Commenting on Scripture is tough. It is tough because we are so used to treating a doctrine of Scripture and a hermeneutical theory as a foundation upon which we might construct our belief and theology. I think that the last two hundred years of biblical criticism have shown that to be a dead end. And so, the first thing that I want to say about Scripture is that my convictions about the Bible are derived from much broader convictions about God, his self-revelation, his Spirit and his people. These broader convictions, within which I come to an understanding of the Bible, owe themselves to the fundamental witness made by the Bible itself to its subject matter, God in his self-revelation. Thus, I view the Bible primarily theologically, as Holy Scripture, rather than philosophically/hermeneutically as a “text” (though it is that), or historically as a “source” (though it is that too).
At the risk of appearing overly simplistic, I continue to believe that the Bible is best understood as “God’s written Word.” To this short definition all sorts of nuances and clarifications can and should be offered. Regardless, I think that the description of the Bible as “God’s Word” is absolutely essential. It means that God addresses himself to us in Scripture in a way not done through other means. In Scripture we hear something more than an echo of ancient culture, outdated ideas, or even our own voices (though we may hear these things too). Rather, in Scripture, the Church hears, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, God’s Word. Apart from this conviction, the Church, and indeed each individual, is thrown back upon themselves and their own meager spiritual resources in the knowledge of God and his grace. This I cannot accept. To do so would compromise God as “wholly other,” the conviction that humanity is finite and sinful, and, ultimately, the mediation of Christ.
I also want to echo something that Jon mentioned, though I think I may be a little more sympathetic to the term sola scriptura than he. When I read the great defenders of sola scriptura (Luther, Calvin, and even Zwingli), I find myself agreeing with them that Scripture is indeed the sole authority in the Church. But it is specifically the Church’s Scripture. That means that the Bible is still the final measure (canon) by which all belief and practice must be measured, but it is so for a particular people: the Church. I quite like Jon’s note about how Scripture came to us through the Church (canonization) and is transmitted to us by the Church (tradition), rather than in a vacuum. These are important qualifications. Yet even granting these qualifications, it is God speaking his Word through Scripture by his Spirit that functions as the definitive communication of God to the Church.
This is where I find myself disagreeing with the idea of a “norming norm.” God speaking through Scripture is not, in my mind, one authority among others. It is in fact the sole authority around which the Church gathers to hear God’s Word. The Church is important, not as a second “lesser” source of authority alongside of Scripture but in its entirely different role as “hearer of the Word.” In the Church we hear with the hearers who have gone before and accompany us. In this good company I have help, though not a guarantee, that my own voice does not become substituted for the voice of God. In practice, this means that I read Scripture with a “bias” to the creeds and confessions of the Church. Before I dare venture my own “improved” reading of Scripture, I want to be sure that I have exhausted the potential of readings that have been found compelling by my fellow hearers. Perhaps that makes me rather conservative. I'm okay with that. But I’m not shutting the door to new light coming from God through the Scripture. I just want to do my best to admit that others before and around me have seen that Light too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
just to clarify, i'm not calling the bible "one authority among others", i'm saying that jesus is the authority and the bible is one of the things (albeit the most solid and unalterable) used to exercise that authority or communicate authoritatively to us.
i wonder, dustin, if what you are implying is that the inspiration process continues right up until canonization, so that we are to understand that the Bible we now have is the sole authority handed on at the end of that long inspirations process? In essence are you saying that in 327 (I think I have my date right) when Athanasias nails the NT books down then the scripture becomes the sole and divinely inspired authority?
If that's not what you are saying i wonder how you make sense of the fact that up until that point (and later) the gospel of christ is being handed on through various means, but is really being held in check by the authority of the apostolic successors and church leaders. even up to the Reformation, the Church was holding itself in a high position of authority. Was the Reformation necessary because of that, or because of the abuses?
Personally, I think in the REformers minds mostly it was the abuses. Am I wrong about that?
Thing is, over time the leadership gets corrupted, tradition gets altered, contexts change, and the need for something written and basically unchanged gets more an more necessary. So in 327 (and surrounding) a shift toward a more textual "norm" takes place. At Reformation time, the abuses drive this even further.
But now don't we have a major problem, which Scott has alluded to as well, in that the very texts and their meanings have been as misused and abused as perhaps the church authority had been come reformation? Aren't we now in a position where we need to admit that, yes, the scriptures are the most solid and unified and basic witness we have to Christ and the gospels but we still need the church to tell us what they say and to debate and discuss what they mean? don't we need to admit a high place of authority to tradition? And not just one tradition but the whole of it? It seems to me that the idea of sola scriptura denies the role that the interpretive community has always had in recieving the gospel and passing it on (textually or otherwise). It also seems to me that the idea of sola scriptura is why we have so many people thinking all they need is their own brain and the bible and they are all set, that they have the monopoly on the truth, the direct line to GOd, and don't really need to hear from anyone else.
