Whence Authority?
Mick Wright has another great post on Fishkite tweaking the religious left. After commenting on Jim Wallis and Sojourners and others, he turns to the small-fry:
Also: Kendallball explains how, in addition to simply loving the sinner and hating the sin, God may in fact “endorse and approve†of the homosexual lifestyle.
Not surprising, since Greg Kendall-Ball also rejects sola scriptura, preferring to “dethrone scripture” and replace its authority with sociology and art — whatever that means.
When Mick Wright simply asks him for some evidence that God may endorse or approve the homosexual lifestyle, he responds by implying that it would be pointless:
I can present some things I think might possibly, maybe, have a say in the matter, but unless we agree on what is normative, on what has authority, then we’d probably talk circles around each other. I’m working on increasing my sense of ease concerning ambiguity. Call me a postmodern liberal or whatever, but I am becoming increasingly comfortable with saying “I don’t know.”
Okay, you’re a postmodern liberal whatever.
This is the same mindset as activist judges. Of course he is comfortable with ambiguity. It helps people substitute their own personal notions of right and wrong for traditional sources of authority while maintaining the illusion that they are searching for some objective truth.
If you reject Scripture as the only or even primary source of authority and you haven’t joined the Orthodox or Catholic view of an authoritative apostolic tradition, then you should get comfortable with saying “I don’t know,” because you’re not going to be able to teach much of anything with any confidence.
Coming from a graduate student in theology at Abilene Christian University, his comments on homosexuality and sola scriptura are both odd. But, I think the rejection of the authority of Scripture is more so. His comments come in the context of a post bemoaning that Churches of Christ are unlikely to hire folks with views like his.
Well, no kidding. Why would any restorationist church hire anyone who is so confused about such a basic point? And, if it did, in what sense would it still be “restorationist?”
related articles
- Constantly Directing? (June 23rd, 2007)
- Who Knew? (June 18th, 2007)
- Just War v. Pacifism Debate (April 21st, 2007)
- Cartoon War Casualty (April 18th, 2006)
- Black Republicans? (April 10th, 2006)
September 22nd, 2005 at 10:54 pm
“If you reject Scripture as the only or even primary source of authority and you haven’t joined the Orthodox or Catholic view of an authoritative apostolic tradition, then you should get comfortable with saying “I don’t know,†because you’re not going to be able to teach much of anything with any confidence.”
You’re right. But it definitely makes a very good starting point for learning….and at some stage in future, be able to teach something worth having confidence in.
September 22nd, 2005 at 11:24 pm
I do not think “Sola Scriptura” is our only epistemological source either. I would also allow such things as tradition, experience, scientific discovery, and human testimony. Is there any merit? I think so. An example is the Judaism and Jesus. The Judaism only epistemological source was scripture (their ancestory teachings). Regardless of how correctly or incorrectly they understood scripture, because they refused to listen to their experience in they observed in Jesus they rejected him. If they would have allowed other sources to inform their epistemic inquiries then they might have realized that healing a blind man, raising a dead man, feeding 5,000 people, etc… was designed to teach them something that perhaps was not as clear in scripture.
Nothing has changed. There are still some people today who only listen to scritpure and reject all other sources of knowledge and therefore read in the Bible about the four corners of the earth and come away maintain that the earth still is flat — despite all the evidence (scientific data, human testimony) to the contrary. So now lets even go deeper. There are many who still read the creation story in a scientific manner (despite the fact that this text was written in a non-scientific age) and insist that creation can only have taken place in a literal 24 hr. / 7 day fashion. Besides the exegetical problems with such a reading of Genesis, they ignore all of the scientific, discovery that says otherwise. By doing so, they are completely unwilling to entertain the idea that the creation account in Genesis is a narrative, story intended to be interpreted in a figurative manner (i.e. it tells us that God is creator and he created humans with a special purpose), and thus the actual days of creation might have been billions of years.
Who knows? Science is not always right, neither is tradition, human experience and testimony. But they cannot be ingnored as epistemological sources. For me Scripture still carries more weight than the other sources, but I am willing to listen and evaluate evidence from other epistemic resources in order to gain a better exegetical and theological understanding of Scripture.
Thanks for allowing my post and thank you for sharing your own thoughts on such a relevant subject. God bless!
