sola scriptura
I have been reading some of the criticism of the Emergent Church (see the likes of Apprising Ministries). I have been confused to find that such pastors and writers view themselves as having a ministry of "discernment." In other words, they are warning Christians about "false prophets" that the NT letters warn us to look out for. Some of my favorite Christian writers and teachers(Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Rick Warren, and Rob Bell) have been labelled "cult" leaders. A cause for concern for sure.
I think the bottom-line place of wrestling is the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura. As I understand it, this principle (popularized by Luther and Calvin, and meaning "by Scripture alone" in Latin) means that Scripture itself is the guide for its own interpretation. This might become clearer if you understand that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church believe it is by Scripture and Tradition that one interprets scripture. I confess these to be simplistic understandings, but I think they will do.
This concept comes largely into play because "Emergent" people, like Bell, say that interpretation changes with new understanding. For example, for a long time the church used Scripture to defend slavery, something widely rejected now. As the teachings of Jesus more largely influenced culture some of our prejudices remained. We used Scripture to defend our prejudice because we knew nothing else. (I use "we" because it is my heritage, and I am a part of the Church with its mistakes and successes. I want to learn and grow from this heritage . . . this already might reveal some of my own tension with Sola Scriptura.) Continuing beyond such a simple example, Bell and others, sometimes go further to use "progressive" thinking and "new" historical, cultural, and spiritual context. These are then used to bring new light to the Scriptures. This scares many people, and honestly I am not too comfortable either since I don't always know whether to trust their sources.
A more abstract understanding, but perhaps more practical implication, of Sola Scriptura means that nothing spiritual outside the context of Scripture should be considered good. In fact, such spirituality is often demonized, literally (see articles about the new contemplative movement within Christianity). This runs into some serious problems when we embrace the principles of engineering, science, and economics to benefit us in our daily life, but cannot embrace other spiritual principles for daily living. The crux is that I can use extra-biblical knowledge to build me a bigger house and get me a promotion, but I can't use extra-biblical spirituality to shed light on the condition of my soul.
I want to lean on the tradition of Sola Scriptura, but I am not sure how far it is healthy to take it. This will of course cause people to wonder about my devotion to Scripture, but I am simply wrestling with my heritage and the other traditions of the Christian faith (there are more than 3000 denominations).
P.S. I am not a defender of the Emergent movement, though I identify with them and appreciate their insights. The formalized groups, like Emergent Village, concern me a great deal when it comes to being clear about the major tenants of the Christian faith.
2 comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_church
I haven't studied up on the emergent church, but I read through that site. I like a lot of what was said, but I am troubled by the part on Biblical interpretation.
"Emergents generally admit a plurality of interpretations of Scripture and emphasize the effect of the modern reader's cultural context on the act of interpretation in contrast to Evangelical emphasis on the primacy of the author's intent and cultural context. The influence of postmodern thinkers such as Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish is evident in the emerging church movement's subjective approach to interpreting Scripture."
I think the Bible is objective, and interpretations come second to that. It is personal, and while you and I can read the same passage and find different applications, that just shows depth, not subjectivity. While I don't know that calling the emergent church a cult is accurate or helpful, discerning what is truth is important with controversial teaching.
I'm a bit confused about "extra-biblical spirituality." It seems like it could describe New Age insights, or, well, fashioning Asherah poles. I'll admit that I enjoyed reading Sophie's World, but I gleaned from it as it aligned with Scripture, and disagreed with it where it didn't. I guess my main concern is that if Scripture isn't the sole guide, what else will take its place? If we allow other sources to take God's place, isn't that idolatry?
Toph, thanks for the quick dialogue.
I am not real sure about Wikipedia's accuracy on these matters . . . or much actually . . . but it is a good starting point.
The "Emergent" church is at its core a conversation, so they say (see McClaren), and so set principles of interpretation (along with doctrine) are hard to come by. Which, by the way, is what makes me nervous about it. I know Rob Bell is a supporter of Narrative Theology, which does not appear to be as "subjective" in interpretation as Wikipedia might suggest. Though I have found other emergent writers to be quite subjective.
I would affirm that Biblical interpretation MUST consider the author's intent, the understanding of the first audience, and the place in which the writing fits in the overall story of the Bible (insert Systematic, Biblical, or Narrative Theology here). I also am inclined to realize that our cultural context HAS influenced how we see the author's intent (see the church's support for slavery, and at the same time, Christians being influential in abolition).
You bring up a GREAT point of clarity when discussing "extra-biblical spirituality." Scripture is our guide and check for our life (which is inherrently spiritual and phsyical). We must carefully weigh doctrine, philosophy, spirituality, ethics etc with Scripture.
For clarity, I use the words "extra-biblical spirituality" for the spiritual disciplines that have developed through the centuries of Jewish and Christian tradition. And I do acknowledge that these spiritualities have been taken to extremes and misused, just as intellectualism and philosphy have been taken to extremes. One might even look at "quiet times," Christian devotional reading, and worship CD's as "extra-biblical spirituality."
For a case study, consider that some claim that contemplative prayer encouraged by the likes of Richard Foster and Dallas Willard is not found explicity in all the forms encouraged in the Scriptures, thus heresy. When Foster explains "Christian" meditation he sites monks and mystics from Christianity's past and people believe it to be influenced by Eastern thinking. I cannot ignore that some of the people he sites were in fact influenced by Eastern thinking, see Thomas Merton, but am also inclined to note that Judaism and Christianity originate in Eastern worldviews (versus Greek or Western worldview).
I struggle specifically with this one when meditation is clearly mentioned in the Psalms, and Jesus gives us a repititious prayer in the Lord's Prayer. Can our time spent with these forms of meditation develop a sort of "extra-biblical spirituality" that when rooted in Scripture and the Spirit are acceptable and profitable? What kind of meditation or repetitive prayer do we keep, redeem, or throw out? Can we pass down what we have learned to future generations to help them journey further in regards to this spirituality? So in turn, can we turn to the Church's heritage and tradition to learn from it?
This is where Sola Scriptura comes into play. Protestantism classically says "No." Mainline churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc) say "Yes." Again, both sides have gone to extremes, so where is the middle?
Okay, so I also thought you might add whether or not you should read My Utmost For His Highest in your quiet time? This is clearly a developed spiritual reading that is not mentioned in the Scriptures. No where in the Scriptures, as far as I know, does it talk about reflecting on "human" (as if that is a bad word) writings such as this for spiritual enlightenment and benefit to our relationship with God. And, as the clincher, when do we ever find Jesus reading spiritual writing other than the Scriptures? We clearly have adopted some "extra-biblical spiritualities," what makes one qualify and the other demonized?
(And it seems to me that the threat of the Eastern worldview does not always hold up. Though it certainly does for me when it comes to practices which are counter to scripture, like emptying oneself in meditation, Scripture says we are to be filled with the Spirit and have our mind controlled by the Spirit.)
Post a Comment