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)

IV. Personal and Communal Experience as Chief Authority
Faith Traditions: Most Pentecostals, missiologically focused Catholics, in some ways Liberal Protestants
Argument: “Common Sense” This one is perhaps a bit slippery but it basically appeals to the common experience and reason of most people. Basically, if something works, then it must be authoritative. This can vary on both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum. I am reminded of a story I once heard from a Pentecostal about how he once used to think women shouldn’t preach because the Bible said so until he saw a woman preaching and tons of folks speaking in tongues for the first time (triumph of Experience over Scripture). But I am also reminded of another story a man from the MCC told me about how he used to think gays shouldn’t be ordained because of the Bible and Church History until he was blessed by a sermon preached by an openly gay minister. (Again, triumph of Experience over Scripture/Tradition).
Nice Quote: Help me find one!

Pros:
1. Natural and Prevalent: This kind of thinking is more prevalent than we believe. Even the most fundamentalist Scripture believers are still selective on what they do and don’t follow from the Bible. (Tattoos, shaving the sides of your face, multiple fibers in clothing, women covering their heads, etc…) Many (some would say all) Christian moral systems are based off of reason rather than the Bible or Tradition. An example would be the Holiness tradition (drinking, smoking, gambling, dancing, etc…)
2. Organic and Local: I see this as the greatest pro. When healthily expressed, Churches are beautiful representations of a culture’s local identity and living systems. I can remember one missiological Catholic book in particular that I read as an undergrad in particular that rejoiced in how African and South American cultures would contextualize western faith into their own context. At times these conversions would upset Western sensibilities, but they were faithful reflections of culture.
3. Resolving disputes through Relationship: The benefits of this are best seen in those gray areas where moral decisions aren’t always easy, and special circumstances make the ultimate Authorities of Tradition and Scripture seem out of touch.
4. Opportunity For Reform: When Authority is living and breathing with you, it is easier to settle new issues. What does God have to say about Global Warming, cloning, copyright law, and nationalism in a globalized world? The Bible doesn’t have much to say, at least not specifically.

Cons:
1. Limitless Subjectivity: Different cultures have different common senses, let alone different individuals. It might seem to be common sense to allow everyone to use their own private common sense but eventually the product of my experiences will conflict with the product of yours and then we’ll really have a debacle on our hands. This point really carries the entirety of all the Cons as I see it.

That’s about it. When I first started writing this post, I cared very deeply about this problem. By now I’m so plagued by how long this freaking thing is I never want to talk about Authority ever again.

I hope that we’ll be able to engage this post on how these different Alternatives interact with each other and be able to avoid nitpicking at the minor distinctions and generalizations I made. My goal here was not to categorize the broad Christian spectrum but to outline a fundamental problem I am facing now. Unless I’ve committed some terrible oversight, let’s please keep the discussion focused on the prompt:

How does one resolve the interaction of these four Alternatives vying for ultimate authority in the Church?

Wesley’s answer was interpreting the Bible as Chief Authority, through Tradition, Reason, and Experience. I’m not yet completely convinced. What do you think?