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:05 am
Rex,
Thanks for the comment. I basically agree. When I say “sola scriptura” I am referring to authority in matters of religion, not authority for all truth.
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:34 am
I would not say that “Sola Scriptura” is appropriate even for matters of religion. Religion, polotics, social culture, etc… what we believe about each one of these is based on our knowledge. Our knowledge is formed by whatever we allow to become epistemological resources. Since my reliegious knowledge is informed by scripture, testimoney of others, experiece, tradition, (and even sometimes) science and social discovery, My religious understanding is not informed simply by “Sola Scriptura.”
Once a person accepts the idea that their religious ideaology (Judeo-Christian / Christianity in our case) is going to be informed by more than one epistemic resource, the question becomes “what weight will be given to each source?” For me, I still want to hold scripture as the strongest source for two reasons: 1) It is the one source that my other sources such as human testimony and[church] tradition have said is completely reliable (infalible = not lible to decieve), and 2) my other sources are subjective (and I realize that to claim scripture is objective — which I do — is a matter of faith).
Well I hope this clarifies my understanding. And I also am willing to say more and more that there are some issues out there that I, at this point, just have to say “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure.”
September 23rd, 2005 at 7:42 am
There is a big difference between our knowledge being “informed by” sources outside Scripture and saying that those other sources are authoritative on religious matters.
Of course tradition is valuable. I think we pay too little attention to it. But its chief value is in informing the text. Without the anchor of the text, one can easily drift off into a sea of ambiguity, guided only by his own subjective opinion — which brings us back to the point.
You framed it well; we are talking about objectivity versus subjectivity. This same issue arises in the legal context. Judges should look to the Constitution and statutes and precedent (in that order) to form the basis of their rulings. Judicial “opinions” is a misnomer. It should not be based on their subjective opinion, but rather on objective sources of authority outside themselves.
Scripture is widely accepted, clearly defined, and unchanging. As you noted, Scripture is objective. To claim that it is objective is not, however, a matter of faith. It is a matter of reason. To claim that it is the infallible Word of God — as I do — is a matter of faith.
Hence my frustration with those who devote their entire academic life to the study of theology and yet are anxious to “dethrone Scripture.” The point of my post is that we can see where that leads: each person’s subjective opinion becomes the supreme authority. Ultimately, that is a rejection of all authority. I can’t figure out whether you agree.
September 23rd, 2005 at 10:33 am
Yes I do believe scripture is objective but all those who attampt to interpret scripture are fallible and subjective, who bring to scripture their own assumptions, biases, and intellectual & spiritual ceilings. So our interpretation will never be purely objective.
Where I see myself differing than on your post, is I believe the community of faith is the chief for deciding matters of faith using the sources of scripture, tradition, testimony, experience, scientific and social discovery, etc… Remember, it was Paul who framed the issue for the Philippian Christians but never told them how to settle the matter, instead he told them as a community to work out there own salvation.
Something interersting about our use of Scripture. When we read scripture we read about a period of Christianity where there was no Bible in every house. A particular local church may have had a copy of a few letters that now belong to our canon of scripture. So what did they turn to in order to inform them about their faith and how that faith should be lived out? They had their story, the story that we all live in. It is the story of God’s plan of redemption unfolding throughout history. Living without a Bible continued on well past the apostolica period. People lived as followers of Jesus by recalling their story, listening to their experience, the testimony of others, etc… and then as a community of faith, they decided what was acceptable and what was not. In third world countries where scripture is not translated into the language of that people group, this is how these Christian communities still live. What then is their chief authority? It is the community of faith which is informed by the various epistemic sources they have. So while I certainly don’t want to dethrone scripture in a way that just makes the word of God just a “backseat” player, I do want to recognize that for us, who have a Bible in our home, our community of faith is the chief authorirty and it seeks to be informed from the available sources (scritpure, our story, tradition, experience, testimony, etc…)
I think Christians today should also be aware that ever sicne the invntion of the printing press and the abilbity of every household to own a Bible and then profess “Sola Scriptura” it has led to denominational division over and over again (and even division within a denomination, look at the Restoration Movement and the Churches of Christ). Why? I think this is largely due to the fact that Scripture, in reaction to the Roman Catholic sole dependance upon Tradition (and we know there rarely is a reaction that is not an over reaction), was placed not only as cheif authority but also as the only epistemic resource. So then everyone who understands some part of Scripture differently starts his own new church movement which winds up becoming another one of the many denominations. And then if I may, the Restorationist thought, by failing to recognize the subjectivity of every interpreter of sctipture, if we all would just go back to Bible (as if “Sola Sciptura” did not mean Bible/Scripture alone) then we all would arrive at the same conclusion and there would be an end to all denominational division. They certainly had good intentions, but unforunately we can look at 200 years of restoration history and say with cofidence that such an idea was unrealistic and perhaps even naive.
