Reading the Bible V: "No Such Thing as Sola Scriptura"

1 Lent
8 Hilary

Alan has written an article on what to do with Tradition in a practical way: "discernment and tradition > 2" (see also Part I).

As I've said before, the notion "sola scriptura" as most contemporary Christians describe it is a false and hurtful teaching, though propagated by devout and faithful people. It usually means that one should not see "tradition" (whatever that might be) as a source of authority, and that only Scripture itself should be authoritative. Unfortunately, the notion that I can stand as an "objective" reader who does not bring any presuppositions to the text, and have the intellectual wherewithal to discern the mind of God from it all by myself is one born of post-Enlightenment, modernist arrogance. We have been deceived. We must realize that the Canon of Scripture does not exist in a vacuum, and cannot be read as if it did. The fact of the Canon itself is a development of Tradition.

As one of Alan's commentators put the matter,

There is no such thing as sola scriptura. That's right, not even for those who trumpet it all the time, it doesn't exist. In my experience, what really exists instead is always some version of "only scripture as I or my group interprets it." And that is unavoidable. You see there is no meaning or teaching without interpretation no matter who you are. As if the scripture existed in some interpretation free pure vacuum. Of course it does not. So the minute you begin interpretation, and then codify that interpretation as doctrine, then you have a sacred tradition. In fact, everyone has a sacred tradition in addition to scripture. At least the Catholics are honest about it from the get go.

I agree completely.

Along those lines, Jared directed me to an article by Travis Stanley, who writes out of the Campbellite tradition:

As a young boy, I was taught to “search the scriptures,” like the Bereans did [context: Acts 17:9-11]. I remember being told in VBS: Be a Berean! ... I was taught to distrust the “traditions of men.” Christ was the true authority, and anything “man” would say must accord with the teachings of Christ. I actually took these teachings to heart, though some may doubt my sincerity. I still deeply desire to be a Berean. I don’t simply trust the traditions which are handed down to me, but desire to put everything to the test. I am doing my best to live out these truth-seeking virtues instilled in me as a youth. Though it is easy and safe to accept the traditions and beliefs that are handed down to me, for me, I have to place everything on the table.

Why, then, is my desire to “question authority” viewed harshly by many of the very people that desire to instill in me the discipline of “searching the scriptures” to see if the things I am taught are true? Am I only allowed to “search the scriptures” so long as I come down on the “right side” of the issue at hand?

I think what many of my contemporaries need is the grace to question, to doubt, to hope, to pray and to listen. There is a serious tyrannical edge to tradition that masquerades as "no tradition" at all. It hides behind such rhetoric because it's purpose is to control others' lives. To call a tradition a tradition is to open it up to questioning, to dialogue, and the possibility of a healthy and informed submission to Scripture, and indeed to Tradition.

Tom Mohan did well to remind us of C.S. Lewis' assertion that "the devil always overplays his hand."

I welcome comments and rebuttals. I will delete ad hominem attacks. That means you, seminarians.

Technorati Tags: sola scriptura, Bible

Why "Liberal" Really Is a Dirty Word

2 Christmas

Lately I've been listening to folks throwing around words like "liberal," "heretical," "heterodox," etc. It's irritating. It contributes nothing to reasonable discussions, even when those labels might have some degree of accuracy.

When I hear somebody using the l-word, it is almost always an arbitrary distinction. My opponent's position is liberal, simply because it differs from mine, which I like to call conservative. Just because. The reverse can also be true, if it serves my purpose. "Conservative" and "liberal" are always a question of what spectrum you're using, and where you think you sit on it. Those words aren't descriptive at all, because definitions vary from one discussion to another.

It keeps people from focusing on actual ideas and really learning something because we're so tangled up in rhetoric instead. If somebody calls me liberal, I think they're stupid, because it demonstrates that such a person lacks the good sense to describe a position they disagree with to any degree of nuance. I think the whole point of such words is to shut down debate by putting up an emotional smokescreen.

Never mind the fact that "liberal" and "conservative" are never words that I use to describe myself in repect to any issue.

I know that in politics that those words can to a limited extent describe an attitude of "maintenance" or "progress," but that still doesn't say much about particular issues. In regard to theology, it might look more cut and dry: if it seems to you that people used to believe something, and you see people arguing for something different, there must be a conservative and a liberal position.

