canon
Orthodoxy, Evangelicalism and the Authority of Scripture
11/13/2006 13:22 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Over at his blog, "Kingdom People," Trevin Wax has conducted a couple of interviews that are really "must reads" (to quote Scot McKnight's evaluation of the series).
First, Wax interviews Theron Mathis who is a former Baptist who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy (see "Theron's Story: Why I Left Evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodoxy"). Some of you may remember Theron as a contributor to This Lamp before starting an Orthodox blog, "Sword in the Fire." Theron and I have known each other for about a decade, meeting back when we went to the same church and even attending seminary at roughly the same time.
Following Theron's interview is another with a man named John who made the opposite conversion (see "John's Story: Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy for Evangelicalism").
Finally, Trevin Wax draws some parallels and conclusions in this third post, "Sola Scriptura: The Dividing Line between the Orthodox and Evangelicals."
It's an interesting series, and the faith journey of these two individuals is a bit eye-opening. In the comments on Wax's third post, I made these comments:
Perhaps the most interesting part of the third post, however, relates to the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. Wax makes the assertion that abandoning scripture alone as one's authority will lead most to liberalism. Mathis counters in the comments that this is not true at all, but that a viewpoint such as protestant liberalism is the logical (or illogical?) result of sola scriptura--that is, interpreting the biblical text completely for oneself.
Both have good points, and it's a complicated issue. Look for instance at the theological perspectives vying for control in Jesus' day. Who were the liberals--the Pharisees or the Sadducees? I once heard a preacher say that the Pharisees were the Republicans of Jesus' day and the Sadducees were the Democrats. Ridiculous! Such historical parallels cannot be made. Take the Sadducees. Yes, they seemed to have made the strongest cultural compromises with Greco-Roman society, but they had the most conservative approach to the Canon, recognizing only the Pentateuch as authoritative. On the other hand, the Pharisees come across in our modern eyes as the most legalistic, which we often equate with conservatism. However, that legalism was rooted in oral tradition that had been added as an authority in addition to the Scriptures. If they're adding to the Scriptures, wouldn't this make them liberal? Again, these are not easy questions, and simple comparisons cannot be made across 2,000 years of history.
Those who hold to the Orthodox tradition seem to me to be by and large conservative in their approach to life and ethics. I don't feel that adding the church as an authority has pushed them to become liberals. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is a mixed bag. And often the Catholics in the United States are much more liberal than their counterparts in other countries.
Growing up Southern Baptist, we often used to discuss this concept called soul competency which is defined as "in matters of religion, each person has the liberty to choose what his/her conscience or soul dictates is right, and is responsible to no one but God for the decision that is made." This sounds like a great idea in principle, but try enforcing any accountability or church discipline in the context where this idea is particularly strong. I don't hear as much about soul competency anymore, but maybe that's because of the part of the country I live in today. And of course the debate in recent years has been between the exact phraseology for the believer's priesthood. Which is it--"the priesthood of the believer" or "the priesthood of all believers"? A minor distinction in words makes a big difference doctrinally.
Let's be honest for a moment, though. We all work out of some tradition to some degree. We'd all like to say, "It's the Bible, Jesus, and me," but we know there's more to it than that. Various traditions filter our perspectives on how we approach the Scriptures and how we approach life. I know folks who can't read the Bible without Calvinist lenses and because they are so convinced that the Reformed system is absolutely right, any other perspective is inconceivable, if not laughable. And I'm not just picking on Calvinists. Fill in the blank with Arminian, Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Neo-Orthodoxy, or the tradition of your choice.
Do any of us really practice sola scriptura as much as we might value it?
Am I myself, immune? I can look back to a time when I was in high school that I picked up a book on Methodist doctrine from my aunt, a book on Church of God distinctives from my girlfriend, a book on Mormon teachings from a friend at school, and the old orange Baptist Faith and Message book off our shelf at home. I read through those books looking up almost every Scripture reference in my Bible. I've always pointed to that moment as the day that I truly embraced Baptist doctrine as most closely representing what I read in the Bible. I had become a Christian at age seven, but that day, I truly became a Baptist. But is it any coincidence that I had attended Baptist churches all my life?