Well I certainly have enjoyed engaging in this dialogue with you. I think this provides a great atmosphere for cordial and friendly Christian discussion on a very relevant subject where there is no uniformed concensus. God bless!
September 23rd, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Just a side note, then you two can get back to your discussion.
The original quote, half of which was interestingly left out, was a question about whether we could dethrone Scripture as the ONLY,SOLE, SINGULAR, etc. source of authority. Mention was never made of “replacing” Scripture with anything else.
By the way, as a side note to my side note, this is a practice already done implicitly in the church, but we don’t like to talk about it.
September 23rd, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Greg,
Actually, the original quote is here and it is:
A trump card is not the only card in the deck. But it is the most powerful one.
I believe my shorthand was accurate and I linked to the original so people can judge for themselves.
September 23rd, 2005 at 7:52 pm
Rex,
Of course there are ambiguities and potential biases in the interpretation of any text, but fidelity to the text and its original, historical meaning is the best way to avoid those biases and clarify those ambiguities. Appealing instead to other “epistemological resources” as equal authority only leads to more ambiguity, not less.
I couldn’t disagree more with your point about Scripture being the source of denominational divisions or your assertion that the restorationist call is unrealistic and naive.
There has never been a golden age of perfect unity and never will be. But, restoration principles are the soundest basis for a coherent view of Christian organization and worship that I know of. These principles attracted me as an unchurched teen from a non-religious home as no other approach could. It just made sense. So rather than running down the history and tradition of this movement, I for one am thankful every day for those who offered an approach to Christianity that brought me to the Faith.
I think your school’s identity statement puts it rather well:
I other words, Scripture isn’t the only thing, but it’s the main thing. And as someone once famously said, the main thing is to keep the main thing, the main thing. Amen.
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:28 pm
Extremist writes “but fidelity to the text and its original, historical meaning is the best way to avoid those biases and clarify those ambiguities.”
It is not as easy as that sounds or the Restoration Movement would not be a fragmented movement, the Churches of Christ would not be a fragmented movement. And there are plenty of other denominations which seek fidelity to scripture in its original meaning as well.
The Restoration Movement was not based upon fidelity to scritprue but instead fidelity to a method of interpreting scripture (Command, Example, Inference; Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent) and interestingly enough, our traditional hermeneutic was not from scitprure but rather was based on Baconianism Rationalism — a product of the Mordern era, not the apostolic era.
I agree with Greg’s post. This is already a practice of what I think is a better approach. We, as part of a community of faith, are using various sources (reflection upon scripture, logic, tradition, and possibly some experience) to engage in a dialogue that hopefully leads to a better understanding of how we live out our faith.
September 24th, 2005 at 12:27 am
Why do you insist on freezing and over-simplifying the movement? The core of it is better phrased as I did. The way you phrased it is the initial, primitive methodology. Rather than reject the basic truth underlying the methodology, why not attempt to improve the methodology?
Holding less firmly to Scripture isn’t a solution to any problem. To suggest otherwise is, in my view, a surrender to postmodernist notions of relativism.
September 24th, 2005 at 1:39 am
I am attepting to improve the methodology. I am attempting to improve a methodology from an “Modern” era that believed humans were infalible and so therefore we were capable of discovering a perfect knowledge of the truth. While I reject the radical postmodern thought of relativism, the more moderate postmodernism has brought a correction to the radical modernism are movement bought into by insisting that human minds are subjective and incapapble of arriving at a perfect knowledge of truth. Therefore, while we can still certainly discover truth, we first must realize that any discovery has the potential to still be wrong. Secondly, instead of just being able to disect scripture, rip it out of context, and thus essentially take narrative, occasional letters, law, prophecy, wisdom & poetry, and then essentially “re-write” that scripture into an unwritten creed (Restorationist just have not formally written their creed to which a member must comply with in order to remain in fellowship), we recognize our falibility and then use scritpure along with out other sources among the community of faith that is empowered by the Holy Spirit and then desicde how we as a Christian community should live in our context as faithful witnesses to the story of God’s plan of redemption (which begins long before a canon of scripture was conceived and continues long past where our canon of scripture ends).