I don't mean to say that's what you are implying. I'm just trying to say where this idea weakens for me and I'd really like to hear some more of how you make sense of this. I don't know if "norming norm" is the best word, but I am desperately looking for a way of upholding the supreme importance of the biblical text without handing it over to any old reader as if it is some conch that gives them the floor to say whatever they want.
Doesn't sola scriptura too easily mean sola reader of scripture? I am challenged to uphold it as highly as you do. I agree with you about that. I just want to find a way to honour the crucial place for the Church in this exercise of Christ's authority. Know what I'm saying?
(Sorry everyone if this sounds all unpractical. Hopefully it is evident how incredibly practical this ends up being to pretty much the whole spectrum of church life and activity.)
Wow, so much here. I'm supposed to be working so I'll just give a few scattered thoughts.
First of all...327 hey? Which canon of Scripture are we talking about then? I'm pretty sure that most people on this blog don't read Sirach devotionally but it made the cut for the early church.
Second, when you talk about readers and the bible here's the thing for me. It doesn't matter where you want to locate authority, people are still going to read the Bible the way that they read the Bible. Some of the most theologically meaningful readings I've ever come up with I know now were totally and completely illegitimate (in the academic sense). But they were still meaningful.
Isaiah 42.16 was written about an exilic Jewish community and their longing to return home and worship God in Jerusalem again. But when I read it at the age of 17 it clarified for me that God was calling me to something specific and that he was guiding me. Is my reading wrong? Is it illegitimate? I was just some guy with a conch that day, but I won't give that experience up without a fight.
As one of my profs says, should we read the Bible this way? I don't know, but we do.
i'm using 327 as a date to illustrate the point that the canon wasn't closed for a long time. (I think it is the date of the oldest known complete list of 27 NT books as canonical; it was Athanasius' Easter Letter) The point is that whatever canon you use or whatever date it was closed still leads to a period of time where something other than the current canon was an instrument of Christ's authority in the church. It seemed to me dustin might be implying that the inspiration of said Scriptures carried forward to the closing of the canon, but that doesn't seem to answer the question to me. I don't know if "norming norm" is the best term, but I don't think sola scriptura does justice to the historical or current interpretive dynamic involved in discerning Jesus' authoritative revelation and guidance.
As for Isaiah 42:16, I'm not going to try to take your experience from you (and I have my own I'm sure), but just because GOd is present graciously for us when we fallibly read His Word and even condescends to guide us by His Spirit in those moments in ways that are perhaps only indirectly related to the contextual meaning of the text does not mean we are reading the Bible properly. It does tell us about God's grace to meet us in the Word and about the importance of hearing from the Spirit, but it doesn't make for a great methodology. I don't know what Isaiah 42:16 ended up meaning for you and I don't doubt for a second that you were hearing from the Spirit there, but on the other hand if that reading led you to do something contrary to the teaching of other parts of Scripture then I'd say there might be a problem.
by the way i really appreciated dustin's comment that the Church's role is as "hearer of the Word". i have been thinking about that alot and while I'm pushing back a bit on the sola scriptura thing i certainly agree with him on that and consider it an excellent point.
Sorry guys, I simply can’t devote the time to a full-length response (though your comments clearly warrant one).
As an aside, I wonder if we need to re-think our format for this blog. I’m finding that I can’t take the time to give myself to the sort of responses and comments that I think all of these posts deserve. Perhaps there are others in the same boat. What about having one “lead post” per topic in order to narrow the scope of things a bit?
At this point, I’ll just say something about canon.
I don’t think that I can ascribe to the notion of a once-for-all “closed canon.” This is not to say that the Church does not function practically with a canon that, for all intents and purposes, is closed. However, the specific notion of a closed canon conflicts with my prior belief that God’s Word is free and cannot be exhausted or contained by the Church. The Church is not itself capable of the Word. Rather, the Word of God creates a capacity for himself within his hearers. The Church remains continually dependent upon the Word for its capacity to hear him. For me to say that the Church could pronounce the canon finally closed (and unable to be re-opened) would be to ascribe some measure of finality to the Church, at least in a particular sphere. This would be to impose a limit on the Word. When thought of in terms of election, there is nothing to preclude other texts, elected as witnesses to God’s self-revelation in Christ, from being discovered (by God’s providence?) and the Word being spoken through them.
Perhaps this all seems too abstract for our biblical studies and ministerial friends. It might help to think of these discussions on the doctrine of Scripture as delineating a “posture” more than solving exegetical problems. However, the right posture, I think, helps to sort out which problems are really problems in fact.
I would like to comment on Colin's comment on this comment posting regarding his experience with his reading of Isaiah. I think that the experience aspect of Christianity does play a very important role.