What's much more rare are stories like Theron's and John's in which people actually switch teams.
And I found it particularly telling that when I began teaching my Sunday School class through Hebrews a few weeks ago I had to make sure that in the resources I was using in my preparation, I had to include at least one commentary on Hebrews written by a Southern Baptist. Why? Well, because of Baptist teaching on eternal security in light of the warning passages in Hebrews--that's why!
But I do read more than Baptist writers, thankfully. I have some friends who claim this, too, but never consult any theologian who lived more 500 years ago or who is not Protestant. I want to be a Christian, however, in conversation with voices from throughout two millennia of the faith. I recognize it's not just Jesus, the Bible and me, but that I am surrounded by that "great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12:1). I do believe that the Holy Spirit gives us ability to understand the Scriptures, but I also feel that I am accountable in my interpretation and practice. I am accountable not only to my local church, but I'm accountable to the larger body of Christian traditions: Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic from all eras of history.
And maybe that's the distinction: accountability vs. authority. Where does sola scriptura come into play? Accountability says that I am humbly in conversation with the traditions mentioned above. But if Scripture is my only authority, I have the freedom to say, "I disagree with Augustine" or Chrysostom, or Aquinas, or Luther, or Calvin, or Barth, or Erickson, or anyone else if I feel they are not in line with the Scriptures. But I can also affirm them even if they are not part of my immediate tradition because "There is one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Eph 4:4-6). Does sola scriptura give me too much freedom? I hope not. And surely that great cloud will keep me in check.
First, Wax interviews Theron Mathis who is a former Baptist who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy (see "Theron's Story: Why I Left Evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodoxy"). Some of you may remember Theron as a contributor to This Lamp before starting an Orthodox blog, "Sword in the Fire." Theron and I have known each other for about a decade, meeting back when we went to the same church and even attending seminary at roughly the same time.
Following Theron's interview is another with a man named John who made the opposite conversion (see "John's Story: Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy for Evangelicalism").
Finally, Trevin Wax draws some parallels and conclusions in this third post, "Sola Scriptura: The Dividing Line between the Orthodox and Evangelicals."
It's an interesting series, and the faith journey of these two individuals is a bit eye-opening. In the comments on Wax's third post, I made these comments:
What strikes me after reading both Theron’s interview and then the one with John is that the only thing they have in common is switching to the other’s tradition.
Here’s what I mean. I’ve known Theron for almost a decade. We met at a Baptist church we both attended, and while I was on staff there, he even did his required SBTS supervised ministry experience under my supervision. I’ve never doubted Theron’s commitment to his faith regardless of when he was Baptist or now when he is part of the Orthodox Church. His enthusiasm for his beliefs has remained intense regardless of the tradition through which he worships. It seems to me that his journey has been one that is both ecclesiological and doctrinal.
John, on the other hand was a nominal Christian before his conversion–a cultural Christian at best in what he describes as essentially a dead church.
I wonder whether John would have converted if he had been in an Orthodox Church that offered some depth or even a setting here in the US as a member of the Orthodox Church. I know that they do study the Bible at Theron’s church because he teaches a Bible study there.
...........
As a Baptist myself, I imagine I would have more in common with someone who is Orthodox (or Catholic or Pentecostal etc.) who takes his or her faith seriously than your average nominal Baptist who attends church to go through the motions of an external spirituality.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the third post, however, relates to the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. Wax makes the assertion that abandoning scripture alone as one's authority will lead most to liberalism. Mathis counters in the comments that this is not true at all, but that a viewpoint such as protestant liberalism is the logical (or illogical?) result of sola scriptura--that is, interpreting the biblical text completely for oneself.
