Here's another excerpt from my book, Reframing a Relevant Faith. This portion is part of the chapter on Reclaiming the Bible. You can purchase the book from the publisher at http://direct.energion.co/reframing-a-relevant-faith or through Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Reframing-Relevant-Faith-Drew-Smith/dp/1631991213/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418159944&sr=1-1&keywords=reframing+a+relevant+faith. A Kindle version is also available at http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=reframing%20a%20relevant%20faith%20kindle.
The book is written for group discussion.
Can scripture stand on its own as a basis of authority? On the one hand, we would have to answer this
in the affirmative. The stories of
scripture, both from ancient Israel and early Christianity have stood the test
of time and, although they have been translated and transmitted down through
history, they have stood on their own authority and have influenced the faith
of millions across time and space.
On the other
hand, given the fact that these texts have been translated, as well as
interpreted since their beginning, we would have to at least qualify our
affirmative answer to the question of whether scripture alone is the
authoritative basis of Christian faith and practice. That is to say, a text, though standing on
its own, can only have meaning through the exchange between text and
reader. Meaning may be found in a text,
but meaning does not come to life until the text is read and interpreted.
One of the
foundational theological shifts that occurred during the Protestant Reformation
was an emphasis on the sole authority of scripture as that which is sufficient
for faith. Indeed, while Martin Luther
is known for challenging the Roman Church most notably on the issues of
indulgences and salvation by faith alone, his arguments were based on his
belief that theological doctrines must be based on scripture alone, or sola
scriptura, and not on any church authority, whether bishop or council. This belief continues to serve as one of the
hallmarks of Protestant Christianity, particularly in free church traditions.
Yet, even so,
it is difficult to say that sola scriptura has ever been fully practiced
even in Protestantism. Indeed,
Protestant confessions that have developed since the time of Luther and his
fellow reformers are in and of themselves interpretations of scripture. Moreover, the commentaries that began to
appear from the Protestant leaders, most notably Luther and Calvin, lay out a
Protestant faith that is an interpretation of scripture. Thus, even these great heroes of the
Protestant faith do not allow scripture to stand on its own, but offer their
own interpretations of scripture.
Yet, in the
18th century, a new leader in the Protestant tradition, John Wesley, the
founder of Methodism, re-framed the understanding of the authority of scripture
in what has become known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.[1] Many historians, however, believe that the
Wesleyan Quadrilateral was most likely developed by Albert Outler, a twentieth
century Methodist theologian, who derived this way of viewing scripture from
John Wesley’s writings. From whatever
source this methodology developed, we can use it as a way of recognizing the
authority of scripture, but not as the sole authority.
In the
quadrilateral, scripture holds primacy of place for normative Christian
understanding and practice, but there exists an interdependent relationship
between scripture, church tradition, personal experience, and logical
reason. Scripture serves as the
foundational authority for the church through its time and space existence in
the world, but scripture must be interpreted in light of church tradition,
personal experience, and logical reasoning.
In this sense, scripture is what the human biblical author believes to
be the revelation of God to his specific historical situation, the time of the text,
but that revelation lives on the existence of the text and the interpretation
of the text in future generations who must rely on tradition, experience, and
reasoning to formulate meaning for the church in its current context.
This means
that although the text of scripture still serves as a basis of authority for
the church’s faith and practice, indeed it must remain as such, each generation
and locality of the church must find its own interpretations that are in
conversation with the text of scripture and church tradition, but that are open
to the influence of personal experience and logical reasoning. In this way, the Bible still remains valid as
a source of Christian faith and practice, but the literal understanding and
interpretation of the Bible now has a more rational filter through which the
text can be sifted so that it remains relevant.
Thus, sola
scriptura, or scripture as the sole authority of faith and practice, is a
misnomer, and does not reflect the reality of how the text of scripture has
been used and continues to be used in the church. Indeed, it is erroneous to suggest that sola
scriptura has ever really been practiced.
While the reading of scripture in worship and community is important,
someone must interpret the text in order to formulate legitimate
interpretations that represent the fullness of the gospel of grace and peace in
each and every context.
[1]
For more on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral see Michael Kinnamon and Jan G. Linn, Disciples: Reclaiming Our Identity, Reforming Our Practice, Chalice Press, 2009; and Don Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, & Experience as a Model of Evangelical Theology, Emeth Press, 2005.
For more on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral see Michael Kinnamon and Jan G. Linn, Disciples: Reclaiming Our Identity, Reforming Our Practice, Chalice Press, 2009; and Don Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, & Experience as a Model of Evangelical Theology, Emeth Press, 2005.