Wrong.

Many Christians fail to realize that a great number of their beloved practices and teachings that they consider to be traditional and orthodox are actually inventions of the last two hundred years and are built to a considerable degree upon their local cultures. Attempts to engage the biblical narrative and to read history? Folks calk that liberal.

Let's look at some examples:

The Rapture. Oh yeah. We see the first stirrings of this with William Miller's group in 1844 on the American Frontier. Scofield's Bible popularized dispensationalism around 1908, whereas it has previously been much maligned and denounced throughout the history of the Church. We can thank the Enlightment and Scottish "Common Sense" philiosophy for the Western (but mostly American) insistance on treating the Bible like it's a strange hybrid of a mathbook and Nostrodamus' prophecies.

Altar Calls. So many evangelicals only understand conversion in the context of a highly emotional and individualized way of thinking about salvation that emerged on the American Frontier (is there a pattern?) during the Second Great Awakening, beginning at Cane Ridge, circa 1801.

Dualism. Physical existance is somehow equated with what Paul calls "the sinful nature." People await the liberation of their souls from these terrible bodies... to an ethereal existance in "eternity." Nope. They've been reading Bibles, but preaching to themselves from Plato. This dualism, this hatred of the body and physical existance was part of the Gnostic heresy that emerged in the late first century and has plagued the Church ever since.

Alright, now take notice of how those three theses are the beginnings of arguments, and so just a little bit of thought put into them.

Now check out this sentence:

I insist that people who believe in and promote these three ideas and practices are liberal innovators, pushing heresy into the faith once delivered to the Church.

Do you see how that wasn't an argument? I just slapped a whole bunch of people with emotionally charged labels that didn't add a bit of substance to my argument. It works great to distract people from the fact that my actual arguments (as presented) haven't been fleshed out. If I can get people on the defensive, it's a lot easier to pick apart their objections than to present a strong argument myself.

Do you see why I don't bother?

Technorati Tags: liberalism, rapture, gnosticism, Left Behind

"Every Knee Shall Bow" ...to Whom?

Since it isn't a "church service," is it insignificant?
Photo from Journey Films/RNS via the Texas Baptist Standard

These bishops are honoring their leader and their military.
Photo from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

This should be disturbing. I find the photo below equally disturbing.

"Honoring the U.S. Military"

at Porter Memorial Baptist Church,

Lexington, Kentucky

I find in the hour of trial that the Sermon on the Mount is tosh, and that I am not a Christian. I apologise for all the unpatriotic nonsense I have been preaching all the years. Have the goodness to give me a revolver and a commission in a regiment which has for its chaplain a priest of the god Mars: my God.

- George Bernard Shaw

There are endless differences between the Nazi State and the U.S. Government and its leaders. I am not comparing the United States with Nazi Germany in any way. I am not saying that putting up the American flag is the same as saluting Hitler. (If accused of this, I'll ignore it.) I am comparing the attitudes and theology of the Christians. I find the apparent political theology of the Christians in the first photographs to be the same as that held by the Christians in the third photograph.

In the face of growing religious nationalism and the increasing collusion of the German Church with the German State, the Confessing Churches of Germany issued the Barmen Declaration in 1933.

Highlights:

We reject the false doctrine that the Church could and should recognize as a source of its proclamation, beyond and besides this one Word of God, yet other events, powers, historic figures and truths as God's revelation (paragraph 1).
. . .
‘Fear God. Honor the Emperor.’ 1 Pet. 2:17. Scripture tells us that by divine appointment the State, in this still unredeemed world in which also the Church is situated, has the task of maintaining justice and peace, so far as human discernment and human ability make this possible, by means of the threat and use of force. The Church acknowledges with gratitude and reverence toward God the benefit of this, his appointment. It draws attention to God's Dominion [Reich], God's commandment and justice, and with these the responsibility of those who rule and those who are ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word, by which God upholds all things. We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the State should and could become the sole and total order of human life and so fulfill the vocation of the Church as well. We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the Church should and could take on the nature, tasks and dignity which belong to the State and thus become itself an organ of the State.

My thesis: For Christians, patriotism is bad, and bad for us. It is idolatry. For elaboration, see Friday's post, below.

