in which we place our loyalties. But I suppose for me, a part of the reason why I'm an Orthodox wannabe is I know which fights I'd rather put up with and which are dangerous to my soul.
And, with all due consideration and respect that I have for you dear brother, the Episcopal Church is a dangerous place for my family's salvation. I could not imagine--nor would I settle for--bringing up my daughter in some of the churches I've visited.
On the other hand, with Orthodoxy, sure there's the same variety of sinners, and there may well be some dysfunctional priests and parishes that I would not subject my family to, but I will never have to worry about the post-Liturgy conversation. I will never have to say to my daughter, "Honey, you know what Mother/Rev. Jones said in the pulpit? Well, that's heresy and we shouldn't believe her."
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at October 3, 2003 12:58 PMThe title of your post caught my eye over on the Chattablogs website, so I came over to investigate. Interesting argument, but I don't see that you've made your case against the intended target. The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura includes the use of such things as Bible study helps, hermeneutics, reason, and church authority. In short, it is not to be confused with the naive fundamentalist conception of proof texting. Consequently, to use these factors as an argument against sola scriptura is an exercise in question begging.
Sola scriptura was never meant to bar appeal to interpretive authorities working in concert, even when such authorities included the word of the church. It was meant to counter the idea that the church sits in sole authority over the scripture. To a lesser degree, it countered the idea that the church's interpretation is authoritative despite the testimony of other sources. The Reformers believed in church authority- they subscribed to the ecumenical creeds and councils. However, they insisted that the dogmatic decrees of the church be capable of substantiation by an appeal to scripture through the use of original languages, reason, scripture interpreting scripture, etc. Where this was not proven to be the case, they [rightly] rejected church doctrine.
Yet, beyond an exclusive ecclesiastical right of interpretation, sola scriptura also countered the idea that the church could appeal to extra-biblical tradition in matters of authoritative faith and practice. And, indeed, this is what ulimately lay behind the church's claim to exclusive interpretational rights: in essence, they claimed to possess a higher parallel authority to scripture, which both could make its own pronouncements and set itself up as the final authority in scriptural interpretation.
The issue of sola scriptura is not, then, in opposition to the use of harmonious interpretive authorities to figure out what scripture is saying in order to submit to its ultimate authority. It is opposed to the idea that scripture, in what it does say, is an insufficient source of faith and practice.
Posted by: Kevin at October 3, 2003 01:16 PMKevin:
Thanks for your comments. You make some good points.
My point was as you yourself comment that sola scriptura is a misnomer. We never interpret or read Scripture alone. Nor, I would contend, are we meant to.
Indeed, the very point of contention is: what is our authority for our interpretation? Though you mention the creeds, councils, and so forth, ultimately you highlight the difference in authority. Either the Body of Christ has the authority to arbitrate the minds/Mind of the authors/Author of the Text, or it does not. You claim it does not. I claim it does.
The blog today is not making the argument for the Church's authority in this matter. But it does highlight the response you yourself posted.
Kevin:
(I'm the one Jeff refers to above. My posts at his blog are here and here and here. I'll comment here too, "with difficulty".)
Your assessment of sola scriptura is correct as far as it identifies the root cause as a rejection of Tradition as a parallel source of authority. But Clifton is also correct: once this is done, further discussion about the meaning of Scripture lacks a stable point of reference. How do we know what we know? It's characteristic of sola scriptura proponents not even to agree on what the creeds mean.
"Who do men say that I am?"
Posted by: craig at October 3, 2003 01:51 PMWHile I do agree with you in some manner...I do ask you a few questions. Which reformers do you mean...I've seen sundry ideas on the subject of Sola, just as I have seen various curruptions (as I myself might be subject to in my comments).
Cliff, I have a few Russian Orthodox folk (clergy included) you should meet. You might just have to shield the ears of your children. I know what you though. But I also admire the zeal in those who struggle for salvation and that True Religion. I don't mean any disrespect its just that when we are forced to deal with those who aren't as interested in right thinking stuff happens in every faith. Yeah.
Posted by: Jeff Reich at October 3, 2003 02:41 PMJeff:
I've already granted you the "same variety of miserable sinners" exception clause.
However, I do maintain my claim that it is safer in terms of one's salvation to go into any garden variety Orthodox Church than to apply the same randomness toward ECUSA parishes/dioceses. Please don't take this as piling on or as in any way an indictment of your own orthodoxy (or that of your bishop).