I don't remember which author it was that I was reading,(maybe Brian Mclaren?) but they talked about experience and scripture in this way: Experience always precluded the writing of scripture. Before Exodus was written, the experience of God and the exodus happened. Before the gospels were written, Jesus came and the disciples and all those around him had an experience. Before Acts was written, the experience of the pentecost happened. So perhaps in this way, (and I say this very carefully) maybe the word of God can still be written even today, through the ways that we experience him. Not everything we experience in our relationship with God is spelled out in the Bible. I realize that this line of thought carries us away slightly from the Bible being the standard for all truth and experience, but I can't help but wonder if there are things that happen in life that the Bible just doesn't even touch with a ten foot pole. In these cases, we must rely on the Holy Spirit, our conscience, and our intellect.
On experience: of course, the tricky (perhaps fatal) thing about using experience as the criteria of God's revelation is that it has historically been unable to separate the Spirit of God from the human spirit. It has not way to keep from collapsing the two. Ultimately, we are thrown back upon to our own spiritual resources to which God's self-revelation adds nothing of consequence because it presumes we have already got all we need within ourselves.
And here we hit upon what I think is one of the most difficult and important issues when discussing the Bible. The tension between controls and criteria for "correct reading/theologizing" (whatever that might mean) and the danger of totalizing "my way or the highway" interpretations.
if the God of those biblical/historical experiences is the same one behind ours today then we should expect them to line up along the same trajectory. If God has revealed Godself in history and preserved that revelation for our benefit, then it is well worth seeking that God in that revelation and holding the interpretation of our own experiences today to the experiences told to us there.
I have no interest in being a part of a religion where everyone's experiences are equal. I have very little interest in hearing about other people's experiences actually, except to be happy for them if indeed they seem to be true and good.
i agree with dustin that one post would be easier to track, but whatever.
dustin, in a theological sense i love your perspective on the canon and am very intrigued by it. but it leaves me confused as to your perspective. how can you speak of sola scriptura (in terms of authority) if the scriptura itself is undefined and still in flux (presumably then itself submitting somewhat to the Spirit's work in the Church)?
Whether the canon is closed or is open, for someone to hold it as the sole authority is still to say that certain writings have authority over any person or group. But don't persons or groups have a hand in discerning what those writings are, and what they mean? In the end it sounds to me like you and I ultimately agree after all, but are saying it different ways?
I was saying that Jesus is the ultimate authority and that these other things (Church, Spirit, etc) are his "tools" (with the Bible as the "norming norm" of those tools). Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying that the Word is free and is testified to in Scriptures that are the authority (although the Spirit and the Church play a role in discerning what those Scriptures are and say). Are we saying the same thing?
Good stuff, Jon. We probably agree far, far more than we disagree.
On canon. Good point. I'll think about it more. For now, I would point out that the canon of witnesses made faithful is not in flux for God, only for his Church. And this testifies, I think, to the inability of the finite to exhaust the infinite.
On Church and Canon: I think we are close here. The nuance I want to bring out is that the Church does not "decide" on the canon. Rather, it "receives" the canon by virtue of power of the Word speaking through it and creating its own hearers. Perhaps its just semantics, but what I'm trying to maintain is that the role that the Church plays is itself enabled and gifted by the Word. The Church is dependent on the Word for everything, even adding its own "yes" to the "Yes" of God.
Again, with you on the sole authority of Jesus. If we go with the term "instruments" then I want to be careful to say that the instruments are quite different in kind and function. The "path" of communication goes like this, for me: The Father speaks the Word by the Spirit; by the Spirit, that Word is given to the Word in the humanity of Jesus; by the Spirit, the Word's humanity is attested by the Scriptures. The Church, my experience, and even my reason, are not "revelatory" but "receptive." And their capacity for being so depends ultimately upon the revealing act of the Word by his Spirit in the elect creaturely medium.
excellent. i can't disagree with anything in that last comment dustin.
in some sense the Bible is also a reception too, isn't it? and the receptor of the Church has a huge hand in interpreting it and passing it on, the same way that the mind and the context of our experience play a huge role in what we're going to take from it. it is all so intertangled that i cringe when people talk like its the bible and them, that's all they need, and the CRUCIAL role of the church (past and present) in dialogue and interpretation is almost nullified. it is that anti-traditionalism of our evangelical past that has really gotten us in a lot of trouble and so i want to be careful about how God's Word works as a witness to Christ.
i would daresay that the anti-traditionalist, individualistic approach to the Bible is largely to blame for people not "feeling" God in the Bible---all we feel is ourselves.
i think the Bible was meant to be read in community. When it isn't, something integral to its reception is lost.
i'd be pretty interested if the missing letter to the Corinthians was found. is the canon closed or decided? i guess not. but it would still require some work to get it to add a book. even more to subtract one. for all intents and purposes when we talk about the Bible we are talking about the one that was received and in a real sense then "finalized" in the 4th century BY THE CHURCH, particularly its leadership.
reading in communion. I just think that is so important. otherwise we would have been given texts in a vacuum tube.
all that to say i agree, but certainly have a few things i want to nuance strongly. your points about being "recievers" of the Word are well said and well taken.
Jon,
With you.
sweet
Post a Comment