Comments on this post are closed. Go here if you wish to add something.

Technorati Tags: patriotism, nationalism, World War Two, baptists, nazis, Bonhoeffer

A Word on Patriotism

Any worldly power, be it Nazi Germany, the British crown or the American empire, cannot ally itself with the Church of Jesus Christ. The reign of God is present in us to cast down every pretension to significance that these temporal powers may have. I can entertain the idea that allegiance to Jesus will not always stand over against every action by every empire, and that the Church may praise and commend some actions of some governments, and of course be thankful for the blessing of peace that God grants through their rule.

But whenever the Church considers allegiance to Jesus and the State to be somehow equivalent, she loses her critical eye for the policies of the State that are destructive of human dignity, and in its unchecked, unchallenged rule, the State will turn on the people of God. It happened in Germany, and it may well happen here.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not have the luxury of patriotism. (Read Wednesday's post for more support on this!)

If one wishes to “support the troops” (which ones?) one ought to pray for them, send care packages, and take particular care to look after the families of those serving abroad. A believer does not have the luxury of throwing big parties about how wonderful it is that so many brave young men and women are working to execute the policies of the State and how the Church ought to bless that state of affairs.

With that said, I’d like to respond to a few specific arguments:

I agree with Alan. While it might be significant to some of you that this was not an “official church service,” that means nothing to me, and I don’t think it would mean much to “the world out there.” This local manifestation of the Body of Christ did something as the Body of Christ (even calling it a “ministry”). That’s the important thing. Also note that even though they may not have “meant anything” by all of that stuff, the fact that they didn’t might make it even more dangerous. It’s about the attitudes, those of offering allegiance and alliance to the State, that make it “not mean anything” to them.

I don’t understand the “distraction” objection. This is about “being the Church.” It’s about being faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and about understanding that no temporal State power can receive the Church’s allegiance – nor an alliance. Discussing such issues can’t be a distraction to anything, because there is nothing I consider more important.

As far as “not letting the heathen” see? (This is my shorthand, not a phrase anybody used) If we believe in the forgiveness of sin, and we believe in who we’re called to be, I have no problem with calls to repentance, and subsequent repentant gestures being public. The sin is obviously very public.

Finally, I was not using hyperbole. A building has not been defiled. The Body of Christ is being defiled. I used the word “rape” for a reason. Because theologically, that’s what is happening. This stuff is dangerous, those folks’ souls are in peril, and I meant every word. I’m certain they have good intentions, but that doesn’t count for a good deal. (“We just kind of fell into bed together, we didn’t mean for anything to happen”).

I am a believer, and I intend this as a clear and unequivocal indictment of this kind of church.

I don’t think their cause is mine, or that of Christ. I would invite them to change their cause…

Comments on this post are closed. Go here if you wish to add something.

Technorati Tags: patriotism, nationalism, World War Two, baptists, nazis, Bonhoeffer

United States Military Sponsors Porter Memorial Baptist Church Event

Porter Memorial and the Powers that Be

Look at the pictures. All of them.

See the sanctuary bedecked with military regalia.

See the American flag covering the cross.

See Porter Memorial's own program for the recruiting drive.

Baptists historically have taken stands against this sort of horror.

I could talk to you about the idolatry that is so obvious in this cheap, easy patriotism. About how these people offer the Body of Christ to be raped by the State. But I won't bother. These are not churches. They are basilicas draped with the Imperial colors, dedicated to Mars, the god of war.

So go on, you adulterers. Sell out your baptism and deny the Maker of heaven and earth.

We're reading Bonhoeffer this semester: The Cost of Discipleship. Christ bids us to come and die, not wrap ourselves in the rhetoric and protections of the State. The German church (so-called) stood by while the German State claimed divine sanction to grind people up in its gears. The churches gave their blessing.

You give the State carte blanche, merrily treading on the blood of Christ and his martyrs.

Whether American flags or Nazi swastikas, it makes no difference to you people, does it?

Does it?

Continue in this and be damned.

These people make their first allegiance to the god of the United States. Not the God of the cross. Not Jesus Christ.

Comments on this post are closed. Go here if you wish to add something.

Technorati Tags: patriotism, nationalism, World War Two, baptists, nazis, Bonhoeffer