In the end, it's not a matter of "Nobody's perfect, so pick your poison." Rather it's--or it is for me--a matter of life and death. Why should any believer have to consistently contend for already settled matters of faith within their own Christian group? Thankfully, I don't have to do that with Orthodoxy.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at October 3, 2003 02:52 PMJeff:
Re-reading my comments, they come across much more triumphalistically than I intend them. I'm sorry if the manner in which I've tried to communicate my thinking on this matter has hurt or offended you.
Truly, when it comes to Orthodoxy, I feel like a starving man who has just been invited to a great feast and told, "Dig in." And then told, "You can get this in every place."
In my conservative Protestant days, my heritage churches had a strong uniformity of doctrine, but there was enough variety--especially in what were to be considered "essentials"--that you couldn't just drop in at the local Restoration Movement church and expect to find the same thing as your home parish. That was an even more consistent experience for me with ECUSA.
So, now, having visited a handful of Orthodox parishes, of different jurisdictions, I feel like I've noted above. And when I listen to others, they reiterate the same testimony. It is a nice feeling to have, let me tell you. No worries about having to "re-teach" my daughter after Sunday School class or Sunday's sermon. Doctrine that is in conformity with that taught for 2000 years--well, it's nice to see it, for one, and much nicer to always have it available.
This is all I was trying to express. I apologize if in making comparison to ECUSA I may have stepped out of the bounds of Christian charity.
It looks like I got more than one response, so I'll try to address them in order.
Clifton: Whether or not sola scriptura is a misnomer is debatable. I am willing to concede the point, however, if we can come to some sort of agreement on the substance of the term. You write, "Either the Body of Christ has the authority to arbitrate the minds/Mind of the authors/Author of the Text, or it does not. You claim it does not. I claim it does."
I did not mean to imply otherwise, but I do believe that the Body of Christ has such authority. This follows from its possession of the keys of the kingdom. The doctrine of sola scriptura, along with its companion "the priesthood of the believer," has been transmuted into a grotesque hermeneutical free-for-all. I don't believe that this was ever the intent. Nevertheless, despite the abuses, both of these doctrines are justified and have had a positive effect in returning the greater part of the church to orthodoxy. It was the intent of the Reformation, not to allow for novel doctrines and interpretations, but to put the church back on the right track.
But what made it get off track in the first place? I submit that the correct claim to have the authority of scriptural interpretation was supplemented by the fantastic claim of ecclesiastical infallibility. All of which led to laziness. If you can't go wrong, why check your sources? Why engage in diligent study? On the other hand, if the church is truly interpreting scripture, and not just making it up, then it should be possible for most anyone to learn how to reach the same truthful conclusion. The Reformation was not inaugurated by some illiterate peasant, but by a Doctor of the Church who read scripture for himself and said, "Hey, wait a minute!"
Craig: It is certainly possible for sola scriptura to lead to an unstable reference point for the meaning of scripture (as I have indicated above). However, this does not have to be the case. The lack of an appeal to Tradition does not diminish the church's authoritative role in scriptural interpretation. Tradition, especially when it exists in unwritten form, is much too subjective and arbitrary. There is really no way to know that it hasn't changed over the centuries; there is no way to verify the source; there is no way to know that, at some point in the line, we aren't just dealing with dishonest officers. Even at its highest levels, the church is composed of depraved people. The inscripturated Word must always stand apart from tradition and above the church. Yes, the church has been given interpretive authority, but this authority implies accountability. She must reach her conclusions upon diligent debate and study, and these conclusions must be verifiable.
Jeff: I assume your question was addressed to me, since I mentioned the Reformers in connection with sola scriptura. Specifically, I had Calvin in mind when I was writing. I was thinking of his use of the Apostle's Creed as an outline for his Institutes. I can't think of any proof off the top of my head, but I'm sure, having read them before, that Luther and Turretin held the same view (your basic interpret through study, throw out unwritten tradition view). I'm sure that you have seen several ideas on the topic; I've already mentioned the abuses. But how many of these divergent ideas are from any of those who are commonly acknowledged to be Reformers?
Hi Clifton,
I've only just come across your blog, so forgive me if this is clear in some other posts.
But, where do you stand now regarding Orthodoxy. You describe yourself as a wannabe EO. Why are you not one? Why have younot taken the plunge?
Just interested...
Posted by: anabaptist at October 4, 2003 05:27 AMWhy a wannabe O and why not a full-fledged O?
Essentially it boils down to balancing my own convictions and journey with where other family members are at right now. To become fully O right now would have more pervasive negative consequences, than waiting a bit longer.
I'll try to speak more to this when I start the blogs on Why Orthodoxoy?
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at October 4, 2003 09:02 AMThanks. I'm *really* looking forward to those posts!
Posted by: anabaptist at October 4, 2003 10:23 AM