How's that for some clickbait!
If you clicked on the link expecting a slide into Liberalism, I assure you, that is not the case. My goal today is to demonstrate that following the Bible wherever it takes us, even into the murky waters of unorthodoxy, is not, in fact, the Reformed view. In other words, the emphasis of the title falls on wherever it takes us and not on the Bible.
Having been raised in a Reformed community where Andrew Sandlin, Gary DeMar, and Ken Gentry were household names, it pains me to see controversy in their ranks, but controversy is often the cost of truth. Gary DeMar, who has authored several books on the topic of Eschatology, has recently come under some heat for his refusal to affirm particular statements regarding the Second Coming and Final Judgment. I will leave it to older and wiser men to discuss the veracity of the allegations leveled against DeMar (I personally don't see how his views are compatible with creedal orthodoxy, but DeMar does not claim to be a Full Preterist and seems to believe his views are within the realm of orthodoxy--his lack of positive statements regarding his beliefs is half the problem). Rather, I'd like to discuss what I believe to be the heart of the issue.
DeMar's official response came in a series of five episodes of his podcast. I have had a chance to listen to and digest all five, and the underlying issue seems to be clear--authority. DeMar's primary emphasis throughout all five podcasts was his conviction to study Scripture and to follow it wherever it leads him, even, one gets the impression, beyond the realms of creedal orthodoxy (it's confusing--he seems to believe he is orthodox, but he also seems unconcerned with the constraints of creedal orthodoxy). He emphasizes Biblical theology (seemingly over and instead of Systematic), insisting that he just wants to sit down and exegete passages one at a time, allowing the texts of Scripture to lead where they will. This, he insists, is the historical Reformed approach.
Sola Scriptura! Semper Reformanda!
We should not be surprised to see the doctrine of authority come to the forefront once again. There were many issues (liturgical, sacramental, theological, political, soteriological, etc.) that ignited the Reformation, but it was ultimately a question of authority. The cornerstone of the 5 Solas was always Sola Scriptura and the Reformation was always about the roles of Scripture, Tradition, and ecclesiastical Institutions, both in the debates of the Church and in the lives of Christians--in faith and practice.
Good emphases are, of course, liable to being taken too far, and Sola Scriptura is no exception. Fast forward a few centuries and the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura had morphed into the pietistic Just me and my Bible approach, which can and has led to all sorts of irresolvable conflicts. This is especially true in American Protestant churches, which, it is no surprise, have seen a bit of an exodus of young Christians, especially men, fleeing to Rome as they become frustrated with the individualism and schism that seem to define Protestantism.
Back and forth the pendulum swings. Let's see if we can center it a little.
This lone-wolf mentality manifests itself in at least two ways. On the one hand, you have relatively uneducated Bible students, especially from anti-hierarchical American denominations, exegeting the Scriptures with little regard to the original languages, historical contexts, etc. These folks are typically well-meaning and zealous, and often know their English Bibles very well, but can badly misinterpret Scripture due to a lack of exegetical training and/or a This is what the Bible means to me hermeneutic.
On the other hand, you will find theologians and academicians exegeting Scripture without regard to or respect for Church history, which I consider tantamount to a denial of the Holy Spirit's work throughout the exegetical history of the Church. This group tends to become hyper-focused on individual concepts or Scriptural emphases, sometimes to the point of losing the forest for the trees. They are prone to latching onto a single verse or idea and beating their dead horse till Kingdom come.
To be clear, both groups I am describing submit to the Bible, affirming it as their final authority for matters of faith and practice. Both groups strive to be Bereans, comparing all teaching to Scripture. Both groups are genuinely committed, as far as we can tell, to following the Bible wherever it takes them.
Which begs the question, Should we follow the Bible wherever it takes us?
Well, yes, but also no.
Yes, we should absolutely follow Scripture, even when it says something that makes us uncomfortable. Yes, we should absolutely build our theology, liturgy, ethics--our lives--on Scripture. As we study theology and encounter views that contradict those of our particular Christian denominations, we should do our best to put aside biases and traditions in favor of the words of Scripture. This is the Reformed view. This is the spirit of the Reformation.
And, yet, no, we should not follow Scripture wherever it takes us. No, we should not follow Scripture beyond orthodoxy. You should not follow Scripture wherever it takes you.
Bible believers, stick with me here.
What is orthodoxy? Is it an interpretive grid that we impose on the Bible? Is it a box in which the institutional Church forces us to stay? No, orthodoxy is the Church's united statement regarding the fundamental truths taught by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The Reformers affirmed the Ecumenical Creeds and sought to reclaim the Catholic tradition that they felt Rome had abandoned. Theological discussion is valid and profitable, but orthodoxy provides the boundaries within which we hold these discussions.
To follow the Bible wherever it takes you is to claim that your interpretation of Scripture is more important than that of the Church. To follow the Bible wherever it takes you is to claim that your exegesis of Scripture is infallible. Again, to follow the Bible wherever it takes you is to view yourself as the ultimate arbiter of truth. It is to invest your understanding with the authority that you claim only Scripture has.
This false dichotomy between the Scripture and the Creeds/orthodoxy is awful tired. Our creeds, confessions, and statements of faith are descriptions of what we believe the Bible to say. We recognize that they are fallible, but we also acknowledge them as authoritative. The Ecumenical Creeds are, of course, authoritative in a way that denominational statements of faith are not.
It has been said that every man is, or should be, a theologian. I believe this is true, to a certain extent. Every man is responsible before God for His faith and should personalize his theology. However, Christianity is inherently corporate, and the way we interact with Scripture and affirm theological positions should reflect that. Every student of Scripture should have moments when he accepts his finitude and defers to that which has come before. We should not feel ashamed or guilty for not having all the answers, but should readily and humbly accept the consensus of the body of Christ throughout time and the world. There is no shame in taking another's word for it, even when you can't iron out all the wrinkles personally. Only an infallible, infinite mind could solve all theological problems and answer every question.
So, as we study Eschatology, let us remember our place within the great Tradition of the Faith. Let us study and submit to the Scriptures, yes, but let us also heed the voice of orthodoxy. This is not to say that we should mindlessly follow some pope or pastor, but we should have respect for the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.
I'd like to conclude with this quandary that continues to plague the Protestant Church(es). If the Bible is our ultimate authority, who gets to say what the Bible teaches? When I say that the Bible is my ultimate authority, do I really mean that I am my ultimate authority? Have we traded one Pope for an infinite number of autonomous mini-popes? Has our resentment of implicit, and our respect for personal, faith stolen any hope for theological stability? When two groups or individuals genuinely and bitterly disagree over what the Bible says, how do we resolve the dispute?
In a culture defined by individualism and anti-institutionalism, we need to rediscover ecclesiastical authority. Reformed thinkers needs to do work in this area, hashing out what it means to embrace the Faith once passed down without fleeing back the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. How do we both hold Sola Scriptura and firmly maintain the Catholic tradition? How do we encourage study and personal faith without opening the floodgates to heretical sects? How do we study the inspired Word of God, our ultimate authority, in conversation with the Body of Jesus Christ, both throughout the world and throughout history?
Again, I'll leave it to older and wiser men to answer these questions.
Comments
Post a Comment