I still insist that, for me, the issue is not replacing scripture with another source of knowledge but allowing other epistemic sources have a voice at the table of epistemic inquiry along with scritpure. The process does not lead to radical reletivism, just like it never did before “Sola Scriptura” and before the Catholic Church replaced the Community of Faith as authority with the Papal office as the authority (which is what Martin Luther rejected). So if we will allow other sources of knowledge to walk along side of scripture in the search for truth, religious practice, morality and ethics, etc…, the real question becomes what sources will we use along with scripture and what weight will we assign to each source.
September 24th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
I’m probably way outside my league in terms of theological dissertation, but when I read the above I’m reminded of a little book called “The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life” by Hannah Whitall Smith that was first published in 1870, but is still relevant today. When deciding what course we should take in life (which seems, in essence what these postings are ultimately to inform), Smith says we must base our lives (beliefs and decisions) on Scripture 2 Tim 3:16), guided by the Spirit through prayer and meditation (Jn 14:26) and what she refers to as “leadings” by other godly wise and informed people who we know and trust. Any methodology outside of prayer and reflective thought and perhaps dialogue with others whose lives reflect a Christ-like understanding, is flawed. The Word is not a cadaver, but a living force (Heb 4:12), and so “dissection” does not appear to be the best way to attempt understanding. Rather, like humans, it is best examined in the context of relationships such as those shown to us in Jesus’ relationships. The fundamental issue in some of the postings seems to be, “Is scripture inspired and complete?” as 2 Tim 3:16 indicates. If we answer “yes” then we must put all of the other “information” available to us (philosophies, science, psychology, etc) under Scripture’s scrutiny NOT the other way around. If we answer “no” (scripture is not inspired and complete), then we will allow what we accept about scripture and our interpretation of scripture to be informed by other information, which seems a slippery slope indeed.
September 24th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Rex said…
Of course, but which is better, more clarity or more ambiguity? Is being increasingly comfortable with saying “I don’t know” a good thing? I don’t think so. I think progress should be defined as increased understanding
Rex said…
A bit to the left said…
“Fidelity to the text and its original, historical meaning” is not the same as dissecting Scripture and ripping it out of context. In fact, it is the opposite.
What I find fascinating about this exchange (and thanks to both of you for it) is that both of your conclusions seem correct to me and seem to be very different from Greg Kendall-Ball’s statements.
Rex said…
A little to the left said…
Very well put. Under these views, doesn’t Scripture remain a “trump card” — of higher authority that the other cards in the deck?
September 24th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Abit to the left wrote: “Rather, like humans, it is best examined in the context of relationships such as those shown to us in Jesus’ relationships.”
Your quote reflects the role which the community of faith must play in faith matters. Yes, I affirm 2 Tim 3:16 but affirming this verse does not make it the trump. As I have argued, the community of faith empowered by the Spirit (which assumes prayer) is the trump. Of course your post reflects the use of other sources besides “Sola Scriptura.”
September 24th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Rex, so it’s not a trump? I thought you said…
If that’s not a trump, what is?
I don’t understand how “the community of faith” can be a trump. Which community of faith? Fifty-one percent of the community of faith? A super-majority? If you think that the problems inherent in interpreting a text introduce biases, that’s nothing compared to the biases people will introduce under the claim of being led by the Spirit. Even if practical, the community of faith couldn’t trump Scripture. Right?
September 24th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
I think part of the disagreement is our understanding of the nature of scripture. Would you not agree?
If we think scripture is this text that must be completely reduplicated in every culture (which seems to be how the Restoration Movement understands scripture), then I think there is a problem. Now certainly there are some things mentioned in scripture that is essential for all cultures, if it is still to be Christian (i.e. Jesus is Lord). But I do not think that scripture is this “Mannual” to which churches must reduplicate. We follow Jesus, not other churches who attempted (with varied sucess) to follow Jesus. If we did not have our own copy of the Bible, ,we still could know who Jesus is from the tradition and testimony passed down through the generations of Christianity. So, for me scripture serves as a reliable testimony to how other cultures (some Jewish, some Gentile) attempted to live out their faith and we can learn how to live out our faith from observing their struggles and the things that were taught to them in light of their struggles.