Both have good points, and it's a complicated issue. Look for instance at the theological perspectives vying for control in Jesus' day. Who were the liberals--the Pharisees or the Sadducees? I once heard a preacher say that the Pharisees were the Republicans of Jesus' day and the Sadducees were the Democrats. Ridiculous! Such historical parallels cannot be made. Take the Sadducees. Yes, they seemed to have made the strongest cultural compromises with Greco-Roman society, but they had the most conservative approach to the Canon, recognizing only the Pentateuch as authoritative. On the other hand, the Pharisees come across in our modern eyes as the most legalistic, which we often equate with conservatism. However, that legalism was rooted in oral tradition that had been added as an authority in addition to the Scriptures. If they're adding to the Scriptures, wouldn't this make them liberal? Again, these are not easy questions, and simple comparisons cannot be made across 2,000 years of history.
Those who hold to the Orthodox tradition seem to me to be by and large conservative in their approach to life and ethics. I don't feel that adding the church as an authority has pushed them to become liberals. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is a mixed bag. And often the Catholics in the United States are much more liberal than their counterparts in other countries.
Growing up Southern Baptist, we often used to discuss this concept called soul competency which is defined as "in matters of religion, each person has the liberty to choose what his/her conscience or soul dictates is right, and is responsible to no one but God for the decision that is made." This sounds like a great idea in principle, but try enforcing any accountability or church discipline in the context where this idea is particularly strong. I don't hear as much about soul competency anymore, but maybe that's because of the part of the country I live in today. And of course the debate in recent years has been between the exact phraseology for the believer's priesthood. Which is it--"the priesthood of the believer" or "the priesthood of all believers"? A minor distinction in words makes a big difference doctrinally.
Let's be honest for a moment, though. We all work out of some tradition to some degree. We'd all like to say, "It's the Bible, Jesus, and me," but we know there's more to it than that. Various traditions filter our perspectives on how we approach the Scriptures and how we approach life. I know folks who can't read the Bible without Calvinist lenses and because they are so convinced that the Reformed system is absolutely right, any other perspective is inconceivable, if not laughable. And I'm not just picking on Calvinists. Fill in the blank with Arminian, Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Neo-Orthodoxy, or the tradition of your choice.
Do any of us really practice sola scriptura as much as we might value it?
Am I myself, immune? I can look back to a time when I was in high school that I picked up a book on Methodist doctrine from my aunt, a book on Church of God distinctives from my girlfriend, a book on Mormon teachings from a friend at school, and the old orange Baptist Faith and Message book off our shelf at home. I read through those books looking up almost every Scripture reference in my Bible. I've always pointed to that moment as the day that I truly embraced Baptist doctrine as most closely representing what I read in the Bible. I had become a Christian at age seven, but that day, I truly became a Baptist. But is it any coincidence that I had attended Baptist churches all my life?
What's much more rare are stories like Theron's and John's in which people actually switch teams.
And I found it particularly telling that when I began teaching my Sunday School class through Hebrews a few weeks ago I had to make sure that in the resources I was using in my preparation, I had to include at least one commentary on Hebrews written by a Southern Baptist. Why? Well, because of Baptist teaching on eternal security in light of the warning passages in Hebrews--that's why!
But I do read more than Baptist writers, thankfully. I have some friends who claim this, too, but never consult any theologian who lived more 500 years ago or who is not Protestant. I want to be a Christian, however, in conversation with voices from throughout two millennia of the faith. I recognize it's not just Jesus, the Bible and me, but that I am surrounded by that "great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12:1). I do believe that the Holy Spirit gives us ability to understand the Scriptures, but I also feel that I am accountable in my interpretation and practice. I am accountable not only to my local church, but I'm accountable to the larger body of Christian traditions: Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic from all eras of history.
And maybe that's the distinction: accountability vs. authority. Where does sola scriptura come into play? Accountability says that I am humbly in conversation with the traditions mentioned above. But if Scripture is my only authority, I have the freedom to say, "I disagree with Augustine" or Chrysostom, or Aquinas, or Luther, or Calvin, or Barth, or Erickson, or anyone else if I feel they are not in line with the Scriptures. But I can also affirm them even if they are not part of my immediate tradition because "There is one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Eph 4:4-6). Does sola scriptura give me too much freedom? I hope not. And surely that great cloud will keep me in check.
|