theophiliacs

NOTE: This post is part of a larger series discussing Ecclesial Authority

Part I: Introduction

Part II: Scripture

Part III: Tradition

Part IV: History/Reason

Part V: Personal and Communal Experience

Part VI: Authority Revisited (UNFINISHED)

I. Scripture as Chief Authority
Faith Traditions: Evangelicals, Fundamentalist Protestants, Some Pentecostals
Argument: “Sola Scriptura.” Holy Scripture (the Bible) is the ultimate authority on which the Church builds its faith. Whereas many Christians interpret the Bible through something else (i.e. tradition, historical criticism, etc…) we should instead interpret those things through the Bible.
Nice Quote: “A simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest Pope without it.” – Martin Luther

Pros:
1. Concept (real or imagined) of the firm existence of Empirical Truth: When you have a book in front of you, it can be easy to say, “Here exists non-negotiable, certain truth. It’s all in there, just read it and believe.” The idea that there can be such a “guidebook” to life and the nature of existence can be very appealing.
2. Authority for any Christian, anywhere: Just as Luther said, you don’t have to be a scholar, a priest, or even a very good follower of the truth to possess it and use it in the form of the Bible. Anyone who is literate (and even this isn’t necessary to look at picture Bibles, watch Bible story movies, etc…) can experience Church and God through the inerrant, infallible words of God.
3. Magic Words: This is a more casual observation on my part, but one that I think is very pertinent. There exists a thread amongst many fundamentalists who can view the Bible as a kind of “spell book” or “air-strike of truth” for life. This is the element that says by memorizing the words to the Bible, one somehow ingests truth and is able to put them into situations where lies are running rampant. In this way, one can merely recite these particles of truth when a situation warrants (say in an argument over ecclesial procedure) without providing an interpretation or historical context. The idea is that The Word of God requires no explanation, it is merely naked truth that must be obeyed and never questioned.

Cons:
1. Subjectivity of Interpretation: Unfortunately, a collection of ancient documents like the Bible is subject to an infinite amount of interpretations. Churches cannot even agree on what makes up Scripture (deuterocanonical books?) nor proper translations (KJV only? is paraphrasing OK?). Additionally, there are problems when parts of the Bible seem to contradict each other (who has Chief Authority? Paul or Peter? the Old or New Testament. How many times did Jesus cleanse the temple?). Additionally, how does someone interpret troublesome passages like those that seem to support prejudice against women, slave-ownership, genocide, etc…? Doubtless there are many explanations for these issues, but in fact that’s just the problem.
2. Potential for Disunity: When a static book is held as Chief Authority it gives every Christian the right to say to the rest of the Church, “Your interpretation of scripture is incorrect, I hereby split from you!” 24,000 new protestant denominations later we see the fruit of what this type of bickering does to the church.
3. Disregard for the Authors of the biblical books, and the Church leaders who arranged them in the first place: As a movement, Evangelicals have a dreadful knowledge of the first 1,500 years of Church History, and it shows in their treatment of the biblical texts. They fail to acknowledge that the church existed for three hundred years before the canon was officially verified. The councils chose which books were going to make up the canon based on what Tradition was already practicing, in order to combat heresy. There were many epistles and gospels that did not make it into what we call the New Testament today, precisely because they did not support what the Church leadership already considered its identity. It seems silly to me to argue that God gave Christian leaders in the 4th century the supernatural ability to make only one good decision, (that is, the selection of the canon).
Additionally, Evangelicals suffer from an embarrassing disregard for even the most basic historical criticism of the books of the Bible. There were powerful, complicated, and at times malicious political and cultural elements that went into the formation of Canon. More on this in the III. History/Reason Alternative below.
4. Potential for Idolization of the Bible (Thanks to Shoe for turning me onto this dangerous risk.) Going back to the “magic words” pro above, there is a risk of worshipping the book itself rather than the God who is believed to have inspired its authors. When Christians start reciting scripture radically out of context in situations where it doesn’t necessarily relate, beware of having a truth spell cast on you.