As I stated earlier, Paul never gave the Philipian church a “once for all rule” step by step guide to solve their problem. What he did was frame the discussion by his own example and the example of Christ. But then he told them to work out their own salvation. Now who has the trump their? Scripture? No! Paul? No! The community of faith (the Philippian Church)? Yes!
So as you ask, which community of faith? Well for one, Paul sent evagelists (Timothy and Titus) to work with churches that he planted and they were also to appoint elders as well. So in the community of faith there is a leadership (evagelist(s) and elders) and hopefully this leadership would take the role of leading the congregation in its struggle to live out its faith. And in every church there are those people who do not serve as an elder or evangelist but by their servanthood and faithfulness, they nevertheless are leadrs as well. So hopefully these people would have more of an influence than a new Christian. But ultimately there is no certain number for which determines what is acceptable. Part of the determination will come from the Holy Spirit working in the community of faith to convict and lead each individual (of course there will also be those few people who resist the Spirit for their own will)and how this works is in many ways a mystery — but it does work. Of course, to a Modernist, mystery and unseeness, is unacceptable because it cannot be completely controlled or manipulated by the human will. One of the porblems that the Churches of Christ face is we have historically tended to equate unity with uniformity. The model that I am trying to suggest will most likely not breed uniformity and that is all right. What the community will guard is the essentials that make Christianity a religion that follows Jesus Christ. Other than that, there will be diveristy just like there was in the church at Rome (which is why Paul included chapter 14).
Further, as a restoration People who want to practice New Testament Christianity, restoring the Community of Faith as the “trump” is New Testament Christianity. That is how it remained until the conversion of Constatine. After the conversion of Constatine, the authority that each community of faith had was slowly transferred to the Papal office. Supposedly the Protestant Reformation changed this but they really did not. While they claimed to give the authority to Scripture Alone, it really was the denominational headquaters that had the authority. Then supposedly the American Restoration Movement changed this, but they failed also. In the AMR, the New Testament alone was our authority — or so we thought. But in reality it still was the “Bishop(s)” who held editorial positions in our prominant journals. And as we all know, if your position (not on something core like the resurrection, but on something like a millenial issue or worship issue) did not agree with the editors, then you were rooted out with sometimes some of the most un-Christian ways of treating people (unforunately, this still goes on today). So hey, who says we don’t have denominational headquaters? There regional and they exist at our lecturships and workshops, our journals, etc…
But what if… what if all of those thing went away? What if the community of faith in every community had the power to work out and live out its own salvation? Could it come together, guided by the Spirit, draw upon its epistemic sources and decide what is normative for living out its faith? I think so!
September 24th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
I have enjoyed the dialogue. Thanks and I pray that God will bless you and everyone esle who reads our exchange. This is the last comment I will make to this posting. God bless! Grace and peace to all.
September 24th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Eventhough Rex seems to have exited the scene, I want to clarify something I either didn’t make clear or he mis-interpreted. When I said “Rather, like humans, it (scripture) is best examined in the context of relationships such as those shown to us in Jesus’ relationships,†I did not mean that it was best examined by people as a group. I meant that rather than try to dissect scripture in a vacuum, people must live (obey) what it written for it to have meaning.
September 25th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Rex,
When the phrase, “as I said” starts appearing frequently, it’s probably about time to wrap it.
Sincere thanks for the dialogue though. A few quick points and I too will focus on other things.
Naturally, but that begs the question. What we are discussing is how to determine what it means to follow Jesus.
Sure. But we do have the Bible. What I don’t understand is why some are so anxious to de-emphasize its importance. I suspect it has to do with a desire to escape some of the passages that liberal-minded folk seem to be ashamed of.
You cite one example of Paul not settling a dispute with a once-for-all rule. I’m going to study that more before forming an opinion, but granting arguendo that your characterization is correct, Paul certainly asserted his apostolic authority and set down what appear to be once-for-all rules on many other occasions.
I agree. I don’t think that this is some future to be strived for. I think it has ever been thus.
One last point though. If accurate, criticism of the Reformation and Restoration movement for not really placing the authority with Scripture alone is not an argument against sola scriptura — but rather a reason for a renewed and genuine commitment to it.